The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-02-01

spOuoloiitty Oy the 0ecl0rdtOn tu8t Inc c6eSlucd-
tons or rates thus reported from the leading
ports do not in all cases conform 10 any author
ICED construction or ruling made public BY the
united to Dc the proper construction Of the law at
the time" Tnis is certainly startling confession IN
euue. The repors OF tho Treasury Department,
however, does not deny that large part OF the
nave been by It's authority or direction.
REASONS SoR TEE CHANGES TSADEQUArs AND rAL-
The Secretary. In HIS r, Div, comedies that "pre.
vious rulings OF the department" have been re.
versed since the revision. aud an attempt y made
TO Justify TINS reversal upon the ground that
'.ether In the practice OF the local officers. or IN
the rulings Of the department., and in the long
sarly have been attained IN the direction OF undue
concession, such as rigid revision and condensa-
other words. changes In rates OF duty have come
because those VINO revised the laws intended TO
reverse. and did reverse, by legislation the pre-.
vous rulings OF the department
law , enacted n iSaa and embedded ~ section a
Of an oers OF see 10 execute and carry
INTO effect all the instructions oil the Secretary OF
the treasury relative 70 the execution OF the
as to the true construction or meaning Of any part
oil the revenue laws. the decision OF the Secretary
OF The Treasury shall be conclusive and binding
upon all Officers OF the customs." And BY the
old laws OF ls45. 1851 and 1864. the
Statutes the decision OF the secretary OF the
Treasury upon an appeal TO him rom the collector
duty is nnai and Conclusive upon tue government
and every one else unless the importer sees ut 10
BRING suit at law to test the correctness OF such
decision. Therefore the previous rulings OF the
predecessors IN ONCE OF the present Secretary OF
the Treasury which, he says. the Revised Statutes
intended to correct or reverse. were laws, binding
at that time upon the government as well a. upon
NO GENERAL TARIFF LAW SINCE ls7A
No general law liking or changing duties bad
been enacted BY Consress since June TO- 1871
During the period between THIS date and Decem-
Der /, 1878 (more than eighteen monthsI, the IN
terpretations or existing laws had become well
settled ana wen oy r.
the memory OF foreigners as well as our own citl-
zens. None OF them supposed that the rates pre-.
scrlbed by the Secretary OF the Treasury ana
levied for eighteen months, since June 10, 1879.
were not tue legal rates. or that the government
misn terpreted Its own laws.
Tue Treasury does not deny that certain sections
OF the laws OF 1851 and 1862. which were enforced
cludea BY or dropped from the Revised Statutes,
and thereby duties were increased. 1t, however,
sus a 0T Gpg S
condensed IN tine revision the superior iorce OF the
later acts became apparent and the alternative
This theory o. revision may or may not be correct.
but the diniculty IS that the codiners thereby
exclusion has WORKED an increase In rates Of duty
aud not understand at the time that the revision
would accomplish such result.
SUPREME CoURT DECISIONS.
The Secretary says:-
The revision, however. brought all that legally 70.
a,sr acts their proper eject and cropping shose Which
sad s 81 Ia. " 70 Sas as DC
e clear and easy OF and The
s
sSss 10 his Multiplicity
!. smy5hs rs s:x e AL recently ant decided in ths
scs Srce The
down ana before e as being ~ BY the
served throughout the revision and it has been carefully
IN
lection OF the customs revenue.
Here I. win be seen that the department again
cOulesses tnat certain statutes In force on
December /, 1873, being "the cause OF
mucn mtsconstructlon" were dropped alto
mode. OF condenslng or revising the laws has
been justified by recent decision OF the supreme
Court. A copy OF the decision Of the court In the
case re.erred to IS before me. the question In.
! volved was the true rate OF DUTY imrosed on an
very properly decided that they were dutiable ar
hsty per cent under tue last clause OF the eighth
onon o. Of the Cur ere Of
cnarge that the Revised statutes aid actually and
Intentionally change the previous law. The law
1 ton q schedule which embraced among other
things, ''artlcies worn by men. women OF
made uo or made wholly or in part by hand,
not otherwise provided for" In schedule N Of the
produced, but in mis- changed form :-"Ariicies
worn by men, women, or children, OF whatever
up or made wholly or in part BY hand. nor otner
wise provided ior." 1t Will be seen that tine re-
vision inserts the words except SILK and linen.
change. aud says
The exceptions mentioned eslk and linen, here
isaiive declaration that state tue Law
on the l., Of % ss without the
the eighth the Of 1854 in accordance
aI o Ms sD Iss as
a. s" mot 70 make sny IN n:
to remove doubts and instrumentation which were
| Here 1t will be seen that the Supreme Court
adopts the idea II not the language. used In the
crcuar OF the secretary Of the treasury, August
that the Revised stat utes contain the law IN orce
on December /. 1873 therefore the Insertion in the
law OF 1862 OF the words except silk and linens
must De taken by the court as q Congressional IN
struction declaration that such was tho NEAL
ing OF the previous law. so that the Supreme
Court instead OF having held that the mode OF re.
VISION was the correct one, or that the laws OF 1851
ana 1sod 70 IN a "s caor eae
LOOK beyond the declaration Of Congress IN the Re-
vised Statutes as to the meaning OF previous tarin
laws, no matter whether that declaration. IN the
opinion OF the Court be true or iaise. And It will he
seen that this declaration IN the revision may un-
csions Of the Court on questions OF duty turning
on tue old laws.
LAWS OF 1861 AND 1862
Between the dates OF the general tarih act OF
March 2, 1851, and OF the Revised Statues, Con.
gress had passed some sixty laws relating to
duties on imports and their collection. Five OF
these-namely, TWO enacted In 1861, one IN 1852,
one IN 1854, and another IN 1872-may be ciassed
general tarin acts. because they covered q
large class OF articles. Neither OF these IN terms
entirely repealed the previous ones, nor did Con
aress intend they should he altogether repealed.
One overiapped the other or otncrwse modified IL,
and SO In 1872 reference was had 10 1861 decide
what rates certain articles should pay. Tna 81 g.
tenn OF continuous legislation was bad. but thus II
was. and the necessity OF going back TO OLD laws
was increased Dy the habit which mad grown IN
Congress OF generally imposing tat the end Of Ger.
tain enumeratlons) on all articles manufactured
OF speclned material prescribed rate OF duty:
unless the articles had been "otherwlse provided
jor." This phrase made II Necessary TO ransack
ell previous laws TO see II there was any such pro-
vision. With this explanation the comprehen-
sive Of the following sentences In a circular
OF the Treasury Department 10 cole ctOrs OF Gus
lOms dated August II, 1874 Contained IN MS reply
to tine House,, inter preting tue revision, became
apparent He says:-
several clauses Of the tariff acts Of March 1861
July a. l5H winch were at hrst supposed to be noded
or repealed by June 1864, and subse
acts which revived at various through
decisions OF the Of this apartment are uec
svciy excluded from the and therefore
the date OF It's passage Among the ~