Evening star., 1895-08-07
Senator Manderson Scores Controller
Bowler.
PAYMENT OF TIE MONEY URGED
Until the Courts Act the Law Must
Be Obeyed.
REVIEW OF THE CASE


the hearing on the sugar bounty question
before the controller of the treasury today.
Among lawyers and officials the matter is
regarded as involving question much more
important than that of whether or not GER
tain sugar producers shall be paid a bounty
promised them by the government. The
question of public interest is whether or
not the department will maintain the propo-
sition that the controller may pass upon
the constitutionality of a law. ALL the law
yers, and especially those Of Washington
who have business before Congress and in
the departments, are deeply interested in
this case Moreover, it affects the broad
political question of the relations Of the
three coordinate branches of the govern
ment toward each other in a manner never
before thought of.
Scene ut the Hearing.
Consequently. when the hearing began
in the controllers office this morning
large number of lawyers and officials be-
sides those connected with the case, were
assembled. AS many chairs as the room
would hold were placed in rows about the
controllers desk. These were all occupied
and as many as could find standing room
crowded into the small space and even
stood in the doorways and in the corridors.
The opening argument was made by Sen
ator Henderson in behalf of the beet su-
gar producers of the west, who consumed
all the morning until after 1 o'clock. The
burden of his argument was In controver-
sion of the idea Of the controller having
the right to pass upon or to raise the
question of the constitutionality of a law.
H. held that this question was consider
ed by Congress before passing an act, and
was passed upon by the President before
giving an act his approval
The approval Of an act by the President
a executive
could decide, that 1t was constitutional,
and 1t did not then rest with the President
himself, far less with a subordinate eNecu-
tive or administrative officer to pass upon
1t. The Supreme Court hesitated to declare
a law unconstitutional and surely it would
be daring in an administrative officer to
presume to pass upon such question.
The Controllers Powers.
The hearing took place in Controller
Bowler's office in the treasury building.
Ex-senator Henderson of Nebraska made
the first argument in the case. He said
the interests under consideration were
of great Importance, not only to his state,
but to the entire United States. The
bounty provided for in the Mckinley law
was a pleige of the government TO reward
experiments in sugar production to the
extent of two cents per pound. 1t was
a solemn contract Tor term CT years, ana
the producers had right to rely upon
1t. The state of Nebraska, he said, had
gone to great expense IN establishing ex-
pertinent stations for the purpose OF
AS going to show. the hardships which the
repeal of the bounty had worked he said
that the Nebraska farmers mad this year
planted 1900 acres of beets, or 5000 acres
more than ever before, under contracts
previously made with the manufacturers.
He characterized the repeal Of the bounty
law as IAN unrighteous, unjust and almost
unlawful exercise of congressional prerega-
81 rn1 to nc n
cess. He then explained the present boun-
ty legislation. under which the present
claim is presented
Mr. Manderson declared that ''if by any
method in the Treasury Department or the
courts this boon be denied our factories,
disaster beyond any description, and dis
tress beyond any capacity to paint. will
result What We plead for now Is that our
factories be allowed to exc out an exist
ence. Wipe out this industry and you ed
minister almost death blow to the west"
The speaker then discussed at length the
duties of the controller and his authority
to act in this case, which he denied. The
President and Congress, said Mr.. Mander-
son, had passed on the constitutionality CT
this act, and he refused to acknowledge
the authority of subordinate to pass an
ex post facto veto. Only The judiciary
could do this. He characterized the action
of Mr.. Bowler as an encroachment on the
prerogative of the executive and Congress.
What the Controller May Do.
During Mr. Manderson's argument the
controller leaned back in his swinging
chair with his hand resting against his
desk, giving the most marked attention.
On one hand a stenographer sat taking
such notes as the controller indicated and
on the other sat one of the assistants from
the Department of Justice assigned to as
sist him in hearing the arguments. Sena-
tors Blanchard and Caffrey and Represen-
tatives Meyer and Price occupied seats
about the desk. Mr.. Manderson proceeded
with his argument almost without inter-
ruption, but few questions being asked by
the controller, and he displayed peculiar
adroitness in pointing out the absurdity of
all assumption of powers of the Supreme
Court by the controller.
The hearing will last a day or more yet
The impression is gathered that the con-
troller will probably in his decision dis
avow any intention to pass upon the con-
stitutionality of the law, but will hold that,
having grave doubts as to it's constitution
ality, it is his duty not to sign the warrant
which will take the money out Of the
treasury beyond recovery, until the courts
have passed upon the question.
1t is regarded as probable that he will
try to force the sugar men to have recourse
to the courts to compel his signature. This
would cause long delay and would keep up
the treasury cash balance to the extent of
the amount involved for many months.
The Cause of the Hearing.
The hearing today on the constitution
atty of the sugar bounty appropriations
made by Congress at its last session, for
the crops of 1893 and 1894. arises upon the
claim of the Oxnard Beet Sugar Company
of Nebraska, that being the first claim set
tied by the auditor since the passage of the
Wilson bill, by which the old sugar boun-
ties of the Mckinley act were repealed.
The commissioner of internal revenue
having adjusted the amount Of the boun-
ties due the Oxnard Company, referred all
the papers to the auditor for the Treasury
Department for the statement Of an ac-
count thereon. The auditor stated an ac-
count allowing the amount fixed by the
commissioner of internal revenue and GER
titled his decision to the controller for his
approval, disapproval or modification as re-
quired by the provisions of the new ac-
counting system adopted in the act of July
81, 1884, as the result Of the labors of the
Dockery commission. That act requires
the auditors, in making an original con-
struction or modifying an existing con-
struction of a statute, to report to the
controller of the treasury their decisions
and to suspend action until the controller
has passed upon the question. This was
rendered necessary by the change which
the Dockery commission made In the ac-
counting offices by which claims stated by
an auditor do not go to the controller as
matter Of course, but only reach him