The Russellville Democrat., 1891-10-15
THE M'KINLEY BILL.
Arguments In the Case. Against the Act.
Points Made by Attorneys for the Inn porters-some Eminent Authori-
 ties Cited.

1 decision of tho supreme court or Lhe United States, at Washington, D. 0. the Mckinley robber tariff bill will be declared unconstitutional, or, at least, invalid by reason of omission from the enrolled bill.
 The case of Sternbach x Co.,, of New York, and Marshall, Field < Co.,, of Chicago, arc set for hearing Monday week, but it will probably be week later before they are heard. Briefs for the importers have been filed in the supreme court in these cases. The brief of Sternbach & Go. is signed by Messrs. Edwin B. Smith and Stephen G. Clarke, and that of Marshall, Field < Go. by N. w. Bliss.
 Both briefs arc based chiefly upon the claim that the Mckinley tariff act is void because of the omission by tho enrolling clerk of the tobacco rebate section, which was stricken out of the original bili by the senate and afterwards restored iI conference.
 THE CASES CITED.
 Many cases decided by state courts are cited, among them one by the supreme court of Michigan, decided May g, 1890. The history of the act Of the legislature of Michigan which the court decided to be null and void is as follows: The bill was introduced originally and passed in the house. The senate returned it to the hJu-e with nine amend ments, in which the house refused to concur and a conference WAS ordered. After two committees of conference had been appointed an agreement was reached by both houses by which some of the senate amendments were concurred in and others were 80 modified as to meet the approval of the house. But the enrolled bill, as presented to tue governor and signed by him, con taiued all the senate amendments as originally proposed and omitted the amendments and notifications pro- posed by the second conference com mittee and adopted by both houses. The suprene court of Michigan, after reciting the differences between the act found upon the statute book and the bill as it had passed, says: Ut precludes an idea of attempting to save. any portion of the act. It was never passed by the legislature, and is null and voil." The court adds: 'It is to be deeply regretted that so important law as this, covering a subject of great public interest, should, because of the gross carelass- ness or worse of some one, be wiped bodily from the statute books. But the courts are not responsible for this, nor can they usurp the functions of legislation and by shutting their eyes to the record of legislative do- ipgs declare a law valid that never passed the legislature, however we'll authenticated it may be by the certifi- cate of officials
 soMERvILLE's CHANGE OF BASE.
 The opinion of the board of general appraisers sustaining the validity of the Mckinley tariff act against the protest of the importers that the act was void because of the omission of the tobacco rebate section was writ ten by Appraiser Somerville. In re- ply to this both briefs cite decision made by the same Judge Somerville while justice of the supreme court of Alabama. In this decision Judge Somerville said: II take it, further more, as sound rule, also settled by our decisions, that if the bill which is passed by the general assembly varies materially in substance and legal ,ffect,from that which is ap- proved by the governor, especially when this subject of variance involves a matter of amendment, without the incorporation O. which in the bill one of the houses refused to concur with the other on it's final passage, then there exists such want of legal and actual identity between the bill passed and the one approved as that neither of them acquires the force of valid and constitutional enact ment."
 The act declared invalid, null and void by this decision was an act to levy taxes for the use of the state of Alabama and the counties thereof, approved February 23, 1883. The journal of the house showed that the enrolling clerk omitted to incorpor- ate in the enrolled bill, no doubt in- advertently, material amendment which was a component part of the complete bill as it passed the two legislative bodies. Judge Somer- vile said: "That this omission vitiates the entire bill 1 thiuk there can be no room for doubt, provided the amendment itself which is omitte5 is not void for repugnancy to the constitution, on grounds which l shall hereafter discuss" After dis cussiug these grounds and deciding that tho amendment omitted was not unconstitutional, Judge Somerville said: ''Its omission from the law was therefore material and under the principles first decided the entire act was vitiated because it never passed