The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-09-15
THE BANNER AND BoUNT1Es.

The Lehi Banner has received two
notices from The Herald, which it
prints in part, and then, stating that
it Clocks to The Herald for infornla-
tion," asks US a question which we
will answer, but must first explain
what the Banner has reference to.
We stated that the Banner some
times gives evidence of ordinary jour
nalictic ability" that then again it
drools as if affected with lunacy," and
that sit is particularly lunatic on the
bounty question" We cited some re-
marks OF that paper as to bounties in
proof of the latter statement. Subse-
quently we noticed the endorsement by
the Banner of the Democratic choice
for United States Senators as men
who eff elected, would do honor to
their party" The Banner wants to
know in which instance it showed the
greatest amount of idiocy. That is an
easy one.
It is the bounty rawlings of our con-
temporary that betray its mental alb
creations. That is what we said at
first. In its endorsement of good men
and true, it enjoyed period of sanity,
and displayed that ordinary journal
istic ability for which we gave it oc-
casional credit.
In another part of the Banner
we noticed that it gives evil
dence Of the other and unfor-
tunate condition. It attempts to
show that nobody in Utah has ever
paid one cent of extra tax for boun-
ty, up to date IF the Banner can
show how $4,000 can be paid out of
the territorial treasury to a private
corporation and yet cost the taxpayers
nothing, it will confer favor on
tax-burdened public and provide "a
new way to pay old debts that would
be very valuable to creditors.
There are some. so-cafled arguments
offered in favor of bountieS which are
worthy of reply. But when any
person or paper says that money to
any amount can be paid out Of the
public funds without anything being
paid in, or words to that effect, there
is such an exhibition of idiocy as to
preclude the necessity of any kind of
an argument
While alluding to this bounty ques-
ton, we may as we'll refer to the state
ment Of another Republican paper
nearer home. It says:
'gThis territory gave a little bounty
to have a sugar factory started. 1t
was taking money out of the public
treasury and giving it to the corpora
ton. That money in the treasury was
obtained by taxing the people, but the
very first year the factory produced
in the reduced price of sugar, and the
second year they got it back twice
over
The two bounty authorities disagree
on the tax question. We do not think
they will agree any better on the "got
it back question. The Banner is wrong
on the former, the Tribune is utterly
false on the latter and the Banner we
think is not so dishonest as to endorse
it. The Utah sugar factory has not
supplied the people who paid the boun-
ty with sugar one cent below the mar
ket price. We find no fault with that
We do not mind paying little more
for the home made than for the i'm
ported article. It is only the matter
of fact that we draw attention to.
The Banner is mistaken in its posi-
ton which is based on selfshness and
sectionalfsm. The Tribune is wilfully
untrue and makes its rash assertion
to deceive the people who do not know
any better. The bounty system is rob-
berry, anyhow, and is false in theory
and unjust and vicious in practice. 1t
is fortunate that our state constitution
guards against its excessive imposition.