The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-05-25

THE gLrNpERIxG TARIFF LAW.

The income tax sections OF the German
Brice- Wilson tariff Law are not the only
ones which have gone TO the supreme
court % the United States for final de-
cision. There IL one other section. now
awaiting adjudication. the decision on
which is looked forward TO with much
apprehension by the treasury officials. as
Il may result In subtractiug a few millions
additional from the public purse.
The section which the court OF last re-
sort is called upon 10 construe. is the one
fixing the time at which the act went into
effect with characteristic and inexcusa-
BILE stupidity the act fixed the date az
which IL would go into effect as August
list. 1894 Owing TO the long delay In the
Senate. the bill did not pass and receive
the presidents approval until August 18th.
From August LIST until the 2sth. the treas
ury department naturally had to act under
the Mckinley act and collect duties under
fits provisions. and at the same time admit
free OF duty such articles as were free
under the Mckinley law.
Some OF the importers OF goods. the
tariff Law. which goods were entered be-
tween the 1st and the 18th of August.
have brought suit against the government
for the excess duties paid by them. claim
Ing that by the terms OF the act II was
retroactive and took effect as of tho date
o; August lat The treasury department is
forced. in defending against the action. to
claim that congress ives acting tn excess
of It's powers in making the law retroact-
i've. and that II could only affect articles
imported after the date OF its approval
The court may. however. in view or the
strained 10 hold that II is simply tanta-
mount TO ordering a refundinE of excess
duties paid under the old law after August
lst and before tho law was approved
Thc-o IL no question that congress has
the power TO order a refundlng or taxes
raic. as was done. for example. In the
case Of the direct taxes levied In the states
during the war.
On ths other side or tho case. the prir-
cipal article Ia which the present law In
creased duties was sugar just prior 10
the approval OF the law the sugar trust
made immense importations. 10 save duty.
lf the government could now proceed TO
collect duties on this sugar. under the
retroactive clause OF the Law. the amount
received would much more than offset the
amount which viii have 70 re refunded 10
importers or other goods should the decls-
ion In the present case be adverse 10 the
government
This point Is not before the court. how
ever. IN the present case. The treasury
department has proceeded on the theory,
that the law did not take effect untn IN.
date OF It's approval. Notwithstanding rs
language, and has made no demand for
duties on goods imported prior 20 August
2Sth. Should tho decision Of the supreme
court be that the act went into efYert on
August LIST. there may be al attempt made
10 compel the sugar trust 10 pay duties on
these importa;ions. bat there is little pros
pect OF success. l. Is more than likely
thai the court viii hold that the goods
having been imported regularly and hay-
Ing paid all the duties demanded at the
time. and there being an ontir, absence
OF fraud on The part OF the importers. tho
government IS without a remedy.
Taking the case altogether It Is a strik-
Ing illustration OF Democrats lncapacity
Ia frame statute on the subject Of rev
erie without disasuriDs It With idiotle
hlunders. resulting In serious losses Of
ravenuN