St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-10-24
WINDOW Is NOT WORRYING.
He Will Continue to Enforce the
Tariff.

WASHINGTON. Oct. 23.-The alleged
fatal defects in the new tariff bill formed
an interesting topic of discussion in
official circles to-day. and, while the de-
fects were not thought to invalidate the
bill as whole, sentiment was almost
unanimous that section 30 of the tObac-
co paragraph. which was tied in it's
entirety, could not be enforced, and
where it by construction referred to
other paragraphs it might imnair
their strength. As to the law signed by
the president not heing the law passed
by congress. Private Secretary Halford
said the bill signed by President Harri-
son was the same bill signed nv the
speaker of the house and the president
of the senate. These officers. by their
signatures, certified that the bill had
passed their respective branches of con-
gress. and their attestation of that fact
was the usual mode of procedure and
the only official notification the presi-
dent ever received that a bill had
passed. Whether the law was cOnstitu-
tional or not was matter for the courts
to decide. Secretary Window said this
morning that he knew nothing officially
about the protests against the legality
of the Mckinley tariff. 81 do not" he
said. 'regard it as the province of an
executive officer to question the consti-
tutionality of the acts of congress. It
is for him
To Enforce the Law
as he finds it and not to determine the
questions affecting its legality. I am.
therefore, executing the Mckinley tariff
act as find it approved by the presi-
dent. and as marked correct by the
president of the senate and the speaker
of the house of Representatives, and l
shall continue to do so unless some COM
petent legal tribunal, such as the su-
preme court, decides that the law is un-
constitutional. 1t is not for me to ques-
ton the validity of anv of the sigma
lures to the bill as enrolled, neither is it
for me to determine whether the bill
signed by the president did or did not
in fact pass the lower house, much less
is it for me to determine whether
the omission of the tobacco draw
back section. or any other provision
of the bill, invalidates the law as
whole. AS l understand it, the act of
Oct. 1, 1890, is tha law of the land. My
duty, therefore, is PLAIN, and shall ex-
ecute its provisions to the best of my
ability. Its constitutiOnality Is ques-
ton for the courts. and until they de-
eide against it'll shall be governed by it
as it stands" Senator Carlisle, who was
one of the conferrees, was asked what
in his opinion would be the effect of the
omission of section 80 from the tariff
bill as signed by the president. 81 have
not" he said, examined the authOri-
ties on the subject, but it seems quite
clear to me that the omission of one
section is just as
Fatal to the Bill
as If all but one had been omitted. II
the president can sign part of a bill
passed by both houses and make that a
law, of course 1t makes no difference
how small part it is. Should the con-
stitutionality OF this law be tested in
the courts, the question would have to
be determined by the journals of the
two houses, because they constitute the
only legal evidence of what was done.
The two houses passed the tariff bill.
but in different forms. When it came
back from the conference committee
there was nothing to act upon except it's
report. which / suppose was entered
upon the journal of both houses. as is
usual in such cases." An interesting
point bearing on the subject was point
ed out at the treasury department
to-day. Under the tariff law of
July IL, 1OOSs QutleS WtT0 l1CrcdSGQ
ION all brown or bleached linens.
ducks, canvas paddings. cot bottoms.
burlapS, drills, coatings, brown hol-
lands, damasks. diapers, etc., 5 per
cent ad valorem, making the duty on
the articles named IS per cent; the
former tariff having imposed a duty of
80 per cent ad valorem. In 1864, Jane
SO, another tariff law was passed impos-
ing an additional duty of 5 per cent on
all the articles named above, but by a
clerical error whole line was omitted.
and "drills, coatings, brown hollands.
clay linens, damaSkS" were left out of
the paragraph altogether. at first the
treasury department imposed 10 per
cent duty
On the Omitted Articles.
the same as on those enumerated, hold
ing that such was the evident intention
of congress, but subsequently the de-
partment reversed itself and refunded
the per cent increase in the bill of 1864
over the bill of 1862, and afterwards
charged duty on drills, coating, etc.. at
35 per cent ad valorem. 1t was not ar
gued that the omission of drills, coat
ings, etc.. from the paragraph inyaIi-
dated the paragraph or applied to any
other articles than the ones omitted, or
that the error in regard to the paragraph
not being complete tended to make void
the bill as whole, or that it belonged
to the free list because they were not
] enumerated in the dutiable list. All