Macon beacon. [volume] (Macon, Miss.) 1859-1995, 1891-12-05
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 see-
tlon From tho 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 g. Co, of
Chicago; Charles Sternbach ct al, Boyd,
Sutton & Co.; II. Hermann, Stelnbach
Il 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 supremeucourt
was granted by the United States
circuit court for the southern district
of New York. from 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
constitution; because it assumed to
provide for bounties to producers of
American sugar, a power which was
not among those conferred on congress
by the constitution, and because it 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 consdera-
ton of the questions involved under
| five heads, namely:
Does the omission from the engrossed
bill, signed by the president, OF Sec
tion which formed part of the bill as 1t
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?
II 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 the omission by
the enrolling clerk OF tho 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 a 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 delegation
, of the executive power to the leglsla'
: ture.
Mr.. Edwin b. Smith of New York
counsel for Charles Sternbach ct al,
followed He made the same conten'
| tions as those made by Mr., W. Wick
ham Smith, and quoted many authorl-
ties in support of his argument lie
, claimed the act as q connected whole,
, and each of the provisions questioned,
, were so interviewer with the whole act
: that they could not be picked out ana
held to be constitutional and the re-
, mainder of the act invalidated
, The argument of Mr. N. W. Bliss for
/ Marshall Field & Co, VS.. Clark, col
Hector at Chicago, was prolific with
legal citations in support of his conten-
tions. He made the same allegations
: apainst the constitutionality of the bill
= as those made by the gentlemen VINO
o preceded him.
At the conclusion of Mr. Bliss argu
ment the court adjourned until Tues
!, lay, when the argument will be re-
| r,p,ad