THE BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
TENTH VOLUME.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
TUESDAY, February 23, 1869,The House met at nine o'clock a. m.
Mr. HAMILTON moved ineffectually to dispense with the reading of the journal, and the journal of yesterday having been read--
PETITIONS ETC.
Described as follows were presented and referred to appropriate committees:
Messrs. Underwood, two; Smith, two; Bowen, two; Higbee, Davidson and Lawler severally presented petitions for prohibition in the matter of temperance.
Messrs. Breckinridge, Barrett, Smith, Stewart of Ohio, and Overmyer, in the matter of a Medical School.
Mr. OSBORN from the County Commissioners of Putnam county proposing one hundred thousand dollars for the location of the Agricultural College; and he said he was authorized on the part of the owner to offer a donation of forty acres of land for the site of the College.
Mr. SHOAFF, for repeal of the gravel road law.
Mr. OSBORN, a Danville memorial, with reference to the law of limitations as to army service.
Mr. HUTCHINGS, from the members of Captains Mullen and Sternberger's companies of Minute men, called out on the invasion of Kirby Smith, praying for pay for services rendered.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Mr. DUNN, from the Committee on the Judiciary, returned the bill [H. R. 148] recommending its passage.
Mr. STEPHENSON, returned the bill [H. R. 185]--newspaper legal notices--recommending its indefinite postponement.
Mr. GORDON, returned the compulsory witness bill, [H. R. 210] recommending its indefinite postponement.
Mr. CARNAHAN, from the Committee on Rights and Privileges, returned the bill, [H. R. 250]-- homestead--recommending its passage
Mr. HUTCHINGS, from the same Committee, also returned the bill, [H. R. 262] same recommendation.
Mr. HIGGINS, from the Committee on Agriculture, returned the tresspassing animals bill, [H. R. 169] with amendments.
These reports were severally concurred in.
PERSONAL.
Mr. JOHNSON of Parke, rose to a question of privilege and made the following statement: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the Clerk to read the following communication in the Journal of the 20th inst:
The Clerk read as follows:
CARD FROM PROF. OLCOTT.
To the Editor of the Indianapolis Daily Journal:
TERRE HAUTE, February 19, 1869.
Enclosed I send you a statement which I desire published in the Journal, if it has not been published, for two reasons: First, because the statement of Mr. Johnson does me gross injustice; second, because it is manifestly contrary to the spirit of the report of the Board of Trustees of the State Normal School, and was used by Mr. Johnson as an argument against the necessary appropriation called for.
Very truly, J. M. OLCOTT.
From the Terre Haute Express,
In the House of Representatives, on Wednesday afternoon, the Normal School appropriation bill being under discussion, Mr. Pierce of Vigo, sent to the Clerk's desk and asked to have read, the statement of Mr. Olcott, one of the Trustees of the "Normal School," in reference to the statement made31 page: 482[View Page 482] by Mr. Johnson of Parke, in the debate of Tuesday, that he had said that there is needed but seventy-five thousand dollars. Objection was made by several members and the paper was not read. The reason assigned for objecting to the rending of the paper, as we are informed, was that it would violate the right of a member not to be called to account for words used in debate. The following is a copy of the communication referred to:
HON. I. N. PIERCE: Dear Sir You are authorized and requested to say that the statement made by Mr. Johnson of Parke, in the discussion of House bill No. 130, in which he uses the following language, viz: "That Mr. Olcott, one of the Trustees of the Normal School had told him that one hundred thousand dollars is not needed to complete the building, but that this amount is asked for on the principal that it is always best to ask for enough," is incorrect. On the contrary, the amount called for (one hundred thousand dollars) is based upon the careful estimates of the cost of the work to be done; and furniture and heating apparatus required, which have been made by the architect and closely examined by the Board of Trustees, and of all of which the local member of the Board has been specially cognizant.
Respectfully, J. M. OLCOTT.
As much as I dislike to tax the patience and occupy the time of the House by speaking to a question of privilege, I feel it to be due to myself that I correct the statement made by Mr. Olcott, and in so doing, I have no desire to incur the ill will of any one, and certainly do not wish to fault the Board of Trustees of the Normal School, for I believe the most of i them to be honorable men, and for that portion I have the greatest respect. In answer to the card of Mr. Olcott, I have this to say, that a few days before the bill making the appropriation to the Normal school was called up, Mr. Olcott asked me what course I intended to pursue in relation to it. I told him I could not vote for the one hundred thousand dollar appropriation, for I did not believe it would take that amount to complete the building. His reply was this: ''It will not take the full amount asked for to complete the building, but we are going on the principle that it is always best to ask for enough." This is what Mr. Olcott said, his statement to the contrary notwithstanding.
I also ask the indulgence of the House to make this further statement. I am now, and always have been, willing to vote a reasonable appropriation for the completion of the building in a plain and substantial style, but in looking over the report of the Board of Trustees I find this language: "The completion of the house, including heating apparatus, and grading and enclosing the lot with a neat wooden fence (not originally estimated,) will, by present estimate of the architect, require in addition to existing contracts, the expenditure of thirty-two thousand three hundred and sixty dollars, making a total of the building, grading and fencing, of one hundred and seventy-two thousand three hundred and sixty dollars." The report also shows they have received one hundred thousand dollars. Taking this in connection with the statement of Mr. Olcott, I feel satisfied in my own mind that it would not take the $100,000 to complete the work. Hence I offered my amendment of fifty thousand dollars, hoping thereby to effect a compromise with the friends of that bill; hoping also, we might be able to agree on something near the amount as stated in the report of the Board of Trustees.
COURTESY BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES.
Mr. COFFROTH laid before the House a communication from the special committee of the Senate on the House message, in reference to the reception of messages from the Senate, informing him of the meeting of that committee this evening at the Bates House.
Some debate ensued as to whether the committee of the House should further act in the matter, its report having been submitted and unanimously adopted.
Mr. COFFROTH stated that, as far as he was personally concerned, he should much rather have some other person act in his place, but if it should be the pleasure of the House that the same committee continue until the question is settled, he should acquiesce in its wishes. It was his opinion that (the duties of that committee having been completed) they were discharged.
Mr. McFADIN moved that the committee be instructed to pursue the investigation.
Mr. MITCHELL moved to lay the motion the table, but he subsequently withdrew it.
Mr. COFFROTH, (by consent) said he considered that the examination should not be ex parte.
The order moved by Mr. McFadin was then adopted.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
On motion of Mr. WILDMAN, the House took up the business on the Clerk's calendar.
Mr. Cave's bill, [H. R. 110] to amend section forty-seven of the gravel road law was taken up and read the third time.
It was finally passed the Houseyeas70, nays 17.
Mr. Underwood's bill, [H. R. 50] to amend section one and three of the general city corporation act of March 14, 1867 was taken up on the third reading.
Mr. UNDERWOOD explained that the bill makes but one change in the general act--proposing that towns of two thousand five hundred inhabitants instead of three thousand may incorporate as cities.
Mr. DUNN desired, but did not obtain unanimous consent, to amend, so that towns of one thousand eight hundred inhabitants may incorporate as cities.
The bill was finally passed the House--yeas 81, nays 5.Mr Ruddell's bill, [H. R. 72] defining what page: 483[View Page 483] counties shall constitute the Fifth Judicial Circuit, was taken up on the third reading.
Mr. RUDDELL stated that there was a request by the Senator interested, that this bill should be passed in preference to the bill pending in the Senate.
Mr. OSBORN said the courts in Hendricks and Putnam, according to this bill, would be fixed for the same time. He wound ask unanimous consent to so change the time as that it shall not conflict with the court in Putnam.
The bill was passed over.
Mr. CORY moved now, to take up the special order for ten o'clock, viz: his Agricultural College bill, [H. R. 172] and that it be postponed and made the special order for to-morrow, ten o'clock.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. Ruddell's Fifth Circuit Court bill, [H. R. 72] was now taken up and considered as amdended--last Monday in March, and second Monday in November, for Hendricks county.
It was finally passed the House of Representatives--yeas 83, nays 1.
Mr. COFFROTH, under rule sixty, moved that the bill, [S. 90] prohibiting judges, clerks, etc., from practicing law, which failed yesterday for lack of a constitutional majority, be taken up and put again on its passage.
Mr. ZOLLARS made a point of order against the motion, was which overruled by the Speaker.
The second vote thereon resulted--yeas 57, nays 29.
So the bill was finally passed the House of Representatives.
Mr. Stewart of Ohio's, bill [H. R. 36] concerning vagrants and proceedings against the same, was taken up and read the third time.
It was passed the Houseyeas 64, nays 5.
Mr. Furnas' bill, [H. R. 92] to amend section one of the House of Refuge act of March 8, 1867, was taken up and read the third time.
It changes the name to that of the Indiana State Reform School.
Mr. FURNAS said this change was desired by the directors, to remove all idea of a penal colony from that institution.
The bill was passed the House--yeas 84, nays 2.
Mr. Skidmore's bill, [H. R. 97] authorizing the Auditors of the counties of Vermillion and Lake to correct their school fund report account was read the third time.
Mr. BOBO moved to extend the provisions of the bill to the Auditor of Adams county, but the bill being for correction of mistakes, and his county Auditor having made no mistake in his accounts, but submitted his report to the wrong officer he withdrew his motion.
The bill was finally pass the House--yeas 84, nays 0--
Mr. SKIDMORE asking leave to withdraw the bill to amend its title.
Mr. Cotton's bill, [ H. R. 57] to amend section four hundred and forty-five of the civil procedure act--so that no property shall be sold on execution or order of court for less than two-thirds its appraised value, except in judgments on actions of tort--criminal actions--unless otherwise provided by law, was taken up and read the third time.
On motion of Mr. PIERCE of Vigo, it was recommitted to the Committee on the Judiciary, with instructions to make the bill more specific and explicit in its terms.
Mr. Kercheval's bill, [H. R. 123] to amend section three of the act requiring surviving partners to file inventories and appraisments in the Courts of Common Pleas, and report the liabilities of the firm, was read the second time.
Mr. KERCHEVAL stated that the only change it proposes to make in the law is, to require that the surviving partner shall give bond and security for the faithful discharge of the duties of his trust.
The bill was finally passed the House--yeas 81, nays 0.
On motion of Mr. WILLIAMS of Knox, the Senate message returning an engrossed Court bill, was taken up, and the bill was ordered to be engrossed, etc.
Mr. Cunningham's bill, [H. R. 76] to regulate the tenure of certain township offices--trustees, constables and supervisors--was taken up on the third reading.
Mr. LAMBORN moved that it be laid on the table.
Mr. PIERCE of Vigo, said the bill might conflict with the pending bill to make the elections biennial.
The bill was laid on the table accordingly.
On motion of Mr. SHOEMAKER, Mr.. Williams of Union's bill, [H. R. 23] was taken up and made the special order for to-morrow three o'clock.
Mr. McFadin's bill, [H. R. 127] authorizing county recorders to demand and receive their fees at the time deeds, mortgages, etc., are presented for record, was read the third time.
Mr. McFADIN explained its necessity and propriety.
Mr. CARNAHAN stated that, by a letter from a county recorder, he was informed that the office, which would pay him one thousand six hundred dollars, was not remunerative for want of such a provision of law as that proposed in this bill.
The bill was finally passed the House--yeas 86, nays 1.
Mr. Breckinridge's bill, [H. R. 68] to amend sections sixty-three and sixty-nine of chapter twelve of the general city corporation act of page: 484[View Page 484] March 14, 1867--opening and improvement of streets, alleys, etc.--was taken up and read the third time.
Mr. BRECKINRIDGE said the bill was to supply an omission in the general city law. He gave an example of hardship under it. The bill allows the Common Council to change the grade of streets where improvement is still good, and charge the property owners etc. The object of the bill is to protect parties from unjust assessments for improvements of street; for instance, after a surveyor has established the grade of a street, to prevent a town or city council from assessing an additional tax in certain cases for proposed changes from that established grade.
The bill was finally passed the House--yeas 80, nays 0.
Mr. Odell's bill, [H. R. 71] to amend section thirteen of the general town incorporation act of June 11, 1852, with reference to assessments was read the third time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Parke, obtained unanimous consent to offer an amendment--strike out "thirteen" and insert "thirty-one" as to the amended section, and to amend one so as to make all property liable to town assessment that is liable to taxation for State purposes.
Mr. JOHNSON of Marshall, supported the amendment.
The amendment was adopted by unanimous consent.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Knox, said he could never support a bill that would authorize the Board of Trustees to extend their corporation limits, and tax, without limit the adjoining farms.
Mr. JOHNSON of Parke, and Mr. ODELL, said it does not extend this power beyond the corporate limits.
Mr. McFADIN expressed himself satisfied with the provisions of the bill.
Mr. FIELD of Lake, hoped the bill would not pass. Now a town could not tax a lot of land exceeding twenty-eight acres. This would allow the town to annex and tax a man's farm.
Mr. VATER moved that it be recommitted to the Committee on Cities and Towns, with instructions to perfect the bill.
The motion was rejected.
On motion of Mr. CORY, the further consideration of the bill was indefinitely postponed--yeas 49, nays 29.
Mr. Osborn's bill, [H. R. 167] defining certain misdemeanors and prescribing punishment therefor; fixing the fees of certain officers, and to prevent minors from playing billiards, was taken up, and read a third time.
Mr. WELBORN said there is now a sufficiently stringent law against keeping a billiard table.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. For the purpose of gaming.
Mr. WELBORN read and construed the section, and hence he did not see the necessity of the bill.
Mr. STEPHENSON said that under the present statute it was necessary to prove the fact of playing for money--for a wager laid--gaming--and it was almost impossible to get a conviction. This bill was expedient for the protection of minors.
Mr. OSBORN said this last was the sole object of the bill. It had been demanded by parties sending boys to school at a distance. He gave examples of the dissipation it would suppress. The existing law as to billiards amounts to nothing. The bill proposes to fine the keeper of a billard table for gain or profit. It would not apply to the keeper of a private billard table for social purposes.
The bill passed the House of Representativesyeas 65, nays 14.
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., and announced the consideration of the special order, viz: Mr. Stephenson's bill, [H. R. 78] in relation to county officer's fees, regulating allowances of County Boards, etc., and amendments thereto, whereupon according to order--
COUNTY OFFICERS SALARIES OR FEES--WHICH?
The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole--Mr. Stewart of Rush in the Chair--and took up said bill and the pending amendments thereto, viz: Mr. Coffroth's amendment substituting the Senate bill No. 60, and amendments heretofore described, which were read.
Mr. GORDON proposed a new bill, by way of substitute, for the bill and amendments.
Mr. STEPHENSON raised the point that another amendment would be in the third degree, and therefore inadmissable.
The CHAIRMAN ruled that Mr. Gordon's proposition is in order as a substitute.
The substitute was then read. It allows Clerks, Auditors, Sheriffs, and Treasurers one thousand two hundred dollars, payable quarterly out of their fees; and for deputy hire six hundred dollars additional for each excess of three thousand voters; and an additional three hundred dollars for each additional excess of one thousand voters, etc.
Mr. OSBORN offered an amendment to the substitute, striking out what relates to Clerks, and inserting specific fees for the Clerks of the Circuit and Common Pleas Courts; striking out what relates to County Auditors, and inserting specific fees also for his compensation. page: 485[View Page 485] Mr. Osborn intended his amendment to effect only the offices of Clerks and Auditors, as an amendment to Mr. Gordon's substitute.
Mr. GORDON might think more favorably of the amendment if it included all county offices. The original proposition and Mr. Coffroth's amendment might work well, if faithfully carried out. His substitute provides that these officers shall receive one thousand two hundred dollars, and an additional of six hundred dollars and three hundred dollars for deupties' hire--the deputy hire for Treasurer being four hundred dollars and two hundred dollars, according to the amount of business. These officers it was provided, shall be paid quarterly, out of their fees, and be held to a strict acconnt, under penalty, as to fees, etc. In the original bills and amendments there was no law requiring these officers to tax fees and collect them. Hence these fees would be used as a corruption fund to affect the succeeding election.
Mr. WELBORN asked Mr. Gordon, did his proposition repeal the law in regard to taxing and collecting fees?
Mr. GORDON answered in the negative.
Mr. McFADIN had come to the conclusion that it is now next to impossible to pass the salary bill. The General Assembly seemed now in favor of going over and regulating and reducing the fee bills. Then the only way to meet the difficulty was to make it impossible to tax constructive fees, as now, in the counties of Miami and Cass--in the former the fees are being taxed nearly twice as high as in the latter. He referred to the constitutional difficulties in the way of a salary bill for these county officers, and he had learned on his late visit to his home, that the people are unfavorable to the project of prescribing salaries for county officers. He would not say that there should be some cutting down of fees in order to reduce the compensation of county officers in the more populous counties, but he was satisfied that the people are unfriendly to the effort to compensate county officers by salary. He considered still as he had before said here, that the only way for a satisfactory resolution of this matter would be by referring this whole subject to a good special committee, with instructions to revise and regulate the fees of these officers--specifying distinctly how much each shall have for his services, and no more. He rather favored these latter amendments.
Mr. KERCHEVAL was assured that this trouble, in a great measure, had grown out the judges admitting of allowances of fees for extra services. He agreed with Mr. McFadin in his statement, that the people are not friendly to the project of compensating county officers by salary, and moved that the whole subject be referred to a special committee of seven, to be composed of the two gentlemen originally presenting the subject, and others familiar with the business of the county officers.
Mr. STEWART of Ohio, concurred in the opposition of Mr. McFadin and Mr. Kercheval, that the difficulty can not be remedied by a salary bill. His people were not complaining of the present fee bill; but he was willing to unite with the House in an effort to regulate and restrict the fee bills. These salary bills were too complicate, requiring the poll books to be overhauled, etc. How are you to keep an account of how much work the clerk does? Who knows when he acknowledges a deed, etc. And penalties could not reach these cases. He urged as a reason for opposing the bill, that it will be an additional cost to his county, and he thought it would prove so to many other counties of the State, its principal virtue being that it will reduce the excessively large profits reaped by county officers in the few most populous counties of the State. He thought the bill would fail, in the main to accomplish any good. He favored the motion for reference, with instructions to revise the fee bills. He was not afraid of too great a reduction. His county was about as small as any; and they have never had occasion to complain for lack of competent men in the county offices. He could hardly oppose Mr. Gordon's substitute, but still thought it were better for the subject to go to a committee.
Mr. COFFROTH considered that the Committee of the Whole could not proceed further with profit it this complicated subject. He therefore moved that the committee rise and report the bill and proposed amendment to the House, without recommendation. A motion to refer to a special committee could not be in order in Committee of the Whole.
Mr. OSBORN objected, saying that he was too well acquainted with the summary manner of disposing of things in the House to believe that any thing like a fair expression of views could be had. He thought it better to have some further expression in Committee of the Whole.
Mr. STEPHENSON preferred that the committee rise and let the matter go into the House where from the mass of amendments pending there could be a selection made of such propositions as the House can mature and adopt.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Knox, also advised that the committee rise, and he promised a motion in the House to refer the subject to a special committee of one from each Congressional District.
Mr. NEFF said there had been as yet but little discussion of this question. This salary bill, he alleged, would draw one hundred and page: 486[View Page 486] twenty thousand dollars annually from the county treasuries. He would not assist in the passage of a bill throwing burdens on all the smaller counties of the State to relieve those larger counties, where they were not able to fill the county offices with honest men. Would the people of the State be willing to sustain legislation that would tax them to pay their county officers who now live entirely from the fees paid by litigants?
The committee then rose, and the chairman reported the subject to the House without recommendations and asked and obtained discharge from the further consideration of the same.
Mr. PIERCE of Vigo, said, between Mr. Stephenson's bill and Mr. Coffroth's amendment there was not so much choice. The former he regarded as unconstitutional, whilst the latter was not liable to that objection. He was not wholly unfavorable to Mr. Gordon's substitute, but Mr. Osborn's was a proposition to reverse the matter.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Knox, moved to refer the subject to a special committee of one from each Congressional District.
Mr. McFADIN proposed to amend by referring the subject to a special committee of seven, viz; Messrs. Stephenson, Coffroth, Gordon, Fuller, Osborn and Neff.
Mr. BOBO proposed instructions to report a specific fee bill--not a salary bill.
Mr. DITTEMORE moved to lay the amendments to Mr. Williams' motion on the table.
Mr. COFFROTH wanted a test vote between a fee bill and a salary bill.
Mr. PIERCE of Vigo, also preferred a test of the House as between a fee bill and a salary bill; but that object could be better gained by considering the bills by sections.
Mr. COFFROTH moved to lay the amendment offered by Mr. Osborn on the table. Both the original bill and his amendments were salary bills, while Mr. Osborn's amendment was looking to a fee bill. Now, to decide which of them the House prefers, he moved to lay Mr. Osborn's amendment on the tablea motion which has preference to a motion to commit. He, however, withdrew the motion for Mr. Dittemore's motion, now modified so as to lay the motion of Mr. Bobo, amending Mr. McFadin's motion, on the table, which would bring the House to the same test. This motion also he withdrew for--
Mr. BOBO, who replied to Mr. Gordon, objecting to Mr. G's. bill by asking, by what right an officer should be allowed to tax more fees than his services are worth? Then, what analogy was there between the services of those officers--the Auditor and Sheriff? Why should the Sheriff take half the fees the law allows him, and put it into the County Treasury to help to pay the Auditor for his services? There was a difference and a difficulty here which could be adjusted only by a well considered fee bill. This bill, No. 78, was to make litigants pay more than the just cost of their suits for the privilege of having justice done, which is a principle most absurd. He showed at length the propriety and the justice of a fairly compensating fee bill for those offices in all the counties of the State. As to the justice and uniformity of the salary bills, did it appear in the fact, that a single additional voter would add a thousand dollars to the county expenses? It would be repealed by the next Legislature.
Mr. MONROE considered that the salary bill would involve insuperable difficulty in its operation. He gave a particular example of its application to the County Treasurer, who might close his books in the spring with a large delinquent list because (without a clerk) he was unable to collect the taxes. His opinion was, that the great difficulty about these large amount of fees, exist in the fact, that the fees have not been properly and justly taxed. He gave examples also of this. It would be well to provide that there shall be no fee on papers between the Auditor and the Treasurer, and to prevent a most offensive and annoying system of doubling and trebling the fees. He contended that a just fee bill was the most direct and satisfactory method by which we could reach an equitable compensation for these county officers.
Mr. STEPHENSON replied to Mr. Monroe. The fee bill would have to be revised as often as we change the records, their character and the number necessary in trying a case. He alleged the presumption of the pretense of any Legislature to enact a perfect fee bill. Also the unconstitutionality of taxing litigants for the common good. Such a bill as Mr. Gordon's would create a surplus of over twenty thousand dollars a year in the single county of Marion. He supported the principle on which his bill proceeds, as contrasted with the fee bill principle. He replied to Mr. Stewart of Ohio's, objecting to the salary principle and he claimed that it would work a saving of a million a year to the State.
Mr. GORDON spoke to meet the objection of the gentleman from Adams [Mr. Bobo] in regard to the effect of the original bill in the smaller counties, which is obviated by his [Mr. G's.] bill.
Mr. RUDDELL spoke in favor of a fee bill, and he discanted on the injustice of making litigants contribute to the county revenue.
Mr. FULLER now renewed the motion to lay the amendment of Mr. Bobo on the table.
Mr. COFFROTH expressed satisfaction that the matter had finally assumed this shape, for it would serve as a test vote, indicating the page: 487[View Page 487] preference of the House, by which a committee, should any be appointed, might be guided in its labors and demanded the ayes and noes.
The yeas and nays thereon, resulted--yeas 20, nays 66--as follows:
YEAS--Messrs. Admire, Barnett, Coffroth, Cory, Cunningham, Dittemore, Dunn, Green, Hamilton, Johnson of Parke, McGregor, Odell, Overmyer, Pierce of Vigo, Stephenson, Vater, Wildman, Williams of Hamilton, Zollars and Mr. Speaker--20.
NAYS--Messrs. Addison, Baker, Barritt, Bates, Beatty, Beeler, Bobo, Breckinridge, Calvert, Carnahan, Cave, Chapman, Cox, Davidson, Davis, Fairchild, Field of Lake, Field of Lagrange, Fuller,Furnas, Gilham, Gordon, Hall, Higbee, Higgins, Hutchings, Huttson, Hyatt, Johnston of Montgomery, Johnson of Marshall, Jump, Kercheval, Lawler, Lamborn, Logan, Long, McDonald, McFadin, Millekan, Miller, Miles, Mitchell, Moek, Monroe, Montgomery, Neff, Palmer, Ruddell, Sabin, Shoaff, Shoemaker, Skidmore, Sleeth, Smith, Stewart of Ohio, Stewart of Rush, Sunman, Tabor, Tebbs, Underwood, Vardeman, Welborn, Williams of Knox, Williams of St. Joseph, Williams of Union, and Zenor--66.
Mr. COX, explaining his vote, said: I shall vote "No" on this question, from the fact that I am opposed to taking from Widows and orphans of dead men to replenish the county treasuries of the State.
So the amendment was not laid on the table, and the question recurred on its adoption.
Mr. BOBO, replying to Mr. Coffroth, said he proposed to instruct the Committee to report a specific bill, so as not to accumulate fees in the treasury for general purposes. The result would be, perhaps, to revise the fee existing bill.
Mr. PIERCE of Vigo, moved to indefinitely postpone the whole subject.
Mr. MITCHELL moved to lay the motion to postpone on the table.
The yeas and nays thereon resulted--yeas 71, nays 17.
So the motion to postpone was laid on the table, and then--
Under a decision of the SPEAKER, (Mr. Welborn in the Chair,) the question recurred on Mr. McFadin's motion to amend Mr. William's motion--it being understood that Mr. Bobo's amendment is accepted by Mr. McFadin.
Mr. McFADIN now asked and obtained leave to withdraw his motion, and the question recurred on Mr. Williams of Knox's, motion to refer to a committee of one from each Congressional District.
Mr. BOBO now offered his amendment to Mr. Williams' motion, which was agreed to.
Mr. VATER proposed to instruct further: To secure in the bill a prohibition of any allowance to any county officer by the Judge of any Court or by any County Board.
Mr. RUDDELL and Mr. WILDMAN opposed Mr. Vater's instructions.
Mr. VATER withdrew his proposition for a better, but he was opposed to allowing any such discretion in the hands of the judges, or of the county commissioners.
Mr. SHOEMAKER proposed instructions, by way of a bill, prohibiting courts and county commissioners from making allowances to county officers, which are not distinctly set forth by law.
Mr. RUDDELL proposed to amend the instructions further, so as to provide that no such allowance be made to an county officer whose salary amounts to two thousand dollars.
Mr. McDONALD moved that the amendments be laid on the table.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. Williams of Knox's, motion was then adopted.
Mr. BOBO asked and obtained leave to submit a concurrent resolution to withdraw the county seat bill, [S. 133] for correction and further consideration. He explained that this enrolled act proposed to amend a section of the act of 1855, heretofore repealed.
Mr. COFFROTH suggested that this engrossed act of the Senate had been passed the House, and a motion to reconsider the passage had been laid on the table, so it was utterly out of the power of the House to take any action on it. The only possible way the difficulty can be reached must be by a new bill.
And then--
The House adjourned till nine o'clock a. m. to-morrow.
