The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-02-13

A brief hearing was given the live
stock and the building and loan interests.
The remainder Of the morning was taken
by General Childs.
Live stock interests were represented
by J. J. Furlong, of Austin, president of
the Minnesota Live Stock Breeders As
ISOLATION. and DR.. J. C. Curryer, of st.
Paul, a director Of the State Agricultural
society. They made a plea for fine stock
breeding, which is just beginning to pros
per in Minnesota They urged that the
taxation of imported stock at its full
value would discourage the industry,
which in most countries is especially en-
couraged by the government.
b. and L. Interests; Presented.
Judge f. G. Harvey Of Minneapolis ap-
peared ON behalf of the building and loan
associations. He protested against the
requirements for listing the assets of
such companies, and asked that an amend
ment be attached explicitly stating what
shall be "bills rayable. which are de-
Quoted from the gross assets. He believed
that the failure to do this had been an
oversight.
Childs Speaks for. the Bill.
H. w. Childs, of the tax commission,
then read a carefully prepared defense of
the commissions report, particularly re-
lating to the constitutional amendments.
In beginning, he explained that the propo-
sitton for getting at the franchises of pup
lie service corporations only established q
basis for assessment and did not require
this basis to be used in levying the tax.
! General Childs said:
The attitude of the commission with respect
| to constitutional amendments is not clearly
| understood We had first to draw a code in
accordance with the present constitution, and
| to recommend system Of taxation, with
| constitutional IN jnfr
] effect.
II The commission did not undertake. 20 oGt-
! line policy that would be generally ac-
cepted. It takes time to popularize the most
! meritorious policies. Taxation is not new
| subject. There are fey systems that have not
been debated up and down, tried and cast
aside. in the worlds history.
/ 1t is presupposed that the present system
is unjust, or there would not be an attempt
to change. Certain interests have escaped
paying their share. They are opposed to a
tchange and those who want it are divided
over remedy.
The commission faced the question boldly.
and took stand for the taxation of incomes
and the exemption of credits.
4 Personally / am not hopeful for a change
in our constitution. The prospects are not
inviting. Prejudice and ignorance united
against it, and the prospect is slight that any
amendment can receive majority of the en-
tire vote at the rext election. for several
years to come.
Is it true that at the time of election there
will be the same unanimity of sentiment re-
garding the taxation Of incomes as seems to
prevail now? I doubt it. Have conditions
; changed? No. What was true in 1901 Is true
now. You.~votedy then for change. The
necessity is as great now as then. Why ic it
that the cry is so vociferous for postpone
ment of all tax legislation? Why is it that
the state is being flooded with unsigned cir
culars to inflame the prejudice of our rural
population? Never was there greater libel
, than this spread by these pamphlets, that
the commission has repudiated its own bill.
We do believe in an income tax, when the
time shall be ripe for it. We believe in q
change in the taxation Of credits, when the
Il people demand it, and make it possible. In
our report we stated that in our belief the
system proposed was a great improvement
over the present. No candid comment can
charge us with repudiating the law.
/, Minnesota has. the same opportunity she
: has always had. What is wanting is public
: sentiment. Had the power would con-
ivene in this chamber a constitutional con-
vention within six months. That is impos-
sible If the legislature called in extra ses-
sion this winter should declare itself unable
: to handle this question, might not the regular
5 session of next year, with its multitude OF
, duties, take the same ground? The problem
should not be laid aside.
General Childs then took I'D the con-
| stftutiOnal amendments in detail, defend
ing the county option principle, and the
, system of leaving exemptions to the legis-
lature.
''If 1T is not deemed WISE he said. "to
leave the question so open, but to specify
: in the constitution what classes OF prop
! erty shall be exempted you may add them
by amending the sections we have pro-
posed, and we will submit to your jud2-
ment.
New House Bills.
H. F. 20, Roberts-Proposing amendments
to article of the constitution Judiciary.
4 H. F. "a, Schwarg-Amending the act of
. 1901, providing for the appropriation Of 5000
r ! to aid in building a wagon road in the town
s of Fairmont, Dodge county. Passed under
S suspension Of the rules.
e H. F. rs, O'Neill-Applying the proceeds OF
t certain timber sold from Itasca state park to
e the park fund. Committee on reception OF
r bills
9 H. r. %, Disseminating the bridge APP
preparation bill of 1901, to cure an error in
: Murray county Passed under suspension Of
Q the rules.
e II. F. 81. Notwithstanding certain sherfhs
al certificates of sale. Referred to committee on
c reception of bills.
. H. +. %, Misunderstanding for the
: taxation Of foreign corporations doing busl-
/ ness in Minnesota Taxes and tax laws.
s H. F. 20, Alford-Legalizing the changing OF
t names of corporations in certain cases. Re
e ferred to committee on reception of bills