The herald., 1896-05-26
The Sugar Bounty Law is De-
Clared Valid
CLAIMS TO BE PAID AT ONCE
Baunock Indians Held Amenable to the
State Game Laws
California, Affecting Irrigation Dis
tricts, 10 Not Yet Decided
Press Special Wire.

| WASHINGTON, May 25.-The su-
| preme court today sustained the validity
| Of the appropriations to carry out the
sugar bounty features OF the Mckinley
and Wilson tariff act by unanimous
| opinion affirming the decision of the
circuit court of the estern district of
Louisiana and reversing the action of
Comptroller of the Treasury Bowler, who
refused to permit the payment Of boun-
| ties on the ground that the act was un-
constitutional. The cases involved were
| those OF the United States, plaintiff in
| error, VS.. The Realty company and An
drew H, Gay, respectively. The opin-
| ion of the court was delivered by JUS
tice Peckham. Both were test cases.
The Realty company was one of a class
| coming under the terNAs of the appro-
| priation to those who had manufactured
| a certain class of sugar previous to
the 2sth day of August. 1894, and upon
| which no bounty had previously been
! paid. The repeal of the bounty clause
| IN the act of 1890 by the act which took
| effect on the 28th day of August, 1884,
and which prohibited the payment Of
bounties thereafter. prevented the com
| pany from obtaining the money on the
| warrant which had been issued to II
| prior to that date.
There were comparatively few persons
| coming under the class in which the
| company stood and the appropriation
| made for the payment of that class was
| a little less tlaan $3.50 900. The plaintiff
| in the other suit. Mr.. Cay, Is one or a.
| class under the second portion of the
| act of 1895. he being among those who
| complied with the provisions of the
| bounty act as contained in the sched-
ules of the act Of $780, by filing notice OF
| application for license and bond as
therein required, and would have been
entitled to receive a license as provided
for in said act and a bounty OF eight
tenths of cent per pound on the sugar
actually manufactured by him curing
the period commencing August ~, 1884,
and ending June 30, 1895.
The amount Of bounty claimed by Gay
is between $SO00 and $4,000 The persons
forming this class are numerous ana the
augmentation for them amounted 10
| IS, 900 900. Comptroller. Bowler had
based his action largely upon the de-
cision Of the court OF Appeals OF .he ,.', LIS
trict of Columbia. that the sugar bounty
clause Of the Mckinley act was uncon-
StitutiOnal.
| The supreme court in its opinion today
said that for the purposes of the cases.
| II was unnecessary to decide whetner
| such legislation is beyond the power
| of congress, but that in either case
| the appropriation of money In the act
| of 1895 to manufacturers and producers
| of sugar who had complied with the act
of 1880. were within the power OF con.
gress to make, and were constitutional
and valid. In discussing the conditlons
which existed at the time OF the pas
sage Of the appropriation act Oh $780, thS
court says
1.-THE production or manufacture OF
sugar in the southern and western
states from sugar. cane and from sor-
ghum and beets had become at the
time OF the passage of the act or 1891 an
industry in which large numbers of citi-
zens Of this country were engaged and
it's prosecution involved the use OF a
large amount Of capital. The tariff,
therefore, had been very high on inn
ported sugar and that Industry had
thereby been fostered and greatly IN
creased. The suo1ec1 OF - now 10 r,ea, a.,
this industry was under discussion IN
congress while the tariff act OF 1880
was before 1t and It finally decided the
question by enacting the bounty clause
Of that act.
BEFORE that time the revenue derived
from imported sugar had amounted 10
nearly sec, ,000. 900 in one year. To put
sugar on the free list would reduce the
revenue that amount. but at the same
time II was urged in congress might
ruin the persons engaged in the IN
dustry in this country. So the tariff on
sugar was reduced, while at the same
time q bounty was placed upon its pro-
duction here in an amount which was
thought would equal the protection the
industry had heretofore enjoyed under
the tariff. The act was approved by
the president and no question of its va
lidity was made by any officer OF the
government having any duties to per-
form under 1t. Under the act large
sums of money were paid to sugar man
ufacturers as a bounty and no officer of
the government questioned the validity
of the act This condition continued for
about three years.
In the winter, spring and summer of
far. ~ htCtnrU
cussion of the tariff act, which finally be-
came q law on the 2Sth of August of
that year, was continually going on in
congress and through the publio prints
of the country. Before the passage OF
the act it was, of course, wholly uncer-
tain as to what its provisions would be,
including the question of bounty for the
manufacturers of sugar. No man could
predict No one could have stated
whether the bounty would be taken Oft
entirely or materially reduced or left
as it stood by the act of $780, The whole
question OF tariff legislation at that time
was full Of uncertainty. In the mean
time the season was approaching when
the manufacturer of sugar must decide
what to do. He was confronted with the
fact that the act of 1890 was still in ex-
istence and under its provisions he must,
IL he meant to avail himself of the boun-
ties which must be payable under the
act. make his application for and OBJ
tain a license prior to July 1st Of that
year. In his application for a license
he was compelled to give general de.
scription of the machinery and methods
employed by him. with the amount of
sugar proposed to be produced in the
current year and his application would
have to be accompanied by a bond that
he would faithfully observe the rules
and regulations that would be pre-
scribed for the manufacture and pro-
duction of sugar. If he made applica-
ton and obtained his licenses and COM
menced the manufacture of sugar un-
der the provisions Of the act of 1890 he
could not be certain that congress might
not strike out altogether the provisions
for the payment of any bounty and he
be left in such a condition that he could
neither manufacture with profit nor alb
stain from manufacturing without loss.
The court says there can be no ques-
tion of the good faith of the plaintiffs
The question of the constitutionality of
the sugar bounty in the act of 1890 is
entirely immaterial. 1t is question of
equitable consideration and the court
says: 1.-THE plaintiffs acquired claims
on the ground of an equitable, moral or
honorary nature"