The Republican journal., 1915-05-13
Blundering Democratic Legis-

A Provision of the Underwood Tariff Bill
Now Before the Customs Court of Ap-
peals for Interpretation.
WASHINGTON, May, 10, 1915. One of
the classic blunders of the present adj
ministration is now before the Court of
Customs Appeals, and a decision is look
ed 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 dis
count in customs 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 to prove adequate revenue.
Enacted October Is, 1913, 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 pre-
sented 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 appeal
ed for advice to Attorney General Nc
Reynolds, who is now on the Supreme
Court bench. The provision was pro-
nounced imperative.
'"The five per cent discount to Ameri-
can vessels cannot be given," is the Ian
guage of the Attorney General quoted
by the Secretary, without imparing
the stipulations of existing treaties be-
tween the United States and various
other powers, and consequently the SUBJ
section is Imperative"
Acting on this opinion the Secretary
of the Treasury issued an order to GUS
toms collectors, instructing them to
make no allowance of discount on duties
under this provision.
Importers who had relied on the law
appealed to the Board of General Ap-
praisers. Their ruling resulted in furth-
er confusion, and neither side being sat
isfed 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 mer-
chant marine and keep at home millions
of dollars now being paid to foreign ves-
sells to carry our products to foreign
markets."
Yet, although they fully realized the
tremendous Importance of this measure
which they said involved millions of dol
lars, they lacked the foresight to con-
suit their own Attorney General as to
the possibility of enacting it into law.
They had a vague idea of what they
wanted, adopted a vague method of try
ing to secure it, and by careless guess
work threw the whole matter into the
courts.
Furthermore, even if the principle of
had not been questioned
by the Attorney General, the provision
was so clumsly drafted that three diff
ferent interpretations have been placed
upon it. Counsel for the importers
claimed one Interpretation, government
attorneys claimed another, and the
Board of General Appraisers furnish a
a third, different from all.
During the debate in Congress on this
provision Republican members repeat
eddy warned the Democrats that, quite
apart from its policy, its phraseology
was meaningless and should be correct
ed to become effective.
1t was so much breath wasted. The
stubbornly refused to accept
either caution, suggestion or amend
ment. The result has been that this
very important clause has thus far prov
en- mere useless verbiage, except to
cause litigation and expense to all con-
cerned. About the only purpose it has
served is to emphasize the fact that the
inefficient methods of Democratic legis-
lators have made it impossible for them J
to nut even their own ideas into effect