THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
THIRTEENTH VOLUME.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
IN SENATE.
THURSDAY, November 21, 1872.The Senate met at two o'clock, p. m., the President, Hon. George W. Friedley, in the chair.
On motion by Mr. GREGG, the reading of the Secretary's journal of yesterday's proceedings was dispensed with.
RAILROAD TARIFF.
Mr. DITTEMORE called up the special order for this hour, being Mr. Williams' bill [S. 6] for an act to regulate and make uniform the prices charged by railroad companies for transporting passengers, goods and other property to and from Stations on railroads in the State of Indiana, declaring the duty of certain officers in relation thereto, prescribing penalties for the violation thereof, and declaring an emergency.
The bill being read the second time, by sections, Mr. DITTEMORE moved to amend by striking out the second section of the bill, which exempts from the operation thereof any railroad company which shall not have been in operation ten years or more. It is in these words :
SEC. 2. The provisions of the preceding sections shall not apply to any railroad company which shall not have been in operation for ten years or more.
Mr. WILLIAMS did not object to the amendment. The section was inserted when the bill was drafted, four years ago, to relieve new and feeble roads. But these roads had now nearly all been absorbed by or consolidated with large and powerful corporations, and could not suffer by being included in its provisions. The bill was prepared in the interest of the merchants and shippers of Indianapolis, to protect them against exorbitant rates on goods which were shipped but a short distance. This bill passed the House of Representatives almost unanimously two years ago, but on coming to the Senate, it failed from some cause or otherhe knew not what. There seemed to be but little attention paid to it at that time by anybody but himself.
Mr. NEFF was in favor of striking out, for the particular reason that these new roads have nearly all consolidated with wealthy roads, so that the benefit of this second section would enure to these old companies, and not to the new ones. His constituents living along the line of some of these old roads have experienced the troubles referred to by the Senator from Knox [Mr. Williams]. He lives in Winchester, and knew that goods have been shipped off other roads on to the Bellafontaine road, and forced to pay exorbitant rates. In his locality shippers have suffered from overcharge in local freights. For instance, the road from Dayton to Union City is forty-seven miles long, and that from Union City to Winchester but ten; yet the freight from Winchester was greater than from Union City to Dayton. The bill was intended to protect shippers against such exorbitant charges. For other reasons, which he could name, he believed the section should be stricken out.
Mr. ORR felt disposed to do justice to page: 77[View Page 77]railroads as well as to the citizens of the State, for he remembered that new roads are at a very heavy expense until they get their roads ballasted and leveled. He thought it might be doing new railroads injustice to strike out this section. This motion seems to be a strike against new roads, and he was in favor of protecting the railroads as well as the citizens of the State. New railroads would suffer from requirements like those proposed in the bill. He suggested that the word "ten" be struck from the second section, and "five" substituted.
Mr. DITTEMORE. The trouble about extending any limit for the time of the extension of the road has been fully and fairly expressed by the Senator from Knox [Mr. Williams]. The people he has the honor to represent are affected by the section proposed to be stricken out, and were cnovinced that there was no occasion for it. The principle of consolidation of railroads has been going on in the State at a very rapid rate; indeed, at an alarming rate. In his section, a road that is only three years old is in the hands of the wealthiest corporation in the United Statesthe Pennsylvania Central. We have arrived at a time when it becomes necessary for legislators representing the laboring man, the manufacturer and all the other industrial classes of the State, to take some steps to protect the interests of the people in regard to this monopoly. The Indianapolis and Vincennes road, completed within the last four years, has passed into the hands of the Pennsylvania Central. On that road the people are taxed for a car from Spencer to Indianpolis, thirty-five dollars; while from Gosport, a point eight miles this side, where therer are competing lines, the price per car is only fourteen dollars. These extravagant prices fall upon all classes; not alone the shipper, but the seller and producer--and the time has come when the representatives of the people should take the matter in hand, and, if possible, check it now. If it is not done soon, this alarming and growing evil will become so strong in the land that legislation in the future will be ineffectual. He was ready to proceed at once to legislation on this subject, and, if possible, put a check upon the growing evils these corporations impose upon the country generally.
Mr. DWIGGINS objected to the remark made by the Senator from Knox [Mr. Williams], that no other Senator seemed to take any interest in this matter two years ago, as doing injustice to other Senators who were here then.
Mr. DITTEMORE moved to amend the amendment so as to strike from the second section the word "ten," and insert "five," and add a clause that this provision shall not apply to roads consolidated with or leased by railroads which have been in operation more than ten years. It takes five years ta get a road ballasted and in running order, and he thought the new roads should be exempt from the operation of this bill. The main features of the bill he was in favor of, but at the same time he did not desire to crush out any railroads by the operation of this act.
Mr. NEFF said he had goods shipped from Boston here and back to Winchester, for forty-two cents a hundred, when if they had been shipped direct to Winchester, it would have cost $1.25 a hundred.
Mr. HARNEY said other States have tried this thing and have failed almost entirely. The State of Illinois had perhaps made the most effectual effort in the direction of making cheap freights equal allthrough the State. They passed a series of very stringent laws upon the subject, and had a commissioner appointed to see that they were enforced. The commissioner in his last report says it has been, so far, utterly impossible on his part to regulate the matter, but he thinks that with some additional legislation there is a probability that it can be made effectual. There are so many means by which a railroad can evade compliance with the law that so far they have been enabled to conduct their business in the old way. For instance, we say they shall not charge higher rates than they do on the whole line of their road; they make arrangements with another road, and the question would arise whether this pro rata of freight should be on the basis of the rates with the other road or over their own road. Perhaps their rates with another road would be lower than they could afford to do local business for. The matter requires a great deal of investigation. He suggested that the matter be referred to a committee and perhaps some means might be devised by which justice could be done to all parties. A new road is entitled to no more privileges than an old. It is under the same obligations to those who support it by their patronage. This bill may be passed, but as far as a remedy is concerned he believed it would be ineffectual. While there may be some merit in the proposed amendment by the Senator from Jasper [Mr. Dwiggins] to look at it from one point of view, in another light it was not so desirable. A new road, whatever may be its necessities, has no right to require for its page: 78[View Page 78]services from one community double what it requires from another. All should receive equal justice at its hands. Where legislation undertakes to regulate railroads strict and impartial justice should be done to all parties.
Mr. GOODING concurred in what the Senator from Montgomery (Mr, Harney) had said. He thought this bill, perhaps as important as any we will have to pass upon. There were some features of the bill that he did not understandsome features he hardly felt competent to vote upon at this time. There might be some question as to the constitutionality of the bill. For these reasons he moved the reference of the bill to the Committee on Railroads, that Senators may have an opportunity to read and ponder over it: before voting on it, but he afterwards withdrew it by request, for the purpose of allowing amendments to be oflered.
Mr. BROWN renewed the motion, it being understood that every Senator had the right to send his suggestions to the Committee with the bill.
Mr. WILLIAMS resisted the proposition to refer the bill to a Committee. Can Senators be better satisfied after it comes from a Committee than after reading it? Certainly every Senator can judge for himself whether or not he can afford to vote for this bill. He insisted, at all events, that Senators ought to make it as perfect as they can, in open session. He could not see the necessity for a reference. The bill had been prepared by lawyers of this city, was plain in its provisions, and he thought every Senator ought to be able to vote on it at once.
Mr. BROWN hoped a motion to refer would prevail because he was a friend to the principle embodied in the bill, and desired the action of the Senate shall be valid. Hasty legislation is very expensive legislation sometimes. We have before us somewhere in the neighborhood of eighty days of legislation, and a portion of this time could not be better spent than in considering this question.
Mr. THOMPSON thought the provisions of the bill were so plain and simple that any one could understand them at once. He pronounced them fair and equal and he did not believe that the Senate would be satisfied with anything short of this.
Mr. DITTEMORE in order to get the bill in proper shape was willing to see it referred to a Committee.
Mr. WADGE thought an inspection of the bill showed that it was not drawn by a man who had any practical knowledge of railroading. He went on to analyze the provisions to show that the rates fixed were absurd, and no railroad could carry freight short distances at the rates fixed. Under its present wording railroads would be compelled to carry passengers for less than one cent a mile.
Mr. WILLIAMS replied to the objections presented by the Senator from Lake, (Mr. Wadge ) declaring that they were based on an erroneous foundation.
Mr. WADGE insisted that his basis was correct.
Mr. SLEETH asked if the Senator from Knox (Mr. Williams) was prepared to state the actual cost to railroads of carrying freight these different distances.
Mr. WILLIAMS replied that he was not.
Mr. BROWN. If the Senator from Knox [Mr. Williams] is really a friend of the measure, it occurs to me that his bantling won't lose anything by being allowed time enough to grow. This is a railroad bill of great importance, and, as the Senator from Lake [Mr. Wadge] says, it is evidently prepared by men not having a knowledge of railroad affairs. I am opposed to hurry ing such matters through the Senate. Far be it from me to suppose that there is a committee in this Senate but what will act speedily and without delay, and as soon as practicable act upon any measure submitted to that committee for its consideration.
Mr. GOODING. I favor the object of this bill, and think we need some such legislation; but to press a vote in the Senate at the present time, I might be compelled to vote against it. I think the bill is somewhat imperfect, and that it is of sufficient importance to require careful and deliberate reflection at the hands of Senators; and considering its importance, I think it may well be referred to a committee. Other bills of far less importance we see proper to refer to committees,and why this bill should be crowded through the Senate, I cannot understand.
Mr. NEFF. While I am in favor of the provisions of the bill, and am in favor of referring it to a committee, yet I believe that the Senate, before it refers to a Committee, should perfect it as near as possible. I believe it to be the duty of the Senate to perfect the biil in this chamber as nearly as may be. I think it a matter of very great importance to the people of the State that we should have this legislation, and that the greatest care should be taken in perfecting this measure. The people are demanding it of us, and we should not go home to our constituents without having done something in this direction.
Mr. STEELE suggested that there was page: 79[View Page 79] no penalty attached to the violation of the provisions of this bill, and that it would require amendment in that particular at least.
The motion to refer the bill and pending amendments to the Committee on Railroads was then agreed to.
STATE PRISONS.
A message from the House announced the passage of the concurrent resolutions by that body, directing that no new contracts be made for convict labor of the State Prisons, and looking to a system of graded prisons.
SOUTHERN INDIANA U. S. COURT.
On motion of Mr. WILLIAMS the Senate proceeded to the consideration of the message from the House of Representatives, transmitting a concurrent resolution adopted by that body, instructing Senators and requesting Representatives from Indiana to use their influence to prevent the passage of any law by Congress creating a United Suites District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.
Mr. DWIGGINS moved to concur in the resolution.
Mr. GOODING thought the whereases in the resolution had not been proven yet; and, knowing something of the wants of the people in the southern part of the State, he would say that the present system of United States Courts in this State not accommodate the people as they should be accommodated. In Wisconsin, Kentucky, and in Illinois, there is a division of the United States Courts, and why can not Indiana have two courts? The Senate ought to go slow before instructing our Congressmen in this regard.
Mr. GREGG would favor retrenchment and reform, and should vote for the resolution.
Mr. DWIGGlNS believed the people in the northern portion of the State were content with one Federal Court in the State, and thought there was no good reason for an increase.
Mr. DAGGY saw no necessity for two Federal Courts in this State, as only three or four months in the year are required to transact all the business that comes before the United States Court, as at present constituted.
Mr. GOODING insisted that Senators should not take the whereases to the resolution for granted, and that this resolution, binding the hands of Indiana's representatives in Congress, should not be passed by this body.
The concurrent resolution was adopted.
JOINT RULES.
On motion of Mr. TAYLOR, the joint rules adopted by the House of Representatives, for the government of the two Houses, were takeu up, read and concurred in.
GOVERNOR'S MESSAGE.
The House concurrent resolution, ordering the printing of 8,000 copies of the Governor's message, 1,500 to be in the German language, being read--
Mr. SARNIGHAUSEN made an ineffectual motion that 2,000 copies be ordered printed in the German language.
The concurrent resolution was adopted without amendment.
STATE PRISONS.
The House concurrent resolution, directing Wardens of the State Prisons to make no further contracts for convict labor till after the adjournment of this session, and looking to the establishment of a graded prison system, was read and concurred in.
The joint standing committees adopted on the part of the House were read.
DISTRICT COURT.
Mr. WILLIAMS moved to reconsider the vote by which the concurrent resolution of instruction to the Indiana Congressional delegation was passed, he indicating a desire to change it from a concurrent to a joint resolution.
The motion was agreed to.
On motion by Mr. WILLIAMS, the resolution was then passed, by yeas 30, nays 1.
On his further motion, the resolution was entitled "A joint resolution instructing our Senators and requesting our Representatives to vote against any measure in Congress to divide the State into two or more judicial districts."
PETITION.
Mr. FRIEDLEY, of Scott, presented a petition, which was referred to the appropriate committee without reading.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Mr. MILLER, from the Committee on Roads, reported in favor of the passage of bill [S. 18] repealing the act authorizing the assessment of lands for plank, macadamized and gravel road companies.
The report was concurred in.
Mr. CAVE, from the same committee, reported in favor of the passage of bill 37, allowing viewers and reviewers of highways two dollars a day.
The report was concurred in.
page: 80[View Page 80]RESOLUTIONS.
Mr. NEFF offered a resolution, which was adopted, that the Committee on Claims have power to send for persons and papers.
Mr. BOONE offered a resolution instructing the Committee on Organization of Courts to consider the propriety of redistricting the State for judicial purposes, so as to embrace some half dozen or more suggestions recited.
The consideration thereof was postponed till to-morrow at two o'clock p.m., a similar subject having heretofore been made the special order for that hour.
COMMITTEE NAME.
Mr. HAWORTH moved that the Committee on Emigration have added to its duties the subject of statistics, and that its title be amended accordingly.
It was laid over one day under the rules.
ABSENCE.
Leaves of absence were asked and obtained for several Senators till next week, and for the Committee on Benevolent Institutions for this afternoon.
A call of the Senate discovered but thirty-six Senators as present and answering to their names.
NEW PROPOSITIONS.
Bills for acts were introduced, read the first time and severally passed to the second reading, as follows:
By Mr. THOMPSON, a bill [S. 48] for an act to amend sections 1, 7 and 8 of the Soldiers' Home act, and section 2 of the act supplemental thereto.
By Mr. HOUGH, a bill [S. 49] for an act to amend section 22 of the act for the incorporation of towns, approved June 11, 1852
By Mr. BOWMAN, a bill [S. 50] for an act to define more correctly the boundary line between Washington Clark and counties.
By Mr. TAYLOR, a bill [S.51] for an act to amend section 1 of the Supreme Court act of May 1, 1852, making provision for five Judges.
By Mr. TAYLOR, a bill [S. 52] for an act dividing the State into Supreme Court Judicial Districts. [Five districts.]
And then the Senate adjourned till ten o'clock to-morrow.
