Show secretary bindoni talks oa hi washington oct 24 special secretary windoil bays ho knew nothing officially about the protests against the legality of the mckinley tariff bill dont he said regard it as the province of a executive officer to question tha constitutionally of acta of con aresa it is for him to enforce the law as he finds it and not de eions affecting ita legality I 1 am therefore executing the mckinley tariff act is I 1 find and shall continue to do so until ahmu competent legal tribunal such as the supreme court decided the law it is not for me to question the validity of any signatures to the bill as enrolled beitner is it lor me to determine whether the bill figued by the president did or did not in taut pasa the lower house much less is it fur me to determine whether the omis abou af the tobacco draw back section or ciny other provision of the bill invalid ates the law As I 1 understand it the act ut october is the law of the idita my duty therefore is plain and I 1 execute its provisions to the best of my ability its constitutionality is a matter lor the courts and until they decide it I 1 shall ba governed by it attorney positively de to ahe question baying it would ba manifestly improper to do so it adine to him in an official way cou missioner of internal revenue martin aidt ills not for me to say whether or not the omission of the to bacco provision vitiates the tariff be WK merely an executive officer of the government I 1 amat enforce it as I 1 find it now the tobacco does not take effect until january 1 BO if congress devires to refund 2 cents a pound on all tobacco on hand when law takes effect it has ample time to legislate to that and no alarm whatever is felt here among abe friends of the mckaley bill as to the legality of itu enactment precedents ol 01 unnumbered years an old and experienced member ot the house said today to day leave no doubt that an error whether of om mission or commis aien in the enrollment of a bill passed by congress does rot vitiate any part ot the measure except that part which is omitted captain mcgregor eRor chief of the customs division recalls a somewhat similar case under the wool act of 1867 the tariff act bore date of second of march but congress extended the session of the ad over to the ath eo as a matter of fact the bill was not signed till about noon of the ath of march A question arose as to whether a cargo that arrived on the ad should pay a duty at the old rate as tho bill actually was not signed before its arrival or at the new rate the case was carried into court which consented to go behind the public record and take the testimony of president johnson himself aa to when the act was signed A similar question will of course come up in connection with the mckinley bill the copy of the act which went to the president and was signed by him certainly bore the signatures of the presiding officers of the two houses of congress certifying to its cor it must now be settled whether it be lawful to go behind this certification to ascertain what waa really passed by the two houses |