St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-12-22
TIE "LOCAL ISSUE,

There is class of Democratic papers
whose discussions of the tariff bill do
not afford pleasant reading to those who
believe that. if revenue must be.derived
from system so unjust and Ubiquitous
as must be any tariff whatever, the tax
should be laid without regard to the
domestic interests it may affect bene-
ticially. We find too many OF them
strenuous tor the continuance of a tax
on the imports of such things as are
produced in their localities. while argu-
ing as strenuously for the reduction of
taxes on imports of things consumed
there but produced in other sections.
Thus we have the New Orleans
Times-Democrat insisting on the con-
tinued grant Of bounty to the planters
OF Its state who are engaged in produc-
ing sugar, opposing the graduated re-
duction of tina: bounty, and absurdly
urging that the Mckinley bill gave the
planters contractual rights in the bounty
which no subsequent legislation can
impair. 1t further insists that the
planters invested millions of dollars IN
new machinery solely on the strength
OF the bounty, and equity demands that
the conditions thus relied on be con-
tlnued. The planters did not frame the
sugar schedule Of the Mckinley bill.
Sugar was put on the free list not out
Of consideration for them, but to cut off
source of revenue so as to insure re-
tention of taxes on imports Of manu-
features. The planters protested against
it and against the bounty substitute, be-
cause, they distinctly stated, one con-
greSS could not bind another; that there
could be no contract for taxation; that
1t was not probable that the party that
gave the bounty would remain in power,
and the Democrats, if they came in,
were opposed to bountieS as we'll as
protection.
We doubt if single dollar was ex-
pended by the planters On the faith of
the Dounties. They had been in the en-
jOyment of protection for many years
in the tax on imports, which averaged
as much as the bounty ana was as sub
Stantial an aid as is the bounty. There
was no added incentive to production IN
the bounty beyond what the tariff had
SisSi' w DO JuoG do
in sugar making under protection as
under the bounty, and just as much
need then for the improved machinery
as now.
The naked question is whether it is
right for the government to lay Its tax
ing hand on the people to get money
with which to pay another class for pro-
ducing something. Democracy declares
that it is fundamentally wrong in any
and all instances; that it is an unjust
and unauthorized usurpation of power.
The paper that will defend it in any in
stance is not Democratic, and it should
not try to pretend to be- 1t makes no
matter whatth local interest is, wheth-
er it be sugar or lumber or iron ore,
self-respect, respect for the principles of
its party, shame of the ridicule its incon-
sistency invites and deserves, should
constrain paper to apply its principles
uniformly in its discussions of this
question, regardless of whether it at
fects local or general interests. There
is one thing in this world that is better
than Immediate gain or expected profit,
and that is impartial and answering
loyalty to those deep convictions OF
right conduct. whether individual Or ma
tional, which should guide the course
! of man or paper.