Brevier Legislative Reports

Search Options

page: [445][View Page: [445]]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page [445]

THE BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.

TENTH VOLUME.

INDIANA LEGISLATURE.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

The House met at half past nine o'clock a. m.

The reading of the journal was dispensed with on motion by Mr. BOWEN.

PETITIONS ETC.

Described as follows were presented and referred to appropriate committees:

Messrs. Vardeman, Underwood, Higbee, Fuller, 3; and Admire presented petitions for a prohibitory liquor law.

Messrs. Vater, McDonald, Welborn, and Pierce of Porter, presented petitions praying for a chair of Homoepathy in the proposed Medical College.

Mr. UNDERWOOD, from citiznns of Wayne county, for the reduction of salaries of county officers.

Mr. SABIN and Mr. TEBBS presented Morgan raid claims.

Mr. WILDMAN. A paper from the State Board of Agriculture for a committee to examine and report on the purchase of Dr. Owen's Geological and Mineralogical Cabinet.

Mr. BEELER. A letter to Governor Baker from Dr. Owen, relative to the same matter--saying that it consists of fifty-six thousand eight hundred and thirty-three specimens, many of which are costly, one alone costing two hundred and twenty-five dollars, also a chemical apparatus, and that, although the heirs place its worth at fifty thousand dollars, they would be willing to sell the same to the State for twenty thousand dollars.

Messrs. Wildman, Furnas, McBride and Carnahan were appointed the committee thereon.

Mr. MILES and Mr. WILLIAMS of Union, presented road petitions.

REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.

Mr. BUSKIRK, from the Committee on Ways and Means, returned Mr. Miles' personal property assessment bill, [H. R. 141] recommending that the bill and amendments be indefinitely postponed.

Mr. MILES demanding the yeas and nays on the question of concurrence in the report, the vote stood--yeas 54, nays 23.

The report was concurred in.

Mr. DUNN, from the Committee on the Judiciary returned the Senate appraisements bill, No. 81, recommending its passage.

Mr. COFFROTH, from the same committee, returned his felony bill, [H. R. 231] with amendments.

Mr. GORDON, from the same committee, returned the County Commissioners safe bill, [H. R. 207] recommending indefinite postponement.

He also returned Mr. Davis's bill, [H. R. 254] for the Twenty-sixth Judicial District, recommending its indefinite postponement.

On motion of Mr. DAVIS, it was laid on the table for the present.

Mr. STEPHENSON, from the Judiciary Committee, returned Senate bill, No. 222, legalizing certain irregular tax assessments made in 1868, recommending its passage.

Also, from the same committee, the bill, [H. R. 181] authorizing incorporated towns and civil townships to subscribe stock in aid of railroads, recommending its passage.

Mr. DUNN, from the same committee, returned the bill, [H. R. 142] providing for the settlement of decedents' estates, recommending its passage.

Also the bill, [S. 73] to amending section three hundred and fifty-two of the General page: 446[View Page 446]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 446 Practice act, recommending its indefinite postponement.

These reports were severally concurred in.

MECHANICS' LIEN.

Mr. MITCHELL returned Mr. Vater's mechanics' lien bill, [H. R. 81] recommending its indefinite postponement.

Mr. VATER said this bill was specially desired by his constituents. It was framed after the Pennsylvania law. It could not work hardships to building owners, because they were able to take care of themselves. He gave examples of its wisdom and necessity.

Mr. MITCHELL replied, and stated the objection to the bill to be, that it protected sub-contractors too far;that the bill provides for a sub-contractor's holding a lien on materials furnished in the erection of a house, although the structure may have been put at a greater expense than contracted for by the contractor,and the committee thought that such a law would operate equally to the disadvantage of builders.

Mr. COFFROTH characterized the bill as one of the most monstrous propositions ever submitted to a legislative body. To illustrate he put the following case: You want to build a house and have just five thousand dollars that you want to expend in its construction, and no more. You select a builder who contracts with you to build the house according to your plan for five thousand dollars. This contractor now sub-lets his contract to another person. Now this sub-contractor may go on and build a house worth eight or ten thousand dollars, and although you contracted for a house to cost but five thousand dollars, this law proposes to give to this sub-contractor a lien on your house until the additional three or five thousand dollars, as the case may be, is paid.

Under the present law, sub-contractors can have a lien to the extent of the liability of the owner to the principal contractor, but this bill would give that lien without regard to the principal contract at all--showing the hardships it would work--to owners, widows, minors, etc.--in the advantage it would give to sub-contractors. The Legislature cannot interfere with contracts. It also provides, he said, for children making contracts for the building of houses, and renders all such contracts valid.

Mr. GORDON also supported the report.

Mr. VATER spoke again, saying, that the only question is, whether it is harder for the owner to pay the value of the building, or that a man shall work for nothing? He defended the bill at length.

Mr. STEPHENSON spoke against the bill also, pronouncing it unconstitutional.

Mr. FURNAS moved the previous question which was seconded by the House.

The report was concurred in--yeas 84, nays 3.

REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.

Mr. SABIN, from the Committee on Claims, returned the claim of two witnesses who testified before the Special Committee on Railroads, recommending that the same be allowed.

Mr. TEBBS, from the same committee, reported against the claim of Daniel Keeley, for three thousand two hundred and thirty-six dollars for pay for drum corps 22th regiment Indiana volunteers. The same was rejected last session.

Mr. VATER remarked that the gentleman presenting the claim is present for the purpose of proving its justice, and he has been promised by at least some of the committee, that he should have said opportunity.

The report was therefore recalled.

Mr. MONROE, from the same committee, reported against the memorial of William Willard, asking an appropriation of five thousand dollars for his relief.

The report was concurred in.

Mr. VATER, from the Committee on Education, returned Mr. Vardeman's disabled soldier school bill, [H. R. 218] recommending its postponement.

It was concurred in.

He also returned Mr. Williams of Hamilton's bill, [H. R. 247] to amend sections one and one hundred and twenty-two of the school law, with an amendment, recommending its passage.

Mr. SABIN reported the allowance of the claim of Frank D. Allen; also for the allowance of the claim of Hally Austin, [S. 67] for keeping horses about the time of the Morgan raid.

Mr. OSBORN suggested that these war claims belonged to the United States Quartermaster Department.

Mr. WILDMAN suggested that the United States must first make the allowance.

Mr. GORDON, from the Committee on Fees and Salaries, reported against the bill, [H. R. 191,] amending section ten of the act regulating the fees of certain officers (increasing the fees of County Commissioners,) from three to four dollars per diem.

Mr. OVEEMYER reported a substitute for the eighteenth Judicial Circuit Court bill, [H. R. 28.]

Mr. FURNAS, from the Committee on Rights and Privileges, reported against the Oil bill, [H. R. 201.]

Mr. CARNAHAN reported in favor of the Horse Disease bill, [H. R. 199.]

Mr. BEELER, from the Committee on Agriculture, returned Mr. Breckinridge's Wild Birds bill. [H. R. 229] with amendments.

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, from the Committee on Corporation, returned his Lafayette In- page: 447[View Page 447]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 447 surance Company's bill, [H. R. 145] recommeding its passage.

Mr. VATER, from the Committee on the Affairs of the City of Indianapolis, returned Mr. Palmer's Misdemeanor bill, [H. R. 241] recommending it to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. MILLEKAN, from the Roads Committee, returned Mr. Dittemore's Road bill, [H. R. 232] recommending its passage.

Also Mr. Cory's Gravel Road bill, [H. R. 187] recommending its indifinite postponement.

It was laid on the table.

Also Mr. Dunn's Road bill, [H. E. 125] with an amendment.

Mr. McDONALD, from the Committee on Immigration, returned his Emigration bill, [H. R. 206] with amendments.

Mr. STEWART of Ohio, from the Committee on Printing, returned Mr. Hamiiton's German newspaper advertisements bill, [H.R. 166] recommending its passage.

Mr. OSBORN, from the Special Committee thereon, returned his Railroad bill, [H.R. 138] recommending the adoption of the substitute amendment heretofore reported.

Mr. WELBORN moved the reconsideration of the vote yesterday, adopting Mr. McFadin's amendment to the Senate United States District Court joint resolution No. 9, to ask for a Northern District located at Logansport, which he subsequently withdrew.

Mr. HUTCHINGS, from the Committee on Rights and Privileges, returned the bill, [H. R. 216] amendatory of the drainage act, recommending its passage.

Mr. FAIRCHILD returned the bill, [H. R. 265] repealing the act for the protection of fish, recommending its indefinite postponement. These report were concurred in.

FEES OF COUNTY OFFICERS.

The SPEAKER announced the special order, viz: the consideration of Mr. Stephenson's bill, [H. R. 78] to regulate the fees of county officers, etc., and regulating allowance by county Boards, the question being on Mr. Coffroth's amendment, substituting the Senate bill No. 160.

Mr. COFFROTH proposed to amend the amendment by striking out "one thousand two hundred" and inserting the words "one thousand five hundred" pay of Clerks, Sheriffs, Auditors and Treasurers, and strike out "six hundred" and insert "three hundred" to pay clerk hire for the second thousand excess of population. (The first excess is three thousand population in the substitute, with six hundred dollars for clerk.)

Mr. GORDON opposed the first, and supported amendment, by Mr. Coffroth.

Mr. BOBO desired the bill to be made so as to correct the evil in those more populous counties, where the fees collected are more than the services are worth, and the county should not have the excess of fees any more than the county officers. The bill also put the County Clerks, Treasurers, Auditors, and Sheriffs upon an equality, whilst there was no equality as to the amount of service rendered. He gave examples. Then so far as the small counties of three thousand voters were concerned, there was not one of them where these officers have received too much in fees. So far as these were concerned, the bill was a proposition for remedy, where there is no-evil to remedy. He submitted his views at length.

Mr. STEPHENSON. Mr. Speaker: The proposition before the House embraces three distinct theories on the subject of fees and salaries of county officers.

The motions embraced in the amendments are somewhat similar. The first amendment gives them a specific salary, to be collected in a manner now provided by law, viz: Fees and perquisites and all in excess of the specific salary, are to be paid into the county treasury. The second amendment or substitute gives our officers a heavy per cent. on all the fees collected, and the balance are paid into the treasury. These embrace substantially the same notion, which is radically wrong, viz: paying public officers out of private means-- compelling litigants to pay for the benefits community derives from the operations of courts. The idea in the original House bill, No. 78, recognizes the inequity of such a purpose, and divides the burden between litigants and the public. It compels the man who enters a court of justice to pay for the redress he receives, and no more, and it compels the community to pay for the protection it receives in person, property and the public peace, and no more, and no unclouded mind can object to this system.

What right has government to extort from individuals the wherewith to pay for and protect the public peace? Is it not far more consonant with justice to raise the means for such a purpose from "uniform and general assessment?" The clear province of courts of justice is to protect the public, and redress individual grievances, and enlightened public sentiment demands the same division in bearing the expenses of the same. The House bill, Mr. Speaker, makes this equitable division,, and does not the notion address itself with peculiar favor to the conscience of every member of this House? Let any opponent of this measure give his objections. No, Mr. Speaker, they cannot do it. They are as silent as the grave, because the present system can not be justified by any process of logic, or muddle of page: 448[View Page 448]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 448 Our people--a large majority of them--labor under this enormous wrong, unconscious of its extent; and it behoves us as legislators to cut this terrific cancor from the public breast, and substitute in lieu thereof a new and improved system.

Let us pass in review the present manner of compensating our public officers, and compare it with the method proposed by this bill. Under the present system our County Clerks, Auditors, Treasurers and Sheriffs each receive their compensation from fees and perquisites and the salary system is unknown. Each officer has a statute regulating and specifying the manner of realizing his compensation, and each of those statutes gives him from forty to seventy items of service to charge for, ranging in amount from five cents to one dollar, and at the conclusion of each act there is a provision that "for all other services not enumerated above they shall receive a like compensation." Clearly admitting this fact, that the Legislature cannot comprehend and enumerate all the details of business as they arise in such offices, and giving to the officers the power of legislating on their own private interests: The system in question says to the officers, in language as plain as the statute can speak: "Our progenitors (the Legislature ) cannot master this multiform subject, but they have given ourselves to you as 'specimen bricks,' and you must finish the structure as best suits your purposes; but, we beseech you, don't be selfish (county officers never are selfish) in the exercise of this delegated power. Do not let it redound to your own personal profit, but exercise it for the good of the whole people." Gentlemen of the House of Representatives, is not this a terrific appeal to send forth to a lot of sharp, unscrupulous men. Its oratory might be improved upon, but the force of its ludicrousness can not. By holding out such a tempting bit to "men of business," we inevitably generate corruption in their midst. Why, Mr. Speaker, the Angels of our Lord (no reference to the gentleman from Cass) would fall under such temptations. The Methodist theory of gold pavements, &c., would be realized, if the celestials were permitted to come down here to collect for our people "constructive fees."

This is only one instance in one department of this great temple of abuses which the Legislature of 1855 erected. And I make the assertion, gentlemen, and defy contradiction, that the whole system is permeated with such things, and if we grub this one up and plant a similar one in principle, it will only be a repetition of the fable of the dragon and the armed and mailed warrior, "abusive construction," that will spring up in our midst, and will only delay and not defeat the present reform.

The fee system is wrong. Take an instance--one out of sixty or seventy"entering on docket," the clerk shall have "fifteen cents." This is plain enough on its face, and the cry may go up, where is the cheat? It manifestly means for docketing each case, but per act of Legislature you give your clerk a judgment, appearance, bar, and court docket, and he bravely and manfully says, "all shall pay the penalty of their existence." Another: "Every issued joined, twenty-five cents." Plain enough says the novice, but the clerk says, here is a complaint in my office with twelve paragraphs--each a distinct issue; demurers to some and answers to some; perhaps an answer to one of them; involving several paragraphs more, and to each and every one is assessed twenty-five cents, amounting in some cases to that number of dollars, under the simple guise of "every issue joined twenty-five cents." And all this earned by five minutes writing, or writing two lines. These are enough, gentlemen, for my purpose, and I do not take extreme cases. I can take twenty such items on one page of these acts, and dissect them in the same way. But my sense of duty, as the champion of this case of the people, will not permit me to pass another door of this temple without opening and exploring its noisome recesses. Not Banquo's ghost, but the spirits of departed citizens, friends, relations, point to it with the unbending finger of scorn as you pass in, and gentlemen who possess parental feelings and hearts had best give heed. Need I say I refer to clerks' fees in probate business? If it is not a shame that will knaw your hearts strings and mine when we look at it, let the departed spirit of the father who now sees his blessed children in rags and penury strike this power of speech from my lips. I have not time to give instances of legalized outrages, but here are the items on this page of your laws, standing out in letters of hellish brightness. There are twenty item specified, but another clause at the conclusion that says: "Mr. Clerk, tax what you please, for we (the Legislature, yes, the Legislature of the State) have put the starving bantlings, in your hand and at your mercy." (County Clerk's mercy!) The law compels the decedent's estate to go into court, and if the dying father left a competency (not riches) for his agonized widow and darling babies, the court takes it away from them, and a thrill of anguish, worse than his death, chills the widow as her wail of poverty goes out to a heartless and cold public.

The probate business as it is at present arranged, eats upyes, eats up, the ordinary estate, and leaves nothing for the orphans and of decedents but their good name, and it is a wonder that, pinched and cramped by poverty, even that should be wrecked? I know instances in my own county, and am personally page: 449[View Page 449]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 449 knowing to instances in other counties, where small estates are consumed in paying costs of officers of court, leaving to community children without means of education, and widows without support, and the State with an ultimate heritage of crime.

Legislators of Indiana, must this continue; must we darken the intellects of children and degrade our judiciary and civilization in order to enrich our officers? You may say this is not practiced all over the State. I admit it is abused in some counties more than others; but you people of the latter counties you may have a dishonest officer foisted upon you at any moment, and then I will be delighted at your wail if you refuse to act and strike now.

Mr. Stephenson gave way for a motion to adjourn.

And then--

The House took a recess till two o'clock p.m.

AFTERNOON SESSION.

The SPEAKER resumed the Chair at two o'clock p. m.

FEES OF COUNTY OFFICERS.

The House resumed the consideration of Mr. Stephenson's bill, [H. R. 78] to regulate the fees of county officers--Clerks, Treasurers, Auditors and Sheriffs; and Mr. Coffroth's amendment thereto.

Mr. STEPHENSON resumed the floor. Mr. President: Our county officers get too much money. Their emoluments range from one thousand two hundred dollars to twenty-five thousand dollars per annum. And what is the tendency of this? Manifestly it induces corruption in procuring the office. If the office is worth ten thousand dollars per annum, they can afford to expend one half of it in manipulating your conventions and debauching your ballot boxes. And mark you this proposition, gentlemen Representatives, nine-tenths, of the political corruptions at elections come from our local aspirants for office. A Governor cannot corrupt a State, a Congressman his whole district. The territory is too large. But our "ambitious county officer can manipulate the political affairs of his county with his present high salary. This is a proposition that every one must admit, and the facts bear me out.

But draw a comparison of salaries. The Sheriff of Marion county gets as much money as the President of the United States, and five-sixths of the counties in your State pay their county officers more than the State pays her Governor! You take a man with the major part of his life spent in preparation, and put him on the bench at a salary of one thousand five hundred dollars and set a little political trickster at his feet who has consumed the preceeding fall in "electioneering" (to use a mild term) for his clerkship, and give him from five to fifteen thousand dollars per year. This stifles me with disgust. I will not pursue it further. Public men of Indiana, the lesson this teaches is written on the wall of futurity, and if you wish to read it strike this noisome system to death, and the people will carry you up to it. I have particularly noticed the Clerk in this argument, but I take him as an example, not as an exception. They all work under the same system and are inspired by the same impulses.

Now what are the merits of the bill before us? It abolishes the present system of collecting fees, and gives every officer a specific salary, to be paid out of the Treasury of the county. In courts it taxes litigants a docket fee of eight dollars, and five dollars a day in trying the same, and if they have a jury they pay for it, and pay their witnesses as now provided by law. These are the only items charged. They are simple and explicit, and cannot be abused. If the clerk neglects to collect and pay them into the treasury, he is subject to a fine and removal from office. This money, gentlemen, will pay the expenses of Sheriffs Clerks, and the community will be at no expense. But suppose it was, have we not shown that it is right that it should bear a portion of the burden? The Auditor and Treasurer are now paid out of the people's money, and to give them a salary would only reduce the burden of taxation, which, i some medium counties of this State, would reach eight or ten thousand dollars per annum.

Let figures speak:

This bill taxes a docket fee of eight dollars for every case, and five dollars per day. If a consumes over one day in trying it, five dollars per day.

page: 450[View Page 450]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 450

And all this money, Gentlemen, in either case, is paid directly out of the county treasury. Suppose the Clerk did not collect all the fees taxed; yet if he only collected one third of them, that would be sufficient to pay him and the Sheriff, and Hamilton county would realize a net gain of over eleven thousand dollars per annum.

These, gentlemen, are the pecuniary aud economical aspects of this issue we are contending for. Its justice you are compelled to admit. Then why hesitate in this matter?

The three systems of compensating officers are before you gentlemen. The two that come in here as substitutes for the original bill, continue the present odious system that I have tried to expose. The proposed bill divides the burden equally between litigant and community--strikes down the present high rate of paying officers, and takes from them the incentive to use corrupt and improper means to procure their election to office. It strikes at the root of the corrupting influences that are decaying the foundations of our institutions, and rendering the dome of American freedom, that has shown so brightly to the benighted, unsafe.

Down with corruption! must be the watchword of this people, or down with the people will be the cry of the corruptionists.

Through you, gentlemen, to the people of my noble State, I send this, my protest against the present system, and this, my appeal for help.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this indulgence.

Mr. COFFROTH, to give time to mature the judgment of the House, moved that the bill and amendments be referred to the Committee of the Whole, and made the special order for Tuesday at two o'clock.

The motion was agreed to.

A CORRUPT PROPOSITION.

Mr. ZOLLARS asked for the reeding of a confidencial circular letter which he sent to the clerk's desk.

It was read as follows:

INDIANAPOLIS, IND., Feb. 6, 1869.

DEAR SIR--A bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives, which has been reported back, the entire committee favoring its passage. The bill largely cuts down the fees of all county officers.

Mr. Buskirk, a member from Monroe county, is preparing a bill much more sweeping in its provisions, and will probably be submitted for action on Monday or Tuesday next, which will, in all probability, be substituted for the first bill introduced, unless immediate action is taken to prevent it.

The first bill reduces the fees so as to render them almost worthless. Mr. Buskirk's will make them entirely so. We are here to do what we can to defeat these bills, and, if we receive proper aid from other county officers, think we can accomplish our object. If the county officers will submit to an assessment to accomplish this object, we will remain here; otherwise we will return home, as we are unable to fight the battle single-handed and alone. One or the other of these bills may become the law of the State but we have assurance that both may be defeated, if a sufficient fund can be raised to organize at once an effective opposition.

Will your county officers respond to a liberal assessment made by us? The funds so received will be placed in bank, and returned unless the bill is defeated.

Please consider this as confidential. Confer with your county officers, including those recently elected, and respond at once, as but litlle time remains for work.

Address us here, lock 134, or call at our rooms, No. 4 up stairs, over the Bee Hive store.

J. M. DICKSON, Auditor of Madison County. GILBERT TRUSLER, Clerk of Fayette county

And thereupon--

Mr. ZOLLARS submitted the following preamble and resolutions:

WHEREAS, There are letters which have come in to the possession of members of this House, and which purport to have been written by one James M. Dickson, Auditor of Madison county, Indiana, and one Gilbert Trusler, Clerk of the court of Fayette county, of the same State, and which letters were written and sent to the various county officers of Indiana, and contain among other things, that certain bills are pending be the House of Representatives which will, if passed, very much reduce the salaries of county officers, and stating that they, said Dickson and Trusler, have assurance that, if a sufficient fund can be raised, said bills can be defeated; and,

WHEREAS, If any assurances have been given, they must have been given by members of this House; and,

WHEREAS, Any such assurances, given by any member of this House, would be in violation of his oath and a corrupt and indecent proposition to betry his high and sacred trust as a member and Representative of the people; and,

WHEREAS, If no such assurances have been given by members of this House, it is due to us, and the State whose Representatives we are, that said corrupt insinuations be refuted; therefore,

RESOLVED, That a committee of five be appointed whose duty it shall be to fully investigate the whole subject, and report the result of their investigations to this House, and in order that they make their investigations effectually, they shall have power to send for persons and papers as may seem best to them.

AND WHEREAS, Said letters contain, among other things, proposals by said James M. Dickson, Auditor of Madison county, and Gilbert Trusler, Clerk of Fayette county, to the various county officers of this State that if each of them will submit to an assessment, in order to raise a fund, that they, Dickson and Trusler, will take said fund and with it defeat said salary bills; and,

WHEREAS, Said proposals contain within themselves propositions tending to corrupt the county officers of the State, and looking to the corruption of the members of this General Assembly, which propositions are corrupt in themselves, indecent, and of a high criminal character, and merit the condemnation of all good men and the penalties of the law; therefore,

RESOLVED, That the above named committee have full power to fully investigate this branch of the matter, and report to this House, and pursue such a course as they may deem it expedient tor the House to take in the premises.

page: 451[View Page 451]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 451

Mr. ZOLLARS alleged the genuine authorship of the circular letter, and moved that the resolution be adopted.

Mr. BUSKIRK made such personal explanations as he supposed might be expected from him, seeing that his name is mentioned in the circular.

The resolution was adopted.

Mr. ZOLLARS then proposed the Special Committee under the resolution, viz: Messrs. Stephenson, Wildman, Gordon, Osborn and Pierce of Porter.

On motion of Mr. OSBORN, Messrs. Zollars and Coffroth were added; and so the committee was constituted.

THE CALENDAR.

The bill [S. 133] amendatory of the act touching the removal and relocation of county seats; was read the first time.

On motion of Mr. OSBORN, the constitutional restriction was suspended, and the bills, S. 133, 256, 178, 268 and 222, were taken up for consideration on their several readings.

The bill [S. 133] was then read the second time by title.

Mr. SHOAFF moved, ineffectually, to refer it to the committee on County and Township Business.

The bill was then read the third time.

Mr. PIERCE of Porter, suggested an objection. The bill requiring fifty-five per cent. of the voters to the petition for the removal of the county sear (the existing law requiring two thirds) he would prefer the majority of householders.

The bill was finally passed the Houseyeas 63, nays 15.

The bill [S. 256] to fix the terms of Common pleas in the Eleventh District, and repealing all other laws on the same subject, was taken up under the present order, and passed the several stages and the final reading in the House of Representatives--yeas 75, nays 0.

Mr. COFFROTH moved the reconsideration of the vote of Tuesday whereby the House refused to order the engrossment of the Normal School appropriation bill, [H. R. 130] and that the motion be made the special order for Wednesday at two o'clock.

Mr. OSBORN moved to lay the matter on the table.

Mr. LAMBORN demanded the yeas and nays.

Mr. PIERCE of Vigo, and Mr. WILDMAN, (by consent) gave considerations why the motion to reconsider should not be laid on the table.

The vote stood yeas 24, nays 51. So the motion was not laid on the table.

The motion to reconsider was then passed over.

Mr. NEFF moved to reconsider the vote by which the county seats bill, [S. 133] was passed, and--

On the motion of Mr. JOHNSON of Parke, the motion was laid on the table.

The bill [S. 178] to regulate the terms of the Circuits in the first Judicial Circuit (the same that was recalled from the Governor for correction) was next taken up under the pending suspension of the constitutional restriction, passed through the several stages and the final reading in the House of Representatives--yeas 68, nays 0.

The bill [S. 259] to authorize the Governor to issue a patent to Samuel Cooper for certain Michigan road lands in St. Joseph County, was passed the several stages and third reading--yeas 69, nays 0.

The bill [S. 268] to amend section one of the act fixing the terms of the Common Pleas Court in the Fifth District, was also taken up and passed the several stages--yeas 70, nays 0.

The bill [S. 222] to legalize certain municipal assessments for taxation for the year 1868, was taken up and read under the suspension of the constitutional restriction.

Mr. SLEETH and Mr. BARRITT explained the propriety and necessity of the bill.

It finally passed by yeas 70, nays 0.

The legalization bill [S. 81] was passed the second reading.

The Senate United States District Court resolution [S. 9] coming up--

On motion of Mr. JOHNSON of Marshall, it was laid on the table.

The Senate joint resolution, [S. 10] for instructions against the legalization of coin contracts, etc., coming up on the final reading,was passed the House--yeas 60, nays 7.

The bill [S. 231] to amend section two of the act to provide a State debt sinking fund, making the Governor a member of the Board, etc., was taken up in order and passed the second reading.

The bill [S. 119] fixing the terms of Common Pleas in the fourth District, was taken up in order on the third reading, and finally passed the House--yeas 68, nays 0.

The bill [S. 56] to amend sections one hundred and thirty-three and one hundred and thirty-four of the decedent's estate settlement act, was taken up in order, and pass the final reading in the House of Representatives--yeas 65, nays 2.

The bill [S. 67] to amend section five of the Township Business act--to make the term of Township Trustees two years was read the third time.

The bill, [S. 27] authorizing the Bristol Hy- page: 452[View Page 452]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 452 draulic Company to construct a bridge across the St. Joseph river at or near the town of Bristol, in Elkhart county, was read the third time.

Mr. DAVIS said no objection could be raised to the bill except the old declaration that the St. Joseph river is a navigable stream. It was notorious that that river has ceased to be used for the purposes of navigation.

The bill was finally passed the House of Representative--yeas 67, nays 0.

On motion of Mr. STEW ART of Rush, Mr. Millegan's gravel road bill, [H. R. 52] was taken up and made the special order for next Wednesday at three o'clock p. m.

On he motion of Mr. FURNAS, Mr. Welborn was added to the committee to investigate Dr. Owen's cabinet, with reference to a proposition to purchase it for the State.

The bill [138] to amend the second section of the act to amend the fourteenth and eighteenth sections of the act fixing the terms of the Court of Common Pleas in the several counties of this State, etc., was taken up in order, on the third reading, and finally passed the House of Representatives--yeas 69, nays 0.

On motion of Mr. PIERCE of Vigo, Mr. Williams' of Union, General Elections bill, [H. R. 23] was taken up and made the special order for Tuesday, at eleven o'clock, a.m.

A question being raised that there is no quorum voting--

Mr. COFFROTH moved that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. UNDERWOOD proposed to make the adjournment till Monday two o'clock.

Mr. COFFROTH made the point that a motion to adjourn is not amendable.

The SPEAKER (Mr. Buskirk in the Chair) sustained the point of order.

Mr. STEWART of Rush, said the motion to adjourn to a day certainly has preference.

The SPEAKER But it is a proposition to amend.

Mr. KERCHEVAL proposed to quote from Wilson's Digest.

Mr. COFFROTH contended that the House having a few days since agreed to trade off the stock of Wilson's Digest on hand for two additional copies of the Volksblatt any gentleman having use for such Digest should, in courtesy to the House, use the Volksblatt instead, and tendered the gentleman a copy.

Mr. KERCHEVAL said that he presumed, as the gentleman from Huntington had introduced the bill to introduce German into the public schools he might get along very well with the Volksblatt, but he, the Speaker, could not, he would therefore continue to use the Digest.

The SPEAKER was about to put Mr. Coffroth's motion to adjourn, when--

Mr. UNDERWOOD took an appeal from the Chair's decision, that a motion to adjourn to a stated time does not take precedence of a motion to adjourn.

The SPEAKER didn't seem to justify the ruling at all, but wanted the House adjourned, as it was getting very late, and there was at any rate no quorum present.

Some member here moved to lay the appeal on the table.

Another member demanded the yeas and nays.

Mr. SABIN made the point of order that there is no quorum to appeal to.

Mr. Coffroth's motion to adjourn was rejected.

Mr. UNDERWOOD then moved that the House do now adjourn till Monday, two o'clock.

Mr. WILE said he desired to offer a resolution before the House shall adjourn, and he asked and obtained unanimous consent that it be read for information. He then submitted and the clerk began to read the following:

WHEREAS, The 22d day of February is the anniversary of the birth day of George Washington, the father of our country, and,

WHEREAS. The memory of the loved, honored, and respected defender of liberty and right, should forever be kept sacred; therefore be it

RESOLVED, That when this House adjourns its labors for this week, it do adjourn until Tuesday next at nine and a half o'clock a. m.

Objection being made--

The SPEAKEK said objection being made, the resolution could not be received pending a motion to adjourn.

And then--

The House adjourned, till Monday two o'clock p. m.