The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-02-04
THE ANTI-BouNTY DECISION.

The decision of the Court of Appeals
| in the District of Columbia, that Con-
gress has no constitutional power TO
give public money for bounties, seems
to be well received by the press of
the country. It is so mnaifestly Just
and fair that it is difficult TO think
anyone cam believe otherwise. That
/ Congress has no power to levy IA tax
for the benefit of "a private Individual
seems to be so evident that it needs no
argument to support it. A private cor
poraltion is in the same status as a
! private person. What stands good as
to an individual stands the same as to
a. class.
The idea that the term general well
fare which Congress may promote by
legislation, can be construed to mean
/ the bestowal of public money for pri-
I waite uses, seems so remarkable as to
border on the absurd. By such reason
4 ing Congress would be clothed with
absolute and unlimited powers of leg
islation. or as a would-be wise. contem-
porary used the term, sovereign
power which is absolute and indepen-
dent.
/ Under such broad Interpretation of
the phrase, the Constitution would be
set aside, its definition and limitation
OF Congressional powers would be ut
lterly useless and void. For if Con-
gress can do what 1T pleases to pro-
mote the general welfare without re-
strlction and without limit, no other
power need be mentioned and all linn
it's prescribed would be a contradiction
( of terms.
We append here a few opinions of
the press on this question. which is
of very greait Importance to the coun-
try and just now pauttc ularly so TO the
people of Utah:
The Chicago Herald, Oem), says:
1t would seem to be a reasonable in
| ference from the opinion of the dis
! trict court that Congress has no right
under the Constitution to enrich ia
Vored individuals at the public eX-
pense by the tariff method. IF Con-
gress itself has no right to tax the
/ people for the benefit of individuals,
it can hardly have "a. right to arm ia
vored individuals, or classes OF produc-
ers, with tltTe right to tax the people
for their own benefit. But this is pre-
cisely what Congress does every time
! it levies a duty for the benefit of per-
sons engaged in some industry.
This is from the Detroit Free Press,
! Dem):
This position is utrpassailafble 1t is
not only hard to conceive why the
other producers named may exact a
bounty if one is given to the sugar.
producers, but it is impossible 10 con-
ceive why they should not be given
such bounty. This WAS one of the
strong arguments used against the
granting of the sugar bounty, and the
Court states it with irresistible force
But that is not ALL The doctrine laid
down by the Court of Appeals HAS a
far wider application. 1T follows logic
ally and inexorably from the postulate
LOT THE Court that Congress has no
power to impose upon imports a purely
protective duty or "a duty the purpose
LOT which is Protection, and not the
raising of revenue.
The New York Journal of Commerce,
Qnd.), remarks:
There is a. constant effort to use the
powers of the Government for private
ions as that of the Court of Appeals
of the District of Columbia is that it
lawakens public attention TO the suTrep-
titious exercise of public powers for
private benefit. Where this is doneGn-
I directly the courts have always been
slow to go back Of an Act, valid ON its
face, and inquire into the purposes of
the men who made 1T. But when
money its taken from the TREASURY and
paid directly to individuals for carry
ling ON their ordinary business, 1T lis
impossible to pretend that the purpose
OF tine legislation is to provide revenue
for the Government.
| The annexed is clipped from the
Pittsburg Post, Oem.):
i There can be no doubt that the pre-
dominant sentiment of the people is
largely against THE system of boun-
ties attempted to be established by the
Mckinley law, and which, if allowed
Ito stand as to sugar, ccdld be generally