HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
MORNING SESSION.
On motion of Mr. Cobb (by unanimous consent), the action of the House, by which the bill of the House to regulate the sale of mineral oils was indefinitely postponed, was reconsidered, and it was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. Cauthorn asked and obtained unanimous consent to present the petition of citizens of Knox for a revision of the judicial system, by abolishing the court of common pleas, etc., and for the passage of the pending bill to reorganize the judicial system, remarking that this is the constitutional method for the people to instruct their representatives - to present their instructions by way of petitions, and not by judges and prosecuting attorneys in the lobbies. It seemed to him that such interferences ought to be rebuked here, and these parties told to go home, page: 111[View Page 111] and there attend to their own public and private functions. He would also respectfully inquire what has become of that Court bill, since it has come from the Senate and gone to some committee, or wheresoever, with the order of the House that it be printed. The order ought to be executed, etc.
The Speaker. The clerk informs the Chair that he has furnished a copy of the bill for the printing. The Speaker now took up the roll by counties for
NEW PROPOSITIONS.
Mr. Reno introduced a bill [H. R. 434.] supplemental to the act of June 15, 1852, concerning licenses to vend foreign merchandise and to exhibit legerdemain, etc.
Mr. Hatch presented the petition of the Auditor of Porter county for the passage of his bill, No. 347, to amend sections 155, 159 and 180 of the assessment act of December 21, 1872, to regulate the collection of delinquent taxes.
Mr. Riggs presented a petition for temperance, by citizens of Vanderburg county.
Mr. Dial introduced a bill [H. R. 435.] to repeal section 118 of the assessment act of December 21, 1872 .Judiciary.
Mr. Walker introduced a bill [H. R. 436] to amend sections 109, 110, 111 and 118 of the common school law of March 6, 1867. (It is to authorize two apportionments in each year of the school revenue by the Superintendent of Public Instruction - on the 4th Monday of May and on the 1st day of January. The county directors to promptly make their settlements with the counties in March and December, and make their report to the Superintendent of Public Instruction; and the county auditors to make their distributions in each county on the 2d , Monday of June and the last Monday of January, etc.) Education. Mr. W. also presented a claim and a petition from county officers for the passage of the bill No. 347Mr. Hatch's proposed amendment of the assessment act of December 21, 1872.
Mr. Tulley presented a petition for temperance from citizens of Whitley county. Also a bill [H. R. 437] to require surviving partners to give bonds for filing inventory of the assets and list of liabilities of the firm, and making settlement in the court of common pleas. (It proposes that in case of the death of any member of the firm, the surviving partners shall close the business and pay over the deceased's part to his administrator. Within ten days after the decease the surviving partners to proceed to make a full inventory of the property of the firm, and cuase the same to be appraised by two disinterested persons, one to be selected by the surviving partners, and the other by the Court of Common Pleas, and under oath file the same with the Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas, together with a list of the liabilities of said firm - the business to be filially settled within six months, not, in any case, to be extended beyond one year.) Judiciary.
Mr. Isenhouer introduced a bill [H. R. 438] to repeal section two, and amend, sections three and four, of the election law of 1869, to define residence of voters and prevent frauds in elections, approved March 11, 1867, and providing for the appointment of officers of elections. (One place of voting in every county, town, or city; one place in each township, and in each ward, or precinct, in every city; the county commissioner to appoint one free holder to act as inspector at each election precinct, and each inspector to appoint two judges of elections of the different political parties, casting the highest number of votes in the precinct, providing, etc. Elections.
COURTS IN DEARBORN COUNTY.
Mr. Givan obtained unanimous consent to take up his court bills, to-wit: a bill [H. R. 421] fixing the times of the terms of the Circuit Court In Dearborn county (fourth Mondays of February and August - to sit eight weeks); also, a bill [H. R. 422] fixing the times of the terms of the Court of Common Pleas In Dearborn County (third Monday of January - sit fonr weeks; last Mondays of April and Octobersit six weeks;) and on his further motions (the Constitutional restrictions having been suspended for the purpose) they were severally advanced to the third reading and finally passed the House of Representatives - yeas 68, nays 0.
MR. LEE OF VIGO.
Mr. King submitted a resolution, which was adopted, reciting that whereas, Patrick H. Lee, a representative from the county of Vigo, has had his leave of absence extended indefinitely on account of illness; and whereas, it will perhaps, be impossible for him to resume his seat; therefore,
Resolved, That he be allowed the per diem and mileage of a member of the House of Representatives, and that the Speaker be authorized to issue his warrant for the same.
Mr. Miller submitted the following:
Resolved, That theCommittee on Fees and Salaries be required to report back to the House, with their recommendations thereon, the various bills in their possession with reference to the fees and salaries of county officersat an early day.
Mr. Givan proposed to amend so as to say Wednesday morning; which was accepted and so the resolution was adopted.
THE CLERKS, ETC.
Mr. Kimball, from the Committee on Ways and Means, returned to the House the bill amendatory of the act of last session [S. 68] supplemental to the act in relation to the organizations of the two Houses of the General Assembly, etc., with amendments inserting appropriately ''the principal and principal assistant clerks of the House of Representatives, one additional clerk between them; the Committee on Ways and Means, the Committee on Public Buildings, and the Committee on Benevolent Institutions, one additional clerk.
Mr. Wesner proposed to amend the bill further; "and that the doerkeeper be allowed to employ two additional assistants to perform such, other duties as may be assigned them."The amendment was rejected.
Mr. Walker proposed to amend the bill by striking out lines 22 to 25 in section one; and by striking out section three. What I desire is simply to leave the Senate without pages for their principal and assistant secretaries and without their pages or their messengers for their Committees - strike out all except the two.
Mr. Johnson called for the reading of the bill as proposed to be amended.
The reading showed that the amendments propose to strike out the allowance of one page for the principal and assistant secretary or the Senate and the allowance for three additional doorkeepers for the Senate; and that they propose to strike out the third section for allowing messengers for the standing committees of the Senate.
The amendments were adopted, and then the amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill was ordered to the third reading.
Mr. Kimball, from the Committee on Ways and Means, returned to the House Mr. Givan's bill; [H. R. 60] to provide for the assessment and collection of taxes for municipal purposes on the shares of stocks owned in banks and banking associations doing business in this State, with a recommendation that it be laid on the table, which was concurred in.
Mr. Baker submitted a preamble and resolution reciting that the general tax assessment law passed at the last session has not yet been sufficiently published; and the printed copies thereof being exhausted, the Secretary of State is hereby instructed to contract for the printing of 5,000 additional copies of page: 112[View Page 112] said act, to be by him distributed amongst those entitled to receive the same in the several counties and towns of the State. He said there were 5,000 copies of that act printed under the former order, and they have all been exhausted, and there is a demand for them by the business men and others in all parts of the State; and because the law was passed with an emergency clause, it is certainly our duty to supply this demand.
Mr. Gifford. The Secretary of State has made the request that 5,000 copies more be printed.
Mr. Brett. All the officers who are required to act under the provisions of that law must have been supplied, for there was a sufficient number printed. The bulk of the matter of the act Sias reference simply to the provisions for its enforcements; therefore, he should oppose this order for additional copies.
Mr. Baker. The reports distributed have been sent only to the county officers. The people ought to have this law in their own hands; the radical changes which it makes in the assessments demands that we should supply the people with it. I understand that the matter is yet in type, and it will be but a small expense to get these additional copies.
Mr. Thompson, of Elkhart, stated his information that there are but twenty-four copies remaining of the former order, and he knew that copies of the act were demanded by business men in his region.
Mr. Shirley expressed his opposition to the passage of the resolution.
Messrs. Lenfesty, Cobb, , Billiugsley and Glassgow supported it.
Mr. Brett suggested further that it was made the duty of the assessors to furnish the taxpayers with their estimates in blanks; that the greater portion of the tax assessment law has reference to the details prescribing the duties of the assessors and the collection officers, in which, of course, the people have no interest. All the information the tax-payer would require will be found in these blanks of the assessors. And besides this, the assessors do not commence until the first of April, and by that time copies of the law itself will be in the hands of the people in considerable numbers. And unless it were for the purpose of giving the printer a job, he could not see the demand for this resolution.
Mr. Mellett and Mr. Blocher spoke further in favor of the adoption of the resolutions.
Mr. Cobb proposed to amend the resolution by striking out the words, "to the several counties and towns," and inserting words so as to make the order to require that these copies "be furnished to members of the General Assembly for distribution,"
Mr. Baker accepted the modification.
Mr. Gifford moved to lay the amendment on the table, but it was accepted.
Mr. Ogden proposed to amend the resolution toy striking out and inserting so as to make this order for distribution by the county auditors of the several counties of the State, which was agreed to; and so the resolution was adopted.
WABASH AND ERIE CANAL -
Mr. Cauthorn submitted a joint resolution relative to the agreement between the Stales of Indiana and Ohio on the subject of the Wabash and Erie Canal.
The resolution recites and states that the only contract entered into by the State of Indiana on account of the Wabash and Erie Canal with the State of Ohio is contained in the joint resolution of February 1, 1834; that the State of Indiana never promised to keep in repairs that portion of the Canal which is in the jurisdiction of the State of Ohio, etc., and that the Governor transmit a copy of this resolution to the General Assembly of the State of Ohio without delay.
Mr. Kimball. The army and navy of the United States, I understand, is in good condition, if the Governor should be called upon to defend the State against our aggressive neighbors, I see no necessity for the reference.
Mr. Schmuck. The gentleman from Marion has been a General and he might be expecting a military appointment.
Mr. Cauthorn. We all know that Governor Baker communicated to the General Assembly the joint resolution of the State of Ohio, of 1871, with reference to this matter, and recommended a, certain course to be pursued, which ought to have been acted on before this. This Ohio resolution assumed certain liabilities in relation to the Wabash and Erie Canal, which are not sustained by the record. He proceeded to rehearse the history of the whole matter. It was some time prior to 1834 that the State of Indiana determined to build a canal to connect our rivers with the waters of Lake Erie, and passed a Joint resolution for Congress to authorize the survey; and the Congress of the United States, in 1834, authorized the State of Indiana to make the survey. That canal, if constructed would necessarily go through a portion of the State of Ohio; and from that time it was thought proper that the State of Indiana should build that canal; and Congress passed an act granting to the States of Indiana and Ohio certain donations of land for the purpose. The State of Ohio accepted the grant, signifying her readiness to make the canal within her border. Indiana also accepted and proposed to construct her portion on such terms and conditions as might be devised by a commission duly ratified by the two States; and here is where the misunderstanding rests. There was a commission appointed on the part of the two States to consider and report propositions on the matter; upon which commission Judge Sullivan was appointed on the part of the State of Indiana, and a Mr. Siliman on the part of the State of Ohio. But by the terms of the act authorizing this commission, it was expressly stipulated that their action should not be final. They were simply to make or draft an agreement between the two States; but that agreement was never ratified by our State. Therefore, the agreement made by these commissioners was not, in any sense, a contract between the two States. It was nothing but the act of Individual men. But afterwards the General Assembly of Ohio passed a joint resolution, on the 27th of January, 1834, which was transmitted to the General Assembly of Indiana, whereupon a joint resolution was passed here - the only one that ever bound the State of Indiana in this matter - in which the State of Indiana accepts and adheres to the grant of land by Congress. But the agreement between Sullivan and Siliman was not binding, because never ratified by the State. The only thing that binds the State of Indiana is that joint resolution of Feb. 1, 1834, in which we required conditions and made stipulations which were afterwards accepted. The State of Ohio assumed a liability in this matter, but Indiana did not. As to the assumption in this joint resolution of the State of Ohio that the State of Indiana agreed by her commissioners to keep open that canal, he referred to Governor Baker's statement and reasoning thereon, as conclusive; and, therefore, he had thought it proper, by way of the Joint resolution, he had now offered, to tell the State of Ohio that they have gone out of the recordto put in a general denial. The resolution is drafted simply in accordance with the recommendations of Governor Baker.
Mr. Lenfesty. That joint resolution of the General Assembly of Ohio was referred to the Committee on Federal Relations,/; and we had drafted resolutions similar to those offered by the gentleman from Knox. While he would not, perhaps, admit the intimation, if it were the remark of another, he might be ready here, for himself, to admit that the Committee on Fed- page: 113[View Page 113] eral Relations have evinced less promptitude and readiness to serve the State in this matter than the gentleman from Knox. But this matter has been before the committee, and, with them, it has been thought best to be a little, careful in this matter, so as not to give offense. He had not found anything offensive or threatening in the resolution from the State of Ohio. It is entirely courteous; and the insinuations of the gentleman to the contrary, he thought, should not be ratified here. The committee did not wish to act hastily in the matter, thinking that their resolutions could be reported and adopted at any convenient time. He was entirely willing that this resolution should be adopted - knowing it to be right - because it conies from the gentleman from Knox, and it would be improper that this honor, which is due to the gentlemen from Knox, should be divided between that gentleman and the Committee on Federal Relations. If the House understands the resolutions, and is assured that they are all correct, they might as well be adopted this morning as at any other time, and it is scarcely supposable or reasonable that the committee should be called upon to examine them.
Mr. Cauthorn. In justice to myself and to the Committee on Federal Relations, I think now that this subject should be referred. I was not in the House when the message of Governor Baker was considered in Committee of the Whole. If I had known that this subject was specially referred to the Committee on Federal Relations, I should not have moved in this matter. But since the gentleman takes it to heart, I am willing - and I very much prefer - that the resolutions should be committed to the Committee on Federal Relations.
Mr. Lenfesty. It will do no good. If the House is prepared, better to pass the resolutions at once. The committee would not feel at liberty to mar them with amendments, or substitute other resolutions; and perhaps it would not be corteous to change the resolutions at all.
The motion to refer was withdrawn, and the joint resolutions were adopted - yeas, 67; nays, 0.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Mr. Mellett. I wish to say one word to a question personal to myself. I am reported in the Sentinel of this city as saying here yesterday that I was aware of the fact that Professor Cox was receiving $1,000 annually from the miners and others in that interest in addition to what the State pays him. The House knows that what I said was in no offensive sense toward the Professor. I want to say this: I do not say that I did not say what is reported - for I have too much respect for the gentleman from whose pen these reports are derived - but I meant to say that I was informed that such was the fact by one of the proprietors in the mines. Although I do not think the statement derogatory to the Professor, I wish to say for him that such is not the fact. Still I was informed by one of those proprietors that, such was the fact.
Mr. Edwards, of Vigo, (Mr. Reno in the Chair). At the request of a number of citizens of my county, I desire to introduce the following bill. There being no objection, Mr. Edwards, of Vigo, introduced a bill [H. R. 339] for an act to provide for liens on buildings, and for the enforcement of the same. [Mechanics, and other persons performing labor, who may have furnished an engine or other machinery, or who may have furnished materials for any building may have their lien on the owner or the land on which it is situated, etc.] Judiciary.
ASSESSMENT ACT DISTRIBUTION.
Mr. Baker asked and obtained unanimous consent of the House to have his resolution for 5,000 copies of the assessment act, reconsidered as to the vote on its adoption, and to substitute therefor a joint resolution to require the Secretary of State to have printed 5,000 copies of the assessment act of December 21, 1872, which was read in proper form.
Mr. Brett indicated but did not insist on a motion to lay it on the-table; and it was then adopted on the part of the House of Representatives - yeas 42, nays 25.
Mr. Rudder, from the Committee on Fees and Salaries, returned the bill to regulate the salary of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, and provide the manner for paying the same, with an amendment striking out 3,000 in the first section and inserting 2,000. The amendment was adopted and the bill ordered to the engrossment.
Mr. Shirley, from, the Committee on the Judiciary returned his bill [H. R. 102] requiring judges having jurisdiction in probate matters to examine annually as to the solvency of executors, administrators and guardians and their sureties, recommending that it lie on the table.
The report was concurred in.
Mr. Mellett, from the Committee on Education, returned Mr. Barrett's bill [H. R. 411] to amend section 44 of the common school law of March 6, 1865, with amendments striking out section one, and striking out the words "To whom" and inserting these words: "And for how much to each tenant the lands were rented." The amendments were adopted and the bill was ordered to the engrossment. He also returned Mr. Peed's bill [H. R. 244] to amend the tenth section of the common school law of 1865, striking out that part of the bill which follows the title and enacting clause - reacting the whole by way of substitute, which should be numbered 440. It was passed to the second reading.
Mr. Dial asked and obtained unanimous consent to withdraw his bill [H. R. 435] to repeal the 118th section of the assessment act, of December 21, 1872, which was this day introduced and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and to have it referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.
He also submitted the following:
Resolved, That the pay of the honorable gentleman from Owen county (Mr. Reno) be suspended, while he may be absent from his seat, there being 4,000 voters disfranchised during his absence.
Adjourned.
