THE REVENUE BILL.
The Speaker announced the special order for the consideration of the Revenue bill in Committee of the Whole House: Whereupon -
The House, as a Committee of the Whole (Nr. Richardson in the Chair) took up the bill [H. R. 530] to raise revenue for State purposes for it, yeas 73 and 74, and the Chairman directed and the Clerk read the bill.
Mr. Kimball set forth the provisions of the bill, its results under them, and the necessity for them; and moved that the committee rise and report the bill to the House without amendment and recommend its passage.
In the debate which followed, Mr. Thayer considered that the valuations of taxable property under the new assessment act ought to justify the promises of gentlemen that the levy need not be increased.
Mr. Kimball and Mr. Branham submitted the committee's estimates that the new law for valuation would not be sufficient, and that the levy proposed would be no more than will be necessary. The estimated total valuation of the State being $800,000,000, it would give a revenue of $1,600,000.
Mr. Thompson, of Elkhart, proposed to amend the bill by striking out "twenty" and inserting "fifteen" for the per cent. of the levy for 1873.
Mr. Millett gave considerations against the amendment.
Mr. Givan supposed the committee to have put the lowest estimate on the expenses of the State; he supposed the total of the State's duplicate would be nearer ten hundred millions than eight hundred millions. He was opposed to raising revenue to be idle on the Treasury.
Mr. Kimball showed, in accordance with the opinion of the committee, and the State officers whom they consulted, that it is better to base the levy on a certain estimate, than to place it on an uncertain estimate. We are now compelled to make a temporary loan, and he desired that such a necessity should not follow y oar after year.
Mr. McConnell said there is not enough difference between the requirements for valuation in the old and the new assessment laws to justify the expectations of a largely increased revenue
Mr. Cobb commended the policy of the State as of the individual: Pay as you go. It is better to have a little surplus than to be running the State into debt.
Mr. Branham called attention to the fact that the time of the assessments is charged from the first of January to the first of April - which is in the interests of the farmers. He was satisfied that the increase of the valuation of real estate would not justify the estimates of gentlemen. The actual needs of 1873 will reach $1,600,000, and this levy would probably bring in $1,300,000. A safe levy would give the State better credit in the market where she has to go for the present proposed loan. His original opposition to so high a levy has been overcome by the figures he was obliged to face, and which he presented to the Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Thayer. If he could go home with the conviction that there will be nothing gained to the revenue by the valuation now required for real estate, he could vote for their proposed levy. But his understanding was that the assessments would be upon a valuation of real estate and others taxable, increased by two and a half per cent. He proposed to amend the amendment by making it ten per cent. for 1874.
Mr. Buttwworth. It was the understanding in page: 223[View Page 223] his part of the State that real property would be assessed at its fair value; and this would repress the excuses of heavy stock owners for prevarications.
Mr. Lenfestey considered that the new assessment law would increase the value of the mineral lands more than a hundred millions; and a large increase of revenue was expected to result from the taxation of railroads.
Mr. Kimball. If we strike this levy down, may not the people ask why we do not increase the levy instead of paying ten per cent, on loan of seven or eight hundred thousand dollars?
Mr. Thompson, of Elkhart. During the war times we never had a more extravagant levy.
Mr. Kimball. We had then forty-five per cent.
Mr. Thompson. Better to cut off heavy appropriations than to make a burdensome increase of the levy. He proposed to make the levy accord with the assessments.
Mr. Johnson. Taking the committee's statements of the necessities and resources of the State, it is wisdom in the Legislature to take the responsibility involved. The Buncomb reducduction of the levy two years ago to five cents brought no credit to its inventors.
Mr. Stanley. The Garret bonds were not in the estimates at that time.
Mr. Brett. We know the past levy has not been sufficient. He summed the current expenses, and argued thence the necessity of increased taxation. This shuffling responsibility by way of loans was the worst of resorts. We might reduce the levy to ten cents for 1874, but less than twenty cents for 1873 would leave the Treasury in a depleted condition. Certainly under fifteen cents for each of these years would not meet the wants of the State. He was opposed to the loan of a million; and preferred a just and and square taxation at once.
Mr. Thayer's and Mr. Thompson's amendments were successively rejected; also Mr. Blocher's amendment, to make the levy at ten cents instead of fifteen for 1874.
Mr. Kimball's motion was then agreed to, and, accordingly, the committee rose and the chairman reported the bill to the House without amendment, with the recommendation of the committee of the whole House that the same do pass.
On motion of Mr. Branham, the further consideration of the bill was postponed, and it was made the special order for Tuesday morning at ten o'clock, in the hope (as he said,) that the committee having time to do so might revise their figures and propose a low or levy.
Mr. Wilson, of Ripley, moved ineffectually to take up the Carnahan bill [S. 71] changing the time for issuing letters of administration from fifteen to five days.
