THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS
THIRTEENTH VOLUME.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
FRIDAY, December 13, 1872.The SPEAKER called the House to order at nine o'clock, a. m.
On motion of Mr. TROUTMAN, the reading of the journal of yesterday was dispensed with.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Mr. WALKER, from the Judiciary Committee, returned Mr. Wilson of Ripley's bill [H. R. 178] to amend section 77 of the criminal practice act (relative to the compensation of specially appointed judges), recommending its passage. It was ordered to be engrossed. He also returned Mr. Ellsworth's bill [H. R 13] to amend section 1 of the act prescribing the duties and fixing the compensation of Agent of State, recommending indefinite postponement.
The report was concurred in.
Mr. OGDEN, from the Committee on the Judiciary, returned Mr. Shirley's bill [H. R. 188] to amend section 433 of the practice act of June, 1852, recommending passage to engrossment.
The report was concurred in.
Mr. SHIRLEY, from the Committee on the Judiciary, returned Mr. Wesner's bill H. R. 216] defining certain misdemeanors by prosecuting attorneys, etc., with the expression of opinion that the subject matter of the bill is already embodied in the statute.
The report was concurred in.
Mr. SHIRLEY also returned Mr. Gifford's bill [H. R. 216] to legalize the acts, of guardians, under orders defective in not prescribing notice, etc., recommending its passage.
Mr. MILLER. I had intended to prepare a mfnority report here. The object is to provide, that where the land of the ward has been sold by the guardian since 1852, in cases where he failed to show that it would be for the benefit of the ward, and when he failed as to the notice, the act of the guardian shall be legalized. Now, I think that, under such circumstances, where the sale has been a bona fide transaction, it ought to be legalized. I move that the report be laid on the table.
The report was accordingly laid on the table.
VOID ASSESSMENTS OF 1869.
On motion by Mr. RICHARDSON, the order of business was suspended, and the House took up the consideration of his bill [H. R. 157] authorizing the refunding of taxes paid by certain counties in 1869 and 1870, under erroneous and void assessment, on account of irregularities in the proceedings of the Board of Equalization, with the adverse report thereon by the Committee on the Judiciary; and he moved to refer the bill to the Committee on the Organization of Courts, with instructions to strike oat the first section.
Mr. OFFUTT recited the provisions of the bill, and stated that the county of Marion refused to pay the taxes so erroneously assessed, and was sustained by the Supreme Court. It was reasonable, therefore, that the counties which have paid page: 271[View Page 271]their money so assessed and collected, should have it refunded to them. He reasoned at some length, and showed the law, that where taxes have been so collected the money shall be refunded. He concluded by expressing the desire to recommit the bill with instructions to amend by striking out the words, "out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated."
Mr. MILLER. This irregularity was on a technicality as to time or something of that sort, and because Marion county took advantage of this technical irregularity, that furnished no sufficient reason that other counties shall have the same advantage who do not apply to the courts. He moved ineffectually, that the bill be referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. RICHARDSON'S motion prevailed, and the bill and instructions were referred to the Committee on the Organization of Courts of Justice.
REPORTS--CONGRESSIONAL APPORTIONMENT.
Mr. EDWARDS, of Lawrence, from the Committee on Elections, returned Mr. Hardesty's bill [H. R. 83] to divide the State into Congressional Districts, with amendments, which were concurred in, against a minorty report submitted by Mr. Isenhower, for indefinite postponement; and then--
On motion of Mr. GIVAN, it was ordered that the bill, as amended, lie on the table, and that 200 copies thereof be printed.
Mr. JOHNSON, from the Judiciary Committee, returned the bill [H. R. 215] to create the [blank] Judicial Circuit, and transfer the county of Union from the 26th to the 4th Circuit, recommending that it be referred to the Committee on the Organization of Courts.
Which was concurred in.
CONTRACTS FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES.
He also returned Mr. Buskirk's bill [H. R. 20] concerning contracts wherein the obligor agrees to pay attorney's fees, etc., recommending its indefinite postponement.
Mr. BUSKIRK recited the provisions of the bill. All such contracts hereafter made shall be void; such existing contracts shall be sued within five days of maturity; if the judgment, or any part it, so recovered, be paid to the attorney representing the plaintiff the defendant shall be liable to plaintiff for it. It has been drawn in compliance with the almost unanimous desire of the people of my county, and I hope the report will be voted down. He demanded the yeas and nays on the question, which were taken, and resulted--yeas 41, nays 23.
So the report was concurred in, and the bill indefinitely postponed.
Mr. JOHNSON also returned Mr. Wesner's bill [H. R. 150] to repeal section 2 of the act of Decembr 2,1855, defining certain misdemeanors, with the recommendation that it be indefinitely postponed.
The report was concurred in.
Mr. SHIRLEY, from the Committee ou Organization of Courts, reported back Mr. Riggs' bill [H. R. 223], creating the Thirtieth Judicial Circuit of Vanderburg county, with the recommendation that it pass.
It was ordered to be engrossed.
Mr. OFFUTT, from the same committee, reported back Mr. Wilson of Ripley's bill [H. R. 218] to amend section 208 of the practice act, recommending its passage.
It was ordered to be engrossed.
Mr. GLASGOW returned Mr. Edwards of Lawrence's bill [H. R. 206] to amend the Supreme Court act of 1852, with a motion that it be laid on the table, which was concurred in.
Mr. SHIRLEY returned Mr. Glasgow's bill [H. R. 194] to repeal section 1 of the descents act of May 14, 1852, recommending indefinite postponement, which was concurred in.
Mr. SATTERWHITE, from the committee on Banks, returned Mr. Riggs' bill [H. R. 198] to amend the savings bank act with amendment heretofore directed by the House--(to make uniform the time of declaring dividends)--which was adopted, and so it was ordered to be engrossed, and on the question of final passage it failed--yeas 44, nays 30, for want of the constitutional majority.
Mr. LENFESTY presented the petition of Overman and others of Grant county, for a good liquor law.
Mr. HATCH, from the Committee on Affairs of the City of Indianapolis, returned Mr. Glazebrook's bill [H. R. 219] to regulate the sale of drugs, with clerical amendments, which were adopted.
On motion of Mr, MILLER, the emergency clause was stricken out, and the bill was ordered to be engrossed.
Mr. GIFFORD, from the Committee on Cities and Towns, returned Mr. King's bill [H. R. 100] in relation to the widening and vacation of streets, recommending that 200 copies be printed.
Which was concurred in.
He also returned Mr. King's bill [H. R. 99] authorizing cities and towns of 10,000 and more inhabitants to borrow money, with an amendment, at two per cent.
page: 272[View Page 272]Mr. MILLER submitted a minority report, recommending its indefinite postponement on account of its loose provisions.
The minority report was concurred in, and the bill postponed accordingly.
Mr. REEVES, from the Committee on Roads, returned Mr. Brett's bill [H. R 192] to amend the Supervisors' act, recommending its indefinite postponement. He also submitted an adverse report as to Mr. Gregory's bill [H. R. 145] to amend sections 17 and 20 of the Coroners' act; also an adverse report on the resolutions for abolishing the office of District Supervisors of roads, and substituting township Superviors.
Which reports were concurred in.
Mr. BILLINGSLEY, from the Committee on Printing, asked and obtained further time to report on the matter of Mr. Shirley's bills in relation to the Public printing.
Mr. KING, from the Committee on Railroads, returned Mr. Edward of Lawrence's bill [H. R. 96] to repeal the act to authorize aid to the construction of railroads by counties and townships taking stock therein, reporting for its passage, and for a motion that the consideration of the bill be made the special order for Monday at two o'clock p. m.
Mr. BRANHAM indicated the intention of a portion of the committee to submit a minority report.
Mr. BAKER submitted a motion to make the matter a special order for Wednesday.
Mr. BRANHAM. The minority can make their report by Monday morning.
Mr. KIMBALL. I presume the House does not wish to hasten this matter, but to a portion of the people of Indiana this is an important matter, and delays are dangerous to them. Take my own county, for example. We have heavy taxes to pay and there is now an order for an election to impose a railroad construction tax under the act here sought to be repealed. And if this bill is voted down or too long delayed, they may possibly be compelled to pay a tax which perhaps most of the people do not desire to pay. Therefore I should prefer Monday to Wednesday.
Mr. BRANHAM. I hope the House will not take hold of this matter in a great hurry. If the law is not repealed at once, it can work no great hardship. The law is carefully guarded, and if the majority are not competent to decide such a question as it contemplates, I don't know who is. This law goes upon a principle that lies at the foundation of the government. It says a majority of the legal voters shall have the right to assess themselves. I acquiesce in the motion to make the bill the special order for Monday.
The bill was made the special order for Monday, 2 o'clock, p. m.
Mr. BAXTER, from the Committee on Reformatory Institutions, returned his bill [H. R. 210] to amend section 20 of the act to establish a female prison and reformatory institution for girls and women. Also, his bill [H. R. 215] supplementary to the act to establish a reformatory institution for girls and women, with an amendment filling the blank for completing the building and fencing the grounds, with the words, "fifty thousand dollars." The amendment was adopted, and the bills were ordered to the engrossment. He also returned Mr. Butts' bill defining it as a misdemeanor to keep a house of ill-fame, or to rent a house, etc., for such purpose, prescribing penalties, rules of evidence, etc., [first offense, penalty, fine and imprisonment $10 to $1,500, imprisonment not exceeding three years; second offense, penalty, fine from $10 to $2,000 with imprisonment,] with a recommendation that it pass. It was ordered to the engrossment.
THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT.
Mr. PEED, from the Special Committee thereon, returned his bill. [H. R. 21] changing the time of holding Court in the Third Judicial Circuit, with an amendment which was adopted, and on his motion (the restrictions being suspended for the purpose) the bill was advanced and finally passed the House--yeas 78; nays 0.
HEATING AND VENTILATION OF THE HALL.
Mr. MELLETT, from the special committee to inquire into the matter of heating and ventilating the hall, reported that the flues to conduct the hot air into that hall have not been cleaned for years; that the hot air is supplied from the vitiated air of the cellar, and that the means of escape of foul air from the roomare inadequate. They recommend that the new pipes be constructed to conduct pure air to the heating furnace, and that four new flues be constructed for the escape of foul are from the hall. They say the improvements can be constructed for $400, and recommend that it be attended to at once. The report was concurred in.
STATES' SOLDIERS--CIRCLE PARK MONUMENT.
Mr. KIMBALL, from the majority of the Special Committee thereon, returned Mr. Johnson's bill [H. R. 124] to provide a State monument in the city of Indianapolis, to the memory of soldiers and seamen in page: 273[View Page 273]the late wars, with an amendment reducing the appropriation to $75,000, and providing that not more than one-third of the sum shall be expended in one year, and provided, further, that no part of the appropriation shall be used until there shall have been subscribed for the same purpose the sum of $35,000 and one-third of the same collected.
Mr. OFFUTT submitted a minority report, recommending a substitute with this title: "A bill for an act to appropriate $100,000 to certain of the widows and orphans of deceased soldiers." And the body of the bill makes said appropriation and provides for its distribution among such of the widows and orphans of deceased Indiana soldiers as are in actual need.
Mr. WALKER. This minority report is forbidden by the 19th rule, which says: "No motion shall be entertained seeking to change the character of the original proposition."
The SPEAKER. The chair thinks such a ruling might be arbitrary here.
Mr. OFFUTT, It is true that the professed object of the bill is the erection of a State Monument in this city to the memory of the soldiers of the war of 1812, the Mexican and the late wars. I did not present this report for the purpose of any reflection on those brave men who defended their country in her time of need. There is no man in the House who would go further or do more to perpetuate their memory than I. But it seems to me that to erect a monument in the city of Indianapolis in the manner proposed in the original bill would be no suitable memorial of the dead, and no lasting benefit of the living. And I think I am right in assuming that, if any appropriation of a hundred thousand dollars should be given to Marion county for the purpose of erecting this monument, every other county in the State might, with a similar propriety, ask for a similar appropriation for a similar monument in their several cities, But further: it has been said, I believe, in the Indianapolis Journal, that the erection of the proposed monument would not satisfy of this bill--that they want now to erect a fountain onthe same site the public expense. And I think I am authorized to say, that, if this bill should be carried, at the next session there will be an effort made to change the character of the original design, and erect a fountain. It has been already charged that this is an extravagant Legislature, and that it will expend more money than any former Legislature. And, sir, the people will not at this time, in my judgment, appreciate the expenditure of $100,000 for this purpose; and it seems to me that this bill might with propriety be indefinitely postponed. There are other public needs more pressing--the provisions for the benevolent institutions and the prisons of the State, the demands for public education, for a new State House, etc. The taxes are oppressive, and I do not believe an appropriation of this character would be sanctioned by the people. I know the delicacy that belongs to the discussion of this proposition--that, perhaps, the motives of the opposition may be called in question. I confess that I hesitated before coining to the conclusion to oppose it, but I came to that conclusion because of my conviction that the people will not justify it. I know it is a favorite measure with the gentleman from Marion, and regret the necessity--I say not the danger--of opposing him. Whilst this monument might be quite an ornament to the city; whilst it might enhance the value of property round the Governor's Circle, still it will not advance the interests of the taxpayers. I am opposed to this monument for the memory of our fallen heroes for these special reasons. Whilst I would be glad I to do what we may to relieve the necessitous poor amongst their surviving widows and orphans, and I believe that if the dead could be heard from their graves they would say that if this money must be appropriated, let it go to their widows and orphans.
Mr. CLARK opposed the bill, by considering the paramount claims for the schools on the part of the 127,000 in the State who can neither read nor write, and on the part of the hundreds of boys in Carroll county that need a reformatory school. The soldiers of the State already have a monument that is far more enduring than marble or granite.
Mr. FURNAS added this: That a good many counties have already erected their local soldiers' monuments, taxing themselves heavily for the purpose; and if this bill passes they will be taxed over again for the State monument--and he felt cautious because he knew we would have use enough for the public money without giving anything for mere ornamentation.
Mr. BRANHAM, satisfied that this is not an opportune moment for the bill, indicated a motion to lay the subject on the table.
Mr. JOHNSON would say a word in answer to the gentlemen from Hendricks (Mr. Furnas) and the gentlemen from Hancock (Mr. Offutt). The amount of the page: 274[View Page 274]tax for this monument would be exceedingly small to the individual when distributed all over the State, By a nett calculation, it will cost each inhabitant of the State one and one-third cent per year for three years. In answer to the intimation that the disabled soldiers are not taken care of, it is only necessary to say that the general and State governments have made provision for them. In answer to the report submitted by the minority to divert this money for the benefit of the widows and orphans of the soldiers, it is hardly necessary to say that, when we go over the State and look at their vast number, it would suffice but for a very exceedingly small morsel for each one. Sir, I know something of the minds of the widows of our soldiers, and I know something of the sentiments with regard to those dead soldiers in the minds of the people. And if you were to divide these seventy-five thousand dollars among those widows and orphans they will gladly enough give it all back for this monument, because what you would give them in the way of a support would soon be gone; its benefits would be transient; and because the State would apply it to the erection of an imperishable shaft in the commercial center of the State that would keep the memory of their dead forever green in the hearts of all. Mr. J. referred to appropriate site for the proposed monument in the center of Circle Park, to face the new State House down Market street, to the west--the two grandest monuments of the State fronting each other--and both in sight of Crown Hill, where so many of the soldiers have been laid away in their sleep. God bless the sleeping soldiers of Indiana! Generations will bless the Legislature for this appropriation.
Mr. SHIRLEY objected to what seemed to be an intention to press such a question as this to the vote in its present shape. He would honor the soldiers, but he would not do so by placing their monument where it would most of all benefit the adjacent property owners. He would have it erected at Crown Hill. The reasoning was sound and unanswerable against the monument at this time; bnt if we are to have it, I want it where it will be seen by those concerned for the just memory of the soldiers--where we meet every year to strew their graves with flowers. I am not going on the record as indifferent to the memory of the fallen soldiers of Indiana; but I am opposed to putting such a monument where gentlemen want it, a place comparatively obscure and unknown except to the owners of property adjacent.
Mr. WILSON, of Ripley. The gentlemen would place it three miles from the city--and if that is not obscureness I don't know what is. It is our proposition to place this monument in the centre of the great railroad city. I believe that we could place it in no other position where it would receive so much consideration--so many visitors. It was well observed by the gentleman from Marion (Mr. Johnson) that it should be here where the soldiers gathered during the war, and where so many of them sleep. I believe the bill is so well guarded, that every cent of the money will be given to the construction of the monument itself. It has been sixty years since we had the last war here with the Indians and with Great Britian; twenty-five years since the war which fixed our title to the great Pacific Coast, and twelve years since the great war of the rebellion, and are we to be told that the people of Indiana are too poor for this work? Then we are a poverty stricken people indeed. I hope the House will refuse to lay this subject on the table, for I feel that such a vote would be offering an insult--an indignity--to the memory of the fallen sons of Indiana.
Mr. SMITH. My county is taxing herself to build a soldiers' monument equal to that proposed by this bill; and it woudl be unjust to call on them to aid in the erection of another.
Mr. JOHNSON. We are to have $35,000 subscribed and paid into the fund for the monument in the Circle. Gentleman say we are specially benefitting private parties. I simply tell them that we are getting private subscriptions beyond anything that can be estimated as private benefits.
Mr. KIMBALL. What I wish to say is this: That the county of Marion does not ask any other county to do what she does not propose to do herself. It is true that some counties have erected their soldiers' monuments. They are to the memory of their fallen in the late war; but this is to the memory of those who saved the Western States from the invasions of the British and Indians as well as those who gave their lives to their country's renown in the Mexican war and the war of the rebellion. It has been well remearked by my colleague here (Mr. Johnson) that the widows and orphans of these soldiers would most readily contribute their days' wages--yes, their months' wages, to a monument to the memory of their dead husbands and fathers. Now, Mr. Speaker, without delaying this matter page: 275[View Page 275] further, I want this distinctly kept in mind, that it is not Marion county that is asking for this monument. It is the State of Indiana; and it is wanted here, where men coming together into their commercial center can look upon a work erected by herself to immortalize the memory of her soldiers. If the $75,000 be given by the State, we will raise the $35,000, and erect this monument; we will not spend a dollar foolishly.
Mr. RENO considered that we have outgrown the age of monuments. This monument would never tell us even the names of those grave to whose memory it is proposed to be erected. Better educate the people with our money.
Mr. BRANHAM. If any man has a right to speak in this matter, he has. Three out of four--his sons--sleep in soldiers' graves--laid down their lives for their country. And when you talk about monuments over these graves, or anywhere else, you mistake the spirit of the age. The memory of those who defended these States against British power; the men who carried our flag victoriously over the plains of Mexico; and the glorious men who carried our flag into the Southern States, and gave their bodies for a rampart for the power that crushed the rebellion, have erected in your hearts a monument that is not to be compared with a monument of stone. It was for the purpose of not compelling men to take position on this question that he moved to lay it on the table, and would do so again. Bills for the appropriation of about half a million have been passed; and a gentleman here says $400,000 will be necessary; and there will be bills offered for more. So that the Treasury will not furnish enough for the present requirements of the State.
Mr. WOODWARD did not believe that there is a man on this floor belonging to either party who is not a friend of the soldier and careful of his memory; but the he derived from this appropriation of the State's money were so far outweighed by the benefits it might confer in other directions, that he would not vote to do anything for a monument. The soldiers' memory can never be obliterated; and if we can do anything let it be to take care of their widows and orphans.
Mr. BRANHAM now moved to lay the subject on the table, the vote resulting--yeas 54, nays 30--as follows:
YEAS--Messrs. Anderson, Baker, Baxter, Blocher, Bowser, Branham, Broadus, Butterworth, Butts, Clark, Claypool, Cline, Coffman, Crumpacker, Dial, Durham, Eaton, Furnas, Given, Glazebrook, Goble, Gregory, Hedrick, Heller, Henderson, Hollingsworth, Isenhower, Jones, Lenfesty, Martin, McConnell, McKinney, Mellett, Miller, North, Offutt, Pfrimmer, Reno, Richardson, Rudder, Scott, Shutt, Smith, Stanley, Strange, Teeter, Thompson of Elkhart, Thompson of Spence, Troutman, Tulley, Whitworth, Wilson, of Blackford, Woodard and Winn--54.
NAYS--Billingsly, Buskirk, Cauthorn, Cobb, Cowgill, Edwards, of Lawrence, Ellsworth, Eward, Gifford, Glasgow, Gronendyke, Hatch, Johnson, Kimball, King, Kirkpatrick, Lent, Peed, Prentiss, Reeves, Riggs, Shirley, Thayer, Tingley, Walker, Wesner, Willard, Woollen, and the Speaker--30.
So the matter was laid on the table.
Mr. SHIRLEY offered a resolution reciting that whereas it is understood the Committee on Public Printing had been prepared to report his bills for the abolition of the office of State Printer at the morning session, therefore the committee be instructed to report both bills [H. R. 9 and 31] on Monday morning.
Mr. KING moved to lay the resolution on the table.
Mr. SHIRLEY demanded the yeas and nays.
The House then took a recess till two o'clock p.m.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The House was called to order by the Speaker, at two p. m.
The SPEAKER laid before the House a communication from the Auditor of State, transmitting advance sheets of that part of his report relating to insurance.
THE CALENDAR.
The bill [S. 3] to amend the act relating to the organization of voluntary associations, was read the first time and referred to the Committee on Corporations.
COUNTY AND TOWNSHIP R. R. STOCK.
The bill [S. 5], requiring railroad companies to issue stock to the tax payers of counties and towns where they have subscribed, and where they have paid for the same; and, where the same is unclaimed, to issue the certificates to the common school fund, was read the first time.
Mr. WOODARD moved to suspend the rules, so that the bill might be put upon its passage: and the rules were suspended accordingly.
Some debate ensued as to the merits of the bill, Messrs. PEED and WOODARD supporting the bill, and Mr. SHIRLEY favoring the reference of the bill to a committee in order that it might be examined with a view to securing the benefit of such stock certificates to the party securing them, and as to determining whether such holder of stock certificate is liable as a stockholder; and Mr. WOOLLEN contending that the law would work a hardship and injustice to the companies, inasmuch page: 276[View Page 276]as not one tax payer in ten would be entitled to receive more than a fraction of one share of stock, and its distribution in such small sums would involve interminable labor in declaring dividends.
Mr. LENFESTY moved to refer to the Judiciary Committee.
The motion was agreed to.
COAL MINING REGULATIONS.
Mr. WILSON, from the Committee on the Judiciary (having obtained unanimous consent), returned Mr. Clifford's bill [H. R. 83] providing for the health and safety of persons employed in the coal mines of the State, with amendments by way of substitute, viz.: A bill [H. R. 230] with similar title.
The report was concurred in, and the bill was read the first time.
On motion of Mr. WALKER (the constitutional restriction having been suspended for the purpose), the substituted bill was read the second time by title, laid on the table, and 200 copies thereof were ordered to be printed.
THE CALENDAR.
The SPEAKER returned to the consideration of propositions in the calendar.
The bill [S. 6] concerning the transportation of freights and passengers over railroads in this State, repealing and prescribing penalties, was read and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
The bill [S. 10] to amend section 58 of the city corporation act of March 14, 1867, was read the first time, and referred to the Committee on Cities and Towns.
TWENTY-THIRD COMMON PLEAS DISTRICT.
The bill [S. 68] to amend the second section of the act creating the Twenty-third Common Pleas District, of March, 1867, was read the first time.
On motion of Mr. ODLE, there was a suspension of the constitutional restriction, and the bill was advanced and finally passed the House without amendment--yeas 80, nays 0.
The bill [S. 88] to authorize and encourage the construction of levees, dykes, drains and ditches, and providing for the organization of associations for such purposes, prescribing their powers and duties in the assessments of damages, etc., was taken up and read the first time.
On motion of Mr. WOOD, it was laid on the table, and 200 copies thereof were ordered to be printed.
The bill [S. 124] to create the Twenty-sixth Judicial District was read the first time.
Mr. SHIRLEY moved to refer to the Committee on the Organization of Courts.
A long debate ensued on the merits of bill, participated in by Messrs. SHIRLEY, EDWARDS of Lawrence, WOOLLEN, COWGILL and WOODARD, till--
Mr. CAUTHORN moved to lay the bill upon the table.
It was agreed to.
SIXTH COMMON PLEAS DISTRICT.
The SPEAKER next announced the consideration of Mr. Broadus' bill [H. R 172] to fix the time of holding Common Pleas in the Sixth Judicial District, embracing the counties of Franklin, Union, Fayette and Wayne--the question being on the third reading.
Mr. BROADUS explained, and the bill passed the final reading in the House--yeas 70, nays 3.
COUNTY AND TOWNSHIP RAILROAD AID.
Mr. WYNN asked and obtained leave to introduce a bill [H. R. 231] to amend sections 16 and 18 of the act to authorize aid to railroads, by counties and townships taking stock therein, and making donations thereto, approved May 12, 1869. He explained that it was to provide against the law which after a certain amount of work is done, requires the Commissioners to pay over the local subscription to a railroad company, whose road may never be built. Another provision enables Commissioners to postpone the collection of taxes, where the railroad company fails to begin their work within one year. It provides, further, that where the railroad has not been commenced at the time of the collection of the taxes, the Commissioners may withhold the payment; and the next provision is that the money so collected shall go into the school fund of the county in which such taxes were raised. He moved to suspend the restrictions for the immediate passage of the bill.
Messrs. MELLETT and RICHARDSON saw no occasion demanding a suspension of the restrictions. Better repeal the statute.
Mr. WYNN. It simply provides, that where the taxes have been assessed, and the work has not been done, the County Commmissioners may restrain the collection of taxes. It does not suspend the taxes at all. If after the 25th of December the Railroad Company shall come up and go to work, the taxes will be collectable again the next year. It is a proposition directly in the interests of the people.
Mr. PEED. I move that, the bill be referred to the Commlttee on Railroads.
Mr. COWGILL. I hope the bill will be referred to that Committee. The 15th sec- page: 277[View Page 277]tion of this law of 1869 forbids the payment of tax money of this kind until fifty per cent. of the road work shall have been done. I think the law we have already is sufficiently guarded. Still I might not find anything objectionable in this bill.
The SPEAKER. On the first reading of a bill it is not in order to amend--nothing, except the motion to reject.
The bill was referred to the Committee on RaiIroads.
APPORTIONMENT.
Mr. MELLETT obtained unanimous consent to introduce a bill [H. R. 232] to fix the number of Senators and Representatives of the General Assembly of the State, and apportion the same among the several counties.
Mr. KELLER moved ineffectually to lay it on the table; and the bill was then referred to the Committee on Elections.
COURT TERMS AND TRIALS.
Mr. SHIRLEY asked and obtained leave to introduce a bill [H. R. 234] regulating the terms of courts, the time of forming issues for tral in the civil and criminal courts, and prescribing the power of the judges therein. (It empowers the judges to fix the terms of the courts and to docket the cases for trial in all civil and criminal courts, having regard to the population and business of each district, and to the provision that there shall not be less than two terms of the Circuit Court and three terms of the Common Pleas Court held annually in each county of the State.)
It was referred to the Committee on the organization of Courts.
The SPEAKER announced the consideration of the Senate amendment to Mr. Cogwill's 22d Circuit Court bill [H. R. 49], [which provides a clause of emergency], and it was taken np and concurred in.
On motion of Mr. WOOLLEN, his public funds depository bill [H. R. 24] was taken from the table and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. WOODARD submitted a preamble and resolution reciting the recommendation of the late Secretary of State, for a reorganization of that office, and the fact that the General Assembly has recently increased the duties of that office, and resolving for the appointment of a special committee of three members of the House to act alone, or with a similar committee on the part of the Senate, to investigate the conditions and the needs of the office of the Secretary of State; and report by bill or otherwise.
It was adopted.
The House then adjourned.
