New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-09-06
BOWLER ISSUES HIS DECREE.
SUGAR BOUNTEs ARE NOT CoNsTITU-
TIONAL.
ANYBODY WHO DOESN'T LIKE HIS REVERSAL OF
THE ACTION OF CONGRESS MAY GO TO
THE COURTS ABOUT IT.


UasbnV,on Sent 5-The long-expected decision
Of r b Bowler Controller of the Treasury. In the
suvar bountv cases was made public this after
noon He refers the whole matter to the Court or
Claims for adjudication. The particular case de-
clded was the claim of the Oxnard Beet sugar
Company of Nebraska, for the payment OF por-
ton OF the sugar bounty appropriated In the Sun
drv Civil bill passed by the last Congress. The
amount involved in this only Sll 7s2 90
he,na the first claim allowed by the Commissioner
of Internal Revenue. The decision, OF course IN
wolves the constltutonaty OF all sugar pounues'
The Controller first asserts his jurisdiction over
the matter and his right refuse payment of these
bounties on the ground OF the unconstitutionality
of the appropriation. He quotes the decision OF the
Court of Appeals OF the District Of Columbia IN
sult brought before them by the Miles Plant Manu-
featuring Company. Of Louisiana, for mandainus
to compel the Secretary OF the Treasury ana the
Commissioner OF Internal Revenue to pay the
sugar bounties provided by the Mckinley law, anu
holds in substance that that court having decided
all such bounties to be unconstitutional. Its de-
cison was one of which he was bound to take
cogniZance He adds
This brings up, therefore. for consideration the
question whether the Controller has any power or
authority under any circumstances whatever to
question the constitutionality OF statute passed
most vigorously contended that he mad not. ana
that any attempt upon his part TO 90 so wVuaG QUIZ
constitute "A dangerous usurpatiOn or power, tnat
the question Of the consttutionality OF an act o,
Congress could only be decided by tne courtb, anu
that until 80 decided by the supreme Court IL was
the duty of every executive officer TO obey the act
although himself convinced or It's uhcohSu'u'io"-
ality.
lie quotes many decisions on this point and says
From all these the conclusion IS irresst,oie
the tina Is tbs fne qn he constuson SI is the
and 80 are statutes passed in pursuance tnereVi,
thar tho statutes which DO not conform to the
Constitution are not law and therefore when
statute is apparent conflict with the Constitution
1t becomes the duty OF the executive ohleer 70 ae
nEaK hot
the Constitution whether the statute IS the
law. ,.,o,
with any judicial power by virtue OF which ne is
auth orized to hold and treat an act az unconsu-
tutional. otherwise than Is any superior executive
officer charged with the responsibility or ascertain
ing what the Jaw is in order TO guide MS actions
But the Controller Is an executive oncer whose au M
ties require the exercise OF judicial functions IN the
highest degree.
Replying to the position assumed by the de-
tenders OF the sugar bounty that the power to ap-
propriate Is absolute in Congress- that 1t is pot-
cal power not cognizable BY the courts and that
the correction lies with the people at the polls II
its use exceeds constitutional limits. ne says:
No authorities are advanced to sustain this propo
sition. The power to appropriate is co-extensive
with the power to lay taxes. The appropriation Is
the by which the purpose for whicn the tax
is levied is carried out. Unless. therefore there is
the power to tax. there cannot be the power 70
appropriate. No single case has been pre-
sented in which II he'd or even suggested. that.
If a matter had been originally beyond the power OF
Constitution, the Legislature by a subsequent act
could have made 1t valid.
He closes follows:
Having reached the conclusion that the present
bounty provision has constitutional validity
than the original Mckinley bounty had; It follows
that the same action should be taken under
the present appropriation would be taken If the
original bounty appropriation were s;l unrepealed
and were he'd unconstitutional IL the Controller
should pass the claims the Government would be
absolutely concluded, and the money Of the people
be taken from the Treasury In payment of demands
not authorized by law II the appropriation Is In fact
unconstitutional. BY refusal to pass the claims the
ultimate rights of the claimants in no way af
fected for they have a perfect remedy IN court 10
test the validity of their claims and obtain payment
thereof after a final determination Of the consti-
utionality Of the law. if il be held constitutional.
The papers in the case Will therefore be returned
to the Auditor for transmission by him through the
Secretary of the Treasury 10 the Court OF CLAIMS.