HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
FRIDAY, February 8, 1861.PETITIONS.
Mr. JENKINSON presented the petition of sundry citizens for legislation against sheep-killing dogs.
Mr. ANDERSON presented the petition of J. H. Violett and others, of Elkhart county, for the same object. They were severally referred to the Committee on Agriculture.
7TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT.
Mr. ORR, from the Select Committee thereon, returned the bill, [S. 74,] to fix the terms of courts in the 7th Circuit-the counties of Hancock, Hamilton, Madison, Tipton, Dela page: 196[View Page 196]ware, Howard and Blackford, without amendment, and recommending passage.
The report was concurred in, and the bill passed the third reading in the House of Representatives-yeas 75, nays 2.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Mr. RAGAN, from the Committee on Elections, returned the petition of Lewis Rush and others, citizens of Wayne county, on the subject of keeping pure the ballot box, and reported further legislation unnecessary; that they had examined the patent ballot box of Miles J. Shinn; are of opinion that it is of great value, and recommend its procurement.
The report was concurred in.
He also reported on the credentials of members, finding all correct, except that the committee had not received the credentials of Mr. Combs and Mr. Jones, of Tippecanoe. It was proper, he said, to state that both these gentlemen had presented here their cetificates of election. The committee simply report the facts.
Mr. EDSON, from the Committee, on the Judiciary, returned his bill [124] to cure defects by deputies, &c., recommending passage.
Mr. GRESHAM. Did the bill prohibit deputy clerks from practicing law?
Mr. EDSON. No. The object of the bill was simply to cure defects where an individual has been engaged as a deputy clerk, without being sworn in.
Mr. GRESHAM would like to have the bill recommitted for the purpose of including such a provision.
Mr. EDSON hoped that course would not be taken. He was in favor of the measure, but it would be better in another bill.
Mr. WOODHULL did not think the amendment of the gentleman germane to the bill.
The House refused to recommit; the report was concurred in, and then the bill was ordered to be engrossed.
Mr. WOODHULL, from the Judiciary Committee, returned the petition of Henry R. Pomeroy and others, of Warren county, for the repeal of the new county acts, and reported that, having already reported a bill on the subject, the committee consider further action inexpedient at present.
Mr. GRESHAM returned the bill to repeal section 15 of the act of May 12, 1852, concerning promissory notes, and to amend the practice act, and reported a motion that it lie on the table.
Mr. FISHER returned the petition of P. R. White and others, for a conventional interest, and reported (referring to their bill on that subject) that it lie on the table.
[Mr. Roberts obtained leave of absence-indisposition.]
Mr. CASON returned Mr. Stotsenberg's bill [30] to amend the 78th section of the practice act, and recommended its passage. This, he said, was a bill in relation to change of venue-to correct the doubtful provision, whether the original papers are to be transmitted or not. It simply provides that where the change is granted, the clerk shall make out and send along a transcript-leaving the original papers where they belong.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed; and the several reports, from the Judiciary Committee, were concurred in.
THE CANAL AT EVANSVILLE.
He also returned Mr. Hopkins's bill [131] to release the trustees of the Wabash and Erie Canal from keeping up said canal within the corporate limits of Evansville, with verbal amendments, recommending its passage. It provides, he said, that that portion of the canal in the city of Evansville may be filled up by the trustees upon all parties interested signing: an agreement to that effect.
Mr. EDSON. The canal at Evansville was going down, and unless Something is done speedily will be discontinued entirely in a few years. It was very densely populated along the line there, and if it goes down, it becomes nothing but standing water and injurious to health. It was merely giving the permission of the State that that portion of it may be filled up.
Mr. NEBEKER did not know who were deemed to be parties interested here. It might do if the bill contemplated that every bondholder should sign the release; but, if it was to involve the State again, and make the State liable for the six millions of dollars, or whatsoever is included in that interest, he would vote against it all the time. He had always been afraid of this question-that it might come up here with influences outside-that $100,000 of these bonds might some day induce members here to take the canal back again and make the State liable for the whole. We should deal with this thing cautiously. Whilst he did not pretend to know anything about the thing himself, he contended that every member ought to know something about it.
Mr. DOBBINS understood that the contract between the State and the bond-holders had to run to the year 1866, and he would carefully avoid any legislation that might result either directly or indirectly in any violation of that contract. Gentlemen should weigh the question before acting on it. It was one of the most dangerous questions that could be presented here, and he trusted that the House would not touch it; that they would let it alone-let it alone till 1866, when the reversionary interest of the State in the Wabash and Erie Canal would pass entirely away. He would not recognize the right of the State to any control of that work by the passage of such a bill as this. He trusted that it would be postponed.
Mr. CASON had looked upon the bill with the same distrust, and was guarded against the danger. But he wished to say to the gentleman from Warren, who had spoken of lobby page: 197[View Page 197]influences in connection with it, that no per-son whatever has been before the Judiciary Committee on the subject, as intimating any desire for the passage of this bill. The gentleman from Vanderburg and Posey (Mr. Edson) was the only person that had been befere the committee in the matter. To satisfy his own mind about the bill, he had taken it to his room, and after looking over it, and seeing that every party interested mus sign the agreement for release, he undertook to say that there was no possible chance for the State to incur liability by its passage.
Mr. FORD concurred, and thought the bill sufficiently guarded.
Mr. HOPKINS had introduced this bill. The people of Evansville had to sustain an expense of $3,000 a year in bridging over that part of the canal. It was useless as a canal, and a nuisance to the city. The bill was certainly drawn as carefully as it could be.
Mr. DOBBINS suggested a clause requiring the consent of the bond-holders.
Mr. HOPKINS. That was included.
Mr. VEATCH was anxious that every member should take pains to examine the bill. It provides that the Common Council of Evansville shall procure the written consent of the Trustees of the Canal and every bond-holder and creditor; and having procured this, they may then proceed to fill up the mud-hole.
Mr. BRANHAM. Suppose the city of Evansville secure this consent, wont they have the power to fill up, without the Legislature having anything to do with it? When they gave consent, there was an end of asking anything of the Legislature on the subject. The difficulty was, that it would be almost impossible to get the consent of all parties.
Mr. VEATCH. Then it would never be done under this bill.
Mr. BRANHAM. Then there was no need of the bill.
Mr. JENKINSON. The State had a remainder of interest, and so far she grants consent.
Mr. VEATCH. That was it-simply granting the consent of the State. But it was not proposed to be acted upon without care. If any gentleman would read the bill, he would see that, in no possible contingency, could any liability be incurred under it.
Mr. SMITH, of Bartholomew, moved indefinite postponement.
Mr. FISHER moved to lay it on the table and print.
Mr. BRANHAM demanded a division of the question.
And thereupon, the House refused to print, and then laid the bill on the table.
Mr. VEATCH returned Mr. Brugess's bill [115] to amend the first section of the execution act of February 17, 1852, and the act of March 5, 1859[requiring the execution-defendant to make and deliver to the sheriff a schedule of all his real and personal estate within or without the State, to get the benefit,&c.,]with an amendment, adding a section, That in case of such defendant's absence from the State, his wife may make out the schedule, and verify it by affidavit, &c.; and, so amended, they recommended that the bill pass.
The amendment was adopted, and the bill ordered to be engrossed.
Mr. BUNDY returned Mr. Erwin's bill [113] to amend section 2 of the Recorders' act of 1852, with an amendment by way of substitute, entitled a bill [187] to authorize Recorders to demand fees in advance. It was passed to the second reading.
Mr. VEATCH returned Mr. Packard's bill, [88] To amend section 13 of the Justices' act of June 9, 1852, with a motion to lay it on the table; which was concurred in.
Mr. JONES of Wayne, from the Committee on Ways and Means, returned the resolution for amendment of the laws, relative to the collection of the revenue, with a motion to lay it on the table; which was concurred in.
Mr. FORDYCE, from the same Committee, returned the petition from citizens of Adams county, for relief of Wm. Vance, with an adverse report; which was concurred in.
STATE PRINTING.
Mr. GIFFORD, from the Committee on Ways and Means, returned Mr. Heffren's bill [17] to regulate the State Printing by contract, with a report in writing-setting forth that the Committee being doubtful whether any good could result from any change of the manner of doing the public priniing ; and remembering that the State had once tried and abandoned the plan of letting it out to the lowest bidder, and that other States had tried the same plan, with no good result; and considering that, with regard to the prices paid, the Committee (none of its members being acquainted with the art) had been informed that they yield no more than a fair rernuneratioa to the printer,and that eny cutting down would oppress the craft more than the State Printer,-they thereupon reported a motion that the bill be laid on the table.
Mr. GRESHAM said the correct course is to let out the work, and moved that the bill and report be referred to the Select Committee of Five on Public Printing.
Mr. SMITH, of Bartholomew, did not see any necessity for delaying action on the report.
Mr. BUNDY concurred in this view. No good can come from delay by recommitment. We might as well make it a special order next Wednesday.
Mr. McLEAN hoped it would be made a special order. Mr. Heffren, who was interested in this bill, was absent, and courtesy required that we should wait till he returns.
Mr. FRASIER said the special committee was the best to investigate the matter.
Mr. STOTSENBERG. There was a select committee on this subject. He came here to carry out retrenchment and reform.
page: 198[View Page 198]Mr. FISHER said he held the same opinion as the member from Floyd. He supposed that the report and bill would be recommited to the select committee.
Mr. SMITH, of Bartholomew, suggested that journeymen in the Journal and Sentinel offices should be brought before the committee to state what the work was worth. He concurred with Mr. Bundy in desiring a test vote of the House, whether they would abolish the office or not.
Mr. GRESHAM withdrew his proposition to refer, remembering that the select committee was divided. This bill was well guarded. It was the same that was introduced by Mr. Stevens, and matured in the Senate at the last session. He was willing to make it the special order for Friday.
Mr. BUNDY. When it should be made the special order and the time fixed, he hoped to be able to make up his own mind whether it was best to abolish the office or not.
Mr. CAMERON thought a new committee on printing ought to be raised-a committee of men who understood the business-and let them investigate and report on the whole matter. There were men in the House besides himself who might claim to know something about the printing business.
The bill was made the special order for Friday.
On motion by Mr. GRESHAM, it was ordered that the report lie on the table, and that 200 copies of the bill be printed.
Mr. FISHER, from the Committee on Ways and Means, returned the resolution for amendment of chapter 5, section 137, of the Revised Statutes, so as to dispense with filing the county treasurer's receipts for taxes with the county auditor, and equalizing the compensation of these officers-reporting against the former change, and that further action on the latter was inexpedient. The report was concurred in.
Mr. CRAIN, from the same committee, returned Mr. Roberts' bill [89] to amend the 9th section of the general banking act, so as to make the State Auditor's certificate sufficient cause of action and prima facia evidence against the banks, recommending its passage.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed.
He also returned Mr. Hayes's bill [111] to amend the 6th section of the general banking act of March 13, 1855, with a motion that it lie on the table; which was concurred in.
Mr. NEWMAN, from the Committee on the Organization of Courts, returned the bill for the election of Sheriff of the Supreme Court, with the opinion that legislation thereon is unnecessary; which was concurred in.
CLAIMS
Mr. DOBBINS, from the Claims Committee, returned the claim of Geo. W. Griffith, for plastering and repairs in the State House-reporting the allowance thereof $575 75-and a motion that it be referred to the Committe on Ways and Means.
It was so ordered.
Mr. SLOAN, from a majority of the Committee on Claims, reported against the claim of the National Guard Band for music served on the occasion of the funeral of Gov. Willard.
Mr. BRUCKER and Mr. DOBBINS (the minority) reported the allowance of the claim ($50.)
Mr. SLOAN. It appeared that other music bands on the same occasion had been at the same expense, and performed the same service, and yet presented no claim. And it was considered by the majority, that if this claim were allowed chose others would have the same right to come in. The band of New Albany and another band from Minnesota might come in with just as good a claim; for it was a claim only for services in the funeral procession. It would be setting a precedent that might admit claims to an unlimited amount These considerations controlled the action of the majority.
The majority report was concurred in, and the report of the minority was laid on the table.
COMPENSATION OF THE SPEAKER.
Mr. SLOAN, from a majority of the Committee on Claims, returned Mr. Bundy's bill [27,] fixing the Speaker's compensation at $6 per day, recommending indefinite postponement.
Mr. DOBBINS submitted a minority report, with an amendment by way of substitute, allowing $5 a day to both the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate.
On motion of Mr. EDSON, the report of the majority of the committee was laid on the table, and the question recurred on concurrence in the minority report.
Mr. FORD proposed to amend by adding a clause raising the per diem of members to $5 a day.
Mr. PARRETT was opposed to the Speaker receiving any extra compensation, for reasons heretofore set forth in a paper entitled A Report from the Committee on Corporations. He was opposed to allowing the Speaker to monopolze all the honors and emoluments, too. He was opposed to monopolies, and generally to great men.
The SPEAKER reminded the gentleman that the occupancy of the Chair was itself a monopoly.
Mr. PARRETT. Not by any means, for the Speaker frequently yields it to others.
Mr. WOODHULL. It was proper to have a man of adequate qualifications in the Chair, and he was charged with peculiar but arduous duties and responsibilities; and he believed the people were willing to pay him. The position might be honorable, but the honors were certainly dearly bought. He vas willing to add a reasonable compensation.
Mr. SMITH of Bartholomew moved to strike page: 199[View Page 199]Out the emergency clause, which was understood to include the present incumbent of the Chair.
Mr. WOODHULL. There was no emergency clause.
Mr. FISHER referred to the extra duties of the Speaker, as well as the extra expense frequently involved in doing the honors of his position at the numerous festivals of the city, which he supposed the Speaker could testify Dy this time, were exceedingly expensive.
The SPEAKER (humorously) decided several amendments out of order.
On motion by Mr. STOTSENBERG, the minority report, bill and amendment, were laid on the table-yeas 64, nays 23. Subsequently he moved to reconsider this vote, and to lay the motion on the table. The latter motion was agreed to.
Messrs. Moss, Flopkins, Erwin, Frasier, Moorman and Hall had leave of absence till Monday.
Mr. HOLCOMB asked ineffectually for leave to submit a resolution to return to two sessions a day.
On motion by Mr. CAMERON, his bill [50,] to repeal the act of last session for the return Of juries on the third day of common pleas terras, was taken from the table and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES.
Mr. ORR, from the Committee on Rights and Privileges, returned the petition of David Penny and others for a reward for catching horse-thieves, reporting legislation thereon inexpedient. The report was concurred in.
Mr. SHERMAN returned Mr. Orr's bill [87,] exempting parsonages from taxation, with verbal amendments, recommending passage. The amendments were concurred in, and the bill was ordered to be engrossed.
He also returned the bill to amend the 7th section of the supervisor's act of March 18, 1852, recommending its passage. It was ordered to be engrossed.
Mr. McCLURG returned Mr. Sherman's bill [140] authorizing the President of the Board of Sinking Fund Commissioners to make deeds and satisfy mortgages (for the old State Bank,) recommending passage. It was ordered to be engrossed.
Mr. HURD returned Mr. Cason's bill [116] requiring patent medicine packages and boxes to be labeled with their ingredients, recommending passage. It was ordered to be engrossed.
JUSTICES OP THE PEACE.
Mr. McCLURG returned Mr. Moss's bill [80] to amend sections 8 and 10 of the justices' act of June 9,1852, with amendments, [extending the official bonds of justices of the peace to from $2,000 to $6,000, and extending their jurisdiction to $200 and $300 on confession of judgment]
The orginal bill, he said, was to enlarge the jurisdiction of justices of the peace to $300 and $400 on confession. The amendments re duce these amounts to $200 and $300. That, was the whole of the bill. It was discussed rather extensively the other day. The members of the committee-(to say nothing of their private opinion-) became satisfied that this enlargement of jurisdiction was a general public demand. He was satisfied that the people of his county wanted it. So. yielding to what they believed to be the wish of their constituents, they agreed to submit this report. They also looked at the question in a practical way. They considered that the Circuit Court sits but twice a year, with an interval of six months; that the Common Pleas Court sits but three times a year, with intervals of four months, and that the justices' jurisdiction was limited to $100. And that they thought, to save time and costs, it would not be too much to give creditors the advantage of getting judgment on sums under $300, by giving three days' notice.
Mr. Gresham and Mr. Bundy opposed, and Mr. Holman and Mr. Parrett supported, the bill, until-
Mr. McLEAN demand the previous question, and under its force the amendments were adopted.
On the question of the engrossment-
Mr. FRASIER proposed to amend, by a clause to abolish the Common Pleas.
Mr. VEATCH proposed to amendment, by a clause referring the duties of the Common Pleas to the Justices' Courts.
These were laid on the table.
Mr. NEBEKER, as a constitutional lawyer, was glad to see the lawyers here disagree on the propriety of this bill. It would give the people facilities for collecting with less costs.
Mr. CAMERON demanded the previous question, and, under its operation, the bill was ordered to be engrossed, by yeas 69, nays 18:
Mr. EDSON explaining, that he believed it would work injuriously, (but the people demanded it,) placing the legal fraternity in the same position with the Democratic party, and therefore he thought they had better succumb.
The SPEAKER would like to know of the gentleman whether he acknowledged that the Democratic party did now succumb ? [Laughter.]
Mr. WOODHULL (explaining,) said he represented farmers, and while he believed the bill would operate injuriously upon them, and promote his own interests, professionally, he would vote No.
On motion by Mr. NEBEKER, (the order of business being suspended for the purpose,) the bill was considered as engrossed and passed the third reading-yeas 69, nays 2-as follows :
YEAS-Messrs. Anderson, Atkisson, Boydston, Brett, Bryan, Cameron, Campbell, Collins, of Adams, Combs, Cooprider, Dashiel, Davis, Dobbins, Edson, Epperson, Feagler, Ferguson, Fisher, Fleming, Ford, Fordyce, Fraley, Gifford, Gore, Hall, Harvey, Haworth, Hayes, Henricks, Holcomb, Hopkins, Horton, Hudson, Hurd, Jenkinson, Jones, of Wayne, Kendrick, Kitchen, Lods, Lane,
page: 200[View Page 200]Lightner, McClurg, McLean, Moss, Nebeker, Newman, Orr, Parrefct, Pitts, Polk, Prow, Ragan, Randall, Bobbins, Sherman, Sloan, Smith, of Bartholomew, Smith, of Miami, Stevenson, Stotsenberg, Trier, Thompson, Turner, Underwood, Warrum, Wells, Wilson, and Woodruff-69.
NAYS-Messrs. Bingham, Branham, Brucker, Bundy, Burgess, Cason, Collins, of Whitley, Crain, Erwin, Frasier, Gresham, Howard, Knowlton, Owens, Packard, Thomas, Veatch, Williams, Woodhull, Woods, and Mr. Speaker-21.
Mr. DOBBINS (explaining,) said that he did not think it would be for the advantage of the farming community, but was willing to yield to the demand here.
Mr. BUNDY proposed to amend the title of the bill, to read: "A bill to encourage litigation and increase the fees of lawyers."
Mr. PARRETT moved to lay the amendment on the table, but withdrew for a direct vote thereon, which stood-yeas 6, nays 84.So the bill passed the House of Repoesentatives.
Mr. ORR, from the Committee on Rights and Privileges, returned Mr. Edson's bill [135,] to amend the assessment act of 1852, so as to exempt from taxation the personal property of widows, when it does not exeeed in value $300, recommending its passage.
Mr. FRASIER would vote for it as just and expedient, but had not the slightest doubt that our labor would go for nothing; that it would be unconstitutional, and that it would be another machine to make litigations.
Mr. STOTSENBERG. Had it been before the Committee on the Judiciary?
Mr. VEATCH. They had reported in favor of it. He read the constitutional provision for exemptions from taxation.
Mr. ORR. It was under the word "charitable" that the bill was recommended. [Laughter.]
The bill was ordered to be engrossed.
THE STATE PRINTING.
Mr. BUNDY asked and obtained leave to submit a resolution, to raise a committee of five on the part of the House, to act as a Committee on Printing, in conjunction with the Standing Committee of the Senate on this subject; instructed to inquire and report what amount of money was expended last year on account of the public printing, and whether it has been expended in accordance with the provisions of the act of 1859.
2. To examine the law of 1859, and report whether any reduction is demanded in the prices; and report a bill making it the duty of the Printer to provide the paper for the State work.
3. To report a bill, separating the binding from the printing.
Mr. FISHER proposed to amend by striking out that part requiring the committee to inquire into the amount that has been expended for printing, because the Committee on Ways and Means had that before them.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. KNOWLTON moved that the resolution be referred to the Committee on Public Expenditures. There was a law regulating the price of printing.
Mr. BUNDY. The object was to get a committee of printers.
Mr. STOTSENBERG. The General Assembly had reserved the right to abolish the office of Printer, and it was now proposed to vote instructions to sanction the election of Printer, and bind the House against his removal. He opposed action till the House should decide the contract system.
Ma. KNOWLTON'S motion was laid on the table.
Mr. GRESHAM moved to strike out that portion requiring the committee to report bill.
Mr. BUNDY accepted the modification.
The resolution was then adopted.
Mr. McClurg and Mr. Gore had leave of absence for to-morrow.
COUNTY AND TOWNSHIP BUSINESS.
Mr. FRASIER, from the Committee on County and Township Business, returned Mr. Wells' bill, to amend the assessment act so as to allow every tax-payer to deduct the amount of his indebtedness from the amount of his personal taxables, with an adverse report, which was concurred in.
Mr. BRETT returned the memorial of the people of Mound township, in Wayne county for a change in the school law.
Also, Mr. Holcomb's resolution, for allowing county recorders compensation for entering "satisfaction" on mortgages; reporting the opinion that further legislation is inexpedient-which reports were severally concurred in.
He also returned Mr. Wells's bill [57,] to amend sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the act of March 2, 1855, for the re-location of county seats, reporting a motion for indefinite postponement.
Mr. WELLS opposed the report, showing at length how the present law operates to defeat the will of the majority on county-seat questions.
The report was concurred in.
Mr. BRETT also returned the petition of E. B. Driscoll and others for a change in the road law, reporting further legislation inexpedient.
Mr. FORDYCE returned a petition for a change in the regulation of county recorders, with a similar report.
Mr. JONES of Wayne returned the petition of T. C. Hammond and others, of Porter county, for the election of county commissioners by districts, with a similar report; which reports were severally concurred in.
Mr. TURNER, from the Committee on Agriculture, returned Mr. Williams's bill [11,] for rebuilding and repairing fences along the lines of railroads, recommending its passage.
Mr. ATKISSON. It proposed to make the farmers partners with the railroad companies in two fences along their lines. The company could sue the farmer for the value of half page: 201[View Page 201] the fence. He was opposed to being forced into partnership with incorporated companies.
Mr. DAVIS. So also the farmer could com-1 the railroad company to make one-half of the fence. It would fence the railroads.
On the motion of Mr. Speaker ALLEN, (Mr. McLean in the Chair,) the report and bill were referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. ROBBINS, from the Committee on Mileage reported a resolution, which was adopted, requesting each member to report to said committee the distanees, on the usually travelled routes, from his county-seat to Indianapolis and to Jeffersonville. [It was to guide the committee in fixing the mileage of sheriffs and treasurers.]
CORPORATIONS.
Mr. PARRETT, from the Committee on Corporations, returned Mr. Knowlton's bill [91] to amend and extend the charter of the Eel River Seminary Society, &c., recommending its passage.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed.
He also returned Mr. Hopkins's bill [15] to amend section 2, of the act of February 12, 1855, concerning voluntary associations recommending passage.
Also Mr. Packard's bill [114] to amend the first section of the act of May 20, 1852, regulating manufacturing and mining companies, &c., recommending its passage.
Mr. Hurd returned Mr. Henricks' bills [77 and 82] amendatory of the charters of the St. Joseph Iron Company and the South Bend Manufacturing Company, recommending their passage; which reports were severally concurred in, and the bills were ordered to be engrossed
The House then adjourned.
