IN SENATE.
THURSDAY, February 28, 1867.On motion by Mr. PARRISH the reading of the journal of yesterday was dispensed with.
Mr. NOYES and Mr. WARD presented temperance petitions; and Mr. TERRY presented memorials on the same subject from a Christian church, a Methodist, church and sundry citizens of Miamitown; which were severally referred to the Committee on Temperance.
Mr. WARD, from the Committee on Roads, returned the bill [H. R. 48] relating to change of highways, recommending its passage.
Mr. PARRISH, from the Committee on Canals, returned Mr. Richmond's bill [S. 218] county officers to receive certain certificates as money, recommending that it do pass.
On motion by Mr. CULLEN it was read the second time.
18TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT.
On motion by Mr. CUMBACK (Mr. Gifford in the chair) the bill [H. R. 13] creating the 18th judicial circuit, was read the second time. On his motion a dispensation of the constitutional restriction was had, by yeas, 34; nays 8; in order that the bill might be read again and put upon its passage.
Mr. CASON moved to recommit the bill, with instructions to amend so as to require that the pay of judge shall be raised in proportion to the curtailment of their respective circuits.
Mr. CUMBACK combatted the motion.
Mr. BELLAMY, Mr. HUMPHREYS and Mr. CASON spoke in favor of recommitment
Mr. RICE opposed the bill.
Mr. CULLEN withdrew his motion.
Mr. MILLIGAN objected to the proposed change and moved to recommit the bill to a special Committee, which shall consist of Senators representing districts affected thereby.
On Mr. CUMBACK'S motion this proposition to recommit was laid on the table.
Nr. HANNA moved to refer the bill to the Judiciary Committee.
On motion of Mr. RICHMOND, this motion to refer was also laid on the table by yeas 14; nays, 30.Mr. RICHMOND moved to refer the bill to the Committee on Organization of Courts.
Mr. HANNA ineffectually moved to lay this motion on the table.
The motion to refer was then agreed to, by yeas 24; nays 16.
Leaves of absence were obtained for Mr. Bonham to-day, and Mr. Vawter during the balance of the session.
INSANE HOSPITAL AND THE JOURNAL.
Mr. BELLAMY submitted the following:
Mr. President:
The Committee appointed to examine an article beaded "Defamation of the Hospital for the Insane," published in a part of the issue of the JOURNAL of Saturday, 23d inst., and the cause of such publication, report as the result of such investigation the following facts :
1st. There are two editions of the JOURNAL printed per day, the first at 2 o'clock A.M. to supply the early morning trains; after which enough matter, not considered of great importance, is stricken out to make room for the latest telgrams: the portion so stricken out being often published in the next issue. Such changes of matter are made by the foreman, Mr. Doughty, without any knowledge or interference on the part of the publishers of said paper, and the article referred to was stricken from the second edition by him for the purpose above indicated.
2d. That there was no intention in omitting said article from a part of the issue to conceal it from the members of the General Assembly.
3d. It is the opinion of your Committee that said article does not contain anything insulting to or derogatory of the Senate; and in its personal allusions, in criticising the speeches and votes of any member, does not transcend the latitude commonly accorded to the public journals of the country.
Believing that the said article, or the manner page: 341[View Page 341] of its publication, was not intended as an insult to this body, or to any of its members, further than above stated, your committee would respectfully recommend that the further consideration of the subject he dispensed with, and ask to be discharged from the same.
F. J. BELLAMY,
S. PARRISH,
Com.G. V. HOWK,
The report was concurred in.
On motion of Mr. CARSON, the vote of yesterday rejecting Mr. Reagan's bill [S. 165] increasing the per diem of appraisers of real estate from $2 to $3, was reconsidered, and another vote taken on its passage, resulting - yeas 29, nays 10.
So the bill finally passed the Senate.
AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE.
The PRESIDENT announced the consideration of the special order or this hour, viz: Mr. Stein's bill [S. 139] establishing an agricultural college, and locating the same at the Tippecanoe Battle Ground; together with majority and minority reports thereon from the Committee on Education; the pending question being on the location of the college - acting under the resolution adopted last Friday forenoon.
Mr. WOLCOTT made an ineffectual motion to pass over the special order and up his liquor traffic bill.
The PRESIDENT announced that the first thing in order, under the resolution adopted when this subject was last considered, would be to vote upon the location of of the Agricultural College.
Mr. THOMPSON moved that the bill [S. 139] be stricken out from the enacting clause and new matter substituted therefor, which he sent to the Secretary's desk.
Mr. OYLER insisted the motion was out of order, as the Senate has agreed not to locate this college until some certain place shall have received twenty-six votes.
The PRESIDENT decided no other amendment in order until the terms of the resolution are carried out or it is rescinded.
Mr. TURNER did not believe we were prepared to act judiciously upon this subject- there is a division of sentiment about the matter; there is nothing to be lost by delay, and in order to give time for consulting constituency, and for other reasons, he moved to indefinitely postpone the further consideration of the Agricultural College question.
Mr. OYLER said if this matter has not been considered by the people for the past three years it will not be in the next thirty years. The General Assembly should not be bothered with it any longer, for it has already cost the State one-half of what the grant is worth. We have now a fuller Senate than at any time before in this session, when this subject has been considered, and why not settle the question at once.
Mr. CULLEN moved to lay the proposition to postpone on the table.
The motion was rejected by yeas 21, nays 25.
Pending the roll call -
Mr. BELLAMY said he was in fevor of the indefinite postponement of this subject in order to get it out of the way, for we have no prospect of coming to a conclusion this session.
Mr. HANNA, when his name was called, said this was the third session at which this question had been discussed and about the same arguments for delay used at, each of those sessions are used now. He favored locating; the college from the begining, and more money would have been realized from the grant at that time than can be now. The longer this thing is put off the more loss there will be. New York State sold her scrip for eighty cents and ever since it has been falling in the market. The sooner we take definite action in this matter the better it will be for the State. He had heard no argument with any force in it in favor of postponing this question. Why we should postpone the use of this great and was a matter of wonder; and therefore, he felt constrained in every vote to favor the early use of this grant.
Mr. NILES, in explaining his vote, said that a bill had just been offered by the Senator from Marion, founded, as he understood, on an offer of $100,000 to the funds of the college. He had not read or seen that bill. If driven to a final vote now on the question of location of the college, with only one proposition before us, we must vote in the dark and with our hands tied.
Mr. NOYES, when his name was called desired only to say that he was in favor of placing this college scrip in the common school fund of the State, and therefore should vote against the location of a college at any point.
Mr. OYLER, when his name was called, contradicted the statement that our hands were tied up by the resolution under which the Senate is operating. If this motion to indefinitely postpone is carried, then the whole thing is disposed of for this session. Bat the argument that the people do not understand this question is simply a get off, as it has been before the people for three sessions past. If we can not locate it now the question ought to be indefinitely postponed.
Mr. RICHMOND, when his name was called, said that two years ago, the same arguments and the same speeches were made here that gentlemen have made this session; and they were repeated here one year ago. They told us then that the peo- page: 342[View Page 342] ple would be prepared for this thing this session, and now they tell us that two years hence they will be ready, and if we go on as we have been going, there will be no end to it. He therefore thought we had better but a stop to this thing by locating the college at once.
Mr. TAGGART, when his name was called, said that if he had to vote under the ruling of a resolution adopted in his absence, for or against certain localities, without knowing whether his constituents desired him to do so or not, it was evident that he had but one alternative left.
The result was then announced as above recorded.
The question recurring on the motion to indefinitely postpone the further consideration of the question -
Mr. BENNETT said: It is not a proper way to come in here and tie up our hands by voting for an indefinite postponement of this subject. He had no objection to locating this college at Indianapolis for he believed it the great city of the State; but he would vote with a majority to locate it any point. Though at first in flavor of locating it an Richmond; he now favored the Tippecanoe Battle Ground. It would be better in his opinion if these public in situations were divided out between the larger cities of this commonwealth, instead of centering them all at one point. The people are now ready for the location; this Legislature has discussed it long enough; and , not wanting to postpone the settlement of this question any longer, he plead for a fair and square vote.
Mr. NILES argued that no injury would result from a postponement of this whole subject till another session. We have till 1874 to put the college in operation. The subject is beginning to be discussed by the press and the people of the State, and another legislature will meet with more definite ideas as to their wishes. If we are to have an agricultural and mechanical institution - as is well known - he favored the location at Indianapolis. But a proposition has been made to divert this fund to the use of common schools. It would then be equally useful to all the people of the State, and no doubt Congress would, if desired, consent to such an appropriation of the fund. This, like all other questions, could be fully considered by the people, before the next session. The very fact that the opinions of this Legislature are so unsettled, woudl seem to justify the postponement.
Mr. HANNA spoke to the question as to whether the location shall be made at the Battle-ground or at Indianapolis, expressing again his decided preference for the former place. After referring at length, in no flattering terms, to several occurrences happening in the city of Indianapolis since the war, he proceeded to show that the public duty and public necessity required that we should pass upon this question now.
Mr. TURNER was not wedded to any particular locality, and spoke in favor of postponement. He was not prepared to vote upon the pending question; nor had it been canvassed before his constituency. he demanded the previous question.
The Senate refused to second the demand - on a division, affirmative 15, negative 22.
Mr. CASON replied to the insinuations that the terms of the resolution under which we are now acting were unfair or tied up the hands of the Senate. He read from the BREVIER REPORTS of the last session to show that it was almost identical with the one under which the location was made by the Senate of 1865.
Mr. THOMPSON also read from the BREVIER REPORTS with a view of sustaining his assertion that the location was then made in compliment to the then presiding officer of the Senate.
Mr. CASON again referred to the same book to refute this idea.
Mr. NOYES quoted proceedings-on page 240 of BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS, wherein it is set forth that the bill locating the college was on its third reading without containing what Monroe county proposed to do, and the amendments were permitted to be incorporated when one single objection would have prevented it, because it was well known that the bill, even if it passed, could not become a law in those last hours of the session.
The Senate then took a recess till 2.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. CASON moved to postpone the further consideration of the agricultural college question till to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock, so that the special order for this hour - certain railroad bills - may be taken up.
Mr. TURNER thought we had better come to a vote upon this question now, and get it out of the way of more pressing business before the Senate.
The PRESIDENT decided that while a motion to indefinitely postpone is pending, a motion to postpone to a certain day is not in order.
Mr. TURNER withdrew the motion to indefinitely postpone the bill, to accommodate Senators.
On motion by Mr. CASON, it was postponed till 2 o'clock to-morrow afternoon.
Mr. THOMPSON presented a petition, which was referred to the- Committee on Temperance without reading.
page: 343[View Page 343]BENEVOLENT INSTITUTIONS.
Mr. CHURCH, from the majority of the Committee on Benevolent Institutions, reported that after examination of certain charges against the Insane Asylum they were unable to find anything to sustain the charge of extravagance, or in any manner changing the financial statements as found in their reports for the years 1865-6. They speak in complimentary terms of the Superintendent, Dr. Lockhart; and recommend a change in the manner of keeping the books of the institution; and recommend the usual appropriations for the current expenses of the several State benevolent institutions for the years 1867-8.
Mr. CRAVENS submitted a report in behalf of the minority of said committee, referring particularly to the evidence presented before the committee while investigating affairs connected with the Insane Hospital, without expressing an opinion as to the financial management, but recommending that a provision be made by law for furnishing clothing to patients. The report bears cheerful testimony to the care bestowed on the patients by the Superintendent, Matron and other officers, and recommends the same appropriations as the other report, with one exception.
Mr. BELLAMY moved that 300 copies of the reports of the minority and majority be printed, and that they be made the special order for Monday at two o'clock.
Mr. BENNETT insisted that Senators could understand these reports as well from hearing them read as if they were printed; and he opposed the delay the printing would inevitably cause.
Mr. HANNA desired very much to know the necessity for so great an appropriation as that recommended for the Insane Hospital, and insisted that these reports should be printed, that every member here may have an opportunity to examine them.
Mr. CHURCH could not understand what benefits would accrue from the printing of the reports.
[Leave of absence was obtained for Mr. Smith this afternoon ]
Mr. CULLEN could not see how the printing of these reports could be of any practical use at this late day of the session. No charges had yet been made against the gentlemen proposed to be elected to the management of these institutions; and they should now be allowed to come out from under the cloud.
Mr. BELLAMY withdrew his motion.
Mr. HANNA renewed it.
Mr. BENNETT said the examination of these charges have been made, a Democratic Senator has put his name to the majority report, which says these charges are unfounded, and still we put off this election?
Mr. HANNA (interposing) was willing that the election should go on, but was anxious that the reports should be printed.
Mr. BENNETT was willing to print if any good reason could be given for it; but he could see no good to come from it. He opposed the printing as a separate proposition.
Mr. HUFFMAN, as a member of this committee, had carefully and impartially examined the case, and was satisfied that the charges made against the officers of the institution for the Insane are unfounded and untrue. If money has been applied contrary to appropriations made by law that is no evidence that it was fraudulently applied. As far as the question of printing is concerned he thought there is no necessity for printing these reports, and for himself he was willing that the Senate should go into an election for officers of these institutions.
Mr. HANNA modified his motion by proposing that this subject be made the order for day after to-morrow morning, and that one hundred copies of the reports be printed.
On motion of Mr. BENNETT it was laid on the table by yeas 25, nays 18.
The report of the majority of the committee was then concurred in.
On motion by Mr. BENNETT, the order of business was suspended - yeas 27, nays 17 - to enable him to offer a resolution that the two houses of the General Assembly will go into an election by a simultaneous concurrent vote, on to-morrow at 10 o'clock A. M., for the Trustees for the Benevolent Institutions of the State.
The resolution was adopted by yeas 26, nays 18.
Mr. CULLEN, from the Committee on Canals, returned Mr. Stein's bill[S. 142] to provide for the payment of $57.000 to Morehead, Hall & Co., H. G. Wright, Jacob Barkus, and Patrick Shannon, recommending its passage.
NEW PROPOSITIONS.
Mr. RICHMOND introduced a bill [S 229] for an act concerning the usual duties of common carriers.
Mr. CASON introduced a bill [S. 230] for an act to repeal an act to authorize Railroad companies to occupy and use for railroad purposes the property of canal companies, &c., approved November 16, 1865. It was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. RICE introduced a bill [S. 231] for an act to save pending suits affected by the passage of an act to repeal sections 43 and 44 of the act prescribing who may make a will, &c., approved May 31, 1852, approved December 21, 1865.
On motion by Mr. BELLAMY the Sen- page: 344[View Page 344] ate proceeded to vote again on bills which have heretofore failed to pass for want of constitutional majorities
On motion by Mr. WOLCOTT, his temperance bill [S. 46 - see pages 52, 96, 98 and 242 of these Reports] was taken up it having failed to pass on the 15th inst., and again on yesterday.
Mr. BENNETT moved to recommit the bill with instructions to add a section entitling sellers and remonstrators to the right of appeals as in other cases: -urging its adoption for reasons given by him on page 295 of these Reports.
The bill was read and passed by yeas 28, nays 19 - as follows:
YEAS Messrs. Armstrong, Bellamy, Bennett Bonham, Brown,Cason, Church, Cravens, Cullen, Houghton, Hyatt, Lewis, Milligan, Niles, Noyes, Oyler, Parrish, Reagan, Reynolds, Rice, Richmond, Robinson, Stein, Terry, Thompson, Ward, Wolcott and Mr. President, (Cumback) 28.
NAYSMessrs Barker, Bowman, Carson, English, Gifford, Hanna, Howk, Huey, Huffman, Humphreys, Jaquess, Johnson, Lee, Mason, Newlin, Sherrod, Staggs, Taggart and Turner - 19.
Pending the roll call -
Mr. BENNETT said: This bill is not in all respects just as I should like to have it. Neither does it meets the expectations of all the people whom I represent on this floor. Some have asked me for prohibition; others have demanded that no further legislation be had. I can't please them all. And I consider this bill a compromise of their opinions, and as it is the bill presented by the Committee, I shall vote for it.
Mr. BONHAM, when his name was called, said: As remarked by the Senator from Union, I too have been petitioned, but invariably for a prohibitory law; but as I do not think a prohibitory law can by any possibility be passed at the present session, and as I regard this as the next best law on the subject that can be passed I shall vote "aye."
Mr. BROWN was understood to say in explanation of his vote, that although he disliked the license system very much he had come to the conclusion to vote for fastening it upon the people. In view of all the facts connected with this bill, although he did not like it, still, to accommodate his friends he voted "aye."
Mr. THOMPSON, when his name was called, stated that it was not likely any of his constituents would violate any of the provisions of this bill, and he saw no reason why he should not vote for it.
The result, as above recorded, was then announced. So the bill passed.
Mr. Church's bill, S. 9 - see pages 18 and 69 of these reports - rejected on the 7th inst, coming up -
Mr. CHURCH explained that it authorizes suits to be brought upon contract as well where the contract was made as where the defendant resides, provided it is in the county.
Mr. CARSON made objections.
The bill was again rejected - yeas 17, nays 29.
Mr. Thompson's bill [S. 14] to encourage immigration to the State (see page 243 having failed for want of a constitutional majority on the 15th inst.) coming up -
On Mr. HANNA'S motion the appropriation for printing pamphlets, &c., was reduced from $500 to $100.
The bill was passed by yeas 31, nays 14.
Mr. Oyler's clerk appellation bill [S. 20 - see page 70] having failed to pass January 21, was now passed by yeas 34, nays 8.
Mr. Johnson's bill [S. 92] enabling incorporated towns to raise revenue from drinking saloons by levying an additional license fee - it having failed on the 20th inst., coming up -
Mr. JOHNSON explained its provisions.
It was rejected - yeas 20, nays 21.
Mr. Churchs' bill [S. 94see page 157] to provide for the protection of mink, otter and raccoon - rejected on the 22d instant, coming up -
Mr. CHURCH urged its passage.
The bill was passed by yeas 29, nays 14.
Mr. Jaquess' bill [S. 100] limiting the liabilities of inn-keepers, which failed to pass on the 22d instant, coming up -
Mr. JAQUESS and Mr. WOLCOTT explained its provisions - every adjoining State has similar laws.
Mr. CULLEN suggested a difficulty - a foreigner, not understanding the language, might be imposed upon.
The bill again failed to pass by yeas 23, nays 20.
Mr. Carson's bill [S. 105] authorizing the holding of criminal courts in all counties polling 7,000 votes (see pages 156 and 299) which failed to pass last Friday, coming up -
Mr. CARSON insisted that it was of the utmost importance to the public generally, and the traveling public in particular, that this bill should pass.
Mr. STEIN coincided with the remarks just made, and urged the passage of the bill.
Mr. BENNETT knew the people of Wayne county were anxious for this bill, and he hoped it would pass.
The bill passed by yeas 29, nays 13.
Mr. Huey's bill [S. 174] for the relief of Peter and Benoni Wells was read the third time, on Mr. Church's motion at the instance of Mr. H.
Mr. HUEY said the bill was right and page: 345[View Page 345] that it has been before the Committee on Rights and Privileges.
It was passed by yeas 43, nays 0.
On motion by Mr. STEIN, the ten percent, interest bill [S. 93 - see, proceedings of day before yesterday] was read the third time.
Mr. STEIN explained that this bill changes the present interest law from six to ten per cent, in all cases of written contracts. Interest to be deemed usurious as to the excess only.
Mr. HANNA thought the experience of the older nations of the world have demonstrated the fact that the rate of interest as fixed by Indiana is too much. The drift of legislation is too much in favor of money changers, and against the labor of the country. We as a people are being consumed by this spirit.
Mr. WOLCOTT. This State is deficient in money capital because the legal rate of interest is too low. It is for this reason that Indiana is lagging in the career of improvement. The farming class demand this increase, and it might be said to be a bill favoring the poorer classes.
The bill was passed by yeas 33, nays 9.
On motion by Mr NOYES, the bill [H. R. 8 ] amending section 99 of the Practice so that relief may be granted on motion any time within two years, was read third time.
Mr. NILES explained its provisions.
The bill passed by yeas 39, nays 2.
On motion of Mr. LEWIS, the bill [H. R. 66] authorizing incorporated town trustees to establish fire limits, was read the third ,and passed by yeas 40, nays 1.
On motion by Mr. MASON the bill [S. 77] increasing the salaries of Prosecuting Attorneys of Criminal Courts to $1,000 per annum, was read the third time and passed, yeas 31; nays, 8, with amendment of title viz: "to increase the salaries of Prosecuting Attorneys in the Criminal Courts of this State.
And then the Senate adjourned.
