The western sentinel. [volume] (Winston-Salem, N.C.) 1887-1926, 1890-10-30
Is the Tariff Bill Valid?
F. ON the Bultimorc Sun I

In the opinion of prominent Sena-
tors and eminent lawyers the new
tariff law is invalid by reason of the
omission from the draft of it signed by
/ the President of certain provisions
agreed upon in conference and sane
toned by the House and Senate, the
| object of which was to give to tobacco
manufacturers rebate of 2 cents a
ponn.l an tobacco or which they have
paid the old internal tax Of 8 cents
pound. This omission, in the opinion
Of New York importers and their
counsel, is fatal to the validity Of the
entire Mckinley act. They are ac
cordingly taking steps to bring the
constitutionality of the act before the
courts for adjudication, and with a
view to that end will on paying the
new duties make formal protest
against assessments "under the So
called act of October l, $780," The
contention of the protesting importers
is that the tariff act of. 1888 has not
been repealed; that the alleged act
approved October l, 1890, never pass
ed the House Of Representatives, and
the Senate; that the bill which did
pass the House and Senate has never
been presented to the President, as the
constitute requires, and has accor-
dinghy never been approved or 81 gned
by him. The President, in word,
has signed the wrong bill, and the
proper duties for importers to pay
now are the duties imposed by the law
Of 1888. The history Of the matter
may be given in small space. The
Mckinley bill, as it passed the House,
in section 20 reduced the tax on smok-
ing and manufactured tobacco and
snuff from to 4 cents pound, and
in section 80 provided certain rebates
on tobacco in the hands Of manufac-
turers and dealers upon which the old
tax had been paid. In the Senate the
bill was amended Dy striking out all
the sections referring To tobacco. In
conference committee, however, the
conflicting views of the House and
Senate were compromised, and it was
agreed that the internal tax on manu-
factured and smoking tobacco and
snuff should be 6 cents ponnd 1t
was further agreed that section 80 of
the House bill, providing for rebates,
as already explained, should be re
stored to the bill The conference re-
port. es approved by the House and
Senate, is understood to have included
these agreements in committee. But
the bill signed by the President omits
the contents Of the old seciiHn 80 of
the Hause bill entirely, providing on
ly for a tax of 6 cents pound and
saying nothing whatever about rebates.
This omission, it is thought, v;tiates
the whole bill. Such, it appears, is
the opinion of Senators Mcpherson
and Carlisle. and their views are sus
tanned by other eminent lawyers The
President may not, they say, sign
part of bill and omit part He
must sign all or none. Ifhe signs but
a portion Of bill-as in this case
his act is If no effect This, however,
is not the universal opinion. Eminent
lawyers at Washington hold to the
view that such part of the bill as was
in the drsA signed by the President is
now the law of the land There was
ali omission, they concede, but it does
not invaliiate the entire act. The
case is cited Of clerical error in the
tariff act of 1872, by which hypheu
was displaced by a comma, to the
great distress of certain manufacturers.
H. II at case the Supreme Court held
that the measure enrolled and signed
by the President was the only evidence
the court could hare of the intention of
Congress. The question is q knotty
one. Where legal lights diifer so
widely the courts must be invoked to
make the final decision The discov-
cry of the defect in question was the
occasion, it now appears, for the talk
recently of an extra session of Con
gress, as Congress alone is able to cor
rect errors of this sort Before the
Supreme Court can pass upon the ques-
ton raised by importers protests Con
gress will probably have amended the
law.