THE BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
TENTH VOLUME.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
IN SENATE.
THURSDAY, February 4, 1869.The Senate met at ten o'clock, a. m., pursuant to adjournment--the Lieutenant Governor in the Chair.
The Secretary's journal of yesterday's proceedings was being read when--
On motion by Mr. DENBO, its further reading was dispensed with.
Mr. JAQUESS, from the Claims Committee, reported in favor of allowing fifty dollars of the claim of L. S. Newell for ninety-five dollars and fifteen cents, for music furnished pupils of the Blind Asylum from 1847 to 1852.
Mr. ROBINSON, of Decatur, from the Committee on Roads returned the bill, [S. 146] authorizing turnpikes to construct branches, recommending its passage.
These reports were concurred in.
MOB VIOLENCE.
Mr. MORGAN, from the Finance Committee, reported favorably on the joint resolution, [S. 8] appropriating ten thousand dollars to be expended by the Governor for the purpose of detecting and bringing to punishment the perpetrators of high crimes and offences lately perpetrated in this State, and also for the purpose of detecting and bringing to just punishment all such persons as may hereafter be guilty of like grave offences, and other matters properly connected therewith.
Mr. HANNA opposed concurrence in the report, because the courts of justice were competent to take care of criminals. We have Prosecuting Attorneys, Grand Juries, and courts of justice, paid by the people, with the express view of having this work done. If the officers chosen by the people to enforce the laws, can not do so, let the laws be amended so that they can. He was not in favor of turning the executive office into that of a detective. Last session money was placed in the hands of the Executive, for the purpose of defending criminals. Now it is proposed to give him money to detect them. It was a degradation of the gubernatorial office to send that fnnctionary hunting up violators of law. This class of legislation is improper--if the laws are not strong enough let us amend them, and make them sufficient for the emergency. If no other Senator desired to speak upon the question he would move to lay the resolution upon the table.
Mr. CARSON offered this resolution with a full knowledge that we have Judges, Courts, Sheriffs, Grand Jurors, etc., etc., who had in charge the execution of justice, but in view of all this, he was also aware of the fact recited in the resolution, that more than a dozen men had been hung in the State by mobs of men who have contrived to escape detection and punishment. Men have been lawlessly hung up, and the leaders of the mobs are not brought to the bar of justice to answer for their crimes; the offenders yet stalk abroad over the land, and no effort is being made to ferret them out. The county authorities have not even offered a reward for the arrest of the perpetrators of these outrageous crimes. When we find such a state of things existing, it is proper time to resort to other measures. One of these is by offering rewards for the apprehension of offenders. This has long been the practice in this and other countries. In this instance, too, two of the men were hung after we had assurance to another government that they should be fairly dealt with. It is to preserve the lives of our citizens that some means should be set on foot to find out the perpetra- page: 265[View Page 265] tors of these and other crimes that may here-after be committed. Whose business is it to hunt the criminals up? Who can follow them perhaps to California? Let it be borne in mind that one of the principal purposes of this resolution is to make our citizens more secure in their lives, liberty and property. Where,then, is the means of bringing men to punishment in such cases except by the mode indicated in the resolution?
Mr. WOLCOTT insisted that one of the usual agencies by which crime is detected is the reward for the arrest of criminals. Every State in the Union has a fund of this kind, this State has had one, but it is now exhausted, and the Executive has no power to offer a reward for the apprehension of criminals. there exists a distinct class of detectives, in all our large cities, that probably protects citizens from crime as much or more than the regular organized public forces, and these private detectives are kept up by money. This resolution simply proposes to place money at the disposal of the Governor for the distinct and laudable purpose of offering rewards when necessary to the arrest of fugitives from justice.
The report of the Committee was then concurred in by yeas 21, nays 18.
Mr. CHURCH moved to amend the resolution by inserting a proviso that the county in which the crime was committed shall reimburse the State for all moneys expended in consequence thereof.
Mr. WOLCOTT explained that the intention of the resolution is not that the money shall be expended in ferreting out the perpetrators of the crimes recently committed by mobs, in particular, but to place moneys at the disposal of the Governnor, to be used in the arrest and detection of criminals and fugitives from justice in general. It was only intended for the purpose of getting an expression of opinion of the Legislature, as no appropriation could be made in this way. It was only intended as basis upon which the Committee on Ways and Means might act.
Mr. LASSELLE called attention to the fact that all appropriations must originate in the House, and that they could only be made by bill, and not by joint resolution.
Mr. CARSON explained that the resolution sets apart so much money, which, after the passage of an appropriation bill that may contain this item, can be drawn by the Governor for the purpose indicated. The passage of this resolution will be a notice given, that crime can not be committed with impunity in Indiana.
Mr. JOHNSTON of Montgomery, moved to amend the amendment, by providing further that the Governor shall offer no reward till he shall be called upon to do so by the Board of Commissioners of the county in which the crime has been committed.
Mr. FISHER said, the resolution, if passed would only be instructions to the Committee on Finance to incorporate that amount in the general appropriation bill. The same object, he supposed, might have been attained by a concurrent resolution. The amendments are wrong, and consequently should not be adopted. We are all interested equally in the protection of life, liberty and property, and all alike interested in the apprehension and punishment of criminals. Before the war, the Governor had a contingent fund of five thousand dollars which he expended in the secret service in this way, and made no account of it whatever, and now there is opposition to an appropriation of ten thousand dollars for the ensuing two years, for the expenditure of which the Governor will have to give a specific account. He could not see how it was possible for the Governor to see that the laws were faithfully executed unless proper means were placed at his disposal.
Mr. STEIN expressed himself in favor of the resolution without the amendments. If this resolution is voted down, does not the Senate place itself in the position of upholding and strengthening criminals and especially fugitives from justice? Mob law has been rampant within our borders, and the fair fame of the State has been stained by the actions of a mob within the past few months, and yet Senators are found voting against this resolution! The resolutions should be passed as they stand, and not modified or amended in any way. He was in favor of strengthening the arm of the Executive. Why should we hesitate to place this ten thousand dollars in the hands of the Governor for the purpose indicated? We all know what underlies it and we know what crimes have been committed. He was specially opposed to the proposed amendment. If the Governor had to wait for the Commissioners to act, the criminal might have ample time to get away. By hedging up the proposition in this way, it might meet with the same fate as a cow he read about in the morning papers. She put her head into a barrel in order to reach something in the bottom of it, got her head fast, and in her effort to extricate herself, backed into the river and was drowned. The proposition comes to us recommended by the Governor in his message, and he was satisfied that the fund would be properly used. He based his action in the Senate upon three principles of actions:--public justice, public honor and public utility.
Mr. SHERROD was as much opposed to mob law as any Senator on the floor, but dissented from the intimation that Senators voting against this resolution put themselves in the attidute of defenders of crime. There are men in every county whose special duty it is page: 266[View Page 266] to enforce the laws against criminals, and if the laws are imperfect let them be made stronger. He could not consistently, with his views of propriety, vote for the resolutions.
Mr. CARSON asked how it would be if a murder should be committed and the criminal should escape to another State?
Mr. CHURCH was informed that the excuse for the recent outrages in the southern part of the State was that juries and courts did not do their duty; but this state of things does not exist in all the other counties of this State. There are some counties in which criminals are brought to justice and made to suffer for their crimes. His county has spent half as much money to bring one criminal to justice as is proposed to set apart in this resolution. And he opposed the principle that one county should pay for the arrest of criminals perpetrating crimes in another county.
Mr. FISHER called attention to the fact that the last execution was committed in Floyd county by citizens of another county. In such a case, which county should pay the expense?
Mr. CHURCH thought that Floyd county should do so. If they permit men to come there from an adjoining county and commit murder, and know that they came from an adjoining county, he thought it reduced near enough to a certainty to justify them in pressing the investigation further. Are counties where criminals are promptly brought to justice to bear their share of the expense of executing the law in others? In his own county, the authorities had expended on its own account half as much as was spoken of in the resolution, in the apprehension of one man, who had killed his wife and her mother and endeavored to conceal the crime by burning the house.
Mr. CARSON asked if that was not right?
Mr. CHURCH. Certainly it was, but it was not right that they should be called upon to pay the expenses of convicting criminals in counties where they make no effort in their own behalf. He was not entirely in favor of placing so much money in the hands of one man for this purpose. He would as the first result, be harrassed by every man in the country who might think he had a peculiar faculty for hunting criminals. In answer to the question by the Senator from Allen [Mr. Carson] he had been under the impression that when a man committed a murder and escaped to another State, the proper course was to go before the proper officer, file an affidavit, or have an indictment found, and procure a requsition for him.
Mr. WOLCOTT. But how is he going to find him?
Mr. CHURCH would not rely so fully upon detectives for that purpose. His experience was, that in nine cases out of ten, whena detective is furnished with money and sent in search of a criminal, it takes still more money to find the detective; and where money is appropriated for such purposes, it is generally all used.
Mr. HAMILTON subscribed to the remarks made by the Senator from Tippecanoe, [Mr. Stein.] He was a friend to the original resolutions, and unfriendly to the amendments. If there was no necessity for using the money, of course it would not be drawn. In some counties, where the crimes were so great as in Jackson county, and the county comparitively poor, they would be broken up if compelled to bear all the expenses themselves.
Mr. JOHNSON of Montgomery, opposed all mob law violence, while contending for the passage of the amendments as more conducive to the ends of justice than the original proposition. He could not see why a county board should not be able to act as quickly as the Governor, who might be a hundred or more miles away. He believed, too, that if the citizens knew they would have to pay the expenses, they would all be more interested in seeing the criminal brought promptly to justice, and thereby save money. Neither was it right that should be put to the expense until they the commissioners, should ask for assistance. He did not believe the plan of concentrating much money in the hands of one man a good plan.
Mr. HANNA had several objections to the resolution. In the first place, money can not be appropriated in this way. it is unconstitutional. He had in his hand the opinion of the Governor to that effect. In the second place it is wrong in principle to place money in the hands of the Governor, for this specific purpose. He gave his experience on the bench as tending to justify the denouncing of secret detectives as the most outrageous scoundrels of all the scoundrels on the face of the earth; he did not want to see money placed in hands of the Governor or anybody else, to employ such men. Another reason he opposed this resolution, was that wherever the people were opposed to the administration of justice, and believed a mob had done right, there was no bringing the participators to punishment. They would hunt up and manufacture all the evidence they could to sustain a case, and would fill up the gaps with their own swearing.
The Senator from Montgomery [Mr. Johnston] had stumbled upon a principle almost as old as the English law, which was the right one. It was the custom in early English history to make the "hundreds" responsible for the escape of a criminal from among them, after committing a crime. The principle was right and if crimes were perpetrated and the criminal allowed to escape, the people of the country should bear the expense of their detection page: 267[View Page 267] and conviction. Why is not the law administered faithfully in that part of the State as any other? Simply because they are opposed to its administration. In his own county, their citizens had executed a man, and were brought to trial for the offense. He was himself employed to defend them, and after the evidence was in, he submitted the case and acquitted. The people bore them out in what they done, and, like the Senator from Monroe, were "willing to let the law rest for one day." He did not justify this, but spoke of it as a fact, that they did not execute the law upon the men there, as in Jackson county, because they thought they did right. The Governor cannot change the law, even if this money should be voted to him. The men must be indicted in their own county, and he knew that none of the men would be indicted in Jackson county while the present state of feeling exists there. Disclaiming all sympathies with mobs or mob law, he was earnest in opposing such legislation as is proposed by resolution under discussion.
Mr. MORGAN spoke of the discussion of the resolution in committee, and that they had no idea it was an appropriation or anything more than a recommendation, it would but indicate the sense of the Senate as to whether such appropriation should be made. So the committee understood it, and upon that fact they based their report in favor of its passage. It is very true that there are many localities where the local authorities fail to act, and it is for this very reason that the Governor should be provided with money to enforce the laws.
Mr. KINLEY said it was admitted that great and henious crimes had been committed, and that men had been taken from jail and executed, while there had been no effort made to bring them to justice. He thought it right and proper that this money should be placed in the hands of the Governor for the purpose indicated. It is right and proper that the Executive of the State should be intrusted with the power and discretion proposed in the resolution, consequently he opposed all amendments and favored the resolution as originally introduced. The reference of the Senator from Sullivan (Mr. Hanna) to the law in the time the of Alfred the Great, was incorrect. The hundred were made responsible if one of that number went outside of his limits and committed a crime.
Mr. GIFFORD believed the Governor should have the money. In his section the people were highly indignant over the outrages committed, and that no effort had been made to bring the offenders to justice. He was opposed to all amendments. The amount might be too large, but it should be something.
Mr. CRAVENS was not a little astonished at the opposition shown to the resolution. He had sat here in the Senate and seen sums as high as one hundred thousand dollars voted as a contingent fund at the disposal of the Governor, with far less debate and feeling than this resolution has evidenced. He was unable to solve the problem of the cause for opposition by anything he could find in the resolution. It is the duty of the Executive to see that the lives of every man, woman and child in the State are held sacred, and if the county authorities will not afford the proper protection, he must do so. Suppose we vote down the resolution, will it not be an invitation to all thieves and murderers to go on with their work, and an advertisement to thieves and murderers everywhere that they will not be hunted down in this State, but that they may go on in their nefarious callings without fear that the strong arm of the State will be raised against them? The welfare and safety of the humblest citizen is of far more value than the paltry sum of ten thousand dollars. The people have confidence in the Exeeutixe, and believe the fund will be sacred. He had voted for one hundred thousand dollars to a Governor in whom he had no more confidence. And shall the representatives of the people say they will not arm the Governor with the power and trust him with the discharge of the duties imposed upon him by the constitution?
Mr. JOHNSTON of Montgomery, asked what authority the Governor should depend upon before issuing his process.
Mr. CRAVENS said it was the duty of the Governor to execute the law, and when the knowledge came to him in any way which should satisfy him, it would be his duty to act. Is there any other authority to execute the law?
Mr. CHURCH said he had named the proper authority.
Mr. CRAVENS said that the object of the amendment was clearly to break down the resolution.
Mr. CARSON answered objections urged against his resolution; and could not see why it was opposed by so many Senators. In response to the Senator from Montgomery [Mr. Johnston] he said that the citizens of the county might call a meeting to notify the Governor.
Mr. CHURCH asked how many, in a county with a population of twenty thousand, should be recognized as properly embodying the sense of the people.
Mr. CARSON. A sufficient number--any considerable number.
Mr. HENDERSON asked if it would not be easier to call the County Commissioners together than to call a meeting of the citizens?
Mr. CARSON supposed not. In many cases page: 268[View Page 268] where, as in this city, a large meeting could be j got together in a short time.
Mr. LASSELLE objected to the resolution because it makes the Legislative and Executive administrative departments of the Government--violating the Constitution, and imposing a degrading duty upon the Governor, inconsistent with the honor and dignity of the office. Then it proposes to legislate for particular localities, and is objectionable on that score. His people were opposed to being taxed for the delinquency of the judicial department of any other county in the State. And then this would be setting a bad precedent the right to interfere in one case, implies the right to interfere in another; and the result will be hereafter, applications without number to aid ministerial delinquents in all parts of the State.
Mr. GREEN demanded the previous question.
The demand was seconded by the Senate, and the amendment to the amendment wa agreed to by yeas 22, nays 21.
The amendment, as amended, was then rejected, by yeas 19, nays 24.
The yeas and nays being demanded on the adoption of the resolution, they were ordered and taken, with the following result:
YEAS.--Messrs. Armstrong, Beardsley, Bradley, Carson, Caven, Cravens, Elliott, Fisher, Gifford, Gray, Green, Hamilton, Hess, Hooper, Houghton, Hushes, Jaquess, Kinley, Morgan, Reynolds, Scott, Stein and Wolcott--23.
NAYS.--Messrs. Bird, Church, Denbo, Hadley, Hanna, Henderson, Huey, Huffman, * Humphreys, Johnson of Spencer, Johnston of Montgomery, Lasselle, Lee, Robinson of Madison, Robinson of Decatur, Sherrod, Smith, Taggart, Turner and Wood--20.
Pending the roll call--
Mr. HADLEY when his name was called, was inclined to vote against these resolutions for the reason that he believed the good will not result from their adoption that should. If there shall be counties that do not feel a sufficient interest in punishment of criminals to pursue them and they are brought to trial with moneys expended under this resolution, they will have to be brought to trial in the county where the crime was committed, and if the citizens there do not wish them, punished, they will be acquitted, and the money expended will be utterly lost. He voted "no." * Omitted in the Secretary's journal.
Mr. HUGHES, when his name was called, noticed tnat there were two or three lines in that resolution that might be construed as a reflection upon Jackson county, and was understood to say that living so near that county it might be unhealthy for him to vote for these resolutions unless he disclaimed for himself any such intention. [Laughter.] He did not wish to speak of them with any disrespect, as he might desire to pass through their county some day soon, and it might be unhealthy without this explanation. [Continued laughter.] He had a profound respect for Jackson county. [Renewed Laughter.] He voted "aye."
So the resolution failed to pass for want of a constitutional majority of 26.
AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE.
On motion by Mr. HADLEY, the Senator from Hancock [Mr. Hess] was added to the committee having under consideration the following resolution:
WHEREAS, It appears on the 387th page of the BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS for 1867, that ex Senator Mason stated upon this floor, that the Commissioners of Hancock county had proposed to donate to the State of Indiana the sum of one hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars, to secure the location of the Agricultural College at Greenfield, or some other point in that county, therefore,
RESOLVED, That a committee of three be appointed to inquire if said statement was correct, and if said proposition was made, whether the same is now, or will be renewed.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR made the committee to consist of Messrs. Hadley, Caven and Johnston of Montgomery.
The Senate took a recess till two o'clock p.m.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNER called the Senate to order at two o'clock.
BILLS FOR ACTS
Were introduced, read the first time and referred to appropriate committees, except otherwise stated.
By Mr. HOOPER, [S. 175] defining who shall be competent witnesses in any court or judicial proceedings.
By Mr. HUMPHREYS, [S. 176] to amend section ten of the act of March 2, 1855, regulating the fees of officers.
By Mr. REYNOLDS, [S. 177] to prohibit the Clerks of Circuit and other courts from taking and certifying the declaration of intention of any alien to become a citizen of the United States, except as therein prescribed.
By Mr. ROBINSON of Madison, [S. 178] to declare what counties shall compose the first judicial circuit and to create the circuits.
By Mr. LEE [S. 179] to amend section one of the act of June 18, 1852, fixing the time for holding Circuit Courts.
On motion by Mr. HUGHES, the constitutional provision was dispensed with by yeas 34, nays 0.
Mr. TAGGART and Mr. LEE spoke in favor of its passage.
On the further motion of Mr. LEE, the bill was read the third time and passed the Senate by yeas 37, nays 0.
Subsequently, at the request of Mr. CRA- page: 269[View Page 269] VENS, this vote was reconsidered, the bill amended as to the terms of one of the courts, and then again passed by yeas 43, nays 0.
By Mr. CARSON [S. 180] to authorize Judges of Courts of Common Pleas to appoint Judges to hold adjourned terms, and providing compensation for the same.
On motion by Mr. CARSON, the constitutional restriction was dispensed with--yeas 39, nays 2--and the bill was read again.
Mr. HANNA entered his solemn protest against the creating of deputy judges, as proposed by this bill--their temporary appointment by the Judge of the Court.
Messrs. CARSON and BRADLEY favored its passage.
Under the operations of the previous question the bill failed to pass for want of a constitutional majority, yeas 25, nays 14.
By Mr. ROBINSON of Madison, [S. 181] to amend section three hundred and forty-three of the practice act.
By Mr. REYNOLDS [S. 182] to provide for the establishment of a reformatory for girls and women.
Mr. REYNOLDS moved that it be laid on the table and two hundred copies printed.
The motion was agreed to.
By Mr. LASSELLE [S. 183] to prohibit associations not authorized by law.
VIGO CRIMINAL COURT.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR announced the special orderbeing Mr. Scott's bill [S. 55] creating a Criminal Court in Vigo County.
Mr. SCOTT stated the average number of causes for each term of the courts in his county, which he regarded as a sufficient reason why this bill should be passed. Men are now confined in that jail, who have been awaiting trial for over one year, it seeming almost impossible to reach their cases. The criminal cases for the year amounted to five hundred and twenty-two. He desired simply to show the necessity for this court, and would not detain the Senate any further remarks.
Mr. HANNA said that the trouble over there was explained by Horace Greeley, who said the Wabash country drank more whisky than all the North besides. The cases were for infringment of the liquor law, no doubt.
Mr. SCOTT explained this by their being so close to Sullivan county.
Mr. HANNA said if the bill was really a necessity for Vigo county he did not want to oppose it; but really he could not see the necessity. He moved to recommit the bill to the committee with instructions to amend by providing that the salaries of the Judge and Prosecuting Attorney shall be paid out of the treasury of Vigo county.
Mr. CARSON opposed the motion, because we have already four Criminal Courts in the State, whose Judges and Prosecuting Attorneys are paid as other courts, and all should be placed on the same footing.
Mr. HUGHES wanted to favor the bill, and moved to amend the instructions by directing the committee to report a bill reducing the requisite number of population for counties in which Criminal Courts may be established.
Mr. CRAVENS desired to add another section to the bill authorizing Criminal Courts in Vanderburg, Floyd and Jefferson counties.
Mr. BEADLEY resisted the motion to refer.
Mr. SCOTT obtained unanimous cousent to strike from the bill the word "prosecutor" whenever it occurs.
Mr. HANNA then withdrew his motion to refer.
Mr. HUGHES expressed himself as friendly to the bill, but he wanted it on a sure foundation and unless, the law requiring seven thousand voters, was amended, as they lacked a few, he did not see how it could stand. He could not vote for this bill in its present form, as he regarded it unconstitutional. He renewed his motion to refer with instructions.
Mr. CRAVENS moved to amend the instructions by directing the committee to report a bill reducing the requsite population from seven thousand to four thousand five hundred.
Mr. SCOTT did not want any question about this matter--the constitutionality of the bill and was willing to the reference.--The motion to refer was agreed to.
EX-CONVICTS--PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Mr. HENDERSON by leave presented a remonstrance from citizens of Monroe county, against the allowance of a claim before the Senate in favor of James Morris, Isaac Read, George W. Deuson and James Sanders, for time served under sentence, as they allege illegally, in the Penitentiary for two years.
Whereupon--
Mr. HUGHES said: Mr. President: That remonstrance is signed by a large number of the most respectable citizens of Monroe county. Some misapprehension in connection with the original claim makes it proper that I should say a word by way of explanation. The petitioners, through their agent placed their claim in my hands to present to the Senate, and I presented it, and that is all I know of the matter. I would present any man's claim to this body that is crouched in respectful language. And it would have afforded me pleasure to have received this remonstrance and presented that, too, to this Senate. An impression seems to have been created that in the presentation of the claim, I in some manner committed myself on the merits of the case, and my object now is simply to ex- page: 270[View Page 270] plain away any impression of that sort. This petition and remonstrance illustrate the effects of hasty legislation in our courts. Here are some three or four men who served two years in the penitentiary wrongfully it is alleged. The Supreme court has decided the question that they have a just claim against the Warden of the prison for services in such cases, without regard to the heinousness of the crime.
The remonstrance was referred to the Committee on Claims.
STATE RIGHTS--PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Mr. STEIN. Mr. President: While in the line of personal explanations, I beg leave to say that I find printed in the daily Sentinel of this morning the following explanation of my vote on the concurrent resolution of the Senator from Orange [Mr. Sherrod.] It will be remembered that the Senator presented a series of resolutions on Friday last which were intended to place a sort of breakwater in legislation against the further progress of the suffrage amendment which passed the House of Representatives in Washington several days since. I voted "aye" on a motion to lay those resolutions upon the table, and I am reported to have explained myself as follows:
Mr. STEIN, when his name was called, said: his only objection to the proposed suffrage amendment is that it is not half broad enough.
So far I am correctly reported; but the Reporter goes on to say--
He was in favor of universal suffrage unlimited by sex, race or color.
This is making it a little broader than it should be; and as this record may be quoted on me I desire to correct the error of the Reporter. The way in which I expressed myself was something to this effect: the only dissatisfaction I felt with the Federal amendment was that it was not broad enough, but as far as it went it was a movement in the right direction. That amendment simply restricts the States from interfering with the question of suffrage on account of race or color: and I stated that I was in favor of universal suffrage restricted only by sex or crime. I am against granting the right of suffrage to those who by a violation of the laws of the land have rendered themselves unworthy to exercise that right.
Mr. HUGHES (interposing.) How did you vote here the other day upon the proposition to give that right to women? [Laughter.]
Mr. STEIN. I am not talking upon that question at present. [Renewed laughter.] As far as the tender sex is concerned I believe I feel as tender towards them as the Senator from Monroe. I am disposed to create a supply equal to the demand, but for the present I do not understand that there is a pressure upon the law makers of the land in the line of woman suffrage. When the fair sex see fit to make a movement in that direction I shall go as far as any one in bestowing suffrage upon them. But for the present I hold my opinion with regard to female suffrage in abeyence. I arose simply for the purpose of correcting the record as to the point that I am in favor of universal suffrage limited only by crime and sex.
BILLS ORDERED ENGROSSED.
Mr. Bradley's bill [S. 90] to amend the thirty-fourth sub-division of section fifty-three of the city incorporation act, coming up in regular order, it was read the second time and ordered engrossed for the third reading.
TEXAS CATTLE FEVER.
The special committee's bill [S. 144] to prevent the introduction and spread in this State of the Texas or Spanish cattle fever, and declaring the bringing of Texas or Cherokee cattle into this State, or the purchasing of the same at certain seasons of the year, a misdemeanor, and prescribing the penalty therefor, was read the second time and ordered engrossed.
On motion by Mr. HOUGHTON the constitutional restriction was dispensed with by yeas 43, nays 0, the bill again read and passed by yeas 43, nays 0.
The special committee's bill [S. 145] to prevent the introduction and spread of a cattle disease commonly known as Texas or Spanish Fever, by the importation and introduction of cattle into the State of Indiana, infected with, or liable to impart to other cattle that disease, and providing for the recovery of damages caused by the introduction of such diseased cattle, from the owners of said cattle coming up--
On motion by Mr. WOLCOTT the constitutional requirement was dispensed with--yeas 41, nays 0--the bill was read through, and--
On motion by Mr. KINLEY, by consent of the Senate, an emergency clause was added.
The bill then passed the Senate by yeas 41, nays 0.
THE SOLDIERS' HOME.
Mr. HUGHES, by consent, offered a joint resolution [S. 11] as follows:
A Joint Resolution providing for the close of the Soldiers' Home at Knightstown, Indiana, and authorizing the sale thereof by the Governor.
RESOLVED, By the General Assembly of the Senate of Indiana, That the Soldiers' Home at Knighttown be abolished and discontinued as soon as the Governor of the State--who is hereby authorized and empowered to act in the matter--can cause the inmates of the institution to be transferred to the Asylum provided for disabled soldiers and seamen by the General Government, and close up the establishment.
RESOLVED, That the Board of Trustees of the said institution, and the other officers thereof, be and they are hereby directed and required to close up
page: 271[View Page 271]said institution under the direction of the Governor and to turn over to him all buildings, grounds, furniture and other public property of any description, pertaining to the said Soldiers' Home.
RESOLVED, That the site of said Soldiers' Home and all the grounds, buildings and other property pertaining thereto, be and the same are hereby directed to be sold and converted into money, by the Governor, and the proceeds thereof turned into the Treasury of the State, and that such sale shall be upon such reasonable terms, as to the time and payments, as the Governor shall deem for the best interest of the State; his proceedings to be referred to the Legislature.
Mr. HUGHES said: Mr President: The Soldiers Home at Knightstown was originally started by private enterprise, at a time when such a thing was very appropriate as a measure of temporary relief, but at the last session of the Legislature it was assumed by the State, and it now has the position of a permanent institution of the State. And this is the point to arrest that proceeding if it ever is to be done. There is no one but will fully approve of making provision for disabled, soldiers and seamen, and if it were necessary for Indiana to make this a permanent benevolent institution, I would not have one word to say against it. At the time it was only asked for as a temporary relief. Now the Federal Government have provided amply and liberally, homes for all disabled soldiers and seamen, such as it is not in the power of the State to give. The National Government has appropriated nine millions of dollars--probably as much as thirteen millions; at any rate it is the fixed policy of the Government to provide for all disabled soldiers and seamen in the most simple manner. That being the case it seems to me we ought to take some steps to avoid fastening this Knightstown institution upon the State Treasury as a permanent institution,when such institutions are amply provided by the General Government.
I want to call the attention of Senators to this thing. In two years it has cost the State over sixty-one thousand dollars, a debt of fifteen thousand dollars has been incurred, fifteen thousand dollars more is asked for, and other appropriations are wanted to make additional improvements. If it were necessary for the comfort of our disabled soldiers and sailors, I would not raise a word of objection; but as it is, I do solemnly protest against the benevolent feeling of the people of the State being taken advantage of in these trying times in this way to fasten a drain upon the State for this purpose. It is just as unnecessary to have a Soldiers' Home here at this time as to indulge in almost any other luxury that could be spoken of. In order that Senators might investigate for themselves, and trace the history of this institution from its foundation, I refer them to the BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS of 1867; volume IX, page 24, where will be found what Governor Morton says on this subject in his message to the Legislature. There is about one column and a half upon this subject which I will not consume the time of the Senate in reading, but this is the first official notice of that question laid before the Legislature, and the Senate will perceive that about twenty-five thousand dollars had been raised by private contribution. I will read this paragraph:
At the second of these meetings held on the 24th day of May, 1865, a temporary organization was affected, the basis of which will be seen by reference to a copy of the proceedings of said meeting herewith respectfully submitted. The temporary Home was opened in the city hospital building of Indianapolis, on the 27th day of August, 1865, and up to the 30th day of November, 1866, the number of men admitted was two hundred and thirty-four. Of this number one hundred and twenty-four have been discharged, fourteen have died, and seventy-six remain in the Home. Early last spring the Board of Directors purchased the property know as the "Knightstown Springs," in Rush county, at a cost of eight thousand five hundred dollars, to which place the Home was removed on the 26th day of April. The total expense for maintaining the Home from the time it was opened until the 30th of November last, not including the cost of purchase, is seventeen thousand sixty dollars, eighty-four cents. This includes the salaries of officers. If we add to the above sum the cost of purchase, it will make the sum of twenty-five thousand five hundred and sixty dollars, eighty-four cents, all of which has been raised by private contribution.
That was the benevolent feeling of the people of the State at that time. The Governor suggests that the State take the matter in hands, and says:
The National Government has made arrangements for the establishment and mamtenance of Soldiers' and Seamen's Homes in several of the States, and it is quite possible that these institutions when established will have capacity to receive and accommodate all, including disabled soldiers and seamen of Indiana.
When this comes to pass it will not be necessary to continue our Home, as such, longer, and the fine property where it is located can doubtless be, turned to some other humane purpose. But until that occurs it is, in my judgment the duty of the State to adopt the Home and make appropriations for its support.
This is a proposition that a temporary arrangement should be made till the general government was ready to make provision for this deserving class. If Senators will turn to page 117 of the samebook they will see , however that is not important, it only indicates the progress of the bill for the establishment of the Soldiers' Home. On page 161 is the message of Governor Baker on that subject which I will read:
To the Senate and House of Representatives:
I desire to call the attention of the General Assembly to the urgent wants of the Soldiers'Home at Knightstown.
The current expenses for the month of December and January amounting in the aggregate to about twenty-five hundred dollars are unpaid and unprovided for, and in consequence of the fact that the superintendent is unable to purchase supplies for the current month, because of the non-payment of former bills, I have felt constrained to draw upon the "Soldiers' Relief Fund" to the amount of fifteen hundred and fifty-seven, dollars and fifty-four
page: 272[View Page 272]cents to pay on that account, and I respectfully ask that my action herein may be sanctioned by the General Assembly, and that I may be authorized to draw upon said fund for the further sum of two thousand dollars, in such amounts as the same may from time to time be needed to defray the current expenses of the Home for the present month, and until provision shall be made by the General Assembly for its support.
The Board of Managers have discharged their soliciting agents in consequence of the difficulty of procuring voluntary contributions, it being generally believed by those who were disposed to contribute to the support of the Home that the Legislature would provide for them.
After deducting the one thousand five hundred and fifty-seven dollars, fifty-four cents for which I have drawn as aforesaid, there remains a balance in the State Treasury of twenty-five thousand five hundred and seventy dollars, twenty-three cents, of the five per cent. of the taxes levied and collected for the year 1865, which was paid into the Treasury under the fourth section of the act of December 20th, 1865, to be applied, under the direction of the Governor, to the relief of sick, destitute, wounded or disabled Indiana soldiers.
CONRAD BAKER, Lieut. Gov. of Indiana, acting as Gov. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, INDIANAPOLIS, Feb. 5. 1867.
I believe there was a fund of twenty-five thousand dollars raised by taxation, called the Soldiers' relief fund. Then the people had been taxed up to that time twenty-five thousand dollars. It was only supposed that a little temporary assistance was necessary. The Legislature during the last session appropriated twenty-five thousand dollars for the purpose of making a purchase of land, tools, &c. It is said in some of these official communications that at the end of two years it was not expected the State would be taxed further upon this subject, but it may be seen by reference to the report from the Trustees of this institution, made at the end of two years, that it is proposed to put it at once on the same footing with the other benevolent institutions of the State. In this report we find a statement of the amounts received, and the sums actually expended. Sixty-one thousand seven hundred and ninety-five dollars and some odd cents were expended within two years. The report goes on to say there has been created a debt of about fifteen thousand dollars, and on page four of the report they ask for an appropriation of fifteen thousand dollars. The Trustees say: "We desire to call attention to some defects in the law establishing the Home," and thereupon they recommend an increase in the expenses of each inmate per week, and ask that provision be made for the payment of the salaries of the officers. In the Auditor's estimate he asks for an appropriation of fifteen thousand dollars for current expenses and fifteen thousand dollars for paying the debt of the institution. There is thirty thousand dollars, and then by the increase of the weekly allowance to each inmate this institution is to be put at once on the same footing with other benevolent institutions here. The establishment is a good thing, but it is just as unnecessary to have a soldiers' home at this time to indulge in almost any other luxury that could be spoken of. The people are oppressed with taxation; we are multiplying the courts and we should find some way to put money in the treasury, while we are taking so much out. In the acts of 1867, page 190 is the act establishing this home. The number of children in this institution at this time is eighty-six according to the report of the trustees, and according to the Governor's report the number of disabled soldiers and seamen is one hundred and forty-eight. Now, sir, unless this institution is to become a permanent one there is some sixty-one thousand dollars in cash invested there, almost entirely raised by taxation, and it could be distributed to much better advantage by county boards or benevolent societies composed of worthy individuals, instead of spending fifty-five thousand dollars of the whole amount in homes and lands--building up splendid residences and purchasing lands. This is the time to decide whether it is the purpose of the Legislature to maintain this institution as a permanent establishment; if so let us go on and conduct it in a manner that will be a credit to our people. If it is not to be the policy of the State the time to arrest it is now; and I venture to say that this establishment which cost sixty-one thousand dollars, when turned over for sale will never realize thirty-five thousand dollars. The money will never come back. If this resolution, or something in the same shape should become a law, the Governor can transport the inmates to better quarters than the State can or ever will provide for them. We have benevolent institutions that command and hold the support of the whole people of the State, and so would this one have and hold that support if it were a necessary institution. But here is the place in which it seems to me we should commence a reformation. This Legislature must begin a system of economising somewhere; and here is one item, it seems to me, will be a good place to begin with. I do not want to be accused with not being a friend to disabled soldiers and seamen, or any cause of benevolence, but I do not propose to be deterred from what seems to be a plain duty by considerations of this sort. It is high time for us to stop this sort of needless expenditure of the public funds. I therefore have introduced this resolution. I think that the Committee on Military Affairs is the appropriate one to consider it. I move its reference to that Committee. I should not have made any remarks on the subject now, were it not that I do not expect to be here when the subject shall be before the Senate again.
It was so referred without objection.
On motion of Mr. KINLEY Mr. Hess was added to the Committee on Temperance.
page: 271[View Page 271]On motion of Mr. GIFFORD Mr. Morgan was added to the select committee of physicians.
Mr. CARSON obtained leave of absence until Monday next, and Mr. ROBINSON, of Madison, for to-morrow.
The bill [H. R. 7] to authorize foreign guardians to sue for or receipt for any property of their wards in this State, coming up in regular, it was read the second time, and passed to the third reading.
WIDOWS' DOWER.
The bill [H. R. 10] an act to amend section forty-three of an act entitled "an act providing for the settlement of decedent's estates, prescribing the rights, liabilities and duties of officers connected with the management thereof, and the heirs thereto, and certain forms to be used in such settlement, approved July 17, 1852, approved February 19, 1869, was read the third time.
[It allows the widow to select "not exceeding in value five hundred dollars," for which, &c.: "provided, that in all cases where the widow shall fail or refuse to select or take all or any part of the articles in this section provided, she shall be entitled to receive the amount in cash out of the first moneys received by said executor or administrator."]
Mr. HUGHES had received so many remonstrances from business men against this bill,that he should oppose its passage.
Mr. GREEN was in favor of the bill.
The bill finally passed by yeas 27, nays 12, as follows:
Yeas--Messrs. Armstrong, Beardsley, Bradley, Carson, Caven, Church, Cravens, Elliott, Fisher, Gifford, Green, Hadley, Hamilton, Hanna, Hess, Hooper, Humphreys, Johnson of Montgomery, Kinley, Morgan, Reynolds, Robinson of Madison, Scott, Smith, Stine, Wolcott and Wood--27.
Nays--Messrs. Bird, Denbo, Henderson, Houghton, Huey, Huffman, Hughes, Jaquess, Johnson of Spencer, Lee, Robinson of Decatur and Turner--12.
So the bill passed.
SENATE BILLS ON THE THIRD READING.
Mr. Beardsley's bill, [S. 73] to amend an act amending section three hundred and fifty-two of the general practice act, approved June 18,1852, concerning granting of new trials, approved March 9, 1861, was read the third time.
Mr. GREEN explained that the bill simply strikes out the number of the limitations of the trials.
The bill finally passed the Senate by yeas 32, nays 7.
Mr. Reynolds' bill [S. 5] to amend section one of the act declaring abandoned certain unfinished railroads, etc., of March 11,1867, and failure of any company to have formed preliminary, etc., approved May 4, 1862, shall not invalidate said organization, if otherwise in conformity with law, was read the third time and finally passed the Senate by yeas 26, nays 11.
Mr. Caven's bill [S. 24] to amend section 78 of the general practice act--authorizing the summoning of witnesses from adjoining counties--was read the third time.
Mr. GREEN opposed the passage of the bill, alleging that it grew up under the excitement of the Clem case in this city. From a long practice at the bar he was satisfied the bill ought not to pass.
The bill was rejected by yeas 11, nays 28.
Mr. Bellamy's bill [S. 48] for the protection of banks of water courses by providing for the preservation of bushes growing on the banks thereof, was read the third time and passed by yeas 35, nays 4.
Mr. Caven's bill [S. 59] regulating changes of venue, attendance of witnesses in criminal cases, etc., was read the third time.
Mr. HUGHES opposed any such authority for a sheriff to take possession of the body of a man.
Mr. BRADLEY thought it would place power in the hands of the sheriff which might be abused.
Mr. STEIN regarded the bill as a good one and very necessary. The bill failed to pass for want of a constitutional majority--yeas 21, nays 17.
Mr. Bradley's bill [S. 77] to amend section fifty-three, of the act of June 11, 1852, for the incorporation of towns, was read the third time and finally passed the Senate by yeas 38, nays 0.
And then--
The Senate adjourned till ten o'clock a. m., to-morrow.
