The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-02-11

The constitutional amendments sub
mitted by the tax commission are sched-
uled for an unfriendly reception by the
Judiciary committee of the house, to
whose tender mercies they have been con-
signed.
This section of the tax commission re-
port was referred to a joint commit ee,
consisting of the committee on taxes and
tax laws and the judiciary committee. The
former committee has its hands full, and
will probably turn the amendments over
to the judiciary, which will take them up
in a few days. This course was followed
in the senate yesterday.
Members of this committee are already
preparing amendments. Some of them are
in line with the suggestion of State Audit
or Dunn, who is opposed to the amend
ments drawn by the commission. He does
not want to see the matter of exemptions
left wholly to the judgment of successive
legislatures, but would have the constitu-
tion state the exemptions in explicit
terms, and submit the questions to the
people.
Some Important Substitutes.
Sections will be proposed as substitutes
to those drawn by the tax commission.
They will provide among other things, for
a tonnage tax on iron ore, for an income
| tax, and for the exemption of mortgages.
They will provide for fee of half cent
per hundred on all mortgages when regis
tered, which will catch those held by non
residents, and will not be burden upon
| any.
The committee may also undertake to
| revise Section II of Article 8, which pro-
! vldes for the taxation of telegraph and
! telephone companies, express companies.
etc.
| The constitutional convention bills is
also in the hands OF this commit.
There is disposition on the part O.
some friends of the tax bill to shy at the
constitutional convention. They suspec
that the bill is a scheme for sidetrackins
| tax legislation. This is strenuousl,
denied. Even if the constitutional con
[vention carries now. it will take fv,
years to get the new constitution in effect
and no one is going to claim that tai
legislation should wait so long. Nor doe
! a constitutional convention interfere witt
the proposed amendments. Sherman
Smith, author of the convention bill, say
| and is also in favor OF tax bill, if tn,
friends of the new bill make the neces.
sary changes.
Chances for a Convention.
The principal objection raised to the
constitutional convention comes from the
| senators who have consistently turned
the proposition down three times. They
say cit won't carry" and point to the
| attempt of 1896. At that time there were
342,752 votes cast, and on the proposition
| shall there be a constitutional conven-
| tion?" there were 96,S0S votes in the
affirmative and 70,56S in the negative. 1,
| was necessary then. as now, to get a
majority of all the votes cast but at that
time less than half the voters marked
their ballots either yes or mo" on the
proposition.
This was the principal argument used
| by senator's in the legislature of 1899
when the house passed the bill and the
senate defeated it. Last winter Senator
Wilson introduced 1t in the upper house
where it lost by one vote. two-thirds
| being required. Later it was started in
the house by James A. Peterson and
passed unanimously, with 1O1 votes re-
corded in it's favor. In the senate it lost
| by vote of "a to 30.
It was then understood that the opposi-
ton to the bill came from certain cor
porates interests. which feared that new
constitution would put their interests
under greater burdens. These same in
terests see In the new tax bill greater
immediate danger, and would welcome the
constitutional convention. Now thai
their opposition is concentrated on the
bill. friends OF constitutional revision
lhope to get the proposition before the