The sun., 1897-07-28
DINGLEY LAW QUESTIONS.
WHEY DID TINE LAW BECOME 0PBR-
LTIVE THE MAIN ONE.


Opinion-CIethea. Rroson Fresh R1sh, ana
the Animals That 90 Astray Across the |
Northern Boundnry-A Question or Hides.
yAsuISoToN.ssJuly 27.-Ssveral circular let
tsrs giving tho Treasury Dopartinent's intorprc-
tatlous Of sections In the now Tariff law have
been prepared for transmission TO customs and
informal revenue officers. One OF these directs
attention to tho provision allowing tho frce inn
portntion OF reasonable" quantity OF house
hold effects. and directs collectors Of customs
to apply it according to the income or char.
acter OF business Of tho person bringing in tho
articles. A man Of means will not be allowed
TO obtain froo entry Of furniture sufficient to
supply u big hotol, and laboring man will not
nnd it possible to escape paying duty on q
piano or q mahogany chamber set.
Attention is directed also by the department
TO the provision prohibiting the froo entry Of
the effects Of American citizens who have died
abroad. Another circular relates TO stray ami
mails. Horses and cows owned BY Americans
along the Canadian border have habit Of
strollins over tho line. Hereafter their own
ers cannot bring them back to tho United States
without paying duty.
The regulations rotating to lumber, which
wero In foreo under tho Mckinley law. have
beon readopted by tho department to govern
the lumber provisions Of the now act, and will
be scnt TO customs officers. Department off,
oials expect trouble over tho fresh hsh section
Of tho Dingley law, which provides that all
fresh hsh caught BY American citizens In
foreign waters and imported, frozen, shall be
admitted duty free. They expect tho question
to be raised as TO how 1t can bo determined
whether tho fish were caught by American
citizens. Frauds are expected BY the officials.
Fresh fsh not caught by Americans and Inn
ported frozen are subject to q duty Of q quarter
OF y cent u pound. :,
over a question OF construction raised by inn
porteFs ot hides and Leather Leather sSGdS namely
@.sss Ssn bidss 81 ea9e dutabe ena admits M
free Of duty skins Of animals not otherwise pro-
yided for Importers say that calfskins are not
collectors at Boston and Chicago have applied
TO the department for Instructions. The de-
partment win inform the collectors that in the
Judgment of its officials caifskins are hides and
The decision of the department to make the
on the day yrsnebsd 1t hsy
bassiiv Of eonrSe but not Without eonsiSera
ton. Assistant Secretary Howell. who has
charge OF such matters, was supported In his
Southern district Of New York and kepresen.
Of the Treasury under the Harrison Administra-
tion. They have no doubt whatever that the
on which it was signed, and Mr. Howell says
the question presents matters Of suficient nc i'm,
portanGe TO have It It determined let by the highest
1T could be raised In no other way, said Mr.
Howell this afternoon, than by the depart
partment advised collectors to make their
fiquIdations for that day depend upon the hour
would lose, without question, all OF the revenue
arising under the new law on cargoes arriving
before ORE the @ m matter Is settled and then we shall
know exactly where we stand.
An examination OF the decisions OF the Su-
Gpnr be QaStlOl ah0wR that there
is reasonable ground for the dinerenee'of opin;;
ion that exists among the attorneys; Legal Ssl
York and Chicago have advised ther clients
that the law, in the case cas- Axes the actal time OF
1 ctotk in the afternoon, as the hour at which
j.: took effect. The amount OF money at stake
I TIE ' Department % Z officials as between 500.
and Sl,ooo,ooo.
case has been covered by decisions Of the Su.
preme Court The first case was , that 2o 81, the
which the question at issue was when an i'm.
portation vas complete The case OF d, s. e.
1t was signed on June L to take effect from
and after the passing Of this act" which Is the
it was contended that the act did not take
effect unit. until June q AS to this Mr.. Justice
ave cannot yield assent. The statute was
to take effect from its passage, and 1t is gen
@ade na1 %es ee day on Which the
act is done is to be included
In the course OF years, however. Mr. Justice
Story's views on this question seem to have
undergone decided change. In the matter OF
Joseph Richardson and others petition in
bankruptcy, decided at Circuit in Massachu-
setts in October. 1s43, which petition, was filed
at about noon on March 3, 1S43. while the act
repeating the bankruptcy law under which 1t
was filed was not passed and approved by the
President until late in the afternoon OF that
1T appears to me me that in all cases of public
laws the very time OF approval constitutes, and
should constitute, the guide as to the time when
the law is to have its effect, and then to have
its effect prospectvey and not retrospectivey."
In a case affecting the law OF 1873, increasing
the tax on tobacco, the Supreme Court held:
THE time of the Presidents approval points
out the earliest possible moment at which IL
could become a law. or in the words of the act
at which 1t could take effect"
The court held in another case: I'VE do not
think this is a case in which fractions OF day
should be taken Il to account"
In the Kerr case. involving the Wilson law,
there was no question. indeed there could be
nOhe, Of the particular hour Of the day, and tho
court decided that the law went into operation
at midnight.