New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-10-19
MIR. Redfeld as Law-Giver.


It is one Of Secretary Redfeld's idiosyn-
crasies that he believes our government 70
be one not of laws but of men. He con
s;ders himself something more than a
mere administrator. He assumes TO criti-
else those who differ with him as to the
Interpretation Of the laws and even to
pose as something of a law-giver himself,
with power co-equal 10 that of Congress.
This confusion of thought as regards
his functions is strikingly illustrated
in his letter to Mr.. McAdoo berating
the Pacific Mail Steamship Company
for using its own judgment as to the
disastrous effect on its business Of the
La Toilette seamen's law and for selling
C. favorable opportunity to dispose Of its
five trans-Pacifc liners. In his capacity
Is a censor of other peoples conduct he
Tesents the decision Of the company to
60 out Of business. 1t appears also from
his letter that he has almost persuaded
himself that the company, in spite of
friendly warnings from him, sacrificed
large profits and a great commercial fut-
ure solely for the sake of annoying the
administration.
Mr.. Redfelds chief grievance is that
The company would not give him a chance
o. modify the La Toilette law by construc-
ton. The law is harsh oppressive and
yiciously destructive. The administration
has not dared TO apply it literally. and by
a series of interpretations has practically
nulifed its most embarrassing features.
The law imposed unreasonable burdens on
american shipping. and rs an Offset prom
ised the American owner that his foreign
rival should be penalized at least to an
equal extent But it is somewhat iucon-
venient 10 penalize the foreign ship owner,
so the administrations law officers nave
given him a dispensation. thereby making
the American owners plight all the more
desperate.
Why should American shipping inter
csts adversely affected by the La Toilette
law now trust Mr.. Redfeld's pledges TO
undo in other respects the mischief done
by Congress? The courts do not recog-
aize the Secretary of Commerce as a law
giver. even though he likes 10 think that
he is one. The Court of Customs Appeals
only recently rebuked the Secretary Of
the Treasury for annuling a part Of the
Underwood tariff law by departmental
Interpretation. The Underwood law pro-
vided for rebate of per cent Of the
duty on all dutiable merchandise brought
into our ports in American bottoms. In
order to avoid trade wars with foreign
nations having reciprocal privilege treat
les with the United States, it was stipu
: lated that such treaties were not TO be
voided by the Underwood act. The Secre-
tary Of the Treasury did not want to paw
cut rebates. and so held the rebate section
g be imperative. But the Court of Gus
toms Appeals decided that his will could
not override the will of Congress. It
ordered rebates 10 be paid on all goods
brought in in American ships and in the
ships Of the nations with which we have
reciprocal treatment arrangements.
The La Toilette law interpretations are
not immune from court review, and a
business man would be foolish TO take
chances ON departmental notifications Of
the intent of Mr.. La Toilette and his sea-
mems union associates The purpose Of
the law is clear enough. 1t achieved one
Of its aims when it drove the Pacific Mail