St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1891-11-28
Uncle Sans Law Officers Ap
peal From a Decision
Thereon.
The Tax on WoPsteds and
Woolens Involved in the
Litigation.
Roosevelt and Wanamakep in
a Tangle That Nay End
DisastpOusly.
Teddy in a Mood to Be Dam
gePouS- Railway Postal
Statistics.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 27.-A brief has
been filed for the government in the SUI
preme court of the United States by So
licitor 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 SUI
preme court On an appeal from the
United States circuit court for the
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 per-
mitted, and they seek to obtain re
fund of the illegal excess.
The board Of United States general
appraisers sustained the action of the
collector, but the circuit court on APP
peal held with the importers and gave
Judgment against the United States for
the amounts claimed. The goods were
imported in July, 1890, so that the du-
ties on them were not affected by the
Mckinley tariff act, approved Oct. OF
the same year.
Questions Involved.
The question in the case is whether
the act of congress approved May 9,
1890, entitled ian act to provide for the
classification of worSted cloths as WOOL
ems" had the effect to make the duty
upon worsted cloths equal to that
which the tariff act of March
3, 1888, imposed upon WOolenS.
If the act of May 8. 1890, had such eff
feet, says the solicitor general in his
brief, the judgment of the circuit court
should be reversed. If it had not, the
Judgment should be sustained.
1t is claimed that even if the act was
in force as 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 8. 1888. above referred to, be-
cause the act of May 9, 1890, did not
purpOrt to repeal any act impOs-
ing the pre-eXisting rate of duty
on worsted cloths, or to i'm
pose any new duty thereon; and
because, whether or not the secretary of
the treasury classified the goods i'll suit
as wooden cloths, this did not alter the
fact that they were manufactures of
worSteds, and dutiable accordingly I'M
der the act of 1888; that even if the act
OF May 9, 1890, amended the WOODEN
and worSted schedule of the act of 1883,
by its terms it only did so with respect
to such worsted cloths as the secretary
OF the treasury himself should classify;
and that as the secretarydid not classify
the impOrtatlOnS in this case, the duties
herein were unaffected by the amend
ment.
The Governments Case.
In his brief, Solicitor General Taft
gives the position Of the government as
follows: The presence of majority of
the members of either house constitutes
quorum to do business. This is shown
first by the context of the constitution
providing, in effect, that quorum to
do business may be obtained by compel
ing the presence Of absent members;
second, by the history of the clause in
the constitutional convention; and,
third, by the common law meaning of
the term quorum" Each house, by
virtue of its constitutional power to
determine the rules of its proceedings,
may ascertain the presence OF a quorum
by any means or agency it chooses to
select, and after such ascertainment the
house, by virtue of its power to keep
Journal OF its proceedings, may, as it
did here, make the journal show the
truth. and thereby conclusively estab-
liSh the fact of the presence Of a quo
rum.
The direction to the secretary in the
act OF May 9. 1890, is to so cOnstrue the
tariff law of March $, 1888, that the
clause which applies to WOODEN cloths
that the same duty shall be assessed
upon the latter as the former.
The construction thus enjoined
is not repugnant to the act of
March 3, 1883, as interpreted
by the supreme court. Congress had
full power to expressly or implicitly re-
peal or amend the act of 1888. The act
OF May 8, 1890, is therefore an implied
amendment of the act of 1883 and the
Worsted clause teereof, to the extent OF
imposing the same duty upon imported
worsted cloths as upon WOODEN cloths.
The Secretary's Duty.
The secretary of the treasury is at the
head of that department. which is
charged with the duty of enforcing Gus
tom laws, md therefore of primarily
constituting them, and of classifying i'm
ports for duty under them. By
statute this is all done under the
general supervision of the secretary.
A legislative direction to him to give a
certain construction to customs law is,
therefore, exactly equivalent to a pro
vision that the law shall thereafter gem
orally receive such construction. To
say, as was held by Judge LacOmbe,
that the effect of the act of May Q. 1890,
is to impose the same duty on worsted
cloths as OH woolens only in cases where
the particular wOrstedS are classified by
the secretary of the treasury, or under
his express direction, leads to the ab-
Surd result that the same kinds of Wor-
stedS would pay different rates of duty.
as they might or might not be classified
by the secretary.
This would be a violation of the
clause of the constitution requiring
uniformity of taxation, and would seem
to delegate to the secretary an underlined
and irresponsible power by action or
nOnactiOn in regard to any particular
importation to change the legal rate
of duty thereon. Such construction
cannot be tolerated if any other is pos
sible. The conditions existing when
the act was passed. and leading to its
passage, leave no doubt of the intention
of congress to impose thereby and
thereafter the same duty upon all
worsted cloths as was imposed by the
act of 1888 upon wooden cloths. The
court may give effect to this intention
without doing violence to the language.