The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1902-01-30
WAIT ON GOVERNOR
DULUTH DELEGATION SAW VAN
SAINT, BUT THAT'S
ALL
RECEIVED NO ENCOURAGEMENT
They VIII Now Fight Tax Law In
Legislature as an Instrument
of Inequality in
Taxation.

1oIHaHy lnaugurated yesterday when q
delegation Of prominent Duluth business
men, constituting a committee to take
care of the Zenith City's campaign
against the new law waited on Gov, Van
SAINT and presented their case before his
excellency.
II. r. Spencer, the well known admiral
ty lawyer, was chairman Others present
this morning were Capt. Alex. McDou-
gall, Capt. j. T. Rose, George Spencer,
e. A. Tomlinson, d. T. Helm, G. Fred
stephens and Hiram r. Stevens, OF st.
Paul, vice president of the Canada Allan
tic Transit cimpany
Gov. Van SAINT called in Gen. Childs,
who happened to be in the building and
gave the delegation an explanation Of the
Dill and the provisions of which they
complained. j@ 500.
The delegation explained that they were
not hostile to the bill as a whole. They
protested against the ad valorem tax on
vessels and the taxation Of grain in ele-
vators.
The governor listened to all the gentle
men had to say and then frankly told
them that he could not help them; that
he was in favor of the tax bill and
would deplore any fight upon it which
would endanger its success before the leg
1slature. The members Of the delegation
We're frank to admit that they got scant
encouragement from his excellency.
They left with the governor a brief
calling attention to the defects Of the law
as they view it, and stating their objec-
ton. The portion Of their plant re-
ferring to the proposed constitutional
amendments is as follows:
The Amendments.
The proposed amendments are such
only in the legal meaning and not in the
popular mea ming, Of the term They do
net amend in the ordinary sense; they
repeal. Section /, and of article TX
ct the constitution have been a part of
the fundamental law Of the state since
its organization. They have suffered
amendments from time to time but the
original restrictions embodied in them
rave remained and the amendments have
merely excepted certain cases from the
operation OF these restrictions. They
have been the frequent subject of jul
dlc1al decision and consideration; their
meaning is now We'll known and under
stood. They are a part not merely of
our fundamental law but of our Ordi-
nary thought and habit 1t is proposed
to substitute for these three sections
three other sections which have nothing
IN common with the provisions which
they replace. So great a change should
be approached with extraordinary eau
tion
In general it may be stated that these
constitutional changes aim at removing
all other restrictions from all taxing
bodies, leaving only the one restriction
that within the territorial limits Of the
authority levying the taxes, the tax must
be uniform upon the same class of sub
JectS. The tax commission in their re-
pore drew attention to the fact (pages
?2 TO 56) that they have been hampered
In framing a law by the constitutional
restrictions now existing. They intimate
that in the absence of these they would
have framed a far better and different
law. The committee Mt
tfc1 first, to the fact that if the law is
adopted the constitutional amendments
should not be adoped., The constitution
al amendments in order to be eff
fectlve must be followed by law franz
ed in conformity with them. The pro-
posed law is framed in conformity with
the existing constitutional provisions fr
therefore, the new provisions are adopt
ed. which are revolutionary in their ma
ture, they must be followed by a law
which shall be, in many of its essential
aspects, different from the present law,
In other words, we are threatened nor
with one law but with two; and the
second law will be as different from the
first the first is different from the ex-
istlnG law. All this .heans for Years
continued uncertainty and doubt where
certainty and precision are most indis-
pensable; namely, in the revenue system
Of the state.
Means Equality of Taxation.
We draw attention to the fact that the
PAOpOSSO CONSTITUTIONAL changes involve
wide departure and in fact the ADAM
donment Of the idea of equality in taxa
ton. If taxes need be uniform only
upon the same class of subjects within
the territorial limits of the authority
levylng the taxes, then the legislature
may classify as they please and impose
heavier taxes upon one class Of property
than upon another. Possibly the tax
commission may have had in mind in
part the taxation of incomes the legis-
lature framing classes Of incomes and
subJecting each of these classes pro-
greSSlvely to an increased tax. Such
an idea may be economically sound The
constitutional provision. however, au-
thorlzes not merely classification
OF incomes. but classification based
upon any possible theory. For exam
PIE, banking capital may be taxed at
che rate and the capital of manufacture
ing enterprises at another rate. Real
estate may bear one tax and personal
property may bear another tax Not
only can this be done, but the legislature
can from session to session change the
burden from one class to another. All
nothing is so necessary as uniform
ity in taxation. If the rule is to be
abandoned it should be abandoned only
in favor Of certain exceptions, recogniz-
ed as such. Very likely incomes or in
heritances should be taxed and divided
into classes for this purpose. But to
reach the exception by changing the
rule, we. deem to be not only unwise,
but illogical.
This idea of inequality in taxation is
further carried out by section of the
proposed amendments. This provides that
county may select the subjects from
which the state revenue apportioned to
the county may be raised. This would
literally mean that the subjects them
selves, though not constituting a. class
could be designated by the county officers
and the whole tax laid upon these. I'm
doubtedly the commission intended the
provision to apply only to class of sub
Jects and not to individual subjects. The
provision, in this understanding, still
leaves 1t open for the country officers to
designate in any one year the personal
in another year the street railways in
another year the lighting plants and by
the action of these officials to shift the
state tax from one line of enterprise to
another at their will. This we deem
further radical departure from the idea
of equality of taxation. It is not neceS-
sary to point out the numerous abuses to
Wsich such a system would be subject
The constant friction between the taxing
bodies and the individuals representing
the different kinds of taxable properly,
the temptation to make use of this au-
thority in improper ways, the disasters
following the shifting Of taxation and The
possible results of caprice or favor, are
all arguments against such a proposed
change.
Lastly, we object to these changes te-
cause of what they do not mean They
are very briefly expressed and therefore
in most general terms. 1t is not certain
what they mean and it is therefore dif-
ficult to direct an argument against them.