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.
