THE BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
TENTH VOLUME.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
TUESDAY, February 2, 1869.The House met at nine o'clock a. m.
The Secretary's journal of yesterday's proceedings was read and approved.
PETITIONS, MEMORIALS, &C.
Were presented, read or described and referred in order as follows:
Mr. JOHNSON, of Marshall, four on temperance.
Mr. Furnas and Mr. Breckinrigde, for amendments of the gravel road law.
Mr. Wile, against railroad extortions.
Mr. McBride, on fees of jurors and justices, (Constables and witnesses.
Mr. Kercheval, against the employment of children under sixteen years of age in factories, and the repeal of the law of 1867.
Mr. Britton, for a Willard monument.
Mr. Tebbs, Mr. Mason, Mr. Hutson on railroads.
Mr. Underwood, change of court term.
THE BEATTY AND PEELLE CONTEST.
Mr. WILDMAN, from the majority of the Committee on Elections, submitted the following report:
Mr. SPEAKER: The Committee, to whom was referred the contested election case of Samuel Beatty against James A. Peelle; from the counties of Laporte and Starke, have had the same under consideration, and the Committee find that the said contestee, Peelle, was, on the first Monday of April, 1865, elected a Justice of the Peace of Wayne township, in said county of Starke, for the term of four years.
That on the sixth day of May, 1865, said contestee duly qualified and entered upon the discharge of his official duties as such Justice in said township; that at the October election of 1868, the said contestee (Peelle) was a candidate for the office of joint Representative to the General Assembly of the State of Indiana for said counties of Laporte and Starke; that at said election the contestor (Samuel Beatty) was also a candidate for the same office in said counties, and received as such candidate for such office the number of 3,194 votes; that said contestee (Peelle) at the time he was voted for as such candidate for said office as aforesaid, was not eligible to the office for which he received the votes of the electors of said counties, for the reason that the Constitution of the State of Indiana, Sec. 16, Art. 7, says that "no person elected to any judicial office shall, during the term for which he shall have been elected, be eligible to any office of trust or profit, under the State other than a judicial office."
It was further shown in evidence that illegal votes had been cast for said contestee (Peelle) and that in townships where said contestee (Peelle) received majorities there were irregularities on the part of the Election Board, Your Committee, however, have decided this case only on one point, that of ineligibility of the contestee (Peelle.) That the said contestee, James A. Peelle, is not entitled to the seat in this House as now occupied by him; that said contestor, Samuel Beatty, is entitled to such seat.
Your Committee recommend the adoption by the House of the following resolution:
RESOLVED, That Samuel Beatty, having been duly elected a Representative for the district composed of the counties of Laporte and Starke in the General Assembly of the State of Indiana, of right ought to be, and is hereby, declared to be elected, and is hereby admitted to his seat in the House of Representatives for the district aforesaid; and that James A. Peelle has no legal right to a seat in the House of Representatives as the Representative for the district aforesaid, he not being eligible for that office at the general election on the 13th day of October, 1868; and that Samuel Beatty was the only person voted for who was eligible to said office of Representative.
(Signed,) PIERCE of Vigo, CHAPMAN, HAMILTON, STEWART of Ohio, Majority of Committee.
Mr. ZOLLARS from the same Committee made the following report:
Mr. SPEAKER: The undersigned members of the Committee on Elections, beg leave to make the following minority report, in the case of Samuel Beatty against William Peelle, This is a contest page: 232[View Page 232] for a seat upon this floor, as a Representative from the counties of Starke and Laporte. The sitting member, Mr. Peelle, was elected at the October election of 1868, to represent the above-named counties in this branch of the State Legislature, He received a majority of sixty-seven votes in the two counties, not counting the townships of Johnson and Dewey, in Laporte county. These townships were rejected and thrown out, simply because the Judges of Election did not sign their names exactly as the blank directed. These townships should have been counted, and if counted the sitting member had a majority of 106 votes. The election was held on the 13th day of October, and Mr. Beatty, the contestor, filed his first grounds of contest, and gave notice on the 23d of the same month. In this he set up certain matters which were not considered by the committee.
Subsequent to the filling of thee first causes, and on the -- day of December, the contestor filed the additional grounds, that the contestee had been elected a Justice of the Peace in -- township, in Starke county, and that the time for which he had been elected had not expired when he was elected Representative. For this reason the contestor claims that the contestee is ineligible, and that the contestor is therefore entitled to the seat.
The majority of the committee have held that this branch of the case was properly before them, and hence have decided that the sitting member is ineligible, and that the contestor is entitled to the seat.
The minority dissent from this, and hold that there was no notice given to the contestee, as the law requires.
They also find the facts about as stated above, so far as relates to the election of the contestee. We 9nd that on the -- day of April, 1865, he was elected a Justice of the Peace in Peace in Wayne township, Starke county; that he performed the duties of his office as such until August. 1866, when he left said township and vacated said office, since which time he has not acted as Justice. We find that the time for which he was elected will not expired until the -- day of April, 1869.
These facts having been brought before us, we have thought it our duty to report the tacts in the case, together with our opinion, that under our Constitution the sitting member is ineligible, and that the office is therefore vacant, and that an election should be ordered in said counties, according to law in such cases.
We hold that the contestor cannot claim said seat, becauae he gave no notice, and because he did not receive a majority of the votes cast. We therefore recommend that the office be declared vacant and a new election ordered.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Your committee would further recommend the adoption of the following resolution, viz:
RESOLVED, That the seat now occupied by William Peelle be declared vacant, and that a new election be order in said counties of Laporte and Starke according to law, to fill said vacancy.
(Signed) A. ZOLLARS, WM. NEFF.
On the motion of Mr. McFADIN, these reports were made the special order for three o'clock p. m.
Mr. DUNN, from the Judiciary Committee, returned Mr. Zollar's criminal procedure amendment bill, [H. R. 5] recommending passage.
Mr. GORDON, from the same committee, returned Mr. Johnston, of Parke's, election bill [H. R. 117] recommending its indefinite postponement.
Mr. WILLIAMS, of Knox, asked that some one acquainted with the provisions the bill explain them, that the House might vote intelligently upon the subject.
Mr. GORDON explained that the bill reported back is diffuse and by no means perspicuous. He could see no improvements in the present law, and believed the bill would serve no good purpose.
On the motion of Mr. WILLIAMS, of Knox, the report was laid on the table.
Mr. GORDON, from the Committee on Fees and Salaries, returned the bill [S. 58] for increasing the fees of jurors, recommending its passage.
Mr. SHOAFF, from the same committee, returned Mr. Underwood's bill [H. R. 116] relative to the pay of judges, recommending that it be indefinitely postponed--superseded by another bill.
It was postponed accordingly.
Mr. ZOLLARS, from the same committee, returned Mr. Ruddell's bill [H. R. 91 ]authorizing the County Commissioners to make allowance to Common Pleas and Circuit Judges, recommending its indefinite postponement.
The SPEAKER (by consent) stated that the provisions of the bill really apply only to the county of Marion, as to the proposed allowance to Circuit and Common Pleas Judges, in which, such is the press of business, Judges are compelled to sit twenty-four weeks.
Mr. GORDON stated that the reason the bill was reported against, was that they were in favor of that other bill to be called up as the special order in the afternoon, to raise the salary of the Common Pleas Judges.
Mr. BOBO moved a re-commitment--ineffectually.
Mr. ZOLLARS objected to the bill, as contravening the Constitution, and reasoning further in particular against its workings, as he thought, in Allen county as well as in Marion. It was an unconstitutional discrimination as to the judges' salary. There are other counties, he said, in which Judges are required to sit twenty-four weeks, and were also required to travel around through several counties. Be could not see that the Judge who sits twenty-four weeks at home, was more deserving of one thousand dollars extra pay, than the Judge who was not confined all the while to one county, but had to travel at great personal inconvenience and expense, out into several counties. He regarded it as an unfair discrimination between the Judges.
Mr. OSBORN said that when he proposed, during the consideration of the bill advancing the fees of jurors, to allow jurors living more than five miles from the Court House two dollars and fifty cents per day, his proposition was decided not in order, on the ground that it contemplated special legislation. He thought the same rule would apply to the matter in hand.
The report was concurred in.
page: 233[View Page 233]Mr. McGREGOR, from the same committee, returned Mr. Neff's Justices fees bill [H. R. 73] with amendment by way of substitute.
Mr. WILSON, from the Committee on Rights and Privileges, returned the petitions for the relief of Nicholas Morebeck, recommending the passage of a bill for the benefit of Nicholas Morebeck and his securities--exempting them from the repayment of stolen township school bonds, which was read as part of the report, and it goes into the Clerk's files. He desired that the bill be passed speedily, explaining it as a matter of purely local township concern, and moved a suspension of the constitutional restriction for that purpose. He explained that the witnesses in this case were still in attendance, and with a view to getting the matter before the Senate's Committtee at as early a day as possible, so as to lighten the expense, he would ask that the bill be read a second time. And moved a suspension of the Constitutional restrictions for that purpose.
Mr. WILDMAN, doubted the practibility of passing this sort of bill hurriedly. He thought it would but open the door to scores of other petitions of a like character, and perhaps to many claims that had already been refused admission by the Legislature.
Mr. HAMILTON, thought it would do no harm to call a second reading of the bill. If right, it would be that far on its passage, and if wrong, it would fail of success finally.
Mr. STEWART, of Rush, regarded it as a bad precedent to establish. To read the bill a second time would consume the time that should be devoted to the reading of other bills, and more than that, he questioned the propriety of opening the door to this character of claims at all.
Mr. CHITTENDEN took the same view of the question.
Mr. WILSON withdrew his motion.
Mr. MITCHELL, from the Judiciary Committee, returned Mr. Welborn's bill [H. R. 40] relative to bounty fund, and recommended its passage.
Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, from the committee on Rights and Privileges, returned Mr. Vater's spring balance prohibition bill [H. R. 53] with amendments, and recommending its passage. The amendment proposes simply to make the offense a misdemeanor and finable to the extent of five dollars.
Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, in explaining the action of the committee, said that the bill would effect principally the butchers and fish dealers, and while the committee would discourage the use of the balances, it preferred to reduce the penalty.
Mr. FAIRCHILD, from the same committee, returned Mr. Overmyer's medicine doctor's bill [H. R. 24] with an amendment.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ADVERTISEMENTS.
Mr. FURNAS, from the same committee, returned Mr. Vater's foreign language advertisement bill [H. R. 56] recommending indefinite postponement. He remarked that the committee had concluded to so report the bill, from considerations of public economy. He believed that the authorizing of official publications in papers printed in a foreign tongue would have little effect, beyond the inducing the starting of little German papers here and there throughout the State, whose main dependence for support would be the public printing, and the committee did not feel themselves authorized to recommand so extravagant a measure.
Mr. COFFROTH opposed the recommendation, holding that the bill contemplated but a simple act of justice towards our German fellow citizens. He thought the court proceedings should be made known to the German population through the medium of their own language, such a large population being unable to readily read and understand English. He demanded the yeas and nays on accepting the report of the committee, and was joined in the demand by Mr. Overmyer.
Mr. VATER, paid a tribute to the intelligence, industry and thrift of the German population. He believed the law authorized the publication of certain official documents in newspapers having a certain circulation, but by the decision of a Court in Marion county,--the State vs. Clem, German papers were not regarded here as newspapers, in an official sense, and to meet this difficul y, distinct authority should be given, as contemplated by the bill.
Mr. OSBORN did not know that the German people of the State are demanding this legislation. He could bear testimony to the excellent character of the German population, but he was opposed to passing a law for their special benefit, that would impose such an enormous expense upon the people. It would just double the expense of printing in every county in which there happens to be a German paper, and he did not believe the people would approve such action.
Mr. HAMILTON, could not do justice to his constituents and withhold the expression of assent to the bill. Our German people should have at least an equal chance in this matter of legal information, and to give them an equal chance, he believed that official advertising should be given to German as well as English papers.
Mr. BUSKIRK, opposed the bill as unnecessarily expensive. Though of German stock himself, he held that all emigrants should conform themselves to our customs, laws and language as s peedily as possible. He said thai the next thing proposed would be to authorize page: 234[View Page 234] the publication in German of the delinquent tax list, the most expensive piece of printing to be done for the several counties of the State.
Mr. COFFROTH. That is what it proposes.
Mr. BUSKIRK. Then that is an additional reason why I should oppose the bill. With as much propriety might a French or an Italian paper started in the State claim the public printing also, and this, it is plain to all, would be entirely too burdensome. To pass a law for the benefit of the Germans alone would be special legislation, and hence unconstitutional.
Mr. COTTON would be glad to see the bill amended so as to require the foreign publications to be confined to cases where the parties to the case are foreigners.
Mr. BEECKINRIDGE opposed the bill, .and would agree to the indefinite postponement from the consideration of expense.
Mr. OVERMYER thought the bill, if passed, would benefit only a few newspaper men, and rather than do such injustice to the people in general, by entailing such an additional expense, he would rather assist in increasing the circulation of the papers without charge.
Mr. WILLIAMS, of Hamilton, thought the publication of the court proceedings and official documents no more demanded by considerations of propriety, than the transaction of the business of the Courts in the German tongue.
Mr. WILSON also favored an indefinite postponement.
Mr. BOWEN said that he should vote against the bill, because of its expensiveness, and its not having been demanded.
Mr. WILE objected to the bill at first on account of the facility it might afford to fraud, and on explanation by Mr. Coffroth, could not change his view. There was a difficulty among German readers as to a critical and just understanding of German.
Mr. GORDON demanded the previous question; but withheld it for--
Mr. COFFROTH, who considered the question of expense, with the fact that there are perhaps not more than half a dozen or so of papers in a foreign language published in the State. He did not say the bill is perfect, but desired now simply that it should go to its place in the calendar. He plead for the old maxim, that "every man" shall have his day in court, " and denounced the present restrictions of the law against them, as frauds upon our foreign population.
Mr. BUSKIRK asked if the bill would not authorize the publication in papers in foreign tongues other than German.
Mr. COFFROTH. Certainly.
Mr. PIERCE, of Porter, remarked that in his district there is published a Swedish paper and there is a large Swedish population.
Mr. COFFROTH said that the laws and official advertisements should be printed then in the Swedish tongue also.
The demand for the previous question was seconded, and under its pressure the report of the committee was concurred in, and the bill indefinitely postponed--yeas 48, nays 43--several members explaining their votes as their names were called.
Mr. SABIN from the Committee on County and Township Business, returned Mr. Neff's insane supplement bill [H. R. 124] recommending passage.
REPEAL OF THE LIQUOR LAW.
Mr. DUNN from the Committee on Temperance, returned Mr. Coffroth's liquor law repeal bill [H. R. 101] recommending its indefinite postponement.
Mr. COFFROTH stated that the proposition was simply to repeal the restriction of the liquor law of March 5, 1859. He submitted an argument in its favor. He hoped the House would not consent to the postponement. There are other bills on the subject before the House, and he desired simply that his should be allowed to lie on the table, and come up for discussion with the rest. His object in introducing the bill was to have a square vote on the question of legalizing what the friend of temperance and the party that properly arrogates to itself all the decency and morality of the State, pronounce a crime. In other words, to see whether these men who denounce the liquor traffic as a crime, will allow themselves to remain parties to crime by allowing that statute to remain?
Mr. OSBORN. By repealing don't you license all traffic in liquors?
Mr. COFFROTH. No: we simply refer the proposition back to their common law rights. If the sale of whisky be a crime, let gentlemen come up and repeal the statute that legalizes it. If whisky selling is a crime, prohibit it: if it is not, let whisky be sold as other articles. He simply wanted members to come straight up to the scratch and take one position or the other.
Mr. BUSKIRK. Do you want to repeal all laws regulating the liquor traffic?
Mr. COFFROTH. That's what I'm going to vote for.
Mr. PIERCE of Vigo, said he wanted a slap at the gentleman and asked him whether or not he considered the liquor traffic a suffient evil to require restraint.
Mr. COFFROTH said that the temperance men of the House, all of the party in the majority, claimed the traffic to be a crime per se. If so, why not prohibit it entirely, and not become a party to the crime, by legalizing it.
Mr. VARDEMAN asked: Do you regard the liquor traffic as a criminal traffic?
page: 235[View Page 235]Mr. COFFROTH. Well, sir, I thiuk there are a great many evils connected with it, just as there is with many other kinds of business.
Mr. VARDEMAN. And yet you vote to repeal all laws regulating the traffic. This is an excellent demonstration of the consistencythat characterizes the party.
Mr. COFFROTH. I presume I may attribute to obtuseness my inability to see the application.
Mr. BOWEN asked if the gentleman desired to be understood as saying that he is in favor of wiping out all laws on the subject of permitting all who choose to engage in the sale of liquors.
Mr. COFFROTH. Yes sir; so that every man may sell just whatever he may have to sell, be it liquor or what not, and every man may drink whenever he is dry, whisky or water, or whatever else he may choose to drink.
The hour of eleven having arrived, the subject was passed over for the regular order.
On motion of Mr. WILLIAMS, of Knox, the orders of the day were suspended for
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
MR. McFADIN, from the special committee on railroads, reported two bills prepared by Mr. Osborn, one relative to the payment by the Terre Haute and Indianapolis Railroad, of a certain amount of the yearly profits of the road into the State Treasury for school purposes, and the other regulating local tariffs. The bills go on the calendar.
Mr. PIERCE, of Porter, obtained leave of absence for the Benevolence Committee, for to-day and to-morrow.
Mr. HAMILTON, of Vigo, from the special committee to examine the account of the Public Printer, submitted a report, but withdrew it upon the request of Mr. Miles, a member of the same committee.
Mr. RATLIFF submitted a resolution, which was adopted, for a special committee of three to ascertain from the Auditor of State the amount of fees reported from the several counties, and report, etc.
Whereupon the SPEAKER appointed Messrs. Wildman, Kercheval and Long.
On motion the committee was increased to four, and Mr. Ratliff was added as Chairman.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
Mr. Cunningham's Township office tenure bill [H. R. 76] was passed the second reading and ordered to the engrossment.
Mr. Osborn's bill [H. R. 61] was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. Cunningham's Township Election amendment bill [H. R. 51] coming up--it was referred to the Committee on Election.
Mr. MILES submitted a bill, which was not read--going to the files.
Mr. Breckinridge's City corporations amendment bill [H. R. 68] with reference to city improvements,streets and sidewalks, coming up with the committee amendments--chiefly clerical--
Mr. BRECKINRIDGE stated the object of the bill to protect the rights of parties against being charged with benefits, and to supply the deficiencies of the existing law. On his motion, the amendments were concurred in, and the bill was ordered to be engrossed.
Mr. Ruddell's bill [H. R. 4] to enable cities in the construction of railroads, coming up, with the substitute reported by the committee, entitled, an act to enable cities to aid in the construction of railroads or water power. The substitute was adopted; and the original bill was indefinitely postponed.
Mr. Furnas' "Indiana State Reform School" bill [H. R. 92] change of name of House of Refuge, coming up, it was ordered to be engrossed.
Mr. Skidmore's bill [H. R. 97] to enable the Auditors of Vermillion and Lake counties to correct reports, was ordered to the engrossment.
The Committee's colored school bill [H. R. 113] coming up, was read the second time.
Mr. BRITTON proposed to amend the bill, but withdrew it for--
Mr. COFFROTH, who moved its indefinite postponement, demanding the yeas and nays.
Mr. OSBORN moved to postpone, and make the subject the special order for two o'clock day after to-morrow.
The latter motion was agreed to.
Mr. Kercheval's bill [H. R. 123] to amend the third section of the act of March 5, 1859, requiring surviving partners to file inventories and appraisements was ordered to the engrossment.
Mr. Bowen's justice jurisdiction bill [H. R. 100] coming up--
Mr. WILLIAMS of Knox, proposed to amend in the first section by inserting the word "exclusive," as to jurisdiction to try actions founded on contracts and torts.
Mr. ZOLLARS moved to indefinitely postpone the subject.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Knox, supported the bill to extend the justices' jurisdiction, and so lighten the burden of the judges, the expenses of litigation, etc. He referred to the crowded condition of the Courts as an argument that should have great weight in favor of the bill under discussion.
Mr. BUSKIRK opposed the amendment saying that he would rather restrict than extend the justices' jurisdiction; and the proposed "exclusive" jurisdiction, would absolutely page: 236[View Page 236] prevent the collection of debts in certain cases to which he referred.
Mr. STEWART of Ohio took a similar view. Every justice's judgment where the amount exceeded twenty-five dollars was appealed; and so litigation and its expensiveness would be increased.
Mr. UNDERWOOD moved to lay the amendment on the table, which was rejected yeas 40, nays 50.
Mr. DAVIS obtained leave of absence till Wednesday.
The House then took a recess till two o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The SPEAKER resumed the Chair at two o'clock, p. m.
Mr. UNDERWOOD asked for consent to introduce a prison reform bill--the same with that in the Senate.
Several members objected.
The SPEAKER laid before the House a Governor's message, transmitting the Report of the State Debt Sinking Fund Commissioners.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Knox, moved that five hundred copies be printed; but upon explanation of Mr. Buskirk, the order was not insisted on.
COMMON PLEAS JUDGES' COMPENSATION.
The SPEAKER announced the consideration of the special order viz: Mr. Bobo's bill [H. R. 9] to raise the salary of the Common Pleas Judges to that of the Circuit Judges two thousand dollarsand make the same payable out of the State Treasury;the question being on Mr. Neff's motion to indefinitely postpone.
Mr. BOBO took the floor in favor of his bill, giving reasons for raising the salary of the Common Pleas Judges, and making it equal to the Circuit Judges. The Common Pleas Judges have to sit two weeks longer than the Circuit Judges; the Circuit Judges have two circuits a year, and the Common Pleas three circuits. The circuit Judges get two thousand dollars a year now, while the Common Pleas Judges get one thousand five hundred dollars. The work of the latter is much greater than that of the former, and he could not understand by what principle of right and justice the salary of one is so much higher than that of the other. As to the objection made to the bill for providing for the payment of the salary of Common Pleas Judges out of the State Treasury in place of the County, he could not see that it made a cent's difference to the people of the State. What mattters it whether the money comes from the one or the other. The salary of the Judges comes out of the pockets of the people at any rate, and what does it matter, as regards economy, whether it is paid over by the County Treasurer to the Judge, or to the State Treasurer, who pays it to the Judge. The object of this change is this: The Judge in most cases are poor men, and have need of their quarterly payments for immediate use. There was no loss of funds to pay the Common Pleas Judges out of the State Treasury, and it would be more satisfactory to the judges. The judicial service on the bench was not money making. The service required the best ability and the judge's annual expenses were perhaps; above seven hundred and fifty dollars. In reply to Mr. Vater, he stated that in nineteen out of twenty counties, they must take county orders, and the payment of these are long delayed, so the Judge is compelled to get Shylock to shave his order, in order to get his money. If the money is to be paid from the State Treasury, the Judge simply saves his percent, which should be saved to him. He referred to the years of study and labor required to fit a man for the bench, the necessity of lifting men of talent, of probity and of industry to such positions, and the necessity of affording living salaries to men, in order to maintain the high character of the bench.
Mr. UNDERWOOD gave considerations, founded on facts and figures in the history, of the State Judiciary, going to show that it is not the part of true economy for the State to insist on low judicial salaries. He had little sympathy with those who act upon the principle that if one man won't take the position another will. The bench he regarded as a place of honor, to which only our best men should be called, and the salaries paid them should be remunerative. He favored the bill.
Mr. OSBORN opposed the bill. The gentleman from Allen [Mr. Bobo] had said he could see no reason why the salaries of Circuit and Common Pleas Judges should not be equal. He (Mr. Osborn) would be willing to have them equal, but rather than raise the salary of the Common Pleas Judges, he would prefer reducing that of the Circuit Judges. If the salaries were to be equalized, he would rather equalize downward. But he opposed this bill, because its provisions did not enter into the canvass, and all were pledged to economy in legislation here. Besides, these Common Pleas Judges had accepted their offices with the present salary, and these judgeships were sought by the best lawyers in the State. If we increase this salary, we will shortly have other officers coming forward and asking increase of salaries. For one he came here pledged to retrenchment and reform. He could see no reason for increasing the salary of Common Pleas Judges and he should oppose the bill. Some talk across the House elicited his declaration, that the docket page: 237[View Page 237] fees, which are seldom paid, did not, and could not be made to pay the judge. Then the people could regulate the business in the Common Pleas Courts, and lighten their labors by going into the Circuit Courts.
Mr. VATER opposed the bill on account of its indefiniteness, making the judges salaries equal, and for other reasons.
Mr. PIERCE, of Vigo, proposed to amend by way of a substitute, proffering three thousand five hundred dollars to the Supreme Judges, two thousand five hundred dollars to the Circuit and Criminal Judges, and two thousand dollars to the Common Pleas Judges.
On the motion of Mr. ZOLLARS, the subtsitute was laid on the table.
Mr. ZOLLARS spoke in favor of the bill, pronouncing a cheap judiciary an establishment not calculated to enlist the most talented men of the State, and not complimentary of the wisdom or fairness of its legislators, fie denied that as a rule under the existing state of affairs, the best men of the legal profession aspire to the bench. Such men will not seek positions in which there is little else than a name. There must be something to enable them to support their families, held out to this class of men, before the bench in this State will enjoy that high character which it should be our aim and endeavor to give it. He had failed to hear any good reason against this bill to equalize the Judges' salaries, and there was no indication of any reduction of them. This proposition was so plainly just, he believed it would be sanctioned by the people, if it should be directly submitted to them. It was not economy for the people to reduce our judicial salaries. In reply to Mr. Britton he considered the salary of the Common Pleas Judges too low, if there were no Circuit Courts.
Mr. VATER proposed to recommit with instructions to report a definite sum, to be paid as now provided for by law.
Mr. UNDERWOOD proposed two thousand dollars.
Mr. BOBO opposed the amendment at this stage. On his motion, Mr. Underwood's motion and that of Mr. Vater's were laid on the table.
Mr. NEFF withdrew his pending motion to indefinitely postpone.
Mr. BOBO proposed to amend the bill directly by fixing the salary at two thousand dollars.
Mr. COFFROTH spoke in favor of the bill and amendment. He knew the labor of Common Pleas Judges to be arduous, and he believed the salary should be increased to two thousand dollars per annum. He regarded the judiciary as too poorly paid. In fact his statement applied not only to the Common Pleas Judges, but to Supreme Judges also. He said that he was informed, and authorized to say, that two of the Supreme Judges of the State were now contemplating tendering their resignations, for the reason that the salary is not adequate to the support of their families.
Mr. Coffroth hearing part of a remark by Mr. Williams of Knox, thought he said "let them resign," and continued: Yes, sir, the gentleman from Knox may dismiss, if he chooses, so important a question with the expression "let them resign," but it is not the spirit in which to answer the crying necessities of men who serve the State in one of the most honored positions, and who are compelled to return to their profession because the State so poorty values the worth of their high attainments and laborious services as to refuse them adequate compensation for the support of their families. Yes, they may resign, and their positions may be filed by shysters and demagogues, who bring to that high position none of those superior qualifications so necessary to the meeting out of justice even-handed, fairly and impartially. What does it cost the people of Inhiana to-day for men to adjudicate questions involving life and property and dearest rights of the people? Seventy-five thousand dollars per year covers the whole expense, including the Supreme, Circuit and Common Pleas Judges. How long would the liberties of the people survive a corrupt Judiciary? The County Clerks, County Treasurers, Auditors and Sheriffs, men who manage the trifling affairs of the counties only draw from the pockets of the people the sum. of one million six hundred thousand dollars annually, and yet we are told we are extravagant in increasing the salaries of Common Pleas Judges to two thousand dollars a year. Think of it, ye men of economy, before you consent to strike down the Judiciary, the protection of your dearest rights. If all these county offices were blotted ont entirely, the injury could not be so great as that accruing from a single corrupt Judge.
It was certainly a tribute to the integrity and patriotism of our judges that they stood protecting the rights of the people against the blandishments of wealth. Three thousand dollars a year to these judges were entirely inadequate. The same was true of the salaries both of the Circuit and Common Pleas Judges. A cheap judiciary was a disgrace and a dangerous sufferance to any people. Over in our county the County Treasurer receives four thousand five hundred dollars per annum, and the Auditor the same, while just up stairs the Judge who labors hard, and who brings to the performance of a duty a knowledge that it has required a lifetime of study to accumulate, gets but the paltry sum of one thousand five hundred dollars. He claimed that there was no justice in such discriminations, and page: 238[View Page 238] appealed to the House not to hesitate to do so simple an act of justice as that contemplated by the bill. The county officers were all better, and the profession of the smallest pettifogger commanded better pay than that of the Common Pleas Judge. He desired to revise the whole matter of compensation to the judges, and he suggested that for the present the bill should lie on the table.
Mr. WILLIAMS, of Knox, said that the gentleman had misunderstood his remarks. He said that "Supreme Judges would sometimes die, but they would never resign." As regards the compensation as an inducement to talent and the other qualities necessary to the making of a Judge, he remembered that the Supreme Bench had been honored by such men as Blackford, Dewey and Sullivan, and they had served at one thousand dollars a year and were satisfied with the salary, and no charge of corruption adhered to them. He then spoke to the bill particularly. Suppose the Common Pleas Judge to sit three hundred days of the year, still the pay would be five dollars a day--no mean pay.
Mr. RATLTFF was unable to see the reasonableness of the demand for increasing the judges salaries, when the least is more than equal to the pay of a member of the Legislature while in actual session. The statements made might be good reason for reducing the pay of certain county officers, but not for raising the pay of judges. It had been said that men of ability who accept positions on the bench do so at a sacrifice. His experience among men showed him that men go where the money is, and he inferred that the statement was not altogether correct.
Mr. JOHNSTON of Marshall, demanded the special order, and, on his motion, Mr. Bobo's bill was postponed and made the special order for to-morrow three o'clock p. m.
Mr. COFFROTH filed his motion to reconsider the vote of this morning, indefinitely postponing Mr. Underwood's judges salary bill [H. R. 116] and it was entertained at once by the Speaker, (Mr. Stewart of Rush, in the Chair.)
Mr. MILLER moved to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.
Mr. COFFROTH demanded the yeas and nays, which resulted, yeas 56, nays 32; so the motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
CONTESTED ELECTION CASE.
On the motion of Mr. WILDMAN the House proceeded to the consideration of the special order, viz: the majority and minority reports submitted this morning from the Committee on Elections, in the case of Samuel Beatty contesting the seat of James A. Peelle, as joint Representative from the counties of Laporte and Starke. The reports were read by the Clerk, as printed on pages 231 and 232.
The majority reported a resolution giving the seat to the contestor--Mr. Samuel Beatty.
The minority reported a recommendation for an order to vacate the office of Mr. Peelle as a member of this House, and to order a new election.
The first question being on, the adoption of the minority report, considered as an amendment to the report of the majority--
Mr. McBRIDE proposed an amendment to the amendment in the shape of the following preamble and resolution:
WHEREAS, The Committee on Elections have submitted a majority and minority report on the subject of the contested seat of James A. Peelle, joint Representative of Starke and Laporte counties and in their reports sustain the contestor, on the ground that James A. Peelle was at the time of his election a Justice of the Peace. This is doubtless the letter of the law, but the facts show the spirit of this matter to be that James A. Peelle ceased to perform the functions of Justice of the Peace in July, 1866. Therefore,
RESOLVED by the House of Representatives, That James A. Peelle, the Representative from Starke and Laporte counties, retain his seat in this body as such Representative.
On the motion of Mr. PIERCE of Porter, it was laid on the table.
Mr. PIERCE of Vigo, Chairman of the Committee on Elections, stated the considerations which governed the majority in making their report, viz: ineligibility of which voters are bound to take notice.
Mr. McFADIN took the floor, but gave way for Mr. Zollars.
Mr. ZOLLARS said, Mr. Neff and himself had submitted the minority report. The matter of disagreement between the majority and minority of the committee was not as to the facts, but as to the law. Mr. Peelle was elected by the people even throwing out the alleged irregular votes. He maintained that the specification as to ineligibility was not made till December--beyond the legal time for giving notice. His point was, that as there was no provision of law for amendment of the ground' of contest, the specification as to ineligibility is not properly before this body. And admitting the plea of ineligibility, there remained no other course but to report for the declaration of a vacancy, and an order for another election. He quoted a decision, giving the office to the contestant, where the voters know the fact of ineligibility. But here was a man voted for in two counties, where his ineligibility could be claimed only so far as one of the counties (Starke) is concerned.
Mr. PIERCE of Porter. The vote Peelle received in Starke county then ought not to be counted, because the people of that county are bound to know he was not eligible.
Mr. ZOLLARS replied by showing that a representative district could not be divided, and the people of Laporte could not be disfranchised on account of the act of the people of Starke. There was no precedent to author- page: 239[View Page 239] ize such a decision. The record of the election of the contestee to a judicial office in Starke county might be grounds for presuming that the people of that county were knowing to his ineligibility to the office of Representative, that presumption would not obtain as to the people of Laporte county, and as Laporte and Starke counties form a distinct and indivisible constituency, the presumption as to Starke county wouId not apply to the district. Why, then, seat a man here in the place of Mr. Peelle, who will misrepresent his people? He cited the action of the House of Representatives of Congress in a case precisely similar, when a member of that body from North Carolina was unseated, and it was held that the contestor was not entitled to the seat because he had not received a majority of the votes of his district, thereby showing that ineligibility of the candidate receiving the majority of the votes in the district, is no ground for the contestor succeeding to the vacated seat. And this was done by a Republican body against a Republican contestor. No man should hold a seat here, with the consciousness that he was misrepresenting his people.
Mr. BUSKIRK said that as to the argument by the friends of the minority report, that the contestor did not file with his notice of contest, within the time specified by law, the ineligibility of the contestee as a cause of contest, he thought a sufficient reply to that to be, that in all courts, in actions under the civil code, it was held admissable to amend a notice of suit, however informal that notice may have been. The House, he said, is the exclusive judge of the qualifications of its members, but if one holding a seat here is found to be constitutionally ineligible; no act of the House, no act of the people of his district can make him eligible. Under a decision of the Supreme Court, (14th Indiana, page 93) voters are presumed to know the fact of ineligibility, and notwithstanding the contestant may not have received a majority, if he received a majority of the legal votes, he is elected. He answered, also, that the justices' commission coming from the Governor of the State, the people of the State are bound to take notice of the fact. Any other theory would make a man eligible in one county, and ineligible in another, which is an absurdity. The question is first, then, is the incumbent Mr. Peelle, eligible or not? If he was elected at the time mentioned in both the majority and minority reports, a Justice of the Peace of Wayne township, in Starke county, then he is ineligible to hold a seat in this House, until the years for which he was elected shall have expired. The people of the district voting for him are presumed by the law to know of his ineligibility. We are not to be governed by the practice of committees of Congress, or the rulings and usages of that body, in matters of this character. We must look to our own laws; and to the decisions of our courts, and to these only. The courts, he said, have decided that the votes cast at any election for a candidate constitutionally ineligible, shall be regarded as ineffectual, and the candidate receiving the highest number of legal votes shall be ordered elected, and produced the decision from which he read, claiming the case referred to, to be, as he claimed, exactly analagous. As regarded the question of the indivisibility of the District or constituency, and the presumption of knowledge of ineligibility in Starke county not being applicable to Laporte, he thought that argument one of the boomerang sort, the return blow being harder than the direct. For if the people of Starke are presumed to know as a county, that knowledge would be destructive of their vote, at least, which would return the contestor by a handsome majority. He would abide by the law in the case, waiving all questions of propriety or expediency in case.
Mr. McFADIN was obliged to admit the force of the remark of the gentlemen from Monroe, [Mr. Buskirk,] that the House has power to judge of the qualification of its members. In reference to the case put by the gentleman from Vigo, [Mr. Pierce] where it was held that the Clerk who had served for eight years, was ineligible, he could not see its applicability or force in this case. For gentleman knew and would admit that that Clerk might go into another county and be eligible at once for the clerkship there, if the law did not require one year's residence of him. Just so it was in this case. Mr. Peelle having moved out of his township had vacated his office as justice of the peace, and the constitutional provision could not apply to him.
Mr. WILDMAN interposed to ask if Mr. McFadin admitted that the constitutional provision could apply at all so as to make a justice of the peace ineligible?
Mr. McFADIN. Perhaps so. But whenever he moves out of the township he vacates his office, and the provision would not apply. The election of Mr. Peelle in this case was an election held in good faith. Mr. Peelle had resigned had vacated his place as Justice of the Peace and he was fairly elected by a majority of one hundred and two votes. And if the two townships were thrown out because some names in the returns were not written right--an inch too high or an inch too low--even throwing them out, he would still be elected by eighty-two votes. He should vote here to retain the man who got a majority of the votes of his representative district, without regard to any trumped-up technical questions. The gentleman from Monroe went back to the XlVth Indiana Reports for the authority upon page: 240[View Page 240] which he chooses to rely, but there was a later decision that changes that a great deal, which he would be prepared to refer to; when he would be prepared also to show that the gentleman's authority does not apply to this case. Mr. McFadin read the constitutional provision inhibiting justice from election to any other but a judicial office, to show distinctly that it does not apply to this case, because of the fact of the removal of Mr. Peelle as has been stated. The idea of a man coming in here, as this contestor, and claiming a seat after being beaten so fairly, was very repugnant to his mind. Most certainly he would not hold a seat here in opposition to the votes of a majority of his constituents. Mr. McFadin then read that other provision of the Constitution, which declares that the Governor and Lieutenant Governor "shall not not be eligible to any other office during the term for which they shall have been elected."
Mr. BUSKIRK interposed to ask if that provision would apply to a man elected to an United States office?
Mr. McFADIN. Yes, sir. If Thomas A. Hendricks had been Governor, I would not have voted for him for United States Senator. He alleged further, that this section of the State Constitution had been adjudicated upon by the Supreme Court of the State. And with regard to that Court he could not forget the fact that it had abrogated the thirteenth article of the State Constitution, which he regarded as a dangerous assumption as against the direct votes of so large a majority of the people. He referred again to the decision of that court which attempts to nullify that Constitutional provision, that the amended statute shall be recited at length in every proposition to amend the same. It may be that this is the best precedent for the majority report here, for gentlemen will come in here, and upon some plea of technicality, declare that a contestor may come in and take the place of a man who has been clearly elected--his competitor may come in and take his place on a sheer technical question. Mr. McFadin thought the contestant ought to return home. He was willing to pay him mileage, but protested against a man having been beaten by 82 or one hundred and two majority, coming in here and being recognized as a Republican, to misrepresent his district. He would be ashamed of any Democrat that would do any such thing. It was a bad precedent, and especially now, after a good portion of the session is past. It was too late to take such action, and he hoped the gentleman would return home and stay with his family, and work out his future salvation with fear and trembling. [Laughter.]
Mr. HAMILTON, of Vigo, demanded the previous question.
Mr. COFFROTH having something himself to say, appealed to the gentleman to withdraw the demand.
Mr. PIERCE of Vigo, and Mr. STEWART of Ohio, joining Mr. Coffroth in the appeal, it was accordingly withdrawn.
And then, the House adjourned.
