THE BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
VOLUME SEVENTEEN.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
IN SENATE.
THURSDAY, Feb. 27,1879-- 9 o'clock a. m.Mr. REEVE introduced a bill [S. 442] supplemental to the general election acts--relating to general elections to beheld in 1880--if the proposed constitutional amendment No. 3 be ratified by the people. The general election of October 1880, shall be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, 18Si). On his further motion the constitutional rule was dispensed with--yeas 39, nays 4--the lull considered as engrossed and read the second time.
Mr. HARRIS raised a constitutional objection to the wording of the bill--its execution being dependent upon a condition. He moved its reference to the Judiciary Committee with Instructions to report to-morrow morning.
Mr. REEVE replied to this objection; consenting to the reference.
The motion to refer was agreed to.
The wet land drainage bill [S.17--Mr. Kent's as fully described in these reports of February 10. a. m. and 20, p. m.] was read the third time.
Mr. REEVE on a former occasion sought to point out serious objections to this bill. While he was absent on a mournful duty the bill was passed to the third reading. The provisions of the bill are so unprecedently vicious in character, he desired in a brief manner to call attention to the fact that this class of legislation is in the direction of transferring to individuals the right of eminent domain. This bill in an absolute and overwhelming degree would transfer to an irresponsible individual rights over eminent domain that no Czar or Emperor dare exercise. It would give to an irresponsible man absolute control over anybody's land at any time of the year, make his own expenses as he pleases, and lie shall be reimbursed. In full, his assessments being a perpetual lien on the lands till paid; the ditch may cost five times what the land is worth, and the land is to be sold if the assessments are not paid in 10 days. He is legislator, judge and sheriff"; he declares the law, he expounds it and he executes; so there is nothing to appeal' from, and there is no provision made to contest these proceedings. The bill provides for 12 feet fall to the mile. This bill is got up for Clinton county and the counties adjoining. To transfer a power, the State can not and does not exercise, to an irresponsible individual, is something too preposterous to be seriously considered.
Mr. KENT insisted the senator from Marshall had certainly misunderstood the bill. The 12 foot fall is not made obligatory-the fail can not be made to exceed 12 feet per mile. Every State in the Union has drainage laws, and almost ever since the organization of the State there have been drainage laws on our statute books, under which vast tracts of marshy land formerly worthless, have been made useful; and many thousand acres are yet remaining in need of some such measure as this. This bill may not be perfect, but, as the senator himself has said, it is 100 per cent batter than any former law on this subject. The senator says this bill gives to an individual the exercise of the right of eminent domain, which Mr. K. denied. Laws of this kind exist in all the States, and no supreme court has decided against them. This is a good bill and it ought to pass.
Mr. FOSTER demanded the previous question, which was seconded by the Senate, and under its operation the bill passed the Senate by--yeas 40, nays 5.
Mr. URMSTON explaining: He was not satisfied with the bill, and had much doubt as to its constitutionality, but believing it much better than any law on the statute books, would vote "aye."
On motion by Mr. FOSTER, his bill [S. 103] to authorize cities to construct water works, was taken up, with a majority report recommending sundry amendments, and a minority report restricting the issue of bonds by cities or towns whose indebtedness exceeds 4 per cent. on amount of taxables, etc., otherwise concurring with the majority.
Mr. URMSTON moved the adoption of the minority report, giving reasons therefor.
Mr. FOSTER said if the minority report be adopted Fort Wayne would be cut off from the provisions of this bill. He appealed to the Senate for a fair show in this matter, hoping page: 200[View Page 200] the bill would pass after concurrence in the majority report
Mr. MENZIES objected to allowing a town to be burdened with a debt of $4 on the $100 to increase its indebtedness, and, therefore, favored the minority report. Such a provision as is contemplated in the majority report would bring commercial paralysis and subsequent death to any community. He saw no limit to the bonds authorized to be issued by this bill, which comes here in the specious guise of general legislation, but is in reality a measure specially desired by the city of Fort Wayne.
Mr. REEVE: Even if Fort Wayne has an indebtedness of four and a half per cent., her citizens should still be the judges as to whether any more tax shall be levied or not. He favored the bill if it sufficiently guards the owners of artificial works. Unless this bill is passed, no city can thereafter construct water-works, if the constitutional amendment should be ratified by the people.
Mr. WOOD counselled caution in the matter of authorizing cities and towns to issue bonds, so many such corporations being now largely in debt. Conferring such great power on trustees and common councils is very dangerous proceedings. Such power should be curtailed; restrict the indebtedness, let the tax-payer be heard and he would favor the bill.
Mr. WINTERBOTHAM moved to amend the minority report by striking out "4" and inserting "2" per cent. in lieu. He believed no town should be allowed to create an indebtedness above two per cent of its taxables.
The amendment was rejected by yeas 13, nays 26.
Mr. FOSTER again appealed to senators to favor Ins city of Fort Wayne by voting against the minority report.
Mr. REEVE moved to strike from the minority report so much as refers to four per cent., which, under the operations of the previous question demanded by Mr. FOSTER was agreed to--yeas 24, nays 21.
The minority report as amended was adopted.
Mr. REEVE moved to amend by a provision protecting artificial water works from condemnation without consent of the owner.
Then came the recess till 2 o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. DICE moved an amendment requiring the affirmative vote of a majority before the water works shall be commenced.
Mr. REEVE moved a substitute for this amendment, requiring a petition of three-fifths in value of taxable property. He said it is not right to allow a floating voter, who contributes nothing, to impose taxes upon free-holders.
Mr. URMSTON hoped no senator would vote to accommodate one city, when by that vote many others may be ruined. He favored the substitute.
Mr. FOSTER, opposed the substitute, but was willing to adopt the amendment.
Mr. DICE opposed the substitute for his amendment, believing it would disfranchise a large number of voters, and believing it also impracticable.
The substitute was rejected upon a division--yeas 17, nays 23.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. SARNIGHAUSEN moved to add to the section the words: "under the provisions of the present law regulating the sale of bonds," etc.
Mr. FOSTER opposed the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. WIER made an ineffectual motion to amend by striking from the bill the words "incorporated towns."
On motion by Mr. SARNIGHAUSEN secs. 10,14 and 15 were amended by inserting a proviso that contracts shall be ratified by the Council. The bill as amended was passed the second reading by--yeas 37, nays 10.
Mr. REEVE explaining: Insomuch as this bill provides that persons who are unable to pay anything shall be permitted to vote to tax owners of property, he should vote "no."
Mr. STREIGHT explaining: Believing there is great danger in allowing corporations to go in debt, but believing there may be an exception made in cases of water works. On this bill he should vote "aye."
Mr. URMSTON explaining: Having done what he could to amend the bill, it still lacking in guards about trustees of cities and towns, he should have to vote "no."
On motion by Mr. FOSTER, the constitutional rule was dispensed with by--yeas 42, nays 4--the bill considered engrossed, read the third time, and passed the Senate by--yeas 32, nays 11.
On motion by Mr. FOWLER, the bill [H. R. 7, see these reports February 25, p. m.]regulating the working of coal mines, was read the third time.
Mr. STREIGHT hoped due consideration will be given to this bill, and desired that senators should be careful in putting such great power, as is proposed in this bill, in the hands of such gangs as have recently enacted scenes as the State should never see again. It is not safe to place the coal mining interests of the State in the control of this class of men. Experience in Pennsylvania shows that element should be controlled and not placed in a position to control. Their murderous course has placed them in antagonism to all law. But who is asking for this kind of enactments? Not the producers of coal or the proprietors of coal mines, but the miners themselves. If proper machinery is not used, the owners should be compelled to procure proper machinery and to keep their mines properly ventilated. If the friends of the miner want legislation for their protection inside of the mines, there should also be laws made to protect the miner outside of the mine, and the operators' property should be protected. This bill is a one-sided affair, not calculated to reach proper ends; it represents the element that not only destroyed property in Clay county, but murdered men there; and neglects to do any tiling for anybody else. He regarded this as the worst and most dangerous bill ever presented to the General Assembly.
Mr. TREAT disagreed with the senator [Mr. Streight] about the construction of the section of the bill referring to the inspection of the mines. The design of the bill is humanitarian--it is intended to protect the workmen who delve in the bowels of the earth. In some of the mining States there are statutes more stringent than this. These men look to the strong arm of the law for protection, and they ought not to be permitted to look in vain. If the owner can not afford ventilation and outlets sufficient for the safety of his hands, he ought not to work his mine. As such legislation is necessary in al1 mining States, in behalf of thousands of men in this State engaged in mining, he desired to see protection extended to them. He favored the bill, and should vote for it, unless receiving more light than is now in his possession from its opponents. Men in illy ventilated shafts work in partial torture, and as a question of health and life he favored this measure.
Mr. REEVE repealed his assertion made the other day, that no such inconsistent measure could be found in any similar act on the stat-[ute] page: 201[View Page 201][stat]-ute books of other States, and he referred to provisions in this bill which come under the head of class legislation, and consequently are unconstitutional. He believed a few rich men had drafted the bill for the purpose of crushing out all the other mines of the State, controlling the mining interests of the State, and raising the price of coal. This is not a bill in the interest of miners.
Mr. KENT would favor a bill for the proper ventilating of coal mines, but for this measure he could not vote. It places coal miners probably a member of a communistic order in charge of the entire mining interests of the State, embracing, possibly, a valuation of $50,000,000. He opposed placing this vast interest in the hands of men in league with the miners themselves. There are provisions in this bill unjust and improper. The bill goes far beyond any other mining laws in other States. He believed it will do the miners but little good, and that it would increase the price of coal 25 per cent.
Mr. WOOD. It is asserted that this is a bill in the interest of the Molly Maguires, but no argument is advanced to prove that statement. If this bill makes the business or mining more safe it will make coal cheaper. Why do all mining States have bills of this kind? Simply to protect the miners. As he understood the bill it was intended, also, to keep the laborer from being swindled. This bill is not a perfect one, out as its great purpose is to protect mines and the miners, he was willing to forego small objections and support the bill.
Mr. HEFRON regarded the bill, in its general scope and purpose, as worthy of acceptance as it stands. It throws around the miner the safety and protection it should, without imposing greater burdens than it ought to upon the owner of the mines. He defied senators to point out a single feature, word or syllable in this bill that will break up the mining interest in the bill, as has been charged. He favored doing what is right and. just and proper as between the miner and the operator, and declared it to be the duty of this Legislature, in view of recent disasters in the mines, to pass some act to protect the interest of the miners.
Mr. FOWLER conceded this to be a very important bill, affecting as it does the lives of thousands of miners, and property of the value of probably $50,000,000 or more. He combatted the statements that this bill was in the interests of communists;he would object to anything of that kind most seriously. The operators have moved heaven and earth to defeat this bill in this body every time it has passed the other House; and bills similar to this have passed the other House four times in the past few years. It is worse than pettifogging to talk about a good mining law raising the price of coal. Provisions are put in this bill to protect small mines. It does not operate on any mine from which less than 15,000 square yards of coal are mined. Had this bill become a law two years ago the eight lives recently lost in the Sullivan county mines would have been saved.
Mr. HEILMAN denied the charge of being on the side of capital as agaist labor; on the contrary, he insisted that he was on the side of the workingman, being himself a worker as many hours in the day as any other man in the State. Landing in this State without a dollar, what he owns he made as a business man.
Under the operation of the previous question, demanded by Mr. VIEHE, the bill was passed by--yeas 28, nays 14.
Pending the roll call--
Mr. HART, explaining: This bill is not just the bill he desired, but as the best thing that could be got, he should vote "aye.'
Mr. KENT, explaining: He would be glad to vote for a fair mining bill, but inasmuch as opportunity for amendments were cut off, he could not vote for this one.
Mr. REEVE, explaining: By a fair understanding this bill was not to be considered as read the second time when last before the Senate, and inasmuch as amendments were cut off by win at he considered a trick, he should vote "no."
Mr. SHIRK explaining: Was not exactly suited with this bill, and would like to see amendments made to it; but inasmuch as it is the best thing that can be got, he would vote "aye."
Mr. STREIGHT explaining: Was unable to vote for this bill, as it contains no provision for the appointment of impartial and intelligent inspectors.
Mr. TAYLOR explaining: Did not wish to be understood as against a proper mining bill, but there are some provisions in this one so adverse to good judgment that he could not vote for it.
Mr. TREAT stated he was paired with the senator from Elkhart [Mr. Davenport] on this question.
And so the bill passed.
Mr. OLDS, from the special committee appointed to investigate the Soldiers'Orphans' Home at Knightstown, submitted an extended report concluding with a resolution instructing the attorney-general to take such steps in regard to recovering back to the State the extra per diem paid said trustees (George Sanford, of Crown Point, $222. Ellison Williams, of Knightstown,$222, and William Hannaman, of Indianapolis, $444) as in his opinion is just.
On motion of Mr. WOOLLEN, the report was made the special order for the morning hour to-morrow.
And then the Senate adjourned.
