GRAVEL ROAD LAW.
0n motion of Mr. FULLER. A special order, viz: Mr. Millikan's gravel road bill, [H. R. 50] and other bills on the same subject, originating in the two Houses of the General Assembly, were taken up.
Mr. RUDDELL, (in behalf of the special committee thereon,) proposed an amendment by way of substitute, which he said is made up of Mr. Millikin's bill precisely, with such additions as have been suggested by the various proposed amendments, and the suggestions of gentlemen who have interested themselves in this gravel road question.
The substitute amendment having been read by the Clerk-
Mr. ODELL proposed to amend the sub-substitute by adding a section to this effect:
Any such company shall have the right to enter upon land adjacent to their road and construct ditches and drains, doing no unnecessary damage, and shall have the right to take and appropriate timber and dirt, by giving the owner five days notice of their intention, etc.
Mr. RUDDELL accepted the amendment.
Mr. VATER proposed to amend the first section of the substitute by adding these words:
"Provided, That after the assessment is made, the said company shall present to the road Commissioners the written consent of the property holders assessed in such assessment."
He said by the present provisions of the bill money is put against men; the majority are thrown upon the mercy of the road company. The majority should have, the right to sayafter the survey, whether they want the road or not.
Mr. RUDDELL opposed the amendment.
Mr. GORDON supported it.
Mr. HIGGINS moved to lay Mr. Vater's amendment on the table.
Mr. VATER demanded the yeas and nays, which resulted-yeas, 41; nays, 43, and then-
Mr. OSBORN proposed to substitute for Mr. Vater's amendment words to this effect:
Add to the first section: Provided that after the assessments shall have been made, they shall be submitted to the parties so assessed, and if a majority of them shall approve, they shall be collected accordingly: and if the said majority shall not approve, then the said assessments shall not be collected.
The SPEAKER said it would be in the third degree.
Mr. RUDDELL submitted further considerations against the amendment.
Mr. RATLIFF indicated a substitute for Mr. Vater's amendment by saying: "Upon petition of the owners of one-half of the real estate within a mile and a half of the road."
Mr. STEWART, of Rush, was fearful that the bill would be loaded down too heavily with amendments. He could not see how the bill could be any better guarded for the protetion of the interests of minorities. It had been considered in committees-in large committees-the friends of the bill in all parts of the State had been invited to consider it, and it was supposed to be guarded in every point against all conceivable objections on the part of the friends of gravel roads all over the State.
After further debate by Messrs. Ratliff, Shoaff, Stanton, Mitchell, Ruddell, Johnston of Parke, and others, the question as to the propriety of a property qualification for suffrage on a question of this kind-a road question, affecting the rights of all the people-all being in favor of a gravel road bill which shall serve the rights of the assessed, and at the same time encourage the spirit of public improvement; and all admitting the oppressiveness of the present law-
Mr. STEPHENSON suggested that its friends vote this amendment down, and supply one that would not be objectionable. He demanded the previous question.
Mr. WILLIAMS, of Marion, proposed a substitute for Mr. Vater's amendment which was read for information; to this effect:
Amend section first so as to provide that the-party assessed shall be entitled to one vote for every $25 for which they are assessed, provided that each man assessed shall be entitled to at least one vote.
Mr. GORY submitted the following, which was also read for information.
Amend section one by adding this proviso. Provided, That in no case shall the County Commissioners order the assessment provided for in this section, unless a majority of the property owners within the prescribed limits shall petition therefor.
The previous question was here seconded by the House and thereunder, the vote on Mr. Vater's amendment was rejected-yeas 32, nays 52-as follows:
YEAS-Messrs. Admire, Britton, Calvert, Carnahan, Cory, Cotton, Davidson, Dittemore, Dunn, Fuller, Gordon, Hutchings, Hyatt, Johnson of Montgomery, Johnson of Marshall, Long, McBride, McDonald, McGregor, Miles, Mitchell, Monree, Neff, Osborn, Overmyer, Pierce of Vigo, Shoaff, Shoemaker, Sleeth, Vater, Williams of Hamilton and Zenor-32.
NAYS-Messrs. Addison, Baker, Barnett, Barritt, Beatty, Beeler, Cave. Chittenden, Coffroth, Cox, Davis of Elkhart, Fairchild, Field of La
page: 166[View Page 166]grange, Furnas, Gilham, Greene, Hall, Higbee, Higgins, Hutson, Johnson of Parke, Jump, Lawler, Lamborn, Logan, Mason, McFadin, Millekan, Miller, Mock, Montgomery, Odell, Palmer, Fierce of Porter, Ratliff, Buddell, Sabin, Smith, Stnnton, Stephenson, Stewart of Ohio, Stewart of Rush, Sunman,Taber, Underwood, Vardeman, Wile, Wildman, Williams of Knox. Williams of St. Joseph, Williams of Union, Wilson and Mr. Speaker-52.
Mr. BAKER explaining, said, as the proposed bill repeals all Gravel Road laws, if this amendment prevails he would be compelled to vote against the bill.
And then Mr. Ruddell's substitute was adopted by the following vote-yeas 72, nays 15.
YEAS-Messrs. Addison, Baker, Barnett, Beatty, Beeler, Bowen, Chittenden, Coffroth, Cory, Cox, Davidson, Davis of Elkhart, Dittemore, Dunn, Fairchild, Field of Lagrange, Fuller, Furnas, Gilham, Gordon, Greene, Hall, Hamilton, Higbee, Higgins, Hutchings, Hutson, Hyatt, Johnson of Parke, Johnson of Marshall, Jump, Lawler, Lamborn, Logan, Long, Mason, McBride, McDonald, McFadin, Millekan, Miller, Mitchell, Mock, Montgomery, Odell, Overmyer, Palmer, Pierce of Porter, Ratliff, Ruddell, Sabin, Shoemaker, Sleeth, Smith, Stanton, Stephenson, Stewart of Ohio, Stewart of Rush, Taber, Tebbs, Underwood, Vardeman, Vater, Wile, Wildman, Williams of Hamilton, Williams of Knox, Williams of St. Joseph, Williams of Union, Wilson, Zenor, Zollars, and Mr. Speaker-72.
NAYS-Messrs. Admire, Barritt, Britton, Calvert, Carnahan, Cave, Cotton, Johnson of Montgomery, McGregor, Miles, Monroe, Neff, Osborn, Shoaff, and Sunman-15.
Messrs. Coffroth, Cox, Dittemore and Mitchell explained their affirmative votes, as cast, not because they consider the bill the best that could be devised, but better than the existing road law.
So the substitute, as reported by Mr. Ruddell, was adopted without amendment; and the question recurred on the engrossment of the bill as amended.
Mr. CORY now moved to amend by adding the substance of his proposition, which had been read for information, as above given.
On motion of Mr. STANTON, it was laid on the table-yeas 59, nays 28.
Mr. OSBORN submitted an amendment to add a section, to declare that the provisions of the act shall not apply to land owners in cities and incorporated towns; and
Mr. JOHNSTON, of Parke, proposed a section to save the vested rights of road companies from the effect of the repealing clause of this act; but, it being plead that these rights are covered by the bill, the propositions were cut off the previous question, demanded by Mr. CHITTENDEN; 80 the bill was ordered to be engrossed.
And then the House took a recess till 2 o'clock.
