New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1890-04-26
DIsCrSSINCs THE DINGLEY WORSTED BILL
ARGUMENTS OF SEw.YoRK IMPORTERS AGAINST

rasht,ctop April o5 (Spccian-The Ways and
vcars committee this morning heard wors,cd i'm
norer from New York who protest against the passage
~ thc DincIey bill. authorizing and directing the sec
rotary Of the Treasury 10 CLASSIFY wostcd cothS a.
voollen, There were present also many dry goods
o,,oisson men and woollcn manufacturers who favor
the iii.
W. Clark NJ New-York. counsel for the importers,
n,esonted their case lie concndcd that the duty on
,rors,cd cloths should not be changed by special
c, hut wor,tcds should be considered III che general
tariff bill and change OF duty made TO take chec'
only after due notice. lie said MS clients had gwen
or toc large quantities OF worstcds to be delivered
in ,c future and had sold them the suppositon that
the duties would be changed without due notice
md the MASSAGE of the bill would do injustice to his
clients. a., ,,
when these orders had been given and contracts LOT
,,e made 10 which Mr.. Clark replied. several months
ago.
der the proposed bin precisely tho it existed
,,acr the ruling Of the Treasury department when
these orders were given and it Vii continue 10 be
until the United states supreme Court sets IL ASIDE
asked Mr.. Dinelcy.
Yes. but not the same claim the law provides
for: ms clients rest their rights on the "a" ~ theS
believe the court will hold it TO be-
Then what your clients desire said Mr.. Dinghy
~is that Congress will allow them TO 60 on paying
dutcs under protest and rccoup themselves by then
sales and then by and by IN case they are successful
in flcir shit against the Government have the duties
refuliacd from the Treasury"
Several Of the importers present denied that they
had rccoupcd themselves for the additional duties PAID
under the ruling of the Treasury or could DO IL ID the
future They Insisted they had sold their goods
Al the old price, believing the decision OF the sec
rotary Of the Treasury would be ovcrrulcd.
s.,nel Kavne Of the committee. called the atten'
n ~ the importers 10 the fact that the Imports OF
worss,ls Tad largely iacn OF since the ruling ana
tha- Iii, would not have been the case II the I'm
poi-cr, had offered their goods a. old prices
Mr. Clark made detailed statement Of the facts
brought out III the worstcd case IN the recent uAi III
the 7nitcd states Court and commended that IL was
clear that Congress intended provide lower pound
dutle, for worsied cloth tan for woollcn cloth
is II not a fact asked Mr. Dinslcl, that It ~
oul,c, - mufh and a. expensive wool AID costs az
much 10 make pound Of vorsted clotA - 1t does i'
make a pound OF noollcn cloth, and That hoth arc
used ioi tie same purposes and therefore NAT |ors'ed
cloth, ought to have the same pound uull i"h'n
enmpea,a'ofy for the amy o" '"e "'0' 80
ST. Clark did not deny this but claimed that the
nw provides lower dutie, for wOr-tcd cloths ,ai io
woocn cloths Con~ d"rable discussion followed, III
which Mr. Mckinley aud Colonel Hayne inquired 81
importer, present To whether they iar tINcH v,'
dri flr w6 ted, since the l,rlci 4 the gurf n TIE
United state, District Court bat a The importer DC
MED that they had done 80. and a-'eF'oa mat "'"
order had been given some time as'. 90 -,
Then" rpli,d Nj. Bnync, "you VIII nave onn
the duties t" pa' II - h l'-'cs a. 20" hS|
the law - administered by the Treasury D'p"T'n.hl
required al the lime yon t'Vc 'i' "fu''' MIC
fuIihcr oon.cr-aion tho hearing rlp.rd IT,.
Mr. Flower If Sew York presented IN the House
oGay the petition Of H. New YORK. dygood' en-
mi sion houses ana rcprc'cn"u'e, OF noorn null
Telcsr,ins have also been received from over 100
woocn mills. asking the same ,'"s VI y Dn-' -,
after the Legislative Appropriation oil IS completed