Omaha daily bee., 1895-06-09
TARIFF LAW MADE CLEAR
Opinion Handed Down in the Hardwiok
Case Made Public.
WRITTEN BY CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER
Mckinley Bin Was Clearly Operative Up
to the Time the wilson Measure
Actually Became OF Full
Force and Effect.

WASHINGTON, June 8.-Chlef Justice Full
ler's opinion in the Burr and Hardwick case,
involving the date which the present tariff
law went into effect, which was announced
on Monday last, but not read was made pub
lie today. Discussing the contention that
the law should have taken effect On the 1st
instead of August 2S, 1894, the chief justice
says:
upon the threshold we are met with the
fact that the act of 1890 was not repealed in
terms until August 28, 1894 and that the re-
pealing section of the latter act kept in
force every right and the ability of the gov
ernment or Of every person which has been
incurred or accrued prior to the passage
thereof and thereby every right or liability
excepted out of the effects ought to be given
to the first section. The right of the govern
mont to duties under the tariff law which eX-
listed between August / and August 2S was
a right accrung prior to the passage of the
act Of 1894 and the obligation of the i'm
porters between August 1 and August rs to
pay the duties on other goods under the ex.
listing tariff law was liability under that
law arising prior to the passage of the law
of 1884, and II congress intended that Sec
tion A should relate back to August I, still
the intention is quite as apparent that the
act of 1890 should remain in full force and
effect until the passage Of the new act or
August 2S and that all acts, rights accrued
and liabilities incurred under the earlier act
prior to the repeal should be saved from the
effect thereof as to all parties interested, the
United States included. A higher rate was
imposed on many articles by the act of 1884,
than by the prior act and a lower rate or
others, while some that were free were made
dutiable, as for instance the article OF sugar
Must duties paid between August l and Au
gust 2S be refunded where the rate was low
cred and assessed where the rate was raised
or a duty imposed where none existed
Clearly not"
Summing up the chief justice says: "a:
the act Of 1890 was not repealed by the ac
of 1894 until the latter act became law
when inconsistent laws were declared thereb!
repealed, we think 1t cannot be doubted tina
congress intended the rates OF duty pre-
scrbed by the act OF 1894 to be levied on tn,
list day of August If the bill should then b.
law, and IL not then as soon after tina
date as it should become a law On the Is
day of August the duties prescribed by th
first section of the act of 1894 could not b.
lawfully levied, and so far as the importa
tions in this case are concerned and other
similarly situated, the law required eXactiol
of the duties prescribed by the act of 1890
AS to such importations, the first section o
the act of 1894 could not be literally carried
out unless by holding it to operate as retro
active repeal, Notwithstanding the savin
clause, and this we consider altogether in
dispensibe. The language of section l wa
that on and after August l there be levied
and of the second section that on and afte
August 1 certain enumerated articles shal
be exempt from duty In our judgment tn
word shall spoke for the future, and wa
not intended to apply to transactions com
pleted when the act became a law