The Sauk Centre herald. (Sauk Centre, Stearns County, Minn.) 1886-current, 1915-02-04
women IN LIMELIGHT At State CAPITOL
SUFFRAGISTS WIN THE DAY AT PUBLIC HEARING OF
SENATE COMMTTTEE-SENATOR HILBERT "AGIN'
PETTY POLITICS LEGISLATIVE NOTES

similar TO the one IN st. Paul. we
could show the movies on Minnesota
all the year round instead of three
months"
Watchers at the law mill are prone
to prattle about efficiency and Econ
omy, suffrage and county option as
the vital issues before the present
session.
But there is one thing up for con-
sideration that in dollars and cents
means more than any of them. 1t is
contained in the two Dunn bills, which
seeks to settle for all time the ques-
ton of who owns the ore in the bot
toms of meandered lakes Samuel g.
Iverson, former state auditor, esti-
mated the value of such ore at tens
of millions of dollars. But to whom
does it belong? This is the question
that Minnesota taxpayers are inter-
ested in.
The Supreme Court in the famous
Longyear lake case decided that the
state owned the ore below the water
mark, but in "soverign capacity for
the people" The court said in effect
that the state was trustee of the peo-
pie. The fee owners of the land
around such lakes claim they own to
a common center. The state contends
that they own only to low water mark
The bills were up for consideration
before the committees on public do
main of the Senate last week. That
Senator O. H. Griggs, chairman, re-
allies what these bills mean was
shown by his questioning of witnesses
The committee decided that further
hearing will be needed in order to
settle on any bills. m
Much has been heard of the fact
that the lake-bed ore belongs to the
riparian owners and that the state
should only seek to allow them to
drain off the waters in order to mine
the vast wealth underneath them.
There are two sides of the question
yet, even though the Supreme Court
has given its decision. The matter
will ultimately be threshed out in the
courts whatever action the Legisla-
ture takes, but it will be interesting
to note who has the most weight with
the committee, the attorney for the
fee owners or those representing the
state.
The Minnesota Tax Commission
came out last week with a neat wal
lop at those who cry retrenchment in
state expenditures. In plain words
the commissions report on the cost
of government told the people to take
look around home.
If the proper reductions in taxes
are to- come as a result of public
clamor, the "charity must begin at
home" The cities and villages and
towns and school districts must use
the pruning knife on the tax budgets
if they are to be reduced. All this
talk of cutting down expenditures at
the Capitol will not do the work in
the opinion of the commission.
The commission puts it right up to
the people that maybe the old reac-
tionary days were the best after all.
Of late years every solon with a hob
by went to st. Paul and proceeded to
have a board or commission appoint
ed to study the question and theorize.
This has gone on until we now have
multiplicity of such boards and COM
missions. They all spend more or less
of the states money. The newer the
idea the more spent on it.
Governmental functions have in
creased, it is true, but so has liberal
ity at the statehouse. The same may
be said of local public improvements.
In the six years from 1907 to 1913
the tax levy for Stearns county in
creased 46.6 per cent. This is small
in comparison to some counties, as
the commissions report shows the in
creases ranged from % to 800 per
cent.
But to get back to Stearns county.
The following separate levies were
made in 1907 and 1918, the 1907 fig
ures being first in each case: for state
revenue fund, $22,963 and $42,61O;
for building, soldiers relief and state
.park funds, $6,754 and $9,O77; for ed
vocational institutions, $148,399 and
$206,291; for roads and bridges, $685.
455 and $76,152; for other county pur-
purposes, $65,125 and $S4,203; for
city and village purposes only, 1884,
1875 and $82,126: township purposes
only, $16,S03 and $60,475. The totals
are $3S2,636 and $560,936.
1t may be said to the credit of
Stearns county however that it stood
fourteenth in the list of low counties
out of sc. True, it did not come in
for special mention among low coun-
ties in the report, as only five were
commented upon, but on the other
hand Stearns county was missing by
a long ways from the list of high
counties.