Birmingham state herald., 1895-11-10
AFTER TIE SUGAR BOUNTY Mr. Manderson Lays the Case
 Before Mir. Carlisle. MADE AN ABLE ARGUMENT The Secretaf identity Agreed With Him on
 i s Several Points. HEwLI { AcTUNTIL coNGRESsnEETs MT. <. 4erson Contends That the Claim sl S Never Have Been Submitted
 10 Bowler, but Should Cote
 the Commissioner.
MADE AN ABLE ARGUMENT
q [ ACT UNTIL COR6RESSMEETS

Washington, Nov. 9.-Under the agree ment made yesterday with Secretary Carlisle, EX-Senator Manderson appeared before the secretary this afternoon and argued the sugar bounty case MT. Man derson submitted a printed brief cover- ing every detail the points to which he he referred but briefly in his oral argu- ment. Stripped of its legal verbiage, MT. Manderson's argument is that the law by congress providing for the pay ment of the bounty Is better than the Cookery law, imposing alleged superior powers on the comptroller of the treas- ury, that 1t is a special act and more binding in its effect than laws granting authority general in character. He ig- nored the act of the comptroller in send ing the case to the court of claims on the ground that, having no Jurisdiction, his act must perforce be illegal and to- tally void.
 His second point upon which he laid great stress, was the absence of au- thority vested even in the secretary to send the claimants to the court of claims.
 The fundamental mistake in the whole proceeding was, MT. Manderson argued, that instead of performing his whole duty, as required by the ate of March 2, 1895, the commissioner of Internal rev enue submitted the claims to the auditor and comptroller where as the law spe- officially provides that the bounty shall be paid by the commissioner of internal revenue, with the approval of the secreta- ry of the treasury The law further stip- ulates, and upon this MT. Manderson dwelt with force, that the secretary was authorized to draw his warrants for sums necessary to pay the bounty, which sums could be certified to him by the commits soner of internal revenue, by whom the bounty was to be disbursed. The comp troller who thus got the case through the mistake of the commissioner of internal revenue was, Mir Manderson said, filled apparently with desire to magnify hie powers and amplify himself, declared himself confronted with great constitu- tional question. True 1t Is that he has been instrumental officially in the pay ment of many millions of dollars under similar laws and no prick of conscience or doubt of the constitutionality of boun- ty laws had troubled him, but suddenly he felt 1t incumbent upon him that he should decide it for the executive, legisla- tive and judicial branches of the govern ment concerning the right of the law making power to give protection by way of bounties."
 The case before the secretary could not be sent to the court of claims, MT Man. derson added, because 1t was one upon which congress itself had acted. In con- clusion Mir Manderson said:
 "Mr. Secretary, you may do one of two things-you may send this matter to the attorney-general to say whether minis- terial officers may. underthis mandatory law, refuse to obey it, or may send 1t back to the commissioner of internal rev. enue for full and complete compliance on his part with the provisions of the law. We ask that you send 1t to the con1- missioner, the comptroller having had no Jurisdiction. We say this because the president, secretary of the treasury and other officers of the government are re- ported as saying they will do everything possible to facilitate the earliest possible determination of the point alleged by the comptroller to be involved in this case, and as the bounty recipients cannot get into the court of claims until the officer designated by statute has fully exercised his power under the law. and as no action that the court will lie until such per- formance on his part we ask for this ad- ditional reason that the commissioner of internal revenue be given the option to evidence the governments desire to fa- cilitate decision"
 Senator Manderson's argument occu- pied less than an hour. There were two interruptions by the secretary, both of which are regRfded as significant. The secretary stated with clearness that he did not regard the case before him as presenting any constitutional question whatever, and he did not propose to con- stder the constitutionality of the law.
 Later on MT. Carlisle said he was fn- clined to agree with MT. Manderson that sending the case to the court of claims would simply result in that court finding the facts, which had apparently been as- certained already by the commissioner of internal revenue. The secretary said that he did not expect to pass on the questions passed before the meeting of congress owing to the press of other bus- mess. much of his time being occupied in the preparation of his annual report.