Birmingham age-herald., 1895-09-06

of this moral obligation Is the repeal of
 constitutional act. If the original act
 was null and void because unconstitu-
 tional the cessation of payments there
 under because of it's repeal would be
 no different from the cessation of pay
 ments because the act had been held un-
 constitutional by the supreme court. If
 the court could have held the act uncon-
 stitutional on the same day that it was
 repealed no payments could have been
 made thereafter under the original act,
 and it cannot be contended that congress
 could by another act continue the con
 stitutional provisions because people at
 their peril had relied upon 6he original
 act as constitutional Such view
 would involve the result that constitu-
 tional prohibition against given ex-
 penditure could always be evaded sim
 ply by passing two acts, the first con
 stitutional, the second valid because
 passed to compensate the disappoint-
 ment arising from the constitutlonality
 of the first. but both accomplishing the
 same original purpose of paying out the
 peoples money to a beneficiary for
 purpose forbidden by organic law"
 He closes as follows: Having reached
 the conclusion that the present bounty provision has no more constitutional
 validity than the original Mckinley bounty had it follows that the same ac- tion should be taken under the present
 VI original bounty appropriation were still unrepealed and were held unconstitu- tional. If the comptroller should pass the claims the government would be ab- solutely concluded and the money of the people taken from the treasury in pay ment of demands not authorized by law, | If the appropriation is in fact unconstitu- tional. By a refusal to pass the claims the ultimate rights of the claimants are in no way affected, for they have per Foot ..1S of their claims and obtain payment thereof after final determination of the constitutionality of the law, if it be held constitutional.
 If the comptroller had no alternative than to pass or reject the claim for the reason above given, his duty to the whole people, who cannot bring their rights into court, would require him to reject them, leaving the claimants to their recourse to the courts. But con gress has provided another means of escape. apparently with the intention of
 relieving an officer who finds himself obliged to differ with the executive branch of the government or violate his oath to support the constitution.
 By section 1863 of the revised stat utes it is provided that whenever any | claim is made against any executive de- partment involving disputed facts or controverted questions of law, where the amount exceeds 5000, or where the de cision will affect case or cases, or fur nish a precedent for the future action | of any executive department in the ad- justment of case or cases, without re- gard to the amount involved in the par ticular case. or where any authority, right, privilege or exception is claimed or denied under the constitution of the United States, the head of such depart ment may cause such claim, with all the vouchers, paper, proofs and documents pertaining thereto. to be transmitted to the court of claims and the same shall be there proceeded in as if originally commenced by the voluntary action of the claimant; and the secretary of the | treasury. upon the certificate of any auditor or comptroller of the treasury may direct any account, matter or claim of the character amount or class de- Fcribed in this section to be transmitted, l with all the vouchers, papers, documents and proofs pertaining thereto, to the said r court for trial and adjudication He holds that the present claim is clearly "one involving controverted question of law and comes directly with in the provision of section 1863, because the authority, right and privilege is claimed on the one hand and denied on the other under the constitution of the United States
 Therefore. under the provisions of the statute quoted and with the statement that either party can appeal from the de- cision of the court of claims to the su- pfeme court of the United States and then obtain a final decision, the comp troller makes the following order
 "The papers in the present case will therefore be returned to the auditor for transmission by him, through the secre- | tary of the treasury, to the court of claims under section 1863 for the rendi- ton of a judgment, as required by the provision of section 1064 of the revised statutes, that there may be furnished a precedent for the future action of the executive department in the adjustment | of the (claim) cases involved in these sugar bounties"