Birmingham age-herald., 1895-01-09
THE SUGAR BOUNTY, Says the Court of Appeals of the
 District of Columbia,
NOT CONSTITUTIONAL,
And the Decision of Judge Mo Comas Refusing a Man
 damuS Is Upheld.


 peals of the District of Columbia today rendered decision affirming the decision of Judge McComas in the circuit court, re- fusing to grant mandainus to the Miles Planting and Manufacturing company of Lauisiaua to compel the secretary of the t, asury aud commissioner of internal rev. eiue to make an examination of the sugar mAnufacluring plant preliminary to the payment of the sugar bounty for the last fiscal year. The court holds that the sugar bounty was abrogated by the last tariff law.
 Upon the question of exigency the court says: s'rhe power of congress to pay beunties to makers or producers in order to encourage the manufacture or the pro- auction of any article has never been passed upon by the courts, but the princi- pies which underlie the question and upon which its solution depends have, in the opinion of the court, been time and again asserted and applied in the court of last re- sort in such cases, particularly in the cele- brated opinion of Justice Milton, holding that the govern ment cannot take property from citizens to bestow 1t on favored lndi- vduals.o Quotations from a number of opinions in support of this doctrine are given by the court.
 "The power to give the bounty to pro- ducers oI sugar must, as we have seen, be referred to and determined by the general grant of the clause of section 8, article l, of the constitution.
 'The court thinks it would be cause less consumption of time to enter upon discussion of the interpretation of the lau- guags contained in this clause, nor is it necessary to do SO. Still it says the ques- tion remains, 'Is the grant of a bounty to producers of sugar constitutional exercise of the power oi taxation as so continued?
 'sTbe court thinks that the auth critics cited establish beyond question that the power of taxation in all free govern ments ike ours is limited to public objections and purposes governmental In their nature. No amount of incidental public good or benefit will render valid taxation or the appropriation of revenue to be de- rived therefrom from private purpose.
 If it may be for the general welfare of the United States 10 encourage the produc- tion of sugar by the grant of bounty it is hard to conceive why the producers of corn, wheat, cotton, wool, coal, iron, silver ore, etc. |, might not be paid bounty also.
 .'If congress, ' continues the court, "be conceded the power to grant subsidies from the public revenues 10 all objects it mny deem to be for the general welfare, thf.a it follows that this discretion, like the ide9t that this Is government of sdele- gatsd, limited and enumerated powers,' renders superfious all the special delega- tions of power contained in the constitu- tiou, and opens the way for flood of so- ciaistic legislation, the spacious plea for all of which has ever been the general welfare.' It is doctrine that we cannot subscribe to.
 ..stiil less are we able to subscribe to q doctrine that legislation may be enacted by congress in pursuance of a natural policy analogous to that adopted by Germany and France or any other government on the face of the earth. There is no inherent sovereignty in the general or state govern ments. The people are sovereigns. Certain powers of sovereignty they have delegated with free hand, others have bsen re- served. Legislation by the assembly of France, the reichstag oi imperial Germany, in the parliament of Great Britain, where power IS unlimited, furnishes 20 proper precedent for legislation in this country.'
 In conclusion the court says that all the acts granting drawbacks and bounties, no matter how wOrded or devised, have met with determined opposition and denial of power at all times; and 1t cannot be said that they ever received general consent. The fact that much has often been paid out under acts of doubtful or questionable va lidity can have no great weight under a system where the question, by reason ot difficulties alluded to in the opinion, is so hard to be raised in au effective manner.
 But if there had been practice by con- gress,'' says the court, 'uniform and gen. orally acquie seed in, our opinion is so clearly against the validity of this act that we could not be controlled by 1t in the per- formance of our duty. No demand,
 
 the people under protection of our written constitution. From what has been said it follows that the judgment must be in all things affirmed, and with costs to the ap. pellees.o
 The opinion of the court was unanimous, but Chief Justice Alvey, filed separate concurring opinion. ''I fully copcur,' says the chief justice, twith my brothers in the affirmance of the judgment appealed from in this case. But l do SO upon the distinct grounds that the statute authoriz- ing the payment of sugar bounty has been ex ,ressly repealed by the recent tariff act oflS94, and thereby all resort to bounty has been cancelled, and even if that were not so the case, as hero presented, shows no sufficient foundation for the opening of a mandamus against the secretary of the treasury and the commissioner of internal revenue. l do not, however, deem it nec- eesary for any purpose of this case to dis cuss Rnd decide the constitutional question of the power of congress to provide for the payment of bounties in such case as hat provided for by the late tariff act of 1890. prefer to express no opinion upon that subject.
 KILLED A GUARD.
 SAVANNAH, Ga., Jan. S.-A Morning