AFTERNOON SESSION.
The SPEAKER resumed the Chair at two o'clock p. m., and announced the orders of the day.
Mr. SLEETH (by consent) submitted a resolution for an order (which was adopted by consent;) that when the House adjourns this afternoon, it shall be till half-past seven o'clock p. m., for the introduction of bills and resolutions.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
The committee's Escheats bill, [H. R. 135] was taken up on the third reading. [Escheats which have remained twenty years in the Treasury to go to the Common School Fund.]
Mr. VATER said there was now in the Treasury of the State about sixteen thousand dollars belonging to estates without heirs. It was proposed to make it productive as school money--to put it into State bonds.
The bill was finally passed the House, yeas 67, nays 0.
On motion of Mr. RUDDELL, Mr. Millikan's gravel road bill, [H. R. 52] was taken up and made the special order for Monday two o'clock.
INSANE IN ANOTHER COUNTY.
Mr. Neff's bill, [H. R. 124] supplemental to the act to provide for the confinement and care of insane persons, approved February 1, 1855, where the insane person's legal settlement is in another county, and on compensation, etc., was taken up on the third reading and finally passed the House--yeas 85, nays 0.
BOUNTY FUNDS.
Mr. Welborn's bill, [H. R. 40] to enable page: 532[View Page 532] County Commissioners to demand, sue for and recover and receive any bounty fund, which may remain unexpended and unpaid, was taken up in order. [It proposes to place the proceeds of such demands, etc., to the credit of the special school fund.]
The bill was read the third time and finally passed the House of Representatives--yeas 74, nays 0.
FELONY OF STANDING CORN, MELONS, ETC.
The Agricultural Committee's bill, [H. R. 134] to amend section seventy-six ot the criminal practice act, of February 14,1865, amendatory of the general act of 1852, was taken up on the third reading.
Mr. BEELER said it makes it lawful to take offenders before a justice of the peace without warrant.
Mr. OSBORN said that it took away the penalty for going on the premises for nothing. He was opposed to it if that was the case. Unlawful going upon the land of another is going without consent, expressed or implied. This was the only relief which farmers have against fox hunters breaking down fences, etc. He proposed to amend the bill so as to restore the force of this common law offense, which was adopted by unanimous consent; and so the bill was considered as engrossed, and passed the final reading in the House of Representatives yeas 64, nays 6.
SPRING BALANCES.
Mr. Vater's bill, [H. R. 63] prohibiting the use of spring balances for articles sold by weight, was taken up in its order on the third reading.
Mr. CARNAHAN was opposed to the bill. We are sufficiently protected by the statute against frauds. There was no such thing as protection against these short weights and measures by special legislation. The general statutes and public opinion constitute the better protection. He did not believe the people of the State at large demand such a measure, and thought the good people of Indianapolis who seek, through one of their Representatives, protection from the abuses in the use of the spring balances, might profit by watching as well as praying.
Mr. UNDERWOOD said that he had been selling spring balances for about nine years, and his experience was that very few are correct, even when new, and that all become after a little use entirely unreliable.
Mr. McFADIN spoke in favor of the bill, and thought it was demanded for the best interests of the people.
Mr. VATER urged the passage of his bill, stating its propriety, and that it was generally demanded.
The bill was finally passed the House of Representatives--yeas 64, nays 14.
CLOSE IN CRIMINAL ACTIONS.
Mr. Zollars' bill, [H. R. 5] to amend the one hundred and third section of the general Criminal Practice act of June 17, 1852, was taken up in order on the third reading. It proposes to amend so that the State shall close the argument.
Mr. BOBO spoke against its passage, making a general argument against the bill, because it would be more oppressive than the rules of practice in civil cases where nothing more sacred than dollars and cents are at stake. In civil actions the plaintiff opens and the defendant closes the argument, and of late the defendant is permitted to be a witness, etc. This bill was a proposition to hem in the rights of the defendent, where his life may be at stake. He replied to the plea that this bill was necessary to make the State stand on an equality with the defense--alleging that the prosecuting attorneys as to their legal ability were a fair average among attorneys the State over. This taking away the right of the closing argument was to give the defendent wholly into the hands of the State.
Mr. OSBORN said for the last several years we have been giving all advantage in criminal trials to the defendants; and complaints against this tendency of our legislation were coming up here from all parts of the State. It was the right of the people to demand the enforcement of their laws. The rules of our criminal practice were all favorable to the criminal. It was the right of the people to have their laws enforced without any necessity for individual contributions to employ counsel in aid of the State's prosecutor.
Mr. WELBORN suggested that the words "district attorney" should be in the bill as well as prosecutor, but did not insist it.
Mr. OSBORN continued, enforcing the propriety of giving the closing argument to the State.
Mr. LAMBORN explained his negative vote by saying that he should be ashamed to go home and face his constituents, after voting for a bill of this character, which he regarded as a disgrace to the civililation of the age, and to the religion of Jesus Christ.
Mr. STEWART of Rush, demanded the previous question, and under its pressure the bill was brought to the final vote, resulting--yeas 52, nays 35.
So the bill passed the House.
NOBLESVILLE.
Mr. Stephenson's bill, [H. R. 160] to legalize the official acts of the several Boards of Trustees of the town of Noblesville, and other officers of said corporation, taken under the page: 533[View Page 533] general act of June 11, 1852, was taken up in order on the third reading.
Mr. STEPHENSON stated that the sole object of the bill is to save and quiet the title to the school property of the town, likely to come into dispute on account of the loss or displacement of the public records of the town.
The bill was finally passed the House of Representatives--yeas 69, nays 1.
COLORED COMMON SCHOOLS.
The Committee's bill, [H. R. 113] to provide separate common schools for colored children, was taken up in order on the third reading, and was finally passed the House--yeas 52, nays 36--as follows:
YEAS--Messrs. Baker, Barnet, Beatty, Bowen.Beeler, Breckinridge, Buskirk, Chapman, Chittenden, Davidson, Davis, Dunn, Fairchild, Field of Lake, Field of Lagrange, Furnas, Gilham, Green, Hall, Hamilton, Higbee, Higgins, Hutson, Johnson of Parke, Johnson of Marshall, Jump, Kercheval, Mason, Millekan, Miller, Mitchell. Monroe, Osborn, Pierce of Porter, Pierce of Vigo, Ratliff, Ruddell, Shoaff, Skidmore, Smith, Stephfnson, Stewart of Ohio, Stewart of Rush, Taber, Underwood, Vardeman, Vater, Wildman, Williams of Hamilton, Williams of St. Joseph, Williams of Union, and Mr. Speaker--52.
NAYS--Messrs. Addison, Barritt, Bates, Bobo, Britton, Calvert, Carnahan, Cave, Coffroth, Cory, Cox, Cunningham, Dittemore, Fuller, Hutchings, Johnson of Montgomery, Lawler, Lamborn, Logan, Long, McBride, McDonald, McFadin, McGregor, Miles, Miner, Neff, Odell, Palmer, Shoemaker, Sleeth, Sunman, Welborn, Williams of Knox, Zenor and Zollars--36.
Mr. LAMBORN explained his vote as follows: Mr. Speakes: I desire to give the reasons as to how I vote on this bill. Being engaged when it was called up, I did not notice until the roll call had commenced, and being silenced when it was on its engrossment by the previous question, I have no resource but to spread my reasons on the Journal.
For thirty years of my life, I have stood beneath the negro: have asked for no rights for myself that I have not been willing to grant to him. I look upon him as a man and a brother, and ask no privileges in the common schools of the State, for my children, but that I am willing to accord to the humblest colored child in the State. This bill is founded upon a prejudice that is unjust, indecent and anti-christian, a prejudice that has no existence in any country on the Globe except our own, that claims to be civilized. The bill literally shuts the door of our Common Schools to the black man, unless they are in sufficient numbers to have separate schools, and the friends of this bill know full well that this is the case but in a small portion of the counties in the State. A negro may live and own property in the State, pay tax as other men, and yet must be compelled to let his children remain in ignorance or sacrifice his property and go where he find enough of his race to form a Common School. The law is contrary to our Constitution, in the section providing for Common Schools. I vote on this bill with the Democrats of this House, but for a very different reason. They wish to deprive him of all the advantages of our educational system. I vote against it because it opens the schools to my children and shuts them to the colored race, and after having gone through what I have for the negro, I shall not, in this age, turn my back upon him. With him I am willing my political life shall rise or fall. But let me say, that that party, or that organization which ignores the rights of any class or race of God's people, will fall, be it ever so strong before the rising tide of the age. If the Republican party can stand, it must stand on ideas. It drew its first breath in the atmosphere of that principle which asks for the equal rights and equal brotherhood of mankind. It must still stand there, or be swept before the tidal wave of that great underlying truth, which brought our nation into existence, and which proclaimed in the face of despotism of centuries of duration, the vital principle of man's equality before the law. Believing this bill to be wrong, and calculated to foster and encourage an ignorant prejudice that had its origin in the wrong of slavery, I can not, now, that that system has gone down, aid by my vote, anything that is calculated to uphold and sustain the degradation it heaped upon the victims of its power. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I vote No, and ask to have them spread upon the Journal.
Mr. RATLIFF proposed an amendment of the title, which was adopted, viz: "An act to render taxation for common school purposes uniform, and to provide for the education of the colored children of the State."
PRIVATE CEMETERIES.
Mr. Stewart of Rush's private cemetery exemption bill, [H. R. 161] was taken up on the third reading, and finally passed the House--yeas 80, nays 0.
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES.
Mr. Breckinridge's bill, [H. R. 60] supplemental to the act for the incorporation of insurance companies, of January 17, 1852, and December 20, 1865, was taken up in order on the third reading. (It is a carefully prepared and well guarded bill of two sections filled with important specific regulations, with penalty for their infraction.)
Mr. UNDERWOOD said this bill is a substitute for Mr. Breckinridge's bill, introduced January 18. It requires life insurance companies so have a bonafide capital of one hundred thousand dollars and imposes on them additional liabilities. It is estimated that ten page: 534[View Page 534] millions of dollars are annually taken out of the State by life insurance companies, He could see no reason why we could not have in this State just as good companies as they have in any other State. It is the purpose of this bill to protect the people from bogus concerns, and is almost an exact copy of the New York law.
The bill was passed--yeas 63, nays 10.
Mr. UNDERWOOD moved an amendment of the title which was agreed to.
CATTLE AT LARGE.
Mr. Johnson of Marshall's, bill [H. R. 143] supplementary to the act which provides for the regulation of all sorts of animals running at large, authorizing such cattle to be impounded and sold, etc., was taken up on the third reading.
Mr. JOHNSON said under our present law the County Commissioners may define what kind of animals may run at large. He then stated a late Supreme Court decision, coming up from Allen county, in which it is held that the owner is liable for damages occasioned by his stock running at large, as by the train and cow colliding. This bill provides that where the County Commissioners allow stock to run at large, then the owner is not liable for any damage they may occasion. He stated, however, that there was probably some humbug connected with this decision. The railroad obtained the judgment against the farmer for five thousand dollars for the damage occasioned by the collision of their train with his cow; but the farmer did not have the five thousand dollars to pay, etc.
Mr. ZOLLARS desired time to examine this bill further, and hoped it would be passed over for that purpose. But--
After debate by Messrs. Buskirk, Cunningham, Coffroth and others--the bill passed the final reading in the House--yeas 82, nays 0--with an amendment of title.
TOWNSHIP DEBTS.
Mr. Dunn's bill, [H. R. 37] to authorize township trustees to sell bonds, and procure means to build school houses, pay debts., etc., was taken up on the third reading.
Mr. DUNN explained its provisions and stated circumstances which made them especially desirable in his locality.
The bill was finally passed the House of Representatives--yeas 66, nays 15.
The Committee on Ways and Means, Prisons, Fees and Salaries were excused from attendance to-night.
Messrs. Hutchings, Vardeman, Hall and Stephenson severally obtained leave of obtained leave of absence for to-night, etc.
Mr. VARDEMAN moved to reconsider the vote of this day by which it was ordered that the House will adjourn only to half past seven to-night which was rejected, yeas 34, nays 49.
And then--
The House took a recess till half past seven o'clock p. m.
