The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1895-07-23
n AIMS FOR BOUNTY ON SUGAR
PLANTERS NOW WAITING FOR
NEXT MONTHS RULING.

- Feel sure That Controller Bow
- Has Held Up s5.2OO,OOO to
ubieh they Are EntitIed-Repre-
native Meyer of Louisiana Has
talk with the Controller on His
,.,itude on the Claims.
lexington. July 22.-Representative
.,...- NJ louisiana, called upon Controller
,-ris- al the treasury department this
moon and had long conference with
- ~egarding the proposed hearing upon
:. .,rstitutionality of the law directing
allotment of certain bounties to sugar
..,r,csrs which the controller has fixed
~ aug. Z. Mr.. Meyer stated that the SUI
n-1Iucers of Louisiana, in whose be
al he had made the trip to Washington,
~.-s satisfied with the date that the con-
caller had fixed for the hearing, and
r,iii be present at that time with counsel
b, n-asent their views. Mr.. Meyer stated
n a reporter that his visit had no other
,,ridcance; that the sugar planters knew
s.-Nr. Bowler had S, 200, 900 of their mon
.r held up in the department, and they
vsn.sd to know what their chances of
g.ting it were. He had promised to tell
,sem on the eth proximo. or Whereabouts,
and with that they would have to be con-
tent.
In the course of their conversation, the
attitude of the controller towards the
ouestion was discussed in all of its effects,
and the reasons for the course pursued by
thar official. 1t is understood that Mr.
Bowler holds that 1t is his duty, in view
Of the decision of the court of appeals of
the District of Columbia in the case OF
Miles. ct al, VS.. the Secretary of the
Treasury and the commissioner of inter
nal revenue, to be satisfied Of the consti-
mtionality of the act appropriating the
$4,000 10 pay sugar bounty claims, before
approving the warrants that have been
drawn in favor of the various claimants.
The case was a suit to compel the officials
named TO have the plaintiffs product
tested for the payment of the bounty and
the court of appeals, affirming the judg-
ment OF the supreme court of the district,
refused a writ of mandamus, holding that
the law providing for the payment of the
admits that the decision of the court does
bot affect the act making the appropria-
ton under consideration, but with that
decision staring him in the face, feels that
j. is justified in being assured that the
latter act is without foundation. In this ne
IS specially justified, in his opln-
ion. because the plaintiffs in the
mandamus proceedings rested their
case with the judgment of the court of
appeals and did not take 1t to the SUI
Ireme court as they might have done
had they cared to press the matter to the
ultimate determination. The controller,
It is further understood. does not assert
that his political position is based on any
specific provision of law, regulating the
discharge Of the duties of his Office, but
that ordinary prudence demanded that
when the first claim under the act reach
ed him for his decision, he should call
the attention Of those interested to the
facts in the case and hear what they
had to say why the warrant should be
issued. II is claimed on behalf of the con-
troller that he has decided nothing at all
N the premises, and that if the attorneys
for the claimants shall show that he has
no jurisdiction over the determination of
the consututionality of the act, that he
will not undertake to decide anything. but
will doubtless order the warrants for the
payment of the claims to issue.