HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
FRIDAY, February 11, 1859.PETITIONS
By Mr. FIRESTONE, Mr. WILDMAN and Mr. WATERMAN: sundry petitions with reference to claims on account of the arrest of criminals, which were referred to the Committee on Claims.
By the SPEAKER: of John Arr.
By Mr. CLARK: against the repeal of the Horse-thief Detecting Association Law.
By Mr. USREY: for a law against sheep-killing dogs. Which were severally read and referred.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
By Mr. STANFIELDJudiciaryreturning his bill 217, in relation to the levy of execution of partnership property, &c., recommending passage.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed.
By same - recommending indefinite postponement of bill (172) by the Committee on Public Expenditures, to restore and preserve records of the Supreme Court, which was concurred in.
By same - returning his bill (150) to amend the Practice Act of June 18, 1852, requiring answers to be drawn before a judgment or default against a non-resident shall be set aside; authorizing property taken on execution to be held in certain cases; Judges, in vacation, to appoint receivers; providing for the faithful discharge of their duties; to modify or reinstate orders of injunction granted in vacation; provisions in relation to the continuance of causes, and the sale of property on the foreclosure of mortgage, with amendments, as follows:
That section 80 be amended so as to read: "Where a writing, purporting to have been executed by one of the parties is the foundation of any pleading, it may be read in evidence on the trial of the cause against such party without producing its execution, unless its execution be denied by affidavit before the commencement of the trial, or unless denied by a pleading under oath. The latter party shall in all cases have inspection of the instrument of writing before pleading. When the action is brought by a corporation, it shall not be necessary for the corporation to produce its corporate existence, unless the defendant shall deny the same under oath.
The amendments were adopted, and the bill ordered to be engrossed.
Mr. SCOTT - Judiciary - recommending the indefinite postponement of Mr. Claypool's bill (155) for taxation of docket fees in civil actions, which was concurred in.
Mr. BAIRD - Judiciary - returning Mr. Snyder's bill (144) authorizing railroads to borrow money, fix the rate of interest thereon, &c., recommending passage.
It was ordered to be engrossed.
By Mr. BROTHERTON - Organization of Courts - recommending the passage of his bill (91) to provide for the transfer of certain causes fromthe Common Pleas and Justices of the Peace, which was concurred in.
By Mr. STANFIELD - Judiciary - for indefinite postponement of Mr. Murray's bill (237) to amend the Common Pleas act, which was concurred in.
By same - for the passage of Mr. Murray's bill (218) fixing the time of holding the Common Pleas in the counties of Elkhart and Lagrange.
It was ordered to be engrossed.
By Mr. LAWHEAD - Rights and Privileges - for passage of Mr. Snyder's bill (229) to amend the 76th section of the misdemeanor act, of une 14, 1852.
It was ordered to be engrossed.
By Mr. RYNERSON - Agriculture - reporting a bill (244) to amend the 73d section of the assessment act, which was passed the first reading.
By Mr. TREADWAY - Agriculture - returning a petition for legislation to improve the breed of horses, which was laid on the table.
By. Mr. MELLETT - Judiciary - returning his bill (175) extending the jurisdiction of the Court of Common Pleas, and recommending passage.
It was ordered to be engrossed.
By Mr. DAVIS - Judiciary - recommending that the bill (S. 1) to amend the divorce law, be laid on the table - the House having already passed a bill on the same subject.
The report was concurred in.
By Mr. SCOTT - Judiciary - recommending the passage of Mr. Stile's bill (128) to regulate practice in the Supreme Court in the construction of bills of exception.
It was ordered to be engrossed.
By Mr. COLGROVE - Judiciary - recommending that Mr. Hunter's bill (189) supplemental to the Common Pleas act of May 14, 1852, be indefinitely postponed: which was concurred in.
By Mr. MELLETT - Judiciary - recommending indefinite postponement of Mr. Edwards' bill (141) to authorize limited partnerships, &c.: which was concurred in.
By Mr. STANFIELD, from the Committee on Free Conference,to which was referred House bill No. 12 to prevent the issuing and circulation of unauthorized paper currency, and prescribing penalties for the issuing or failure to redeem any such currency and the amendments thereto, recommending that the following amendments be made to said bill, to-wit:
Insert after the word "whatever" in the third line of the first section the words "gave and except that now authorized by law to be issued by the Bank of the State of Indiana and her branches, and other banks incorporated under the general banking law of this State." Also strike out of said section, beginning in line 12 after the word State, the following, to-wit: "Other than a banking institution authorized by law to issue such paper."
And amend section 2, line 4, by striking out the article "a" and insert in lieu thereof the word "the."
And also add the following section to the bill:
Section 7. The Bank of the State of Indiana and its branches, and the banks organized under the general banking law of this State, shall not, nor shall any officer or agent of any of such banks put into circulation any such fraudulent and void paper or isues, as that described in the first section of this act, and any such officer or agent upon conviction thereof, shall be subject to the same penalties as are prescribed in the second section of this act.
And that the House recede from its amendment to this bill.
The report was concurred in by consent.
The SPEAKER submitted to the House the question, whether the Committee on Free Conference could amend the bill in any provision not connected with the specific matter on which the two Houses had disagreed, and suggested page: 172[View Page 172] that the action of the House just had on such a report as this might make the bill a nullity.
Mr. MARTIN. The amendments made by the committee were a compromise between members of the committee on the part of the House, and on the part of the Senate, on the provisions of the bill known as the House amendment.
Mr. STANFIELD. The report sets forth that we agree to the following amendments, (which he read) and then adds, "that the House recede from its amendment."
Mr. COLGROVE, from the Judiciary Committee, recommended indefinite postponement of Mr. Stiles' bill (159) to regulate the descent of the wife's property, which was concurred in.
Mr. TURPIE, from same committee, recommended the passage of the bill (S. 131) to amend the practice act of June 18, 1852,so as to authorize a change of venue in certain cases, and it was passed to the third reading.
SECURING PERSONAL PROPERTY TO MARRIED WOMEN.
Mr. BAIRD, from same committee, recommended indefinite postponement of Mr. Boyd's bill (157) "securing to married women such personal property as maybe exempt from execution; also to enable them to control their own earnings and the earnings of their minor children in certain cases"alleging that "said bill proposes to establish two independent sovereignties in the family,"'&c.
Mr. DOUGHERTY. The report states that the object of the bill is to establish two independent sovereign ties in each family. I would like to know which of these is the "squatter sovereignty?" [Laughter.]
Mr. BOYD had hoped the report would be favorable. The law exempting $300 worth of property to the householder was to prevent pauperism. This bill proposed, that in a certain contingency, where the husband takes of this exempted property for drink, the wife may sue in her own name and recover. If such husband were made to look mean in this, he ought to look mean as he is. The bill also prevents the pawning of such property protected by the law.
Mr. BAIRD saw now the object of the bill - it being a tax on John Barleycorn - whisky at the bottom. He rehearsed the argument of the report.
Mr. MURRAY would like to see the bill perfected - the object being to carry out the principle of the exemption law. He desired a law to protect the family against the bad management and dabauchery of the husband.
Mr. BOYD proposed to recommit with instructions to "amend so as to confine its provisions to cases where the property has been set off under our exemption laws."
Mr. BAIRD, That was in the act of 1857.
Mr. COLGROVE. The other feature of the bill proposes to give the wife the control of the $300 under exemption. It proceeds upon the assumption that every poor man is a drunkard. When he had concluded -
TOWNSHIP BUSINESS.
The SPEAKER announced the special order, viz: the consideration of Mr. Johnston's amended bill (87) to amend the act of May 6, 1852, for amore uniform mode of doing township business the question being on the adoption of the select committee's amendments.
The bill provides for one trustee, &c.
Mr. HARRISON opposed the adoption of amendments reported from the select committee. The first amendment requiring the trustee to give a bond in double the amount passing through his hands, &c., was simply absurd. The second amendment was equally absurd. He was opposed to giving the control of the moneys of the township to one trustee. He proposed to give the township fund to the county treasurer, who has that custody already. He opposed all the amendments.
Mr. GIFFORD opposed the one-man system. He was for the original bill - three trustees.
Mr. HARNEY moved to lay on the table.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. HAMILTON of Boone. The bill now before the House was the substitute for Mr. Johnston's bill - the substitute providing for one trustee, the original bill for three.
Mr. MURRAY had learned the importance of this subject from experience. The principle of the bill was wrong - corrupt. It fell short also on the score of economy. He preferred the bill of Mr. Johnston, and spoke at length on the whole question.
Mr. HAMILTON, of Boone, moved to reconsider the vote by which the House concurred in the substitute reported from the Committee on County and Township Business, now before the House.
Mr. DOBBINS took the floor in reply to Mr. Murray, and supported the substitute.
Mr. HUNTER showed that the township system cost the State of Indiana $247,000 a year, and was in favor of wiping it out as a mere curse, &c. The township system should be for school purposes alone, and that should be without pay. He sketched his system.
Mr. NEBEKER was nearly agreed with Mr. Hunter. He would return to the old township system.
Mr. COMSTOCK opposed the substitute, as contravening the spirit of Republicanism and true Democracy. It was not charged that the township business was not done well, only that it was too expensive. He contended for the rights of the people, cost what it may. But he considered the one-man system would result more expensively than that which admits of three, &c.
Mr. HARRISON. Gentlemen had not read the bill had not fairly represented it. The substitute had reduced the power of the Trustee to less than that attaching to any other public officer of that grade. He moved to postpone till Wednesday, which was taken by consent.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
On motion by Mr. DAVIS, his bill (142) reimburse the owners of property destroyed under the liquor law of 1855, which failed yesterday for want of a constitutional majority, was referred to a select committee of five, with instructions, viz: Add to the first section, "Provided, further, that no allowance shall be made when the case had been barred by page: 173[View Page 173] the statue of limitations, nor unless there is a clear liability on the part of the officer."
Add, also, to section three, "That whenever any proceeding for a writ of habeas corpus shall have been instituted by any person imprisoned under the provisions of the said act, directed to any officer detaining such person in custody, and such officer shall have been adjudged to pay the costs of such proceeding, and shall have paid the same, the said Board of Commissioners are hereby authorized and empowered to allow such officer the sum or sums of money he may have been compelled to pay as aforesaid."
Change section 3 to section 4.
The SPEAKER makes that committee to consist of Messrs. Davis, Edwards, Stanfield, Blythe and Fordyce.
Mr. PARRETT (by consent) introduced a bill (245) to authorize deeds and mortgages heretofore acknowledged before County Auditors, to be recorded, and authorizing the same, and also the record thereof to be read in evidence, making such record notice to third persons, and making such conveyances valid, which was passed in the first reading.
WABASH AND ERIE CANAL.
The SPEAKER announced the special order for this hour, viz: The consideration of Mr.Murray's joint resolution against taking back the Wabash and Erie Canal, which was read, as follows:
That while we regard the maintenance of the Wabash and Erie Canal of great importance to that portion of the State through which it runs, and earnestly desire that the citizens along its line may take efficient measure to secure that result - we are opposed to any policy which calls for legislative action before the bondholders declare, in legal form, their abandonment of the canal, and the forfeiture of any claim upon the State for that portion of the State debt for the payment of which the bondholders were to rely upon the canal and its revenues; AND WHEREAS, various meetings along the line of the canal, were brought about by the circulars of Butler & Co.,for the purpose effecting legistlation on the subject; AND WHEREAS, the threat to abandon the canal is nothing more nor less than a very credible avowal of their intention 10 violate the contract of 1846-7, between the bondholders and the State of Indiana; therefore -
Resolved, That we view such threats in the light they justly deserve; and that we deprecate all legislation and agitation of the question, at the present time, as dangerous to the State.
Resolved, That the State is now clear of that portion of the debt adjusted in 1846-7, and that it is her right, purpose and duty, to keep clear of it.
Mr. EDWARDS moved to refer the joint resolution to the Committe on Canals and Internal Improvements, with instructions, viz:
1. Report against any act by which the Wabash and Erie Canal will be owned by the State, or any part of the debt for which it was surrendered, be reassumed, or any appropriation on out of the State Treasury be made to maintain said canal.
2. To inquire whether the Wabash and Erie Canal, or any part thereof, will probably be abandoned by the present owners, and in that case, to report what legislation is necessary, if any, to protect those interests in the property along the line of the same, and to authorize persons interested to keep the said canal in navigable order without charge upon the State Treasury.
Mr. MURRAY took the floor and spoke at length on the whole subject, urging the adoption the joint resolution, &c.
And thereupon arose a question of order interposed by Mr. ROBINSON - whether this whole subject had not been indefinitely postponed by the House, in the vote on the original memorial of citizens living on the line of the canal, in which Messrs. Davis, Blythe, Baird, Mellett, Stiles, Harney, and others, participated - taking a range embracing the merits of the resolutions and pending instructions.
Mr. BLYTHE submitted the following:
Resolved, That it is the judgment of this House that the indefinite postponement of the Canal memorial and the subject thereof does not indefinitely postpone the resolution of the gentleman from Elkhart, which is the special order for this day at 2 o'clock.
Mr. DAVIS gave notice of his desire to offer in this connection the following, but which was not entertained:
That this House will not entertain a proposition of any sort or kind, directly or indirectly, looking to the resumption of any portion of the debt of the State settled by the transfer of the Wabash and Etie Canal; neither will this House entertain any proposition for the appropriation of any money to put said canal in repair or any part thereof.
Mr. Blythe's resolution was rejected - yeas 33, nays 49 - as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Baird, Blythe, Branham, Cavins, Clark, Clements, Colgrove, Collier, Comstock, Davidson, Davis, Edwards, Firestone, Harney, Hartley, Lawhead, McLain, Mansfield, Massey, Merrifield, Miller, Murray, Nebeker of Vermillion, Nebeker of Warren, Parrett, Row, Scott, Sherman, Smith of Miami, Stanfield, Thompson of Elkhart, Whetzel and Whiteman - 33.
NAYS - Messrs. Black, Bowman,Boyd, Boxley,Brotherton, Carr, Clayton, Dobbins, Dougherty, Duval, Early, Eastham, Fordyce, Gifford, Gregory, Hall of Grant, Hall of Rush, Hamilton of Boone, Harrison, Hunter, Jones, Jordan, Reefer, Kelly, Kempf, Lewis, Major, Mellett, Martin, Nelson, Newton, Robinson, Rynerson, Shields, Shockley, Snyder, Stanley, Stiles, Sullivan, Summers, Tebbs, Thompson of Madison, Treadway, Turpie, Usrey, Waterman, Wildman, Wood, and Mr. Speaker -49.
Mr. FIRESTONE, explaining, said: Mr. Speaker, when I voted on the indefinite postponement of the memorial after it was read, I did not understand that by that vote I would thereby prevent action by the House on Mr. Murray's resolution. At the same lime I would not vote one dollar to take back the canal, believing that if the canal is not a self-sustaining institution the State does not want it.
The SPEAKER, under this action of the House, held that the special order (the consideration of Mr. Murray's joint resolutions) was indefinitely postponed the House having thus negatively declared, that, with the canal memo rial, the whole subject was postponed.
Mr. MILLER, from the Committee on Canals and Internal Improvements , returned the petition of citizens of Vermillion county, and that portion of the Governor's Message relative to the Wabash and Erie Canal, with the expression of opinion that legislation thereon was inexpedient.
The House concurred.
Mr. COLGROVE, by consent and according to previous notice, introduced a bill (246) against the State's reassumption of any proprietorship in the Wabash and Erie Canal, and relinquishing forever the State's reversionary interest therein.
Mr. DEVOL moved that the bill be rejected.
Mr. COLGROVE thereupon pursued the debate, justifying his proposition - until
Mr. MURRAY raised the question that this bill was out of order.
Mr. DEVOL withdrew his motion.
Mr. Speaker GORDON, (Mr. Stanfield in the Chair) to get clear of the difficulty, moved to reconsider the vote rejecting Mr. Blythe's resolution above.
The motion was agreed to, and the question recurred on its adoption.
page: 174[View Page 174]Mr. DOBBINS, Mr. MELLETT and Mr. BAIRD gave their views of the whole subject and the parliamentary question involved.
Mr. CLEMENTS declared that the House were voting blindly in this matter, and forgetful of the tact that these bond holders had swindled the State, in that they had constructed - not a canal, but a miserable ditch, which had never yet been navigable for two months at a time; and forgetful also of the fact that these bond holders have now in the Vincennes Land District 132,000 acres of the canal lands yet unsold, and the sale of which ought to be enjoined, &c.
Mr. Speaker GORDON (Mr. Blythe in the Chair) spoke to the order. He was willing to stand on his vote postponing this canal petition for an appropriation of money. He believed the bond holders would fairly forfeit their contract and the canal, if they abandoned it. He was willing to relinquish the State's reversionary interest, At the proper time he would vote a declaration of the forfeiture of the canal, and then authorize a company to organize and carry it on. But the House should not conclude itself in this way against future action, &c.
Mr. MELLETT spoke again - showing that the House could not decide negatively on the resolution of the gentleman from Elkhart. without destroying its action on the petition and the resolution of the gentleman from Vanderburgh and insisted on the preservation of the integrity of parliamentary rule.
Mr. MILLER would vote constantly to keep this question open, from a sense of justice to the owners of the millions of property along the line of that Canal. He was opposed to the bill for this reason, &c. The Canal passes through some twenty counties, and more than twice twenty counties went to it for their market. But if the bondholders should resign the work, (as he was informed by the resident Trustee they would assuredly do in March,) then there should be a law passed allowing the property-holders interested to take it up and keep it in repair. He said this acknowledging his pledges against taking back the Canal, and avowing his determination to stand by those pledges.
Mr. NEBEKER, of Warren. The law was clear that the bondholders were bound to appropriate all the proceeds of the work to keep it up. If these bondholders and their trustees were going to act "dog in the manger," he would maintain the policy of "masterly inactivity." He would clip down the salaries of the Trustees, and go save money to keep up the work. He might be willing to relinquish the State interest in the Canal, but not the State's right to compel the Trustees to do their duty sell the land and apply the proceeds of the work itself to keeping it up, and State's right to reduce these official salaries, &c.
Mr. COLGROVE gave a final explanation - and concluded by declaring that Mr. Blythe's resolution could not preclude his bill.
Mr. KEEFER thought there was enough said and done on this subject. The bondholders, &c., must be satisfied that the State would never give a dollar more toward that work.
Mr. TURPIE would not legislate on this sub-ject, but in the event of the receipt here of an official note from the Trustees, that they had wholly abandoned that work.
He moved to lay Mr. Blythe's resolution on the table, demanding the yeas and nays.
The vote resulted - yeas 56, nays 19 so the resolution was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER now explained the order, and held, that the question is now upon Mr. Colgrove's bill, and it passed to the second reading without objection.
Mr. MELLETT submitted the following which was ruled out of order:
Resolved,That it is the judgment of this House that the resolution of the gentlemen from Elkhart, is out of orderbeing equivalent to the order of the House indefinitely postponing the consideration of the memorial of sundry citizens on the same subject.
ENLARGEMENT OF THE STATE PRISON.
Mr. HUNTER, under a dispensation, and under instructions from a majority of the Committee on the Affairs of the State Prison, reported on that part of the Governor's message recommending enlargement of the Prison, or the erection of another in the northern portion of the State, giving a detailed statement of the cost of the building, construction, repairs and management of the Prison. The committee believe that the Prison may be made self-sustaining. They submit an elaborate argument against a new Prison in the northern part of the State, and come to the conclusion that it is wisest and best to enlarge the old one; and they submit a plan and estimate for the same, with a bill (247) to provide for the enlargement of the State Prison; to prescribe the duties of officers in relation thereto, and punishment for the violation thereof; and making an appropriation [$50,000] for the enlargement of said Prison, which was passed thefirst reading.
Mr. TURPIE. Is there a minority report?
Mr. MURRAY answering, admitted the necessity of building a wing to the Prison, for the purpose of increasing the number of cells. He was surprised that the report should propose, instead of this, a new Prisonto cost, perhaps, a hundred thousand dollars, instead of their estimate of fifty. As a member of that committee, without submitting a minority report, he should content himself with voting against the whole thing.
The SPEAKER announced the following select committee on re-districting the State for the Common Pleas, viz: Messrs. Martin, Shields, Davis, Clements, Treadway, Ritter, Brotherton, Hamilton, of Boone, Merrifield, Waterman, Firestone, Stiles and Colgrove.
The House then, at 5:10 o'clock, adjourned.
