THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
FOURTEENTH VOLUME.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
Assessment, Execution and Bevenue Laws.---Debate in Continuation.
IN SENATE.
THURSDAY, March 6, 1873.[CONTINUED FROM PAGE 242, MIDDLE OF SECOND COLUMN.
Mr. TAYLOR. from the committee on Finance, returned House Bill No. 504, supplimental and amendatory to the assessment law with amendments providing among other things, for a tax of three per cent. on the gross earnings of foreign Insurance Companies, the Pulman Palace Car Company in this State, and of fast freight lines.
The report was concurred in.
Mr. DWIGGINS enterest his protest against the tax of three per cent. levied on the gross receipts of railroad companies, and of foreign insurance companies less losses actually paid in the State. He believed its effect would be to drive these companies from the State, or cause a serious advance in the rates of insurance. He characterized this as one of the most dangerous bills ever introduced.
Mr. BROWN feared the provisions for the semi-anual collection of taxes would work great inconvenience and disadvantage to tax-payers and officers.
Mr. BOONE said he opposed this bill on the ground that the important part of the Senate bill on this subject is left out of this onethe part that repeals certain sections of the act of last seseion and he was not to be caught in this sort of a trap.
Mr. STEELE also thought the Senate bill superior to this one. He opposed the semiannual payment of taxes. He moved to recommit the bill to a select committe of five with instructions to insert the clause in the Senate bill repealing the old sections in the law in relation to tax rates and deeds; and to report the same back at 2 o'clock to-day.
On motion by Mr. DITTEMORE this motion was laid on the table.
On motion by Mr. DWIGGINS the bill was amended by consent so as to provide that the tax of three per cent. shall not be collected from railroad companies owning and operating any railroad in the State.
The bill was passed by the following vote.
YEAS- Messrs. Armstrong, Beardsley, Beeson, Bird, Boone, Bunyan, Carnahan, Cave, Chapman, Daggy, Daugherty, Fuller, Friedley of Scott, Glessner, Gooding, Hall, Haworth, Miller, Oliver, Rhodes, Ringo, Rosebrugh, Sarnighausen, Scott, Slater, Sleeth, Stroud, Taylor, Wadge and Williams - 30.
NAYS - Messrs. Boone, Brown, Collett, Dittemore, Dwiggins, Friedley of Lawrence, Gregg, Howard, Hubbard, Neff, Smith, Steele, and Winterbotham - 13.
Pending the roll call.
Mr. DWIGGINS said: All the provisions of the bill are good except the one taxing insurance companies.
Mr. GREGG, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said: The bill similar to this one presented in the Senate has already passed the House therefore if I am correct in that I vote "aye."
Mr. HOWARD, in explanation of hia vote when his name was called, said: This bill page: 563[View Page 563] authorizes the collection of taxes twice in a year, on the 15th of April for half and on the 15th of November for the other half, so there is an extension of eleven months time after the duplicate goes into the hands of the Treasurer. It strikes me as far as the State Treasury is concerned, and the interests of the people the taxes should all be collected by the 15th of April I therefore vote "no."
Mr. ROSEBEUGH, in explanation of his vote, when his name was called, said : Understanding that this is a bill to tax insurance companies though it does not exactly meet my views yet it is so late in the session for fear we may not get any other legislation on the subject I vote "aye"
When the roll call was finished.The result was announced as above recorded.
So the bill passed.
Mr. O'Brien's bill [S. 229] to legalize the official acts of the trustees of the town of Cicero was read the third time.
Mr. BROWN was informed that this bill does very great injustice to people that don't belong to the town.
Mr. DWIGGINS said all of them agree in a desire to pay the bonds issued to pay for the school house and they cannot pay the bonds unless this bill is passed.
Mr. STEELE and Mr. DAGGY also favored the bill.
Mr. BOONE opposed the bill because it legalizes all acts done by said town trustees.
Mr. BIRD preferred not to interfere in a matter which properly belongs to the Courts.
Mr. DITTEMORE thought there was scarcely a legal act done by the board since its organization and he could not vote for such a sweeping legalizing act.
The bill was rejected by yeas 20 nays 22.
The Senate then adjourned till two o'clock P. M.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The Senate met pursuant to adjournment.
On motion of Mr. BIRD, Senate bill No. 203 was taken up. It provides that when the title of a married man to real estate is transferred to another person - the wife not being bound therby - the inchoate right of the wife in the property shall become a vested estate, the same as if her husband had died, and she may hold, sell and convey the same in the same manner as her separate property.
Mr. DAGGY opposed the bill. It would be offering inducements for men to let their property go to sale under order of the Court or convey their property without the wife joining in the deed in order that the one-third that goes to the wife shall remain vested. The bill is not right in principle.
Mr. STEELE did not think any man who understands this bill should object to it. It is a bill to prevent wives and children from being turned out of house and home. Ought we not to protect our women and chidren thus far?
Mr. RHODES, one additional reason why I favor the bill is that when property is levied on and sold under execution it is always considered by the purchaser that in case of the husbands death the wife would be entitled to one-third, and the result is that real estate sold in that way almost invaribly sells for one-third less than its real value and it seems to me, that being the fact, that we ought to put the law in such a condition that the purchaser shall not by the death of the wife prior to the death of the husband be entitled to this one-third which never entered into the purchase. I think when a party purchases at sheriff's sale it is right to go as far as this bill, and provide that the wife have her third set oft. I am in favor of the bill for I believe it to be a good one.
Mr. HOUGH. What would be the effect in case the wife die before the husband?
Mr. RHODES. As a matter of course her third would go to her heirs.
Mr. HOUGH. Then the husband and children would inherit one-third of the property held to pay his debts?
Mr. RHODES. No. I say the wife's interest is never sold. The purchaser buys the property in view of the fact that the wife holds an inchoate interest. The fact of the sale would be to make it a vested right. The purchaser cannot complain because he never bought the wife's one-third.
Mr. BOONE. I cannot see any great injustice to creditors and none to the husband by the operations of this bill. It is intended to vest the inchoate right in the wife of her one-third, so that she may take posession and use it in as full manner as she could were the husband dead. At her death it does not go to the husband if there are children by the marriage; and if there be none it goes to the husband and the other heirs of the wife. In many instances the wife has labored as hard and done as much, and gone through as much suffering for the acquisition of the property as the husband, and she ought to be protected in her rights. She cannot sell her right, she may bar herself by joining in the deed but she cannot transfer it; hence I think this bill should be upon the statute books, so that the purchrser at the sale may know what he gets.
The bill passed the Senate by yeas 27, nays 11.
Pending the roll call -
Mr. HUBBARD, when his name was page: 564[View Page 564]called; in explanation of his vote, said: The provisions of this bill are equivolent to setting apart one-third of a man's real estate for the benefit of his wife. As the laws are it is equal to setting apart one-sixth. This Legislature has shown a disinclination to do anything for the purpose of enforcing the collection of debts and I am unwilling for that reason to do anything farther that will have a tendency to exempt the property of a debtor from sale on execution, I vote "no."
Mr. HOUGH, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said : I cannot see that it is more than excepting one-third of a man's realty from the claims of creditors, and as I believe a larger exemption should obtain I believe I will vote "aye."
When the roll call was completed -
The vote was announced as above recorded.
So the bill passed.
THE REVENUE BILL.
Mr. TAYLOR from the Committee on Finance, returned House bill No. 530, to raise revenue for State purposes for 1873 and 1864, with a recommendation that it pass.
The report was concurred in.
On motion of Mr. DITTEMORE, the Senate then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, for the consideration of the bill, the mover in the chair, and the bill was read.
Mr. CHAPMAN moved to amend the bill by striking out "fifteen" and inserting "ten" percent.Mr. CHAPMAN explained the reasons which led him to make the motion. He said the estimated expenses for the year ending November 1, 1873, including all charges made on the Auditor's books, are one million ninety-one thousand two hundred and ninety dollars, seventy-two cents. In addition to that, we have already paid three hundred and two thousand one hundred and eighty-five dollars, thirty-eight cents of bonds, and also twenty-five thousand dollars interest, thirty thousand dollars to Purdue University, eighty-nine thousand dollars refunded taxes, have appropriated one hundred and fifty thousand dollars to the Insane Asylum, making the total amount of expenses for the year 1843, one million seven hundred and eleven thousand four hundred and seventy-six dollars, ten cents.
There is no dispute about these figures. We had on hand on the first of November, 1872, of available funds in the treasury, one million two hundred and seventy-five thousund dollars. Deducting that from the expenses and we have a deficit of about five hundred thousand dollars. The estimated expenses for the year ending November 1, 1874, are eight hundred thousand dollars. Adding to that for the Insane Asylum the appropriation of three hundred and fifty thousand dollars, the total expenses for the two years will be two million eight hundred and sixty-one thousand four hundred and seventy-six dollars. Deducting one million two hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars, the amount on hand November 1,1872, and we have left to be provided for one million five hundred and eighty-six thousand four hundred and seventy-six dollars. He estimated that under the new revenue law we should have of property one billion one-hundred million dollars upon which to make an assessment. The present estimate is six hundred and fifty million dollars. It is claimed that the railroads will increase it one hundred million dollars, and the insurance companies one million dollars more, and the increased appraisement on other property will give a total of one billion one hundred million dollars.
A tax of ten per cent, upon that will give for the year 1873, one million one hundred thousand dollars, and for 1874 the same sum. The delinquent taxes will be coming in, estimated at four hundred thousand dollars, the insurance property will yield two hundred thousand dollars, the railroads one hundred thousand dollars, and the poll tax one hundred and fifty thousand dollars, making the receipts from the levy three million fifty thousand dollars. Deduct twenty percent.six hundred and ten thosand dollars for delinquent taxes, from the whole amount, and we have left a net revenue of two million four hundred and forty thousand dollars with which to pay one million five hundred and eighty-six thousand four hundred and seventy-six dollars, leaving a balance of eight hundred and fifty-three thousand fine hundred and forty-four dollars. He believed that if the levy was fixed at fifteen cents the assessors would not revalue the property. But if the levy was fixed at ten cents and the Legislature says to the people, we have fixed the rate at the lowest possible limit, relying on a fair revaluation, the assessors will appraise the property at its fair cash value.
Mr. TAYLOR said the Senator's estimate of expenses was correct, but he differed widely with the committees of the two Houses on his other figures. They estimate the receipts from insurance companies at seventy-five thousand dollars and the poll tax at about fifty thousand dollars. But the main point of difference between the Senator and the committees is, that he estimates the property subject to taxation under the new assessment at one billion one hundred million dollars, while the committees put it at eight or nine hundred million dollars. page: 565[View Page 565] Mr. BROWN thought it would be an act of folly to attempt to cut down the revenue from fifteen to ten per cent. He hoped the bill would be adopted as it comes from the House of Representatives, because he was certain it there received as careful consideration as possible.
Mr. DWIGGINS. If we say the rate per cent. will be high the effect will be to cut the appraisement down; and if we put a low rate they will probably get the appraisement somewhere approximating the value of property, and that is an object he very much desired. It is desirable to have the property in the State appraised at its true cash value and it ought to be in order to make taxation equal and just. If we make the rate ten per cent. we will realize nearly as much as if we put it at fifteen.
The amendment [Mr. Chapman's] was rejected.
Mr. WILLIAMS moved that the Committe rise and report the bill back to the Senate with a recommendation that it pass.
The motion was agreed to, the Committee arose and the chairman reported accordingly.
After some further proceedings - see page 243 - top of second column -
Mr. Chapman's amendment to strike out fifteen per cent, and insert eleven per cent, in lieu was rejected by yeas 21, nays 21 as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Beeson, Bunyan, Carnahan, Cave, Chapman, Collett, Dwiggins, Francisco, Glessner, Gooding, Hall, Hawortn, Hough, Howard, Hubbard, Miller, Neff, Rhodes, Ringo, Scott, and Stroud. - 21.
NAYS - Messrs. Armstrong, Beardsley, Bird, Boone, Bowman, Brown, Daggy, Daugherty, Dittemore, Friedley of Lawrence, Gregg, Oliver, Sarnighausen, Slater, Sleeth, Smith, Steele, Taylor, Wadge, Williams and Winterbotham - 21.
The Lieutenant Governor gave the casting vote in the negative.
The bill was then passed to the third reading.
