Union County courier. [volume] (Elk Point, Union County, D.T. [S.D.]) 187?-1913, 1909-11-11
SUPREME COURT ASKED TO PASS
UPON VALIDITY OF TERRI
ToRiAL CHARTER.
BELIEVE STATE WILL WIN
State Right to Levy 4 Per Cent Up
held BY Attorneys-Gener-
al Simpson and
Peterson.

Washington fate of about
100000 of back taxes due the state
In railroad taxes, is now in the hands
OF the United States supreme court
Arguments were concluded in the
gross earnings tax case, and Attor
ney General Simpson, Assistant At
torney General Peterson and w. r.
Begg, attorney for the Great Northern
road. have returned to st. Paul
The impression prevails here that
the state OF Minnesota stands much
more than an even chance to win the
present suit. This belief was borne
out by the questions asked by mem.
bers OF the court during the final
arguments. The questions were d.
rected mainly toward determining the
construction which had been given
In the past by the Minnesota courts
to the territorial charter of the Great
Northern, but indicated an attitude OF
mind on the part of the court which
tended to support the states side Of
the case. The Great Northern had
refused to pay more than 3 per cent
tax on any of It's earnings within
the state OF Minnesota.
The roads principal contention,
however. is as to the so-colled main
line" from st. Paul to Breckenridge
and the so-called branch line" from
East Minneapolis to Sank Center. III
the Great Northern secures q decision
which affirms Its right to a per cent
tax on these two original lines, au-
thorized by the territorial charter, 1t
will consider its case won. The state.
on the other hand. expects to secure
authority to levy the per cent taA
on the earnings OF all the lines oper.
ated by the Great Northern.
The states case was presented in
forcfble manner by Attorney General
Simpson and Assistant Attorney Gen.
eral Peterson. Mr.. Begg, for the
Great Northern. set up the plea that
up to the time of the recent decision
In this gross earnings case, by the
Minnesota supreme court. that body
had always held the territorial chart.
er OF the Great Northern to be valid.
For this reason. he said. q property
right had been created. The Great
Northern, he asserted. when Il made
The lease d the ST. Paul, Minneapolis
and Manitoba. had Z right to believe
that II had secured the privilege OF
immunity from other taxation than
specified In this territorial charter.
namely, ; per cent.
Attorney General Simpson declared
that no such property right existed.
He cited opinions to prove that the
real question now ct issue, the right
OF the state to levy taxes. had never
been before the court IA to the Great
Northern's territorial charters. The
general rule or practice. he pointed
out, y that : states right to levy
taxes cannot be contracted away, and
n the present case De asserted the
courts had never established proper
rights By holding the old territorial
charter to b. binding upon the pres
ent state. % to its tax provisions.
The state also made the point that
the territorial charter. issued in 1857
AZ tho minnesota ana Pacinc, under
which tho Great Northern claims i'm
munity from more than Z ) per cent
tax. had been superseded By the new
charter Of 1865. issued BY the present
stnte q Minnesota. and which does
not give = specific Per cent tax to
Ne asstgnees 0f the old Minnesota
and Pacific.