THE BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
VOLUME SEVENTEEN.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
IN SENATE.
TUESDAY, Feb. 25,1879-- 9 o'clock a. m.After prayer by Rev. E. A. Bradley, of Christ's church, the reading of the minutes was dispensed with.
On motion by Mr. REEVE, his bill [S. 390] to prevent certain live stock from running at large, with the bills, S. 67 and 49, on the same subject. A committee report presents a substitute for the three bills.
Mr. REEVE explained: The substitute provides that the board of commissioners may make an order to prevent the running at large of animals, except swine, but only on petition of a majority of the land owners. The hog cholera has spread all over the country by the running at large of hogs; those who live in the country know what an almost intolerable nuisance it is. No stock ought to be permitted to run at large, but as this is a compromise, he hoped it would speedily pass the Senate and be communicated to the House of Representatives. The pecuniary benefits of this bill is that it would save the people of the State more than all the public buildings cost, by requiring every man to fence only as against his own stock. No person shall be required to fence against stock running at large.
Mr. STREIGHT favored the substitute. If a man wants to let his stock run at large, all damage done by the stock ought to be paid for by the owner. The extra expense of keeping up fences. Millions of dollars of fence are kept up. The cost of keeping. The value of all the stock in the State would not amount to one-tenth the expense to farmers of keeping up fences required to keep out their neighbor's stock, and protect his cultivated land.
Mr. Tarlton favored the substitute.
Mr. HEFRON cited the fact that there are thousands of uncultivated acres, which afford grazing for the poor man's stock, not interfering with anybody. This State is not prepared for a law of this kind. For the purpose of testing the sense of the Senate he made n ineffectual motion--yeas 19, nays 29--that the whole subject lie on the table.
Mr. COMSTOCK regarded the substitute as the best proposition of the four on this subject, but the present law is preferable.
Mr. GARRIGUS: The present law being ineffectual some such measure as the one proposed ought to be passed.
Mr. LEEPER: Some of his constituents desired legislation on this subject, but he did not believe this bill was what they desired.
On motion by Mr. MENZ1ES the substitute was amended by providing that nothing herein contained shall be constructed so as to relieve any railroad company from keeping up fences.
Mr. VIEHE believed a large majority of his constituents are in favor of a stock law. The objection to the substitute is that it does not provide a penalty for the running at large of stock, except hogs.
The substitute, as amended, was adopted.
Mr. TRAYLOR thought there is inconsistency in the bill, and he doubted whether the proviso will meet the emergency intended. The stock being trespassing when killed by the cars, the railroad company will not be held responsible. And he proposed the section proposing a fine, and also liability for damages; thinking that a little too strong.
The bill passed the second reading by--yeas 26, nays 21, and was ordered engrossed.
On motion by Mr. COMSTOCK, his bill [S. 194, see these reports February 20 a. m.] to amend section 20 of the witness act, was read the third time, and passed by--yeas 36, nays 14.
Mr. REEVE and Mr. SHIRK stating they would be glad to have the bill go further, but as it is in the right direction it received their affirmative vote.
Mr. FOWLER, believing the bill would introduce an element of discord between man and wife, voted "no."
Mr. RAGAN, from the special committee thereon, returned his bill [S. 274] to relieve Thomas N. Jones, of Hendricks county, from a judgement taken against him on the official bond of Lawrence S. Shuler, late warden of the Southern prison, recommending its passage. The report was concurred in; the bill read the second time.
Mr. BURRELL insisted this is a case where the Legislature should not enter satisfaction page: 190[View Page 190] of judgement--should not interfere with the court records. It is not a proper way to administer Government.
Mr. STREIGHT: As a rule he favored holding bondsmen to their bonds, but this is an exceptional case. This man has but a little house worth the amount of the judgment and no more: kindness, good feeling and liberality should be exhibited here.
Mr. RAGAN admitted this might prove a dangerous precedent, but being personally acquainted with the facts, believed the State should not turn out one of its best citizens in his old age to the cold charities of the world. This judgment would sweep away his little home and leave him homeless.
Mr. SHIRK in a general way, would not favor such legislation, but there are some cases which should be made an exception, and this is one.
Mr. WITHERBOTHAM also thought extenuating circumstances were connected with this case.
Mr. TRAYLOR should vote against all such bills, and if this be a precedent we had as well burn statute books and abolish courts. This measure is against every principle of justice and right.
Mr. GARRIGUS regarded the general rule as a good one, but was favorably disposed to this measure, believeing it would, take the last dollar from this old gentleman.
Mr. REEVE opposed this bill, believing such an act would say to every man who goes abroad, "You may steal what you have a mind to, and be as big a defaulter as you please, the Legislature will relieve your bondsmen."
The Senate refused to order the bill engrossed by yeas 19, nays 29.
On motion of Mr. LANGDON, the state claims commission bill [S. 207-fully described in these reports of yesterday p. m.] was read the third time.
Mr. KRAMER opposed the bill, regarding it as a dangerous measure to transfer this power from the Legislature into the hands of State officers. If this bill should pass, there will be so many claims filed against the State, the Marion circuit court will be kept busy in their adjudication, and it will require more than one attorney-general.
Mr. LANGDON took distinct issue with the senator from Spencer [Mr. Kramer]. This bill puts a quietus on all claims over six years old, and it will save much time of this and other Legislatures.
Mr. VIEHE--The State ought to pay her debt like any individual. The only question is how to determine the justness of claims preferred against her. He favored the bill because under it justice can be better done to all parties, and much time will be saved to each General. Assembly, besides getting rid of lobbyists coming up at every session.
Mr. STREIGHT was unable to see why there should be any opposition to this bill. His only wonder was such a measure had not been passed long ago.
Mr. REEVE could imagine the opposition to this bill might grow out of the hope to galvanize old claims into new life. He would rather trust such a board as the one proposed than the 150 members of the Legislature, and regarded the bill as providing for as cheap, safe and just disposition of claims as could be devised.
Mr. TAYLOR favored the provisions of this bill until the Senate saw proper to restrict the limitation to six years. The State can not afford to refuse to pay her just debts to her citizens.
The bill passed the Senate by--yeas 41, nays 9.
Then came the recess till 2 o'clock,
AFTERNOON SESSION.
On motion by Mr. FOWLER the bill, [H. R. 7] to regulate the working of coal mines, declaring a den upon the works and machinery, etc., was read the second time. Mr. STREIGHT deprecated action on so large and so important a bill unless it be printed so it can be more carefully considered. He made a motion to print 100 copies.
Mr. FOWLER and Mr. BRISCOE objected to the delay the printing would cause.
Mr. KENT said this was a strike in a new direction, and interferes to some extent with a vast amount of property in this State. But few are acquainted with the provisions of this bill. He desired the bill recommitted and printed.
Mr. HEILMAN reminded senators holding over of the right two years ago over a bill similar to this. It is an important measure, and the Senate ought to be cautious in acting upon it. In Clay county their are no mines over 70 feet in depth, but it is different down on the Ohio river. He knew of shafts sunk to the depth of 285 feet, and places where a single shaft cost $25,000. He opposed the bill, being in favor of cheap fuel for every inhabitant of the State,
Mr. MENZ1ES insisted that there is a demand for some stringent police regulation to protest human life in the mines of this State. There is a large class who delve in the bowels of the earth for their living and a day's delay is dangerous.
Mr. HEILMAN did not believe there had been a single life lost in the deep mines on the Ohio river in 30 years.
Mr. REEVE watched the reading of the bill as closely as he could. It is a bill of great importance and should receive all the consideration it can get. It affects some of the moat vital interests of the State. He defied any man, no matter how great his acquirements, to understand even its legal effects from the reading. The relation of capital to labor is involved in it:--one of the most profound studies of the age. If that bill becomes a law as it is now, it might destroy the mining interest of the State of Indiana, and the very object it is intended to accomplish. Police regulations should be made as nearly equal in their bearing and effects as possible. The bill goes down to the miserable pettifogging known in justice's court, and should not be tolerated in legislation. On the pretext of protesting labor, there is dragged in this bill the very class of legislation that has been denounced here day after day.
Mr. WOOD did not think the friends of the bill should desire to press it through without other senators knowing much about it. He favored the motion to print.
Mr. STREIGHT could not see why the friends of the bill were so certain it will be defeated if printed, unless it is unworthy to be passed. He knew something of the spirit, that has been demanding this kind of legislation for years, and warned senators to act upon this subject with great care,
Mr. FOWLER characterized the argument just made as a very strange one, and contended that this bill will not interfere with the mining interests of the State. Such provisions have not interfered with the mining interests of States where similar laws have been passed, and this bill is a much more modified law than those of Ohio or Pennsylvania. There is not a word of truth in the argument that this bill would raise the prici1 of coal. It is only to project those unfortunate men who go down deep into the earth, there to labor day after day in order that we may enjoy the benefits of their labor.
The report of the committee, as amended, page: 191[View Page 191] was adopted. 100 copies ordered printed, end the bill and report referred back to the committee.
On motion by Mr. HEFRON, his bill [S. 297] to abolish the office of state geologist was read the second time.
Mr. HEFRON said the office has outlived its usefulness, and now is an opportune time to get rid of it, as the occupant has tendered his resignation. There has been expended about $75,O0O for this office since its creation in l869, and probably no citizen unconnected with the expenditure has been benefited one cent Save the geological survey it has been used as the means for advertising the wares of different persons throughout the State (in confirmation of which statement he read extracts from the reports of the state geologist). The agricultural interests would not suffer much it the entire State Board of Agriculture were wiped out. Two years ago the State voted $28,000 to the State Board, and now it is asking $10,000 more. Every senator concedes that taxation should be reduced, but how can taxation be reduced unless there to be a reduction in public expenditures? We must commence somewhere to cut off, and this is nothing but a withered limb on the trunk of the tree of the body politic.
Mr. LANGDON moved to amend so that the geological specimens shall go to "Purdue University" instead of the "State Board of Agriculture."
Mr. HARRIS thought the researches of the State geologist have been of great benefit to the State in years past--not so much recently its heretofore.
Mr. REEVE was unable to see any grounds for the ridicule and badinage sought to be, brought out in reference to the geological report. He argued against the passage of the bill, insisting that to strike out this department of the government would be consummate folly. He regarded it as a cheap investment, as contrasted with the great benefits derived from it.
Mr. HARRIS moved a substitute for the amendment by striking out the words "State Board of Agriculture" and inserting in lieu "The State Library."
Mr. FOWLER moved to amend the substitute by striking out the words "State University "and inserting in lieu the words "State Library."
This amendment was rejected.
Mr. SHAFFER hoped this bill would not be engrossed.
Mr. TREAT was not anxious that this bill should pass. The friends of the state geologist. claim his report is an advertisement of the resources of the State, and a very valuable one,too. The State University is the most appropriate place to put the collection referred to if the office should be abolished, but he was opposed to that proposition.
The amendment to the substitute was rejected by--yeas 11, nays 37. The substitute was adopted on a division--24 affirmative and 16 negative--and the bill ordered engrossed.
On motion by Mr. BURRELL, under his demand for the previous question, which was seconded by the Senate, the resolution [Mr. Langdon's] for a division of the State into congressional districts, was taken up by--yeas 40,nays 7.
On his further motion the resolution was indefinitely postponed by--yeas 25, nays 24--the lieutenant governor giving the casting vote--under the operation of the previous question demanded by Mr. Burrell.
On motion by Mr. STREIGHT his bill [S. 270] to reduce the number of superior courts in Marion county to three, was read the second time, the constitutional restriction dispensed with--yeas 39, nays 1--the bill was ordered engrossed, read the third time and passed by yeas 42, nays 1.
And then the Senate adjourned.
