1. A. A. RECORD— November, 19S3 





Chicago Gets Its Way 

 Ill , h Senate^^^y otc Mil 



Downsfate Senators Swing Over Under Administration 

 ~v Whip. Pass Bill For $38,000,000 State Levy On 



i' >;;■' f V ;,: \ ■-:;;;;;;; J ;.Vy^-:; Property <^'-f.'':^-ti\---''''--'''[ 



because we contend that the duty and 

 responsibility of caring for the unem- 

 ployed is primarily a local problem. 



AS WE go to press the State Ad- 

 ministration program to con- 

 tinue the "dole" in Illinois on 

 the present scale is being considered 

 in the House after being forced 

 through the Senate under the patron- 

 age whip. 



The Illinois Agricultural Associa- 

 tion is insisting that the Streeper- 

 Green bills in the House, identical to 

 the Lantz bills, be passed as intro- 

 duced. These bills carry a mandatory 

 provision that would insure Chicago 

 and Cook county and commission- 

 governed counties levying taxes local- 

 ly, as 85 township-governed counties 

 are now doing, to provide at least in 

 part for their destitute people. 



The Lantz bills were to be offered 

 in the House as substitutes for the 

 Administration measures. 



The I. A. A. vigorously opposed the 

 Administration measure. Senate Bill 

 No. 1 which passed the Senate on 

 October 18 by a vote of 36 to 13. It 

 did not compromise on this position. 

 This bill provides for a state tax on 

 property of approximately 138,000,000 

 "for the relief of residents of the state 

 of Illinois who are destitute and in 

 necessitous circumstances." If this tax 

 is levied farmers will pay around $7,- 

 500,000 more taxes next year. 



How They Voted 



The following senators voted for 

 this measure: Barbour, Barr, Benson, 

 Boeke, Broderick, Burgess, Carroll, 

 FMnn, Gillmeister, Graham, Hickman, 

 Huckin, Huebsch, Karraker, Kielmin- 

 ski, Kline, Kribs, Lee, Loughran, Leo- 

 nardo, Maypole, McDermott, Mendel, 

 Monroe, Mundy, O'Connell, O'Grady, 

 Penick, Roberts, Serritella, Shaw, Sie- 

 bems, Stuttle, Ward, Williams, Woods. 



The following voted in the negative: 

 Messrs. Baker, Behrroan, Carlson, 

 Clifford, Ewing, Gunning, Lantz, Loh- 

 mann. Mason, Mayor, Paddock, Searcy, 

 Thompson. " ■ 



When the State Administration's 

 130,000,000 bond issue program failed 

 the first time to receive the necessary 

 Votes in the State Senate administra- 



tion representatives offered to pass the 

 Lantz bills with certain amendments 

 prepared by Corporation Counsel Sex- 

 ton of Chicago at the Governor's di- 

 rection. Without having the text of 

 these amendments read, a number of 

 senators accepted this offer and voted 

 for the bond issue program and after- 

 wards to amend the Lantz bills. 



When the Senate convened on 

 Thursday, October 19, Senator Lantz, 

 after studying the ""Chicago amend- 

 ments, and conferring with downstate 

 senators made the following state- 

 ment: , ■ , , , 



The Chicago Amendments 



"The Chicago amendments to the 

 Lantz bills are not acceptable to the 

 downstate senators who opposed the 

 State Administration's Thirty Million 

 Bond Issue program for the following 

 reasons: 



First: It is questionable whether 

 the amended bills are within the Gov- 

 ernor's call for the special session be- 

 cause they leave to the discretion of 

 the local officials whether the funds 

 realized shall be turned over to the 

 Illinois Emergency Relief Commis- 

 sion. The call states as its first pur- 

 pose, "To enact laws to provide funds 

 for the Illinois Emergency Relief Com- 

 mission to be used for the relief of 

 persons who are destitute and in ne- 

 cessitous circumstances." 



Second: The language used in the 

 amended bills is not expanded to un- 

 questionably permit local authorities 

 to care for the unemployed. As in- 

 troduced the Lantz bills provided re- 

 lief for all poor and indigent persons 

 including those "who are destitute and 

 in necessitous circumstances by rea- 

 son of unemployment or otherwise." 

 The amended bills include only "poor 

 and indigent persons." It appears this 

 is an attempt to divide poor relief into 

 two classes (1) pauper relief under 

 ordinary economic conditions and (2) 

 unemployment relief. If localities are 

 not empowered to care for the unem- 

 ployed this burden must be carried by 

 the State. We cannot agree to this 



Probably Unconstitutional 



Third: The classification of cities, 

 villages and incorporated towns used 

 in the amended bills is identical with 

 the classification held invalid by the 

 Attorney General in his opinion on the ' 

 similar bills passed at the regular ses- 

 sion and vetoed. He pointed out that 

 a classification of municipalities ac- 

 cording to the population of the coun- 

 ty in which they are located is uncon- 

 stitutional. Many attorneys agree that 

 of the objections to the earlier bills 

 raised by the attorney general, this 

 objection is the only one that is fairly . 

 established as a legal proposition. This 

 unconstitutional classification of the 

 regular session bills was corrected in 

 the Lantz bills as introduced in this 

 special session, but is again incor- 

 porated in the amended bills. *- 



Fourth: The amended bills empower 

 Cook County to levy taxes for poor 

 relief up to the constitutional limit 

 of 75 cents on the $100 for all pur- 

 poses. This will permit an additional 

 levy of approximately 20 cents on the ; 

 $100 assessed value, which with the 

 25 per cent reduction in assessed valu- 

 ations of real estate will not produce 

 much more than $5,000,000 per year 

 and is entirely inadequate in view of — 

 expenditures of $4,000,000 or more 

 per month for relief purposes in that 

 county. The bills as amended do not 

 require Cook County to draw reason- 

 ably upon its own resources and will 

 afford only a small measure of relief. 



We are convinced that all communi- 

 ties should be required to draw reason- 

 ably upon their own resources before . 

 appealing to the State for aid. And 

 all localities should be placed upon the 

 same basis with reference to relief 

 taxes. Chicago and the townships in 

 Cook County should be required to 

 levy taxes for relief purposes just as 

 downstate townships are now required 

 to levy taxes for this purpose." 



Voted With Chicago 



After reading this statement, Sena- 

 tor Lantz moved to strike his bills as 

 amended from the calendar. Ordinari- 

 ly, this privilege is accorded without 

 question. However, Chicago senators 

 with the support of a few downstate 

 senators who had voted for the bond 

 issue program kept the bills on the 

 calendar, but permitted Senator Lantz 

 to withdraw as sponsor. The amended 

 bills were then called by Senator Mon- 

 roe for passage, but failed to receive 

 (Continued on page 12) 



