Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1895-08-15

o.
Senator Blanchard, of louisiana
Senator Blanchard, for the cane sugar
producers of Louisiana, addressed the
| comptroller, under three general
| heads:
First-That the comptroller of the
treasury is without authority to cues
ton the validity of an act of congress.
Second-That the appropriation
| called in question is of constitutional
| warrant.
| Three-That if it be not constitu-
tional, strong equities exist, justifying
| congress in making the appropriation,
| and that congress has equitable juris-
| diction.
Mr. Blanchard addressed himself
| more particularly to the first of these
| propositions, touching only in a gen.
| eral way upon the other two, leaving
| it to his associates to amplify the argu-
ment upon them.
The attitude of the comptroller is
one of apparent resistance to the
| orderly execution of an act of congress,
| he said.
An extraordinary spectacle is here
oS
senators Of the United States, actively
participated in the passage of the boun-
| ty appropriation through the senate.
| two members of the house of repre-
| sentatives who did the same in that
| body, are present at this hearing.
And for what purpose? To present
before a subordinate official of the
treasury department reasons why he
| should execute the law of congress.
Upon what degenerate times have we
fallen that high executive officers of
| the government feel compelled, in the
discharge of their public duties. to
| appear personally and urge that effect
| be given to law of the land. 1t
| would seem that their duties do not
| end with the enactment of statute.
They must follow it up into the execu-
| tive branch and see to its proper ex-
| ecution.
What is the nature of this office of
! comptroller? What are its duties,
| powers, jurisdiction? Can he organize
| himself into a court to try the question
| of constitutionality, decide against the
| constitutionality of the act, and thus
| set it aside as being in his opinion no
| law at all?
Is not an act of congress rule of
| conduct for him to follow in the dis
| charge of his duties until it is judicial
ly declared by proper tribunal to
be unconstitutional? The answer
| to these questions is of the
gravest and greatest Importance. 1t
| involves a consideration of high and
| eretofore-undeined powers claimed
as belonging to public officers in with
holding action in cases where specific
| duties are imposed ON them by posi-
| tive statute. 1t involves a considera-
| ton of the extent of legislative power.
| and of the means by which that au-
thority may be enforced. 1t involves
| the expunging of an act of congress
| from the statute book.
If there be in the treasury depart
ment subordinate legislative officer
with powers SO supreme as to set aside
] at will an act of congress, it is time for
| it to become generally known, for it's
| consequences are far-reaching indeed.
The constitution provides but one
| source of veto power-that of the
! chief executive. Is it possible that
| another source of veto power has lain
dormant all these years, to spring into
life and activity just at this moment
in the official personality of the comp
troller of the treasury?
The president. it seems, must APP
prove an appropriation act as a whole
or veto it as whole. He can not, by
| the constitution, approve certain items
of appropriation in the bill and veto
others which do not meet his approval.
Not SO the comptroller. These preten-
! sions of the comptroller deny utterly.
| They must be repudiatcd by all sound
| opinion.
An act OF congress, approved by the
! president, properly authenticated and
| reaching the comptroller through the
proper channels, must be regarded by
| him as a law. Because the comptrol-
| Ter takes an oath to support the con-
| stitution, gives him no authority to
| question the constitutionality of an
| act of congress. that power rests with
another branch of the government.
| Senator Blanchard devoted himself
| for the remainder of his time to a
presentation of legal propositions and
| authorities bearing upon the case,
| and, in conclusion. said: 1.-The prin-
| ciple of bounties was not at all in
VOWED in this appropriation bill.
That was in the Mckinley act. Con-
| gress made the present appropriation
| because of strong equities existing in
| favor of the producers of sugar in con-
| sequence of a governmental policy-a
change which came upon them sud-
denly and produced great disaster. It
was right and proper for congress to
| do this, because it was but strictly in
| line with justice.
| That congress has full power to do
| Justice by citizens of the republic, that
| it has equitable jurisdiction to pre-
vent the despoiling of its citizens, none
| will have the iiardihood to deny.