THE BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
TENTH VOLUME.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
FRIDAY, January 29, 1869.The House met at nine o'clock a. m.
Mr. CAVE asked and obtained leave of absence till Tuesday for Mr. Mock, of Madison.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM and Mr. McFADIN made ineffectual motions that the reading of the journal of yesterday be dispensed with,and the same was read and approved.
PETITIONS, MEMORIALS, &C.
Were presented, read or described and referred in order as follows:
Mr. Neff, Mr. Furnas, Mr. Field, of Lake, three; Mr. Millekan, two; Mr. Long, six; Mr. Field, of Lagrange, Mr. Montgomery; Mr. Bowen, Mr. Jump, Mr. Baker, Mr. Johnson of Montgomery, Mr. Vater, six; and Mr. Sunman presented petitions with reference to railroad combinations and extortions.
Mr. MONROE. For relief of P. B. Wilson, Trustee, who was robbed of public money in his possession, also, for relief from abuses of the gravel road law.
Mr. WILE. In reference to schools.
Mr. CARNAHAN, of J. G. Houtz, the old Quartermaster of the Indiana Legion, who presents a claim of two hundred dollars for services rendered in gathering up arms at the close of the war, for the State, said claim not having been allowed by the Board of Claims.
Mr. WILSON, for the relief of Nicholas Morebeck, a Trustee, who was robbed of public funds in his possession, to the amount of two thousand and thirty dollars.
Mr. BOWEN. In reference to the election of Supervisors in their own districts.
Mr. WELBOEN. For compensation for an arrest.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Mr. DUNN, from the Committee on the Judiciary, returned Mr. Kercheval's limited partnership amendment bill [H. tf. 123] recommending its passage.
Also, Mr. McFadin's County Recorder's bill [H. *. 127] recommending its passage.
Mr. COFFROTH, from the Committee on Education, returned the County Auditor's bill [H. R. 97] recommending its passage.
Mr. OVERMYER, from the Committee on the Organization of Courts, returned Mr. Smith's Court bill [H. R. 11] with amendments.
Mr. TEBBS, from the Committee on Claims, reported a bill and concurrent resolution authorizing the Auditor of State to issue his warrants to Jas. C. Graham, James Cumback and others, for thirty dollars each, for services in collecting the votes of the late Presidential election.
The SPEAKER decided that as the resolution contemplated an appropriation, it could not be entertained.
Mr. HIGGINS, from the Committee on Claims, reported in favor of an allowance of sixty dollars to Cyrus T. Nixon, the old Principal Clerk, for services in the Organization of the present House of Representatives.
Also, reported against the claims of Andrew Brinkly and forty-one others, for mileage and attendance as witnesses before the Committee on Arbitrary Arrests, which was concurred in.
Mr. WILLIAMS, of Knox, from the Committee on Claims, reported a joint resolution for allowance of the claim of Aaron M. Hart, of Lake county, amounting to fifty dollars and interest thereon, said amount having been paid for forty acres of swamp lands in Lake county, page: 216[View Page 216] which lands had already been conveyed to another party in the State.
It was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, with instructions to incorporate the same in the specific appropriations.
Mr. SABIN, from the Claims Committee, reported in favor of a similar claim of Ann Christina Hellar, a recommendation that the House joint resolution No. 1, for this relief,introduced by Mr. Long, the 13th of January, be passed. On his motion the report was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, with instructions that the said Hellar claim of fifty dollars be incorporated in the specific bill.
SPRING BALANCES.
Mr. FURNAS, from the Committee on Rights and Privileges, returned Mr. Vater's bill [H. R. 63] for suppressing Spring Balances, recommending its indefinite postponement.
Mr. VATER showed a necessity of such a bill, from the notorious inaccuracies of the spring balances. He hoped the house would not concur. The bill was introduced with a view to protection that had been granted in other States, and the facts in the matter would show the desirability of such a law. Although Spring balances might be, and are made with such nice regard to temperature of steel, and elasticity of spring, as to be correct when new, a little use will so weaken the spring as to make them wholly unserviceable. He undertook to say that very few, if any, of the spring scales used by butchers are correct, and that in most cases the variations are so great as to make their sufferance burdensome to those who patronize the meat markets.
Mr. FURNAS said the bill was reported against because the committee held that the existing law against the use of false weights and measures, is a sufficient protection against false weights, if the people choose to assist in its enforcement.
Mr. CARNAHAN, also of the committee, took the same view of the matter. He said a man disposed to cheat in weights could do so with a pair of steelyards, and he thought the existing law, furnished all the protection that should be asked.
Mr. McFADIN objected to such a view of the case. Women and children frequently have to do marketing for butter and other articles sold by weight, and it is so easy to swindle them with such balances, he thought their use should be prohibited.
Mr. NEFF wanted to know of the gentleman from Cass, who is an incorrigible bachelor, whether he might be considered as seeking the passage of the bill, with a view to securing protection to children of his own.
Mr. McFADIN assured Mr. Neff that it was only in the practice of that Christian virtue-- philanthropy--that he rose in defence of the measure. He took, he said, a great interest in other people's children, at times, than their fathers would take.
Mr. BATES also spoke in defense of the bill.
Mr. McDONALD, of Marshall, hoped the report would not be concurred in. He regarded the bill as one much needed. Other States had such a law upon their statute books, and he could no reason for our remaining longer without one.
On motion by Mr. Hutchings, the bill was recommitted.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Mr. WILDMAN moved a reconsideration of the vote yesterday, concurring in the report of the committee returning and recommending the indefinite postponement of his bridge bill [H.R. 79.] He was satisfied that the report was made either under misapprehension or without proper examination. Its imporatance, he was satisfied, could be so demonstrated as to render it worthy of kindlier treatment at the hands of the House.
The vote was reconsidered and the bill recommitted to the committee on Roads.
Mr. PIERCE of Porter, by consent, submitted the report of the Trustees of the Soldiers' Home, and, on his motion, five hundred copies thereof were ordered printed.
Mr. SHOEMAKER, from the Committee on County and Township Business, returned Mr. Bowen's Justice's act and amendment bill, [H.R. 100] recommending its passage.
Mr. HYATT, from the same Committee returned Mr. Vater's election bill, [H.R. 108] recommending its indefinite postponement.
Mr. VATER opposed the concurrence.
On motion of Mr. WILDMAN, it was referred to the committee on Elections.
Mr. FAIRCHILD, from the same Committee, reported back certain resolution as superceded matter, recommending indefinite postponement, which was concurred in.
Mr. WILSON, from the Committee on Cities and Towns, returned Mr. Breckinridge's cities and towns amendment bill [H.R. 68] with clerical amendments recommending passage.
Mr. BEELER, from the same committee, returned Mr. Stewart of Ohio's liquor law amendment bill [H.R. 70] recommending its passage.
ROAD ASSESSMENTS.
Mr. PALMER, from the Committee on Roads, made the following report:
Mr. SPEAKER: The Committee on Roads, to whom was referred House bill No. 52, entitled "An act authorizing the assessment of lands for Plank, Gravel and Macadamized road proposes, prescribing the manner of assessing and collecting the same, and repealing the laws now in force on that subject," together with various other bills on the same subject, have had the same under consideration, and page: 217[View Page 217] in view of the dissatisfaction with, and objections to the administration of the law of 1867 upon that subject, your Committee entered upon the investigation of the various questions presented for their consideration by the numerous petitions, remonstrances and bills referred, with a fixed and settled determination to ascertain the causes of complaint, and, if remedied, report the remedy.
Our investigation has occupied more time, and required the performance of a much greater amount of labor, than we at first anticipated. This perhaps resulted in part from the various conflicting interests affected by the constructions placed upon the law of 1867.
The leading principle involved in that law, what our predecessors doubtless intended to engraft upon our gravel road system is, that real estate naturally benefitted by the construction and maintenance of such improvement, shall, as a matter of justice and equity, be compelled to contribute its voteable proportion of the necessary expense of such construction.
The correctness of this theory, and the propriety of putting it in practice in this State, are, by your Committee, respectfully recommended and endorsed.
The means by which so desirable an object could be accomplished, without affecting injuriously the material interests of any, has, therefore, been the leading object of our report.
I am now, by said Committee, directed to report back to the House, House bill No. 52, with the following amendments: [See House Journal pp. 314, 315, 316, 317 and 318,] and that the said road bills, viz: Mr. Stewart of Rush's (H. R. 25,) Mr. Palmer's (H. R. 27,) Mr. Wile's (H. R. 77) and Mr. Jump's (H. R. 88) be indefinitely postponed.
On motion of Mr. WELBORN, the bill [H.R. 52] and reported amendments were ordered to be printed.
Mr.OSBORN moved ineffectually that when the House shall adjourn to-day at noon, it Shall be till Monday morning.
Mr. UNDERWOOD proposed till Monday two o'clock p. m. which was rejected.
Mr. Fuller obtained leave of absence until Tuesday; Mr. Field of Lagrange until Wednesday; Mr. Taber, until Tuesday evening; and Mr. Johnson of Park, for next week.
MILITARY AGENCIES.
The SPEAKER laid before the House a message from the Governor transmitting Col. Hannaman's report of the transactions of the military agencies in this city and in Washington City, D. C.
Mr. COFFROTH moved that they be referred to the Committee on Military Affairs, with instructions to report for the abolition of those Military agencies. He said they were useless entirely, the only service they rendered being the keeping under pay of agents, and a lot of supernumeraries who were holding easy positions.
Mr. STEWART of Bush, proposed to amend the instructions so as to require the committee to inquire into the expediency of abolishing these agencies. He was not willing to believe that they had been of no service, or even that it would be expedient to act hastily or inadvisedly on the question of directing their abolishment. He wanted to act intelligently in the matter, and would therefore ask for inquiry into the matter.
Mr. Stewart's amendment was rejected and the original motion was agreed to.
Mr. McFADIN asked that the House suspend the order given yesterday, at the request of the special committee, for the publication of the Governor's message and documents accompanying the report of the special commissioners to inquire into the paying of taxes by railroads. He thought the committee might possibly get along without printing any of said matter.
It was so ordered.
The SPEAKER laid before the House, a Communication from the President and Secretary of the Terre Haute and Indianapolis railroad Company, responding to Mr. Osborn's resolution, for a statement of the business of said company.
It was referred to the Special Committee on Railroads and the Military part to the Committee on Military Affairs.
Mr. MONROE, from the Special Committee on Mr. Furnas' bill [H. R 92] to change the name of the House of Refuge, to Indiana State Reform School, returned the same, recommending its passage.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
On the motion of Mr. STEPHENSON, the bill [S. 32] regulating the time of Circuit Courts in the Seventeenth Circuit, was taken up, with the pending committee amendment, transposing "Hamilton" and "Madison."
The amendment was concurred in, and then the bill, with the engrossed amendment, was finally passed the House of Representatves--yeas 90, nays 0.
On the motion of Mr. MONROE, the bill [S. 11] to amend the seventeenth section of the charter of the Mechanics' and Fireman's Insurance Company, was taken up on the third reading thereof, and finally passed the House of Representatives, by--yeas 82, nays 4.
On the motion of Mr. OVERMYER, his court bill [H.R. 74] declaring the counties of the first, and creating the twenty-second and twenty-third Judicial Circuits, and fixing the times for holding court therein, was taken up, with the recommendation of the Committee on the Organization of Courts.
Mr. COBY was in favor of changes to facilitate the legal business, but not in favor of creating circuits in order to bestow judgeships. He was willing to give the judges good salaries; but he would see to it also that they should have employment. He objected seriously to the bill being put upon its third reading. There was no good reason for making additional circuits, and he should oppose it. He page: 218[View Page 218] had seen Judge Berkshire of his (Cory's) District, and he had told him that he was well satisfied with the work required of him. Mr. Cory moved to recommit the bill to the Committee on the Organization of Courts.
Mr. McFADIN stated his objections to be that the redistricting had been made with a view to creating new circuits when no such were needed. He regarded that sort of proceeding as improper as was the redistricting of the State, wholly with a view to increasing the political power of a party.
Mr. LONG opposed the bill, because he saw no reason for increasing the judgeships. He was willing to give the judges good salaries, but he would see to it that they had employment.
Mr. OVERMYER, answering Mr. Osborn, admitting that the committee did not consider, in connection with this bill, the question of re-districting the State for judicial purposes.
Mr. WILSON opposed re-commitment, giving facts and considerations in favor of the passage of the bill, as the best thing that can now be done.
Mr. CORY replied, stating that Judge Berkshire was satisfied with the terms in his district, and they could get along in his (Mr. Cory's) circuit.
Mr. McFADIN, in view of the necessity of the proposition to re-district the State, objected to the creation of new districts on the recommendation of a committee not specially appointed for the purpose.
Mr. JOHNSON of Parke, and Mr. BARRITT wanted information.
Mr. STEWART of Rush, moved to refer to the special committee for re-districting the State for judicial purposes.
The SPEAKER (Mr. Coffroth in the Chair) ruled the motion out of order.
Mr. Cory's motion to recommit to the Committee on the Organization of Courts, was agreed to.
The House then took a recess till two o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The SPEAKER resumed the Chair at two o'clock, and announced the orders of the day. But--
Mr. VATER and others suggesting that the rule applied only to the morning session.
The SPEAKER announced the consideration of House bills.
On motion of Mr. DITTEMORE, a call of the House was ordered--discovering eighty-two members present.
Mr. Osborn's bill [H. R, 103] declaring certain contracts (in writing) to pay attorneys collection fees void, coming up, it was read the second time.
Mr. ODELL moved that it be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. OSBORN. If referred at all, it should go to any other than a committee of lawyers. Because the only question about it was, whether collection fees should be paid by the defendant.
Mr. BUSKIRK. Would not that question be safe in the hands of the proper committee?
Mr. OSBORN said in reply, that he had drawn up the bill himself, that it aimed at a single object, and that a former debate had developed a sentiment so friendly thereto, that he presumed there would be no objection to the engrossing of the bill, and ordering to a third reading at the earliest moment. The Judiciary Committee was composed entirely of lawyers, and if an appeal to their personal interests might in any measure obtain with any of them, (a thing he would not charge or believe,) the bill would certainly be more appropriately referred to any other Committee, for its effects is entirely opposed to their interests. He though the matter altogether too plain a thing to require reference to a Committeee at all.
Mr. BUSKIRK thought the reason urged by the gentleman from Putnam (Mr. Osborn) for not recommitting the bill to the Judiciary Committee, a very singular one indeed. He believed that although the Judiciary Committee is composed of lawyers, it would be able to act independently of private interests and would so act. He could see no pressing need for the immediate passage of the bill, and should like to have it pass the scrutiny of the committee.
It was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. Coffroth's bill [H. R. 85] to amend section three hundred and fifteen of the practice act coming up with the committee's recommendation, it was read the second time.
Mr. DUNN moved that the bill be engrossed and ordered to the third reading.
Mr. NEFF. What change did it propose?
Mr. DUNN explained that under the present law, notice of suit in court must be given ten days before the first day of the term. The object of the bill is to so amend, as to require only ten days notice from the day of trial. In other words, to authorize the institution of suits after the term of the court shall begin. The cause may come up at the same term if the court sits longer than the ten days.
Mr. NEFF then thought it would work hardships. Terms were regulated by public acts, of which parties are cognizant. All summonses were not returnable on, the first day of the term. Suitors could not have just notice under this bill. We have now an uniform, a just system. He discussed particularly the hardships it would work. It was a page: 219[View Page 219] dangerous innovation upon the rights of citizens
Mr. RUDDELL moved that the bill be ordered to the engrossment.
Mr. BUSKIRK concurred in the opinion of Mr. Neff. It would take away the certainty as to when the case might come up--whether it would come up at all during the term. It was certainly a radical change, and would work expense to parties.
[A storm was raging without with such fury as almost to render the Speaker's words inaudible.]
Pending the present storm--
On motion of Mr. McFADIN the House took a recess for half an hour.
The SPEAKER resumed at forty-five minutes after two o'clock p. m.
On motion of Mr. BUSKIRK, it was ordered that when the House shall adjourn, it shall be till Monday, two o'clock p. m.
Mr. VATER moved ineffectually, that a clerk be allowed to the Committee on the Organization of Courts--yeas 37; nays 40.
The House refused to order the engrossment of Mr. Coffroth's bill H. R. 85.
Mr. Dunn's bill [H. R. 54] to amend section five hundred and thirty-one of the practice act, was considered and ordered to be engrossed.
On the motion of Mr. WELBORN, his bill [H. R. 95] for the relief of John Ingle and John Ingle, Jr., of Vanderburg county, was considered and read the second time.
Mr. WELBORN moved the engrossment of the bill.
Mr. OSBORN said that as the bill proposed legislation in the interest of individuals, it was but proper that the bill which had as yet not been before any committee, should undergo the proper scrutiny; and in order that the title if the bond in question might be looked into by the committee, and the statements set forth in the bill investigated, he moved its reference to the Committee on Judiciary, with instructions to investigate and report as to the statements upon which the bill is based.
It was so ordered.
Mr. DITTEMORE obtained leave of absence until Thursday next at two o'clock p. m.
The House then adjourned till Monday two o'clock p. m.
Immediately after the adjournment, those Senators who cared to hear the addresses on the subject of prison reform, by Messrs, Brockway and Coffin, came in and took seats.
The SPEAKER called to order, and introduced Mr. Brockway, of Detriot, Michigan. This gentleman delivered a carefully prepared address on the subject of prison reform, which evidenced not only great research in the array of statistics, but a thorough acquantance with the subject of prison management. He presented some curious and interesting calculations, based on prison reports in England and America, and in the exposition of his theory of reform, added facts, figures and arguments, which no doubt will weigh heavily with those who heard them.
At the close of Mr. Brockway's address, Mr. Coffin, of Richmond, who has given many years to the subject of prison reform, and who has studied thoroughly the system of Mr. Brockway, now in practical operation at Detriot, Michigan, addressed the House on the subject, and reviewed its merits at some length, making some comparisons extremely damaging to the system of prison discipline in vogue in Indiana. The expenses over and above the earnings of our State prisons, is an item of no mean significance, when placed along side of the earnings over and above the expenses of the Michigan prisons, not to take into account at all the moral advantages enjoyed by the latter over our prisons, and upon such facts Mr. Coffin dwelt with, no doubt, good results. He asked, for the system of reform sought to be inaugurated, no money at all. He only asked the sanction of the Legislature as a foundation upon which to build, and he promised such results in a few years, as would not only confirm the wisdom of such sanction in a financial point of view, but in a philanthropic sense also.
