Tariff and the Sweets

There are six members of the U. S. Tariff Commission, who serve for 12 years each, one retiring at the end of every two years. It happens that, on Sept. 30, the term of David J. Lewis, of Maryland, expires. President Coolidge announced last week that he would give Mr. Lewis an interim appointment; and it was intimated that the latter would be nominated for the full term when Congress reassembles. By Mr. Lewis' reappointment hangs a tale.

The Tariff Commission has been badly divided against itself. It was divided three to three on the question of whether a member should sit in a hearing in regard to a commodity in which he was financially interested. Congress settled that question by saying "No!" The latest division was on the question of the sugar tariff. The Commission submitted two reports to Mr. Coolidge. One said: "Employ the power of the flexible provision of the tariff law to raise the sugar tariff." The other said: "Employ that power to lower the sugar tariff." The President is still meditating on this advice. But Mr. LaFollette, quicker to express himself, cried out that the tariff should be lowered, adding that the beet-sugar, high-tariff group were out to prevent the reappointment of Commissioner Lewis, who voted for a lower tariff. The reappointment of Mr. Lewis was President Coolidge's reply--in part. His decision on the tariff itself is still in abeyance. The politics of the situation is curious. The high sugar-tariff group consists principally of the beet-sugar farmers of the West; their advocate par excellence is Senator Smoot, of Utah. Their argument is that we must have a high sugar tariff; if not, the sugar importers from Cuba will cut prices, drive the beet sugar industry out of existence, and then hold up the U. S. consumer at will. As may be expected, the regular Republicans, with their high-tariff proclivities, usually rally round this standard. The high-tariffers have had most of their own way.

The low sugar-tariff group is composed principally of the importing refiners and a number of large financial interests who have great investments in the Cuban sugar industry. Certain Democrats are with them, except those who come from sugar-producing states, and Senator LaFollette. They argue that, since 'by far the greater share of our sugar is imported, and since it is estimated that sugar makes up as much as 25% of the nourishment taken by this country, it is unjust to tax the great consuming public for the benefit of a few sugar farmers.

Here one finds Senator Smoot and his regular cohorts taking the side of the sugar farmers; and Senator La-Follette aligned, in regard to one issue at least, against a group of farmers and on the same side as the great financial interests which he attacks.