St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-03-12
VOL xvI11.-PRIcE TWO CENTS FIVE ssyHHssAAsssss ssAAssss

! company's holdings, was grossly out of
proportion, and believed that the total
| would not reach above $50, 900, 600 to
lO0,OOO,0OO. This amount would not be
| taxed on the whole, but on the usual
| two-thirds valuation, the same as other
| property.
| At this point motion to rise was
| made, it being nearly o'clock. and
| Senator McHale stated that he did not
| want an adjournment taken unless he
could be permitted to submit an amend
| ment or two. He was invited to send
! up his amendments, after which the
/ special order was continued until this
| morning al II o'clock.
Senator McHale's amendments alter
both the title and the body of the BILL
the first prof assing to remedy the de-
| feet in the title spoken of by the sena-
tor in his speech, the title as amended
reading as follows:
"a bill for an act relating to the.
taxation of certain lands owned by
railroad companies in this state and
| repeating laws and part of laws relat-
ing to this taxation of the same, and
to enforce the payment of the gross
earnings tax on railroad property and
franchises as heretofore provided by
law; and to provide for the submission
OF this act to the people of this state
for their approval or rejection"
The second amendment purports to
povide an antidote or preventive for
the calamitieS which are stated to ap-
pear in the wake of the original bill. and
provides that it shall be operative ''in
so far only as not to impair in any
manner or degree the obliga ton of
any and all railroad companies now
or hereafter having business in this
state, to pay into the state treasury
the percentage of the gross earnings
of their respective railroads at the
rates, times, and in the manner here
tofore provided by law"
Numerous expressions of opinion
were taken among members of the
house and senate after the adjourn-
ment, and among the friends of the bill
only two opinions were expressed. the
first being that the amendment was
intended to provide a means, in case
| of the passage of the bill, whereby
companies could elect to pay the gross
earnings tax instead of a direct per-
sonal property tax, and the second be-
ing that the amendments would sim
ply afford a pretext for some who de-
sired to, but who under the present
circumstances dare not vote against
the bill
Representative Markham, who in
troduced the bill two years ago, is in
the city and criticises in very harsh
terms the means being used to defeat
the bill.
The argument will be resumed at IL
O'Clock today, and a vote will probably
be reached. The bill will probably
lack half a dozen votes of enough to
pass it, though a number of prominent
Republican politicians are earnestly
working for it as a party measure.
Lieut.. Gov. Day is a pronounced ad-
yocate of the bill, as are several
other state officials, including D. F.
Reese, clerk. of the supreme court.
CHILDS' OPINION.
The opinion of Attorney General
Childs upon the questions involved in
the operation of the proposed system
of taxation under the Anderson bill
will be of interest at this time In rem
dering his opinion in compliance with
resolution of the senate, Mr.. Childs
briefly states the purpose of the bill
and his conclusions, as follows:
In brief, it seeks in a constitutional
way to subject to ordinary taxation the
unsold granted lands of railroad COM
panies.
1t expressly disclaims the right to
disturb the gross earnings system save
so lar as 1T relates to such lands.
1t declares that if the act shall be
held void as applied to the lands of
one road, it shall nevertheless be
valid as to the lands of other com
panies not similarly situated
1t therefore follows with the Ger.
tainty of logical deduction that if
the measure will not secure the taxa,
ton of lands falling within it's Dur,
view without destroying the system
OF substituted taxation of the other
properties of railway companies, it
VIII not be operative for any purpose.
In other words, it will be effective for
the purpose thus clearly manifested by
Its terms, CT 1T will prove a useless and
ineffective measure
Again diverging, and declining to
commit himself to the expression of an
opinion aside from what he deemed
himself called upon to make as a pub
lie official, he says:
L am therefore clearly of the opinion
that the lands contemplated by the
Terms ieI OF House File No. may be SUBJ
lect TO ordinary methods of direct
taxation by compliance with the re-
quirements of the provisions of the
constitution above cited
After citing numerous authorities and
quoting the decisions and opinions of
the supreme court, he adds:
l nave only to reply that 1t would
companies of this state of anV of the
dutles pertaining to taxation now rest
ing upon them. No other conclusion
would be consistent with the views
nereinpefore expressed. The gross
earnings tax not resting in contract
the companies thus taxed must com,
ply, with the requirements of statute
SO long as the constitutional princinIe
OF equality of taxation is not Violated
DONE IN THE FORENOON.
The senate in committee of the
whole, with Senator Barr in the
chalr, took up general orders at the
morning sitting. Senator Sheehan
moved that his bill proposing a con-
st1tut1onal amendment to allow large
cities to frame their own charters
be made a special order for Wednesday
afternoon. Senator Howard opposed
this on the theory that it might inter-
fere with his general charter BILL and
wanted the Sheehan bill left in .abey-
ance until action should be had on his
bill. Senator Sheehan said he thought
there was no reason why his bill
should be held by the throat until the
other bills should be given the right
OF way. His bill had been introduced
early in the session and had been in
the committee on municipal corpora
tions ever since, and he thought both
bills should be considered upon their
merits.
Senator Sheehan suggested that the
bill be made special order immedi-
ately after the Howard bill, but that
gentleman objected to this, and Sena-
tor Sheehan said that it seemed that
Senator Howard objected to the bill
being taken UP either before or after
his measure. Senators Stebbins, Full
er, Wyman and Potter backed up Sen
ator Howard, and Senator Stevens sug-
gested that there could be no objection
to taking the Sheehan bill up immedi-
1