OCR Text |
Show STILL WANDERING. " Oar esteemed friend, the Enquirer, is still wandering in its mind over the "policy of the pioneers" relativo to the establishment of home industries. Our contemporary failed, utterly, to prove that President Young was a protectionist. pro-tectionist. In its efforts to do so it again refers to that appropriation of 32,000 for a bounty to the woolen factory, fac-tory, not now in existence, and then proceeds : There are other laws of the same kind. Can our neighbor say that none of these thousands of dollars In premiums pre-miums did not go to the cotton mills tannery and e ''hundred other industries," indus-tries," of which it speaks? Your neighbor not only said, but again says, that not an industry is alive thai was a beneficiary of those ' bounties. Our neighbor, in order to J acBOCT.j.Ai,in'.,i"-i'-"l-'-"gamiJi'.i.J'-i ''' r -'" i m usi distract notice from the weakness of its reply to The Dispatch, refers to a number of democrats that voted for the bounty to the Lehi sugar works: We have in this county, S. B. Thur-mau, Thur-mau, W. H. Kine and Wm. Creer, who were all willing to pass laws for the encouragement of home industries, as people's party men, lut fought that principle when they found out what democracy demanded of them. We expected V e Enquirer to mention men-tion the fact of those men voting for the sugar bounty and we are glad that it did. Those gentlemen very likely "voted their sentiments at that time. No onB but dullardB refuse to learn and progress-. Those men named by our neighbor are all brainy, conscientious conscien-tious men. They have progressed beyond be-yond the belief in bounties. One great distinction between those democrats that yoted lor the sugar bounty, and those republicans that also voted for it, is that the former have progressed beyond the heresy of bounties. Now, will our republican friend assert as-sert that the mere voting for one or more bounties constitutes the voter a protectionist? Does the favoring of a bounty under special circumstances, such as we have heretofore named, involve the idea that thd man so voting vot-ing is a protectionist within the meaning mean-ing of the term as applied to believers in McKinleyism? For fear our neighbor neigh-bor will not answer we will express a negative reply, and re-affirm that Piedident Young was not a protectionist. protection-ist. If President Young ever realy entertained a belief in the equity and utility of bounties, he progressed beyond be-yond that belief, and instituted, as we have before pointed out, the principle of co-operation for the building up of home industries and which, as we haye heretofore affirmed, is the only correct principle in existence ot building up home manufactures. The principle of co-operation is the exact reverse of the principles of riounties or protection. In bounties, or protection, the people are taxed to give to a corporation a select few that comprises the company, and in which the mams have no other interest than in becoming the servants of those to whom tiley have paid their bounty tax. Can our neighbor understand that proposition? The principle of cooperation co-operation is that of the masses putting their means into an enterprise for the purpose of giving employment to themselves them-selves and of receiving the profits of their industry, both whilo it is an "infant" and after it gets big enough to wear No. 11 boots. Can our neighbor understand under-stand that proposition? Bounties centralize cen-tralize wealth by taking from the many and giving to the ftw. That is republicanism. republi-canism. Co-operation difuses wealth by sharing the profits among the people. That Ib dkxocracv. Can our neighbor neigh-bor understand that proposition? 'ihe principle of protection is from the deyil, co-operation is from God. Does our neighbor understand that proposition? |