Askov American. [volume] (Askov, Pine County, Minn.) 1914-current, 1934-02-15
INCOME TAX

In the first hurdle on the consti-
tutionality of the state income tax,
enacted in the regular 1888 session
of the Minnesota Legislature, the de-
cision was negative. This was the
view of Judge Hanft of the Ramsey
County District Court. The case now
goes to the State Supreme Court where
it is expected a decision Will soCn
be rendered.
UNFOLDING the view of Judge Hanft
The Minneapolis Journal, the news
paper which fought the income tax
the most bitterly of any Minnesota
newspaper, writes in part:
More than quarter of a CEN
fury after the constitutional
change was made, the Legislature
took legal advice and was assured
that the 1906 amendment gives
power to adopt a graduated and
progressive income tax, with Elk
emptions.
In all the Intervening years,
though there was much income
tax agitation, 10 effort was made
hand. two attempts were made to
change the Constitution and give
specific authority for an income
tax law. To the layman it has
seemed passing strange that the
legal views held for a generation
should be abandoned so suddenly.
If the authority to impose an in
70 oil h.
why wasn't it used?'
That last question is a very simple
one to answer: The Minneapolis Jour-
nal, other reactionary newspapers, and
reactionary Legislature.
Effort was made in the 1881 ses-
sion to enact an income tax in this
state, but the efforts were not sue
cessful until 1888
1t is quite well known why the con-
stitutional amendment failed of adop-
ton in the 1882 election-the cam
paign of deception that was carried
on against it. But at that a majority
of those voting on the question voted
for it, but it failed because all the
voters did not interest themselves suf-
ficiently to express their choice in
the matter and so there was not a
majority of all those voting at the
election on the affirmative side of the
question.
1t was high time that Minnesota
was acquiring the income tax meth
cd of collecting some of its needed
revenue for schools or whatever funds
the receipts were to be diverted to-,
and not continue to collect most of
the taxes on general property.
Therefore the Legislature of 1888
took the bull by the horns and did the
right thing. Public sentiment was al
so aroused to such a pitch that the
pressure from home caused even many
of the, conservative and reactionary
members of the Legislature to get on
the band wagon and vote for the
income tax.
There was no delaying the income
tax bill to the last day in the 1888
session. Hearings were held early
and enough of them so that the men,
bers knew what it was all about. The
old game of public hearings galore
and delay and delay up to the last
day did not work this time.
Attorney General Young, way back
i'm 1906, Attorney General Benson in
1881, and Attorney General Harry H.
Peterson in 1888, had all given out as
their opinions that a graduated pro-
gressive state income tax would be
constitutional that there was no need
for further amending the Constitution
in order to enact this form of legis-
latiOn. So with that in mind, know
ing that the people were about fed up
on red tape, and realizing the need
for action, sponsors of the proposed
state income tax set to work and the
job was put over, but not without
late hours and hard work. The oppO-
sition was not asleep.
A bill for a constitutional amend
ment was also proposed in the 1913;
session and that was to the liking o.
The Minneapolis Journal because il
almost carried the law right with it
It had so many limitations and Ger
taiply went beyond what should b'
contained in the Constitution. There
fore it was chlOroformed and diet
right in the session. AS above stated
enough good. legal advice had beef
secured and it was time to make