New-York tribune., 1896-05-26
SUGAR BOUNTY MUST BE PAID
THE SUPREME COURT OvERRuLEs CON-
TROLLER BOWLER.

BOWLER SAYS HE WILL RE
sPECT THE DECISION.
rpY TELEGRAPH TO THE TRIBUNEl
Washington May 25.-The bounding and ir-
repressible Bowler, Robert b., Of Cincinnati, and
the Supreme Court Of the United States have at
last come into collision. and to unprejudiced
observer It looks II the ambition of the Ma
poeonic Controller OF the Treasury 10 establish
himself as a fourth branch Of the Federal Gov
ernment had received fatal shock. His veto OF
the sugar bounty paragraph of the Sundry Clvii
Appropriation bill of 1898 came before the
court to-day indirectly but effectively through
an appeal in an almost identical suit and the
rreposterous ruling of the Treasury attorney,
who had thrown himself between the Constitu-
ton and Congress, ignominiCusly reversed
by unanimous opinion from the Supreme
Bench.
Mr.. Bowlers vaulting pretensons to recogni-
ton as a fourth wheel" in the Federal scheme
Of Government received scant courtesy from the
court whose functions he had rashly usurped,
ard though the opinion handed down to-day
could not desl directly with his assumption OF
authority to determine the constitutionaty or
non-constitutonality of laws passed by Con-
gress,. it was evident from the tenor qof the
courts views that the Controllers performances
OF last summer need only be brought before the
Supreme Bench directly to meet with q reversal
as decisive az to-day's. Mr.. Bowler will take no
more chances, however, with the Supreme Court.
for he promptly acknowledged the sweeping
character Of the Judgment given this afternoon
by lifting the embargo on the bounty appropria
tions Of 1895 and directing the Auditor Of the
Treasury TO pass all claims properly presented
under the terms fixed BY Congress in last years
Sundry Civil bill. When asked II he had any
comment 10 make on the decision OF the court.
he admitted: 1T Is not for to criticlse
the decisions OF the Supreme Court but to
ecute their decrees.''
The before the Supreme Court
writs OF error to the Circuit Court Of
the United States for the Eastern District Of Lou
siana In both cases-those OF the Realty Com
pany and Andrew II. Gay-the Court below gave
judgment for the plaintiffs The litigation arises
out Of the bounty clauses of the Mckinley act,
repealed by the Wilson law. and the Sundry
Civil act OF March 2. 1906. which carried an APP
propriation of S5.0000M with which to pay
sugar bounties on cane sugar made up to June
80. 1895. and s23G 230 for beet sugar produced
previous to August &c, 1894 The cases before
the Court were test The Realty Com
pany represented the bee: sugar men. and Mr..
Gay the Louisiana cane sugar men.
BOWLER THOUGHT THE LAW UNCoNsTITU-
TIoNAL
Counsel for the Government admitted that the
plaintiff In each case had complied with all the
terms and conditions OF the act In order To enitle
each TO recover the moneys demanded In these
suits under the act Of 1895. provided that act
was constitutional and valid. The proper dis
bursting officer Of the Treasury refused TO pay
the warrants drawn upon the Treasury In these
cases upon the sole ground that the act
constitutional In this opinion he was fortified
by the view, Of the Supreme Court OF tho Dis
trlct Of Columbia In the OF the United States
ex rel the Miles Planting and Manufacturing
Company against John G. Carlisle ct al. That
company, which was a Louisiana corporation
engaged In the sugar business, nel1 that the re-
pealing portion Of the act OF August ~. 1891
was not effective so as to cut of the rights of
persons who had. prior to its passage procured
licenses for the fiscal year beginning July !. 1894
and had expended money Hereunder. The com
pany therefore applied To the Supreme Court OF
the Distric: Of Columbia for writ OF mandamus
agairs. tho Secretary OF the Treasury and the
Conn issioner OF Internal Revenue. Ia comrr
action on thei- part under the act Of 1870 The
application was resisted by the Government upon
several grounds among others that the bounty
legislation OF 1890 was unconstitutional The
motion was denied upon all the grounds set up
by the Government. Including that Of uncon-
situtonality
II was by reason OF this opinion upon the valid
ity Of the bounty legislation Of 1890 that the Con-
troller OF the Treasury re-examine1 the rulings
which he had previously made In approving
bounty claims Heretofore presented to him. AMI
he had concluded TO and did refer another case
involving this question. then before him. 10 the
Court Of Claims for its decision In accordance
with the provisions Of Section 1.G3 of the Revised
Statutes but before that case reached the Court
OF Claims the present cases had been commenced
and decided I'm Louisiana.
HOW THE COURT VIEWED IT.
In deciding the cases. the Supreme Court OF the