The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1858-05-22
- s,>A ~

much less can they administer the oath to the nm
porter as authorized by the regulation sbrogated by
the Secretary of the Treasury by his circular of the
18th February last. No such oath is recognised by
tho act of 1923, nor by any other law of which
have any knowledge. Nor is oath, it is presumed,
authorized by the provincial laws so to be admins
tered Under these circumstances, it could, OF
course have no binding force in law and whatever
may have been the considerations that originally
supposed to require justify the regulation,
they have ceased to exist, there being now corps
of consular officers the British Provinces, 30 that
the provisions of law relating to the oaths Of non
resident owners and proofs of origin may be fully
enforced. IN rrsra sssa,fs SIS M 5000 III ~ lf.a.s
The other modification was to restore the provi-
sion Of the act Of 1928 Omitted in the regulations of
the LIST February, 1857 authorizing the oath to be
taken before local magistrate, and authenticated by
the consul. l,es54,sl5 ts- IA
The circular of the 18th February last supplies an
omission in the regulations of the LIST February,
1857, by providing the proof of origin to be made
by resident as we'll as nonresident owners, author
izing the consul to furnish certificate of origin
proof satisfactory to him without the intervention
of local magistrate And again that circular makes
another regulation for the relief of the provincial
trade not noticed, perceive in any of the COM
ments Of the press Consular certificates of origin
are required by that circular only in importatiops
exceeding one hundred dollars in value In i'm
portations Of less value the collector may admit to
entry free of duty any evidence of origin he may
deem satisfactory. Thus the great mass of border
traffic is relieved from the expense of consular GER
tifcates, which are left exclusively applicable to
commercial transactions Of considerable magnitude.
The extent of this relief will be readily understood
by any familiar with the constant traffic going
on in articles Of small value, every day and every
hour of the day, all along the boundary between the
United States and the British provinces, upon which
the expense of consular certificates would operate
ruinous burden Nor were consus' certificates
necessary in these cases for the protection of
the revenue, because, from the nature of the
traffic in articles produced within the provinces,
lector, he could readily satisfy himself by other
evidence of the origin of the goods and their
right to exemption from duty. But we never hear
any credit given to the Secretary for the relief thus
afforded the importer, while he is censured for re-
quring service prescribed by law he is not at
liberty to disregard to which the law has also at
tached specific compensation. On the whole, we
think the Secretary has admirably combined in these
regulations relief from vexatious restraints and
ample protection for the public revenue and trust
he viii succeed in securing their rigid enforcement
The recent decision of the Treasury Department
to liability to duty of four manufactured in Can
ada of wheat the produce of the United States" has
also been made the subject of newspaper animadver
sion. In making this decision the present Secretary
| of the Treasury seems only to have applied to the
case presented to him under the law and which he
was obliged to decide, general regulation estab-
lished by his predecessor which declares that art
cles manufactured in the British provinces of mate
rails the product of the United States, "not being
in the condition when exported, do not come
within the exemption from duty under the tariff act
of 1916, nor any other law treaty, and must be
subjected to duty according to their classification
under the tariff act of 1896" This regulation has
been long since promulgated, and will be found on
page 5O4 of the General Regulations issued by the
department on the lst February, 1857.
The fairest, as well the most elaborate comment
on LhS ueclSioL, Which We nave seen, lb III une
Journal of Commerce" of New York, in which the
editor admits that, inasmuch as the treaty confines
the exemption from duty to articles of the growth
and produce of the respective countries, -four manu-
featured in Canada from American-grown wheat
would become liable TO duty by strict construc-
ton of the treaty but suggests the proprety for the
furherance of free trade of more enlarged and lib
eral interpretation than the Treasury Department has
been accustomed to give to its provisions.
The Secretary Of the Treasury, we know is
strict constructionst y and that regard as one
of the best Of his many qualifications for his import
ant position. He is also friend to free trade as
all know but intrusted with the execution
of the laws, he is not at liberty to fritter away
| their provisions by construction because as a
lawmaker, he would not have voted for their enact
ment Besides, the Secretarys rule of construction
it strikes u.s. is undoubtedly correct The treaty ex
ceps from the of provincial productions certain
designated articles which it exempts from duty. It
is the very in which strict construction is de-
under the treaty, of the growth and product of
the Provinces it must be shown that it is designated
in the schedule for it is to such only that the prvi-
| ege belongs. liberal " construction, .as it is
called, would end inevitably, in the extension of the
| bavond Tho conta,p,1o4;o, IS AZ