The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1897-09-22

1t Is q matter of common experience
that savings and exceptions are otter
introduced from abundant and excessive
caution. And, 1t would some times per-
vert the intention of the author OF a
writing If every other thing of the same
general tenor as that excepted, should
be regarded as embraced in the gene
raj words" (Southerland OH statutory
construction, section 222)
1t follows, therefore. that the answer
TO your inquiry, so far as section % is
concerned, depends O upon the charac-
ter OF the vessel in which the goods were
carried to Vancouver; (2) If in foreign
vessels, whether the goods were entitled
by treaty or convention to be entered in
the ports of the Omitted States upon
the payment of the same duties as il
imported i'll American vessels
l assume the vessels were not of the
United States, but British vessels, and
this brings me to your communication
OF August 18th, in which you inquire
whether section 90 repeals sections 422S
10 i232 of the revised statutes, and
your communication OF September 2d
asking whether manganese ore imported
from Chile, in the British bark LurUc,
10 Philadelphia. is also subject to 4 dis
eliminating duty.
~ law imposing discriminating duties
has been on the statute books in some
form from the time OF the enactment of
The first tariff bill. Section 22 differs
from the law previously in force In that
there is omitted from ii the words ''by
any act OF Congress-" Does this repeal
section I22S? 1t will be observed that
there are no worgS Of express repeal.
Consideration OF the effect of this on
SECTION i22S will be simpliied by 4
reference to contempurancous legisla-
ton.
On the Same-day the DinEley bill was
approved an act entitled AN act to au-
thorize the President to suspend dis
eliminating duties imposed on foreign
vessels and commerce. was approved
shall hereafter. for convenience, call 1t
the suspension act. This act provides
that the President is authorized to sus-
pend in part the operations of section
1919 and 2502 so that foreign vessels
trcm country imposing partial dis
crimtnatirg tonnage duties upon Ameri-
can vessels, or partial discriminating
tonnage duties upon American mer-
chandise. may enjoy IN our ports the
Identical privileges which the same class
Oh american vessels and merchandise
may enjoy in said foreign country.
lt viii be observed that it recognizes
the existence of section 1928 ant, amends
It and enlarges the Presidents power.
may be exercised to meet ana respond to
partial discriminating duties. as we'll as
reclprocating the exact privilege, though
less thacl total exemptions.
This act is somewhat confused hy its
references, but notwithstanding This
confusion, the act does recognize the OK
iStence OF and extends section 1928 and
II also recognizes section 25O2 What is
me effect of this? The act and the Ding
ley p.il We're passed on the same ,lay
and do not think the order OF passa sc
Is important ii they can be reconsiled
IL either repealS the other II is only by
implication. The rule OF implied rcpeaIs
Is Well established by n long line of
cases. There must be more than differ
ence-thcre must be irreconcil:able con-
flict
The Attorney General then quotes
several cases In support of 4 conclu-
SION he reaches that where there is
difference in purpose, legislative provi-
sions may be independent and then
continuing, says:
But the rule OF repeal by imp,ica
tlon does not require us to find indepcn-
dGnce. If there is not irrcconcila BILE
conflict the laws may exist together.
AS we have already seen. there is GER
tainly no irrcconcilable conflict. E,vsc
II there was more conflict in their Ian
EuaSe, more in their purpose. this woula
nave TO yield to the Interpretation OF
the Tune and manner of their passage.
1T follows, therefore. that section
422S was not repealed by section 30 and
that the merchandise of both injuries
Is not TO be subject to 4 discriminating,
duty"