Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1897-09-15

1 as1iS-fiFNs sfl'
In discussing section % Of the tariff act
passed at the recent session Of Congress-
Representative Joseph Wheeler of Alabama
said to Star reporter this morning:
THE act as It now, stands, including, in
brackets, or any act of Congress- reads:
" Sec. %. That discriminating duty of
10, per centunl ad valoiem, ina addition ITO
the duties imposed by law, shall be levied
collected and paid on I'll goods. wares or
merchandise which shall pc imported in
vessels not of the United States, or which
being the production or. manufacture of
any foreign country not contiguous to the
United States, shall come into the United
States from such contiguous country; but
this discriminating duty shall not apply to
goods, wares or merchandise which shall
be imported in vessels not OF the United
States, entitled at the time of such impor-
alton by treaty Cor any act of Congress)
or. convention to be entered in the ports of
the United States on payment of the same
duties as shall then be payable goods,
wares and merchandise imported in YES
sells of the United States, nor to such for
e1gn products or manufactures shall
be imported from such contiguous coun-
tries in the usual course of strictly retail
trade
1.-The words 'or any act of Congress- were
stricken out in open Senate on July 3. on
motion of Senator Allison. This motion
vas agreed to without opposition and
without even a comment by any member
of the Senate.
TO understand this question ii is proper
to state that our treaties with some nations
establish reciprocal relations which restrict
Us in imposing higher duties on goods i'm
ported in the ships of sucn nations than
when imported in ships of the United
States.
Then. again, by acts of Congress we
have provided for the establishment Of
reciprocal relations, for instance. under
President is empowered to suspend or
remit the collection of alien taxes:
Upon satisfactory proof being given 20
the President by the government of any
foreign nation TINT no discriminating
duties of tonnage or imposts are imposed
or levied in the ports of such nation upon
vessels wholly belonging to citizens of
the United States or upon The produce
manufactures or merchandise imported in
the same from the United States, &c"
Now it Is clear to me that the words or
any act OF Congress as they have been
formerly inserted in tariff laws and in The
Ding1ey bill as 1t passed the House were
entirely unnecessary. and, contend that
the omission of those words should not be
construed as repeating existing laws.
1.-The courts always hold that laws are
not repealed by implication. and, further.
that when two laws are enacted both will
stand unless they contain repugnant pro-
Z. L
cided that the omission of the words 'or
any act of Congress- was not intended TO,
and dces not, repeal any, act of Congress
which was in force AT the time the tariff
act was passed. .
THE next point arises from the insertion
of the clauses imposing, an additional duty
of 10 per cent on goods, which reach the
United States by coming through con-
tiguous country"
Cen Wheeler said that 1t seemed to him
that the addition of the following words
clearly imposes dutyoofd0 per cent ,upon
all goods which come int0t the United States
from Canada or Mexico, even though these
goods reach these Contiguous countries in
ships of the United Sta tea in ships CT
nations whose relations with the United
States are such that they enjoy absolute
exemption from such discriminating duties:
"Or which being the production or manu-
facture of any foreign country. not con-
tiguous to the United States shall come
into the United States from such contigu-
Gus country" and nor to such foreign
products or manufactures as shall be i'm
ported from such contiguous countries in
the usual course of strictly retail trade
=, Representative Wheeler continued:
ITO conclude; my view Is that section
~ rs 1t now stands imposes two kinds of
discriminating duties. First, upon goods
reaching our ports in ships not exempted
from such discrimination. and, second,
upon goods which reach the United States
through contiguous Countries the only ex-
ception in this case being made in favor of
those goods which are brought over the
line iii the usual course of retail trade
II admit that it is very probable that the
republican members did not intend to
bring about such a result. but, as the Ian
guage is not ambiguous. the courts cannot
consider what they sought to DO, but must
confine themselves t6 constituting the Ian
| guage as it appears in the act.
I'm other words, the question is what
they actually did do, not what they tried
and failed to accomplish.
The entire trouble arose from hastily
interpolating words without fully realizing
their import. When the bill passed the
House and again when it passed the SEN
ate the section provided for only one class
of discriminating duties, but the confer
ees interpolated a clause impo sing another
kind of discriminating duties. Therefore
we have the words This discriminating
duty, following two separate and distinct
clauses, imposing two separate and distinct
kinds of duty. This would make it neces-
sary for some one to decide to which of
the two duties the exception or saving
clause refers, and without examination it
might be assumed that the saving clause
applies to the last mentioned duty, but
when we read the entire section We dis
cover that such a View is not possible.
Il believe that the correct view to be
taken of this feature should be as If the
interpolated clause were added at-the end
OF the section, preceded by such necessary
words as, This duty also to apply to goods
which, &C.
.gTtsr# ---.-- 49,.