The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-09-22
IT IS MERELY A MOVEMENT.
t ttOFney-GeleTal MCKennaS Opinion on
a Famous section.
GOODS COMING THROUGH CANADA.
Are Not subject to the 10 Per Cent. Duty
Imposed by Section Twenty-Five OF
the New 1arin Bill-As
To Repeal,

the New lafin bill-as
to Repeal
WASHINGTON, D. c.. Sept. 21.-Attor-
ney-Goneral McKennG to-day announced
his opinion in the matter Of Section -
Of the new tariff law. lie holds in effect
that goods coming directly into the
United states from foreign countries
through Canadian ports are not subject
TO the discriminating duty Of 10 per cent,
and also holds that foreign goods shipped
from countries other than British posses
sions in British vessels are not subject 70
the discriminating duty.
Two questions were asked the Attorney
General, the first of which was in eject
whether the discriminating duty Of ~ per
cent. provided for I'm seton p should
be assessed against an invoice Of tea from
China. which arrived at Vancouver IN
British vessels. and thence shipped through
Canada to Chicago. The second question
was whether the discriminating duty
should be assessed against cargo OF
manganese ore from Chill. which re-
entity arrived in a British ship at Phiia-
delphia. Both Of these questions the ~
torney-General answers in the negative.
THH OPINION:
The oplnlon Of the Attorney-General
first quotes section p in full, and then
says:
Three plausible contentious are oasea
upon this section, which as 20 strength
only differ IA degree.
IL. That the duty is discriminatloh
upon importations in vessels not OK the
United states whether directly TO ths
United states or 10 a contiguous coun-
try. and thence 20 the United states
- a discrimination against Importation
Of goods not in the strictly retail trade
from a contiguous country they not oe-
ing the products thereof The character
of the vessel is not important.
"8 A discrimination against goods being
the productions Of foreign country not
contiguous 10 the United States Whlch
shall come into the United States trom
contiguous country" ,,..
"Tn this contention the words Noihe
into tbe United States are used as des-
ipnating movement only. lnder the ll'1
and second contentious the duty "ou,,
not he imposed. Under the third n would
be-. / hence select SC as basis Tor coh-
| sidorat0n.
ITO gUUnOft IT. Ut lN rtIA 'NeNh ''''
! sion imposes the duty ip two cases, (a)
when tho goods are imported in vessels
not Of tho United States and 10 the
United States. % when they are the
! production of n country not contiguous
| and come into the United states from
contiguous country. the character OF the
vessels I'm which they were TRANSPORTED to
/ the contiguous country being Indifferent.
| "The first case we are not now con-
| cornod with and the second is attempted
! 20 be established by the following reason
ing:
'The goods arc of Chinese or Japan
! ~eo production hence Tho production of
/ eirn country mot cOntigu0us 20 The
! United 3'atas' They come into the
| United states from Canada. "a contiguous
country, and so q Is urged that ~ tho lot-
| ter 1s wen as by the spirit of the statute
! They are subject TO- duty
ONLY A MOVEMENT.
"It IS conceded that the importation g.
| 10 the United States-passage through
| Canada being mere movement only toe
| ward dDriInatiOI the latter being the
! United states. This beirA so. 10 would
! seem That there was no reason 10 dis
| trruish between that importation and
| what may De called in distinction "a direct
| one-why one should De burdened and
| the other not burdened- when the dis
! elimination was not necessary TO the
! main purpose Of the law
"As there was no reason. therefore. why
| the imnoriations. Indirect or direct. should
! Doe dIecriminated Boy different duties 7 am
| not disposed 10 think that IN was fnfcnd.
! ed. To so hold would be 10 put "a now
| purpose in the law destroying its unity
| which is not compelled by its language
| or any Uischief which we may say was
| In contemplation Of the law-ma kfre fO
! eards as the law which preceded if ro-
| e1rded the transportation Of goods hv
! sen. lts purpose was 10 secure this tO
| vessels of the United States by discrimi-
| Mating against the transportation not I'm
thcm primarily 20 the United states. sec
| 0ndarilY. and 70 prevent evasion 20
| contiguous country. Canada or Mexico
The necessity of IL 10 the effectiveness
| of the law is obvious. IN would have bohn
| useless 20 have imposed n discriminating
| duty ON goods brought 10 San Francisco
| n foreign vessels and leave them fren Go
| 20 10 vancouver In foreign vessels and
| thence across the intervonin0 land no tho
| United States. The adoption OF the law
which IS made by section % Therefore
| continues its object. while II strengthens
! and better secures II.
IMPORTATIONs.
"In the second contention the words
| come into the United States arc used
| as synonymous 20 imported. The goods
| themselves. it is contended. must take
| their departure from the contiguous cOun-
|
| distinguished from coming through NJ as
| an importation from some other country
| This view is given plausibility 10 by tho
| exception that the duty shall not apply
| 20 such foreign products or manufacture
| az shall be imported from such contiguous
! countries I'm the usual course OF retail
| trade
1T Is said that the words imported I'm
the course of strictly retail trade indi-
| cate the rule. They are claimed 10 be-
| the opposite Of importation I'm the course
| Of wholesale trade. and that the latter
must be direct, as thus by retail could
be no other way. Such construction Won id
| confne the rules strictly 10 the exception.
| which may be broader including imDOr-
| tatiOns strictly sO-called-thOse which
take their departure from "A contiguous
| country Of the other conditions II the
| rule exist. III so. the exception has an
| adequate and proper office. But Il is not
| even necessary 10 90 this far II Is "a
| matter or common experience that saw
! ings and exceptions are often IA Alducod
| through excessive caution. and it would
sometimes prevent the intention OF tho
! author I'm the Weighing OF every other
| thing in the same general tenor excepted.
| Sutherland on Statutory Construction
section 222)
"It follows. therefore that the lnterpre-
tatOn. so far as section y Is cOncerr ed
| depends 0) upon the character of the
vessel In which the goods were carried
10 Vancouver; % II I'm foreign vessels
| whether the goods were entitled by treaty
or convention 20 be entered In the ports
! OF the United States upon the payment
OF the same duties as II imported in
| American vessels.
81