The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-09-22
He Holds that Section 422s, Revised
Statutes. Was Not Repealed by Sec
ton - OF DinGIey Act.
NO DISCRIMINATING DUTIES
CAN BE LEVIED ON FOREIGN GOODS
COMING BY WAY OF CANADA,
Nor on Goods Shipped from Countries
Other than British Possessions
I'm British Vessels.

eral McKenna to-day announced his opin-
ion in the matter of Section % of the new
tariff law. He holds, in effect, that goods
coming directly into the United States from
foreign countries through Canadian ports
are not subject 20 the discriminating duty
of 10 per cent, and also holds that foreign
goods shipped from countries other than
British possessions in British vessels are
not subject to the discriminating duty.
Two questions were asked the attorney
general, the first of which was, in effect,
whether the discriminating duty of 10 per
cent. provided for in Section q should be
assessed against an invoice of tea from
China which had arrived at Vancouver in
British vessels. and thence shipped through
Canada to Chicago. The second question
was whether the discriminating duty
should be assessed against a cargo of man
ganese ore from Chill, which recently ar
rived in a British ship at Philadelphia.
Both these questions the attorney general
answers in the negative. The opinion of
the attorney general first quotes Section Y
in full and then says:
Three plausible contentious are based
upon this section. which, as to strength,
differ only in degree.
First-That the duty is Discrimination
upon importations in vessels not or the
United States, whether directly TO the
United States or to a contiguous country
and thence to the United States.
''Second-A discrimination against impor-
tations of goods mot in the usual course of
strictly retail trade from contiguous
country, they not being the products there
of. In this the character of the vessel is
not important.
''Thrd-A discrimination against goods
being the productions OF foreign country
not contiguous to the United States which
shall come into the United States from a
contiguous country. In this contention the
TrAes int. no
used as designating movement only.
Under the first and second contentious
the duty would not be imposed. Under the
third it would be; hence j select it as a
basis for consideration. To support it it is
said that the section imposes the duty in
two caSeS--(a) when the goods are import
ed i'm vessels not of the United States and
to the United States; (b) when they are the
production of country not contiguous and
come into the United States from a con-
tiguous country, the character of the vessel
in which they were transported into a con-
tiguous country being indifferent.
THE first case we are not concerned
with, and the second is attempted to be es-
tablshed by the following reasoning: The
goods are Chinese or Japanese production,
hence the production of a foreign country
not contiguous to the United States; they
come into the United States from a con-
tiguous country and so it is urged that by
the letter as well as by the spirit of the
statute they subject to the duty. 1t is
conceded that the importation is to the
United States, passage through Canada be-
ing mere movement only towards destf-
nation. the latter being the United States
This being so, it would seem that there
was no reason to distinguish between that
Importation and what may be called, IN
distinction, direct one--why one should
be burdened and the other not burdened-
when the discrimination was not necessary
to the main purpose of the law.
PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT.
ut is said that the purpose of the amend
ment was to relieve the American trans
continental railroads against the COMPETE
ton of the Canadian Pacific Railroad. 1t
may be admitted that this is a strong con-
sideratien but. on the other hand, it is
urged that this competition is a benefit, and
other American railroads claim that the
Canadian Pacific is direct advantage to
them. How Congress regarded this conflict
we have no means of know ing. There was
certainly no avowal, and the only express
sion of members which we have indicates a
different purpose than one which might or
might not have been entertained and which,
If it had been entertained it would seem
the natural thing to have explicitly de-
clared.
"As there was no reason. therefore, why
the Observation-Disclosures or direct-should
be disseminated against l am not disposed
TO think that Ii was intended. To so hold
would be to put a new purpose in the law
destroying its unity-which is not compelled
by its language or any mischief which we
may say was IN the contemplation of the
lawmakers to be reTnedied. The section
therefore regards, as the law which pre-
ceded it regarded the transportation of
goods by sea. Its purpose was to secure
this to vessels of the United States by dis
eliminating against transportation not in
them primarily, and 10 the United States
contiguous country-Canada or Mexico The
necessity of it to the effectiveness of the
law is obvious. 1t would have been useless
to have imposed a discriminating duty on
goods brought to San Francisco in foreign
vessels and leave them free to go to Van
couver in foreign vessels and thence across
Ia a ND fn fha nj Cd Sfafn
The amendment of the law which is made
by Section % therefore, continues its object
while 1t strengthens and better secures ii.
IT does this in two ways, namely: BY TAX
ing away the means of its evasion through
the contiguity of Canada and Mexico, and
by repeating the statuatory exemptions
from the 10 per cent. duty. ] have consid-
cred your inquiry so far if the section
only regarded mere transportation through
Canada.We shall see hereafter that it has
q broader scope.
"In the second contention the words
come into the United States are used as
synonmons to imported. The language
being the production or manufacture of
any foreign country not contiguous 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 importation,
as distinguished from coming through it as
an importation from some other country.
This view is given plausibiity to by the ex-
cepton that duties should not apply to
such foreign products or manufactures as
shall be imported from such contiguous
countries in the usual course of retail
trade
DOES NOT INDICATE THE RULE.
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 wav.
But this does not follow. Such construction
would confine the rule strictly to the ex-
ception, whereas 1t may be broader, includ-
ing importation strictly so-caled-those
which take their departure from contigu-
Gus country IL the other conditions of the
rule exist. If So the exception has an ade-
quate and proper office. But it is not even
necessary to go this far. 1t is matter of
common experience that savings and eXcep-
tons are often introduced from abundant
and excessive caution. And il would some
times pervert the intention of the author
of a 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 construc-
ton, Section 222)
1T follows. therefore, than an answer To
your inquiry so far as Section % is con-
cerned depends Cd upon the character of
the vessels in which the goods were carried
TO Vancouver: % If in foreign vessels
whether the goods were entitled by treaty
or convention 10 be entered in the ports OF
the United States upon the payment OF the
same duties as ii imported in American yes
sells. i assume the vessels were not of the
United States, but British vessels and this
brings me 10 your communication of Aug.
H. ia which you inquire whether Section %
repeats Section 4z2S to 1872 Of the Re-
Vised Statutes and your communicative IF
nj ueli rl.af her