The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-09-22
Catch Clause Struggled into Tariff
Bill Robbed of It's Power
to Harm.
TWO SPECIFIC APPROPRIATIONS INVOLVED.
In Both the Decision of the Attorney Gem
eral Is Against the Imposing of the
Discriminating Duty==Text
of His Findings

WASHINGTON, Sept. 21-Attorney
General McKenna today announced
his opinion in the matter of section %
of the new tariff law. He holds in eff
feet that goods coming directly into
the United States from foreign coun-
tries, through Canadian ports, are not
| subject to the discriminating duty of
| 10 per cent, and also holds that for
| eign goods shipped from countries
other than British possessions in Brit
| ish vessels are not subject to the dis
| eliminating duty.
Two questions were asked the attor-
ney general, the first of which was, in
| effect, whether the discriminating duty
| of 10 per cent provided for in section
| % should be assessed against an in
voice of tea from China, which had ar
| rived at Vancouver in British vessels,
and thence been shipped through Can
| ada to Chicago. The second question
| was whether the discriminating duty
| should be assessed against cargo of
manganese ore from Chile, which re-
Gently arrived in British ship at
| Philadelphia Both these questions
| the attorney general answers in the
| negative.
The opinion of the attorney general
first quotes section % IN full, ana then
says:
Three plausible contentious are based upon
| this section, which as to strength, only dlner
| in degree.
/. That the duty is a discrimination upon
importations in vessels not of the United
States, whether directly to the United States
or to contiguous country and thence 10 the
United States.
| 2. A discrimination against importations Of
goods mot in the usual course OF strictly re-
not being the products thereof. In this the
/ character of the vessel is not important.
8. discrimination against goods being the
productions of foreign country not CONT
guous to the United States, which shall come
into the United States from a contiguous
country. In this contention the words come
into the United States" are used as desig-
mating movement only.
Under the first and second contentious,
the duty would not be imposed Under the
third it would be-hence 1 select it as a basis
for consideration.
SPECIFIC CASES.
To support it, it is said that the section
imposes the duty in two cases. (a) when the
goods are imported in 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 contiguous country. The
character of the vessel in which they were
transported to the contiguous country being
Indifferent.
with, and the second is attempted to be
established by the following reasoning. The
goods are Chinese or Japanese productions,
hence the production of a foreign country,
mot contiguous to the United States, they
come into the United States from Canada,
contiguous country, and so it is urged that
by the letter as well as by the spirit of the
statute they are subject to the duty.
1t is conceded that the importation is to
the United States-passage through Canada
being mere movement only toward destna-
tion-the latter being the United States. This
being so, it would that there is
reason to distinguish between that importa-
ton, and what may be called in distinction
direct one-why should be burdened and
the other not burdened when the discrimna-
ton was not necessary to the main pur-
pose of the law. 1t is said that the purpose
of amendment was to relieve the American
transcontinental railroads against the COM
petition of the Canadian Pacific railroad. 1t
may be admitted that this is strong con-
sideration, but, on the other hand, it is urged
that this competition is benefit, and other
American railroads claim that the Canadian
Pacific is direct advantage to them How
congress regards this conflict we have no
means of knowing. There was certainly no
avowal, and the only expressions of mem
bers, which we have, indicate different pur-
pose than one which might might not
have been entertained. and which if it had
been entertained, 1t would seem the natural
thing to have explicitly declared.
AS there was no reason therefore why the
mportations-indlrect or direct should be dis
posed to think that it was intended. To SO
hold would be to put new purpose
in the law-destroying its untiy-which is not
compelled by its language or any mischief
which, we may say, was in the contempla-
ton of the lawmakers to be reEledied. The
section, therefore, regards, as the law which
preceded it regarded, the transportation of
goods by sea. It's purpose was to secure
this to vessels of the United States by dis
eliminating against transportation not in
them primarily to the United States, second
arily, and to prevent evasion, 10 contiguous
country-Canada or Mexico.
OBVIOUS NECESSITY.
The necessity of it to the effectiveness of
the law is obvious. 1t would have been USE
less to have imposed a discriminating duty
ON goods brought to San Francisco in for
eign vessels and leave them free to 90 to
Vancouver in foreign vessels, and then across
the intervening land to the United States. The
amendment of the law which is made by sec
ton %, therefore continues its object while
it strengthens and better secures it. 1t does
this in two ways viz: by taking away the
means of its evasion, through the contiguity
of Canada and Mexico, and by repeating the
statuto<J exemptions from the ten per cent
duty.
1 have considered your inquiry so far If
the section only regarded mere transportation
through Canada We shall see hereafter that
it has a broader scope.
In the second contention. the words "come
into the United States" are used as synony-
nous to imported. The language being the
production or manufacture of any foreign
country not contiguous to the United States"
is urged only descriptive of the goods to
which the duty applies The goods them
selves, it Is contended, must take their de-
parture 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
FEASIBILITY too by the exception that duty
shall. mot apply to such foreign products or
manufacture 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 j
of importation in the course sofS wholesale
trade and that the latter must Be direcfa as
though by retail could be no other way. But
this does not follows Such eohstructio9 would
confine the rule stfctly--To the exeepfhen,
whereas 1t may be broader, Including i'm
portations strictly so called-those which take
their departure from a contiguous couFHy if
the other conditions of the rpF exist. If SO,
the exception has am ddeeuhte= and l2pt9e .
Office. But it is not even necessarys 90 d this \
far .sA4.
EXCESSIVE CAUEDNs1
II Ia N roaftar NJ ooror,,oy, ~ovrarianao that