HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
THURSDAY, February 2, 1871.The House met at 9 o'clock a. m. Prayer by Rev. Mr. McCormick, of Gibson county.
The journal of yesterday was read--till on motion of Mr. MAJOR, its further reading was dispensed with.
ROAD LAWS.
The SPEAKER announced the unfinished business of yesterday, viz., the consideration of Mr. Hawley's road law repeal bill [H. R. 124], with the committee recommendation that it be indefinitely postponed, because the substance is contained in another road bill recommended.
Mr. HAWLEY denied that any other bill contains its provisions.
Mr. STRICKLAND showed the working of the road laws of 1852 and 1855, the borrowing of money for road construction by Directors in advance of their collection, and the Supreme Court decision that all proceedings are illegal in cases where there has been irregularity or incompleteness in the assessments. This bill saves these lost rights; and it repeals the act of 1869. In his county (Decatur) alone one hundred thousand dollars, which have been borrowed and expended for the public good, stand in a position to be affected by this bill. The prevailing error in these assessments is the failure to assess the property in county seats, when the roads terminate there.
The SPEAKER stated the question to be on postponement--to restrict the range of debate to a particular issue.
Mr. STRICKLAND continued. The main struggle will be right here, and he desired to go on the record in regard to it. The bill proposes to assess the towns--for the purpose of legalizing the assessments in the country. Again, there is a provision in the acts of 1869, that where the collections are sufficient the assessments shall cease. There were men here lobbying in the interest of the people; and there were others, lawyers, lobbying against the bill, because it will deprive them of business. Let us pass an act which will allow companies to correct these irregularities. In voting for the repeal of this act of 1869, let us save vested rights. He himself was not to be affected--not being within one and a half miles of any turnpike.
Mr. COPNER said no matter here was more interesting to his people than the repeal of the gravel road laws. We want gravel road laws. We want roads belonging to the people. He trusted that the report would not be concurred in.
Mr. BROWNING believed it but an act of justice that the report should be concurred page: 205[View Page 205] in, because there is another and a better bill. He looked into the history of the operation of the road law. He wanted a bill to correct these defective assessments. This bill was a trap--giving a saving clause which amounts to nothing. The pinch, was, that its friends desired to avoid the assessments in the towns. He did not feel willing to see a law pass that would cut off the rights of the road men.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM considered the general proposition of the propriety of gravel road laws. It builds up roads by taxation in which the people have no interest. These companies come for their assessments before the owners of the land are ready to pay, and they are compelled to sell their homes to pay them. He declaimed earnestly against this oppression and inequality complained of by the people in the operation of these road laws. The time was come for the farmers of the country to declare and maintain their rights in this matter. He would vote for no law that compels a man to improve his property before he is ready. He voted against the law of 1869, and he would vote against it now. When he had concluded--
THE ELECTION LAWS.
The SPEAKER announced the special order for the hour, viz: the consideration of the General Election bill (H. R. 203) as in Committee of the Whole; and the House, thereupon, resolved into Committee of the Whole--Mr. Wilson in the Chair--and it was ordered that the bill be considered by sections.
The first section, fixing general elections for the second Tuesday in October, was passed without amendment.
Section 2, in regard to notice; section 3, as to election boards; section 4, as to vacancies, being read--
Mr. CALKINS, of Porter, proposed to insert a clause to force parties appointed on Election Boards to serve under penalty of $25 fine.
Mr. NEFF. In his county this difficulty has not occurred, and he hoped the amendment would be voted down.
Mr. CALKINS sought by it, that the election might be carried on without being subject to contest on account of the organization of the Board.
Mr. CALDWELL objected to the amendment, that it was iron-clad, and would encumber the bill.
Mr. BELLENGER. The cases supposed would rarily occur, and the penalty was heavy. He saw no necessity for the amendment.
Mr. LINES. Most men were ready to serve on Election Boards, to pay their road tax.
Mr. CALKINS withdrew the amendment, as it seemed to meet with general opposition.
Mr. KENNEDY would like some provision in the bill by which revolutionary proceedings might be prevented.
Mr. COX. The decision of the Supreme Court was--that the regulation is advisory directory merely, not obligatory.
Mr. TAYLOR regretted that the provision of this section 4 requiring the Board to be equally divided between the two political parties is unconstitutional, because it has worked very well. In the State of Pennsylvania they provide for the election of judges of election, and avoid the constitutional restriction.
Mr. McDONALD was agreed in opinion with the gentleman from Allen, (Mr. Taylor,) and he would be glad to have a provision here like the Pennsylvania or the Iowa law--for the election of judges to servo two years.
Mr. BALLENGER. This election regulation operated for the protection of the purity of the ballot box. If we elect these, in some counties it would defeat the object by destroying the balance of parties on the board.
Mr. RHODES moved to strike that clause from the third section, which authorises the placing of two townships in one voting precinct.
Mr. SABIN. This was copied from the act of 1852, and no evil could come of it.
Mr. CALKINS, of Porter, saw that confusion would result, since the township election were to be held in the fall. The clause was stricken out.
Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 being read and passed.
Mr. TAYLOR thought the latter section should be more specific in regard to the lock.
Mr. SABIN said the lock was never to be out of the presence of the officers, and it was to be sealed also. Sections 14, 15, 16--being read--
Mr. ST. JOHN moved that in the fifteenth section it read, instead of "will," "the Board shall not adjourn," etc, and the motion was agreed to. Sections 17,18,10, 20, being read--
Mr. MITCHELL suggested that there was no provision in regard to the term of the residence of the voter in the township for any time next before the election.
Mr. SABIN. The committee left that, under the Constitution, without limitation.
Mr. COPNER moved to strike out the 20th section and insert a substitute, to this effect: Any person offering to vote may be challenged by any voter of the township; and thereupon he shall take and subscribe an oath: that he is over 21 years; has been a resident of the State 6 months and of the township for the 20 days last past, and that he is there for the purpose of making it his permanent residence; and that he has not and will not vote anywhere else in this election; and if foreign born, that he has the required residence and has declared intention of naturalization; and that the oath be returned with the papers.
Mr. McDOWELL and Mr. MARTIN of Putnam considered that the committee have done in this matter all that could be desired.
Mr. COPNER urged the necessity of his substitute for the 19th section. The point was: it is not the intention that a man shall vote where he keeps his washing merely.
Mr. BIGGS moved to strike out from the substitute that clause which declares inten- page: 206[View Page 206] tion to make the precinct the voter's permanent residence.
Mr. CONNER. Residence is the constitutional requisition, and sufficient.
After further debate by Mr. Mitchell, Mr. White insisting that the committee have acted deliberately and prudently, in that they have insisted upon nothing but residence for voting qualification--
Mr. SPEAKER MACK inquired: What is a residence? Let the committee define.
Mr. WHITE. That question could always be best answered by the voter himself. He would protect the elective franchise with the severest penalties--would make fraudulent voting a felony, punishable with two years in the penitentiary.
Mr. BALLENGER did not think the Constitution prohibits tho Legislature from making regulations as to what constitutes the voter's residence. Residence is the actual abiding in the township, and the intention to continue the same. He referred to shifting of voters from county to county under the law of 1865; and the same thing would be done under this bill if the residence be left without a distinct definition and fixing of what constitutes a residence. If this cannot be done, we might as well give up our elections.
Mr. MACK concurred in the reasoning of Mr. Ballenger, though his mind was tending to the conclusion that the constitution prohibits the restriction proposed. The constitution says if he resides in the township he is entitled to vote. To say the voter shall reside twenty days is a questionable construction of the constitution. He suggested that this section ought to be amended so as to require the challenged party to swear that he is a bona fide residenta resident in good faith.
Mr. BALLENGER. Does the gentleman believe that the Legislature can define the residence?
Mr. MACK. He did so believe, and that a good deal of difficulty might be avoided in our elections by so doing. He commended the definition, that a man's residence is what he calls his home when he is out of business. It was the intention that makes residence. If he could be satisfied that the twenty days provision is right, he would go for that; would do all he could to protect the ballot-box.
Mr. BALLENGER thought the honest men the State over were in favor of the 20 days or 30 days provision. It will be enough for us to hesitate when the courts have decided that it is prohibited by the Constitution. If we do not this, it will look like invitation to fraud.
Mr. McDONALD was in favor of such a provision, and could not see that evil can flow from it; and it would apply equally to all parties. It was merely a police regulation; and we have the right to establish regulations not prohibited by the constitution.
Mr. MARTIN, of Putnam, could vote for the restriction if it were not against the constitution. He showed that we have a decison of the Supreme Court; 9th Indiana Reports, p. 427, which he read, and he was willing to abide by it.
Mr. RHODES took the same view; but he would unite in support of a general statue defining what shall constitute a residence for all purposes not merely for the purpose of voting.
Mr. TAYLOR showed the difficulty to be as to what constitutes a change of residence: some holding that there is an interim between the time of losing his residence in one township and gaining it in another. He was of opinion that a citizen removing from one township to another does not lose his residence for a single day. And he was of opinion that the Legislature has not the province to define the word residence; but that the General Assembly should provide by statute that a man removing from one township to another shall not lose his residence in the one till he gains it in the other.
Mr. MILEE took a similar view--that the Legislature can not prescribe the restriction as to days--and that residence alone is the essential qualification. When he had concluded--
On motion of Mr. WILLIAMS the Committee rose, and--
The CHAIRMAN reported progress, and asked and obtained leave for the committee to sit again at 2 o'clock this P. M.
On motion of Mr. ZENOR, it was ordered that Mr. Hooker's road bill [H. R. 100] be taken up and be referred to the Road Committee raised yesterday.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The SPEAKER resumed the chair at 2 o'clock P. M., and announced the special order; whereupon--
The House resolved into Committee of the Whole, Mr. Wilson in the chair.
The Chairman announced the question to be on Mr. Biggs' amendment to Mr. Copner's amendment--Mr. Biggs proposing to strike out of the oath the words "of intention to make the township the voter's permanent residence.
Mr. BROWNING insisted that we can not pass such a provision that will have any binding force. The best thing would be to require the voter challenged to take an oath that he is a bona fide resident.
Mr. Biggs' amendment to the amendment was agreed to, and the question recurred on Mr. Copner's substitute for the 20th section as amended.
Mr. MACK proposed to amend further, which he suggested to Mr. Copner.
Mr. MILES moved to amend further by striking out the twenty days clause, because it was not competent for the Legislature to make such a restriction effective. The Constitution restrains it. He read from the American Leading Cases in regard to Domicil, page 744, the words of Judge Weston. Wherever the voter resides at the time of the election, that is his domicil. Domicil is residence--a question of fact and intention. The book was full of decisions to this point. page: 207[View Page 207] The remedy is, the right to appeal to the oath of the voter.
Mr. NEFF. This was a question upon which the best minds differ. The object of the restriction was to prevent fraudulent voting. It was in the acts of 1867 and 1869. He was in favor of it now. There had been fair voting under it--there was more illegal voting before it was enacted. Mr. Miles' amendment was rejected.
Mr. COPNER proposed to modify his amendment as suggested by Mr. Mack.
The amendment, as modified, was adopted.
Sections 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28 and 27 being read-
Mr. CONNER proposed to add to the latter section: "Such officer failing to preserve said papers shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction be fined not exceeding $500;" which was adopted.
Sections 28 and 29 being read--
Mr. CONNER proposed to require the returns be made the succeeding Wednesday, instead of Thursday which was subsequent--
Sections 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35 being read--
Mr. CALKINS, of Porter, moved to strike out the words "if not contested;" for if contest is filed, no certificate of election could be obtained.
Mr. MACK. It was the old law.
Mr.BALLENGER thought the amendment deserved consideration. Under that provision the law would be liable to great abuse.
Mr. TAYLOR spoke in favor of the amendment. This provision had made trouble, and perhaps it never did any good. The party who has received the majority of votes, has prima facie right to the certificate. In a conversation with the Governor, his Excellency stated that he had thought to recommend that this provision be stricken out of the statue.
Mr. DAVIDSON. The old rule has operated well and done little harm. If we hold both parties out of the office till the Courts determine, it will take away the temptation to prolong the contest. It was not presumable any contestor would go into a contest on frivalous grounds--it applies only to those officers not commissioned by the Governor. The contestor must swear to the fact, and he is answerable to the contestee for damages for the emoluments of the office. But if you allow the contestee to go into the office you admit of every motive to prolong the contest.
Mr. BIGGS. Does the gentleman know of any case where the certificate has been withheld?
Mr. BALLENGER. If the certificate were withheld, how could a case of contest come before the House of Representatives? Mr. Calkins' amendment was agreed to--affirmative 39, negative 38.
Sections 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, and 43 being read--
Mr. MACK moved to insert appropriately in the latter section the words "Attorney General," and "Prosecuting and District Attorneys" and "Judges of the Criminal Courts," which was taken by consent.
Sections 44, 45, 46 and 47 having been read--
Mr. BIGGS suggested that the penalty in the last section, $25 to $100, apply to all cases of violation of any provision of the act, and that therefore the penalty adopted embraced in the amendment of Mr. Conner becomes unnecessary; and he moved to reconsider the vote adopting that amendment.
The motion was agreed to; and then it was withdrawn; and then--
On motion of Mr. CONNER, the maximim of penalty in section 37 was raised, to $500.
Sections 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 63, and 54, were read and agreed to by consent.
On motion of Mr. BALLENG-ER the committee then rose; and the Chairman reported back the bill, [H. R. 205,] with sundry amendments, recommending their adoption.
The report was accepted.
COFFEE, TEA, SUGAR, SALT.
Mr. NEFF moved that the House take up the special order set for 2 1/2 o'clock this afternoon, viz: the Senate joint resolution No. 6, for a memorial through the State representatives in Congress, for placing coffee, tea and sugar on the free lists--in the general tariff laws--the question being on the amendment of Mr. Calkins of Porter, that all articles of prime necessity be placed upon the free list "as soon as the necessities of the government will admit."
Mr. McDONALD demanded a call of the House, where under ninety-four members answered--and further proceedings under the call were dispensed with.
Mr. BALLENGER, proposed to amend the amendment, by including therein "all articles consumed for food or worn for clothing."
The amendment to the amendment, was rejected yeas, 44; nays, 45; and the question recurred on Mr. Calkins' amendment.
The vote on the amendment was rejected--yeas, 44; nays, 45.
So the amendment was rejected; and the question recurred on the adoption of the joint resolution.
Mr. HOLLAND proposed to amend by adding further to the free list "salt, sole leather, coal, pig iron and Bessemer steel."
It was adopted--yeas 64, nays 30.
Mr. NEFF, explaining his vote, said he was in favor of this resolution as it came from the Senate in good faith, and as I think this amendment will, if adopted, destroy the object of the resolution. I will vote no.
Mr. MITCHELL, explaining, said he had thought to vote no on this question, but since the speech of the gentleman from Putnam he would vote aye.
Mr. CAUTHORN demanded the previous question, and under its pressure, the concurrent resolution as amended, was adopted yeas 72, nays 18.
Mr. McDONALD and Mr. NETHERTON explaining their votes, but neither explanation was recorded. Mr. McDonald's explanation for his negative vote was understood to be because of the adoption of the amendment by Mr. Holland; and Mr. Netherton's page: 208[View Page 208] negative vote, because of Mr. Cauthorn's amendment.
RAILROADS.
On motion of Mr. CONNER, the Special Committee on the Equalization of Railroad Taxation, raised under his resolution, was discharged, on account of the Senate's proposition to raise a joint special committee to consider matters embracing the same subject.
The SPEAKER announced the said joint committee on the part of the House of Representatives, and it consists of Messrs. Stone, Gentry, Warrum, King, Miles, Conner and Wood.
On motion of Mr. WILSON, his fees and salaries bill (H. R. 157) was taken up and referred to the Committee on Fees and Salaries.
On motion of Mr. WHITE, the bill to amend the eighth section of the County Surveyors act was taken up and placed on the Clerk's files.
Messrs. Calkins, of Porter, Rawles, Stephens, Hardin, McDowell and Hawley obtained leave of absence till next week.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Mr. SANSBERRY, from the Committee on the Organization of Courts, returned Mr. McDonald's bill [H. R. 116] to amend the Supreme Court act, and creating an additional judge, recommending its passage.
He also returned Mr. McDonald's bill [H. R. 68] relative to the same matter, recommending its passage.
Mr. FURNAS, from the Committee on Rights and Privileges, returned Mr. Defrees Bird and Game bill [H. R. 62] with amendments.
Mr. ST. JOHN, from the Committee on the Organization of Courts, returned his Court bill [H. R. 173] with amendments.
Mr. CAUTHORN (by consent) introduced a bill [H. R. 207] for and act to amend an act of January 27,1847, granting to the citizens of the town of Evansville a charter by adding supplemental sections thereto, (relative to city water works. It was referred to the Committee on Cities and Towns.
Mr. MITCHELL offered a resolution for a lecture in the Hall by Matthew R. Hull.
On motion of Mr. WILSON, it was laid on the table.
Mr. BRITTON, from the Committee on Roads, returned Mr. Hawley's gravel road law repeal bill [H. R. 124], recommending indefinite postponement as the subject matter involved is embraced in another bill.
Mr. DAVIDSON desired postponement of the question of concurrence, but--
The report was concurred in--yeas 63, nays 17.
Mr. MARTIN, of Wayne, from the Committee on Roads, returned Mr. Rice's supervisors election bill [H. R. 54], recommending that it be laid on the table.
Mr. BRITTON, from the Committee on Roads, returned Mr. Rice's 40 foot wide road bill [H. R. 109] recommending indefinite postponement.
The report was concurred in.
Mr. TARLTON, from the Committee on Roads, returned Mr. McFarland's gravel road repeal bill [H. R. 127] recommending its indefinite postponement.
The report was concurred in.
Mr. MILLIKEN, from the Committee on Roads, returned Mr. Kirkpatrick's road tax bill (H. R.86) recommending that it lie on the table.
The report was concurred in.
AGENT OF STATE.
Mr. McDONALD, from the Judiciary Committee, returned Mr. Stone's bill (H. R. 20) to abolish the office of Agent of State and to authorize the Governor and Senate to appoint a temporary Agent if necessary--with a report, reasoning at some length in the matter--coming to the conclusion that it is inexpedient to abolish said office at this session, and recommending that the bill be indefinitely postponed.
Mr. ST. JOHN, from a minority of said committee, reported for the passage of said bill, with an amendment providing that such temporary agent shall receive a compensation not exceeding $1,000 a year, including office rent and expenses.
On motion of Mr. McDONALD, the further consideration of the matter was postponed, and it was made the special order for Tuesday ten o'clock.
Mr. MARTIN, of Wayne, presented two petitions for prison supervisors, and in relation to the divorce law.
Mr. LINES presented a petition from two hundred citizens of Henry county for repeal of the gravel road law.
NEW PROPOSITIONS.
The SPEAKER returned to the call of the counties for bills, resolutions, &c.
Mr. McDOWELL submitted a resolution for a joint select committee of one from each Congressional District to report a bill to re-district the State for Congressional purposes.
It was rejected on a division--affirmative 37, negative 37.
STATE DEBT SINKING FUND.
Mr. TAYLOR submitted the following:
WHEREAS, It is estimated by the Auditor of State that there will be on hand, the first day of July next, in the Treasury of the State a surplus to the credit of the State Debt Sinking Fund, which has been raised by taxation, and which will not be needed for the purpose for which it was raised, amounting to $650,000, and--
WHEREAS, In the opinion of this House the best disposition that can be made of that fund is to pay it into the general fund, and thus lessen the rate of taxation for State purposes for the next two years; therefore,
Resolved, That the Committee on Ways and Means be instructed to prepare and report a bill providing for the payment into the general fund of the Treasury, of all the money that is now on hand, or which may be within the next two years paid into the Treasury from taxation, to the credit of the State Debt Sinking Fund, which may not be needed for the purposes for which it was collected.
It was adopted.
Mr. TAYLOR introduced a bill (H. R. 208,) for an act to promote the science of medicine and surgery in the State of In- page: 209[View Page 209] diana, and providing penalties for the violation of any of its provisions.
It was referred to the Committee on Rights and Privileges.
Mr. TAYLOR offered a preamble and resolution that the Committee on Claims inquire into the claims of Jared Crosswell, for some $13.
Mr. CALKINS of Porter, obtained leave to introduce a bill, which will be read in the regular order of the call of his county tomorrow.
On motion of Mr. WALKER, at 5:35 o'clock the House adjourned.
