Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1914-09-09
LOUISIANA CANE GROWERSFIGHT
IOGET SUIT BEFORE THE COURT

1 sugar Wnlen tine renneTS DOugHb IIOHl
Cuban planters at little more than the
cost of production. That sugar IS now
being sold to the American consumers
at prices which will realize profit to
/ the refining combine, in comparison
with which the amount of duty in dis
pute will seem small indeed.
| Very Respectfully,
PAUL j. CHRISTIAN.
| For the American Cane Growers Assn.
Treasury Department,
Washington, d. c.,
August Is, 1914.
Honorable E. Y. Webb,
Chairman, Committee on the Judi
eiary, House of Representatives.
Sir: i have the honor to aeknow-
ledge the receipt Of your letter of the
| 31st ultimo, inclosing copy of res
olution introduced by Mr.. Broussard
and referred to your committee. You
request an expression of my opinion as
| to its merits.
The resolution provides for the con.
sent Of the United States for the in
stitution Of a suit In the Supreme
Court Of the United States by the
State of Louisiana TO determine
whether the tariff act is properly con-
strued by the Secretary of the Treas
ury, in assessing duty on sugar import
!. ed from Cuba
1t is claimed in the petition filed in
the Supreme Court and referred to in
the resolution that Cuban sugar is du-
table At the rates provided in the tar
if act Of 1897, with a reduction of 20
per cent from those rates under the
Reciprocity Treaty of 1902, and the
act approved December IL, 1903, or in
the alternative, at the rates provided
in the Act Of October 3, 1918, without
o reduction of 20 per cent under the
Cuban Reciprocity Treaty.
This department held on February
Is, 1914, following an opinion of the
attorney general dated February 20,
1914, that Cuban sugar is dutiable at
the rates provided in the act OF 0cto-
her 3, 1913, with reduction of 20 per
cent under the said treaty of 1902.
Thereupon the State of Louisiana
( fled its petition in the Supreme Court
/ that the Secretary Of the Treasury and
his subordinates be restrained from adj
hitting Cuban sugar at the rates de-
termined by the Secretary Of the
Treasury to be the proper- ones. This
petition was denied by the Supreme
Court on June %, 1914.
In my opinion the construction
placed upon the law by this department
and the Attorney General is so obvious
" the intent Of congress that it would
be useless to submit the question to
the Supreme Court,
Since the beginning Of the govern.
ment it has been the policy of Cong
|ress to vest the Secretary of the
Treasury with the duty Of constituting
and enforcing the revenue laws iSee-
tions 24g, PSI, and 2652 Revised Stat.
utes), and the statutes have provided
fora review Of the secretary's deci-
sions by the courts when it was
claimed that higher rate, or a great
er amount Of duty, was assessed than
the law warranted.
The Court Of Customs Appeals, how
ever, held in Schwartz VS.. United
States, 3rd, C. G.. A. "a (Treasury De-
/ eision 32315), that protest might le-
eally claim that a higher rate Of duty
was payable than that assessed. Since
that decision was rendered Congress so
amended the law in Paragraph r Of
|, Section 3 Of the Tariff Act of 1913 as
TO permit protests and appeals only in
cases in which q higher rate was as
sessed than is claimed to be due.
This amendment Of the law clearly
shows the policy and intent Of Cong
ress to provide for : judicial review