Jasper County Democrat, Volume 17, Number 96, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 10 March 1915 — MUCH PEEVED OVER NEW LAW [ARTICLE]

MUCH PEEVED OVER NEW LAW

Requiring Larger Representation and Bond in Subsidy Elections. Concerning Representative W. L. Wood’s measure regarding railroad subsidy selections, the Rensselaer Republican lets out the following plaint: Representative Wood, of White and Jasper counties, aided by Senator Ballou ,of Lagrange, has contributed to the defeat of an interurban project through Jasper and White counties in a way almost as effectually as though he had had a single vote in determining whether townships had a right to vote tax subsidies and had transferred his vote to Frank E. Babcock, editor of The Jasper County Democrat, who has always opposed the voting of sunsidies and who recently even argued that the construction of an interurban railroad would not be of material aid in the development of Rensselaer. We are not certain that Representative Wood railized fully the effect of his measure. Frequently representatives who introduce bills at the request of others are unaware of the purpose the laws are expected to carry out. That Represetnative Wood knew’ that Marion township had always favored the voting of subsidies as a means of inducing the building of a railroad and that ne proposed his measure with the enthusiastic endorsement of Editor Babcock of The Jasper County Democrat and that he used The Democrat on the floor of the house in suj>port of his measure is true, and also that he did this in the very face of the fact that Marion township by a vote of six to one supported the last subsidy measure offered. Also that it was done at the very time when a project for a road through White, Jasper and Newton counties was pending and which he knew would ask subsidies in Marion and Newton townships in this county, and iff Princeton, West Point and Round Grove townships in White county. The measure as passed provides that before the county commissloneis can order a subsidy election a petition must be filed signed by 75 resident freeholders of a township, who must themselves give bond for tne expenses of the election. It is not probable that there are 75 resident freeholders in Newton township, but if there-were two hundred or three hundred it would mean that the boosters who undertook the matter of aiding their township by this means would have many days of hard work for which they receive nothing and then would have to give a bond for the election expense. An effort was made to have the provision for the bond changed so that the railroad or beneficiary under the subsidy should give it instead of the petitioner but this was not done on the ground that the railroad could protect the petitioner by bond, .1 very roundabout Way and still leaving the petitioner, who is essentially a booster for his neighbors, still liable. The idea of a majority ruling rn any matter affecting the public is one quite thoroughly woven Into the general fabric of our laws and completely into the honest opinions of our people, but in securing the passage of his measure Representative Wood has ignored the fact that in Marion township it was the will of six-sevenths of all the voters that tax aid be given an interurban project. By the passage of the Wood bill, If there were 200 people living in a township and every one of them desired to support a subsidy proposition they would have no choice to exercise their will unless there were 75 freeholders to sign a petition. As originally framed the Wood bill provided that only 25 petitioners were necessary and this would not have been out of the way, except that the bond for the expense of election should have been required of the railroad seeking the subsidy instead of the petitioners. In the senate, however, an amendment was offered by Senator Ballou to require 75 petitioners and no one be-. ing advised of the purpose of the measure, the amendment carried. The bill then went back to the house for concurrence and Representative Wood, still failing to appreciate the fact that only one in seven Iry Marlon township had voted against the last subsidy proposition, moved that the house concur in the amendment. O. L. Brown, the promoter .of the Lafayette and Northwestern Railroad, had expected to ask subsidy elections in Newton and Marion townships in thjs county, and in Princeton, West Point and Round Grove townships in White county. It is quite certain that the Wood law will defeat a possibility of subsidy elections in any of the townships named, unless it should be In Marion township and Rensselaer, and so far as the effect Is concerned it would have -been practically as well 4 to have passed a bill entirety repealing the subsidy law. If it was the intention of Mr. Wood, as it was of Editor Babcock, to defeat the general plan of subsidies, thus ignoring six-sevenths of the people of communities like Rensselaer, it would have been even better to have killed the subsidy proposition by a direct blow than to have made the legislation purely class by making it impossible for people in sparsely settled townships to have anything to say at all about their own business. The booster has been given a rebuff, majorities have been ignored and 'Representative Wood has assumed a guardianship over people who should have a - fair degree of knowledge relating to their own business and their own desires. Now admitting that six-sevenths

of those who voted in Marion tp. and liensselaer at the last subsidy election, held here voted for the proposition, how many of those voting in favor thereof were large tax payers or even medium tax payc-is? A great many people did not vote on the proposition at all, and these none-voters were nearly 'air people who would have had to pay a good many dollars had the tax been levied and collected. They realized that the proposition was bound to be carried here in spite of them, and therefore stayed away from the polls. The Democrat will venture the assertion that at least four out of every six of the six-sevenths voting for the proposition would not have had to pay as much as $5 each of |he subsidy tax, and many of them scarcely nothing at all.

The renter, who is here today and away tomorrow, could vote a tax on his landlord for which he would not be liable to pay one penny. The farm renter might perhaps have three or four votes in his family and he could vote a tax on the owner of the farm and before the tax was levied and collected he would be in some other township or county. The landowner might vote against the proposition, yet his vote would be largely overbalanced by the tenant who paid none of the tax his vote had caused to be levied. This proposition is entirely wrong, and if the Wood bill puts an end to subsidy elections, as the Republican claims it practically will do, it is a mighty good thing and Mr. Wood will lose no friends for his action in fathering the bill. The Republican sgys that there might be “200 people in a township

and every one desire to support a subsidy proposition, yet they would have no choice to exercise their will unless there were 75 freeholders to sign the petition.” Now we know of no law that prevents anyone from going down into THEIR OWN POCKET and giving whatever they please to any project that comes along. And if these 200 people, everyone of whom wanted to be taxed to support a railroad subsidy, could not vote the tax upon themselves because there were not 75 freeholders in their township, they could easily determine what their tax would be, had it been voted, and they could pay this amount to the promoters without anyone attempting to raise a hand to stop them, and thus save the trouble and expense of holding an election.

The Wood bill makes it more difficult for the small tax payer and voters who pay no taxes at all to say that their more thrifty neighbors shall dig down into their pockets, against their will, and hand over their money to a private corporation. It is claimed that there are but three states that longer permit the voting of subsidies to private corporations, and if this law above complained of by the Republican will practically put an end to the imposition in Indiana, we can content ourselves that we are in good company, or, at least, that 45 other states beat us- to it.

As to the proposition of the Lafayette & Northwestern Railroad Co. asking for subsidies, the promoters of this company when they first appeared here, and all along since until very recently, stated that they would not ask for any subsidies, and that the subsidy proposition was an imposition on the people. It is evident that they have changed their

ideas in the matter, as subsidy elections have already been, called to vote them aid in Jackson and Beaver townships, Newton county. The Democrat has no objection whatever to any corporation building a railroad through Rensselaer or Jasper county if it chooses to do so with its own money, but it does object to saying we must give the promoters a hundred dolars of our money, against our will, to help them build it, and in this proposition the great majority of the real tax payers are with us. We would not be so uncharitable as to say that the fact that the Rejubllcan gets from S4O to SSO out of every subsidy election held has anything to do with its position of favoring these elections, but if some other paper got to publish the notices and furnish the election supplies, it is barely possible that it would not be Quite so enthusiastic over the proposition.