Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-08-08
THE SUGAR HEARING
Senator Blanchard Speaks for the
Bounty.
SEVERE CRITICISM OF Mr.. BOWLER
Income Tax Law Cited as a Com
parison.
BACK AND FORTH TALK

The hearing in the sugar bounty case
now pending before Controller Bowler was
resumed in the office rooms of the latter
this morning. Another large and interested
crowd was present. among them many
men prominent in public affairs. Senator
Blanchard began the days proceedings,
spe aking from a carefully prepared manu-
script. In substance he said that
he and the gentlemen associated with him
would present the argument under three
general heads. They would contend, first,
that the controller of the treasury is with
out authority to question the validity of an
act of Congress; second, that the appropri-
alton called in question is of constitutional
warrant. third, that If it be not constitu-
tional, strong equities existed justifyfng
Congress in making the appropriation. and
that Congress has equitable jurisdiction.
The Senator said he would address HIM
seld moro particularly to the first conten-
ton. touching only in a general way upon
the other two, leaving 1t to his associates
to amplify the argument upon them He
briefly referred to the sugar bounty legisla-
tion of the Mckinley and Wilson tariff
acts, and quoted the provision of the latter
act requiring the bounty authorized to be
paid upon the presen tation of such proof
of manufacture and production as shall be
required in each case by the commissioner
of internal revenue.
The controller, he urged is simply min
isterial officer. He cannot question the
validity OF an act of Congress. He must
execute the law as he finds 1t. The most
that can be claimed for him is that he Is
ministerial officer with quasi judicial func-
lions. Quasi judicial functions may be ex-
ercised In deciding the amount due; but
once this is decided every step leading up
to the payments of the money is purely
ministerial act.
Mr. blanchard commanded that the person
holding the office of controller was but an
accounting officer. The Senator asked: III
the President is powerless to forbid the ex-
ecution of an act of Congress. Tow is 1t
possible for one OF his subordinate execu-
tive officers to do so?'
After quoting numerous authorities and
citing decisions, Mr.. Blanchard asserted
that the very utmost that the executive
branch could do in the way of inquiry Into
the constitutionality of law was to ask
the opinion of the Attorney General. Eut
the act of Congress constituted rule op-
erative on the controller until it was de-
clared by the judicial power void. Mr..
Blanchard pointed out that an investfga-
ton was made by the Thirty-siXth Con-
gress when a controller refused to execute
a law of that body. The conclusion reached
by the Senate committee in that instance
was that 1t was a matter of very grave
inquiry to know how far an executive,
ministerial or subordinate officer Of the
government can be permitted to go behind
the law, or question the motives or action
of Congress to find excuses or reasons for
the non-execution Of the law. II this be
permitted without rebuke. It would be sub
versive of all law. The conclusion reached
by the House committee was the same, and
1t declared that II the controller continued
to refuse to carry out the law, the Presl-
dent should remove him and appoint some
one who would obey its mandates.
Colloauy.
While Mr. Blanchard was discussing the
question Of the right of the President to
interfere with the enforcement Of law
enacted by Congress. Mr.. Bowler asked
MIN whether he CMr. Bowler) derived his
power from the President or. the statute
creating his office, to which Mr.. Blanchard
replied that the President himself could
not revise the law. The President, he
declared, was without power to forbid the
execution of statute. 1t Is made his
duty to execute all laws, and If he must
of his nullify them?
But" replied Mr.. Bowler, Il take the
ground that If law is unconstitutional
It Is null and void"
THAT is correct" said Mr.. Blanchard.
latter q law has been declared unconsti-
tutional by the United States Supreme
Court, but not before. The President and
no one under him can forbid the execution
of law on the supposition Of unconsti-
tutionality without himself violating the
Constitution. 1t does not rest with you
or any other executive officer to originate
an objection of unconstitutionality.
A Comparison.
Senator Henderson suggested the income
tax law as an instance.
1.-THE income tax law said Mr.. Bowler,
was never constitutional"
ut was" replied Mr.. Henderson. "un-
til it was declared by the United States
Supreme Court not to be So
SgT - IL %~ tho nt1th
that statement" said Mr.. Bowler.
I'VE shall give them to you IN great
abundance before we conclude this argu-
ment," replied Mr.. Blanchard.
Mr. Blanchard took issue with Mr.. Man.
derson, holding that the controllers pow
ers were only administrative, and in
respect judicial. "You," he exclaimed to
Err. Bowler, ''are mere creature Of the
law; there il nothing constitutional about
you" He called attention to the fact that
in taking the position he had taken. Mr..
Bowler. a creature of the Fifty-third Con-
gress, had set himself up to question the
validity of another law of the same Con-
gress; he could just as consistently ques-
ton the validity Of the law creating his
office and thus present to the world the alb
surd spectacle of a government official de-
capitating himself.
Self-DecapitntiOn.
Furthermore, If Mr.. Bowler had the pow
er to question a law and refuse to execute
1t, any other official Of the government,
down to the messengers Of the departments,
all having taken the same oath, would have
the same right to refuse to perform any
duty in execution of law, because they
forsooth might come to the conclusion that
the statute was not In accord with the pro-
visions of the Constitution.
It was, Mr.. Blanchard contended, a re-
markable spectacle that three Senators and
two Representatives who had aided in ere
atng law, should have to aDDear before a
subordinate executive official and appeal for
the execution Of that law. The time had
been, he said, when this was not necessary
and when the officials Of the executive de-
partment had considered 1t their only duty
to execute the laws.
DIR. MELvIN's PROMOTION.