The Portland daily press., 1891-01-31
THE COURT MAY PASS UPON THE RULES
Steps are Being Taken 70 Bring
Them to That Body.
Mr.. Hoar Says the Senators Broke
Solemn Pledges.
Mr.. pockery eff Missouri. is a Very
Smart nan.



WASHINGTON, January 30.-A decision
was rendered in the United States Circuit
Court In New York, Monday. by Judge La
eombe, which will probably end in bringing
before the United States Supreme Court
Speaker Reeds famous quorum ruling. The
case also arises over what is known as the
DIngley Act of May 9. 1890. so called from
Congressman Dlngley of Maine, who man
aged In the House the bill to classify worst
ed goods as woolens for tariff purposes
Stephen G. Clark and Edwin g. Smith.
New York attorneys. the latter Bidde-
ford. Me-, man and ex-assistant United
States district attorney. brought suit for
their clients, the importing firm Of Ballin.
Joseph & Co.. Of New York, to recover an
alleged excess Of duty charged by the collec-
TOR on certain worsteds imported by them.
He made them pay 50 cents q pound and 35
per cent ad valorem, classifying the goods as
woolens under the Dingley Act OF May 8,
1890. The importers held that the duty
ad valorem, under the tariff act Of 1888.
The Dingley Act merely directs that the
Secretary OF the Treasury shall classify
worsted as woolens. When the case came
up before Judge Lac0mbe on Monday,
Messrs. Clark and Smith argued tnat there
the classification was TO be made Tor customs
or any other purposes, and that the act
therefore could not be made to apply In the
particular case. Besides. the board OF ap:.
praisers, in making their return, declared
thai the Secretary Of the Treasury had not
classified the goods In question, and In fact,
had never seen them. The plaintiffs attor-
neys held that as this provision OF the law
had not been obeyed, the government had no
right to levy the higher rate OF duty. NJ.
Clark also made the point that the Dingley
Act had never been legally passed by Con-
gress as no quorum was voting when 1t was
passed. Speaker Reed having counted quo
rum Of silent Democrts.
In giving his decision the judge did not re-
fer to this last point at all; upon the other
points presented sustained the contention Of
BalleD, Joseph d. Co., reversed the decision
the board OF appraisers and virtually drove
coach and four through the Dingley act.
But as the Dngley act was only temporary
measure passed to prevent ruinous importa-
tions Of worsteds before the tariff bill should
go into effect. and was superseded by the
Mckinley act, this decision can only affect
worsteds imported between May 9, when the
Dlngley Act was passed. and October 1st,
when the Mckinley bill became a law.
Fhe carelessness with which the Dingley
act was drawn Is explained by the fact that
Mr.. Dingley had nothing to do with drawing
dustry which bad been crippled by treasury
ruling, letting In foreign goods at low du-
ty, was SO plainly merltorious that the DEM
ocrats even tried to remedy the hardship by
raising the duty and they drafted a bill
which failed Of passage, as did many other
necessary public measures under those old
Democratic rules which gave the minority so
many rights" When the present Congress
came in Mr.. DiDgley revived the plan OF re-
lieving the worsted indu stry, aud IN order to
escape virulent Democratic opposition adopt
ed the old Democratic bill, which was not
carefully drawn as is shown by Judge La
combe's decision.
The case will now be brought TO the Unit
ed States Supreme Court for final settlement;
and 1t Is understood that the importers pro-
pose to press to a decision the point which
Judge Lacome did not decide, the validity Of
the Speakers ruling. The Democrats have
never dared to make up test case to get an
opinion from the court on Mr.. Reed ruling;
for the reason that their ablest lawyers have
believed that the court would sustain the
ruling. The importers, however, are able to
bring 1t up In connection with
this case of Ballin. Joseph
81 Co. vs.. United States; and they propose
to press 1t to decision In spite OF the little
prospect that they can succeed in overturn.
Ing the ruling. Should they overturn 1t they
could, OF course, invalidate the Mckinley
tariff act, which was passed by counting a
quorum; and such result would be Of tre-
mendous Importance to their business.