The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1897-09-22
Turns Down the 10 Per Cent
Discriminating Duty.
TWO PHASES PRESENTED
NO DUTY BECAUSE FORM CON.
TIGUoUS TERRITORY.
NO DUTY BECAUSE IN BRITISH VESSELS

4228 is or IS Not hepeaieo py tie us
eliminating Section Which is
Decided Negatively.
Washington, D. c., Sept. 21.-Attor-
nov General McKenna to-day announced
his opinion in the matter OF Section 22,of
tho new tariff law lie holds IN effect
that goods coming directly into the
limited States from foreign countries
through Canadian ports are not subject
to the discriminating duty OF ten per
cent and also holds that foreign goods
Skinned from countries other than Brit
ish possessions in British vessels are
not subiect to the discriminating 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
vnice of tea from China, which had ar
rived Mt Vancouver in British vessels
and thence shipped through Canada to
Chicago. The second question was
whether the discriminating duty should
be assessed against a cargo of manganese
ore from Chile, which recently arrived
in a British ship at Philadelphia. Both
these questions tae Attorney General an
swers in the negative.
The opinion of the Attorney General
first quotes Section % in full and then
says:
Three plausible contentious are based
upon this section, which as to strength
only differ in degree.
1). That the duty is discrimination
upon importations in vessels not of the
United States, whether directly to the
United States or to a contiguous count
~, and thence to the United States.
(2). A discrimination against importa-
tions of goods mot in the usual course
OF strictly retail trade) from contigu-
GUS country, they not being the products
thereof In this, the character of the
vessel is not important
(3). A discrimination against goods
being the productions of foreign count
ry not contiguous to the United States,
which shall come into the United States
from contiguous country.
In this contention the words come
into the United States" are used as
designating movement only.
Under the first and second contentious
the duty would not be imposed. I'm
der the third it would bel hence select
To support it, it is said, that the sec
ton 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 a country not contiguous
and come into the United States from
a contiguous country. The character
off the vessel in which they We're trans
ported to the contiguous country, being
Indifferent.
The first case we are not now concern
ed with, and the second is attempted
to be established by the following reas-
sning:
The goods are Chinese or japanese
production, hence the production Of a
foreign country, mot contiguous to the
United States,'' they come into tine
United States from Canada, a contigu-
GUS 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 ia conceded that the importation Is
to the United States-passage through
Canada being mere movement, only
toward destinat:on-the latter being the
United States. This being SO, it wouN
seem that there was no reason to dis
tinguish between that importation and
what may be called indistinction, direct
one-why one should be burdened and the
other not burdened-when the discrimi-
nation was not necessary to the main
purpose of the law.
As there was no reason, therefore, why
the portation-indirect or direct
should be Disseminated by different du-
ties. I am not disposed to think that it
was intended. To so hold would be TO
mt n new purpose in the law, destroying
its unity, which is not compelled by its
language or any mischief which we may
say was in the contemplation Of the law
makers to be remedied.
The section, therefore, regards, as the
law which preceded it regarded, the trans
portation of goods by sea. Its purpose
was to secure this to vessels of the
United States by discriminating against
transportation not in them primarily to
the United States, secondarily and to
prevent evasion, to q contiguous coun-
try-Canada or Mexico. The necessity of
it to the effectiveness Of the law is obvi-
Gus. II would have been useless to have
imposed a discriminating duty on goods
brought to San Francisco in foreign YES
ssels and leave them free to go to Van
couver in foreign vessels and thence
across the intervening land to the United
States.
The amendment of the law which is
made by section %, therefore, continues
it's object, while it strengthens and bet
ter secures it.
In the second contention the words
"come into the United States" arc used
: as synonymous to imported The goods