Evening star., 1921-12-04

Congress again imposed a 10 per
cent additional duty, but mot on ves-
sells entitled by treaty or any act or
acts Of Congress to be entered in the
ports of the United States on pay
ment Of the same duties as in vessels
Of the United States"
Again, in the tariff act of 1890.
Congress provided for a 10 per cent
discrimination in favor of American
ships, but the provisions of the law
will not apply to goods imported IN
vessels from countries entitled by
treaty or act of Congress to the same
entered in the ports Of the United
States in American ports" Congress
went further, and in the same law
provided that mo goods shall be i'm
States unless in cases covered by spe,
ciak treaties" The tariff acts OF 1897
and 1909 contained the same provi-
sions substantially. The tariff law
Of 1913, now in force. has the same
provision, but it shall not apply to
goods imported in vessels not OF the
United States entitled by treaty or
convention or act Of Congress to be
entered in the parts of the United
States on payment Of the same duties
as on goods imported in vessels OF
the United States" The act of 1913
also allows an additional discount Of
5 per cent on all duties on goods
imported in vessels admitted to regis
tration under the laws of the United
States, provided that nothing in this
section shall be SO construed as TO
abrogate or in any manner impair or
effect the provisions Of any treaty
concluded between the United states
and any foreign country.
Supreme Court Decision.
The United States Supreme Court. in
the case of U. S. VS.. NJ. H. Pulaski
(243 U. S.. Oct, 1906. decided that
"the subsection means what it says;
1t grants the discount to none" In
other words. the discriminatory pro-
visions Of the law are inoperative
when special commercial treaties In
tervene. Facing this situation, and
desiring to place the country in a
position where 1t could, If thought de-
sirable, restore discriminating import
duties, the Senate committee on COM
merce and Congress itself inserted
section "a In the Jones law, author
within ninety days. to notify az
countries having such treaties with
the United States Of the abrogation
Of all portions Of such treaties which
prevent discriminating duties.
Through Secretary Of State Colby.
President Wilson announced his re-
fusal to carry out the mandate OF
section "a, on the ground that (1)
"the mandate of Congress was made
regardless Of the fact that the trea-
ties contain no provision for termina-
tion;" (2) ''abrogation would destroy
our commercial relations;" - tine
power to make new treaties lies with
the President"
Debate in the Senate on section "a
Of the Jones law began May 20, 1920.
and throws a food of light on the
reasons which prompted Congress to
insert this provision in the law. Sen
ator Jones said: I'VE are not seeking
retaliation, but do not fear it." sena-
tor Lodge said: There is nothing vio-
lative in this section" In the debate
it was stated that practically all OF
the commercial treaties and conven-
tions that held the nations together
six years ago have been ended either
by war or denunciation." The section
was agreed to without vote. Con-
gress indorsed the policy of dis.
eliminating duties" as a means OF
building up and permanently main
tanning an American merchant ma
rine. Between 1865 and 1875 several
attempts were made to secure the
abrogation Of such portions of the
commercial treaties as prevented dis
eliminating tariffs. All failed.
The only alternative TOR the per-
manent rehabilitation of the Ameri-
can merchant marine is system Of
subsidies or subventions in the form
Of direct aid OK mail Day The United