IN SENATE.
THURSDAY, February 7, 1867.The Senate met at 2 o'clock P. M.
The journal of yesterday was read.
Leave of absence was obtained for Mr. Kinley, detained in his room by suffering from the effects of wounds contracted in the service.
On motion by Mr. CRAVENS, Mr. Kinley's eight hour bill [S. 16] was postponed and made the special order for this day week at 2 o'clock P. M.
page: 176[View Page 176]On motion by Mr. OYLEE, Mr. Thompson's registry bill [S. 2] was made the special order for Tuesday at 2 o'clock P. M.
PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.
Petitions for the passage of a prohibitory liquor law were presented by the PRESIDENT, (signed by 100 names). Mr. BENNETT, Mr. BROWN, Mr. REAGAN, (with 252 signatures), Mr. HUFFMAN, Mr. ARMSTRONG and Mr. WOLCOTT, which were severally, referred to the Committee on Temperance, without reading.
Mr. LEE presented a petition from citizens of Bartholomew county, praying for legislation to compel railroad companies in this State to equalize freights. &c., which was read and referred to the Committee on Corporations.
Mr. MILLIGAN presented petitions from a committee appointed by the State Board of Agriculture, praying for the publication of the Indiana Agricultural Reports; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture; also, a memorial from a Presbyterian synod in Northern Indiana, praying for the enactment of a law prohibiting the granting of divorces, except for fornication ; which was referred to the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. HUEY presented a petition, which was referred to the Committee on Rights and Privileges, without reading.
ALLEGED CORRUPTION.
Mr. BENNETT caused to be read by the Secretary an affidavit of Mr. Holliday, a correspondent of the Cincinnati Gazette, which sets forth that he knew knothing to justify the charge of bribery contained in his letter printed in that paper of the 15th ultimo, as far as the House of Representatives is concerned, and that said charge should have been made to apply only to the Senate.
Mr. B. did not think the matter was of sufficient importance to warrant the paying of any particular attention to it, but as the House has seen lit to investigate the charge, and as the correspondent has sworn it on the Senate, he moved the appointment of a select committee of three for the purpose of sending for that gentleman and finding out what he knows about the matter.
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDENT made the committee to consist of Messrs. Bennett, Turner and Armstrong.
FISH PROTECTION.
On motion of Mr. CRAVENS, Mr. Reagan's bill [S. 30] to provide for the protection of fish, defining the time in which they shall be trapped, etc., making it unlawful to seine, trap or net fish for the next two years, and thereafter between the first days of May and September in each year, which failed for want of a constitutional majority last Friday, was taken up, read, and finally passed the Senate by yeas 32, nays 9.
SUPREME COURT SHERIFF SALARY.
On motion of Mr. RICHMOND, his bill [S. 36] providing for addition, by way of salary, of $1,200 to the fees of the Sheriff of the Supreme Court, which failed last Friday for want of a constitutional majority, was taken up.
It was passed by yeas 29, nays 13.
REVENUE FOR 1867-8.
Mr. WOLCOTT asked and obtained leave to return from the Committee on Finance the bill [H. R. 190] to raise revenue for State purposes for the years 1867 and 1868, [20 cents on each $100, and 60 cents on each poll] recommending its passage. The report was concurred in.
On motion by Mr. W., the bill was read the second time.
BILLS ON FINAL READING.
On motion of Mr. CULLEN, the regular order of business was suspended, and the Senate proceeded to the consideration of bills on the third reading.
SUPREME COURT ROOMS.
Mr. Files' bill [S. 158] introduced day before yesterday, concerning the Supreme Court was read by the Secretary the third time.
Mr. NILES explained its necessity and stated that the object was to purchase for the use of the Judges of the Supreme Court the old bank building which is offered for $30,000.
Mr. BENNETT did not desire to be understood as opposing this bill in principle, for he desired to see the Supreme Court well taken care of, but would say that be had introduced a bill in this body to increase the salaries of circuit Judges - men who presides over courts of more importance than the Supreme Court, for if we had good men for circuit judges the supreme judges would have but little or nothing to do - and certain Senators objected to it on account of expense: and now these same Senators think it is nothing to vote $30,000 to add to the comfort of this favorite court of theirs. We should be consistent in these things. If the State is on the verge of bankruptcy, as some Senators seem to think, then we should save this $30,000. He opposed this bill unless all of the class should go together.
The PRESIDENT stated that the Secretary's journal did not show that this bill had been read twice before to-day.
Mr. OYLER replied to Mr. Bennett. He was of opinion that if Circuit Judges did not receive more than $1,000 a year they would not starve; nor indeed was that an argument against the passage of the bill. He moved that the journal of yesterday be corrected so as to show that this bill was read the second time, then.
The motion was agreed to.
The bill was then passed by yeas 30, nays 13.
CHANGE OF VENUE.
Mr. Oyler's bill [S. 13] to authorize and ratify changes of venue in civil actions in certain cases, coming up in regular order, it was read the third time.
Mr. OYLER stated that this bill follows literally the law as it now stands authorizing a change of venue from one county to another; and authorizes a change from one district to another.
The bill was passed by yeas 34, nays 7.
Mr. Richmond's Seventeenth Judicial Circuit bill [S. 39] was read the third time.
page: 177[View Page 177]Mr. RICHMOND stated that as the House has passed a similar bill, he was willing this one should lie upon the table.
It was so ordered.
Subsequently similar court bills S. 40 and S. 42, understood to belong to the same series, were also laid on the table for a similar reason.
OFFICES FOR STATE OFFICERS.
The PRESIDENT announced that the hour had arrived fro the consideration of the special order fixed yesterday, viz: the report of the Committee on Public Buildings.
Mr. CRAVENS, from the special committee to procure offices for the State officers, submitted an additional report on that subject, in response to resolutions of the Senate, in which the committee say that the building now occupied by the State officers was leased by Geo. McQuatt, in 1864, for five years from date, by Joseph Ristine, then Auditor of State, but they have not found any special authority for the Auditor to make such a contract. Accompanying this report were propositions from the Gallup Brothers to sell their building on the south-east corner of Market and Tennessee streets $32,000; and from Geo. W. Miller to sell this building and grounds on the south-east corner of Ohio and Illinois streets for $50,000.
Mr. CULLEN did not like the idea of paying out as much in a few years, for rent, as it would take to put up a suitable building on lots belonging to the State.
Mr. CRAVENS moved that the whole subject be referred to the standing Committee on Public Buildings.
The motion was agreed to.
COLLECTION OF DEBTS.
On motion of Mr. CHURCH, his bill [S. 9] for an act to amend section 13 of An Act providing for the election and qualification of Justices ot the Peace, &c., approved June 9, 1852; approved March 9. 1861; by adding these words: "Provided, that upon any debt contracted in the county of the debtor's residence in a township other than that in which the debtor resides, suit may be brought in the township where such debt was contracted ;" which was read the third time on the 21st ult., (see discussion thereof on page 69 of the BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS) was taken up.
The bill was rejected by yeas 21, nays 22.
COMMISSIONERS' COURTS.
Mr.Cravens' bill [S. 53] to amend the organization of County Boards act, approved March 7, 1863, so that in counties where the population exceeds thirty thousand, the Board of Commissioners may meet on the first Monday in each month, but shall not sit more than sixty days in any one year, being read the third time -
Mr. CARSON urged its passage.
It was then passed by yeas 37, nays 3.
SUPERVISORS' REPORT.
Mr. Carson's bill [S. 61] changing the time of making Supervisors' annual report from the last Saturday in March to the last Saturday in February in each year, was read the third time.
It passed the Senate by yeas 40, nays 2.
AMENDATORY LAWS.
Mr: Stein's bill [S. 63] repealing all statutes in conflict with the decision of the Supreme Courtin the case of Langdon vs. Applegate et alias - to put in force a decision of the Supreme Court which declares all professedly amendatory acts unconstitutional that do not set forth the clause of the law which it purports to amend - being: read the third time -
Mr. STEIN explained its provisions.
Mr. BENNETT. If the present Supreme Court should reverse that decision - Langdon vs. Applegate - it would revive all such laws; and as decisions of courts and legislation has proceeded upon that idea, it is important that this bill should pass.
The bill was passed by yeas 32, nays 11.
TOWNSHIP TRUSTEE.
Mr. Cumback's bill [S. 74] amending sections 5 and 8 of the Township Business Act of February 18,1859, so that the Trustee shall hold for three years, and the school tax shall be levied at the June session of the County Board, was read the third time.
It was passed by yeas 33, nays 9.
ROAD TAX.
Mr. Reynold's bill [S. 95] amending section 26 of the Supervisor's Act by providing that the road tax shall not be less than one nor more than 25c on the $100 of taxables, nor less than two or more than five cents on each acre, being read the third time -
Mr. BENNETT explained its provisions. It was finally passed by yeas 35, nays 4.
GUARDIANS FOR DRUNKARDS.
Mr. Cullen's bill [S. 8] for an act to provide for the care and custody of the persons and estates of habitual drunkards - in the same manner, with the same powers and duties as in the ease of guardianship for minors - being read the third time -
Mr. CULLEN. This bill simply provides that when a person becomes an habitual drunkard, and is the owner of real estate or personal property, it ought by right to go to the support of his family, and not be squandered by him. Any person may file a complaint in the Circuit Court stating that such an one is a drunkard, has property, and there is great danger of his squandering it; and thereupon the Court being satisfied that such is the fact, shall appoint a guardian for him and his property, who shall execute a bond as guardians for minors. And further, if the party show to the Court satisfactory evidence at any time after one year that he has reformed and will take care of his family and his property, then the Court will return to him his property and discharge the guardian. There is a further provision that is any person make a complaint and fail to sustain that complaint, the complainant shall be taxed with the costs. He regarded this bill as one of the best temperance bills under the present law that could be passed by the Legislature. He recited a case in his knowledge that loudly calls for legal intervention of this kind. There is throughout the State a necessity for such a law as this.
Mr. STEIN favored the general spirit of the bill, but he, thought it might be made page: 178[View Page 178] the instrument of annoyance, because there are several terras in it that have no definite meaning; for instance, the term "habitual drunkard."
Then again judgments might differ as to what is squandering property. Every community is infested by prying and mischievous characters, who would be glad to harrass people under this bill. He therefore moved to recommit the bill to the Committee on Temperance, with instructions to insert after the words "any person" these words: "being the wife, child, parent, or parent-in-law, brother, or brother-in-law, sister, or sister-in-law of any party charged with being a drunkard."
Mr. BENNETT hoped the motion would not prevail, There are probably a great many drunkards who have not relatives, and where they have such near relatives will hardly ever complain, and it is to save just such families that the bill is intended. If these prying individuals desire to harrass anybody, there are other pleas they could make just as well. The court decides the questions referred to by the Senator, and it is for the court to determine, and the differences of opinion as between his neighbors has nothing to do with it. It proposes simply a civil action - there is no arrest in it. If the spirit is right, the machinery is right.
Mr. MASON favored recommittal. It is a radical bill. If any man is squandering his means, certainly his relatives would not hesitate to complain; and for an outside party to come in and make an affidavit, it is taking a step too far.
Mr. CHURCH desired a definition of habitual drunkenness in the bill His teachings led him. to believe that a man commences squandering his property the moment he begins to drink. Then we have men who squander all their means in drink and yet can not be called habitual drunkards. And as a general thing a man's near relatives will never interfere, or if at all, not till his property is nearly all sqandered.
Mr. WOLCOTT regarded the principles of this bill as correct; and thought the bill would be inoperative were the amendment adopted
Mr. CARSON did not think the bill sufficiently well guarded. Drunkenness, when it dethrones reason is not held responsible for crime; but the bill introduces a new feature for the courts to define. Habitual drunkenness is a very indefinite term. And then the bill does not state the preference for the person who shall be first entitled to the position of guardian. Were the bill properly drafted and guarded he would vote for such a measure; but as it is he favored the motion to recommit.
Mr. NILES supposed every Senator would concur ia the object of the bill; and was inclined to oppose the amendment proposed.
Mr. OYLER looked upon this as one of the most important bills that has come before the Senate, and was astonished to find some professed temperance men standing in opposition to it. His only objection to the bill was that the offense - that of habitual drunkenness - was not defined. As to the amendment he concurred in the view expressed by the Senator from White (Mr. Wolcott) that it would tend to make it inoperative. He thought the bill as perfect as it could well be made and hoped it would pass.
Mr. CULLEN thought that no strong prohibitory liquor law could be passed by this Legislature; and had but little faith in the pretensions of a man who says he will vote for a prohibitory law, and who refuses to vote for this bill. It is not fanatical in any respect, and the courts will have no trouble in defining what is habitual drunkenness, for they do that very thing almost every day. He argued earnestly in favor of the passage of his bill. Any Senator voting against this bill must say on the record that he is willing a man may spend his last dollar in purchasing whisky, and leave his family penniless in the world. He objected to the proposed amendment on the ground that it would make nugatory one of the principal objects of the bill allowing the wife or children of a drunkard have the advantage of calling to their aid a friendly neighbor. This bill, if it becomes a law, fills a vacuum in our statute book: Thousands worse than widows and orphans are asking for the provisions contained in this bill; and he hoped it would be passed, and become a law upon our statute books
Mr. CHURCH was not here as an advocate of a prohibitory law, though he should probably vote for one. He opposed this bill because he believed it would be a dead letter on the statute book. If the wife and children will not, there is not much likelihood of a stranger or neighbor making complaint get forth in the bill, and when they did it would be likely to create trouble. He did not believe in one case in a thousand there would be any benefit derived from the provisions of this bill.
Mr. HANNA opposed any legislation that seeks to set up a system of espionage upon any family in the State. While conceding that the bill was surely gotten up with the best of motives, he opposed it for the reason that he opposed prohibitory legislation generally. Then it would give evil disposed persons an opportunity to vent their spleen.
On motion by Mr. RICHMOND, the motion to recommit was laid on the table.
Mr. CASON thought this bill very well page: 179[View Page 179] guarded, and that it does not come within the class of legislation hertofore called prohibitory. There never was in the history of jurisprudence a time when insanity was so difficult to define as now. Habitual drunkenness is a thing that can be seen and determined much more readily. When a man becomes incapable of taking care of his family, from whatever cause, the strong arm of the law should step in and administer on his property for the support of his wife and children. The present time was unfavorable for enacting too stringent measures on the subject, because it would be in advance of public opinion. The bill provides one of the strongest guards against false charges in the fact that it requires information to be made under oath, and on failure to sustain it, the informing party pays the costs. He argued in favor of the bill-stating an extreme cause with which he was acquainted where this bill would have saved a large fortune to a deserving family.
The bill was then finally passed the Senate by yeas 28, nays 16 - as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Armstrong, Bennets, Bonham, Brown, Cason, Cravens, Cullen, Houghton, Hyatt, Johnson, Lewis, Milligan, Noyes, Oyler, Reagan, Reynolds, Richmond, Robinson, Smith, Stein, Terry, Thompson, Turner, Ward, Wolcott and Mr. President (Cumback)- 28.
NAYS - Messrs. Barker, Bowman, Carson, Church, English, Gifford, Hanna, Huey, Huffman Humphreys, Jaquess, Lee, Mason, Newlin, Parrish, Staggs and Taggart - 16.
The PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a communication from the Adjutant General transmitting his official report to the Legislature.
Leave of absence was obtained for Mr. Jacquess till Thursday.
Mr. CARSON, from the Committee on Finance, to whom was referred the communication from Governor Baker, of February 2, (with reference to the amount of money received under the act for the relief of families of soldiers), recommending that the same be approved. The report was concurred in.
MILITARY AUDITING COMMITTEE.
Mr. JACQUESS offered a concurrent resolution requiring the third Military Auditing Committee [Messrs. Dunning, Hendricks and Kilgore] to comply with section 68 of the appropriation bill of 1863 (?) so far as it requires them to make a report of their acts to the General Assembly.
On motion by Mr. HANNA, it was referred to the Committee on Claims.And then the Senate adjourned.
