The Salt Lake herald-Republican. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1909-1918, 1910-08-12

THE HERALD-REPUBLIO
si4S. OO0. O0o. and exports in 1907 to the
ports OF the classes referred TO have
never reached in value 1 per cent OF
the domestic production.
There has been in recent years a
Of the imports of rubber manufac-
lures, owing largely to the fact that
the American manufacturers were
gradually taking possession OF the
American market for automobile tires
and 10 the fact that two of the most
important makers of tires-Michelin
and the Continental company-trans
ferred their plants for the supply of
their American market TO the United
States.
Advice of Tariff Experts.
when the tariff bill reached the fl
nance committee h was stated 10 US
by the treasury experts who had been
assigned by the President to assist the
committee in the preparation Of amend
that the rates OF duty imposed by para
graphs l40 ATS, 455 and 165 of the
House bill on the miscellaneous manu-
features or various materials should be
uniform with the dates imposed on
similar manufactures in other parts of
the bill.
THE statements of facts that led TO
the uuaUllAOuh conclusion or Ine finance
committee and the conference commit
tee TO recommend an increase in duty
on the articles named in paragraph 463
are clearly set forth in the following
letter OF Judge Sharretts to me.
United States Customs Service
Board Of United States General APP
praisers. Gal Washington street, New
York July 81, 1910.
:" Hon. Nelson w. Aldrich. chairman
committee on finance, United States
Senate. Washington, d. C:
My Dear Senator-Under instruc-
tons from President Taft. l was in
Washington and gave such aid as l was
able to the finance committee of the
Senate in the preparation of the tariff
act Of 1909.
Regarding paragraph 463, 1 urged
that the rates of duty specified therein
should be made IS per cent instead of
so, as in paragraph 449 of the Dingley
act In support Of that recommends
ton l gave the following reasons TO
the committee:
Under the act of 1897 there were
in excess OF five thousand cases liti-
gated by the board OF general apprais-
ers and the courts, due to the fact that
paragraph 449 imposed 80 per cent ad
Valorem on manufactures of bone, chip,
grass, horn, rubber, straw, etc. while
manufactures OF wood, under paragraph
4OSi paper, under paragraph 4O7; hard
rubber and leather, under paragraph
500; dolls, under paragraph Is, and hats,
DOnnets and hoods, untrimmed, for
women and children, composed of chip,
straw, grass or palm leaf, in paragraph
4OS, were all subject TO a duty OF 80
per cent ad ValOrem, and these Itigated
cases involved the almost hopeless
tasks OF determining which of the ma
tertals was the component OF chief
value.
Cause of Litigation.
Chips. straw and grass, when manu-
featured into articles, unless specially
named in the tariff act are. always a
com binatiOn with wood, paper or
leather; hence, il invariably followed
that the government cOntended that the
materials which were subject to a duty
of 30 per cent were the cOmponents of
chief value. while the importers main
tanned that chip, grass or straw, whick
were subject to duty of 80 per cent,
were. of more value than the other ma
terial.
1T was especially difficult to deter
mine whether the wood contained in
innumerable articles was in the form
of chip or wood. Baskets, toilets and
hundreds of different descriptions OF
goods were consequently claimed by
cent IS chip, while the government con-
tended that the material was not chip, |
but WOOd-OF wood split very fine
and was, therefore, dutiable at IS per
cent.
Fancy articles composed of paper
cardboard, ornamented more or less
with braids composed of
grass or straw, or of so-called chip, |
also resulted in much friction and liti- |
cation, the importers cOntendfng 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 duti- /
able at 80 per cent as manufactures as
paper
paragraph 45O at IS per cent, while |
India rubber was named in paragraph /
44S at so per cent. Then, where hard /
rubber ended and India rubber began I
IVA hapr ~ -
versy. India rubber dolls were pro- 1
vtded for in paragraph Alb 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 f4s.
whether Dolls or Not.
The determination as to whether /
certain figures were dolls or not /
caused great disturbance in the trade, /
and the question in many cases had 4
to be determined by the courts re- /
luirement that left importers in doubt /
whether they would have to pay 80 4
or 80 per cent duty on an endless /
variety of India rubber toys.
" To avoid expensive litigation, de- 1
lay and uncertainty in classification. |
leading importers urged that the duty 4
on manufactures OF India rubber be /
made 80 per cent, the same as toys.
lnasmuch as paragraphs 20S. 4O7, 400
and 45O all imposed a duty OF IS per |
cent on subs tances of a kindred nature /
u those which had TO be combined 4
with those enumerated in paragraph /
i49 10 avoid further litigation and 10
accord with the wishes of the import
ars and the officers Of the government,
solely for purposes OF administration,
Judged that the rate Of duty should be
made 80 per cent to accord with that
specified in other paragraphs of the
act Had the numerous other para
yraphers of the act Provid I'd lower
-ate of duty than paragraph 463,. i
should have recommended that the rate
De changed to conform thereto.
Finance Committee Unanimous.
After listening to the reasons gave \
'Or the proposed change. the finance
unanimously approved of the
recommendation and the conference
before whom made the
iame statement did the same. both
House and Senate agreeing that it
gould be the part of wisdom TO avoid
he continuance Of the difficulties nd
disputes that had arisen between the
government and the importers, cue to