New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1909-01-06

important changes posed is the
establishment CT 2 county assessor
system as a substitute for the plan
now in vogue, which consists of town
ship and city assessors. The office
should be under the direction or SUI
pervision of the tax commission, so
that some general plan might be
worked out which would be uniform
throughout the state.
Taxation Of Corporations.
AS set forth by the tax commission
the taxation of corporations is not
satisfactorily accomplished under the
present law, largely because the lists
now required of these organizations
do not harmonic with legal condi-
tons The enactment of a law pro
viding for more extended list Of
queries is important and essential to
larger returns and a better enforce
nlent OF the law.
OF particular moment is that chap.
ter of the commissions report iii
which is discussed the question Of the
gross earnings tax Of railways. The
state now receives over So 100000 an,
nually in railway taxes and if the re
cent decision of the court in the gross
earnings tax suit is sustained the
amount now received will be in
creased by about 100000, as by its
provisions all of the roads must pay
per cent gross earnings tax. While
the amount now received is large it is
pointed out by the commission that
under an ad valorem basis, uniform
and equal with other property in the
state, the present rate of 4 per cent
does not meet the requirements nee
essary to equal taxation.
In the matter Of the assessment of
personal property the law establishes
an arbitrary personal property list.
Expansion from time to time has
made the list a complicated one and
because it has been arbitrary it has
resulted in at least the occasional
omission of property which should be
listed In view of the changes which
possibly may be necessary the com
mission should be given the power to
extend or decrease the list of items
as exigency may necessitate.
Taxation of Iron Properties.
During the earlier years of the state
our natural resources were largely
agricultural and forest. Recently.
however, we have grown to be the
first mining state of the Union and
our almost phenomenal sudden growth
in this field has made the question of
the taxation of iron ore one of the ut
| most Importance and of our gravest
concern. In the past twenty-four
years the state has pursued two sys
TENS for the taxation of iron For
eleven years during the infancy of the
industry tonnage tax of cent per
ton was imposed, one-half of which
remained in the state treasury. the
other half being returned to the conn
ty treasurer. The net amount re-
ceived by the state during that period
was $4S.4 IT, For thirteen years
| iron taxation has been upon an ad
| vaIOrem basis and the amount re
| ceived by the state has grown from
| $u,57233 in 1896 to S661 200 in 1907
and S599,40O in 1908 It is not my
| purpose at this time to discuss the
merits of either the ad valorem or ton
mage systems. While it is most i'm
portant matter believe that it is not
question of systems so much as that
the mining properties should pay their
| full and just share of the taxes. In
the consideration of this question one
point must never be lost sight Of: The
counties, cities, towns and school dis
tricts in the mining districts must
never be deprived of their full share
of the tax levied and any plan which
would deprive them in any measure
of their Just share of reliable and con
tinnOns revenues could not be enter
tanned, as it would be unfair, unjust,
unwjse and unworthy of the state.
l Awaiting Courts Decision.
I have refrained from a discussion
of the two systems of taxation for the
present because of the uncertain state
in which we find ourselves and may
avail myself of future opportunity for
a further discussion of this question
in a special message. Previously. un-
der our constitution as it stood for
nearly quarter of century, ton.
mage tax could not be imposed. The
legislature, by an act approved April
10. 1905, proposed to the people OF
the state for their approval or rejec
ton an amendment to article 8 of the
constitution, which was known as the
wide open tax amendment and which
if approved by the people, would have
given to the legislature wider latitude
than it then enjoyed The state can
vassing board declared said amend
ment adopted and a proclamation by
the governor was accordingly made
A partial recount of the vote was had
and in the district court judgment
was entered declaring the amendment
lost Appeal was taken to the supreme
court, where the matter is still pend
ing, but from which decision will be
;, handed down during this legislative