Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1895-06-29
THAT PIPE LINE BILL.
COLUMBUS, o., June IS, 1sC

gas plants ana pipe lines owned DJ
municipalities were exempted from
taxation appear, according to the rec
ord of the two houses OF the genera
assembly to bc rs follows: March 2S
1890, the late Senator Adams OF THIN
introduced bill To amend sections
1892. 2.739, 2,749 and 2,757 OF the re
vised statutes, relating to taxing per
sonal property. The section 2,732 o.
the revised statutes, is that section
which provides for exemptions from
taxation, and Is divided into ten para
graphs each relating to a different sort
OF property TO be exempted from taxa.
tion. Paragraph $ reads at the time
this bill was introduced as follows:
"All market houses, public squares,
other public grounds, town or township
houses or halls, used exclusively for
public purposes, and all works, machin-
cry pipe lines and fixtures belonging to
any town and used exclusively for con-
veying water to such town." At the
beginning OF the section provision is
made to the effect that the following
described property shall be exempt
from taxation and which is understood.
Of course as preceding this eighth par
agraph. The change effected in this
paragraph by Senator Adams bill was
by adding to the words above quoted
the following: "Or for heating or
lighting the same" You will observe
that by the addition OF these words,
natural gas plants and pipe lines, and
also electric light plants and all other
lighting plants owned by any munich
pality were to be exempt from taxation
and that this was change in the gen.
eral law OF the state, and applied equal
ly to every municipality within the
state owning such property. At that
time the city Of Tiffin was the owner of
n natural gas plant, SO also was your
own town OF Findlay, also the city of
Toledo, also the city of Urbana, which
was my home, and many other towns in
the state. AT that time also many
municipalities were owners of electric
lighting plant. This bill also effected
In this section another change by IN
creasing the exemption Of personal
property owned by each individual
from $50 to 300 as the amount to be
exempted, which change occurs in par
agraph OF the section.
This bill, being senate bill 245, ac-
corGing to the Senate Journal, passed
the senate Jan. %, 1891, by unani-
nous vote, the yeas being twenty-six,
nays none. 1t reached the house the
same day, WAS read the second time
Jan. 90 and referred to the finance
committee of the house. The finance
committee reported it back to the
house Feb 5, and recommended its pass
age with slight amendment in an
other portion OF the bill. The follow.
ing named gentlemen signed this re-
port: $. NJ. Taylor, e. II Rorick, D.
D. Donovan, w. A. Braman, C. N.
Gaumer, c. e. Critchfield, w. L.
Bense, Jacob Boesel. The slight
amendment referred to was agreed to
by the house, and the bill went upon
the calendar. 1t was finally reached
and came to IA vote March 3, 1891, and
passed the house by vote of G3 yeas to
B nays. Among those who voted in
the affirmative were Laylin of Huron
county, T.. FL. Rorick of Fulton county,
5. NJ Taylor of Champaign Qthe writer
hereof, Speaker Boxwell OF the present
house, Braman OF Lorain county, Boe-
sci of Auglalze. My recollection is
tha: ther., WAS no opposition at all to
that feature OF the hill relating to the
exemption Of heating and lighting
plants from taxation when such plants
were owned by the town or municipal
| ity but that the three negative votes
were recorded because OF slight opposi-
tion to some other features OF the bill.
1t had always been the enlightened
policy OF this state to exempt from tax
alton all property owned by county
or municipality, which was used for
the benefit of the citizens of the NUM-
cipality or county, and it was in pursu-
ance to this enlightened policy that
these new subjects, having become
matters of municipal ownership, were
included in the list of the properties to
be exempted. / was in favor OF this
this feature Of the bill and as you will
observe was one OF the committee to
which the bill was referred in the
house and agreed to the favorable re-
port, and also voted for 1t on its pass
age. ] am not aware that anybody
anywhere has questioned or disputed
the justice of this change in the law,
and believe that 1t gives general sat.
isfaction. and Is regarded as not only
just, but wise, for there appears nc
more reason why a natural gas plant
or lighting plant should not be ex-
emDted from taxation when owned by