The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1890-10-24
last resort do not hesitate to purge stat
ute OF any matter proved to be in excess OF
the matter completely enacted"
Secretary Window Talks on the Matter.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 23.-Secretary Win
dom said this morning he knew nothing
officially about the protests against the
legality Of the Mckinley tariff bill. 81
DON'T he said, ''regard it as the province
OF an executive officer to question the
constltutioally of acts of Congess. 1t is for
him to enforce the law as he finds it,
and not determine questions affecting it's
legallty. L am. therefore, executing the
MCKINLEY tariff act as | find and shall con-
tlnue to do so unless some competent
legal tribunal, such as the supreme court,
oecldes the law unconstitutional. 1t is
not Tor me to question the validity of any
signatures to the bill as enrolled Neither
is 1t for me to determine whether the bill
signed by the President did or did not in
TACT, pass the lower house, much less is it
Tor me to determine whether the omis-
sion OF the tobacco draw back section or any
other provision OF the bill lnvalidates
the law. AS [ understand it, the act of
october b, 1890 is the law of the land.
My duty therefore is plain and | shall exc
cute It's provisions to the best OF my
aolilty. Its constitutionality is matter
Tor the courts and until they decide
against it, shall be governed by it"
Attorney Geneaal Miller positively de-
cnned to discuss the question, saying it
would be manifestly improper to do so I'M
less 1t came to him in an official way
commissioner of Internal Revenue Martin
says: 1T is not for me to say whether or
not the omission Of the tobacco provision
vltlates the tariff. Being merely an execu-
1--WE officer OF the government must en-
force 1T as | find it. Now the tobacco
schedule does not take effect until January
l, so II Congress desires to refund cents
pound ON all 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 le-
gal1ty OF its enactment Precedents of I'M
numbered years, an old and experienced
member OF the House said to-day, leave no
doubt that az error, whether of omission or
commission, In the enrolment of a bill
passed by Congress does not vitiate any
part OF the measure except that part which
is omitted
Captain McGregor, chief of the customs
division, recalls somewhat similar case
under the wool act of 1857. ssThe tariff act
bore date of the I'd of March, but Congress
extended the session of the I'd over to the
4th, so as a matter of fact the bill was not
signed till about noon of the 4th of March.
a question arose as to whether a cargo
that arrived ON the Sd should pay duty at
the old rate, as the bill actually was not
signed before its arrival, or at the new
rate. The case was carried into court,
which consented to go behind the public
record and take the testimony of President
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
talnly bore the signatures of The presiding
offcers of the two houses of Congress GER
tlfylng to its correctness. 1t must now be
settled whether it be lawful to go behind
this certifcation to ascertain what was
really passed by the two houses"