The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1901-03-24
NN RICHMOND N FIELD
LAYBOURN, OF DULUTH, TAKES
WHIRh AT GROSS EARN
INGS TAX
WANTS STATE TO DIVIDE IT
All but Ten Per Cent to he Equit-
ably AppOrtiOned Among Diff
ferent Counties, Cities,
and Villages.

Representative Laybourn, of Duluth,
who has been the leading opponent In the
house of the Jacobson gross earnings
bill, introduced a measure yesterday up
on which he has been working for a
long time, (which relates to the gross
earnings tax of railroads without either
increasing or diminishing them. The bill
embodies a system of distribution of the
taxes throughout the various counties
in the state, which the author believes
will prove beneficial to the people gen.
orally and satisfactory to the railroads.
While not dealing with the tax In g.
manner similar to that of the Jacobson
bill, Mr. Laybourn's measure will. COL
Iaterally, have very decided effect
upon the former. The bill serves to in
diligently express the Duluthian's rea-
sons for opposing the Jacobson bill. He
has long contemplated such a measure,
believing that it's purpose IS of vastly
more interest and value &C. - taxpayers
of the state than the object sought in tho
gross earnings bill.
The Laybourn measure provides for a
change in the disposition of the gross
earnings tax which is now collected hI
the state and retained In full as a state
fund The proceeds are applied to the
various state institutions and for such
other state needs as the law prescribeA
The bill just introduced would divide this
revenue, allowing the state to retain only
10 per cent of the tax collected The
other 80 per cent 1t proposes shall be
divided among the various counties in
corporated cities, villages and townships.
A basis Of distribution Is provided which
| the author Of the bill maintains Is equit-
| able and just. The method proposed is
simply this: That each county shall
receive an amount of the money in the
same proportion to the total taxes paid,
| less the 10 per cent, as the value of the
railway property in each county is to
the total valuation in the state.
To carry this principle into effect the
| state railroad and warehouse commits
sion shall fix and determine. the railroad
| valuations In each county or municipal
| ity, including all the property employed
| in the conduct of the railroad. The
| values fixed by the commission shall be
final. The commission is to file it's re-
port each year on the 1st Of June with
| the state auditor, and the latter is to
| make the apporttonment Of the taxes.
The Introduction of the bill at this
| stage of the legislative proceedings nat
| uralIy causes it to be considered in con-
nection with the Jacobson gross earn
| ings bill and attracts considerable at
| tent1on to it as a rival measure Of the
| one over which so much disturbance has
| been created. While the provisions Of
! the Laybourn bill have no direct refer
| ence to the Jacobson measure, contem-
| plating wholly different object, 1t Will.
no doubt, have some effect In determining
| the fate of the former bill
| TAX HIGH ENOUGH.
| Mr. Laybourns view has been
| throughout that the gross earnings tax
| is already high enough and that the only
| deficiency which needs to be corrected
! is the manner In which the taxes are
! applied or disposed OF. He maintains
! that with the present ratezof taxation,
| 8 per cent, the proceeds derived thereby,
| if properly distributed, will be entirely
| adequate and just.
! It does not require "a great deal OF
| thought to understand what the effects
/ OF the Laybeurn bill will be to. the
| cities and large terminal centers of the
state, but the question OF benefits may
| not be quite as clearly defined when 1t
comes to the country districts. The con-
tention will arise that the distribution
! under this system would not be fair to
| the. smaller places where the railroad IN
terests are light, since their proportion
/ of the receipts would be very small,
| whereas the larger centers would get the
| lions share of the money and thereby
reap all the benefits of the. new law.
Upon this theory 1t Is safe 20 say that
| the Dill will not meet With a very en-
| thusiastic reception by the country mem
bers, but must depend for it's support
| upon the cities where the railroads have
| extensive terminals and other heavy
| holdings. Duluth, st. Paul and Minneap-
oils will no doubt be friends Of the meas
| ure.
Mr.. Laybourn admits that there would
| be this difference in the apportionment
to the various counties, but he submits
| that it would not represent such a gross
injustice after all, since the smaller
places, whose receipts from the taxes
collected would be small, would likewise
not be made to pay but q slight proper
ton Of the taxes as compared with the
terminal points. He thinks the measure
| for this reason, is fair.
State Auditor Dunn expresses a view
| adverse to the bill. He inclines to the
| opinion that the present disposition OF
the taxes thus collected would not be
improved upon by the method proposed
by Mr. Laybourn. AS a matter Of fact
| all the taxes are retained by the state
now and applied to the maintenance OF
| its Institutions. The auditor believes
| that the system advocated by this bill
would work an injustice to the less pop
ulace counties that would come In fol
very inconsiderable portion OF the
| fund.