The Ohio Democrat. (Logan, O. [Ohio]) 1886-1906, 1891-12-12
ON TRIAL.
Test Cases Being Argued in the
Supreme Court.
Importers Claim the Whole Tariff Bill
Act Unconstitutional
Because OF the Enrolling Clerks omis-
sion of the Tobacco Rebate seos
tion From the Bill signed By
President Harrison.

WAsHINGToN, Dec. 1.-The cases to
test the constitutionality of the McKin-
ley tariff bill were called for argument
in the supreme court of the United
States Monday afternoon. The cases
are those of Marshall, Field & Co, of
Chicago; Charles Sternbach ct al, Boyd,
Sutton & Co.; H. Hermann, Sternbach
& Co, of New York, appellants, against
Clark, collector of customs at Chicago;
Erhardt, collector at New York, and
the United States.
w. Wickham Smith, of counsel for
Boyd Sutton & Co., opened the case for
the appellants The appeal by which
this case came to the supreme court
was granted by the United States
circuit court for the southern district
of New York. from a decision made by
the court that the collector of customs
at New York had legal authority to
levy duties on cotton and silk laces
under the Mckinley tariff act and that
the act was not, as claimed by the ap-
pellants, nugatory and void.
Mr.. Smith outlined the position of his
clients, contending that the act was
null and void because it was never en-
acted in the mode prescribed by the
because it assumed to
provide for bounties to producers of
American sugar, power which was
not among those conferred on congress
by the constitution. and because 1t as
sumed to confer upon the president of
the United States the power of impos-
ing taxes on imports, a power which
could be exercised only by congress un-
der the constitution.
Mr.. Smith continued the considera,
ton of the questions involved under
five heads, namely:
Does the omission from the eRgrossed
bill, signed by the president, of q sec
tion which formed part of the bill as it
passed both houses of congress-, render
the tariff act unconstitutional?
Are the sugar-bounty provisions un-
constitutional?
If the sugar-bounty provisions are
unconstitutional, is the whole act there
by invalidated, or may the remainder
of the act stand as law?
Is the so-called reciprocity section
unconstitutional?
If the reciprocity section is unconsti-
tutional, is the whole act thereby in
validated?
Taking up his first question, Mr..
Smith went on to contend that the
tariff act was never constitutionally
enacted, because the bill signed by the
president was not the same bill which
had passed both houses of congress-, the
change being due to tie omission by
the enrolling clerk of the tobacco re-
bate section, which had been restored
to the bill by the senate and house con-
ferences.
Mr. Smith also contended that the
sugar bounty provisions of the act were
unconstitutional because congress had
no power under the constitution to
create or award such bounties, on the
ground that tax imposed upon the
people for the payment of such boun-
ties were not levied for public pur-
poses.
Concerning the reciprocity section,
Mr. Smith, claimed that it was uncon-
stitutional because it was a delegation
of the executive power to the legisla-
ture.
Mr. Edwin B. Smith, of New York,
counsel for Charles Sternbach ct al Z,
followed. He made the same conten-
tions as those made by Mr.. w. Wick
ham Smith, and quoted many authori-
ties in support of his argument He
claimed the act as connected whole
aud each of the provisions questioned,
were so interviewer with the whole act
that they could not be picked out and
held to be constitutional and the re-
maindel of the act invalidated
The argument of Mr. N. w. Bliss, for
Marshall Field & Co., VS.. Clark, col
lector at Chicago, was prolific with
legal citations in support of his conten-
tions. He made the same allegations
against the constitutionality of the bill
as those made by the gentlemen who
preceded him.
At the conclusion OF Mr.. Bliss argu.
ment the court adjourned until Tues.
day, when the argument will be re-
sumed.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 2.-The United
States supreme court, Tuesday, con-
tinued the hearing of the three suits
brought by New York and Chicago i'm.
porters to test the constitutionality OF
the Mckinley tariff act, John P. Wilson,
representing Marshal, Field G. Co.,
closed the opening argument for the inn
porters, maintaining that the whole act
was vitiated by the omission of the
- 10 taS
his position by supposing that the free
sugar clause had been omitted, and
asking if the sugar bounty clause would
in such an event, have been held to bC
legal He also contended that the rate
of duties had been affected by the sugal
bounty provision.
Justice Harlan asked how he ascer
tanned such to be the fact.
Mr. Wilson responded that he ascer
tanned it from the act itself, which wa
passed for the purpose of reducing tn,
revenues of the government Ere,
sugar had cut off $50, 900, 900, and tn,
bounties to be paid from customs du
ties had been paid as protection to tn,
producers who had to compete agains
free sugar.
Justice Gray inquired where was tn
difference between the constitutionalit,
of protective tariff and of bounty.
Mr.. Wilson found the difference il
the fact that protective tariff cam
under the clause of the constitution
giving congress the right to regulat
commerce with foreign nations, Will
the only authority which could b
claimed for the bounty system was tn
general welfare clause.
There was quite cross fire of qlei
tions and answers between the justice