Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1869-03-17
SEN WOODLANDS REMARKS.

We give below the remarks made by
Senator Woodman in the Senate, in op-
position to the resolution which had been
presented to strike out the clause in our
bill providing for the taxation of Rail-
road property in this city
Bill No. l57, Senate, being a bill to enable
the citizens of Watertown to settle with its
creditors, came up for a third reading
Senator Lynde moved TO strike out the
eight section. Pending the motion, Hon. "
w GOODMAN addressed the Senate as follows :.
MR. PRESIDENT Having introduced the
bin Hnder constellation, it becomes nv duty
to defend 1t, and its several sections, each and
every one will request the President TO
feau Ihe eighth section. (fhe section being
fe&d, MI. Goldman proceeded The city OF
Watertown, in Jefferson county in the years
1884 and 1856, issued its bonds to two differ
ent railroad companies, to aid them in the
| construction OF their respective roads; the
companies agreeing that the city should be
secured by first mortgage on the roads, but
did not carry out the agreement, The city
issued bonds to the amount of 5000, 900, and
the total now is near, with interest, costs and
Judgments, $800,G00. #E a9
The people Of that city think that it is no
more than right and just thatthe railroad
companies property within the iucOrpopalion
should be made to pay its proportion Of the
taxes on this bonded indebtedness. and
thus fulfill in part-and very small eart it
is--of the original agreement. They O niy AJAX
that the law OF 1866 may again be put in
force, SO far as the city of WatertowD IS con-
cerned and under which the differeuL com
panies paid taxes. without discovering its
int ~. !
railroad companies property be taxed to pave
it's proper proportion of the taxes and help +.
remove this incubus, which retards their pro
gress, anu IS hanging over them like s fri CHIT
fui nightmare. The Senator of the Fifth
claims that the section is violation 81 the
constitution, which says hat there shall be
uniform taxation, ''and that the state b 3 law.
specially exempt railroad companies f. ON all
taxation where 1t req uires them to paw license
of three per cent on their gross earnings"
would ask if it is not just as uncOnstitu-
tional to tax the people of Watertown to pay
this indebtedness. l ask where is the uni
formity in taxation where you make the peo-
pie of the city pay this enormous tax. Of
whom l9-20th knew nothing about. In nv
opinion, this section does not conflict with the
constitution, the three per cent is the same as
state tax, levied on all the other kinds of |
property IN the state, and l believe il is lust !
as competent for this legislature to pass this
act, and thus enable the city of WATERFOWL
to tax this property as it was for the Iegisla-
ture to pass the law of 1855, which was oper-
alive, and never deemed unconstitutional /
That this is not unconstitutional be ieYe and I
in that belief am supported by men OF distin- |
guished legal ability this floor, and by the
Attorney General ard many others, who have /
given this section close attention. The Jud- /
iciary Committee did not at one time, see
any legal objection to Ghis section. /
Mr., President, I hope the motion OF the |
senator from the Fifth viii not prevail if it I
does you may as we'll strike cat ell after the +
enaoting clause, to disem bowel it by strik- |
ing this section. I hope not q single line /
will be erased, OR amended, but the bill entire |
as introduced may pass. I beg pardon Of the /
senate fer having trespassed SO much upon I
their tiLue, s- +