The record-union., 1897-09-22

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 the foreign goods ship
ped from countries other than British
possessions in British vessels are not
subject to the discriminating duty
Two questions were asked the At
torney- General. The first was, in eff
feet, whether the discriminating duty
Of 10 per cent, provided for in Sec
ton -. should be assessed against an
invoice of tea from China which had
arrived at Vancouver in British yes
sells and thence shipped through Can
ada to Chicago; the second was wheth-
er the discriminating duty should be
assessed against a cargo of manganese
ore from Chile, which recently arrived
in a British ship at Philadelphia. Both
these questions the Attorney General
answers in the negative.
The opinion of the Attorney General
first quotes Section % in full and then
continues:
The three plausible contentious are
based on this action, which as to
strength only differ in degree.
1. That the duty is a discrimination
upon irlportations in vessels not of the
United States whether directly to the
United States or to a contiguous coun-
try and thence into the United States.
> A discriminat tiOn against impOrta-
tions Ct goods mot in the usual course
of strictly retail trade) from contigu-
Gus country. they not being the prod
ucts thereof. In this the character of
the vessel is not important.
g. discrimination against goods be-
ing the productions of a foreign country
not contiguous to the United States
which shall come into the United States
from 4 contiguous country. In this
contention the words come into the
United States" etc, used as designat-
ing movement only.
Under the first and second conten-
tions the duty would not be imposed.
Under the third it would hence Sc
lect il as a. basis for consideration.
ITO support it. it is said that the sec
ton imposed the duty in two cases
(a) when the goods are imported in yes
sells not of the United States and to the
United States; OBJ when they are the
production of a country not contiguous,
but come into the United States from a
CONTIGUOUS country. The character of
the vessel in which they were trans
ported to the contiguous country being
Indifferent.
The first case we are not now con-
cerned with. ard the second is at
tempted to be established by the fol-
lowing reasoning: The goods are Chi
nese or japanese production, hence the
production Of a foreign country not
contiguous to the United States
They come into the United States
from Canada. contiguous country,
and so it is urged that by the letter as
we'll as by the spirit of the statute,
the are subject to duty.
TT is conceded that the importation
is TO the United States, passage
through Canada merely being a move
ment toward the destination, the lat
ter being the United States. This being
so. it would seem that there was no
reason to distinguish between that i'm
portat:On and what may be called in
distinction a direct one-which one
should be burdened and the other not
burdened-when the discrimination was
necessary to the main purpose of the
law. 1t is said that the purpose OF
the amendment was to relieve the
American transcontinental railroads
against the competition of the Cana
dian Pacific Railroad. 1t may be ad-
nitted that this is a strong cOnsidera-
ton. but on the other hand, ii is
urged that this competition is a benefit
and other American railroads claim
that the Canadian Pacific is a direct
advantage to them. How Congress re-
earde1 this conflict we have no means
Of knowing. There was certainly no
avnw9l and the only expressions Of
members which we have indicate a
different purpose than the one which
,,,ioh+ or might not have been enter
tanned and which. if It had been en-
+ertained. it would seem the natural
thing to have explicitly declared.
as there was no reason therefor, why
+ba irnnortation - indirect or direct
ebou1d he Disseminated by different du-
ties 7 am not disposed to think that il
v-as intended To so hold would be tC
mt .. new purpose to the law-destroy-
ing its unity-which is not coIilpelleu os
It's language or any mischief which we
may say was. in the contemplation OF
the lawmakers. to be remedied. The
section. therefore. regards as the law
which preceded it regarded the trans
portatfon of goods by sea Its purpose
was to secure this to vessels of the Uni
ted States by discriminating agains'
transportation not in them, primarily
to the United States. secondarily. ano
to prevent evasion, TO a contiguous
country-Canada or Mexico. The ne
cessity of it to the effectiveness of tht
law is obvious 1t would have beer
unless to have imposed a discrimin-
ating duty on goods brought to Sar
Francisco in foreign vessels. and leave
them free to go to Vancouver in for
eign vessels and thence across the in
tervening land TO the United States.
The amendment of the law. which Is
made by Section %. therefore continues
its object. while it strengthens and
better secures it It does this in two
ways, viz: BY taking away the means
of its evasion, through the contiguity
of Canada and Mexico; and by repeal
ing the statutory exemption from the
10 per cent. duty.
I have considered your inquiry sc
far as if the section only regarded
mere transportation through Canada
We shall see hereafter that it has a
broader scope.
In the contention, the words scome
into the United States are used as