New-York tribune., 1868-03-21
THE COURTS.
4 On RELATION OF THE EXECUTIVE TO I'LL
IEGIsIATURE OF THE COUNTRY.

t14GlSiAIIkE VI Ihb 49,
In the United States Supreme Court the
appeal was heard Of George A. Gardner pinhb IN M ~
act. Hiram Barney, Collector &C, Vnrt T6e nlain.
Court FOR the Southern District OF New ork, te ~ w
in error brought his action against the Coeclor VI he
Port OF NewYOrk, 10 recover so,ai v m 81 teaS The
duties maid under protest on an %
tens ,re entered at the Custon-house ApIu - i4' anu
egsd t6sf 2 sbdS Were by law liable to duty Of
cr pOund only, whereas the COIeStor eGacteu ~ Ces
- Ppcnnd without authority OF law. There was pro
ss before Government Of duties, and appeal to the
Secretary of the Treasury which was dismissed DflTl
The entry the succncy Of the protest to raise the que
ton Of the Legality 1T S Of e ad m a ds9 tS but
ct approyed by the President December 2l 1851, en-
iii stled drP"A" IAN Xet to Increase the duties on
tea, coffee. and sugar The plaintiff nled a.,
replication denying that act authorizing an eXactoh
OF 20 cents per pound merchandise was sgned by INC
President on the day named This Issue ofaw was tired
nd,ment was rendered the defendant TO show that
the act was approved by the President on he day alleged
the DstrictAOrney produced iIom the t Ol
state certified copy Of roll burp3rtng 10 contain d 5hs
act N gneS1&h on f 5io of any V4r to The day Of tie
month A copy of the same roll or bill Is printed in the
in 6yoCkets thus lis6ll after December The District
Attorney further referred to the journals Of the two
mentioned title passed those bodies in the month of De-
cember Of the year named In the Court below the qe
Dec a. 1861 was not directly decided, hut IL was held
that 10y virtue Of the following joint resolution approved
fcrlcd to- that act even II rot operative before was put
~ M oPuGn ana Sa S was Dn GS rssorSd HS &C. That the
rotary Treasury he, and is hereby authorized ana
directed TO permit goods warehoused at the date C ne
and sugar, approved Dec. 81 1861, 10 he NlndraWH o
An sct to provide an increased revenue from
Imports TO pay interest the public DEBT ang ioT
oiher purposes Approved Aug. 8, 1851 and to refund
any OF duties above those imposed by the ld as
uCntioucd act, which may have been cogete1 on suT m
goods already withdrawn laws or parts OF laws 70
the contrary notwithstanding This appeal Is taken 70
obtain review Of that Judgment anu II Is
by tie plaintiff CTOr trs that the JOINT RESOLUTION
above quoted had not passed. ,I itT H. 81 Snb
not have been enforced second that thee was no sicn
statute in force before the passage of the JOINT resolution
the Joint resolution could not operate 70 pul suc statute
an force 1t is submitted that II the dciect III the record
of the law renders 10 imperative as statute tat delect
cannot supplied, by any evidence deors the
record of which the court can eiher take JdCal hoct
O which il have brought TO its notice by any othef
kind Of proof record OF law, purpOrtihE 10 nave
Ieen abroyed by the President, must itself show full
date of e wear and day Of such approval or II is not an
operative statute The Constitution lrescloes certain
,dcs ~ enocur laws and each Of those modes requires
its special record to authenticate H. The elect 10 DC
given the Joint resolution requires that the Validity OF
inyady Of the supposed act prior to the passage o the
be explanatory act which did not exist nor ancnda
tory which did not exist As to the date OF al
nNcd by other evidence than the notation made by the
President Of the time when be actually approves the b
The question whether such customary notation OF
by the President Is the best KIND OF evidence Du
whether IL is the only possible competent evidence
requirement that such notation by the IIcsUh s SO e
scntla. that, in the absence OF II, the TACT sa De con
Cusycy presumed the contrary could only oe ueIu ~
express and stringent provision OF the Constitution
The part taken by the President IN signing "A blu Is no
part Of the legislation Of tie country The act s not the
exercise of legislative function. The Constitution does
require him To note The date OF MS aQpONd on to
Ii only requires him to sign the bill II lie approves
IT, But the legislation Of the cOuntTy-thc acts OF Con
gress-arc required have records The plaintiff IN er-
TOr maintains that the President Is the third branch OF
the Legislature, and that accordingly his approval Win
out dae fixing the time OF approval, IA void act and
me law Is void Tie declsio OF the Court will there
fore determine whether, under the Constitution, the
President is constituent part Of the National LegiS'