IN SENATE
MONDAY, March 7, 1881--10:30 a. m.The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR took the Chair, and, after the reading of the Secretary's minutes of Saturday's proceedings was dispensed with, announced the order of business to be the a consideration of the bill [H. R. 204] concerning taxation, it being pending at the time of the adjournment. The reading of the bill by sections was pursued until-
Mr. CHAPMAM moved to strike out clause 4, of Section 8, because fully covered by clause 2, and for the purpose of reducing the bulk of this long bill--
Mr. VIEHE moved to strike out the words "when belonging to any city or town" in said a sub-division.
Mr. Chapman accepted this amendment, and by consent of Mr. V., he so changed his motion.
This amendment was agreed to.
On motion by Mr. BUNDY, the vote adopting the amendment was reconsidered.
On motion by Mr. CHAPMAN, the fourth sub-division was stricken out--he withdrawing his amendment suggested by Mr. Viehe.
On motion by Mr. VIEHE, the words "'campus or" were struck out of the exemptions named in the sixth sub-division where these words refer to a tract of land on which an educational building is situate.
Mr. CHAPMAN moved to make the language in the seventh sub-division of Section 8 more clear, namely, by substituting the word 'devoted" for the word "used" for religious worship. etc.
Mr. VIEHE moved a substitute by inserting after the word "acres" the words "when used by a Church or Religious Society, or in trust for its use."
The substute was agreed to and adopted as part of the section.
Mr. LOCKRIDGE offered the following as a substitute for Section 10:
"In all cases where buildings or personal property shall be destroyed, in whole or in part, by unavoidable casualty, after being assessed for the year, and such loss is not covered by insurance, the County Auditor shall, upon sworn proof of such loss, allow a rebate of such proportion of the taxes for that year as that part of the year which shall have passed before such destruction bears to the whole year."
He said the object of the substitute is: Under the section as in the bill if a man's property is destroyed, say three months after an assessment is made, no tax can be collected at all, and there is no fairness in that. If a man has the use of his property three or six months after its assessment, he could pay a tax on it for that length of time. Under the section as it stands now, the whole of that is rebated.
Mr. CHAPMAN favored the substitute, because it eliminates useless words and because it is an equitable proposition. He suggested that the Senator from Morgan (Mr. Grubbs) accept the substitute.
Mr. TRAYLOR submitted the will the substitute leave tenants? He opposed its adoption.
The substitute was adopted as part of the section.
On motion by Mr. CHAPMAN, a substitute was adopted for Section 12, covering the same idea, but in different phraseology.
Mr. CHAPMAN saw no reason for the incorporation of the words "merchants or manufacturer shall state," in Section 15, or other words he named in same section, which he moved to strike out.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. CHAPMAN thought Sections 16 and 17 could be embraced in one containing a less number of words. He submitted a substitute for these two sections.
Mr. MENZIES could not agree with the Senator this time, inasmuch as the sections refer to distinct subjects.
The substitute for Sections 16 and 17 was agreed to.
Mr. BELL offered a substitute for Section 18, changing in nowise the sense, purport or intent of the section, but making it more clear by substituting different phraseology.
It was adopted.
Mr. VIEHE submitted an amendment to Sec- page: 277[View Page 277] tion 20, not changing the sense of the section but as a matter of accuracy.
Mr. WILSON preferred the wording of the section, because the amendment would change the name in which property of the deceased would be listed.
The amendment was withdrawn by the author.
Mr. BELL moved to amend Section 21 by changing the phraseeology to accomplish the same purpose.
The amendment was agreed to.
[On motion by Mr. VAN VORHIS, the Governor was requested to return to the Senate the bill [S. 18] having reference to teh Wards and Precincts in the city of Indianapolis, for the purpose of correcting a clerical error.]
Then came a recess till 2 o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. VIEHE offered an amendment to consolidate Section 24 and 27 on the same subject, which are now inconsistent.
On motion by Mr. SPANN, the word "County" in Section 30 was stricken out.
The section as amended was adopted.
Mr. BELL--While we are proceeding upon the principle that tangible property should be taxed in the Township, city or town where the owner resides, this vote would seem to be in conflict with that procedure. He entered a motion to reconsider the vote just taken.
Mr. CHAPMAN saw a sort of hodge-podge arrangement in coupling saloons and eating houses with bankers, stock jobbers and Insurance Companies, as Section 30 now stands.
Mr. MENZIES said Section 51 was aimed at book peddlers who come in and set up a book store for two or three or mor months, and then go off without paying license.
Mr. BROWN favored the peddler as being the only way the merchants of the country districts can be regulated. He moved to strike out the whole section.
Mr. LANGDON doubted not but the section was drawn to protect local merchants. He favored the motion to strike out.
Mr. HEFRON believed the purpose of this section was a correct and just one. It is aimed at itinerant peddlers of merchandise, who locate for a few months at a time in order to sell their cheap goods. The license imposed on them in towns and cities is a small tax. This class should bear their proportionate share of taxes.
Mr. BELL desired to see either this section be stricken out or entirely remodeled, as by its wording a man's property might be taxed half a dozen times in a year were he to move into different Counties so often. The principle is wrong. Cities and towns tax all these peripatetic individuals, and if they can come in and undersell merchants, let them do so and pay just such tax as other persons.
Pending the consideration of this see 51.
CLOSING COURTESIES.
Mr. BELL from the Committee thereon, reported verbally that His Excellency, the Governor, had no further communications to make to this session of the General Assembly.
A message from the House of Representatives announced that that body had no further communications to make to the Senate this session.
Mr. BROWN (Mr. Comstock in the Chair) offered the following:
Resolved, That the Senate of the State of Indiana hereby tender its thanks to Hon. Thomas Hanna, Lieutenant Governor, for the fairness and impartiality with which he has discharged the duties of his office during the present session of the General Assembly.
The resolution was adopted.
PAVING IN FRONT OF STATE PROPERTY.
Mr. MARVIN offered the following:
Whereas, There is an ordinance pending in the Common Council of the City of Indianapolis for the improvement of Meridan street in said city with wooden blocks; and
Whereas, The State is largely interested in the improvement of said street; and
Whereas, Petitions and remonstrances are being circulated among the owners of property on said street for and against sai proposed improvements; therefore
Resolved, By the Senate, the House concurring, that the General Assembly of the State is opposed to the improvement of said street, with any kind of wooden blocks.
Mr. MARVIN remembered several years ago the State was called upon to pay her share of paving that street. Good, clean, gravel or paving stone is much better than wooden blocks, which it is now proposed to pave that street with, and it would cost the State some $2,000 less. He desired immediate action, because this motion comes before the Common Council of the City of Indianapolis to-night.
Mr. CHAPMAN said it was sufficient to say the city can not compel the State to pay for this paving if she does not want to. He asked that the State take no part in this controversy.
Mr. VAN VORHIS was compelled to differ with his colleague again. There were petitions and remonstrances being circulated for and against the the proposed improvement of Meridan street with wooden blocks, and there is a good deal of feeling on this matter. The State is interested to the extent of 1,000 or 1,200 feet, and it is proper the General Assembly should express itself squarely one way or the other on this question. It is a question of considerable expense--probably not less than $2,500 or $4,000 on the part of the State.
Mr. SPANN opposed the resolution. It would be a mere matter of generosity on the part of the State to pay after the work is done. This General Assembly has no right in advance to determine what kind of improvement shall be made on the streets of Indianapolis by the Common Council.
On motion by Mr. BROWN, the resolution was referred to the special session.
PAY OF THE PAGES.
Mr. WOOD offered a resolution to increase the pay of Pages from $2 to $2.50 a day. He spoke in favor of is additional pay for the little boys.
Pending the consideration of this resolution--
REINSTATEMENT OF BURNT RECORDS.
On motion by Mr. COMSTOCK, the Governor was requested to return the bill [S. 211] to provide for the reinstatement of burnt records, as its provisions are now discovered to be broader than the Senate supposed at the time the bill was passed. On motion by Mr. BROWN, the vote by which the bill passed was reconsidered.
ADJOURNMENT SINE DIE.
Mr. LANGDON moved that the Senate adjourn sine die.
The motion was agreed to.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR said: The Chair desires, before announcing that the Senate has adjourned sin die, to return his thanks to Senators for the kindness and courtesy that has been extended to him, and for the assistance each one of you has rendered the Chair in the discharge of his duties during the session. Trusting that nothing will occur in the future to mar the pleasant memories we have gathered here, I announce the Senate has adjourned sine die. [Applause.]
And so the Senate of the regular session of the Fifty-first General Assembly adjourned sine die.
