The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-08-08

WASHINGTON. Aug. THE hear
ing today before Comptroller Bowler
upon the question of its constitution
atty of the sugar bounty appropria-
ton made by Congress last session for
the crops OF 1898 and 1894. arises from
the claims Of the Oxnard Beet Sugar
company of Nebraska. The first claim
was settled by the auditor since the
passage of the Wilson bill by syhich
the old sugar bounties of the Mckinley
act were repealed.
The internal revenue commissioner
having adjusted the amount Of boun-
ties due the OXnard company, referred
all papers to the auditor for the treas
ury department with a statement OF
the account thereon. The amount al
lowed the amount fixed by the COM.
missioner of internal revenue and certi-
fed the decision to the comptroller for
his approval, disapproval or modifica-
ton, as required by the provisions OF
the new accounting system, adopted in
the act of July 81, 1894, as a result of
the labors of the Dockery commission.
That act requires the auditors, in max
ing an original construction of moditi-
cation of the existing construction Of
the statute to report to the comptroller
of the treasury their decisions and sus-
pend action until the comptroller has
passed upon the question.
The decision of the comptroller is re-
quired to be acted upon by the auditor,
whose certificate is made by law final
and conclusive upon the executive
branch of the government. The result
is that the decision of the comptroller
cannot be reviewed by any other eXecus
tive office of the government. Claims
rejected by the cOmptrOller, however,
may be sued on in the court of claims,
or in certain cases, in the circuit and
district courts of the United States,
their decisions being binding upon him.
Suits Against Carlisle.
The court of appeals of the District
of Columbia in the case of the United
States eX. rel, Mills Planting and
Manufacturing company versus John
@. Carlisle and Joseph S. Miller, man
damus proceeding against the score
tary of the treasury and commissioner
of internal revenue 10 compel them to
appoint sugar inspectors under the
provision Of the Mckinley act. having
ruled that sugar bOunties were I'M
constitutional. the comptroller of the
treasury deemed it his duty to be
satisfied upon that point before pass
ing the claim of the Oxnard company
and establishing IA precedent for the
payment of sugar bOuntieS provided
for by the new appropriation He.
therefore, without making any decision
upon the matter whatever. called upon
the counsel of the OXnard company to
be heard upon the question. The mat
ter gives rise Immediately to cmsid-
cradle discussion as to the comp
troller's powers and duties and claim
has been persistently made that he
had no jurisdiction and was compelled
to obey the laws pasesd by Congress,
whether constitutional or not That
question will be argued as well as the
constitutionality Of the bounty appro-
priaticns
The hearing took place in Comp
troller Bowler'S Office III the Treasury
building. Ex-senator Henderson. of
Nebraska, made the first argument in
the case. He said the interests under
consideration were one of great i'm
portance, not only to his state, but to
the entire United States. The bounty
provided for N the Mckinley law was
a pledge Of the government to reward
experiments in sugar production to the
extent of cents per pound. 1t was 4
SOleIln contract LOT Il IGIil OL years
and the producers had a right to rely
upon it. The state of Nebraska. he
said. had gone to great expense in es-
tablishing experiment stations for the
purpose CT teaching the people how to
grow the beets.
Hardships of the Repeal.
As going to show the hardships
which the repeal of the bounty had
worked, he said that the Nebraska.
farmers had this year planted 5000
acres OF beets, or 5000 acres more than
ever before under contracts previous
" made with the manufacturers. He
characterized the repeal of the bounty
law as unrighteOuS unjust and a
most unlawful exercise of congress
sional prerogative, and referred to it
as a buncO process He then explain
ed the present bounty legislation
under which the present claim is pre-
scented.
Nh. Henderson declared that if by
any method in the treasury depart
ment or in the courts this boon be
1enied our factories. disaster beyond
any description and distress beyond
auv capacity to paint will result
What we plead for now is that our
-sctories be allowed to exc out an
vistence Wipe out this industry
nd YOU administer almost a death
Nlow 10 the west.
Authority of the COmptrOIIer.
The speaker then discussed at
angth the duties of the comptroller
nd his authority TO act in his case,
-hich he denied. The president and
Congress-, said Mr.. Henderson, had
! 0assed on sthe constitutionality of this
act and he refused to acknowledge
ne authority of a subordinate to pass
n ex-post facto veto. Only the
rdiciary could do his
Senator Henderson made the point
hat the law providing for the pay
-nent of the bounty was OF later en-
1otment han the general law defining.
he comptroller's duties and Should be
-iven due weight on the latest in
~truotion on the subject. Senator
Saffery asked Mr.. Henderson whether