Free Trade Practices and U.S. Government Policies |
[Reprinted from Land and Freedom, March-April 1940]
|
The cause of Free Trade has been advanced through
the efforts of Secretary of State Cordell Hull.
While he does not propose the elimination of all trade
barriers, he deserves approbation for his sincere and
intelligent attitude on international trade. He indeed
appears to be one of the few men in the present administration who may be credited with a modicum of economic sanity. It is true that his program is by no means
the full measure of Free Trade to which Georgeists
aspire, but it is none the less a ray of hope in this strifetorn world. The trade agreements of the United States
with other countries have undoubtedly contributed to
gains in our foreign trade and trade means peace.
IT is encouraging to note the endorsement of the Hull
program now coming from various quarters hitherto
silent. Outstanding authorities, even those previously
known as high tariff and self-sufficiency advocates, are
speaking out in favor of mutual trade agreements. Interesting, for example, is the case of Mr. Neville Chamber-
lain. Though his party stands for high tariffs, he is
nevertheless the one statesman in England who is urging
support for Hull's trade treaty efforts. Can it be that
there is still a lingering nostalgia in England for her
blasted Free Trade tradition?
In our own United States, Thomas W. Lamont, a
partner in the banking house of J. P. Morgan, has
also declared himself in favor of Hull's trade agreement
legislation. This in spite of the fact that he is a staunch
Republican. Mr. Lamont admits the failure of the
Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act. That piece of legislation, he
says, "was the last straw. ... It raised the barriers
as never before. …But its far worse consequences
were its evil effects on the whole world of international
trade. ...A score of nations followed America's
example and there developed the vicious circle of higher
tariff barriers all around." Mr. Lamont makes a fervent
plea for support of Hull's program, regardless of other
party issues.
Another endorsement comes from a French authority. An article by Paul Reynaud appears in the
current Atlantic Monthly. At the time it was written,
M. Reynaud was the French Minister of Finance, but
by the time of its publication he had been raised to the
position of Prime Minister and Foreign Minister. In his
article, Reynaud praises Cordell Hull for the results
achieved in the extension of the trade pacts "and the
courageous reiteration of his policy in spite of the war."
Reynaud wisely stresses the need for Europe's economic
reorganization after the present conflict, "if peace is to
be something more than another brief armistice." He is
in agreement with the widely-held conception that the
Treaty of Versailles has been responsible for the misfortunes of Europe, "in making the customs boundaries
coincide with the political frontiers . . . when it
would have been possible at least within certain limits
to impose upon them a customs union."
REYNAUD points to the example of the forty-eight
sovereign states of the United States, and declares
that our country is "the greatest area of free trade
opened to human activity that exists today." In fairness
to the truth, however, we should remind M. Reynaud
that this "greatest area of free trade" looks better at a
distance than it does at home. The growth of interstate
barriers within these United States is being viewed with
some apprehension. Nevertheless, it serves to emphasize
the importance of Mr. Hull's good work in the international area.
IN the face of these and other difficulties, it is yet
heartening to observe the transition of some of our
leaders to Free Trade thought. The World of Today
is suffering from the errors of its leaders of the World
of Yesterday. Perhaps today's leaders are becoming
sobered by the frightful results of past errors, not the
least of which was the extreme nationalistic spirit that
has prevailed in the interim between the two world wars.
All of this may serve to remind us of the implied prophecy in:
"Is it too soon to hope that it may be the mission
of this Republic to unite all nations whether they
grow beneath the Northern Star or Southern Cross in
a League which, by insuring justice, promoting peace,
and liberating commerce, will be the forerunner of a
world-wide Federation that will make war the possibility of a past age and turn to works of usefulness the
enormous forces now dedicated to destruction?"
|