The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1897-03-18
RETROACTIVE TARIFFS.

| The infamy of some of the PROPOSE
tons of the dyed-in-the-wool protec-
tionists is really astonishing. One of
the most Infamous ever made is that
to "cinch'' importers under the pres
ent tariff law by making the rates of
duty under the Dingley bill applicable
TO all goods imported after the bill was
| introduced in the house. The matter
has not received that attention from
the people its Importance demands. 1t
would seem that it would be impossible
to find any one to defend the view that
congress has the power to enact a
tariff that is retroactive in its effects,
yet there are such. Thus CORE
spondent writes to the New York
Evening Post as follows:
| Sir: The columns of a newspaper
are not an appropriate. place for an ex-
! haustive discussion of the legal aspects
of the proposition, noticed in your is
sue of Tuesday, to make the new tariH
act retrospective in its operations. But
l venture to think that the view
adopted in your editorial. that the act
could not possibly be made to take eff
feet until it is actually passed. has
been expressed without due considera-
ton of the principles which govern in
such case. AS one not wholly UNI
learned in the law, l should like TO
ask on what authority you assert that
provision of this kind would be an
infringement of the constitution.
Courts will never, if they can possibly
avoid it, construe any statute as re-
Prospective in it's effect, but l am not
aware that even the state legislatures
are prohibited from passing such
law, unless it has the consequence OF
impairing the obligation of contracts,
or comes under the category of ex-
post-facto enactments. The federal
congress is not restrained by the
former of these prohibitions, and the
latter is applicable only to penal stat
utes. (See Sutherland on Statutory
Construction, chap. XVIII
If an authority can be produced to
the effect that a retrospective proyis-
ion in the tariff act would be void, as
taking property without due process of
law, it would, l doubt not, be a source
of considerable qualification to that
large number of persons who will try
to get ahead of Uncle Sam by stock
ing up;" but unless this point has ac-
tually been ruled, 1 should strongly
advise them not to lay any such fiat
tering JUNCTION to their souls as that
the courts will not give full effect to
such a provision. But 1 have said
time. If the bill SHOULD be introduced
in the form threatened the wits of
many eminent counsel will, of course,
be at once busily engaged in throwing
light on the question.
CAUSIDICUS.
New York, March 10.
To this the editor of the Post replied
in these terms:
We cannot pass finally upon the con-
stitutionality of any law until we have
it before US. In saying in advance
that a retrospective tariff would be I'M
constitutional, we did not mean that
all retrospective laws were unconsti-
tutional, but that we thought it would
puzzle even the great protectionist
juriStS now at work in Washington to
frame one that would not be obnoX-
ious to that objection, and we think so
still. If it is constitutional to tax pre-
Viously imported articles, the power is
clearly one which cannot be limited in
time, and articles imported last year
are taxable no less than articles i'm
ported last week. 1t may be said that
articles imported last year or last
week have passed out of the custody
of the government. but the same will
be true of all articles imported while
the new tariff is on it's passage. Only
articles remaining in bond will be
within the grasp of the government
But why not pursue the importer? The
government has a record of past i'm
portations, and if the right to impose
retroactive tariff exists, we cannot
see why it should not do this, going
back to whatever date it pleases. The
courts, however, would be reluctant
to recognize the existence of such a
right as constitutional, notwithstand-
ing all our correspondent says, because
even constitutional questions must be
approached with some consideration of
the consequences. Now a revenue can
not be raised by a tariff only; there
must be imports even for the most
perfect tariff to act upon, and the rec
ognition of the right to make retroact-
I've tariffs might easily lead to our |
having no imports at all. We doubt !
IL many people could afford to go on |
importing very long to a country where |
no one could tell in advance what du- |
ties were to be. Considerations such |
as these, though it is not generally |
known, are strictly legal, and are often |
kept in view by the highest courts.
That answers "Causidicus'' very well. |
but if "Causidicus' contention is |
valid, then any man who has ever i'm
ported anything can be "cinched" by |
Uncle Sam not only once but so MANY |
times as Uncle Sam shall see fit, for |
it must be borne in mind that no time
runs against the king. Nor could a
man escape this pursuit by death, pro-
vided he left heirs of his body. No
tariff bill with a retroactive provision
will ever be upheld by the supreme
court so far as such a provision is con-
cerned, while the party responsible for
it would be turned out of power at the
first general election.
A correspondent having asked tho