The Saint Paul globe., 1899-03-28

49, q
ana & per sr cent gross earnings tax, which
says; Such payment shall be in lieu
OF al taxes and in full for all claims
OF the state for the grants made to such
company, and In consideration of such
annual payments the said company shall
De forever exempt from all assessments
aha ahi. taxes whatsoever upon their fran
The provision in that regard In chapter
| 3, special Lawsso 1865. relative to the st.
Paui q Pacific railroad and branches, Is
THAT in consideration Of the annual pay
| ment OF perItcentum as provided in
this SECTION, by said corporation as afore-
SAID; the railroad, its appurtenances, ap-
pendages and all lother property, estate
and effects OF sisaid corporation, which
| by the provision of this act contained,
shall benand hereby are forever
exempt from all taxation and from all
| assessments
The provisions In the respective acts re-
| lat1ng to the other companies are identi-
above, that these new acts passed by the
legislature In 1856 were intended and did,
| IN fact, obrozate the provisions of the
.erT1t6riai teri tors charters and take their place;
| acted upon by the several companies as
| Indicated. for not one of the companies
| ever paid more than l per cent durine
| the hrst three years after the construc-
| ton of the road, 2 per cent during the
next seven-year period and 8 per cent
thereafter. You will note that these
1t was evidently intended that they should
| REGARDED AS CONTRACTS
between the state and the railroad COM
panies upon that subject, but, fortunate
ed the the from or 'en into any
contract upon that subject which a sub
sequent legislature could not change or
modify aa as the he circumstanees I and 1ustlce
court said, in the case of State vs..
Stearns, 75 Northwestern Reporter page
ZIG: For we place our decision that the
statutes nnder which the railroad COM
! panies claim did not constitute 1rrevoca-
BILE contracts between them and the state
that their lands shall never be taxed as
other land is taxed by the state, upon the
broad ground that when the statutes Were
enacted they were unconstitutional. Such
statutes were in violation of article y,
paragraphs l and Of the constitution"
And then the court goes on to say that
although those statutes passed by the
legislature subsequent to the adoption
of the constitution were unconstitutional
at the time of their passage they were
made valid by the constitutional amend
ment of 1871, upon which you are familiar.
The Pareher case referred to !, IN n, thls d1l
cussions upon the subject has been glib
ly quoted as an authority for the PROPOSE
ton that the odd land grant companies
who held territorial charters were not
subject to any Legislation changing the
gross earnings tax. If that decision, Is
carefully examined, it will be seen that
it does not purport to lay down any such
doctrine. By reference to the summary
at the end of the case it will be seen
that it
DECIDES ONLY TWO POINTS.
First, that the company was a corpora
ton and authorized to sue and be sued
as such. Second that 1t was, authorized
to hold it's land grant exempt from tax
alton until the lands were disposed OF.
This case arose upon demurrer to the
inf hrnr 1phf N,
against the county treasurer OF Wright
county to enjoin him from enforcing
taxes upon some of the company's lands.
By the complaint in that action the COM
pany alleged the formation Of a railroad
company by special act passed by the
territorial Legislature in 1857, and that it
chises of that old corporation through
various acts of the state legislature. 1t
also set out the provisions of the original
act IN regara @ 20 tna5 nd
was entitled to hold Its lands free from
taxation by reason of having paid the
gross earnings tax as provided for IN the
/ reference to the act of March 2, 1865, be-
| ing chapter of the Special Laws of that
| year by which the land grant to the
company had been increased from six to
ten sections per mile and by which a
new law relative to the taxation OF Its
property had been enacted and .subst1-
| tuted in place Of the provisions of the
| that the taxes which had been paid upon
gross earnings had been paid under the
| provisions Of sthe territorial charter, in
fact. - -
The defendant demurred to the com
| plaint and by demurring to it, as Is we'll
| understood by all lawyers, he admitted
| the truth of the statements as set out
| VIZ, that the company had been incorpo
rated by the territorial legislature. and
that 1t was subject to taxation and had
paid taxes under the provisions Of the
original territorial act. Upon
a1JA THIS STATE OF FACTS
| the court very properly held that the
| land was exempt, inasmuch as the COM
pany was liable to the payment of gross
|. earnings tax and had paid that tax. You
| viii, therefore, see that this case was a
clear case of 'raping' the court and max
| ing it pass judgment on state of facts
| which never existed. If, instead of de-
| murring to the complaint and thereby ad-
| mitting false allegations, the county
| treasurer had set up the substituted law
| enacted for the benefit of this company,
| the act of March 2, 1865, already quoted,
| and that the railroad company had ac-
| cepted the provisions Of that act and
| were actually peving taxes under 1t and
| not under the old territorial charter Of
! 1857, then the decision of the case would
undoubtedly n5l have ee been =. different. fer
| never said that 1T is not competent for
| the legislature to amend existing laws
| on the subject of railroad taxation. On
|
! cided in the decision under the Anderson
| law quoted above, that 1t might be done.
| In the Traverse county case, 76 North
| western Reporter 217, which is frequent
| ly cited to the contrary, the supreme
| court expressly says: .'The question
| whether the legislation on the subject in
| wolves the element of a contract between
| the defendant or its predecessor and the
state is not necessarily involved and
| need not now be considered" This was
| a case in which it was sought
| TO SUBJECT THE LANDS
! of the st. Paul. Minneapolis & Manitoba
railroad company to taxation, and the
supreme court simply held that so long
| as the present legislation and the con-
| stitutional amendment of 1871 remained in
| force, the lands could not be taxed
| The supreme court has frequently de-
cided that the lands Of the several rail-
| road companies could not be taxed so
| long as the substitute mode of taxation
! authorized and confirmed by the consti-
! tutional amendment of 1S1 remained un-
| changed, but l repeat that there is no
| decision that holds that this system can
not be modified by an act duly adopted
| by a vote of the people. On the CON
trary, it is SO held in the case cited un-
| der the Anderson law
The other questions referred to are
| fully explained in my message
NATIONAL GUARD SUPPLIES.