t proposition for a reorganization of the board, and left us to infer that the action of the Legislature heretofore is all that is desired." This is the reason why I object to the motion to reconsider. Mr. CONGER. Certainly. do what the State board is created to do, equalize the property of the State for purposes of taxation. Mr. EUCE. One resided in Wayne county; one in Hillsdale; one in Allegan, and two here. As I said before, my objection to reMr. CONGER. Well, sir, the valu- considering this provision is, that if it ation of 1861, for the county of Wayne, is reconsidered, and the provision is was $23,503,940; the valuation of that stricken out, that will be a notice to county for 1866, was $41,371,708. The the Legislature, which will be used valuation of the county of Hillsdale with great effect there, that we do not for 1861, was $6,246,351; for 1866, desire to have the present system of $9,003,806, The valuation of Ingham equalization changed. It will be said county for 1861 was $2,748,990; for that although we did adopt a provision 1866, $4,469,960. for a new system by a vote of fortynine to thirty-eight, yet the Convention repented so quickly of their rash and hasty instructions to the Legislature, that within one hour afterwards. they reconsidered it and struck it out. And will not that be as good instructions as we can send to the Legislature not to change the board? And will it not be used there by the gentleman from Branch, (Mr. LUCE,) with his usual tact and ability; aye, and with ten-fold his usual vehemence and Mr. ESTEE (in his seat.) Look at Mr. CONGER. Some gentlemen, whose memory must be prodigious, tell us that during the last seventeen years no petition or memorial on this subject has ever been sent to the Legislature. I ask those gentlemen for the first iota of proof that such is the fact. Who knows it? Who has kept the record? Who has looked over all the memorials? Who has read through the journal? I know The valuation of that years ago this subject was agitated Calhoun county for 1861 was $7,083,in one branch of this Legislature. I 900; for 1866, $12,358,668. The valuknow that memorials were sent here ation of the county of Allegan was from at least one board of supervisors $2,980,325, in 1861; the valuation in of St. Clair county; but no action was taken by the Legislature. I do not know whether any action has since been taken by the Legislature. I cannot say, however, that there never have been bills introduced on the subject. I cannot say that there have not been other memorials than those from St. Clair county. My memory is not so great as that of other gentlemen; my omniscience will not warrant me in making a positive assertion on a question of this sort. [Laughter.] 1866 was $5,911,781-a little more than double that of 1861. The valuation of the county of Saginaw, which in 1861 was $2,493,660, was raised in 1866 to $8,459,291. It is easy to see that Saginaw county had no member on that impetuosity? board. [Laughter.] The county of I think we should at least try this St. Clair in 1861 had a valuation of plan during the sixteen years for which $3,996,840, which was increased in this Constitution is likely to last. If 1866 to $6,306,531. St. Clair evidently we were to adopt this system it would had no representation on the board. not go into operation for four or five The valuation of Washtenaw county in years to come. The board would not 1861 was $10,160,430; in 1866 it was meet again until five years from that "Now, why do gentlemen desire that increased to $17,189,765. Now, Wash- time, and by the time the sixteen years this question shall be reconsidered? tenaw was not specially one of the have rolled around, when another ConWhy are they unwilling to permit a growing counties between 1861 and vention would be called, the board trial of the plan which the Convention | 1869, like some of the newer counties would not have met more than three has adopted, when we hear from all as Saginaw, for instance, may have times. Certainly this plan will not be parts of the State, complaints with re- been. But the board piled up the more objectionable than is the present gard to the equalization and valuation $7,000,000 on old Washtenaw just as plan to the people at large. of property? It has been suggested freely as they chose; for she had no heretofore by many members on this member on the board. [Laughter.] floor that the board of equalization is Now, Mr. President, I do not mean the only proper authority to correct to say that I believe any of the memthe errors in the valuation of property. If so, why should not this board be enlarged, and its members chosen with reference to their knowledge of the questions to be decided ? But gentlemen say the people have sent us no expression of their desires. Sir, I submit that the living presence and voice of the forty-nine members of bers of the State board of equaliza- this Convention who voted for this tion would make an unjust or an un- plan, as the representatives of the fair equalization; I do not make these people, constitute some expression remarks with any such intention. But of the sentiments of the people. I say that they represented more di- The delegates here either know what My honorable friend from Wayne, rectly certain counties, and had their they are saying, or they misrepresent (Mr. MCCLELLAND,) asks whether own personal friends to advise them, the facts, when they say that this subamong the officers now constituting in whose integrity they placed the ject has been a matter of consultation that board there are any from the greatest confidence. And, although among their supervisors and among larger counties. I will say to the gen- they themselves may have been more their people. I say that it has been so tleman that those who composed the or less ignorant of the value of the in my county, with particular reference board that acted on this subject in property in their own counties, they to the meeting of this Convention, and 1866 and they were good and worthy knew the gentlemen who came before I hope gentlemen will not impute a men-did represent the larger counties; them from those counties to be men of falsehood to me when I make that and if the gentleman will turn to page integrity, and of course they would statement. Other gentlemen have 246 of the Manual, where a statement always give great weight and authority stated the same thing. Then this matof the equalized valuation of the differ- to the opinions of those persons; ter does come before us with some exent counties is given, the proportionate greater weight than they would to the pression of a desire for a change, at increase of some counties, as compared opinions of others who were strangers least on the part of some of the people. with certain other counties, may per- to them. For this reason, I would be I have heard no one claim that the haps suggest to the gentleman from in favor of having thirty-two men present method is the best which can what counties the members of that chosen directly by the people, who be adopted. If gentlemen will say so; board came. would meet here together on terms of if they will say that they desire to have Mr. LUCE. Will the gentleman equality, without precedence over each this amendment reconsidered because permit me to state where the members other in any respect; and who would they believe the system now in operaof the board of 1866 resided? take the subject into consideration, and tion is the best that can be had and ཁ needs no change; or because they be lieve that this one is not good and they want to make it better, then I will vote to reconsider it. But if they ask to bring this matter up again for the purpose of striking out this provision, and by that action instructing the Legislature that we do not desire to alter the present plan, then sir, I must ask my colleagues here to aid me in opposing their doing so. $3,040,000; in 1866 it was $6,807,000. I am in favor of this motion to reTurn to the county of Lapeer, and you consider, for this reason: I believe the will find the same proportionate in- original basis of our system of equalcrease. And so in regard to the ization to be wrong. I believe we are county of Lenawee, and all the other radically wrong in the original starting counties, except Saginaw and Bay, in point, in this matter of equalization; I which the increase is larger. Now the mean the point referred to by the gengentleman knows very well that there tleman from Branch, (Mr. LUCE,) in were no two counties in the, State of reference, to the boards of supervisors Michigan that increased so rapidly in themselves. What do those boards first population and wealth from 1861 to meet for in reference to equalization? Mr. MCCLELLAND. I do not rise 1866, as did those two counties. Each member of the board represents for the purpose of discussing this sub- And another thing the gentleman a certain constituency, represents a ject, for I think it has already been knows, and he knows it well; that there certain limited population who look to sufficiently discussed. I do not rise to is no county in the State, with the ex-him to see that the assessments are not justify or to defend the characters, at ception of these two counties I have made any higher for their town than least politically, of the State officers named, and perhaps the county of he can possibly help. And the neceswho have just gone out out of office; I Wayne, that has increased in popula- sary result is that which we were lahave nothing to do with them in that lation and wealth more rapidly than boring yesterday to overcome by some respect. But I will say that it will be the county of St. Clair, because of the provision of the Constitution, an equalvery difficult for the gentleman from public improvements that have been ization far below cash value. The necSt. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) or any other made there. Sir, I tell you that if you essary result of our present system of gentleman, to select an equal number examine this entire list, you will be equalization, commencing at the bginof men in the State of Michigan, whose perfectly justified in the conclusion ning where we should commence, with characters for honesty and fidelity that those men who acted upon the last the board of supervisors, is to equalstand higher than theirs. State board of equalization, acted ize down, and not to bring it up to a Now, sir, what does the gentleman fairly, honestly and uprightly, with a proper standard. Now, I apprehend mean when he says that if you will view to dealing justly with the great this is a principle which the State at look at the counties in which these leading interests of the entire State. large do not want adopted in the State men were residing at the time they Mr. WILLIAMS. As one of the board of equalization. made the equalization, you will find a representatives of Allegan county, I It is urged in favor of the amendgreat disparity between them and the wish to say that I have heard no com- ment that this county system is preother counties of the State? What plaint from our people, although we cisely the system which should be apdoes he mean by that, if not to charge had the honor of having about a hun-plied to the State at large. I apprethese men with dishonesty? Why, dred per cent. added to our valuation hend the people do not want that. thus discriminate in the manner in in 1866. We may be said not to have We do not want to have a State board which he has, if that is not his object? been directly represented upon the Why does he run a paralell between the State board of equalization, although counties represented more directly by a member of the board had been at one these officers, and the other counties time a resident of our county; but he which had no particular representation, did not reside there at the time the in that board? Sir, take up the very board met. In fact we point to our inlist from which he has been reading, creased valuation rather with pride, as and compare one county with another, and you will find that those men acted uprightly, and honestly and fairly. Take the county of Allegan, which, as I understand from the gentleman from Branch, (Mr. LUCE,) was represented in that board, and you will see that from 1861 to 1866, the amount of the taxable property in that county was And I apprehend that the county of doubled in the equalization. Go on Saginaw stands in precisely the same further in the list, and you will find condition. I do not believe that Sagithat the valuation of nearly every other naw will complain that she has had county was increased in just about the any more added to her valuation than same ratio, the small ones as well as the actual amount of increase of wealth the large ones, and without respect to in that county during the time between any particular county. Come down to the prior equalization and the last one. the county of Hillsdale, and you will And I apprehend that all of these find the same fact existing there. The new counties, which were represented valuation in 1861 was over $6,000,000; before that board, will not honestly and in 1866 it was over $9,000,000. The fairly come before this Convention and county of Ingham, in which I under- say that their burdens are heavier than stand two members of the board re- they can bear, because of the great insided at that time, had in 1861 a valu- crease of their valuation. I presume ation of over $2,700,000; in 1866 its they will tell us equally honestly and assessed valuation was $4,469,000. candidly that there has been in those Take the next county to Ingham, Ionia county. showing the increase in wealth in our new counties since 1861 a large increase In 1861 its valuation was both in population and in wealth. ཟ composed of men expressly selected to Now, I am in favor of this reconsid- here persons from the several counties, who, while they can represent the value of their own property, not the property of neighboring counties, for they do not know anything about it, are to sit as judges of the valuation of all the others. Friday, Mr. GIDDINGS. I would inquire not believe that anybody is particularif this motion to reconsider cannot be ly to blame as the law now is. called up hereafter, if it is laid upon the table now? The PRESIDENT. In the opinion of the Chair, the effect of laying the motion to reconsider upon the table, is to place the matter beyond the reach of the Convention, at least in its present shape. The question was then taken upon laying the motion to reconsider on the table, and it was agreed to, yeas 43, nays 42, as follows: Now, we do not act in that way ordinarily in tribunals like this. In other tribunals we have judges, juries and witnesses. The facts elicited from the witnesses are submitted to the jury, and the jury render a determination upon those facts. But in the plan proposed here, each member of this triYEAS-Messrs. Aldrich, Birney, Bradley, bunal or State board, is witness, juror Burtenshaw, Case, Chapin, Chapman, Conger, and judge in his own person, interested Corbin, Daniells, Divine, Elliott, Estee, Ferris, Germain, Hazen, Holmes, Holt,. Howard, in trying to keep down the valuation of Huston, Kenney, Lamb, Longyear, Lovell, his own locality; the necessary result McKernan, Miller, Murray, Ninde, Norris, of which will be an additional equal-Parsons, Pratt, Rafter, T. G. Smith, StockSutherland, Turner, Utley, Van Riper, izing down from the valuation we al- Walker, M. C. Watkins, Winsor, Woodhouse ready have. Let us adopt the commissioner system in our State board, and also in our county boards, so that valuations may be equalized up instead of down. We will then have commenced in the right way in this matter. For that reason, I shall vote for this reconsideration. And then, if it is deemed desirable, I shall be very happy to vote for a proposition establishing the commissioner system in this State. and Yeomans-43. Blackman, Brown, Coolidge, Crocker, Des- RETURNS OF TAXABLE PROPERTX. Mr. DANIELLS. I believe section thirteen of this article, as now amended, reads as follows: "The Legislature shall provide a uniform rule of taxation, except on property and corshall be levied on such property as shall be porations paying specific taxes; and taxes prescribed by law." I move to further amend it by adding these words: Mr. NORRIS. There are some of us who desire to leave on the train in a few moments, and we also desire to vote upon this question. I think it has been sufficiently well discussed; I do not know any member who desires to make any further argument upon it. I am as prepared to vote now, as I shall be some days hence; and as a test "And the tax-payers shall be required to question—not from any want of cour-give a complete list of their taxable property tesy to the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. to the supervisors, under oath.” WITHEY,) who made the motion to reconsider but to have the question finally disposed of now, and not have it come up on Saturday or. Monday, when I and others cannot be here, I move to lay the motion to reconsider on the table. ? Mr. LEACH. I would inquire if this same amendment was not offered and voted down in committee of the whole Mr. DANIELLS. I suppose it can be renewed here. The PRESIDENT. The Chairis of the opinion that the amendment can Mr. GIDDINGS. On that motion be renewed at this time, in the absence I ask for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was upon laying the motion to reconsider on the table. of any express rule to the contrary. Mr. DANIELLS. Otherwise we could never get a record of how anybody voted on a particular proposition which was defeated in committee of the ཏཱ We all seem to have an ambition to have all property assessed at its cash value; and we have embodied in this article a requirement to that effect. Now, I am equally ambitious to have the people required to give in a complete list of the property to be taxed; and I do not see any better way to reach that end than by the amendment I have proposed. There was a law of this State, passed in 1853, if I remember rightly, which required every tax-payer to swear to the schedule of his property presented to the supervisor. That law continued in force for one year, and then by some curious legerdemain it was removed from the statute book. No one seemed to know how or why it was done. But I was told by one who had opportunity to be correctly informed upon the subject, that the very next year after that law was repealed, there was $4,000,000 worth of personal property taken from the tax-rolls. I know myself of a large amount that was taken off. And for that very reason, I want the requirement put where it cannot be spirited away without common people knowing it. Now, I believe the interests of the people, the requirements of equity and justice, in the collection and payment of taxes, so that each shall bear his just proportion of the public burdens, depend more on the subject which we have adopted upon this than upon any provision up in this article. It is said by some that there is no sense in putting every man under oath. Now, I submit to the members of this Convention if they think the United States would collect its income tax as thoroughly as it now does if no oath was required? How many incomes would have the taxes on them paid, do you think, if the law allowed every man to make his income return just as he pleased? It is said that some men strain their consciences immensely as it is. But is it not better now than it would be if no one was required to swear to his income? I believe that is generally conceded to be the case. I have heard my proposition obMr. CONGER. Before that motion jected to, on the ground that men will is put, I desire to say that several mem-whole. not swear to the truth. Now, I have bers who agree with me upon this sub- I offer this amendment in good faith; no such charge to make against the ject, are absent on leave, and will be I think it is as important a proposition citizens I represent here. At all events absent for some days; I hope this ques- in connection with this subject, as any I know that when the tax-payers were tion may be passed over until all can which can be brought before this Con- required to give in their property be here. It may save the trouble of vention. We heard it asserted here under oath, the returns were very diftaking this up from the table, and yesterday on every hand, that the su- ferent from what they were immedigoing over the whole matter again pervisors violated their oaths, and did ately after that requirement was rehereafter. not assess property fairly. But the moved from them. I believe the soThe PRESIDENT. In the opinion gentleman from Grand Traverse, (Mr. lemnity of an oath does have a binding of the Chair, if the motion to recon- LEACH,) fold us that the difficulty was effect upon our people. If I believed sider is laid on the table, it cannot be with the people, and, that the super-differently I would try and have a law taken from the table hereafter. visors were not to blame. Now, I do enacted providing that nobody should be required to take an oath; that is, if I thought everybody would swear falsely. Yet I do not suppose that any gentleman here will argue in that way. I will not deny that perjury is sometimes committed. Whoever has been in a court of justice and heard witnesses testify under oath, has no doubt heard things sworn to which he was satisfied were not true. But that is not considered a good reason for urging that we should put no witness visor assessed him for $5,000 in money will make the duty of the supervisor on hand. The man complained to me all the easier, for in this way he can of the action of the supervisor, at the the more readily get at the property same time exhibiting a note from him, to assess it. No one who is willing to in which the supervisor requested him, submit to a just rule of equalization if he felt. aggrieved, to call upon him and taxation can find fault with this and show in what way injury had been provision. If he intends to give in a done him, and the matter would be fair statement of his property, he remedied. I told him he could have would be willing to swear to it. If not, the matter put all right by making a then he should be made to do so, under statement to the supervisor under the penalty of being treated as a peroath. But he refused absolutely to do jurer, if he fails to do it as it ought to so, and consequently was obliged to be done. I, therefore, hope that the Some may object that such a provis- abide by the assessment which had amendment will be adopted. ion as this, in this phraseology, should been made. Now, if the law had re- Mr. STOCKWELL. I shall cernot be placed in the Constitution. Iquired this man to furnish to the super- tainly vote in favor of this amenddo not believe that will be urged by visor a schedule of his property under ment. those who represent exclusively the oath, there would have been no diffi- been considerably discussed in the agricultural counties. It is the man whose ox is gored that will be most likely to raise that objection; and so it was with those who got the other law repealed. under oath. culty. I will refer to another case. A man came to me and complained that the supervisor had not performed his duty. He said "It was the duty of the supervisor to inquire about my property, about the money I had on hand; he failed to do so and I failed to give in some $3,000." That was a loss to the people. And hundreds of thousands of dollars are annually kept away from the action of the boards of supervisors in that way. ל. This is a subject which has vicinity where I live. And when, some dividual to make his property return years ago, the law requiring each inunder oath, was repealed, it was very seriously regretted. It is but right and proper, I think, that this amendment should be adopted here. Those who have had experience in making assessments of property, know very well the difficulty that exists in reaching personal property, moneys and credits. When the assessor is in their vicinity, men are very apt to have but little money on hand, or credits; they manage in every way to get rid of paying taxes. ་ I hope the amendment I have offered will be adopted; I can see no objection to it. The objection that it is legislation, reminds me of a remark I heard a lady make once. She was a school teacher, and she said that she had noticed that whenever a female school teacher was to be hired, there was always a pinch in the money market. Now, it is a delicate matter for a suAnd so it is here; whenever certain pervisor to go to his neighbor and intipropositions are presented, there is mate to him that he has not made his always too much legislation about them. return honestly as he should have done. It has been said that there is now a The objection is at once raised-"Oh, As was intimated here yesterday, he law requiring persons to give in their it is legislation; it should be provided does not like to render himself unpopu- property under oath, when required by for somewhere else." That is only to lar by inquiring into the financial con- the supervisor; but that law is of but shuffle the matter off and get it before dition of his neighbors. Now, if this little practical effect. There is a great a body that can be persuaded to take amendment was adopted it would re- delicacy on the part of the supervisor no action upon it. move that difficulty, for there would be in asking one man to make his return no alternative. It would not be at the under oath, and not requiring that to option of the supervisor, or the tax- be done by every one. But if the law payer, or the Legislature, to dispose of were such as to make it imperative this matter in any other way, and the upon the supervisor to require such a State would then be able to realize return of every one, then there would taxes on all this property, which other-be no difficulty. When a man makes wise. will be forever kept beyond its his return, if you require him to make reach. I hope the amendment will be an affidavit to it, he would hesitate adopted. long before he would put in a statement that was not correct. Mr. W. A. SMITH. I would remind the gentleman that there is now a law upon the statute book which authorizes supervisors to swear persons in relation to the amount of their personal property, or any other property not immediately under the observation of the supervisor. Mr. LAWRENCE. I hope this Convention will adopt some provision of Mr. PARSONS. It strikes me that if this kind, for it will relieve supervisors this amendment is to prevail, it should from perhaps the most disagreeable not apply to real estate, but only to duties they have to perform in the personal property. There can be no whole course of their official duties. If earthly object in making it apply to the law required every tax-payer to furnish the supervisor with a sworn schedule of all his taxable property, then the supervisor would not be required to hunt about and ferret out all the property of the tax-payer. I have had some experience in this matter, and know something about its difficulties. I will illustrate by reference to an incident that occurred in my own township. A man moved in there who was reported to have a great deal of money on hand, of course not visible to the supervisor. Upon the reports that were abroad, the super real estate. Mr. DANIELLS. I will modify my amendment so as to make it apply to personal property. I have had some experience in this matter. I know cases where men, although they stated positively they had made correct returns of their property, when put under oath have raised the amount very considerably, in one or two cases as much as $5,000, when for years they had gone on without paying taxes on those amounts. I hope this amendment will be adopted. Mr. ALEXANDER. I am in favor of the adoption of this amendment, for the reason that it can work no harm Mr. HOLMES. I am decidedly in to any one, and may result in bringing favor of the principle, as far as perto assessment a large amount of prop-sonal property is concerned, of requirerty in the State that now escapes as- ing every man to make his return sessments. It is a fact well known to under oath. But I think that question• every one that Congress requires, in rightfully belongs to the Legislature. its revenue assessments, a statement I shall, therefore, vote against this under oath of all effects, profits, etc. amendment. As has been said by others here, this Mr. LEACH. The facts stated here 4 by gentlemen in regard to the difficulty reason for his being away. However modify it so as to make it apply to the in many cases of ascertaining what a that may have been, while he was away, county of Clinton alone. I have too man is actually worth, and how much he was assessed double the usual much confidence in the integrity and he should be assessed, may be all very amount. When he came back he made honesty of the people of Michgan, to correct. It may be true, too, that it a most tremendous fuss over it. He believe that it is necessary to put them is best that every man should be re- said that a very gross injustice had under oath in order to get the truth from quired to swear to his return of prop- been done him by such an assessment; them. We tried that plan some years erty to be assessed. I am not sure on and he made a terrible stir about the ago, but the people got tired of it, and that point, however; I have very seri- matter. Finally, he went before the it was abandoned. If they should ever ous doubts about it. I have serious board and persuaded them to take off desire it again they can ask the Legisdoubts about the propriety of having a hundred dollars of his tax; or seven- lature to reestablish it, and I have no this great multiplication of oaths; yet ty dollars, I think it was. A short doubt the Legislature would do it. I would not prevent this being done if time since he unfortunately died. And Mr. WINANS. I hope this amendit should be considered necessary. But I have been told by one of his heirs, ment will not be adopted. The only I would leave it where I think all such that there was found among his effects argument in favor of it is, that in order matters properly belong, with the Leg- some $40,000 worth of personal prop-to catch a few rogues you must swear islature. It may be desirable that erty, in bonds and mortgages. the whole people of the State of Michithis should become the law of the land. Now, that class of men will be gan. I venture to say that you cannot But certainly, we should leave some reached by my amendment. I insist present a more distasteful proposition things to the Legislature. I do not upon it that it is imperative upon this to the people of my locality than this. know, but I begin to think that we body to adopt this provision and put I do not think it will be effective, either, may be able to dispense with the Legit in the Constitution, so that there for I believe that under it the same islature entirely after this Conven- may be no more shuffling about the evasions will continue to be practiced, tion adjourns. matter. the same amount of property will escape taxation as now. The property which it is sought to reach by this amendment will still be kept away. from taxation by the same men as now. Mr. LUCE. I think so. Mr. ESTEE. Inasmuch as the genMr. LEACH. If we can get every- tleman from Grand Traverse, (Mr. every-tleman thing provided for in this Constitution, LEACH,) has referred to the penalty I and dispense with the Legislature alto- proposed on yesterday to be attached gether hereafter, it will certainly be a to this clause, I will say in response to great saving to the State. If this him, that inasmuch as he and others amendment is to be adopted, then it were anxious that the supervisors should be modified by adding what the should be compelled to swear to somegentleman from Isabella, (Mr. ESTEE,) thing positively that they knew, and proposed yesterday, providing penal- could not let the matter remain as it ties; and also going further, and pro- was before, I thought it would be well viding that the Governor should not to attach penalties to this provision. be allowed to pardon any one convicted That, at least, was one reason why I under this provision; making a clean offered that amendment. thing of it right off. Now, what is the object of putting under oath all the people of the State for this purpose? Gentlemen admit that the people of their sections are honest. I know they are honest in our section, and give in a fair and honest return of their property. I am opposed to swearing a man on every occasion. Therefore I hope this amendment will not be adopted. With regard to the amendment of Mr. SHEARER. With all due defMr. DANIELLS. The gentleman the gentleman from Clinton, (Mr. erence to the opinions of many gentlemay ridicule this amendment, or argue DANIELLS,) I see no reason why it men in favor of these oaths, I think, against it, any way he pleases. But I should not be adopted; I am certainly notwithstanding, that it would be an saw the operation of the law requiring in favor of it. I believe that it is right unwise policy to require an oath of all this to be done, and I know what it is. and just that men should be obliged the people of the State, for the purpose I want to give one instance that oc- to swear to their returns when they of obtaining an accurate statement of curred in the township adjoining this make them out. That has been my ex- their property from a very few men. one. Some years ago a man lived perience as a supervisor. There is now There is now a check upon this matthere who was in the habit of lending and then a case where a supervisor ter; I have practiced it myself. It is money. He was a troublesome customer cannot get at the personal property of generally supposed that a supervisor to the supervisor, for when he was individuals. There are a great many usually understands pretty nearly the called on for a list of his property, he honest men in the section of country amount of property possessed by each would say "Oh, yes; I will give in all where I live; the greatest part of them man in his township or ward. If he my property, I am really worth hardly are honest, and give in their returns is well posted on the assessment busianything. To be sure, I lend out a properly and correctly. But now and ness he will understand that. If he great deal of money, but I borrow it then there is a man who will cover all believes a man is worth $5,000, $10, from the east; I have very little of my of his credits and moneys that he can; 000, or $20,000 more property than he own. I am ready to swear to it, of and it is a very delicate matter for a has given in, he can assess him for the course; but I hope there will be supervisor to select from his neighbors full amount; and then the man must nothing unpleasant between us. I certain individuals and put them under come forward and swear it off; so that think it would be very invidious,though, oath, and let the rest of them go clear. if you assess a man three times as to put me under oath, when you don't But if this provision should be put in much as he is worth he has a remedy. put everybody else under oath." And, the Constitution it would leave the I think it is making an oath too in that way, he would bluff off the su-supervisor no discretion supervisor no discretion; it would much of a common thing; it invalidates pervisor. He was assessed no time make it obligatory upon him to require and lowers the estimate in which an over $4,000 of personal property for a an oath from every one, and remove oath is held, to require every man to great many years. But, a few years all the delicacy that now is felt by him swear in relation to his property. It ago, he was absent at the east; I do not in that respect. may be almost impossible for a man to know that it was on account of a certell under oath what he owns to a doltain person having been elected superlar, of personal property. If a person visor; but some supposed that was one is assessed too high he has a remedy; Mr. HAZEN. I shall vote against the amendment of the gentleman from Clinton, (Mr. DANIELLS,) unless he will |