Paf(e Four 



THE I. A. A. RECORD 



Watson Reviews History 



{Continued from page 1 ) 



oflficers of local governments, with 

 representatives of business and civic or- 

 ganizations, taxpayers and others, the 

 commission submitted a preliminary re- 

 port on May 10, 1950, just before the 

 special session of the General Assembly 

 . convened. 



The preliminary report of the com- 

 mission dealt chiefly with the necessity 

 of a revenue amendment, and offered 

 a draft of an amendment with the fol- 

 lowing recommendation: 



The Recommendation 



"The commission believes that no 

 one can now forecast what particular 

 methods of taxation will be best suited 

 to conditions in Illinois in the future 

 and that, therefore, the General Assem- 



• bly and the voters of Illinois, can best 

 demonstrate their wisdom by leaving 

 the determination of these specific de- 

 tails to the taxpayers who will pay the 

 taxes in future years and to the legis- 

 lators whom they will then elect. In 

 view thereof and of the guaranties in 

 both the Federal and the State Con- 

 stitution, it is the judgment of this 

 0Qmmission that the resolution herewith 

 submitted be enacted, and that Illinois 

 place in the hands of its General As- 

 sembly powers as broad as have been 

 given to the legislators of New York, 



, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and many 

 other states of the Union." 



Purpose of Amendment 

 The report was signed by all of the 

 ^ members of the commission. The chair- 

 man, a senator from Cook County, 

 added a statement indicating his con- 

 • currence in the findings of fact in the 

 i report, but urging that the vesting of 

 unlimited power in the General Assem- 

 bly required a reapportionment of the 

 ^ state. 



The amendment proposed by the 



Farmers Can Succeed 



( Continued from page 1 ) 



shortest possible route. This is exactly 

 ' what the farmer is trying to do. He 

 desires to get into the terminal mar- 

 . kets, own his own handling facilities, 

 and organize his bargaining jwwer. 

 Farmers must turn a deaf ear to self- 

 styled friends of agriculture and sup- 

 port the Federal Farm Board which is 

 trying to help them solve their prob- 

 lems." 



Mr. Wellman has been in the grain 

 business for the p.ist 10 years, serving 

 during most of this time as manager of 

 elevator companies. For the past seven 

 years he has managed the farmers' ele- 

 vator at Ransom which handles an av- 

 ' crage of nearly 500,000 bu. of grain 

 annually. The Ransom elevator is a 

 members of the Illinois Grain Corp. 



commission was designed to remove the 

 restrictions upon the power of the Gen- 

 eral Assembly under the present revenue 

 article without imposing any other re- 

 strictions. It was unfortunate in using 

 some language of uncertain meaning, 

 which, if approved, almost certainly 

 would have caused much litigation, and 

 also in disturbing the present section of 

 the revenue article dealing with exemp- 

 tions of property. However, the 

 amendment proposed by the commission 

 was admirable for its recognition of the 

 necessity of vesting the General As- 

 sembly with broad powers in dealing 

 with questions of taxation. 



Passed in Senate 



The resolution submitting the amend- 

 ment was promptly passed without 

 change by the Senate and with little 

 objection, except from a few Cook 

 County senators. In the House it en- 

 countered stiffer opposition. Many 

 amendments were offered mostly by 

 members representing Chicago districts. 

 Two changes had been urged by many 

 persons and organizations, the insertion 

 of a clause requiring that all real estate 

 except mineral lands and lands devoted 

 to reforestation be in one class, and the 

 elimination of the substitute proposed 

 for the present exemption section. These 

 changes were made almost without op- 

 position. Most of the other amend- 

 ments to the Senate resolution urged by 

 Chicago representatives proposed re- 

 strictions rendering an income tax in- 

 operative until a reapportionment was 

 made in legislative districts or limiting 

 the state to not more than 10 per cent 

 of the net proceeds of a tax on incomes 

 except by the affirmative votes of two- 

 thirds of the members elected to each 

 House of the General Assembly. 



Separate Conferences 



Separate conferences were called both 

 by the Cook County representatives 

 and by the downstate representatives. 

 The downstate conference unanimously 

 agreed to resist any amendment limit- 

 ing the state to less than 25 per cent of 

 the net proceeds of a tax on incomes. 

 However, when the amendment pro- 

 posing a limitation of 10 per cent was 

 under discussion, a downstate member 

 offered an amendment thereto fixing the 

 percentage at 15. Other downstate 

 members urged limitation of the state 

 to a lower percentage than 25. With 

 only a few downstate votes against it, 

 the limitation was fixed at 15 per cent 

 of a tax on incomes. There was no 

 objection to the clause giving a ma- 

 jority of the members elected to each 

 House the power by general law to dis- 

 tribute part or all of any other taxes 

 collected by the state among the coun- 

 ties and other taxing districts. The 



Chicago amendment as modified was 

 approved. 



A Significant Change 



The present section giving the cor- 

 porate authorities of cities, towns and 

 villages the power to make local im- 

 provements by special assessment, or by 

 special taxation of contiguous property 

 or otherwise, was broadened to include 

 "sanitary districts, park districts, and 

 other municipalities." 



When the resolution as amended was 

 called for final action by the House, 

 it narrowly escaped defeat. On the 

 first vote it failed by one vote to re- 

 ceive the two-thirds majority required 

 by the Constitution. Many Chicago 

 members voted against it. The two 

 members who had most actively urged 

 limitation voted against it on the 

 ground that further limitations should 

 have been adopted. The resolution was 

 saved from defeat only by a motion to 

 postjjone further consideration. After 

 vain attempts had been made to take • 

 up the Chicago relief bills, the amend- 

 ment resolution was called up again and 

 was approved by a vote barely exceed- 

 ing the constitutional two-thirds ma- 

 jority. Many senators were opposed to 

 the House substitute for Section 2, but 

 finally accepted it on the ground that 

 no other draft could pass the House. 

 But in doing so they reserved the right 

 to Qppose the resolution before the peo- 

 ple should a careful analysis of it seem 

 not to justify their support. 



Amendments a Mistake 



Representatives of the Illinois Agri- 

 cultural Association, though urging 

 minor changes chiefly for the purpose 

 of clarifying the amendment proposed 

 by the investigation commission, sup- 

 ported the position of the commission 

 and opposed the restrictions urged by 

 many Chicago and Cook County legis- 

 lators. Representatives of the associa- 

 tion still believe that most of the 

 changes made in the House in compli- 

 ance with the demand of Chicago were 

 a mistake. All authorities on taxation 

 heard by the General Assembly had op- 

 posed such restrictions. Howe\'er, care- 

 ful analysis is being made of the amend- 

 ment as submitted, both of its good 

 features and of its bad features. After 

 full consideration of this report and ac- 

 tion thereon by the board of directors, 

 the position of the association on the 

 amendment and the reasons therefor 

 will be announced. - t^-- 



"Congratulations upon the June issue 

 of the I. A. A. RECORD. It is most 

 attractive." 



ILLINOIS MILK PRO- 

 DUCERS' ASSOCIATION, 



Wilfred Shaw, Resident Manager. 



.1 



