IN SENATE.
FRIDAY, March 1, 1861.On motion by Mr. BEESON the reading of yesterday's journal was dispensed with-except that portion embracing the proceedings on expunging the minority report of the Committee on Printing.
Mr. WOLFE moved to amend the journal by inserting the minority report itself in the place where it is said the report was made.
The PRESIDENT. The motion to correct the journal in that way is out of order. The proper mode would be to reconsider the vote by which the report was rejected. If it is the disposition of the Senate to retrace its steps, the only way it can do it would be to reconsider its action by which the report was rejected, and not, by correcting the journal.
Mr. STUDABAKER appealed from this decision.
Mr. MURRAY moved to lay the appeal on the table.
This motion was agreed to-yeas 26, nays 16.
Mr. FERGUSON moved to suspend the rules that he might call up the bill [H. R. 828]. changing the times of holding courts in his district.
Mr. WAGNER made an ineffectual motion-yeas 17, nays 25-to lay this motion on the table.
Mr. FERGUSON earnestly appealed to the Senate in favor of his motion.
After discussion-
Mr. MELLETT demanded the previous question.
The demand was seconded by 26 Senators; the motion was agreed to-yeas 27, nays 18 the bill H. R. 328 read the second time, and referred to Senators Ferguson, Anthony and Wolfe.
Mr. TURNER presented a petition from citizens of Newton county, protesting against the passage of a bill to provide for the removal of county seats where county buildings have not been erected, &c., which was referred to the Committee on County and Township Business.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES
Were made and concurred in, as follows:
- By Mr. MELLETT: Finance-returning Senator March's bill 251-see page of these Reports-recommending passage with amendment.
- By Mr. MILLER: Education-returning Senator Turner's bill 198-see page 243-recommending passage.
- By Mr. TARKINGTON: Education-returning his bill 227-see page 267-recommending passage.
- By Mr. LINE: Education-returning Senator Wilson's bill 75-see page 96 of these reports-recommending passage with amendments.
- By Mr. ANTHONY: Education-returning Senator Tarkington's bill 225-see page 267-recommending passage.
- By Mr. TARKINGTON: Benevolent Institutions-referred to the Finance Committee, without reading.
- By Mr. DeHART: Printing-returning Senator March's bill [4] abolishing the office of State Printer, and proposing to let the printing out to the lowest bidder-with a lengthy adverse report thereon.
Mr. MURRAY moved to concur in the report with an amendment instructing the Committee on Printing to report an amendment, reducing the compensation of the State printer 15 per cent on the prices now paid.
Mr. HAMILTON moved to amend by reducing the present prices 30 per cent.
Mr. MURRAY. While steadily opposing letting out the public printing to the lowest bidder, I have been in favor of bringing down the prices paid to that officer to an economical standard, and within the means of our revenues. I am satisfied from my knowledge of the printing business-I am a practical printer; went at the business when I was 11 years old, and never got out till I was 25that should my amendment be adopted, the State Printer would have the best and the most remunerative office in the State of Indiana.
On motion by Mr. WOLFE the report was laid on the table, that he might have time to submit a minority report.
- By Mr. STEELE: Finance-returning Senator Claypool's bill 121-see page 163 of these Reports-recommending passage.
- By Mr. CONLEY: Select Committee-returning the bill H. R. 86-see page 99 of these Reports-recommending passage with amendment.
Mr. NEWCOMB moved to strike out all that part of the bill which gives justices jurisdiction in cases of fraud to the amount of $100 00.Mr. RAY was in favor of the amendment.
On motion by Mr. WAGNER the amendment was laid on the table. He then demanded the previous question, and the demand being sustained by the Senate, the committee report was concurred in.
On motion by Mr. WILLIAMS the bill was considered as engrossed and read the third time.
Mr. BEARSS demanded the previous question, and the demand being sustained by 28 Senators, the bill was finally passed by yeas 82, nays 13.
By Mr. CLAYPOOL: From the Joint Committee appointed to propose a plan for the liquidation of the State debt, submitting a report recommending that the commissioners of the Sinking Fund be authorized and instructed to invest that fund in the five per cent, bonds of the State; that the present levy of two cents on the $100 00 be continued for the year 1861, and that a levy of five cents on the $100 be made for each succeeding year till the debt is paid;that the first debt paid be the $303,000 due the Common School Fund.
[Mr. COBB offered a resolution, which was adopted by consent, directing the doorkeeper to furnish each Senator with $2 worth of postage stamps.]
[Mr. CONLEY offered a resolution, limiting speeches to five minutes on any one question, except by unanimous consent. Ineffectual motions were made by Mr. LINE to insert "10;" by Mr. COBB to'insert "20;"'by Mr. RAY to insert " 1;" and by Mr. WOLFE to insert "15." Under the operations of the previous question, the resolution was adopted.]
- By Mr. CONNER: Corporations-returning the bill [S.71] To incorporate street railroad companies-recommending passage.
- By Mr. CLAYPOOL: Finance-returning his bill 208-see page 244-recommending passage.
Mr. WAGNER moved to concur in the report with an amendment striking out all that relates to county treasurers. This bill cuts down the amount from 2 per cent, over $15,000, to 1 per cent. My county treasurers get none too much money, and the bill passed yesterday decreases that amount, while this bill proposes to still further decrease. There is no justice or statesmanship in the law, and I do most earnestly protest against it.
Mr. CLAYPOOL. The amendment operates upon large counties, while in small counties it operates in the smallest possible way. It will not operate oppressively upon any of the smaller counties. 1 presume there is no small county it can affect more than $100. If this bill is adopted, the treasurer will then be the best paid officer in the county.
Mr. TARKINGTON had no objection to the passage of the bill.
On motion by Mr. WILLIAMS, the motion to concur with an amendment was laid on the table-yeas 23, nays 18.
On motion by Mr. STONE, the Committee report was concurred in-yeas 22, nays 17 with an amendment providing that nothing shall be paid to county treasurers for paying out the county tax, whether county orders or other funds.
NEW PROPOSITIONS.
The following bills were introduced, and severally passed the first reading :
By Mr. WAGNER: [209] To re-district the State of Indiana for the purpose of electing members of the Congress of the United States of America.
By Mr. WAGNER: (270) Creating a common pleas district of certain counties therein named, (Benton, Newton, Jasper and White,) and providing for the appointment and election of Judges and' Prosecuting Attorneys thereof.
By Mr. LANDERS : (271) To amend section 1 of an act to provide for the election and qualification of justices of the peace, and prescribing their duties in civil cases.
By Mr. WAGNER: (272) To enable county commissioners to remove county seats in certain cases.
(Leave of absence was obtained for Senator O'Brien during the remainder of the session.
WORK FOR COMMITTEES.
The following bills were read the second time, and referred to appropriate Comittees:
page: 314[View Page 314]- Judiciary-Senator March's 165, Newcomb's 268, and the bills H. R. 30,106, 238, 64.
- Claims-Senator DeHart's 267.
- Education-The bill H. E. 100.
- Finance-The bill H. R, 116, 325.
- Banks-The bill H. K. 160.
- Organization of Courts-The bill H. R. 243.
- Senator Hamilton's 260, to a Select Committee, viz: Senators Hamilton, March and Johnson,
- Senator Conley's 266, to a Select Committee, viz: Senators Conley, Johnson and Wilson.
- The bill H. E. 84, to a Select Committee, viz: Senators Steele, Wilson and March.
- The bill H. E. 263 to a Select Committee, viz: Senators Miller, Teegarden and Murray.
- Senators Bearss' 261, March's 262, Blair's263, and John son's 264 were ordered engrossed.
And then came the recess till 2 o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The PRESIDENT announced the order for this hour to be the consideration of the dog and sheep bills S. 138 and S. 134.
On motion by Mr. HULL, the special order was postponed till 3 o'clock.
The bills H. R. 77, 114, 124, 129, 114, 135, 139, and 126 were read the first time, and passed to the 2d reading.
The House joint resolution, (H. R. 34) discontinuing the publication of the State Agricultural Reports, was agreed to by yeas 39, nays 0.Senator Claypool's bill-see page 163 of these reports-coming up in order, it was read the third time.
Mr. CLAYPOOL explained his bill. It simply provides what the law of 1855 provides for all free banks.
Mr. RAY opposed the passage of this bill. He thought the bank should not be allowed to recover the surplus money deposited with the State officers until all the bill holders had been amply satisfied.
Mr. STEELE. If he did not regard the security as sufficient to the bill holders of outstanding notes, he should vote against the bill.
Mr. WILLIAMS moved to recommit with instructions to insert the words, " provided the same was redeemed at par."
Mr. HAMILTON. This money in the hands of the bankers with double security, would be more safe than in the hands of the State officer.
Mr. CLAYPOOL made an ineffectual motion-yeas 19, nays 20-to lay the motion to recommit on the table.
Mr. CRAVEN submitted farther instructions to amend so as to appropriate all these moneys on hand to the school fund of the State.
Mr. CLAYPOOL thought these moneys had much batter be in the school fund than in the hands of the Auditor of State.
Mr. CONNER. This bill appears to be a just proposition, but the first amendment proposed defeats its object. The last amendment offered is manifestly not right; it would be an act of great injustice to stockholders were these monies placed in the school fund.
Mr. LANDERS would be satisfied, where banks have redeemed their notes dollar for dollar, to let them file their securities, and take away this money from the State officer; but we ought to have a law making a further dividend. He hoped this matter would be referred.
The motion to recommit was agreed to by yeas 20, nays 17.
Mr. Craven's instructions were rejected.
The PRESIDENT now announced the consideration of the bills S. 133 and S. 134-see page 184 of these Reports-and they were read the third time.
Mr. Murray's 134 was first considered.
Mr. WOLFE moved to recommit the bill for the purpose of amending it by striking out that part in relation to paying the surplus of the dog license money into the school fund.
Mr. LINE submitted further instructions to amend by striking out 50 cents and inserting 25 cents, and making the operations of the bill less complicated in its details.
On motion by Mr. MELLETT the motions to recommit were laid on the table.
Mr. MURRAY. This bill is founded upon the law in force in Massachusetts and in Wisconsin-xcept some rigorous and objectionable features which I threw out. It provides that it shall be the duty of every man in the township to get out a license for the dog or dogs he owns from the township trustee at the rate of 50 cents; and the duty of the assessor, in order to make this thing sure, to take the number of dogs in the township, with their owners names, and return that list to the trusteo; and the duty of the trustee to take this list and compare it with the licenses issued, and whenever he ascertains there are men in the township owning dogs not licensed, it is his duty to prosecute them. This tax money is set apart to pay the damage sustained in the killing or maiming of sheep by dogs; and if there is any surplus it is turned over to the school fund.
Mr. WOLFE opposed the bill.
Mr. TEEGARDEN. Mr. President, this is a matter in which the people I have the honor to represent on this floor, have a vital interest; and the wool-growing interest of the State demands of this Legislature the passage of an effective law to protect this interest. This or some other bill should most assuredly pass this session. Not only the wool-growing interest demands it, but the towns and cities demand relief. The number of worthless dogs kept in cities give just cause for the appeals made to this Legislature for relief. Especially are they dangerous and costly to cities during the prevalence of hydrophobia, when dog pelters are in good demand at no trifling cost to tax payers of towns and cities. I hope the bill will be permitted to pass.
Mr.ODELL moved to recommit, with instructions to amend, so as to allow any person to- own and keep one dog exempt from taxation, and any person owning more than one shall pay $1 each.
page: 315[View Page 315]On motion by Mr. MELLETT, this motion was laid on the table, on a division; affirmative 17, negative 15.
Mr. MELLETT demanded the previous question, and the demand being sustained by 26 Senators, the bill was rejected by yeas 17, nays 22.
Mr. BEESON. I voted in opposition to the bill just defeated, not that I am opposed to a measure of that kind, but I think it would be too cumbersome. This bill 133 makes a simple and plain proposition. The first section provides that all dogs found wandering from the premises of their owners are considered nuisances, and persons are privileged to kill them, except in incorporated cities. The second section provides that within the limits of incorporated cities, the corporation may license dogs to run at large. Section third proposes that each sheep-owner who has suffered by dogs shall be entitled to two-thirds of the value of his sheep killed or injured, to be paid out of the county treasury. I look upon this us one of the best features of the bill, not only as a wool-growing farmer, but as a tax-paying farmer. For wherever this kind of damage is perpetrated upon my sheep, I feel an interest in lessening the animals that committed the depradation. Go into my county, and you will see that three-fourths of these animals are owned by persons that never pay a tax-not even a poll tax. Why: there are more dogs than sheep in my county. I hope the bill may pass without amendment.
Mr. MURRAY. I desired to offer some proposition to encourage the wool-growing interest of the State, and am sorry to see a disposition in the Senate to encourage the raising of dogs instead of sheep. I cannot vote for a law which would authorize my neighbor to come into the road in front of my house and shoot down my dog. This bill provides the payment for damage to sheep by dogs shall be paid out of the county treasury; and I cannot vote for such a clause as that.
Mr. CONLEY, by consent, amended the bill by adding an emergency clause.
Mr. NEWCOMB. I voted against the dog bill awhile ago, but feel disposed to favor this one. He also amended the bill, by consent, by striking out the word "two-thirds" and inserting in lieu thereof the words "one-half."
Mr. WAGNER. This is a commercial, not a personal interest, in the State of Indiana, and the interests of the State suffer for the want of a law protecting wool-growing. I would not draft such a bill as this, but I will vote for it as an entering wedge.
Mr. COBB. Legislators should look at matters of this kind in a practical view. Too many local interests are involved in this State, for the purposes of local legislation. While we protect the wool-growing interests of the State, we should not pass by other interests-the poultry interests, for example. In the northern portion of the State we have many hills infested by foxes, weasels, &c., and we keep packs of hounds to protect our poultry from them. If this bill passes, the dogs which we keep would be killed by any person who may choose, whenever he strays from home ; and there is nothing that would create greater strife than such an act as this.
Mr. CLAYPOOL was not willing to protect one interest at the expense of another, although he desired to see the wool-growing interest fostered. This bill is wrong in principle. He moved to recommit the bill with, instructions to strike out all that part of the bill which has reference to paying money out of the county treasury. He would vote for the bill with this clause stricken out.
Mr. MILLER, This bill looks to me like a proposition to sack the treasury. Let there be undeniable proof that the sheep is killed by dogs. If you bring in a proposition to pay for all chickens killed by weasels, it would be hooted out; but it is upon the same principle as is proposed in this bill.
On motion by Mr. CONLEY, the motion to recommit was laid on the table.
Mr. WAGNER moved to recommit the bill to a select committee of three, with instructions to strike out all that relates to paying money out of the county treasury.Mr. LINE. This is a step in advance of any legislation yet attempted in favor of the wool-growing interest of the State. Let the bill be amended as suggested and it works well; further legislation can be made.
The motion to recommit was agreed to, and the PRESIDENT made the committee to consist of Senators Wagner, Line, and Beeson.
On motion by Mr. NEWCOMB, his bill [114] for the relief of borrowers of the sinking fund, &c.-see page 266 of these Reports-was read the third time.
Mr. NEWCOMB. This bill refers now solely to sinking fund loans. It gives borrowers till 1863 to commence paying off their loans, and four years from that time to close accounts. All the objectionable features being removed, I suppose there will be no very formidable objection to the passage of the bill.
Mr. WOLFE. I am opposed to the proposition. I think it is wrong, unfair, and unequitable to the people of Indiana. It is in direct conflict with the law of 1859. The borrowers of this fund should pay up their indebtedness, as well as any other class of borrowers in the State.
Mr. NEWCOMB. Some of these loans have been out for 25 years, and there has not been a session of the Legislature for many years but what a relief law has been passed. This bill looks to a withdrawal of this fund from the people who now have it, and I hope the passage of this bill will not be opposed.
Mr. MARCH. I believe this bill is well drawn, and that it is to the interest of the State, and of these funds, that the bill should pass.
page: 316[View Page 316]Mr. STUDABAKER. I object to the feature of the bill extending the time, but I propose as a compromise, to recommit the bill with instructions to amend by striking out "1863" and inserting "1862."
Mr. WAGNER. By the provisions of this bill, the entire sinking fund will be drawn in in six years, and I submit to the Senate that is soon enough. If the bill is recommitted, it will have to be re-written, because the provision runs all through it, and it will be three or four'days before it can be gotten back here. I hope the motion will not prevail.
On motion by Mr. HULL-yeas 37, nays 13-the motion to recommit was laid on the table.
The bill was then finally passed by yeas 29, nays 13.
Senator Newcomb's bill 115-see page 163-was read the third time.
Mr. WAGNER, This is simply a bill to follow the other one, making provision with regard to mortgages, &c.
The bill finally passed: yeas 33, nays 7.
Mr. WAGNER, from the Select Committee thereon, returned Senator Beeson's dog and sheep bill 133, with amendments, striking out all that relates to paying money out of the county treasury.
Mr. MURRAY. This bill does not meet my approbation. It gives an opportunity, where a man has a good watch dog, for a thief to kill him; and a neighbor who has a spite against a neighbor, to kill his dog, which he values more than his horse. I earnestly protest against it.
The Committee report was concurred in.
Mr. SLACK. This bill provides for and against discrimination country dogs.
Mr. RAY. The effect of such a law as this would be to make a war of the races, and I shall have to vote against the bill because of the considerations urged by the gentleman from Elkhart [Mr. Murray.]
The bill failed for want of a constitutional majority-yeas 21, nays 15.
And then the Senate adjourned.
