HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
THURSDAY, March 13,1879-- 9 a. m.The reading of the minutes was dispensed with.
The SPEAKER announced the first thing in order was a vote on the passage of the bill [H. R. 620] to provide for a general system of common schools.
Mr. OVERMEYER said while this is a codification of the school law, this Legislature would be responsible for the passage of the act, and he desired unanimous consent to amend so as to reduce the levy for a special school tax to 20 cents instead of 50 cents on the $100, and to reduce the poll tax from $1 to 50 cents.
Mr. BAKER thought the reduction proposed was too low. He would favor a levy of 30 or 35 cents.
Mr. WATSON was also in favor of a reduction.
Mr. REED: Where there are debts for school houses, the trustees should be allowed to levy a tax that would enable the debt to be paid. He thought it would be unwise to limit the levy to 20 cents--it was too low.
Mr. STUCKER would like to vote for this bill, but could not do so unless the amendments were adopted.
Mr. CONNER was glad the bill was in the shape it was, because, if this bill is defeated, the law would stand as it is now, and he should object to the amendments.
Mr. STEVENS said in his part of the State they could not get along with less than a levy of 40 cents on the $100.
Mr. OVERMEYER moved to recommit the bill and amendments.
Mr. MIERS said this bill does not change a word in the law as it now is. It simply puts the different acts together, and if the House undertook to amend this he was fearful of destroying the object of the codification. He thought the bill ought to pass just as it is. He hoped the motion to recommit would not be insisted upon.
Mr. MARCH thought the best way would be to recommit this bill. While he was in favor of lowering the tax, yet in many places where fine school houses are commenced they will need the tax as it now stands.
Mr. SLEETH thought if this bill becomes a law to day, and to-morrow some other bill passes that amends the school law in some particular section, that law could not be found, as it would be smothered up in this bill.
Mr. ALLEN, of Putnam, was in favor of recommitting the bill to a select committee.
Mr. WATSON wanted to mature the bill before it should be passed.
Mr. TULLEY said it was well understood that the school law was now badly scattered, and he was afraid that if these amendments were considered we would be unable to agree, and this codification would be destroyed. He hoped the bill would pass as it is, and was opposed to recommitting the bill.
Mr. BAKER was in favor of the bill as it is, and thought it, ought not to be recommitted.
The bill was then recommitted to a select committee of five.
Subsequently the SPEAKER made that committee to consist of Messrs. Overmeyer, March. Baker, Humpreys and Miers.
Mr. DAVIDSON, from the committee on agriculture, returned the bill [H. R 635] regulating the running at large of domestic animals, recommending its passage. The House refused to concur in the report.
Mr. OWEN moved that the bill be indefinitely postponed, which was agreed to.
On the motion of Mr. WORKS the House took up the report of the committee on the investigation of the office of auditor of state.
The majority report was submitted and read recommending the adoption of the following resolution: That the attorney general be instructed to commence an action for the recovery of all the moneys that may have been received by Mr. E. Henderson, while auditor of state, that may in the opinion of the attorney general be entitled, and to prosecute such action to final judgment, if possible, in such manner as to obtain a judicial construction of the statutes relative to the proportion or amount of moneys received from insurance companies to which the State is entitled.
The minority of the committee submitted a lengthy report recommending the adoption of the following resolution:
Resolved, That the attorney general be instructed to ascertain what amount of fees have been collected by the said Henderson and not paid into the treasury, and upon failure of said Henderson to pay said amount into the
page: 20[View Page 20]treasury within 30 days, that the attorney general bring suit therefor on his own official bond as auditor of state.
Then came the recess till 2 o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The House concurred in the amendment of the Senate to the House amendments to the bill [S. 125] for the punishment of persons in possession of stolen property, by inserting: in the second section after the word "stolen" in the fifth line the words "in any other State and been brought into this State."
The unfinished business at the adjournment for dinner--viz., the consideration of the majority and minority reports of the committee appointed to investigate the office of auditor of state--was resumed.
Mr. WORKS said this was an important question to the State and to Mr Henderson. The amount in controversy is something over $13,000. The minority report shows there has been collected, extra fees under the act of 1877, over $8,000 in one year and over $16,000 since the law took effect. The question is whether Mr. Henderson should account for 75 per cent. of these fees to the State. The minority report concludes that he is bound to account for this amount. The majority holds that he is not indebted to the State for the fees, but recommends that he be sued for the amount,. This seems to be inconsistent, and if Mr. Henderson owes the State nothing this House would do him an injustice to order that such suit be brought. He called the attention of the House to the amount that has been paid to this office for salary, deputy and clerks and office expenses, and insurance fees, $22,644. This being true we should not pay him more than the statute allows him. As to the law, the minority of the committee are supported in their position by Attorney Generals Woollen and Buskirk, and Mr. Henderson himself, who issued a circular to the companies, in which he claimed the right to collect these extra fees, and that he had no discretion in the matter because the law was one to raise revenue for the State. In addition to the fees charged Mr. Henderson has used postage stamps amounting to about $600, furnished by the State, to send out the certificates of the agents of the companies,and instead of accounting to the State for the money collected has converted the same to his own use. It can hardly be claimed that any construction of the statute would allow him this money, and all of the committee agree that he should pay it over to the State. An effort is being made by parties interested in this matter to have both of these reports laid on the. table, thereby smothering the whole matter. This would be wrong. This question should be fairly met and one or the other of these reports adopted.
Mr. SAINT said he voted for the resolution to investigate the accounts of the auditor of state. We have the reports from the committee and they do not agree, but recommend that a suit be brought by the attorney general in order to settle a disputed question. In view of the fact that the committee can not agree this House should lay both reports upon the table and adopt the resolution recommended in the report of the majority, and therefore he moved to lay the majority and minority reports upon the table, and that the resolution of the majority be adopted.
The motion was ruled out of order,
Mr. SLEETH said this investigation committee was raised by an almost unanimous vote, but on the very next day a resolution was introduced for a reconsideration, and with a view to refer the whole matter to the attorney general. A fair and. thorough investigation was proceeded with, as both the voluminous and exhaustive reports will show. The majority of the committee had taken the pains to furnish the opinion of the attorney general and also the opinion of Mr. Henderson, all of which fully decides that these fees are properly collected as a part of the revenue of the State, and 75 per cent. of them must be now due to the State. He wanted to know what the majority of this House meant after this thorough investigation, developing the facts that there is $13,000 due the State, by making a motion to lay both reports on the table. There was not an ungentlemanly word or insinuation in either report against the ex- auditor, He thought perhaps thy committee had done their work too welt to suit the majority. If the House desired to treat the minority of the committee with contempt, let it move to lay the report under the table rather than on the table.
Mr. WILLARD moved to lay both reports upon the table.
Mr. SLEETH demanded a division of the question.
The first question being on the motion to lay the minority report on the table, it was rejected by yeas 29, nays 53.
The majority report was laid on the table by yeas 55, nays 29.
Mr. MIERS said the only difference between these two reports is the construction of a statute. The minority and majority agree that Mr. Henderson never at any time disguised or attempted in any way to conceal the fact, that he charged and retained all of said fees, claiming that he was entitled to do so by a fair construction of said statute, and that Mr. Henderson. upon request, furnished the committee with all of the facts desired. The majority and minority of the committee agree that construction of the statute is difficult, and the majority of the committee say that they have come to the conclusion that a fair construction of the statute would give the auditor all of said fees, while the minority say that with considerable difficulty they have come to the conclusion that the auditor should pay into the treasury 75 per cent. thereof. There being therefore nothing that reflects on Mr. Henderson's integrity as a man, or as a just and upright officer, but simply a question of law, he was sorry that the matter of adopting or rejecting either the majority or minority report had been forced upon the House. He thought the House ought to be very slow to adopt reports or resolutions like the one under consideration, lest a very great injustice might be done by placing one of the citizens of the State in the light of having done a dishonest act, when they only meant to give their judgment as to a proper construction of a statute. He therefore thought it would have been much wiser to have instructed the attorney general to bring suit for the recovery of the money in controversy. Then there might have been a determination of the legal question, the only one in controversy, without doing violence to any citizen. Under the operation of the previous question, the minority report was adopted by yeas 58, nays 30.
Mr. WILLARD offer a concurrent resolution that this General Assembly will adjourn sine die on Monday, March 24,1879.
Mr. SHANKS moved to amend, by adding "if we are ready to do so."
Mr. SLEETH offered a substitute that thia General Assembly, before taking up matters of general legislation, proceed at once to perfect and pass the general and specific appropriation bill and the state House bill, and no other business shall be taken up until they are finally disposed of, and that, upon their passage, we immediately adjourn sine die.
page: 21[View Page 21]On motion of Mr. LEHMAN the original resolution and the substitute were laid on the table by yeas 43, nays 37.
The following numbered Senate bills were read the first time, and passed to the second reading:
Senate bills 59, 62, 79, 83. 414, 445, 448, 448, 449, 450, 451, 452,see Senate reports of this morning.
The following numbered bills were read the first time and passed to the second reading: H. R. 660, 661, 662, 663,664, 665. 666 and 667.
On the motion of Mr. OVERMYER the constitutional rule was suspended so that the bill [H. R. 660] may be read the first, and second time by title, considered, engrossed, read a third time by sections and put upon its passage, and that the same roll call apply to each bill from 660 to 667 inclusive, which was agreed to by yeas 81, nays 2.
The bills were then read the second and third times and severally passed the House, from 660 to 667 inclusive.
On the motion of Mr. HUMPHREYS, the constitutional rule was suspended--yeas 77, nays 0--in order that Senate bills 441 to 451, inclusive (see Senate reports of this morning), may be read the second and third times, and put upon their passage, and these bills were severally passed, the one vote serving to suspend the rule for all the bills.
And then the House adjourned.
