Askov American. [volume] (Askov, Pine County, Minn.) 1914-current, 1930-07-03
MOVES FOR AND PRETENDS
TO BE AGAINST
editor Askov American:


In Mr.. Brandes recent letter, he
speaks of the dead bills concerning
the reduction of iron ore taxes; these
bills were proposed, however. by a
group of state representatives. of
which Mr.. Therrien was member
and co-authOr, and had these bills
passed the legislature, then the Steel
corporation and iron ore companies
would have made great saving. For
the year 1929, one million six hum
dred thousand, (sl,6OO,OOO) would be
modest estimate of what the COM
panies would have saved. The nat
ural result would be the shifting of
that amount in tax burden to the al
ready heavily burdened farmers,
workers and home owners.
The McNary- Haugen bill had twice
been vetoed by President CoOlidge;
the Shipstead-Newton bill had been
defeated in previous sessions of Con-
gress. Amy matter of taxation is now
of vital Importance, and unjust re-
ductiOn of taxes on iron ore, or any
proposal of same, should be brought
to the attention of Pine county voters.
The Steel Trust interests are not
asleep, and can be depended on to
bring in bills to their own liking in
future sessions of the legislature.
Regarding the proposed royalty tax
of SO and the reduction to 40 pro-
posed by Mr.. Therrien and others.
wonder if Mr.. Brandes wishes to
infer that the Attorney General of
Minnesota suggests that SO tax is
unconstitutional, and that 40 tax
would be constitutional? That seems
confiscatory and that has not yet been
proved. In the same way, had the
occupational tax been reduced from
SO to 40 in accordance with the bill
of which Mr.. Therrien was a co-au-
thor. would either he or his son-in-
law, Mr.. Brandes, say that it then
would be constitutional? Between The
two bills. H. F. PA and H. F.. 215,
our general fund, our school tax fund,
and the University fund would have
been deprived of some S1,6OO,OOO.
That fact alone, would be a poor
argument for constitutionality.
1t would be interesting to Pine
county voters, if Mr.. Brandes would
discuss the two bills separately and
not tumble them together so that the
reader is befuddled. Mr.. Brandes
tries to give the impression that these
are dead bills and should be forgotten
like the sins of the dead are over
looked. The McNary-Haugen bill and
the Shipstead-NewtOn bill are seem
ingly dead. yet people still speak of
them and they are brought to public
attention. So with the iron ore taxes.
and proposed reductions of same. At
tempts may be expected to be made
in the legislature to obtain reduction
of the ore taxes, so long as certain
representatives are willing to intro
duce the bills. Let us keep the mat
ter before the voters of Pine county,
until all the kinks are ironed out.
Finally, it is rather difficult for the
average man who understands the
simplest parliamentary tactics of a
legislator, to see him first sponsoring
q bill, or resolution, act as a co-au-
thor and then expect to see him vote
against it. 1t doesn't seem logical
From Mr.. Brandes' previous arti-
cles. one would gather that he be-
lieved in iron ore reduction, at the
same time asserting that Mr.. Their
rien would have voted against these
bills of which he had been a co-au-
thor.
CHAS. BECKMAN.
Rock Creek Mimi