The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1897-09-22
M'KENNA'S DECISION
CONTINUED from First Page.)

whether Manganese ore imported from
Chile, in the British bark Lurl.e, to Phil
adelphia is also subject to a discriminate
ing duty.
An order imposing discriminating du-
ties has been on the statute books IN
some form from the time of the enact
ment Of the first tariff bill. Section y
differs from the law previously in force
in that there is omitted from it the words
"by any act of Congress-" Does this re-
peal section 1928? 1t will be observed
that there are no words of EXPRESS re-
peal. Consideration of the effect Of this
on section 1923 will DE simplified by a
difference to cOntemp0raneOus leglsla-
ton.
On the same day the Dingley bill was
approved an act entitled IAN act to au-
th0rze the President to suspend dis
eliminating duties imposed on foreign
vessels and commerce" was approved. |
shall hereafter, for convenience call it
the suspension act. This act provides
that the President is authorized to sus-
pend in part the operations of section
1910 and 2702 so that foreign vessels
from country imposing partial djscrim-
nation tonnage duties upon American
vessels, or partial discriminating tonnage
duties upon American merchandise, may
enjoy in our ports the Identical privileges
which the same class of American YES
sells and merchandise may enjoy in said
foreign country.
1t will be observed That it recognizes
the existence Of section 1929, and amends
It and enlarges the Presidents power.
,Joe, thaf b<n
may lie exercised to meet and respond
to partial discriminating duties as well
reciprocal ting the exact privilege though
less than total exemptions.
This act is somewhat confused by its
references, but notwithstanding this con-
fusion. the act does recognize the exist
ence OF, and extends section apps, and
It also recognizes section 25O2. What
is the effect of this? The act and the
Dingley bill were passed on the same day
and do not think the order of passage
is imDortant If they can be reconciled.
If either repeats the other. it is only by
implication. The rule of implied repeats
is well established by long line Of cas-
es There must be- more than difference
there must be irreconcilah'e conflict"
After citing several authorities in sup
port Of his position, the Attorney General
continues:
"Section % and section 1923 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 condition
upon which and the agency by which it
may be suspended. Each, therefore, has
| IT'S purnose-defnite and consistent. Sec
| ton 1923 might be a proviso to section
I22. and is in effect made so by the sus-
lpension act, and as such provisO it is GER
tainly not repugnant to section %. The
latter has its peration-commencin
with it's passage. continuing until the
conditions Of section 1923 occur and the
President acts on account of them, re-
lsuming again il the reciprocal exemptions
of foreign nations be withdrawn.
Examples of this are familiar in our
LEGISLATION. The provision in the Dingley
bin for reciprocity of trade is such an ex-
annie Under that the duties of the act
may be changed"
The Attorney General then quotes sew
eral cases in support of conclusion nc
reaches that where there is difference in
purpose, legislative provision may be in
dependent, and then, continuing. says:
'But the rule of repeal by implication
does not require us to find independence
liz there is not irreconcilable conflict the
avs may exist together. AS we have al
ready seen, there is certainly no irrecon-
cilable conflict Even # there was more
conflict in their language, more in their
purpose, this would have to yield to the
Interpretation of the time and in the
manner of their passage.
at follows, therefore, that section 422S
was not repealed by section % and that
the merchandise of both inquiries is not
to be subject to discriminating duty"