U.S. TARIFF POLICY

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18064, 15 April 1933, Page 7

U.S. TARIFF POLICY

PRESIDENT’S PROPOSALS WIDE POWERS SOUGHT HEAVY REDUCTIONS PREDICTED (Elec. Tel. Copyright—United Press Assn.) (Received April 15, noon.) NEW YORK, April 13. Legislation upon which Mr. Roosevelt will depend for power to cut world trade banners may authorise the negotiation of a multilateral treaty at the VVorld Economic Conference for horizontal cuts in all tank's. The bill is being perfected. There are indications that Mr. Roosevelt may send a recommendation shortly; The framework of the treaty would include power lor the President to reduce tariffs by 40 to 50 per cent, under a policy oi bargaining through reciprocal agreements. This authority will bo subject only to the submission of changes in a report to Congress where it would lie for 60 days before becoming effective. The Now York Times’ Washington correspondent says the President’s request for the broadest possible authority m negotiating international trade agreements is similar in character to the ■‘dictatorial” powers lie lias used in meeting tile domestic emergency. It will bo sent to Congress in the next few days. The major outline of the measure lias been completed and the details are expected to bo sufficiently agreed on lor the President to write a special message to Congress. Tariff experts, Congressional leaders, and State and Commerce Department officials have all been busy on the project, which Mr. Roosevelt desires to bo enacted before the representatives of the 42 nations gather here for discussions preliminary to the general Economic Conference.

The President, under the bill, will seek the following powers: (1) Sole authority to change the existing tariff rates by executive proclamation, subject only to submitting changes in a report to Congress. (2) Power to negotiate a multilateral treaty at the World Economic Conference whereby all tariff duties would be decreased horizontally. (3) Authority to make bilateral agreements for reductions beyond the multilaterial horizontal reductions to a maximum of 50 per cent, permitted under the flexible provisions of the present Tariff Act.

(4) Authority to enunciate a policy of “bargaining” with other nations in regard to adjusting tariff rates as well as the “difference in the cost of production” followed under the present Tariff Act.

If he can find a way around the con stitutional inhibitions involved he wil 1 probably include in the measure author lty to effect oven greater than the 50 per cent, reductions prescribed in the present law, or transfer articles from tho dutiable list to the free list and vice versa.

The principal question involved is how far Congress can go in delegating authority to the President to change tariff rates without denying its own constitutional mandate to fix the rates for the Government’s revenue. One of the other outstanding difficulties is the President’s campaign pledge given at Baltimore that lie would not lower agricultural tariffs. The State Department experts found this an embarrassing complication, -particularly as relating to possible trade agreements with the Argentine and Canada, which are interested primarily in lowering the rates on primary products