Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-09-05
The Controller Renders His Verdict
Today.
he DECIDES AGAINST TEE SUGAR MEN
Under the Law the Bounties Can
not Be Paid.
VARIOUS GASES CITED

Judge Bowler, controller of the treasury,
rendered his decision in the sugar bounty
cases this afternoon. 1t was purposely
withheld until too late for use in the after
noon papers Of today, and the controller
steadfastly declined to give even the
slightest intimation of it's character in ad-
vance of its formal PRONUNCIATION. He said
he would like to accommodate the news
paper men in this respect, but that he did
not care to tell it's nature until the entire
decision came from the hands of the
printer, which would not be the case be-
fore o'clock this afternoon, at the earli-
est.
notwithstanding the controllers reti-
cence on the subject it is pretty generally
understood among those interested that the
decision is adverse to the sugar planters,
and that as consequence the government
will decline to pay out the sum of s5,260, 600
appropriated by the last Congress for sugar
hounties under the Mckinley tariff act
The decision is based on the claim of the
OXnard Beet Sugar Company of Nebraska
for several thousand dollars under the
sugar bounty appropriation. This claim
had been examined and approved by the
internal revenue bureau and the auditor
for the Treasury Department, but was held
of July, because of his serious doubt as to
the constitutonality of the sugar bounty
clause OF the Mckinley act.
Arguments Heard.
He consented to hear arguments on this
point, and several days in the early part
of August were consumed by leading law
yers of the south and west representing
the sugar interests, in their efforts to con-
vince the controller that he had no legal
right to withhold payment of the claim in
question simply because of his belief in
the unconstitutionality of the law They
argued generally that it was his duty to
regard all acts of Congress as in full COM
pliance with the Constitution until they are
declared otherwise by proper judicial
tribunal
Since then the controller has made a
careful study of the question in all it's
bearings, and he said today that he would
announce the result this afternoon. His
decision eontairs about ten thousand
words, and is a most exhaustive review
of the several important constitutional and
legal questions involved 1t is made under
four separate heads and it is said that the
controller argues from each that he is not
authorized to pay the claim under existing
circumstances.
Authorities Cited.
1t is said that Judge Bowler feels justi-
fed in disallowng the claim because of the
action of the Court of Appeals of the Dis
trict of Columbia, in the case of the Miles
mandamus proceedings. against Secretary
Carlisle. to compel him to pay the bounty
earned by it, That court in rendering its
decision went outside of the record to ex-
press the opinion that the bounty law Itself
was unconstitutional.
In the decision of the controller numer-
Gus state laws are quoted showing that
the whole spirit of American government
is against the taxing of the many for the
benefit of the few. Mr.. Bowler cites vari-
afc-in h.
port of his position One is the decision
in the Charleston Is. c. case, where the
legislature appropriated money to pay for
seeds and to otherwise help the farmers
whose crops had been ruined by the floods
The court held that the legislature had no
right or power to make such an appropria-
ton. Various similar decisions by the
Urited States Supreme Court are referred
to by the controller to the same effect.
Discretion Claimed.
According to one authority the argument
in which Mr.. Bowler seems to place the
greatest confidence is that Congress, In
the Revised Statutes, has relegated to the
discretion of the treasury the payment of
all claims which may be made under any
appropriation which Congress may make.
He points out that Congress has not re-
moved the obligation of the treasury to
exercise this discretion in this case He
argues that if Congress really intended
that the sugar bounties should be paid,
whether they were constitutional or not,
Congress would have suspended the opera
ton of the Revised Statutes in this par
ucular instance or repealed the discretion
ary section, so that the controller would
have been obliged to pay the bounties with
out exercising his judgment as to their
legality. The controller says that the
bounty law, as passed, does not make it at
all clear that Congress intended to relieve
the controller from the responsibility i'm
posed upon him by the Revised Statutes
of passing upon the consttutionality and
legality of all claims presented to him.
1t is said he holds the payment of the
sugar bounties would be the payment of
public money for private gain, and decides
that the sugar bounty appropriation is I'M
constitutional and that he cannot approve
of its payment.