The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1897-09-22

General Mchenna to-uAy anhouhSSu AVS
opinion In the matter OF section 22 OF the
new tariff law. He holds in effect that
goods coming directly into the United
States from foreign countries through
Canadian ports are not subject to the dis
eliminating duty OF ten per cent aud also
holds that foreign goods shipped from
countries other than British possessions
I'm British vessels are not subject 10 the
discriminating duty
Two questions were asked the attorney
general, the first Of which was, In erect
whether the discriminating duty OF ten
pen cent provided for In section 22 should
be assessed against an invoice OF tea
from China which had arrived at Van
couyer In British vessels and thence
shlpped through Canada TO Chicago, the
second question was whether the dis
eliminating duty should be assessed
against cargo vi manganese ore from
Chile. which recently arrived In Brit
ish ship at Philadelphia. Both these
questions the attorney general answers
in the negative.
A law imposing discriminating duties
has been on the statute books In some
form from the time OF the enactment or
The first tariff bill. Section % differs
from the law previously In foroe in that
there is omitted from 1t the words by
any act of Congress. Does this repeal
section 422S? 1t will be observed that
there are no words of express appeal
Consideration OF the effect of this on sec
tlon 422s will slmpllhed by reference to
contemporaneous legislation.
on the same day the Dingley bill was
approved an act entitled IAN act to au-
thorlze the President to suspend discrim-
mating duties imposed on foreign vessels
and commerce." was approved. i shall
hereafter for convenience call 1t the sus-
pension act. This act provides that the
President Is authorized to suspend In
part the operations of sections 42l9 and
g5O2. so that foreign vessels from coun-
try imposing partial discriminating ton-
mage duties upon American vessels, or
partial discriminating import dutieh
upon American merchandise, may enjoy
In our ports the Identical privileges
which the same class OF American yes
sells and merchandise may enjoy In said
foreign country.
It will be observed that II recognizes
the existence Of section 1928 and amends
IL and enlarges the Presidents power.
BY 1925 that chould only be exercised
when NO discriminating duties were i'm
posed or laid on American vessels. The
amendment provides that the power may
be exercised to meet and respond to par
tial discriminating duties as well--recip-
rocatlng the exact privilege though less
than total exemptions.
This act is somewhat confused by Its
reference but Notwithstanding this con-
fusion, the act does recognize the exist
enee OF and extends section 1928. and 1t
also recognizes section 2502 What Is the
effect of this? The act and the Dingley
bill were passed on the same day and
do not think the order of passage Is i'm
portant IL they can be reconclled. II
either repeals the other It Is only by i'm
plcatIon. There must be more than dif-
ference-there must be irreconcilable
conflict.
After citing several authorities In sup
port OF his position, the attorney general
continues: Section 20 and section 422S aaa
amendments are not co-extenslve In
scope: In purpose, therefore, they may be
the compliments OF each other. One pre-
scribes rule, the other the condition
upon which and the agency by which 1t
may be suspended. Each, therefore, has
its purpose-deilnite and consistent. Sec
ton 1928 might be a provlso to section %
and Is In effect made so by the suspen-
sion act and as such provlso 1t Is certain
ly not repugnant to section %. The lat
ter has its operation-commenctng with
its passage and continuing until the con-
dltlons of section 1928 occur and the
President act on account OF them, resum-
ing again II the reciprocal exemptions OF
foreign nations be Withdrawn.
Examples OF this are familiar in our
legislation. The provision in the Ding
ley bill for reciprocity of trade is such
ns emample. Under that the duties OF
the act may he changed.
The attorney general then quotes sew
eral cases in support Of such a conclusion
he reaches that where there is difference
in purpose legislative provisions may be
independent
But the rule of repeal by implication
does not require us to find independence.
II there is not irreconcllable conflict the
laws may exist together. As We have
already seen there Is certainly no ire
conclable conflict, even II there was
more conflict In their language-more In
their purpose-this would have to yield
to the Interpretation Of the time and
manner OF their passage. The suspen.
sion act was reported to the house OF rep
resentatlves by the same committee
which reported the Dlngley blll--was
considered and passed while that act was
in memory, II passed the senate while
the Dlngley bill was pending in consider
alton and was approved by the President
on the same day the Dingley bill was
A knowledge OF Its relations to that bill
and tie effect on Il must therefore be
attributed to the legislature. II may be
1t was the latter bill, for the congress.
slonal record shows that the Presidents
approval OF II was communicated to the
Congress subsequently to that OF the
othere. 4
Even more extreme position might he
taken. It was held in Mead va. Bagnall
and others, 10 Wis l5G, that where the
provisions of q statute to those of an.
other 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 Endllch on the Interpretation Of
statutes, sec. 2i6 and cases cited.
at follows, therefore, that section A22g
was not repealed by section 90 and that
tho merchandise OF both inquiries ia not
TO bc subjected TO a discrimination
duty"
-
Fever infected Coitlr.
WASHINGTON. u. c., Sept 2i.-The
authorities of tho state OF Illinois and
t..... ~.