The enterprise. [volume] (Wellington, Ohio) 188?-1899, 1895-08-14
SHOULD OBEY The LAW.
A Louisiana Senator'S Argument In Favor
OF Paying the Sugar Bounty.

A Louisiana Senator = Argument In Favor
of Paying the Sugar Bounty.
WASHINGTON, Aug. 9.-The argument
by counsel to convince Comptroller
Bowler that he has not either the pow
er nor the jurisdiction to determine the
constitutionality Of the law appropriate
ing S5,25O,000 to pay sugar bounty
claims on the crop of 1894, was resumed
in the office of the comptroller yester-
day. Senator Blanchard, for the cane
sugar producers of Louisiana, ad-
dressed the comptroller under three
general heads:
First-That the comptroller of the
treasury is without authority to ques-
tion the validity of an act OF congress
Second - That the appropriation
called in question is of constitutional
warrant.
Third-That if it be not constitution
al, strong equities existed justifying
congress in making the appropriation
and that congress has equitable juris-
diction.
Mr.. Blanchard addressed himself
more particularly to the first OF these
propositions, touching only in gen
eral way upon the other two, leaving
it to his associates to amplify the ar
gument upon them. He said:
The attitude of the comptroller Is one OF ap-
| parent resistance to the execution of an act OF
congress. An extraordinary spectacle Is here
presented. Three gentlemen who, as senators
| of the United States, actively participated In
the passage of the bounty appropriation through
the senate, and two members of the house OF
representatives who did the same IN that body,
are present at this hearing And for what pur-
pose: To present before n subordinate official
| of the treasury department reasons why he
should execute the laws Of congress. Upon
what degenerate times have we fallen, that
high legislative officers of the government feel
compelled in the discharge of their pubic duties
to appear personally and urge that effect be
given to law of the land! 1t would seem that
their duties do not end with the enactment OF q
statute. They must needs follow 1t up into the
executive branch and sec to its execution
What is the nature Of this Office of comptrol-
Ter? What are its duties, powers jurisdiction!
Can he organize himself into court to try the
question of constitutionality, decide against
the constitutionality of the act and thus set it
aside as being in his opinion no law at all! Is
not an act of congress rule OF conduct for him
to follow in the discharge of his duties until 1t
Is judicially declared by proper tribunal to be
unconstitutional? The answer to these ques-
tionS is Of the gravest and greatest Importance,
1t involves o consideration of high and hereto
fore underlined powers claimed as belonging to
public officers in Withholding action in cases
where specific duties are imposed on them by
positive statute 1t involves u consideration of
tba of t1,a
means by which that authority may be enforced
1t involves the expunging of an act Of congress
from the statute book. If there be in the treas
ury department a subordinate executive officer
with powers so supreme as to set aside at Will
an act of congress, 1t is time for 1t to become
generally known, for its consequences are far
reaching indeed.
The constitution provides but one source OF
veto power--that of the chief executive. Is II
possible that another source of veto power has
lain dormant all these years. to spring into life
and activity just at this moment in the onicia
personality of the comptroller of the treasury
The president must approve an appropriation
act as whole or veto it as n whole He cannot
by the constitution. approve certain items oi
appropriation in the bill and veto others which
do not meet his approval But not so the comp
troler.
These pretensions of the comptroller deny
utterly. They must be repudiated by all sount
opinion An act OF congress, approved by tht
president. properly authenticated and reaching
the comptroller through the proper channels
must be regarded by him as a law. Because
the comptroller takes an oath to support the
constitution, it gives him no authority to ques
tion the constitutionalitv Of an act of congl j
Senator Blanchard occupied all the
afternoon with his argument. In con
cluding, he said it was preposterous tc
suppose that congress would allow {
subordinate officer to impeach its law
making power. If this was done the
law-malling power must cease to exist
or vindicatc itself. To-day Senator
Caffrey and Judge Semmes will be
hoard