THE CALENDAR
Mr. Studabaker's bill (4) to amend section 73 of an assessment act of June 21, 1852, so as to make returns of the number of domestic and farm animals of all kinds, and the quantities in bushels and tons of farm products of every kind, every five years instead of one as is now provided, coming up -
Mr. WAGNER objected to the passage of the bill. He thought these returns would be of little or no value if they were made only once in five years, and he would much prefer the law should remain as it is now.
Mr. STUDABAKER defended the provisions of his bill.
Mr. BEESON, as an agriculturalist, was in favor of the bill. He thought no confidence could be placed in returns when made every year, compared with those that might be made every five years. He objected to the yearly listing, also on the score of the expense, which was nearly great as that of regular taxation.
Mr. WILLIAMS favored the proposition contained in the bill.
Mr. LINE thought it would cost an additional sum of $20 for each township, and supposing we have ten townships in each county, there being 90 counties in the State, the expense would amount to $18,000. Believing in retrenching expenses, he should vote for the bill, as it requires this outlay should be made but once in five years.
Mr. WAGNER thought every one should have this information, and that $18,000 should not be withheld, when it would furnish such valuable statistical matter to every man in the State. He was not fully satisfied with the law as it nows tood, but hoped it would not be made worse by the enactment of such an amendment as is proposed.
Mr. MURRAY hoped the bill would pass.
Mr. HENDRY represented an agricultural region, and was sure there would be no information so valuable to every township and county as the amount of its productions. When this information is gathered only once in five years, how can you tell whether the State is on the decline or whether it is on the increase, for the fifth year nay be one of unusual prosperity, or it may be what we term comparatively an unproductive one. He was opposed to the bill: and would much prefer the law now on our statute book.
Mr. TARKINGTON thought if it is important o have this information at all, an interval of five ears would be too long. He suggested to the author of the bill that it be so amended as that this information be taken once in two years, or three at most.
Mr. STUDABAKER could not consent to a modification of the bill.
Mr. SLACK thought there was no extra expense incurred in the taking of this information, the printed list was left at the residence of tax-payers and the blanks filled up by them. He was opposed to the passage of the bill.
Mr. HEFFREN hoped the bill would pass.
This listing of products was an item of expense uncalled for every year, and he thought once in five years was often enough.
Mr. COBB thought the expense was trifling; indeed, he could not see where it was, unless it ame from the blanks and books, and that was a very small affair. The information is looked for with a great deal of interest by the farming community of the entire State. This bill should not be passed. If this ennumeration should not be taken oftener than five years, he thought it useless to take it all. It is necessary that the farmers should have a knowledge of the products
page: 145[View Page 145]