ASSESSMENT FOR TAXATION.
The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill [H. R. 204]--a codification of existing laws concerning taxation, with the addition of twenty-five sections of new matter. The question pending at the adjournment yesterday being a motion [Mr. Rahm's] to reconsider the vote adopting a substitute for Section 206 which does away with future publication of delinquent tax lists in each County.
The motion to reconsider was agreed to by yeas, 23; nays, 20--
Mr. RAHM stating, when his name was called, that he voted for the substitute on yesterday because he was in favor of keeping down the County expenses. He made the motion at the request of another, and should vote against his own motion.
The question recurring on the substitute it was again adopted by yeas, 23; nays, 22--as follows:
Yeas--Briscoe, Chapman Compton, Comstock, Davidson, Davis, Garrigus, Grubbs, Hart, Henry, Kahlo, Kramer, Lockridge, Majors, Menzies, Owen, Poindexter, Rahm, Shaffer, Viehe, Voyles, Wilson and Yancy--23.
Nays--Bell, Berry, Bischowsky, Brown, Bundy, Foster, Heffron, Hostetter, Hutchinson, Keiser, Langdon, Leeper, Macartney, Marvin, Ristine, Sayre, Smith, Urmston, Van Vorhis, White, Wood, Woollen--22.
Mr. HEFRON moved to amend the bill so as to require the Assessor and Deputy to administer the proper oath to every person assessed, so that every one shall be on an equal footing--to do justice to all tax-payers, and to meet that class of persons who will not give a proper value to their property. The amendment prescribes a penalty for failing to administer the oath.
Mr. GARRIGUS thought there should be a proviso, in case some other person gives in the list.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. KRAMER offered a substitute for five sections, concerning lands returned delinquent for successive years. The Auditor shall bring suit in Court and have the lands sold as other lands are sold by the Sheriff. These sections, as in the bill, would fill the Courts with suits to force the collection of taxes, and will bring about an unnecessary amount of costs resulting therefrom. Under the present system, nearly all lands advertised for taxes have been brought up by speculators. This amendment practically re-enacts the law under which we have been acting for years.
Mr. MENZIES--The sections proposed to be stricken out were carefully considered by the Board of Revision. He hoped the substitute would fail and the bill remain as is.
Mr. KRAMER insisted the sections, if allowed to remain, would make the bill odious. The only reason for retaining them is to make enormous fees for the Prosecuting Attorneys in every County in the State.
The substitute was rejected--yeas, 12; nays, 25.
Mr. COMSTOCK moved that the Senate amendments to this bill be considered engrossed and read the third time now.
Mr. BROWN resisted the motion. The Senate has made a great many amendments to this bill page: 44[View Page 44] since it came from the House, and they ought to be engrossed in fact before the bill is read the third time, so that Senators can compare the amendments with the printed bill, and see that they are properly engrossed.
Mr. COMSTOCK withdrew his motion except as to ordering the bill engrossed.
Mr. HEFRON had an amendment he would like to submit to the Senate as a substitute providing for the compensation of the Assessor.
Mr. COMSTOCK withdrew his motion.
Mr. VAN VORHIS considered Fast Freight Companies should be taxed if Express Companies are taxed, and he offered an amendment for that purpose.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. HEFRON moved to amend the bill by making the pay of Assessors ten cents for each person properly listed and assessed in cities, and fifteen cents in Townships, and $2 a day and no extra allowance in years when real estate is listed. Taking an average County in gross when real estate is not appraised, the cost of assessing personal property is about $2,700 in average Counties where the per diem of Assessors is $2.50 a day. The purpose of the amendment is to allow Assessors to work as they please. If paid by the day it makes but little difference to the Assessor whether he is diligent in business, or whether he stops to chat with every one he meets.
Mr. MENZIES favored the amendment, and would like to see it tried for two years, at least, and if it does not work well it can be repealed in two years. The amendment would be an inducement to hunt up tax-payers. In New Albany, the other day, in getting up a list of tax-payers on a petition, some 900 were found whose names were not on the Assessor's list.
Mr. CHAPMAN thought the amendment should prevail. It will be an inducement to bring in all the property subject to taxation, and it will enable the Assessor to earn over two dollars a day if he be diligent. For these two reasons the amendment should commend itself to the judgment of the Senate.
Mr. KRAMER thought 7 1/2 cents would be enough to allow the Assessors in towns per list, but double that amount should be allowed in Counties, and moved to so amend the substitute. The Assessor is necessarily compelled to travel a great distance in Townships to make assessments, while in cities and towns it is comparatively little labor. Where a man has to travel two or three miles, as is frequently the case in Townships, it is worth much more than in cities where the Assessor steps from door to door.
This amendment was rejected and the substitute adopted.
Mr. SHAFFER moved to reconsider the vote this morning by which the substitute adopted yesterday to Section 206 [to repeal the law requiring the publication of delinquent tax lists] was re-adopted.
Mr. VOYLES raised a question of order that this motion is not again admissable under the rules of the Senate. This substitute was adopted yesterday by a yea and nay vote of the Senate, and to-day it was re-adopted in a similar manner.
Mr. BELL insisted that rule refers to cases where the motion to reconsider was lost. These are two different votes we are now moving to reconsider.
Mr. CHAPMEN did not think it desirable to break down our rules for the purpose of taking a third vote on this question, which has twice been decided in the affirmative by a yea and nay vote. We might go on from now to the end of the session passing and reconsidering this substitute, ad infinitum, were it not for the rule that such a motion shall be entertained but once. The rule is laid down in Roberts that no question can be twice reconsidered.
Mr. SHAFFER would not insist on his motion, but would leave it to the decision of the Chair without argument.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR was in some doubt.
Mr. BROWN referred to his motion by which the substitute was amended, (with unanimous consent) and that lets the Senate out of the trouble so well put by the Senator from Marion (Mr. Chapman).
Mr. VOYLES contended the amendment referred to was made by consent. If allowed, this might follow one motion upon the heels of another, till it would take up the entire session.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR did not think the vote can be reconsidered a second time, judging from the authorities.
Mr. SHAFFER being satisfied that this motion is not in order, withdrew it.
Mr. BELL objected.
The LIEUTENANT GQVERNOR--The Senator has the right to withdraw his amendment.
