The times., 1897-08-19
The Ex-Secretary Argues an In
terestiDg Point.
ATTACKS CONFEREES' REPORT
An Argument on Behalf of the Bos-
ton-iaine Company and Canadian
Pacific Railroad-Right of the
CoDfe renee Committee to Change
the Law Challenged.

mitted TO the Attorney General his brief in
the argument upon the construction of the
clause in the tariff aw relative to the i'm
| position Of a discriminating tariff duty ON
| goods produced in countries not contiguous
to the United States The brief contains
about $4,000 words, and thoroughly ex
| hausts the argument from his standpoint as
counsel for the Boston and Maine Railroad
and the Canadian Pacific Railroad.
Mr.. Carlisle discusses the question In
/ all It's legal aspects, and. TO some extent,
asitnay affect our commercial and trans
! portation ntcrests He contends that there
are only three possible constructions OF the
law. According TO the first of these con-
structinns, 1T was designed 20 encourage
American shipping interests, by discriminat
ing against goods produced In Don-eontigu-
ous oounries, and brought into con-
| tiSsons country by vessels not OF the
| United States. and thence imported into
tiie United states. A very considerable
portion OF the brief Is devoted To dis
cussion or this Proposition, i'll the course
| oil which the facts ia connection with the
! origin and enactment OF the statute as
| 1t now stands are stated and commented
/ upon.
~ Is shown that the section as IL PASSED
both houses of Congress related only 10
goods carried iii certain classes OF yessels.
! The conference couimittee tad NO right To
! change It's character and did mol intend
| 10 do so: that At was nos understood in either
! House or Senate when the conference
| report was MISREPRESENTATION that ire pur-
! poseof theorginalse section had been changed,
! and hequotesfronit he statementsofS Senator
Allison and MI Dingiey, who had charge
| Of fthereports. tosbow hal this was theoase.
He examines the language of the section
! 10 show That even IN its amended form IL
StiIl related exclusively TO goods ca tried
| in vessels, and on this brancboftll ques lion
| he concludes that the act relates TO all
! goods actually Imported in vessels no tofthe
! United States anu not entitled 10 the tene
| fits of commercial trea ties, and secondly.
| to all goods which, being the product of
non. contiguous country, ale imported into
contiguous country in vessels nos OF the
| United States, and thence imported into
/ this country i'll Wholesale qualities.
Mr.. Carlisle contends that il The forego.
| ing ; not tile true meaning OF the section
| as amended, then the only other admissi
| ble construction of the language is that
| the provision was designed to discrini-
nate against the wholesale trade bel ween
| the people of the United States and the
| peoples OF Mexi1o and Canada ia goods
| produced in non,oonuEoous countries ana
| imported into tins country from Mexico
and Canada. Upon this point he makes
| critical examination of the language aud
contends that the words "coine irto The.
| United States" mean precisely the same
/ the words imported into the United
| States;' that goods clunct come into the
| United States from q contiguous country
4 unless they start to the Enited States
from that country, and if they take their
departure fer the United States from that
| country they are necessarily Imported IRON
| it; that III they take. thcir departure fer
/ the United states from China or Japan,
/ for instance, and on their Way here pass
through Canada or Mexico, they in fact
| and in legal sense come frotn China or
! Japan. and not from Canada OF Mexico.
1 The word FROM" il is insisted. does not
/ mean by way OF or through, but Indicates
/ the actual point of departure, and he
| quotes authorities to busi ain this posi-
/ ton.
His conclusion on this point is that the
discriminating duty applies To all goods
| imported in vessels not OF the United
| States and not entitled TO the benefits
of treaty stipniatioBsi and, secondly, to
all goods produced in a non-contiguous
country and thence imported into the
| United States from a Contiguous country
iii wholesale quantities no matter what
lenay have been the character of the
| vessel IN which they were brought to such
| contiguous countries.
| According to TINS construction. the ject
! of the law was TO discriminate against
| goods imported inte Canad a and held there
in store or in boHded warehouses. to be
! afterward thrown upon the markets OF the
| Cnitc,i States i'll wholesale quantities, which
| would make ouJlaw as 10 all these goods
| conform to the existing law OF Canada in
| relation TO tea aud green coffee imported
| from the United States into Canada. The
| third possible construction is that it i'm
| poses a discriminating duty Of l O per cent
! upon all goods, dutiable and free, which,
| are the productof contiguous countries, and
| which merely pass through the territory
or jurisdiction OF MeXico or Canad on their
way to the United States from their place
| OF departure for the United States
The construction, he insists, is W holly un
| reasonable and contrary to the real in.
tention of Congress. 1t would impose the
! discriminating duty upon goods simply
because they are carried through a con
| tiguous country; it would remedy no exist
! ing evil; it would inflict immense injury
upon our railroad and other transportation
| interests, without any CORES ponding bens-
fit to the masses of tie people, and would
| undoubtedly provoke ret3liation On the
part of the Dominion government.
| He shows that the value of foreign
| merchap disc imported into Canada an-
nuaily through our, ,seaports and carried TO
that country by oHf railroads. and the value
| If Canadian products annually carried by
our railroads to our seaports for exporta-
| while tire total value of all me rchandise
imported into the United States through
| Montreal, st. Johns, Halifax, Vancouver
| and all other Canadian ports during the
| year ending June 30, 1897, carried over
| Canadian railroads was only S7,663,5IS.
The value OF our domestic products ex.
ported to other countries through Canada
| is very small, and the most of 1T is
carried by water. The total annual ini
| portsinto Canadafrom all coun tries amount
/, toabout Sis, 1000 900, of which the United
States furnish about $66 1000 600. OF
the $52 900 900 Which is imported from
| other countries, about S20,0o0,e0O is car
| ried by our railroads.
Tea is the principal article imported by
Canada at the port Of Vancouver, and