Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1897-09-21
Discriminating Duty and Goods
Brought Through Canada.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALS OPINION
Constituting Section % Of the
Tariff Law.
SSION AT LENGTH

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 possessions in
British vessels are not subject to the dis
eliminating duty.
Two questions were asked the Attorney
General, the first of which was. in effect,
whether the discriminating duty of 10 per
cent provided for in section % should be
assessed against invoice of tea from
China which had arrived at Vancouver in
British vessels, and thence shipped
through CaLada to Chicago. The second
quest on 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 the Attorney General
answers in the negative.
1t Is addressed to the Secretary of the
Treasury. and is as follows:
/ have the honor to acknowledge the re-
ceipt of your communication of August 10.
1t is not necessary to quote all of it. You
say:
ION the 9th instant 1 had the honor to
submit for your consideration copy of
letter received by me from the treasury's
special agent at Ogdensburg, N. ", which
involved the question whether, under sec
ton 30 of the new tariff act, discrimin-
ating duty of 10 per cent should be assess
ed upon certain diamonds brought into the
United States from the contiguous terri
tory of Canada
Since the date of my letter above re-
ferred to 1 have received from the collector
of customs at Chicago a request for in
structions as TO the assessment of discrim-
mating duty, under the above provision of
law, upon certain goods which came from
Japan via Vancouver b. c.. and thence
per railroad through Canada to Chicago.
These goods arrived in Chicago in cars.
States consular officer. under regulations
of the department which are based upon
the treaty of Washington and upon sec
tion 1892 of the Revised Statutes"
You inquire, shall these goods be sub
tected to a special discriminating duty of
10 per cent?
An answer to your inquiry depends upon
the Interpretation Of section - of the Ding
ley tariff bill and its effect On section 1923
of the Revised Statutes.
Section - is follows: THAT a discrinl-
mating duty of 10 per centum ad vaiorem
in addition to the duties imposed by law
shall be levied, collected, and paid on all
goods, wares or merchandise which shall
be imported in vessels not of the United
states Tor which being the production or
manufacture of any foreign country not
contiguous to the United States shall come
into the United States from such contigu-
Gus country; but this discriminating duty
shall not apply to goods, wares or mer-
chandise which shall he imported in YES
sells not of the United States, entitled at the
time OF such Importation by treaty or con-
vention TO be entered in the ports Of the
United states on payment of the same du-
ties as shall tEen be payable on goods
wares and merchandise imported in yes
sels OF the United States (nor to such for
eisn products or manufactures as shall be
imported from such contiguous countries in
TIE usual course of strictly retail trade)"
Inc matter in paranthesis Is mine and
tr dicateS the affirmative changes made in
pre-existing laws.
Three COntentfons
Three plausible contentious are ha sod
Upon this section which as to strength only
differ in degree
l. That the duty is discrimination upon
importations in vessels not of the United
States whether directly to the United
states or to a contiguous country and
thence to the United States.
2. A discrimination against importations
OF goods mot in the usual course of str;ctIv
retail trade) from a contiguous country
they not being the products thereof. In
portant. ~
j. A discrimination against goods being
the productions Of foreign country NOT
contiguous to the United States which sbsi,
come INTO the United States from a con-
tguous 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 Under the
third 1t would bel hence select ii as a
basis for consideration
To support 1t ii is said that the sect;o,
imposes the duty in two cases (a) when
the goods are imported in vessels not of
tne United States, and to the United States
country not contiguous and come into the
United States from contiguous country
the character of the vessel in which they
were transported to the contiguous country
being Indifferent
The first case We are not now concerned
with. and the second is attempted to be
established by the following reasoning:
The goods (Which are the subject of in
quiry) are Chinese or japanese production
hence the production of a foreign country
not contiguous to the United States" tbey
come into the United States from Canada,
a contiguous country, and so 1t is urged
that Dy the letter as well as by the spirit
OF the statute they are subject to the duty
1t is conceded that the importation is to
the United States-passage through Canada
being mere movement only toward destina-
tion-the latter being the United States
This being SO, II would seem that there was
no reason 10 distinguish between that i'm
portation and what may be called in dis
tlnction direct one-why one should he
burdened and the other not bur,leIIed-wien
the discrimination was not necessary to the
main purpose of the law
1t is said that the purpose of the amend
ment was to relieve the American trans
continental railroads against the cou,petf-
ton of the Canadian Pacific railroad. 1t
may be admitted that this Is a strong con-
sideration, but on the other hand il Is
urged that this competition is q bene-
ft. and other American railroads claim
that the Canadian Pacific Is a direcr ad-
vantage to them. How Congress rega rded
this conflict we have no means OF knowing.
There was certainly no avowal and the
only expressions of members which we
have indicate different purpose than one
which might or might not have been enter
tained. and which, IL II had been entertain-
ed, II would seem the natural thing to have
explicitly declared.
As there vas no reason. therefore. why
the Observation-Disclosures or dfrect-should
be Disseminated by different duties / am
not disposed TO think that 1t was intended.
To 50 hold would be to put new purpose
in the law-destroying its unity-which Ia
not compelled by its language or any mis-
chief which we may say was In the con-
Continued on Eleventh Page)