MUNICIPAL TAXATION OF BANK SHARES.
On motion by Mr. GRAY, the bill [H. R. 170], a bill to provide for the assessment and collection of taxes for municipal, purposes on the shares of stock owned in banks or banking associations doing business in this State, was taken up.
The majority of the Committee made a lengthy printed report against its passage and the minority presented written reason why the bill should become a law.
Mr. HANNA moved to make this subject the special order for 2 o'clock to-day in Committee of the Whole.
Mr. GRAY preferred its consideration at once and now.
Mr. GREEN was of opinion that if the Senate went into Committee of the Whole this would close up all legislation for this session.
Mr. CRAVENS did not propose to contribute to dodging the result of the consideration of the Constitutional Amendment: and as much business of importance was before us, he moved to indefinitely postpone the bill.
Mr. MORGAN declared there was now $11,000,009 in the hands of wealthy men escaping taxation for municipal purpose; and he regarded this bill as important a measure as has been before this Legislature; consequently it should be acted upon now.
Mr. GRAY did not understand that our rules require this bill to be discussed in the Committee of the Whole as is contended by the Senator from Sullivan and others.
page: 221[View Page 221]Mr CHURCH undertook to say the country districts did not demand that this measure should be passed; and he was inot disposed to lay aside the important legislation of this session for the consideration of this bill.
Mr. GRAY showed an invidious distinction made by the present law as between investments in bank stocks and investments in the mercantile business, and declared that this bill would remedy it. The question of justice is the most important one to be discussed and acted upon in any legislative body, and this bill should claim immediate attention by the Senate.
Mr. CARSON also regarded this as very important measure; as one called for by one hundred thousand people of Indiana, and one reccommended by the Chief Executive officer of the Sttae in his message to the Legislature.
Mr. CRAVENS made his motion not to avoid a decision by the Senate, for he felt convinced this matter would have to be adjudicated by the Courts, and it could be sent to the Courts as well without the bill as with it. He demanded the previous question.
The Senate seconded the demand.
The motion to indefinitely postpone the bill was agreed to by yeas 26, nays 21-as follows:
Yeas-Messrs. Andrews, Beardsley, Bird,Case, Church, Cravens, Denbo, Elliott, Fisher, Clifford Hadley, Hamilton, Hanna, Hooper, Huey, Jaquess, Montgomery, Rice, Reynolds, Robinson of Madison, Robinson of Decatur, Scott, Sherrod, Stein, Wolcott and Wood-26.
Nays-Messrs. Armstrong, Bellamy, Bradley, Carson, Caven, Fosdick, Gray, Green, Henderson, Hess, Humphreys, Johnson of Spencer, Johnson of Montgomery, Kinley, Laselle, Lee, Morgan, Smith, Taggart and Turner-21.
Pending the roll call-
Several Senators-Messers. Hanna, Gifford and Andrews-explained their affirmative votes in language similar to-
Mr. SHERROD, who said: It is evident that this bill can not get the necessary constitutional vote to pass it. It is therefore a waste of time to discuss it, and especially at this late hour of the session, when there are so many measures waiting the action of the Senate in which the people are directly interested. I shall therefore vote for the indefinite postponement.
So the motion to indefinitely postpone the bill was agreed to.
Mr. WOLCOTT-having changed his vote for that purpose-moved to reconsider the vote just taken.
On motion by Mr. CHURCH, this motion was laid on the table by yeas 25, nays 20.
On motion by Mr. KINLEY, the bill [H. R. 288] to amend sections 4 and 8 of the liquor law of March 5 1859 was read by title second time, and the third time by sections.
Mr. TURNER, although intending to vote against the passage of this bill, voted to take it up that the party opposed to him in politics which has pretended for the last ten years to be, and have obtained a large vote in this state on the ground that they were temperance men, when practically they were no more so than us, who do not make that profession-that, these gentlemen may now have an opportunity of manifesting the truth of their pretensions.
The bill failed to pass by yeas 22, nays 23-as follows:
YEAS.-Messrs. Andrews, Armstrong, Bellamy, Case, Church, Cravens, Eliott, Fosdick, Gray, Green, Hadley, Hamilton, Hess, Hooper, Johnson of Spencer, Kinley, Reynolds. Robinson of Madison, Robinson of Decatur, Scott, Stein, Wood-22.
NAYS.-Messrs. Beardsley, Bird, Bradley, Carson, Caven, Fisher. Gifford, Hanna, Henderson, Huey, Huffman, Humphreys, Jaquess, Johnson of Montgomery, Laselle, Lee, Montgomery, Morgan, Rice, Sherrod, Smith, Turner, Wolcott23.
