The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-03-19
DEBATED AT SOME LENGTH
AND WILL COME UP AGAIN THIS
MORNING FOR FURTHER CON-
SHERATON.
WHAT SHALL 1T BE PLACED ATT
Original Draft Provides 8 Cents, Mr..
Jacobson Suggests 8 Cents, Mr..
Schmidt z Cents.

taxation of mines and mineral lands
H. F. COL, introduced by Mr. Reeves.
The bill Is the third in succession pro-
posed by Mr.. Reeves, each aiming to
cover the same purpose and each the
product of a revision Of it's predecessor.
The provisions of the bill under con-
sideration were the division of the
mining lands in the state into two
grand divisions, the first being "oper-
ated mines" and the second mineral
lands"
The bill. as brought before the house,
made no clear distinction between
mining lands" and mines, simply pro-
viding that the mines should be sub
ject to a tonnage tax upon it's out
put and that mineral lands pay taxes
upon their valuation. Mr.. Snyder, Of
Hennepin, was asked by the speaker
to preside
Mr.. Reeves, in the preliminary state
ment upon the bill, said that there
were few minor corrections which he
decided to make in the shape of amend
ments to the bill These amendments
were adopted, then began the battle
royal
The first fight in the consideration Of
the bill came upon a motion of Mr..
Jacobson to more accurately describe
those mines which should be taxed up
on their tonnage basis. The provisions
of the bill as subsequently fixed by the
house, changed section 3, covering the
point, to read as follows:
'All lands within this state which contain
or nave within them or upon them iron Ores
but upon which the business of mining is
not actually conducted in good faith and from
which no iron ore has been mined. sold or
disposed of and shipped therefrom during a
period of one year prior to the first day Of
May preceding, and which are not iron mines
within the description given in section Of
this act are hereby, for the purposes of this
act, defined mineral lands
The motion made by Mr.. Jacobson
was to draw the line at a production
of 1000 tons per year; and he made
strong speech upon this point, saying
also that the tonnage tax was an es-
sential feature, and rather than have
the tonnage tax stricken out of the bill
which would be neceSSitated unless
some line as he suggested was adopted,
he would prefer to have the bill de-
feated
Mr.. Reeves opposed fixing in the bill
any specific amount of production be-
cause he said there was some question
about it's constitutionality. But if a
specific amount was to be placed in the
bill 1t should not be paltry 1000 tons
which would give an income of only
$3.50, but it should be $4,000 tons.
Mr.. Jacobson said he was not quail
fled to speak as a lawyer, but he would
risk the legality, and as for the pro-
duction required to make the tonnage
tax operative he thought $4,000 tons
too high. Mr.. Douglas agreed with Mr..
Jacobson upon the proposition stated
and said the courts had repea teddy de-
cided that the Legislature had the right
to make classificatiOnS suggested Mr..
Schmidt was opposed to the tonnage
classification because he said it would
invalidate the law. In his speech,
which was a general argument against
the bill, he said that the independent
mine owners, the small producers,
would be the chief sufferers from the
classification and tonnage tax.
Mr.. Reeves insisted that Mr. Schmidt
had told the committee on taxes, be-
fore which the matter was considered.
that there were no independent mine
owners, all the mines being controlled
by Rockefeller and the Minnesota Iron
company.
After a general discussion covering
many features Mr.. Reeves consented to
compromise at 10000 tons annual pro-
duction, suggested by Mr.. Jacobson,
which was agreed to without further
comment.
The next fight came upon the motion,
made by Mr.. Laybourn, to strike out
section 4, which provides for the tom
mage tax. Mr.. Laybourn made a COM
prehensive presentation of the subject
from his standpoint He said mining
land should be taxed like any other
property, that is upon it's assessed val
uation. The tonnage tax was unfair
that the assessments upon the mines
would not be fair, but could not the
board of equalization adjust the mat
ter? He wanted to assure the house
that f1ve-siXths of the $4,000 people of
st. Louis county were opposed to the
tonnage tax.
Henry Johns was also opposed to the
tonnage tax. Mr.. Donnelly made a
speech in opposition to the amendment.
Mr.. Reeves again spoke on the tonnage
tax. He said he had at one time be-
lieved in the taxation upon the valua-
ton as all that was necessary; now he
insisted that there must be a tonnage
tax. That was certain in it's opera
ton whereas the valuation tax was a
lottery. He spoke of the power of the
two great iron mining companies to
dictate the election Of the assessors and
their power to crush out any protesting
independent operators.
Mr.. Vail spoke against the tonnage
tax. He is the mayor Of Ely and
comes from the heart of the iron
fields. Mr.. Schmidt made a speech re-
viewing the history of iron mining in
St. Louis county and the growth of Du-
luth. Mr.. Feig spoke in favor Of the
tonnage tax A general desultory de-
bate followed and then a call Of the
house was ordered.
An informal recess was taken. and
when the house took the vote there
were q votes for striking out the tom
mage tax section and rs against The
passage of this amendment would have
killed the bill; the vote showed that the
bill has a fair chance Of passage in
some amended form.
The original draft Of the bill fixed the
tonnage tax at cents, but this is con-
coded by nearly all as too high. Mr.
Jacobson moved to reduce the tax to
amend making it cents a ton, and Mr..
Vail presented an amendment making
it 8 cents a ton. 1t was evident that
there was no chance of getting to-
gether before midnight, so the house
adjourned to take up the special order
Immediately after converting in the
morning.
COMMITTEE REPORTS.
Crimes and Punishment
S. F. 294 CThompson)-To prevent riotous
or disorderly conduct. Indefinitely postponed
Adopted, reconsidered and the bill placed up
on general orders with H. +. 525
S. F. IA Dunn)-To compel prisoners in
village and township jails TO perform manual
labor. To pass as amended. Adopted.
II. F. GIG (Johns1-To amend the penal code