The San Francisco call., 1897-09-22

from abundant and excessive caution, aud
would sometimes pervert the inten ton ot the
author CT writing if everything of the same
general tenor as that excepted should be
rec atded as embraced in the general words"
sutherland on Statutory Construction, sec
lon 222.)
1t follows, therefore, that the answer to your
inquiry, 50 far as section % is concerned, de-
pendS ~ upon the cnaracier OF the vessel IN
which the goods were carried to vancouver
~ ii IN foreign vessels, whether the goods
were entitled by treaty or convention TO be en-
tSred into the ports OF the United States upon
TIE payment OF the same duties as II imported
IN American vessels.
assume the vessels were not of the United
States, but British vessels, and this brings me
TO your communication OF August II. IN which
you inquire WHETHER see;lOn - repeals sec
touS 4Z2S to 1922 OF the Revised statutes end
your communication OF Sepiemte =, as eng
whether manganese ore i'm ported tromChlle IN
the British bark Lurl.e 10 Philadelphia is also
subject to a discriminating duty A law i'm
posing discriminating duties on the stat
ute books in some form from the time OF
the enactment of the first tariff bill. Sec
tion ID differs from the law previously in
force that there IS omitted from II the
words ''by any act OF Congress" Does this re-
peal section 422S? 1t Will be observed that
there are no words OF express repeal. Consld-
Grafton OF the effect Of this on section 422S
will be simplIfed by reference 10 contempo-
raneous legislation.
on the same day the Dingley bill was ap-
proved an act entitled IAN act TO authorize
the President to suspend discriminating du-
ties imposed on foreign yes sels and commerce
was approved. | shall hereafter, for convent
ence, consult the suspension act. This ac,
provides that the President is authorized 10
suspend in part the operations of sections
42lJ and 2JO2. so that the foreign veSSe IS from
q country imposing partially discriminating
tonnage duties upon American vessels or par
TALLY dis crlminaung duties upon Amer can
merchandise may enjoy in our ports the lden-
tical privileges when the same class OF Ameri-
can vessels and merchandise may enjoy IN
said foreign country.
1t Will be observed that it recognizes the ex-
lstence OF section 1928 and amends IL and ell
largeS the President s power. By 1928 that
could only be exercised when no" al >crlml-
mating duties were imposed or laid on Ameri-
can YeSSe 5. The amendment PROVIDES thai
the power may be exercised TO meet and re-
spOnd to par tlaI discriminating duties as well
-reciprocating the exact privilege through
less than total eXemp ptIOnS.
This act IS somewhat confused by is refer
ences, but Notwithstanding this confusion the
act does recognize the existence OF and extends
section 422S, and II 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 i'm
portant ii they can be reconciled. II either
peals he other il is only by implication. The
rule OF i'm Piled repeals is well established by
g long line of cases. There must be more than
differe nce-there must be irreconcilable con-
flIct.
After citing several authorities in sup
port of his position, the Attorney General
continues:
Section % and section 1929 and amend
ments are not co-eXtensive in scope; in pur-
pose, therefore, they may be the complement Is
OF each other. One pre- scribes rule, the otrer
the conditions upon which and the energy by
which it may be suspended. Each, therefore,
has It's purpO e-deinlte and consistent.
Section 422S might be proviso TO section
D. and is IN effect made so by the suspension
act and as such proylSo Ii Is certainly not re-
pugnant to section -. The latter has its opeI-
rfFaFg frFrTT-
ing until the cond lions OF section 4226 occur
and the President act on account OF them, re-
sumiug again if The reciprocal exemptions
Cf foreign nations have been Withdrawn.
Examples OF this are familiar to our leglsla-
ton. The provision in the Dingley bill for
reciprocity OF trade is such an example. Un-
der that the duties OF the ct may be changed.
The Attorney General then quotes sew
eral cases IN support of conc uslOn he
reaches that where there Is difference in
purpose, legislative provision may be in
dependent, and, then continuing, says:
But the rule of repeal by implication does
not require Us TO find independence. II there
is not IrrecOucilab.e conflict the laws may eX-
is together. As have already seen, there
is certainly no irrecOncilable conf CT. Even
II there was more cOnflict in their language
more in the purpOse-this would have 10 yield
10 the in Interpretation OF the time and manner
of their passage. The suspension act was re-
ported to the House OF Representatives by the
same committee which reported the Dingley
bHl-WaS considered ana was passed wnlle
that act was III memory. Il passed the senate
while the Ding ey bin was pending in cOnsid-
GRAFTON. and was approved BY the President on
the same day as the Dingley bill. a know edge
OF its relations to that pill and is eff CT on IL
must therefore be attributed to the LegislA-
ture Il may be Il was the Ia er bill, Tor the
Congressional Record shows that the Presl-
dents approval Of il was communicated TO the
Congress subsequently to tnat OF the other.
Even a more extreme pos stiOu might be
taken. 1t was held IN Mead VS.. Bagnall and
others 10 Wisconsin, l.Itj1, that there the
provisions OF a statute which relates to par
ticular class of csses are repugnant to these of
another statute approved the same day, which
is OF more general character, the former
must prevail as to the particular class OF cases
therein retired to-" (See also Endhch on the
interpre tation OF statutes section 2l6, and
cases cited.)
1t follows, therefore, that section 1929 was
not repealed by section %, and tnat the mer-
chandise of both inquiries is not to be sub
jected TO q discriminating duty.