The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1895-02-20
MR.. HOWE'S LETTER.
A REPLY I'm DETAIL.
Single Tax Not the Remedy.

Our esteemed friend, Hon. Jonas H.
Howe, prints in our Forum, this week,
a defence of the Single Tax theory,
and, while we have no desire to pro-
long the controversy, we yet feel that
some reply is due to the respect was
feel for him.
Mr.. Howe thinks he sees great in
consistency between our vote in the
Senate in 1893, on the Markham bill,
and our declaration the other day
that the Supreme Court might hold
that railroad lands could not be made
subject to direct tax. Let us see.
1t is true that while in the Senate
in 1893 we thought we could safely, so
far as our possibility as a legisla-
tor was concerned, follow the lead OF
the Attorney General, and vote for
the Markham bill, taxing the railroad
lands; yet we did not reach that con-
clusion without many and grave
doubts, which we still entertain.
There can be no question that what
the courts, Improperly we think), call
a contract, was entered into, by
statute, between the State Of Mime
sofa and certain railway corpora tions;
and that on November Sth, 1871. the
people transferred this contract into
the constitution of the state and
made it part Of that instrument;
and declared thereby that those laws,
(See Art. ", Sec. 32), by which "in
lieu of all taxes on real estate, roads,
rolling stock and personal property"
the railroad companies shall pay into
the state treasury a certain percen-
tage OF their gross earnings, should
not be abrogated except by vote of
the people. Now, it seems to us ex-
ceedingly clear that the railroad COM
panieS' lands are real estate; and
equally clear, that the three per cent
gross earnings tax was intended to
cover those very lands: hence it the
state proceeds to tax those lands, in
addition to the Oss-earnings tax, IT
may be reasonab bly, claimed that there
by the contract, it may be urged, is
broken. Now, suppose the courts were
under the control of the railroad cor
porations,as is very likely, and declared
the act to directly tax the land con-
stitutional; and that the original con-
tract, for the payment of the gross
earnings tax, was dissolved thereby,
what then? The state would have it's
direct tax upon the lands, for 5000. COO
or $400, 200, but it may lose it's gross
earnings tax, which in 1893 yielded
$l,2S0,OO0.
Hence we say that while we
followed the Attorney General, in
And hence we declare now, to friend
Howe, that no one can tell what our
Supreme Court, or the United States
Supreme Court will do, in the
premises. Some one said,-"the Lord
could foretell everything but the YER
dict of petit jury" and the same re-
mark will apply with equal force to
our courts. And hence, in the discus
sion of the Single Tax question, we
said it was within the possibilities
that the supreme court OF this state,
or of the United States, might hold
that no direct tax, single or double
could be levied upon those railroad
lands; and hence, if we adopted the
Single Tax, we might only pile &
burden on ourselves while those great
corpo rations went scott-free.
If John Stuart Mill, Walker
Ricardo, Thorold Rogers. Adam Smith
and Henry George declared that yol
could not bump yourself by falling on
the ice, we should take the liberty ol
dissenting from them, because expert
ence will not justify them. And whel
they tell us.-if they do,-that th'
owner of land cannot raise the rent tt
meet increased taxes, or any othe
burdens, we beg leave to say they ar
talking nonsense. If,for instance tn
landowners in Mr.. Howe's townshi
have been renting their farms 70
three dollars an acre, what is to pre-
vent them from raising the price t
three dollars and half an acre
Who can stop them? And if there
a surplus of renters they can put it u
to five dollars an acre. or ten dollars a
acre. In Ireland the landlords ir
creased the rent until it took all tn
crop except enough to barely supper
the life of the miserable tenant. Mr.
Parnell stated in the hall of til
House of Representatives, in Washing
ton, in our hearing, that there wer
sections of Ireland where the rent
were so high that you could not see
dog in twenty miles,-the tenants nc
being able to afford the expense {
supporting one. 1t would be an il
teresting sight to see John Stua1
Mill and Henry George and the rest
these worthy gentlemen, arguin
, with one of those Irish landlord
that he couldn't raise the rem
Couldn't? Why he would call I'll
bailiff to put the lunatics off the pro
erty. The very government has ha
$ to interfere to force down the inh
, man and unnatural rents, which hs
gone on increasing steadily year aft,
: year.
D Neither is brother Howe right whe
v he saws. that in taxing the railroad
Y right of way the assessor could tai
: into consideration the value of II
!, improvements resting upon it. Th
is lust what the Single Tax propos
q not TO do. 1t intends to make II
;. bare lot in New York city, and the Il
! next tn If. with a million dollar stru