The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1897-09-22
Attorney General MCKenna Renders His
Decision on a Much Vesed Question.
LAW REGARDS TRANSPORTATION BY SEA
Dinsley Tariff Bill sosncwhut CoI,-
fused. but Does Not Repeal section
s22S and 25O2 OF tho Revised
Statutes Amounts 10 Hut Little
After All.
Washington, Sept. 81, 1897

@fLloiiey IeHeTut NlCNellna to-day an
nounced his opinion in the matter of
section 22 of the new tariff law. He
holds In effect that goods coming direct
iy into the United States from foreign
countries through Canadian ports are
net subject to the discriminating duty
or ten per cent. and also holds that FOR
eign goods shipped from countries other
than British possessions in British yes
sells are not subject to the discriminate
Ing duty.
TWO questions were asked the Attor-
ney General, the first Of of which was
in effect, whether the discriminating
duty OF 10 per cent provided for in sec
tion %, 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 discriminating duty should
be assessed against n cargo OF mangan-
ese ore from Chile, which recently ar
rived in British ship at Philadelphia.
Both these questions the Attorney Gene
ral answers in the negative
The opinion of the Attorney General
first quotes section %, in fun, and then
says:
Three plausible contentious arc based
upon this section which as TO strength
only differ in degree
!. That the duty is 4 discrimination
upon imDortations in vessels not of the
United States, whether directly to the
united States or to n contiguous coun-
try, and thence to the United States.
2 ~ discrimination against importa-
fionS of goods (not in the usual course
OF strictly retail trade) from n con
tiguous country, they not being the pro-
ducts thereof. In this, the character of
the vessel is not important
.. a discrimination against goods be
ing the productions OF Il foreign coun-
try not contiguous to the United States
which Shall come into the United States
from q contiguous country.
In this ontention the words come into
the United States" are used as desig-
mating movement only.
Under the first and second contentious
the duty would not be imposed Under
the third it would be. l hence select it
as basis for consideration.
To support it, it is said that the sec
tfon imp1"es the duty in two cases. (A)
when the goods are imported in vessels
not of the United States and TO the
United States; (B), when they are tie
production OF a country not contiguous
and come into the United States from
country contiguous. The character
OF the vessel in which they were trans
ported TO the cortinguous country, be-
ing Indifferent, the first case we are
ond Is attempted to be established by
the following reasoning:
The goods are of Chinese or Japanese
production, hence the production of n
foreign country, mot contiguous to the
United States" they come into the
United States from Canada. n contir-
nous country, and so it is urged that bv
the latter as we'll as by the spirft 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 to-
ward destination-the latter being the
United States. This being so, it would
seem. that there was no reason to dis
tinguish between that importation. and
may be called in distinction 4 direct one
why one should he burdcncd and the
other not burdened-when the discrmi-
nation was not necessary to the main
purpose of the law.
The section, therefore, regards. as the
law which preceded It regarded. the
transportation of goods by sea. Its pur.
pose was to secure this to vessels of
the United States by discriminating
against transportation not in them pri-
marily DO the United States; secondly
and to prevent evasion, to a contiguous
country-Cauada or Mexico. The neces-
sity OF 1t to the effectiveness of the law
Is Obvious 1t would have been useless
TO have imposed q discriminating duty
on goods brought to San Francisco in
foreign vessels and leave them free to @,
TO Vancouver in foreign vessels and
thence across the intervening land n
the United States.
The amendment Of the law which is
made by section 90, therefore continues
It's object while ii strengthcns and hei .
ter secures 1t.
In the second contention the words
come into the United States" are used
as synonymous to imported The goods
themselves it Is cOntendcd must take
their departure from the contiguous
country in the strict sense of importa
ton MS distinguished from coming
through it as an importation from
some either country. This view is given
plausihility to by the exception that the
dlrty shall "not apply to such foreign
products or manufactures as shall be
imported from such contiguous conn
tries in the usual course of retail trade"
1t is said that the words imported In
the course Of strictly retail trade" indi-
Gates the rule. They are claimed to he
the opposite of Importation in the course
OF wholesale trade and that the Latter
must he direct as those by retail could
I've no other way. But this does not fol-
low Such construction would confne
the rule strictly to the exception. where
as 1t may be Notwithstanding i'm
Dortations strictly sO-called-those
which take their departure from con-
tiguouS country if the other conditions
has an adequate and proper Office. But