Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1897-11-04
PROTECTION FOR
AMERICAN SHIPPING

uecl6lOn ADVERSE 10 the ulBCrlml naJlnk
duty against British shipping and
Canadian railways all concealment as TO
the authorship aud intention Of the
clause imposing the duty has been
brushed aside. II the decision had been
in favor of the duty Senator ElKins
could not have been prouder of tho
authorship OF ths clause or more ready
to ayow its intention than he has
shown himself to be. 81 am not
ashamed" he said to an interviewer a
few days ago of the part have played.
/ am proud of it, The section would
have meant for the ocean what the
tariff means for the land. thought it
was American and for that reason
pushed it. This country is bound to
be the mistress of the seas Just as soon
as we get time TO attend to it, wanted
to hurry it along. There was no trick
about it at all. | simply worked to
succeed. OF course / was not going to
tell those opposed to the scheme all
about it.
One of those who would have been
opposed to the scheme had be- known
about it is Mr.. Elkins' colleague in the
Senate at Washington, Mr.. William Il.
Chandler of New Hampshire That
States would have been badly hit had
the Attorney Generals decision been
in favor of the clause, While the matter
was in doubt and train loads Of imports
for Boston were standing side. tracked
on the Canadian border, Senator
Chandler made confession to his con-
stituents. Side by side with Senator
Elkins' admission, the Chandler con-
fession is curious reading, and the two
statements throw much light on the
way legislation is carried on at Wash
ington. Senator Elkins admits that he
smuggled the clause into the Tariff
act in the conference COMMITTEES and
Senator Chandler in his confession adj
mits that previous experience of tariff
legislation had taught him to look out
for just such jobs Having had OK
perience with conference reports, which
should have warned me to read avery
word OF this report wrote Senator
Chandler, Il have no excuse to offer
for not doing so. | hope to ne forgiven
by my constituents; but l shall never
forgive myself. These two Senators
one from New Hampshire and tho other
from West Virginia-are both Republi-
cans, and sit near to each other in the
Senate. In view of their extra. Con.
gressiDnal utterances with respect to
the now abortive discriminating clause,
they will approach each other with
curious feelings when Congress reas-
sembles in December.
British shipowners engaged in carry
ing freight, other than the products of
Great Britain and Ireland, to the
United States, have had narrow escape,
and they owe their escape principally to
the fact that the blow aimed by Senator
Elkins at them was also aimed at the
Canadian Pacific railway. IL only
shipping had been affected by the no.
torious clause % ii is more than likely
that the discriminating duty of 10 per
cent would to-day have been flowing
into the United States Treasury Hut
the blow aimed at the Canadian Pacific
railway also struck the Boston 4 Maine
railway system in New England, and
thereby threatened enormous mischief
to the commerce OF Boston. 1t came,
too, at a bad time for New England
interests. In all previous protective
tariffs New England had had absolutely
it's own way, and its representatives in
Congress- and it's manufacturing in
terests had arranged the schedules
which affected them to their liking. In
the Dingley tariff the tables we're
turned on New England by tho Senators
from the far Western States, with the
result that New England was nit IN
many places, especially as regards her
export trade. To be thus treated in the
tariff schedules, and also to he dis.
criminated against as respects trans
portation, was more than New England
could put up with without revolt
against the Republican administration
which was primarily responsible for tine
mischief. 1t was this impending trouble
for the New England representatives at
Washington which weighed with the
administration, and led to the unex.
pected decision of the Attorney. General,
decision which must be taken as en-
bodying the policy of the administra-
tion rather than as purely legal
opinion rendered by the chief law officer
of the government. Pressure was brought
TO bear upon the administration by the
interests threatened by clause 90 and
by the railway interesta which would
have reaped advantages had the clause
been allowed to stand. 1t was largely a
struggle between railway interests, and
for the time being the New England
railways were most powerful with the
administration.
No one has yet come forward to admit
that he can follow the reasoning OF the
apparently muddle- headed opinion
written by the Attorney General. It
seems to have been the object OF the
Attorney General TO make his long
drawn'out opinion confusing. But the
decision has served to determine the
action of the Treasury, which will not
attempt 10 collect tine discriminating
duties either at the ports or on jmports
brought into the United States by way
of Canada. There is a strong feeling
that IL test case under the clause
were taken to the Supreme Court. the
decision OF the court would not be in
accordance with the A ttoruey Generals
decision. AS the Treasury will not
attempt to collect the 10 per cent duty,
it would be difficult, though not i'm
possible, to get case before the Su.
preme Court. Senator Elkins and those
who are acting with him have given no
indiuation that they intend to proceed
by way of the courts. On the other
hand, Mr.. Elkins has announced that
as soon as Congress- reassembes be will
endeavor to amend the law so as to
accomplish the end aimed at by means
of the clause which he surreptitiously
introduced into the Tariff act. He has
further stated that he will renew his
onslaught Of previous sessions on the
bonding system under which tho Cana.
dian railway companies turns over
freight from the Orient to the Boston
g. Maine railway and thus completes
for trans continental traffic with the
two American lines to the Pacific coast.
The same influences, however, which
led to the overriding of the ElEins