The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-09-22

| savings and exceptions are often introduced
from ABUNDANT and excessive caution, and it
Wo4 ia seem to me to pervert the intention
OF the author of writing eff every other
tning OF the same general tenor as that ex-
cepted should be regarded as embraced in the
general words" Sutherland on statutory
construction, section 222)
1t follows, therefore. that the answer to
your inquiry, SO far as section % is con-
! OF the vessel in which the goods were car
| ried to Vancouver
Second. if in foreign vessels, whether the
to be entered in the ports of the United
States on the payment of the same duties
| as II imported in American vessels.
i assume the vessels were not of the
United States, but British vessels and this
brings me to your communication of Aug.
II, IN which you inquire whether section 22
statutes, and your communication of Sept.
| z, asking whether manganese ore imported
f pSi1a Chill Chih in the British bark Luriie to
Mg duty law imposing discriminating
duties has been on the statute books in
some form from the time of the enactment
from the law previously in force in that
there Is omitted from it the words ''by any
act act. . OF congress: Does this repeal section
no words of express repeal. Consideration of
the effect Of this on section 1929 will be
simplhed by a reference to contemporaneous
| On the same day the Dingley bill was
approved an act entitled IAN act to author
ize the president to suspend discriminating
| duties imposed on foreign vessels and com.
merce' was approved. l shall hereafter, for
| convenience call it the suspension act This
| act provides that the president is authorized
! tons 1919 and 25O2, so that the foreign
vessels from country imposing partial dis
eliminating tonnage duties upon American
vessels, or partial discriminating import du-
American merchandise NAV
| JOY in our ports the identical privileges
which the same class of American vessels
| country.
| 1t will be observed that it recogn yes the
: existence of section 1929 and amends it
and enlaTges the presidents powers BY 1929
! that could only be exercised when no dis
eliminating duties were imposed or laid
on American vessels. The amendment pro-
meet and respond to partial discriminating
dutles as Incorporating the act privi-
reyes through less than total exemptions.
ACT CONFUSED.
This act is somewhat confused by its ref
erences, but, Notwithstanding this confusion
the act does not recognize the existence Of
and extends section 1928 and it also recig-
nizes section 1902 What Is the effect of
this? The act and the Dingley bill were
passed on the same day, and I do not think
the order Of passage is important if they
can be reconciled If either repeats the 9th
er, it is only by implication. The rule of
q
line OF cases. There must be more than
hict.
After citing several authorities in support
Oh his position, the attorney general
tinues:
Section % and section 1928 and amendments
are not coextensive in scope; in purpose,
therefore, they may the compliments of each
other. One prescribes a rule, the other the
condition upon which the energy by which it
may be suspended. Each, therefore, has its
purpose-dehnite and consistent Section
422S might be provision to section % and is
In effect made so by the suspension act. and
as such proviso it is certainly not repugnant
to section %. The latter has its operations
commencing with its passage continuing until
the conditions of section 1923 occur and the
president act on account of them, resuming
again if the reciprocal exemptions of foreign
nations be withdrawn.
Examples of this familiar in our legis-
lation. The provisions in the Dingley bill for
reciprocity of trade is such an example, In
der that the duties of the act may be
changed.
The attorney general then quotes several
cases in support of conclusion he reaches
that where there are differences in purpose
legislative provisions may be Independent, and
then continuing. says:
But the rule of repeal does not require us
to find independence. If there is not irrecon-
ciliable conflict the laws may exist together
AS we have already seen, there is certainly
an irreconcilable conflict. Even if there was
more conflict in their language-more in their
purpose-this would have to yie.d to the inter-
passage. The suspension act was reported 20
the house of representatives by the same COM
mittee which reported the Dngey bill-was
considered and passed while that act was in
memory. II passed the senate while the Ding
ley bill was pending in consideration, and
was approved by the president on the same
day the Dingley bill A knowledge of its
relations to that bill, and its effect on Il
must, therefore be attributed to the legs.a-
ture. 1t may be it was the later bill, for
the Congressional Record shows that the
presidents approval of it was communicated
to congress subsequently to that Of the other
Even a more extreme position might be
taken. 1t was held in Mead vs. Bagnal and
others. 10 Wis, 156. that where the provis-
ions Of a statute which relates to particular
c&ss Of cases are repugnant to those of
other statute approved the same day, which
is Of a general character, the former must
prevail as to the particular class of cases
therein referred to-
See also "Endlich ON the Interpretation OF
Statutes" section PIG, and cases cited.
1t follows, therefore, that section 1929 was
not only repealed by section %, and that the
merchandise of both inquiries is not to BIO
subjected to a discriminating duty.