THE BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
VOLUME EIGHTEEN.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
IN SENATE.
TUESDAY, March 18,1879-- 9 o' clock a. m.The minutes of yesterday were not read.
On motion by Mr. BRISCOE, the bill [H. R. 456] authorizing boards of commissioners to grant relief to certain citizens, was read the first time and referred to the committee on fees and salaries.
On motion by Mr. SHAFFER,the bill [H. R. 377] to regulate the practice of medicine, midwifery and surgery, was read the first time and referred to a special committee of three which the LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR made to consist of Messrs. Shaffer, Woollen and Mercer.
Mr. VIEHE moved that the bill [S. 456] for the government of the State prisons be read the second time.
Mr. WINTERBOTHAM moved to amend by taking up the specific appropriation bill [H. R. 640.]
On motion by Mr. BURRELL--yeas 26, nays 17--the Senate agreed to consider the contested election case of James W. Sansberry versus Marcus C. Smith, the sitting senator from the counties of Delaware and Madison.
The report of the majority of the committee on elections, declaring in favor of the contestee [Mr. Smith--signed by Messrs. Viehe, Coffey, Taylor and Wllson] was first read; afterward the report of the minority of the committee arguing in favor of the contestor [Mr. Sansberry--signed by Messrs. Burrell and Reiley.]
Messrs. BURRELL and VIEHE each spoke in favor of their respective reports.
Mr. KENT made a few remarks favoring the majority report--referring incidentally to a jest spoken in the presence of a newspaper man, through which it obtained publicity, that Mr. K. had said Mr. Smith must go. Recognizing the fact that a majority of votes in the district were cast for Mr. Smith, Mr. K. should vote for Mr. S. to retain his seat.
The minority report was rejected by yeas 7, nays 39.
Mr. FOWLER, explaing, said: Believing that when a law was enacted it meant something when referring to elections as well as anything else, he would vote "no."
Mr. HART, when his name was called, said, while a pretty strong partizan, and regretting there was not a Democrat, in Mr. Smith's place, for we have felt the need of one [laughter], yet, unless convinced there had been fraud in his election, or the will of the people had been set aside, he would not vote to displace him.
Mr. TRAYLOR, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said, believing that where County Commissioners do not establish new precincts the old precinct is the legal precinct, he should have to vote "no."
Mr. WOOD, in explanation, said he should act upon the facts in this case and apply the rules of law to them, just as a judge would do. He had listened to these reports attentively and saw no case made that would authorize him to vote for the removal of Mr. Smith. The question of Democrat or Republican should not weigh anything in the scales of justice. The law in a case like this is very plain. No lawyer can be mistaken about it. The courts of nearly all the States have settled what statutes are mandatory and what are directory in election cases. The statutes violated in this case are plainly directory in their scope, and does not render the election void. There is no fraud or coercion charged. Every elector voted his sentiments freely and untrammeled. In the absence of fraud or coercion the violation of a directory statute does not, make the election void. The will and choice of the people can not be set aside on the ground of a technical violation of the law. He voted "no."
The result was announced as above.
The majority report was adopted by yeas 38, nays 8.
On motion of Mr. WINTERBOTHAM the Senate proceeded to the consideration of the specific appropriation bill [H. S. 640], the question being on the motion [Mr. Sarnighausen's] made yesterday afternoon to strike out the amendment proposed by the committee on finance, appropriating $62,000 for the purchase of the State fair grounds.
Mr. SARNIGHAUSEN: It has been said page: 36[View Page 36] the State should foster the agricultural interest; but if that, means the State shall make good all financial shortcomings of the State Board of Agriculture, he should say "no." For one he had very little confidence in the financial management of this board, and desired not to make the State liable for its acts. The State has always been the loser when embarking in such ventures. If the State buys this ground, then the State fairs must be had always at the city of Indianapolis, and if not, other cities may have a chance to obtain the fair. He was fully satisfied the State would be a loser in this as in other like speculations.
Mr. KRAMER become satisfied, on inquiry, that it would be a great investment for the State to purchase the fair grounds in fee simple, especially as the board proposes to deed to the State all its property. The grounds alone, have been estimated at this time to be worth from $75,000 to $85,000. If this ground is not purchased, the $25,000 heretofore put in them by the State will be lost; and if it is bought, the State will get all back. He thought as a business proposition it is a good one and that the people would be satisfied with it.
Mr. HEFRON was opposed to the State engaging in real estate speculation, and argued that "it would be doing great injustice to the people to appropriate so large a sum at this time for such a purpose. If it be a good speculation why do not hundreds of men in the State put forward their money in aid of this Board and take advantage of this great chance to make a good bargain?" It is very evident that it would not be safe for the State to appropriate the sum asked for now. It the State must do something for this Board let her carry the indebtedness for one or two years longer, and in that rime there may be some other way opened by which the State can get her money back.
Mr. WIER opposed mixing the State up with this indebtedness--believing it to be all wrong. As he understood this matter, the people of Indianapolis are largely to blame for the embarrassment of the State Board of Agriculture: and the city of Indianapolis or Marion county should purchase these grounds, having more interest therein than the State has He opposed taxing the people of the State to pay for fair grounds for the benefit of the people of Marion county.
Mr. VIEHE doubted the propriety of investing that much, money in this property and Inquired whether tins debt can be carried two years by paying the interest?
Mr. URMSTON regarded the only question to be whether it would be better for the State to purchase these grounds and thereby save the $25,000 invested or whether she would lose more than $25.000 by making this purchase. The bonded debt that has priority over the State's claim is $60,000 and the records show no other. Now can the state save her $25,000 by taking the ground for $62,000, taking as true the statements made on this floor by the Senator from Marion yesterday, this property is well worth from $80,000 to $100,000, and this would be a good investment for the State. There are many reasons why this property will increase in value rather than decrease. If the State intends to do anything at all now is the time to do it.
Mr. OLDS reminded senators that two years ago they were told those grounds were worth from $l80,000 to $225,000, and that the grant made by the State was in the nature of a loan. We are now met by the argument that the State must pay $62,000, or lose what has already been invested, because the property is not worth anymore than the incumbrance upon it. Having been deceived in its value heretofore, he was disposed to believe now that the ground is not worth as much as the appropriation asked for. He was of the opinion that Marion county should buy these grounds, and not the State, believing but few of the people at large desired the State to make such an Investment. He did not believe if this amount be invested. that the State would be done with it, for when once purchased the argument would be made that all improvements become part of the realty, and the State must make all that may be required in the future. He opposed making any further appropriation, believing it better to lose the $25,000 which was obtained by deceiving the Legislature as to the value of the ground than to put this sum of money into it.
Mr. WOOLEN thought there was misapprehensiun in regard to the intention of the finance committee in recommending this appropriation. The intention was to leave this sum in the hands of the governor to protect the State's interest in this matter. The debt is due on the first day of January. 1881, bearing interest at 8 per cent. If this appropriation is not made and the interest not paid, the State will lose the $25,000 already advanced; but as it stands the State can probably make $10,000 or $15,000 by buying this ground, even though it should not be worth more than $50,000, which is probably too low an estimate. He suggested it to be the duty of the State to establish a third prison for those not hardened in crime, and these grounds and buildings would be an appropriate place for such an institution--the best location in the State. Under these circumstances he favored the appropriation.
Mr. GARRIGUS felt favorably disposed to this appropriation if it can be legally done; but he thought the spirit of the law would prohibit it. He read from the constitution, sec. six, art. 10. a clause prohibiting the assuming of the debt of any corporation, etc., by the State.
Mr. DICE thought this thing should be looked be looked at from a purely business point of view, as there was no difficulty in the constitutional question just referred to. Many things should be considered in the ratification of this purchase. He thought Indianapolis has not acted in good faith towards the state board or the people of the State, in not paying the subscription of her citizens toward the erection of the exposition building. If the purchase is made, he desired an amendment requiring of the state board a just yearly rental value for the use of the grounds. If the appropriation is not made there should be steps taken to provide for the payment of the interest, but the former plan is probably the best, all things considered.
Mr. HART would be far from encouraging the Legislature in any wild speculation, but as the State has already placed $25,000 in these grounds, it resolves itself into a business proposition. Then the State Fairs have been of great value to the people of the State, affording an opportunity for the concentration of the best stock in the State; and these fairs have induced a healthy rivalry in the keeping of better stock than heretofore.
Mr. WOOD favored the greatest good to the greatest number. The farming class exceeds in number ail the other business men of the State. The business of agriculture towers above all other avocations in comparison: The farming class pays the bulk of all the revenues to support the State Government and all the institutions of the State; The State has already paid $25,000. This will be lost unless we make this appropriation. It will be a safe investment to make, and will also be a just page: 37[View Page 37] recognition of the rights and demands of the farming population of the State.
The motion to strike out was rejected--by yeas 20, nays 25.
Then came the recess till 2 o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. FOWLER moved to suspend the order of business and take up the bill for the government of State Prisons [S. 456]. Mr. BENZ moved to take up the barbers' bill [H. R. 115]; but on motion by Mr. STREIGHT--yeas 27 nays 18--the general appropriation bill [H. R. 592] was read the third time and passed by yeas 34, nays 13.
The fee and salary bill being the special order for this hour--Mr. STREIGHT moved to take up the specific appropriation bill [H. R. 640], which was agreed to by yeas 24, nays 23.
Mr. COMSTOCK moved as a substitute for section 21 an appropriation of $9,500, to pay the interest on the first mortgage on the State fairgrounds. It seemed idle talk to fix the value of that ground at $100,000. It is worth just what it will bring. If the $62,000 is voted this year, more will be asked every year to come.
Mr. RAGAN states that this board had been self-sustaining down to 1863, when it had accumulated this ground, and had a surplus of several thousand dollars beside. From that time to last fall the exhibitions have been a failure. Last fall the board saved $5,000. As a matter of justice to the agricultural interest and the saving of the grounds from being swept into the hands of a foreign corporation, it was surely best to make the appropriation for this purpose.
Mr. TRUSLER moved to reject the substitute.
Mr. HEFRON favored the substitute as being decidedly the best policy.
Mr. WOOLLEN moved to add a proviso that the State Board agree to sell all its property in the State for $62,000 at the next meeting of the General Assembly, which was accepted by Mr. Comstock.
The substitute as amended was rejected by yeas 22, nays 26.
The amendment proposed by the Finance Committee appropriating $62,000 for the purchase of the State Fair Grounds, was agreed, to by yeas 25, nays 22.
Mr. HARRIS offered an amendment appropriating to a Cincinnati firm $1,310.50, balance for heating apparatus for the State Normal school, received by the board in February, 1876. It was rejected by--yeas 20, nays 28.
Mr. HARRIS moved an amendment that this sum of $1,310.50 be appropriated to this Cincinnati firm, contingent on the certificate of certain officials that the claim is just. He made several short speeches in favor of it.
The amendment, was agreed to.
Mr. TAYLOR offered an amendment, which was agreed to, embracing eight claims amounting in the aggregate to $2,263, for swamp laud ditching, when the State officers shall certify them to be just.
Mr. HARRIS moved to amend the bill by allowing the State Librarian $100 for extra services in removing the State Library, which was agreed to.
Mr HARRIS also moved to amend the bill by allowing $612.00 for the statutes furnished senators 51 sets at $12 a set.
Mr. HARRIS spoke in favor of it as did also Messrs. OLDS and STREIGHT.
The agreement was agreed to.
The Senate amendments were then ordered to be engrossed.
Mr. DAVIS, by leave, submitted a report from the committee on congressional apportionment.
Mr. STREIGHT made an ineffectual motion--yeas 25, nays 26--to adjourn.
Mr. DICE made a motion to recommit the report, which motion was laid on the table by yeas 24, nays 22, on the motion of Mr. MENZIES.
On motion by Mr. BURRELL, under the operation of the previous question demanded by him, the report was read, embracing a substitute for the congressional apportionment bill [H. R. 486].
Mr. BURRELL moved that the report be concurred in, and on that motion demanded the previous question, which was seconded by yeas 25, nays 22.
Mr. HARRIS raised the point of order that the report was not made in parliamentary form.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR sustained the point of order.
Mr. BURRELL moved the report be referred back to the committee, with instructions to return the same immediately, and on that motion demanded the previous question. The demand was seconded, and, under its provisions, the motion was agreed to.
Mr. BURRELL, for the committee, returned. the report instanter, and similar proceedings were had as just above reported, until the report was concurred in by--yeas 24, nays 18; and these amendments were ordered engrossed.
The Senate, at seven minutes before 7 o'clock p. m., adjourned.
