HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
TUESDAY, Feb. 18,1879-- 9 o'clock a. m.The session was opened with prayer by Mr. Mitchell, representative from the county of Washington.
The reading of the journal was dispensed with.
New bills for acts were introduced--
By Mr. BLISS, [H. R. 606] to amend section 56 of an act defining misdemeanors; and--
By Mr. HUTHSTEINER, [H. R. 607] to amend section 467 of the practice act.
Mr. OSBORNE'S, of Elkhart county, resolution fixing Wednesday of each week for the consideration of bills on the third reading, was adopted.
The judiciary committee returned the following described bills with favorable reports thereon, and the bills were severally ordered engrossed: H. R. 273, prescribing the forms of deeds to be used by sheriffs and coroners; H. R. 32l,to amend the act for the election, etc., of justices of the peace; H. R. 211, for the cancellation of judgments; H. R. 378, defining misdemeanors; H. R. 310, to allow sheriffs and constables to pursue persons going into other counties; S. 30, to authorize guardians to settle the estate of deceased wards; S. 125, concerning stolen or concealed property; H. R. 499, to amend section 336 of the practice act; H. R. 437, to legalize certain conveyances; H. R. 464, concerning persons of unsound mind; H. R. 349, deeming felonies; H. R. 217, deeds from Canada may be admitted in evidence; H. R. 332, supplemental to the practice act in criminal cases; H. R. 542, touching the boarding of prisoners confined in county ]ails.
Mr. OVERMEYER moved that the sheriff shall receive 40 cents a day, where there is but one prisoner.
Mr. OSBORNE, of Elkhart, demanded a division of the question, and said he was in favor of striking out the reference to population ; but he thought 30 cents per day was enough.
The House then, by consent, struck out the reference to population.
Mr. ALLEN, of Putnam, thought a reduction to 40 cents would compare favorably with. the price of board. He did not want to make it penurious. He was in favor of what was fair.
Mr. HEROD said sheriffs had to clean out the jail, furnish light, etc., at their own expense. He was in favor of the amendment.
Mr. EDWINS was in favor of the bill as reported by the committee.
Mr. OVERMEYER'S amendment was then agreed to.
Mr. OVERMEYER offered a further amendment that sheriffs may receive 30 cents per day when more than two prisoners were confined at one time.
Mr. BRIGGS moved to amend by substituting five for two.
Mr. SAINT was sure that 100 men could be fed cheaper than five. He was in favor of the amendment.
Mr. WATSON was in favor of 40 cents a day, and would favor amendments to the bill in other particulars.
The amendment was agreed too--affirmative 52, negative not counted.
Mr. LINDLEY moved to strike out the words "or jailor," which was agreed to, and the bill was ordered engrossed.
Mr. WORKS, from the same committee, returned the bill H. R. 286, prescribing the duties of coroners; H. R. 393, defining embezzlement; H. R. 426, to whom certain costs shall be paid, with favorable reports thereon, and the bills were engrossed.
Mr. MARCH, from the same committee, returned the bill H. R. 229, touching the relation of guardian and ward. He said the object was to have an itemized account returned every two years.
Mr. STUCKER thought the object was to protect the ward against loss, and provide that, the sureties and others can examine and see how the account stands.
Mr. SLEETS offered a proviso, which was adopted, "in case the amount does not exceed $500." The bill was ordered engrossed.
Also, [H. R. 119] providing for the election of justices of the peace, etc. It was ordered engrossed.
Mr. SHANKS, from. the same committee, returned the resolution in relation to the abolition of the grand jury system, reporting it as inexpedient to abolish that system. The report was concurred in.
Mr. BRIGGS, from the committee on organization of courts, returned the bill [H. R. 549] to provide for the more speedy trial of causes; also,[S. 268] to fix the time of holding courts in the Second judicial circuit; also, [H. R. 457] to divide the State into Judicial circuits, recommending their passage. It affects only Miami county. They were severally ordered engrossed. Also the resolution to inquire into the expediency of redistricting the State for Judicial purposes, recommending no action necessary.
Mr. MIERS, from the Committee on Education, returned the bill [H. R. 372] to provide for the education of colored children, recommending indefinite postponement. Also [H. R. 16) defining what property may be taxed for edu-[cational] page: 164[View Page 164][edu]-cational purposes. Also [H. R. 506] regulating school fund loan, recommending their passage. They were severally ordered engrossed.
Mr. EDWINS, from a minority of the committee on rights and privileges, returned the bill [H. R. 240] to prevent carrying concealed weapons, with a recommendation for its indefinite postponement.
Mr. WIMMER hoped the report of the minority would not be adopted.
Mr. DRAKE thought if there was a bill before this Legislature that should pass, it was this one.
Mr. HUBBARD believed this bill, or one like it, ought to pass. It gives the commissioners authority to say who shall carry concealed weapons.
Mr. EDWINS thought that by this act you license irresponsible parties--worthy men will not apply for a permit to carry deadly weapons.
Mr. WORKS was in favor of passing a bill that would increase the penalty we now have. He thought no person ought to be licensed to carry weapons.
Mr. THAYER said three-fourths of the murders committed were the result, of carrying concealed weapons. He hoped the bill would pass. There was no need of any one carrying weapons.
Mr. JOHNSON hoped the House would not concur in the report.
The minority report was then rejected.
Mr. MARCH moved that the bill be recommitted to the same committee, with instruction to report to-morrow.
Mr. SAINT thought it had been fully discussed and ought to be disposed of at once. He was in favor of the bill
Mr. HEROD--There were a number of citizens in the transaction of businesses in which it is necessary to carry weapons.
Mr. TAYLOR of Daviess hoped the motion would prevail.
The motion to recommit was agreed to.
The same committee returned a majority report upon the bill [H. R. 22] for a homestead, recommending indefinite postponement.
A minority report, was also submitted, with amendments, for $500 exemption, and when so amended, recommending its passage.
Mr. OVERMEYER was willing to increase the existing law from $300 to $500. That will be enough for the present.
Mr. SHANKS moved to amend by striking out "$500" and inserting "$1,500." This amendment was laid on the table--yeas 64. nays 27.
Mr JOHNSON moved to amend by striking out $500 and inserting $1,000.
Mr. SAINT was in favor of the amendment because he believed an exemption of $1,000 would benefit all classes. It will encourage the laboring class to provide themselves a home, and it will not be long until that home will be worth more than $1,000.
A motion to lay the amendment on the table was rejected--yeas 38, nays 51.
The amendment was then adopted.
Mr. OSBORNE, of Elkhart, thought this was now in shape that the House could and ought to act upon it.
Mr. OWEN moved to refer the bill and amendments to the Committee on Rights and Privileges, with instructions to report to-morrow at 9 o'clock.
The motion was agreed to.
Then came the recess till 2 o'clock,
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. WILLARD, from the committe on fees and salaries, returned the bills [H. R. 344 and 113] with amendments, and without recommendation, as they are unanimously of the opinion that it is a very doubtful question whether either of said bills are constitutional in all of their provisions.
Mr. OSBORNE, of Elkhart, presented an additional amendment. And on his suggestion the bill was read by sections.
Mr.-------- proposed to amend the first section so as to increase the salary of county treasurers and clerks from $1,000 to $1,500.
Mr. Briggs said the clerk can not afford to take the office for less than $1,500. He was in favor of the amendment.
Mr. REED was in favor of the increase as to but one, and asked for a division of the question.
Mr. MIERS said this bill would require the clerk of his county to do the work for $1,122.50. He was not willing to reduce the salaries as low as this bill requires. He was in favor of a reduction in a reasonable ratio. The bill makes the salary too low. Fifteen hundred dollars is nearer right, and he was in favor of the amendment.
The pending amendment was withdrawn, and Mr. Miers immediately, renewed it.
Mr. MITCHELL did not wish to cut down fees and salaries too low, neither was he willing to bankrupt the people. He was opposed to the amendment, and in favor of the $1,000.
MR. DAILEY stood ready to vote for a reasonable reduction, but was in favor of the amendment. If there is any distinction in these affairs it ought to be in favor of the clerk. He would cast his vote towards equalizing the compensation of county officers.
Mr. VANPELT knew that the officers in his county could hardly pay their deputies under the provisions of this bill, and he was, therefore, opposed to it.
Mr. CALDWELL thought the salaries fixed in the bill were entirely too low. He was willing to a reasonable reduction, but would be compelled to vote against the bill.
Mr. JOHNSON was satisfied that most of the members here were pledged to a reduction of fees and salaries. He was in favor of the men elected to office doing the work themselves. He was opposed to the amendment.
Mr. HOPKINS should oppose the bill, because in his county the work could not be done for the money.
Mr. SAINT thought that high salaries lead to corruption in getting these offices. He favored the passage of the bill because the salaries provided were ample. This bill is just what citizens are demanding at the hands of this Legislature, He should oppose this amendment.
Mr. HEROD: The effort to relieve the dear people is not so heartfelt as it appears. The bill shows upon its face that so far as being friendly to the people it is in that particular a mere farce. The clerk of Marion county could not carry on his office for less than $1,500 or $1,600. If you want honest officers, pay honest wages. If you want to reduce these salaries, why don't you begin with your highest officials--the governor. The amount in the bill was too small. He wanted the fair thing done by all these county officials.
Mr. MARSH did not think it required any very great ability to discharge the duties of any of the county-offices. There are women in the country who could fill these offices for one-half the money. He was satisfied with the fees in this bill--all but the auditor, and thought the auditor should receive about $1,200.
Mr. OSBORNE, of Elkhart, did not intend to say any more upon this subject, and should not, but to correct figures made by gentlemen who preceded him, It seemed to him that the fact of the presence in this city of so many county officers should spur members to do their duty in this matter, and not allow their page: 165[View Page 165] presence here to have any influence on their action.
The amendment to make the treasurer's salary $1,500 was rejected by--yeas 45, nays 47.
The amendment to increase the auditor's salary to $1,500 was adopted--yeas 59, nays 34.
Mr. WORKS offered an amendment, which was adopted, to reduce the salaries $25 for each 100 voters less than 2,500 population.
Mr. HEROD offered an amendment that the second proviso of the first section apply to sheriff as well as clerks, which was taken by consent. The first section was also amended so as not to interfere with fees due to which clerks and sheriff are now entitled.
Mr. WILLARD moved to amend the third section by appropriately inserting the words "except clerks and sheriffs." He offered the amendment based on the decision made by the supreme court on the ground of its unconstitutionality.
Mr. OVERMEYER called attention to a section of the fee and salary bill of 1871. The only difference between this bill and the law of 1871 was that the law of 1871 states what should be done with the surplus, if any there was, and this bil does not. The decision did not go t0 the proviso only, but that these officers should pay any of their fees, or any part thereof, into the treasury was unconstitutional. Before he could support any such a measure as this he would want to know whether the fees allowed in this bill would relieve the people any more than the present law. He had no doubt about the unconstitutionality of the law, and therefore was opposed to it.
Mr. OSBORNE, of Elkhart, thought the amendment should be rejected.
Mr. MARSH thought the Legislature has the power to enact a fee and salary bill, or both, and he saw nothing in the decision of the Supreme Court to the contrary.
Mr. Willard's amendment was rejected--yeas 21, nays 72.
Mr. HESS offered an amendment which would strike out the words "paid before" and insert "due and payable after" the act was done or services rendered.
Mr. SHANKS said he would not support this bill if any citizen shall have to pay in advance for the privilege of obtaining justice in the courts. It is the honest, people that need the protection of common justice.
Mr. TAYLOR of Daviess was opposed to the bill. Anything which looks like a tax upon justice should not be entertained for a moment. This bill he could not and would not support. It is not one that the people desire or demand, but he would like to see a bill passed that would reduce the present fees and. salaries.
The House then adjourned.
