The Ely miner. [volume] (Ely, Minn.) 1895-1986, 1936-07-30

larger labor structure of the coun-
try and, if that be true, it is made
to appear that Mr.. Lewis has hurt
Abor's cause.
On the other hand, the steel in
dustry already is under attack by
the government. Mr.. Roosevelt
suddenly cracked down" on some
of the major companies recently,
charging them with collision in
bids on government work. He
came out with this charge at
time which undoubtedly will stiffen
the backbone of the union agita-
tors-and it is not unlikely that by
the same token he has stiffened
the resistance which the steel COM
panies will use.
Yet, it does seem that the steel
companies made a fatal mistake in
the announcement they have is
sued. There are too many people
who will be inclined to believe that
the steel companies have taken adj
vantage of an apparent assurance
of collapse of federal supervision.
There are few who believe that the
federal compulsory collective bar
gaining statute will last very long
but the fact that this statute is
due for the discard, it SENS to
me, hardly warrants the action
which the steel companies nave
taken. They are no more war
ranted in that than union labor is
warranted in taking advantage of
the political situation to feather
their own nest. A real danger, in
addition to this, is that Communist
agitators are going to use this stu
alton as one vehicle for spreading
their propaganda of dissatisfaction
and discomfort and Mr.. Roosevelt's
attack on massed capital unfortu-
nately lends itself to the nefarious
schemes of the Reds.
It long has been said that the
method of administering laws fire.
quently has Great
Tax LaJD ed more dissatis-
Irritation faction among the
citizens than the
requirements of laws themselves.
Tax laws of whatever kind furnish
a splendid example. 1t has always
been true since we have had in
come tax laws that taxpayers
have complained more about bu-
reaucratic regulation, indecision,
lack of uniformity in administra-
ton and, generally speaking, slow
processes of settlement than about
the amount they were required to
pay. The same is true about our
customs laws despite the fact that
they affect fewer persons directly.
The other day the Treasury is
sued a notice to customs inspectors
that was effective Immediately.
1t was a change in policy respect
ing the quantity of goods an indi-
vidual may bring in from foreign
shores without the payment of the
customs tax.
Since 1898 or Whereabouts, there
has been a law which permitted a
returning American to bring in
commodities of whatever kind he
desired, except narcotics, up to
$500 in value but that law permit
ted the Treasury to make excep-
tons. The Treasury notice the 9TH
er day was an announcement of
an exception to this 500 exemp-
ton. It said that no inbound trav-
eler could carry more than one
wine gallon of liquor without the
payment of the customs tax there
on. A practice had sprung up since
the import duty on liquors has been
made so high of returning tourists
bringing in almost the full exemp-
ton in liquor alone. Probably the
practice was getting very bad and
no one questions the judgment of
the Treasury in determining poll
cy. But it is the method employed
in making this change that has
aroused criticism.
In ordering the new regulation
effective Immediately, the Treas
ury forced upon hundreds of trav-
elers the necessity for paying duty
on their personal stocks of liquor
in what amounts to a surprise Or
der. They had left foreign shores
under one regulation and arrive un-
der another.
I have no doubt at all that the
Treasury's reason for changing the
rule while the game was being
played will result in a considerable
amount of revenue for the govern
ment. But there are many who
believe, as I do, that the depart
ment in all fairness should have
issued its regulation to become eff
fective at some fixed date in the
future in order that citizens who
must comply with it would be pre-
pared by proper notification of
what they were expected to do and
the penalties for failure to obey.
The fact that the order concerned
liquor is of no moment 1t is the
principle of such administration
that is criticized and that ought to
be criticized.
The incident to which I have re-
ferred is an outstanding example
of reconsideration and such things
always cause citizens to have a
hurt feeling, feeling that the gov
eminent changed the rules without
consulting those who must obey the
rules. 1t turned out in this case
to be a rather expensive surprise,
but that again is not the point. It
SENS to me that government
can afford, inded it ought, to deal
generously with its citizens because
without their cooperation enforce
ment of laws becomes overdifficult.
1t seems to me, likewise, that in
this particular case a little COM