New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1890-10-24
TO EXECUTE THE TARIFF Ia W
SECRETARY WINDOW LEAVING TO THE
COURTS TIE QUESTION OF ITS LEGALITY.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL NoN-ooMMITTAL-AN
THAT PART OF THE MEASURE TO
WHICH TIE ERROR Is RELEVANT.

Washington. oct. c3.-secretary Window said this
raornin. that he knew nothing officially about tn" pro-
tests against the legality Of the Mckinley Tariff bill
do not he continued. regard II "a the province
If executive officer TO question tn consttoEalty
Of the acts OF ConceS, 1t /, for him to enforce the
law as lie finds il. and not TO determine questions
affecting its legality. ! am therefore executing tile
Mckinley Tariff act iud it. approved By the IreSi-
deat Of the United states and certified a. cor!rc; By
the president Of the senate and The speaker Of the
House OF Representatives and shall continue - d-
90 unless a competent legal tribunal, such as the
supreme Court. decides that the law is unconstitn-
,ional It is not for me to question the validity OF
any Of the Signatures 10 the bill as enrolled. neticF
is it for me 20 determine whether the bill signed By
the President did did not in fact pass the lower
house: much less Is ii for me 10 determine whether
the omission Of the tobacco drawback section or any
other provision OF the bill invalidates the law as
whole. As l understand it. the Act OF October l.
1890 Is the law OF the land. My duty therefore Is
plain and shall execute It's provisions to the best OF
nv ability Its constitutionallty Is a question for
the courts and until they decide against it. shall be
governed By II as 1t stands
Attorney General Miller positively declined 10 dis
cuSs the question in any Of its bcarinSs, saying that
would he manfc-ty improper for him TO do 50 unless
il came Ia him in an OFF iJl way.
Mr. Mason Commissioner OF Internal Revenue who
i, specially charged with the execution OF the 10
bicco provision Of the law. confined his remarks IN re
rd t. the ALLEGED IlrCallty Of the law to the f0io"
!nc ,ta.cncut Will oU'y the law "a certhed by Tue
ecretary Of II is not for me to say whether or
not the ON SsOn OF the tobacco provision virtues the
tarH. Being merely an executive ot"ter OF the "oN-
eminent | must enforce it - find it. Anyhow. the
tobacco ,rhtdu.c doe, not take effect until January l.
~ that il Congress desires to refund cents pound
N al. tobacco on hand when the law takes erect IL
has ample time 10 legi>late to that end
No alarm Whatever Is felt here among the friends OF
the Mckinley bill to the legality Of its enactment
The precedent, of unnumbered years, an old and ex
pcrienced cnDioy- of the House said to-day leaves 20
doubt that error. whether OF omission or COMMIT
non. In the enrolment OF bill passed W Congress
does not vitae any part Of the ,v
part t. which the error relates. II Is SAFE 10 say
ne continued, that error occurs IL at least one
appropriation bill during each Congress yet there mas
never been any doubt entertained by the accounting
officer of the Government, or by any one else Is 10
validity Of all appropriations except inc par M
affected by such error. IN the enrolment o tne
Tarif Act OF l-.3 comma was Improperly Used ID
tie Fruit plant and the n4 Sa ra 1 len
Of the customs revenue; but there was no question
"a to the validity of the othe; provisions of the law
when il was passed upon by the supreme Court
Tho charge is that the bill which President Harrison
signed was not the which passed Congress- because
il is alleged that part Of section OF the Internal
revenue act which appeared In its entirety IN the
conference report was omitted in the bill signed by
the Pre- sdent 1t is charged that section 80, which Is
and snuff, passed in fill by the House ans
partially stricken by the Senate. aftcrwaN re-
stored In full BY the Conference Committee and adopted
Uy both Houses while in the engroSscd bill signed
By the President II does not appear as restored by
the Conference Committee. senator Mcpherson Is
quoted a. saying that this omission vtfiates the enure
Tariff law, because IL is part Of the whole law.
wide spread movement was predicted among the
importers to protest the law But protest made
a. the Custom House yesterday, and all the high
officials there dcrided the claims that the new tariff
was fatally defective Collector Erhardt said that the
alleged omission did not vitiae the law because 1t was
not part OF a clause which applied to the whole law
Webster Elmes who was the chief law clerk OF the
solicitor OF Treasury for years, and an authority on
customs law conceded with the Collector. He sad
also that he was not inclined TO concede that any
omission had been made In the bill which was signed
nv The President. His impression was that when the
Conference Committee ordered tho clause restored In
Section 30 engrossnS clerk failed to 90 IT, ana the
House and Senate adopted the bill In that condition.
when II was ransmitted TO the President
Mr. Elmes also showed decision Of the Supreme