Little Falls transcript. [volume] (Little Falls, Morrison County, Minn.) 1876-1894, 1879-04-17
The Bridge Bond Bill.
Two Rivers, April 10, 1879.
Editor Of the TRANSCRIPTS:


Editor Of the Transcript:
The bridge bond bill is worded in very
ingenious manner, and is designed to advance |
the interest of certain parties in the vicinity
of Little Falls, as against the wishes and in
terest of the people Of Morrison county. The
bill is sugar coated, and is intended all the
way through to deceive. The twelve articles
are evidently intended for an unrefectng peo-
ple and were gotten up by these arties with
the design of feathering their own nests at the
expense and Injury of the people Of the coun-
ty. This bill as published is the most dan
gerous and designing trap ever laid before the
people. It was concocted by the soap and
honey law makers, and intended as sticking
plaster for the backs Of the farmers, one that
will stick at least rs years. If a majority of
the people vote in favor of issuing the bonds,
there is no question about the sticking quail
ty to the tune of 1925, 1888 to be paid on matu-
rity Is years hence. Are the people prepared
to vote that their posterity shall meet this OBJ
legation? We have been carrying double
load of taxation for the past 20 years. partly
for the reason that so small q portion of our
real estate was taxable, all odd sections being
railroad lands, besides school lands and swamp
lands. This leaves our few private land own
ers to carry the principal share of the load.
Now what is the per centage value of the pro-
ducts derived from the capital and labor en-
ployed or invested in farming in this county?
TO the beseof my judgment, three per cent;
and this is our standard basis of prosperity.
Three per cent for farm capital and labor, and
eight per cent to Shylock for money. The three
per cent party constantly adding value to the
domain, while the eight per cent party takes
his money and leaves no good wishes or
thanks to any one. If any one supposes that
tho first ovpon1;trro of 81 Z O0n &c all III will
be called for under this bond arrangement, he
maker a woeful mistake. There is a sort of
blind feature in this matter, or wheel within
a wheel, which may lead to much misunder
standing. For instance, the town Of Litl
Falls, the principal interest lies, is with
in the boundaries Of Morrison county. Now,
how is this bond business to be arranged 50 as
| to meet the requirements of this bill Does
the town of Little Falls pay its own bonds, in
dependent of the county, also it's proportion
of the county bonds, or does it give the
$4,000 in addition to the general load. The bill
does not exhibit this matter quite as plain as it
might or should have done, If the town of
Little Falls is not to be considered part of
| Morrison county in this bond arrangement,
! but is to be separated as to liability all the
way through the period of Is years, and each
to bear its proportion, I think Little Falls will
have much the hardest portion, but not so in
tended. This bill is sugar coated all over,
and contains more danger than anything be-
fore presented to the people for their votes
I am much opposed to the many unjust feat
ures of this bond arrangement. T believe ir
equity in taxation, and I do not believe ir
voting another mans property into bondage
for my Own Individual benefit. From the very
situation of things, two thirds of the property
holders of this county can have no benef
from this proposed bonded indebtedness
Then who, Mr.. Editor. arc the parties who ART
pressing this unjust bond arrangement for thu
third time, in the faces Of the honest farmer
and principal tax payers of this county. Be
fore voting please look at the figures. They
do not lie.