St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-03-12
SENATORS HEDGE.
Desperate Fight Being Made
on the Railroad Taxa
ton Bill.
SOME SAMPLES OF ORAT0RY
Senators MeHale and Morgan
Lead in the Oppose
ton.
WERE AMENDED TO DEATH.
Two Amendments Which Set
the Whole Act at
Naught.
WERE AMENDED TO DEATH.

House File No. /, the bill pro-
posing a constitutional amendment
for the purpose of placing on the tax
rolls all unused lands owned by
rilroads in this state, was consid-
cred by the senate in committee Of
the whole yesterday, and the most
interesting debate of the session was
had The bill had been made Spe-
cial order for the day, and there
was quite a large attendance of Wis
itors, though a notably small mem
bership present. Some of the men,
bers whose seats We're empty might
have been present had they known
that the debate would be so pro-
tracted as it was, and no vote
reached.
The two most conspicuous OPP
ponents of the bill, Senators Mo:g gan
and McHale, made magnificent ar
guments against it, both speeches
being the finished, polished efforts
of men skillful in the use of logical
arguments, amply Versed in the
technicalities of the law, and hand
ling the subject with all the adroit-
ness of experienced attorneys. SEN
ators Thompson, Knatvold, Reishus,
Culkin and Wyman presented the
side of the bill to which the people
of all parties committed themselves
in the political platforms of the last
campaign, and, though lacking in
the polish and eloquence of the lead
ers of the opposition. they made q
strong presentation of the case from
their point of view.
The discussion was precipitated
by Senator Allen, who moved that
the bill be recommended to pass, and
proceeded to briefly discuss the mer-
its of the measure from the economic
standpoint. He asked that the law
yeIs of the senate discuss the legal
aspect of the matter first, and Sem
ator Thompson took the initiative as
a friend Of the bill.
THOMPSON'S ARGUMENT.
He recited the history Of the bill
since the time of it's first introduce
ton in 1891 by Representative Foley.
1t was passed by the house then with
only one negative vote. In 1893 it
passed the house with but two votes
against it. On both occasions it
was defeated in the senate on the
ground Of legal objections, although
the ablest lawyers in the state had
commended it. The only argument
presented was that it would I'M
favorably affect the gross earnings
law. There was nothing in the gross
earnings law to prevent amend
ment of the existing laws; the law is
not contract; if it We're it would
be impossible in any contingency to
raise the tax rate. In case of war
or any other great emergency the
tax rate could be raised on the farm
er and the business man, While the
railroad would continue to pay the
same rate. And yet the constitution
says that there shall be absolutely
equal taxation of all properties. The
assessed valuation of the property
of the state outside of railroads was
$3.50, 900, 900, on which the people paid
$l4 100000 taxes. The value of the
$22S, 100000 and yet they had paid
only 100000 taxes. This was not
equal taxation. If the railroads
paid the same tax as the people
the state would receive more than
$2,5C0,O00 year. If the Great North
ern had paid a twenty-two-mill tax
on the value of it's road and equip
ment it would pay 1884 600, or a little
more than the total paid by all roads
under the gross earnings tax The
gross earnings tax, he said, was in
no danger. The railroads want it and
would not accept, of their own ac-
cord, any other system. The bill
was approved by all political parties,
had been Endorsed by the best law
yers of the state and was demanded
by all people of all parties. The
law would not be made here. Let
it be submitted to the sovereign peo-
pie for their ratification or rejection
They know what they want. Let
them speak
MORGAN MAKES A PLEA.
Senator Morgan followed Senator
Thompson, and presented the views of
the subcommittee Of the judiciary COM
mittee which has recommended the
bill for indefinite postponement. He
favored the adoption, he said of some
measure which would afford adequate
relief from the manifest injustice to
the communities in which the untaxed
lands were located, but he was firmly
of the opinion that the state cannot
have the gross earnings tax and the
Anderson bill. He held that the grant
to the railroads and the acceptance Of
a 3 per cent gross earnings tax in lieu
of all other taxes was a contract which
neither party could evade In 1871 the
costitution was so amended as to pos
itively affirm the per cent gross earn
ings tax, and since then there had
been no question in the minds of the
lawyers of the state that this then be-
came contract in full force and effect
There was no question as to the con-
stitutionality Of the act. 1t is COM
petent to place every acre of land on
the tax rolls, but this action would alb
rogate the present contract and repeal
the gross earnings law. 1t would have
been impossible in the first place to
enforce the operation of the gross
earnings tax unless the railroad COM
panies agreed to it, for it would have
interfered with Interstate commerce,
and this was the very essence of the
contract. The companies consented to
the tax on their gross earnings, al
though the state had no right to en-