Jasper County Democrat, Volume 12, Number 86, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 9 February 1910 — HOWARD COUNTY KILLS SUBSIDY. [ARTICLE]

HOWARD COUNTY KILLS SUBSIDY.

What a Prominent Newspaper Has to Say Editorially of the Defeat. In view of the fact that several towns in White county are to vote Feb. 14 on the proposition of voting a subsidy of-some $50,000 to the socalled Northwestern Indiana Traction Co., and that Carpenter, Marlon and other townships in our own county are likely to be asked to do the same thing, the following editorial on “subsidy hunters” from the Indianapolis News is of interest: We congratulate the people of Howard county on their successful fight against, a proposed railroad subsidy. Two traction companies proposed to build certain extensions that were greatly desired if only the taxpayers would make them a present of $70,000. “Each company,” we are informed, “had out carriages and workers, and did everything in its power to boost its cause.” Naturally enough. Subsidy hunters are always great at boosting their cause. For it is with them a case of dollars and cents. It is said that many of the farmers in the region to be penetrated by the new lines were eager for the grant, and that they worked hard to induce (he voters of Kokomo to vote the money. But the factory workers, the small property owners and some of the big taxpayers fought the proposition on principle, and the result was the defeat of both subsidies by a vote of about three to one. The opinion of the late Justice Miller, of the supreme court of the United States, in a similar case has often been quoted. But as the subsidy hunters are ever with us, it seems well to keep the principle in mind. We quote from the opinion: To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen, and with the other bestow it on favored individuals to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes, is none the less robbery because it ’s done under the forms of law and is called taxation. This is not legislation; it is a decree under legislative forms. Nor is it taxation. Beyond a cavil there can be no lawful tax which is not laid for a public purpose. ♦ * • In the case before us, in which town® are authorized to contribute aid by way of taxation to any class of manufacturers, there is no difficulty in holding that this is not such a public purpose as we have been considering. If it be said that a benefit results to the local public of a town by establishing manufactures, the same may be said of any other business or pursuit which employs capital or labor. The merchant, the piechanic, the inkeeper, the banker, the builder, the steamboat owner, arc equally promotors of the public good and are equally deserving the aid of the citizens by forced f contributions. No line can be drawn in favor of the manufacturer which, would not open the public treasury to the Importunities of two-thirds of the business men of the city or town. And of course it is the same with raiHroads as with manufacturers. There is no difference between them. If it is robbery to vote public money to the latter it is equally robbery to vote it to the former. The supreme court has decided, not only that communities may not do this thing, but that the state legislature has no legal right to clothe them with power to do it. The people of his country have voted hundreds of millions of dollars, in direct grants, and in gifts of land, to private enterprises. It is time that the business should stop. It is, therefore, most cheering to know that the people of Howard county ue'eated this subsidy and on -principle.