The record-union., 1897-09-23
Weather Forecast.
THE DISCRIMINATING DUTY De
CISION

CISION.
Attorney General McKenna has de-
cided that Section % Of the Revenue
Act, commonly known as the Dingley
bill, does not repeal Section 422o OF the
Revised Statutes; that one section is
the complement of the other; therefore
1t is held that Section % does not re-
peal Section 1929, and the merchandise
of foreign country not contiguous to
the United States, but coming into this
country through a contiguous foreign
country, is not subject to the 10 per
cent discriminating duty imposed by
Section % Of the Dingley bill.
Until a competent tribunal passes up
on the question, this decision must
stand as the law of the case. The
Record Union" has already and at
considerable length explained the sit
uation, comparing the corresponding
sections of the Dingley bin and the
Wilson bill. and the Act of Congress
known as Section 1923. The material
difference between them is that Sec
tion p Of the present revenue law at
tempts to repeal the Wilson law that
excepted from the discriminating duty
goods brought in under treaty or con-
vention, or "by any Act of Congress"
referring thereby to Section 422S- In
the Dingley bill the words in quotation
marks are omitted The Attorney
General holds that this omission is not
an Act Of repeal.
Section 1923 of the Revised Statutes
is an Act Of Congress, under which
goods coming from foreign country
non-contiguous but through a foreign
country contiguous to the United
States can enter on payment of the
same duty imposed upon goods brought
in direct on American bottoms; that is
to say. free Of the 10 per cent. discrim-
mating or additional ad valorem duty
1t amounts to this, therefore, that the
clear intention of Congress was not ac-
complished, namely, to protect the
American merchant marine and en-
courage its upbuilding by the imposi-
ton of a discriminating duty upon i'm
portatiOns on foreign bottoms. This
protection may now be evaded by
transporting the goods into British or
Mexican territory contiguous to that
OF the United States, and thence into
the United States across the border
under the bonding privilege.
The Record Union" believes that the
disputed Section % was not smuggled
into the bill; that it was placed there
with the full knowledge Of Congress,
and for the express purpose of stimu-
latng the American merchant marine
and Of protecting American transcon-
tinental lines in unequal competition
with Canadian railway lines. We hold,
therefore, that it is the duty of Con-
gress to make perfect its original inten-
tion by legislation necessary to that
end
Discussing this 10 per cent. ad va
lorem discriminating duty on goods
carried over foreign railway lines for
delivery in the United States, an ex-
change said, prior to the adverse decis-
ion: "Of course this kills the business
of shipping tea from Japan and China
over the Canadian railways for con-
sumption in the United States Yes, of
course, and why not? Is it fair that
our carriers shall be placed at the de-
structive disadvantage of competition
that is partially free from the obliga-
ton of duty paying on dutiable goods,
simply because the carrier is a railway
company?
The Republican party in National
Convention distinctly and pointedly
asserted its intention to impose
just such restrictions as are now
complained of by New England. Moth
ing in the platform of 1896 is more en-
phatically or clearly stated. If New
England manufacturers are to be pro-
tected against foreign competition,
why, in the name of common sense.
shall not American railways receive
similar protection?
The Portland "Oregonian" puts this
whole discriminating duty question
neatly when it says:
The Canadian Pacific under the
bonding privilege. has become the car
rier Of a large share Of American COM
mercesalong our northern border. While
England is shut out from our coast
trade along the Atlantic seaboard, the
Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific Coast,
Canada conducts a coast trade along
our upper boundary. where from one
ocean TO the other she carries a large
share of our commerce in cars instead
Of ships. The transcontinentaI rail-
ways ask frate New England this
searching question: What would those
New England citizens who carry its
immense coast trade think of a propo-
sition from any quarter to open that to
English vessels? Why, then, should our
border commerce be free to English
caTs?"
DO NOT NEGLECT THE PETITIONS.