St. Paul daily globe., 1895-03-11

public conveniences which it is the
business of government to provide and
those which private interest and COM
petition will supply whenever the de-
mand is sufficient. When we draw this
line Of distinction, we perceive immedi-
ately that the present case falls out
side OF it. 1t was at one time in this
state deemed true policy that the gov
ernment should supply railroad facili-
ties to the travelling and commercial
public, and while that policy prevailed
the right of taxation for the purpose
was unQuestionable. Our policy in that
respect has changed; railroads are no
longer public works, but private prop
erty; individuals, and not the state,
own and control them for their own
profit; the public may reap many and
large benefits from them, and indeed
are expected to do so, but only incident
ally, and only as they might reap sim
liar benefits from other modes of in
vesting private capital 1t is no longer
recognized as proper or polite that the
state should supply the means of loco
motion by rail to the people, and this
species of work is therefore remitted
to the care of private enterprise, and
cannot be aided by the public funds
any more than can any other private
undertaking which in like manner falls
outside the line of distinction indicated
In the course of the argument of
this case alluSion was made to the
power of the state to pay bounties.
But 1t is not in the power of the state,
in my opinion, under the name of
bounty or under any other cover or
subterfuge, to furnish the capital to
set private parties up in any kind of
business, or to subsidiZe their business
after they have entered upon it. A
bounty law. of which this is the real
nature, is void, whatever may be the
pretense on which it may be enacted.
The right to hold out pecuniary in
ducements to the faithful performance
of public duty in dangerous Or respon-
sible positions stands upon a different
footing altogether; nor have l any oc-
casion to question the right to pay
rewards for the destruction of wild
beasts and other public pests; a
provision of this character being a
mere police regulation. But the dis
elimination by the state between dir-
ferent classes of occupations. and the
favoring of one at the expense OF the
rest, whether that one be farming or
banking, merchandising or milling,
printing or railroading, is not legiti-
mate legislation, and is an invasion OF
that equality of right and privilege
which is a maxim in state govern
ment. When the door is once opened
to it, there is no line at which we can
stop and say, with confidence. that
thus far we may go with safety and
propriety, but no further. Every hon
est employment is honorable, it is
beneficial to the public; it deserves en-
couragement. The more successful we
can make it, the more does it generally
subserve the public good But it is
not the business of the state to make
determinations in favor of one class
against another, or in favor of one en-
ployment against another. The state
can have no fGvorites. It's business is
to protect the industry of all, and to
give all the benefit of equal laws. 1t
cannot compel an unwilling minority
to submit to taxation in order that It
may keep upon its feet any business
that cannot stand alone. Moreover, IT
is not a weak interest only that can
give plausible reasons for public aid
when the state once enters upon the
business Of subsidies, we shall not fail
to discover that the strong and power
ful interests are those most likely 10
control legislation, and that the weak
er will be taxed to enhance the profits
of the stronger. | shall not question
the right of the people. by their consti-
tuition, to open the door to such dis
examinations, but in this state they
have not adopted that policy, and they
have not authorized any department
of the government to adopt it for
them" TAXPAYER.