The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1897-09-03
Did They Build Better Than They
Knew?

Concerning the evolution of section %
In the new tariff law, our contemporary, the
Journal Of Commerce, remarks:
.THE Sun misapprehends the effect OF tho Finance
Committee's omission of section 10 from the Dinsley
bill a. It reported It to the Senate. The Finance
Committee says TIE Sun. had recommended that
tho entire section be stricken out. The Senate on
July 8 disagreed to this amendment proposed by the
Finance Committee. It retained what was section le
ofthe House bill. but on motion of Senator ALLISON
made an amendment striking out the words "or any
oct of Congrcss."' This IL not exactly what hap
pened."
1t happens to be exactly what did happen.
The Congressional Record for July 8 shows
on page 1900 that it is exactly what hap
pened:
"The reading Of the bill was resumed. Tho next
amendment Of the Committee on Finance was, on
page qo7, after line 20. TO strike out section 10, az
follows:
"'sEcTIoS 10. That q discriminating duty of ten
posed by law. shall be levied. collected. an paid on
all goods. wares or merchantise which shall be i'm.
and merchandise which shall be imported in vess Is
act Of Congress. to be entered in the ports OF the
United States on payment OF the same duties as shall
ported in vessels OF the United States
ALLIsos-I ask that the amendment proposed
by the committee may be disagreed to.
THE VICE. PREsipEsr-without objection, It IL dis.
agreed to.
Nj ALLIsoy-I move to amend the section by strtk-
ing out the words or any act OF Congress- in line O..
"THE VICE PRKsIpEsT-The amendment proposed by
the Senator from Iowa will be stated.
1.-THE SEcRETART-on page EOS, section 10. line 9.
after the word treaty It is proposed TO strike out
the words or any act of Congress-
1.-THE VICE. PREsIDESr-The question 10 on the amend.
ment proposed by the Senator from Iowa
"The amendment was agreed to-"
Continuing, our esteemed contemporary
remarks:
Nor did what happened have any such purport a.
appears TO be understood by THE Sun when II says OF
the action on section 10: The Senate had Just refused
TO repeal that part of the existing law which was
embodied in section 10 of the Dingley bill as Il came
from tho House. The discriminating duty Of ten per
cent. had been deliberately retained for future use
fulncss.' 1t made absolutely no difference whether
section 10 were retained or omitted. because tho re-
pealing section Of the bill was changed accordingly.
The Dingley bill swept OF the statute book q guam
tty of legislation affecting commerce and then re-
enacted IL in the original language; this seemed to
the Senate Finance unnecessary, and they
left out Of the Dingley bill section 10 and other Soc
tions. and also left out the provisions repeating the
corresponding sections on the statute book
The Journal Of Commerce is undoubtedly
right In it's statement Of the motive i'm
polling the Senate Finance Committee to
propose the omission of section 10, after
ward section %, and also ofthe reason why
Senator ALLISON. on July 8, asked to nave
the section retained, with the slight change
Of language noted above. But our esteemed
contemporary misses our point, which has
little to do with the attitude of the
Finance Committee on the general question
of retaining the ten per cent. differential In
the statutes. Even when the object of the
committees recommendation to strike out
section 10 was strictly technical, that
Is, designed to prevent repetition of
the same legislation, the proposition
put broadly and ~squarely before the
Senate the opportunity to agree to the
proposed amendment and thus to repeal
the law and abolish the discriminating
duty, SO far as the Senate's action could 20.
The question of retaining or a~brogating the
differential was at that time before the
Senate, open to debate N decision then
and there, as much as any question of legis-
lative policy can be before the Senate. The
Senate decided not to repeal section 10, and
section 10, afterward numbered as section
%, was safeguarded In conference com.
mittee and rendered effective instead OF i'm.
potent. in the manner which the country is
now discussing.
"This 10 a reproduction of the act of 1894
n the act of 1890" said Mr.. ALLISON, re.
ferring to another section concerning which
the parliamentary situation was precisely
the same. 1--WE thought inasmuch as the
law is In existence 1t was not worth while
to repeat 1t here, but after further exami-
nation we think for safety it Is we'll to re,
peat it," The intention of the Finance
Committee and of the Senate was to pre-.
serve the ten percent. dit~ferential for future
usefulness.
The process of bringing that measure into
practical operation for the benefit of the
American merchant marine has gone on
rapidly of late. The Senate retains the
differential duty when it had an opportuni.
ty to eliminate 1t. Mr.. ALLISON, for the
Finance Committee. reduces the limit Of