The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1896-02-08
THE LOSS OF A WORD.
NOBODY KNOWS HOW OR WHERE IT
ESCAPED

But 1t May Cost the Government Many
Millions of Dollars-The Supreme Court
to Reopen the Famous Hat Trimming
Cases-More Than SEQ, OOO, 900 Involved.
Especial Correspondence
PHILADELPHIA, Jan. 6.-Word comes
from Washington that the supreme court
is to rehear the famous hat trimmings
cases which were argued some weeks
ago. The rehearing is to be given be-
cause there was not full court when
they were heard before and because the
amount of money involved makes it i'm
portant that every care be exercised TO
protect the interests of the government.
The individual claimants have large
amounts at stake, but to the government
the decision means between $40, 600, OCO
and $50, 600, 900. The hat trimmings
cases originated in Philadelphia, and
one of the beneiciaries by the decision
of the court, if it is in favor of the
claimants, will be John Wanamaker.
The test case was brought by Meyer %
Dickinson of this city, and it was de
cided by the jury in 1891 in favor of the
plaintiffs.
An error in the tariff law of 1888
caused the bringing of these claims
against the government. Where so com
| plicated piece of legislation is concern
ed there are always errors, some of them
| due TO carelessness of the senators or
members of the house concerned in franz
| ing the bill, some to the treasury depart
ment, which makes suggestions for para
! graphs and which examines the bill for
errors before it is sent to the president.
! Some Of the errors are made by the
clerks of the house or senate in tran
scribing the bill So commonly recogr
nized is this weakness in the making OF
tariffs that there are lawyers in New
York and Philadelphia who make good
living studying tariff laws and telling
people who pay duty under them where
they are faulty. These lawyers are too
clever to publish their discoveries. They
wait until importers have paid large
sums to the government for duties on
foreign goods. Then they go to these
importers and say they know flaw III
the tariff law which may make it posi-
BILE to recover from the government some
part of the duties paid. The importers,
who have much to gain and nothing to
lose, authorize the lawyer to go ahead
on a percentage basis.
Sometimes the error in the tariff bill
is the omission Of comma or the sub
etitution of a comma for a semicolon.
Sometimes a word Is omitted or words
are transposed so as to make the mean
ing of the paragraph obscure. There is
| q customs commission now which inter-
prets tariff laws, and it undertook in
one case to go back to the intention"
of congress in making a certain provl-
sion But this the courts will not do.
Though it may be plain enough that
congress meant one thing In tariff
paragraph, if the language of the law
bears another Interpretation the courts
will give that interpretation the force
of law.
In the hat trimmings cases the error
was the omission from paragraph Of
the law of 1883 of the word "vegeta-
ble" No one knows just where this
word dropped out of the law, but the
law as passed provided that duty of 30
per cent should be collected ON chats,
etc., materials, braids, plaits, laces,
trimmings, willow sheets and squares
used for making or ornamenting hats,
bonnets and goods composed of straw,
chip, grass, palm leaf, willow hair,
whalebone or any other substance or
material not specially enumerated or
provided for. -
It was intended to have the word
vegetable" precede the word "sub
stance so that the material not special
" provided for, to be admitted at 30 per
cent, should be limited to vegetable sub
stances. Silk ribbons used in part for
the trimming Of hats were classed by
the treasury as unenumerated manufac-
lures of silk and paid duty at the rate OF
so per cent under another paragraph of
the law.
In 1885 an importer named LaDgfelt
brought suit against the collector Of the
port here, claiming that some cotton
back ribbon, of which he had imported
a very large quantity, was dutiable at
30 per cent only, and that excessive du-
, ties had been collected from him. He
won his suit in the lower court before a
jury which was instructed by Judge
McKennan that if the chief use of the
ribbons was the trimming Of hats they
came under the paragraph quoted above.
This decision was affirmed in the su-
; preme court eventually, and S., 600. 900
I were refunded on it. A man named
Edelhoff, who imported hatbands, after
ward brought suit in New York, and he
also received verdict and handsome
refund.
; Then Meyer 6 Dickinson of Philadel-
phia brought suit on another class OF
goods used as hat trimmings and got a
.. verdict for $632. 40 from Philadelphia
jury on the 10th of June, 1891. That
verdict for $632. 40, if sustained, meant
loss of probably $50, 900, 600 to the
government The attorney general OF
, the United States gave instructions to