The Colfax chronicle. [volume] (Colfax, Grant Parish, La.) 1877-1981, 1896-06-20
The Sugar Bounty Case.
IN. 0. PicGyune.l

y
Court of the United States that the
parties who made sugar in this
country in 1894, under the provis-
ions of the bounty law of 1890,
have a just and equitable right to
their proportion of the money vot-
ed to them by congress is a deliv-
erance of great importance, and
when it was announced in this city
yesterday it created profound SEN
timents of rejoicing.
The effect of the decision is not
merely that some 100000 will
be distributed in Louisiana and
will go into the channels of bust
ness, but it redeems the Louisiana
sugar planters from the position of
distress and misfortune into which
they had been plunged by the wan
ton and unlawful interference of
one man who happened to hold the
position of Comptroller of the
Treasury Department.
The history of this remarkable
case need not be rehearsed here.
A few words of statement will give
the facts of the case. In 1890 the
Republicans, having come into
power in Congress, revised the rev.
enue laws of the United States,
and, removing from imported sug-
ar the 2 cents a pound duty, put
that article on the free list.
Realizing that the removal of
this protection from the sugar in
dustry of few Southern States,
Louisiana and Texas, while all in
dustries and important productive
interests in the Northern States
were receiving the highest sort of
protection, would be wanton and
unjust discrimination against the
people engaged in making Ameri-
can sugar, and would be ruinous to
them, Congress was induced Ito
remedy the evil it had caused. and
the remedy applied was in the. form
of a bounty of 2 cents pound on
certain grades of sugars made in
the United States.
This bounty embraced the beet
and maple sugars made in the
West and North, but it applied
with greatest effect to the cane
sugar grown in louisiana and
Texas. The bounty law was enact
ed in 1890. 1t continued IN force
into the year 1894, when it was re-
pealed by the Democratic Congress
which had come into power. But
in the meantime the sugar makers,
who had been working for four
years under the bounty law and
the bounty which had always been
promptly paid by the Treasury De-
partment, the legality and sufiici-
ency of the bounty law never hav-
ing been questioned, had gone TO
work in 1894 to make crop Of
sugar, and, trusting to the law as
| it then stood, had made their finan-
cial arrangements and borrowed
money for necessary purposes on
the faith of the expected bounty,
were finally confronted with the
fact that the bounty law had been
repealed. =
This decision declares that the
sugar-makers have just and plain
right to the appropriation made
| by Congress to pay the agreed
proportion of the bounty upon sug-
airs made in 1894.
The court declares the sugar
makers have an honorable and just
and defensible right to that appro-
priation. The government owes
them debt, and Congress, IN the
exercise of its constitutional power,
proceeded to pay that debt, or tried
to pay it, but was prevented by the
unwarranted interference Of Bowl
err. The debt being just and equi-
table, and the money having been
duly appropriated, it must be paid
I Naturally, there is certain dis.
appointment in the failure of the
great court to pronounce on two
questions closely involved in this
case. One is whether bounties are
allowable under the Constitution
The other is whether Comptroller
Bowler, or any other officer in his
place, is authorized by law to pro.
nounce on the constitutionality o.
an act of Congress.
But the decision is sufficiently
,, far-reaching and conclusive to GOV.
| er the case that was before thu
: court. The sugar bounty appro
,. priation is due the sugarmaker'
of the limited States. most of whom