The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1898-12-01
ALCOHOL IN THE ARTS
Arguments of Counsel Before the
Sunreme Court Continued

1
| Washington, D. c., Nov. S0.-The argu-
ment of the case Of Robert Dunlop versus
the United States, involving the validity
of the provision of the Wilson-Gorman
| tariff law authorizing a rebate on alcohol
used in the arts, was concluded in the
| United States supreme court today, At
| torney General Griggs appearing for the
| government and Hon. Joseph Choate for
Dunlop. Sir Louis Davies and Sir James
Winter of the British-American joint high
| commission, occupied seats inside the bar
during the argument.
Mr.. Griggs said that while the present
! case involved only a few thousand dollars,
from ten to twenty millions would be af-
fected by its decision. He contended that
the secretary of the treasury, in failing
to prescribe regulations, had violated no
contract with Manufacturer Dunlop; that
Dunlop had not been influenced 10 enter
upon business by the insertion Of the pro-
vision and thata if the rebate had been al
lowed there would have been no reduction
in the price of the manufactured hats
He also said that the secretary had only
acted so as to conserve the best interests
OF the government, by refusing to issue
sible to carry the law into effect without
an appropriation for the prevention of
fraud. The debate in congress had been
OF character to show that the secretary
was expected to exercise his discretion in
the execution of the law. The provision
was hurriedly constructed-.ike Richard
III, was sent into this world half made
up" and, like Richard. the source of a
good deal of trouble while in the world.
He urged the right of congress to con-
fer a right contingent upon the antecedent
performance of an executive act. II the
secretary had failed to do his duty. the
remedy lay with congress, and not with
the courts
Mr.. Choate said. in reply to Mr. Griggs.
that if the question of the amount of the
liability was to be considered. he desired
TO be counted out of the case For him
self. he had always opposed that such
questions did not enter into the denb-
erations OF this court. He contended that
the point involved had been decided fifteen
years ago in the Campbell case. an said
that while the court had changed, the law
had not.
The provision OF the treasury regulation
was merely direction to the secretary
of the treasury and Mr. Choate insisted
it did not differ materially from such d.
recton in other acts of legislation. Such
supreme and arbitrary power 10 annul
laws as was here claimed for the secre-
tary was a new prerogative for the ex-
ecutive which had never been successfully
asserted. and. If i was to be conceded in
this instance. there was no reason why ii
should not be in al Tor any others. Such
a prerogative was clearly unconstitutional
as the lawmaking power was conferred
exclusively upon congress.
He declared that the law was a CON
tract. and it could not be abrogated by
the voluntary failure OF the government.
the party of the first part. 10 perform the !
duties assumed by itself in enacting the
law. The secretary could not alter the
law. and. Il he could not alter II. how
could he regulate it except 70 see that
the directions Of congress were honestly
carried out? The presumption Of the law |
vas that regulations should have been
made Immediately after the law went itno |
effect and they could have been promul |
gated within forty-eisht hours All that |
was required OF the secretary was 10 Go |
the best he could. leaving the responsl-
o-iiiy for the enactment with congress:
using the machinery az his command Il |
he had no appropriation Putting the boot
on the other leg. who had ever heard OF |
a citizen being allowed TO escape the ex- |
actions Of law because OF the failure q 1
the governmnt 10 make reEulat.ons7
2 Choate contsnded that i would have /
been legitimate 70 use the appropriation 1
FOR the collection OF internal revenue n 4
the enforcement or this section. leaving
congress 10 supply the deficit
Milwaukee. WIS, Nov. s3.-AIbert J. An
derson Of Whitewater. Wis. today ules in