The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-08-19
TARIFF LAW CONSTRUED
JOHN &. CARLISLE'S VIEW OF SEC
TION % OF THE DINGLEY ACT.
He Argues There Was No Intention of
Discriminating Against the Cam
adian Pacific Railway.

WASHINGTON, Aug. 49, - Ex-Secretary
Carlisle to-day submitted to Attorney Cen
eral McKenna a brief containing his views
on Section % of the new tariff act, relating
to the imposition of the 10 per cent. discrim-
mating duty on goods imported from foreign
countries through contiguous territory. Mr..
Carlisle, who represents the Boston
Maine Railroad, appeared with former AS
sistant Secretary Hamlin representing the
Associated Boards of Trade and the Mer-
chants Association of Boston, before Mr..
McKenna last Saturday and submitted oral
arguments on the question
Mr.. Carlisle contends that there are only
three possible constructions of the law. Ac-
cording to the first of these constructions
it was designed to encourage American
shipping interests by discriminating against
goods produced in noncontiguous countries
and brought into a contiguous country by
vessels not of the United States and thence
imported into the United States. A very
considerable portion Of the brief is de-
voted to discussion of this proposition, in
the course of which the facts in connec-
ton with the origin and enactment of the
section as it now stanus are stated and
commented on. It is shown that the sec
ton, as it passed both houses Of Congress.
related only to goods carried in certain
classes of vessels. The conference commit
tee, the brief says had no right to change
its character and did not intend to do so;
that 1t was not understood in either the
House or Senate when the conference report
was under consideration that the purpose
of the original section had been changed.
and he quotes from the statements of Sena-
tor Allison and Mr. Dingley, who had
charge of the reports to show that this was
the case. He examined the language of the
section to show that, even in its amended
form, it still relates exclusively to goods
carried in vessels, and on this branch of the
question he concludes that the act relates
to all goods actually imported in vessels
not of the United States and not entitled to
the benefits of commercial treaties, and,
secondly, to all goods which, being the
product of q noncOntiguouS country,
imported into a contiguous country in YES
sells not of the United States and then i'm
titles.
Mr.. Carlisle contends that if the foregoing
is not the true meaning of the section as
amended, then the only other admissible
construction of the language of the section
is that the provision was designed to dis
criminate against the wholesale trade be-
tween the people of the United States and
the peoples of Mexico and Canada in goods
produced in noncontiguouS countries and
imported into this country from Mexico or
Canada. His contention on this point is
that the discriminating duty applies to all
goods imported in vessels not of the United
! States and not entitled to the benefits of
treaty stipulations, and, secondly to all
goods produced in a nOncontiguouS country
from a contiguous country in wholesale
quantities, no matter what may have been
the character of the vessel in which they
were brought to such a contiguous country.
According to this construction, the object
of the law to discriminate against
goods imported into Canada and held there
in store or in bonded warehouses; to be
afterward thrown upon the markets of the
United States in wholesale quantities, which
would make our law to all these goods
conform to the existing law of Canada in
relation to tea and green coffee imported
from the United States into Canada.
The third possible construction is that
it imposes discriminating duty of 10 per
cent. upon all goods, dutiable and free,
which are the product of noncontiguous
countries and which merely pass through
the territory or jurisdiction of Mexico
or Canada their way to the United
States from their places of departure for
the United States. This construction, he in
sists, is wholly unreasonable and contrary
to the real intention of Congress. 1t would
impose the discriminating duty upon goods
simply because they are carried through
contiguous country; 1t would remedy no ex-
listing evil; it would infiict immense injury
upon our railroad and other transportation
interests, without any corresponding bene
fit to the masses of the people, and would
undoubtedly provoke retaliation on the
part of the Dominion government.