The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1890-10-24
SECTION THIRTY.
Alleged Discovery Of an Omis-
sion in the Tariff Bill.
4 Question Raised as to the Legality Of
the Entire Instrument.
No Alarm Felt Among the Friends Of the
Measure in Washington Regarding
Its COnStiutiOnality.


NEW YORK, Oct 22.-The Herald en-
deavors to show that the Mckinley Tariff Bill
is invalid because of the alleged omission of
4 portion of Section 80, relating to the TO-
bacco tax. The paper takes its cue from
passage in letter sent very recently by
Senator John r. Mcpherson to a member Of
a prominent importing house in this city.
Mcpherson says: This omission is fatal
to the bill, and in the opinion of eminent
lawyers here, Senator Carlisle among them.
it vitiates the whole bill. 1t is an internal
revenue section, but being part of the Tariff
Bill as passed it stands and falls tOgetheI."
The opinions of lawyers are given to sup
port this view. but Special Deputy Col
lector Couch, who is recognized authority
at tile Custom-house on all knotty tariff
problems, said of the alleged omission:
Il do not see how it could possibly affect
import duties in any way. Even if the
omission had occurred. L do not see why
special session of Congress would have to be
called to remedy it. Congress will meet
early in December. There would be plenty
of time to correct the mistake before the 1St
of January"
Deputy Collector Dudley Phelps Of the
law division of the Custom-house took the
same view of the case as Mr.. Couch. If
there had been any omission of part of Sec
ton 30 it would not in the least affect the
law. lie did not see how any serious con-
sequences could follow it if the provision
giving rebate to manufacturers should be re-
tanned in the bill, as it was in the Confer
ence Committees report and was omitted
H., . IL,
for Congress 10 remedy it at the coming
session.
A QUESTION FOR THE COURTS.
WASHINGTON, Oct 23,-Secretary Win
dom said this morning that he knew nothing
officially about the protest against the legal
ity of the Mckinley Tariff Bill. " l do not"
he said, regard it as the province of an
executive officer to question the consttu-
tionalty of the acts of Congress. 1t is for
him to enforce the law as he finds it, and
not to determine questions that affect its
legality. | am, therefore, executing the Nc
Kinley Tariff Act as find it and shall con-
tinue to do SO unless a competent legal tri-
the law unconstitutional. 1t is not for me TO
question the validity of any signature to the
bill as enrolled. Neither is it for ME TO de-
termine whether the bill signed by the
PRESIDENT did or did not pass the Lower
House, much less Is 1t for me 10 determine
whether the omission of the tobaccO-draw-
back section or any other provision of the
bill inyalidates the law. AS | understand
it the act of October l, 1890, is the law of the
land My duty, therefore, is plain, and l
shall execute the provisions OF that law TO
the best OF my ability. Its cOnstitutionality
is question for the courts, and until they
decide against it shall be governed by it
as it stands"
NO ALARM FELT.
Attorney General Miller positively de-
clined to discuss the question, saying it
would be manlfestedly improper to do SO
unless it came to him in an official way.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue Mason
said: 1T is not for me 10 say whether or
not the omission of the tobacco provision
vitiates the tariff. Being. merely an execu-
tive OF the Government | must enforce the
law as l find it, Anyhow the tobacco sched-
ule does not take effect until January 1st, so
II Congress desires TO refund two cents
rOund on all the tobacco on hard when the
law takes effect, it has ample tine to legis-
late to that end No alarm whatever Is felt
here among the friends of the Mckinley bill
as to the legality of its enactment
"Precedents of unnumbered years" an
old and experienced employe Of the House
said to-day, "leaves no doubt that the error,
whether of omission or commission in the
enrolment of bill passed by Congress,
does not vitiate any part of the measure ex-
cept that part to which the error relates"
A SIMILAR CASE.
Captain McGlegor, Chief of the Customs
Division, recalls a somewhat similar case
under the wool act of 1867. The tariff act
bore date OF the ID of March, but Congress
extended the session Of the ID over to the
4th, so as a matter of fact, the bill was not
signed till about noon on the 4th Of March.
The question arose as to whether q cargo
that arrived on the Sd should pay duty at
the old rate. as the bill was not actually
signed till after its arrival or the new rate
Tho "a anrrinu in n ,pb ioh
sented to 60 behind the public record and
take the testimony of President johnson
himself as to when the act was signed. A
similar petition will, Of course, come up in
connection with the Mckinley bill. A copy
of the act which went to the President aud
was signed by him certainly bore the sig
natures of the presiding officers of the two
Houses Of Congress certifying TO its correct
ness. 1t must now be settled whether it be
lawful to 20 behind this certitication and
ascertain what was really the bill passed by
the two Houses.
FOREIGN AGITATION.
TORONTO, Oct. 23.-GUldwin Smith, in dis
cus5ing the Mckinley act, says the agitation
created in Great Britain and other countries
Of Europe by this time ought to convince
the Canadians that it Is not particularly
leveled against Canada, and that, therefore
there is no warrant or excuse for unfriendly
demonstrations against a neighboring COM
munity with which her-Majesly is at peace
The object, he says, of the trainers OF the
Mckinley act, like that of the Canadian
Government, which anticipated the passing
of the Mckinley act by declaration of
tariff war; is simply 10 secure votes. Europe
and Canada wait for the result of the fall
elections to Congress, now at hand. The
result of these elections will show, as far
rs prOtectiOnist corruption will allow free
voting. what is the real tendency of Ameri-
can opinion.
CUSTOMS RECEIPTS.
NEW YORK, Ocr. %. - A Philadelphia
special from Washington to the Public
Ledger says: The average monthly receipts
from customs exceeded during four months
S15,000,000, which was largely in excess of
the average for any similar period the past
fifteen or twenty years. The receipts for
the current month will go beyond this aver
age, and arc likely to reach $2S S000, 600, Which
is equal to the receipts for any two months
of the preceding fifteen years. For the first
twenty days in October the receipts were
over S19,000.000. a daily average for the
seventeen business days of the month of