The times., 1897-08-12
A TARIFF QUESTION DECIDED,
Goods Not Produced In Canada Must
Pay Discriminating Duties.

Aoous NOt r roOuce0 In Cdua0a MUST
Pay Discriminating Duties.
Attorney General McKenna yesterday
sent to Secretary Gage the following com
Inuntcation, which explains itself:
Department Of Justice.
washington, d. o., August Il 1897.
The Secretary of the Treasury:
Sir-I your communication OF the 9Th
Instant you state that recently, since the
tariff act of July "a, 1897, went into
effect, certain diamonds have been i'm
ported into the United States from the
Dominion OF Canada, a foreign country con
tiguous to the United States. These dia,
monds were the production OF a foreign
country not contiguous to the United
States, and were worth 100000, So they
cannot be regarded as imported in the
usual course Of strictly retail trade. The
method of transportation of the diamonds
from Canada into the United States,
whether by vessel, rail, or otherwise, is
not Etated
After calling attention to the provisions
OF section % OF the tariff act of July "a,
1897, you inquire,
First Whether a discriminating duty of
10 per cent under section % should be
lcNicd on tIc AlhIiCI.uS utotIiDcur
Second, Whether, in determining the
liability of the diamonds TO The discrirn-
mating duty, it Is material to ascertain
the mode of conveyance used In transport
ing them into the United States from Can.
ada.
Section / 4 of the tariff act of August 2S,
1894, provided discriminating duty OF
10 per cent on goods Imported in foreign
vessels, with certain exceptions, the Sec
tion reading as follows:
Sec Ia. That a dscrimin ating duty
Of 10 per centum al yalorem, in addition
to the duties imposed by law, shall be
levied, collected, and paid on all goods,
wares, or merchandise which shall be im-
ported IN vessels not Of the United States,
but this discriminating duty shall not ap-
ply TO goods, wares, and merchandise
which shall be imported IN vessels not Of
the United states, entitled by treaty Of
any act OF Congress, TO be entered in the
ports of the United States on payment OF
the same duties as shall be paid on goods.
wares aud merchandise Inpor ted ia vessels
of the United States.
Section % OF the tariff act of July "a,
1897, continued she discriminating duty
imposed by section Ii or the former law,
and added d discriminating duty OF / o per
cent OF all goods which, being the pro
duetion or manufacture OF any foreign
country not contiguous TO the United States.
shall come into the United States from Il
contiguous country, without being imported
'in the usual course OF strictly retailtrade
The fun text OF the section is as follows:
Section 22 That a discriminating duty
or 10 per centufu ad yalOrefn, In addition
TO the duties imposed bylaw shall be levied,
collected and paid on all goods, wares or
merchandise which shall be imported In
vessels not or the United States, or which
BENG tile production or manufacture OF
any foreign country not contiguous 10 the
United states, shall come into the Unltec
States from such contiguous country, but
this discriminating duty shall not apply
TO goods, wares or merchandise which shall!
be imported IN vessels not or the United
States, entitled at the time OF uchimporta-
ton by treaty or convention TO be entered
In the ports OF the United states on pa yIuent
or the same duties as shall then be payable
on goods, wares and merchandise Imported
IN vessels or the United States, nor 10 such
foreign products or manufacture as shall
be Imported from such contiguous countries
In the usual course of strictly retail trade
The former law imposed a discriminating
duty only on goods imported in certain
| foreign vessels. The present law imposes
a discriminating duty also on goods which
como into tue United States from a con-
tiguous country, and are the product of
foreign noncontiguous country, and are Nut
imported in the usual course of strictly
retail tiade."
1t will be observed that the word i'm
ported" is not used in connection with
goods wEioil 'ccme into" the United states
from a centiguo5s country, save in the
exception sxempting goods imported in
the usual course Of strictly retail trade;"
| but for the purposes Of this opinion it is
| net necessary to consider the precise ef
| fact OF the words come into,' as dis
| tinguished from the word imported tf
| indeed there be any difference III meaning.
In determining whether the goods under
| consideration are subject to the discrimI
| mating duty, 1t Is not material to ascertain
| the mode of transportation or method Of
| importation; 1t Is sufficient to know that
| they come into the United States from
| q contiguous country, and are within
| class subjfo to duty, namely, are the pro-
| duction OF manufacture of foreign coun
| try not contiguous TO tile United States,
| and are not imported in the usual course
| of strictly retail tr ade y
| Your first question is, therefore, an
| swered in the affirmative; your second Ia
| the negative.