ROAD SUPERVISOR.
Mr. Vawter's bill [H. R. 143-see page 181 of these reports] making the Township Trustee of each civil Township Superintendent of Roads and Highways in his Township, and fixing the computation on road tax, was read the third time.
Mr. COTTON called the attention of the House to the fact that by this bill in 1882 Commissioners are elected, thus leaving the State one year without a road tax, as the bill provides that the tax shall be levied in 1882 by the Road Superintendent, with the concurrence of the County Commissioners, and that tax not being collected until one year afterward, would leave the State one year without a road tax.
Mr. THOMPSON moved to amend the bill by adding thereto, "The Superintendent of Roads shall cause all roads in his District to be mowed twice a-year, to-wit: during the months of June and August, to the end that all noxious weeds and thistles are destroyed."
The amendment, by unanimous consent, was adopted.
By unanimous consent, it was agreed that amendments may be offered.
Mr. GILMAN moved to amend the bill by adding to Section 27 the words "Provided, That nothing in this act shall take from the owner or owners of property the right to work out their road tax, under the rules and regulations as prescribed in Section 16 of this act."
Mr. MEREDITH said under the provisions of page: 65[View Page 65] this bill a Road Superintendent could have as many teams of his own as he liked and charge it up with the rest. It would be one of the grossest frauds ever committed upon the people of Indiana to pass that law.
Mr. MARSHALL-The present system of road working is unfair to the young man just beginning in life, who, in May and June work, has to put in his two or four days along with the wealthy man. The poor man who carries his flour home on his shoulder is called on to labor on the roads as much as the man who hauls off his thousand bushels of wheat.
The ad valorem system is the true one; it has given other States good roads, and, when properly applied, will give us good roads in Indiana. The people are demanding a better system of road working, and we need better roads. Let the roads be let out by contract, as this bill provides, and in ten years we will have good roads. There is another good feature in this bill, and that is this: Men who own the land, men who have the good farms and men who have to use the roads most are the very men whom a good road benefits. Make a good, smooth road along by the side of a farm, and that farm is worth more money than if it had a poor road. Then is it not fair that the man who owns the farm should do more labor or pay more money to make that a good road than the hired hand? Then again, if a man has 160 acres of land, and his next neighbor eighty acres, is it not fair that the man owning the 160 acres should do as much again work on the roads provided their value is the same per acre?
Mr. ROBERTS said a large number of people would find it difficult to pay tax. On the other hand, under the present law, they can work it out, thereby giving an equivalent. He was opposed to this measure as too radical a one to force upon the people at this time.
Mr. WALZ--The people where I live demand a change of our present road law. There is no question about it. If you adopt that feature as an amendment, we had better retain the old law as it stands, because what the amendment seeks to accomplish is to destroy this new feature. The advantage of this bill is that the tax-payer pays his money to have the work done to the Supervisor, who lets the work out by contracts where the money does the most good. The tax-payer has an opportunity equally with any one else to take these contracts. I want a road law that works to the interest of the roads, not the tax-payer. If the road system is advanced the tax-payer is also advanced.
Mr. MOODY--I am in favor of the best system of road work that can be adopted, but I am opposed to this bill, and I want the peopie of my County to know that I not only voted against this unfair and, to my mind, unjust law, but that I solemnly and earnestly protest against it. There are many poor men who can not pay this tax, but who can do an honest day's work on the highways and who will be absolutely deprived of the opportunity of doing this work, if the amendment is lost and this bill becomes a law. It may all be well for soft-handed lawyers and doctors to theorize on this law, and the fine roads which are to stretch themselves magic-like all over our country, but I can not forget the large number of men in my own County that it will work a great hardship to, despite their beautiful theory. I do trust that the good sense of the majority of this House will not pass the bill, but will adopt the amendment, I know that if you put this money in the hands of any man and authorize him to hire the work done, that many hard-working, honest laborers will not get any of it to do, but a few of the friends of this new-fledged officer will get the pap and the officer take the cow of some other man to pay for the work his friend has done. I believe that this is unfair and eminently unjust.
Mr. MORGAN--I hope the amendment will not prevail. The bill will be to the advantage of the poor man as well as the rich man. If this measure passes, the rich man with his five or six hundred acres of land, will work out his own road tax instead of the poor man, as is the case now. At the present time a man owning no property is compelled to work as much as one owning his hundreds of acres. If you allow this amendment to prevail you had better let the old law stand.
Mr. STEWART moved to amend the amendment as follows: Provided the person owing tax shall apply to the Superintendent to do such work, and will do the same at such time and places as the Superintendent may direct.
Mr. CARTER was in favor of the bill as it stood. He did not consider the existing law required the poor man to work the same number of days as the rich one. Under this law they would not have to work at all. There are many good features in this bill. These contracts are supposed to be let out to the citizens in the immediate vicinity where the roads are being worked.
Mr. THOMPSON said there were thousands of dollars expended in Elkhart County every year on the roads, and scarcely anything to show for it. The people demand a good road system. I am willing to vote for a radical change in the road system. My friend from Steuben [Mr. Roberts] says the old system is good enough. Probably it is good enough for the people of Steuben County, but the people of Elkhart County demand a better system. Under this bill, we have a Road Trustee, who can repair the roads and collect the taxes, and make a good road out of a bad one.
Mr. COMPTON said the field was open for all to get to do his work by contracting with the Road Superintendent; that there was nothing unjust, as the bill gave the land-owner the same chance to do the work and get the same allowance as anybody else. He appealed to the members above all other things to give the State of Indiana a good road law.
Mr. NEFF considered this bill most too radical a change to undergo at the present time. There is a bill prepared by the Revision Committee he considered more applicable to the State of Indiana.
Mr. SMELZER--The people are taxed for roads, and I think under this bill we would get exactly what we want. It would do away with this miscellaneous working of roads. I hope the bill will pass.
Mr. FULLER thought the bill insufficient. The tax imposed would not half meet the demands as specified in this bill, therefore he would oppose it.
On motion by Mr. BUSKIRK the further consideration of this bill was postponed till Wednesday at 10 a'clock a. m.
The House adjourned till to-morrow.
