The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1895-11-10
BEET SUGAR AND THE BOUNTY.
HENDERSON ARGUES THE CASE
BEFORE CARLISLE.

He Takes the Ground That the Com
trOIIer Has no JurisdictiOn-The
Fundamental Mistake i'm the Whole
Proceeding Alleged 20 Have Been
Made by the Commissioners of In
ternnI Revenue In Sending the
Claims TO the Controller.
Washington, Nov 9.--Under the agree
ment made yesterday with Secretary Car
Isle, ex-senator Henderson appeared be-
fore the secretary this afternoon and ar
gued the sugar bounty case Mr.. Man
derson submitted printed brief, covering
in detail the points to which he referred
but briefly in his oral arguments. Strip
ped of its legal verbiage, Mr.. Mander-
sons argument is that the law passed by
congress providing for the payment OF
the bounty is later than the Dockery law,
imposing alleged superior powers on the
controller of the treasury; that II is a
special act and more binding In its effect
than laws granting authority general In
character He ignored the act of the con-
troler in sending the case to the court
of claims on the ground that, having no
Jurisdiction, his act must, perforce, be ille-
gal and totally void.
His second point, upon which he laid
great stress, was the absence of authority
vested even in the secretary to send the
claimants to the court of claims The
fundamental mistake In the whole pro-
ceeding was. Mr.. Henderson argued that
instead of performing his whole duty, as
required by the act Of March 2, 1886, the
commissioner of internal revenue sub
mitted the claims to the auditor and con-
trOller, whereas the law specifically pro-
vides that the bounty shall be paid by the
with the approval Of the secretary Of Of
the treasury. The law further stipulates
and upon this Mr.. Henderson dwelt with
force, that the secretary was authorized
to draw his warrants for the sum neces-
sary to pay the bounty, which sums
should be certified TO him by the commits
slOner OF internal revenue, by whom the
bounty was to be disbursed. The con-
troller who thus got the case through the
mistake Of the commissioner of internal
revenue, Mr.. Henderson said, filled ap-
parently with a desire TO magnify his
powers and amplify himself, declared
himself confronted with a great consti-
tutional question. True 1t Is, that he had
been instrumental, officially in the pay
ment of many millions of dollars under
a similar law and no prick Of conscience
or doubt of the constitutionalfty of bouD-
" laws had troubled him, but suddenly
ne felt II incumbent upon him that he
should decide for the executive for the
legislative and judicial branches Of the
government concerning the right Of the
law-naking power to give protection by
way OF DOuntieS.
The case before the Secretary could
not be sent to the court of claims, Mr..
Henderson argued, because 10 was one
upon which congress itself had acted.
In conclusion Mr.. Manderson said: Mr..
| Secretary, you may do one of two things;
| you may send this matter to the Attor-
1 ney General, to say whether ministerial
| officers may, under this mandatory law,
refuse to obey It, or you may send it back
| to the commissioner of internal revenue
/ for full and complete compliance on his
/ part with the provisions Of the law. We
/ ask that you send 1t to the commissioner,
| the controller having had no jurisdiction.
I'VE say this because the President.
| the Secretary of the Treasury and other
| officers Of the government are reported
/ as saying that they will do everything pos
4 sible to facilitate the earliest possible de-
/ termination Of the point alleged by the
/ controller to be involved in this case and
/ as the bounty recipients cannot get into
/ the court Of claims, until the officer desig-
mated by the statute as fully exercised
/ his power under the law, and as no ac-
/ ton in that court viii lie until such per-
/ Torrance on his part, we ask, for this
/ additional reason, that the commissioner
| Of internal revenue be given the oppor-