## Facts

- Importers (including Marshall Field & Co.) challenged customs duties assessed under the Tariff Act of Oct. 1, 1890 (McKinley Tariff) after their protests were rejected by customs authorities and affirmed on review.
- The challenges were consolidated after the circuit courts upheld the duty assessments.
- The importers argued the Tariff Act was not validly enacted because the enrolled bill signed by the presiding officers and approved by the President allegedly differed from versions reflected in congressional journals.
- The importers also attacked § 3 of the Act, which placed certain goods on the free list but authorized the President to suspend free importation and impose specified duties if he found that a foreign country imposed “reciprocally unequal or unreasonable” burdens on U.S. products.
- The importers sought refunds of duties already collected, contending the statute (or at least § 3) was unconstitutional.

## Issues

1. Whether a court may invalidate a federal statute by using congressional journals or other legislative records to contradict an enrolled bill signed by the presiding officers of both Houses, approved by the President, and deposited with the Secretary of State.
2. Whether § 3 unconstitutionally delegated Congress’s legislative power over tariffs by authorizing the President to suspend free importation and trigger specified duties upon certain findings.
3. Whether invalidity of § 3 (if any) would render inoperative other, independent duty provisions of the Tariff Act.

## Decision

- The Court affirmed the judgments for the government and denied the importers’ refund claims.
- The Court held that an enrolled bill, duly authenticated by the presiding officers and approved by the President, is conclusive evidence of proper enactment; courts may not use congressional journals to impeach it.
- The Court upheld § 3, characterizing the President’s role as determining the existence of statutory conditions and executing Congress’s policy rather than making law.
- The Court stated that even if § 3 were invalid, other separable provisions imposing duties would remain operative.

## Legal Principles

- Once a bill is properly enrolled, signed by the presiding officers of both Houses in open session, approved by the President, and deposited pursuant to law, its authentication as having passed Congress is conclusive; judicial inquiry may not rely on legislative journals to contradict that authentication.
- Congress may not delegate legislative power, but it may confer authority on the Executive to ascertain facts or conditions upon which the statute’s operation depends and to implement consequences Congress has specified.
- A statute may remain enforceable in its other provisions even if a particular provision is invalid, where the remaining provisions operate independently.

## Conclusion

The Court treated the authenticated enrolled act as unimpeachable evidence of enactment, rejected journal-based challenges to statutory validity, upheld conditional presidential authority under the tariff law as permissible execution of Congress’s policy, and affirmed that any defect in § 3 would not defeat separable duty provisions.


Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649 (1892)