HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
THURSDAY, Feb. 13,1879-- 10 o'clock a. m.The session was opened with prayer by Mr. HUBBARD, the representative from Henry county.
The reading of the journal was dispensed with.
Mr. OVERMEYER entered a motion to reconsider the vote yesterday, setting the time--Friday at 10 o'clock, in committee of the whole--for the consideration of Mr. Osborne's resolution in relation to fees and salaries.
Mr. WILLARD said he noticed, in his absence on duty with the prison committee, that a resolution had been submitted to the House, concerning fees and salaries, and that a time was fixed for the discussion of the resolution. It was well known the committee on fees and salaries had employed an expert, to collate all matters pertaining to the subject, and that the committee would be ready to report a bill thereon, and he thought the consideration of the resolution was premature.
Mr. OSBORNE of Elkhart, said when he introduced the resolution yesterday he had not the remotest idea of doing any one or any page: 142[View Page 142] party injustice but was desirous that the discussiun of fees and salaries should be free, open and fair.
Mr. OVERMEYER did not make the motion to reconsider for the purpose of defeating the resolution, but that all these matters should be first considered by the committee on fees and salaries.
Mr. SAINT did not believe that there was any other intention in the resolution, or by the author, than that the subject matter should be fully discussed before the House.
Mr. HUBBARD: There was no subject except that of temperance that agitates the mind of the people of the State more than that of fees, and salaries, and the discussion should be free and without party bias or prejudice.
Mr. MIER8 hoped the motion to reconsider might not prevail, and that the House may have an opportunity to discuss the subject.
Mr. JOHNSON had voted for the consideration of the resolution so as to bring the matter before the House. He thought it full time that the House had taken some action upon the subjects of fees and salaries, and he was in favor of a full and fair discussion. He was of the opinion that the discussion before the House would aid the Committee on Fees and Salaries in completing more a acceptable bill on that subject.
On motion by Mr. ALLEN of Putnam, the motion to reconsider was laid on the table by yeas 61, nays 31.
The committee on county and township business returned the bill [H. R. 195] for the relief of the estate of James L Bishop recommending passage. It was ordered engrossed.
The committee on county and township business returned the bill [H. R. 290] regulating domestic animals running at large, recommending that the bill do pass.
Mr. SLEETH moved to amend so as to give the County Commissioners discretionary powers.
Mr. FANCHER said the bill amended the law so as to allow stock to run at large in one section of the township when made consistent by the division by river or railroad. The amendment was rejected, and the bill was ordered engrossed.
Also, the bill [H. R. 183] concerning licenses in certain cases. It was indefinitely postponed by yeas 58, nays 34.
Also, the bill [H. R. 447] concerning farmers' insurance companies, with a recommendation that it pass.
On the motion of Mr. TULLEY the report was laid on the table.
The committee on agriculture returned the bill [H. R. 482] prescribing what kind of judgments shall be rendered in civil actions, with a recommendation that the bill do pass. It was ordered engrossed.
Also the bill [H. R. 493] to prevent certain animals from running at large, recommending the passage of the bill. It was ordered engrossed.
Also the bill [H. R. 475] to authorize county commissioners to purchase ground for county fairs, recommending that the same do lie on the table. The report was concurred in.
Also the bill [H. R. 406] for the protection of sheep--being a substitute for the original bill--recommending that the original bill lay on the table, and the adoption of the substitute.
On the motion of Mr. JOHNSON the constitutional restriction was suspended by yeas 77, nays 11, and the substitute bill [H. R. 644] was read the second time.
Mr. MIERS offered an amendment to appropriately add these words: "Or any person having the dog under his control by the consent of his owner."
The amendment was adopted, and the bill was ordered to be engrossed for the third reading.
The House then took a recess until 2 o'clock p. m.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The committee on temperance returned the bill [H. R. 144] for collection of damages growing out of the sale of liquor, recommending indefinite postponement. It was passed over for the present.
The committee on corporations returned the bill [H. R. 203] to enable committees to aid in construction of roads, machine shops, etc., recommending passage. The report was rejected.
On the motion of Mr. COPELAND the bill was laid on the table.
Also, the bill [H. R. 444] defining warehouses and receipts, recommending the passage of the bill. It was ordered engrossed.
Also, the bill [H. R. 114] to legalize the organization of building, etc., associations, with amendments, and when so amended that the bill do pass. It was ordered engrossed.
Also, the bill [H. R. 253] for the execution and acknowledgement of official bonds, with, a recommendation that the bill pass. It was ordered engrossed
The committee on cities and towns returned the bill [H. R. 231] to legalize the corporation of the town of Auburn, DeKalb county, with a recommendation that it do pass. It was ordered engrossed.
Also, the bill [H. R. 303] to legalize the acts of Tell City, in Perry county, recommending passage. It was ordered engrossed.
Mr. OWEN moved that the report of the committee on temperance on the bill [H. R. 144] to indefinitely postpone the bill, be laid on the table.
Mr. SLEETH thought the provision in the bill that makes the owner of the building in which the liquor is sold liable for damages, is wrong and ought to be amended in that particular.
Mr. OWEN thought if a man rents his property for the sale of intoxication liquor he ought to be held responsible for damages sustained by the sale thereof. He considered temperance one of the most sacred interests of the State, and he was therefore in favor of the bill.
Mr. SAINT thought the bill was all right. There were but few men who were retailing liquor, that were responsible, and from whom you could collect damages, and thought the owners of the property ought to be responsible. He would vote for the bill.
Mr. VANPELT did not believe that the man who rents his property ought to be responsible, and therefore as a member of the committee he voted for the indefinite postponement of the bill, and he did not now propose to go back on his action.
Mr. TULLEY was opposed to the bill because it would take away property from one man to pay for the damages committed by another when the former was ignorant of the fact that whisky was sold in his building.
Mr. MIEKiS was as much for temperance reform as any one. If it is wrong to sell liquor it is wrong to license the sale of it. He was opposed to the bill because he believed it was unconstitutional; and if wrong it ought not to I be passed at all.
page: 143[View Page 143]Mr. SLEETH thought the person owning the property ought to be made jointly liable for damages, but would not go as far as this bill and make him wholly liable. If the party renting has knowledge of the retailing of liquors on his premises Mr. S. would say "amen."
On the motion of Mr. SLEETH the bill was recommitted to the committee on Temperance.
On the motion of Mr. OSBORNE, of Elkhart, the business on the speaker's table was taken up.
The resolution of the House returned from the Senate, for pay for Janitor McDaniels, with amendment that the statutes for senators be paid for, coming up--
Mr. LEHMAN moved that the House concur in the amendment of the Senate.
After considerable discussion, and the fact developed that a motion had been entered upon the journal of this House for a reconsideration of the vote refusing to concur in the matter of paying for the statutes for senators.--
Pending which--
Mr. SHANKS said: Mr. Speaker--I am mortified that the House did indefinitely postpone the Senate concurrent resolution relative to the payment for the statutes purchased by the Senate. This House has decided that its members do not need the statutes when making new laws or changing old ones. The Senate thought that it is not so well informed as the House thought it was. That the House is mistaken, I fear it will find out when too late. Sir, there is a respect due to the Senate from this co ordinal e branch of the law-making power that is not found in our indefinite postponement of its acts without consideration. If the governor, who is a co-ordinate branch of the law-making power of the Senate, were to send this House his message, we would not, I hope--indeed, I do sincerely hope--would not return it to him or indefinitely postpone it without consideration. Certainly the Senate is entitled to as much consideration. The present, enlightened civilization and proper management of legislative business forbids such disrespect by one house of the law-making power toward another.
Mr. LEHMAN moved that the House now reconsider that action.
The yeas and nays were demanded, and, being taken, resulted--yeas 46, nays 46.
Mr. SLEETH made the point of order that by reconsidering that vote, it would authorize the pay for 50 copies of the statutes.
So the motion failed.
On the motion of Mr. TULLEY,the House refused to concur in the amendment, and a committee of conference was authorized to be appointed by the speaker.
The speaker appointed as such committee, on the part of the House, Messrs. Tulley and March.
On the motion of Mr. CALDWELL the bill [H. R. 340] for the apportionment or the State for senatorial and representative purposes, was taken up and read the third time.
Mr. LEHMAN demanded the previous question and under its operations the bill passed the House of Representatives--yeas 56, nays 38, as follows:
Yeas--Messrs. Alden, Baker, Blockley, Briggs, Brown of Jasper, Bryant, Caldwell, Carter, Compton, Confer, Cunningham, Dailey, Dalton, Davidson, Davis, Drake, Driver, Edwins, English, Faulkner, Flodder, Galbraith, Garroutte,Ginz, Handy, Hart, Hosmer, Humphreys, Huthsteiner, Johnson, Kester, Lehman, Miers, Mitchell, Nave, Osborn of Elkhart, Perry, Reicheldafer, Rooker, Saint, Scholl, Schweitzer, Shauck, Shields, Shutt, Stucker, Taylor of Daviess, Taylor of Warrick, Thompson, Tulley, Vanpelt, Van Valzah, Willard, Wimmer, Works, Speaker Cauthorn, H. S.--56.
Nays--Messrs. Arnold of Blackford, Arnold of Wabash, Bearss, Brown of Steuben, Campbell, Carey, Connaway, Conner, Copeland. Donnell, Golden, Harland, Herod, Hess, Hopkins, Hubbard, Kelly, Kirkpatrick, Lindley, Major, March, Messick, Osborn of Vermillion, Owen, Reed, Robeson, Rodman, Robinson, Shanks, Skinner, Sleeth, Snoddy, Stevens, Taylor of Lagrange, Thayer, Thornburg, Vawter, Watson--38.
Peoding the roll call--
Mr. HESS, in explanation of his vote, when his name was called said: This bill disfranchises over 3,100 voters of Koscinsko and Wabash counties simply because these counties give large Republican majorities. The amendment he offered the other day would have given a just representation to the counties of Huntington and Wabash, Kosciusko and Whitley, Allen and Wells, but the party in power saw fit to vote down the amendment. Believing, therefore, that this bill is unfair and unjust, he voted "no."
Mr. KIRKPATRICK, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote said: He deemed it a right to protest, and as he considered some of the provisions of this bill infamous, he therefore was compelled to vote "no."
Mr. REED, in explanation of his vote when his name was called, said: He voted against the bill because it placed our distinguished fellow citizen, Thos. A. Hendricks, in a position of antagonism to his party. In a public speech at a ratification meeting, held in this city after the October elections, he said that no apportionment which was not perfectly fair would receive his approval. This bill is not fair or just in its apportionment of senators and representatives. He therefore voted "no "
Mr. SLEETH was once guilty of voting for a gerrymandering bill, but should never be guilty of the like again. There were portions of this State that this bill would do great injustice to, and for that reason he was compelled to vote "no."
Mr. STEVENS, in explaining his vote, said: On account of injustice done the Northern part of the State by this bill he would vote "no."
Mr. TAYLOR of Lagrange when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said he was obliged to protest against the bill as being unjust to Lagrange and Steuben counties, as it disfranchises 2,500 legal voters, and that Lake and Porter counties, with a less number of voters, has a senator and two representatives. Therefore he voted "no."
Mr. WORKS, in explanation of his vote said: When this bill was before the House before, he objected to it on one ground, and one only. He believed then that injustice was done to the voters of two of the counties in the, Northern part of the State, He held the gentleman from Elkhart(Mr. Osborne) responsible for what he then said. If he had no other light now than that given him by the explanation given by Mr. Osborne then, he would undoubtedly vote against the bill; but lie had found, upon investigation, that the surplus population that he had then believed to be disfranchised by the bill has been properly distributed among the adjoining counties South of the ones referred to, he therefore voted "aye."
So the bill passed the House of Representatives.
The following described bills were read the first time and passed to the second reading:
The bill [S. 9] to promote the science of medicine, which was read the first time.
page: 144[View Page 144]The bill[S. 6] legalizing acknowledgments of deeds, etc., by ex-notaries.
The bill [8.12] concerning the trial of civil causes in circuit and superior courts.
The bill [S. 16] in reference to change of venue [but one change shall be granted] in preliminary examination in cases of felony.
The bill [S. 22] to legalize the acts of the town of New Haven in Allen county, etc.
The bill [S. 23] to legalize the acts of the town of Huntington.
The bill [S. 60] to make an exchange of Switzerland county and Scott county in their judicial circuit.
The bill [S. 80] abolishing assessors and treasurers in towns and cities.
The bill [S. 136] in relation to the dissection of human bodies.
The bill [S. 158] removing legal disabilities of married women.
The bill [S. 280] an act supplemental to public libraries.
The bill [S. 303] to enable farmers and others to form voluntary associations.
The bill [H. R. 543] to repeal sections 2 to 22 inclusive of an act to provide for the registration of voters was read the second time and referred to the committee on elections.
The bill [H. R. 35] providing for the election of justices of the peace, coming up in regular order, was read the third time.
Mr. WORKS was opposed to the passage of the bill because it did not allow appeals on smaller claims than $20. The party with a small claim should have the right of appeal as well as the larger ones. It ought not to pass because it is wrong in principle.
Mr. WATSON claimed that when these small cases got into the higher courts the claim was lost sight of, and the question was who should pay the costs. He thought the ill favored tho poor man. Therefore he was in favor of the bill.
Mr. OSBORNE, of Elkhart, did not think it would be safe to pass the bill, and thought it would work an injury.
Mr. MIERS was opposed to the increase of the one man power the justice of the peace would have if this bill should pass, and for this reason he opposed it.
Mr. VANPELT thought that this was one of the needed reforms, and hoped the bill would pass.
Mr. MARCH said that in nine cases out of 10 the poor man gets his rights before the justice of the peace. He believed in the admonition of scripture to agree with thine adversary quickly while thou art in the way with him. He believed the bill ought to pass.
The bill then passed the House of Representatives by yeas 58, nays 30.
The House then adjourned until 10 o'clock to-morrow.
