The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1897-09-22
SECTION y E%MASCULATED.
pECTsIoN AGAINST THE DIscRI1rI-
NATING DUTY
Auoruey-Genern Mcxenna Gives a. Opinion
which VIII BriuE Soy to the Canadian
poads Eikinn says Now the Canadian
pacific BondinE Privilege viii NE Fourht.

which Will BriuE Soy to the Canadian
Roads- Eikinn says Now the Canadian
Pscinc BondinE Privilege viii NE FouEht.
WARRINGTON, Sept 81 Attornoy-General
NeKonna gsve the country n surprise to-day In
NJ. opinion about the applicability Of the dis
eliminating duty Os 10 per cont. provided by the
DInqley Tariff law. Nearly everybody supposed
that he would sustain the perfunctory conten-
ton OF the Treasury Department that the duty
could be levied on goods from a foreign country
imported into the United States through
a cont 'uous country. He held, how.
aver, that section %, which contains
the discriminating provision. did not mako
any material change in existing law. In
substance his decision 10 that goods, wares or
merchandise brought from q foreign country
into this country through Canada or Mexico are
no, subject to the additional discriminating
duty except when brought to Canadian and
Mexican ports by vessels not having reciprocal
tonnage duties arrangements with the United
States, and that goods from countries other
than British possessions In Europe are likewise
exempt. A treaty with Great Britain provided
that discriminating duties should not be levied
on articles from Great Britain's European terri-
tory.
In the course of his opinion the Attorney
General discussed the question Of the intent
OF Congress in adopting the provision for
the application OF the discriminating duty.
His logic led him to the conclusion that Congress
did not mean to repeal the sections OF the ro-
viscd statutes providing exemptions from
discrimination on goods from countries
with which we had reciprocal arrange
men;s concerning the assessment OF ton
mage duties. In this his idea is directly
opposed to that of some of the congressman who
voted tor the tariff bill. Senator Elkins, who
section %. holds that it was tho understanding
otConsTess that The discrimination Yves TO apply
United States over Canadian railroads. He
maintains that section % was intended to cur.
tail the business OF the Canadian Pacific Rail.
road by compelling importers to use American
railroads.
goods imported at Vancouver. FOR example, over
QUE OF the Japanese or British steamship lines
FSSirOld to a, port in the rnited States and
there admitted at the rates OF duty provided by
ar landed in this country in that manner they
are not 10 be subject TO any additional discrimi-
The Treasury. Department. which asked for
the opinion. will be bound 10 follow 1t, and as
Wifi have * mot not o IpSSIy i1 3s any on yd sPRFSsihl; tf the e inlsF.
estinE questions involved. Had the Attorney
duty was applicable in the test cases presented
toT MS eonsideration. appeals you'd have been
ment IN "a sIse ssf Il the al %ddition nsiI'ds duty, and nsPt the
federal Judiciary would have had chance to
The opinion OF the Attorney General was
based on Questions submitted by Secretary Gage
concerning the assessment OF the additional dis
eliminating duty on diamonds and teas brought
into the lnitei States through Canada. In his
letter 70 Mr.. Mckenna requesting the opinion.
Mr.. Gage says the teas came from japan, via
Vancouver, B.: c., and thence through Canada
=, ,es GeicS al vs a@sy sTFt by d E T. EsI's siS,s in cars cars
suIaT officer, under regulations of the Treas ~
De- art nnG1io es \ d. on n The he. 'TsHtE Of Washington
The Atto~rney:General cites three plausible
contentious against the assessment Of the dis;
without argument by the remark that the duty
third contention he selects as a basis for the
consideration OF the whole subject. This con.
tention is that section - provided a discrimina.
ton against goods the productions OF a foreign
eountry not contiguous to the United States.
which shall come into the United States from a
submitted by the Treasury Department as an
example. he says:
Iii conceded that the importation is to the
United S~tates-passase through Canada being
would seem that there was no reason to distin-
guIsh between that importation and what may
shouIc be bureened ana the other not burdened
when the discrimination was not necessary to
the main purpose of the law. IL Is said
that the purpose was to relieve the American
transcontinenta! railroads. against the competi-
ton OF The Canadian PACING Railroad. 1t may
be admitted that this is a strong consideration
but. on the other hand. it is urged that this com.
claim that the Canadian Pacific is n direct al.
Vantage to them. How Congress regarded this
was Certainly no avoWai, and the only expires,
sions OF members which we have indicate a diff
feren' purpose than one which might or might
not have been entertained. and which. il IL had
been entertained. would seem the natural thing
to have explicitly declared.
AS there was no reason, therefore. WHY the
Observation-Disclosures or direct-should be dis.
cFiMinat"d by different duties ! am not disposed
to think that it was intended. To so hold would
b. TO put a new purpose in . law destroying
or any mischief which we may say was in the
contemplation of the lawmakers TO be remedied.
which preceded it regarded. the transportation
Of goods by, sea. Its purpose was to secure this
against transportation, not in them primarily,
to the United states seCoudarily, ana to prevent
S Sasion' to a contiguous c0~un'F'-canadA OF
Continuing, after some explanatory remarks.
the Acknowledgement says:
- 1t follows. therefore. that an answer to your
inquiry SO far as section - is concerned de-
Ponds ~ upon the character of the vessel in
which the goods were carried to Vancouver; ~
II y foreign vessels whether the goods were
the ports OF the United States upon the pay
nent OF the same duties as If imported in
American W ssels.
II assume the vessels we're not Of the United
States, out British vessels, and this brings me
%22S 10 1892 OF the Revised Statutes, and your
sS%@e ots ImPo 2t seP fto y 'scf h.if T IN. the br %fHs
sark Lgriee 70 Philadelphi1 Is also subject
eliminating duties ha" been on the statute
bnoHS IN some form from The time OF the enact
I]ani.a!lytlA It msiintained o until senteion = wal
passed IL was inserted in the act OF May %
l7%i. Section 2 OF that act was as
follows: Section 2-And be 1t further
enacted. that an addition OF 10 pei
cenirIn shall be made to the several rates
%otdutles hereby imposed upon the several arti
e!cs aforesaid. which. after the said respective
tInes for the commencement OF. the duties here
by imposed. shall Re imported in ships or yes
tels, not OF the United States; provided. thai
thls addition shall not be applied TO articles I'm
ported In ships or vessels, not OF the Cnitec
States, entitled by treaty. or by any act OF Con
ETess, 70 be admitted on payment Of the sam,
sblp.., or vessels of the United States
bIa.s section, with unimportant ysISa
and section 2.5O2 OF the Revised Statutes. =.
In section 20 there is a change. There i
omitted rom 1t the words by any act Q
C%9nSress.' Does this repeal section 4,22sl I
WI! be observed that there are no words OF OF
press repeal The effects of tho acts of Con
gress are avoided. and this may not be the sam
as 70 section Apps. as to sections 4,229 an