THE BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
TENTH VOLUME.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
WEDNESDAY, February 10, 1869.The House met at half past nine o'clock a. m.
The SPEAKER announced the appointment of Mr. Long of Jackson, to complete the special committee on the Agricultural College bill.
On motion of Mr. RATLIFF the reading of the journal of yesterday was dispensed with.
The SPEAKER stated the revision of the ruling last evening--so that no motion to adjourn will be entertained, pending a vote, etc.
PETITIONS, MEMORIALS, &C.
The following petitions, etc., were presented and referred to appropriate committees:
By Mr. JUMP a memorial of William Willard, setting forth his services rendered as teacher in the Asylum for the Education of the Deaf and dumb, and asking an appropriation of five thousand dollars for his relief.
By Mr. VATER, the claim of Daniel Keeley, for services in the early part of the war in the 11th Indiana.
By Mr. GORDON, from the citizens of Boone county, for the repeal of the gravel road law.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Mr. MITCHELL, from the Committee on the Judiciary, returned Mr. Welborn's bill [H.R. 95] for the relief of John Ingle and others, recommending its passage.
Also Mr. Odell's enclosures bill [H. R. 169] recommending indefinite postponement.
On motion of Mr. BEELER it was referred to the Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. BOBO, from the Committee on the Judiciary, returned Mr. Higbee's county subscription railroad bill, [H. R. 154] recommending passage.
Mr. TEBBS, from the Committee on Claims, reported favorably on the claim of Thomas Bays; and that Mr. Long's bill, [H. R. 133] on the same subject, be indefinitely postponed.
It was concurred in.
Mr. GORDON, from the Committee on Fees and Salaries, returned Mr. Kercheval's Sheriff's fee bill, [H. R. 67] recommending passage.
Mr. WILSON, from the Committee on Rights and Privileges returned Mr. Mason's divorce bill, [H. R. 204] proposing to strike out the seventh cause of divorce--"for any other cause,"--recommending indefinite postponement.
It was concurred in.
Mr. FAIRCHILD, from the same committee, returned Mr. Baker's weights and measures bill, [H. R. 228] recommending passage.
Mr. BEELER, from the Committee on Agriculture, returned Mr. Furnas' Agricultural bill, [H. R. 194] recommending passage.
Mr. HUDSON, from the roads Committee, returned Mr. Bowen's road bill, [H. R. 128] recommending passage.
Mr. OVERMYER, from the special committee thereon, returned Mr. McDonald's bill, [H. R. 175] to provide for special terms of courts, and for preliminary and interlocutory motions, with an amendment, recommending the passage of the bill when so amended.
Mr. PIERCE of Vigo, moved the reconsideration of the vote of yesterday indefinitely postponing House bill No. 148, providing for the payment of costs in certain appeal cases under the act in relation to public and private highways, saying, in support of the motion that he was satisfied the House voted to indefinitely postpone under a wrong impression. page: 323[View Page 323] He explained the object of the bill in this wise: Applicants for the opening of the highways, failing before the Board of Commissioners of the county, may, under the present law, appeal from that decision to the courts, and the matter may remain in the courts, from term to term, costs all the while accumulating; and, finally, when the case is decided, which every way the case may go, the costs come out of the county treasury. This bill proposes an enactment requiring the cost in such cases to be paid by the loosing party, in which case there will not be manifested such a readiness as is now manifested for litigation.
The vote was reconsidered, and the bill referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. SABIN, from the claims committee, reported against the claim of Henry Coleman, which was concurred in.
Mr. WELBORN, from the special committee on female prisons, returned Mr. Stewart of Rushs's reformatory female prison bill, [H. R. 196] recommending its passage.
On motion of Mr. BEELER, Mr. Coffroth's German teaching school bill, [H. R. 62] (the special order,) was taken up, and made the special order for Friday morning, at ten o'clockyeas 60, nays 27under pressure of the previous question.
Mr. SABIN, from the claims committee, reported adversely to the claim of Wm. B. Matthews, which was concurred in.
Mr. WILLIAMS of St. Joseph, obtained leave of absence for the day.
PROHIBITORY LIQUOR LAW.
Mr. MILES, by leave, presented a petition from the citizens of Sullivan county, on temperance.
It was referred to the Committee on Temperance.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Hamilton, introduced a petition on the same subject, which was similarly referred.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS NEGRO SUFFRAGE.
The SPEAKER announced the consideration of Mr. Williams of Knox's resolution against Negro suffrage constitutional amendments, and directed the clerk to proceed with the call for the vote by yeas and nays, (pending when the House adjourned,) on Mr. Lamborn's motion to lay the resolution on the table.
The Clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MITCHELL, said that he came here uninstructed on the subject of negro suffrage. That question formed uo part of the contest before his constituency, and he certainly had not expected to be called upon to cast his vote ont he subject. However, believing he would misrepresent his constituency should he vote for negro suffrage, he would vote no on the question before the House.
The vote was reported after numerous changes, and revisions were indulgedy--ess 14, nays 71.
So the motion to lay on the table was rejected.
On motion of Mr. STEWART of Rush, the resolution was referred to the Committee on Federal Relations, under pressure of the previous question--yeas 52, nays 34.
CONGRESSIONAL USURPATION.
Mr. ADMlRE introduced a joint resolution [H. R. 9] to-wit:
WHEREAS, The Congress of the United States has passed a joint resolution, giving to all races and colors equal political rights and privileges in every State, thereby annulling plain provisions of almost every State Constitution in the Union, and,
WHEREAS, In so doing they have greatly transcended their powers, and by "one fell swoop" of tyrannical oppression have torn from the several States one of the dearest rights which they have ever held sacred; and,
WHEREAS, We believe those rights rest with the people of the several States who are directly interested, and that it is but another usurpation of power unwarranted by the Constitution of the United States, for them to thus interfere; therefore.
RESOLVED, That the General Assembly of the State of Indiana, do hereby enter their solemn protest against any such measure as this, believing it to be one of the most diabolical and dastardly outrages upon human liberty, that ever was sought after or concocted by the human brain.
Mr. UNDERWOOD moved that the resolutions be referred to the Committee on Federal Relations, and demanded the previous question which was seconded.
Upon the request of Mr. OSBORN he withdrew the motion, with the consent of the House, when--
Mr. OSBORN submitted a resolution declaring the resolutions "disrespectful to the Congress of the United States and indecent, and that they ought not to be, and are not, entertained by this House."
Mr. UNDERWOOD demanded the previous question on the motion of Mr. Osborn.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Knox, made the point under rule 58, that the only motion with reference to the joint resolution is this: Shall it be rejected?
Mr. BUSKIRK said this motion of Mr. Osborn was, in effect, simply to reject.
The SPEAKER held ' that Mr. Williams' point was well taken.
Mr. OSBORN then modified his motion, so as to make it--that the resolution being indecently disrespectful to the Congress of the United States, therefore,
RESOLVED, That it be rejected.
The previous question was seconded, and the main question was ordered, to wit: Shall the resolutton be rejected?
The SPEAKER now held that the form of a resolution could not be entertained.
Mr. RATLIFF then moved that the joint resolution be rejected and the vote thereon, under pressure of the previous question, resulted--yeas 58, nays 30.
page: 324[View Page 324]So the resolution was rejected.
Mr. RATLIFF and Mr. CHITTENDEN, obtained leave of absence till to-rnorrow noon.
Mr. OSBORN asked, but failed to obtain leave to submit his resolution as above, declaring Mr. Admires' joint resolution, (just rejected by the House) is indecently disrespectful to the Congress of the United States.
Mr. WILDMAN obtained leave of absence till Friday.
ORDERS OF THE DAYMEDICAL PROFESSION BILL.
Mr. Overmyer's medical profession bill [H. R. 24] coming up with the Committee's amendment, to take effect next October--
Mr. JOHNSON of Parke, opposed the bill as class legislation, for those pecuniarily unable to get a diploma. He said he knew any number of men practicing medicine without diplomas, who are better physicians by far, and more reliable, than many who have as many as three diplomas.
Mr. WELBORN thought the bill eminently proper. We all know that the people of the State have been imposed upon measurably, in the past few years by these legalized assassins--quack doctors--and he hoped the House would sake this opportunity of extending protection to the people. He would have protection against assassins--why not against quacks, "legalized assassins?" He regarded it as the desire of the people aod knew it was the desire of the medical profession, that such a bill as this should be passed.
As to the remark that the bill is in the interest of those who are able to secure a collegiate education, and who are of the richer classes, he had but one reply, and that is, that in this day and age of the world, with educational advantages of the best character, open to all, rich and poor alike, there is no reason why any young man of proper energy and spirit, may not obtain a diploma in a medical or literary institution of learning.
Mr. OVERMYER stated that in considering the question in committee every precaution was observed, in order to prepare a bill that would be least objectionable, and at the same time practical. He said the Committee had before it the act passed by the Ohio Legislature on the same subject, and they had adopted into this bill all the good qualities of the Ohio law and avoided the bad, one of which is, he thought, the provision that a physician may, when not presenting a diploma from a medical college, practice under a certificate from a county medical association, thus creating, as he believed a little oligarcy as it were, which would prove unfavorable to the interest of the people and the profession. In answer to the charge that the bill stands in the light of an enactment in favor of a class, he accepted the suggestion with the enplanation that it legislates for the people, and against a very small class--the quacks.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker: I do not advocate this bill because I am a member of the Medical Profession, as I have long since ceased to depend upon my practice, as a Physician, for a livelihood; but I do ask for its passage as a protection for the people whose homes are invaded, and their lives put in jeopardy and sacrificed by the prowling Quacks, who are roving thorough the country seeking whom they may devour. This bill merely asks that those who practice the healing art may at least have some knowledge of the sublime science they profess to be master of; that they at least may be able to show that they have exercise in some of the means whereby the art of healing the sick is to be attained. Those means are understood by the common sense of the people to be a course of study in some Medical Institution, and an experience after, at the bed-side of the sick.
The gentleman from Parke [Mr. Johnson] says, this bill is in the interest of the doctors, and will prevent many a poor young man from practicing medicine, because unable to get a diploma; and that he knew a great many quacks who have not got diplomas. This may be true--no doubt is, and for that reason I advocate its passage. But I tell the member from Parke that he understands but little about the subject, if he thinks doctors are unable to protect themselves; that so far as the influence these mountebanks who travel over the country have on our practice, it increases rather than retards it. We need no legislative enactments to protect us from them; but some legislation is imperatively demanded as a safeguard for the lives and health of the people. I have no hesitation in proclaiming here to-day that these infernal quacks that are spewed about upon our people, destroy more lives than war, pestilence and famine.
What we ask in this matter is that those who undertake to practice medicine shall, at least, take as much pains to qualify for the business as men do ere they pretend to follow any other occupation in life. The people demand of an artisan that he shall lay hold of the means in reach to qualify himself ere he shall set himself up as a workman in the simplest forms of mechanism. They demand that one who understakes to teach our children the simplest rudiments of an education shall prepare for the work, and yet allow those who take hold of us when sick, to heal us of disease, to be ignorant of all that lies at the basis of that science. We allow men, with no knowledge of anatomy and physiology, or the laws that govern us in health or disease, to invade the sacred temple of our homes, to stand by page: 325[View Page 325] the side of the couch of our dying wives and children and administer medicine, and yet they neither know nor care what effects they may produce. They do not even know how they may begin to understand what are the results that will be produced. The prowling hyena roams through the regions made desolate by death, only howling for more human victims; but more terrible than they are the ignorant quacks in their greed for the victims of disease, that they may glut their avaricious maws by what they can wring from the innocent and ignorant sufferers who confide in their promises. A man may administer medicine for a lifetime, and although he may seem to cure some and help others, yet if he know nothing of the structure of our organization, the laws that govern in health and disease, he can give no explanation of his doings, He will be like a blind man in the dark, as liable to strike the vital forces of nature and subdue them, as to assist and aid. He does not even know that those vital forces are alone the great centers which must be nourished and assisted, or the divine art of healing is a blight and a curse.
The ignorance of mankind, in all that relates to health and disease is appalling, and they need the protection of law. For what do we endow medical colleges, but that men may learn the rein what pertains to the cure of disease? We endow commercial schools, that men may become acquainted with accounts, and the manner of keeping them; may know upon what system banks, insurance, and other organizations are conducted; and the successful merchant or intelligent banker will not employ even a clerk till he is master of his business. And yet we trust our families in the care of ignorance and vice, when crushed by a malignant disease. I know that going to a medical school does not make of one, by nature unqualified for a physician, a good healer of the sick but I do know that duty demands that we compel those who wish to engage in the healing art to at least make use of appliances which the States have made in the belief that it is essential to success. When we have thrown the safeguard of law around the chamber of dissease, we may hope that the future success of the practitioner of medicine will be the only passport to our confidence. In Germany the State regulates the practice of medicine. The physicians are appointed to particular districts, and these are the theatre of their operations. This may not agree with our notions of freedom, but it is much better than to make the sick--weak and defenceless--so many victims for marauding quacks who seek to rob industry of its fruits under pretence of doing good to mankind.
When I was in Mexico, I found whole districts of country and flourishing towns without a physician. On inquiry for the cause, I found that no one was allowad to be a healer of the sick, as a profession unless he had been examined and passed by the censors of the State, at the capital of the nation. If the half barbarous people of Mexico are protected when sick by the State, shall not civilized Indiana protect her people from the ravages of ignorance and crime? The lives of the helpless children of the State ask safety at our hands from folly and ignorance. We build asylums for the care and protection of those imbeciles who, among us, are unable to protect themselves, and yet leave our children perfectly helpless when diseased, in the hands of ignorant or avaricious parents, to expose to the tender mercies of quacks, who are ever ready to promise help, in the hour of the deepest affliction human nature is called upon to endure. It is computed that more than half the human race die in infancy. If this be so, shall we riot ask what we can do to avert this dreadful fact? Shall we not throw the shield of the State over these little ones, and, so far as we can, protect their lives from the avarice and ignorance of those who, under the blessed title of healers of the sick only lure to distruction and death?
I know that man, in his selfishness, looks upon a bill like this as only a benefit to a class of men who have made the healing art the means whereby they may live. But I do know that a civilized people, desiring to aid and protect the lives of the citizens, should look on the divine art of Medicine in more than a mercenary light; that they should seek to elevate it above ignorant and vile men's passions and lusts, and strive to have it what it was intended to bethe glory of science, and the protector, consoler, and curer in that dreary hour when disease and suffering place their pall upon the inhabitants of this earth
Mr Speaker, I am aware that what the gentlemen from Park and from Rush have said, of the tone and temper of the popular feeling on this question. I feel that the great masses of the plople will look upon this bill only as an effort to encourage and protect a particular order; but I submit to the candid consideration of this Assembly that it is not for any such purpose. I avow that where the great body of the people of a State are ignorant on a question that pertains to their highest interests and happiness, that the law makers should seek to know the danger arising from that ignorance, and take counsel of those who through ages of patient research and tireless industry, have stored up knowledge with which they are able to enlighten and benefit the world. While the science of medicine remains open, and the pathway free for the vicious and ignorant to enter; while human life is sacrificed on all sides, and our children fall thick as autumnal leaves around us, the plain path of duty for us is to page: 326[View Page 326] require of the medical profesion, to whom has been given by the State, in the endowment of Medical Schools, opportunities for knowledge on this subject of health as to what is necessary to do, that we may be saved from the waste of human life which appeals to us on every side.
Mr. VATER submitted a substitute for the bill, which he offered by way of amendment. He said he was friendly to the general principles of the original bill, but thought the substitute met the points better than the committee's bill, and proceeded to discuss it in detail, the principle feature of the substitute being the authorizing of the certificate and license from medical associations in the State, acting through the authority of the State Board of Registration, etc.
He said the substitute was carefully prepared, under the advice of physicians of this city and surrounding counties. The object was to perfect the Ohio law. He objected to the indefiniteness of the original bill.
Mr. FURNAS said the Committee had the substitute before them, and preferred the original bill.
Mr. VATER showed that the substitute contained a stringent provision for the detection and punishment of offenders, a provision for the registration of practitioners, and other essential details not in the original bill. The original bill prohibited practitioners without school diplomas, and therefore it provides that no man can practice medicine in the State who does not hold a license--granted by authority outside of the State--there being no medical school in the State. He objected especially to the incompleteness of the original bill in this respest.
Mr. McFADIN said that his disposition is to be for the under dog in the fight, but between the two propositions he could hardly make choice. He wanted something done, however, to protect the people from the quack sharks. He gave several exggerated cases of malpractice by these speculators on human suffering, the very sight of one of whom never failed to suggest to him the lines--
Hark! from the tombs a doleful sound,
Ye living men come view the ground
Where you may
shortly lie.
Mr. STEWART of Rush, preferred the substitute, as admitting the advantages of competition between the three schools of medicine. It was the protection and advancement of worthy physicians--not schools that he desired. The substitute was also well guarded.
Mr. JUMP thought the substitute would come nearer the approbation of the profession generally. He showed the propriety of certificates of qualifications, and when he had concluded--
The House then took a recess till two o'clock
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The SPEAKER resumed the Chair at two o'clock p. m.
On motion of Mr. STEWART of Rush, Mr. Millekan's gravel road bill, [H. R. 52] was taken up and made the special order for Tuesday, ten o'clock a. m.
HOUSE OF REFUGE.
The SPEAKER laid before the House a message from the Governor, to-wit:
Gentlemen of the House of Representatives:
In reference to the resolution of the House passed yesterday and received by me this morning, requesting information as to whether the House of Refuge, lately erected at Plainfield for the correction of juvenile offenders, is adapted to the reception, correction and reformation of female juvenile offenders as well as male offenders, I beg leave to say that it is not adapted to the reception of both sexes. In my message to the General Assembly, delivered at the commencement of the of the present session, I used the fellowing language, to which I respectfully invite your attention, viz:
"It is impossible to receive girls in the House of Refuge at Plainfield, without destroying its reformatory character, and converting it into a juvenile prison."See suffix,--page--.
Before the House of Refuge was located, or the plan of the institution was determined upon, three commissioners of that institution visited similar institutions in other States, and I endeavored, also, to otherwise inform myself of the practical working of such institutions. The result was that the commissioners and myself become fully satisfied that to render such an institution reformatory it must, as far as possible, be divested of the character of a mere prison, and made to assume that of an industrial reform school.
The boys are divided into families of fifty each, each family having a "House Father," and an assistant, and the boys of each family are divided into two classes, twenty-five boys being in each class. Ordinarily these classes alternate in labor and study so that each class is occupied one-half of the day in labor on the farm or in the shop, and the other half in study in the school room.
The Institution is modeled alter the Ohio Reform School, which is believed to be the most successful reformatory in the United States. In that Institution girls are not received. The experience of the last year convinces me that the commissioners acted wisely in adopting the Ohio plan, and I think it would be a grave error to convert the institution into a prison, which would be the result of any legislation requiring both sexes to be admitted.
CONRAD BAKER
It was referred to the Special Committee on the Female Prison.
THE MEDICAL PROFESSION BILL.
The SPEAKER announced the consideration of the unfinished business of this morning.--Mr. Overmyer's medical profession bill H. R. 24.
On motion of Mr. OVERMYER, the subject was referred to a special committee.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
Mr. Vater's spring balance prohibition bill, [H. R. 63] coming up with the committee amendments--First--a fine of five dollars, page: 327[View Page 327] which was adopted. Secondly--to take effect next January, which was rejected.
The bill was then ordered to be engrossed.
JUSTICE'S FEES.
Mr. Neff's Justices' fee bill, [H. R. 73] coming up with the committee substitute--
Mr. GORDON stated the changes: Justices' fifteen cents forswearing a jury, also twenty-five cents for forwarding and releasing a pauper; and ten cents for every motion made by an attorney. It increases the fee for summons fifteen cents.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Knox, proposed to amend the substitute by striking out that portion which refers to removing a pauper. That was the business of County Commissioners.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. DITTEMORE proposed to strike out--fifteen cents for each motion, which was rejected.
The substitute was then adopted, and so the bill was ordered to be engrossed.
Mr. Welborn's bounty fund recovery bill, [H. R. 40] coming up, it was ordered to be engrossed.
PLEADINGS IN CRIMINAL CASES.
Mr. Zollar's criminal practice amendment bill [H. R. 5] amending the one hundred and third section of the practice act, coming up, with the committee recommendation for indefinite postponement--
Mr. BOBO said it gave additional advantages to the State; but as it did not allow the defendent to be sworn; he moved that it be postponed one week.
Mr. McFADIN desired to be heard in favor of the bill.
Mr. WILSON said this bill was a proposition to go back to the rules of common law, which allows the State in criminal cases to open and close the argument. The law of 1852 made a leaning too much in favor of the defense. The provisions of the bill were recommended by the Governor. He hoped the motion to postpone would not prevail.
Mr. McFADIN considered the want of such legislation as this the reason of mobs and the alarming immunity of criminals ,which everywhere is observable. He saw it recently in the late and pending Young murder trial in the city. He attributed to the favor shown criminals in our legislature, the unrestrainted dissatisfaction that shows itself in such occurences as the hanging of the Renos, and thought the step proposed by the bill a good one, in the right direction.
Mr. BOBO said the change from the common law was made, that innocent persons might not be made to suffer through the same undue influence of counsel in the closing speech; that the closing appeal was left to the defense. He thought the change well founded in the good old doctrine that ten guilty men better go unpunished, than one innocent person suffer. He referred to the inhumanity of the common law rule of pleadings. If we were to go back to common law, because it is common law, we might change our entire code. It were better that the law be lenient than extremely severe.
Mr. DUNN said that if gentlemen would but take a look back and survey society as it was and is, they would hesitate he thought, to oppose the bill before the House. Our legislation, he said, has been for years past in favor of the criminal and against the best interests of society. The prisoner now has the benefit of all doubts, almost all the challenges, and the presumption of innocence in his favor; and add to this the advantage of the closing argument of the counsel, who is generally a lawyer of fine talant and of great experience, while the interests of the State are generally in the hands of young and inexperienced lawyers, and it is not to be wondered at that so many of the guilty go "unwhipped of justice."
The motion to postpone indefinitely was rejected; and the bill was ordered to be engrossed.
BILLS ON THE SECOND READING.
Mr. Johnson of Parke, correction of contested election bill [H. R. 117] (correcting a misprint) coming up, with the Committees' recommendation for indefinite postponement--
Mr. JONHSON of Parke, explained the provisions of the bill.
Mr GORDON could not see the merits of the bill on the score of definiteness. Therefore the Committee reported against it.
On motion Mr. PIERCE of Vigo, the bill was recommitted to the Committee on Elections.
The Committee's railroad bill, [H. R. 132]--substitute for Mr. Ruddell's [H. R. 4] was ordered to the engrossment.
Mr. Coffroth 's liquor law repeal bill [H. R. 101] coming up, it was ordered to be laid on the table.
Mr. Neff's supplemental insane law bill [H. R. 124] was ordered to be engrossed.
Mr. Osborne's billiards bill, [H. R. 167] to prevent minors from playing billiards coming up--
Mr. OSBORN said the bill had been offerrd to meet the wants of parents who are sending their sons to the colleges away from home.
Mr. MITCHELL proposed to amend by providing that nothing in the act shall be construed to legalize the keeping of billiard tables.
Mr. OSBORN moved that the amendment be laid on the table
The motion was rejected.
page: 328[View Page 328]Mr. BUSKIRK said the amendment was useless.
Mr. MITCHELL demanded the yeas and nays on the adoption of his amendment. To Mr. Osborn's plea, that it was not germane to the bill, he replied, that as the law now stands, he was able successfully to prosecute a man for keeping a billiard table, and he did not want to see that statute disturbed.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Knox, took the same view of the question of order and it was overruled.
The amendment was adopted--yeas 59, nays 21.
Mr. SHOAFF proposed to amend, by striking out and inserting "ten dollars," and striking out that which refers to imprisonment.
Mr. OSBORN said the matter of imprisonment was left in the discretion of the Court a wholesome discretion.
Mr. SHOAFF then withdrew his amendment.
The bill as amended was then ordered to be engrossed.
TERRE HAUTE AND RICHMOND RAILROAD.
The Committee's Terre Haute and Richmond Railroad bill, [H. R. 137] to amend the twenty-third section of the act to incorporate the Terre Haute and Richmond Railroad, now Terre Haute and Indianapolis railroad, so as to require annual reports from the officers of said road, and requiring the payment of a certain percent of profits into the Treasury to the credit of the school fund, coming up, it was ordered to be engrossed.
Mr. Osborn's Terre Haute and Richmond Railroad freight and fare bill, [H. R. 138] to amend section twenty two of the act to incorporate the Terre Haute and Indianapolis railroad, which bill involves the question whether or not the Legislature has a right to amend the charter of that road, coining up--
Mr. PIERCE of Vigo, said there were legal questions involved in these bills, 137 and 138-- whether there is power to amend a charter--which would probably render them nugatory. He alledged that a charter made and accepted before the adoption of the present State Constitution was in the nature of a contract which cannot be changed without the consent of the corporation. The charter gives the company the power to fix the rates of freights and passenger fares, and it is therefore not competent for the House to interfere on that subject.
Mr. STEPHENSON asked whether the State had not reserved the right to amend the charter.
Mr. PIERCE declared that it had not. The Judiciary Committee would be compelled to find that the Legislature could not make such a law. His position was sustained by a veto message from the Governor two years ago. He moved that the bill he referred to the Judiciary Committee, with instructions to inquire if the General Assembly have the right to amend the charter of said road.
Mr. OSBORN said that the whole subject of the right of the Legislature to act in the matter, had been before the Judiciary and Special Railroad Committees, upon which were some of the best lawyers on the floor,and their opinion is that the matter is one of legislative jurisdiction. He conceded what the gentleman from Vigo [Mr. Pierce] claimed in regard to the rights of railroads, under special charters. But this railroad charter reserves to the State the right to amend and repeal said charter at any time, on certain conditions.
Mr. PIERCE (interrupting.) "Has that section not been repealed?"
Mr. OSBORN. Yes, sir, but I find in the twenty-third section of the charter, in relation to fixing the tolls and freights, that after the profits of said road shall reach a certain amount--if they have made a profit of fifteen per cent.--the "Legislature may regulate the tolls and freights.
Mr. PIERCE. But has the road made such an amount, as that it falls within that section?
Mr. OSBORN. Yes, sir, and far beyond that amount.
Mr. PIERCE. We should like to see that shown.
Mr. OSBORN promised the House that by the close of the week, he would be able to prove that beyond all possible doubt. But before gentlemen can object to the constitutionality of this bill they must show that the company have not made fifteen per cent. profits. Looking at the amount of business before the Judiciary Committee, he said, to refer this bill would be fatal for want of time to consider it; and thereupon he appealed to the House against the motion to commit.
Mr. PIERCE of Vigo, said the gentleman failed to answer his objections. This railroad charter was hard and harsh. This railroad was no favorite of the State. The State had shown less favor to this road than to any other in the State. Its charter is unlike any other, compelling it to transport troops and munitions of war free of charge to the State. The charter also did what the charter of no other road does, limiting the profits on investments.
Mr. OSBORN said that notwithstanding the prohibition in the charter, the road had charged the State for transporting troops and munitions of war, and he claimed also, that the same limitations as to profits on investments in the case of this road is made in that of the Indiana Central.
Mr. PIERCE could not understand why page: 329[View Page 329] this war is made upon the Terre Haute road. He felt safe in declaring it one of the very best roads, if not the best road in the United States. As to the right to amend the charter of the road, the section of the charter reserving to the State that right was long ago repealed. The conditions under which the Legislature might interfere, under section twenty-three, to regulate the tolls and passenger rates, were wanting as yet, and hence there is no right in the Legislature to amend the charter. The section says that only when the aggregate dividends amount to the full sum invested, and ten per cent. per annum thereon, can the Legislature interfere to regulate the matter of tariffs, and he denied that the gentleman from Putnam [Mr. Osborn] can prove that these conditions have been fulfilled.
He repeated his proposition before stated, and insisted that to pass this bill would be to take a step in the dark. He would be in favor of the bill, if he could be assured that it is right. If the gentleman would show that the fifteen per cent. profits have transpired, he would vote for the bill. This railroad company had not come up to this measure of profits in the twenty-third section of their charter by seven or eight hundred thousand dollars. The reference to the committee need not delay the bill twenty-four hours. Let us know what we are doing before we go forward in this matter. He also urged as an objection to the bill of a serious nature, the fact that by its provisions the way-passenger rates between here and Terre Haute will be higher than they are now.
Mr. OSBORN said further in regard to the charter compelling the road to transfer troops and munitions of war, and to the statement that the road received nothing for such service, that the sworn statement of the President and Secretary of the road, read here but few days since, admits receiving from the State the sum of twenty-three thousand dollars, and encloses justifying the same.
Mr. PIERCE Will not the State receive the same back from the Government?
Mr. OSBORN replied that he believed the State has come claims against the Government now pending, and that the Governor had recommended that the State employ the attorney at Washington on a fee of forty thousand dollars to push these claims. This claim of twenty-three thousand dollars is one of that batch. The State has reserved the right to have those troops transported over this road free of charge, and the company has no right to inquire what State wants to do with those troops. When the government calls on the State for troops the State has an undoubted right to transport those troops over this road free of charge, and she might as well think of paying a soldier for traveling from his home to the mustering camp as of paying this road, with this reservation in full force, for transporting these troops.
Mr. PIERCE. Why pay other roads and not this road?
Mr. OSBORN replied that in this matter, as the advocate of the rights of the people, he should only look to the facts and not points of justice and equity. He said he was not here to hunt down any railroad, but to take action for protecting the people against these conspirators, and then proceeded to show that the amount of dividends were as great as provided for in section , and referred to the expenditures of the road.
Mr. PIERCE asked if the road had not a right to reserve a certain amount of the earning for contingent expenses.
Mr. OSBORN. Yes, but not such contingencies as the subscribing of stock in new enterprises, investments in United States bonds and a thousand other such things, He alleged that this road had reached their charter limits of earnings--about the year 1863. He had no feeling against the road. It was the best in the State. But this could not imply that we should legislate for them, and against those who express their grievances against the railroads in so many petitions.
Mr. PIERCE reminded Mr. Osborn of the law permitting the road to aid in the construction of lateral roads.
Mr. OSBORN. Yes, but not by applying the earnings of the road. Only by subscribing stock, and in no other way. He closed by appealing to the House to hearken to the call of the people by petitions from ail parts of the State, and if they were not satisfied of their right to act in the matter, to make inquiry of lawyers, and come up to the work demanded by the best interests of the people.
The motion to recommit was rejected, and the bill was then ordered to be engrossed.
RELIEF BILLS.
On motion of Mr. WELBORN, the vote of this morning concurring in the report adverse to the claim of Wm. B. Matthews for one hundred and eighty-three dollars, ninety-one cents, was reconsidered.
Mr. SABIN said the committee rejected the claim of Matthews because he received an allowance of ninety-eight dollars for the same service in 1865.
Mr. WELBORN said he was informed that Mr. Matthews had not received anything. On his motion the claim was recommitted.
The Agricultural Committee's standing corn felony bill, [H. R. 134] coming up, it was ordered to the engrossment.
The Committee's escheat bill, [H. R. 135] coming up, it was ordered to be engrossed.
The Committee's Nicholas Moreback relief page: 330[View Page 330] bill, [H. R. 139]also for relief of Lang & Wetzler--coming up on the engrossment--
Mr. FURNAS stated that the bill was reported upon satisfactory evidence that this was a case where the proposed relief should be granted.
Mr. WILSON recited the facts in the case and stated that the township bears the burden; and the inhabitants were in favor of the relief, as one hundred to six. He would have the bill made the special order for to-morrow at two o'clock p. m.
Mr. KERCHEVAL was opposed to the bill and to making the Legislature a sort of an insurance company. If we are to relieve all public officers of losses of this character, we hold out an inducement to them to become dishonest, and advantage will be taken of such leniency. If this bill passes, he said he should feel it his duty to introduce bills to relieve two officers of his own county who were robbed, and he had no doubt there were others in the House who had friends to be relieved in the same way. He said that the money lost belonged to the children in this case, and those children had lost the advantage of schooling that would have resulted from the proper application of the money lost. He would, he said, oppose the bill.
Mr. HIGBEE opposed the bill on the same grounds. He said he would oppose it, however honorable and trustworthy the man might be. It would be setting a bad precedent, for it would be but the opening wedge for a flood of like claims.
Mr. PIERCE of Porter, was in favor of the bill. He said the people of the township who were the real sufferers by the loss, were the best judges of the propriety of relieving the officer.
Mr. VATER. Suppose there is no evidence that the money was lost?
Mr. PIERCE. The people of the township are the best judges of that matter, and if they think such relief should be granted, he was in favor of granting it.
Mr. DAVIDSON also opposed the bill, from the consideration that it would offer a promium to rascality. He cited precedents wherein such relief has been denied.
Mr. HIGGINS and Mr. WILLIAMS of Knox, opposed--doubting whether the General Assembly have the right to grant this relief.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Knox, moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, with instructions.
The motion was agreed to.
And then--
The House adjourned till to-morrow at half-past nine o'clock, a. m.
