New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1902-02-05
Wednesday, February 5th, 1902.
The New Tax Bill.

The legislature convened yesterday t.
consider the new tax bill. 1t is the ear
nest wish of the Review that they fail t.
pass the measure. It is too little under
stood. and while all confidence rests il
the legislators, the people should hav'
time to study the measure. There is ont
thing about it in its relation to the farm
err that must not be passed upon too
lightly. s~ ->-
The bankers have met aud considered
the bill and doubtless have recommend
ed what changes they want. The farmers
have been doing their winter chores ane
at night have lighted their pipes anc
spent an hour or so in speculation upor
the cares of the farm and the household
and then retired. Who is to look ou
for their interests? Representative Peter.
son is sent there from this county fol
that purpose.
Will their part in the bill be brought
out and their interests looked after
That is the question. Mr.. Peterson will
no doubt do his best but can the com.
prehens1veness of the report be properly
measured in so short timeg
No man can in few weeks digest and
properly value the work it required three
men a whole year to complete, and so
we say the time is too short.
There is one thing however that shows
up more plainly than any other: 1t is
the taxation of wheat and other farm
property. The time of assessing is
changed from May to April 1. This
means that the wheat sold during the
winter months will be assessed 81 cents
per bushel in the Duluth elevators, as
navigation does not open until after that
date. The elevator men certainly will
pay this tax--but it will come out OF the
pockets of the producer just the same.
At the present rate of taxation with wheat
at rs cents per bushel the farmer would
get but 724 cents for his wheat. If it
happened to be old wheat which he held
over from last year he is paying heavy
double tax.
The market price of any grain pur-
chased in this state for storage within its
limits until April l would necessarily be
effected by this tax of 8 per cent upon
it. If held within the state the farmers
having grain to sell could only sell at the
reduced price. Of course the way 1t
would work would he that all grain that
could possibly be- shipped out the state
before April would &c sent 20 elevators
outside the state. But all grain held for
milling purposes in Minnesota would be
subject to this tax, with corresponding
effect on the prices the farmer would re-
ceive for his grain.
But if the farmers have disposed of
all their grain except what they lave re-
tanned for seed before April they will
have turned it into money and if they
hold this money they have got to list it
under penalty of fine and Imprisonment
if they fail to do so.
Then again, according to the state
auditors report the average value of
farm lands throughout the state for
1900, as equalized 10y the state board,
was $7.25 an acre. Taking such popu-
lous and we'll cultivated counties, for ex:
ample as Fillmore, Mower, Olmstead
and Rice, farm lands will generally CON-
mand price of from $40 to $50 an
acre. They are assessed in the order
named at $11.69, $12 48, $3.50 and
$12.76 per acre. In Brown county they
are rated at $3.50; Rock, S8.45; Swift,
$5.26. Their selling value is at least
three times this. So of personal prop
erty. The average assessed value of one
year-old horses in 1900 was .$1O.33; of
two years old, $16.18; of three years
and over, 1855. OF yearllng cattle,
$6.13; two years, 1854; cows, $12.95,
working oxen, $3.50; all other cattle
of three years and over, 1891 Sheep.
1856. Hogs, $2,18. It IS needless to
say that these valuations would belmore
than trebled under law which COM
PEELED their return under oath at their
true cash value or selling value, and 40
with farm implements and machinery Of
all kinds.
These figures do not need to scare
anybody for 1t is we'll known that the
state does not levy the tax beyond the
amount required to transact its busi-
ness and the more there is to tax the