The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1897-09-26
THE CONSTRUCTION OF SECTION
TWENTY-FIVE.

Attorney General McKennas con-
struotton of section % of the tariff law
was bound to displease those VINO are
firm believers in the policy that the sec
ton on its face seems to inaugurate.
The construction is ingenfus and such
as would delight {. Philadelphia lawyer
TO contemplate, but TO the lay mind,
IMMERSED in legal lore, the construction
will not appear to fit the CAGE. 1t is a
construction to be welcomed, but it is
not such a one as Senator Elkins, who
claims the authorship of the clause,
intended. 1t seems to be a conatruc-
ton in conformity With the general
cutlery against it; had it met with pop
ular favor it is easy to believe that it
would have been otherwise.
The San Francisco Chronicle voices
pointed with the attorney generals
opinion perhaps as well as they viii be-
if not as they can be. 1t says:
Attorney General McKennas eIuci-
dation of the now famous section 90 Of
the Dingley law will diSappoint the
party, however much it may please the
railroads doing business with Canada.
The latter, in their cooperation with
the Canadian Pacific. receive the Ash
attic freight c. nSign5d to American mar
kets, and the supposed meaning of the
section was contrary to their business
interests We hasten to say. however,
that this ASPECT of the case does not
necessarily expose the attorney general
20 the charge of railroad faYoritisn,
because the American transcOntinental
lines and their eastern allies were az
strong for the 10 per cent discrimina-
ton law as the Vanderbilt and the Old
Colony corporations were against it.
There is nothing to show that the at
torney generals mind was made up by
anything except what seenasd to him
to be the plain intent of congress.
Nevertheless We believe that his dag
noSis OF the congressional design was
a wrong one, and that congress vii!
make that fact perfectly clear at it's
forthcoming session.
What the st. Louis platform called
for and what the Elkins bill, of which
section % is an epitOu1e, embodieS, is a
demand that American imports shall
be made in American ships. It stands
to reason that congress did not con-
template letting foreign ships get
around the law by merely running into
q contiguous foreign pert and sending
their cargoes into this country by rail.
4 law of that sort would have been an
absurd and Irrational misuse of COM
Gressional opportunity. II could not
have been proposed by any friend of
the discriminating measure. So far as
the section being intended as q blow to
the Canadian Pacific IS concerned q
settlement of that question IS not i'm
portaut any way. Ii does not signify.
But we venture 10 say that the tariff
policy Of Canada, following the denun-
citation Of the German and Belgian
treaties is not such as TO eptitle ii 20
the friendly consideration Of American
law makers; for While in our tariff
statutes we have put Canada on an
equality with all otfler parts Of The
commercial world, Canada, on her side,
has singled Us out for special inlri26ts.
Then again the Canadian Pacific is a
| competitor Of american railroads. and
q military menace to our northern bOr-
Ger. WAY, then, should we be faStil-
ions about It's feelings, and why. most
Of all. should the attorney general as
sumo that congress had taken them
| into account when il came TO enact the
| policy Of the st. Louis platform?
Senator Elkins says that "the end Is
not yet" That is not at all improb-
able, but it win hardly be settled il
accordance with his ideas, which would
simply mean that all goods which
come into the United States in foreign
bottoms, no matter whence they come
nor what provisions treaties may con.
tain, they shall pay an additional tai