HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
MONDAY, March 24,1879-- 9 a. m.The reading of the journal of Saturday's proceedings was dispensed with.
Speaker Cauthorne (Mr. Johnson in the chair) asked leave to amend the bill [H. R. 527] for the relief of John W. Strauss, by striking out all after the enacting clause and inserting new matter, which was agreed to, and the amendments ordered engrossed.
The bill [S. 18] to declare all land patents shall be received as evidence in court was read the third time.
Mr. DAILEY moved to amend, provided that nothing in this act shall be so construed as to affect the rights of any purchaser or owner of any portion of the class of lands described in this act.
The amendment was agreed to, and then the bill passed the House by yeas 55, nays 19.
The House then took up the order pending at adjournment on Saturday, being the consideration of the Senate amendments to the specific appropriation bill.
The House refused to concur in the item concerning the claim of Crane, Breed & Co., for $1,310.50, for work done in the Normal School building at Terre Haute. The House also refused to concur in the other Senate items.
Mr. WILLARD moved ineffectually to amend, by adding the sum of $1,974.12 to Ruben P. Main, for indebtedness made by State Prison South.
The claim of $10 for summoning witnesses for the committee visiting the Southern prison, was allowed.
Mr. VAN VALZAH moved to amend by adding $1,000 for the State Normal School, which was ruled out of order.
Mr. BRYANT called up his motion to reconsider the vote by which the House concurred in the Senate amendments appropriating $62,000.
Mr. DRAKE was in favor of a reconsideration. He was against appropriating so large an amount, but was willing to bridge over by paying up the Interest.
Mr. HUMPHREYS and Mr. LEHMAN said they would vote for the reconsideration with the understanding that an appropriation shall be made sufficient to protect the interest of the State until 1881.
The motion to reconsider was agreed to by yeas 59, nays 35.
Mr. MARCH, in explanation, said he had voted for this amendment, but believing that the money could be better appropriated, he voted "aye."
Mr. SAINT, in explanation of his vote, said he thought the interests of the State would suffer it not protected in this way, and he therefore voted "no."
Mr. OSBORNE of Elkhart moved to strike out the item appropriating the money to purchase the State fair grounds, and insert for the use of the State Board of agriculture $10,000, one moiety thereof to be paid on the 1st of June, 1879, and the other moiety on the 1st of June, 1880, and the Auditor of State is hereby instructed to draw his warrants for said amounts at said dates, to be paid out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated.
Mr. WILLARD said it was just a question whether we should put $10,000 more to the $25,000 already appropriated, making $35,000. He was opposed to it.
Mr. JOHNSON If we intend to continue the State fairs we should protect these grounds. He thought, as a business transaction, the best thing the State could do would be to purchase this ground.
Mr. BRIGGS had been out to see this ground and had made inquires of competent judges as to the value, and found that $75,000 is all it is worth, and he understood that the interest of Eastern capitalists in this ground could be purchased to-day for $45,000. If we appropriate $10,000 to protect this ground for two years it is as much as we can afford to do.
Mr. STUCKER was opposed to appropriating $62,000 for the purchase of the State fair grounds, and thought the State could not afford to engage in this kind of a speculation. It was of no benefit to any person except the people of Indianapolis. If the property is as valuable as is stated he is sure some speculators would have taken hold of it before this time. He did not think the grounds would, bring $40,000 to-day, and he did not believe the man could be found who would give the amount proposed by the Senate amendment for the whole concern. The State had better lose the $25,000 already invested than to spend twice the amount to save it. He thought the farming community of the State would be benefited more by dividing this $62,000 among the different county agricultural societies than by appropriating so large an amount in one spot. If we intend to legislate in the interest of rings, the amendment is in the right direc-[tion] page: 63[View Page 63] [direc]-tion, and it looked as though there was a ring at the head of this whole matter. The people are asking for a reduction of expenses, and not such extravagant appropriations, and the people will hold us responsible for the way we spend their money. He also opposed the Senate amendments of $1,310.50 to the Normal School, for old ditching claims, etc., etc.
The amendment was then agreed to by yeas 51, nays 29.
Mr. HEROD moved that the House reconsider the vote whereby they had refused to concur in the Senate amendments allowing $800 to the Bridge, Roof and Bolt company for an iron fence on the Female Reformatory grounds.
The motion was reconsidered, and the House refused again to concur in the Senate amendment.
Then come the recess until 2 o'clock p. m.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. Speaker CAUTHORN (Mr. Miers in the chair) asked, and obtained leave to call up his bill [H. R.527] for the relief of sureties of Thos.F. Chamber, trustee of Werdner township, Knox county, which was read the third time, and finally passed the House by yeas 78, nays 1.
Mr. OVERMEYER called up the Senate concurrent resolution to adjourn at noon to-day, and moved to amend by making the final adjurnment at noon on Wednesday next.
Mr. 0SBORNE of Elkhart moved to amendment provided the specific appropriation bill and a fee and salary bill be enactment substantially reducing the fees and salaries of public officers.
Mr. ALLEN of Putnam moved ineffectually to lay the whole matter on the table--yeas 42, nays 45.
Pending the roll-call--
Mr. WIMMER when his name was called said: He was as anxious as any one to go home, but would be found voting "aye" on this question until the forty days had expired unless the General Assembly shall pass a bill reducing the fees and salaries of State and county officers.
Mr. Overmeyer's motion to lay the amendment (Mr. Osborne's) on the table was rejected by yeas 30, nays 57.
Mr. Osborne's amendment was then agreed to.
Mr. JOHNSON moved to amend the amendment by striking out Wednesday, the 26th,and inserting Monday, the 31st, which was agreed to by yeas 52, nays 36.
Mr. OVERMEYER said he did not think the proviso in the resolution was appropriate now, inasmuch as the adjournment had been fixed to such a remote day.
Mr. HUMPHREYS, Mr. SHUTT, Mr. OSBORNE and others thought the proviso had better remain.
Mr. OVERMEYER moved ineffectually--yeas 39, nays 48--to reconsider the vote by which the House adopted, the proviso in the resolution that a fee and salary and the specific appropriation bills shall be passed.
The resolution was then adopted as amended by yeas 47, nays 37.
The House then took up the consideration of the bill [H. R. 344] on fees and salaries, with the Senate amendments thereto, which were read.
Mr. ALLEN, of Putnam, moved that the House concur in the Senate amendments. He made this motion in the hope that the House would not concur.
This motion was rejected.
Mr. OSBORNE, of Elkhart, offered a resolution for a reduction of all fees and salaries now in force at least 25 per cent.
Mr. WILLARD would not, be willing to reduce all fees 25 per cent.; for example, he thought the recorders' fees ought not to be reduced.
The resolution was adopted.
On the motion of Mr. DALTON a committee of conference was ordered on this bill, and
The SPEAKER appointed as such committee on the part of the House Messrs. Dalton and March.
The bill [S. 195] providing for the redemption of real estate, was read the first time and passed to a second reading.
Mr. OWEN called up his bill [H. R. 631] to legalize sheriff's sales of real estate, which was read the third time and finally passed the House by yeas 73, nays 4.
Mr. HUMPHREYS moved for the appointment of a committee of conference on the specific appropriation bill.
The motion was agreed to and the SPEAKER appointed Messrs. Humphreys and Overmeyer said committee on the part of the House.
Mr. PERRY called up Mr. Lehman's bill [H. R. 476] to punish the embezzlement of railroad tickets, which was read the third time, and finally passed the House by yeas 75, nays 4.
Mr. REED exiled up his bill [H. R. 457] to amend the 66th section of the act to divide the State into judicial circuits, which was read the third time, and finally passed the House by yeas 75, nays 1.
Mr. FANCHER called up his bill [H. R. 418] to amend sections 26 and 28 of the school law which was read the third time.
Mr. VANPELT did not think this was a very good bill. He said this was throwing cat fights in every school district.
Mr. HART thought there were no persons so well calculated to select the teacher as the patrons of the school.
Mr. BLOCKLEY hailed the provisions of this bill as most wholesome, and there had been five schools broken up in his part of the State by refusing the patrons of the school the right to select the teacher.
Mr. ALLEN, of Putnam, did not suppose but every trustee would be glad to see this bill pass, and he was in favor of it.
Mr. SAINT had been the victim of a successful contest for teacher of a school, and some feeling was created at that time which had not yet been forgotten,
Mr. EDWINS believed that it was right and proper to give the selection of a teacher to the patrons of a school. He was opposed to the one-man power, and hoped the bill would pass.
Mr. WIMMER favored the passage of the bill.
Mr. KESTER thought this law was better than the old law. The parent and guardian are the best judges as to who should teach their children or wards, and he hoped the bill would pass.
Mr. KELLY hoped this bill would become a law, as he thought the majority of the patrons should select the teacher.
Mr. M1TCH LL thought this bill would make a wholesome law. He believed in the elective franchise in this as well as in other matters.
page: 64[View Page 64]Mr. HUBBARD endorsed the bill heartily, as he believed it gives the women the right to vote, and he regarded it as a step in the right direction.
Mr. THAYER objected, because it allowed only parents and guardians or patrons of the school a vote in the selection of a teacher. To tax a roan for school purpose, and then to say, because he had no children, he shall have no voice in the election, was taxation without representation.
Mr. FANCHER insisted that the power to elect a teacher should be vested in the parent or guardian, as provided in this bill. For building school houses or other school purposes ail the tax-payers have a vote. He thought the bill just and proper, and ought to pass.
Under the operations of the previous question the bill passed the House by yeas 53, nays 30.
Mr. REICHELDERFER called up his bill [H. R. 460] to amend section 2 of an act for the laying out, opening, widening and vacating of streets, alleys, etc., which was read the third time and finally passed the House by yeas 68, nays 11.
The House then adjourned.
