St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1891-04-11
THE FIGHT IN THE SENATE.

III Jul STATE senate. Inc little giant
from Meeker county and the Alliance
chieftain from Otter Tail appeared for
the plaintiff; and swarm of attorneys
on the floor and a number of others on
large salaries in the lobby did yeoman
service for the defendant.
1t was great fight. and the opposing
hosts camp on the battlefield over night
TO renew the contest Oh the morrow.
Here is the point of conflict: Ten
years ago an unconstitutional law was
enacted in this state. which exc mpts
mineral lands from taxation under the
regular system, and permits their
owners to pay one cent tribute on each
ton of ore that is mined Oh their prop
erty. in lieu of all other exactions which
the state might demand from them for
its support. Such people may own
countless millions of dollars worth of
real and personal property; but under
the provisions of this Ubiquitous statute,
they can snap their fingers at the as
SCISSOR, while they hand him this nomi-
nal amount percentage OH their output.
This is the citadel of sin on which
Mr.. LEAvITT and Mr.. HoMPE have so
valiantly led the assault. This is the
citadel of sin which the hired attorneys
of the Minnesota Iron company have
defended in the committee rooms. and
i'll apology for which some of the best
men in our senate Yesterday raised
their voices and cast their votes.
Senator TAWNEY, of Winona, was
among this band. He favored the pres
ent system for two reasons. One was
because under it the annual tribute ex-
acted by the state was smaller than it
would be if the property of mining cor
poratlons were taxed as other peoples
property is. This exemption from tax
alton encouraged the mining industries
and helped to develop the state. Sen
ator TAWNEY said that he believed in
developing the state, and that was why
he would let the law stand as it is.
The other reason was because, under
the present system, the annual tribute
exacted by the state was greater than
1t would be if the property of
mining corporations were taxed as
other peoples property is. He
said that he believed in ia king
the property of such corporations to the
full limit, and that was why he would
let the law stand as it is. He was for
the present system because it made the
states revenue smaller and larger at
the same time. The legislature of ten
years ago, which had enacted this meas
ure, had performed miracle, and the
handsome senator loudly declared that
he was in favor of miracles. and would
not encourage any interference with
them.
There are some skeptical people who
do not believe that any Minnesota legis-
lature has achieved any such extraor-
binary work as this, and that Mr.. TAW-
NEY's faith In Its supernatural power is
the offspring of mind poisoned with
the virus of protectienism. Nobody
nowadays banks on miracles except the
blind followers of MIR. MCKINLEY and
his school. The exemption of the Min
nesota Iron company's property from
ordinary taxation either Expresses or
favors that corporation. If it Expresses
1t, its hired attorneys would not be on
the floor of the senate fighting against
its repeal. If it favors it, it can only be
defended on the ground that it is the
states duty to give this company
bounty.
Senator oANBoRN had the courage
yesterday to stand up and say that this
was the object of the exemption. and
that he favored it on this ground. So
dld Senator DAUGHERTY, who said that
iron mining in Minnesota would not be
profitable venture unless it was aided
by the state. That is the only position
for the defenders of the present law to
take. and where does it leave them?
Suppose that, instead of contributing a
largeSS to the corporations in the shane
OF relieving them from the burden of
taxation, they were compelled to paw
their just share to the states support;
and their maintenance were encouraged
bya direct bounty from the states treas
ury. Suppose everybody who owned min
eral land were given an annual present
by the state. where would the money for
the purpose come from? The state NAV
perform other miracles, but it cannot
create wealth by a vote of its legisla-
ture. 1t would have to raise the amount
needed for the purpose by taxation,
Suppose this annual present aggregated
only 100000, that would mean an in
crease in the annual tax levy of one
fifth of mill. Every taxpayer would
have to contribute this much more per
annu m. What for? Why, to give a
present to the owners of mineral lands.
But II the owners of mineral lands
should receive presents from the state,
why should not the owners of farming
lands and timber lands? If the grocery
trade is dull on East Seventh street,
why should not the state give every
grocer a present, so that he should not
close his shop? If the law business is
dull Ill Minneapolis, why should not
the state give every lawyer in the Bos-
ton block or the Guaranty building
present, so that he may pay his office
rent and not pack up his things and
migrate to more litigious country?
The owners of farming and tim Der
lands, grocers and lawyers are desirable
| members of the community. Why
should not they be helped OH the road
to prosperity by contributions from
the state treasury?
There is only one answer to these
questions. Either everybody ought to
be helped or nobody ought to be. Either
the state ought to keep its hands off or
it ought to tax everybody vigorously
and distribute what it accumulates in
presents to everybody. TO do anything
else is to apply the vicious principle
which has prevailed in our national
legislation of taxing one class for the
benefit of another. The central govern
ment has the power to do this, and Its
example has debauched the reasoning
| capacity of very able men. Fortunately,
there is check on the power of our state
legislature, as it sails in this direction.
Two years ago it tried to use its taxing
power for the encouragement of the
hacking industries of Minnesota. but