New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-08-08
SUGAR BOUNTIES AT STAKE.
ARGUMENT ON THE QUESTION OF THEIR
PAYMENT BEGUN.
MR.. BOWLER. CONTROLLER OF THE TREASURE
SITS IL HIS NEw-FoUND CAPACITY AS
TRIBUNAL TO PASS on coNsTI-
TUTIoNAL QUESTIONS.


TuTIoNAL QUESTIONS.
Washington Aug. THE extraordinary arguHe"'
which began in the office OF the Controller OF 'he
Treasury to-day was brought about by Mr.. Bo"
lers refusal to issue a warrant for about *ZS" !"
favor OF the Oxnard Beet Sugar Company -
Nebraska, certified to the auditor by the Oo"'''
sioner OF Internal Revenue, and by the auu.o.
sent to the Controller for his action MT bo",0'
was In doubt upon looking into the case OF the
constutionality OF the appropriation TO pay pou's
on the crop Of 1894 contained IN the nv"
Tariff law inasmuch as the Court OF Appears VI
the District OF Columbia had decided that Dou't'
themselves were unconstitutional, and ne ho''Hou
the claimants that until he satisfied oil the pio
pricty and legality Of the law he should decline
to issue the warrant. and to-day was nAeu io
hearing argument on the question. This determine
ton OF the Controller interested the cane sugar
men OF Louisiana far more than II did the pee'
sugar OF Nebraska they had hve inii"ohs
at stake TO about quarter OF million pS III.
Nebraskans SO Senators Cafery and Blanchard
and Judge Semmcs OF louisiana joined eA-Se""
Henderson OF Nebraska. in the effort to sa'islS
the Controller that the proper thing to do was 10
issue the warrants They failed TO induce either
Secretary Carlisle President Cleveland 10 inter
fere In behalf Of their clients, both these oncials
asserting that the Controller was supreme I'D MS
sphere and beyond any influence or direction from
them.
preached the matter in question with great de-
gree OF reluctance. The question involved mo-
mentous .nterests-interests of great promise
In the State OF Nebraska. He reviewed the history
OF legislation regarding the bounty. and referring
TO the Mckinley law said that under 1t the roV-
eminent soemnly pledged that II the people would
embark in the Industry OF sugar producing. II theS
would invest their capital in it, they would be paid
a bounty. The Oxnard Company for whom ne
specially appeared embarked after carefui s'uu!
and in good faith. Did they have the right TO rely
upon this legislation approved by the PRESIDENT
II not. what could they rely upon?
Congress repealed the Bounty law leaving the
contract violated the industry destroyed and the In
vestments practically wiped off the face OF the
earth. The repeal of this law unrighteous, I'M
Just and almost unlawful exercise of Congress
sional powers.
These not ordinary claims. for Congress had
passed on the fundamental question and said. I'VE
will give these men the bounty earned before the re-
He believed that the Congress OF the United States
under the authority conferred upon 1t by the CON
sttution could make donation or gift OF public
money. and that the executive authorities would be
Mr. Henderson referred to the Louisiana purchase
and the question of constitutionality Of the az
Precipitation for that, which had been decided lawful
and said ne hoped the United Statess would go
on conquering and purchasing until Hawaii. Cuba
and other desirable possessions were obtained.
The Senator read from his speech IN the senate,
Were h P a6 to Of
held. showed clearly that they were believed by
quoted from Daniel webster and other great states-
men and LAWYERS to support his claim He referred
efforts made stop It, and said that this year the
United States would pay about sl5o,GaCoo in gold
mcnts would have been wholly unnecessary in a few
years If the Mckinley law had not been repealed
lasted four hours the hearing was adjourned
until tomorrow when Senator'S Blanchard and
Caffery. OF Louisiana. will speak.