|
CHAPTER II.- FIGHT FOR TAX CoMMissioN BEGUN. To K. K. Kennan, the Milwaukee attorney, is due more than to any other one man the credit for giving Wisconsin a tax commissioli. There are good people in Wisconsin who in the innocence of their hearts believe that whatever advancement, has been made in taxation reform should be credited to the administration of Gov. La Follette, but this is an exaggerated estimate of the services rendered to the state in this particulai' field of activity by the present senior United States senator. That he contributed to the result by his sensational, if belated, agitation of the subject of taxation legislation doubtless is true, but; it was (a) the creation of the tax commission and (b) the work of the tax commission that brought about a revision of the laws and the establishment of a new system of administering the laws under strict supervision by the commission, that in reality accomplished results. Mr. Kcnnan began his work for the creation of a commission in 1 R89, at which the a bill d rnwn by him was introduced in the assembly by Peter Leonard of Price county. Thus bill was No. 383A. It was considered by the committee on assessment and collection of taxes and, on March 29, was reported for indefinite postponem~nt. Later it was considered in committee of the whole, from which body it was reported without amendment on motion of Henry E. Legler, representative from the Seventh Milwaukee district. The hill was indefinitely postponed on March 30, 1889. The history of the introduction of and work for this measure is an interesting one. Mr.' Kennan, its author, was then tax commissioner of the Wisconsin Central railroad company and for several ~'cars he had been acquiring practical experience in the operation of the Wisconsin tax laws. The company he represented owned large tracts of land in the northern part of the state, where new counties were being organized. It was natural, therefore, that the inadequacies—to put it mildly—of the system should strike him forcibly, as his the was spent in efforts to straighten out tangles resulting from the ignorance or prejudice of local taxing officers and the uncertain meaning of the laws themselves. He believed that, if a commission of competent men were employed to compile statistics relating to the taxes collected, together with facts concerning the operation of the laws, the inequalities and injustice necessarily attending upon the enforcement of the illogical, conflieting and uncertain statutes b taxing officers with elastic consciences, the consequence would be a speedy attempt to remedy tile defects in the system that would surely be pointed out. To this end heprepared an address which hedelivered before tile committee to whom the consideration of the bill was as~igned. Considerable the was spent by him as a member of the “third house,” lobbying for the passage of the measure. the net result. of' his work was encouraging, although the bill failed o passage. rfheSCC(1 \VflS planted, but it did not bear fruit until eight years later. In 1891 and 1893 Mr. Kennan was out. of the state., but. the work was not entirely neglected. At the legislative session of 1891 Assemblyman H. .1. Desmond, who represented the First Milwaukee district, introduced by title a bill to create a commimission to investigate the taxing system. rElhlis action was taken after consultation with several lmmemmll)ers and the hill wa.s immtrodmiced by title on1y as the last; day for the introduction of new hasimiess had' arlived and there was no the to pi~pare the measure. 2~otIiing ever caine of the effort as lime. l)il 1 was never even (1 I'awii. 7 - iii 1893 .lolimi Uimmgle of \Vamis:mmi, imiemimber of' the asseIIml)iv from ( Marathon county, introduced hill No. 4 39A, providmg fom~ I heap— pointment of one commissioner to nìake. a. tlm~roimghi investigation of the subject of taxation amid report his comichimsiomis to the legislature at the next biennial session. Mr. Bingle was himself well acquainted with the assessimment wmd taxing systeimi and hewas also familiar with the fact that there was a large and spreading (115— ('OlItelit aimiommg tmtXiaLVe.is. hehad served several tei'iiis iii county offices where hecaine ni direct con tact wit ii the taxpayers and flOtCd the justice of man of tlmeir complaints. Mr. Ringle's bill passed the asscmmmbl , but was defeated in the senate. The vote imi lime assemmil)ly was ~4 to 12, jim spite of the fact. that the committee on ''ret renchminen t amid ic formmi ,“ a body created by the democratic legislators to help I hem mmiakc a good record wimile in coni roE of the state's affairs, was opposed to the passage of the measure. the names of such men as the present governor, J. 0. Davidson, W. H. Austin, Henry J'Iagemeister and A. R. Hall ~ippear among those of mmiemmmbers who voted for the 1)111 ~vlmen it came uiji in the assembly for passage. The measure failed of passage iii the senate. In 1895 Mr. Kennan, who had returned to the state from Europe, again took up the work of education, as it may be called. When the legislature convened heappeared at Madison with the draft of a hew bill similar ~o the one introduced in I SS9 by Assemblyman Leonard. The proposed law was made to combine so far as was possible the best features of commission laws enacted in other states, and carried an appropriation of $6,000 annually to pay theexpenses of the commission. This bill was introduced in the assembly by William O'Neil of Bayfield county and the work of securing its passage was vigorously pushed. It was introduced on Feb. 12, 1895, and referred to the committee on assessment and collection of taxes. On April 10 it was reported by the committee with amendments of a minor character, and again, on April 12. oIlier minor amendments were re— ported, all of which were adopted on April 16 under suspension of lime rules. rI~imc bill was passed the same day by a vote of 62 to 15. in the senate journal this bill, No. 604A, is an elusive subject. So im.nperlect is the record that it would be necessary to read the entire journal from cover to cover to correct omissions in the index a mmd history o bills; and even then it may be found that the daily records of thh proceedings are at fault, and not the index. In the “History of Bills,” which is supposed to be a complete aI.)stract. of all proceedings with respect to each bill, No. 604A is thus reported: ''No. GO4A. a bill authorizing the appointment of a tax commission and appropriating a sum of money therein named. Received from assembly 777; assessment awl collection of taxes, 777; concurrence recoinIflP11detl, 782 : Ia 1(1 over 789.'' Here the story stops, as the index does not show any further action except two conflicting entries, as follows: “Recalled from assembly, 826 ; returned from assembly, (326.” This last page num— her simould read “82(3,” as the action referred to really appears on flint page and not on page “626.” This ends the recorded action of the senate on one of the most important measures considered that session. BumL the assembly journa.l record would indicate that there was really something doing with the bill after all. On page 1129 of hat journal there appears a message from Walter L. Houser, chief clerk of the senate, to the effect that the “senate has refused to (OflCll r in 604 A,” and other bilhs. Mr. Kermnan wa.s of the opinion thatthe appropriation carried by the bill was the cause of its defeat, as the income of the state at that the was so moderate that the legislature wa~ disposed to “cut corners” more closely than is the practice in this day of largely expanded resources. But the fight for the measure was a warm one and the record of the vote in the assembly showed that it was popular in that house. It is unfortunate that the vote in the senate can not also be found.
|