The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-08-15
TARIFF-LAW HEARING.
Ambiguous Phrase Leads to Argu-
ments Before the Attorney General

ments Before the Attorney General
WASHINGTON, Aug. 14-Attorney Gen.
eral McKenna to-day gave a hearing to
parties interested in the question involved
in Section 22 of the new tariff act Some
days ago the secretary of the treasury re-
ceived infol nation from the collector Of
customs at Chicago that large invoice Of
teas and other goods from Japan had been
received at that port over a Canadian rail-
road and asking whether the 10 per cent.
discriminating duty. provided for in Sec
ton Y, applied to these goods. The uues-
tion was at once referred to the attorney
general for an opinion. At the request Of
the Boston & Maine Railroad Company,
however, the attorney general decided to
give hearing to-day to persons interested.
Former Secretary Carlisle appeared for the
Boston & Maine Railroad, and former AS
sistant Secretary Hamlin represented the
Associated Board of Trade and the Mer-
chants Association of Boston
Mr.. Hamlin was the first speaker. The
question, he said, was whether goods
shipped from China or Japan to points in
the United States through Canada were
importations from CanAHa within the
meaning of the statute. In the case of a
transaction, for instance, said he of the
sale of goods in China TO a merchant in
Boston, there was no intermediary. The
transit of the goods, though they might
come in through Canada, was never inter-
rupted. The goods, he insisted, could not
fairly be said to be expectations from Can
ada. Mr.. Hamlin cited a great many rul-
ings, both of the Treasury Department and
the Department of Justice, in support Of
his contention. In the case of goods going
through United States territory in bond
from point in Canada to another point in
Canada the solicitor of the treasury, in an
exhaustive ruling, had decided that such
entry of goods did not constitute an inn
portation within the meaning of the stat
ute He contended, therefore, that, con-
versely, goods coming into the United
States through Canada in transit from an
other country were not expectations from
Canada.
The decision of the above question, Mr..
Hamln said, hinged upon the construction
TO be placed upon these words of the stat
ute Game into the United States FROM
contiguous countries. He submitted that
the words did not apply to goods in transit
The Century Dictionary defined from" as
expressing departure" from a point These
goods took their departure from China or
Japan, not from Canada AS well, said he.
might it be contended that man travelling
from New York to Washington through
Baltimore departed" from Baltimore. The
goods did not appear in the Canadian re-
ports as exports from Canada, nor in our
reports as imports from Canada. lie cited
as an analogous statute the law requiring
the deportation OF Cinnamon To the country
from whence they came. In constituting
that statute the attorney general had de-
cided the words from whence he came
meant his ultimate country OF departure
(China) unless the Chnaman had been nat
uralized by the Dominion government. It
would De strange, indeed. said Mr. HamlIn,H
the country through which he came should
be considered the country from whence he
came. And with goods in bond. Ii was
their place of shipment, not point en-
route, which must be considered. lie spoke