New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1898-12-01
ARGTED BY GRIGGS AND CHOATE.
HEARING IN THE ALCOHOL REBATE CASE CLOSED
IN THE SUPREME COURT.

HEARING IN THE ALCOHOL REBATE CASE CLOSED
IN THE SUPREME COURT
Washington. Nov. 3o-The argument in The casa
Of Robert Dunlap against tho United Statea In
voiving the validity OF the provision OF the Wilson
German tariff law. authorizing a rebate on alcohol
used In the arts was finished in the United States
Supreme Court to-day. Accompaniment Griggs
appearing for the Government and Joseph H.
Choate for Dunlap Sir Louis Davies ana BIZ
James Winter Of the Joint High Commission &C.
clip!ed seats inside the bar
Mr. Griggs said that while the present case IN
volved only few thousand dollars. from 100000
70 100000 would be affected by the decision He
contended that the Secretary OF the Treasury, IN
falling 10 prescribe regulations had violated no
contract with Dunlap. that Dunlap had not been
Influenced 70 enter business by the insertion or
the provision. and that II the rebate had been
allowed Their. would have been reduction In the
nrics OF the manufacturers hats. He also said
that the Secretary had only acted so as 10 con-
serve the best interests OF the Government by re-
fusing 10 issue the regulations. as Il had provei
impossible TO carry the law into effect without an
appropriation for the prevention OF fraud the
debate In Congress had been OF character 70
show that the Secretary was expected 10 exercise
his discretion In the execution OF the law The
provision was hurriedly constructed; Ike Richard
ILL., was sent into this world halt-made Up. and,
like Richard the source Of good deal Of trouble
Mr. Choate said in reply 10 Mr. GrigSs that II
The question Of the amount OF the Liability was 70
he considered he desired 10 DO counted out or the
case For himself he had always supposed that
such questions did enter into the deAheratlohs
81 this court He contendcd that the point ~
yolved had been decided fifteen years ago II me
Campbell case and said that while the court had
charged. the law had not. The provision ior a
Treasury regulation was merely a dlreci,on I'D
IN. Secretary OF the Treasury. ana MI 'nohi"
Insisted II did not differ materially rom -uch IL
r.cflOng in other acts or legislation. SLch SUI
nr.nn and arbitrary power to annul laws ds was
here claimed for the Secretary was a new preroga-
tive for the executive which had never poem SUE,
cassfullv asserted. and u I was TO De concetto
In mis- Instance there was 10 reason why II should
not b. IN all or any others. such "A NTerogatlVe
vas clearly unconstitutional. ~ the lawinaklnS
uower was conferred exclusively upon congress-
IL declared that the law was 4 contract, ana ],
could not be- abrogated by the voluntary idlure OF
no Government the party Of the nrst part, 10 per-
fnrrn m. duties assumed by itself In sndctng ms
/ q, Tho Secretary could not alter the Law. ana.
'x,en, 10 soc that the directions OF Congress were
honestly carried out? The presumption OF the
i1u. W. that regulations should have been made
Immediately after the law went Into eject; ana
thov could have been promulgated WITHIN lory-
aigh. hours All that required OF the Secre-
,srv vas 10 do the best he could, leaving the
re- ,,orsiblity for the enactment with Congress.
using tho machinery AZ his command n h" mad no
differentiation Putting the boot on the other leg:
ubo Rad ever heard OF "A citizens being allowed
IA escape the exactiOns OF law because o. me
saunre Of the Government TO make regulauonsy
~ f'hoate contended that y would have been
egi,i,at To- 10 use the Appropriation Tor the coec-
,io of internal revenue In the enforcement or tnN
section leaving Congress 20 supply the ceAcN