THE BREVIER LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS.
VOLUME SEVENTEEN.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
IN SENATE.
THURSDAY, Feb. 20,1879 9 o'clock a. m.Prayer by Eld. M. Broyles, of the Baptist church.
On motion by Mr. LEEPER his bill [S. 338--described in these Reports of Feb. 4] for the protection of game and birds was read the second time.
Mr. WIER moved to amend the bill by providing that the trapping of wood duck for the purposes of propagation shall be permitted. There is a species of duck that inhabit the territory between Lakes Erie and Michigan called the "wood duck," which is transported for the use of Eastern Parks. The duck is abundant in that section, are migratory in character, and the object of the amendment is to give opportunity for transportation with a view to propagating the species.:
Mr. TRUSLER opposed opening the door for the trapping of any species of game, because the trapper can not keep other fowls out of his trap.
Mr. LEEPER also opposed the amendment, regarding it as striking at the vital principle of the bill. This bill has been indorsed by the shooting club of South Bend, composed of some 200 members, and is desired by many in his section of the country.
Mr. TREAT was satisfied the amendment is not attacking the bill in spirit, though probably unnecessary.
The amendment was rejected.
On motion by Mr. BRISCOE the bill was amended so as to make it unlawful to shoot or kill wild turkey between February 1 and November 1.
Mr. TRUSLER regarded this bill as an improvement on the present law, and hoped to see it passed, though it was not as stringent as he could desire.
Mr. TREAT moved ineffectually to amend by making ;it unlawful to destroy squirrels during the months of February, March and April in each year.
On motion by Mr. LEEPER, the constitutional restriction requiring that "every bill shall be read by sections, on three several days in each House," was dispensed with--yeas 42, nays 2--and the bill and amendments were considered as engrossed, and bill was read the third time, under the operations of the previous question demanded by Mr. Leeper.
Mr. URMSTON deprecated the practice of amending the game law at almost every session of the General Assembly. He believed the present statute was sufficiently strict on this subject.
Mr. LEEPER insisted that his bill proposed vital and much needed changes from the present law; which law in his section of the State could not be enforced.
The bill was passed the Senate--yeas 43, nays 3--under the operations of the previous question, again demanded by Mr. Leeper.
On motion by Mr. SHIRK, his bill [S. 69] to provide for the organization and support of an asylum for feeble minded children--near Knightstown--under the direction of three Trustees to be appointed by the governor, was read the second time.
On motion by Mr. MENZIES his bill [S. 140] authorizing the surrender of city charters on petition of two-thirds adult tax-payers where the population is less than 7,000, was read the second time--Mr. M. explaining it was simply to get rid of the large expense incident to the maintenance of a munuicipal government; and was well guarded.
Mr. HEFRON pointed out the difference between the bill and the present law, showing that while two-thirds of the tax-payers may surrender the charter one day, the very next a majority may obtain a renewal of the charter. He opposed the passage of the bill.
On motion of Mr. MENZIES the constitutional restriction requiring all bills to be read on three separate days was dispensed with by yeas 44, nays 0. The bill and amendments were considered as engrossed, the bill read the third time, and finally passed the Senate by yeas 46, nays 1.
On motion by Mr. VEIHE this bill [S. 254], for the payment of judges [per diem $8 and eight cents per mile] holding courts out of their circuits was read the second time, the constitutional restriction dispensed with by yeas 46, nays 0, the bill considered as engross-[ed] page: 172[View Page 172][engross]- ed, read the third time, and finally passed by yeas 46, nays 0.
On motion of Mr. COMSTOCK his witness bill [S. 184--described in these reports of Januuary 20] was taken up and read the second time.
Mr. COMSTOCK explained the object of the bill to be only one change in the act, viz.: authorizing husband and wife to testify for or against one another. It proposes to place an honest man and an honest woman on the same footing in the courts with disreputable characters as to their competency to testify on the witness stand. There are countless wrongs, the very quintessence of cruelty, sometimes, known only frequently as between husband and wife, and the ends of justice would be advanced frequently by allowing each to testify.
Mr. HEFRON opposed any innovation upon this well established principle in law, which only operates where the husband or wife are interested in the result of the matter under investigation. The bill would give an undue advantage, an opportunity for husband and wife to collude as against another. The power of coercion the husband possesses over the wife would certainly be productive of wrongs innumerable under this bill, while the wrongs perpetrated under the present law are very rare indeed.
Then came the recess till 2 o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
A number of reports were submitted from standing committees, where, under a custom tolerated this session by consent, were placed on the files without reading.
Mr. HARRIS believed the only way to get at justice and truth is to let everybody testify, so he was not opposed to that provision in the bill under consideration, but he objected to the exception made therein, and he proposed an amendment to do away with his.
Mr. MENZIES could not see why this bill ought not to pass, inasmuch as the Senate has already passed a bill removing all legal disabilities from married women, and as the law now permits the most debased criminal to go upon the witness stand, there is no good reason why the married woman should have her lips sealed when placed in the witness box under the last restriction. He favored the bill.
Mr. URMSTON--Although the criminal is allowed to testify in his own behalf. The experience of every attorney has proven that provision has operated more against than for the defendant. He opposed this bill and amendment as going a step too far. We should abstain as far as possible from interfering with the domestic affairs of families.
Mr. WOOD: The bill recently passed by the Senate having separated husband and wife in their relations as to property, he should favor the bill, although another new departure.
Mr. HEFRON was afraid this bill would open up a way and means for advantage to the prosecution by allowing an additional witness for the plaintiff. He regarded it as against public policy to enact such a measure as the one proposed in this bill.
Mr. HARRIS cited cases where the woman's character can not be cleared without her testimony in her own behalf.
Mr. STREIGHT opposed the amendment. What could a bad woman and a willing husband not do under such a measure as now proposed? They could rob men of property in many instances and undr many circumstances.
The amendment was rejected by yeas 18, nays 27.
Mr. DICE proposed an amendment so that when suits are brought by or against administrators, etc., and there is any testimony with regard to conversation or transaction the administrator, guardian or executor may also testify as to the same.
It was agreed to.
Mr. FOWLER thought this bill would be a dangerous innovation upon the present practice. It is utterly impracticable. He moved to strike out the enacting clause.
Mr. KENT was opposed to this bill, and thinking this the quickest way to get rid of it would vote for the amendment.
The amendment was rejected by--yeas 11, nays 35.
The bill was ordered engrossed.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR announced the special order being the bil [S. 17--Mr. Kent's, described in these reports of February 10] to enable the owner to drain and reclaim wet lands.
Mr. GARRIGUS said: More than one-half of the State is vitally interested in this bill. There was now three laws governing the drainage of lands, and the one under consideration is an addition to the individual drainage law of 1875, and a substitute for the law of 1873 and l877. It is absolutely necessary that a large portion of the State should have the benefit of a good drainage law. He explained the provisions of this bill at length, and urged its passage.
Mr. KENT answered legal objections hereto* fore raised against this bill when it was discussed in the Senate. The report of the committee, embracing a substitute bill, was concurred in.
Mr. WILSON made an ineffectual motion--yeas 2, nays 37--to lay the bill on the table.
Mr. KRAMER moved, to amend by requiring "three" instead of "one" person to make the application to the board of commissioners.
It was agreed to on a division--affirmative 18, negative 17.
Mr. Kent declaring that that amendment would destroy the efficiency of the bill, and, if adhered to, his interest in the bill was at an end, desired some one voting with the majority to move a reconsideration of the vote just taken.
On motion by Mr. DURHAM, the vote was reconsidered--yeas 31, nays 12.
Mr. BURRELL moved that the amendment be rejected, and, on that motion, demanded the previous question, which was seconded by yeas 35, nays 7--and, under its operation, the amendment was rejected by--yeas 28, nays 15.
Mr. STREIGHT offered an amendment, by which he hoped to cut off any stock-jobbing.
It was rejected.
On motion by Mr. KRAMER the bill was further amended in section 1, by requiring notices to be posted 10 days prior to the session of the board, and any person whose land is affected may contest the utility of making the ditch, and if the board be satisfied of its public utility it shall appoint three disinterested free-holders--one a surveyor--to assess benefits, etc.
On motion by Mr. LANGDON, section 1 of the bill was further amended by appropriately inserting the words "one who is the owner of at least a free-hold interest on the land affected," etc.
page: 173[View Page 173]The bill was ordered engrossed by yeas 22, nays l7.
On motion by Mr. FOSTER his bill [S. 184] to prevent the practice of sending out of the State claims against Indianians for debt to be collected by proceedings in attachment, was read the third time, and passed by yeas 38, nays 0.
Mr. Hefron introduced a bill, by request, [S. 425] for the redistriction and buying out of wards in cities of not less than 9,000, nor more than 13,000 inhabitants by the census of 1870, under commissioners appointed by the governor, which was read the first time and referred to the committee on corporations.
The Senate adjourned.
