New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-10-19
MULTIPLYING LAW.


The decision of the United States District
Court at Philadelphia regarding imports of silk
ribbons as hat materials is based upon one Of
those rulings by which the present Secretary
of the Treasury has steadily impaired the eff
fectiveness of the tariff. There is no doubt in
| the mind of any reasonable man as to the in
tention of the law. The very attorneys who
| pleaded the case, and the importers who are
| their clients, will frankly admit that the law
was designed to impose uniform duty OF 30
per cent upon ribbons, as upon other man.
ufactures of silk. But because any piece Of
ribbon can be affirmed to be intended for use
in hat manufacture, and because a loose clause
in the law allows hat materials to be imported
at 20 per cent duty instead of so per cent, the
importers claim that they have the legal right
to take advantage of the statute as far as they
can.
Then comes in a Democratic Secretary of the
Treasury. The power of that official in con-
STRUNG the tariff act is exceedingly large. His
obvious duty is to consider what was the intent
of the Congress which framed the act. Mr..
Fairchild, on the contrary, being Free Trader
and extremely hostile to the protective system,
and being an agent of a President who has
staked his political fortunes upon a partisan
crusade against protective duties, has almost
always construed the act against the intention
Of its trainers, when that intent was to pro-
tect home industries. 1t is represented that
duties amounting to more than 81 100000
will have to be refunded by the United States
to importers if the decision in the ribbon case
is sustained by the court of last resort. Every
dollar of this 81 100000, more or less, will go
into the pockets of importers, for the ribbons
have been sold to consumers at prices based
upon the duty which the law was intended to
impose. Nobody imagines that the importers
if they get the 81, 900, 900 out of lie Govern
ment will refund the money to the purchasers
of ribbons if indeed that were possible.
Now the country is called upon to decide in
the election of President whether the Adj
ninistraiicn shall hereafter be hostile to the
principles and objects of the protective tariff.
The power of the Secretary Of the Treasury, it
will be seen, is sufficient to break down the
law at many vital points, even though no
change Of legislation may be obtained from
the peoples representatives. In this very in
stance one of the most fourishng and pros
porous industries is imperilled, and cool-headed
men believe that the new decision, if sustained,
will strike a death-blow at the silk manufact
ure. Yet Democratic Secretary of the Treas
ury, such as Mr.. Cleveland must be expected
to appoint, if reelected would certainly con-
tinue to construe the law in hostility to the
protective system, to break down the tariff as
far as possible, and to render it ineffective for
the protection of home industries.
Already the iron and steel industry, the
woollen and worsted manufacture, and many
others of importance have been injured beyond |
computation by rulings under this Administra-
ton. Yet second term would undoubtedly |
be far more fruitful in such changes of the law
if the Administration should be sustained in |
its policy by the people. 1t is for the voters
to decide, therefore, whether they will con-
tnue an Administration which, instead of en-
forcing the laws strives constantly to nulify
and defeat their obvious intention.