The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1897-08-10

Tariff laws Title Constitutional.
An interesting discussion Is going on In
some OF the eastern papers concerning
the cOnstItutionallty of the tariff act, The
point was raised by several writer's,
among whom was II. Snowden Marshall,
that the Dlngley bill Is unconstitutional
because its title purports not only to pro-
vide revenues, but to encourage domas-
tic industries, and considerable discus
sion has grown out of the matter. The
leading legal authorities, however. have
had no difficulty in proving that the title
In no way affects the constltutlonalIty of
the measure. Mr.. Marshalls contention
that such a title, or expressed purpose of
tariff bill Is entirely unprecedented Is
also shown to be erroneous.
An elaborate opinion by United States
Attorney Henry Clay Plat, of New
York, published In the Journal of Com
merce, completely shows the absurdIty
of the point raised by Mr., Marshall.
Congress. says Mr., Plat has constitu-
tlonal power to lay and collect taxes.
duties, Imports and excuses. one OF the
express objects OF the establishment Of
the constitution was to promote the gem
eral welfare. Congress must possess the
choice OF means and must be empowered
10 use means which are conducive to the
exercise of all powers granted by the
constitution. It Is shown by history that
the early Presidents Of the United States
frequently urged on Congress the policy
OF protection to American industries, and
the very first tariff law placed on the
statute books, July 4, 1883, signed by
President Washington, contained the
following preamble:
Whereas, II Is necessary for the sup.
port of government. for the discharge or
tho debts OF the United States, and the
encoura cement and protection OF manu-
features, that duties be laid on goods.
wares and merchandise imported,
be It enacted, etc.
1t win be seen by this statement In the
first tariff bill. made law by the franz
,,..-.,- ,,y.At-.,.. ST.,
ers Oh 'he cohS'''u'''n' ""S,''"e' "" nm
sell having DeeA 'He P's''''"e
'he constitutional eO'', 1''''''. go -.
Intention was 10 ''F' ou'.'' w p'N'NS
tion anu e"'Nu'ase''e''' Vi '"0N'''' 80 $50
well as to provide revenue
Another point Ia answer to those who
ARC In fear that the constitution has been
rtSaage'' u !" ''s '"'' .''A' Wv o'4s ~
inc L"nEaey ae' uoe' NV 'o'",'l
expressly providing thu' t''e Nu'''9 u''
asVSen TOT tne pro'ecuon "a '"a
tnres- That assertion Is ohiS oo"'a'''eu
In the atie' as subordinate W '"s "'"H"
object OF the BILL namely 10 pFo''ue rev
enus
Mr.. Ptatt Shows aiSo' 'ha' '',o '''e"
ton to encourage industries mas oeeh eN-
,,-a..od ~. ir,,rIted in oyery tariff net, and
t..A ava IN.
the Intention mas peeh reeot''4Asu "''u ~
IeFIeu '" III u" -.
He cites the decision or justice BREWER
~ ,be rrptted States Bunreme court, in
Va '"s .ry,,
deciding a case arising under the MclSin-
~ ,...,,.. ia. mrho
ley Dill III wnioh Tue Ju''Vo o"'N'
idea which runs through this statute 10
..,,,.,,io,, 10 mr. manu-.
well known 10 ne Pro'eS''o' w wa
IA ctures" Judge McKenna. now attor-
'"1'u- .1 ~ a.. ,yaI,.a states in do.
hey sepeiai VI Wv - ,,'sa. ,ho McKin,ov
cialns al'o'"ei .a'' . D"l c,ncorn,
act useu u s'i'''a' s .'i,' $50 ~, Gov
ing 'he eiIe'. u '"e s''s CIT, Ir.,,o.
greSe, Mr. : 'a'' fN 49, .a,,,,.. ,ha, ,ho
Marshaii IN Two oas'' aS go, ~, -, ",o.1s
ute oil an ACT va'''o' 'o ",, 4, 1hon,,ng
but may iurn'S" So'ns u ~. ,a..'a, o
what was III '''s NM ,,,s,, 20 n,. .,-
In lHteT years JupNAN' A''''' - $50 ~
preme court. in the case OF Haddon vs.