New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-04-05
THE RETROACTIVE CHA USE.
GENERAL. GROSVENOR DEFENDS THE
DINGLEY BILL AMENDMENT.

lid CONTENDS THAT SUCH LEGISLATIoN Is CON
sr1Tt.T1oNAL AND vA1ID-AN ARGUMENT
WHICH SEEMS TO MISS TIE REAL
POINT AT IscCE.
inv TELEGRAPH TO THE rnrBrXE.1
Washington. April i.-Rcprcseniative Charles II.
Grosveror Of Ohio has written 10 The Posi-, OF
this CITY an interesting letter in reply to some re-
cent criticisms H. that paper of the so-caed retro
active" amendment carried in the Dingl"y Dill us
argument IS directed chiefly to establishing the
Iiditv and cousitutionallty of retroactive legis-
latjon. about which, indeed there can be no very
serious question. Mr. Grosvcnor does not seem to
meet in his argument. however, the real criticism
aimed at his amcndmont-that il seeks to make
two connctinc. sets of tariff rates operative 81 the
same time None of the retrospective legislation
which he cricises as contained in the Wilson-Gor-
man law cid this, no Federal income tax existed
n Tho time Of the passage Of the law OF 1891 and
the tax on bonded whiskcy was not due untii the
goods had been taken out of bond According 10
the Supreme Courts decision, whisky taken ou- OF
bond before August IS, 1884, was entitled TO release
at the Mckinley law rate and not the rate ;iNed ~
the Wilson German law. Mr. Gross letter *
as follows:
Nav ! ask you to give me room on your editorial
page TO say that | think. UPON an examination 81
.oriai article of this morning on the SUBJECT o.
retrospective legislation? ,... -.
In The very brief speech had the opportunity 10
make in support OF the committee amendment
which became Section p Of the Dnglcy oii. cPad
sons why your criticism does not successfully APP
pvisio1 Is not tx post faco In 1906 after the most
eIaborate argument. judicial Interpretation of the
m ,m,lid i'm Cranch r. Page ~: 40 State shall
pass any ex post facto law or law imparing the
The supreme Court Of the United state held in
terms Of unmistakab.e directncss that congress
had the power to pass retrospectNe eGisiai'Cu ana
used these words: "WOrds IN statute ought not
to have ii retrospective operation unless they are
so clear. strong and imperative that no o'2'r m.'n-
ing can be annexed to them or unless the ih'rh-
ton Of the Legislature cannot be otherTis,e salts
poarod the Court decided beyond dispute that Con-
p w Ill The state. Of the Mon have squared
Themselves through their supreme Courts, TO TINS
apt and forcible language. puts inc "holr Id"
INFO nutshell: "A retro .pcctive law Is Lot n"c"S-
sppes a., only 10 criminal laws such as rnaIc
Innocent when done criminal or. II cil!hIll Wiz WIZ"
ment or nolt f,eto has no more application 10
torn T p pom mon tarf hill than il has upon
the rising agd f ia ih 3 ing OF man in he mater
Now then the power OF Congress to pass retro
sncctiye legislation has never been successfully
denied under our Constitution. could cite hH-
lnerous cases in the United states wheir ne dOc,,
dispiltr but the whole Of 1t Is summarized in the
words Of Judge Cooley in his work on tonsutn-
tonal Limitations under the head on htTruosP'DI-
I'VE Laws" on page 46i Of that work There are
numerous cases which hold that retrcspeetiVe 4ws
are not obnoxious 10 the constitutional ohJccuDI'
while in others they nave been held 10 be Nold.
The different decisions haze nsen es tp nIn ci-
pies applicable. There Is no doubt oi Inc rsnl OF
and change or modliy tnt eHsct oi ri'oI ,i' fr
actions provided retrospective laws are not Iof,
hidden 60 nomine b. the State CONSTITUTIONS ana
Drovided further that no other objection exists TO
Them than their retrospective charactei.
United States i the general PROPOSITION that
Two and make four. 1t has never been contra,
absolute approY II. by all the courts OF the country
Very many OF the states OF me mon nave pro-
visions i'm their constitutions forbidding IN" Legs
lature 10 pass retroactive or retrospective eSisa-
tion but there is no such PROVISION IN rns c
aai any aeina 'bll OF attaindor or an ex post
% Y ehnmId be supposed to affect the power OF
Congress to pass retrospective legislation III a mat
More misunderstanding has grown up in regard
10 the decision of the Supreme court OF me United
STATES concerning the matter OF the Wilson law
Simpv and solely what the Supreme Court did hold
was that the Wilson law, which went into effect on
/ aid not repeal the Mckinney law until the day
when il was passed and how anybody could haye
any doubt about that Is a mystery 10 me, put me
Court dH not ho9 do 32i ihs long VAN ae NOT OF
rctrospee've iegisauoh r ri t Win r@trospcctve
iegsiation Whisky in bond and not in bond that
bonded warehouses. or on that day deposited
at a tex of 90 cents, was Immediately raised to
rcmodciled but lawyer in the United states ever
disputed the power Of Congress TO pass Just sucn
as an nf his rctrospcctivc legislation is found
the fact that the vast body OF importers who Pre-
surnably have the very best legal advice at their
command have all accepted as conclusive that
Congress has that power.
VIEWS OF EX-SENATOR PUGH
Ex-senator James l.. Pugh. Of Alabama. makes
the following reply to the foregoing letter also IN
THE Post:
Congressman Grosvenor has clearly and correctly
stated the law in relation 10 the power OF congress
10 pass a tariff law to operate r"trospectiveiy.
But If seems TO me that the distinguished gentle
man takes for granted what Is the most haIeIial
question that would arise under the late House
Tariff bill should the retrospective action section
be enacted Is this power Of TGpf a n 6ow 9
force. and will remain so nntil the new acI Is APP
proved by the President While the exlstihg law is
in force all articles imported ana snD1eS, 10 utnH
tion must pay some duty. What duty! certainty
tine i Gng ppe landed what Other law than the
existing law can the collector OF the port enforce
ing law. it Is clear that the importer can only be
required to pay the duty fixed by that law
after the first day OF April and before the new
Tariff law is approved by the President can the
under prospective legislation which may never be
enacted? 1t must be admitted that the collector
has no such authority, and can collect no duty
except that imposed by the existing law II any
paid by the importer. what is the legal effect OF
such payment? Does 1t place the importer In the
Of Congress TO impose upon the same articles an
additional and higher rate OF duty man that I'M
which was the only law In force when the goods
were landed and the duty collected? Has Congress
the power, under the Constitution. 10 pass re-
Prospective law against the vested right Of the i'm
porter acquired under existing tariff law by
which the importer can be- compelled TO pay on
the same articles higher and additional rate OF
duty?
When the importer pays, or offers 10 pay the
duty imposed on his goods by the law In operation
/ when they landed in ports. such goods
are out of the reach Of Congress to levy and col
lect higher rate OF duty Such goods cease to be
the subject OF Indirect taxation when they de-
vered the importer on the payment OF the only
duty he can be required to pay when they arc
landed.
II | am in error In my construction, II follows
necessarily that after goods landed in our
ports free OF duty, ana delivered TO the importer
under the free list. they subject 10 be taxed by
Congress. To illustrate: After wool Is Inn
ported under the free list and manufactured into
cloth before the new Tariff law f. approved by the
President duty be levied and collects ed
Would such duty be enforced against the cloth