Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-10-12
SUGAR BOUNTY CASES
Judge McComas Holds That the Secretary's
Act Was More Than Ministerial
Writ of Mandamus Refused on the
Grounds Set Forth I'm an opin-
ION Rendered Today.

Judge McComas this morning rendered
his decision In the case OF the Miles Plant
ing and Manufacturing Company of Louisi-
ana against the Secretary of the Treasury
and the commissioner OF the Internal reve-
nue.. The company manufacturers and pro-
ducers of sugar. petitioned the court TO
grant q writ Of mandamus to compel those
officials to cause an inspection OF the CON-
pany's plant, that II might establish a claim
to the bounty allowed producers and manu-
facturers Of sugar under the Mckinley tariff
act. The conclusion of Judge McComas was
that the petition must be dismissed. In the
course Of the decision, which has been
awaited with great interest by the pro-
ducers and manufacturers of sugar. the
Judge states:
This company, the relator. insists that
the duty Of Secretary Carlisle to direct such
supervision and inspection is a special duty;
that II Is a ministerial duty, imposed upon
him by section 81 Of the tariff act of 1ss0.
end that his refusal to so act is arbitrary;
that the tariff act Of August %. 1894. does
not affect the rights OF this company, but
expressly reserves them.
Therefore this company has asked this
ton to compel an executive officer of the
government to perform an act, TO command
the Secretary of the Treasury TO direct the
commissioner OF internal revenue to exer-
else supervision and inspection OF the man.
ufacture OF sugar, and TO command the
commissioner, under the direction OF the
Secretary, to exercise supervision and in
spectfon OF such manufacture OF sugar by
this company.
Repeal Of the Clause.
THE Secretary OF the Treasury concluded
that this paragraph is n repeal Of the clause
of the act OF October I, 1880. requiring the
supervision and inspection OF the production
Of sugar. This clause is not expressly re-
pealed. 1t is. however. incidental and in
termediate to the Issuing of licenses to pro-
ducers and the payment of bounties to
them. These are expressly repealed, and
hereafter the issuing Of licenses and the
payment OF bounties is declared unlawful
The repeal of the clause for inspection and
supervision, a useless fragment OF the
statute, is therefore fairly implied.
THE reasoning whereby IL is claimed that
the bounty provisions, or at least the in
spection clauses remain in force during this
fiscal year as to all persons to whom
licenses have been issued for this fiscal
year Is Ingenious, but not convincing. The
general repeating clause. section a., con-
tains saving exceptions Of any right &C
cruing or accrued and of all rights and
liabilities under existing laws, but para
graph 49, is a special repeal OF the sugar
licenses and sugar bounty provisions. Ii is
more. 1t is an absolute prohibition here
after of the issuing of any licenses or Of
the payment of any bounty. The sugar
bounty is not right or liability intended
to be saved by the general repeating clause.
1t Is bounty dependent upon public policy
and the good faith of Congress, and always
under legislative control"
Not Merely Ministerial.
The court further pointed out that the
Secretary of the Treasury in this matter
has exercised his judgment and discretion
in expounding the revenue laws under
which he is required to act. This court. the
Judge added. has no jurisdiction to correct
by the writ of mandamus an error of law
IL II be one of these executive officers In the
exercise of their Judgment and discretion in
determining whether or not the sugar
bounty system was repealed by the act of
August 2s, 1884. A matter the court stated
involving so much judgment. discretion and
detail cannot be termed a mere ministerial
duty.