THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
FOURTEENTH VOLUME.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
The Hunting Bill,---Etc.---The Drainage BillDebate in Continuation.
IN SENATE.
TUESDAY, March 4, 1873.[CONTINUED FROM PAGE 231.]
On motion by Mr. RHODES, the bill [H. R. 8] to prohibit hunting on enclosed grounds, the special order for 10:30 was now taken up.
Mr. DAGGY moved that the bill be read the third time and put on its passage, and on that motion he demanded the previous question, which was seconded by the Senate.
Mr. TAYLOR desired to present two petitions from citizens of Tippecanoe county - one containing nearly one hundred signatures in favor of this bill, and the other about one thousand remonstrating against its passage.
Objection being made -
The motion [Mr. Daggy's] was agreed to - the bill was read the third time and passed by the following vote:
YEAS - Messrs. Besrdsley, Beeson, Bird, Boone, Bowman, Brown, Chapman, Collett, Daggy, Dittemore, Friedley of Scott, Glessner, Haworth, Hough, Hubbard, Neff, Orr, Rhodes, Ringo, Sarnighausen, Scott, Sleeth, Stroud, Taylor, Wadge and Williams - 26.
NAYS - Messrs. Armstrong, Bunyan, Carnahan, Cave, Daugherty, Dwiggins, Fuller, Francisco, Friedley of Lawrence, Gooding, Hall, Harney, Howard, Miller, Oliver, Slater, Smith, Steel , Thompson and Winterbotham - 20
Pending the roll call -
Mr. FRIEDLEY, of Lawrence, by way of explanation of his vote, when his name was called said: This was a bill in the interest of rich men. There are men who have acquired large tracts of land, and who, when they go home, feel as if they were monarchs of all they surveyed"lords of creation." in short. They have determined that if any of their fellow men have not been fortunate enough to acquire as large landed estates as they have, they shall not have the priviege of hunting upon their lands. They have an imaginary line running around their broad acres, and they say to their poor neighbor who has been unfortunate, when one of them dares to cross that, line, that he is a trespasser, and guilty of a misdemeanor. If any man dares to shoot a quail upon their sacred soil, they claim the right to prosecute him. They claim the right to go into the courte I and consume the time of the court with such little, frivolous business as that. They claim the right to have the people to pay a tax in order that they may prosecute men for little violations of finch a law as that. Every one shall pay a tribute to the large landholders. No man has a right in this country unless he owns a large amount of land, and that man's rights are paramount; they are to be regarded, and the rights of others are to be utterly disregarded. Now, sir, it was apparent to the friends of this bill that it would not bear investigation. Therefore they resorted to the gag rule in order to pass it throught this Senate. They resorted to another expedient. They said to a large number of the inhabitants of the State page: 556[View Page 556] of Indiana that they should not even be heard by petition. A right that is guaranteed to them by the constitution is witheld from them by this Senate this morning. Here is the Senator from Tippecanoe county with a petition signed by one thousand repestable citizens of his county who ask to be heard before this General Assemby ask to have their remonstrance read before this Senate, and they are not permitted to have it read. This bill is wrong and I apprehend that there is not a single Senator upon this floor who, if when he came here, had avowed his purpose to support a bill of this kind, would have reached his seat in this Senate Chamber; and I say to those who vote for it, that not half a dozen of them can ever come back, and they ought not to come back here.
This bill is simply a bill in the interest of the rich and for the purpose of oppressing the poor. Take any of our large cities. There are young men there, and young men must have recreation of some kind. I maintain that it is better for these young men to be allowed to go out and engage in some kind of inanly recreation upon the broad acres, even of these rich men, than to drag them into the saloons and other places of vice for recreation. I believe that this bill is wrong. I am sorry it could not be discussed here. I am sorry to tresspass upon the time of the Senate in discussing this measure but I warn Senators that they will hear from the people if they pass this measure. I vote "no."
Mr. GLESSNER, in explanation of his vote when his name was called said: This bill has been before the Senate about ninety days, and it has been fully and fairly discussed on several occasions. Every Senator has had an opportunity of expressing his opinion as to the merits of the bill time and again, and yet gentlemen came in to-day after this bill has been before the General Assembly all winter and claim that they shall be heard with a remonstrance when the bill is on its third reading. This is a bill the agricultural people of the State have been demanding for years; it was discussed here two years ago and I hope it will be now passed. I vote "aye."
Mr. ORR in explanation of his vote, when his name was called, said: I consider that I have no right to enter any man's enclosure and hunt with my dog and gun without his consent. The dog and the firing of guns scare cattle, and when a coon is found the hunter don't care what kind of a tree he cuts down so he gets the coon. This is the first bill gotten up here for the protection of the farming community, and although it has been made light of I shall vote "aye."
Mr. TAYLOR, when his name was called said: When this bill was about to be read I offered a petition and also a remonstrance and they were refused a hearing. I am not in the habit of explaining my vote but I will take this occasion to do so now, in view of the great discourtesy practiced by certain Senators towards my petitions. I regard it as the right of citizens of Indiana to be heard lere by petition or remonstrance and the Senate has no right to refuse to hear a petition from any citizen of the State. I take this occasion to remonstrate, and shall always do so whenever a citizen of the State of Indiana presents a petition or remons-strance here and it is treated in the same manner there have been by certain gentleman, I do not know whether they are friends or apponents of the bill. I have been in favor of this bill and am now, but I will take the occasion now to present the petition of sixty or seventy citizens of Indiana in favor of the bill and also a remonstrance signed by over one thousand in opposition to the passage of the bill and ask that they may go on the minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER [Mr. Hubbard in the Chair.] At the present time they cannot be received. How does the Sen-tor vote ?
Mr. TAYLOR. I vote "aye."
Mr. THOMPSON, in explanation of his vote, when his name was called, said: No farmer has ever approached me on this subject, and there never has been a request made to me to have such a law as this passed. The idea that a man shall take a shot gun and on going over another man's farm be fined for it. I hope never to see the day I cannot walk over unimproved grounds and use my gun. Another objection to this bill is that if it were enacted into a law it would create a great deal of litigation. If the farmers horses and cattle can stand the tooting of a railroad engine I think they can stand a little report from a shot gun now and then. I vote "no."
Mr. WINTERBOTHAM, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said: Four hundred of my constituents have remonstrated against the passage of this bill. The country is full of large land holders-men in Chicago own large lots of land in my district, and are they to be allowed to dictate to men who live in the neighborhood where they shall hunt ? We have had legislation it seems to me which has be restricting the rights of the people. Are they incapable of taking care of themselves ? I am tired of this kind of legislation; and I think this thing of restricting the rights of the people without being instructed by them to do so, is stepping beyond the latitude of legislation. I am opposed to this bill on principle. I think the principle embodied in it is all page: 557[View Page 557] wrong. I am opposed to laws that restrict the rights of the people. I vote "no."
Mr. SLATER, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said : This bill proposes to place the execution of the criminal law in the hands of the wealthy land owner to the exclusion of all others : and for that principle I will not vote. I vote "no."
Mr. STEELE, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote said. Personally I am not caring a great deal how this goes. I have had my day hunting; but I shall vote against this bill simply because I think it inoperative in the way it is drawn. And I am opposed to it in principle. I think it operates against a certain class, where there are prosecutions gotten up for the purpose of harrasing rather than doing the public good. I vote "no."
When the roll call was completed -
The vote was announced as above recorded.
So the hunting-on-enclosed-lands bill [H. R. 8] was finally passed.
DEFENDANTS TO TESTIFY IN CRIMINAL CASES.
Mr. HOUGH moved to suspend the order of business to take his bill S. 34, to give defendants the right to testify in their own behalf in criminal cases; that it may be read the third time and put it on its passage.
Several efforts were made to amend the motion - see pp. 231 and 232 - but they were all voted down, and Mr. Hough's motion prevailed, so the bill was read the third time.
Mr. BROWN opposed the passage of the bill, believing that it would be an act of mercy to the defendant to defeat it. If he refuses to testify the jury will say that by his silence he confesses his guilt. If he testifies, they will say that if he was mean enough to commit the felony, he will be mean enough to commit perjury to clear himself. He believed that in cases of misdemeanor it would work injustice to the State, and in cases of felony it would work injustice to the defendant.
Mr. HOUGH. I think the intelligent spirit of the age will sustain a law of this kind. It is in operation in Ohio and I have heard no complaint of it. I believe it is in operation in the State of New York. I do not believe it will have a tendency to convict any innocent man. There are many times when members of the Senate as well as other persons might be surrounded by circumstances pointing to guilt, when if he could explain the circumstances as perhaps no other person could, his innocence would foe made plain. It is in just such cases as that this law should be enacted to meet. We ought not to enact a law for the purposes of enabling parties to escape justice. If this law would have a tendency to convict men who are guilty we ought to enact it; and if it will have a tendency to enable parties innocent to establish that innocence, we ought to enact it. If they are able to come into court and explain to the jury trying the case and by their evidence rebut these suspicious circumstances they ought to have the privilege of doing it. I cannot see any evils that will result from such a law. I do hope the Senate will come up and support this bill. The House of Representatives has already passed a bill containing the same provisions in substance as are in this bill. Every principle of justice demands the passage of this bill. By a bill recently passed, the State is given the opening and close in criminal cases, and surely the defendant ought to have this additional privilege in his defense.
The bill was passed by the following vote:
YEAS - Messrs. Armstrong, Beadsley, Beeson, Bird, Bowman, Chapman, Francisco, Friedley of Scott, Friedley of Lawrence, Glessner, Gregg, Hall, Harney, Haworth, Hough, Howard, Hubbard, Miller, Neff, Oliver, Rhodes, Ringo, Scott, Slater, Stroud, and Winterbotham - 26.
NAYS - Messrs Boone, Brown, Bunyan, Carnahan, Cave, Collett, Daggy, Daugherty, Dittemore, Dwiggins, Fuller, Gooding, Orr, Sarnighausen, Sleeth, Smith, Steele, Thompson, and Williams - 19.
On motion of Mr. FRIEDLEY, of Lawrence, ths order of business was suspended and the bill [H. R. 138] to provide that when a city or incorporated town shall have become in debt for the purchase of ground or buildings, or the erection of buildings, for school purposes the Trustees shall have power to issue bonds to an amount not exceeding fifty thousand dollars, was taken up and passed by yeas 37, nays 8.
On motion of Mr. COLLETT, the bill [S. 273] to provide that where railroads have been constructed in or through a county or towhship, on the faith of an appropriation voted by the people of the county or township, or the company has expended in the construction of its road a sum equal to such appropriation, the collection of the tax shall not be prevented from any defect or omission in the proceedings under which the vote was taken, was taken up.
Mr. BROWN moved to commit the bill to a special committee of three, with instructions to so amend it as to provide that when the entire line of road has been actually completed, any defect, omission, etc., shall not prevent the collection of the tax, and report this afternoon at two o'clock.
The motion was agreed to, and the Chair appointed Messrs. Brown, Carnahan and Daugherty said Committee.
On motion of Mr. CHAPMAN, his drainage act bill [S. 88] was taken up and the House amendments thereto were read.
page: 558[View Page 558]Mr. DWIGGINS opposed concurrence in the amendment proposing a new section legalizing all acts of draining companies whose work is sixteen miles in length, or under. He believed it would fasten upon the people of the Kankakee Valley all the evils from which they are struggling to free themselves; that it would make the Kankakee Draining Company a thousand fold more oppressive; that it would legalize all its illegal acts and the assessments the people are now fighting against, amounting to some four million eight hundred thousand dollars. Why legalize illegal corporations? Why strike down the defense of this people in the Kankakee valley ?
Mr. CHAPMAN. This amendment was put on in the House of Representatives, I understand by parties opposed to this Kankakee drainage law. It seems to me the intention of this amendment offered at this late day is to defeat this bill.
Mr. DWIGGINS (interposing.) I have no such intention. I will do the best I can to get the House of Representatives to recede from ite amendment.
Mr. CHAPMAN. There is one amendment made by the House I should oppose myself, if it were not so late in the session, and that is the amendment requiring a majority of those interested in the drainage to favor the ditching, instead of one-third. I think to require a majority will make it impracticable, but conclude it better to adopt the amendments of the House of Representatives than to take the chances of sending the bill back there. I have no interest particularly in that second section, but I don't think it bears the construction the Senator from Jasper [Mr. Dwiggins] attempts to put on it. I think that amendment meets the case of some Senators who made objection to the bill as originally drafted. I think the bill was sufficiently guarded as it originally pasaed by the Senate but I think it is the defect of the bill if these House amendments are not now concurred in by the Senate. We might as well say we will have ne drainage law upon the statute books. Therefore I hope the Senate will concur in the amendments as they were passed by the House of Representatives.
Mr. BOONE. For the purpose of enabling citizens of the counties I represent to organize drainage companies I am willing to concur in these amendments. I am quite sure the construction given by the gentleman from the north [Mr. Dwiggins] is not correct - it is not intended, nor can it by any possibility, apply to that Kankakee Company. I cannot see that it will injure or effect the Kankakee Drainage Company at all. I think there is nothing wrong in the amendment, and I do not think there is the danger in the language that the gentleman attributes to it; in fact if I understand the language at all, I know it cannot be so and is not intended to be so. These amendments ought to be adopted for the purpose of allowing companies that have failed to complete their work to form them articles of association and carry out what they intended to.
The Senate then adjourned till two o'clock P. M.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The Senate met pursuant to adjournment.
Mr. ORR obtained leave to record his vote in the affirmative on the passage of House bill No. 55 and 87.
ASYLUM FOR FEMALE INSANE.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR announced the special order for two o'clock, viz: Mr. Beardsley's bill [S. 318] to make further provision for the care of the insane and istablish a female department, was taken up. It creates a board to superintend the erection and equiptment of a new hospital on the grounds occupied by the present asylum, for the care and treatment of females; the Superintendent of the present asylum to have the superintendency of both departments. It also appropriates five hundred thousand dollars for the new building, of which not more than one hundred and fifty thousand dollars shall be drawn during the year ending March 1, 1874. - See page 232.
The bill was read the third time and passed unanimously - yeas 41, nays 0.
TERRE HAUTE RAILROAD AND THE SCHOOL FUND.
Mr. GREGG called up his joint resolution [S. 16] to authorize the Attorney General to take charge of and dispose of all suits against railroad companies, or other corporations brought in the name of the State, with the assent of the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Secretary, Auditor, and Treasurer of State.
Mr. STEELE moved to amend by striking out the four officers last named.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. FULLER moved to lay on the table Mr. Brown's motion to refer the reading to the Committee on the Judiciary, which was pending when the Senate adjourned yesterday.
This motion was also agreed to.
Mr. SMITH moved to amend by striking out all that part which authorizes the compromise of any debt.
Mr. WILLIAMS moved to lay the amendment on the table.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. DWIGGINS doubted that the au- page: 559[View Page 559] thority sought to be conferred could be granted by a joint rusolution. A bill is now pending which does confer on the Attorney General exactly the power contemplated in the resolution. He the safest and best plan would be to take up that bill and pass it. This would leave no question to be contended for in the courts.
The resolution was adopted by the following vote:
YEAS - Messrs. Armstrong, Beeson, Beggs, Bird, Boone, Bowman, Bunyan, Carnahan, Cave, Daggy, Daugherty, Ditternore, Fuller, Friedley of Scott, Glessner, Gooding, Gregg, Harney, Haworth, Hough, Miller, Neff, Orr, Rhodes, Ringo, Sarnighausen, Slater, Smith, Steele, Stroud, Taylor, Thompson, Williams and Winterbotham. - 34.
NAYS - Messrs. Brown, Chapman, Dwiggins, Francisco, Friedley of Lawrence, Hall, and Scott - 7.
On motion of Mr. HARNEY, his bill [S. 300] to authorize County Commissioners to make allowances of money in certain cases to organized draining companies, was taken up, the rules were suspended and the bill was passed by yeas 45, nays 0.
Mr. HARNEY explained that this bill was intended particularly for the relief of several gentleman in his [Montgomery] county who have tied up all their means in drainage improvments.
On motion of Mr. GOODING his bill [S. 250:] To provide for the conduct of the office of Secretary of State, divide it into tour departments, and authorize the employment of additional assistants, was taken up.
Mr. FRIEDLEY of Lawrence opposed the passage of this bill on the ground that it may be the foundation for a big claim to be brought in by the Secretary of State after a while; and it also provides salaries for a great number of clerks - a number unnecessary at least. He did not know what kind of a claim may hereafter be brought in against the State if this bill be passed and prefered to let the law in referrence to the Secretary of State's office stand as it is.
The bill passed by yeas 26, nays 22.
Mr. BROWN from the select Committee appointed just before the recess for dinner, to which was referred Mr. Collett's bill [S. 273] to provide that the collection of county or township railroad aid tax, shall not be prevented by any defect or omission in the proceedings under which the vote was taken returned the same with an amendment as directed by the Senate so that the bill shall apply only to railroads completed.
The report was concurred in.
Mr. CARNAHAM the more he explains this bill the more he is opposed to it, being satisfied there is something wrong in it There is too much legalizing the informalities of railroad companies. He believed the bill to be wrong. There is no notice required by any provision in it.
Mr. RHODES thought the amendment leaves the bill in a no less objectionable shape. This proposed law goes a step beyond anything we have ever had. It proposes to legalize every thing looking to a donation to railroads. I don't admit the proposition that a majority have the right to impose a railroad tax - cut loose from the formalities of law and then come before this legislature and ask that their irregular conduct shall be recognized and made binding and valid. That is precisely what is proposed in this bill. There are pending numerous cases in litigation growing out of this veey system. The proceedings are claimed to be illegal in many counties and townships. The minority who have been voted down claim that they have the right to be heard and that the majority shall conform their action to law. This bill strikes down that right. It is doing very little that we should require the majority to conform strictly to law. It is bad and vicious legislation for us to say that we will strike down the wishes of these men. I shall vote against the bill. I think it ought to be defeated for it is based upon a wrong and vicious principle.
Mr. WILLIAMS. While I might be opposed to anything of this kind at the time the law was passed, yet I am not one who is willing to come in here and say that after an appropriation has been voted and men have engaged in the work in good faith on their part and have gone as far as they can we shall step in and defeat the contract made between them and the citizens of any county; townships or city. I am willing to change this law so it shall not effect contracts hereafter made. There are cases I understand where under this bill, you could not collect the money voted, though they have completed the work along the whole line of the road, from the fact that you say the whole amount of the money voted shall be expended in the township where it is voted.
Mr. BROWN held that the bill was carefully guarded, that its provisions could not apply except in cases where a railroad had been actually completed relying on appropriation voted, and where the election had been fairly conducted and without fraud. He said where a railroad had been built under these circumstances, and the people were in the enjoyment of its advantages, they ought not to be permitted to escape the payment of the tax on a mere technicality.
Mr. HUBBARD. I am opposed to this bill, and I think I know what its provisions are. It is the most sweeping thing of its character I have ever seen. He believed this bill was introduced for the purpose of page: 560[View Page 560] assisting a little road in Vigo county which passes through the corner of several townships and has not the length of track in each on which to expend the money voted etc. He contended that it was a most dangerous measure - one which would enable railroad companies to collect taxes voted at an election whereof no notice had been given, and at which but a small portion of the tax-payers may have voted.
Mr. SLEETH. To the second section I have serious objection. I submit to the Senate that is not right or just. As far as the third section the better way to reach the same end would be to repeal entirely the act passed at the present session amending the act of 1869. I submit to the Senate it is much easier for the railroad company to procure money under this bill and much more severe upon the county, or township than the act of 1869, It seems to me as the Senator from Warren [Mr. Rhodes] said there is entirely too much legalizing here.
Mr. STEELE. I think this bill ought not to pass if we were in earnest in passing the act of January last, for I think it virtu-tually repealing that law. And for the purpose of bringing this idea more directly before the Senate I read the provisions of the act referred to and compared them with the bill under consideration. This thing of voting a tax by the majority is considered questionable ; and they should be held to a strict construction of the law. I think we have a good law now in the one of January 1873.
Mr. DWIGGINS said the bill was drawn so as to apply to roads that are less than twenty-four miles long. He said they had been unable to find but one road in the State which did not exceed twenty-four miles in length, and that was the road whose case this bill was intended to meet. He believed that it could not apply to any other road, and that the danger which Senators apprehended from it was entirely imaginary.
Mr. SCOTT. When this proposition was up before, the Senate will remember I opposed it. I did so upon a very simple ground and I think a just one. I was opposed to it because that proposition did not relieve two railroads instead of one. When the original bill was introduced I opposed it with all my might. I thought I had good reason for opposing it. I think so still, and because the bill was wrong there could be no provision in this bill too stringent for me provided it didn't go beyond the original law. The ground that I took with regard to the original law I think applies to this somewhat. I say the collection of the taxes which the law authorizes to be put upon the duplicate is a matter of contract between the railroad companies and the city, township or county -it is part of the contract, and the essence of the contract, and it was a portion of that contract which I say this Senate has no right to interfere with and why? I will read the reasons that governed me when I cast my vote against the other law, if I can find them. [Mr. S. reads from the Constitution of Indiana.] "No ex-part facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contract shall ever be passed." I would like to know if the time the money was to be collected was not the essence of the contract between the companies and the cities, towns and counties. I say it was, and the law extending that time in violation of the wishes of the people was a violation of the Constitution upon that point. Now after the law has been found to operate harshly, I say I am not very particular as to the amount for myself, because I believe the whole thing to be void.
Mr. SLATER demanded the previous question, and there being a second, the bill was passed the Senate by yeas 28, nays 19.
Mr. ROSEBRUGH explaining as follows; I voted against the bill last evening but having listened to this discussion I am inclined now to support it. I am not ordinarily in favor of the system of taxation of which this is a type; but now that taxation has been entered into as a system in this State and sustained by the courts; and while it is true that railroads are bound to follow a strict construction of the law, where there is no fraud and where everything has been done fairly. I think it equitable for the Legislature to relieve them from any technical difficulty where they have gone on to perfect the work and complete it. I voted against the bill yesterday because it didn't provide for the completion of the work, but understanding from the argument - I have not had time to read the bill - that it simply compels parties to enjoin before the completion of the work and prevents them enjoining after the completion which I consider just and proper. I support the bill. I vote "aye."
When the roll call was finished. -
The result was announced - yeas 28, nays 19.
So the bill passed.
THE DRAINAGE LAW.
On motion of Mr. CHAPMAN the Senate resumed the consideration of the amendments of the House of Representatives to his bill [S. 88,] the drainage bill.
Mr. DWIGGINS said that since the adjournment at noon, he had consulted several able lawyers respecting the section proposed by the House, and to which he had objected, and they gave it as their opinion that under that section the Kankakee Draining Company could organize a new company for each page: 561[View Page 561] sixteen miles of their line and that then all the assessments, amounting to four million eight hundred thousand dollars would be legalized. He hoped the amendment would not be concurred in, and that the people of that valley would not be mulcted in this enormous and ruinous sum.
Mr. STEELE. I am sorry to see my vigorous young friend from the Kankakee valley [Mr. Dwiggins] on his old theme again. I have the word of gentlemen that they will not vote for the bill without these amendments. We passed a law the gentleman desired at the commencement of this lession with the understanding that this Chapman bill would be put through ; and I am proud to say there are Senators on this floor standing by their agreement. The objection raised by the gentleman from Kankakee is this: that if this bill passes the Kankakee Valley Company may organize under the sexteenth mile clause. The argument goes to this: we are to have no drainage law. If they can organize under the sixteen mile clause, may they not do it under the act requiring a single mile? The same obejction urged against the sixteen miles may be urged against any
Mr. BEARDSLEY moved the previous question, which was seconded by the Senate.The first amendment striking out "one-half," and inserting "a majority," in lieu was concurred in.
The second amendment - see page 232 - was not concurred in - yeas 16, nays 29.
Pending the roll call -
Mr. BOONE, in explanation of his vote, when his name was called, said: I would rather concur in this amendment than have no law upon this subject.
Mr. CHAPMAN, in explanation of his vote when his name was called said: I have no objection to having this section stricken out. I was in favor of having one-third, as the original bill contemplated to petition for the draining, but rather than miss having a law upon the subject I prefer taking the bill with a majority. I understand this provision was introduced in the House by a friend of a drainage law. I do not think that the construction put upon it by the Senator from Jasper [Mr. Dwiggins] can be correct. Rather than have no law upon the subject I prefer voting in favor of the House amendments, and will therefore vote "aye."
When the roll call was completed -
The vote was announced as above recorded.
So the Senate refused to concur in this amendment made by the House of Representatives.
Mr. CHAPMAN then moved to reconsider the vote by which the first amendment was concurred in.
Mr. WADGE. I hope this motion will not prevail for it does seem to me that the action of the House in that respect was eminently wise. I believe it proper to leave this matter in the hands of a majority of the property holders.
Mr. ROSEBRUGH. It seems to me the House hadn't ought to recede from that amendment. All this turmoil and trouble, and the beseighing of courts and legislation on laws which allows of this system of taxation comes from the fact that the will of the majority is not carried out. Whenever you depart from it you will find the majority opposing the law passed.
Mr. BOONE. As far as I am concerned, I don't care anything about this amendment. I am willing to take anything in the shape of a drainage law. It is a matter of life and death with us. Men who live in districts well drained by nature cannot comprehend the situation and they ought to consider the rights of the people who live in districts required to be drained. When drainage is well done it reclaims the finest soil in the world. It is developing the resources of the State faster than any other law on the statute books. I think it unimportant whether these amendments are reconsidered or not.
Mr. WADGE. The House of Representatives have sent this bill back with an amendment which neutralizes all we have done in the repealing act. We are willing to vote for the bill but the amendment is obnoxious. If that is removed I pledge myself to vote for it. I don't think Senators are doing us justice when they intimate that we are acting in bad faith. The amendment we believe unsafe for the people, and will result in the reorganization of the Kankakee Valley Draining Company.
Mr. STEELE. I hope gentlemen will allow this bill to pass as it went from the Senate. Unless they had promised some new ditching law I doubt whether they would have got a repeal of the law of 1869.
Mr. HUBBARD. In accordance witte my pledge, I am anxious that this bill shall become a law in the shape in which it left the Senate.
The motion to reconsider was rejected by yeas 13, nays 29.
Pending the roll call -
Mr. DWIGGINS, in explanation of his vote,when his name was called, said: I desire to keep my pledge, and I have been informed since the discussion has been going on that the House of Representatives will probably not recene from this one amendment, and as I desire that this bill shall become a law I therefore vote "no."
So the motion to reconsider was rejected.
