HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
TUESDAY, January 31, 1871.The House met at 9 o'clock A. M.
The order of prayer by the Rev. Mr. McKeg, of Anderson.
The journal of yesterday was read and and approved.
ALCOHOLIC LIQUORS, ETC.
Mr. Washburne's bill [H. R. 99] to regulate the sale of alcoholic liquors, drugs, medicines, etc., coming up in order on the third reading. [Not less than a quart, etc.]
Mr. NEFF called for the reading of the bill; and it was again read through by the Clerk. He then said that a bill of that character would be a dead letter. There was the druggists to keep a book of records of his sales--labor without a corresponding advantage to the public; though it might to acceptable to the smelling committees that stir up petty litigations.
Mr. BARNABY. If the bill were to pass it would inhibit both the sale and the purchase of liquor by the poor. It was oblectionable also on temperance principles.
Mr. BALLINGER was opposed to the bill with his present information.
Mr. WASHBURN. It provides that if liquor shall be sold in less quantities than a quart, it shall be labelled--also any package of poison, &c. The latter would make it an easy matter to trace out cases of poisoning.
Mr. NEFF. Might not the druggist fail or refuse to comply.
Mr. CALDWELL was opposed to the bill on account of the labor imposed on the druggist--as well as on account of the opening of his books to public inspection.
Mr. BROWNING spoke in favor of the bill. It would afford evidence of many cases of poisoning. He had adopted this provision of the bill in his business as a druggest without law, and hoped it would pass.
Mr. FURNAS. The intention was to protect the people--not to stir up law suits. He cited cases in which the bill would apply with public advantage. He would vote for a bill to label every article sold by druggists, as well as poison. He cared little about the registry.
Mr. BIGGS. This might be a good law; but it might not reach every case. The malicious poisoner could give the wrong name as the purchaser. If it could be effective, he would be in favor of it.
Mr. SIMPSON stated specific reasons for opposition to the bill. He would be in favor of a bill that would require educated apothecaries.
Mr. ABBETT should be forced to vote against the bill on account of some objectionable features, and with a view to get a better.
Mr. MAJOR moved to recommit the bill, with instructions to strike out the provision with reference to apothecaries.
On motion of Mr. NEFF this motion was laid on the table.
The bill was rejected on the final passage--yeas 38, nays 52.
page: 187[View Page 187]MUNICIPAL LICENSES.
Mr. Barnaby's bill [H. R. 126] to amend paragraph 13 of section 53 of the general city corporation act coming up--
Mr. BARNABY said his object was to make the municipal legislation of the State uniform, stating cases of abuses under the preset law in regard to inequality with reference to licenses, &c. Their charge for licenses should not be higher than that provided in the statutes of the State.
Mr. KNIGHT was opposed to this centralization of power. He believed that the matter of taxation should be kept as near to the people as possible.
Mr. BARNABY'S object was not to prevent the sale of liquor, but to provide that this matter of purchase and sale shall be within the reach of the poor, as well as the rich. The poor should be cared for as well as the rich.
Mr. GORDON, of Boone, showed that, in the end, these licenses went into the School Fund, and so the poor were benefitted by it.
Mr. BIGGS: When it came to the consideration of what would be best, he considered that it would be best if every man in the State were too poor to get a license to sell liquor. He preferred the freedom of the towns and municipalities, to do as they please in this matter.
Mr. ABBETT should oppose the bill because it looks toward the license system, to which he was wholly opposed. He was aware of the principle of monopoly involved. The remedy of giving the power to regulate this traffic defeated the object I most desired.
Mr. COX reasoned in favor of the bill--regarded it as one step towards abolishing the license system altogether. He would make the traffic a misdemeanor.
Mr. HAYFES was not afraid to legislate against the traffic in whisky, and his constituents, when they look at it is they should, would sustain him in this.
Mr.NETHERTON spoke against the bill. He would, with the gentleman from Bartholomew, oppose all idea of sustaining the traffic by licensing it. Then if any measure come up to suppress the traffic, he would be free to support it. But if we can not have prohibition, the next best thing is to throw around it all the restrictions we can. If the municipalities choose to step in and restrain this traffic as they may be able, let them do so.
Mr. BARNABY said the bill says nothing about license, but requires equality in the matter.
Mr. MITCHELL counselled a good provision against drunkenness--let the people refuse to vote for a drunkard.
Mr. BIGGS. What will you do with that class who are not candidates?
Mr. MITCHELL. There are very few of them. [Laughter.]
Mr. McDONALD demanded the previous question, and there was a second, and the main question was ordered, whereupon--
The bill was rejected--yeas 22, nays 72.
CORONERS' CONSTABLES.
Mr. Zenor's bill [H. R. 88] to authorize Coroners in certain cases to appoint a constable (which was passed over in the callendar yesterday) having been called up by the author--
Mr. ZENOR explained that it authorizes the Coroner to appoint a constable in cases of emergency, and require the papers in the case to be filed in the Clerk's office in twenty days.
The bill was finally passed the House of Representatives--yeas 91, nays 0.
MORTGAGE SATISFACTION.
Mr. Cunnigham's bill [H. R. 67] to amend section 5 of the act concerning mortgages--approved May 4, 1852, coming up on the 3d reading--
Mr. MARTIN, of Putnam, moved that the bill be indefinitely postponed.
On motion of Mr. NEFF, this motion was laid on the table.
Mr. MARTIN, of Putnam. This is a bill to make the failure to record the satisfaction of a mortgage a felony.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The committee to whom this bill was referred, reported in favor of its passage. The only change in the law is the limitation of 30 days for the satisfaction to be entered--within 30 days after a written demand.
Mr. BIGGS. It seems to me we have a sufficient law on that subject. The only difference between the gentleman's bill and the present law is that it prescribes a penalty if the mortgage fail to record the satisfaction within 30 days. All that the mortgagor has to do in such cases is to bring suit and recover all his costs. There may be numerous instances in which the party could not procure the record of satisfaction within the 30 days--he might live hundreds of miles away.
Mr. FRIEDLEY. But the thirty days begins to run from the time he receives a written request.
Mr. BIGGS. That probably would help the bill a little; still I think the law is ample now.
Mr. BALLENGER. I think it nothing but right that the mortgagee or his assignee, having received payment shall enter the discharge on record. Some years ago I gave a mortgage on my own property which was assigned to a gentleman in Baltimore--and paid--but the record of satisfaction is not yet made. All property under such incumbrances ought to be discharged from all liens of record.
Mr. CALKINS, of Porter. Suppose the gentleman in Baltimore should refuse to enter satisfaction, would he be liable under the proposed law?
Mr. BALLENGER. I understand that he could. It does not make any particular difference. It applies as well to non-residents as others.
Mr. CALKINS. Could you get a requisition as for a misdemeanor?
Mr. BALLENGER. Just the same.
Mr. MARTIN, of Putnam. Would it not be just as well to pass a law making it a misdemeanor not to pay any debt?
page: 188[View Page 188]Mr. BALLENGER. Not at all. But there may be a law to compel that to be done which a man is legally and morally bound to do. If the law makes this a penal offense, its violation becomes an offense against the people.
Mr. BIGGS. How would you locate the offense?
Mr. BALLENGER. If the mortgagor resides in Marion county, the violation is there. But the general principle remains. This is not a question that addresses itself to us here The fact that it is difficult to enforce the law is no argument against its propriety. I hope the bill will pass.
Mr. LINES stated a difficulty in his own experience about getting a release of a mortgage on his own farm, from which he would have been relieved, if such a law as this had been in force.
Mr. CALKINS, of Porter-This bill is not ample enough. It ought to provide for a commission to follow up these cases and smell them out. It is novel, and ought to have the serious consideration of the House. Can we say here that a man is guilty of a misdemeanor, simply because he fails to comply with the request of another party, where that party has a legal remedy?
Mr. NEFF did not suppose this bill would have met with opposition, because it is right and proper in itself.
Mr. CALKINS. Make the law so that a man may come into court and have satisfaction entered at the cost of the party.
Mr. NEFF. If I throw down the fence of my neighbor, I am guilty of a misdemeanor. Am I not more guilty if I refuse to enter the satisfaction of a paid up mortgage?
Mr. McDONALD was astonished at the opposition of the gentleman from Porter, who is a lawyer and a very good one. I know this bill strikes right at such men as the gentleman from Porter and myself; because if we keep the law as it is we may get a good many cases to compel scoundrels to enter satisfaction. It gives us more fees In the little county I represent there are individuals who get their pay, and hold back the satisfaction out of mere spite; and the mortgagar must commence proceedings and pay an attorney's fee of $25. I regard this bill as right and just. It makes dishonest men do right. If we can't make them honest we can make them do justice. And if we can't reach offenders in foreign States we can reach them at home.
Mr. BIGGS. I have practiced some seven years in Kosciusko county, and I have never had a case to compel satisfaction on a mortgage. So far as our people are concerned they always come up like men and enter the satisfaction. I neither oppose nor advocate any measures here from personal considerations; but my opposition is, that the party has already a sufficient and ample remedy, and that this bill will not reach cases beyond the State.
Mr. CAUTHORN considered the bill right and intended to vote for it. I am sorry the gentleman from Porter did not present his amendment in regard to a commission--to hunt up those cases. If he had I would have submitted the amendment suggested and appointed him on the commission.
Mr. CALKINS, of Porter. If the gentleman will do so now, I will accept the appointment. [Laughter.]
The bill was then passed the final reading in the House of Representatives, yeas 84, nays 9.
EXEMPTION LAWS.
Mr. BIGGS' bill [H. R. 136] to amend section 1 of the act to exempt certain property from sale in certain cases, approved February, 1852, coming up on the third reading.
Mr. BIGGS' object was, if possible, to do something for the benefit of the poorer classes. The statute now exempts $500 tor the widow, while it allows the husband but $300.
Mr. NEFF was opposed to the bill It was radical--giving $600 instead of $300--
Mr. BALLENGER. Here is a proposition just doubling the exemption; and bethought it would operate against the very class sought to be benefited. It would be against their interests in that it would make it difficult for them to obtain credit.
Mr. BIGGS. Does the gentleman know of any State where the exemption is so low as in this State?
The bill was rejected--yeas 26, nays 65.
Mr. BROWNING (by consent), from the Committee on Railroads, returned Mr. Warrum's bill [H. R. ] to establish uniform rates for railroads, with amendments- striking out "three" and inserting ''three and a half," for the maximum rate for passengers, with other amendments--and adding a provision to allow the railroad company $2 per day for delaying a chartered freight car, and reporting a motion to print 200 copies of the bill, with the amendments.
On motion of Mr. BALLENGER the printing was ordered accordingly.
DEFICIENCIES FOR THE BENEVOLENT INSTITUTIONS.
Mr. Minich's bill [H. R. 69] making specific appropriations or the benevolent institutions of the State coming up on the third reading--
On motion of Mr. DEFREES the House resolved itself into Committee of the Whole, Mr. Defrees in the chair, and took up the consideration of said bill by sections; and after some time spent therein, the Chairman reported the bill to the House without amendment, recommending its passage.
Whereupon--
The bill was finally passed the House of Representatives--yeas 90, nays 0.
The members of the Committee on Reformatories obtained leave of absence till tomorrow.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM (by consent) submitted a resolution, which was adopted, authorizing the Doorkeeper to enlarge the Speaker's table for the accommodation of the clerk.
RAILROADS.
Mr. Hines' bill [H. R. 79] to extend the page: 189[View Page 189] time for the completion of certain railroads and to legalize the acts of their Boards of Directors--[it extends the time five years] coming up (it having failed for want of a quorum yesterday), was finally passed the House of Representatives--yeas 90, nays 5.
MEMORY OF HON. H. D. WASHBURN.
Mr. WHITE submitted the following:
WHEREAS, On Thursday the 26th inst., the Hon. H. D Washburn, late Representative in Congress from this State, was removed from our midst by death: therefore,
Be it resolved by the Home of Representatives of the State of Indiana, That in the late General Washburn we recognize a man of sterling qualities generous and noble, a gallant soldier and a kind friend.
Resolved That this House has learned with sorrow of the death of Hon. H D. Washburn and do hereby extend to the relatives and friends of the deceased our most sincere and heartfelt sympathy in their bereavement.
Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be forwarded by the Speaker of this House, to the family of the deceased.
It was adopted by an unanimous rising vote.
And then the House took a recess till 2 o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The SPEAKER resumed the chair at 2 o'clock P. M.
Mr. HAYNES (by consent) submitted the memorial of Matthew L. Brett, formerly Treasurer of State, with reference to a lost one thousand dollars, asking for investigation thereof on the premises suggested.
It was referred to the Committee on Claims.
Mr. TEBBS (by consent) presented a claim for $24 40 for digging a military well in the fairgrounds of Dearborn county.
SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON EQUALIZATION OF RAIL-ROAD TAXES.
The SPEAKER announced the Special Committee to Equalize Tax on Railroads, as follows: Messrs. Conner, Miles, King, Davidson, Stone, Gentry, Coggswell, Abbett, Warrum, Defrees and Wood.
Mr. HOLLAND presented the memorial of Henry E Smith and others, of Indiana, against the extravagance and mismanagement in the institution for the education of the blind. He also offered a resolution, which was adopted, instructing the Committee on the Benevolent Institutions to thoroughly investigate the alleged mismanagement, corruption and extravagance in the institution for the education of the blind.
Mr. MITCHELL presented a temperance petition, and also a petition from citizens of Monroe county for a change in the school law, which were referred to the appropriate committees.
On motion of Mr. SIMPSON, Senate bill 105, to abolish the 29th Judicial Circuit Court (Jefferson Criminal Circuit Court) and to transfer its business to the Circuit Court, to provide for the jurisdiction of the Circuit and Common Pleas Courts of Jefferson county, in cases of felony and misdemeanors, and matters connected therewith, was read the first time and referred to the appropriate committee.
DOG LAW.
Mr. BROWNING'S bill [H. R. 9], to repeal the dog law and revise the law of 1852, coming up in the regular order on the third reading.
Mr. MITCHELL desired the repeal of the dog law, because it led to cases of moral perjury. He would make the owner of a sheep-kiliing dog responsible for the damage he may do.
Mr. KENNEDY represented those who sent him here, and quite a large majority of them were opposed to the repeal of the dog law. His constituents would not swear falsely even to convict a dog.
Mr. OATLEY said farmers had other things to protect as well as sheep; and he even looked upon dogs themselves, indirectly, as for the protection of sheep by too harrassment and destruction of foxes and wolves. For several reasons he was in favor of this repeal. Then, hounds scarcely ever destroy sheep, and it takes about a half a dozen of them a couple of days to catch one fox; and the tax on these six hounds would be about $11 a year--more than all the stock of many a farmer.
Mr. MAJOR was not yet prepared to vote for the repeal of the dog law. Dogs were not yet diminished in his county. There were some 2,000 or 2,500, It seemed like a question between dog meat and mutton; and he preferred the latter. He was owner of two dogs and one sheep--and preferred the sheep.
Mr. HAYNES referred to the enormousnumber (and their value) of sheep that have been killed in the State within the past few years; and with this fact before his mind he was opposed to the proposed repeal of the dog law.
Mr. BROWNING sought the protection of sheep by the repeal of the dog law. The red foxes were destroying more sheep than all the dogs. Formerly we taxed property ad valorem; now we tax according to the number (not the value) of dogs. He showed that the very title of the present act is a libel; it is an act to encourage (not to discourage) the keeping of useless and sheep-killing dogs.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM stated as a reason for voting for this repeal, because it led to corruption and fraud. He was in favor of taxing property according to its value.
Mr. ZENOR. The present dog law has not had the desired effect. He considered also, that the law is unconstitutional.
Mr. LINES was advised by his constituents to let the dog law stand as it is.
Mr. McDONALD also was satisfied with the dog law, and satisfied with the revenue derived under it. He should vote against the bill.
Mr. FURNAS was also satisfied with the law, endorsing the remarks of Mr. Lines and Mr. McDonald, and added and enforced the revenue argument, stating the amount derived from the taxation of dogs to be $172,378 75.
Mr. CORNER said that there were more lambs killed by foxes within the last year, page: 190[View Page 190] in his county, than by the dogs within the last five or six years. Some dogs are valuable; one rat terrier might kill $50 worth of rats in a year. [Laughter], The rats are also doing more harm in the State than all the sheep-killing dogs.
The bill failed on the final reading yeas 47, nays 39--for want of the Constitutional majority of 51.
INVESTMENT OF THE SINKING FUND.
Mr. Ruddell's sinking fund investment bill [H. R. 181] coming up on the second reading--
Mr. RUDDELL submitted a substitute therefor [H. R. 204] to authorize the State Auditor to loan all the moneys in his hands belonging to the Sinking Fund under the provisions of the law for the control of the College Fund.
Mr. RUDDELL said there is now about $600,000 belonging to this fund. That amount invested as proposed would give to the schools of the State about $50,000 a year; and it should be invested immediately. The only difference of opinion that can arise must be as to the mode of investment--the securities, promptness of payment, and rate of interest. If we invest in United States securities we will have to pay a premium, and the value of these securities will be diminished as we approach special payments. But the chief objection to such an objection is in the withdrawal of so large an amount of money from our State. The substitute for the bill proposes the best investment that can be made, not excepting United States bonds. It proposes to invest under the provisions of the college fund bill, which prescribes real estate securities, unencumbered, at the appraised value in double the amount loaned; so that it will always be worth more than the amount loaned. Some have said that the interest should be 10 per cent. instead of 9. Others think 7 or 8 per cent. would be sufficient. I have tried to adopt the medium. We know that business men are paying 12 per cent. in bank, which amounts in the end to about 14 per cent. per annum. Then if business can afford to pay 14 per cent., they can certainly afford to pay 9 per cent. to the school fund; and it seems to me that they will very cheerfully pay 9 per cent. to a fund of this character--a fund arising from the taxation of the people themselves and set apart for the education of their children. Then this is a most important provision, which requires the investment of the fund at home. The securities are ample; and it is provided that the investment shall be made immediately : and that from time to time as the money comes in it shall be invested. As I understand, under the law of 1867 there is a very considerable enlargement of this fund, making it, perhaps, nearly a million of dollars; and it occurs to me that it ought to be invested immediately, and not to be left in the hands of the accounting officers as a temptation to loan it on their own account.
On motion of Mr. DEFREES the subject was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.
REPEAL OF THE DRAINAGE CORPORATION ACT.
Mr. Wood's bill [H. R. 23] to repeal the act, to authorize incorporated companies for the construction of levees, dykes and drains, approved May 22d, 1869, coming up on the third reading--
Mr. CALKINS, of Porter, stating that this is a law particularly desirable to his people, said it is simply to repeal the law of 1869, saving the rights of all incorporated companies whose work in under twenty miles in length, in which they have invested under that law as their charter. He proceeded in a speech at length to review the act of 1869, and expose it as a piece of hasty and, in many particulars, unwise and improvident legislation, which is reserved for correction and future publication.
Mr. TAYLOR followed, admitting the force of the criticisms and the exceptions taken to the act of 1869, and that it ought to be amended. But he being unwilling to repeal the law we now have without the assurance of the enactment of some better guarded law on this subject. And because the present bill is not sufficiently guarded to save the rights of some half a dozen companies organized in his region under tho act of 1869--after debate with Mr. Calkins--he moved that it be recommited to the Committee on Drains, with instructions to report s bill, leaving out the objectionable features of the act of 1869.
Mr. CALKINS hoped the motion would be voted down.
Mr. BUTTERWORTH. This law of 1869 is considered, in my region, as a great outrage; yet I believe the people in Northern Indiana, require a corporation drainage law.
The SPEAKER. (Mr. McDonald in the chair.) The motion is not debateable.
Mr. TAYLOR'S motion was rejected, and the question recurred on the passage of the bill.
Mr. RUDDELL made an ineffectual motion to adjourn.
Mr. WILSON demanded the previous question, and under its pressure the bill was finally passed the House of Representatives--yeas 67, nays 16.
Mr. BROWNING. As this bill needs amendment, I must vote no.
Mr. DEVOL. If the Committee on Drains will report the bill which we need, I will vote for this.
Mr. KNIGHT, by way of explanation, called for the reading of the saving clause in the bill: "Any company whose lines are under 20 miles shall have saved to them all the rights they may have acquired under the act hereby repealed." He voted aye.
Mr. McDONALD. I can't vote for this bill in its present shape. It would be an outrage upon my people. But I do hope the drainage law will yet get into the hands of a committee that will perfect it.
Mr. NETHERTON, explaining his vote, said the people he represented would accept page: 191[View Page 191] the position taken by the gentleman from Porter, [Mr. Calkins] on this bill. Perhaps in the county where he lives there is morelow land which needs draining than there is in any other county represented on this floor, and a year or two ago they rejoiced in the passage of an act to enable the people to take hold of this matter of drainage. And as the question is now upon the repeal of that law, and locking at its unequal and unjust operations, I must vote aye, while I believe the people with me are willing to do almost anything for the purpose of draining the valley of the Kankakee.
Mr. ST. JOHN. After the remarks of the gentleman from Allen [Mr. Taylor] I shall vote no.
The SPEAKER then announced the vote as above--
And so the bill passed.
On motion of Mr. MINICH, the members of the Committee on Benevolent Institutions, obtained, leave of absence for to-morrow.
On motion of Mr. McFARLAND, the Committee to visit the Soldiers' Home obtained leave of absence for to-morrow.
IRON-CLAD NOTE.
Mr. BALLENGER'S bill, [H. R. 75],making illegal and void and all contracts to pay attorney's fees, by the promissor in such contracts coming up--the question being on the amendments offered by Mr. Defrees and Mr. Biggs, heretofore described--they were successively laid on the table.
Mr. McDONALD (by unanimous consent) introduced a bill [H. R. 205] releasing the interest of the State of Indiana in the land formerly owned by Ralph Turner, deceased, to the uses and trusts mentioned in the will of Jane Turner, deceased. He said he introduced this bill with the understanding that it should go to the Committee on the Judiciary. It was so referred.
Mr. GUTHRIE made an ineffectual motion to adjourn.
Mr. Taylor's bill [H. R. 63] to amend sections 62, 63, 65, 66, of the general city corporation act of March 14, 1867, coming up on the second reading--
Mr. TAYLOR said this bill was drawn by Mr. Zollars; that the bill he introduced was somewhat different in the provision; that part of the cost of the streets so laid out should be paid by the property holders benefited by the improvement. He proposed an amendment.
Pending which, at 5:35 o'clock the House adjourned.
