Los Angeles herald., 1892-03-01
Test Cases All Decided in Favor
Of the Administration.
Tom Reeds Method of Counting q
Quorum Also Endorsed.
The Sayward Boring ses Case Decided In
Favor of the Governme TENT t-Eielden
and Schwab Left to Their
Fate. f
Associated Press Dispa tches.

we're today decided by the United States
supreme court. The court affirmed the
Judgment of the New York and Illinois
circuit courts of the United States in
favor OF the constitutionality of the
act.
The three cases in which importers
sought to test the constitutionality OF
the Mckinley tariff act were thosa OF
Boyd, Sutton & Co., and Herman,
Steinbach & Co., each versus the United
States, and Joel B. Eberhardt. collector
OF the port of New York, and Marshall,
Field & Co., versus Clark, collector OF
the port OF Chicago. The grounds on
which it was maintained the tariff was
unconstitutional, we're that the tobacco
rebate section OF the bill had been
omitted in its enrolment after passage
by congress, and therefore the bill
signed by the president was not the
same bill passed by the legislative de.
partment of the government; that the
reciprocity feature was the transmission
to the executive of law-making power,
and therefore void, vitiating the whole
act, and lastly that the act was void be-
cause of the sugar bounty provision.
THE PRESIDENTS SIGNATURE.
Justice Harlan read the opinion. He
said the court had given the most care
full and deliberate attention to the ques-
ton now raised for the first time az to
the courts determining whether the act
signed by the president was actually the
law passed by congress. The object OF
the journal required to be kept by on.
grees was not that it might be consulted
to determine the authenticity of an act
of congress, but that there might be
publicity of the proceedings. The sig
natures of the two presiding officers, and
of the president was the complete
Authorization of the bill, providing
that the forms required had been conn
piled with. The suggestion that there
might be deliberate conspiracy be-
tween the presiding officers and the
president to make law not passed by
congress, the court said, could not hold.
The enrolled act, the court held, was
conclusive.
AS TO RECIPROCITY.
As to reciprocity, the court says the
various decisions of the court and the
practice of years establishes the right OF
congress to give the president power by
proclamation at future day to revoke
or modify certain clauses of an act. It
holds that it was not the transfer OF
Legislative power, but simply gave the
president power to determine whether
the time which the requirements of con-
gress as to the act taking effect specified
had arrived. The president, the court
saws, is not vested with any real legisla-
tive power; congress prescribed the con-
ditions under which the president should
act. All he had to ascertain was that o
particular fact existed, and then it was
directed that he execute the act. The
president was the mere agent of the
law.making power.
SUGAR BoUNTIEs.
With respect to sugar bounties, the
court says the argument that the valid
ity of the whole act is involved in the
question as to whether or not this clause
is valid, is 80 obvious an error aH not to
warrant argument. There is no such
connection between this part of the act
and the other sections as to warrant the
court in assuming that the rest would
not have been adopted, but for the adop-
ton of the bounty system. They are
entirely separate in purpose.
DIFFERENCE OF OPINION.
Justice Lamar and Chief Justice Full
Ter concurred in the finding OF the court
but dissented from that part holding
the reciprocity section constitutional
They held that it was transfer of leg
iElative power, but concurred in the
conclusion on the ground that there was
no vital connection between the reci-
procity section and the tariff portions OF
the act.
THE "No QUORUM" CASE.
The "no quorum" case in which the
legality of the Dingley worsted act was
attacked by importers, was also decided
today. The Dingley act was passed
through the action OF Speaker Reed in
counting quorum when a quorum
when quorum of members were pres
ent, but not voting. The importers
maintained that Speaker Reeds action
was in violation of the constitution, and
that an act passed in this manner was
void. The court in an opinion by Jus
tice Brewer, holds that the act is valid,
and that the house of representatives.
had right to make such rule.
The constitution provides, says the
opinion, that a majority of each house
shall constitute quorum to do busi-
ness. In other words when a majority
is present, the house is in position to
do busidess. Its capacity to transact
business is then esta ablished, created by
the mere presence OF the majority,
and does not depend upon the disposi-
ton or assent or action Of any single
member or fraction of the majority
present. All that the constitution re-
quires 10 the presence Of majority, and
when q majority is present, the power
OF the house arises. The constitution
has prescribed no method of ascertain-
ing the presence Of majority, and it is,
therefore clearly within the competency
of the house to prescribe any method
that may be reasonably certain to aseer-
tain the fact. There WA quorum