New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1911-02-15

may be. the speeches in favor Of
county option we're not couched in the
terms of men who were advocating q
lost cause. They, indeed, proclaimed
that the defeat of the present bill
would not settle the question, and that
it would never be settled until It is set
tied "right" is, their way. The
circumstance, perhaps, was not with
out significance that the address, on
all hands admitted to be the most
clear, concise and able exposition OF
the county option cause. was made by
Mr.. Burnquist, one Of the represents.
tves from st. Paul, the very hotbed
Of opposition to legislation OF this
character. Mr.. Burnquist Is, besides.
from the district in which is located
the largest brewery in the state, owned
by Z company the name of whose pres.
ident has become q household word
throughout Minnesota because it cpl
tomizes the source Of the opposition
70 10 called 4sumptuary legislation. 81
4. 4. ?
A tonnage tax bill has made it's ap-
pearance in the house. It is very
nearly identical with the tonnage tax
bill of two years ago introduced by
Mr. Bjorge, which subsequently passed
both houses and was vetoed by Gov
eronr Johnson. Briefly stated it pro-
vides that iron properties shall be as.
sessed as are other properties for 10.
cal and county purposes. and that, in
addition, tax shall be levied on ev.
cry ton of ore mined for state pur.
poses. The present bill was intro
duced by Messrs. Frankson of Fill
more county, J. N. Johnson of Candy
and, Moriarity Of Scott county. Mr..
Bjorge helped to make the few
changes in it's text.
+ +
The prospects. of the passage of the
bill at this session are not good. It's
late introduction is against it. So is
the feeling among the friends of re-
apportionment that the purpose of its
presentation at this time is to use il
as club to defeat proper redistri.
button OF the legislative districts OF
the state. Besides, many of the con.
sentative members of the house think
the present time inopportune for the
consideration of tonnage tax bill. 1t
rs pointed out that the constitutions
amendment proposed by Mr.. Dunn
levying 1-mill tax for good roads
purposes will add largely to the taxes
paid by the iron interests. It is not i'm
probable besides that at the present
session the house will favor the bill
increasing the gross earnings tax on
railroads. The range roads, in pro-
portion to mileage, pay much more
towards this than roads located else
where and this tax comes indirectly
out of the Golfers of the steel trust.
Why, it is asked. complicate matters
and endanger the passage of the re-
apportionment bill, the gross earnings
tax bill and the good roads bill by
counting the opposition in which the
attempt to force the passage Of a
tonnage tax bill at this time would
certainly result? OF course these mat. |
tiers do not touch the principle of the
bill, but they are practical objections
against taking up the matter at this
time certain, and properly so, to have
weight with those urging the reforms
to which l have referred.
i !. +
In this connection have it from eX.
cellent authority that powerful influ..
ences are already at work to bring
about the defeat, for political reasons,
of the good roads legislation in the
senate, to which the house has given
a practically unanimous endorsement
or such modification of it as will
render it imperative and ineffective. +
l have hitherto explained the object
and purposes of Mr.. Dunn's bills.
From the best information can gather
these bills are generally. commended !
throughout the state as affording both
the funds and the machinery by which
a beginning can be made to make the
Continued on last page.