The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-08-09

|
cUtion of an act of Congress. Cues
tfons of grave and serious import
arise. An extraordinary spectacle is
here presented. Three gentlemen,
who SIS senators of the United States
actively participated in the passage
of the bounty appropriation through
| the Senate, and two members of the
House of Representatives who did
| the same in that body are present at
| this hearing and for what purpose?
| TO present before subordinate Of
| fetal of the treasury department.
reasons why he should execute the
| law of Congress. Upon what degener-
ate times have we fallen, that high
! Legislative officers of the government
feel compelled in THE discharge of
their public duties to appear person
| ally and urge that effect be given to
law of the land. It would seem that
their duties do not end with the en-
| actment Of statute. They must needs
follow it up into the executive branch
| and see its execution.
What is the nature of this office of
comptroller? What are it's duties,
powers, Jurisdiction? Can the comp
troller question the validity of an act
Of Congress? Is he anything more than
an administrative or ministerial Of
flcer? Must he not execute the law as
he finds it? If the comptroller of the
the proper proceedings required to
| take this money from the treasury
after its appropriation by Congress-
no appropriation whatever is safe.
Presidents Action.
tEThe president, it seems, must ap-
prove an appropriation act as a
whole, or veto it as a whole. He can
not by THE constitution approve GER
tain items of appropriation in the bill
and veto what does not meet his APP
prevail, but not so the comptroller.
He is circumscribed by no such mar
row limit
An act of Congress, said the senator,
approved by the president is not
guidance for the treasury officials; is
not warrant for drawing money
from the treasury until his own pc
culiar test of the constitutionality is
applied to it by the comptroller. These
pretenSionS of the comptroller, as
Mr.. Blanchard called them, he denied
utterly.
The act of Congress- Mr.. Blanchard
asserted, constitutes the comptroller
an administrative or ministerial Of
ficer invested with no judicial duty
whatever. The most that could be
claimed for him was that he was a
ministerial officer with quasi-judicial
functions.
The law heretofore referred to di-
reefs the payment of money to the
sugar producers upon the ascertain
ment of their claims in the manner
provided by law. 1t is a ministerial
act to be performed. Quasi-judicial
functions may be exercised in decid-
ing the amount due upon the state of
facts presented but once this is de-
cided, every step leading up to the
payment of the money is a purely
ministerial act.
Character of the Office.
Mr. Blanchard then proceeded to
examine INTO the character of the
office of the comptroller to see what
purpose it subserved in the admin
istration of the treasury department
and he contended THAI the person
holding it was but an accounting Of
ficer Having as he said, shown that
the comptroller was to be considered
a ministerial officer alone, although
he performed certain quasi-judicial
functions, the senator proceeded to
inquire whether it was within the
conptroner's province to question the
validity of the statute under consider
alton. After quoting numerous au-
thorities and citing decisions, ne as
serted that the very utmost that the
executive branch could do in the way
of inquiry into the constitutionality
of the law was TO ask the opinion Of
the encouragement But the act OF
Congress constituted a rule operative
on the comptroller until it was de-
clared by the judicial power void.
The question under consideration in
this hearing. Mr.. Blanchard pointed
out. was once the subject of an TN
vestigation by the Thirty-siMth Con-
gress. when a comptroller refused ito
execute law Of that body.
On that occasion the conclusion
rpapbSd nv the senate cQmTlll uLeee that
investigated the actron OF the comp
troller was that il was a matter of
very grave inquiry TO know how far
an executive, ministerial or suoordi-
nate officer of the government can
be permitted to go behind the law, or
question the motives or actions OF
Congress to find excuses or reasons
for the non-eXecution of the law. If
this be permitted without rebuke it
would be subverSive of all law.
While Mr.. Blanchard was discus
sing the question of the right of the
president to interfere with the en-
forcement of a law enacted by Con-
gress, Mr.. Bowler asked him whether
he Bowler) derived his power from
the president or the statute creating
his office, to which Mr.. Blanchard re-
piled that the president himself could
not revise the law. The president,
he declared, was without power to
forbid the execution OF a statute. 1t IS
made his duty TO execute all laws,
and if he must execute them how can
he or a subordinate of his, nullify
them.
But" replied Mr.. Bowler. 81 take
the ground that if a law is unconsti-
tutional it is null and void
Mr.. Blanchard-That is correct
after a law has been declared uncon-
stitutional by the United States
supreme court but not before. The
president, and no one under him, can
forbid the execution Of a law on ule
supposition of unconstttutionalil-.
without himself violating the consti-
tuition. Tt does not rest with you or
any other executive officer TO origi-
nate an objection of unconstitution-
ality.
Senator Henderson suggested the
income tax law as an instance.
A. Sput.
THE income tax law" said Mr..