The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

22 DEVOTED TO EVERYTHING AND EVERY INTEREST CONNECTED OR ASSOCIATED WITH MARINE MATTERS ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH. Published every Thursday by The Penton Publishing Co. CLEVELAND. BOSTON NEW YORK DULUTH PHILADELPHIA CHICAGO PITTSBURG CINCINNATI Correspondence on Marine Engineering, Ship Building and Shipping Subjects Solicited. Subscription, $3.00 per annum. To Foreign Countries. $4.50. Subscribers can have addresses changed at will. - Change of advertising copy must reach this office on Thursday preceding date of publication. ™he Cleveland News Co. will supply the trade with the MARINE REVIEW through the regu- lar channels of the American News Co. European Agents, The International News Com- pany, Breams Building, Chancery Lane, i London, E. C. England, Entere atthe Post Office at Cleveland, Ohio, as Second Class Matter. January 10, 1907 PREGNANT WITH POSSIBILI- TiS, An eminent New York Mr. John S. Wise, has written to Sec- retary of the Treasury Shaw, suggest- attorney, ing that section 22 of the Dingley tar- iff act is not. being enforced as in- tended by congress. As it reads, the section provides for the collection of an extra or discriminating duty of 10 per cent on all imports in foreign ves- sels, and on all imports coming into the United States from foreign territory where stich imports contiguous are production or Only imports in foreign vessels that are pro- not the growth, manufacture of such territory. tected against the collection of this ex- tra duty through existing treaties would be exempt.. The only treaty on this subject with Great Britain is that of 1815, and this merely exempts imports from "his Britannic majesty's posses- "THE. MarINE REVIEW sions in Europe" from the extra duty. Imports in British vessels from any other part of the world are subject to that extra duty. When the Dingley tariff act went. into effect in 1897, collectors of cus- toms along our northern border began at once the collection of the extra duty of 10 per cent on all imports en- tering that were not the growth, pro- duction or manufacture of Canada, the effect threatened to be disastrous to the Ca- of which was serious and nadian Pacific and other Canadian railroads. A great sensation followed, Speaker Reed asserting that section 22 "slipped in" to the act without the intent of congress. If our recollection serves, a British vessel with ore was assessed the extra duty in an Amer- ican Atlantic: port. --Ehe secretary of the treasury secured an opinion from the attorney general, in which the lat- ter contended that congress had con- templated no change in the existing status of the discriminating duty pol- The first tariff act provided for the protection icy, in enacting section '22. of American shipping through a less duty on imports in American than was collected on imports in foreign ves- sels. Four years.later this plan was reversed. Thereafter an extra duty of 10 per cent was collected on all im- ports in foreign vessels above the reg- ular duties that were collected on im- : Much higher tonnage dues were also col- ports in American vessels. lected on foreign than were required of American vessels. Under these 'laws American vessels for sixty years carried an average of over 80 per cent By were of our entire foreign commerce. treaties these discriminations gradually discontinued. An act was passed: in 1828 empowering the presi- dent, by proclamation, to suspend the collection of these discriminating tar iff and tonnage duties when satisfied that other nations were no longer ex- British vessels did not enjoy the benefits of acting them on our ships. this last-named act until 1850. Since then discriminating customs and ton- nage duties have been but rarely col- lected, although the statutes, provid- ing for such collection, in more or less abridged form, has been carried down from the first to the last tariff acts. It was in the Wilson-Gorman act, although radically amended in the > existing tariff act. At that time Senator Elkins had be- a Bue to laws and abrogate all treaties that in- -- fore congress repeal all terfered with the collection of this ex- tra or discriminating duty. That part of the Elkins bill that repealed the laws against the collection of the ex- tra duty was, in substance, incorpor- ated in the Dingley act as section 22. In that form, the treaties still in force protect certain and vessels impo-ts from the collection of the extra duty. The secretary of the treasury or- dered a cessation of the collection of this discriminating duty as soon as he received the attorney general's opin- Later the United States Board of General Appraisers reviewed the 10n, acts of the collectors of customs that had assessed the extra duty. The law officer of the government who repre- sents the side of the government in cases before the Board of General Appraisers, under instructions, pre- sented as the side of the government in this case merely the opinion of the attorney general. Attorneys claiming to represent commercial organizations, but who by their zeal seemed to repre- sent Canadian were there rlailroads, to protest against the collection of the extra duty. No one was before the board to explain or defend the action 'of the collectors of customs. who had collected the extra duties. A citizen was represented by an attorney who contended for the enforcement of the act as it reads. The Board of General Appraisers decided in accordance with -he opinion of. the attorney general, and so the law has since that time re- mained a dead letter. If, as it is stated Mr. Wise has sug- gested, the secretary. of the treasury, makes up a case in order to bring be- fore the United States courts a judi- cial determination of the meaning and intent of congress in enacting section 22--which, considering all of the cir- cumstances in should have the case, been done nine years or moze ago-- the proceedings will be intensely in-