The Sauk Centre herald., 1909-04-01

tackled him. They say that the steel
trust crowd have made mistake
when they tried to force his hand,
and that once fully aroused he will go
to any lengths to get even. People
who think this way say that the people
who are fighting tonnage tax make
mistake If they expect the Great
Northern to do any more to help them
out in the, senate than it did in the
house; that it's friends have already
got the tip that the merger crowd
won't feel offended if the tonnage tax
bill does become a law, and that SO
far as the Johnson bill is concerned
they will look out for themselves.
At all events the fight is pretty one
as it stands, and 1t may not be inn
possible while privileged interests are
quarreling among themselves, that the
people may get what is coming to
them.
If it is true as the opponents OF a
tonnage tax allege that they honestly
believe that the railroads and other
interests taxed on gross earnings basis
are really behind the tonnage tax pro-
position it is considered peculiar that
no effort was made by them to secure
a favorable report on the Spooner bill
to increase the gross earnings tax on
railroads to six per cent as recon-
mended by the tax committee in it's
report. 1t is generally believed that
when the speaker made up the tax
committee he had in mind the atti-
tude of its members on the tonnage
tax, and the record it has made indi-
Gates that, to say the least, it is
amenable to steel trust influences.
But, nevertheless, it killed the Spoon
er bill. That it did so is attributed
largely to the influence of Ex-Attorney
General Young. Mr.. Young is now
engaged by the state to act in its be-
half in the suits brought by. the va
rious railroad companies to test the
rate law passed at the last session Of
the legislature. Naturally he is op-
posed to any legislation which will in
juriously affect the states case, and
it can readily be seen that the more
railroads arerreanin1 to pay III taxes
which are a charge against operating
expenses, the higher the rates will be
that they are permitted to charge.
Consequently Mr.. Young was opposed
to the increase at this time of the
gross earnings tax. The tax commit
tee evidently recognized the force of
his contention, for they refused to re-
commend the Spooner bill for passage.
Dr. Dorsey of Mcleod county was
among those who were disappointed at
the action of the committee in re-
spect to taxation of railroads, although
he seems to favor rather the ad valo-
rem than the gross earnings method.
He said: II came down to the legisla-
ture this session with the hope of ac-
complishing something real in the
way of tax reform. We have spent
thousands of dollars for a physical
valuation of the railroads and thous-
ands for a tax commission, and if rail-
road property were to be assessed and
taxed as other property it would bring
us something that would amount to
much more than six per cent on their
gross earnings. Other states are tax
ing the roads on an advalorem basis
and proftably. Until we can get
down to sensible basis and until we
get ready to pay some heed to the
figures given us by our commissions l
would rather see the state continue
ON the four per cent basis until we.
see the folly of our ways"
The fact that the state is at pres
ent engaged in the rate litigation re-
ferred to above had also much to do
with the defeat of another measure
whose popularity seems to be increas-
ing. refer to the eastman distance
tariff-bill. When that measure came
up in the senate both Ex-Attorney
General Young and Mr.. O'Brien, as
we'll as the board of railroad and ware
house commissioners, actively opposed
its passage on the ground that II it
became law its effect would be to put
an end to the suits now in progress,
because under the new conditions it
would impose the rates made by the
legislature at its last session would
no longer be applicable. Their idea
seemed to be that while it would put
an end to the suits now in process of
adjudication, there would be no real
advantage, because the railroads
would probably oppose the enforce,
ment of the eastman distance tariff
bill as strenuously as they did the
comodity rate bill, and the litigation
would be commenced over again.
What force there may be in this OBJ
Continued on page 8