The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1897-09-22
NEEDN'T PAY EXTRA
DEoIsIoN RENDERED ON THE DING.
LEY ACTS SECTION %.

l
Attorney General McKanna Holds That
Goods Imported Into the United States
Directly But Passing Through Con-
| tiguous Country In Continuous Transit
| Are Not Subject to the Ton Per Cent
| Discriminating Duty Otherwiss APP
| p!ics BILE In the Case OF Those Countries
-Transcontinental Lines I'm Mourning.
Washington, Sept. 21.-Attorney Gen.
eral McKenna today announced his de-
cision in the matter Of section % Of the
new tariff law. He 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 other countries in British vessels
are not subject to the discrimina ting
duty.
Two questions were asked the attor-
uey, the first Of which was, in effect,
whether the discriminating duty of 10
ger cent, provided for in section %,
should be assessed against an invoice OF
| tea from China which had arrived at
Vancouver in British vessels and thence
shipped through Canada to Chicago; the
| second question was whether the discrim
| mating duty should be assessed against
| a cargo of manganese ore from Chile
| which recently arrived in a British ship
| at Philadelphia. Both the questions
| the attorney general answers in the neg
alive.
| The opinion Of the attorney general
first quotes section % in full and then
says:
Three plausible contentious are based
| uponthis section, which, as to strength.
only differ in degree.
"Q)-Tat the duty is discrimination
| upon importa lions in vessels not Of the
United States whether directly to the
United States or to contiguous country
and thence 20 the Unied States.
CA discrimination against importa-
tons of goods mo; in the usual course OF
strictly retail trade) from contiguous
country, they not being the products
thereof In this the character Of the YES
sci is not important.
"(3)-A discrimination against goods
being the productions Of a foreign coun-
try not contiguous to the United States
which shall come into the United States
from a contiguous country. In this con-
tention the words come into the United
States are used as designating move
ment only.
Under the first and second contentious
the duty would not be imposed. Under
the third it would bel hence select it
as a basis for consideration.
ITO support II, it is said that the sec
ton imposes the duty in two cases: (A),
When the goods are imported in vessels
not of the United States and 10 the Unit
ed States; OBJ When they are the pro-
duction Of a contiguous country. The
character OF the vessel in which they
We're transported to the contiguous coun-
try being Indifferent.
"The first case we are not now concern
ed with. and the second is attempted to
be established by the following reason:
The goods are Chinese or Japanese pro-
duction, hence the production Of a for
eign country not contiguous TO the Unit
ed States
"They come into the United States
from Canada, a contiguous country. and
SO it is urged that by the letter as well
as by the spirit Of the statute, they are
subject to the duty.
ct is conceded that the importa.io is
to the United States-passage through
Canada being mere movement only to-
wards destination-the latter being the
United States. This being so, il would
seem that there was no reason TO dis
tinguish between that importation and
what may be called in distinction di-
rect one-why one should be burdened
and the other not burdened-when the
discrimination was not necessary 10 the
main purpose of the law. II is said that
the purpose Of the amendment was 10 re-
iieve the American transcontinental rail-
roads against the competition OF the Can
adam Pacific railroad. Il may be adj
mitted that this Is a strong consideration
but, on the other hand, il IS urged that
this competition is benefit, and other
dian Pacific is a direct advantage 10
them. How congress regarded this con-
fiict we have no means OF knowing.
There was certainly no avowal and the
only expressions of members which we
have indicate a different purpose than
the one which might or might not nave
been entertained and which, if it had
been entertained, it would seem the MAJ
ural thing 10 have explicitly declared.
'As there was no reason. therefore,
why the mportations-drect or indirect
should be Disseminated by different
duties. am not disposed TO think that il
was intended. To so hold would be 70
put a new purpose in the law destroying
rs unity-which is not compelled by its
language or any mischief which we
might say was in the contemplation OF
the lawmakers 10 be remedied. The sec
ton therefore regards. as the law Which
proceeded il regarded. the transportation
OF goods by sea. lis purpose was 20 Sc
cure this to vessels Of the United States
by discriminating against transpor. aiion
not in them primarily 10 the United
States. secondarily, and 20 proven; eva
sion. 70 a contiguous country-Csnada or
Mexico. The necessity OF j; 70 be effect |
iveness OF he law, is obvious. I; would |
have been useless 10 have imposed a dis |
eliminating duty on goods brought 20 |
San Francisco IN foreign vessels AMI |
leave them free 10 go 20 Vancouver in |
foreign vessels and thence across ne in |
te-vening land 10 the United States.
The amendment OF The law which Is |