New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-03-16
A HODGE-PODGE OF ABSURDITIES.
THE CONTRADICTIONS AND INCONGRr1TlEs OF
THE NEW TARIFF LAW.


THE NEW TARIFF LAW.
Washington. March Is (speciaD.-"The new Tariff
law is the worst and most hopeless mass Of absurd
tiles incongruities crudlties and rreconciabe con-
tradictions that was ever given the force OF law
said d man yesterday who has been thoroughly IA
miNar with the provisions and operation OF every
tariff act passed by Congress since 1861. When this
remark repeated TO an official OF long expert
ence in the customs service. he said:
| am sorry say that 1t is true IN large degree.
but under the circums tances II was una ~, o'LdD,
The House of Representatives attempted TO frame
bill in accordance with certain theory OF taHa
ticn In some respects he attempt was ss a aa
successful while IN other reSpSSStS IL was /" ' a.
failure The net result bill that promised 10
wav Of '@ satisacfory and safe administration ana
enforcement Of It's provisions IT fairly bristol WITH
The Senate undertook to amend the BILL
not SO much with view apparently Fo oSiat TO
Votes enough TO pass it, Rates Of duty on certain
articles and classes Of articles were arhi'T ahdr
articles In the same classes In Two or three Of
s s6G smped and improved as compared
with those Of the original bil while IN other schei
ter The biz. as it then stood after the adoption
of more than G10 amendments. was hOdge-podge
committee would lick the thing into decent shape
but everybody was disappointed. and the measure
with all its imperfect'ons became a law.
II appears that one Of the most serious and fruit
full causes Of trouble in the Law is the loose
ness and ambiguity Of the very first paragraph,
which Droyides that on and after August l. 1891,
certain specified of duty shall he levied. coli
lected and paid upon all dutiabe articles imported
from foreign countries or withdrawn for cOnsum!-
tion" When the b was before the Senate this
prOyisiOn strongly criticised and opposed by
Mir Allison as well by other Republican Sena-
tors and an effort made to amend II by In
cornOrating Section 20 of the act OF 1880. The
ton was rejected. and the result has been and viii
continue TO be 10 embarrass the administration OF
Tho new law Section % OF the act Of 1890
comprehensive and clearly prescribed the conditions
under which the rates OF duty should he applI-
ra HE 10 imported goods. 1t provided that on and
after the dlV when the act should Into effect
"aiI ,roods wares and merchandise previously i'm
ported for which no entry has been made. and all
goods wares and merchandise previously entered
without ia ymant of duty and under bond Tor ware
housing transportation or any other purpose Tor
wbicb no permit OF delivery to the importer his
agent has been issued shall be subjected 20 no
other duty upon the entry or the Withdrawn there-
of than IL the We're imported respectively
after that date
The section further provided that amy imported
merchandise deposited in bond in any public or
private bonded warehouse having been so deposited
prior TO the first day of October, 1880 may be with
drawn for consumption at any time prior to Febrh-
AIRY l. 1891 upon the payment Of duties at the rates
In force prior 10 the passage or this act III also
provided that when duties are based upon the
weight OF merchandise deposited in any public
o private bonded warehouse, said duties snail DE
levied upon the weight Of such merchandise Mt the
time OF its withdrawal" All OF these wise and
necessary provisions were omitted from the new
law and the natural consequence Is vast amount
OF confusion perplexty and controversy that might
have been easily avoided Men who are familiar
with the Administered Of the customs laws declare
that the enactment Will cause infinitely more
litigation and expense. both to the Government ana
importers than other tariff law that Congress
ever passed, and that the number OF protests and
appeals since It went into effect has been unprece
dented