Evening journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1888-1932, 1915-05-03
A CLASSIC BLuNDER.

- NE OF the classic bunders the present admins
" traton is before the Court of Customs APP
peals and 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 customs duties
merchandise imported in American vessels. Thus far
that clause has failed in its purpose just the tariff
of which it is part failed TO provide adequate
revenue
Enacted October 49, 1913 it failed on It's first test
and that test applied too, by the then Attorney General
less than thirty days after the bill was signed.
No had the tariff bill been presented to tho
Secretary OF the Treasury for administration than
doubt in his mind to the validity of the five
per cent discount provision. He appealed for advice
to Attorney General McReynods who is now on the
Supreme Court bench. The provision pronounced
imperative.
"The five per cent. discount to American vessels
cannot be given, is the language Of the Atorney-Gen
era, quoted by the Secretary. without mpairng the
stpulatons OF existing treaties between the United
States and various other powers and consequently
the subsection is imperative"
Acting this opinion. the Secretary of the Treasury
issued order to customs collectors nsructng
to make allowance of discount on duties under this
provision.
Importers who had relied the law appealed TO the
Board of General Appraisers. Their ruling resulted in
further confusion Neither side being satisfied the case
taken to the Court of Customs Appeals more than
year after the law had passed
The Democratic Committee report on the Ave per
cent provision defined il discrimination in favor
OF American shipping, designed build up our mer-
chant marine and keep home millions Of dollars
being paid to foreign carry our products
TO foreign markets"
Yet although they fully realize the tremendous inn
portance of this measure. which. they said involved
millions OF dollars they lacked the foresight to con-
suit their own Attorney General to the possibility
OF enactng it into law They had vague idea of what
they wanted, adopted vague method of trying TO
secure it, and by careless guess-work threw the whole
matter into the courts
Furthermore, even II the principle OF discrimination
had not been questioned by the Attorney the
provision cumsily drafted that three different
interpretations have been placed upon it, Counsel
to the importers claimed interpretation govern
attorneys claimed another and the Board of GEN
eral Appraisers furnished third different from all
During the debate in Congress this provision. Re
that quite apart from its policy its phraseology was
meaningless and should be corrected become efec-
tive
II was much breath wasted The majority stub
hornly refused to accept either caution suggestion or
amendment The result has been that this very inn
portant clause has thus proven mere useless YER
bage except litigation and expense to all con
cerned About the only purpose il has served is to
emphasize the fact that the inefficient methods of Demo-
cratic legislators have made impossible for them TO
put even their own ideas into effect