REMODELING OF ROAD LAWS.
Mr. Bell's bill [S. 187--see pages 201 and 207], to make Townships Trustees Road Masters, etc., being read the third time--
Mr. BUNDY moved to refer the bill to a Special Committee of one, with instructions to strike from Section 8, line 3, the words "who shall be a freeholder."
Mr. KRAMER insisted this bill confers too much power on the Township Trustee. It is too much of a radical change from the present road law, and imposes too much labor, and more than can be done by the Township Trustee in many instances.
On motion by Mr. BELL, and by unanimous consent, the word "freeholder" was stricken out of line 3, Section 8. He was sure this bill would meet the approval of the great masses of the people who want good roads. Over $700,000 of taxes levied in this State every year are now wasted on the public roads. He combatted the objection that this bill places too much power in the hands of Township Trustees. The only radicals change is a provision that whatever taxes are levied shall be collected and honestly applied to the working of the roads, through the Trustee, who can appoint Road Masters. The Township Trustee is the nearest financial officer of the people. With a bill like this, inside of ten years the roads of this State will be well drained, in good condition, and many with hard-pan beds
Mr. DAVIS--I hope this bill will not pass. I believe the present law as good as can be devised. [He recited some of its provisions.] I believe this law, under which the roads of Indiana have been kept in repairs for the last fifty years, is exactly as it should be. The public highways contemplated by law are simply neighborhood conveniences, and a ride to the railroad station or the village where we trade is the extent of travel on them nowadays. Hence the law has allowed a man to work out his road tax in the district where he lives, and for the additional reason that these roads belong to the people of each road district. It never was contemplated by law that extraordinary work should be done on the highways. * * * I undertake to say if this bill becomes a law the Trustee will be compelled to double the tax throughout the State because the running of the machinery of this bill will take nearly all the money which the average County or Township now has for the purpose of improving the highways. He continued at some length contrasting the cost of keeping roads in repair under the present system, and under that proposed in the bill claiming that the former is $718,000 while the latter would be $2,500,000. He pointed out other objections to this bill, and declared if it should pass there will be dissatisfaction expressed with a longer whistle than that of Ex-Senator Cadwallader's, and that whistle will be to the Senator's ears like the music of the Angel's compared with the howling that will be made by the tax-payers of the State.
Mr. HERON was not in the Senate when the bill was open for amendment, and has not had opportunity to give the bill the examination that he would wish. He had an objection, though not of sufficient importance to make him vote against it. He believed it better to have a general County road tax, managed by a County Road Master, so the tax may be uniform. Then the Township in which the County Seat is situated needs more money than other Townships in the County, and if the tax was a County one, the money could be expended on those roads traveled by most of the people of the County. The time has come for a change in our road system. The road labor system is a failure and a fraud. He had felt he public pulse of his part of the State as to this law, and to his great surprise found all farmers heartily in favor of this measure.
Mr. SPANN said the present system rests on a false basis, in that the tax is allowed to be worked out. The large land owners are the most benefited under this system. For thirty years this system has been a crying shame and an injury to tax-payers. Take the amount of money expended for the past thirty years and expend it under a system of the kind now proposed, and there would have been no need to pass such a bill as was passed here the other day, authorizing the issue of $100,00 worth of bonds to aid in the construction of roads in every County in this State. We now have a chance to revolutionize a road system that has been an iniquity in Indiana for thirty years, and we ought to do it.
Mr. FOSTER had satisfied himself by receipt of letters from his home and otherwise that the people do not want this bill. It is not right to make farmers--tax ridden as they are--build roads for the benefit of the merchants in the towns and cities.
Mr. VIEHE hardly knew whether to vote for this bill or not. The Constitution says bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.
Mr. BELL had considered that question and saw no conflict. And he would not be influenced by one or two letters, referred to by his colleague (Mr. Foster). Instead of $718,000 as stated by the Senator from Vermillion (Mr. Davis) almost $1,500,000 independent of poll tax and work is expended aunually on roads in the State of Indiana.
Mr. DAVIS failed to see how this bill would compel those who have control of the roads to keep them in better order than under the old law, or how the labor can be applied any better. The money is as liable to be squandered after collected, under this bill, as the labor is likely to be misapplied. Under the present system whenever the tax-payer finds the money is to be paid to and expended by the Trustee as that official may choose, the people will be almost universally dissatisfied. This can not be an improvement on the old law. A similar bill was passed in Illinois, but repealed at the next session of the Legislature, and he predicted if this passes into a law it will be repealed two years hence.
The bill failed to pass for want of a constitutional majority--yeas, 23; nays, 20--as follows:
Yeas--Messrs. Bell, Bischowski, Briscoe, Bundy, Chapman, Comstock, Garragus, Grubbs, Hefron, Henry, Howard, Keiser, Lockridge, Menzies, Owen, Poindexter, Rahm, Ristine, Shaffer, Spann, Urmston, Van Vorhis and Yancey--23.
Nays--Messrs. Benz, Brown, Coffey, Compton, Davidson, Davis, Foster, Graham, Hostetter, Hutchinson, Kramer, Leeper, Macartney, Major, Sayre, Traylor, Viehe, White, Wilson and Wood--20.
Pending the vote--
Mr. BENZ when his name was called, in explanation of his vote said--I think we ought to have some changes in our road law, but I am afraid this bill is too extravagant a reform, therefore I vote "no."
Mr. GRAHAM, when his name was called, said--I do not want to set my judgment up in matters of this kind against the people I represent. I have taken some pains to inquire, and I understand under the law we have at this time allowing the construction of free gravel roads, the provision of this bill making the road tax payable in cash, would impose an additional burden upon the people. I think some reform in our road system is necessary. If the people would see that the Supervisors discharge their duties better there would be much more benefit derived from the present road system. I think it my duty to vote "no."
Mr. HOSTETTER, when his name was called said: "I have had some instruction from the peo- page: 261[View Page 261] ple I represent in regard to this bill. The principal objection seems to be that they do not believe in one man power. They don't believe in centering power in the hands of a Township Trustee or Road Master. They think they are capable of selecting their own overseers, and are not willing to put this thing in the hands of one man. Another objection is, under this bill they have not the privilege of working out their own road tax. Therefore I vote "no."
Mr. HOWARD, when his name was called, said: I have seen so much waste of money and labor under the present system that I have become thoroughly disgusted with it. I do not know what this law will give us in the shape of economy, but in the hope that we may find something better than the present system, I vote aye.
Mr. KEISER when his name was called, said: While this bill does not just exactly suit me, and I do not know that it will suit my constituents exactly, especially in my own County, where we have a great many men that, as far as this world's goods are concerned, are like myself--they are poor--yet I believe this bill will give us a start on a new road system that will enable us to get out in all directions from our County Seats, and little towns at any season of the year. When the frost goes out of the ground this spring the bottom will drop right out. There is not a road leading into our County-town on which a man can haul a load of wheat unless he has a team of six horses. The trouble has been under our present law that Supervisors of roads don't do their duty, arising mainly from the fact that they do not like to domineer over a neighbor by telling him he has not done an honest days's work. I hope we shall have the begining of a good road system under this bill. I have no fear of this vote doing me any material damage. I vote for the bill because I believe it to be for the best interest of the people I represent. I vote "aye."
Mr. POINDEXTER, when his name was called, said: I have taken some pains to ascertain what the farmers of my section of the State think on this subject, and I believe a majority of them prefer to try this bill. They know the system we have has not given satisfaction. Believing that this bill is for the public benefit, and if passed into a law will give us better roads than we have had, I vote "aye."
So the bill failed to pass.
Mr. CHAPMAN entered a motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill [S. 132] appropriating $6,000 to remove a sand-bar in the Calumet River was passed the Senate. He also offered a resolution requesting the House of Representatives to return the bill to the files of the Senate. He said there is no safeguard in the bill, and no guarantee that the $6,000 will be expended as intended. The very hour in which the bill passes the Commissioners of Lake County could draw the money; that is not the way to make an appropriation of this kind.
Mr. WOOD could not understand why the anxiety to reconsider the vote passing this bill. If it was because he voted against the road bill just now, let it be put squarely on that ground. He was willing all possible guards shall be put around the bill, but let that be done in the House.
The resolution was adopted by yeas, 23; nays, 21.
