The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1898-01-28
DISCRIMINATING DUTIES
xoT TO DE LEVIED ON IMPORTS
rpou ENGLAND VA CANADA.

., CI,s.,acntisn uioids That tbo DinEley
MI, yv,. Not Designed to Alter n-nat Poi,cy
-, IN Guard AEninst Rvnafou-Ths Treas-
~, \. nj Liberty TO Appeal 20 the Courts
mia, 10 nor cent. discriminating duties against
,-taor,s from Great Britain via Canada should
~, no levied in the case before them under Sec
y, 90 NJ the Dingloy tariff was tho decision
sandcd down yesterday by the Customs Board
:, Clossacation, q division OF tho United
s,o,cs BOARD OF General Appraisers. There are
shout afty similar cases before tho board, and
a, "a anticipated that oil will be decided in tho
..r,e way. The language Of tho section Is:
."That A discriminating duty Of 10 per centum
Al yalorcm. in addition TO the duties imposed
nv law. shall be levied, collected, and paid on
ali goods, wares, or merchandise which shall
n, imported In vessels not Of tho United States,
49, ,rbich. being the production or manufacture
of ary foreign country not contiguous TO the
RATED States, shall como into the United States
com such contiguous country; but this dis
eliminating duty shall not apply to goods,
~.r,s mr. merchandise which shall be imported
In vessels not Of tho United States, entitled at
,h. time of such importation by treaty or con-
-ontion 10 be entered In the ports Of the United
s,.,es on payment Of the Same duties as shall
then he payable on goods, wares, and mcrchan.
Ala imported in vessels Of the United States,
cor 10 such foreign products or manufactured
AZ shall be imported from such contiguous
Countries in the usual course Of strictly retail
trade"
The italicized lines represent matter not ap-
nearing in former acts. The new matter in
serted was supposed by many to cover goods
imported through Canada and to be In effect o
blow at the Canadian Pacific Railway. More
over, the clause ,'by treaty or convention" had
N'--i raaA sshv frnnfy nr act nf CNnRreRR.'
and every nation Of any Importance had been
snempt in one way or the other. The most Inn
P Isnn I.aas of the Revised Statutes, authorizing
imposition OF discriminating duties on the YES
sels of any nation which grants like privileges
to'our own ships. 1nasmuch as several nations,
notably Great Britain, enjoy exemption only by
more msrehSnts were alarmed lest it should be held
that section I.22s was r epealed by section ~
and the exemption would no longer be accorded.
Early in August last Attorney General Nc
that the discriminating duty should be levied
On s1., 2 lot Ito of SanaGn. o So9st eps i 70 fo oho fns.f IN
Q much more elaborate opinion, he held that the
duty did not apply to certain goods reaching
by cars to Chicago; and he further held that 1t
did not accrue upon an Importation q ore
from Chill IN a I BTltish vessel 81 r az bnniaS heYe nesn
assessing the discriminating duty on goods
which came through Canada, and protests, re-
s%iscation Board. Arguments in.the cases in
which the board rendered its decision yester-
day were made before the board by Charles 5.
Hamlin of Boston, former Assistant Secretary
and W.. j. Gibson Of this city. who is the counsel
K. Tingle Of washington, for the United States.
The board consists of Judge Henderson M:
ssSnervill s.;d ,t ss C ! q f,c Sharles Of r. ioH Ham no %
cases related to merchandise imported from
Great britain via Canada by Thomas Il; Taylor
at saa M MSgUaate H MicR.. had assessed aas diScrimi.
mating duties. The opinion takes up fourteen
Epewritten pages and was written by Judge
Alter stating tina the board, being q judi
cial body, ,haying like powers and response
sliities 4, as r the fr Unit to a asateS p 99u 1os,a M f ths Soi
iector's decision and throw on the courts the
onus Of deciding the case on Its merits, the
dred legislation for the past century. and infer
from the statements Of the Chairmen of the re
1PsfiffTbsi li p IN charTs that sV CONGRESS in nas n 'e ts
make no substantial change from It's pas
policy regarding foreign shipping. The change
to prevent evasions of the law by vessels q
nations which might at any time refuse to ad
:, NIT ,S SSs y o%S' tn shsif Ike RSl eia 0n Ia .Re s sa%s se Wa.
eaay. Germany, for example, might have laid
. discriminating duty on goods imported in
produce in German vessels to some Canadian
port. and thonce by rail across our border. she
e eUI,d s1n now accorded sS her. because the Ger
man ships would not need to enter our ports
Against such q practice as this section 81 4
The;board admits the difficulty OF constituting tn.
section. but holds that by q well. rule
the benefit of any doubt in the construction o.
q taxing statute should be given to tho on,
taxed rather than to the Government laying
the tax.
1t Is not yet known whether the Secretary o.
the Treasury will order an appeal from tn!
boards decision. The matter could, through
appeal, ultimately be carried to the United
States Supreme Court.