THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
FOURTEENTH VOLUME.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
Prison Reform---Mines and Mining---Judges Salaries.---Debate in Continuation.
IN SENATE.
FRIDAY, March 7, 1873.THE REVENUE BILL
Mr. CHAPMAN moved to reconsider the vote by which the House Revenue Bill was passed to a third reading yesterday.- yeas 25, nays 16.
Mr. CHAPMAN then moved to amend the bill by striking out fifteen cents and inserting ten by the following vote.
YEAS - Messrs. Beeson, Bird, Bunyan, Carnahan, Cave,Chapman, Collett, Daggy, Dwiggins, Francisco, Glessner, Gooding, Gregg, Hall, Haworth, Hough, Howard, Hubbard, Miller, Neff, Orr, Ringo, Scott, Wadge and Winterbotham - 25.
NAYS - Messrs Armstrong, Beadsley, Boone, Bowman, Brown, Dittemore, Fuller, Friedley of Lawrence, Sarnighausen, Slater, Steele, Stroud, Taylor, Thompson, and Williams - 15.
The bill was then passed - yeas 31, nays 11.
THE STATE PRISONS.
Mr. WADGE introduced a joint resolution [S. 20] directing the Wardens of the State Prisons to set apart the fund known as the Visitor's Fund for the purpose of replenishing the libraries of the prisons, not to publish the names of the convicts hearafter, to discontinue the use of the whip or cat as a method of punishment, substituting therefor such other punishment as will conduce to the good discipline of the prisoner; to see that the prisoners are provided with a suit of clean clothing every Saturday afternoon and facilities for bathing once a week; to see that no convict, under any contract, shall be worked more than twelve hours in any one day, and no convict is overworked, and to see that the Chaplain reside in the immediate vicinity of the prisons and devote their entire time to the moral and religous training of the convicts The Governor shall appoint one person from each Congressional District selecting from both political parties, to constitute a Commission on Prison Reform to report to the next General Assembly but the Commissioners shall receive no compensation for their services.
Mr. HALL moved to amend the resolution by strikiug out the words "known as Visitor's Fund," and inserting "all moneys received from visitors. Also by adding after the words "whip or cat" the words "or any substitute therefor."
Mr. WADGE accepted the amendments.
Mr. DITTEMORE thought the latter part of the resolution relating to the management of the Prisons was out of order and should be left to the directors. As to the abolishment of the cat he thought it would be unfair and unjust to the State and to contracting parties.
Mr. ORR believed that instead of beating the bad out of a man with the cat you beat the bad in.
Mr. WINTERBOTHAM had been a contrrctor for years and knows that showering bucking and gaging etc., disables and incapacitates the convict from work for days. It is better to leave these things to directors.
page: 567[View Page 567]Mr. HALL, too, has been a contractor and had witnessed whippings until there was not a particle of manhood left in the convict. The man that lays hand on another with the whip brutalizes himself and the convict. The reason contractors oppose abolishing the whip is because the other means usually resorted to incapacitates the sufferer from work for several days. He asked Senators to accept and profit by the experience of Ohio where this thing was abolished ten years ago, and of Pennsylvania where it was abolished fifteen years since, and those States have never gone back to this unhuman, brutalizing thing of butchering men alive. He besought Senators to listen to the cry of mercy especially when it is so well known and so ferquently demonstrated that convicts can be governed better in other ways than by butchering.
On motion of Mr. SLATER, the resolution and amendment was referred to the Committee on Judiciary, with instructions to report to-morrow morning at 9:30.
MINES AND MINING.
Mr. BEESON from a majority of the Committee on Mines and Mining, returned Senate bill No. 205, regulating coal mines, etc.; and recommended that all after the enacting clause be struck out and new matter inserted, authorizing the Governor to appoint an inspector and assistant inspector of Mines, with salaries of two thousand dollars and one thousand dollars, respectively, to hold office for two years.
Mr. FRIEDLEY, of Lawrence, presented a minority report, recommending that Senate bill No. 205 be laid on the table, and House bill No. 230 be passed. [The latter is a copy of the New York and Ohio law on the subject.]
Mr. RINGO. The majority report is not exactly as I would like to have it; but the bill presented in the Senate is perhaps as just as any bill that will be presented at any time. That bill provides that the mine inspector shall be the State Geologist, who is a man not likely to be influenced by either party. The bill that passed the House of Representatives if it becomes a law; virtually shuts up the mining business in the State of Indiana. The miners now pretty nigh control the whole mining interest of our country - our operators having nothing to do but bring up the books and settle with the men; they even fix the price;they control the whole matter now. This is a subject of two much importance to be recklessly passed over. If we place this thing in the hands of the miners we virtually shut up the coal mining interests of the State. The mining interest and the manufacturing interests are growing in the State of Indiana, and we don't want to do anything to cripple it. I do hope the majority report will be concurred in although it is not exactly as I would like to have it.
Mr. BEESON. The Senate bill makes provision in regard to what is called strikes; and I am satisfied from observation and inquiry that unless the Legislature takes some steps to avoid that difficulty the mining interests of the State of Indiana will be put beyond the reach of law. The House bill makes no provision for that. It is what is called "the miners bill." As far as the two bills is concerned relative to labor, etc. they are about identical; but the Senate bill contains a provision about strikes which I think is a wise and just one, for I have been creditably informed that in these mining districts a man cannot be employed unless he belongs to a miners union. For instance, when a man is hired unless he belongs to a union he is not allowed to work in the mines, and when he joins the union he is bound to get so much a day. That has been carried to that extent in the mining regions of Clay county, and unless there is something done, it looks to me like there will be serious trouble in the near future. The majority of the committee came to the conclusion that the Senate bill was the best, and although it is too late, perhaps, for it to become a law this session, yet they recognized the fact that an expression by the Legislature upon a subject as important as this should take a proper and right direction, and for that reason a majority of the committee report a bill they think is a proper one to be passed. There is not only the welfare of the mining interest concerned but the manufacturing interest is based upon the mining interest to a great extent, for the cheaper you can get coal and the more steady you can get the supply the more help you give the manufacturing establishments in Indiana.
Mr. FRIEDLEY of Lawrence. As long as the honorable Senator from Clay [Mr. Ringo] and Wayne [Mr. Beeson] have seen proper to refer to what was said before the committee, I desire to say that when complaints were made by the operators that the miners had formed unions for the purpose of protecting themselves against the orders, etc., of operators, it was charged by the miners that no union was ever formed in the State of Indiana until combinations had been first entered into by the operators of the mines. These men of capital controlling money by the million of dollars, united against the miners for the purpose of cutting down their wages. That charge was made before the committee; it was sustained by testimony before the committe, and it can be sustained by the very best evidence. The first organisation was by the operators themselves in the county of Clay, and in order to protect them- page: 568[View Page 568] selves against the organization entered into by capitalists these men were forced to organize among themselves. After the capitalists have driven them into an organization for their own protection they come before the Legislature and complain of their organization. I am not one of those who want to cripple the mining interest; I would build it up : but I am not willing to place power in the hands of capitalists to grind down labor. That is what is sought to be done in the Senate bill, and I enter my solemn protest against this attempted legislation against these poor men who labor under ground. I want to know if you will not cripple the mining interest if you fail to give these men the same protection given by eastern States. Do you expect these men to work in the same way here unless they are protected as in other States.
Mr. RINGO (interposing.) Does not this bill provide verbatim, as far as ventilation is concerned, the same as the House bill ?
Mr. FRIEDLEY of Lawrence. No, sir, it does not, and I will take pleasure in point-ting out the difference when the bills are considered. I ask that the minority report may be fairly considered and that the miners may be heard in the Senate as before the Committee.
Mr. COLLETT. It seems to me simply rediculous to think of putting the whole mining interests of Indiana under the control of the circuit judge of Clay county. The State of Indiana ought to take care of that interest. The laws necessary to control the mines in the east are not appliable here, etc., etc.,
Mr. DITTEMORE. The House bill would work a great greiveance under the present system adopted by these miners strikes being made every month or two to regulate the prices of labor it is impossible for coal men to make any permanent contracts.
Mr. SLATER. There have been many bills passed for the benefit of men of wealth, but now that we have a chance to do something for the poor laborer a cry comes up against such a measure. It does not come from men who in their early days have had to labor for a livelihood : for all know the rich men can take care of themselves without the help of unions. I shall call the yeas and nays upop every question of this kind, and Senators have got to slow whether they favor the rich men or the poor men in this case.
On Mr. Chapman's motion the minority report was laid on the table by yeas 35, nays 7.
Pending the roll call -
Mr. BIRD, when his name was called in explanation of his vote, said: I think it too late to interfere with the unions of miners. It is better for the Senate to say nothing about it. I think it would be a bad precedent and therefore I vote "aye."
Mr. BROWN, in explanation of his vote, when his name was called said: These operatiors are able to take care of themselves. Sometimes they become oppresive and overbearing. I prefer to stand by men in the ordinary position in life who have no money to protect themselves; therefore I stand by the minority report.
Mr. DWIGGINS, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said: I don't think it proper to adopt any measure on this subject.
Mr. HARNEY, in explanation of his vote, when his name was called, said: Members of unions have the right to work when they choose, but no right to control the action of others. I understood this Senate bill contains a provision that when they attempt to control others not members of the union they are amendable to law, therefore I vote "aye."
Mr. ORR in explanation of his vote, when his name was called, said: I am not in favor of legislating exclusively for or against the poor, or for or against the rich. I want to legislate for the peace and happiness and welfare of all classes. I think if I vote "no" I would not be carrying out that principle therefore I vote "aye."
Mr. SCOTT, in explanation his of vote, when his name was called, said: I am well convinced that at this late hour of the session the attempt to settle miners strikes is absurd. I cannot determine between the merits of these bills therefore I will vote to lay the minority report on the table and will do the same thing with the other.Mr. SMITH, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said: relying on the remarks of the Senator from Wayne [Mr. Beeson] and Clay [Mr. Ringo] believing they understand the matter, I vote "aye."
Mr. THOMPSON. This is really an interesting subject to cities and persons who consume coal. I hope the Senate will so legislate as to protect the poor people of cities from the evils of strikes in the coal mines that stops the machienery and imposes terrible suffering upon the poor.
When the roll call was completed -
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
So the minority report was laid on the table.
On Mr. Brown's motion the majority report was laid on the table by yeas 29, nays 14.Pending the roll call.Mr. BEESON, in explanation of his vote, when his name was called, said: I am sat- page: 569[View Page 569] isfied at this late hour of the session it is nearly impossible to do justice to this question involved in these two bills. But there is another consideration ; if there is a subject of legislation brought up it is proper to have the expression given in the right direction. In this case I believe that right direction is expressed in the bill reported by the major- of the Committee and for that reason I vote against laying it on the table.
Mr. BROWN, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said: I agree with the Senator from Vigo [Mr. Scott] that a subject of so much importance cannot be carefully considered at this late day in the session and think we had better let the matter alone than to make a passable blunder.
Mr. COLLETT, in explanation of his vote, when his name was called said: As it is late in the session I will vote to lay my own report on the table.
When the roll call was completed -
The vote was announced as above recorded.
So the majority report was laid on the table.
SALARIES OF JUDGES.
The bill S. 289, to fix the salaries of Judges of the Supreme Court, with the House amendments fixing the salaries of Judges of other Courts, the special order for 3 o'clock was now called up.
Mr. GLESSNER moved that the House Amendments be concurred in.
Mr. SLEETH moved to amend to concur in the House amendments, with an amendment reducing the salary of Circuit Judges from three thousand dollars to two thousand five hundred dollars.
Mr. SLATER moved to am^nd by making it two thousand dollars.
This motion was rejected by yeas 19, nays 25.
Pending the roll call.
Mr. HARNEY said: there is great force in the argument that this is not a proper time to increase the salaries of public officers because there is a general decline in the products of labor. There is also another fact that is equally clear and that is that there is a great increase in the value of high intellectual labor of the very class that the State wants in her service. For this kind of service we have to compete with private enterprise - with corporations and with the Federal government.
The avenues for obtaining wealth are varied and open to all, and of course are first seized by the intellectual and enterprising. In fact if money consideration were the only inducement, the State could not secure to its service the best talent it posesses. Again the general governments is holding out great inducements to the best talent we have to enter its service, while corporations are not behind in contending for the best talent to enter its service.
Now, sir, the proposition needs no argument to sustain it. That the security honor and dignity of the State depends upon its great men. Men great in intellect, culture, morals, and industry. Great wealth may serve only to overate a people or incite barbarians to prey upon its riches. A dense population may tend only to anarchy, or more often results in absolute despotism; while there are the true elements of grateness when we have the nerve and intellect to control them. This the State must have in its service. Heretofore we have been successful more on account of an honorable ambition upon the part of our leading men to serve the public than the pecuniary inducements offered. But this can not always remain so when corporations offer twice as much for the same service as the State is willing to give. Our Supreme Court is the august tribunal of the State; its decissions are the law of the land. It passes upon every question that effects the people of the State and in both corporate and individual, and certainly there is wisdom in retaing in that honored position the highest talent in the State, providing for their support in such a generous manner that there could be no presumption of there being governed by any but the purest motive. In this vote I treat the public interest just as I would my own. I propose to employ the best talent and pay such compensation as that class of services are worth in any other department of business.
Mr. HOUGH, in explanation of his vote, when his name wsa called, said : With the number of Circuit Judges increased and additional Judges elected to take the place of the Common Pleas judges, we will have a greater number of judges in five years than we have ever had in Indiana, and until we know how our Judiciary is to be manned we should not increase the salaries. In five years our judicial salaries will cost not less than one hundred thousand dollars annually; more than ever before.
Mr. NEFF, by way of explaning his vote when his name was called said : While we had before us the consideration of this question in connection with the increase of salary for common pleas judges I believed then the salary of that officer was too low. Fifteen hundred dollars per year will not command such talent as should be demanded by the people. I was in favor of increasing that officers salary commensurate with the labor he was required to perform: but the whole judicial system has been changed, the common Pleas Courts have page: 570[View Page 570] been abolished, the number of judicial circuits have very nearly been doubled, and now we are asked to increase the salary of the circuit judges very largely without waiting to ascertain the amount of labor they have to perform. But there is another objection still more serious in the way, and that is the final disposition of the probate business. In my judgment at the next session the friends of this bill will demand that the probate business be taken away from the Circuit court and a distinct tribunal be organized for the settlement and determination of this branch of business having therefore before my mind this change I could not consent to increase the salary of this officer without first knowing the amount of labor to be performed and the time to do the labor required.
Mr. ORR, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said: Inasmuch as the salary gives them about eight dollars a day for the discharge of their duties. I vote "aye."
Mr. ROSEBRUGH in explanation of his vote, when his name was called, said: I have been absent quite a good part of the session and was in favor of a small increase in the salaries until my recent stay at home. I was enabled to find during the time I was there only one or two persons in favor of increasing the judges salaries. While I would be personally willing to give some increase, I think it my duty to represent the wishes of the people who placed me here. I vote "aye."
Mr. SMITH, in explanation of his vote when his name was called said: A man who sits upon the bench should have a good salary. My impression is that two thousand dollars is not enough therefore I vote "no."When the roll call was completed -
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.
The amendment [Mr. Sleeth's] was then agreed to by yeas 27, nays 18, as follows.
YEAS - Messrs. Armstrong, Beardsley, Bowman, Banyan, Carnahan, Cave, Collett, Daggy, Fuller, Friedley of Scott, Gregg, Harney, Haworth, Hough, Howard, Miller, Neff, Orr, Ringo, Scott, Slater, Sleeth, Smith, Steele, Stroud, Williams and Winterbotham - 27.
NAYS - Messrs. Beeson, Bird, Boone, Brown, Chapman, Daugherty, Dwiggins, Francisco, Friedley of Lawrence, Glessner, Gooding, Hubbard, Rhodes, Rosebrugh, Sarnighausen, Taylor, Thompson and Wadgd - 18.
Pending the roll call -
Mr. BOONE, when his name was "called, in explanation of his vote said: We are in chaos as regards our judicial system and until we know what the result will be I am not inclined to vote for an increase of salaries. I vote "no."
Mr. GLESSNER, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote said. It is stated that the judicial system is in chaos but we know we have required the judges to sit nearly the entire year and the compensation of a pledge is the smallest part of the expense connected with his court. If you want efficiency and capacity you must give sufficient compensation to secure those qualities we are asking men to a bandon every other business and devote their entire time to the bench, and when it comes to compensating these men we ought not to hesitate to pay them liberally. I vote "no,"
Mr. GOODING, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said: It seems to me we are not doing an extravagant thing when we vote three thousand dollars a year. Some gentleman say we will have a different state of things in five years from now, and that we will have more judges than now. Many of us think we will need no more judges for several years. Some gentlemen say we will have a surrogate system in five years, and are opposed to raising the salaries of judges now because they have nothing: to do. If our judges have time to spare there is no need of a surrogate system; so the two arguments don't hang together. If judges are over worked they ought to to well paid, and if there is more work than they can do we ought to have a surrogate system. I think, sir, we will find this state of things existing: that our present judges will resign if we don't raise their salaries. I vote "no."
Mr. HUBBARD, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said: I don't think three thousand dollars a year, is a cent too much to give a judge who is competent to sit on the bench, and for fear we will not get as much I vote "aye" on this amendment.Mr. ORR, in explanation of his vote when his name was called said: If the amendment of the senator from Johnson [Mr. Slater] had been adopted I could vote for thii bill heartily but as this is the only thing to fall back on I will have to vote for it. Senators say we can't get talent without a pile of money but I tell you the best talent in the State sit on the bench at two thousand dollars a year and they won't resign. I vole "aye."
Mr. RHODES in explanation of his vote when his name was called said: From the stand point I take I do not think three thousand dollars is too much. I look at it in this way: What compensation ought we to give a man properly qualified to discharge the duties of the office ? Our circuit judgea have been working for two thousand dollars and Common Pleas judges for fifteen hundred dollars. From what I know these salar- page: 571[View Page 571]ries have been too low. We have under a system of low pay had ineffiicient judges in some cases and we will never change this state of affairs until we change the compensation. There is not a lawyer anywhere of respectability but who can command a practice of three thousand dollars. I think it is policy and economy, and wisdom on the part of the Legislature to pay these men what their services are fairly worth. I vote "no."
Mr. RINGO, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said: I have been inclined to vote for three thousand dollars but when I see the Senators from Putman [Mr. Daggy] and St. Joseph [Mr. Hubbard] disposed to take the responsibility of voting for two thousand five hundred dollars I believe I will vote so too.
Mr. HUBBARD (interposing.) Will you change your if vote I do mine ?
Mr. RINGO. Not just yet.
Mr. SMITH, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said: It strikes me that three thousand dollars is a very small compensation for some of the judges on the bench; but I will vote "aye" for fear we can't get more.
Mr. STEELE, when his name was called in explanation of his vote said: It is pretty well known that I have been decidedly in favor of an increase of salaries but not of abolishing the common Pleas court, believing it would finally inflict upon the country a large increase of the Judiciary. I believe so yet. I believe that in two years from now there will he something like a surrogate system and probate judges established in this country and that will cost another one hundred thousand dollars. I am in favor of increasing the salaries of Supreme judges. It is shown by the vote of the Senate on the motion of the Senator from Johnson [Mr. Slater] that the Senate is not satisfied with two thousand dollars for the circuit judges and now rather than we should be driven to the necessity of adopting three thousand dollars, I shall vote for this amendment offer by the Senator from Rush [Mr. Sleeth.] I vote "aye."
When the roll call was completed -
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
So the motion to concur in the House amendments by reducing the salary of circuit judge from three thousand dollars to two thousand five hundred dollars was agreed to.
EVENING SESSION.
The Senate reassembled at 7:30 p. m. the Lieutenant Governor in the chair and twenty members present.
Mr. DITTEMORE moved a call of the Senate.
Several unsuccessful attempts were made to induce the Senate to proceed to the transaction of business without a quorum and the Senate finally adjourned untill to-morrow morning at 9:30 o'clock.
