BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
TENTH VOLUME.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
THURSDAY, February 18, 1869.The House met at half past nine o'clock a. m.
The journal was read, corrected and approved.
The SPEAKER stated, by way of explanation, that he was now of opinion that the authorities would sustain the appeal from the decision of the Chair, which was taken yesterday by Mr. Osborn, and he recommended the reconsideration of the vote laying it on the table.
Mr. COFFROTH stated an error in these reports of yesterday. He did not propose to exchange Wilson's Digest for "more" copies of the Volksbladt but for "two" copies. He would not do the Volksbladt the injustice to seem to assume that the digest is worth more that two copies of that excellent German paper.
NICHOLAS MOREBACK AND HIS SURETIES.
On motion of Mr. CHITTENDEN, the Committee's bill, [H. R. 139] originally introduced by Mr. Wilson, for the relief of Nicholas Moreback, of Ripley county, Jackson township, and his sureties, was taken up out of order, and ordered to the engrossment.
Mr. OSBORN opposed the passage of the bill. It would be opening the door for many such claims from the custodians of the public moneys, and besides, it recites statements about which the House knows nothing.
Mr. CARNAHAN said there were more palliating circumstances in the Moreback case than any which had come under his observation in the General Assembly. This relief was asked for by sixteen out of every seven teen of the people of the township to whom the lost money belonged.
Mr. STEWART of Rush, opposed the bill; but was informed by--
Mr. COFFROTH and Mr. FURNAS that these stolen funds--about seven hundred dollars--belonged to the Township school house fund.
Mr. BUSKIRK said that in addition to the fact that the failure of the bill would work a hardship on the officer who lost the money, he thought the relief might be granted without establishing a bad precedent. The people who lose the money petition for the relief of the officer, and the relief asked for can be secured from no other source than the Legislature.
Mr. BARRITT also favored the bill.
Mr. KERCHEVAL said that when a man puts himself up for office, or accepts an office which makes him the custodian of public funds, he takes that office with a full knowledge of its responsibilities, and if while holding the office, the funds placed in his hands are lost, he knows that it is his duty to replace the amount lost. Sureties are demanded by law for the purpose of securing the reimbursement of the people when such losses occur. He thought gentlemen were wrong in making Moreback an exception amongst all the honest sufferers in similar cases all over the State. Two honest, and very respectable Township Trustees in his county had been robbed--and he referred to many such cases of demand for relief which could be just as strongly supported by petitions as this case of Moreback. To grant this relief would rob the children of that township and would open the door for a flood of similar claims from all parts of the State. He objected to setting page: 422[View Page 422] any such precedent on the ground that its effect would be to make the custodians of public securities careless.
Mr. MILES demanded the previous question, which was seconded.
Mr. WILSON being the author of the bill, and the parties asking relief being constituents of his, was permitted to set forth again the merits of the case at some length. He recited the facts in the case, saying that ninety-six out of every one hundred citizens of the township had signed a petition for the relief of the parties named in the bill. He could not see why gentlemen from other parts of the State, whose constituents would in no way be affected by the bill, object to its passage, since the people affected by it petition for its passage.
The main question was then ordered; and the bill was finally passed the House of Representative--yeas 58, nays 31as follows:
YEAS--Messrs. Admire, Barnett, Barritt, Bates, Beatty, Bobo, Bowen, Britton, Breckinridge, Buskirk, Calvert, Carnahan, Cave, Chapman, Chittenden, Coffroth, Cory, Cox, Dittemore, Dunn, Fairchild, Field of Lake, Furnas, Higbee, Hatchings, Hyatt, Johnston of Montgomery, Johnson of Parke, Jump, Lawler, Lamborn, Logan, McDonald, McFadin, McGregor, Millekan, Miller, Miles, Monroe, Montgomery, Neff, Odell, Pierce of Porter, Pierce of Vigo, Ruddell, Shoaff, Shoemaker, Sleeth, Stephenson, Stewart of Ohio, Sunman, Tebbs, Underwood, Welborn, Wile, Williams of Union, Wilson, Zenor and Zollars--58.
NAYS--Messrs. Addison, Baker, Beeler, Britton, Cunningham, Davidson, Davis, Field of Lagrange, Fuller, Gordon, Green, Hall, Higgins, Hutson, Johnson of Marshall, Kercheval, McBride, Mock Osborn, Ratliff, Sabin, Skidmore, Smith, Stewart of Rush, Tabor, Vardeman, Vater, Wildman, Williams of Hamilton, Williams of St. Joseph; and Mr. Speaker--31.
So the bill passed.
CALENDAR OF BUSINESS FROM THE SENATE.
Mr. BUSKIRK submitted a resolution for an order to take up the business from the Senate, which was agreed to--the hour having come for the consideration of the calendar.
The bill [S. 251] to amend the State debt sinking fund act of December 21, 1865, was taken up and read the first time.
The bill [S. 247] for terms in the fifth judicial circuit wan taken up and passed the first reading.
RAILROAD CONSOLIDATION.
The bill [S. 94] touching the consolidation of railroads and its effect, was taken up and read the second time, with the committee amendment, which was adopted.
Mr. OSBORN proposed to amend in the third section, by adding, if any railroad shall lease their road to any railroad without the State, it shall be deemed a consolidation etc., which was adopted.
Mr. COFFROTH proposed to amend further, by three sections requiring that a majority of the Boards owning and operating such roads shall be bone fide residents of the State of Indiana--to hold their meetings in the State, and their principal office--and affixing penalty for violation.
Mr. RATLIFF opposed the amendments.
The amendments were adopted, and then the amendments were ordered to be engrossed.
BILLS ON THE SECOND READING.
The bill [S. 119] Scott, Washington, Harrison and Floyd court bill, and the bill, [S. 56] to amend sections one hundred and thirty-three and one hundred and thirty-four, of the decedents estates settlement act, and the bill [S. 67] to amend the fifth section of the Township Business act--Trustees holding two year, etc., and the Common Pleas Court bill [S. 138] and the Tenure-of-office joint resolution [S. 7] and the bill [S. 123] to amend section seventeen of the act to provide for the organization of county boards, and the bill [S. 27] to authorize the Bristol Hydraulic Company to erect a dam across St. Joseph river, and the bill [S. 142] to revise and amend section five of the County Surveyor's act; and the bill [S. 96] prohibiting Judges,Clerks, Auditors, Treasurers and Sheriffs from practicing law, were severally passed to the third reading.
LAW PRACTICE PROHIBITION.
Mr. ZOLLARS proposed to amend, so that Justices and constables be included in the prohibitions of the bill, [S. 96] and submitted considerations to support his amendment.
Mr. RATLIFF regarded the amendment as hostile to the rights of poor men, who may appear in their own behalf, and should not be restricted from having any man to be their own attorney.
Mr. OSBORN doubted whether it was the power of the Legislature to prohibit any man "of good moral character" from practicing law, and there was a class of litigation to which Justices of the Peace might very well attend to. It might be wiser to provide that justices may practice, because every time they would go into court they might learn something. The justices office was not remunerative, and we might legislate in such a way as to prevent the people from being able to get Justices of the Peace at all.
On motion of Mr. ODELL, the amendment was laid on the table.
Mr. BUSKIRK proposed to amend by striking out the words "counties in which they hold their offices." He desired to make the prohibition general.
Mr. ZOLLARS moved ineffectually to lay it on the table, and it was then agreed to.
And then--
The House then took a recess till two o'clock p. m.
page: 423[View Page 423]AFTERNOON SESSION.
The SPEAKER resumed the Chair at two o'clock p. m.
Sundry leaves of absence having be graated--
The SPEAKER announced the consideration of the law practice prohibition bill, [S.69] the question being on the engrossment of Mr. Buskirk's amendment, making the prohibition of practice general, which was adopted.
The amendment was ordered to the engrossment.
THE CALENDAR.
The Senate joint resolution [S. 9] for a Southern District for the United States District Court in the State of Indiana--to be located at Evansville coming up--
Mr. McFADIN proposes an amendment for a Northern District for the United States Circuit and District Court in the State--to be located at Logansport or at such other place as Congress may declare, which was adopted, and ordered to the engrossment.
Mr. WELBORN moved a suspension of the order of business and the constitutional restriction, for the final consideration of this joint resolution, which was rejected.
On motion of Mr. OSBORN, the House recommitted to the special Railroad Committee his railroad bill, [H. R. 138] with instructions to substitute his common law declaratory bill, H. R. 269, in lieu.
The Senate joint resolution No. 10, against the reduction of the currency; the bill, [S. 48] for protection of the banks of water courses; the Senate joint resolution [S. 12] for the relief of Mary Burress, of Martin county, and the patent right bill, [S. 17] were severally read the second time.
LEGISLATIVE COURTESY.
Mr. COFFROTH from the special committee on the question of intercourse by message between the two Houses, raised by a message from the Senate transmitting a resolution of that body, demanding of the House of Representatives the ruling of the Speaker thereof as to the time when the House will receive messages from the Senate, based upon a statement of O. M. Wilson, principal Secretary of the Senate, responded now to the House by unanimous consent to the following effect: That said committee have had the same under consideration, and, after full investigation, do now submit the following report:
Your committee find that the communication made by Mr. O. M. Wilson, Secretary of the Senate, to that honorable body, and upon which said proceedings were had, is wholly untrue. That officer states in his complaint to the Senate that "The Speaker of the House having directed the Doorkeeper of the House not to announce messages from the Senate while a member of the House has the floor for debate, and in reception of reports." Your committee find that the Speaker gave no such direction; but that after the Secretary of the Senate had, on several occasions, interrupted members of the House while engaged in brief debate, in order to present the messages of the Senate, and after complaint and remonstrance had been made against such interruptions, the Speaker ot the House directed the Doorkeeper, that when it was evident to him that a member engaged in debate would only occupy the floor for a minute or two of tune, he should not be interrupted; but that if it was evident that any considerable time would be occupied by the member in addressing the House, the Doorkeeper should promptly announce the message from the Senate.
Your committee are of the opinion that the said direction of the Speaker was extending to the Senate, in the prompt reception of its messages, a greater and more respectful courtesy than parliamentary law and usage prescribes.
Mr. Cushing, in his "Law of Legislative Assembles," section 814, says: "But in the House to which a message is sent, it is the practice to suspend or discontinue the business in hand as soon as may be, after the message is announced, so as not unnecessarily to detain the messenger. * * * * But if a member happens to be speaking at the time the messengers attend, it is not usual to receive them until the member has resumed his seat; but as this, in some cases, might amount to a very long detention, it is competent for the Speaker to interrupt a member speaking, or to interrupt a member in presenting a petition in order to receive the message."
The authorities fully support this doctrine: 63 Parl. Reg. 56, 769; 8 Con. Globe, 167; 11; ib. 168, and other authorities cited in a note to the text.
Your committee further submit, that the Senate of Indiana has heretofore established a rule for itself, more stringent than the rule stated by Mr. Cashing, or even contemplated by this House.
At the regular session of the General Assembly, A. D. 1865, on motion of Mr. Cobb, Senator from Lawrence, the Senate unanimously adopted the following:
"RESOLVED, That the Doorkeeper be and is hereby instructed, not to announce a message from the House during a call of the Senate, the passage or reading of a bill, or while a Senator occupies the floor in addressing the Senate, and that the same be communicated to the House."--BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS, vol. 9, page 62.
Your committee deem it both proper and respectful to submit to the House, that the Senate, in so promptly adopting the resolution in question, without investigation, and upon the mere unsupported. and as it appears, untruthful statement of a subordinate officer, allowed itself to be betrayed into an unkind and unnecessary discourtesy to a co-ordinate branch of the General Assembly.
Your committee not only believe, but certainly know, that this House has uniformly received the messages of the senate not only "according to the usage of parliamentary law," but according to the rule of a higher courtesy, in acquiesing in the direction of the Speaker, as before stated.
Your committtee therefore recommend the adoption of the following:
RESOLVED, That in the judgment of the House; the said preamble and resolution of the Senate, based as they are upon a misstatement of fact is discourteous and disrespectful to this House.
RESOLVED, That this House does most earnestly and respectfully request the Senate to cause said matter to be investigated, and if after investigation, it concurs in the opinion and judgment of this House in the premises, that it will mete out to said subordinate officer such punishment as may be proper in the premises.
RESOLVED, That a copy of the foregoing report and resolutions be laid before the Senate.
J. R. COFFROTH, MILTON A. OSBORN, GEO. A. BUSKIRK.
Mr. McFADIN moved to receive the report and that the resolutions be accepted.
page: 424[View Page 424]The SPEAKER remarked to the House that if the passage of the resolutions would be likely to retard in the least the work of the session, he would prefer that the whole matter be dropped just where it is.
Mr. RATLIFF and others corroborated the statements set forth in the report, and thought the case demanded, in self vindication, that the resolutions be adopted.
Mr. PIERCE of Porter, also indorsed the report under explanations by--
Mr. COFFROTH and others.
Mr. STEWART of Rush, was disposed to think the language of the report rather harsh in respect to the words "untrue" and 'false."
The SPEAKER considering the delicacy of the matter, the possibility of disturbing the harmony of intercourse between the two Houses and the delay of the business of the session that might be occasioned, seemed to advise very decisive action.
Mr. COFFROTH set forth the intent and purpose of the report--it was no more than an ordinary assertion of the dignity of the House of Representatives.
Mr. DAVIS objected to the harsh character of the report.
The report was concurred in without a division.
FEES OF COUNTY OFFICERS.
The bill [S. 58] to amend section sixteen of the act of March 2, 1855, (raising the fees of jurors to two dollars per day, etc.) was passed to the third reading.
The Senate joint resolution [S. 2] directory to the Auditor of the State, for a list of those county officers who have filed a statement of their fees perquisites and emoluments in obedience to an act of June 3, 1861, coming up on the first reading--
Mr. STEPHENSON said this would impose on the Auditor a large amount of work, that would not avail anything in legislation at this time.
Mr. WILDMAN and Mr. MONROE concurred with Mr. Stephenson. The law under which statements of these fees were to be filed was very defective, and liable to misunderstanding, etc.
Mr. ZOLLARS insisted on the passage of the resolution as demanded by the pressing necessity for retrenchment.
The joint resolution failed in the House for want of a constitutional majority--yeas 45, nays 40--as follows:
YEAS--Messrs. Addison, Admire, Barnett, Beeler, Bobo, Britton, Cory, Cox, Cunningham, Dittemore, Dunn, Fairchild, Field of Lake, Field of Lagrange, Furnas, Gilham, Hamilton, Higgins, Johnston of Montgomery, Johnson of Parke, Johnson of Marshall, Jump, McBride, McFadin, McGregor, Millekan, Miller, Miles, Mitchell, Mock, Montgomery, Neff, Odell, Osborn, Pierce of Vigo, Ruddell, Shoaff, Skidmore, Sleeth, Stewart of Ohio, Vater, Williams of Union, Zenor, Zollars and Mr. Speaker--45.
NAYS--Messrs. Baker, Barritt, Bates, Beatty, Bowen, Breckinridge, Calvert, Carnahan, Cave, Chapman, Chittenden, Davidson, Davis, Fuller, Gordon, Hall, Higbee, Hutchings, Hutson, Hyatt, Lamborn, Logan, Mason, Monroe, Pierce of Porter, Ratliff, Sabin, Shoemaker, Smith, Stephenson, Stewart of Rush, Sunman, Tabor, Underwood, Vardeman, Welborn, Wile, Wildman, Williams of Hamilton and Williams of St. Joseph--40
So the Joint Resolution, [S. 2] failed to pass for the want of a constitutional majority.
Joint Resolution, [S. 3] instracting Senators and requesting Representatives to use their influence to secure relief for Battery F, United States Artillery, that suffered shipwreck on the Pacific coast, July 15, 1868, while being transferred to Alaska, was taken up and passed the final reading--yeas 81, nays 1.
GOVERNOR'S MANSION.
Mr. WELBORN (under a suspension of the rules) submitted a report from the joint select Committee on the Governor's Mansion, with the expression of the opinion that it is inexpedient to purchase a Mansion, and recommending a bill for the construction of an executive mansion on the lot north of the Blind Asylum, viz; a bill [H, R. 270] for the erection of an executive mansion, and making an appropriation (sixty-five thousand dollars) therefor, etc., which was read the first time.
Mr. COFFROTH moved that the bill be rejected.
Mr. WELBORN stated some of the provisions of the bill, and circumstances showing the propriety of its fair consideration and passage. There was now on hand a fund of forty-five thousand dollars for this purpose.
Mr. PIERCE of Porter, thought it might be a measure of economy in the long run.
Mr. JOHNSON of Parke, opposed the passage of the bill. He was opposed to its consideration this session. The House had but yesterday refused to complete a building (the Normal School building) already begun.
Mr. GORDON summed up the matter--the sixty-five thousand dollars appropriation and the value of the site, and confessed his opposition to the bill. If there was not something wrong in the bill, it seemed to him that it would ask but for an appropriation of twenty thousand dollars, which, with the fund said to be on hand, would complete the sum of sixty-five thousand dollars.
Mr. OSBORN was not fully prepared to vote on the pending motion; but should not hesitate to give an opinion on the merits of the bill.
The SPEAKER said a motion to reject would hardly admit of debate on the merits.
Mr. CORY hoped the House would not reject the bill, for it would be hardly courteous toward the special committee.
The motion to reject was rejected--yeas 33, nays 55.
page: 425[View Page 425]Mr. CORY moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Ways and means; not that he would vote for it, but because the bill ought to take the regular course.
The bill was referred accordingly.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
Mr. Osborn's bill, [H. R. 65] to amend section fifteen of the general manufacturing companies act of May 20, 1862, etc., and defining the word ''annually" in the twelfth section of said act--coming up on the third reading--
Mr. OSBORN explained that the amendment of the general law, was to make the liability (for neglect to report in January) the same as that of other corporations--only for damages incurred by such neglect.
It was passed the final reading in the House of Representatives--yeas 79. nays 0.
On motion of Mr. STEPHENSON, his county officers' fee bill, [H. R. 78] was taken up, and made the special order for to-morrow at eleven o'clock.
RECOGNIZANCES TO BIND REAL ESTATE.
Mr. Dunn's recognizance practice act amendment bill, [H. R. 54] was taken up on the third reading. (It amends section five hundred and thirty-one--recognizances to bind as a lien both principal and surety from the time taken.)
Mr. DUNN remembered that the bill was amended so as to require these recognizances to be recorded as mortgages. That, however, did not appear from the reading.
Mr. PIERCE of Vigo, then proposed the amendment, requiring recognizances to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder.(Recorder's fee fifty cents.)
The amendment was adopted by unanimous consent, and so the bill was considered as engrossed, and passed the final reading in the House of Representatives--yeas 75, nays 6--with an amendment of title to embrace the amendment of the bill "and providing for the recording of recognizances and the compensation therefor."
FEES OF JURORS AND WITNESSES.
Mr. McDonald's bill, [H. R. 83] to amend sections sixteen, seventeen and eighteen of the act regulating fees of March 2, 1855, raising the per diem and mileage of jurors fees and witnesses, etc., coming up--
Mr. OSBORN explained his adverse vote on the passage of the bill. He should vote against it because he was committed to economy. It would not fall short of increasing the taxation of the State one hundred thousand dollars. Even two dollars a day and mileage was not pay for a jurors services. We could not afford to complete compensation to jurors. But these services were due to the State by her citizens.
Mr. GORDON spoke in favor of the bill, because there was so great inequality between the pay of the jurors and the county officers. Was if right to require these services without a compensation sufficient to pay the necessary expenses to the juror?
Mr. MILES demanded the previous question, and under stress thereof--
The bill passed the final reading in the House of Representatives--yeas 81, nays 7--with an amendment of title so as to embrace the increase of the per diem and mileage of jurors and witnesses, several members explaining their affirmative vote.
TOWN BOARD OF SUPERVISION OF STREETS, &C.
Mr. Johnson's of Parke's bill, [H. R 34] to enable incorporated towns to lay out, open and improve streets and alleys, and prescribing the mode, etc., (giving the power of supervisors to the boards of town trustees) was taken up in order, on the third reading.
Mr. JOHNSON of Parke, said there was now no provision of law for town Boards to open streets and alleys. The bill follows the general city corporation act, for the appointment of a Board of Commissioners to appraise and condemn property, etc. The bill gives power to contract for improvements of streets, etc., where such improvements are required by petition.
The bill was passed the final reading in the House of Representatives--yeas 60, nays 24.
PRIZE FIGHING PENALTY.
Mr. Field of Lake's bill [H. R. 66] defining a certain felony and misdemeanor, and prescribing punishment therefor(any person engaging in a prize fight to be punished with fine and imprisonment)was taken up in its order on the calendar, and read the third time and finally passed the House of Representatives--yeas 83, nays 1.
SAVINGS ASSOCIATIONS.
Mr. Underwood's bill, [H. R. 18] to amend section two and four of the act for incorporation of savings, loan, fund and building associations, approved March 5, 1867, was taken up on the third reading.
Mr. UNDERWOOD explained that it only increased the capital stock from one hundred thousand dollars to five hundred thousand dollars. It was an imitation of the Ohio law, excepting the limitation. The increase of stock was to enable the associations to loan with greater liberality, on the fund derived from the weekly assessment of shares.
The bill finally passed the House of Representatives--yeas 80, nays 0.
page: 426[View Page 426]BRIBERY.
Mr. Dunn's bill [H. R. 94] to amend section thirty-nine of the act defining felonies, and prescribing punishment therefor, approved June 10, 1852, was taken up in its order.
Mr. DUNN said, as the law now stands, there was nothing preventing an officer from accepting a bribe. This bill proposes to remedy judicial and legislative bribery, by placing the party offering the bribe in the power of the person he approaches with a corrupt proposition; so that both parties are to placed in dread of information.
The bill finally passed the House of Representatives--yeas 80, nays 0.
And then--
The House adjourned till nine o'clock a. m. to-morrow.
