St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-10-24
MILLER Plays the sphinx Act.

Miller Plays the Sphinx Act.
Attorney General Miller positively
declined to discuss the question in any
OF it's bearings, saying that it would be
manifestly improper for him to do SO
unless it came to him In an oficiai way.
Mr.. Mattson, commissioner of internal
revenue, who is specially charged with
the execution of the tobacco provisions
OF the law, confined his remarks in re-
gard to the alleged illegality of the law
to the following statement: II will
obey the law as certified by the secre-
tary OF state. 1t is not for me to say
whether or not the omission of the to-
baccO provision vitiates the tariff.
Being merely an executive officer of the
government, / must enforce as l find
it. Anyhow, the tobacco schedule
does not take effect until Jan. 1, so that
II congress desires to refund cents
pound on all Tobacco Oh hand when the
law takes effect, it has ample time to
iegislate to that end" No alarm What
ever is felt here among the friends OF
the Mckinley tariff as to the legality Of
Its enactment. The precedents of un-
enced emplOye of the house said to-day,
leave no doubt that an error, whether
OF omission or cOmmisslon,in in the enroll
ment OF bill passed by congress does
not vltlate any part of the measure, eX-
cept that part to which the error relates
Errors of some kind occur, he said, at
every session of congress in least one or
more important bills, and to hold that
the omission or insertion of any para
graph. word or punctuation mark in
validates not only the part of the bill to
which the error is relevant, but the en-
tire measure,
Would Establish Chaos
in the affairs Of government. and COM
pei congress to remain constantly in
session to correct, Immediately on dis
covery, errors in bills signed by the
president, in order that the operations
OF the government might be carried on.
1t is safe to say, he added, that an error
occurs in at least one appropriation bill
during each congress. and yet there has
never been any doubt entertained by
the accounting officers of the govern
ment, or by any one else, as to the
validity of all appropriations except the
particular one affected by such error.
In the enrolment of the tariff act of
1883 comma was improperly used in
the fruit plant" paragraph, and the
manifest Intention of congress thereby
defeated by great loss of the Gus
toms revenues, but there was no
question as to the validity of
the other provisions of the law.
when it was passed upon by the SUI
preme court. During the very last
session of congress an error was made
in the enrolment of the river and har-
Dor bill by the omission of two ciphers
In the amount appropriated for the inn
provement of the Illinois river, SO that
$1,000 instead of 100000 was appropri-
atP6. A week. Or mora offor tha hill
became law the error was discovered
and congress promptly passed resolu-
lion to correct it. 1.-THE fact.n he con-
tinued. 'thatin the joint resolution, as
in numerous others passed for the cor
rection of similar errors, congress
enacted no provision TO give legal effect
to the remainder of the bill shows con-
clusively that in the opinion of the
legislative branch of the government an
error in one part of a measure
Does Not vitiate 1t
as WHOLE" Capt. McGregor, chief of
the customs division, recalls in gen
eral way somewhat similar case that
arose under the wool act of 1867, which
might throw side light on the subject.
AS nearly as he could remember the cir
cumstances, Boston importer received
a cargo of wool which arrived on Sun
ooys tic ou vi MdTCu, 1901. uo tdrl1f
act bore the date of the I'd of March. but
congress had extended the session of the
I'd over to the 4th, SO that as mat
ter of fact the bill had not been signed
till about noon on the 4th of March.
The question at once arose whether this
cargo should pay duty at the old rate, as
the bill had actually not been signed till
after its arrival, or the new rate.
Following the legal fiction of the date
of the act, the case was carried into
court, which consented to go behind
the public record and take the testi-
mony of President johnson himself as
to when the act was signed. A similar
question will of course come up in con-
necton with the Mckinley bill. The.
copy of the act which went to the presi-
dent and was signed by him certainly
bore the signatures of the presiding
officers of the two houses of congress
certifying to its correctness. 1t must
now be settled whether it be lawful to
go behind this certification and ascer-
tain what was really the bill that passed
the two houses"