AFTERNOON SESSION.
On motion of Mr. NEFF, Mr. Stewart of Hush, was called to the chair.
On motion of Mr. CHAPMAN, (under a suspension of the special order,) the meandering land bill [S. 356], securing to the occupants and adjacent owners of unsurveyed lake lands the ownership thereof, and the committee amendments thereto were taken up the question being on the adoption of the amendments.
Mr. COFFROTH set forth the provisions and the effect of the bill; it was simply declaring the rights of the occupants of such unclaimed lands, which he conceived they have under the existing law the common law.
Mr. OSBORN was not entirely satisfied with the explanation. This land was, in many cases, reclaimed by the public draining process, it seemed to him to be a proposition to give the title to these lands to the adjacent owners, or the color of a title, whereas, he conceived that the title is in the Government of the United States. And we don't know whether it affects a few acres or thousands of acres, nor how much they may be worth. He understood that some of these unclaimed lands are very valuable.
Mr. WILLSON suggested sundry difficulties which would be involved in the passage of this bill.
Mr. RATLIFF replied to the objections suggested. Now, to prevent trespass, the occupants of these lands have to go to the United States District Court; this bill would enable them to find remedy in the State Courts.
Mr. DAVIDSON considered that the bill is wrong. It would allow these adjacent owners to claim lands that belong to the General Government; it would give the adjacent owners color of title, not only to exclude the public from the cranberries, but even from fishing in the lakes.
Mr. VATER regarded the bill as a proposition to authorize parties to steal the title to Government lands. When the General Government should regain their lands, these applicants should be entitled to come against the State for damages. It was repugnant to his sense of the high character ot the State of Indiana.
Mrr COFFROTH discussed the rule of law governing in these cases of riperiant owners. He sent up, and caused to be read, a letter by the Hon. William Williams, a member of Congress for the North-eastern District, to Mr. Davis, the Representative for Elkhart county, relative to this matter: also, a paper stating the decision of the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois, as to the right of riperiant or shore owners to the adjacent bed of the lake, it being the same whether the title be in himself or in the State.
He proceeded to answer the objections and dispel the difficulties suggested in the debate. When he had concluded-
The amendments reported from the Special Committee were concurred in; and the question recurred on the engrossment of the bill.
Mr. WILLSON demanded the yeas and nays, and the vote resulted, yeas 36, nays 41; so the bill was rejected.
EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT.
The bill [S. 211] defining what counties shall constitute the Eighth Judicial Circuit, and fixing the time of holding court therein, was taken up as the special order. It affects the counties of Clinton, Boone, Fountain, Montgomery, Parke, Warren and Vermillion. The question being on the final passage of the bill-
Mr. NEFF spoke at length against the bill, submitting specific objections, amongst which was the probability that the passage of the bill would lead to a division of the circuit in which he resided.
Mr. GORDON stated the reasons for the bill to return two counties, Parke and Vermillion, to the Seventh District, where they belonged two years ago. Since the bill is acceptable to the people interested, there was no reason, which he could see, for the outside opposition to it evinced by the gentleman from Putnam.
Mr. JOHNSON, of Parke, spoke in reply to Mr. Neff, alleging that the bill was desired by nine-tenths of the people of the counties of Parke and Vermillion.
Mr. OSBORN spoke in favor of the bill.
Mr. JOHNSON, of Montgomery, gave his views in opposition to the bill. It was giving an unequal amount of labor to the judge. He protested solemnly against its passage.
Mr. GREEN demanded the previous question, and, under its operation, the bill sailed for a want of a constitutional majority - yeas 49, nays 30.
REFORMATORY FOR WOMEN.
On motion of Mr. Stanton, the House took up the consideration of Mr. McDonald's motion to reconsider the vote of the House by which Mr. Stewart of Rush's Girls' Reformatory bill [H. R. 176], proposing an appropriation of $50,009 for a site, building, etc., was defeated. He urged the motion by various considerations, includ page: 160[View Page 160] ing the moral, the humane and the economical. There was already a donatation by Mr. James M. Ray of grounds for a site for this Reformatory, near this city, which, with their present improvements were worth fourteen or fifteen thousand dollars. Mr. Stroughton Fletcher also has a part in this donation. He alleged that the $50,000 proposed by the bill would be all that would be required for the State to avail itself of the benefits of the proposed institution. He closed by presenting and asking for the reading of the memorial for the passage of this bill by the officers of the Association for the Relief of Friendless Women.
[The memorial was printed in the Senate proceedings of yesterday.]
Mr. VATER stated that the Ray donation to the city of Indianapolis, proposed to be given toward this object, is about two miles south of the city.
The vote rejecting the bill was reconsidered, and the question recurred on the final passage thereof.
Mr. MONROE (by leave) took the floor in favor of the bill, submitting considerations for its passage, which, he supposed, could not fail to commend themselves to the House.
Mr. RATLIFF also submitted remarks which would explain the vote he intended to give for this bill.
Mr. KERCHEVAL suggested a call of the House before a full vote shall be taken.
Mr. BROWN spoke in favor of the passage of the bill.
Mr. PIERCE, of Porter, proposed an amendment, which was adopted, adding appropriately a provision, "That no building shall be erected under this act, at the cost of the State, the total cost of which shall exceed the sum [$50,000] hereby appropriated."
Mr. KERCHEVAL submitted a motion, which was adopted, that the Speaker invite Mrs. Sarah Smith, Manager of the Association for the Relief of the Friendless Women, now present in the Hall, to address the House on this matter; and that for this purpose she be invited to a place at the Speaker's table.
This order having been carried out, and Mrs. Smith having delivered a brief address to admonish the House that the proposed reformatory is a question not of local, but of general interest, not demanded by the people of Indianapolis more than by the people of the State at large, the vote was taken on the final passage of the bill, resulting, yeas 62, nays 14, as follows:
YEAS-Messrs. Baker, Barnett, Beatty, Beeler, Bowen, Britton, Breckinridge, Chapman, Chittenden, Gory, Davidson, Davis, of Elkhart, Dunn, Fairchild, Field of Lagrange. Furnas, Gilham, Gordon, Greene, Hall, Higbee, Higgins,Hutchings, Hutson, Hyatt, Johnson of Parke, Johnson of Marshall, Jump, Kercheval, Lawler, Lamborn, Logan, Long, McDonald, Millekan, Miller, Mitchell, Mock, Monroe, Osborn, Overmyer, Pierce of Porter, Ratliff, Ruddell, Sabin, Shoaff, Sleeth, Stanton, Stephenson, Stewart of Ohio, Stewart of Rush, Taber, Tebbs, Underwood, Vardeman, Vater, Wildman, Williams of Hamilton, Williams of St. Joseph, Williams of Union, Wilson and Zenor - 62.
NAYS-Messrs. Admire, Bobo, Calvert, Carnahan, Cave, Cotton, Johnson of Montgomery, Montgomery, Neff, Palmer, Shoemaker, Smith, Sunman and Williams of Knox-14.
SWAMP LANDS DITCHING CLAIMS.
On motion of Mr. COFFROTH the special order, viz: the bill [S. 270] providing for the payment of claims for ditching swamp lands out of the General Township Land Fund, etc., was taken up.
Mr. COFFROTH said there was a fund in the hands of the Treasurer of State which can not be appropriated to any other purpose, and the bill proposed to authorize those claims to be paid out of that fund. He desired to put the bill upon its passage under a suspension of the restriction, after it shall have been read the second time.
The bill was ordered to the second reading.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Knox, desired to submit the following, which was read, for information:
Resolved, (The Senate concurring). That the General Assembly will adjourn, sine die, on Monday, the 10th instant.
On motion of Mr. OSBORN, Mr. W.'s motion for leave to offer the resolution, was laid on the table,-yeas, 41; nays, 32.
THE CALENDAR.
On motion of Mr. RATLIFF, the House proceeded to the consideration of bills of the House on their third and last reading.
Mr. Osborn's bill [H. R. 209], to define certain offences, and to prescribe punishment therefor, and to suppress usurpations of the functions of the Judiciary for the punishment of crimes, was taken up.
Mr. OSBORN said the whole object of the bill was to suppress mobs pretending to take the power of Courts into their own hands, it having been suggested by the events which took place, not long ago, down here at Seymour.
Mr. PIERCE, of Porter, and Mr. WILLIAMS, of Knox, taking exceptions to the bill
THE PURDUE UNIVERSITY.
On motion of Mr. COFFROTH, the order of business was suspended, and the House took up the bill [S. 156] accepting the donations of John Perdue and others, and locating and naming the college contemplate by the act of Congress of July 2, 1862, adding a member to the Board of Trustees of the Indiana Agricultural College, and changing the corporate name of said Boar of Trustees.
The bill having been read by the Clerk-
page: 161[View Page 161]On motion of Mr. COFFROTH, it was ordered to the second reading, and make the special order for to-morrow afternoon at 3 o'clock.
THE BENEVOLENT INSTITUTIONS.
On motion of Mr. STANTON, the bill [S. 337] to make appropriations for certain purposes on certain conditions(to make Continuous appropriations for the benevolent institutions of the State, in cases of failure to pass the general bill) was taken up.
Mr. STANTON said it is identical with the House bill of similar title.
Mr. VATER proposed to amend by providing so as to remove all necessity for any sessions of the Legislature henceforth and forever, which was not entertained.
The bill having been read the first time-
On motion of Mr. STANTON, (the constitutional restriction being suspended for the purpose) the bill was considered on the second reading, and read by sections.
Mr. WILLIAMS, of Knox, expressed some apprehension that it might repeal the Treasury law, or endanger the officers of the Treasury some way.
Mr. COFFROTH and Mr. STANTON replied-the former stating the importance of action on the bill at once; for, as he thought, we shall have no more legislation after next Monday. That was his private opinion publicly expressed.
After further remarks by Messrs. VATER and SHOAFF-
The bill was finally passed the House of Representatives-yeas 61, nays 9.
The House then adjourned.
