The morning times., 1895-07-23
FIVE MILLIONS HELD UP
Sugar Planters Clamorous For the
Bounty Appropriated.
Comptroller Bowler, of the Treasury,
In Doubt AS to Validity of the Act.
Hearing Next Month.

Representative Adolph Meyer, OF Louis
lana, called upon Comptroller Bowler at
the treasury Department yesterday after
noon and had long conference with him
regarding the proposed hearing upon the
consttuuopaiity of the law directing the
payment OF certain bounties to sugar pro-
ducers which the comptroller has fixed for
the Z tn Of August.
Mr.. Meyer stated that the sugar pro-
ducers in Louisiana, in whose behalf he had
made the trip to Washington, were satisfied
with the date that the comptroller had
liked for the nearing, and would be present
at mat time with counsel to present their
views. Mr.. Meyer stated to a reporter
Tor the United Press that his visit had no
other Significance; that the sugar planters
Knew tnat MIR. Bowler had SO, 200 900
OF their money held up in the Department,
and they wanted 10 know what ejrchances
or getting 1T were. He had promised to
tell them on the 7th proXimO, or there
abouts, and with what they would have to
be copteDt.
IN the course of their conversation the
attitude of the comptroller towards the
question was discussed in all of its effects,
ana the reasons for the course pursued by
that official. 1t is understood that Mr.
Bowler holds that it is his duty, in view Of
| The decision OF the Court of Appeals of the
R'strict or Columbia in the case of Miles ct
al-vs the Secretary of the Treasury and the
Commissioner Of Internal Revenue, to be
satisfied of the consttutionality OF the act
approprlatlng the 50 zoo, 900 to pay sugar
bounty claims before approving the war
rants that have been drawn in favor OF the
various claimants.
The case was suit to compel the Off
cials named 10 have the plaintiffs product
tested for the payment or bounty, and the
Court OF Appeals, affirming the Judgment
of the Supreme Court OF the District, re-
fused writ of mandamus, holding that the
law providing for the payment of the bounty
was unconstitutional. MI Bowler admits
that the decision of the court does not af-
feet the act making the appropriation under
consideration, but with that decision staring
him iii the face he feels that he is justified
IN being assured that the latter act is Wen
founded
Especially is he justified In his opinion,
because the plsintiffs in the maudamus
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, it is further under
stood, does not assert that his present
position is based on hny specific provision
of law regulating the discharge of the
duties Of his Office, bat that ordinary pru-
dence demanded that when the first claim
under the act reached him for his deci-
sion he should call the attention OF those
interested to the facts in the case and hear
what they had, TO say why the warrant
shtJI1 he issued.
1t is claimed on behalf OF the comptroller
that he has decided nothing at all In the
premises, and that sif 'the attorneys for
the claimants shall show that lie has no
jurisdiction over the determination of
the constitutionality of the act, that he
viii not undertake to decide anything,
but viii doubtless order the warrants for
the payment of the claims to issue.