The rustler., 1891-11-06

rhs Attesn~r-o~n~rml rt-.as msfurs ths
Amtt~d Ntatss saprsme camrt.
WAsnIxerox. Oct 20 The brief Coz
ths Lnsted states In the eases of B1yd.
ruston a ca. a. Herman Sternhech A
c. and Marshall Fisld A Co. appel.
lnnte - the uulted states has been
prepared by the nttorney-rcncraL
These are the cases In which the con-
siitutiouAlity Of the Mckinley tariff
act are involved aud are among the
eases set for hearing by the
supreme court on the second Monday
q November. The appellants con.
tend that the act i unconstitutional
because q the omission o. the tobacco
rebate clause In the bin. a. IL was
signed by the president after having
been agreed 10 In conference. aud be-
cause Il contains the bounty and re-
eiprocitv provisions
Concerning the FIRST contention the
attorney general traces the course of .
I law through its enrolment and sigma
/ ture by the presidents Of both houses
is approval by the president aud It's de
I posit by the secretarv-of state. Ia whose
Office l. Is carefully preserved. In obedi-
enee 10 express statutory injunction.
This, he continues. Is the ultimate and
I complete record Of the proper and con.
stitutia ianal passage OF the law as therein
contained and Is the most appropriate
/ evidence OF which the court NAV take
/ judicial notice in considering the exist.
enee and contents of the law and II
complete and regular Is not impaired
/ by entries upon the Legislative jour.
nails or other evidence inconsist.
ent Herewith Even II the enrolled
act Is but prima facie evidence Of the
/ existence and contents, there IL no
other record by which Il may be inn
peached, except the Journals Of the two
houses, and in the case at bar the
journals do not show any discrepancy
between the bill as II passed the two
houses and the bill as II was approved.
! The evidence tending 10 show such dis.
crepancy relied on by appellants Is in
parole and can not therefore be consid.
/ cred by the court
'Conceding, however," the attorney.
general says, that the tobacco rebate
section was omitted from the bill after
its passage and before its approval by
the president as Is claimed by the APP
| pellants, this fact would not render in
valid the remainder OF the bill which
did pass both houses aud was approved
by the president for the reason that the
rebate section and the approved bill
were separable and independent OF each
other"
Concerning the incorporation in the
bill Of the sugar bounty clause, the at
torney-general saya IL was for the
/ purpose of encouraging the production
of raw sugar In this country. Counsel,
/ he says, assigned the increase of duty
upon woolens, silks and cottons 10 the
necessity for additional revenues 20
pay the sugar bounty. There is no
more warrant for saying that the
duties herein assessed were provided
for by congress in this act TO pay the
sugar bounty than there would be for
| saying the same thing Of the duty
levied by the bill on any
other merchandise. The question of
the validity of the bounties Is
as old as that of the protective
tariff, and has been answered in
the same way of constant Legislation
and acquiescence of tho people, as old
as the nation itself, has sanctioned
both direct aud indirect bounties for
the encouragement OF those industries
which are closely allied with national
growth and national independence, as
public purpose and as within the
naeer of eonU-ass