The San Francisco call., 1897-09-22
-MCKENNA'S
OPINION ON
SECTION e
Attorney-General Says
Discrimination Does
Not Hold.
BONDING PRIVILEGE
YET STANDS.
Tea From China Exempt From
the Additional Duty of
Ten Per Cent.
AND so is MANGANESE
AND so is MANGANESE
ORE FROM CHILE.
An Extra Tax on Goods Brought
D Through Contiguous Foreign
Country Can't Be Collected.

WASHINGTON. D. c., Sept. 2I-At-
torney-Generai McKenna to-day an
nounced his opinion in the matter Of sec
tion p OF the new tariff law. He holds IN
effect that goods coming directly into the
United States from foreign countries
through Canadian ports are not subject TO
the discriminating duty of 10 per cent. and
also holds that foreign goods shipped
from countries other than British posses
slons in British vessels are not subject to
the discriminating duty.
Two questions were asked the Attorney
Genera. The first was in effect, whether
the discriminating duty of 10 PEI cent
provided for in section p should be
assessed against an invoice of tea from
China which had arrived at Vancouver in
British vessels and was thence shipped
through Canada 10 Chicago.
The second was whether the discrim-
mating duty should be assessed against
cargo of manganese ore from Chile
which recently arrived in a British ship
at Philadelphia. Both these questions
the Attorney General answers in the neg
ative.
The opinion of the Attorney General
first quotes section % in full and then
continues:
The three plausible contentious are based on
tals action, which, as 10 strength, only differ
in degree.
l. That the duty is discrimination upon
lmpOrtauOns IN vessels not Of the United
states, whether directly TO the United States
or TO q contiguous country ana thence into the !
United States.
, A discrimination against importations |
ct goods mot IN the usual course OF strictly |
retail trade) from contiguous country, they !
OF teing the products thereof In this char !
S-cter or the vessel IS not important
3 4 discrimination against goods being the
I-Dductlons OF q foreign country not con-
t.Euous to the United States which shall come |
--le the lnlted states from contiguous |
country. In this contention The words'' come
lnso the United States, etc, used as designaJ- |
Under the first and second contentious the |
duty would not be imposed Under the third |
II would be. 1 hence select it basis Tor |
consideration.
To support it, it is said that the section i'm |
posed the duly in Two cases: (d) when the |
goods are imported in vessels not OF the |
United states and 10 the UnIted states; lb) !
when they are the production OF a country |
not contiguous, but come into the United |
SIR;es from contiguous country, the charac- |
ter of the vessel III which they were trans |
ported to the contiguous country being in |
different.
with. and The second is attempted to be estab- |
lished by the following reasoning; 'Tne |
goods are of Chinese or japanese production, |
hence the production OF foreign country not |
contiguous 10 Ine United States"
They come into the United States from Can
ada contiguous country and so it is urged |
that by the letter we'll as by the spirit OF |
the statute they are subject to tue duty
Il Is conceded that the importation is to the |
United States. passage through Canada merely |
being movement toward the destination, the |
latter being the United States. This being so, |
II would seem that there was no reason to dis |
1jngulsh between Tn at Importation and what |
nav be called in distinction g direct one |
which one should be burdened and the other
not buIdened-when the discrimination was
20 lTTnl in NM rrllE 1F 1or
It is said that the purpose OF the amend /
1nent was to relieve the American transcOnti- |
mental Tai roads from The competition of the
Canadian Pacific Railroad. 1t may be admit
ted nat this IS strODg considerati ton, but, on
the other hand, II is urged that this cOmpeti-
ton IS u beue fl, and other American railroads
claim tnatL the Canadian Pacific is direct ad-
vantage TO them. How Congress egarded
this conflict we have no means OF knowing.
There was certainly no avowal, and the only
expressions OF mem berS which we have in di-
Gale a different purpose than one which
might or might not have been entertained,
and which, il it had been entertained, it
would seem the natural thing TO have expli-
city declared.
A. there was no reason, therefore, why the
Observation-Disclosures or direct-should be
Disseminated by different duties, l am not
disposed 10 think that it was intended. To so
hold would be to put new purpose in the
law. destroying its unity, which Is not CON-
PEELED by its language or any mischief which
we may say was III the contemplation OF the
Lawmakers 10 De remedled. The secuon there
fore regards as the law which preceded IL re-
rsrded the transportation OF goods by sea. /
Trz prr0ose was 10 secure this vessels of
me tinted States by discriminating against /
TRANSPORTATION not in them primarily to the /
United States, secondarily, and 10 prevent !
evasion, to contiguous country-Canada or I
Mexico. The necessity OF II TO the effective |
ness OF the law is obvious. 1t would have
been useless TO impose a discriminating duty !
on goods brought to san francisco IN foreign |
vessels aud leave them free to go 10 Van I
couver in foreign vessels and thence across Z
the intervening land TO the United states.
Ir,n ~ a r. 1C ms q
nv section %, therefore continues its object !
while II strengthen and better secures it. II /
does This in two ways VIZ: BY taxing away
the means Of lis evasion, through the con !
tip1Iitv of Canada and Mexico, and by repeal !
ing the statutory exemption from the 10 per
7 nave considered your inquiry so far as if
the section only regarded mere transportation /
tbrough Canada. We shall see hereafter thai |
IL has q broader scope.
In me contention the words 'come into the /
United States are used S synonymous TO i'm /
ported The language being the production /
or manufacture OF any foreign country not |
contiguous to the United States" IS urged only /
as desert D i've of the goods to which the duty |
aDnIfes The goods themselves, it is con- !
tended must take their departure from the /
contiguous country in the strict sense OF i'm !
DortaIion as dIsting guished from coming |
through it as an importation from some other |
country. This view is given plansiblllty to by |
the exception that duty shall mot apply 10 |
such foreign products or manufactures as
shall be imported from such contiguous coun- |
tries in the usual course of retail trade"
1t is said that the words imported in the |
course of strictly retail trade" indca te the |
rule They are claimed TO be the opposite OF !
importation in the course OF wholesale trade,
and that the latter must be direct, as those by
retail trade could not be otherwise. But this
Noes not follow. Such construction would
ronfne the rule strictly TO the exception,
whereas it may be Notwithstanding impor-
tatfons, strictly so-called-those who take
their departure from contiguous country If
The other conditions of the rule exist. II so
the exception has an adequate ana proper
office.
Butitisn not even necessary to go this far.
at is q matter of common experience that
savings and exceptions are often introduced