IN SENATE.
THURSDAY, February 5, 1863.Mr. WILLIAMS, from the Finance Committee, returned the bill [S. 71] proposing to reduce the salaries of State officers, with a recommendation that it lie on the table.
Mr. CLAYPOOL argued against tabling the bill. It was just to make the salaries of State officers the same. They should all be $2,000 or all be $3,000. Why should the President of the Sinking Fund get more than the Secretary of State?
Mr. WILLIAMS submitted that the salary of the President, of the Sinking Fund, considering the amount, of money that passes through his hands, and the labor and responsibility, was low enough. A bill was already before the Senate to cut off all fees from the State officers, and both bills should not pass.
Mr. WOLFE was in favor of the bill. He did not think any man could earn by his own labor more than $2,000. There was a great deal of labor probably to be done in the Sinking Fund office, but the labor was not done by the President, but by clerks, who were paid by the State, and should be well paid. The President supervised and directed the work, and he considered $2,000 as ample compensation. If an additional clerk were needed, give one and pay him, but he opposed these large salaries, both in the military and the civil service.
Mr. LANDERS was in favor of the passage of the bill introduced by the Senator from Delaware, (Mr. March) to take the fees from the State officers, and he thought it would pass, and consequently did not think this bill should pass.
Mr. RAY. The proposition to reduce the salary of the President of the Sinking Fund was before the Senate two years ago, when the state of the country demanded reduction more than it does now, and it was voted down. If he was not mistaken, the majority of those who favored reduction now, opposed it then. He repeated the arguments used by those gentlemen then, and said they had far more force now, when all the necessaries of life had advanced at least 40 per cent.
Mr. WILLIAMS found by reference to the journals of two years ago, that Messrs. Claypool, March and Blair, who were so anxious now to reduce the salary of the President of the Sinking Fund, voted against it then. Now " a change had come o'er the spirit of their dream." How is this?
Mr. CLAYPOOL said the gentleman's argument would compel a man "once a fool to remain a fool always;" and contended that the proposition two years ago was only to reduce the salary of one officer, that of the Sinking Fund President. This bill equalises all the salaries. He pronounced a glowing eulogium on Gen. Dumont, the President of the Board two years ago, and said that his legal services, connected with the duties of his office were worth more than the entire amount of his salary. The duties of the office, he contended, were not so onerous now as they were two years ago.
Mr. COBB did not think the salaries too high. The salary of the President of the Sinking Fund was certainly not too high. The responsibility was very great, and he was liable on his bond for all errors. It required great financial ability and great care to perform the duty. The question of legal ability had little to do with the question. If legal advice was required, the President would get it, and he would pay for it. If two years ago the salaries were not too high, certainly they were not too high now when the currency had depreciated so greatly.
Mr. MARCH said that all the State officers, except the President of the Sinking Fund, had pocketed the fees of their offices in defiance of the law. If the bill to prevent this in future was passed, he would not urge the passage of this bill, but he thought this bill should not be laid aside until the other was passed. He thought, however, a salary of $2,000 was sufficient for any of these officers.
Mr. WOLFE. If the gentlemen who were wrong two years ago were right now he would forgive them. It was better to be right than to be consistent, but men could be right and consistent both, if they would. He voted for the reduction two years ago, and he would do so now. He did not care who were the incumbents. He would pay Republicans and Democrats alike, if the people chose to elect them. He did not think a Republican could fill an office as well as a Democrat, but if the people chose to differ with him and elect one, he would pay him without question.
Mr. BROWNE, of Randolph, had always thought that one great evil of our form of government was the creation of too many officers. The demand was generally equal to one office for every tenth man in the community. When these offices were once created, then the clamor was for salaries or perquisites to command the highest order of talent," and so we go. There were too many offices around the Sinking Fund. There was no use for a large Board of Commissioners. But it is the law, and it was not proposed to change it now. He was for reducing salaries. He favored this bill and would give his reasons. Tie spoke at length, and concluded by declaring his conviction that light and justice demanded a reduction.
Mr. DUNNING (Mr. Downey in the Chair) had been amused at gentlemen appealing to the record to prove their consistency and inconsistency. The gentleman from Randolph made a very pretty page: 117[View Page 117] speech, and it might be very effective on the stump to wheedle people out of their vote? He was in favor of paying for services rendered, and paying public servants well. He did not believe in working for charity, to the neglect of a man's family. At home he worked for pay, and his people understood that he did so. If they did not wish his services they need not have them. He was prepared to vote to pay members of this Legislature better for their services, and he could defend the vote before his people. He was unwilling to see our State officers reduced to live on a more pittance. Would gentlemen give up their business at home and bring their families here, unless they would receive a salary that would enable them to live respectably ? They would not. He spoke of the Sinking Fund of its importance to the whole people of the State, and the onerous duties of the President, and said that the salary was not one dollar too high. It was not party feeling with him it was a matter of principle. Two years ago he had urged members to vote against a red action of salaries, and two years hence, it the Republicans were in power, he would do the same thing. He would vote for the report of the committee.
Mr. SHIELDS thought two years ago $2,000 was a sufficient compensation to the President of the Sinking Fund, and the vote he should give to-day would be consistent with that. The rise of all commodities that were used made a salary of $3,000 not worth more than $1,500 two years ago. He instanced the price of all articles of consumption, and contended that a decrease would be grossly unjust. A further depreciation of the currency might take place, and he entreated gentlemen to pause and reflect. The responsibility of the office of President of the Sinking Fund was very great. You must have men who can give a large bond, and when the people were made safe and felt safe, they were willing to pay fair salaries. Gentlemen, two years ago, when the currency was sound, and when the storm was coining, refused to trim their sails for the financial storm, but now, when the currency was growing daily more worthless, they propose to reduce salaries. He would oppose it.
Mr. MANSFIELD was in favor of economy, but it was not always economy to reduce salaries and wages. It was the reverse, often. It would be unreasonable to ask a man like Gen. Dumont, who possessed the highest order of talent, to take the management of millions of the public funds for a mere pittance. The railroads, the banks, and other corporations, hardly ever thought of giving their Presidents less than $3,000 per annum. There was no honor in the office. The reports were never read by the public. They were glanced over by a few members of the Legislature, and placed away on the shelves of the library. It was unjust, then, to ask men to fill these offices at far less than they could easily make at their private business. What he would give to a Republican in the way of salary he would give to a Democrat, and he should vote in favor of the report.
The report of the committee was concurred in--yeas 23, nays 16, excused 1.
DECEDENTS' ESTATES.
The Committee on Judiciary reported back the bill, [66] amending the act for the settlement of decedents' estates, with a recommendation that it pass.
Mr. MARCH moved to concur in the report, with an amendment striking out that part which requires the widow to publish a notice that the estate does not exceed $300. He contended that this provision in the bill would add to the costs of settling the estates of a class who are illy able to pay advertising bills, when such notice was unnecessary.
Mr. WOLFE defended the bill, and claimed that it would not work to the injury of widows, but would enable decedents' estates to be more fairly settled than they could now be done.
Mr. CORBIN opposed the amendment.
The amendment was adopted.
On motion by Mr. WILLIAMS the clause requiring the publication of the law in the Indianapolis papers was stricken out.
The report was then concurred in.
A report from the Finance Committee, recommending that the bill [S. 9] to repeal portions of the act concerning fees of county officers, recommending its indefinite postponement, was concurred in.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Resolutions of inquiry addressed to appropriate committees, were offered, read and severally adopted, to-wit:
By Mr. WILSON, whether the amounts collected at various military camps in the State, in 1862, from the sales of sutler's stands, have been accounted for to the proper authorities.
By Mr. WILLIAMS, if there have been any violations of the embezzlement law, and if so, at what time and by whom.
By Mr. SHIELDS, " into the expediency of so amending the present law, as to authorize the Board of County Commissioners to bring suit upon the bonds of defaulting township trustees, and defining the mode of instituting such suits."
PAY OF SOLDIERS.
Mr. CORBIN introduced a joint resolution [9] instructing our Senators in Congress, and requesting our Representatives, to secure, if possible, pay in gold for officers and soldiers in the army. And, if that cannot be done, then to have their pay increased the amount of the premium on gold, which was read the first time.
page: 118[View Page 118]NEW PROPOSITIONS.
The following bills were introduced, read the first time and severally passed to the second reading:
By Mr. DAVIS, of Parke, [80] to amend the first section of an act entitled an act concerning inclosures, trespassing animals and partition services.
By Mr. WOLFE, [87] to amend section 25 of an act providing for the election or appointment of Supervisors of Highways, and prescribing certain of their duties and those of county and township officers, approved March 5, 1859.
By Mr. BLAIR. [88] supplemental to an act entitled an act for the encouragement of agriculture, approved February 17, 1852, and to encourage the organization of horticultural societies.
By Mr. LANDERS. [89] for the punishment of officers of elections for receiving the ballots of unqualified persons, and for counting and returning such votes ; for abstracting or destroying ballots voted, so that such votes shall be lost in the count and return ; for removing ballots voted or substituting others instead thereof; for changing the names or office voted for on ballots , for falsely reading or counting any name or office voted for ; for writing spurious or false names on any poll book ; for depositing spurious or false ballots; for making false counts of votes, and for making false returns of the votes cast at any election authorized by law to be held in this State.
By Mr. CLAYPOOL, [90] to authorize the Bank of the State of Indiana to reduce the capital stock of any branch or branches of said Bank, audio close up the business affairs of a branch or branches of said Bank, under certain regulations, and amendatory of an act entitled an act to establish a Bank with branches, passed March 3, 1855.
WORK FOR COMMITTEES.
Senate bills 79 to 85, and the joint resolution 8, (introduced yesterday) were read the second time and appropriately referred ; excepting 82, which was ordered en-grossed.
BILLS ON THE THIRD READING.
The following described Senate bills were read the third time and finally passed, to wit:
Mr. Fuller's, [19] requiring that the cost of all Government stamps used in legal processes be taxed up with the costs of the suit--yeas 40, nays none.
Mr. March's, [16] prescribing forms for conveyances to be made by administrators, executors, guardians, trustees, or commissioners--by yeas 38, nays none.
Mr. Hord's, [20] to amend section 33 of the assessment law, so as to authorize the Collection of township and special school I taxes from railroad and other corporations--to yeas 39, nays none.
Mr. Ferguson's [22] to amend section 54 of the act concerning misdemeanors, so as to fix no penalty for failing to return marriage licences to the Clerk's office, and allowing a certificate of marriage to be returned without being accompanied by the license--yeas 40, nays none.
Mr. March's, [24] providing for conveyances of school lands by County Auditors upon certificates not properly assigned or acknowledged. (The bill provides that where the purchase money has been all paid, the courts may hear testimony as to proper ownership or possession of the land, and order the Auditor to make a deed.)-- Yeas 39, nays 2.
Mr. Beeson's, [26] to amend the 12th section of the act touching the relation of guardian and ward--by yeas 36, nays 4.
Mr. New's, [32] providing for giving notice to parties to suits whose residences are unknown--yeas 31, nays 9.
Mr. Gaff's. [30] providing for building and repairing bridges across streams forming boundary lines between counties--by yeas 40, nays none.
