More than one thousand members of the American Economic Association have signed a petition, which they have presented to President Hoover, and in which they urge him to veto the Smoot-Hawley tariff bill. Among the signers are many prominent experts in the field of economics, university professors, and economists representing industry as well as trade unions. Among them are young men and old men, Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, constituting a group which cannot fairly be accused of acting under the influence of private or selfish interests. It is solely in their capacity as economic experts that they denounce the bill, and their judgment weighs heavily in the balance. They may not see eye to eye on other questions, but on this they agree: The Smoot-Hawley bill should not become law.

Their reasons for opposing the bill are logical and convincing. They point out that, if the President signs it, the daily expenses of American consumers will rise, and only a few wage earners will benefit. That, on the whole, our export trade will suffer, and our farmers not be helped at all. That the majority of American manufacturers do not need a higher tariff on imports, and that it will not aid in the reduction of unemployemnt. Furthermore, they declare that such a measure will tend to nourish and increase foreign ill will toward the United States, and is not conducive to the preservation of world peace.

Can President Hoover ignore such a petition? According to persons who are in close contact with the chief executive, he does not desire to interfere in the matter, since the Congress is charged with working out the solution, not the President, and he also is influenced by the supposed promise of aid to the farmers inherent in the bill. But he did strongly oppose the export debentures on farm products, so strongly that that particular provision was stricken from the bill. And, inasmuch as he saw fit to oppose part of it, there is no valid reason why it should not be deemed proper for him to oppose it in its entirety.

As to help to the farmers by means of a tariff increase, one may confidently take the word of the above-mentioned experts, who have emphatically stated that the provisions of the Smoot-Hawley bill will bring them no relief whatsoever.

So far as our most important agricultural products are concerned, tariff protection is not called for, for we do not import any appreciable amount of these products, so there is practically no foreign competition in that field. It may, therefore, truly be said that the proposed tariff, instead of bringing benefits to the farmers, is actually detrimental to them in a double sense. In the first place, they will, like the rest of us, have to pay higher prices for necessities, and secondly because agricultural prices depend so much on our export business, they will be hard hit by the reduction of exports, which is the certain consequence of a higher tariff.