The Corvallis gazette. [volume] (Corvallis, Or.) 1862-1899, 1897-09-24
lis NOT SUBJECT TO DUTY
Attorney-Generals Opinion in
the Matter Of Section %.
RULING ANxIoUSLY AWAITED
Clause Does Not Apply to Goods Direct
From Foreign Countries or Other
Than British Possessions.

Washington, Sept. 23.-Attorney-
General McKenna has announced his
opinion in the matter of section % of
that goods coming directly into the
United States from foreign countries
through Canadian ports are not subject
to discriminating duty of 10 per cent,
and also holds that foreign goods
shipped from countries other than the
British possessions are not subject to
the discriminating duty.
Two questions were asked the attor-
ney-general. The first was whether
the discriminating duty of 10 per cent
provided for in section 20 should be
assessed against q cargo of tea from
China which had arrived at Vancouver
in British vessels and thence shipped
through Canada to Chicago.
The second was whether discrimin-
ating duty should be assessed against
cargo of manganese from Chill. which
recently arrived in a British ship at
Philadelphia. Both of these questions
the encouragement answers in the
negative.
The opinion of the attorney general
| first quotes section % in full, and then
continues:
''The three plausible contentious
based upon this action which are iden-
tical as to strength, only differing in
degree, are:
"First-That the duty is . dsicrim-
ination upon importations on vessels
not of the United States, whether di-
! 4Io TO
tiguous country, and thence into the
United States.
"Second-Discrimina against i'm
portations of goods (not in the usual
course of strictly retail trade,) from
contiguous country, they not being pro-
ducts thereof (In this the character
of the vessel is not importantly
'Third-A discrimination against
goods being the production of foreign
) country not contiguous to the United
States which shall come into the United
States from contiguous country.
"In this contention the words come
into the United States,' etc., are used
: as designating the movement only.
} ''Under the first and second conten-
tions, the duty would not be imposed.
The first case we are not now concerned
with, and the second is attempted to be
established by the following reasoning
, 1.-The goods are of Chinese or Japan
: ese production, hence the production Of
T foreign country not contiguous to the
=. limited States They come into the
United States from Canada, contigu
s GUS country, and so it is urged that by
! the letter as we'll as by the spirit of thu
e statute they are subject to duty. 1t il
: conceded that the importation is to thu
] United States, the passage through
Canada merely being q movemen
0 toward it's destination, the latter being
' the United States. This being so, i
would seem that there was no reason t.
y distinguish between that importation
y and what may be called in distinction
IS direct one, which should be burdenet
J. and the other not burdened when dis
h elimination was necessary to the mail
: purpose of the law.
d est is said the purpose of the amend
?, ment was to relieve American trans
e continental railroads against the com
y petition of the Canadian Pacific rail
road. 1t may he admitted that this
strong consideration, but, on tn
other hand, it is urged that this compe
IF tition is benefit, and other America
IS railroads claim that the Canadian Paci
9, fic is direct advantage to them. Ho'
g congress regarded this conflict We hav
as no means of knowing
# The attorney general quotes severe
Or authorities in support of his position
/