Evening Star Newspaper, October 11, 1929, Page 7

ARIFF FLEXIBILITY 15 FORUM SUBJECT Senators = Vandenberg and Barkley Give Both Sides of [ssue. Oppotite views on the flexible pro- visons of the pending tariff bill were expressed last night by Senator Arthur | H. Vandenberg, Republican, of Michi- | gan, and Senator Alben W. Barkle Democrat, of Kentucky, in addresses delivered from Station’ WMAL in the | National Radio Forum, arranged by The | Star and sponsored by the Columbia | Broadcasting Co. Senator Vandenberg defended the flexible tariff, while Sen- | ator Barkley explained the position of the combined Democrats and Republi- | can_progressives, who have succeeded | in eliminating this feature of the bill in the Senate. “I discuss the flexible tariff from the viewpoint , of thosc Republicans who agree with President, Hoover that Amer- ican commerce and agriculture must not be chained in a tariff straitjacket and be denied the chance to meet ! new emergencies with new economic weapons,” said Senator Vanderberg. “We are seeking” rcplied Senatsr Barkley, “to preserve the only kind of taxation that is not tyranny, which is taxation with reprssentation, taxation which is imposed upon the people by their chosen agents in the Congress ! which they have established and which is their only free and open forum.” | Supports Flexibifity. The flexible provisions of the pending | bill, which are similar to those of the | existing law, permi the Presicent to raise or lower any tariff duty within a range of 50 per cent he Tariff Commission has investigated and re- ported upon the rate. Such flexibility, declared Senator Vandenberg, is pec- | essary to meet changing conditions | without waiting for the cperation of the | cumbersome tarif machirey of Con- | gress. H Senator Barkley ealled this a danger- | ous and unconstitusiona) delegation of | congressional power and favored the | substitute framed by the Democrats, | which provides that the Tariff Ccmmis- sfon ehall report its findings to Congress and that Congress, instead of the Fres- ident, shall decide vhether a rate shall be_changed. If the Democratic substitute plan, with the support of Republican progres sives, should become a part of the new | tariff law, Senator Vandenberg con-| tended that national business would be kept “in an uproar.” as every pro-! posal to change an individual tariff rate | would probably lead to a general “re- vision of the tariff, or an attempt in | yj that direction, in Congress. i Senator Barkley, while admitting that | legislative bodies are frequently cum- | bersome and slow, compared with the | quick decisions of men dealing with private business, asked whether they should be “abolished or belittled because they insist that important matters af- | fecting the people thall be openly dis- | Text of Address. Senator Vandenberg's speech follows I discuss the flexible tariff from the | viewpoint of those Republicans who agree with President Hoover that | American commerce and agriculture must not be chained in a tariff strait- Jjacket and be denied the chance to meet new emergencies with new eco- | nomic weapons. We start with the proposition that there can be no American prosperity | without adequate Republican protective tariffs which offset lower wage and liv- ing standards in competitive foreign lands. These differences are measured in general tariff laws like the one now | pending in the Senate, embracing 485 printed pages and touching 25,000 ;items. - But it is impossible..to pass £such a bill oftener than once a decade i because the effort monopolized the bet- ter part of a congressional year. In Zother words, it is impossible to change these tariffs congressionally during | these long interludes, no matter how economic conditions change or how vital it becomes to meet new condi- tions with higher or lower duties. We are in a dangerously rigid tariff vise. To meet such emergencies the tariff law of 1922 created flexibility—a me- dium through which tariff protection can progress with the times. It was a recognition of the plain fact that nothing in this modern world is static. This flexibility permits the Presi- dent to move a duty up or down, buc always within a 50 per cent range of change, when the non-partisan Tariff Commission, after complete investiga- tion, recommends that proven differ- ences in production costs at home and | abroad require these readjustments. It | permits us to keep pace with changing times. It is a rule of progressive com- mon sense. Results in Six Years. Since 1023 flexibility has operatea 37 times, producing 32 Increases and 5 | Teductions. In these days of primary concern for agriculture it is worth re- membering that this flexibility has produced tariff increases in behalf of the tarmer, on wheat, eggs, butter, cherries, onions, milk, cream and flax- seed. Today's issue, raised primarily by the Democratic party,.s whether this flexi- bility shall be abandoned in behalf ot | an expedient, political subterfuge, and] whether our tariff making shall revers | to_the dark ages. | Perhaps the quickest way to illumi- | nate the issue is to analyze the atti- tudes of flexibility's foes as they inveigh against the Hoover | resulted? | drawn? | from these auspices. |1y unsafe, nd in neither event can it survive a static formula. Fourth—They charge that this flexi- bility is unsafe because the character of tariff commissions and Presidents is undependable. The country will smile at this—at least so far as Presi- dent Hoover is concerned, because he, like his illustrious predecessor, enjoys A common confidence which is a bene- diction on the Nation. Indeed, 1t | might not be amiss to observe that it was the leadership of Mr. Hoover which the country thought it was choosing last November, and nothing Indicates that the country.has changed its mind. 'evenu business is not static, | What of Failures? But let us frankly admit that, amid | other and splendid services, there have been bad spots in the Tariff Commis- sion’s record. What of it? Does that tify desertion of the system? Shall we do away with banks because a bank occasionally fails? The blacker these critics paint the record of the past the weaker becomes their present posture. record, have any untoward tariff rates No one intimates any sucn a thing. Should any of them be with- No such proposal impends. If we have been safe under the condi- tions that are alleged to have obtainea | in the past, there certainly is no hazard | for_the future. The wise course is to purge and improve the system—precisely ai we now are attempting to do—rather than to scuttle the whole great adventure. The principle is vital. If its admin- istration actually has been safe, even under alleged unhappy auspices,’ there can be no rational excuse for its aban- donment simply because one dissents Without it Amer- ican industry and agriculture are uttex- and—speaking through a vast preponderance of _spokesmen-- have so declared themselves in power- tul terms, Having made these four basic but untenable charges against us. the op- position then pretends to offer tne country a substitute. It would proviae that these interim tariff changes come back to the ponderous Con: for fiscal action, thus substituting Con- gress for the President as the flexing agent. But, like most substitutes, it is a poor imitation of the real thing. It is sham and delusion. It is politics. The infirmities which now attach to general tariff making would reattach to this perennial submission the tariff to congressional surgery. Pretty Fairy Tale. But, they say, we shall fix it so that when 'the Tariff Commission and tne President recommend a changed rate to Congress, then Congress must con- fine itself to this one item or matters germane thereto. A pretty fairy tale! This Senate, if bent on political m! chief, can_find anything “germanc” it pleases. We might start with inno- cent_little shoestrings; discover them “germane” to shoes; shoes to leather, leather to hides, hides to the farm problem, the farm problem to the in- dustrial ' problem, and soon the lowiy shoestring runs 'itself into a general n and into a major po- of s would * statesmanship keep itself in work—and national business in an uproar, If Congress, instead of the President, had handled the 37 tariff changes that have occurred since 1923—if it had discussed the tariff 37 times in 6, years—it would have done nothing else, and probably would not have finished even that, if running true to present Senate form. No. This substitute is a subterfuge. It does not make either for the re- sponsive speed or the unpartisan econ- omies which we require in our con- tinuous accommodation to the tariff needs of a volatile economic era in which uncertainties abound precisely as they did in post-war 1922: It is a longer route. It is a political high- way. It is a treacherous formula chief- ly calculated to induce hardening of the tariff arteries. And what could be more paradoxical than to find those In spite of thus | partisans who complain the loudest against errors and omissions in pending tariff rates also fighting the hardest against a rational flexibility which will permit_these errors and omissions to be cured expeditiously? This, then, is our case. Admin- istrative flexibility in tariff law is ap- proved both by the Constitution and by common sense. Without it the country is in tariff ¢hains. With it we can save ourselves in the face of the changing conditions in a changing world. Without it our prosperity has no accident insurance. armed to surmount emergency. Presi- dent Hoover emphatically recommends it. ~ Republican majorities in House and Senate approve it. The country wants'it Our common economic wel- fare needs it. I do not quarrel with the good conscience of those who are opposed. But I submit that they could | not more greatly err if their counsels | were solely counsels of politics or folly. Barkley's Address. Senator Barkley's speech follows: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Radio Audience In discussing the important questions involved in the flexible tariff provisions of the pending bill it is desirable to ascertain what is meant by the flexible tariff. It is a proposal to grant to the Pres- ident the power to raise or reduce tariff rates upon imported articles of commerce to the extent of 50 per cent of the rates fixed by law. -This is the proposal of the Republican members of the finance committee of the Sen- ate, and it is_contained in the bill as it passed the House. The Senate, after long debate, has eliminated this pru- pesal and substituted the plan offered | by Senator Simmons, ranking Demo- cratic member of the finance commmn.- | tee, which requires that the reports of | the Tariff Commission, after investiga- tion, shall be made to Congress and that Congress, instead of the President, shall decide whether rates shall be in- | creased or decreased. This question involves not only an | Interpretation of the Constitution. but s | it involves the question of the wisdom | or_unwisdom of such a policy. | When the framers of the Constitu- | tiop met in Philadelphia to determine the ¢haracter of the new Governmens they were about to set up they sought to divide its powers into three branches. The first was the legislative, to make the laws; the second was the execu- tive, to enforce them, and the third was the judicial, to interpret them. ‘These men remembered that the Rev- olution had been fought over the power of the King to tax the people without giving them a voice in the determina- tion of the question. They remem- bered that the Colonies had suffered from the effects of legislation in which they were not consulted. Constitutional Provision. Therefore they wrote into the Con- | stitution this language: “All legislative power shall be vestea in a Congress, composed of a Senate and House of Representatives.” What did they mean by “legislative power”? They meant the power to adopt any rule or law by which the people were to be governed. They meant by this to confer upon the branch ef the Government chosen by and responsible to the people the ex- clusive right to legislate into existence rules of action by which they were be governed. The levying of taxes in any form is legislation and is so recognized in every parliamentary government in the world and in every State in the American Union. Not only does the Constitution vest all legislative power in the Congress, but it was even more particular when it came to providing for legislation im- posing taxes upon the people. For it provides that ““All bills for raising revenue shall orig- inate in the House of Representatives.” The House of Representatives. was then and for more than a century the only branch of Congress or the Gov- With it we are | i Senators Vandenberg (left) and National Radio Forum, arranged by The Star. Barkley, who spoke last night in the —Star Staff Photo. [ ernment directly chosen by the people. | For this reason the Constitution pro- vided, and still provides, that every bill, whatever its size or nature, which pro- | poses to tax the people in any form | shall originate in the body which the | people themselves directly elected. Not- withstanding the people now elect their | Senators by direct vote, this provision | of the Constitution has never been | changed and the Senate cannot yet | originate a bill levying a single dollar | in taxes upon the people of the United | States. But Congress, as a whole, has been asked to delegate to the President what I believe to have been the exclu- sive power conferred upon it by the | Constitution, the power of legislation and of taxation. Not only did our forefathers who framed the Constitution intend to give to Congress the exclusive, power of tax- ation, but they likewise intended to give Congress the exclusive power to expend the revenues raised by taxa- fon. The Constitution stipulates that | “No money shall be drawn from the | Treasury but in consequence of appro- | priations made by law.” By reason of this provision, neither the Presidents nor any other executive officer can expend a dollar of money in the Treasury except by the authority of an_ appropriation for that purpose ‘made by Congress. Powers of Taxation. It was the undoubted purpose of the framers of the Constitution, and has always been the purpose of the people, to retain control of the purse-strings of the Nation; to retain in their own hands the power to raise funds by taxation and to expend them after they are raised. Hence, we ask ourselves and the country the question: “How can Con- gress with propriety attempt to sur- render a responsibility which has al- ways rested upon it and delegate that responsibility to the head of the Gov- ernment, or any subordinate of it? How |can the chosen Representatives of the people seek to shirk this duty by at- tempting to shift it to other shoulders? And if they had the power to do it. . In objecting to this delegation of power from Congress to the President, we stand upon the broad foundations of the Constitution under which this Nation has witnessed the most remark- able development and expansion which has occurred in the history of man- kind. The Constitution “has been | changed in many particulars since writ- ten; but it has never been changed by s0 much as a syllable in respect to the power and responsibility of Con over legislation and taxation. why ought they be permitted to do it?” | _In objecting to this transfer of a dangerous power, we do not seek to destroy or hamper the Tariff Commis- sion. The Tariff Commission was created under the revenue act of 1916. It was created as a fact-finding body, with full powers of investigation, and with the duty to report to Congress its findings of fact fer use the writing of tariff bills. In the Fordney-McCumber act of 1922, the law was so changed as to provide for filing of these reports with the President, whereupon he was given p&u; to change the rates as already sf 5 Duties Increased. Sincg 1922, the President has acted on some 37 reports, and in almost all of raised to the full extent allowed by the law, while the five instances in which there was a reduction were compara- tively insignificant. Among the five decreases made will be found paint- brush handles and bob white quail; while among the increases are to be found window glass for the home, pig iron, the base metal for the farm machinery, structural steel and tools, and straw hats of the cheaper type worn by those unable to purchase the higher grades. Almost on the day when the Presi- dent raised the duty on pig iron under the flexible law, he refused to reduce | the duty on sugar although the "Tarift | Commission recommended such a re- | duction. Not only do we insist that Congress has no right to confer upon the Presi- | dent the power to tax the people, but | we insist that it is unwise to do it, no | matter who the President nfay be or what party he may belong to. This fight is not a fight over personalities. It has no more reference to Mr. Hoover than to Mr. Coolidge or Mr. Wilson, or any President who may be elected in the future. It is no answer to our ob- jection to say that the power will not lbe abused by any particular President. | We think it has been abused in several instances in the past, and we have no assurance that it may not be abused at some time in the future. And if it is legal and wise to author- ize the President to change the tax rates 50 per cent, why not go the whole length and empower him to change them at will? And if we can delegate to him the power to levy ¢. to change tax rates in a tariff bill, why not go on to the logical conclusion of the propo- sition and authorize him to levy all forms of taxes, including income taxes, excise taxes and every other form of tax? In other words, if Congress can shirk a port of its constitutional duty by shifting a portion of the tax- Hahn’s Work Miracles With Six-Fifty! recommendation | and the majority Republican position. | that we violate First—They charge > permitting _the the Constitution by President to admiftister bility within limits ordered by Con- gress, The conclusive answer is that tariff flexi- | the Supreme Court has passed upon | “this specific issue, and by unanimous decision has declared this flexibility wholly constitutional. No amount or sound and fury in the Senate forum can drown out this mandate man takes his law from the Supreme Court. The lay- | There is no higher authority. | When we march with a unanimous | Supreme Court we march with tne Constitution, and no hostile eloquence— however nobly meditated—can ambush is conclusion. & this @s Second—They that charge an unwarrantable delegation of power. | We showed hes Special ¥ group/(of (ill B guesse e new Fall Hahn i them except five, the duty has been ing power, why can it not shift the whole responsibility by authorizing the President to levy all taxes? And if we can thus escape the burden of taxing the people who elect us by passing it on to the President, why, then, may we not violate that other wholesome pro- vision of the Constitution which says that no money may be drawn from the ‘Treasury except in consequence of an app tion made by law? One is as logical as the other. One is as rea- sonable as the other. One is as right- eous as the other. Necessity for Hurry. It is claimed that Congress is slow of action and that it cannot function rap- ::lly enough for those who are in a urry. TrYy. It is also claimed that, in the nature of the case, Congress cannot obtain the | detailed information on thousands of items in a tariff bill with sufficient promptness and accuracy to enable it to legislate swiftly, and that therefore the President, who can be swift on oc- casion, ought to be clothed with the power to act in a hurry, The President has no more time for personal investigation than has Con. gress, With his multitude of du- ties, he cannot make the inves- tigations upon which he acts. The Tariff Commission makes the in- vestigations in either case. We propose that the Tariff Commission shall report its facts and its recommendations to Congress, through the President, and that Congtess shall determine what increases or reductions shall be made. I contend that Congress can and does act with promptness when there is emergent occasion for it. In 1893 Congress passed a tariff bill in less than six months. In 1911 it passed a tariff bill in four months. In 1911 it passed another tariff bill dealing with wool in two months. In 1911 1t passed another tariff bill dealing with cotton in less than one month. In 1921 it passed a tariff bill in less than two months. In 1921 Congress passed another tar- bill in less than six weeks. It has become fashionable in some quarters to denounce Congress and to charge it with incompetence, inter- minable delays and with log-rolling processes in the making of tariff bills. In the very nature of popular govern- ment legislative bodies are frequently cumbersome and slow, as compared to the quick decisions of men dealing with their private business. But should leg- islative -bodies be abolished or belittled because they insist that important mat- 11|:sud‘?’ ere is not a single governor of an; State lmon’ the 48 Who has the powei to tax the‘people of his State.- That power belongs fo the State Legislature. The governor cannot change the rates of taxation. He cannot raise or lower rates. And there is no Legislature in any State which would be willing to give to the governor the power of tax- ation. That power the ters affecting the people shall be openly | ple have al- ‘| ways retained in thePrmown hands through their elected representatives. Reasons for Objections. We object, therefore, to this transfer g{ ;':ower from Congress to the Presi- en Because it is a violation of tI - stitution; g Because it is unwise as a matter of ngi ta: levied ause taxes lev! Con, levied in the open; i W Because taxes levied by the Executive are levied in secret; Because the extension of this power, even if in rm legal or wise, would lead to its illegal and unwise expansion | the United in_the future; Because the e are entitled to the opportunity to hold their chosen rep- resentatives responsible for the man- ner in which they levy taxes upon them and expend the money after it is levied; Because we believe that President Hoover was right when, in the cam- J,u:r. he stated in a speech a “The American le will never con- sent to delegating authority over the tariff to any commission, whether non- partisan or bi-partisan; our people have the right to express themselves at the ballot on so vital a question as this; “There is only one commission to which delegation of that authority can be made—that is the great commission ment. We are seeking to only kind of taxation tyranny, which is taxation sentation, taxation which is 1P The Goneriss which they gress wi lished and which is their open forum. . Norway. Your New Nettletons for Fall are Here! IVE the faithful shoes that carried you through the Ides of Summer a rest. They deserveit. And you deserve to enjoy the fresh fine leathers and spritce style of new Nettletons. Here in all the latest shades for Fall now! Nettleton Prices are from $2.50 to $18 RICH'S More of those Popular RAJAH LIZARDS add new glory to always brilliant Addto C Widths Rajah liz brown kid; ing heel. —on brown and black kid — tipped oxford. modernistic kid and pearl lustre trim Lizard trimmings Rajah lizard—two tone, applique strap. Vividly marked d—with walk. Taupe Rajah lizard — also Au- tumn brown—per- fect fitting pump, kid quarter. only free ‘Three-wheel motor cycles were & fea- tufe of this year's show at Oslo, On the contrary, it is but a delegation | of mechanical ~administration, witn | ultimate coptrol remaining always in | the Congress. It simply makes the use | of power responsive. We do not sur- | render a prerogative. We merely give | it serial vitality. To deny such a| principle—as it 15 being denied today in the Senate—is to condemn many Federal agencics without which moa- | ern, complex government would fail ‘stagnant. To force American pros-| perity into such stagnation is suicide. Fixed by Congress. | Third—In kindred strain they charge that the tarifl power is a taxing power which must remain with Congress, The answer is that the power does remain with Congress when the Eres- ' dent can act only within limits which | Congress itself prescribes. and when | even this narrow administrative license can be summarily withdrawn whenever Congress wills, Consider an nnalagous _situation Are not transportation charges the | most persistent of all the taxes that we pay? Who regulates them?. Con- gress? No, excepl by general rui. The Interstate Commerce Commission does the actual job. Should Congress recaplure this authority and attempt . to write ull the time-tables and traffic | rates? No sane person would suggest such premeditated chaps. The prinei- ple in tarifr flexibility 1s just-the same, It cannot be a virtuous Tecourse in a 7th & K Saiceg satiow and ghlisneunay Sl *3212—14th _ (*Open Nighw) house. To pretend a_vital difference - 4 - 4 not logic; it is sophistry. In both ke “Lady Luxury” Silk Hosiery Women who buy “Lady Luxury regularly—instead of “any” silk stockings that seem to be “Ra gains"—actually save $25 to $30 a year! Highly standardized quality and workmanship make a world of difference. To say nothing of snug- ger fitting and other desirable at- tributes. $1.45 $1.65 $1.95 Get a pair on your feel and you’ll say so! @ » Women’s Shop 1207 F 7th and K *3212 14th (*Open every evening) A L S R e I S A TR s e o T “Lady Luxury” Costume Handbags, $2.95 to $16 “Man’s Shop” 14th at G