HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
THURSDAY, February 10, 1881--9 a. m.The session was opened with prayer by Rev. Mr. Duncan, pastor of Grace M. E. Church, this city.
On motion by Mr. COMPTON, the reading of the Clerk's journal of the previous day was dispensed with.
The SPEAKER laid before the House a communication from the Attorney General (Mr. Baldwin), in response to a resolution of the House, refering toa suit against Henderson for moneys collected from foreign Insurance Companies, stating that the money was collected unlawfully, and at so forth, &c.
Mr. M'CLURE introduced the bill [H. R. 316] for the relief of William J. Richy, late Trustee of Scott County, Finlay Township, Indiana, which was read the first time and referred to the Committee on County and Township Business.
On motion by Mr. CARTER the House suspended the regular order of business and proceeded to the reading of bills the third time.
Mr. Berryman's bill [H. R. 39] relating to the purchase of railroads, plank roads, turnpikes, be macadamized roads, etc., being read the third time--
Mr. BERRYMAN said there were two acts passed by the Legislature previous to this of a similar character. All there was in this bill was of the legalizing of purchase of gravel roads, where parties in good faith have invested their money in the purchase of roads and failed to organize within the time fixed by law, where they merely failed to comply with a technical form of the statute. He thought the bill ought to pass.
The bill passed by--yeas, 55; nays, 27.
Mr. Buskirk's bill [H. R. 44], supplementary and amendatory to an act providing for a uniform assessment of property, and the collection and return of taxes thereon, approved December 21, 1872, being read the third time--
Mr. CAUTHORNE said the bill should not pass because the Committee unanimously rejected it, and the Committee on Ways and Means is preparing a bill upon the subject of taxation, and further, that the National Banks escape taxation.
Mr. BUSKIRK--It is said this bill is unconstitutional, because it discriminates against banks. It is simply an amentatory act of the law of 1872. The Committee had no right to pass upon the constitutionality of this bill. I am going to submit it to this House to see whether they will pass it, and I will not submit to being squelched by the Committee on Ways and Means, because it has a bill under preparation which it desires shall be passed. It is said that it exempts certain species of proper page: 166[View Page 166] from taxation while the Constitution requires all property toe equally taxed. There is nothing unconstitutional about it. The law says there can be exemptions. It merely provides that when a man ha property worth $10,000 and owes $10,000, he does not need to pay taxes. It would be unjust to require a man to pay taxes on property which he does not own, and especially when the indebtedness which he owes is paying taxes also. There is nothing unjust about the measure, and I hope it will pass.
Mr. KENNER thought if this bill passes we would not be able to collect a dollar of taxes from the National Banks. The Constitution says taxes must be uniform. In this bill there is a clause, "provided, however, that this bill shall not apply to banks."
Mr. --------- moved that the bill be laid on the table.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. Carr's bill [H. R. 123] to legalize the election held in 1878, 1879 and 1880, in the town of Brookstown, White County, Indiana, and the official acts of all its officers was read the third time and passed, by--yeas, 78; nays, 0.
Mr. Meredith's bill [H. R. 91] to encourage emigration to the State of Indiana, was read the third time and passed, by--yeas, 77; nays, 1.
Mr. CARTER'S bill [H. R. 32] defining cruelty to animals, declaring it a misdemeanor, and providing for the destruction of animals in certain cases, being read the third time--
Mr. CARTER said the bill had been carefully prepared. It is similar in all respects to bills adopted in other States upon this subject. The Committee unanim usly agreed to it, and he thought it should pass.
Mr. FANCHER thought the section making it compulsory to stop a vehicle or conveyance to which a crippled animal is attached, or in process of transportation in a railroad car, might prove inconvenient and injurious in many cases. He favored the amendment of that clause in the bill. The bill passed by--yeas, 56; nays, 3.
Mr. Murray's bill [H. R. 61] concerning Telephone Companies, and supplemental to an act for the incorporation of Manufacturing and Mining Companies and Companies for Mechanical, Chemical and Building Purposes, approved May 20, 1852, was read the third time and passed by--yeas, 78; nays, 2.
Mr. Frazer's bill [H. R. 71] to provide for a speedy publication of certain laws [All acts containing an emergency clause immediately on their final passage shall be sent by mail to the Clerks of the Circuit Courts] was read the third time and passed; yeas 80; nays, none.
Mr. Teter's bill[H. R. 85] to establish a uniform method for the computation of interest when partial payments have been made, was read the third time.
Mr. TETER said the bill comprehended a great deal; that this measure gives both the borrower and lender their just dues, where, in the old mode of computation, such is not the case. In the old mode interest is often paid when, in fact, it is not due. The creditor ought to have all that is due him and no more. In the old form of computation thousands of dollars are paid yearly where the money is not due: therefore, he favored the passage of this bill.
Mr. GIBSON was decidedly opposed to the passage of this bill.
The bill failed to pass-yeas 43, nays 36--there not being a constitutional majority of two-thirds voting in favor thereof.
Mr. Moody's bill [H. R. 98] for the relief of Silas T. Brandon, Trustee of DeKalb County. Jackson Township, being read the third time--
Mr. MOODY said the person for whose exoneration this bill provides was a poor man, and was at the time this money was stolen from his residence Trustee of Jackson Township. The funds in his possession belonged to said Township. The loss not being occasioned by any neglect of his, the citizens of the Township respectfully petition this body to relieve said Brandon from the liability of paying this loss so sustained, and that the same be supplied from the Township fund.
Mr. NEFF--This House has no right, I care not what the circumstances are, to vote to remit money lost, lawfully, negligently, or any other way. When a man accepts an office, he accepts with it the responsibility. If a poor man loses his all--if it had been his own money--nobody would have thought of coming here and asking to have it refunded. I ask, members, if you do not believe you are transcending your duty to pass such a measure, and in your magnanimity shorten the school fund in the Township $500?
Gentlemen, that is not all. If that bill passes this House, how many more will you be called upon to vote for during this Assembly? For the last ten years I have watched this mater to some extent. When we go upon a man's bond, we say to the public if he does not pay such an amount we will. That is what a bond means, or it means nothing. If the people are so magnanimous as to sign this petition, let them put their hands in their pockets and make up this sum. I hope that a majority of the members of this House will not support this bill.
Mr. FULLER--This is a question confined altogether to Jackson Township and for them to decide. The gentleman from Putnam ]Mr. Neff] undertakes to have us believe that in this case if we exonerate the Trustee from paying this money, that the children of that Township will lose this money. This money if replaced as is the object of this bill, comes from the tax-payers of that Township. The children do not loose it, from the fact that the tax-payers propose to replace that by levy on the taxable property of the Township. If the citizens are willing to replace that money, I do not see why we should object.
Mr. MOODY -- The people of this Township who elected this Trustee, say, irrespective of party, that they will not see him sustain this loss but would rather pay it themselves. I have affidavits to the effect that it would require no additional levy of tax. In examining the House Journal, I find that there has scarely been a session but what acts have been passed for the relief of persons of this description.
Mr. WALZ said it was adopting a dangerous precedent. If this bill should pass, his people would find it out, and he would be called upon to introduce two such bills himself, and he would expect the House to pass the same and the Assembly would be flooded with such bills. He gave it as his opinion that the Legislature had no right to legislate against the wish of the minority of the Township. Because a majority of citizens petition the Legislature to relieve a single officer, it was not right to encroach on the rights of the minority by so doing. These majority petitions are gotten up very loosely, and oftentimes they do not represent one fourth of the wealth of the Township. If these subscribers want this paid let the subscribers pay it. If we keep on entertaining bills of this nature, we will have two weeks work more than if we promptly voted them down.
Mr. HAMILTON said the question was whether or not, in the passage of this bill, the school children will lose the money, or whether it would be made up by another levy. He cited a case that occurred in Madison County, in which the money was absolutely lost to the school children, while the Trustee so relieved had the money to send his own son to College. He thought it wholly wrong that the school children should be cheated out of this fund.
Mr. FANCHER thought the Legislature had a right to relieve a man under such circumstances, and ought to exercise it. He could see no reason why this body should not do so in this case.
Mr. WRIGHT--I hope the bill will not pass. I wonder if it ever occurred to the gentlemen singing this petition that it would cost the Legis- page: 167[View Page 167] lature thousands of dollars to pass this bill. The amount is insignificant, and I am in favor of defeating this measure.
Mr. BUSKIRK--I am opposed to legislation this kind upon general principles, but think this case is an exception to the rule. I have no doubt but that the money has already been replaced in order to carry on the schools. The matter has been adjusted by levy already. I think, under the circumstances, that the bill should become a law. The gentleman seems to think that there is a minority who object. They knew this bill with the petition would be presented. Why did they not enter a protest? That argument does not apply to this case, and I think this bill should become a law.
Mr. O'BRIEN said he was a member of the Committee which passed upon this bill, and inferred that there was not proper precaution used in keeping the funds; but as the petition was signed by nearly every property holder in the Township, it being well canvassed, and there being no protest, he favored the passage of the bill, although he was opposed to opening the door for the admission of such claims.
The bill passed by yeas, 60; nays, 23.
Mr. Jackson's bill [H. R. 105] relating to the duties of the Justices of the Peace, in making returns of funds collected, to the County Treasurer, was read the third time and passed, by yeas 71; nays, 6.
Mr. Furnas's bill [H. R. 119] to amend an act supplementary to an act concerning the organization and perpetuity of voluntary associations, and repealing an act concerning voluntary associations, authorizing County Commissioners to furnish homes to homeless children, was read the third time and passed--yeas, 77; nays, none.
Mr. GREGORY'S bill [H. R. 295] to legalize the incorporation of Green Hill Seminary Corporation, located at Green Hill Warren County, Indiana; was read the second time.
The bill was ordered engrossed.
On motion by Mr. GREGORY, the constitutional rule was suspended--yeas, 78; nays, 2--the bill read the third time and passed--yeas, 78; nays, 0.
The SPEAKER laid before the House a communication from the Chairman of the Insurance Commission, John Finch, Esq., [See yesterday's Senate proceedings] which was referred to the Insurance Committee.
Then the House adjourned to meet to-morrow at 9 a. m.
