St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-03-13
FIGURED IT CLOSE.
Taxation Of Railroads Is De-
feated by a Margin OF
Only One Vote.
TALKED THE WHOLE DAY.
Senators From Cities Solic-
itous for the Poor
Country.
SREEHAN AGAINST STEVENS
Two Ramsey Leaders Take
Opposing Sides in the
Fight.
TALKED THE WHOLE DAY.
SHEEHAN AGAINST STEVENS

Fight.
For Taxation
Alien, Hits, Ringdai,
Barr, Jones, seValson,
Co'e johnson, A. g., Sheehan,
Culkin, Knatvold, Theden.
Day, Larson, Thompson,
Hanna, Miller, lhorpe,
Hanson Ozmun, Wing.
Heneman, Peterson, Wyman.
Hodge, Reishus, Young-T.
Against Taxation
Collester, Teller, schaller.
Currier, Masterman, Spencer.
Dunham, Morgan, SperTy.
French, Mchrthur, SteDLlhs.
Fuller, McHaie, Stockton.
Greer. Potter, Sweuingsen,
Howard Pottgieser Yale-23
johnson, w. E., Roverud,
Absent on Leaye-Senators Cronkhite,
Smith and Stebbins.
Absent Without Leaye-Senator Lloyd.
Republicans voting for taxation, -; Re-
publicans voting against taxation, TO-
Democrats voting against taxation, 3.
PopulisLs voting for taxation. l.
Absentees-Republicans B; Popullsts, /.
For the third time within the past
six years the proposition to place the
unused lands belonging to railroad
companies on the tax rolls of the
counties in which they are located
has been passed with practical
unanimity in the house, only to be de-
feated in the senate. This is the one
historic and vital issue in all the
campaigns of the past six years, the
one measure upon which the people
of all political parties have formally
agreed, and it is about the only thing
that all parties ever have agreed
upon. The Republican party was
committed with the most une-
quivocal and definite platform ut
terances to the passage of the bill,
and it's defeat in a senate composed
of nearly Seven-eighthS Republican
members is a sufficient and ample
measure of the extent to which the
party is bound by its party pledges.
The above table furnishes an actual
and ready analysis of the vote taken
on the proposition in the senate yes
terday, and may be preserved for
future reference.
The consideration of the bill was
taken up upon the special order,
continued over from its previous day,
it having been agreed upon that the
action taken should be final, and the
bill placed upon its passage at the
close of the discussion upon its mer-
it's
ALLEN ACTIVELY SUPPORTS 1T
Senator Allen resumed the dis
cussion as to the hour for the renew
al of the special order arrived, and
made cool, dispassionate argument
in favor of the passage of the bill.
1t was not, he claimed, designed to
abolish the gross earnings tax, and
he did not believe that such would
be the result of the passage of the
bill, but if it came to a test hesbe-
lieved that even the repeal of the
gross earnings law was not a suffi-
cient argument to justify the de-
feat of this bill. He stated that the
opponents of the bill had completely
changed their ground in their ar
gument. Previously they had held
that the bill was unconstitutional,
and made the fight on the bill on
that ground. Now they had aban-
doned that theory, and were attack
ing the bill on other grounds. The
opponents of the bill assumed that
the railroad companies were merely
seeking a preteXt for lodging the
gross earnings tax. Such was far
from the fact. The companies do not
pay half the amount of the tax un-
would under the direct tax plan
. and the railroad companies had nc
sentiment in the matter beyond thai
of paying as little as possible. The
railroads of Minnesota paid one
fourth less tax than the roads ir
Wisconsin on the same extent OF
mileage, and much less than in the
state of Iowa. In proof of this state
ment he read figures from the re
ports of the railroad commission o.
Wisconsin and Minnesota ShoWins
that the mileage in Wisconsin wa:
5,7S5 miles, and in Minnesota it wa.
1858 miles, the Wisconsin gros:
earnings being $3S, 900, 900 and s37,
000,00 for Minnesota. Wisconsin re
%
nesota only received 1923, 900, or $3.50,
600 less on practically the sam,
mileage.
He then quoted some figures show
ing the amount of wild and unuse,
lands of the Great Northern road
showing that the direct tax on tn
lands of this road alone woul
10
to the amount paid on it's gros
earnings, or, if the gross earning
were abolished, in addition to tn
personal property tax which woul
~be imposed in it's place. This est
mate he held to be conservative
and declared that the payment c
such an amount would be no hard
ship or injustice to the company, a
compared to the tax paid by privat
citizens. He quoted from the argr
ment of Mr.. Grover, attorney fo
the Great Northern, to show by hi
figures that the tax on the road. a
the company'S own valuation, of SIT
600 a mile, would amount to owe
100000, and other roads in a prc
portionate rate, in each case the ia
amounting to from two to five time
as much as is paid under the preser
plan. These companies were MAJ
aged by cool-headed business mel
who had only the success Of II
roads in view, and there was no dal
ger that they would ever attempt
substitute plan under which the