The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1895-01-09
BoUNTIEs UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
An important Decision in One OF the
Louisiana Sugar Cas-


Washington. Jan. S.-Th4 court ~ an.
peais OF the District of Columbia. through
Justice Sheppard. to-day delivered an
opinion affirming the decision Of Ju7rs
Mccomas in the district circuit court re-
iuSing 10 grant the application Of the Miles
flantlns and Manufacturing Cor7ps7,- of
Louisiana Tor a mandamus TO courel the
Secretary Of the Treasury ana the -or,,r,is-
sloner of internal revenue 20 make sn
EXAMINATION Of the sugar produced bv the
comranF. preliminary TO the payment 81
me sugar bounty for 1895 which Secretary
aihsle refused TO pay. on the ground that
ne new tariff law repealed the bounty
provision or the Mckinley act. The case
iS an important one. involving the rorsti
tutionaliry Of bouniias and ri tire -,ayy
iarlt lew The most interesting feature
or me courts opinion Is ITS practical de-
olarat:on that the granting Of bornties
Is unconstitutional
Opon the question Of constitutionalitv
me court says. The power OF congress
10 paw oounties 10 manufacturers or pro-
cucers in order to encourage the manu-
facture or production of any article has
never been passed upon by the courts.
out the principle which underlies me
question. and upon which its solution de-
pends has, IN rhe opinion Of the court.
neen time and again asserted and applied
in the court Of last resort in such cases.
particularly in the celebrated opinion of
Justice Millen, holding that the govern
ment cannot take property from citizens
10 hestOw 10 on favored Individuals"
Quotations from a number of opinions i'm
support OF this doctrine arc given by The
court.
The power 70 give the bounty 20 the
producers OF sugar must. rs we have seen.
be referred to and determined by the
general grant Of the first clause of sec
ton of article Of the constitution"
The court thinks it would be a useless
consumption of time to enter upou a dis
cussiOn of the Interpretation Of the Ian
guage contained III this clause, nor is it
necessary 10 do SO. STILL it says. THE
question remains. Is the grant Of a
bounty to the producers OF sugar a con-
stitutonal exercise of the power of taxa
ton as so understood? The court thinks
that the authorities cited establish be
yond question that the power of taxa
ton, in all free governments like ours
is limited 10 public objects and purposes
governmental in their nature. No amount
of incidental public good cr benefit will
render valid. taxation, or the apprOpria-
ton OF revenue 10 be derived theTefrcm,
for a private purpose. =
IF il may be for the general welfare
of the United States TO encourage the
production of sugar by the grant of a
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 to all objects, it
may deem to be for the general welfare
then it follows that this discretion, Ike
the idea that this is government of
delegated. limited and enumerated pow
ers.' renders superfuous all the special
delegations of power contained in the con-
stitutiOn and opens the way for n flood
of socialistic legislation, the spec!Ous plea
for all of which has ever been the general
welfare. Il is doctrine that we cannot
subscribe TO.
still less are We able to subscribe to
a doctrine that legislation may be enacted
by congress in pursuance of a natural pol
icy analogous to that adopted by Ger
many and France. or to any other govern
ment on the face of the earth. There is
no inherent sovereignty in the general
order in the state governments. The peo-
pie are sovereign. Certain powers of soy
ereignty they have delegated with free
hand, others have been reserved. Leg.sla-
ton by the assembly of France, the
Reichstag Of imperial Germany, of the
parliament of Great Britain. where power
is unlimited, furnishes no proper prece-
dent for legislation in this country"
In conclusion. the court says that all
acts granting drawbacks ana bounties. no
matter how worded or divided, have met
with determined opposition and denial of
power at all times, ana it cannot be said
that they ever received general consent or
acquiescence. The fact that monies have
often been paid out under acts OF doubtful
or questionable validity. can have no great
weight under a system where the ques-
ton. by reason Of difficulties alluded to
in the opinion is so hard to be raised in
an effective manner.
But if there had been a practice by con
gress," says the court, uniform and gem
orally acquiesced in, our opinion is 50
clearly against the validity Of this act
that we could not be controlled by it in
the performance Of our duty. No time, no
acquiescence, or estOppel runs against the
people under the 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 APP
pellees.'
The opinion OF the court was unanimous,
but Chief Justice Alvey filed a separate
concurring opinion. Il fully concur"
says the chief justice. with my brothers
i'm the affirmance OF the Judgment APP
peaIed from in this case, but l do so upon