The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-02-08

the Minneapolis grain interests would
lose IN competition with other states.
The flour mills would be hit in the same
way, and Minneapolis would cease to be
the primary grain market. 1t would be
a serious loss 20 the entire state, as we'll
as Minneapolis
A. c. Loring said he had not dol
lars worth Of interest in mills or ele-
vators He is a receiver for the United
states Flour Milling company which is to
be sold Feb A.
Mr. Loring declared his conviction that
the proposed law would wipe out the mill
ing business in Minneapolis. The milling
interests are world wide. and are affected
by conditions in every section. The Min
neapolls miller gets more for his flour
and pays more for his wheat, than any
other. He does rot protest at paying
1alr taxes. but contends that the pro-
posed law is inequitable and unfair Be-
tween Jan. and July Minneapolis mil
lers have hard time to compete with
other markets, and only make a profit by
continuous operation OF the mills. Shut
ting down mill is daily loss to the
miller and to his employees.
The inequity of the bill is that grain
is not taxed In other states and it dis
eliminates against Minnesota producers
and shippers.
A Discussion of Theories
THE difficulty is" said Mr.. Loring.
that you don't distinguish between an as
set and liability. The grain is bought
on borrowed money, and that liability
should pc set over against the asset Of
the grain :. :
Would you have the same theory apply
to a stock of goods?" asked Mr.. Peter
son.
Il would not have man pay taxes ex-
cept on his free assets Mr.. Loring re-
piled.
"Then if a man owned million dollars
worth OF goods, and owed a million dollars
TOT them, you would not have him pay
any taxes on them, or contribute to the
support of the government
II man made such statement as
that to the assessor, he would lose his
credit and 60 out of business" Mr.. Lor-
ing retorted
''Then if one-half of our citizens were
doing business on borrowed capital, and
the other half On their own money, you
would have one-half pay all the taxes?'
II would have man only pay taxes on
what he owns was Mr.. Loring's closing
statement.
Rome G.. Brown of Minneapolis spoke for
the water power companies of the state.
He said that the bill as it's affects them
would not only result in double taxation
but in taxation contrary to the constitu-
ton. The courts hold that the ownership
Of riparian land carries with 1t the right
to build a dam and develop water power.
The bill would assess such privilege
which is inherentto ownership Of the land,
as franchise. A law taxing such right
as franchise, he maintained, was I'M
constitutional.
Mr. Brown took the position that the
tax commission should have, under the act,
drawn bill in accordance with their
ideas, accompanied by the constitutional
amendments necessary to carry them out.
He deprecated two successive changes in
the method Of taxation. He also asked
that the debt limit of cities be carefully
guarded against extravaganza caused by.
an increased assessment. -.
Mr.. Peterson claimed that the statute
granting water power companies the
right of eminent domain amounted to
franchise. Mr.. Brown replied that there
was no contract, and purely voluntary
proposition. 1t did not, therefore, con-
stitute franchise.
Mr. Ward announced that the State
Bankers association had requested fur
Their hearing on Tuesday for some country
bankers who could not appear sooner.
The request was granted and the commit
tee adjourned. ,.