The Sauk Centre herald. (Sauk Centre, Stearns County, Minn.) 1886-current, 1915-10-07
STATE AUDITOR
SHIFTS Is THE BUCK
mr.. PREUS REFUSES TO INTER
tFERE IN THE HIBBING TAX
CONTROVERSY
WRITES LETTER To POWERS
COMPARES TAXES IN OTHER CIT
les WITH MINING TOWN
SAUK CENTRES RATE

more or less interest IN the Hibbing
Mining Companies tax controversy. 1t
will be remembered that Mayor Power
passed the buck up to State Auditor
j. A. o. Preus insisting that the state
force the collection of the taxes. On
Sept. 20, Mr.. Preus replied at some
length to Mr.. Power and this letter
which has been given wide publicity,
will have tendency to clarity the sit
uation in the minds of the people of
the state.
In letter received by the Herald
editor from Mr.. Preus, few days ago,
among other things he stated: "In
1910 Sank Centre had population of
2,154, and it's taxes for local purposes
amounted to $10,564.74, or $4.9O per
capita" The Hibbing levy provides
for the present year, based on the the
last available census figures, is $215
per capita. The Herald publishes here
with Mr.. Preus' letter to Mayor Pow
-ers in full:
Sept. goth, 1915.
Hon. Victor L. Power, Mayor,
Hibbing, Minnesota.
Ny dear Mr.. Power:
On August 30th you wrote me, stat
ing that you had sent me a previous
letter, wherein you laid before me the
matter of the tax controversy of the
Village of Hibbing and certain mining
companies. That letter | never receiv-
ed. I asked you by letter for a copy
of the same, but you have failed to re-
spond to my letter or send me a copy.
- On September 10th l received an
unsigned letter, relative to the cancel
lation of state mining leases, written
on your letter head and which l pre-
sumo was written by you.
In the Hibbing Tribune, of Septem-
Der 18th, in the Duluth News Tribune
and Duluth Herald, of about the same
date, was published a statement to the
effect that you had wired me to re-
new your demand of August 7th that
/ proceed under Sections 2184, 2185
and 2183, General Statutes 1918:
First, to restrain all mining COM
panies operating within the village
limits of Hibbing from removing ore
therefrom.
Second, that all ore mined within
the village to be seized by the State
and sold to satisfy taxes.
You did not therein renew your de-
mand which | see was contained in
your telegram of August 7th, that l
See the County Attorney of St. Louis
County with view to having the Of
ficials of the mining companies prose-
-cuted criminally.
Notwithstanding these statements
In the newspapers, no communication
from you relating thereto has been re-
celved by me, whether in the nature
OF telegram, letter, or otherwise.
However, 1T seems proper for me to
notice the fact that it is claimed you
have demanded that l seize certain
mined ore and enjoin certain mining
companies from removing certain ore
for non-payment of taxes because
your local newspapers have given the
impression to the people of Hibbing
that such demand has been made
upon me, and they have right to ex-
pect that an answer be made by me.
On August 18th wrote you and de-
clined to take the action requested un-
der the Sections of the statute above
cited on the ground "that the purpose
of the statutes referred to is to pre-
vent the removal of any structures,
timber or mineral from mines upon
whicha lien for taxes has attached,
the result of which removal might be
that the taxes thereafter cannot be
collected" stated further, "This is
the only purpose for which it has been
invoked since it has been passed by
the Legislature. l find in no instance
will the removal of ore from Hibbing
mines result in that any taxes will be
uncollectable.
On August 30th you directed let
ter to me, which was supplemented on
September Bird, in which you demand
that | cancel the state leases known as
the Pool, Scranton, Philbin, MADEIRA
and the Niagara for breach of covenant
in that the lease-holders had not vet
paid their taxes this year. Since that
time the mining companies have paid
these taxes, which, in accordance with
the ruling of the Attorney General Of
the State, they had the privilege of
doing.
Last winter the Legislature, for the
purpose of having me certify to the
correctness thereof, directed to me a
summary of the expenditures accord |
ing W pOpuldtlOIl, DdSGQ on the last /
United States census, of all cities and
villages in the State of Minnesota
with a population of over 900, copy of |
which l shall forward.
This statement shows:
That the city of Minneapolis, with a
population of 301 ,408, had tax levy
of S3,772, 450.65, or $12.52 per capita.
That the city of st. Paul, with
population of Plata, levied taxes in
the sum of $2,404, 464.91, or $11.20 per
capita.
That Duluth, with population of
78,466, levied taxes in an amount of
1858, 851.42, or $11.01 per capita.
That Virginia, with population of
10,473, levied taxes in the sum of
1886, 907.40, or 1854 per capita.
That Mankato, with a population of
1896, levied $82,414.57, or $7.95 per
capita.
That Crookston, with a population
of 1859, levied taxes in the sum of
So, 1892, or $8.49 per capita.
That Bemidji, with a populatin of
5 .099, levied taxes in the sum of $751;
1861, or $625 per capita.