The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-05-26
BOWLER BOWLED OUT
euvrene Ceurt eays the Sugar
Beunty Must Be Paid


ho.,nfy seaeurss e the Mckinley and WI
400 tarfG aces BIZ = unanimous opinion.
eOyuan9 N eec1nson Of the circais CO...
o. the saSsssn district Of LouaesanA sn1
rsvsrsang II action % Cs s -
the Treasury Bowler. Who refused 70 psr
min the paynsns Of the bounttes, on tns
ground THAI the act vas Unconstitutional
The cunnu ,nvalvsd were those OF the
I5nIsed states. plaintiff In error. Va the
Renky Company and Andrew "A. Gay.
respectively. The opinion q ne eoa,e
vas delivered BY Justice Fscknaa Dosn
was ons OF . class coming under the
terms Of the appropriation TO those VINO
haa manufactured Q certain class OF so-
gar previous 20 the nth day Of August.
1854, scd upon which no bounty Eaa pre-
ssanxD been paid. The repeal OF the ooun-
~ clause In the act OF 1870 BY the &C. ~n ss,
took eject on the 18th Of August. 1ssa.
and which prohibited the payment OK
heunt1As hereafter. prevented the com
many from obtaining the money on the
warrant which had been issued 20 IL prior
10 that date. There were Comparatively
few persons coming under the class Ia
which she company stood. and the APP
propriatlon made for the payment OF that
class was little less than $4,000. The
plaintiff In the other suit. Nr. Cay,
one OF \ class under the second portion
OF the net OF 1885. he bsing among those
who complied With the provisions OF the
bounty act as contained in the schedules
OF the act OF October. 1880. BIZ ming no.
sice OF application for license and bono a.
therein required and who would have
been entitled 10 receive license a. pro-
xiaed for in said act and bounty OF eight
terthz OF cent per pound on the sugar
actually manufactured By him during tae
period commencing August =. 1884. ana
ending June 30. ISIS. The amount OF ooun-
~ claimed by Gay II between ss.so ana
Sc. coo. The persons forming this class are
numerous. ana the appropriation for them
amounted to 100000. Comptroller Bow
lar had based his action largely upon the
decision OF the court OF appeals OF the
District OF Columbia that the sugar boun-
ty clause Of the Mckinley act was uncon-
stitutlonal.
The supreme court In its opinion today
said that for the purpose OF the cases II
was unnecessary to decide whether such
legislation Is bcyond the power of congress.
but that an either case the appropriations
of money Ia the act Of iSas to manufac-
surers and producers of sugar who had
complied with the act of 1890 were within
the power OF congress TO make. and were
constitutional and valid In discussing
the conditions which existed At the time
OF the passage of tho appropriation act OF
1855 the court says:
'sThe production ana manufacture Of
sugar In the Southern and Western stafes
from sugar cane and sorghum and beets
had become, At the time OF the passage
of the act of 1870. an Industry In which
large numbers OF citizens Of this country
were engaged, andsts prosecution involved
the use OF large amount OF capital. The
sSrir therefore had been very high on
imported sugar. and that industry had
thereby been fostered and greatly in
creased The subject 4 how to treat this
tn
gresa while the tariff act Of 1890 was be-
fore II. and u finally decided the question
by enacfing the bounty clause OF that act.
Before that time the revenue on imported
sugar had amounted to nearly So. 0oo. 90
In ono year. To put sugar on the free list
would reduce the revenue by that amount.
bat at the same time. II was urged In
congress. might ruin the persons engaged
In the industry In this country. So the
tarifr on sugar was reduced. while at the
same time o bounty was placed upon Its
production here OF an amount which 1t
was thought would equal the protection
the industry had heretofore enjoyed un-
der tho tariff. The actwas approved by the
president. and no question of its valid
ity was made by any ofYiccr Of the govern
ment having any duties 20 perform under
10. Under the act large sums of money
were paid to sugar manufacturers as q
bounty. and no officer OF the government
questioned the validity OF the Oct. This
condition continued for about three
years. In tho winter. spring and summer
o. 1898 II n matter OF history that the
discussion OF the tariff act. which finally
became a law on the 18th OF August of
that year. was continually going on in
congress and through the public prlnts
OF the country. Before the passage Of
the act II was. of course, wholly uncer-
tain as 20 what its provisions would be-
fTrNf "a - h.. tr<.,
the manufacturer OF sugar. No man
could predict No one could have stated
whether the bounty would be taken of
entirely materially reduced or left as n
stood by the act of 1900. The whole ques-
ton OF tariS Hesitation at that time was
tuli OF uncertainty. In the reautims tho
season was approaching when the manu-
faeturer OF suga< must decide what
60 DO. He was confronted
with the fact that the act OF
$50 was sti,i IN existence. and under It's
provisions he must ~ he meant to avail
himself cf the bounties which must be
payable under the act make his app,ica-
ton Tor and obtain a license prior to July
~ that year. In his application for n
ocnse he was compelled 10 give a general
description OF tire machinery and raeth-
DDS 10 be employed by him. With the
amount OF sugar lrcposed 20 be produced
IN the current year. and his application
NAfttA A+s*fr 70 &c tliikflfiaflfl tF a bond
that no would faithfully observe the rules
and regulations that would be pre~crfoe,
for the manufacture ard production of
sugar. II he made application and OBJ
tanned his license and commenced IN.
manufacture OF sugar under the provs-
siona OF The act OF 1850 he could not be crr-
tain that congress might not strike on,
altogether the provisions for the payrnan,
o. any bounty and he be left IA such a
condition that ne could neither tnanufse-
ture with proHt nor abstain from manu-.
featuring without loss"
The crart says mere can Re no ou.s.ior
or the good fattA OF the plaintiffs tn.
agestiea OF TIE conStitutionaity OF IN.
sugar bounty "a the act Of 100 Is eutirel,
tfnmaferisl. II l, a question Of eaasl,zhI,
consideration. ana tia courf say. .ts,
plaintiffs acquired Claims upon she gov
erumcnt OF an equitable. moral or honor
AIRY nature" The principle upon wht.,
tire court hssis Is aecss,on IS contained I,
the following declarations
Under the provisions % The ~e,.,t,,,,t.,
tsTtiele !. sectian 50, congress. rs. 49,,
- lay and collect taxes etc 70 rsv -,
debts Of the untted States HAVING Nv
sr TO raise rsorsy for that purpose. n =
course. follows that e has power w.,
re money Il raised 20 Hrnropfsate :. ;,
the same coiect. The term .'aessx.' q.
Guides thcse debts or claims uhf.n -
upon = merely equitable or Aoner.-v oe,s
ration. and whsea would not ~ recoVer