The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1894-01-31

ttBmcnt was Dolfuuuou-tnu ShnnkC
from Specific to Al vnIorcm Dutics
4 Afonstrous Absurdity-what HIay
~ Ibp Expected Under tho Wilson Blli.
\. IrciA lhOtOa Special N NeO York Tribune.
An attempt has boon made to provo
thai Tho tariff legislation OF 1915 and
ills5I wau wise, and tho adoption OF I'D
3valotem duties benelCent measure.
SThis attempt has boon q disastrous fail.
Stite. BY tho act OF 1916 every specific
5}tfRte Of duty was wiped out, and 800 ar
Aclos and classes OF articles wore
.Sbsopght under I'D vnlorem rates. Tho
5l.gilson bill substitutes ad valorom for
specific rtes on 494 articles and classes
3ofartlclcs, and transfers to the free list
10tarticles and classes OF articles which
nov boar specific rates Of duty, thus
SWiping out 525 such rates. In defend
inRad valorem rates, Chairman Wilson
n and his colleagues arc confronted by
5the adverse opinions and testimony OF
nearly dozen secretaries OF tho treas:
Il DRY, from Alexander Hamilton to
\ Daniel Manning, Us well as OF hundreds
S,of experienced officers Of customs,
importers and othors. It Is
Sfact, although Chairman Wilson and
s3sShis Democratic colleagues do not appear
No DO aware Of 1t, that honest American
SSiinporters and merchants wero among
5sttie strongest and most vigorous oppo-
isiients OF tho ad valorem system within
9Stireo yoars aftor 1t was established in
ssIS46. They know whore tho shoe pinch.
Sod, for they saw their business dwindl.
ling and foreigners reaping the benefits.
ffn August, 1910. Secretary Meredith, OF
iiEthe treasury department, addressed q
circular letter TO collectors and other
officers Of customs, asking certain ques.
8stions in regard to the practical operation
8Iof tho tariff act Of 1916. and copies OF
1.-THE same were also sent to many lead
Ing merchants and importers through
out the country. Several of tho ques-
Itions bore upon the practical effect OF
1.-THE nd valorom systom Of duties, not
88aapnly upon the revenues of the govern.
ment, but upon the business OF import
Wing. Many replies were received, and
sfthey are instructive reading at this
9time, when it is proposed to abolish
\ more than 800 specific rates Of duty,
and in 424 cases substitute I'D valorem
&yrates.
UNIFORM VALUATION IMPOSSIBLE.
ssy Under date OF November 20, 1910,
y Moses Taylor & Co., Of New York, wrote
rs follows in reply to Secretary Mere.
d dith's circular:
4 1t is in our opinion quite impossible
81 under the nd va!orem gystem to have
n uniform valuation, as incur own mar
X ket prices vary frequently from day to
= day, aud therefore 1t is not possible for
appraisers in different ports to fix an
"a exact uniform value. We believe that
goods arc frequently entered mt prices
Il below what they could DO bought for at
the place of export at the time OF ship
ment."
/ On October 81, 1S40, B. G. Clark & Co..
OF Boston, wrote rs follows in regard TO
A fraudulent invoices:
I'VE havo no doubt great loss has 70.
. suited to tho United States, and must
continue. to do so. from this Gauge. In
the course OF our own business we nave
received invoices from foreigners with
prices far below the actual value, in
which cases the difference would not
/, have been detected"
Under date OF November 90, 1910.
William a. Croker, OF Boston, wrote
in part as follows:
~ "This sudden and unexpected change
OF policy was 80 disastrous to American
interests, the principle upon which it
{ islation OF any enlightened government,
that 1t is charitable to suppose If the re-
suit OF inadvertence rather than design,
for it never could be the intention OF
any government to destroy. by Its own
act, an extensive and Furnishing branch
Z OF manufactures, with all its attendant
benefits OF n tiourishinS commerce and
foreign trade. 10 pass by the per-
picking question OF free trade aud pro-
tective duties, none will pretend it to
DO the design or interest OF congress- 10
tax American citizens for the benefit Of
foreigners; yet such is the effect OF the
tariff of 1916"
Nathan Appleton, OF Boston, writing
under date OF August Is, 1870, said:
II always considered the change from
specific to ad valorem duties mons:rous
absurdity which would prove the abun-
dant source OF frauds innumerabic.
All l hear Of the practical operation OF
the present law confirms me in this
opinion, and that return to specific
duties as iar as practicable is impera-
lively called for. have always con
sidered the tariff OF 1915 tho most i'm
perfect and Objectionable in its details
OF any one which has been in force dur
ing my experience, and Of which you
must have abundant evidence in YOUR
office. There seems to DO no doubt that
under tho present tariff the unscrupu.
/. lous foreigner is rapidly superseding
our own citizens III the business of i'm
porting foreign merchandise"
COLLECTORS TESTIMONY.
In their replies to Secretary Nor
edith's circular, the collectors and
5 other officers OF customs uniformly con-
demned tho advalorem system us ono
unequal in Its operations, prejudicial to
the interests Of the government and in
4 furious TO American importers aud man.
ufac,urers. Thus Collector Peters, OF
the port OF New Orleans, writing under
dato OF November ., 1919, said:
"The adoption OF advalorem duties
4. and discarding specific duties constitute
Y tho novel fcntnrc in tho tnriT IF 1919