The San Francisco call., 1910-08-12

tion.
There has been in recent years
a considerable falling off in the
values of the imports of rubber
manufactures, owing. largely TO the
fact that the American manufac-
turers were gradually taking pos
session of the Aamerican market
for automobile tires and to the
fact that two of the most impor-
tant makers of tires-Michelin- and
the Continental company-traps-
ferred their plants for the supply
of their American markets to the
United States.
UNIFORM RATES
When the tariff bill reached the
finance committee it was stated TO
us by the treasury experts, who
had been assigned by the president
to assist the committee in the prep
aration of amendments, that it was
extremely desirable that the rates
of duty imposed by paragraphs lao.
427, 455 and 465 of the house bill
on the miscellaneous manufactures
of various materials should be uni
form with the rates imposed on
similar manufactures in other parts
of the bill
The statements of fact that led
to the unanimous conclusion of the
finance committee and the confer
ence committee to recommend an
Increase of duty on the articles
named in paragraph 463 are clearly
SET 1OrJR In the following letter
of Judge Sharretts to me:
United States Customs Service
Board of United States General
Appraisers, 641 Washington
Street, Ne WORK, July Il. 1910:
man Committee on Finance, United
States Senate. Washington, D. c.
My Dear Senators: Under instruc-
tions from President Taft 1 was in
Washington and gave such. aid as
Wa a h Ia fn ffy,a ff<a
of the senate in the preparation of
the tariff act of 1909.
Regarding paragraph 463. |
argued that the rates of duty speci-
fed therein should be made So per
cent instead of 80 per cent, as in
para graph 449 of the Dingley act.
In support offthat recommendation
Igave the following reasons to the
committee:
Under the act of 1897 there were
in excess of 5000 cases litigated
before the board of general ap-
praisers and the courts. dut to the
fact that paragraph 449' imposed
80 per cent ad valorem on manu-
factures of bone. chip, grass, horn,
indiarubber, straw, etc; while
manufactures of wood, under para
graph 208; paper under paragraph
407; hard rubber and leather un-
der paragraph 450; dolls under
para graph 418, and hats, bonnets
and hoods (untrimmed) for women
and children, composed of chip,
straw, grass or palm leaf, in para
graph 400, were all subject to
duty of 35 per cent ad valorem,
and these litigated cases involved
the almost hopeless task of de-
termining which of the materials
was the component of chief value.
DIFFERENCE OF OPINION
Chips, straw and grass, when
manufactured into articles. unless
specially named in the tariff act.
are always a combination with
wood, paper or leather; hence it
invariably followed that the gov
ernment contended that the ma
duty of 35 per cent were the COM
ponents of chief value, while the
Importers maintained that chips.
grass or straw, which were sub
ject to a duty of 80 per cent, was
of more value than the other ma
teriaL
1T was especially difficult to de-
termine whether the wood con-
tanned in innumerable articles was
in the form of chip or of wood:
Baskets, toilets and hundreds OF
different descriptions of goods were
consequently claimed by the i'm
corters to be Jutiable at 30 per
cent as chip, while the govern,
ment contended that the material
was not chip but wood Cor WOOD
split very fine) and was therefore
dutiable at 35 per cent.
Fancy articles composed of pa
per cardboard, ornamented more or
less elaborately with braids COM
posed of grass or straw, or OF so
called chip, also resulted in much
friction and litigation, the import
ers contending that such articles
were dutiable at 80 per cent as
manufactures of straw, grass or
chip, respectively, while the gov
ernment contended that they were
dutiable at 80 per cent as manu-
factures of paper
Hard rubber was provided for in
para graph $50 at 35 per cent, while
India rubber was named in para
graph 449 at 80 per cent. Then
where hard rubber ended and In
dia rubber began was another pro-
life source of controversy. India
rubber dolls were provided for in
paragraph 418 at 35 per cent, while
India rubber figures and other toys
were excluded from that paragraph
and made dutiable at 80 per cent
under paragraph 449.
The determination as to wether
certain figures were dolls or not
caused great disturbance in the
trade, and the question in many
courts-a requirement that left i'm
porters in doubt whether they
would have to pay 80 or 35 per cent
duty on an endless variety of India
ITO avoid expensive litigation.
delay and uncertainty in classical
tion, leading importers urged that
the duty on manufactures of India
rubber be made 35 per cent, the
same as -. Inasmuch as para
graphs 20S, 407, 400 and $50 all
imposed a duty of 35 per cent on
substances of a kindred nature of
those which had to be combined
with those enumerated in para
graph 449, to avoid future litigation
and to accord with the wishes of
the importers and the officers of the
government, solely for purposes of
administration, 1 urged that the
rate of duty should be made 35 per
cent TO correspond with that specf-
fied IN the other paragraphs of the
act. Had the numerous other para
graphs of the act provided a lower
rate of duty than paragraph 463, I
should have recommended that the
rate be changed to conform thereto.
SUGGESTIONS OPPOSED
After listening to the reasons I
gave for the proposed change, the
finance committee unanimously ap-
proved of the recommendation and
whom / made the same statement
did the same, both house and SEN
ate agreeing that 1t would be the
part Of wisdom to avoid the con-
tinuance of the difficulties and dis
putes that had arisen between the
government and the importers, due
TO the slight difference in the rates
of duty between paragraph 448, 1853
and the other paragraphs men
toned. The wisdom of this change
has been fully demonstrated by the
fact that although there were many
thousands of cases litigated under
the act of 1897 for the reasons set
forth. under the present act there