The people's voice. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1939-1969, 1951-03-30

II, out LII. GOV. PauI cannon, {
cast the deciding vote against
the measure.
On the previous day the bill was
the subject of a lengthy debate or
the floor of the Senate. In the
course of the debate, Senator Ettien
of Granite county pointed out that
the equality sought by the proponents
of the bill was the kind that would
tax the income of churches, schools
and charitable institutions, while
granting exemption to the same in
come received by private clubs, fra
teInal organizations, and others ex-
empted under the provisions of the
bill. ~ the close of the debate the
bill was referred back to the COM
mittee on taxation. stripped of all
amendments attached during the de-
bate. On the following day the COM
n2ictee reported the bill back to the
Senate with some amendments, but
the bill as amended was killed dur
ing late session Monday night.
STORY OF THE BILL
House Bill No. 388 was introduced
in the lower house Of the legislature
by Rep. Orville Rostad (R) of
Neagher county; however, it was
frequently stated around the legisla-
ture that the bill was the handiwork
Ct the Tax Equality Association of
Montana. The Great Falls Tribune on
FEB. IA stated that w. J. Howell of
EIissoula was the chairman of the
board of directors of the Tax Equali-
ty group. Norman Blevins of Helena,
reported to represent the Montana |
Hardware and Implement Dealers
associa ion, also was a prominent |
supporter of the bill. w. J. Howard
of Missoula was said to be another
officer of the Tax Equality associa-
ton.
Montana citizens interested in the
provisions of the bill had several |
conversations with those promoting |
the passage of the measure, which
was widely advertised as the Coop
tax bill. Assurances were given re-
peatedly by those favoring the pas
sage CT the measure that they were
wiling to change the bill in any way
to protect the interests of churches.
schools, and charitable institutions.
However, the debate and voting on
the bill showed that they were not
wiling to remove the words which
would bring about the taxing of the
income of the same institutions.
During the debate on the floor
of the House, Representative Foley
(D-Silver Bow offered an amend
ment that would strike from the
bill the, new clause which would
tax church income. His motion was
defeated. Representative Dryer
(O-Silver Bow then offered an
amendment to insert the word
real in the bill so that it would 5
tax commercial real properties"
operated by religious and educa-
tionaI institutions. The secular q
press reported that this amendment Fl
would exclude tax on endowment r.
funds of religious, scientific, and tt
educational institutions. Before re
tAN Oh Tie IiOOT began,
a representative of the Diocese of ri
Helena informed leading member h;
of the 1851 House that it would Al
not have this effect and that the re-
was no more accept e1
able than the original words of M
the new law. Expert legal counsel be
confirmed this opinion expressed la
before the amendment was offered.
Representative Dryers amend ~
ment was adopted. He argued re- ~
peatedly for the passage of the n
bill. ~
The secular press reported that LIZ
lring t e House debate, Rep. an
Conner (R-Carbon) said that the Lie
ioption of the Dwyer amendment tho
will still permit us to get at out re
is like the butterflies and the Camp sig
,lrs corporations ranch in Big Al
orn county" Mr.. O'Connor was al
quoted by the press as saying SUI
at it was the intention of the bill by
tax income from endowment funds. tht