The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1891-01-22
WHO PAYS THE TARIFFY
The John shilletto Company
Think They Do,
And Unlawful Tariff at That, ana VIII
Test the Mckinley Bill in the United
States Court.

CINCINNATI, Jan. 19.-Late Saturday
night the John Shilletto Company, through
Maxwell & Ramsey, filed an application
i'm the United States Court to test the con-
stitutionality of the Mckinley act.
In November last the Shilletto Company
paid TO Collector Amos Smith Mckinley
duty of $3.50 81 on 100 pieces OF cotton ana
worstcd dress goods imported from Eng
land, but the Company was not satisfied
with the charges made on the goods, anu
on November 13 they notified the Collect
or thst they would appeal from his decis-
ion, which they did. The matter came
before the Board of General Appraisers IN
New York, and on December 20 that body
gave its decision sustaining Collector
Smith.
The present application is for a review
and reversal of the decision of the Board
of General Appraisers, made December
20, 1890, as to the construction o: the law
and the facts respecting the classification
of merchandise imported by the petition
| ers and the rate of duty imposed thereon
andcr such classiflcations. The peutlon-
| ers hold, in substance
That the Collector and the Board of
General Appraisers erred in deciding that
the petitioner was charReable on said Inn
| portation with the rates and duties pre-
scribed "by pretended act of Congress
| entitled AN act to reduce tue revenue,
equalize duties on imports,' and for other
purposes, claimed to have been approved
| by the President of the United States on
October /, 1890, whereas, said pretended
act was never passed by the Senate or by
tue House of Representatives, and never
became law.n
"And If said act was passed by the Sen.
ate and by the House of Repre- sentatives,"
| says the petitioner, "it is in contravention
of the Constitution of the United States
and void on account of the provisions OF
the third section thereof, and also by rea.
son of the provisions for the payment OF
| bounties under schedule f., section /, and
| for other reasons.N
In an interview with the Enquirer
| Lawrence Maxwell explains the basis oi
attack as follows:
"The suit filed by the John Shilito Com
pany i'm the United States Court against
the Collector raises the question whether
the Mckinley Tariff bill ever became O
law, and II so, whether 1t is constitution
all" said the learned consul.
"The bill as signed by the President Is
not the bill which was passed by Congress
| and the bill which Congress actually
passed never was sighed by the President
| My clients claim, therefore, that neither
| bill ever became law, because the con
stitution of the United States provides tina
a bill must not only be passed by the
Senate and the House of Representatives
but must also be approved by the Presi
| dent before il can become a law. Fol
| Congress to pass one bill and the Presi
dent to sign different one, no matter i
the difference be so slight. does not NEE
the requirements
"How did the difference arise ?n
"In mistake of the Enrolling Clerks
who left out an entire section of the bill
as actually passed by Congress in copyinl
il for the President to sign.n
"But you claim that the bill, il passed
and approved, is unconstitutional?
"Yes, sir. We claim that Congress ha
no right to grant bounties out of the pub
lie revenues TO sugar growers, and tn
| Mckinley bill, If it ever passed, is uncon
stitutional, because of its provisions ol
that subject, and also because of the rec
| iprocity section which delegates to til
| President power to suspend the act unde
certain contingencies.n
Mr.. Maxwell appears confident of tn
success of the application as does MI
| VIM. M. Ramsey, the senior member o
| the firm, whese opinions on matters O
law carry weight far beyond the confine
of this city. Said the later gentleman:
"The application goes to the fundamer
tai principles of prote ctionism, and espeC
tally as regards the giving of bounties b
the Government.N
The Shillito suit is the first legal attac
on the Mckinley bill made in the countr.
and its outcome will awaken widesprea
interest.
Fields, Letter & Co., of Chicago, hav
been contemplating such a proceeding
but their case has not yet been developed