AFTERNOON SESSION.
On motion by Mr. CRAVENS, the Senate adhered to its amendments to the Criminal Circuit Court bill [H. R. 90], and asked for a Committee of Conference thereon.
The bill [H. R. 143] supplemental to the act concerning the running at large of animals, approved May 31, 1852, coming up under an order for the consideration of numerous bills designated by several Senators, it was read the second time and passed to third reading.
The bill [H. R. 341] creating the 28th Judical Circuit, corning up under the same order, it was read the third time.
page: 121[View Page 121]Mr. HENDERSON explained that Johnson county had been legislated out of any Court at all, and that the attorneys and people of Morgan county preferred to remain in the Circuit they have been in. He desired the rule suspened so that the bill may be read the second time as he desired to strike Morgan county out of it.
Mr. ROBINSON, of Decatur, had no objection to the location of this new circuit. There is probably really a neccessity for it, but he desired his circuit to remain as it is, consequently he opposed the amendment indicated by Mr. Henderson.
The motion to dispense with the Constitutional restriction was agreed to, and the bill was read the second time.
Mr. HENDERSON moved to amend the bill by striking out Morgan county, and all that relates thereto.
Mr. ROBINSON, of Decatur, moved to refer the bill to a select committee to be composed of Senators interested.
Mr. HANNA moved to refer the bill to the Committee on Organization of Courts, with instructions to inquire into the expediency of adding Johnson county to the Fourth Circuit, and striking out the balance of the bill.
Mr. HENDERSON preferred to see the bill pass as it is.
The motion to refer with instructions was agreed to.
Mr. Stein's bill [S. 215] to authorize county and townships to take stock in and make donations to railroad companies, coming up under the omnibus special order of business, it was read the third time.
Mr. HANNA raised two constitutional objections to the bill-and read a part of two sections in that instrument, with which he said the bill conflicted.
Mr. STEIN declared that the bill was drafted in view of the constitutional sections referred to by Mr. Hanna, and that ii was not obnoxious to those or to any other constitutional provision. He re-read several sections of the bill and explained their Provisions. He also read a brief, prepared by an eminent lawyer, reviewing the constitutional questions that affect the bill, paving answered the constitutional objection urged against the bill, he proceed a to state reasons for its passage, as a matter of policy.
Mr. HANNA, although interested in the passage of a measure of this kind, could not extend to it his support while satisfied that is in direct conflict with the State Constitution. And he proceeded to compare several clauses in the bill with several provisions of the Constitution to substantiate his declaration that this measure does run counter to the organic law of the State.
Mr. GRAY doubted the Constitutionality of the bill; and opposed it for the additional reason that it would tax in many counties those not liable to taxation as well as those who are.
Mr. CARSON also doubted its constitutionality, but should vote for the bill.
It passed the Senate by yeas 30, nays 6.
The bill [H. R. 53] to regulate the mileage of Sheriffs in conveying convicts to the State's Prisons, being the next in the series, was read the first time.
Mr. JOHNSON, of Spencer, moved that the rule be suspended that the bill may be pressed to its final passage.
Mr. FISHER noticed a great many imperfections in the bill and hoped it would be sent to a committee.
Mr. JOHNSON, of Spencer, withdrew his motion.
The bill was passed to the second reading.
The bill [H. R. 100] to amend section 10 of the Justices' act of June 9, 1852, was read the second time and referred to the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. Hess' bill [S. 75], to protect the citizens of Indiana from empiricism, and to elevate the standing of the medical profession, having previously failed to pass-April 20-for want of a Constitutional majority, was again put upon its passage.
The bill passed the Senate by yeas 28, nays 9.
Mr. Armstrong's bill [S. 310] to establish uniformity in the measurement of lime, was read the third time.
Mr. WOLCOTT said the lime burners give 80 pounds to the bushel in his section, and it would be better to make the maximum weight the standard. He asked, but railed to obtain, unanimous consent to amend the bill by striking out "70" and inserting "80" in lieu.
Mr. ARMSTRONG stated that bill was drawn up in the interest of those who are dealing largely in lime. He understood 70 pounds was the standard bushel in Ohio, ind by this bill he desired to obtain uniformity throughout the State.
Mr. ROBINSON, of Decatur, thought this bill might do great injustice to some sections. He preferred to let the matter regulate itself.
Mr. CARSON asked, and obtained unanimous consent, to strike from the bill the emergency clause.
The bill failed to pass for want of a constitutional majority - yeas 20, nays 15.
The bill [H. R. 310] touching vacancies in county and township [offices?] was read the second time.
Mr. TURNER moved to dispense with the constitutional restriction in order that the bill may be read the third time now.
Mr. ROBINSON, of Madison, understood that this bill was intended to obtain an appointment by the County Commissioners of page: 122[View Page 122] Allen county of an Auditor of that county to hold over until the election of 1870 under the new law.
Mr. TURNER would be frank enough to say that he imagined the Democratic counties desired Democratic Commissioners to fill any vacancies that may occur in those counties, and not allow these appointments to be made by the Governor of the State.
Mr. ROBINSON, of Madison, for that reason opposed the bill, and moved its reference to the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. CHURCH was inclined to think that he should favor the bill, but would vote for its reference to the Committee.
The motion to refer was agreed to by yeas 20, nays 15.
Mr. Scott's bill [S. 188] to provide for the sale of certain State lands in the county of Clay, was read the third time.
Mr. SCOTT stated that there was but 13 1/3 acres of this land, and he knew of no law that would grant a partition to the joint owner of the tract. He held in his hand the opinion of the Attorney General, on the title of the State to this land; which should be read, if any Senator desired.
Mr. TURNER opposed a sale of this land at this time. It was rising in value rapidly, and there was a proposition to move the county seat near to it. He moved to refer the bill to the Committee on Rights and Privileges of the inhabitants of the State.
Mr. CARSON demanded the previous question. The demand was seconded by the Senate, and under the operations of the previous question-
The motion to refer was rejected by yeas 17, nays 19.
The bill failed to pass for want of a Constitutional majority-yeas 24, nays 12.
Mr. Gray's bill [S. 153] to amend section 7 of the act for the election and appointment of supervisors of Highways, approved March 5th, 1859, was read the second time, and passed to the third reading.
Mr. Wolcotts's bill [S. 285] to amend section 1 of the act incorporating the University of Notre Dame Du Lac, at South Bend, St. Joseph county, Indiana, approved January 15, 1844, was read the third time, with the committee amendments striking out "320" and inserting in lieu "20" acres-exempt from taxation.
Mr. WOLCOTT stated that all the University asked for is permission to hold $100,000 in real estate, instead of $30,000. The friends of the bill ask that the committee amendment be rejected, or that all that refers to exemption be stricken from the bill. He moved to strike from the bill all that refers to exemption from taxation.
Mr. RICE stated that with the consent of the President of the Institution, and a friend present before the committee, amendment was agreed to.
Mr. TURNER was inclined to think University has a right to claim the exemption granted to other institutions of like character. He hoped Senators not discriminate against this institution simply because it is a Catholic College Let us do equally with all institutions of learning, whether they be conducted by Catholics, or Methodists, or any other denomination.
Mr. CARSON presented considerations which influenced the committee in recommending this amendment. He was willing to deal liberally with all such institutions and should vote for the amendment offered by Mr. Wolcott.
The amendment (Mr. Wolcott's) was agreed to.
The bill passed the Senate by yeas 31, nays 4.
A committee bill [S. 212] to repeal section 3 of the plank road law of March 1 1867, was read the second time and ordered engrossed for the third reading.
The bill [H. R. 132] to enable cities to aid in the construction of railroads and water powers was read the third time.
Mr. CARSON asked and obtained unanimous consent to amend the bill by requiring a majority of resident freeholders to join in the petition.
The bill passed by yeas 34, nays 1.
On motion by Mr. JAQUESS, the bill [H. R. 6] providing for the location, construction and use of lateral railroads was read the third time and passed the Senate by yeas 28, nays 9.
And then the Senate adjourned.
