Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-12-21

conceives that the act in question is in con-
flict with the Constitution of the United
States. In taking this position he prac-
tically makes himself a greater man, 1t Is
claimed, than the President by whom he
was appointed and the Senate by which he
confirmed.
The President may veto an act but Con-
gress may make it a law by passing it over
his veto by three-fourths vote. When an
act becomes law, either by the approval
of the President or otherwise, 1t is the duty
of the executive to put it into effect. If 1t
involves the expenditure of money, how
ever, 1t may be rendered imperative by the
action of the controller, regardless of the
wishes of the President and the Secretary
of the Treasury, to each of whom the con-
troller Is unquestionably subordinate in
rank.
A Source of Friction.
Money can be paid out Of the national
treasury only upon a warrant, and such
warrant Is not effective unless 1t is counter
signed by the controller. Congress may
have authorized the payment of a certain
claim, and it may have been approved as
good and regular by the proper au lifting
officer, and, in addition, the President and
the Secretary of the Treasury may be In
terested in It's payment, but it cannot be
paid unless the controller gives 1t his sig
natory approval Controllers have always
been a source of friction, and naturally so,
because, in one sense, they are the real
guardians of the national eXchequer.
The list of controllers is long one, mas
much the office was created in Septem-
Der, 1850, at the beginning OF the fiscal
operations Of the government. Many dis
tinguished men have administered its af-
fairs, and it's Importance is universally
conceded. Mr.. Taylor and Mr.. Whittlesey,
both of Ohio, made excellent records in the
office. Controller Porter Of Indiana had
been governor of his state, and had also
performed important diplomatic functions.
Judge Lawrence, who held the office dur
ing the Hayes and Arthur admnistra tons.
broke the record in the number and length
of his official opinions on questions Of law
arising during his administration. These
opinions are published in six large vol
umes.
The story is told of Judge Lawrence that
in subsequently arguing case before a
civil tribunal he quoted extensively from
his own opinions as controller of the treas
ury to sust tain the legal points of his argu-
ment. He referred to Lawrence" volume
and page so and SO, just as he might have
referred to Blackstone, Chitty or other au-
thorities.
He Sometimes Yielded.
Judge Lawrence ran things with high
hand in the Treasury Department, and
made no end of trouble The honesty and
| integrity of his action was never ques-
toned, but 1t was freely asserted that he
kept many people out of their just dues
ty his alleged eXaggerations of the i'm
portance of apparently insignificant de-
tails. Although he was usually SteadfaSt
in his position on legal propositions, he
was sometimes influenced by the contrary
views of his immediate superior, the Sec
rotary of tho Treasury. 1t is recalled that
he was twice induced to countersign war
rants against his original decision, once by
Secretary Window and again by Secretary
Folger. In both instances the vouchers mad
been regularly approved by the auditor
and the second controller Gan officer at
that time having coordinate jurisdiction
with the first controller), and the Secreta-
fy,al J1 yyiynn hnt
he had no pow or of review in the case.
Judge Durham of Kentucky, who sue
ceeded Controller Lawrence, during the
first Cleveland administration was also a
great stickler for legal technicalities, but
he too, was compelled to recede from a
stand he had taken In a certain celebrated
case. 1t involved the legality of the pur-
chase of certain toilet articles for the use
of a marshal in New York district. The
expenditure had been approved by Circuit
Judge Wallace and the accounting officers
of the treasury. Controller Durham dis
allowed it, however on the ground that
the articles in question did not properly
come with the official requirements OF
the marshal's Office. Judge Wallace wrote
a learned disquisition on the subject. and
convinced the Secretary of the Treasury
that the controller was wrong In his legal
conclusions. The Secretary agreed with
Judge Wallace, and the controller was
finally induced to allow the items. The
amount involved in this controversy, which
caused much talk at the time was less
than $10 all told.
1t Is a fsmiliar axiom that the controller
is greater than the President when 1t
comes to a question of getting money out
of the treasury, and oft-told tale Is
that of 4 disagreement on this point be-
tween President Grant and Controller Tay-
lor in the course of which the President Is
credited with saying that if he could not
compel the controller to issue a desired
warrant he could easily displace him with
a controller who did not have such decided
views on the subject
MIR. Bowler's Decision.
Although all controllers are necessarily
supreme in the proper administration Of the
affairs of the federal government, none has
ever reached the elevation attained by Judge
Bowler of Ohio, the incumbent of the office.
He, Of his long list of prominent predeces-
sors, is the first to assume the judicial func-
ton of questioning the constitutionaity of
an act of Congress regularly approved by
the President of the United States. In dis
allowing claim for sugar bounty under the
Mckinley tariff act, for which special ap-