IN SENATE.
TUESDAY, February 12, 1867.The Senate met at 9 o'clock A. M.
The minutes of yesterday's proceedings were read and approved.
PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.
The PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a petition from divers and sundry citizens of Indiana, praying for a law prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors as a beverage. Similar petitions were presented by Mr. CRAVENS, from sundry citizens of Clark county; Mr. HANNA, from the citizens of Sullivan county; Mr. NOYES, from the citizens of Noble county; Mr. THOMPSON, from Marion county, (500 names); and Mr. TERRY, from citizens of Miami county; which were severally referred to the Committee on Temperance.
Mr. CRAVENS presented a petition from citizens of Scott county, praying that in the apportionment for Congressional purposes, Scott county may be included in the Third District. It was referred to the Committee on Congressional Apportionment.
REORGANIZATION OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM.
The PRESIDENT announced the special order for this hour, viz:
Mr. Oyler's bills [S. 80] for the organization of Circuit Courts in this State, and [S. 81] abolishing Courts of Common Pleas, And County Commissioners' Courts - transferring the civil and criminal business of the Common Pleas to the Criminal Court, and establishing a County Court for the transaction of other legal business - the question being on Mr. Cason's motion to recommit the bills to the Committee on the Organization of Courts of Justice, with instructions to report a substitute providing for County Circuit Courts.
Mr. CASON. The proposed substitute would leave the Criminal Courts as they now stand in the larger cities; and have a County Court in session every day in the year, except during two or three of the hot months. The advantage lies in this, that cases would be disposed of at once and deliberately - doing away with the hurry and confusion usually attending our courts as now organized. It is too late in the session now to make a thorough reorganization of the Judicial system. The bill 81 is very faulty - imperfect in almost every particular. He read therefrom to substantiate this statement. He also read from the bill 80, pointing out objections. These bills would not give satisfaction to the great majority of the people, for they would in effect revive the old common pleas system that obtained in this State many years ago.
Mr. OYLER was sorry the Senator was in such a fault-finding humor this morning. The plea that the session is too far advanced for the perfection of these bills is the same objection that has been raised here every session for the past three years. Admitting their imperfections, they far transcend the present arrangement, and it is the duty of Senators to assist in perfecting them as far as they can. The Senator agrees that some change should be made, and why not go to work with a view to building up a system on the foundation proposed by these bills? He read numerous provisions of the bills, which, he insisted, commended themselves very strongly to he favorable consideration of members. Call it the old probate system, if you will; that system was far superior to the present Probate Court, which has proved itself a most lamentable failure.
Mr. CUMBACK. I favor the motion of the Senator from Boone for the reason that I do not think the bills before the Senate reach the evils sought to be remedied. These bills provide for twenty-eight circuit courts, and by another bill before the Senate these courts are to sit but three times each year. This only partially cures the ills connected with our present mode of judicial proceedings. I hope the motion to recommit will prevail and that the Committee will at once, and with their well known energy and ability, address themselves to the work of preparing and reporting to us a bill establishing a circuit court for each county in the State or let that court be in session all the time and have jurisdiction of every possible sort of case that can now come before any of our inferior courts. This is the only way to cure the giant evils connected with our present system. It will be far more economical than our present plan. The jail fees that we are compelled to pay each year for the support of persons charged with crime, who can not give bail, and are kept for months in our county jails waiting the meeting of the court, would, in my judgment, in most cases, pay the salary of the judge for the county; and when you add to the jail fees each county's share of the expense of the Circuit Court, and that of the Common Pleas, page: 204[View Page 204] and the expense of the Commissioners' Court, you will find that a Circuit Court in each county will be much cheaper than our present system. It will be incalculably cheaper for litigants. As it is now, a case on the docket is expected to be tried at each term of the Court - a host of witnesses are in attendance for days and weeks until such an enormous bill of cost is piled up by the delay that, what at the beginning, was a dignified contest about the rights of the parties becomes a disgraceful squabble about who shall pay the costs, and perjury is called to aid unprincipled men in saving themselves from being crushed by the weight of cost bills. Again under our present mode of trials in our Courts there is so much haste in order to dispose of the business before the Court that cases are not fairly and fully tried when trials are had, and the Court fails to accomplish the purpose for which it was intended. I know also it often happens that charges are maliciously preferred against parties and they are thrown into jail where there is not a shadow of a case against them, and they lay in prison being unable to give bail for five or six months, or until the Grand Jury meet, who find that there is nothing in the accusation, and they are then released. This is a great wrong to that class of persons and a great outrage upon the people who have been taxed to support them. A Court in session all the time in each county would cure all these evils and we might as well now as at any future time look the evils of our present system square in the face, and provide a remedy for them. "We will have it to do, and let us do it at once. If we adopt the measures proposed by the Senator from Johnson, we will have to change it again at the next meeting of the General Assembly. Let us strike at the root of the evil, and adopt no half way measures. I trust that the motion of the Senator from Boone will prevail, and the able Committee on the Organization of Courts will give us such a bill as I have indicated.
I would not have asked the indulgence of the Senate but for the great interest I feel in this measure.
Mr. CULLEN believed with others, that there was a radical defect in the judicial system of Indiana, which imperatively demands a remedy at the hands of this Legislature. This being the general impression, the question now is: Do these bills tend to remedy the evils? He objected to the expense the system proposed by these bills would necessarily incur; it would cost infinitely more than it was worth, as he proceeded to show. He gave credit to the author for untiring industry, and for fairness, as far as the working part was concerned; but the great expense was the particular objection. He favored the motion to recommit, as he desired to perfect the bills by providing for but one court in each county.
Mr. CARSON thought the proposition to establish a court in each county was well worthy of careful consideration, and suggested in this connection a revision of the practice act concerning the making up of issues in vacation.
Mr. RICE was not in favor of tampering with our present judicial system, though admitting many defects in it. The people had become used to it, and it was a matter of much doubt whether the proposed changes would lessen the expense. It would take the people long years before any new system could be perfected, and feeling that there was no necessity for a change, as a matter of policy and principle, he would have to vote against the bills and all propositions to amend.
Mr. CASON. The older attorneys, who have been in the habit all their lives of following the circuit, are, as a general thing, opposed to changing the present system, but the younger members of the bar, and some of the older heads, can see the many advantages that would accrue by the plan proposed in his motion to recommit with instructions.
Mr. BROWN was of opinion the judicial system of our State could not be much bettered; and if any attempt to do so is made it would undoubtedly increase the expense. A judge made the remark the other day, that $3,000 a year could be made out of the Judgship of the proposed County Court. He was satisfied no bill of this kind could be presented here that would claim his vote. No objection has been forwarded hereno petitions for change-and he should vote against any proposition for a re-organization of the judicial system.
Mr. STEIN should vote against the bill S. 81 and also against the proposition to re-commit. Our present court system has been running in this State for sixteen years, and as the lawyers are satisfied with it it follows that the people are. Should we not look to the practice act and amend that by way of finding a remedy for some of the evils at present experienced. He agreed with the remarks of the Senator from Allen, (Mr. Carson,) on this point.
Mr. OYLER could have wished for a more general discussion of this question, for in the discussion Senators answer each other's objections. He did not think these bills had been fairly dealt with. Senators forget that in every county a court is abolished by these bills, (the County Commsioners' Court) which expense in itself would pay half of the cost of the county court proposed. It will not increase the page: 205[View Page 205] number of courts and will expedite every class of legal business, thereby diminishing the immense bills of cost now occasioned by the delay in trying causes. The system proposed by these bills would cost $100,000 less than the present system; but he dispaired of the bills receiving a majority of votes here.
Mr. HANNA opposed re-commitment, for he believed the tide was against re-organization, and we might as well clear the calendar of these bills at once.
Mr. CARSON moved to indefinitely postpone the further consideration of this subject.
Mr. OYLER made an ineffectual motion - yeas 14, nays 24 - to lay the motion to postpone on the table.
The motion to indefinitely postpone the bill was rejected by yeas 18, nays 19 - as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Barker, Bowman, Brown, Carson, English, Gifford, Hanna, Huey, Huffman, Humphreys, Johnson, Newlin, Sherrod, Smith, Staggs, Stein, Taggart, and Ward - 18.
NAYS - Messrs. Armstrong, Bonham, Cason, Church, Cravens, Cullen, Houghton, Hyatt, Lewis, Milligan, Noyes, Oyler, Reagan, Reynolds, Rice, Robinson, Terry, Thompson, and Mr. President -19.
The motion to recommit was rejected yeas, 12; nays, 24.
Mr. CULLEN moved that the bill S. 80 be considered as engrossed and read the third time.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. OYLER was satisfied these bills could not pass, and in order to save the clerk the labor of reading them he moved to lay them on the table.
The motion was agreed to without a division.
SOLDIERS' HOME.
The PRESIDENT announced the consideration of the special order, viz: Mr. Cullen's bill [S. 4] to establish a house for the maintenance of sick and disabled Indiana soldiers, near Knightstown, with the amendments of the Committee on the Rights and Privileges of the Inhabitants of the State proposed thereto.
The Committee amendment proposing to strike from the bill the office of matron being read -
Mr. RICHMOND opposed the amendment.
Mr. MILLIGAN stated that it was not the intention to provide for widows and children at this Home, and therefore the Committee thought we could dispense with that office.
Mr. CHURCH. The idea of the Committee was to get along with as little expense as possible.
Mr. CULLEN thought such a home without a woman to look after and take charge of it would not be a place where any body would want to be. A matron can be had for a very small expense. The Matron of the Insane Asylum only gets $400.
Mr. GIFFORD. The Committee discovered no Matron on their late visit to the Soldier's Home - the soldiers were running it, doing the cooking, &c., and the idea of seeping a single woman there to care for a hundred or two disabled soldiers, they considered a needless expense.
Mr. TERRY said it was not proposed by the bill to dispense with the services of the Superintendent's wife, but on the contrary it was expected that she would give some care to the Institution. Then the Superintendent could obtain such female help as is needed for a less expense than $400 a year. The Committee decided not to admit widows and orphans, for it was contended that they could be better provided for in the counties where they had friends and acquaintances.
Mr. RICHMOND thought that these men who were disabled in the country's service should have all the comforts of a home that can be provided for them; but if it is intended that it should be a gloomy place, to immure such men in, he should oppose the whole bill.
Mr. CRAVENS entered a solemn protest against this recommendation of the Committee. The idea was repulsive of excluding a woman from any home in this world, especially a house for the sick, or a hospital. He was for a matron, let it cost the State what it might.
Mr. THOMPSON stated that the General Government has already made an appropriation of $9,000,000 for a home for the support of totally disabled soldiers; and he had hoped that this Indiana Home would receive not only sick and disabled soldiers, but soldiers' widows and children.
Mr. MILLIGAN remarked that it was expected this Home would accommodate about one hundred and fifty.
Mr. HANNA believed this whole measure was wrong - none of his constituents desired legislation of this kind - they would be too proud to accept of such care as is proposed in this bill; the people in his district could take care of them. He moved to recommit the bill with the following instructions:
To recommit to the committee with instructions to strike out from the bill all after the words "An Act," and insert in lieu thereof "to provide for the relief of disabled soldiers." Also, to insert in lieu of the body of the bill "the county commissioners of each county shall be required to pay out of the county treasury of any county where any disabled soldier may reside the sum of $100, upon satisfactory proof made that such disability was incurred by, the accidents of honorable service in the army or navy of the United States.
And then came the recess for dinner.
page: 206[View Page 206]AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. CULLEN regarded the instructions offered as in direct violation of law, and hoped they would be laid on the table.
Mr. MILLIGAN understood from the Superintendent of the Soldiers' Home, that there had been some 225 or 230 persons in the institution, and that some forty counties had been represented - not that they were in the institution now. More than half the number were foreigners.
Mr. CHURCH was satisfied that every Senator is willing to make all necessary appropriations for this institution.
On motion of Mr. CULLEN the motion to recommit was laid on the table, by yeas 25, nays 14.
Mr. CULLEN made an ineffectual motion - yeas 19, nays 21 - to lay the amendment striking out the word "matron," on the table.
On motion by Mr. CARSON, the vote just taken was reconsidered.
Mr. TERRY said it was the intention of the committee that the Superintendent should employ female help; but they propose to strike out the word "matron," because the necessary help can be employed for less money than would have to be given to a matron.
The motion to lay the amendment on the table was again agreed to by yeas 23, nays 15.
The committee amendment, excluding widows and orphans from the home, being read -
Mr. CULLEN insisted that that part the bill ought to be left just as it is, and gave reasons. He hoped, therefore, that the amendment would be rejected.
Mr. NILES said that originally he was inclined to doubt whether the European plan for taking care of disabled soldiers, would suit our ideas and habits of society: but his experiance and observation in connection with our Soldiers' Home, had satisfied him that such an institution is absolutely necessary. There are cases of disabled soldiers in our home appealing most strongly to our sympathies - who are made comfortable and happy, but who would otherwise be homeless or in the poor-house. It was chiefly for such, we should provide. Widows and children can generally find homes among their neighbors, where children can be taken better care of| than in a single large institution. But he favored the provision of the bill, as it provides for the admission of widows and children, only when there is more room than is needed for the soldiers. This would cause but little extra expense, and might relieve some cases of peculiar hardship.
Mr. CHURCH thought if orphan children of soldiers were to be provided for in this home there should be provision made for their education.
Mr. OYLER was in favor of making a home in a different place for soldiers' orphan children.
The committee's amendment was rejected yeas - 10, nays 29.
Mr. NOYES. In almost every case where a widow or orphan gets to the home under this bill they will be permanent fixtures there, while the soldiers are coming and going all the time; and if the home is filled now, as gentlemen say, as these soldiers go away, their places will be filled with widow and children, and we will have no Soldiers' Home at all, in a short time, for it will be filled up with widows and orphans, to the exclusion of disabled soldiers.
Mr. RICHMOND moved to postpone the further consideration of the subject, there being a special order for this hour the registry bill.
The motion was rejected yeas 11, nays - 28.
The committee's amendment striking out "$50,000," and inserting in lieu "$25,000''-as an appropriation for purchasing land an putting up buildings - was agreed to.
The committee's amendment inserting 50 per week for every person connects with the Home, was also agreed to.
The additional section, requiring applicants to sign over to the Superintended their right to draw money due them from the Government, being read -
Mr. MILLIGAN. The superintendent says that many of these soldiers come to this city, and drawing their pension money, spend it all before they get back, and then immediately apply for clothing, etc. The object of this section is to keep the men at home, and not allow them to come here where there is so much temptation for them to spend their pensions as soon they draw them.
The section was adopted.
Additional sections 15 and 16, making the pay of Trustees $4 per day for not exceeding thirty days in one year; and prohibiting the giving or sale of liquor to inmates, were also adopted.
Mr. RICHMOND moved to amend by cutting down the salary of the matron $400 to $300 per year.
Mr. BENNETT objected to the amendment.
Mr. TERRY was authorized by the superintendent to say that $300 was sufficient.
Mr. CHURCH thought some soldier's widow would be glad to take the place for less money. At any rate, $300 was sufficient.
Mr. CULLEN could not see why a woman should not have as much pay in pro- page: 207[View Page 207] portion as a man for her services. You could not hire any man to go there and do the work required for twice that amount.
Mr. RICHMOND, There are many men all over the State doing hard work every year for much less than $300.
Mr. TURNER moved to amend the amendment so that the widow of a soldier shall be the matron in every case, and the salary of said matron shall be not less than $600.
Mr. THOMPSON. If women had theright to vote gentlemen would put a higher value on woman's labor. We should have the head of this soldiers' home a lady of high culture, and in every way one that would do honor to the position. He would give woman the ballot, and then gentlemen would respect her more.
Mr. BENNETT, while allowing no one go ahead of him in honor in and reacting the needy widows of soldiers, he opposed the amendment to the amendment. Four hundred dollars is enough, and he hoped both amendments would be voted down
Mr. TURNER thought when we are appropriating money for this purpose we should give preference to the soldiers' widow.
Mr. NILES said he would not like to adopt a provision that would exclude from the care of the institution, such a noble wo- as Miss Clara Barton, the Florence Nightingale of America, and thought it better with a view to the permanence and popularity of the institution to fix the salary at an ample, but reasonable price; such as is proposed in the bill.
Mr. NOYES demanded a division of the question, as proposed by the amendment to the amendment.
Mr. RICHMOND accepted the first portion of the amendment.
Mr. CULLEN made an ineffectual motion - yeas 20, nays 21 - to lay both amendments on the table.
The amendment to the amendment, proposing that the salary of the Matron shall be $600 was rejected by yeas 14, nays 27.
Mr. CHURCH moved to amend the amendment by inserting after the word "widow" the word "mother."
Mr. RICHMOND accepted the amendment.
Mr. ROBINSON moved to fix the salary of the Matron at $500.
On motion by Mr. RICHMOND, it was laid on the table.
Mr. CULLEN made an ineffectual motion - yeas 14, nays 26 - to lay the amendment on the table.
The amendment, [Mr. Richmond's] fixing the salary at $300 a year, and requiring that a soldier's widow or mother shall be the Matron was then agreed to by yeas 32, nays 10.
Mr. CULLEN moved that the bill be considered as engrossed and read the third time. The motion was agreed to and the bill was read the third time.
Mr. OYLER obtained unanimous consent to amend the bill by providing that the balance on hand of the five percent, soldier's family relief fund, shall first be appropriated and used for this soldiers home.
The bill was finally passed the Senate by yeas 37, nays 5.
Mr. CUMBACK introduced a bill [S. 182] for an act to amend section 11 of an act entitled An Act to provide compensation to the owners of animals killed or injured by the cars, locomotives or other carriages of any Railroad Company in the State, approved March 1, 1863, repealing all laws in conflict therewith, and declaring an emergency; which was read the first time and referred to the Committee on Corporations.
Mr. NILES gave notice that he was prepared to present a minority report from the Committee to which was referred Mr. Stein's Agricultural College bill [S. 139]. He made the statement in order that he might not be blamed for delay in the matter.
On motion by Mr. STEIN the order of business was suspended and his Legislative Apportionment bill [S. 166] was read the second time.
Mr. HOUGHTON moved to amend by placing Martin county with Lawrence county, in the Senatorial apportionment.
On motion by Mr. CULLEN the bill and amendment were made the special order for to-morrow at 3 1/2 o'clock P. M.
THE REGISTRY LAW.
The PRESIDENT announced the special order for this afternoon, viz: Mr. Thompson's registry bill, [S. 2] on the second reading.
On motion of Mr. OYLER the Senate' resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole - Mr. Bennett in the Chair.
The first section being read -
Mr. OYLER moved to amend by filling the blank with 10 days.
Mr. TERRY moved to amend by filling the blank with 20 days.
This latter amendment was agreed to upon a division - affirmative 18; negative not reported.
Mr. STEIN moved to strike out the entire section. He doubted whether it is competent for the Legislature to define what shall constitute a residence.
Mr. BELLAMY insisted if this section were stricken out it would destroy the operation of the bill.
page: 208[View Page 208]Mr. WOLCOTT regarded the section as unconstitutional.
Mr. OYLER replied to the constitutional objection to this section. Unless the Legislature has power to prescribe a residence for a voter, we might as well stop at once the consideration of a bill for a registry law. The people all over the land of every party, are demanding the passage of s registry law; and its fate depends on the decision of this question.
Mr. CUMBACK did not think this section the kernel of a registry law; on the contrary, if we adopt this section it may put the whole bill in peril. He showed how sufficient guards could be placed around the ballot-box that would effectually exclude all voters not registered who were not legally entitled to vote. And where is the necessity in this bill for declaring what shall constitute a residence in order for the board to know who is a legal voter.
Mr. TAGGART came here pledged to vote for a registry law, and he feared if this section were stricken out it would destroy the value of the bill. The Legislature has the right to say what shall constitute a residence, and except it is defined, no registry law could be framed - we had better give it all up.
Mr. OYLER stated that this bill was based mainly upon the registry law of Illinois - but it was not a precise copy of it.
Mr. NILES desired to avoid legislation that might possibly be claimed as unconstitutional, and while he regarded this section as perhaps endangering the bill, he was satisfied a perfect registry law could be framed without it. He suggested that this special order should be postponed till some later day in order to give Senators time to examine the bill more thoroughly.
Mr. BONHAM moved that the Committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
The motion was agreed to; and the chairman reporting progress asked leave to sit again.
Leave was granted by the Senate.
Mr. OYLER, from the Committee on Legislative Apportionment, returned the Apportionment bill [S, 15] recommending its indefinite postponement for the reason that the subject matter has already been embodied in another bill. The report was concurred in.
Mr. CARSON and Mr. GIFFORD made reports purporting to be of a similar character, which were concurred in without reading.
Mr. NOYES, from the select committee thereon, returned the 14th Judicial Court bill [H. R. 12] recommending its passage.
On his motion it was read the second time and passed to the third reading.
Mr. CRAVENS introduced a bill [S. 183] legalizing the consolidation of the railroads heretofore made, and declaring all laws relating thereto and governing the same; which was read the first time and referred to the Committee on Corporations.
And then the Senate adjourned (under the rule) till nine o'clock to-morrow morning.
