The age-herald., 1897-09-22
TIE WIND BLEW \ GALE SECTION 22 OF THE TARIFF
And Determinations Upon Im-
 portationS
ARE REVIEWED THOROUGHLY
By Attorney General McKenna--The Technical
 Terms and Explanations Are Thor ough and Complete.

Washington, Sept. 21.-Attorney-Gen- eral McKe3na today anhlounced his opin- ion in the matter of section 22 of the new tariff law. He holds in effect that goods coming directly into the United States from foreign countries through Canadian ports are not subject to the discriminatirg duty of 10 per cent, alnd also holds that foreign goods shipped from countries other than British pos sessions in British vessels are not sub- ject to the discrltnina ting duty. Two questions were asked the attorney-gen- eral, the first of which was, in effect, whether the dsscifmina ting duty of 10 per cent provided for in sec.ion 22 should be assessed against an invoice of tea from China which had arrived at Vancouver in British vessels and thence shipped through Canada to Chicago. The second question was whether the dis eliminating duty should be assessed against cargo of mang aneze ore from Chili which recently arrived in Brit ish ship at Philadelphia. Both these questions the attorney-genera answers in the negative. The opinoin of the at- torney-general first quotes section 22 in full, ard 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 importatfona in vessels not of the United States, whether directly to the United States or to a contiguous comn- try and thence to the United States.
 ?. A discrimination against importa- tions of goods (not in the usual course of strctly retail trade) from contiguous corlrtry they not being the products thereof.
 tn this the character of the vessel is not important.
 8. A discrimination against goods being the production of a foreign coun- try not contiguous to the United States which shall come into the United States from a contiguous country.
 In this contention the words, "come in- 
 to the United States" are used as desig- mating movement only.
 Under the first and second contentious the duty would not be imposed. And under the third it would be, hence I se- feet it as a baeis for consideration
 To support it, it is said that the sec tion impose the duty dn two cases; (a), when the goods are imported in vessels not of the United States; and (b), when they are the production of the country not contiguous and coming into the United Staets from contiguous coun- try The character of the vessel in wh oh they were transported to the contiguous country being indifferent.
 The first question we are not now con- cerned in, and the second is attempted to be established by the followig req sons:
 The goods are Chinese or Japanese productions, hence the production of a foreign country, not contiguous to the United States. They cme into the United States from Canada, contiguous coun- try and so it is urged that both by the letter as well as by the spirit of the sec tion they are subjected to duty. It is contended that they are importations in- to the United States, the passage through Canada being merely movement on- ward towards their destination, the lat ter being the United States. This being so it would seem that there was no rea- son to distinguish between that importa- tion and what may be called in distinc- ton direct one-why one should be bur- dened and the other not burdened-when the discrimination was not necessary to the main purposes of the law.
 As there was no reason, therefore, why the mportations-indirect or direct --should bs discriminated by different duties, I am not disposed to think that it was intended. To so hold would be to ing It's unity--which is not compelled by it's language or any mischief which we ] may say was in the contemplation of the lawmakers ito be r=medied.
 The section, therefore, regards as the law which preceded it regarded the transportation of goods by sea. Its purpose was to secure this to vessels of ehe United States by discriminating against vessels of other countries; sec ondarily, and to prevent evasion to contiguous country-Canada or Mexico. The necessity of. it to the effectiveness of the law is obvious It would have been useless to have imposed a dis eliminating duty on goods brought to San Francisco. in foreign vessels and leave them frse to go to Vancouver in foreign vessels and thus across the in- tervening land to the United States
 The amendment of the law which is made by section 22 thereby continues its object while it strengthens and better