HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
SATURDAY, March 2, 1867.The House met at 9 o'clock A. M.
On motion of Mr. WILSON, the reading ing of the journal of yesterday's proceedings was dispensed with.
PETITIONS.
Messrs. VANVALKENBURGH, SHANKS, CHAMBERS, BLACK, (latter from women of Anderson,) and Mr. Shields, (from the Methodist and New School Presbyterian churches in Rochester,) severally presented temperance petitions, which, generally without reading, wer, referred to the Committee on Temperance.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Mr. BAKER, from the Judiciary Committee, returned the Governor's succession bill [S. 164] recommending its passage.
Mr. GRIGGS. from the Judiciary Committee, returned Mr. White's bribery-felony bill [H. R -37]. recommending its passage.
Mr. WASON, from the Committee on Education, returned Mr. Stackhouse's saline land sales bill [H. R. 279], recommending its passage.
Mr. LOPP, from the Committee on Claims, reported against the claim of Jacob Langdon.
Mr. WRIGHT returned the claims of the Messrs. Keedy, recommending that they, be not allowed.
These reports were concurred in.
PER DIEM AND MILEAGE.
Mr. KIZER submitted the following:
Resolved, That the Committee on Fees and Salaries be instructed to inquire into the propriety of reporting a bill for reducing the per diem of members of the General Assembly to $4 a day, and their mileage to 15 cents.
It was referred to the Committee on Fees and Salaries.
SETTLEMENT WITH THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT.
Mr. BRANHAM (Mr. Miller in the chair) introduced r bill [H. R. 342] or an act authorizing the Governor of the State of Indiana to appoint a Commission, whose duty it shall be to settle the claims of the State of Indiana against the General Government, by accepting the "internal improvement bonds" issued by said State, and held in trust for certain Indian tribes by the General Government; to provide for the payment of the balance of the outstanding bonds of the State issued prior to the year 1846: to provide for the registration, cancelling, and burning of said bonds, and providing compensation for said commissioners. It was passed to the second reading.
Mr.BRANHAM. In the adjustment of the State debt in 1846-7, we transferred to the bondholders the Wabash and Erie canal, with all its rights, privileges and franchises, on the condition that they would surrender a certain amount of State bonds held by them - he did not remember the exact amount. But it was not the intention of the State to repudiate a single dollar of those obligations. The bondholders admitted that the canal was worth at least one-half its cost - as evidence of which they paid Mr. Butler, their attorney in the case, $100,000 for his services. The General Government holds our bonds to the amount of $250,000, The Governor had not the right to surrender these bonds under the act of 1847. Up to 1856, three per cent, was retained as offset against the interest. Since that time the interest has not been paid. This bill proposes to authorize the Governor to offset the bonds of the State which the General Government hold, as against the war claim of the State against the General Government. The Government pays no interest on the million of dollars we have against her. I am satisfied that if this bill passes, we can settle with the General Government so far as to stop the interest on these $250,000 bonds. It has been said that those who surrendered the canal bonds will complain, but he thought they have no right to complain; because at the time the arrangement was made with them they did not take any less than the bonds were worth. He asked the House to look at the whole question, stating that we have a sufficient amount of claims against the General Government to pay off the entire portion of those bonds. Only $25,000 of those bonds were held in London. The rest were in this country. The question is, whether we ought to pay them or not. He thought we ought to.
Mr. Schammahorn obtained leave of absence till Monday; Mr. O'Neil till Thursday.
AUGUST RICHTER AND OTHERS.
Mr. NEWCOMB moved to take up the reports of the Committee on Claims for allowance to certain citizens of Indianapolis for grading and paving opposite the State's grounds. It had been alleged on this floor that the city of Indianapolis, having ordered these improvements for the State, should pay for them. He showed hat it has been the custom heretofore for the State to pay for these improvements. The fact was proved before the Committee on Ways and Means yesterday. And he showed by the law that it was competent for the Common Council to make the order for the improvement, as they did - citing section 66. page 30 of the acts of the special session. Here we have the express declaration that owners of the lands border- page: 371[View Page 371] ing on the street where improvements are made shall be liable for their proper proportion of the expense. The law had been fully complied with, as the committee report shows. These claims amount to something larger than he could wish. But they are held by men who can illy afford to lose or suffer delay of payment. One of these claimants, he knew, has borrowed money lately. But one claim presented by an assignee. The others were presented by the men who did the work. It was unjust for the State to say now that she will not pay for this work. If General Assembly think the State ought to pay, he would vote at once for a law making that declaration. But this work having been done and approved, these claims stand just an any other valid claim against the State - just as meritorious as claims for supplies furnished to this House.
Mr. GEISENDORF was acquainted with the parties who had done this work; and they have not received one cent for it directly or indirectly. They did the work on good faith of the General Assembly. If these claims were denied here, he could raise the money to pay them in two days by subscription of the people of his county.
Mr. CHAMBERS demanded the previous question, and there was a second, and the main question was ordered.
Mr. NEWCOMB, demanding the yeas and nays, they were ordered and taken, resulting - yeas 57, nays 13 - as follows:
YEAS -Messrs Belford, Bischof, Blanch, Brucker, Campball, Chambers, Corey, Crain, Crowe, Daggy, Danaldson, Erwin, Evans, Ferris, Foulke, Geisendorf, Gordon, Green, Greer, Griggs, Hamilton, Hays, Higgins, Hopkins, Hostetter, Hudson, Kiser, Long of Koscuisko, Martin, Mason, McCarthy, McClasky, McLean. McMurray, Moore, Newcomb, O'Neil, North, Peelle, Prather, Sabin, Scarnmahorn, Shanks, Shook, Shuey. Skidmore, Smith of Wabash, Stafford, Stewart, Thrasher, Thomas, Wason, Watson, Wilson, Wolfer, Wolflin, Woods and Mr. Speaker - 57.
NAYS - Messrs. Baker, Bird, Bobo, Carter, Douglass, Fuller, Honneus, Inman.Ross, Tebbs, Thacher, Vawter and Wolfe - 13.
So the reports were taken up.
Mr. NEWCOMB said the largest claim was for bouldering Circle street. He would move that that report be referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, with instructions to inquire into the fact of the possession and jurisdiction of the city over the Circle, &c.
The motion was agreed to.Mr. NEWCOMB moved further, that the other claims for this street work, amounting to about $9,000, for which the Committee on Claims have reported allowance, be concurred in.
The report for allowance of the claim of August Richter for $837 90, for grading and bouldering Tennessee street, and curbing the sidewalk in front of the State's grounds, having been read -
Mr. HUGHES stated that in his opposition to these claims he had done his duty. He left it therefore to the House, disclaiming any and all hostility to the city of Indianapolis.
Mr. STAFFORD stated that the Committee on Claims had patiently and fully examined these claims and ii vestigated all the facts bearing on them before reporting for their allowance.
Mr. FOULKE demanded the previous question, and there was a second, and the main question was ordered.
The vote on concurrence on the committee reports resulted - yeas 59, nays 25 - as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Bischof, Blanch, Brucker, Campbell,Chambers, Corey, Crain, Crowe, Daggy, Danaldson, Dunn, Erwin, Evans, Ferrus, Foulke, Geisendorff, Gordon, Griggs, Hamilton, Hays, Higgins, Hopkins, Hudson, Long of Kosciusko. Lopp, Martin, Mason, McClasky, McLean, Mc-Murray, Miller, Moore, Newcomb, North. Peelle, Prather, Ratliff, Rosser, Sabin, Scammahorn, Shook, Shull, Shuey, Skidmore, Smith of Lagrange, Smith of Wabash, Spencer, Stafford, Stewart, Thrasher, Thomas, Wason. Watson, Wilson, Wolfer, Wolflin, Woods and Wright 59.
NAYS - Messrs. Baker, Bird. Black, Bobo, Carter, Douglass. Green, Greer, Hartman, Honneus, Hostetter, Hughes, Inman, Kiser, McFadin, Morrison, Montgomery, O'Neil, Ross, Shanks, Shields, Stackhouse. Tebbs, Van Valkenburg, Vawter, and Wolf - 25.
So the reports of the Committee on Claims were concurred in.
On motion of Mr. HUGHES, the Governor was requested to return Mr. White's [H. R. 99] to the House for correction of a clerical error.
Subsequently -
Mr. MONTGOMERY (in the absence of Mr. White on leave) submitted the proper correction; and they were authorized by reconsideration and re-enactment by the House of Representatives by unanimous consent.
The House now returned to unfinished business of yesterday, viz : the consideration of Mr. Foulke's motion for a resolution to furnish members and officers of the House of Representatives each with two bound copies of the Acts and Journals and the Brevier Reports.
Mr. O'NEIL moved to strike out the Brevier Reports.
Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH moved to lay the motion on the table.
Mr. O'NEIL then withdrew it.
Mr. NEWCOMB moved that the resolution be postponed till Monday week, for this reason: that it's usual, in the last hours of the session, to acton this resolution.
The motion was agreed to by consent.
Mr. CHAMBERS moved to suspend the order of business for the order for the introduction of bills and resolutions.
page: 372[View Page 372]On motion of Mr. PRATHER, this motion was laid on the table - yeas 57, nays 28.
RAILROAD PASSENGER FARE.
The House now resumed the consideration of Mr. Stafford's Railroad Passenger Fare bill. [H. R. 333] the question being on Mr. Stafford's amendment to make the general rate of passenger fare three cents per' mile, instead of three and a quarter cents.
Mr. STAFFORD withdrew his amendment.
Mr. WASON was opposed to hurrying bills in this snap-judgment way. It has not been referred to the Committee on Railroads. He was acting here for the people. This bill will cripple railroads and destroy competition, and dissipate every prospect of building other and competing roads-With competition, the tariff of fare and freight will adjust itself. It would keep foreign investments in railroads out of the State. It was too late in the session to pass a bill of this character.
Mr. BRANHAM (Mr. Miller in the Chair) concurred in the opinion of Mr. Wason. There were a number of roads that can not live at so low a rate as others. A rate that would pay Terre Haute road would not pay the north and south roads. Suppose we stop these roads, whose interests would be promoted; These were roads that did not now more than pay the working expenses. He particularized. He considered that we should fix this rate so that the poorer roads may live. This unfriendly legislation would not only keep out foreign capital, but it would destroy the local roads. He would like to see the proposition of Mr. Ross amended, so as to fix fare at four cents and five cents. He was sorry that bill was withdrawn, because it was carefully prepared, and it could be made right as to rates. He knew of eight millions of foreign capital now proposing to be invested in Indiana railroads, and this bill would effectually stop that. The short roads should be allowed to live. The House was legislating in the dark - without knowledge of what railroad investments pay. He ventured that the average was not above four per cent. He was not a stockholder, but he offered what he knew in particular.
Mr. GRIGGS was fearful this bill would not accomplish the object aimed at. The general railroad act regulates fare and freights, giving this power to the railroads themselves, and retaining the power to repeal or amend. Does this bill repeal the 13th section of the general act? He even doubted whether the General Assembly could repeal this section. He admitted the existence of railroad abuses; but the General Assembly was not ready to legislate for correction.
Mr. HOPKINS opposed the bill, for no rate couid be fixed that would not operate unequally, because it costs no more to run a full car than an empty one. He instanced the Terre Haute road, and the Evansville and Terre Haute road. Whose interests would be affected if the latter goes down? What is the use of building roads, if you legislate so that they cannot be operated? And why not regulate fare on steamboats as well as railroads?
Mr. WOLFE said the bill began wrong by regulating through fare. It should only contemplate the local way fare. If we put our fare too low, we cripple our own people and benefit other States.
Mr. CRAIN wished to say that no Railroad Committee can properly examine this question in connection with their other duties during one session of the General Assembly. He recited what the Railroad Committee has done this session. They have failed to receive full responses to their inquiries of the railroads. There should be commission specially appointed to this business, to sit in vacation of the General Assembly, with power to send for persons and papers. Hasty legislation on this subject might be of immense disadvantage to the people. He gave facts in relation to fare of the different roads of the State. Something like what he suggested has been done by the people of Ohio, for the regulation of local fare and freight. He thought that if we go so low as three and one quarter cents, it would work injuriously. Not over one fourth of the roads were paying dividends.
Mr. BOBO thought three and a quarter cents too low, but he was in favor of some limitations. There were roads that could not make profit at three and a quarter cents. He would vote for four cents.
Mr. BELFORD held in his hand the report of the Ohio Special Commission of Inquiry into the abuses of railroads, and alleged, with all his advantages of information, that the House was not prepared for intelligent action on this subject. The joint committee of the Ohio Legislature (from whose report he read) came to the conclusion that that State was not prepared and would not be until a State Commissioner should patiently and deliberately examine the matter and fully report results. He gave good railroad authority that railroads could not be successfully operated for less than 4 1/2 cents passenger fare. The Railroad Committee had reported a bill regulating local freights. They were unable to agree upon a just rate of passenger fare.
Mr. ROSS proposed to amend by striking out, from the enacting clause, and inserting his minority bill reported and described yesterday.
page: 373[View Page 373]Mr. CHAMBERS demanded the previous question, and there was a second, and the main question was ordered.
Mr. WOODS made a suggestion to amend so as to include those operating under the general railroad law.
Mr. ROSS said the bill contemplates railroads operating under the general law asunder charters. He said the case is different with our railroads and those in the] older States. So that if we establish a fixed rate too low we will not only injury all our roads, but will destroy the North and South roads. He particularized. It were policy to encourage good roads, and good roads, were the best paying roads. If we want more roads, it were policy to encourage them. There were quite a number of railroads now in progress of construction in Northern Indiana, He was of the opinion that the rate in his bill was to low; and he did not introduce it with his own full consent for its passage now, but because he considered it better than the original bill He closed by reading a pertinent extract from the Report of the Ohio Special Railroad Committee. He was opposed to any legislation on the subject.
Mr. STAFFORD introduced this bill upon what he understood to be the demand of the House, and referred deprecatingly to the opposition of Mr. Ross, attorney for the Peru road, and of Mr. Speaker Branham, who has been all his life in the railroad interest. If railroads could not live under just restrictions of law, they ought to go down. And in this connection he referred to a algging disingeneousness about furnishing the information demanded of the railroads on this subject, and denounced generally the railroad extortions. He contended also for the power of the General Assembly to regulate railroads. He demanded the yeas and nays on the amendment.
And then, under stress of the previous question, the vote on the adoption of Mr. Ross amendment resulted - yeas 56, nays 23.
Mr. ROSS then moved to lay the bill as amended on the table, which was agreed to - 42 to 37.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. Spencer obtained leave of absence till Monday at 3 o'clock.
STATE FINANCES.
On motion of Mr. NEWCOMB, the House took up the revenue bill No. 334 to legalize the action of the State Board of Equalization of 1864;
Also the bill No. 335, to amend the 2d section of the treasury system act;
Also the bill No. 341, to provide for taxing bank stocks; which were severally considered and ordered to the engrossment.
Mr. NEWCOMB said there was a section of the last bill subjecting the stock of the bank of the State and others to taxation for municipal purposes, and on his motion it was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
SCHOOL LAW.
Mr. FUNK introduced a bill [H. R.. 343]for remedy of an omission in Mr. Fuller's-finance bill [No. 277]changing our sections of the common school law, so as to make it conform to the change of time or the collection and payment of taxes to the third Monday in April; which was read.
On motion of Mr. SHUEY, the rule of the House and constitutional restriction were dispensed with - 70 to 0 - and then the bill was read by title twice and at length once, and finally passed the House of Representatives - 78 to 0.
On motion of Mr. FULLER, his bill [H. R. 277] last in the series of revenue bills introduced by him on the 12th of February for extending tax payments till the 3d Monday in April in each year, which was held over for correction, was taken up and finally passed the House - 77 to 0.
JOHN P. DUNN.
Mr. O'NEIL (by leave) introduced a bill [H. R. 344] for an act to repeal an act entitled an act to provide for the sale of certain lands belonging to the State of Indiana and to give pre-emption to actual settlers, and for relief of John P. Dunn former Auditor of State.
16TH ClRCUIT PROSECUTOR.
Mr BLACK introduced a bill [H.R 345] for an act to increase the salary of the prosecuting attorney in the 16th Judicial Circuit, and providing for paying the same ; which was passed to the second reading.
On motion of Mr. WOLFER, the conventional interest bill [S. 193], was taken up and passed to the third reading.
HOUSE OF REFUGE.
The SPEAKER announced the special order, viz: the consideration of the House of Refuge bill - [S. 161 - see page 184 of these Reports] - the question being on concurring in the amendments reported from the Committee of the Whole.
Mr. MlLLER moved to concur in the report of the committee.
Mr. NEWCOMB was not prepared to vote on the proposition for location by the General Assembly in joint session.
Mr. SHUEY indicated the following:
"Add to the third section the following: Provided, however, if this General Assembly shall fail to designate the county in which said institution shall be located, then it shall be fixed by the Commissioners with the permission of the Governor."
Mr. NEWCOMB hoped the motion to concur would be voted down, so that the page: 374[View Page 374] amendments can be considered separately. The object seemed to be to kill the bill.
Mr. HUGHES cauld not see the pertinency of the objection to the motion. He preferred that the Legislature should do it. in preference to a location by a traveling committee. He offered that amendment, and asserted that it was not hostile. He thought we had better go on and carry out the views expressed in Committee of the Whole. He wanted to know whether there has not been expended on the piece of land tendered for a site for this Refuge already a considerable amount for a foundation?
Mr NEWCOMB was not aware of any money expended on that land; and if he can have his way, the institution should not be located in this county.
Mr. MILLER refused to withdraw his motion to enable Mr. Shuey to offer his amendment. The sense of the House can be just as well taken on his original motion.
Mr. WOODS demanded a division of the question - the consideration of the committee's amendments separately.
The SPEAKER. A direct vote on the pending motion would present the same issue.
Mr. HIGGINS moved to lay Mr. Miller's notion on the table, which was rejected 42 to 37.
Mr. SHUEY now offered his amendment as above.
Mr. MONTGOMERY moved to lay Mr. Shuey's amendment on the table.
Mr. WOLFE moved to lay the whole subject on the table, the vote resulting19 to 62 - as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Bird, Black, Bobo, Carter, Crowe, Douglass, Edmonson, Fuller,Hays, Honneus, Hostetter, Lopp, Shanks, Shields, Shook. Shull, Staekhouse, Van Valkenburgh and Wolfe - 19
NAYS - Messrs. Baker, Belford, Bischof, Blanch. Brucker, Campbell, Daggy, Danaldson, Dunn, Erwin, Evans, Ferris, Foulke, Funk, Geisendorf, Gordon, Greer, Griggs, Hartman, Hamilton, Higgins, Hopkins, Hudson, Hughes, Hungate, Inman, Riser, Long of Jackson, Long of Kosciusko, Mason, McCarthy, McOlas-ky, McFadin, McMurray, Miller, Moore, Morrison, Montgomery, Newcornb, O'Neil, North, Peelle, Pratber, Katliff, Ross, Sabin, Shoaff, Shuey, Skidmore, Smith of Lagrange, Smith of Waba?h, Spencer, Stafford, Stewart, Tebbs, Thrasher, Vawter, Wason, Watson,Wolfer.Wolflin, Woods, Wright, and Mr. Speaker - 62.
So the House refused to lay the subject on the table; and the question recurred-on Mr. Montgomery's motion to lay Mr. Shuey's amendment on the table.
Mr. WOODS. Would it be in order to move to lay the amendment of the Committee of the Whole together with the amendment of the gentleman from Elkhart and Lagrange [Mr. Shuey] on the table.
The SPEAKER. The Chair thinks it would not be in order to entertain such a motion.
Mr. HUGHES. It was simply a duplication of the motion to lay on the table.
Mr. Montgomery's motion was rejected 38 to 45, and the question recurred on the adoption of the amendment.
Mr. HIGGINS moved to lay both the committee's and Mr, Shuey's amendment thereto on the table.
The SPEAKER decided to entertain the motion.
Mr. HUGHES (by leave) stated the question, showing that the affect of the success of the motion would be to restore the original section of the Senate bill.
Mr. Higgins' motion was agreed to43 to 40: so the amendments to the third section were rejected.
Mr. SHUEY moved to concur in the other amendments of the Committee of the Whole.
Mr. HUGHES moved to indefinitely postpone the whole subject - the House having determined unmistakeably for the location by the commissioners. He was unwilling to vote for a bill appropriating $50,000 to men whose names he does not know. He said also that the bill has as warm friends among those who are in favor of the Legislature making the location, as among those who are not. He would not sit here and vote away thousands and thousands of dollars out of the State Treasury, to what he would call an irresponsible clique. Unless we get better men for commissioners than we had before, they will open scenes of corruption that will make every honest man blush.
Mr. McFADIN applied here the saying of the lawyer with reference to the verdicy of a jury; "If there is anything in the world which the good Lord does not foreknow it is what a Legislature will do."
Mr. PEELLE did not gainsay the truth of Mr. Hughes' professions of friendship to the bill, but it was curious to hear such a declaration coming from a gentleman who is speaking on his own motion to indefinitely postpone the bill.
Mr HUGHES did not say he was friendly to the third section.
Mr. PEELLE proceeded to show that if the amendment of Mr. Shuey had been adopted, we could have had a law whether the Senate would come into convention for location or not. He would be ashamed to go home without establishing a House of Refuge. He demanded the previous question, and there was a second, and the mail question was ordered.
The vote resulted - 32 to 50 - as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Baker, Bird, Black, Bobo, Carter, Crowe, Douglass, Edmonson, Fuller, Green, Greer, Griggs, Hays, Honneus, Hostetter, Hudson, Hughes, Hungate, Inman, Long of Jackson, Lopp, Morrison, Montgomery, Shields, Shook, Shoaff, Shull, Stackhouse, Tebbs. Van Valkenburgh, Vawter, and Wolfe - 32.
page: 375[View Page 375]NAYS - Messrs. Belford, Bischof, Blanch, Brucker, Campbell, Daggy, Danaldson, Dunn, Erwin, Evans, Ferris, Foulke, Funk, Geisendorf, Gordon, Hartman, Hamilton, Higgins, Hopkins, Kiser Long of Kosciusko, Mason, McCarthy, McClasky, McFadin. McMurry, Moore, Newcomb, North, Peelle, Prather, Ratliff, Ross, Rosser, Sabin, Shanks, Shuey, Skidmore, Smith of Lagrange, Smith of Wabash, Spencer, Stewart, Thrasher, Wason, Watson, Wolfer. Wolflin, Woods, Wright, and Mr. Speaker - 50.
So Mr. Hughes' motion was rejected.
On motion of Mr. BELFORD, the remainder of the amendments reported from the Committee of the Whole, viz: 1. Leaving the Governor to fix the number of Commissioners, &c,, as reported yesterday, were concurred in without a division.
Mr. MILLER moved, successfully, to strike out "eight hundred," and insert "five hundred" in lieu; and Mr. WOODS moved, successfully, to amend the clause, respecting the warrant of the justice for return of a fugitive from the Refuge, so that it shall be the warrant of a justice of the peace in the county where the offense was committed.
Mr. NEWCOMB (for Mr. Prather) moved to strike out all that part of section 20 which authorizes the Commissioners to locate, leaving the location in the hands of the Governor.
Mr. HUGHES said with that amendment he would vote for the bill. It came from the right source.
Mr. NEWCOMB explained, and hoped the friends of the bill would vote for this amendment.
Mr.SHULL. Was not the Governor by and with the advice and consent of the Senate?
After further debate by Mr. SHUEY and others, objecting to the amendment, but unwilling to vote against the bill on account of a single section.
Mr. HIGGINS said it would be imposing a great responsibility on the Governor; which the Legislature ought not at this time to require of him.
Mr. GEISENDORF took a similar view. He had too much regard for the Governor to devolve upon him this responsibility.
Mr. WILSON humorously favored the amendment.
The vote on Mr. Newcomb's amendment resulted - 49 to 24 - as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Baker, Belford, Bischof,Black, Blanch, Bobo, Brucker., Carter, Daggy, Danaldson, Douglass, Dunn, Edmonson, Ferris, Funk, Gordon, Greer, Griggs, Hartman, Hamilton, Honneus, Hoste ter, Hudson, Hughes, Hungate, Inman, Kiser, Long of Kosciusko, Lopp, Mason, McFadin, Miller, Moore, Newcomb, North, Peelle, Prather, Ratliff, Ross. Rosser, Shook, Shuey, Smith of Wabash, Stackhouse, Thrasher, Van Vaikenburgh, Vawter, Watson and White - 49.
NAYS - Messrs. Campbell, Erwin, Evans, Foulke, Geisendorff, Green, Higgins, Hopkins, McCarthy. McClasky, McMurray, Sabin, Shields, Shull, Skidmore, Smith of Lagrange, Spencer, Stewart, Tebbs, Wolfe, Wolflin, Woods, Wright and Mr. Speaker - 24.
So the amendment was adopted.
The bill, as amended was then ordered to the engrossment and third reading.
On motion of Mr. VAWTER, it was
Resolved, That the Judiciary Committee be directed to return the Senate [Registry] bill No. 2 on Monday next at 2 1/2 o'clock, and that the same be made the special order for that hour.
THE CALENDAR.
The Senate amendment to Mr. Hamilton's criminal prosecutors salary bill [H. R. 77] coming up - they make it a discretion in the County Commissioners to pay the $1,000 salary.
Mr. NEWCOMB was glad the Senate had not concurred in the notion of the House.
The Senate amendments were concurred in.
The bill was then ordered to be enrolled and that the Clerk inform the Senate, &c.
The Senate amendment to Mr. Woods' bill No. 8, to amend the 99tn section of the practice act, (see page 17) was also concurred in.
The bill for the relief of Peter Wells and Benoni Wells [S. 174] coming up on the first reading-
Mr. HUDSON explained its provisions, and the reasons for them.
It was passed to the second reading.
The State and county officers to receive money for swamp lands bill coming up, it was passed to the second reading.
The Liquor bill [S. 46] (see page 53 of these Reports) coming up, it was passed to the second reading and referred to the Committee on Temperance.
The Holidays bill [S. 97] coming up, it was passed to the second reading.
The consolidation school fund bill [S. 227] (see page 330 of these reports) coming up, it was passed to the second reading.
The school house removal and erection bill [S. 181see page 199 of these Reports] coming up. it was passed to the second reading and referred to the Judiciary Committee.
The Fulton Common Pleas bill [S. 203] was passed to the second reading.
The Evansville charter-amendment railroad subscription bill [S. 223 - see page 318] coming up, it was passed to the second reading.
The three dollars a day tax appraisers bill [S 165 - see page 190 of these Reports] was passed to the second reading, and referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.
The bill [S. 14] to create a Board of Immigration for the purpose of encouraging immigration to the State of Indiana from the Eastern States of the United States, or from Europe, coming up, it was passed to the second reading, and referred to the Judiciary Committee.
The law practice restriction bill [S. 20see page 31] coming up, it was referred to the Judiciary Committee.
The Evansville Land Sale bill [S. 201seepage 259] was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.
The Mink, Otter and Raccoon Protection bill [S. 94] was referred to the Judiciary Committee.
The Criminal Court bill [ S. 105 - see page 110] was referred to the Judiciary Committee.
The Insurance Amendment bill [S. 108see page 108] was referred to to the Judiciary Committee.
page: 376[View Page 376]The Insurance Act Amendment bill [S. 116] was passed to the second reading.
The Common School Act Amendment bill [S. 114 - see page 111] was passed to the second reading, and referred to the Committee on Education.
The bill to amend the first and tenth sections of the Common School Act [S. 117] was referred to the Committee on Education.
MR. KIZER'S SCRAP BOOK.
Mr. HUGHES submitted the following, which was adopted.
Resolved, That a committee of five be appointed to negotiate with the Honorable Peter Kiser for the purchase of his scrap book, to be deposited in the State Library.
The extortion bill [S. 120 - see p. 111] to amend section 63 of the misdemeanor act, was referred to the Judiciary Committe.
The practice act amendment bill [S. 129 - see p. 135] was passed to the second reading.
The damages repeal bill [S. 131 - see page 118] was passed to the second reading.
The Insurance bill [S. 140] was passed to the second reading.
The women and children punishment bill [S. 213 - see p 277] was referred to the Committee on Rights and Privileges,
The bill [S. 235] to indemnify counties against defaulting Treasurers, was passed to the second reading.
On motion of Mr. LOPP, his joint resolution No. 23, for advancing the Agricultural Endowment fund to the Common School fund, was taken up and ordered to the engrossment and third reading.
The Common School tax bill [S. 111] was passed to the third reading.
The Senate Manufacturing and Mechanic shops bill was passed to toe third reading.
The Mining and Manufacturing company amendment bill [S. 191] was referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
The House then adjourned till Monday morning at 9 o'clock.
