Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-09-22
THE SUSPENSION ACT"

'''"'ehce 10 cOntemDOraneOus Ieglsla-
tion.
THE SUSPENSION ACT"
"On the same day the Dingey bill was
approved. an act entitled An act to
authorize the President to suspend dis
eliminating duties imposed on foreign
vessels and commerce. was approved.
! shall hereafter. for convenience. call it
the suspension act. This act provides
that the President Is authorized to sus-
pend in part the operations Of sections
42l9 and 21o2. so that foreign vessels
from country imposing partial dis
eliminating tonnage duties upon Amerl-
can vessels. or partial discriminating
tonnage duties upon American merchan-
disc. may enjoy I'm our ports the Identical
privileges which the same class Of Ameri-
can vessels and merchandise may enjoy
IN said foreign country.
1T win be observed that Il recognizes
the existence Of section 1928 and amends
II, and enlarges the Presidents power,
The amendment provides that the Presi-
dents power may be exercised 10 meet
and respond to partial discriminating
duties. as well as to reclprocate exact
privileges This act Is somewhat con-
fused by its references, but notwithstand-
ing this confusion the act does
recognize the existence Of and extends
section 1928 and IL also recognizes sec
ton l502. What Is tho effect of this?
The act and the Dingley bin were ua ssed
on the same day. and do not think the
order Of passage IS important. If they
can be reconciled. If either repeals the
other. it is only by implication. The
rule OF implied repeal is well established
by long line of cases. There must be
more than dfference-there must be
irreconcilable conflict"
After citing several authorities in sup
port Of his position. the Attorney-Gene-
raj continues: Section % and section
1923 and amendments are not co-exten-
sive i'm scope; in purpose. therefore. they
may be the compliments Of each other.
One prescribes a rule. the other the condi-
tion upon which and the agency by
which IL may be suspended. Each. there
fore. has it's purpose-defnite and con-
sistent. Section 1923 might be a proyiso
to section o. and Is In effect made so by
the suspension act. and as such proviso,
IL is certainly not repugnant to section
%. The latter has its operation. com
mencing with its passage. continuing
under the conditions of section 1928. and
the Presidents acts on account Of them,
and resuming again. If the reciprocal ex-
emptions of foreign nations be with
drawn.
Examples OF this are familiar in our
legislation. The provision i'm the Ding
ley bill for reciprocity of trade is such
an example. Under that the duties of
the act may be changed"
NO IRRECONCILABLE CONFLICT.
The AttOrneyGeneral, then quotes seve-
raj cases in support Of the conclusion
he reaches that where there Is a differ
ence in purpose, legislative provisions
may be Independent, and then, continuing,
says:
"But the rule of repeal by implication
does not require us to find independence.
If there is not irreconcilable conflict
the laws may exist together. As we
have already seen. there Is certainly no
irreconcilable conflict. Even If there
was more conflict in their language. more
in their purpose. this would have to yield
TO the Interpretation of the time and
manner of their passage.
1T follows, therefore, that section 422s
was not repealed by section 22. and that
the merchandise of both inquiries is not
to be subject to discriminating duty"