THE BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
VOLUME SEVENTEEN.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
IN SENATE.
THURSDAY, Feb. 13,1879-- 10 o'clock a. m.Prayer by Rev. Dr. RYLAND T. BROWN, formerly State geologist, of the Third Church of Christ in this city.
On motion of Mr. KRAMER his local court bill [S. 268] was read the second time. The constitutional restriction was dispensed with by--yeas 40, nays 5; the bill was read the third time and finally passed the Senate by--yeas 46, nays 1.
Mr. BENZ, explaining his negative vote: Because the times of holding these courts were changed by a bill passed at the last session of the Legislature.
On motion of Mr. DICE the bill [S. 379--see these reports of Feb. 11 a. m.] to legalize certain acts of the board of trustees of Logansport was read the first time; the constitutional rule dispensed with by--yeas 44, nays 3; the bill was read the second time by title only; the third time by sections, and finally passed the Senate by--yeas 42, nays 6.
Pending the vote--
Mr. REEVE, when his name was called, entered his protest against this class of legislation. Aside from the tact that the bill has no merit; that it proposes to legalize that which never had a legal existence; mat it attempts to cure that which never was curable; he protested against the custom of officials of incorporated towns coming together and drinking whisky and smoking cigars, then taking the opinion of some fifty-cent attorney for about one half the time as to what the law is, and upon such opinion passing ordinances and levying assessments and taxes, and taking in farming lands, and after six or seven years of illegal proceedings, then come up to the capital and occupy the time of the General Assembly in attempting, by the passage of bills, to cure inexcusable enactments, caused by gross Ignorance of public officials, to legalize that which never had a legal existence and to supply brains for galoots too ignorant to do business. He denounced this thing as infamous, and hoped to live to see the time when public opinion will give it such kind of response that is due to it--and that is, to reject it. Sixty-three out of the 93 bills passed by the last Legislature were of this character, J3 were of general interest, and the rest were of local application to cure the defects caused by the infernal ignorance and negligence of the officials of the people.
Mr. FOSTER moved to suspend the order of business, that his resolution (printed in these Reports of February 11, p. m.,) in reference to investigating the charges made in the Daily Indianapolis Journal of the 7th inst. may be taken from the table. He desired to offer a substitute therefor. The motion was agreed to by yeas 32, nays 14.
Mr FOSTER offered his substitute, reciting that whereas an article in the Indianapolis Daily Journal of February 7 contains serious charges against the principal secretary of the Senate, and believing no harm can come from an honest and thorough investigation, therefore a committee of three be appointed, with power to send for persons and papers, and report the result of the investigation at the earliest possible moment.
A number of questions of order were raised; motions for indefinite postponement; for leave to withdraw the original resolution; an ineffectual demand was made by Mr. FOWLER for the previous question: a motion that the article from the newspaper be read was, by the casting vote of the lieutenant governor, laid on the table; and after considerable conversation and other debate.--
Mr. FOSTER asked and obtained leave to withdraw his resolution.
A large number of petitions, principally on the subject of temperance, were presented and referred to appropriate committees, whereupon--
Mr. TREAT took occasion to say that the Senate was treating a large number of the citizens of this great commonwealth very cavalierly in not reading their petitions. Thousands upon thousands are desiring legislation on the subject of liquor selling, looking in the direction of local option or the right of remonstrance, and he urged upon senators early I action on this subject.
page: 141[View Page 141]Mr. LANGDON called up the motion of which he gave notice day before yesterday, to amend the Senate rules so they can not be suspended except by a two-thirds vote.
On motion of Mr. BURRELL it was indefinitely postponed by--yeas 26, nays 22.
Then came the recess till 2 o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. LANGDON introduced a bill [S. 387] prohibiting the recording of deeds and mortgages of lands or property on which taxes are due and unpaid, which was read the first time and referred to the committee on rights and privileges of the inhabitants of the State.
Mr. BURRELL, from the committee thereon, returned the Congressional apportionment bill, [S. 35--Mr. Woollen's] with a majority ' report thereon, recommending its passage, with a substitute more nearly conforming to the bill S. 326 [Mr. Major's].
Mr. VIEHE, from a majority of the committee thereon, returned the Legislative apportionment bill, [S. 54--Mr. Winterbotham's] with numerous amendments thereto, and when so amended recommending its passage.
Mr. BURRELL moved that both the Congressional and the Legislative apportionment bills be printed and made the special order for to-morrow afternoon at 2 o'clock.
Mr. HARRIS opposed the motion, as on his side of the House they had been relying on an implied arrangement, under which these bills were not to be considered till every Senator should be present.
Mr. LANGDON, speaking for himself and friends, said: We desire a bill under which all shades and all parties shall have a joint representation in the Legislature.
Mr. BURRELL, replying for the other side, said: We are asking for a fair bill--our bill does not propose any fence rail districts,
Mr. STREIGHT moved to amend by making: these bills the special order or Tuesday next, at 10 o'clock a. m.
After considerable conversational debate--
The amendment was agreed to, and on motion by Mr. VIEHE, 200 copies of the majority and minority reports on both bills, were ordered printed.
Mr. HART offered a resolution directing the committee on fees and salaries to report such a fee and salary bill at the earliest, possible moment as will, in its opinion, meet the demands of the people. The resolution was adopted by yeas 45, nays 2.
Mr. STREIGHT offered a resolution instructing the committee on finance to prepare a bill to authorize the assessment of property for taxation in April of this year. He said the people are demanding a reappraisement as soon as possibles
Mr COFFEY favored the resolution. The interests of the people, especially the farmers of this State, demand a reappraisement at as early a period as possible. This Legislature can pass no law that will relieve them more. Since the last appraisement real estate has declined 40 to 50 per cent.
Mr. HEFRON failed to see what benefits the taxpayer would realize from an appraisement this year, when the cost of taking it--probably $100,000 is taken into consideration. The public expenditures remain the same. No difference about the appraisement, the money must come. Under the present law a reappraisement will have to be made next year anyhow, and why take one this year?
Mr. WINTERBOTHAM also thought the expenditure necessary to take a reappraisement this year is uncalled for. There is no general demand for a reappraisement now. He hoped, the resolution would not pass--he regarded it as uncalled for, unnecessary and unwise.
Mr. KRAMER: The resolution would only cause an unnecessary expense as has been said, and he opposed it. There would be noshing gained by an appraisement now. Real estate has not depreciated much more in one section of the State than another, although the complaint is general that the assessment is too high.
Mr. STREIGHT asked and obtained consent to amend his resolution, by adding thereto the words "and every four years thereafter," which amendment would do away with the objection as to the extra expense. Marion county now pays one eighth of the entire tax of the State. We should have had an appraisement two or three years ago--it is now unfair and unjust.
Mr. WIER was satisfied the appraisement is now higher than it ought to be in many places, but in his part of the State it is more equal. If it would not increase the expenses of the State he would favor the resolution, out of consideration to those sections suffering under a too high appraisement.
Mr. KRAMER did not think the benefit to a few localities would overbalance the expense--nothing would be gained by it to the State at large. Under the present law we are getting along well enough. We are not now in such a financial condition as to authorize us to make an outlay for another and an extra appraisement this year without obtaining A corresponding benefit.
Mr. COFFEY believed a majority of the people demand a reappraisement of real estate in order that the burdens of government may be equalized throughout the State.
The resolution was adopted by--yeas 32, nays 12.
On motion by Mr. SHAFFER the proposed amendment to the rules, limiting speeches to ten minutes, notice of which was given the other day, was taken up and after dilatory proceedings was agreed to by--yeas 33, nays 11.
And then the Senate adjourned.
