THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
THIRTEENTH VOLUME.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
IN SENATE.
WEDNESDAY, December 11,1872.The Senate met at ten o'clock pursuant to adjournment.
Prayer was offered by the Rev. Mr. Moran, of the Fourth Presbyterian Church. Among other things for which he thanked God, was "the presence of this body of legislators; the tallest and the heaviest, the handsomest and the wisest, and the purest ever convened in the State."
MADISON RAILROAD BILL.
Mr. FRANCISCO moved that the regular order of business be dispensed with that the bill [H. R. 70] might be considered.
Mr. FRIEDLEY, of Scott, in consideration of the wishes of the people in the section more particularly effected by the bill, hoped the Senate would take it up.
Mr. ROSEBRUGH also hoped the motion would be agreed to.
It was so ordered.
Mr. DITTEMORE entered a motion to reconsider the vote adopting a resolution allowing stationery and stamps to employes of the Senate.
A motion was made by Mr. SLATER to dispense with the constitutional restriction, that the bill [H. R. 70] may be advanced to its final reading.
It was agreed to accordingly.
The bill [H. R. 70] to enable counties bordering on State lines or rivers bordering such counties, to aid in building bridges or the construction of railroads in the counties opposite, passed its second reading.
Mr. FRANCISCO moved to consider the bill as engrossed.
The motion was agreed to.
The bill was accordingly read the third time by sections.
Mr. NEFF said he was opposed to the bill. He had now in his possession a petition signed by over a thousand tax-payers of his county protesting against the passage of any bill to authorize taxing the people in aid of railroads. And he himself believed such taxation was unwise and unjust. Railroad corporations now govern the whole country. It is impossible to pass any law to regulate freight and passenger tariffs. Legislation can do nothing for the people, and the people are complaining bitterly.
Mr. GOODING thought the gentleman should not object. The bill provides that no taxes shall be levied until two-thirds of the voters shall have petitioned for it, and he thought they might be trusted to take care of their own interests. He represented a county bordering on the Ohio river, and they hoped at no distant day to subscribe to a railroad running south, which would be of the highest value to them, and he thought they ought to be permitted to judge of their own interests; and as the bill requires the consent of a majority before the aid can be voted, there can be no danger in passing an act of this character.
Mr. ROSEBRUGH believed that inasmuch as this question is to be decided by a majority of the people of the county, they page: 243[View Page 243]will be slow to vote such aid unless very great benefits are to be derived from it. He would vote for it.
Mr. FRIEDLEY, of Scott, stated that this bill may be of very great benefit to the people not only of Jefferson county, but of the entire State, and he hoped the Legislature would vote upon this measure favorably. He said the object of the bill as to connect the Jeffersonville and Madison road with the road running from Chattanooga. Tennessee, to Eminence, Kentucky, which would make the line to Chattanooga 108 miles shorter than by any other route. This connection would cost but $200,000, and they would then obtain what Cincinnati would give $10,000,000 to obtain.
Mr. SLEETH said he would be glad to vote for the bill, did it not contain some o the mischievous features of the law of 1869, especially in providing for the levy of the tax before the location of the road. Serious injury had resulted from this provision, and he wanted this bill amended so as to provide that the road should be located in a satisfactory manner before the taxes were levied. He would like to see several other conditions and resolutions in the bill, which he named. He would not make the levy a lien upon the property until the road be located. The bill was not read before it was ordered engrossed or he should have proposed this amendment.
Mr. GOODING was sure there were good and sufficient guards thrown around the bill. He thought the rights of the people were sufficiently protected by it. Still he was in favor of the passage of a bill providing that no money should be collected or paid over until the railroad, or a portion of it was built. But he hoped this bill, which had passed the House with but one dissenting voice, would not be killed here.
Mr. BROWN defended the bill. He said it gave the subscribers to the stock of the railroad the right to prescribe themselves the terms upon which the money shall be paid to the company. It also provides that the subscriptions shall be due only as the work is done to the amount of the subscriptions. Surely with these safeguards the people would be in no danger.
Mr. ORR opposed the bill on principle. He was decidedly opposed to the principle of taxing the people for the purpose of building railroads and he should have to vote against the bill.
Mr. GLESSNER desired but failed to obtain unanimous consent to offer an amendment that no part of the money shall be collected or paid until the road be permanently located, nor shall any tax levied be a lien upon the lands or property until such location be made.
Mr. THOMPSON said that, to accommodate the people in the south part of the State, he should favor and vote for this bill--ordinarily he would oppose such a bill as this, but this seemed to be an extraordinary case. The town of Madison was seeking to open a connection not only for herself but for the whole interior of the State with one of the finest thoroughfares in the country. The advantages to be derived from it were so manifest that he should vote for the bill.
Mr. DITTEMORE demanded the previous question and under its operation the bill passed by yeas 39, nays 5. Mr. Smith and Steele explained their vote in the affirmative.
A COURT BILL.
Mr. MILLER moved to suspend the order of business for the consideration of the bill [H. R. 69] a bill local in its character, affecting courts in his district.
Mr. BROWN opposed the motion. He said the facts were these: Some gentlemen ran for office in that Circuit and got beaten, now they are seeking to create this new Circuit in order that an appointment might be made. In other words, it was a little job to get somebody into office. He moved ineffectually to lay the motion on the table.
Mr. GLESSNER announced that Mr. Daugherty, who is sick and confined to his room to-day, desired that this bill should not be acted upon in his absence.
Mr. DAGGY stated that the bill was o considerable importance to the locality, and was satisfied it is essentially necessary that they should have this new Circuit. The business in the courts of these counties is behind several years, and they need a new District.
Mr. SMITH withdrew his motion out of respect for the sick Senator (Mr. Daugherty.)
Mr. DWIGGINS moved to make the bill the special order for to-morrow at ten o'clock a.m.
This motion was agreed to.
JUDGES SALARIES.
Mr. RHODES, from the Committee on Fees and Salaries, returned the bill [S. 9] fixing the salaries of the Judges of the Courts in this State with a recommendation by the majority that the bill be amended as indicated in the accompanying report.
The bill provides that the salaries shall be as follows:
page: 244[View Page 244]Supreme Court, $5,000; Superior Court, $4,000; Circuit Court, $3,500; Common Pleas, $2,500; Criminal Court, $3,000.
The majority of the committee recommend the salaries shall be as follows:
Supreme Court, $5,000; Superior Court, $3,500; Circuit Court, $3,500; Common Pleas Court, $3,000; Criminal Court, $2,500.
Also an amendment making the salaries of the Superior and Criminal Judges payable one-third out of county treasuries and remainder by the State; those of the Common Pleas Judges out of the treasuries of the counties composing the districts in proportion to population, and all salaries payable on the first Monday of January, April, July and October.
Mr. NEFF submitted a minority report recommending that the bill be amended by reducing the sums proposed to be paid the judges of the Courts as follows:
Supreme Court, $4,000; Superior Court, $3,000; Circuit Court, $2,500; Common Pleas Court, $2,000.
Both reports were laid on the table and made the special order for this afternoon at half past 2 o'clock.
RAILROAD TARIFF.
The PRESIDENT announced the special order for this hour being the bill [S. 6] to regulate railroad freight and passenger rates, on its second reading.
The Committee amendment to the first section by appropriately inserting the words "or other companies or persons" was agreed to.
The amendment striking out the second section was agreed to.
The amendment changing the numbering of the sections was agreed to.
The amendment to the fourth section similar to the amendment to the first section was also agreed to.
The amendment adding the fifth section was also agreed to, making the provisions of the bill apply to all common carriers.
Also, the amendment providing that nothing contained in the bill shall be construed to exempt from the common law and duty applicable to common carriers, in carrying freight and passengers for a reasonable compensation.
Mr. WILLIAMS moved to amend section 4 by providing that any officer, agent or employe who shall receive compensation for any package in violation of the provisions of this act, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction may be fined in any sum not less than $1,000, and be imprisoned for a term not exceeding twelve months.
It was agreed to.
Mr. HARNEY moved to insert in section--the words "to and from each station to any other station on the road."
It was agreed to.
He also moved to add a section providing that any railroad violating section 4 of this act shall be liable to action for damages by any person aggrieved by overcharge: and that the rates of freight charged between the termini of the road, or between any two competing points, shall not exceed in amount the rates of freight from any intermediate point to any other intermediate point or from any intermediate point to the terminus. This invidious distinction between points that are not competing and between competing points, is one of the greatest evils the people of the State are subjected to at the hands of the railroads.
This amendment was also agreed to.
Mr. HOUGH moved to amend by striking out the word "100," in line 68 of section 1, and inserting in lieu "50;" also "75" in line 9, and inserting in lieu "40;" also "50" in line 12, and inserting in lieu "25;" also the word "3" in line 3, section 2, and inserting in lieu the word "2;" and the word " "3" in line 7, section 4, and inserting in lieu the word "2," so as to change the rates of freight carried not more than twenty miles from not more than 100 per cent above the through rates to not more than 50; more than twenty and not more than fifty miles, from not more than 75 per cent. to not more than 40; and for a greater distance than fifty miles from not more than 50 per cent. to not more than 25 per cent. Also, to limit the rate for passengers to 2 cents per mile.
Mr. HOUGH would not willing do anything that would cripple a railroad, but while being fair to them, we should be just to parties who desire to patronize them. The rates now charged are certainly too high, and the bill does not secure the aims the author desires.
On motion of Mr. DITTEMORE, the amendment was laid on the table.
Mr. ORR moved to amend section 2 by striking out the words "one half" so that it will read, "shall not exceed the rate of three cents a mile."
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. SCOTT moved to add a section repealing all existing laws.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. DWIGGINS moved to amend by excepting from the operation of the bill all railroad companies whose roads have not been operated for five years, unless such roads are leased by, consolidated with or page: 245[View Page 245]operated by a company whose road shall have been in operation more than five years.
On motion of Mr. DITTEMORE, the amendment was laid on the table.
On motion of Mr. WILLIAMS the bill was considered engrossed and read the third time.
Mr. SCOTT, who had made several ineffectual efforts to offer an amendment to the bill, begged permission to say a few words. Leave was granted, and he said he was decidedly opposed to the bill, because it would work great harm to his constituents, who lived at a terminus of a railroad The bill regulated local freights, but made no provision for determining the rate of through freights. There was nothing in it to prevent a railroad from doubling or trebling its through freights. There is scarcely a road in the State that is paying a dollar on its stock. It is all they can do to live. Now, if the rates of local freights are reduced, they must add on at the other end to make up the deficiency. The result would be that the people of this district would have to pay two or three or four times the amount for carrying their freight than they do now. More than that it would operate as a discrimination against several corporations. The rich companies would not be sensibly affected by the provisions of the bill, but the weak corporations which have but little life in them and are struggling for existence would be blotted out. As a citizen, living at the terminus of a railroad, he opposed this bill because his people would have to pay three to six times for through freight more than they do now, if this bill is passed into an act; for unless the railroads do increase their charge for through freights they can not carry local freights and make enough to pay the interest on their bonded debt or their running expenses. But two railroads in this State are now paying more than this. He opposed making his people pay enormous rates of freight for the benefit of people living along the line of the road at intermediate stations.
At the conclusion of Mr. Scott's remarks, the Senate took a recess until 2 P. M.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
At 2 o'clock the Senate resumed the consideration of the order pending.
Mr. ROSEBRUGH demanded the previous question.
The Senate seconded the demand.
Mr. DITTEMORE demanded a call of the Senate, and it being ordered and taken, discovered forty Senators present.
The bill passed the Senate by ayes 37, nays 6, as follows:
YEAS--Messrs. Armstrong, Beeson, Bird, Boone Bowman, Brown, Bunyen, Carnahan, Cave, Daggy, Dittemore, Dwiggins, Friedley of Scott, Glessner Gooding, Gregg, Hall, Harney, Haworth, Hough, Hubbard, Miller, Neff, O'Brien, Orr, Rhodes, Ringo, Rosebrugh, Sarnighausen, Slater, Smith, Steele, Stroud, Taylor, Thompson, Williams, and Mr. President--37.
NAYS--Messrs. Beardsley, Collett, Howard, Scott,, Sleeth and Wadge--6.
Pending the roll call, Mr. BOONE, in explanation of his vote said, while he regarded the bill as imperfect they would have to commence legislation at some point. He was willing to let the courts point out their mistakes.
Mr. COLLETT believing the bill to be improper and unconstitutional and doing a great injustice to young lines of railroans and particularly to the North & South railroads, should vote "no."
Mr. DAGGY, when his name was called, declared that he didn't understand the bill, and voted in the dark and at random. He had been impressed with the idea that a bill of this kind could not be made effectual, that it was unconstitutional and void. Still he felt bound by the known wishes of his constituents to vote for the bill as expressing the wishes of his people.
Mr. DITTEMORE in explanation of his vote said, while the bill in its present shape did not meet his entire approbation he was willing to vote for it and let the responsibility as to its constitutionality devolve upon another branch of the government.
Mr. DWIGGINS, when his name was called, said the bill was not what he would have liked. It seemed to him that the freight tariff should have been fixed in the same way as the passenger tariff, that is, at so much a mile for a certain distance for a certain class of freights and so on He also doubted its constitutionality, but was willing to leave that to the courts. His opinion was that the benefits of the bill would accrue to the railroad companies. They have authority under the bill to make through tariffs just what they choose. The consequence will be that they will put up their through freights and do a through business, leaving local business undone. The trouble now is that men living at local points can not get cars to do the business. In Northern Indiana to-day there are granaries full of grain, and have been for the last twelve months. The shippers are willing to pay the prices demanded, but they can not get the cars. The companies use all their cars for through business. He thought this bill would aggravate that trouble. He had some amendments that he wished to offer, but they were cut off by the motion to page: 246[View Page 246]engross. Still he should vote for the bill, believing that it was a step in the right direction, though a very bungling one.
Mr. FRIEDLEY, of Scott, in explanation of his vote, said he didn't like the bill, but his people were very clamorous for some such measure, and he should therefore vote aye.
Mr. GOODING, like some others, felt compelled to vote for the bill under protest. He approved some of its features and disapproved others. Still it was a step in the right direction, and its defects might be remedied hereafter.
Mr. HARNEY, when his name was called, said the bill had some objectionable features, and might prove inoperative, but it would bring the attention of the people and of railroad men to the subject, and this bill may in time be the means of arriving at some proper measure. He thought a reduction in tariff would result in worse accommodations. Still he voted for the bill.
Mr. HAWORTH, when his name was called, said he did not understand the bill in all its features, but being favorable to something of the kind, and his people desiring it, he voted aye.
Mr. HOUGH, in explanation of his vote, said his constituents demanded that something be done for the reformation of railroad management, and he was constrained to vote aye, believing, however, that the bill would prove partly inoperative, but might be a step in the right direction.
Mr. HOWARD, in explanation of his vote, said if this bill met the demands of its friends it would be the destruction of the only road in his county, and not being prepared to vote against the wishes of his people he voted no.
Mr. O'BRIEN voted for the bill more as an expression of popular sentiment than in hope that it would be effective. On yesterday he said he would be compelled to vote against the bill in the shape it then was, but he changed his mind because the bill has been amended since, and because the people demand some legislation of this kind.
Mr. SCOTT would vote against the bill simply because it discriminated against his people. It must drive through freights away or increase the rate seriously.
Mr. SLATER had no excuses to make in voting for the bill.
Mr. SLEETH, said if he was convinced that the passage of the bill would be nothing more than an expression of the sentiment that prevails in this country to regulate local freights, he could consistently and conscientiously vote for it. If he was sure the Courts would support it or strike it down entirely, he could vote for it. But what he apprehended was that the Courts might support the bill in its application to roads organized under the general railroad law, because we have a right to legislate upon them, and that they would strike it down and hold it unconstitutional as applied to railroads that are operated under a special charter granted under the old constitution. If that should be the case, then one class of roads would be controlled by the operations of this bill and another class would not be controlled at all except by the operations of the common law.
He could not risk a vote in favor of the bill for a mere expression of opinion, with that state of affairs staring him in the face. Again, there were objections to the bill aside from the constitutional question. Some amendments that he conceived the friends of the bill ought to have permitted to be made. For instance, an amendment should have been adopted providing that the rates of frieght mentioned in section one should be upon freights of of the same class going in the same direction. There are four classes of freight. The rate upon the first class from New York to Indianapolis is $1 18; the rate upon the fourth class is only 65 cents. In making this discrimination it ought to be made to apply to the same class of freights. If not, they may adopt the highest rate of through freight, and apply it to all classes. Again, it is questionable what construction might be placed on the term "through freights." He had before him the report of the Commissioner of Railroads of Ohio, and the term "through freight" in that report always means freight that is loaded on the car and the car run off on another road to be transported. All there is to do is to couple it onto a train to carry it over the road and pass it to another company. But freight that is taken in the parcel at the depot, and loaded onto the cars, is not through freight. Take freight from Nashville, for instance. It is brought across the bridge at Louisville, and the Jeffersonvilie, Madison and Indianapolis road takes it and brings it to Indianapolis. They have nothing to do but haul it. That is through freight, and that class of freight they can afford to haul for a rate at which they can not afford to haul local freight, which they have to handle two or three times, nor for an advance of 100 per cent. But he apprehended that "through freight" as it is used in this bill, would be construed to be through freight as he had defined it. He knew that the gentleman page: 248[View Page 248]who introduced the bill meant freight carried to the line of the State of Indiana, and no further. But that is not the idea to be conveyed by the term through freight. For these reasons, believing that the passage of the bill would prevent the passage of a better bill at this term, which he most desired, he felt compelled to vote against the bill.
Mr. THOMPSON, when his name was called, said the universal cry of the people was that the railroads were imposing on the people along the lines of the several roads. One great advantage to be derived frompassing a bill like this, even if it should be defeated in the House, by the Governor, or by the Supreme Court, is to let the railroad companies understand that the people look upon their course as oppressive. This is a mere expression of that feeling of the people towards the railroads. He believed it would have a salutary effect upon the railroads themselves; teach them that they can't have privileges from the State of Indiana and at the same time disregard the wants of the community.
Mr. WADGE, when his name was called, said he was decidedly and heartily in favor of any system of legislation which would protect people against the encroachment of any monopoly, whether a railroad company, a coal company, a gravel road company, or a ditching company. But when called upon to vote for a bill he wanted the privilege of examining that bill and if it did not meet his views he certainly asked the privilege of giving the reasons why he dissented. He hailed from a rural district which he knew was already suffering to some extent from the want of facilities because of the superior competition or facilities that are furnished cities for the transportation of their freights, and he ventured to say that there were but few Senators who did not know that the inhabitants of local stations between large cities suffered more or less in consequence of the want of facilities. He believed this bill was drawn up in this city in the interest of this city and other cities, and not in the interest of those that are located on the line of railroads. The result of the provisions would be to cut off entirely the supply of railroad facilities to those small cities on the lines, and to kill very many raods in this State that are struggling for existence. Take, for instance, the New Albany and Salem Railroad. The provisions of this bill will virtually kill it if it becomes law, which he did not believe. The consequent result would be that the whole section of country between Lafayette and Michigan City would be almost irrevocably ruined. Farmers would be deprived of what little facilities they have for the transportation of freight. He believed the bill would be wholly impracticable. He presumed that nobody would deny that the charge ought to be at least $6 for a car for five miles. Now, suppose the through rate is $3 a car five miles, what would be the charge from Indianapolis to Michigan City. It would be $96 a car in order to pay them. Their charge now is $28. In their local freights, where they have to charge according to the bill 25 cents per hundred for the distance from Indianapolis to Michigan City, they would be required to extend their through freight rate to that point to 50 cents, doubling it. A gentleman said some railroad company charged $66 a car for three hundred miles. If they put the rate up they would have to charge $180 a car for that distanceif they put up the rates to such a point as would make their local rates living.
Mr. DITTEMORE, interposing, are you in favor of the passage of any law to regulate local freights?
Mr. WADGE. I will vote for any law that in my judgement will regulate it, and I am desirous that some bill of that character should be introduced to restrain railroad companies from inflicting on the people overcharges. But I believe the present bill is wholly impracticable.
Mr. BROWN'S name being again called he said: "I havn't got the moral courage to vote against this bill; the Senate won't let me dodge; therefore I vote aye."
The title was amended at the suggestion of Mr. SCOTT, Mr. BROWN, and Mr. HOUGH.
JUDGES' SALARIES.
The President now announced the special order being the majority and minority reports submitted this forenoon on the bill [S. 9] to fix the fees and salaries of Judges of courts.
Mr. GOODING moved to postpone the consideration of this subject till Monday next at 2 o'clock.
It was agreed to.
DRAINAGE OF WET LANDS.
Mr. GOODING moved to suspend the regular order and take up the drainage bill--Mr. Chapman's [S. 88].
It was agreed to.
The question now being on Mr. Daggy's amendment, to require the petition for the improvement to be signed by a majority of the land owners who are liable to assessment therefor--
page: 248[View Page 248]Mr. DAGGY asked but failed to obtain consent to withdraw his amendment.
Mr. O'BRIEN proposed to amend section nineteen by providing that no such assessment shall ba a lien on any tract of land for a greater sum than the expense necessarily incurred in the construction of the work in proportion to the amount of benefits.
Mr. ROSEBRUGH objected to the withdrawal of the amendment offered by Mr. Daggy. The great evil of the Kankakee Company was in the right of a few to impose on the many, and he could not vote for a bill that did not recognize the rights of a majority to control.
Mr. DITTEMORE moved to lay the amendment (Mr. Daggy's) on the table, inasmuch as he could not obtain unanimous consent to withdraw.
The motion was agreed to.
The question recurring on concurring in the report of the Committee on Corporations--
Mr. BOONE moved to amend the report by adding to the 29th section a proviso that the rights, franchises and powers of incorporated companies, organized under prior acts, whose main line does not exceed sixteen miles in length, shall be saved unimpaired.
Mr. HUBBARD explained that it was desirable not to leave a single cloud upon smaller companies, so they may have the benefits of this bill, and hence the amendments proposed.
Mr. BROWN thought it best to strike out of this bill all having reference to repealing the acts named, and desired nothing left on the statute book that the courts csii construe for the benefit of the Kankakee Drainage Company.
Mr. BOONE said the object of the sixteenth proviso was to wipe out the laws of 1869 and 1871.
His amendment was agreed to.
The report of the committee as amended was concurred in.
Mr. O'BRIEN moved to amend section twelve by striking out and inserting in lieu, after the word "statement" these words: "together with a detailed statement of the estimated cost in sections;" so that no assessments shall be a lien upon any tract of land for a greater sum than the estimated cost of the proposed works, or of making the repairs, etc., together with the necessary expenses of the company or association procuring such assessments, such expenses to be included in the statement of the estimated cost of the work.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. HUBBARD moved to amend the fifth section by making the articles of association evidence of the existence of the corporation in all courts in this State.
It was adopted.
He also moved to amend the same section by inserting the words "all persons who have paid their assessments in full may vote at any meeting of stockholders."
At the suggestion of Mr. BOONE the words, "on the question of repairs of such works" were added to the amendment.
The amendment as amended was then agreed to.
Mr. CHAPMAN moved to amend the thirteenth section by inserting appropriately the words, "in said county."
It was adopted.
Mr. HUBBARD moved the following: To further amend section 6 by inserting the words, "regular or adjourned" so that no notice need be given of such meeting; to further amend section 19 by inserting words requiring an affidavit from appraisers that they have personally examined the lands; to further amend section 13 by appropriately inserting the words, "appraisers shall be furnished with a copy of the plan and profile of their work."
These amendments were severally agreed to.
He also moved to amend section 21 by providing that unless such person be the owner of land, he shall present a bond.
This amendment was agreed to.
On motion of Mr. BROWN, the bill was ordered engrossed, and made the special order for to-morrow at ten o'clock, a. m.
Mr. HOUGH moved ineffectually for a suspension of the order of business that the bill [S. 2] in relation to private banking companies may be considered.
Mr. TAYLOR moved to suspend the order, to take up the bill [S. 5] providing that stock subscribed by counties to railroads, may be taken out of the control of County Commissioners and given to the men who paid the money.
EIGHT DOLLARS A DAY.
Mr. Brown moved to amend the motion so as to take up the bill [H. R. 73] as it proposes to increase his pay $3 a day.
The motion as amended was agreed to.
The bill [H. R. 73] fixing the per diem of members of the General Assembly, and providing they shall furnish their own stationery (eight dollars per day and five dollars for every twenty-five miles traveled) was passed to the second reading.
DISTRIBUTION OF RAILROAD STOCK TO TAX PAYERS.
On motion of Mr. BROWN, the bill [S. 5] to require railroad companies to issue page: 249[View Page 249]stock to individual tax payers who have paid taxes in aid thereof to the amount of the tax so paid, the unclaimed stock to be issued to the Township Trustees, to be held in trust for the benefit of the commonschool fund, was read the second time.
On motion by Mr. NEFF, the word "paid" was substituted for the word "levied," so it will read, "after the tax was paid," intead of "after the tax was levied."
Mr. COLLETT and Mr. SLEETH proposed amendments, which were adopted.
The Constitutional rule was dispensed with, and the bill was read the third time and passed the Senate by yeas 45, nays 0, with an amendment of title.
TWENTY-SIXTH COMMON PLEAS.
Mr. FRIEDLEY of Lawrence [Mr. Dwiggins in the chair] moved to suspend the order of business that the bill [S. 134] may be read the second time.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. FRIEDLEY of Lawrence moved to amend the bill [S. 134] to create the Twenty-sixth Judicial District of the Court of Common Pleas, by a provision regulating the terms of the Courts.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. FRIEDLEY of Lawrence moved that the bill be considered as engrossed, that the Constitutional requirement be dispensed with, and that the bill be read the third time now.
Mr. GLESSNER desired the bill should be referred to the Committee on the Organization of Courts.
Mr. SMITH moved that the bill be laid on the table and made the special order for to-morrow.
This motion was laid on the table--yeas 40, nays 4.
Mr. FRIEDLEY of Lawrence's motion to dispense with the constitutional restriction was agreed to. The bill [S. 134] was then read the third time and passed the Senate by yeas 48, nays 4, with an amendment of title, proposed by Mr. Friedley of Lawrence, declaring an emergency.
Mr. SCOTT, from the Committee on Education, returned the bill [H. R. 37] appropriating $8,000 for deficiency for the State University at Bloomington, with a recommendation that it pass.
The Report was concurred in.
The Senate then adjourned until to-morrow at 10 o'clock.
