The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-09-04
AN ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE.

called the Banner. Sometimes it gives
evidence of ordinary journalistic abil-
ity. Then again it drools as If affected
with idiocy. 1t is particularly lunatic
on the bounty question. 1t is of Re-
publican proclivities, therefore it is
selfish and sectional-two distinctive
characteristics of Republicanism. The
general welfare counts for nothing by
the side Of the special interests of its
own little town, and the growth of
beets in very limited area takes root
in it's heart, as of vastly more import
ance than the rights of the entire pop
ulation Of the whole of Utah.
In a recent editorial the Banner tells
it's readers that The Herald has
turned a complete summersault, and
| is 'the greatest paper to turn itself
| inside out on the bounty business of
any paper in the west" What it means
by that is explained by the falsehood
that The Herald, in an editorial, 'com-
! pletely reverses itself on the bounty
| theory it has heretofore advocatedr'
Then the Banner goes on to quote the
editorial which it refers to, and thus
furnishes its readers not only with
something worth perusing, but with
evidence to intelligent minds that it's
sta tements as to The Herald's revers-
ing itself is utterly untrue.
That Herald article shows that if
bounties are paid out of the territorial
treasury, the money will come from
the people who pay the taxes; and, as
the Salt Lake taxpayers contribute
more school money than those of many
country places, so they and other large
contributors would have to pay the
larger share Of the money for bounties.
Republicans are reminded, in The Her
aid article, that they whose taxes are
large should think over the fact that
they will also have to contribute
large share to the bounties, as they do
now to the school tax.
Now where is the complete reversal
of The Herald's position on the boun-
ty theory? 1t is in the confused mind
of the Banner writer. He does not
seem able to distinguish the radical
difference in principle between the pay
ment of public money for a public pur-
pose, and the diversion of public
money to a private purpose.
Public money in Utah is not given
in aid of private schools. 1t would be
wrong if it were thus appropriated.
Taxes are collected for the public
schools, in which the public have a
direct interest, which they own and
control, and to which all the people
may send their children to be edu-
Gated
A sugar factory owned by private
individuals is on an entirely different
basis. Money given TO them from bhe
public funds is their money. No mat
ter how wisely or unwisely it may be
expended, nor how many persons may
be benefited by the industry, it is a
private business the same as a tan
merry, or a wooden factory, or O. shoe
shop, or a soap works. Every success
full industry benefits the persons to
whom it gives employment. The plea
that it thus does good, forms no valid
claim to support from public taxation.
To compel people to pay taxes for
the expenses of the government, local
or national, and then give away this
public money to a private concern or
individual for private use. is a form
of robbery that is no less larceny be-
cause perpetrated under color of law.
The same confusion Of mind that
affiicts the Banner writer, befogs the
brain of contemporary nearer home
and which has wider field for the
sowing of its teresies. 1t says:
There is no more reason, in fact
why the Federal government should
dredge the Delaware River than there
is why it should make it possible to
build up the sugar industry of Louis
lana"
A very little reflection ought to show
to a sane mind the essential differ
ence between opening and clearing a
public stream, and building up sugar
or other private industry. By Ghe ex-
penditure of public funds for the
former, public money is spent for
public purpose. By giving the money
of the taxpayer to the latter, an I'M
lawful and improper use of power is
exercised.
The Delaware River is like public
highway. To open, repair and improve
a road is a public purpose for public
use; the same is equally true of pub
lie river. When the Republican party
appropriated ten millions and then
fifteen millions of public money 10 the
sugar industry of Louisiana, the
money was given for a private pur-
pose and was diverted from its law
full Ghannel.
The Government of the United States
was not established to foster and fat
ten pet industries, or give public
money to wealthy manufacturers of a
selected class under any pretext. And
a person or paper that cannot eee the
difference between using public money
for public purpose, and giving it
away to private persons for "a private
purpose, needs to turn a summer
sault' and to Completely reverse it
SELF so as to assume an attitude of
ordinary common sense.
PARTY ISSUE.