HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
TUESDAY, May 28, 1861.The House met at 9 o'clock A. M.
On the motion of Mr. PROSSER, the reading of the journal of yesterday was dispensed with.
COMMON PLEAS COURT.
Mr. McCLEAN presented the remonstrance of the Mayor of Terre Haute and a number of the people of Vigo county, against the abolition of the Common Pleas Court: which was referred to the Committee on the Organization of the Courts of Justice.
Mr. HOLCOMB submitted the following:
Resolved, That from and after Wednesday, May 29th, at the hour of adjournment, no bill or joint resolution shall be introduced into this House.
On motion by Mr. BUNDY, it was laid on the table.
Mr. BUNDY, from the Judiciary Committe, (the order of business having been suspended for the purpose,) returned his Treasurers' fee bill (54) without amendment, and with a recommendation that the same ought to pass.
Mr. DAVIS. What was to be accomplished by this bill?
Mr. BUNDY. The fees are the same till you reach $5,000. Then we reduce the fees to three per cent, between $5.000 and $15,000, and to two per cent, between $15,000 and $25,000, and to one per cent, on all sums over $25,000. The reduction is the difference between one per cent, and three per cent, on large revenues. On small revenues there is no reduction.
Mr. ORR had no doubt that heavy revenues could be collected even cheaper than the bill proposes.
Mr. CASON. I propose to recommit the bill, with instructions to reduce the fees of the County Auditor and County Clerk twenty per cent., as near as may be. He said: It seems to me, that by this bill we are endeavoring to reduce the fees of a class of officers, with respect to who, if we look the State over, we shall find that a majority of them do not receive any more than a fair compensation. The duties of the County Treasurer are onerous and responsible; and in disturbed times like the present, when he is more than ordinarily liable to have it robbed - taking these things into consideration, it seems to me that we are making a tilt at an officer that should be the last to be disturbed. Then the delinquent list must be larger in these times. But you only have to look at the County Auditors and County Clerks, to be convinced that they are the most profitable offices in the county. A man could not enter court without very heavy Clerk fees - much more than the labor is worth. You can't settle a decedent's estate without paying $30 for Clerk's fees. The body had just reduced the Treasurer's fees for collecting the delinquent list from 8 to 5 per cent. He spoke at length.
Mr. BUNDY said this speech of the gentleman from Boone and Hendricks had come up to the programme of which we gave notice the other day. The object was to strangle and destroy the bill. The bill was brought in in accordance with a general desire of the members. The same bill met with the favor of the House at the last session. Where the County Auditor received no more than the law allows, he was the poorest paid officer in the county. He repeated that the Treasurer's office was far the best paying office; and it would be better as we increased the taxes. We assessed fifteen cents on the $100 at the regular session, and five cents at this session. On his motion, the proposition to amend was laid on the table.
Mr. NEBEKER submitted some considerations in figures against the bill. He saw not why the treasurer should be singled out at this time for a reduction of fees.
Mr. RAGAN. If the bill reduced the per cent, from the first thousand dollars, he might look upon it with more favor. He wanted to pay the the treasurer in proportion to the labor he performed. There was no inducement in the bill to collect the delinquent taxes. We had already cut down the treasurer's fees in the disbursement of the school fund. A banker in his region had declared that he would not give the bond of the county treasurer for the compensation he gets. We ought to pay, so that we may secure competent and reliable men for these places.
Mr. JENKINSON demanded the previous-question, and under its operation the bill was considered as engrossed, and the final vote was reported - yeas 61, nays 14 - as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Anderson, Black, Brett, Brucker, Bundy, Campbell, Collins of Whitley, Collins of Adams, Combs, Cooprider, Dashiel, Davis, Edson, Epperson, Erwin, Feagler, Ferguson, Fleming, Gore, Gresham, Hall, Henricks, Holcomb, Hopkins, Howard, Hudson, Hurd, Jenkinson, Jones of Tippecanoe, Jones of Wayne, Kendrick, Kitchen, Lads, Lane, Lee, Lightner, McClurg, Moorman, Mutz, Orr, Owens, Packard, Parrett, Pitts, Polk, Prosser, Prow Randall, Robbins, Roberts, Sherman, Stevenson, Trier, Thomas, Thompson, Underwood, Veatch, Wells, Williams , Wilson, Woodhull, and
page: 204[View Page 204]NAYS. - Messrs. Atkinson, Bryan, Ford, Fordyce, Fraley, Harvey, Horton, Jones of Vermillion, Knowlton, Moss, Nebeker, Eagan, Stotsenburg, and Turner - 14.
So the bill passed the House of Representatives.
REDEMPTION BILL.
Mr. VEATCH, from the Judiciary Committee, returned Mr. Stotsenberg's redemption bill, [28] with an amendment striking out all after the enacting clause, and inserting four sections. [It provides that whenever hereafter real estate shall be sold on general execution, decree, &c., the owner may redeem it at any time within one year from sale, by paying the purchase money with interest thereon at the rate of 8 per cent. per annum. On the payment of the purchase money, the sheriff shall issue to the purchaser his certificate of purchase, which shall entitle the holder to a deed of conveyance at the end of one year, if the property shall not have been redeemed. It provides also for redemption on the part of junior creditors.]
Mr. VEATCH. The question was raised when the bill was recommitted, as to its constitutionality - whether it was intended to apply to contracts. That matter was fully discussed before the committee, and the opinion, he believed, was unanimous that this bill disturbs no contract. It simply provides regulations under which the purchaser shall buy. Then it provides that the purchaser shall not have a deed for one year. Any time within the year the owner may come in and redeem. And it gives the same advantage to junior creditors, &c.
Mr. BUNDY proposed to concur in the amendment of the committee, with an amendment adding appropriately these words: Provided, however, that the provisions of this bill shall not apply to any judgment rendered, or contract made prior to the time of the passage of this act.
Mr. BUNDY. Where a contract is made under laws, the laws themselves were in some sense apart of the contract: so that all such laws as this, affecting the system of collection, were more or less opposed to the constitutional inhibition about laws impairing the obligations of contracts. He was willing, however, to take the vote with his amendment.
Mr. VEATCH replied to the constitutional exception. The bill did not disturb the contract or the remedy under it. The purchaser is a new party; and you have a right to legislate so as to bind all future purchasers. His opinion was corroborated by that of the Attorney General. He could not see what was to be gained by the amendment of the gentleman from Henry. From the direction of the questions put by gentlemen objecting here, it would seem that they must hold, that, because the Sheriff serves the execution, therefore the Legislature can not abolish the Sheriff's office, and place the business in the hands of a Master Commissioner, etc. When he had concluded, he moved to lay the amendment on the table.
Mr. BUNDY demanded the yeas and nays, and the vote was reported - yeas 73, nays 10 - as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Anderson, Brett, Brucker, Bryan, Campbell, Cason, Collins of Whitley, Collins of Adams, Combs, Cooprider, Crain, Dashiel, Davis, Edson, Epperson, Erwin, Feagler, Ferguson, Fisher, Flemming, Ford, Fordyce, Fraley, Frazier, Gifford, Gore, Hall, Harvey, Henricks, Holcomb, Hopkins, Horton, Howard, Hudson, Hurd, Jenkinson, Jones of Vermillion, Jones of Wayne, Kendrick, Kitchen, Knowlton, Lods, Lee, Lightner, McLean, Moorman, Moss, Nebeker, Orr, Owens, Parrett, Pitts, Prosser, Prow, Ragan, Randall, Bobbins, Roberts, Sherman, Stevenson, Stotsenberg, Trier, Thomas, Turner, Underwood, Veatch, Warrum, Wells, Williams, Wilson, Woodhull, Woods, and Mr. Speaker - 73.
NAYS - Messrs. Atkisson, Black, Bundy, Lane, McClurg, Mutz, Packard, Polk, Smith of Bartolomew, and Thompson - 10.
So the bill amendments were concurred in.
Mr. GRESHAM. The only material change proposed by the committee is the relief to the execution debtor. If the debtor's property is in a condition to sell for three fourths its value, it will probably be as well for him, as for him to make the money in any other way. Then again, what relief is it to the younger creditor? He has a right to attend the sale and bid on the property sold. But here is another objection. We are going to inaugurate a new system of collection altogether a new system - and which can not fail to become a fruitful source of litigation. Questions will continually be rising about the right of redemption. In the first place, I don't think there is any great relief in it, to the execution-debtor; and as far as it extends relief to other parties, it is similar to the New York redemption law; and as for that law, in the State of New York, where the people were used to it, it was still regarded as a great source of litigation.
Mr. EDSON held a different opinion as to the relief proposed to the execution debtor as well as to junior iniumbrancers. He reviewed the case at length. He showed also how this relief would compel property to sell something near its value to prevent the probabilities of redemption.
Mr. GRESHAM. Will not this bill, if it pass, virtually amount to a suspension of the laws for the collection of debts?
Mr. EDSON. No, I think not.
Mr. GRESHAM. It should be recollected that there are some creditors who are also embarrassed, and if you prevent them from collecting, where is the relief?
Mr EDSON. I understand that this bill is for the benefit of the poor man, and not the Shylock. I do not know how it is in other portions of the State, but in our county real estate will not bring one-filth its valuation on the tax duplicate; and when it is sold under execution, in almost all cases it is purchased by the creditor. I have seen a house and lot in our town, which, one year ago, sold for $1,600, sell for $460 under execution. Now, I say justice and equity should give that man the right to come in and redeem that property. It should not be the policy of legislation to foster large land monopolists. It is not because men have not property enough to pay their debts, that they are embarrassed, but because they can't command the actual cash.
Mr. JENKINSON proposed to amend the bill by striking out "eight'' and inserting "ten" per cent. interest.
Mr. CRAIN. I am in favor of that, and if it is added I will go for the bill. If it is any relief I am willing to grant it. It will not affect the State credit. It does not operate on past contracts and considerations. It only operates on page: 205[View Page 205] the purchaser. The reason why I am in favor of 10 per cent. is, that that is as low as money can be got in any portion of the State. Then it is doing what is right toward the purchaser. I know 10 per cent, is not the legal interest; but I am speaking of what money brings. I can conceive of many instances in which this bill might be of great benefit to parties. Property might sell at very low figures through collusions, and if the debtor can have time to get breath he may redeem his property. It is well to throw around him a set of circumstances by which he can recover and pay up. I have opposed all the relief measures but this, and I am willing to vote for this if it shall give a fair remuneration to the purchaser for the use of his money.
Mr. ROBBINS demanded the previous question and under its operation Mr. Jenkinson's amendment was adopted.
And then the bill was ordered to be engrossed and considered as engrossed. The vote on the final reading was reported yeas 78, nays 11 as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Anderson, Bingham, Branham, Brett, Brucker, Bryan, Campbell, Cason, Collins of Whitley, Collins of Adams, Combs, Cooprider, Crain, Dashiel, Davis, Edson, Epperson, Erwin, Feagler, Ferguson, Fisher, Fleming, Fordyce, Fraley, Frasier, Gifford, Gore, Hall, Harvey, Heffren, Henricks, Holcomb, Hopkins, Horton, Howard, Hudson, Hurd, Jenkinson, Jones of Tippecanoe, Jones of Vermillion, Jones of Wayne, Kendrick, Kitchen, Knowlton, Lods, Lee, Lightner, McClurg, McLean, Moorman, Moss, Newman, Orr, Owens, Pitts, Prosser, Prow, Ragan, Randall, Robbins, Roberts, Sloan, Sherman, Stevenson, Stotsenberg, Trier, Thomas, Thompson, Turner, Underwood, Veatch, Warrum, Wells, Williams, Wilson, Wood-hull, Woods and Mr. Speaker - 78.
NAYS - Messrs. Atkinson, Black, Bundy, Gresham, Hayes, Lane, Mutz, Nebeker, Parrett, Polk, Smith of Bartholomew - 11.
Mr. ATKISSON (pro forma.) I could have willingly voted for this bill if the amendment of the gentleman from Henry (Mr. Bundy) had prevailed. But in its present shape I am satisfied that it conflicts with the Constitution and will cause litigation. I would vote for any constitutional measure of relief.
So the bill passed the House of Representatives.
FARMER'S LIEN BILL.
Mr. EDSON, from the Committee on the Judiciary, returned the landlord lien bill [S. 30] without amendment, and with a recommendation for its passage.
He explained why the amendment of Mr. Stotsenburg was not incorporated. That was a revival of the law of Landlord and tenant, and is not germain to the matter of this bill. He repeated that there had not been a bill before this or the regular session in which his constituents had a deeper interest. It provides that the land owner shall have a lien not on the personal property of the tenant but upon the crops growing and grown upon the land. He supported the bill as founded in justice, and as a measure of advantage also to the tenant, because it affords a just security for rent to the landlord. Under this bill, men of small means, (as the title reads,) men unable to give personal security, would be able to rent land, and so provide themselves with homes. It was distinctly a law for the benefit of the poor man.
Mr. GRESHAM. Are not the landholders asking for it?
Mr. HEFFREN. Is it not for the benefit of the large landholders?
Mr. EDSON. No. It was demanded by all. While it would confer a benefit on the renter, it would confer a still greater benefit upon the tenant. He referred to the expense to tenants of executing the writings necessary for them to give personal security by mortgage, &c., which would be obviated by this bill. This bill would elevate day-laborers to the much better condition of the tenant. The non-execution of these mortgages might deprive a few lawyers of their fees for drawing them. This bill had passed five times in one branch or other of this Legislature since the repeal of the law of 1852. He discussed the doctrine of liens.
Mr. HEFFREN. What more right have you, legal or moral, because you own a few thousand acres of land, to say to your tenant, "you shall pay me first," than that man has who furnished the tenant with the means of supporting his family while he made the crop?
Mr. ROBBINS. Or suppose the case of a man who has furnished your tenant with subsistence prior to the time when he became your tenant?
Mr. EDSON. How was a man to make a crop, and to make money to pay his debts, unless he can rent land. He then resumed the doctrine of liens. Your hotel keeper has a lien upon your trunk till your board bill is paid. Why should the mechanic have a lien on the house he has built? or why should the mechanic or furnisher of steamboats or railroads have a lien for their labor or goods, and the farmer be left without a lien on what his own land has produced, to secure his rent? Would the House drive men from farming, and compel them to go into the army, or elsewhere, for a livelihood.
Mr. HEFFREN. What interest has the McClure estate in this bill?
Mr. EDSON. Not a cent. Your county and almost every county in the State, has a part of that estate in working men's libraries. He supported the bill from further considerations.
Mr. GRESHAM proposed to concur, with an amendment, giving a like lien on the personal property of the tenant, to the person who shall credit him for food, clothing, &c.
The gentlemen seemed to be wishing to benefit the poor man, by taking from him the benefit of appraisement laws. Now, the tenant could not cultivate the land he rents without food, clothing and implements, for which, meanwhile, he is obliged to be indebted to some little country storekeeper near by. He considered the bill would be perfect with his i amendment, and it was supported by nearly page: 206[View Page 206] all the considerations which the gentleman had so carefully presented.
Mr. ORR proposed to concur, with an amendment, restricting the lien, "when the landlord rents for a portion of the crop, upon that portion or amount he is to get for rent, and upon no other portion."
Mr. HEFFREN moved the indefinite postponement of the bill and amendments, which, being pressed under the previous question, was rejected - yeas 40, nays 40.
The question recurred on the amendment of Mr. Gresham.
Mr. PROSSER moved to lay it on the table.
Mr. EDSON demanded the yeas and nays, and the motion prevailed, by yeas 52, nays 27.
The question then recurred on Mr. Orr's amendment.
Mr. WOODHULL moved to postpone the further consideration of the subject till to-morrow.
Mr. HEFFREN preferred a direct vote. He moved to lay the motion to postpone on the table.
The latter motion was agreed to.
Mr. LANE demanded the previous question, and, under its pressure, Mr. Orr's amendment was adopted - affirmative 45, negative 35.
On motion by Mr. EDSON, the bill was ordered to be read the third time now.
It being read through by the Clerk -
Mr. WOODS moved to recommit with the following instructions, which were read for information.
Amend by inserting in the proper place, as an additional section, these words: "All amounts due for labor on such land, that may have been employed for the purpose of raising such crop, shall have precedence in payment, and shall be fully satisfied and paid in full. If not so paid, such person or persons having such claims for such labor performed shall have a lien on such crops till such debt for labor is satisfied."
Mr. DAVIS and Mr. HENRICKS submitted the following, which was read for the information of the House.
Amend by inserting, in the proper place, "that when any owner of land shall rent any, part thereof to any poor man, the poor man shall have a lien on said land for all damages the poor man shall incur, provided the said land does not yield the said poor man a good crop, he having properly cultivated the same."
But they were excluded by the force of the question, and the vote on the final passage of the bill was taken and reported - yeas 30, nays 48 as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Anderson, Atkinson, Brett, Collins of Whitley, Collins of Adams, Combs, Cooprider, Edson, Fleming, Ford, Holcomb, Hopkins, Howard, Hudson, Jenkinson, Kitchen, Lods, Moorman, Mutz, Orr, Pitts, Polk, Prosser, Stevenson, Trier, Thompson, Turner Warrum, Wells, and Woodhull - 30.
NAYS - Messrs. Black, Brucker, Campbell, Dashiel, Davis, Epperson, Feagler, Ferguson, Fisher, Fordyce, Fraley, Frasier, Gifford, Gore, Gresham, Hall, Harvey, Hayes, Heffren, Henricks, Horton, Kurd, Jones of Tippecanoe, Jones of Vermillion, Jones of Wayne, Kendrick, Lane, Lee,Lightner, McClurg, Nebeker, Newman, Packard, Parrett Prow, Ragan, Robbins, Roberts, Sloan, Sherman, Smith of Bartholomew, Stotsenburg, Thomas, Underwood, Veatch Williams, Wilsen, Woods, and Mr. Speaker - 48.
So the bill was rejected.
ADDITIONAL GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS.
Mr. FISHER, under instructions from the Committee on Ways and Means, reported a bill [60] entitled An act making additional general appropriations for the years 1861 and 1862; and defining the fund out of which they are to be paid-and providing for a committee to audit claims upon said appropriations, and providing for the expenses thereof; and, under a dispensation of the rules, it was passed the first and second readings.
[It appropriates $1,000,000: $3,000 for German translations and printing, $15,000 for the Legislative expenses, $1,000 for incidentals in the Adjutant General's office. It appoints an Auditing Committee to consist of two members of the House of Representatives and one of the Senate, to audit the accounts of the Commissary and Quartermaster General, and all other claims to be paid out of this million appropriation - said committee shall sit once a month; have power to employ a clerk, receive $3 per diem compensation, and five cents per mile mileage. The 8th section amongst other appropriations incidental to executive and legislative departments, has $3,000 for binding the laws, journals and Brevier Reports, with a provision that the laws of the regular session and the present session shall be bound in one volume.]
The House took a recess till two o'clock p. m.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
On motion by Mr. FISHER, the House proceeded with the consideration of his additional million general appropriation bill [60] and it was again read through by the Clerk.
Mr. DAVIS. I do not understand that this additional million is to be borrowed.
Mr. FISHER. These are appropriations to be paid out of the former loan.
Mr. BLACK. I propose to amend by striking out, all that part which provides for an auditing committee. I cannot see the use of this committee, so long as we have an Auditor of State.
Mr. FISHER. That question is one to which the committee gave a great deal of attention. While our people are perfectly willing to pay all the taxes necessary to support the government, they undoubtedly look to the Legislature to provide such guards as shall prevent their money from being squandered. The Auditor is ordinarily the accounting officer of the State, but it should be borne in mind that that officer's labors are now greatly increased. He is required to sign all the bonds of the State; that is a single circumstance. There are 88,000 separate bonds of the State to be issued, which will require 88,000 signatures, which that officer will have to make; and for that labor alone, at 2,000 signatures a day, it ill require all his time for 44 days. The result must be, then, that he cannot pay due at- page: 207[View Page 207] tention to the other duties of his office during that period of 44 days. The question, then, is this: whether he shall have a clerk to do this auditing of the claims to be paid out of this appropriation, or whether the House shall appoint this committee? The Auditor of Public Recounts cannot give that attention to the subject which it absolutely requires. There is such a thing as overloading him with business so that he can do nothing personally, but only overlook what is done by others; and when you reduce him to that, all your assurance of faithfulness and fidelity in his office is gone. He may appoint good men or bad men; and collusions may take place among his appointees and parties having claims against the State. We know there would be a great chance of perpetrating frauds in this way. I, for one, think this way: that, while we are here appropriating the people's money for purposes which they approve, they will also hold us to a strict accountability for the duty of providing all the guards we can to prevent it from being squandered. After various consultations in committee, we have come to the conclusion that this is the best plan which we propose in this bill. The only object is to secure the Treasury from being plundered, if I should use that expression.
Mr. ATKINSON. Does the bill propose that the Governor shall appoint this committee?
Mr. FISHER. No sir; it is a committee of two from the House and one from the Senate. There is another advantage in this plan. The whole thing is kept within the control of the Legislature. The Legislature is selected by the people. We are appropriating the people's money, and it becomes our duty to throw proper guards around it. We are held responsible for the results, whether we keep the power in our own hands, or transfer it, to that of others, we will be held responsible, let us expend this money in whatever manner we may. The expense of this committee I can not estimate. It will take time to get into working order. Their business may require them to remain here a week or more in every month; but when the working of the machinery comes to be understood, I think four days in a month will be sufficient. People will soon learn the time when their claims can be passed upon, and be ready. But suppose it were necessary for that committee to sit here every day from this till January; if you constitute the committee of the right kind of men, I think the money for their per diem would be well laid out. I think, if the whole time of the committee should be occupied, considering the magnitude of the interests involved, their pay would be money well expended for the State. In making these remarks, I am. by no means impugning the reputation of the officers of State properly charged with these matters, but I am only looking to the large amount of business they have to perform.
Mr. McLEAN was rather inclined, at first, to oppose this proposition for an auditing committee, but he was satisfied the Auditor could not give the necessary attention to everything under these war appropriations. Early in the session, the House passed a bill authorizing commissioners to have oversight of the war disbursements; but that bill had met with no favor in the Senate; and it was necessary that the State should have some competent agency to do the work which those commissioners were to do.
Mr. BLACK saw a difficulty in the fact that this committee could not be in session all the time here, and claimants would be at a loss to know when to present their claims.
Mr. CRAIN considered that the Legislature should supervise these large disbursements. A million, seven hundred thousand dollars would be appropriated by the Legislature, if this bill pass. Other States had taken the same course. He had expected gentlemen would suggest further guards, instead of efforts to take away what guards we have, by amendments such as that offered by the gentleman from Orange.
Mr. RAGAN feared that, perhaps, this bill would open a door to dodge the embezzlement bill. Then it was not right to assume that all the honesty in the State is lodged in the Legislature. He preferred the sworn State officers, and reliance on their oath and their bonds, as the safest guards and guarantees of fidelity in these disbursements. He was opposed to interference with the duties of the State officers.
Mr. FISHER. The main reason why the committee regarded this measure as necessary is in the fact which I stated before, that it is utterly impossible for the Auditor of Public Accounts to attend to these duties personally, and also to the large amount of other business he has to do. I stated that the mere signing of the State bonds, required by the loan bill, will require 44 days of incessant labor. And during this time, I take it, if the Auditor have other public duties to perform, he must do the work by proxy. The gentleman from Putnam makes the intimation that the embezzlement bill will not operate as a check on this committee. In reply, I would say to him, that this committee have no control whatever over the public money. They simply examine and certify that such and such accounts and claims are just. Now, if the Auditor audits a claim for a thousand dollars more than it ought to be, the embezzlement bill can do no good in such a case. That bill applies only where he diverts the public money from its proper channel, or appropriates it to his own use. Somebody must do this work; and the question is, whether it shall be done by a committee or by clerks appointed by the Auditor. Assuredly this Legislature will be held responsible for the security of this money and the fidelity of its disbursement. Whether this is the best plan or not is for this House to determine. If any gentleman can devise a better plan, I page: 208[View Page 208] should be glad to have him present it. I hope the House will not think of throwing this labor on the shoulders of the Auditor, who, I am persuaded, never can do it properly, and never will be willing to undertake it.
Mr. PARRETT. Will this committee have authority to take testimony?
Mr. FISHER. Their power is not limited as to that. But the Auditor is expressly prohibited from paying out any claim not audited by them. I do not think they would have power to send for persons and papers. But they will have to examine claims; and its power to reject implies the examination of vouchers and the hearing of such testimony as may be brought before them. If the claimant does not bring up his evidence to their satisfaction they will reject his claim.
Mr. McLEAN. An individual with a large claim would be very likely to bring in his witnesses.
Mr. PARRETT. Will it not be the duty of the committee to send for rebutting testimony?
Mr. FISHER. I do not think the bill makes any provision of authority to send for persons and papers, which would incur expense. There is no such thing in the bill.
Mr. PARRFTT. Then all the committee have to do is to correct accounts as they are handed over to them, and either reject or admit.
Mr. FISHER. It will be necessary to compare the claims with the contract and vouchers.
Mr. BUNDY. The gentleman from Vigo [Mr. McLean] has made my speech; and now with the view of testing the sense of the House on the amendment, I move to lay it on the table.
The motion was agreed to, and the question recurred on the engrossment.
Mr. BRETT. I believe that, as our war matters now stand, there is an Inspector General, under whose eye and inspection every claim has to pass before it goes to the Auditor; and, without his endorsement, no claim can be paid. Mr. Miles Murphy is our Inspector General, and I do not see any necessity for an additional board of inspectors.
Mr. FISHER. Where does the gentleman find authority for such an officer?
Mr. BRETT. In the army regulations, I suppose.
Mr. PARRETT. The Inspector General swears that the duty which this bill gives to the committee is his duty.
Mr. FISHER. I do not understand that there is any such an officer authorized by the laws of the State of Indiana.
Mr. McLEAN. If I understand it, it is the duty of the Inspector General to inspect the arms, ammunition, clothing and supplies of the men. His duty does not extend to the inspection of accounts.
Mr. BRETT. Has he not been attending to that?
Mr. PARRETT. The gentleman from Vigo and the Inspector General understand the duties of that officer differently. There is a difference of opinion between military men. [Laughter.]
Mr. FISHER. This duty of the Inspector General has been devolved upon him without authority of law. There has been a necessity for somebody to pass upon these accounts, but the law does not devolve any such duty upon him. In the absence of the ability of the Auditor to attend to it, I understand from the Governor, that this officer has been detailed for this work.
Mr. BRETT. It does seem to me that this thing might be managed without bringing these three members of the Legislature here once a month to attend to it. If the Auditor of State needs additional help let him have it. The gentleman from Wabash says it will require this committee but three or four days once a month; and if that is all we might allow the Auditor additional clerk hire to attend to the matter properly in the proper place. I believe one good clerk would do as well as half a dozen committees. Therefore I think this proposition entirely uncalled for; and I move a reconsideration of the vote by which that portion of the act has been passed.
Mr. HOLCOMB. I move to recommit the bill with instructions to report an amendment authorizing the Auditor to employ a clerk.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion of 'he gentleman from Henry to lay the amendment on the table.
Mr. BLACK demanded the yeas and nays, and they were ordered and taken - yeas 40, nays 43.
So the House refused to lay the amendment on the table.
Mr. Speaker ALLEN. (Mr. Orr in the Chair.) There is one argument which has not yet been used, and which is conclusive to my mind why the amendment should not prevail. I can see no good reason why the House should not throw around the disbursement of this money all the safe-guards in its power. There is another reason, perfectly conclusive, why this commission should be appointed. These appropriations are made under extraordinary circumstances. They are made with the expectation that a large portion will eventually be refunded to the State by the General Government. And, if we expect this money to be refunded, it is incumbent upon us to have everything connected with it so certified that when we will come to present our claim there will be no further proof needed. While I accord to the Auditor of State credit for as much honesty as any man, yet, sir, 1 feel desirous that inasmuch as we are to be held responsible for these appropriations, and inasmuch as we expect them to be reimbursed, we should control them as far as possible. But gentlemen page: 209[View Page 209] object because an additional expense is to be incurred. Now suppose this committee should be in session from the day of the adjournment of this Legislature up to the time when the last dollar of these appropriations shall have been expended, would the expense be any greater than the amount gentlemen are wiling to give for clerk hire. The whole amount would not much exceed $3,000. How can gentlemen object to that, when the object is to watch the disbursement of a million of dollars, under circumstances where frauds may be perpetrated, unless the most watchful care is exercised. This is no new thing, Mr. Speaker. Every State that has sent forces into the field has provided that the expenses incurred shall be audited by a committee similar to that provided by this bill. The only difference between the State of Indiana and the other States is, that while we make this provision in the general appropriation bill they do the same thing by a special law,except in the State of Massachusetts, where the Governor's Council take care of the matter. Sir, is not the amount of money involved, and is not the circumstances under which it is to be expended a sufficient justification for every protection and safe-guard that we can possibly throw around this fund? I do not agree with my friend from Wabash, that this work can be done in three or four days of each month. My opinion is, that full half the time of this committee will be occupied in auditing these claims. And this fact itself shows the necessity of a commission to take care of this fund, whose duty shall be confined to that single purpose. Mr. Speaker, I ask if it is the purpose of the friends of this amendment to allow these claims to be audited by a clerk to be furnished by the Auditor? That, I understand, to be about the substance of the proposition of gentlemen who favor striking out. They say, give to the Auditor an additional clerk and the expense will not be so great. Then it is the clerk and not the Auditor that is to make these investigations. We have been told by the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means that, for the next two months, the whole time of the Auditor will be occupied in signing the State bonds. That he cannot do by deputy. Then the Auditor can give no part of these two months to the investigation of these claims; and, sir, I do not care who or how honest that Auditor's clerk may be, there is no clerk in the State of Indiana into whose hands I would be willing to commit the investigation 01 these claims.
Mr. JENKINSON was convinced by the remarks of the gentleman from Knox, of the wisdom and propriety of putting this commission in the bill.
Mr. FRAZIER was opposed to the motion to strike out. But if this committee have not the power to send for testimony, I think they ought to have that power. - Mr. Black's amendment was rejected.
Mr. RAGAN proposed to amend by inserting in the proper place the names of Stearns, Fisher and John S. Hopkins.
Mr. FISHER and Mr. HOPKINS desired the gentleman from Putnam to withdraw the amendment.
Mr. BUNDY thought it better to allow the committee to be appointed by the proper authority.
Mr. PACKARD proposed the name of A. M. Black for one of the committee.
Mr. RAGAN accepted.
Mr. FISHER proposed the name of David S. Branham.
Mr. Speaker ALLEN suggested that if it was desirable to have the committee selected by the House, let it, be done by ballot. This course would gain time for the consideration of the details of the bill.
Mr. BUNDY moved to lay Mr. Ragan's amendment, as amended, on the table.
Mr. PACKARD demanded the yeas and nays and the vote stood - yeas 42. nays 41; so the amendment was laid on the table.
Mr. FISHER. There should be in the bill an exception of the claims of members and officers of the present General Assembly. He proposed that amendment in form, and it was adopted by unanimous consent, in these words: "except for legislative expenses."
The bill was'now ordered to be considered as engrossed, and it was again read through by the Clerk, as amended.
Mr. HOLCOMB asked unanimous consent to fix the salary of the Committee Clerk at $800 a year.
Mr. FISHER supposed it would not be necessary to employ a clerk all the time.
Mr. BUNDY objected to the amendment.
The vote on the third and last reading of the bill was reported - yeas 73, nays 12 - as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Anderson, Atkisson, Binghan, Black, Branham, Brucker, Bryan, Bundy, Campbell, Cason, Collins of Whitley, Collins of Adams, Combs, Cooprider, Crain, Dashiel, Davis, Epperson, Erwin, Feagler, Ferguson, Fisher, Fleming, Ford, Fordyce, Fraley, Gifford, Gore, Gresham, Hall, Harvey, Hayes, Henricks, Hopkins, Hudson, Kurd, Jenkinson, Jones of Tippecanoe, Jones of Vermillion, Jones of Wayne, Kendrick, Kitchen, Lods, Lane, Lee, Lightner, McClurg, McLean, Moorman, Nebeker, Newman, Orr, Owens, Parrett, Prow, Ragan, Bandall, Sloan, Sherman, Smith of Bartholomew, Stevenson, Stotsenburg, Trier, Thomas, Thompson, Turner, Underwood, Wells, Williams, Wilson, Woodhull, Woods, and Mr. Speaker - 73.
NAYS - Messrs. Brett, Edson, Holcomb, Horton, Howard, Knowlton, Mutz, Packard, Pitts, Polk, Prosser, and Warrum - 12.
So the bill passed the House of Representatives.
SALARY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
Mr. Speaker ALLEN introduced a bill [61] to increase the salary of the Attorney General, and providing for the payment thereof. [It makes his salary $2,500, (instead of $1,000) payable quarter-yearly.]
The bill was read twice, (under a dispensation for the purpose,) and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. STOTSENBERG introduced a bill [62] providing for the impeachment of witnesses in certain cases.
page: 210[View Page 210]It was passed to the second reading to-morrow.
Mr. GRESHAM introduced a bill [63] supplemental to the militia act of May 11, 1861, which was passed the first reading. He said: The militia bill [sec. 10] provided originally for a major to each battalion, and when it was amended so as to provide for one major to each regiment, there was left the discrepancy of provisions that the regimental staff officers shall be appointed both by the colonel and the major. The bill, of course, gives this power to the Colonel.
On motion of Mr. GRESHAM, (under a dispensation) it was passed the second reading.
Mr. KNOWLTON proposed to amend by adding a provision "for a tax of 50 cents a year on every person liable to military duty, that shall fail or refuse to enrol himself with the active militia of the State."
On motion of Mr. McLEAN, the amendment was laid on the table.
The bill was then considered as engrossed, and passed the third and last reading in the House of Representatives - yeas 70, nays 8.
SHERIFFS' MILEAGE.
On the motion of Mr. WOOD, Mr. Kitchen's sheriff-mileage bill [59] it being the special order for this day was taken up.
Mr. MOORMAN proposed an amendment as to the distances from the county seat of Randolph county.
Mr. PACKARD proposed amendments as to the distances from the county-seat of Marshall county, and the county-seat of Starke county.
Mr. NEBEKER proposed amendments of the distances from the county-seat of Warren county.
Mr. FORD proposed amendments as to the distances from the county-seat of Jackson county.
Mr. COLLINS of Adams proposed correction as to the distances from the county-seat of Adams county.
Mr. FISHER proposed corrections as to the distance from the county-seat of Allen county.
Mr. GIFFORD proposed an amendment as to the distance from the county-seat of Franklin county.
Mr. ROBBINS proposed an amendment as to the distance from the county-seat of Fulton county.
Mr. HALL proposed to amend as to the distance from the county-seat of Grant county.
Mr. BUNDY proposed to amend as to the distance from the county seat of Henry county.
Mr. FISHER proposed to amend as to the distance from the county-seat of Huntington county.
Mr. FRAZIER proposed to amend as to the distance from the county-seat of Kosciusko county.
Mr. Speaker ALLEN (Mr. Edson in the chair) proposed to amend as to the distance from the county-seat of Knox county.
Mr. SIIERMAN proposed to amend as to the distance from the county-seat of Laporte county.
Mr. ERWIN proposed to amend as to the distance from the county-seat of Lawrence county.
Mr. STOTSENBERG proposed to amend as to the distance from the county-seat of Marion county.
Mr. FISHER proposed to amend as to the distance from the county-seat of Miami county.
Mr. RAGAN proposed to amend as to the distance from the county-seat of Monroe county.
Mr. EPPERSON proposed to amend as to the distance from the county-seat of Montgomery county.
Mr. RANDALL proposed to amend as to the distance from the county-seat of Noble county.
Mr. WILLIAMS proposed to amend as to the distance from the county-seat of Ohio county.
Mr. COMBS proposed to amend as to the distance from the county-seat of Owen county.
Mr. CRAIN proposed to amend as to the distance from the county-seat of Parke county.
Mr. WELLS proposed to amend as to the distance from the county-seat of Pike county.
Mr. BRUCKER proposed to amend as to the distance from the county-seat of Perry county.
Mr. WOODHULL proposed to amend as to the distance from the county-seat of Steuben county.
Mr. WILLIAMS proposed to amend as to the distance from the county-seat of Switzerland county.
Mr. GORE proposed to amend as to the distance from the county-seat of Tipton county.
Mr. HOPKINS proposed to amend as to the distance from the county-seat of Vanderburgh county.
Mr. JONES of Vermillion proposed to amend as to the distance from the county-seat of Verrnillion county.
Mr. FISHER proposed to amend as to the distance from the county-seat of Wabash county.
Mr. NEBEKER proposed to amend as to the distance from the county-seat of Warren county.
Mr. HORTON proposed to amend as to the distance from the county-seat of Wells county.
Mr. SHERMAN proposed to amend as to the distance from the county seat of White county.
Mr. COLLINS of Whitley proposed to amend as to the distance from the county-seat of Whitley county.
Mr. NEWMAN proposed to amend as to the distance from the county-seat of Wayne county.
Mr. KNOWLTON proposed to amend as to the distance from the county-seat of Cass county.
Mr. GORE proposed to amend as to the distance from the county-seat of Hamilton county.
These proposed amendments were severally concurred in.
On the motion of Mr. EDSON, the bill was ordered to be engrossed.
The House then, at 5:20 o'clock, P. M., adjourned.
