The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-09-24
A GOOD LAW RENDERED INOPERA-
TIVE.


The recent opinion of the attorney gem
eral practically utilities a section of the
Dingley tariff law which was intended to
operate advantageously for American inter-
ests. Following is a copy of the section as
it stands in the law:
Section o. That discriminating duty of
~ per centum al Valorem, in addition TO the
duties imposed by law shall be levied col
lected and paid on ali goods wares or
merchandise which shall be imported in yes
seis not or the United states tor which, be-
ing the production or manufacture OF any
foreign country not contiguous to the
United States, shan come into the United
States from such contiguous country; but
TINS discriminating duty snail not Apply TO
goods, wares or merchandise which shall be
imported in vessels not of the United states
entitled at the time of such Importation bv
treaty COR convention) to be entered in the
ports OF the United States on payment OF
the same duties as shan then be payable on
goods, wares and merchandise imported in
vessels of the United states NOR to such
foreign products or manufactures as shall
be imported from such contiguous countries
in the usual course of strictly retail trade)
AS the section passed the House it read
above with the parts in parentheses
omitted, and the words "or any act of Con-
gress' in place of the words ''or conven-
ton" were inserted. There has been
great deal of speculation and discussion as
to how the changes were made, but it is
now known. by the admission of Senator
Elkins that he is responsible for them, and
that his object was to secure protection to
American shipping by imposing discrimi-
mating duty on all goods imported in for
eign ships. The object is one with which
every American ought to sympathize.
american shipping is much entitled to
protection any other American industry,
and yet no other industry has been as per-
sistently neglected. Discriminating duties
in favor of American shipping have been
in our tariff laws from 1889 to the present,
but for many years past they have been
suspended under treaties made from time
to time until the provision and even the
principle itself have become practically
obsolete. The object of the change made
in Section % by Senator Elkins was to give
force and effect to the discriminating duty
eliminating duty goods brought into the
United States in vessels of countries en-
titled by treaty or by act of Congress" to
the same duties imposed on goods imported
in vessels of the United States. The new
law strikes out the words "or by act of
Congress" and as result the only ex-
emption from discriminating duties is that
provided specifically in treaties. Incidental
ly Section % would have offered protection
to American transcontinental railroads as
against Canadian roads, which, being sub
sidized by the government, can offer lower
freight rates. Thus, under a strict inter-
probation of the section, if goods of foreign
production should be imported through San
Francisco by a wholesale merchant in Bos-
ton, and be shipped by the Canadian Pa
cifc Railroad, going out of the United
States into Canada, and from Canada back
again into the United States, they would
be subject to the discriminating duty,
whereas, If the same goods were shipped
over the Northern Pacific. the Union Pa
cihc or the Southern Pacific they would not
be subject to the discriminating duty. But,
however, patriotic may have been the OBJ
ject of the changes mede in Section p, or.
however important their results, their effect
has been practically nullified by the opinion
OF the attorney general, who seems to have
been influenced more by fear of Canadian
or British retaliation than by desire to