IN SENATE.
WEDNESDAY, February 6, 1861.Messrs.BEESON and CARNAHAN presented petitions pray ing for legislation against sheep-killing dogs, stating the annual loss thereby is more than all the dogs in the world are worth; which were read and referred to the Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. NEWCOMB presented a memorial from T. A. Goodwin, asking for the State Printing and Binding at 25 per cent, discount on the prices now allowed by law; which was referred to the Committee on Printing.
Mr. ANTHONY presented a petition from citizens of Putnam county, not objecting to the repeal of the new county acts of '57 and '59, but praying for a proviso saving all pending proceedings.
REPORTS FROM THE FINANCE COMMITTEE.
By Mr. STEELE. Returning a petition from citizens of Warren county, recommending its reference to the Committee on Claims.
By Mr. CONLEY. Returning a petition praying the suspension of the collection of debts by sale of property for one year, recommending that it lay on the table, inasmuch as a bill is before the Senate embracing the same object.
By Mr. MELLETT. Returning Mr. Wolfe's bill [S. 37-see p. 46,] recommending passage. Also the bill [H. R. 104-see pages 111 and 117,] reporting it back for the action of the Senate, with the opinion that it is impracticable to incorporate the proposed amendments.
By Mr. BLAIR. Returning Mr. Line's bill [S. 38-see p. 69,] with an amendment providing but one instead of two dockets, recommending passage.
Mr. HALL, from the Committee on Roads, returned Mr. Miller's bill [S. 36-see p. 69,] recommending passage.
These reports were severally concurred in.
REPEAL OF THE NEW COUNTY ACTS OF 1857 AND 1859.
Mr. CONLEY, from the Select Committee thereon, returned Mr. Turner's bill [S. 43-see p. 69,] recommending passage.
Mr. CONNER moved to concur with an amendment providing that nothing in this act shall be construed as effecting any proceedings had and pending under the act of '57.
Mr. ANTHONY, as a minority of this Committee, submitted a written report recommending the passage of the bill with a proviso that this act shall not be construed to effect in an wise any proceedings under the acts of '57 and '59.
Mr. CONNER. Citizens under the act Of '57 have affected some changes that seem to be demanded by the people. I have no objection to the repeal of both acts, but they should not be repealed without saving pending proceedings.
Mr. CONLEY. This thing was lobbied through the Legislature by interested parties and it is now attempted again to prevent the passage of this act for its repeal. It is disgraceful to the Legislature and to the people of Indiana that measures can be lobbied through in this manner by interested parties. Mr. C. referred to the Journals of the last session and said: No man can tell how this thing was managed. It passed through the Legislature by a system of jugglery, and is now inaugurating a system of protracted law suits and divesting persons of their vested rights. Gentlemen talk about a saving clause; now sir, that is the very thing we wish to cut off, indeed it is necessary we should do so to guard older counties. I hope the report of the majority will be concurred in, and I think Senators, when they understand this thing will see the necessity of the passage of the bill.
Mr. STUDABAKER. The motion of the Senator from Wabash and the minority report, it occurs to me admit the wrongfulness of the present legislation upon this subject. The proposition as reported is to repeal all laws on this subject, and the motion is to concur in that report saving the proceedings now pending under these laws. It occurs to me to be a strange position to admit the wrongfulness of the present legislation, and at the same time undertake to save the rights pretended to be acquired under that wrongful legislation. I presume the effect of the present legislation on this subject was not seen by the Legislature when the law was enacted, or it would not have been so enacted.
Mr. WHITE. With the petition that I received from hundreds of citizens of Montgomery county, in regard to this matter, as well is the knowledge I have had of the opposition to this measure by the people of Montgomery md surrounding counties, ever since this thing was got through, I should be false to my constituents and to myself were I to remain silent. Now gentlemen speak here of the page: 177[View Page 177] hasty manner in which this thing was got 1 through two years ago. So far as that is concerned I know nothing about it, only what the journals show; and indeed it does seem to me that Senators and Representatives were caught napping, from the simple fact that the Senator and Representative from my county, either one of them, knew anything about it, but they got awakened up as quick as the people found out what had been done. There is a proposition to cut off the southern part of Montgomery county-taking out two townships-and if there is a question in Montgomery county that the people are a unit upon, it is opposition to this formation of the new county. And it is not confined to the people residing outside of these townships to be affected, but the very bitterest opposition, men that have gone to the greatest length, who have expended more money and time to defeat this object, are the men who live in the territory to be affected. They knew where they were settling when they made their settlements; they knew how far they were from the county seat; they did this with their eyes open, and there are plenty of men even in this territory to be affected, who are more bitterly opposed to this clipping than persons residing out of the territory. I know it is argued with plausibility that where rights have been vested under the laws of '57 and '59, it is outrageous to thus summarily cut them off; but I tell you while they have been vested with a little, the people at large have been divested of more rights. I submit whether it is right that the people of the whole county should be divested of their rights simply to accommodate a few land sharks who wish to build a county seat on their land. Some ten years ago, for the benefit of the whole county by a vote, they voted to issue their bonds for $100,000 railroad stock, and now these gentlemen find it convenient, when this debt is to be paid, to secede. It saves their pockets immensely, while it don't change their relations to the railroad one particle.
Mr. STEELE. I hope this majority report will be concurred in. Those of us who served here last session from the district I live in, were either hoodwinked or caught napping at the time we voted for that law. I would not have done it had I known what the law contained. In the first part of last session I was urged by the Representative from Jasper county to vote for the law, to enable them to make a new county out of some large counties up there; and I told him I would vote for any local measure that would not affect my counties. According to the experience I have had in legislation, this has been the universal practice. But now we find the districts affected almost unanimously coming up here and asking the repeal of this law, which is making more difficulty than any law ever before upon the statute books.
Mr. ANTHONY. When I come here as the Senator from Floyd county, I not only represent that county, but the people of the State at large; and it is my especial duty, when a class ask for rights to be granted them, who have no representative upon this floor to see that their rights are not trampled upon by those interested. The select committee who reported this bill is made up of their friends; and their report amounts to nothing at all, and I say so without meaning any disrespect to gentlemen on that committee. If the bill had gone to a regular committee of disinterested men, their recommendation would have had considerable weight with me. I understand there is a confusion in the journals on this bill of '59. It is true the record is against me, but that is a matter of no importance with regard to this question. If we pass a law in a solemn manner, implicit obedience is expected and required. If any rights are granted by law, the people suppose they will not be taken away from them in a moment. There is nothing wrongful, as a Senator has said, in his law, that I can see; all that can be said is, that it is injudicious. In repealing these acts you must observe those rights acquired under the laws you have solemnly enacted. A greater number have petitioned for the preservation of their rights under these laws, than have petitioned for their repeal. [Mr. A. referred at some length to the efforts made to form Bourbon county out of portions of Parke, Montgomery and Putnam counties.]
Mr. MURRAY. I move to recommit the bill, with instructions to strike out all that relates to the law of 1857. I was one of those chaps who voted in the lower House for the law of 1859, under a misapprehension of its effects. The saving clause proposed by gentlemen embraces the whole question in controversy. If I have done injustice, shall I put in a saving clause, that the injustice done by my vote shall stand? No sir; if l am convinced of that fact, but I do not know as it is so in this case, it is my duty to vote against any saving clause. The law of 1857 has not harmed them or their constituents, and why do they propose to repeal it ? The law of 1859 gives the privilege to form new counties out of contiguous counties ; the law of 1857 gives no such right. All the complaint is under the law of 1859 and not under the law of 1857.
Mr. TURNER. I am opposed to recommittal. I think the law of 1857 is really productive of greater evil than the law of 1859, and they should both be unconditionally repealed. There may be rights under those laws that deserve some attention, perhaps there may be some cases really meritorious, but the law has worked badly so far as my knowledge extends. [Mr. T. recited a case in his county where great injustice would be done.] The law of 1859 never was got through by any legitimate legislation; it was by a system of legerdemain and management that never should be tolerated in any legislative body. page: 178[View Page 178] [Mr. T. traced the bill through the journals and showed where the House amendments were concurred in by the Senate, but do-not appear in the law.] The bill was manoeuvred through in that way. Whether the law is really binding is a question for lawyers.
Mr. STEELE replied to Mr. Anthony's remarks concerning the proposed county of Bourbon. As Senators have said, this bill of 1859 was passed by some hocus-pocus, and is a work that nobody knows anything about.
Mr. TEEGARDEN. I know nothing about how that bill was passed, but there is a measure gotten up under it to set off a new county from ours, and a suit is now pending thereon. It will act peculiarly hard upon our people. It cuts off a strip that comes up within about six or seven miles of our county seat. My people are almost a unit-more than nine-tenths are anxious for a repeal of that law, leaving no saving clause whatever. I have no doubt the law was passed hastily, but we think when an injury is done to any portion of the people by the Legislature, at the next session the injurious act should be repealed. I am in favor of repealing the law, not only of 1859, but of 1857.
Mr. HULL moved to recommit, with these additional instructions: To repeal the law of 1859, including the second section of the law of 1857. While I have no disposition to oppose any measure that would make new counties upon the right principles, yet I object to the cutting up of our counties for individual purposes.
Mr. CRAVENS, [Mr. Newcomb in the Chair.] The discussion of this question has but confirmed me in the opinion that we should offer the old Constitution, with slight amendments, as an amendment to the new Constitution, and submit it to a vote of the people. Although I have sworn to abide by the present Constitution, I despise it. [Mr. Slack, (sotto voce,) "Treason."] There is no better evidence for getting clear of it than is now presented to the Senate. I am opposed to the repeal of this law. Before I can be induced to vote for its repeal, I shall have to be satisfied that the law will fail to produce good, and its remaining upon the statute book can only be productive of evil. One session we pass laws, and; the next session come up and repeal them. The principle of popular sovereignty prevails in this law. [Mr. C. read a portion of it.] The question is, whether they shall have that privilege. I hold the people of this State ought to have that privilege. Shall the people be prohibited by a law, like the Medes and Persians, unchangeable and unalterable, from doing so ? The proposition of the Senator from Elkhart, [Mr. Murray,] is what I want, If it is the general opinion that the law should only ask that this second section of the law of 1857 shall be saved from repeal. I think the principle of popular sovereignty should prevail.
Mr. MILLER. I cannot favor the motion of the Senator from Elkhart, knows well I cannot. I oppose it because a portion of his constituency desire to take a portion of our county from us, and we will resist that as a matter of course. The second section of the act of 1857 is the very law under which this process may be accomplished. This kind of legislation will lead to abuses without limit, but the act of 1859 is infinitely worse. That act found its way upon the statute book by sheer fraud and imposition. I undertake to say it, and I speak what I do know from the very best authority-from men who were in the scheme and connected with it from beginning to end-that the thing was intended to be a fraud, and up for the very express purpose. Now it is pretended here that parties have vested rights, under the act of 1859. If that be true the courts will recognize those vested rights, and no act of this Legislature can deprive any citizen of his vested right under this or any other act. It seems to me, sir, that the best thing we can do is to repeal both these acts, and get up a new bill. I do not propose to save any pending cases ; these are the very cases we are designing to cut off. There is a project on foot to divide St. Joseph and Laporte counties, and make a little one-horse town-New Carlisle-a county seat. These projects generally have their origin in the design of some men who wish to make a county seat upon some property in which they are interested.
Mr. COBB. I am in favor of the amendment proposed by the Senator from Elkhart. The second section of the law of 1857 is right.
[A message from the House announced the passage of the bill [H. R. 1]-see pages 9 and 140 of these Reports.]
Mr. WOLFE. Of all the amendments proposed to the bill, the Senator from Elkhart's is the one I object to most. * * * Matters of administrative power proper belong to the legislature, and the Constitution has not given to the Legislature any power to transfer its power to the county boards, and unless they have legislative powers they cannot change the statute. I think the act is clearly against the letter of the Constitution, and if that is not the case, it is certainly contrary to the spirit which the Constitution contemplated all matters of this kind should be decided. But suppose it to be admitted that county boards shall have power to change the statute so that a county line shall be to-day what it was not yesterday, the Constitution provides that no law shall take effect until it is published; here would be a change of law without publication or notice whatever. But be repealed, I shall oppose no objection. But leaving out the question of constitutional objection, county boundaries ought to be of a settled character; they should remain permanent for a great variety of reasons. I am in favor of a repeal of these laws.
