The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1852-02-21

give merchants notice. but has allowed the act to 90
u'o ope,auoh immediately. the law ought be sus-
iihsa ~ 10 most natural 10 suppose that when the
goods arrived In this county, the merchant would sdem
MY himself by the Increased price OF the yoods and in
ssew, y seems 10 me- IN the asseace Of further infor-
ueman must have already received his indemnity
! MIR HUNTER. The senator from New York SAWS tha /
s ,s Una. Il we pay one Of those claims which
- Jus', we ought TO pay many more which equally
Just My argument is that if attempt TO do Justice
wiih he imperfect means OF information which have
lor asceTtainDg the facts if we succeed in doing Justice
IN one case, we may perhaps do injustice to the govern
meDl IN sancuoning hundred frauds; and in making
the attempt we should fail ottener to do Justice than we
should succeed We should fail in doing Justice because
would be impossible 10 the facts up0n which
those demands are made, il admit the principle
which Congress refused 10 admit when we undertook 10
revise the laws upon the subject OF duties Congress has
determined that this risk the merchant TAX e-whcther
rightully wrongfuy do pretend to say nor ID il
necessary to say II the parties had given notice the
tne when the transactions fresh, Justice might
perhaps have been done but when postponed this late
period, and when asked to upon an isolated
case cannot do justice. WHAT'S the evidence in this
case How do we know that these goods were ordered
beforehand without knowledge OF this legislation
suppose we have no other evidence than the word OF the
importer. How do we know that he did not remunerate
himself not for the whole, at least for portion OF the
duties, by additional prices charged TO the consumer
How can we ascertain, as the senator from Kentucky
ess that he did not charge these additional prices
How can we undertake 10 act upon the of every in
dvdua, and all cases OF private ineresto say that in
each we will ascertain the amount OF his damages and
remunerate him Tor il? There large class of per-
in this country who very much interested in
this law, and who deemed that they had suffered BY it
the planters They made investments, expecting to
make more by their cotton than they did, and they be-
leved that it acted upon them with most ruinous force
And if we make indemnity, why not make it 10 the
planter who would not have planted so much cotton if
he had known OF the reduction that would be made in
the tariff Is there any class OF persons upon whom the
tariff has inflicted more pecunlary damage than upon the
panters' Ii we were 10 open the doors 10 inquiry
n his ROrt lead n nj
say that it is the duty OF any not TO embark
in any species of legislation under which hundreds Of
frauds would be committed for every instance where jus
Mr. SEWARD The arguments Of the learned gen
teman that it may have been that no loss
sustained II will be found upon looking at the docu
ments, that heavy loss was sustained
"Fourlh question. Did the goods sell for profta
Answer No; but a heavy loss. 1t would have been
orally supposed that the duty would be refunded they
would have been rsshpped II The change Of @ duty was
1t was the time OF square yard minimum duty"
In document No he says
In the report made to Congress last winter the com
mtee said that we do business with tho full knowl-
edge that Congress have TO raise lower the duties
at plea meaning suppose. at any moment but Is
Pile On the contrary has always been considered
right and proper that ample time should be given to tho
bave been if ali our importation had been booking baIzs
The invoices which we claim was for twenty five
bales blankets eight bales bookings, and eight bales fan
.Since my last have calculated the loss three bales
Of the flannel which all kind, lo,v-priced.
Duty paid by The new tariff $50 90
shipping charges, exchange, 24s 90
Sold them r.,. 1ss s,s e e
$50 50
Lost s,ss, bales bate. ssssas' ssaa. iSS g
a,o2s 90
THE amount lost the finer fannels and blankets it
would be impossible TO say exactly &C. A The amount we
bookings and the three bales flannel know be
$4,000 and am lost than 81 200 tho
others Very few of the importers, probably had hard
We had been in the practice of i'm porting
very owpriced articles, which the duty by the maxi
mum calculation fell so very heavy and they were Of that
description that duty enhanced their value in his
ket 1t only prohibited their importation, and answered
!" John +; Lewis's similar in tina, respect
mine, and be was reimbursed in 1886"
Mr., UNDERWOOD That is his own statements
Mr. SEWARD. Yes, sir; submitted to the House
Of Representatives twice or three times and who
knows him would have any doubt al all OF the truth OF
his statements. will observe further, that these pa
pers originally submitted to the Committee on Com
merce in the House OF Representatives, when Mr.. Cam
breling chairman, and he reported general law
That afterwards submitted at two different sessions
TO the Committee Commerce in the House, who
ported the law The claim was first presented imme-
diaely after The transaction occurred There was
port favor of it, The parties then expected relief
der the general law and when that failed they renewed
their claim and has been pressed IN the House of Rep
resentatives from that time until this that the fur
ther argument tina, this claim ought not TO have consd
Grafton, because was not presented in season. fails
Mr.. BORLAND. The senator from New York, un
derstand, bases this claim upon the ground OF equity
and he says il ought 10 be allowed, because these ind
vduals under prior law OF Congress, would have been
able to realize much more money by that commercial
transaction Than they have done under subsequent law
According TO my understanding oil equity, ii accounts
settled upon that principle, the equity should extend to
the government well "a TO the individual citizen
whether the parties entitled to the advantage they
would obtain under the operation OF the principle Now
have had claim before Congress-, or does any
suppose that these individuals wond come before
Congress If they had ordered goods under high tarh
and received them under low tariff Take an instance
in the operation oil the tariffs OF Is42 and is46 Suppoee
an Individuals many undoubtedly dd-ooeteo eoods
under the aria OF ist2. and did not Introduce them
into the country until the act OF ls46 went into ope-
ration, which greatly reduced the dutes: would he,
would any reasonable man. have come forward and
rendered 10 the government the difference which he
would have had pay under the tariff OF tS42 while il
was in force and that which he actually did pay under
the act OF isi6l II to legslaie in this way.
exces. which he had 10 pay in consequence OF the tah
being raised. should also exact from individuals the
difference between the amounts which they would have
had TO pay under tariff in operation at the time the
goods ordered. and that In operation At the time
they brought 10 the country. Then. taking any
OF years in the commercial operations OF this coun-
Try the balance would be in favor Of the government.
because the tendency has been gradually, WIN ocea-
sonal exceptions, reduce the rate OF duies therefore,
the long run more goods will be found 70 nave oeen
ordered under high tariff and come IN anaet low
one, than were ordered under low one ana came IN
under high one The balance would De IN favor oi
the government ,5,.. ~