The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1891-04-14
FEDERAL BUILDINGS.

We have before pointed out that Con- |
gress does not vote money for the erection
of government buildings in the territories, !
no matter what the necessities may be, and
we have said why this was Sc. Salt Lake
city has tried earnestly and honestly many
times to induce Congress to make an appro-
priation for q federal building in this city
The very best of arguments have been pre-
sented- 1t has been shown that the gov
eminent does more business in this
city than in many towns in states
with double the population, while towns
of less than half the number resident here
have commodious and costly structures
erected by the government. 1t has been
demonstrated that the money paid for rent
for cramped and inadequate quarters for
the federal officials would pay handsome
interest on building which would
accommodate all the officials The
fact that valuable public rec
ords are exposed to imminent danger
of loss or destruction has been started, and
it has been urged that a stately building
erected, owned and occupied by the gov
eminent would have an excellent moral
effect in the community. But no argument
was successful, although many Congress
men have freely admitted that it was wrong
to deny the building to the territory, and
committees have even gone so far as to
recommend the requisite appropriation.
The reason for the refusal is
found in the fact that gov
eminent does not erect buildings
in the territories, and the reason it does
not is because the territories are without
political influence in Congress. Their
Delegates cannot vote and can give neither
party any support They cannot dicker
and trade with other Congressman, and
the expenditure of cash in territory does
not help the administration or party.
On the other hand it is not difficult
for the Representative to get an
appropriation for his district. This
fact was strikingly illustrated in the last
Congress. The President early announced
his opposition to appropriations for public
buildings, and vetoed one or two bills for
buildings in the south where they were
needed. He held that the extravagant
he didn't say they were extravagant,
however-appropriatio for pensions,
made economy in other directions neces-
sary, and that public buildings were good
place at which to economic. Neverthe-
less, we find in the New York World that
the influential Congressman got building
appropriations for their districts. Thus,
CANNON obtained 100000 for postofice
in his own little town of Danville. Mr..
| QUAY got 900 for a building in his vii
lage of Beaver Falls. Senator INGALLS, Sc
cured 100000 of the plumber for Atchison.
The California members of the appropria-
ton committees obtained 500, 900 for their
state. Wisconsin's share was $3.50, 900. Mr.
MCKINLEY secured S100, coo for his town of
Canton.
The World refers to these as only exam
pies OF the public building grab of the late
Congress. Salt Lake, which presented the
very best of claims for building. could
get nothing, because Utah has no vote in
Congress and none in the electoral college.
1t is possible that Congress may be induced
to do something for Utah in this line before
the territory is admitted to the union, but
we doubt it. Once a state, however, and
there will be comparatively little trouble
in securing what is needed. Our votes in
Congress and in the electoral college will
then be valuable, and our Senators and
Representatives will be able to bring the
applicants for buildings elsewhere to terms