The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-05-10


at cost Of some 100000 for the sole
benefit of a water power company
whose revenues are derived from leaS-
es of the power thus created, this at
titude of the Minneapolis paper is very
much a platitude, with a dash of cant
The story of that public improve
ment" from beginning to end would
make an interesting tale.
On the other hand, the proposition
now that the government build a dam
farther down the river to provide pow
er with which to operate manufactures
in the Twin Cities is a proposition cut
off the same piece as was the improve
ment of the ST. Anthony power, with
the exception that it is more frank and
does not sneak behind pretense of
improving navigation on the Missis-
ness of our modern Republican social
ism, that the government should pro-
vide those things any Of it's subjects
want. 1t is patterned on the opinion of
b
his tour of the Southern states, that
it is the duty of the government to
provide it's people with occupation. 1t
is justified by the Dingley- Aldrich bill
that proposes, in it's title, to "encour-
age the industries Of the United
States" for in what way could they
be better encouraged than by supply
ing them with motive power? What
difference is there between helping
them at the creative or the created end
of their products? t
When, a few years ago, Senator
Washburn was trying to get another
big appropriation to construct a dam
at Meeker island for the oStensible pur-
pose of permitting the ghosts of the
steamboats, that once did the freight
ing of this region TO get to Minneapolis,
the G 10 e insisted that, if the gov
eminent were going further into the
| catspaw business, it, instead of
private individuals, should secure
the chestnuts. 1t suggested then
that the appropriation bill should have
a proviso that the power created by
the erection of the dam should be de-
voted to such municipal purposes as the
! two cities might apply it. 1t is needless
to say that this suggestion was not
| supported by its contemporaries, nor
| did we expect it to be accepted, for
such use would be contrary to the SEN
ator's conception of government. Later
it was stated that Representative
Kiefer would endeavor to have such
a provision attached to the next ap-
preparation bill, but the demands on
his time, we presume, were so exact
ing that he overlooked the matter.
If there are any manufacturers in
the Twins, or either of them, who want
a cheap motive power, there is no rea-
son why they should not secure the
riparian rights and congressional as
sent to building a dam across the river
at the point suggested as high as they
wish so that it do not interfere with
company desiring to invest capital in
the construction of such a dam, with
view to leasing the power, they can
undoubtedly secure the rights. But let
it be done openly, as a private bust
ness enterprise, and not sneak the pri-
vate purpose in behind any false pre-
tense of providing a navigable chan
mel for boats that have been driven to
the hulks by more economical methods
of transportation. The dam recently
built below the st. Anthony govern
ment-built dam is an illustration of
what we mean. Let's have done with
the sorry farce of milking the federal
treasury into private pals.