SENATE BILLS ON THE FINAL READING.
The Senate proceeded to the consideration of Senate bills on the third reading that being the order at the adjournment yesterday.
Mr. Reynold's bill [S. 177] to prohibit Clerks of Courts from taking declarations page: 135[View Page 135] of aliens of intention to become citizens, &c., was read for the third time and failed to pass for want of a constitutional majority - yeas 21, nays 16.
Mr. Robinson of Madison's bill [S. 181] to amend section 343 of the General Practice act, was read the third time.
Mr. R explained that the bill provides that for good cause shown the court may grant time till the end of the suceeding term to amend bills and exceptions.
The bill passed by yeas 34, nays 0.
Mr. Craven's bill [S. 184] to amend the 19th section of the Felony act, approved June 10, 1852, was read the third time and passed the Senate by yeas 34, nays 1.
Mr. Craven's bill [S. 187] to amend the act of June, 18 1852, in relation to the taxation of lands in towns and cities, was read the third time.
Mr. LASALLE explained that it guards small farmers in cities against oppressive city taxes. It exempts forty acres or more from taxation when used wholly for agricultural purposes, and where it lies within the corporation limits.
Mr. JAQUESS objected to the bill on ground that it would exempt some $300,000 of property now paying taxes in the city of Evansville.
Mr. MORGAN stated that certain heirs held a large tract of land in Evansville needed for the enlargement of the city, and as they are receiving the benefits incident to the improvement of the city, they should pay city taxes.
Mr. ANDREWS spoke of other serious objections to the bill.
Mr. WOLCOTT regarded this as a bill to protect large speculators instead of small farmers.
Mr. LASALLE insisted that the bill would prevent an oppression by city taxation that should not be justified, and that it was our duty to pass this bill.
Mr. CARSON objected to this class of exemptions-it operates unjustly upon mechanics and laboring men.
Mr. CRAVENS said the bill was presented to him by some gentleman, with a request to introduce it. He supposed it to be an amendment to the general law for the government of cities; and it struck him as being eminently proper. If a man owns forty acres or more near the city limits, used wholly for agricultural purposes, it should not be dragged into the corporation and made to pay exhorbitant taxes, without the owners consent. If there was anything wrong; in the bill he could not see it.
Mr. CHURCH stated considerations which influenced his opposition to this measure. The law of 1867 taxes five acres m the city limits, while this bill proposes to exempt forty acres or more.
Mr. HOWK considered the bill out of order, because it proposes to revise and amend a law that is dead.
Mr. WOLCOTT desired, but failed to obtain unanimous consent for the introduction of an amendment that any person whose wealth consists of unimproved land in incorported limits, if the same amount to 40 acres, it shall be exempt from municipal taxation.
Mr. HOWK demanded the previous question, and under its operations The bill was rejected by yeas 7, nays 32.
The House message granting a Committee of Conference on the Court bill [H. R. 90] was taken up, and the President, pro tem., [Mr. Robinson, of Madison, in-the chair] appointed Messrs. Cravens, Morgan and Bellamy, the Committee on the part of the Senate.
Mr. Scott's bill [S. 188] providing for the sale of certain lands in the County of Clay was read-it having failed to pass for want of a Constitutional majority day before yesterday.
Mr. JOHNSTON, of Montgomery, thought there must be something covered up in this bill. There is a strong probability that the county seat may be moved near to this land; which would greatly increase its value. He should vote against the bill.
Mr. SCOTT and Mr. GRAY were of opinion that the land is worth more now than it will be just after the location, should it be made.
Mr. HANNA declared the title to this tract imperfect. Being a coal bed arid near furnaces, it will bring a good price. The State would realize as much by a sale now, in his judgment, as it will at any time.
Mr. JOHNSON, of Spencer, said there is a bill in the other House to restore this land to the widow of the former owner, but believing that the State owns the land, and that a sale would kill the bill referred to, he favored the passage of this measure.
The bill passed by yeas 26, nays 10.
