HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WEDNESDAY, February 15, 1871.The House met at 9 o'clock A. M., with order of prayer by the Rev. Mr. Goodwin, of Indianapolis.
The order of reading the journal of yesterday was executed by the Clerk, till--
On motion of Mr. GORDON, of Boone, its further reading was dispensed with.
EQUALIZATION OF TAXATION.
Mr. STONE (by unanimous consent) from the Joint Special Committee on the Subject of equalization of railroad taxation, reported a bill (H. R. 337) for an act to provide for the appraisement and equalization of appraisement of real estate in the State of Indiana for the purposes of taxation, which was read the first time.
Also, a bill (H. R. 338) for an act to define the terms "true cash value in money," as used in the laws for the assessment of real property for taxation.
Mr. BUTTERWORTH (obtaining unanimous consent for the purpose) from the Committee on Dykes and Drains, returned Mr. Taylor's bill [H. R. 315] to authorize the construction of levees, dykes and drains by associations, etc., with amendments, adding to section 6, a clause to this effect; "provided that the principal office of such associations, their books and papers shall be kept in this State in one of the counties through which their proposed work passes," and so amended, the Committee recommend the passage of the bill.
On motion of Mr. TAYLOR, the bill was then read the second time; and the amendment reported by the committee was adopted.
Mr. TAYLOR stated some of the principal features of the bill, and among them was the provisions for a Board of Equalization; and for appeals from the decisions of the Board of Assessments.
The bill was ordered to the engrossment.
Mr. CAUTHORN asked and obtained leave to introduce a bill to amend the general laws for the incorporation of towns. He explained its necessity, on account of the u a constitutionality of the supplemental act of 1867, for amendment of section 22 of the original act, because the original sec- page: 294[View Page 294] tion was not fully set forth. He then introduced a bill [H. R. 339] for an act to amend section 22 of an act for the incorporation of towns, defining their powers, and providing for the election of officers, approved June, 1852, and legalizing the acts of certain officers therein named; which was read the first time.
Mr. GORDON of Boone indicated an amendment in regard to licensing billiard tables.
FEES AND SALARIES.
The SPEAKER now announced the special order for the hour, viz: the consideration of the several fees and salaries bilk pending in the House.
Mr. NEFF moved for the reading of the Senate (Henderson) fee bill.
Mr. CALKINS of Porter, insisted that the bills that have been reported from the Committee on Fees and Salaries be also read.
The SPEAKER. They will be read. The Senate bill first.
Mr. STEPHENSON said: The first 25 or 30 sections of the Senate bill are copied, without change, from the present law--those in regard to the fees of the clerks, etc., of the Supreme and other Courts.
The Senate fee bill, No. 4, was read through by the clerk.
Mr. CONNER proposed an amendment to the bill by way of substituting the committee's bill [H. R. 206] for regulating the salaries and compensation of county officers repealing and providing penalties.
Mr. WILSON proposed a substitute for the amendment, which he subsequently withdrew.
Mr. McDONALD moved to refer the subject to a select committee of five.
Mr. NEFF appealed to the gentleman to withdraw that motion. He would adopt the Senate bill without dotting an "i" or crossing a "t."
Mr. McDONALD declined. He was not to be gagged by this bill or any other. He would have a fee bill that will give equal justice to all. He would modify his motion according to the suggestion of the gentlemen, and asked for a committee of one from each Congressional District)
Mr. BALLINGER was in favor of the motion of the gentleman from Whitley. It was most appropriate that so long a bill and so important should go to a committee of one from each Congressional District. He intended to see a fee bill passed, and did not think there was any intention to gag anybody.
Mr. DEFREES did not think there could be anything gained by such a reference.
Mr. CALKINS of Porter. This matter reaches every interest in the State. Here are two bills of the House and one from the Senate which gentlemen desire to pass without dotting an "i" or crossing a "t." He could tell the gentlemen that, pursuing such a course, they will wake up and find that they have voted themselves into their political graves. The committee suggested might report a bill that we could pass. A fee bill should originate in the House of Representatives--Representatives are nearer to the people than Senators. The committee could report at an early day.
Mr. McDONALD said they could report to-morrow at 2 o'clock.
Mr. MITCHELL apprehended that unless we come to a direct vote on this Senate bill (though he himself could be suited better) we will not be able to pass a fee bill this session.
Mr. NEFF considered it the best we can get. He was opposed to some of its features, but it was a compromise. It was introduced early, No. 4. It had been printed, laid on our tables and fully discussed, and now at this late day of the session to talk about raising a committee to agree upon what kind of a bill we will have would be fatal to the whole measure.
Mr. McDONALD. Will you vote for a bill that is not self sustaining--that will not make up the salaries out of the fees?
Mr. NEFF--Yes, sir. The County Commissioners may make it up in amount not exceeding $300 a year. He proceeded to urge the passage of a fee bill, and to say that political graves have no terror to him.
Mr. MAJOR considered this perhaps the best thing we can get. There was no justice in giving to officers more money than can be made in other employments.
Mr. GORDON, of Boone, was opposed to reference, but counseled moderation. He was opposed to some features of the Senate bill--the allowances are too great. His was an average county, and the bill would give our county officers $4,000 a year. The people would not be satisfied with that provision.
Mr. COX stated the popular interest in this question, and the necessity of a compromize upon it. He opposed the reference; it would be fatal to the whole thing. The people demand a fee bill.
On motion of Mr. MARTIN of Putnam, Mr. McDonald's motion was laid on the table.
Mr. BROWNING hoped the amendment substitute would not be adopted. It was not as good as the original bill--not as good as the present law. He was not altogether pleased with the original bill, but this is a matter upon which we are compelled to make concessions. This bill is a compromise, as between Senator Henderson and Judge Martindale--Republican and Democrat. He was willing to adventure upon voting down the amendment, for if we neglect our duty in this matter, political graves ought to be dug, and will be.
Mr. CONNER took the range of debate in support of his substitute, and in opposition to the Senate bill, remembering and announcing the fact that he was returned here as a Representative from Hamilton county, against the Republican nominee, in a county giving one thousand five hundred majority. He was here to present this question fairly and squarely; and he did so in a rapid statement of facts and figures, with deductions to dissuade the House from the passage of the Senate bill, which is as long as the moral page: 295[View Page 295] law, and if it is like the moral law in any other respect he was not able to perceive it.
Mr. KENNEDY submitted a few words in reply to old Rip Van Winkle, who has just waked up. (Laughter.) It seemed to him that the gentleman's substitute was reforming backward. He read the 13th, 16th and 17th sections of the substitute; and would like to know how long it would take the county commissioners to consider these individual items of fees paid and fees charged and unpaid, and all that. If he was not mistaken this substitute would impose upon them and upon all concerned far heavier tasks than they have now to perform. Talk about political graves--he would rather be eternally buried politically than to vote for such a bill as this.
On motion of Mr. RUDDELL the House took a recess till 2 o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The Speaker resumed at two o'clock P. M., and announced the special order.
Mr. TAYLOR took the floor, more than anything else to propose and insist upon satisfactory action on this subject. The Senate bill proposed a too liberal compensation to be agreeable to the people of his region. He thought there might be a better way than to trust to such a voluminous bill. We can provide that the County Auditor and Treasurer shall be salaried, and the Clerks and Sheriffs to be paid in fees to a certain amount. He would have the sense of the House as between the principle of a fee bill under a bureau management, and the principle of graded salaries. There could be no difficulty in making the Auditor and Treasurer salaried officers; and the offices of Clerk and Sheriff could be made self-sustaining, by fees. These latter, under the present law, were no more than they ought to be. Then where was the use of establishing circumlocutionary compensations for these? He reasoned in favor of taking this course at some length: and he showed how, through hodge podge, the Senate bill would work injustice to these officers. The less we do about changing the present law, while at the same time we correct the evil, and afford the needful remedy, the better. He insisted that a committee could soon cut out the cumbrousness of the Senate bill; and it were better to have the sense of the House as to the principles involved; and thereupon he submitted a resolution to the effect: That it is the sense of the House that the offices of County Auditor and County Treasurer should be made salaried offices, with salaries graded according to population--adding to the Teasurer fees for collecting delinquent taxes--such salaries to be paid out of the county treasuries; and that the offices of Clerk and Sheriff remain as they now are, but with a provision limiting their compensation to a certain amount per annum, and that the Senate bill, No. 4, with the amendment, be referred to said Committee, with instructions to report thereon to-morrow.
Mr. NEFF reiterated his objections to this course. He admitted that in a few counties the county officers have corruptly taken advantage of the law and pocketed enormous compensations, urging the popular demand for remedy. And he spoke of the amendment as impracticable, and it had been shown that the House was divided, and he was opposed to the gentleman's resolution. He had no hope but in the Senate bill--the result of a compromise after long and patient and wise consideration in that body. He pointed out its most acceptable provisions- all officers included in one fee bill and the guarded and graded curtailments as to all of them. Better to stand by this bill as the rock--perfect it if need be. Better half a loaf than no bread.
Mr. McDONALD, with all deference to the Senate, was disposed to do right. He supported the resolution because it was right. Those amongst the best and wisest of that body had voted against this bill. He wanted to get at this remedy in the right way. He wanted no relief for his county--having honest officials there; but he would vote with the gentlemen from Putnam for a remedy in other counties. Individually he might prefer the bill of Mr. Haynes: and next to that the committee bill proposed to be substituted here by Mr. Conner.
Mr. CAUTHORN stated his position briefly, and moved to lay Mr. Taylor's resolution on the table. The yeas and nays thereon resulting--yeas 56, nays 34--as follows:
YEAS--Messrs. Ballenger, Barnaby, Britton, Browning, Bruner, Butterworth, Caldwell, Cauthorn, Conner, Copner, Cunningham, Curtis, Devol, Donham, Furnas, Galletine, Gentry, Goble, Gordon of Cass, Guthrie, Hardin, Hartley, Haynes, Heilman, Henderson, Hendry, Hill, Holland. Hooker, Hynes, Martin of Putnam, McDowell, McFarland, McGowan, Minich, Miles, Millikan, Mitchell, Montgomery, Neff. Oatley. Ray, Shutt, Snodgrass, Stephens, Stephenson, Stone, Tarlton, Taughinbaugh, Walker, Washburn, Warrum, Zenor and Mr. Speaker--56
NAYS--Messrs. Abbett, Beeler, Biggs, Calkins of Fulton, Calkins of Porter, Coggswell, Defrees, Deputy, Friedley, Gordon of Boone, Hawley, Kennedy, Kirkpatrick, Knight, Martin of Wayne, McDonald, Monroe, Netherton, Rawles, Ruddell, Sabin, Sayers, Stanley, St. John, Strickland, Taylor, Tebbs, White, Williams, Wilson, Wood, Woodward, and Mr. Wymer--34.
So the resolution was laid on the table ; and the question recurred on the adoption of the substitute.
Mr. WILLIAMS desired to move that the bill be made the special order for Monday.
Mr. WASHBURN demanded the previous question on the amendment, but did not press it.
Mr. BIGGS suggested that under the amendment the largest fee that can be taxed is twelve dollars. Now a protracted trial could not be provided for.
Mr. STEPHENSON said these cases allowed five dollars per day after the first.
Mr. BIGGS showed how the amendment would reduce the fees from $700 to $82 for a case that shall take up 14 days. And, as the Chair suggests, the Auditor and Treasurer have to be paid also out of these fees, which makes it all the worse. These cases occur page: 296[View Page 296] frequently; so that the officers must do without adequate fees.
Mr. CONNER. The substitute is not the bill as reported from the committee. It adopts that in part. It leaves the Sheriffs just as they are now. The Clerk is not a defendant in litigated cases for his fees; all State cases, and motions and orders came in.
Mr. CALKINS, of Porter, showed that the amendment bill increases the pay of officers in the smaller counties. The bill is radically wrong in this, and the Senate bill is worse.
Mr. BALLENGER. The more he examined the substitute the more he was convinced of its impracticability. It will not pay the proposed salaries of these officers in counties of the average population, and it has been so imperfectly digested that it will not reimburse those counties. It will leave county officers without adequate compensation, or compel the counties to pay them out of the county fund. We want to deal justly and fairly while We do not want our county officers to realize large fortunes out of their positions. We do not want them to be losers by them. But something has been said about the enormous fees that will be paid under the bill from the Senate; and they have been vastly overstated. He showed by figures, that under the Senate bill in his own county of Wayne, with a population of 30,000, the clerk's compensation would be but $3,500, and what he may realize from per cents of collections, for the pay of himself and deputies.
Mr. NEFF. He is allowed $900 additional for the Criminal Court.
Mr. BALLENGER--Yes, for deputy. He proceeded: In the county of Allen, with a population of forty-six thousand, the clerk and his deputies will receive five thousand six hundred dollars under the Senate bill. The clerk of the county of Tippecanoe will have four thousand dollars; and they have not less than four deputies each. And in the county of Vigo, with a population of thirty-five thousand, the clerk and his deputies will have four thousand dollars, with the additional nine hundred dollars on account of the Criminal Court. These compensations will not make these clerks very rich.
Mr. BROWNING. What do they get under the present law?
Mr. BALLENGER. That is an algebraic quantity, indicated by "x." [Laughter.] The clerk of the county of Floyd gets the magnificent sum of $2,500. Gentleman have allowed their imaginations to be heated on this subject. Now, in Marion county, with a population of sixty-five thousand, and in round numbers the clerk and his deputies would be allowed $7,000.
Mr. WILSON in his seat. That clerk has nine deputies.
Mr. BALLENGER. Should we not be just in this matter? Gentlemen propose to cut down these compensations so that these officers can not live. He admitted that whenever we attempted to cut down the fees in the larger counties, we strike at the smaller counties with a vigorous hand, and can't help it; and that, when gentlemen compare the facts with the Senate bill they will find some things objectionable on that score. He concluded by giving his opinion that the main features of the Senate bill ought to be adopted as law.
Mr. CONNER'S substitute was rejected by yeas 12, nays 79, and the question recurred on the Senate bill.
Mr. HAYNES submitted his bill as an amendment by way of substitute, which was read by the Clerk.
Mr. H. demanded the previous question thereon, and under its pressure it was rejected without a division.
Mr. WILSON proposed further to amend the Senate bill by substituting the fee bill of the gentleman from Orange (Mr. Coggswell), which was also read by the Clerk.
Mr. WILSON then took the floor and submitted numerous statements of figures to exhibit its advantages over the Senate bill and the existing law. He concluded his remarks by showing the injustice which the Senate bill would work, especially against the officers of Marion county. The Clerk of Marion county would not be able to discharge his duties under it. It would simply pay him for his deputy hire. Hearing it intimated that he would not vote for this substitute, he replied that he did not propose to vote for any but a fee bill; and if this is voted down he proposed to vote against the salary bill. He never would vote for such a bill as that from the Senate.
Mr. STEPHENSON took the floor in favor of the Senate bill, which he reviewed and critisized, comparing it with other propositions. His remarks, with the rest of this debate, are crowded out for want of space.
Mr. GORDON, of Boone, followed on the same side.
Mr. RUDDELL submitted a resolution to refer the Senate bill, etc., to a committee of one from each Congressional District, with instructions to amend so as to allow the county officers in counties of over 7,000, and not exceeding 10,000 inhabitants, all the fees provided in in said bill; and in counties not exceeding 12,000, 90 per cent. of the fees allowed said bill; and so on, diminishing the per cent. of fees in proportion to the enlargements of population in the several counties.
The SPEAKER (Mr. Naff in the chair) ruled the resolution to be out of order.
Mr. RUDDELL then proceed to review the pending propositions and intimating his desire to take the Senate bill as a basis, and thereupon to regulate and grade the fees according to the population of the counties.
Mr. BALLENGER demanded the previous question; and under its force Mr. Wilson's substitute was rejected--yeas, 22; nays, 65.
On motion of Mr. MARTIN, of Putnam, the further consideration of the bill was postponed and it was made the special order for half past nine o'clock to-morrow morning.
Mr. OATLEY obtained leave of absence on account of ill health.
Mr. CALKINS, of Fulton, presented a railroad petition.
page: 297[View Page 297]REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Mr. SANSBERRY, from the Committee on the Organization of Courts, returned the resolution for abolishing the Common Pleas, etc.; recommending that it be laid on the table--the House having appointed a special committee to consider that matter.
The report was concurred in.
On motion of Mr. HOLLAND, the Court bill, [H. R. 257,] was taken up and referred to members interested.
Mr. ABBETT, from the Committee on Education, returned Mr. Major's resolution relative to compelling children to attend the common schools, recommending that it be indefinitely postponed.
The report was concurred in.
Mr. HAYNES, from the Committee on Rights and Privileges, returned Mr. Beeler's bird protection bill [H. R. 140] recommending that it be indefinitely postponed.
The report was concurred in.
Mr. DEPUTY returned the engrossed bill [S.2] recommending its passage.
CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATION.
Mr. BROWNING (by unanimous consent)introduced a bill [H. R. 340] for an act districting the State for Congressional purposes, and providing in a certain event for the election of a Congressman for the State at large.
Mr. BALLENGER moved ineffectually--that the bill be indefinitely postponed--yeas 44, nays 45.
Mr. McDONALD moved that it be referred to a special committee of one from each Congressional District.
Mr. BALLENGER moved that the motion be laid on the table, which was rejected--yeas 43, nays 47.
Mr. CALKINS, of Porter, made an in effectual motion to adjourn.
Mr. McDONALD demanded the previous question on his motion, and under its force the bill was referred to the special committee yeas 46, nays 40.
The SPEAKER suggested that there has been no order taken for the printing of the report of the trustees of the Normal School.
On motion of Mr. WILLIAMS, it was ordered that 500 copies thereof be printed.
And then, at 5:40 o'clock, the House adjourned.
