HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
FRIDAY, Feb. 14,1879-- 10 o'clock a. m,Mr. MAJOR, representative from Morgan county, opened the session with prayer, and the reading of the journal of yesterday's proceedings was dispensed with.
Mr. SHANKS, from thecommittee on the judiciary, returned the bill [H. R. 187] defining the meaning of the first proviso of the act relocating county seats recommending its passage. The bill was ordered engrossed for the third reading.
The House resolved itself into a committee of the whole (Mr. Caldwell in the chair) for the consideration of the special order being the resolution of Mr. Osborne of Elkhart, on the subject of fees and salaries as printed in full in these reports of last Wednesday.
Mr. EDWINS said during the campaign last year the Democracy and a good portion of the Republican party promised the people they would use mi their influence for the seduction of fees and salaries of county and State officers. The county officers are getting more from their offices than they can get in any other business in life. Constructive fees was the greatest evil, and, therefore, he was opposed to constructive fees and in favor of the resolution.
Mr. WILLARD had given a great deal offline to the consideration of this subject, besides having an expert employed to assist him. There was a demand to reduce the fees of officers, but we should not yield so far as to make their salaries too meager. It should be made so as to stand the constitutional test. He read from several authorities to sustain his position, that under the present State constitution the Legislature can not pass a law that will fix a salary for the clerk or sheriff. The sheriff and clerk should be paid by fees. How can we regulate the fees by population? The only way would be upon the census of 1870. He wanted a full and fair discussion of this question. The Committee on Fees and Salaries unanimously decided they could not make the clerk and sheriff salaried officers.
Mr. STUCKER said it was the duty of this Legislature to pass a fee and salary bill, and that soon. He was not particular what kind of a law was passed so that it showed to the people that something was tried to be done in the right direction. The fees were now double what they ought, to be, and must be cut down. Nearly all the fraud in elections we have to contend with is on amount of high salaries. He wanted the fees reduced so low that men could not, afford to buy their offices.
Mr. OSBORNE of Elkhart said he supposed it devolved upon him to show that a constitutional law could be passed to salary these officers. A reduction of fees and salaries had been attempted by previous Legislatures, and yet the fees are in some cases larger now than before. He believed it about impossible to make a fee bill that would not be construed as containing constructive fees. He insisted that the supreme court decisions sustained the idea that the county officers may be all salaried officers. The only point urged against the unconstitutionality of the law of 1871 was the surplus derived from litigants should go into the county fund, to be used for general purposes. It was not intended that the clerk and sheriff could not be salaried officers. The same distinction is held in the decision of 1874. If the money was used solely for judicial purposes it would have been constitutional, but because it was used for general purposes it was illegal. The proposition now is to make a straight, square salaried officer of both the sheriff and clerk, and in his judgment it was constitutional. He thought the basis for grading the salaries can be made from either the census taken by the United States or our own State. If the salaries are made too high or too low the next Legislature can correct them. Clerks and sheriffs now get more than their services are worth. It is giving a premium, to the man who can manipulate a convention,and obtain an election by skullduggery or otherwise. So long as our public officers get more than their services are worth, so long will we have cor-[ruption] page: 148[View Page 148] [cor]-ruption in elections. To purify elections would benefit our people to a very great extent. If litigants were compelled to pay as they go you would keep out of the courts irresponsible men and'scalawags. You can not adopt absolute salaries unless you provide the system of pay-as-you-go. Fix a fair compensation and do away with fraud and corruption.
Mr. BRIGGS cited the operation of the law in his county. What benefit would it be to the people to put these officers upon a salary and leave the fee bill unchanged? The bill of 1875 does not authorize construction fees. He would like to see the fees and salaries so regulated as to do justice to all. He would not vote to reduce the fees and salaries so as to make them so low that men of ability will not take these offices, but was in favor of the passage of a bill he held in his hand, which would be introduced by the gentleman from Lawrence [Mr. Dalton], reducing the fees of county auditors and treasurers so as to save to the State at least $50,000 per annum, and reducing the fees and salaries of other county officers at least 20 per cent below the fee and salary bill of 1875, which would be a great saving to the people of the State.
Mr. Speaker CAUTHORNE thought too much time was being spent in the discussion of this resolution. The only proposition we could accept now was the one proposed by the gentleman from Elkhart [Mr. Osborne]. The trouble is not with the law, but it is in the way the county officers construe the law. They ought to be paid liberally, but the pay ought to be fixed by law so that all could know what the officers are getting. There is no fee bill that will control a dishonest man muter the best bill that could be devised, unjust and unlawful fees would be taxed by dishonest officials, and by a reduction in the fees honest officials would be impoverished. He believed that the only way in which competent legislation on this subject could be had was by a change of the constitution, and with that belief be had voted to submit the amendments to the people for their action on the 4th of March. We can have no substantial relief now unless we come to the proposition of the gentleman from Elkhart [Mr. Osborne].
On motion the committee rose, reported progress, and asked to sit again at 2 o'clock. The report was concurred in.
The House took a recess until 2 o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The following described bills were introduced, read the first time, and severally passed to the second reading:
By Mr. SHANKS, [H. R. 545] to provide for the purchase by the State of a certain tract of land, to protect the State against loss--36 acres north of the city of Indianapolis, known as the State fair grounds.
By Mr. GOLDEN, [H. R. 546] to amend an met for the Incorporation of towns and cities.
By Mr. GOLDEN [H. R. 547] to amend secs. 1 and 3 of an act to authorize cities or towns to negotiate bonds for school purposes.
By Mr. G0LDEN [H. R. 548] to amend sec. one of an act to authorize trustee of incorporated towns and cities to levy a tax for school purpose.
By Mr. BRIGGS [H. R. 549] to amend section 5 of an act to provide for the more speedy trial of causes.
On motion the House again resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole [Mr. Caldwell in the chair] on the subject of fees and salaries.
Mr. WORKS regarded the question of great importance. The question is how this matter may be brought about for the best. He considered the bill [H. R. 113] as clearly unconstitutional. He was decidedly in favor of an absolute salary, and if constitutional such a measure ought to become a law.
Mr. TAYLOR, of Daviess, had no doubt that the Legislature could pass a well-worded law that would be constitutional for the salary of county officers. He was in favor of a salary, but was opposed to some provisions of the bill referred to in the resolution, especially to that part which would compel a man to pay his fee to the clerk in advance. Require a cross bond if you will, or have a schedule of fees properly guarded, by which these clerks can collect their costs; then salary your officers, you would have it about right. Constructive fees he regarded as stealing.
Mr. SLEETH believed that the House was a unit as to the duty of passing a law for the reduction of fees and salaries, but did not want a law which might be decided unconstitutional; his county officers were honest, and he was willing to help others make their officers honest. He did not want to repeat the blunder of the Legislature of 1871. It was to provide for a law upon this subject: that these constitutional amendments were started in the General Assembly two years ago. We have a right to require every litigant to pay the expenses of his suit. We can fix what the clerk shall charge. We may require a docket fee, which is to help pay for the books, etc., to record the matters pertaining to his own suits. We cannot plead ignorance, for we have the light of the highest judicial authority on the subject, and we ought to legislate in the light of the supreme court decisions.
Mr. SAINT was not prepared for the argument. If there was one subject more than another that entered into the campaign last fall it was the extravagant fees paid to county officers. The people saw in a few years that county officers who went into the office in ordinary circumstances would, in a few years, be building large mansions driving fast and expensive horses. He believed to-day you could make a law that would regulate these affairs and stand the constitutional test. It is time that something was done in that direction, and it is within our power to do it. He voted to submit the constitutional amendments to the people at an early day. He believed that 90 out of the 100 who came here were pledged to a reduction of the fees of the county officers.
Mr. Thompson spoke at length in favor of a bill fixing the salaries of county officers.
Mr. SHANKS: In view of the fact that this is a matter of economy he had thought that politics would not get into the matter. He was in favor of a bill that would reduce the salary of county and State officers to a level with the times. He wanted a paid salary so that every man in the State might understand it.
Mr. GORDON was in favor of the general principle of the bill, and if he could get it amended in a few minor points would vote for it. He could not find the clause in the constitution that would conflict with the general principles of this bill. He had no party to serve in the matter.
Mr. JOHNSON believed this Legislature could pass a constitutional fee or salary bill either. The bill could be passed without an emergency clause, and by the time the constitutional amendments were adopted the law would go into operation. His judgment was if page: 149[View Page 149] members go home without passing a law to reduce fees and salaries the people will be very much disappointed. He wanted a reduction that should be fair.
Mr. MITCHELL was sorry that party spirit had been manifested in this discussion. He was opposed to constructive fees, but was in favor of a plain salary for all county officers.
Mr. SCHWEITZER thought when the House resolved itself into the committee of the whole that politics and war would not be discussed, but that the question of fees and salaries would occupy the time. He stood pledged before his people for a reduction in the fees and salaries of county officers, and cited figures to show what would be saved to the State by a reasonable reduction in the offices of clerk and sheriff. He was in favor of salaries.
Mr. WILLARD: The purpose of the resolution was to take the sense of this House as to a law for fees or salary. The committee on fees and salaries will report such a bill as the House shall direct.
Mr. ALLEN of Putnam offered an amendment that the committee on fees and salary be instructed to draft and report to the House a fee and salary bill that will so adjust the pay of officers as will compare with like service in business life, and that said committee be especially instructed to reduce the salaries of circuit judges with other officers.
The resolution [Mr. Osborne's] was then adopted--affirmative 53, negative not counted.
On the motion of Mr. Falkner, the committee rose, reported the adoption of the resolution, and recommended its passage by the House.
The report was concurred in.
The Committee on Fees and Salaries were instructed to return the bill H. R. 113 and the bill H. R. 344 next Tuesday morning.
The House then adjourned.
