St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1891-04-11
TAXATION OF RAILROADS.

Reasons Why MFR. Foley's Bill
Should Be Indorsed by Legis-
latorS.
There has been considerable said and
written respecting II. F. $50, bill in
trOduced by Mr.. Foley, of Aitkin
county, and great doubt exists as to its
true provisions. Mr.. HenneSsey, chair
man of the Aitkin board of commission
ers, gives the following reasons why
the bill should become law.
The land grant roads of the state of Min
nesota now hold II round numbers 100000
acres of lands and this property is absolute
ly exempt from taxation. Stop moment
and think what that means. The average
price for which the lands have been sold in
the past is IS per acre. II the lands now
held by them are of equal value, and it seems
to me it is but fair and to place them at that
value, for If it be true that they have
Sold the Best
Of their lands. the lands in this state are con-
stantly increasing IN value, and this in
creased valuation would certainly make the
lands now held Of equal value to those that
have been sold at the time they were sold,
5O00O0. The present state tax is three mills
nearly. The state tax upon this land at
that valuation would be about $500, 600.
The average tax, which in the northern
the state tax, at that rate would yield a rev.
enue of $500 But you will say that these
lands would not be assessed for that amount.
Suppose they we're assessed at an average
price of $3.50 per acre, the government price,
and you havea state tax of $4,000 and a local
tax of S2l5.OO0 annually, to say nothing of
the road tax that these lands should bear.
Again, the cultivated area Of this state is
about 7,00O,000 acres. The assessed valuation
of these lands, exclusive of structures, is
tritle over So per acre, giving you valuation
of Si20O00O0. You will see at once that the
valuation of these railroad lands is
More Than Half
OF the valuation of the entire farming COM
munity in this state exclusive of structures
If this be true, is it not important that some
means should be taken to collect this tax,
unless it would be an injustice to the rail
road companies to tax this land, or unless
they are tied up in contract so that the
state cannot tax them?
Now, as to the first one, is it unjust to the
railroad companies? Each one of these land
grant roads almost without exception, have
had land euorgh granted TO them to con-
struct and equip their road, and in many
cases much more, and they pay no more tax
than the roads which have received no aid
from the United States or the state AS the
law now stands a railroad corporation own
ing S5,000,000 worth of land and earning ST.
O0D0OO annually pays the same tax and no
more than another railroad company earn
ing the same sum and having no land. Is
l0aI equal la8dIlOl! Is JnaJ Just as De-
tween the railroads themselves? If per
cent upon the gross earnings of railroad
corporation having no land grant is a fair
tax upon the property of that company as
compared with the other property of the
state, is q like tax upon a like railroad com
pany owning large land grant an equal tax
as compared with the other property of the
state? Does 1t require an argument TO show
that that is unfair?
1t will be urged that these land giant roads
"
and these lands we're of comparatively little
value. But / ask, did the state contemplate
that the railroads should hold these lands
An Unreasonable
length of time. for the purpose Of spebula-
ton, and exempt from taxation. and obtain
other means for building their road, or was
it not the intention of the state that they
should sell these lands and apply the pro-
ceeds to the construction of the road; have
they done this? l will say in reply that III
many cases they have already sold a sut1i-
cient amount of these lands to pay for the
roadbed ana its entire equipment, including
the terminal facilities, and if they see fit to
hold the balance of their grant
afford to buy, is it not but just
that they should pay tax upon 1T In view
of the fact that the lands were granted to
these railroad companies to aid in their con-
struction, and for no other purpose what
ever, and these roads IN all cases are now
built and III operation, and have been from
ten TO twenty years, and in view of the fact
that the value of the lands granted to them
in every case would construct and equip
their roads, it is not but lust that the lands
now remaining should be taxed, and these
railroads put on an equal footing with other
railroads in the state? 1t is not the intention
Of this bill to change the manner Of taxing
these roads excepting SO far as the land
grants are concerned. l believe this to be
the only Just way to tax railroad companies,
to wit, upon their gross earnings.