The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-08-19
Mr.. CARLlSLE'S BRIEF. |
Discussion Of Section Twenty-Five
of the New Tariff.
THREE POSSIBLE CONSTRUCTIONS.
Designed to Encourage American
shipping Interests, Or TO Discrim-
mate Against Border Trade.

Washington. D. c.. August is.-Ex-Sec-
ney General McKenna brief containing
his views on section % Of the new tariff
act relating to the Interpretation Of the 10
per cent discriminating duty on goods i'm
ported from foreign countries through con-
tiguous territory.
Mr.. Carlisle. who represents the Boston
and Maine Railroad company. appeared
with former Assistant Secretary Hamlin,
representative the Associated Boards OF
Trade and the Mechanics association Of
Boston before Mr.. McKenna last Satur-
day and submitted oral arguments ON the
question. Mr.. Carlisle contends that there
are only three possible constructions Of the
law. According to the first of these con-
strnctions 1T was designed to encourage
American shipping interests by discrimi-
mating against goods produced in non
contiguous countries and brought into
contiguous country by vessels not of the
United States, and thence imported into
the United States. A very considerable
portion OF the brief is devoted to discus-
sion OF this proposition. In the course OF
origin and enactment OF the section as 1t
now stands are stated and commented
upon. 1t is shown that the section as 1t
passed both houses of congress related
only to goods carried In certain classes of
vessels. and that the conference committee
had no right to change the character, and
did not intend to do SO; and 1t was not
understood In either the house or senate
when the conference report was under con-
sideration that the purpose Of the original
section had been changed, and he quotes
from the statements of Senator Allison
and Mr.. Dingley, who had charge OF the
reports. to show that this was the case.
He examines the language of the section
TO show that even in Its amended form it
still. relates exclusively to goods carried
il vessels and on this branch Of the ques-
ton he concludes that the act relates TO
all goods actually imported In vessels not
of the United States and not entitled to
the benefits of commercial treaties. and,
secondly, to all goods which, being the
product or non contiguous country, are
imported into contiguous country In YES
sells not Of the United States and thence
imported into this country In Wholesale
quantities.
Mr.. Carlisle contends tina. II the fore
going Is not the true meaning OF the sec
tion as amended. then another admissible
construction OF the language OF the sec
discriminate against the wholesale trade
between the people Of the United States
and the people OF Mexico aud Canada in
goods produced in Pom contiguous coun-
tries ard imported into this country from
Mexico or Canada. His contention on this
point Is that the discriminating duty ap-
plies TO all goods imported In vessels OF
the United States and not entitled to the
benefits Of the treaty stipulations. and.
secondly, to all goods produced in a non
contiguous country In Wholesale quanti-
ties. no matter what may have been the
character OF the vessels in which they were
brought to such contiguous country. Ac-
cording 10 this construction the object OF
the law was to discriminate against goods
imported into Canada and held there in
store or In bonded warehouses, to be af-
forwards thrown upon the markets of the
United States in Wholesale quantities,
which would make our law ms TO all these
goods conform to The existing law OF Can
ada In relation to tea and green coffee i'm
ported from the United States into Can
ada.
II imposes discriminating duty OF 10 per
cent upon all merchandise. dutiable and
free which are the product OF nom contig-
nous countries and which merely pass
through the territory OF from their places
OF departure .or the United States. This
construction he insists Is wholly linrea-
sonahle and contrary to the intention OF
congress IL would impose the discriminat-
ing duty anon goods simply because they
arc CT rried through a contiguous country: II
would remedy no existing evil; II would
in,lict immense injury upon our railroad
and other transportation interests without
any corresponding benefit 10 the ransses
of the PEOPLE and would undoubtedly pro-
woke retaliation on the Part OF the dotnin-
ion government
Jefferson Davis Portrait.