Brevier Legislative Reports

Search Options

page: [92][View Page: [92]]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page [92]

THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.

THIRTEENTH VOLUME.

INDIANA LEGISLATURE.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

The House met at nine o'clock a. m. Prayer by the Rev. Mr. Edson, of the Second Presbyterian Church.

A message from the Senate announced the passage of the Session Expenses bill [H. R. 33], a joint resolution of instructions against the passage of the bill in Congress for another United States Judicial District for the State, and the concurrent resolution that passed the House yesterday in relation to prison convict labor and a system of graded prisons. Also, the House concurrent resolution to print 8,000 copies of the Governor's Message, including 1,500 in German; 1,000 to be reserved for the use of the Governor, and the remainder to be distributed pro rata among the members.

On motion of Mr. BUSKIRK, the reading of the journal of yesterday was dispensed with.

ABSENCE.

Mr. CAUTHORN presented the credentials of Stephen D. Dial, a Representative from Warrick county, who came forward and took the oath, administered by the Speaker.

The SPEAKER stated that Mr. Dial's absence hitherto had been on account of sickness in his family, and that on this account he still desires leave of absence indefinitely. The leave was granted.

Temporary leaves of absence were granted to Messrs. Cline, McKinney, Barrett and Gregory.

REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.

Mr. WALKER, from the Judicial Committee, returned Mr. Hardesty's bill [H. R. 54] to prescribe the number of petit jurors necessary to find a verdict in civil cases, recommending its indefinite postponement. He also returned Mr. Troutman's bill [H. R. 65] to authorize prosecuting attorneys, in certain cases, to prosecute State pleas before justices, recommending that it be laid on the table. Also, that Mr. Glasgow's promissory note bill [H. R, 79] be indefinitely postponed; that Mr. Bowser's two months' wages exemption bill [H. R. 12] be indefinitely postponed; and that Mr. Buskirk's husband and wife witness bill [H. R. 19] be indefinitely postponed; which reports were severally concurred in.

Mr. WILSON, of Ripley, from the Judiciary Committee, returned Mr. Schmuck's bill [H. R. 43] to repeal the act for the redemption of real proprty, etc., with amendment striking out the proviso, and inserting: "Provided, however, That this act shall not apply to sales or decrees of sale made on contracts at the time this act takes effect." The report was concurred in, and so the bill was ordered to the engrossment.

Mr. JOHNSON returned Mr. Henderson's bill [H. R. 40] to repeal the act providing for the redemption of real property, etc., recommendiug its indefinite postponement.

Mr. BUSKIRK returned Mr. Martin's bill [H. R. 28] defining the extent of the jurisdiction of Common Pleas in civil cases, page: 93[View Page 93]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 93recommending its indefinite postponement. The reports were concurred in.

Mr. WILSON, of Ripley, returned Mr. Walker's county seat and county buildings amendment bill [H. R. 81], recommending its passage. It was ordered to the engrossment.

Mr.OFFUTT, from the Committee on the Organization of Courts, returned Mr. Cowgill's bill [H. R. 49] to create the twenty-second Judicial Circuit. It was ordered to the engrossment.

Mr. GLASGOW returned Mr. Branham's bill [H, R. 72] for a Twenty-ninth Criminal Circuit Court, recommending its passage. It was ordered to be engrossed.

Mr. COWGILL returned Mr. Lenfesty's [H. R. 66] to amend section 207 of the practice act, recommending indefinite postponement.

The report was concurred in.

Mr. GIVEN, from the Committee on Education, returned Mr. King's bill [H. R. 37] to appropriate $8,000 for Indiana University, recommending its passage. It was ordered to the engrossment.

Mr. CAUTHORN asked and obtained unanimous consent for his motion (which prevailed) to take up Mr. Furnas' bill [H. R. 8] to regulate hunting, and that it be referred back to the committee with instructions to apply Mr. Cauthorn's amendment.

Mr. CLAYPOOL, from the Committee on County and Township Business, returned Mr. Kirkpatrick's bill [H. R. 69] in relation to the settlement of Supervisors with Township Trustees, recommending its passage. It was ordered to be engrossed.The Chairman of the Committee on Mileage and Accounts reported as to the mileage of each member of the House; which was read and concurred in.

Mr. GIFFORD, from the Committee on Cities and Towns, returned Mr. Cauthorn's bill [H. R. 95] authorizing cities and towns to make and authorize their maps and plats, recommending its engrossment. The report was concurred in.

Mr. WILLARD returned Mr. King's bill [H. R. 99] to authorize cities and towns of 30,000 inhabitants and over to make loans and issue bonds, with the committee amendment, inserting 10,000 in place of 30,000. The amendment was adopted and the bill ordered to the engrossment.

Mr. FURNAS returned his hunting and shooting bill [H. R. 8], with the Cauthorn amendment: "Provided that no prosecution shall be commenced under the provisions of this act, unless the same be commenced by the occupants or owner of the land," etc. The amendment was adopted and the bill ordered to the engrossment.

PER DIEM OF MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

On motion of Mr. CAUTHORN the order of business was suspended and Mr. Wilson of Ripley's eight dollars per diem amendment bill [H. R. 73] was withdrawn from the committee and taken up for consideration, the question being on the engrossment.

Mr. HELLER said because the bill conflicts with the 29th section of the third article of the constitution, by providing for an increase of the per diem of members of the General Assembly, and that it shall be in force from and after its passage, he would move that it be laid on the table. But he withheld the motion for debate.

Mr. COBB said if the bill were to pass as it reads, with the emergency clause, it i would give the increased per diem from the commencement of the regular session. If passed without that clause, it would not take effect till the publicationsome time next Juneso as to affect the pay of the members of the next General Assembly.

Mr. CAUTHORN did not think the constitutional objection well taken. The Constitution does not prohibit the General Assembly from increasing their compensa-i tion, any further than that they shall not increase it during the session at which the bill is passed. It does not prevent us from increasing our compensation during our term of office.

Mr. BUTTERWORTH. If our fathers served here for S3 a day, and if they lived here in war times for $5 a day, it seemed to him that at this time of money stringency we need not increase the amount. He was for retrenchment and economy.

Mr. THAYER considered that the State of Indiana is as able to pay her Representatives as fair a compensation as any individual would pay his lawyer. There were bills before the House to increase the pay of nearly every important officer of the State. The Governor has been allowed but a pittance, and the Judges of the Supreme Court have given,, their time to the people on a salary that would not well support a small family. He hoped members would not be affected with the mistaken idea of retrenchment in this matter, but consider the question maturely, and make the pay consistent with the labor, responsibility and dignity of the office.

Mr. WILLARD proposed to amend so as to avoid, the constitutional question: Strike out the words "from and after its passage," in the second section, and insert page: 94[View Page 94]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 94 these in lieu: "from and after the first day of January, 1873."

Mr. WALKER. There are but two ways in which the time can be designated when an act of legislation shall take effect; the one by an emergency clause, and the other by the act of publication. On his motion the proposed amendment was laid on the table.

Mr. MILLER thought the State would be saving money by increasing the per diem to $8, and cutting off perquisites.

Messrs. Cole and Clark favored the bill.

Mr. LENFESTY thought it unfortunate that the bill had been sprung at this time, and regretted the favor it seemed to meet from Republican members. There were plenty of men who are willing to serve at the present compensation. The people would not look at this matter as members might. If members were required to furnish their own stationery and papers, they would write but few letters, and send but few papers to their constituents. He did not want this body to acquire a name for extravagance. This General Assembly would be expected to make liberal appropriations to our benevolent institutions, and he would favor such legislation, but would oppose this extravagance.

Mr. HOYER thought the people were ready to increase the pay of members. He was not afraid of any record he might make on this subject. Men could not be expected to come here and starve.

Mr WALKER was willing to go upon the record in favor of this bill. He believed his services to his constituents worth eight dollars a day, if he did not steal anything. He favored increased pay to all officers of the State. He would follow his own convictions in the matter, without the dread of the public behind him. He did not like the idea of raising the question of party in this connection. He maintained the constitutionality of the bill, and believed the raising of the per diem and abolition of perquisites would meet the approbation of the people. It was time to wipe out the idea that it was a joke to come here and make laws for the State of Indiana, and this could in some measure, be accomplished by making the office decently remunerative.

Mr. BARRETT moved to amend the bill by striking out "eight dollars," and inserting "seven dollars."

Mr. HOYER moved to table the amendment.

The latter motion was agreed to.

Mr. GIVEN opposed the bill. He did not think the fact that members voted themselves perquisites would justify them in voting for increased per diem instead. The raising of the per diem, so as to make the office a lucrative one, would, instead of securing a higher order of talent, make the office sought after by ordinary men. He did not think there was any demand for the bill. Men were not compelled to accept the office, but having done so should abide by the laws fixing the compensation.

Mr. SHIRLEY, while in favor of increasing the salaries of the officers of the State, regarded the matter of voting to increase his own salary as a delicate one. He did not like the plan of voting perquisites, and would prefer a direct salary. The people know members can not use all the stationery they draw. If satisfied that a per diem of eight dollars would be a saving to the people, he would favor it.

Mr. WOODARD thought the Assembly should legislate for the masses instead of the professional classes. At five dollars per day the members were realizing more than the great majority of their constituents. An increase would not secure better talent. The people were not willing to be taxed to raise salaries indiscriminately.

Mr. SATTERWHITE said the cost of session to the State at the present per diem would be $30,500; the allowance for stationery, as at present ordered, would amount to $5,000, and the papers furnished to members to $3,100 more, making an aggregate of $38,600. At a per diem of $8, the cost to the State of a session would be $48,800--an increase of $10,21 a handsome sum to be left in the treasury at the close of the session, or to be devoted to the benefit of our benevolent institutions. The message of the Governor shows the necessity of economy in public expenditures. By increasing the per diem to $8 we take $10,000 from the treasury, which might be better applied.

Mr. BRANHAM said the next House could vote to supply its members with stationery despite this law. The special session was not called for the purpose of raising salaries of members, and it would not look well to commence that work now. He was willing to raise the salaries of the Governor and judges, because they give all their time to the public service. If gentlemen consider the place of a Representative as a question of money, they have to combine a little patriotism with it, or they can't afford to go to the Legislature. It is true, that for a man to come here at the present pay, it injures his business, and if you can't make it to the interest of competent men to come here, you must get along without them in many page: 95[View Page 95]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 95instances. And, if we can't get enough talent into the General Assembly, perhaps (and he thought it certain), that it would be the better way to reduce the number, and give all the pay to a few men. But he hoped the House would not go into this matter till we first raise the pay of the judges and Governor, and if we do not raise the next Governor's salary at this session,we can't do it at the next; and he would he very glad also to see the judges' pay increased at this session.

Mr. RENO, as a representative of an agricultural community who worked from four o'clock in the morning till sunset, was opposed to the bill.

Mr. BUTTS wished to call attention to the plank of the Republican State platform in favor of retrenchment and reform. In view of that plank he protested against the bill.

Mr. MELLETT thought the House was making a record in the direction of increased expenses. In view of the imporant work pending he thought these delicate questions should be postponed. He was not willing to vote increased pay to members while they sat in that pile of ruins--the old State House.

Mr. SMITH said he hoped to be able to vote for a bill to cut down the fat salaries some of the officers in his county, and could not do so if he voted for this bill.

Mr. THAYER said the question involved was not so much an increase of pay as a difference in mode of payment. Two-thirds of the members at the close of the session would vote to retain the copies of statute, borrowed for the session, and when they got home would try to sellthem. They were saving their stationery for the same purpose. He felt that he was getting more than he was worth, but wanted the per diem increased for the benefit of future Assemblies. Many men who would like to become members of the General Assembly could not afford to do so; and thus it was, perhaps, true that many of the better qualified were kept out on that account. He was anxious that the men of every General Assembly should be equal to the service required. Withregard to the opinion that better pay would not command a better class of talent, he compared the members of the General Assembly of this State, or any other State, at five dollars a day, with members of Congress at Washington at twenty dollars a day, and concluded that the larger per diem commands the best talent. Now if men are willing to make sacrifices by coming here to serve the State, still it is not right; and from such considerations he hoped the pay of members of the next and succeeding Legislatures would be increased and thought it would be well to pass such a bill at once and get it out of the way.

Mr. WILLARD demanded the previous question, which was seconded and ordered by the House, and then the bill was ordered to the engrossment for the third reading.

A message was received from the Governor announcing the signing of Mr. King's Insurance Company bill. No. 83.

Also a communication in answer to the resolution of the House asking for information concerning the status of the suit of the State on relation of J. C. Robinson vs. the Terre Haute and Indianapolis Railroad for the recovery of a sum of money said to exceed $1,000,000, and alleged to be due the State in trust for the school fund.

Also, a communication transmitting a memorial from the Bar Association of Indiana.

A message was received from the Senate announcing the adoption of certain joint rules.

SIXTEENTH COMMON PLEAS DISTRICT.

Mr. GLAZEBROOK returned Mr.Wood's Common Pleas Court bill, [H. R. 37] prescribing the time for holding the Courts in the Sixteenth District, recommending its passage.

On motion of Mr, WOOD, the rules and constitutional restrictions were dispensed with, and the bill was passed the third reading--yeas 95, nays 0.

CARROLL COUNTY TRUST FUND.

Mr. BARKER, from the Special Committee under Mr. Richardson's resolution for investigation of certain matters in Carroll county, called the Carroll county trust fund case, relating to a discrepancy as to money which should have been paid into the treasury from the estateof Samuel Griel, deceased, late of Carroll county, and never properly accounted for, as appears from the records; reported an order for process from the Speaker for the attendance of witnesses to testify before the Committee.

Mr. WALKER objected to this as an unnecessary expense. The testimony could as well be taken in Carroll county.

Mr. BARKER said the case involved not only a considerable sum of money, but a question of character, and the testimony sought was not of a character that could be compelled before a notary or other officer.

The report was concurred in.

page: 96[View Page 96]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 96

PURDUE UNIVERSITY.

Mr. BARRETT offered a resolution instructing the Committee on Education to investigate and report what amount of money will be necessary to complete Purdue University; which was adopted.

JAS. F. DILL.

Mr. BARRETT submitted a resolution, (accompanied by a statement from the applicant) for the employment as page or in some other capacity, of James F. Dill, (a son of Captain J. C. Dill of the Indiana volvnteers, who was murdered by guerrillas during the war, leaving his family destitute.) Mr. Barrett said he would not have presented the resolution but for the fact that the applicant had served acceptably as a page four years ago; and the additional fact that in the appointment of pages two had been selected from one family and he believed in distributing these things around.

Mr. KING moved to refer the resolution to the Committee on Employes.

Mr . WALKER moved ineffectually to lay the motion on the table. The resolution was then referred to the Special Committee on Employes.

REPEAL OF THE CORPORATION DRAINAGE ACT.

The House proceeded to the consideration of bills on the Speaker's table, and Mr. Butterworth's bill [H. R, 3] to repeal the corporation drainage act, and the act of 1871, supplemental thereto, was taken up, the question being on the engrossment.

Mr. RUMSEY moved to recommit the bill to the Committee on Drainage and Dykes, with instructions to amend by a provision that this act shall not affect drainage associations organized under the repealed acts, the length of whose line of ditch is twenty miles and under.

Mr. BUTTERWORTH hoped the bill would not be again referred. He desired a square vote upon it. If there is any question of the highest interest to the people of the northern part of the State, it was the question of the repeal of this Kankakee drainage act. That act was passed by the Legislature of 1869, without the knowledge of the people, and unasked for by the people directly or indirectly interested in the work proposed to be done. We have seen that corporation of land speculators, on the authority of the State of Indiana, running over territory hundreds of miles in length and several miles in width, and following up tributary streams with their assessments of imaginary and intangible benefits, to the amount of $5,000,000. When these assessments are filed with the proper officer, they become mortgages upon these lands for many times more than they are worth--and mortgaged, too, for a scheme that is almost universally believed by those who are well acquainted with these lands, to be impracticable, and worthless when done. It is for this reason that he opposed a recommittal. He wanted a square vote. Those who know the Kankakee country best believe this scheme to drain it useless and worthless. The people know when they want their lands drained, and they don't want any foreign organization to step in on a gigantic land grab scheme and do it for them without their consent. The scheme was an outrage. This bill constituted his principal stock in trade here, and he could not go back to his constituents without presenting them this bill enacted into a law. The law now in force was involving thousands of men in tedious and exhausting litigation. Thousands of acres are mortgaged under it. for more than they are worth. He believed in drainage, but the owners of the lands should be permitted to do themselves.

Mr. BARRETT moved to lay the motion to recommit on the table.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. SHIRLEY regretted the disposition to act hastily in the matter. He had no doubt the law was oppressive in some respects, yet by its unconditional repeal many would be affected injuriously. It should receive careful consideration.

Mr. HATCH moved the previous question, but the House refused to second the demand.

Mr. BARRETT said the law had been engineered through the General Assembly in the interest of large non-resident landowners, and, if unrepealed, would work the ruin of a number of small farmers in the Kankakee valley.

Mr. HELLER said that under the present law the people could not drain their own land. It should be repealed. A law was now in the hands of the Judiciary Committee touching the subject of drainage, and would be reported in such shape as to guard the rights of all concerned.

Mr. WALKER said that the people of his county were not directly interested in this matter, but they regarded the Kankakee Drainage Law as a gigantic abuse.

Mr. OFFUTT was afraid of hasty action. He wanted the bill referred back, with instructions to amend, so as to secure rights which have accrued under it.

Mr. LENFESTY maintained that great benefit had accrued from the work already page: 97[View Page 97]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 97done. A great deal of work is now in progress, and the unconditional repeal of the law would injuriously affect many who were interested.

Mr. BUTTERWORTH explained that most of the ditching undertaken by small companies was under the drainage law of 1867, what is called "the one man drainage law"--these organizations to which gentlemen refer, are under the drainage act of 1867, and not under that which this bill proposes to repeal.

Mr. CAUTHORN suggested that in order to secure rights which may have accrued, the friends of the bill would do well to consent to its recommittal in order that a saving clause might be inserted.

Mr. HENDERSON was willing to accept an amendment providing for the exemption from the operation of the bill of drains not more than twenty miles in length.

Mr. WOOLLEN moved to refer the bill to the Judiciary Committee, with instructions to incorporate a section reserving vested rights.

The motion was agreed to, and the House then took a recess till two o'clook, p. m.

AFTERNOON SESSION.

The SPEAKER, resumed the chair at two o'clock p.m.

Mr. HENDERSON moved to reconsider the vote of this morning, ordering the engrossment of Mr. Walker's county seat and building amendment bill [H. R. 81] presenting a remonstrance against it, signed by Gordon, Floyd, Julian and others, alleging that its provisions, looking to the removal of the county seat of Wayne county from Centerville to Richmond, would injuriously affect the public interests.

Mr. WALKER stated that the memorialists were not citizens of Wayne county; and, on his motion, the motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

JUSTICES COURT APPEALS.

Mr. Given's bill [R. R. 7 ] providing that Justices of the Peace shall have exclusive jurisdiction throughout the county. in certain cases of misdemeanor, punishable by fine not exceeding $25, was taken up and passed the final reading in the House. Yeas, 97; nays, 13.

Mr. Given's bill [ H. R. 15] to amend section 70 of the Justices act of June 9, 1852, by providing that costs shall follow the judgment in all cases of appeal including accrued costs, was taken up--the question being on the third reading.

Mr. BUSKIRK showed that the bill, by repealing the provision of law which requires that, in cases of appeals from the judgment of a Justice, the judgment must be changed to the amount of $5, or the costs can not be reversed and charged upon the appellee. The present law in its practical operations, was far better than the pending bill.

Mr. SHIRLEY suggested that the bill does not save the pending cases of appeal; and if it was likely to pass it ought to be referred back to the Committee, with instructions to amend it, so that it would not work injustice in such cases.

Mr. WILSON, of Ripley, moved to recommit the bill with the instructions suggested by Mr. Shirley.

Mr. MILLER sent up and caused the existing statute regulating the costs in appeals from the Justices' Court to be read. He said the Justices' Courts were designed for the convenience of neighborhood litigations, without a lawyer, in courts of limited jurisdiction; and this five dollars to change the costs was put there to discourage litigation about small matters. There may be exceptional cases, but it has the effect in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred of keeping little cases out of the Courts of Record. If this amendment bill pass it will require the party appealing his case to pay the costs of both trials, He was opposed to lightly setting aside laws so well known and satisfactory in practice as this.

Mr. WALKER. This bill was drawn to discourage litigation, and it is no innovation at all. In his practice this was the result: Whenever a suit is instituted before a justice of the peace the defendant, if he wants time, simply withholds his defense--his testimony before the justice, and invites the plaintiff to go on with his case and make all the costs he may--simply filing his answer. And when he goes up with his appeal he has only to change the judgment five dollars and the appellee must pay the costs. But will this man go into the Appellate Court when he knows that he will have the costs to pay in any event? This bill will have the effect to compel parties to close their suits before the justice. He added, for the benefit of Mr. Shirley, that the bill saves all pending cases.

Mr. GIVEN defended his bill by succinctly stating the operation of the present law under which the costs follow tne appeal, and he insisted that his bill is a proposition to discourage litigation. It proposes security to the defendant. All he would have to do under it, would be to page: 98[View Page 98]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 98come in and confess judgment. Then if the plaintiff would recover more than the defendant confesses judgment for, he pays the costs and has his appeal. The object is to prevent these small cases from being transferred to our courts of Common Pleas. But so long as it is understood that the costs follow the appeal, there is an inducement to appeal.

The debate was interrupted by the reception of a message from the Governor, transmitting the names of convicts who have received the benefits of the pardoning power since 1871, as asked for by resolution of the House.

The question being upon the final passage of the bill, the vote resulted--yeas 17, nays 72, so the bill was lost.

INTEREST ON JUDGMENTS.

Mr. WILSON of Ripley, a bill [H. R. 27] concerning interest on judgment [judgments shall bear the same rate of interest specified in the contractnot exceeding ten per cent.], was taken up and passed the third and last reading in the House--yeas 71, nays 19.

The SPEAKER laid before the House the Governor's communication transmitting the memorial of the Bar Association of Indiana, with reference to improvement in the judicial system of the State, which reads as follows:

To the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:

The undersigned appear before you by direction and on behalf of the Bar Association of the State of Indiana--an organization of the members of the bar of Indiana, having for its object the furtherance of such measures of judicial and legal reform as the public interest may require.

The members of said association have discussed the various features of this subject at their meetings, and are unanimous in the opinion that the judicial system of our State is, in many respects, insufficient to meet the wants of the people.

Not very perfect at first, it has been far outgrown by the rapid advance of the State in population, wealth and business. But as some of the reforms which seem most desirable can be effected only by constitutional amendment, and as it appears likely that the constitution will be subjected to the revision of a Convention at some day not very far distant, by which means changes of this sort can be introduced more readily than by legislative action, the association have directed their committee to confine themselves in this memorial to such subjects as are of the most pressing importance, and can be reached by mere act of the General Assembly.

In the discharge of the duty thus confided to us, we wish to be regarded as petitioners simply. We have no wish to give advice, much less to dictate to the members of this Assembly.

We have implicit confidence in their wisdom, patriotism and public spirit, but the members of our association represent in a certain sense, the lawyers of the State, and although they can endure the evils of a defective judicial system, with no more and probably with less loss than their clients, yet they are in a situation to have their minds called to this subject with peculiar force and frequency, and they feel that it is not improper that they should seek in this manner to secure your especial attention to it, among the multitude of things demanding your notice.

With this view, we ask your consideration, first, to the situation of the Supreme Court, and the imperative necessity for increased facilities for the transaction of its business.

It is provided by the constitution that "justice shall be administered freely and without purchase, completely and without denial, speedily and without delay." The present number of judges of the Supreme Court is four. It has not been increased since the organization of the State, except in the addition of one judge in 1852.

The present judges are men of the most laborious habits, and work constantly to the full measure of human strength, but cannot dispose of the business as fast as it accumulates. There are now pending upon the docket of that court, about seven hundred cases--a number fully sufficient to occupy the time of the court for two years to come. This condition of things is not new, but has existed for several years, notwithstanding the most strenuous exertions on the part of the judges. Under existing circumstances a debtor who wishes to obtain delay, has only to appeal his case to the Supreme Court to get from one to two years' time at six per cent, interest, and this operates as a double injuryfor not only is justice obstructed by an appeal for time merely in the case appealed, but the opportunity to obtain delay in that way induces appeals that ought not to be taken, and crowds the docket with causes that take the time of the court, to the great detriment of those that are really deserving of attention. The opportunity also to obtain delay by taking an appeal put its in the power of the strong to oppress the weak by protracted litigation. This is especially true of powerful

page: 99[View Page 99]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 99

moneyed corporations. It is in the power of a railroad company by making it a practice to contest every claim to the utmost possibility to wear out and exhaust ordinary litigants by expense and delay, and by the example of a few such cases to so intimidate the community that men of limited means will submit to wrong rather than risk a contest with so powerful an adversary, made still more powerful by the inefficiency of the law. While it is possible so to pervert the law it can not be said that justice is administered either "completely and without denial" or "speedily and without delay."

There are some respects also in which the business of the court would be greatly benefited by the presence of five judges on the bench aside from the increased force brought to bear in the transaction of business. As organized at present, it requires the concurrence of three minds in four to decide a cause. The judges are unwilling to fail to decide a cause if they can possibly help it, and so sometimes spend a much longer time in the examination and discussion of one case than its importance would otherwise justify, endeavoring to bring three of their minds to a concurrence upon some decisive view of it. But notwithstanding all their efforts they sometimes remain equally divided.In such cases the judgment of the Court below is affirmed, and if the question be of slight importance or rare occurrence, little harm is done, but when the question is one of practical importance and constantly arising in various parts of the State, and decided in different ways by the judges of the inferior Courts, then the impossibility of securing a final and authoritative settlement of it by the Supreme Court becomes a public calamity.

Precisely such a state of things has occurred in regard to the Fee and Salary Bill passed at the last session. Upon some of its most important features the judges of the Supreme Court are divided equally, while the decisions of the inferior courts are so conflicting that the law upon that subject is in a state of perfect chaos. With five judges on the Supreme Bench, such a catastrophe would be impossible. Every question would be decided in some way, and that without unreasonable labor on the part of judges to compel their minds to an agreement. We earnestly request, therefore, that you increase the number of Supreme Judges to five. The number will still be insufficient for the work now imposed upon the Court, but it is the highest permitted by our present Constitution. If it is thought advisable, the labor of the Supreme Judges can be very much lessened, and the amount of business possible for them to transact very much increased, by providing them with one or two secretaries, at such salaries as will secure educated and competent men; a great deal of time and strength of the Judges is consumed by labor which could be equally well performed by a secretary under their direction. In some of the States of the Union, each Judge of the Supreme Court is provided with a private secretary by the State. We have been directed by the Bar Association to ask your attention also to the salaries of all our judicial officers. They are all too low in every point of view; too low to induce suitable men (with rare exceptions) to aspire to the Bench; too low to compensate Judges for their labor as other men of like ability are compensated for like labor; and too low to enable them to support their families in such a manner as the usages of advancing society demand.

The present salaries of our Judges are very much below the average paid in the other States of the Union, and greatly below that paid the Judges of the Courts of the United States. We have prepared and now submit for your consideration, a tabular statement of the annual salaries of the Judges of the United States, and in most of the States of the Union. A few States are omitted for the reason that we could not obtain accurate and reliable information in regard to their judicial salaries:

page: 100[View Page 100]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 100

The State of Indiana is the sixth State in population and the seventh State in wealth, and is rapidly increasing in wealth, population, commerce and manufactures, and her rapid developement has greatly increased litigation and the labors of her Judges, and their compensation should have some reasonable proportion to their increased labors and cost of living. It has recently been provided by Congress that where any Federal Judge has served ten years and reached the age of seventy years, he may retire from active service, and shall receive during the remainder of his life the same salary which he received while in active service, while no provision has been made in any of the States for the Judges who have worn themselves out in the public service; besides, the salary, paid to the Judges of the Circuit and District Courts, which are nisi prius Courts of limited and inferior jurisdiction, is much greater than that paid to the Supreme Judges of our State. This unjust discrimination should no longer be permitted to exist.

The great State of Indiana is able to pay her Judges such salaries as will induce our ablest lawyers to seek and accept positions upon the Supreme and nisi prius benches.

The learning, ability, independence and purity of the English Judges may be greatly accounted for from the fact that they are appointed for life and receive, while in active service, the sum of twenty-eight thousand five hundred dollars per annum, and when no longer fit for active service, they retire upon an allowance amply sufficient to support them during their lives. Such salaries would, however, be wholly unsuited to our institutions and mode of living.

The salaries of our Judges should bear some reasonable proportion to the sums that may be made in other pursuits of life, and the cost of living in the manner expected of those who occupy high positions.

We therefore recommend that the annual salary of the Supreme Judges should be five thousand dollars; that of the Circuit Judges should be thirty-five hundred dollars; that of the Common Pleas Judges should be twenty-five hundred dollars, and that of the Prosecuting Attorney should be one thousand dollars, besides the fees now allowed him by law.

We beg further to represent as the almost unanimous desire of the Bar of the State, that some plan should be adopted to effectually carry out the provisions of our bill of rights, in regard to the speedy administration of Justice. The "law's delays" which have so long been proverbial, we believe, will be found upon proper inquirty, to be the source of nearly if not all the serious dificulties and hardships of our present system of jurisprudence. We believe that more frequent terms of our Circuit and Common Pleas Courts would obviate many of the more serious defects in our practice and proceduce. We believe it is much more important to have frequent sessions of our Courts rather than more extended ones at long intervals. Under our present system the expenses of litigation mainly growing out of delays are so enormous as to amount to an absolute denial of Justice.

It is a mockery to guarantee rights to men in Constitutions and Statutes, and then make the expenses and worry of a trial after their rights so burdensome as to deter the most wealthy and courageous from a contest in our Courts to settle their legal controversies.

While it is desirable to lessen the expense of litigation as far as possible, both to parties and to the public, our observation has suggested to us that much might be

page: 101[View Page 101]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 101

done in that direction by holding an issue term of court shortly before each trial term. At the issue term, judgments by default and by agreement can be rendered, and ex parte business and all questions arising upon the pleadings can be disposed of and settled, and the cause put at issue; then, when the cause is brought to issue, it would be carried to the trial term, which should follow not more than two weeks after the close of the issue term.

By this arrangement, cases in which witnesses are to be examined could be so set upon the docket that they could always, or nearly always be tried on the day they are set for trial. A large amount of cost in this way would always be saved to parties in the way of witness fees, and the time of the witnesses saved to themselves and to their business. Also, a large amount would be saved in jurors' fees, the jury only having to attend court while there was actual business going on requiring their presence.

Some such plan as this, that will secure speed in the disposing of cases, and cheapness to the parties and the public, will save vastly more to the public treasury, to litigants, and to the industrial interest of the country than it will cost.

We desire to call attention, also, to the very meager salary now paid to prosecuting attorneys, prosecuting the pleas of the State in the circuit courts.This office is one of great importance, and should, if possible, at all times be filled by thoroughly competent men. At the present salary such men can not be induced to accept the office, at least if they do accept, it is at a very great sacrifice. As a mere question of economy in the administration of justice, these officers should be putupon a better footing in the matter of their salaries. The office, at present salary, can command as a general thing only the services of the young and inexperienced attorneys. In important cases, when the defense, as it usually is, is ably represented, the State must be comparatively unrepresented, unless the presiding Judge shall, to prevent the failure of justice, appoint counsel to assist in the prosecution. This is frequently done, and that too, in many of the cases, at an expense in a single trial more than sufficient to pay a competent prosecutor an adequate salary for an entire year. So long as the State neglects her own interests in this matter, so long shall we have just complaints of inefficiency in the administration of criminal justice. Such complaints are now made, and it can not be said that they are without just foundation.

All of which is most respectfully submitted by us, on behalf of the Bench and Bar of Indiana.

PETER S. KENNEDY, ROBERT S. TAYLOR, JOHN R. COFFROTH, JOSEPH E. MCDONALD, A. L. OSBORNE, R. C. GREGORY, W. K. MARSHALL.

On motion of Mr. BRANHAM, it was laid on the table, and 300 copies ordered to be printed.

THE STATE VS THE TERRE HAUTE AND INDIANAPOLIS RAILROAD COMPANY.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a communication from the Governor responding to the resolution of the House for information concerning the State action against the Terre Haute and Indianapolis Railroad Company for the per cent. of their earnings pertaining to the school fund, said to exceed a million of dollars, which was read by the Clerk.

The Governor informs the House that he has taken no step in the matter referred to, for the reason that the joint resolution, which passed the House at its last session, asking him to take charge of the said suit, failed to pass the Senate, and he had no official knowledge of it, except that contained in the resolution of inquiry, to which this communication was an answer. He further reports that he has in his possession no facts bearing on the case; that he had been informed at the time, by J. C. Robinson, prosecuting attorney, that he had filed a complaint in the Putnam Circuit Court against the Terre Haute and Indianapolis railroad for the recovery of certain moneys believed to be due the State in trust for the school fund (supposed to exceed $1,000,000) by reason of the company having failed to pay over a certain portion of her earnings for that purpose, as required by law; that said Robinson had applied to him for authority to prosecute suit, and for an appropriation to meet the expenses incurred, and that he had answered to the effect that if satisfied of the soundness of the case he would allow, from the contingent fund, a sum sufficient to meet the necessary expenses; but that since that time he had received no further communication on the subject from Robinson. He recommends that the matter be placed in the hands of the Attorney General or the Judiciary Committee of the House for further investigation.

On motion of Mr. MILLER it was referred to the Judiciary Committee with instructions to inquire whether any further page: 102[View Page 102]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 102and what legislation may be necessary to protect the interests of the State.

The Governor's communication, with names of prison convicts who have been pardoned since January 1, 1871, was referred to the Committee on State Prisons.

U. S. DISTRICT COURT.

The Senate joint resolution for instructing Congressmen against the division of the State into two United States Judicial Districts, was taken up and adopted on the part of the House of Representatives.

JUSTICE'S JURISDICTION.

Mr. WILSON of Ripley, a bill [H. R. 26] to amend section 9 of the justices act of June 9, 1852, defining their jurisdiction, powers and duties in civil cases, (making it co-extensive with the county, and requiring that suits shall be brought in the township where defendants or one of them resides, or where the debt was contracted, or the contract made,) was taken up on the third reading--and the vote resulted, yeas 50, nays 38. So the bill failed for lack of the Constitutional majority of 51. It lies over taking place in the calendar for another vote.

The concurrent resolution as to prohibiting further letting of convict labor till after the regmlar session, and as to a system of graded prisons was taken up and referred to the Committee on Prisons.

THE WORD "WHITE."

Mr. SHIRLEY moved that the State Printer be directed to furnish the House with 300 copies of a map showing the outline of the counties, and the number of white male inhabitants in each county according to the last census.

Mr. CAUTHORN moved to strike out the word "white."

Mr. SHIRLEY explained that the Constitution of the State required the apportionment to be made upon the basis of the white population.

Mr. Cauthorn's motion was agreed to, and so the resolution was adopted.

Mr. KING offered a resolution instructing members introducing bills, to mark on the backs of the same, in pencil, their desire to be present when the bills are considered in committee, and directing the committees to notify members of the times when such bills will be considered, which was adopted.

Mr. OFFUTT introduced a bill [H. R. 104] to amend section seventy-eight of the practice act of June 18, 1852.

It was referred to the Committee on the Organization of Courts.

Mr. WOLFLIN offered a resolution providing for the indexing of the records of the Supreme Court, which was adopted.

Mr. SCHMUCK presented a joint resolution relative to the improvement of the Ohio River, asking of Congress an appropriation of $2,000,000 for the purpose of making surveys and establishing reservoirs at the head waters of the Ohio River.

It was referred to the Committee on Federal Relations.

The Committee on Mileage and Accounts submitted an amended report.

Mr. KIRKPATRICK moved the printing of 200 copies of the report of the commissioners to settle the Morgan raid claims.

The motion was rejected.

On motion of Mr. GIFFORD, the House adjourned till nine o'clock to-morrow morning.