The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1890-10-24
THOUGH THE HEAVENS FALL.
Window Says He'll Enforce the Provis-
ions OF the Mckinley Biz

WASHINGTON, Oct 23.-Secretary VIM
dom said this morning that he knew
nothing officially about the protests
against the legality OF the Mckinley
tariff bill. ~ do not,n be said, "regard il
as the province OF an executive officer 70
question the constitutionality OF acts OF
congress. 1t is for him to enforce tho
law as he finds II, and not 10 determine
questions affecting its legality. ! am,
therefore, executing the Mckinley bill as
/ fnd Il, and shall continue 10 do
so unless a competent legal tri-
bunal, such as the supreme court,
decides the law unconstitutional. II is
not for me 20 question the validity Of any
signatures 10 the bill as enrolled, neither
is il for me TO determine whether the bill
signed by the president did or did not in
fact pass the lower house; much less is II
for me TO determine whether the omission
of the tobacco drawback section or any
other provision OF the bill invalidAtes
the law. As l understand Il the act OF
October /, 1890, is the law Of the land
My duty, therefore, Is plain and'I shall
execute It's provisions to the best OF my
ability. Its constitutionality is a question
for the courts, and until they decide
against II shall be governed by II as il
stands.n
Attorney General Miller positively de-
clined 10 discuss the question, saying Ii
would be manifestedly improper 10 do so
unless Il came 10 him in an official way.
way. Commissioner Of Internal Revenue
Mason said: ut Is not for me 10 say
whether or not the omission OF the tobacco
provision vitiates the tariff. Being merely
an executive officer Of the government, /
must enforce il as find il. Anyhow. the
tobacco schedule does not take effect
until January /, so II congress desires to
refund two cents a pound on all tobacco
ON hand when the law takes effect II has
ample time to legislate TO that end.
No alarm whatever is felt here among the
friends OF the Mckinley bill as 10 the le-
gality Of its enactment.
"The precedents Of funnumbered years."
an old and experienced employe of the
house said to-day. "leave no doubt that
an error whether Of omission OF commits
| sion in the enrolment Of the bill passed
hy congress does not vitiate any part of
the measure except that part 10 which the
I
error relates.n
Captain McGregor, chief OF the customs
district, recalls somewhat similar case
under the wool act OF 1861. The tariff act
bore date of March 2; but congress ex.
tended the session of the 2nd over 90 the
4th SO as a matter of fact the bill was not
signed till about noon on the ith Of March.
| The question arose whether cargo that
arrived ON the Sd should pay duty at the
old rate, as the bill actually was not
signed till after its arrival, or the new
rate. The case was carried into court,
which consented 10 go behind the public
record. and take the testimony Of Presi.
dent johnson 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 GER
tainly bore the signatures Of the presiding
officers OF the two houses ofcongress Ger.
tifying 10 its correctness.
1t must now be settled whether II will
be lawful 10 go behind this certiilcation
and ascertain what was really passed by
| the two houses