COLLECTION OF REVENUE.
Mr. SHIELDS offered the following:
Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed to bring in a bill to have the revenue, State, County and Town
page: 84[View Page 84]ship Treasurer, and to pay over all that part of said Revenue that belongs to the State and County Treasurers.
Mr. SHIELDS contended that the adoption of such a measure would secure the collection of more revenue than by the present method, without increasing the expenses of collection, and payments would be made more promptly.
Mr. WOLFE said that the office of county treasurer was named in the Constitution, and could not be dispensed with. The effect of the measure would be to increase the number of officers, without lessening the duties or labors of the county treasurers. It would increase the expenses without giving any corresponding advantages.
Mr. SHIELDS replied that the advantages gained was in making it more convenient to tax payers to pay their dues to an officer near at home, and that officer could do the collecting for much less than the county treasurer could, all of which saving would act as a reduction of expenses. This was the New York system, and in that State taxes were collected and disbursed at much less expense than in any other State.
Mr. MURRAY favored the proposition, believing that it would be a less expensive system, and more convenient to the people. Even if the fees of the county treasurers were not reduced, the money saved to the people in the item of traveling expenses would alone amount to considerable. It would, by bringing these offices home to the people, do much toward breaking up the Court house cliques that claimed the right to hold all the offices and rule the people in other parts of counties.
Mr. FERGUSON said that, when it was necessary to legislate for the people, he should not stop to inquire whether he was striking at offices or not. He was willing the subject should be inquired into.
Mr. WILLIAMS offered the following substitute for the resolution:
Resolved, That the Committee on County and Township business be authorized to inquire into the propriety of requiring the County Treasurer to employ and keep deputies in each township for the purpose of receiving the State, County and all other revenue.
Mr. SHIELDS accepted the substitute.
Mr. RAY. There was a tendency to scatter offices and diffuse them to such a degree that all dignity and all consideration was removed from the offices of the country. The Judiciary had been impaired in this way. He argued against any change. To strike down a responsible office and create in each county ten or twelve petty offices in its stead, would be to make a farce of the whole system. Why not at once place it in the hands of the constables? He ridiculed the idea that seemed to prevail of frittering away the responsible offices of the country.
Mr. WOLFE replied to the question of expense, and by taking his county (Harrison) as a basis, his calculation of the cost of the collection being at, two and a half per cent., (which was the proposed cost of collection by the gentleman from Jackson, Mr. Shields,) made it greater than it is now. He was opposed to the change, however, independent of this view, and agreed with the gentleman from Shelby that it was wrong so fritter away responsible offices.
Mr. LANDERS was a farmer, but he was opposed to the change. He could see no economy in it. The system of township assessment was not as good as the county assessment. By scattering these petty employments among the people, the inevitable effect is, to get a crowd of irresponsible and inefficient officers.
Mr. MARCH said he had the same ideas about government that he had about medicine--the less we had of it the better. If a system could be devised by which the money could be collected at home, and by which it would remain in fewer hands, he should go for it. He believed that this tax collecting business could be thus conducted at an almost nominal expense to the people.
Mr. WILLIAMS thought the proposition affected every man in the community more or less. If a system could be devised that would be a convenience to the whole people it should be done. Why ridicule it? Let the reference be made and the subject investigated.
Mr. RAY did not intend any offense by his remarks. All he intended to say was that all attempts to strike down the respect that attaches to responsible positions was a species of vandalism that should be checked. The blows at our judiciary system were of this kind. It was an axiom that the fewer hands the public money passed through the less fear of corruption and the better for the people and the cheaper, and he should oppose the proposition to change the system of collecting the revenue.
Mr. CORBIN opposed the resolution. He thought the result of the change of a system would work evil and not good, and it would be more expensive. The accommodation to the people, that the friends of the measure urge in its favor, was more ideal than real.
Mr. FERGUSON. The subject was worthy of consideration. If a system can he adopted to convenience the people, adopt it. By voting for the resolution Senators did not commit themselves to any schema that might be desired.
On motion by Mr. MOORE, the resolution was amended by adding in the proper place these words:
"That each tax payer, at the time of paying his tax shall make out a schedule of his taxable property and hand it in to the collector at the time of page: 85[View Page 85] paying his tax, or at some subsequent time on or before the first day of June."
The resolution, as amended, was adopted.
On motion by Mr. LENDERS it was--
Resolved, That when the Senate adjourn it will he till Monday, at 2 o'clock p.m.
