THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS
THIRTEENTH VOLUME.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE
IN SENATE.
TUESDAY, November 26, 1872.The President called the Senate to order at ten o'clock.
Prayers were offered by Elder William F. Black, pastor of the First Christian Church of Indianapolis, and President of the Northwestern Christian University.
The Secretary's minutes of yesterday's proceedings were read, amended and approved.
PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.
The following described petitions and memorials were presented and referred to appropriate committees:
Mr. WINTERBOTHAM presented a petition from citizens of Laporte and St. Joseph counties, reciting that the act to authorize the construction of levees, dykes and drains, etc., was passed for the benefit of a certain company in the northwest part of the State, and asking for its repeal.
It was referred to the Committee on Corporations.
Mr. TAYLOR presented a petition from the Trustees of the State Agricultural College or Purdue University, setting forth that the present currency value of the fund derived from the sale of land-scrip for the University is $314,067 52, yielding an annual interest of $15,000 in gold and $1,200 in currency; that a law is nowpending before Congress, which will probably pass, donating one million of acres of land to each Agricultural College; that Mr. Purdue has agreed to give $150,000, in yearly installments, Tippecanoe county $50,000, and that the University had other sources of revenue; that they had commenced the erection of buildings, etc., for said college for which $167,000 would be required between now and next midsummer to provide them for the reception of students, and the trustees will have but $40,000 coming in to meet the requirement. They therefore ask for an appropriation of $100,000.
It was referred to the Committee on Education.
Mr. HUBBARD presented other petitions in relation to the repeal of the drainage law, which were referred to the Committee on Corporations.
THE WABASH AND ERIE CANAL BONDS
The PRESIDENT presented a communication from the trustees of the Wabash & Erie canal, inclosing a memorial from the stockholders of canal certificates. The memorial recites that the subscribers were the owners of certian bonds issued from 1832 to 1836, which they were induced to surrender under the promises and provisions of the acts of 1846-7, which not only guarantee to them the tolls and revenues of the canal for the redemption of principal and interest for their bonds, but also expressly provided that the State would make no provision thereafter to pay either principal or interest on any internal improvement bond until the holders should have first surrendered said bonds to the agent of the State and have received in lieu thereof certificates of stock. They are now informed that application has been or page: 120[View Page 120]will be made to the General Assembly to provide for the redemption in cash of certain outstanding original State bonds in violation of said proviso and of the said acts of the assembly, and contrary to the good faith of the State. They therefore protest against any provision for the payment of any of the bonds of the State contrary to said proviso and request that their protest may be placed on the record. Should, however, the General Assembly redeem in cash said outstanding bonds the subscribers insist that the same provision should be made for the payment of the principal and interest of their certificates.
The memorial is signed by Dent, Palmer and Co., N. M. Rothschild and Sons, Baring Bors. and Co., London Committee, and Frederick Hunt and Co., George Mosle, August Belmont and A. Gracie King, New York Committee.
Mr. CHAPMAN moved that the memorial be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. DWIGGINS moved to amend by laying it on the table.
Mr. BROWN hoped the Senator (Mr. Dwiggins) would withdraw that motion. What is the object of laying it on the table?
Mr. DWIGGINS: To dispose of it.
Mr. BROWN: Why dispose of it in that way?
Mr. DWIGGINS: It is the best way. We have had enough of these memorials.
Mr. BROWN : The statements made in the memorial in reference to the acts of 1846 and 1847 were totally without foundation, and the Senate owed it to the State to make some reply to the memorial. In his judgment, there were many things in it in utter violation of the law of 1846-7. He thought we owed it to the State to reply to it. The proviso referred to in it is utterly void and has been so held by the Supreme Court and so recognized by every lawyer in the State, and he thought the honor of the State would be better vindicated by replying to it than by laying it on the table.
Mr. DWIGGINS thought we had fully answered these gentlemen before. They have been here time after time and term after term of the legislature, knocking at the door of the treasury for the payment of these bonds. They had been fully answered heretofore, and it seemed to him, they were not entitled to further answer at the hands of the Senate. He moved to indefinitely postpone the memorial.
Mr. BROWN. The Senator, with all his zeal, ought not to forget that the Constitution of the State provides that any person may petition the General Assembly, and that constitutional provision means that petitions shall be respectfully treated. This is in the nature of a petition, and the zeal of the Senator should not carry him away from his rightful obligation to the Constitution. There are Senators differing in opinion in reference to the payment of these internal improvement bonds. He held the opinion that he expressed in the Senate two years ago, that while these bonds are a paramount lien on the Wabash and Erie Canal--paramount to the trust deed conveying the land to the Board of Trustees, and to the deed in fee simple, conveying away 800,000 acres of land. He believed that a fair construction of the law and the contract, and the maintenance of good faith pledged by the people and accepted by those who took the canal and the lands, means this, that they took it upon the condition, or rather took it with the hazard and expectancy that all the holders of internal improvement bonds would come in and make themselves parties to the contract, and that the whole improvement debt would be discharged according to the funded debt bills. There are others, however, who seem to be exceedingly forward in protecting the State against the admission of the canal debt, who believe that the legislative contract of 1846-7 was but a cancellation of the surrendered debt as between the State and those who surrendered the debt, and that it had nothing whatever to do with the adjustment of the unsurrendered portion of the debt. I believe the man who says that the legislative contract of 1846 and 1847 was an adjustment of the whole debt is the man who correctly construes the act and the best friend of the people of Indiana upon that subject.
But, be that as it may, so far as the pay of the internal improvement bonds are concerned, I, for one, do not believe that that act will give the holders of internal improvement bonds any legal or equitable claim upon the State for the payment of their stocks, for these reasons tbat if it was a breach of the legislative contract of 1846 and 1847 it would be a breach of contract without injury or damage to either of the parties to the contract, and that a breach of contract without injury or damage gives no person a right of action either in law or equity. The Legislature may perhaps pass these bonds without incurring any liability, moral or legal, for the payment of the canal scrip. But lawyers differ about it, and it seems to me that the Senate owes it to our dignity and its own self-respect to answer this claim set up in this memoral, that if the Legis- page: 121[View Page 121]lature does take up these three hundred and odd thousand, she, by that act, places herself equitably and legally bound for the payment of the eighteen millions of canal stock. And an indefinite postponement does not obviate the notice that these men pretend to give, and it is in violation of the constitutional provision that any citizen may petition the General Assembly, which means that the petition should be heard with decency and respect.
Mr. STEELE said he was sorry that this troublesome question was presented at this time. It had been before the Legislature at least three times and fully answered. The holders of bonds surely know by this time the position that Indiana takes in regard to those surrendered bonds. He was not aware of the difference of opinion that the Senator from Jackson [Mr. Brown] spoke of to any great extent.
He believed the opinion of the bar of Indiana, that the legal opinion of the State had been well understood, that these bonds were not payable by the State of Indiana; that is, those that were not surrendered. The opinion of the Senator from Jackson, given two years ago, was regarded as his opinion merely, and of no other legal mind in the State that he knew of. He asked whether or not it did not smack of repudiation to say that we will not honor our contracts nor pay those bonds that never have been surrendered under the legislation of 1846-7. Those bonds bear the signature of the State of Indiana. They are promises to pay, and are presented to the Auditor of State, asking that they be paid in compliance with the conditions named in the bonds themselves. The member from Jackson would say to them, Indiana has made a provision with Mr. Butler, and those he represented, that that they should pay the indebtedness of the State of Indiana. Is that the answer to be made to those who present those bonds that never were delivered up under the Butler bill? It is true we made these bonds and agreed to pay them, but outside of that we made an arrangement with a third party that they should pay them, those men holding these bonds taking no notice of the arrangement made between the State and Mr. Butler. The question arises, then, does it bind them at all? He submitted that Indiana should make provision for every dollar she owes, whether it is these bonds or any other indebtedness. We are not in a condition to repudiate any of our contracts. We are in a condition to pay every dollar that we owe. Coming in the way it does, it is no less repudiation than to turn upon any other contract and refuse to pay it.
Mr. HALL. When these 191 bonds were left out in the cold, did the Butler bill provide for taking them up?
Mr. BROWN. I want to state, once for all, in order that the Senator from Grant (Mr. Steele) especially may know, that every act of mine hitherto has been with an eye single to saving the State from incurring any legal or moral liability for the payment of these canal stocks. The Senator is at fault in his understanding of the law when he proposes to contradict what I said, that the proviso to the eighth section of the act of 1846 is a nullity. That proviso is in these words: "Provided that the State will make no provision whatever hereafter to pay either principal or interest on any internal improvement bond or bonds until the holder or holders thereof shall have first surrendered such bonds to the agent of the State, and shall have received in lieu thereof certificates of stock as provided in the first section of this act, anything in this act to the contrary notwithstanding." That proviso is null and void as to the unsurrendered bonds, and has been so declared by the Supreme Court of the United States.
The proposition that I submitted two years ago I maintain yet, and it is this: The State of Indiana was in debt by reason of her engagement in the internal improvement of the State, to rising of $15,000,000. Her creditors were demanding an adjustment of their claims. Their claim was not a claim by taxation upon the people of the State in the first instance and that is where the Senator gets himself in deep water.
Their claim was a charge upon a portion of the State's property and not a charge upon the taxing power of the State to assess taxes upon the people in order to provide funds for the liquidation of the debt. The internal improvement act expressly provided that for the payment of the internal improvement bonds the lots, lands and revenues of said canal should be applied to the liquidation of the State debt, and the State guaranteed that these revenues should be sufficient. She stood then in relation of a guarantor only, pledging that a certain public work would liquidate the debt. The State guaranteed this, that if these public works, in the natural exercise of them, should not afford revenues sufficient for the adjustment and liquidation of the debt, she then was bound to make the deficiency good. Every holder of an internal improvement bond unsurrendered has every claim, legal and equit- page: 122[View Page 122]able, for the liquidation and payment of his bond to-day that he ever had.
I said a moment ago that these bonds were a paramount lien upon these public works, and that is all that the law and the contract of 1846-7 ever made them. I say more than that, that the State is bound by the law and contract as a guarantor that those public works will pay the debt, and whenever these public works are exhausted, and by their exhaustion it is found that any of these improvement bonds are nnpaid, then the holder of them has a claim on the people by direct taxation, to create funds for the liquidation and payment of these bonds. So when the Senator talks about repudiation he ought to understand that a candid and, in my judgment, a sensible examination of the rights and liabilities of the State under this contract saves the State's honor from repudiation by a faithful execution of the contract, and not otherwise.
The adjustment made between the State and its creditors was as follows: They agreed that upon the transfer of the Wabash and Erie Canal and its lands, tolls, proceeds and revenues, they would assume one-half of the entire debt of the State, and for the other half the State then pledged her faith that by taxation she would liquidate and pay it. That agreement, made between the State on one side and her creditors on the other side, was a complete settlement or adjustment of the whole debt as between the State and those who surrendered, but did not disturb at all the rights of those who did not surrender. But those who did surrender incurred voluntarily the liability to discharge one-half the entire debt of the State, and the language of the funded debt bills so means and does not mean anything else.
[Mr. BROWN here quoted from a message of Governor Baker to prove that the Governor agreed with him in the construction of the act. He feared that the payment of these outstanding bonds would create a liability on the part of the State for the payment of the original debt.]
Mr. BROWN said that the bonds, principal and interest, would amount to about nine hundred thousand dollars, and asked who was the better friend of the Statehe who said that this sum should be taken up by the stockholders of the Wabash and Erie Canal, and adjusted by the State according to the funded debt bills, or he who insisted that the State should forget her contract and throw that large burden upon the people to be paid by direct taxation?
He said that these gentlemen, instead of standing by and seeing the order of the Carroll Circuit Court executed upon them in allowing their trust property to be placed in the hands of a trustee, appointed for the purpose of collecting tolls and paying off the full amount of these obligations, should discharae these obligations themselves, and they then would have a upon the State for the liquidation of one half of them according to the law and the contract.
It is claimed that the settlement of 1846-7 was only for one half of the surrendered debt. It is strange that the good, able and intelligent men who framed this legislative contract, they who lived for years as interpreters of the true intent and meaning of it--that the holders of this canal scrip should live with this contract before them for years, and that they and those representing the honor and integrity of the State should never discover until the Senator from Grant got into the Indiana Legislator, that this adjustment liquidated but one half of the surrendered debt, and not half of the entire debt.
The entire transaction, the true interpretation of the act, the meaning of the General Assembly, the conduct of Governor after Governor, the action and conduct of Federal administration after Federal administration, action of and conduct of the holders of these canal stocks, and of the internal improvement bonds for years, show that the adjustment made by this law was understood to discharge the State from any legal or moral liability for the payment of one half of the entire debt.
At the conclusion of Mr. Brown's argument
Mr. STEELE again took the floor in reply. He said Mr. Brown claimed that the State was only a guarantor. This was truly an extraordinary proposition, when the bonds contained the express promise of the State to pay a certain sum with interest at certain dates. Again, the Supreme Court has decided that, although the State and Mr. Butler may have intended to bind those who did not surrender their bonds, they had no constitutional right to do so, and the contract of 1846-7 did not affect them. He maintained that under that contract the State was bound to protect those who surrendered their bonds in the possession of the canal and its appurtenances, and that if the State allowed the canal to be swept away from under them, she would become liable to them for the whole amount of the bonds surrendered. He contended that those parties that had no notice of the arrangement betwixt Mr. Butler and the State page: 123[View Page 123]the State refusing to pay these bonds at the time they fall due, in that event becomes a repudiation of her contract, and she cannot escape from it. Mr. S. proceeded to argue the question, referring to the BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS of last session to support his statements with reference to the proceedings on this question, his remarks being interrupted by the special order under a joint resolution of the two Houses, and in pursuance to an act of Congress, viz: a vote for United States Senator.
ELECTION OF U. S. SENATOR.
Twelve o'clock having arrived, the special order for that hour, the election of United States Senator was taken up.
Mr. TAYLOR took great pleasure in behalf of the Republicans of Indiana in nominating for the position of United States Senator, the Hon. Oliver P. Morton, of Marion county.
Mr. DITTEMORE put in nomination for the same position the Hon. James D. Williams, of Knox county.
There being no further nominations, the vote resulted as follows:
Those who voted for Mr. Morton were--Messrs. Beardsley, Beeson, Brown, Bunyan, Chapman, Collett, Daggy, Dwiggins, Freidley of Scott, Gooding, Haworth, Hough, Howard, Hubbard, Miller, Neff, O'Brien, Oliver, Orr, Rhodes, Scott, Sleeth, Steele, Taylor, Thompson, Wadge and Mr. President--27.
Thsoe who voted for Mr. Williams were--Messrs. Armstrong, Beggs, Bird, Boone, Bowman, Carnahan, Cave, Daugherty, Dittemore, Francisco, Glessner, Gregg, Hall, Harney, Ringo, Rosebrugh, Sarnighausen, Slater, Smith, Stroud, and Winterbotham--21.
Pending the roll call, when the Secretary reached Mr. Fuller's name--Mr. CARNAHAN said that Mr. Fuller was confined to his bed by sickness, but if he were here he would vote for Mr. Williams.
Mr. WILLIAMS, when his name was called, declined to vote for himself.
The PRESIDENT then announced the vote as above recorded, and said: Oliver P. Morton has received a majority of all the votes cast in the Senate for United Senator.
Mr. TAYLOR offered the following resolution:
RESOLVED, By the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring therein, That both houses will meet in joint convention at twelve o'clock m, of tomorrow, in the hall of the House of Representatives, to compare and announce the vote for United States Sentor, in compliance with an act of Congress.
The resolution was adopted, and then the Senate took a recess until two o'clock, p. m.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The Senate met at two o'clock, p. m.
Mr. TAYLOR, by consent, offered a resolution, which was adopted, inviting the members of the Cattle Breeders' Association about to hold a session in the city, to visit the Senate Chamber during their stay in the capital of Indiana.
WABASH AND ERIE CANAL.
The Senate recurred to the business pending at the time of its interruption by the voting for United States Senator just before the recess for dinner.
Mr. STEELE being entitled to the floor resumed and concluded his argument, insisting that it was trifling with the General Assembly of the State of Indiana for the memorialists to come here from year to year, and from session to session with their petitions, for when we are asked a plain question and answer it once, that should be sufficient, and when we answer it twice, that should be satisfactory, but they have been answered a half a dozen times, and still they come and ask us to again consider their claims. He hoped that the Senate would at once dispose of this matter by indefinitely postponing it.
He read the obligation contained in the bonds issued prior to the Butler bill, whereby the faith of the State was irrevocably pledged to their payment, contending that the State was primarily responsible for them and not as a guarantor. He also read the syllabus in Black's U. S. Court Reports referred to by him in the morning, to prove that the settlement provided for by the Butler bill in no way affected the status or claims of those creditors who had not surrendered their bonds.
He would not take up the time of the Senate in discussing the question as fully as it may be his privilege at the proper time. The question now is simply this: Shall we take up the time of the Senate, and appoint a committee to consider a matter that has been presented here from time to time ever since 1857? There has been sufficient answer made to enable these parties to understand that the State never intends to pay one dollar of these bonds, for she has paid her half as she agreed to.
Mr. GLESSNER insisted that this memorial is in a little different attitude from any other memorial that has ever been presented to the Legislature on this subject. He said the memorial had a major and a minor proposition. While he would be in favor of voting for indefinite postponement of this proposition for the pay- page: 124[View Page 124]ment of tkese surrendered bonds, he might not be in a condition to vote for the indefinite postponement of the major proposition that we would unconditionally pay those unsurrendered bonds. This is still a mooted question. It has occurred to him that perhaps the State might as well pay those unsurrendered bonds and that they would then be subrogated to the rights of those holding canal certificates. But when you come to discuss these several questions it is one of great doubt, one that the best lawyers of the State are divided upon. He recollected that during the last political campaign it was charged by certain radical politicians, with their usual unfair way of presenting a political question on the Democratic party, that it was in favor of paying not only the unsurrendered but the surrendered canal bonds, while on the other hand, the truth is, that two years ago when this question was presented to the Senate, upon a proposed amendment to the Constitution of the State providing against the action of future legislation in behalf of these men who surrendered their canal bonds, there was only one dissenting voice. I believe every Democrat in the Senate voted in favor of the amendment to the Constitution while many on the other side of the Senate were in favor of saying at once that they would pay those bonds that were unsurrendered. On this side of the Senate Chamber a majority of the voice of the Democratic party was on the other side of that question, for the reason that there were some unsettled questions connected with it. But notwithstanding the records show that the Democratic party is right on this question--not only opposed to paying the surrendered bonds but also the unsurrendered bonds--and inasmuch as no doubt many members of the Senate were unprepared to vote, he was opposed to the indefinite postponement.
Why not let this memorial go to a Standing Committee of the Senate? By the time a committee would consider it the Senate will be better prepared to determine as to whether they are willing to pay these bonds or not. By the time a report is made from a committee Senators can vote with satisfaction to themselves. While if a vote be pressed to-day they will vote with uncertainty in their minds as to whether they are voting right or wrong. While there are doubts as to which is the right and which the wrong side, it is better for the interest of the State that the matter be deferred and investigated until the Senate can discharge its duty with a proper understanding. The propositions are so interwoven they cannot be divided, otherwise he would favor the indefinite postponement of the minor proposition and be in favor of referring the major proposition to a committee.
Mr. HARNEY said he had examined the memorial carefully and could not discover that it meant anything except a notice to the Senate. There were no questions asked: nothing for them to answer, nothing to refer. It is a protest against a certain act that we may do, and a notice that they would take a certain position in that contingency. For us to indefinitely postpone it would be a manifest impropriety. So far as I am concerned I am glad that the bondholders have given us this notice. Heretofore we have stood in doubt as to what position they occupied on the question. They have occupied a position a good deal like Lorenzo Dow said the doctrine of reprobation was, whether one took one position or the other, the result is the same. If we paid the Garrett bonds they were going to make us pay the canal debt for that reason. If we didn't pay those bonds, and the canal passed from their holding, therefore, again, we should pay it. In this memorial they distinctly take the position that we may refuse to pay those bonds, and let the canal be sold and pass into the hands of the parties now contending for it without injuring ourselves, because, with a full notice of all the facts in the case, they serve on us an official notice that it is our business to stand aside in that fight, that it is no concern of ours at all, that whatever may be the result it will affect our action in no sense. We should not deny ourselves the benefit of that view, for it may be of service to us. Therefore it would be manifest impropriety to indefinitely postpone this memorial.
Mr. DAGGY agreed with the Senator from Montgomery (Mr. Harney) as to the construction of the memorial. He thought it was out of time and out of place. The payment of a portion of the outstanding bonds would not hurt those who hold canal certificates. There is evidently a covert design in this memorial. It is a notice and it is a protest. If they will say that if the Legislature fails to pay these bonds they will stand the liability, then we would have an estopped on them, but they don't say that much. They go just so far and stop. They don't go far enough. It is delusive--almost like the argument of the Senator from Jackson (Mr. Brown), with all due deference to that Senator. As it now stands, he should vote all the time against them in every shape they show page: 125[View Page 125]their heads. But there is being discussed a question that is not before the Senate at all. That question will come up when the bill is before us for the payment of these bonds, therefore he declined to enter into a legal discussion of the subject. This is simply a protest, saying: "Don't you legislate on that subject." He was for determining this question at once and forever, and in favor of indefinite postponement.
Mr. WILLIAMS made the point of order that parliamentary law forbids the discussion now being indulged in, in support of which he read from Jefferson's Manual, page 47.
The PRESIDENT decided the point of order not well taken.
Mr. DWIGGINS too, thought that the memorial was out of time and out of place. They say to us "we object," "we protest against your paying anybody's bonds." They say, "you dare to pay those bonds and you must pay our bonds or else you do us injustice." Suppose we decline to pay Mr. Garrett's judgment, and the canal is sold, passes out of the hands of the Trustees appointed under the Butler law, they will say that the revenues of the canal were guaranteed to them by the act of 1846-7 for the payment of their bonds and the interest, and we have violated the contract, deprived them of the rents and tolls, and therefore we must pay them the whole amount of the interest and principal. That is what they want, that we should let Garrett sell the canal so that they may claim payment of the whole amount of the bonds. That is the reason of this protest and nothing else. Why is it they are so anxious to come forward and say to the State "you must not pay a certain debt?" Why? Why are those men in London and New York so interested? Because they want us to let the canal be sold so they can then come in and say, "you violated your part of the contract and must pay us." This is the reason. Therefore he moved to indefinitely postpone this memorial and the subjectmatter it contains.
Mr. BROWN took the floor again and contended that it was the business of the sureties of the canal to defend the Garrett suit. They took the property with the incumbrance upon it, as a man takes a piece of real property with a mortgage on it, and they were bound to defend their right of possession against the person holding the incumbrance. The conveyance of the property by the State to the trustees created prior incumbrances, paramount liens which they could defend against all comers and were bound so to do.
He believed the best interests of the State demand that the Legislature should not undertake to interfere with the adjustment of this old internal improvement debt, because the adjustment of 1846-7 was a finality, and the people demand a faithful recognition of the obligation imposed by that adjustment. He plead for the upholding of that law and that adjustment, and not for the striking down of it. He was not one of the number of these, if any such number there are, who believe that the Legfslation of 1846-7 has affected or disturbed the rights in the least regard whatever, that the holders of the Internal Revenue Bonds obtained against the State the very moment they became the purchasers and owners of their bonds. These rights belong to them as completely now as ever, and it does not lie in the power of subsequent legislation to destroy these rights.
Were the holders to demand the liquidation of these bonds he would not lay a burden upon the industries and the labor of the people of Indiana to create a fund by taxation for the liquidation and payment of these bonds, but would turn to the law of 1836, and read to the holder these words: "For the punctual payment of the interest and final redemption of," etc. He would say to the holder of such bond: "When you took that bond you took it in pursuance of that act, and the people of Indiana by the law which authorized its issue agreed that the payment of it in the first instance was to be charged upon these public works, and it is a duty which lies upon you to exhaust these public works before you call upon the people to be taxed to pay your bonds." He would stand by the law of 1836 and would not be bringing repudiation upon the State, but holding to a faithful recognition of the law and the contract.
Mr. B. again insisted on the right of any person to petition the General Assembly, and the obligation which rested on the Senate to treat this communication respectfully.
At the close of his spoech he moved to lay the memorial on the table, in accordance with a promise to Mr. Glessner, who had made that motion, but withdrew it to allow Mr. Brown the floor; and the motion prevailed by a very large majority.
THE NEW STATE HOUSE.
The PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a communication transmitting resolutions adopted by the Common Council of the city of Indianapolis, as follows:
WHEREAS, The north half of square No. 48, commonly called West Market square, was dedicated by
page: 126[View Page 126]the State to the city for the purpose of a market space, and if the same should be applied to any other use, it would revert to the original grantor, the State of Indiana, and
WHEREAS, It is for the benefit of the city and of the State that the new State House shall be erected on the prgsent site ; therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That in consideration that the new State House, which it is proposed to build, shall be erected upon or near the present site, and that said part of square 48 shall be used as part of the State House grounds, the city of Indianapolis does hereby release and relinquish to the State of Indiana all her right, title to, and interest in, the real estate aforesaid.
RESOLVED, That the city of Indianapolis consents to the vacation of Market and Wabash streets, between Tennessee and Mississippi streets, for the purpose of enlarging the Sfate House grounds.
It was referred to the Committee on Public Buildings.
SWAMP LAND FUND.
The PRESIDENT also presented a communication from the Auditor of State, stating that the amount of swamp land funds now on hand is $38,203 82.
It was referred to the Committee on Finance.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Mr. STEELE, from the Committee on Judiciary, reported in favor of the passage of the bill [S. 14] to compel mortgagees to enter satisfaction of mortgage when paid.
It was concurred in.
Mr. STEELE, from the same committee, reported in favor of the indefinite postponement of the bill [S. 17] increasing the jurisdiction of justices of the peace.
On motion of Mr. WILLIAMS, the report was so amended as to lay the bill on the table, and the report was then adopted.
CLAIMS.
A report from the Committee on Claims made an allowance of $20 for services in draping the Senate Chamber in mourning, was amended by Mr. DWIGGINS, by authorizing the Auditor to pay the claim.
Mr. HOUGH moved to amend by reducing the sum to $15, as the bill only includes the services for hanging the drapery, and the pay would be in excess of the per diem allowed secretaries and other employes of the Senate.
Mr. ORR moved to lay the amendment on the table.
This motion was rejected by yeas 23, nays 24.
The amendment to strike out "$20" and insert "$15," was then rejected.
The report of the committee was concurred in.
Mr. ORR, from the Committee on Claims, returned the bill of The People for furnishing newspapers, wrapped and stamped, during the session of 1871, with a recommendation that it be not allowed.
Mr. SLATER inquired whether these papers were not received and used.
Mr. DITTEMORE thought they had been received and used, and ought to be paid for.
The report was concurred in.
FEES AND SALARIES.
Mr. FRIEDLEY, of Lawrence, [Mr. Brown in the chair,] by consent had leave to introduce a bill [S. ] for an act to amend several sections and repealing several other sections of the Fee and Salary bill.
On motion by Mr. DWIGGINS the Senator from Lawrence [Mr. Friedley], had leave to print his bill with a view of introducing a printed bill, [as it was a lengthy bill, on an important subject.]
PAYMENT OF WABASH AND ERIE CANAL BONDS.
Mr. STEELE had leave to introduce a bill [S. 85] to protect the Wabash and Erie Canal, and the tolls and revenues thereof, from sale or sequestration for the satisfaction of the lien of certain bonds or stocks of the state. [It proposes to appropriate such sums of money as may be necessary to redeem 191 bonds and their coupons, such as are described in the preamble to the bill.]
On motion by Mr. STEELE, the Constitutional restriction was dispensed with by yeas, 47; nays, 0; the bill was read by title, laid on the table and 200 copied ordered printed for the use of the Senate.
BANKING.
Mr. HUBBARD, from the Committee on Corporations, returned Mr. Daugherty's bill [S. 2] authorizing the incorporation of banks of discount and deposit in State. [The bill provides that any number of persons, not less than five, may form themselves into a corporation, and contains, among other provisions, the following: The amount of capital stock to be not less than $25.000, to be divided into shares of $100; no business other than necessary for the organization of the bank shall be transacted until at least fifty per cent. is paid in and a certificate of the fact filed with the Secretary of State; no bills of indebtedness in the shape or similitude of bank notes shall be issued; each director must have at least five shares of stock; fifty per cent. of the stock must be paid in before commencing business and the balance within six months thereafter; capital stock shall be held as personal property which may be increased by a vote of two-thirds of the capital, which increase shall be paid in at the time subscribed; ten per cent. shall be reserved as surplus fund page: 127[View Page 127]until it reaches twenty-five percent. of the stock dividends declared semi-annually; no portion of the stock shall be withdrawn; if losses are sustained exceeding undivided profits, no dividends shall bedeclared while it continues banking operations greater than net profits on hand; the association may be closed by a two-thirds vote of the stock, after which no dividends shall be paid or capital withdrawn until all liabilities are fully paid. The stockholders shall be individually responsible for contracts and engagements of the association.] With amendments of small importance recommending its passage.
The report was concurred in.
ENROLLED BILLS.
Mr. THOMPSON, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, returned his bill, [S. 65] granting consent to the purchase by the Federal government of certain lands in Indianapolis, with a report that it is correctly enrolled.
Mr. COLLETT, from the same commitee, returned the bill [S. 82] to amend section nine of the act of May 20, 1852, providing for the election of electors for President and Vice President, with a similar report.
Mr. SMITH, from the same committee, returned the bill [S. 8] to provide for courts in the Twenty-fifth Common Pleas District, with a similar report.
Mr. HALL, from the same committee, returned the joint resolution [S. 1] in regard to the Ohio and Wabash rivers improvement, with a similar report.
SCHOOL HOUSES.
Mr. HUBBARD, from the Committee on Corporations, returned the bill [S. 16] to amend the title to the act with reference to the issuing of bonds to build and complete school houses, with a favorable report thereon.
The report was concurred in.
MORTGAGES.
Mr. STEELE, from the Committee on Judiciary, returned the bill [S. 14] to amend section ----- , of the act of May 6, 1852, concerning mortgages with a favorable report thereon.
The report was concurred in.
JUSTICES JURISDICTION.
He also returned from the same committee the bill [S. 17] to amend section two of the act of March 11, 1861, to amend sections eight and ten of the justices act of June 9, 1852, with an unfavorable report thereon, as it proposes to give justices original jurisdiction in amounts of $500 and under. The committee recommended its indefinite postponement.
Mr. WILLIAMS moved to amend the report by striking out the words, "indefinite postponement," and inserting in lieu that the bill lie on the table.
Mr. BROWN moved to lay this motion on the table.
The latter motion was rejected upon a division of the Senate.
The amendment [Mr. Williams'] was agreed to.
The report, as amended, was concurred in.
Also Mr. Taylor's bill [S. 5] requiring railroads to issue stock to individuals who have paid taxes levied in aiding the construction of said railroads in proportion to the amount of taxes so paid, unclaimed stock to be issued to the township trustees, to be held for the benefit of the common school fund, without amendments recommending its passage.
The report was concurred in.
SPITTLER AND STACKHOUSE.
Also Mr. Dwiggins' bill [S. 32] to legalize the sale of certain lands in Jasper county, with a favorable report thereon.
The report was concurred in.
BLUFFTON.
Also Mr. Dougherty's bill [S. 62] in reference to amending the charter of the town of town of Bluffton, with a favorable report there on.
The report was concurred in.
The Senate adjourned till to-morrow morning.
