Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1889-05-31

section 1862 even IL they are held to be
also covered by section 1863 they should
pay the higher rate of duty under section
2499 which provides that IF two or more
rates of duty should be applicable to any
imported article it shall be classified for
duty under the highest of such rates
These seem to us to be valid claims"
That is very meagre and fragmentary
statement, covering but one of half a
dozen arguments by which the reclassifi-
cation is justified and into which do not
now propose to enter. But if it was
enough for the New York Times in 1887,
why is it not enough for Collector
Erhardt in 1889, when the American
manufacturers have suffered two addi-
tonal years from the failure of the gov
eminent to read the law as it was meant
to be read? I will pause on this point
only long enough to add that the several
arguments of this association. covering
this whole case, have been printed and
no attempt has anywhere eyer been made
so far as | have seen or heard to answer
them seriatim or singly. At the hear
ings before the secretaries of the trea-
sury the importers haye been represented
by able men and the National association
has been careful to print in its Bulletin
all that they had to say. | am willing to
abide by the judgment of any impartial
tribunal on the proposition now broadly
state, that they failed in both instances to
meet either the questions of fact or the
questions of law with which they were
confronted.
have not yet done with the New York
Times. In the article already quoted
that newspaper proceeded to say: "We
incline to the opinion under all the con-
ditions that the request of the manufac-
turers for ruling by the secretary
which will bring this question to final
decision by the courts is an entirely prop
er one. If the law meant that they
should be protected by the duty prescrib-
ed by section 1862 by all means that fact
should be ascertained and action taken
accordingly" The Times had previous
| ly stated the well-known fact that the
question can only reach the court by a
ruling in favor of the higher duty, since
there can be no appeal by importers from
lower rate of duty and demand for a
higher one. The yindication of the col
lectOr is complete in the above quotation.
The manufacturers are entitled to all the
law intended. What possible objection
is there to permitting the courts to con-
strue this disputed law? And how can
the courts construe it if the government
will not permit the manufacturers access
to the courts? The American manufact-
urers claim their right to judicial deter.
mination of this legal question, and they
are not content with the verdict of news
paper tribunals.
The struggle to right this wrong began
under Democratic administration and
has continued under Republican adj
ministraton, without thought or refer
ence to the politics of either 1t is not a
political question, and the manufacturers
prety of their position was conceded by
Democrats and Republicans alike in the
last Congress, and it was Mr.. Breckin.
ridge, the Democratic member of the
ways and means committee from Ar
kansas, who introduced a Joint resolu.
ton in the House, the purpose of which
was not TO make new law but to interpre,
existing law in accordance with its orig
inal meaning, and against an interpreta.
ton accidentally and without cOnsidera-
ton drifted into by customs officers.
need not recount the familiar circum
stances under which action on the Brock
inridge resolution failed. But the
statement will not be challenged that
had it been possible to reach vote on
that resolution, it would have been prac-
tically unanimous among Democrats and
Republicans in favor of its passage.
If then, as claim, both the spirit ant
the Letter of the law justify this ruling
if there is no other way in the recess OF
Congress IN which the true meaning OF
the statute can be determined. and if, a:
Secretary Fairchild declared, there wa.
much reason TO fear that the manufact
ure of worsted cloths must soon cease il
this country under the erroneous classifi
cation. am not justified in pronouncins
these accusations unfounded, unjust anC
ungenerous!
Very truly yours.
WILLIAM WHITMAN,
President National Association of Woo
Manufacturers.
Boston, May Is.