Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-04-04
THE TARIFF TRICK.

We are glad to see that win lew eN-
ceptions the Grosvenor amendment TO
the Dingley tariff bill is condemned by
the newspapers Of the country. This
amendment threatens to impose upon all
goods hereafter imported the duties that
may be prescribed in the Dingley bill.
In other words. though an importer may
have a receipt in full for everything he
owes the government. the government Is
10 undertake 10 pursue him and compel
him to pay an additional tax.
1t is understood that Secretary of-the-
Treasury Lyman Gage IS at this very
time preparing a circular-though there
IS no law now I'm existence authorizing
him to do so-instructing custom-house
officials how to keep track of goods that
may be imported and Withdrawn from
the custom-bouses of the country be-
tween this time and the day when the
Dingley bill actually goes into effect.
But we cannot believe that the Senate
will consent TO the preparation of the
outrage proposed by Mr.. Grosvenor.
Meantime. we hope the importers will ex-
Srcise their rights and import as many
goods as they please. in full confidence
that where they have paid duties under
the Wilson, German tariff they will not
have to pay additional duties under the
Dingley tariff.
Odious. unjust. and las we believe) UNI
constitutional, as we think the Grosve-
nor amendment is, we do not hold. as
some OF cur contemporaries do, that If
enacted 1t would be an EEK post facto"
law, within the meaning of the Federal
Constitution.
10 In the Town of Danville VS.. Pace, %
Graf, p. 9. Judge Staples. in de-
livering the opinion of the court said;
1.-The phrase ex post facto law, as
used in the Constitution, is not applica-
bic to civil. but only to criminal and
penal laws, which impose a punishment
for previous acts which were not pun
ishable at all when committed, or not
punishable TO the extent or in the
manner prescribed. SO that ex post
facto laws relate TO penal and criminal
proceedings, which infiict punishment or
forfeitures and not TO civil proceedings
which affect private rights retrospect
lively. This doctrine has been solemnly
settled by the Supreme Court in nume-
rous cases, and is now the accepted rule
Of constructon.-Colde IS. Bull Dali,
$50; Watson VS.. Mercer, s Peters, SS-ll0."
In that case Pace sued the town of
Danville on certain notes executed by the
town I'm 1863. The suit was insti-
.uted In Danvlle. in 1868. but was removed
% the Circuit Court of Richmond
Long after the institution of the suit,
the Legislature passed CMarch %, 1879
an act forbiddng corporations to plead
usury. At the June term of 1879 when the
town offered the plea of usury, the
plaintiff objected and the Court sustained
the objection, and judgment was rem
dered against the town. An appeal was
taken, and the Court of Appeals unani-
mously' affirmed the judgment OF the
court below The town had the I'M
doubted right 10 plead usury when the
suit was Instituted, but the court held
that IL was clearly in the power Of the
LEGISLATURE TO take away that privilege
before the trial of the case. notwith-
standing the fact that the effect of that
legislation was to impose upon the town
the payment of an obligation which,
under the plea of usury. they could have
avoided.
The Court said. however, that "All adj
nit that It is not competent for the Leg
iMa:ure, by retroactive laws. TO interfere
.,th vested rights" IT, therefore. the
.,oporter had vested right TO receive
his goods before me law passed, az the
present rate of duty, Congress could not
make the new law retroactive. The de-
livery Of the new goods TO the importer
ON his payment OF duties under the WIZ
son law would give him vested right
10 retain them without payment OF the
Increased rate. Whether delivered or
not. he has right now 10 demand
them on tender OF present duties. with
all reasonable expedition on the part Of
the custom holse authorities. and It
would seem to be a necessary consequence
that no unreasonable delay by the gov
eminent authorities could put him IN
worse position than he would occupy If
ne had actually received them. But II
the importer chooses to allow the goods
10 remain In the custom-house or bonded
warehouse, without any demand for de-
livery and tender Of the duties. II may be
very Questionable whether he would have
any vested right 10 demand them after
the new law Yves passed, upon payment
Of tbs duties prescribed by the old law.