" -Bn
SANFORI), NORTH CAROLINA, WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 39,1890.
'$£0 TrfElTARIFF TRQUBLE.S4*’
.' Is the McKinley Bill Constitutional
; or Not?
SOME LAWYERS SAY OKIS
SION OF . '<lr VI
TIATES 1 'KM
, uiocusaroir ovbb ran kattee—a
NOVEL FEAFURE or an old tariff.
New Yqhk, Oct. 23.-—Sena&r
~ McPhersoW very rece&iiy wroiaN'*!
follows to a member of a prominent
importing house in this city: “I
beg to call your attention to the
conference report and tariff MJ. sent
t you about ten days or two -weeks
* ago, a quarto pamphlet of 214 pages.
On page 175 you will find in amend
ment 440 and section 30, the read
ing matter relating to draw backs
. on tobacco stricken out. Turning
over to page. 178, sixth, line from
the top. you will find the following:
^.“Conference restores section 8Q,
v- -• Luc titj ill um oerore you,
you will find “Section 30, that on
and after tliefirat day of Jenuavy,’’
fie-., ending with “six cents per
pound” leaving all the rest of the
original section 30 out altogether. .
":V ; "This omission is fatal to the bill
and in the opinion of eminent law
yers here, Senator Carlisle among
' .them, it vitiates the whole bill. It
is an internal revenue section, but
; being part of the tariff bill pass
ed, it stands and falls together..
In accordance, with this discovery
a protest against Collector Erhfirdt’s
-official action under the internal
revenue full was last evening for*
watdedfto. the leading importers in
■ the city for signature. _
Under the law,’ protests -against
the collectors’ assessments cannot
Jjc lodged until the liquidation of
entry, and must be lodged within
y'.tetr days after that atage,jn the im
^porter’s business in the govern*
luent.- ~ "?•' "■ , "
Washington, D.C. Oct. 23.—
Senator Carlisle, who was one of the
confeiers of the tariff bill, was ask
ed what in his opinion would be
the effect .of the omission of section
thirty from the tariff bill as signed
by the President, ;. ' ;
“I have not” he said, “examined
the authoiities oil the subject, but it
seems quite clear to me that the
omission of one seetion is jnst as
fatal to the bill as if it had all Ixjen
omitted. If the President can sign
half of a bill passed by both Houses,
and make a law, of course it makes
no difference how small a part it is.
: Should the constitutionality of
this law be tested *n the courts, the
question would have to be deter
mined by the journals of the two
Houses because they constitute the
only legal evidence of what is done.
The two Houses passed the tariff
’ bill, but in different forms. When
• it came back from the conference,
committee there was nothing to act
upon except its report, which I sup
pose was entered upon the journals
’ -aa is. usual in such cases.” ■ : ,
*:< W ashinqton, D. 0. Oct. 23.—The
Alleged fatal defects in the new tar
iff bill formed an interesting topic
■of discussion in official circles to-day,
and, while the defects were not
■ thought to invalidate the bill as a
whole, sentiment was almost uuan
tnous that section 30, of the tobacco
paragraph, which was omitted in its
entirety, could not' be enforced,
where by construction, referred to
v other paragaaphs it might impair
their strength. As to the law sign
ed by the Pj^sidont not being the
law passed by Congress, Private Sec
retary Halford said the bill Presi
dent Harrison signed was the same
bill signed by the Speaker of the
House and the President of the Sen
ate. These officers, by their signa
tures, certified that the bill had pass
ed their respective branches of Con
gress, and their attention of that
fact wns the uspal mode of proced
ure, end the only officiul notifiea
^ tion the President ever received that
a bill had passed. Whether the law
was constitutional or- not- was a
i question for the courts to decide. •
Secretary Wiudorn, when ques
tioaed on the subject, .said it did.
'not-become Him to question ther con*
stitutionality of legislation passed
by Congress. He was simply an
executive officer to carry out the
will of Congress, and . when laws
wpre placed upon the statute books,
•U he bad. to do was to execute
them. If doubts existed as to a
given law being constitutional,
those doubting it could • have tlieir
doubts removed or confirmed by tak
An interesting point bearing on
the subject was pointed out at the
Treasury Department to-day. Un
der the tariff Jaw'Sf July 14tb, 18
52, dutjes were increased' on all
brown or bleached linens, ducks,
canvass paddings, cot bottoms, bur
lap, drills, coatings, brown Hollands,
blay linens; damasks, draperies, etc.,
five per cent, ad valorem, making the
duty on the articles yarned 85 per
cent., the former tariff■. Having im
posed a duty of 30 per cent, ad val
orem. In 1804, June 30th, another
tariff law was passed imposing an
additional duty of 5 per cent, on all
the articles nanid above, but by a
clerical error, a whole line was
omitted, and drills, coatings, brown
Hollands, blay linens, and damasks,
were left out of the paragraph al
together.
At hrst the treasury department
imposed 40 per cant, duty on. the
omitted articles the same as on the
enumerated,_ holding that such was
the evident intention of Congress:
but subsequently the department
reversed itself aud refunded the 5
par cent--., increase in the bill of 18
03 over the bill of 1862, aud after
wards changed the duty on “drills,
coating, etc,” at 30 per cent, ad val
orem. It was not argued that the
omission of “drills, coating, etc,”
from the paragraph invalidated the
paragraph or applied'to -'any other
articles than'the ones omitted, or
that the error in regard to the para
graph not being complete tended to
make void the bill as a whole, or
that the articles, in being omitted,’
belonged to the free list because
they were not enumerated in the
dutiable list.' All former tariff acts
contain more or less omissions or
errors, ahd eyen so late as February
27, 1877' an act was passed to sup
ply omissions, in the revised stat
utes. V
It is thought at the Treasury de
partment that the same course will
be pursued in regard to.any defects
of the present tariff law, if they are
of o character serious enough to
cajl for it. .
“Come out from Among them, My
People.’, _
Sta*c»vUle landmark.
One of our exchanges contains
this paragraph: . .
Mr. W. 1. JoneS, the most
popular Republican leader in Gran
ville county, openly proclaims that
if you will show him three white
Republicans in the South he will
show you two scoundrels.
We concur with the Asheville
Citizen in disapprobation of this
publication. It is not true j no man
either with or without sense, be
lieves it to be. true, and nothing is to
be made by this ^wholesale traduc
tion. There are many white Re
publicans in the South who are per
sonally honorable, honest men.
How they can affiliated with those
men of the North who hate the
South, who are now trying £o drag
oon it by means of a force bill,-who
rohit.bj' pension legislation in the
benefits of which it does not share,
who have just enacted a tariff law
which is vilely sectional in its char
acter, who are seeking to . strike
down a great Southern industry by
legislating against cotton seed oil—
how they can tolerate a party the
stock in trade of which is denunci
ation of their people, we can in no
wise comprehend. Though he be
lieves in every tenet of the Republi
can party and repudiates every prin
ciple for which the Democratic par
ty elands, still no Southern white
man should league himself with the
enemies of his people. Yet some
honest men among us do so and it is
neither neighborly nor just to brand
them «is scoundrels
of the war control
ami ofjbers are Republicans by in*
lieritnpce. Many of these despise
their association and would tremble
at a thought oftheir'party carrying
a State election, well knowing that
the bad element in if predominates
and that it would wreck the. State,
These ought to abandon their party;
they should not allow any false
pride of consistency to keep them
m a company in which they do not
belong. Many of them, moved by
the outrageous sectionalism of the
present Congress and the present
national administration, have come
out on the side of their own people,
but none have been aided to do so
by being abused.
We hope no honest white Repub
licans. will think the Democratic
party, generally has any sympathy
with such intemperate'utterances as
I that quoted above. On the contrary
they are estimated at exactly what
they are and will be welcomed into
the ranks of those who ate their
natural allies if they trill come out
and abandon their party ' to the
: blaek people and to the ignorant
and vicious white men who belong
to it by instinct. r ? \
.... state NEWS.
Raleigh correspondence Wilming
ton Messenger: The taxes for pen
sions this year aggregate $80,000'
It is learned that the four classes of
soldier pensioners will receive an
nual allowances as follows: First
class, about $00; second, about
$65; third, about $40; fourth, about
$20; and .that the widows will re
ceive about $20. '. This will be a ■
considerable increase for them.
Prof. J. P. H. Leigh was teaching
school at Cana, Davie county, a year
ago, and the Davie Times gave as
the reason of. his departure that he
had been too fond of his female pa-,
pits. Leigh bad. moved to Perqui
mans county, and brought au ac
tion in the Superior Court for libel
against Mr. Will. X. Coley, the
editor of the Times. The . . .editor
stood his gound, employed Counsel
and was prepared to^defend the suit,
when Leigh, week before last, took
a non-suit and paid the costs.
Hurrah for editor Coley!
The Supreme Court has filed an
opinion in an important and novel
case—a $10,000 damage suit brought
by J. L. Young, of Cravau County,
against the Western TJunion Tele
graphJCoropany. Last year Young’s
Wife was taken ill in Greenville, S.
C., and telegraphed her husband to
come on. lie did not get the mess
age until'six days later and in the
mean time Mrs. Young had died
and been buried, Young not know
ing of either fact till all was over.
Young obtained damages in the*
Superior Court, but the telegraph
company took the matter to the Su-‘
preme Court, which sustains, the
finding of the lower court.
General Political News.
Hon. Justin {■}. Morrill, of Ver
mont, was last week re-elected to
the United States Senate. He is the
oldest member of that body.
Senator Joseph E. Brown, of Ga.,
to the surprise of everybody, has an
nounced his purpose of speaking at
the Georgia Fair to-day, the 23d. It
is estimated that he will endorse the
farmers fully and advise them to
select,a Senator as successor to
himself who is in complete accord
with their policy.
More than a dozen of the coun
ty Farmers’s Alliances' in Georgia
have already passed resolutions in
structing their delegates-elect to
the Legislature to vote against the
election of John B. Gordon to the
-United States Senate, because of
his alleged opposition to the scheme
of the Alliance. As matters now
look, Gov. Gordan’s chances for the
senatorship are regarded as slim,, as
the Alliance men constitute at least
three-fourths of the legislature. ■ In
the meantime, Judge J. K. Hines,
un able Democrat, has also announ
ced himself for the Senate, on a
square Alliance platform, including
the sub-treasury scheme.
TO QUESTION
1
the Constitutionality of Laws is Bra
zen Arrogance.
Col. W; H, 8. Bonrgwya iii « re
cant speech to the Farmers’ ^.lli
apce at Kitrell made use of the fol
lowing language; “The Colonel
then took up lion. Z. B. Vance, mn
junior Seiietor... After commending
his past history and service, he pro
ceeded to araign him for his'Upposi;
tiou to the demands made by- tbs
Farmere’ Alliance, and showed the
utter fallibility of Mr. Vance’s ar
gument and position as the consti
tutionality of certain measures de
manded. He said that the man- war
indeed hold who essayed to attack
the constitutionality of any law
end that the assumption of an opin
ion of any other than the Judge!
of the Supreme Courtof the United
States, be characterized as brazen
arrogance. The Colonel then defin
ed His position on the practicability
of the sub-treasurjf plan. He no)
only demonstrated its practicability,
but advised the Alliance to stick tc
its demands and elect only men to
the United States Senate and Con
gress who were in favor of the re
form movement, the exprespression
of which-sentiment met with loud
and continued cheers,” - *
THE “NEWS AND OBSERVER'S REpjtY.
We regret to see such view attri
buted to him in regard to the nature
of our government. As expressed,
it would he “brazen ' arrogance” fot
any person other Ithan the Judges oi
the Supreme Court of the Uuitec
States to entertain the, opinion thal
a law is unconstitutional!.. A:
these judges cannot originate law
eases, according to this views, nt
:^se should over be brought involv
ing the constitutionality of a law
It would be “brazen arrogance” foi
any citizen to suggest through his
counsel, or for any counsel to sug
gest to the court that a law k un
constitutional! All laws are to bf
accepted by the people as constitu
tional, and if any citizen shall pre
sume to have au opinjon about the
matter he is guilty of “brazen ar
rogance!” It, would be brazen ar
rogance for a Hampden to question
the lawfulness of ship money! II
were brazen arrogance in a Camp
bell to question the consfitutional
ity of the Civil Rights law, or for
a Burgwyn to question the constitu
tionality of the Force Bill. If a
citizen shall presume to hold any
nninion on f.lip. mpnninor f.!ia /'An.
stitution of his country, he is gu lty
of “brazen arrogance." ' •
The king Can do no wronf., The
Congress cannot err. The mem
bers of Congress are,, infallible.
Behold the change! As a citizen a
man would be guilty of brazen ar
rogance to hare an opinion on the
meaning of the Constitution; he is
elected to Congress—and his opin
ion is now become so infalliable
that it is brazen arrogance in a citi
zen to hare a different opinion 1
But that is not exactly what
Col. Burgwyn is represented as say
ing. The view attributed to him
is so broad that even a member of
Congress must be guilty of brazen
arrogance if he had an opinion as
to the meaniug of the Constitution,
He is called On to make a law, and
if he shall stop to consider the bill
and to form an opinion as to wheth
er the law would be constitutional
or not, he is guilty of brazen arro
gance. Yet he is sworn to do that
very thing. -lie »sworn to sup
port the constitution, and that lim
its the power of Congress to legis
late to certain specified subjects.
He is sworn to obsyve those limita
tions, nnd yet if he has on opinion
as to those limitations, lie is guilty
of brazen arrogance. ::
Let us suppose that a bill is intro
duced into Congress to seize Col.
Burgwyn’s property and hand it ov
er to Mr. Quay for a Republican
campaign fund.' No citizen, no
member of Congress, not, even Col.
Burgwyn can bold an opinion that
that .measure is unconstitutional
without being guilty of brazen arro
gance. The bill is passed into a
law; Mr. Quay seizes the property;
Cob Burgwyn asks a lawyer to in
terfere; but the lawyer would be
guilty of brazen arrogance were he
to hold and express the opinion that
the law is unconstitutional.
We do not think that Col. Bur
gwyii entertain^ these views abso
lutely. A system founded on such*
a view would be unsuited to the
genius of a free people. It would
! be foreign to our traditional meth
od of government. . Indeed, it
would be utterly inconsistent with
American institutions and the free
enjoyment of popular .rights. It
would repress manhood, stifle the
spirit of liberty, and train our citi
zens into a passive slavery.
When the Supreme Court .held
that the constitution meant a cer
tain thing which our fathers
thought it did not mean, ' they
promptly put into the instrument
a clause that the Constitution
“should not be construed" to mean
what the court said it did mean.
The citizens, reserved the court.
As we have said, we do not think
that the Colonel, who is a gentle
man of liberal educationt ^cquainted
with the history of his country
and entirely familliar with the
fact that ever since the adoption of
of the Constitution, the basis of par
ties has been-the different opinions
entertained by citizens as to its
meaning, intended to express the
yiews attributed to him without
some modification, which however,
our ingenuity fails us tq supply.
The only proper basis of perma
nent parties in a constitutional gov
ernment is the correct construction
of the constitution. Every citizen
has a right to his view, to his Opin
ion—to his own construction. The
' party in power enforces, as far it
can, its own opinion and construc
tion. Indeed one of the allegions
made against the Democratic party
in former years was that on gaining
power it would declare that certain
additions to, the constitution were
not lawful amenemehts of the in
strument, were without force or va
lidity. ' ..j .■
Even the Supreme Court may re
verse itself, as in. the legal tender
cases.
The Herald’s Estimate.
The New York Herald, of Oct 15,
Bays that “conservative estimates’
indicate a Democratic majorty in
the next House'of eighteen, but it
may be larger." The Herald gives
the following resume of the causes
leading to this great revolution in
the political sentiments of the coun
try:
“Of all the issues which will tend
to shape the result, the new tariff
law is likely to prove the most po
tent factorin determining it, be
cause its effects are so far-reaching
and it comes home to every individ
ual consumer in the land; While
President Harrison was elected on
the protective issue by a minority
of the popular vote, though a ma
jority ih the electoral college, the
Republican leaders never intimated
that they proposed to go to the
lengths of the measure that has just
become a law.
“The bill has been passed despite
the protest of large and important
elements of the population. Al
ready its effects are being felt. Pri
ces are slowly but steadily going up
on articles of almost universal con
sumption. On the other hand wa
ges have not acted i,n sympathy
with prices. The home industries,
which are expected to receive such
an impetus by reason of the new
tariff, can not experience it until
the large stock of foreign stock
which has been laid in has become
exhausted."
“The effect of all this must ope
rate to the detriment of the Repub
licans, and nowhere more than in
the agricultural States of the West,
where the farming interests are
greatly depressed. Senators Pad
dock, of Nebraska; Pettigrew, of
South DnkotR, and Plumb, of Kan
sas, realised this fully- when they
voted against the McKinley bill.mi;
its final passage, and in doing So
they represented the '•view's of tiieir
constituents. The absence of hursli
criticism of their votes in the col
umns <»i the Republican papers in
those States proves this incon test
ably,. . _ , —jy , 1
; “The Force bill has had the effeot
of nerving up the Southern Demo
crats to a supreme effort and very
few Republicans will sit in tiro next
Congress •from t hat section. So
strong is the feeling on the subject
that Mr. MeComas, who has been
repeatedly elected to represent. the
Sixth District of Maryland as a
Republican, is thought this year to
be in danger of defeat. This same
thing will apply to Congressman
Brower, of North Carolina, who has
twice been elected as a Republican.
No effort will he spared by the
Democrats in the South to carry
every district possible, and an in
creased Democratic representation
“In this connection it is advisable
totouchona movement which is
attracting widespread attention and
which is expected to play an impor
tant part in the future politics of the
country.. I refer to the Farmers’s
■Alliance. The Republicans are
laying the flattering anction to their
souls that through this wedge they
will be tible to break up the Solid
South and perhaps prevent the
Democrats from organizing the next
House. Tn this they are likely to
be badly deceived. ‘
“True, in many districts in the
South, Alliancemen have defeated
Democratic veterans for the nomi
nation. This happened in six of the
ten Georgia districts. But it was
merely a primary contest, and the
nominees are naming as Democrats
and with the understanding that
they will participate, in the Demo
cratic caucus. They well know
that to prove-reereant Jto this pledge
would doom them to future political
oblivion. The .Southern. Alliance
Democrats will standby their par
ty.” ,
The Last Cause of Differencefiemoved.
State Chronicle* /
A prominent_and influential
member of the Alliance, a Demo
cratic candidate for the Legislature
writes us under date of Oct. 15th,
the following private letter. It ac
cords so exactly with the position
of the Gkronicte, and seems to us to
contain so much wisdom, that we
take the liberty of giving it to the
readers of the Chronicle, withhoold
the name of the writer for the pres
ent. Its statements are commended
to the consideration of every Demo
crat, and particularly the Democrats
who honestly criticised the letters
and position of Senator Vance.
Our Alliance friend writes:
“I anr delighted to receive the
Chronicle, and find Senator Vance’s
letter to Mr. E. C. Beddingfield.
This letter harmonizes everything
in my district, and it is the biggest
thing for the Democratic party that
has taken place for many years, not
only in North Carolina, but for the
whole union. It at once makes
Vance the hero throughout the
laud. Nothing can stand before
aim. This letter should bring ev
ery farmer, mechanic and laboring;
man to his feet, and cause them to
work as they never have before. Ik
should make every township in the
State Democratic by a big majority.
I am sure Wake courfty will go
wild with the glad news, and you
will have no trouble to roll up a
large majority on the night of the
4th of November. This letter puts
Senator Vance just. where I have
claimed he was ever since reading
his letter to Mr. Carr. The State
press (I have claimed) did Senator
Vance great injustice in, declaring
throughout the State that he was
opposed to the principles of the
sub-treasury Bili.r “This’ letter will
do great good ihj North Carolina,
and should Senator Vance take the
stump with Polk and others in the
west and advocate the sub-treasury
bill as he eau and inform the people
on the finances of the country wo
will have no trouble in destroying
the power of money to oppress the
people, nhd Vance would at
once 'bd the biggest mnn in the
Union. We musthave more mou
sy and cheaper money in this conn
try. The scarcity of money and
hard times in the rural districts k
Iriving our men to the towns and
to the west. It takes tl# ninnhood
*nd the womanhood ont of the
/oung people of the country.”
) The Speech of Senator Ransom.
Statrmrlltv La ml mark. ■*?-* 'S; y '
If a diacriininatihgstanger, with
out hnv;!!*; henrd the name or known
Hu; • station of the speaker, had
dropped into the court house at this
place Tuesday and heard Hon. Matt, %
W. Hansom/from the first to the
last word of the address which l
he delivered here that day,'
he, would have said at its conclusiori,‘ ;
“That man should be in the Senate
of United States.” While yet under I
the immediate spell which he threw
tareund all who heard him, and
while the music' of his: voice yet1,
rang in the ear, we would not have ,
undertaken to put on paper an esti
mate of this effort and invited judge
ment upon it as a temperate,., con
siderate opinion. Thirty-six hours ;
afterward we do not Hesitate to 1
doso.' ." .. : ’
Looked at in whatever hght or.w
chooses to regard it, this speech was
e *tirely great. It was purely an in-*
tectual performance, r There was no
appeal to prejudice or to passion. |
The speaker brought a message to
the people! and he addressed it to
their-intellectual faculties. His
manner wa« at no time declamatory,
lie never left the path of true con
servatism. He indulged in no jest,
emploped no sophistry, and at no
moment dropped from the high key,
on which he pitched his argument.
Here he was tenderly persuasive;
there the lightning of his rebuke ,
withered and blasted its object; eve
rywhere he was the embodiment of
tbedignity, thestateliness, the con
servatism of the Senate. From
first to last there was no flaw in the
argument. With the care of aman
who has for eighteon years moved
upon a stage where been blades
quickly find the joint of every ar- .
mor, his every premise was a conce
, ded truth and every deduction drawn.
' was the irresistibly logical sOqheiicC 4
fromthe fact stated. “There it is!"
he would say as he enclenched eve
ry proposition and dropped his arms
by his side. And there, indeed, it .
was for any man who could contro
vert. His mastery of his audience
was complete. For minutes at time
the stillness was broken by nothing ■ ■
save the speakers voice.- A deep so
lemnity was upon the people. There .v
was no inclination to applaud; there
was no desire for applause. ■ rt?
The speech lifted men up. Itim- :
pressed them with the dignity and
responsibility of cisizenship. It de- '
dared unto them the law of liberty
and taught them that the Ameri
can birth-right must be as sacredly
guarded, as was the ark of the' cov
enent in the devious windings of Is
rael. . : ■.
The sentiment was high—this has 3
already been said. The diction was f
faultless, the manner of delivery in
comparable. No language could so 3
aptly describe the man and his mar
velously impressive and effective
utterances as that which Ben John*
son employed to describe lord *
Bacon: - _ %
“There happened in my time one
noble speaker who was full of grav
ity in his speaking. His language, V
Swhere he could spare or pass, by a
jest, was nobly censorious. No man
ever spoke more neatly, more precise- '
ly, more weightily, or suffered less ;
emptiness, in wnat he uttered.
No member of 'his speech but
consisted of his own graces.
His hearers could not cough or turn
aside from him without loss. • * ,
* The fear of every man that heard'
him was lest he sRonld make an an v
end.” , /’ ‘
As the Oratory, pure and simple; ■
“no member of his speech l»ut con
sisted of his graces.” The eloquence,
was the stately eloquence of the Sen
ate—not the thin rhetoric of the
rostrum. The manner of the speak- ■:£
er was the poetry of action, and
what measure his magnificent pres
ence contributed to the witchery , he .
flung about his audience it is diffi* ^
cult to say.
Surely none who saw and heard
this man on Tuesday but felt hi#
heart swell with pride as he reflect- -
ed'that this polished orator, this pro- i£
fon n4 Iogtc«nf«tood foytNorth tlnr
olina in the highest deliberative 1
body on eartb. . -
■ The people of Iredell will be most— ■
fortunate if they evcr.lienr thisgreat.
oration equated. They need not,