New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-04-01

that Section should relate BACK 10 AueuSt
the intention is quite apparent that the acs o,
October 1890 should remain in fun force ana eev 5
that ali acts done rights accrued and liabilities
ncurred under The sarsr as prior TO ns p ali
parties interested. the United States inciuoeu
The Court also discussed exhaustiveiy the
question OF whether or not Congress h'ehueu
the act OF 1894 to be retroactive ana reacheo
decision in the negative The Circuit court was
therefore reversed on the first two quesllohS'
The last was dismissed TOO general ana I'M
necessary TO be answered
THE PROCEEDINGS IN DETAIL"
Voting on the Tariff bill not to begin until
o'clock this afternoon. but the galleries We're
crowded early 10 witness the manoeuvring eadlhe
nm 70 the climax of the ten days battle. MI Ding
lev and Mr. Bailey the opposing lee iers. were IN
their places when Speaker Reed called 'he HOUSE
to order at 10 O'Clock Mr.. Richardson. OF Iehhes-
sec called attention to the fact mat there was
manlfestly no quorum present but declined on ac-
count OF the brief time remaining Tor the cohsueIa
ton of the bill 10 make the point
Paragraph &c. making phenacetine' e'c'' outape
at cents an ounce. was stricken out on motion OF
Mr. Dalzel. OF Pennsylvania. This sends the aru-
cles in the paragraph to the basket clause making
them dutiable at % per cent.
Mr. Grosvenor offered a committee amendment
which was adopted. making the rate on dates and
currants cents pound
THE NEW AMENDMENT PRESENTED
Mr. Grosvenor then presented the amendment
about which there has been SO much discussion in
the last few days. fixing April as the date on
which the bill shall go into effect The nmenomeh'
reads follows:
Section 81 That all articles mentioned in the sew,
eral schedules of this act which shall be imported
into h Un nd The s date Of passage Of his c ana
which were not purchased anG d are q r n5
states by any citizen thereof prior April l, 1897,
shall bear the same duties TO be charged upon
S anabH m aTses len nus npo n' u ana
hands ssa IN of prsons holding hem for mai consuP
the same or any part or product OF the same and
except also In the hands of persons shown 10 nav
obtained such articles without notice OF the pro
sumner or holder without notice having obtained an
Interest in or possession OF any s"C conmoS car
rier or warehouseman, shall be liable Tor me pay.
%en rdc0 OF SSin with ahT Interest but Without penalty
an action suit by the United states against SUI.
hereof And ali persons liable under this act for
such duty or any part Thereon IN respec' ur
nav be joined in the same action for recovery
without rss"Td and 10 sneh os or Several
W Secrees NAV be rendered therein. including the
enav Teouire In every such case the process Of
the court in the district where the aGtoH or sna is
served. shall run 70 and may be served on any
defendant II any 9heT n di u1S Of the Secretary of
the Treasury prescribe and enforce suaita ape
reg incmd,ng fhe retention in the bonded
houses of the United States or any Ginep p mcS
goods until required for evidence on any such 'faL
THE FIGHT AGAINST 1T BEGINS.
The Democrats were alert Mr.. Bailey imme-
diatey made the point that the amendment was
out OF order.
Mr. Sherman. who was in the chair. asked the
,ro,nds on which the point of order was MADE
Mr. Bailey said he took it for granted that the
chair understood il was obviously out Of order. but
Mr. sherman pleaded perfect ignorance ana MI
Bailey proceeded TO argue that the amendment
could not be held in order after the amendmeh'
OF Mr. Dockery relating TO the suspension oil rules
on articles had been declared out Of order.
Mr. NcMillin of Tennessee, made the additional
noin; Of order that the amendment regulated the
practice OF the courts and therefore was not IN
order on this bill
Mr. Dalzell in response pointed out the differ
ence between the Dockery amendment and this
amendment The former an individual amend
ment and only in order when germane. This was
q committee amendment
Mr. Bailey denied that the amendment had been
ratified by the fun committee.
Mr. Dalze replied that the substance Of the
amendment was agreed upon. but sub-comm;
tee had been instructed 20 draft IT, He declared
that the opposition was 'quibbling" bur Mr..
Bailey insisted that the amendment must be
ratified by the full committee.
After some further debate the Chair announced
that his ruling would depend a question of fact.
namely whether the committee had authorized the
subcommittee TO report this amendment
Mr. Dngley put end to the discussion by say
ing that as there a question about the facts,
and as he had not been presen al the meeting Of
the committee the amendment would be with
drawn Il give notice. he added. smiling, he
surveyed the other side that there will be a meet
ing OF the Ways and Means Committee at 1876"
1t was then within three minutes of that hour
and the members of the committee filed out of the
hall
ADOPTED BY THE COMMITTEE.
The Homestead strikes furnished a ten-minute
diversion. and then the members Of the Ways and
Means Committee returned TO the House and Mr..
Grosvenor again sent up the amendment saying
he was directed by the committee to do so.
Mr. DockcIy Dem. Mo- Immediately offered as
an amendment his proyiso To spend the duties
on articles controlled by trusts.
Mr. Dngley made the point tina the amendment
was not germane and Mr. McRae dem, Ark at
tempted to make point against the original
amendment but was informed that his point came
too late an amendment TO the amendment having
already been submitted.
Mr. Dockery ard Mr.. Bailey argued that the
amendment 10 the amendment was in order on the
ground that II I'm harmony with the general
purposes o. the bill. but the Chair sustained the
point OF order against the Dockery amendment
An arrangement made by which fifteen min
utes should be allowed to eacn side for debating
this proposition In opening Mr.. Grosvenor
marked upon the alleged attempt OF the Democrats
TO make political capital OF osentatious opposi
ton 10 trusts As to the pending proposition to
make the Tariff bill go into effect on April !. no
matter what date OF its final enactment, he
said two questions were involved. its eXpediency
and its wisdom. That II was wise he did moi think
any one would deny, and he therefore would direct
MS attention entirely to the question OF It's
pedepcy.
As "A question OF law. OF course everything was
moi in the power Of Congress- but his view was that
those things not forbidden 10 Congress legal.
On this subject he planted himself on the conclu-
SONS of Judge Cooley in mis- work on constitutional
law In the chapter entitled Retrospective Law"
In that chapter Judge Cooley contendei that there
ACT retrospective legislation # that power not
hn constitutional limitation nat