Wessington Springs herald. (Wessington Springs, Aurora County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1891, 1883-10-27
.oTE FOR THE CONSTITUTION
What Does 1t Say?

lhe measure are telling why they are
opposed to it. The most Ut them
ground their objections more on what
they imagine it,does not say than on
what it does.
1t forbids any city, county, town
municipality or other subdivision of
,he state to make donations TO, or loan
ats credit in aid of, or subscribe to the
capital stock Of any association or cor
poration. or become responsible for the
debts of any individual, association or
corporation The wisdom of this
is obvious when it is considered that
the corporations most likely to he AT
fected thereby are the railroads. Were
it not for such proyision-were conn
ties and towns allowed to vote aid to
rallroads--no railroad would ever build
a mile of road unless the maximum
amount that they could vote was made
n Of the conditions precedent for
building such road. The experience
and observation of every n in the
northwest will say that Marvin Hugh
lit of the Chicago and Northwestern
was right when he said "The aid voted
by counties and towns does not change
che direction of any road nor hasten its
construction. When the business of a
locality will justify a road and make
the Investment a paying ole it will be
built and not BEFORE"
The Constitution does not prohibit
railroads from being built, nor does it
prohibit those who have the means
from giving all the aid to them that
they desire to give; it simply says that
irresponsible parties who do not WI
a dollars worth Of taxable property
shall not compel another man who has
property subject to taxation to build
such road. The records all throughthe
west will show that tie men who vote
the taxes and the men who pay the
taxes are not always one and the same
class of men. This provision being
satisfactory to the railroad men ought
certainly to be satisfactory to every N
who does not see & corrupt Job of theirs
in the future spoiled.
So much for those who say the rail
roads have been treated stability and
not allowed the freedom to plumber the
people they think they should have.
Another class of people say the rail
roads have heen allowed privileges not
granted any n else-that they are to
pay taxes "on their gross earnings and
not on their valuation" This is an II
tire mistake on their part as The Con-
%htitution says nothing of the kind;
what it says is: they shall be subject
ed to q uniform rate of taxation with
other property, which shall be levied
and collected under general laws and
in such manner as the Legislature may
prescribe" No further answer to this
objection can be necessary as the very
words OF the Constitution gives that
statement the l~ie-unleSs the le9iSla-
ture hereafter to be chosen shall so di-
rect. But should this he the ease who
would be harmed? What makes the
Hudson River and New York Central
or the Pennsylvania Central railroads
SO much more valuable than the roads
of Dakota Territory? Not the road
bed. nor the iron, nor the cars, nor the
engines-but simply because the gross
earnings Of II is many times more
than the other; so that really the only
equitable way Of reaching the taxable.
valuation Of the railroad is upon its
gross earnings.
Another class will not vote for the
Constitution because as they allege it
it means division OF the territory and
that it will cost no more to govern a
large state than q small one SO that
they will not vote for this measure be-
cause they pretend that they will have
as good government and far cheaper if
the whole territory is admitted. Let
MS see as to this; Wouidthese same peo-
pie pretend that the government is as
good in Texas as in Massachusetts? In
Oregon as Rhode Island? AS an an
cient once said comparisons are odor-
Gus" Now as to the expense; the fol
lowing figures are taken from the sta
tistics of 1879 and 1880. On the for
,ner year the tax Of Texas, the largest
state N the Union, was 80 cts. on 500
In Massachusetts in 80, 81 cts. on 500
or fifteenth as much as that of Tex
Us, although the latter state has the
benefit Of all her public lands for state
purposes, while Massachusetts derives
no fund from that source. In the same
year the tax of New York was IS cts.
While that Of Rhode Island, the small
est state in the Union, was but Il cts.
Oregon, the third state in area, paid at
the same time 20 cts. While the assess
1nent in Connecticut was only Is cents.
These are the figures, that will not lie,
and cannot be co%ntroverted. In COM
parison with blind partisan assertions.
unsupported by facts, they are Of the
-.4 - T-.