AFTERNOON SESSION.
THE GOLD BASIS BILL.
The SPEAKER resumed at two and a half o'clock p. m., and announced the consideration of the unfinished business, viz: The Ways and Means gold basis appraisement bill [H. R. 58.]
Mr. JOHNSON of Parke, remarked that he was in no condition of health to discuss the bill as he would like, but he could not allow the question to pass, without uttering his protest against it. He addressed the House against the bill, assuming that it made inequality in the assessments of real and personal property for the year 1869.
Mr. BUSKIRK explained that though the bill prescribed the gold basis for personal property not till 1870, the appraisement of real estate for 1869 did not go into effect till next year.
Mr. COFFROTH also excepted his line of argument.
Mr. JOHNSON still maintained that the assessments for the year 1869 go on the duplicate this fall. This left the millions of personal property, embracing, perhaps, one-third of all the property in the State, taxed this year thirty-five per cent, higher than the realty of the State. He alleged the injustice of the argument of the friends of the bill to tax on a specie basis, which they never expected to reach.
Mr. COFFROTH. They would reach that by appreciating greenbacks.
Mr. JOHNSON continued, asserting the injustice of taxing on a fluctuating basis. If greenbacks will pay a debt, dollar for dollar, let us tax on that basis. But he opposed the bill chiefly because it taxes personal property higher for the first year. He would have all appraisements in lawful currency at its value at the time the appraisements are made.
Mr. SHOAFF suggested the present inequality--taxing one thousand dollars in gold the same as one thousand three hundred and sixty dollars in property that would be required to buy it.
Mr. JOHNSON answered the objection and continued. He urged also the objection that real estate is appraised but once in five years, while the personal property is taxed every year on a fluctuating basis. He moved to postpone the consideration and recommit the bill.
The SPEAKER ruled that the motion was out of order, the bill having been engrossed and read three times. It can not be recommitted with instructions, except by a two-thirds vote.
Mr. OSBORN considered the danger of hurrying this proposition without due consideration. What good was proposed by this hill? It was not to reduce taxes, nor to make greater uniformity in taxation.
Mr. BUSKIRK said he was informed that there was diversity as to the basis of taxation-- in some counties upon a gold, and in some a currency basis.
Mr. OSBORN then spoke to the difficulty of fixing the value of property in gold. With gold, for the past years, the country has had but little to do. But Congress says-- property--incomes shall be given in at its value in lawful money. Now, if the General Assembly say in gold, where was the equality?
Mr. BUSKIRK suggested that resumption of specie payment would make inequality page: 185[View Page 185] against merchants and bankers before the end of live years-- as the law now stands.
Mr. OSBORN answered and continued. It was an equality in the standard of all appraisements, which he desired. He deprecated the bill chiefly because it was a stab at the lawful currency of the country. Let it not be said in Wall street that greenbacks are not the stable currency for the basis of taxation. Then, if we derive no good from this bill, why vote for it? He looked at the folly of making greenbacks equal to gold by making more of them. And, after all, legislation could not govern the judgments of men in appraisements. Such were the prejudices now existing on the financial question, that it would hardly be possible to have appraisers elected, whose views on a subject of this kind would exactly coincide. There were those whose prejudices against the currency were such that they would not hesitate to lay themselves liable by giving hi their valuations on a gold basis despite the law, and we have had many such men under indictment for just such practices. He was aware that there were those who advocated the pernicious doctrine that greenbacks were not money, and should not be recognized as such, but he hoped it was not the object of gentlemen to get to a gold basis, that such gentlemen might value their property on the same basis with others. While the Government is endeavoring to so reconcile interests, and assimulate the values of the currency and gold, he thought it a poor time for the Legislature of Indiana to put itself on the record as an obstacle to such a desirable state of things. It should be remembered in considering the bill, that to the plank in the Democratic platform, which pronounced in favor of this currency, by declaring that greenbacks, which were good enough for the soldier are good enough for the bondholder, many members of that party owe their seats in this House to-day. If this is true, and none will gainsay it, does not this fact prove that the hearts of the people are all with the currency, and that they look upon their best interests as being inseparable from this paper medium? Most certainly, what then is the propriety or justice of a law that abandons this popular basis with which the people are well pleased, and thus casting discredit upon the national currency, as though there is danger that it would soon cease to ba a representation of value? If it be true that the greenback paid the soldier is good enough for the bondholder, why is not the greenback a good enough basis of appraisement for the property of the country? This currency, gentlemen, is indissolubly linked with the fate of this country. With it stands or with it falls the country. Greenbacks that are good enough to buy lands and houses and the necessaries of life with, are good enough as a basis for the valuation of that property. Those gentlemen who look to financial schemes proposed as the great panacea for the country's ills, and that promise a speedy return to specie payment, from which is to arise inequalities in taxation, owing to the duration of this appraisement, are like those people who look for the bag of gold at the end of the rainbow. These schemes may prove futile. Governor Morton may find that he was wrong. Let the Legislature of Indiana pass this bill, and you will find the national currency go down tomorrow on Wall street. And why, because the government is less able to redeem its notes than it was the day before? No, but because of the encouragement you give by that vote in the interests of repudiation.
Mr. COFFROTH, to answer Mr. Johnson of Parke's objection against real estate on gold, and personal on currency this year, proposed to amend the bill by recommitting with instructions to strike out the words "made after the year 1869," as to real property.
Mr. WILDMAN. It will be remembered that this bill followed upon his resolution for an equal basis. And, as the bill was objectionable, because it proposed inequality, he proposed to recommit it, with instructions to strike out "gold" and insert "currency" in lieu.
Mr. COFFPOTH made the point that the sense of this House has been already taken against this identical proposition.
Mr. VATER held that "currency" and "greenbacks" do not mean the same for this point of order.
The SPEAKER held that the point was well taken as against both propositions.
Mr. BUSKIRK desired that this question be now settled.
The SPEAKER then entertained Mr. Coffroth's amendment.
Mr. GORDON, because there was little more than a quorum, proposed to postpone and make the bill and proposed amendments the special order for day after to-morrow at half-past two o'clock.
Mr. Coffroth's motion was rejected--50 to 29--two-thirds not voting in the affirmative.
Mr. COFFROTH. Since the House refused to amend, he hoped the friends of the bill would adhere to the question on its passage now, and reject the motion to postpone. The Senate could supply the needed amendments.
The motion to postpone was rejected--affirmative 36; negative 42.
Mr. COFFROTH demanded the previous question, and there was a second, and the main question ordered.
The bill was then rejected--yeas 42, nays 43--as follows:
page: 186[View Page 186]YEAS--Messrs. Addison, Admire, Baker, Bates, Bobo, Britton, Buskirk, Calvert, Carnahan, Coffroth, Cotton, Cox, Dittemore, Fuller,Furnas,Green, Hatchings, Hyatt, Johnston of Montgomery, Lawler, Logan, McBride, McDonald, McFadin, McGregor, Miller, Miles, Mock Montgomery, Neff, Odell, Palmer, Pierce of Vigo, Shoaff, Shoemaker, Smith, Stewart of Rush, Tebbs, Welborn, Wile, Zenor and Zollars-- 42.
NAYS--Messrs. Barnett, Beeler, Bowen, Chittenden, Davidson, Davis, Dunn, Fairchild, Field of Lake, Field of Lagrange, Gilham, Gordon, Hall, Hamilton, Higbee, Higgins, Johnson of Parke, Johnson of St. Joseph, Jump, Millikin, Miner, Mitchell, Os-born, Overmyer, Peele, Pierce of Porter, Ratliff, Sabin, Skidmore, Sleeth, Stephenson, Stewart of Ohio, Sunman, Tabor, Underwood, Vardeman, Va-ter, Wildman, Williams of Hamilton, Williams of St. Joseph, Williams of Union, Wilson and Mr. Speaker--43
Mr. MITCHELL, explaining his vote said: It recurred so him that it can make no difference whether the property of the State is appraised on a gold or greenback basis, for the reason that the State requires only so much money to carry on its institutions. He regarded this now as a political question--a direct thrust at the currency, attempted by the Democracy in the interest of the odious doctrine of repudiation.
Mr. PIERCE of Vigo, explaining, referred to what he believed an unconstitutional feature in the bill, but voted for it in the belief that the Senate would correct that.
Mr. RATLIFF, explaining his vote, struck a balance between what is lost to the State by the increasing value of real estate for five years, and the disadvantage to the holders of personal property which is assessed every year, and preferred the law as it is, and, especially since it is generally believed that gold and greenbacks will come to the same standard. The real estate being appraised once in five years, and personal property once in each year, the increase in the value of real estate is not taken into the account for taxation; and should this bill become a law, and the property assessed accordingly, this increase of value will not be reached; but should the assessment be made on a greenback basis, and should greenbacks and gold merge to the same standard, as is anticipated, the increase of real estate in value, will be partially balanced on the greenback basis. The assessment of real estate being on a greenback basis, and at a higher rate compared with gold, will be partially compensated for by the enhanced value which cannot be directly reached for taxation. Believing the value of gold, in greenbacks, will decrease as faith in the government increases, I therefore shall record my vote against this bill.
Mr. STEWART of Rush, explaining, would not shrink from the support of the bill, because of the sheer justice of the proposition. He voted aye, because he believed it to be the object of the party in power to make the luxuries of life pay the burdens of taxation, and to exempt, so far as possible, the landed interests.
Mr. UNDERWOOD voted no, and said that he looked upon the bill as unfriendly to the best interests of the country in discrediting the curreucy.
So the bill was rejected.
The SPEAKER laid before the House a communication from the trustees of the Soldiers' Home at Knightstown, inviting members to visit that institution next Saturday.
The invitation was formally accepted.
On motion of Mr. OYERMYER, leave of absence was granted to the Committee on Organization of Courts.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
The Senate concurrent resolution for a joint committee of seven--four on the part of the House--to consider the expediency of a new Gubernatorial mansion, coming up--
The vote thereon discovered no quorum present, on motion--
The House adjourned till to-morrow morning at ten o'clock
