The morning call., 1892-03-01
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
COnStitutiOnality Of the Mckinley Tariff bCt
Sustained.
The BERIKG SEA CASES CONFIRMED.
Reeds Ruling In the "No Quorum Case
Approved - The Anarchists Appeal
Dismissed d-Barbed- Wire Decision.
Special to THE MORNING CALI


The three cases in which the impor ters
sought to test the constitutionality of the
Mckinley tariff act were those of Boyd.
Sutton & Co. and Herman Sternbach & Co..
each versus the United States and Joel B.
Erhardt, Collector of the Port of New York.
and Marshall Field & Co. VS.. Clark, Col
lector of The Port at Chicago. The grounds
on which il WAS maintained that the tariff
was unconstitutional were that the tobacco
rebate section OF the bill had been omitted
Ii its enrolment after its passage by Con-
gress, and, therefore. the bill signed by the
PRESIDENT was not the bill passed by the
Legislative Department of the Government !;
that the reciprocity feature transmitted to
the executive the law-making power, and,
therefore. was void, vitiatng the whole act.
and, lastly, that the act was void because Of
the sugar-Dounty provision.
Carefully Considered:
Justice Harlan read the opinion. He
said the court had given the NEST careful
and deliberate attention to the question
now raised for the first time as to The courts
determining whether an act signed by the
President was actually the law passed by
Congress. The object of the journal re-
quired To be kept by Congress was not that it
might be consulted 10 determine the authen-
ITCHY of an act of Congress. but that there
might be publicity OF the proceedings. The
signatures of the two presiding officers and
of the President was complete authentica-
tion OF bill providing the forms required
had been complied with. A suggestion that
there might be deliberate conspiracy be-
tween the presiding officers and the Presi-
dent to make law not passed by Congress
the court said could not hold. An enrolled
act. the court held, was conclusive.
AS to reciprocity. the court says. the
various decisions OF the court and the prae-
tice of years establish the right Of Congress
to give the President power by proclama-
tion at a future day TO revoke or modify
was not transfer of legislative power, but
simply gave the President power
to determine whether the time had
arrived which the requirements of Con-
gresS as to the act taking effect as specified
had arrived. The President, the court
says, is not vest ed with any real legislative
power; Congress prescribes the conditions
under which the President should act. Ali
he had TO ascertain was that particular fact
existed. and then it was directed that lie
execute the act The President was the
mere agent of the law-makinE power.
With respect TO the sugar bounties the
court says: Argument that the validity of
the whole act is involved in the question as
to whether or not this clause is valid is so
obvious an error as not to warrant such an
argument. There is no such connection be-
tween this part OF the act and the other sec
the rest could not have been adopted but for
the adoption of the bounty system. They
are entirely separate IN purpose.
Justice Lamar and Chief Justice Fuller
cOncurred in the finding of the court, but
dissented from that part holding the reel
procity section constitutional. They held it
was transfer of the legislative power. but
concurred in the conclusion ON the ground
that there was net vital connection be-
tween the reciprocity section and the tariff
portions Of the act.
The "No Quorum" Case.
Tie "no quorum" case, In which the
legality of the Dingiey orsted act was
attacked by the importers. " as also decided
by the United States Supreme Court The
Dingley act was passed through the action
of Speaker Reed in counting quorum
when quorum Of members was present
but not voting. The importers maintained
that Speaker Reed's action was in violation
OF the constitution. and an act passed in
this manner was void. The court, in an
opinion by Justice Brewer. holds the mo
quorum" rule valid, and the House of Rep
reSentative5 had right to mako such a
rule.
The constitution provides. SAYS the opin-
icn. that a majority of each House shall con-
stitute quorum to Go business. In other
words, when majority is present the
House is IN position to do business. Its
capacity to transac: business is then estab-
liShed. created by the mere presence
of the majority, and does not de-
pend upJn the disposition or assent
or action of anv single member or
fraction of the majority present. All that
the constitution requires is the presence OF
the majority, and when the majority is
present tie power of the House arises The
constitution has prescribed no method of
ascertainlug the presence of the majority.
and 1t is therefore clearly within the COM
potency of the House to prescribe any
method that may be reasonably certain to
ascertain the fact. There was quorum
present when this bill passed. and
the question is whether the Quorum
being present. the bill received sufficient
number of votes, and the general rule of all
parliamentary bodies Is that when quorum
Is present the act of a majority Of the
quorum is tie act of the body. In the
United States constitution there is no such
limitation as is found in certain State con-
stitutions. that majority of all the men,
bers elected shall be present and necessary
TO the passage of A bill and therefore the
general law of such bodies obtains.
The Sealing Cases.
The opinion of the United States Supreme
Court IN the case ex parte Thomas III.
Cooper, owner of the Canadian schooner
Sayward, by which the Government of
Great Britain and the Dominion of Canada
sought to obtain from the highest legal
tribunal in the United States a determina-
ilen OF the question OF the right Of tho
United States TO exercise exclusive jurisdic-
ton over the seal fisheries in the BehIng
Sea, was rendered to-day. The court first
took up The question of the right of the
Supreme Court 10 issue writ of prohibition
against the Alaska court.
1t says although the Alaska court Is not
mentioned in the act giving the United
States Supreme Court power to issue writs
of prohibition to review the decisions of the
II 10 arfh hal ,har An
Alaska court Is acting as a district court of
the United States, and In an admiralty pro-
ceediDg. 1t comes within the purview of the
act giving the Supreme Court power of re-
view by way OF writ of prohibition.
Question Of jurisdiction.
1t then takes up the next question and
says the libel on its face states that the
court found that sealing had taken place
within the limits OF Alaska and the waters
thereof. thus making the jurisdiction appear
fully on the face OF the proceedings. The
owner Of the vessel, the court SAYS, could
have questioned the right of the cour. 10
exercise jurisdiction and try the case. He
did not do so aud the court holds it cannot
now. on the ground that the private rights
oil the owner were involved. The issue of
the writ of prohibition to determine whether
or not the Alaska court had jurisdiction is
clearly asserted on the face of the proceed
ings. Justice Field dissented in this case
and also from the decision in favor of the
United States in the case of the schooner
Sylvia Handy. an American vessel, seized
for Illegal sealing. and in which the points
raised were the same as in the Say ward
case.
The political question the court did not
actually decide. Though it conveyed q very
broad ihtimation that it had not another
ground on which to refuse the writ 1t would
have declined to grant the writ on the
ground that the court should not pass upon
a question political In its nature. 1t said
the matter had long been In controversy and
negotiation between the two Goyernmen Q
Ii recognized the honor paid the court In the
Willingness expressed to have it review the
merits OF the facts as to whether or not this
country's jurisdiction extends over the
whole of the Behring Sea. but did not think
that legal tribunals should interfere with
the assnciatinna of terriforial snvaraiantu