IN SENATE.
THURSDAY, February 24, 1859.On motion, by Mr. GREEN, the reading of the journal was dispensed with.
Mr. CARNAHAN, from the Finance Committee, returned his bill 53, with an amendment, recommending its passage.
Mr. CARNAHAN opposed the amendment, and hoped the Senate would not concur in the report.
The bill and report were laid on the table.
Mr. SLACK, from the Judiciary Committee, returned the bill (H. R. 142), authorizing the payment, by County Commissioners, of damages sustained by ministerial officers in enforcing the Maine Law, recommending its passage.
Mr. HEFFREN gave notice that be should vote against it from beginning to the ending.
The report was not concurred in.
Mr. ANTHONY offered a substitute for the bill, and spoke in explanation thereof as follows :
page: 243[View Page 243]Mr. President: - The amendment which I have just offered, to the bill as reported from the committee, makes provision for an indemnity to those who have innocently become victims to the liquor law of 1855, declared by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional. But the bill as reported, leaves it discretionary with the "Board of County Commissioners" to allow and direct the payment of any losses out of the County Treasury. The amendment proposes to make the payment out of the State Treasury, when the matter has been adjudicated upon, and determined by the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction. The amendment is introduced because I believe it to be grossly unjust to impose upon the counties the payment of losses caused by the negligent act ot the State in passing, through the instrumentality of the Legislature, an unconstitutional act; the resulting losses were caused by the State, and the State ought to pay them.
Again, it is right and just that those who suffered while executing the process of the court, issued under a law supposed to be constitutional, should be paid. The reported bill leaves it discretionary with the County Commissioners to pay them out of the County Treasury. Now, it is hardly possible that the people of any county would submit to having this discretion exercised by the County Board, or that the Board would exercise it, if they did. Hence I am clearly satisfied the original bill would contribute nothing at all in affording the relief designed.
Mr. BENNETT was opposed to the resolution, but should vote for the bill as reported from the committee.
Mr. HEFFREN was opposed to the report of the committee.
Mr. McLEAN hoped the bill would pass.
The substitute was rejected yeas 19, nays 25, as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Anthony, Blair, Brown, Cravens, Craven, Culver, Green, Hargrove, Heffren, Hendry, Hill, McClure, Odell, Rice, Shoemaker, Steele, Thompson, Turner and Wagner - 19.
NAYS - Messrs. Beeson, Bennett, Bobbs, Carnahan, Cobb, Conley, Conner, Gooding, Hamilton, Jennings, Johnston, Kinley, Line, Lomax, McLean, March, Miller, Murray, O'Brien, Robinson, Slack, Stevens, Studabaker, Williams and Wilson - 25.
Mr. MARCH should vote with the understanding that the bill is intended to affect only certain localities.
Mr. McLEAN moved that the bill be read the third time now.
The motion was rejected, by yeas 21, nays 23.
The bill passed to a third reading.
Mr. GOODING presented a petition requesting permission to occupy the Senate Chamber during the ensuing recess of the Legislature, by the Cumber and Presbyterian Church on the Sabbath days; which was referred to Senators Murray, Gooding and Bobbs.
Mr. WILLIAMS, from the Committee on Roads, to which was referred a petition from Franklin township, Johnson county, praying the passage of a law authorizing roads to be run on township lines; recommending that it lie on the table. The report was concurred in.
Mr. JONES, from the Committee on Claims, to which was referred the petition of Messrs. Sage, Alexander and Suit, asking an allowance of $200 each, as pay for their services in visiting New York City to examine the books of agent of State, in obedience to a resolution of the Senate at the session two years ago; reported that the $100 each already received, is amply sufficient.
Mr BEESON, from the Agricultural Committee, returned Mr. Cravens' bill 238, recommending its passage. The bill was ordered to he engrossed.
Mr. WILLIAMS, from the same committee returned the bill H. R. 104 with amendments, recommending its passage. The bill was ordered to be engrossed.
Mr. BLAIR, from the Committee on County and Township Business, returned Mr. March's bill 208, recommending passage. The report was not concurred in, and the bill was ordered to be engrossed.
Mr. HAMILTON offered a joint resolution (14) asking our Representatives in Congress to use their influence to procure copies of works of interest for the Indiana Historical Society.
The resolution was passed by yeas 39, nays 0.
On motion by Mr. BENNETT, the Divorce bill (H. R. 93) was taken up, and the Senate insisted upon its amendment.
On motion by Mr. HEFFREN, bills were taken up on their third reading.
Mr. Conner's (55), to make uniformity in all legal publications, was passed by yeas 43, nays 0.
Mr. Hill's (57) was recommitted to the Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. Wagner's (59) was laid on the table.
Mr. Wallace's (46) to amend section 4 of the act establishing the office of Attorney General, was passed by yeas 37, nays 0.
Mr. Jones' (64) to render public officers competent to testify as witnesses in cases brought by them on relation to the State, was passed by yeas 35, nays 2.
Mr. Turner's (67) requiring Superintendents of State Asylums to report the number of patients who are offspring of parents married within the degrees of consanguinity, was passed by yeas 41, nays 0.
Mr. McLean's (68) to amend section 9 of the act, providing for the election of Judges of Circuit Courts, approved June 7, 1852, was passed by yeas 44, nays 0.
Mr. Heffren's (70) was recommitted, with instructions to strike out section 5.
Mr. O'Brien's (73) to provide for the collection of taxes against lands and lots mortgaged and secured to the public and trust funds, and to repeal section 8, chapter 6 of the Revised Statutes of 1852; was passed by yeas 43 nays 2.
Mr. Tarkington's (62) providing for the sale of ands belonging to the Indiana University, was passed by yeas 38, nays 7.
On motion by Mr. RICE, Mr. Wagner's bill (187) creating six additional branches of the Bank of the State of Indiana; was passed by yeas 29, nays 19 - as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Anthony, Beeson, Bennett, Blair, Brown, Conner. Cooper, Cravens, Craven, Culver, Green, Hamilton, Heffren, Hill, Johnston, Jones, McLcan, Miller, Murray, Odell, Rice, Shoemaker, Steele, Stevens, Studabaker, Tarkington, Thompson, Turner and Wagner - 29.
page: 244[View Page 244]NAYS - Messrs. Bobbs, Carnahan, Cobb, Conley, Gooding, Hargrove, Hendry, Jennings, Kinley, Line Lomax, McClure, March, O'Brien, Robinson, Slack, Williams and Wilson - 19.
Mr. SHOEMAKER makes the following explanation of his vote:
Sir: Availing myself of the permission of the Senate to give some of the reasons for the vote which I shall give upon this question, I will say that while I would, under no consideration, have voted for the creation of a bank of issue, yet I am satisfied, after mature and careful consideration, that the bill in question ought to pass, and that I should lose sight of the true interest o the people of the State it I should cast my vote against the measure.
The Bank of the State was created by act of the General Assembly of 1855. Subsequently the validity of the charter was tested in the judicial tribunals of the State, and by both the Inferior and Superior Courts the act of incorporation has been pronounced valid. At the present Session an attempt was made to repeal the charter - I voting for the repeal, but the proposition failed, and the bans has now, by both legislative and judicial recognition become an established institution, to continue in existence for the next nineteen years. It would, therefore, be useless: to make, for the present, any additional war upon it, and in that view I take it to be the duty of good legislators to procure such practicable advantages and guards from the bank as may better protect the interests of the people.
The bill in question contains two propositions:
1. An increase of branches.
2. The right of municipal taxation.
It will be observed that it gives no authority for an increase of capital, or an increase of issues, but simply provides that the capital already authorized and judicially recognized shall be better distributed throughout the State.
Unlike the free banks, the security of the holders of the notes of the Bank of the State is in the mutual responsibility of the several branches. If one branch becomes unable to meet its liabilities, then each and all are bound for every deficit. Each additional branch gives to the note holders an additional indorsement or renewed security. The extension of the branches is our only safety against fraud and against insolvency. It is said by the friends of the bank that the people will derive advantage by an increase of places for a secure money deposit, and where money can be obtained by discounts; but of this I will say nothing, because upon this branch of the bill the reason of my vote is that the branches might be extended to other reliable business localities, so as to extend the security of the note holder.
The act of incorporation exempted the bank from municipal taxation, and that exemption has been pronounced by the courts to be constitutional. I believe the exemption to be an out rage upon, and violation of the rights of the people, but it h now too late to contend against that provision. I he exemption is res adjudicata. Our only remedy is by an amendment, and it is that which I voted for.
The Branch at New Albany has a capital of $200,000, and the municipal taxes are about one and a half per centum per annum, making the bank tax for that city, under the bill in question, about $3,000 per annum, or $57,000 for the nineteen years; and the taxes for the other cities and towns where the branches are located are in a similar proportion. The whole bank municipal taxation under the bill can not be much less than $25,000 per annum, or nearly one-half million of dollars for the term of the charter, in addition to the ordinary assessments for grading and paving. And when the question is put, as it has been put by the present measure, as a legislator I can not, on account of my personal hostility to banks, overlook the palpable interests of the people of the several cities and towns of the State, but am constrained by reason of these considerations to vote for the bill.
Mr. STUDABAKER made the following explanation of his vote:
Mr. President - I desire to say in relation to this bill that I shall vote for it, believing it will be as amended, for the best interests of the State. It will have the effect to compel the bank to pay tax on her capital and real estate as individuals pay on their capital and real estate. As the law now stands they pay no corporation tax, and some of the branches so construe the law as to require the individual stock-holders to pay the tax; and many of them being non-residents pay no tax at all. The amendment will compel the bank to pay the tax, and will largely increase the taxable property of the State. And inasmuch as the bill does not increase the capital stock, but permits the removal of a part of the capital of the bank as now constituted, to a more favorable location, in my opinion, the advantages to the people from a fair taxation, will more than compensate for any additional advantages given. I vote for the bill.
Mr. ODELL makes the following explanation of his vote: Mr. President, I vote for this bill for the reason that, if accepted by the Bank Directors, the charter will be so amended that the stock of the bank will be taxable for all purposes the same as other property. The establishment of the additional branches will in no wise increase its capital, but merely permit a change of capital to other localities.
Mr. Johnston's (75) to amend sections 9 and 20 of an act, regulating fees of officers, approved March 2, 1855, failed by yeas 15, nays 30.
On motion by Mr. SLACK, the Wabash and Erie Canal bill (212), described on page 179 of these Reports, was taken up.
On motion by Mr. WILLIAMS, the 5th section was struck out by consent.
Mr. MILLER demanded the previous question.
There being a second, under its operation the bill was passed by yeas 26, nays 20, as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Bobbs, Carnahan, Conley, Conner, Cravens, Culver, Green, Hamilton, Hargrove, Heffren, Hill, Line, McLean, March, Miller, Murray, Odell, Rice, Slack, Steele, Stevens, Studabaker, Tarkington, Turner, Wagner and Williams - 26.
NAYS - Messrs. Anthony, Beeson, Bennett, Blair, Brown, Cobb, Craven, Fisk, Gooding, Bendry, Jennings. Johnston, Jones. Kinley, Lomax, McClure, O'Brien, Robinson, Thompson and Wilson - 20.
Mr. CRAVENS makes the following explanation of his vote: I vote for this bill in its present-shape, for the reason that I regard the bill now page: 245[View Page 245] as powerless for harm, and as the representatives of those counties immediately interested in the preservation of the canal are satisfied that it will benefit them without involving the State or trespassing upon the treasury. The bill now only empowers the Trustees to lease out the canal, in whole or in part, upon the express condition that the stockholders in said canal give their consent that it may he so used.
Mr. CULVER makes the following explanation of his vote: This, to the people that I represent, is a very important bill. Every grain producer in the valley would be affected materially by any legislation that would assist to sustain the canal. It is, and if properly maintained will ever be, the cheapest thoroughfare to transmit our grain to the great markets of the country. I have two objects in view in giving the vote that I will upon this question. The first is to avoid any legislation that will make liable the State for any amount of the debt that the bondholders canceled in favor of the State when they agreed to take the work and complete it. If the bond holders made a bad bargain, and find that the consideration they voluntarily agreed to take has not proved a profitable investment, it is a misfortune to them, in which the State of Indiana is not responsible. I will favor no legislation, directly or indirectly, that will obligate the tax payers of this State to pay anything to the owners of the canal. They have received what the Butler bill gave them in a contract of their own creating. Let them reap the rewards or punishments of their own voluntary acts. The other object I have in view is to favor legislation that, 'in the event the bondholders abandon the canal -which I can hardly believe they will-that it can be leased out to parties that will sustain it - allowing the same power that regulates the tariff or tolls that now exist with State and bondholders to remain unimpaired. This will guard any extortionate rate of tolls or retsts from being made by any company or corporation that might lease the canal or any part of it. This is one of the features of this bill now under consideration. This bill merely proposes to the bondholders to lease out the canal, or giving them the power so to do, without, changing any other relation of importance. With this explanation, I vote for the bill.
Mr. LINE makes the following explanation of his vote:
Mr. President: I feel bound, as a Senator, to cast my vote on any and all occasions for any measure that will afford relief to any portion of the citizens of the State, if I can do so without compromising my convictions of right, or without violating my avowals on the subject. Every Senator on this floor will bear me witness with what freedom and frankness I have stated that I would in no way cast a single vote that in its remotest result would involve the State in any liabilities to the canal. I have given the bill as scrutinizing examination as I was capable of doing, and I conclude that by no possible implication or construction, however arbitrary or forced, that any liability can possibly accrue to the State, and in this opinion l am backed by that of the Attorney General on that subject, whose opinion is published at length in to-day's Sentinel. The proposition is a plain, simple one, and it proposes to give the Trustees of the canal, by and with the consent of the bond-holders power to lease the canal to any person or persons,or corporation, that will keep the same in repair or in navigable order, and a forfeiture works to the person or persons, or corporation, if they fail to keep up the same If the bond-holders do not assent to the propositon, the law is wholly inoperative, and the Senators from the counties through which the canal runs say that under the rights given to the Trustees under this law, that the canal can be kept, up; and hoping their anticipations may be fully realized under the law, I shall vote for the bill. I vote aye.
Mr. TARKINGTON makes the following explanation of his vote:
I cannot at any time consent to give a vote that will in any way make the State liable for the debt of the canal. It is not, however, believed that this bill does create any liability in any manner whatever on the part of the State, but will be of immense value to a large portion of the taxpayers in the Valley of the Wabash, and on the line of the canal; and without such an act as this, the canal must be abandoned to the great injury of many citizens of this State. All the provisions of the bill are made upon the express condition that they are asserted to by the bond holders and other persons interested in the trust, without changing the liability of the State to them in any respect whatever.
Mr. JOHNSTON, from the Committee on Claims, returned the memorial or D. O. Daily, claiming per diem and mileage for contesting the seat of Leroy Woods, the Senator from Clark, at the last regular session; reporting that he is not entitled to the claim
On motion of Mr. STEVENS, all that relates to the trip to Greencastle was striken out.
Mr. SLACK strenuously objected to the report, for Mr. Daily was a very respectable constituent of his.
Mr. WAGNER introduced a bill (249), for the formation of new counties, and providing for the organization thereof, and on his motion the rules were suspended, the bill read the second lime and referred to a select committee of three.
Mr. STEELE introduced a bill (250), authorizing married women over 18 and under 21 years of age to unite with her husband in conveying and mortgaging real estate, where the wife has neither father nor mother residing in the State; which was read, under a suspension of the rules, the second time, and referred to the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. GOODING, from the Temperence Committee, returned his bill 95, Mr. Heffren's 96, Mr. Tarkington's 97, and Mr. Robinson's 98, recommending that they lie on the table. The report was concurred in.
AFTERNOON SESSION
On motion by Mr. WAGNER, his bill (85), to provide for a general system of common schools, and to establish county libraries, was taken from the table.
page: 246[View Page 246]On motion by Mr. KINLEY, the subject was postponed till to-morrow at 10 o'clock.
Mr. HEFFREN, by leave, returned from the select committee thereon his bill (70), supplemental to a county prison act, approved May 27, 1852, and to provide for the erection of workhouses, recommending passage.
The bill failed to pass by yeas 23, nays 17.
On motion by Mr. TARKINGTON, his bill (166), was made the special order for to-morrow, 2 o'clock.
On motion by Mr. COBB, Senate bills on third reading were then considered.
[Mr, SLACK, by leave, introduced a bill (251), supplemental to an act fixing the time of holding courts in the 1st Judicial Circuit, which was, under a suspension of the rules, read the second and third times, and passed by yeas 29, nays 7.]
Mr. Odell's bill (2), providing for the election of United States Senators, was passed by yeas 39, nays 5.
Mr. Green's (61), to separate the law books from the State Library and forming therefrom a State Law Library, as passed by yeas 43, nays 1.Mr. March's (68), repealing the act creating the office of Attorney General, failed to pass yeas 24, nays 19 - as follows :
YEAS - Messrs. Anthony, Beeson, Bennett, Blair, Bobbs, Brown, Conner, Cooper, Cravens, Craven, Culver, Green, Jones, Kinley, Line, March, Murray, Rice, Robinson. Steele, Stevens, Thompson, Turner and Wilson - 24.
NAYS - Messrs Carnahan, Cobb, Conley, Fisk, Hamilton, Hargrove, Heffren, Hendry, Jennings, Johnston, Lomax, McClure, Miller, O'Brien, Odell, Slack, Studabaker, Tarkington and Williams - 19.
On motion by Mr. CRAVEN, his bill (45) to provide compensation to owners of animals killed or injured by the cars, locomotives or carriages of any railroad company in this State, was taken from the table and passed by yeas 33, nays 7.
Mr. Turner's (58) to amend section 16 of an act for the government of the Hospital for the Insane, approved January 15, 1852, was passed, by yeas 36, nays 4.
Mr. Beeson's (78) to amend section 16 of an act concerning real property and the alienation thereof, approved May 6, 1852, failed to pass yeas 19, nays 21.
Mr. Lomax's (79) to extend the time of payment to purchasers of saline and school land, was passed, by yeas 39, nays 2.
Mr. Hargrove's (82) fixing the compensation of executors and administrators, was passed, by yeas 30, nays 11.
Mr. Anthony's (82) to amend section 196 of a law reform act, approved June 18, 1852, was passed, by yeas 41, nays 0.
Mr. McClure's (77) to amend section 18 of an net concerning real property and the alienation thereof, was passed, by yeas 40, nays 1.
The Committee on Agriculture's (94) changing the time of the annual meeting of the State Board of Agriculture, and allowing to district societies a delegate, was passed, by yeas 37, nays 0.
Mr. Conley's bill (99) was committed to Senators Conley, Wagner and Heffren.
Mr. Rice's (108) was recommitted to Senators March, Rice, Craven, Jones and Wilson.
Mr. Cooper's (110) to prohibit Clerks and their deputies from practicing law in the Courts in which they are Clerks and deputies, failed to pass - yeas 22, nays 16 - as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Bennett, Blair, Bobbs, Brown, Cobb, Conner, Cooper, Cravens, Craven, Green, Heffren, Hendry, Johnston, Kinley, Line, Lomax, March, Murray, O'Brien, Steele, Studabaker and Thompson - 22.
NAYS - Messrs Anthony, Beeson, Carnahan, Hamilton, Hargrove, Jennings, McClure, Miller, Odell, Rice, Robinson, Shoemaker, Slack, Stevens, Williams and Wilson - 16.
The Committee on Education's (114) to authorizing the State Board of Education to purchase and place in the county and township libraries, bound copies or the Indiana School Journal, failed to pass - yeas 23, nays 13.
And then the Senate adjourned.
