, 1873-04-10
Passage of Severa! Other Important
Bills in the Lower House.
Senate Dsbate on the Taxi Collection
Bill.
The Appropriations--RailrocdO Or
ganizations.
Special Dispatch to The Chicago Tribune.

Ivered an able argument in favor Of the repeal-
ing bill. He reviewed the argument OF Judge
Steele, giving lucid exposition Of the legal as
pect of the case, and contended that the con-
tact WAS never executed in any particular, nor
had any rights accrued to the railroads. Mr.
Dow talked for an hour, and when he concluded
tho previous quest ton was ordered Tho vote
was taken in a dead silence. The lobbies we're
filled, and the attorneys blanched with dlemay
when thoy realized their defeat. There we're 81
votes for the bill aud II against it.. It could
hardly have passed yesterday, but the arrival
OF several Senators saved it. Messrs. Burke,
Brown, Yagcr, Henry, Hinchclife, and Waite
saved the bill, as some Of them came specially to
vote for it, and others, who were doubtful, cast
their doubts to the winds. Thus ends the
most bitter and determined fight Of the season.
The Governor will undoubtedly sign the bill
JUR1sDlCT1oN OF COUNTY COURTS.
The House passed a bill containing the follow
ing section:
SEC. l. That, In all cases where special Jurisdiction
has been conferred upon County Courts IN this State
Wien Wien Jurisdiction, reduced under the act entitled
-An act to increase the Of County cours"
IN ay as to aRs Gf Is 30 aa osss
$780, and al Judgments that may have been rendered
in said courts for greater than $500, together
e bereb9 % to IL cfes couf d te
Sc 2 And in all c.ses where chancery Jurisdiction
actment, and such chancery Jurisdiction has bean
1eae has ceased to exist by virtue Of said act IN
he records files, and papers PERTAINING to such chan
ccry Jurisdiction, without regard to the amount n con
xroversy are hereby to the Circuit court
SEQ. 8. Al causes tranaferred from said County
Courts to The cEct Courts a. II the s91e q
IN said Circuit Courts in the same manner that they
might have been in said County Courts had their juris
The remaining sections provide for the trans-
fer Of the records from the one court to the
other.
House bill 800 came up by special order on q
second reading BY sections at noon to-day. The
question pending was, on the motion Of Senator
Cummings, to amend by striking out the word
"assessor" wherever it occurs in the bill Sem
ator Thompson made an exhaustive and argu-
mentative talk, in which be gave full report Of
Fulton, Shelby, Sangamon, and Perry Counties,
showing that the assessments in those counties
for State purposes wore less in proportion than
in Cook. He showed that horses ~ IN Cook were
Wills in the counties named they
we're assessed much below the State average.
He then examined the absolute necessity for the
bill, claiming that it did not ask any change from
history Of the past should 60 On in the future.
For the last four ycars, Cook County Assessors
had assessed too high in proportion to the bal
ance Of the State. And the State Board OF
Equalization, composed oA tmoHtS-Aso tt!oanpIao,
twenty three Of whom were from counties other
than Cook, sworn officers, acting under oath,
declared that Cook County Assessors were
above the Ct the u sste 'snd nnaT 0SSe
cultivation in corn, wheat and other field
products, and that land WAS assessed at
slO.7s7,72s, while in Perry County, where
there were 158,53s acres Of land devoted to
the same purpose, it vas q assessed 1T ;n5 only
$1,31G.673. After going through q long
.n,a Arp1Tnant on the tiGur98
shown by the report Of the State Auditor
and State Board OF Equalization, during which
he remarked that figures he knew were tedious
things, but they we're as stubborn as tedious,
lo ended the reference to the figures by the fol-
lowing: From 1868 to 1871 the total assessed
valuation Of the State, as returned By the vari-
GUS Assessors, was increased 1928, Jos, 1872 OF
which increase Cook County contributed $27,-
Township Assessors Of Cook County,, while
Chicaco had her City Assessor just as asked for
in the bill Did this look as II Cook County was
ondeavoring to evade her just portion OF the
State tax?
Senator Burke, Of Macoupin, opposed the pass-
ago OF the bill, because be feared that the au-
tho1ities in some Of the smaller cities OF the
State might avail themselves Of the opportunity
Afforded them BY the bill to increase the expense
OF their tax machinery. Ho could not consent
to allow the large cities to obtain law, perhaps
necessary for them, but dangerous to the smaller
citieB.
Senator Lee. Of Peoria Urged the passage e ts Of
financial wel1-being, not Of Chicago alone, but
of every Incorporated city in tho State. Il the
bill did not pass, the City Of Peoria would be IN
ble to pay the interest on her public debt, and,
more disagreeable STILL If the Senate should re-
fuse to pass this bill, upon those Senators in
strumental in it's defeat would rest the respon-
sibility of closing the schools in that city.
Senator Strong moved to close the debate.
Senator Lee hoped that Senators might have an
3-1f.rn fo1 a
Of the bill. The motion WAS lost.
Senator Cummings reviewed the arguments
nade by the friends Of the bill Senator Starne,
OF sangamon, was in favor of the General Revenue
necessity Of this bill # the Assessors did their
duty there would bo no need for any additional
Benatcr Waite showed that under the MT
revenue Of about $4,000 Under the General
Revenue law last year: When the delinquent
list was turned over to the county officers it cost
the county over 81 900.
Senator Barnes moved the previous question
Carried
The motion Of Senator Cummings to strike
mt the word " "assessor" " wherever it occurred
in the bill was lost-33 to9.
Senator Murphy offered an amendment: That
in no case shall our assessment for city purposes
be made upon higher valuation than the aggre-
gate value OF the assessment for State and coun-
II purposes" Lost-33 to H.
The remaining sections, up to Section u, we're
passed without objection.
stirling out Section Is, which gave the City Col:
lector the cumulative right to enter civil suit
for the collection Of any gene1nl ta1 special tai,
or special assessments. Mr. Henry argued that,
with his view Of Section 4, Article g. Of the Con-
stitution, he could not yote for this bill. he be-
reyed the section was clearly unconstitutional
and wrong.
Senator Garfield defended the section as it
stood in the bill
Senator Thompson had doubts with regard to
The section, and as he desired to have q strong
bill free from all objections, he should vote to
Btriko ont the section The amendment pre-
vailed. 49,
Senator Sanford. OF Knox, moved to strike out
Bection %, which imposed a penalty in cases OF
appeal, where the Judgment OF the lower court
was confirmed.
Senator McGrath defended the section, and
hoped It would be retained, being conformab1e to
IL e.. L 1zxx