The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1891-12-02
TARIFF ACT UNDER FIRE.
Supreme Justices Ask Many Questions Of q
Attorney Who Declares tho Law Invalid.

Supreme Justices Ask Many Questions OF an
Attorney Who Declares tho Law Invalid.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 1.-The United States
Supreme Court to-day continued the hear
ing of the three suits brought by New York
aud Chicago importers, TO test the consti-
tutionality of the Mckinley tariff act. John
p. Wilson, representing Marshall Field &
Co., closed the opening argument for the
importers. maintaining that the whole act
was vltiated by the omission of the tobacco
rebate section. He illustrated his position
by supposing that the free sugar clause had
been omitted, and asking If the sugar
bounty clause would In such an cvent have
been held to be legal. He also contended
that the rate of duties bad been affected by
the sugar bounty provision.
Justice Harlan asked how he ascertalned
such to be the fact.
Mr. Wilson responded that he ascertained
it from the act itself. which was passed for
the purpose of reducing the revenues of the
government. Free sugar had cut off $780,
600, 600. and the bounties to be paid from
customs duties had been paid as q protec-
tion to the producers who had to compete
against free sugar.
Justice Gray inquired where was the diff
ference between the cOnstitutionality of
the protective tariff and of bOuntyi
Mr.. Wilson found the difference in the
fact tDat q protective tarlu came unOer 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
system was the general welfare clause.
There was quito q crOsstire of questions
and answers between the justices and
counsel as respects the general welfare
clause. Justice Field wished to know if
weight should not be attached to the prac-
tice of a century.
Mr.. Wilson thought the question had
never been passed on.
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 well
fare clause of the Constitution. and Justice
Harlan cited the recent fOrtifcation ap-
preparation act. passed for the purpose of
encouraging gun-steel manufacture in the
United States, and asked if Congress could
give bounties 10 gun manufacturers why
not to sugar prOducersf
ME-. Wilson. however, did not admit thnt
these cases were analogous to that Of a
direct payment for q simple production of
an article.
Solicitor-gen Taft then followed in
behalf of the United States. He directed
| his attention to the omission of the tobacco
| rebate clause, and his line of argument was
| that it would not do for the court to 90 be-
| hind the enrolled act. When they ex-
| amIned the journal they would find no
record of the act itself and the court would
| have TO supplement- the record by parOl
evidence. which was conflicting.
Attorney-2eneral Miller argued the boun-
| ty and reciprocity features. The argument
| will be closed early tomorrow by MIR.
| Clark.