The Portland daily press., 1891-12-02
the GENERAL WELFARE.
Powers of Congress as seen In the
Tariff Act.

WASHINGTON. December 1.-The United
States Supreme Court today continued the
hearing of the three suits brought by New
York and Chicago importers to test the
constltutionality of the Mckinley tariff
act. john Fl. Wilson, representing Mar.
shal Field & Co., closei the opening argu-
ment for the importers. maintaining that
the whole act was vitiated by the omission
of the toba eco rebate section. He illus
trated his position by suppostng that the
free sugar clause had been omitted, asking
If the sugar bounty clause would, in such
an event, have been held legal. He also
contended that the rate of duties was af
fected by the sugar boanty provision.
Justice Harlan asked how he ascertained
such to be the fact.
Mr.. Wilson responded that he ascer-
tanned 1t from the act itself, which was
passed for the purpose of reducing the rev.
enaes of the government. Free sugar has
cut off $60,000,0O0. and the bounties, to be
paid from customs duties, have been paid
as protection to th5 producers who ad
TO compete against free sugar.
Justice Gray inquired where was the diff
ference between the constitutionality of
protective act and bounty.
Mr.. Wilson found difference in the fact
that a protective tariff came under the
clause OF the Constitution giving Congress
the right to regulate commerce with for
eign nations while the only authority
which could be claimed for the bounty sys-
TEN was the general welfare clause. There
was quite cross-fire of questions and au-
swers between the justices aud counsel as
respects the general welfare clause.
Justice Field wished to know If weight
should not be attached to the practice of q
century.
Mr.. Wilson thought the question hal
never been passed Oh.
Justice Bradley asked If attempts had
been made TO destroy legislation based on
the general welfare clause. He inquired if
the Goldfish act, passed for the benefit OF
New England fishermen, to put them on an
even basis with the French and English,
had not been passed under the general
welfare clause Of the Constitution.
Justice Harlan cited the recent f0rtiflca-
tion appropriation act, passed for the pur-
pose OF encouraging gun steel manufacture
in the United States, and asked If Con-
gress could give bOunties to gun manutac-
turers, why not to sugar producers?
Mr.. Wilson did not admit that these
cases were analogous to that OF a direct
payment for the simple production of an
article.
Solicitor General Taft followed in behalf
of the United States. BE directed his at
tention to the omission of the tobacco re-
bate section. his line of argument was
that 1t would not do for Congress to 90 be-
hind the enrolled act.
Attorney General Miller argued the
bounty and reciprocity features. he mains
tanned the full right Of Congress, under the
general welfare clause, to pass this bounty
act 1t was the duty of Congress, in his
opinion, to build up our industries so that
| we might be independent Of the world in
time of need. In time of peace, the
government could get everything; III
| time of war it could not. In time of peace
Il "a fself fO
| and had prOspered. but when war came,
| the South found IL would have been to its
| advantage to have f0stered its Industries
| so that it would not have been compelled
| to buy abroad. The power granted Con-
| gress under the general welfare clause was
absolute and not renewable by this tribu-
| nal or any other tribunal on earth. The
| general welfare power was as absolute as
| the common defense or naval power. Sup
| pose Congress directed the building OF an
ancient Greek trireme,. would
| anybody say that this court
| could review and Dullify that deter
| minati0n? Ii the power was given Con-
gress, the means were certainly in the dis
erection of Congress, unless it used means
which this court could say as a judicial
matter, we're not means designed to the
end. A case might possibly arise in which
| the court could iDterpOse. Congress
might, under the general welfare clause,
appropriate money for building an i'm
mense cathedral in this city. Tne court,
might, perhaps, say it was not means de-
signed to the end-the general welfare.
Inc Attorney General instanced the home.
stead depreciation and other laws passed
under the general welfare authority, and
added that the last Congress had passed q
law which, from the records ia his office.
he could say would call for enormous ap-
preparation on account Of Indian depreda-
ti0ns.
The Attorney General devoted his re.
view OF the reciprocity objections of coun.
sci TO citations OF great number of cases
running through almost a century. In
which had been delegated to the President
the power to say when discriminating du.
ties should be imposed.
Stephen g. Clark Of New York argued
that the court had the right TO consider
whether or not the bill signed by the Pres.
sdent was the bill, neither more nor les s
that Congress passed. He said it was moi
necessary to take parole evidence to show
| that section 30 had been omitted, and ht
| produced the book containing the record
of the bills passed, kept In the clerks Of
fee of the House, to show that certain
amendment, whose number was noted In
the journal of the House, was really sec
ti0n 80.
Attorney General Miller asked If there
were a law for the keeping of that book.
| Mr.. Clark said he was not Informed on
that point.
The Attorney General retorted that un.
less there were such law, the book had
no more weight than newspaper publica.
tion.
| The argument win be closed early tomor.
L rou nv Mr. Clark