The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-03-01

The Jacobson tax bill passed the house
at lis yesterday afternoon by the over
whelming vote Of "a to Is.
1t was band wagon vote, and does not
give correct idea Of the relative
strength OF the two sides. At least
dozen of the affirmative votes came III
order to patch up records, voters feal1z"
ing that the bill was carried, and there
was no use voting against 1t.
The Intentions of the house were once
more indicated by the vote, however AT
least 70 Of the votes for the bill were cast
by sincere friends of tax reform. III
one sense, the passage Of the bill was
q great personal victory for ). r.
jacobson. The time was ripe, however.
for the passing of bill to reach the great
corporations and the mines, and no 1orce
could have stopped 1t In the mouse Ses. o.
day. Republican members felt that the
success or failure Of the session depended
on the passage of this bill, and though
many Of them disagreed with some OF lts
details, they sunk their objections ana
voted for the bill in an almost soma
phalanx. There were only nineteen re-
publicans and six democrats voting in the
negative, while sixty-nlne republicans ana
fifteen democrats supported It.
The bill went through with just one
amendment That was tackled on by MT.
Jacobson himself. An error In drawing
the bill had left out provision Tor ols-
tributing the ore tax to towns ana VI
lagos, and this was inserted. Mr.. WHIT
| ford's amendments reducing the commits
| sion from three to one lost by rather
! narrow margin.
T. jacobson Avoided Battle.
Mr.. jacobson never appeared to better
| advantage He was master OF the sltua-
| ton every minute, and members OF tne
house felt his power as they never 1au
! before He neatly foiled cunn1ngly de-
vised scheme to delay vote ana De1os
| the issue yesterday afternoon
! This incident came as natural sequei
| to the attack on State Auditor Dunn yes
| terday morning. The state Official was
| burning to reply, and opponents OF the
bill. knowing his influence in the house,
and the strength OF his argument
| against the tonnage tax, sought to get MIN
| a. chance to address the house. Ihey
| knew it would start row, and that was
| their design They believed it would ere
ate dissension among supporters OF tne
| bill, and stave off a vote until to-day.
The debate was finished and the mouse
ready for vote, when w. w. Dunn OF
Ramsey. Mr.. Laybourn's parliamentary
team mate, took the floor. He stated that
the gentleman from Lac qui Parle had
made an attack on the state auditor Ina'
attack was based on an interview IN one
of the morning papers. AS that lntervle"
stated Mr.. Dunn's position, he asked tna'
it be read 1t was called OIL from tnt
clerks desk.
Mr.. Laybourn then moved recess o.
fifteen minutes, in order to give Mr.. Dunn
! an opportunity to reply TO the jacobson
attack.
The man from Lac qui Parle saw 1t al
in a flash. He said:
when the gentleman from st. LOU
| H. ,,oS3 Ok
State Auditor Dunn, he states what IS no
true, I did not make an attack on him
When I reviewed the record Of the stat
auditor | stated what was absolutel,
true. have as high a regard for him
the gentleman from st. Louis. county:
have fought shoulder to shoulder with hin
before and expect to do so again. be
ueye we are ready to vote on this bill
now, and as substitute motion | NOV
the previous question:.
''That shows the high-handed method
which always characterize the author
this BILL retorted Mr.. Laybourn. III
admits the weakness of his case when b
refuses to give the state auditor near
ing"
1--WE are going to vote this bill up {
down to-day said Mr.. Jacobson. ''Yo
beat us once by adjournment, but yo
lcant do it again. AS to State Audltt
Dunn, the gentleman cannot succeed
making trouble between us here. We wi
settle our hash outside this house
Mr.. Laybourn then protested again
cutting off debate.
Il have no desire to prevent any men
Der of this house from talking on Il
bill" declared Mr.. Jacobson. '1f Il
gentleman will withdraw his motion,
will withdraw mine
o. The compromise was accepted, al
re nothing more was heard Of the contr
rs versy. Mr.. Laybourn entered into a st
n. tistical, argument showing that the o
a : tax was unjust.
It's A "Pocket Borough"
r Mr. Roberts followed him and declar
dramatically: Right there is where t