AFTERNOON SESSION.
The Speaker resumed at two o'clock p. m.
On the motion of Mr. ZOLLERS, Mr. Minor obtained leave of absence on account of present illness.
The SPEAKER announced the consideration of the
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
The jurors' fee bill [S. 58] coming up, was read the second time and referred to the Committee on Fees and Salaries.
HARBOR AT MICHIGAN CITY.
The joint resolution [S. 4] in relation to the completion of the harbor at Michigan City, was read the second time.
Mr. WILE asked for a suspension of the constitution restriction, which was agreed to-- yeas 78, nays 0,--whereupon the joint resolution was ordered to the third and last reading, read the third time and passed the House of Representatives--yeas 80, nays 0.
The joint resolution relative to the repair losses by the officers and men of Battery F., the bark Torrent, in the Pacific waters, [S. 3] was passed the second reading.
COUNTY SURVEYORS.
Mr. Mason's County Surveyors' bill [H. 69] coming up. (with a committee amendment reducing the pay to three dollars a day) read the second time.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM proposed to amend by making the official tenure two years instead of four.
Mr. COFFROTH moved to recommit the bill and amendment with instructions to report on the particular changes proposed in the existing law.
Mr. RATLIFF proposed to amend the motion by instructing the committee to strike section two of the bill the clause for supplying instruments for taking angles, independent of the magnetic needle. Such an instrument would cost the county over two hundred dollars. Being a surveyor himself, he furnished a plain and lucid explanation why such instuments were not needed. As to section five of the bill, it requires that fees of surveyor shall be placed upon the tax duplicates, and that Treasurers shall receive the same per cent, for the collection of such fees, as he receives for the collection of taxes. This, he said, would impose upon the owner of land, additional expenses for which there is no just cause. Section six increases the pay of Surveyors beyond what in justice should be allowed them. His experience of about ten years had proven that a Surveyor, under the present law, could earn from five to ten dollars per day, and he could see no reason for authorizing an additional charge for getting up a plat Section fourteen authorized the paying of five dollars a day for surveying roads. He regarded that increase as uncalled for, and announced that he should oppose the bill at every step.
Mr. COFFROTH now withdrew his motion, and moved that the bill be indefinitely postponed.
Mr. MASON showed the necessity of the bill, for the remedy of defects in the existing law. He had introduced the bill, by the vice of a gentleman thoroughly acquainted with the imperfections of the present law, of which, he was satisfied, a great deal of litigation had grown. Section two, providing for page: 205[View Page 205] furnishing superior instruments to surveyors,he thought a salutary provision, for the reason that surveyors generally would supply themselves with interior, and in many instances, defective instruments as a matter of economy, their use resulting in inaccurate surveys. The section was incorporated to provide against such inaccuracies and prevent litigation. The other sections, increasing the pay of Surveyors, and providing for collection on the duplicates, were to secure proper remuneration simply, and to protect the land owner against exorbitant charges.
The bill was indefinitely postponed.
Mr. Osborn's bill, [H. R. 65] to amend section fifteen of the manufacturers and miners act of May 20, 1852, was read the second time and ordered to the engrossment.
The SPEAKER laid before the House a ige from the Governor, transmitting papers proposing for the location of the Agricultural College, provided for by act of Congress, by citizens of the county of Tippecanoe. [See by proceedings pages 198 and 199.]
It was referred to the Committee on Agriculture and Education.
Mr. Bobo's Common Pleas Judges salary bill [H.R. 9] coming up, and being read the second time--
Mr. NEFF moved that it be indefinitely postponed
Mr. BOBO took the floor in a plea for the increase of the compensation of the Judges of Common Pleas. The bill proposed to make it $2,000--equal to that of the Judges of the Circuit Court. The business of the Common Pleas Judge was more intricate and laborious than the business of the Circuit Judge. He knew there were other bills pending for increasing the pay of Supreme and Common Pleas Judges, but he did not know what would would be their fate. He plead therefore for the passage of this bill.
Mr. MINER said that there is undoubtedly . a pressing need for legislation for the relief of our judiciary. The Governor has recommended in his message such legislation, and pronounced the judiciary of the State the most poorly paid class of public servants in the No good lawyer, it is well known, who consents to taking a seat on the bench, does without a great sacrifice. He thought it unfair and ungenerous to invite to the bench the best legal talent of the State, for the performance of duties not only laborious but of most sacred character, and refuse to offer remuneration. The bill proposes to increase the salaries of Judges from one thousand five hundred to two thousand dollars. The latter amount he thought entirely too small, considering the importance of the service required, and the laborious character of duties of the position. He thought it proper enough to enconomize, but unjust to begin by denying remunerative salaries to the Judiciary. He could see no reason for discriminating in favor of the Circuit Judges, who receive two thousand dollars per year; for it is an incontrovertible fact that Common Pleas Judges sit, on an average, as many days as do the Circuit Judges, and do as much hard labor. As the law now stands, a Common Pleas Judge at the close of his term, has nothing laid up. His practice is gone, his salary has been barely enough to support his family, and we know it will not do more, and he is really worse off than when he entered upon the duties of the position. It is a downright injustice to ask the Judges of our courts to work for their bread and meat, and he believed the members would so regard it.
Mr. McFADIN said that while he was on the bench from 1856 to 1860, the salary was but eight hundred dollars per year. To be sure, there have been great changes in value since then, but not so much as would induce him, from a knowledge of the fact that on eight hundred dollars per year then, he got along very well, to believe that a Judge wag not well enough paid now at one thousand five hundred dollars per year. He was satisfied he said, that there was a disposition of extravagance now-a-days that needed watching and curbing, and it had cropped out somewhat in this bill. His experience is, he said, that judges do not do work enough now for the pay they get, and he was opposed to the increase of their salaries. He was rather in favor of a law fixing the time of day for courts to open and adjourn. He was opposed to increasing their pay now one thousand five hundred dollars when money is scarce and times hard, lie would have the judges earn their money.
Mr. UNDERWOOD wished to remind the member from Cass (Mr. McFadin) that ten years ago, civil cases in Common Pleas Courts were limited to one thousand dollars, making the labors much less, and in addition to that, Common Pleas Judges were not, as now debarred from practicing in other courts. He could see no reason why the salary of Common Pleas Judges should not be made equal to that of Circuit Judges.
Mr. NEFF said that it had been but a short time since when a cry of this character--of un-renmnerative pay--we heard and was increased the salary of Common Pleas Judges from one thousand dollars to one thousand five hundred dollars. This bill proposes to add another five hundred dollars to the salary--an objectionable feature--but also to provide for the payment of said salary out of the treasury of the State in place of the county treasuries, as now provided. He did not believe that the bench would go begging for talent at the present salary, one thousand five hundred dollars page: 206[View Page 206] per year. He was reminded, he said, at this point, of a fact, that at the last election in his District, there were plenty of lawyers of ability who were not only willing to take the place of Common Pleas Judge, but anxious to do so. Good men, lawyers, in his county--were willing now to surrender their practice for the Common Pleas Judgeship. Leading lawyers of this State had presided in the Courts for one thousand dollars a year since he had been a practicing lawyer, and now it was proposed to make the pay of the Judges of Common Pleas two thousand dollars a year--which would be taking fifteen thousand dollars annually out of the State Treasury. He opposed the bill.
Mr. JOHNSON of Parke, while he should not vote for the bill in its present shape, answered objections to the proposed increase of compensation. He liked some features of the bill, one of which was, the proposition to pay a remunerative salary for the services of Common Please Judges. He thought we could not expect to command the best talent for the bench, without paying a fair salary. He objected to the provision for paying the salary out of the State Treasury, and thought the bill should be so amended as to continue the practice of paying the Judges out of the County Treasuries. He moved, therefore, to recommit the bill to the committee from which it came. [There was no second.]
Mr. COFFROTH demanded the special order--it being eleven o'clock.
On motion of Mr. PIERCE of Vigo, the bill was made the special order for Tuesday, three o'clock.
BASIS OF APPRAISEMENTS.
The SPEAKER announced the consideration of the committees "gold basis" bill (H. R. 58)--the vote rejecting it having been reconsidered--the question was on its final passage, whereupon the main question had been ordered.
Mr. VATER made the point of order, that it was not competent for the House to reconsider a vote rejecting a bill.
The SPEAKER ruled that it is competent for the House to reconsider such a vote--the bill being still in possession of the House and the motion to reconsider having been made within two days.
Mr. VATER appealed from the decision of the Chair, in writing--because the motion to reconsider was not in order, it being against the rules of the House.
Mr. COFFROTH asked unanimous consent that the appeal of the gentlemen from Marion be printed as a favor for the guidance of members taking appeals. He also asked, ineffectually, for unanimous consent to modify the bill so as to include personal property in gold basis appraisement for 1869.
Mr. VATER withdrew his appeal; and the question recurred on the passage of the bill.
Mr. ZOLLARS moved to reconsider the vote of yesterday ordering the main question.
The motion to reconsider was rejected--affirmative 36, negative 40.
Mr. COFFROTH demanded a call of the House; which being ordered and taken, discovered eighty-seven members present, and answering to their names.
Mr. VATER desired to lay the subject< the table.
Mr. COFFROTH stated the order, that tin motion to lay on the table can not be entertained, after the main question has been ordered.
After further debate on the point of order--
The SPEAKER ruled against the motion to lay on the table, and directed the clerk to take the vote on the passage of the bill.
Mr. COFFROTH suggesting that the House is still proceeding in the matter of the call of House--
The SPEAKER directed the Clerk to call the roll to determine the absentees.
Mr. JOHNSON of Parke, moved ineffectually, to dispense with further proceedings under the call.
The roll call determined that Mr. Buskirk and Mr. Stewart of Rush, are absent without leave; and the Doorkeeper was directed to bring them to the bar.
Subsequently, the question being raised that a call of the House cannot be entertained under the force of the previous question--
The SPEAKER ruled accordingly, and again directed the vote on the passage of the bill.
The voted resulted yeas 48, nays 39--as follows:
YEAS--Messrs. Addison, Admire, Baker, Bates Bo bo, Bntton, Breekmridge, Calvert, Carnahan, Cave, Chapman, Coffroth, Cotton,Cox, Cunningham, Dittemore, Fuller, Furnas, Green, Hutchings, Hyatt, Johnston of Montgomery, Lawler, Logan, McBride, McDonald, McFadin, McGregor, Miller, Miles, Mock, Montgomery, Neff, Odell, Palmer Peelle, Pierce of Vigo, Shoaff, Shoemaker, Sleeth, Smith, Tebbs, Vater, Welborn, Wile, Williams of Knox, Zenor and Zollars--48.
NAYS--Messrs. Barnett, Beeler, Bowen, Chittenden, Davidson, Dunn, Fairchild, Field of Lagrange, Gilham, Gordon, Hall, Higbee, Higgins, Hutson, Johnson of Parke, Johnson of St. Joseph, Jump, Kercheval, Mason, Millikin, Mitchell, Osborn, Overmyer, Pierce of Porter, Ratliff, Sabin, Skidmore, Stephenson, Stewart of Ohio, Sunman, Tabor, Underwood, Vardeman, Wildman, Williams of Hamilton, Williams of St. Joseph, Williams of Union, Wilson and Mr. Speaker--39.
Pending the roll call--
Mr. BAKER explaining his vote said: He was one of those who believe that gold is the only true standard of value. It is the standard adopted by the government in its dealing with other nations, and in measuring foreign page: 207[View Page 207] coin. Because it is the only true standard of value--he voted "aye."
Mr. MITCHELL repeated what he said in voting before, that, believing the bill to be a stab at the currency of the country, which the State of Indiana and the well wishers of the government generally could illy afford to do, he voted "no."
Mr. STEWART of Rush, responded in the affirmative, when his name was called; but, objection being made, he was denied the record of his vote under the rule that he was not within the bar when the question was put.
So the bill failed for want of the constitutional majority of 51.
It goes on the Speaker's table for another vote in the future considerations of the orders of the day.
Mr. PIERCE of Vigo's, motion to print five hundred copies of the report of the Trustees of the Wabash and Erie Canal was modified so as to make the order to print three hundred copies--the Senate having ordered two hundred copies.
And then--
The House adjourned till to-morrow morning at nine o'clock
