The Republican journal. [volume] (Belfast, Me.) 1829-current, 1915-06-03
ANOTHER BLUNDER IN TARIFF ACT

| WASHINGTON. D. c., May "a, 1915 typical
example of inexcusable laundering by Congress
in the enactment of statute has been argued
recently before the Court of Customs Appeals.
The court is asked to interpret the meaning of
paragraph 408 of the Underwood tariff act, the
first important law of the present administra-
| ton.
The paragraph provides free entry for
waste" of any of the articles therein described
SUITABLE for the manufacture of paper. Care
| less use of the word Suitable" in drafting the
law plunged it into uncertainty, for it admits
wide latitude of construction. Will free entry
| be given to any thing that might be used in
paper making; or must waste be used only in
paper making in order to enter free of duty?
Already two opposing constructions have
been placed upon the statute, one by customs
officials who imposed a tax, another by the
Board of U. S. General Appraisers, who allowed
free entry. Now the higher court is appealed
to for third opinion as to the intent of the
law makers.
The blunder is more notable because the
language of former tariff acts was an ample
guide, clearly emphasizing the need for I'M
equivocal diction. The act of 1897 provided
free entry for waste eft only" to be converted
into paper. The corresponding paragraph in
the 1909 act extended free entry to waste fused
chiefly" for paper making.
With these provisions in the old law, it seems
as though intelligent revision would have been
simplicity itself. But with their fatal gift of
laundering the Democrats seized upon and in
serted Suitable" in the law the one word that
neither customs officials, lawyers nor business
men affected could understand, and which
rendered imperative the litigation now in the
courts before the statute can be finally en-
forced.
WASHINGTON, May 26. The so-called five
per cent" clause of the tariff law, granting
reduction of duties to that amount on goods
imported in American ships. was sustained to-
day by the customs court, which held also that
the five per cent rebate must be granted on all
goods imported in ships of those countries
with which the United States has Favored ma
ton" treaties. As such treaties exist with the
principal countries of the world the effect of
the decision is virtually to reduce the customs
revenue by five per cent. If the decision is
sustained by the Supreme Court of the United
States. to which it will be appealed, approxi-
mately $15.OO0,OOO in duties already collected
must be refunded.
In dissenting opinion Judge De Vries
pointed out that the msjority decision means
that goods imported in about $500 foreign yes.
sells Of favored nations countries shall receive
| this reduction in customs duties. Five per
cent Of the estimated customs revenues for
the present fiscal year will exceed 81, 900 600.
and in years to come this total would grow to
| even greater proportions. Moreover, it was
! pointed out that the decision. if it stands the
test in the Supreme Court, is retros ctive to the
| extent that it applies to importations into the
United States since approval of the Under
wood Simmons law more than two years ago,
including goods entered in bond and subse-
| quently withdrawn without payment of this
rebate.
| Government officials realize that the decision
may have profound effect on the fiscal policy
Of the United States.
At present the actual working balance in the
Treasury 10 under $16.000. 900. though possibly
$40.0O0.000 is available to be added to this if
necessary.
With another deficit in the postal revenues
and no increase in internal revenue Of customs
receipts now in sight, talk Of the necessity for
an issue of Panama Canal bonds was revived
in view Of the prospect of reduced customs
revenues and the necessity Of refunding mill
l.