The Saint Paul globe., 1897-10-04
WHAT ANOTHER ONE DOESN'T
KNOW

The statement has been twice made by St.
Paul contemporary, illustration of the
Inconsistency of Attorney General McKenna,
that some time ago he decided that a package
of diamonds which came to this country
through Canada after the enactment of the
new tariff law, was subject to discriminat-
ing duty of 10 per cent under section % Of
that act. AS a matter of fact the attorney
general made no such decision. That was an
offhand ruling of Secretary Gage, made before
the question of the proper construction OF the
section was submitted to the attorney general.
His opinion, that the section in question was
not intended to exact a discriminating duty
of 10 per cent on goods imported into this
country through Canada, has governed the
practice of the department since 1t was rem
dered.-Pioneer Press.
Even our dull-witted city conrem-
poraries will learn after time that
the Clio b e makes no misstatements
of fact, and that when they ''see it in
the clio b e it is So" The Dispatch
had the temerity recently to run it's
head against one of the G 10 e's
statements of fact, and arnica has
been in large and constant demand in
it's editorial rooms ever since.
Now the Pioneer Press as jaun-
tily bumps up against another,
to be as quickly unhorsed The
Globe stated that, in his decision of
Sept. q, Attorney General McKenna
reversed his ruling of Aug. II, holding
section % operative in the first opinion
and imperative in the second. The
ruling of Aug II, the Pioneer Press
says, was an off-hand ruling of Sec
retary Gage" We can appreciate the
sympathy of our contemporary with
the attorney general and the awkward
position he had to assume in order to
save his party from the effect of letting
Steve Elkins slip in" so vital a pro-
vision; but it should not attempt to
throw the odium onto Secretary Gage
to shield McKenna.
On Aug. Secretary Gage wrote to
Attorney General McKenna, informing
him that since July "a, when the new
law went into effect, certain diamonds,
the product of a country not contigu-
Gus to the United States. and worth
$4,000, had come into the United
States from Canada, but whether by
vessel or rail was not stated. On these
facts the secretary asked of the attor-
ney general an opinion
F'irst-Whether a discriminating duty
of 10 per cent, under section %, should
be levied on the diamonds described
Second-Whether, in determining the
liability of the diamonds to the dis
eliminating duty, it was material to as
certain the mode of conveyance used in
transporting them into the United
States from Canada.
The opinion was written by Judge
Richards, the solicitor general, and ap-
proved by Joseph McKenna, attorney
general He quotes section % as it
stood in the act of 1894 and follows it
with a quotation of the section as
amended in the act of 1897. He then
calls attention to the fact that the
discriminating duty was imposed, un-
der the former, on goods imported in
foreign vessels, while the new law adds
this duty to goods that "come into
country and are the product of a for
eign country not contiguous. He notes
that the word imported" is used in
the one case and come into" in the
other, although attaching little impor-
tance TO it. He holds that the means
of transportation used in bringing the
goods in is immaterial; ''it is sufficient
to know that they come into the Unit
ed States from a contiguous country
and are the production or manufacture
of a country not contiguous to the
United States" Your first question
is. therefore, answered in the affirma-
tive Ghe duty should be levied); your
second in the negative" This was
published fully in the New York Sun
of Aug. H. The Washington CORE
spondent of the New York Evening
Post, on Sept %, wrote that the de-
cision Of Aug. II appeared to have been
overlooked in the opinion Of Sept. %;
and said that there was some doubt
whether Mr.. McKenna realized what
he had done, and that "the treasur5
officers are very much confused as to