THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
THIRTEENTH VOLUME.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
IN SENATE.
TUESDAY, December 3, 1872.The Senate met at ten o'clock a.m.--President Friedley in the chair.
The session was opened by prayer by Rev. J. H. Bayliss, of Roberts Park M. E. Church.
The Secretary's journal of yesterday's proceedings was read and approved.
PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.
The following described petitions and memorials were referred to appropriate committees.
By Mr. HUBBARD, a petition from citizens of St. Joseph county, praying for the repeal of the Drainage and Reclaimation of Wet Land Acts.
By Mr. DWIGGINS. From citizens of Starke and Jasper counties on the same subject.
By Mr. WINTERBOTHAM. On the same subject.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Mr. BROWN, from the Judiclary Committee submitted a report, returning the joint resolution [H. R. --] agreeing to the amendment proposed by the last General Assembly concerning the debt chargeable upon the Wabash and Erie Canal, with a favorable recommendation thereon.
Mr. BROWN returned from the Judiciary Committee the bill [H. R. 27] concerning interest on judgments, with an amendment to the title by striking out the words "a bill," and inserting in lieu thereof the words "an act," and when so amended recommending its passage.
He also returned from the same committee the bill [H. R. 7] providing that Justices shall have original jurisdiction in certain cases of misdemeanors where the penalty does not exceed a fine of $25, with amendments clerical only.
Also, from the same committee, the bill [S. 71] to amend sections 7 and 49, of the settlement of decedents estates act of June 5, 1S52, with a favorable report, and with amendments providing that letters of administration may be taken out within five days and a sale may take place upon twelve days notice.
Also, the bill [S. 72] to amend section 127 of the general practice act, with a favorable recommendation.
He also returned from the same committee the bill [S. 76] to define the crime of libel, with a similar report.
Also, the bill [S. 75] defining the law and fixing punishment for verbal slander, with a like recommendation.
He also returned the libel bill [S. 73], with a recommendation that it lay on the table.
These reports were severally concurred in.
PROPERTY RIGHTS OF MARRIED WOMEN.
He also returned a resolution from the same committee, concerning the rights of married women, recommending that it lie on the table. [The resolution was one of inquiry as to the expediency of passing a law extending to married women the same page: 153[View Page 153]rights as to holding property and making contracts that are enjoyed by unmarried women.]
Mr. HUBBARD said that in the course of his practice, his attention had often been called to the condition of our laws on this subject. Under the old English law, when a man married a woman he took her property and her debts, substantially. He was liable for all contracts made by her, necessary for persons in their condition in life. But we have changed all that. We give a married woman the right to hold any property that a man can hold, or she could hold when she was single, and we have not made her liable for general indebtedness. The consequence is, it is rendered possible for a woman to make contracts in her own name, and not be liable generally on a single one of those contracts. There is, as Senators are aware, but a small cla s of contracts on which a married woman can be held liable--where it is directly for the benefit of her separate property--her real estate. Then, with all the rights of property that a man has, she is not liable for any indebtedness whatever. That is the condition of the laws.
A large amount of real estate and personal property is in the hands of married women, whose husbands are conducting the business generally, and yet the former are not responsible for a cent of indebtedness. The property is put into the wife's hands when the husband is unembarrassed, and when misfortune comes it is found, too late by the creditors, that they are not responsible, that the wives have for years held every cent of their property. In some other States, Michigan and New York, for instance, a married woman is made responsfble for her contracts the same as when single. It is commonly supposed by citizens of this State that when a creditor holds a note signed by a married woman, she holding the property, the note is good. But this is not the case. The note is no better than blank paper. The law ought to be changed so that liability shall follow the possession of property.
Mr. BROWN said the committee examined the bill and the propositions contained in it, and he thought came to a very wise and correct conclusion. He had about all the trouble he wanted to live with his wife under the present law, and if the proposition of the Senator over the way [Mr. Hubbard] should be adopted, he didn't know that he would be able to live with her at all. [Laughter.] If the Senator is in favor of subordinating mankind to womankind he did not know that he should object, but as long as the Senator shook the pantaloons at him he must allow him to put them on and wear them, It seemed to him that more family difficnlties occurred and more divorce suits were instituted because of the increasing change of the law by which women were invested with rights hitherto unknown to them. It brings about family quarrels and family trouble, and he, for one, was in favor of abridging rather than enlarging what are commonly known as the rights of married women.
The hardship of which the Senator speaks can be said in reference to any branch of the law. It is generally supposed that a man knows the law. If a man contracts with a married woman he is generally supposed to know what the law is in relation to that kind of contract. A woman can hold in her own right property that she acquires by devise or descent. But if she earns money by her own labor, that is her husband's. He is entitled to her wages and the proceeds of her wages. Therefore, he said, it was right that a woman should not be allowed to set up an independent business of her own. to carry it on by contracting, selling, trading and dickering, because the proceeds of all that kind of service which she may perform belong to her husband. He should have the supervision and control of it. If the law is changed as the Senator wants it changed, in his opinion it would bring about domestic discord and trouble.
Mr. HUBBARD said the object of the resolution was to protect the rights of the creditors of married women. Under the present law she has the same rights of holding property that a man has. The object of the bill is to prevent the creditors from being defrauded. So far as dissensions and discord in the family were concerned he thought the family relations were as harmonious now as they were a hundred years ago before the changes in the law respecting the rights of married women were made. According to the law of Indiana, if a married woman makes a contract with reference to her separate property, it must be for the benefit of that property, and if a court of equity thinks that she has made a foolish contract, it will set it aside. In one case in St. Joseph county a man sold a woman feed for her cow and could not collect the debt. It was to provide against such outrages as these that the resolution was introduced.
The vote on concurrence in the report of the committee resulted as follows:
YEAS--Messrs. Bird, Boone, Bowman, Brown, Cave, Collett, Daggy, Dittemore, Harney, Rosebrugh, Scott, Stceele, Stroud, Williams, Winterbotham, Mr. President--16.
page: 155[View Page 155]NAYS==Messrs. Armstrong, Beardsley, Beeson, Bunyan, Daugherty, Dwiggins, Francisco, Freidley, of Scott; Gregg, Hall, Haworth, Howard, Hubbard, Miller, Neff, Oliver, Orr, Rhodes, Sarnighausen, Slater, Sleeth, Smith, Taylor, Thompson, Wadge--25.
Pending the roll call--Mr. BOONE, in explanation of his vote, said he regarded it as much the duty of men to inquire into and understand the law relating to the rights of married women as the law regulating contracts with minors, he should therefore vote "aye."
Mr. SCOTT, in explaining his affirmative vote, thought the Senate was in somewhat the condition that Moses found himself in at one time; if they were not on holy ground it was at least dangerous. He was in favor of the spirit of the resolution, but did not quite like its form. He referred to another bill covering nearly all the points he desired, and for that reason should vote "aye;" otherwise he should vote "no."
The vote was then announced as above recorded.
So the report was not concurred in.
Mr. BROWN moved to amend the resolution by adding, "and to exercise the elective franchise."
Mr. NEFF moved to lay the amendment on the the table.
The motion was agreed to by yeas, 27; nays, 14; as follows:
YEAS--Messrs. Armstrong, Beeson, Bowman, Bunyan, Cave, Daggy, Daugherty, Francisco, Gregg, Hall, Harney, Haworth, Howard, Hubbard, Miller, Neff, Oliver, Orr, Sarnighausen, Slater, Sleeth, Smith, Stroud, Thompson, Wadge, Williams, Mr. President--27.
NAYS--Messrs. Beardsley, Bird, Boone, Brown, Collett, Dittemore, Dwiggins, Freidley of Scott; Steele, Taylor, Winterbotham--14.
Pending the roll-call, Mr. HUBBARD, in explanation of his vote, thought that the subject of the resolution was too serious a matter to be trifled with, and inasmuch as the Senate did not seem disposed to treat the matter with the seriousness it deserved, he should vote to lay the amendment on the table.
Mr. SCOTT, when his name was called, said he should vote for the amendment in all seriousness. It is a matter that will be pressed here, and will not be considered a trifling matter. The constitution may need to be amended, but the resolution did not preclude the inquiry by the committee to ascertain--and it is very pertinent to ascertain--whether the constitution should not be amended so as to allow females to vote. Certainly any proposition which involves the rights of one-half of the citizens of this State, ought not to be considered a trifling matter.
Mr. SLATER, when his name was called, said: Mr. President--No man possesses a deeper veneration for woman than I possess for her moral, physical and intellectual nature. But her intellectual nature is different from that of man. In all Christendom she has nowhere, with the exception of Wyoming, been admitted to the rights, power and franchise that man arrogates to men alone. She plans no sublime campaigns--nor leads armies to battle or fleets to victory. The honors of the political arena are not for her to wear or wield, but she may well glory in the hero who is both able to wear and wield them. Her voice is not for brawling. Its tender tones are for soothings and caressings. The political rostrum is too boisterous and rude for her refined nature. Home is her place of worship, except when, like the star of day, she deigns to issue forth to the world to exhibit her beauty and graces, and scatter her smiles upon all who are worthy to receive so rich a boon, and then she goes back to her home, like as the sun sinks in the west, and the memory of her presence is like the soft twilight that lingers long behind a bright departed day. I therefore vote "aye."
The vote was then announced as above recorded.
On motion of Mr. THOMPSON, the resolutlon was recommitted to the Committee on the Judiciary.
DRAINAGE LAWS.
Mr. HUBBARD, from the Committee on Corporations, returned the bill [S. 1] to repeal the Drainage law and supplementary act.
Mr. BROWN moved to lay this bill on the table and make it with all bills on this subject, the special order for Tuesday next at two o'clock.
Mr. DITTEMORE thought the passage of this motion due to the Senator from Kosciusko (Mr. Chapman) who is absent, and who has a bill on the files proposing to amend these acts.
Mr. STEELE also favored the motion.
Mr. HUBBARD thought it would cause delay. The bill is simply a repealing act, and as it is the intention of all to pass some kind of drainage laws this bill might as well be passed now. But such has been the feeling raised by the actions of the Kankakee Drainage Company that the people in that section are impatient of delay. There was urgent necessity for immediate action on the bill.
Mr, DWIGGINS said the Kankakee Draining Company had assessed lands along the river to the amount of four millions eight hundred odd thousand dollars. They have also filed the bond required by page: 155[View Page 155]the supplemental act. That authorized them to put there bonds on the market and sell them. As soon as those bonds, or any portion of them, are sold, these assessments are a lien on the entire lands assessed for the payment of these bonds, which operates as a mortgage on the lands. In order that the people owning these lands may be relieved from this enormous mortgage, which will run for fifteen years, for none of the bonds are for a less period than that, they have appealed to the courts. They can defeat the present assessments, as they believe. But he desired to say to the Senate that these lands constituted the sole property of many of these people. They have to pay their lawyers' fees and the costs of court, because not a dollar of costs can be made out of this company and it will cost the owners of these lands half of their farms to pay their attorneys' fees and the expenses of this one appeal, What they fear is this, that the company may call its assessors together at any time and make a reassessment upon these lands. Then what? The only remedy is to again go into court and by the time they get through the court the second time their homes will be gone, swallowed up in expenses of litigatfon. This is the reason, he said, why the friends of this measure are to-day insisting on the repeal of the act. It may be said that the Kankakee Company has vested rights. That must be settled in the courts. All we ask of the Legislature is to relieve ourconstituents as far as they can from the imposition that has been practiced by the company--for imposition it is.
Mr. BROWN should oppose the repeal of the present drainage laws until assured some fair bill upon the subject would be passed.
The motion that this bill and similar bills be made the special order for Tuesday next at two o'clock, p. m., was then agreed to.
On motion of Mr. BROWN, Mr. Chapman's bill [S. 88] to authorize the structure of levees, dykes, drains and ditches, took the same course.
SOLDIERS' ORPHAN HOME.
Mr. BEARDSLEY, from the Committee on Benevolent Institutions, returned the bill [S. 48] to amend sections 1 and 8 of the Soldiers' Home act of March 11, 1867, and section 2 of the act of May 14, 1869, supplemental thereto, with an amendment that any county on whose application orphans were received be liable for their maintenance, recommending its passage.
The report was concurred in.
THE NEW STATE HOUSE.
Mr. THOMPSON presented a proposition for the sale of private grounds for the extension of Capital square, which was referred to the Committee on Public Buildings.
Mr. HOWARD, from the Committee on Rights and Privileges of the inhabitants of the State, returned the bill [S. 79] for an amendment to the first section of the mill race way act of March 1, 1853, to allow any person owning a flouring mill, or other machinery run by water, to construct a race way through the property of another person, with a recommendation that it lie on the table.
The report was concurred in.
He also returned from the same Committee the bill [S. 80] to amend the fish law, with amendments and a favorable report thereon.
Mr. BEARDSLEY explained that the bill contemplated the exemption of the St. Joseph river from the provisions of the fish law.
Mr. DITTEMORE moved to recommit the bill with instructions to exempt White river also from the provisions of the bill.
Mr. BROWN asked if Salt river was included in the motion. As the Senator (Mr. Dittemore) had occasion to navigate that stream occasionally, it might be well for him to include it. [Laughter.]
On motion by Mr. BEARDSLEY this motion to recommit was laid on the table, by yeas, 24; nays, 17.
Mr. COLLETT moved to recommit the bill with instructions to exempt the Wabash river.
On motion by Mr. TAYLOR this motion to recommit was also laid on the table, by yeas, 23; nays, 18.
Mr. WILLIAMS moved to recommit the bill with instructions to report a bill to repeal the fish law.
Pending which the Senate took a recess till two o'clock P. M.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The PRESIDENT took the chair at 2 o'clock and stated the consideration of the order of business pending at the time of taking the recess for dinner.
Mr. DITTEMORE saying it being evident that a quorum was not present, demanded a call of the Senate, but withheld the demand for a report from a committee.
Mr. COLLETT, by consent, from the Committee on Agriculture, returned the bill [S. 39] to amend the drainage and wet page: 156[View Page 156]land laws, with amendments, and when so amended recommending its passage.
Mr. O'BRIEN moved that the report be concurred in and the bill lie on the table, and 150 copies be printed for the use of the Senate.
The motion was agreed to.
CALUMET FEEDER DAM.
Mr. WADGE moved for a suspension of the order of business, that a communication from the Governor may be read.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly a communication from the Governor, in response to a resolution of the Senate concerning the feeder dam across the Calumet river, at Blue Island, in the State of Illinois, was read, embracing letters from the Governor of Illinois, with various other reports and correspondence for the removal of said dam at Blue island. The Governor says that in view of the fact that the purpose for which the dam was erected having ceased to exist in consequence of the feeding of the Illinois and Michigan Canal from Lake Michigan through the Chicago river instead of from the Calumet, he felt it to be his duty to use the best efforts to induce the Illinois authorities to remove the structure. On the 24th of February, 1872, he appointed Hon. A. L. Osborne and Hon. W. H. Calkins, Commissioners, on behalf of Indiana, to proceed to Springfield and confer with the Governor and General Assembly in relation to the removal of the dam. Mr. Calkins succeeded in procuring a favorable action in the matter of the Governor and General Assembly of Illinois, which was printed at the time Mr. C. made his report to the Governor.
Since the receipt of a letter from Governor Palmer, reciting this action by his General Assembly, Governor Baker has had no further official information on the subject, but is otherwise informed that the same has been lowered but not removed, and that an injunction still exists which prevents the trustees from removing the dam. It ought to be removed, as it still causes the overflow of thousands of acres of land, to the great injury of the property and health of many of the good people of Lake and Porter counties.
The Governor subsequently learned that a court in Cook county had issued the injunction restraining the Trustees of the Illinois and Michigan canal from removing the dam. Upon this, he again had a correspondence with Governor Palmer, which is transmitted to the Senate with the message. Governor Baker recommends that the Attorney General, or some other competent agent, be designated by the General Assembly and directed to proceed to Chicago and learn the grounds upon which the injunction is based, so that the General Assembly of the State may have the information on which to base an appeal to the General Assembly of the State of Illinois, when it meets in January, for full and speedy relief by the removal of the dam. It cannot be doubted that such relief will be afforded when such an appeal is made.
Accompanying this is a copy of the account of Messrs. Calkins and Osborne for their services in the premises, amounting to $500, which the Governor recommended should be paid.
On the call of Mr. DITTEMORE, the exhibits accompanying the message were read.
On motion by Mr. WADGE, the message and accompanying communications were referred to a select committee of three, to be composed of Senators from the northwestern portion of the State, and the following Senators were subsequently appointed as the committee, viz: Messrs. Wadge, Winterbotham and Hubbard,
THE FISH LAW.
The PRESIDENT pro tem, (Mr. Rhodes) now recurred to the order of business pending at the time of the recess for dinner, being a motion by Mr. Williams to recommit the bill [S. 80] to the Committee on Rights and Privileges, with instructions for the committee to report a bill repealing the fish law.
Mr. CAVE did not object to the motion, but thought he had a bill on the files of the Senate for the repeal of the fish law that was likely to meet the wishes of Senators favoring a repeal of this law.
Mr. DWIGGINS hoped to see the law amended so as to allow the taking of fish in every way except by netting and seining.
Mr. GREGG said the greatest evil in his part of the State is with those who use nets that are set across the mouth of streams. By turning the net one way when fish go up the stream, the net cataches wagon loads of them, and when the fish return to the large stream the nets are set the other way. He favored a fish law that would afford a remedy in that particular.
Mr. DITTEMORE opposed the present law because it smacks largely of class legislation, as it gives to gentlemen of leisure the privilege of doing most all the fishing that is done. His constituents insist that the law shall be repealed, and he should so vote in obedience to their wishes
Mr. THOMPSON thought that no law on the statute book was more popular with page: 157[View Page 157]his constituency than this fish law, as the fish market had been vastly improved by it in this vicinity.
Mr. DWIGGINS, as a substitute for the motion of Mr. Williams, moved to recommit with instructions to report a bill to permit fishing in every manner except by seining.
Mr. WILLIAMS accepted the substitute in lieu of his motion.
Mr. GREGG again insisted that the use of a set net should be prohibited, and he moved to amend the amendments by adding a prohibition against the use of set nets and traps.
Mr. HUBBARD moved that the report and pending amendments lie on the table.
Mr. BROWN demanded a division of the question.
The amendment (Mr. Gregg's) was laid on the table by yeas, 23 nays 19.
The question recurring on laying on the table, the substitute (Mr. Dwiggin's) being a motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on Rights and Privileges with instructions to report a bill permitting fishing in every manner except by seining. the Senate laid that on the table also by yeas 23, nays 20.
The question then recurring on the motion to lay the report of the Committee on the table, it was agreed to by yeas 35, nays 6.
Mr. ROSEBRUGH moved to reconsider the vote just taken and to lay this motion on the table.
The latter motion was agreed to.
The order for calling for further reports from committees was taken up.
TIPPECANOE BATTLE GROUND.
Mr.TAYLOR, from the select committee thereon, returned the bill [S. 45] for a permanent fence around the Tippecanoe Battle Ground, with a report narrating a history of the ground since the battle was fought, reciting a clause of the constitutfon requiring the General Assembly to provide for its permanent inclosure, and recommending the appropriation of $25,000 for that purpose, as follows:
Mr. PRESIDENT : The committee to whom referred that portion of the message of his Excellency Governor Baker, in relation to the enclosure of the Tippecanoe Battle Ground, and also Senate Bill No. 45, which provides for the erection of a permanent fence around said ground, in accordance with the recommendations of the Governor, beg leave to submit the following report: Your committee find that theground on which the battle of Tippecanoe was fought was originally purchased by General John Tipton for the purpose and design of its permanent preservation and protection. In the year 1831 a member of the then survivors of the battie of Tippecanoe, with many other distinguished citizens of Indiana and Kentucky, assembled on the battle field, and having collected the scattered remains of those who fell in that conflict, deposited them, with appropriate funeral rites, in a common grave, around which a rude fence was made including only the few feet of ground where the remains were deposited. This enclosure has long since disappeared and nothing now remains to mark the spot where lie the bones of the heroic dead who perished in that memorable battle. In 1833 the General Assembly, by joint resolution, directed the Governor to ascertain from General Tipton the terms upon which a title could be obtained for the State in the ground on which the battle was fought; and thereafter such action was had by tbe General Assembly, on behalf of the State and General Tipton, that on the 7th day of November, 1836, the battle ground was conveyed to the State in fee simple.
In the correspondence between Gov. Noble and Gen. Tipton respecting the conveyance it was well understoood, and so expressed in the joint resolution on the subject, that the purpose for which the title was vested in the State was the same as that originally entertained by General Tipton, viz: Its preservation and protection. Since the title was thus acquired by the State the ground has been twice enclosed by temporary fencing, not a vestage of which now remains. The framers of our present Constitution were so impressed with the obligation resting upon the State to protect for all time from rude disturbance this sacred ground, that they by constitutional enactment recognized the duty in that regard Section ten, article fifteen, of the Constitution reads as follows: "It shall be the duty of the General Assembly to provide for the permanent enclosure and preservation of the Tippecanoe Battle Ground." This Constitutional requirement has never been complied with in spirit or letter only to the extent as before stated, in the erection of temporary fences. The Board of Commissioners of Tippecanoe county have recently caused to be made a survey of that portion of the grounds which needed to be enclosed. Mr. E. M. Talbott, under whose supervision this survey was made, was also charged with the additional duty of making an estimate of the probable cost of a suitable iron fence. The report made by Mr. E. M. Talbott to the Board of page: 158[View Page 158]Commissioners containing a plat of the survey and an estimate of cost is herewith submitted and made a part of this report. From an examination of the plat and report it will be seen that the part to be enclosed will require 3,300 feet of fence at an estimated cost of $24,100. Your committee would, therefore, recommend that the blank in section one be filled with the sum of $25,000. And when so amended would recommend the passage of the bill.
HENRY TAYLOR,Com.
W. P. RHODES, Com.
J. F. HARNEY,Com.
The report was concurred in.
MEMORY OF HORACE GREELEY.
On motion of Mr. GREGG the regular order of business was suspended and the resolution introduced by him yesterday in relation to the death of the Hon. Horace Greeley was taken up.
Mr. GREGG said he believed the resolution expressed the unanimous sentiment of the Senate on this subject. No words are adequate to express our deep sorrow and regret at hearing of the death of one of the greatest educators of our people. No other man's death would create such a sense of profound sorrow and regret through our country and the civilized world at this time as does that of Horace Greeley--a man distinguished in everything that is noble and good, one who leaves behind him a name that will be honored for all time to come. He was in the broadest sense of the word an American citizen, a self-made man, superlatively a successful journalist, a learned statesman and philosopher, a philanthropist, a friend and an advocate of the down-trodden and oppressed, without distinction of race or color.
The PRESIDENT of the Senate [Mr. Rhodes in the chair] said that for more than a quarter of a century the name of Horace Greeley has been prominent before the American people, and in all the events that have transpired in that time, the most interesting portion of our country's history, he has borne an honorable and conspicuous part. Through the columns of his great journal, circulating in all parts of the country, numbering its readers by tens of thousands, he has, perhaps, done more to mold and shape public sentiment in the United States than any man of his time. Possessed as he was of a noble and generous nature, always actuated by a broad and genuine philanthrophy, he has throughout all his public career, both by tongue and pen, plead eloquently the cause of the poor, the oppressed and the down-trodden. From the commencement of the agitation of the slavery question in this country, there has been no truer, no bolder and no abler friend of the slave than has been Horace Greeley. With him the cause of human freedom was paramount and above mere party considerations. He was a stranger to the ignorant and unholy prejudice of caste, which has so long degraded a race in our midst; and if to-day that wicked prejudice is rapidly disappearing from among our people, and if to-day the lash has fallen from the hands of the slave driver forever; if to-day no fetters are on the limbs of bond men in all this land; if to-day our flag floats over no slave in our broad domain, we ought to remember that Horace Greeley has contributed his full share to the accomplishment of this grand triumph. And when the history of this anti-slavery struggle is written the name of Greeley will stand side by side with the names of those that adorn the brightest pages of American history.
Mr. HUBBARD moved to amend the resolution by striking out all after the word "resolved" and inserting the following: "That as a mark of respect to him, these resolutions be spread upon the journals of the Senate." He said that he would allow no man to go before him in cherishing recollections of the memory and services of Horace Greeley, but we are here engaged in a work for the people of the State, and he did not think that our respect for the illustrious dead requires that we shall waste any more time than is necessary. Senators are aware that there is much work for us to do, and we ought not, when there is no occasion for it, to waste a day at this time of the session.
Mr. BROWN. I trust that the Senate will not be insensible to the importance of the occasion. The death of a just man always strikes the community, and indeed the death of Mr. Greeley has struck it, I think, as forcibly as the death of any man during the last half century. And l think the great works of the deceased have been of sufficient importance and benefit to the people that this mark of respect proposed by the resolution offered by the Senator from Dearborn, is but a poor pittance and a poor reward for the great good he has done the people of the country. I hope that the Senate will change the resolution that has just been offered by the Senator from St. Joseph [Mr. Hubbard] so that it will not read that it proposes to strike out the resolution offered by the Senator from Dearborn, [Mr. Gregg] but that it will be a resolution to accompany that of the Senator from Dearborn, so page: 159[View Page 159]that the Senate will adjourn on to-morrow, the day upon which his body is to be given to the earth, and that the record of this occasion may be made up along with the other records of this body.
I have no eulogy to pronounce upon him. His fame, his name his reputation need none. They speak for themselves. He sprang from the lowly and humble waIks of life. By energy, by industry, by perseverance, by honesty and diligence he carved out for himself a name and fame that any American citizen may well feel proud of. When a man makes for himself a name of being a universal friend and benefactor of the human race, he makes for himself a fame and a name that any man might well be proud of. And after the heat of party zeal and party victory has passed away, and when reason and soberness shall perform their sacred office, all the people in this country who have intelligence to reason and hearts to do right will see that Horace Greeley had identified himself with those occasions that were for the best interests of the country and the happiness of the people. He is gone! But "it is not all of life to live, nor all of death to die." I trust that that body of his which lies beyond the grave is as bright and glorious as that which awaits the coming of any man who has done honor to himself, credit to his people and justice to his Maker.
Mr.DITTEMORE moved to make the resolution offered by the Senator from St. Joseph (Mr. Hubbard) a part of the resolution offered by the Senator from Dearborn (Mr. Gregg).
Mr. HUBBARD, as it seemed to be the sense of the Senate, consented to this.
The motion was agreed to, and the resolution as amended was adopted.
UNITED STATES POSTOFFICE.
On motion of Mr. THOMPSON, the order of business was suspended, and his bill [S. 65], ceding to the United States jurisdiction over certain property in Indianapolis, upon which to erect public buildings, was read the third time, and passed the Senate, by yeas 40, nays 0.
FEES AND SALARIES.
Mr. FRIEDLEY of Lawrence [Mr. Rhodes in the chair), by unanimous consent, introduced a bill [S. 112], "A bill to amend sections 9, 16, 17, 18, 19, 28, 29, 30, 32, 58, 49 and 52, and repealing sections 20, 24, 25, 27, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 53 of an act entitled 'An act regulating the fees, salaries and duties of certain officers therein named and prescribing penalties for the violation of its provisions, repealing all laws in conflict therewith, and declaring an emergency.'"
On motion of Mr. WILLIAMS, the constitutional restriction was dispensed with, by yeas 39, neas 0, and the bill was read by title only (for the first reading).
[It allows jurors in the Supreme Court $2 50 per day; to jurors before justices of the peace, each $1 per day; and to grand or petit jurors in all other courts, each $2 per day, and to all jurors mileage at the rate of five cents per mile. It also fixes the fees of clerks of the courts and county auditors. It limits the pay of the county auditor to $1,800 per annum, except that he shall be allowed $35 for pay of deputies for each one hundred male inhabitants of his county over the age of twenty-one years, and fees and commissions arising out of the management of the school fund. The compensation of the county treasurer shall be limited to $1,500 per annum, except that he shall be allowed $25 for each one hundred male inhabitants of the county over twenty-one years of age, and also the fees and commissions now allowed by law for the collection of delinquent taxes. County commissioners are allowed five dollars per day for each day's attendance as a member of the county board or the board of equalization.]
Subsequently on the motion of Mr. FRIEDLEY, of Lawrence, the constitutional rule was dispensed with by yeas 39, nays 0, and the bill again read by title (for the second reading) and referred to the Committee on Fees and Salaries.
THE CANAL BONDS.
On motion of Mr. STEELE, the bill [S. 85,] to provide for the payment of the internal improvement bonds, which have not been surrendered under the Butler law, was taken up and referred to the Committee on Finance.
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.
Mr. STEELE, by consent, introduced a bill [S. 113] for an act to provide for calling a Convention to revise, alter or amended, the Constitution of the State of Indiana, to meet at the State House on the third Tuesday of November, 1873, to consist of one hundred members, who shall be chosen from the districts now entitled to elect members of the House of Representatives and General Assembly.
It was read the first time and passed to the second reading.
NEW PROPOSITIONS.
Mr. NEFF, by consent, introduced a bill page: 160[View Page 160][S. 114] for an act to suppress tippling houses and drunkenness, to regulate the selling or giving away of vinous, malt and intoxicating liquors, etc., and the collection of damages sustained from the use of liquors, and declaring an emergency.
On his motion the constitutional rule was dispensed with by yeas 37, nays 2, and the bill was read by title only (for the second reading.) He made an ineffectual motion to lay it on the table and print 200 copies.
It was referred to the Committee on Printing.
Mr. BROWN, by consent, introduced a bill [S. 115] to prevent extortionate charges for and unjust discriminations in the transportation of freights by railroads arid other common carriers,
It was read the first time and passed to the second reading.
Mr. DWIGGINS, by leave, introduced a bill [S. 116] to amend sections 95, 96 and 97 of the act of June 17,1852, providing for the settlement of decedents' estates, and legalizing certain sales of real estate heretofore made by foreign administrators.
It was read the first time and passed to the second reading.
Mr. ORR introduced a bill [S. 117] regulating the granting of divorces, nullification of marriages and decrees of courts in relation thereto, and repealing all conflicting laws. [It provides that the applicant must have been a bona fide resident of the State for three years, and fixes the following as the causes for which divorces may be granted: Adultery, willful abandonment for two years, cruel and barbarous treatment of either party by the other, habitual drunkenness of either party, or the failure of the husband to make reasonable provision for his family.]
It was read the first time and passed to the second reading.
RE-LOCATION OF COUNTY SEATS.
On motion of Mr. BEESON, the bill [H. R. 81] amending the re-location of county seat law, was read by title and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
BANKS AND BANKING.
On motion of Mr. Dangherty, the bill [S. 2] to regulate banks of deposit and discount in the State of Indiana, was taken up. The constitutional restriction was dispensed with by yeas 38, nays 0, and the bill was read by title only for the second reading, and was ordered engrossed for its third reading.
SPECIAL COMMITTEES.
The PRESIDENT announced the committee to whom was referred that portion of the Governor's message relating to the death of Colonel Norman Eddy, late Secretary of State, viz: Messrs. Scott, Glessner, Daggy, Daugherty, and Friedley of Scott.
He also announced a committee of one from each Congressional district, to which was referred the subject of erecting a soldiers' monument in the Governor's Circle, to-wit: Messrs. Stecle, Gooding, Hall, Gregg, Scott, Oliver, Dittemore, Taylor, O'Brien, Chapman and Wadge.
He also announced the committee to whom was referred the subject of the feeder dam on the Calumet River at Blue Island, to-wit: Messrs. Wadge, Winterbotham and Hubbard.
Mr.THOMPSON, from the Committee on Benevolent Institutions, reported that the bill [S. 180] to amend the act to revise, simplify and abridge the rules of practice, etc., had been referred to that committee by mistake and moved that it be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
It was so ordered.
And then the Senate adjourned, under the resolution adopted this afternoon, till Thursday morning at ten o'clock.
