Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1892-02-19
TIE SUGAR BOUNTY QUESTION

80. -, .,,.,,. ,,,tn.,,, IN m.
-, =, ,..'a,,s ~, ~ a,,,s and
e'oye''o " ''u"'s e"u w p,,,
P'o'feo" W '"' ."e" 'Vi II.
FOR som. n,tther temarks. Itisthln
nr,o ,,,ar ,on,a,y ho. M causo 10
...,,Is,r ana 90 dnn,, boiIovo n docs
complain It's shareholder. are men Of
intelligence and business capacity. They
understand that II an Industry cannot
within reasonable tlmo be made to sup
por, Itself, that industry cannot possibly
DO made beneficial to tho community
that is to say, u II Is forever going 10 co''
more 70 ptouuee sugar wan suss'
wy,'u' "n'' ,' Wv ev ha saono,
,u""', " Wv -. ~ ho,,a,
Tnov dldnr go into tho business
viii Tho undor.,anding that thoy would
draw dividend. nom the national aud
territorial treasures. but with tho conh.
dent expectation of earning dividends on
their invested capital, and at the same
time beneh,ting the territory. Their con-
hdcnco Ia not shaken, and we don't
believe they VIII ,hahk oef'N,n nv"s
papers ior placing .ne'i III 'no "''''u'p "
'upp''"''' 'O' '""''
Tho question 10 be decided Is not
whether the sugar company makes any
complaint" or whether II IL nm
applicant for charity" II Ia whether
the sugar industry should receive
additional aid 10 that II may become
permanently successful. IL matters
not whether the company has anything
to say In the controversy, either one
way or the other. II Is q public ques-
ton OF principle and expediency. II
II 10 wrong under any circumstances to
give bounty TO start or stimulate
needed industry, then no sugar
bounty bill should pass. II II
Is not wrong, but the Utah sugar
works can now DO conducted without
loss independent Of any bounty, there
should he no legislative appropriation
for Its assistance.
Tho Heratd's statement Of the case 10
not exactly correct. II Ia not claimed
that "thls institution cannot within n
reasonable time be made to support II.
self" On the contrary tho argument
Ia that II will support itself "within u
reasonable time," II temporary aid Is
afforded 1t. The company has had but
one years experience. In two or three
years more II will certainly be able TO
20 1t alone, or demonstrate Its incaps-
city To live without legislative support,
and consequently that II IL better to
allow 1t 10 die.
IL IL not claimed by any advocate
OF the sugar bounty that "it Is forever
going to cost more to produce sugar
than sugar IL worth" II ia confidently
expected that In a reasonable time sugar
will be produced at n cost something
less that sugar Is worth, and that this
will DO margin enough to make fair
dividends to investors. But Just now
1t costs more, because the industry Is
but lust started aud there Is inexperi.
ence not only In the manufacture OF
the article but In the production Of the
beets from which II Is made. And the
question turns, then, upon the right or
wrong Of extending aid to struggling
industry out Of the public treasury.
We will repeat here that, ON general
principles, we are opposed to bounties
and subsidies. When they are given for
the benefit only Of an individual or cor.
poration, or to maintain a monopoly,
we regard them as indefenslble. But
when bounty will aid In the estab.
lishment and maintenance, for rea.
sonAble period, OF an industry that Is
clearly for the general welfare, and
that could not be started without II,
we think It IL wise statesmsnship and
sound political economy to grant II.
We do not care whether this IL Re.
publican or Democratic doctrine, OF
for or against To general policy OF
either party. There are or should be
exceptions to every rule, aud u party
platform that cannot recognize excep-
tious Is unsound. We do no, view the
Democratic opposition TO subsidies and
bounlieS rs so rigid and fospilized Ms to
be unacceptable TO exceptional circum-
siau..a ~ ~ Ia a nuuht 10 Ia, hr,bau