The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1897-08-30
Tho Story of Section Twenty-Five.

Tho Story OF Section Twenty-Five.
This letter from a correspondent whose
name ought to be a guarantee Of careful
investigation and precise statement, would
do much toward clearing up the origin of
the 10 per cent. discriminating duty affect
ing Canadian railways, provided the state
ments Of our correspondent were correct
and his understanding of the question in
volved was accurate:
ITO THE EDITOR OF THE suN-Str: II you can! ana
will, inform the public what tho Hon. WILLIAM z.
CHANDLER, United States Senator from New Hamp-
shire. means in q recent letter to . Boston newspaper
relating to the 10 per cent. discriminating duty OF
tho new Tariff law, you will oblige many persons who
cannot make the Honorable Senator out. He says
tho law section 29) was put through by chicanery
or q legislative trick; that is.' he says, by writing It
as now matter into . conference report where It was
adopted by both houses OF Congress without being
noticed by moro than those persons engaged in the
scheme.'
Now. sir. the Congregational Record and all the
newspaper Of the country showed at the time Of
the passage of the new Tariff bill through the Senate
and when q conference committee OF tho two
houses was formed-that the bill introduced by
Senator E1Krxs from West virginia imposing 10 per
cent. additional duty on all goods brought into this
country in foreign vessels from non.contiguous
foreign countries had been made q part of tho Tarin
law, section 80. The section plainly contained the
clause providing for the payment OF the extra duty
on these goods II landed in . contiguous foreign
country, Is Canada or Mexico. and thenco brought
here by railroad or other transportation.
elm the conference committee not o line of new
matter was written In as can be seen readily by the
report of that committee printed at the time, a.
stated. In the Congregational Record and all the news
papers in tho land. The only change made in the
section by tho committee was the leaving out Of one
clause relating to goods on the free list 1T not being
thought advisable to impose the duty on them. II
Senator CHANDLER can tell us where the chicanery
comes In in this matter. also what he was about that
he did not oppose the trick tooth and nail. when IL
was s"own in tho committees report. he will satisfy
US all better than by miscalling the business after IL
In done. LEGISLATIVE onr kRvEn."
NEW YoRK. Aug. 2e. 1897"
The mistake of Legislative Observer"
seems to be in supposing that the whole of
section % Is concerned in the controversy
and that the whole Of section % was sub.
stantially the Elkins bill, introduced early
In the session. 1t is not so we'll under.
stood as 1t ought to be that the main
part of section %, imposing a discriminate
Ing duty of 10 per cent. on goods imported
In foreign vessels. except whens such foreign
vessels are entitled by treaty to equal priv
ileges with ships of the United States, is an
old provision. 1t figured d. in the tariff of 1888,
in the tariff of 1890, and in the tariff OF 1894.
1t was contained in the Dingley bill as it
passed the House Of Representatives on the
31st of March last, appearing In that meas
ure as section 16. 1t practically amounts
to nothing in favor of American shipping
while the existing treaties stand. 1t will
hacnrna of nraat In, q, ,rhon~
treaties shall be ~abrogated.
The section that passed tho House and
went to the Senate was as follows:
"sKcTIoS 10. That . discriminating duty Of 10 per
cent. ad valorem. in addition to the duties imposed
by law. shall be levied. collected, and paid on all
goods. wares. or merchandise which shall be imported
in vessels not OF the United States but this d,scrimi.
mating duty shall not apply to goods, wares, and
merchandise which shall be imported in vessels not
OF the United States. entitled, by treaty or any not OF
Congress. to be entered in the ports OF the United
States on payment OF the same duties US shall then
be paid on goods. wares, and merchandise imported
in vessels OF the United States"
When the Dingley bill went to the Sen.
ate that body did not change the House
provision relating to discriminating du.
ties except in one unimportant particular.
The Finance Committee had recommended
that the entire section be stricken out. The
Senate on July 3 disagreed to this amend.
ment proposed by the Finance Committee.
1t retained what was section 16 of the
House bill, but on motion of Senator ALI.
SON made an amendment striking out the
words "or any act Of Congress-" With
this Insignificant change the section went
from the Senate to the conference commit.
tee In precisely the same form as 1t had
gone from the House to the Senate.
The Elkins bill was not at any time in.
corporated in the Tariff bill, and 1t has no
relation to the Tariff bill, except as 1t at
forded a wise suggestion which some uncom-
monty astute and patriotic mind OF minds
In the conference committee had the genius
to recognize and adopt.
This Elkins bill was the first bill intro.
duced into the Senate during the recent
session. 1t was introduced by Senator
ELKINs on March Is, referred to the Com
mittee on Commerce, and discussed and
explained by its author in a long speech on
April B, which was printed in full in the
Congressional Record of April 6. It's pro.
visions were three in number, all of great
Importance when taken together:
/. a discriminating duty of 10 per cent,
prescribed exactly in the Language of the
present law as printed above, but with the
clause as to treaty exceptions omitted.
2. A provision that the discriminating
duty of 10 per cent. should apply not only to
goods brought directly to our ports in for
eiRn vessels. but also to goods brought to