The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1897-09-22

I Washington, Sept. 21.-AttOrney Gem
/ efai AlCkerlTa announced his OUinion
IN the npl1ter OF section p CT the new
tariff law. He holds in effect that
goods coming directly into the United
States from foreign countries alarough
! canadian DOTS are not subject to the
[ discriminating duty of 10 per cent. and
also holds that the foreign goods
shipped from countries otiser than the
| British Possessions are not subject TO
! discriminating duty
Two cussitl0nt5 were asked the attor-
| neg eeIlaIal. The first was, in effect,
| whether the discriminating duty of 10
| Der cent. provided for in section %
should be assessed against an invoice
of tea from China which had arrived
at Vancouver in British vessels and
! t'hSnoe shipped through Canada to Chi
! cage; the second was whether the dis
| cTdmir6eing duty should be assessed
| against a cargo CT manganese ore from
| Chill which recently arrived in a Brit
! ish shin at Philadelphia. Beth these
| questlcEls tlae attorney general answers
! in the negative.
| 1t is said that the ptirr5Eie of the
amendment was to relieve the Amer
foam transcontinentaJ railroads against
! the competition of the Canadian Pacific
railroad 1t may be atltn5ttsd that this
/ is a strong consideration; but, On the
either hand it is urged that thias COM
| petition is benefit and other Amer
! lean railroads CL3hn that the Cd-lHtl3I
Pacific is q direct advantage to them.
! How cCIgreEs regarded this ci1niiiCt
( WE have no MEANS of knowing. There
! was certainly no ayowal AID the only
! expressions OF members which we have
| iTi1tcate a. different DurDosle than the
Cne which migEi- cC might LJt have
| bee1 enseCtsiiGs,1. and wtnSca. if it had
| bean entertained, would see'm tlls
! rGau1al th4qS 70 have explicltely de-
| cIaIeI
! AS there was I'D reason, therefore,
why the portat.On-i.nr1fTsct or direct
t--ghI3uld be dEgcriEtnated by different
| duties. I am mot disposed to think that
| it was i-Ilsnded. To so hold would be
| TO put q new DurgC5e In the law
| destroying its unnly-wlalCh is not com
\ pelled by its language or by any mis-
! chief which we may say was in the
| contemplation of the lawmakers to be
remedied. The section, therefore, as
| regards 9tha law which preceded it, re-
! garded tine transportation of goods by
! sea. It's purpose was to secure this TO
vessels of the United States by dis
/ eliminating against transportation not
| III them, primarily, so the United
States; secondartly, ami to prevent
evasion, 10 q contiguous country
Canada or Mexico. The necessity of 1T
TO the effectiveness OF. the law Is Obvi-
~
imposed a discriminating duty on goods
brought TO San Francisco in foreign
vessels and leave them free to go TO
| Vancouver in foreign vessels and thence
across the Intervening land to the
United States.
L have considered your inquiry SO far
as II the section only regarded mere
transportation through Canada We
shall see hereafter that it has a broader
scope.
The answer to your inquiry
so far as section % is con
cerned, depends o. upon the char
acter of the vessel in which the goods
we're carried TO Vancouver; 81 if in
foreign vessels, whether the goods were
entitled by treaty or convention to be
entered into the ports of the United
States on the payment of the same du-
ties as if imported in American vessels.
/ l 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 % repeats sections I 2zS
to 1922 of the revised statutes, and
your communication Of Sept. 2 asking
whether manganese ore imported from
Chill in the British bark Iurlie to Phil
adelphia is also subject to a discrim-
mating duty-a law imposing dislcriTn-
mating duties On the statute books in
ment of the first tariff bill. Section q
differs from the law previously in force
in that that there is omitted from it the
words "by any act Of congress-" Does
this repeal section APPS? 1t will be OBJ
served that there are no words of eX-
press repeal Consideration of the eff
feet of this on section 4,22S Will be sim
plifed by a reference to contemporary
enous legislation.
On the same day the Dingley 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.
1 shall hereafter for convenience consult
the SUSPENSION act. This act provides
that the president is authorized to sus-
pend in part the operation of sections
4219 and 2502 SO that foreign vessels
from a country imposing partial dis
eliminating tonnage duties upon Amer
lean vessels or partial discriminating
import duties upon American merchan-
disc, may enjoy in our ports the identi-
cal privileges which the same class Of
American vessels and merchandise may
. enjoy in said foreign country.
It viii be observed that it recognizes
the existence of section 4.22S. and
amends it and enlarges the president s
power. BY section apps that could
only be exercised when no discrinIin-
| dC10S GQIl6S were lIlDOSed VI lctiQ Oi1
American vessels. The amendment pro-
vides that the power may be exercised
to meet and respond to partial discriIn-
mating duties as well-reciprocati
the exact privilege through less than
total exemptions.
This act is somewhat confused by it's
references, but Notwithstanding this
confusion the act does recognize the
existence of and extends section 4,22S
and it also recognizes section 2,502.
What is the effect of this? The act
and the DingIey bill were passed on the
same day, and do not think the order
of passage is important if they can be
reconcled. If either repeats the other
. it is only by implication. The rule OF
implied repeals is well established by a
/ long line of cases. There must be more
than difference-there must be irrecOn-
cilabIe conflict.
; Section 1929 might be a proviSo to
. section % and is in effect made so by
the suspension act, and as such proviso
1t is certainly not repugnant to section
: % The latter has its operation, com
mencing with its passage, continuing
, until the conditions Of section 1928 oc-
cur and the president act on account of
them. resuming again if the reciprocal
/ exemptions of foreign nations have
2 been withdrawn.
: It follows, therefore. that sec
ton 1928 was not repealed by section
; % and that the merchandise of both in
/ auiries is not to be subjected to a dis
: eliminating duty.
@&D-
Embezzler In the Tolls.
Cape May, Nj. Sept. 21-George Boz