HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
TUESDAY, February 15, 1859.PETITIONS.
By Mr. MURRAY: of Francis Henry and others, citizens of Lagrange county, against the repeal of the horse thief detecting law, and presenting claims for money expended. &c., which was referred to the Committee on Claims.
By the SPEAKER: the claim of C. C. Campbell of Indianapolis, which was referred to the Committee on Claims.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
By Mr. STANFIELD - Judiciary - returning Mr. Whetzel's bill (98), to amend the supervisor's act of June 18, 1852, with the expression of opinion that the bill is unconstitutional and inexpedient, and recommending indefinite postponement.
Also - returning the bill (S. 8), to amend the first section of the act concerning the alienation of real estate, &c., stating that the bill proposes to amend the law so that all aliens - Africans included - shall have the right to purchase, sell or take by descent any real property in this State, and they recommended its indefinite postponement.
These reports were concurred in.
He also returned Mr. Hunter's bill (125), for the protection of railroad tracks, inserting -
SEC. 3. Any person who shall wilfully or negligently leave upon any railroad track anything to endanger the train, shall, upon conviction, be fined not less than $5, nor more than $1,000, to which may be added imprisonment not exceeding six months.
The amendment was adopted, and the bill ordered to be engrossed.
By Mr. TURPIE - Judiciary - returning Mr. Early's bill (72), to amend sections 1 and 2 of the act of March 1, 1853, providing compensation for animals killed by railroad cars, with an amendment striking out the words, "at any one time."
On motion by Mr. EDWARDS, the bill and amendment were referred to Mr. Edwards and 4 others.
GAME LAW.
By Mr. DAVIS - Judiciary - returning Mr. Hamilton of Boone's bill (64), amending, and Mr. Turpie's bill (18), repealing the game law, with sundry petitions on that subject, recommending that No. 64 and the petitions be laid on the table, and that No. 18 be amended by substitute.
Mr. TURPIE demanded the yeas and nays on concurrence.
Mr. DAVIS stated the effect of the amendment of the game law proposed. It is provided that any man may kill game at any time on his own premises; it repeals the clause giving half to the informer, and extends the time of general killing from the 1st of January till the 15th day of February.
Mr. TURPIE and Mr. BOYD were in favor of repealing the game law, but should vote for the report, as perhaps the best they could get
The vote on concurrence stood - yeas 36, nays 46.
So the House refused to concur; and the question recurred on the engrossment of the original bill, No. 18, (Mr. Turpie's) to repeal the game law of February 26,1857.
Mr. TURPIE moved, that Mr. Hamilton of Boone's bill be laid on the table.
Mr. HAMILTON, of Boone. The House has just refused to lay the bill on the table, in refusing to concur in the report.
Mr. DAVIS moved recommitment, ineffectually.
The question recurring on the engrossment of No. 18 -
Mr. DOUGHERTY moved its indefinite postponement - the vote resulting, yeas 46, nays 43 - as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Austin, Baird, Black, Branham, Brotherton, Clark, Claypool, Clayton, Colgrove, Comstock, Cotton, Davidson, Davis, Dougherty, Durham, Edwards, Fordyce, Gregory, Hall of Grant, Hall of Rush, Hamilton of Wayne, Harrison, Jeffries, Johnston, Keefer, Lawhead, Major, Mansfield, Mellett, Merrifield, Miller, Murray, Nebeker of Vermillion, Nebeker of Warren, Robinson, Scott, Sherman, Smith of Miami, Snyder, Stanfield, Stiles, Tebbs, Thompson of Elkhart, Treadway, Waterman and Whiteman - 46.
NAYS - Messrs. Blythe, Bowman, Boyd, Boxley, Carr, Cavins, Clements, Collier, Devol, Early, Eastham, Firestone, Gifford, Hamilton of Boone, Harnev, Hartley, Hunter, Jones, Jordan, Kelly, Kempf, Knowlton, Lewis, McLain, Massey, Martin, Nelson, Newton, Prosser, Ritter, Row, Rynerson, Shields, Shockley, Shull, Smith of Perry, Stanley, Summers, Turpie, Usrey, Wheeler, Whetzel, Wildman and Wood - 43.
So the bill was postponed.
Mr. DOUGHERTY moved to reconsider this vote - and that motion was laid on the table, by yeas 43, nays 46.
The bill No 64, to prevent the killing, &c. saving the right of farmers on their own premises, and repealing the compensation of inlormers, &c., was then ordered to be engrossed.
Mr. COLGROVE, from the Judiciary Committee returned Mr. Sherman's bill (206), to amend the 36th section of the misdemeanor act with an amendment, inserting appropriately the words, "with intent to produce abortion;"
Which was adopted, and the bill ordered to be engrossed.
Mr. BAIRD, from same committee, returned Mr. Turpie's bill (177) to amend section 2 of the act for the relocation of county seats, the erection of public buildings, &c., recommending passage.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed.
Mr. PARRETT, from same committee, returned Mr. Hunter's bill (207) to provide for empanneling jurors in civil and criminal cases in the Circuit and Common Pleas Courts, with a recommendation that the same be laid on the table.
The report was concurred in.
Mr. MELLETT, from the Committee on Banks, returned his bill (248) supplemental to the general banking law, and authorizing the Auditor and Treasurer of State to surrender securities deposited in certain cases, recommending passage.
page: 188[View Page 188]MONEY FOR THE COMMON SCHOOLS.
The SPEAKER (Mr. Edwards in the Chair) announced the special order for 10 o'clock, viz: the consideration of Mr. Waterman's amended school bill, No. 107, and Mr. Colgrove's bill (119) for the distribution of the Sinking Fund.
Mr. MANSFIELD said, the bill 107 was but a single proposition, and it ought to have precedence. It could pass without affecting No. 119.
Mr. COLGROVE proposed to amend the motion, that No. 119 have precedence, as embracing more matter. The bill No. 107 contemplates merely the distribution of the surplus of interest.
The bill No. 107 was taken up.
Mr. COLGROVE moved to lay it on the table, but gave way for -
Mr. HARNEY, who desired a direct vote on the bill.
Mr. COLGROVE. No man felt a deeper interest than himself in this subject. The bill No. 119, embraced the same provision for distribution contained in No. 107. He objected to the mode of distribution in No. 107. His bill went further, declaring that the Sinking Fund itself, after 1866, should be distributed as the Congressionol Fund is now. On this there were conflicting views. He wanted this feature considered, and if rejected, he would immediately help to pass the other bill, with a slight amendment with regard to the mode of distribution of the interest.
Mr. BOYD considered that bill No. 107 ought to pass. It was unquestionably a compliance with the spirit of the law. We need this surplus of interest, and if we may use it he saw no good reason for gentlemen to vote against it.
The SPEAKER. The bill No. 107, he now perceived, was on the third reading.
Mr. COLGROVE moved to lay it on the table for the present the vote resulting - yeas 36, nays 41.
So the bill was not laid on the table.
Mr. COLGROVE. His bill prescribed that from and after January, 1866, that portion of the Sinking Fund which shall remain after the outstanding bank bonds and incidental expenses are paid, shall be distributed among the several counties. The Board shall hereafter make loans, so that the time of payment shall not extend beyond February, 1866, and then the principal of this fund wras to be distributed in money among the several counties pro rata, according to the number of children listed in the report of the Superintendent of Common Schools for the year 1865. Both bills divide the balance of interest; their bill providing that the money shall be first paid into the State Treasury, whilst his bill pre scribed that it should be distributed immediately from the treasury of the Sinking Fund.
Mr. BOYD was opposed to the gentleman's manner of distributing the principal of the fund. He was in favor of investing this principal in the bonds of the State, as recommended by Governor Wright. He knows of others, also, who were ID favor of the distribution of the interest, and opposed to the distribution of the principal, &c.
Mr. COLGROVE proposed to recommit the bill, with instructions to report an amendment for making said division pro rata, according to the number of common school children listed, as an pears from the report of the Superintendent of Common Schools, &c.
Mr. MANSFIELD. The school money had been detained in the State Treasury. That was a fact, and we ought to guard against it. But not in respect to one particular fund. Some general law ought to be passed securing the fund it all respects, which an amendment to this item alone would not do.
Mr. HALL, of Rush, was in favor of the principle of both bills - of distributing the surplus of interest in the meantime - insisting upon the distribution pro rata, &c.
Mr. HARNEY moved to lay the motion and instructions on the table - the vote resulting - yeas 22, nays 56.
Mr. ROBINSON proposed to substitute instructions as follows:
Recommit to the Committee on Education with the following instructions:
Amend the bill so as to require the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund to set apart on their books one million of dollars, the interest of which shall be applied to the payment of interest on the outstanding bank bonds and the payment of current expenses and the balance of interest on the amount so set apart, if any, together with any part of principal of the Fund that may be paid in shall be applied to the purchase of the outstanding bank bonds and the interest on the balance of the Fund not so set apart shall be applied to the support of Common Schools and distributed as the fund now raised by taxation is now or shall hereafter be distributed.
Mr. ROBINSON explained his instructions.
Mr. COLGROVE demanded a division of the question - and the bill was first ordered to be re committed with Mr. Colgrove's instructions
And then, Mr. Robinson's instructions were laid on the table.
The next question being on the engrossment of Mr. Colgrove's bill, No. 119 -
Mr. HARNEY moved to amend, by striking out all except the enacting clause, and sections 9, 10, and 11 - leaving out all that part relative to the distribution of the principal.
Mr. MURRAY defended the bill.
Mr. MARTIN, at first was inclined to support the bill, but was satisfied it was alluring and deceptive. There was another system for the disposition of this fund which was preferable, &c. He spoke at length in opposition.
Mr. COLGROVE made a general speech in favor of the principle, upon which his bill is founded, defending it from objections, &c.
Mr. SCOTT. Would the several counties be confined in the interest they receive, to the interest on the amount so proposed to be divided to them?
Mr. MURRAY. He understood that the interest would continue to be divided, pro rata, without regard to the proposed distribution of the principal of this fund.
Mr. BOYD. The gentleman from Randolph had now confessed that he was opposed to this distribution of interest till 1866. He gave way without concluding.
The SPEAKER laid before the House the annual report of John M. Lord, Agent of State, which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.
page: 189[View Page 189]AFTERNOON SESSION.
THE FINANCES OF THE STATE.
The SPEAKER announced the special order,viz: The consideration of the bills Nos. 192,193, 194, 195, reported from the Committee on Ways and Means.
The rest having passed to the engrossment -
On motion by Mr. MURRAY, it was ordered that the bill (195), to provide a Treasury system for the State of Indiana, for the manner of receiving, holding and disbursing the public moneys of the State, (and the several counties,) and for the safe keeping of public moneys, be taken up and considered by sections.
Mr. STANFIELD proposed to add to the second section:
Provided, however, that the Board doing county business may, instead of procuring such vault, require the county Treasurer to deposit the county funds with such bank as pay be designated by said Board.
Mr. MILLER moved to strike out the second section.
The SPEAKER could not entertain that as an amendment to the amendment.
Mr. STANFIELD had offered this amendment to save expense of vaults, which in some cases, might operate as an advertisement to burglars. It was presumed that the County Commissioners knew what would be a safe custody for the public funds, &c.
Mr. RITTER proposed to add " or individuals," after the word "bank."
Which, on motion by Mr. MURRAY, was laid on the table.
Mr. MILLER moved to lay Mr. Stanfield's amendment on the table. The vote resulting - yeas 55, nays 23; so the amendment was laid on the table.
Mr. ROBINSON moved a reconsideration of this vote; and this motion, on the motion of Mr. Clements, was laid on the table.
Mr. STANFIELD now proposed to amend, as follows:
Provided, That the board doing county business shall require the County Treasurer to deposit the county funds in some safe place, until such county board shall see fit to procure such vault.
Mr. ROBINSON proposed to add:
Said money to be deposited on such terms as to interest, as said officer shall agree upon - payable on call - and said loan to be secured in double the amount loaned.
The SPEAKER ruled this out of order, because no interest was contemplated.
On motion by Mr. KEEFER, the amendment was laid on the table.
Mr. MILLER now moved to strike out the second section, providing county vaults.
Mr. HARNEY. That would be to strike o t the County Treasury system. The bill would be complete without it.
Mr. MILLER. That was what he desired. The security in the case of the County Treasurer was ample. No man having to give so heavy a bond as the Treasurer should be interfered with in this way, &c. He objected to the espoinage on the County Treasurer, and other provisions in this part of the bill. There were few County Treasury defalcations; and he looked at the expense of these county vaults.
Mr. BOYD. These vaults and safes would cost the State of Indiana $273,000 - an expenditure which would be entirely useless in most of the counties. He preferred something like the amendment of Mr. Stanfield.
The vote on striking out resulted - yeas 55, nays 33: so the section was stricken out.
Mr. DOUGHERTY proposed to amend the 3d section, by substituting a provision requiring an increasing per centum of the revenue, to be paid in gold or silver coin, until, in 1863, the entire revenue and financial receipts and disbursements of the State shall be in gold and silver coin.
Mr. KEEFER proposed to amend the amendment, by adding to this effect:
Provided, also, That the Treasurer of State shall, whenever in his opinion the interests of the State demand it, convert the bank notes in the treasury into gold and silver, by presenting them to the banks and demanding coin.
On motion by Mr. MURRAY, these were laid on the table.
Mr. PROSSER proposed to strike out from the 3d section these words:
"Or in the notes of specie-paying banks, regularly organized under the banking laws of this State."
Mr. DOUGHERTY supported, and Mr. Hunter opposed the amendment.
Mr. ROBINSON proposed to strike out only the words: "Regularly organized under the banking laws of this State."
Mr. PROSSER moved to lay Mr. Robinson's amendment on the table, but withdrew for -
Mr. DAVIS. He liked the feature of these bills looking to the security of the public funds, but they went a little too far. Any money the laboring poor received for their toil was good enough for the financial purposes of the State. The last amendment proposed the range of the specie-paying banks of the country. He deprecated distinction as to currency between the public officers, and those who created them; and he gave examples such as the general soundness of Kentucky currency, circulating very freely in his portion of the State, &c.
Mr. HARNEY. It was not an issue here between gold and rags, but between places of deposits - whether it should be the treasurer's vault, or in scattered certificates of deposit. He showed the propriety of receiving the notes of banks organized under the banking laws of the State. We have no control of banks outside of the State, &c.
Mr. MURRAY considered the argument for taking only the paper authorized by the laws of the State, and gave his opinion that no distinction should be made between specie-paying banks, within or without the State.
Mr. GIFFORD thought the bill was all that should be demanded now, in this matter.
Mr. KEEFER said we knew the condition of our own banks better than that of the banks of New England. The bank men were afraid of the 19th section, authorizing the Treasurer to draw specie or exchange on New York for the semi-annual interest on the State debt.
Mr. TURPIE submitted his reflections on the whole subject - arguing from various considerations that there was no necessity for the enactment of this batch of bills. He alleged that the financial system of Indiana had not, in all the State's history, been subjected to as great losses page: 190[View Page 190] as had been sustained within a few years back by our neighboring States - Ohio, Illinois and Kentucky - under the system of checks, which gentlemen desired by these bills to foist upon the State of Indiana. He objected to the bill, because the State could not authorize any currency beside hard money for public receipts and disbursements; because, by it, the County Commissioners may prescribe what currency shall be receivable for revenue. The Legislature could not delegate such a power, either to the officers of the State or of the county. They could not delegate a power not possessed by themselves. The State and the Bank, like the State and the Church, were too nearly related to be married together; and yet this bill proposed to effect this by an indirection - by authorizing the public officers to prescribe what bank currency shall be receivable and payable for the public revenues. It would made the banks reckless. The banks and the brokers would rejoice together upon its passage. The bill was over fraught with evil results, &c. He spoke at length.
Mr. HARNEY replied. The Ohio defalcation to which the gentleman had referred, took place before the passage of their present financial system. The Treasurer of State had heretofore determined what currency he would take. And if the Treasurer, why not the Legislature? At present, the revenues are put into the bank, for bankers to bank on and make gain; and the people were to make good all the losses. Certainly it was time for reform in this, &c.
Mr. TURPIE spoke again This bill would lock up annually at least $800,000 of the bank currency of the State. It would have a tendency to inflate the currency; to induce unhealthy speculations. He desired that the business of the Bank ot the State should be well conducted; but not that the Legislation of the State should bend unduly to favor it.
Mr. DOUGHERTY was disposed to meet the bill in the spirit of compromise, and in this spirit he had submitted his amendment for a gradual approach to a system of receiving and disbursing the public revenues in hard money. But this, with the amendment of the gentleman from Johnson, were voted down by a decided majority He differed with she gentleman from Johnson, that the banks feared this bill. No better bill could be prepared to please the money lords ot the State. He would not nurse these banks by the passage of this bill, but rather legislate unfavorably to them. He sketched what he understood to be an independent treasury.
Mr. SMITH, of Perry, replied to Mr. Turpie. He rehearsed the steps of the investigation of the State officers, by way of showing the reason why these bills were not reported at an earlier date. As to its result, it was the first statement of the Treasurer's office that could be understood. It showed a loss to the State of $107,000. He made no charge against the administration of the State Treasurer, but that the system of book keeping was wrong. He also considered the system of accounts in the Auditor's office, and the system of Governor's and Secretary's perquisites, demanding the reforms proposed in these bills These investigations he understood to bethe peculiar duty of the Committee on Ways and Means. The system proposed in these bills was copied principally from Ohio. It was forced upon that State by the Breslin and Gibson frauds; and it was proposed to correct similar evils here, though, of course, far less in magnitude and amount. When he had concluded -
The House, at five o'clock, adjourned.
