The Indianapolis journal., 1896-05-26
Supreme Court Virtually Decides that
Acts OF Congress Cannot BE Set
Aside by Carlisle's Controller.
SUGAR BOUNTIES TO BE PAID
DECISION THAT RELEASES OVER
s5,0Oo,OoO LONG TIED UP,
And Also Affords Justice to Louisians
and Nebraska ProdUcers-The
Steamer Horsa Case.

opinions. During the term the court has
disposed of 4S7 cases. leaving 5S5 on the
docket-a smaller number than have re-
mained at the close of any preceding term
since the close Of the term in 1876. In addi-
tion to those finally disposed OF argument
has been heard in twenty-eight cases in
which opinions were not rendered. The
most important of the cases which go over
is that involving the constitutionality Of
the California irrigation law.
BY unanimous consent the court to-day sus-
tanned the validity Of the appropriations to
carry out the sugar bounty features OF the
Mckinley and Wilson tariff acts, affirming
the decision of the Circuit Court for the Eas-
tern district Of louisiana and reversing the
action of Controller Bowler, Who refused TO
permit the payments of the bounties, the
ground that the act was unconstitutional.
The cases. involved were those Of the United
States piaintiff in error vs. the Realty Com
pany and Andrew H. Gay. respectively. The
opinion Of the court was delivered by JUS
tice Peckham. Both were test cases.
The Realty Company was one of a class
coming under the terms Of the appropriation
to those who had manufactured a certain
class OF sugar previous to the 18th day Of
August 1894 and on which no bounty had
previously been paid. The repeal of the
bounty clause in the act of $780, which
took effect on the 18th OF August, 1884, and
which prohibited the payment of bounties
thereafter. prevented the company from OBJ
tanning the money on the warrant, which
had been issued to 1t prior to that date.
There were comparatively few persons COM
ing under the class In which the company
stood, and the appropriation made for the
of ola fff IL 1ouc an
$4,000. The plaintiff in the other suit. Mr..
Gay. is one of c:ass coming under the Sec
ond portion of the act of.1Se5. he being among
those who complied with the provisions Of
the bounty act as contained in Schedule E
OF the act of Oct /, 1880, by filing notice Of
application for license and bond, therein
required, and who would have been entitled
to receive license as provided for in said
acts bounty of eight-tenths of cent per
pound ON the sugars actually manufactured
by him during the period commencing Aug.
~, 1884, and ending June 80. 1885. The amount
OF bounty claimed by Gay is between $S.Vo
and ss,ovv. The persons forming this class
are nu,iie rous and the Appropriation for them
amourted to 5000 600. Controller Bowler
| the Court CT appeals of the District of Co
lumoia, that the sugar bounty clause OF the
Mckinley act was unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court in its opinion to-day
said that f3r the purposes of the cases IT
was unnecessary to decide whether such leg-
islation is beyond the power OF Congress. but
money in the act Of 1895 to manufacturers
anc. producers Of sugar who had complied
Congress to make were constitutional and
WHY THE ACT WAS PASSED.
In discussing the conditions which existed
| at r.. tine of the passage of the appro-
priatton act of 1895 the court says: ''The
| prc5uctie. and manufacture of sugar in the
| Southern and portions of the Western States
| from ssssai cane and from sorghum and
| be ., , had become. at the time Of the pas
| sage Of the act Of 1880. an industry in which
| lara,s numoels of the citizens of this coun-
7! try were engaged. and its prosecution in
vowed the use of a large amount Of capital.
| The tariff heretofore had been very high
on imported sugar. and the native industry
hac thereby been encouraged, foStered and
| greatly Increased. The subject of how to
| treat this industry was under discussion In
Congress while the tariff act Of 1880 was be
| fore it. and 1t finally decided the question
| by enacting the bounty clause OF that act.
| Before that time the revenue on imported
one year. TO put sugar on the free list
would reduce the revenue that amount. but,
| at the same time. 1t might. as was urged in
Consrsss ruin % III. the persons ar engaged in the
| duced, while, at the same time bounty
/ was placed on its production here of an
amount which was thought would equal the
| joyed under the tarih.
1.-THE act was approved by the President
any officer of the government having any
duties to perform under 1t. Under the act
| large sums OF money were paid 10 sugar
manufacturers as bounty. and no officer
| OF the act. This condition continued for
about three years In the winter. spring
and summer of 1894, Ii is a matter of his
| tory, that discussion of the act which be-
| came law on the 18th of August of that
| year was continually going on in Congress
| and through the public prints OF the country.
| Before the passage of the act 1T was, OF
| course, wholly uncertain as to what its pro-
visions would be. including the question of
No man could predict it. No one could have
stated whether the bounty would be taken
on entirely. or materially reduced. or left
question of tariff legislation at that time
| was full OF uncertainty. In the mean
time the season was approaching when
eide eide hste what to do. To- sfe he was mss' con- one.
fronted with the fact that the act act of eDs, iss,
was still in existence. and under its provi.
OF the bounties which might be, payaDls
under the act make his application for and
obtain license prior 20 July 1 OF that year
In his application for license he was com
| PEELED TO give a general description of the
machinery and the methods to be employed
/ ny MINI, WITH an estimate or the amount Of
| sugar TO be produced in the current year
| and his application would have TO be ac-
| companied by bond that he would faith.
fully observe the rules and regula tions fha
| would be prescribed for the manufacture and
| production of sugar. II he made applica fjor
| and obtained his license. and Commenced
the manufacture OF sugar under the provi-
s1ons of the act of 1890. he could not be Ger.
tain that the Congress might not strike or,
altogether the provision for the payment n,
| any bounty, and he be left In such condi-
ton that he could neither manufacture wifh
| profit nor abstain from manufacturing vith'
| out loss" "i'N
! The court says there can be no oues,ior
| OF the good faith OF the plaintiffs. The ones'
ton OF the constitutionaiity of the s:,gar
bounty in the act of 1890 Is entirely imna
| terial- Ii is question Of equitable consid-
acquired claims upon the government OF an
equitable. moral or honorary nature"
THE PRINCIPLE AT STAKE.
The principle on which the court bases its
decision Is contained in the following decla-
ration: Under the provisions OF the Con-
stirution tArticle /, Section So Congress has
power to lay and collect taxes. etc. to pay
| the debts Of the United States" Having
power TO raise money for that purpose IL.
| of course. follows that II has power to ap-
propriate money to the same object The
| term debts includes those debts or claims
| which rest a merely equitable honorary
obligation, and which would not be recover
| able In a court OF law II existing against
| any individual. Their recognition depends
| solely on Congress and whether IL Will rec
| the discretion OF that body. Payments 10
| individuals. not OF right. or q merely legal