The pioneer express. [volume] (Pembina, Dakota [N.D.]) 1883-1928, 1895-03-29

Total tax paid by N. p. in
Pembina county, 1894. .....e2,460 IS
By the gross earnings system the
the state treasurer paid to this coun-
ty In 1894 az taxes against the G.. N
Railway, the sum Of se,l79.40, all Of
which sum was credited to the coun.
ty fund. This Of course being one
huff of the whole tax paid by that
road on mileage basis 10 this county,.
The number of miles ofiN. P. roau
In this county 10 $40. The exact
mileage Of the G. N. We are not sur.
Of but 1t will approximate nearly IS
miles. According to these above fig.
ures the N P. paid . little less thar
81 per mile while The Great North.
ern paid very near es2 per mile. The
difference 10 the state at large how.
ever. IL still greater, as the assess
ment on the N. p. main line 10 ESQ.,
less per mile. and " large amount Of
that track runs through unsettled,
sections, where there are few organiz-
ed townships and school districts and
therefore less taxation. The average
difference between the $s2 per mile
paid by the Great Northern through.
out the state aud the probable sum
paid per mile BY the Northern Pacific
must therefore average ut least tl2
and probable ia per mile. That is,
in the whole state the Great North
ern pays In taxes on its 1859 miles
about ts5.000; while the Northern
Pacific at so per mile on Its $50 miles
pays total Of about 100000.
II however the N. p. had paid taxes
on Its gross earnings. which per mile
In 1893 were q, 722 and in 1894, 9s,s75;
the amount at 3 per cent would have
been largely increased, being on the
1898 statement over GA. $50 and on
1894 statement el0l, $50. and for the
two years would have just about
doubled the taxation which the North.
ern Pacific did pay.
During the late session Of the legis-
lature, Mr.. LaMoure introduced q
o bill making all railroads taxable on
three per cent gross earnings; 1t was
remodelled by the judiciary commit
tee 10 some particulars and was pas.
sed In the senate but was beaten III
the house.
Now. in view of the facts, that the
taxes Of the Northern Pacific would
have been put on an equal basis with
that OF the Great Northern; that the
N. P's taxes would have been almost
doubled; that instead Of paying the
money in small amounts TO various
townships and school districts etc,
one half the whole railroad tax would
have remained In the state treasury,
and 10 itself been sufficient to supplied
the deficiency which closes the state
institutions; in view of these facts,
why did the house vote against the
gross earnings bill? Aud, particular
ly, why did representatives from those
counties In which the state ipstitu.
tons are situated, vote against the
only possible means of revenue to
keep those institutions openP
Locally. Pembtns township. city
and school districts are favored by
the assessment plan. but tho fact re.
mains that q railroad is not a local
matter. A railroad from Pembina to
Drayton would be poor piece Of
property. The real value Of q road
depends much more on its entirety,
than on the cost or value Of any sec.
ton thereof.
The gross earnings law Is now re.
|pealed and the Great Northern will
be assessed as the N. p. The $4,000
heretofore paid to the state will dwin.
die down to the flour mill" share, NY
Ola, 900; but Neche, Bathgste, HSmil.
ton, St. Thomas and other towns and
school districts, through which tr,,ps,
viii be the gamers locally.