The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1897-03-30
NO DELUGE OF FREE GOODS
If Tariff Clause Now Under Consid era tIor
Goes Through.

| Goes Through.
Washington, March 29.-The PROPOSE.
ton which, has been discussed by Tbs
Republican members Of the ways and
means committee since they began worh
on the tariff bill that all goods imported
| after a certain date, before the enact
| ment Of the bill. shall be made TO pay
| the duties carried by the bill, is likely
| to crystalize into definite form. 1t is
p1ssI Bile. IL lo: probable. that an amend
ment viii be made to the bin in the
| house to effect this purpose and April
is the date on which il is proposed
| that the Dingley bill rates shall go in;o
effect.
The question has been investigated by
subcommittee consisting Of Messrs-
Dalzell of Pennsylvania, Tawney OF
Minnesota, and Grosvenor Of Ohio. They
have considered the legal aspects Of the
plan very carefully and have obtained
opinions from lawyers who are said by
them TO be high authorities. 10 the effect
that the plan is constitutional. They
have not drafted an amendment yet, bat
one OF them said today that they will
prepare an amendment which will de-
clare, in substance, that all impor:s
made on and after April 2, 1897. shall be
dutiable at the rate finally fixed by the
bill. This amendment will be introduced
today or tomorrow. the members of the
subcommittee said, and. they asserted,
will be passed by the solid Republican
vote of the house. The Republican mem
bers of the committee have not definite
ly decided upon the plan, however, an
it is possible that they may not carry
out the proposals of the sub-commi.-
tee.
1t is difficult to secure any authorized
statement on the subject from the Re-
publican members of the committee, be-
cause their plans have not been perfected
Tor a final decision reached. Chairman
Dingley, when asked about it, said:
There has been much discussion on
the policy of making such an amend
ment to the bill, but nothing definite has
been decided upor.''
One member of the subcommittee,
mentioned above, declared that there was
no doubt OF the right Of congress to fix
a date prior to the enactment of the bill
on which its rates should become oper-
alive.
This would not be retroactive Iegisla-
ton, but retrospective;;" he remarked.
There are no direct decisions OF the su-
preme court upor the subject, but we
have such authority as Judge Cooley,
affirming its constitutionality. The courts
have declared the rights Of the govern
ment to follow goods from the hands of
the importers 20 the hands of the pur-
chasers to collect taxes upon them. If |
this amendment is adopted, goods actu- |
ally purchased prior to April 2, and goods |
in transit before that date will rot be |
assessed at the higher duties"
1t is understood that no plan requiring |
the importers to give bonds for the pay
nent OF additional duties after their |
goods have been taken from the customs |
houses has been made, because it would |
be difficult to fix the amounts OF bonds /
equitably on account. of the uncertainty
existing as to the changes in rates which
nay be made by the senate. 1t is pro-
posed, however, TO adopt some regulations
or following imports from custom houses
md keeping certified records of the pur-
'hasers, so that the government will
Know where to look for the collection of
he additional duties and may be able to
lttach goods for the payment thereof, if
necessary.
Another Republican member of the
ommittee affirmed that the proposed
amendment would not be adopted. Ii
would be exceedingly unjust to importers
I'd TO business men generally, he said,
ecause no one would be able to predict
What changes the senate would make in
ne bill and no man who imported goods
fter April and before the passage of
ne bill by the senate would know what
ates he might afterward be called upon
} pay.
The committee, he said, had been err
eavoring to devise some method of
topping the anticipatory importations
mich were depriving the government of
much revenue, but the proposed amend
lent, in his view. was clearly retroa Give
nd unconstitutional.