The times., 1897-09-22

/ IL is urged that this competition is
o benefit. aud other American railroads
claim that the Canadian Pacific is a direct
| advantage 10 them.
How Congress regarded this conflict we
have no means of knowing. There W as GER
| iainly no avOwa al, and the only expressions
| of members which we have inc dicate dlf-
! ferent purpose than one which might or
| nigh not have been entertained d, ana which,
! IL l. had been entertained, IL would seem tile
natural thing to have explicitly declared.
S there was no reason why the lmporta-
| tions direct or indirect should be dis
| criminated by different cuties, l am not
| disposed to think that IL was intended. To
50 hold would be 10 put a Eew purpose
i IN the law destroying its unit which
! is not compelled by It's language or any
misctiief winch we may say was in the
/ contemplation OF the lawmakers TO be
remedied.
Inc section therefore regards, as the
law when preceded it required, the trans
| poratlOn OF goods by sea. It's purpose was
| 10 secure this u vessels OF the United States
! by discriminating against transportation
not IN them primarily u the United States;
| secondarily, and to prevent evasion, To a
contiguous country Canada or Mexico.
The necessity of 1t 10 the effectiveness OF
I the law Is obvious. Mere distance from the
! port OF ancouVer 10 an American custom
/ house was as accidental To an importa tion
| tnat way as mere distance from the port
/ OF san Francisco TO a New York custom
house was 10 an importation that way.
/ The essential fact To be regarded was that
| Vancouver Was not IN the United States,
| and that Canada was a contiguous coun-
| Try Ihat could De a means oil evasion. III
| would have been useless 10 have imposed
discriminating duty on goods Brought 10
san Francisco III foreign Nessels ana leave
I them free 10 20 TO Vancouver in foreign
vessels and thence across the intervening
land 20 the United States.
Tne amendmsnU of the law whichismade
by section y, therefore, continues its OBJ
| Ject while IL strengthens and better secures
II. IL does this IN two ways, II / may re-
peat, by taking away the means of its
1 evasion through the contiguity OF Canada
and Mexico ana by repeating the statutory
/ exemptions from the o per cent duty. The
special effect of this repeal l viii consider
hereafter.
/ nave considered your inquiry so far as
II the section only regarded mere trans
| portatlOn through Canada. We shall see
hereafter that il has broader scope.
la the secOnd contention the words
| come into the United States are used as
| Synonymous to imported. The language
being the production OF manufacture OF
any foreign country not contiguous 10 the
| United states" Is urged only descriptive
OF the goods TO which the duty applies.
The goods themselves, 1T is contended,
must take their departure from the con-
tiguous country in tie strict sense of ini-
porlation as distinguished from coming
/ through IL as all Importation from son
| other country. / 90 lot consider ii neces-
sary 10 detail the reasoning advanced 10
| support this view. | have already given
! my Interpretation of the WORDS come
into" ana that OF the provision in which
they are contained, ana IL would serve no
1 purpose 10 make ClTcumsJantiai dissent
from any other.
/ may say, however, that this view is
| given plausibility to by the exception that
the duty SHAH not apply to sucn foreign
! products or manufactures as shall be inn
| ported from sucn contiguous countries in
the usual course OF retail trade" II is
said JhaU the words Imported in the
course OF strictly retail trade" Indicate the
rule. They are claimed IL De the opposite
1 Of importation in the course OF " nuieSalc
trade, and that the letter must be direct as
those 10y retail could be no other way. But
this does not follow. such construction
would confiue the rule strictly 10 the eX-
| ceptlpns whereas iJ may bc hroader-in-
Guiding lmpnrtations strictly, sO-called -
those which take their departure from "A
l contiguous country. if be other conditions
u the rule exist. II 80. tile exception has
au adequate and proper office. But It Is
not even necessary 10 20 this far. II Is
a matter ~ common experience thst siN-
frum abundant and excessive caution And
81 w"uld something's pervcrt the intention of
ine author II q writing, if every other
thing II the same general tenor as that
( excepted should be regarded a. embraced
m TIE general words. '' SUI uefluud ON
statutory Construction Sec. 22Z
ii fnlloWer tHtrcfOFt.. tuat the answer
70 your inquiry, So Far as Section % Is
concerned. depends 1 upon The character
I uf the vessel iu which the cuuds We're
carried 10 Vancouver, q lf iu foreign
vessels, whether the goods were entitled
by treaty OF convention % b. entered ia
DE ports 90 the United States upon the
payment of the same dutie, a. u imported
in American vessels.
/ ] assume the Yes sels We're not Of the
I United states. but British vessels, aud this
brings me TO your cuiumumi cation Of
agust Il Ia winch you inquire whether
Section p TepeglS Sections a22S 10 1922
Of the Revised Statutes. and your com
muniCutlOu Of September ? asking whether
manganese ore, imported from Chile, In
the British bar k Lurloe, TO PhiIadeI-
ptia, Is also subject TO a discriminating
duty.
lawimposing discriminating duties has
been on the statute books in some form
from the time OF the enactment of the
first tariff bill.
In The form substantially it maintained
until section % was passed it was in.
serted in the act of May %, 1924.
Section 2 Of the act was as follows
Section 2. Ana be it further enacted
That an addition of ten per centum shall be
made to the several rates of duties hereby
Imposed upon the several articles afore-
said, which, after the said respective
times for the commencement Of the duties
hereby imposed, shall be imported in ships
or vessels not OF the United States Pro
vided, That this addition shall not be an
Piled 10 articles Imported in ships or vessels
not Of the United States, entitled by treaty
or by any act Of Congress to be admitted
on payment OF the same duties that are
paid on like articles imported in ships or
vessels of the Unite States."'
This section, with unimportant verbal
changes, became section IA OF the act 0f
1890 and section 2502 Of the Revised
Statutes.
In section % there s change. Their e is
omitted from it the words by any act
of Congress- Does this repeal section
1929? 1t viii be observed that there are
no words Of express repeal. The effects Of
the acts OF Congress are avoided and this
may not be the same as To section 1929
as TO section 1929 and 1890. which grant
exemption directly TO PrusSian vessels
| However, consideration will be simplified
by reference to contemporaneous Iegis-
latiou.
On the same day the Dingley bill was
approved an act entitled IA II act to au-
thorize the President to suspend dScrimi-
mating duties imposed on foreign yes
sells and commerce was approved | shall
hereafter for convenience call 1T the sus-
pension act. II / $ as follows:
That section 422s Of the Revised Statutes