IN SENATE.
TUESDAY, May 4, 1869.The Senate met at 9 o'clock A, M. On motion by Mr. JAQUESS, the reading of the Secretary's minutes of yesterday was dispensed with.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Mr. BRADLEY, from the special committee thereon, returned his bill [S. 347] to establish Criminal Courts in the counties of Laporte and St. Joseph, recommending its passage.
On his further motion, the order of business was dispensed with, and the bill was road the third time and passed the Senate by yeas 26, nays 13.
Mr. FISHER, from a majority of the select committee to which was referred the Court bill [H. R. 11] reported a substitute therefor, creating the Twenty-second Judicial District.
Mr. ARMSTRONG asked and obtain leave to submit a minority report at some future time.
Mr. FISHER urged haste in the matter - he feared delay.
Mr. GREEN, from the Special Committee thereon, returned his townplat petition for school buildings bill [S. 348] introduced yesterday, recommending its passage.
On his further motion, his bill was read the third time, the order of business being suspended for that purpose.
Mr. GREEN explained its provisions. It was especially intended to apply to the town of Sharpesville, so that citizens can petition that a certain square may be used exclusively for school purposes. The bill passed by yeas 36, nays 4.
Mr. STEIN, from the Committee on Organization of Courts, returned the court bill [H. R. 341] with amendments, striking out the word "Morgan."
Mr. ROBINSON, of Decatur, moved to amend the amendment by substituting "Shelby" for "Morgan," and gave reason for desiring the change.
Mr. HENDERSON knew of objections by the attorneys of Morgan county to going into this new circuit. He hoped the committee's amendment would be agreed to and the bill passed as amended.
Mr. BELLAMY desired to see both amendments laid on the table.
Mr. HADLEY reminded Senators that Johnson county was now without a court, and he hoped there would be no trouble about this bill, for fear Johnson county would not be provided for this session.
Mr. LEE said Bartholomew county desired more time; and he would like to see the bill amended in that respect.
Mr. TAGGART hoped the bill would pass as it came from the House.
After further remarks by Mr. Hanna and Mr. Bellamy, the latter made an ineffectual motion to lay the amendments on the table.
The amendment to the amendment was rejected.
Mr. TURNER, understanding that a majority of the citizens interested desired the bill as it came from the House, favored its passage without amendment.
Mr. HENDERSON had petitions both ways on this subject, but believed a majority of the citizens of Morgan county desired the bill amended as proposed by the Committee.
Mr. DENBO suggested that the bill be taken as it comes from the House, because the end of the session is so near at hand.
The committee amendment was agreed to by yeas 32, nays 12.
Mr. BELLAMY moved to amend by striking Bartholemew county from the bill.
page: 153[View Page 153]On motion by Mr. HENDERSON the amendment was laid on the table.
Mr. ROBINSON of Decatur moved to amend by adding a section affecting his county-the courts may hold as long as business requires.
The amendment was agreed to.
On motion by Mr. LEE the bill was further amended by granting one week's more time to the Bartholomew Court.
The bill, as amended, passed the Senate by yeas 35, nays 7, with an amendment of title.
AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR announced the special order for this hour being the consideration of Mr. Stein's bill [S. 156], accepting certain donations from John Purdue and others, and locating and naming the said Agricultural College. (Locating it in Tippecanoe county, and naming it "Purdue University.")
Mr. HANNA moved to recommit the bill with instructions to strike out from the enacting clause, and substitute therefor new matter, locating the Agricultural College at Bloomington in connection with the State University.
Mr. HANNA had an idea that an Agricultural College isolated and alone could not be maintained; that in order to the success of such an institution it must be connected with some university. The adoption of his substitute would at once raise the State University to a high place among the institutions of learning in this country. We ought to hesitate before we undertake to establish this College disconnected from any other institution of learning; for if this is done, year after year it will be coming up asking for appropriation after appropriation to keep it alive. He understood that no other buildings would be needed at Bloomington to carry on this Agricultural College there. He insisted this College located anywhere disconnected with any institution of learning would surely not be self-sustaining, and appropriations would necessarily have to be made for its support from time to time. The Legislature ought not to look to the wishes of the people in this matter, but should look solely to the good we can do, in disposing of this great trust, to the rising generation.
Mr TURNER desired to see this question deposed of. He desired to see no more time consumed upon it, It is impossible to locate this Agricultural College at Bloomington. There are but two great contending parties here, neither of which is Bloomington. As between these two he had nothing to say at present. Regarding it as a fixed fact that the location will be made either in Indianapolis or Tippecanoe county, he opposed the substitute.
Mr. MORGAN had always favored connecting the Agricultural College with the University at Bloomington. It is very important to every citizen of the State that the Agricultural interest should be husbanded and brought to its fullest perfection. He opposed the establishing of a separate college, and having two sickly institutions relying upon the State for support. Should the Legislature determine not to unite this fund with the State University, he favored giving it to some institution to use on its own hook, and not make the State liable to be called upon year after year for appropriations for its support.
Mr. GRAY came up at the beginning of the last session as a passive Senator on this question, because his constituents have no preference as to where this college shall be located. Last session he voted where-ever he thought his vote would be likely to locate it, but on hearing the offer of Hon. John Purdue read, he thought he should vote to locate this college in Tippecanoe county, from the fact that the otter was made by an individual against whom no objection could be made. He agreed with the Senator from Sullivan that the propositions for the donation of money made by County Commissioners are very uncertain; and he regarded the propositions coming from Tippecanoe county as infinitely better than any that has yet been made.
Mr. CRAVENS did not want to discuss this question, for his views are well known. The amendment was exactly in the line of his preference, and he desired a test vote upon it. All these local propositions had not the weight of a pin. The State of Indiana is a bidder for this Agricultural College, and the best bidder in the market. Her resources and her ambition to make it what it should be will far exceed any locality in the State. If, upon a test question, it is decided that the State will not add this fund to the State University, then he had his preference. There is but one valid bid before the Senate as far as localities are concerned, and that is the bid of an individual who has the ability to carry out his designs and the ambition to back his ability.
Mr. HANNA readily assented to arid adopted the suggestion that his motion be now considered as an amendment to the bill by way of substitute.
Mr. STEIN, while professing to be a friend to the State University, opposed the substitute on the ground of impracticability. We are here, possibly, in the last week of our session, and it is of the highest importance that we proceed at once to the location of this College, for on the 4th day of July, 1872, our days of grace expire, and unless further time is provided by Congress the State becomes liable to the General page: 154[View Page 154] Government for this Agricultural College fund. Then he was not certain, under the act of Congress, that this fund can be amalgamated with the University at Bloomington. He read from the act of Congress, and said that wise heads in other States had construed it to mean the establishment of a separate and independent institution. He regarded the inducements offered by his county as infinitely greater than those offered either by Monroe or Marion county.
Mr. HANNA replied, stating that he understood Mr. Purdue to expect this Agricultural College to be located south of the Tippecanoe river, on lands nearly adjoin-the city of Lafayette, and therefore the propositions from Tippecanoe county ought to be considered independent of each other. It will take all Mr. Purdue offers $15,000 a year for ten years to build, and at the end of ten years you don't have a building costing as much as the State Normal school building at Terre Haute. And it will be ten years before the building will be finished and all ready for occupancy by the College.
Mr. ROBINSON, of Madison, maintained that we have no right under the act of Congress to connect this Agricultural College with any University. He advocated the passage of the bill under consideration.
Mr. RICE favored the substitute, and spoke against the establishment of an independent Agricultural College; gentlemen have been defied to point out a successful institution of the kind in the new or old world; they don't live by themselves. He regarded it as a question of relieving the people of the State from the burden of taxation; and that was the main reason that would influence him to vote for the substitute.
Mr. BELLAMY opposed the bill and substitute-speaking in favor of the location at Indianapolis in connection with the Northwestern Christian University.
Mr. STEIN submitted a written guarantee that the $50,000 donation proposed by the Commissioners of Tippecanoe county should be paid as agreed, which guarantee was signed by H. W. Chase, Martin L. Pierce, John Purdue, Mr. Sample, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Stein, himself and others. And on his motion the motion to recommit was laid on the table by yeas 27. nays 10 as follows:
YEAS-Messrs. Andrews, Armstrong, Beardsley, Bellamy, Bradley, Carson, Case, Caven, Church, Eliott, Fosdick, Gifford, Gray, Green, Hadley, Hamilton, Hess, Hooper, Jaquess, Kinley. Reynolds, Robinson of Madison, Robinson of Decatur, Scott, Sherrod, Stein, Turner-27.
NAYS-Messrs. Bird, Cravens, Fisher, Hanna, Humphreys, Lee, Montgomery, Morgan, Rice, Tagsart-10.
Then came the recess till 2 o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. SHERROD, by leave, offered th following concurrent resolution:
Resolved, The House of Representatives concurring, the Senate will adjourn Monday, the 10th instant, without day.
Mr. CRAVENS did not understand how the Senate could adjourn sine die when there was an order for the joint convention on the llth without rescinding that order.
Mr. JOHNSON, of Montgomery, offend an amendment by way of substitute, as follows:
WHEREAS, The Governor did by proclamation call the General Assembly of the State of Indiana to meet on the 8th day of April last for making the necessary appropriations for carrying on the State government and the institutions belonging to the State,
AND WHEREAS, The bills making said appropriations have all been passed except the specific Appropriation Bill, and there being sufficient time for the passage of said bill before the time fixed by the resolution, for the adjournment be it, therefore,
Resolved, That the Senate will, the House concurring, adjourn sine die on Monday, May 10 at 10 o'clock A. M. '
Mr. CRAVENS renewed his objection to the resolution. Inasmuch as the Senate has agreed to a special order after that time, would it not in effect rescind that order and bring us to action upon the constitutional amendment at once? He asked for information.
On motion of Mr. CARSON the substitute was laid on the table.
Mr. RICE desired Senators to carefully consider the question propounded by Mr. Cravens. He did not want Senators to set an order for a certain day, and then come in and set a previous day for final adjournment; and questioned whether it was a proper carrying out of the understanding between Senators at the time the special order was made.
Mr. ROBINSON, of Madison, was willing to vote for the resolution now with the understanding that the constitutional amendment should come up at once.
On motion of Mr. BELLAMY, the resolution was laid on the table by yeas, 30; nays, 10.
Mr. HANNA and others explained that they voted "aye" because they did not want to violate any faith or do any act having the semblance of committing wrong or breaking a pledge.
THE SOLDIERS' AND SEAMANS' HOME.
Mr. HADLEY, from the special committee, submitted the following:
MR. PRESIDENT:-
Your Committee, appointed to act with a similar committee of the House to visit and examine the National Home for Disabled Soldiers, at Dayton, Ohio, have proceeded to the discharge of their duties, and beg leave to submit the following report thereon :
We found the National Home most beauti
page: 155[View Page 155]fully and eligibly located three miles west of the city of Dayton, on a tract of more than 500 acres of land. The Institution is yet in its infancy, having been located but eighteen months ago, and is far from being complete in its parts, but your Committee are unanimously of the opinion that its plan has been conceived in wisdom and humanity, and when the design is fully executed, which is rapidly progressing, it will want but few qualities essential to the happiness and comfort of our disabled soldiers. There are three such Homes provided by the Government - a second at Augusta, Maine, and a third at Milwaukee, Wisconsin - of which the one at Dayton is by far the most important. Our best information is that there are less than one hundred soldiers in each of the Homes at Augusta and Milwaukee, while the names of more than eleven hundred appear upon the rolls at Dayton. The three institutions are under one and the same management, conducted upon the same principle, and out of the same fund, are equally inviting in appearance, and any disabled volunteer soldier in the United States in admissible into either. So it is hard to account for the concentration at Dayton, if it is not in the fact of the superior mildness of the climate.
These institutions are supported out of a fund accumulated from the fines and forfeitures and unclaimed pay and bounty of soldiers, and there still remains, as best ascertained, about five million dollars, which is being constantly augmented.
The law creating these institutions, as strictly construed, would exclude from their benefits all seamen and soldiers of the war of 1812 and 1846 and 1847, as well as those enlisted into the regular army during the late war, but the officers of the Home at Dayton construe the law with such generous liberality that any worthy subject of either of these classes will be admitted into their Home.
The government of the Home, at Dayton, in the opinion of your Committee, is as mild as it is possible to be, to preserve order. Perfect liberty does not prevail, but it is not more restricted than must be necessary to secure peace and good behavior among so many men and so many natures.
In comparing our Knightstown Home with the Dayton Home, the one has not much to loose or gain by the other. The Dayton Home is more comprehensive, and more permanently located, and possesses many more short-lived attractions, reading rooms &c., but it has the advantages of a restricted liberty and the association of forty or fifty men, from different States, with incompatible natures, in the same room. Liberty and companiable associates, two things which enter so largely into making up a happy life, are prominent features in our Knightstown Home. There are but from two to six soldiers in a room, all from the same State, with a common interest, and a common pride, and these go where and when they please, and return when they please. Conforming only, the while, to the rules of the Institution.
There is room enough in either of the National Homes to accommodate all the soldiers and seamen in our Home, but aside from all other questions, your committee, after a careful examination, have reached the conclusion, that it is not within the legitimate power of the Legislature to abolish "the Soldiers'and Seamens' Home," at Knightstown. In 1865 and '66 a voluntary association of persons solicited, by contributions i'rom all parts of the State, a fund of $15,000, out of which they purchased the Knightstown property, except the improvements that have since been made by the State, vesting the title to the same in James M. Bay, William Hannaman and Conrad Baker, "in trust for the use and benefit of the Indiana Soldiers' and Seamans' Home Association," until the Association should be regularly incorporated. Then, on the 27th day of August, 1867, James M. Bay, William Hannaman and Conrad Baker, in pursuance of said trust, conveyed the property in feo to the Trustees of the Indiana Soldiers' and Seaman's Home. From these facts it seems clearly in violation of the Constitution for the Legislature to divert any trust or give it any direction, or throw around it any restriction that was not intended by the grantors. While, therefore, your Committee are of the opinion that the Home for Soldiers and Seamen should not be abruptly abolished, , we do believe that by proper encouragement from the officers of the Home, which we are assured will be cheerfully rendered, this result will be practically attained, and we hereby recommend the passage of a joint resolution instructing the officers of our Home to use all mild and honorable, but voluntary means to influence the soldiers and seamen-: to go into the National Home, that their places may be filled with soldiers and seamen's orphans, now languishing in County Poor Houses. We all agree that the Home for Orphans should be continued and encouraged. Most States of the Union have recognized their obligation to take care of their friendless orphans, and we think it would5 be to the interest and honor of the State to extend a guardian care over all friendless children; but the orphans of soldiers and-seamen, deserving a preferred protection and : sympathy, we recommend that the benefits -of the Home be confined to them only, because we believe it would be impolitic to burthen the State at this time in making provision for all. This preferred class is as large as any we can accommodate at Knightstown without additional buildings. The apartments now assigned them are crowded to their utmost capacity, and there are eighty additional applications now on file, twenty or thirty of which are from county asylums. But if the building now occupied by the soldiers can be vacated, then one hundred and fifty more children can be received, which it is thought will about meet the wants of this class, "if, then, the Home for Orphans at Knightstown is to be continued, there seems to arise an imperative necessity for making more liberal provisions. Under existing laws but $1 50 per week for each inmate is allowed,
page: 156[View Page 156]including subsistence, clothing, fuel, school books, salaries of teachers and all other subordinate employes, and repairs. And it is thought that the Institution can not possibly be conducted another year upon this allowance. The State of Iowa is supporting 833 soldiers' orphans at an expense to the State of more than $80,000 per annum. Pennsylvania is supporting and educating 3,431 soldiers' orphans, at an expense to the State of $2 65 per week for each inmate. Michigan is taking care of and educating her soldiers'orphans at an expense of $3 50 per week for each inmate.
Your Committee, therefore, to secure an honorable and respectable support of the Institution, as well as to empower the Trustees to indenture the children as fast as good opportunities offer, would respectfully recommend the passage of Senate bill. No. 240, which contains the necessary provisions.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
JOHN V. HADLEY
A. Y. HOOFER
CHARLES B. LASELLE
AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE.
On motion of Mr. Stein the bill [S. 156] pending at the time of the recess for dinner, was ordered to be read the third thine now.
Mr. RICE asked unanimous consent to insert a section that the State of Indiana shall never be called upon to make any appropriations for the erection of buildings, buying grounds or endowing professorships.
Mr. STEIN objected.
The bill was then read the third time.
Mr. STEIN made an ineffectual demand for the previous question.
Mr. CAVIN, referring to the act of Congress making this grant, recited the fact that no part of the principal can be used for the erection of buildings; and referring to the history of the consideration of this question by the Legislature, declared that the State owed a debt of gratitude to Marion county for having brought out and developed a strife for the location of the Agricultural College. He presented in their most favorable light the inducements and donations offered by Marion county, and assured Senators that if the location were made in connection with the Northwestern Christion University (as this bill provides) the State of Indiana never should contribute one dollar for the maintainance of the College, nor be called upon to pay one dollar of its liabilities.
Mr. TURNER, believing it to he his duty as a representative of the people to vote for, and if possible locate the Agricultural College this session, decided in favor of Tippecanoe county-the proposition of the Hon. John Purdee being the only one before us which would hold good in law.
Mr. HAMILTON also spoke in favor of the bill under consideration. He never would consent to vote in favor of locating this Agricultural College with a University controlled whooly, or in part, by any religious denomination.
Mr. STEIN obtained the floor and proceeded to compare the offers from Tippecanoe and Marion counties, reflecting severely upon the manner in which the offer was made of $75,000, purporting to come from Marion county the other day. He characterized it as simply an offer from three men, who signed themselves Commissioners, made to hoodwink and deceive us. The records in the Recorder's office show no such order, and the Senator from Marion county admits that no such order was ever entered on the County Commissioners order book. When he had concluded, disclaiming any intention to encroach upon the rights of others, he demanded the previous question, but withheld it for -
Mr. HANNA, who admitted that we were consuming too much of the time of the people in talking about this matter. He saw now but two alternatives presented, and if the Senate is to make the location at this session, he did not see how he could do better than to take a stand upon the proposition of an individual understood to be able to meet his contracts. For himself he would vote in favor of Tippecanoe county, if she had not proposed to donate one dollar, in preference to voting in favor of Indianapolis. He never would vote for the education of children in Marion county since he saw her citizens chuckling while a military officer was training his cannot upon a Democratic meeting in this city. If driven to choose between these two propositions he should vote for Tippecanoe county as a choice between two evils.
Mr. STEIN renewed his demand for the previous question.
The Senate seconded the demand, and under the operations of the previous question -
The bill passed by yeas 32, nays 10, as follows:
YEAS-Messrs. Andrews, Armstrong, Beardsley, Bird, Bradley, Carson, Case, Church, Cravens, Denbo, Fisher, Fosdick, Gifford, Gray, Hadley, Hamilton, Hanna, Henderson, Hooper, Huey, Huffman, Johnston of Montgomery, Montgomery, Rice, Reynolds, Robinson of Madison, Robinson of Decatur, Scott, Sherrod, Stein, Taggart and Turner-32.
NAYS-Messrs. Bellamy, Caven, Eliott, Greet Hess, Humphreys, Jaquess, Kinley, Lee and Morgan-10.
BILLS ON THE FINAL READING.
On motion by Mr. CRAVENS, the Senate returned to the consideration of Senate bills on the third reading.
Mr. Wood's bill [S. 189] to amend the page: 157[View Page 157] 18th section of the Registry law, coming up in order, it was read the third time.
Mr. BRADLEY objected to the bill on constitutional grounds.
It failed to pass for want of a constitutional majority - yeas 22, nays 14.
Mr. Robinson of Madison's bill [S. 202] to authorize railroad companies to sell, lease or otherwise dispose of their roads, etc., being read the second time -
Mr. R. and Mr. CRAVENS explained that the bill authorizes leases; it supplies a defect in the laws.
Mr. SCOTT would oppose any bill that put it into the power of any one man to give or withold his consent to any arrangement that would release any claims held by the State - especially where such claims would amount to half a million or a million of dollars. He could not determine, by the reading from the desk, whether the last clause in the bill is a safe one or not.
On motion by Mr. ROBINSON, of Madison, by unanimous consent the proviso to the sixth section was stricken out. It contains the clause objected to by the Senator from Vigo [Mr. Scott].
The bill passed by yeas 27, nays 9.
Mr. Robinson of Madison's bill [S. 203] to amend the act of regulating and confirming the sale of railroads, &c., approved March 3, 1865, and extending the provisions of said act to all other railroad companies, being read the third time -
Mr. SCOTT asked and obtained unanimous consent to strike out the words "or any other law of this State." As he understood the bill, it extends all powers posessed by every other railroad of the State, whether acting under special charters or under the general law.
The bill passed by yeas 27, nays 8.Mr. Stein's bill [S. 253] to enable the several criminal courts in this State to try and determine suits upon forfeited recognizances, etc., being read for the third time -
Mr. STEIN explained that it was intended to give a jurisdiction to criminal courts that was sadly wanted.
Mr. CARSON thought conferring civil jurisdiction upon criminal courts was a departure from the original idea which suggested the creation of these courts.
Mr. BRADLEY also indicated his opposition to the bill.
It passed by yeas 27, nays 10.
And the Senate then adjourned.
