Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-09-20
Opinion of the Solicitor of the Treas
ury on the Subject.
THE Law BECAME OPERATIVE AUG. 28
Some of the Grounds on Which
This View is Based.
PROSPECTIVE OPERATION

The opinion of Solicitor of the Treasury
Reeves on the question raised by the New
York importers. now before the New York
board Of general appraisers. as to the date
on which the tariff law went into effect
august I, the date mentioned in the en-
acting clause. or August 2S. the date on
which the bill became a law) was trans
mitted to Secretary Carlisle today. While
the solicitor admits that the question is
not free from doubt. he renders an opinion
to the effect that the enacting clause went
into operation August %.
Against Retroactive Legislation.
In his opinion Solicitor Reeves says:
THE law looks upon retrospective or retro
active legislation with emphasized disfavor
So much so. in fact, that the Constitution
of the United States expressly prohibits
the passage of retroactive laws that are
ex post facto or that impair the obligations
of coStracts. Lord Bacon, one of the stan
dard wSteIs of English law. says: 1t is,
in general, true that no statute is to have
retrospect beyond the time of its COM
mencement From text writer's the maxim
mas been Incorporated in various codes of
law The French code contains the pos
itive provision that laws are made only for
future cases, and can have no retrospective
erect Several state constitutions prohibit
the enactment of retroactive law. The So
thorities on retroactive laws and interpre-
tations of statutes and from various de-
cisions OF the courts that statutes are to
be construed to operate prospectively un-
less retrospective effect was clearly in
tended"
Not an FIX Post FactO Law.
Solicitor Reeves then proceeds: THE tariff
act or August -, 1874, is neither ex post
facto nor law that impairs the obliga-
t1OnS a 4 ho
held as operating from the 1st of that
month But am not of the opinion it was
the intention Of Congress that said act
should go into effect on August 1. II such
had been the intention of the legislature 1t
Is not improbable that some specific direc-
ton would have been given for the refund
OF the excess OF duties collected between
that date and the time when the act be-
came law. True, this intention might be
implied, and must, II it be held that the
statute operates from the 1st of August
But 1t is significant that the act is alb
soluteiy silent as to the refunding of duties
aggregating millions of dollars. Besides,
the language of the act clearly intends that
IL Was to operate prospectively, and not
retrospec.ively- The words are there shall
be levied, collected and paid and section
provides that the following articles when
imported shall be exempt from duty etc.
Moreover, II is significant Of the legislative
intention that the first section of the bill
as II passed the House February L. 1894,
provided that 'on and after the 1st of June,
1894. there shall be levied thus looking for
ward to a period of four months before said
section should operate.
A Prospective Operation Intended.
1T is no less significant and instructive
that when the bill was reported to the Sem
ate, the 3Oth of June was substituted for
the 1s- of June, and when the bill finally
Tassed the Senate, July 3. the first section
was amended to operate August l, instead
Of June. 80. Thus every step taken in the
passage of this bill in the House and Senate
shows that the bill was expected and in
tended to have a prospective and not a
retroactive operation. While the question
Is not freed from doubt, yet / am of the
opinion that section l of said act did not go
into effect on the 1st of August, but on the
18th Of August, when 1t became a law"