Bismarck weekly tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1943, 1895-01-04
BY Il. N. STEVENS.
H DAILY TRIBUNE,
THE GROSS EARNINGS LAW.

the legislative assembly of the state of
North Dakota, there was introduced a
bill entitled Gan act to amend an act of
the legislative assembly of the territory
of Dakota, approved March 7, 1889, en-
titled an act providing for the levy and
collection of taxes upon the property of
railroad companies" During that ses-
sion Of the legislature, I was chairman
of the committee on railroads, and, as
such, I took charge of the bill, which
was referred to that committee. Since
that time, I have probably received more
public condemnation and had more &C.
cusations of dishonesty charged to me
on account Of that bill, than all other
that have been introduced in this states
legislature. For five years I have re-
manned silent, without in any manner
attempting to explain, account for or
palliate my offense (Which, if offense it
was, never injured any person except my
self in connection with that bill, and
while I admit that I would have had to
be less than human, had I not felt keen
ly the criticisms which have been passed
upon my conduct, and particularly the
unjust and false ones, yet I have felt that
it was better that I be considered a
knave rather than a fool, and I probably
never would have said anything about
the matter had I not now deemed it me-
cessary in the peoples interest to say
what l believe to be true of the law en-
braced in that bill, and again, as to my
self, let me say that the, general impress
sions and criticisms that I stole that bill
are entirely erroneous. I came by the
bill by virtue of the reference in due
and regular form. I informed both the
committee and the legislature that I
would never report it back to the house,
unless compelled to do so, as it was un-
just and unwise. I will say, however,
that when [ left the house I expected to
return to it in a very short time with
such explanations in reference to the
bill as would be entirely satisfactory,
and lad I remained in my sober senses,
l would undoubtedly have done so, but
as l do not write this article to screen
myself from any criticism that may
have been passed upon me, I shall ex-
plain no further, except to say, first, the
impression that I Received pay is abso-
lutely false, and when I say pay, I
mean consideration of any kind what.
ever. By a careful reading of this ar
ticle, you will, I think, be convinced that
those who bride legislation were inter-
ested in the passage, not the defeat Of
the bill. Another impression has gained
ground, and been heralded through the
newspapers, about the matter, that
had l succeeded in defeating the
bill there would have been
no law taxing railroads, and they
would have been exempt By the title
OF the act it will readily be seen that the
bill was simply an amendment to the
law then in force, which provided for the
assessment and levy of taxes on rail-
roads in the same manner as the law now
in force does. BY an examination of
the original act, approved March 7, 1889,
and comparison with the law approved
March 20, 1890, you will see that the
words Including the road-bed, right of
way, shops and buildings of such rail-
road company" we're The only words in
serted in section l, in addition to those
appearing in that section of the old law.
There is also a change made in the
present law from the old law, which
makes a provision for the division of the
money collected between the state and
counties, but in no manner affects the
amount to be collected, and, with these
two exceptions, there is practically no
difference between the law of 1889 and
1881, which corporation papers from
Dan to Beersheba condemned me for
attempting to defeat, and which I be-
lleve every taxpayer who reads this arti-
Gle will wish I had succeeded in defeat.
ing.
That law was passed in the interest of
railroad companies, and as I shall at
tempt to show, against the interest Of
the farmers of North Dakota, though I
admit farmer members of the legislature
OF 1890 were in favor of the bill, and be-
lieved it to be in their interest, and at
least several of them we're made to be-.
lieve that unless this law was passed the
railroads would escape taxation. The
original bill was unquestionably prepared
by Mr.. Clough, vice-president, and Mr..
Grover, general solicitor of the Great
Northern railroad, and at least three
conferences we're had between a promi-
nent member Of the state senate, who
was in favor Of the bill, and most of all
the member interested in it's passage.
and the legal officers of the Great North
ern railroad. The bill made at least two
trips to st. Paul after being introduced
and before it's passage, and with this ex-
PLANTATION Of my conduct in connection