New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-10-27
CONGRESS TO OVERHAUL IT..
TEE ACCOUNTING SYSTEM DEVISED BY
MR. DOCKEPY.
IT'S MoNsTHosrTIEs A&D WHAT 1T HAS LED To-
BOWLER AND HIS FAMOUS SUGAR BOUNTY
DECISION LOGICAL OUTCOME OF
THAT DICTUA;

Washington Oct. ~ tSpeclaD.-ln inns Ootf''p'""
ence it was suggested not long ago that. unless
more important measures should overshado" IT.
Congress would most likely overhaul and inves'i-
gate the incongruities introduced into the account
ing system OF the United States Treasury py the
act known az the Dockery law.
Recent events have 40 shaped themselves az TO
make the suggestion referred to foregone conciu-
sion Perhaps no action OF subordinate ornciai
OF the Government has ever attracted more gen
eral attention and comment. or been accepted Win
more surprise and concern than the recent acton
of the Controller of the Treasury. Mr.. Bowler IN
refusing 10 pay the sugar bounty claims. on the
ground that the law granting said bounty ana pro-
vding for its payment Is unconstitutional OF UNI
warranted by the Constitution OF the United Std'eS'
No little amaZement created when II was an
nounced through the press of the country that the
Controller had set day for hearing. and citei
Senator'S OF the United States and learned counsel
to appear before him and submit arguments ana
briefs in support OF the constiiutonality OF the
act OF Congress providing for and authorizing tne
payment Of the sugar bounty. The Controller OF
the Treasury who had been regarded only as the
chief accounting officer OF the Government. western
with high and important duties and powers in the
matter OF public accounts. had resolved himself INTO
constitutional court. His office thronged with
Interested spectators during the several days on
which the argument proceeded. II was a mover
spectace-a new departure In the Controller oil'e.
The decision OF the Controller. which was looked
for with interest and curiosity. was promulgated
on the 4th OF the present month. IL Is bold anu
plausible argument in support OF his contention that
the Controller OF the Treasury is bound to inquire
into and ascertain the consttutionality OF an acs
of Congress authorizing the payment or money from
the public treasury and If convinced that such ac'
is unwarranted by the Constitution. TO refuse to
sanction payments hereunder.
BOWLER GIVES HIS AUTHORITY
The Controller is careful to define the authority
under which he acted in the matter Of the sugar
Bounty claim which was before him. which au-
thority is conferred by Section Of the Act OF
July g. 1894 known as the Dockery law as follows;
All decisions by Auditors making an original con.
struc;ion or modifying existing construction OF
statutes shall be forthwith reported to the con-
affected by such decision shall be suspendsd any
payment Thereof withneG uh nr or modS
such decisions and certify his actions to the Aud-
tor (2s Stat. 2os)
The Auditor for the Treasury Department had be-
fore him the claim OF the Oxnard Beet Sugar Com
pany OF Nebraska which the first claim pre-
sented under the Sundry Civil Appropriation act OF
March 2 1885, for the payment OF bounty on sugar
which had been allowed by the Commissioner or
Internal Revenue. The Auditor proposed 70 allow
the claim ana certify the amount thereof for pay
nent but under the provision % the Dockery law
above referred he required to report his
construction OF the act providing for the payment
OF the sugar bounty TO the Controller.
While the Controller does not directly claim that
the Dockery law gives him broader authority than
the Controller had before the passage Of that law,
It IL plain that the method OF procedure Il
such that the Controllers action in reviewing and
passing upon the Auditors construction Of statute
becomes like that OF court Under the law as II
listed prior to the Dockery act. all accounts exam
ined by the several Auditors came to the two Con-
trolers and the Commissioner OF Customs for their
revision and final action. and they were required TO
examine and settle" the accounts assigned by law
70 their respective jurisdictions. and to certify the
balances arising thereon" Their authority to allow
or disallow Items of accounts. under the statutes
providing appropriations for their payment was
made conclusive the executive branch OF the
Government. and subject 10 revision only by
Congress and the proper courts Of law. This author
ity exercised by the Controllers before the Dockery
law went into effect by that law transferred 70
the several auditors in the matter OF settling public
accounts and a sort OF appellate Jurisdiction was
given 70 the Controller TO review the construction
OF statutes by the auditors and TO consider mat
ters Of account which come 10 him on appeal
The contention that the Controller has authority TO
refuse payment because he regards the act OF Con-
gress authorizing payment as unconstitutional has
more weight and color under the Dockery law than
under the law a. Il stood before the Dockery act
was passed. which Invested the Controller OF the
Important duty OF finally revising accounts, and
Transformed his office and functions into a sort OF
Treasury court.
PROPOSITION OF GRAVE IMPORT.
The proposition that the Controller OF the Treas
ury may set aside and virtually nullify any act OF
Congress providing FOR the payment of public money,
on his own conviction contention that such act is
unwarranted by the Constitution. is Of grave
import The proposition that the Constitution s the
supreme law and that an unconstitutional act Is not
law will be accepted : self-evident but the more
serious question remains unsOved. as 10 how far an
executive officer may 20 upon ms own conVlctoh or
belief that any act OF Congress is unwarranted ny
The President as the Chief Executive may veto
an act which he considers TO be unconstitutional;
and TO aid him In this respect he has the advice ana
a assistance OF his constitutional advisers among
whom IS an Attorney General learned in the law.
I{uf tier an act has received the Presidential sane
ton and signature has otherwise become IA"
as provided by the Constitution Il would seem TO De
the duty Of every executive officer ana every citizen
to obey f.. until IL has been pronounced unconsttu-
This in fact seems t be the outcome OF the Con-
tro.ler's action on the sugar bounty claim, upon
the reference OF the case 10 the Court Of Claims
for decision under that section or the Revised stat
utes (Section 1869 authorizing such references 10
that court whenever any clain Is Ihaue asSlnss
any executive department involving disputed facts
tons provided in said section among "hicn - eIe
following: Where any authority right, privilege
eEemp9n is 59sd S[ The very ae
that Congress has provided FOR such reference IN
ment considered the courts as the eN'nsis~ i,i ILL.,
lnals 10 pass upon questions lnVolVihs the V@hui'y
Or consti,utiOnaty OF any law
NOT A QUESTION FOR CONTROLLERS.
From the foundation OF the Government down to
the present day party lines have been drawn on the
express and implied powers under the Constitution
There have been and still the school Of strict
who would limit the powers Of the
Government and the authority Of Congress to the
literal grant OF power in the Constitution and the
liberal school spell Nation with a big y. ana
VINO derive from the implied powers OF the consul
tuition authority 10 pass all laws conducive TO the
general welfare and prosperity II would be
most serious and dangerous matter II any executive
)fiicer infuerC ed by his own views and theories
a. 10 the correct Interpretation OF the Constitution
might undertake TO pronounce an act or Congress
or TO refuse TO execute II. or 10
make payments under II. because ne believed IL 10
3e unwarranted BY the Constitution.
The argument that bounty laws are unconstltu-
ional as presented in the Controllers decision
.esfs mainly upon the remarks OF Judge Shepard Of
~. l.,rt ~ Annenls Of the Distrct OF COlnmbll