The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-03-03

now Stands, the men VINO form these aSSOcla-
tons have to pay double and sometimes triple
tax,
Mr.. MeMnIlen was from county in which
several such associations exist. They are conf
posed entirely OF poor lahoriug men, who can
only lay up or two dollars per week. BY
joining these associations and paying a small
assessment into the general fund of the associa-
ton, a member may draw from the fund
stipulated amount; with this amount he may
purchase lot or build for himself small house,
aud this Is the object of these associations. This
bill is to relieve the shares held in such assOcia
tons from tax.
MI Sterritt stated that several of the assoeia-
He thought it was unjust to tax the men upon
the shares held in such association, and at the
same time tax him upon the property that he
buys with the money secured on these shares.
Mr.. Montgomery stated that these binding
associations loan all their money each Monday
mernlng and take IA mortgage upon the property
purchased by the member securing the loan.
He did not think 1t just to tax the property and
at the same time tax the shares held in such
ISOLATION. 1t simply to avoid double and
triple taxation, and he, therefore, thought the
bill should pass
The bill was rejected by yeas 40, nays 45.
Mr. Sniyely's bill concerning mutual life lnsur-
anee companies was read the third time.
Mr.. ShiveIy believed that all the members
would agree with him that some legislation was
necessary upon this subject of insurance. II
there has been more complaint about one sub
ieet than any other IL has been about This matter
of insurance and the manner of doing business
for the last few years. This bill drawn up
by the insurance committee, and it comes here
recommended by that committee.
Mr.. Meliett agrees with the gentleman from
Wabash (Mr Shively} when he says that there is
demand for protection against fraudulent in
surance associations, and If this bill provided
such protection he would heartily indOrse it.
He called upon the members to examine it care
July before they Endorsed it, to see whether
not IL does provide this protection. This bill
seems to be entirely different from the one of
fered by the gentleman from Wabash at the be-
ginning of the session. He did not believe this
bill would give satisfaction to the people of the
State. In the first place, 1t confeTs too much
power upOl the Auditor OF State SO far as that
is concerned you might strike out all but the one
section and leave the whole matter with the
Auditor State. He alone is to say whether or
not company shall do business in this
State The bill provides that any
ten members of any corporation may
upon demand, require the Auditor 10 make an
investigation OF the affairs of such association.
Now, If ten men are sufficient to require iu-
vestlgation, why not say that one man may de-
mand an Investigation. Under the provisions
of this bill no man is allowed TO renew his nsur-
ance, IL matters not how long he has been in
sured in tho company, or how prompt he may
have been Ia his payments though il has re-
lapsed, because OF failure to pay an assessment
for a single day, or even an hour, for that mat
ter. The provisions of this bill make it a felony
for that man auy OF his friends to renew that
policy. If this bill becomes a law. so far from
protecting the people, so far from giving salts
faction to the people, it will be the means OF
crushing cat every organization of this kind or
ganlzed in The State, and turning this business
over into the hands of foreign insurance COM
panies.
Mr. Williams, Of Kuox was satisfied that the
reason why the gentleman from Delaware tMr.
Meiletp was opposed to the bill was because he
did not understand Its provisions. There is
demand from every part OF the state that the
death rattle" insurance companies should he
cut off. representatives of the leading and SOL
vent insurance companies are here in the inter-
est OF this bill. The only objection they raise
against this bill is that it discrim mates against
foreign companies in favor of companies in this
State. The objection is that this bill gives the
Auditor of Stale too much power. This obiec-
ton comes from these "death rattle" companies
q nm n lgrGf inn In agytTa.n
to an objection made against this bill that 1t did
not require foreign COMPANIES to give
di1 NOT thIuk it would be just TO require them TO
do so, for the reason thar it might be difficult for
them TO do So even though they we're good, SOL
vent companies. This bill simply provides that
companies doing business on the assessment plan
snail not Issue endowment certificates. These
companies cannot do a fair business and issue
endowment certificates.
Mr.. Heffren thought the matter was fully dis
cussed, and therefore moved the previous ques-
ton. which WAS seconded by the House.
The bill passed the House by yeas 81, nays 81.
On motion by Mr.. HustOn. the joint resolution,
an appropriation of $4,000 for the payment of
a certain claim to Mrs. Edwin May, wife of
Edwin May, deceased, late architect OF the new
state-houe was taken up.
motion by Mr.. Schl0ss to recommit, with the
lnstructiG1 that the amount b reduced to
$4,000, was laid on the table by yeas So. nays
The resolution failed to pass yeas 40, nays
41-for want or a constitutional majority.
THE sTATE-HoUsE BILL.
The special order called up, Mr.. McMullen
in the chair, being the bill, II. b. No. 466, supple
mental to an act to authorize and provide for
the erection of new State-house and for mat
tiers incident thereto.
The question REQUIRED on the amendment
offered by Mr.. Mccormick striking out all after
the enacting clause and inserting new matter III
lieu thereof.
Mr.. Heffren hoped that the amendment would
not prevail for the reason that there is nothing
in 1t further than to strike out all after the en-
acting clause and insert entirely new matter.
There is nothing in the proposition to provide
Tor the continuance OF these bonds gwen by tie
State-house commissioners He believed that
the State should get through this matter and
keep within the 50 100000, and according to
the evidence before the committee he believed
1t could he hutt with that amount. He was of
the opinion that no public building in the United
States was ever constructed with more economy
and better management than has this building,
so fas the work had progressed, and If con-
structed within the $4,000, 900 1t will be the
cheapest public building IN the country.
Mr., Mock was in favor of holding to the orig
NAL contract and in holding the present con-
tractors to their contract. He Thought they had
no right to change that contract. The change in
the price of labor and material, OF which we
have heard so much, should have nothing to do
with the original contract. II these men do not
desire to stand by their contract, let them give
it up.
Mr. Smith, of Tippecanoe, was impressed with
| the question whether or not like Shylock, we
were going to hold every man to his pound of
flesh; whether the State of Indiana, whether it
would be hight or wrong, Will require the pound
of flesh form every man. II this contract was
made at n time when material aud labor were at a
low price, and they have since advanced, in cOnse-
quence of which these men have been great
losers, the State of Indiana should not say,
There Is yonr bond, now we want the pound of
flesh cut from next your heart. He was on the
floor when this bill was passed for the erection
of the new State house, ana the prevailing
opinion then was that the State-house could not
be built for 1000, 600. Viewing this matter
as he did and taking into consideration the fact
that the provisions of the bill of the gentleman
| from Bartholomew, (Mr. McCormick) Is for 3d.
100000, he in favor of the bill that did not
break the original contract.
| Mr.. Ham did not understand that the amend
| ment proposed that the State-hOuse shall cost
! So ,000,O00 His understanding was that if this
| amendment is adopted it will simply re-enact the
| old law, with one or two exceptions. Now, the
original bill provides that the commissioners
may reet the contract for "A sum nOG 10 exceed
So, 900, 900, but other person shall he allowed
| TO put in bid. He of the opinion that #
| this contract relet to the same parties they
might he knocking at the doors of the next Leg
| islature for another appropriation.