AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. VIEHE said the owner of the land can not suffer, and the loss can not be very great anywhere. He withdrew his amendment.
Mr. BELL insisted the Treasurer will not be to blame for such mistakes, and the blame should fall on the proper person. The fault may be with the Auditor or it may be the Assessor. His substitute would fix the responsibility at the door of the officer where the fault lies, and that is right.
Mr. WILSON thought the officer causing the expense should pay the cost of the omission or direliction.
The amendment [Mr. Bell's] was agreed to.
[On motion by Mr. CHAPMAN, the House concurrent resolution for a reference of the claim of John Mirtin for $67,377.15, for brick work on the Insane Asylum, to the Judiciary Committees of the two Houses in joint session, was concurred in.]
Mr. KRAMER moved to amend Section 170 by striking out the interest now collected and, inserting a penalty for November delinquencies of 6 per cent. It is easy to make collections of a 10 per cent. penalty, but it is almost impossible to settle with Deputy Treasurers for interest that must be computed on every individual from which tax is collected during the summer. Under this amendment the Auditor and Treasurer can settle in the fall by adding the 10 per cent. penalty contemplated by the law and adding a 6 per cent. penalty on the gross sum, which will simplfy these accounts.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. KRAMER moved to strike out the clause allowing no extra fee for collecting delinquent taxes of previous years. To collect delinquent taxes is a hard matter. To hunt men down, follow them up, distrain and distress them, to get taxes, is not very pleasant. A reasonable fee should be allowed. There must be an incentive for them to do this kind of work.
Mr. BELL called attention to the fact that if the Treasurer lets delinquents run over a year, he only gets the same fee as for current taxes, while if he collects them before they run over, he will get 5 per cent., which will spur him up.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. CHAPMAN offered a substitute for Section 285 so as to make this bill apply to cities--Township assessments to serve for city purposes, etc.
Mr. BELL thought the section ought to stand as it is, leaving cities optional to act under this law or not, as they see fit. The basis of taxation in some cities differs from the County assessment. In his city--Fort Wayne--there is a difference of over $2,000,000 and in the matter of improvements nearly $500,000.
Mr. MENZIES belived the amendment would make a wholesome change if adopted. There should not be two laws for taxation--there should not be a 8tate King of tax and a City King of tax. Let there be but one law of State,County and city taxes.
The substitute was adopted by yeas 29, nays 9.
Mr. URMSTON moved to make the Boards of Equalization consist of the County Commissioners and four freeholders selected from different parts of the County by the Circuit Judge. He said if he could have his way he would favor a Board composed exclusively of freeholders. The Assessors should not be members of the Board because it would make the Board too large. These Assessors appraise property at what they think is a fair valuation, and when they sit on the Board and parties come to complain of the Assessor's work each Assessor has a pride in having his judgment sustained by the action of the Board. Then the expense of a Board of seven will be less than the expense of a Board of ten, fifteen or seventeen. The Auditor should not be a member because another section makes him Clerk of the Board.
The substitute was adopted.
On motion by Mr. BUNDY, these four freehold members of the Board were allowed a per diem of $2.50, not to exceed fifteen days in any one year.
Mr. KRAMER offered an amendment for the election of a County Assessor in 1884: Let a County Assessor take a view of all the real estate in the County and a fair valuation would be reached By having eight or twelve or fifeen appraisers who view only a part of the real estate with different views of value, it is almost impossible to get a valuation that is equal and just to all. This is probably the most important feature connected with this tax bill. He had known instances where property was appraised at double the value in different parts of one Township. There is a crying need that the present system of appraisement should be changed.
Mr. VIEHE, in submitting a Committee report adverse to this amendment, said he regarded the argument of the Senator as based on the theory that all property in the County should be appraised by one man. This plan was tried once in this State and abandoned. The County Assesor would have his Deputies, and so the judgment of many were relied on as now. If it were practicable to have but one Assessor in the County, he would favor it, but it is not practicable.
Mr. FOSTER opposed the amendments. He did not believe one man was better calculated to assess the whole County than men picked from different parts of the County. A man living in a city knows better the value of property in that page: 39[View Page 39] city than the County Assessor, who might be selected from the County.
Mr. KRAMER acknowledged that the County Assessor system was tried , but that the officer was required to do all the work in sixty days, while this amendment allows the County Commissioners to give the Assessor the necessary time to do the work. If one man can not do the work in Marion County in one year, let the Commissioners allow him deputies. But it will be far better to have but one man to do this work, in every case where it can be done in one year or less. Then there would be uniform assessments all over the County.
Mr. BROWN favored the report of the Commmittee and opposed the amendment, for he objected to centralization in all its hideous forms and monstrosities. He saw no wrong or injury arising out of the present system, and if it works reasonably well it is better to cling to it.
The report of the Committee was concurred in.
Mr. RAHM moved to reconsider the vote by which the Senate declared there should be no more publication of delinquent lists.
Mr. WOOD favored the motion. It is the policy of common law everywhere that you can not take a man's property without due process of law. Suppose there are 500 or 1,000 pieces of land to be sold, how can the purchasers examine the one list provided for in the substitute. The Courts nowhere sympathize with those who try to take away a man's property by buying it at tax sale. There should be no more exception made in this case than in the case of Sheriff's sales or other judicial sales.
Mr. BELL felt some interest in this matter. It is good policy that these advertisements should be made. The object of the notice is not in the interest of the printer but in the interest of the tax-payers also. It would be a hardship to require bidders to go to the Auditor's office to find out what parcels will be offered. While there should not be too much paid for printing such lists, still they should be published for the convenience of tax-payers as well as others. The planin vogue in this State so long ought not to be abandoned now.
Mr. VOYLES had heard nothing to justify a change of his views on this subject. It is certainly unnecessary to publish every year a delinquent list in every County. In many cases the Counties pay two-thirds of the printer's bill and is seldom reimbursed. There would be about $300 in the aggregate against each County; say $27,000 in the entire State, to pay for that interesting story that the Senator from Lake (Mr. Wood) himself has never yet read, though printed regularly once a year. He had as much respect for newspaper men as any one on the floor, but this expense was not justified.
Mr. BROWN believed that it was wise in the past, and will be wise in the future to continue these publications. He did not think it was proper to overthrow the land-marks set by so many past Legislatures, or offer for sale, the lands of the people of the State without due and proper notice. The purpose of the sale is that the State shall get her taxes by taking the smallest amount of the citizen's property to satisfy the State's demand. Penalties are only imposed when the State is unable to get her taxes otherwise. Men who stand before communities as solvent would not allow their land to run delinquent, knowing their names would be published, but if their names were looked up in the Auditor's vault it would probably be otherwise and the State would be the loser.
Mr. CHAPMAN thought one of the best pieces of work done on this bill was the adoption of this substitute of the Senator from Washington [Mr. Voyles]. Surely it can not work an injustice to any tax-payer. It is more than an equivalent to an advertisement provided for in another section in this same bill which is as important a fact to the tax-payer. The ad captandum assertion that these advertisements are for the benefit of the delinquents is easily made, but the assertion can not be proven. There is no kinship between a Sheriff's sale and a sale of property for delinquent taxes. The only question is: Is there any just reason for requiring this advertisement to be made in every County in the State?
Mr. FOSTER felt no more persona1 interest in this bill than one who has never written a line for a newspaper, but believed these advertisements should be made in order to give proper notice of such sales; and thousands would care but little for delinquencies were it not for these publications.
Mr. WOOLLEN said it happens occasionally that a man having a large tract of land, parts in different Townships pays for but a part, supposing the tax receipt covers all of the land, and if the tax sale be not published, the owner may not be aware of its sale until the time for redemption may have expired. And one such case should be sufficient to justify the publication of the delinquent list.
The Senate adjourned till to-morrow.
