Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1883-03-24
THE NEW TARIFF BILL.
The Talk OF COntesting its Constitution
ality.

The talk OF testing the constitutionalty OF
the new tariff law before the United States
Supreme Court was begun in this city on the
very day the bill passed, and by some of the
same parties who are again agitating the ques-
ton at Pittsburg. Their theory is that the
United States Supreme Court, in it's construc-
tion of the Constitution, would hold that the
Senate. having originated the bill it ls in contra
vention of section of article OF the Constitu-
ton, which reads: "Al bills for raising revenue
shall originate in the House of Representatives;
but the Senate may propose or concur with
amendments as on other bills" The question
which. after all is uppermost is, ibid the bill now
law have its origin In the Senator" The best
OF pariiamentarians think not. The Senate did
pass bill which the House refused to pass.
The outcome was conference committee, and
the bill agreed upon and passed was not the
Senate bill at all, but bill agreed to by con-
ference committee, in which the House con-
ferees participated by consent Of the House.
The fact that the House gave its consent to the
appointment Of conference managers on its be-
half plainly indicated that the majority who so
voted did not believe that it's constitutional
prerogative had been invaded. The bill which
Is now law is neither Senate nor House bill,
but one proposed by committee representing
both branches and agreed to by both houses. It
is not believed that any test of the law is con-
sidered with much seriousness, although there
are interests, especially those Of iron wire,
which would be much better off If 1t were set
aside.
SENATOR MORGAN THINKS THERE IS NO CUES
TON OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE LAW.
Senator Morgan, of Alabama, was asked by a
STAR reporter what he thought of the agitation
in relation to the unconstitutiOnality of the new
tariff law. He replied that it was idle talk, and
added: ''The Constitution of the United States
mot ha f1,o
shall pass Congress. Therein It differs from
state constitutions. Now, it is said this law is
unconstitutional because it originated in the
Senate, but who is to decide that?
sTAR-'Can the question be brought before
the Supreme COurt?"
nationality of the tariff law might be taken to
the Supreme Court IN this way: Parties import
Ing goods to the value of s., 900 might refuse to
pay the import duties on the ground Of the IN
eonsttutionality Of the law; the gov
cate the goods, and the importers could
bring suit in the Circuit Court, and thus finally
reach the Supreme Court; but this would be a
tedious course. There Is no way in which the
question can be brought directly before the
Supreme Court. The Constitution provides that
oils for raising revenue shall originate in the
House. but they can be altered or amended in the
Senate. The new tariff law did In fact originate
In the House as bill to reduce internal reve-
nue.. In the Senate it was amended 80 as to
revise the tariff. Now when the bill was re-
turned to the House set of resolutions with in
numberable whereases as to an invasion of the
constitutional prerOgative of that body was
adopted. but that was mere trick. 1t was not
intended honestly to raise the question. The
House could have legtimately raised the ques-
ton had 1t been honest and sincere; but having
accomplished the object for which the resOu-
lions were devised, VITO get the bill
IN the hands OF q conference committee the
House receded and adopted the report of the
conference committee, thus passing the bill and
recognizing its constitutiOnality. This question
is one that will, in my opinion. never be passed
upon by the Judiciary. 1t is question for the
political power of the country to determine It
is one purely of political discretion. When the
trainers of the Constitution adopted that clause
in relation to bills raising revenue originating
in the House it was just after the controversy in
England as to the right of the lords and the
crown to levy taxes. With the erroneous idea
that the Senate would be sort of house of
lords that provision was inserted. The Senate
Is purely democratic body and nothing like
the house of lords. The constitutionality OF the
law cannot be questioned"
REPRESENTATIVE DUNN, OF ARKANSAS,
says: 'The idea of the law being treated as un-
constitutional Is absurd. If the House of Rep
resentatives passed any revenue bill at all,
whether of customs or revenue, the Senate has.
under Its constitutional power of amendment,
the right to include any article of revenue; to
include articles not now dutiable and make
them So and to take articles from the free list
and make them dutiable. The power of the
Senate to amend q revenue bill is absolute, and
to deal with the entire subject after it once gets
a revenue bill from the House. even though the
House bill should affect only one or two artf-i
cies." Mr.. Dunn further thinks the new tariff
law will not reduce very materially the revenues
of the government. because of Increased ifnpor-
tatiOns, which may be anticipated. ~ 81