The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1893-10-01
BoUNrrEs AND THE DEMOCRACY.

|
In the same dishonest fashion as GER
tain Republican sheets have tried to
deceive the public on the tariff question,
they are now endeavoring to lead people
astray on the sugar question. The state
ments that the Democrats in Utah have
withheld the sugar bounty that they
have endeavored to prevent the growing
Of beets, that they are pledged to the re-
peal of the sugar bounty laws and other
similar assertions are utterly untrue.
On investigation it viii be found that
Democrats who believe that the principle
of special bounties to favored private in
dustries is incorrect, have as much money
invested in home enterprises, including
sugar manufacture, as have Republicans
WHO are continually misrepresenting the
matter. And those individuals who are
personally interested in having the
national bounty continued, will not be
aided in the least degree by the false at
tacks made upon those who believe that
public money should not be expended
upon any private enterprise.
The Utah sugar bounty law was en-
acted in 1890. 1T was not repealed or dis
turbed at the session of 1892. The
amounts originally appropriated have
been at the disposal of the beneficiaries
under the provisions of the law and moth
ing has been withheld. The charge that
the Democrats have withheld the bounty
is clumsy and ridiculous Republican
falsehood, published with intent to de-
ceive people who do not take the trouble
to investigate.
The legislature of 1892 did not pass any
law in relation to bounties one way or an
other. 1t was claimed by unwise and I'M
truthful advocates of the diversion of
public money to private use, that the
sugar works could not run a year unless
the bounty was renewed. The same de-
ceivers are now Boosting of the immense
good resulting from this years success
full work of the sugar factory, and are
endeavorIng to scare people into Repub-
lican ranks by warning them that a
Democratic legislature will vote to take
away the sugar bounty. There is no To-
cal bounty to take away now so that
scare is as foolish as it is false.
As to the national bounty, it should be
understood that some of the sugar manu-
facturers have been arguing before the
Ways and Means committee of the House
of Representatives the propriety of repeal
ing the bounty on sugar and restoring
the duty. What action will be taken is
not yet known. 1t is an open question
whether the bounty law is not in the ma
ture of contract between the govern
ment and the manufacturers. If it is, the
bounty will be continued until 1905. If
the committee are Of the opinion that the
contract principle governs in this matter,
they will undoubtedly let it alone.
But coming to the question of right in
relation to the bounty system, when a
part of the property of all the citizens is
taken, 'sunder the guise of taxation, -
and paid over to a chosen few, is that
Just and equitable, and does it lie within
the legitimate powers of the legislature,
local or national? Wedo not think it can
be made to appear that the constitutional
authority of the government in this coun-
try extends to this perversion of the pub
lie property.
There may have been special occasions,
which such an exercise of power has been
viewed with complacency if not with ap
proval by the majority of the people. But
when we come down to the bedrock of
political principle, no matter what bene-
fits may be pointed out as Its results to
certain local interests, it must appear to
an unbiased mind as unsupported by JUS
tice mr. LEGITIMATE authority
Great good results to the community
from the establishment of successful in
dustries. But if business of any kind
cannot be made self-supporting, on what
principle of SQUAD political economy
should the public revenues be diverted to
keep it up and make it profitable to it's
owners and managers? To tax the whole
people for the emolument of few, to
divert public money to private use, is
false economy, prostitution of legisla-
tive power, utterly indefensible on
general principles and when advocated
usually excused on selfish grounds.
Bounties and subsidies should come if
at all from public subscription and not
from public revenues. Donations for
the starting of a new enterprise likely
to be OF general local benefit,
would be reasonable and right. But to
take the money of all the people col
lected by taxation for definite purposes
specified in the law and pay 1t over to pri-
vate persons for the promotion of a
private enterprise, is a misrepresentation
of the revenue and unwarranted by any
authority vested by the people in their
representatives.
Variations from this rule may have
been permitted and may ba again because
of special conditions; but principle is not
elastic and right remains the same, and
these proclaim that public funds can only
be properly used for lawful public pur-
poses. That is Democratic doctrine It
may be called ''a very good theory as
though that was reflection against it.
But it appears to us that what is sound in
theory cannot be unsound in practice.
e--nn.z.za-.-n-.sz-z--@ns-@s