The age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1897-1902, 1897-08-31
The TARIFF LAW
CAUSES TROUBLE
Interpretation Of One Section a Much
MOOted Question.
THE DISCRIMINATING DUTY
Oh 10 Per Cent. is the Ambiguous
Clause at Issue.
MANY NATIONS ARE AFFECTED
And An Adverse Decision to Be Avoided BY
Them Specializing on Schemes to
Evadethe Law if Sustained by
the Attorney-General
AMY NATIONS ARE AFFECTED

Washingto9. Aug. SO.-Involved in the
question of Interpretation of section 22
of the new tariff law with regard to the
10 per cent. discriminating duty on for
eign goods, coming into the United States
from Canada or Mexico, which is now
before the attorney general for decision
is another question equal, if rot of
greater magnitude. This other question
has almost entirely escaped public notic-,
but it is giving thu treasury great con-
Germ. 1t was referred to the attorney
general fer Interpretation by Secretary
Gage along with the other featur IS of sec
ton 22 which are in controversy. 1t in
vCIves the question as to whether tn
discriminating duty of 10 psr cent. does
not apply to all goods imported in foreign
vessels landing at United Sta tes ports,
which are not exempt from discrimlrat-
ing tonnage taxes by express treaty sItip-
ulation.
The question arises from another 81 ght
deviation from the language of previous
provisions in section % which, If made
Intentionally, would seem ITO Indicate that
it was designed to discriminate against
three-fourths of all the big trans-Atnntac
and trans-Pacific Steamship lines, as well
as many of the South American lines. In
an previous laws the section correspond
Ing to section % of the new law, after
providing for 10 per cent. discriminating
duty on goods imported in vessels not
flying the United States flag, provides
that this discriminating duty shall not
apply to goods, wares or merchandise
which shall be imported in vessels net
of the Unibsd States, entitled at the time
of such importation by treaty or act Of
congress to be entered in ports of the
United States on the payment of the
same duties as shall then be payable on
goods, etc., imported in vessels of the
United States.' *
The new lawiomits the acts of congress
and substitutes convention, so as to make
it read not exempt by treaty or eonven-
tom 1t is in pursuance of an act of con-
grers. (Sec. 1929 that presidents in the
past have, by proclamation, exempted The
vessels of many countries from this dis
eliminating duty. The question now be-
fore the attorney general is whether the
omissions of the words 'act of congress
does not repeal section 1928. If 1t does it
will strike a tremendous blow to all for
eign lines now exempt by presidential
proclamation and confine the exemp-
tions strictly to the vessels of countries
with which we have treaties from grant
ing such exemptions. The vessels of
countries which could not be affected by
an adverse decision, that is, countries
with whom we have treaties covering
this specific cases, are Sweden, Germany,
Austria, Brazil, Belgium, Denmark,
Greece, Chilli, Argentine, Hayti Hawaii,
Italy, Holland, Russia and Turkey. Sew
era1 of these countries have no merchant
marine sailing to these ports.
The countries now enjoying exemption
from discriminating duties, wholly or in
part, under proclamations issued in pur-
suance of section 1928 of the revised
statutes are: Great Britain, France,
Spain, Portugal, Japan, Nicaragua and
Mexico. OF course the largest class of
vessels which might be affected are tha
English lines which come to the United
States from British ports and the Ori-
entail countries, India, South America,
and, In fact, from every country ON the
globe. If the British vessels should be
thrown back upon their treaty exemp-
tions which are contained in the treaty
of Washington, goods of all British ves-
sells sailing from other parts, except the
territorial possessions in Europe, would
have to pay the additional 10 per cent
tax. More than that, all goods shipped
in British vessels not the product or
manufacture of Great BritaiRs Eu-
ropean possessions, even though shipped
from English, Scotch or, Irish ports,
would be subject to the discriminating
duties.
An adverse decision would, therefore
affect the Cunard Arrow, Trans Allan
tic and other transatlantic lines to that
extent, the French line, the Phelps line.
running to Mediterranean ports, the two
Portuguese freight lines, except products
OF Portugual, several of the South Amer
lean lines, including what are known
as the Green lin= of steamers, the jap
anese, the Canadian Pacific and the ORR
entail and Occident steamers on the Pa
cific, besides hundreds of tramp steam
ers. A curious situation would aris. in
the case of the French line were an adj
verse decision rendered. Before Gen.
Grant ISSUED his proclamation exemp-
Ing the cargoes of French liners with
our treaty with France, they paid dis /
eliminating duty of $3.75 per. ton and
cargoes imported into France by vessels
of the United States paid discrimin-
ating duty of 20 francs per ton. If sec.
ton 422S is repealed then the question
would arise as to whether a 10 pr cent.
discriminating duty should be imposed
on the $3.75 per ton provided for by the
treaty.
Should the attorney general decide that
section 1928 be repealed by law, Of course
steamers on the several lines plying be-
might escape injury by change Of ma
tionality and flag to that Of Belgium or
some othsr country whose treaty gives
them full Of exemption.