New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-04-23
WASHINGTON NEWS NOTES.
ARGUMENT IN THE SUGAR BOUNTY CASES
BEGUN.
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL WHITNEY
SPEAKS FOR THE GovERNMENT-TWo
vEroEs FROM THE PRESIDENT
THE CONGRESS OF RELIC
lois EDUCATION

IOUs EDUCATION.
Washington. AprIl o2-The argument in the sugar
bounty cases was begun in the Supreme court Oh
the United States this afternoon. There are TWO
OF them Joined one. the first arising OH '''e
claim OF Andrew II. Gay and the second on the
claim OF the Realty Company for the payment OF
the AMOUNTS found to he due to them under the
OF the Sundry Civil Appropriation bill for 1894
directing the payment OF the bounty provided oy the
tariff act OF 1890 on the OF 1894. amounting IN
all 10 about $4,000 The cause originated IN the
Circuit Court OF the United states for the Eastern
District OF Louisiana where the claimants brought
suit agains; the United states TO recover the
amounts certified by the Commissioner OF Internal
Revenue be due TO them. Judge Pardee gave
Judgment In favor of tine claimants, and from this
judgment the Government brought the case TO the
Supreme Court Of the United States by writ OF
error This proceeding ny the claimants was made
necessary by reason OF III. action OF the Controller
OF the Treasury Mr.. Bowler who. on the authority
OF the judgment OF the Court Of Appeals Of the DIS
trict OF Columbia In the case OF the Miles Manu-
featuring and Planting Company Of Louisiana. that
The OF 1sa) establishing the bounty was uncon-
stitutlonal. refused to pay the claims under the
Appropriation act OF 1885, on the ground that legis
la,ion 10 pay unconstitutional appropriations was
void. The argument opened by f. b. Whitney
Assistant, Attorney General for the United states
He reviewed the history OF the sugar bounty legsla
ton the repeal BY the act Of 1894 the appropriation
TO pay the bounty upon the crop Of 1894 the litiGa-
ton in the District OF Columbia and In Louisiana
and the hearing before Controller Bowler in the
matter Of the claim OF the Oxnard Company Of
Nebraska. The propositions which the Government
sought to establish included the following. as stated
by Mr. Whitney: Congress may appropriate money
for any purpose within the Federal power under the
Constitution. The power to tax Is given as means
and not end The power 10 spend money Is
not ncreas ed In scope by the language Of the tax
ing clauses of the Constitution. Although In the
expenditure OF money Congress has the widest pos
sble discretion within the limits of the Constitu-
ton. yet when those limits Enthusiastically over
stepped. the question may become one OF judicial
cognizance The Federal power over foreign ana
Interstate commerce no more gives the right 10
subsdlze agriculture and manufactures than II
gives the right regulate them. No other power in
the Constitution gives the right 70 subsidize IN
dustries nor Is that right essential to the soVer
/ eighty of the United states. The contemporary
Interpretation OF the Constitution and its practical
construction for the first threequarters Of cent
sptnd money. Later there a sudden and grea
Increase In the variety OF appropriations made: still
there Was no attempt 10 subsidiZe agricultural
or manufacturing industry until the year 1890 These
appropra tons not founded on any theory OF A
moral obligation 10 compensate the losses or those
who have suffered by investing In reliance upon the
bounty offer nor would such theory have been
tenabie The argument Will be continued .to-mor-
row and part OF Friday. probably by Ex-senator
Nanierson. OF Nebraska. Joseph II. Choaie, OF New
York and Thomas J. Semmes. OF New-Drleans. FOR
the claimants. and closed By Sol!ctor-Gene'al Con-
rad for the United states.