The Windham County reformer. (Battleboro, Vt.) 1876-1897, 1891-10-16
The Mckinley Bill Before the Supreme

SOuTLs
One OF the most important cases that eve
went before the Federal Supreme court, ant
one that Involves material interests to The
amount OF untold millions, Is that to test the
conslitutionality of the Mckinley bill, fol
which briefs were filed Monday In behalf OF
New York and Chicago house. They are
based chiefly on the claim that the omission
by the enrolling clerk of the tobacco rebate
section. stricken from the original bill by the
senate and restored In conference, makes the
act void.
Ihere have been several decisions on SINH.
lar questions, among them one by the Mlchi-
gan supreme court, where law was de-
clared invalid because of such an omission.
ine court said: ut Is to be deeply
regretted that SO important law as
th's' covering subject Of great public
interest, should, because of the gross
carelessness, or worse, Of some one, be wiped
bodily from the statute books. But the
courts are nor responsible for this, nor can
they usurp the functions of legislation and,
py shutting their eyes to the record of legisla-
tive doings. declare a law valid that never
passed the legislature. however we'll authen.
tlcated 1t may be by the certificate Of off.
cials." Even Judge Somervllle, of the board
OF general appraisers, who wrote tho opinion
OF the board sustaining the validity Of the
mckinley act against the protests of the I'm.
perters, is quoted In decision he made while
justice Of the Supreme court of Alabama. in
which he took the same ground as the Mich.
gan court.
II the act should be oyerthrown, II is need.
less TO say, irrespective of the merits of the
tariff question, that an enormous wrong
would be done to the business interests that
have made their calculations under It; az well
as to the purchasing public that has paid the
duties on imported goods, every dollar of
which would be refunded to the importers.
But as the Michigan court said In similar
case the fault would be that OF the gross
carelessness, or worse, In passing the bill.
Reed and his billion dollar congress could not
give time for fair and open discussion of this
or any of lis pet measures. But 1t could and
aid give so nearly the whole session to secret
sittings for the pampered interests to call
for "more" ''more," that 1t had to be put
through In rush and tumble at the last.
Another point of attack In the bill is the
sugar bounty. The opinion of Justice Miller,
good Republican authority, In previous
case is cited. He declared that to lay with
one hand the power of the government on the
of the citizens and with the other
to bestow upon favored individuals to aid
private enterprises and build up private for
tunes Is none the less robbery because 1t Is
done under the forms OF law and Is called
taxation. This is not legislation, says Jus.
lice Miller. 1t Is not decree under legisla-
tive forms, nor is 1t taxation. The power
given to the president In the "reciprocity"
clause is also held to be an invasion of the
constitutional prerogative of legislation.
There would seem to be grave danger from
II! these considerations and presidents of the
)il falling. But the court will naturally and |
'lghtfully go as far as 1t possibly can to avoid
Interference with the work of the legislative
department of The government. especially
where so much Is at stake. But the question
$ whether there Is any escape on sound legal
principles.