IN SENATE.
TUESDAY, March 15, 1881--2 p. m.The Senate met pursuant to adjournment--Lieutenant Governor Hanna in the Chair.
The reading of the Secretary's minutes was dispensed with, and the Clerk proceeded with the reading of the bill [H. R. 204] concerning taxation--commencing at Section 139.
Mr. MENZIES called attention to the fact that the pending question was on concurring in a Committee amendment to Section 128 but inasmuch as there was a slim attendance of Senators, at his suggestion, it was informally passed over.
Mr. CHAPMAN offered a substitute for Sections 139, 140 and 141. He stated to the Senate that his substitute contains every provision in the three sections, except one feature which is found in the next section succeeding. The substitute contains every provision in the three, and is shorter than either one of the three for which it is offered as a substitute.
The substitute was adopted relating to the County Boards of Equalization, as follows:
SECTION 139. It shall be the duty of such Boards at such meeting to inquire as to the valuation of the various classes of personal property in the respective Townships and divisions of the County, and to make such changes, whether by way of increase or decrease in such valuation, as may be necessary to equalize the same as between the Townships, or divisions of Townships, and to determine the rate per cent. to be added or deducted in order to make a just and equitable equalization. In the year in which real estate is assessed it shall be the further duties of the Board to make in like manner an equalization as to the value of the real property in the respective Townships and divisions, so as to conform throughout the County to a just and equitable standard reference being had to the natural and artificial characteristics and surroundings and other elements of value. Such Board shall also have power in proper cases to reduce or increase the valuation of any particular tract or lot upon complaint being made to them; provided, that no increase shall be made upon complaints of another without notice to the owner or his agent, if a resident of the County. Any general changes in the valuation of personal or real property in any Townships or divisions shall be subject to the limitation contained in the next succeeding section.
Mr. CHAPMAN offered a substitute for Section 142, covering the same ground, but transposing the first two features and eliminating the County feature, to correspond with several amendments which have been made to the bill heretofore.
The substitute was adopted as follows:
Sec. 142. Such board may consider lands, town lots and city lots as separate classes if necessary for the purposes of equalization and determine a per cent. of addition or reduction for each or any of said classes within the respective Townships or as between the several Townships or other divisions. The Board shall have no power to reduce the aggregate valuation of all the Townships below the aggregate valuation as made by the Assessors, nor increase the same beyond the amount actually necessary for a proper and just equalization. If the Board shall find the aggregate assessment is too high or too low or as generally so unequal as to render it impracticable to equalize the same, it may set aside the assessment of the whole County, or of any Township or Townships therein, and order a new assessment, with instructions to the Assessor to increase or diminish the aggregate assessment of their respective Townships in such amount as the Board may deem right and consistent with law.
Mr. BELL noticing that Section 144 requires the State Board of Equalization to meet on the third Monday in July of each year, and regarding that as a very unpleasant time of the year for such meeting--moved to substitute the word "June" for the word "July."
The motion was agreed to.
Section 149, concerning the abstract of assessment, County Auditor's are required to transmit to the Auditor of State, being read--
On motion by Mr. BELL it was amended by making the time for the report on or before the 10th of "June," instead of "July," in each year.
page: 33[View Page 33]Mr. CHAPMAN moved to amend Section 159 by getting rid of six or eight lines of verbiage which adds nothing to the proposition in the section.
Mr. GRAHAM inquired if the amendment would admit of the pernicious practice of employing what is known as "ferretts" by the County authorities?
Mr. CHAPMAN--The amendment does not bear upon that one way or the other--it does not change the purport or scope of the section.
Mr. GARRIGUS suggested to make section more complete there ought to be a proviso added that every one passing through the County should visit the Auditor, take off his hat and make a profound bow to that official.
On motion by Mr. VIEHE, the amendment was amended and then adopted.
[The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR appointed the same Joint Standing Committees as last session, except that Mr. Urmston is put on the Committee on Enrolled Bills in place of Mr. Foster, excused at his own request.
Mr. GRAHAM moved to amend Section 159 by adding to it the following: "Provided that no person shall be employed or authorized to discover and list omitted taxable property, except the County Auditor, as in this section provided." He said the effect of this amendment will be to cut out these "ferrets." Under this system a great deal of abuse has grown up. The Board of Commissioners should be prohibited from making a contract with such persons.
Mr. URMSTON submitted it would not be right to put that kind of an amendment in that section, or the reason that it does not allow the County Auditor to employ any one to assist him. While it may be true that abuses have sprung up through parties employed by the County Commissioners to look after property failed to be listed, there is a way of reaching those parties, if there is any warrant of law for that kind of work. He did not think there is any law authorizing that kind of employment, and did not think that kind of an amendment ought to be inserted in this section.
Mr. GRAHAM referred to cases where property has been purposely omitted so that these ferrets might discover it, and collect from the County Treasury the 25 per cent. they are usually allowed for discovery. That is the abuse the amendment seeks to strike at. Such cases are numerous--it is a system of fraud and larceny that ought to be cut off, and this amendment will do that. The County Auditor is the person who should make these assessments--being a responsible party.
Mr. HEFRON--Whenever the Auditor has reason to believe that property has been omitted in whole, or in part, he has the right to summon the party before him to show cause why that particular property has not been placed on the tax duplicate. And he may in various ways make a search. He may make examinaton of records for judgment or mortgages, or search the premises for tangible property; but under this amendment it is proposed to put this labor on the County Auditor without compensation.
Mr. GRAHAM--Is not this labor imposed upon that officer in the section without the amendment?
Mr. HEFRON--The authority and license is given him--that is all. It is left optionable with him. The County Auditor is not going out of his way to hunt up sequestered property without extra pay. He must first discover the property before he can place it on the duplicate, and he should have some 1ittle authority to have that done.
Mr. CHAPMAN believed sufficient machinery should be set to work to carry into execution the laws without employing persons under special contract. It is bad policy to employ persons for such purposes on special contract. It is inharmonious with our system of Government, and tends to make officials derelict in duty. He moved to add to the section the following, as a substitute for the amendment: "Provided that no person other than officials provided for in this law shall be employed by the County Commissioners to discover omitted property."
Mr. GRAHAM withdrew his amendment, preferring this substitute.
The amendment (Mr. Chapman's proviso) was agreed to.
On motion by Mr. VIEHE, the following words were added to the fourth clause of section 160: "But when personal property is required to be listed in a Township different from that of the owner's residence, it shall be taxed in the Township where listed."
On the further motion of Mr. VIEHE, Section 170 was changed in phraseology so as to make it consistent.
On motion by Mr. BELL, Section 162 was amended so as not to change the idea, but improve the phrsseology.
Mr. Foster made an ineffectual motion to strike out Section 171 He thought it wrong to make the County Auditor hunt up taxes all over the County, and leave his office to gather up facts required of him in this section without extra pay.
On motion by Mr. GRUBBS, the following was substituted for Section 172: "County Auditors shall not be authorized to credit the Treasurer with any uncollected delinquency for which he claims credit, unless such Treasurer shall show by proper returns, as above provided, that he has diligently sought for and has been unable to find any personal property from which to collect such taxes; or that having made a levy he was enjoined or otherwise prevented from making sale or collection by a Court of competent jurisdiction; and in all cases where he has failed to make demand upon residents who are delinquent, or to levy and sell when personal property can be found in the County, out of which to make the tax, he shall be liable on his official bond for such uncollected delinquency, and 10 per cent. damages thereon."
Mr. CHAPMAN could see no reason for the feature in Section 176 which provides that at sales by the County Treasurer for delinquent taxes due it shall not be necessary to offer the property in parcels. He could see no reason why the prperty should not be offered in the usual way--by articles. Great fraud could be perpetrated against the owner by offering the property in bulk, and no hardship could come by offering it in parcels. He moved to strike from the section that portion of it.
This motion was agreed to.
On motion by Mr. FOSTER, Section 178, allowing redemption of property sold by the County Treasurer for non-payment of taxes, was stricken out.
On motion by Mr. SPANN, Section 179, also relating to redemption, was stricken out.
On motion by Mr. VIEHE, the words "and expenses for taking care of property levied" were added to Section 180, providing fees to the Treasurer for making sales.
Mr. CHAPMAN moved to strike from Section 191 the clause authorizing collection by distress and sale from administrators, guardians and trustees all penalties for delinquency in payment of taxes on trust property when there is money enough on hand to pay the same.
Mr. BELL--We ought not to provide for collection by distraint from anyone acting in a fiduciary capicity. This ought not to apply to executors, administrators or guardians. Why should the old law be re-enacted? If any such officer has money in his hands and allows penalty to accrue for non-payment of taxes, he is liable under existing laws, for it is a violation of his official duty.
The motion to strike out was agreed to.
Mr. BUNDY moved to increase the printer's fee for printing the delinquent tax list in Section 206 from fifteen cents per description to twenty-five cents.
page: 34[View Page 34]Mr. BROWN made an ineffectual motion to make the fee "fifty" cents.
Mr. FOSTER moved to fix the price at thirty-five cents. He did not like to place this price too high nor too low. He was trying to raise the price that exact justice may be meted out, not only to all printers in the State but to a rival also. He never printed a delinquent list in his life. In a County the size of his the printer must keep on hand some $250 or $300 worth of type used for no other purposes, and pay from sixty to eighty cents per 1,000 ems for setting up type for delinquent lists.
Mr. SPANN favored the amendment--whatever may be a fair fee--and accepted the statement of the Senator from Allen (Mr. Foster) as correct.
Mr. BROWN referred to the fact that past legislatures had placed this fee at sixty to seventy cents, and his proposition a few minutes ago was not as high as that. The Brownstown paper says this work can not be done for less than forty-five cents. As long as his amendment was rejected, let the price be not placed less than thirty-five cents per description.
The amendment (Mr. Foster's) was adopted, and the Committee report as amended was concurred in. Mr. URMSTON moved to amend by adding to Section 206 the words; "And the same to include the heading and the Auditor's certificate."
Mr. KEISER had no objection to this amendment, for it is seldom any publisher claims that now The Attorney General has decided that the publisher can not charge for the heading or the Auditor's certificate to the delinquent list--that is all included in the price paid for each description.
Mr. SPANN thought the amendment ought not be adopted. The printer ought to be paid for this at a fair rate--perhaps a dollar a square. The County is more able to pay than an individual.
Mr. FOSTER stated that years ago in some of the Counties, editors were in the habit of leading the heading and certificate so as to run up a considerable bill, when the Legislature cut that off by refusing to pay for the heading or certificate. If an amendment were offered to prevent that kind of leading or slugging, it would be right and proper to pay for the printing of the heading and the certificate. The editor should not be compelled to give any space in his paper without compensation, for that is his bread and butter. I wrong, radically wrong, to require these publications without pay.
Mr. CHAPMAN regarded the publication of delinquent lists as of no use except to the newspapers that print them and the fellows who buy tax titles. The tax-payer knows whether his taxes are paid or not. Thirty-five cents per description is a fair compensation--just to the smaller Counties.
Mr. GRUBBS moved as a substitute these words: "And no additional fee shall be charged for the headings or Auditor's certifcate."
Mr. URMSTON accepted this substitute and withdrew his amendment.
Mr. KEISER had published several delinquent lists, but had never charged for the headings or the certificates; but, as the Senator from Rush (Mr. Spann) very pertinently said, it is unfair to make publishers do this work for nothing. Set the headings and the certificates in as small type as you can and they will take up the space of from forty to fifty descriptions, and it is hardly fair to ask this of publishers without any compensation. In Marion County, where the printing of the delinquent list amounts to $2,000 or $3000, the printer can afford to do the work for fifteen cents a description, but in Counties were there are only 200 or 300 it is not a big job.
Mr. CHAPMAN called the attention of the Senators to the fact that it is the poor tax-payer you are burdening this tax with for the benefit of the printer. Fifteen cents, the price fixed by the House of Representatives, is too low. That price was fixed upon after consultation with various publishers. It was found that the list could be, and would be, published in the larger Counties for fifteen cents a description, but that is too low for the smaller Counties. Now the Senate has fixed the price at thirty-five cents, which is more than double what the evidence shows the list would be printed for in this County.
Mr. BROWN could see no reason why this work should be required of the printer without pay. He moved, as a substitute, "that for the publication of the headng and Auditor's certificate to such list there shall be allowed the same compensation paid for legal advertising, which is set solid."
On a motion to adjourn, the yeas and nays were demanded, and, being ordered and taken, resulted--yeas, 12; nays, 26.
No quorum voting--
Another motion to adjourn was made agreed to without a division.
