New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1894-01-17

but for punishment. Any scheme, that
on its face promises either, is therefore
likely to be hailed with JOY. Again witt
many the word ''corporation'' is synoni
nous with ''capital' and ''wealth'' and the
conclusion is jumped at, that tax on g
corporation is tax on the rich, when as
a matter of fact in most cases it is really
a tax on production.
A little closer study Of the question
will soon convince one that this proposed
tax is one in which appearances are espe'
cially deceptive. A tax is never permit
mitted to rest in "inoccuous dessuetude.' .
1t is an unwelcome visitor. No one will
pay tax out of his own pocket so lorg
as by any means or contrivance he can
shift il on someone else. It is good
deal like the "tag'' among boys, which is
shifted from boy to DO; until it gets to
the poor little fellow with the club foot
who can't get away from it. A tax as a
rule falls eventually on the fellow least
able to- pay it; and this I believe to be,
in part at least, an explanation of our in
born aversion to taxes. The suggestion
that the taxes are paid by those least
able to bear them may seem paradoxical
but on the whole I believe it to be true.
We often hear it said, in the legisla-
ture for instance, that the interests of the
farmers need special consideration, for
"they pay the taxes;'' and we as
often hear that statement laughed at and
secuted, but inquiry and examination
will show that there is more truth in it
than taffy.
Take for instance the tax on retail
merchants stock. Does any one doubt
but that it is made up in the price of the
goods just the same as freight charges
and other expenses? If it is, then the
tax in that instance falls on the consu.
mers and not on the merchants. Of
course, concede that there may be con-
ditions of competition in trade ewhere the
merchant may not be able to get back
either taxes or freight, but they are the
exception. The merchant as a rule shifts
the burden of the tax on the consumer
To illustrate this more fully. Let us
suppose that the manufacturer of the
prints and hosiery sold by the retailer,
located in Mass, pays tax on his fact
ory or on his business. Which do you
suppose he does, charge it up to his per-
sonal account, or to his business? i'm
agine to the business, and unless the
competition IS exceedingly keen it will
surely be added to the price ofhis goods,
just the same as the other items of ex-
pcnse of production. He, in the first in
stance, shifts the tax On the wholesaler;
The wholesaler, with local taxes added,
shifts the burden on the retailer and the
latter dumps the load on the consumer.
But take anotherclass of taxes, more sim
liar to the proposed tax - the gross
earnings tax on the railroads in this
State. Nearly all the expense of our
State government is betrayed from this
source. It aggl egates nearly one million
dollars per annum. Our city papers are
continually lauding this scheme as the
noblest monument to Legislative wisd ON
that our statutes have to show. Well
they may-by means of it the cities es-
cape to a great extent the burden of State
taxes. In lieu of other taxes on railroad
property, We collect tax of three pei
cent. on the gross earnings of the rail.
roads which is covered into the state
treasury. How is the money derived fol-
paying this tax? Does it come from the
stock holders pockets, OF from the earn
ings of the road? The answer is self-evi
dent. The money is paid from the re-
| W. P'' VI VIC lOtel, J NSt CuS StilC DIS CA
penses, for maintenance and operation
If the railroads were relieved from this
burden, does any one doubt but that they
could afford to give the public cheaper
transportation? They certainly could
If our State alone should release this tax
it might haze but little effect as most OF
our roads run into and arc taxed in ad-
joining states. I an not arguing for the
repeal Of railroad taxes so long as adj
joining states impose them. Such a
course would be folly. But the fact that
[ desire to emphasize is, that a tax on
railroads is necessarily a tax or burden
On transportation. 1t it is a burden on
transportation it is reflected in higher
rates and it follows, that in the end, it is
not the railroad (stockholders) but the
public that pays the tax. Of course, as
suggested above, there may be roads thai
are so situated and so pressed by compe.