THE BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REP0RTS.
TENTH VOLUME.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
IN SENATE.
TUESDAY, February 9, 1809.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 of Mr. DENBO, the further reading of it was dispensed with.
Mr. BELLAMY presented a petition for and a remonstrance against the repeal of the gravel road laws; which were referred to the Committee on Corporations.
Mr. SHERROD presented petitions for amendment of the same.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Mr. CARSON, from the Committee on Corporations, returned the bill [S. 167] to amend section four of the act of May 20, 1852, for the incorporation of Manufacturing, mining and building companies, recommending its passage.
Mr. GREEN, from the same Committee, returned the bill [S. 147] enabling cities to aid railroads, recommending its passage.
Mr. HOOPER, from the same Committee, returned the bill [S. 41] concerning the organization of turnpike companies, by County Commissioners, recommending that it lie on the table.
Mr. HANNA, from the same Committee, returned the bill [S. 173] to change the name of the Widows' and Orphans' Asylum of Indianapolis, recommending its passage.
Mr. RICE, from the same Committee, returned the bill [S. 191] authorizing cities and towns to repair cemetery roads, recommending its passage with amendment.
These reports were severally concurred in.
RESOLUTIONS.
Mr. HUGHES offered a resolution that the Finance Committee inquire into the necessity of completing the Supreme Court building, and report a bill for that purpose if necessary.
Mr. HOUGHTON stated that a bill for this purpose was on the way to completion.
Mr. HUGHES then withdrew his resolution.
Mr. ANDREWS submitted an order for the printing of two hundred and fifty copies of the northern State prison report, stating reasons therefor.
It was adopted.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES
Mr. RICE, from the Judiciary Committee, returned the bill [S. 143] to provide for continuance of action in certain cases, recommending that it lie on the table.
Mr. SCOTT from the Judicial Committee, returned the bill [S. 118] to amend section sixteen of the act of March 4, 1862, concerning contested elections, recommending that it pass.
Mr. HOWK, from the same committe, returned the bill [S. 162] providing for process upon railroad companies, recommending its passage.
Mr. ROBINSON of Madison, from the same committee returned the bill [S. 183] to punish unauthorized secret associations, recommending that it lie on the table.
Also the bill [S. 102] to amend the fifth subdivision of section three hundred and twenty-four of the civil practice act, recommending the adoption of an amendment thereto.
Mr. SCOTT from the same committee, returned the bill [S. 184] amending the nine- page: 301[View Page 301] teenh section of the felony law of June 10, 1853, recommending its passage.
Mr. CAVEN, from the Judiciary Committee, returned the bill [S. 170] to revise and amend section thirteen of the Circuit Court act, recommending that it lie on the table.
Also, the bill [S. 196] defining larceny, with the same report thereon.
These reports were severally concurred in.
CONSOLIDATION OF RAILROADS.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR announced the special order--being Mr. Cravens' bill [S. 94] concerning the consolidation of railroads and declaring the effect of such consolidation.
Mr. FISHER moved to amend by providing that when one railroad leases another they shall be considered as consolidating their stock, and come under the general provision of the act. He said we should prevent any evasion of the law if the bill is to pass.
The amendment was agreed to.
The bill was read the third time and passed the Senate by yeas 37, nays 9.
On motion of Mr. JOHNSON Mr. Hanna's bill [S. 133] was taken up, touching the relocation of county seats, and it was read the second time, with the amendments thereto.
The amendments were concurred in.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for the third reading.
Mr. HENDERSON moved to lay the bill on the table.
Mr. JOHNSTON of Montgomery, asked whether such a motion was in order after the engrossment had been ordered.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR decided that it was in order at any time before the passage of the bill.
The motion was rejected.
BILLS FOR ACTS
Were introduced, read the first time, and appropriately referred to Committees unless otherwise stated.
The Committee on Roads' bill [S. 212] submitted yesterday, to repeal section three of the act of 1865, authorizing the construction of plank, gravel and macadamized roads, and the act amendatory, approved March 11, 1867.
By Mr. RICE [S. 213] to encourage the republication of Blackford's reports by Merrill & Co., and making an appropriation therefor.
By Mr. CRAVENS [S. 214] to amend sections one to seven inclusive of the act of March 11, 1867, concerning plank macadamized and gravel roads.
On motion of Mr. CRAVENS it was laid on the table and two hundred copies ordered printed.
By Mr. STEIN [S. 215] to authorize counties to aid in the construction of railroads by taking stock and making donations to railroad companies.
On motion by Mr. STEIN it was laid on the table and two hundred copies ordered printed.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
Mr. Armstrong's bill [S. 8] declaring prize fighting a felony, was read the second time, and ordered engrossed for the third reading.
Mr. Robinson of Madison's bill [S. 70] to amend the plank, McAdam and gravel road law of May 12, 1852, coming up in regular order, it was read the second time with the committee amendment thereto.
The amendment was agreed to, and the bill was ordered to the engrossment.
Mr. HUGHES submitted an order, that the Senate resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole at half-past three o'clock to-morrow afternoon, upon the financial features of the Governor's Message, heretofore referred to such committee.
It was adopted.
Mr. Church's bill [S. 83] amending section two of the act relating to the evidence of record of Michigan road lands, approved March 9, 1867, was read the second time with the committee amendment thereto.
Mr. BRADLEY opposed the amendment, as he believed it would defeat the object of the bill.
Mr. CHURCH explained that the object of the bill was to prevent the use of fraudulent deeds as matters in evidence, by requiring that these deeds shall be recorded within three years from execution, in order to make them legal evidence in the courts. He would like to see the bill further amended by requiring two witnesses, and their residences to be stated in the instrument.
Mr. STEIN objected to the proposition requiring two witnesses to a deed, but favored the general provisions of the bill as a remedy for the evils complained of, although they may be local, affecting the northern part of the State more particularly. He read from the general law, showing that a deed, the record thereof, or a certified copy could be used in evidence under the general law The amendment provided for allowing the object proposed without calling for a radical change in the general law.
The committee amendment was agreed to, and the bill ordered engrossed for the third reading.
Mr. Church's bill [S. 84] to repeal section thirty-one of the act of May 6, 1862, concerning real property, was read the second time.
Pending the question of its engrossment--
The Senate took a recess till two o'clock p. m.
page: 302[View Page 302]AFTERNOON SESSION.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR called the Senate to order at two o'clock.
Mr. Wolcott's bill [S. 131] to declare valid the orders, etc., had at the Common Pleas Court in White County, last March 23d, coming up in regular order, it was read the second time, and ordered engrossed for the third reading.
Mr. GIFFORD demanded a call of the Senate, and it being ordered, but twenty-five Senators answered to their names.
On motion by Mr. ROBINSON of Madison, the doorkeeper was instructed to send for the absentees.
Mr. JOHNSON of Spencer, made an ineffectual motion to adjourn; affirmative 11, negative, 13.
When a quorum appeard--
SENATE BILLS ON THE THIRD READING.
Mr. Beardsley's bill [S. 123] to amend section seventeen of the organization of the County Board Act, by allowing County Commissioners to borrow money to finish or erect Court Houses, coming up in regular order, it was read the third time.
Mr. SCOTT explained that it changes the existing laws only so far as the amount to be borrowed is concerned. The law allowed ten thousand dollars to be borrowed, and the bill allows one per cent, of the amount of the valuation of the property on the tax duplicate.
The bill finally passed the Senate by yeas 26, nays 9.
Mr. Denbo's bill [S. 81] to legalize the appraisement of real estate made in 1864, was read the third time.
The bill finally passed the Senate by yeas 26, nays 2.
Mr. Howk's bill, [S. 115] to amend section forty-nine of the highway act of June 17, 1852, as amended by the act of March 9, 1861, coming up in order, it was read the third time. It refers to the petition or remonstrance concerning the laying out of public roads.
Mr. HOWK explained that the material change is to make parties desiring private roads pay for the same. The existing law is much of a nuisance from the fact that it allows one party having a grudge against another to vent his spite by taking advantage of the defects in the law.
The bill finally passed the Senate by yeas 36, nays 0.
Mr. Carson's bill [S. 116] to prohibit any member of a County Board to act by appointment thereof in any capacity, was read the third time.
Mr. CARSON explained the provisions of his bill: That County Commissioners should not act as contractors under contracts awarded by the Board, etc., on the principle that it is wrong for a man to employ himself and vote his pay out of the public treasury.
The bill finally passed the Senate by yeas 38, nays 0.
Mr. Bowk's bill [S. 119] to fix the court times of the fourth Common Pleas District, was read the third time.
The bill finally passed the Senate by 38, nays 0.
TAXATION OF BANK STOCK.
Mr. Green's bill [S. 98] to provide for the assessment and collection of taxes on bank stock for municipal purposes, was read the third time.
Mr. GREEN said: This is a bill to provide for taxing the stock of banks or banking associations for municipal purposes.
At the last session of this General Assembly "an act to provide for the assessment and collection of taxes on the shares of stock owned in banks and banking associations doing business in the State" was passed.
This act provides "that the shares of capital stocked owned or held by any person or body corporate, in any bank or banking association, chartered or organized under the laws of this State, or chartered or organized under the laws of the United States, and having its banking house or place of business in this State, shall be included in the valuation of the personal property of the owner thereof for taxation, and shall be taxed at the place where such bank banking association is or may be located at the same rate that is or may be assessed on other taxable personal property in the hands of individuals in this State." From what has been said it would seem the Legislature intended to put this class of wealth upon an equal footing with other classes of wealth and property of the State. And, certainly, no one could with a very good grace object to this equality of taxation upon all the property of the country.
The following section of the act of March 15,1867, elearly makes an exception as to the objects in this bill:
SEC. 9. Nothing in this, or any other act, shall be so construed as to authorize the taxation of stock on the Bank of the State of Indiana, or in any National Bank, for municipal purposes.
Now I cannot see any good reason in equity for this exception. Cities and corporations can no more live without support from the property within their limits than States or counties; and I hold that no class of property owners are more able to pay the taxes assessed against them than bankers, and I might add, not more willing to pay when the law says they shall pay. The justice of the bill under consideration is not doubted by any Senator upon the floor; but the objections are based upon other grounds.
page: 303[View Page 303]It is stated here, sir, that the charter of the bank of the State of Indiana has the same exceptions as the act of March 15, 1867. This we grant is the fact. The section is as follows:
SEC. 15 (G. & H. p. 142) The capital stock of said bank shall be subject to the same rate of taxation for State and county purposes as the property or stock of other moneyed corporations; and the real estate and other property of said bank, and branches situated in any city or town, shall be taxable for municipal purposes; in the same manner as other property so situate; but the capital stock of said bank or branches shall not be taxable for municipal purposes.
This act passed March 3, 1865.
The powers conferred by the charters were in cease at the expiration of twenty years. The bank is in existence yet, but is doing no business, and as a bank is of no use to the country, and but little, if anything, would be raised by way of municipal tax.
The National Banks have taken the place of the Bank of the State, and it is claimed that these banks can only be taxed as was the old Bank of the State of Indiana, and that the provisions before enacted exempt these banks from municipal taxes.
I admit that in the case of the State vs. the city of New Albany, reported in 11 Ind., 139, it is decided that "the latter clause of section fifteen of the charter of the Bank of the State of Indiana, providing that the capital stock of said bank or branches shall not be taxable for municipal purposes," is constitutional.
But this decision was made some time ago, by what is now called the old bench. These judges started out with reform in the practice in 1852. Everything was new. The Constitution had been changed and the laws remodeled; so the Judges were at sea upon the new theory we have set out upon. I have always been an admirer of the skill with which this bench waded through the fog and mist of this unmarked path. This bench had in many instances, overruled cases decided by them.
This work goes on of overruling the former decisions of the Supreme Court. Is there any good reason why the present Bench will not overrule the case in 11 Indiana--the case of the Bank of the State vs. the City of New Albany? I have no doubt but such will be the holding of the present court.
The statute in relation to the levying of taxes for school purposes in certain cases is in conflict with one of the decision of the Supreme Court, and yet no one has ventured to test this law in the Supreme Court. Such, in my opinion, will be the result in this case, if this bill passes.
The Constitution provided in the bill of Rights:
SEC. 23. The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.
The banks ask the privilege to hold their property exempt from a municipal tax. May not the merchant and tanner claim the same privilege under the Constitution?
The Constitution further provides, Article ten, that:
The General Assembly shall provide by law for a uniform and equal rate of assessment and taxation, and shall prescribe such regulations as shall secure a just valuation for taxation of all property, &c.
In the case of Bright vs. McCullough, trustee, &c., 27 Ind. Reports, the Supreme Court says that the constitutional provision above quoted, does not require that the rate of assessments shall be uniform for all purposes throughout the State, but "that its meaning clearly is that the rate of assessment and taxation must be uniform and equal throughout the locality in which it is levied." If the levy is for State purposes then the rate must be uniform and equal throughout the county in which the levy is made, and so of townships when the levy is for townships or road purposes.
I hold that the case in 27 Ind. overrules the case in 11 Ind. This matter has been brought to my notice by the Governor, in his late message. He says, among other things, on this subject, "Banks are generally if not always, located in incorporated towns or cities, and derive as much benefit and protection from municipal government as any other persons or institutions, and there is no justice in exempting them from their just share of municipal burdens."
Mr. FISHER asked if such stock were not now taxable in the hands of individuals? If so, should they not also be taxed at the place where the bank exists?
Mr. GREEN replied that they are taxable no where, at present, for municipal purposes.
Mr. FISHER suggested several points which were questionable concerning the double taxation of these stocks.
Mr. GRAY said: As I shall be called upon to vote upon this bill, I desire, in a very few words, to give the reasons why I shall vote against it. I am not the owner, either directly or indirectly, of any stock in any National Bank, or of the Bank of the State of Indiana, but I shall vote against the bill for this reason: That the charter under which the Bank of the State is organized, and the law of Congress under which the National Banks are organized, says that the National Banks shall not be taxed otherwise than the Banks of the State are taxed, and the charter under which the Bank of the State is organized--section fifteen--is in these words: (Reads.) Now, sir, I look upon this as being a specific contract between the Bank and the State, and the question arises in my mind: Can this Legislature impair the charter of the Bank without the consent of the Bank? On page 156 the charter also says; page: 304[View Page 304] (Reads.) Now the contract is specific, and the charter says there shall be no change or alteration made by the Legislature without the consent of the Bank. If the Legislature has the authority to impair the obligation of contracts, and change the fundumental principles of the charter, what safety would there be in any body of men accepting a charter from this Legislature, if at the next session the contract be impaired? Why, there would be no safety at all. The Senator from Tipton [Mr. Green] says, why might not merchants and business men, generally, claim exemption as well? Perhaps they could if the Legislature were to pass a law calling it a charter, under which they would operate, and in which there would be a specific contract. But such is not the case. Now, sir, taxes cannot be uniform for municipal purposes. They are not alike in any two cities of the State, hardly. Some are taxed one, some one and a half, and some two, and may be three per cent. They may be uniform upon the property of the city or town in which they are located, but they cannot be uniform throughout the State. I shall vote aginst the bill for the reason that I believe the Legislature has no authority under the Constitution, to impair contracts.
Mr. GREEN again stated the belief that the Supreme Court would decide such a law as this proposed a proper one. He held that these bank stocks should be taxed the same as other property, and believed the courts would so decide. The Senator from Randolph [Mr. Gray] hangs his argument upon the old charter. Now there is no justice in that. In order that more time could be given for the consideration of the bill, and Senators have time to consider the matter more fully; and as there is not a full Senate, he moved that the bill be postponed till Friday at half past two o'clock, and made the special order for that hour.
The motion was agreed to.
DOCKET FEES.
Mr. Scott's bill [S. 35] in relation to docket fees, coming up in order, it was read the third time.
Mr. SCOTT was of the opinion that if the salaries of the judges were not raised he should not desire to see the bill passed, because its object was to provide a fund from which to pay additional compensation to the judges.
Mr. HUGHES declared that if the judges salaries are to be raised this bill would provide a fund out of which the increase could be paid, and he favored the passage of some such a bill as this, before passing the bill for increase of the salaries of judges. If it is known that the additional pay has been provided for, the proposition to increase the salaries of the judges will go through more readily. The bill he thought imperfect, however, as it makes no provision for the docket fee after it is lasted up. The bill does not provide for its own execution.
Mr. SCOTT understood that this was already provided for in the general law.
Mr. HUGHES responded, that if the Senator from Vigo [Mr. Scott] was satisfied upon this point, having examined the matter, he should be willing to vote for the bill. He asked what amount was expected to be raised by the bill?
Mr. SCOTT replied that the calculation had made the amount about thirty-seven thousand dollars some two thousand dollars more than the proposed increase of the salaries before the bill was amended.
Mr. HUGHES spoke of the large amounts now realized by county officers. in this connection he stated that he had heard the county clerk's office in this county was worth twenty-five thousand dollars a year, and that the sheriff's office was worth eighteen thousand dollars. Now we might give the clerk and sheriff some ten thousand dollars a year salary, and appropriate the overplus to the increase of the judges salaries. If provisions could be made for paying over a surplus, after providing a liberal salary for county officers, into the State treasury for paying the judges, he thought the plan would be a good one.
Mr. SCOTT asked unanimous consent to amend the bill by providing that this act become operative only in case the salaries of the judges shall be increased.
Mr. CARSON objected. He wished the bill for increase of the salary of judges and this bill, to succeed a measure regulating the salaries of county officers. In Allen county the Auditor's fees amounted in 1865 or 1866 to eighteen thousand dollars--not all clear profit, but too much of it was clear profit--while the judge got but two thousand dollars, and the Sheriff's office, he apprehended was worth about six thousand dollars a year; and evidently these and other officers were enabled by their emoluments to dictate and shape in a measure who should represent their counties here; and legislators being under obligations to such men, legislation may be frequently shaped to suit their wishes to a large extent. To correct this evil was his object, and the reason why he preferred this bill and any similar bills should await action on the more important measure of regulating county officers' pay.
Mr. RICE said there was one question first to be decided--whether the salaries of the Supreme and Circuit Judges are to be raised. The friends of that movement will not be found to be enemies of this bill. he had introduced an amendment to the salary bill the other day, cutting down the proposed salaries page: 305[View Page 305] somewhat, but it was because he was friendly to it, and desired that it should go through. He had some doubts as to the propriety of taxing up this expense to the losing party, but rather than have the object of the bill defeated, should vote for it. Here we find, however, the same principle which was in the bill to repeal the Redemption act. He favored that repeal because he believed the present law encouraged men to go in debt, and that a less number of suits would be brought, and less property sold, but for that law. He considered that the salaries of Circuit and Supreme Judges ought to be raised, irrespective of where the money comes from. And the bill now pending is eminently proper, because it raises a fund which will more than pay the sum proposed to be added to the Judges' salaries. He did not believe that county officers, as a general thing, were getting rich out of their fees and salaries and advised Senators, before charging that county officers were growing wealthy, to go home or write home, and learn the facts in the case.
Mr. CARSON asked why they did not report as the law requires.
Mr. RICE replied that they did report, at least until they found that nothing was ever done with their reports, and that it was time wasted. The Clerk of his (Parke) county would be willing to take two thousand dollars for his salary for the past year. The Clerk of Montgomery county makes but four thousand dollars, and of Vermillion county but one thousand and five hundred dollars out of his office. He was informed that the Clerk of Marion County, instead of making twenty-five thousand dollars, out of his office, does not make more than twelve or fifteen thousand. The Senator from Allen says the Auditor's office in his county is worth eighteen thousand dollars. In his own county it is not worth more than one thousand eight hundred dollars. Perhaps the reason that the Auditor of Allen county makes so much is found in the fact that that county gives five or six hundred Democratic majority.
Mr. CARSON asked how it was in Marion county?
Mr. RICE said he believed the Republican majority in Marion was about six hundred, and he could not conceive how an honest Board of Commissioners could allow such a fee bill as was presented by the Auditor of Allen county in 1866, as stated by the Senator from Allen. He was in favor of having the other bill taken from the table, and both passed at once.
Mr. HUGHES did not think small counties, where the officers get a just salary should be made to suffer by a salary bill affecting all county officers and was sure a bill could be framed that would do justice all around. He favored raising the Judges' salaries, but desired to be just before being generous--to see where the money was to come from before it was appropriated. He still believed there was not sufficient provision made in the old law for the proper disposition of the fees fixed by the bill. A provision had better be put in requiring the clerks to report the amount to the Auditor, and for their payment to the State Treasurer. His information concerning the amounts realized by the officers of Marion county was obtained from business men who should know, and he stood by his statements. He moved to re-commit the bill to the Committee on Fees and Salaries, with instructions to amend by requiring the clerks of courts to report to the County Auditor the docket fees taxed, the amount paid over, and the amount due, and to file with the Auditors the receipts of the county Treasurers for the docket fees paid over to them. Also to provide by proper amendment, for a full report of all fees received by Clerk and Sheriff to County Auditors, and the payment over to County Treasurers, to be transmitted to the Treasurer of State of all fees exceeding --- thousand dollars annually, to County Clerks, and all fees exceeding --- thousand dollars annually, to Sheriffs.
Mr. HANNA suggested the reference of the bill to the Special Committee of eleven upon Fees and Salaries.
Mr. HUGHES accepted the suggestion, and moved its reference to that committee, with instructions to amend as above.
The motion was agreed to.
SENATE BILLS PASSED.
Mr. Beardsley's bill, [S. 27] authorizing the Bristol Hydraulic Company to erect and maintain a dam across the St. Joseph River, at or near Bristol, coming up in order, it was read the third time.
Mr. BEARDSLEY explained his bill, stating that it proposes to authorize the erection of a dam across a river that has not been navigated for the past sixteen years, and across which there are several dams already erected--one at South Bend and one at Mishawaka--and similar acts to this were passed for their benefit.
The bill passed, by yeas 37, nays 2.
Mr. Wood's bill [S. 96] prohibiting Judges and county officers from practising law except as in this act permitted, was read the third time.
The bill was passed, by yeas 34, nays 2.
FEES AND SALARIES.
Mr. CARSON, by consent, offered the following:
WHEREAS, The taxes drawn from the people of this State for the last four yeas give just cause of alarm that the danger of repudiation of public debts has become imminent, and when properly considered, as shown by the Auditor's reports for the last
page: 306[View Page 306]four years, cannot fail to impress every member of this General Assembly that these apprehensions are well founded. And
WHEREAS, There has been drawn from the people by taxation, as paid into the several county Treasuries of this State for the last four years, the enormous sum of forty-one millions eight hundred and ninety-eight thousand nine hundred and eleven dollars twenty-four cents, as follow:
| Total taxes levied for 1865................. | $13,167,335 22 |
| Total taxes levied for 1866................. | 10,167,836 39 |
| Total taxes levied for 1867................. | 8,165,736 77 |
| Total taxes levied for 1868................. | 10,398,004 66 |
AND WHEREAS, The following extraordinary taxes thus required to be paid into the County Treasuries are but a moiety of taxes paid by the people. And
WHEREAS, The taxes levied by our towns and cities have become alike oppressive upon the people; and
WHEREAS, The fees, perquisites, and emoluments paid to our several officers for specific services rendered in the discharge of their official duties, have become alike apprehensive; and
WHEREAS, The distribution of the taxing powers of the State, the discretion given to inferior bodies and tribunals to tax the people and to make allowances to be paid out of their funds, have been seriously injurious to the public good and it is in a great measure the cause of our present embarrassment and delinquency; and
WHEREAS, The experience of the last four years demonstrates the necessity of a reformation in the mode of assessment and levy of taxes, the making of allowances by Courts of Justice, Boards of Commissioners, Town, Township and School Trustees. and the Common Council of cities, and calls for a thorough revision of the whole subject of public expenditures with a view to economy in every department of the government: therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the Special Committee of one from each Congressional District be requested to prepare such measures as they may deem proper to remedy the evils recited in the foregoing preamble, and report by bill or otherwise.
The resolution was adopted.
SENATE BILLS ON THE THIRD BEADING.
Mr. Howk's bill, [S. 93] to regulate the practice of making and signing court entry records, was read the third time.
Mr. HOWK explained its provisions, allowing the making up and signing in certain cases, after the close of the term.
Mr. STEIN regarded it as inaugurating a dangerous practice. He thought all records should be signed during term time.
The bill was rejected by yeas 15, nays 23.
Mr. Johnston of Montgomery's bill, [S. 152] to amend section two of the wild game law, was read the third time.
Mr. JOHNSTON explained that his bill makes it unlawful to net or kill quails or pheasants, except on the owners' lands, between March 1, and October 1. The present law makes it unlawful to net at any time.
Mr. LASSELLE opposed this amendment to the law. All that was necessary would be for a man to drive the birds upon his own lands and into his nets. He regarded the bill as unfair, etc.
Mr. CRAVENS said the bill could have but one effect, and that is to counteract the beneficial effects of the game law. He moved that the bill be indefinitely postponed.
Mr. HAMILTON thought farmers should have the privilege of netting quails, if persons can come from town with guns and kill them.
The motion to indefinitely postpone the bill was rejected by yeas 15, nays 23.
Mr. RICE moved to recommit the bill with instructions to so amend the bill as to allow persons to net quails on their own lands.
Mr. SCOTT moved to amend the instructions by adding after the word "pheasant," the words, "or net, or shoot, any other kind of birds at any time, except where such birds are engaged in the destruction of fruit or grain."
The amendment was rejected.
The instructions proposed by Mr. Rice were agree to.
Mr. STEIN offered a resolution, which was agreed to, that when the Senate adjourn it adjourn to meet at ten o'clock to-morrow.
Mr. Cravens' bill [S. 114] amending section nineteen of the fees of officers bill, was read the third time. [It fixes the fees of Notaries public and commissioners.]
The bill failed to pass for want of a constitutional majority, by yeas 20, nays 14.
Mr. Lasselle's bill [S. 142] to amend section five of the county surveyors' act was read the third time.
Mr. LASSELLE claimed that his bill was to remedy a deficiency in the statute on the subject.
The bill finally passed the Senate by yeas 34, nays 2.
The Senate adjourned till ten o'clock to-morrow.
