The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1894-01-25


the consumer has not been affected
one solitary cent, in all his purchases,
by the Utah product. The manufac-
turers themselves viii not make any
such pretence as that put forward in
the memorial Every store keeper who
has sold the Utah sugar knows better.
The home product has commanded the
same price as the article imported in
to the territory We have no fault
to find with that. IT was worth it.
We only wish to show the untruth of
the assertion in the memorial.
If anybody has bought Utah sugar
at a lower price than California sugar,
or that brought here from other places,
of similar quality, we would like to
hear from him. The Lehi factory has
had to keep down to the market
figure but has not attempted to go
below it. The buyer of Utah sugar
in Idaho or elsewhere pays the same
price as the Utah purchaser, and both
pay the same as for a similar article
made outside of Utah. So that the
Utah consumer receives no special adj
vantage from the payment of the
local bounty out of the taxes which
he helped to pay. His sugar costs him
just the same as though no bounty
had been given and no sugar factory
had been built in the territory.
We are not disputing the benefits
of the Lehi sugar works to the growers
of beets or to the territory at large.
We are not discussing the right or
the wrong of the bounty question. We
are simply pointing out a most fragrant
falsehood embodied in memorial to
Congress, which ought to be expunged
or the document should not go to the
seat of government to be ridiculed as
foolish or be despised as mendacious.
Such reduction as has been caused
in the price of sugar to the consumer
in the United States under the Nc
Kinley law was brought about by the
repeal of the sugar duty, not by the
gift of the bounty. That is admitted
by truthful Republicans everywhere.
Utah obtains its sugar at no less
price than the article commands in
other parts of the country. The sugar
argument is dead against the Repub-
lican theory of the tariff. For it is
conceded, aye claimed. that in taking
the duty off raw sugar. the Mckinley
law has reduced its price and saved
the consumers thousands of dollars.
That being true, tariff reduction is a
saving to the consumer proportionate
to the lowering of the duty.
The plea that the promoters of the
industry are paying interest on a large
part of the money invested is not
open to the objection that it is untrue,
but it is a very childish reason to offer
to Congress why a bounty should be
given to help the investors. There are
thousands of stockholders in various
enterprises in the United States who
have borrowed money with which to
make investments, and the idea that
their indebtedness way be offered as
a plea for government aid, is so utterly
foolish as to be nearly as bad as the
falsehood in the statement we have
exposed
We are of the opinion that the Re
publicans who drafted that memorial
did not want it to go to Congress. but
prepared it to put the Democrats in
an apparent attitude of opposing the
sugar industry and also to put the
Governor in box on the same ques-
ton. We are glad that the Democrats
in the Council faced the issue squarely.
and we hope the Governor will do the
same. Neither he nor the Democrats
of Utah are opposed to any home in
dustry. Nor do they, as falsely stated
by some rabid Republican members.
desire to give employment to the peo-
pie of other lands and leave those idle
at home" Why should they? What
sense is there in such a supposition, or
honesty in making such an accusation?
Take the wording of the memorial
all through and say, is it not unworthy
of a body composed of so many intel
ligent men of either party? And would
it not-even for a partisan purpose
be shame to put cur Delegate in the
unpleasant position of presenting that
document as coming from the legisIa-
ture of Utah?