St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-01-12

SUGAR BOUNTIEs IN COURT.
In rendering its decision in the case of
the application of the Louisiana sugar
planters for mandamuS to compel the
secretary Of the treasury TO proceed
under the Mckinley act so that the
planters may get their bounty for this
years crop, the district court of appeals
not only refused the writ because the
repeal of the law carried the bounty
with it, but it went on to announce some
very important propositions of law
bearing Oh the conStitutionality OF boun-
ties.
A consideration of this feature of the
case might be avoided, the court says,
because the other grounds are sufficient
TO settle the case, "but we think the
question should be fully met and deter.
mined" While the precise question OF
the power of congress to pay bounties to
encourage the production Of manufact-
ures or farm products has never been
passed on, the underlying principle on
which such power rests has been re
peatedly adjudicated, notably by JUS
tice Miller in the Tupelo case. and the
doctrine is established that the govern
ment has no authority to use its taxing
power TO encourage private enterprises.
Applying the principle to the case be-
fore it the court says:
The rover here involved is one of taxa
ton. The annual bor"ty for sugar produc
ton has necessarily m out of the revenues
raised by general tuA 1 | for the support of
The government. The gross sum required
each year had 10 be included in the estimates
for annual expenses and considered in the
imposition of taxes to raise the revenues TO
meet them. Call the subsidy offered by the
law to producers of sugar a contract if you
will, still, it is necessarily one where the
right to contract must be limited by the right
10 tax, and if, in the given case, no tax can
lawfully be levied to pay the debt, the con-
tract itself is void for want of authority to
MAKE it,
If the sugar bounty Is constitutional
under the general welfare" clause of
the constitution, and it is for the general
welfare Of the people Of this country to
be paid to raise sugar, the court cannot
see ''why the producers OF corn. cotton,
wheat, wool, coal, silver ore and so on,
might not be paid bounty Also" Such
an Interpretation wipes out at once the
theory that the federal government is
one OF delegated powers, and leaves its
action controlled and limited only by
the will or Whim of congress. 1t opens
the way for all sorts of sociaiistic legis.
latiOu."
But the court goes farther, and an
swers the argument that hounties may
be paid by ours because they are paid
by other governments. IL denies that
"legislation may be enacted by congress
ill pursuance Of natural policy analo-
gous to that adopted by Germany or
France or any other government OH
the face of the earth. There is no in
herent sovereignty in the general or the
state governments. The people are
sovereign. Certain powers they have
delegated with a free hand; others have
been reserved"
In these days, when the first impulse
IS toturn to the state, and when it is as
Sumed to be the source and reservoir of
all power; that the resources of the
people are d. us So!e dud lNpSfiouS dis
pOSal, to be taken from them and APP
piled to whatever purpose the state
wills; when cities are told that they
cannot govern themselves, but must re-
ceive the permission from their gracious
master the state; when the sovereignty
of the people is practically denied, such
a decision as this comes to refresh, re-
encourage and reinvgorate American
citizenship, well nigh cowed into An alb
ject belief that there is but shade of
difference between democracy and a
deSpotism.