The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1896-01-20
THE LOSS OF A WORD.
Nobody Knows How or Where 1t
Escaped.
BUT IT MAY COST THE GOVERNMENT
Many Millions OfDOlIars-MOre Than
$2O,OOO,oOO Involved.

cause there was not a 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, 900, 900
and $50, 900, 600. 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 6
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 careIessness 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 recog-
nized is this weakness in the making of
tariffs that there are lawyers in New
York and Philadelphia who make a good
living studying tariff laws and telling
people who pay duty under them where
Al g.
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 in
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 percentage basis.
Sometimes the error in the tariff bill
is the omission of a comma or the SUBJ
stitution 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
a 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 provi-
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 a paragraph of
the law of 1888 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
1y provided for, to be admitted at 20 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 1886 an importer named Langfelt
brought suit against the collector Of the
port here, claiming that some cotton
back ribbon, of which he had imported
very large quantity, was dutiable at
90 per cent only, and that excessive du-
I,oI hi 10
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 $4,000. 900
were refunded on it. A man named
Edelhoff, who imported hatbands. after
ward brought suit in New York, and he
also received a verdict and a handsome
refund.
Then Meyer & Dickinson of Philade1-
phia brought suit on another class of
goods used as hat trimmings and got
verdict for $632. 40 from a Philadelphia
jury on the 18th of June, 1891. That
verdict for $632. 20, if sustained, meant
a loss of probably $25, 900, 900 to the
government. The attorney general of
the United States gave instructions to
have the cases appealed to the supreme
cc1rt. There the Judgment of the lower
court was affirmed.
The Langfelt case was reheard by the
supreme court, and the Judgment in
! favor of the plaintiff was affirmed finally
on the very day when the Meyer &
Dickinson case was decided by the jury
in this city. 1t is probable the rehearingi
to be given by the supreme court in a
short time will be the last of this ia
nous litigation.
Secretary Charles Foster tried to COM