The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1891-11-28
TESTING REEDS RULINGS
Argument of SOIicitor-General Taft in
the Suit Brought by Importers.
Legality of the Speakers Method Of Counting
aQuorum in the House Upheld and Shown
10 Have Been Constitutional.
Special TO the INDIANAPOLIS Journal.

WASHINGTON, Nov. GA br1ef has Deen
filed for the government in the Supreme
Court of the United States by Solicitor
general Taft in the case of the United
States. Appellant. VS.. BALM. Joseph 81 CO..
known as the quorum case. brought to test
the legality of Speaker Reeds methods in
counting a quorum. The case comes
to the Supreme Court on an appeal
from the United States Circuit Court
for tie Southern district of New York.
BALM, Joseph & Co. are importers. They
complain that the collector of New York
collected as duty upon sixteen cases of
worsted cloths imported by them more
money than the law permitted. and they
seek to obtain q refund of the illegal Ok
cess. The board of United States gen.
eral appraisers sustained the action
of the collector, but the Circuit
Court on appeal held with the importers.
and gave Judgment against the United
States for the amount claimed. The goods
were imported in July. 1890, SO that the
duties on them were not affected by the
Mckinley tariff act. approved Oct. l of the
same year.
The question in the case is whether the
act of Congress approved May 9, 1890,
entitled ian act to provide for the CLASH
~tication of worsted cloths as woolens."
had the effect to make the duty
upon worsted cloths equal to that which
the tariff act of March 3, 1883, imposed upon
woolens. "lf the act of May 9, 1880. had
such effect says the Solioitor-gener-
al in his brief. the Judgment
of the Circuit Court should be reversed.
II it had not, the Judgment should be sus-
tanned. The position of the import
ia that the act Of May g. 1890,
never acquired the validity OF a law be-
cause there was not a constitutional
quorum to do business in the House of
Representatives when the bill Is said to
have passed that body: that even If
the act was in force as a valid law in July.
1890, when these importations were made,
it's language could not be construed
to amend the clauses OF the
tariff act of March 5. 1853, above
did not purport to repeal any act imposlns
the pre-eXisting rate OF duty on
worsted cloths, or to impose any
new duty thereon" In his brief
Solicitor-general Taft gives the position OF
the government as follows:
The presence of q majority Of the men,
bers of either house constitutes a quorum
to do business. Members. if present, are o
part of the required quorum to do
business, though they do not vote.
This is shown. first, by the con-
text of the Constitution providing.
in effect. that q quorum to do business may
be obtained by compelling the presence OF
absent MEMBERS: second, by the history OF
the clause In the constitutional conven
ton. and third, by the common law NEAR
ing of the term quorum
Each house. by virtue of it's constitu-
tlonal power to determine the rules of its
proceedings, may ascertain the presence OF
O quorum by AM means or agency it chooses
to select, and after such ascertainment the
House. by virtue of it's power to keep q
journal of its proceedings, may, as 1t did
here, make the journal show the truth. aud
thereby OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES the fact OF
the presence of a quorum.
1.-The bill received the Affirmative vote oil
a majority of the quorum. and was lawful.
THE act of May g. 1890, directs the Score.
tary of the Treasury to classify as wooden
cloths all imports of worsted cloth. The
verb TO classify when used in connection
with imports. means to construe tue tariff
law with reference to it's application to the
imports in question, and thus to classify
then under the clause or clauses of the law
by which the duty on them is to be as
sessed. The direction of the Secretary In
the act of May 9, 1890, IS to so construe the
tariff law of March 3. 1855, that the clause
which applies to WOODEN cloths shall apply
10 woTsteu cIotns. anu thus that tht
same duty. shall be assessed up
on the latter as the former
The construction thus enjoined il
r%epugnant TO the act of March 3. 1883, a.
interpreted by the Supreme Court. Con
gress had full power to expressly or i'm
plledly repeal or amend the act of 1888
The act of May 9. 1890. is, therefore, an i'm
Piled amendment of the act of 1883, and the
worsted clause thereof, to the extent OF
imposing the same duty upon imported
worsted cloths as upon wooden cloths.
1.-THE Secretary of the Treasury is tn,
head of that department which is charged
with the duty of enforcing the customs
laws. and. therefore. of primarily constru
ing them and of classifying imports fol-
is all done under the general supervis
ion of the Secretary. A legislativ,
direction to him to give q certain construc
tlon to customs law Is, therefore, exactly
equivalent to q provision that the Law
shall, therefore, generally receive snch con
struction. 1t cannot be supposed that Con
! gress intended the Secretary to give on,
construction and his subOrdInates to Civ,
another.
ITO say. as was held by Judge Lacombe
that the effect of the act of May 9, 1850. II
to impose the same duty on worsted cloth
as on woolens. only in cases where tn,
| particular wOrsteds are classified by tn,
Secretary of the Treasury or under biz
express direction. leads to the absurd re
ouib tnab blic dliiO binu IL nOISttuo WOult
pay different rates of duty. as they might Of
might not be classified by the Secretary
This would be a violation of the cIanse o.
the Constitution requiring uniformity o.
taxation. and would seem to delegate Il
the Secretary an underlined and irresponsi
BILE power by action or non-action in re-
gard to any particular Importation, Il
change the legal rate of duty thereon
Such construction cannot be tolerated il
any other is possible.
The conditions existing when the &C
was passed and leading to its passage leav,
no doubt of the intention of Congress Il
impose thereby. and thereafter. the sam,
duty upon all wOrsted cloths as was i'm
posed by the act of 1883 upon wooler
cloths. The court may give effect TO thi
intention without doing violence to tn
| language used"
The Solicitor-general includes in hi
brief an elaborate argument.,giving in de
tail the reasons of the government 70
making the contentious and citing cases il
support of its position. In submitting tn
brief to the court Mr.. Taft states that tn
judgment of the Circuit Court should b.
reversed. and that the action of the boar
of general appraisers and the c~ollecto
should be affirmed.