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.
