-~. rw  -  
REPORTS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON TAXATION
-OF THE
CITIZENS' ASSOCIATION
OF CHICAGO.
Made SeDtember 26th, 1874, and December 3d 1874.
CHICAGO:
PRINTED BY DIRECTION OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE CITIZENS' ASSOCIATION.
I874.








FIRST REPORT.
To the Executive Committee of the Citizens' Association of
Chicago.'
The Committee on Taxation appointed by you, beg leave to
submit the following preliminary Report:
The subject of taxation is so vast and complex that it would
be the work of years rather than of days to examine carefully
and discuss fully its many branches and the various questions
connected with it.
But there are so many and such serious defects in the tax
system now in operation in Chicago that your committee deem
it advisable to call attention at once to some of its most palpable evils, and to suggest remedies for them, reserving more
intricate matters for the fuller consideration which they.demand.
UNEQUAL ASSESSMENTS OF VALUATION.
The gravest of these evils and that which works the greatest
injustice, is the wide inequality in the assessments of valuation,
particularly those upon which state, county and town taxes are
based.  In consequence of this inequality, some individuals
pay a two, three, and in some instances ten-fold greater tax in
proportion to the real value of their property, than other
owners in the same town. That this is not an over statement,
the following instances, carefully verified by your committee,
will testify. They all occur in the assessment for 1873, upon
which taxes are now being paid.
In one town its Assessor assessed one very valuable piece of
improved business property at a little less than sixper cent. of
its real value, another large tract, docked, and used for lumber
yards at twenty per cent. of its real value, and still another
large and valuable property, built up with residences, at ninety,
per cent. of its real value.  The Assessor in another town




4
valued a piece of improved business property at six per cent.
of its value, a residence at sixteen per cent. of its value, and a
vacant lot at sixty per cent. of its value.  These towns are
both situated within the city limits, but in one of the towns
adjoining the city, while two tracts of land were assessed at
onlyfour andfiveper cent. of their respective values, other tracts
were assessed at nearly, if not quite, their full values. And in
one of the remoter towns in Cook county, the Assessor valued
all of the land in it at a uniform rate per acre, although he
must have known that the value of the farms in that town
varied from thirty to one hundred and fifty dollars per acre.
These are not isolated instances, and your committee believe
that they fairly illustrate the existing modes of assessment for
purposes of taxation in many, if not all, of the towns in this
county, the records of which will show numerous similar cases
of excessive over, and under, valuation.
NO REMEDY FROM COUNTY BOARD.
The County Board of Equalization furnishes no remedy for
this state of things. So numerous and great are these discrepancies that to adjust a single assessment equitably between the
individual property owners in this county, would require the
Equalizing Board to be in session an entire year. Nor would
justice then be done unless the members of the board were
familiar with the true value of every piece of property in the
county, a thing which is simply impossible with our present
revenue machinery.
It is possible for this county board to equalize the assessment of valuation for town, county and state purposes, between
the different towns with some approach to fairness. Yet in so
doing, the injustice to individuals is only aggravated. It was
ascertained that in some of the towns in this county the
assessment of real estate for a particular year did not average
more than ten per cent. of the real value, while in other towns
for the same year it was sixty per cent.
Assuming that the average assessment of realty for the whole
county was forty per cent. of the true value for that year,
equalization between the two classes of towns designated can
be made by multiplying the assessment in the first by four,
and reducing it by one-third in the other. But in the first




class of towns the property of many individuals was assessed
at thirty per cent. of its value, and that of others at only five
per cent., making the average valuation of the town ten per
cent. of what the property in it was really worth. When you
multiply by four to equalize between the two classes of towns,
you make some owners pay upon one hundred and twenty per
cent, of their property, or one-fifth more than it is worth, while
those assessed at five per cent. originally, still pay only upon
one-half of the proper value. And when the State Board of
Equalization repeats this proceeding upon a large scale in its
attempts to adjust the valuation as between counties, the wrong
in many cases, becomes enormous.
The vital error lies in the inequality in the original assessment of valuation.
NO HOPE OF RELIEF UNDER PRESENT SYSTEM.
There is little hope of relief from this great wrong while the
present method of selecting the men who make these original
assessments continues.
The assessors chosen at town meetings are usually ignorant
of the duties to be performed, and not always incorruptible.
And even if they were competent and honest, it would be
impossible for them in any of the three towns in the city of
Chicago, to make a fair assessment in the limited time within
which they are required by law to do their work.
JUDICIOUS LEGISLATION THE ONLY REMEDY.
Your committee believe that the only adequate remedy for
these evils will be found in judicious legislation by the State.
In the first place, the township organization, in Cook county,
should be done away with, it being, in this city at any rate,
utterly useless and vicious.  Then there should be but one
valuation of property, on the basis of which, all taxes for city,
county and State should be levied.
This would dispense with one-half of the present machinery
and expense in conducting this business.  A Supervisor of
Revenue for the county should be appointed, whose duty it
should be to procure perfect maps and plats of all the lands,
blocks, lots and sub-lots in the county, upon a large scale,
and a complete set of books in which should be entered the
character of the improvements upon each tract or lot, and the




date and consideration of one or more' of its most recent
transfers. Where practicable these data should be noted upon
the face of the maps. With this information before him, the
Revenue Supervisor could readily compare the assessment with
the real value of each piece of property, and note the addition
or reduction necessary in each case, to bring. it to the average
valuation. His conclusions he should be required to report to
the Equalizing Board, which should have the power to confirm
them without notice to owners of property as to which changes
may be made.  But these books should be open to the
inspection of any tax payer on every business day in the year,
that all may see that no injustice is done.
This Revenue Officer should appoint all of his assistant
assessors and clerks, and be held strictly accountable for their
official acts. His term of office should be for a reasonably
long period of time, he being subject, of course, to removal
for malfeasance in office. The more experience had by such
officer and his assistants, the more valuable would be their
services, and each succeeding year would enable them to more
and more nearly approach to exact justice to each tax payer.
Under our State Constitution, laws must be general in their
application, but if the proposed plan for obtaining an honest
and fair valuation of taxable property is not desired by the
less populous counties, the system can be confined to such
counties as have a population exceeding a given number,
which can be made so large as to apply only to the county
of Cook, if no others wish to adopt it.
SUBJECT OF FUTURE REPORTS.
The defects in our General Revenue Law which affect State
taxation, and its provisions relating to the State Board of
Equalization, the questions of general or special assessments
for local improvements, and direct or indirect taxation, and
such other topics as may come within the province of this
committee may be the subjects of future reports, should it
seem advisable.
Respectfully submitted,
A. J. GALLOWAY,
E. G. MASON,
ROBERT LAW.
Chicago, Sept. 26, I874.




SECOND REPORT.
To the Executive Committee of the Citizens' Association of
Chicago.
The Committee oneTaxation appointed by you made a preliminary report on the 26th of September last, in which some
of the most obvious evils of the present system of levying and
collecting taxes in our city were pointed out, and remedies for
the same were suggested. That report was re-committed to
the Committee on October 15, with instructions to make a further report as to the best and most feasible methods, in their
judgment, of carrying out their suggestions. Since that time
the Committee have carefully considered their former propositions, have had before them the views in writing of different
persons conversant with the subject, and have availed themselves of the best assistance which they could obtain, as will
more fully appear herein. It will be remembered that
THE REFORMS PROPOSED
were the abolition of township organization and uniform valuation of property under the control of a single officer, appointed
for such a term and with such powers as would most judiciously accomplish this result. Taking these suggestions in
order, your Committee would observe that upon mature reflection they are fully convinced of the propriety and importance
of their recommendation, that township organization should
be done away with. Recent events confirm this conclusion, if
confirmation were necessary. We characterized this system in
our previous report as utterly useless and vicious. We might
add that it is a great and unnecessary expense, that it stands in
the way of almost any tax reform, and that by its abolition we
can secure a system more economical and effective, and under
which the desired improvements in our modes of taxation can
more readily be obtained.  It remains only to determine
whether there are any legal obstacles to making this change,
(7)




and if not, in what way it can be brought about. There has
been so much discussion upon the subject, and it is in some
respects so involved, that, to properly understand it, it seems
advisable to briefly sketch the history of
TOWNSHIP ORGANIZATION IN COOK COUNTY.
Under the constitution of I848, two classes of counties
existed in Illinois. The first class comprised those counties
not adopting township organization, which were not divided into
towns, and in which all the business of each part of the county
was transacted by the County Court. The second class comprised those counties adopting township organization, which
were divided into townships or towns, each of which was a body
corporate, managing its own affairs and with its own officers,
comprising a Supervisor, Town Clerk, Assessor, Collector, Justice of the Peace, and other minor officials. And in counties
of the second class general county affairs were managed by a
Board of Supervisors, made up of the Supervisors elected from
the several towns and city wards in the county. Each county
was a body corporate by itself, whether divided into towns or
not.  Cook county belonged to the second class, namely, those
adopting township organization, and at the time of the assembling of the last Constitutional Convention its citizens were
dissatisfied with its Board of Supervisors. There was a general
desire for a change in the management of the general county
affairs, and our delegates were anxious to bring it about. In
the Convention there was little or no discussion upon the matter, all propositions relating to it being referred to the Cook
county delegation. The result of their deliberations, which the
Convention adopted, was the section establishing a Board of
Fifteen Commissioners to manage the affairs of Cook county.
All of the provisions of our present constitution which relate to
county government are comprised in article ten, and are as follows:
COUNTY GOVERNMENT.
SECTION 5. The General Assembly shall provide, by general
law, for township organization, under which any county may
organize whenever a majority of the legal voters of such county,
voting at any general election, shall so determine, and when



9
ever any county shall adopt township organization, so much of
this constitution as provides for the management of the fiscal
concerns of the said county by the board of county commissioners, may be dispensed with, and the affairs of said county
may be transacted in such manner as the general assembly
may provide. And in any county that shall have adopted a
township organization, the question of continuing the same may
be submitted to a vote of the electors of such county, at a general election, in the manner that now is or may be provided by
law; and if a majority of all the votes cast upon that question
shall be against township organization, then such organization
shall cease in said county; and all laws in force in relation to
counties not having township'organization, shall immediately
take effect and be in force in such county. No two townships
shall have the same name, and the day of holding the annual
township meeting shall be uniform throughout the State.
SEC. 6. At the first election of county judges under th s
constitution, there shall be elected in each of the counties in
this state, not under township organization, three officers who
shall be styled "The Board of county'commissioners," who
shall hold sessions for the transaction of county business as
shall be provided by law. One of said commissioners shall
hold his office for orne year, one for two years, and one for three
years, to be determined by lot; and every year thereafter one
such officer shall be elected in each of said counties for the
term of three years.
SEC. 7. The county affairs of Cook county shall be managed by a board of commissioners of fifteen persons, ten of
whom shall be elected from the city of Chicago, and five from
towns outside of said city, in such manner as shall be provided
by law.
The common understanding of the effect of these provisions
has been that so far as Cook county is concerned township
organization was continued therein as previously existing, but
with the substitution of a Board of Fifteen Commissioners for
the old Board of Supervisors. It is well known that this was
the only object at that time desired to be accomplished by the
people of Cook county, and all of our delegates to the Convention whom your committee have been able to see, agree in




10
the statement that this was the sole intention of the Cook
county delegation and of the Convention.
Upon this view all concerned have acted since the adoption of
the constitution of i870, and our Legislature seems to recognize
it as the correct one, in the act of April 22, 187I, which provides that " the Cook county Commissioners shall have the
same powers, duties, etc., as prescribed by law for the Board
of Supervisors," and in the revision of I874, which provides
that " all laws applicable to the County Clerks of other counties
under township organization, shall be applicable to the County
Clerk of Cook county."  R. S. I874, p. 312, ~~ 60-63. And
your committtee believe this to be the present status of the
system of township organization in the county of Cook.
TOWNSHIP ORGANIZATION CAN BE ABOLISHED.
It follows, therefore, in our opinion, that it is as competent
now for the people of the county to abolish this system as it
was under the constitution of I848. We are aware that the
opinion is entertained by some that the system in question was
in fact abolished by the constitution of I870 in this county.
This proceeds upon the assumption that there are but two
classes of counties recognized in the new constitution, one under
the commissioner system, and one under township organization;
and that Cook county, being placed under the government of
Commissioners, must wholly belong to the commissioner system
class, and can therefore have nothing to do with township
organization, which by implication must have been abolished
within its limits. The error here lies in overlooking the fact
that the constitution nowhere limits the number of classes of
counties, and does practically create a third class, in which the
old township organization was continued, except as to the Board
of Supervisors, for which a substitute was provided, to which
third class Cook county alone belongs. The absence of any
evidence of intention to abolish township organization here, and
of any express provision upon the subject in the constitution,
and the recognition of its continuance in the provision that five oJ
Commissioners shall be elected from the towns outside of the
the city, are also reasons conclusive to our minds as to the incorrectness of this opinion.
An argument has also been made to show that the existing




11
condition of things in this regard was, by the constitution, rendered irrevocable. This reasoning recognizes the continuance
of the township system in Cook county by the constitution, and
finding no express provision for its abolition here, infers that it
cannot be done away with. It is urged that section five of article ten provides that when township organization ceases in a
county, all laws in force in counties not having township organization shall take effect, and that section six provides that counties not under township organization shall have three Commissioners, of whom, after the first election, one shall be elected
each year, and hold office for three years, and that the laws
enacted to carry out these sections make the same provisions.
Hence, as Cook county has already a Board of Fifteen Commissioners, it is argued that the change provided by the constitution, being from township organization to a government by
three commissioners, cannot be made here; that, therefore,
sections five and six have no application in Cook county, and that
section seven finally disposes of the matter for us. But it seems
to your committee that the accepted rule of construction which
requires all of the provisions of a statute relating to one subject
to be so read as to be consistent and harmonious throughout
furnishes a sufficient answer to this theory.
The three sections referred to, can be read together without
violence to their spirit or language, so as to entirely harmonize,
by treating section seven as a modification of sections five and
six, so far as Cook county is concerned. Their plain meaning,
then, will be that township organization may be abolished in
any county which has adopted it, including Cook county, and
the laws concerning counties not under township organization
will come in force, except so far as they are modified in the case
of Cook county by section seven. It seems a necessary inference, from the fact that the constitution has made the government of Cook county an exception to the general provisions
governing counties, that all such general requirements when
applied to this county must be construed in accordance with
the special provisions relating to it. Hence a vote of the peo.
ple of Cook county, at a general election, dispensing with township organization, would not vest the control of the county and
township affairs in three Commissioners, provided for other
counties, but in the fifteen Commissioners provided in Cook




12
county. It is possible that it may be well to obtain an amendment to the existing statute upon township organization, to
remove any doubt as to the immediate succession of our present
Board of Commissioners to the present town governments, in
case the township system is discontinued. But we do not consider any legislation necessary to enable the people of our
county to effect such discontinuance, and as to the
METHOD OF ABOLISHING TOWNSHIP ORGANIZATIONS,
we are glad to be able to submit herewith an opinion on this
subject, kindly prepared at their request, by the chairman of
your committee on municipal organization, M. F. Tuley, Esq.,
whose views must carry with them the greatest weight.
OPINION BY M. F. TULEY, ESQ.
To A. J. Galloway, Chairman Committee on Taxation:
You ask my opinion as to the best and most feasible way of
getting rid of township organization in Chicago. Every person
who has given the subject any attention must admit that a large
city has no more need of township organization than a common
road wagon has of five wheels. It is not only a great burden
upon the tax payers, but it has become an intolerable nuisance.
The General Assembly of the State made an attempt at its last
session to abolish the most objectionable feature of it, to-wit:
the voting of money for town purposes by the annual town
meetings, by conferring the power to fix the amounts to be expended by the towns upon the Board of County Commissioners; but, in my opinion, as long as the township organization
system is maintained, any law which takes away from the people or the town authorities the power to appropriate and levy
the town taxes, is unconstitutional and void. It is difficult to
perceive how township organization can be made one thing in
cities and a different thing in the country, and not be subject to
constitutional objections. After mature reflection I can perceive no way in which, by amendment of the present law, or
otherwise, township organization can be maintained for any purpose in large cities, and at the same time the voters of the




13
towns, or the town authorities, be deprived of the power to impose taxes for town purposes. The new constitution of i870
guarantees the right to all counties to discontinue township organization if the voters desire to do so. It provides by Sec. 5,
Art. Io, "that in any county that shall have adopted township
organization, the question of continuing the same may be submitted to a vote of the electors of such county at a general
election in the manner that now is or may be provided by law."
The General Assembly in the township organization act in force
March 4, i874, made the following provisions for an election
upon the question of discontinuing township organization:
" SECTION I. ART. 2. Upon the petition of at least onefifth of the legal voters of any county having adopted township
organization, to be ascertained by the vote cast at the last preceding Presidential election, the county board shall cause to be
submitted to the voters of such county, at the next general
election, the question of the continuance of township organization, to be voted on by ballots written or printed, or partly
written or printed,'For the continuance of township organization,' or'Against the continuance of township organization,
notice to be given and the votes to be canvassed and returns
made in like manner as in this Act provided in reference to a
vote on the adoption of township organization.
" SEC. 2. If it shall appear by the returns of said election
that a majority of the votes cast on that question at said election are against the continuance of township organization, then
such organization shall cease in said county as soon as a county
board is elected and qualified; and all laws relating to counties
not under township organization shall be applicable to such
county the same as if township organization had never been
adopted in it."
A question has been raised as to whether the law in question,
and also the constitutional provision quoted, are applicable to
Cook county; but it must be borne in mind that the constitution itself, so far as the county board of fifteen commissioners
is concerned, makes an exception in favor of Cook county. It
is not to be presumed that the framers of the constitution intended to except Cook county from the benefit of the provision
authorizing counties to discontinue township organization, nor
that the General Assembly did not intend to include Cook




14
coufnty in the law passed to carry out that constitutional provision. I am satisfied that no such absurd construction would
be placed thereon by the courts.
An election can be had, and township organization can be
discontinued, in my opinion, under the law as it now stands.
A discontinuance of township organization may be objected to
by some of the country towns; but as many of them, like
Hyde Park, Cicero, Lake View, and others, are acting under
special charters, or under the general incorporation act for cities
and villages, and as most of the other towns are sufficiently
densely populated to enable them to organize as villages under
that act, no great opposition from the outside towns should be
expected. In Cicero and Lake, and probably other towns acting under special charters, the supervisor and town assessor and
collector are all, or some one or more of them, made ex-officio
members of the board of trustees of the town.
It should be seen to that a law be passed to prevent any difficulty arising in such towns by the discontinuance of township
organization throughout the county. When township organization shall be abolished in Cook county, the county will come
under the laws applicable to counties not under township organization. One great benefit from the change will be that we
will have but one assessor for the whole county, and the great
irregularities in the assessment of property necessarily resulting
from the great number of assessors under the township organization system will be avoided. The sheriff will be ex-officio
county collector. There will be great economy in dispensing
with the township organization system. I might mention also
the fact that no appropriation could be made for the erection
of a court house or other public building without first submitting the same to a vote of the people of the county.
Respectfully,             M. F. TULEY.
Your committee will only add, in this connection, that the
total vote of this county cast at the last preceding presidential
election was, in round numbers, 50,300, and that it will therefore be necessary to present a petition signed by at least io,o6o




15
of the legal voters of this county to the county board, to obtain
a submission to the voters of the county at the next general
election of the question of the continuance of township organization. Such election will take place on the first Tuesday after
the first Monday in November in the year 1875.
UNIFORM VALUATION OF PROPERTY UNDER ONE REVENUE
OFFICER.
The second suggestion of your committee in their previous
report was that there should be but one valuation of property,
on the basis of which all taxes for city, county and State purposes should be levied, and that there should be a single revenue officer, or assessor, for the county, with power to appoint
assistant assessors and clerks, holding office for a reasonably
long period, whose duty it should be to procure perfect maps
of all real estate in the county, and to keep a complete set of
books showing the character of the imp4rvements on each tract
or lot and the date and consideration of one or more of its
most recent transfers, and by whom all assessments should be
made, subject to the revision of the county equalization board.
The abolition of township organization is the first step to this
end. A return to the other system gives us one assessor for the
whole county, which office, in counties not under township organization, is, under the present law, held by the county treasurer, ex-ofcio. To secure from this officer the uniform and
accurate valuation desired, we should deem it advisable to ask
for legislation; and the law defining his duties, and fixing his
term of office in Cook county, can be made to take effect when
the people of the county have decided by a legal vote to dispense with the existing system.
PROPER' LEGISLATION CAN BE OBTAINED UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION.
It is the opinion of some able lawyers, that the county'of
Cook, havifig been excepted from some of the general provisions which apply to counties and townships in the rest of the
State, is therefore not subject to the restriction contained in the
sixth clause of Sec. 22, Art. IV., of the constitution of I870,
that the constitution recognizes the fact that the county of
Cook, containing a great commercial city, must have special




16
provisions for its government; and that we are fully justified in
asking and obtaining any special legislation which the peculiarities of our position or condition as a municipality may require. It is very much to be regretted that a power so essential
to the well-being of municipal corporations should have been
made to depend upon implied powers; and an amendment to
the State constitution, expressly exempting all municipal corporations from this oppressive restriction, would have a very
salutary effect. Two or three States which have revised their
constitutions since the adoption of ours, have-in following our
provisions against special legislation-had the wisdom to exempt
their municipal corporations from this restricting clause.
But to avoid all risk or uncertainty in the premises, your committee deem  it advisable to recommend that the legislation
asked for be in accordance with the suggestions in their preliminary report of September 26th.
LEVY OF CITY TAXES ON COUNTY VALUATION.
When a single assessment for State and county purposes has
been established in the method proposed, our city revenue can
also be based upon it, and thus a uniform valuation for all purposes of taxation made complete. The general act for the incorporation of cities and villages, approved April io, I872,
provides that the city council may levy and assess the amount
of the yearly appropriations upon the property within the city
subject to taxation, as the same is assessed for State and county
purposes for the current year. The tax so assessed shall be
collected and enforced in the same manner, and by the same
officers, as State and county taxes, and shall be paid over by
the officers collecting the same to the treasurer of the city.
R. S. I874, p. 23I. The act in regard to the assessment of
property and the levy and collection of taxes by incorporated
cities, approved April I5th, I873, provides, however, for an assessor and collector in incorporated cities, to be elected by the
people, whose duties shall be prescribed by ordinance (R. S.
I874, p. 254); but it also provides that the city council shall
have power at any time, by ordinance to elect to levy the annual
appropriations upon the assessment for State and county taxes,
and in such case to abolish the offices of city assessor and city
collector. (R. S. I874, p. 259.) The latter act, popularly




17
known as " Bill Number 300oo," is obnoxious for various reasons,
and having already been held to be inoperative, should be repealed. In case of its repeal, and of the incorporation of our
city as now contemplated, under the general act first referred
to, then our city revenue will be based upon the State and
county valuation. In case it is not repealed, it is still optional
with our city council to levy the annual appropriations upon
the State and county valuation, and in that event steps should
be taken to bring about this action on the part of the council,
or to secure legislation to compel it.
CONSOLIDATION NO REMEDY FOR EVILS OF TOWNSHIP
ORGANIZATION.
The idea has been suggested that the evils of township organizations in the city might be relieved by consolidating the
three towns into one; but your committee think this would be
"piling Pelion upon Ossa," for what could sixty thousand voters
do at a mass meeting, either in electing suitable town officers or
deciding by a viva yvoce vote the amount of revenue to be raised
for the public uses of the town. Could not such meetings be
controlled by a few hundreds of hired "roughs," who would be
paid for their services out of taxes voted by themselves into the
hands of their corrupt leaders, whom they would elect to office?
The power to increase the number of polling places in the
township does not remove the difficulty, as it would be impossible in that case to get any fair expression as to the amount to
be raised by taxation. A single moderator at each polling
booth in a large city where every voter in the city has the right
to vote at any polling place within it when consolidated into a
single political township, could do but little, even if so disposed
to prevent illegal voting. But when such moderator should be
chosen by an organized band of "repeaters," as would be the
case at many of the polling booths, there would be no protection
whatever.
ADDITIONAL REASONS FOR CHANGES PROPOSED.
Having thus endeavored to comply with your instructions,
your committee on taxation deem it proper to present a few
additional reasons why some of the recommendations in their
preliminary report should be carried out. The cost of the assessment and collection of city taxes for the year I872 was




$89,416.99, not including office rent or any portion of the expenses of the law department. And it will be safe to estimate
the expenses for I873 at $Ioo,ooo, with an annual increase for
each succeeding year. All this would be saved to the taxpayers by adopting the plan suggested, of assessing all taxes
upon the single valuation to be made by the proposed supervisor of revenue or county assessor.
There are of the city taxes since i869, remaining unsettled,
more than two and a half millions of dollars, of which at least
two millions will never be collected; and that amount either
has been taken, or must be extracted from the pockets of those
who have already borne more than their full proportion of the
public burdens.
The simplification of the assessments under the plan recommended, and the more equal distribution of the burdens
imposed would, in the opinion of your committee, greatly
reduce the number of tax contestants, and save to the city and
county treasuries a very large majority of the revenues thus
annually withheld and levied in succeeding years upon the
property of the people who have already paid.
INDIRECT TAXATION NOT PRACTICABLE.
In the discussion which followed the report of September
26th, the plan for collecting all the taxes from the business of
the county was urged as possessing many advantages over the
one proposed by the committee. But, admitting that indirect
taxation, if applied to the whole nation, might distribute itself
with some approach to equity, still it would be difficult, if not
impossible, to adjust such taxes so as not to impose an undue
portion of the public burdens upon persons of limited means
and restricted business. But were this system to be adopted
by a single State, county, or city, a large portion of the whole
tax levy would become a premium to merchants, manufacturers,
jobbers, and traders of all classes who reside outside of the
community in which the tax is collected, and to that extent
would rest as a dead weight upon the taxed industries in their
honorable race for supremacy. To cripple the business of any
community, is at the same time to reduce the value of all fixed
property within it, and to build up all values in rival communities not so oppressed. Your committee, however, think that




19
exertion to cause every person, company, or corporation to pay
taxes "in proportion to his, her, or its property " should not be
abandoned or despaired of; but that constant, careful, and
intelligent effort should be made to approach more nearly to
this constitutional requirement.
RECOMMENDATIONS.
Your committee therefore recommend:
First-That steps be taken to secure the signatures of the
required number of legal voters to a petition to the county
Board, to submit to the voters of the county the question of the
continuance of township organization; and
Second-That bills be prepared to be submitted to our next
General Assembly, providing the necessary legislation to prevent any inconvenience which otherwise might result from the
abolition of township organization, and to define the duties and
term of office of the County Assessor in Cook county, in case
the town system is discontinued, and for the repeal of "Bill
Number 300oo."
It has already been shown how important it is to the complete execution of their plan that the proposed incorporation of
our city under the general act be accomplished; but, as this
matter is now receiving the earnest attention of the Citizens'
Association, any further recommendation is unnecessary.
Respectfully submitted.
An J. GALLOWAY,
E. G. MASON,
ROBERT LAW,
Committee on Taxation.
December 3, I874.