The McCook tribune., 1890-10-31
The TariR RilI,. Legality.

The Tariff BilI's Legality.
| WASHINGTON, Oct. 24.-Secretary
| Window said that he knew nothing
officially about the protests against the
legality of the Mckinley tariff bill. Il
do not" he said. regard it as the pro-
vince of an executive officer to ques-
tion the constitutionality of acts OF con-
gress. 1t is for him to enforce the law
as he finds it and not to determine ques-
tions affecting its legality. lam there
fore executing the Mckinley act as I
find it, and shall continue to do so un-
less competent legal tribunal, such
as the supreme court, decides the
law unconstitutional. 1t is not for me
| to question the validity of any of the
signatures to the bill as enrolled,
neither is it for me to determine
whether the bill signed by the presi-
dent did Or did not in fact pass the
lower house, much less is it Tor me to
determine whether the omission of the
tobacco or drawback section or any
other provision of the bill invalidates
the law as whole. As I understand
it, the act of October 1, 1890, is the
law of the land. My duty, therefore,
is plain, and I shall execute its provi-
sions to the best of my ability. Its
constitutionality is a question for the
courts, and until they decide against it
l shall be governed by it as it stands
Attorney General Miller positively
declined to discuss the question, say
ing it would be manifestly improper
to do so unless it came to him in an
official way.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Mason said: cit 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, l must enforce it as l
find it. Anyhow, the tobacco schedule
does not take effect until January l,
so if congress desires to refund cents
a pound on all the tobacco on hand
when the law takes effect it has ample
time to legislate to that end"
No alarm whatever is felt here
among the friends of the Mckinley bill
as to the legality of its enactment.
The precedents of unnumbered years.
an old and experienced employe of the
house said today, leaves no doubt that
an error, whether of omission or COM
mission in the enrolment of bill
passed by congress, does not vitiate
any part of the measure except that
part to which the error relates.
Captain McGregor chief of the GUS
toms division, recalls a somewhat sim
liar case under the wool act of 1867.
The tariff act bore date of March 2,
but congress extended the session of |
the I'd over to the 4th, so, as matter |
of fact, the bill was not signed till |
about noon March f. The question |
arose as to whether the cargo that ar
rived on the Sd should pay duty at the
old rates as the bill was actually not |
signed till after its arrival. The case |
was carried into court, which consented |
to go behind the public record and
take the testimony of President John
son himself as to when the act was
signed. A similar question will of
course come up in connection with the
Mckinley bill. The copy of the act
which went to the president and was
signed by him certainly bore the sig
natures 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
certitication and ascertain what was
really the bill passed by the two houses.