The herald., 1897-04-01

trfofts fAlti taACff.fft NA-A Ntaii .s ti'.-'
alty. II action or spt by .Ne United
StafsA aaairel such person g, persons
liable urfer ihis ace fcr Fach tsiros ary
paat .hsraoe ID respect of any shipmenf
Aafs0 or h,laf any article Of er,lclos may
81 3oined on the sspa action for recov-
ssS without reSarG 60 muiiaAty or na-
trrs q intsrcsi or osfenscs sno sueh
spsft 6r ses eeat suazU rts o. ceerees
NAV pe reuue.eu therein, .aS.u-!Le lac
enforcement of any such lien as justice
+ and equity may require. In every such
case the process of the court in the dis
trict where the action or suit is brought
and where one defendant resides and Is
served, shall run to and may be served
on any defendant in any other distrlct'
1t is hereby made the duty OF the secre-
tary of he.treasury to subscribe ana en-
force suitable regulations to carry out
the provisions of this section, including
the retention in the bonded warehouse
of the United States or any other place
where such goods are deposited of SAM
ples of such goods until required for ev-
idence or any such trial.
The Democrats were alert. Bailey i'm
mediately made the point that the
amendment was out of order. 1t was
obnoxious, he said, to the Oldest and
hest rule of law, that no statute should
be retroactive.
~ The parliamentary point was immedi-
ately raised by the opposition that the
amendment had not yet been ordered
by the full committee.
In order to avoid any technical trou-
BILE. DINGHY Immediately withdrew the
amendemnt and called meeting OF the
ways and means committee, whose mem
bers filed out of the hall. The commit
tee was absent but a few moments, ana
upon entering the chamber Grosvenor
again offered the amendment making
the bill effective April 1st.
Dockery (Mo., Dem.) offered an amend
ment for a proviso to suspend the duties
on articles controlled by trusts. A point
of order being made against it, after
a short discussion, it was sustained by
the chair. An arrangement was made
for fifteen minutes debate on each side
on the Grosvenor amendment. Bailey
stated that the opposition was extreme
ly anxious to reach two schedules in the
bill. and did not desire to consume more
time on this amendment.
In opening Grosvenor remarked upon
the alleged attempts of the Democrats
to make political capital out of the os-
tentatious opposition to trusts. AS to
the pending proposition TO make this
tariff bill to go into effect April 1st, no
matter what the date of its final enact
ment. he said two questions were in
ifc xricd
That it was wise he did not think anyone
would deny, and he would therefore
direct his attention entirely to the ques-
ton of expediency. AS a question of
law his view was that those things not
forbidden to congress were legal. On
this subject he had planted himself, he
said, on the conclusions of Judge Cooley
in his work on Constitutional Law, in
the chapter entitled Retrospective Law.
In that chapter Judge Cooley, he said
contended that there was no doubt of
the right of the legislature to enact
retrospective legislation if that power
was not forbidden. The constitutional
limitation was that congress should have
no right to pass bill of attainder, or an
ex post facto law. or a law impairing
plain that the constitution intended to
deny this right to the states, and by
implication retain it in congress. He
quoted q decision OF the supreme court
made in 1906 in support of his conten-
tion, and decision of the supreme court
of Iowa. which held no prohibition
against an ex post facto law to the
effect that a retrospective law was not
necessarily an ex post facto law.
This law would be retrospective, in
that it would levy customs duties on
merchandise bought or shipped after to-
morrow. He declared that it was lib
eral provision, in that it did not apply
to goods now afioat. Grosvenor's strong
est point was that in connection with
the present tariff bill, which bore the
date of August 1, 1894, but was not
finally enacted until two days later. AL |
though this was unintentional. the SUI |
preme court had held that it was retro |
spective. The income tax, although it |
had been held unconstitutional (not on |
that point. however, levied on every |
dollar held on the 1st of the preceding |
January. Whisky in bond manufac- |
tpred under the 90-cent tax, under the |
Operation Of that tax paid 20 cents ad- |
'iitionaL
\ Richardson of Tennessee, Democrat. |
contended that the supreme court de- |
clsdon in the case involving the Wilson |
law, on which the opinion of the su- |
preme court was delivered by Chief |
Justice Fuller, decided exactly contrary |
10 the contention of Grosvenor. Goods
imported between August 1 and August
Ss/ 1894. it was decided should pay the
Hckinley and not the Wilson rates
IF you are going to make this law
take effect tomorrow, why not say to-
day?' demanded Bland of Missouri.
Democrat. cor why not the day the Nc
kinley law was reported?"
1.-THE real purpose" he added, "was
10 check all imports so long as the bill
was pending before congress, if that
should be until next March"
The debate on the amendment was
concluded by Bailey, who said: "Mr.
Grosvenor fails to distinguish between
power of congress to pass retroactive
law and to put two Inconsistent laws in
action at the same time. The PROPOSE
tion of the ways and means committee
10 that congress shall have the power
to compel the people of the United
go -