The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1882-06-25
A LAWYERS BIG FEE.
He May Get S5,5OO,OOO for Dis.
closing a Legal Defect.


A New York lawyer has earned
perhaps the largest contingent fee
ever won In tbis country. The ruling
OF the Supreme Court of the United
States In the Knit goods case takes of
the specific duty OF so cents per pound
on all hosiery or knit goods into
which wool enters. This decision
refunds to importers 81. 900, 900.
Naturally it has excited the indigna-
ton OF the American manufacturers
of hosiery goods, as they declare that
1t places them upon unequal terms
with English manufacturers in a
market where they were unable to
compete except with that protection
which the specific duty OF SO cents
per pound guaranteed them. The claim
OF justice in the decision OF the Su
preme G urt 10 the greater cheapness
ct wool N the foreign market, which
will enable foreign goods to come
into this market at the reduced rate
and take away a profit, while manu-
facturers, paying higher price for
wool, can not begin to meet the com
petition.
"The effect of the decision is begin
ing to be felt already" said Mr..
John ]. Glszier, of the firm of Glazer,
Bro. & Co, spreading upon his
desk an array of letters. These
we're orders to cancel contracts given,
They were from all parts of the
country, and informed the firm that
unless orders could be filled less the
specific duty ordered of by Congress
that it need net attempt it. One
letter was from a large importing
house on Market street, stating that
if the manufacturer expected to re-
tain the importers custom be must
take of the specific duty.
Mr.. Chatl Spencer, of the Spen-
Ger Mills. at Germantown, who has
represented manufacturers of PhiIa-
delphis at Washington on this Ques-
ton, said that he had no idea that
the decision OF the Supreme Court
would be allowed to stand. Another
bill has been prepared by the COM
mittee OF ways and means, OF which
Hon. William D. Kelley is chair-
man, and vii! be presented 10 tie
House of Representatives 10 a few
dsys. The n anufacturers state that |
they do not wish to make aspersions
upon any one, but the whole trouble
has arisen in codifying the Congress
ional tariff acts for the Revised Sta
tues.
In the preparation of schedule N
of the law relating TO the duty on
knit goods the word 'wool" was left
out. How it was done ne one seems
to know. It may have been a cler-
ical error. The judges, however,
construed the sentence literally, and
refused to go back to the original
acts, and this ruled of the specific
iuty of 80 cents, and this, say the
dealers, places the American manu-
iactlrer at decided disadvantage.
"Why," said one of the msnufsc-
urers, ''the only interest the impor.
ers can have in taking of this
Ipecifc duty ia the large sums that it
will give them in rebates. All the
firms in this city are in
crested in this way, and in no other,
n that decision. Cook & Brother
will get $1,000; Baily & Co. a great
leal more, and the firm of Meller,
Bones & Meller, which has gone out t
# business, is entitled under the
uling to a rebate of $4,000, and
here are many similar cases."
The legal defect which brought out
his decision was detected by a
Yankee. A lawyer in New York
those name have forgotten, wrote
ersonally to all manufacturers in the
United States embraced within this
aw, and informed them that aoier
cheduie NJ of the Revised Statutes
ne specific duty on wooden knit ]
Gods was illegal, and that they we're q
ntitled to g rebate Of all they bad 9
aid IN specific duty on such e.-1s
nee the Revised Statutes Eeul iato J
a3ct in 1875. This sum toois MP
le grsod total OF about $1l 900, 00U,
I'D the lawyers fee fjr successfully
arrying out the scheme is just hall !
thai sum-just $1,000. 900. This :
the whole story; the incentive OF :
le importer and toe incentive OF the !.
.Wver. The hosiery manutactUrsrs 3
this city have all commenced work :
j cotton goods or very low trade of +,
oeIen Il consequence of this ueCi- &
the Philadelphia Record. o