Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1896-05-25
THE SUGAR BOUNTY
The Supreme Court Unanimously
Sustains It.
MR. BOWLER THOROUGHLY REVERSED
A Comprehensive Opinion on the
Case Rendered.
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS
HR. BOWLER THOROUGHLY REVERSED
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS

The Supreme Court today sustained the
validity of the appropriations to carry out
the sugar bounty features of the McKin-
ley and Wilson tariff acts by a unanimous
opinion affirming the decision of the cir
cult court fer the eastern district of Louis
lana and reversing the action of Controller
of the Treasury Bowler, who refused 20
permit the payments of the bounties on
the ground that the act was unconsttu-
tionaI.
The cases involved We're those of the
United States, plaintiff in error, VS.. the
Realty Company and Andrew H. Gay, re-
spectively. The opinion of the court was
delivered by Justice Peckham. Both were
test cases. The Realty Company was one
of a class coming under the terms of the
appropriation to those who had manufac-
tured d certain class of sugar previous to
the 2S:h day of August, 1894. and upon
which no bounty had previously been paid
The repeal of the bounty clause in the act
OF 1880 by the act which took effect on the
18th of August. 1884 and which prohibited
the payment Of bounties thereafter, pre-
vented the company from obtaining the
money on the warrant which had been
issued 10 it prior 10 that date. There We're
comparatively few persons coming under
the class in which the company Stood and
the appropriation made for the payment
OF that class was a little less than $250,OOo.
More Important Case.
The plaintiff in the other suit, Mr.. Gay,
is one of class coming under the second
portion of the act of 1898, ne being among
those who complied with the provisions of
the bounty act as contained in schedule E
of the act of October /. 1890. by filing
notice of application for license and bond
therein required, and who would have
been entitled to receive a license as pro-
vided for in said act and a bounty of eight
teIths of a cent per pound on the sugars
actually manufactured by him during the
period commencing August Is, 1894. and
ending June Sn. 1898. The amount of bounty
claimed by Gay is between $1,000 and $1,000
The persons forming this class are numer-
Gus and the appropriation for them
amounted to $5,U0p.UUO Controller Bowler
had based his action largely upon decis-
ion by the Court of Appeals of the District
of Columbia that the sugar bounty clause
Of the Mckinley act was unconstitutional
Appropriations Valid.
The Supreme Court in its opinion today
said that for the purposes of the cases
it was unnecessary to decide whether such
LEGISLATION is beyond the power of Con-
gTess. but that in either case the appro-
priatiOns of money in the act of 1895 to
manufacturers and producers of sugar who
had compiled with the act of 1890 were
within the power of Congress to make and
were constitutional and valid
In discussing the conditions which ex-
listed at the time of she passage of the APP
preparation act of 1895 the court says
The production and manufacture of sugar
IN the southern and some portions OF
the western states from sugar cane and
from sorghum and beets had become
at the time of the passage of the act OF
1890. an industry in which large numbers
OF the citizens of this country were en-
gagged. and its prosecution involved the
Use of a very large amount of capital. The
tLrin heretofore had been very high upon
had thereby been encouraged, fostered and
greatly increased
Bounty Discussed
THE subject of how to treat this industry
was under discussion in Congress while the
tariff act of 1890 was before it, and it final
ly decided the question by enacting the
bounty clause of that act. Before that time
the revenue on imported sugar had amount
ed to nearly 100000 900 in one year. To put
sugar on the free list would reduce the
revenue that amount, but at the same
utIie II might, as was urged in Congress-
ruin the persons engaged in the industry
in this country. So the tariff ON sugar VIA .
reduced while at the same time a bounty.
was placed upon its production here of an
amount winch 1t was thought would equal
the protection the industry had theretofo
enjoyed under the tariff The act was an
proved by the President and no question
OF It's validity was made by any officer of
the government having anV duties To nar.
form under it. f
Under ttat act large 81 ms of money were
pam 10 sugar manufactures as a boun-v
anu no officer of the government quest ton
ed tne val dity of the act This condition
cohunueI for about three years In the
winter, srTing and summer of 1894 il is
matter CT history that the discussion of
ths tatiH act, which finally became law on
we -Hth OF august of that year, was con-
tlnuaIly going On in Congress and through
the public prints of the country Before
the passage of the act it was of course,
"holly Uncertain as to what it's provisions
would be- including the question of the
bounty for the manufacture of sugar No
man could predict it. Nc one could have
stated whether the bounty would be taken
Off entirely, or materially reduced or left
as 1t stood by the act of 1890
Tariff Uncertainty.
The whole question of tariff legislation
at that time was full of uncertainty. In
the meantime the season was approaching
when the manufacturer Of sugar must do
eide what to do. He was confronted with
the fact that the act of 1890 was still In
axistence.ard under it's provisions he must.
]! he meant TO avail himself of the boun-
Ue5 winch might be payable under the act
make his application for and obtain a Ii
cense prior to July 1 of that year. In his
application for license he was compelled
10 give a general description of the ma
chlnery and the methods to be employed
by him. With an estimate of the amount of
sugar proposed to be produced in the cur
rent year, and his application would have
10 ne accompanied by bord that he would
faithfully observe the rules and regula-
tons that would be prescribed for the man
ufacture and production of sugar. If he
made application and obtained his license
and commenced the manufacture of sugar
under the provisions of the act of 1880 he
could not be certain that the Congress
might not strike out altogether the pro-
vision for the payment of any bounty, and
he he left in such q condition that he could
neither manufacture with profit nor ab-
stain from manufacturing without loss
COnstitutiOnuIity ImmateriaI.
The court says there can be no question
pf tie good faith Of the plaintiffs. The
question Of the constitutionality of the
sugar bounty in the act of 1890 Is en-
tirely irnmaterial. It is question of
equitable consideration. and the court
says: The plaintiffs acquired claims upon
the government of an equitable. moral or
honorary nature"