STATE LANDS IN INDIANAPOLIS.
Mr. Caven's bill [S. 49] to authorize the city of Indianapolis to occupy part of the State lands in Indianapolis was read the second time.
Mr. SCOTT moved to amend by inserting these words: "But such possession and use shall not amount to, or ever be converted into a title to said city, but the possession may be at any time resumed by the State, and the State shall never be liable for any improvement upon the same by the city."
Mr. GREEN said that this bill had been carefully considered in committee. They had examined the grounds, and found them to be of comparatively little use to anybody in their present condition. Mr. Mclntyre, Superintendent of the Deaf and Dumb Asylum, had planted out one of the tracts referred to in corn, and should have got 700 bushels but got less than 100, the rest having been carried away. He had tried planting potatoes with the same result. It would certainly be better to have it occupied by the city, properly enclosed and beautified.
Mr. TURNER said that he was a member of the committee, but had been absent and unwell. By way of entering his protest against the report made, he would now move the indefinite postponement of the bill.
Mr. FISHER was glad the Senator had made the motion. If the State does not need the land, it is valuable and should be sold, so that the money could be used. If it once passed from the possession of the State to that of the city it would be equivalent to a conveyance. He opposed the bill, because he regarded it in the light of a conveyance, of the property named, to the city.
Mr. CAVEN said that the purport of the bill was not understood, or there certainly could be no objection to it. It is specially provided that the city shall inflict no injury upon the property, and that it shall be surrendered back at any moment. He disclaimed any intention to involve in doubt the right of the State to the grounds, and explained that the bill contemplated simpler making the grounds ornamental--the State to take them when it chooses. He was willing to have incorporated in the bill the very strongest language, and instead of making the State liable for improvements made, he was willing to insert a contrary proviso that the city should be liable for any damage done.
Mr. CRAVENS said the committee on the page: 244[View Page 244] Gubernatorial mansion had under consideration the propriety of building on a piece of ground named in the bill, and if it passed the Committee would be circumscribed in its action therefore he should vote for the motion to indefinitely postpone the bill. If not used, he was in favor of selling the land. It is not necessary that the State should own so much land about this city. There was a large part of the farm at the Insane Asylum that he would be in favor of disposing of, as it was of no use to the State. He was surprised that the city did not ask to use that also.
Mr. KINLEY was also in favor of selling the land if it was not needed. But if not sold, he thought there could be no objection to have it occupied and improved. He was not in favor of indefinitely postponing the bill, and when the Governor's residence question is disposed of, we may desire to take it up. In order that this might be done, he moved to lay it on the table.
The motion was agreed to.
