Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1910-08-13
.VHaydensFirst

support OF that recommendation gave the
following reasons to the committee
Under the act of 1897 there were in
excess or 1000 cases litigated before the
board of general appraisers and the courts
due to the fact that paragraph 449 i'm
posed 80 per cent ad valorem on manufac-
lures OF bone' chip, grass, horn, India
rubber, straw, ETC., while manufactures of
wood, under paragraph 208 paper, under
paragraph 4W; hard rubber and leather
under paragraph $50; dolls, under para.
Brhph 4lS. ana hats, bonnets and hoods
unlrimmed, for women and children, conf
posed or chip, straw, grass or palm leaf
IN paragraph 100, were all subject to a
llugated cases involved the almost hoDe-
less task OF determining which Of the ma.
terlals was the component OF chief value
Trouble Over Interpretation.
Chips: straw and grass. when manufae.
tured into articles, unless specially named
IN the tariff act, are always in combiuh-
tlon WIN wood, paper or leather, hence II
invariably followed that the government
COMMENDED that the materials which were
subject to duty of IS per cent were the
components OF chief value, while the i'm
porters maintained tnar CHIP, grass or
straw which were subject to q duty of 20
per cent, was OF more value than the other
materials.
TT was especially difficult to determine
whether the wood contained in innumera BILE
articles was In the form Of chip or OF
wood. Baskets, toilets and hundreds of
dpferent descriptions Of goods were con-
dutiable at 30 per cent as CHIP, while the
government contended that the material
was not chip, but Wood-or wood split very
tlne-and was therefore. dutable at IS per
Fancy articles composed OF paper card
board, ofnamented more or less elaborately
with bralds composed of grass or straw,
or OF so-called chip, also resulted in much
friction and litigation, the importers con-
tending that such articles were dutiable
at 80 per cent as manufactures OF straw,
grass or chip, respectively, while the gov
eminent contended that they were dutiAbe
at % per cent as manufactures OF paper.
Hard rubber was provided for In para
graph 45O at 50 per cent while India rubber
Then where hard rubber ended and India
rubber began was another prolific source
OF controversy. India rubber dolls were
provided for in paragraph AS at 30 per
toys were excluded from that paragraph
and made dutiable at 80 per cent under
paragraph 449.
Difficult to Define "DOlIs."
The determination as to whether certain
Figures were dolls or not caused great dis
turbance In the trade. and the question in
many cases had 10 be determined by the
courts-a requirement that left importers
80 or % per cent duty on an endless
variety OF India rubber toys.
ITO avoid expensive litigation, delay and
uncertainty In classificatio leading i'm
lures OF India rubber be made IS per cent
the same as toys. Inasmuch as para
graphs $50 407, lO9 and $50 all imposed a
duty OF IS per cent on substance Of a Kin
| bned with those enumerated In paragraph
] 40, 10 avoid future litigation and TO accort
with the wishes OF OF the importers and
purposes OF administration / urged tina
the rate OF duty should be made 80 pc
cent 70 correspond with that specined II