St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1891-04-11
he did not think it would be good policy
for the state to make a change in the

very SLOW In making any changes III the
taxation of mining property. He was
afraid the senator from Meeker wanted
to tax the mining companies out of eX-
istence. He had made a careful study
OF the evidence produced before the
committee on taxes and tax laws.
II have listened TO the debate on this bill
with some surprise, said Senator Hompe
I'VE are told here by the friends of the iron
company that if the present law is repealed
the revenues which the state derives will be
decreased. Then why do they make such
hight against this bill: Why does the COM
pany have able and paid attorneys to lobby
against its passage? Again, am surprised
al the Vaclllaung character of members, not
only on this measure, but other questions
also. Bills have passed the committee of
tne Wnole almost unanimously. and then, be-
cause our newspapers have come down on
the measure, or perhaps an outside person
has whispered in the ear of some of the
members, a new light seems to dawn on
their minds and the bill is defeated Oh its
passage. This is most apt to be the case
with bills looking toward the reform of
abuses. 1t is SO with this measure. AT one
time tnlrty-fYe senators voted to place 1t as a
special order. Some of these men are now
1t may be that it is because l have sprung
from race who do not change their minds
without good reason-who have established
reputation for being Obstinate
''The senator from Winona," said
Senator Leavitt, sarcastically. claimed
that he was speaking for the state of
Minnesota, but l submit it to the SEN
ators that, if he were in court speaking
as the attorney of the Minnesota Iron
company, if he could have made
stronger speech than he has. If the
gentleman from WinOna is right in his
claim that the Minnesota Iron company
would be better off with the passage of
this law, why is it that the paid agents
OF this mining company have been on
the floor of this senate and around the
hotels ever since this bill was intro
duced? Do the gentlemen of this sem
ate believe the statement of the senator
from Dakota when he intimateS that
the mining companies are behind this
bill? 1t is absurd, and the best contra
dlctton is found in the presence of these
lobbyists, the representatives of the
Minnesota Iron company. Why
shouldn't the farmers of Minnesota be
encouraged? Why shouldn't they pay
tax of one cent bushel on their
wheat? A ton of ore on the dump at
the mine is worth S1.50 a ton net. Now
a bushel of wheat is worth about IS
cents per buSnel. Tax them half cent
a bushel and the taxes
Would Re Raised
on other interests. The arguments made
by the advocates of the mining COM
pany were the same old arguments used
in the late electiOn-those of protection
protection to corporations but no pro-
lection for the people. A great many
peculiar things have taken place during
the contest OH this bill. Attempts have
been made from first to last to push
this bill into hole and keep it there.
70 -,
able attorney, but he is not always con-
siStent. At the time he was making a
fight for his bill to eQualiZe taXations he
declared that there was only Si.O00.000
in mortgages in st. Paul taxed on
which the total taxation was $4,000.
Now here is the Minnesota Iron COM
pany with capitalization of S14,O00,O0O
and only pay tax of $1,000 per year.
And then he said these capitalists have
all the protection of our laws and it is
only just that they pay their just pro-
portion of the taxes. | am sorry that
the gentleman from Winona can not
make the same argument now. If the
land in that county is not developed let
it be taxed as any other property is
taxed, but if mine like that of the
Minnesota Iron company, which is pay
ing SI,000,000 year, let it be taxed at
its true value as any other property is
taxed"
There the speaker read from a New
York financial paper notice of
quarterly dividend of II per cent de-
clared by the Minnesota Iron company
April l. At this rate he figured that
the company was paying nearly S1,OOO,-
600 per year in dividends upon stock
that cost but 25 cents upon the dollar.
1t was absurd for any one to claim that
this company. if obliged to pay its Just
proportion of the taxes, about $4,000
per year, would pack up and leave the
state. Here the speaker read from the
cratic parties in st. Louis county last
fall sections denouncing the repeal of
the law passed in 1881. A letter from
the majority of the board of county COM
missioners favOring the bill was lead,
and then the speaker passed on to the
vast power of the Minnesota Iron COM
pany; no man who dared oppose it
could be elected to any office in St.Louis
county.
Senator Tawney made brief reply
TO Senator Leavitt and the Sage came to
the front
With a Substitute
making the rate of taxation five cents
per ton on all ore instead of the present
wanted to know what remedy the state
would have if the company resi- sted the
new rate. The Sage thought that the
next legislature could take the bull by
the horns and pass a more stringent
law.
Senator Craven vigorously opposed
the amendment. Attempts had been
made to kill it and the senate ought not
to fail to pass the bill as introduced.
Mining companies had no more right to
special privileges than any other citi-
zen of the state.
81 hope this amendment Will not be
adopted said Senator Morse. ''It is
not matter of dollars and cents: it is
a matter of right. | think this is the
most important bill introduced at this
session. 1t is meritorlous ana just and
should pass.'
Senator Donnelly offered an amend
ment increasing the tax to cents per
ton, and this was amended to 8 cents.
but both were lost by q yeas to is nays.
The bill was recommended to be in
definitely postponed. The commit
tee then arose and motion
was made to accept the report
of the committee. Senator Leavitt
promptly moved TO amend by recon-
mending the bill to pass. Senator Don
nelly moved to amend making the tax
5 cents per ton instead of l as now.
This was lost by "a nays to 20 yeas, and
similar amendment, making the rate
4 cents, was also lost. The previ-
Gus question had been ordered on this.
but the Sage plead for chance to try a
Scent amendment, arguing that the lei
ters of the Alliance men in st. Louis
county had made him hesitate to vote
against the bill. An attempt was made
to reconsider the vote by which the
previous question had been ordered.
but this was withdrawn, and by "a yeas
to q nays the amendment, recommend
ing the bill to pass, was acopted, the
vote standing as follows:
Yeas.
Bell, Hammer, March,
Brown, Hompe, Morse
Craig, Kelly, Nelson.
Craven, Leayltt, Probstfeld,
Dedon, L1enau, Stevens
Donnely, Lommen, Streissguth,
Erickson, McHale, Wood
fa