The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-08-08
PLEADS FOR BOUNTY
He Says the Repeal Of the Bounty Act
Was a sBunc0" Proceeding ON
the Part Of Congress.

day before Controller Bowler on the ques-
ton of the constitutionality Of the sugar
bounty appropriations made by Congress at
its last session for the crops OF 1898 and
1894. arises upon the claims Of the Oxnard
Beet Sugar Company. of Nebraska. thai be-
ing the first claim settled by the auditor
since the passage Of the Wilson bill, by
which the old sugar bounty of the McKin-
ley act was repealed. The COMMISSIONS Of
Internal Revenue having adjusted the
amount OF the bounties due the Oxnard
company. referred all the papers TO the au-
ditor of the Treasury Department for a
statement of an account thereon. The au-
ditor stated an account allowing the
amount fixed by the Commissioner Of In
ternal Revenue. and referred his decision to
the Controller for his approval. disapproval
or modiica tion. as required by the provi-
sions of the new accounting system in the
act OF July 81. 1894. as the result OF the la
bors of the Dockery commission. That act
requires the auditors in making an original
construction or modifying an existing con-
struction Of q statute to report to the Con-
troller of the Treasury their decisions, and
to suspend action until the Controller has
passed upon the question. This was rem
dered necessary by the change which the
commission made in the account
ing offices, by which claims stated by an au-
ditor do not go to the Controller. as a mat
ter OF course, but only reach him upon ap-
peal. or in the manner above indicated. The
decision of the Controller is required to be
acted on by the auditor, whose certificate
is made by law final and conclusive upon
the executive branch of the government.
The result is that the decision of the Con-
troller cannot be reviewed by any other ex-
ecutive officer of the government. Claims
rejected by the Controller. however, may
be sued on in the Court Of Claims, or, in
certain cases, in the Circuit and District
courts OF the United States, their decisions
being binding upon him
The Court of Appeals in the District of
Columbia. in the case of the United States
ex rel. the Miles Planting and Manufacture
ing Company vs.. John g. Carlisle and
Joseph S. Miller. being a mandamus pro-
ury and Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
to compel them TO appoint sugar inspectors
under the provisions of the Mckinley act.
nacdn ss,, neid that the sugar D0unties were
deemed ii necessary to be salts
NED upon that point before passing the
claim OF the Oxnard company and establish
@Ne - " lax q VI Tic
sugar, bounties provided for by the new APP
preparations. He, therefore,, without taking
any decision on the matter whatever, called
upon the counsel Of the Oxnard company to
be heard on the question. The matter
gives rise Immediately to very considerable
discussion as to the Controllers powers and
made that he had no jurisdiction to decide
this question. and was compelled TO obey
the law as passed by Congress. whether
constitutional or not. That question. 1t is
Will be argued. as we'll as the
constituticnalty of the bounty a~ppropria-
MANDERsoN's ARGUMENT.
The hearing to-day took place in Con-
troiler Bowlers Office in the Treasury
Building. Ex-senator Henderson. of Ne
braska, made the first argument in the
case. He said the interest under considera-
ton was one of greatest Importance not
only to his State. but to the entire United
States. The bounty provided for in the Nc
Kinley law was a pledge Of the govern
ment to reward experiments in sugar pro-
duction to the extent of 2 cents per pound.
and the producers had a right to rely
1t. The State Of Nebraska, he said.
gone to great expense in establishing
teaching the people how to grow beets. AS
going to show the hardships which the re-
peal of the bounty had worked, he said
LIN NNeDIdSkd FARMERS udu. l0lS yeaI.
planted nine thousand acres of beets.. or
three thousand acres more than ever before
under contracts previously made with the
manufacturers. He characterized the repeal
of the bounty law as an ~unrighteous. un-
just and almost Unlawful exercise Of con-
gressional prerogatiye and referred to 1t
present bounty legislation under which the
present claim is presented
Mr.. Henderson declared that IF by any
method in the Treasury Department or the
This hnon no donfad MIR foafnrioc
beyond description and distress be-
yond any capacity to paint will result.
What we plead Tor nov n1u Is mat our rae-
Wipe out this industry and you administer
a death blow to the West" The
then discussed at length the duties
Of the Controller and his authority to act
in this case was denied. The President and
said Mr.. Henderson, had passed
on the constitutionality OF this act and he
refused to acknowledge the authority OF a
subordinate to pass an ex post facto veto.
Only the judiciary could do this. He char
acterized the action of Mr.. Bowler as an en-
tive and Congress and especially the ju-
dietary.
Senator Henderson made the point that
bounty was of later enactment than the
general law defining the Controllers du-
ties, and snould be given due weight as
the latest instruction on the subject
SOME HYPOTHETICAL CASES.
senator CdQeTy dSkeu MT. AdnuciSoh
whether 1t was not true that Republicans
had voted for the bounty as a relief meas
ure, and not as going to establish a bounty
principle, to which General Henderson re-
piled that such was the case. He con-
tended that Congress had the constitution
right to make a donation or gift II 1t
should see fit, and quoted Jere Black as
for the opinion. Citing prece-
dent. Mr.. Henderson referred to the OPP
position made by the federalists to the
Of the Louisiana territory, and
said: Suppose we should have had an
official who would have assumed to null
lily that act by refusing to pay out the
money APPROPRIATED; he would have been
a spectacle for gods and men. l thank
God Ii was not decided against the pur-
chase. and / hope we may go on acquiring
and purchasing until we get Hawaii and
tory toward which we have been hooking
longing eyes. Suppose. too, q Con-
troller had refused to pay warrants for
war expenses during the rebellion on the
ground that he had doubts Of their consti-
tutional validity. In that event I think
there would have been a rape or the treas
ury and a murder OF the Controller,
After an hours recess Mr.. Henderson
resumed his argument, devotins this por-
ton of his statement TO the constitution
atty of the bounty law. For the purpose
Of establishing the validity OF the law IN
this respect he quoted many authorities,
citing legislation and congressional de-
bates as early as 17Ss. and coming down
howed that from the earliest lays boun-
ties had been a common thing. and claimed
only the slightest disposition had