The Wichita daily eagle., 1891-10-25
THE TAPIEF CASES

WASHINGTON, Oct. 24-The brief for the
United States in the Cases of Boyd, Sutton
q, Co, H. Herman, Sternbach & Co, and
Marshall, Field & Co., appellants, against
the United States has been prepared by the
attorney general These are the cases in
which the constitutionality of the Mchin-
lev tariff ACT is involved. The appellants
contend that the act is unconstitutional
because of the omission of the tobacco
rebate clause in the bill, as it was signed
bv the president, after having been agreed
to in the conference, and because 1t con-
tanned the bounty and reciprocity pro-
visions.
Concerning the first contention the at
tOrney general traces the course OF the law
through its enrolment and signature by
the presiding officers of both houses of
congress. its approval by the president
and its deposit with the secretary OF state,
in whose office il is carefully preserved.
This, he continues, Is the ultimate ana
complete record of the proper and consti-
tutional passage of the law as herein con-
tanned, and is the most appropriate evil
dence of which the court may take judi
ciaI notice in considering the existence and
contents of the law; and, if complete and
regular is not impeached by entries upon
the legislative journals or other evi-
dence inconsistent Herewith. Even
if the enrolled act Is but
a prima facie evidence Of its existence and
contents there is no other record by which
it may be impeached except the journals
of the two houses, and in the case at
bar the journals do not show any dis
crepancy between the bill as 1t passed the
two houses and the bill as it was approved.
The evidence tending to show such dis
crepancy relied on by the appellants is in
parole, and cannot therefore be considered
bv the court. Conceding, however, the
ba offoypav srauara1 CavS that rbp fObaCCO
rebate section was omitted from the bill
after its passage and before its approval
by the president, as claimed by the appel
lapts this fact wouldsnot render invalid
the remainder of the bill which did pass
both houses and was approved by the
president, for the reason that the rebate
section and the approved nill were separate
and independent of each other.
Concerning the Incorporation into the
bill of the sugar bounty clause, the attor-
ney general says that IL was for the pur-
pose of encouraging the production of raw
sugar in this country. Counsel, he says,
have assigned the increase IN duty upon
woolens, silks and cottons, to the necessity
for additional revenues to pay the sugar
bounty There is no more warrant for
saving that the duties herein assessed
were provided for by congress in this act
TO pay the sugar bounty than there would
be for saying the same thing of the duty
levied by the bill on any other merchan-
disc. The question or the validity of
bosnties is AS old as that of a protective
tariff, aud has been answered in the same
WAY. BY constant legislation and the
acquiescence of the people the nation it
self has sanctioned both direct and lndl-
rect bounties for the encouragement of
those industries which are closely allied
with the national growth and national in
dependence, as public purpose and as
within the power of congress
The reciprocity clause, the attorney gen
eral says, could not have been intended TO
increase the revenue. It's conditional Cp-
Grafton precludes any such idea The
clause was an afterthoughL Ii is wholly
independent of every other clause in the
bin and its passage or failure to pass had
no bearing whatever upon the passage OF
the remainder. The clause is constitu-
tional; il is but delegation of Legislative
discretion, by which an alternative pro-
vision of an existing law may be applicable
to the happening OF a fact, the existence OF
which is TO Predetermined d by the president