The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-03-20

mined ore and the method by which
IT would be taxed for the purpose Of
bringing out that the mine owners
could evade taxation by allowing the
mines to remain unoperated.
Messrs. Jacobson and Meyers argued
that few mine owners could afford, or
would seek to avoid payment OF taxes
by allowing their property to remain
unproductiye any more than would q
railroad company keep down its earn
tngs to decrease the tax made upon
them.
not the province of any member to
punish by tax, any person, company
or corporation. He favored the plan Of
taxation upon assessed valuation, but
believed that If a tonnage tax must be
put in effect, 1t should be something
between 8 and cents. Eve cents, he
considered too high. After some con-
siderable Wrangling, recess was taken
until 2:30
The afternoon session was begun by
call of the house, and it was nearly
3 o'clock before the discussion was re-
Sumed.
Mr.. Feig was the first to take the
moor. He spoke about the attitude of
State Auditor Dunn upon the main
feature of the BILL the tonnage tax,
saying that he was opposed entirely
to any tonnage tax
Judge Hicks asked 10 be permitted to
make a statement in this connection
which was granted, IN which he said
that Mr.. Dunn wished to say to the
legislature that he was not in favor of
or opposed to any bill. that he was
ready to do his whole duty, no matter
which bill was passed.
Mr.. Fefg resumed his argument say
ing that 1t was nevertheless true that
the state auditor was opposed to the
tonnage tax. He followed this with a
speech against the bill. upon the
ground that the provisions were too
burdensome. He pointed out the incon-
sistency between the two methods of
taxation, tonnage tax and valuation
tax, and the impossibility Of carrying
out the provisions Of the proposed law.
SO ne was opposed to the bill. Mr..
jacobson asked him how it was that
he had spoken for the tonnage tax last
evening and against it today, but he
explained that his vote was for the
purpose of having a fair discussion of
the bill.
Mr.. Grondahl followed with a speech
for the bill, in which he pointed out
the fact that the opponents Of the bill
were against it for the most incompat-
ible reasons. Mr. Dahl had opposed it
because it was not high enough, Mr..
Feig opposed it for the reason that 1t
was too burdensome for the mining
companies, and Mr.. Stockwell opposed
the tonnage tax because it was not
in accord with his ideas on the single
tax. He said he was going to vote for
the bill, although he seemed to think
that the bill would not become law.
Mr.. Schmidt was the next to take the
floor making general argument
against the tonnage tax going over
practically the same arguments which
had previously been made by himself
and other opponents of the bill.
Mr.. Douglas made a summing up ar
gument in favor of the bill admitting
that Mr. Schmidt had made some
strong arguments for the defeat of the
bill, still he was convinced that upon
the whole the bill was right and, If 1t
was not 1t would only be two years
until it could be corrected.
Mr.. Staples also spoke for the bill.
He said the mining companies were
willing to pay a tonnage tax Of four
cents. which indicates to him that they
could probably pay q tax doubly as
great. He repeated some of the conven-
tional arguments for the bill and then
the roll call began. The bill was de-
feated by vote Of Sc to so, but Mr.
Staples changed his vote from the af-
firmative to the negative in order to
move a reconsideration
The vote was as follows:
For the bill: