The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1892-03-01
M'KINLEY'S LAW Is VALID
THE SUPREME COURT ANNOUNCES
us DECISION.

The Signatures of the Presiding on
GERS ofthe TWO Houses of Congress
and the President Complete Au-
thentication Of Bill-The Rscip roc
ftv Section Not a Transfer of LeRisla-
tive Powers.
WASHINGTON. Feb. 29.-Three cases In
which importers sought to test the con-
stitutionality Of the Mckinley tariff act
were to-day decided by the United States
suureme court. The title of these cases are:
Boyd, Sutton & Co. and Herman Stern
bach g. Co., each VS.. the United States; aud
loci B. Erhardt, collector of the port of
New York, and Marshall Field e. Co., VS.
Clark collector of the port of Chicago.
The grounds on which il was maintained
that the tariff was unconstitutional
are that the tobacco rebate
section of the bill had been
omitted in its enrolment after its passage
by congress-, and therefore that the bill
signed by the President WAS not the bill
passed by the legislative department. of the
government; that the reciprocity feature
was a transmission to the executive of law
making power and therefore void, vitiatiug
the whole act; and, lastly. that the act was
void because of the sugar bounty provision.
The court affirmed the Judgment of the
New York and Illinois circuit court of
the United States in favor.of the constitu-
tionality of the act.
HARLAN READS THE OPINION.
Justice Harlan read the opinion of the
court He said that the court had given
most careful and deliberate attention to the
question now raised for the first time as TO
tba 1rft of nfr1Fra hath
signed by the President was actually the
law passed by congress. The object of the
journal required to be kept by congress, he
said, was not that it might be consulted 10
determine the authenticity of an act Of con-
gresS. but that there might be publicity of
the proceedings. The signatures of the two
presiding officers and Of the
thentication Of bill, provided
the forms required had been complied with.
The suggestion that there might be a delib-
crate conspiracy between the presiding offl-
GERS ana the President 10 make a law not
passed by congress, the court said, could
not hold. The enrolled act, the court held
was conclusive.
THE RECIPROCITY SECTION.
As TO the reciprocity section the court
says: Various decisions of the court and the
practice Of years establish the right of con-
BreSS TO give the PRESIDENT power by
proclamation at future day to revoke or
modify certain clauses of the act. It holds
that it was not q transfer of legislative
power, but simply gave the President power
to determine whether the time had arrived
when the requirements of congress as to
the act taking effect had arrived. The
President, the court says. is not vested with
any real legislative power. Congress pre-
scribed the conditions under which the
President should act All he had to ascer-
tain was that q particular fact existed and
then it was directed that he should execute
the act. The President was mere agent OF
the aw-making power.
THE SUGAR BOUETIEs.
With respect to the sugar bounties, the
court says the argument that the validity of
the whole act is involved in the question as
10 whether or not this clause is
valid is SO obvious an error
as not to warrant much argument.
There is no such connection between this
part OF the act and other sections as to war
rant the court in assuming that the test of
the act would not have been adopted but
Tor the adoption of the bounty system.
They are entirely separate in purpose.
Justice Lamar and Chief Justice Fuller
C,oncurred in the findings of the court, but
ulssented from that part holding the recip-
roclty section constitutional. They held
that 1t was transfer of legislative power,
Out concurred In the conclusion reached on
me ground that there was not a vital counec-
tlon between the reciprocity section and the
tarlH portions Of the act.