The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1900-12-04
IN NATIONAL SUP1lMl COURT
STATE CAN'T COLLECT LAND TAX
AND GROSS EARNINGS
AS WELL
FORMER LAW Is A CONTRACT
Decision Was Unanimous, Though
the Justices Did Not Agree as
to Their Grounds
TherefOr.

WASHINGTON, Dec. 3.-The supreme
court has knocked out the Anderson law
on constitutional grounds. The case is
sremanded Tor a new trial in Stearns
county.
The decision is victory for the North
ern Pacific. the ST. Paul & Duluth and
subsidiary lines, but does not include the
Great Northern.
The court was unanimous.
The case came to this court on error to
the supreme court of the state of Min
nesota. 1t was brought up at the in
stance of certain railroad companies, and
involved the question of whether real es-
tate belonging to them not used in the
operation Of their roads is subject to tax
alton according to it's value, or is ex-
cepted by virtue of a contract alleged to
have been made several years ago
through legislation by the state, providing
that railroad companies should pay s
per cent on their gross earnings in Leu
Of taxes on all property.
The taxes of the ST. Paul & Duluth
railway company were Immediately in
Volved in this case.
The case also included the question of
the validity OF the Minnesota law of 1895,
repeating the f0rmer contract law and
seeking to separate the lands of rail-
roads from their other property for pur-
poses of taxation, still retaining the per
C6llI LAX Oh gross earnings.
ACT is WORTHLESS.
The effect of today's opinion is to hold
the law of 1855 invalid.
In passing upon the case the court neld
that the state had peen admitted to the
sisterhood of states under the usual en-
pact. and that as long as the title of its
lands remains III the United States those
lands are exempt from taxation So far
as the land involved in this case is con-
cerncd, it was stated that it had been
granted to the state by congress and by
the state to the st. Paul & Duluth COM
pany. Soon afterwards, the Justice con-
tinued, the state had enacted legislation
providing that railroads in the state
should pay s per cent on their gross earn
ings in lieu of all other taxes upon their
property.
The opinion by Justice Brewer sustain
ed the view that the original legislation
was in the nature of a contract, which
was binding and which could not be in
validated by the act of 1895, seeking to
repeal it. This latter act, therefore, was
pronounced repugnant to the federal con-
sUtutOn and void in this respect
Justices Harlan, Gray, Brown, White
and McKenna concurred in the result.
but did not agree with their colleagues
as to the grounds on which the cone 'uston
was reached. Justice Brewer read the
decision.
OF GREAT IMPORTANCE.
G. w. Bum, attorney for the Northern
Pacific railway, was seen last night by
reporter Of the G l 0 e, and in refer
ence to the above decision said:
1T is a long story, and 1 cannot now
go into the history of the case rs fully
as 1 would like to. 1t has been a most
important case. one involving a very
large sum Of money, and the supreme
court Of the United States has sustained
the position taken by the railroad COM
panies interested, the Great Northern ana
the st. Paul & Duluth, on every point at
issue.
what is known as the Anderson law
was first brought before the state legis-
lature under the name of the Markham
bill in 1893. 1t was defeated at that ses-
sion. but two years later was re-introduc-
ed by August Anderson. of Chisago coun-
ty, and was passed in the house The SEN
ate also passed it by a majority of one
vote and at the next election It was en-
dorsed by the pople. The railway COM
panies party to the action just decided,
never paid the money due under the as
sessments provided for in the new law
It SO happened that the bill passed the
senate by this scant majority after SEN
ator Frank A. Day had succeeded to
the presidency Of the senate on the pro-