The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1897-09-22
ssme day, and ! DO mol lhint thn order Of pn...

same day. and do not think the order of pass
aage 10 important Il they can DO reconciled.
IF either repeats the other It. is only by Inn
Rlleation. There are no words OF express repeal;
b b1I Z r1 1opS OF Inn, implied ne repoHla Th Is well ir esth sS rnngS
than difference, there must be irreconcilable
conflict; Let us apply this rule:
section % and section APPS arc both COM
mercial regulations. and what the effect OF sec
ton 90 would be on the other. II subsequent in
time and not accompanied by Legislative inter.
pretation. Is easily perceived to DO different
when eontemporaneous In time and 30 accom-
The Attorney General proceeds to cite opin.
ions of courts concerning the relation to one
another of laws on the same subject passed at
tho same time. The burden of the opinions
quoted was that one act did not repeal the other.
but should be construed together as part OF the
same act Continuing he says:
Section 30 and section 1928 and amend.
ments are not co.eNtensivc In scope; in purpose,
other. One prescrlbes a rule. the other the con.
dttion upon which and the agency by which IL
NAV be suspended. Each. therefore,, has its pur-
pose, definite and consistent.
Section APPS might he n proviso to section
20, and Is in effect made so by the Suspension
pugnant to section 30. The latter had its opor.
alton commencing with its passages. con,
occur and the President acts on account ofthem.
resuming again II the, reciprocal exemptions of
foreign nations be withdrawn;
ton. The provision In the Diuglcy bill for reci-
procity OF trade Is such an example. Under
thdI lnc uullVb VI lne 4 ma w tUhIktu
An example not so direct but of tbs, same
princigie is found in the case OF Russell
from the import Of language that a statute
imposing duties on articles was exclusive of
prior ones, regular or discriminating. whether
they were imported from or were the product OF
one country or another. 1t was held, neverthe.
less, in Russell vs.. Williams, that a discrimi.
of the Cape of Good Hope. when imported
from places west of i. was not repealed
by subscq uent acts though not repeated
in them or mentioned by them. In this case il
Is true there was the distinction between n COM
mercial regulation and provisions for revenue
duties, but the principle OF the case Is that
where there is difference in purpose legislative
provisions may be independent. But the rule OF
independence. II there is not irreconcilable
conflict the laws may exist together. As We
have already seen. there is certainly no irrecon.
cilable conflict. Even il there was conflict in
their language this would have to yield to the
Interpretation of the time and manner OF their
passage. Tho suspension act was reported 10
the House OF Representatives by the same COM
mittee which reported the DinSlcy bill, ana was
considered and passed while that act was in
memory. 1t passed he Senate while the Ding
ley bill was pending IN ronsideration. and was
Dingley bill was. A knowledge of its relations
TO that bill and its effect on it must therefore
be attributed to the Legislature. 1t may be it
was the later bill, Tor the Congressional Record
shows that the Presidents approval OF II was
communicated to the Congress subsequently to
Even a more extreme position might be
taken. It was held in Mead vs.. ,Bagnall and
! OIntTSN NO IS. lDb.l lutl NneTt tue bEONl5luue
of a statute which relates TO u particular
class OF ca es are repugnant TO those OF
another statute approved the same day. which
is oil a more general character, the former must
prevail as to the particular class of cases therein
referred too See also EndliCh on the interpre-
tation OF statutes. section 2l6 and cases cited.
1t follows, therefore, that section i..2s was
not repealed by section % and that the mer
chandise OF both inquiries is not to be subjected
to a discriminating duty
Senator Elkins said tonight that he was will
ing TO shoulder his share OF responsibility in
getting the discriminating duty provision in
serted in the Tariff bill. He added that one
effect OF the Attorney-Gieneral's opinion woul
be a determined effort at the next session Of
Congress TO repeal the bonding privileges OF tn,
Canadian Pacific Railroad.
Col. J. +. Evans OF san Francisco, an eNper
in customs matters. said tonight that the de
cision OF the Attorney General was no binding
on the Treasury Department. II merely cN
pressed the opinion OF one branch OF tn,
Government acting in an advisory capacit!
to another. He said the app. cabilit!
OF the discriminat ting duty would probably ge
into the courts through the action Of some col
lector OF customs in assessing IL on foreign
goods brought into the United States through
Canada. This would compel the importer Il
appeal.