The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-08-09

-
Senator B~lanchard's Argument Be-
fore Controller bowler.
WASHINGTON, Aug. s.-The hearing In
the sugar bounty case now pending before
Controller Bowler was resumed in the
Office rooms OF the latter this morning and
another large interested crowd was present,
among them many men prominent in pub
lie affairs. Senator Blanchard began the
days proceedings. speaking from a care
fully prepared manuscript. He said that he
and the gentlemen associated with him
would present the argument under three
general heads. They would contend, first,
that the Controller of the Treasury was
without authority to question the validity
of an act Of Congress-; second, that the
appropriation in question is OF constitution
al warrant; third. that If it be not constitu-
tional, strong equities existed justifying
Congress in making the appropriation and
that Congress has equitable jurisdiction.
The Senator said he would address himself
more particularly to the first contention.
The claim in question, that of the Ok
nard company, Of Nebraska, was passed
on by the auditor for the treasury and al
lowed. He certified the amount due to the
Controller of the Treasury and that official,
who Is required by law to also pass upon
it, appearing to have doubts as to his duty
in the premises. suspended the claim.
The doubts of the Controller. arise, as 1
understand It," said the Senator, ION the
constftutionality of the law. The act of
Congress is precise, plain, clear and man.
datory. The attitude of the Controller is
one of apparent resistance to the execu-
ton Of an act of Congress. Questions of
grave and serious import arise. An ex-
: trdOr0lQdry spectacle is presented. Three
gentlemen, who were Senator's of the United
States, and actively participated in the
the Senate, and two members Of the House
OF Representatives, who did the same in
that body. are present at this hearing.
a subordinate official Of the Treasury De-
partment reasons why he should execute
the law of Congress: Upon what degener-
lative officers of the government feel com
PEELED, in the discharge of their public
duties, to appear personally and urge that
effect be given to a law of the land? 1t
would seem that their duties do not end
with the enactment of a statute. They
must needs follow It up into the executive
branch and see. to its execution.
What" he asked. sis the nature of this
office Of Controller? What It's duties. pow
ton the validity of an act of Congress? Is
he anything more than an sdministrative
or ministerial officer? Must ne not execute
the Treasury may refuse his sanction TO
the proper proceedings required TO take
this money from the treasury after it's ap-
whatever is safe. The President, it seems,
must approve an appropriation act as a
whole or veto 1T as a whole. He cannot by
appropriation in the bill and veto others
which do not meet his approval. But not
so so sne controller; He is circumscribed by
An act of Congress. said the Senator. an
proved by the President, is not a guidance
drawing the money from the treasury till
his own peculiar test Of the constitutionali-
~ IL applied to it by the Controller. These
pretensions OF the Controller. as Mr..
blanchard called them, he denied utterly
The acts of Congress, Mr.. Blanchard as
serted. constituted the Controller an adj
ministrative or ministerial officer invested
with no judicial authority whatever. The
most that could be claimed for him was
that he was a ministerial officer with
fore referred to directs the payment Of
money to the sugar producers upon the
ascertainment Of their claims in the man
to be performed. Quasi-judicial functions
may be exercised in deciding the amount
due on the state of facts presented
up to the payments Of money is a purely
ministerial act.
Mr.. Blanchard then proceeded to examine
into the character of the office of Controller
ministration of the Treasury Department.
and he contended that the person holding
as he said. shown that the Controller was
to be considered a ministerial officer only.
even though he performed certain quasi-ju-
d.ciai functions. the Senator proceeded to
inquire whether it was within the Con-
troller's province to question the validity of
the statute under consideration. After
quoting numerous authorities and citing de-
cisions. he asserted that the very utmost
the executive branch could do in the way of
inquiry into the ccnstitutiorslity OF a law
u-oa 70 81 III -tnt~ ~ S----
general. But the act OF Congress constitut-
ed a rule operative on the Controller until IL
was declared by the judicial power void.
hearing, Mr.. blanchard pointed cut, was
once the subject Of an Investigation by the
Thirty-sixth Congress when a Controller
that occasion the conclusion reached by the
Senate committee that investigated the
action Of the Controller was that IL was a
matter of very grave inquiry to know
how far an executive. ministerial or
subordinate officer OF the government can
be permitted to go behind the law or aues-
ton the motives or action OF Congress- to
find excuses or reasons for the nonexecu-
ton CT the law. If this be permitted with
out reb,ke 1t would he subversive of all
While Mr. Blanchard was discussing the
question OF the right of the President TO in
tsrfere with the snforcement of a law en-
whether ne Mr. Bowler) derived his power
from the President or the statute creating
his office. TO which MIR. Blanchard replied
that the President himself could not revise
the aw. The President, he declared, was
without power to forbid the execution OF a
statute. IL Is made his duty to execute all
laws. and. IL he must execute them, how
can he or a subordinate of his nullify them?
But" replied Mr.. Bowler. II take the
ground that IL a law is unconstitutional IL is
| null and void
Mr.. Blanchard-That Is correct. after a
law has been declared unconstitutional by
the United States Supreme Court, but not
before. The President. and no one under
him.. can forbid the execution of a law or
the supposition of with
out himself violating the Constitution. II
does not rest with you. o. any other ex-
ecutive officer. 10 originate an objection of
consttutionalit
Senator Henderson suggested the income
| tax law as an instance.
The income tax law" said Mr.. Bowler,
WAS never constitutional"