Jerome included the Deuterocanonicals in his translation (early 4c), so I do not dispute him.
If you are referring to hesitation regarding them, as well as regarding some other books later canonized, how is that relevant to the fact of what is or is not canonical?
He said flat out that they were not accepted as canonical. He believed that they were good for edification but not for doctrine. Re-read his statement. It wasn't a hesitation.
How it is relevant is we have 1st century Jewish canon saying what is canonical - a canon that the church accepted. You then have 4th Century Jerome saying that the books were useful for edification but were not accepted by the church as canonical. Then, Luther comes along and says they weren't canonical and the almighty council, as a part of their collective hissy fit, suddenly anathematizes anyone who says they aren't canonical.
Council of Trent:
"If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts [the 66 books of the Bible plus 12 apocryphal books, being two of Paralipomenon, two of Esdras, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Sophonias, two of Macabees], as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA."
"As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine."
Jerome
Excuse me Houston, doesn't anyone see a problem here?