The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-09-22

| savings and exceptions are often introduced
from ABUNDANT and excessive caution and il
would seem to me to pervert the intenfion
OF the author of a writing "if every other
tnlng OF the same general tenor as that ex-
cepted should be regarded as embraced in the
general words" Sutherland on STATUTORY
construction, section 222)
1t follows. therefore that the answer to
your inquiry, SO far section % is con-
cerned, depends: First, upon the character
OF the vessel in which the goods were car
r1ed to Vancouver
Second, If in foreign vessels whether the
goods We're entitled by treaty or convention
10 be entered in the ports of the United
states on the payment of the same duties
| as II imported in American vessels.
assume the vessels were not of the
United States, but British vessels, and this
nrlngs me to your communication of Aug
II, in which you inquire whether section %
repeals sections 1929 to 4239 of the revised
| statutes, and your communication of Sept
z, asking whether manganese ore imported
IRON iron Chlh in the British bark Lurle to
Phlladelphia is also subject to discriminat.
Mg duty. law imposing discriminating
| outles 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 the - is omitted from it the words "by any
act aS9eq Oh e congress @ Does this repeal section
422S! 1t Will be observed that there are
no words OF express repeal. Consideration of
the effect Of this on section 1929 will be
Slmphhed by reference to contemporaneous
| legislation.
On the same day the Dingley bill was
| approved an act entitled IAN act to author
lze the president to suspend discriminating
| duties imposed on foreign vessels and COM
merce' was approved. l shall hereafter for
| convenience, call it the suspension act This
act provides that the president is authorized
| TO suspend in part the operations of sec
! tions 4219 and 2502 so that the foreign
vessels from a country imposing partial dis
crimlnatlng tonnage duties upon American
| vessels or partial discriminating import du-
ties upon American merchandise, may en-
| JOY in our ports the identical privileges
which the same class of American vessels
| country.
| 1t will be observed that 1t recognizes the
existence of section 1923. and amends 1t
/ and eniarges the presidents powers BY 422S
| that could only be exercised when no dis
| terminating duties were imposed or laid
on American vessels The amendment pro-
meet and respond to partial discriminating
duties as well-reciprocatng the act privi-
leges through less than total exem 5tions.
ACT CONFUSED.
This act is somewhat confused by its ref
erences, but, notwithstanding this confusion
and extends section 1928 and it also recig-
nizes section 2502. What is the effect Of
this? The act and the Dngley bill were
passed on the same day, and l do not think
the order Of passage is important if they
can be reconciled. II either repeals the 9TH
er, it is on.y by implication. The rule OF
line of cases. There must be more than
hiet.
After citing several authorities in support
OF his position, the attorney general con-
tinues:
Section % and section 1929 and amendments
are not coextensive in scope; in purpose
therefore, they may the compliments Of each
other. One prescrbes a rule the other the
condition upon which the energy by which it
may be suspended. Each, therefore, has its
1928 might be provision to section %, and is
In effect made so by the suspension act rand
as such proviso it is certainly not repugnant
to section o. The latter has its operations
commencing with its passage, continuing until
the conditions of section 1929 occur and the
president act on account of them resuming
again If the reciprocal exemptions of foreign
nations be withdrawn.
Examples of this are familiar in our legis-
lation. The provisions in the Dingley bill for
reciprocity of trade is such an example. I'm
der 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 differences in purpose
legislative provisions may be Independent, and
then, continuing says
But the rule Of repeal does not require us
to find independence. If there is not irrecon-
ciable conflict the laws may exist together.
AS we have already seen, there is certainly
an irreconcilabe conflict Even if there was
more conflict in their language-more in their
purpose-this would have to yie-d to the inter-
probation of the time and manner of their
passage. The Suspension act was reported 20
the house of representatives by the same COM
mittee which reported the Dingley bill-was
considered and passed while that act was in
memory 1t passed the senate while the Ding
ley bill was pending in consideration, and
approved by the president on the same
day the Dingley bill was. knowledge of its
relations to that bill, and its effect on It
must. therefore, be attributed to the egis.a-
ture. 1t may be it was the later bill, for
the Congressional Record shows that the
presidents approval of it was communicated
to congress subsequently to that Of the other.
Even more extreme position might be
taken. 1t was held in Mead BagnalI ana
others 10 Wis, 156, that where the provis-
ions of statute which relates to particular
c>sss of cases are repugnant to those of an
other statute approved the same day, which
is of a general character, the former must
prevail as to the particular class of cases
therein referred to-
See also "Endlich on the Interpretation OF
Statutes" section 216, and cases cited.
1t follows, therefore, that section 4228 was
not only repealed by section %, and that the
merchandise Of both inquiries is not to bo
subjected to discriminating duty.