St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1891-10-07
THE TARIFF AssAILED.
Important Cases Set for Trial b,
the Supreme Court.


WASHINGTON, Oct. 6.-The supreme
court of the United States will meet
next Monday for the October term. All
the justices. it is thought, will be pres
ent. No decisions will be announced
on that day, and after motions to admit
attorneys to practice are heard the
court Will adjourn to pay its respects to
the president, in conformity with its
usual custom. The next day, Tuesday,
the court VIII begin the regular call of
cases on the docket, of which there are
395, the largest number ever on the
docket at the beginning of term.
There are many important cases that
will come before the court for argument
during the present term and number
of them were advanced and set down
for Monday, Oct. Is, when they will be
taken up in the order in which they
were advanced. The first case to be
heard is that of exparte Thomas Cooper,
owner of the steamer Sayward, brought
to test the question of the jurisdiction
of the United States over the seal fish
cries Of Behring sea. The lottery cases
are set down for argument after the
Sayward case is disposed of. These
cases involve the question of the con-
Stltutionality of the recent anti-lottery
legislation. Should any of the justices
be absent when the cases are called it
is probable that the arguments will be
postponed, as it is desired to have them
heard by full bench.
The third case set down for hearing
on the 10Th is what is known as the ele-
vator case. Chapter 5S1 of the New
York Laws of 1888 forbids the charge OF
more than certain specified rates for
elevatlng grain, and it is the question of
the cOnstitutiOnality Of this law that is
involved in the case. The supreme
court Of New York sustained the consti-
nationality of the law. The right of a
state to tax the gross receipts of an eX-
press company will be point on which
argument will be heard in the case of
the Pacinc Express Company against
Ziebert. state auditor of Missouri.
Three Of the cases advanced for hear
ing OH the 10Th involve questions bear
ing upon the constitutionaity of the
Mckinley tariff act of Oct. l, 1890. One
of them is that of Marshall Field & Co.,
appellants, against the collector of the
port Of Chicago. The firm imported
goods on Oct. 5, 1890, and duty was
levied on them under the Mckinley act
The firm contended that the goods were
dutiable under the act of March 3, 1883,
which it was insisted had never been
repealed. The cOnstitutionality of the
Mckinley tariff act is attacked on the
ground that it never passed the house
and senate, but that the bill which did
pass the house and senate. and which
included the tobacco rebate section."
never was presented to the president,
as required by the constitution. This
section, it is commended, constituted an
essential part of the tariff bill as finally
agreed upon in conference, and the doc
ument signed by the president as the
Mckinley was not In fact, it was held,
the bill as it passed the house and SEN
ate Consequently the act is null and
void.
The case of Charles Sternbach ct al.
versus The United States. appeal from
the circuit court of the United States
from the southern circuit of New York,
also raises the question raised in the
previous case as well as other interest
ing points. 1t holds that the power
given the president in the reciprocal
trade relations of the tariff bill to con-
time, suspend or impose duties or to do
such acts as the constitution of the
United States vested i'll congress alone
caDnot be delegated to the president;
therefore such act is void, and congress
had no power to authorize or direct the
payment of a bounty of two cents a
pound or any sum whatever to the pro-
ducers or sugar out of money in the
treasury raised by taxes or duties.
An important case, in which the
United States is appellants also among
the cases assigned for hearing on the
10Th. 1t is entitled The United States
VS.. Balm, Joseph d Co., and comes to
the supreme court on appeal from the
decision of the judge of the circuit
court of the United States for the South
ern circuit of New York. The Judge
reversed a decision of the collector at
New York that had been affirmed by
the board of general appraisers, TO the
effect that certain manufactures of
worSted were dutiable as wooden cloth
costing under so cents, and held that
the correct denomination of such mer-
chandise should have been manufact-
ures of worSted. dutiable under Sched-
ule K of the act of March 3, 1888, as
manufactures of worsted. The case
arises under the act of the last con-
gress, providing for the classification of
cloths as woOlens. One of the conteu-
tentions of the defendants in the lower
cou TT was that the act did not apply be-
cause there was no quorum in the house
of representatives when the bill was
passed.