The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-09-22

ported from Chile in the British bark Lurlie
10 Philadelphia is also subject to discrimi-
mating duty.
"A law imposing discriminating duties has
been the statute books in some form
from the time of the enactment of the first
tariff bills. Section % differs from the law
previously in force in that there is omitted
from 1t the words by any act of Congress-.
Does this repeal Section 1928? 1t Will be
observed that there are no words of eX-
press repeal. Consideration of the effect of
this on Section 1928 will be Simplified by
reference to contemporaneous legislation.
On the same day the Dingley bill was APP
proved an act entitled an act to authorize
the President to suspend discriminating
duties imposed on foreign vessels and COM
merce' was approved. / shall hereafter. for
convenience call ii the suspension act. This
act provides that the President is author
lied to suspend in part the operation of
Sections 1919 and 2502, so that foreign yes
sells from a country imposing partial dis
eliminating tonnage duties on American
vessels or partial discriminating import
duties on American merchandise may enjoy
in our ports the identical privileges which
the same class of American vessels and
merchandise may enjoy in said foreign
country.
ENLARGES THE PRESIDENTS POWER.
1T will be observed that it recognizes the
existence of Section 1928 and amends it and
enlarges the Presidents power. By Section
1928, that could only be exercised when no
discriminating duties were imposed or laid
on Aemrican vessels. The amendment pro-
vides that the power may be exercised to
meet and respond to partial discriminating
duties as well-reciprocating the exact privi-
lege, though less than total exemptions.
This act is somewhat confused by it's ref
erences, but notwithstanding this confusion
the act does recognize the existence OF,
and extends. Section 1928, and it also recog-
niZes Section 1852. What is the effect of
this? The act and the Dingley bill We're
passed on the same day and / dc not think
the order Of passage is important II they
can be reconcied. If either repeats the
other it is only by implication. The rule
of implied repeats is Well established by
long line of cases. There must be more
than difference-there must be irreconcila-
After citing several authorities in support
of his position the attorney general con-
tinues: Section p and Section APPS and
amendments are not cOeXtenSive in scope;
in purpose. therefore, they may be the COM
piements of each other. One prescribes a
rule, the other the condition on which,
and the agency by which, it may be sus-
pended. Zach, therefore, has its purpose
definite and consistent. Section 1928 might
be a, proViso to Section % and is in effect
made SO by the suspension act and as such
prOViSO it is certainly not repugnant to Sec
ton q. The latter has its operation, COM
menclng with Its passage, continuing until
the conditions of Section 422S occur and the
Presidents act on account of them, and
resuming again if the reciprocal exemptions
offering foreign nations be Withdrawn. Elk
ampleS of this are familiar in our leglSla-
ton. The provision in the Dingley bill for
reciprocity OIL ITdue Is SuCH dl SAdllplc.
Under that the duties of the act may be
changed"
,rhe attorney general then quotes several
cases in support of a conclusion he reaches
that where there is difference 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
irreconciliable 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 nave
to yield to the Interpretation of the time
and manner of their passage. The Suspen-
sion act was reported to the House of Rep
reported the Dingley bill-was considered
and passed white that act was in memory.
1t passed the Senate while the Dingley bill
was pending in conference and was APP
proved by the President on the same day
the Dingley bill was. knowledge of its re-
lations TO that bill and its effect on 1t must
therefore be attributed to the legislature.
1t may be it was the later BILL for the
Congressional Record shows that the Presi-
dents 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.. Bagnall
and others Us Wis, 1850 that where the
provisions of a statute which relates to
particular class of cases are repugnant to
those of another statute approved the same
day which is of more general character
the former must prevail as to the particular
class of cases therein referred to- See
also Endlich on the Interpretation of stat
utes Section 216 and cases cited. 1t fol-
lows therefore, that Section 4228 was not
repealed by Section % and that the mer-
chandise of both inquiries is not to be sub
iected to a discriminating duty"