The Saint Paul globe., 1904-07-29
COASTWISE LAW
NEEDS FIXING UP
Canadians May Cause Litiga.
ton and Adjustment of
misunderstanding
Globe Special Washington Service

1417 G Street
WASHINGTON, D. c., July 2S-
Through the settlement of case which
has recently been brought before the
treasury department and the depart
ment of commerce and labor, it is likely
that there will be clearing up of some
of the veXed questions relating to the
United States coastwise law. The case
in question has special reference to
shipping between the United States
and Alaska, but the settlement of the
points at issue may be found to have a
bearing in other places.
There is great confusion in the off,
cial mind as to the construction to be
placed on certain provisions of the
coaStwlse law-and no wonder. There
are various decisions of courts on
points that have been raised in years
past relative to our marine commerce
with the Dominion of Canada and with
Alaska; and not few of these decis-
ions seem to dispute each other. There
are also many decisions of secretaries
and assistant secretaries of the treas
ury on the subject, and not all of these
are conSistent-or, if consistent are, at
any rate, not consistently followed in
the administration of the law. The Off
clals of the two departments of the
government directly concerned-for the
bureau of navigation was transferred
last year from the treasury depart
ment to the department of commerce
VIII welcome any litigation calculated
to clear up some of the doubtful points.
Litigation Is in Sight
Such litigation is now promised. The
Canadian Pacific railway operates
steamships between British Columbia
ports and ports in Southeastern Alaska.
They are not allowed, under our coast
Ing law, of course, to carry passengers
or freight between any two Alaska
ports, any more than Canadian steam
ers on the St Lawrence are allowed to
carry passengers or freight between
two ports on the New York side; but
the Canadian Pacifics steamers dc
carry on a considerable business be-
tween Victoria and Vancouver and
Skagway and other Southeastern Alas
ka ports.
One of these steamers recently call
ed at ketchikan, which is a port in the
extreme southeastern part of Alaska
and took on board thirteen passengers
These passengers were bound for Sc
attic, but they could not be carried all
the way, OF course, by British steam
er, for that would constitute plain
violation of our coasting law Accord
ingly, the passengers We're given their
choice of being landed at Victoria OF
Vancouver and of being carried thence
either by rail or by American steamer
to Seattle. The tickets sold by the
Canadian company read through t.
the destination in the state of Wash
ington.
Fined Canadian Pacific
The trouble began when the deput,
collector of customs at Ketchikan fined
the Canadian Pacific $500 for each O.
the passengers carried, claiming tha
the United States coastwise laws were
being violated. The case was appealed
to Commissioner Chamberlain, of the
bureau of navigation, department O
commerce, in Washington. He wa.
uncertain what action to take in view
OF the varying decisions in regard Il
the application of the coastwise law:
In Alaska, and he therefore INFORMED
the appealing company that the de
partment would prefer to have tn,
matter tested in court. At the -sam
time the collector of customs at Por
Townsend Wash. was instructed t,
lend all possible assistance to facilitat,
the appeal and the settlement of tn,
case.
There is strong feeling in the de
partment that the deputy collector a
Ketchikan was technically right. TIL,
law of 1898 provides that mo foreign
vessel shall transport passengers be
tween ports or places in the United
States, directly or by way Of a foreign
port, under penalty of 5000 for eaci
passenger SO transported or landed
This law was approved on Feb. IL
1898. On July IS, of the same year. tn,
treasury department rendered an opin
ion to the Seattle Yukon Transporta.
tion company that american good.
may be shipped by rail to Vancouver
thence via a British steamer to st
Michael Ian American port) without
violating the coasting law
Apparently inconsistent
This seems to be Inconsistent Will
the law of Feb. IL, although the par