HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
WEDNESDAY, February 19, 1873.OBSTRUCTIONS TO NAVIGABLE STREAMS.
Mr. Peed's bill [H.R. 430] to amend sections 5 and 6 of the act of May 31, 1852, to authorize Boards of County Commissioners to declare water courses navigable, was considered in its order on the third reading. (It raises the amount of county appropriations to remove obstructions to $800, and increases the time of road work by the Supervisor from four to six days.) Mr. P. stated the provisions of the bill and its desirableness on the part of the people of his county. It was finally parsed the House of Representatives - yeas 68, nays 4.
Mr. Whitworth's bill [H.R. 447] to amend section 1 of the act of May 11, 1867, in relation to the charge of highways, was considered in order on the third reading. (Any person, through whose lands any highway may be established, may (by petition) enclose the overflowed parts of such roads by swinging gates - to be kept in repair under penalty.) It was finally passed the House of Representatives - yeas 54, nays 28.
Mr. Buskirk's bill [H. R. 362] to amend section three of the act of March 1, 1853, to provide for compensation for animals killed or injured by the locomotives of railroad companies, was taken up on the third reading. (The judgment for plaintiff to include a reasonable fee for the plaintiffs attorney.) Mr. B. explained the object and enforced the necessity for the passage of the bill, arguing the justice as well as the constitutionality of the principle involved.
Mr. King could not understand how the attorney's fees could be included in the judgment, without contract.
Mr. Givan submitted a constitutional objection; to which Mr. Buskirk replied. Then if it is constitutional it is eminently just.
Mr. Gifford should vote against the bill in its present shape. It should discriminate so as to except cases where stock is pastured on the railroad.
Mr. Cauthorn declared that it was a discrimination against railroads, that would apply as well in any case where a poor man is in law against the rich. It is class legislation.
Mr. Butterworth should vote for the bill because of the reluctance of individuals to go to law with railroads. The effect of it would be salutary on the railroad companies. Make them kiss the rod that smites.
Mr. Lenfesty was opposed to the bill - was opposed to legal provisions for attorneys' fees. He would not discriminate against railroads so necessary to progress, any more than against individuals. To enable parties to fix fees would tend to litigation.
Mr. Gregory said the gentleman from Grant being a lawyer must have resolved himself in to a sort of an elemosinary institution against all of his own class. He argued the justice and expediency of the bill. This bill is only settling a mooted question as to the correct and proper measure of damages in cases of losses of this kind; and he was no way apprehensive of exorbitant rates of damages fixed by the people against soulless corporations.
Mr. Thayer believed the bill is right and would result in the general good - which he maintained at some length. It would result in persuading the railroad companies to act in these cases precisely as an individual would act.
Mr. Offutt should vote for the bill, because it would discourage litigation - it would induce railroad companies to deal fairly.
Mr. Baker considered that the passage of the bill would be the occasion of prejudice against railroads, and jeopardize the security of passenger trains by the incontinent turning in of worthless stock on the railroad tracks in the night time.
Mr. Woodard argued the justice of the bill, in page: 183[View Page 183] view of his experience of the heartlessness of railroad companies, in general, of which he gave examples. Unless railroad companies were restrained by law it will not be a quarter of a century before there will be a revolution against their monopolies. These legal restraints must come. The people demand them.
Mr. Crumpacker endorsed the words of Mr. Woodard, and answered objections to the bill.
Mr. Shirley said there was such a thing as overdoing legislation. This bill will have the tendency to make people careless about their stock exposing them to the trains; and it would endanger the lives of passengers. He desired the passage of his own bill to cure this particular complaint against the railroads. I think these railroads should be fenced. Stock owners as well as the railroads should bear their own proper share of responsibility. He was free to confess that the railroads are exerting an influence and power in the country that is inordinate and ought to be repressed by the people rising up and speaking in their might.
Mr. Anderson would not pass a law that would single out railroad defendants and discriminate against them as a class. There is yet no such legislation in our books. Unless the bill required all defendants to pay attorneys' fees, it was not worthy of the consideration of the House; and if it were proposed as a general law he could not say that it would make it better or more acceptable to him.
The bill finally passed the House of Representatives - yeas, 63, nays, 16.
Mr. Cauthorn submitted a preamble and concurrent resolution reciting that on the 20th day of January last, the House bill 350 to organize insurance companies, was introduced and ordered to be printed, and on the 28th of January was referred to the Committee on Insurance, where it has remained ever since, notwithstanding the resolution of the House requiring them to report it back; and therefore requiring said committee to return said bill with their report thereon instanter, and that the consideration of said bill be made the special order for Friday ten o'clock. After some conversation with Mr. Wilson, of Ripley, and a motion by Mr. Hardesty to lay the resolution on the table, at the suggestion of Mr. Branham there was obtained unanimous consent for the resolution to be withdrawn, and for the Committee on Insurance to report; whereupon Mr. Jones, from a majority of the Committee on Insurance, returned the Ways and Means Committee bill [H. R. 350] to organize insurance companies and regulate the business of insurance in Indiana, and Mr. Givan, on the part of the minority thereof, also submitted a report, neither of which was read, but the whole subject was made the special order for Friday. [It is understood that the majority report is the more adverse, cutting up and materially modifying the bill; while the minority report is favorable to the bill, amending it chiefly as to phraseology, and what is necessary to make it conformable to the Constitution and laws of the State.]
Mr. Peed's bill [H. R. 446] to repeal section 55 of the act to regulate the business of general banking was considered in order on the third reading.
Mr. Peed. This is to repeal that section of the old free banking law which provides for paying a salary of $1,500 to the Auditor of State and $800 to the Treasurer of Slate for conducting the business of said banks. The business of those free banks has been closed up for nearly twelve years. The object here is to cut off these salaries. No harm can result. It does not affect the original act in any manner, but to cut off these salaries, which at the time of the passage of the act wore reimbursed to tho State by the business of the banks.
The bill was finally passed the House of Representatives - yeas 63, nays. 6.
The bill [S. 198] to provide for the organization of an experimental school for the education of idiotic and feeble-minded children, was read and referred to the Committee on Benevolent Institutions.
The Senate joint resolution for the cancellation, of certain bonds therein named (redeemed Garrett bonds, etc.,) was taken up and passed the House of Representatives - yeas, 72; nays, none.
The Senate Normal School bill, No. 153, was read and referred to the Committee on Education.
The Senate amendment to Mr. Johnson's bill [H. R. 137] to amend the criminal practice act so as to give the State the closing argument, was taken up, viz.: so as more stringently to require the judge's instructions to the jury to be in writing.
Mr. Johnson. This bill comes back with amendments from the Senate, simply guarding the rights of the State more closely than the original bill. They do not change the substance of the bill, but only to amend so as to compel the State's counsel to open and close the argument. It provides that if the counsel for the State declines to open the argument, then the defendant's argument shall be the only one submitted, so as to compel the State's counsel to plead. I think this is a proper amendment. There is also another amendment by the Senate, providing that the court shall charge the jury in writing, when requested by counsel to do so. This also is a very proper practice, which, I think counsel should appreciate, because if the Court does not charge in writing, it will not go to the record, and there is no way of taking advantage of it upon error. I hope the House will concur in these amendments.
Mr. Edwards, of Lawrence, hoped the House would not concur in these amendments till the Senate shall have passed the bill, which originally accompanied this, to-wit: the bill [H. R. 138] giving the right of the defendant to testify. The passage of the bill No. 138 induced the House to pass this bill which the Senate has amended.
Mr. Johnson said that would be a most unparliamentary thing for the House to say to the Senate, we will hold your amendment as a cudgel over your head till you pass another bill: it would be a bad precedent, a most unheard of thing in legislation.
Mr. Smith. I believe the gentleman from Lawrence (Mr. Edwards) is right. Many of us would not have voted for this bill but for the other bill alluded to. If either of these bills are right they are both right: so I say, I hope this bill will not pass here, unless they both become law. The gentleman from Marion placed his argument for this bill on the passage of that which permits defendants to testify in their own behalf.
Mr. Buskirk was surprised to hear the gentleman from Marion make his point of order against the gentleman from Lawrence. He also said that it is necessary for one of these bills to counterbalance the other.
But that for the defendent's testimony in his own behalf has been, indefinitely postponed in the Senate.
Mr. Cowgill also hoped the Senate amendments would be laid on the table. He also argued the compatibility of the two bills, which were originally but one bill when introduced by the gentleman from Marion (Mr. Johnson.)
Mr. Tulley demanded the yeas and nays on Mr. Edwards of Lawrence's motion to lay the subject on the table; and it was thereupon withdrawn.
Mr. Johnson would venture to say that none but criminal lawyers were against this bill requiring the State to make the closing argument. It was a most wholesome law.
Mr. Tulley most heartily concurred with the view of Mr. Johnson. Not another State in the Union has adopted the Indiana practice against the State's right to the close. The opposition to page: 184[View Page 184] the bill was inspired by the criminal lawyers.
The amendments of the Senate were concurred in - yeas 56, nays 21.
The Senate amendments to Mr. Shirley's bill [H. R. 188] to amend section 433 of the practice act were taken up, viz: strike out and insert to this effect: When an execution against the property of any defendant is issued to the sheriff, if property be found, he shall make service and sell within sixty days, unless otherwise directed by the plaintiff or plaintiffs, or their agent (which Mr. S. said were perfectly satisfactory), and they were concurred in without a division.
The Speaker laid before the House a communication from the Secretary of State, transmitting the memorial of the National Board of Trade on the subject of Emigration, etc., which was referred to the Committee on Federal Relations.
Mr. Lenfesty submitted a preamble and concurrent resolution, reciting the disappearance of William C. Morgan, a citizen of Grant county, in the month of June, 1865, under circumstances which have been so traced and developed since as to discover that he was murdered by one James L. McCollough - that Jos. Morgan, the father of the murdered Wm. Morgan, having prosecuted McCollough and convicted him of grand larceny, for which he was sent six years to the Illinois State Prison, has now procured McCollough's arrest for murder, who awaits his trial at the March term in Oxford, Benton County; and therefore proposing an appropriation of $400 to be applied, at the discretion of the Governor, towards the procurement of witnesses for the State against the said McCollough.
After some conversation across the House, the concurrent resolution was adopted, and subsequently the vote was reconsidered upon the ground that it is out of order and incompetent for the House to appropriate money in this way.
Mr. Hatch's bill [H. R. 483] to legalize the acts of the Board of Trustees of the town of Kentland in Newton county under their charter of July 14, 1852, and all by laws, rules and regulations adopted in pursuance thereof, was taken up on the third reading. Mr. H. explained its object and necessity, to enable the authorities of that town to collect their school house tax. It was finally passed the House of Representatives - yeas 64, nays 3.
Mr. Gronendyke's bill [H. R. 456] to amend the charter of the town of Clinton, in Vermillion county, was taken up on the third reading, and finally passed the House of Representatives - yeas 66, nays 4.
Mr. Wynn's bill [H. R. 495] to amend section one of the act to amend sundry sections of the charter of the town of Vernon, in Jennings county, was considered on the third reading and finally passed the House of Representatives yeas 62, nays 6. Recess.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The Speaker announced the special order, viz.: Mr. Kimball's recorder's bill, [H. R. 306] which was passed over by unanimous consent.
Mr. McKinney (by consent) returned from the Committee on Statistics and Emigration the bill [S. 64] for the selection and publication of statistics, recommending its passage. It was ordered to the third reading.
NEW PROPOSITIONS.
Mr. Gifford introduced a bill [H. R. 505] declaratory of the true, intent and meaning of the act of January 30, 1873, amendatory of the county and township railroad aid act of May 12, 1869. (It provides that the provisions of said act shall not apply to any railroad where the proceedings to authorize the vote for aid were had before its passage, and where the railroad has expended an amount of money equal to the tax, etc.) Railroads.
Mr. Broaddus introduced a bill [H. R. 506] to amend the 15th section of the school law. (All persons having school children under their charge, and attached to districts other than that in which they reside, shall be school voters in that district.) Education.
Mr. Lenfesty presented the petition of members of the bar of Grant county, asking for the abolition of the Common Pleas Court, which was referred to the Special Joint Committee on Judicial Districts.
Mr. Kirkpatrick introduced a bill |H. R. 507] in relation to the fees of jurors before justices of the peace. (1 50 for each day and part of a day. Committee on county and township business.
Mr. Branham introduced a bill [H. R. 508], to make further provisions for the care and treatment of the insane of the State. (It proposes to authorize the Indiana asylum for the insane - north or south - under the supervision of a board of control, to consist of two commissioners, to be elected by the Legislature during the present session, one to serve four years, the other two, the short term to be determined by lot - who shall, together with, the Governor, Secretary, Auditor and Treasurer of State and the Superintendent of the hospital for the insane, procure and purchase a site, and divide the State into three districts for hospital purposes - present a plan for said asylum, and a careful estimate of the cost thereof, and thereupon proceed to erect the said building or wing thereof, all expenditures to be made under the direction of said Board of Commissioners, who are also to appoint all the necessary resident officers. The bill also proposes blank appropriations for the years ending with October, 1873 and 1874.) It was referred to the Committee on Benevolent Institutions.
Also, a bill [H. R. 509] providing for the construction of private narrow gauge railways. It-was referred to the Committee on Railroads.
Mr. Troutman introduced a bill [H. R. 510] declaring what counties shall constitute the Twentieth Judicial Circuit. Organization of Courts.
Mr. Edwards, of Lawrence, introduced a bill [H. R. 511] for the relief of honorably discharged soldiers of the war of the rebellion and orphans of the war 1812 who have become paupers. County and Township Business.
Mr. Johnson introduced a bill [H. R. 412] to provide for interests on verdicts. (The contract, or six per cent.)
Mr. Peed introduced a bill [H. R. 513] to amend section 27 of the act of May 14, 1852, regulating descedents and the apportionment of estates. Judiciary.
Mr. Edward introduced a bill [H. R. 514] to amend section 11 of the act of May 13, 1852. Judiciary.
On motion of Mr. Hendersons his Notre Dame charter amendment bill [H. R. 195] was taken up, read the second time and ordered to the engrossment.
Mr. Cowgill introduced a bill [H. R. 515] to legalize the elections in certain cases held by counties and townships to authorize aid in the construction of railroads.
Mr. Baxter introduced a bill [H. R. 516] to provide for the reorganization of the government of the State prisons, repealing all laws in conflict therewith and declaring an emergency. Prisons.
Mr. Smith introduced a bill [H. R. 517] to authorize township trustees doing township business to declare water courses public highways. Judiciary.
On the motion of Mr. Mellett, the House took up the Senate amendments to his soldiers' county bonds bill [H. R. 200] which he said were added as a precautionary measure, and so unobjectionable to him. The amendment were concurred in.
Mr. Woodard introduced bill [H. R. 518] to provide for a bureau for statistics and labor, and for the appointment of a commissioner of the bureau of statistics and labor.
Also a bill [H. R. 519] for a progressive tax on the taxable property of Indiana; and to submit page: 185[View Page 185] the same to the people for ratification or rejection at the general election in October. It was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, together with a memorial on the same subject.
Mr. Johnson, from the Committee on the Judiciary, reported a bill [H. R. 520] defining misdemeanor and providing a punishment therefor.
REPORTS FROM THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
Mr. Johnson, from the Committee on the Judiciary, returned his misdemeanor bill [H. R. 427] recommending its indefinite postponement.
Mr. Walker returned the bill [S. 106] to prescribe the qualifications of petit jurors, recommending its passage, it was ordered to a third reading.
He also returned Mr. Whitworth's overflowed lands bill [H. R. 383] recommending that it be referred to the Committee on Dykes and Dams, which was concurred in.
He also returned his bill [H. R. 497] to authorize cities and towns to issue and negotiate bonds to pay school debts, with amendments, (clerical) which were adopted, and so the bill was ordered to the engrossment.
He also submitted a majority report returning Mr. Ewards' bill [H. R. 497] giving justices of the peace and mayors of cities, original and exclusive jurisdiction in all cases where the fine does not exceed $60. and imprisonment is not the penalty, recommending its indefinite postponement.
Mr. Cowglll submitted a minority report recommending the passage of the bill.
The minority report was adopted and substituted for the report of the majority. So the bill was read the second time.
Mr. Walker moved ineffectually to reduce the limitation of the fine to $25.
On motion of Mr. Miller the bill was amended by adding to the first section: "provided that the provisions of this act shall not apply to cases now pending."
Mr. Glasgow moved ineffectually to amend the bill by striking out the word "exclusive" and inserting the word "concurrent" in lieu.
It was ordered to the engrossment.
Mr. Cowgill returned the bill [S. 16] to authorize suits to be brought in the partnership name against individual partners, recommending indefinite postponement; also Mr. Hollingsworth's stock feeders' right bill [H. R. 436] recommending indefinite postponement; which reports were concurred in.
Mr. Ogden returned the bill [S. 99] to authorize sureties on notes and bills who have been compel led to pay the same, to recover of their principals, with clerical amendments, which were adopted, and the bill was ordered to the third reading.
Mr. Miller returned Mr. Tulley's bill [H. R. 500] to amend section 531 of the practice act, recommending its indefinite postponement, which, after resistance by Mr. Tulley, was concurred in.
He also returned Mr. Anderson's bill to amend the justices' act of June 9, 1852, recommending its indefinite postponement, which was concurred in.
Mr. Smith returned Mr. Baker's bill [H. R. 468] to repeal all laws making stockholders in corporations liable for the debts thereof, recommending its indefinite postponement, which was concurred in.
Mr. Crumpacker, from the Committee on Banks, returned Mr. Shirley's bill [H. R. 433] relating to interest, recommending that it be laid on the table, which was concurred in.
Mr. Woodard, from the Committee on Fees and Salaries, returned Mr. Crumpacker's bill [H. R. 470] to reduce the per diem of members of the General Assembly to $5 per day, recommending its indefinite postponement. The report was concurred in by - yeas, 58; nays, 17.
RECORDS - LEGAL EFFECT.
The Speaker returned to the special order, viz.: The consideration of Mr. Kimball's bill [H. R. 306] to regulate the recording of instruments ami declaring the legal effect thereof, the question being on the final reading.
Mr. Givan considered that this bill would open the door of fraud in conveyances wider than at present. He opposed the printed records provision. It would involve a new set of books. It would also necessitate two sets of records for the same kind of instruments - as for short form and other deeds. He saw another objection in the first part of section five providing for a cross-entry. He exhibited a form which showed how expensive would be the indexing under this bill. With respect to tracing title, the terms of the act offered no relief, as he showed, where a commissioner is the grantor. The bill would impose unnecessary labor on the Recorder, without accomplishing any beneficial results.
Mr. Henderson proposed and obtained unanimous consent to strike out the words in the third section: "or in print;" so that we shall have written, not printed records.
Mr. Lenfesty took exception to the bill as to the effect it would have where the grantor gives a first and second mortgage, and the second mortgage goes to record first.
Mr. Smith said the bill was to require promptitude, and he replied to the objection of Mr. Lenfesty. The bill at least reduces the ninety days that are now open to the making of fraudulent conveyances to but a very few days. He admitted that the bill will impose some additional labor on the Recorder, but it will more than correspondingly benefit everybody else. -
Then we are in great need of money for business in all parts of the State, and capitalists will not loan to us whilst the delays about collections remain.
Mr. Givan asked but did not obtain unanimous consent to insert appropriately these words: "executed and not recorded."
Mr. Buskirk took special exception to the 7th section which wipes out the 90 days which the grantee has to put his deed on record. He showed that the security about title would not be bettered by this provision, and that the proper method of amendment would be to shorten this term of ninety days instead of wiping it out entirely.
Mr. Baxter spoke in favor of the bill and showed how its provisions operate satisfactorily in about all the States eastward, of which he has personal knowledge. If we would propitiate the moneyed interests and business interests of the State let us pass this bill.
Mr Kimball said under the present law there are many persons that really have no recorded title to land they really own. The passage of this act would compel men to exercise more care in this respect; especially would this be the case on the part of those who own land and desire to borrow money. Then, as might be shown from the very paper which was exhibited by the gentleman from Dearborn, every man by going to the Recorder's office would be able to trace his title for himself.
Mr. Brett argued that grantees are entitled to a reasonable length of time to put their instruments to record. He saw not the frauds, nor the occasions for the same, nor the demand for loaning money, of which gentlemen speak.
Mr. Offutt also opposed the bill. He would much prefer to shorten the time which the grantee has to record his instruments. And there was little in the argument that it would facilitate the tracing of title, he said there were other records to be consulted outiide of the Recorder's office to determine the title to real estate.
Mr. Henderson stated his personal knowledge of frauds by the second conveyance of land, which the operation of this bill would prevent.
The bill was rejected - yeas 30, nays 50.
page: 186[View Page 186]On motion of Mr. Glasgow, the vote of yesterday was reconsidered by which his bill [H. R. 44] to repeal the act exempting from taxes the excess of twenty acres or tract lands within the corporate limits of cities and towns, was rejected.
On motion of Mr. Biocher, the vote of yesterday by which Mr. Riggs' Evansville charter amendment bill [H. R. 389] was rejected, was reconsidered, and then -
On motion of Mr. Wolflin, it was referred again to the Committee on Cities and Towns, with instructions to amend by striking out objectionable matter in section seven.
Mr. Givan introdnced a bill [H. R. 521] to provide for the erection of a new building for the use of the Indiana University at Bloomington, and making an appropriation therefor. (It proposes to appropriate $30,000 for a building of the University for the display of the Owen geological cabinet.) It was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.
On motion of Mr. Lenfesty, his Joseph Morgan concurrent resolution, submitted this morning, was taken up and referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. Hedrick, from the Committee on Rights and Privileges, returned Mr. Butt's bill [H. R. 386] to punish interference with contracts for labor, recommending that it lie on the table; which was concurred in.
Mr. Branham, from a majority of the Committee on Railroads, returned his bill [H. R. 483] to amend section one of the act of Dec. 20, 1865, to enable railroads to alter their lines in certain cases, recommending its passage.
Mr. Isenhour, from the minority of said committee, recommended its indefinite postponement; which report, after debate by Messrs. Branham and Givan, was concurred in, and substituted for that of the majority. So the bill was indefinitely postponed. Adjourned.
