THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
FOURTEENTH VOLUME.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
Amendments to the Constitution---Judges Salaries.---Debate in Continuation.
IN SENATE.
WEDNESDAY, January 29, 1873.[Morning Session.]
[CONTINUED FROM PAGE 92 - MIDDLE OF SECOND COLUMN.]
The House concurrent resolution, authorizing the appointment of a joint nelect committee of five on the part of House and three on the part of the Senate, to report on the 20th day of February amendments that they may think necessary to be made to the Constitution of Indiana, coming up -
Mr. O'BRIEN said: The people expect and are prepared for the calling of a Conveution to amend the Constitution of Indiana. I do not think if the Legislature were to devote all the time we have left to that subject and nothing else, we could mature and propose such amendments, as ought to be made to the Constitution. If this Committee is appointed and agrees upon certain amendments is there any probability that the Senate will pass them? And is it likely that the next succeeding Legislature will endorse just exactly a set of amendments this Legislature would? For these reasons I think it impossible to properly amend the Constitution in this way; as there is a clause in the Constitution requiring two successive Legislatures to agree to the proposed amendments before they can be submitted to a vote of the people. I think this resolution proposes a waste of time, and that this Legislature has no time to waste in discussing the matter of amendments to the Constitution. More than that, I think when the organic law is to be changed the people should be consulted as to the propriety of the change. I am opposed to submitting to a popular vote any further amendments, and I am in favor of calling a convention of the people and let them alter, amend or revise the organic law of the State. If we refuse to do this we will refuse to do one of the things the people are expecting us to do - and we deprive them of an opportunity of saying whether they want a new Constitution or not. This General Assembly was not elected with a view of presenting amendments to the Constitution. When a Constitutional Convention is ordered the delegates will come together for that specific purpose. There is perhaps not a member here but who could suggest five or six different amendments. Therefore if no other Senator desires to discuss the question I will move to lay the resolution on the table.
Mr. SMITH. What harm would it do to pass it?
Mr. O'BRIEN. Provoke discussion on a subject unnecessary to take up time with.
Mr. GLESSNER. [Mr. O'Brien withdrawing his motion,] said: This is not a one-sided question by any means. The Senator proceeds upon the assuption that there is not sufficient intelligence in this General Assembly in the next forty days to propose the necessary amendments to the Constitution. Now it occurs to me that argument won't hold good. If we appoint a Committee and give them an opportunity to choose several amendments, we might possibly agree upon the report of the Committee page: 384[View Page 384] at once. If we can adopt these amendments in the constitutional way and submit them to the people then we will have an opportunity of hearing from the people with scarcely no expense as compared with calling a Constitutional Convention. The Senator says we were elected without reference to the matter of amending the Constitution. We were elected two years ago without reference to the amendment of the Constitution adopted by that General Assembly and approved by this; so that is no argument at all. If in the wisdom of this General Assembly, it is thought best to propose amendments to the Constitution, and they are adopted by this, and the succeeding General Assembly, and are submitted to a vote of the people, and by them ratified, isn't it better we should do that than perhaps have no amendments to the Constitution at all? In two years or in twenty-six months from the last Geneeral Assembly we can, without the expense of calling a Constitutional convention, have the Constitution amended in every respect where we deem it defective. I believe this the proper course to pursue. Give this Committee an opportunity to consider these amendments and if they bring in such amendments as may seem proper we can adopt them; otherwise we can reject them.
Mr. SLEETH. I hope this resolution will not be voted down at present. It can do but little harm. I cannot agree that the people of the State are expecting, and demanding a Constitutional Convention. I believe the people of my part of the State require us to try our hand, and if we can accomplish the same object a Constitutional Convention would accomplish, they require it of us without that expense. I do not apprehend that there will be very much trouble in agreeing upon amendments, and if we do agree upon some propositions that will be voted down by the people there will be no harm done. Let this Committee be raised and present their propositions here and we can all agree on them perhaps in half a day. The argument that we can't agree is the strongest kind of an argument that the Convention should not be called. If we can't agree how will the Convention? We might submit to the people, amendments to those parts of the Constitution that are defective, and if the propositions we submit are thought by the people to be no better than the,Constitution now is they can simply vote them down and no harm done. I hope the resolution will not be voted down, but that the Committee will be raised.
Mr. NEFF. I am in favor of the passage of this resolution. I think it can do no harm, as the Senator from Rush [Mr. Sleeth] says, but I think it can do good. We can't call a Constitutional Convention and get rid of the expense much short of from three to four hundred thousand dollars, while we can amend our present Constitution, at the simple cost of calling an election of the people; and if we submit the amendments at the same time of a general election it will cost nothing additional. For this reason if for no other, I would favor the adoption of the resolution.
Mr. SMITH demanded the previous question, which was seconded by the Senate.
And then the resolution was concurred in.
SALARIES OF JUDGES.
The PRESIDENT pro tem announced the special order for this hour - 3 o'clockP. M.
Mr. DWIGGINS moved to defer confederation of the special order - Senate Bill 19, in relation to the salaries of Supreme, Circuit, Superior, Criminal and Common Pleas Judges - until next Wednesday.
Mr. O'BRIEN moved to lay the special order on the table, but withdrew his motion at the request of Mr. Steele, and the question therefore recurred upon the motion of Mr. Dwiggins, who also withdrew his motion, so that present action might be taken.
The bill was then read. It fixes the salaries of the Supreme Court Judges at $5,000; those of the Superior Courts at $4,000; those of the Criminal and Circuit Courts at $3,000, and those of the Common Pleas at $2,500.
Mr. GLESSNER. I move to recommit the bill, with instructions to strike out the provisions relative to Common Pleas Judges. We have bills before us looking to the abolishment of the Common Pleas Courts. We have some 20 odd Circuit Judges - some have plenty of work to do and some have but little. If the vote is pressed today I am not willing to pay Circuit Judges as much as I would if the bill introduced by the Joint Committee to abolish the Common Pleas, shall become a law; for the reason that now the burdens of the Judges are not properly equalized. Admitting that this subject has been deferred from time to time, a new condition of things have appeared, and it is as much necessary to postpone it now as before. I appeal to Senators to defer the further consideration of this bill until the question shall be decided as to whether the Common Pleas Court shall be abolished or not, and in doing so you will do the best thing for the men you are laboring in behalf of.
Mr. HARNEY. The number of important measures we will have to consider admonish us that what we do we will have to do promptly. Therefore I am in favor of at once doing what we are going to.
Mr. ORR. The same difficulty exists with me to day that existed when we had this subject up last. I must know what labor our Judges will be required page: 385[View Page 385] to perform, and until I know I can't do justice in voting for this salary bill, and would certainly have to vote against it if called upon to vote at the present time. Iam toId that some Judges only work some eighteen or twenty weeks in the year, and others some forty weeks. I would like to see this districting bill completed before I vote to compensate the judges.
Mr. STEELE. I do not see the objection gentlemen urge against this bill. As far as the Circuit Judges are concerned they claim that they have more than they ought to do now; and I can see no reason why we sho'ld not give them a fair compensation. It is true we may alter and equalize Circuits, and we may do that as well after raising the salaries of Judges as before. Then why wait? If we legislate the Common Pleas Courts out of existence and see proper to have the work done entirely by Circuit Judges then we will have to remodel the whole Judicial System. Let us consider that a Circuit judge who works properly is worth so much to the country, and there is nothing more in the way of raising the salary at this time than at any other.
Mr. SMITH moved to amend the bill by striking out the provision for Common Pleas and Circuit Judge.
Mr. NEFF. I do not know whether thebill to make thirty-six districts will pass ornot, but going upon the supposition that itwill pass, then I would vote a different salary to what I will now vote, under our present system; therefore l am unprepared to vote on the question of salary. I am satisfied our Common Pleas Judges are not paid judges enough, and I think our Circuit Judges are not paid enough. We have twenty two Common Pleas and twenty-seven Judicial Circuits. We pay the Circuit Judges $2,000 a year, and the Common Pleas $1,500: 22Common Pleas Judges at $1,500 is $33,000 and 27 Circuit Judges at $2,000 is $54,000; that makes $87,000 we now pay our Common Pleas and Circuit Judges. Under the present bill abolishing the Court of Common Pleas and proposing to pay Circuit Judges $2,500 a year we would be paying $90,000an increase of $3,000 over what it costs us to-day for both Common Pleas and Circuit Judges. Now if I knew just what was going to be done about redistricting the State I would be prepared to vote on the salary question, but as I do not know whether we are to have 36 or 47 or 48 districts; I am unprepared to vote. It is said that a member of Judges only work 20 or 30 weeks in the year, while others work 46 or 47 weeks.
Mr. O'BRIEN (interposing.) I would like to know what Judges works only 30 weeks in the year.
Mr. NEFF. I believe the Circuit Judge in our district works about 26 weeks; and here are other Circuits, I believe, about the same.
Mr. STEELE (interposing.) How many weeks in Randolph County?
Mr. NEFF. About six weeks. And we have got a good working Judge. I can commend him for his good qualities both as a lawyer and a worker. I would be willing to pay these men large salaries if they would do a large amount of work. I believe the friends of the bill had better allow the matter to go over, or lay the bill and amendments on the table till after we determine whether we will continue the old system of Common Pleas and Circuit Judges. I am unprepared to vote on this question now, and I hear Senators on all sides of me say they are not prepared. I apprehend if you fix the salaries now you will have trouble n apportioning the State in proper sized districts afterward; but go at it and redistrict the State, and then you can tell what he work of Judges will be worth.
Mr. THOMPSON. The Superior Court in this city sits 50 weeks, and Judge Perkins does more business than the whole Supreme Court. I am willing to vote that the Supreme Court Judges shall have a salary of $5,000 but I will vote against the bill if the salary of the Superior Judge is put one cent below what it now is in this bill. I will go for the bill as it is, but if you divide that bill - if you attempt to cut down the salary of the Superior Court, I shall vote against it on the principle that it is not just.
Mr. SLATER offered additional instructions reducing the salaries as follows: Supreme Court Judges, to $3,500; Superior Court Judges, to $3,000; Circuit and Criminal Court Judges, to $2,500.
Mr. O'BRIEN. I think the Senate is probably as well prepared now to vote on this subject as it ever will be, and for this reason I am opposed to referring the bill back to a Committee. Senators object to voting either for or against it because something else may be determined hereafter. It seems to me it is proper for the Senate to do right without reference to what may or may not be done hereafter. If it is right to increase the salaries of Judges, it is right to do it to-day as much as it would be next week or the week after. We were informed during the special Session, by a Committee appointed by the Attorneys of Indiana, that no State, I believe, in the Union demands the same service of her Judiciary that we do for the same amount of money. I am in favor of paying a reasonable salary to every gentle man who works for the State of Indiana.
page: 386[View Page 386]Mr. DITTEMORE moved to lay the motion of Mr. Glessner (to recommit) together with the motion of Mr. Smith, to amend, and the supplemental instructions of Mr. Slater, on the table. Mr. Slater withdrew his motion to instruct. The yeas and nays were demanded on the motion of Mr. Dittemore, and being ordered and taken resultedt: yeas 17, nays 21.
Mr. O'BRIEN moved to lay the bill and proposed instructions on the table. This motion was agreed to.
