Mr. WORRELL. Mr. President: I agree with my colleague who has just spoken, and trust that this section will be voted down. We are all aware that the Legislature is vested with all the powers which are not excepted by the Constitution; and the power to pass general laws with regard to improvements in the various municipalities would exist in the Legislature if it were not restricted by any provision which we insert in the Constitution. But under the language of this section the citizen would be improved out of his property by a general law, which is the most dangerous of special legislation, because apparently applying to a subject generally, but really intended only to reach a single instance of a particular class. Those laws I say are the most dangerous examples of special legislation; and under this section a general law could be passed which would improve the citizens of this city out of their property.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. The question is on the amendment of the gentleman from Allegheny (Mr. Ewing.)

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. CUYLER. I move to amend the section by striking out in the first line the word "may," and inserting "shall," so that it will read:

"The Legislature shall, by general laws, uniform as to the class and kind of improvements, vest in the corporate authorities of cities, boroughs and townships, the power to make, renew and maintain local improvements," &c.

The purpose of the section then would be simply this: It would deposit the power of determining whether it was proper that such improvements should be made in the local authorities. It would make those who are near the people who are to be affected by such improvements, who are to be benefited by them, who are to pay for them, the judges of the necessity for the improvements and of the manner in which they should be done. It seems to me to be only reasonable and proper. In other words, bringing it down directly to the point so far as the city of Philadelphia is concerned, it would require the Legislature to provide by general laws that the local authorities of the city should determine whether sewers should be built, whether paving should be done, whether streets should be opened, whether we have any control whatever of our highways; for as we stand here to-day in the city of Philadelphia, there is not the smallest power up

on the part of the local authorities of the city over its highways. I cannot say this in censure of the Legislature at all, because I believe the fact to have been that the men who represented this city in the Legislature were themselves corrupt, and were the source of the corruption that has brought about the difficulty that we have suffered here, for I believe the general practice has been in the Legislature, so far as local questions were concerned, to refer them to the members from the particular district; but the actual effect of that in the city of Philadelphia has been that the men who have represented the particular district in the Legislature have been base men, corrupt men, and men who have forgotten the duty they owed to the people who sent them there. I am sorry to say that last night has shown that, notwithstanding the consciousness on the part of the city of Philadelphia of the infidelity of many of these men to their trust, they have been again renominated for office, and will probably be elected and sent there unless the adoption of this new Constitution shall work out a different state of affairs.

I am therefore in favor of the doctrine that the people who are to pay for these improvements, the people for whose especial use they are to be made, shall themselves, through their local legisla tures, be the judges of the reasonablness and of the propriety of each particular improvement, whether it shall be made and how it shall be made. Therefore, I desire to see this section made imperative in its terms, and not leave it as the law now is, in the exercise of an option on the part of the Legislature, which option never would be exercised, for of course they would not willingly give up a power which had been deposited in their hands.

These, sir, are my reasons for this amendment.

Mr. BUCKALEW. I should like to ask the gentleman a question. Is he aware that in the legislative article all power to grant special laws by the Legislature on these subjects is taken away?

Mr. CUYLER. I consider the thing so imperative that I would pass it into every article of the Constitution, so as to ensure it.

Mr. BUCKALEW. You do not write so many other things into it.

Mr. TURRELL. The gentleman says he is in favor of this section because it makes the people who are to pay for these im

main body of the city to make improvements which are benefiting almost entirely some particular section; and even in the best way you can make them you will usually tax the old parts of the city for the benefit of the new in making their improvements. I undertake to say that it is done in this city, it is done in Pittsburg, and probably in every city in the State.

Mr. KAINE. I wish to ask a question, Would not the Legislature have the power to pass laws of this kind without this provision in the Constitution?

Mr. EWING. I undertake to say that the Supreme Court of the State has unsettled the law in regard to that so that it is very doubtful what the power of the Legislature is. They have decided in some cases that the Legislature have the power, and they have decided directly reverse principle, that they have not the power, in what I think are similar cases. Now, further, in regard to the necessity of it, we have in the first section which we have just passed declared that "the taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of subjects within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax." That is a new constitutional provision and would still further complicate the questions arising from the decisions of the Supreme Court on the subject. I believe it will prohibit any such local assessments

without this section.

Now, in regard to the difference between assessing on "contiguous property" and assessing on "property specially benefited thereby," that is a principle that has been recognized in the legislation of the State for many years. Ordinarily where a street is opened, the cost of it has been put on the contiguous property; but when sewers are made, or when some great leading avenue is made, then it has been considered proper to determine by a jury of viewers what property is specially benefited thereby and assess the cost on that. Property which is not contiguous is just about as much benefited and occasionally more benefited than the property which is contiguous. It is proper to make that distinction, and the Legislature must, in passing laws, make them general as to the class of improvements. The cost of one class of improvements might require to be assessed on property specially benefited thereby, whether contiguous or not, and others it would be proper to have the assessment on the property contiguous.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. The question is on the section.

Mr. ALRICKS. I call for the yeas and nays.

Mr. H. W. SMITH. I second the call. The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted as follows:

YEAS.

Messrs. Andrews, Baer, Broomall, Carey, Carter, Cochran, Corson, Cuyler, Ewing, Fell, Hazzard, Horton, Knight, Littleton, MacConnell, M'Culloch, Porter, Read, John R., Stanton, Wetherill, J. M., Wetherill, J. Price and Wherry-22.

NAYS.

Messrs. Alricks, Armstrong, Baily, (Per ry,) Bailey, (Huntingdon,) Bannan, Beebe, Biddle, Bigler, Black, Charles A., Bowman, Boyd, Brown, Buckalew, Calvin, Campbell, Clark, Cronmiler, Curtin, Davis, De France, Dodd, Edwards, Elliott, Ellis, Finney, Fulton, Funck, Gibson, Gilpin, Green, Guthrie, Hall, Harvey, Howard, Hunsicker, Kaine, Lawrence, Lilly, Long, M'Camant, M'Clean, M'Murray, Mann, Mantor, Minor, Mitchell, Niles, Palmer, H. W., Parsons, Patterson, D. W., Patterson, T. H. B., Patton, Pughe, Purman, Purviance, John N., Purviance, Samuel A., Reed, Andrew, Reynolds, Rooke, Russell, Smith, H. G., Smith, Henry W., Struthers, Turrell, Walker, White, Harry, White, J. W. F. and Worrell-68.

So the section was rejected.

ABSENT.-Messrs. Achenbach, Addicks, Ainey, Baker, Barclay, Bardsley, Bartholomew, Black, J. S., Brodhead, Bullitt, Cassidy, Church, Collins, Corbett, Craig, Curry, Dallas, Darlington, Dunning, Hanna, Hay, Hemphill, Heverin, Lamberton, Landis, Lear, MacVeagh, Metzger, Mott, Newlin, Palmer, G. W., Ross, Runk, Sharpe, Simpson, Smith, Wm. H., Stewart, Temple, Van Reed, White, David N., Woodward, Wright and Meredith, President-43.

Section four was read as follows:

SECTION 4. The property and business of manufacturing corporations shall not be taxed in any other manner or at any other rate than like property and business of individuals.

Mr. DODD. I move to amend by inserting the words "or mining" after "manufacturing" in the first line. If this is a correct principle to be applied to manufacturing corporations, there is no reason in the world why it should not be applied

to mining corporations as well. I am in favor of applying it to both classes.

Mr. HARRY WHITE. This is an exceedingly important section and I call the attention of delegates to the question. If passed, it will seriously affect the revenues of the Commonwealth. I observe that the provision is that "the property and business of manufacturing corporations shall not be taxed in any other manner or at any other rate than like property and business of individuals." Now, it is well known that the reason why we were able to pass the act of 1866 exempting real estate from taxation, and last year to exempt nearly all personal property in this Commonwealth from taxation, was because of the reception of the revenue necessary for the State government from the taxes on certain kinds of corporations. It is very well known that by the act of 1868 we now impose a tonnage tax on the transportation of corporations, and that yields a revenue of over a million of dollars a year to the Commonwealth. We also impose a tax upon the capital stock of corporations, which yields a revenue of something over three hundred thousand dollars. We have imposed a tax upon the income of corporations. That was taken off by the last Legislature. We yet retain a tax upon the dividends of corporations. Now, if you pass this section, you repeal the laws upon the statute book regulating the reception of revenue to the Commonwealth. We to-day receive from corporations over three millions of dollars of revenue. you pass this section you repeal those laws entirely. Now, I submit that this Convention should have a good reason for doing so before they do it.

If

Mr. NILES. Mr. President: I am surprised at the position taken by the delegate from Indiana, since the body of which he was a member last winter took the tax off corporations on their gross earnings, and I believe that the delegate from Indiana supported that measure.

Mr. HARRY WHITE. I did not.

Mr. NILES. The record does not show that the delegate opposed, it I believe.

Mr. HARRY WHITE. The record does show that the delegate from Indiana op. posed it.

Mr. NILES. I am glad to hear it. But, Mr. President, what is this proposition? It seems to me that it is eminently fair, and I should like to have the delegate from Indiana tell me or tell this Convention why the property of a manufacturing company should be taxed twice, which is done today all over the Commonwealth. I should like to know why ten men owning a saw mill with a thousand acres of land should pay all the local taxes, all the local assesments that are put upon it, just the same as upon the property of an individual, and then why their income, why their gross earnings, and if they declare no net dividends why their bonds or their stock should be taxed again? I know many of these concerns in my section of the State where the men are poor, not able in their individual capacity to make the proper improvements, and they are paying double taxes there; and they are paying them all over the Commonwealth. Now will the delegate from Indiana tell me why this is right? Can he give any reason why two individuals should pay a great tax upon their net earnings and their gross receipts, and if they pay no dividends, then on their stock, while the same property owned by an individual pays not a dollar of tax of that kind, and each of them bears the same burdens in reference to all local and State assess

ments.

Now, what this section proposes to do is simply to say that the property of a manufacturing company, a lumber company or a mining company, in the language of the amendment of the gentleman from Venango, which pays all the local assessments, pays all the State and county taxes, pays everything that is paid by the property of an individual, shall not again be assessed on stock or dividends or gross earnings.

It seems to me that it is eminently fair; and it commended itself so much to the committee of the whole that there was no objection made against it.

Mr. BROOMALL. It is well known to every gentleman here that the property of certain corporations is taxed peculiarly, as for instance the carrying corporation. The Legislature has applied the same principle to certain local corporations, such as manufacturing companies, which are after all little more

Mr. HARRY WHITE. The gentleman has not been informed properly. I spoke and voted against it.

them in the same way. The committee thought that these local corporations should be treated as individuals; that there was no reason why ten men incor

porated should pay taxes on the same property in a different manner from individuals. If, however, the Convention think otherwise, let them vote down the section. The committee that reported the article thought it wise to limit this peculiar taxation to the railroads and other similar corporations, and not to let it apply to these small corporations, owners of property that pay taxes just like individuals pay taxes, and many of which compete with individuals by their side, owning, probably, as much to the individual as these own to the corporation. We thought they should be treated as individuals are treated, and not as the great railroad carrying corporations are treated.

Mr. HARRY WHITE. The remark of the delegate from Tioga (Mr. Niles) makes it necessary for me to say a word

The PRESIDENT pro tem. The rule of the House requires unanimous consent. Mr. HARRY WHITE. I merely ask to explain. It is too important a question to pass by lightly.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. The rule forbids the gentleman speaking out of order. He has already spoken on this question. Mr. MANN. Mr. President: The statement of the gentleman from Indiana certainly is worthy of consideration. This section will very seriously affect the finances of Pennsylvania if adopted, and the Convention has already in the first section of this article required equality of taxation. Now, this fourth section goes further and attempts to do a work which properly belongs to the Legislature, and we undertake to do it without the lights and guides that the Legislature would have. I venture to say there are not ten of the delegates on this floor who can tell the effect the adoption of this section will have. I confess I do not know what its effect will be, and I do not believe there are ten men on the floor who know what it will be. I do know that it will very seriously affect the finances of the State, and I believe that it will impose additional taxes on the farmers and workingmen of the Commonwealth. For that reason I trust it is not to be passed without more light than I have yet heard shed on it.

I think it is one of those sections described by the gentleman from Philadelphia this morning, calculated to load down and burden unnecessarily the Constitution of the State which we are fram

ing, putting a burden upon it that may do a possible good but is certain to do a great deal of harm.

There are many reasons why the business and property of associations of every description should be assessed differently from the property of individuals. By the privileges given to associations they acquire greater facilities for making money than individuals can have, and they are exempt from many burdens that are imposed upon individuals, and for that reason and for various others they have privileges and immunities that cannot be taxed in the way that individuals are, and it ought to be left to the wisdom of the Legislature, reflecting the will of the people, to devise such means of assessment as will equalize the burdens of taxation throughout the State.

I trust therefore this section will not be passed until we have more light than has yet been given us upon it.

Mr. ANDREW REED. I move to strike out "in any other manner or," in the second line.

Mr. EWING. Is that an amendment to the pending amendment, to add the words "or mining?”

The PRESIDENT pro tem. It is not, and therefore it is not in order. The question now pending is on the amendment of the gentleman from Venango (Mr. Dodd) to insert the words "or mining" after "manufacturing."

Mr. J. M. WETHERILL. I call for the yeas and nays.

Ten gentleman rising, the call for the yeas and nays was seconded, and they were taken with the following result:

YEAS.

Messrs. Baer, Bannan, Boyd, Calvin, Campbell, Carey, Carter, Church, Cochran, Corson, Curtin, Davis, De France, Edwards, Elliott, Ellis, Ewing, Fell, Fulton, Gibson, Green, Guthrie, Hall, Harvey, Hazzard, Knight, Lawrence, Lilly, M'Camant, M'Clean, M'Culloch, Mantor, Niles, Palmer, H. W., Parsons, Patterson, D. W., Purviance, Samuel A., Russell, Smith, H. G., Struthers, Walker, Wetherill, J. M. and Wetherill, Jno. Price-43.

NAYS.

Messrs. Alricks, Andrews, Armstrong, Baily, (Perry,) Bailey, (Huntingdon,) Biddle, Bigler, Black, Charles A., Bowman, Broomall, Brown, Buckalew, Cronmiller, Finney, Funck, Gilpin, Horton, Hunsicker, Kaine, Littleton, Long, Mac