Bismarck weekly tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1943, 1891-03-06
FIFTY-SIXTH DAY,
The Senate.

The enate was called to order at 9 D. m.
by Lieut.. Gov. Allin.
PETITIONS.
A petition vas read from Mr.. Kinter
calling for a law limiting the pay of
county officers. To committee on coun-
ties.
Also by Mr.. kinter, against the repeal
of any part of the prohibitory law, to COM
mittee on temperance.
Mr.. JOHNSON of Trail presented a
petition against the repeal of the prohibit
ton law. To committee on temperance.
Mr.. ARNOLD presented a petition pro-
testing against any increase in salaries
of county officers, to committee on coun-
ties.
Mr.. PINKHAM presented resolutions
prohibiting against any repeal of he pro-
hibitory law, to committee on temperance.
RAILROAD BILL.
At 2:10 senate bill 1853, providing for the
assessment for the purposes of taxation of
railroads within the state, was taken up.
This was the bill affected by attorney
generals opinion read Saturday.
On the adoption of the report of the COM
mittee on railroads (Which report was ia
yorable) there was a tie vOte-14 to IA
ing in the affirmative.
Mr.. MCCORMACK OF Grand Forks:
There being some question as to whether
or not this bill is constitutional, | move
that the bill be referred to the committee
on judiciary.
Mr.. kINTER: If Senator Mccormack
will look at the last part of Mr.. Spencer's
opinion, he will find that "said bill is con-
stitutional.'
Mr.. MCCORMACK called attention to
the fact that Mr.. Spencer's opinion was
that section 2 Of the bill was unconstitu-
tional.
Mr.. MCCORMICK of Ramsey: There
seems to be a conflict between the two at
torneys-general. l would like to have the
clerk read the opinion of Attorney-General
Goodwin, which was handed to the defend
ant a year ago.
printed in last years senate journal.
which has not been settled. If the gross
earnings law which we have takes of the
nature of a contract, what position will we
be in with the roads that nave accepted it
and paid on it? Supposelthey consider
that as a contract with the state? If we
repeal the gross earnings bill, won't we
have a lot of litigation on our hands? l
think this is a very serious question and
ought to have due consideration as a mat
ter that has not been brought before the
senate at all. l think it is one of the most
vital questions embraced within the bill.
The motion to refer to the judiciary
committee was lost by a vote of IL to Is.
Mr.. INK moved an amendment prOvid-
ing that roads which have paid under the
Mr.. WORST said he would liks to lave
the friends of the bill give some good rea-
son why chapters 1874 and 1856 should be re.
pealed. That gross earnings law has
given satisfaction, and to say the least,
there are many grave doubts around the
oOnstitutionality of the bill. There can be
no doubt but this is the true theory of tax
alton of railroads. Such a road as the
jamestown Northern costs as much to con-
strHct as the main line Of the road, but it is
not worth One-tenth as much, so far as
business is concerned. Since 1885 the
different railroads in the state are increas-
ing l5 to 20 per cent annually of the taxes
they pay. If the roads are taxed so much
per mile, the jamestown Northern will
pay just as much as the main lines. Under
the gross earnings system, when business
is flush and doing a tremendous business,
a tax will be received in proportion and
when times are dull they pay in proportion
to the business they do.
Mr.. JOHNSON Of Traill read an extract
from Governor Mlller'5 late message to
the legislature, which indicated that the
gross earnings law does not work we'll.
Mr.. johnson said he would like to know
if the Northern Pacific railroad has paid its
taxes for 1889. If the gross earnings law
can be enforced, then why is it o en-
forced?
MI. KINTER favored the bill. This bill,
it passed, will tax the Northern Pacific.
If they refuse to accept the bill, it will 20
before the courts, and be decided once for
all. The Northern Pacific had paid no
taxes for 1889. They had paid for 1890, but
that was q matter of compromise between
the company and the board of equalization.
They said that If the board would assess
the property In a certain way, the com
pany would pay their taxes without litiga-
ton. Does any one suppose that the
Northern Pacific, employing, as it does,
the best legal talent to be procured,
would have consented to pay even that
amount of tax if the law was not good ?
The question is whether the contract be-
tween the United States and the Northern
Pacific Railroad company will bind q
sovereign state or not? Had congress a
rnta&N. Es.EH 5,a -. Ma. - = -L., aE.