Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1891-12-01

New Before Supreme Court on Mckinley
Tariff Act.

WAsHiseroS. Nov. 30-The tariff cases,
involving the conatiiutonality Of the Nc.
Kinley tariff act came up for argument in
the United States Supreme Court this after.
noon. All The jus;iees were present. The
three cases before the court are Boyd.
6aston { Co., and Stsernbaeh & Co., New
sEainss the collectors Of customs Of New
York ard Chicsyo, respectively.
Three points are involved In the decision
Of these suits. The court heard all the
cases % one and assigned to each attorney
representing the three firms. one point at
issue, to be reviewed on the opening argu-
ment. ". Wickhsm Smith, New York,
argued the bounty clause, eontending that
bountiss are unconstitutional and that the
bounty section invslidatsd the whole act,
Chief Justice Fuller asked il the record
showed that any money had been
paid under the sugar bounty clause by
his clients. Mr.. Smith did not know ~ to
that. but said they hsd right to complain
because the taxes were increased on their
goods for the purpose, ~ they believed, Of
paying the sugar bounty.
Edwin B. Smith. ex. assistant attorney.
general. now Of New York, argued the
reciprocity feature Of the Mckinley act,
maintaining that it was delegation Of tax
ing power to the President, which yitisted
the whole act.
N. W. Bliss. Of Chicago, argued the third
point that the law 10 unconstitutional be-
cause Of the omission OF the tobacco rebate
section from the bill - sigued BY the Pres
idept. After he had stated his objection
Justice Bradley said "YouR position then
10 that wherever the enrolling clerk by acci-
dent or by fraud happens to omit section
OF the Law. although that law 10 reported to
the President and 10 signed - q law, it is
void"
Mr.. Bliss-"Yes, SIR"
The argument will be continued to-
morrow.
Wickham Smith outlined the position Of
his clients, contending that the act 10 null
and void because it never WAS enacted in
the mode prescribed by the constitution
be cause il assumed to provide for bounties
to producers Of American sugar. = power
not among those conferred on Congress BY
confer upon the President Of the United
States the power Of imposing taxes on i'm.
ports. . power which could be exercised
oUly ny SOpxIeeu uEuet tue Cuushtutoh-
Mr.. Smith outlined the confederation Of
the questions involved under 1--WE hesds,
namely: Does the omission from the en-
crossed bill signed by the President Of the
section whicn formed part Of the bill ss
passed both houses Of ConRress, ren-
der the tariff &C: and are the sugar
bounty provisions unconstitutional ? !!
II the sugar bounty provisions is uncon
stitu,ional il the whole act thereby invali
lated; or may the remainder Of the act
,tand - Law? 10 the called "reci-
procity" unconstitutional? II reciprocity |
d un unconstitutionAl, 10 the whole act thereby |
nvalid9
Taking up the hrst question Mr.. Smith |
,ontended that the tariff act never WAS con-
enacted because the bill signed |
~ the President wss no. the same bill
Fhich had passed both houses of Congress,
he change being due to an omission by the
,nrolline clerk Of the tobacco rebate sec
ior restored to the bill by the Senate and
House conferences.