THE TRIBUN E.

For The Tribune.


cscre4ary Bibb and the Duty on
1i' Chains.
{"character_count": 3422, "word_count": 620, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9422000050544739], "ccnet_perplexity": [1401.4000244140625], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
~. Treasury Circular of August 5, 1914, is


..;,,y p very extraordinary affair, so far as it


s,,. IL chain cables and other chains. On
'', s,., and paris the duty is p els. per lb.-so
=. secretary decides. Then comes the clause,
-. II other chains of iron not otherwise speci


s.Ss &c. thirty per cent. This clause frs,
E:-,,,ed in the bill, reported by the Secretary


~ "a. copied and reported by the Committee


.,w,vs and Means; but in the progress of re-


80, the subsequent clause f" wrought iron nails


-. cents per pound" was 50 modified as to
...,, - between the word mats and the word four
h,. son a1letrees or parts thereof, mil-irons
IA miIl.cranks Of wrought iron, or wrought iron


q, ,biOs locomotives and steam engines, or
- ,hoins other than chaia cables, and on NAL
l,.us iron or castings" This clause was in
..,S,d of course to cover drought iron chains
o,be, than cables, and it is specified; but either
Fam accidcn, or as is most likely from the i'm
,ession that the 80 per cent. clause might
.nbrace o,hcr chains than those here specified,
fiat was left, it being harmless and imperative,
ncept on such chains as were not otherwise
secfed"-but IN this last clause wrought iron
chains are specified, and specific duty OF cts


ps, pound placed on them-of course the gene
"a. aa ualorem duty Of 80 per cent. does not
apply. say drought, because this whole
clause relates TO articles Of wrought iron and
malleable IRON. This is manifest from the clause
itself and from the fact that by the secreta-
rys bIl the clause stood con cut or wrought
n,ils" cts but afterward cut nails ware put in
sclause by itself and the wrought iron clause
Immediately follows. Yet the Secretary decides
thu. all chains other than cables shall pay but 80
p.r cent ad palorem, while the wrought iron
prepared for chaias" shall pay cts. per lb.-
thus making the raw material pay twice as
much duty as the manufactured article, and this
too directly in the teeth of the proviso which
requires that no dticlc manufactured Of iron
shall pay less rate of duty than is chargeable
OF the material of which it is composed, and Is
per cent, ad ualorem on the cost of the article


This proviso seems to snve been entirely over
looked or repealed by the Secretary. Similar
progsos in the act of 1882. under pretext that
they could not be executed, were suspended by
riders placed on bills relating to other subjects
until 1898 when Congress, through ignorance of
,herimportaucc, repealed them. Laws U. S. Vol.
X p. 766,l-C. C.. CambrelIeng, of N. York,
Henry Horn, of Philadelphia, and Mahlon Dick
gson, of n. ]. could tell how the fraud on The
law of 1892 was committed but how the Sc
srlsry has legslated away the proviso should
Il inquired into. Nor can [ sec how the Secre.
tary gets duty of A cts. per pound on wrought
non for chains, unless ho means the law TO read
ION wrought iron for iron chains" which violates
grammar and common sense, and would be
idculous as it is not likely that other chains
than iron could be made of " wrought iron."-
Suppose the 80 per cent. clause had been in the
end Of the section or bill and read thus, Z" on all
chains and other articles of iron, not other,cisc
specified" 80 per cent aa ualOrem-according
to The Senrctar,'s construction, would trace.
chains pay duty of 30 per cent or of cts. per
poundl Which clause must yield, that giving
the specific or the one giving the general duty