| OCR Text |
Show H "PRESIDENT YOUKG'S POLICY." H Our esteemed cotemporary devoted H three-fourths of a column last evening, H in an attempt to disprove our assertion H that President Young waa not a protec- H tioniBt. The writer has conceded that Hj under exceptional caseB, that which as H a ruie of procedure would be illegiti- H mate, might be legitimate. Wo in- H dicated the ciyil war as an exigency K that justified a high tariff for the pur- H pose of raising revenue. We also con- B ceded that the illegitimate principle H of giving bounties might be tolerated H in such instances as where America's B earliest industries were pitted against H those of the well-established indus- B tries of Great Brittain and other Eu- H ropean countries. An endorsement B of those exceptional cases does not by H any meana make any one a protection- H ist. We will accord to our cotempor- B ar7 the possession of an unusual gift B of grasping a technicality and making B the D6B an( a'80 - doJging B every conclusion drawn from the ar B tide which it attempted to criticise. It B dodged the charge that it was trying B t make capital stock for its party out B of what President Smith said during B conference relative to supporting home B industries. B "Our friend across the block" draws B inspiration from an old law to disprove B our assertion that Fresident Young B established the woolen mills in Provo, H the woolen millB in Salt Lake city, the B paper mill out in the Sugar House H ward where experiments were also B made in the manufacture of cane su- Bj gar. He also established the cotton H "mills down in Washington, Utah, tan- H ning in Salt Lake city and a hundred H other industries without bounties or Hj taxing the people one cent, "and which Hj is absolutely true. The bounty of Hj 82,000 to proyide "for completing the B woolen factory now (titty years ago) in B progress on Jordan river,nearGardner's B mill," has no reference to the mills B now n Existence. Instead of those E bounties building up the "infant'' in- H duBtiies of Utah in those early days, B tDey must nave ad B blighting effect Hj upon them,as the "woolen factory near B Gardner's mill," is dead; the iron Hj foundery is dead and all those "infant" H industries that received nourishment H from the public treasury have an exis Hj tence in his tory only. H The Enquirer's attempt to link the m industries that have been built up and H that "flourished under the policy of B Brigham Young as they have never Bl flourished since" with those old bounty Bj laws, is certainly ingenious but lacks H the element of truth, as they flourish H ed under Brigham Young because he B was a power in the land, single and H democratic in Mb apparel, in all his H habits, and practiced what he preach- B Bj "Our friend across the block" evi- H dently belieyes nothing good can come H out of Nazareth for it says. H Democrats still maintain they are for B home industries, and are angry in a H minute if you tell them they are not; H but we have yet to understand what H they base their claims on of being for B the promotion of home industries. B In plain English, democrats "are H angry in a minute" when lied about B and lampooned by innuendoes. Per- B haps we can enlighten our republican B peigbbor on what the democrats "base their claims on of being for the promotion of home industries." First, investments in homo industry enterprises. enter-prises. Moses Thatcher is a democrat and as he says, "he paid for as much stock in the Utah sugar factory as all my republican friends in Cache county together have purchased," Heber J. Grant, another democrat, has been the most earnest and indefatigable worker work-er for, and investor in, home industries indus-tries of all the men in Utah today. Those gentlemen are mentioned because be-cause ot their prominence. The rank and file of democracy are all in line on the same question. Secondly, democrats demo-crats are iully as good patrons of homemade home-made articles as are their republican Brethren, The writer is wearing a suit of Proyo woolen goods. Can "our friend across the block" say as much? We knew a democrat down south who ran a store and sold only one box of Kirk's soap, but paid hundteds of dol lars to the Utah Soap company. After the first box of Kirk's was sold he told his customers he kept nono-but homer-made homer-made soap and that it Was as good as the imported. There are tens of thousands thous-ands of just such democrats in Utah, who are doing all they can to create and to sustain home industries, and we again brand any man who says the democtats, either before or "since the diyision on parly lines," are opposed to home industries, as being an intentional inten-tional prevariacator ar.d destitute of every principle of honor and political decency. Before concluding a discuss-on to which we trust "our friend across the block' will not, lor his sake, force ua to return, we will add a few words relative rela-tive to the policy of Brigham Young building up home industries. Finding that bouutieB did not build up home industries, he introduced the co-operative principle, and which is the only correct princlplo in existence of building build-ing up home manufactuies. He established es-tablished Z. C. M. I. and scores ot branch houses. Tho object was the creation of home products. Under the skilfull management of Thos. G. Weber who iB a democrat, the homemade home-made shoes and other home products have grown to remarkable proportions, and not a cent of bounty nas been received by that institution. You caunot mate men patriotic by law. Democrats and republicans must become converted to the necessity of purchasing home-made goods, and the thing is done. In that task there is room for honest work for the Enquirer, En-quirer, with its own party. |
