The Portland daily press., 1897-09-22

shall not apply to such foreign products or
| manufactures as shall be imported from
such contiguous countries in the usual
course of retail trade. 1t is said that the
words imported in the course of strictly
retail trade indicate 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
could be no other way. But this does not
| follow. Such construction would confine
the rule strictly to the exception whereas
| it may be broader, including importations
| strictly so-called, those which take their
| departure from a contiguous country if
the other conditions of the rule exist. If
SO, the exception has an adequate and
proper office. But it is not even necessary
| to go this far. 1t is a matter OF common
experience that savings and exceptions
are often introduced from abundant and
excessive caution. And it would some
times pervert the intention OF the author
of writing if every other thing OF the
same general tenor as that excepted
| should be regarded as embraced in the
| general words
"(Sutherland on statutory construction,
section 2229).
cit follows, therefore, that the answer
| to your inquiry SO far as section % is con !.
cerned, depends ~ upon the character OF
| the vessel in which the goods were carried
| to Vancouver; (2), if in foreign vessels,
whether the goods were entitled by treaty
or convention, to be entered in the ports
of the United States upon the payments
of the same duties as If imported in
| AmericanSy vessels. 1 assume thee vessels
| were not Of the United States, but British
vessels, and this brings me to your COM
munication Of August II, in which you
| inquire whether section % repeats sections
1928 to 4232 of the Revised Statutes and
your communication of September 2, ask
| ing whether manganese ore imported
from Chilli in the British bark Lurlie to
Philadelphia is also subject to diserim1-
mating duty.
| has been on the statute books in some
| form from the time of the enactment of
| the first tariff bill. Section % differs
| from the law previously in force in that
| there is omitted from it the words by
any act of Congress. Does this repeal
section 1928. 1t will be observed that
there are no words of express repeal. Con-
sideration of the effect of this on section
1928 will be simplifed bya reference to
contemporaneous legislation.
ION the same day the Dingley bill was
approved an act entitled an act to au-
thorize the President to suspend discrimi-
mating duties imposed on foreign vessels
and commerce, was approved.
IT shall hereafter for convenience call it
the Suspension Act This act provides
that the President is authorized to sus-
pend in part the operations of sections
1919 and SO that foreign vessels from
country imposing partial discriminating
tonnage duties upon American vessels or
partial discriminating import duties up
on American merchandise may enjoy in
our ports the identical privileges which
the same class of American vessels and
merchandise may enjoy in said foreign
country.
1T will be observed that it recognizes
the existence of section 1928 and amends
| it and enlarges the Presidents power, by
section 1928 that could only be exercised
vixen no discriminating duties were i'm
posed or laid ON American vessels. The
amendment provides that the power may
be exercised to meet and respond to
partial discriminating duties as we'll
reciprocating the exact privileges though
less than total exemptions.
ssThis act is somewhat confused by its
references, but notwithstanding this con-
fusion the act does recognize the existence
| of and extends section 1928 and 1t also re-
| cognizes section 2502. What is the effect
! of this? The act and the Dinlgey bill were
passed on the same day and do not think
| the order of passage is important If they
can be reconciled. If either repeats the
other it is only by implication. The rule
of implied repeats is well established by
l
than difference-there must be irrecon
cilible conflict"
| After citing several authorities in sup
port of his position, the Attorney General
continues
| "Section 20 and section 1928 and amend
ments arc not eoextenslve in scope; in
purpose, therefore, they may be the COM
| plelnents of each other. One prescribes
rule, the other the condition upon which
and the agency by which it may be sus-
| pended.
"Each therefore, has Its purpose, definite
and consistent. Section 1928 might be
proviso to section % and is in effect made
| so by the suspension act and with such
proviso it is certainly not repugnant to
section 20.
1.-The latter has it's operation, com
| mencing with Its passage, continuing
until the conditions of section 4228 occur
and the President act on account of them,
resuming again if the reciprocal ex-
emptions Of foreign nations be with
drawn. Examples Of this are familiar In
our legislation. The provision in the
Dingley bill for reciprocity of trade is
such an example. Under that the duties
of the act may be changed"
| The Attorney General then quotes
several cases in support of conclusion
he reaches that where there is difference
| in purpose legislative provisions may be
ltlu61eliUOuU ssuu uuCu, say
''But the rule of repeal by implication
does not require us to find Independence.
If there is not irreconciable conflict the
laws may exist together. AS we have al
ready seen. there is certainly no irrecon-
cilable conflict Even if there was more
conflict in their language, more in their
purpose, this would have to yield to the
| Interpretation of the time and manner of
their passage. The suspension act was
| reported to the House of Representatives
| by the same committee which reported
| the Dineley bill; was considered and
passed while that act was in memory. 1t
passed the Senate while the Dingley bill
was pending IN consideration and was ap-
proved by the President on the same day
as the Dingley bill was.
"a knowledge of Its relations to that
bill and its effect on it must therefore be
attributed to the legislature. It may be it
was the latter bill for the Congressional
record shows that the Presidents APP
prevail of 1T was communicated to the
Congress subsequently to that Of the
other.
| "Even more extreme position might
be taken. 1t was held in Mead versus
| Bagnall and others, Is Wis. $50, that
'swhere the provisions of statute which