I. A. A. Record— August, 1933 



Districts & Counties 



H. J. R. 65 



(Revenue 

 Amendment) 



H. B. 579 



(Mortgage 

 Foreclosure Bill) 



Lantz Bill (Poor Relief) 



S. B. 729 

 - (key bill) ^^ ; 



For 



Against 



For 



Against 



For 



Against 



47th Dist. (Bond, Madison) 



Sen, Monroe 



Rep. Streeper .... 



Rep. Schaefer O'Neill 



Rep. Burton ^ 



48th Dist. (Crawford, Edwards, Gallatin, Har- 

 din, Lawrence, Wabash, White) 



Sen, Shaw 



Rep. Thompson ". 



Rep. F. W, Lewis 



. . Rep. D. T, Woodard 



49th Dist. (St. Clair) 



Sen, Kline .." 



Rep. Huschle •. 



Rep. Holten 



Rep. Borders , 



50th Dist. (Alexander, Franklin, Pulaski, 

 Union, Williamson) 



Sen. Karraker 



Rep. Browner 



Rep. L, E, Lewis 



Rep. Ray C. Carroll 



51st Dist. (Hamilton, Johnson, Massac, Pope, 



Saline) 



Sen. Thompson 



Rep. Rush 



Rep. Upchurch 



Rep. Porter 



X 



X 



-Hi 

 X 





Xv 



x- 



X 

 X 



m 



X 



X 



■X: 

 'X\ 



',;■ .1 't.'-.K »'- 



mm 



X 

 X 

 X 









I 



: ■-it:. 



58th General Assembly 



(Continued from page 4) 

 the authority now possessed and 

 widely used for pauper relief in coun- 

 ties having the township form of gov- 

 ernment. 



Three bills to accomplish this pur- 

 pose were drawn by the I. A, A, and 

 introduced by Senator Lantz, They 

 were Senate bills 683, 715 and 729. 



The Second Sales Tax Bill 



The administration, however, de- 

 cided to submit another sales tax, the 

 primary purpose of which was to con- 

 tinue unemployment relief work es- 

 pecially in Chicago, This measure the 

 Association could not support. To win 

 downstate favor, and apparently in an 

 effort to meet the objections of the 

 L A, A., the new bills provided that 

 after Jan. 1, 1934, revenue derived 

 from the sales tax shall be used to 

 reduce and replace property taxes for 

 State purposes; the income from July 

 1, 1933, to Jan. 1, 1934, to go to the 

 Illinois Emergency Relief Commission. 



The administration also included an 

 amendment which the attorney gen- 

 eral stated would exempt certain 

 isolated retail sales of farm products 

 from the tax. 



This measure was passed and signed 

 by the governor. It is now in opera- 

 tion. 



The I. A, A. did not and does not 

 yet believe the property tax relief fea- 

 ture in the recent sales tax legisla- 

 tion can be made to operate on 1933 



taxes. The legislation provides that 

 the state tax rate shall be reduced in 

 proportion to the amount paid into 

 state funds from the sales tax fund 

 at the time the state levy is made. The 

 state levy is made in December but 

 under the provisions of the sales tax 

 legislation all revenue collected in 

 January on sales up to December 31, 

 is to go to the Emergency Relief Com- 

 mission, It is not until in March, 1934, 

 that any revenue from the sales tax 

 can be paid into any df the state tax 

 funds. The I, A, A. does not believe 

 the sales tax can be made to function 

 as intended by the administration to 

 reduce the state tax rate next year. 



The Lantz bills, primarily intro- 

 duced to give Chicago and Cook county 

 greater authority to levy sufficient 

 taxes locally for pauper relief, passed 

 the senate but were held back in the 

 house while the sales tax had the 

 right-of-way. 



While a number of downstate mem- 

 bers voted for the sales tax, the first 

 six months' proceeds of which will go 

 largely to feed Chicago unemployed, 

 Chicago legislators in the House bit- 

 terly opposed the Lantz bills to enable 

 the metropolitan area to get on a self- 

 supporting basis by Jan. 1, 1934. This 

 opposition was not successful but it 

 indicates that Chicago politicians may 

 strive to continue the dole system next 

 year from sales tax revenue, in part 

 at the expense of downstate people 

 many of whom are paying local prop- 

 erty taxes for the same purpose. 



The vote on the key bill S, B, 729 



giving Chicago and other cities and 

 villages in commission governed coun- 

 ties power to levy taxes locally for 

 poor relief will be found in the table 

 on page 5. Every vote against this 

 measure was a vote against the best 

 interests of farmers and other down- 

 state ppnpip, '•';■■' '■'■'■■ ""■'; i: ••■••• •■■'■"." ■ 



Lantz Bills Vetoed 



Just before going to press, we are 

 informed the Governor vetoed all of 

 the Lantz bills, Senate Bills 683, 715 

 and 729. The veto message in part as 

 carried in the press states: 



"It is not my thought that there '; 

 will be no needy persons by Feb- 

 ruary, 1934, or that by that time 

 there will be positions and work 

 for all who seek employment. But ; 

 it is my hope that by that time • 

 the necessity for care and relief 

 of these persons will be so re- 

 duced that such care and relief 

 can be returned to the local com- 

 munities. 



"The county board of Cook 

 County has, by resolution, re- 

 quested me not to approve this 

 bill and senate bills Nos. 683 and 

 729, which are to some extent ' 

 companion measures." 

 This statement by the Governor is 

 amazing in that these bills were in- 

 tended only to provide an opportunity 

 for Chicago, Cook County and all 

 counties under commission form of 

 government to take care of their own 

 (Continued on page 9) 



