CONCEALED WEAPONS.
Mr. SMITH of Bartholomew, from the Committee on Rights and Privileges, returned Mr. Prosser's bill (63) To repeal the act against carrying concealed or dangerous weapons, of February 23, 1859, recommending indefinite postponement.
Mr. PROSSER had introduced this bill not. because the law as it now exists conflicts with his interests-living in a rural district amongst peaceable folks,but it had been suggested to him by others. There was but one point in it, and that was to take away the inequality of the operation of the existing law. A law-abiding citizen did not desire to carry these weapons whilst the short haired fraternity-the ''rounders," or what you please to call them, that ask no odds of the law, they carry weapons in spite of the law: And it was very seldom that you could get hold of such a man to punish him. Thus honest men were left at the mercy of this clan. This was the only point in his bill; the only question was whether the law ought to be repealed and place the business men on a level with the ruffian.
Mr. DOBBINS. The present law might receive amendments in regard to officers, and then he thought it might be better than this bill.
Mr. ORR. The very reasoning of the gentleman from Brown induced the the committee to report against his bill. We would not lagalize the carrying of weapons by the short-haired gentry.
Mr. HEFFREN. There should not be a law on the statute-book which is violated with impunity, as this law was. This was the way to excite contempt for all law. It was a law against public sentiment and public justice.
Mr. ROBBINS concurred with Mr. Heffren.
The House refused to concur in the report, and the bill was ordered to be engrossed.
Mr. SMITH, of Bartholomew, from the Committee on Rights and Privileges, returned the petition from sundry citizens of Madison for legislation against sheep-killing clogs, with a recommendation that, it may be referred to the Committee on Agriculture.
The petition was so referred.
CONVENTIONAL INTEREST.
Mr. SHERMAN, from the Committee on Rights and Privileges, returned Mr. Orr's bill [74,] to regulate interest on money, and repeal the act of May 27, 1852, with a recommendation that the same do pass.
Mr. HEFFREN moved that the report with the bill be indifinitely postponed.
Mr. DOBBINS referred to the bad influence of a conventional interest in the States of Wisconsin and Ohio. After a fair trial in both these States the producing and consuming classes petitioned numereously for its repeal, till it was accomplished. The same thing had been tried in this State, and now there was a compromise. If the merchant pays 10 per cent, for money to buy his goods, the consumer at last lias to pay it, in the increased price of the goods he consumes.
Mr. LANE. We should legislate for the greatest good of the greatest number. The rule would not allow us to legislate for capitalists. Look at the condition of any new State that has adopted such a law, like Iowa. It was like the condition of our own State when we had such a law, which resulted in the compromise on six per cent., stated by Mr. Dobbins.
Mr. PACKARD replied that he had discussed it before the people, and although he had no selfish interest to consult in the passage of the bill, he confessed that he felt much interest in its success. His constituents were largely in favor of this increase in the rate of interest. If petitions were circulated amongst thorn, there would be found fifty to one in its favor. The experience of our own and other States, which has been referred to by members, was not the result of a high rate of interest, but it was occasioned by deep-seated difficulties, arising from heavy State debts and taxes. He had, until a recent period, resided in Michigan, and there the ten per cent interest law had acted beneficially. He concurred in the position assumed by Mr. Heffren in the discussion relative to the law against carrying concealed weapons, that laws which were generally disregarded ought not to be continued in existence; and the existing law, limiting the rate of interest to six per cent., is constantly violated. The people will have money when their business wants demand it, be the law what it may. The necessity of a change in the law is more felt in the border counties than in other parts of the State. The northern counties are drained of their surplus cap page: 132[View Page 132]ital, because it is sent to the adjoining States, where it can find a higher interest. He would be the last man to legislate against labor, but this bill promotes its welfare as much as that of the capitalist. As to loans made by merchants from banks, and'the argument from them, he would reply by asking whether such loans can now be made for less than 10 or 12 percent? Since this is the rate of interest generally given, a change in the law will not result in actually increasing it. As to the experience of Iowa, it was not a ten per cent, interest law that caused its financial difficulties, but other causes. He had been written to by men who are not capitalists, to use every exertion to change the present law.
Mr. BUNDY. In order that every gentleman desirous of debate may have an opportunity, he moved that the report be laid on the table, and its further consideration made the special order for Thursday of next week, at 10 o'clock.
Mr. NEBEKER suggested that the bills on the subject be made the order at the same time.
Mr. BUNDY could not say that, because they were not here.
Mr. McLEAN saw no propriety in any extended discussion of this question. There were good arguments on both sides. At least one week of time was consumed ineffectually on this subject at each of the two last sessions. The change of the law, he thought, could not be made. He was willing to make it the special order, but expected no result.
Mr. HEFFREN understood the motion to lay on the table and make the special order.
Mr. Bundy's motion was agreed to, and the subject was made the special order for Thursday of next week.
Mr. LEE, from the Committee on Rights and Privileges, returned Mr. Heffren's bill [65,] to repeal the act touching gaming contracts, with a recommendation that the same be indefinitely postponed.
Mr. HEFFREN. That was another of the laws that was violated every day.
Mr. STOTSENBERG. It was true the Supreme Court had decided that the money could not be recovered from the winning party after it has been put over by the stake-holders. It refers to betting on games. The argument that the law was not respected, would be just as good against any law.
The report was concurred in.
Mr. McCLURG, from the same committee, returned the resolution requiring railroad association in this State to employ no engineer who cannot produce a certificate of qualifications, with a recommendation of indefinite postponement.
The report was concurred in.
EXTRA SERVICES OF SHERIFFS AND CLERKS.
Mr. McLEAN, from the Committee on Organization of Courts of Justice, returned Mr. Neheker'e bill [8] providing for allowance of compensation to clerks of the Circuit and Common Pleas Courts, and sheriffs for extra services, recommending passage.
Mr. NEBEKER explained that this bill was to restore the act of 1852, in relation to fees for extra services of sheriffs and clerks. The act of 1855 left such compensation to the commissioners. This bill will give fees to the clerks and sheriffs in all State cases where the State loses. This was a remedy which this House would never agree to in specific cases. It was to restore the act of 1852, an act which limited the extra pay to those officers. But in 1855, it was so changed that a "reasonable fee," in the discretion of the County Commissioners, was allowed, instead of a fixed sum. The consequence of this change was that, in Vermillion county, the demand of the Clerk for extra services was for $5,600. But it was resisted, and he came down step by step to $250. A reasonable allowance was no doubt fair in itself, but then similar regular services are made a standard by which to determine what is reasonable, and this would operate prejudicially to the interests of the people. To remedy this defect in the law of 1855, he had introduced an act at the last session, limiting the pay to $200 and the bill had passed the House with but one voting against it, and through the Senate with but two voting against it. It was not vetoed, and yet it was not on the statute book of the last session. How it was lost, he could not tell. But to remedy the evil of the law of 1855, he had introduced the bill reported back by the Committee. He gave examples to illustrate the justice of the bill. The committee reporting were opposed to the bill, till he furnished the facts.
Mr. HEFFREN looked upon the bill as a proposition to allow the Sheriff to put his hands deep into the county treasury. It was resolved by a convention of Sheriffs in this city lately that each one of them would see his representative about this bill. The law now admitted of $100 a year extra compensation, when voted by the commissioners, where the annual compensation does not exceed $1000. He had been informed of cases of abuse under the law of 1852, now proposed to be revived. One man had drawn $1600, another $1800, &c., for extra compensation.
Mr. NEBEKER. The bill provides that they can not have over $100 a year for extra services.
Mr. JENKINSON. The gentleman from Warren was correct, and the gentleman from Washington was wrong. It was the act of 1855 that opened the door for abuse.
Mr. EDSON understood the bill to put the limitation of compensation to $100.
Mr. HEFFREN. The gentleman from Warren made a different explanation.
Mr. BUNDY read the provision of the act of 1855 The object of the bill was to limit the allowance for extra services to $100. That page: 133[View Page 133] was a reasonable amount, and he hoped the bill would pass.
Mr. EDSON. Were the extra services to be paid for at the same rate as other official services?
Mr. McLEAN. $100 was to be in full for all services.
Mr. NEBEKER. They have to itemize the account, but they can receive no more than $100 a year for extra services.
Mr. EDSON. It includes clerks. His county commissioners had been in the habit of allowing $10 a quarter to the sheriff for extra service. He thought the bill right, but should propose to amend so as to allow the same for extra-official as for ordinary services. The commissioners may allow less, and the bill should be guarded against cutting down a fair compensation, &c.
Mr. HEFFREN moved to refer the bill to the Committee on the Judiciary. The first section says they shall receive but the $100. That it shall be for services for which the law prescribes no fee. He was afraid of the second section, that it would be open to the abuses under the act of 1855.
Mr. NEBEKER explained further.
Mr. HEFFREN. The specific fees were now fixed in the act of 1855, and this bill gives them $100 in addition.
Mr. NEBEKER. It was the same bill he introduced at the last session, which was entitled "An act to repeal the act of 1855, and restore the latter clause of the 20th section of the act of 1852," and in the same shape of that bill, except that that bill was amended so that the sheriff might have $200 a year for extra service.
Mr. JENKINSON thought the terms of the bill might be ambiguous, and it had better go to the Committee.
Mr. EDSON proposed to amend by adding appropriately these words: "Said officers to be paid for such extra-official services at the same rates as prescribed by law."The bill and proposed amendment were referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. ORR, from the Committee on Rights and Privileges, returned Mr. Black's bill [76,] to amend section 1 of the act of March 5, 1855, to authorize county recorders and surveyors to issue fee bills; recommending its passage.
Mr. O. said the only change was in allowing fee bills to their predecessors.
Mr. FISHER said a bill was carefully prepared, and would shortly be submitted, to remodel the law regulating county surveyors, and he thought that these propositions should be considered together by the same Committee.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed.
Mr. MOORMAN, from the Committe on Agriculture, returned Mr. Black's bill [46,] supplemental to the act regarding estrays articles adrift, approved June 16, 1852, with the expression of opinion that further legislation on this subject is unnecessary. The report was concurred in.
Mr. THOMPSON, from the Committee on Agriculture, returned the bill [64] in relation to fencing railroads, and stock killed on railroad routes, recommending passage.
On motion by Mr. HEFFREN, it was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
On motion by Mr. BUNDY, (the order of business being suspended for the purpose,) the Senate joint resolution in relation to the pending Federal difficulties, was taken up and ordered to the Committee of Thirteen.
STATE REVENUE.
On motion by Mr. PROSSER, (the order of business being again suspended,) the Senate joint resolution, directing the Treasurer of State to issue his circular to the several county treasurers, directing them to send up the State revenue in their hands by the 10th February, was taken up.
Mr. P. said, in his judgment, this was the best proposition to raise money, and he thought it might yield $60,000 or $70,000 at once.
Mr. PARRETT moved that the House concur.
Mr. BRANHAM would say that there is already such a law on the statute book, but unfortunately there is no penalty attached to it. Before the Committee on Ways and Means reported the bill providing for borrowing money, they made inquiry of the Auditor and Treasurer, and satisfied themselves that no money could be go? here in time by a call on the county treasurers. Almost all the money in the hands of these treasurers was loaned out till the third Monday in March. Pass this, and in the first place you will not get any money, and in the second place, if you do, you will not get it in time. We shall be obliged to pass some law for the replenishment of the Treasury, or we shall be obliged to stop. The system under which we have been doing business had made a custom which was equal to a law; and under that custom, about all the revenue of the State in the hands of the Treasurers was now out on loans till the time the law requires, them to sottle with the State Treasurer. The existing law authorizes the State Treasurer to call on the county treasurers whenever he needs money. But the county officers will make as much as they can out of it while it is in their hands. Some of this money had been loaned out in this town till April. We have been, for a long series of years, taxing the people for money, for the benefit of the men who handle it. The Warden of the State Prison had told him that he had not money to buy provisions; and the Treasury here was empty. This joint resolution provides no penalty. Then how much stronger or more effectual would it be than the law already on the statute book ? None at all. If they disregard the one, they will disregard the other.
page: 134[View Page 134]Mr. DOBBINS. It might be amended so that if they neglect or refuse to respond, they shall not be entitled to their fees. That was, perhaps, the most and the least that the Legislature ought to do in the case.
Mr. WOODHULL. A penalty might work a hardship, for a county treasurer could not well tell how much was in his hands till he came to settle.
Mr. BRANHAM. It was only a joint resolution, and could not have a penalty.
Mr. PACKARD. It might work hardship in cases where the revenue had been put into speculations in hogs.
Mr. BUNDY. The passage of this resolution would avail nothing. The revenue in the hands of the county treasurers was loaned out to their friends for banking purposes, or deposited for interest, &c.
Mr. DOBBINS. His county treasurer was not in the habit of loaning out the revenue. He kept it in his office; and a thief came along lately and stole about $2,600 of it.
Mr. BUNDY. It was a general rule. There might be exceptions, of course.
Mr. PROSSER was in favor of doing something to compel the revenue to come in. It was not a good proposition to borrow from the Sinking Fund, which, under the Constitution, was sacred to the schools. He was glad it had failed. He knew we could get some money under this resolution, and it could not, do any harm.
Mr. EDSON concurred with Mr. Branham that the passage of this resolution would do little good. In his region the people had not paid their taxes; and he apprehended there would be but little revenue, till the very last day of payment in March. He had voted against borrowing from the school fund. He did not know a better place to apply for this loan than the Bank of the State.
Mr. PARRETT expressed his astonishment to hear gentlemen make such statements-that the revenue of the State was in hogs, used for banking purposes, and stolen. The treasurers, in his region, would not lend out the revenue. If such was the case that the money of the State was loaned out-to the Bank of the State, that never accommodated anybody but speculators and railroad men, it was time this resolution was passed. Should the revenue of the State go to Toledo, Chicago and elsewhere,, whilst we were here unable to pay our board?
Mr. PACKARD was in favor of the resolution, with a penalty.
Mr. ATKISSON said his county treasurer was at all times ready to come up to the time. He was in favor of the resolution.
Mr. BRANHAM. The Senate had not yet defeated the bill sent there. He indicated that a bill with the needed penalties would be introudced here soon; and that the loan proposed in the Ways and Means bill in the Senate could not affect the distribution of the school money.
Mr. BLACK and Mr. McCLURG stated that their county treasurers would respond to the proposed Circular, and they were in favor of the resolution.
Mr. SMITH, of Bartholomew, made a similar statement with regard to Jacob Snyder the long-trusted and reliable Treasurer of his county.
Mr. CAMERON demanded the previous question, and there was a second.
The resolution was adopted by-yeas 61 nays 33.
YEAS-Messrs. Anderson, Atkisson, Black, Boydston Brett, Brucker, Cason, Collins of Whitley, Combs,' Cooprider, Grain, Dashiel, Davis, Dobbins, Edson, Epperson, Feagler, Ferguson, Fleming, Ford, Gifford, Gore, Haworth, Hayes, Holcomb, Hopkins, Horton, Howard, Hudson, Jones of Tippecanoe, Jones of Wayne, Kendrick, Kitchen, Knowlton, Lods, Lane, Lee, Lightner, McClurg, McLean, Moss, Mutz, Orr, Packard, Parrett, Prosser, Prow Piagan, Bobbins, Roberts, Sloan, Smith of Bartholomew' Smith of Miami, Stevenson, Stotsenberg, Trier, Underwood, Warrum Wells, Williams, and Woodhull,-61.
NAYS-Messrs. Bingham, Branham, Bryan, Bundy, Burgess, Cameron, Campbell, Collins of Adams, Fisher, Fordyce, Gresham, Hall, Harvey, Heffren, Henricks, Jenkinson Jones of Vermillion, Moody, Moorman, Nebeker, Newman, Owens, Pitts, Polk, Randall, Sherman, Thomas Thompson, Turner, Wilson, Woodruff, Woods, and Mr' Speaker-33.
On motion by Mr. CAMERON, (the order of business being suspended for the purpose,) the House took up the consideration of his order to suspend the rule for adjournment till the 10th of February, so as to require but one session a day.
On motion by Mr. HEFFREN, it was laid on the table.
Mr. JONES, of Vermillion, from the Select Committee thereon, reported his bill [51] to fix the times of the Circuit Court in the Eighth Circuit, recommending its passage,
The bill was ordered to be engrossed.
STATE REVENUE AGAIN.
Mr. JONES, of Tippecanoe, moved to reconsider the vote just taken, concurring in tho Senate joint resolution to call on the county treasurers for the State revenue.
Mr. Speaker ALLEN (Mr. Edson in the chair,) thought that the joint resolution had been concurred in without a proper estimate of its bearings on the rights of the House of Representatives. By the provisions of the State Constitution, all revenue bills come properly under the jurisdiction of our Committee on Ways and Means. They tendered to the Senate a bill for the purpose of raising money; and the Senate, instead of rejecting it, had laid it on the table, and sent back this proposition to raise money in a different way. One reason why he desired this reconsideration was, that he did not want to see the House pass any proposition tending to reflect on the Committee on Ways and Means. And he thought that the House should not, under any circumstances, resign prerogatives conferred by the Constitution. The Senate, instead of page: 135[View Page 135] concurring in the House bill, presents its own propositionthus directly arrogating to itself the right to originate a money bill.
Mr. PROSSER denied that it was either a proposition to raise money or to reflect on the Committee on Ways and Means. It was to get money out of hands where it was diverted from its legitimate purpose. He moved to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.
The motion was rejected.
Mr. HEFFREN raised the "point, that this resolution to raise revenue, not originating here, was not properly before the House.
The SPEAKER. The question is still on the motion to reconsider.
Mr. PARRETT was opposed to reconsideration. It was not a proposition to raise revenue but to notify officers that they had complied with the law. It was to wake up the State Treasurer to his duty under the law.
Mr. FISHER. The Governor had stated that the treasurer had made his call; but, there being no penalty, the call was disregarded.
Mr. PARRETT thought not. He cared nothing about the question of credit for originating the proposition.
Mr. NEBEKER. The county treasurers had not responded, because there was no penalty. The resolution would operate as a deception. It would postpone action. It would do no good. He hoped the motion would prevail.
Mr. FISHER felt assured that it would not only do no good, but harm, by preventing action that would be effectual.
On motion by Mr. BUNDY, the House took a recess till 2 o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. EDSON thought we were too much in the habit of re-consideration. True, it was right and proper to re-consider where there has been a mistake; but he saw none in this case, nor any reflection on the Committee on Ways and Means, or the House. It would not cut off the power of further legislation for needed revenue. It merely required the Treasurer of State to call for the revenue on the 10th of February. He believed the county treasurers would respond. There might not be very much revenue in their hands, but he thought there would be found enough for all purposes.
Mr. DOBBINS did not consider the Senate's action as reflecting at all on the House, or on the Committee of Ways and Means. Neither was it a measure to raise revenue, but its effect wonld he to wake up the treasurers to a sense of their duty. This was not the only means of raising money, and the Committee on Ways and Means should go on and submit another bill.
Mr. WOODHULL was opposed to re-consideration. This was a resolution to enforce a law which gentlemen tell us is disregarded. Then if we re-consider; would it not give greater impunity for disregarding the law?
Mr. MCCLURG did not understand that this was the only means of replenishing the treasury. If it did no good, it could do no harm. It seemed to him important to indicate to the county treasurers that they should be ready at the time to respond to a call for the revenue.
Mr. FISHER did not see any reflection here on the Committee on Ways and Means. But it would be improper for the Committee to introduce another bill to borrow money before the Senate have finally voted on the one al ready passed. He showed the urgency for money. The treasuries were almost empty all over the State. He hoped the resolution would be re-considered, if we could first devise means for replenishing the treasury. He thought, perhaps if we refuse to pass this resolution, it would urge the Senate's action on the bill of the House, to pass it, or refuse to pass.
Mr. JENKINSON had changed his mind. He should vole against re-considering. His treasurer, when he was asked for $1,000, had sent up $2,000.
Mr. PROSSER. The delinquent taxes had not been sent up.
Mr. FISHER. The Committee on Ways and Means were about ready to report a bill providing a penalty against delinquent treasurers.
Mr. PROSSER did not know how the finances were in his county; but if they had not the money, they had the staple of hoop-poles, and that would bring it. He desired the treasurers to live up to the law. He knew that the county treasurers never did send up the revenue till the State Treasurer's circular came. He had heard no valid argument against this resolution. He was utterly opposed to borrowing from the Sinking Fund, but he might be compelled tc vote for it as a last resort. We should not stultify ourselves by borrowing money, whilst the State revenue lies idle in the county treasurers' hands.
Mr. ORR. If the treasurer of Delaware county has any revenue in his hands, he will promptly respond. Was the Treasury now empty?
The SPEAKER. The drafts for the pay of members had not been honored. That was a pretty good indication of the condition of the Treasury.
Mr. ORR. If the county treasurers had been called on and failed what could be expected from a second call ? He would, however, vote to reconsider.
Mr. SMITH, of Bartholomew, had not changed his mind with respect to the treasurer of his county. Pie would be ready to respond at any time. He had a bill requiring the county treasurers to make report to the State Treasurer every month from December till April.
page: 136[View Page 136]Mr. NEBEKER demanded the previous question.
There was a second, and under its operation the vote adopting the resolution was reconsidered.
The SPEAKER stated his information that the resolution had been returned to the Senate.
On motion of Mr. FISHER, it was ordered that the Clerk ask for its return.
VISIT FROM THE PRESIDENT ELECT.
Mr. CAMERON, from the Select Committee on that subject, reported progess, correspondence and recomendation for arrangements for the reception of the President elect with suitable honors, on the 12 day of February.
The report was concurred in.
NEW BILLS.
Bills of the following captions were introduced and passed to the second reading:
By Mr. MCLEAN : (138) To repeal the Act of March 1, 1859, amendatory of the general city corporation law, and to restore the act of March 9, 1857.
By Mr. JENKINSON: (139) To enlarge the legal capacity of married women whose husbands are insane, and to enable them to make contracts as though they were not married.
By Mr. SHERMAN: (140) To authorize the President of the Sinking Fund Board to make deeds and certify mortgages in certain cages.
By Mr. ANDERSON: (141) To amend the 6th and 20th sections of the supervisor's act of March 5, 1859.
By Mr. EDSON : (142) To amend section 51 of the misdemeanor act of June 14, 1852.
By Mr. BUNDY. (143) To repeal the 9th section of the act of March 2, 1852, regulating fees and salaries.
By Mr. KNOWLTON: [144] To amend sec. 94 of the Assessment act.
By Mr. SMITH, of Bartholomew: [145] To amend the 33d section of the Assessment act of June 21, 1852.
By Mr. HEFFREN: [146] Supplemental to the Militia act, of June 14,1852, repealing secs. 3 to 20, and for a more perfect organization of the militia.
Mr. CAMERON made an ineffectual motion to read this bill by title, under a dispensation.
By Mr. McLEAN: [147] To amend section 68 of the general city corporation law.
By Mr. PARRETT: [148] Limiting the time within which prosecutions for crimes and misdemeanors may be commenced, and repealing all laws in conflict therewith.
By Mr. JONES, of Tippecanoe: [149] Providing for the election of a Surveyor General for the State of Indiana, and providing certain duties.
By Mr. JONES, of T.: [150] Providing for the election of County Surveyors, and prescribing their duties and fees, and providing for appeals.
By Mr. PROSSER: [151] To create the 14th Judicial Circuit.
By Mr. COLLINS, of Whitley: [152] amend section 19 of the act of March 5, 1859, fixing the times of holding the Common Courts, &c.
By Mr. SMITH, of Bartholomew: [153] To establish the second Judicial Circuit, and fix the times and terms of the Courts therein.
By Mr. BURGESS: [154] To amend the act of May 29, 1852, prescribing the powers and duties of Justices of the Peace in State prosecutions.
By Mr. UNDERWOOD: [155] Fixing the times fog holding the Circuit Court in the 12th Circuit, regulating the length of the terms thereof, and repealing all laws in conflict therewith.
By Mr. PARRETT: [156] Providing for the salaries and fees in the District and Common Pleas Courts, and repealing all former laws relating thereto.
By Mr. BLACK: [157] To amend so much of the act for equalizing appraisements for taxation as authorizes a State Board of Equalization.
By Mr. POLK: [158] To amend the 7th sec. of the act regulating the fees of officers, ap. proved March 2, 1855.
The House then adjourned.
