The Ely miner. [volume] (Ely, Minn.) 1895-1986, 1919-10-10
Fight the Tonnage Takers by Educating
The South End People and by Active
State Division Propaganda and Work
Tonnage Tax Only the Beginning Of the
Attempt to Abolish the Ad-vaIorum
Basis Of Taxation Up Here.
LET US Get A MOVE ON.

nesOta does not propose tonnage tax
for its clay beds or for its stone quar-
ries, both of which are the property
of persons of comparatively moderate
means. This seems to indicate that
ron ore is to be double taxed, not be-
cause it is diminishing asset, but be-
cause it is the property of wealth.
That it is not good Judgment is also
Indicated by the fact that practically
10 other commonwealth in the United
States makes any attempt to double
tax any natural product. Pensyl-
vania refuses to levy tonnage tax
on it's coal, New York and Alabama
GO not super-tax their iron ore; Utah
does not double tax its salt; Colorado
is gold or Texas it's oil. If the theo-
~ of diminishing values justifes a
tonnage tax, why are all these states,
and others as well, either definitely
pronounced against the tonnage tax
or refused to take it up?
1t is not good judgment, moreover,
because the imposition of tonnage
tax will tend to crush out competition
in the business of mining iron ore.
Those mining companies which are
simply miners and must sell their ore
will bear an added burden, but those
raining companies which own their
own furnaces and steel mills, and do
not sell their ore, will simply pass on
he burden to the price of the finished
teel. In this latter class are the
steel trust" and other great concerns
which dominate the steel market. Ton
mage tax will enable them to monop-
olize the iron ore fields; it will enable
them to still more easily dominate the
sseel market. Lastly, there is anoth-
er view point, still more serious to the
state from which the imposition of a
super-tax upon diminishing asset
is not good judgment to Minnesota.
Can Minnesota afford to put a handi-
ap upon the development of its iron
ore fields? Can it afford to put its
own iron ore at Disadvantage to
other ores? Can it afford to DELHI
erately encourage the development of
other richer ore fields? The Lorraine
deposit is as rich as Minnesota's and
can be far more cheaply mined. There
are deposits in Newfoundland and
Brazil, richer, larger, and almost as
available as Minnesota's. Minnesota
leads the world in the production of
ron ore; it cannot afford to leopard
lie that leadership. Good judgment?
It is sheer folly to arouse a sleeping
rival; it is worse than folly, it is ASST
nine stupidity, to arouse him and
then deliberately give him the means
Of putting you out of business.
So much for the unwisdom of APP
plying the theory of diminishing val
ues to the taxation of iron ore; in adj
dition, there is reason to believe that
the theory is fundamentally unsound.
In the first place, the application of
he theory violates the spirit of the
constitution of the United States
which declares: "No tax or duty
shall be laid on articles exported from
any state" The tonnage tax does lay
in effect, duty on every ton of ore
exported from the state. But"
objects the tonnage tax advocate, 1--WE
propose to levy a tax upon the ore
rlined, not on til" ore shipped from
the state, and all of that ore might,
conceivably, be manufactured into
steel within the state" Very well,
such case, the portion of the manu-