THE BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
VOLUME SEVENTEEN.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
IN SENATE.
THURSDAY, March 6,1879 9 o'clock a. m.The minutes of yesterday "were not read.
On motion by Mr. GARRIGUS, his bill [S. 55] to legalize the Kokomo Building association and its acts,was read the third time and passed by--yeas 43, nays 2.
On motion by Mr. PETERSON, the bill [H. R. 578] for the relief of John R. Robinson, late a township trustee,was read the first, second and third times, under a dispensation of the constitutional restriction, and passed the Senate by--yeas 39, nays 3.
On motion by Mr. SARNIGHAUSEN the bill [H. R. 122] supplemental to the act of March 3,1873, authorizing cities and towns to sell bonds to pay indebtedness incurred for school purposes, was read the third time and passed by--yeas 41, nays 2.
On motion by Mr. DAVENPORT, his bill [S. 21] to amend the act approved March 12, 1875, so as to authorize the establishment of courts in cities of 6,000 Inhabitants and upward, was read the third time and passed by--yeas 40, nays 2.
On motion by Mr. MERCER, the bill [H. R. 231] to legalize the incorporation of Auburn and the official acts thereof, was read the second time, and under a dispensation of the constitutional rule intended to restrict hasty legislation--by yeas 41, nays 7--the bill was read the third time and passed by--yeas 43, nays 2.
On motion by Mr. SMITH the bill, [H. R. 560] for the relief of John J. Justice et al. late trustee of township, was read the first time. On his further motion the constitutional restriction was removed by yeas 38, nays 8, and the bill read the second time.
Mr. REEVE opposed this bill because it provides for the issuing of a license to every official holding public funds, to deposit the public moneys wherever he pleases, and the legislature will relieve him of all loss occasioned, by the exercise of unsound judgment, or no judgment, or a corrupt judgment.
Mr. MENZIES moved to indefinitely postpone this bill.
Mr. HEFRON understood there was a just principle in this bill, and urged careful consideration of its provisions that injustice may not be done to any citizen of the State.
Mr. MENZ1ES insisted there was nothing right in this bill; if every tax-payer in the township were willing, its passage would be a dangerous precedent. He was tired of these legalizing and creative bills, and now was a good time to stop.
Mr. SMITH, in principle, opposed indiscriminate legislation of any kind; but where loss has overtaken an officer, through no fraud or misconduct, and relief is sought here, it is well enough to grant it. Discrimination should be made in favor of parties who are suffering from a great in misfortune. The facts in this case, as stated in the bill and on this floor, are these: This man, under the advice of others, placed in a bank--the securest place possible--the moneys of the township. That bank failed, and he, being a poor man, loses the money. The only question is, whether this Legislature will aid him in his misfortune? It is the universal sentiment of the township where the money was lost that this restoration may be made to him by the Legislature. The facts in this case he [Mr. Smith] had been unacquainted with till a few moments ago, bat he believed in this case the Senate should confirm the action of the House by extending the relief asked for to this applicant, who he understood to be a poor man.
Mr. VIEHE believed this kind of legislation to be vicious in its consequences, because if these precedents are established we do not know where this thing will end. This bill comes in here, and in less than an hour it is endeavored to pass it into a law.
Mr. TRAYLOR: The Senate has again resolved itself into an appellate court. Men are getting in the habit of appealing from the courts to the General Assembly such legislation is disgraceful to the State, and it is a disgrace to put such acts on the statute books.
Mr. WOOD favored the passage of this bill. He held no prejudice against legalizing legislation or releasing acts. He desired to examine each bill in the spirit of a judge deciding a cause. He way entirely opposed to the rule that would say all blunders or mistakes shall page: 230[View Page 230] be legalized, or all responsibility of public officers shall be released, but this bill presents an exceptional case. The trustee deposited the school fund in a banks, as required by the law and by the advice of the county superintendent. The bank collapsed and the money was lost. The burden of this loss fails upon the people of one township. The people of that township petition us to release the trustee to pay this money. The county or the State does not lose it. The trustee is an aged man, and if he is compelled to pay this loss be will be financially ruined. The people who bear this loss ask us to grant this release. It should be done.
Mr. KRAMER knew nothing about the circumstances in this case, and deprecated a hasty favorable disposition of it.
Mr. BRISCOE: This may be a dangerous class of legislation, but there are exceptions, and some senators say this is a meritorious case.
The bill was referred to the judiciary committee.
On motion by Mr. HARRIS the general appropriation bill [H. R. 592] was taken up.
Then came the recess "bill 2 o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
On motion by Mr. BURRELL a report from the conference committee on the legislative apportionment bill [H. R. 340] was submitted, read, and after the exhaustion of the operations of one previous question, the report was concurred in under the operation of another previous question by--yeas 26, nays 23.
On motion by Mr. HEFRON--yeas 29, nays 20--the House amendments to the bill [S. 27] for the government of State prisons were read.
Mr. WINTERBOTHAM explained the House amendments, and moved that they be concurred in.
Mr. HEFRON submitted the report of the second committee of conference on the interest bill [S. 277], with amendments making the legal rate 6 per cent, on contracts 8, and on judgments 6; the forfeiture is usurious interest above the legal rate; which was concurred in by--yeas 43, nays 4. ;
Pending the roll call
Mr. Dice when his name was called, said he could not vote to concur, because judgment will only bear six per cent. into interest--if the creditor compel the lender to bring suit to recover his money he should receive interest at the rate of the original contract.
Mr. FOSTER in explanation said: Having done all he possibly could to get a six per cent law, he would accept this as the best that can be had.
Mr. HART when his name was called, in explanation of his vote said: Believing the people demand a six percent, law, but as this seems to be the only thing we can get, he would vote "aye."
Mr. SHIRK in explanation of his vote said: He had been steadily in favor of a 6 per cent. law, and a law declaring that judgments shall bear the same rate of interest as the original contract; but considering this the best that can now be obtained, should vote ''aye.'
Mr. WOOLLEN when his name was called, said he had done what he could to obtain a 6 per cent. law, because his constituency demanded it, yet as this will reduce the present rate 2 per cent., he would vote "aye."
Mr. WITHERBOTHAM in explanation of his vote said: He was in favor of the lowest rate that can be obtained, as it is impossible otherwise to renew paper about to mature, and pay taxes, and it is with a view to get the cheapest money possible he favored this measure.
The vote was then announced as above.
Mr. HARRIS moved to return to the consideration of the general appropriation bill.
Mr. URMSTON made an ineffectual motion--yeas 27, nays 19--to take up the Metropolitan Police bill.
Mr. REEVE moved to amend the motion [Mr. Harris'] by substituting the State House bill, which motion was agreed to by consent.
Mr LANGDON offered a resolution declaring that for more than a year past there has been a surplus in the State Treasury of $250,000, etc, and referring the bill H. R. 637 to a special committee of three with instructions to report a substitute appropriating $20O,000 of said surplus, for 1879, and levying a tax of 2 per cent. for the years 1879 and 1880, for State House purposes.
Mr. REEVE stated there is no surplus in the treasury--the apprehension grows out of the way the books are kept. There is but one State in the union that levies a lower tax than Indiana. He submitted a mass of figures to show the importance of adopting his amendment to this bill proposed yesterday.
Mr LANDON understood from the monthly statements setting forth that there is a cash balance in the treasury, that there is actually there the amounts of cash represented by these reports to be there. Running back over a space of two years, according to the published statements, there has never been for an hour less than $400,000 in money in the public treasury of the State. Of this sum his resolution proposed to devote $200,000 to the purposes of building the State House. He favored the plan of paying as you go, especially when we have a treasury full and overflowing.
Mr. VIEHE addressed his remarks to the constitutional objection to the bill under consideration, regarding it as well founded.
Mr. TREAT also regarded the proposition to raise money by the issuing of bonds as unconstitutional.
Mr. HARRIS was authorized by the treasurer of state to say that, $200,000 may he appropriated and can be paid into the State House fund from time to time this year. He offered an amendment increasing the levy from 2 to 3 per cent. for 1879 and for 1880.
Mr. STREIGHT thought it clear that unless this work is prosecuted as it should be, the commissioners had batter be instructed to close their office and cover up the foundations of the State House. This difference of opinion as to what amount of money is in the treasury does not probably amount to much. He hoped the building would be proceeded with in a business-like way--not too hasty, and yet not so slow as that it shall so out that this great State is not able to build a State House. He would not ask for an unreasonable tax to hurry on this building. He moved that the bill and pending amendments be referred to a special committee.
The resolution [Mr. Langdon's] was agreed to by yeas 41, nays 6.
A message from the House of Representatives announced [at 5 o'clock p. m. ] The passage by that body of the congressional apportionment bill [H. R. 486].
Mr. GRUBBS moved to take up the general appropriation bill.
Mr. MENZIES moved that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the bill just reported from the House [H. R. 486].
Mr. GRUBBS made an ineffectual motion--yeas 22, nays 27--to lay this motion on the table.
Mr. STREIGHT hoped the Senate would take up the general appropriation bill and proceed with its consideration. There are but two days left for legislation, and the business of the State should be attended to instead of passing a gerrymandering bill to hand the page: 231[View Page 231] State over to the party in the majority in the General Assembly. He spoke until--
Mr. BURRELL raised the point of order that the senator had exceeded the time allowed under the ten minute rule by some five or 10 minutes.
On motion Mr. Streight had leave to proceed with his remarks, which he did until Mr. BURRELL again raised the point of order, this time declaring that the senator from Marion [Mr. Streight] had occupied 20 minutes instead of ten since the motion was agreed to extending his time.
The LIEUTANT GOVERNOR sustained the point of order.
Mr. DICE made an ineffectual motion--yeas 26, nays 21--that the senator from Marion [Mr. Streight) be allowed to proceed with his speech.
After two ineffectual motions by Messrs. SHAFFER and STREIGHT--yeas 23, nays 24 to adjourn, the previous question was demanded by Mr. BURRELL, and under its operations the congressional apportionment bill,[H. R. 486] was read the first time and referred to the committee on congressional apportionment.
On motion by Mr. URMSTON the bill, [H. R. 22] providing for a homestead and personal property exemption--$1,000--was read the first time and referred to a special committee of three, with instructions to report tomorrow morning at 1O o'clock.
On motion by Mr. KAHLO the bill, [H. R. 195] for the relief of the estate of John T. Bishop et al , sureties on bonds of a late township trustee, was read the first time.
The Senate then adjourned.
