THE BREVIER LEGISTATIVE REPORTS.
TWELFTH VOLUME.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
IN SENATE.
MONDAY, February 13, 1871.The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR took the Chair and commanded order--at 2 o'clock P.M.
Chaplain service was conducted by Rev W. W. CRILEY, of the Lutheran Church.
The Secretary's minutes of Friday's proceedings were read till--
On motion by Mr MARTINDALE, the further reading thereof was dispensed with.
PETITIONS, MEMORIALS, ETC.
Mr. WILLIAMS presented a petition from citizens of Knox county on the subject of temperance, as follows:
To the Senate of the State of Indiana:
We, the undersigned citizens of Vincennes Knox county, in the State of Indiana, respectfully ask at your hands the enactment of a law suppressing the traffic of intoxicating liquors as a beverage, declaring such traffic criminal, with suitable provisions for the conviction and punishment of the offender.
Mr. MARTINDALE presented a communication from the Superintendent of Public Instruction, suggesting early action on the bills proposing to amend the common school laws.
Also by consent, a resolution setting apart Wednesday next for the consideration of these bills, to-wit:
Resolved. That Wednesday, February 15th, at 10 1/2 o'clock, be made the hour and special order for the consideration of school bills, in the following order, to-wit: Senate bills Nos 40, 41, 60, 107, 111; and House bill No. 234 on the same subject
The resolution was adopted.
Mr. FRANCISCO presented the following:
To the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:
WHEREAS Various companies of interested persons in Jefferson county, and other parts of the State, who have heretofore procured unjust and illegal assessments to be made against the citizens thereof, for the pretended purpose of constructing gravel roads, are now attempting to legalize said unjust and illegal assessment conduct in the premises:
Therefore, The undersigned citizens of said county, do petition your honorable body against the passage of any law, or laws, either local or general, to legalize in any manner the assessments so made by any gravel, plank, or maccadamized road company.
Mr. FRANCISCO also presented two petitions, one with 140 names attached, concerning assessments for gravel road purposes, praying against the legalizing of such unjust assessments.
Mr. MILLER presented a petition from Miami county, with some 400 and odd names attached, praying for favorable legislation on the subject of gravel roads.
Mr. ROBINSON presented a pettion from citizens of Decatur county, remonstrating against legislation for curing informalities of gravel road assessments.
Mr. ARMSTRONG presented a petition from 300 citizens of Howard county for a registration of marriages, births and deaths.
Mr. COLLETT presented a petition as follows:
To the General Assembly of the State of Indiana.
Whereas, by reason of great diversity in the rules of practice in the courts of the various States of the Union, such as the prevalence of the common law practice in its purity in some courts, the same partly modified by statutes in others, the existence of a code practice in others, it is difficult for persons residing in one State to know his remedies in law for the enforcement of claims or rights in another State.
And, whereas, it is impossible under the constitutional limitations for any one power in the Union to adopt and enforce one common system of procedure in the Courts throughout the different States.
And, whereas, such common system or mode of procedure in the enforcement of rights and collection of claims would greatly simplify and facilitate court proceedings by bringing the system at once under the judicial investigation and criticism of the highest tribunals in all the States thus uniting the simplicity of the code with the "common judgment" of many tribunals.
Therefore, your honorable body is respectfully petitioned to inaugurate legislation looking to the ultimate adoption by all the States of one common mode of procedure in the courts.
Such legislation might properly begin by a joint resolution, directed to the legislatures of all the States, requesting them to appoint delegates to a convention which shall meet to devise, by careful comparison of the present laws, a code or system as aforesaid, to be reported to the Legislatures of the several States by their respective delgates for adoption.
page: 272[View Page 272]Such joint resolution might very properly provide for a time and place of meeting; compensation of delegates from our State, and other matters necessary to perfect the place.
Believing the aforesaid object most worthy of your highest attention and consideration, I respectfully ask legislation accordingly.
M. G. RHODES, of Vermillion Co.
Mr. HENDERSON presented a petition, with 300 signatures, from Morgan county, on the subject of temperance.
Mr TAYLOR presented a petition for the amendment of the divorce law.
Mr. BEGGS presented a petition on the subject of gravel roads.
These petitions were severally referred to the appropriate committees.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Mr. BROWN, from the Committee on Corporations, returned Mr. Beardsley's bill [S 48] supplemental to the levee and drainage law of May 22, 1869, with numerous amendments.
Mr. BEARDSLEY moved to dispense with the constitutional restriction that the bill may be read the second time by title, the third time by sections, and put upon its passage now.
The motion was rejected--yeas 31, nays 10--two-thirds being required by a constitutional provision.
The report goes to the files under a rule.
Mr. FULLER, from the Committee on Roads, returned the bill [S. 154], to legalize articles of association of turnpike or gravel road companies, to complete assessments, &c., recommending that it lie on the table. It was so ordered.
Mr. CAVE, from the same Committee, returned the bill [S. 132], to amend the gravel road assessment act, with a similar recommendation--its provisions being contained in a bill heretofore reported upon favorably.
The report was concurred in.
Mr. GLESSNER, from the Committee on Fees and Salaries, returned the bill [S. 171], concerning rental of a Governor's residence, with a report favorable to its passage--Mr. Martindale dissenting. The report goes to the files.
Mr. MARTINDALE, from the same committee returned the bill [S. 181] relating to the salaries of certain officers therein named with amendments,
The report goes to the files.
Mr. CAVEN, from the Committee on Claims, returned the bills [S. 93] concerning the payment of certain claims against the swamp land fund, and the bill [S. 115 for returning this fund to the counties from which it was collected, which bills were referred to said committee with "instructions to inquire whether or not the fund mentioned in the bills does not belong to the school fund," the committee report:
That they have had the same under consideration, and find the subject to be governed by section 2 of Article 8 of the Constitution ; also, section 29 of the Swamp Land act of 1852, and the committee are of opinion that the fund in the State Treasury to the credit of the "Swamp Land Fund," by virtue of the above recited provisions "does belong to the school fund" and for the purpose of placing such money to the credit of the school fund, they present the accompanying bill and recommend that it be adopted as a substitute for bill No. 115, and further recommend that No. 93 do lie on the table.
Mr. GREEN resisted this report--it certainly was made under misapprehension of the law in the case. He moved to recommit the bill.
On motion by Mr. CAVEN, the report and bills were referred to the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. CARNAHAN, from the Committee on Claims, reported in favor of the Illinois Central Railroad Company claim for transporting troops.
It was referred to the Committee on Finance, with instructions to incorporate the same in the specific appropriation bills.
Mr. MARTINDALE, from the Committee on the Organization of Courts, returned the bill [H. R. 177], defining what counties shall constitute the 21st Common Pleas District, with a favorable report.
It went to the files.
Also the bill [S 37] to amend the act concerning the Judges of the Supreme Court, creating the Fifth District with a similar report--Messrs. Glessner and La Salle declining to join the report.
It goes to the files.
Also the bill [S. 28] to amend the same act and to re-district the State for a similar purpose, with a similar report Messrs. Gleesner and La Salle dissenting.
It goes to the files.
RAILROAD EXTENSION.
Mr. ANDREWS, from the Committee on Railroads, returned the bill [H. R. 79] to extend the time for the completion of certain railroads and to legalize the acts of their Board of Directors, with an amendment.
On motion by Mr. CARNAHAN the order of business was suspended and the amendment being again read, that the provisions of this act shall not affect the right or interests of railroad companies over such roads as have been opened and put into operation by said companies.
The omendment was concurred in.
Mr. MARTINDALE moved to amend by providing that all railroads organized under the laws of this State shall elect a majority of their directors from citizens of this State.
Mr. CARNAHAN could not see that the bill affects any railroad in the State but one in his district, and opposed this amendment to this bill.
Mr. BRADLEY also opposed the amendment for the reason that it is not exactly germane to the bill--it is what the constitution refers to as a rider, and therefore would be unconstitutional.
Mr. MARTINDALE thought if the amendment be embraced in the title it would be constitutional, and if adopted would save him the trouble of framing a bill to cover this ground.
Mr. WILLIAMS stated that he has a bill embracing the point desired to be made by page: 273[View Page 273] this amendment, and should introduce it the first opportunity, and thereupon--
Mr. MARTINDALE withdrew his amendment.
The bill was then ordered engrossed by consent.
Mr. CARNAHAN moved for a dispensation of the constitutional restriction that the bill may be considered as engrossed, read the third time, and put upon its passage now.
The motion was agreed to by yeas 38, nays 1.
The bill was then read the third time and finally passed the Senate by yeas 38, nays 1.
Mr. ANDREWS, from the Committee on Railroads, returned Mr. Collett's bill [S. 152] to extend the time for completion of railroads in cases in which the time has been heretofore extended and the roads are not yet finished, with amendments.
On motion of Mr. COLLETT, the order of business being suspended by consent, the amendments were concurred in.
Mr. COLLETT moved that the constitutional restriction be suspended that the bill may be pressed to its third reading now. He was understood to say that it would affect only one railroad; one in which his people felt a great interest.
Mr. HADLEY joined in the desire that this bill may be pressed to its passage at once.
The motion was agreed to by yeas, 40 ; nays, 0.
The bill was then read the third time, and passed the Senate by yeas, 37; nays, 1.
FEES AND SALARIES.
Mr. HENDERSON, from the select committee thereon, returned the fee and salary bill [S. 4] with sundry amendments, and a recommendation that it pass, and that the order of be suspended and the bill be considered now.
The report was concurred in.
The title of the bill was read, for the second reading.
Mr. HOOPER moved to amend section 23 by striking out the words "day of each month" and inserting in lieu the words, "Mondays in June and December" as the times of the reports to be made by County Treasurers. He desired but two reports a year instead of one on the first day of each month. It is no small matter to make this report. He thought one report a year--as the law now stands--is all that is needed. This bill requires the treasurer to show the precise condition of every fund he collects, and that is not an easy matter to do, for he has probably eight or ten different funds to collect. These reports can not be made in an hour nor in a day. The Treasurer would have to shut up his office, stop receiving taxes and it would require him and the Auditor several days to make out this report. An experienced officer has written that it would require six or seven days. A report once a year would be satisfactory to his constituents.
Mr. HENDERSON stated that the committee agreed to amend the bill so as to require four reports a year, and the people that often should be enabled to understand the condition of the treasury. He hoped the amendment would not prevail.
The amendment was rejected by nays, 13; yeas, 29.
The committee amendment to section 28, which allows to the Auditor, for deputy hire the sum of one hundred dollars for each one thousand inhabitants exceeding ten thousand, and proposing to add the words, "or fractional part thereof over five hundred," was concurred in.
As was, also, the committee amendment, adding to section thirty these words: provided that in any county where the whole fees of the clerk or sheriff amounts in the aggregate to less than one thousand dollars, the Board of Commissioners may, in their discretion, allow such officers an amount including such fees not exceeding in the aggregate one thousand dollars, and such allowances shall not exceed three hundred dollars in any one year."
Mr. BOBO moved to amend by providing that when the population does not exceed 15,000 the county officers shall retain all legal fees. He could see no use in requiring the officers of these smaller counties to put their money in the treasury and take it out again. Making this kind of labor for nothing, in probably thirty or more counties in the State, he was compelled to object to putting these smaller counties through the maneuver proposed in this bill.
Mr. GREEN hoped the amendmend will not prevail, for it will destroy the harmony of the bill. He thought the fees were about right under the old law; but there was a singular kind of taking fees that was done only by construction, which the people were begining to think smacked considerable of corruption.
Mr. GLESSNER also hoped the amendment would fail. The present bill affords ample compensation to officers of counties of 15,000 inhabitants. He should oppose amendments to this bill, for he regarded it as perfect as could be made, and disliked to see its harmony destroyed.
Mr. BOBO admired harmony as much as any gentleman, but he desired to see justice done the officials in smaller counties. His amendment would save an immense stationery bill, and a vast amount of labor, which would be a burden and an expense without the bringing of any revenue into the county treasuries.
Mr. HOOPER regarded this bill as working a hardship so far as the clerk and sheriffs of these smaller counties are concerned it proposes work that is oppressive and wrong. He could not see that the harmony of the bill would be destroyed by simply leaving out of the bill these smaller counties, and making it apply only to counties of over 15,000 people. If these requirements are made of these smaller counties he regarded it as his duty to vote against the bill, as much as he desired that a perfect fee and salary bill should pass.
The amendment was rejected by yeas 11, nays 29.
page: 274[View Page 274]The committee's amendment to the title was concurred in.
Mr. JOHNSTON moved to amend by inserting a section making the fees of the Sheriffs of the Supreme Court the same as Sheriffs of the Circuit Courts for similar service.
On motion of Mr. GLESSNER it was laid on the table.
Mr. WOOD moved to amend by inserting $2,000 where $1,500 occurs, as salaries of county officers, "except as provided in this act."
Mr. ---- moved to lay this amendment on the table.
The motion was agreed to by yeas 31, nays 9.
Mr. ANDREWS moved to amend the section relating to the fees of constables by increasing his fees "for serving summons" from 25 cents to 35 cents; for "serving executions," from 25 cents to 35 cents; for "sale of goods," from 25 to 50 cents; for "summoning a jury," from 50 to 75 cents; "for attending jury trial," from 35 to 50 cents; cents; for "attending trial," from 25 to 50 cents. He was of opinion that the Senate was passing over the fees of these officers too rapidly. Many salaries were made higher than heretofore. The compensation to this officer has always been too low, and now as it is a necessary office, let us give him a fair compensation.
Mr. ROSEBRUGH opposed all raising of fees above their present standard, for we have no difficulty in getting officers under the present laws. Then the costs of litigation are enough already, and any attempt to increase them will not meet with the approval of the people generally. The people should have as cheap justice as can be had consistently.
Mr. MARTINDALE thought most of these amendments were just, and should be adopted--they come off the parties sued, and would probably be the means of securing better constables.
Mr. ANDREWS insisted that the services of these men in seeking to procure justice should be recognized by a reasonable compensation.
The amendments were agreed to, by yeas 24, nays 16.
Mr. MARTINDALE moved that the constitutional restrictions be dispensed with, that the bill may be read the third time and put upon its passage now.
The motion was rejected by yeas 30, nays 11--two-thirds not voting in the affirmative as required by the constitutional provision.
The bill was then ordered to be engrossed for the third reading.
GRAVEL ROADS.
Mr. GREGG offered a resolution as follows:
WHEREAS, A number of petitions from the people have reached the General Assembly since Senate bill No. 119 has been reported back to the Senate from the Committee on Roads, to which it was referred, setting forth that the passage of a law upon the subject involved in said bill would materially affect their rights and interests, therefore--
Resolved, That this bill, together with laid petitions be referred to the Committee on Rights and Privileges, with instructions the investigate the objects and prayers of the petitioners on this subject.
Mr. DWIGGINS moved to lay the resolution on the table.
The yeas and nays were demanded and ordered, pending which Mr. interposed a motion to adjourn.
This motion was agreed to by yeas 21, nays 19.
So the Senate adjourned till 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.
