Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1890-10-31
A WEAK ASSAULT.

a great deal of pother has been made
over the alleged omission of the tobacco
rebate provision from the new revenue
law. We are told that, in the opinion OF
SIr. Carlisle and of many Democratic legal
lights, this Omission invalidates the
. whole law. Now it is not at all clear why
these gentlemen arrive at this conclusion,
aut we are justified in assuming that they
hold as they do on the ground that the
omission was not intended by Congress,
and hence the whole revenue bill is invali-
slated. The reports by telegraph warrant
this assum ption as the line OF argument
The "invalidaters" pursue.
But bow do they propose to show that
Congress did not intend the omission
Certainly there was nothing in the act to
negative the idea that the clause was pur-
posely LETT cut Indeed, while extrinsic
evidence is not to be taken to prove the
antention of the Legislators, yet for popular
debate it may be stated that Congressman
by the score have testified that the omis-
sion was purposeful. The reason for this
rs that it has not been the custom of Con-
rgress to make provision for rebate in case
of reductions of taxation, Immediately, in
4he first place; in the second place, the
tobacco schedule does not take effect until
after the 1st of January, and Congress
meeting in December. gives ample time to
provide for the rebate of two cents a
pound. Senator Sherman, in responding
20 letter by the Tobacco Journal is re-
ported to have said that the omission was
intentional, and that the reason for it was
shat the bill gives three months time for
4he supply on hand to become exhausted
before making any reduction in the inter-
nal revenue tax on tobacco.
But aside from this explanation, it is
very difficult to understand these fault
finding Democrats when they allege that
che omission of rebate clause in the law
reducing internal revenue taxation inval-
Idates the entire tariff bill. The rule of
law is that statutes must be given their
matter of which they treat, regardless of
some provisions that are erroneous, or even
Enwarranted by the legislative power, so
long as such errors do not go to the vital
portion of the measure. If two sections
were in conflict, if there could be no recon-
Ciliation between them, and the vitality of
che Act depended upon those sections be-
ang potent, then the whole Act would fall.
But taking the Democratic obstructionists
on their own ground, we ask again, how
do they propose to show that the absence
of the rebate clause of the tobacco reduc-
9ion sections was an omission? How do
they propose to establish that it was not
Intentional, as against the presumption of
the law that the Act was passed with its
form Intentionally as certified by the
proper authorities who signed and pro-
mulgated it? Are Democratic obstruc-
tionists mind -readers, seers and prophets,
that they can ascertain what passed in the
minds of the Legislators when the bill was
enacted? We look upon this whole agi-
tation as supremacy ridiculous, and as in
tended only to impress the country with
1he superior wisdom the Democrats assume
they represent, and to make capital, in
some vague way, for the Democratic party
IN the approaching elections.