The Portland daily press., 1891-12-01
CLERKS VETO.
Clerical Error Might Undo
the Work Of Congress.
One Of the Points Raised
Against the Tariff
By Attorneys for Some Of
Its Enemies.

WASHINGTON, November 30.-The three
tariff cases involving the constitutionality
Of the Mckinley tariff act, came up for
argument in the United States Supreme
Court this afternoon. All the justices
we're present The three cases before the
court are those Of Boyd, Sutton & Co., and
Steernbach & Co., of New York city, and
Marshall. Field & Co., Of Chicago against
the collectors of customs Of New York and
Chicago, respectively. Three points are
involved in the decision of these suits.
The court heard all the cases as one and
assigned to each of the attorneys repre-
senting the three firms one OF the points at
issue to be reviewed In the opening argu-
ment.
W. Wickham Smith of New York, out.
lined the position of his clients, contend
ing that the act was null and void because
1t never was enacted in the mode pre-
scribed by the constitution; because 1t as
sumed to provide for bounties to Droduc-
ers OF American sugar, power not among
those conferred on Congress by, the cor
stitution, and because it assumed to confer
upon the President of the United States
the power OF imposing taxes on imports, a
power which could be exercised only by
Congress under the constitution. Mr..
Smith outlined the consideration of the
questions involved under five heads. name
ly: Does the omission from the engrossed
bill signed by the President, of section
which formed part of the bill as 1t passed
both houses of Congress, render the tariff
act null and void? Are the sugar bounty
provisions unconstitutional? Ii the sugar
bounty provisions are unconstitutional, Is
the whole act thereby invalid? or may the
rQmQinl6 0f tha stand a lonO Vo "a
so-called reciprocity" unconstitutional,
and If reciprocity" Is unconstitutional, is
the whole act thereby invalid? Taking up
the first question, Mr.. Smith contended
that the tariff act was never constitutional
because the bill signed by the President
was not the same bill which passed both
houses of Congress, the change being due
to the omission by the enrolling clerk of
the tobacco rebate section restored to the
bill by the Senate and House conferences.
Chief Justice Fuller asked If the records
showed that any money had been paid un-
der the sugar bounty clause by his clients.
Mr.. Smith did not know as to that, but
said they had right to complain because
taxes were increased on their goods for
the purpose, as they believed, of paying
the sugar bounty.
Edwin ID. Smith, ex-assistant attorney
general, now of New York, argued the re-
ciprOcity feature of the Mckinley act,
maintaining that it was delegation of the
taxing power to the President, which
vitiate d the whole act.
NV. Bliss Of Chicago argued the third
point, that the law was unconstitutional be-
cause of the omission of the tobacco re-
bate section from the bill as signed by the
President. After he had stated his objec-
tion. Justice Bradley said: "Your posi-
tion, then, is that wherever an enrolling
clerk, by accident or by fraud, happens to
omit section of law, although that law
is reported to the President and signed as
a law, 1t Is void?"
Mr.. Bliss-"Yes, SIR"
row.