The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-11-20
SONEC.0.W. HISTORY
1'@ BROUGHT OUT IN THE ARGUMENT
HEFoRE THE RAILROAD
COMMISSION
ON TWO PER CENT QUESTION.
--- GROUNDS ON WHICH THE COMPANY
BASES THE CLAIM THAT IT'S
TAXES
SHOULD RE LIMITED TO THAT SUM
Do Principal Points Related to the Ac-
ceptance of Charter and Conn
piinnce TO Its Conditions.

The matter of the hearing before the
railroad and warehouse commission on
the question of taxation of the Chicago
p Great Western railway, formerly the
Minnesota &, Northwestern railway,
came up yesterday. The railroad COM
pany was represented by Frank b.
Kellogg as. general counsel. The prin-
cipal points were as to whether the
charter had been accepted by the rail-
road company and as to whether the
railroad company had complied with
re- the conditions Of the charter. Mr.. KEEL
logs. argued in substance that the act
Of 1854. as amended by the act of 1885,
created a contract between the state
and the railroad company whereby the
railroad company was to pay per
cent taxes upon its gross income in
lieu of and to be exempt from all other
taxation. He presented a letter writ
ten by the secretary of the railroad
company, by authority of it's board Of
directors, on April s. 1854, to Gov. Viii
lis A. German. enclosing the accept
ance of the charter he also presented
letter from Gov German, who was
territorial governor at that Time
showing that the charter was accepted
b and the acceptance filed by him. This
original acceptance has been lost. lie
also produced volume / Minnesota Re
ports showing the decision Of the ter
TitOry of Minnesota by Chief Justice
WEIGH in a suit brought by the United
States to forfeit the land grant OF TINS
company. wherein it was recited that
the charter was duly accepted and the
amendment of 1856 also accepted. 1t
was contended that this testimony was
sufficient in lieu of the long time when
had elapsed and the original documents
having been destroyed in the capitol
fire. He also cited decisions of the SUI
pelne court showing that the accept
ance of the provisions of the charter
would be presumed after the lapse OF
long term of years, and that hearsay
evidence was sufficient to establish such
an acceptance. The company had not
forfeited it's rights under the charter
for several reasons.
First that it required an affirmative
act of the Legislature of the state or
of the courts to declare a forfeiture
after condition broken, and as the state
had never taken any steps to forfeit
the charter and In the meantime the
line Of road had been changed and con-
st1Jlcted according to the statute, the
state could not even by act of the leglS-
lature a this time forfeit the rights
ACQUIRED under this charter, and cited
various decisions of the supreme court
of Minnesota to this effect, notably the
case Of Minneapolis &, St. Cloud Rail
way company versus Duluth d W1nnl-
peg Railway company
II also appeared that the charter had
been amended several times by act or
the legislature, which it was claimed
was an implied waiver OF any lntea-
tion of the state to forfeit the charter;
that the company had always kept up
its organization, and that in 1883 Mr..
Stickney purchased all Of the stock
of the original company and the as
sipnments of all of it's stock, and the
rights of the original owners passed
to MIR. Stickney and his associates was
shown.
1t appeared as a condition Of an ex-
tension of time to build this road the
company was required to give up its
share of 100000 loaned by the state
to railroads, and all it's land grant,
and that the company complied with
this condition, and decided the land
grant to the Minnesota & Pacific Rail
road company, the Transit Railroad
company the Root River valley &
Southern Minnesota Railroad company,
and the Minneapolis 81 Cedar Valley
Railroad company.
Tt appeared also that the company
had always paid per cent on its gross
earnings from the time the road was
completed down to 1895, a period of
about ten years, and that it had been
accepted by the state, and that if this
road had paid under the per cent
clause it would have paid only l per
cent for seven years, per cent for
three years and per cent thereafter,
and that the company had paid into
the treasury of the state large
amount in excess of what it would
have paid under those acts. Mr.. KEEL
Iogg cited many decisions of the su-
preme court of Minnesota to sustain
his contention.
The commission took the case under
Amusement,