Fulton County tribune. (Wauseon, Ohio) 1883-1925, 1915-05-07
AS REPUBLICANS SEE TT.

One OF the classic blL..~ers of the
present administration is now be-
fore the Court of Customs Appeals
and decision is looked for at an early
date.
The Court is expected to interpret
the meaning of the provision in the
Underwood Tariff bill proposing to
give a five per cent. discount in Gus
toms duties on merchandise imported
in American vessels. Thus far that
clause has failed In its purpose, just
as the tariff measure of which it is
part failed to provide adequate reve-
nue..
Enacted October 13, 1918, it fall
ed on its first test, and that test ap-
piled, too, by the then Attorney Gen
eral less than 80 days after the bill
was signed.
No sooner had the tariff bill been
presented to the Secretary of the
Treasury for administration than a
doubt arose in his mind as to the
validity of the five per cent. discount
provision. He appealed for advice to
Attorney General McReynolds, who is
now on the Supreme Court bench.
The provision was pronounced inopera-
htive.
"The five per cent. discount to
American vessels cannot be given"
is the language of the Attorney Cen
eral quoted by the Secretary, "with-
out impairing the stipulations of
existing treaties between the Unit
ed States and various other powers,
and consequently the subsection is in
operative"
| Acting on this opinion the Secretary
of the Treasury issued an order to
customs collectors, instructing them
| to make no allowance of discount on
duties under this provision.
| Importers who had relied on the
law appealed to the Board of Cen
eral Appraisers. Their ruling result
ed in further confusion, and neither
side being satisfied, the case was
taken to the. Court of Customs Ap-
peals, more than a year after the
law had passed.
The Democratic Committee report
on the five per cent. provision defined
it as ga discrimination in favor of
! American shipping. designed to build
I up our merchant marine and keep at
home millions of dollars now being
! paid to foreign vessels to carry our
products to foreign markets"
! Yet although they fully realized the
tremendous importance of this meas
ure which they said involved millions
of dollars, they lacked the foresight
/ to consult their own Attorney Cen
eral as to the possibility of enacting
it into law. They had vague idea
Y of what they wanted, adopted vague
method of trying to secure it, and by
careless guess work threw the whole
matter into the courts.
i furthermore, even if the principle of
discrimination had not been ques-
toned by the Attorney General the
: provision was so clumsily drafted that
: three different interpretations have
II been placed upon it. Counsel for the
4 importers claimed one Interpretation,
government attorneys claimed an
= other, and the Board of General APP
{ praisers furnish third different from
r all.
$ During the debate in Congress on
4 this provision, Republican members
81 repeatedly warned the Democrats
I'll that, quite apart from its policy, its
: phra seology was meaningless and
al should. be corrected to become effec-
b tive.
}, It was so much breath wasted. The
: majority stubbornly refused to &C.
n cept either caution, suggestion OF
: amendment. The result has beer
that this very important clause has
thus far proven mere useless verbi
age. except to cause litigation arle
expense to all concerned. About the
r only purpose it has served is to EN-
phasize the fact that the inefficien'
s methods of Democratic legislators
{, have made it possible for them t.
: put even their own items into effect