HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
WEDNESDAY, March 5,1879-- 9 a. m.Prayer by the Representative from Hancock, Mr. HANDY.
The part of the journal recording the proceedings on the legislative apportionment bill [H. R. 349] was read and approved.
On the motion of Mr. OVERMEYER the rules were suspended, and the specific appropriation bill [H. R. 640] was taken up, read the third time and passed by yeas 72, nays 8.
On the motion of Mr. SAINT the order of business was further suspended so that the report of the committee for investigation of the Benevolent institutions might be made.
The report was read and on the motion of Mr. MIERS the report was recommitted with instructions to report an amendment to allow the committee to sit for 15 days after the adjournment of the General Assembly.
Mr. HOPKINS called up Mr Gordon's bill [H. R. 89] touching contempts of court, which was read the third time.
Mr. WILLARD said the bill proposed to limit the amount of time by the judge for contempt of court, and also as to the length of time for imprisonment, shall not be for longer term than three months. It limits the fine to $500, and in case the fine reaches the sum of $50, it gives the right of appeal. He hoped the bill would pass.
Mr. MIERS opposed that part of the bill which would restrict the judge to a $500 fine; it seems to him it makes the limit too small, and for that reason he would be compelled to vote against the bill.
The bill then passed the House of Representatives by--yeas 64, nays 23.
Mr. HOSMER called up the bill [S. 27] to provide for the government and discipline of the State prisons, etc., which was read the third time, together with the amendments thereto.
Mr. SCHOLL moved to strike out of the amendment mat clause which prevents the contractor from giving presents to convicts as a reward for their good conduct. Objection being made--
Mr. WILLARD moved to recommit the bill with instructions to strike out that section, as he could not support the bill unless that amendment was stricken out.
Mr. TAYLOR, of Davis, would never vote for this bill, and hoped it would never become a law.
Mr. TULLEY said these little gifts would be an Incentive to mutiny to those who did not get, them, and they were given in order that the contractor might get more work out of the convict.
Mr. DRAKE thought it unchristian for the law to step in and prohibit acts of kindness to convicts.
Mr. OSBORNE, of Elkhart. thought the prisoner should be encouraged, and he hoped this bill would not be killed, bat would go to the committee and be amended.
Mr. EDWINS, as a member of the prison committee, was in favor of the men being allowed to do extra work, as they were thus enabled to obtain such articles as they required and in his judgment needed. He favored the passage of the bill thus amended.
Mr. OWEN said that these prisoners were certainly happier when working for these incentives, and he hoped the amendment prohibiting them would be stricken out.
page: 227[View Page 227]Mr. TULLEY then withdrew his objection, and the amendment was adopted.
The bill then passed as amended by--yeas 90, nays 0.
Mr. CONNER called up his bill [H. R. 20] providing for a bureau of statistics, it having failed to pass heretofore for want of a constitutional majority, and it finally passed the House by yeas 68, nays 18.
Mr. HUBBARD called up the bill [H. R. 69] to provide for the organization and support of an asylum for feeble-minded children, which was read the third time.
Mr. Hubbard said such an institution as the one contemplated by this bill is much needed. There are over 1,000 of this unfortunate class in our State, who, if not provided for by an institution of this kind, are destined to remain as they long have been, not only a public charge and a burden to society, but a burthen that hangs with crushing weight upon the heart of every parent whose misfortune it is to have an idiotic or feeble minded child. There are 50 such institutions in the world, all of which are in the United States. It is proposed to locate this institution at the Soldier' Orphans' Home, near Knightstown. The present buildings are new and commodious, with about 56 acres of ground attached. He trusted the provisions of this bill are so humane that every member on this floor will be proud of the opportunity to cast his vote for it. You now have a grand privilege of extending a helping hand to these unfortunate wards of the State, and in so doing call down upon you the blessing of Him who hath said: " He that giveth a cup of water in my name to one these ' little ones' shall receive his reward."
Mr. VANPELT doubted the propriety of opening out an institution of this kind at this time and he protested against it. He did not think a fool could be educated anyhow. It would be too expensive and he was opposed to it.
The bill finally passed by yeas 61, nays 26.
Then came the recess till two o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. HUMPHREYS called up the congressional apportionment bill [H. R. 486], which was read the third time.
A call upon the House was ordered and taken, which discovered 67 members present, when--
ON the motion of Mr. LEHMAN the doors were closed and the absentees sent for.
Pending the call of the House--
The judiciary committee returned the jury bill [H. R. 502] with amendments, as instructed by the House. The report was concurred in and the bill was ordered engrossed.
The report of the conference committee on the interest bill S. 277--see Senate proceedings--being read--
Mr. Overmeyer moved ineffectually to lay the report of the conference committee on the table--yeas 36, nays 60.
The report of the committee was concurred in.
A message from the Senate transmitting a resolution asking for a second committee of conference on this interest bill being read--
Mr. OSBORNE, of Elkhart, offered a resolution, which was adopted, for the appointment of a committee as requested by the Senate.
On the motion by Mr. HUMPHREYS further proceedings under the call were dispensed with.
Under a demand for the previous question the congressional apportionment bill [H. R. 486] failed to pass the House by yeas 49, nays 49.
Mr. HUTHSTEINER called up Mr. Gordon's insurance bill [H. R. 380] which was read the third time.
On the motion of Mr. MIERS the motion heretofore made to reconsider the vote by which the bill was ordered engrossed was laid on the table.
Mr. ALLEN on Putnam opposed this bill because the law now in force was much better than the one now proposed. He was in favor of semi-annual publication of the condition of the companies. He would prefer quarterly publications.
Mr. WORKS said it seems that some gentlemen believe a man can not be an insurance agent and be honest. Although he was not an insurance agent, and had no more interest in such companies than any other gentleman on the floor of the House, he believed it was our duty to do justice to foreign insurance companies as much as to any citizen of the State. It has been said that the law we now have is a good one. He did not think so. He believed a more infamous law never found its way into a statute. The state auditor has placed such a construction upon the present law that he collects all additional fees and puts them into his own pocket, paying nothing into the State treasury. None of the safeguards now thrown around these foreign insurance companies are removed by this bill, except the single one of requiring them to publish the semi-annual statement. The opposition to this bill is only in the interest of the newspapers. It cuts off several thousand dollars of their printing, and hence their strong opposition to the bill.
Mr. WILLARD said there was always with the Legislature two lobbies--the insurance and the railroad. The insurance lobby was here now. If a man wants to see if he is insured safely he must look at the published statements of the condition of his company. There was not but 120 foreign insurance companies in the State, and he atributed that fact to the publication of the condition of the companies every six months. If they are in good condition they need not be afraid to publish these statements.
Mr. LINDLEY said the friends of the bill under consideration seem to argue from the standpoint that the publication of the statements of foreign insurance companies is to be considered in the light of an endowment for the support of certain newspapers instead of a means of protection to the people. Such publication furnishes a great safeguard to the people from the impositions formerly practiced upon them by the many irresponsible agents who have filched so many hard-earned dollars from the people without rendering an equivalent. We hear on all hands the cry of "Hard times." the solution of which lies largely in the fact that for years we of the West have emptied a large part of our hard earned means into the laps of insurance companies of the East. He did not think it a hardship to compel these companies to pay back a part of these monies in such a manner as to protect ourselves from imposition.
Mr. OVERMEYER knew large sums of money had been taken from insurance companies wrongfully under the present law. All he saw in this bill was that the insurance companies wanted to get rid of semi-annual publication of statements. Let us reject this bill, and then repeal the objectionable clause in the law of 1877. Under the operations of the previous question the bill failed to pass by yeas 10, nays 81.
Mr. THAYER, explaining his negative vote, said he believed that under the present law our citizens are much better protected from loss by failure of foreign insurance companies than they are from insurance companies organized under our laws within our own State; page: 228[View Page 228] but he did not wish to war upon them, especially as most of them born in the last 25 years are now sleeping the sleep that knows no "waking.' He only asked that the same privileges shall be granted to foreign insurance companies that are guaranteed by law to insurance companies and all other corporations organized within our own State in the matter of making exhibits and advertising (especially when Such privilege does not interfere with the revenues of the State,) viz., the right to make their own contracts on the best possible terms. He did not believe the interests of the people would suffer thereby, notwithstanding the opinion of two leading daily newspapers in this city, who have a $16,000 interest to the contrary.
The vote was then announced as above.
Mr. JOHNSON called up the bill [H. R. 578] for the relief of Jno. E,. Robins, which was read the third time and passed by--yeas 88 nays 4.
Mr. KELLY called up the bill [S. 382] concerning aid to railroads [see Senate reports, Feb. 15, a. m.], which was reed the third time and passed the House by--yeas 81, nays 12.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM moved to reconsider the vote on the congressional apportionment bill [H. R. 486], which, after the rejection of general motions to adjourn,and numerous other dilatory motions, was agreed to--yeas 56, nays 43--and the bill, under the operations of the previous question, again failed to pass--yeas 50, nays 49--for want of a constitutional majority.
Pending the roll call--
Mr. BAKER, in explanation, said: He was in favor of a fair and just apportionment to all parties, and so believing could not vote for this bill against his conciousness of what is right and wrong. He had no objections to being placed in a Republican district if there was any justice in this bill. He did hate to vote against his party, but could not sacrifice his convictions as to what is justice in this matter. He would therefore ask his Democratic friends to excuse him this time for voting "no."
Mr. MAJOR in explanation, said: That while he should not support the bill he had steadily voted at every stage to bring this House to a vote on the main question, because he was unalterably opposed to filibustering. He believed in the right of the majority to rule and would hold them responsible for their actions. He therefore voted "no."
Mr. THOMPSON, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said: He could not vote for the passage of this bill, because it was unfair, and he would not shirk his individual responsibility upon the Senate by voting to send an imperfect bill to that body for amendment. He therefore voted "no."
The vote was amended as above recorded.
The House at 6:50 p. m. adjourned.
