The Indianapolis journal., 1897-04-01


ages were present. On the floor every seat
was taken.
the date on which the bill should go into
effect had been adopted. against the pro-
tests of the Democrats. who contendeG that
tutional. the last three hours were taken
up with short speeches. most OF which
We're made for the benefit of the galleries
and the constituents Of the speakers. The
Democrats had yielded the question Of
long debate over the Grosvenor amendment
IN the hope that enough progress might be
made with the bill TO permit the House 10
reach the sugar schedule. but only two
more pages were read. leaving 40 unconsid-
cred in committee OF the whole. The mo-
tion 10 recommit with instructions TO
amend the bill so as to suspend the duties
on articles controlled by trusts. upon which
through the Republican ranks. failed OF its
purpose Every Republican voted against
H. There was great demonstration on
the floor and In the galleries wnen the bill
was finally declared passed.
MEMBERS WE'RE DILATORY.
When the session opened this morning
MIR. Richardson. of Tennessee, called at
tention To the fact that there was mani
iestiy no quorum present, but declined. on
account of the brief time remaining for
consideration of the bill. TO make the point
Paragraph %. making phenacetine etc.
uutlable at cents an ounce was stricken
out on motion of Mr.. DalzeIl This sends
the articles in the paragraph TO the basket
Clause making them dutiable at % per
cent. Mr.. Grosvenor offered an amend
ment which was adopted making the rate
on dried currants cents per pound. Mr.
Devries (Dem.. Cali said that as d repre-
sentative of a fruit-growing district he
favored this amendment
Ar Grosvenor tnen presented the amend
ment about which there has been so much
ulscussion during the last Few days, nxing
4 lat which hQ hal
go into effect. The amendment in full was
aS follows:
In the several schedules of this act which
snail be imported into the United States
between the first day OF April, 1897, and
tne date or the passage of this act. and
which were rot purchased and directed by
the owner 10 be shipped for import into
the United States by any citizen thereof
prior to April l. 1897. shall bear the same
uuties TO De charged on similar articles i'm
THIS act. and sucn duties are hereby made
Hen on SUCH articles wherever and i'm
whatsoever hanCS found. except i'm the
hands OF persons holding them for final
consumption and VINO nave no purpose to
sell OF part with the same or any part or
product OF the same. and except also i'm
the hands OF persons shown TO have OBJ
tained such articles without notice of the
provisions OF the act. and any person not
a final consumer or holder. without notice
having obtained an interest in possess
sion or any such article or articles so sub
Jet 10 auly, except as a common carrier
or warShouseman. shall be liable for the
payment OF SUCH duties thereon. and the
same may be recovered with interest but
without penalty. In an action or suit by
the United States against such person or
persons in any district or circuit court
thereof. And all persons liable under this
net for such duty any part thereof i'm
respect TO anx shipment. cargo or lot of
any articles, may be joined on the same
motuality or nature of interest or defenSes.
and, such joint or several judgments or
decree as may be rendered therein incIud-
ing the enforcement of any such lien. as
justice or equity may require. In every
such case the process of the court in the
district where the action suit is brought
and where one defendant resides and is
served. shall run 20 and may be served on
hereby made the duty of the secretary of
the treasury TO prescribe and enforce suita-
bic regulations TO carry out the provisions
Of this section. including the retention i'm
the bonded warehouses of the United
States or any other place where. such
goods until required for evidence on any
such trial"
DEMOCRATS OBJECT.
Mr. Bailey Immediately made the point
that the amendment of order 1t
was obnoxious. he said. to the oldest and
best rule of law that no statute should be
retroactive The parliamentary point
also raised by the opposition that the
amendment had yet been ordered re-
ported by the full committee.
In order TO avoid any technical trouble
Mr.. Dingley withdrew the amendment and
called a meeting Of the ways and means
committee. whose members hIed out of the
hall. The committee was absent but a few
moments and on entering the chamber Mr.
Grosvenor again offered the amendment
making the bill effective April l.
Mr.. DOckery Dem. Mo- offered as an
duties on articles controlled by trusts. A
point of order being made against H. after
a short discussion II was sustained by the
chair.
An arrangement was made for fifteen
minutes debate on each side on the Gros-
venor Ven s,sa smendnent. Mr.. Bailey stated that
reach two schedules i'm the bill and did not
desire TO consume more time on this amend
ment.
In opening Mr.. Grosvenor remarked upon
the alleged attempt of the Democrats to
make political capital out of ostentatious
opposition 10 trusts. AS 40 the pending
proposition to make this tariff bill go into
effect April i. no matter what the date of
its final enactment. he said two questions
were involved-its expediency and its wis
dom That IL was wise he did not think
any one would deny, and he would. there
fore. direct mis- attention entirely to the
question of it's expediency. AS a question
or law. of course. everything was not in the
power of Congress, but his view was that
those things not forbidden to Congress were
legal On this subject he planted himself
he said on the conclusions of Judge Cooley
in his work constitutional law i'm the
chapter entitled RETROSPECTIVE Law In
that chapter Judge Cooley, he said. con-
tended that there was no doubt of the right
Of the legislature TO enact retrospective
legislation if that power not forbidden.
The constitutional limitation was that Con-
gress should have no right TO pass bill OF
attainder or post facto law. and Sec
tion 10 provided that State should pass
an ex post facto law or law impairing the
obligations of contracts. Ii was plain that
the Constitution intended to deny the right
10 the States and by implication retain IL tC
Congress. He quoted decision of the Su-
preme Court. made in 1906. in support of his
contention. and decision of the Supreme
Court of Iowa. which had no prohibition
against an ex post facto law to the effect
that retrospective law was not neces-
sarily an ex post facto law. This law would
be retrospective he said i'm that il would
levy customs duties on merchandise bought
and shipped after tomorrow. He declared
: that Ii was liberal decision. in that IL die
not apply TO goods now afioat.
GROSvENORS STRONGEST POINT.
Mr.. Grosvenor's strongest point was made
I'm connection with the present tariff law
which bore date of Aug. l. 1894. but was ro
finally enacted until twenty-eight day:
later. Although this was unintentional. the
Supreme Court had held that Ii was retro
spective. The income tax. although it haC
been held unconstitutional mot tha
point. however, levied on every dollar helC
on the 1st of the preceding January. Whis
Ky I'm bond. manufactured under the 9O-cen
tax under the operation of that bill, paid .
- cents additional
- MIR. Richardson Dem. Tenn0 contendeC
that the SuDrpme Court decision in the ca :,