The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1889-10-23
GRIGGS' LIES NAILED.
Allan McDermott Works the
Deadly Record on the
PaSSaic S1anderer.
TRENTON, Ocr. 81, 1889.

L
To the Hon. John W. Gri0gs
DEAR SIR:-You say that misquoted
you. | quoted from a report of your
speech which appeared in the State
Gazette, your organ here. Now you have
it that the Legislature of 1883 was not in
favor of equal taxation, but that both
State Conventions in that year declared
in its favor. You might have added that
every political convention which has
met in the last ten years In New Jersey
has declared for equal taxation. Did you
declaring in favor of the exemption of
railroad property from taxation2 Take
your own case. 1t, when you were O
candidate for the Senate, you had
announced that you were opposed to
equal taxation, you would have been
defeated. The books of the State
Assessors show that the value of the rail
road property in Passaic County is s., 1885,
600. Ii you had said, II will vote to ex-
empt 50, 1858, 900 of this property from
every form of local taxation" the State
would have had to plod along without
the aid of Senator Griggs. Yet that is
what you did, and you did it before Mr..
Albeit was Governor, while he was Gov
ernor and after the expiration of his
term. You defend your course on Senate
bill No. 200, and harp upon my assertion
that it was good bill. 1t was, it is; and
upon the statute books of Illinois it pro-
duces equal burdens You introduced it,
however, to defeat equal taxation. The
House of Assembly had passed, follow
ing the suggestion of Gov. Lud-
low, House bill No. 6, entitled AN
act to provide for equal taxation"
1t reached the Senate on the 7th of Feb
ruary. 1888, and the Committee on Re-
days without your assistance. Then you
came to their aid with Senate No. 200.
This obtained more delay. The Com
mittee held both bills until within ten
days of final adjournment and then re-
ported adversely upon them. You claim
that you were in favor of passing Senate
No 200 say that the record shows that
you introduced it to defeat Assembly No.
6 and prevent the taxation of corpor-
ations. Here we join issue. Turn to
Senate journal, 1883, page ia, from
which quOte:-
Mr.. Youngblood offered the following
Resolved (the House of Assembly concurring).
That this Legislature adjourn sine die on Fri
day, the 10th day of March inst, at twelve
O'Clock noon.
This motion was agreed to by a vote of
eleven of the twelve Republicans in the
Senate, including yourself Only one
Democrat voted for it. You voted for
this resolution on the afternoon of the
9Th of March. If the concurrence of the
House could be secured, the Legislature
would be in actual session but five days
more. Did you forget Senate No. 200
when you voted for that adjournment?
The bill was yet in Committee. Do you
say that you believed a report could
be obtained from that Committee,
the bill discussed in the Senate,
passed, referred to, COMMITTEES Of
passed and sent to the Governor within
five days? Was that your idea of what
could be done with bill opposed by COR
porations having millions at stake?
Answer this question squarely, Senator
Why did you vote to fix an early day for
final adjournment while both bills for
equal taxation were in the hands of a
Committee? And why did the six Re-
publicans who you say favored equal
taxation vote with your Did they, like
you, want to go home and think over the
question during the summer months?
The House refused to concur in this
resolution, but on Monday, March IL, both
houses agreed to adjourn on the 23d This
matter being clinched, the Senate Com
mittee, March 13, smilingly reported both
tax bills adversely. The report of the
Committee was on your motion laid over
until the 18th, which would be within
four days of final adjournment. Why did
you vote for this? You knew it defeated
equal taxation. On the 10Th the report
went over, with your consent. until the
Doth, or until within three days of final
adjournment. These actions on your
part you explain as follows. Il now quote
from Senate Journal of 1888, pages 1874
and 1865
Mr.. Griggs offered the following resolution
Resolved That Senate bill No. 200, entitled, ETC.,
and Assembly bill No g. etc, be recommitted to
the Committee on Revision OF Laws. and that
said committee be instructed forthwith to report
Senate bill No. 200 as substitute for Assembly
bill No. e. which was read and on motion of Mr..
Griggs made the special order for Tuesday
One Of the objections to Senate bill No. 200
stated orally by the chairman of the Committee
ON Revision at the time he reported it adversely
was that it was a bill to raise revenue and there
fore under the constitution could not properly
originate IN the Senate. The objects of my reso-
luton were:-First-To overcome this constitu-
tional objection by substitution for House
bill thereby making it in legal contemplation q
House measure, as had been practiced thereto
fore with tariff bills in Congress, Secondy-To
secure q discussion and direct test vote upon
the merits of my bill
So you learned that you did not have
the constitutional right to introduce Sem
ate 200 only when the Committee reported
it adversely. Why did you not ask the
Committee a question or two during the
twenty days they took to write the single
word adversely" on the back of your
billP At any rate, you knew on the 18th
of Marc h, when it was "orally stated by
the Chairman" that the Committee consid-
cred Senate No. 200 unconstitutional.
You were yearning for equal taxation.
Why did you not make your motion then ?
You were within two weeks of final ad-
journment. The legislators for 1888 were
packing their trunks for the 23d. Why
did yolr wait week before introducing
the simple resolution which you quote2
And when you did on the
10th of March offer that resolu-
tion to overcome constitu-
tional objection" why did you let the
matter go over to the 20thy You say that
you offered the resolution in conformity
with the proceedings that mad been
"practised heretofore with tariff bills in
Congress- Upon my word, believe
you, Senator. The trouble is that many
of the tricks with tariff bills in Congress
bear too close a resemblance to your
manipulation of Senate No. 200. the OBJ
iect in each case being the unjust taxa
fion of the great majority. But when
YOU say that you desired a discussion and
q direct test vote upon the merits of the
bill you overtax credulity. The
bill was shelved for 1888 1t mat
tered nothing what you discussed or what
you left unsaid. With the day for final ad-
journment fixed for the 23d of March, it
didn't make the slightest difference, on
the Goth of that month, whether you
moved to recommit the bill or put it in
the waste paper basket. And you knew
it. You complain that Senator Paxton
and other Democrats voted against your
motion. On this question do not hesi-
tate to say that | should have voted as
they did; there was no use in wasting
any more time, but have no apology to
offer for the fact that they allowed you to
trick them from the 26th of Feb