The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1892-03-09
THE TARIFF MUST STAND.
CONSTITUTlONALlTY OF THE M'KlN-
LEY LAW AFFIRMED.
Dec!sion OF the Supreme Court-Other I'm
portans Cases-Opinion i'm Favsr of the
United States in the saywsTd-E'ering Sea
Case-The Anarchists Must Stay Behind
the Bars at Joliet.


in which importers sought to test the COW
! stitutionaiity of the Mckinley tariff acf
were today decided by the L. 5. supreme
| court. The title OF these three cases are:
Boyd, Sutton & Co., and Herman Stern
( bach q Co. VS.. the United States, and Joel
! b. Erhardt, collector of the port OF New
/ York, and Marshall, Field d Co. We. Clark,
/ collector of the port of Chicago. The
/ grounds on which it was maintained the
tariff was unconstitutional were that the
! tobacco rebate section OF the bill had been
/ omitted in its enrolment after passage by
| congress and therefore that the bill signed
! by the president was not the bill passed
by the legislative department OF the gov
eminent; that the reciprocity feature was
| a transmission to the executive of the
| law-making power and therefore void,
vitiatng the whole act, and, lastly, that
| the act was void because of the sugar
bounty provision. The court affirmed the
! judgments of the New York and Illinois
| courts of the United States in favor OF the
! constitutionality.
Justice Harlan read the opinion OF the
/ court. He said that the court had given
NEST careful and deliberate attention to
! the question now raised for the first time
/ as to whether the act signed by the presi-
| dent was actually the law passed by con-
gress. The object of the journal required
10 be kept by congress, he said was not
that IL might be consulted to determine
! the authenticity Of an act OF congress, but
! that there might be publicity OF proceed
! ings. The signatures of the two presiding
officers and OF the president was complete
authorization OF the bill, providing the
formalities had been complied with.
The suggestion that there might be a
| deliberate conspiracy between presiding
| officers and president to make a law not
passed by congress the court said could
not hold. The enrolled act. the court
held, was conclusive. As to reciprocity,
the court says various decisions of the
court and the practice OF years establishes
the right OF congress to give the president
power by proclamation at a future day to
| revoke or modify certain clauses OF the
act. It holds that il was not a transfer of
legislative power, but simply gave the
| president power to determine whether
the time had arrived which re-
quirements OF congress as to the
act taking effect had arrived. The presi-
dent, the court says, Is not vested with
any real legislative power; congress pre-
| scrlbed the conditions under which the
| president should act. All he had to ascer-
tam was that particular fact existed. and
then it was directed that he execute tho
| act. The president was q mere agent Of
the law-making power.
With respect to sugar bounties. the
court says the argument that the validity
OF the whole act is involved in the ques
ton as TO whether or not this clause Is
| valid is so obvious an error as not to war
rant such 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 restriction
would not have been adopted but for the
adoption OF the bounty system. They are
entirely separate in purpose.
The Say ward Case.
The opinion of the q. s. supreme court
in the case of ex-parte Thomas Henry
Cooper, the owner OF the Canadian
schooner w. P. Sayward, by which the
government Of Great Britain and the DO
minion of Canada sought to obtain from
the highest tribunal in the United States
determination of the question of the right
of the United States to exclusive jurisdic-
ton OF the seal fisheries in Boring sea, was
today rendered.
the right of the supreme court to Issue q
writ of prohibition against the Alaska
court. 1t says that although the Alaska
court was not mentioned in the act giving
theU .S.supreme court power to issue writs
writs of prohibition to review decisions OF
the district courts, yet neyertheless, where
the Alaska court is acting as a district
court of the United States and in an adj
| ttxrr, n fho
purview of the act giving the supreme
court power Of review by way OF writ OF
prohibition. 1t then takes up the next
question and says that the libel on It's
face states that the court found that the
sealing had taken place within the limits OF
Alaska and the waters thereof thus
making jurisdiction appear fully on the
face of the proceedings. The officer OF
the vessel, the court saws, could have cues
toned the right of the court to exercise
jurisdiction. and try the case. This was
done and the court holds THAI it cannot
now on the ground that the pri-
vate rights of the owner were
involved, issue writ of prohibition
to determine whether or not the Alaska
court had the jurisdiction clearly asserted
on the lace of the proceedings.
Justice Field dissented in this case and
also from decision in favor of the United
States in the case Of the schooner Sylvia
Handy,au American vessellseized for illegal
sealing in which the points raised were the
same as in the Sayward case. The polit-
zeal question raised by the attOrney-gen-
eral the court did not actually decide,
though it conveyed very broad intima-
ton that if it had a narrower ground on
which to refuse the writ it would
have declined TO grant the
writ. on this ground, as the
court should not pass upon questions
which were political in their nature. 1t
said the matter had long been in contro-
versy and negotiation between the two
governments. 1t recognized the honor
paid the court in the willingness expressed
to have reviewed the merits of the fact as
to whether or not this country's iurisdic-
ton extends over the whole Boring sea,
but that it did not think the legal trib un-
ais should interfere with assertions of ter
ritorial sovereignty made by other de-
| partments of the government.
Anarchist Cases.
The U. s. supreme court today extin-
| guished the last hope of the two impris-
oned anarchists by affirming the decision
of the supreme court of Illinois and the
| - A.