Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-09-22
TARIFF SECTION q.
o,rsT,oy TOUCHING THE DIscRrM.
MATING DUTY OF 10 PER CENT.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERALS OPINION.
Goods Coming Directly Into the
rntted states from Foreign Conn
subject TO the Duty-Etc.


h.s opinion in the matter Of section %
o., the new tariff law. lie holds in ef-
feet that goods coming directly into the
Tnited States from foreign countries
through Canadian ports are not subject
to the discriminating duty Of 10 per
,ent.. and also holds that foreign goods
sh.pped from countries other than Bri-
lsh possessions IN British vessels are
not subject to the discriminating duty.
Two questions were asked the Attor-
ney-General the first OF which was in
encct whether the discriminating duty
OK 10 per cent. provided for in section
,2 should be assessed against an In
voice of tea from China, which had ar
rived at Vancouver in British vessels,
and been thence shipped through Canada
to Chicago. The second question was
whether the discriminating duty should
be assessed against a cargo Of manganese
ore from Chile. which recently arrived
in a British ship at Philadelphia. Both
these questions the Attorney-General an
swors in The negative.
The opinion Of the Attorney General
first quotes section p in full, and then
says:
Three plausible contentious are based
upon this section. which, as 10 strength,
only differ in degree:
Il. That the duty is a discrimination
against lmportations in vessels not of
the United States, whether directly 10
the United States or to a contiguous
country, and thence 10 the United
States.
.. A discrimination against the i'm
portation of goods not in the strictly
retail trade from a continuous country,
they not being the products thereof
The character Of the vessel is not i'm
pcrtant
"3. A discrimination against goods, be-
ing the productions OF a foreign country
not contiguous to the United States.
which shall come into the United States
from a contiguous country"
THE ARGUMENT.
In this connection 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 1t would
be. Hence 1 select this as a basis for
consideration.
ITO support It, It is said that the sec
tion imposes the duty in two cases-(a)
when the goods are imported in vessels
United States, and % when they are
the production of a country not contlgu-
GUS and come into the United States
from a contiguous country. The char
acter 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 the following reason
ing: The goods are of Chinese or Japa-
nese production. hence the production of
a foreign country not contiguous TO the
United States. They come into the
United States from Canada, a contiguous
country. and so it is urged by the let
ter, as well as by the spirit, Of the statute
they are subject to duty.
'It is conceded that the Importation Is
to the United States. passage through
Canada being mere movement only to-
ward destination. the latter being the
United States. This being so, ii would
seem that there was no reason to dis
tinguish between that importation and
what may be called in distinction direct
one-why one should be burdened and the
other not burdened. when the discrimina-
ton was not necessary to the main pur-
nose Of the law. AS there was no rea-
son. therefore. why the importations, in
direct or direct should be Disseminated
by different duties, l am not disposed TO
think that It was so 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 mis-
chief which we may say was in contem-
plation OF the lawmakers 30 be remedied.
The section. therefore. regards, as the
law which preceded il regarded tne
transportation of goods by sea- It's pur-
pose was to- secure this TO vessels of the
United States by discriminating against
the transportation not in them primarily
fo the United States; and secondarily.
20 prevent evasion TO con-
tiguous cOuntry-Canada or Mexico.
1he necessity Of IL to the effectiveness
of the law is obvious. 1t would nave
been useless TO impose a discriminating
duty on goods brought TO san Francisco
an foreign vessels, and leave them tree
10 go TO Vancouver in foreign vessels
and thence come across the intervening
land to the United States.
The adoption of the law which is made
hv section %. therefore. continues its OBJ
tect while 1t strengthens and better Sc
cures It.
FORCE or IMPORTED"
.r, the second contention the words
scome into the United States are used
as synonymous with imported The
goods themselves, 1t is contended, must
take their departure from the contigu-
ous country, in the strict sense or I'M
nortation. as distinguished from coming
through IL as an importation from some
other country. This view Is given
plausibility to by the exception that the
duty shall not apply TO such foreign
products or manufactures 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 in
dlcate the rule. They are claimed to be
the opposite of importation in the
course OF wholesale trade, and that the
latter must be direct, as that by retail
could be no other way Such construc-
ton would confne the rule strictly 10
the exception. which may be broader
Including impOrtations strictly so-called-
those which take their departure from
a contiguous country If the other condi-
lions OF the rule exist. If so. the excep-
tion has an adequate and proper office.
But it is not even necessary TO go this
far. II IS a matter OF common expert
ence that saving clauses and exceptions
are often introduced, out Of excessive
caution and II would sometimes per-
vert the intention Of the author 10 re-
gard such exceptions in any other light.
Sutherland on Statutory Construction,
section 22Z)
at follows therefore that the answer
20 the inquiry. as far as section p is
concerned, depends O) upon the charac-
ter OF the vessel H. which the goods were
carried TO Vancouver and 90 II in for
eian vessels whether the goods were
entitled by treaty or convention 10 be
., a. 10 ,orta NJ the Tinted States