The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1891-12-02
THE M'KISLEy LAW.

Ono Of the most interesting cases which has
ever been before the United States Supreme
Court is that now being tried testing the con-
siitu,ionality Of tho Mckinley tariff law. Tho
points against its constitutionality are three;
| First, that the fundamental law Of the United
States does not give Congress power to place
sugar on the free list and to give sugar pro-
ducers bountics in place OF the benefits they
havo been accustomed TO reap by having con-
troll through high protection Of the sugar
market: second. that the bill signed by the
President was not the one passed by Con-
gress; and third. that tho law Improperly
| gives the President individual power TO make
and conclude reciprocal treaties without the
sanction Of the United States Senate.
All three Of these points appear 70 be wei
taken. The Constitution gives the Congress
power ito lsy and collect taxes, duties. I'M
| posts and excuses to pay tho debts and pro-
vide for the common defense and general
welfare Of tho United States" butt distinctly
| declares that all duties imposts and excuses
shall be uniform throughout the United
/ States" In this not one word IS said about
! bounties and nowhere in the entire instru-
ment is there any clause which can. without
a considerable stretch Of the Imagination and
the exercise of very fine spun ingenuity, be
construed into authority for granting bounties
| or giving largess TO any particular business or
class. The only clause which approaches in
any respect to such authority is that which
permits the regulation Of commerce between
the States and with foreign nations, and that
certainly has not the remotest allusion TO
bOunties.
As to the second point. that the bin signed
b. the President was not that passed by Con-
gress. every body knows, the original bill
contained clause providing for rebate of
the tax on tobacco purchased before the law
went into effect and still in the hands of
manufacturers and dealers after it became
operative. This clause the engrossing clerk,
either by accident or design, omitted, and the
bill was signed by the President without the
omission being discovered. The Supreme
Court will be called on to decide very i'm
pOrtant point in this. being no more nor
less than how far tho power OF
the engrossing clerk may extend. and
how far it lies with that ap-
parently very humble official TO change
the most important acts of Congress II 1t is
decided that the omission of the rebate
clause did not vitiate the entire law then all
future engrossing clerks who may desire to
see legislation changed will have it in their
power 70 give great deal of trouble espe-
cially if they have a very careless President
10 deal with who is ready t. sign anything
offered him without reading it over
But the third point at issue is probably
the most important Of all, viz: whether Con
gress has a right to delegate the treaty making
power absolutely TO the President The Con
stitution distinctly says the President shall
have power by and with the advice of the
Senate, to make treaties. provided two-thirds
Of the Senators concur. And yet. under the
Mckinley law the President is given abso-
Lutte power TO individually make whatever
reciprocity treaties with foreign nations he
sees fit without consulting any one, and
mere stroke of his pen binds the country and
makes O law. If this is not unconstitutional,
it is certainly vesting very dangerous power
in the bands Of one man. and is Capitalization
of the worst type.
These are the main points which the SUI
preme Court will have to decide regarding the
constitutiopabty Of the Mckinley law. The
decision will be watched with great interest.
If the law should be held to be uDconstitu-
tionaI and void, it will undoubtedly cause
considerable confusion in the business world,
but it will greatly simplify the work Of the
Democratic party in giving to the country
measure of tariff reform which will be at
once wise just and equitable.