The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-05-26

People.
WASHINGTON, May 25.-The su-
preme court today sustained the
validity of the appropriations to carry
out the sugar bounty features of the
Mckinley and Wilson tariff acts by
unanimous opinion, affirming the de-
cision of the circuit court for the east
ern district of Louisiana and revers-
ing the action of Comptroller of the
Treasurer Bowler. who refused to per-
NIT the payments Of the bounties on
= the ground that the act was unconsti-
| tutional.
| The cases involved were those of the
| United States. plaintiff in error, VS..
the Realty company and Andrew II.
Gay respectively. The opinion of the
court was delivered by Justice Peck
ham.
BOTH WERE TEST CASES.
The realty company was one of a
class coming under the terms of the
appropriation to those who had manu-
featured certain class of sugar pre-
and upon which no bounty had pre-
viously been paid. The repeal of the
bounty clause in the act of 1890 by
the act which took effect on the 18th
day of August. 1894, and which pro-
hibited the payment of bountfss there
after, prevented the company from OBJ,
tanning the money on the warrant
which had been issued to it prior to
that date.
There were comparatively few per-
sons coming under the class in which
the company stood, and. the appro-
priation made for the payment of that
l'eIasS was a little less than $3.50, 000.
The plaintiff in the other suit, Mr..
Gay. is one of class under the second
portion of the act Of 1895. he being
among those who complied with the
provisions of the county act as con-
tanned in the schedules of the act of
October. 1890, by filing notice of appli-
cation of license and bond as therein
required and who would have been
entitled to receive a license as provided
for in said act and a bounty of
EIGHT-TENTHS OF A CENT
per pound on, the sugar actually manu-
featured by him during the period
commencing August %, 1894, and end
ing June 3d. 1895.
The amount of bounty claimed by
/ Gay is between $1,000 and $4,000. The
persons forming this class are numer-
Gus and the appropriation for them
amounted to S5,OOO,OO0- Comptroller
Bowler had based his action largely
upon the decision Of the court of ap-
pea1s of the District of Columbia that
the sugar bounty clause of the Nc
KinIey act was unconstitutional
The supreme court in its opinion to-
day said that for the purposes of the
cases it was unnecessary to decide
whether such legislation is beyond the
power Of congress, but that in either
case the appropriations of money in
the act of 1895 to manufacturers 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 the appropria-
ton act of 1895, the court says:
THE production of this manufacture
of sugar in the southern and western
states from sugar cane and from sorg-
hum and beets had become. at the time
of the passage of the act of 1890 an
industry in which large numbers Of
citizens Of this country were engaged
and it's prosecution involved the usa
of
LARGE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL.
The tariff therefore had been very
high on imported sugar, and that in
dustry had thereby been foStered and
greatly increased. The subject Of how
to treat this industry was under dis
cussion in congress while the tariff act
( of 1890 was before it. and it finally de-
cided the question by eilacting the
( bounty clause of that act.
Before that time the revenue on i'm
ported sugar had amounted TO nearly
$4,000, 900 in one year. To put sugar
on the free list would reduce the
revenue that amount. but at the same
time it was urged in congress, might
[ ruin the persons engaged in the in
dustry in this country. So the tariff
/ on sugar was reduced. while at the
same time bounty was placed upon
its production here of an amount
which was thought would equal tbs
production the industry had heretofore
1 enjoyed under the tariff. The act was
approved by the president and no
question of its validity was made by
any officer of the government having
any duties to perform under it. Under
the act large sums of money are paid
to sugar manufacturers as a bounty
and no officer of the government qu5s-
toned the
VALIDITY OF THE ACT.
This condition continued for about
three years. In the winter spring and
summer of 1894 it is a matter of his
tory that the discussion of the tariff
act, which finally became a law on
the 18th of August, of that ysar, was
continually going on in congress and
through the public prints Of the coun-
try Before the passage of the act, 1t
was, of course, wholly uncertain as to
what it's provisions would be. including
the question of the 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 legislation at
that time was full Of uncertainty. In
the meantime the season was ap-
preaching when the manufacturer OF
sugar must decide what to do. He