The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-08-12

were all subject to a duty OF 80 per
cent advalorem; and these litigated
cases involved the almost hopeless task
of determining which of the materials
was the component of chief value.
Chip, straw and grass. when
manufactured into articles, unless spe-
cially named in the tariff act are al
ways in combination with wood, paper
or leather; hence it invariably follow
ed that the government contended that
the materials which were subject to a
nent parts of chief value, while the inn
ports maintained that chip, grass or
straw, which were subject to duty
of 80 per cent, was of more value than
the other materials.
/" Tt was especially difficult to deter
mine whether the wood contained 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 importers to be dutiable at 80 per
cent as chip, while the government
commended that the material was not
chip but wood-or wood split very
f1ne-and was therefore dutiable at 35
per cent.
A Question of Dolls.
:" Fancy articles composed of pa
per cardboard. ornamented more or
less deliberately with braids composed
of grass or straw or of SO-called chip,
also resulted in much friction and liti-
cation, the importers contending that
such articles were dutiable at 80 per
cents as manufactures of straw, grass
or chip respectively, while the gov
eminent contended that they were
dutiable as 35 per cent as manufac-
lures of paper.
Hard rubber was provided for in
paragraph $50 at 35 per cent, while
india rubber was named in paragraph
249 at 80 cents. Then where hard
rubber ended and India rubber be-
gan, was another prolific source of
controversy. India rubber dolls were
provided for in paragraph AIS at 35
per cent. while India rubber figures
and other toys were made dutiable at
30 per cent under paragraph 449.
The determination as to whether
certain figures were dolls or not caused
great disturbance in the trade, and the
question in many cases had to be de-
termined by the courts, a requirement
that left importers in doubt whether
they would have to pay 80 or 35 per
cent duty on an endless variety of
India rubber toys.
To avoid expensive litigation. de-
lay and uncertainty in classification,
leading importers urged the duty on
manufactures of India rubber be made
35 per cent, the same as toys. Inas-
much as paragraphs 20S, 407, 400
and 400 all imposed duty of 35 per
cent on substances of a kindred ma
ture of those which had to be COM
b1ned 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 gov
eminent solely for purposes of admin
istration l urged that the rate of duty
should be made 35s pc cent to CORE
spond with that specified in the other
paragraphs of the act Had the num-
erous other paragraphs of the act pro-
vided lower rate of duty than par
agraph 1853, I should have recommend
ed the rate be changed to conform
thereto.
After listening to the reasons I
gave Tor the proposed change the
FINANCES committee unanimously APP
proved of the recommendation and
the conference e6inmittee before
whom l made the same statement did
the same, both house and senate
agreeing that it would be the part of
wisdom to avoid the continuance of
the difficulties and disputes that had
arisen between the government and
the importers, due to the slight diff
ference in the rates of duty between
paragraph AS (463)i and the other
paragraphs mentioned The wisdom
of this change has been fully dem
onstrated by the fact that although
there were many thousands of cases
llt1gated under the act of 1897 for the
reasons set forth. under the present
act mere mas not been a single case
Very truly yours,
THAD S. SHARRETTS.'
Why Change Was Made.
The committee found if the desired
uniformity was secured nv msking al
the rates 80 per cent instead of Ak
per cent this would have involved a
loss of revenue-based upon the i'm
portation of 1908-of more than II
million dollars
eft was NOT haI;a,,1l
neve, that this rate was in any. case ex-
cessive Take the case of rubber manu-
that tbe 20 DOR mn instance While it is true
tectlve purposes. for a large elias of
goods, the articles which were principally
imported under these paraeraphs were
OF character which would not he bur
dened-even from the standpoint of a
revenue Venue tariff-by duty of IS per cent.
manufactures covered by these various
paragraphs were rubber dolls rubber TOYS
n novgglsss o supplies fancy articles and
ton of an extra duty of 5 per cent would
not be hardship to any one interested
the average rates upon all articles import
ed into United States under the act Of 1909
is in the neighborhood of Al per cent,
certainly 80 per cent could not be an ex-
cessive rate in this case, from any stand
changes in rates have had on the i'm
portations and revenues there are no sta
tistics available that will enable us to
measure it accurately
"Importations are classified quite diff
ferently under the old law and under the
new For instance, rubber toys were
classified as manufactures of rubber I'M
der the old and as toys under the new.
and this change alone accounts for a
reduction in the importation of rubber
manufactures under paragraph 463 and a
greater increase in the importations re-
turned under paragraph 49,
1T is the opinion of those best qualified
to judge that there has been and will
continue to be an Increase In the i'm
portation of rubber manufactures of the
classes I have described and a conse-
Quent increase in revenue.
I'm the tariff discussion of other days
the advocates of the protective policy have
usually been called to meet in debate
men with convictions on the subject. Dem
ocrats of character whose theories of
government differed completely from those
held by Republican protectionists-men
who had some regard for the accuracy OF
their statements and some knowledge on
the subjects they discussed Now attacks