THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
FOURTEENTH VOLUME.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
The Public Printing---Re-organization of the Judiciary---T. H. & I. R. R.
IN SENATE.
FRIDAY, February 28, 1873.[CONTINUED FROM PAGE 215---BOTTOM OF FIRST COLUMN.]
The bill S. 245 (Mr. Beardley,s): To provide for the letting of the State printing to the lowest bidder, making the Governor, Secretary of State, and Auditer of State, Commissioners of Public Printing, and creating the office of Superintendent of Public Printing.
Mr. DWIGGINS moved to recommit the bill to the Committee on Public Printing, with instructions to amend by striking out all in reference to the State Printer and Superintendent of Printing and authorizing the purchase of the paper, and so amend that contractors shall furnish all material; also authorizing the State officers to call in whenever they see proper, an expert at an expense not exceeding six dollars per day, to measure work or consult with them. He said that under the Senate bill frauds will be possible exactly as under the law lately repealed, and if it is neccessary for the Commissioners of Public Printing to have a printer to consult why let them take one from Cincinnati, Chicago or from anywhere they think proper, one man this time an another the next so that he cannot be bought up. Why not let the contractors bid for the paper on which to do the work?
Mr. BROWN moved to amend the motion so as to recommit with instructions to strike out all after the enacting clause, and insert House bill No 526. He said the Senate bill provided for the employment of a superintendent who has almost as unlimited sway over the affairs of the State as the State Printer had under the law lately repealed. The duties of his office will not engage him more than thirty-five or forty days a year and it is proposed by this bill to allow him two thousand dollars a year for that service.
All the evils existing under the old law will be perpetual under this one. Again this bill makes the Board the contracting party for the purchase of paper, type, ink and other material, and there is where the trouble has always come in, by which the State has suffered in times past. There is nothing in the bill to protect the State in the slightest degree from that which is said to have been an evil in the State, that the Public Printer would contract at one price and turn the material over to the State at a higher price. He thought the best plan would be to let out the job with alll the material, paper, ink, type, printing, stitching and everything done. The bill that he proposed as a substitute simply provides that the job shall be let out to somebody, to be done as a whole just as one would contract for building a house with some responsible contractor.
Mr. NEFF, said that the Republiban party stood pledged to the country to abolish the office of State Printer and it had redeemed that pledge. The reason of the page: 542[View Page 542] pledge and of the action in accordance therewith was found in the corruption and found perpetrated on the State Treasury, We are now asked to devise a system that shall prevent similar frauds. I believe the Senate bill is nearer in accordance with the demands of the country, while I would prefer a slight change in this bill, not that I believe that the House bill which proposes to pay a superintendent six dollars per day would lessen the expense, I do not think it would. Still on its face it presents that appearance but as a whole I very much prefer the Senate bill as it is in accordance with the wishes of the people, with the spirit of ecomomy to let the printing to the lowest responsible bidder, with the right to reject any and all bids if they are deemed too high and against public policy. The Senate bill is not in the interest of any publishing ring while it is believed that the House bill is in such an interest, and that the six dollar per day claim is simply a little sugar coating to enable weak stomachs to swallow it.
Mr. SLATER moved to lay both motions to amend on the table.
On demand of Mr. Brown the question was divided and the vote was first taken on laying Mr. Brown's motion to recommit with instructions to substitute the House bill, on the table, which was done by the following vote:
YEAS - Messrs. Armstrong, Beadsley, Bird, Boone, Bowman, Cave, Chapman, Daugherty, Dittemore, Fuller, Francisco, Glessner, Gregg, Harney, Hough, Howard, Hubbard, Miller, Neff, Oliver, Orr, Rhodes, Ringo, Rosebrough, Sarnighausen, Scott, Slater, Sleeth, Smith, Stroud, Taylor, Williams and Winterbotham - 33.
NAYS - Messrs Beeson, Brown, Bunyan, Carnahan, Collett, Daggy, Dwiggins, Friedley of Scott, Gooding, Hall, Haworth, Steele, Thompson, and Wadge - 14.
Pending the roll call.
Mr. DWIGGINS, in explanation of his vote, when his name was called, said: The bill now pending is certainly objectionable - worse than the old State Printing bill, and I think if the substitute of the Senator from Jackson [Mr. Brown] instead of providing for an expert, simply authorized the calling in of an expert, it would be a good bill. I would make that discretionary. I do hope the Senate will take no hasty action in this matter. If we are to have a superintendent of public printing why not call him the State Printer. I hope the Senate will be deliberate over this matter. I vote "no."
Mr. GLESSNER, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote said. It seems that in every argument addressed by Senators opposing this bill on its passage the only point they make against it is that this superintendent is a mere substitute for the old State Printer. Now I understand that this Superintendent is appointed by the State officers, and he is subject to removal at any time by the Board consisting of the State officers. This Superintendent has nothing to do whatever with buying the paper. It is bought by the Board of Supervisors. The objection of gentlemen is untenable and unreasonable. I therefore vote "aye."
Mr. HARNEY, in explanation of his vote when his name was called, said: I shall vote to lay the substitute on the table for the reason that the difficulty seems to have been in securing the services of honest men. There has been no objection to the State Printing system had it been conducted according to law. I see no reason for imposing these duties upon the State officers. It is unfair that officers loaded down with other duties should have put upon them the discharge of this delicate duty. I think there will be no difficulty in getting a superintendent honest enough to discharge the duties imposed upon him and for that reason I desire to see him well compensated. I vote "aye."
Mr. HOUGH, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said: I don't believe you can better this bill. It is the result of a great deal of labor on the part of the Committee on Printing. I do hope the Senate will not allow any charge of having delayed this thing for the purpose of creating a fat job for the Journal or any other printing Company.
Mr. DWIGGINS (interposing.) How can anybody get a job if there is no authority to let it?
Mr. HOUGH. I don't know the secrets of this thing.
Mr. BROWN (interposing.) The Senator has said it is charged that the Committee on Public Printing has been keeping this bill back for a purpose. Where is the charge made?
Mr. HOUGH. In one of the public journals of this city.
Mr. BROWN. The Senator has said it is charged that the Committee on Public Printing has kept this thing back for the purpose of giving the Journal Csmpany a fat job. In point of fact, sir, I say the charge is not true, let it come from whence it does.
Mr. HOUGH (resuming.) The Senator from Jackson [Mr. Brown] is not a member of that committee. I am; and I am glad to hear the gentleman say that the charge is not true because I know it is not true. But it has been intimated in the public journals that this bill was for a purpose, and delayed intentionally to give a fat job to somebody. The charge may perhaps be made with some foundation if distinguished Senators oppose a bill of this character which guards the public treasury at all page: 543[View Page 543] points; and by delaying it results in no action of the Senate at all.
Mr. DWIGGINS (interposing.) Do you intimate that the members who are opposing the bill are in the interest of the Journal Company?
Mr. HOUGH. I repeat that if this thing ia delayed there might be some foundation for such a charge in the future, and I say it knowing what I am talking about. I'd like for gentlemen to take up this bill section by section and point out wherein it fails to guard the public treasury. The people expect this as one of the things we should do, and each party expects something should be done for the relief of the people and the salvation of their pecuniary interests in regard to the public printing. I vote to lay the proposed amendments on the table for the reason that I think their adoption would result in no good to the people, and would not secure one cent that the enactment of this bill would not secure.
Mr. STEELE, in explanation of his vote, when his name was called, said : I am in favor of the substitute, although I see by the vote that it is lost. I know this is not the proper place or the time to debate the question, but I would like much to compare the substitute with the original bill. Mr. S. then took up the substitute and read it section by section, comparing it with the Senate bill to show that it more carefully guarded the interests of the people than the latter.When the roll call was completed -
The vote was announced as above recorded.
So the substitute amendment [Mr.Brown's] was laid on the table.
The question then recurring on laying on the table Mr. Dwiggins' motion to recommit the bill with instructions, the yeas and nays were demanded and being ordered and taken resulted - yeas 34, nays 12 - as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Armstrong, Beardsley, Bird, Boone, Bowman, Carnahan, Cave, Chapman, Daggy, Daugherty, Dittemore, Fuller, Francisco, Glessner, Gregg, Hall, Harney, Hough, Howard, Hubbard, Miller, Neff, Orr, Rhodes, Ringo, Rosebrough, Sarnighausen, Scott, Slater, Sleeth, Stroud, Taylor, Williams and Winterbotham - 34.
NAYS - Messrs. Beeson, Brown, Bunyan, Dwiggins, Friedley of Scott, Gooding, Haworth, Oliver, Smith, Steel, Thompson and Wadge - 12.
Pending the roll call -
Mr. DWIGGINS, explaining his vote, when his name was called, said: I was opposed to the bill for several reasons. In the first place, the Superintendent of Public Priating would not be employed more than one to three months in the year, yet you pay him four thousand dollars a year or one thousand dollars a month. In reference to the purchase of the paper, it is insisted that the Governor, Auditor, etc., can purchase this paper as cheap as any other way. Yet sir, that is to be done at private sale. There is no competition. They go to the stationery house and buy paper, and thus the Superintendent will do the whole thing - the Superintendent will do all the purchasing. Neither is there any requirement that bids shall be solicited.
Again, the bill provides that the price for rule and figure work shall be double what it is for plain work. Printers have only to make a combination on plain work, and then the bill provides that they shall have double as much for figure work. The Senator from Hancock [Mr. Hough] says if this bill fails there will be ground for saying that it is in the interest of the Journal Company ; yet the Senator votes for a bill that proposes to give the Superintendent two thousand dollars a year. The Senator says everything is provided to let the whole out to the lowest bidder. I say that is not so. Parties are not allowed to put in bids for figure work separately, as you do for plain work. Under the bill a man who wishes to put in a bid for figure work and nothing else, is barred. I suppose this bill is in the interest of the Printers' Union - that it is to dictate to this Senate what laws shall be passed here relative to the printing of the State. I do not know anything about Printers' Unions. I presume they are composed of honorable men, but I undertake to say that no class of men ought to dictate to the Legislature what bill it should pass. Mark my word, if this bill becomes a law, the people will be more dissatisfied in two years than they have been heretofore with the State Printer, because the same swindles can be perpetrated under it as under the original law. I vote "no."
When the roll call was completed -
The vote was announced as above recorded.
So the motion to recommit was laid on the table.
Mr. BROWN moved to committ the bill to the committee on Judiciary, with instructions to so amend that the contracts shall not be let to non-residents of the State nor the work done out of the State. He said the Board under this bill has a discretionary power with reference to letting the printing, because when you say "the lowest responsible bidder" that relieves the Board from the necessity of letting it to the lowest bidder, but they can let it to the bidder who is in the opinion of the Board the responsible bidder. Now I am not economical to the extent that I would require a printing establishment in this State to conform their prices to the prices some other printing establishments in the United States would do the work for. There are some page: 544[View Page 544] twenty or twenty-five establishments in this State conpetent to perform the public printing for the State, but I do think these establishments can not perform the work as cheap as some of the mammoth establishments in the city of New York, and probably in Cincinnati where they have so much greater business to conduct and where they have so much greater opportunities of buying material and do not have to pay the cost of transportation. The work would be more cheaply done, perhaps, in New York than in Indianapolis, New Allbany, Madison, Terre Haute, South Bend, Fort Wayne, Lafayette or Evansville, but I am not so hide bound that I would compel home establishments to conform their prices to establishments in New York city.
Mr. HOUGH. I am one of those who believe that corporations, political or otherwise have the right to go into the market and purchase as cheaply as they can; and I believe it our duty to get for the use of the State what we can at the fairest price, and I am not so hide bound and sectional as to undertake to prohibit workmen from other States competing with men in our State. I believe it our duty in making provision for work to be done for the public, to open competition to the world and make men responsible if they contract to do it. I do not know any rule by which I am authorized to be more liberal with the people's money than with my own. Any Senator would get his work done by the lowest responsible bidder. I hope the time will never come when my sympathies and feelings will be wrapt up by the boundaries of my State, but when acting for the State I will say that work shall be done by an Indiana man if he will do it as well or as low as any other man: but if a man in Ohio or New York will do as well and for a less price I would give it to him, and I think I would be acting under the obligation of an oath when I do that. I do not see anything in the amendments. I thought the day of sectionalism was about past. If a buckeye desires to do work for us, and will do it as well as a Hoosier, and will do our work cheaper it is our duty as representatives of these men who make the money to give it to him.
Mr. STEELE. The speech of the gentleman sounds nicely. I suppose it is made for his constituents, the gentleman not intending an answer to go along with it. The proposition is that he is willing to do by the State precisely as he would do for himself. That is all well enough. This bill proposes to let the public printing of the State to the lowest responsible bidder; not the lowest responsible bidder in the State of Indiana, nor the lowest responsible bidder in the State of Ohio, nor the lowest responsible bidder in the State of Illinois, nor even in the United States of America. Then the argument of the gentleman is that if you can get the public printing done cheaper in New York than in the State of Indiana to go there and do it. That is the way he would do it himself. I submit the matter for the consideration of the Senate, what would we have, if for instance when bills are to be printed we should be informed that the public printer is in the city of New York - that the man engaged to do this work is not a resident of the State of Indiana; - and we are informed that the bill we want printed has to be sent to the city of New York. It is to be executed there by some gentleman who is to read the proof. You start a man to New York with the bill and before he geto back we want another, and another, and another; and every single item would have to be sent to the city of New York. I ask the gentleman whether this bill proposes to confine this printing to be done in the State of Indiana? I ask whether under this bill, the printing may not be done in the city of New Orleans, Mobile or Chicago? Is it not the bounden duty of the officers charged with that duty to get it done where it can be done the cheapest?
I want to get our printing done, and I think it can be done in the State of Indiana as cheap as we should require it to be done. If we have to pay a little more to have it done in the State of Indiana than in New York, I am willing to do it. I do not think there is any necessity of going from this State to find an honest man. I think we have plenty of honest printers and printing establishments in the State of Indiana without going any farther. I hope the amendment will be agreed to.
Mr. ORR. I am in favor of a change from the system heretofore in practice. I have no doubt from what I have learned on the subject of printing for the State, that there have been great impositions practiced on the State, and they ought to be corrected. I am in favor of letting the public printing out to the lowest responsible bidder - and that bidder a citizen, resident of our State, and the work all done in Indianapolis. I am an Indianian all over, and am decidedly in favor of Indiana doing her own public printing.
The amendment was agreed to by consent.
Mr. DWIGGINS asked unanimous consent to have an amendment inserted striking put two thousand dollars a year, and providing for the allowance to the Superintendent of a sum not to exceed six dollars a day for the time necessarily and actually employed, page: 545[View Page 545] the Board to examine and certify his accounts before they were paid.
Consent was refused.
Mr. BROWN moved to commit the bill to the Committee on Judiciary, with instructions to so amend as that contractors shall furnish all materials.
Mr. DWIGGINS moved to amend to recommit the bill, with instruction to insert his amendment and report within thirty minutes.
Mr. FULLER demanded the previous question ; and there being a second -
Mr. SLEETH called for a division of the question, and the vote was first taken on Mr. Dwiggins' motion with the following result:
YEAS - Messrs. Beeson, Boone, Brown, Bunyan, Chapman, Dwiggins, Friedley of Scott, Gooding, Haworth, Neff, Oliver, Orr, Rhodes, Scott, Sleeth, Steele, Taylor, Thompson and Wadge - 19.
NAYS - Messrs. Armstrong, Beardsley, Bird, Bowman, Carnahan, Cave, Daggy, Daugherty, Dittemore, Fuller, Francisco, Glessner, Gregg, Hall, Harney, Hough, Howard, Miller, Ringo, Rosebrough, Sarnighausen, Slater, Smith, Stroud, Williams and Winterbotham - 26.
So the motion [Mr. Dwiggins'] to recommit was rejected.
Mr. Brown's motion to recommit was also lost by the following vote:
YEAS - Messrs. Beeson, Brown, Collett, Friedley of Scott, Gooding, Haworth, Miller, Oliver, Sleele, Thompson and Wadge - 11.
NAYS - Messrs. Armstrong, Beardsley, Bird, Boone, Bowman, Bunyan, Carnahan, Cave, Chapman, Daggy, Daugherty, Dittemore, Dwiggins, Fuller, Francisco, Glessner, Gregg, Hall, Harney, Hough, Howard, Hubbarrt, Neff, Orr, Rhodes, Ringo, Rosebrough, Sarnighausen, Scott, Slater, Smith, Straud, Taylor, Williams and Winterbotham - 35.
The bill was then passed by the following vote:
YEAS - Messrs. Armstrong, Beardsley, Bird, Boone, Bowman, Bunyan, Carnahan, Cave, Chapman, Daggy, Daugherty, Dittemore, Fuller, Francisco, Glessner, Gooding, Gregg, Hall, Harney, Hough, Howard, Hubbard, Neff, Rhodes, Ringo, Rosebrough, Sarnighausen, Scott, Slater, Sleeth, Smith, Stroud, Taylor, Wadge, Williams and Winterbotham - 36.
NAYS - Messrs. Beeson, Brown, Collett, Dwiggins, Friedley of Scott, Haworth, Miller, Oliver, Steele and Thompson - 10.
Pending the roll call -
Mr. BROWN, in explaining his vote, when his name was called, said: This bill provides for the employment of a Superintendent at a sslary of two thousand dollars, whose duties, it stands confessed, will not require his employment for more than forty days. That is one reason for voting against it. In the next place, it provides that the Board of Public Printing, in conjunction with the Superintendent, may purchase the paper, and if any dishonesty or fraud has been practiced by which the State has suffered by the management of the public printing, it has been by reason of the paper purchase. That is another reason. In the next place I believe that it is necessary that a proper law should be passed at this session upon the subject of the public printing. The House of representatives adheres to the bill that I offered as a substitute. It has just passed it I believe. That is another reason. Finally, if the House stands by that bill and the Senate stands by this bill, the result will be that both will fall to the ground, and we will have no law on the subject, and that is another reason why I shall vote "no."
Mr. DWIGGINS, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said: I have but very little to add to what I have already said. I think there are some good provisions in this bill, and that with some amendments the bill might be a good law, but, as it is, many of its provisions are very pernicious. There is no sort of propriety in paying the Superintendent two thousand dollars a year for the reason that there is'nt a printing establishment in the State that pays its Superintendent anything like that price, when the superintendent is engaged every day it the week.
Mr. SLATER (interposing.) The Sentinel office pays its Superintendent twenty-two hundred dollars.
Mr. DWIGGINS. Every Senator must know that to do the State printing will require not to exceed one to three months in the year. What will there be for him to do in the year 1874? Absolutely nothing. What will there be for him to do in the year 1873, after the acts and journals of the two Houses are published? Absolutely nothing. And yet he is to receive the sum of four thousand dollars for two years. A good Superintendent could be employed to do all the work that will be required at a cost not exceeding five hundred dollars. But it is claimed that you must have some man to read proof and do the measurement What proof will there be to read except the journals and acts. What is it worth to superintend the publishing of the journals and acts? Is it worth four thousand dollars? We are told we should let this work to the lowest responsible bidder, ond yet when I proposed to amend this bill so as to pay the Superintendent for the actual time he expends at the rate of six dollars per day the Senate refused to do it, and now is proposing to pay him four times - five times - yes several times what it is worth.
I undertake to say that I can employ as good a Superintendent as there is in any establishment in the State at a cost not exceeding five hundred dollars. I am prepared to do that. Then why throw away three thousand five hundred dollars of the State's mon-35 page: 546[View Page 546] ey when Senators say they are here to protect the public interests of the State? Why rush this bill through when it can be amended in thirty minutes ? Why not take that thirty minutes and save this money. I vote "no."
Mr. GOODING, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said: I have been voting for most of the amendments. I think the bill needs amending, but in order that we may have a bill of some kind I intend to vote for this bill now, and if the House bill comes in I expect to vote for that. I vote "aye."
Mr. HARNEY, in explanation of his vote when his name was called, said: I vote for this bill not because I am familiar with its provisions but because it has been in the hands of a competent committee and I believe they have done their best to make it perfect. Besides I have noticed occasionally that where gentlemen were opposing a bill they are frequently found proposing amendments. This bill is as it came from the committee which has carefully examined it, therefore I vote "aye."
Mr. ROSEBRUGH, in explanation of his vote, when his name was called, said : I don't think we can make this matter of the public printing any worse, therefore I vote "aye." [Laughter.]
Mr. STEELE, when his name was called in explanation of his vote said: I don't think by this bill we can make the public printing matter any better, therefore I vote "no."
When the roll call was completed -
The vote was announced as above recorded.
So the bill [S. 245] to provide for letting the public printing to the lowest bidder was passed the Senate.
RE-ORGANIZATION OF THE JUDICIARY.
Mr. BROWN moved to suspend the order of business and take up the Senate bill to district the State for judicial purposes with the House amendments thereto.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. DWIGGINS moved that the amendments be concurred in, and on that he moved the previous question.
A division being taken a demand, for the previous question was seconded, and the House amendments were then read and concurred in by a vote of 25 to 19. See page 215.
Pending the roll call -
Mr. NEFF, by way of explaning his vote when his name was called said that, when the bill was before the Senate he voted against it, because he was not certain how the bar of his county felt about the matter. Hiscounty had been added to Henry, and they had no connections with that county. But since the bill had gone into the House an amendment in accordance with the views of the bar of his county had been made, as he had urged it in the Senate, and he felt that his relations were changed to some extent, toward the bill as it comes from the House. If he were to represent his personal feelings he should vote against the bill even as it in. He was opposed to the abolition of the Common Pleas Courts, believeing that in two years from that time some other Court would necessarily be substituted in lieu of that court. But having been instructed by the entire bar of his county to vote for it if this amendment was made, he felt called upon to obey that instruction and he therefore voted "aye."
Mr. ORR, when his name was called in explanation of his vote, was understood to say that the bill was framed entirely contrary to his wishes, but being informed that it was amended in the House of Representatives just to accommodate him, as long as they were so accommodating as to do that he felt constrained to vote "aye."
Mr. RHODES in explanation of his vote when his name was called said: I am opposed to the main proposition in the bill - the abolishment of the Common Pleas Court. I do not believe that it will prove to be economy. I think before we get three or four years away from the action of to-day we will find that we have done one of the most expensive things as far as the Juiciary is concerned that we ever have done. We will be compelled to create some other court to manage and control the probate business of this State, and instead of doing an act economical and saving to the State this will be a measure of bad economy. I feel that my counties do not desire any change of thin sort. In fact both counties I represent have sent up petitions here against the passage of this bill because they are opposed to the abolishment of the Common Pleas Court. I vote "no.".
Mr. RINGO, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said: When this bill was before the Senate a few days ago, I voted against it; and I voted then as much perhaps, against my will in so doing as any thing I have voted on during this session of the Senate. I came here instructed by a large portion, I think I may safely say, of the people of my district to vote for almost anything to abolish the Common Pleas Court. But we didn't get our district as we wanted it, and consequently I voted against the bill. Since it went to the House of Representatives they have amended it a little, and I feel a little better satisfied with it. I shall vote for the bill now, or rather for concnr- page: 547[View Page 547]rence in the House amendments. I vote "aye."
Mr. SARNIGHAUSEN, in explanation of his vote when his name was called said: After the amendments to this bill passed by the other House I am compelled to vote against it. I vote "no."
Mr. SMITH, in explanation of his vote when his name was called said: I do not believe this is a step in the right direction. It was said when we were making up the fee bill that we were taking a step in the right direction, but it seems to me that we are going back; and that we will live to see the day when this Senate will be glad to restore the Common Pleas Court. I vote "no."
Mr. STEELE, in explanation of his vote, when his name was called, said : I am opposed to the abolishment of the Common Pleas Court, but had I even been in favor of it after the action taken on this bill I should not vote for it. It was put through under the gag rule from the moment the first step was taken in the House, and it passed here really without the majority it should have. The vote was announced while a Senator was rising in his seat and wanting to change his vote - after finding out his mistake he was asking to have his vote changed. It is sent over to the House of Representatives and we are told here by the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Orr] that for his special accommodation a certain district has been changed; and some other gentleman has been suited by amendments made in the House so that districts have been changed to get their votes. These changes have been made at the expense of others; and the moment the bill is brought back here again our mouths are closed and we are not to say one word about the changes. We are not allowed to offer amendments although certain tilings that have been done in the House of Representatives should be correted - and could be corrected by changing one single word or line. I vote "no."
When the roll call was completed -
The vote was announced as recorded on page 215.
So the amendments made by the House of Representatives to the bill [S. 238] for the re-organization of the Judiciary abolishing the Court of Common Pleas, etc., were concurred in.
Mr. BROWN moved to reconsider the vote by which the amendments were concurred in and to lay that motion on the table.
The latter motion was agreed to.
TERRE HAUTE AND INDIANAPOLIS RAILROAD AND THE SCHOOL FUND.
Mr. SMITH offered a joint resolntion directing the Attorney General to institute an action without delay in the Superior Court of Marion county in the name of the State, upon the relation of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, against the Terre Haute and Indianapolis Railroad Company for the recovery of whatsoever sum of money may be due from said company to the State lor the use of the common schools and to prosecute the same to final judgment without unnecessary delay and to dismiss the proceedings in quo warranto in the Owen Circuit Court as soon as such action is instituted.
Mr. GLESSNER moved to lay the reso-tion on the table, which prevailed by the following vote:
YEAS - Messrs. Beardsley, Beeson, Bird, Boone, Bunyan, Chapman, Fuller, Glessner, Gregg, Harney, Haworth, Hough, Howard, Hubbard, Miller, Neff, Orr, Rhodes, Rosebrugh, Sarnighausen, Slater, Steele, Stroud, Williams and Winterbotham - 25.
NAYS - Messrs. Armstrong, Bowman, Brown, Carnahan, Cave, Collett, Daggy, Daugherty, Dittemore, Dwiggins, Francisco, Friedley of Scott, Gooding, Hall, Oliver, Ringo, Scott, Smith, Taylor and Thompson - 20.
Pending the roll call.
Mr. BROWN, in explanation of his vote, when his name was called said: That the proceeding in quo warranto were not to forfeit the charter of the company by reason of the alleged indebtedness, but for a thousand and one other reasons. The suit was brought, in his judgment, to hold as a rod of terror over the company to extort from it the money alledged to be due. The company is solvent, able to pay any reasonable judgment that can be obtained against it. A judgment of forfeiture does not, as of course, settle this question of indebtedness. The same question of the construction of Section twenty-three of the charter must come up to be adjudicated upon after the judgment of forfeiture, the same as before. The company contends that it is not liable until the Legislature has regulated its tolls. The other side contends that the regulation of the tolls is not a condition precedent at all, and that is the question. The honorable and satisfactory way to proceed, in his opinion, was to bring a direct suit for the money and not wait until the franchises of the corporation have been destroyed.
Mr. COLLETT, in explanation of his vote, when his name was called said: It seemed to him that the suit new pending was in the nature of a blackmailing operation, and would not directly benefit the State, even if successful. On the other hand direct suit, according to the resolution, will advance the interests of the State by determining the amount of monies due. There probably is some due, and the road is able to pay it. Then if the charter is forfeited the page: 548[View Page 548] road will have to go into some other hands. I vote "no."
Mr. DAGGY, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said: I suppose there is no Senator on the floor whose people are more directly interested in this question than mine. The road referred to runs through the entire county; the matter has been long discussed amongst my people, and I feel sure in saying that there is not one person in my county or in the adjoining county who is In favor of having the franchises of the road forfeited. The suit now pending was brought for that purpose. Believing as I do in relation to that I am opposed to the prosecution of that suit; and while I say the people are opposed to this suit, and not in favor of forfeiting the franchises of the road, they are in favor of directing a suit for the purpose of making it disgorge the school fund if any it has. Therefore I am in favor of this resolution. But suppose the suit goes on which is now pending and suppose it comes to the point where a compromise is made then it is in the hands of attorneys to make such disposition of it as they may agree upon.
But suppose, if the prosecutors are sincere, they go on and declare the franchises of the road forfeited, the next suit that must be brought is the suit to determine what amount of school fund they have if any. Suppose the whole thing will go into the hands of a receiver, the next thing will be to determine what is due the State from that road if anything is due. On one side it is claimed that there is a large amount, and on the other that there is nothing. A law suit to determine that question is inevitable under all the circumstances. And it is no more than right in behalf of the people of Indiana that there should be a direct suit against the railroad and whatever there is in the hands of that road the people of the State should know it. By that direct suit the people should know the amount of that fund so that it shall go to the school fund. I am not in favor of laying this resolution on the table, but I am in favor of the passage of this resolution; therefore I vote "no."
Mr. DITTEMORE, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said: This summary manner of cutting off discussion is unjust. An explanation of a vote does not give Senators an opportunity of saying what they would like to. I am in favor of the passage of the pending resolution for the reason that the suit already commenced in the Owen Circuit Court is simply for the purpose of dissolving the franchises of the company, and I am opposed to that for this reason if for no other: This Railroad is the only railroad controlled by Indiana men, and it is the most successful road in the State. If this suit should be successful and the franchises of the cooporation dissolved, at once the company will be drawn into the hands of a receiver and pass into the hands of some foreign corporation. The Pan Handle road is anxiously looking forward to the time when it can grasp it. That is one reason why I am opposed to ditsolving its franchises.
If the suit should be pressed to a successful termination then we are at the very same point this resolution directs us to: we have to commence an additional suit for the purpose of recovering the money due the school fund if there is any due. That suit may linger for years and the school fund may be cheated out of the money if any is due. And in my opinion there is, and it is our duty as members of the Legislature to take such steps as will warrant the State in collecting that fund from that corporation and placing it at once at the disposal of the State of Indiana. I was a member of the special railroad committee and regretted very much to have to make the report we did, but it was made at the request of the attorneys prosecuting this suit for the State in my county and the Attorney General; a thing in my opinion unwise and unfair. By the interference of attorneys some of them, in my opinion, not prosecuting in good faith, we were compelled to make the report we did. I vote ''no."
Mr. DWIGGINS, in explanation of his vote, when his name was called, said it had been a disputed question for the last eight or ten years, whether this company owed any thing to the State. It is known to every Senator that the President of the company presented a memoial to this Legislature, setting out the doings of the company; giving the amount of money they had made, the dividends they had declared, and he made a calculation by which according to his theory, the company owed the State nothing. He had taken that memorial, and the report of the company, and had spent a good deal of time over it with very able assistants, and had made a calculation, according to which this company owes the State, one million thirty-six thousand nine hundred and fourty-six dollars and seventy-two cents. But suppose we let the matter drift along as we are now doing until these proceedings in quo warranto are terminated. That will probably require ten years, and by that time the statute of limitations will have cut off the right of the State to bring suit at all. The company have asked the Legislature to bring suit against them. He believed their object was to notify the State that money was due, and that the statute would run against the State from that time. The question of the liability of the road must be de- page: 549[View Page 549] vote, when his name was called said : My information is that the people along the line of this road do not desire that its franchises shall be forfeited. I don't think the State will have the franchises of that road forfeited. As soon as they become forfeited then nothing can accrue to the school fund. I don't see that we have anything to loose by having a direct suit to recover that money. But the resolution needs amending and I propose if it is not laid on the table to offer the following amendment in order that the State may not suffer:
Provided that nothing herein contained shall in any manner eflect, impair or prejudice any right, claim or demand which now exists in behalf of the State of Indiana, against said road.
The people have heard that this railroad is indebted to the State more than a million of dollars, and they are anxious to know whether it is really true or not. If it is true that million of dollars would come in good time just as soon as we can get it. If it is not true the courts ought to say so, so the public mind may be put at rest. I am one of the committee who recently made a report recommending no action. We did it out of respect to the wishes of the Attorney General General and the prosecuting attorneys in the pending suit. But the question comes home now: shall we delay this matter and test the question whether the franchises of the road shall be forfeited or shall we order a direct suit to be brought for this money at the same time providing that nothing shall impair or affect the rights of the State of Indiana against the road ? I vote "no."
Mr. GLESSNER, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote said. I am here as a Senator representing in my humble way the people of the State of Indiana, and am not here for the purpose of representing a corporation or a class of men; and when I speak against the resolution in explanation of my vote I do it conscientiously, believing that I am right. As I stated a few moments ago, this matter was referred to a committee and that committee made a report, and after discussing that report half a day it was adopted by yeas and nays; and the question as I understood it, was settled that no further steps was to be taken on the part of the General Assembly, and this matter was to rest and be determined by the Court. This quo warranto case, brought some twelve months ago has virtually been determined in behalf of the State. The Attorney General, the ex-attorney General and the Attorneys for the State in this case requested the committee to report that no further action be taken. The Attorneys who brought this suit understand his question. This resolution is against the protest of the law officer of the State, and if he were present in the Senate now I would call upon him to answer, and say it the face of the Senate whether this resolution is not without his knowledge whatever: and whether he has not understood this question has long since settled ;and that this suit was to be prosecuted. And he is asking now that this resolution be voted down as I understand him.
What! dismiss this suit when more than twelve months has been occupied with it - so much time expended in its prosecution - and when we are ready to take a judgment against this company then dismiss it! Why dismiss it? I can tell you why. It is necessary on the part of the road, when this quo warranto was instituted this company was doing business under the original charter granted by the State but it has abandon its original charter and is now organized under a statute of the State. Now what effect would it have to dismiss the quo warranto suit ? It was brought against them before the dissolution under the special charter. Now if this suit is brought what condition does the State find itself in ? They set up that there is no such corporation - that it was dissolved long ago,and thereby defeat the action of the State to be instituted. There is the point. If this resolution is passed it is passed in the interest of the Terre Haute Railroad Company. I don't pretend to say it has been instigated by the men who control that company. I am acquainted with several of them and I say that they are gentlemen in every sense of the word ; but they are controlling a corporation and it is their duty to do their best for their company. I don't blame them for doing what is legitimate to save this money for themselves if they can do it in a fair way; but I say this resolution is in the interest of the Railroad company and against that of the State. Whenever you dismiss this quo warranto case you have got no case that will stick to recover the money that belongs to the State. Why is it that they are asking the quo warranto case to be dismissed ? It is a virtual admission that the action will be sustained, and if sustained as it must be, then there is no trouble on the part of the State in getting justice, and the children of the State will get what property belongs to them - there is no trouble in reaching the money if we stick to what we have got.
Mr. DWIGGINS (interposing.) How will you get it?
Mr. GLESSNER. If the charges are sustained set up in the quo warranto, it works a forfeit of the charter of the road and a receiver will have to be appointed to take charge of the road if it fails to pay the money found to be due. page: 550[View Page 550]Mr. DWIGGINS (interposing.) How will you find it ?
Mr. GLESSNER. By the institution of another action, as well after as before. We have a suit already instituted which has been hanging on a year, and we have got the thing settled and now by dismissing it and relying upon a civil action alone - when you rely upon a civil action alone you bring suit against a corporation that don't exist and you will not recover a dollar.
Mr. GOODING (interposing.) I would ask the Senator whether, as a lawyer, he thinks that changing the form of a corporation will relieve it from any lability whatever?
Mr. GLESSNER. Who will you sue?
A SENATOR. The Terre Haute and Indianapolis Railroad Company.
Mr. GLESSNER. There is no such thing existing, and had not this quo warranto been brought before they dissolved this organization it would not have laid.
A VOICE. Where is the law that would provide against instituting proceedings to ascertain the amount due?
Mr. GLESSNER. There will be no trouble about the amount whenever judgment is taken upon this quo warranto.
Mr. BROWN. I would ask whether the road is liable at all or not?
Mr. GLESSNER. That very question has been decided by a demurrer and a very respectable Circuit Court has held that it is liable. I vote "aye."
Mr. GREGG, in explanation of his vote, when his name was called, said: I have but a single word to justify my vote. This is a very important subject, involving a vast sum of money to the school fund, and I think no lawyer ever determines a case until he knows the facts. This question involves many legal questions. We have an opinion from the Attorney General in regard to the suit he is prosecuting in behalf of the state of Indiana - a paper to back up the vote I expect to give. I presume that gentleman is competent to give a good opinion but whether that be so or not I shall vote to sustain his position and not vote to dismiss the suit. I shall vote "aye."
Mr. HALL, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, was understood to say that he regarded this as Railroad paper, and in a suit between himself and another individual if the opposing party should come to him asking him to make payment before the suit was decided he should think he had some sort of advantage which he ought to hold on to. He took the same view of this case, and where so many legal minds differ should vote "aye."
Mr. HARNEY, in explanation of his vote, when his name was called, said: As my views are a little peculiar I prefer explaining my position. I am not in favor of the Attorney General commencing suit for the reason that I do not believe the railroad owes the State a cent. I take it from the proposition that the State never done anything more for it than for any other road. I know that is a very unpopular position, but I take it from the fact that when the charter was granted the State reserved certain rights to itself and a year or two after the whole system of granting charters was abolished and all railroads put on the same level. The question is; Where is the quid pro quo?
Mr. THOMPSON, (interposing.) Is that provision in any other charter?
Mr. HARNEY. I think the Michigan Southern. In that case there was a guarantee that no road should run within twenty miles on either side. In this case there was a provision in the eighteenth section that the State should protect it against unreasonable competition.
Mr. THOMPSON. What was the object of making that provision?
Mr. HARNEY. The Government would give a special charter and come in as a partner in the profits. The State giving the charter would participate in the profits on account of the unusual privileges granted. The State Bank had a special provision in its charter, by which the State forbid any other institution from issuing paper money. For that reason there was a provision reserving; to the State a certain per cent which added largely to the school fund. The State being directly interested in its profits it is to be presumed the State took special care not to allow competition. It was a common argument that the State would protect a charter better because the State was a party interested. Immediately after the State rejected all that and all railroads have been organized under the general law and to-day there is another road running in competition with that road, connecting the same points. The State would never have granted that charter after participating in the profits all the time - at least it is not probable it would grant a charter for a road running parellel with one it was interested in. After the dismissal of the quo warranto I am not competent to determine whether the charter would be forfeited or not, and therefore could not vote for a dismissal of it. If I thought there was any debt I would sue for the debt. They may have forfeited their charter over and over again, I know not. I believe I have reason to expect that the court will do justice to the parties and will not grant that right unless it is well determined that the railroad has forfeited its franchises. I vote "aye."
Mr. HOUGH, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said: I am page: 551[View Page 551] in a position where I don't feel free to speak of this subject. I am not advised that this resolution is introduced at the instigation of the Governor or any officer of State, on the other hand I understand it is in direct opposition to their wishes. The men whose duty it is to look after the interests of Indiana are not asking us to pass a resolution of this character, but are asking the very opposite of that. I presume the Attorney General would not come here and ask us not to do a thing which would result to the advancement of the interests of the State. Since this discussion has commenced I have consulted with him and have been advised by him that this thing ought not to be done. He has taken the pains to investigate this matter and knows whereof he speaks, and he says it is the very worst thing we can do. So far as I am advised it is not my duty to vote for it. I would like the Senator who offered this resolution to tell us whether it came from any State officer.
Mr. SMITH. I consulted with no representative of the State nor with any one else. I have waited patiently for somebody to offer something of this kind and assume the responsibility, but as no one else has seen fit I have done it.
Mr. HOUGH. No officer of State has been consulted by the gentleman. He has been careful, according to his own statement, not to consult with the Attorney General who has been charged with the prosecution of this case; - he has not consulted any man whose duty it is to look after the interests of the State; but upon his own responsibility he asks the Senate to direct these officers to withhold their hand.
Mr. DWIGGINS (interposing.) I would ask the Senator as a lawyer, whether the Attorney General can control that quo warranto proceeding?
Mr. HOUGH. I do not understand that he has primary control.
Mr. DWIGGINS. Suppose the prosecuting Attorney should propose to dismiss the suit can the Attorney General say he should not?
Mr. HOUGH. I suppose the court would not allow it.
Mr. DWIGGINS. Has the Attorney General any right from the fact of his being Attorney General, to appear for the State and control it ?
Mr. HOUGH. I do not understand it in that way, but I understand he has done that in the discharge of his duty as Attorney General. I don't presume any judge would permit the case to be dismissed by the prosecuting Attorney if the Atterney General was there as he is here protesting against this resolution to-day. If he would he ought to be impeached. I vote "aye."
Mr. SCOTT, in explanation his of vote, when his name was called, said: I hope the Senate will pardon me for explaining my vote. I am a little differently situated from anybody else in regard to this matter. I am a little more interested than anybody else in this resolution. I am a representative of Vigo county and I think I know their wishes and that would determine my vote. I know they are opposed to forfeiting the franchises of that road as I know I am opposing a proposition which looks to a forfeiture of the franchises of that road. I know these Senators sitting here as representatives of the people of this State are not discharging their duty towards the counties of this State between here and the State line when they are taking steps to bring about a forfeiture of the franchise of a great corporation worth millions and thousands upon thousands of dollars to the people of the State living between here and the State line; when the entire object can be accomplished without jeopardizing the franchises of that corporation. At one time I was selected as an Attorney to investigate the condition of that road. I prepared interrogatories and a report was made upon them but that report never saw daylight in the Senate. A committee in the other House was appointed and their report never saw daylight. We appointed a committee here and it is the first one that ever had a report which saw daylight upon that subject.
Now may it please Senators, I want to give you some information. If you will take the twenty-third section of the charter of that corporation you will find that there is a provision of law by which that company may be investigated, and how? Not by a resolution of the Senate ; not by a resolution of the House of Representatives, but by a resolution of the General Assembly. And what is that? It is not a concurrent or a joint resolution, and I say to-day that the General Assembly of Indiana has never appointed a committee to investigate the condition of that Terre Haute and Indianapolis Railroad. I say, standing in my place, with the solemnities of a Senator upon me, that no demand has ever been made upon that corporation by any persons legally authorized to ask that corporation for a dollar of money, from its foundation down to to-day, for the purposes of the school fund, or in the interest of the State. Before the State shall take away the franchises of that road it ought in common decency to send some State officer to ask for money due if there is any. Must we say that the Prosecuting Attorney of a little country town, with a couple of country lawyers have the right to demand in the name of the State millions of dollars of school money, while here are State officers page: 552[View Page 552]who should be the ones to demand it ? Two years ago we passed a law - a joint resolution - directing the State's Attorney to bring suit for every dollar of claim due from any person whatever. When the State has pointed out a way in which a thing shall be done, any other way is illegal and void. It has directed the prosecuting Attorney to bring action: he failed to do it, and yet now we propose to direct the Attorney General to bring suit. We passed a law two years ago directing him to bring suit, and now we are passing a resolution directing him in so many words to bring suit. I understand he is to-day upon this floor counselling us not to do that.
I don't know by what authority he comes in here to express an opinion to me. I have my own independent opinion upon this subject and I vote accordingly. I don't care in whose interest this resolution is brought here; the question is: Is it right? The Superintendent of Public Instruction is the legally constituted guardian of the school monies; make the suit to be brought in his name, giving him authority to demand of this corporation the money due, if it owes any? The corporation says it don't but the State says it does. We determine that kind of a question in the courts. I would like to know if we are driven to the extremity of raising a million dollars upon the execution of a prosecuting attorney in a county away from here without any authority to act. Had he the right to bring the suit? What authority had he to bring it? Who authorized him to bring it? Did the Governor authorize him? Never in the world. Did the Superintendent of Public Instruction authorize him? Never. Did the Secretary of State? Never. Who did authorize him?
Mr. HUBBARD (interposing.) I suppose that the laws of the State of Indiana authorize any prosecuting Attorney to commence suit in behalf of the State.
Mr. SCOTT. I understand that to be so if he has the proper reason. In the complaint he alleged that the demand was made and refused. I know that is false, and I speak whereof I know; he can never recover unless he shows the money was demanded by the proper person. You may prosecute the quo warranto to all eternity and you have then to bring another suit to know whether the road owes any money. Suppose it owes no money then you have destoyed the corporation because you thought it owed the State. I will say to the Senate that there are no corporations running in Indiana but what have in some particular violated the law. A Senator says it has been decided upon a demurrer that this claim is just. Because the complaint alledges that there was money due, demanded - and refused. Of course the court wouldn't decide any other way. There are other things in the complaint - that it took money from the State when carrying troops during the war. Did anybody ask the corporation for that money back?
Mr. DWIGGINS (interposing.) The company never took one dollar. The State acted as agent collected the money from the United States and paid it over to the company.
Mr. SCOTT. This is not a new matter. This is not the only corporation that has got this thing in its charter. There is another railroad that had a charter before 1852 which has the same provision in its charter that this railroad has. It is not a new thing. Must there be an action of quo warranto in every case? What did the Senator from St. Joseph [Mr. Hubbard] do? He has a railroad running through his district in whose charter there is the same provision. Did he bring an action of quo warranto? By no means. He introduced a joint resolution calling upon that Railroad for an account just as we ought to do in this case to-day if acting as sensible men. If they fail to make that amount a quo warranto is the remedy. If they make an account and deny they owe anything, a suit at law is the proper remedy. Suppose the prosecuting Attorney of Putman county was ready to restore that money how much will we pay him for his services? Are you willing to leave the interests of Indiana for a million of dollars in the hands of an irresponsible man. I say I am not willing to do it.
Mr. SLALER (interposing.) I will ask if the Attorney General is a responsible party?
Mr. SCOTT. The Attorney General has no more authority over that suit than I in law. An Attorney in court having his name to a complaint has the right to control it and its the duty of the court to say he has the right to control it if he brought it properly. The Senator seems to think there is some danger because this corporation was organized under the law of 1852.
Mr. SLATER The reason I think there is some danger is because the officers of the railroad urge this, and the Attorney General the agent of the school fnnd urge that we don't do it.
Mr. SCOTT. I would like to know whether the Attorney General is a member of this Senate.
Mr. SLATER. He has sent a written opinion here.
Mr. SCOTT. And we have the written opinion of as good as he saying this corporation don't owe a dollar to the school fund The point made by a Senator over the way is that this corporation was reorganized un- page: 553[View Page 553] der the law of 1852, and is therefore discharged. I would like to know if a man can be discharged from a debt by changing his name or residence? I never heard of such a thing, and it is very singular if that corporation is discharged from the payment of the debt, that it would come in and ask this Senate to pass a resolution to bring suit in their other name.
Mr. GLESSNER. Taking it for granted that the Terre Haute Company under the old corporation is disolved and there is no old corporation, who would the State sue?
Mr. SCOTT, Do just exactly as an individual does. When a man dies his property don't die - his property is living.
Mr. GLESSNER. Who do you sue?
Mr. SCOTT. Either sue the individual or the property. You would sue the present corporation. Why here is the present corporation asking for this suit to be brought, wouldn't it be very singular if it should turn round and say "I aint liable?". A quo warranto has nothing to do with the amount owing to the State. Your quo warranto don't do any good because you have to recover the money due the State by a suit at law and the action will date from the filing of the complaint on that subject because that is a civil proceeding. I vote "no."
Mr. SLATER, in explanation of his vote, when his name wsa called, said: There is only one question that controls my vote. Agents of this named corporation are here demanding that this resolution be put through while the Attorney General, in the interest of the school fund is demanding that we let this suit go on that is now being prosecuted. I therefore vote "aye."
Mr. SMITH, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said: I will say to the Senator from Vanderburgh [Mr. Gooding] that I am willing to accept his amendment. I vote "aye."
Mr. STEELE, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said: I don't think that we are setting as a court to determine whether this suit should be dismissed or not. I don't think that is our business. This suit has been brought and whether by the proper or improper person is not for us to determine, but by the terms of this resolution we are asked not only to require suit to be brought directly against this company, but we are asked to dismiss another action which has been brought by somebody else: it is said by a person wholly irresponsible; that is, a persen unauthorized to bring that suit for the State. If that is true we have no more right to order that suit dismissed than any other suit.
Mr. SCOTT, (interposing.) Let me explain. This State is liable for the costs of that suit whether she recovers or not. I know what I am talking about.
Mr. STEELE, Thus far that suit has been in favor of the State - in favor of this claim, and for the State. Then if the gentleman's [Mr. Scott] allegation is true, the State binds herself for the costs. I have full confidence in the officers we have appointed. I know of nothing they have done to forfeit the esteem of the Legislature and the country, and until something of that kind occurs I am willing to regard them as gentlemen, therefore I would not be willing to interfere with this matter. As far as this quo warranto is concerned it is true, it does not determine the amount due the State but if they forfeit their franchises that places them in much the same situation a bankrupt would be placed in, and when you place them in bankruptcy there will be a commissioner appointed and whatever the railroad has will be placed in the hands of a receiver to hold until the other question can be determined. Is there anything wrong in that? If this corporation owes the State anything it is wrong for a receiver to be appointed in order to hold what it has until such time as the claim is made good.
Mr. SCOTT (interposing.) Don't that stop the running of the road ?
Mr. STEELE. I don't think it does, and I care not as far as that matter is concerned. When a corporation has not done what it agreed to their franchises ought to be forfeited. I vote "aye."
Mr. THOMPSON, when his name was called; in explanation of his vote, said: Indianapolis is very much attached to her railroads, and very much attached to this railroad. I believe it is about the third road that was made in the State. I remember very well when it was made, and the terrible sacrifice that was gone through with by the men now running this road. Indiana has paid a great amount of money for making her railroads, and now we are called upon because some person charges this road with owing the school fund one million of dollars, to make this company forfeit its franchises. We have no assurance before this Senate that this road owes us one doller. I have great confidence in the judgment of the Senator from Montgomery [Mr. Harney] and he declares he does not believe this company owes one dollar. And I have great confidence in the Senator - I don't remember his name - from Jasper [Mr. Dwiggins] and he believes it does owe the State something. It is unreasonable to ask Senators to vote to disable the only road in the State that ever did succeed, when we don't know whether the company owes us one cent or not. I never traveled over that road without paying for it - they never sent me a page: 554[View Page 554] corruption fund - this season they gave me no ticket - and under no circumstances would I give that company trouble when we don't know whether the company owes us a cent, or not. I vote "no,"
Mr. RINGO, requesting his name to be called again, said : After hearing the arguments of lawyers on both sides, and not wishing to lay a single obstacle in the way of this road I will change my vote. I vote "no."
When the roll call was completed -
The vote was announced as above recorded.
So the joint resolution was laid on the table.
And then the Senate adjourned till to-morrowing morning.
