The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-03-19
A HoDGE-PoDGE OF ABsuRDrTIEs.
Contradictions and In~congruities of
the New Tariff LaM.

Washington Special to New York Tribune.
THE new tariff law is the worst and
most hopeless mass of absurdities, incongrui-
ties, cruditics and irreconcilable contradict
tions that was ever given the force of
law" said a mGfi yesterday who has been
thoroughly familiar with the provisions and
operation OF every tariff act passed by
Congress since 1861. When this remark was
repeated to an official of long experience
in the customs service he said:
Il am sorry to say that it is true in a
large degree, but under the circumstances
it was unavoidable. The House of Repre-
sentatives attempted to frame a bill in ac-
cordance with a certain theory of taxation.
In some respects the attempt was meas
urably successful, while in other respects IL
was a fiat failure. The net result was a
bill that promised to raise many new ana
perplexing difficulties in the way of a sat-
isfactory and safe administration and en-
forcement of its provisions. 1t fairly pr1S-
tied with antiquities. incongrultes ana con-
tradictions. The Senate undertook to amend
the bill, not so much with a view, appar-
emily, to the removal of defects, as to OBJ
on certain articles and classes OF articles
were arbitrarily changed without reference
to the rates on other articles IN the same
classes. In two or three OF the schedules
the classifications of articles were somewhat
simplifed and improved, as compared with
those of the original bill, while in other
Schedules matters were made much worse
instead of better. The bill, as 1T then stooo,
after the adoption of more thah SIN nun
dred amendments, was q hodge-pouge. III
course, everybody expected that a CONFER
ence committee would lick the thing into
decent shape, out eNciyOody "oS
pointed. and the measure, witt all its i'm
projections, became a law.
1t appears that one of the most SERIOUS
and fruitful causes in the new law IS the
looseness and ambiguity. of the very nrs5
paragraph, which provides that on ana
Of duty shall be levied, collected and paid
upon all dutiable articles imported from
foreign countries g W t OR 3pe T bjIi was before the
Senate this provision was strongly CRU,
cised and opposed by Mr., Allison, as Wen
effort was made to amend it by incorporat-
ing Section so of the act of 1890. The mo-
and win continue to be to embarrass the
administration of the new law. Section 50
of the act of 1890 was comprehensive, anu
which the new rates of duty should be
applicable to imported goods. 1t provided
should go into effect "aiI goods. wares
and merchandise previously imported FOR
which no entry has been MADE, anu an
goods. wares and merchandise previously
entered without payment of duty ana unoer
bond for warehousing, transportation or
delivery to the importer or his agent has
been issued, shall be subjected TO no otner
duty upon the entry or the withdrawal
respectively after that date"
The section further provided that any
imported mn ne,a,i m-er nr nriyate aeP bonded warehouse
having been so deposited prior TO the ISL
day of October, 1890. may be withdraWn
/, 1891, upon the payment Of duties at the
rates in force prior to the passage OF this
act" 1t also provided hat when duties
deposited in any public or private bonded
warehouse said duties shall be levied upon
the weight of such merchandise at the
time of its withdrawal" All of these wise
and necessary provisions were omitted
from the new law and the natural conse-
quence is a vast amount of confusion, per
plexity and controversy that might have
been easily avoided. Men who are familiar
with the administration of the customs
laws declare that the new enactment Will
cause infinitely more litigation and ex-
pense, both to the government and import
ers, than any other tariff law that Con-
gress ever passed, and that the number
of protests and appeals since 1T went into
effect has been unprecedented.