St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-03-13

| railroads 80
Senator Keller's remarks were re-
| ceived with hearty applause and rounds
| of laughter.
YOUNG DISCLAIAS. ~ y.
Senator Young rose to correct what
he declared to be a misapprehension
on the part of Senator Stevens as ito
his attitude on the bill. He did not
hold, as Senator Stevens had said
that the bill repealed the gross earn
| ings law, but the reverse. The obligaG
| ton upon the railroads to pay the
| gross earnings tax would be the same
after as before the passage of the bill
| Senator Thompson said the worldly
| wise editorial writer of the Pioneer
| Press had settled the whole thing, IN
his own mind, but had overdone the
| thing. He went SO far in his opposi-
| ton of the bill that he was opposed
even by the attorneys who were ops
| posing the bill in the senate. There
| were as good attorneys outside as in
| side the senate, and the best of them
| had decided that this bill was a prac-
| teal measure. Why, then, were these
| senators so 10th to give the people a
chance to voice their sentiments. 1t
had been said that the people did not
| understand this measure. Then why
not say at once that the people
were incapable of elf-government
The railroads did not want this bill
passed, not because it would decrease
but because it would increase the
amount of taxes they would have to
pay.
Senator SchalIer thought there was
no necessity to discuss the constitu-
tionality of the bill, as it was clearly
within the power of the state to enact
and enforce such law, and the only
| question was as to the feasibility of it.
| He held that the bill was repeal of
| the gross earnings law, and the, only
| proper way was to submit the propo-
| sition as to the actual repeal of the.
| gross earnings law. To present the
Anderson bill to the people was to deal
| doubly with the people, presenting to
them bill which was different from
/ what it purported to be. 1t was
! matter affecting the whole state and
| the whole future, and should De treat
| ed without reference to it's political
| bearing. To adopt this system was to
simply trade the gross earnings tax for
| law suit. When the bill was first
! drawn he wanted to vote for it, but
1 in the multiplicity of legal opinions
and the doubts attending it's adoption
| he felt that he could not afford to take
the chances of trading a sure thing
| for doubtful one. AS to the party
| platforms, it need only be said that
| party platforms do not always reflect
| even the sentiment of the party itself,
much less the sentiment of all the peo-
! pie.
Senator McHale took the floor to
| briefly correct a statement which had
| been made relative to the right of the
| state to make a contract. He cited
| legal authorities to show that the.
| state was perfectly competent to make
an agreement which was a contract in
! effect
! Senator Sperry said he desired to
| discuss the matter from the view that
would be taken by the layman in
looking at the legal aspect of the bill.
Was it fair to agree with the conf
panies to accept per cent of the gross
earnings of the roads as substitute
for a direct tax on all other properties
and then take out the lands for pur-
poses of taxation, still accepting the
8 per cent tax on the gross earnings?
| He thought the resolution in the Re-
publican platform was not binding on
! members, because itiwas. adopted with
but a minority present. The Republi-
can party had sometimes made miss
takes, and if it had approved this
1 measure it would have been one of
them. Let well enough alone was a
the main burden of his claim.
FULLER SEES A WAY.
Senator Fuller said the Republican
platform called for the passage of the
| taxation bill and the retention of the
gross earnings tax, but the senate
could not give them both, and all that
could be done was to choose one OF
the two demands. Let it be the gross
earnings law.
Senator Morgan said he was as loyal
as any man could be to the Republican
party, and that party had never at any
time called for the repeal of the gross
earnings tax, and that was the pur-
pose of this bill. Under the operation
of this law Minnesota was profting by
the commerce of other states, and his
sole and only objection to this bill was
his conviction that it was in effect a
repeal of the gross earnings law. He
would support the substitute bill te
afford relief to the distressed localities
by a contribution from the gross earn
ings tax, but this bill had the voice OF
Jacob and the hands of Esau 1t was
a deception on it's face. 1t said one
thing and meant another. He opposed
it on this ground, and on this ground
only.
Senator Potter said the only perma.
nent and positive source of income
which the state had was the gross
earnings tax, and he did not propose
to disturb that income, hence he would
oppose the bill.
Senator Wyman took az second shy al
the bill, and made another conserya.
tive plea for its passage, declaring il
to be an eminently fair and Just meas.
ure. The lawyers, after six years OF
discussion of the bill, had just discov.
cred that 1t was a deception. Pass this
bill and inscribe on the banner of youl
party, whatever that party may be, the
splendid words, Liberty, Equality au6
Justice"
Senator Wyman was literally an.
piauded from the floor and the gal.
leries.
Senator Howard declared that the
railroads were paying a fair and eoui.
table snare OF the taxes of the state
and he would not be voting the wishes
OF his constituents unless he voted
, against the bill. He had intended al
the outset to vote for the bill, as he
wanted to relieve the burdens of the
people in the frontier counties, but
he thought the bill to give these coun.
, ties part of the gross earnings was q
sufficient measure of relief for them
and he should oppose the bill. "a
SHEEHAN FOR THE BILL. /
Senator Sheehan reminded the sen
ate that he had taken but little of its
time to discuss pending measures. anC
: said that this measure was one of such
mighty import that it could not bf
, voted upon without reason substan
tial in its character, He attacked the
| IaGSitiaa Of SsGsa Ii = i.