Barton County democrat. [volume] (Great Bend, Kan.) 1885-1915, 1891-10-29
THE TARIFF CASE.


The Acknowledgement Pleads Before the
United States supreme Court.
WASHINGTON, Oct 26-The brief for
the United States in the cases of Boyd,
Sutton & Co, 81. Herman SternbecA &
Co and Marshall Field s. Co. appel
lants, vs. the United Srates. has been
prepared by tho attorney-general-
These are the cases in which the con-
stitutiouality Of the Mckinley tariff
act are involved and are among the
eases set for hearing by the
supreme court on the second Monday
of November. The appellants con-
tend that the act is unconstitutional
because of the omission of the tobacco
rebate clause in the BILL as it was
signed by the president after having
been agreed to in conference. and be-
cause it contains the bounty and re-
ciprocity provisions
Concerning the first contention the
attorney-generalt traces the course of a
law through its enrolment and sigma
ture by the presidents of both houses.
it's approval by the president and its de-
post by the secretary'of state. in whose
Office it is carefully preserved, in obedi-
ence to express statutory injunction
This, he contino es, is the ultimate and
COIuplGDG ICCOI0 Va thO PAok(CA oA0 SOh
stitutional passage of the law as therein
contained and is the most appropriate
evidence of which the court may take
judicial notice in considering the exist
ence and contents of the law and if
complete and regular is not impaired
by entries upon the legislative jour
nails or other evidence inconsist-
emit Herewith Even If the enrolled
- Sc 1,,k fooio oui60noo 0f the
existence and contents, there is no
other record by which it may be i'm
peached. except the journals of the two
houses, and in the case at bar the
journals do not show any discrepancy
between the bill as it passed the two
houses and the bill as it was approved.
The evidence tending to show such dis
crepancy relied on by appellants is in
parole and can not therefore be consid-
cred by the court
''Conceding, however," the attorney
general says, that the tobacco rebate
section was omitted from the bill after
it's passage and before its approval by
the president, as is claimed by the ap-
pellants, this fact would not render in
valid the remainder of the bill which
did pass both houses and was approved
rebate section and the approved bill
were separable and Independent of each
other"
Concerning the incorporation in the
bill of the sugar bounty clause. the at
torney-general says it was for the
purpose of encouraging the production
of raw sugar in this country. Counsel
he says, assigned the increase of duty
upon woolens, silks and cottons to the
necessity for additional revenues to
pay the sugar bounty. There is nc
more warrant for saying that the
duties herein assessed were provided
for by congress in this act to pay the
sugar bounty than there would be fol-
saying the same thing of the duty
levied by the bill on any
other merchandise. The question OF
the validity of the bounties is
as old as that of the protective
tariff, and has been answered in
the same way of constant Legislation
and acquiescence of the people. as OLD
as the nation itself. has sanctioned
both direct and indirect bounties fo1
the encouragement of those industries
which are closely allied with national
growth and national independence. as
public purpose and as within the
pOwer of congress.