. ' •■> 



II 



I •• . . ■ I ' . 



'•/ *, .V' 









t, 



! 





in 



,.1., 



t ■ ■ 





State Legislation Reviewed 



: (Continued from page 3) 



1933, be paid to the Illinois Emer- 

 gency Relief Commission, for unem- 

 ployment relief, and thereafter, as 

 they became available, be used to 

 abate state taxes on property. s . 



The Association favored the use of 

 this new revenue for the replacement 

 of property taxes but opposed the use 

 of the funds for unemployment relief. 

 Past experience had clearly shown 

 that a very large portion of such re- 

 lief funds would be used in Chicago 

 and Cook county. In contrast with the 

 high tax levies for poor relief in 

 downstate townships, levies for this 

 purpose in Cook county had always 

 been very small. Even these had been 

 cut in half as the depression deepened. 



To meet the situation constructively, 

 the Association sponsored three bills, 

 known as the Lantz bills, to give the 

 full constitutional taxing power of 75 

 cents to Cook county and an additional 

 tax rate of 15 cents to 17 downstate 

 commission-governed counties, and to 

 give the townships and municipalities 

 in Cook county and the municipalities 

 in the other commission-governed 

 counties the same power to levy taxes 

 for poor relief as has been given to 

 and imposed upon the townships, in- 

 cluding a considerable number of cities 

 which are also townships, in 84 coun- 

 ties of the state. Unless such bills 

 were enacted, the Association pointed 

 out, a special session to provide ad- 

 ditional relief funds, mostly for use in 

 Cook county, would be necessary be- 

 fore January 1, 1934. 



The Association bills met bitter op- 

 position from Cook county senators 

 and representatives, but passed late in 

 the regular session. They were vetoed 

 by the Governor. This veto neces- 

 sitated calling the first special session 

 of the legislature early in October, 

 1933. 



The test vote, given on page 5, 

 classifies the downstate senators and 

 repceseRtatives as for or against the 

 three bills sponsored by the Associa- 

 tion, 



State Tax Levy and Bond Bills 



• 



As foreseen by the Association and 

 by many others at the time the Lantz 

 bills were vetoed, this action resulted 

 in the calling of the first special ses- 

 sion of the General Assembly to meet 

 October 3, 1933, for the purpose of 

 providing additional funds for relief. 

 Administration bills were introduced, 

 the key bill levying an additional state 

 tax of $38,000,000 on property in 1934, 

 payable in 1935, against which tax an- 

 ticipation notes for $28,500,000 could 

 be issued and sold to provide relief 



UNCLE MIOT sex: 



""Actlgri always gets 

 i|[ou Farther than growl- 



^ iTH'FARMWfVtAUyj 

 ^ TDDAXBOYS/^ 



funds. A companion bill proposed a 

 state bond issue of $30,000,000, to be 

 voted on in November, 1934, the pro- 

 ceeds of the bond issue to be used to 

 redeem the state anticipation tax notes 

 issued and interest thereon. 



Other companion bills provided that 

 the bonds and interest thereon, if the 

 bonds are approved by a majority of 

 all votes cast for members of the Gen- 

 eral Assembly, are to be paid by the 

 state, one-half from gasoline tax al- 

 lotments to the counties and one-half 

 from gasoline tax allotments to the 

 municipalities therein, in proportion to 

 the share of such funds used for relief 

 in such counties and in such munici- 

 palities. If the bonds are not approved 

 in the November election, an addi- 

 tional state tax, which may be as high 

 as $38,000,000, is already levied on 

 the 1934 valuations of property to be 

 collected in 1935. 



/ Opposed State Levy 



The Association opposed the State 

 Tax Levy and Bond bills; first, be- 

 cause of serious doubt whether the 

 bond issue can secure the votes neces- 

 sary for approval; second, because the 

 Association consistently opposes fur- 

 ther diverting gasoline tax funds from 

 their proper use in improving and 

 maintaining highways and streets, 

 thereby decreasing employment and 

 increasing taxes on property; and 

 third, because no provision had yet 

 been made enabling and requiring 

 every county and every municipality 

 therein, especially Cook county, to 

 draw upon its own resources accord- 

 ing to its ability before asking the 

 state for assistance. 



The Association pointed out that 

 present unfair and wasteful methods 

 of providing and distributing state 

 funds for unemployment relief were 

 forcing downstate counties to ask for 

 constantly increasing state funds for 

 relief, thus tending to create and per- 

 petuate a dole system in the state. 



The Association again sponsored 

 bills similar to but somewhat simpler 

 than those offered in the regular ses- 



> /;• I. A. A. Record— April, 1934 



sion, equally enabling and requiring 

 every community to levy taxes for un- 

 employment relief. The bills sponsored 

 by the Association, again meeting the 

 bitter opposition of Chicago and Cook 

 county legislators, and failing to re- 

 ceive administration support, could not 

 command the two-thirds vote neces- 

 sary to give them immediate effect. 

 Unless they were enacted, it was 

 pointed out, further need for relief 

 funds, especially in Chicago and Cook 

 county, would require another special 

 session to provide relief funds long 

 before the close of the year 1934. It 

 now appears that the additional relief 

 funds provided by the first special ses- 

 sion will be completely exhausted some 

 time early in the coming summer, long 

 before voters h ve an opportunity to 

 approve or disapprove the proposed 

 bond issue. • -\ : 



; The test vote on the Tax Levy and 

 Bond issue key bill, given on page 5, 

 classifies the downstate senators and 

 representatives as for or against these 

 bills opposed by the Association. Note 

 carefully that a negative vote on these 

 bills favored the position of the As- 

 sociation. '■■■ 



The record discloses that four most 

 important issues are yet undetermined. 



1. The submission of a constructive 

 revenue amendment providing for a 

 proper and effective limitation upon 

 tangible property taxes, thus insuring 

 an equitable system of taxation. 



2. Assurance that new sources of 



revenue shall be used only to replace 

 taxes now levied upon property, y 



3. Discontinuance of diversion of 

 gasoline taxes from the improvement 

 and maintenance of roads and streets. 



4. Requiring all municipalities and 

 counties to draw equally upon their 

 own resources for unemployment re- 

 lief before appealing to the state for 

 assistance. Your vote in the April 

 primaries and November elections will 

 largely determine how these issues will 

 be decided. The accompanying voting 

 record is offered to assist you in re- 

 cording your wishes. 



New Farm Advisers 



John R. Gilkey in Macon county, J. 

 L. Iftner in Scott county, E. W. Rusk 

 in Coles county, T. H. Hafer in Han- 

 cock county. Ward C. Cannon in Doug- 

 las county, N. H. Anderson in Logan 

 county. 



Carroll county — 153 farmers had ob- 

 tained corn loans amounting to $80,244 

 up to March 10. Around seven per 

 cent of com in Carroll county is rep- 

 resented by loans, according to Ralph 

 A. Fahmey, secretary of the Super- 

 visory Board. . 



