Show the mckinley bill constitutional NOTON feb 29 the Me mckinley Kinley bill was ft as decad decided ea constitutional bythe by the supreme court today to day justice harlan read alie op opinion i nion lie ile said the lie court had given most careful and deliberate attention to ta the le question I 1 now 1 ow raised for the fir urt t time tim aas as to twe the courts determining ter whether an act signed by bv the president was actually a law passed by Con congress grem the objector object of the journal required to be kept by contress Con congress was not that it might be consulted to t determine iress et ermine the authenticity y of an act of Con congress but that bonfre there might be publicity of fre the proceedings I 1 ill signatures Sig tures of two pre presiding siding offic officers eq all and of the president war a authentication of ali alte e bill provi providing I 1 i ing the e forms required had been complied with the suggestion thit that there might beade be a deliberate conspiracy between presiding presiding officers and the to ma make e a law not alasseo passed b by congress the court said coul cougil not riot hold if an air enrolled act the court held was wag conclusive as to reciprocity the court says the various decisions of the tile court and the practice of years establishes the right of confess congress to give the president ident power by proclamation proc ai nation at a future 1 I 1 day to revoke or modify certain clauses of an air act it holds bolas it was not a transfer of legislative power but simply gave the president power to de determine t ermine whether the time had arrived which the re requirements of congress as to the act taking tile effect specified had arrived the president the court says gay is not vested with any real legislative legislative powers congress congress prescribed condit conditions ons under which the tie eres president ident should act all he had to ascertain wai was that a particular act existed and then it was directed direct od that he be should execute the act the president was a mere inere agent of the lawmaking law making power with alth respect to sugar bounties the court P says yei that the validity of the w hole lo 10 e act is involved in flip the q question ll 11 estion as to whether or not this clause was wa 8 I 1 valid a lid I 1 is BO so obvious an error as not to warrant such argument gunie nt there is no such connection between this part of the act and the other sections as to warrant the court la to a assuring ing t that h at the rest would not riot have been a adopted opt but for the adoption of the bounty P system they are entirely separate in purpose goyu justice atice lamar and chief justice fuller concurred in the ending finding of the court but bat dissented from that part holding the re 1 1 11 cip rocity part constitutional they held that it was a transfer of legi legislative dative power I 1 but concurred in in the conclusion on oil tho the ground that there was not riot a vital connection to between the reciprocity section and i A the tile tariff portions of the tile act I 1 |