ASSESSMENT FOR TAXATION.
The amendment pending at the noon recess [Mr. Spann's] was rejected.
Mr. HEFRON made an ineffectual motion to strike out interrogatory No. 2 in Section 70, the same matter being in another place.
Mr. VIEHE offered an additional interrogatory to make effectual interrogatory No. 2, when answered affirmatively.
Mr. TRAYLOR moved to strike out the interregatory concerning purchases of real estate "since April 1 next preceding," as unnecessary, and possibly would lead to listing some property twice.
Mr. CHAPMAN and Mr. HEFRON favored the motion to strike out.
Mr. WOOD said: "This interrogatory ought not to be stricken out of the bill. When real estate is sold and conveyed by deed, and the conveyance is not recorded, the land is still taxed in name of the former owner. How is the owner to remove this tax? By making proof before the is proper authority that he has sold the land. That is much trouble to persons who have sold their real estate, which can be avoided by retaining this interrogatory."
The motion to strike out was agreed to.
Mr. McCARTNEY moved to amend Section 73 so as to require deductions claimed from credits shall be "itemized by giving the name of the persons, companies or corporations to whom such indebtedness may be due with the amount due to each provided the number of such creditors shall not exceed ten, and if such number of creditors shall exceed ten then such itemized statement shall include the names of ten creditors to whom the largest amounts may be due, and such itemized list shall be verified by oath, etc."
Mr. LANGDON objected to the inquisition proposed by this amendment to Section 73, requiring an itemized statement of every account from one cent up to thousands of dollars, and it is impracticable, for in some cases it would take volumes upon volumes to record what is required by this amendment to be set forth and verified by oath.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. TRAYLOR moved to strike out the words "with a view to profit" in line five. He insisted where money is deposited the owner should pay the tax thereon.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. KRAMER moved to amend the Committee substitute for Section 90 so that foreign Insurance Companies shall pay taxes semi-annually on receipts. Where great destruction of property happens, such Companies frequently break up and it is safer not to let the tax run longer than six months at a time. The people of the State pay taxes twice a year, and there is no reason why foreign Insurance Companies should be favored more than our own people. Then it not right to allow them to pay on receipts less losses actually paid. No citizen has a renduction for the losses incurred in his business.
Mr. BROWN also thought Insurance Companies should be required to make a semi-annual payment of their taxes. If a great fire should occur such it as has occurred in Chicago, Boston and other places in the latter half of the year which would cause some of these Companies to break up, page: 17[View Page 17] the tax would be lost to the State. He desired to be just to them and this is but just. He also favored the second division of this amendment, allowing no abatement of taxes for losses. These Companies can very well afford to pay this tax. They take out of the State somewhere from $1,000,000 to $1,500,000 a year, which they invest in business elsewhere, and can afford to pay their officers from $20,000 to $40,000 a year. Let this amendment prevail, and and these Companies will pay to the State from $75,000 to $80,000 a year, instead of the comparatively small tax they now pay. This amendmend is in harmony with the laws of other States. He would go as far as any one to see justice done to all enterprises, whether individual or corporate, but they should bear their just proportion of taxation.
Mr. LANGDON assumed as a proposition that the insurance business done here is a good thing for the people of this State, and done at the lowest rate. If the tax becomes onerous it will be put on the rates of insurance and will come out of the insured. The very minute it does noy pay capital to stay in insurance it will not go out. This tax should be a per cent. on the amount of the business done--in other words the profits. Whatever is realized over and above losses is the profit. The latter portion of the proposed amendment is not fair nor just to foreign companies.
Mr. SPANN was satisfied if the semi-annual statements of Insurance Companies are left out there will be a loss to the State of some $30,000, by adhering to annual statements; but the latter half of the amendment he would oppose, as being unjust. They should not be taxed upon gross receipts unless losses are deducted.
Mr. BELL--Merchants are taxed upon the amount of capital invested without respect as to whether the investment will be profitable or otherwise. These foreign Insurance Companies are placed on a vantage ground as compared with our own home Companies, and that ought not to be continued.
Mr. MENZIES--If these Companies have to pay $30,000 or $40,000 or $50,000 more of tax in this State are they going to lose it? They will place higher rates on property, and this extra tax will fall on the people of the State. This increased tax will fall upon the industrial pursuits. Taxing foreign Insurance Companies on their gross receipts exclusive of their losses will be protection enough for home Companies.
Mr. BROWN though there was a mistake in the impression that by taxing these foreign Insurance Companies they will make it up in additional charges on premiums. Experience shows the contrary. Competition is so great it keeps the prices down.
Mr. LANGDON demanded a division on the question.
The first part of the amendment, providing for semi-annual statements, was agreed to. The second division of the amendment, refusing a deduction of losses from gross receipts was agreed to by--yeas, 25; nays, 15.
Mr. VAN VORHIS moved, as a substitute for the report of the Committee upon Section 90, that the substitute for Section 90, offered by the Committee, as amended by the Senate, be adopted as a section of the bill, and inserted after Section 89 of the printed bill.
The PRESIDENT pro tem. [Mr. Chapman in the Chair], ruled this motion out of order as not germain to the subject-matter under consideration.
Pending the consideration of Section 78--
Mr. HENRY introduced a bill, [S. 334] providing for the reinstatement of records of Courts destroyed by fire, etc., which was read the first and second time under a dispensation of the constitutional rule, and referred to the Judiciary Committee.
The Senate then adjourned till to-morrow.
