The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1932-02-13
(Official City. State and County
NewSpaper)
Foreign Representatives
SMALL, SPENCER, LEVINGS
& BREWER
Oncorporated
CHICAGO NEW YORK BOSTON
A Question of Morals

A Question OF morals
In editorial expressions Of We'd
nesday and Thursday the Jamestown
Sun establishes itself as . pub
lie pulpit and discusses the moral
questions involved in the proposal to
remove the capital from Bismarck to
Jamestown.
Heretofore, Bismarck has contented
itself with pointing out facts rather
than giving opinions on ethical sub
jects. It has felt the economic rather
than the ethical side Of the question
was of major interest to the people
of the state who would have to foot
the bill for the greed Of little group
In jamestown. It has pointed out
that North Dakota already has an
investment in state capital property
here of more than 81, 400,0 900 and that
to move the capital would mean
abandonment Of this property and
huge loss to the taxpayer.
Against this, Jamestown's group
has prated of savings to be made in
travelling expenses. An editorial an
alysis of its claims, made Thursday
by The Tribune, dealt with this sub
ject on the basis OF official data as
opposed to the figures advanced by
the jamestown group. AS pointed
out then, the jamestown group should
show the source Of its figures If it is
to avoid the inference that it is de-
liberately attempting to mislead the
people.
Failure Of Bismarck to discuss the
moral issues involved has not meant
a reluctance to do so. It has merely
been the idea OF Bismarck citizens
that demonstrable facts make the
best argument. When jamestown at
tempts to justify Its action on a
moral basis, however, an answer Is
due.
In an editorial of February 10. the
jamestown Sun admits "for the sake
OF argument" that every individual in
Bismarck would suffer loss II the
capital were changed but contends
that sufficient benefit would accrue
to the remainder Of the states popu-
lation to justify the action. It then
goes on to reiterate it's claims regard
ing the savings to be made by sup
porting jamestown, although it Of
fers no proof.
The issue, as it was then presented,
is that Of admittedly damaging one
group of persons in order to work
a possible benefit to a larger
group. This view would accept the
Jamestown movement as being in
good faith and intended to benefit
the taxpayer.
The history of the case, however,
discloses that such good faith cannot
honestly be granted. No matter what
face the jamestown group may put
on the matter to the rest Of the state,
the fact remains that the promotion
work in Jamestown itself has been
based on the theory that to acquire
the capital would be to boost James
towns interests. The fact that 1t
would be an advantage to Jamestown
to have the capital has been urged
to residents OF the Stutsman county
city by the removal promoters. As
made to the state at large, all claims
have been based on the theory Of
benefit to the taxpayer. AS made in
Jamestown and among the removal
lists to each other, support has been
asked on the theory that the change
would benefit Jamestown.
One argument should suffice in
both instances. TO make one plea in
one place and different plea in an
other Is simply double dealing. This,
we submit. Is dishonest.
Bismarck has been frank in its
statements and in It's position. It
has contended that to attempt to OBJ
tain the capital without making .
clear showing Of advantage to the
rest Of the state Is. in effect, steal
ing. II u not the function Of q news
paper - establish intricate moral
standards but honesty is 50 common
and its requisites are so well UNDER
stood that there can be no mistake
IN this case. BY III accepted moral
codes, dishonesty and stealing are
immoral.
In it, edition Of February IL. the
jamestown sun speaks bitterly Of
Janneetowu man who failsd to make