jl 



unfavorably to the House, Representative 

 Hunter moved that the Committee report be 

 nut concurred in and that the bill be placed 

 on the calendar. The motion was adopted by 

 a vote of 72 to 59. 



There was difficulty in getting the biU called 

 up for second reading in the House. On three 

 different occasions the sponsors of the bill, be- 

 lieving that they had sufficient votes to defeat 

 any unfriendly amendments, secured an agree- 

 ment by the speaker to call the bill. Each 

 time they were disappointed in his failure to 

 call the bill. It was finally called up for sec- 

 ond reading on the afternoon of June 4, in 

 the final week of the session, at a time when 

 two of the friends of the bill were not present. 



Friends Fight for BiU 



when the first friendly amendment was 

 offered, Representative Schnackenberg offered 

 an amendment thereto striking the enactment 

 clause of the bill, the usual way of killing 

 bills on second reading. 



Representative Hunter moved that Schnack- 

 enberg's amendment lie on the table. In the 

 ensuing debate, those speaking against the In- 

 come Tax Bill were Representatives Schnacken- 

 berg and Thon of Chicago, Conerton of La 

 Salle, and Dixon of Dixon. Those speaking in 

 behalf of the bill were Representatives Hunter 

 of Rockford, Little of Urbana, and Wood of 

 Keenes. 



Representative Hunter's motion to table 

 Schnackenberg's amendment failed by a tie vote 

 of 70 to 70. The vote on Schnackenberg's 

 amendment carried by a vote of 71 to 69, thus 

 killing the bill. The difference in the vote on 

 the two motions is explained by the fact that 

 Representative Robert J. Wilson, of Kewanee, 

 first voted for Hunter's motion in defense of 

 the bill, and later for Schnackenberg's amend- 

 ment to kill the bill, and by the fact that on 

 the first motion no vote was cast by Represen- 

 tative Bingham of Galena, who later voted with 

 the opponents of the bill for Schnackenberg's 

 amendment. 



In the table on page 9 all down-state repre- 

 sentatives are recorded as they showed them- 

 selve jot or against the Income Tax Bill on the 

 final and deciding vote to strike the enacting 

 clause. 



Down-Staters Responsible 



The down-state representatives who Voted 

 against the Income Tax Bill must carry the 

 responsibility for the defeat of this, the only 

 bill out of li66 introduced in the Fifty-sixth 

 General Assembly, which' aimed to distribute 

 the burden of taxation ' more equitably and 

 thereby to give some relief to real estate and 

 to tangible personal property from the in- 

 equitable load they are now carrying. 



The defeat of the Income Tax Bill is dis- 

 appointing, but it should not discourage the 

 members of the Association. Consideration of 

 the bill has resulted in a much more intelligent 

 understanding of the antiquated and unjust 

 taxing system of the State. This must eventu- 

 ally and probably will soon result in the en- 

 actment of constructive legislation such as was 

 proposed in the Income Tax Bill. 



In its support of the Bill, the Illinois Agri- 

 cultural Association had the very able and 

 effective cooperation of the Illinois Bankers 

 Association, the Illinois Federation of Labor, 



the Prairie Farmer, and a large proportion of 

 the down state press. Real estate interests in 

 the City of Chicago indicated, for the first 

 time, their interest in the bill. It is hoped 

 that this will lead to effective cooperation in 

 the future. 



Opposition to the bill came chiefly from the 

 Illinois Chamber of Commerce, the Civic Fed- 

 eration of Chicago, the press of the City of 

 Chicago, and to some extent from the Illinois 

 Manufacturers' Association. 



When the so-called Chicago Bonding Bills 

 were before the General Assembly in June, 

 1927, their advocates sought down-state support 

 on the promise that, coincident with the 

 doubling of the basis of valuations, all tax rates 

 would be cut to one-half of the statutory 

 limitations at that time. After the adjourn- 

 ment of the General Assembly it was found 

 that the clause specifically including the county 

 highway tax in the reduction of rates had been 

 stricken out, leaving the constitutional restric- 

 tion on county taxes as the only limitation on 

 the county highway tax rate. The failure to 

 limit the county highway tax rate made it 

 possible for any county board, if it so desired, 

 to quadruple its levy of taxes for county high- 

 way purposes. Because of the increased power 

 thus given them, many county boards have 

 greatly increased their levy for this purpose. 



For the reasons stated, the delegates to the 

 annual convention at Danville, adopted, on 

 January 31, 1929, a resolution asking the Gen- 

 eral Assembly, including supporters of the 

 Chicago Bonding Bills, to carry out their 

 promise, so amending the Act providing for a 

 county highway tax that the maximum tax 

 rate which can be imposed for this purpose, 

 without a referendum vote, will be limited to 

 twelve and one-half cents (12^c) on each one 

 hundred dollars of assessed valuations instead 

 of fifty cents (50c), as now permitted. 



The Association prepared a bill limiting the 

 county highway tax rate as contemplated in 

 the resolution. On February 27 it was intro- 

 duced by Representative Ewing as House Bill 

 285. On April 4 it passed the House. 



When the bill went over to the Senate, it 

 was sponsored by Senator Carlson, who had 

 introduced a bill for a similar purpose in the 

 Senate. It passed the Senate on April 25. 



In spite of the very large vote in both houses 

 of the General Assembly in favor of the bill, 

 there was a good deal of opposition to it at 

 various times. The entire down-state vote on 

 the bill in both houses is given in the table on 

 page 9. 



THE REVENUE AMENDMENT 



The Fifty-sixth General Assembly had be- 

 fore it at various times at least six or seven 

 joint resolutions of one House or the other 

 proposing amendments to the Revenue Article 

 of the Constitution. The first was introduced 

 in the House on February 21. Being identical 

 with the resolution adopted in 1925, submitting 

 a proposed amendment, which was defeated in 

 1926, it contained the requirement of a two- 

 thirds vote of the members elected to each 



House to enact any legislation under the 

 amendment. The Association accepted with 

 reluctance this provision four years ago. Ex- 

 perience has shown that if an amendment of 

 this sort were adopted, such a requirement, 

 which gives the veto power to a comparatively 

 small minority in either House, would prob- 

 ably make impossible any revenue legislation of 

 any value. Representatives -of the Association, 

 therefore, opposed the same limitation when 

 proposed this year. 



On March 14 another resolution was intro- 

 duced in the House, identical with the resolu- 

 tion introduced February 21, except that the 

 objectionable limitation was omitted. The As- 

 sociation approved this amendment, as it did 

 also a draft prepared by the Legislative Refer- 

 ence Bureau, in which the provisions of the 

 resolution of March 14 were incorporated into 

 the sections of Article IX to make a unified 

 and consistent whole. 



Another resolution, submitted to the House 

 on April 18 by Thon of Chicago, contained 

 limitations and provisions which the Association 

 could not accept. The whole subject was 

 placed in the hands of a sub-committee, which 

 on May 29 reported a resolution even more 

 objectionable, since it limited to ten per cent 

 the proceeds of any income tax which might 

 be retained by the State, unless this percentage 

 was increased by a two-thirds vote of the mem- 

 bers elected to each House. This resolution was 

 never brought to a vote. 



Refuse To Concede All ^ 



In the meantime the Senate had appointed a 

 special committee on constitutional amend- 

 ments. On May 15, it reported, by a divided 

 vote, the draft prepared for the House Com- 

 mittee by the Legislative Reference Bureau, 

 which had been approved by the Association. 

 On May 23, the same Committee reported an- 

 other resolution, in most respects identical with 

 the resolution of May 15, but providing that 

 the State should not retain more than 25 per 

 cent of the proceeds of an income tax except 

 by a two-thirds vote of the members elected 

 to each House. The representatives of the As- 

 sociation, approached on this proposal, at first 

 had insisted that the portion to be retained by 

 the State should be at least 50 per cent. On 

 being asked to make further concessions, on 

 the grounds that otherwise the two-thirds vote 

 ■necessary for the submission of an amendment 

 could not be secured, they reluctantly receded 

 to 25 per cent. They were now, on the same 

 grounds, asked to make further concessions, 

 but refused to do so. 



On June 4 the Senate, having voted to lower 

 to 17 the maximum percentage to be retained 

 by the State, except by a two-thirds vote of 

 the members of each House, adopted the reso- 

 lution by a narrow margin over the necessary 

 two-thirds vote. This was after a joint letter, 

 signed by the presidents of the Illinois Bankers 

 Association, the Illinois State Federation of 

 Labor, and the Illinois Agricultural Association, 

 had been placed on the desk of every member 

 of the General Assembly, giving notice that any 

 reduction in the percentage below 25 to be 

 retained by the State would prevent the signers 

 of the letter from recommending to their re- 

 spective organizations support of the amend- 

 ment. 



Published once a month at 404 North Wesley Ave., Mount Morris, Illinois, by the Illinois Agricultural Association. Entered as second-class mat- 

 ter October 20, 1925, at the post office at Mount Morris, Illinois, under the Act of March 3, 1879. Accepted for mailinK at special rate of postasre 

 provided for in Section 412, Act of February 28, 1925, authorized October 27, 1929. The individual membership fee of the Illinois Agricultural 

 Association is five dollars a year. The fee includes payment of fifty cents for subscription to the Illinois Agricitltubal Association Rbcoso. 

 Addrcu communications for publication to George Thiem, director of information, Illlnoii Asrieultural Anoociation, 608 So. Dearborn St.. Chicas. 



■ .— *■. _' J.-'/ >, 



'- - 



