Evening star., 1895-09-06
SUGAR BOUNTY CLAIMS
Controller Bowler Makes Public His De-
cision Against Them.
The Points Were Outlined I'm Ycster-
days Star-Clafmants Have Per-
feet Remedy In Court.
SUGAR

Judge Bowler, controller of the currency,
announced his decision in the case of the
OXnard sugar bounty claim late yesterday
afternoon. AS outlined in yesterdays Star,
the controller holds in effect that by virtue
of his office he has jurisdiction of the case,
and, second, that. in his opinion, the act Of
March 2, 1895, making the sugar bounty
appropriation, is unconstitutional. He di-
rects that the papers in the case be sent to
the Court of Claims, under section 1868, for
the rendition of a judgment in order that
there may be fur nished "a precedent for
the future action of the executive depart
ment in the adjustment of the class of
cases involved in these sugar bounties."
Duty of an Executive officer.
The controller says that statutes which
do not conform to the Constitution are not
law, and therefore when statute is in ap-
parent conflict with the Constitution it be-
comes the duty of the executive officer to
determine for himself as between the stat
ute and the Constitution whether the stat
ute is the law. 1t is true that the statute
is to be considered prima facie constitu-
ticnal and should be followed unless it is
clearly unconstitutional 1t is also true, he
says, that the officer acts at his peril If he
does not execute constitutional statute
but it is none the less true that he acts at
statute.
1t was claimed that no executive officer
had the right to raise the point of the un-
constitutionality of a statute, even in a
case in court, in order to finally determine
it's validity by the only branch of the gov
ernment conceded to have the power to set
tie such question. The controller says that
this contention cannot be sound, as shown
by the decisions of the Supreme Court of
the United States and those CT the state
courts. Applied to the question OF the pay
ment of money from the treasury of the
United States by an officer sworn to sup
port the Constitution, he would be without
power to protect the treasury against such
unlawful claims for the largest possible
amount. According to the controller. that
position cannot possibly be tenable.
Unconstitutionnlity of the Act.
AS to the constituticnality of the act, the
controller says, in part, that the principle
has long been decided that taxation must
be for public purpose; that an attempt to
take money from the people by the forms
of taxation for a purpose other than a pub
lie one is not an exercise of legislative pow
er, and, therefore, that an attempt to do
so is mere nullity, as an effort by the leg
islature to exercise power not granted by
the Constitution.
Manufacturing establishments have been
uniformly treated as private rather than
public enterprises. Numerous decisions are
cited tending to show that factories of all
kinds, saw mills, rolling mills, etc, are prf-
vate and are in no sense public enter
prises.
The controller says that the bounty of
the act of 1895 is not limited to those who
may have suffered an injury by failure to
receive the bounty Of the Mckinley act.
but is given to all alike, whether they suf-
fered loss or not. There is nothing which
indicates that it was intended to make
compensation for such injury, and that
cannot be implied. The provision now un-
der consideration is simply the continue
tion in full of the bounty provision of the
Mckinley act for the benefit Of those who
failed to receive that which they had al
ready earned under the Mckinley act up to
August 2S the date of its repeal.
A Remedy in Court.
If the controller should pass the claims
the money of the people would be taken
from the treasury in payment of demands
rot authorized by law, if the appropriation
is in fs ct unconstitutional BY refusal to
pass the claims the ultimate rights of the
claimants, says the controller, are in no
way affected. for they have a perfect rem
edy in court to test the validity of their
claims and obtain payment thereof after a
final determination of the constitutionality
of the law. If it be held constitutional.