The Logan Republican. [volume] (Logan, Utah) 1902-1924, 1915-05-06

| Q deCiS on Is looked LOT at an cary
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 import
| ed in American vessels. Thus far
| that clause has failed in its purpose,
| just as the tariff measure of which
It is a part failed to provide adequate
revenue.
Enacted October 10, 1913, 1t 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 n his mind as to the va
lidity 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 mop
erative.
THE five per cent discount to Am
erican vessels cannot be given is
the language of the Attorney Gener
al quoted by the Secretary without
impairing 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 Secre-
tary of the Treasury issued an order
to customs collectors, instructing
them to make no allowance Of dis.
count on duties under this provision.
Importers who had relied on the
law appealed to the Board of General
Appraisers. Their ruling resulted in
further confusion and neither side be-
ing 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 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 mil
lions of dollars, they lacked the fore
sight to consult their own Attorney
General as to the possibility of en-
acting 1t into law. They had a vague
idea of what they wanted, adopted
a vague method of trying to secure
1t, and by careless guess work threw
the whole matter into the courts.
Furthermore, even IL the principle
OF discrimination had not been ques-
toned by the Attorney General the
provision was so clumsily drafted
that three different interpretations
have been placed upon It. Counsel for
the importers claimed on interpreta-
ton, government attorneys claimed
another, and the Board of General
Appraisers furnish 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
was meaningless and
should be corrected to become effect
i've.
II was SO much breath wasted. The
stubbornly refused to &C.
cept either caution, suggestion or
amendment. The result has been
that this very important clause has
thus far proven mere useless VERDI
age, except to cause litigation and ex.
pense to all concerned. About the |
only purpose 1t has served is to EN-.
phasize the fact that the inefficient
methods of Democratic. legislators
have made 1t impossible for them to
put even their own ideas into effect.