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.
