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

OF The tariff OF 1921 would have amounted 10 the sun
oi S2,2oo % only. Inc goods were shipped immediate
ly-whin three or four daysaier the passage OF the
act, and before could have been received ia Liver
pool OF the increased duties laid upon goods The peu
TONER applies for relief and appears 10 me that is
similar case TO that OF John + Lewis passed in 1886
who was refunded Tor losses similarly sustained by n-
creased duties
No amendment being offered the bill was reported to
Mr.. HUNTER Mr. President, hope this bin will
not pass, Although perhaps there may be an isolated
case which has been passed upon the principle
with this apprehend sr, II we could trace the history
OF these petitions, should find that they have generally
been refused know, sir since have been member
OF the Committee on Finance, TO which such petitions
have generally been referred, has been inyarabe
rule TO refuse them and il not mistaken. this petit
hon has been seyera times referred 10 that committee,
and we nave refused 10 ACT upon II. Why, SIR when
we come 10 consider the nature OF the application,
shall find that we have already nnumerable demands
upon the Treasury Department demands, sir. in which,
| II we are TO take the decisions OF Congress and
| The legislation OF Congress- there equity--at
least no such equity would induce this government
10 grant them. II must be remembered, if pass this
bill shall have TO go back to all the occurring
under all our tariffs Ii information of them be pro-
duced we shall have 10 provide for this class Of cases.
where the cargoes were ordered before the bills
passed In the tariff OF 1912 it especially provided
that should take effect upon its passage know
OF the Arguments against that tariff by OF the
bers of the House OF Representatives that it operated
particularly upon distant cagoesupon ships that
abroad II was matter argued and considered in Con-
gress and it was determined TO be one OF those risks
set any provision to provide Tor this class of
And if grant the petitioner his request in this
instance, how many will be sent to US from persons
who purchased cargoes before the passage OF the act
upon which they had pay duties under the act' We
should have to reverse the whole policy OF our govern
men in relation to this subject Not only that sir but
we should open the door to innumerable frauds. This
goes behind the tariff of 1898. If this bill passes
shall have all the demands upon similar principle,
in relation to that tariff any other ta presented here,
and should have to act upon them II has been sug.
gested by a senator upon former occasion that il there
be equity returning TO the merchant duties which he
has had pay because he ordered his goods before the
legislation under which they entered would II not
be good rule TO work the other way ii so, those
goods brought in under the tariff of ls46 when the duties
reduced ought TO pay under the ,arf OF ls42 un
be good rule Because it would be impossible TO
do justice in these cases-o ascertain the precise
loss. The more mischief the more dltcn would be the
remedy if we 10 undertake to legslae upon it,
sure, sir, in relation TO the tariff OF 1s42, would
have voted for such provision as would give the mer-
chant notice out such was not Inc acoa ,, 81 S
not, and will not now open IN this plecemea way these
matters, when they cannot be remedied without serious
mischief. hope the bill will not pass My word for
II, if it does pass, you will have numerous others pre-
sented here Tor your sympathies.
Mr. SEWARD The objection OF the honorable sena-
amounts to this Ii you do justice equity IN one
may be called upon to do in some other cases
which does not commend itself either to my Judgment or
my Of what is right upon the part OF the gov
ernment will simply state again the peculiar facts IN
this These importers merchants in the year
1928, in the city OF New York They contracted IN Law
epoo in the fall OF 1927 for the delivery of certain in
voices of goods among which several bales OF
booking 5aize; and the contract that these goods
would be delivered in the spring following is, in
the spring OF 1928. Congress, IN the month OF May,
1928, revised the tariff By the tariff. il stood at
the time the booking was made, the duties imposed
would have amounted 10 $4,000 so, while the cost oil
the article in Liverpool was S6,7S6 l5 so that the du-
ties at the time that the purchase made were about
third of The cost of The article BY this revision du
ties imposed the design of which was to prohibit
a., tn Inin
manufacture in this country The duties were raised TO
so per cent They amounted to S5,467 being within
about 800 OF the original cost or about four-hiths OF
the cost This act, which passed IN May, was directed
to take effect the 30h OF June Pursuant to the org
nal contract the goods were shipped from Liverpool within
three four days after the passage OF the act and ary
ed here within very few days after the act took effect
There possibility of anticipating this law. There
possibility of giving notice to rescind the con-
tract or TO prevent the expectation OF The goods from Law
erpool They here jus, in time 10 be subject TO
that duty and by that change IN the policy oil the gov
eminent the importer lost some $4,000.
Is SAID there e no equity IN reaIns rao 0s - soseIn y. %
zens from change OF It's laws. humby submit SIR,
that is the duty oil every citizen to observe the laws OF
The land But think, N making laws respecting heye
obligation upon The part OF the government TO give Iea
sonabe notice Of any change IN It's system before II shall
take effect In all the acts except one this time mas been
given In the act imposing the tariff OF 1892, which was
passed on the l4h OF july the time when it was TO take
elect was postponed until The Sd oil March, 1888 lhe
ACT OF 1888 was pdsstu ~u hia',", "'o
time when was TO take effect the 3ls OF Decem
ber 1895. When the act OF 1916 was passed, which
was The 30h day OF July, the statute provided mai "
should not 20 Into effect until the ls oil December, 1876
MIR RHETT As the senator is stating the facts will
he give the time when the act OF 1912 went into opera
ton
Mr. SEWARD. The acl of lst2 took effect, was
stated by the honorable senator. Immediately The Tea-
son for this il is stated TO me, that at that time II
supposed that there existing revenue laws IN
force and therefore that exception and departure
As have sad the duty oil the citizen TO take noce OF
the laws of the land but 1t not the duty OF the citizen
to take notice OF laws before they are passed tie has an
equitable and Just claim upon the government that
shall not interfere with the perfectng OF any contract
he has made and that time shall be allowed for persons
10 provide for the change in the policy OF the government
As have already stated, act like this has already
passed The principle Is the same. II IL now long
time since 1929 and there is reason to apprehend
great number OF applications OF this sort but, there
were Justice requires that they should he oonsdercJ and
disposed of upon principles such would protect the CT
liens
Mr UNDERWOOD Were the goods consumed in
this country
Mr. SEWARD They were. The cost OF the goods
was SO 1856 rs and the duty S54ol-be'ng uinef
ence of than 80 900 between the duues exsunS
the time that the contract made, and he dues winch
were imposed under the act Of 1928
MIR UNDERWOOD. / wish to make this suggestion,
sir | asked the senator from New York whether Inc
goods were consumed in this county, and he gave me
an affirmative answer Now, sir, II seems to me that
when ihe importer brought the goods here and paid the
DUTY he must have Unidentified himself by putting me
price of the duty paid upon the article before was sold
he has done that and obtained indemnity IN that way,
il would be little strange II we should pay IT to him
again he brought the goods here and found change
the law it would be very strange that he should not