THE BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
VOLUME SEVENTEEN.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
IN SENATE.
TUESDAY, March 4,1879 9 o'clock a. m.The minutes were not read.
Mr. BURRELL moved to take up the bill [H. R. 340] to apportion the State for senatorial and representative purposes, and read it the third time now, and, on that motion, demanded the previous question, which was seconded by--yeas 27, nays 20. The main question being ordered, without a division, the motion to take up the bill was agreed to by--yeas 26, nays 21. The bill [H. R. 340] being read the third time--
Mr. BURRELL moved the bill be put on its passage now, and, on that motion, demanded the previous question, which was seconded by--yeas 26, nays 21--the main question ordered, and the bill passed the Senate by--yeas 26, nays 21--as follows:
Those voting in the affirmative were Messrs. Benz, Briscoe, Burrell, Coffey, Davis, Donham, Foster, Fowler, Hart, Hefron, Kent, Kramer, Leeper, Major, Menzies, Peterson, Reeves, Reiley, Sarnighausen, Tarlton, Traylor, Urmston, Viehe, Wood, Woollen and Winterbotham--26.
Those voting in the negative were Messrs, Cadwallader, Comstock, Davenport, Dice, Garrigus, Grubbs, Harris, Kahlo, Langdon, Mercer, Moore, Olds, Poindexter, Ragan, Shaffer, Smith, Taylor, Treat, Trusler, Weir and Wilson--21.
Pending the roll call--
Mr. HARRIS, in explanation of his vote, said: He found in the National platform a declaration that the National party are in favor of a fair and equitable apportionment which shall secure a fair and un trammeled expression of the political sentiment of the people. On an examination of the election returns of 1876 and 1878 he finds that at neither election has the Democratic party cast 50 per cent. of the votes. He finds, also, on examining the senatorial apportionment as made in the substitute adopted for this bill that 60 per cent. is given to the Democracy, leaving 40 per cent. to be divided between the National and Republican party, and the apportionment for members of the House of Representatives is very nearly the same as the estimate for senators. He thought it an unfair bill, and therefore voted "no,"
Mr. REEVE, when his name was called, said he had noticed that if a grind-stone has too much grit on one side it wears unevenly and becomes "one-sided.". So with political parties. When one has been in power a long time, it becomes "one-sided" and any change is beneficial. The Republicans have had control a long time and has too much grit on one side and is worn "out of round." The Democrats have a very narrow margin--too narrow to walk on firmly in effecting a change, and are dependent on help. This bill does not suit him, but it is the best we can get with the help we have. He wished to take advantage of the help while it is willing, and he voted for the bill because he wanted a change, and this is the best we can get now.
Mr. SHAFFER, when his name was called in explanation of his vote said, he did not consider the bill fair, for several reasons; the principal one being that it placed him in a Democratic district [laughter] and he had no doubt there are other members in the same position. Upon these grounds, and others, he voted "no."
The vote was then announced as above recorded; and so the bill passed the Senate.
Mr. MENZIES moved to dispense with the regular order of business, and take up the bill [H. R. 112] for the appointment of the Trustees of the Benevolent Institutions of the State; that it be put on its passage now and on these motions he demanded the previous question. which was seconded by yeas 25, nays 22, and under its operations the motion to take the bill was agreed to, by yeas 26, nays 23, and the bill was read the third time.
On the further motion of Mr. MENZIES, under another demand for the previous question, the bill was passed the Senate by--yeas 26, nays 23, a similar vote to the one on the passage of the apportionment bill, addling Messrs. Shirk and Streight to the nays.
On motion by Mr. TRAYLOR, his bill [S. 313] concerning the publication of legal advertisements in newspapers was read the second time, and under a dispensation of the consti-[tutional]. page: 220[View Page 220] [consti]-tutional restriction--yeas 39, nays 6--the bill was read the third time and passed by--yeas 41, nays 5.
On motion by Mr. DICE, his bill [S. 392] to legalize certain acts of the circuit court in his district, was read the second time with a report thereon recommending indefinite postponement. He resisted concurrence in the report.
Mr. KENT also favored the bill.
Mr. BURRELL opposed its passage.
On motion by Mr. DICE the report was concurred in, the constitutional restriction was dispensed with, and the bill pressed to its final reading and passage by--yeas 38, nays 0.
Mr HARRIS was not willing the companies should select their own papers, because they might select papers with obscure circulation. These insurance companies ought to be made to publish their condition. The object is to inform the agent of every company the condition of every other company in the State. The law ought to be amended. The principle in the bill is right.
Mr. MENZIES was not bound down to either amending or abolishing the present law. It is against just principles to tax one branch of business for another branch. Foreign insurance companies, by the present law, have an annual tax levied on them for the support of two papers in Indianapolis, Why select two papers here? In the northern part of the State the Chicago papers circulate, and in the southern part Cincinnati and Louisville papers circulate, more generally than the Indianapolis papers. In his county, not 10 copies of the Sentinel are taken, and but three copies of the Journal. This odious tax rests upon the policy holder in this State, and it is wrong in principle.
Mr. REEVE: This insurance steal has occupied the public attention until it hay become known under the title or name of "insurance steal." It puts into the treasury of two newspapers $10,000 apiece, for which an amount of printing is done entirely uncalled for. Bat the Insurance companies are taxed $56,000 which has to be paid by the policy holders resident here. This bill ought to be disposed of suddenly.
Mr. WINTERBOTHAM was a member of the Senate when the present law passed, and this matter of advertising was so covered up he did not know of it, nor did many other members. This is an unnecessary and uncalled for expense, and the law ought never to have been on the statute books. It is nothing but a sudsidy for two newspapers in Indianapolis.
Mr. STREIGHT also voted for this bill two years ago, but was convinced great abuse had grown up under it. He now favored overhauling this matter, which has grown to be a scandal and a disgrace.
Mr. BRISCOE wanted to know who are to be benefited by this measure. He would like to see this bill thoroughly ventilated.
Mr. FOWLER voted for this bill two years ago, taking the word of others that it was all right. No vote given in the last assembly did he regret so much as giving aid to this fraud, gotten up for the benefit of two Indianapolis papers. It is of no benefit to any policy holder. It should be repealed.
The motion was agreed to, and the bill 423 was read the first time, having been referred to the committee on insurance at the time it was introduced, without, reading.
On the further motion of Mr. MENZIES, the constitutional rule was dispensed with, and the bill read by title only for the second reading.
Mr. COMSTOCK moved to amend, by providing for the printing of semi-annual insurance statements in one weekly paper in this State.
Mr. HARRIS offered a substitute, requiring the State auditor to make the publications in two newspapers in the State--one of which shall be in Indianapolis--the insurance companies to select the medium for advertising.
Mr. HEFRON was astonished at the outburst of indignation against this law. The principle of the law is right, and ought to be maintained. There may be errors in it, but they should be corrected. The law permits the printer to make no greater charge against these wealthy corporations than as against the heirs of the estate of a deceased citizen, be he ever so poor.
Mr. REEVE desired to see an amendment to the bill requiring a copy of these statements to be filed in the recorder's office of each county. It is an unwarrantable steal to require agents to procure license oftener than once a year; it is a fraud on every insurance company outside of the State, and is only desired by its beneficiaries and the local insurance companies.
Then came the recess till 2 o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. COMSTOOK explained this bill only changes the present law by leaving out the clause requiring the state auditor to have semi-annual statements of foreign insurance companies published in the two daily newspapers of the State. It simply proposes to put foreign insurance companies on the same footing with other insurance companies. It is a bill in the interest of the people, because every tax levied on insurance companies must eventually come off the people. He regarded the publication of these statements as unnecessary and productive of no good.
Mr. BURRELL said the law was intended to protect the public against bogus foreign insurance companies. It may be possible it was a mistake in requiring the publication of statement in certain newspapers. It may be a mistake in making the price therefor $1 per square. The price should probably be cut down one-half, and the law might be amended in other particulars.
Mr. WINTERBOTHAM said this law gives to the Auditor of State an enormous fee, and is used to subsidize two daily newspapers of this city, and a great wrong is being done in having these statements published, while they are required to be kept on file in every clerk's office in the State.
Mr. WOOD: The people are not asking that the Legislature shall not require these publications, but it is the foreign insurance companies who are asking it, because they do not want to show the people what their condition is.
Mr. HEFRON opposed the substitute amendment, regarding no requirement on the subject as preferable, because the company would procure the publication in any backwoods county, in any 6x8 newspaper that will do the work cheapest.
Mr. REEVE called attentien to the question before the Senate, which is, when and where shall these statements be published. The law now makes a monopoly of the publication resting in two papers. No good results to the State by oppressing capital whether it be home or foreign. While not liking the substitute he would favor it, believing it the best thing that could be done, at this late date, under the circumstances.
The substitute was rejected by yeas 13, nays, 30, and the amendment was rejected by yeas 22, nays 23.
Mr. WILSON moved an amendment requiring foreign companies to invest three-fourths of their receipts for premiums in this State in good securities therein.
page: 221[View Page 221]Mr. MENZIES regarded such an amendment in effect as prohibiting foreign insurance companies from doing business in this State.
On motion by Mr. OLDS it was rejected by yeas 26. nays 20.
Mr. WOOLLEN moved to amend by adding that the semi-annual statements shall be published in two Indianapolis dailies, and one paper in each county where doing business.
Mr. REEVE moved as a substitute that the company shall publish its statement in one weekly newspaper in Indianapolis, and file proof thereof with the auditor of state.
Mr. GARRIGUS thought there was more sympathy expressed for foreign insurance companies here than has been expressed for the people in the last two months. The pending substitute requires the state auditor to work for these companies without pay, and that is not right.
Mr. MENZIES disclaimed that this bill was in the interest of insurance companies, foreign or domestic.
Mr. FOWLER saw no necessity requiring the publication of these statements in news- papers at all, as such statements were kept on file in every clerk's office in every county in the State.
The substitute was ageeed to by--yeas 25, nays 22.
Mr. COFFEY would like to see a changeof the law so as to require 3 per cent. to be paid in the treasury on the gross receipts of the company, and he offered such an amendment.
Mr. HEFRON favored this amendment.
Mr. FOWLER regarded the present law as not only a stupendous fraud, but a stupendouvilliany. Though not a friend to corporations he opposed the amendment as unjust to them.
Mr. WINTERBOTHAM opposed the amendment.
It was rejected by yeas 20, nays 25.
On motion by Mr. BURRELL the request of the House of Representatives for a committee of conference on the disagreement between the two Houses, on the fee and salary bill H. R. 300, was granted by yeas 25, nays 22.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR makes such committee on the part of the Senate to consist, of Messrs. Burrell and Davis.
On motion by Mr. REEVE the fee and salary bill was made the special order for to-morrow at 9 o'clock.
And then the Senate adjourned.
