The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1881-02-17
SECRETARY SHERMAN Defends
HIMSELF.

Washington, Feb. l2.--SecretaTy Sherman's at.
tentlon was called to the complaints made by
manufacturers CT iron, as to a recent decision Of
the Treasury Department about cotton ties, and
replied. YES was very sorry to decide the cot.
ton tie question against the interests Of so many
Of my constituents, but 1t was o clear case and
could not properly do otherwise. The question
was, whether cotton ties were subject to spe.
ciflc duty Of one and One-haf cents per pound or
an ad valorem duty Of thirty FIVE per centum. On
June 80, 1864, when the duty was first levied, S5
per cent was higher rate than one and one.half
cents per pound, and then the importers tried to
get In cotton ties at the specific duty, and the
home manufacturers wanted them taxed as man.
ufactures OF iron. 1t was settled however, by the
Courts and by the Treasury Department that cot
ton ties were, under the law, manufactures Of
iron, were not known and classed In the trade as
hoop iron, and, therefore, were subject to the 35
per cent ad valOrem duty. This decision has
stood during three administrations and for the
terms OF FIVE Secretaries Of the Treasury, and has
been uniformly upheld by the Courts, and tens
Of thousands Of tors Of imported cotton ties
have come In and paid duty at the rate Of 85 per
cent ad valorem. As the price Of iron has great.
ly fallen, this has worked hard on our home man.
ufactureTB and is in Itself an injustice in that IL
places upon advanced articles OF manufacture a
lower duty than upon a more crude manufac.
ture, think the home manufacturer ought TO
have the benefit Of the specific duty and have re-
commended such law, and will, as Senator, do
my utn Ost to secure 1t. have prevents d the eX.
tension of the construction of the law so as to in.
clude under the ad ValOrem duty various kinds
OF hoops; but when the manufacturers ask me
merely because of the change In the price of
iron to reverse the ruling Of the Courts and the
constant practice Of the department for twelve
years, they ask me to do what the law will not
permit me to do, and what II l did do would
amount to great breach Of public duty. re,
Rret that they do not see 1t as | do They never
thanked me for overTuling the attempt to extend
the ad ValoTem duty to hoops and other forms Of
hoop iron, nor will their impatience and hius
tice induce me TO disregard the law ss find 1t.
As firm believer In the principle OF protecting
our own industries, ! am willing to aid IN pass.
ing laws and TO contrive laws so that that
effect will be produced, but will not, to carry
out my ideas, disregard and disObey the law as
II Is decided by the Courts,
The question as to DUTY on hoop iron has
companion in the plate iron controversy which
has lately come up. Plate iron pays duty Of
cent and half per pound. Plate.irOn,
punched, has been admitted at IS per cent. ad
valorem, On an appeal from this ruling an or.
der has been temporarily suspended until the re.
port shall be received from the New York Gus.
tom House, when, II SO recommended, the ruling
may be -evereed and the plate iron punched be
required TO pay as much as unpunehed.