The Houma courier. (Houma, La.) 1878-1939, 1896-05-30
bounty MUST BE- PAID..
The Supreme Court OF The
United States Gives It's
decision.
Great Rejoicing In Houma
Over The Good News.


The Supreme Court Of these
United States decided last Mon
day that Congress had a right to
appropriate money for the paynens
Of the bounty in 1894, as it was u
debt that the United States in all
Justice owed.
The news of the decision OF the
Supreme Court reached Houma b3
telegram Monday night, and was
received with enthusiasm by the
sugar planters and their friends,
That the bounty will come in good.
play goes without saying. Every
planter has u quiet little vacuum
in his pockets that the bounty will
just fill.
Bowler the great and only and
much cusSed aud discussed Bowler,
has nothing lett for him to do now
but pay the bounty.
Washington, May 25 The Supreme
Court to-day sustained the validity OF
the appropriations to carry ont the
sugar bounty features of the Mckinley
and Wilson tariff acts by unanimous
opinion affirming the decision of the
Circuit Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana, aud reversing the action
Of Comptroller Bowler, who refused to
permit the payments of the bountles
on the ground that the act was mn.
constitutional.
The cases involved were those Of
the United States, plaintiff in error,
vs.. Tho Realty Company and Andrew
Il. Gay, respectively. The opinion Of
the court was delivered by Justice
Peckham. Both were test cases. The
Realty Company was one Of il class
coming under the terms of the APP
preparation to those who had manu-
tactured a certain class Of sugar
previous to the 25th. day Of August,
1894, and upon which 20 bounty had
previously been paid. Tue repeal of
the bounty clause in the act of 1890
by the act which took effect on the
28th Of August, 1894, and which pro
bilitnd tba ovn,.,4t ,,fI..,ut;, :. 49,.
after, prevented the company from
obtaining the money on the warrant
which had been issued to it prlor to
that date. There comparatively
few persons coming under the class III
which tho company stood, aud tie
appropriation made for The payment
Of that class was IL little less than
S5O.0OO.
The plaintiff in the other suit. NJ.
Gay. is u of a class coming under
the second portion os the act of 1895.
he being among those who compelled
with the provisions Of the bounty act
as contained in schedule E. Of the act
of Oct. !, 1890, by filing notice Of
application for license and bond as
therein required, and who would have
been entitled to reccive a licenSe az
provided tor in said acts Al bounty of
trnthS of a cont per pound on
the sngars actually manufactured by
him during the period commencing
Aug. 70, 1894, and ending Juue 30,
1895 The amount IF bounty c!aiMed
by Gay is between $4,000 and S9nO0.
The persons forming this class are
numerous and the appropriation tor
them amounted to S., 00O,O DO. Gonp-
troller Bowler has based his action
largely upon a decision by the Court
of Appeals vi the District of Columbia
that the sugar bnunty clause of the
Mckinley act was unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court in its opiuion to-
day said that for the purposes it was
unnecessary to decide whether such
legislation is beyond the power Of
Congress, but that III either case. the
appropriations Of money in the act Of
1895 to manufacturers and producers
Of sugar who has complied with the
act of 1890 were in power Of Congress
to make and were constitutional and
valid.
In discussing the conditions which
existed at the time of the passage of
the appropriation act of 1895, the
court. snys:
"Phe production and manufacture
Of sugar in the Southern and some
portions of the aWestern States from
sugar scane and from sorghum and
beets has become at the time of the
act OF 1890 aud industry in which large
ofthe citizens OF this country
were engaged, and its prosecution i'm
volved the use Of d very large amount
OF capital. The tariff heretofore had
been very high upon imported sugar,
and the native industry had thereby
been encouraged, fostered. and greatly
M