The Minneapolis journal., 1902-01-27
FAY0RS TAX BILL
Representative Peterson Would Pass
1t as Whole.
OTHER soLoNs FAVOR DELAY
There Is General Opinion, How
ever, In Favor of the
Amendments.

Members Of the legislature do not agree
regarding proper action on the tax bill.
j. A. Peterson, of the Hennepin delega-
tion, comes out strongly in favor of the
measure as whole. Among other mem
bers there seems to be a lack of informa-
tion or disposition to submit the amend
ments and delay action on the bill itself
This appeared from collection of inter
views which were published by the Trib-
une yesterday morning from Hennepin
county members OF the legislature. Pos
sibly a significant thing in connection
with the Tribune,s idea Of a concensus Of
opinion lies in the fact that when Mr.
Peterson was asked for his views on the
tax measure, he made a strong declara-
tion in favor of it. This was given to
the Tribune but was not published with
the OF her interviews. Mr.. Peterson said
in that interview:
Mr. Peterson's views,
We are now working under tax law that
is grossly unjust. 1t catches all the property
of the poor and lets the wealthy escape
Under our present system a laboring man
must pay outrageously high tax on his
home, while wealthy corporations that pay
large dividends almost entirely escape. Within
the last ten years in the city Of Minneapolis
q large number Of tracts Of real estate have
practically been confiscated by the high taxes
levied. business man who engages in a
manufacturing or mercantile enterprise suf-
fers because his goods are on his shelves and
can be viewed and levied on by the assessor
while the money sharp and capitalist has his
property in such shape that the assessor, as
the law now stands, cannot reach him.
The code recommended by the commission
will go very far to correct this state Of affairs
At the last session OF the legislature it was
conceded by everyone that our tax laws must
be corrected. The need was considered so
urgent that everybody asked for a special
session. The regular session was shortened
that this might be done without extra ex-
pense. The tax law proposed by the COM
mission is conceded to be good. It has been
compiled from the best efforts Of other states
Unless we pass new tax law we will be far
behind other states in this respect, and we
will soon feel it in business way, for the
present inequality in the levying Of taxes
will certainly be injurious 1t would be wise
to pass the amendments to the constitution
proposed but that is reason why we
should not pass the tax bill. Is it not absurd
really to argue that because in its report
the commission recommends some amend
ments to the constitution, therefore the en-
actment of the whole tax bill should be post
poned. Yes, I agree with the commission in
the amendments it proposes to the constitu-
tion but also agree with it when it recon-
sistent. If we take the word of the commits
sion in one case, why not in the other. The
state has hired them and paid them and
trusted them, and I fail to see where they
have not done good work. It is conceded as
T understand it, quite generally, that the pro-
posed law is an improvement, then why post
pone it? The proposed law provides for a
permanent tax commission. The work of this
commission is finished. They have made
their report, AS to the merger question, l
cannot see what that has got to do with
the tax code, and for that reason do not care
to discuss it in this connection. There is no
need of making any big legislative expense.
We can sit fifteen days without making any
more expense than has been incurred in
former years when there was no extra session.
in the proposed law can present to the next
regular session in January any amendments
that may be necessary after amending the
constitution. In fact, that is what the perna-
nent tax commission is for. II we pass the
proposed law we will get everything that we
could get by postponement, and we will gel
much more, for we will get immediate RELIEF
from the unjust taxation that we now have
and what is as valuable, we will get an
opportunity to correct any mistakes before
making q second assessment; While II the
hill is passed at a regular session we must
wait two years.
For these reasons I cannot see any logic
in suggestions made for postponement. Until
more valid reasons are given l Shall 40 all
in my power to pass the bill.