THE GRAVEL ROAD LAW.
Mr. Miller's bill [S. 18,] to repeal the act authorizing the assessment of lands for plank, macadamized and gravel road purposes, and also the act authorizing the construction of plank, macadamizad and gravel roads, saving the rights already required, being read the third time -
Mr. MILLER, said that was his bill and he hoped it would be voted down.
Mr. GREGG said he hoped it would pass, for it was one of the most important upon which the Senate was called to act. The Senate has already indicated its feeling by its action in reference to assessments for the construction of ditches and railroads against the will of the people. It is correctly assumed that these corporations are always organized for selfish purposes, for the benefit of a few at the expense of the many.
Mr. STEELE thought the law would work great injustice. In many cases roads have begun in good faith and completed for a distance of, say four or five miles. The effect of this law would be to enable those living along the line of the road to enjoy the improvement without paying a cent. In other cases it would stop work on roads which were greatly needed and desired by the people.
Mr. GLESSNER made an earnest speech in favor of the preservation of the gravel road law.
Mr. DITTEMORE demanded the previous question on the passage of the bill, and there being a second to the demand, under the operations thereof the bill was rejected by yeas 15, nays 25 - as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Bird, Bowman, Collett, Fuller, Francisco, Friedley of Lawrence, Gregg, Hall, Harney, Howard, Neff, Oliver, Orr, Stroud and Wadge - 15.
NAYS - Messrs. Armstrong, Beardsley, Beeson, Biggs, Boone, Brown, Bunyan, Carnahan, Chapman, Daggy, Dittemore, Glessner, Hubbard, Miller, O'Brien, Rhodes, Ringo, Sarnighausen, Scott, Slater, Smith, Steele, Taylor, Thompson and Winterbotham - 25.
Pending the roll-call -
Mr. GREGG, in explanation of his vote when his name was called said: I shall vote in accordance with the petition of hundreds of thousands of farmers not in these lobbies with the representatives of these corporations. I vote "aye"
Mr. HALL, when his name was called in explanation of his vote said: I wish the law repealed because it is productive of so much ill feelling. I vote "aye."
Mr. HARNEY, in explanation of his vote when his name was called said : Mr, Glessner has given reasons why we should vote for this bill. It is very arbitrary and therefore I vote to repeal the law. I vote "aye,"
Mr. NEFF, when his name was called in explanation of his vote, said : I would like to discuss the merits of this bill somewhat, but it has been a rule of this Senate that after certain members have discussed their side of the question fully they move the previous question and cut off the debate. I would prefer to say what I desired to before any one voted ; but now in explanation of my vote I simply desire to say that I vote in favor of the repeal of the law; first, because of its defectiveness. I would be in favor of wiping out the present law and then passing one not so defective. I do not favor its repeal because I am in favor of turnpikes, but there is another reason why I am in favor of a repeal of this law. I believe it is wrong to tax men against their will for the purpose of placing funds in the hands of any corporation. I was opposed to the Railroad tax law on the same principle. You take money out of the pockets of the citizen and place it in the hands of a corporation without giving him any value received for it. The same principle obtains in this turnpike tax law that does in the Railroad tax law, for this reason that it takes money unwillingly out of the pockets of the tax payer - the farmer, the mechanic and the laboring man and gives it into the hands of a private corporation. For that reason if for none other, I would be in favor of repealing that law. You might as well tax the people to support a particular church or school, for instance the Roman Catholic's, as they believe their mode of tuition best, might ask for a tax to support their kind of schools, and yet I apprehend the people of the State would rebel against it. So if you were to attempt to build up a Presbyterian or Methodist school I apprehended the balance of the people would rebel against that. For these reasons I favor the repeal of the law. I vote "aye."
Mr. ORR, when his name was called said: I wish to explain my vote. I believe the law passed regarding turnpikes was wrong, and its operation upon the people of the State oppressive. I am well satisfied that in my neighborhood it has produced ill feeling, heavy litigation in the Courts and we have not succeeded in getting our roads built. Entertaining these views I think it is my duty to vote to repeal any law that has produced so much discontent in neighborhoods. It has been a great expense both in money and kind-feeling in our locality, and I therefore vote "aye."
Mr. SARNIGHAUSEN, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote said: The present law has some provisions in it that ought to be repealed, but so long as page: 439[View Page 439] there is no better I cannot vote to repeal it. I vote "no."
Mr. SMITH, in explanation of his vote when his name was called, said: I agree with the Senator from Shelby, [Mr. Glessner,] that it would be ill advised to repeal the law, and therefore I vote "no."
Mr. STEELE, when his name was called in explanation of his vote said : I am opposed to the repeal of of this law. Like the gentleman from Randolph, [Mr. Neff.] I am in favor of passing some law well guarded. But I am opposed to repealing the present law, and therefore vote "no."
Mr. THOMPSON, in explanation of his vole when his name was called, said: If this law would take effect giving notice six months in the future, I think I could vote for it, but I am afraid it would do great damage to contracts already let.
Mr. NEFF. It saves all.
Mr. THOMPSON. From my stand point I believe I shall vote "no."
Mr. WADGE, when his name was called said: I wish to state the reasons why I shall vote to repeal this law. I was, sent down by my constituents to repeal all laws which give to corporations the power of taxation without representation. For that reason, therefore, voting as I did for the repeal of the Kankakee Valley Draining Company I will also vote to repeal the gravel road law. I vote "aye."
The vote was then announced as above recorded.
So the bill was rejected.
