Omaha daily bee., 1897-04-06
THE RETROACTIVE CLAUSE.

Chicago Record: AS no one knows as
yet what will be the duties after the senate
is through with the BILL the ''antcpatory"
amendment practically says that duties shall
be levied from April l at rates hereafter
to be determined-a kind OF legislation
ridiculous in itself. whatever may be claimed
for its constitutionality.
Brooklyn Eagle: 1t is unfortunate In one
sense that importers are so generally taking
advantage Of their opportunity to beat the
new tariff, but we fail to see how they can
be prevented from so doing short OF the
time when the bill is passed and signed.
The proposition Of the ways and means
committee is not only retrospective and
retroactive. 1t is ridiculous,
Philadelphia Times: Apologies for the
retroactive clause of the Dingley bill do not
improve 1t. The most that can be said is
that some lawyers perceive grounds on
which to defend it, or at least to maintain
that II has not yet been judicially con-
demned and that there is a chance that the
supreme court might not overturn it. This
Is very unsubstantial ground on which to
base legislation so intimately affecting the
commerce of the country. One would think
that even congressional lawyer would like
to feel little more certain before under
taking an experiment like this.
Chicago Chronicle: Though the congress
of the United States may have power to
pass a retroactive revenue statute imposing
no penalties, 1t ought to hesitate to use that
power because retroactive legislation Is OPP
posed to the genius of all modern civilization.
Practically it is forbidden by the British
constitution. If the Grosyenor amendment
is in the tariff bill as it shall be perfected
some time next summer the government can
take no penal action on importations after
the 1st of April; it must, If 1t would re-
cover the amount of the duties, bring civil
suit, and it will have great difficulty in main
tS bnfpra DpODle
Philadelphia Record: The question to
the constitutionality of retroactive taxation
has not been decided by the supreme court
of the United States. In the case arising
under the Wilson tariff act, where the date
fixed for it to become operative august L,
1S94 was four weeks earlier than the date
when it actually became a law august 2s,
1S94 the court decided that the manifest
intent of congress was that the new tax
duties should be levied only after the pass
age of the act. The Grosvenor amendment
to the Dingley bill leaves no room for doubt
as to it's intent If it should become law
in its present form and go before the court
for construction, the question of conStitu-
tionality would be clearly raised.
Indianapolis Journal: To call It an OK post
facto law is a misnomer. That term as used
in the constitution applies only to criminal
legislation, or laws creating and Furnishing
criminal offenses after the acts have been
committed. Congress has repeatedly passed
retroactive or retrospective laws relating to
the tariff and other matters The consttu-
tionality of the provision is beyond question
1t can only be criticised, If at all, on the
ground of impolicy as a disturbing element
in business, but it cannot be any more dis
turbing than flooding the country with for
eign goods at a low rate of duties and de-
prving the government of needed revenue.
The interests of the government should be
considered as well as these of importers.
II the government can realize l2,OO0OOO to
$15, 900, 900 of revenue by the provision no
body need care if the importers and specu-
lators are pinched.