The Taney County republican. (Forsyth, Mo.) 1895-1992, 1915-05-06
Democratic Legislation

s'ue Vi IHc CiaSSlC DIuBueIS vi Inc
present administration in now before
the Court OF Customs Appeals, and a
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 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 10 provide adequate revenue.
Enacted October l3, 1918, it failed
on its first test, and that test applied,
too, by the then Attorney General 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
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 inoper'
ative.
The FIVE per cent discount to
American vessels cannot be giveD,"
is the language Of the Attorney Gene
quoted by the Secretary, without i'm
pairing the stipulations Of existing
treaties between the United States
and various other powers, and conse'
quently the subsection is imperative"
Acting on this opinion the Secretary
OF the Treasury issued an order 10 Gus
toms collectors, instructing them to
make no allowance Of discount on
duties under this provision.
Importers who hae relied on the law
appealed to the Board Of General
Appraisers. Their ruling resulted in
further confusion, and neither side
i
being satisfied, the case was taken to
the Court OF Customs Appeals, more
than a year after the law had passed.
The Democratic Committee report
on the five per cent provision defined
it as "a discrimination in favor OF
American shipping, designed to build
up our products to foreign markets."
Yet although they fully realized the
tremendous importance OF this measure
which they said involved millions Of
dollars, they lacked the foresight to
consult their own Attorney General as
to possibility Of enacting it into law.
They had a vague idea Of what they
wanted, adopted a vague method Of
trying TO secure it, and by careless
guess work threw the whole matter
into the courrs.
Furthermore, even il the principle OF
discrimination had not been question
by the Attorney General the provision
was so clumsily dralteb that three Diff
ferent interpretations have been placed
upon it. Counsel for the importers
claimed one Interpretation, govern
ment attorneys claimed another, and
the Board Of General Appraisers fur
nish a third different from all.
During the debate in Congress on
this provision, Republican members
repeatedly warned the Democrats that
quite apart from its policy, its phrase
ology was meaningless and should be
corrected TO become effective.
II was so muchh br.at wasted. The
majority refused to accept either
caution, suggestion or ammenement.
The result has been that this very
important clause has thus far proven
mere useless verbiage, except to
cause litigation and expense 10 all
concerned. About the only purpose
it has served is TO emphasize the fact
that the inefficient methods Of Demo
cratic Legislators have made it impos-
sible for them TO put even their own
ideas into effect.
The soundness Of the protective
tariff principle has been abundantly