The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1891-10-17
Is THE MKINLEY TARIFF CON-
STITUTIONAL

When Andrew Jackson was President OF
the United States there was party under
the leadership of John c. Calhoun who held
that a protective tariff was unconstltu-
tional. Mr. Calhoun contended that any
State had right to refuse to be bound by
it. The discussion that followed may not
have convinced Mr.. Calhoun that he
was wrong, but il apparently convinced
him that refusal on the part OF his
State to submit would be attended with
more direful consequences than would re-
suit from submission to the act. There IS
proposition now to attack the constitution
alty of the Mckinley act in detail. Two
firms of New York importers have filed briefs
based upon the claim that the Mckinley
act is void because of the omission by the
enrolling clerk of the tobacco rebate section
which was stricken out of the original bill
in the Senate and afterward restored by
the Conference Committee. The claim is
that owing to the omission OF the tobacco
rebate clause by the enrolling clerk, the act
that was signed by the President was not
the exact act passed by Congress. And then
decisions of State Supreme Courts are found
which require. in the words of one OF them,
that "a law must have the concurrence oil
the three branches of the legislative de-
partment, and If it differ in an essential par
ticular when presented to the Governor Tor
his signature from the bill as passed by the
two houses, there is a difficulty in saying
that it has been cOncurred in by all"
Another objection to the Mckinley tariff
is the sugar bounty. A late Chief Justice
of the Supreme Court of the United
States is quoted as saying that To lay
with one hand the power of the Government
upon the property of the citizen and with
the other to bestow it upon favored lndl-
viduals to aid private enterprises and build
up private fortunes is none the less a rob-
berry because it is done under the forms OF
| law, and is called taxation. This Is not
legislation. 1t is a decree under legislative
| forms; nor is it taxation"
No one will quarrel with the principle OF
law herein laid down. But the question is
| if it has application to the sugar bounty.
In taking the duties off sugar Congress
! exposed an already important and highly
promising industry to destruction. Heavy
| investments have been made by individuals
in the belief that the duties on foreign sugar
| would be maintained. While Congress has
| legal right to say that people made these
| investments at their own risk, there was
! Justice in the demand that sugar producers
! of the United States should be placed IN the
same relation to foreign producers as under
! the old tariff. Congress RENTED to the peo-
! pie S6000OOO0 of annual duties on sugar
and provided that for a period OF years
! $4,000 600, or Whereabouts, should be dis
| tributed among American sugar producers.
| Neither the cane sugar planters of Louisiana
nor the beet-sugar growers of California
have with the bounty any advantage over
foreign competitors they did not possess
under the old tariff. 1t is further objected
to the Mckinley tariff that its third section,
known as the suspension clause, which gives
the President the power to reimpose duties
upon tea, coffee, sugar and hides in certain
emergencies, is an unconstitutional assign
meut of the taxing power Of the Executive
| Department of the Government. All these
objections are but itemized points included
under Mr.. Calhoun's genera! objections TO a
! urntpctiVP tariff