The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1897-09-22

II Is said that the words imported in the
usual course Of retail trade indicate the
rule. They are claimed to be the oppo-
site OF importation in the course Of
| wholesale trade, and that the latter must
be direct. as those by retail could be by
no other way
But this does not follow. Such con-
struction would confine the rule strictly
to the exception, whereas it may be
Notwithstanding importations strictly
so-called-those which take their depart
ure from a contiguous country, If the
| other conditions Of the rule exist. II so
| the exception had an adequate and prop
er Office. But ii is not even necessary
to so this far.
| st is a matter OF common experience
that savings and exceptions are often
| introduced from abundant and excessive
| caution and it~would some times per-
vert the intention Of the author OF a
/ writing, If everything Of the same gen.
erai tenor as that excepted should be re-
| garded az embraced in the general
words" Sutherland on statutory con-
struction. Section 222)
sit follows, there that the answer TO
your inquiry, 50 far as section % is con-
cerned, depends % upon the character
| Of the vessel in which the goods were
| carried 10 Van CouveT, (2) If in foreign
vessels. whether the goods were entitled
| by treaty or convention 10 be entered in
| the ports of the United States upon the
payment of the same duties as if i'm
| ported in American vessels.
II assume the vessels were not Of the
United States but British vessels, and
! this brings me 10 your communication OF
August II, in which you inquire whether
, section % repeats sections 4,22S 10 1922
| of the revised statutes, and your commu-
| nication Of September 2, asking whether
manganese ore imported from Chill in
| the British bark Lurlie 70 Philadelphia
| is also subject TO discriminating duty.
law imposing discriminating duties
has been on the Statute books in some
form from the time of the enactment Of
the first tariff bill. Section % differs
from the law previously in force in that
there is omitted from the words 10y any
act of congress- Does this repeal sec
ton APPS? II will be observed that
there are no words of express repeal.
Consideration OF the effect Of this on
section 4,22S will be simplified by re-
ference to contemporaneous legislation.
ION the same day the Dingley bill
was approved an act entitled An act 70
authorize the President to Suspend Dis
eliminating Duties Imposed on Foreign
Vessels and Commerce" was approved.
I shall hereafter, for convenience. call il
the suspension act. This act provides
that the president is authorized 10 GUS
pend in part the operations of sections
4,219 and 2,5O2 so that the foreign vessels
from a country imposing partial dis
eliminating tonnage duties upon Ameri-
can vessels, or partial discriminating i'm
port duties upon American merchandise,
may enjoy in our ports the identical
privileges which the same class Of
American vessels and merchandise may
enjoy in said foreign country.
at will be observed that it recognizes
the existence Of section 4,22S and amends
1t and enlarges the presidents power,
and by APPS that could only be exercised
when no discriminating duties were inn
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-reci- |
procating the exact privilege through |
less than total exemptions.
This act is somewhat confused by its |
reference but notwithstanding this con-
fusion the act does recognize the exist |
ence of and extends section 4,22S and it |
also recognizes section 2,502. What is (
the effect Of this? The act and the |
Dingley bill were passed on the day and |
l do not think the order Of passage is !
important if they can be reconciled. II |
either repeats the other II is only by i'm /
plication. The rule of implied repeats |
is we'll established by a long line OF |
cases. There must be more than differ
ence-there must be irreconcilable con-
fiics."
After citing several authorities in |
supper, of his position, the attorney gen.
erai continues:
Section % and section 4.22S and /
amendments are not co-extensive in
scope; in purpose, therefore they may
be the compliments OF each other. One
prescribes rule, the other the condition
upon which and the energy by which II
may be suspended. Each, therefore, has
its purpose-defini.e and consistent.
Section APPS might be an act and such
proviso it is certainly repugnant 10 sec
ton %. The latter has lis operation
commencing with its passage, continu-
ing until the conditions Of section 4,22S
occur and the president act on account
OF them. resuming again IL the recipro-
cal exemptions OF foreign nations have
been Withdrawn.
Examples of this are familiar In our
legislation The provision in the Dingley
bill for reciprocity Of trade is such an
example. Under that the duties OF the
act may be changed
The attorney general then quotes sew
eral cases in supper; Of conclusion ne
reaches, ina, where there IS differences
in purpose, legislative provisions may
be independent, and then, continuing.
says:
But the rule OF repeal by Implication
does not require Us 20 find independ-
ence. If there is no, irreconcilable con-
fict the laws may exis, together. As
we have already seen. there is certainly
no isreconcilable confiict Even IL there
was more conflict in their language
more in their purpose-this would have
20 yield 70 the Interpretation OF the time
and manner % their passage. The sus-
pension act was reported 70 the house q
representatives by the same committee
which reported the Dingley bill-ras
considered and passed while that act
was in memory. l. passed the senate
while tae Dingley bill was tending in
consideration and was approved BY TIE
president on me same day as me Ding
ley bill A knowledge % lis relations .
.ha. hfff and f-s efra-- IN II must -Ia-z-