The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-08-31
Interpretation of the Discriminating
Duty Clause Worrying the Treas
ury Department.
SEC. 1928 MAY BE REPEALED
BY SUBSTITUTION OF CONVENTION"
FOR "ACTS OF CONGRESS-"
If the Attorney General So Decides,
Most of the Prominent Steamship
Lines VIII Be MuIcted Heavily.

WASHINGTON, Aug. SO.-Involved in the
question of the Interpretation of Section %
of the new tariff law with regard to the 10
percent. discriminating duty on foreign
goods coming into the United States from
Canada or Mexico, which is now before the
attorney general for decision, is another
question of equal if not greater magnitude.
This other question has almost entirely es-
capped public notice, but it is giving the
treasury great concern. 1t was referred to
the attorney general by Secretary Gage for
Interpretation along with the other features
of Section % which are in controversy. 1t
involves the question of whether this dis
eliminating duty of 10 per cent. does not
apply to all goods imported in foreign YES
sells landing at United States ports which
are not exempt from discriminating tom
mage taxes by express treaty stipulation.
The question arises from another slight de-
Walton from the language of previous pro-
visions in Section %, which, if made inten-
tionally, would seem to indicate that it was
designed to discriminate against three
fOurths of all the big transatlantic and
transpacific steamer lines, as we'll as many
Of the South American lines. In all pre-
ViOuS laws the section corresp onding to
Section % of the new law after providing
for the 10-per-cent discriminating duty on
goods imported in vessels not flying the
United States flag, provides that this dis
eliminating duty shall not apply to goods,
wares or merchandise which shall be i'm
ported in vessels not OF the United States
entitled at the time of such importation by
treaty or act of Congress to be entered in
ports Of the United States on the payment
of the same duties as shall then be payable
on goods, etc, imported in vessels of the
United States" The new law omits "acts
of Congress" and substitutes convention"
so as to make it read mot exempt by
treaty or convention"
1t is in pursuance of an act of Congress
(Section 4229 that Presidents in the past
have by proclamation exempted the vessels
of many countries from this discriminating
duty. The question now before the attor-
ney general is whether the omission of the
words "act of Congress- does not repeal
Section 422S. If it does it will strike a ire
mendous blow at all foreign lines now ex-
empt by presidential proclamation and con-
fine the exemption strictly to the vessels of
countries with which we have treaties
granting such exemptions. The vessels of
countries which could not be affected by an
adverse decision-that is, countries with
which we have treaties covering this spe-
cihc subject-are Sweden, Germany, Aus
tria, Brazil, Belgium, Denmark, Italy,
Greece, Chilli. Argentina, Hayti, Hawaii,
Holland Russia and Turkey. Several of
these countries have no merchant marine
sailing to American ports
The countries now enjoying exemption
from discriminating duties either wholly or
in part, under proclamations issued in pur-
suance of Section 1928 of the Revised
Statutes, are Great Britain, France Spain,
Portugal, Japan. Nicaragua and Mexico.
OF course, the largest class of vessels which
might be affected are the English lines,
which come to the United States not only
from British ports, but from the Oriental
countries, lndia, South America, and, in
fact, from every country on the globe. If
British vessels should be thrown back upon
their treaty exemptions, which are CON
tanned in the treaty of Washington, the
goods of all British vessels sailing from
other ports except the territorial possess
SONS IN Europe would have to pay the ad-
ditlonal III per cent. tax. More than that,
all goods shipped in British vessels not the
product or manufacture of Great Britains
european possessions, even though shipped
from English, Scotch or Irish ports, would
be subject to the discriminating duty. An
adverse decision, would, therefore affect
the Cunard, the Anchor, Arrow Transat-
lantic and other transatlantic lines to that
extent, the French line, the Phelps line,
running to Mediterranean ports, the two
Portuguese freight lines Except products
OF Portugal, several of the South American
lines, including what are known as the
Green line of steamers, the Japanese the
Canadian Pacific and the Oriental and Oc-
cident steamers on the Pacific, besides hun
dredS of tramp steamers.
A curious question would arise in the
case Of the French line were an adverse de-
cision rendered. Before General Grant is
sued his proclamation exempting the car
goes of French vessels by our treaty with
France they paid a discriminating duty of
IS. Is per ton, and cargoes imported into
France by vessels of the United States paid
a
II Section. 1929 is repealed then the ques-
ton would arise as to whether TOPPER
cent. discriminating duty should be i'm
the treaty. Should the attorney general de-
eide that Section 1929 is repealed by the
lines plying between the United States and
foreign ports which would be affected might
escape injury by change of nationality
and flag to that of Belgium or Holland or
some other country whose treaty gives
them full exemption.