The Denison review. [volume] (Denison, Iowa) 1867-current, 1910-08-17

N REVIEW.
United States Customs Service,
Board Of United States General APP
praisers, GAL Washington street. New
York, July 81, 1910. Hon. Nelson w.
Aldrich. Chairman Of Committee on
Finance, United States Senate, Wash
ington, d. C.-My Dear Senator: I'm
der instructions from President Taft
I was in Washington and gave such
aid as | was able to the finance com
mittee of the senate in the preparation
of the tariff act Of 1909.
Regarding paragraph 463, urged
that the rates of duty specified therein
should be made IS per cent instead
OF 80 per cent. as in paragraph AS
in the Dingley act. In support Of that
Recommendation I gave the following
reasons to the committee:
Under the act Of 1897 there were in
excess of 5000 cases litigated before
the board of general appraisers and
the courts. due to the fact that para
graph 449 imposed 80 per cent ad
valorem on manufactures Of bone,
chip, grass, horn, India rubber, straw,
etc, while manufactures OF wood I'M
der paragraph 20S; paper under para
graph 4O7; hard rubber and leather
under paragraph $50; dolls under par
agraph 41s. and hats. bonnets and
hoods, untrimmed, for women and
children. composed Of. chip, straw,
grass or palm Leaf, in paragraph 400,
were all subject to q duty Of 35 per
cant id valorem, and these litigated
cases involved the almost hopeless
task Of determining which Of the ma
jterials was the component OF chief
value.
Cause Of Much Friction.
Chips. straw and grass, when man
ufactured into articles, unless spec
tally named in the tariff act, are al
ways in combination with wood, paper
or leather; hence it Invariably fol-
lowed that the government contended
that the materials which were subject
to 2 duty Of IS per cent were the COM
ponents Of chief value. while the Inn
porters maintained that chip, grass or
straw, which were subject to duty
Iof 80 per cent, was Of more value than
the other materials.
1t was especially difficult to de-
termine whether the wood contained
in innumerable articles was in the
form Of chip or OF wood. Baskets, toll.
cts and hundreds Of different descrip.
tons Of goods were consequently
claimed by the importers to be duti.
able at 80 per cent as chip, while the
government commended that the materi
al was not chip, but wood or wood
split very fine and was therefore dut
liable at IS per cent.
Fancy articles composed of paper
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
gsgion; the importers contending tina
such articles were dutiable at 80 PEI
cent as manufactures of straw, gras.
or chip respectively while The govern
ment commended that they were duti
able at 35 per cent as manufacture
of paper.
Hard rubber was provided for il
paragraph $50 at IS per cent, while In
dia rubber was named in paragraph
449 at 80 per cent. Then where hare
rubber ended and India rubber begar
was another prolific source of contro
versy. India rubber dolls were pro
vided for in paragraph 41S at IS pei
cent. while India rubber figures AMI
other toys were excluded from tha
paragraph and made dutiable at 81
per cent under paragraph 449.
Courts Were Called on.
The determination as to whether
certain figures were dolls or MOI
caused great disturbance in the trade
and the question in many cases had tt
be determined by the courtsa re
quirement that left importers in doub
whether they would have to pay 3.
or IS per cent duty on an endless va
riety Of India rubber toys.
ITO avoid expensive litigation, de
lay and uncertainty in classification
leading importers urged that the dut.
there were many thousands of case
on manufactures of India rubber b,
made IS per cent, the same as toys
1nasmuch as paragraphs $50, 4O7 an,
\ $50 all imposed duty of IS per cen
on substances Of a kindred nature Q
those which had to be combined witt
those enumerated in paragraph AS
4 So ~ IN