HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
TUESDAY, February 19, 1867.The House met at 9 o'clock.
On motion of Mr. KIZER, the reading of the journal of yesterday was dispensed with.
PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.
Messrs. HAMILTON. BAKER, SHOOK, BARRITT and McCLASKY, each presented petitions on the subject of temperance, which, without reading, were referred to the Committee on Temperance.
Mr. LOPP presented the claim of Mr. De La Hunt, which was referred to the Committee on Claims.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Mr. DAGGY, from the Judiciary Committee, returned Mr. Long of Jackson's justices act amendment change of venue bill [H. R. 232,] and Mr. Woods' tax sale limitation bill [H. R. 217,]' recommending that the same be indefinitely postponed.
Mr. WOODS, from the same committee, returned Mr. McLean's insurance bill [H. R. 169,] recommending its indefinite postponement.
These reports were concurred in.
He also returned his costs bill [H. R. 218] and the drunkards' bill [S. 8], recommending their passage.
Mr. GRIGGS, from the Judiciary Committee, returned the conveyance mistake's bill [S. 12], recommending its indefinite postponement. It was concurred in.
Mr. MILLER, from the Judiciary Committee, returned Mr. Prather's Southern Prison lease bill [H. R. 160] and his own Southern Prison lease bill [H. R. 204], with an amendment to the former, but without recommendation as to leasing said prison.
Mr. SMITH, of Lagrange, from the Judiciary Committee, returned the committee's executions return bill [H. R. 207], recommending its passage. He also returned Mr. Montgomery's marriage solemnization bill [H. R. 176], recommending its indefinite postponement. It was concurred in.
Mr. PEELLE, from the Committee on the Organization of Courts of Justice, returned the Senate bills 4 and 40 defining the 13th and 7th Judicial Circuits, recommending their passage with amendments.
Mr. CORY, from a majority of the Special Committee on Education and Agriculture, returned Mr. Campbell's agricultural colleges bill [H. R. 214], recommending that it do not pass.
Mr. WaSON submitted a minority report on the same bill, arguing in favor of the bill from considerations drawn at length from the history of agricultural colleges in the past.
Mr. CAMPBELL moved that the report be made the special order for Thursday, ten o'clock.
Mr. MILLER suggested that all these propositions - the whole subject of that Agricultural College be considered together.
Mr. CAMPBELL moved that this subject be considered in Order before the discussion should be anticipated in connection with other matters. He consented to make the motion for the consideration of the whole subject the special order for Thursday ten o'clock.
The motion was agreed to.
page: 270[View Page 270]Mr. MILLER, from the Committee on the Sinking Fund, returned the Sinking Fund highways bill [S. 102see page 105 of these REPORTS] with an amendment, recommending its passage.
Mr. STEWART, from the Committee on Benevolent Institutions, reported in writing on the condition of the Hospital for the Insane, and its management for the past two years, according general commendations to its officers in charge; recommending an appropriation for the next two years for repairs and the erection of a work-shop; also suggesting in regard to the treatment of patients. The committee also report on the condition of the Institution for the Education of the Deaf and Dumb, and Blind, recommending an appropriation for their expenses till the next regular meeting of the General Assembly.
Mr. CAMPBELL moved an order to print five hundred copies.
Mr. STEWART stated that the report had cost much labor, and it was performed without a clerk.
Mr. THACHER. Although generally I am opposed to printing reports of Committees, I hope that the motion to print this report will be adopted. I had the pleasure of visiting the different benevolent institutions with the Committee, and was highly entertained by the managers; and I can truly avouch that the Committee labored hard to get up a fair report, so as to let the people know what a blessing such institutions were to the State.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. FOULKE, from a majority of the Committee on Legislative Apportionment, returned, the Legislative apportionment bill [S. 164] with an amendment.
Mr. PRATHER, from the minority of said Committee, reported the bill back, recommending its passage without amendment, signed by himself, Mr. Miller and Mr. Newcomb.
Mr. GREGGS, from the Select Committee thereon, returned the memorial of Nathan Brown, on the subject of milk sick, recommending the following joint resolution [H. R. 16] to appropriate money [$15,000] to Nathan Brown, of Sullivan county, Indiana, for the discovery of the cause of milk-sick.
Mr. WILSON said perhaps he was as well acquainted as most gentlemen with this Mr. Brown.
The SPEAKER said debate is not in order.
The joint resolution was then passed to the second reading.
EXPRESS COMPANIES.
Mr. HIGGINS introduced a bill [H. R. 315] for an act to provide for the incorporation of Companies for the transportation of goods, wares and merchandize upon the highways and navigable streams of the State. It was referred to the Committee on Corporations.
Mr KIZER submitted the following:
Resolved, By the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring). That there be appointed a committee, to consist of three on the part of the House, and two on the part of the Senate, whose duty it shall be to communicate with the citizens of Indianapolis, and ascertain in what manner they wish to celebrate the 22d day of February, the anniversary of the birth day of the Father of His Country; and that the citizens and Common Council be invited to join the General Assembly in celebrating that glorious day.
It was rejected - affirmative 28, negative 38.
RAILROADS.
Mr. FOULKE submitted the following:
WHEREAS, Under existing laws railroad companies are not held to a strict accountability for the safe delivery of goods entrusted to them as common carriers; and
WHEREAS, Heavy losses are being sustained by shippers in consequence thereof; and
WHEREAS, Most of the rolling stock on said roads is heavily mortgaged, and therefore can not be levied upon for the payment of damages to goods sustained in transportation: Therefore,
Resolved, That the Committee on Railroads be requested to report a bill enabling shippers to attach unpaid freight bills or other effects, and hold the same for the payment of all just claim for goods damaged or lost by said railroad companies.
It was adopted.
CLERKS' FEES.
Mr. HAMILTON submitted the following:
Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be required to examine into the fee bill as fixed by law in relation to the fees of Clerks of Circuit and Common Pleas Courts and report to the House as soon as practicable.
1. How much, in their opinion, said clerks are by law allowed to charge for issuing an execution directing the sale of property, or for issuing a fee bill for the collection of costs.
2. What can be charged by law for entering each cause on the docket in their respective courts, and whether more than one docket entry of the same cause and at the same time can be charged for.
It was adopted
AUDITORS AND CLERKS.
Mr. HAMILTON submitted the following:
Resolved, That the Committee on Fees and Salaries be required to make the following inquiries, viz:
1. Are Clerks of the Circuit and Common Pleas Courts charging more than 50 cents for issuing executions directing the sale of property or for issuing fee bills for the collection of costs?
2 Whether said clerks are charging more than 15 cents each for docketing causes in their respective courts, also whether more than one docket entry in the same cause and at the same time are charged for; if so, how many docket entries are so made and charged for?
3. Whether County Auditors are not charging their respective counties - and County Boards allowing them - with larger sums of money annually for such services as making records that the law does not direct, and particularly as to a certain book or record called the assessment roll?
page: 271[View Page 271]4. Whether charges for services by said Auditors are not over estimated in the count of words, and particularly whether the printed headings on the tax duplicates and all printed matter in all other records are not included in all estimates for services rendered by said Auditors, and the money accruing on said false estimates allowed by the Board of County Commissioners and paid out of the county treasury.
Said Committee shall have power to send for persons and papers; and that they report the results of their investigations to this House as soon as practicable.
Mr. GRIGGS said our clerks were charging some one-third more than the law allows, by way of constructive fees. Whenever the matter was looked into they were always ready to put down their constructive demands. Many thousands in this way go out of the county treasuries without any warrant of law.
Mr. O'NEIL wished to include sheriffs in the investigation - as to their constructive mileage.
Mr. HAMILTON accepted the amendment.
Mr. DAGGY. It was too late in the session. Nothing good - nothing but expense would result from this investigation. It was a matter that should be reported to the next General Assembly.
Mr. WOODS said if any man suffers from these over-charges, he has his remedy at law. The sheriffs were the poorest paid officers in the counties.
Mr. WOLFE hoped the resolution would be adopted, because the law in the case was not sufficiently clear to guide the County Commissioners to a ready decision.
The resolution was adopted
On motion by Mr. CHAMBERS, the 7th Judicial Circuit bill [S. 42] was taken up with the amendments reported from the Committee on the Organization of Courts of Justice.
The committee amendments were concurred in, and the bill was ordered to the engrossment.
SEWERS.
On motion of Mr. BOBO, his sewers bill [H. R. 89] was taken up on the third reading - it having been passed over informally on account of the absence of its author. He said this same bill had passed the Senate at the special session of 1865. It provides for the construction of sewers by petition of citizens to be benefitted - to be paid for by themselves, upon the principle of constructing sidewalks.
The bill was finally passed the House of Representatives - yeas 80, nays 0.
TWENTY-SECOND COMMON PLEAS DISTRICT.
On motion of Mr. MOORE, his twenty-second Common Pleas District bill [H. R. 272] embracing the counties of Rush, Decatur, and Ripley, [the Governor to appoint a judge and prosecutor, &c ] was taken up.
On motion of Mr. MOORE, by unanimous consent, the printing and publication clause was stricken out.
Mr. WHITE opposed the bill from the consideration, that the division of this district had before been successfully resisted, aud because it increased expense, by an increase of the number of officers.
Mr. STEWART said the district now was a large one, divided by the national road, and cutting off the northern portion from the residence of the judge. The judicial business was very much behind, and as to the expense it was borne by the counties concerned.
Mr. MOORE stated that the desirableness of this district was manifest. Not a county in the State would be affected by it except the eight counties of the original district. These three were behind two terms with their judicial business.
Mr. SHUEY was informed that the administration of justice was very seriously hindered in these counties for want of time.
Mr. BLACK stated that there is no objection that he knew of on the part of the other counties out of which it is proposed to take this 22d district.
The bill was finally passed the House of Representatives - yeas 55, nays 15.
MECHANIC'S LEIN LAW.
On motion of Mr. GEISENDORF, his mechanic's lein bill [H. R. 159] to amend sections 649 and 650 of the general practice act, was taken up - the question being, shall the bill be passed to the third and last reading?
Mr. CRAIN said the Supreme Court had decided that liens take effect from the time of notice of intention to file the lien. This bill is to declare that the lien shall take effect from the time the work is done. Mechanics were now too frequently defrauded by the sale of buildings while in process of construction.
The bill was finally passed the House of Representatives, yeas 76, nays 3.
FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT.
On motion of Mr. CAMPBELL, his 5th Judicial Circuit bill [H. R. 293] was taken up - the question being on the third and last reading thereof.
The bill was finally passed the House of Representatives - yeas 73, nays 1.
VANDERBURGH, &C., COMMON PLEAS.
On motion of Mr. HOPKINS, his bill [H. R. 300] to amend and fix the times of holdin the Court of Common Pleas in the counties of Vanderburgh, Warrick, Posey and Gibson, was taken up, on the second reading, and it was passed to the engrossment and third reading to-morrow.
On the motion of Mr. MONTGOMERY, page: 272[View Page 272] his Circuit Court bill [H. R. 278] was taken out the up and ordered to be engrossed.
On motion of Mr. MILLER, his Prison Lease bill [H. R. No. 126] was taken up and placed in its order on the clerk's files.
On motion of Mr. HIGGINS, the Acting Governor's message communicated yesterday, with respect to the matter of requisition of refugees from justice from other States - and having reference to a particular case of a demand for one Daniel Harrison, of Pike county, arrested and taken to the State of Mississippi, when it is in proof that he can sustain an alibi. The Governor recommends legislation to provide against such outrages, submitting also the draft of a bill.
On motion by Mr. NEWCOMB, the message was referred to the Judiciary Committee with instructions to report a bill in accordance with the recommendation of the Governor.
THE CALENDAR.
The general city incorporation bill [ S. No. 37] coming up -
On the motion of Mr. NEWCOMB, the rule of the House and the constitutional restriction were suspended - yeas 70, nays 8 - and the bill was passed the second reading, by reading the title.
He then moved to refer the bill to a select committee of seven members representing cities.
Mr. THACHER supported the motion.
Mr. KIZER said the bill was an important one, coming from citizens of the city of Fort Wayne. He preferred that it should go to the Committee on Corporations.
Mr. MILLER urged the original motion.
Mr. KIZER would not make strenuous objections.
Mr. McFADIN preferred the regular standing Committee on Corporations.
Mr. Newcomb's motion was then agreed to.
The concurrent resolution from the Senate on the subject of bounties, instructing our representatives in Congress to give their influence toward the passage of an act for the equalization of bounties, was taken up and concurred in.
The joint resolution of the Senate for renting the Gallup building for State offices,coming up -
Mr. MILLER and Mr. LITSON moved to refer it to the Committee on Public Buildings.
Mr. GEISENDORF. The committee could not do any better by way of report than they have done.
On motion of Mr. CRAIN it was laid on the table for the present.
The House of Refuge bill [S. No. 161] coming up on the second reading -
,Mr. WHITE moved to amend, by striking out the 12th section, with reference to indictment of infants giving a discretion to the grand jury to send such to the House of Refuge. This was extraordinary power.
Mr. SHUEY said a better reflection might change the mind of his friend. This provision was in most acts of other States of this character. The object of this 12th section was to protect reputation - that there be no public record to blacken a good character. The grand jury was to be Satisfied of the merits of the case. It has worked well in New York and Ohio.
Mr. CRAIN would vote for an amendment that the recommendation of the grand jury may go before the court for determination.
Mr. STAFFORD took a similar view, He was opposed to secret trials in every form; but he would vote for an amendment that would admit of evidence to rebutt the indictment, &c. He moved that it be made the special order'for Friday at 10 o'clock.
Mr. PEELLE moved to amend Mr. White's amendment by inserting these words: "And if the Court, upon further examination, if desired by the infant, or if his parent or guardian shall so request."
Mr. Stafford's motion was then agreed to as thus amended.
The 13th Article bill [S. No. 7] was passed over.
On motion of Mr. HIGGINS, his Prison Directors' Salaries bill [H. R. 287] was taken up on the second reading.
Mr. HIGGINS stated that this bill proposes to place the Directors of the Northern Prison on the same footing with those of the Southern Prison.
It was passed to the engrossment.
On motion of Mr. FULLER, his bills [H. R. 275, 276, 277] extending the time for the payment of taxes from the third Monday in March till the third Monday in April, were severally taken up in their order, with the amendments of the Committee on Ways and Means applying to the title of the bills Nos. 275 and 277, and changing a date from June to May in the bill No. 276.
Mr. LONG, of Kosciusko, said the bill was so deficient in one particular that it would vitiate tax titles, and it should be amended.
On motion by Mr. NEWCOMB, it was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.
Special Committee on milk sickness: -Messrs. Griggs, Wolfe, Scammahorn, Wilson and Hostetter.
Special Committee on Senate bill No.37: Messrs. Newcomb, Thacher, Crain, Shoaff, Wiggins, McFadin and Foulke.
On motion of Mr. THACHER, Mr. Newland (on account of sickness) obtained leave of absence till next week.
page: 273[View Page 273]AFTERNOON SESSION.
The SPEAKER returned to the calendar.
The Notary Public acknowledgments bill [S. 34] coming up on the third reading -
Mr. MILLER explained its provisions, stating that its passage was unanimously recommended by the Judiciary Committee.
The bill was finally passed the House of Representatives - yeas 69, nays 2
On motion of Mr. BAKER, his bill [H. R. 290] to leave it to the discretion of the court to fine for misdemeanors in any sum not exceeding $500 (amending the 29th section of the general act of June 14, 1852,) was taken up.
It was passed to the engrossment.
SEWERAGE.
On motion by Mr. BOBO his sewerage and drainage bill [H. R. 23] was taken up - the question being on third and last reading.
Mr. BOBO said that under the present law ditch companies could hardly succeed. This bill contemplates the organization of such companies. It proposes, also, that any party who wishes to maintain a drain may undertake the work and carry it through without the formalities of organization of companies, &c.
Mr. PRATHER considered that the time was too short for the work to be done. Then the bill was not heavy enough in its penalty for obstructions in ditches.
Mr. WOODS. This bill was a copy of the act of 1863, which was defective in not giving notice to non-resident landholders. It supplied this defect. The law of 1863 worked well, with the defective exception.
Mr. BOBO said if this were rejected we would likely get no drainage law this session.
The bill was finally passed the House of Representatives - yeas 74, nays 0.
On motion of Mr. CRAIN, his 18th Circuit Court bill [H. R. 13] fixing the time of holding court in that circuit under the general bill - was taken up.
Mr. CRAIN explained.
The bill was finally passed the House of Representatives - yeas 68, nays 2.
On motion of Mr. NEWCOMB, his Indianapolis Widows' and Orphans' Asylum amendment bill [H. R. 262] was taken up on the second reading.
It was passed to the engrossment.
On motion by Mr. SPENCER, his bridge fund bill [H. R. 229] was taken up on the second reading.
It was ordered to the engrossment and third reading.
ARSON.
On motion of Mr. PEELLE, his arson bill [H. R. 130] to amend the 28th section of the general felony act was taken up the question being, shall the bill pass the third reading?
Mr. PEELLE said it made no substantial change in the law as it now stands, with this exception: it makes it arson for a party to get his own property insured and then burn it for the purpose of defrauding the insurers.
The bill was finally passed the House of Representatives - yeas 69, nays 0.
On motion by Mr. WOLFE, his normal school repeal bill, No. 153, was taken from the table and passed over.
On motion by Mr. CHAMBERS, his bill, No. 21, amending the general fee bill so as to raise the fees of jurors to $2 25 per day in the circuit and common pleas courts, and 5 cents mileage;$1 a day before a justice of the peace, and 25 cents mileage, was taken up, with the committee's amendment fixing the jurors' fees at $2 a day.
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. CRAIN proposed to reduce the mileage of witnesses before the supreme court to 15 cents.
Mr. MONTGOMERY proposed ten cents a mile.
The latter was agreed to; and then the amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
Mr. McLEAN said there never yet had been witnesses in the Supreme Court.
The bill was then ordered to the eugrossment.
UNIVERSITY SQUARE.
The SPEAKER announced the special order, viz: the consideration of Mr. McLean's "University Square" bill, [H. R. 25] the question being on Mr. Baker's motion to refer it, with instructions, to a select Committee.
Mr. NEWCOMB, being entitled to the floor, went into an argument against the title of the Indiana University to the University Square in the city of Indianapolis. The words of the statute vesting the right to sell the reserved townships in Monroe and Gibson counties, in commissioners, showed clearly to his mind that the idea of the University's title to this square No. 25 never entered the mind of the Legislature.
Mr. HUGHES interrupted and replied to this argument - That act appointed commissioners to sell the lands in Gibson and Monroe - not in Marion county.
Mr. NEWCOMB cited the act that the care of all the lands of the University shall be in the hands of commissioners. The rule of law is that where the sovereign is the donor, the construction is always in favor of grantor - precisely the reverse of the rule in the case of an individual donor. He read several acts in relation to the laying out of the town of Indianapolis for a seat of Government for the State, We see the page: 274[View Page 274] result of the wise forethought of these acts in our wide streets and in these open spaces - squares - for parks. But this square, No. 25, was the only one now left, except the Circle.
Mr. HUGHES, interrupted, to say that they did not want to take the square away - out of town - but to sell it.
Mr NEWCOMB. They wanted to sell it out in lots of 25 feet front. He gathered from all sources that this square, which was not worth $25 when the city was laid out, was never intended for a University endowment - but it was intended for a University site. Replying to gentlemen who have told him that the city could buy this square, he asked what has given this value of $100,000to this square, but the thrift and growth, of the city. The fact that all parties have consented to the sale of the square No. 22, was no argument against the doctrine he had laid down. The language of the statute was different as to square No. 25. The words "for the use" could not be made to apply where gentlemen desired. We may have, and he expected that some day we would have, a State University on this square; and though some might object, yet no man could reasonably object to it. He read from the act of 1827, &c., showing that the square No. 25 is not mentioned in the statute which contemplates all the rest of the University property. With regard to the State's right to dispose of this square, he stated that the property holders around it purchased there, with the understanding that the square was to remain perpetually for public use. What proprietor, laying out a town, could map out public grounds on his plat, and make sales, and await improvements, and then withdraw or withhold the public grounds and sell them, or devote them to any other than the purpose fo the original grant? Although the State as a sovereign might do more than an individual, yet this would be a violation of public and private right. He read from Court decisions sustaining this point. A dedication made in this way can not be retracted. The corporation is such cases holds the property merely as a trustee; and the trustee can not apply it to any other purpose than that of the original dedication without the consent of all parties interested. Where a highway is dedicated, even the Legislature can not take away from the right of way from individuals interested. He read numerous decisions showing that every citizen of the corporation is interested in such dedications. So, through the city of Indianapolis could not sell it; she might institute a suit to prevent this donation from being diverted from the purpose of its original dedication.
Mr. HUGHES said the gentleman takes pain to establish a principle that whatever is dedicated for the public use is for the use of the public. It simply proved what Mr. H. had established. If a square is set off for the use of a university, it does not follow that all people may use it for the walks of nurses and children. We want this applied for the use of the State University.
Mr. NEWCOMB said he would not like to have a case proved for him in that way. The gentleman proposed to sell out this square and make it private property. The design of the bill was not to sell to the city. Commissioners would sell it for just as much as they can get. But it was set apart as a public square - as public property-by the act of 1827.
Mr. MILLER. Has not the city of Indianapolis once leased this square for a seminary?
Mr. NEWCOMB. There was a small county seminary in one corner of the square, which was torn down only some fourteen or fifteen years ago. He corrected his statement the other day that about $2500 had been expanded for improvements of this "square;" the items amounting in the total to $9,930. These grading bills for work opposite to the State's property do not come into this statement. He denied the charge of hostility to the Indiana University. He did not object to its liberal endowment. But he objected to the effort to clutch property which does not belong to it, for the purposes of endowment. The State can not afford to do this wrong. He admonished gentlemen against warring on the interests of Indianapolis - against a county that yields one-sixth part of the revenues of the State. He asked no favors, but would stand up for justice.
Mr. DUNN next took the floor with the declaration that the prosperity of one section of the State was the prosperity of all. If the words "use" was not in the statutory phrase concerning square No. 25, neither was the word "grant" in the clause. But neither was necessary in legal or grammatical construction. The claim that it was for a site would prove too much - it would require every inch of the area to be used for a site. It was provided by law that the lot No. 48, which was set apart for a garden and stable for the Governor, should not be sold, - but still that lot has been sold.
Mr. NEWCOMB, in his seat. The Governor and all concerned wanted it sold long before it was.
Mr. DUNN proceeded, referring rapidly to the State's pledge to make the location of the Indiana University perpetual, when the fire-gods looked out on its ruins, and to sustain it. Now, would the State page: 275[View Page 275] takeaway from the University this property, and destroy its efficiency, instead of making all its means contribute to its development as a great institution - like that of the Michigan State University - an institution worthy of the name? Were gentlemen willing to require the State University professors to serve for less pay than other men require in the ordinary employments? He referred to that liberality of legislation in regard to all educational institutions which was constantly indulged wherever the cause of education flourished.
Mr. BELFORD was rather gratified with this falling out between Indianapolis and Bloomington. For when thieves fall out, honest men get their dues.
Mr. HUGHES interrupted, to say that he understood both the Legislature and the Courts were doing what they could to send all the thieves off to the North.
Mr. BELFORD denied the right of the State University to this square, and also the right of the State to sell it for the use of the Bloomington institution. It was a donation for the site of a university, and that State University should have been located on it. He desired that the House should send a resolution to the Judiciary Committee, directing that committee "to inquire into the State's power to sell this square No 25, and divert the funds arising from that sale to the Indiana University; and to inquire and report to the House what appropriations are necessary to the maintenance of the State University at Bloomington." He did not know but the constitution required but one university.
Mr. NEWCOMB said the Constitution was silent as to that.
Mr. BELFORD was willing to vote liberal appropriation for the maintenance of the State University.
Mr. MILLER considered that the House was willing to do justice in this case. A University was not the public. This square was given for a university, and during al half century no may be proposed to use it for this purpose. Now would it not be wise to use it for a State University? The city had already once leased it, and had it not already been leased to the city for thirty years? The question of the State's right here could be determined at once by an order to sell, and in no other way. He replied to the consideration that Indianapolis paid the sixteenth or seventeenth part of the revenue, and referred to that large portion of the appropriation of public money Which comes back to this city every session of the Legislature, etc.
Mr. WOODS demanded the previous question, and there was a second; and under its pressure -
The resolution of Mr. Baker was adopted, referring the bill, NO. 258, to a special committee.
On the motion of Mr. HUGHES, this vote was reconsidered; and then -
The bill and pending amendments were referred again to the Committee on Education.
The House now returned to the consideration of Mr. Wolfe's Normal School repeal bill, No. 153; and the House refused to concur in the report of the Committee to indefinitely postpone - yeas 87, nays 53.
The question being upon the engrossment of the bill -
Mr. NEWCOMB moved to strike out the emergency clause.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. STEWART did not think the House was ready for action on the bill, and he would like to have it go back to the Committee on Education, to be withheld for their final report on the subject of the Normal School.
Mr. WOLFE said this bill was but for a repeal of the 15th section of the Normal School act, to save $10,000 a year for the common school fund. Farther it did not affect the Normal school.
Mr. CRAIN said: What the gentleman from Sullivan desires was to take-away the appropriation by which the Normal School, when it is established, is to be kept up. Was the House willing to retract their action for the Normal School at a sacrifice of $50,000? Then the State's Commissioners have torn down a building in Terre Haute which' can not be replaced with $20,000, and it will cost but $75,000 more to set it in operation.
Mr. STEWART wished the reference to avoid committing ourselves to a policy hostile to the action of the Committee on Education. He would give precedence to the question of the establishment of the Normal School.
Mr. McLEAN. Did not the Legislature of 1865 determine that they would establish and maintain a State Normal School?
Mr. STEWART. But they did not determine a certain appropriation.
Mr. BAKER showed that this bill No. 153 did not interfere with the Normal school. It was simply to recover $10,000 annually to the common school fund. He relieved the House was willing to make liberal appropriations for the support of the Normal school.
Mr. WOODS. For the purpose of testing whether this bill comes not from hostility to the Normal school, he moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, with instructions to report an appropriation of $10,000 a year for that school from other funds.
Mr. STAFFORD could not see but that page: 276[View Page 276] this bill, if it were passed, would leave the State with a Normal school without any support.
Mr. McLEAN stated that the normal school was asking for a diversion of $50,000 from the township library fund, as recommended by the Superintendent of Public Instruction, &c.
Mr. HUGHES looked into the act of the last General Assembly, locating this normal school, and found that the State had received from Terre Haute a bonus for location, of $75,000; and the State could not now go back. He said this appropriation of a certain amount of the common school fund was not a diversion of that fund from its original object. He moved to lay the bill on the table, and if he could not succeed in that, he would support the motion of the gentleman from Rush [Mr. Stewart.] He withheld the motion for -
Mr. McFADIN, who showed further, that the friends of this bill were not hostile to the normal school. And when he had concluded, according to his promise, he renewed the motion of Mr. Hughes to lay the bill on the table.
The motion was rejected, by yeas 38, nays 46.
Mr. Stewart's motion to recommit was then agreed to.
CONGRESSIONAL APPORTIONMENT.
On motion of Mr. PEELLE the Congressional Apportionment bill [S. No. 9] was taken up.
He then moved that it be made the special order for to-morrow at half past ten o'clock.
It was so ordered.
After an ineffectual motion to adjourn -
Mr. HARTMAN moved to reconsider the vote just taken.
The motion was agreed to - yeas 54, nays 28.
After sundry dilatory motions -
Mr. CAMPBELL made the point of order, that the motion of the gentleman from DeKalb (Mr. Hartman) to reconsider, included also an order to put the bill on its passage.
The SPEAKER held that the House can not order that a bill shall be put on its passage which is not in the possession of the House.
Mr. McFADIN made an ineffectual motion to adjourn - yeas 26, nays 51.
Mr. PEELLE moved that the bill,be now put on the final passage; whereupon he demanded the previous question, and there was a second.
Mr. O'NEIL moved to lay the whole subject on the table, and thereupon demanded the yeas and nays.
The motion was rejected, by yeas 15, nays 56.
The SPEAKER in announcing the vote declared the opinion that the motion to lay on the table under stress of the previous question was out of order. The Chair now decided that no motion is in order under the previous question.
The question was now taken on the final passage of the bill in the House, resulting yeas 55, nays 21 - as foliows:
YEAS - Messrs. Belford, Bischof, Blanch, Brucker, Campbell, Chambers, Crain, Daggy, Danaldson, Dunn, Erwin, Evans, Ferris, Foulke, Funk, Geisendorff, Gordon, Greer, Griggs, Hartman, Hamilton, Higgins, Hopkins, Hudson, Hughes, Long of Kosciusko, Martin, Mason. McCarthy, MeClasky, McLeao, McMurray, Miller, Moore, Newcomb, Peelle, Prather, Ratliff, Rosser, Sabin, Scammahorn, Shook, Shuey, Smith of Lagrange, Smith of Wabash, Spencer, Stafford, Stewart, Thrasher. Thomas, Wason, Wilson, Woods, Wright, and Mr. Speaker - 55.
NAYS - Messrs. Black, Cory, Crowe, Edmonson, Hostetter, Hungate, Inman, Lopp, Matthis, McFadin, Montgomery, Ross, Shanks, Shields, Shall, Stackhouse, Thacher, Williams, White and Wolfe - 21.
So the bill passed the House of Representatives.
The House then adjourned.
