Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1892-03-01
Its Constitutionaii,y Decided by the
supreme Court.

WAHiiNGTOS, Feb. 2g.--rho three
cascs In ghicn Importers sought 10
test the cunstitutiUnality of the Me-
kinley tariff act were today decided
by The United States Supreme Court.
IL niilFms the Judgments ri IN. New
York and Illinois circuit courts ~ the
United States In favor Uf the cOuslitu-
tionrfly Of lie act.
The three cases In which the i'm.
portcfn sought 10 test the rouatltu.
tionnhty ut the Mckinley tariff act
were those 81 Boyd, Sutton a Co., aud
Borman, StoinhaCh x Co., each versus
the United States, aud JOol Burnhatdt
W. the collector Of the uort Of New
York, and Mnrhall, Field 4 Co., vs..
Clark, collector OF the port OF Chicago.
The grounds ON which II was main
taiucd that the atlil act was unconsti.
tutiOnnl, were that the tobacco rebate
section " the oil had been committed
In Tia enrolment after passage by con-
gr,y, nud therefore the bill
signed by the President was not
the iii passed by the Legislative de-
partmunt Of the government; that tho
reciprocity feature was transmission
10 the executive Of the lawmRking
power AMI therefore void, vitiating the
whole act; aud last, that the act was
void tocause OF the sugar bounty pro-
vision.
Justice Harlan read the opinion. He
said that the court had given the most
careful and deliberate attention TO the
question now rnisrd for thc first time,
as TO the COURTS determining whether
an act signed 10y the President was
actually thc law paused by Congress.
The Ohjco, Of the Journal required TO be
kept 10y Congress was not, that II
might be- consulted to determine the
authenticity Of an act Of Congress, but
that there might be publicity Of tho
proceeding. The signature Of the two
presiding officers and the President
was complete Authorization OF bill,
providing that the forms required had
been compiled with.
The suggestion that there might DO
"A deliberate conspiracy between tho
presiding officer and the President to
| make law not passed by Congress,
/ the court said, could not hold nu en-.
rolled act, the court held was conclu-
siye.
As to reciprocity, the Court says
that various decisions OF tho court and
the the practice OF years established
the right Of Congress TO give the Prcsi-
dent power by proclamation at q future
dry TO rovoleOr modify certain clauses
Of an act. IL holds That II was not a
transfer Of legislature power, but aimp-
~ gave the President power TO deter
mine whether the time had arrived
! which the requirements Of Congress
ns 10 the net taking effect specified had
arrived. The President, the Court
says, IN not vested with any real legls'
lativo power. Congress prescribed the
conditions under which the President
should net All he had 10 ascertain
was that a particular tact existed, and
then II was directed that he execute
the act. The President was mere
agent of the law-making power.
with respect to the sugar bOu miles
the court says that the argument, thai
the validity Of the whole net Ii In
vOlvod In the question ns to whether Of
not this CLAUSE In valid, isso obvious m
error ~ not 10 warrant such an Rrgu
mcnt. There II no such connection
between this part Of the act and the
other sections NJ 10 warrant the court
ia assuming thst the rest would mo-
have been adopted but for the adoption
Of the county system. They are en-
tlToly separate In purpose.
Justice Lamar and Chief Justic,
Fuller coucuued In the finding Of Ia,
court, but dissen,ed from that par
holding that the reciprocity treaty wa
constitutional. They held that II wal
transfer Of legislative power, bu
cOnrurred In the conclusion ON tn,
ground that there was not a vita
connection between the Teciproclt!
section aud the larih' portions OF thu
net,