THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
VOLUME FOURTEEN.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
IN SENATE.
MORNING SESSION.
THURSDAY, February 6, 1872.The reading of the journal of yesterday was dispensed with.
Mr. Taylor submitted a report from the Committee on Finance, returning Mr. Harney's joint resolution [S. 8] with reference to the cancellation of certain State bonds and coupons, to be redeemed under the act passed December 12, 1872, with a recommendation that it do pass.
The report was concurred in, and the joint resolution passed the Senate by yeas 31, nays 5.
On motion by Mr. Dittemore, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of Senate bills on the third reading.
The Committee on State Printing and the Committee on Education, were granted leave of of absence for the balance of the week, after today.
Mr. Steele made an ineffectual motion to reconsider the votes granting leave of absence to these committees.
Mr. Dwiggins' bill [S. 100] to amend sections 352 and 354 of the general civil practise act of June, 1852 - concerning the granting of new trials - was read the third time.
Mr. Daggy explained that the biil amends by adding exceptions for causes embodied in the first, second and eighth clauses, of the old section 352. It also amends section 351, by adding a clause, "unless unavoidably prevented," etc. and if application be made and not disposed of, etc.
The bill finally passed the Senate by yeas 30, nays 2.
Mr. Sarnighausen's bill [S. 69] to authorize and empower incorporated cities to hold, sell and convey real estate was read the third time, and finally passed the Senate by yeas 40, nays 1.
Mr. Scott called up the special order for the hour, being the bill [H. R. 155] providing for a general system of common schools for cities of 8,000 inhabitants and over, and the election of school trustees, etc.
Mr. Sarnighausen said this bill proposes to make a radical change, and as the present law gives general satisfaction, he was opposed to the change.
A few men in the county of Wayne having some difficulty with school trustees, have proposed this bill, which does not give satisfaction even to their neighbors. And citizens of that county have presented a remonstrance against this bill, with more signatures than is on the petition for its passage. The disaffected persons referred to may have reasons sufficient for the removal of their school trustees, but insufficient for changing the present law. And it would be unwise in his opinion to do so. It has been said here that we should trust the people, and if they are trusted with the election of high officers in the government they certainly can be trusted with the election of school trustees. But there is a great difference between a political office and the office of school trustee. Many men eminently fitted for the office of school trustee are unfit to hold a political office, and vice versa, and it is frequently the case that the former will not allow themselves to mix up with political caucuses and the machinery necessary to secure a political nomination, and so if the school trustee be elected at the ballot box, the people lose the services of these men pre-eminently qualified.
On motion by Mr. Chapman, the vote of day before yesterday, concurring in the majority report recommending the passage of the bill, was reconsidered.
He then moved to substitute for the majority report the minority report, which recommends that the bill lie on the table.
This motion was agreed to by yeas, 28; nays, 13.
The majority report as amended was concurred in.
Mr. Beardsley's bill [S. 73] to amend sections 15 and 16 of the town incorporation act of June 11, 1852, and providing for the election of the town marshal hy the town trustees, was read the third time and finally passed the Senate by yeas, 37; nays, 3.
Mr. Brown, by leave, submitted a report from the Committee on Railroads in reference to the Terre Haute and Indianapolis railroad company, in compliance with a Senate resolution adopted on the 14th of December last.
The Committee make no recommendation, pre- page: 133[View Page 133] ferring to leave all the questions embodied in this subject matter to be decided by the Judiciary for the reason that an expression of any opinion thereon might in some measure be prejudicial to one or the other party in any such suit.
The report is signed by Messrs. Brown, Dittemore, Sleeth and Bird.
Mr. Brown made a speech explanatory of the reasons which influenced the committee to make this report, and urging concurrence therein by the Senate. Mr. Harney and Mr. Gooding and Mr. Scott also spoke in favor of the report.
Messrs. O'Brien and Steele submitted reasons why the report should be amended by striking therefrom the expression that committee found no evidence of fraud.
Mr. Hough made an ineffectual motion - ayes, 13: nays, 29to lay the report on the table.
Mr. Steele moved to strike out that part of the report expressing the opinion that there has been no fraud, etc. It is in these words:
"And your committee further report that in the investigations made they find no evidence of corruption, concealment, or fraud in the matter of said company's relations and obligations to the State."
The motion was agreed to by - yeas, 19; nays, 24 - as follows:
Yeas - Messrs. Armstrong, Beeson, Boone, Bowman, Bunyan, Carnahan, Chapman, Fuller, Francisco, Glessner, Gregg, Hall, Hough, Neff, O'Brien, Orr, Rhodes, Ringo, Sarnighausen, Slater, Smith, Steele, Stroud, Winterbotham - 24
Nays - Messrs. Beardsley, Bird, Brown, Collett, Daggy, Daugherty, Dittemore, Dwiggins, Friedley of Lawrence, Gooding, Harney, Howard, Hubbard, Miller, Oliver, Scott, Taylor, Thompson, Wadge - 19.
So that portion of the report was stricken out, Messrs Daggy, Dwiggins, Gooding, Hough, Harney, Scott, Steele, Thompson and Wadge, explaining their votes.
Pending the roll call -
Mr. Daggy, in explanation of his vote, when his name was called, said he was interested in this matter to this extent, that he has been attorney for the road. He contended that, while the Senate ought to do justice to the people, it ought also to do justice to the railroads. Why strike from this report one fact on one side and leave a fact standing on the other? As the matter stood, he voted ''no."
Mr. Dwiggins, when his name was called, said, in explanation of his vote, that it was a fact the evidence taken by the committee does not disclose any fraud on the part of the road, and therefore he voted "no."
Mr. Gooding, in explanation of his vote, when his name was called, said the report of the committee does not pretend that it took all the evidence that could be heard, but, on the contrary, it expressly states that the committee did not have all the evidence they could get, and with the evidence before it, the committee discovered no fraud. They don't say that there is none. He voted "no."
Mr. Harney, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said in his opinion it was not competent for the Senate to strike out any part of the report. This House instructed the committee to report the facts. They report a fact and it is improper to strike it out. He voted "no."
Mr. Scott, in explanation of his vote, when his name was called, said he thought it would be cruel to strike out the matter proposed. That seemed to him to be the most important part of the report. This is a matter the committee were sent out to investigate, and now they report their opinion. The Senate is not called upon to decide on the evidence - the motion is simply to strike out the committee's conclusions based upon the evidence. It looked to him as though it would be wrong and would not be treating the company fair to adopt this motion. The opinion one way or the other will not increase the revenues of the school fund, and there is no way any Senator can so construe the law. The trouble about the whole matter is this: the moment you strike this clause out of the report you create an inference against this corporation - the very thing the committee desire to avoid, as this report is made, or intended to be made, so as not to influence legislation one way or the other. You had better leave it alone if you want it should be fair. By adopting this motion the Senate will be interfering and deciding in favor of one party and against the other in this case. He insisted such a course would be wrong, and it would be cruel. He voted "No."
Mr. Steele said, when his name was called in explanation of his vote, that he didn't look upon this matter as the Senator from Vigo (Mr. Scott.) He did not think this committee went out for the purpose of vindicating the character of any gentleman or of any corporation; neither did he think the committee had the power to determine character one way or the other. He also disagreed with that Senator in another particular: that the committee were sent out to determine whether there was fraud in this matter or not. The main question for them to determine, was whether there should be suit brought directly against the company to recover any moneys that might be due the common school fund, and that perhaps was the only question. He did not want to be cruel, but voted "aye."
Mr. Thompson, in explanation of his vote, said, when his name was called, that this committee was sent out for a certain purpose. They went to a great deal of pains and now make a plain statement, and say they find no evidence of fraud. If we strike that out we literally say we do. He voted "no."
Mr. Wadge, when his name was called, said in explanation of his vote, that to suppress the portion of the report proposed to be stricken out, would have the same effect as a virtual reflection upon the railroad company - as an inference that there had been fraud committed. It seemed to him that the committee were bound to investigate that matter, and presuming they have done so to the best of their judgment, he should vote "no."
The report, so amended, was then concurred in by yeas 30, nays 13.
The Senate then took a recess.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. Dwiggins, by consent, offered a resolution which was adopted, directing the Secretary to have two hundrsd roll-calls printed for the use of the Senate.
Mr. Neff offered a resolution limiting Senators to ten minute speeches.
It lies over one day under the rule - it being an amendment to the rules.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Mr. Gooding, from the Committee on Railroads, returned the bill [H. R. 164] to provide for the keeping in repair of the crossings of railroads with a favorable report.
He also returned from the Committee on Rights and Privileges the bill to protect citizens from empiricism with a recommendation that it be indefinitely postponed.
Mr. Glessner, from the same Committee returned Mr. Armstrong's bill [S. 120] to protect the ballot box, with amendmends striking out in several places, and adding a section imposing a fine in any sum not exceeding $1,000 and imprisonment not more than five years, and disfranchised for any determinite period.
These reports were severally concurred in.
On motion by Mr. Dittemore, the bill [H. R. 372] supplemental to the specific appropriation bill of last session, making provision for the pay of page: 134[View Page 134] employes of the General Assembly and clerks of the Secretary, Treasurer and Auditor of State, was read the first time. He then moved for a dispensation of the constitutional restriction, that the bill may be pressed to its final passage.
Mr. Dwiggins objected to the bill, because it granted large authority to the State officers to the clerks, draw pay for them, etc. Referred to the Committee on Finances.
Mr. Hough's bill [S. 77] to amend section 476 of the civil practice act of June 18, 1852with reference to the sale of property on executionwas read the third time.
Mr. Hough explained that the bill provides where property is sold by the Sheriff and the purchaser fails to pay his bid, and suit is brought to recover, the judgment shall also waive valuation and appraisement laws, if the execution did. Passed the Senate by yeas 37, nays 3.
Mr. Rhodes' bill [S. 74] to legalize the acts and proceedings of boards of county commissioners in certain cases, was read the third time and passed by yeas 33, nays 7 - Mr. Rhodes explaining its special application to his county.
Mr. Brown's bill [S. 106] to prescribe the qualification of petit jurors in this State either a householder or freeholder, and a qualified voter, and who has not served as a juror in such county for one year immediately preceding such selection, was read the third time.
Mr. Boone thought this bill would cause great delay in filling up a jury.
Mr. Glessner regarded the point a good one against professional jurors.
Mr. Slater demanding the previous question, it was seconded by the Senate, and under its operations the bill passed by yeas 12, nays none.
Mr. Smith's bill [S. 103] to amend section 78 of the common school law, concerning the safisfaction of mortgages given to secure payment of moneys borrowed from the school fund, was read the third time.
Mr. Smith explained the necessity for the bill: Farmers are sometimes careless about clearing the record when they pay their mortgage notes, and this bill will enable that to be done with less trouble than under the present statute.
The bill passed by yeas 43, nays none.
Mr. Brown called up the motion to reconsider the vote of several evenings since by which the Senate refused to pass the resolution [H. R. -] complimenting the President of the United States on his policy toward the Indian tribes, the pending question being a motion to lay that motion on the table.
Several points of order were raised by members on Democratic benches, which were promptly overruled by the President pro tem.
Mr. Brown demanded the previous question. The demand was seconded by the Senate - yeas 24, nays 20.
The motion to lay on the table the motion to reconsider was rejected, by yeas 20, nays 24.
The motion to reconsider the vote rejecting the resolution was agreed to.
Mr. Brown moved the adoption of the resolution.
Mr. Dwiggins demanded the previous question, and it, being seconded by yeas 24, nays 19 -
The concurrent resolution being read, it was adopted by yeas 25, nays 19.
Mr. Daggy moved to reconsider the vote just taken.
On motion by Mr. Brown, this motion was laid on the table.
Mr. Glessner's bill [S. 27] to legalize certain acts of certain corporations organized or attempted to be organized under the plank, macadam and gravel road law of 1852, and acts amendatory thereof, was read the third time.
Mr. Glessner explained that this bill applied only to roads built by voluntary subscription, and probably would apply to no other than roads in his county. Rejected - yeas 15, nays 22.
Mr. Collett's bill [S. 99] to authorize sureties paying for their principals, to collect from their principals the same rate of interest on the amount paid as was specified in the original paper.
Mr. Hough obtained unanimous consent to amend the bill so that the rate of interest shall not exceed ten per cent.
The bill as amended was passed the Senate by yeas, 35; nays, 4.
Mr. Howard's, bill [S. 140] to amend sections, and repeal section 4 of the act prescribing who may make a will, the effect thereof, etc., approved May 31, 1852, was read the third time.
Mr. Howard explained the aim of the bill to be to make provisions for children born after the making of a will, so that posthumous children shall receive the same share as if the father had died intestate.
The bill was passed by yeas, 39; nays, 3.
Mr. Miller's bill [S. 18] repealing the act of May 14, 1869, authorizing the assessment of lands for plank, Macadamized, and gravel roads, and also an act authorizing the construction of such roads, approved March 11, 1867, was read the third time.
Mr. Miller said: That is my bill, and I hope the Senate will vote it down. (Laughter.)
Mr. Gregg hoped the bill would pass, for he did not believe there was a more important bill on the calendar. The Senate has held it to be unwise to give corporations the right to assess taxes on the people against their will. These corporations are always organized for selfish purposes.
Mr. Glessner spoke at length in opposition to the passage of the bill.
Mr. Dittemore demanded the previous question, and there being a second, under its operation the bill was rejected by yeas, 15; nays, 25.
Mr. Scott offered a concurrent resolution, which was adopted, directing the State Geologist, in connection with Senators Collett, Fuller, and Hubbard, and a like committee on the part of the House, to collect and label specimens of coal, stone, ores, and mineral earths and grains grown in the State, to be shipped to the Vienna Exposition by a vessel sailing on the first of March said committee to report to this General Assembly the probable cost of making such collection and their proper display.
Mr. Hubbard's bill [S. 96] to encourage manufacturing in the State of Indiana, and allowing and legalizing conveyances of real estate by and to foreign manufacturing companies, was read the third time.
Mr. Hubbard explained that this bill will put foreign companies on the same basis with domestic manufacturing companies by authorizing them to hold such real estate as is necessary to carry on their business. Passed by yeas 36, nays 1.
Mr, Beardsley's bill [S. 33] to amend the charter of the Indiana Fire and Marine Insurance Company, was finally passed by yeas 26, nays 12.
Mr. Steele introduced a bill [S. 289[ to fix the salaries of Judges of the Supreme Courtat an annual salary of $5,000 each. It was read the first time. Adjourned.
