New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-03-01

BY the presence majority, and does not depend
upon the disposition assent or action oil any shse
member or fraction of the majority present All that The
Constitution requires il the presence OF ha'or", anu
when that majority IL present the power Oh INV "ou
arises. The Constitution hss prescribed no me'na OF
ascettsning the presence Of majority anu II j. "or"
sre cearly within the competency of the blouse I" pre-
scribe any method that shall be reasonably ceitn" e
etssln the TACT. 1900
There was quorIm present when this Dill W"s
passed and question Is whether. quorum oei's
present the bill received sufficient number OF No'e'
and here the general Of all parliamentary bodies u
mat when a quorum l. present the act oil m'or'" VI
the quorum IN the act Of the BODY
Summing TN this matter this law Is found In the
SECRETARY Of the Tssury's Office properly authenticate"
IL we appeal the journal OF the House We ma una.
majority q members were present "heh TN "'
,s.scd majority creating by the Constitution quorum
with authority upon measure; that 'he pres
snre Of that quorum determined ia accordance WIN
reasonable and valid rule heretofore adopHu o' inc
on.. and Of tina, quorum a majority voted in favor Of
the bill IL therefor legally passed the House ana inc
law tn Office Of the secretary Of 'ho Treasury
beyond chalieng'
The second point made by the importers a""
sustained by the lower court-that the ACT pro-
vides for a classification lot goods III direc' hoi-
conformity with the facts-this court BUSINESSES lit
short order On this point the decision reads
We donot 80 construe the act 1t l. declaration oS
the construction 10 be placed upon mat p
ton Of the act 1883 which rcfefn to inpof~o ""o"
g1ols It directs him (the Secretary or The Irasu'Sp
~ classify all vor,ed cloths as "oolen eiothhe anu 10
givcs him discretion ,.,,
our conclusion therefore II that the act was Fsa'''
passed that by it, terms and irrespective OF any ao
bv The Secretary Treasury the duties on "orspo
cloths we're q, he such as were placed by the act OF 1888
wooen cloths.
CONSTITUTIONAL or THE TARIFF ACT.
The three cases in which importers sought 10
t,st the constitutionalty Of the larih ACT are
Hoyd Sutton a. Co. and Herman Sternpach q
Co. each against the United States and joe ID.
Frhardt Collector Of the port OF New-fotk' anu
Marshall Field 4 Co.. against Clark. Collector
OF the port Of Chicago
Tn, grounds on which IL was maintained Hia-
m. tariff wac unconstitutional were that ue
,ohacco rebate section Of the bill had been omit
ted in it's enrolment after 'passagn pN .onni'''
and therefore that the bill signed by the fres-
ident was not the bill passed by the iegisia'i'e
dcpartmcnt Of the Government: that the reel
It, scatpre was a transmission TO the ENecu-
tive 81 the law-making power ana Vnere'oie
Wild v,tiating the whole act: and. lastiN' 'ha'
the acr was void because of tn sugar pouh'.
nrovision The court affirmed the judgments VI
tho New-York and Illinois Circuit Courts oi .iio
I,ni,.d States in favor of the constitutonai"S
VI tn act -, tho court
Justice Harlan read the opinion OF the co"r'
lie said that the court had given most carei"' "",
deliberate attention to the question now iaoe'
for the first time TO the courts ue"
whether an act signed by the freslden. was 'o'"
oily the law passed ny Congress. Inc ooJeo' vi Wv
journal required 10 he kept by Congress "e '"''
was not that il might be consulted TO oeerni" '''
a,hen,icitv If an act of Congress, but that there
might be publicity OF proceedings Inc sls"
of the TWO presiding officers and of the freSoeh'
bon fioas iono f
ola. form reouired had been complied with. Inc
srrccstion that there might he deliberate con-
,iracv between presiding officers and PRESIDENT 10
,,to law not passed by Congress- the court eaiu'
could not hold Tie enrolled act, the court he'"'
was conclusive. :.
As IN reciprocity, the Court says, various de-
cisions of the court and the practice oil years Is
tablish the right of Congress to give the rres'
dent the power by proclamation, at future oay'
To invoke or modify certain clauses OF the acc
IL holds that it was not transfer OF lesisia0Ne
power, but simply gave the President power u
determine whether the time had arrived when
requirements of Congress as to the act taxing
effect had arrived. The President, the court says
is not vested with any real Legislative power;
Congress- prescribed the conditions under WMch
the President should act. All he had 10 ascertain
was that particular fact existed, ana tneh ~
was directed that he execute the act. The fresi'
dent was mere agent of the lawmaklng power
With respect to sugar bounties, the court says
the argument that the validity OF the whoie aco
is involved in the question as TO whether OF hoo
This clause is valid is obvious an error as not
tn warrant much argument. There is no such
connection between this part of the act and the
other sections as warrant the court in assuming
that the rest of the act would not have been
adopted but for the adoption of the bounty system
They are entirely separate in purpose.