The times., 1897-07-28
ERRORS IN THE TARIFF BILL
A Loophole Through Which
Hides May Come in Free.
MAY HAVE BEEN INTENTIONAL
1t Is Claimed That Calf Skins Do
Not Come Under the Provision
Placing Duty of 15 Per Cent
on Hides of Cattie-Other In.-
portaDt Mistakes.

portaDt Mistakes.
1t rarely happens that a tariff bill
escapes the attacks aimed at it by the
interests affected by the rates imposed.
Many weeks may be consumed in the con-
struction OF measure warranted to stand
the most critical scrutiny OF shrewd and
cunning lawyers, but never yet has that
guarantee stood quite good Tariff ex-
perts in tie Senate are not more shrewd
than those VINO, after the bin becomes u
law. sit down and go throughit its provisions
with the express purpose of discovering the
flaws and prev enting the Government
from carrying out the intent of the legis-
lators who framed and enacted the measure.
Sometimes it happens that loopholes are
lett in the law designedly. Two OF three
very serious errors discovered in the
Dingley bill. lead to the conclusion that such
was the purpose OF the men who framed
the law that as just gone into effect.
Now comes the startling report that
under the wording OF the new law. hides,
such as are Used by the great shoe manu-
featuring establishments, may come in
free despite the efforts OF Congress to
put hides on the dUtiable list In the
secret counsels of the Republican party
NO one item caused more wranGling than
this proposed duty on hides. and the Re
pnbllcans OF New England only yielded
when the conviction was forced upon
them that tn sdut ymust be retained il any
tariff measure at all was Co pass.
A couple or b5ng-headed Yankee law yers
OF Bosom, employed by the boot and shoe
manufacturers of Lynn, who have been
watching this legislation from its incep
ton. have quietly pc assed the tip that the
Ianguage or the statute is 50 contradictory
that the courts must oonstrue it before 1t
is put into operation They hold that If IL
Is construed as tariff bills have usually
been interpreted, there is little reason to
doubt that leather and hides of the charac-
ter used by these big industries will come in
free
The clause putting tie duty on hides
reads. simply; Hides of cattle, raw or
uucured. whether dry saIted ST pickIed,
10 per cent ad vaiorem.'' In the free list
appears the following: ''Skins OF all kinds,
41n ttAStDb Ssitcp ShlI1S WIFI llit WOOL on
and hides not specially provided for in
this act. The courts have always held
that where there was d bungling Of the
text and an article was on the dutiable list
and also on the free list the latter pre-
vailed on the ground that the free list
was the later expression OF Congress and
there could be no nlisconstructlon OF the in
tention to make the articles enumerated
absolutely free of all duties. Where two
or more duties are enumerated it is
probable that the higher rate would pre-
vail.
But the question is. and IT Is one that
VIII be carried into the courts, Are calf
skins the hides of cattle and subject to
duty of 3 per cent? Good LAWYERS
hold they are not. They will, they claim,
come 10 under the category Of skins which
are on the free list These lawyers CON
tend that calf skin is not the hide OF
cattle and that the only hides imported
that will be subject to the duty are COW
hides, which form very small percentage
OF the importatioGs into the United States
Here again is shown the injustice OF the
error If il Is proved 10 be such for under
these circumstances the duty would be
levied against the material that enters
into the construction of the coaTser grade
OF goods snch a. are worn BY the poor and
not against the skins from which the better
class of boots andshoes are made. Whether
or not this is vital mistake remains TO be
seen. IL is known, however. that the
manufacturers OF leather intend tesfin o the
question in the courts, and this fact will
be Of interest in every large city In the
country where the making Of boots and
shoes is an industry.
In the fruit schedule plums, green or
ripe, are made dutiahle at 25 cents a
buShd, while apples. peaches, pears, and
ether edible fruits, including berries, when
dried, are assessed cents a pound. In
the very next paragraph, however. plums
are again mentioned without any modify
ing words, and assessed at 2 cents a pound,
in connection with figs, prunes and
prunellas etc, all OF which relate to dried
fruits. Irasmuch as the rate Collected is
always the highest it would seem that
pluns. whether green or ripe would there
fore take a duty of 2 cents a round, but
manifestly the Senate, which made this
amendment. had no intention OF raising the
duty on green or ripe plums to this figure
There is also a curious contradiction In
the wine schedule. In one part of the
law relating to the importation of wines
1t is stipulated that no separate or adj
ditioual duty shall be assessed on the bot
tics or jugs, and not ten lines lower down
the provision appears requiring a duty to
be oollected on the bottles and jugs in
which wine is imported, at the rates hich
would be chargeable il imported empty.
The refusal of the Senate committee to
correct a blunder that was pointed ont
In good time Will result In the absolute
destruction of at least one industry, that
o< the manufacture of artificial sufphate Of
Time. This is made dutiable in the law at
S11 ton, while in another place pearl
hardening for pepernaker' use is made
dTtiable st 2e per cent ad vaIorem. or about
81 ton. The two things are identical. and
the result VIII be that sulphate of lime WIN
he imported into this country as pearl hard
ening. The manufacture of the article in
this country VIII cease, and the Government
will lose the revenue that was Intended 10
he collected.
From time immemoriai waters, have
been on the free list Originally this
clause was intended to apply only to the
little waters Used for sealing letters, etc
an article with which everyone is more
or less familiar. In the new law, the
wording has been changed to s'wafers, un-
leavened, or not edible" This was done
at the urgent solicitation OF ex-senator
Blair of New Hampshire, who wanted to
have celery wafer admitted free for
medicinal purposes. Had the clause read
''unleavened andnot edible no harm would
have been done; but the con junction does