Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1897-09-22
OPINION OF M'KENhA
On the Mysterious and Much Dis
puted Amendment to the .
DingIey Tariff Law.
SAYS 1T FAILS OF ITS PURPOSE

anu Does NOT Mean what IL Was Intended
to Mean, II Senator Elkins Is Correct
Simply Makes the Old Law q Little
Clearer-BM That Was Approved tho
Same Day as the Tariff Bill Helps the
Attorney General
Washington. Sept. Fin deciding that
the object with which section % was put
into the tariff law-during that bills
consideration by the tariff conference
conmittee-fas not been attained, At
toSpey General McKenna says: Three
Plausible contentious are based upon
this section, which as to strength only
differ in degree. THAT the duty is a
discrimination upon importations in ves-
sels not OF the United States. whether
directly to the United States or to a
contiguous country and thence to the
United States; 2-a discrimination
against importation OF goods mot in the
usual course OF strictly retail traGe)
from a contiguous country. they not be-
ing the products thereof. In this the
character OF the vessel Is not important;
"a discrimination against goods being
the production of foS.gn country not
contiguous TO the United States from q
contiguous country.
In this contention the words come in
TO the United States are used as desig-
mating movement only.
Takes Up the Second Cnse.
The first cass We are not now con-
cerned with. ana the second is attempted
to be established by the following rea-
soning: Tha goods are Chinese or Japan
| csc production hence the production Of
| foreign country not contiguous to the
United States They come into the
United States from Canada, n cpntigu-
| Gus country. and so it. is urged that l,y
the letter as well as by the spirit Of the
statute they are subject to the duty II
Is conceded that the importation Is to
the United States-passage through Can
ada being mere movement only toward
| destination-ths latter being the United
| States This being 80. II would seem
that there was no reason to distinguish
| between that importation and what may
| be called in distinction q direct ono-why
| one should be burdened and the other
| not burdened-wheh the discrimination
was not necessary to the main purpose
| OF the law.
Purpose of the Amendment.
/
! amendment was to relieve the American
| trans-continental railroads against the
| competition OF the Canadian Pacific rail-
road. 1t nay be admitted that this is a
| strong consideration. but on the other
hand, il is urged that this competition Is
| 6nehe!it, and other American railroads
claim that the Cadadian Pacific is o di-
rect advantage to them. How congress
! regarded this conflict we have no means
| OF knowing. There was certainly nc
| avowal and the only expressions Of men,
bers which We have indicate a differen,
purpose than one which might or might
| not have been entertained and which II
| IL had been entertained 1t would seem
| the Natural thing to have explicitly de-
! ciare0.
| What tho Section Really Does.
'The section regards as the law which
preceded it regarded. the Transportation
OF goods by sea. Its purpose was TO Sc
| cure this to vessels Of the United States
by discriminating against Transportation
not in them, primarily to the United
States. eecondarily and 20 prevent eva
sion to q contiguous country-Canada oil
Mexico. The necessity of it TO the effect
iveHeSs OF the law Ia obvious. 1t would
have been useless to have imposed dis
eliminating duty on goods brought Il
San Francisco In foreign vessels and
leave them freeto go to Vancouver in for.
4gn vessels and thence across the inter.
venins land to the United States"
DEFENDS ON VESSEL. AND TREATY