Field v. Clark
143 U.S. 649 (1892)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An enrolled bill authenticated by the signatures of the presiding officers of both houses of Congress and the President is conclusive proof of its statutory text and cannot be challenged by evidence from congressional journals. Furthermore, Congress may delegate authority to the President to determine the existence of a particular fact or contingency upon which the operation of a statute is conditioned, without violating the constitutional separation of powers.
Facts:
- Marshall Field & Co. imported woollen dress goods, wearing apparel, and silk embroideries.
- Boyd, Sutton & Co. imported silk and cotton laces, and Herman, Sternbach & Co. imported colored cotton cloths.
- Customs collectors assessed duties on these goods according to the rates established by the Tariff Act of October 1, 1890.
- The importers contended that the Tariff Act was not a valid law because a section concerning a rebate for tobacco taxes, which they alleged had passed both houses of Congress, was absent from the final version signed by the President.
- Section 3 of the Act also authorized the President to suspend the duty-free importation of sugar, molasses, coffee, tea, and hides from any country if he was satisfied that the country imposed duties on U.S. products that he deemed 'reciprocally unequal and unreasonable.'
- The importers also argued this provision unconstitutionally delegated legislative and treaty-making power to the President.
Procedural Posture:
- Customs collectors for various ports assessed duties on goods imported by Marshall Field & Co. and other merchants under the Tariff Act of 1890.
- The importers protested the assessments to the Board of General Appraisers, arguing the Act was not a valid law.
- The Board of General Appraisers affirmed the decisions of the collectors.
- The importers appealed the Board's decisions to the Circuit Courts of the United States for their respective districts.
- The Circuit Courts affirmed the judgments of the Board of General Appraisers.
- The importers, as appellants, then brought the cases to the United States Supreme Court for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
First, does an enrolled bill, authenticated by the signatures of the presiding officers of both houses of Congress and the President, constitute conclusive evidence that it was properly passed, thereby precluding courts from consulting congressional journals to invalidate it? Second, does a statutory provision authorizing the President to suspend favorable tariff rates for a country, if he finds that country imposes reciprocally unequal and unreasonable duties on U.S. products, constitute an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Harlan
First, yes. An enrolled bill authenticated by the signatures of the Speaker of the House, the President of the Senate, and the President of the United States is unimpeachable evidence that it was passed by Congress. The respect due to co-equal branches of government requires the judiciary to accept this official authentication and not look behind it to congressional journals or other records. To do otherwise would create extreme uncertainty and instability in the law, as journals are susceptible to error and fraud, and would subordinate the legislative branch to judicial review of its internal procedures. Second, no. This provision is not an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. Congress itself made the law and set the policy; it determined that if a specific contingency occurred—the imposition of unequal duties by another nation—then the suspension of free trade would take effect and pre-determined tariff rates would apply. The President is not legislating; he is acting as the mere agent of Congress to ascertain a fact—the existence of reciprocally unequal duties—upon which the legislative will is to be executed. This is a delegation of executive authority to enforce the law, not legislative power to make it, a practice supported by a long history of similar statutes, including the one upheld in The Brig Aurora.
Dissenting - Justice Lamar
Second, yes. The reciprocity provision is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. The statute goes beyond authorizing the President to find a simple, defined fact. It grants him the discretion to determine what is 'reciprocally unequal and unreasonable' and to suspend the law for 'such time as he shall deem just.' This is not mere fact-finding; it is the exercise of legislative discretion over commerce and revenue, a power vested exclusively in Congress. Unlike the law in The Brig Aurora, which hinged on a clear, objective event, this provision allows the President to make policy judgments, effectively regulating commerce and imposing duties based on his own discretion, which is a palpable violation of the Constitution.
Analysis:
This landmark decision established two crucial principles in American public law. First, it adopted the 'enrolled bill rule' for the federal government, ensuring the finality and certainty of statutes by making the officially authenticated text conclusive, thereby preventing challenges based on alleged procedural errors during legislative passage. Second, it affirmed a flexible interpretation of the nondelegation doctrine, allowing Congress to give the executive branch significant discretion to implement laws based on contingent facts. This ruling provided the constitutional foundation for the modern administrative state, where Congress passes broad statutes and delegates the authority to agencies and the President to fill in the details and execute the law in response to changing conditions.
Unlock the full brief for Field v. Clark