| OCR Text |
Show GIVF. VS A PROTECTIVE TARIFF Senator Arthur Capper, of Kansas, Kan-sas, speaking of the tariff bill now-pending now-pending before the Senate says: "One of the stock arguments of the internationalists opposing tariff 'egislation is that if we give our industries in-dustries and agriculture the protection protec-tion they need. Europe cannon pay her loans to this country. I wish to say frankly that if the price we have to pay for our foreign debts is the destruction of American agriculture and Industry then it would be better bet-ter of these debts were never paid. Why should we ruin our great business, busi-ness, the very foundation of our wealth, to make it easier for our debtors deb-tors to pay us when they on their part are .not leaving a stone unturned unturn-ed in protecting their own interests This is exactly in line with President Presi-dent Harding's expressions in his annual an-nual message to Congress last De- sage which touched upon the tariff the president said: "It is an unworthy unwor-thy selfishness to seek to save ourselves. our-selves. We seek to undermine for others no industry by which they subsist, sub-sist, and we are. not obligated to permit per-mit the undermining of any of our own which make for employment and maintaining activities." At another an-other point in h a message President Harding said: "It is not to be argued' that we need destroy ourselves to be helpful to others." It is well that this thought ' to the forefront throughout the tariff tar-iff discussion upon which he Senate is no wentering. The free trade influences in-fluences are continually harping upon up-on the alleged unwisdof of building a protective tariff wall around this country upon the theory that to do so will prevent our European debtors ever making enough to repay us or ever becoming sufficiently prosperous prosper-ous to buy American goods. The fallacy of this Is at once apparent. ap-parent. If we destroy our home industries in-dustries bv De'mittine home mar kets to be exploited by foreign industries in-dustries we thereby do two things!. We destroy ou- productive industries indus-tries and if we cannot produce we certainly cannot sell. At the same time, by destroying our Industr' productivity, we d"rectly bring about the unemployment of millions of industrial in-dustrial worke-s. This absolutely destroys de-stroys their ah'lity to buy either of the importer, the home manufacturer or the American farmer. Therefore, to permit our home market to be flooded with foteign goods which are sold in this country a less price than they can be produced in thiscountry. Is to destroy both our ability to sell and our ability to buy. The logical and inevitable outcome of such a policy pol-icy would not be the enrichment and upbuilding of Europe but would be the impoverishment of the United States, the dragging of this country down to the economic level of Eu-rops. |
