The Sauk Centre herald. (Sauk Centre, Stearns County, Minn.) 1886-current, 1936-05-07
PROGRESSIVE REPUBLICAN

PROGRESSIVE REPUBLICAN
BY r.. w. Hitchcock
A threat to industry, which for
three years has hamstrung many
lines of business activity in the
Twin Cities particularly, seriously
resulting in increased unemploy-
ment, was removed when the Min
Aesota supreme court on April oath
handed down a decision to the eff
feet that the so-called corporate
excess tax" enacted in 1873, but
never enforced, had been repealed
by the legislature when that body
subsequently enacted three other
laws-moneys and credits, mort
gage registry, and income tax
covering the same items of corpor-
ate value It was 6 to / decision,
Chief Justice Devaney dissenting.
The removal of this threat, which
has held in allegiance many con-
templated industrial extensions, to-
gether with the settlement of the
paralyzing Strutwear situation,
brings cheer to business in Mime
sofa and promises a speedy in
crease in employment and recov-
cry.
Governor Olson promptly critici-
Zed the supreme court decision as
a fragrant abuse of judicial dis
cretion." Yet he himself, speaking
to the legislature on January 9,
1885, declared that the Act of 1878
if enforced would result in the
confiscation of corporate proper
ties in Minnesota and advocated
the repeal of the law and its re-
placement by law fair to its
terms" thus admitting that en-
forcement of the law would be I'M
fair and injurious to the state.
Nevertheless, when the supreme
court declares that the act has
been repealed, he now says that the
courts decision is fragrant
abuse of judicial discretion.
Governor Olson in his criticism
os the decision also made this
veto the decision of the supreme
court but fortunately they still
have the power to retire some of
the men who made it." One pecul-
lar thing about this statement is
that the Justice who wrote the de-
cision, Justice Julius J. Olson, is
the governors own appointee to
the supreme court.
Businessmen generally have
agreed with Governor Olson that
successful attempt completely to
enforce the Act of 1878 would re-
suit in the confiscation of all cor
porate enterprises, big and little,
within the state. They therefore
hail the supreme court decision as
relief from grave fears, a certain
stimulus to industry and a means
OF business recovery.
The farmer-labor state admins
tration attempted in 1888 to revive
the corporate excess tax" of 1873.
It has frequently declared that the
enforcement of the act would bring
in $20,000,00O to the state treasury.
If all corporate business in Mime
soto were confiscated this might be
t1ue-for one year. After that there
would be nothing left to tax. The
corporate excess tax" has been
really productive in but one state
in the Union-Illinois. That state,
with seven times the wealth of
Minnesota, has never secured a re-
turn of more than $2,400000 from
its corporate excess tax. If Mime
sofa could have done as well its re-
turn would approximate S350,000
per year. 1t is easy to promise mil
lions, but more difficult to produce
them.
Incidentally the legislature ac-
copied the suggestion made by the
governor in his message of January
9. 1885, repealed the Act of 1878
and substituted for it a modified
form of corporate excess tax"
The governor, however, prevented
this change, which he had himself
suggested, when he vetoed the
Omnibus Tax Bill.
The reaction of the farmer-labor
administration to the repeated ac-
ton of the courts in restraining
and preventing its attempts at
wrong-doing is highly significant.
The governor has rushed into print
with wisecracks and with vocifer-
Gus charges that the courts are
corrupted by politics. From the
most politically minded governor
that Minnesota has ever known
such charges are with poor grace.