HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
TUESDAY, February 1, 1859.NEW PROPOSITIONS.
On the motion of Mr. EDWARDS, the previous orders were dispensed with for the introduction of new propositions.
By Mr. DAVIS: (173) to amend section 11 of the act incorporating mining and manufacturing companies, and companies for mechanical, chemical and building purposes.
By Mr. EDWARDS: (174) to authorize a census of the white male inhabitants over 21 years of age in this State for the year 1859; to prescribe the powers, duties, compensation, &c., of the officers taking the same.
By Mr. MELLETT: (175) to amend section 11 of the act establishing the Common Pleas Court, approved May 14, 1852, so as to extend its jurisdiction in certain cases.
By Mr. STANFIELD: (176) to amend section 19 of chapter 1, of the practice act of June 18,1852.
By Mr. TURPIE: (177) to amend section 2 of the act for the re-location of county seats, (determining the number of votes to constitute an replication for such re-location.)
By Mr. SHULL: (178) to fix the time of holding Common Pleas Court in Blackford county.
page: 115[View Page 115]By Mr. HAMILTON, of BOONE: (179) to regulate the sale and giving away of intoxicating liquors, defining nuisances, and fixing punishment for maintaining them.
By Mr. MURRAY: (180) to relieve Joel Ellis, by paying him for improvements made upon certain lands illegally sold for taxes, and directing the same to be paid out of the State Treasury.
By Mr. SHOCKLEY: (181) to regulate the sale of intoxicating liquors, and the evils arising therefrom.
By Mr. CLEMENTS: (182) to amend the 23d section of the assessment act of June 21 1852.
By Mr. HUNTER: (183) to authorize county Auditors to collect moneys belonging to the Common School Fund, to provide compensation for such services, and punishment for failure ol duty therein.
By Mr. PROSSER: (184) providing for the compensation of County Assessors.
By Mr. PARKS: (185) to amend section 4 of the act regulating the fees of clerks in Probate cases, &c., approved March 2, 1855, and repealing all laws conflicting with this act.
By Mr. MELLETT: (186) to amend the sec. 103 of the Criminal Practice Act of June 17, 1852 (regulating: proceedings on trials.)
By Mr. NEBEKER, of Warren: (187) to amend the act of February 28, 1855, amendatory of the act to authorize the construction of plank, McAdamized and graveled roads; to empower such road companies to sell; and, also, to reduce tolls, &c.
By Mr. SMITH, of Perry: (188) supplemental to the act to authorize and regulate the business of general banking, passed March 3, 1855, providing for additional security, and a surrender of stocks or bonds deposited under said act.
By Mr. HUNTER: (189) supplemental to the act to establish a Court ot Common Pleas, approved May 14.1852.
By Mr. HUNTER: (190) to amend the sections 11 and 12 of the act to establish a Court of Common Pleas, approved May 14, 1852.
[A Senate message announced the passage in that body of the House bill prescribing who may make a will, &c., without amendment, and the Passage of Senate bills ]
By Mr. HUNTER: (191) to authorize jurors to be summoned from adjoining counties to try criminal cases in certain cases, providing for their compensation, &c.
Which bills were severally passed the first reading.
FINAL READING OF HOUSE BILLS.
The SPEAKER announced the order of bills of the House on the final reading.
Mr. Early's bill (23) to legalize the acts of L. B. Osborn, a justice of the peace, coming up -
Mr. EARLY explained its provisions, and the emergency, and the bill passed, by yeas 73, nays 0.
Mr. Jeffrie's bill (27) to authorize road companies to consolidate their stock, to assume a common name, &c, was passed the third and last reading in the House of Representatives, by yeas 73, nays 3.
Mr. Blythe's bill (28) legalizing depositions, to perpetuate testimony taken prior to the effect of the Statutes of 1852, &c., was passed the third reading, by yeas 71, nays 4.
COURTS OF CONCILIATION.
Mr. Power's bill (30) to repeal the act to establish Courts of Conciliation, coming up -
Mr. POWER and Mr. HAMILTON, of Boone, regarded the act proposed to be repealed as a nullity and impracticable.
Mr. PROSSER regarded it as a wise provision of law, favorable to partiesand if objectionable, only so to lawyers.
Mr. SCOTT. It was a dead letter on the Statute Book, and the voice was unanimous in his region for its repeal.
Mr. CAVINS alleged that he had observed the well working of the act. It was to keep slander cases and cases of assault out of court - to delay and compose these cases outside He explained its operation. Though cases were rarely compromised in the Courts of Conciliation, yet this requirement of law induced delay and cosideration in angry litigants.
Mr. TURPIE. This was from the French code. He considered that the delay induced gave too much time to the defendant to "evade the penalty of the law. He regarded the law as useless and impracticable.
Mr. MELLETT also regarded this statute as impracticable, and stated his experience under it. In all these cases parties employed counsel before they proceeded in any of these cases, and its repeal or retention could not effect the profession of the law.
Mr. MERRIFIELD had never known a conciliation effected in any of these courts, nor any good resulting from the law. No man who had seen its operation could desire its continuance.
Mr. MURRAY cited a slander case in his county, in which this court was resorted to with a good result. He had not heard it alleged as injurious to parties, and he hoped it would not be repealed.
Mr. HAMILTON, of Boone. This was not the arbitration or umpirage law. On the very next page of the statutes, it was enacted, that all cases as well as those five in courts of conciliation, may be compromised. These trials in conciliation were without evidence, and no trial could be had but upon the facts. But the law now compels parties to go through this Court, and so become liable for costs on both sides. He knew of no party who had gone through this Court and remained satisfied with the proceedings therein.
Mr. POWER submitted his experience in connection with this Court, and repeated that he regarded it as the greatest humbug amongst all our jumbled Statutes.
The vote on the final passage of the bill resulted - yeas 38, nays 41 - as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Austin, Baird, Blythe, Branham, Clements, Dobbins, Duvall, Early, Eastham, Edwards, Griffin, Hamilton of Boone, Hamilton of Wayne, Harrison, Hunter, Jeffries, Jordan, Kempf, Lewis, Mansfield, Mellett, Merrifield, Miller, Newton, Parks, Power, Scott, Sherman, Shockley, Smith of Miami, Smith of Perry, Stanfield, Stiles, Turpie, Whetzel, Whiteman, and Mr. Speaker - 38.
NAYS - Messrs Bowman, Boyd, Boxley, Brotherton, Carr, Cavins, Clark, Claypool, Clayton, Collier, Cotton, Davidson,
page: 116[View Page 116]Dougherty, Durham, Firestone, Fordyce, Gifford, Gregory Hancock, Hartley, Jones, Keefer, Kelly, Major, Massey, Murray, Martin, Nebeker of Warren, Nelson, Prosser, Ritter, Robinson, Row, Rynerson, Shields, Shull, Sullivan, Thompson of Elkhart, Thompson of Madison, Treadway, Wheeler and Wood - 41.
So the bill was rejected.
EMPANNELING PETIT JURORS.
Mr. Blythe's bill (34) prescribing the manner of empanneling petit juiors, coming up -
Mr. BLYTHE said the law left now too much discretion in the hands of the Sheriff. Under this bill 100 names are selected by the officers named and put into the box, from which are drawn a pannel of 24, and from these names again in the box the Sheriff must make up the jury. These 24 constitute the pannel, as the twelve do now - and they receive pay as now.
Mr. DOUGHERTY could hardly support the bill with the provision to pay a pannel of twenty-four.
Mr. BLYTHE. This was the cheapest. It very rarely happened that all the pannel appear. In criminal cases many are challenged. He ventured that in such cases the present mode was three times as expensive as that proposed. He gave reasons. But even if it were more expensive the good proposed was hardly to be placed in the comparison, &c.
Mr. POWER. If it were to discourage professional jurors, he was in favor of it.
Mr. PROSSER objected to the bill, as involving additional expense, without dispensing with talismen. It were better to elect honest Sheriffs. He object further.
Mr. GIFFORD. The bill would not suit his constituents. Frequently they wanted no jury.
Mr. MELLETT. This was a case of the people against professional jurorsto purify the jury box. So much depended upon the jury - giving life and administration to the laws - that he would not hesitate at the expense to have justice administered honestly and impartially. Every dollar expended in this direction was expended well.
Mr. MURRAY could not see that the sheriffs were compelled to select jurors from those hanging around the Courthouse for that purpose. Sometimes not even the twelve jurors were required.
Mr. BLYTHE asked for the reading of the 7th section, providing that, after three days the jurors may be discharged, &c.
Mr. MURRAY. The expense of jurors was too great a tax on the judicial system. The objection of Mr. Prosser, that the bill would double this, had not been answered.
Mr. PROSSER replied to Mr. Mellett.
Mr. GIFFORD spoke again. The present expense of the jury system was matter of just complaint, and he could not support a bill to double it.
Mr. BOYD demanded the previous question, and under its force the bill was rejected, by yeas 25, nays 54 - as follows
YEAS - Messrs Baird, Blythe, Boyd, Branham. Claypool, Edwards, Gregory Griffin, Jeffries, Jones, Kempf, Mansfield, Mellett, Merrifield, Miller, Nelson, Newton, Power, Scott, Sherman, Smith of Perry, Stanfield, Stiles, Whiteman and Mr. Speaker-25.
NAYS - Messrs. Austin, Bowmnn, Boxley, Brotherton, Carr, Cavins, Clark, Clayton, Clements, Collier, Cotton, Davidson, Dobbins, Dougherty, Durham, Davis, Early, Eastham, Firestone, Fordyce, Gifford, Hamilton of Boone,Hamilton of Wayne, Hancock, Harrison. Hartley, Hunter, Jordon, Keefer, Kelly, Lewis, Major, Massey, Murray, Martin, Nebeker of Warren, Parks, Prosser, Ritter, Robinson, Row, Rynerson, Shields, Shockley, Shull. Smith of Miami, Sullivan, Thompson of Elkhart, Thompson of Madison, Treadway, Turpie, Wheeler,Whetzel and Wood - 54.
So the bill was lost.
Mr. Harrison, of Wayne's bill (43) to amend section 6 of the County Board act of June 17, 1852, coming up -
Mr. GRIFFIN proposed to insert "may," instead of "shall," with reference to holding the County Commissioners' Court in the Auditor's office, in court time, which was adopted by unanimous consent.
And so the bill passed the first reading, by yeas 69, nays 5.
HORSE THIEF DETECTING COMPANIES.
The SPEAKER laid before the House the memorial of the President of the Lawrence Township Horse Thief Detecting- Company, against the repeal of the act authorizing such companies, which was read and referred to the committee to which that part of the Governor's Message was referred.
Also, a communication from the Hon. Wm. E. Niblack, relative to Indiana Indian bonds in the hands of the General Government, which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.
Also, a communication from the Superintendent of the Blind Asylum, in reference to blindness resulting from the intermarriage of blood relationships.
Mr. FIRESTONE moved an order to print 300 copies.
Mr. KEMPF had introduced the resolution to which this was a response, looking to the introduction of a bill upon the subject, and he favored the motion.
The order was rejected, and then the report was referred to the Committee on Benevolent Institutions.
Mr. GIFFORD presented a letter from the Hon. James B. Foley, a Representative in Congress for the 4th Congressional District, with reference to Indiana State bonds, connected with Indian claims, in the hands of the General Government, which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. Harrison's bill (59) to extend time to borrowers of the trust funds, paying interest thereon in advance promptly, coming up -
Mr. HUNTER, suggested a shorter time than six years, from January, 1859. It would conflict with Mr. Colgrove's bill, which proposed to call in the old fund on the 1st of January, 1850, and on his motion "six" was stricken out and the word "four" inserted in its place.
The bill failed - yeas 36, nays 30 - for want of a constitutional majority, as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Austin, Blythe, Boxley, Brotherton, Cavins, Clark, Claypool. Colgrove, Comstock, Dougherty, Eastham, Fordyce, Gifford, Griffin, Hamilton of Boone, Harney, Harrison, Hurter, Kempf, McLain, Massey, Murray, Martin, Nebeker of Warren, Parks, Prosser, Ritter, Robinson, Row, Rynerson. Scott, Sherman, Shields, Shockley, Stanfield, Turpie, Wheeler, Whiteman, Wildman and Mr. Speaker - 36.
page: 117[View Page 117]NAYS - Messrs. Bowman, Branham, Carr, Clayton, Clements, Dobbins, Durham, Duvoll, Edwards, Firestone, Gregory, Hartley, Jones, Jordan, Knowlton, Lawhead, Lewis, Mansfield, Mellett, Merrifield, Miller, Nelson, Shull, Smith of Miami, Smith of Perry, Stiles, Sullivan, Thompson of Elkhart, Whetzel, and Wood - 30.
Mr. HALL, of Grant's, bill (60) for the relief of Samuel L. Woolman, of Grant county, was passed the final reading by yeas 54, nays 23.
A LICENSE LIQUOR LAW.
Mr. Merrifield's bill (29 as amended by the select committee and Committee of the Whole) to license, regulate and restrain the sale of spirituous, vinous, malt and intoxicating liquors, coming up -
Mr. TURPIE moved to reconsider the vote on the engrossment of the bill. He wished to make the maximum and minimum rates of license conform to the sums of $500 and $20, reported by the select committee. These rates had been changed to $1,000 and $50 in Committee of the Whole, of which there was no record. He wished to go upon the record on the rate of minimum license. He spoke at length, and defined his position to the whole question, and declared the philosophy and necessity of the principle of a license liquor law.
Mr. MELLETT spoke in reply, qualifying and shaping his argument against reconsideration expecting to vote for this bill as it is, though confessing that he occupied generally the extreme ground of those opposed to the principle of a license liquor law.
Mr. DOUGHERTY should vote to reconsider, because he desired to modify the prohibition of sale to any person in the habit of intoxication, and if reconsidered, he should move to amend that section, so as to read to this effect: "Every person who shall by himself or agent, directly or indirectly, knowingly sell, barter or give away any spirituous or intoxicating liquor to any person who is in the habit of being intoxicated, after notice shall have been given him by the wife, child, parent or brother, of the said person, or by the overseer of the poor, in the township where he resides, that such person is in the habit of being intoxicated, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof be fined not less than $5, nor more than $50.
Mr. STILES moved to lay Mr. Turpie's motion to reconsider on the table, demanding the yeas and nays, which resulted - yeas 38, nays 47.So the House refused to lay on the table.
Mr. HARNEY. It was a matter of little consequence to him what was his record herethe main consideration being whether the act and 'nteition were right. The measure of merit in a kill was its adaptation to circumstances, not its apprximation to perfection. He considered fte original bill of Mr. Mansfield, the best. Were not these amendments akin to those abstractionswhich had heretofore defeated our temperance legislation? He was willing to take the best we could get, and unwilling to see the defeat of any good temperance bill, &c.
Mr. GIFFORD could not support the bill, with the amendments that were attached in Committee of the Whole. He was in favor of the bill as it came from the committee of nine.
Mr. PROSSER coincided with Mr. Gifford.
Mr. POWER would rather have no license law than the bill as it came from the committee, and he repeated how the profits on one barrel of whiskey would more than pay the $20 license to sell for a year. He spoke at length in defence of his amendment, raising it to $50. He should vote for the bill, if he could get nothing better.
Mr. HANCOCK could not support the bill, with $50 for the minimum rate of license. He represented two counties, and outside of the two county seats there would be no license taken out at $50. He demanded a reduction of this rate as the right of his constituents. He objected not to the maximum rate.
Mr. KEEFER demanded the previous question, and under its force, the order of engrossment was reconsidered - yeas 46, nays 38.
Mr DOUGHERTY now proposed his substitute to the 8th section, demanding the yeas and nays thereon.
The vote resultedyeas 61, nays 25. So the amendment was adopted.
Mr. TURPIE now proposed $20 for the minimum rate of license.
Mr. PROSSER proposed to amend by adding $1,000 for the maximum, which he withdrew.
Mr. AUSTIN moved to lay the amendment on the table - the vote resulting-yeas 38, nays 48.
Mr. MURRAY proposed to amend by striking out $20 and inserting $30. We were in danger of losing the bill between those who desire a low rate, and those who would have no license law at all.
Mr. GIFFORD. The friends of the bill understood themselves and he rehearsed some of the provisions and restrictions of the bill. $20 in the rural districts was more than $500 in the town of Indianapolis, and he wanted equality in this, as near as may be.
Mr. MURRAY withdrew his amendment.
The vote on Mr. Turpie's amendment resulted - yeas 46, nays 38 - as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Blair, Blythe, Bowman, Boyd, Carr, Claypool, Clayton, Clements, Dobbins, Dougherty. Durham, Early, Firestone, Fordyce, Gifford, Hancock, Harney, Hartley, Jordan, Keefer, Kelly, Kempf, Knowlton, Lewis, Major, Mansfield, Mellett, Merrifield, Miller, Murray, Newton, Prosser, Row, Shields, Shockley, Shull, Smith of Miami, Smith of Percy, Stanfieid, Stiles, Sullivan, Thompson of Madison, Turpie, Wheeler, Whetzel and Mr. Speaker-46.
NAYS - Messrs. Austin, Boxley, Branham, Brotherton, Cavins, Clark, Collier, Comstock, Cotton, Davidson, Duvoll, Gregory, Griffin, Hall of Rush, Hamilton of Boone, Hamilton of Wayne, Harrison, Hunter, Jeffries, Jones, Lawhead, McLain, Massey, Martin, Nebeker of Warren, Nelson, Parks, Power, Ritter, Robinson, Rynerson, Scott, Sherman, Thompson of Elkhart, Treadway, Whiteman, Wildman and Wood-38.
So the minimum rate was reduced to $20.
Mr. DOUGHERTY proposed further to amend the bill by adding:
SEC. . Nothing in this act shall be so construed as to require a license to sell unadulterated lager beer in less quanities than a gallon.
Mr. MANSFIELD. The same difficulties were to be avoided in the case of lager beer saloons as in other cases of the traffic.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. KEEFER proposed to reduce the maximum rate of license from $1,000 to $500, demanding the yeas and nays, which resulted - yeas 26, nays 57 so the amendment was lost.
page: 118[View Page 118]Mr. STANFIELD demanded the previous question, and under its force the bill was ordered to engrossment, and considered as engrossed.
Mr. HUNTER moved to recommit the bill, with instructions, which he sent up.
The SPEAKER decided that it was out of order to withdraw matter from the files of the Committee of the Whole, and submit it by way of instructions to amend.
Mr. EDWARDS demanded the previous question on the final passage of the bill, and there was a second.
The bill was now again read through by the Clerk, and the vote the reonsulted - yeas 59, nays 22 - as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Baird, Blythe, Boyd, Boxley, Branham, Brotherton, Carr, Cavins, Clark, Clayton, Clements, Comstock, Dougherty, Duvoll, Early, Edwards, Fordyce, Gifford, Gregory,Griffin, Hall of Rush, Harney, Harrison, Hartley, Jones, Keefer, Kelly, Kempf, Knowlton, Lawhead, McLain, Major, Mansfield, Massey, Mellett, Merrifield, Murray, Martin, Nelson, Newton, Parks, Prosser, Row, Scott, Sherman, Shields, Shull, Smith of Miami, Smith of Perry, Stanfield, Stiles, Sullivan, Thompson of Madison, Turpie, Wheeler, Whetzel, Wildman,Wood, and Mr. Speaker - 59.
NAYS - Messrs. Austin, Bowman, Colgrove, Collier, Cotton, Dobbins, Firestone, Hamilton of B., Hamilton of W., Hunter,Jeffries, Lewis, Miller, Nebeker of Warren,Power, Ritter, Robinson, Rynerson, Shockley, Thompson of Elkhart, Treadway and Whiteman - 22.
So the bill passed, with the title amended by Mr. DOUGHERTY, adding these words: "Prescribing penalties for the violation of this act," and it was ordered that the Clerk acquaint the Senate thereof.
The House then (at 5 o'clock) adjourned.
