Potosi journal. (Potosi, Mo.) 1894-1929, 1915-06-02
A Classical Blunder.

just passed the review of tn
Court of Customs Appeals.
The court was called upon t.
interpret the meaning of the pre-
vision of the Underwood tarit
bill proposing to give five Pc
per cent discount in custom!
duties on merchandise imported
in American vessels. Thus fa1
that clause has failed in it's pur
pose, just as the tariff measure
has failed to provide suficien
revenue.
Enacted October IS, 1913, i
failed in it's first test, and tina
test applied, too, by the then At
torney General less than 80 days
after the bill was signed.
No sooner had the tarif1
bill been presented to the Secre
tary of the Treasury for admin
istration than a doubt arose ir
his mind as to the validity Of the
five per cent discount provision
He appealed for advise to Attor
ney General McReynolds, who
is now on the Supreme Court
bench. The provision was pro
nounced imperative.
The five per cent discoun,
cannot be given, is the language
of the Attorney General quoted
by the Secretary, without i'm.
pairing the stipulations of exist
ing treaties between the United
States and various other powers,
and consequently the subsection
is Imperative"
Acting on this opinion the Sec
retary of the Treasury issued an
order to customs collectors, in.
structing them to make no al.
lowance of discount on duties
under this provisisn.
Importers who relied on the
law appealed to the Board of Gen.
eral Appraisers. Their ruling
resulted in further confusion,
and neither side being satisfied,
the. case was taken to the Court
of Customs Appeals. This court
has just rendered decision up
holding the validity of the five
per cent clause, but ruled also
that it must apply to imports
carried in vessels of any nation
coming under existing favoring
shipping treaties with the Unit
ed States, which include about
all foreign vessels entering our
ports. This means a cut of five
per cent in the revenues S
resulting from imports, and the
Treasury will have to refund
something like SIS, 100000 al
ready collected.
The Democratic Committee re.
port on the five per cent provi'
sion defined it as "a discrimina.
tion in favor of American ship
ping, designed to build up our
merchant marine and keep at
home millions of dollars now be-
ing paid to foreign vessels tc
carry our products to foreign
markets.
Yet although they fully real
lied the tremendous importance
Of this measure which they said
involved millions of dollars, they
lacked the foresight to consult.the
Attorney General as to it's prob
able effect if enacted into law
They had vague idea of what
they wanted and adopted vague
method of trying to secure it.
Furthermore, the discrimlna
tion sought in favor of American
vessels now, under the Custom
Appeals Court construction oi
the law. proves to be no discrim
nation at all, since it cannot be
made to apply in favor of Amer
can vessels alone.
During the debate in Congress
on this provision, the Republican
mem bers repeatedly warned the
Democrats that, apart from its
policy, its phraseology was mean
ingless and should be corrected
to become effective.
1t was so much breath wasted
The majority stubbornly refused
to accept either caution, sugges
tion or amendment The result
has been that we have law tha'
operates contrary to its intend
ed purpose, and emphasizes the
fact that the inefficient method.