Panelists Examine Merits of Tariff Bill

President Kennedy's tariff program was defended by an economist and an attorney and attacked by "two hard-headed businessmen" last night at a panel discussion at 2 Divinity Ave. Thomas B. Schelling, professor of Economics, was moderator.

First, Harold Van B. Cleveland, general counsel for John Hancock Insurance, outlined the provisions of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.

The main difference between the present program and the proposed act, he said, is a shift from the philosophy of maintaining a constant share of the market for American industries to a policy of only avoiding serious injury to the industries.

Under the "dominant supplier" authority, the President would be given the power to reduce tariffs on any product in the standard industrial trade category. The tariff could be removed entirely if the U.S. and the Common Market together produce 80 per cent of a given product, Cleveland explained.

The case for the New England Shoe and Leather Association was presented by Edward L. Davis, secretary, who described himself as a hard-headed businessman. "We believe that we will lose much more than we will gain from the proposed act," he said.

Davis pointed to an increase in shoe imports of over 400 per cent in the last seven years to support his contention that what the shoe industry needs is the maintenance of present tariff levels and the establishment of quotas for imports.

"One Industry"

Charles Kindleberger, professor of Economics at M.I.T., agreed that Davis had made an effective case "for one industry." "We live in a world where injury has to take place," he said, but because some people have to suffer does not mean that we should help them.

"The shoe people are as worthy as the textile industry but I won't accept the argument that if others can make textiles better and cheaper we should keep them out," Kindleberger continued. He asked what the shoe industry had done to improve technique and reduce costs in the six years that it had been complaining of rising imports.

In the final speech, Richard Harris, comptroller of Norton International, said the real question was: "Is the President's trade program a proper prescription for the U.S. economy and our world position."

Pointing to a number of weaknesses in the economy, including a persistent balance of payments deficit, shrinking gold stocks, and "a seriously overvalued currency," he suggested that the proper cure might be a devaluation of the dollar rather than the reduction of tariffs.

"Basic Glue"

Harris said that cutting tariffs vis-a-vle the Common Market might weaken its "basic glue--the common tariff wall--and could worsen, rather than improve, our favorable balance of trade.

In the absence of a currency revaluation Harris said he favored negotiating tariff parity with the major industrial nations and eliminating quotas among these countries. During the question period it was pointed out that this meant persuading other nations to lower their tariffs, since the U.S. rates are generally lower.