Evening star., 1897-07-29
THE NEW TARIFF LAW
Lawyers Discuss the Date When Il Went
Into Effect.
Some Authorities Relied Upon by
Those Who Oppose the Treas
ury DecisiOn.

The question as to when the new tariff
bill became operative has become quite an
interesting matter for discussion, not only
In commercial and financial circles, but
also among the members of the legal pro-
fession. The Treasury Department has, as
heretofore reported in The Star. held that
the Dingley tariff bill became law at mid
night of the day preceding its approval.
That is, that 1t is and has been law from
the very first moment of the day it was
signed by the President, although 1t was
rot approved by him until after o'clock
of that day. This decision of the Treasury
Department is challenged in both business
and legal circles, where 1t is claimed that
the weight of legal authority is against
the contention of the Treasury Department.
Three Distinct Doctrines.
There are, it would appear. three distinct
doctrines as to the precise time of the TAX
Ing effect of a statute, when by its terms
1t is declared to be in force from its pas
sage" According to one view the day of
the passage Of the act is excluded. and its
operation dates from the day following. 1t
Is claimed that this rule has the advantage
over the next one stated in that it does not
give a retroactive effect to the statute.
thereby avoiding hardship and injustice In
many cases; and over the third view In
that 1t obviates the necessity Of resorting
to conjecture or the uncertainty of paroi
proof. or anything extrinsic to the law It.
self, and the authenticated recorded pro-
ceeding in passing 1t. in order to ascer-
tain the exact hour of executive approval.
In a western case. Parkinson agt Brand
enburg, 81 Mimi, H94; 50 Am. Rep, 321,
Mitchell, justice. in delivering the opinion
of the court. said: when legislature de-
clare that an act shall take effect from
off ifc co. nd
the date of it's passage 1t may be fairly
presumed that they used these terms as
exclusive of the day of the passage OF the
act.
sThis furnishes certain and convenient
rule which avoids serious practical diff
culties resulting from holding that the day
of the passage of the act is to be included.
Some of the authorities which hold that
a statute takes effect on the day of its
passage take the position that 1t Is to be
deemed in force from the earliest moment
OF that day, and that an inquiry as to the
exact hour of its passage is inadmissible.
But 1t would sc EN- wrong in principle that
laws designed as rule of conduct should
by mere legal fiction be made retroac-
tive, even for "a fraction of a day. To avoid
this result the tendency now is to hold
that the statute takes effect only from the
exact moment of its approval. and that
when necessary to determine conflicting
rights. courts of justice will INQUIRE as to
the exact hour of its passage. BY
excluding the day of the passage of the
act and holding that it takes effect at the
beginning of the following day all practical
difficulties avoided, and the rule es-
tablished, which is not only certain and
convenient. but, We think entirely in
accord with recognized canons of construc-
tion: 1t is also in harmony with the usual
method OF computing time in other cases"
The Other Views.
A second view Of the matter is that such
statute becomes effective from the day of
moment of the day: this upon the principle
| that the law will not take cognizance of the
fraction of day. The third view, and the
one which seems to be supported by the
weight of authority, is that a bill becomes
operative only from the time of its ap-
proval that the doctrine that in law there
Is no fraction Of day is legal fiction,
which may be oVerthrown by the fact when
necessary in order to accomplish substantial
justice. Accordingly, whenever a question
arises as to the time when a statute took
effect the court may resort to any source
of Information which, in Its nature, is
capable of conveying to the judicial mind
clear and satisfactory answer to the ques-
ton. the best and most satisfactory evil
dence In all cases being, of course. required.
The question was discussed with fullness
by Mr.. Justice Story in Richardson's case,
2 Story U. s.. 81. After reviewing the
English cases, Mr.. Justice Story, speaking
for the court, said: so we see that there
Is no reason to assert that any such gen.
eral rule prevails as that the law does
not allow of fractions of day. On the con-
trary, common sense and common justice
equally sustain the propriety of allowing
fractions of a day whenever it will pro-
mote the purposes of substantial justice"
In I.apeyre egt. U. s., II Wall U. s..
1913, it was held upon the contrary that AN
act Of Congress- unless it is otherwise de-
declared by law, becomes operative from
the first moment of the day of it's passage;
and, further. that fractions of a day are
not vad tr,rt
that subject IS inadmissibe.' -" But it would
appear from an examination of this case
that the question presented for determine
tion was not to the fractions of day,
but whether the proclamation of the Pres
ident bearing date June "a. 1865. took effect
on that day. or on the 9th Of June, 1865.
when it was first promulgated by publica-
ton in the newspapers.
FrnctiOns of Day.
In {. later decision, United States agt
Norton, 81 U. S., 40, the court, while de-
claring upon the authority of Lapeyre agt.
United States, said. I'VE do not think this
is a case in which fractions of day
should be taken into account" And in
Louisville T. P. agt. Portsmouth Savings
Bank. 104 u. S., 4G9, the court says: This
language Of the chief justice implies that
there are cases in which the court would
regard fractions Of day."
In Gardner agt. Barney, Wall. U.S),
499. it was held that whenever question
arises to the time when a statute took
effect. the conrt may resort to any source
Of information. unless the positive law has
enacted different rule. Decisions in Eng
lish courts are found in line with the
above. There in Roe agt. Hersey, 3 Wills,
PA, the court characterized as a mere fic-
ton Of law the general proposition that
there are no fractions of a day. Lord
Mansfield, in Combe agt. Pitt, 3 Burr,
1423. expressed similar views. holding that
though the law does not in general allow
or fractions of a day, yet 1t admits it In
cases where 1t is necessary to distinguish
said his lordship ''and do not see why the
very hour of the day may not be so too,
when 1t Is necessary ard can be done fer
1t is not like mathematical point which
cannot be divided"
These are some of the authorities relied
upon by these who hold that the new tariff
bill became law only from the moment OF
its approval by the President. and that in
all cases arising under it where it becomes
necessary to SO do, proof to the very