Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1897-09-22
Section % Will Not Bear on Goods
Coming Direct Through Canada.
Neither on Foreign Goods Shipped Hence
in English Built Vessels.

duty.
Two questions were asked the at
torney general, the first of which was.
in effect, whether the discriminating
duty of 10 per cent. provided for in
section % should be assessed against an
invoice of tea from China, which had
arrived at Vancouver in British ves-
sells and thence shipped through
Canada to Chicago.
The second question was whether the
discriminating duty should be assessed
against cargo of manganese ore from
Chill which recently arrived in a
British ship at Philadelphia. Both
these questions the attorney general
answers in the negative.
The opinion of the attorney general
first quoted section % in full and then
says: Three plausible contentious are
based upon this section which also diff
fer in degree.
THAT the duty is a discrimination
upon importations in vessels not of the
United States whether directly to the
United States or to a contiguous cOun-
try and thence to the United States.
"a discrimination against impor-
tations of Foods. not in the usual course
Of strictly retail trade from CONT
ducts thereof. In this the character of
the vessel is not important.
GA discrimination against goods
being the productions of foreign
country not contiguous to the United
States which shall come into the United
States from contiguous country.
In this contention the words come
into the United States are used as
designating movement only.
"Under the first and second contend
ers the duty would not be imposed
Under the third it would bel hence
select it as a basis for consideration.
ITO support. it is said that the Sec
ton imposes the duty in two cases CAY
when the goods are imported in YES
sells not of the United States and to the
United States: OBJ when they are the
production of a country not contiguous
and come into the United States from
a contiguous country. The character
of the vessel in which they were trans
ported 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 rea-
soning. The goods are Chinese or
Japanese production, hence the pro-
duction of a foreign country, not con-
tiguous to the United States they come
into the United States from Canada, a
contiguous country and so it is urged
that by the letter as well as by the
spirit of the statute they are subject
to the duty.
1T is conceded that the importation
is to the United States-passage
through Canada being mere movement
only towards destination-the latter be-
ing the United States. This being so,
it would seem that there was no reason
to distinguish between that importa-
ton and what may be called in dis
tinction direct one-why one should
be burdened and the other not bur-
the discrimination was
not necessary to the main purpose Of
the law. 1t is said that the purpose of
the amendment was to relieve the
American transcontnental railroads
against the competition of the Canadian
Pacific Railroad. W.
1T may be admitted that this is a
strong consideration but, on the other
hand. it is urged that this competition
is benefit and other American rail-
roads claim that the Canadian Pacific
is a direct advantage to them. How
Congress regarded this conflict we
have no means of knowing. There was
certainly no avowal and the only ex-
preston of members which we have,
70 hn
which might or might not have been
and which if, it had been
it would seem the natural
thing to have explicitly declared.
"As there was no reason, therefore,
why the importations, indirect or direct,
should be Disseminated by different
duties, am not disposed to think that
it was intended. To so hold would be
to put new purpose in the law-des-
troying it's unity-which is not COM
PEELED by its language or any mischief
which We may say was in the cOntemp-
ation of the lawmakers to be remedied.
"The section therefore regards, as the
law which preceded it regarded, the
of goods by sea. Its
purpose was to secure this to vessels of
he United States by discriminating
against transportation not in them
primarily to the United States, second
arily and to prevent evasion to a con-
.iguous country-Canada or Mexico.
The necessity of it to the effectiveness |
IF the law is obvious. 1t would have |
been useless to have imposed a dis |
duty on goods brought to |
San Francisco in foreign vessels and
cave them free to go to Vancouver in |
foreign vessels and thence send them
across the intervening land to the
United States.
1.-The amendment Of the law which is |
made by section %, therefore continues |
Continued on page a.