The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-09-22
Catch Clause Smuggled into Tariff
Bill Robbed of It's Power
to Harm.
TWO SPECIFIC APPROPRIATIONS INVOLVED.
In Both the Decision. of the Attorney Gem
eral Is Against the Imposing of the
Discriminating Duty==Text
of His Findings.

WASHINGTON, Sept. 21-Attorney
General McKenna today announced
his opinion in the matter of section %
of the new tariff law. He holds in eff
feet that goods coming directly into
the United States from foreign coun-
tries, through Canadian ports, are not
subject to the discriminating duty of
10 per cent, and also holds that for
eign goods shipped from countries
other than British possessions in Brit
eliminating duty.
Two questions were asked the attor-
ney general the first of which was, in
effect, whether the discriminating duty
| of 10 per cent provided for in section
| % should be assessed against an in
| voice of tea from China which had ar
| rived at Vancouver in British vessels,
and thence been shipped through Can
| ada to Chicago The second question
| was whether the discriminating duty
should be assessed against cargo of
| manganese ore from Chile, which re-
Gently arrived in a British ship at
Philadelphia. Both these questions
the attorney general answers in the
negative.
The opinion of the attorney general
first quotes section 90 IN full, ana then
| says:
Three plausible contentious are based upon
this section, which as to strength, only differ
in degree.
1. That the duty is a discrimination upon
importatons in vessels not of the United
States, whether directly to the United States
or to contiguous country and thence TO the
United States.
g. discrimination against importations Of
goods (not in the usual course of strictly re-
tail trade) from a contiguous country, they
not being the products thereof. In this the
character of the vessel Is not important.
8. A discrimination against goods being the
productions of foreign country not cont1-
into the United States from a contiguous
country. In this contention the words come
into the United States" are used as desig-
mating movement only.
the duty would not be imposed. Under the
third it would be-hence 1 select it as basis
for consideration.
SPECIFIC CASES.
To support it, it is said that the section
imposes the duty in two cases. (a) when the
goods are imported in vessels not of the
United States and to the United States, (b)
when they are the production of country
not contiguous and come into the United
States from a contiguous country. The
character of the vessel in which they were
transported to the contiguous country being
Indifferent.
The first case we are not now concerned
with, and the second is attempted to be
established by the following reasoning The
goods are Chinese or Japanese productions,
hence the production of foreign country,
(not contiguous to the United States) they
come into the United States from Canada,
contiguous country, and so it is urged that
by the letter as well as by the spirit of the
statute they are subject to the duty.
1t is conceded that the importation is to
the United States-passage through Canada
being mere movement only toward deStlna-
tion-the latter being the United States. This
being so, it would seem that there is no
reason to distinguish between that importa-
ton, and what may be called in distinction
direct one-why one should be burdened and
the other not burdened when the dscrmina-
tion was not necessary to the main pur-
pose of the law. 1t is said that the purpose
OF amendment was to relieve the American
transcontinental railroads against the COM
petition of the Canadian Pacific railroad. It
may be admitted that this is a strong con-
slderation, but, on the other hand, it is urged
that this competition is benefit, and other
American railroads claim that the Canadian
Pacific is a direct advantage to them How
congress regards this conflict we have no
means of knowing. There was certainly no
avowal, and the only expressions, of mem
bers, which we have, indicate different pur-
pose than one which might or might not
have been entertained and which if it had
been entertained, it would seem the natural
thing to have explicitly declared.
AS there was reason therefore why the
Observation-Disclosures or direct should be dis
eliminated by different duties 1 am not dis
posed to think that it was intended. To SO
hold would be to put a new purpose
in the law-destroying it's untiy-which is not
compelled by it's language or any mischief
which, we may say, was in the contempla-
tion of the lawmakers to be renedied The
section, therefore, regards, the law which
preceded it regarded, the transportation of
GOO goods by sea: Its purpose was to secure
this to vessels of the United States by dis
eliminating against transportation not in
them primarily to the United States, second
ar1iy, and to prevent evasion, TO a contiguous
country-Canada or Mexico.
OBVIOUS NECESSITY.
The necessity of it to the effectiveness of
the law is obvious. 1t would have been use
less to have imposed discriminating duty
on goods brought to San Francisco in for
eign vessels and leave them free to go to
Vancouver in foreign vessels, and then across
the Intervening land to the United States. The
amendment of the law which is made by sec
ton %, therefore continues its object, while
it strengthens and better secures it. 1t does
this in two ways, viz: by taking away the
means Of its evasion, through the contiguity
of Canada and Mexico, and by repeating the
statuto<y exemptions from the ten per cent
duty.
1 have considered your inquiry so far If
the section only regarded mere transportation
it has a broader scope
In the second contention, the words come
into the United States are used as synony-
nous to imported. The language being the
production or manufacture of any foreign
country not contiguous to the United States"
is urged only as descriptive of the goods to
which the duty applies. The goods them
selves, it is contended, must take their de-
parture from the contiguous country in the
strict sense of importation as distinguished
from coming through it as an importation
from some other country. This view is given
plausibility too by the exception that duty
shall mot apply to such foreign products or
manufacture as shall be imported from such
contiguous countries in the usual course of
retail trade.
It is said that. the words imported in
the course of strictly retail trade indicate
the rule They are claimed to be the opposite
of importation in the course of wholesale
trade, and that the latter must be direct as
though by retail could be no other way. But
this does not follow. Such construction would
confne the rule strictly to the exception,
whereas it may be broader, including i'm
portations strictly SO called-those which take
their departure from contiguous country if
the other conditions of the rule exist. If so.
the exception has an adequate and proper
Office. But it is not even necessary to go this
far.
EXCESSIVE CAUTION.
It is q matter of common experience that