The Indianapolis sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1880-1904, 1885-03-13


money upon mortgages. / regard the bill as
| On obnoxious one; can not vote for IL and
| hope IL will not pass.
Mr.. HOWELL: think the law as II stands
| In much fairer than the bill.
Mr.. SIMMONS The appraised value OF 200
acres Of land ~, say 81 400, but II Is sold for
| $1,000. on which there IL raid In cost 81 500,
| and that leaves $1,000. Now take the ap.
| praised value. $500, from the $500 and
| there remains 81, 100 exempt by the parties
| years on the 80 900. The average appraise.
ment on land 10 about $40 IN the county OF
| White, and the average selling price for
| caah md on time IN from S25 70 $50 an acre.
| This elbows how the bill would operate.
Mr.. BEST; / think the arguments here
against the bill are unanswerAble. Indiana
can ct Afford to adopt any fat theory OF
The kind. II Won tax man In Ohio on the
| mortgage he holds on Indiana land, you
will drive the money lenders from Indiana
| ii this bill pntses you tax man on his real
estate without regard 20 his inc ebtednohs. III
| IL pass IL will exempt two.thlrds OF the taxa.
bic property IA the State. Because a man
has mortgage over him II doesnot make him
richer or poorer. ! owe some debts for which
| i have not given mortgage. Giving n
mortgage for that will make me neither rich.
er or poorer. II / borrow 81 900 aud
give a mortgage for IL, / have the money
and j am no poorer, 30 / should not be re.
leased from taxation upon that.
Mr.. BOYD hoped the bill would not pass,
90 IL was not eifectual.
Mr.. ovERMAN: The bill may not cover
everything. Some gentlemen think 10 does not
20 far enough, but Ii Is far better than the old
| law. IL is intended TO destroy double taxa
/ ton. i had experience with California laws
OF which this bill is q copy, and II was found
| 10 work well there. The only class of men
IN Indiana ] find opposed to this are law
| yere, n oney lenders and bankers. Farmers
/
This Is the only bill / have asked
for and as / am by tho Appor-
tioDment bill legislated out OF office, aud
can never have an opportunity to present
bill at subsequent General Assembly,
hope it will pass.
The bill was defeated by yeas "a, nays 49,
] Fencing the roll call
Mr.. BARNES, explaining his vote, said:
| ky.pbiection 70 this bill is that il Will al
! lew most on the railways to escape taxation.
/ vote no..
Mr.. BARNEY. in explanation OF his vote
said: AS Ii will necessitate our sending
/ every assessor to a law school before he is
competent. vote no."
! Mr.. BROWNING, when his name was
called, said For the resson that / believe
this bill is in the interest of corporations
and against the common people, vote
! no"
Mr.. D0NHOST, explaining his vote, said :
For the resson that the bill will make nee.
esssry al increase Of taxation in Indiana,
and will exempt a large number Of corpora
| tions, ! vote mo-"
Mr. GARRISON, when his name was
called, said: For the reason that il will
Jaise taxes where it should be, and for the
reason that poor men al over the State are
calling for il, vote aye"
Mr.. HOBAN. IN explaining hir vote, said:
II will lead TO confusion. and while l believe
that something In this direction is needed,
yet do not believe that this bill hits it, so
! vote ITO
Mr.. OSBORNE, when his name was called,
said: like this bill for its good intentions,
but in its present form l think it should not
become law, so l vote mo-"
Mr.. PLEASANTS, in explanation OF his
vote, said: Because ! like the bill and be-
lieve that it is demanded by my constituents,
/ vote ave"
Mr.. REEVES, when his name was called,
said This bill will relieve the burdens OF
the hard-working class, and 1 vote AYE"
Mr.. ROBINSON explaining his vote, said
Believing that while all property should be
taxed. meme should be doubly taxed, l vote
aye
Nh. SMITH, of Tippecanoe, in explanation
said: l DO not believe that the bill will do
what is claimed for IL, but will lead to con.
fusion, j vote no."
Mr.. SMITH, OF Warrick, when his name
was called said: In view of the fact that
believe it will relieve the worthy, l vOts
aye"
Mr.. SPEAKER, in casting his vote. said:
! was first moved TO vote against the bill
but after the final appeal of the gentleman
from Lawrence mr.. OVerman), | shall vote
AYE"
The vote was then announced as above.
So the bill was defeated.
ABANDONMENT OF OFFICE.
Mr.. REEVS bill II. R. 52Sl concerning
the abandonment OF office and she appoin C.
ment of an officer was then read tine thirC
time.
Mr.. REYES moved to amend so that the
bill shall not apply to any deputy who may
have been appointed prior to the passage o.
this BILL and that the bill, with the amend
men, the re committed to the Committee onth
Judiciary. He said: want the bill to G.,
elude the Deputy Recorder OF Johnson Cou q
w. The Recorder q. B. Clemmer) ran 6ws =
heavily involved, and his brother, takin
hold of the Office, has brought The chaos d
trouble into shape. ] have here long petit
ton from people, irrespective OF party, who
oppose the bill.
Mr.. BROWNING: I think the bill should
not pass. AS fact, it looks to me to be IN
constitutional. However, to recommtt
would give time TO examine the case from
Johnson County.
Mr.. RIVERS: This certainly is a Demo
cratic county, and the successor, If any, 4
the RecordeIship, would be of the same pei
itics. This man, said 10 be deputy, is not {
deputy, nor never was. In two or three
weeks after the Recorder disappeared tn
man, now in charge of the Office, offered an
took the oath of Office some twenty y,
days after the Recorder was gone. 1t was nC
genuine appointment.
Dir. PATTEN moved that the bill be in
definitely postponed.
Pending which
The House took a recess till O'Clock D. M
AFTERNOON SESSION.
PEcEss I'LL SATURDAY.