Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1902-03-06
TO THE PUBLIC.

But it seems that it is being circulat-
ed around the district that voted with
the railroad companies. This [ deny.
There were two bills introduced in
the legislature by the Tax Commission
on railroad taxation-Nos. 164 A. and
165 A. The same bills we're introduced
in both houses and referred to the
committee on assessment and collection
of taxes.
I voted for 1874 and against 165 in the
committee
No. 1854 is what is called the ad va
loren bill and provided for taxing
railroad property by direct tax-that
is, assessing the rolling stock, right OF
way, buildings, track and all other
property of the companies in the same
way that all other property is assessed
and taxed. This is the bill [ favored,
voted and worked for, believing it to
be the only proper way any property
should be taxed.
The other bill was No. 165 and pro-
vided that the railroad companies pay
taxes on what is called the license fee
system-that is, pay a certain per cent
on their gross earnings. For instance,
if you ship a car of stock from Fennl-
more to Milwaukee and pay $50 freight
on it, the company would get 9415 per
cent and the state 81 per cent or n
other words the state would get Sl.75
and the company S28.25. But suppose
the railroad company raised their
freight rates and charged $32 for trans
porting the car of stock, then the state
would get $1.76 and the company
$3O.24. OF course, the state would get
more tax but who would pay it? The
man who raised the stock, of course
Why? Because Wisconsin has no law
regulating freight rates. | do not
know that the companies would raise
the freight rates but | do know they
could do it and no doubt would. But
some ma say, why was there not a law
passed to regulate freight rates? Well
why not? That is the question: All
states adjoining ours have such a law.
I introduced a bill No. SO A., which was
an exact cop of the Illinois law regu-
lating freight rates, and what became
of itSs Tt got only 40 votes. Hon. A.
r. Hall introduced a good bill, No. 70
A., regulating freight rates and it got
"a votes. My vote was n OF them.
There were petitions from all over the
state from manufacturers asking their
members of the legislature to vote
against bills No. So and IS; that if they
passed, the said manufacturers could
not get cut rates.
But how would this affect the farmer
if he had an $4,000 farm and paid $500
more freight next year and S2OO less
taxi I fail to see where he could de-
rive my profit. I will admit that to a
man living in the city and paying taxes
on an $4,000 residence it might make no
difference If freight was higher and
taxes lower.
Another reason [ am against the Ii
cense fee system or bill No. 165 is, the
companies assess themselves to at least
a great extent. They pay a certain per
cent on just what money they claim to
have received from the business done
within the state for the year. For in
stance, a car of stock is shipped from
Bridgeport to Chicago and the stock is
run across the river and down through
Iowa and Illinois; what does this state
get? Nothing hardly, for the railroads
paw their taxes in Iowa and Illinois on
the ad valorem plan, as they do IN
nearly all the states except Wisconsin
and Minnesota; and in Minnesota they
have always paid 3 per cent on their
gross earnings until last winter when
their legislature passed a law raising 1t
to 4 per cent, the same as they have
been and are now paying in this state.
But Minnesota has a law regulating
freight rates. Wisconsin is about the
| only state that taxes railroad cOmpa-
MES on the license fee system and
about the only n that has no law
regulating freight rates.
This state. like all other states, has
a law saving that the companies can
not charge to exceed a certain sum for
carving passengers but seems to think
it is all right for them to charge what
thew please to haul freight. We now
! pay 19 cents per cwt. for hogs and Ii
cents per cwt. for cattle from here to
Milwaukee and the same price to Chi
cago. How would it do to make the
companies pay 10 per cent on thel
gross earning for taxes and let them
charge us SO cents per cwt. for hogs
and 40 cents per cwt. for cattle? Sup
pose, furthermore, the capitol or any
of the state buildings should be de
stroyed by fire or otherwise and it
would require a heavy tax to rebuild
them-how much would the railroad
property have to pay? Nothing, because
thew are not assessed and pay 4 per
cent. on what they arm
am opposed to the license fee syss-
tenn and that is why I voted for 1874,
the advalorem bill, and against 165, the
license fee bill, in the committee. The
tax commissioners, in making their ar,
guments, before the committee claimed
that Bill 1874, the ad valorem bill, would
bring more revenue to the state than
Bill 1875, the license fee bill, and the
attorneys for the railroad companies
in their argumencs before the com
mittee said they preferred Bill 165, the
license fee bill, on account OF it being
an easier way for them to pay their
tax; that when business was good they
would have to pay more to the state,
and when poor not SO much; and if the
ad valorem bill passed it would drag
them into politics to protect them
selves for fear the tax commissioners
might be unduly prejudiced against
them and assess their property too
high. They also opposed No. l65 and