Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-07-23
PAYMENT OF SUGAR BoUNTIEs.
Attitude of Comptroller bowler on
the subject.

WASHINGTON, July 22-Reprecenta-
live Adolph Meyer. OF Louisiana, called
upon Comptroller Bowler at the Treasury
Department this afternoon and had
long conference with him regarding the
proposed hearing upon the constitution
ality OF the law directing the payment OF
certain bounties to sugar-proGucers. which
the Comptrol r has fixed for the It'll OF
August. Mr.. Meyer stated that the
sugar-producers OF Louisiana. In whose
behalf he had made the trip TO Washing
ton, were satisfied with the date that the
COMPTROLLER had fixed for the hearing.
and would be present at that time with
counsel to present their views.
MIR Meyer stated TO a representative OF
the South IN Associated Press that his
visit had no other significance; that the
sugar-plan;ers knew that Mr.. Bowler had
$4,000 Of their money held up In the
department, and they wanted TO know
what their chances Of getting were.
He had promised 10 tell them on the It'll
proximo. or thereabouts. and with that
they would have to be content.
In the course OF the conversation the at
titrde Of the Comptroller toward the
question was discussed in all OF its ef-
fects and the reason OF the course pursued
by that official
IL Ia understood that Mr.. Bowler holds
that IL is his duty, In view Of the de-
cis!on Of the District Court. 20 be satisfied
OF the corstltutOnality OF the act appro-
priating toe Sj,20O,Oo0 to pay sugar bounty
claims before approving the warrants That
have been drawn in FAVOR OF the various
claimants The case was a suit TO COM
pei the Official named to have the plain
tiffs' product tested for the payment OF
bounty. and the Court Of Appeals, affirm
ing the Judgment OF the Supreme Court OF
the District. refused a writ OF mandamus,
holding that the law providing for the
payment Of the bounty was constitutional.
Mr. Bowler admits that the decision
does not affect the act under consideration,
but with the decision staring him In the
face he feels that he is justified In being
assured that the latter is well-founded.
Especially is he justified in his opinion
because the plaintiffs In the mandamus
proceedings rested their case with the
Judgment Of the Court OF Appeals and did
not take It to the Supreme Court, as they
might have done had they cared to press
the matter to the ultimate determination.
The Comptroller, II Is further under
stood does not assert that his present
proposition Is based on any specific pro-
vision of law regulating the discharge Oh
the duties Of his Office, but that ordinary
prudence demanded that when the hrst
claim under the act reached him Tor MS
decision he should call the attention Oh
those interested to the facts in the case
and hear what they had TO say why 'he
warrants should be issued
II is claimed on behalf Of the Comp
troller that he has decided nothing at all
in the premises, and that II the attorneys
for the claimants shall show that ne mas
no jurisdiction over the determination OF
the constitutionallty Of the act he VIII
not undertake to decide anything. but VIII
doubtless order the warrants for the pay
ment of the claims TO issue.