Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1897-09-22

CONTINUED from page ~


Canada and Mexico. and by repeating
the statutory exemptions from the 10
per cent. duty.
have considered your inquiry so
far as If the section only regarded mere
transportation through Canada. We
shall see hereafter that 1t has broader
scope.
In the second contention the words
Come into the United States are used
as synonymous to imported. The Ian
guage being the production or manu-
facture of any foreign country no;
contiguous to the United States Is
urged only as descriptive of the goods
to which the duty applies. The goods
themselves, it is commended must take
their departure from the contiguous
country in the strict sense of importa-
ton as distinguished from coming
through 1t as an importation from some
other country
This view is given FEASIBILITY to by
the exception that the duty shall not
apply to such foreign products or man.
ufacturers 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 Indicate 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 those by retail could be no other
way. But this does not follow
Such construction would confine the
rule strictly to the exception, whereas
it may be Notwithstanding importa-
ton strictly so called-those which take
their departure from contiguous
country if the other conditions of the
rule exist. If so the exception has All
adequate and proper office But it is
not even necessary to go this far 1t
is matter of common experience that
savings and exceptions are often in
troduced from abundant and excessive
caution. And it would sometimes per-
vert the intention of the author of
writing if every other thing of the
same general tenor as that excepted
should be regarded as embraced in the
general wods.' Sutherland on statu-
tory construction, Sec. 1922
1T follows. therefore. that the an
swer to your inquiry so far as section %
is concerned. depends % upon the
character of the vessels in which the
goods were carried to Vancouver: CD
if in foreign vessels, whether the goods
We're entitled by treaty or convention
to be entered in the ports of the United
States upon the payments of the same
duties as if imported in American
vessels.
Il assume the vessels were not Of the
United States. but British vessels. and
this brings me to your communication
of Aug. Il, in which you inquire
whether section 90 repeats sections
1925 to 5232 of the Revised Statutes and
your communication of Sept ., asking
whether manganese ore imported from
Chilli in the British bark Lurlie 10
Philadelphia is also subject to dis
eliminating duty. eH
"A law imposing discriminating
duties has been on the statute books IN
some form from the time of the enact
ment of the first tariff bill. Section 30
differs from the law previously in force
in that there is omitted from it the
words by any act of Congress- Does
this repeal section apps faIt will be oh
served that there are no words of en-
effect of this on section 1928 will be
simplified by reference to contem-
poraneous legislation.
''On the same day the Dingley bill
was approved an act entitled An act IN
authorize the President to suspend dis
eliminating duties imposed on foreign
vessels and commerce was approved
Il shall hereafter for convenience call
it the Suspension act This act pre-
vides that the President is authorized
to suspend in part the operations OF
sections 4219 and 2502, so that foreign
vessels from country imposing partial
discriminating tonnage duties upon
American vessel OF parstial dis
eliminating import duties upon Ameri-
can merchandise may enjoy in our
ports the identical privileges which the
same class of American vessels and
merchandise may enjoy in said foreign
country.
1T will be observed that it recog-
nizes the existence of section 422S and
amends it and enlarges the President
power. BY section 1928 that could only
be exercised when no discriminating
duties were imposed or laid on Ameri-
that the power may be exercised to
meet and respond to partial dis
eliminating duties as well%reciprocat-
ing the exact privileges though less
than total exemptions.
This act is somewhat confused by
it's references, but not withstanding
this confusion the act does recogniZ"
the existence of and extends section
1928 and it also recognizes section 2502.
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 important if they can be
reconciled. If either repeats the other
it is only by implication. The rule OF
implied repeats is well established by Il
long line of cases. There must be more
than difference there must be irrecon-
cilable conflict"
After citing several authorities in
support of his position, the attorney
general continues:
Section % and section 1928 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 condi-