The Redwood gazette. [volume] (Redwood Falls, Minn.) 1873-1940, 1899-03-15
B B B STORE.
THE BOUNTY BUSINESS.
Mr.. Arnold Denies the Right to
Grant Bountles.

Mr.. Arnold Denies the Right to
Grant Bounties.
To THE EDITOR: In your issue OF
March l, you publish notes from the
Capitol, headed, LIND s fool veto,
in which the writer condemns Gov.
Lind's veto of the sugar bounty and
makes strong partisan plea on be-
half of the bounty. I ask for space
to review that bounty matter, not as
a partisan, for do not think that it
is a partisan question, but one that
equally concerns every tax payer OF
the State. OF course. if it was right
for the previous legislature to pass
that bounty law, it was certainly
right for the present legislature to
appropriate the money to pay, but I
deny, in toto, the right of the legis-
lature to pass any bounty law of the
kind, since it is an infringement of
our citizens rights as set forth in
both National and State constitu-
tions.
1st. It is violation of the fund
amental principles on which our
nation is founded. mo taxation
without representation" said the
men who threw the tea overheard
in Boston harbor. That was the
inception of the war which resulted
il the declaration of independence
and the establishment of the United
States as a nation. This is prin-
.ciple established in our national
fundamental law as mentioned in it's
preamble, for if our laws are unj just,
there cannot be domestic tranquil
ity, general welfare, or liberty to
the citizen. Now to tax the citizens
of this State for the benefit of a
private corporation, which the beet
sugar plant is, is to tax the citizens
of this State for something in which
they have no voice in it's manage
ment, and is therefore taxation with
out representation, for this bounty,
which can only be raised by taxing
the public, is for the benefit of a
private corporation. 1t is a robber
tax, forciblv taken from the general
public by taxation and given to a
few private individuals. Of such
legislation the supreme court OF the
United States has in one of its de-
cisions on taxation said: "To lay
with one hand the power of the gov
eminent on the property of the citi-
zen, and with the other to bestow it
on favored individuals toad private
enterprises and to build up private
fortunes, is none the less robbery
because it is done under the forms
of law and is called taxation. This
Judgment from our highest court
needs no comment, as it character
ICES this whole bounty business as
robbery.
I'd. This bounty business is an
unjust use Of the States power o.
eminent domain, for both National
and State constitutions distinctly
declare that private property shall
not be taken for public use even
without just compensation; (see
national constitution, Art. l, sec
13.) Now, it might be argued film
silly it is true, that indirectly the
establishment of sugar plants woulc
benefit the State. If this were true
where does the compensation come
in for the taxpayers, unless thu
price of sugar is lowered to thu
people who are taxed to pay thu
bounty?
Sd. This bounty law is direc
violation of the State constitution
respecting taxation; Article nine
section one, says: Call taxes to b.
raised in this State shall be az
nearly equal as may be-" Now
when every other industry in thu
State is taxed for the benefit of bee
sugar, where is the equality of tax
alton? Section two of the same
article of the constitution says
tsThe legislature shall provide fol
an annual tax sufficient to defray the