The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-09-06
Controller Of the Treasury Holds that
the Sugar Bounty Appropriation
Act of March II Invalid.
CLAIMANTS MAY GO TO COURT
BUT IN THE MEANTIME HE WILL
GUARD THE PEOPLES INTERESTS.
Congress Has Little Power Compared
According to His Own Statement.

WASHINGTON, Sept. 5.-R. b. Bowler,
Controller of the Treasury. to-day rendered
an opinion on the now celebrated Oxnard
sugar bounty claims, in which he holds, in
effect, first, that he, as Controller has Jar-
isdiction OF the case. and, second, that in
his opinion the act of March 2, 1885, making
the sugar bounty appropriation is uncon-
stitutional. He. however. directs that the
papers in the case be sent to the Court Of
Claims for the rendition of judgment in or
der that there may be furnished "a pre-
cedent for the future action OF the
executive department in the adjustment of
the class of cases involved in these sugar
bounties"
The particular claim decided to-day is
substantially on the same footing as all
other sugar bounty claims, for the satisfac-
ton of which Congress at it's last session
appropriated IS, 5,23S 259. The Controller an
swers at great length the arguments pre-
scented by counsel at the hearing in which
his Jurisdiction was attacked. and in the
course Of his reply he says: Statutes which
do not conform TO the Constitution are not
law, and, therefore. when a statute is in
apparent conflict with the Constitution it
becomes the duty of the executive officer to
determine for himself as between the stat
ute and the Constitution whether the
statute is the law. 1t is true that the stat
ute Is TO be considered prima facie con-
stitutional. 1t is also true that the officer
acts at his peril If he does not execute a
constitutional statute. but it is none the
less true that he acts at his peril If he exc
cutes an unconstitutional statute. AS the
Controller does not act under the directions
of the Secretary of the Treasury or the
President and his decisions within the
sphere Of his jurisdiction are final and con-
elusive on the executive branch of the gov
ernment, 1t follows that the power to resist
the execution of an unconstitutional statute
is denied to any executive officer whatever.
1t was claimed that no executive officer
had the right to raise the point of the un-
constitutionality of statute. even a case
In court, In order to finally determine it's
validity by the only branch of the govern
ment conceded to have the power to settle
such a question. This contention cannot be
sound, as shown by the decisions Of the Su-
preme Court of the United States and those
OF the State courts. Applied to the ques-
ton of the payment of money from the
treasury of the United States by an officer
sworn to support the Constitution. he would
be without power to protect the treasury
against such unlawful claims for the larg-
est possible amount
AS to the constitutionality of the act, the
Controller says in part. that the principle
has long been decided that taxation must
be for public purpose; that an attempt to
take money from the people by forms OF
taxation for purpose other than public
one Is not an exercise of legislative power,
and. therefore, that an attempt to do SO is
a mere nullity as an effort by the Legis-
lature to exercise power not granted by the
Constitution. Manufacturing establish
ments have been uniformly treated as pri-
vate rather than public enterprises. Nu-
merous decisions are cited tending to show
that factories of all kinds, saw mills. roll
sense public enterprises. 1t is suggested
that when Congress gets out OF the domain
of law and into the realm of justice and
equity it's power is unlimited. That would
no doubt be true if Congress could get out
OF the domain of law, but IL cannot do so.
As the courts cannot declare any act of the
legislature unconstitutional on the grounds
that it is contrary to the principles Of nat
ural justice and equity. neither can the
legislature make an act constitutional
which otherwise would not be SO. simply
because in passing the same they were
actuated by motives founded upon the prin-
ciples of natural justice and equity.
The bounty provided by the act Of 1895 is
not. limited to those who may have suffered
an injury by failure to receive the bounty
Of the Mckinley act, but is given TO all
alike, whether they suffered loss not.
There is nothing which indicates that it is
intended TO make compensation for such
injury, and that cannot be implied. II the
Controller should pass the claims the gov
ernment would be absolutely precluded
from recourse, and the money of the people
be taken from the treasury in payment of
demands not authorized by law, If the ap-
preparation is in fact, unconstitutional. By
a refusal to pass the claims the ultimate
rights of the claimants are in way af-
fected for they have perfect remedy in
court to test the validity of their claims
and obtain payment thereof after a final
determination of the constitutionality of the
law. il it be held unconstitutional. If the
Controller has no other alternative than to
pass or reject the claims for the reasons
above given his duty to the whole people.
who cannot bring their rights into court,
would require him to reject them.