RAISING THE TARIFF

Waipa Post, Volume 31, Issue 1766, 5 June 1926, Page 6

RAISING THE TARIFF

OPINIONS DIFFER,

MARGARINE MANUFACTURERS PLEASED.

'One of the chief topics of conversation in butter circles here during the past two days has Ween the change in the tariff on butter which goes into effect on sth April (writes “ The Man in the Street” in the New York Produce Review). Naturally a question of this kind brings out widely different views, and, while I am not inclined at this stage of the matter to interject my personal views, it may be interesting to record some phases of the discussion.

It will be remembered that about two years ago the Tariff Commission made an exhaustive investigation of the cost of production in the United States, as well as the countries that at times send some of their surplus here. Owing to the high valuation of land in the dairy sections of the Unitedl States, the cost of feed and 'especially the item of labour, it was figured out that such countries as New Zealand, Argentina, and Denmark could produce butter much more cheaply than the United States, and they were likely to prove d,ang<erous competitors at a time when our surplus was seeking the broadest possible consumptive outlets at home. But in the case of Denmark the investigation was made when the krone was 40 to 50 per cent lower than it is at present The advahce of the Danish krone to almost par has meant an increase in this cost of the Danish product of more than the amount of the present duty. On reports obtained up to six months ago the commission made no recommendation to the President.

Later, at the urgent solicitation of large dairy interests, the Tariff Commission again passed on to the President a recommendation that the d,uty be raised from Sc to l ; 2c a lb. Aftei considering the matter carefully, the President issued an order on 6th of March advancing the duty to 12c, which, adcording to the provision of the tariff law, becomes effective on sth April.

fiines'e are the s'teps that have come out in the discussions lately. So far as I can learn, tlrer'e was no coticerted opposition to the change, partly because of indifference and partly because it was feared that the attitude of the big distributors in the markets might be misunderstood by the dairymen in the country. From th/ese men I have ascertained that they mostly believe in a moderate protective tariff, and they seemed to feel that 8c was •enough to accomplish the purpose of (the duty. They recall the fact that with as good prices as we had in this country during 1925 the total imports in all ports of the United Stages were only 4,128,940 lbs felss than 2 percent of New York’s domestic, receipts. It is, of course, impossible to say just what effect the higher duty will have upon importations during the coming year. The representative of one of the largest Danish butter export concerns put this interpretation on the new tariff: “I think it will mean perhaps 2c a pbund, higher for the butter product of the United States, but if conditions should be less favourable in Europe, and Denmark has a surplus of butter it would require a drop of only 2c over there to put the shipping 'business back on the same basis as we are n’ow. I uniss niy guess if we do not get some Danish butter here next winter.” Other impbrtters argue that the Chinese wall has now been built and it practically means the “exclusion act.”

So the line of thought runs hack and forth, and there are elements of uncertainty in the situation. It is generally believed that. the surplus product of the summer will be stored, at a higher cost than if the duty had remained unchanged.