The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1892-03-01
The M'KINLEY ACT
The Supreme Court Declares it
Constitutional.
THE RECIPROCITY CLAJ
1t Confers no Legislative Power on the Presl-
dent-The DingleY WOrsted emo
Quorum') Act Upheld.

WASHINGTON, Feb. 29.-Three cases in
which importers sought to test the consti-
nationality of the Mckinley tariff act to-day
were decided by the United States supreme
court. The court affirmed the judgments
of the New York and Illinois circuit courts
of the United States in favor of the consti-
nationality of the act
Three cases in which importers sought to
test the constitutIonality of the Mckinley
tariff act were those of Boyd, Sutton & Co.
ana Herman, Stein bach & Co., each versus
the United States and Joel Bernhardt, col
lector of the port of New York, and Mar
shall, Field & Co. VS.. Clark, collector of the
port of Chicago.
The grounds on which it was main
tanned the tariff was unconstitutional were
that the tobacco rebates section of the
bill had been omitted in its enrolment
after its passage by Congress, and there
lore the bill signed by the President was
not the bill passed by the legislative de-
partment Of the government. That the
reciprocity feature a transference to
the executive of the law-making power,
and therefore void, vitisting the whole
act and last that the act was void because
of the sugar bounty provision.
Justice Harlan read the opinion. He said
the court had given the most careful and
deliberate attention TO the question now
raised for the first time. AS 10 the courts
determining whether the act signed by the
Presinent was actually the law passed by
Congress, the object of the journal required
10 be kept by Congress was not that it
might be consulted to determine the au-
thenticity of an act of Congress, but that
there might be publicity of proceedings.
The signature Of the two presiding officers
and the President was complete anthem
tihcation of the bill, providing the forms
required had been complied with.
The suggestion that there might be q de-
liberate conspiracy between 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 reciproc-
ity. The court says: The various deci-
slons of the court and the practice of
years establish the right of Congress to
give the President power by proclamation
at future day to revoke or modify certain
clauses of the act. 1t holds it was
not a transfer of legislative power
but simply gave the President power to
determine whether the time had arrived
which the requirements of Congress as to
the act taking effect specified, had arrived.
The President, the court says, is not vested
with any real legislative power. Congress
prescribed the conditions under which tine
President should act. All he had to ascer-
tain was that particular fact existed and
then it was directed he should execute the
act. The President was the mere agent of
the law-making power.
With respect to the sugar bOunties, the
court says the argument that the validity
OF the whole act is involved in the question
as to whether or not this clause was valid,
was so obvious an error as not to warrant
such argument. There is no such connec-
tion between this part of the act and other
sections as TO warrant the court in assum-
ing the rest would 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 reci-
procity section constitutional. They held
it was transfer of legislative power, but
concurred in the conclusion on the ground
there was no vital connection between the
reciprocity section and the tariff portions
of the act.