The Ely miner. [volume] (Ely, Minn.) 1895-1986, 1909-02-26
TONNAGE TAX
Gets a Severe Jolt by Elk
Auditor Dunn
Representative Congd0n of
this District Working

Bret against the Tonnage Tax
Bill in pamphlet form, issued by
Representative Congdon of this dis
trict. The brief shows up the fall
lacy of the Bjorge proposition to a
nicely and is an ably prepared doc
ument.
Wednesday, Robert c. Dunn,
formerly State Auditor and Mr..
Congdon addressed the tax COM
mittee of the house on the subject
of the tonnage tax bill. Mr.. Cong
don concluded his able argument
which he began at meeting of the
committee few days ago. The
appearance of Mr.. Dunn, however
was rather unexpected to the COM
mittee members. He made a strong
plea for equality in taxation, which
he asserted was impossible under a
tonnage tax system.
He spoke at some length on the
various phases of the measure and
in part said as follows;
Il appear before you today in
the capacity of citizen and espe-
cially interested in northeastern
Minnesota, the section of the state
in which l live. The views which
l am about to express are generally
we'll known. l have never taken
any pains to conceal them; and /
hold no brief from the steel corpor-
alton. l owe neither it nor its Off
GERS anything.
When l took charge of the de-
partment of the state auditor in
1895 1 found things in very chao-
tic condition. In investigating the
departmental work my attention
was early called to the injustice of
the iron4tonnage tax, which was
then one cent ton, half going to
the state, half to St. Louis county.
The minor political subdivisions of
the county were ignored. At that
time one local assessment district
had a 7 per cent tax rate; and none
of the local rates were less than 81
per cent. Under the tonnage tax
law they were utterly unable to Sc
cure any local district income from
the large iron properties. The tax
struck me as very unfair, and in
violation of the constitution as it
then was. 1 referred the matter to
the attorney general. That official,
General Childs, soon thereafter
gave all opinion i'll which he con-
tended that the tonnage tax was
totally unconstitutional and void.
In accordance with this opinion
l directed that the iron properties
should then be assessed Oil the tax
rolls the same as all other property.
From that day to this, | have been
consistently opposed to any tonnage
tax; it is wrong in principle and
application.
I have read the brief of the St.
Louis county delegation on this
subject, presented by Mr.. Congdon.
The arguments made are unanswer-
able. But there are two or three
additional points | would like to
call to your attention. St. Louis
county is not alone affected. There
is iron ore in Itasca, Aitkin, Crow
Wing, Todd and 1 think, in my
home county. l stand on the
broad ground that the legislature
has no moral right, although it has
the legal right-the wide open tax
amendment being carried by ma
jority of the supreme court-to levy
a special tax on the product of one
county. The state has no moral
right to levy more than a general
state tax.
Argument is now made for a
tonnage tax, and was brought for
ward in the Governors message
two years ago, that the steel trust
holdings are not paying their fair
share of taxation, that the local rate
is so low that the tax on the iron
properties is too small. What has
the low local rate got to do with
the proposition of the state tax
rate? The local tax rate is none of
the states business. In Dodge
county, where my friend, Senator
Lord, of the the tax commission,
lives, the local rate is little over 20
mills. In my county it is ~ per
cent. Our high tax is caused by