Lion-Tiger-Wolf
(See front cover)
Manna, marmalades, and malt,
Sarsaparilla, sand and salt;
Mirrors, mitten's and powdered milk,
Skates, and skewers and beaded silk;
Bismuth; bladders, rough-hewn blocks,
Lenses, lentils and spiral locks;
Bone dust, eggs and ebony handles,
Skylights, matches and tallow candles;
Madder, miso, rattan mats,
Bricks and brooms and baseball bats;
Bibles, borax, strips of brass;
Garlic, gall nuts and frosted glass. . . .
Behind a high semicircular counter-like table, a dozen Republicans have sat long and heavily discussing these articles. Behind them hung a rich red curtain, imperially crowned with great loops of gold. Before them was a spacious oblong room with white marble columns, a high vaulted ceiling, huge full-length windows. Outside heavy double doors, securely locked, depended a small sign, bearing the gilt lettering: "Executive Session." A blackamoor has lounged at the entrance to enforce the sign. The sitters within were Republican members of the Ways & Means Committee of the House of Representatives, their heads together on the forthcoming Hawley-Smoot Tariff Bill.
Public hearings brought into this room 1,200 witnesses in 45 days who gave 11,000 printed pages of evidence on changing the 1922 Tariff Act. Now, preparatory to the special session of Congress, the majority members of this committee were writing an administration bill which would fulfill the Hoover campaign promises. The President wanted tariff revision limited to agricultural products and a few special but unnamed commodities. These G. O. P. committeemen were inclined to give him what he wanted. But outside the locked door, potent U. S. manufacturers ululated demands that all duty rates be promptly and emphatically raised for their protection against foreign competition.
Complaints against the existing tariff law were:
1) Foreign producers, benefited by cheap labor, can still undersell the U. S. producer in the U. S.
2) Agricultural commodities compared with industrial products, are not sufficiently protected from foreign competition, with the result that farm imports lower farm prices in the U. S., help create farm surpluses.
3) Higher tariff rates would mean, in addition to a better protected domestic market, more revenue for the U. S. Treasury, hence, possibly, a reduction of U. S. taxation.
Against raising tariff rates to new levels were massed these arguments:
1) The more domestic products are protected, the higher is the cost of living. Domestic monopoly spells domestic extortion.
2) U. S. foreign trade will be injured by reprisals of countries whose chief products come into the U. S. over the tariff wall. Canada, best U. S. customer, has already complained. Cuba, worried over its raw sugar exports to the U. S., protested changes. If Argentine corn is more heavily taxed, that country's preference for U. S. automobiles, farm machinery, etc. might cease.
3) U. S. manufacturers use many imported raw materials. Raise the duty on these and the U. S. price rises accordingly. Soft drink producers are concerned at the prospect of added duties on sugar.