THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
FOURTEENTH VOLUME.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
Deferred matter.--- Debate in Continuation.
IN SENATE.
THURSDAY, January 16, 1873.[Morning Session.]
[CONTINUED FROM TOP OF PAGE 40.]
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR took the chair pursuant to adjournment. The Secretary's minutes of yesterdays proceedings were read.
PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.
Mr. GLESSNER presented a petition from citizens of Shelby county, praying for a law forbidding the sale of intoxicating liquors as a beverage. It was referred to the Committee on Temperance.
On motion of Mr. Taylor all petitions on file on that subject were referred to the same Committee.
Mr. GLESSNER also presented nine petitions in favor of his bill [S. 31] for suppli-mental assessments by plank and gravel road companies, which were referred to the appropriate Committee.
Mr. NEFF asked but the Senate refused to excuse him from serving on the Committees on Elections, on Phraseology and Arrangement of Bills, on Expenditures, and on the Joint Standing Committee on enrolled bills. He was willing to serve on four Committees, but eight are too many.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR laid before the Senate a report of the officers of the Bank of the State of Indiana, which was referred to the Committee on Banks without reading.
Mr. DWIGGINS from the select Committee to which was referred a resolution in reference to the publishing of the BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS submitted a concurrent resolution for the appointment of a joint Committee of eight to consist of three Senators and four Representatives, empowered to employ an official Reporter for each House; said Committee to contract for the Printing and binding of 500 copies of the BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS for the present session, said reports to be bound in half binding &c.,
The report was concurred in, and the Lieutenant Governor made the Committee on the part of the Senate to consist of Messrs. Dwiggins, Sleeth and Dittemore.
STATIONERY.
Mr. DAUGHERTY offered a resolution instructing the Doorkeeper to place a sufficient quantity of paper, pens and ink, on the desks of Senators to do the business of the Senate.
Mr. ORR moved that it lie on the table.
This motion was agreed to by yeas 24, nays 17.
Mr. SCOTT explaining his negative vote - he was opposed to members being supplied with stationery for their private correspondence, but thought there was no law to prevent them receiving a sufficiency of paper, pens and ink, to do the State's business.
Mr. SLATER also explained that he had been requested by State officers to introduce a similar resolution, in order that they might be relieved of a large quantity of such stationery now in their way.
page: 311[View Page 311]Mr. SCOTT offered a resolution for the appointment of a Committee of three to inquire if the State has on hand any stationery, and if so what amount in the hands of the Secretary of State and State Librarian.
Mr. DWTGGINS moved to amend so as to inquire by what authority and for what purpose said stationery was obtained.
Mr. SCOTT accepted the amendment.
The resolution as amended was adopted.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR thereupon made this Committee to consist of Messrs. Scott, Dwiggins and Daugherty.
NEW PROPOSITIONS.
Mr. FULLER introduced a bill [S. 208] for an act to amend section 9 of the act defining felonies, approved June 17, 1872. It provides that when a mortal wound is given or poison administered in one county and the victim dies in another, the courts in either county shall have jurisdiction, and if a mortal wound is given or poison administered or abortion produced and death insues in another State, the offender may be tried and punished in the county where the crime was committed.
Mr. BEESON introduced a bill [S. 209] for an act authorizing plank, gravel and Macadamized road companies, with the concurrence of Township Trustees when they shall have completed their roads and made it free of toll, to levy a tax ot not less than five nor more than twenty-five cents on the hundred dollars in each district, which may be worked out at the rate of $1 50 per day.
Mr. ARMSTRONG introduced a bill [S. 210] for an act supplemental to the county and township railroad act approved May 12, 1869, and to authorize Boards of Commissioners to extend the time for paying the same and erase the same from the tax duplicate. It provides for the extension for a period not less than six months nor more than twelve, on the petition of fifty tax-payers, of the time for the payment of taxes levied in aid of railroads, in case no work has been done on the road in the county or township.
Mr. FRIEDLEY, of Scott, introduced a bill [S. 211] for an act providing for the payment to Township Trustees of all monies collected by County Treasurers from tax payers in pursuance of the action of the people in favor of voting aid to railroads, &c.
Mr. DAUGHERTY introduced a bill [S. 212] for an act to amend section 30 of an amended act for the appointment of Supervisors of High ways, approved December 20, 1865. To provide that supervisors of highways shall make a full report of their proceedings on the last Saturday of September in each year.
Mr. SMITH introduced a bill [S. 213] for an act to amend section 16 of the act of May 6, 1852, concerning real property, and to provide that every conveyance or mortgage of lands or any interest thereon and every lease for more than three years shall be recorded in the Recorder's office of the county where the land is situated within thirty days, and in case of failure or neglect to do so, such conveyance, mortgage or lease shall be fraudulent and void, as against a subsequent purchaser in good faith and for valuable consideration.
PAY OF MEMBERS AND OFFICERS.
Mr. TAYLOR from a majority of the Committee on Finance returned the bill [H. R. 294] appropaiating $125,000 for expenses of the Legislature, with an amendment allowing the elective officers eight dollars a day.
Mr. DAUGHERTY for the minority, of said Committee, submitted a report recommending that the amendment proposed by the majority be laid on the table.
Mr. FRIEDLEY of Lawrence was satisfied the amount of labor performed by the elective officers entitles them to the same pay with members. Their responsibilities were greater than that of members and they ought to be well paid for their services. He hoped the minority report would not be adopted. He had been familiar with the amount of labor performed by the Secretary and Assistant Secretary, and to some extent with the labor and responsibility imposed on the Doorkeeper, and had become satisfied that the amount of labor that they perform entitles them to the same pay as is received by members.
Mr. ORR did all he could last session against raising the per diem of members, but now he thought it would be doing injustice not to extend the same pay to the elective officers that members get.
Mr. HARNEY favored the adoption of the minority report. The rule that should govern those employed here should be the same that maintains in any other branch of business. He thought the present pay was sufficient.
Mr. DWIGGINS was willing to pay every man his due; but it occurred to him that thirty five dollars a week was sufficient pay for these officers. The best clerical labor in the country can be obtained for that sum, and he hoped the minority report would be adopted.
Mr. DAUGHERTY understood that there is already a statute fixing the pay of employes of the General Assembly; and that by implication the Constitutional provision against the increase of members pay would also apply against this amendment. And he, too, thought the present pay sufficient.
The report of the minority was concurred in by yeas 28, nays 15 - as follows :
YEAS - Messrs. Armstrong, Beeson, Bird, Boone, Bowman, Carnahan, Cave, Chapman, Collett, Daggy, Daugherty, Dwiggins, Fuller, Glessner, Gooding, Gregg, Harney, Haworth, Hough, Hubbard, Miller, Neff, Ringo, Sarnighausen, Scott, Slater, Sleeth and Stroud - 28.
NAYS - Messrs. Beardsley, Brown, Bunyan, Dittemore, Friedley of Scott, Friedley of Lawrence, Hall, Howard, Oliver, Orr, Steele, Taylor, Wadge, Williams and Winterbotham - 15
page: 312[View Page 312]On motion of Mr. Dittemore the bill was read the third time and passed the Senate by yeas 43, nays 0.
EXEMPTION INCREASE.
On motion of Mr. Brown his bill [S. 47] for an act to exempt certain personal property from sale on execution, was read the third time. [In addition to the exemptions already allowed, all family pictures, school books and family bible; one yoke of oxen or one span of horses and harness; farming and agricultural implements not exceeding in value the sum of three hundred dollars; the tools of any mechanic or laborer not exceeding three hundred dollars; the library and instruments of professional men not exceeding in value five hundred dollars - these values to be ascertained by the exemption law of February 17, 1852, and all supplemental acts thereto.]
Mr. SLATER opposed the bill because it makes a distinction between the laboring man and professional men.
Mr. S. said the bill discriminated against farmers, giving them but $300 exemption, and to professional men $500. He could not sustain that.
Mr. BOONE suggested that fishing tackle be included in the list of exemptions, which Mr. Brown said he would accept.
Mr. HOUGH also opposed any distinction in favor of professional men, and unless amended in that particular he should vote against the bill. He would be in favor of increasing the amount to five hundred dollars all the way through the bill.
On motion of Mr. BROWN and by common consent the bill was amended so as to make the value of property exempt in all cases $500.
Mr. DWIGGINS opposed the bill inasmuch as laborers seldom have five hundred dollars worth of tools, while professional men usually have more than that much. If there should be an exemption of this kind, why not say that the exemption should be for eight hundred dollars instead of three hundred, and let it remain with the party who takes the benefit of it to select the property he desires. He saw no impropriety in naming the articles to be exempted. He was opposed to as great an exemption as eight hundred dollars. It is the experience of every man who has been a practicing lawyer that the men who take advantage of the three hundred dollar exemption law are men not inclined to pay their debts, but men who do it for the purpose of swindling their creditors. The object of exemption laws is not to benefit the creditor but to prevent pauperism. In theory, every dollars worth of property a debtor has belongs to his creditors. Exemption laws are enacted for the purpose of preventing public pauperism. Is it public policy now to make an exemption of eight hundred dollars instead of three? I do not think it is. I am opposed to making it eight hundred dollars. I think it the worst policy the State can adopt. It would drive men away from the State who would otherwise come to spend their money here, because they would say: "If we go into business and sell on credit we can't collect," therefore they are forced to adopt one of the two systems: either not do any business or do a cash business.
Mr. HOUGH referred to the effect of exemption laws in the States of Michigan and Illinois. The law in Michigan exempts forty acres of land and all a man can put on it, and still, that State, younger than ours with a similar population is quite as prosperous. So with the State of Illinois; and are men going to say that they are kept from engaging in business because the people can give such large exemption? He was not apprehensive any such result would ensue. He did not suppose the provision of this bill would benefit professional men especially, but if enacted into a law it will be for the benefit of a class who need its protection.
Mr. BROWN. It is well known that in a great many States certain specific articles of property belonging to a debtor are exempted from sale on execution, and it was thought best by some to have something of that sort in this bill. Upon reflection I think it will perhaps meet the view of the Senate better if we increase the amount; and for the purpose of taking the sense of the Senate whether it prefers simply to increase the amount of exemption I will move to refer the bill to a special committee of three with instructions to strike out so much as refers to specific articles to be exempted and bring in a bill to increase the amount of property now allowed to be exempted to eight hundred dollars.
Mr. SCOTT opposed this motion. This bill has been drawn for the purpose of exempting not a certain amount of money from sale and seizure, but such tools as are necessary as a means of livelihood - to allow men to retain for their own use and for the protection of their families such articles or things as they are in the habit of making their livelihood with. You take away from a mechanic his tools and he is in a manner without obtaining his living. Take from a lawyer or a phypician his library and he is in the same fix. Taking this view of the case five hundred dollars to a lawyer is no more in amount than one hundred dollars to a carpenter or a blacksmith. When gentlemen say that we are discriminating in favor of professionial men, gentlemen don't understand, the purpose of the bill. I am in favor of an exemption of eight hundred dollars, or a thousand dollars, or a homestead. I am in favor of every family having a place where it can flee to, and cannot be disturbed by any bodv, and I think the prosperity of the State could be vastly increased if every head of a family had a half acre of ground to page: 313[View Page 313] put all the improvement upon he might, and so guarded that nobody could touch it. I would not be afraid of injury to the State by such a law. It is not the history of a State adjoining us. Look at the prosperity of an adjoining State in population-an increase almost double that of Indiana - because she gives her citizens an abiding home. This bill is a step in the right direction because it proposes to leave in the hands of men the means of making an honest livelihood. I hope the bill will pass in its present shape, keeping in view the idea of leaving in the hands of every man the tools he has been useing heretofore, so that he may not be driven to a new business.
Mr. BOONE read the 22nd section, Article 1, of the Constitution, as follows: "The privilege of the debtor to enjoy the necessary comforts of life, shall be recognized by wholesome laws, exempting a reasonable amount of property from seizure or sale for the payment of any debt or liability hereafter contracted ; and there shall be no imprisonment for debt, except in case of fraud."
He thought the meaning of this provision was, that the exemption to be provided for by law should be in amount and not in specific articles. Thus allowing the debtor to select what he thought would most conduce to his comfort or prosper his business. He could readily see that where specific articles were exempted, some would not have them or only a part of them; whilst others might have all of them and yet if driven to select what would add most to their comfort or business would choose other property than the articles exempted.
In practice it would operate unfairly and unequally. He thought therefore that the bill was in conflict with the spirit and letter of the Constitution, and would oppose it in its present shape. He would favor an increase of the amount of exemption.
The exemption of $300, was fixed in 1852, and was quite as much then to a debtor as $800, or a $1000, would be now. He desired that the reference should be made.
No one could desire that debtors who were unfortunate should be reduced to pauperism. It could result in no good to creditors in a majority of cases nor to the public; but the contrary.
Mr HUBBARD. It seems to me this bill is a step in the right direction. I have alwaysbelieved that the true policy of every Statewas to pass liberal exemption and sharp collection laws. We have to-day appraisement laws that strike just those cases which they should not. After that we have redemption laws that still further put off the collection of debts. Our laws, in this respect, are perhaps more liberal than those of any of the surrounding States. On the other hand, we have an exemption law that is more beggarly than that in any of the neighboring States, and perhaps in any other State. Illinois allows an exemption not exceeding in value one thousand dollars, and Michigan 40 acres of land with the improvements on it; while Indiana only allows an exemption of three hundred dollars. Whichever way this bill is shaped I propose to vote for it, believing it to be one of the best measures proposed this session. I fail to see the force of the argument of the Senator from Vigo [Mr. Scott.] A man is supposed to know what is best for himself, and under this bill, should it become a law; laborers can select such tools as they please; and the exemption is for their benefit. If the exemption is raised to eight hundred dollars every person is presumed to use it for the purpose of saving articles most necessary in order to get an honest livelihood. On the other hand I see where it may operate against the laborer; he may own other property subject to execution under the act and his tools may not amount to over one hundred dollars, while a lawyer's library is no library at all unless it amounts to more than five hundred dollars. Now it seems to me the object will be better saved by raising the exemption to eight hundred dollars than by leaving it open to specific articles, because it will be safe to say that every man will save what is most necessary for his family. Such a measure would subserve the purpose better of preserving the State from pauperism.
Mr. ORR said he was in favor of the bill and hoped it would pass; - that the enactment of such a law would be a great encouragement to the poor man; it would stimulate him to use all honorable efforts to become owner of the amount of property exempt from execution as set forth in the bill. I cannot think as some Senators in this chamber have expressed themselves, that the passage of the bill would be a great injury to the poor man; that is he could get no credit under it. My judgement is that it would give him more credit. But that is not all, the great merit in this measure is, that the bill if enacted would secure to the poor wife and helpless little children $500, from the grasp of the money sharks of our country.
Mr. STEELE. I think it better to make this law apply to everybody than to make it apply to certain articles of property. I think the amount, instead of being five hundred dollars or eight hundred dollars, should be at least one thousand dollars to place it at what would be a reasonable sum. Of course it will not effect contracts that have heretofore been made. I think it will have a beneficial effect on society if we declare that one thousand dollars worth of property shall be exempt from execution. Sometimes a lawyer would like to have his library exempt; on the other hand he may have a good home for his wife and children that is still more dear to him than his library. Allow page: 314[View Page 314] him to retain what he chooses. If the law exempts his library and books alone, he would have no choice. I hope if this bill is referred to a committee that the committee will be unrestricted as to the amount.
Mr. Brown modified his motion so that the instructions to the committee shall be for a $1000 exemption.
The motion was agreed to.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR made the committee to consist of Messrs. Brown, Hough and Glessner.
And then came the recess till 2 o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR took the Chair at 2 o'clock and announced the order of messages from the House requiring action on the part of the Senate.
The bill [H. R. 3] to repeal the act for the construction of levees, dykes and drains, of May 22, 1869, and the act supplemental thereto, approved February, 23, 1871, and saving from the operation of the bill all works ten miles and under in length, coming up -
Mr. HUBBARD said that a bill to the same effect had passed both Houses and become a law, and moved that it be indefinitely postponed. He subsequently withdrew the motion and the bill passed to its second reading.
The bill [H. R. 152] to amend an act for tbe incorporation of railroads, to require railroad companies to file annually with the Secretary of State full reports of the business of the roads, was read the first time and passed to the second reading.
The bill [H. R. 115] to repeal the act of April 23, 1859, to regulate the sale of patent rights, was read the first time and passed to the second reading.
The bill [H. R. 157] to amend the act of March 11, 1867, declaring abandoned certain unfinished railroads, &c., was read the first time and passed to the second reading.
EXEMPTION INCREASE.
Mr. BROWN from the select committee thezeon, returned his exemption bill [S. 147] with a substitute bill, whose principal section provides that an amount of property not exceeding $1,000 in value, owned by any resident householder, married man, or head of a family, dependent upon him or her for support, shall not be liable to sale on execution or any other final process for any debt founded on contract, expressed or implied.
Mr B. moved that the report be concurred in, and that the bill be put on its passage.
Mr. NEFF. If this bill applies to contracts passed as well as in the future it is wrong.
Mr STEELE. I understand that question has been decided by the Supreme Court that it will not.
Mr. CHAPMAN moved to concur in the report of the Committee with an amendment that when the head of the family does not claim the exemption, the right may be claimed by his wife or any one of his family dependent on him for support.
Mr. BROWN accepted the amendment.
Mr. DAGGY opposed the amendment because we have a law passed in 1857, and one March 11, 1867, that fully covers the point. He said the laws already secured to the wife the same rights more explicitly than would be done by the amendment. He read the section to which he referred, which provided that in the absence of the husband the wife might claim the exemption and file the schedule. In regard to the other proposition that this law may be retroactive he found by the reference to the ninth Indiana Reports, page 38, that it will be prospective and not retroactive and can apply only to expressed and implied contracts in the future.
Mr. CHAPMAN. The wife has no rights when the husband is present. My amendment is that she may claim the same rights as if she were absent from him; and if he has no wife any one of his household may have the right to claim the exemption. The law the Senator read refers to the man as the head of the family; and the other part of the section he refered to is predicated on the same principle. Therefore I think the objection of the Senator is not well taken. There is no law provided to cover the object of the amendment I have offered and which has been accepted by the author of the bill.
Mr. C. insisted that the sections read by the Senator from Putnam [Mr. Daggy,] did not give the wife the rights conferred by his amendment. The present law only confers these rights on the wife when the husband was absent. His amendment provided that in case of his failure, present or absent, to claim the exemption, she, or any member of the family may do so.
Mr. WILLIAMS. For many years we have had a law exempting $300, from sale on execution, and I have heard no complaint against it. It is a wide range from $300 to $1,000 and then you are offering to the man twice the amount of property the widow gets when her husband dies. Now you propose to give to the man $1,000 but when he dies you will let the creditors take $500 of that away from his widow!
Mr. BROWN thought this bill would be an act of justice to both debtor and creditor. He believed, with the Senator from St. Joseph, [Mr. Hubbard] that the best thing for the debtor would be to give him a liberal exemption law and enact sharp collection laws. The collection laws of the State of Indiana are more loose than in many other States, and that is one of the reasons why the rate of interest is page: 315[View Page 315] so high and why men are prevented from investing their money in commercial enterprises here.
Mr. STEELE objected that to confer the right to claim the benefit of the exemption law upon any member of the family was going too far. Any one of a dozen children might claim the benefit in opposition to the wishes of both father and mother.
Mr. HARNEY had grave objections to both the bill and the amendment. The Constitution contemplated only that the debtor should be secured in the enjoyment of the necessarycomforts of life, and he thought $1,000 morethan was necessary to comply with the benefits contemplated by the Constitution. A man owning $800 worth of property should be just as liable to pay his debts as a man owning $1,000 worth. Michigan and Illinois has been referred to as examples of the beneficent effects of a liberal exemption law. The benefits were not so real as they appeared. In one of those States where forty acres of land are exempt, the lands of nearly all the small landholders are mortgaged because no credit will be given them, on account of this exemption, without the security of a mortgage. If they have no real estate there are chattel mortgages, and it is unsafe to buy either real estate or chattel property in some of those States without first examining the records to see that it is unencumbered. So such laws are not so much for the benefit of the poor man as some gentlemen seem to think. The poor man, who is honest, will generally give up all that is not absolutely necessary for the immediate comfort of his family, to satisfy his debts, while the man that is disposed to do wrong is the man who receives the larger amount of this benefit. There is many a man now doing business whose property will not inventory $1,000 and yet whose in credit is good. Pass this bill and exempt his entire property from liability for his debts and his credit will be gone and his business broke up. He believed the result of such a measure would be most disastrous to the poor man, and would bring about a state of affairs not desirable by the people. It has not been petitioned for by the poor; in fact there has been complaint that the present exemption law operates so as to deny them the credit they should have because mean men are continually taking advantage of it.
Mr. GLESSNER moved to amend by striking $1,000 and inserting $800.
Mr. STEELE moved to lay the motion on the table.
Mr. BROWN raised the point of order that, the bill being on the third reading, Mr. Glessner's motion was out of order.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR decided the point of order not well taken. The amendment was laid on the table by the following vote:
YEAS - Messrs. Armstrong, Bird, Boone, Bowman, Brown, Carnahan, Chapman, Friedley of Lawrence, Hall, Harney, Haworth, Hough, Howard, Hubbardy Oliver, Rhodes, Bingo, Sarnighausen, Scott, Steele, Taylor, Winterbotham - 22.
NAYS Messrs Beeson, Bunyan, Cave, Collett, Daggy, Daugherty, Dwiggins, Fuller, Francisco, Friedley of Scott, Glessner, Gooding, Gregg, Miller, Neff, Orr, Slater, Stroud, Williams - 19.
Mr. WILLIAMS raised the point of order that laying the amendment on the table carried the whole subject with it.
The LIEUTENANT GONERNOR decided the point not well taken.
Mr. WILLIAMS said his objection to the bill was that it gave the husband $1,000 exemption while the widow has a dower of but $500. He moved to recommit the bill to the Committee on Rights and Privileges, with instructions to strike out $1,000 and insert $500 so as to place the husband and widow on an equality.
Mr. BROWN moved to lay the motion on the table.
His motion was rejected by, yeas 15, nays 27.
Pending the roll call -
Mr. GOODING when his name was called, in explanation of his vote said, he would like to see the widows' dower equal the amount exempted from sale on execution.
Mr. ORR in explanation of his vote, when his name was called, said he could not vote for the bill in its present shape because it makes too great a stride - from $500 to $1,000.
Mr. SCOTT when his name was called said: I want to explain my vote. I do not understand this matter as some Senators here. I think a wife has this right in case of the death of her husband: If an execution is issued in the life time of the husband he has a right to claim the exemption, but suppose he dies with an execution in the hands of an officer, what becomes of it? Can he go on and seize the personal property? Of course he can't. The wife has a right to it, and the exemption can't take it. So for all the purposes of this Senate we don't need the amendment.
Mr. WILLIAMS [interposing] referred to the act of February 19, 1859, where the officer is authorized to take articles not exceeding $500 in value.
Mr. SCOTT. When the husband dies the Sheriff or Constable cannot take he personal property of the dead man.
Mr. BROWN. I would like to suggest that this law would be a protection to the widow;to the woman if she out lives her husbandthat there will be $500 worth of property left.
Mr. SCOTT. The question before the Senate is, whether in case of the death of a husband the officer can seize the property, having failed to do so in the life time of the husband?
page: 316[View Page 316]I understand he cannot; therefore there is no necessity for the proposed amendment. There is no reason why the family should be deprived of the $500, while the husband lives. I therefore favor the motion to lay on the table.
The vote was then announced, as above recorded.
Mr. FRIEDLEY, of Lawrence, made the point that Mr. Williams' motion was out of order, the question on the adoption of the report having been stated, and the Secretary ordered to call the roll before the motion was made.
The Chair held the point well taken. Some discussion followed, when -
Mr. BROWN moved to recommit to a special committee of three, with instructions to strike out $1,000 and insert $500.
Mr. GOODING moved to amend by substituting $600, which Mr. Brown accepted.
Mr. WILLIAMS moved ineffectually - yeas 17, nays 24that Mr. Brown's motion as amended, be laid on the table.
The motion was then agreed to.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR at once announced the Committee viz: Messrs. Brown, Glessner and Hough.
Mr. BROWN from this select Committee immediately reported in favor of striking out $1,000 and inserted $600, and recommended the passage of the bill. The report was concurred in, and the bill was passed by the following vote:
YEAS - Messrs. Beeson, Bird, Boone, Brown, Carnahan, Cave, Chapman, Collett, Daggy, Daugherty, Friedley, of Lawrence, Glessner, Gooding, Gregg, Hall, Haworth, Hough, Hubbard, Oliver, Orr, Rhodes, Ringo, Scott, Steele, Sleeth, Taylor, Winterbotham - 27.
NAYS - Messrs. Beardsley, Bowman, Bunyan, Dwiggins, Fuller, Francisco, Friedley of Scott, Harney, Howard, Miller, Neff, Sarnighausen, Slater, Stroud, and Williams - 15.
Mr. DWIGGINS explaining his negative vote:he could vote for $500 exemption but would not vote for $600.
HOUSE BILLS READ THE FIRST TIME.
The bill [H. R. 128] empowering the Board of Trustees of any incorporated town to compel the owners of lots to plant, maintain and protect shade trees -
The bill [H. R. 118] making the parties competent witnesses as to certain matters in actions by executors or administrators upon contracts assigned to the decedentswhere the assignor is alive and a competent witness -
The bill [H. R. 64] making the first day of January, fourth day of July, Thanksgiving days twenth-fifth day of December and all general State and National election days, legal holidays -
The bill [H. R. 112] to make wives competent to testify in actions brought for injuries done to them -
The bill [H. R. 138] to amend section 2 of the act authorizing cities and towns to issue bonds for the erection or completion of school buildings approved March 11, 1867The bill [H. R. 174] to amend section 32 of the general city incorporation law, approved March, 14, 1867 -
The bill [H. R. 123] prescribing time for the transaction of road business, and the appointment of superintendent and physician for the poor -
The bill [H. R. 171] prescribing the manner of selecting petit jurors for the Circuit and Common Pleas Court -
The bill [H. R. 130] to render uniform the rate of interest [8 per cent.] on the common school funds of the State of Indiana -
The bill [H. R. 177] fixing the time of holding courts in the first Judicial Circuit -
The bill [H. R. 136] to amend section 647 of the General Practice Act of June 18, 1852 -
The bill [H. R. 56] authorizing the appropriation of money out of the State Treasury for the use of the Indiana University -
The bill [H. R. 210] to amend section 20 of the act establishing a Reformatory Prison for Females -
The bill [H. R. 218] to amend section 208 of the General Practice Act of June 18, 1852 -
[Mr. DWIGGINS gave notice that on tomorrow he should move to amend the rules by increasing the number of Standing Committees and adding a Committee on Woman's Suffrage.]
The bill [H. R. 214] to amend section 25 and 26 of the act of May 14, 1852, regulating descents and apportionment of estates -
The bill [H. R. 170] to amend the 157th and 664th sections of the General Practice Act of June 18, 1852 -
The bill [H. R. 178] to amend section 1 of the act to amend section 77 of the act of June 17, 1852, regulating the code of Practice -
The bill [H. R. 167] to preserve the original manuscript journals of the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of Indiana -
The bill [H. R. 188] to amend section 433 of the act of June 18, 1852, regulating the Code of Practice -
Were read the first time and severally passed to the second reading.
(On motion of Mr. Rhodes, the bill [H. R. 241] to give security to persons who contract with railroad companies to perform work, was referred to the Committee on Railroads.)
COAL MINES AND COLLIERES.
The bill [H. R. 230] regulating coal mines and the working thereof - coming up -
On motion by Mr. Hall the constitutional restriction was dispensed with - yeas 37, nays 4the bill read by title only for the first and second reading.
Mr. SLATER moved its reference to the Judiciary Committee.
page: 317[View Page 317]Mr. SCOTT moved to amend by referring the bill to the Committee on Rights and Privileges.
Mr. SMITH made an ineffectual motion to lay this motion on the table.
Mr. WILLIAMS moved to lay the bill on the table.
The Presiding Officer, [Mr. Dwiggins in the Chair,] decided the motion out of order.
Mr. WILLIAMS appealed from this decision.
Mr. SCOTT said there are two bills here on this subject, both very important, differing widely, and requiring a great deal of thought and investigation. He thought a Committee - ought to be sent to the mines to make an investigaion as to which is the better bill - the one pressed by the proprietors, or the one desired by the minors. The Committee on Rights and Privileges should carefully consider these bills and go to the mines in order to secure intelligent action.
Mr. GOODING believed legislation is necessary to the safety of minors; and if that be the only question between these parties there would be no need of sending a Committee to determine it.
Mr. WILLIAMS now sent up his appeal inwriting, but was willing to withdraw it if the other bill on this subject be read the secondtime and sent to the same Committee.
Mr. Friedley, of Lawrence, moved to amendby refering the bill to a select Committee offive which Committee will also consider Mr.Daggy's bill [S. 205] regulating coal mines and working thereof.
The motion was agreed to and the bill was read the second time and so referred.
Mr. TAYLOR gave notice that he should move to-morrnw for the appointment of a standing Committee on Mines and Mining.
The bill [H. R. 200] to authorize Boards of County Commissioners to equalize local county bounty to soldiers was read the first time.
The Senate then adjourned till to-morrow at 10 o'clock A. M.
