I. A. A. RECORD— December, 1933 



Legislative Report 



(Continued from page 4) 

 placed primarily upon 18 downstate 

 senators and 49 downstate represent- 

 _ atives who supported the solid vote 

 of Chicago and Cook county. 



The voting record of all downstate 



senators and representatives on the 



-; key bill to levy $38,000,000 on prop- 



.' erty is given on Page 5. Voters are 



: ! urged to study this record carefully, 



■ together with the records of legislators 

 ■'on measures before the regular session 



; " ■ of the General Assembly, published in 

 ' the August RECORD. Only by so do- 

 : r: ing can members vote intelligently for 

 ; future candidates for office. 



Distinguished credit is due to 13 



- downstate senators and 45 downstate 



' representatives who really represented 



the state as a whole, as well as the 



' downstate, by opposing the passage 



: i of the so-called bonding bills. 



The Illinois Agricultural Associa- 

 .; tion bills from introduction faced bit- 



■ ter Chicago opposition. Early on Oc- 

 '■--'.: tober 11, a week before the tax levy 



/: bill passed the senate, certain Chicago 



'.; senators spread the report that an 



. ■ agreement had been reached under 



■i which both the administration and the 



Lantz bills were to be passed, the lat- 



,7; V ter to be first amended to the per- 



,,' '< missive form passed in the regular ses- 



, .; sion and vetoed by the governor. 



: ; ..J: Neither representatives of the Asso- 



- . elation nor Senator Lantz nor any 



- other supporter of the Assocation 

 ' '■' ■ bills had made any such agree- 

 ment or had even sat in a conference 

 for this purpose. This fact was quickly 

 made known and the report of the 

 agreement failed in its obvious pur- 

 pose to secure votes enough to insure 

 passage of the administration bills. 



Fast Work Here ;> ^ 



The administration then directed 

 that amendments to the Lantz bills be 

 prepared to restore thereto the per- 

 ; ' missive powers to levy relief taxes. 

 V Before these amendments were print- 

 ed, or even read, they were offered and 

 adopted and immediately thereafter 

 sufficient votes became available and 

 the administration tax levy bill was 

 * passed. Strange as it may seem, when 

 the administration amendments to the 

 Lantz bills were examined, it was 

 ' found that they restored even the pro- 

 vision which had been pronounced un- 

 constitutional by the Attorney Gen- 

 eral. 



In view of the futility of the bills as 

 amended, Senator Lantz tried to have 

 them stricken from the calendar. His 

 motion was defeated by the close vote 

 of 19 to 21, in which Senators Finn, 

 Hickman, Karraker, Monroe, O'Con- 

 ; nell, Stuttle and Williams, all from 



downstate districts, aligned themselves 

 with Chicago senators. Senator Lantz 

 then asked that his name be stricken 

 from the bills, which was granted. 

 Senator Monroe asked permission of 

 the senate to sponsor the amended 

 bills, which was also granted. These 

 bills were all finally passed without 

 the emergency clause which would 

 have made them effective at once. 



How They Voted 



Voting with the Chicago senators in 

 each case were downstate Senators 

 Barr, Burgess, Finn, Hickman, Kar- 

 raker, Monroe, Mundy, O'Connell, 

 Penick, Shaw, Stuttle and Williams. 

 Senators Boeke and Sieberns had vot- 

 ed for the first Monroe bill with the 

 emergency clause. When the emer- 

 gency clause was removed, Senator 

 Boeke did not vote on the bill and 

 Senator Sieberns voted against it. 

 Both voted for two of the four later 

 Monroe bills after the emergency 

 clause had been stricken. Senator 

 Boeke did not vote on the other two 

 later bills; Senator Sieberns voted 

 against them. Senator Huebsch of the 

 Cook county district had voted for 

 Senator Lantz' motion to strike all of 

 the bills from the calendar. When they 

 were called for passage, Mr. Huebsch 

 voted against all of them. As passed 

 by the Senate, these emasculated bills 

 were worthless for purposes of im- 

 mediate relief, since they would not 

 have permitted any levies in Cook 

 County until 1935. 



Bills identical with the Lantz bills 

 in the senate had early been intro- 

 duced in the House by Representatives 

 Streeper and Leroy Green. When the 

 Lantz bills were ruined by amend- 

 ments in the senate, Streeper-Green 

 bills, at the request of I. A. A. repre- 

 sentatives, were advanced to passage 

 stage. The bonding bills and the Mon- 

 roe bills, likewise, were advanced. All 

 three sets of bills remained ten days 

 in deadlock. 



In order to dispose of the useless 

 Monroe bills and thus prevent any 

 danger of their being passed by the 

 administration forces and used by 

 them to give downstate legislators an 

 excuse to vote for the bonding bills, 

 supporters of the Streeper-Green bills 

 led by Representative McClure, of the 

 majority party, offered and secured 

 the adoption of amendments com- 

 pletely restoring the Monroe bills to 

 their original form. 



Called for passage on November 1, 

 the first of the restored Lantz bills 

 did not have a Cook county vote and 

 so failed to receive the necessary two- 

 thirds vote of the House. This was on 

 the same day that the administration 

 tax levy bill failed on second attempt, 

 by seven votes. When the adminis- 



tration, by the utmost use of its power 

 finally succeeded in passing the tax 

 levy and bonding bills in the House 

 on November 7, Representative Mc- 

 Clure, of Knox county, recognizing the 

 impossibility of passing the Lantz 

 bills with the emergency clause, now 

 that the bonding bills had passed, pre- 

 sented a motion to strike them from 

 the calendar. He explained his motion 

 as intended to give no downstate rep- 

 resentative a chance to vote for the 

 Lantz bills as an aHbi for the vote 

 he had just cast for the tax levy and 

 bonding bills. His motion was carried 

 with a shout of ayes against a few 

 feeble noes. 



Unsound and Unwise 



The Illinois Agricultural Associa- . 

 tion regards the administration relief 

 legislation enacted in the special ses- 

 sion, largely by downstate votes, as 

 unsound and unwise. It is admitted, 

 even by its supporters, that this legis- i; 

 lation is temporary in character and ' 

 that provision for further relief funds 

 must be made within a few months. 

 The bonding program perpetuates the 

 injustice of exempting Chicago and 

 Cook county from providing by local 

 taxation for any substantial portion of 

 their own expenditures for relief. Thus 

 further demands upon the credit of 

 the state are probable, if not in- 

 evitable. This system of relief, if found 

 legal, will further divert gasoline taxes 

 from their intended use in improving .- 

 and maintaining highways and streets, ''[\ 

 thereby decreasing the employment so '.. 

 much needed and increasing the desti- - 

 tution the legislation enacted is sup- . r ^ 

 posed to relieve. 



Several novel features of the new.' 

 legislation are of doubtful legality.'- ■ 

 The diversion of gasoline taxes for 

 payment of the bonds and interest of 

 the $20,000,000 bond issue approved 

 in November, 1932, is now under at- 

 tack in the courts. If this feature, or 

 any other provision of the present ad- 

 ministration relief program, is found 

 invalid at any time after sale of the 

 anticipation warrants and before ap- : 

 proval of the bond issue, or if the 

 bond issue is not approved, an ad- 

 ditional tax levy of at least $30,000,000 

 and more probably of $38,000,000 will 

 be required on property in the single 

 year 1934. If any provision is found 

 invalid after approval of the bond 

 issue, it will require additional tax 

 levies on property over a period of 

 20 years aggregating $30,000,000 for 

 principal of the bonds and about $13,- 

 500,000 in addition for interest there- 

 on. Such levies on property could be 

 avoided only by the difficult expedi- 

 ent of the General Assembly meeting 

 again and providing funds from other 

 sources. 



