THE BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
VOLUME EIGHTEEN.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
IN SENATE.
FRIDAY, March 21,1879-- 9 o'clock a. m.The minutes of yesterday's proceedings were not read.
Mr. REEVE offered the following:
Whereas, Repeated effort has demonstrated that an equitable and practicable fee and salary bill can not be enacted into a law under the present constitution, and can only be done by special enactments relating to different localities; and
Whereas,The proposed constitutional amendment now submitted to the electors of this State will, if adopted, admit of such legislation, and the power to prevent practical legislation on this subject is in their hands; and
Whereas, It is evident that this body can not agree upon a fee and salary law that will act fairly and equitably to the people and the officers throughout the State because of difference in judgment as to what can and what ought to be done; and
Whereas, Any change in the law now is likely to be followed by entire change two years hence, in view of the probable adoption of said constitutional amendment as to fees and salaries, under which confusion will follow likely to create more evils than any present change will cure; therefore,
Resolved, That the further consideration of bill No. 344, now pending;, and all other consideration of the subject of fees and salaries be indefinitely postponed.
Mr. REEVE said every attempt to amend the fee and salary act only makes more confusion. Any bill of this kind can not help but be an inequitable one. If the people want an equitable fee and salary bill let them ratify the proposed constitutional amendment, which will probably be done. If a fee and salary bill be passed this session the officers would hardly get used to it before it would be tore up two years hence. At that time another fee and salary bill will be enacted and there will be more confusion. He submitted in all candor that this subject ought to be postponed till after the people act on the proposed constitutional amendment.
Mr. SHIRK was not willing, after having spent so much time upon this subject, to indefinitely postpone it. He hoped this Legislature would go ahead and do the best that can be done with it.
Mr. BENZ was afraid if this Legislature goes home without a fee and salary bill, some members would take it so hard it would make them sick. [Laughter.] So he favored this motion.
Mr. MENZIES thought the way the Senate has been proceeding, reducing does not reduce. The whole symmetry of the bill has been destroyed.
Mr. SARNIGHAUSEN said the resolution expresses the same opinion he has long ago entertained.
Mr. SHAFFER thought it useless to waste more time on the fee and salary bill, as the disposition is such no agreement looks possible. In order to remove the disease the cause must be displaced.
On motion by Mr. SHIRK--yeas 37, nays 8--the resolution was laid on the table.
On motion by Mr. HART the Senate resumed the consideration of the Senate committee's amendments to the Fee and Salary bill [H. R. 344].
Mr. WOOLLEN moved to reconsider the vote of yesterday by which the section relative to the fees of county auditors was adopted.
Mr. KENT declared it utterly impossible to pass an equitable and just fee and salary bill under the present constitution. He opposed the opening up of this question as to auditor's fees again.
Mr. REEVE regarded it as injustice to the auditors of the largest counties to require the handling of the many papers and vouchers coming into their possession without compensation, as it was understood the object of this motion to be.
Mr. SARNIGHAUSEN reminded senators that the county auditor has to do more work without compensation than all the other county officials put together.
Mr. GARRIGUS insisted the section, as passed yesterday, is an increase in the fees of county auditors, to which he was unalterably opposed.
The motion to reconsider was agreed to by yeas 80, nays 12.
page: 51[View Page 51]On motion by Mr. WILSON the vote of yesterday by which the proviso was stricken out, allowing no fee for filling assessment lists, appraisers returns, county orders redeemed, or any voucher or receipt, was reconsidered by yeas 32. nays 11.
On motion by Mr. COFFEY an amendment was adopted providing that when money is paid to the sheriff' without sale one half com- mission shall be allowed, as when sold on execution.
On motion by Mr. TRAYLOR, instead of lines 25 and 26 in the committee amendment, the following words were substituted: ''For serving each person on a subpoena or a summons, as required by law, 35 cents," and for each copy, when required, 25 cents.
Mr. KENT contended that sheriffs should be allowed 50 cents a day for boarding prisoners. He made a motion to that effect, which was rejected.
On motion by Mr. TRAYLOR, the fee for making a certificate of sale on execution or decrees,was increased from 50 cents to $1.
On motion by Mr. OLDS the following item was added: "For publishing delinquent list, 35 cents for each description."
Then came the recess for dinner.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR made Messrs. Foster and Menzies a committee of conference on the part of the Senate on the disagreement between the two houses on the city water works bill [S. 103--Mr. Foster's].
Mr. REEVE offered an amendment which would prevent the officer being punished for any guilty act of a deputy, and making the deputy liable as an officer therefor.
It was rejected by yeas 22, nays 25.
Mr. VIEHE offered an amendment making the officer liable for five times the amount of illegal fees charged, with cost of suit, and accepted a proviso suggested by Mr. REEVE in these words: "No officer shall be liable for any unlawful sum charged or taken by his deputy unless he know of and refuse to correct the same, and such deputy shall be liable as an officer to prosecution for such taking."
Mr. SHAFFER offered an amendment making the per diem of county commissioners $3 for each day's attendance.
Mr. BURRELL moved to make the per diem $4.50. He said these men are custodians of the public funds in every county, and their services ought to be worth the sum he named.
Mr. WINTERBOTHAM regarded this office as the most important in the county, and contended county commissioners should be paid liberally.
Mr. SHAFFER did not believe there was one county commissioner in 25 who could make $3 a day on his farm.
The motion to increase the per diem was rejected, as was also the amendment.
Mr. REEVE and Mr. HARRIS moved to add to the last section these words: "If it be found necessary and so entered by record to employ any person to render any service as contemplated in this act as a public necessity, the contract for such employment shall be spread on record in said court. And for said services ; rendered the claimant shall file his account in said court 10 days before the beginning of the term, and any tax payer shall have the right to contest the claim."
Mr. HARRIS desired when the County Board makes a contract it should be placed on record, so any tax-payer may examine it. He referred to an employment made by the commissioners of this county, of his suggestion, which produced considerable dissatisfaction for want of some such satisfactory provision as this.
The motion to amend was agreed to
Mr. FOWLER moved to add an additional section in the following words:
"The mine inspector, in addition to the fees now allowed by law, shall receive the sum of $200 per annum, to be paid as the salary of other State officers are paid."
On motion by Mr. OLDS it was rejected by yeas 37, nays 9.
Mr. REEVE moved to reconsider the vote by which section 30 was adopted, in order that a clause may be inserted to punish officers for overcharging; otherwise the law of extortion is wiped out, and every public officer can charge any fee he may please.
Mr. BURRELL made an ineffectual motion yeas--12, nays 33--to lay this motion to reconsider on the table.
On motion by Mr. REEVE, section 30 was amended by reinstating before the amendment made this morning by Mr. Viehe these words: "deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be fined in any sum. not exceeding $100."
Mr. SHIRK moved to reduce the pay of members of the General Assembly to $5 a day while in actual attendance--mileage five cents.
Mr. FOSTER offered a substitute, allowing as mileage, actual traveling expenses, and no more.
Mr. VIEHE came not here to reduce all fees I and salaries, but only to reduce where reduction was demanded; and no demand has come up for a reduction of the pay of assemblymen.
Mr. DICE early in the regular session introduced a bill for the reduction of pay of members; but it was indefinitely postponed, not withstanding the fact that members come up here pledged to a reduction of fees and salaries.
Mr. OLDS opposed a reduction in the pay of members of the General Assembly. On the contrary, although Ins time is about up, he would rather see an inc ease than a decrease. All attempts to reduce the salary he regarded as for buncombe, without desiring to impugn any one's motives.
Mr. TRUSLER insisted we should not fix an estimate upon our services; that estimate has already been placed on them by the people.
The substitute was rejected by yeas 29, nays 19.
The motion [Mr. Shirk's] was also rejected by yeas 35, nays 11.
Mr. BURRELL offered an additional section, "that no judge of any court in this State shall make any allowance to any officer or person named in this act except as in this act provided." It was agreed to.
Mr. REEVE moved to add a section allowing salaries to the trustees of the asylum for feeble minded children of $400 each, out of which they are to pay traveling expenses.
Mr. FOWLER opposed raising this salary two hundred or any other hundred dollars. Those gentlemen accepted the office at the salary provided in the law, and the way is open for them to resign if they can not serve at the compensation named in the statute.
Mr. WINTERBOTHAM predicted that would he one of the most disagreeable institutions in the State to manage, and he favored giving the trustees the increase proposed. The salary should not, be so low that only those living in the immediate neighborhood can accept of the positions.
Mr. SHIRK would not make any special opposition to the amendment. No objection was made to the sum named in the bid when it was on its passage. He preferred a larger sum but did not put it in for fear of endangering its passage. Inasmuch as is is not in the act is is better to let the salary stand as fixed heretofore.
The additional section was rejected by yeas 14, nays 33.
page: 52[View Page 52]The report of the committee as amended was concurred in by yeas 85, nays 12.
The amendments were ordered engrossed.
Mr. HARRIS moved to take up the specific appropriation bill [H. R. 640.]
Mr. REEVE opposed the motion. This bill is usually very properly held back till the closing hours of the session that any items belonging therein may be included.
Mr. BURRELL moved as a substitute to take up the metropolitan bill [H. R. 295].
The substitute motion was rejected by yeas 15, nays 33.
Mr. REEVE declaring that at this late hour [5:30 p. m.] the Senate is in no condition to consider the specific appropriation bill, made an ineffectual motion--yeas 11, nays 36--to adjourn.
The specific appropriation bill [H. R. 640] was read the third time and passed the Senate by yeas 31, nays 15.
Pending the roll call--
Mr. SARNIGHAUSEN explained his negative vote, because of the appropriation of $62,000 to purchase the State fair grounds in the city of Indianapolis.
Mr. FOWLER, when his name was called, regretted being compelled to vote for this $62,000 appropriation for the State Fair-grounds, but rather than vote against the whole bill he would do so.
Mr. MENZIES, in explanation of his vote, said, believing the bill should fail rather than $62,000 of the people's money be wrongfully appropriated he should vote no.
Mr. OLDS, when his name was called, said he was anxious an appropriation bill should be passed, but disliked to have to include in the affirmative vote the authority to purchase the State Fair-grounds. He voted "aye."
The vote was announced as above, and so the bill passed the Senate.
Mr. HEFRON moved to take up the bill [H. R. 687] to authorize a temporary loan.
Mr. HARRIS thought this motion was sufficiently embraced in the State House bill.
Mr. MENZIES said it was due to the State officers that action be taken on this bill one way or the other without delay.
The motion was agreed to; and the bill H. R. 687 was read the first time.
Mr. HEFRON moved for a dispensation of the constitutional restriction that the bill may be read the second and third times now and put on its passage.
The motion was rejected by yeas 31, nays 12 for want of a constitutional majority.
Mr. LANGDON offered a concurrent resolution that this General Assembly adjourn without day on Monday, the 24th day of March, at 6 o'clock p.m. He moved its adoption, demanded the yeas and nays on that motion, and also demanded the previous question.
On motion by Mr HARRIS further proceedings under the call was dispensed with.
On demand of Mr. BURRELL a call of the Senate was ordered, and, being taken, discovered 46 members present and answering to their names.
The demand [Mr. Langdon's] for the previous question was seconded by yeas 32, nays 12.
The main question was ordered, and under the operation of the previous question the resolution was adopted by yeas 25, nays 16.
Pending the roll call--
Mr. FOWLER, in explanation of his vote, said he apprehended no member was more anxious to go home than he, but as the specific bill had but just been passed and the fee and salary bill is not completed here, he was unwilling to vote for this resolution now.
Mr. REEVE, when his name was called, said there was no member would be more personally hurt by staying here than he, but he thought it a dereliction of duty to go home without disposing of the calender. He thought it would be gross injustice to leave so many House bills and other important measures without action, and therefore voted no.
Mr. V1EHE, when his name was called, said he was extremely anxious to go home, but being satisfied it is impossible to present the fee and salary and specific appropriation bills to the governor in the time prescribed by the constitution and adjourn on Monday, he would have to vote "no."
Mr. WOOD, when his name was called, said it would not be treating the House right to adjourn with so few of its bills passed and so many on the Senate files, and he should vote "no," for that and other reasons already stated.
Mr. FOWLER, just as the vote was being announced, said: Understanding from the junior senator from Marion [Mr. Harris] that the treasurer of state has gone home with the opinion that he can get along without the loan bill being passed, he would change his vote from "no" to "aye."
The vote was announced as above, and so the resolution was adopted.
Mr. BURRELL moved to take up the bill [H. R. 671] appropriating $25,000 for the expenses of this special session of the General Assembly, pending which motion--
And then the Senate adjourned.
