The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1903-10-15
BOUNTY CASE HEARD.
Sugar Beet Case Finally Reaches
Adjudication by the su-
preme Court.
Arguments Hinge on Whether Pub
lie Money Was Given for a
Public Purpose.

The supreme court heard argu-
ments to-day on the constitutionality
Of the beet sugar bounty act of 1893.
State Auditor .lverson, respondent,
was represented by Attorney General
Douglas. The Minnesota Sugar conn
H. w. Childs of St. Paul, Judge Ell
Torrance and Douglas A. Fiske, Min
neapolis.
The petitioners commended that the
bounty was for public purpose. The
sugar beet industry could not, be
started in this state without encour-
agement. No factory could be started
without an assured supply Of beets,
and farmers would not raise beets un-
less they could get a market near at
hand. The state sent to Germany and
bought seed, which was distributed,
and in 1895 the first bounty act was
passed. Work began in 1898, and in
five years the factory had bought 228,-
100000 pounds Of beets, paying the
farmers $591,98O.49 and paying $175,-
600 in freight charges. 1t had made
21,000,000 pounds Of sugar. Last year
1000 farmers raised beets and sold
them at the factory. The present ac-
ton involves $19,500 Of bounties paid
to farmers by the company In 1900,
under the 1899 bounty law. State
Auditors Dunn and Iverson have re-
IuSeQ 10 pay CnlS sum. szEs j.
Attorneys for the petitioner argued
that the legislature may encourage the
industrial resources of a state, and
that court decisions have allowed
them great latitude in that line. The
purpose Of the law had not been to aid
the manufacturers, or to aid any par
ticular farmer, but to foster an in
dustry which required widespread
concert of action. The bounty was
not a gift, but was earned by those
who received it. The moral obliga-
ton Of the state was sufficient to give
validity to the law of 1899. Mime
sofa grants a bounty for tree-planting
and its legality has never been called
in question.
General Childs spent some time in
showing what the courts construed as
a public purpose, and had a running
fire Of debate with the court. Judge
Collins tried to get him to draw" a
definite line Of =demarcation between
a public and a private purpose. Chief
Justice Start asked whether the same
line of argument would not justify
the state in granting a bounty for
raising macaroni wheat. General
Childs did not think it would.
Attorney General Douglas con-
tended that the state would have as
good a right to aid brewery or a
distillery. He made several points, as
follows: III ri
First-The court is without Jurisdiction
to determine that the state is Indebted to
the petitioner in any specific sum.
SecOnd-The act Of 1895 was passed
without reference to the sugar beet in
dustry in Minnesota, and the factory was
established to manufacture sugar for the
profit Of it's owners. H..
s. Third-Both the acts of 1895 and 1899
provide for the expenditure of public
funds for other than a public purpose, and
are invalid on general principles, as well
as unconstitutional 80. - ..r =. d
Fourth-A public purpose, to sustain a
grant Of public funds, must be direct
+. Fifth-A statute identical with the one
in question has&been declared invalid by
the supreme coulst Of Michigan and the
District Of Columbia. ~
A Minnesota decision was cited.
Ripe VS.. Becker, Sc Mimi, where the
court held that an appropriation for
the building of a public elevator was
unconstitutional. Neither side dis
cussed the right of the court to re-
view the auditors action in a GER
tiorari proceeding. The attorney gen
eral said he had been Of the opinion
that a mandamus was the only proper
method, but he would not discuss
that question, except as it involved
the scope Of the courts jurisdiction.
A decision is expected in about two
weeks. .. s' = = e.