Year: 1879

TAXING RAILROADS.

 A bill has been in sroduccd in the house proposing, for ten years, to Ito tax railroads only on the,r net earnings. That is right, as every fair minded man will say if he reflects but Il moment. An in dividuai would think it very unjust to tax him on his debts ins cad of his creditsA-on what he owes instead O: what IS owing to him. A railroad on an average costs twenty thousand dollars a mile --tle money is always borrowed by the company, and u has to pay interest on that to tine lender. The earnings of our railroads. leav ing out the St. Louis and Iron Mountain railroad, will not average two thousand dollars per mile per annum. but call the gross earnings two thousand dollars. Of this at least sixty per cent, is required to pay operating expenses, leaving on. ly forty per cent, or eight hundred dollars per mile per annum, to apply upon tue intrest on the twenty thous- and dollars borrowed money per mile.

 This borrowed money costs at least seven per cent. Then the interest is fourteen hundred dollars per mile per anum leaving deficit in that account of at least six hun drcd dollars per annum per mile. It IS well known by every intelli' gent man that there is not a rail- road in the state that earns sufIi cient to pay one half the interest on it's bonded indebtedness. Then is 1t not correct to say that if you tax the railroads on what it cost to build them that you are taxing them on what they owe-on their debts instead of their credits? Men who have money invested in rail. roads must wait. yems III the tntnrc for return. Let us do justice that we may have more railroads. One sensible and positive act by man goes further to prove that he Is for enterprise and advancement than all that can bc written or spoken. - Gazette.

 We are not prepared to say wh'tli CT the figures given ny our conten- porary in regard to ihe cost of con struction and the expense of opera ting railroads are correct, oT not; nor are we certain that such bill as mentioned can be passed without amending the constitution of our State.

 We do believe, however, that if such bill can he DasSed withcut conflicting with the constitution it should be done. It would be Il wise and just measure wise, because it would go further toward inducing the investment of money in railroad building in our State than any other measure; just, because under the present system a great injustice is done in the fact that the money in. vested in railroads is actually taxed twice. The stock is first taxed and then all the real and personal property belonging to the road is taxed again.

 A company has a million collars pr two million dollars invested in q railroad in onr State. The road for many wears pays no profit to the stock holders, but all this time every stockholder is paying tax on evea dollars worth of stock he holds in said road.

 In the mean time, the road is of vast benefit to the State--is brining us new immigrants, spening thou sands of dollars all along its line, conveniencing the people, and in many ways adding to our wealth and prosperity, The State declares the road a public highway and exercises control of it by limiting it's charges for transportation of freight and pas sengers. Is It just or right now for the State from the very jump to burden capital thus invested with heavy taxation? And would it not be more wise to lay the tax upon the net earnings of the road only? From the light in which we look at it, it would.

 The constitutional provision cx- empting capital invested in mana factures ia our State was considered