Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-01-09
BOUNTY ON SUGAR.
The Court of Appeals Yesterday Sus-
tanned the Lower Court.

tanned the Lower Court.
The Court of Appeals yesterday. In an
opinion written by Mr. Justice Shepard. at
firmed the Judgment of the court below
Uudge McComas) in the case of the Miles
Planting and Manufacturing Company OF
Louisiana against the Secretary OF the
Treasury and the commissioner OF internal
revenue The case was one in which the
company, manufacturers and planters OF
sugar. sought by mandamuS to compel the
Secretary and commissioner to carry out
the regulations provided for by the Nc
Kinley tariff act, granting bounty to pro-
ducers of sugar. Judge McComas, i'll the
court below, refused to grant the manua,
mus, holding that the recent tarii1 act had
repealed the Mckinley act. That decision
the Court Of Appeals yesterday afhrmed
The court held that the three questions
at issue were whether the case Is one III
whether the repeating clause of the law
now in force had the effect to at once re-
peal the sugar bounty clauses OF the NC
kinley act, taking away all CLAIMS tnere-
under, and whether the bounty Id" was
constitutional.
AS to the first question, the court holds
that the matter has already been snihclent-
ly passed upon in the cases or seymour
agt state OF South Carolina, and Inter
national Construction Company agt La
mont, the latter case having already been
affirmed by the United States supreme
Court. Respecting the second question. the
court says that the repeating clause OF the
recent tariff act Is not only direct repeal
of that part of the Mckinley act which
granted sugar bounty, but Is also an e4-
press prohibition of any further payment
of such bounty.
Referring to the question as to the con-
stitutionaIity of the bounty, the court says
that no amount OF incidental public good
or benefit will render valid taxation, or
he
rived therefrom, for q private purpose. II
Congress be conceded the power to grant
| subsidies from the public revenues to all
objects it may deem to be for the general
welfare then, says the court, it follows
| that this discretion, like all admitted
powers OF taxation, is absolute. Such a
! doctrine would destroy the idea that this Is
| q government OF delegated, limited and
enumerated powers" render superfuous all
the special delegations of power contained
in the Constitution, and open the way Tor
a flood OF socianstic legislation. the sEecious
plea for all of which has ever been "the
general welfare"
Such doctrine, says the court, 1t can
not subscribe to, and 1t is still less able to
be enacted by Congress I'm pursuance of a
national policy analogous to that adopted
by Germany and France" or any other
government on the face Of the earth.
In conclusion, the court says that III
there had been a practice by Congress-, uni
form and generally acQuiesced In. our
opinion is so clearly against the validity
of this act {the Mckinley bounty clause
that we could not be controlled by 1t in the
performance of our duty. No time, no
acquiescence, no estoppel runs against
the people under the protection Of our
written Constitution. 1t follows that the
Judgment below must be in all things af-
irmed, and 1t is SO ordered, with cost to
the appelleeS.
In concurring opinion. Mr.. Chief JUS
tice Alvey says that while he fully con-
ours In the atfirmance of the judgment be-
low, he does 50 upon the distinct grounds
that the sugar bounty act was expressly
repealed by the tariff act Of 1894. Even
were not that 50, he says. the case, as pre-
scented to the court, showed no sufficient
foundation for writ of mandamus. He
explains that he did not deem 1t necessary,
for any purpose Of the case, to discuss and
decide the constitutional question Of the
power OF Congress to provide for the pay
ment of bounties in such case rs that pro-
vided for by the tariff act of 1890, the chief
justice explaining that he prefers to ex-
press no opinion upon that subject.