The Saint Paul globe., 1897-08-19
BRIEF ON NEW TARIFF BILL PRE-
SENTED BY THE EX-SECRE-
TARY.
THREE VIEWS DISCUSSED.
DISCRIMINATING DUTIES TII1r
POINT DIRECTLY AT ISSUE
IN THE CASE.
PREVIOUSLY MADE.
An Incidental Discussion of the
Work of the House and Senate
COnferees.

WASHINGTON, Aug. 1S.-Ex-Secre-
tary Carlisle today submitted to Attor-
ney General McKenna a brief contain
ing his views on section 22 Of the new
tariff act, relating to the imposition
of the 10 per cent discriminating duty
on goods imported from foreign coun-
tries through contiguous territory. Mr.
Carlisle, who represents the Boston Sc
Maine railroad, appeared with Former
Assistant Secretary Hamlin, represent
ing the Associated Boards of Trade
and the Merchants Association of BOs-
ton, before Mr.. McKenna last Saturday
and submitted oral arguments on the
question. -s
Mr.. Carlisle contends that there are
only three possible constructions of the
law. According to the first of these, it
was designed to encourage American
Shlpp1ng interests, by discriminating
agalntS goods produced in non-contig-
uous countries and brought into a con-
t1guous country by vessels not of the
United States, and thence imported
into the United States
A very considerable portion of the
brief is devoted to discussion of this
proposition, in the course of which the
facts in connection with the origin and
enactment of the section as it now
stands are stated and commented upon.
1t is shown that the section as it pass
ed both houses of congress related onIy
to goods carried in certain classes of
vessels; the conference committee had
no right to change it's character and
did not intend to do so; that it was
not understood in either the house or
senate, when the conference report was
under consideration, that the purpose
of the original section had been
changed, and he quotes from the state
ments of Senator Allison and Mr.. Ding
ley, who had charge of the reports, to
show this was the case. He examines
the language of the section to show
that, even in its amended form, it still
relates exclusively to goods carried in
vessels, and on this branch of the
question, he concludes that the act re-
lates to all goods actually imported in
vessels not of the United States and
not entitled to the benefits of CONNER
cial treaties, and secondly, to all goods
which, being the product of a non
contiguous country are imported into
q Contiguous SOQIIlIy III VESSELS DOI OI
the United States and thence imported
into this country, in wholesale quanti-
ties.
Mr.. Carlisle contends that, if the
foregoing is not the true meaning of
the section as amended, then the only
other admissible construction of the
language of the section is that the pro-
vision was designed to discriminate
against the wholesale trade between
the people of the United States and
the peoples of Mexico and Canada in
goods produced in on-contiguous
countries and imported into this coun-
try from Mexico or Canada. His con-
tentiOn on this point is that the dis
eliminating duty applies to all goods
imported in vessels not of the United
States and not entitled to the benefits
of treaty stipulations, and secondly,
to all goods produced in a non-con-
tiguous country and thence imported
into the United States from a con-
tiguouS country in wholesale quantl-
ties no matter what may have been
the character of the vessel in which
they were brought to such contiguous
country
According to this construction, the
object of the law was to. discriminate
against goods imported into Canada
and held there in store or in bonded
warehouses, to be afterwards thrown
upon the markets of the United States
III wholesale quantities which would
make our law as to all these goods con-
form to the existing law of Canada in
relation to tea and green coffee i'm
ported from the United States into
Canada. The third possible construc-
tion is that it imposes discriminating
ing duty of 10 per cent upon all goods
dutiable and free which are the prod
uct of contiguous countries, and which
merely pass through the territory or
jurisdiction of Mexico or Canada on
their way to the United States from
their places Of departure for the United
States. This construction, he insists.
is wholly unreasonable and contrary to
the real intention of congress. 1t
would impose the discriminating duty
upon goods simply because they are
carried through a contiguous country;
it would remedy no existing evil; it
would inflict immense injury upon our
railroad and other transportation in
terests, without any corresponding
benefit to the masses of the people,
and would undoubtedly provoke retail
alton on the part of the Dominion gov
ernment.