Ceredo advance. [volume] (Ceredo, W. Va.) 1885-1939, 1891-12-09
ON TRIAL.
Test Cases Being Argued in the
Supreme Court.
Importers Claim the Whole Tariff Bill
Act Unconstitutional
because OF tho Enrolling Clerks Omis-
sion OF the Tobacco Rebate Sco-
tion From tho Bin signed by
President Harrison.

WASHINGTON. Dec. 1.-The cases 70
test the constitutionality of the McKin-
ley tariff bill were called for argument
in the supreme court of the United
States Monday afternoon. The cases
are those of Marshall, Field & Co. of
Chicago; Charles Stern bach ct al, Boyd.
Sutton & Co; Ii. Hermann, Stern bach
& Co, of New York, appellants. against
Clark. collector of customs at Chicago-
Erhardt, collector u. New York, and
the United States.
w. Wickham Smith. of counsel for
Boyd Sutton & Co. opened the case for
the appellants The appeal by which
this case came to the supreme court
was granted by the United States
circuit court for the southern district
of New York. from decision made by
the court that the collector OF customs
at New York had legal authority To
levy duties on cotton and silk laces
under the Mckinley tariff act, and that
the act was not, as claimed by the APP
pellants, nugatory and void.
Mr.. Smith outlined the position of his
clients. contending that the act was
null and void because it was never en-
acted in the mode prescribed by the
constitution; because it assumed to
provide for bounties to producers of
American sugar, power which was
not among those conferred on congress
by the constitution, and because il as
sumed to confer upon the president of
the United States the power of impos-
ing taxes on imports. n power which
could be exercised only by congress I'M
der the constitution.
Mr. Smith continued the cousidera-
ton of the questions involved under
five heads namely:
Docs the omission from the engrossed
bill, signed by the president, of n sec
ton which formed part of the bill as it
passed both houses of congress, render
the tariff act unconstitutional?
Are the sugar-bounty provisions I'M
constitutional?
III the sugar bounty provisions are
unconstitutional. is the whole act there
by invalidated. or may the remainder
of the act stand as law?
Is the so-called reciprocity section
unconstitutional?
II the reciprocity section is uncousti-
tutional. is the whole act thereby in
validated?
Taking up his first question. Mr.
Smith went on to contend that the
tariff act was never constitutionally
enacted. because the bill signed by the
president was not the same bill which
had passed both houses of congress. the
change being due to tie omission by
the enrolling clerk of the tobacco re-
hot ;,I, haI
to the bill by the senate and house con-
ferences
Mr.. Smith also contended that the
sugar bounty provisions of the act were
unconstitutional because congress had
no power under the constitution to
create or award such bounties. on the
ground that tax imposed upon the
people for the payment of such boun-
ties were not levied for public pur-
poses
Concerning the reciprocity section.
Mr.. Smith, claimed that il was uncon-
stitutional because it was delegation
OF the executive power TO the legisla-
ture.
Mr.. Edwin Il. Smith. of New York.
counsel for Charles Sternbach ct al,
followed. He made the same conten-
tons as those made by Mr.. w. Wick
ham Smith, and quoted many authori-
ties in support of his argument He
claimed the act as a connected whole,
aud each of the provisions questioned.
were so interviewer with the whole act
that .hey could not be picked out and
held & be constitutional and the re-
maindet of the act invalidated.
u. 3 M.
Marshall Field & Co, VS.. Clark, col
lector at Chicago. was prolific with
legal citations in support of his conten-
lions. He made the same allegations
against the constitutionality of the bill
rs those made by the gentlemen who
preceded him.
At the conclusion OF Mr.. Bliss argu-
ment the court adjourned until Tues
day. when the argument will be re-
sumed
WASHINGTON, Dec. 2-Thc United
States supreme court, Tuesday. con-
tinued the hearing of the three suits
brought by New York and Chicago inn
porters 20 test the constitutionality of
the Mckinley tariff act, John T. Wilson,
representing Marshal. Field & Co.
closed the opening argument for the inn
porters. maintaining that the whole act
was vitiated by the omission Of the
tobacco rebate section. He illustrated
his position by supposing that the free
sugar clause had been omitted. and
asking II the sugar bounty clause would.
In such an event, have been held 90 be
legal lie also contendcd that tho rate
OF duties had been affected by the sugar
bounty provision.
Justice Harlan asked how he ascer-
tanned such TO be the fact
Mr. Wilson responded that he ascer-
tanned 10 from the act itself, which was
passed for the purpose Of reducing the
revenues Ok the government Free
sugar had cut of soU. OOJ.O and the
bOun,ies 20 be- paid from customs du.
ties had been paid as a protection 90 the
producers who had 20 compete against
free sugar.
Justice Gray inquired where was the
difference between the cOnstitutionaIitv
o. a protective tariff and Of "A bounty.
Mr. Wilson found the difference in
the fact that a protective tariff came
under the clause Of the constitution
giving congress the right 90 regulate
commerce with foreign nations. while
the only authority which could be
claimed for the bounty system was the
general welfare clause