REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Mr. CAVIN, from a majority of the Judiciary Committee, returned the bill [H. R. 140] amending certain sections of the registry law, recommending the adoption of new matter therefor.
Mr. HANNA presented a report on the same bill, from the same committee, declaring that the minority can not agree with the majority of the committee in recommending the adoption of the proposed substitute, and reciting constitutional objections thereto.
On motion by Mr. ROBINSON the bill and the committee reports were laid on the the table and made the special order for tomorrow at 10 o'clock A. M.
Mr. STEIN, from the Committee on Fees and Salaries, returned the county officers' fee bill [H. R. 78] without amendment.
Mr. RICE knew the bill needed amendment. By its provisions the best office in his county, that of Treasurer, would get some $400 a year increase, while the Auditor's office-now scarcely self-sustaining-would be cut down some $700. He moved the reference of the bill to a special committee, with a view to amendment in that particular.
Mr. GREEN and Mr. GRAY opposed the motion for the want of time-the latter desiring its consideration in the Senate.
Mr. SCOTT favored the motion to refer. He thought none but men of experience in county offices could decide this question as it should be, and he hoped the committee would be composed of Senators who have been county officers.
Mr. CARSON referred to the fact that county officers have not complied as a general thing, with the provisions of a law enacted in 1863 or '61, requiring them to make an annual report of the fees received by them, arid regarded that fact as an evidence that their fees and salaries were entirely too much; and he attributed to the latter fact a greater part of the corruptions of the ballot box.
Mr. JOHNSON, of Spencer, desired the bill pressed to a vote. The people are clamorous for its passage, and he hoped its friends would stick close to it.
Mr. JOHNSTON, of Montgomery, thought the bill had better be made a little more plain, and for that reason he favored the motion to recommit.
Mr. HADLEY, if he understood the bill, declared it would carry poverty into the offices of ninety counties in the State in order to reduce the salaries of officers in about ten counties, and the result would be that incompetent persons would get into-these offices and county records would get into confusion.
Mr. MORGAN understood the bill to be for the purpose of cutting off the stealings of county officers. We would do the State injustice to go home and leave this bill without action in such a way as to insure its passage. He feared to refer it to a committee would be to have it smothered at the instance of parties here, interested and watching for an opportunity to destroy it. From the labor bestowed upon it in the House he was inclined to think the bill is as perfect as it can be made under the circumstances surrounding us.
Mr. BELLAMY said: This bill does not make a proper discrimination between small counties and large ones, while in the-bill already passed the Senate all that is necessary has been provided for.
page: 162[View Page 162]Mr. HANNA wanted to know whether the legislation of this country is to be controlled by county officers. The bill passed by the Senate only declared how the fees should be disposed of; and now when a bill comes in here from the House fixing their salaries, we find the hotels and lobbies full of county officers, and see them bulging up here in the Senate. He opposed the motion to refer. This is a very important bill, designed to remedy a great and crying evil, and it should receive careful consideration.
Mr. GRAY desired this bill to pass. The one passed by the Senate does not cure the defects of the law; and if this bill fails it may please the County officers, but it will not please the people. The fees charged by officers of the Court are different in almost every County of the 'State; which is a crying evil, and a load the Republican party can not carry.
Mr. SCOTT undertook to say that this bill does riot remedy the evil of over charging by County officers.
Mr. RICE said, this bill has merit in it, and he desired it perfected, because there are provisions in it winch are iniquitous and unjust. The fees of the officers in the counties of Parke and Vermillion were none too high now.
Mr. DENBO would like to see the bill referred, for he thought it could be amended advantageously in many particulars. It will remedy some of the evils existing, but its provisions could be taken advantage of by officers disposed to. He indicated his intention to vote for the bill in its present shape, however, for he-regarded it as a deserving measure.
Mr. HUMPHREYS for ten years was in and about a Clerk's office, and was satisfied that no bill can be passed that will do justice to all the counties in the State; and that the fees are not so enormous as complained of. A bill should be passed to cut otf constructive fees; but he was not sufficiently conversant with the provisions of this bill to know in what respect it should be amended, if it needs amending at all. No officer in any two counties are charging alike. He was favorable to the motion for a reference in order that the committee may carefully examine the provisions of this bill and suggest amendments if necessary.
Mr. CARSON declared that it was these very specific fees going into the pockets of county officers that created so much trouble, and he favored the passage of this bill as the best thing that can be done.
Mr. STEIN demanded the previous question, which was seconded by the Senate, and under the pressure thereof-
The motion to refer the bill to a select committee was agreed to by yeas 23, nays 19.
Accordingly the Lieutenant Governor makes the committee to consist of Messrs. Rice, Bradley, Denbo, Elliott, and Case.
Mr. ARMSTRONG, from a minority the special committee to which was referred the Court bill H. R. 11, presented a report objecting to the substitute for said bill reported yesterday by the majority of said committee, creating a new circuit - the Twenty-second Judicial- and recommending the adoption of a new bill, accompanying this report, in lieu of the bill H. R. 11.
Mr. FISHER stated that the substitute reported by the majority was in accord with the wishes and views of all Senator interested except the Senator from Carroll [Mr. Armstrong]; and gave other reason why it should be adopted, and then he hoped the bill, as amended, would be passed.
Mr. ARMSTRONG moved the adoption of the minority report instead of the substitute reported by the majority of the committee.
Mr. HOOPER said the fact was that the substitute of the majority was to create a new circuit; and believing there was necessity for the creation of another new circuit, he hoped the minority report would be concurred in.
Mr. FISHER said no man could perform the duties required of the Judge of the Eleventh Circuit; and thereupon argued that a new circuit was absolutely necessary.
Mr. LASSALLE submitted considerations which influenced his support of the majority report. A new circuit was necessary or we must have a Criminal Court; and, as between the two, probably the former plan was the best.
Mr. ARMSTRONG said the majority report proposed to disrupt the Court relations of a district that has been standing for twenty years or more; and he recited facts in the case to show that, most certainly, the business of the Court can be done under the report of the minority without the expense of creating a new circuit. He advocated the adoption of the minority report.
Mr. BRADLEY favored the substitute reported by the majority of the Committee.
The question being on the motion to substitute the report of minority- for the majority report
The yeas and nays were demanded, an being ordered and taken resulted-yeas 26, nays 7.
No quorum voting-
The Senate took a recess till 2 o'clock.
