REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Mr. ORR, from the Committee on page: 106[View Page 106] Rights and Privileges of the Inhabitants of the State, returned the resolution for a law excluding negroes and mulattoes from the common schools, and excluding them from giving testimony in any cause in which a white person is interested, with the expression of opinion that further legislation on these subjects is unnecessary[see laws of 1853, page 60 : 1855, page 161.]
The report was concurred in.
Mr. HORD, from the same committee, returned Mr. Holcomb's bill [25] to repeal the with amendments; together with sundry wild game laws, with a recommendation that the same be indefinitely postponed.
Mr. FISHER moved that the report be concurred in.
Mr. DOBBINS trusted the House would not indefinitely postpone the bill. The wild game law. it was known, was not respected in the south part of the State; and the author of the bill not being present, he moved to lay the report on the table.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr, LEE, from the same committee, returned Mr. Atkisson's bill [49] to prevent hogs running at large without a ring in the nose, with a recommendation that the same be indefinitely postponed.
The report was concurrred in.
Mr. HORD, from the same Committee, returned the petition of sundry citizens of Orange county, asking for a repeal of the new county act of 1857, and amendments thereto, with a recommendation that it lie on the table.
The report was concurred in.
Mr. PROSSER, from the same Committee, returned the resolution for regulating the width of wagons, reporting legislation inexpedient.
The report was concurred in.
Mr. PROSSER, from the same Committee on the same subject, returned Mr. Cameron's bill, [26] and Mr. McClurg's bill, [40] together with resolutions to amend the 3d and 4th sections of the wild game law, and in lieu thereof, reported a new bill, [102] to amend the 3d and 4th sections of said law of February 26, 1857-[changing the time of protection of quails and pheasants from the "1st of January to the 1st of October," to from "1st of March to the 1st of October;" and changing the time for the protection of prairie hens from the "1st of January to the 1st of August," to from the "1st of March to the 1st of October."
The bill was passed to the second reading.
Mr. ORR, from the same Committee, returned the resolution for excluding negroes and mulattoes from the schools, and reported legislation unnecessary, with a reference to the act of 1855. p. 161, sec. 1.
The report was concurred in.
Mr. GROVER, from the Committee on County and Township Business, returned the resolution for amendment of the law relative to the construction of bridges over streams of water dividing counties, so as to make the tax rest equally on each county, with a new bill, [102] to provide for the erection and pair of bridges over streams forming the boundary line between two counties; to repeal a portion of the act of 1855, and the 4th section of the act of May 12, 1852, on this subject.
The bill was passed to the second reading.
Mr. PROSSER, from the same Committee reported back Mr. Nebeker's bill, [39] to authorize the formation of new counties, &c., with amendments; together with sundry petitions on the same subject, recommending that the petitions lie on the table, that the bill with the proposed amendments, pass.
Mr. NEBEKER moved that the House concur in the amendments and that the bill be ordered to be engrossed.
Mr. FRASIER stated that the amendments proposed by the Committee, were merely verbal, with one exception, and he supposed that was a clerical error in the bill. It was to strike out the word "smallest' and insert the word "largest" in the case of the provision that the new county shall remain for representative and judicial purposes, attached to that county from which the "largest" portion was taken.
Mr. FISHER proposed further to amend the bill, by adding a section to the effect, " That all proceedings that may have been commenced heretofore for the formation of new counties be continued and finally settled under the laws now in force and according to the provisions thereof."
Mr. HENRICKS moved to lay the amendment on the table.
Mr DOBBINS-to lay the bill and all the amendments on the table.
Mr. McLEAN demanded a division of the question.
And, thereupon, the amendments were severally laid on the table, without a division, and the bill was tabled by yeas 47, mays 42.
Mr. PROSSER moved to reconsider this vote. This bill would repeal an act which was got through the Legislature at the last session either by mistake or fraud. He gave incidents to show this. That act gave the people of three or for counties cornering together (if there be 200 square miles) the right to form a new county without the consent of the balance of the people of said counties. He showed how this would operate injuriously, as in cases where counties have subscribed railroad stock. He hoped this bill would not be laid on the table. He was satisfied that the House was voting with no proper understanding of the vote it was giving, and hence he had voted affirmatively that he might move its re-consideration. The present law was passed by the last General Assembly either by fraud, or by mistake as to the character of its provisions. It allows the formation of a new county of 200 square miles, and gives the right to the inhabitants in it to separate themselves page: 107[View Page 107] from the counties to which it had been attached, without their consent. Thus, a mere majority in such territory may declare that a new county shall be created. As an instance f the gross injustice which such a law may lead to, he would refer to the county of Montgomery. It has contracted a debt of $100,000 for the building of a railroad, and under the present law, a portion of its citizens may relieve themselves from any liability, without the consent of the rest of the county. A law, thus interfering with important existing obligations should not remain in force.
Mr. LANE said that the bill before the House so changed the law that the question of a new comity was referred to the people of the whole county. The character of the law as it now is has been shown by the situation in which Montgomery county may be placed, and it exhibits a kind of secession, not unlike that at Cannelton, where it is proposed to change the course of the Ohio river, sc that the county of Perry may be attached to the State of Kentucky. The law confers the power upon a majority of one only, of the district out of which the new county is to be made, to form such new county, utterly regardless of the situation in which it may place the old county, or the inconvenience to which it may subject the minority of its own citizens. Thus it is proposed to make a new county from Putnam and Montgomery, requiring citizens of Putnam, living within eight miles of Greencastle, the county seat, to go fifteen miles to the couuty seat of the proposed new county.
That the law of last session had been wrongfully parsed, is seen from the fact that but one of its Representatives knew that such an act had been passed. A law of this kind consults the interests of certain localities and individuals only, but disregards the wishes and rights of the masses. Such individuals are untiring in the accomplishment of their purposes, and succeed, because the masses, being unsuspecting, take no steps to prevent what they do not anticipate.
Mr. CAMERON remarked that he was satisfied the House did not understand the vote it had just given. The law of the last session is based on secession, and such a principle he resisted in whatever form it presented itself. Thus, under its provisions, Michigan City, having received the location of the new Prison, desired to become a county seat, and for this purpose proposed to form a new county from the territory of Laporte and Porter. But to get even so small a territory as two hundred square miles, it counted as land the overflowed land by the lake in Porter-a territory that could never yield a revenue from taxation, however much it might yield in the shape of fish. Not only this injustice was attempted, hut it would have cut off four railroads from i Porter county. Such is the operation of the law of last session, and the injustice to which it leads. Its principle, as he had already said, was that of secession-one that he despised under all circumstances. Had the members known, therefore, that the vole just given was calculated to retain in force such a law, he knew that the vote would have been very different, and that it would now be reconsidered.
Mr. BUNDY explained his course. He had voted to lay the bill on the table, because it made radical changes in the law of last session, and such changes ought not to be made but upon deliberation. The act of last session was wrong. He would oppose any law calculated to create small counties, for there were always discontented spirits desirous of change, and who would not hesitate to increase public expense by the formation of such counties. All the people of the counties had an interest in preventing such increase, and hence the law should refer to the decision of all questions pertaining to the formation of new counties.
Mr. CRAIN said that the county he represented, Parke, had 441 square miles, and an attempt had been made to take off the 41 square miles, the Constitution preventing any greater amount from being taken away. No regard was otherwise had to the rights and interests of the old counties, for if that territory had been taken, it would have left that county with seven corners to it. and its school districts disarranged, and other interests affected. It would have increased the expense of the county government also. It would have taken from it a bridge which cost the county 10,000, and given it to those who would not have had to contribute to the erection of others. If the provision of the Constitution, preventing counties from being reduced below 400 square miles, was correct, it was not right to make, by law, counties containing not more than half this amount. The House should well consider its action before it consents that our old county organizations shall be broken up by a law so much calculated to do so.
Mr. COLLINS, of Whitley, could not concur in these views. The law was two fold, part providing for change of boundary lines between the counties, and part referring to the formation of new counties. Adjoining counties were often so situated that it becomes necessary to take a portion from one county and add it to another. Whitley, for instance, was a small county, and Allen a large one, and and a portion of the latter desired to be annexed to Whitley. His county had managed its affairs prudently, but Allen badly, and to escape its heavy taxation made the change desirable. If a proposition to allow such change has to be submitted to the vote of the whole of Allen, it would never receive its assent, and thus a part of the county, not benefitted by the county expenditures, be made to bear their burden.
Mr. STOTSENBERG said he had no local page: 108[View Page 108] interest in the vote given. Floyd was a small county, and therefore not to be affected by the law under discussion. He had given his vote to lay the bill on the table, because he was opposed to hasty changes. He approved, too, of the amendment proposed by Mr. Fisher, and although the act of 1859 might, have been inconsiderately passed, yet proceedings under its provisions had been commenced in good faith, and such past action ought not to be broken down. It would not be good faith on our part to do this. But he did not desire the bill before the House to be laid on the table: he would prefer to see it referred to the Judiciary Committee, to have the legal questions arising under its provisions, examined.
Mr. PACKARD said that when the vote was being taken, he did not understand the question, but had changed his vote. The present law led to oppression. Elkhart county was very greedy to get half of one of the best townships of the counts he represented. But the law, as it now is, may lead to great injustice in .other ways. A new county might be formed under its provisions out of St. Joseph, Marshall and Starke,at Walkerton, where these counties come together, but while the new county would be nearly square, it would leave the old counties in a marred condition. Is it right to thus injure the old counties, without giving them a voice in acts so seriously affecting them ? The bill now before the House is a good one; the present law is oppressive,and he wanted the bill passed.
Mr. FISHER remarked that he had no objection to the reconsideration of all the votes that had just been taken. He desired that the bill and all the amendrnsnts might go to the Judiciary Committee, for it could best con-consider and act upon all the rights which may have accrued under the provisions of the law.
Mr. FRASIER thought that the saving clause embraced in the amendment of Mr. Fisher was to keep in force all the past iniquity of the law. It seemed to him very clear that the law had been passed without a proper understanding of its character, for its general effects must be productive of bad results, and these should be at once cut off. The House had been referred to the cases of Allen and Whitley counties, to show the necessity of retaining certain provisions of the law. The remedy for the grievances of the people of Allen is not in breaking away from that county and going to Whitley, but in the election of better officers to manage their county affairs. For their grievances have been occasioned by the corruption and fraud that have prevailed in the management of the county affairs. If the law of last session was passed in bad faith, he could not see how any proceedings under it could be such as the House should protect. If now we refuse to pass this bill, we cannot allow the law to remain unrepealed. As to the squatter sovereignty which is said to bethe principle of this law, he believed it to b under all circumstances, a humbug.
Mr. SMITH, of Bartholomew, said that he had voted to lay the bill on the table, but he did not understand the true nature of the vote he had given. The county of Bartholomew had been threatened with division under the present law, and he was in favor of having it changed.
Mr. GRESHAM said that the law now in fore needed amendment. It should require the majority of all parties effected by the proposed change to be had. It might be true that little Floyd had no particular interest in the law, bacause it was so small that it could not be constitutionally made less, but still it might like very well to have a township of Harrison county annexed to it.
Mr. DOBBINS said that Martin and Daviess counties had a suit now pending about a portion of territory two miles wide and about thirty long, which it was proposed to take from Daviess. This annexation was opposed in the Eastern part of Martin, for if annexed a difficulty would then arise about the removal of the county seat of Martin. The principles of the law are wrong, but still he was unwilling that existing actions under the law should be destroyed without an examination, and hence he had voted to lay the bill on the table, until such examination could be made. He thought that the bill repealed the second section of the law of 1857, and he objected to this. But his main objection to it was that it contained no saving clause under which acts commenced might be completed.
Mr. NEWMAN said that in voting to lay the bill on the table, he did so because he did not understand its provisions, and he sought time to examine it. But the discussion upon it had satisfied him that it was right, and that the present law was a bad one. It leads to disorganization of the counties by inviting secession of parts of them, and such a law could not be otherwise than bad.
Mr. CASON thought that it should be presumed that the last General Assembly knew what they were doing in the passage of the present law. Various questions were now connected with it, and we ought not, hastily, to destroy it. There were two sides to this, as well as other matters. The opposition to it came from the old counties, and their general interests are opposed to any change, however much demanded by local wants. We ought to inquire whether any invested rights existed. It seems to be presumed that what the people had done under its provisions was fraudulent upon others, but no such presumption should be made. The case of Montgomery county had been referred to, but it had not been fully stated. A railroad tax had been levied there for ten years on all the property of the county, whilst the road passes through a portion only of it. The benefit had resulted chiefly to that portion, yet the burden had to be borne by page: 109[View Page 109] those who were very indirectly benefitted. Now a portion of the county, not so benefitted seeks to form a new county, but those benefitted object. Is this right, or has anything been done under the law by them, which may justly be complained of by those now objecting?
Mr. WOODHULL said he was not directly . interested in the provisions of the bill. He was fortunate in coming from a county [Steuben] which, being the center of the world there, was not troubled with dissatisfaction about evils. But the bill had not been explained, and from the reading he could not understand the bearing of its provisions. In future, he would advise gentlemen who were interested in bills to explain them, that all might be prepared to vote.
Mr. ATKISSON said that he had voted against the bill because it contained no saving clause to protect actions now commenced under the law.
Mr. PROSSER was opposed to recommitting the bill. The House was now ready to vote understandingly. He was opposed to all saving clauses, for they would protect a few who vere engaged in robbing thousands. He was satisfied that the law of last session had been passed by fraud, and he was ready to change it.
Mr. EDSON was opposed to the law because he opposed the formation of counties having so small a territory as 200 square miles. The Constitution prohibits the old counties from being reduced below 400 square miles, and it must have done so upon the conviction that it was inexpedient to form smaller counties. He thought, then, this provision had reference to future as well as to existing counties. The law, too, leads to a repudiation of debts by a part of the people of the counties.
Mr. NEBEKER closed the debate. He desired that the bill he had introduced should be examined. As to the act of 1857, it was so drawn up as to be susceptible of almost any number of constructions. The lawyers had given it three different legal constructions. The late Attorney General thought that under it the counties could exchange territories. The law of last session led to such proceedings that a portion of one county could, against its wishes, be transferred to another county. His own county presented a case of such injustice. Fountain wants to enforce a portion of Warren county, where he resided, to annex to them, and so well known was their hostility to the change, that the county commissioners of Warren would not recive a petition from them on the subject. A suit, by mandamus, is now pending against them, and it was the purpose of this bill to save such proceedings ? As for himself, he wished to have nothing to do with Fountain. He loved Warren all over, and he didn't want to be made to secede from it. To show how gross injustice might be done under the law of the last session, he would ask the member from Allen what could prevent a new county being formed out of 200 square miles, taken out of the center of Allen, with Fort Wayne for its center. Let us suppose such a county to be created, and if the member from Allen wants a name for it, he may call it Nebeker. (Laughter,) In that county centers the railroads for which Allen is so much indebted, yet this new county of Nebeker could not be called upon to contribute a cent towards this indebtedness, All around it, in a most circumlocutory form, is the old county of Allen, oppressed with a railroad debt, and the benefit of the roads taken from it, and enjoyed by those who are made free by the law from any obligation to pay their quota. Do we want a saving clause for such proceedings ? There is a principle of justice here that will carry this bill through the House.
The vote was reconsidered.
Mr. McCLURG now moved that the bill lay on the table, and that 200 copies be printed.
Mr. STOTSENBERG moved to refer it to the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. PROSSER moved to lay the motions to refer and to print on the table.
Mr. DOBBINS demanded a division of the question.
The House thereupon refused to print, and the bill was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Messrs. Orr, Frasier and Epperson were accorded leave of absence till next week.
