THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
THIRTEENTH VOLUME.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
IN SENATE.
MONDAY, December 9, 1872.The Senate met at two o'clock pursuant to adjournment, President Friedley in the chair.
On motion, the reading of the journal was dispensed with.
A FIFTH SUPREME JUDGE.
The PRESIDENT announced the special order, Mr. Taylor's bill [S. 51] to amend the act of May 13, 1852, to organize a Supreme Court and prescribe the duties of the Judges thereof. [It proposes to make the Supreme Court to consist of five Judges, three of whom shall constitute a quorum.]
It was read the second time.
A quorum not being present, the bill was passed over for future consideration.
The bill submitted by Mr. Hough, with the minority report of the Judiciary Committee on the same subject, which was was a part of the special order, was taken up. [The bill located the additional district in the eastern part of the State, instead of the northern, as was provided in the bill reported by the majority]--it being the bill [S. 52] dividing the State into five Judicial Districts. The minority report was read by the Secretary and the subsfitute for the bill reported by the minority--the question being on concurring in the report.
Mr. HOUGH understood that the minority report was in strict compliance with the Costitutional requirement as set forth in section three of article seven; and that the majority report is in conflict with that requirement, because the districts as formed by the majority of the Committee are not composed of contiguous territory. The lines of the districts when drawn on a map, look like a badly stove up burnt boot, while the division of the territory proposed by the minority, looks on the map as if the districts were as perfectly formed as they could be, as well as regards contiguity of territory as equality in the number of inhabitants. Parties in the eastern and middle portion of the State, under the bill reported by the majority, desiring to consult a Supreme Judge in vacation, would have to travel to Vevay in the extreme south, or to Fort Wayne in the north part of the State, or through Indianapolis to Bloomington. He urged the adoption of the minority report. The bill recommended by the majority looked as if there was some gerrymandering in it. He would not charge that any such thing was intended, but it would give rise to suspicions that such was the motive in framing it. For the reasons adduced he urged the passage of the bill reported by him.
Mr. DITTEMORE moved that the minority report be laid on the table. The yeas and nays were called, and the vote resulted--yeas, 20; nays, 16.
So the motion was agreed to.
The question now recurred upon the adoption of the majority report, which recommends the passage of the bill [S. 52] which divides the State as follows, by counties:
page: 213[View Page 213]First District--Monroe, Owen, Clay, Parke, Morgan, Sullivan, Greene, Knox, Daviess, Martin, Dubois, Pike, Gibson, Posey, Vanderburg, Warrick, Spencer, Perry and Orange.
Second District--Rush, Switzerland, Dearborn, Brown, Lawrence, Crawford, Harrison, Floyd, Clarke, Scott, Jefferson, Ripley, Decatur, Bartholomew, Jackson, Washington and Jennings.
Third District--Tippecanoe, Johnson, White, Warren, Fountain, Montgomery, Clinton, Boone, Tipton, Hamilton, Marion, Vermillion, Hendricks and Vigo.
Fourth District--Allen, Whitley, Huntington, Wells, Adams, Grant, Blackford, Jay, Delaware, Randolph, Howard, Madison, Hancock, Henry, Fayette, Union and Franklin.
Fifth District--Lake, Benton, Porter, La Porte, St. Joseph, Elkhart, Kosciusko, Marshall, Starke, Jasper, Newton, Pulaski, Fulton, Wabash, Miami, Cass, Carroll, Lagrange, Steuben, Ke Kalb and Noble.
The bill also provides for the appointment of an additional judge for the Fifth District.
Mr. DAGGY spoke in favor of concurrence in the report of the majority of the committee. He said that the report of the Clerk of the Supreme Court showed that the business of the court was now behind about four years. More than that, the court now consists of four judges, and a fifth one was necessary to prevent a tie in rendering decisions. He defended the division of the State made by the majority, and urged concurrence in it.
The report was concurred in, and the bill was read the second time by sections.
Mr. THOMPSON moved to amend by substituting another apportionment.
Mr. ROSEBRUGH moved that the amendment be laid on the table.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. DAGGY moved to suspend the constitutional restriction that the bill may be read the third time now and put upon its passage.
The motion was agreed to by yeas 34, nays 4, and the bill passed, yeas 30, nays 7.
On motion by Mr. O'BRIEN, the constitutional restriction was dispensed with by yeas 34, nays 2, and the bill [S. 51] to amend section one of an act entitled an act to organize a Supreme Court, and prescribing certain duties of the Judges thereof, approved May 13, 1852, was read the third time, and passed--yeas 36, nays 1.
AGENT OF STATE.
Mr. BROWN, in compliance with a resolution from the Senate, returned the bill [S. 21] repealing the act of June 17, 1852, to create the office of State Agent, and prescribing that the duties of that officer shall be performed by the Secretary of State. The committee recommended that the bill lay on the table, and that an accompanying bill be passed by the Senate, It is entitled, "A bill [S. 141] in relation to the funded debt of the State of Indiana therein mentioned."
[The bill abolishes the office of State Agent after the 10th of February, 1873, and provides that the business connected with the canal claims shall be transacted at the office of the Treasurer of State after the 1st of February, 1873. It also provides for the appointment of a State Agent at New York City for the transaction of business relating to the war loans of the State, and such other business of the State as is required by law to be transacted in New York, whose compensation shall not exceed $500 per annum, and who shall give bonds for the faithful performance of his duties.]
Mr. BROWN said: It is an exact copy of a bill prepared by Governor Baker, and has been examined by several gentlemen thoroughly acquainted with the subject matter thereof, it provides that the acting agent shall receive no more than $500 per annum. Mr. Brown urged its immediate passage.
The report of the committee was concurred in.
Mr. GREGG moved to dispense with the Constitutional restriction that the bill [S. 141] may be read the second time and put upon its passage now.
The motion was agreed to.
In reply to questions of Mr. HARNEY, Mr. BROWN stated that the bill leaves the State officers to drive the best bargain they can with some one in the city of New York to perform what little duties still appertain to the office of State Agent, but in no case shall the State officers allow their appointee more than $500 a year.
The bill then passed--yeas, 36; nays, 0.
PETITIONS.
Mr. THOMPSON presented a petition on the subject of temperance, which was referred to the appropriate committee without reading.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Mr. OLIVER, from the Committee on Public Buildings, returned the bill [S. 87] ceding to the United States jurisdiction over certain lands in Evansville on which to erect public buildings, with a verbal recommendation that it do pass, but he withheld it till it shall be presented with a written report.
page: 214[View Page 214]THE DIVORCE LAW.
Mr. HALL, from the Committee on Rights and Privileges of the Inhabitants of the State, reported back the memorial of the yearly meeting of the Society of Friends, on the subject of the divorce law, with a bill, whose passage was recommended. [The bill provides that divorces may be granted for the following causes: 1. Adultery. 2. Abandonment for three years. 3. Cruel and inhuman treatment of either party by the other.]
On motion the report was laid on the table.
Mr. WILLIAMS moved that the vote be reconsidered.
Mr. BROWN moved (ineffectually) to lay the motion on the table.
The motion to reconsider prevailed, and the motion to lay the report on the table was lost.
The report of the committee was then concurred in.
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.
Mr. GREGG introduced a bill [S. 142] providing for getting the sense of the qualified voters of the State on the calling of a committee to alter or amend the constitution of the State, the vote to be taken on the first Tuesday in October, 1874, which was read the first time and passed to the second reading.
WABASH AND ERIE CANAL.
On motion by Mr. BROWN, the order of business was suspended and the joint resolution [H. R. 2] agreeing to and adopting an amendment to the constitution, by adding to the tenth article a section in relation to the debt charged upon the Wabash and Erie Canal, prohibiting the recognition by the General Assembly of any liability on the part of the State to pay the canal certificates issued under the provisions of the Butler bill, was taken up.
Mr. DAGGY made an ineffectual motion to lay the resolution on the table--yeas 5, nays 30.
Mr. DAGGY was in favor of the passage of the joint resolution in a certain contingency. If the Legislature should call a Constitutional Convention, it would be necessary, and if the Legislature should agree to propose several other necessary amendments to the Constitution this one should he stopped just where it is. He opposed the adoption of the resolution for the simple reason that, if adopted, it would preclude the presentation of any other amendments. He was in favor of the adoption of an amendment of the character of that proposed by the resolution, but there were other important amendments to the Constitution required, and he wanted them all embodied in a series so that they might be acted on by the people at once.
Mr. BROWN said he, for one, was not willing to take the responsibility of delaying action on the adoption of this resolution any longer. The Senate had passed a bill which would be made a pretext on the part of the holders of the canal scrip for their payment in full. Hence prompt action was necessary on the part of the General Assembly to give the people an opportunity to say conclusively and for all time that neither they nor their successors should be pestered with this vexatious question any longer. If the programme of the Senator from Putnam [Mr. Daggy] was adopted, it would take three or four years to pass it, whereas if the Senate adopted this resolution now, it could be passed within the next thirty or forty days, and the matter would be settled forever.
Mr. GOODING did not understand that anybody on the floor of the Senate was opposed to the resolution, but he concurred with the Senator from Putnam (Mr. Daggy) in believing that there were other important amendments to the constitution required, and if this resolution was passed constitutional restriction would prevent all further amendments for several years, except through the medium of a constitutional convention. For this reason he deprecated hasty action on the resolution at this time, and moved that the resolution be made the special order for next Wednesday at two o'clock p. m.
Mr. WILLIAMS thought if the resolutions were passed at once, the Governor could order a special election, and it might be over before the close of the present session. That would leave the way open to propose as many amendments at the next session as may be desired.
Mr. DWIGGINS moved to lay Mr. Gooding's motion on the table.
The motion was agreed to.Mr. DW1GGINS then demanded the previous question on the adoption of the resolution.
The demand was seconded by the Senate and under its operation the joint resolution was finally passed by yeas 35, nays 0.
STATIONERY.
Mr. GREGG offered a resolution which was adopted to furnish the President's Secretary with the name stationery as is and may be allowed to members.
NEW BILLS.
Mr. STEELE, by leave, introduced a bill [S. 143] for an act to restrain all per- page: 215[View Page 215]sons under twenty-one years of age from making, assisting in making, vending or giving away intoxicating liquors in this State, which was read the first time and passed to the second reading.
Mr. O'BRIEN introduced a bill [S. 146] for an act to amend section four of the plank and gravel road assessment act, which was read the first time and passed to the second reading.
A motion to adjourn being made, and the yeas and nays demanded the vote resulted--yeas 9, nays 14.
No quorum voting--
Mr. HALL moved that the doorkeeper be sent for absentees--pending which--
The Senate adjourned till to-morrow at 10 o'clock.
