IN SENATE.
THURSDAY, March 10, 1881, 10 A. M.Mr. BROWN called up the House concurrent resolution providing for a Joint Convention to-day at 2 p. m., to witness the destruction of bonds and stocks redeemed by the State Treasurer, and it was adopted.
ASSESSMENT FOR TAXATION.
The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill [H. R. 204] codifying assessment and taxation laws.
On motion by Mr VIEHE, Section 88 was amended so that a bank may pay the tax due from any of its stockholders, and retain the amount thereof with interest from any subsequent dividend.
Mr. COMSTOCK moved to strike from the Committee substitute for Section 91 all relating to the taxing of Express Companies. He regarded it as unjust to tax the gross receipts of any Express or other Company. He looked upon the principle of taxing receipts, whether gross or net, as wrong. There is a difference between Express and Insurance Companies--the former employ many men in the State at large salaries. The tax on Express Companies will, in some form or other, have to be paid by their customers. He did not question the power of the Legislature to impose such a tax on foreign corporations, but doubted the justice or policy of it. It is class legislation upon a particular class of people.
Mr. GRAHAM insisted Indiana has granted more favors to foreign corporations than other States, for the reason they have not been taxed as other States tax them. He favored taxing receipts of Express Companies as well as foreign Insurance Companies in fact, he regarded the former as more in the character of monopolies than the latter.
Mr. BELL yesterday favored taxing foreign Insurance Companes. They have no tangible property in this State. The same rule should not apply to Express Companies. There is a very great difference between the two, and there ought to be a great difference made in levying a tax on the two. Express Companies employ a vast army of men in this State. It is stated there was paid in this State $1,200,000 for the maintenance of the business and stock of Express Companies, last year. In every town and hamlet they have their stock, their horses, wagons and furniture--tangible property that can be taxed.
Mr. HEFRON--The effect of this motion will be to strike from the section all that refers to the taxation of receipts of Express Companies. In his judgment this amendment ought not to be adopted, but the section as it now stands ought to be allowed to remain. He believed foreign insurance Companies own thousands of dollars of tangible property in this State, where Express Companies own but hundreds. Insurance Companies own good buildings in many of our cities, and they own land all over the State. The Express Companies can afford to pay 1 per cent. of their receipts if foreign Insurance Companies can afford to pay 3 per cent. He desired to treat foreign Companies with the same consideration as people of the State.
Mr. MENZIES also believed the effect of the amendment would be to destroy the section. Do Senators want to make fish of one and fowl of the other--to tax Insurance Companies 3 per cent. and to allow Express Companies to go free of taxation? Express Companies earn more annually in this State than foreign Insurance Companies.
Mr. WOOD said: My only desire is do right in taxing all classes and all property in the State alike. I have no prejudice against corporations doing business in this State, but I do desire to have their property and their earnings taxed just the same as the farmer, the manufacturer, the mechanic and the laborer. This provision of the bill does that. Now, to relieve American Express Companies from taxation as the substitute practically provides, is a discrimination against all classes of our own people. It is unjust favoritism to corporations and the worst kind of class legislation.
Mr. GRAHAM was not in favor of making any more favorable conditions in reference to these corporations than is proposed by the substitute page: 21[View Page 21] recommended by the Committee. He desired to see the amendment defeated, and the bill amended so as to increase the tax on Express Companies, making it equal to the tax imposed on foreign Insurance Companies.
Mr. LANGDON listened with patience for the purpose of learning why any business from other States coming here should be treated as inimical to the public interests. He had not heard one single reason that justifies legislation which has been successfully carried through the Senate proposing taxation of foreign Insurance Companies, and to be consistent the same rule should be applied to every other foreign Company doing business in this State. Where is a monopoly in Indiana? A monopoly in business is a new thing to him. With all the experience and sagacity of business men in Indiana, they do not seek to organize Express Companies. He favored a fair tax--such an amount as is consistent with the principle of "live and let live"--and it ought to be upon profits only. The Senate should reconsider its action of yesterday, which taxes foreign Insurance Companies upon their gross incomes.
Mr. WOOLLEN had no unfriendly feeling toward any Express Company, but the State requires a great deal of money to be raised in taxation, and shall that money be raised from citizens alone, or shall not non-resident Companies doing business here be compelled to assist in raising revenue for the carrying on of the government?
Mr. FOSTER opposed the amendment. Not believing any big bugaboo ought to be raised here about foreign Companies, he was disposed to be fair and just toward them, and desired they should pay a fair tax in just proportion with that exacted from the farmer and laboring men of the State.
The amendment to the Committee's substitute was rejected by yeas, 4; nays, 40.
Mr. GRAHAM moved to increase the tax on Express Companies from 1 to 2 per cent.
Mr. BROWN didn't think this amendment should prevail. There is no similarity between foreign Insurance Companies and Express Companies, and the Committee has fixed the tax about right at 1 per cent. He hoped the Senate would adhere to the action of the Committee.
The amendment was rejected--yeas, 6; nays, 38.
Mr. CHAPMAN moved to amend the Committee substitute for Section 91 by authorizing a deduction from the gross receipts of Express Companies of "the amount of wages paid to employes within this State, and the amount paid for the purchase of tangible property within this State," in addition to the deduction of the amount paid to railroads within this State for the transportation of their freight within this State. The section as it came from the House nobody apologizes for or defends or justifies. Nobody claims that a 3 per cent. tax would be just.
Mr. WILSON (in his seat)--I justify it.
Mr. CHAPMAN was glad to have discovered one Senator who justifies the levy of 3 per cent. There is not a Senator who knows the gross earnings of any Express Company, nor the amount paid by them to Railroad Companies for transportation within this State. He opposed the ideae of taxing on gross revenues. It is unjust, but he was willing to waive that objection if a fair result was willing to waive that objection if a fair result can be obtained. Some here seem to be anxious to compel people living beyond the border to pay the expenses of the State government, running after some ignus fatuus which shall lift the burden of taxation off the shoulders of the people of the State and place it on those outside the limits of the State. He could not see any justification for saying any shall pay on that portion of receipts from business that is paid to employes, or that is paid for tangible property. When it is said that gross receipts shall form the substrata for taxation.
Mr. KRAMER insisted the only way to tax such Companies who have not a large capital in fact is by taxing receipts.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. GRUBBS moved to amend the Committee substitute for Section 91, by adding to the deduction therein named, the words: "Or investments during each year in tangible property subject to taxation, which shall be held and owned by such Company within this State on the first day of April."
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. GRUBBS contended unless his amendment was adopted Express Companies would be compelled to pay double tax on part of their property.
Mr. GRAHAM could not see how it would be taxing them twice if they are to pay on gross receipts.
Mr. CHAPMAN believed Senators confound the terms "receipts" and "profits" and fail to recognize that the substitue requires a return of aggregate receipts from every source. He was anxious the Senate shall vote understandingly on this and every other question that may come before it.
[Here, Representative Cauthorne appeared at the Bar of the Senate, and being recognized by the Chair, announced that himself and Representative Carr were a Committee on the part of the House to escort the Senate to the Hall of the House for a Joint Convention. Thereupon Senators left the Chamber. When they retrned]--
Mr. BROWN said this amendment ought not to be adopted. The government of the State belongs to the State and her people and of course it devolves upon Indiana people and Indiana propertyto pay the expense of that government. When the State is so liberal as to permit others to enjoy the privileges and benefits of her government, she has the undoubted right to tax the business carried on within her borders by such foreign corporations. The section under consideration proposes to exempt the amount the Express Companies pay railroads for the transportation of their freights in this State, and that is exemption enough.
Mr. COMSTOCK was opposed to the principle of taxing these Companies on their gross receipts, and favored the amendment because it is not so gross an injustice as to tax the entire gross receipts. The amendment goes some distance toward righting the wrong proposed by the Committee substitute.
Mr. MENZIES has been unable to find any tangible property owned by these Express Companies; they own a horse and wagon in the several towns in the State, but outside of Indianapolis they own but little tangible property in this State.
The amendment pending at the time of the noon recess was rejected by yeas, 12; nays, 28.
Mr. LANGDON moved to add to the deductions in the Committee substitute for Section 91 the sums paid by said Companies for services rendered.
This motion was also rejected by yeas, 10; nays, 30.
The Committee substitute for Section 91 was agreed to by yeas, 34; nays, 5.
Mr. BROWN made an ineffectual motion to strike out the Committee substitute for Section 94, taxing Sleeping Car Companies 2 per centum.
Mr. BELL said this section would put Sleeping Car Companies about equal with Express and Insurance Companies. Sleeping cars cost about $10,000 or $12,000 each, and there is at least two employes with each car.
Mr. Chapman--If there is any class of foreign corporations that should be burdened with an extraordinary tax it certainly should be Sleeping Car Companies. It is a mere cumbrous growth--a mere sucker of another corporation; it sucks the life's blood from the corporation over whose road it carries its cars; page: 22[View Page 22] It is a notorious fact that there is no Corporation in the country which has given so vast on so little capital as these Sleeping Car Companies. He desired to see the bill harmonious; but whether made harmonious or not, he expected to vote against it.
Mr. BROWN insisted there is a greater hardship in laying a tax of 1 per cent. on a Sleeping Car Company that in laying a tax of 1 per cent. on Express Companies. Suppose there is a railroad accident in which several sleeping cars are wrecked and destroyed, thousands of dollars are lost. The Express Company is a carrier of goods, and the Sleeping Car Company is a carrier of human beings, and 1 per cent. is a sufficient tax for either.
Mr. MENZIES explained that 2 per cent. was fixed as the tax for Sleeping Car Companies, because there is no tangible property in the State belonging to Sleeping Car Companies, while both Insurance and Express Companies have such property here that can be reached by the Assessor.
Mr. TRAYLOR moved to amend the Committee substitute for Section 72 by fixing the tax at "1" instead of "2" per cent.
Mr. CHAPMAN made an ineffectual motion to make the tax 4 per cent.
Mr. BROWN made an ineffectual motion to substitute 1 1/2 per cent
Mr. HENRY made an ineffectual motion to substitute 3 per cent.
The amendment (Mr. Traylor's) was rejected--yeas, 8; nays, 32.
The Committee substitute for Section 94 was concurred in, and the Committee recommendations, as to Sections 100, 103 and 108, were concurred in.
Pending the consideration of Section 91--
LEGISLATIVE EXPENSES.
On motion by Mr. URMSTON, the constitutional restriction was dispensed with and the bill [H. R. 453] to appropriate money to pay the expenses of the present special session of the General Assembly was read the first and second time by title only, the third time by sections and passed by--yeas, 36; nays, 2.
RELOCATION OF COUNTY SEATS.
Mr. URMSTON, by request, introduced a bill [S. 335] concerning the relocation of County seats. [When one-fifth of legal voters, one-half freeholders, shall petition for relocation with title deed to two acres, Commissioners shall order an election.]
The Senate adjourned till tomorrow.
