St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1889-01-18
ON THE WRONG TRACK.

In his address before the Minnesota
legislature last Wednesday HENRY
GEORGE closed by saying that all the
advocates of the single tax idea asked
at this time was an amendment to the
state constitution striking out the re-
quirement that all property shall be
taxed, thus leaving the legislature free
to select subjects for taxation. In the
same connection Mr.. GEORGE declared
that this was constitutiOn-ridden
country, evidently conveying the idea
that the people suffered by the consti-
tutional restrictions which were placed
upon the several departments of gov
eminent. 1t is true that our state con-
situations as rule enter too much
into detail and embrace many
things that are purely legislative
in character. The object of a state een-
Stitution is to create the several depart
ments of government and to define the
separate powers and jurisdiction of each,
and the enunciation Of certain general
principles which apply to all alike. But
as rule the average state constitution
is nothing more or less than mass of
statutory law. In this sense Mr.. GEORGE
is right when he says that this is a con-
stitution-ridden country. But we fail
to see how the country is to be benefited
by such an amendment as he proposes.
Surely the legislative branch of the
government has all the liberty in
the matter of taxation that can
possibly comport with the pub
lie interests. With all the consti-
tutionaI requirements and restrictions
the difficulty experienced in most states
is to get the legislature to enact tax laws
that are comprehensive enough. Legis-
Iatiye favoritism is such widespread
evil that those who possess the influ-
ences to bring themselves into favor
with the legislative body are constantly
at work to secure exemptions. We see
1t daily in the national congress, and we
see it at every session of every state
legislature. Monopoly and privilege are
clamoring in high, imperious tones in
every legislative hall, asking for special
fayors. The result is our revenue laws
are too frequently framed with refer
ence to making careful exemptions
deserve exemption. This is done
often in spite of constitutional require
ments. Then, these constitutional re-
StrictionS are removed, what guarantee
have we that all property shall not be
exempted from taxation, and the rev.
enues for the support of the government
be raised by poll tax, thus compelling
the poorest man to contribute as much
as the richest man? Suppose that the
amendment proposed by Mr.. GEORGE
were adopted, and the legislature left
free to act in the matter of selecting
subjects for taxation, what would be the
effect here in Minnesota? At each ses-
sion of the legislature we would
find the two great classes arrayed
against each other-the farmers and
the corporations. The farmers would be
trying to shift the burthen of taxation
on the corporations, the latter would be
struggling to saddle all the taxes on the
farmers, and thus there would be per
petual contest with varying results. 1t
would be great deal better for the adj
vocates of the GEORGE idea to ask for
an amendment Incorporating their pc
culiar system of taxation, than to seek
to remove all constitutional restrictions.
Whatever else may be wrong in the con-
stitution. there can be no question OF
the correctness of provision which
will fix certainly the classes of property
that shall be subject to taxation.