The Hartford republican. (Hartford, Ky.) 18??-1926, 1915-05-21

OASIS lOT NdiudtiOh 10 uooh'u w
failure: Generally speaking, the m
porter attempts to evade the pay
meut of the full amount of the duties
Openly or through schemes VII on
were often involved and complicated
many of the importers have Under
valued the cost of their products and
often have made carefully prepared
tariff measures appear-so far as
rightly of enforcement is concerned
like the tax laws of our states, where
"tax lodging" and differentiation
notorious features.
So IL was with the act of 1928.
English merchants especially lost no
opportunity to take advantage OF
the custom officials of this country
in undertaking their products and
wares. These minimum scale was
found TO be one of the weakest fea-
lures of the act. A loophole was
furnished the importers to evade the
payment of vast sums to this govern
nent. Little effort was made to dis
guise the intent. European mer-
chants and manufacturers laughed at
the custom officials, and pointed out
the section of the act of 1928 which
made the importers valuation the
basis of the tariff duties.
Protectionists however, were not
idle. They saw the danger which be-
set what otherwise was an excellent
tariff law and set about soon after
the passing of the law to remedy the
defects Part of these were abolish
ed in the revision of 1880. After
that year the movement to secure
the elimination of what properly
were called "abominations" in the
act of 1928 became stronger and it
proved irresistible in Congress in
1882.
Under the revision probably the
outstanding feature was the COM
pIete aboiisiIment of tire rfiTiiff ii fH
system. Wooden goods continued to
be the chief subject of consideration
in the revision of the tariff and it
was TO the duties of manufactured
wooden goods that the minimum sys-
tenn had proved most obnoxious.
Congress abolished the minimum and
replaced it with simple ad valorem
duty of SO per cent. Troubles of the
custom officials in dealing with i'm
pprters of wooden goods had arisen
to q great extent out of the dollar
minimum. Goods worth $1.25 and
$3.50 were invoiced to bring the
value to 81. By doing this the i'm
posters escaped the next minimum of
valuation of $3.50.
But it must be said that all of the
tfoubles arising out of the act of
1898 did not have their origin in the
depravity of the foreign exporting
houses. The high tide of feeling to-
ward protection had in some part
been allyed by the national prosper
tty and there was a laxative of en-
fnfcemept, then, as many times since,
on the part of the custom officials
who. strangely enough, often favor
Congress lost no time In the eras-
Congress lost not time in the eras-
tne OF the denominations from our
book of tariff laws. Probably one
Of the most unreasonable features
OF the act of 1928 was the provision !
Tor duty Of sac ton upon hemp |
This speedily was reduced to $40 a
ton. Importations of hemp increased
under this more reasonable duty, and |
domestic mpetition-fostered by !
several years of progress under a !
prohibitory duty-was stirred. Thus
the price was sent down and agricul-
tural America benefited. Manufac-
tufe of hempen articles in this coun- |
cry had reached stage where a
reduction from a prohibitory pro- /
tective duty to more reasonable"
dvtv did not effect a decentralization. |
Pig and bar iron on which there
was such an excessive rate in 1928, |
now received the same duty as they
possessed in 1924. Other articles
upon which il was generally admit
ted "abominable" duties were charg-
cd under the law of 1928 were re-
duced. Wool alone remained sub
stantially the same. A competitive
duty of four cents a pound was nam
cd for raw wool Cheap wool costing
less than eight cents a pound was
admitted free under the revision of
1882.
Pressure brought to bear by the
free traders upon the tariff acts of
1875 was great. Naturally they
were elated when they succeeded in
1882 in reducing the duties to a
point where they had been eight
years before. For, in effect, the re-
vision of 1882 brought the tariff -