The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1891-12-03
THE M'KINLEY TARIFF CASE.
Belief that the Supreme Justices VIII De-
eide the Act Is Constitutional.

Belief that the Supreme Justices Will De-
eide the Act Is Constitutional.
Special TO the Indianapolis Journal.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 2.-The final argu-
ments before the United States Supreme
Court In what is known as the Mckinley
tariff case were submitted to-day. and the
justices have nothing TO do now except to
render on opinion. The whole fight has
been made by the importers, who have to
prove that the Mckinley tariff act was
passed in the absence of a quorum of the
House of Representatives. This was their
first proposition of Importance. and the
second was to esta blish bv judicial decision
the alleged fact that the United States
Congress is prohibited by the Constitu-
tion from granting bounties. OF course it
is impossible at this stage, SO far in ad-
vance of even careful consideration OF the
argument advanced, to predict what the
final outcome of this celebrated case Will be
with any degree of absolute certainty. But
those who have watched the proceedings,
who have listened to the arguments and
have noted the questions propounded by
the justices TO the attorneys for the plant
IFS are positive that those questions indI-
cate beyond doubt that the individual
opinion of each member of the court is in
favor of the constitutionality of the act. 1t
is admitted on all sides that the argument t
able and forceful presentation of the gov
ernmen side of the controversy and there
Is not man interested at oil In the case
who does not feel confident that the court
will sustain the validity OF the Mckinley
law.
When the hearing was resumed this
morning. Solicitor general L AFT then opened
for the government the case brought here
by the United States on appeal from de-
cision of the Circuit Court of the United
York in favor of Ballin. Joseph IL Co. This
case involves the validity OF the Dingley
wOrsted act. The point of most public in
terest in connection with the act is that
Speaker Reed having, in order TO make a
quorum, counted n number of Democrats
who were in their seats. but refrained from
voting. The brief of the Solicitor general 8
argument was printed last week. His po-
sitiOn Is that the House bad the power to
make the rule under which the bill was
passed, and that the question of the wis
dom of the rule is cne with which the court
has nothing to do, the remedy being In the
House itself, and ultim ately In the people,
who elect the Representatives.
Edwin X. Smith, of New York, argued
the importers side of the case. main tain-
ing that on yea and nay vote it was nee
essary to show the mans presence by his
action and by some constitutional require
meuts, aud that there was no warrant for
the Clerk declaring HIM present.
Justice Brewer said the point seemed to
be that it was necessary that man should
be heard and not seen. and asked how il
would be if n man answered by telephone
to o roll-call. Could he be counted in a
uuoruml
Mr. Smith was doubtful on that point.
but thought he might be. perhaps. if the
House put the name on the journal.
Attorney-general Miller closed the case
with brief argument in favor OF the gov
ernments contention.