The herald., 1896-05-27

payment Of bounties and enacted law
providing for their payment, 1t incurred
debts with all persons who produced or
entered upon the production Of such
sugar.
In the following excerpt from the syn
opsis of the decision telegraphed by the
Associated Press is to be found the basis
of the courts conclusion. After referring
to the treatment accorded the sugar in
dustry in the revenue act of 1880, the
court says:
Before that time the revenue derived
from imported sugar had amounted TO
nearly $50 000, 600 in one year. To put sugar
on the free list would reduce the revenue
that amount, but at the same time il
was urged in congress might ruin the per-
sons engaged in the industry in this coun-
try. So the tariff on sugar was reduced
while at the same time bounty was placed
upon its production here in an amount
which was thought would equal the Aro-
lection the industry had heretofore en-
proved by the president and no question
of its validity was made by any officer OF
form under it. Under the act the large
sums of money were paid to sugar manu-
facturers 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
1874 IL Is d MATTER Oh history tHdl ulSCus'
sion of the tariff act. which finally became
a law on the 2Sth 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 it was, of
course, wholly uncertain as to what its
provisions would be- including the ques,,
ton of bounty for the manufacturer OF
sugar No man could predict. No one
could have stated whether the bounty
would be taken off entirely or materially
reduced or left as it stood by the act OF
1890. The whole question of tariff legisla-
ton at that time was full of uncertainty.
In the meantime the season was approach
decide what to do. He was confronted
with the fact that the act OF 1890 was still
in existence and under its provisions ne
must if he meant to avail himself OF the
bounties which must be payable under the
act, make his application for and obtain
a license prior to July LIST Of that year.
In his application for a license he was COM
peledto give general description OF the
machinery and methods employed by him
with the amount of sugar proposed to be
produced in the current year and his appli-
cation would have to be accompanied by
bond that he would faithfully observe the
rules and regulations that would be pre-
ton Of sugar. If he made application and
obtained his licenses and commenced the
manufacture of SUGAR ga under ,Ta the provis-
tain that congress might not strike out al
together the provisions for the payment
o CO dn tha he eoud n ne m @
ture with profit nor abstain from manufdc-
turing without loss.
Thus the court assumes, as said be-
fore, that congress became indebted to
the sugar manufacturers conforming to
the requirements of the act and in the
cases decided "the plaintiffs acquired
claims on the ground of an equitable,
moral and honorary nature" The queS-
ton of the acts constitutionality is con-
sidered wholly immaterial as far as the
cases in hand are concerned, the court
apparently believing that parties acting
In good faith should not be required to
suffer loss of the bounty, the hope of re-
ceiving which induced them to prosecute
the production of sugar. And then the
court finds that congress has power to
pay these bounties which parties have
in accordance with congressional enact
ment qualified themselves to receive, I'M
der article l. section s, of the federal
constitution, which provides that con-
gress has power ''to levy and collect
taxes" ETC., ito pay the debts of the
United States" The term debts" it
says, includes those debts or claims
which rest upon a merely equitable or
honorary obligation and which would not
be recoverable in a court of law If exist
ing against an individual.
To disinterested, unprejudiced stu
dent of the federal constitution, this de-
cision would appear to strain that instru-
ment to the point of cracking and TO
give to congress unlimited sway in the
expenditure of public money, and conse-
quently enlarge Its power to indulge in
the rank robbery of the many for the
benefit of the few, under the forms of
law. 1t is true that congress has power
to levy and collect taxes and to pay the
debts of the United States but 1t is also
true that congress is body with dele
gated powers which are carefully de-
fined in the constitution, and that there
fore the only debts which it can rightly
incur and constitutionally appropriate
money for the payment Of are debts con-
tracted In the execution of some of the
powers conferred upon it. Nowhere in
the federal constitution is congress en-
powered to incur debts of the sugar
bounty class. There is not line in the
instrument justifying the belief that
congress can rightly take money from
the federal treasury for bestowal on pri
Nate parties ullueT the pFeleIICS VI ell
couraging industries.
1t is not to be denied that inconven-
fence and loss might, in all probability
would, result to men whG had engaged
in the business of producing sugar with
the expectation that they would receive
the donations of money provided for by
the act of 1890 tagged with McKinleys
name if the provisions of that act fail
of execution, but these effects, regretta-
BILE as they are, do not justify the car
rying out of the illegal congressional
contract. II is not at all uncommon for
people to lose in consequence of UNI
constitutional enactments of congress
and legislatures. Congress is like the
board of directors of corporation 1t
can make contracts in the name of the
government within the province of it's
limited powers. The plaintiffs in the
sugar bounty cases undoubtedly have a
grievance and they should have cause
for action but it ought not to be against
the United States government, but
against the members of congress, who
exceeded their powers of agency.
That the supreme court evaded the
straight question of the acts constitu-
tionality is regrettable and also signif-
icant. 1t is significant of the fact that
the court has so little faith in the consti-
tutionality of the law that it resorted to
mt 70 cpa n1rc fiaS tsfnf n