The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1897-08-19
THE DrsCRIar1vArINa DUrr.
Ths Attorney.Genernrs Opinion Expected BY
N~Iondny-No Moro no~nded.Goods Privilege.


Rrondny-No Moro Bonded-Go0ds Privileges.
WASHINGTON. Aug. 1s.-It is probable that
Attornoy-Gc McKcnna will in a few days.
perhaps on Monday, render his opinion In tho inn
portant question submitted to him by the Treas
ury Department, involving n construction of
section % Of the new Tariff law, placing a dis
eliminating duty of 10 per cont. upon mcr-
chandisc carried in other than American vessels.
There is good reason, moreover, for the state
ment that Judge McKenna's opinion will
decide that the effect Of the new law
will DO to abolish the bonded goods
privilege SO long enjoyed by tho Canadian
railroads at the expense of their American RI
walls. Such a decision will give satisfaction to
tho officials Of the Treasury Department, who
are heartily in sympathy with the apparent dc.
sire of the Mckinley Administration to do what
30 many Administrations have more or less earn
estly sought to do, discontinue the practice of
allowing Canadian railroads to carry mcrchan-
disc through the United States in scaled cars,
free OF duty. Many Secretaries of the Treasury
have expressed a determination to accomplish
this, but all have failed. Now it is thought
that tho desired result will be reached
with the aid of the legal opinion of tho Attorney.
General, indorsing tho construction put upon
section o. of the Dinglcy law by the customs
officers of the Treasury Department. Tho
amendment may have been inserted in tho sec.
ton by the Tariff Conference Committee
secretly, possibly 1t was, but IL is there to stay,
and If tho Attorncy.Gencral says officially that
1t means just what 1t appears on its face to
mean. tho Treasury Department will at once cut
of the bonded privileges so long enjoyed by tho
Canadian railroads, and they will be compelled
to seek redress in the courts or in Congress.
To-day the Union Pacific Railroad, by its gen.
eral counsel, filed a brief in opposition to tho
cDnfpntipn TINT Tho diSpptnJ gnptinp 90 ,v,u In
tended to apply merely to goods brought to tho
United States in vessels not OF the United
States. and that it does not apply, and was not
intended TO apply. to railroad traffic.
Former Secretary of tho Treasury Carlisle
and former Assistant Secretary Hamlin, the one
representing the Boston and Maine Railroad
and the other the merchants of Boston, to-day
filed with the At~torncy-Gcncral "a written brief
In line with their oral argument of last Satur-
day. The document is very long, and is signed
Jointly by Messrs. Carlisle and IIamlin.
Mr.. Carlisle contends that there are only
thrce possible constructions of tho law. Ac-
cording to the first of these constructions 1t was
designed TO encourage American shipping inter-
ests. by discriminating against goods produced
in non.contiguous countries brought into n
contiguous country by vessels not of tho United
States and thence imported into tho United
States. 1t is held that the section as it passed
both houses of Congress related only to goods
carried in certain classes of vessels: that the
Conference Committee had no right to
change its character and did not intend
to do so; that it was not understood
In either the House or Senate, when
the conference report was under consideration,
that the purpose OF the original section had been
changed, and Mr.. Carlisle quotes from the state
incntS OF Senator Allison and Mr.. Dinglcy. who
had charge OF the reports, to show that this was
the case, lie M the language of the sec
tlon to show that even in its amended form il
still related exclusively to goods carried in YES
sells; ard on this branch of the question he con-
cludcs that the act relates to all goods actually
imported in vessels not of The United States and
not entitled TO the benefits OF commercial
treaties. aud all goods which. being the product
of II non'contiguous country. are imported into a
contiguous country in vessels not Of the United
states. and thence imported into this country in
wholesale quantities.
Mr., Carlisle contends that II the foregoing is
not the true meaning of the section ms amended,
then the only other admissible construction OF
the language of the section is that the provision
wholesale trade between The people Of the
United States and the peoples OF MEXICO and
from Mexico or Canada: He contends
States" mean precisely the same as the
words imported into. the United States"
that goods cannot come into the United States
from a contiguous country unless they start
their dsnarture for the United States from
that country they are necessarily imported
from it; that is, If they take their departure for
the | nitcd States from China or Japan, for in
stance ana on their way here pass through Can
ada or Mexico. they in fact and in a legal sense
come from China or Japan. and not from Canada
and Mexico. The word from" he insisted.
does not mean by way of or through.
put indicates the. actual point of departure, and
he quotes authorities to sustain this position.
His conclusion on this point is that the discrimi.
mating duty applies to all goods imported in
vessels not OF the United States ana not entitled
to the benefits OF treaty s,ipulations. and TO all
goods. produced in n ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS country,
ana thence imported into the United States
from a contiguous country in Wholesale uuanti.
ties no matter what may have been the CharaC-
ter OF the vessel in which they were brought to
such contiguous countries.
According TO this construction the object of
thclaw was to discriminate against goods i'm
ported into Canada and held there in store or in
bonded warehouses. to he a%fterwHrd thrown
upon the markets OF the United states in whole
sale quantities, which would make our law as
Canada in relation To tea and green coffee inn
ported from the United States into Canada.
The third possible construction is that it i'm
poses a discriminating duty of 10 per cent. on
all goods, dutiable and free. which are the prod
uct or non'rontiguous countries and which
merely pass through the territory or jurisdic-
Ton OF, Mexico or Canada on their way to the
! hitcd States from their place OF departure
FOR the United states. This construction. he
insists. is wholly unreasonable and contrary TO
the real intention of Congress. 1t would impose
the discriminating duty upon goods simply be-
cause they are carried through n contiguous
country; i would remedy no existing evil; il
would inflict immense injury upon our railroad
and other transportation interests, without any
corresponding benefit. TO the masses of the peo-
pie, and would undoubtedly provoke retaliation
on the part of the dominion Government. The
balance in the reciprocity transportation OF
roads, ana the construction OF the section con-
tended for by its advocates. concludes Mr.. Car.
Isle. would destroy the business ut once and in
ftict n very great and unnecessary injury upon
these roads ana upon the people at large.
POSTIL CARD CONTRICT