The record-union., 1897-09-22

tiguous to the United States, is urged
only as descriptive of the goods to
which the duty applies. The goods
themselves, it is contended, must take
their departure from the contiguous
country in the strict sense of importa- :
ton as distinguished from coming
through it as an importation from
some other country. This view is Civ
en- plausibility to by the exception that
duty shall not apply to such foreign
products or manufactures as shall be
imported from such contiguous coun-
tries in the usual course of retail
trade
1t is said that the words imported
in the course of strictly retail trade in
dicate 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 not be otherwise. But this does
not follow Such construction would
confine the rule strictly to the excep-
tion. whereas it may be broader-in-
Guiding importations, strictly so called
those who take their departure from
a contiguous country If the other con-
ditiOns of the rule exist. If so, the eX-
ception 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 would some
times pervert the intention of the au-
thCr Of a writing, if anything of the
same general tenor as that excepted
should be regarded as embraced in the
general words. Sutherland on Stat
utory Construction, Section 222)
1T follows. therefore, that the an
swer to your inquiry, so far as Section
% is concerned, depends Cd upon the
character of the vessel in which the
goods were carried to Vancouver; (2)
If in foreign vessels, whether the goods
We're entitled by treaty OF convention
to be entered into the ports of the
United States upon the payment of the
same duties as if imported in Amer
lean vessels.
4 assume the vessels were not of the
United States. but British vessels, and
this brings me to your communication
of August 18th. in which you inquire
whether Section % repeals Sections
1923 to 4232 of the Revised Statutes,
and your communication of September
ID. asking whether manganese ore i'm
ported from Chile in the British bark
Lurlie to Philadelphia, is also subject
to a discriminating duty. A law i'm
posing discriminating duties 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 Sec
tion 1923? 1t will be observed that
there are no words of express repeal.
Consideration Of the effect of this on
Section 422S will be simplified by a
reference to contemporaneous legisla-
ton
"On the same day an Act, entitled
AN Act to authorize the President to
suspend discriminating duties imposed
on foreign vessels and commerce. was
approved. l shall hereafter, for con-
venience. consult the Suspension Act.
This Act provides that the President
is authorized to suspend in part the
operations of Section 4219 and 25O2, so
that the foreign vessels composing par
tial discrimination tonnage duties upon
American vessels, or partial discrim-
mating import duties upon American
merchandise, may enjoy in our ports
the identical privileges which the same
class of American vessels and mer-
chandise may enjoy in said foreign
country 1t will be observed that it
recognizes the existence of Section
1923, and amends it and enlarges the
Presidents power. BY Section 422S,
that could only be exercised when mo-
discriminating duties were imposed or
laid on American vessels. The amend
ment provides that the power may be
exercised to meet and respond to par
tial discriminating duties as well as
reciprocating the exact privilege
through less than total exemptions.
''This Act is somewhat confused by
its references, but Notwithstanding this
confusion, the Act does recognize the
existence of and extends Section 1928,
and it also recognizes Section 2502.
What is the effect of this? The Act
and the Dingley bill were passed on
the same day. and I do not think the
order of passage is important, If they
can be reconciled If either repeals the
other, it is only by implication. The
rule of implied repeals is we'll estab-
lished by a long line of cases. There
must be more than difference-there
must be irreconcilable conflict"
After citing several authorities in
support of his position, the Attorney
General continues:
Section % and Section 1929 and
amendments are not co-extensive in
scope; in purpose, therefore, they may
be the compliments of each other One
prescribes a rule, the other the condi-
ton upon which and the energy by
which it may be suspended. Each,
therefore, has its purposes definite
and consistent.
Section 422S might be a proviso to
Section %, and is in effect made so by
the Suspension Act, and as such pro-
viso it is certainly not repugnant to
Section %. The latter has it's opera
ton, commencing with its passage,
continuing until the conditions of Sec
tion 1923 occur and the President act
on account of them, resuming again If
the reciprocal exemptions of foreign
nations have been withdrawn.
Examples Of this are familiar in our
legislation. The provision in the Ding
ley bill for reciprocity 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 a conclu-
sion he reaches that where there is diff
ference in purpose, legislative provision