Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

7

at then is possible?
st, that despite all tariffs there will be a large exchange of
cts between the two countries arising out of contiguity of
vry along an international frontier of such great length. Short
ort, sectional and seasonal conditions, comparative excel-
of product, et cetera, will largely determine questions of
se and sale, and increase of population and production will
nt these exchanges. We may look, therefore, for a steady
e increase in trade in this respect.

le second place, we should be able to rely upon good business nd experience in both countries to apply the balance wheel If of the general interest as opposed to the considerations of xigency and the teachings of doctrinaires, in moderating hands for unreasonable tariffs for particular interests

, and insistently with reasonable protection make a greater e of products possible. statesmen will always weigh the reflex effect of tariffs upon countries. If a tariff excludes staple products, natural or 1, from reasonable entrance into the markets, it diminishes city of the country thereby affected to continue purchases

goods purchased have to be paid for and the purchaser must sell
his own products before he can venture to purchase, the result was
sure and unavoidable. Canada bought by so much less in the
United States and the United States producers lost so much trade.
Is it certain that the class supposed to profit by the Emergency
Tariff gained equally or at all by increased prices on their
products?

Now we do not quarrel with the policy or its application in this
particular instance. We have no right to do that nor any wish.
I am only pointing out an unavoidable result. Canada, denied
entrance into the United States, must seek other outlets. If old
water courses are obstructed by dams preventing flow in one direc-
tion, the result is to hollow out channels in other directions to
relieve the pressure. And that other direction for Canada must be
largely to the British market. Years ago, because of alleged menace
of disease in Canadian cattle, Great Britain placed an embargo on
their import for breeding purposes and since then Canadian cattle
entering British ports have to be immediately slaughtered. Though
the menace was proved groundless the fiction has been kept up
through the opposition of British cattle raisers. Now there is a
decided set towards removing the embargo, and if this is done Cana-
da's surplus live stock will be absorbed in Great Britain, and in addi-
tion a valuable increase will be made to our shipping cargo eastward. .
If the embargo is retained, then Canada must turn its attention
to the preparation of refrigerated meats and build up a trade in
them with Great Britain. In either case the course of a great
product will be diverted from the United States, and once diverted
will scarcely again return. And with that diversion goes the equiva-
lent imports by Canada which will be transferred from the United
States to Great Britain or elsewhere.

It is to be noted that the Canadian tariff on the classes of agricultural products included in the Fordney Bill is considerably lower than the rates imposed by the latter, so that in no sense was the Canadian tariff provocative of the almost prohibitive rates of the Fordney Act.

Both countries should keep in mind the necessity and advantage of reasonable fiscal legislation in the general interests. Neither doctrinaire on the one hand nor class on the other should have undue

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

markets and thus tends to limit rather than extend trade. os no better example could be given than the one close at "igures given above show the extent of purchases made by rom the United States under the handicap of an adverse running as high as 15 or 20 per cent. Still so long as ad reasonable access to the United States for her agricullucts she went on and met the balance against her as ould. Now the demand comes from the United States he pledges of the Republican party during the Presimpaign, and the to us unwelcome partial answer emthe Fordney Emergency Bill of May 28, 1921, and the ompletion of that answer in the proposed permanent

This greatly diminishes and in part practically proance into the United States market of Canadian products

[ocr errors]

sported to the value of $170,000,000. The exports of the United States in Fordney Bill commodities in the four 1921, as compared with the four months in 1920, fell from

and a half million dollars to ten million dollars. As

influence in closing up these national gateways of commerce. Sectional and seasonal differences in need and supply should not be overlooked, and vision may well be invoked in the establishment of every national policy. The doctrinaire, be he protectionist or free trader, will always magnify his panacea, the class claimant his own particular contribution to the essential well-being of the State, and party politics will stand careful scrutiny as to how far its vote-getting enthusiasms dominate its desire for the general good.

And though tariffs are made for the present, it should not be forgotten that they vitally affect the future in many ways. They hollow out channels of trade for the nation which, once set, tend to deepen and widen and render changes difficult, and when they do come more or less disastrous. But it must be remembered that they also tend to set channels of trade for theother nations affectedcounter channels which debouch in other countries, and these when once set are difficult and sometimes impossible to change.

There is a general business sense that may be adversely affected and which will manifest itself in redressing its disadvantages by turning in other directions, and which once turned is with difficulty brought back to former trade connections. And there is a national sense that, answering to and reinforcing this business sense, may be widely awakened to the desirability of cultivating better relations elsewhere, of relaxing any efforts to reopen the barred channels, and possibly of following a quoted example in rearranging its own tariff on the model furnished.

And our cousins in the United States must not forget that what affects trade and sentiment with a people to their north now numbering nine millions will still more affect them when they become twenty millions and thereafter fifty millions and ultimately a hundred millions and more. Trade which assumes an importance of millions of dollars to-day may have a possibility of billions in the future, but such possibility may be imperilled by the feeling engendered by present preventive legislation.

My conclusions are that at present there are few, if any, chances for a reciprocity arrangement between the two countries, but that despite even present and possible near future United States tariffs, there will still be a large and profitable exchange of commodities. The Fordney Bill and its successor, if it issues fully clothed as now

ace in closing up these national gateways of commerce. See

and seasonal differences in need and supply should not be oked, and vision may well be invoked in the establishment of national policy. The doctrinaire, be he protectionist or free , will always magnify his panacea, the class claimant his on ular contribution to the essential well-being of the State

, and politics will stand careful scrutiny as to how far its vote-zethusiasms dominate its desire for the general good. though tariffs are made for the present, it should not be forthat they vitally affect the future in many ways. They out channels of trade for the nation which, once set, tend to

foreshadowed, will largely diminish these exchanges, and possible consequent changes in the Canadian tariff, rendered necessary by these enactments, may tend still further to diminish the aggregate trade. There are wide possibilities in the list of articles now purchased from the United States that Canada can do without or get from other countries, and there is cause for reflection as to what might happen for instance if access by foreign countries to Canadian sources of wood and wood products were limited. What Canada loses on exchanges with United States she will recoup in added trade within the Empire and in foreign markets, other than the United States-for neither the progressive spirit of her people nor her immense resources for development will permit any diminution of her continuing expansion.

GEORGE E. FOSTER.

and widen and render changes difficult, and when they do nore or less disastrous. But it must be remembered that co tend to set channels of trade for theother nations affected· channels which debouch in other countries, and these when t are difficult and sometimes impossible to change. e is a general business sense that may be adversely affected ich will manifest itself in redressing its disadvantages by in other directions, and which once turned is with difficulty

back to former trade connections. And there is a national at, answering to and reinforcing this business sense, may be wakened to the desirability of cultivating better relations

e

e, of relaxing any efforts to reopen the barred channels, and of following a quoted example in rearranging its own the model furnished. ir cousins in the United States must not forget that what ade and sentiment with a people to their north now numne millions will still more affect them when they become illions and thereafter fifty millions and ultimately a hunions and more. Trade which assumes an importance of f dollars to-day may have a possibility of billions in the it such possibility may be imperilled by the feeling en

by present preventive legislation. clusions are that at present there are few, if any, chances rocity arrangement between the two countries, but that en present and possible near future United States tariffs, still be a large and profitable exchange of commodities. vey Bill and its successor, if it issues fully clothed as now

DISPOSAL OF ENEMY PROPERTY

BY JOSEPH CONRAD FEHR

NEARLY two years have passed since America's Treaty of Peace with Germany was signed pursuant to the Porter-Knox Peace Resolution, and still the Alien Property Custodian has in his possession approximately $350,000,000 worth of real and personal property, stocks and bonds, cash, etc., which formerly belonged to German and Austrian nationals. Most of this property was seized during the war, although some of it was taken over subsequent to the signing of the Armistice. And the question uppermost in the minds of statesmen and business men who are trying to remedy the economic ills of America, as well as of the former enemy nations, is predicated upon the many proposals that are offered for the disposition of this vast amount of private property.

The practice of confiscation of private enemy property, although sanctioned by the law of nations as it obtained for centuries, and in English and American jurisprudence up to the time of the War of 1812, is no longer tolerated by the enlightened thought of the world. Confiscation has long been repugnant to the theory of fair dealing and the development of international enterprise. Accordingly economists in and out of Congress are to-day trying to devise ways and means of disposing of the property in the hands of the Alien Property Custodian in a manner that will be fair and equitable to its real owners and at the same time will safeguard the interests of American nationals who have claims against Germany and German nationals in an amount that extends into hundreds of millions of dollars.

It is urged by some that America should make an unconditional return of all enemy owned property. Others insist that the United States should hold this property as a set-off against American claims, thus forcing the enemy Government to reimburse the American nationals. The most radical American claimants are

DISPOSAL OF ENEMY PROPERTY

BY JOSEFE UNZU FEHR

EARLY two years Eare passe e America's Treaty d e with Germans was e pesast to the Porter-Kier e Resolution, and still the Ljan Property Custodian has in Ossession approximately $352000 4.10 worth of real and nal property, stocks and bonds, cash, etc., which formerly ged to German and Austrian nationals. Most of this prop

. vas seized during the war, although some of it was taken subsequent to the signing of the Armistice. And the quesppermost in the minds of statesmen and business men who ying to remedy the economic ills of America, as well as of rmer enemy nations, is predicated upon the many proposal re offered for the disposition of this rast amount of private

agur un ochii careation of this property on the American Geren zent And still another view is that the latest Sutas siccboid this property as evllateral strurity in the natur of a plezæ, in behalf of American claims against these former enemies.

In defining the present policy of the l'nited States Government concerning the disposition of all former enemy property, con gress will have to govern itself to a large extent by the policy adhered to by the Government in the past. Never was a nation more generous to its enemies than the United States has been upon the termination of its various wars. Those who now insist upon an unconditional surrender to former owners of all enemy property, point with considerable effect to the fact that Alexane der Hamilton, first Secretary of the Treasury in Washington's Cabinet, assumed in behalf of the newly formed Federal Govern ment the payment of every cent of the property, both veul and personal, which had been taken from British nationals, non-penident as well as resident, by orders of confiscation of the thirteen original Colonies during the Revolutionary War.

The early treaties entered into by the United States with Great Britain, Germany and other European nations, recognized the principle that privately-owned property ought never to be confiscated in time of war. Chief Justice Marshall, is early as 1814, in laying down his famous decision in the case of Brown 0, the C'nited States (8 Cranch, 110, 128), recognizing the pohy nie sal power and the practice of confiscation in the past, stated in unequival terms that “according to the modern usage" private promety of the enemy found in national territory "ought not to be on fiscated". He added further that "thing umage be disregarded by the sovereign, without obloxuy", Thix dituen Has reiterated by Mr. Justine Wilson in Worer. Syltem. (3 Dullin (C. S. 1746 1987, who stated in his opinion that "by every nation, whatever its form of government, nation de los has long been considered ciarpu", Asd deitz, s', UT *", are merely one foran of property. Ir.d utot 0.300), in Hunger 1. Aveti E WL, 6. 196, 532,, dem 16. statis" naked and

and ". ,

ty. practice of confiscation of private enemy property, although ned by the law of nations as it obtained for centuries, and lish and American jurisprudence up to the time of the Mar , is no longer tolerated by the enlightened thought of the

Confiscation has long been repugnant to the theory of aling and the development of international enterprise. ngly economists in and out of Congress are to-day tring se ways and means of disposing of the property in the f the Alien Property Custodian in a manner that will be

equitable to its real owners and at the same time will d the interests of American nationals who have claims

[ocr errors]

Germany and German nationals in an amount that into hundreds of millions of dollars. 'ged by some that America should make an unconditiona? all enemy owned property. Others insist that the United lould hold this property as a set-off against American hus forcing the enemy Government to reimburse the nationals. The most radical American claimants are

[ocr errors]
« ZurückWeiter »