St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-08-09
SENATOR BLANCHARD TELLS
HIM HE is UNCONsTITU-
TIONALs
SUGAR BOUNTY ARGUMENT.
POSITION ASSUMED BY THE
TREASURY COMPTROLLER
RIDICULED.
A MERE CREATURE OF THE LAW
No Power to Question Statute
OR Refuse to Execute
1t.

WASHINGTON, Aug. S.-The hear
ing in the sugar bounty case now !
pending before Comptroller Bowler
was resumed in the office rooms of the
latter this morning. A large and in
terested crowd was present, among
them many men prominent in public
affairs. Senator Blanchard began to-
days proceedings, speaking from a
carefully prepared manuscript. He
said that he and the men associated
with him would present the argument
under three general heads. They
would contend, first, that the comp
troller of the treasury is without au-
thority to question the validity of an
act of congress; second, that the ap-
preparation called in question is of
constitutional warrant; third, that if
it be not constitutional, strong equities
existed justifying congress in making
the appropriation, and that congress
has equitable jurisdiction. The atti-
tude of the comptroller was one of
apparent resistance to the. execution of
an act of congress. What" he
asked, lis the nature of this office of
COlllplltiltI. w hat us Qull6S, pow
ers, jurisdiction? Can the comptroller
question the validity of an act of con-
gress? Is he anything more than an
administrative or ministerial officer?
Must he rot execute the law as he
finds it? If the comptroller of the
treasury may refuse his sanction to
the proper proceedings required to
take this money from the treasury
Of itc -
no appropriation whatever is safe.
The president, it seems, must approve
an appropriation act as whole and
veto it as a whole He cannot by
the constitution approve certain items
of appropriation in the bill and veto
others which dc not meet his approval.
But not so the comptroller. He is
circumscribed by no such narrow
limit
The acts of congress, Mr. Blanchard
asserted, constituted the comptroller
an administrative or ministerial Of
ficer, invested with no judicial au-
thority whatever The most that
could be claimed for him was that he
was a ministerial officer with quasi
judicial functions.
BOWLER OBJECTS.
While Mr.. Blanchard was discussing
the question of the right of the presi-
dent to interfere with the enforce
ment of law enacted by congress
Mr.. Bowler asked him whether he
(Mr. Bowler derived his power from
the president or the statute creating
his Office, to which Mr.. Blanchard re-
piled that the president, himself. could
not revise the law. The president. he
declared, was without power to forbid
the execution of statute. 1t is made
his duty to execute all laws, and if
he must execute them, how can he. or
subordinate of his, nullify them?
But" replied Mr.. Bowler, 81 take
the ground that if law is unconsti-
tutional it is null and void''
Mr.. Blanchard-''That is correct.
after a law has been declared uncon-
sututional by the United States SUI
preme court, but not before. The
president, and no one under him. can
forbid the execution of a law on the
suppositon of unconstitutionality,
Senator Henderson suggested the in
come tax law as an instance.
The income tax law said Mr..
Bowler, was never constitutional.
1T was replied Mr.. Henderson,
until it was declared by the United
States supreme court not to be SOL
Mr.. Bowler-"I should like to see the
authorities for that statement
Mr.. Blanchard-"We shall give them
to you in great abundance, before we
conclude this argument"
Mr.. Blanchard took issue with Mr..
Henderson, holding that the comp
troller's powers were only admins
trative, and in no respect judicial
YOU" he exclaimed to Mr.. Bowler.
'fare a mere creature of the law; there
is nothing constitutional about you
AN ABSURD SPECTACLE.
He called attention to the fact that
in making up the position he had
taken, Mr.. Bowler, a creature of the
Fffty-third congress, had set himself
up to question the validity of another
law of the same congress. He could
just as consistently question the va
lidity of the law creating his office, and
thus present to the world the absurd
spectacle of a government official de-
capitating himself. Furthermore, if
Mr.. Bowler had the power to question
a law and refuse to execute it, any
other official of the government down
to the messengers of the departments,
all having taken the same oath, would
have the same right to refuse to per-
form any duty in execution of a law,
because they, forsooth, might come to
the conclusion that the statute was not
in accord with the provisions of the
constitution. 1t was, Mr.. Blanchard
contended, a remarkable spectacle that
three senators and two representa-
tives, who had sidsd in creating a law,
should have to appear before a subor-
dinate executive official and appeal from
the execution of that law. The time
had been, he said, when this was not
necessary, and when the officials of
the executive departments had con-
sidered it their only duty to execute
the laws.
During the afternoon session Comp
troller Bowler took occasion to dis
claim that he was representing Sec
rotary Carlisle in the position he had
taken in the matter of the payment
of the sugar bounty. He said he had
made an effort only to construe the
law as it bore upon his Office.
Mr. Blanchard said that it was an
open secret that both President Cleve-
land and Secretary Carlisle had
favored the provision for the payment
of the bounty when the claim was
before congress. He did not, there
fore, believe for moment that either
the president or the secretary would
permit the law to be set aside by the
comptroller