The Wilmington daily Republican. (Wilmington, Del.) 1890-1902, 1897-08-19
Mr. CARLlSLES BRIEF
Relating to Discriminating Duty on
Goods From Foreign Countries.
AN ARGUMENT FOR RAILROADS.

Tho Ex-Secretary Asserts That the
Section of the New Tariff Act Re-
lating Thereto Was inadvertently
Changed by Conference Committee.
Washington, Aug. 19.-Ex-Secretary
Carlisle yesterday submitted to Attor-
ney General McKenna brief contain
ing his views on section 22 of the new
tariff act. relating to the imposition of
the 10 per cent discriminating duty on
goods imported from foreign countries
through contiguous territory. Mr.. Car
Isle. who represents the Boston and
Maine railroad. appeared with former
Assistant Secretary Hamlin, represent
Ing the Associated Board of Trade and
the Merchants association Of Boston.
before Mr.. McKenna last Saturday and
submitted oral arguments on the Ques-
ton.
Mr.. Carlisle contends that there are
only three possible constructions of
the law. According to the first of these
constructions It was designed to en-
courage American shipping interests
by discriminating against goods pro-
duced in non contiguous countries and
brought into a contiguous country by
vessels not Of the United States and
thence imported into the United States.
A very considerable portion Of the
brief is devoted to a discussion of this
proposition, in the course of which the
facts in connection with the origin and
enactment of the section as 1t now
stands are stated and commented upon.
1t is shown that the section as it pass
ed both houses of congress related only
to goods carried in certain classes of
vessels, and the conference committee
had no right to change its character,
and did not intend to do so: that 1t was
not understood In either the house or
the senate, when the conference re-
port was under consideration. that the
purpose of the original section had been
changed, and he quotes from the state
ments of Senator Allison and Mr.. Ding
ley, who had charge of the reports, to
show that this was the case.
He examines the language of the
section to show that, even in its
amended form, 1t still relates ekclu-
sively to goods carried In vessels, and
on this branch Of the question he con-
cludes that the act relates to all goods
actually imported in vessels not of the
United States and not entitled to the
benefits of commercial treaties, and
secondly, to all goods which, being the
product Of a non-contiguous country,
are imported into a contiguous coun-
try in vessels not Of the United States,
and thence imported into this country
in wholesale quantities. Mr. Carlisle
contends that IL the foregoing is not
the true meaning Of the section as
amended then the only other admis-
sable construction of the language OF
the section is that the provision was
designed to discriminate against the
wholesale trade between the people
of the United States and the people of
Mexico and Canada in goods produced
in contiguous countries and imported
into this country from Mexico or Can
ada.
His contention 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 stipulations, and sec
ondly, to all goods produced in nom
contiguous country and thence i'm
ported into the United States from a 1
contiguous country in wholesale guam
titles, no matter what may have been
the character of the vessel in which /
they were brought to such contiguous
country. According to this construc-
ton the object Of the law was to dis
crimlnate against goods imported into |
Canada and held there in store or in L
bonded warehouses, to be afterward |
thrown upon the markets of the Unit
ed States in wholesale quantities, which |
would make our law as to all these |
goods conform to the existing law of
Canada in relation to tea and green
coffee imported from the United States
into Canada.
The third possible construction Is
that it imposes a discriminating duty
of 10 per cent upon all goods. dutiable
and free. which are the product of
non contiguous countries, and which
merely pass through the territory or
Jurisdiction of Mexico or Canada on
their way to the United States from
their places of departure for the United
States. This construction, he insists,
is wholly unreasonable and contrary
to the real intention Of congress. 1t
would impose the discriminating duty
upon goods simply because they are
carried through a contiguous country;
1t would remedy no existing evil: 1t
would inf1ict immense injury upon our
and other transportation in
terests, without any corresponding
benefit to the masses of the people, and
would undoubtedly provoke retalia-
ton on the part of the Dominion gov