The Portland daily press., 1897-09-22

-
They Were Before-Full Text of the
Opinion of the Attorney General on the
Subject.
Washington, September 2l.-Attorney
General McKenna today announced his
opinion in the matter of section % of the
new tariff law. He holds in effect that
goods coming directly into the United
States from foreign countries through
Canadian ports are not subject to the
discriminating duty of ten per cent, and
also holds that foreign goods shipped from
countries other than British possessions
in British vessels are not subject to the
d discriminating duty.
Two questions were asked the Attorney
General, the first of which was, in effect,
whether the discriminating duty of ten
per cent provided for in section % should
be assessed against an invoice of tea from
China which had arrived at Vancouver
in British vessels and was thence shipped
through Canada to Chicago. The second
question was whether the discriminating
duty should be assessed against cargo OF
manganese ore from Chilli which recent
ly arrived in British ship at Philadel-
phia. Both these questions the Attorney
General answers In the negative.
The Opinion
The opinion of the Attorney General
first quotes section 90 in full and then
says:
"Three plausible contentious are based
upon this section which only differ
in degree.
"1.-That the duty is a discrimination
upon importations in vessels not of the
United States whether bound directly to
the United States or to contiguous
country and thence to the United States.
ga discrimination against inlporta-
lions of goods not in the usual course of
strictly retail trade from a contiguous
country, they not being the products
thereof. In this the character Of the YES
sci is not important.
"a discrimination against goods
being the productions of foreigncountry
not contiguous to the United States which
shall come into the United States from a
contiguous country. i 49,
Gin this contention this words come in
to 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 select it as
a basis for consideration.
80 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 OBJ when they are the pro-
duction of country not contiguous and
come into the United States from a con.
tiguous country; the character of the
vessel in which they were transported to
the contiguous country being Indifferent.
:" The first case we are not now con
cerned with and the second is attempted
to be established by tho following reason
Ing. The goods are Ct Chinese or Japanese
production, hence the production of a
foreign country, not 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
we'll as by the spirit of the statute they
are subject to the duty.
st is conceded that the importation IS
to the United States passage through
Canada being mere movement only to-
wards destination, the latter being the
United States. This being so, it would
seem that there was no reason to distin-
guish between that importation and what
Iltfty D6 Ctt1l6u III ul5uluCutOu d dltGCu OAc
why one should be burdened and the
other not burdened- the discrimina.
tion was not necessary to the main pIlr-
pose of the law. 1t is said that the pur.
pose of the amendment was to relieve the
American trans-continental railroads
against the competition of the Canadian
Pacific railroad. 1t may be admitted that
this is strong consideration but, on the
other hand, it is urged that this COMPETE
e. ., md A Y,,or vol T..
roads claim that the Canadian Pacific is
direct advantage to them. How Con-
gress regarded this conflict we have no
means Of knowing. There was certainly
no avowal and the only expressions OF
members which we have indicate differ
ent purpose than one which might or
might not have been entertained and
which, if it had been entertained, it
would seem the natural thing to have ex-
plicitly declared.
LAS there was no reason, therefore,
why the importations, indirect or direct,
should be Disseminated by different
duties, / am not disposed to think that 1t
was intended To SO hold would be to
put new purpose in the law, destroying
its unity, which is not compelled by it's
language or any mischief which we may
say was in the contemplation of the law
makers to be remedied.
"The section, therefore, regards, as the
law which preceded it regarded the
transportation of goods by sea. Its pur.
pose was to secure this to vessels of the
United States by discriminating against
transportation not in them primarily to
the United States, and secondarily to pre-
vent evasion to contiguous country
Canada or Mexico. The necessity of it to
the effectiveness of the law is obvious II
would have been useless to have imposed
discriminating duty on goods brought
to San Francisco in foreign vessels and
leave them free to go to Vancouver in
foreign vessels and thence and then across
the Intervening land to the United States
1.-The amendment of the law which is
made by section %. 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 statutory
exemptions from the ten per cent duty.
81 have considered your inquiry SO faI
as If the section only regarded mere
transportation through Canada. We shall
see hereafter that it has broader scope.
'tIn the second contention the words
come into the United States are used al
synonymous to imported. The language
being the production or manufacture oil
any. foreign country not contiguous to tls