The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1903-10-16
HIGH COURT HEARS
SUGAR BOUNTY CASE
State Contends That Public
Money Can Only Be Used
for Direct Benefit.

Argument in a much discussed case,
which will test the validity of the sug-
ar bounty law, was presented before
the supreme court yesterday.
The action is directed against the
state auditor, and by a previous ruling
of the court is permitted to take the
form of a writ of certiorari, requiring
him to show cause why he has refused
to pay the Minnesota Sugar company
the amount of a claim for sugar beet
bounties.
The case is now before the court on
its merits. The question directly at
issue is the constitutionality of the
law, of 1895, as amended by the law OF
1899, providing for a bounty for the
manufacture of sugar from beets
grown in Minnesota.
The sugar company is represented
by Gen. H. w. Childs, of this city, and
Judge Ell Torrance and Douglas Fiske.
of Minneapolis, and Attorney General
Douglas is personally conducting the
case for the state.
Says State Is Morally Obligated.
Before beginning his argument
Gen. Childs made brief statement to
the effect that in the period of five
years the Minnesota Sugar company
beets, and paid the farmers $591,9S0 for
them. He said that 21,000,090 pounds
of sugar was made and that the COM
pany paid $4,000 in freight charges,
and that altogether 1000 farmers had
shared in the profits of the business.
Gen. Childs argued that the bounty
was established for the purpose of en-
couraging and fostering a new indus
try in the state, and that the legiS-
lature should be allowed great latitude
under such circumstances in deciding
what might be public purposes of ex-
penditure. The bounty, he contended.
is not a proposed gift, but a reward to
be earned by those who would receive
it. He put forward the idea that the
law of 1895 imposed a moral obligation
upon the state, since the beet sugar
company had. because of its induce
ments, established a plant here. This
moral obligation, he believed, should
give validity to the law.
Must Be Direct Benefit.
In response to this last argument At
torney Douglas said that if the state
could be bound morally by an Illegal
act of one legislature, then all censti-
tutional limitations and safeguards
We're swept away at once. Further.
Mr.. Douglas commended that the law OF
1895 was passed without reference to
the sugar beet industry. and the law
of 1899 was enacted after the sugar
beet factory had been established, and
therefore ne could not see where there
could be any moral obligation
The chief point upon which the
states case is based is that the laws
of both 1895 and 1899 provide for the
! expenditure of public funds for other
than public purposes. and therefore
are in their intent and their entirety
unconstitutional. Mr.. Douglas argued
that it is not enough that the bounty
provided for would, in the long run, re-
deund to the public good: it must be
plain that the public benefit is direct
The constitution of the state, he said
directly forbios the expenditure Of
state funds for the aid of any corpora :
ton OF individual, Or for any other
! public purpose, and the primary OBJ
ject of the beet sugar law was to aid
| a private corporation.
He cited decisions of other states
| upon similar clauses in their constitu-
| tions.