The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-11-10
ARGUED BY HENDERSON,
Reasons Why the Claims for
Sugar Bounties Should
Be Paid.
Secretary Carlisle Asked to Send the
Matter to the Internal Revenue
Commissioner.

WASHINGTON, D. c., Nov. 9.-Under
the agreement made yesterday with Secre-
tary Carlisle, ex-senator Henderson ap-
peared before the Secretary this afternoon
and argued the sugar-bounty case. Mr..
Henderson submitted printed brief COW
ering in detail the points to which he re-
ferred but briefly in his oral argument.
Stripped of its legal verbiage Mr.. Mander-
sons argument is that the law passed by
Congress providing for the payment of
the bounty is later than the Dockery law,
imposing alleged superior powers on the
Comptroller of the Treasury; that it is a
special act and more binding in its effect
than laws granting authority general in
character. He ignored the act of the
Comptroller in sending the case to the
ing no jurisdiction his act must, perforce,
be illegal ard totally void.
His second point, upon which he laid
great stress. was the absence of authority
vested in the Secretary to send the claim
ant to the Court of Claims. The funda-
mental mistake in the whole proceeding
was, Mr.. Henderson argued, that instead
of performing his whole dtuy, as required
by the act of March 2, 1895, the Commits
sioner OF Internal Revenue submitted the
claims to the Auditor and Comptroller
whereas the law specifically provides that
the bounty shall be paid by the Commits
sioner of Internal Revenue, with the
approval of the Secretary of the Treasury.
| The law further stipulates, and upon
this Mr.. Henderson dwelt with force, that
the Secretary was authorized to draw his
warrants for sums necessary. to pay the
bounty, which sums should be certi
fed to him by the Commissioner oil
Internal Revenue, by whom the bounty
was to be disbursed. The Comptroller
who thus got the case through the mis-.
take of the Commissioner of Internal Rev.
enue was, Mr.. henderson said, "filled
apparently with a desire to magnify his
powers and amplify himself, declaring
himself confronted with great constitu
tional question"
The case before the Secretary could not
| be sent to the Court of Claims, Mr.. Man.
derson argued, because it was one upon
which Congress itself had acted. In con.
clusion Mr.. Henderson said:
"Mr. Secretary, you may do one o.
two things; you may send this matter to
the Attorney-General, to say whether min
isterial officers may, under this manda
tory law, refuse to pay it, or you may send
it back to the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue for full and complete compli
ance on his part with the provisions of the
law. We ask that you send it to the Com
missioner, the Comptroller having had nc
| jurisdiction"
Senator Manderson's argument occupied
less than an hour. There were two inter
ruptions by the Secretary, both of which
are considered as significant. The Secre
| tary stated with clearness that he did MOI
| consider the case before him as presenting
any constitutional question whatever, ano
he did not propose to consider the consti-
tutionality of the law. Later on Mr.. Car
Isle said that while he was not decidine
anything, he was inclined to agree with
Mr.. Henderson that sending the case tc
the court of claims would simply result in
that court finding the facts. which had, ap
parentiy, been ascertained by the Com
missioner of Internal Revenue The Sec
rotary said that he did not expect to pas:
upon the questions presented before the
meeting of Congress owing to the press O
other business, much of his time being oc
cupied in the preparation of his annua
report.