Brevier Legislative Reports

Search Options

page: [9][View Page: [9]]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page [9]

THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
VOLUME TWENTY.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
SPECIAL SESSION.

Members of the Fifty-second General Assembly of Indiana convened Tuesday, March 8, 1881, at 9 o'clock a. m., at the Marion County Court House, in the city of Indianapolis, in pursuance of proclamation of His Excellency, the Governor of Indiana.

IN SENATE.

The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR directed the Auditor of State (Hon. E. H. Wolfe) to call the Districts and names of Senators.

Forty-eight Senators answered to their names.

Mr. Foster, of Allen, and Mr. Hart, of Warren and Pike, were absent.

The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR said, there being a quorum present, the body is ready to proceed with business.

Mr. LANGDON offered the following, and demanded the previous question on its adoption:

Resolved, That for the purpose of a speedy organization of the Senate, Wm. H. Schlater be and he is hereby declared the Principal Secretary of the Senate; that Robert B. Sears be and he is hereby declared the Assistant Secretary of the Senate, and that Richard B. Huncheon be and he is hereby declared the Doorkeeper of the Senate for the special session.

Mr. HEFRON raised the point of order that the resolution is not in order, for the reason that it does not choose or elect as the Constitution requires. It simply declares A and B and C elected. The Senate can not declare its officers elected; they must be chosen.

The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR--The point of order is not well taken. The Auditor will call the roll, the yeas and nays having been demanded.

The demand for the previous question was seconded by yeas 26; nays, 22.

The question being on the adoption of the resolution--

Mr. HEFRON demanded a division of the question.

The LIEUTENANT GOVERNGR--Under parliamentary law, outside of any other rule, I don't think it can be divided.

Mr. HEFRON thought the resolution easiy susceptible of division, as it contains three and distinct propositions, either one of which might carry or might fail, and not depend materially on the disposition of the other two. The resolution simply refers to the selection of officers, and if one is selected and other defeated, one does not depend upon the other. So the Senator's argument that the resolution is not susceptible of division seems not well founded.

The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR--Where a question is divided, it is the same as different amendments. If the Senate were not operating under the previous question, and each separate proposition were offered as an amendment, of course it would be voted upon; but as we are acting under the previous question, you have to vote on the resolution as it is before the Senate. Therefore, I think the point is not well taken.

Mr. HEFRON--Such has be the custom. Two years ago, when a similar resolution was introduced, a division of the question was demanded by the other side, and granted by Governor Gray, who was then President of the Senate, and a vote was taken separately on each proposition.

Mr. LANGDON said the point of order was not well taken, for the reason that we are now acting in the absence of any rule of the Senate, and are governed by the common parliamentary law of the land, under which a demand for a division of the question is never dependent upon any one member, and has to be predetermined, not by the arbitrary opinion of the Chair, but by a decision upon a vote of the body. And another thing: A motion for a division of this question can not be put because the Senate is now operating under the previous question, when no amendment and no motion can be entertained. And the point of order is not well taken because parliamentary law requires a question shall be so divided that there will be left an intelligent and separate proposition after taking away a part; and in this case, the vote on Pincipal Secretary should fail, there would be nothing left in this resolution after taking that away from it.

Mr. BELL gave notice he should present--other Senators joining--a protest against the ruling of the Chair, as follows:

page: 10[View Page 10]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 10

Now, therefore, the undersigned respectfully protest against said ruling and action of the Chair, and present this their protest in behalf, and ask the same to be spread upon the records of the Senate at length.

H. M. MAIVIN, R. C. BELL,
W. H.DAVIDSON, D. J. HEFRON,
W. B. HUTCHISON, S. E. URMSTON,
F. M. HOWARD, D. R. LEEPER,
T. M. COMPTON, Wm. RAHM, JR.

The resolution was adopted by yeas, 26; nays, 23, as follows:

Yeas--Messrs. Benz, Bischowski, Bundy, Chapman, Comstock, Garrigus, Graham, Grubbs, Henry, Hostetter, Kahlo, Keiser, Landgon, Lockridge, Macartney, Owen, Ristine, Sayre, Shaffer, Smith, Spann, Van Vorhis, Voyles, White, Woods and Yancy--26.

Nays--Messrs. Bell, Briscoe, Brown, Coffey, Compton, Davidson, Davis, Foster, Hefron, Howard, Hutchinson, Kramer, Leeper, Majors, Marvin, Menzies, Poindexter, Rahm, Traylor, Urmston, Viehe, Wilson and Woollen-23.

Mr. LANGDON moved to reconsider the vote adopting the resolution, and to lay that motion on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to by the same vote adopting the resolution.

On the further motion by Mr. LANGDON, the Secretary, Assistant Secretary and Doorkeeper elect were sworn in by Judge Howe, of the Superior Court.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON REVISION.

On motion by Mr. GRUBBS, it was--

Resolved, the House concurring, That a Joint Committee of the two Houses be appointed, to consist of five Senators on the part of the Senate and eight Representatives on the part of the House, to which shall be referred the report of the Commission on the Compilatory Revision and Amendment of the Laws, and that said Committee shall have authority to employ a clerk and to report at any time to either House.

PAGES--STANDING COMMITTEES.

The LIEUTENAINT GOVERNOR named the Pages, viz,: Henry Richardson, of Putnam County; Aair Overstreet, of Johnson County; Harry Bowser, Herbert Spenser and Rudolph Bauer, of Marion County. He also announced that the Standing Committes of the Senate will remain the same as at the close of the regular session.

INSANE ASYLUM INVESTIGATION.

t Mr. SHAFFER, from the Joint Special Committee appointed last session to investigate the Insane Hospital, reported want of time to complete said investtion, and recommended that the investigation be continued during the special session.

This report was laid on the table by yeas, 28; nays, 7.

SPECIAL SESSION--BUSINESS.

Mr. BELL submitted the following:

MR. PRESIDENT--

Your Special Committee, appointed to inquire into and report as to the purport and effect of the act of December, 6, 1872, providing for the completion of unfinished business of a preceding sesson of this General Assembly, would respectfully report that they have considered said subject, and, in the opinion of the Committee, the unfinished business pending in the regular session at the close thereof can be taken up in the same order in which it stood at the termination of said regular session, and disposed of in the same manner that it might have taken up, transacted and disposed of at such preceding regular session, subject only to such change in the rules of procedure as either House may see proper to make.

R. C. BELL.
E. R. WILSON,
D. W. COMSTOCK.

COMMITTEE CLERKS.

Wm. A. Brown was appointed clerk of the first group; C. A. Cox, of the second; W. A. Smock, of the third; Albert W. Fullerton, of the Judiciary, and Luke H. Wrigley, of the Joint Committee on Revision, on the part of the Senate.

AFTERNOON SESSION.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill [H. R. 204 concerning taxation.

Mr. BROWN moved to strike out Section 51, relating to tax on "gift book stores."

Mr. SPANN opposed the motion to strike out.

On motion by Mr. LANGDON, Section 51 was referred to a Select Committee, viz: Messrs. Spann, Brown and Chapman.

Mr. YANCEY called up his motion to reconsider the vote by which two amenmendments and one substitute for the seventh subdivision of Section 8 was rejected on Saturday, the casting vote being given by the Lieutenant Governor.

This motion to reconsider was rejected by yeas, 20; nays, 26.

Mr. BELL saw unfairness in Section 53. The proper way to tax pawnbrokers would be to tax the amount advanced on pledges during the year, and he offered an amendment to that effect.

Mr. KRAMER failed to see any reason why this section should be retained in the bill.

Mr. SPANN suggested these men only advance about one-quarter or one-third of the cash value of property left in their hands.

Mr. CHAPMAN moved to strike out the section. It s simply the work of reiteration, as this section is covered by the provisions of another section.

Mr. MENZIES could see no reason why the section should not remain in the bill. Its purpose is to send the Assessor after a class of property that will escape listing, unless the Assessor's attention is particularly directed to it.

Mr. SPANN opposed the motion to strike out this Section 53. The bill would then leave a loophole for the escape of a large amount of a certain class of property.

Mr. CHAPMAN--It does not make any officer more vigilant to increase the bulk of a law; making it more unwieldly too cumbersome, and less liable to be understood. This section is applicable to every corporation or person who loans money on collateral. It is too sweeping an assertion to state that all who borrow money from pawnbrokers are thieves and gamblers--many in indigent circumstances pledge their property in order to raise a little ready money.

The great desideration in any law is to express its object in as few words as possible.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. MARVIN moved to add to Section 3 a proviso that when any real estate has been specially taxed for the building of a free gravel road through the same, it shall not for the same year be taxed for common public highways also. He said page 83, Section 4, Acts of 1877, show what lands are taxed for that purpose, and page 87 show how much can be taxed in a year. While lands are being taxed year by year for free gravel roads, the same land should not be assessed the same year for other roads. It may be a hard task to regulate this so as to make it equal, but it is a new thing to allow the people to build free gravel roads in this State and justice should be shown to those thus taxed.

Mr. SPANN insisted the proviso would bring about confusion, and that those paying tax for free gravel roads have their lands enhanced in value by that kind of improvement.

Mr. MARVIN feared the putting of hardships on top of hardships on lands having to pay taxes for free gravel roads, and desired his amendment adopted in order to afford relief to this class of farmers.

page: 11[View Page 11]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 11

Mr. GARRIGUS saw no reason for releasing free gravel road land from assessments to aid in building other County roads.

Mr. URMSTON called attention to the fact that Sectino 3 simply describes what kind of property shall be taxed, and submitted that the proviso, being in the nature of an exemption, could not properly be attached to this Section, unless shown to be for educational, benevolent or scientific purposes.

Mr. FOSTER favored the amendment.

Mr. TRAYLOR thought the amendment should not be adopted.

Mr. KRAMER moved to amend Section 19 so that the production of a tax receipt or duplicate thereof shall be evidence of tax paid in another County. This section, without the amendment, would leave it discretionary with the Auditor somewhat, as to what evidence is given to show tax has been paid in another place.

M. BELL opposed the amendment, thnking the filing of an affidavit as required by the bill sufficient truth.

Mr. WOOLLEN suggested the tax receipt or a duplicate thereof be required in addition to the affidavit. He moved such an amendment

Mr. BELL insisted the section was well guarded. If the Auditor felt any doubts as to the affidavit he can require further evidence.

The amendments were both rejected.

Mr. Sayre moved to amend Section 19, so as to require the evidence to be both "written and verified."

He thought this amendment ought to be adopted because the section gives a good deal of power to the party interested, and if such power is to be be given it should be made to depend upon written evidence sworn to, in order that it may form a publie record for the inspection of the public, so that the power given may not be abused.

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. BELL moved to amend Section 54 by striking out the words "and the books of all corporations." The section provides for a species of inquisition that should not be tolerated. As this section now stands, any Assessor or Deputy Assessor would have the right to examine all the books of any Manufacturing Company or any bank in the State without let or hindrance. This would be dangerous.

Mr. MENZIES thought this section would prove a littel wholesome to corporations in this State. It thei books are all right and.straight, they won't object. This section is meant for corporations who are covering something up.

Mr. BELL--This attacks every corporation, private as well as public. Both ought to be compelled to pay their full quota of taxation, but they should not be subjected the inquisition proposed by this section. The present law furnishes a remedy for any refusing or who are suspected of not properly reporting effects for taxation, and books can, by due process of law, be brought out for proper inspection. No officer should be trusted with a blank floating search warrant of this kind.

Mr. WILSON did not think it right to presume that public officers will take advantage and abuse the powers granted to them. Every well-regulated corporation ought to have its books in shape so that any one can understand them at sight, and these smaller class of corporations should not object to an inspection to which the banks of this country are and have been subected to for many years.

Mr. CHAPMAN proposed a substitute restricting the right to examine book to the County Auditor.

Mr. MENZIES said the amendment would open a wide door for construction. It would give a right to go, upon a proper showing, and examine the books of a Telegraph Company. Now, there would be a contest as to the meaning of the words "a proper showing."

Mr. CHAPMAN should vote to strike out the entire section unless it is modified. If there is no right to examine books of individuals, there is none to examine the books of corporations for the purpose of bringing money into the coffers of the State. Justice should be done in all cases.

The substitute was rejected--yeas, 15; nays 29.

Mr. COMSTOCK offered a substitute authorizing the County Auditor, upon affidavit of the Assessor, that he believes property is not properly listed, to examine books of corporations.

Mr. WOOD said he was opposed to the substitute of the Senator from Wayne, and in favor of the section in the bill. The Assessor has a right under present laws, and by the terms of this bill, to search for property on every farm. They can hunt out every horse, cow, hog and sheep, and all the rye, corn and wheat in the barn. Why should not the Assesor have the right to hunt the intangible property of all corporations which is kept upon their books, and no where else? If they can hunt everywhere for tangible property to assess, why not examine all books of every corporation to hunt for all intangible property. All property should pay its full tax.

The substitute was rejected by yeas, 17; nays, 27.

Mr. BELL said the question was presented fairly and squarely whether an officer can be permitted without restraint to examine books. That this amendment is full of danger, no lawyer will dispute. Of so great importance has this matter been considered, that in almost every Constitution it is provided a person's property shall not be subject to unreasonable search. No petty officer should have the right to require all books of a corporation submitted for his examination at his own sweet will. No such outrages should be permitted. Suppose some Deputy Assessor, who has some spleen to gratify, or spite to inflict, takes up day after day in the examining of books for the very purpose of annoying, you can do nothing with him, for he is in pursuance of his duty under this section as it now stands. If an examination is wanted of private books, some affidavit should first be submitted to justify it.

Mr. BROWN regarded the words proposed to be stricken out as about all there is in the section. The constitutional provision referred to was not intended to prevent a rightful inquiry. While not approving of the section as it stands, he opposed a nullification of it. Where an invidual sequestrates his property, the law makes provistion. No such provision affects corporations or affect individuals. The section ought to be guarded so petty spite and malice should not be allowed to work out its ends.

Mr. COMSTOCK thought it apparent that the section was not in such shape as the Senate desires, and in order to a careful consideration he moved to refer this section and pending amendment to a Select Committee to consist of Messrs Bell, Brown, Spann, Wilson and Viehe, with a view of harmonizing the section.

Mr. Viehe opposed the amendment as well as the section as it stands. Corporations should be protected against unreasonable search, but this section evidently will have to be reconstructed before that can be accomplished under it.

The motion to refer was agreed to.

Pending the consideration of Section 59--

A MESSAGE FROM THE GOVERNOR

was laid before the Senate by the Chair viz.:

EXCUTIVE DEPARTMENT,
INDIANAPOLIS, Ind., March 8, 1881.

Gentlemen of the Senate and House of Representatives:

The Constitution provides that the Governor shall, from time to time, give to the General Assembly information touching the condition of the State, and recommend such measures as he shall judge to be expedient. My official duties since my inauguration, during the late regular session, have been so onerous and your

page: 12[View Page 12]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 12

own opportunities to acquire a knowledge of the condition of the State through your Investigating Committees and through other means have been so considerable, that I do not regard myself as being possessed of any important information relating to the condition of the State of which you are not in possession also. Some of the measures which I had the honor to recommend to you in my inaugural address have been adopted. An adoption of the others has been proposed in pending bills, and they are now in a condition to be considered by you. I renew my recommendation of these pending measures. I specially urge the passage of the bill, with whatever change or additions may be deemed expedient, providing for ascertaining the best way of reclaiming the vast body of lands, the natural means for the drainage of which is through the Kankakee River. The important bill concerning taxation ought also to receive your early attention, so that there may be no failure to pass the clauses providing for taxing the receipts of Teleagraph, Telephone, Express and Fast Freight Companies, etc, instead of taxing merely their visible property.

The exigency which has rendered it necessary for me to call you together in special session could not well have been avoided. The extraordinary labor imposed upon you by your undertaking critically to consider the vast body of legislation proposed to you for adoption by the Commission appointed by the act of 1879 to compile and revise existing statutes has required you to occupy much time in the Committee Room and upon the floor in that work, which otherwise would have been spent in considering ordinary legislation.

Many important changes of existing law have been proposed by th Commission. It is proper that these shall receive careful attention, in order that they may, so far as they shall be adopted, not represent what is deemed best by the Commission merely, but reflect the deliberative judgment of each House. In the progress of the further consideration of these proposed enactments, amendments will doubtless from time to time be found to be necessary. I venture to suggest, however, with the most respectful deference, that hasty amendments will be not less likely to work harm than a too inattentive consideration of the enactments proposed. Even the Commissioners will not always be able to perceive at the moment their entire scope and effect, nor how far they may introduce inconsistencies and ambiguity, which will leave the meaning of the law uncertain until it shall be determined by the Supreme Court. There is a subject which at first view may be deemed of little comparative importance to which I wish to invite your serious attention. In referring in bills to the title of acts meant to be amended there have been frequent instances during the regular session in whch these titles have been recited incorrectly, and at some stages of not a few bills passages or words have been changed, the effect of which has been in some cases to alter or to obscure the sense, and in others will be to convey the idea to uninformed readers that the measure has been imperfectly considered. Such faults in laws are ever a fruitful source of litigation and of consequent expense. The way of avoiding them is easy, and is familiar to such of your members as have had previous experience in legislative bodies. It is earnestly hoped that a diligent effort will be made to finish the work which you have in hand within less than forty days, allowed by the Constitution for a special session, and that a constant desire will be felt to restrain expenses where it is not obviously proper. While not withholding appropriations where they may be necessary from the public welfare, it should be your constant effort to make the burden of taxation as light as it can be made, consistently with a wise administrationof the affairs of the State.

ALBERT G. PORTER, Governor.

The Senate adjourned till to-morrow.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Dr. E. R. Hawn, on taking the Chair, said under the law, it fell upon the Secretary of State to organize the House in the absence of the Speaker.

The session was opened with prayer by Rev. P. M. Hamilton, Member from Boone County.

The Members were called in alphabetical order in groups of about twenty, and the oath of office was administered by Judge Byron K. Elliot, of the Supreme Court.

Mr. KENNER nominated for Speaker of the House for the extra session Hon. William M. Ridpath, of Clay County.

Mr. BUSKIRK presented the name of Henry S. Cauthorne, of Knox County.

Mr. Ridpath received 55 votes, Mr. Cauthorne 39.

The SECRETARY OF STATE appointed Messrs. Cauthorne and Ryan to escort the newly-elected Speaker to the Chair. After reaching the Chair--

Mr. RIDPATH said: "Gentlemen of the House of Representatives. I thank you for this renewed expression of confidence and respect. I realize very keenly, and you no doubt realize the importance of the work before us. Yesterday we closed a very profitable as well as a very pleasant session. It is to be hoped that our relations will continue as pleasant as they were during the last session, and that we may appreciate the importance of the work which we have before us. It is not only important to us that we may make records, but also important that the legislation of this body may be such as to work well to the people of the State. I hope that this session will prove profitable and pleasant. I thank you, gentlemen, again for the renewed confidence which you have placed in me."

Mr. KENNER nominated Cyrus L. Nixon, of Marion County, for Clerk of the House.

Mr. WALKER nominated Arthur C. O'Brien of Martin County.

Cyrus L. Nixon receiving fifty-three votes and A. C. O'Brien forty, Mr. Nixon was declared elected.

Mr. FANCHER placed in nomination Clinton C. Riley as Assistant Clerk of the House.

Mr. NEFF nominated Jerry Huff, of Martin County for Assistant Clerk.

Mr. RILEY receiving fifty-five votes and Mr. Huff thirty-eight, Mr. Riley was declared elected.

Mr. KENNER nominated for Doorkeeper James Wood, of Warrick County.

Mr. HAMMOND nominated Wm. Bennett, of Crawford County.

James Wood receiving fifty-five votes and Mr. Bennett forty, Mr. Wood was declared elected.

Mr. MEREDITH offered a resolution that the present employes of this House, having proved worthy and efficient during the session closed, many of them being wounded soldiers, it is hereby requested that they be retained in their present positions.

The resolution was adopted.

NEW PROPOSITIONS.

The following described bills were read the first time and severally referred:

By Mr. BRYANT [H. R. 446]: To amend Sections 21 and 59 of an act to divide the State into Circuits for judicial purposes, approved March 6, 1873.

By Mr. FANCHER [H. R. 447]: Legalizing the official acts of the Boards of Trustees of the town of Cadiz, Henry County.

By Mr. CARTER [H. R. 448]: To amend Section 8 of an act concerning interest and usury, approved March 10, 1879. [School, College and canal funds, etc, shall be loaned at 7 per cent., page: 13[View Page 13]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 13 except in cases where there is too much on hand to be loaned at that rate, in which case it can be loaned at a less rate.]

By Mr. HINTON [H. R. 449]: To regulate the tolls charged on Plank and Macadamized Roads ceded to the United States by the State of Indiana and matters properly connected therewith. [The charges for toll not to exceed a maximum of over 10 per cent. of the actual amount invested and keeping up repairs, etc.]

By Mr. McSHEEHY [H. R. 450]: Concerning licensing of vehicles in all cities of this State, having a population of 60,000 or more inhabitants as shown by the census of 1880. [The Board of Aldermen and Common Council shall have the power to enact ordinances regulating the running of vehicles, etc.]

By Mr. SULZER [H. R. 451]: Concerning the regulation of the time for holding Courts in the Second Judicial Circuit.

By Mr. BERRYMAN [H. R. 452]: To amend Section 14 of an act of 1879 concerning exemptions.

DESTRUCTION OF BONDS.

Mr. CAUTHORNE offered a resolution, which was adopted, that the Treasurer of State be and is hereby directed to produce before the General Assembly of the State of Indiana, in Joint Convention assembled in the Hall of the House of Representatives, on Thursday, March 10, at 2 p. m., the bonds surrendered and paid under an act providing for the payment of sundry bonds and stocks of the State issued prior to 1841. The Senate is requested to meet the House of Representatives in Joint Convention in said place and make suitable disposition of such bonds as in the State Treasurer may then and there produce and exhibit.

AFTERNOON SESSION

RE-SEATING OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. MARSHALL offered a resolution that the Speaker's and Clerk's desk be located on the south side of this room, and that the members desks so changed as to face the Speaker. He said a large portion of the members of the House have not been able to hear the proceedings or to know what was going on, those coming into the room passing between the Speaker and members.

The resolution was adopted.

RECESS OF THE ASSEMBLY

Mr. BUSKIRK offered a resolution, the Senate concurring, that each branch of the General Assembly adjourn on Friday. March 11, 188l, at noon, until Wednesday, March 16, 1881, at 10 a. m.

Mr. NEFF thought the House would make a mistake by adjourning, as he did not consider the Constitutional Amendments of sufficient importance to adjourn the General Assembly to attend the election. There is not sufficient difference. The parties are too equally divided here for anybody to claim that it will change the result. He thought the members would have much more influence here than to go home to electioneer.

Mr. MITCHELL was opposed to the resolution to adjourn for so long a time as the resolution provides.

Mr. STEWART moved to amend the resolution by striking out "Friday" and insert "Saturday;" strike out "Wednesday" and insert "Tuesday at 2 p. m."

Mr. NEFF made an ineffectual motion to lay the resolution and amendment on the table.

Mr. MEREDITH thought the Legislature ought to hold its sessions right along so as to get through, as the spring work was coming on, when it becomes more necessary for members to be at home. He favored continuing the sessions and excusing from four to six members at a time to go home.

Mr. ADRIAN insisted that members of this House are interested in the passage of these amendments, and to that end they ought to be at home at least for a few days previous to the election.

Mr. GIBSON thought it would be better for the people of the State if the members were at home to work up an interest. He said he voted for the amendments and he wanted the House to adjourn so that members could go home to hold public meetings.

Mr. THOMPSON was opposed to any adjournment on the ground that it would be an injustice to ourselves and our constituents. He thought there was enough of interest throughout the State in the amendments without the assistance of the Legislators.

Mr. LINSDAY entered a protest against the adjournment. He thought the forty days would be fully consumed without adourning. He thought if the Members would do their duty in the Legislature the people would do the same on the constitutional question.

Mr. FALL thought it would be beneficial for this body to go home and stay several days, even if there was no election.

Mr. COMPTON said the eyes of the epople of Indiana are upon us. While he was in favor of the Constitutional Amendments, and of trying to renew an interest in this question before them, he did not think the people were willing that the House should adjourn simply to go home and shake hands with the people and vote for or against the amendments.

Mr. FLOYD thought it apparent that the people were not very well informed upon this subject; that the amendments of themselves were of sufficient importance to justify members going home and making a few speeches in favor of them. He thought there ought to be due deference paid to the importance of the measures placed before the people.

Mr. BARNETT said the people are wide awake in this matter--that they need no stirring up. He wanted the Legislature to stay here and do the business before it, and the people would take care of the amendments.

Mr. LINDLEY lived but twenty-one miles from here, and wanted to record his vote in the ballot box.

Mr. GILLUM moved to indefinitely postpone the resolution.

Mr. BAKER made an ineffectual motion to lay the motion to indefinitely postpone on the table--yeas, 31; nays, 51.

The resolution was indefinitely postponed--yeas, 48; nays, 40.

MEDICAL LEGISLATION.

A majority of the Committee on Sanitary Affairs reported on the bill [S. 74] regulating the practice of medicine in the State of Indiana, recommending its passage by striking out all after the enacting clause and substituting new matter.

A minority of the same Committee recommended the passage of the bill.

Mr. MELRATH said he was a physician, and did not care particularly about a medical law, but he favored the adoption of the minority report.

Mr. KENNER favored the bill as advocated by the minority report, requiring persons to be examined by a Board of Medical Examiners, because this thing of going before the County Clerk, so far as pertaining to qualification is concerned, is a mere burlesque. In the first place the Clerk is not a competent officer to know anything about a man's medical qualifications. He favored the passage of a law that had some system of examination which would define the qualification, therefore he favored the minority report.

Mr. McINTOSCH said he had practiced medi- cine about forty years now, and did not care if the General Assembly passed a medical bill or not. He did not favor such stringent legislation as to require a person to get a prescription for every little article, however common, in the drug line. He favored the passage of the bill originating in the House on this subject.

page: 14[View Page 14]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 14

Mr. GIBBON was of the opinion that the Senate bill had too much machinery connected with it, and creates too many offices, therefore he favored the the House bill.

Mr. CARTER hoped the minority report would prevail. He favored District Boards of Examiners, so men can be examined in their own District. This bill provides, also, that a man moving out of one District in to another must pass an examination, thus doing wawy with the quacks that infest the country, and that is virtually what the bill is for. He favored sustaining the majority report and the passage of the House bill.

Mr. NEFF said, from information gathered by association with medical men, he felt assured that the passage of the House bill as recommended by the majority report, would be satisfactory to the profession, for the reason that it is milder in its terms than the Senate bill.

Mr. MITCHELL opposed the passage of any bill giving the right to practice medicine to persons of particular qualifications and exempting others, as it would give the practice of medicine into the hands of those who are wealthy, and have the means to take a course of lectures. He looked upon medical skill as a natural faculty, in a great measure, and contended that some men with one course of lectures are more able to practice that others who possess diplomas; that a certificate of graduation was not a citerion by which to judge a man's ability in the art; for that reason he opposed all medical legislation.

Mr. BARTLETT, while he favored a stringent medical law, thought it best to adopt the House bill--the one recommended by the majority report--as it had the least machinery connected with it. He thought one bill would reach the same end as the other.

Mr. SINCLAIR offered a resolution that a Committee of five be appointed, three of the House and two of the Senate, to consider the several medical bills, and report which bill should pass.

Mr. EDWINS interposed an objection to the resolution, for the reason that the bills have been before the House for the last sixty days; the result is that two bills are now before the House for the last sixty days; the result is that two bills are now before the House for action. He thought it is time that the House should take action thereon.

Mr. SINCLAIR said he noticed considerable antagonism between the House and Senate on these bills, which induced him to introduce this conciliatory measure to bring about a compromise.

Mr. HAMILTON favored the resolution, because the doctors did not agree upon what they wanted themselves.

The resolution was rejected--yeas, 36; nays, 47.

Mr. WRIGHT--The physicians of this body and the State of Indiana are asking for this legislation out of the goodness of their hearts, because they want to practice their profession against the imposition of quackery that is brought in the State. It is certainly within the knowledge of every one here that that time and again a wise-looking fellow, who knows comparatively nothing about medicine, will go into a village and displace physicians of experience--men who thoroughly understand their business. It is one of the weaknesses of human nature, when death is brought near the family. They do not stop to reason. He gave the physicians of this body credit for being sincere in a desire to protect themselves against these frauds that travel through the State. Here are physicians who spent years of their lives in reading, qualifying themselves to practice medicine, and yet here comes some quack and runs them out. It does seem to him that of all things in this world human life is the most precious and the Legislature can pass an act by which the standard of the medical profession can be raised. There is no question about that. There is one objection to the Houses bill. The provisions of that bill are that if a physician is a graduate of a Medical College he shall have his license to practice medicine. If he has practiced ten years he shall have his license to practice medicine. If he had practiced five years and taken one course of lectures he shall practice. The Senate bill is superior in this particular: If a man has not attended a Medical College he can go before a Board, be examinded and practice medicine without a diploma. It does not impose upon a young man the necessity of attending a Medical College at all if he can pass an examination before the Board. The only objection to this bill is that there is perhaps a little too much machinery about it, but still, in his judgement, the Senate bill should be substituted and pass both Houses.

Mr. M'DOWELL--The qualification is nearly the same: the question is: Which is the better way to find out the qualification? It is better to go to the County Clerk and produce the testimony there than to be carried off to a Medical Board. There is always a great deal of jealousy existing between medical men. This Board is to be appointed by the Governor of the State. It will be one of the greatest political frauds that we ever had in the State of Indiana. The Governor, no doubt, will be greatly influenced by politics and by Indianapolis in making the appointments, and the Boards will be biased. As provided in the House bill, a man merely goes before a County Clerk and shows the evidence of efficiency and good moral character. The County officers are governed by rules and regulations the same as State Boards. I am strongly in favor of the House bill.

Mr McCLURE believed it much better for the people that the Legislature should pass some kind of measure by which the profession can be elevated in its proficiency. The bill favored by the majority of the Committee is simple and plain in its provisions. It only requires one to make application for a license before the Clerk of the Court, and prove the requisite qualifications.

The House adjourned till o-morrow.

page: [15][View Page [15]]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page [15]

THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
VOLUME TWENTY.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
SPECIAL SESSION.

IN SENATE.

The consideration of the bill [H. R. 204--see pages 196 and 202 of these Reports], a codification of all existing laws on the subject of taxation in the State, was resumed.

Mr. BROWN, from the Select Committee thereon, reported in favor of striking out Section 51, referring to gift book stores.

Mr. CHAPMAN thought the recomendation of the Committee should prevail. The section would be productive of litigation, and no doubt great injustice would grow up under it. If there could be any real revenue derived from its retention, he would favor the feature.

The Senate refused to concur in the report of the Committee by yeas, 22; nays, 24.

Mr. BROWN from the Special Comitte thereon, reported a substitute for Section 54. He stated the only difference between the substitute and the original section is that it limits the right to make inspections of books to the State and County Auditors and Boards of Equalization. It cuts off the vast army of Assesors and deputy officials. The Committee thought no wrong would accrue from reposing that power in such responsible parties.

The report was concurred in.

Mr. KRAMER moved to amend Section 56 by adding a proviso authorizing rebate of tax to the amount of indebtness to State trust funds. The person holding these moneys, as a general thing, can get no deductions, because they have no credits from which to deduct their indebtedness, and such should have the right to deduct their indebtedness to the State. This particular case of double assessments can be reached; many other cases can not. There is no unfairness in this proposition.

Mr. HEFRON thought this section ought to stand just as presented by the Committee.

The motion to add a proviso was rejected.

Mr. SAYRE moved to refer Section 57 to a Select Committee of three, because the condition of the Wabash and Erie Canal is different from what it has been in the past twenty or thirty years. In 1876 the Wabash and Erie Canal was sold under a decree of the United States Circuit Court, and it is now owned by a class of individuals claiming possession to the exclusion of everybody else. Along the line of this canal there are mills that have been assessed in the hands of lessees as improvements, but the canal itself has been exempt from taxation. The sale of this property embraced everything including the strip of land 180 feet wide, and also the mill privileges along the canal. While this property was in the hands of the State, of course it was exempt, but these mill priviledges were taxed. Not only should these mills and mill priviledges be taxed, but likewise the canal itself. For a distance of six miles in his County the claimants have sworn that the level is worth $30,000, and there are $1200 a year for rent paid for the water privileges. As before stated, inasmuch as the State has parted with all her interest in this canal under a judicial sale, and as it is now claimed as the property of private individuals, this section should be referred to a Special Committee with instructions to report by substitute or otherwise.

Mr. BELL'S understanding is that every species of property held by the Wabash and Erie Canal was, in the suit of Jacobs, sold under foreclosure of bonds. In the suit of Fleming, in 58th Indiana Reports, it is held that all this property passed into the hands of private individuals. In the case of Henry J. Rudisell, where the State condemned water power afterward leased, it was held all the water privilege rights were sold out also. That case, having been appealed, is now pending in the Supreme Court. In order that there may be no hasty action, he favored the motion to refer.

Mr. SHAFFER also referred to property along the line of this canal in his County now escaping taxation.

Mr. VIEHE regarded the section as useless.

The motion to refer was agreed to, and the Lieutenant Governor makes such Committee to consist of Messrs. Sayre, Hefron and Bundy.

Mr. MACARTNEY moved to substitute for Sections 58 and 59 the following: The undivided real page: 16[View Page 16]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 16 estate of any deceased person may be listed to the heirs of such person without designating any such heirs by name, until a transcript of partition, certified copy of will duly admitted to probate, or deed, be presented to the Auditor of the County wherein such real estate is situated, when such Auditor shall proceed to transfer the same upon the last appraisement list and apportion the same and the valuation thereof with all delinquent taxes to the several owners. He gave two or three reasons why this substitute should be adopted (inaudible at this reporters' table). The latter clause in Section 58 he regarded as palpably wrong.

Mr. MENZIES saw no injustice in the latter part of Section 58. The simplest way is for the State to go right on the land for the tax, and not hunt up the heirs and devisees.

Mr. SHAFFER saw no necessity for a change in this section; it is word for word the old law, and there has not been the least difficulty under it in collecting taxes. Section 44 of the present law corresponds with this Section 59.

Mr. KRAMER would favor the substitute if it went far enough. Parties paying taxes should have a lien on the land for the taxes so paid. It should be so amended or it should not prevail.

The substitute was rejected.

Mr. LANGDON desired to have the question of taxation settled at the earliest possible time. The trouble now is that this bill is a solecism built upon incongruities, and it ought to be carefully revised. The utmost that can be done here in open Senate will be patchwork. It is foolish to say this Senate can perfect this measure as it ought to be done in two months. The bill should be sent back to the Special Committee, which is composed of friends of the bill, that they may report what is new matter on which we can legislate, letting the old law remain as it is; presuming, as it has worked well, it should be allowed to stand. More time will be taken up in discussing old sections than ten times the amount of new matter. He offered a resolution to this effect, with instructions to report, at the earliest moment, the sections and parts of sections which are new and not a part of the present laws, and also what, if any, sections or parts of sections are repealed.

Mr. CHAPMAN submited that we have not time to recommit for the purpose of a general revision, if the bill is to be passed so it can be made available for the present year. Every one admits the present law is incongruous, and too bulky. He believed good work was being done by the Senate now, and the better way is to proceed.

Mr. TRAYLOR also considered the present procedure proper. If the resolution were adopted the Senate would have the same right to amend the old sections as it has now.

Mr. MENZIES regarded the adoption of the resolution as in effect killing the bill.

Mr. HEFRON thought a recommittal would expedite the passage of this bill, and so he favored the resolution.

Mr. BELL regarded the fact that most of this bill is the old law as the best kind of a reason why it should be amended. It is the worst kind a slip-shod law he ever saw--it must have been made up with scissors and paste.

The resolution was rejected.

Mr. SPANN moved to strike the word "pawnbroker" out of Section 68.

Mr. CHAPMAN opposed the motion.

Mr. MENZIES referred to the fact that this section is an old one which has stood for many years.

Mr. CHAPMAN saw no reason for retaining a foolish statute, even if it has remained the law for nine or more years. He desired to see statutes enacted that members could look upon with satisfaction when they grew old, and feel a pride in having taken part in the formation of them.

AFTERNOON SESSION.

A RECESS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Mr. HEFRON offered a resolution that when the Senate adjourn on Friday noon it adjourn till Tuesday at 2 o'clock p. m.

Mr. COMSTOCK made an ineffectual motion to strike out the word "Friday" and insert in lieu the word "Saturday."

On motion by Mr. GRUBBS, the word "evening" was substituted for the word "noon" in the resolution.

The resolution as amended was adopted.

ASSESSMENT FOR TAXATION.

The amendment pending at the noon recess [Mr. Spann's] was rejected.

Mr. HEFRON made an ineffectual motion to strike out interrogatory No. 2 in Section 70, the same matter being in another place.

Mr. VIEHE offered an additional interrogatory to make effectual interrogatory No. 2, when answered affirmatively.

Mr. TRAYLOR moved to strike out the interregatory concerning purchases of real estate "since April 1 next preceding," as unnecessary, and possibly would lead to listing some property twice.

Mr. CHAPMAN and Mr. HEFRON favored the motion to strike out.

Mr. WOOD said: "This interrogatory ought not to be stricken out of the bill. When real estate is sold and conveyed by deed, and the conveyance is not recorded, the land is still taxed in name of the former owner. How is the owner to remove this tax? By making proof before the is proper authority that he has sold the land. That is much trouble to persons who have sold their real estate, which can be avoided by retaining this interrogatory."

The motion to strike out was agreed to.

Mr. McCARTNEY moved to amend Section 73 so as to require deductions claimed from credits shall be "itemized by giving the name of the persons, companies or corporations to whom such indebtedness may be due with the amount due to each provided the number of such creditors shall not exceed ten, and if such number of creditors shall exceed ten then such itemized statement shall include the names of ten creditors to whom the largest amounts may be due, and such itemized list shall be verified by oath, etc."

Mr. LANGDON objected to the inquisition proposed by this amendment to Section 73, requiring an itemized statement of every account from one cent up to thousands of dollars, and it is impracticable, for in some cases it would take volumes upon volumes to record what is required by this amendment to be set forth and verified by oath.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. TRAYLOR moved to strike out the words "with a view to profit" in line five. He insisted where money is deposited the owner should pay the tax thereon.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. KRAMER moved to amend the Committee substitute for Section 90 so that foreign Insurance Companies shall pay taxes semi-annually on receipts. Where great destruction of property happens, such Companies frequently break up and it is safer not to let the tax run longer than six months at a time. The people of the State pay taxes twice a year, and there is no reason why foreign Insurance Companies should be favored more than our own people. Then it not right to allow them to pay on receipts less losses actually paid. No citizen has a renduction for the losses incurred in his business.

Mr. BROWN also thought Insurance Companies should be required to make a semi-annual payment of their taxes. If a great fire should occur such it as has occurred in Chicago, Boston and other places in the latter half of the year which would cause some of these Companies to break up, page: 17[View Page 17]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 17 the tax would be lost to the State. He desired to be just to them and this is but just. He also favored the second division of this amendment, allowing no abatement of taxes for losses. These Companies can very well afford to pay this tax. They take out of the State somewhere from $1,000,000 to $1,500,000 a year, which they invest in business elsewhere, and can afford to pay their officers from $20,000 to $40,000 a year. Let this amendment prevail, and and these Companies will pay to the State from $75,000 to $80,000 a year, instead of the comparatively small tax they now pay. This amendmend is in harmony with the laws of other States. He would go as far as any one to see justice done to all enterprises, whether individual or corporate, but they should bear their just proportion of taxation.

Mr. LANGDON assumed as a proposition that the insurance business done here is a good thing for the people of this State, and done at the lowest rate. If the tax becomes onerous it will be put on the rates of insurance and will come out of the insured. The very minute it does noy pay capital to stay in insurance it will not go out. This tax should be a per cent. on the amount of the business done--in other words the profits. Whatever is realized over and above losses is the profit. The latter portion of the proposed amendment is not fair nor just to foreign companies.

Mr. SPANN was satisfied if the semi-annual statements of Insurance Companies are left out there will be a loss to the State of some $30,000, by adhering to annual statements; but the latter half of the amendment he would oppose, as being unjust. They should not be taxed upon gross receipts unless losses are deducted.

Mr. BELL--Merchants are taxed upon the amount of capital invested without respect as to whether the investment will be profitable or otherwise. These foreign Insurance Companies are placed on a vantage ground as compared with our own home Companies, and that ought not to be continued.

Mr. MENZIES--If these Companies have to pay $30,000 or $40,000 or $50,000 more of tax in this State are they going to lose it? They will place higher rates on property, and this extra tax will fall on the people of the State. This increased tax will fall upon the industrial pursuits. Taxing foreign Insurance Companies on their gross receipts exclusive of their losses will be protection enough for home Companies.

Mr. BROWN though there was a mistake in the impression that by taxing these foreign Insurance Companies they will make it up in additional charges on premiums. Experience shows the contrary. Competition is so great it keeps the prices down.

Mr. LANGDON demanded a division on the question.

The first part of the amendment, providing for semi-annual statements, was agreed to. The second division of the amendment, refusing a deduction of losses from gross receipts was agreed to by--yeas, 25; nays, 15.

Mr. VAN VORHIS moved, as a substitute for the report of the Committee upon Section 90, that the substitute for Section 90, offered by the Committee, as amended by the Senate, be adopted as a section of the bill, and inserted after Section 89 of the printed bill.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. [Mr. Chapman in the Chair], ruled this motion out of order as not germain to the subject-matter under consideration.

Pending the consideration of Section 78--

Mr. HENRY introduced a bill, [S. 334] providing for the reinstatement of records of Courts destroyed by fire, etc., which was read the first and second time under a dispensation of the constitutional rule, and referred to the Judiciary Committee.

The Senate then adjourned till to-morrow.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

The session was opened with prayer by Rev. T. A. Goodwin, this city.

Mr. CAUTHORNE offered a resolution that the Judiciary Committee be instructed to inquire into the propriety of repealing an act of December 3, 1872, which provides that the Secretary of State shall organize the House and the Auditor of the State the Senate, and to consider as to the number and pay of employes, the manner of appointment, etc., and to report the result of their deliberations to this House without delay by bill or otherwise.

Mr. CAUTHORNE said the objection in repealing the act referred to is the saving of several hundred dollars expense which may be avoided. He considered the act unconstitutional, because the Secretary and Auditor of State under that act are intrusted to legislative duties in appearing here to preside during the organization, when in fact they are a part of the Executive Department of the Government. He considered the law loosely drawn. And then there ought to be some manner of appointing the employes, limiting their number, etc., etc.

On motion by Mr. KENNER it was ordered that this duty should be performed by the Committee on Ways and Means.

The resolution as amended was adopted.

PUBLIC OFFENSES.

The reading of the bill [H. R. 393] concerning public offenses was resumed, commencing at Section 264.

Mr. O'BRIEN moved to amend Section 277 in line 2 so as to read: "Any amount not to exceed $5," and in line 3 "Any amount not to exeed $25," and in line 4 "An amount not to exceed $50 and may be imprisoned in the County Jail not to exceed thirty nor less than five days." He thought the section as it now stands is too severe. The amendment would make the matter somewhat discretionary with the prosecuting tribunals. Under the section as it stands it becomes imperative to imprison a person for drunkenness. There are some men so accustomed to drinking that they are slaves to their passion. If this section prevails he thought it would crowd the Jails with multitudes of men who are unable to pay their fines.

Mr. NEFF thought the amendment a good one, and one that should be adopted.

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. COTTON moved to amend Section 272, line 2 by inserting after the word "debt": "Or to eject or threaten to eject from any house he may occupy." He said nothing affects a family so much as ejectment for a debt or other cause; therefor he moved to amend.

Mr. KENNER thought a person trespassing should be ejected from the premises.

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. KENNER moved to add a section to punish, by fine and imprisonment any who set gill nets in the night in channels where fish pass to and fro, and thus slaughter them by the thousands. Under the present law it is hard to convict a man, because it can not be proven whether he catches the fish with a net or otherwise. He favored passing a law to prohibit putting such nets in the water.

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. CAUTHORNE demanded the previous question, and under its operations the bill passed--yeas, 67, nays, 9.

SPECIAL SESSION EXPENSES.

Mr. MEREDITH introduced a bill [H. R. 458] to appropriate money to pay the expenses of the present special session of the General Assembly, and directing the manner of its employment. Amount $75,000. On his further motion to suspend the constitutional rule, the bill was read page: 18[View Page 18]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 18 the second time by title, third time by sections and passed--yeas, 67; nays, 7.

The bill [H. R. 340] legalizing ordinance No. 63, passed by the Trustees of the town of Edinburgh, was read the second time, the constitutional rule was suspended, the bill read the third time by sections and passed--yeas, 43; nays, 1.

SCHOOL TAX

Mr. Fancher's bill [H. R. 322] concerning Common schools was read by sections.

Mr. RYAN moved to amend Section 12 so as to increase the special tax levy from thirty-five cents to the present limit, fifty cents on each $100, and also empower the Trustees to impose an additional school tax of fifteen cents on the $100 and twenty-five cents on each poll, to provide for future as well as present indebtedness for school buildings, etc.

The motion was agreed to.

AFTERNOON SESSION

MEDICAL LEGISLATION

The House proceeded to the consideration of the Sanitary Affairs Committee reports on the bill [S. 74] to regulate the practice of medicine. The majority recommended the substitution of new matter, and the minority recommended the passage of the bill.

The minority report was rejected-yeas, 22; nays, 57.

Mr. ADRAIN-I think it right and proper to make a few remarks in reference to the importance of the measure before us. Two bills are before this House to regulate the practice of medicine in this State, both of which provide for the same thing and the accomplishment of the same ends, viz : To protect the people from the imposition practiced by the charlatans of the country. Now, I take it for granted that the physicians in this House are not personally interested in the passage of either of these bills. Why, then, do you ask us why we are clamoring for the passage of one of those bills? I answer, it is in behalf of our constituents, who ask the physicians in this House to do something by which they will be protected from the imposition imposed upon them by these I quacks going about the country imposing upon the community worse than the pestilence that stalketh in the darkness. The question presents itself to each and every member on this floor, which one of the bills will best accomplish that object, and do it the most satisfactory and easily, that is the only question that comes before this House. In my candid opinion, the bill recommended by the majority report will accomplish the object the most readily. The Senate bill is somewhat cumbersome. Both bills, I grant, you have the same object in view, and would accomplish the same end, but the Senate bill is somewhat complicated. There is too much machinery in it. While the House bill does not suit me by any any means, in it provisions it is plain, simple and practical. I was not a little amused at the gentleman from Washington County [Mr. Mitchell] in the debate on yesterday. He claimed that the practice of medicine was a natural gift. With all due respect to the gentleman, I dissent from him. I do not believe that any man is born with a spatula in one hand and a pocketcase in the other. He believes in the old idea of "natural doctors"--that a doctor is born so. I dissent from the gentleman who occupied the floor yesterday. He says a diploma is no evidence of the qualification of a physician to practice medicine. In every well-regulated College in the State of Indiana, and throughout the length and breadth of this Republic, in every well regulated College, I say, they require that student shall pass and procure a certificate to establish the fact that he read medicine three consecutive years in an office of some reputable physician.

The bill provides further that he shall attend two full courses of lectures in some reputable College. I ask the gentleman where he can find a more desirable and more trustworthy evidence than a diploma for the practice of medicine in the hands of a man who wants to qualify himself in the art? In many of the Colleges at the present day they demand as a prerequisite of students, before they enter the portals of the College, to present to the Dean or Faculty of the College a certificate of the possession of certain literary attainments before he is matriculated. It occurs to me, gentlemen, that this is sufficient evidence, and it should convince any man that a diploma is a passport of some confidence.

Mr. MITCHELL made the explanation of his statement made on yesterday that he did consider a diploma an index of qualification, that he did not fully develop the thought upon that point. He had reference to the purchase of diplomas and those issued by unreliable institutions, etc.

The majority report was adopted--yeas, 56; nays, 27--and the bill was read the second time.

Mr. FRAZER moved to amend the bill by inserting the following in Section 5: All physicians of good moral character who have practiced medicine, surgery and obstetrics in the United States twenty years continuously, immediately preceding the passage of this act, shall have the right to practice the same in the State of Indiana. He said he offered the amendment in good faith; that it was intended to meet a certain class of cases.

Mr. McINTOSH thought the amendment a dead letter as ample provisions are made for such cases as in another section.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. MITCHELL moved to amend Section 4 by striking out the words "three years" and insert the words "two years." [That being the length of time required to have practiced after taking one course of lectures.]

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. JOHNSON moved to amend Section 2 by striking out the words "of either school of medicine represented by either of the four now existing Medical Associations." He could not see the necessity of having that condition in there--it would be fully as well without it.

Mr. RYAN said that number [four] may or may not embrace all the schools of medicine as the best schools. He favored giving all the boys an equal chance, no matter what school his theory embraced, therefore he hoped the amendment would prevail.

On moton by Mr. Edwins, the amendment was laid on the table.

Mr. GILLUM moved to amend by striking out the words "County Clerk" and inserting in lieu the words "Board of Health."

Mr. EDWINS--I desire to present my views of this matter fairly and squarely to the members of this House. I desire, in the first place, that every member of this House should not vote blindly. I desire him to have a comprehensive view of this case as it is now presented by the Committee authorized to take charge of the whole subject. I, perhaps, have paid more attention, devoted more of my time to medical legislation, and studied medicine and sanitary science in the last six years more than any member on this floor. Some two years ago I used all the energies of my nature, all the advantage I possessed as a member of this House, to forward some measure looking to the interest of the medical profession and also to the interest of the people. It is not in the interest alone of the medical profession that I desire this bill to pass. It is for the purpose of protecting the people of this State against the ignorance of our noble science, thus enabling them to protect themselves.

We are assailed daily, monthly and yearly with quacks and empirics. They flood our State from page: 19[View Page 19]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 19 all the States surrounding and, in fact, we are made the cesspool of our Nation. We are made the resort of almost every quack in Christendom. Two years ago I succeeded in pasing a measure through this House looking to the interest and advance of the medical science to a higher standard of medical education, to which every student of medicine, every practitioner, should and gladly ought to aspire. I succeeded in passing that measure through this House and the other Chamber. It failed to pass. You all know why. Gentlemen, I present before you to-day a measure which certainly does interest, not only every medical man in the State, but the whole people. One year ago I, with four other gentlemen, were appointed to draft a bill that would be alike acceptable not only to the people of the State, but to the entire profession of the State of all schools of medicine. I labored through the summer of 1880, and finally produced a bill which, in my judgment, was complete in all its details, so far as Board bill could be. I presented that bill to the Committee raised by this House to investigate and select such work as they, in their judgment thought proper to put before this House. That Committee unanimously almost, myself excepted, recommended the passage of the bill now under discussion. Some gentlemen on the floor of this House are now antagonizing this bill--the very men who voted in the Committee Room for the adoption of this bill, and recommended its passage through this House. I see a disposition on the part of this House, to treat this subject with levity. Gentlemen, it is not thus that the fourteen medical men in this House have treated every subject you have presented to them for their consideration. They have treated you courteously and kindly. The have given all your measures careful attention, and in view of that fact, I only ask the same in return. This bill has been sought to be loaded down with amendments, calculated, as every gentleman is aware, to kill it. I care not which bill you accept. My preference would be for a common and substantial measure that would be satisfactory to the people and to the medical profession of the entire State, and I do hope that the pending amendment will not be adopted, but that the amendment recommended by the majority report will be ordered engrossed.

Mr. NEFF wanted to be as courteous to the medical profession as they are themselves. He did not see the propriety of adopting the amendment, for the reason that the Clerk simply hears the testimony as the bill provides.

Mr GILLUM said the idea he had in presenting the amendment was this: That every County Board had a physician. He did not consider the County Clerk the proper person in whom to lodge this power.

The amendment was rejected--yeas, 20; nays, 63.

The majority report was concurred in, and the bill was ordered engrossed.

LEGISLATIVE RECESS.

The Senate concurrent resolution, that the General Assembly adjourn Friday evening, March 11, 1881, to meet again on Tuesday, March 15, 1881, at 2 p. m., being read--

Mr. BAKER said: I voted for those Constitutional Amendments to the scratch of "t" and a dot of an "i," and I wish to do so again. I am in favor of going home to vote as I consider the Constitutional Amendments of more importance than any legislation that can be enacted during the two or three days proposed for the recess.

The resolution was adopted--yeas, 54; nays, 36.

SCHOOL TAX.

The House returned to the consideration of the bill [H. R. 322] regulatng Common Schools.

Mr. WALKER moved to amend Section 27 by inserting afer the words "except married women" the words, "When their husbands attend such meetings."

Mr. COMPTON hoped the amendment would prevail, as there were a great many men who do not care about school matters, and at the same time their wives are much more interested than they are. If the husband will not take interest enough to attend school meetings, the wife should be entitled to the privilege of voting.

The amendment was adopted.

THE GOVERNOR'S MESSAGE.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole [Mr. Buskirk in the Chair] for the consideration of the Governor's message.

Mr. KENNER moved that so much of the Governor's message as refers to the swamp lands be referred to the Committee on Swamp Lands; that part relating to taxation be referred to the Committee on Ways and Means; that pertaining to the laws to the Revision Committee; that part relative to defective phraseology to the Committee on Enrolled Bills.

The motion was agreed to.

The Committee then rose, and the Chairman reported to the House the action of the Committee.

The report was concurred in.

Then the House adjourned.

page: [20][View Page [20]]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page [20]

THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS
VOLUME TWENTY.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
SPECIAL SESSION.

IN SENATE.

Mr. BROWN called up the House concurrent resolution providing for a Joint Convention to-day at 2 p. m., to witness the destruction of bonds and stocks redeemed by the State Treasurer, and it was adopted.

ASSESSMENT FOR TAXATION.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill [H. R. 204] codifying assessment and taxation laws.

On motion by Mr VIEHE, Section 88 was amended so that a bank may pay the tax due from any of its stockholders, and retain the amount thereof with interest from any subsequent dividend.

Mr. COMSTOCK moved to strike from the Committee substitute for Section 91 all relating to the taxing of Express Companies. He regarded it as unjust to tax the gross receipts of any Express or other Company. He looked upon the principle of taxing receipts, whether gross or net, as wrong. There is a difference between Express and Insurance Companies--the former employ many men in the State at large salaries. The tax on Express Companies will, in some form or other, have to be paid by their customers. He did not question the power of the Legislature to impose such a tax on foreign corporations, but doubted the justice or policy of it. It is class legislation upon a particular class of people.

Mr. GRAHAM insisted Indiana has granted more favors to foreign corporations than other States, for the reason they have not been taxed as other States tax them. He favored taxing receipts of Express Companies as well as foreign Insurance Companies in fact, he regarded the former as more in the character of monopolies than the latter.

Mr. BELL yesterday favored taxing foreign Insurance Companes. They have no tangible property in this State. The same rule should not apply to Express Companies. There is a very great difference between the two, and there ought to be a great difference made in levying a tax on the two. Express Companies employ a vast army of men in this State. It is stated there was paid in this State $1,200,000 for the maintenance of the business and stock of Express Companies, last year. In every town and hamlet they have their stock, their horses, wagons and furniture--tangible property that can be taxed.

Mr. HEFRON--The effect of this motion will be to strike from the section all that refers to the taxation of receipts of Express Companies. In his judgment this amendment ought not to be adopted, but the section as it now stands ought to be allowed to remain. He believed foreign insurance Companies own thousands of dollars of tangible property in this State, where Express Companies own but hundreds. Insurance Companies own good buildings in many of our cities, and they own land all over the State. The Express Companies can afford to pay 1 per cent. of their receipts if foreign Insurance Companies can afford to pay 3 per cent. He desired to treat foreign Companies with the same consideration as people of the State.

Mr. MENZIES also believed the effect of the amendment would be to destroy the section. Do Senators want to make fish of one and fowl of the other--to tax Insurance Companies 3 per cent. and to allow Express Companies to go free of taxation? Express Companies earn more annually in this State than foreign Insurance Companies.

Mr. WOOD said: My only desire is do right in taxing all classes and all property in the State alike. I have no prejudice against corporations doing business in this State, but I do desire to have their property and their earnings taxed just the same as the farmer, the manufacturer, the mechanic and the laborer. This provision of the bill does that. Now, to relieve American Express Companies from taxation as the substitute practically provides, is a discrimination against all classes of our own people. It is unjust favoritism to corporations and the worst kind of class legislation.

Mr. GRAHAM was not in favor of making any more favorable conditions in reference to these corporations than is proposed by the substitute page: 21[View Page 21]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 21 recommended by the Committee. He desired to see the amendment defeated, and the bill amended so as to increase the tax on Express Companies, making it equal to the tax imposed on foreign Insurance Companies.

Mr. LANGDON listened with patience for the purpose of learning why any business from other States coming here should be treated as inimical to the public interests. He had not heard one single reason that justifies legislation which has been successfully carried through the Senate proposing taxation of foreign Insurance Companies, and to be consistent the same rule should be applied to every other foreign Company doing business in this State. Where is a monopoly in Indiana? A monopoly in business is a new thing to him. With all the experience and sagacity of business men in Indiana, they do not seek to organize Express Companies. He favored a fair tax--such an amount as is consistent with the principle of "live and let live"--and it ought to be upon profits only. The Senate should reconsider its action of yesterday, which taxes foreign Insurance Companies upon their gross incomes.

Mr. WOOLLEN had no unfriendly feeling toward any Express Company, but the State requires a great deal of money to be raised in taxation, and shall that money be raised from citizens alone, or shall not non-resident Companies doing business here be compelled to assist in raising revenue for the carrying on of the government?

Mr. FOSTER opposed the amendment. Not believing any big bugaboo ought to be raised here about foreign Companies, he was disposed to be fair and just toward them, and desired they should pay a fair tax in just proportion with that exacted from the farmer and laboring men of the State.

The amendment to the Committee's substitute was rejected by yeas, 4; nays, 40.

Mr. GRAHAM moved to increase the tax on Express Companies from 1 to 2 per cent.

Mr. BROWN didn't think this amendment should prevail. There is no similarity between foreign Insurance Companies and Express Companies, and the Committee has fixed the tax about right at 1 per cent. He hoped the Senate would adhere to the action of the Committee.

The amendment was rejected--yeas, 6; nays, 38.

Mr. CHAPMAN moved to amend the Committee substitute for Section 91 by authorizing a deduction from the gross receipts of Express Companies of "the amount of wages paid to employes within this State, and the amount paid for the purchase of tangible property within this State," in addition to the deduction of the amount paid to railroads within this State for the transportation of their freight within this State. The section as it came from the House nobody apologizes for or defends or justifies. Nobody claims that a 3 per cent. tax would be just.

Mr. WILSON (in his seat)--I justify it.

Mr. CHAPMAN was glad to have discovered one Senator who justifies the levy of 3 per cent. There is not a Senator who knows the gross earnings of any Express Company, nor the amount paid by them to Railroad Companies for transportation within this State. He opposed the ideae of taxing on gross revenues. It is unjust, but he was willing to waive that objection if a fair result was willing to waive that objection if a fair result can be obtained. Some here seem to be anxious to compel people living beyond the border to pay the expenses of the State government, running after some ignus fatuus which shall lift the burden of taxation off the shoulders of the people of the State and place it on those outside the limits of the State. He could not see any justification for saying any shall pay on that portion of receipts from business that is paid to employes, or that is paid for tangible property. When it is said that gross receipts shall form the substrata for taxation.

Mr. KRAMER insisted the only way to tax such Companies who have not a large capital in fact is by taxing receipts.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. GRUBBS moved to amend the Committee substitute for Section 91, by adding to the deduction therein named, the words: "Or investments during each year in tangible property subject to taxation, which shall be held and owned by such Company within this State on the first day of April."

AFTERNOON SESSION.

Mr. GRUBBS contended unless his amendment was adopted Express Companies would be compelled to pay double tax on part of their property.

Mr. GRAHAM could not see how it would be taxing them twice if they are to pay on gross receipts.

Mr. CHAPMAN believed Senators confound the terms "receipts" and "profits" and fail to recognize that the substitue requires a return of aggregate receipts from every source. He was anxious the Senate shall vote understandingly on this and every other question that may come before it.

[Here, Representative Cauthorne appeared at the Bar of the Senate, and being recognized by the Chair, announced that himself and Representative Carr were a Committee on the part of the House to escort the Senate to the Hall of the House for a Joint Convention. Thereupon Senators left the Chamber. When they retrned]--

Mr. BROWN said this amendment ought not to be adopted. The government of the State belongs to the State and her people and of course it devolves upon Indiana people and Indiana propertyto pay the expense of that government. When the State is so liberal as to permit others to enjoy the privileges and benefits of her government, she has the undoubted right to tax the business carried on within her borders by such foreign corporations. The section under consideration proposes to exempt the amount the Express Companies pay railroads for the transportation of their freights in this State, and that is exemption enough.

Mr. COMSTOCK was opposed to the principle of taxing these Companies on their gross receipts, and favored the amendment because it is not so gross an injustice as to tax the entire gross receipts. The amendment goes some distance toward righting the wrong proposed by the Committee substitute.

Mr. MENZIES has been unable to find any tangible property owned by these Express Companies; they own a horse and wagon in the several towns in the State, but outside of Indianapolis they own but little tangible property in this State.

The amendment pending at the time of the noon recess was rejected by yeas, 12; nays, 28.

Mr. LANGDON moved to add to the deductions in the Committee substitute for Section 91 the sums paid by said Companies for services rendered.

This motion was also rejected by yeas, 10; nays, 30.

The Committee substitute for Section 91 was agreed to by yeas, 34; nays, 5.

Mr. BROWN made an ineffectual motion to strike out the Committee substitute for Section 94, taxing Sleeping Car Companies 2 per centum.

Mr. BELL said this section would put Sleeping Car Companies about equal with Express and Insurance Companies. Sleeping cars cost about $10,000 or $12,000 each, and there is at least two employes with each car.

Mr. Chapman--If there is any class of foreign corporations that should be burdened with an extraordinary tax it certainly should be Sleeping Car Companies. It is a mere cumbrous growth--a mere sucker of another corporation; it sucks the life's blood from the corporation over whose road it carries its cars; page: 22[View Page 22]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 22 It is a notorious fact that there is no Corporation in the country which has given so vast on so little capital as these Sleeping Car Companies. He desired to see the bill harmonious; but whether made harmonious or not, he expected to vote against it.

Mr. BROWN insisted there is a greater hardship in laying a tax of 1 per cent. on a Sleeping Car Company that in laying a tax of 1 per cent. on Express Companies. Suppose there is a railroad accident in which several sleeping cars are wrecked and destroyed, thousands of dollars are lost. The Express Company is a carrier of goods, and the Sleeping Car Company is a carrier of human beings, and 1 per cent. is a sufficient tax for either.

Mr. MENZIES explained that 2 per cent. was fixed as the tax for Sleeping Car Companies, because there is no tangible property in the State belonging to Sleeping Car Companies, while both Insurance and Express Companies have such property here that can be reached by the Assessor.

Mr. TRAYLOR moved to amend the Committee substitute for Section 72 by fixing the tax at "1" instead of "2" per cent.

Mr. CHAPMAN made an ineffectual motion to make the tax 4 per cent.

Mr. BROWN made an ineffectual motion to substitute 1 1/2 per cent

Mr. HENRY made an ineffectual motion to substitute 3 per cent.

The amendment (Mr. Traylor's) was rejected--yeas, 8; nays, 32.

The Committee substitute for Section 94 was concurred in, and the Committee recommendations, as to Sections 100, 103 and 108, were concurred in.

Pending the consideration of Section 91--

LEGISLATIVE EXPENSES.

On motion by Mr. URMSTON, the constitutional restriction was dispensed with and the bill [H. R. 453] to appropriate money to pay the expenses of the present special session of the General Assembly was read the first and second time by title only, the third time by sections and passed by--yeas, 36; nays, 2.

RELOCATION OF COUNTY SEATS.

Mr. URMSTON, by request, introduced a bill [S. 335] concerning the relocation of County seats. [When one-fifth of legal voters, one-half freeholders, shall petition for relocation with title deed to two acres, Commissioners shall order an election.]

The Senate adjourned till tomorrow.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

The session was opened with prayer by Rev. D. F. Kain, member from Adams, Wells and Jay.

The following described bills were read the first time and referred:

By Mr. GILLUM [H. R. 454]: To enable County Commissioners to remit penalties against insolvent delinquent tax-payers, and giving discretionry power to remit the taxes against such parties when in the judgment of the Commissioners it would be right to do so, prescribing the duties and powers of Commissioners in the premises, etc.

By Mr. HOTTELL [H. R. 455]: To amend Sections 4, 8 and 11 of an act regulating marriages, approved March 8, 1852.

PRICE OF CONVICT LABOR.

Mr. MARSHALL offered a resolution, which was adopted, that the letting of convict labor at the extreme low rates heretofore prevailing has proved detrimental to carpenters, coopers, and other classes of laboring men, and that we recommend the passage of an act forbidding the letting of convict labor for less than seventy cents per day.

COMMON SCHOOLS.

The consideration of the bill [H. R. 322] to regulate Common Schools pending at the time of adjournment was resumed.

Mr. COOPER offered an amendment to Section 31 so as to provide for the election of County Superintendents.

Mr. LINDLEY moved to further amend by adding a priviso that any vacancy that may occur in the County Superintendent's office shall be filled by election by the Trustees of the various Townships and the Presidents of the School Boards of incorporated cities and towns of said County.

Mr. KENNER thought the tendency of these amendments was to run this office into political matters, which would be deleterious to the Common School system. He felt satisfied that the the County Superintendency is a great advance over the old examining system, and appealed to the members to vote down these amendments, as they seek to strike down the present system.

Mr. NEFF said the people were capable of electing Trustees and other officers, and they ought to have the privilege of electing County Superintendents. He opposed the election of County Superintendents by the Trustees of the County because the relation existing between these officials were usually such as to impede the selection of the most competent person.

Mr. BUSKIRK thought there was a prevailing tendency which should not exist for members to put themselves on record for the ultimate purpose of re-electionor be elevated to some other office. He thought, as a rule, that the best men are not elected to office, because they carry out their own desires rather than the wishes of constituents. He attributed the prejudice against the County Superintendents much of the same character as that against the Common Schools--one without good foundation. The office of County Superintendent he considered a good feature and favored letting well enough alone.

Mr. THOMPSON'S objection to this bill was the heavy expense incurred upon the State. This bill does not propose to remedy that evil and reduce the salary.

Mr. FRAZER--I want to say there is no officer in the State of Indiana that is so bound up and made a slave as is the County Superintendent. I see no reason why the people of Indiana are not as competent to select the County Superintendent as they are to elect the Treasurer or any other officer of the State.

Mr. GILMAN was opposed to both the amendments. The question is merely how the Superintendent was to be selected.

Mr. FLOYD considered the present mode of selecting County Superintendents the best one and the most systematic, as it has been tried and found to work well. Trustees are elected by the people, and if they do not perform their duty, they can be deposed at the proper time.

Mr. SCHWEITZER said he could not see why there should be any more corruption or political manipulation in the election of County Superintendents by the people than in the election members of the General Assembly. There would be no more politics in it.

Mr. CARR made an ineffectual motion--yeas, 32; nays, 51--to lay the amendments on the table.

Mr. DAVIS--It seems to me that this is the groundwork of our Common School system. There is nothing political about it. If there is any political bias on the part of the Township Trustees they are the members of the strongest party.

Mr. BERRYMAN moved that the pending bill be referred back to the Committee on Education with instructions to amend the bill by striking out all of said bill that pertains in any way to County Superintendents, and providing for a County Examiner, whose duty it shall be to examine teachers for license.

Mr. BERRYMAN could see no use in the office, page: 23[View Page 23]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 23 except to incur an expense upon the people of the State. Under the old system there was simply a County Examiner, and under the law as it now stands we have a County Superintendent, who is simply an ornamental office-holder who goes about the country--especially so in his County--as the Chairman of the Democratic Central Committee.

Mr. FANCHER thought the amendment of the gentleman [Mr. Berryman] amounted to just this: It would change the County Superintendent back to the old form of School Examiner; it would be taking a step backward instead of forward; it would be a retrogression instead of progression. He wanted the bill to pass in its original form because it would come nearer meeting the demand in this direction.

Mr. CAUTHORNE--At the last session there were eighty members of the House who thought proper to vote to abolish the office of County Superintendent. The people of Knox County, and even the teachers there, are opposed to it as a useless and expensive thing. When the old bill instituting this office was introduced I voted for it simply because I wanted some reformation on the school question. If there is any change made in the way of amendment I will vote for the motion refer, as I think it ought to be adopted.

Mr. STEWART said if there was any one thing he and his constituents were in favor of, it was to abolish that useless office. He had not as yet been able to see the use of that office. The teachers of the County have an idea of the time the County Superintendent comes around to visit the school and drill their pupils for the occasion. If this money--from $4 to $5 per day--the Superintendent gets to visit the schools was paid to the teacher to continue the school a longer term, it would be much better for the people of the State. He was opposed to the passage of the bill in its present shape.

Mr. RYAN said if the office of County Superintendent is beneficial to the school system of Indiana, it makes no kind of difference what it costs as it gives the State prominence among other States of the Union, and it is the only thing that will accomplish this result. He did not favor condemning the system because of its being loosely conducted, or a disregard of the law. He considered it a great National benefit to the schools. Superintendency is essential to the proper conduct of any kind of business, and the Common Schools are no exception to the rule.

Mr. MARSHALL did not object to the office of County Superintendent particularly, but, he objected to any useless office. His experience as teacher of Public Schools for over ten years has convinced him that the office of County Superintendent has not improved the condition of the Public Schools

Mr. COMPTON--I do not think Indiana ought to take a backward step, and I do believe these amendments would be a backward step in the cause of education. One of the leading merits of the County Superintendent system is that it raises the standard of scholarship, and I do hope that this resolution will not prevail. The County Superintendency to-day is worth more that it cost us, and I feel that we ought to stand by it.

Mr. FRAZER hoped the motion to refer would be voted down.

Mr. LINSDAY--As we are all expected to visit our constituents between now and next Tuesday, I therefore move that the further consideration of this bill be postponed until Wednesday next at 2 p. m., and that it be made a special order for that hour.

The resolution was adopted.

OLD STATE BONDS.

Mr. CAUTHORNE offered a resolution that the Auditor and Secretary of State be requested to produce before the Joint Convention of the Senate and House of the General Assembly, to be held this day in the Hall of the House, the official records pertaining to the redemption of the bonds required to be paid in his office under act of 1872, and to be present with such records at 2 p. m.

The resolution was adopted.

HOUSE BILLS PASSED.

Mr. Kenner's bill [H. R. 124] relating to sales of real and personal property by infants, recovery of property, restoration of same, etc., was read the third time and passed--yeas, 66; nays, 9.

Mr. Faucher's bill [H. R. 126] requiring all railroads running into and through the State of Indiana to remove and destroy the rubbish and other combustible matter accumulating on the right of way, was read the third time.

Mr. FANCHER said the main feature of the bill was this: A person sustaining damage from the Railroad Company can get a judgment and penalty of twenty-five dollars. There are many people who sustain small damages by having their hay or barn burned who hesitate to bring suit, and after they do bring suit they have great difficulty to collect anything over and above the fees required to prosecute the case.

The provision in this bill that "the Railroad Company shall settle all the damages" (whereas you now come out at the end of a case without anything) obviates this objectionable feature. He hoped the bill would pass.

The bill passed--yeas, 74; nays, 4.

SALARY OF PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS.

Mr. Buskirk's bill [H. R. 127] in relation to the election and qualifications of Prosecuting Attorneys, defining their duties and providing for their compensation, etc., was read the third time.

Mr. ROBINSON--There is a tendency manifest here to increase salaries. If I understand the provision of this bill, the salaries are increased in every respect. This matter of increasing salaries of Prosecuting Attorneys you will remember came up during the consideration of the Criminal Code bill. That bill provided for an increase of the Prosecutor's salary, and if I recollect right there was an amendment adopted providing for the same salary that he has heretofore been getting. This bill increases his salary to $1,000 a year. If you want to vote to increase the salary of Prosecuting Attorneys, then vote for this bill, and if you want it retained at a more reasonable figure, vote against it. These men acting as Prosecuting Attorneys, elected under the old law, were willing to hold their offices at the salary as fixed by the law at the present time. I ask you what reason there is why these salaries should be increased? If these gentlemen can not make a living under present salaries, they are at liberty to resign their offices. I am opposed to the bill, because it increases the salary.

Mr. MOODY-I am opposed to the passage of this bill. There are forty-one Prosecuting Attorneys in this State, elected at the last election, and this bill proposes to donate $1,000 of the people's money to each of them, aggregating $41,000. I ask you, gentlemen, whether this is right. What equivalent do the people get for this large sum of money? Gentlemen say they favor this bill, believing it will bring to the discharge of the duties of this office better and more efficient men. I do not believe it will. I believe that the men elected last fall to fill this office compare favorably in ability and integrity with the Bar of the State. I know this office is sought after, and is usually filled by young men, but this alone does not prove to my mind, that they are inefficient to discharge the duties of this office. Suppose the argument is true that these men are inferior in ability, the why donate to them this large sum of money? I am in favor of paying such a salary to our Prosecutors as will command ability and integrity, but I am opposed to passing any bill that takes out of the Public Treasury $40,000 or $50,000 of money and giving it to any class of men. page: 24[View Page 24]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 24 Mr. EDWINS desired to enter his protest against the raising of this salary. It is no $500 a year. It is sufficiently remunerative for any young man to accept the office. It would be bad policy to increase the salary Prosecutors.

Mr. GIBSON was of the opinion that the State would save money by paying $500 more and electing good Prosecuting Attorneys, for the reason that there is not a County in the State but what pays out more than $500 for special assistant attorneys, whereas if old and proficient lawyers were properly remunerated they would avoid the necessity for special attorneys.

AFTERNOON SESSION.

JOINT CONVENTION.

Mr. CAUTHORNE moved that a Committee of Two be appointed to inform the Senate that the House is ready to meet them, and that seats be prepared for them on the right of the Speaker.

The motion was agreed to, and Messrs. Cauthorne and Carr were appointed as said Committee.

This Escort Committee soon returning with the Senate--

The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR called the Joint Convention to order, and directed the roll to be called, which discovered forty-one Senators and eighty-three Representatives present.

The concurrent resolution authorizing this Convention and the act of December 12, 1872, being read--

Senator CHAPMAN discovered no provision in the act for the burning of old State bonds, and didn't think this Convention had any duty to perform under the law.

Representitive CAUTHORNE called attention to the fact that the House, by resolution adopted this morning, had requested the Auditor and Treasurer of State to be present at this hour with a record showing how many State bonds had been redeemed under the provision of this act.

State Auditor WOLFE produced a book in which he said was recorded a list of thirty-nine bonds presented to the Treasurer of State and paid by him.

Senator VIEHE moved that the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House be directed to make a complete list of the bonds, to be presented to a Joint Committee.

Senator LANGDON did not hear anything in the law read that gives authority to a Joint Committee to take any action with respect to these bonds. This is not a proper body to legislate concerning any property of the State. Such functions are to be performed when the two Houses are separate and acting as in the ordinary course of legislation. He therefore moved that this Convention adjourn.

The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR (having put the question which was evidently lost by the sound) said this Convention has no power under the statute to proceed with this business, but might adjourn to meet at another time, which he would prefer should be done in order to save a question which he would otherwise have to decide.

Senator BELL insisted the Convention has a right to pass the motion made by the Senator from Knox (Mr. Viehe).

Senator CHAPMAN demanded a decision from the Chair on the motion to adjourn which was put to vote and either carried or lost.

The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR--The Chair will decide it was lost. [Laughter.] As many as favor the motion made by the Senator from Knox say "aye;" contrary "no." The ayes have it.

On motion by Senator CHAPMAN, the Joint Convention adjourned sine die.

When Senators had retired and order was restored--

SALARY OF PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS.

The House resumed the consideration of the bill [H. R. 127] pending at the noon recess.

Mr. BUSKIRK--I do not think gentlemen opposing the bill understood it import. They did not treat the bill fairly in refusing to give me an opportunity to put it in as good a shape as possible. It grows out of the simple fact that there are anumber of men here so fearful that they will vote upon a provision that seeks to pay a man too large a salary. This bill is not got up particularly in the interest of prosecutors, especially those who were elected last fall. The tendency of the measure, if adopted would be in the interest of Justice by calling to the administration of that department a higher class of talent. Everybody knows that a good lawyer will not take the Prosecutor's and it is an exception when a good lawyer does accept it. Those now serving in that capacity are young men in the practice of law. If this law were to pass, a Prosecutor a decent salary, such as the men of average or good ability could make in the ordinary practice of law or medicine, there would be called to the administration of that office men of that class for which $500 a year would be a very small salary. It would save the County more than that amount in making unnecessary additional attorneys' fees.

Mr. FRAZER--While I am in favor of increasing the prosecuters' fees, there are other features of the bill which I consider objectionable. Therefore, I shall vote against it.

Mr. KENNER--Part of the bill I am in favor of, and the other part I consider objectionable. I would like to have had the bill referred and the objectionable features taken out. In its present condition I shall vote against it.

The bill was rejected--yeas, 13; nays, 69.

HOUSE BILLS PASSED.

Mr. Neff's bill [H. R. 196-see page 77] to abolish the office of Assessor in cities and incorporated towns in this State was read the third time and passed--yeas, 73; nays, 7.

Mr. Neff's bill [H. R. 197] to amend a guardian and ward act approved June 9, 1852, was read the third time.

Mr. NEFF said this bill was prepared by the Revision Committee to remedy lame places in the existing laws, providing for the payment of money by the guardian, etc.

The bill passed--yeas 72; nays, 4.

Mr. Frazer's bill [H. R. 202] to amend Section 126, providing for the election and qualification of Justices of the Peace, approved June 9, 1852, was read the third time.

Mr. FRAZER--As the law stands now there is no law by which one Justice of the Peace can commission another. This measure is to confer upon Justices that power.

The bill passed--yeas,78; nays, 0.

Mr. Buskirk's bill [H. R. 46] consolidating the Congressional Township funds for the purpose of loaning, etc., was read the third time.

Mr. BUSKIRK--This bill proposes simply to consolidate the loan of the school fund, and requires a record to be keptso that each Township or parts of Townships can accurately ascertain the amount on hand.

The bill passed--yeas, 68; nays, 3.

Mr. Mitchell's bill [H. R. 74] amending the Common School act so as to allow Joint Institutes of four Townships, was read the third time and failed to pass--yeas, 46; nays, 34.

Mr. Thompson's bill [H. R. 134--see page 61] amendatory of an act concerning the employment of short-hand reporters, was read the third time and passed--yeas, 74, nays, 5.

Mr. Furnas' bill [H. R. 155] concerning the licensing of shows, Theaters and other exhibitions in connection with saloons, billiard halls or pool rooms, and appropriating such proceeds to Agricultural Societies, being read the third time--

Mr. GIBSON thought it all right to charge a circus $25 license, but he considered it inconsistent and pernicious to impose such a tax upon Theaters, etc. He moved to recommit the bill.

page: 25[View Page 25]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 25

Mr. FURNAS--The gentleman misapprehends this bill. If he will refer to the law passed in 1852, he will find a law regulating this very thing. That law fixed the license of theatrical performances at $5, and other performances, such as circuses, at $25. In attempting to frame this bill, I have lowered that amount [extending from $1 to $25], making it optional with the County Commissioners; $25 is the amount authorized for circus shows.

Mr. MEREDITH--It occurs to me that the bill is in pretty good shape. The explanation of the gentleman is satisfactory.

Mr. CARTER said it would be impossible for the Legislature to classify all the different kinds of shows. This bill is intended to apply to these cases in a general way, and gives discretionary power to the County Commissioners to set the definite price to be charged in each special case. He said it was proper and right that such fund should go to the County Agricultural Society, and if there is no County Agricultural Society, it goes to the State Agricultural Society.

Mr. RYAN thought if there was one class of institutions that ought to be taxed it is the shows.

The bill failed to pass--yeas, 46; nays, 29.

The House adjourned till to-morrow.

GOV. PORTER'S FIRST VETO.

To the Secretary of State:

I file in your office, with my objections thereto, House bill 309, passed at the last regular session of the General Assembly, entitled "An act to amend Section 34 of an act entitled 'an act fixing certain fees and salaries to be taxed in the offices, and the salaries of officers therein named, providing for certain employees in certain public offices, and fixing their compensation and defining certain duties and liabilities of officiers and persons therein named, providing for the disposition of certain moneys, making certain appropriations, declaring certain violations of the provisions of this act to be a penal offense, and prescribing the punishment and repealing all conflicting laws, approved March 31, 1879.'"

This bill was presented to me on the 5th day of March instant. It increases the fees of Jurors in the Circuit, Superior and Criminal Courts, and also the fees of Grand Jurors, from $1.60 a day, which is the present rate, to $2 a day, and the mileage of such Jurors from five cents a mile, the present rate. to ten cents a mile. If the bill established the fees of Jurors at $2 ad day only when Jurors are in actual attendance at Court, I should not withhold my approval. The section of the act of 1879, of which this bill is amendatory, provides that fees shall be paid only when the Jurors are in actual attendance. The bill under consideration has no further scope than to amend that particular section by substituting another section in place of it. The section substituted omits the provision that the fees prescribed should be allowed to jurors only when in actual attendance. The natural legal inference, from the omission of this provision, is, I think, that Jurors summoned for the Circuit, Superior and Criminal Courts. and Grand Jurors, should be allowed fees for what is called constructive attendance. Jurors summoned for the term are often dismissed for a considerable time when the Judge is requested by the parties to try a cause, or when he is engaged in other business of the Court which renders it unnecessary that the Jury shall be present. Jurors also are often challenged, and thereupon excused from attendance for several days at a time, where it is expected that the trial will be a protracted one. In such cases, and generally when a Juror is notified by the Judge not to be in attendance, he ought not to be allowed fees. The tendency of the administration of justice in the Courts is to a constantly increasing expense. The expenses are not paid by the litigants alone, but in great part by those who do not litigate, as part of the general expenses for conducting the government of the State. They ought, therefore, to be kept in check and never to be allowed to be increased except under a strong necessity. There is no such necessity, in my opinion, for Jurors being paid when they are not in attendance at Court.

ALBERT G. PORTER.

page: [26][View Page [26]]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page [26]

THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
VOLUME TWENTY.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
SPECIAL SESSION.

IN SENATE.

Rev. G. F. Culmer offered prayer.

Leaves of absence were asked and obtained for a number of Senators from noon till Wednesday morning.

ROOMS FOR COMMITTEES.

The Special Committee appointed heretofore to secure rooms for the use of Senate Committees during the special session reported that it had contracted with the proprietor of the Grand Hotel for the same rooms used during the regular session, at two-thirds of the amount paid for their use during said regular session.

The report was concurred in.

ASSESSMENT FOR TAXATION.

The consideration of the bill [H. R. 204] for assessment and collection of taxes was resumed, commencing at Section 113.

Mr. VIEHE moved to amend the bill by adding a section preceding the last section of the bill, as follows:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of any other laws of this State during the present year, the Assessors shall have all the authority and perform all the duties on and after the 15th of April, and before the 15th of June, which, without the provisions of this section, he would have or be required to discharge on and after the 1st day of April, and before the 1st day of June. All statements required to be deferred to him, or to the Assessor, before the 1st day of June may, during the present year, be delivered before the 15th day of June. The Board of Equalization in each County, in the present year, shall meet on the 16th day of June instead of the first Monday of June, and notice thereof shall be given as required in this act, and immediately on the adjournment of the Board of equalization the Board of Equalization shall meet, and at such meeting, or at any special session held in said month of June, shall determine the amount of tax to be charged on each poll and on each $100 worth of property for County expenditures, and do all acts in reference to taxation which it might do at the regular June session; and all officers not authorized to do any acts, or or required to discharge any duty in regard to the levying of taxes at the June session of the Board of Commissioners may do the same act and shall discharge the same duty at such meeting or session of the Commissioners herein provided for."

On motion by Mr. GRAHAM it was referred to a Special Committee of three, which the Chair made to consist of Messrs. Graham, Viehe and McCartney.

Mr. VIEHE proposed a substitute for Section 114 of the tax bill, providing that all tangible property of Building, Loan, Fund and Savings Associations shall be listed, assessed and taxed as the like proprty in other cases. The Secretary of any such Association shall, between the 1st day of April and the 1st day of June in each year, furnish to the Assessor a statement under oath, with reference to the 1st day of April of the current year, showing: (1) The amount of money on hand or on deposit. (2) The amount and value of debts due the Association. (3) The amount due from the Association, if any. The Assessor shall then assess the fair cash value of the intangible property of the Association. Should any Association fail to furnish the statement, the Assessor shall make the assessment from any information he deems reliable. The taxes shall be assessed against the Association and be paid and collected as in other cases, and any Director who shall consent to any loan of its funds or to making any other disposition thereof, when the taxes then assessed shall remain unpaid, shall be personally liable for the payment thereof, and the shareholders shall not be taxed.

Mr. KRAMER moved to strike out Section 114. It would levy a double tax upon such Association. They never have any money on hand, at least not more than $200 or $300. The members are taxed on their personal and real property, and for the amount they pay in. This feature is covered sufficiently by other features in the bill. The shares in such Associations must be given in under other sections of this bill. When enough accumulates in the Association in sufficient page: 27[View Page 27]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 27 amount it is loaned out to members. The capital stock ought not to be taxed like banks which have capital stock on hand.

Mr. VIEHE spoke in favor of his substitute for Section 116. The section as it is now is neither just nor practicable. It makes no provision for any reduction. These Associations are sometimes compelled to take property to save debts, then it would be easier to collect the tax from the corporation than from the individual members. These corporations divide no profits--their operation is the reverse from banks--this section contemplates the tax shall be paid from dividents or profits, which is impracticable.

Mr. COMSTOCK--In order to make it consistent with other portions the section should remain in the bill.

Mr. HENRY favored the substitute amendment, which makes the collection of taxes much more simple.

Mr. KRAMER opposed the substitute, because it contemplates the assessment of mortgages due, which would be a listing of the same property of poor men twice. These substitutions should be fostered and not crushed by unjust taxation, as they are a great benefit to persons of small means, furnishing a plan under which they can make savings of little sums at a time, which eventually enables them to possess homes.

Mr. WILSON regarded the substitute as proposing a good feature. If this class of corporations could be constitutionally exempt from taxation it ought to be done.

Mr. HENRY--Though looking fair on its face the substitute would really work an injustice, as he proceeded to show. It is not the poor man that pays in the money, but the poor man that borrows from these institutions.

The substitute was agreed to.

Mr. SHAFFER read a motion that the amendments proposed by the Senate Committee to the bill under consideration be concurred in; that the amendments made thereto by the Senate be ordered engrossed and that the bill be placed on the files for the third reading.

Mr. CHAPMAN and other Senators (in their seats): "We must have the yeas and nays on that motion." "Yeas and nays."

Mr. SHAFFER saw no necessity for spending any more time on this bill. The Committee recommendations are about all that will do any good or tend to improve the bill one particle more than if we go on and read the bill section by section. He believed it would be an advantage to the Senate--to the Senate and to the people--to cut short this bill in this way. He hoped that this motion would carry and that the bill will be now ordered engrossed for the third reading.

Mr. CHAPMAN--'Yeas and nays."

The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR--Of course Senators understand that if the yeas and nays are called we will have to stop right here. Unanimous consent was given to read this bill by sections, and to change that order it will take a two-thirds vote.

Mr. SHAFFER--I will withdraw my motion if requires a two-thirds vote.

On motion by Mr. VIEHE, it was ordered that the further consideration of this tax bill be postponed from the adjournment of noon to'day till Tuesday afternoon.

Mr. CHAPMAN made an ineffectual motion to increase the per diem of Township Assessors from $2 to $2.50.

Mr. KRAMER moved to amend Section 115 by making the election of Assessors for a term of two years, and at the spring instead of the fall elections, when there is less party feeling. As the compensation fixed will not tend to get the best men, in case a poor man is selected two years is long enough, and too long to serve. At the spring election voters will not pay as much attention to politics as at the general election.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. SAYRE moved to strike all after the word "thereto" in the following section:

Section 126. In making out his list, the Assessor shall place opposite to each tract of land or lot listed the value without improvements, and also in another column opposite the value of the improvements erected thereon or affixed thereto, and opposite to each city, town, or village, lot, or part of a lot, the value, without improvements, and the value of improvements erected thereon or affixed thereto.

The motion was agreed to.

On motion of Mr. WILSON, Section 125, which prescribes the rules to govern the Assessor in ascertaining or deterining the quantity of land in the several tracts in his County; and Section 127, in relation to the return Assesors shall make to County Auditors, were both referred to a select Committee consisting of Messrs. Viehe, Chapman and Menzies.

Messrs Kramer and Smith offered amendments which were referred to the same Committee without reading.

The Committee amendment to Section 138 being read--

Mr. BELL doubted the propriety of adopting this amendment. If adopted, the Board of Equalization will be constituted without the Assessors, and there is great propriety in having Township Assessors members of this Board. They know why a certain valuation is placed on property. The Board does not sit long anyhow.

Mr. MENZIES said the Committee had restored the law as it is in Section 277 of the present statute. The Committee's view was that to have a Board of Equalization, with every Township Assessor a member of it, would make it too cumbersome. It would be something in the nature of a Convention instead of a Board of Equalization. They they are, to a certain extent, an adverse party to the land-holder. They put a valuation on his land, and they have a private opinion, to say the least, of the value of the land. The land-holder appeals from the judgment of the Assessor to the Board of Equalization, and ought this interested party to be a member of the Board and have a vote to sustain his own judgment in case of such appeal?

Mr. COMSTOCK--The Assessor may be called in to consult with the Board in cases of dispute.

Mr. BELL--This is a matter of some considerable importance. I don't want to call the yeas and nays upon it. It had better be passed over for the present.

Mr. URMSTON--I will demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. CHAPMAN--I move to adjourn till 2 o'clock.

The motion was agreed to.

AFTERNOON SESSION.

ALLOWING SEINING OF FISH.

Mr. HENRY introduced a bill [S. 336] to amend Section 1 of an act for the protection of fish, approved February 21, 1871 [so as to allow seining in the month of November], which was read the first time and referred to the Committee on Agriculture.

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.

Mr. CHAPMAN offered the following:

Resolved, That petitions, memorials and remonstrances may be filed by any Senator, at any time, with the Secretary of the Senate, and referred to such Committee as the Senate may designate, and so entered upon the journal of the proceedings of the Senate.

Which was laid over one day under the rules.

POLICE JUDGE FOR INDIANAPOLIS.

On motion by Mr. VAN VORHIS, the bill [H. R. 34] to provide for the election of a Police Judge in cities of 60,000 or more inhabitants, was referred to a Special Committee, viz: Messrs. Van Vorhis, Marvin, Chapman, Kramer and Shaffer.

page: 28[View Page 28]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 28

REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.

Unde a rule of the Senate, Committee reports are placed on the files to be considered when the bill comes up on the second reading.

Mr. SHAFFER, from the Committee on Rights and Privileges, returned Mr. Graham's bill [S. 258--see pages 135 and 183] to provide for orphan and abandoned children, with a report substituting new matter therefor.

Mr. WOOD, from the Cosmittee on Insurance, returned Mr. Coffey's bill [S. 304] to increase the taxes paid by foreign Insurance Companies, with a recommendation that it lie on the table.

On motion by Mr. COMSTOCK, his bill [S. 306] concerning the Richmond and Liberty Turnpike Company, was read the second time and ordered engrossed for the third reading.

BILLS READ THE SECOND TIME.

On motion by Mr. WOOD, his bill [S. 220--see page 114 of these reports] in relation to highways purchased by the State of Indiana, and legalizing sales of such to Street or Horse Car Railway Companies, was read the second time and ordered engrossed.

On motion by Mr. GRAHAM, his bill [S. 81--see page 51] defining the manner in which certain lands and other property within the limits of incorporated towns and cities may be taxed, etc., was read the second time and ordered engrossed.

On motion by Mr. WILSON, his bill S. 254 for the protection of fish, defining certain misdemeanors, and providing penalties for the viololation of this act, was read the second time.

The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR was about to put the question, as usual, without waiting for a motion, to order the bill engrossed for a third reading when--

Mr. BROWN objected to ordering the engrossment of bills, thus placing them beyond the reach of amendments without a reconsideration of the vote, with so slim an attendance of Senators.

On motion by Mr. CHAPMAN, his bill [S. 164] to amend Sections 6 and 16 of the act of February 8, 1836, incorporating the Indianapolis Insurance Company, was read the second time. He said this bill refers to the Bank of Commerce, the successor of the Franklin Insurance Company, which was organized when the Senator from Johnson (Mr. Brown) and myself were boys. The only change in the charter this bill proposes to make is allowing the Directors to be elected by the stockholders on the same basis that prevails in all other corporations--each stockholder having one vote for each share of stock--in that respect changing the old law, which did not allow stockholders to vote the whole amount of their stock. Another change is, that instead of using the phraseology that every stockholder shall be liable equitably, the bill makes every siockholder liable in three times the amount of stock--in that respect making them liable once over again from what stockholders in National Banks are. National Bank stockholders are liable once over again more than the amount of stock held by them. These are the only changes, and they affect only the stockholders in the Bank of Commerce of this city.

Mr. BROWN was always glad to accommodate the Senator from Marion (Mr. Chapman) and on this occasion would not only refuse to object to passing an order for the engrossment of his bill, but if the Senator so desires would also move to suspend the constitutional rule. [Laughter.]

The bill was ordered engrossed.

On motion by Mr. KAHLO, his bill [S. 219] to protect freight and freight care, definng a felony and prescribing punishment therefor, was read the second time and ordered engrossed for the third reading.

On motion by Mr. GRUBBS, the bill [H. R. 340] to legalize ordinance No. 53, passed by the Trustees of Edinburg, Johnson County, was read the first time and referred to the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. YANCY--I insist that the business we have done this afternoon will all have to be done over again--

Mr. BROWN (interrupting)--I make the point of order that the Senator is not in his seat.

The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR--The point is well taken.

VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS

Mr. CHAPMAN moved that the House amendments to Senate bill No. 32, to amend Section 2 of the voluntary association act be read for information, and if there be no objection that the House amendments may be concurred in. He said the bill contemplated an amendment to the present law so as to admit the organization of Companies for the purpose of dredging and ditching of rivers and creeks and the improvement of harbors; and all the House did was to add clauses allowing the formation of Hotel Companies, and Companies for the purpose of dealing in real estate, limiting the capital to $100,000.

The motion was agreed to, and the House amendmendments being read--

On motion by Mr. LANGDON, the bill and the amendment were referred to the Judiciary Committee.

PURDUE UNIVERSITY.

On motion by Mr. LANGDON, his bill [S. 177] relating to the endowment fund of Purdue University and providing for the re-investment thereof, was read the second time.

The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR was putting the question as to whether the bill should be engrossed, when--

Mr. YANCEY interrupted by saying: This is not a Senate proper, and I object to ordering the bill engrossed for a third reading.

Mr. LANGDON explained that this University was founded upon a grant of our Congress of land script which realized $212,000. The Trustees, by careful management, have increased that fund to $340,000. An act of Congress provides that these funds can be invested only in certain specified securities, drawing not less than 5 per cent. interest. This bill asks authority for the execution to the University of a non-negotiable bond for some moneys that will be returned to Trustees on the 1st of April. That is all there is in it.

Mr. YANCEY withdrew his objection.

The bill was ordered engrossed.

INTEREST ON JUDGMENTS.

On motion of Mr. WHITE, his bill (S. 94) to amend Sections 1 and 2 of an act concerning interest on money--to make judgment follow a contract for 8 per cent.--was taken up.

Mr. BROWN objected to reading this bill the second time, and made the point of order that two-thirds of the Senators present did not vote to take up the bill out of order, as the rules required.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Henry in the Chair).--The bill was taken up by consent.

Mr. BROWN insisted that he was objecting the whole time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER--The Chair so decides.

Mr. BROWN--I appeal from the decision of the Chair.

Mr. YANCEY--I move to adjourn.

The motion was agreed to.

And so an adjournment was had under an order heretofore adopted until Tuesday at 2 o'clock p. m.

page: 29[View Page 29]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 29

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

The session was opened with prayer by Rev. S. H. Mitchell, member from Washington County.

Mr. FANCHER offered a resolution that a Committee of Five be appointed by the Speaker of the House on phraseology of bills and resolutions.

Mr. FANCHER thought it was necessary to have a Committee of this kind as the Committee on Enrolled Bills have no right to make any changes, and frequently find them necessary.

The resolution was adopted.

PRESERVATION OF TIMBER.

Mr. CABBAGE offered a resolution instructing the Ways and Means Committee to inquire what modification of our revenue laws, by the exemption timbered lands from taxation, would be calculated to promote the public welfare and report by bill or otherwise. The preamble of the resolution recites that scientific investigation and actual experience justified the opinion that the growth of forest trees and the preservation of wood lands are of the highest climatic and sanitary importance, and that the rapid decline in our timbered area, now nearly 12 per cent. of the original growth, is sufficient cause for public concern, and that it is the duty of the State to encourage the preservation of the timber. In his remarks upon the resolution. Mr. Cabbage stated that the denuding of hill sides of the trees had dried up the surface springs and rendered valueless large tracts of country. He also stated that fences were an expensive luxury, and advised ditching instead as tending to improve soil. "The want of today," said Mr. Cabbage, "is not more land to cultivate, but wiser cultivation." He read from manuscript a statement setting forth the necessity of encouraging the growth of timber in this State, both to agricultural and climatic improvement, etc.

On motion by Mr. THOMPSON, the resolution and the paper read was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. NEFF made an ineffectual effort to refer the resolution and manuscript to the Committee on Agriculture.

NEW PROPOSITIONS.

The following described bills were introduced, read the first time and referred to appropriate Committees:

Mr. KENNER [H. R. 456]: To amend Section 117 of an act for the settlement of decedent estates. [Executors, administrators and guardians may at any term of Court present their accounts for examination to the Clerk of the Circuit Court who shall file the same, and interested decedents may file exemptions to the report.]

By Mr. WALZ [H. R. 457]: To amend Section 14 of an act for the incorporation of towns.

By Mr. O'NEAL: The bill [H. R. 458] to legalize mortgages given by guardians.

By Mr. BENHAM [H. R. 459]: For an act supplementary to an act to authorize cities and towns to negotiate the sale of bonds to procure means with which to erect suitable school buildings; to purchase any grounds or buildings for school purposes; to pay debts for the erection and completion of buildngs, etc., approved May 20, 1879.

By Mr. WALZ [H. R. 460]: To authorize the town of New Harmony, Posey County, to hold an election for town officers.

The Special Committee on Enrolled Bills reported that they had examined the bill [H. R. 453] and find the same correctly enrolled.

SEWER CONTRACT.

On motion by Mr. STEWART, the bill [H. R. 436] to authorize a contract with the city of Indianapolis for the construction of a sewer from the Deaf and Dumb Institute and the Reformatory for Women and Girls (appropriating $40,000) was read the second time.

JOINT RULES.

The Senate concurrent resolution that the joint rules for conducting business in the two Houses of the General Assembly during the last session be adopted as the general rule for the special session, was read and adopted.

THE HOUGH LIBRARY.

The Senate concurrent resolution that the State Librarian is authorized and directed to purchase for the use of the State the collection of books, etc., known as the David David Huff Library, providing that the same can be had at a cost not to exceed $1,000, being read--

On motion b Mr. FRAZER, the resolution was referred to the Committee on Public Libraries.

UNIVERSITY SQUARE.

The Senate concurrent resolution that a Committee of Five [two Senators and three Representatives] be appointed to inquire into the propriety and advisability of selling the University Park in Indianapolis, being read--

Mr. BUSKIRK--I do not think that resolution ought to prevail, for this reason: That any action of the House would not amount to anything. This property belongs to the State, and I do not see what the Legislature wants to do with it. It is out of the hands of the Legisture. There is no use disguising the fact that the jurisdiction of the General Assembly does not extend to such disposition--they should not interfere with the matter at all.

Mr. NEFF thought it would not do any harm to appoint a Committee. It is well known that it is a disputed question as to the authority of the Legislature in this respect. He thought the State had some rights in the matter, and did not know of a better way to find them out than to appoint a Committee to report,

Mr. BUSKIRK--I do not think the Legislature should take any steps in this matter as it is not a question to be settled by that body.

Mr. THOMPSON--This is a question that always comes before the Legislature by resolution otherwise. There are parties in this city who want to purchase this land. The General Assemblies hereto fore always failed to sanction the sale of that land. I think the concurrent resolution unnecessary and unwise.

The resolution was rejected.

Mr. Fancher's bill [H. R. 150] to amend Sections 16 and 17 of an act concerning inclosures, trespassing animals and partition fences being read the third time--

Mr. FANCHER said: "This bill proposes to amend Sections 16 and 17 of the law pertaining to partition fences. As the law now stands one adjoining land-owner may compel the other to repair a partition fence already existing or repair it himself and collect what it costs, but the of the amendment is to apply the cases where there has never been a partition fence, so amending said section as that one adjoining land-owner may serve the ordinary notice to constrct a new fence and recover the cost of the same as when there has existed a fence. It does not apply to land unoccupied."

The bill failed to pass--yeas, 36; nays, 39.

NOXIOUS WEEDS.

Mr. Miles' bill [H. R. 172) to require Railroad Companies to cause the destruction of Canada thistles and other noxious weeds along the railroad lines, being read the third time--

Mr. MILES said there was no other statutory provision that applied especially to this case, the bill which passed the other day being for the removal of rubbish, etc., but not for the destruction of this weed.

Mr. COTTON--As the statute now stands(of 1859), it provides that all persons shall destroy page: 30[View Page 30]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 30 Canada thistles whereever found, with a special provision that the Supervisor of Roads see that the act is enforced. I think this bill necessary.

The bill passed--yeas, 71; nays, 0.

BILLS READ THE THIRD TIME.

Mr. Gibson's bill [H. R. 193] to amend an act providing for the settlement of decedents estates, prescribing rights, liabilities and duties of officers, etc., approved June 17, 1852, was read the third time and passed--yeas, 72; nays, 0.

Mr. Kenner's bill [H. R. 195] to enable two Agricultural, Horticultural or Mechanical Societies to consolidate with each other, and conferring upon the consolidated Companies the same rights and powers as those of the original Societies, was read the third time and passed--yeas, 71; nays, 0.

Mr. Ryan's bill [H. R. 226] concerning pardons [making the Secretary Auditor and Treasurer of State a Board to consider pardons], was read the third time.

Mr. FRAZER--The bill provides that notice shall be given of the application before such pardon can be granted.

The bill failed to pass--yeas, 32; nays, 48.

Mr. Ryan's bill [H. R. 227]--see page 97 of these Reports--to amend Sections 3, 8 and 11, and repealing Sections 5, 6 and 7, of an act to provide for the election of Electors for President and Vice President, approved May 10, 1852, was read the third time.

Mr. NEFF--I hope the bill will not meet with the same fate as the bill preceding this one. This is also a bill introduced by Mr. Ryan, prepared by the Revision Committee for the purpose of amending the law in regard the manner of collecting the votes of electors at Presidential elections. You all remember we had some trouble in the State at the last election. This bill has been carefully prepared, and I hope that every Member will support it.

The bill passed--yeas, 70; nays, 0.

STATE LANDS.

A communication from the Attorney General was read, relating to the State's claim to certain lands, and--

On motion by Mr. LINDLAY, it was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, with instructions that they report upon the same to this House, also upon a former communication from said officer.

STATE NORMAL SCHOOL.

in pursuance to a resolution heretofore adopted by the House, the Trustees of the Terre Haute Normal School submitted a report of its financial condition--amount of money expended for repairs and improvements, what proportion furnished by the city and what by the State.

PAY OF EMPLOYES.

Mr. KENNER moved that the employes of the House receive the same pay for the special session that was fixed by the report of the Committee on Mileage for the regular session, and that the Speaker draw his warrant for the amount as heretofore.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. Gibson's bill (H. R. 237] concerning landlord and tenant was read the third time. [The bill remedies defects in the old law. It provides, among other things, that a landlord may have a lien upon one-half of the tenant's crop.]

Mr. GIBSON--This bill seeks to improve the old law. For instance, what constitutes a proper notice by the landlord to remove a tenant this bill corrects. It also meets the case where the renter removes crops without the landlord's consent. This is a very carefully prepard bill, one that merits passage.

This bill was favored by several members who were landholders, one gentleman stating that under the old law it was almost impossible to remove a bad tenant, and consequently the business of renting land had almost ceased.

The roll was called for a vote on the passage of the bill, and there not being a quorum present, further action was deferred until some future time.

AFTERNOON SESSION.

Mr. FRAZER moved that the civil code bill be referred to the Revision Committee, with instructions to print the new revised matter for the use of the House.

The motion was agreed to.

RELEASED CONVICTS.

The following described bill was read the first time and referred:

By Mr. Davis, [H. R.461]: Concerning the discharge of convicts from State Prisons. [At expiration of the time sentenced the Warden of the Prison shall take the prisoner to the County from whence he came, and pay him the amount of money allowed by law ]

MEDICAL LEGISLATION.

By unanimous consent of the House, Mr. FRAZER offered the following amendment to the bill[S. 74] regulating the practice of medicine, as follows: At the end of Section 6, add: Any physician who is entitled to practice medicine, surgery and obstetrics according to the provisions of this act, shall appear before the Clerk of the Circuit Court, in the County in which he or she intends to practice medicine, and make affidavit that he or she has practiced medicine in the United States twenty years continuously previous to the passsage of this act.

The amendment was adopted and ordered engrossed.

RULES, LIST OF MEMBERS, ETC.

Mr. SCHWEITZER moved that the Clerk of the House have 300 copies of the Rules of the House, the Standing Committees, and a list of Representative Districts, the names of members for each, and the Constitution of the State of Indiana, printed in pamphlet form, for the use of the members and officers of the House.

The motion was agreed to.

REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.

The Committee on County and Township Business, to whom was referred the bill [H. R. 332] for the fencing and repairing of public cemeteries in this State, reported the same back, recommending its passage.

The Committee on Cities and Towns reported back the bill [H. R. 144] amending Section 2 of an act in relation to County Auditors, approved May 31, 1852, recommending its passage with amendments.

The Committee on County and Township Business reported back the bill [H. R. 338] requiring semi-annual settlements of County Treasurer with the Board of County Commissioners, fixing the time when Treasurers shall take possession of their office, recommending is passage with amendments.

The Committee on Cities and Towns reported on the bill [H. R. 428] authorizing cities and towns to disannex territory, recommending its passage.

These reports were concurred in, the bills were read the second time and severally ordered engrossed.

The Committee on County and Township business submitted a report on the bill [ . 212] concerning ferries, recommending its passage.

The same Committee reported on the bill [H. R. 135] providng for the letting of bridge contracts, and recommending its passage with amendments.

The report was concurred in, and on motion by Mr. THOMPSON 200 copies were ordered printed.

The Committee on Benevolent Institutions reported the bll [H. R. 384] amending an act to page: 31[View Page 31]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 31 organize and establish an Asylumn for Feeble Minded Children, recommendng its passage.

The Agricultural Committee reportd on the bill [H. R. 208] concerning estrays and animals running at large, recommending its passage.

The Committee on Agriculture reported on the bill [H. R. 173] relating to the construction and repair of partition fences, recommending its passage with amendments.

These three reports were concurred in, the bills were read a second time and ordered engrossed.

The Committee on Education reported on the bill [H. R.109] legalizing the sale of lands mortgaged to the State of Indiana, recommending its passage with amendments.

On motion by Mr. Buskirk, the report was laid on the table until Tuesday next, awaiting the presence of Mr. Ryan.

The Committee on Temperance reported on the bill [H. R. 110] prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors, recommending that the bill lie on the table, for the reason that the state Constitution, in its present form, will not allow the passage of a prohibitory law.

The report was concurred in.

A majority of the Committee on Temperance reported on the bill (H. R. 420] licensing druggists, recommending its passage.

The House agreed to postpone the disposition of the report until Tuesday next.

The Temperance Committee reported on the bill [H. R. 63] prohibiting the sale of gum opium, strychnine and other intoxicating drugs, recommending that the bill be laid on the table.

The report was concurred in.

The Temperance Committee reported that from day to day over eighty petitions have been received containing the names of 11,230 voters [a copy of the petition was read to the House] praying the General Assembly to enact some measure tending to lessen the sale and use of liquors.

The Committee on Cities and Towns reported. On the bill [H. R. 345] to provide for the transfer of the school library of Center Township, Marion County to the County Library, recommending its passage.

The report was concurred in. The bill was read the second time and ordered engrossed.

Also, on the bill [H. R. 362] to amend Section 29 of an act repealing the general laws for the incorporation of cities and towns, recommending its passage.

The report was laid on the table.

Also on the bill [H. R. 380] amending a section to authorize cities and incorporated towns to construct and maintain water works, recommending its passage.

The report was concurred in, and the bill was read the second time.

Mr. McCORMICK believed the bill should not pass. Since the law of 1879 was passed, many towns and cities have increased the rates of water works over 40 per cent. He made an ineffectual effort to indefinitely postpone the bill.

The report was concurred in and the bill was ordered engrossed.

The same Committee reported on the bill [H. R. 241] to amend Sections 1 and 2 of an act legalizing the assessment, equalization and collection of municipal taxes for 1872 and 1874.

The report was concurred in. The bill was read the second time and ordered engrossed.

Also on the bill [H. R. 325] legalizing the elections held in the years 1878, 1879 and 1880 in Elizabethtown, Bartholomew County, recommending indefinite postponement, for the reason that House bill 280 covers the same ground.

By consent of the House, Mr. McCormick withdrew the bill.

Also on the bill [S. 245] enlarging the powers of incorporated towns, recommending its passage.

The report was concurred in and the bill was read the second time.

Also, on the bill [S. 57] authorizing incorporated towns to contract with Water Works Companies, recommending its passage.

The report was concurred in and the bill was read the second time.

Also, on the bill [S. 16] to amend Section 79 for the incorporation of cities, recommending its passage.

The report was concurred in.

Also, on the bill [H. R. 395] platting, additions and subdivisions of Terre Haute, etc., recommending its passage.

The report was concurred in, the bill was read the second time and ordered engrossed.

Pursuant to a resolution adopted this forenoon, the Speaker made the Committee on Phraseology to consist of Messrs. Fancher, Gardner, Cauth rne, Gregory and Cole.

The Speaker added to the Committee on Enrolled bills Messrs. Baker and Hottell.

Then the House adjourned to meet on Tuesday, March 15, at 2 p. m., in pursuance of a concurrent resolution heretofore adopted by both Houses.

page: [32][View Page [32]]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page [32]

THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
VOLUME TWENTY.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
SPECIAL SESSION.

IN SENATE.

The Senate met pursuant to adjournment--Lieutenant Governor Hanna in the Chair.

The reading of the Secretary's minutes was dispensed with, and the Clerk proceeded with the reading of the bill [H. R. 204] concerning taxation--commencing at Section 139.

Mr. MENZIES called attention to the fact that the pending question was on concurring in a Committee amendment to Section 128 but inasmuch as there was a slim attendance of Senators, at his suggestion, it was informally passed over.

Mr. CHAPMAN offered a substitute for Sections 139, 140 and 141. He stated to the Senate that his substitute contains every provision in the three sections, except one feature which is found in the next section succeeding. The substitute contains every provision in the three, and is shorter than either one of the three for which it is offered as a substitute.

The substitute was adopted relating to the County Boards of Equalization, as follows:

SECTION 139. It shall be the duty of such Boards at such meeting to inquire as to the valuation of the various classes of personal property in the respective Townships and divisions of the County, and to make such changes, whether by way of increase or decrease in such valuation, as may be necessary to equalize the same as between the Townships, or divisions of Townships, and to determine the rate per cent. to be added or deducted in order to make a just and equitable equalization. In the year in which real estate is assessed it shall be the further duties of the Board to make in like manner an equalization as to the value of the real property in the respective Townships and divisions, so as to conform throughout the County to a just and equitable standard reference being had to the natural and artificial characteristics and surroundings and other elements of value. Such Board shall also have power in proper cases to reduce or increase the valuation of any particular tract or lot upon complaint being made to them; provided, that no increase shall be made upon complaints of another without notice to the owner or his agent, if a resident of the County. Any general changes in the valuation of personal or real property in any Townships or divisions shall be subject to the limitation contained in the next succeeding section.

Mr. CHAPMAN offered a substitute for Section 142, covering the same ground, but transposing the first two features and eliminating the County feature, to correspond with several amendments which have been made to the bill heretofore.

The substitute was adopted as follows:

Sec. 142. Such board may consider lands, town lots and city lots as separate classes if necessary for the purposes of equalization and determine a per cent. of addition or reduction for each or any of said classes within the respective Townships or as between the several Townships or other divisions. The Board shall have no power to reduce the aggregate valuation of all the Townships below the aggregate valuation as made by the Assessors, nor increase the same beyond the amount actually necessary for a proper and just equalization. If the Board shall find the aggregate assessment is too high or too low or as generally so unequal as to render it impracticable to equalize the same, it may set aside the assessment of the whole County, or of any Township or Townships therein, and order a new assessment, with instructions to the Assessor to increase or diminish the aggregate assessment of their respective Townships in such amount as the Board may deem right and consistent with law.

Mr. BELL noticing that Section 144 requires the State Board of Equalization to meet on the third Monday in July of each year, and regarding that as a very unpleasant time of the year for such meeting--moved to substitute the word "June" for the word "July."

The motion was agreed to.

Section 149, concerning the abstract of assessment, County Auditor's are required to transmit to the Auditor of State, being read--

On motion by Mr. BELL it was amended by making the time for the report on or before the 10th of "June," instead of "July," in each year.

page: 33[View Page 33]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 33

Mr. CHAPMAN moved to amend Section 159 by getting rid of six or eight lines of verbiage which adds nothing to the proposition in the section.

Mr. GRAHAM inquired if the amendment would admit of the pernicious practice of employing what is known as "ferretts" by the County authorities?

Mr. CHAPMAN--The amendment does not bear upon that one way or the other--it does not change the purport or scope of the section.

Mr. GARRIGUS suggested to make section more complete there ought to be a proviso added that every one passing through the County should visit the Auditor, take off his hat and make a profound bow to that official.

On motion by Mr. VIEHE, the amendment was amended and then adopted.

[The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR appointed the same Joint Standing Committees as last session, except that Mr. Urmston is put on the Committee on Enrolled Bills in place of Mr. Foster, excused at his own request.

Mr. GRAHAM moved to amend Section 159 by adding to it the following: "Provided that no person shall be employed or authorized to discover and list omitted taxable property, except the County Auditor, as in this section provided." He said the effect of this amendment will be to cut out these "ferrets." Under this system a great deal of abuse has grown up. The Board of Commissioners should be prohibited from making a contract with such persons.

Mr. URMSTON submitted it would not be right to put that kind of an amendment in that section, or the reason that it does not allow the County Auditor to employ any one to assist him. While it may be true that abuses have sprung up through parties employed by the County Commissioners to look after property failed to be listed, there is a way of reaching those parties, if there is any warrant of law for that kind of work. He did not think there is any law authorizing that kind of employment, and did not think that kind of an amendment ought to be inserted in this section.

Mr. GRAHAM referred to cases where property has been purposely omitted so that these ferrets might discover it, and collect from the County Treasury the 25 per cent. they are usually allowed for discovery. That is the abuse the amendment seeks to strike at. Such cases are numerous--it is a system of fraud and larceny that ought to be cut off, and this amendment will do that. The County Auditor is the person who should make these assessments--being a responsible party.

Mr. HEFRON--Whenever the Auditor has reason to believe that property has been omitted in whole, or in part, he has the right to summon the party before him to show cause why that particular property has not been placed on the tax duplicate. And he may in various ways make a search. He may make examinaton of records for judgment or mortgages, or search the premises for tangible property; but under this amendment it is proposed to put this labor on the County Auditor without compensation.

Mr. GRAHAM--Is not this labor imposed upon that officer in the section without the amendment?

Mr. HEFRON--The authority and license is given him--that is all. It is left optionable with him. The County Auditor is not going out of his way to hunt up sequestered property without extra pay. He must first discover the property before he can place it on the duplicate, and he should have some 1ittle authority to have that done.

Mr. CHAPMAN believed sufficient machinery should be set to work to carry into execution the laws without employing persons under special contract. It is bad policy to employ persons for such purposes on special contract. It is inharmonious with our system of Government, and tends to make officials derelict in duty. He moved to add to the section the following, as a substitute for the amendment: "Provided that no person other than officials provided for in this law shall be employed by the County Commissioners to discover omitted property."

Mr. GRAHAM withdrew his amendment, preferring this substitute.

The amendment (Mr. Chapman's proviso) was agreed to.

On motion by Mr. VIEHE, the following words were added to the fourth clause of section 160: "But when personal property is required to be listed in a Township different from that of the owner's residence, it shall be taxed in the Township where listed."

On the further motion of Mr. VIEHE, Section 170 was changed in phraseology so as to make it consistent.

On motion by Mr. BELL, Section 162 was amended so as not to change the idea, but improve the phrsseology.

Mr. Foster made an ineffectual motion to strike out Section 171 He thought it wrong to make the County Auditor hunt up taxes all over the County, and leave his office to gather up facts required of him in this section without extra pay.

On motion by Mr. GRUBBS, the following was substituted for Section 172: "County Auditors shall not be authorized to credit the Treasurer with any uncollected delinquency for which he claims credit, unless such Treasurer shall show by proper returns, as above provided, that he has diligently sought for and has been unable to find any personal property from which to collect such taxes; or that having made a levy he was enjoined or otherwise prevented from making sale or collection by a Court of competent jurisdiction; and in all cases where he has failed to make demand upon residents who are delinquent, or to levy and sell when personal property can be found in the County, out of which to make the tax, he shall be liable on his official bond for such uncollected delinquency, and 10 per cent. damages thereon."

Mr. CHAPMAN could see no reason for the feature in Section 176 which provides that at sales by the County Treasurer for delinquent taxes due it shall not be necessary to offer the property in parcels. He could see no reason why the prperty should not be offered in the usual way--by articles. Great fraud could be perpetrated against the owner by offering the property in bulk, and no hardship could come by offering it in parcels. He moved to strike from the section that portion of it.

This motion was agreed to.

On motion by Mr. FOSTER, Section 178, allowing redemption of property sold by the County Treasurer for non-payment of taxes, was stricken out.

On motion by Mr. SPANN, Section 179, also relating to redemption, was stricken out.

On motion by Mr. VIEHE, the words "and expenses for taking care of property levied" were added to Section 180, providing fees to the Treasurer for making sales.

Mr. CHAPMAN moved to strike from Section 191 the clause authorizing collection by distress and sale from administrators, guardians and trustees all penalties for delinquency in payment of taxes on trust property when there is money enough on hand to pay the same.

Mr. BELL--We ought not to provide for collection by distraint from anyone acting in a fiduciary capicity. This ought not to apply to executors, administrators or guardians. Why should the old law be re-enacted? If any such officer has money in his hands and allows penalty to accrue for non-payment of taxes, he is liable under existing laws, for it is a violation of his official duty.

The motion to strike out was agreed to.

Mr. BUNDY moved to increase the printer's fee for printing the delinquent tax list in Section 206 from fifteen cents per description to twenty-five cents.

page: 34[View Page 34]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 34

Mr. BROWN made an ineffectual motion to make the fee "fifty" cents.

Mr. FOSTER moved to fix the price at thirty-five cents. He did not like to place this price too high nor too low. He was trying to raise the price that exact justice may be meted out, not only to all printers in the State but to a rival also. He never printed a delinquent list in his life. In a County the size of his the printer must keep on hand some $250 or $300 worth of type used for no other purposes, and pay from sixty to eighty cents per 1,000 ems for setting up type for delinquent lists.

Mr. SPANN favored the amendment--whatever may be a fair fee--and accepted the statement of the Senator from Allen (Mr. Foster) as correct.

Mr. BROWN referred to the fact that past legislatures had placed this fee at sixty to seventy cents, and his proposition a few minutes ago was not as high as that. The Brownstown paper says this work can not be done for less than forty-five cents. As long as his amendment was rejected, let the price be not placed less than thirty-five cents per description.

The amendment (Mr. Foster's) was adopted, and the Committee report as amended was concurred in. Mr. URMSTON moved to amend by adding to Section 206 the words; "And the same to include the heading and the Auditor's certificate."

Mr. KEISER had no objection to this amendment, for it is seldom any publisher claims that now The Attorney General has decided that the publisher can not charge for the heading or the Auditor's certificate to the delinquent list--that is all included in the price paid for each description.

Mr. SPANN thought the amendment ought not be adopted. The printer ought to be paid for this at a fair rate--perhaps a dollar a square. The County is more able to pay than an individual.

Mr. FOSTER stated that years ago in some of the Counties, editors were in the habit of leading the heading and certificate so as to run up a considerable bill, when the Legislature cut that off by refusing to pay for the heading or certificate. If an amendment were offered to prevent that kind of leading or slugging, it would be right and proper to pay for the printing of the heading and the certificate. The editor should not be compelled to give any space in his paper without compensation, for that is his bread and butter. I wrong, radically wrong, to require these publications without pay.

Mr. CHAPMAN regarded the publication of delinquent lists as of no use except to the newspapers that print them and the fellows who buy tax titles. The tax-payer knows whether his taxes are paid or not. Thirty-five cents per description is a fair compensation--just to the smaller Counties.

Mr. GRUBBS moved as a substitute these words: "And no additional fee shall be charged for the headings or Auditor's certifcate."

Mr. URMSTON accepted this substitute and withdrew his amendment.

Mr. KEISER had published several delinquent lists, but had never charged for the headings or the certificates; but, as the Senator from Rush (Mr. Spann) very pertinently said, it is unfair to make publishers do this work for nothing. Set the headings and the certificates in as small type as you can and they will take up the space of from forty to fifty descriptions, and it is hardly fair to ask this of publishers without any compensation. In Marion County, where the printing of the delinquent list amounts to $2,000 or $3000, the printer can afford to do the work for fifteen cents a description, but in Counties were there are only 200 or 300 it is not a big job.

Mr. CHAPMAN called the attention of the Senators to the fact that it is the poor tax-payer you are burdening this tax with for the benefit of the printer. Fifteen cents, the price fixed by the House of Representatives, is too low. That price was fixed upon after consultation with various publishers. It was found that the list could be, and would be, published in the larger Counties for fifteen cents a description, but that is too low for the smaller Counties. Now the Senate has fixed the price at thirty-five cents, which is more than double what the evidence shows the list would be printed for in this County.

Mr. BROWN could see no reason why this work should be required of the printer without pay. He moved, as a substitute, "that for the publication of the headng and Auditor's certificate to such list there shall be allowed the same compensation paid for legal advertising, which is set solid."

On a motion to adjourn, the yeas and nays were demanded, and, being ordered and taken, resulted--yeas, 12; nays, 26.

No quorum voting--

Another motion to adjourn was made agreed to without a division.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

The session was opened with prayer by Rev. Halloch Floyd, Member from Wayne County.

The reading of the Clerk's journal of Friday's proceedings was dispensed with.

OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS.

Mr. HUSTON offered a joint resolution that an amendment be proposed to the Constitution, to be submitted to the electors of the State. Amend by adding sections: (1) Prohibiting the manufacture, sale, keeping for sale, of spirituous, vinous, malt or other liquors, except for medical purposes; (2) the General Assembly shall provide by law in what manner and what place such liquor shall be sold for such purposes.

The joint resolution was referred to the Temperance Committee,

DRUGGISTS--LIQUOR SELLERS.

The SPEAKER announced the special order, viz.: The consideration of the bill [H. R. 420] licensing persons carrying on the business of druggist and apothecary to deal in spirituous, malt and vinous liquors, prescribing penalties, etc., which was read the second time.

Mr. COLE moved to amend the bill by striking out all of Sections 2 and 3, Section 1 being: "Every person carrying on the business of drugstore and apothecary shall pay to the Treasurer of the County $5 as a license for one year, etc., which sum shall be paid into the school fund." Section 2 being: "Upon the presentation of such receipt to the Auditor of the County he shall execute to the person a certificate stating to him the delivery to him of the receipt, and that such person is licensed to carry on the business for one year from date of the receipt."

Mr. SCHWEITZER was of the opinion that druggists had no more right to sell whisky than dry goods stores.

Mr. FRAZER--I move that this bill be referred back to the Committee on Temperance for amendments so it will pass. It will never pass this way.

The amendment was withdrawn and the motion to refer was agreed to.

BENEVOLENT INSTITUTIONS.

The SPEAKER announced the special order, being the bill [H. R. 255] concerning the organization of the Benevolent Institutions--providing for the appointment of Trustees thereof, etc. A majority of the Committee on affairs of the city of Indianapolis recommending its passage, and a minority of the same Committee recommending that the bill lie on the table, for the reason that it would complicate and make difficult the management of the Institutions; and for the futher reason that the object to be accomplished is a political one, the page: 35[View Page 35]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 35 Republicans seeking to oust the Democrats in the control of said Institutions.

Mr. McSHEEHY, in view of the fact that some members are not here to-day, moved that action upon the reports be deferred until one week from to-day.

Mr. MEREDITH moved to amend, by making the subject a special order for Thursday at 10 o'clock a. m.

The latter motion was agreed to.

PARTITION FENCES.

On motion by Mr. MEREDITH, the bill [H. R. 48] concerning inclosures and trespassing animals was made a special order for to-morrow (Wednesday) at 10 o'clock a. m.

REVENUE FOR PUBLIC LIBRARIES.

A majority of the Committee on Temperence reported on the bill [H. R. 89] concerning revenue from the sale of intoxicating liquors [to be appropriated to Public Libraries] recommending that the bill lie on the table.

A minority of the same Committee recommended the passage of the bill.

Mr. RYAN--It is only necessary for the House to understand the terms of that bill in order to concur in the report of minority. For the information of the House I ask that the bill be read.

Mr. Ryan's bill [H. R. 89] to authorize and empower Boards of County Commissioners or Common Councils of cities and Boards of Trustees of incorporated towns to appropriate to the support of Public Lbraries, organized by law, revenues derived by license for the saleof intoxicating liquors, being read--

Mr. RYAN--The purpose of this bill is to empower Boards of Commissioners, Common Councils of cities, Boards of Trustees, etc., to exact a license from every person selling intoxicating liquors, and under certain circumstances they may appropriate a certain portion of the revenue to the maintenance of the Public Libraries on condition that they shall be made absolutely free to all citizens in the locality. It seems to me there can be no two views of the feasibility of this measure. It is certainly in the interest of the people, the dissemination of useful information, and it is dividing the revenue, thus releasing the people from taxation for the support of Libraries. It is levying a contribution upon the whisky sellers for the benefit of education, and the dissemination of useful intelligence. It seems to me that the House ought to concur in the minority report and so recommend the passage of this bill. There could be no better use made of the funds derived from this source than the appropriation of all or nearly all of it to the maintenance of these Libraries. It does not affect the school fund materially because it is not a permanent fund; it is likely to be changed or disposed of by any session of Legislature. I hope the minority report will prevail.

Mr. BUSKIRK--I hope the minority report will not prevail, because it would be bad policy to take the license from the schoo1 fund, where it now goes, and put it in public libraries. My experience is that public libraries do not do a great deal of good. I think the present manner of disposing of that fund is better than the one proposed by the bill.

The majority report was concurred in.

REPORTS FROM THE COMMITTEE ON ROADS.

The Committee on Roads reported on the bill [H. R. 5] in relation to Supervisors of Highways, recommending that it lie on the table, the subject matter being contained in another bill reported favorably.

Report was concurred in.

The same Committee reported on the bill [H. R. 274] concerning gravel roads and other corporations, recommending its passage after amendment by substituting new matter after the enacting clause.

The report was concurred in and the bi11 was ordered engrossed.

The Committee on Roads reported on the bill [H. R. 348] concerning gravel and macadamized roads, recommending that it lie on the table, for the reason that the same matter is contained in another bill.

The report was concurred in.

The Committee on Roads reported on the bill [H. R. 188] to abolish the office of Supervisor, recommending that the bill lie on the table.

The report was concurred in.

Also on the bill [H. R. 230] concerning the working and improvement of roads and highways, recommending that it lie on the table.

The report was concurred in.

Also on the bill [H. R. 92] providing for bonds in th construction of gravel and macadamized roads, recommending that it lie on the table.

The report was concurred in.

Also, on the bill [H. R. 118] for the working of public highways by taxation, recommending that it lie on the table, as the same matter is included in another bill.

The report was concurred in.

Also, on the bill [H. R. 151] making Township Trustees Superintendents of Highways, recommending that the bill lie on the table.

The report was concurred in.

GRAVEL ROAD ASSESSMENTS.

Also, on the bill [H. R. 215] for the relief of plank, macadamized and gravel roads, recommending that it lie on the table.

Mr. RYAN--The report of the Committee should not be concurred in. This bill provides for the completion and approval of the assessments to extent of enabling owners of this class of roads to collect the pay for liabilities that have been incurred for the benefit of the community. There certainly can be no objection to this measure. Many roads were built in anticipation of this assessment under the then existing law, when the Legislature came along and wiped it out, and left these men bankrupts, growing out of the repeal of this law. It is right, it seems to me, that some such law should be passed to reimburse these men for their means invested.

Mr. FLOYD thought if this measure passed it would lay the foundation for extensive litigation.

On motion by Mr. RYAN, the bill was recommitted to the Judiciary Committee.

ROOMS FOR COMMITTEES.

The Special Committee on Rooms reported that in pursuance of the order of the House, they contracted for the two cottage rooms at the Grand Hotel at the prices directed; also that the office of Major Carter for the use of the Judiciary Committee was contracted for, and asking for a discharge of the Committee.

The report was concurred in.

REPORTS FROM THE INSURANCE COMMITTEE.

The Insurance Committee reported on the bill [H. R. 95] regulating Fire Insurance Companies, etc., recommending that the bill lie on the table.

The report was concurred in.

It also reported on the bill [H. R. 94] to regulate Fire Insurance Companies, recommending that the bill lie on the table.

The report was concurred in.

It also reported on the bill [H. R. 419] in relation to Tontine Insurance Companies, recommending its indefinite postponement.

On motion by Mr. BUSKIRK, action upon this report was deferred, awaiting the presence of the author of the bill.

The Committee on Insurance reported on the bill [H. R. 335] concerning foreign Insurance Companies, recommending indefinite postponement.

On motion by Mr. M'INTOSCH, action was deferred until the author of the bill is present.

The Committee on Insurance, reported on the page: 36[View Page 36]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 36 bill (H. R. 426] concerning corporations, recommending the passage of the bill with amendments.

On motion by Mr. HUSTON, the bill was recommitted to the Judiciary Committee.

FOREIGN INSURANCE COMPANIES.

The Committee on Insurance reported on the Revision Committee's bill [H. R. 344] concerning insurance, recommeding its passage with amendments.

On motion by Mr. CARTER, the bill was laid on the table and 200 copies ordered printed.

Mr. SCHWEITZER moved to amend the bill [H. R. 344] by adding the following section:

"All Insurance Companies organized pursuant to the laws of this State, before there is any business done in any County in this State, shall be required to procure from the Auditor of State a condensed statement of their condition--each shall contain such itemized statements of liabilities as the Auditor may deem it necessary to show the public the true condition of such Company, and they shall, before taking any risks or do any business in this State, cause such statements to be published in a newspaper in said County."

Mr. McSHEEHY, by request, offered the following amendment:

"And such Company shall cause such semi-annual statement to be published in one paper of general circulation in each County of the State of Indiana in which such Company transacts business, and shall file with the Auditor of State a copy of each publication, together with the certificate of each publisher attesting such publication, and the date thereof; provided that such semi-annual statement shall be set solid withont unnecessary display. Furthermore, such Company, for the fuller information and protection of the insured, shall attach to each policy when issued a true copy of the last preceding semi-annual statementof such Company."

Mr. BUSKIRK moved that the amendments offered to-day on this bill lie on the table and be incorporated in the motion to print.

Mr. MEREDITH made an ineffectual effort to lay this motion on the table.

The motion was agreed to.

STREET COMMISSIONERS.

The Committee on Cities and Towns reported on the bill [H. R. 228] concerning streets and alleys, recommending its passage with amendments.

On motion, the bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee.

ANOTHER CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

Mr. FURNAS offered a concurrent resolution for a proposed amendment to the Constitution, providing that, in all elections not otherwise provided for by this Constitution, every citizen of the United States of the age of twenty-one years and upward who shall have resided in the State six months and in the Township sixty days, the Ward or Precinct thirty days immediately preceding such election, and every person of foreign birth of the age of twenty-one years and upward who shall have resided in the United States one year and in the State six months, and Township sixty days immediately preceding such election, and shall have declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States, comformable to the law on the subject of naturalization, shall be entitled to vote in the Township, Ward or Precinct where he shall reside continually, and was duly registered according to law.

Resolved, that this amendment, when voted upon, shall be designated No. 1.

The resolution was referred to the Committee on Female Suffrage.

COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES.

The bill [S. 24], authorizing the appointment of a Commissioner of Fisheries for the State of Indiana, defining the duties and making appropriation to defray the expenses thereof [amount, $2,000], was read the first time and referred to a Special Committee.

FEES AND SALARIES.

The bill [H. R. 311], to amend Section 26 of the fee and salary act, was read the second time.

On motion by Mr. BARNETT, the bill was ordered engrossed.

SENATE BILLS READ THE SECOND TIME.

On motion by Mr. MEREDITH, Senator Comstock's bill [S. 192] to legalize the proceedings of School Trustees of Milton, Wayne County, was read the second time.

On motion by Mr. LINDSAY, the House took up Senate bills on second reading.

Senator Comstock's bill [S. 169] amending an act defining who are persons of unsound mind, and authorizing the appointment of guardians for such persons, powers, duties, was read the second time.

Senator Compton's bill [S. 40] amending Section 3 of an act of March 5, 1877, providing for Township elections, was read the second time.

Senator Van Vorhis' bill [S. 27] amending Section 1 of an act concerning the election of Justices of the Peace was read the second time.

Senator Langdon's bill [S. 157] amending Section 4 of the act concerning guardian and ward, approved June 9, 1854 was read the second time.

Senator Henry's bill [S. 151] amending Section 7 of the act for the incorporation and continuance of Building Fund and Saving Fund Association was read the second time.

Senator Langdon's bill [S. 149] to amend Section 28 of the act providing for the organization of Savings Banks and the proper management of their affairs, was read the second time.

Senator Viehe's bill [S. 153] to amend Section 1 of an act to provide for voluntary assignments--for personal and real property--was read the second time.

On motion by Mr. FRAZER, the bill [H. R. 138], regulating charges of railroads, was ordered engrossed.

Then came an adjournment till to-morrow.

page: [37][View Page [37]]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page [37]

THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
VOLUME TWENTY.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
SPECIAL SESSION.

IN SENATE.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bi11 [H. R. 204] conerning taxation, commencing at Section 206, which was pending at the adjournment last evening--the question being on the substitute [Mr. Brown's] for the amendment, [Mr. Grubbs'] in relation to the publication of the delinquent tax list.

Mr. FOSTER--As between the substitute and the amendment the latter would not be quite clear. Under the substitute, no matter how much the printer would lead the headings or certificate, no charge could be made exceeding what it would be if set solid.

Mr. GRUBBS insisted his amendment should be adopted, so as to make it clear that printers shall receive no extra pay for the heading and Auditor's certificate. All agree that thirty-five cents a description is sufficient pay for this work, and if that be so, nothing additional should be charged either for the heading or Auditor's certificate.

Mr. BROWN had been spoken to by several printers on this subject. This substitute is a very careful one, and ought to be adopted. It is not justice, if it is economy, to ask one class to perform service gratuitously for another.

Mr. BRISCOE opposed the substitute. An increase has been made from fifteen to thirty-five cents a description. The certificate and heading must be printed, and at the price fixed it should be done without extra pay.

Mr. GARRIGUS remembered two years ago the Legislature carefully considered this subject and passed a bill making the price twenty cents a description, but when the fee and salary bill came up a clause was injected in it allowing thirty-five cents. His information is, this work can be done for less than thirty-five cents, and the printers are anxious to get this work, throwing in the heading and certificat without charge.

Mr. KEISER was of opinion that when a Senator says fifteen cents per description is enough, that Senator is talking about something he knows nothing of. In a large majority of Counties nine out of ten whose lands are advertised are non-residents. If these men who hold large bodies of land do not pay their tax till forced to, let them pay for this advertising of their lands. While not a stickler in regard to paying for the heading and certificate, yet it is but just they should be paid for.

Mr. BRISCOE was satisfied either of the papers in his County would publish the delinquent list for twenty cents each description, though he thought that not enough. Thirty five cents is an enormous price, and to pay an additional for the head and tail of the list is not right. He opposed the printing of delinquent tax lists anyhow. He opposed the substitute and favored the amendment.

Mr. WILSON is informed by a printer in his County that fifteen cents a description woud not pay, because it requires a large amount of type to be kept on hand which can be used for no other purpose, but that thirty-five cents would be a fair compensation. Then there should be a reasonable compensation paid for the heading and certificate.

Mr. VOYLES saw no necessity for publishing a long list in each County. If the Auditor prepares a list and advertises that it can be inspected, the delinquent can ascertain what his delinquency is, and those wishing to purchase at tax sales can also inform themselves. Printers are not so mercenary as to desire to do work of little benefit to the public in order to put money in their pockets. In some Counties the publication of the list costs from $2,000 to $3,000. Then these long lists spoil the reading matter in our papers. He offered a substitute for the section embracing this idea.

Mr. FOSTER could not think the Senator was serious in offering such a substitute.

Mr. CHAPMAN hoped the substitute would prevail. The publication of the delinquent tax list is as useless a piece of literature as is produced in the press of the country from one end of the year to the other. It is convenient for purchasers at tax sales to have a printed list to guide them. There is no question but that the General Assembly should strike it out. It is not right to burden the people with an expense that serves so little purpose. The records of the Treasury are open to page: 38[View Page 38]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 38 all, and all can find out what taxes are assessed against any piece of property. Any person compos mentis knows whether he or she is liable to be assessed for taxes or not, and if non compos mentis there is no use of printing a list for such. It is a work of supererogation, and the whole matter should be stricken down.

Mr. KEISER insisted publishers are not at the door of the General Assembly asking any royalty for their work, if you want this work done. If you think it is a useless piece of work, wipe it out--it may be better to do that. But if kept on the statute book, pay an honest price for the work. Every man who has land advertised is able to pay for the advertisement. As one who has made his living by picking type for twenty-five years, and speaking for printers he asked only that justice be done them. Publishers are just as friendly to the poor burdened tax-payer as any lawyer on this floor or elsewhere.

The substitute was adopted by yeas, 21; nays, 17.

On motion by Mr. MARVIN, the bill was amended so that where a tax deed proves to be invalid the holder can recover only lawful charges with 8 per cent. interest.

On motion by Mr. VIEHE, the bill was amended so as to require the Treasurer to give ten days notice of sale of personal property for delinquent taxes.

Mr. VIEHE offered an amendment to relieve the the Treasurer from liability for damage resulting from a double assessment for taxation.

Mr. MENZIES--Didn't think it would be just to adopt this amendment--it relieves the official from responsibility for direliction.

Mr. VIEHE--The fault is with the Auditor, for having assessed a tract to two different persons. The Treasurer is not to blame for this mistake, as the Auditor furnishes the duplicate.

Mr. COMSTOCK thought the section is right as it stands.

Mr. BELL moved to solve this difficulty by inserting words making the officer by whose fault the damage has been caused responsible.

Mr. MENZIES preferred to see the direliction fixed upon the Auditor.

Mr. BELL--It may not be the Auditor's fault--the Assessor may improperly assess it. His amendment will cover the whole matter.

Mr. KRAMER said such mistakes frequently occur.

Mr. WOOLLEN thought they were mostly caused by the Assessor.

AFTERNOON SESSION.

Mr. VIEHE said the owner of the land can not suffer, and the loss can not be very great anywhere. He withdrew his amendment.

Mr. BELL insisted the Treasurer will not be to blame for such mistakes, and the blame should fall on the proper person. The fault may be with the Auditor or it may be the Assessor. His substitute would fix the responsibility at the door of the officer where the fault lies, and that is right.

Mr. WILSON thought the officer causing the expense should pay the cost of the omission or direliction.

The amendment [Mr. Bell's] was agreed to.

[On motion by Mr. CHAPMAN, the House concurrent resolution for a reference of the claim of John Mirtin for $67,377.15, for brick work on the Insane Asylum, to the Judiciary Committees of the two Houses in joint session, was concurred in.]

Mr. KRAMER moved to amend Section 170 by striking out the interest now collected and, inserting a penalty for November delinquencies of 6 per cent. It is easy to make collections of a 10 per cent. penalty, but it is almost impossible to settle with Deputy Treasurers for interest that must be computed on every individual from which tax is collected during the summer. Under this amendment the Auditor and Treasurer can settle in the fall by adding the 10 per cent. penalty contemplated by the law and adding a 6 per cent. penalty on the gross sum, which will simplfy these accounts.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. KRAMER moved to strike out the clause allowing no extra fee for collecting delinquent taxes of previous years. To collect delinquent taxes is a hard matter. To hunt men down, follow them up, distrain and distress them, to get taxes, is not very pleasant. A reasonable fee should be allowed. There must be an incentive for them to do this kind of work.

Mr. BELL called attention to the fact that if the Treasurer lets delinquents run over a year, he only gets the same fee as for current taxes, while if he collects them before they run over, he will get 5 per cent., which will spur him up.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. CHAPMAN offered a substitute for Section 285 so as to make this bill apply to cities--Township assessments to serve for city purposes, etc.

Mr. BELL thought the section ought to stand as it is, leaving cities optional to act under this law or not, as they see fit. The basis of taxation in some cities differs from the County assessment. In his city--Fort Wayne--there is a difference of over $2,000,000 and in the matter of improvements nearly $500,000.

Mr. MENZIES belived the amendment would make a wholesome change if adopted. There should not be two laws for taxation--there should not be a 8tate King of tax and a City King of tax. Let there be but one law of State,County and city taxes.

The substitute was adopted by yeas 29, nays 9.

Mr. URMSTON moved to make the Boards of Equalization consist of the County Commissioners and four freeholders selected from different parts of the County by the Circuit Judge. He said if he could have his way he would favor a Board composed exclusively of freeholders. The Assessors should not be members of the Board because it would make the Board too large. These Assessors appraise property at what they think is a fair valuation, and when they sit on the Board and parties come to complain of the Assessor's work each Assessor has a pride in having his judgment sustained by the action of the Board. Then the expense of a Board of seven will be less than the expense of a Board of ten, fifteen or seventeen. The Auditor should not be a member because another section makes him Clerk of the Board.

The substitute was adopted.

On motion by Mr. BUNDY, these four freehold members of the Board were allowed a per diem of $2.50, not to exceed fifteen days in any one year.

Mr. KRAMER offered an amendment for the election of a County Assessor in 1884: Let a County Assessor take a view of all the real estate in the County and a fair valuation would be reached By having eight or twelve or fifeen appraisers who view only a part of the real estate with different views of value, it is almost impossible to get a valuation that is equal and just to all. This is probably the most important feature connected with this tax bill. He had known instances where property was appraised at double the value in different parts of one Township. There is a crying need that the present system of appraisement should be changed.

Mr. VIEHE, in submitting a Committee report adverse to this amendment, said he regarded the argument of the Senator as based on the theory that all property in the County should be appraised by one man. This plan was tried once in this State and abandoned. The County Assesor would have his Deputies, and so the judgment of many were relied on as now. If it were practicable to have but one Assessor in the County, he would favor it, but it is not practicable.

Mr. FOSTER opposed the amendments. He did not believe one man was better calculated to assess the whole County than men picked from different parts of the County. A man living in a city knows better the value of property in that page: 39[View Page 39]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 39 city than the County Assessor, who might be selected from the County.

Mr. KRAMER acknowledged that the County Assessor system was tried , but that the officer was required to do all the work in sixty days, while this amendment allows the County Commissioners to give the Assessor the necessary time to do the work. If one man can not do the work in Marion County in one year, let the Commissioners allow him deputies. But it will be far better to have but one man to do this work, in every case where it can be done in one year or less. Then there would be uniform assessments all over the County.

Mr. BROWN favored the report of the Commmittee and opposed the amendment, for he objected to centralization in all its hideous forms and monstrosities. He saw no wrong or injury arising out of the present system, and if it works reasonably well it is better to cling to it.

The report of the Committee was concurred in.

Mr. RAHM moved to reconsider the vote by which the Senate declared there should be no more publication of delinquent lists.

Mr. WOOD favored the motion. It is the policy of common law everywhere that you can not take a man's property without due process of law. Suppose there are 500 or 1,000 pieces of land to be sold, how can the purchasers examine the one list provided for in the substitute. The Courts nowhere sympathize with those who try to take away a man's property by buying it at tax sale. There should be no more exception made in this case than in the case of Sheriff's sales or other judicial sales.

Mr. BELL felt some interest in this matter. It is good policy that these advertisements should be made. The object of the notice is not in the interest of the printer but in the interest of the tax-payers also. It would be a hardship to require bidders to go to the Auditor's office to find out what parcels will be offered. While there should not be too much paid for printing such lists, still they should be published for the convenience of tax-payers as well as others. The planin vogue in this State so long ought not to be abandoned now.

Mr. VOYLES had heard nothing to justify a change of his views on this subject. It is certainly unnecessary to publish every year a delinquent list in every County. In many cases the Counties pay two-thirds of the printer's bill and is seldom reimbursed. There would be about $300 in the aggregate against each County; say $27,000 in the entire State, to pay for that interesting story that the Senator from Lake (Mr. Wood) himself has never yet read, though printed regularly once a year. He had as much respect for newspaper men as any one on the floor, but this expense was not justified.

Mr. BROWN believed that it was wise in the past, and will be wise in the future to continue these publications. He did not think it was proper to overthrow the land-marks set by so many past Legislatures, or offer for sale, the lands of the people of the State without due and proper notice. The purpose of the sale is that the State shall get her taxes by taking the smallest amount of the citizen's property to satisfy the State's demand. Penalties are only imposed when the State is unable to get her taxes otherwise. Men who stand before communities as solvent would not allow their land to run delinquent, knowing their names would be published, but if their names were looked up in the Auditor's vault it would probably be otherwise and the State would be the loser.

Mr. CHAPMAN thought one of the best pieces of work done on this bill was the adoption of this substitute of the Senator from Washington [Mr. Voyles]. Surely it can not work an injustice to any tax-payer. It is more than an equivalent to an advertisement provided for in another section in this same bill which is as important a fact to the tax-payer. The ad captandum assertion that these advertisements are for the benefit of the delinquents is easily made, but the assertion can not be proven. There is no kinship between a Sheriff's sale and a sale of property for delinquent taxes. The only question is: Is there any just reason for requiring this advertisement to be made in every County in the State?

Mr. FOSTER felt no more persona1 interest in this bill than one who has never written a line for a newspaper, but believed these advertisements should be made in order to give proper notice of such sales; and thousands would care but little for delinquencies were it not for these publications.

Mr. WOOLLEN said it happens occasionally that a man having a large tract of land, parts in different Townships pays for but a part, supposing the tax receipt covers all of the land, and if the tax sale be not published, the owner may not be aware of its sale until the time for redemption may have expired. And one such case should be sufficient to justify the publication of the delinquent list.

The Senate adjourned till to-morrow.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Mr. CARTER offered a concurrent resolution that the memorial of John Martin, contractor, in which he claims the sum of $67,377.15, balance due him for work on the Indiana Hospital for the Insane (department for women), be referred to the Judiciary Committee of the Senate and Judiciary Committee of the House for examination.

It was adopted.

ELECTIONS AND ELECTION CONTESTS.

Mr. Ryan's bill [H. R. 225] concerning elections and contest thereof was read the third time.

Mr. RYAN--There is nothing in the bill but what is clearly manifested to the members, simply a compilation and revision of the law. There is nothing with reference to registration or anything of that kind. The only new feature is that the ballot boxes used shall be uniform. The box is arranged so that it is out of the control of the Board themselves, and no stuff the ballot-box. Another feature is a requirement for the preservation of the ballots cast for a given length of time in order to afford an opportunity for persons desiring to contest an election to have the ballots precisely as they were deposited. They are sealed up in the presence of the whole Board. The ballot cast has a number upon it and the number is registered by the clerk as the ballot is cast. I want to say to this House as a guarantee of good faith that there is no politics in this bill, because it was prepared by the Code Commission--two members well-known Democrats; the other member a Republican. This bill will absolutely prevent fraud in elections, and certainly no gentleman on this floor wishes anything else.

Mr. MOODY--I desire to enter my solemn protest against the passage of this bill at this time. It may be all that gentlemen claim for it, but I am satisfied it should not be passed until it is printed and each member of this House shall have an opportunity to examine the bill. I am satisfied that this bill is as imsportant as any bill that will come before us for our consideration during the present session, and few members have seen the bill or know anything about the radical changes sought by its enactment. This bill is a very complicated and expensive piece of machinery, and worse than all even before we vote upon the bill I understand there is a patent upon a part of the machinery. The gentleman from Delaware says this box is not to cost more than $25 for each box. How much do you page: 40[View Page 40]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 40 suppose this will cost the people of Indiana to enable them to exercise the privilege of free men?

The bill, I understand, provides that in cities of 10,000 voters the Precincts are limited to 300 voters each. This will multiply the number of Precincts very much in the State, and a patent must be paid for by the people for each Precinct. There are now about 1,200 Precincts in the State, and if this bill passes and becomes a law, they will number more than 2,000. The boxes alone will cost the people $50,000. I am opposed to voting for any bill making such radical changes in the existing law without an opportunity to carefully examine it, and I will therefore move that the bill do lie on the table, and 200 copies be printed for the use of the members of this House.

Mr. EDWINS said it was simply for the purpose of making the House conversant with the subject matter that he favored the printing of the bill.

Mr. KENNER said if the House would not put confidence in Committees it would take six months to finish the work before this Legislature. He hoped the motion to print would not prevail.

Mr. WRIGHT--The public expect us to have our work completed at the end of forty days, and to do so we have got to devote ourselves to the passage of these codifying bills, and pass them upon the recommendation of the Committees who have them in charge. I think we had better pass this bill without any further quibbling.

Mr. CAUTHORNE thought the House ought to pass this bill, it being reccommended by two Committees. He considered it the duty of the Committee to ferret out if there is anything wrong in a bill.

The motion to table and print was rejected, and the bill passed--yeas 52; nays, 34.

Mr. CAUTHORNE made a motion to reconsider the vote upon the passage of the bill, and to lay that motion on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

LANDLORD AND TENANT.

Mr. Gibson's bill [H. R. 237], concerning landlord and tenant [allowing a lien on the crops growing], was read the third time and passed--yeas, 82; nays, 0.

REORGANIZATION OF THE STATE PRISONS.

The SPEAKER announced the special order for this hour to be the consideration of the bill [H. R. 78], concerning the government and organization of Prisons of the State; a majority of the Prison Committee recommending that 200 copies be printed for the use of the House, and a minority recommending that the bill lie on the table.

The minority report was rejected and the majority report was concurred in.

Mr. KENNER was opposed to the engrossment of the bill because it was complicated, and further that the Board of Directors were compelled to have their office in the city of Indianapolis.

Mr. GIBSON opposed the bill for the reason that he considered separate Prisons beneficial on this account: when one Prison is badly conducted, it does not affect the other. If one Board of Directors controlled the whole affair, there would not exist the emulation now prevalent between the two Prisons to outdo one another. Under the provisions of this bill, if you contaminate one Prison you contaminate the other, for the same heads control both of them.

Mr. WILSON, of Morgan, said he was through the Southern Prison and saw evidences of punishments inflicted which are absolutely indecent and outrageous to the civilization of the State of Indiana. He hoped the bill would be engrossed.

Mr. COLE thought it would be inadvisable to engross the bill at the present time, as it would defeat the measure entirely. Therefore, he moved to recommit the bill to the Committee on Benevolent Institutions for further consideration and amendments.

Mr. MEREDITH--Democrats oppose this measure because it would remove the Democratic managers of the Southern Prison, not for the purpose of making reformation and doing good to all parties and to the people of the State. I have taken this position, and I intend to forward this bill just as much as I possibly can. It was drawn in the best interest of the State by a man who has given that subject more attention than any other man in the State. It was done in behalf of humanity and not for selfish motives.

Mr. EDWINS--I do not believe that this bill is a reform in any measure. We have already a Board of Directors who have the supervision of this business. What does this bill propose to do? It proposes to take this business out of the hands of three Directors and place both Prisons in the hands of three Directors. The existing Boards inspect the Prisons monthly. On the other hand that Board that this bill proposes to establish for both Prisons, as soon one of their number visits the Prisons once every three or four months, he reports to the rest of the members who are not there at all. So far as the humanitary part of the Prison is concerned, I do to not think it would be improved if you sent the best men of the State there. There are over 1,200 prisoners in both these Institutions who are the worst of the disreputables of Indiana. You congregate all these together, and you must have stringent supervision to keep those murderers and thieves in subjection. You can not bring the same power to bear upon them that you would in a female or juvenile department.

I do not think this bill is in the interest of reformation, therefore I favor its recommittal to some Committee.

Mr. SCHWEITZER said he had the honors of being on the Prison Committee, and in behalf of humanity he did not believe in using the cat as it was used there Although these persons are prisoners, they are still human. He favored reformation, but not that kind.

Mr. COLE said he did not make this motion from any partisan view at all, but for the purpose of defeating the bill in its present shape.

Mr. CARTER--This bill is a good one, carefully drawn and in the interest of reformation. I think it would not be possible for Committeemen to get up a perfect bill on this subject at once, but this measure is a step in the right direction, and for us to recommit this bill would be gratifying its opponents, for they are willing that is should go anywhere rather than be engrossed. The object is to defeat the bill, and not to make it better.

Mr. KENNER said if Section 82 be taken out of the bill, requiring the office of the Prison Board to be in Indianapolis, he would support the bill.

Mr. BUSKIRK said if the bill was in favor of reformation alone, he would vote for the bill. He thought the change to one Board, with insufficient pay and means for the management of these Prisons, would be a great deal worse than under existing laws. He favored the recommittal of the bill.

Mr. JOHNSON--I am in favor of recommitting this bill, and am opposed to conferring the management of these Institutions upon one Board, especially to men who have been unsuccessful in business.

The motion to recommit was agreed to--yeas, 49; nays, 40.

AFTERNOON SESSION.

Mr. LINSDAY introduced the bill [H. R 462] authorizing Railroad Companies to construct, acquire and maintain telegraph lines for commercial and other purposes, which was read the first time.

WOMEN ON SCHOOL BOARDS.

Mr. Kenner's bill [H. R. 140] authorizing the election of women to school offices, was read the third time. page: 41[View Page 41]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 41Mr. KENNER--This bill is a copy of the Illinois law, and also similar to those in force in nine of the Northern States. In Vermont one-fourth of the School Boards are women, and the change works well. The House did not see fit to pass the bill giving the right of suffrage to women; this is not in that direction, as the bill does not give them a right to vote on any subject, but simply the right to hold school offices if City Councils, etc., deem them capable. There is nothing imperative about this bill; it simply makes women eligible to all the school offices they are capable of filling. In a great many respects women are more capable than men. They are more throughly acquainted with the ventilation of rooms, have more experience in taking care of children and enforcing the rules for their government. I think the bill ought to pass.

The bill passed--yeas, 66; nays, 11.

PRISON CONSOLIDATION.

Mr. JOHNSON offered a concurrent resolution--which was adopted--for the appointment of a Joint Committee of five, three from the House and two from the Senate, to consider the expediency of consolidating the State Prisons, thereby lessening the expense of maintaining the same. They are requested to investigate the financial condition of each Institution and ascertain the cost of such consolidation.

THE COMMON SCHOOL SYSTEM.

The SPEAKER announced the special order to be the consideration of the bill [H. R. 322] concerning common schools, commencing at Section 32.

Mr. BERRYMAN'S motion made several days ago, pending, that the bill be recommitted to the Committee, with the instruction to strike out all part relating to County Superintendents.

Mr. KENNER thought the principal of County Superintendents is a good one, although it is like anything else--subject to bad management. If they are not doing their duty, it is the fault of the County, and not the officer or his assistant. He appealed to this body not to abolish this office, thinking it a step backward.

Mr. O'NEAL--That is the voice of the people exactly.

Mr. FLOYD thought it would be a great calamity to abolish this office. To arrive at the value of this office in dollars and cents would be simply impossible. He thought to see the great benefits of the County Superintendents' office, it is only necessary to compare our present standard with that of ten years ago, under the old examining system.

Mr. COTTON thought the cost of the office of County Superintendent should be a secondary consideration compared to its usefulness. He favored having a Superintendent for every well-regulated affair, either mechanical or educational. He attributed the cause of complaint of this office more to the poor selection of Superintendents than the office itself.

Mr. FANCHER--I am satisfied the people of this State are not clamoring for what a few Representives claim: The abolition of this office. We must have a County Examiner. There is nothing in the name, but of the two I think that of County Superintendent is the most preferable. Now, we have experience before us upon which to build. We must have some law by which the teachers are examined. All the people of the State are asking for is that we cut down the expense that office. There is no use sending this bill back to the Committee.

Mr. WRIGHT--I am certain we do not want to abolish the office of County Superintendent. I believe that the educational interests of the various Counties of this State at the present time warrant us in employing some competent person to superintend the educational interests of the different Counties of the State, and just here I wish to remark that the trouble with school teachers and teaching is the fact that the pay of teachers is such that they generally devote themselvesto the business for, perhaps, one or two years, and then go into something more profitable. If you would attain the highest proficiency in the matter teaching, persons in this calling must be remunerated so as to enable them to devote themselves to that profession for a livelihood. I am honestly the opinion that County Superintendents ought not to be abolished. I speak for that office because I want this bill preserved in its present shape. I understand that this bill has the indorsement of Professor Smart and Professor Bloss, gentlemen who have given their lives to the study of this matter. I am not here as representative from Grant County, to set up my opinion against men who know much better what the educational interests need than I do. I regard the County Superintendent as the Colonel of the regiment of educators of the County, and the State Superintendent as the General of the army of great educators. If you strike the County Superintendent out of this bill it will destroy the symmetry of the bill, and it ought not to pass at all.

The motion was rejected--yeas, 14; nays, 76.

Mr. RYAN offered an amendment to so restrain the qualifications of the office that it will not only be a benefit to the school but also an honor to the man holding it, and a credit to all parties.

Mr. CARR hoped the amendment would not prevail from the fact that it would abolish half the Superintendents of the State. He moved to lay the amendment on the table.

This motion was rejected.

Mr. FANCHER offered to substitute the words: "A graduate of some good College of good standing." He said: I think this amendment ought to prevail in preference to the one of the the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Ryan), from the fact that a graduate from some good College, in my judgment, is far better qualified and would make a more efficient County Superintendent than a man who has taught five years in our District Schools.

Mr. MOODY I understand the amendment of the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Ryan) provides that the County Superintendent, in order to be eligible to the office, shall hold a certificate from the State Board before acting as County Superintendent of Schools. That is entirely distinct from other qualifications necessary to entitle him to this position. I think the amendment of the gentleman from Delaware is preferable to the one offered by the gentleman from Lake (Mr. Fancher.)

Mr. NEFF was heartily in favor of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Delaware. He considered it a poor compliment to a College graduate to ask to be exempted from the same examination the boy is who has obtained his education in day and night schools as best he could.

The substitute was rejected.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. MARSHALL--I find that in line eleven it defines all the branches of education. If any patrons in the District want a branch taught that is not mentioned there, it does not say how many persons shall decide. I want it to say that a majority of persons, etc. I hope this amendment will pass.

Mr. RYAN offered a substitute to the amendment by striking out all regarding the extra branches taught in Common Schools. He said: I think that in Common Schools, outside of cities, towns and graded schools, there should be nothing taught but the eight fundamental branches prescribed by the statutes.

Mr. COTTON--I have seen boys and girls advanced, when they could not have made their board working, studying the higher branches. We have built our school-houses double, many of them employing two teachers together, and then the children could advance where they could not page: 42[View Page 42]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 42 have advanced any other way. We have advanced our children, some who are not able to pay for schooling outside of their Districts, and now will you come here and say we will not educate these children in the higher branches, but compel their parents to send them to a College or Academy? We have room to do it, and why not give them the benefit of it?

Mr. LINSDAY thought there were too many high branches taught in the Common Schools and the little ones do not get enough attenton. He was opposed to educating the advanced children at the sacrifice of the smaller ones.

Mr. FALL--I understand the object of our Common School system to be this: To do the greatest amount of good to the greatest number of persons. Where there is one or two persons in a school room that reqire all the attention of the teacher in hearing recitations in Greek and Latin, and the balance of the children sitting idle that is a perversion of the rule for doing the atest good to the greatest number. It is not the intent of the law.

Mr. MITCHELL was opposed to amendment of the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Ryan.)

Mr. SCHWEITZER could not see the object of the amendment. He was opposed to any such restrictions for the reason that there are many useful things to be learned in the school room outside of the eight branches.

Mr. MARSHALL--It costs the teacher a great deal of trouble, and heretofore it has been the custom to neglect the smaller pupils they often going home without the necessary recitations.

Mr. HAMILTON favored the passage of the amendment. He said if the children were all small, and expected to remain so, it would be well to devote all the time to those branches, but there are a majority of larger pupils advanced oftentimes, who are not able to attend a College or Seminary, and it is nothing more than reasonable and fair that they should have the privilege of pursuing these studies in their distinct schools.

The substitute was rejected, and the amendment was adopted.

The House adjourned till to-morrow.

page: [43][View Page [43]]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page [43]

THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
VOLUME TWENTY.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
SPECIAL SESSION.

IN SENATE.

FEES AND SALARIES

Mr. COMSTOCK offered the following:

Resolved, By the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring, That the Committee on Fees and Salaries of the two Houses are hereby instructed to draft and report at the earliest day practical a bill fixing the fees and salaries of public officers.

The resolution was adopted.

ORDER OF BUSINESS.

Mr. CHAPMAN offered a resolution--which was adopted--that so soon as the bill [H. R. 204] concerning taxation is passed to the third reading, the Senate will proceed to the regular order of transacting business, under rule 54, except that afternoon sittings shall be exclusively given to the consideration of bills reported from the Committee on Revision, in such order as between such bills as the Senate shall order.

ASSESSMENT FOR TAXATION.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill [H. R. 204]--a codification of existing laws concerning taxation, with the addition of twenty-five sections of new matter. The question pending at the adjournment yesterday being a motion [Mr. Rahm's] to reconsider the vote adopting a substitute for Section 206 which does away with future publication of delinquent tax lists in each County.

The motion to reconsider was agreed to by yeas, 23; nays, 20--

Mr. RAHM stating, when his name was called, that he voted for the substitute on yesterday because he was in favor of keeping down the County expenses. He made the motion at the request of another, and should vote against his own motion.

The question recurring on the substitute it was again adopted by yeas, 23; nays, 22--as follows:

Yeas--Briscoe, Chapman Compton, Comstock, Davidson, Davis, Garrigus, Grubbs, Hart, Henry, Kahlo, Kramer, Lockridge, Majors, Menzies, Owen, Poindexter, Rahm, Shaffer, Viehe, Voyles, Wilson and Yancy--23.

Nays--Bell, Berry, Bischowsky, Brown, Bundy, Foster, Heffron, Hostetter, Hutchinson, Keiser, Langdon, Leeper, Macartney, Marvin, Ristine, Sayre, Smith, Urmston, Van Vorhis, White, Wood, Woollen--22.

Mr. HEFRON moved to amend the bill so as to require the Assessor and Deputy to administer the proper oath to every person assessed, so that every one shall be on an equal footing--to do justice to all tax-payers, and to meet that class of persons who will not give a proper value to their property. The amendment prescribes a penalty for failing to administer the oath.

Mr. GARRIGUS thought there should be a proviso, in case some other person gives in the list.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. KRAMER offered a substitute for five sections, concerning lands returned delinquent for successive years. The Auditor shall bring suit in Court and have the lands sold as other lands are sold by the Sheriff. These sections, as in the bill, would fill the Courts with suits to force the collection of taxes, and will bring about an unnecessary amount of costs resulting therefrom. Under the present system, nearly all lands advertised for taxes have been brought up by speculators. This amendment practically re-enacts the law under which we have been acting for years.

Mr. MENZIES--The sections proposed to be stricken out were carefully considered by the Board of Revision. He hoped the substitute would fail and the bill remain as is.

Mr. KRAMER insisted the sections, if allowed to remain, would make the bill odious. The only reason for retaining them is to make enormous fees for the Prosecuting Attorneys in every County in the State.

The substitute was rejected--yeas, 12; nays, 25.

Mr. COMSTOCK moved that the Senate amendments to this bill be considered engrossed and read the third time now.

Mr. BROWN resisted the motion. The Senate has made a great many amendments to this bill page: 44[View Page 44]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 44 since it came from the House, and they ought to be engrossed in fact before the bill is read the third time, so that Senators can compare the amendments with the printed bill, and see that they are properly engrossed.

Mr. COMSTOCK withdrew his motion except as to ordering the bill engrossed.

Mr. HEFRON had an amendment he would like to submit to the Senate as a substitute providing for the compensation of the Assessor.

Mr. COMSTOCK withdrew his motion.

Mr. VAN VORHIS considered Fast Freight Companies should be taxed if Express Companies are taxed, and he offered an amendment for that purpose.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. HEFRON moved to amend the bill by making the pay of Assessors ten cents for each person properly listed and assessed in cities, and fifteen cents in Townships, and $2 a day and no extra allowance in years when real estate is listed. Taking an average County in gross when real estate is not appraised, the cost of assessing personal property is about $2,700 in average Counties where the per diem of Assessors is $2.50 a day. The purpose of the amendment is to allow Assessors to work as they please. If paid by the day it makes but little difference to the Assessor whether he is diligent in business, or whether he stops to chat with every one he meets.

Mr. MENZIES favored the amendment, and would like to see it tried for two years, at least, and if it does not work well it can be repealed in two years. The amendment would be an inducement to hunt up tax-payers. In New Albany, the other day, in getting up a list of tax-payers on a petition, some 900 were found whose names were not on the Assessor's list.

Mr. CHAPMAN thought the amendment should prevail. It will be an inducement to bring in all the property subject to taxation, and it will enable the Assessor to earn over two dollars a day if he be diligent. For these two reasons the amendment should commend itself to the judgment of the Senate.

Mr. KRAMER thought 7 1/2 cents would be enough to allow the Assessors in towns per list, but double that amount should be allowed in Counties, and moved to so amend the substitute. The Assessor is necessarily compelled to travel a great distance in Townships to make assessments, while in cities and towns it is comparatively little labor. Where a man has to travel two or three miles, as is frequently the case in Townships, it is worth much more than in cities where the Assessor steps from door to door.

This amendment was rejected and the substitute adopted.

Mr. SHAFFER moved to reconsider the vote this morning by which the substitute adopted yesterday to Section 206 [to repeal the law requiring the publication of delinquent tax lists] was re-adopted.

Mr. VOYLES raised a question of order that this motion is not again admissable under the rules of the Senate. This substitute was adopted yesterday by a yea and nay vote of the Senate, and to-day it was re-adopted in a similar manner.

Mr. BELL insisted that rule refers to cases where the motion to reconsider was lost. These are two different votes we are now moving to reconsider.

Mr. CHAPMEN did not think it desirable to break down our rules for the purpose of taking a third vote on this question, which has twice been decided in the affirmative by a yea and nay vote. We might go on from now to the end of the session passing and reconsidering this substitute, ad infinitum, were it not for the rule that such a motion shall be entertained but once. The rule is laid down in Roberts that no question can be twice reconsidered.

Mr. SHAFFER would not insist on his motion, but would leave it to the decision of the Chair without argument.

The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR was in some doubt.

Mr. BROWN referred to his motion by which the substitute was amended, (with unanimous consent) and that lets the Senate out of the trouble so well put by the Senator from Marion (Mr. Chapman).

Mr. VOYLES contended the amendment referred to was made by consent. If allowed, this might follow one motion upon the heels of another, till it would take up the entire session.

The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR did not think the vote can be reconsidered a second time, judging from the authorities.

Mr. SHAFFER being satisfied that this motion is not in order, withdrew it.

Mr. BELL objected.

The LIEUTENANT GQVERNOR--The Senator has the right to withdraw his amendment.

AFTERNOON SESSION.

WORK FOR COMMITTEES.

The bill [H. R. 50] requiring hotels and lodging houses to provide means of escape in case of fire; [H. R. 112] amendatory of the act providing for the election and qualification of Justices; [H. R. 205] for the regulation of insanity inquests; [H. R. 194] to fix the ownership of property held for school purposes; [H. R. 191] to amend Section 120 of the Justice's act of June 9, 1852; [H. R. 122] to amend the act prescribing certain duties of Commissioners and other officers; [H. H. 192] to amend the Justice's act of June 9,1852; [H. R. 198] to amend Section 8 of the act of June 17, 1852, relating to trustees of voluntary associations; [H. R. 69] to provide for security and payment of laboring men, etc., and giving them liens; [H. R. 201] concerning County Prisons; [H. R. 271] relating to Clerks of the General Assembly; [H. R. 200] to amend the act of May 14, 1852, relating to decedents and the apportionment of estates; [H. R. 7] concerning quails and pheasants; [H. R. 65] legalizing the Christian College at Merom; [H. R. 141] regulating the sale of scrap metals; [H. R. 199] to amend Section 45 of the act of May 31, 1852, prescribing wo may make a will, etc.; [H. R. 48] to amend the act of June 16, 1852, concerning inclosures, etc.; [H. R. 17] to establish a Superior Court in Vigo County; [H. R. 435] to repeal an act providing for the payment of sundry bonds and stocks of Indiana issue prior to 1841; [H. R. 53] relating to the sounding of locomotive whistles; [H. R. 101] to amend Section 19 of the act establishing a Female Prison; [H. R. 102] to amend an act establishing a House of Refuge; [H. R. 81] to refund to Benton County extraordinary expenses incurred in a murder trial; [H. R. 88] to authorize execution sales of plank and other roads, and empowering purchasers to reorganize; [H. R. 340] to legalize ordinance 63, passed by the town of Edinburgh, etc.; [H. R. 126] requiring railroads to remove rubbish along their lines; [H. R. 134] concerning the employment of shorthand reporters; [H. R. 196] to abolish the office of Assessor in cities and towns; [H. R. 124] relating to sales of property by infants; [H. R. 202] to amend Section 126 of the Justices' act of June 9, 1852; [H. R. 46] to consolidate the Congressional Township fund for the purpose of loaning; [H. R. 197] to amend the act of June 9, 1852, concerning guardian and ward; [H. R. 172] requiring railroads to destroy Canada thistles and other noxious weeds on their right-of-way; [H. R. 193] to amend Section 10 of the decedent estates act of June 17, 1852, and repeal Section 70; [H. R. 195] to provide for the consolidation of two or more Agricultural Societies; [H. R. 227] to amend Sections 3, 8 and 11, and repeal 5, 6 and 7, of the Presidential Electors act; [H. R. 140] to authorize the election of women to school offices; [H. R. 237] concerning landlord and tenant; the House concurrent resolution requesting Congressmen to favor passage of an act making Treasury notes taxable; the House concurrent resolu page: 45[View Page 45]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 45 tion relating to the State's indebtedness to the Common School fund.

The above described bills and resolutions were read the first time and referred to appropriate Committees.

OFFICES AND OFFICERS.

On motion by Mr. FOSTER, the bill [S. 325], a compilation and revision of the existing laws concerning officers and offices, prepared by the Board of Revsion and the Joint Committee upon Revision of the Law, was taken up it having been heretofore read twice by title only.

Mr. VAN VORHIS thought this bill should not be proceeded with so slim a Senate--it s too important a measure. There are a number of other bills from the House that can be taken up.

Mr. KRAMER thought prncipals and sureties should have the benefit of a stay on execution. He moved to so amend Section 10 by striking out the last few words.

Mr. GARRIGUS favored the amendment.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. FOSTER moved to amend Section 13 by requiring two or more freehold sureties on official bonds.

Mr. CHAPMAN thought this bill provides sufficiently for sureties on bonds. He opposed the amendment, not seeing any reason to multiply number when it does not follow that it multiplies security.

The amendment was rejected.

When the Clerk reached Section 59--

Mr. CHAPMAN thought the reading of the bill should be suspended, that members may have an opportunity to examine the printed copy.

Mr. VIEHE said the bill has just been distributed, and he thought the suggestion a good one.

NEW PROPOSITIONS.

Mr. KEISER introduced a bill [S. 337] to authorize and empower Railroad Companies to construct, acquire, maintain and operate telegraph lines for commercial, mercantile and other purposes, which was read the first time and referred to the Committee on Railroads.

Mr. VIEHE introduced a bill [S. 388] prescribing the duties of Coroners in certain cases [shall perform the duty of Sheriff where the latter is incapacitated] which was read the first time and referred to the Judiciary Committee.

And then the Senate, adjourned till to-morrow.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE8.

NEW PROPOSTIONS.

Mr. WRIGHT introduced bill [H. R. 463] authorizing Boards of County Commissioners of the several Counties of the State to purchase toll, gravel, macadamized and paved roads in their respective Counties upon a petition of a majority of the resident land-owners along the road; to issue bonds to raise money for that purpose by taxing lands adjacent to the road, which was read for the first time.

Mr. EDWINS offered a joint resolution, proposing an amendment to the Constitution (Article 6, Section 1) so that State and County offices shall be held for a term of four years.

It was referred to the Judiciary Committee.

EXTRA PAY TO CLERKS.

Mr. FRAZER offered are resolution that Cyrus L. Nixon, Principle Clerk, and Clint C. Riley, Assistant Clerk of the House, be allowed each $300 for superintending the printing of the journal of the regular and special sessions, preparing calendar, etc.

Mr. FRAZER--This makes the amount for both sessions about one-half the sum usually allowed, and I hope the House will alllow it without reference.

On motion by Mr. FRAZER, a Special Committee of Three was appointed for the consideration of this claim. The SPEAKER made the Committee to consist of Messrs. Frazer, Wolfe and Cole.

FISH COMMISSIONER.

The Special Committee on Fisheries reported on the bill [S. 24] for the appointment of a Fish Commissioner, recommending its passage.

The report was concurred in and the bill was read the second time.

WITNESS FEES.

Mr. CARTER--The bill [H. R. 464] concerning fees and salaries. [Witnesses attending Common Pleas, Superior and Circuit Courts shall receive $1.25 per day, also mileage at the rate of five cent per mile; before a Justice of the Peace $1, and mileage five cents; before a Coroner, seventy-five cents and mileage five cents.]

Mr. Fuller's bill [H. R 138-see page 61 of these reports--vol. xix] concerning common carriers was read the third time. Mr. FULLER--There are, I am aware, many persons who oppose this measure, and I believe they do it honestly, from the fact that they think I am trying to bring something to bear that is in opposition to railroads, or that I am opposed to corporations. I would not do one thing that would impede the progress of railroads, for there is no one branch of industry in this country that has brought such wealth or done so much for the State. All I wish to reach in the bill is this:

The unjust discrimination between shippers. That is altogether wrong, especially so when it is presented in like quantities and in the same conditions as presented by any other shipper. When they haul a car from Evansville to Indianapolis for $10 and charge me $24 living at Worthington, about half way between here and Evansville, there is an unjust discrimination made which this bill seeks to correct. I do see the how this bill discriminates or works evil to the Railroad Companies. They have privileges in this country which we have given them. When we undertake to run a comon road through a man's farm we have to petition and work around a great deal to get it, but railroads can go through your farm as they please, and even if necessary tear away the grave of your mother in order to locate their road where they want it. I hope the bill will pass.

Mr. HUSTON--The object that it is desired to attain by this bill meets with my hearty approval. I would favor legislation that would insure to the citizens of Indiana from the onerous burden of discriminating freight rates; but, Mr. Speaker, I am fearful lest this measure will fall short of its object. This bill is of such character as to affect the railroad interest of the whole State, and I regard it of great importance that the proper consideration should be given to all questions that come before us, and especially to such as are involved in this measure in which the whole State is interested. I do not think, sir, that we should act upon this bill without minutely and carefully considering it in all its bearings. I am not speaking in the interest of railroad corporations, but, sir, I do not want that we should enact any law that would so cripple the railroads as not to enable them to do the businesso f the State. Railroads are managed as individuals manage their business. They do business for the money that is in it. And, sir, it is to the interest of the people that they should make money, and thereby be enabled to furnish for transportation of freight and passengers such facilities as the necessities require. I think we can best serve the people by enacting such laws as will give them exemption from any discrimination in freights, and passenger and freight rates, and that will not at some time militate agaist the Railroad Companies page: 46[View Page 46]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 46 because, if we want railroad facilities for the people, we must not, by legislation, render the railroads unable to furnish them. The principle that a railroad shall not charge more for the transportation of a passenger, a less distance that it does a greater, sounds all right but sir, may it not be greatly against the interest of railroads. I am not opposing this bill for any very especial reason other than that I do not think it wise to pass any bill affecting so nearly every inhabitant of the State, as this bill does with the little consideration this has had. We can not exercise too much care in this matter. We do not want to enact any law that will unneccessarily inflict loss, trouble or expense upon any Railroad Company. The people are interested in the success of railroads, and it is not to the interest of the people that they shall be arrayed against the railroad corporation. Their is a mutual interest that naturally should exist between the people and the railroads.

Railroads in fixing the "tariff" take into consideration all matters relating to the business from the various points. The cost of handling, loading and unloading freight, amount shipped, oompetition, etc., all are taken into consideration in making out tariff for freight.

Mr. Speaker let us not be too hasty and pass a law which is not what the demands of the people require. The section of this bill providing that, although rates may advance all through the country, as is the case when the lakes are closed, the railroad cannot charge any higher rate than is being charged when such freight is tendered (or shipment, although the railroad may have been doing its utmost to ship all that was offered. In other words, and to illustrate the principle, the bill provides that a man living along a line of railroad may, knowing that the lakes are about to be frozen up, tender to the Railroad Companies any amount of freight, and, although rates may advance, the mere fact of his having tendered the freight for shipment is sufficient to prevent the railroad from charging the rate greater than charged when such freight was tendered, although every pound of freight possible was being shipped by the Company, And also if any Company, in its own protection, has been compelled to carry freight at less than the cost of such transportation, that any freight offered during such reduction in rates shall be carried at the same reduced rate although six months elapse before the Company is able ship such freight. A Company might offer to ship freight at certain very low rates on account of scarcity of freight. Then, while they are carrying at such low rates and sustaining serious losses, it gives a man the privilege of tendering an amount of freight that will require the utmost efforts of the Companies a whole year to ship, and at only the same low rate, that had not profited the Company, but was a loss to them. Now, I object to this; it is too one-sided, and will not prevent the railroad from giving low rates during certain seasons of the year if they desire. Let us endeavor to enact a law that will be just, and that will certainly give the relief desired.

Mr. FRAZER--I want to say, in discussing this bill, there is not a word or syllable in it that is detrimental to any Railroad Company in this country that is disposed to be fair--not a word. The first section provides that no Railroad Company shall charge more a proportion for transporting freight and passengers a short distance than they charge for transporting a longer distance. We have had Freight Agents before our Committees as well as Auditors of Railroads, and we asked them why the charges were $10 from Evanville, and from Worthington, half the distance, the rate for a car was $24?--not one of them has been able to make a single satisfactory answer. The fact is from Evansville they have opposition, but along the way-stations there is no opposition and they charge what they please. If anybody can give a satisfactory reason why a Railroad Company should charge less for carrying freight 100 miles, than they same amount of freight fifty miles, that Section of the bill should be stricken out. What is the result of all this? At competing points cities have all thi advantages of railroads, while discrimination is made against the way-stations out in the country, where the people have to make up in the shipment of their produce what Railroad Companies lose at large points. Section 4 provides against the discimination between shippers. Everybody who has shipped knows that Companies set their own price and charge what they please. This section merely says you shall ship for A at the same rate you ship for B. This bill is eminently fair to both the shippers and carrier, and ought to pass.

Mr. GILMAN said there was no competition at his town, and the Railroad Company charged its own price; the consequence is that men who buy grain can not afford to pay anything near the market price for grain, because the know when their warehouses are full the Railroad Company advance the rate, thus incurring a high rate of transportation. It is fair and equal that every Railroad Company should be treated alike. He favored the passage of the bill.

The bill passed--yeas, 74; nays, 6.

SHEEP PROTECTION.

The Speaker announced the special order for this hour to be consideration of Mr. Cotton's bill [H R. 36] to protect sheep husbandry. Trustees to register and number all dogs in the State of Indiana. The bill makes it imperative that all owners of dogs should pay the tax, and have them registered by April 1 of the present year. The bill was read the third time.

Mr. COTTON--This bill aims principally at disposing of the dogs that belong to nobody. The record of our State shows that sheep have been decreasing in number in the State for the last five or six years. What is the cause? These curs howling around the country. The cause of this decrease is not in the decline of the price of wool, but it is the dogs killing them all the time. In the last year $5S,000 has been paid by Trustees for sheep killed by dogs. We have to-day not less than 200,000 dogs in the State and less than a million of sheep. I hope this bill will pass, to remedy this growing evil.

The bill passed--yeas, 61; nays, 24.

REORGANIZATION OF THE BENEVOLENT INSTITUTIONS.

Mr. McSHEEHY called up the special order, being the consideration of Mr. Berryman's bill [H. R. 255] for the government of Benevolent Institutions of the State.

A majority report of the Committee was submitted, recommending the passage of the bill.

A minority of the same Committee were opposed to the passage of this bill because its object is a political one only, and recommended its indefinite postponement.

Mr McCLURE said with all due respect to civil service reform, he objected to the reorganization of the Prisons by the appointment of three Trustees by the Governor. The people under the present management have accomplished great good, as it has saved the State annually $60,000. He thought the Republicans could wait two years longer before assuming control of these Institutions.

The minority report was rejected and the majority report was concurred in.

Mr. Meredith moved to amend by making the term of office of the Directors four instead of six years. It is considered unconstitutional to make the term six years, and this amendmend remedies that point.

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. KENNER moved to allow the Trustees a salary of $250. Section 10 provides that they shall receive their traveling expenses and ex- page: 47[View Page 47]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 47 penses incurred in and about their business; that it is a very indefinite provision. It may be anything. While the State does not ask these officers to serve for nothing, yet it is but right we should know what we are paying the money for.

Mr. NEFF said it should be an object to get men of experience in this matter, and it would be nothing more than right that they should be paid a fair salary.

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. MEREDITH moved to engross the bill.

Mr. EDWINS entered his protest against the engrossment of the bill, and moved to lay the motion on the table.

This motion was rejected--yeas, 32; nays, 51.

Mr. SCHWEITZER favored viewing these Institutions from a beneficial and benevolent standpoint, and not from a political one. He gave the statistics of the Institutions for the last ten years, showing a gain under Democratic supervision of about $60,000 a year. That is what he considered economy, and he wanted that kind of economy to continue.

AFTERNOON SESSION.

THE COMMON SCHOOL SYSTEM.

The House resumed the consideration of the bill [H. R. 322] concerning common schools.

Mr. RYAN moved to require an itemized account, under oath, of all the expenses of the County Superintendent. He said: The restriction of the County Superintendent to draw this visiting fund from the Treasury, is not guarded in this statute, and the privilege guaranteed to Superintendents by this section has been in many instances abused. The purpose of this amendment is not to restrict him from drawing this fund for a proper cause, but for the purpose of guarding the treasury in the expenditures of the money.

The amendment was adopted.

The question being on a motion to reconsider the vote by which the pay of County Superintendents was reduced from $4.00 to $3.00 per day--

Mr. MOODY said: I desire, before this question is voted upon, to present some facts for the consideration of the House, and especially for those gentlemen who have so persistently opposed the office of County Superintendent. In the first place, Mr. Speaker, I consider this amendment a stab in the dark--an attempt to accomplish, indirectly, that which could not and can not be accomplished directly. On yesterday the question the of abolishing the office of County Superintendent came squarely before this House and was defeated by a large vote, and the enemies of this office, not being satisfied with this, seek now to accomplish this result by cutting down the per diem of the County Superintendent of our schools until he shall receive less than the spittoon-cleaners of this House.

Gentleman, I regard this question of more importance than any question we have considered during the pendency of this bill, and for this reason alone do I ask your attention a short time. Should you refuse to reconsider this question, then the County Superintendents are to receive $3 per day for their services, and only $3. This bill expressly provides that they shall receive no perquistes whatever, no constructive fees--nothing. They must be, or should be--and, I do believe, generally are--men of ability, integrity and fidelity; in many cases men who have given their best days to the subject of education, and I desire to see the men on record who propose to continue this office, and say he shall receive only $3 per day, when Members of this House are drawing $6 per day. I am satisfied that the Superintendents of this State average in ability with the Members of this Assembly.

The gentleman from Knox (Mr. Cauthorne) says Professor Smart knew when he insisted on retaining the office of County Superintendent, two years ago, that not one-half of the people of the State were in favor of the office. It seems very strange, gentlemen, that a man who is the peer of any man in this State, and I might say with propriety, a man whose reputation is not confined to State or country, but who is regarded by foreign Nations as a man standing at the very front of the educational interests in this country, should prepare a bill recommending the continuation of this office, if he believed, after dedicating fifteen years of his life to the promotion of our Common Schools in this State, and by this labor raise the standard of Common Schools in Indiana, until every man who is an Indianian points with pride to the Commn Schools of the State. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, it seems strange that any man, in the face of all this, would insist upon the continuation of this office if he believed the opposition to this office existed that the gentleman from Knox says he knows of.

The only reason given by any member for doing away with this office is on account of the enormous expense to the people. Has the gentleman from Knox, or any other member, furnished anything reliable as to the amount paid these officers? If they have, I have not heard it. Nothing has been urged against the efficiency of these officers only the great expense. On the question of expense I submit some statistics for the benefit of the gentlemen opposing this reconsideration. I find, Mr. Speaker, that in eighty-three Counties in the State the County Superintendents, including the cost of County Institutes, cost the County on an average $640: that sixteen Counties pay them less than $1,500, forty-five Counties pay them less than $1,000, twenty-six Counties pay them less than $800, eleven Counties pay them less than $600, five Counties pay them less than $500, and only one County in the State paid in 1879 more than $1,700, and none more than $1800. In the face of these facts which can not be denied, I ask you, gentlemen, will you not reconsider this amendment, and either abolish this office or pay such a salary to its officers as will bring to the discharge of its duties competency, ability and fidelity to the cause of Common Schools.

Gentlemen have seen fit to call this office "fifth wheel to a wagon"--useless, and of no benefit to the schools. Professor Smart says on page sixty-nine of his last report: "It is claimed that County superintendency is expensive. This is true, but the work done is a necessity. The County Superintendent receives $4 per day for his services; out of this per diem he is obliged to pay his traveling expenses, and not infrequently his own office expenses, including janitor, stationery, postage etc. Many of the County Superintendents do not receive $2 per day for their services, and not one in ten of them is constantly employed. In most Counties they receive less than $600 net; in some Counties less than $300." In the proposed County Superintendency in the State of Ohio the lowest salary fixed at $800 and the highest at $2,000. He further adds: " I am satisfied after a careful investigation of the workings of the system, that if it be abolished or seriously impaired it result in irreparable loss to the schools in the State."

Our gentleman says he is a teacher and that he never derived any benefit from the visits of the County Superintendent. This may be, and yet it may not have been--and I dare say was not--the fault of the Superintendent; and, in my humble judgment, when a teacher says he can not receive any benefit from those visits I think he is no longer needed in the school-room, and should seek other and broader fields in which to cultivate his talent.

As the adverse tide of battle brings true soldiers to the front, so the manifold labors of teaching page: 48[View Page 48]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 48 disclose the live teacher resolutely holding the reins of authority and strenuously urging his pupils to do their duty. At any and at all times the visit of the Superintendent is to him a gladsome occasion. Hearty commendation infuses renewed vitality to the school, and a quiet approval cheers the teacher. While some receive official visits with dismay, the great majority find in them a genuine pleasure, a present help and a grateful recollection. Much of this depends upon the profession and character of the Superintendent. He should have been a prominent and successful teacher, irreproachable in character, educated in the branches, well informed as to the needs and condition of schools, and, withal, a man kindly, firm, energetic and influential. Observant, he should have fluent expression; practical, he should make the advancement of teachers, the improvement of schools, and the best interests of education, his principal employment and paramount endeavor. Should the relations between Superintendent and Teacher produce the good which they are intended to accomplish, the result must be a strong indorsement of the system of the County Superintendency.

Mr. FANCHER--I believe that all the members come here instructed by their constituents to reduce the expenses of the County Superintendent, and I believe the fault requested to be remedied by our constituents is to reduce the expense of County Superintendents in visiting schools. From 1871 the law has been that County Commissioners might limit visits by the Superintendent to schools. The same identical words are incorporated in this bill as in the law of 1871.

The bad features of this bill are this: The number of days allowed shall not be less than three-quarters, bear that in mind. In the bill we are working at it is three-quarters instead of one-half. The result of that provision is this: It is obligatory on the part of the Superintendent to put in as many days as there are schools in the County, and he can put in as many days as he likes; there is no limit whatever. Right there is where the objection comes in to the County Superintendent. I say that it is useless for the County Superintendent to put in the hot days in the summer, as many do, when there are only five or six children in the school house. Many of them put in a greater portion of the time under a shade tree.

Mr. MORGAN--I am opposed to this amendment. If we are to have County Superintendents we should pay wages that will command the talent of the best teachers of the country. Three dollars per day will not do this. To be a good County Superintendent requires more learning and ability and as much integrity as it does to be a County Clerk or Sheriff. While the latter make from $10 to $50 per day, you are not willing for the former to have $4. The City Superintendents of Schools receive from $5 to $10 per day every day of the year. The city schools are superior to the country schools. This is largely due to an efficient superintendency. I want to see the country boys have as good schools as their city cousins. To attain this end I want able County Superintendents, and they can not be had without paying them good wages. The members of this House receive $6 per day for their services to the State of Indiana. Twenty-four of every twenty-five of the County Superintendents are men of more learning and ability than the gentlemen who, in the name of the people, are clamoring to cut down the wages of the County Superintendents.

There is opposition to County Superintendents visiting schools. This opposition is not founded on good grounds. Every one knows that the person who passes the best examination often is not the best teacher. By visiting the schools the Superintendent may test the practical ability of one to teach, and the next time he applies for license take this into consideration.

They say the people are opposed to County Superintendents. I do not believe this. Only one man in my County has spoken to me unfavorable to Superintendents. And if my constituents were opposed to County Superintendents, and before I would vote to rob the country children of good teachers and well organized schools, I would prefer to give up the honors of office. Let us maintain our common school system--that, more than anything else, reflects honor upon the proud State of Indiana.

Mr. CARTER--It seems to me it would put us in a bad light when we pay a man who cleans spittoons $3 50 a day, to say we will only pay the Superintendent of our County Schools $3 per day. I am not one of those who propose to do any such thing.

Mr. MARSHALL--I think if the members comply with the wish of their constituents they will not uphold uch salaries as are perin tendents. We are paying the Trustees of our State to-day $2 per day, and these Trustees are putting in their time faithfully and honestly in the cause of education, trying to build up this Institution, and you are now preparing to pay $4 or $5 to the County Superintendent to shake hands with teachers, pupils and school-ma'ms. I have taught in Common Schools, and I am proud of it. I have not been visited ten times by a County Superintendent, and never received ten cents' worth of benefit.

Mr. COMPTON--For one farmer, I am here to represent the people of the State of Indiana. The County Superintendent is in the interest of the poor class of people whre this officer has been made efficient. The faults are not in the law; it is not in the office, but in the execution of that law. The gentleman who last spoke [Mr. Marshall] acknowledged that the County Superintendent has been a failure on account of the men who were put into office. I say, sir, let us have the County Superintendents, and if you can not find good men in your County, import men who will raise the educational interest of the State. Indiana, sir, has been paramount in her education, and I want to make her paramount in every respect; and I say we must not abolish the County Superintendency.

The amendment reducing County Superintendents per diem from $4 to $3 was reconsidered and rejected.

Mr. KENNER moved to amend the bill by adding "and he shall not be allowed for more than thirty days' office work." He said the favored giving Superintendents $4 per day for every honest day's work. Oftentimes they bring in charges for fifty or sixty days' work. Under this amendment they can not be allowed for more than thirty days' office work.

Mr. FANCHER thought every County Superintendent should be able to perform the office work in ten days, If an amendment is proposed, including the examination of vouchers and making out the licenses, he would support it.

Mr. RYAN offered a substitute. The County Board shall make no allowance to such Superintendent on account of the office work done by him until he shall have first filed, with his affidavit attached, the particular kind of service for which he claims pay and the amount of time which he devoted to each item of services. He thought the work of the County Superintendent ought to be restricted. He considered the amendment not conclusive enough, becauge the requirements in some Counties are greater than others.

Mr. KENNER was of the opinion that the substitute was offered simply to get rid of his amendment, as the law already in force was similar in its construction to the substitute.

The substitute and the amendment were both rejected.

Mr. GILMAN offered an amendment to prevent any limit being placed upon the time in which a change in the text books of schools should be page: 49[View Page 49]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 49 made. In case a book is introduced, under the present bill it remains for ten years, and the publisher can charge almost any price for the books whereas, if this amendment prevails, it does not place any limit upon the duration, and can be changed in case of such an emergency.

On motion by Mr. COMPTON, the amendment was laid on the table.

Mr. GILLUM offered an amendment providing that the furniture of any Township can not be changed without permission from the Board of Directors. They should have the privilege to do it, as they are the parties interested in the furniture of their schools.

The amendment was adopted.

Messrs. KENNER and McINTOSH protested against the refusal of the Speaker to order the yeas amd nays upon their demand, this forenoon, upon the vote on an amendment to Section 39. They asked that the protest be entered on the journal.

After debate, the protest was withdrawn.

Mr. KENNER--In my County a great many German as well as American citizens desire their children educated in German. Our Board of Trustees do not regard the laws binding. He moved an amendment allowing a half hour to be devoted to this branch.

The amendment was adopted.

FEES AND SALARIES.

On motion by Mr. WILSON, the Senate concurrent resolution that the Committees on Fees and Salaries of the two Houses be instructed to draft and report at the earliest day practicable a bill fixing the fees and salaries of public officers, and submit the same to the General Assembly for action thereon was adopted.

Then the House adjourned till to-morrow.

SHEEP PROTECTION.

Following is a full text of the remarks of Mr. COTTON on the passage of his bill H. R. 36--see page 46.

Mr. SPEAKER--The principles of this bill are new, so far as the rural districts of the State are concerned, that is, the principle of killing. But it is not new in some of our cities, even in this State, and in some of the Eastern cities it has long been in practice, and it works well. What, sir, is the dread of the farmer that is raising sheep? It is not the fear of the decline in the price of wool or of sheep, but the dread of having his flock destroyed by the everlasting cur.

This bill provides that the dog that is not registered and ornamented with the proper tag is an outlaw and may be killed whereever found. The dog is a peculiar animal. He is like the sneak that prowls around our houses at night and is gone when the light comes. He does his "mischief" in the still hours of night. He is unlike the intruding horse or cow that breaks into your premises. You find them there in the morning and may hold them until damage is paid. But the dog has destroyed your sheep and fled to his owner's shed, who is willing to swear that he had not been from his premises for two weeks at least. The only way to reach him is with cold lead. To-day we have 200,000 dogs in Indiana. What is the result? Less than 1,000,000 sheep, and we would double the number of sheep in a short time if it was not for the fear that the farmer has of losing his flock by the dogs.

Mr. Speaker, the statistics show that the Township Trustees of the several Townships of the State, for the fiscal year ending last June, paid for sheep killed by dogs over $56,000, and the funds ran short in many Townships, and the sheep were not paid for. A large per cent. of those paid for were paid at a reduced rate, and I think that I am justified from these figures is saying that the value of sheep killed last year was $100,000 at least.

The number of sheep in this State has decreased, while it should increase. It is not for the want of profit in raising sheep, for experience shows that they pay as large a per cent. as any stock raised on the farm.

I am asked what is the objection to the present law. I answer that the Assessor does not get over 50 per cent. of the dogs on his list, and that 25 per cent. of those belong to to persons that pay no tax.

This bill works no hardship to the man that pays his license on his dog. Why should not the owners of the dogs pay for the damage done by them? If my horse, cow or hog damages my neighbor's property, I must pay for it under the law. Now, gentlemen, the question for you to settle is whether we shall raise dogs or sheep.

The bill passed the House by yeas, 61; nays, 24.

page: [50][View Page [50]]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page [50]

THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
VOLUME TWENTY.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
SPECIAL SESSION.

IN SENATE.

Prayers were said by Rev. Thomas H. Lynch.

THE WORLD'S FAIR.

Mr. LEEPER offered the following:

Resolved, That the Committee on Finance be instructed to inquire into the expediency of making an appropriation for the purpose of having the State properly represented as the World's Fair, to be held in New York in 1883, and to report to the Senate by bill or otherwise.

The resolution was adopted.

ENFRANCHISEMENT OF WOMEN.

Mr. YANCEY introduced a joint resolution requesting Indiana Congressmen to favor the passage of an amendment to the Federal Constitution prohibiting the disfranchisement of citizens of the United States on account of sex which was read the first time and referred to the Committee on Rights and Privileges of the inhabitants of the State.

ASSESSMENT FOR TAXATION.

On motion by Mr. MENZIES, the bill [H. R. 204] concerning taxation--being a codification of all existing laws on the assessment and collection of taxes, with an addition of 5 per cent. of new matter--a bulky bill, embracing nearly 300 sections, was ordered read the third time.

As soon as the Clerk commenced reading--

Mr. CHAPMAN suggested that no vote of any kind be taken on this bill this morning. If it is understood that no vote will be taken with reference to this bill until the afternoon, when every Senator can act understandingly, and give his time and attention to other business.

The PRESIDENT pro tem (Mr. Menzies in the Chair)--It will be taken by consent that there will be no vote on the final passage of this bill until this afternoon, if the bill should be read through this forenoon.

When the reading was announced as completed--

Mr. GARRIGUS moved to refer the bill to a Select Committee of Two to re-number the sections.

The motion was agreed to, and the President pro tem made the Committee to consist of Messrs. Garrigus and Owen.

AFTERNOON SESSION.

Mr. GARRIGUS, from the Special Committee thereon, returned the bill, H. R. 204, with a report recommending that the sections should not be re-numbered till after final action on the bill by the House of Representatives.

The report was concurred in.

Mr. BROWN moved that the vote on the passage of the bill be taken at 2:30 o'clock this afternoon. He demanded the previous question, which was seconded by the Senate, and the main question ordered.

The motion was agreed to.

Subsequently, when the time arrived--

Mr. BROWN demanded that the vote be taken on the passage of the bill.

The bill passed the Senate by--yeas, 33; nays, 12--as follows:

Yeas--Messrs. Benz, Briscoe, Chapman, Coffey, Compton, Comstock, Davis, Garrigus, Graham, Grubbs, Hart, Henry, Hostetter, Kahlo, Keiser, Kramer, Langdon, Lockridge, Major, Menzies, Owen, Poindexter, Ristine, Sayre, Shaffer, Urmston, Van Vorhis, Viehe, Voyles, White, Wilson, Wood and Yancey--33.

Nays--Messrs. Bell, Brown, Bundy, Foster, Hefron, Hutchinson, Leeper, McCartney, Marvin, Smith, 8pann and Woollen--12.

Mr. BELL, in explanation of his vote, says: "I am sorry I can not vote for this bill. Our tax law needs revision. It is crude and incongruous. So, in many respects, is this bill. I have done all I could to aid in perfecting it--at least getting it in the best shape possible. Still, in my opinion, many of its provisions are unwise, impolitic and of doubtful validity and constitutionality. I need not at this time point out more specifically these defects. My objections have been made from time to time during the consideration of the bill. I am constrained to vote 'No.'"

Mr. COFFEY, in explanation of his vote says: page: 51[View Page 51]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 51 There are provisions in the bill that I do not approve. I can not now take the time to point these out. I will, however, refer to one, that on dispensing with the publication of the delinquent tax list. Why Senators should upon this floor, thus stab the newspaper press of our State I can not understand. It is not only in the interest of newspapers that the lists should be published, but it is in the interest of the people. It is to be presumed that many of our citizens will pay their tax who otherwise would not, rather than have their names appear in the publication of the delinquent list. The publication of the list costs the public nothing, the expense thereof is borne by the delinquent tax-payer, and this is an additional inducement for him to pay his tax, and not become delinquent. But while these objections to the bill exist, it contains many provisions not contained in the present law. Under it property heretofore not taken will be subjected to taxation, and revenues derived from sources from which heretofore none were derived. It is is many respects a much better bill than the present law. The defects in the bill can be remedied in the House, and believing that they will I vote "aye."

Mr. HOSTETTER, in explanation of his vote, says: I do not like this bill in several respects, but believing it the best bill we can get and thinking it an improvement on the old law, I will vote "aye."

Mr. McCARTNEY, in explanation of his vote, says: The self-constituted guardians of the tax bill, after setting the seal of their own approval upon it, have repelled all efforts at amendment, and now sttempt to force its passage under the gag law. The bill has many good points, but has so many defects requiring amendment that it is unfit to become a law. I vote "no."

Mr. LEEPER, in explanation of his vote, says: I voted against the bill for the reason that the multiplicity of amendments adopted have rendered it decidedly crude and incongruous, so that, as a whole, it is perhaps no improvement on the present law, while some of the changes proposed, in my judgment, are palpably objectionable.

Mr. MARVIN, in explanation of his vote, says: When House bill No. 204 was put upon its passage I voted against it for the reason that amendments were made to it that I could not vote for, particularly the one that struck out Section 206 in regard to the publishing of the delinquent tax list by the County Auditor in a weekly newspaper of the County for three weeks before the sale of the delinquent lands. I believe it is unjust and wrong to sell a person'a land for any purpose without first giving due notice thereof, and I believe a great wrong may be done thereby.

Mr. SPANN, in explanation of his vote, says: In my judgment this bill has been driven through the Senate under whip and spur--in other words, under what may be termed the gag rule. This bill has been very hastily considered for one of so much importance, for I consider it to be the most important piece of legislative work done by this body during this session. In all that I have said on the merits of the bill while the same was under consideration, I have endeavored to deal fairly with all classes, but in some of my views as to what would be justice to individuals and corporations, I have been overruled, and I can not now vote for a bill which I do consider very unjust in some of its parts. Not deeming this the time to point out these objections, I vote "no."

Mr. WOOLLEN, in explanation of his vote, says: So far as this bill aims to tax foreign corporations doing business in this State I indorse it; but some of its provisions I conceive to be crude and conflicting, while others I belive to be positively vicious and impracticable. Especially is this the case with that section abolishing the long-established custom of advertising the delinquent list. That the State should proceed to sell the land of any citizen without giving him due notice of such sale to me a preposterous proposition, and I hesitate not in saying that under the operation of this section, if it becomes a law, more than one honest citizen will lose the title to his land, if tax titles are held to be legal when the land has been sold without due notice of such sale having been given. There are other sections, also, in the bill that I can not sanction, and hence am compelled to vote against the passage of the bill in its present form.

And so the tax bill passed under the operations of the previous qnestion.

THE GENERAL APPROPRIATION BILL.

Mr. BUNDY offered a resolution that at 2 o'clock Monday the Senate will proceed to the consideration of the general appropriation bill, and continue the same until it is disposed of.

Mr. OWEN said it was evident that not sufficient care and attention was given to the preparation of this bill. The Senate Committee on Finance have had it under consideration for some time, and have felt it necessary to summon the Superintndents of the different Benevolent Institutions to appear before it for examination as to the real wants of these Institutions. The Senate ought not to take up this bill until the Committee on Finance has had a fair opportunity to find out what the real wants of these Institutions are. The Committee will not be ready to report before Thursday, for the facts necessary for a proper base to the appropriation bill can not possibly be obtained before that time.

On motion by Mr. FOSTER, word "Thursday" was substituted for the word "Monday" in the resolution.

The resolution as amended was adopted.

OFFICES AND OFFICERS.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill [S. 325], being a compilation of all the laws concerning offices and officers, beginning as Section 59.

Mr. KRAMER insisted co-sureties on an old bond are interested in the release of sureties on said bond, and should of right be notified of such proceeding. He moved to amend Section 30 so as to provide for such notice.

Mr. BELL offered a similar amendment on yesterday to a different section, supposing the case was covered by subsequent section. If one surety seeks to be releived, his co-sureties ought to be notified.

Mr. V1EHE understood this section does not contemplate the release of any surety.

Mr. URMSTON insisted that in other sections this matter is covered. He moved to refer this Section 30 to Messrs. Viehe and Comstock.

Mr. COMSTOCK thought it unnecessary to refer this section. It is clear; it does not propose to release any security; it simply requires additional security. He should vote for the amendment though believing it unnecessary.

Mr. HENRY opposed both the amendment and the motion to refer. There are provisions for adding securities in other portions of the bill. There can be no good reason why the co-sureties should be notified. This section simply allows another to sign the surety bond. It is for the advantage of the old sureties, and they are in no way injured by the proceeding.

Mr. MENZIES, being so informed, opposed the amendment, fearing it may mar the symmetry of the bill.

Mr. URMSTON did not see this point as the two Senators who have last spoken. If a party can show good cause why he should be released from a bond, under a provision of law, he should be released. He insisted on his motion to refer the section.

Mr. FOSTER noticed a disagreement among lawyers on this question--something unusual here--and he desired to see a farmer on this Com- page: 52[View Page 52]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 52 mittee. He moved the Special Committee shall consist of three.

This motion was agreed to.

The motion to refer was rejected.

The amennment was lost.

Mr. MENZIES offered an amendment to Section 77 that all printing, under any existing statutes, shall be done on the same equality as County printing. He had nothing but the kindest feeling for the "two leading newspapers" in this city.

On motion by Mr. URMSTON, the Section 77 was stricken from the bill.

Mr. COMSTOCK said Section 78 is in the act of 1879, fixing prices for public printing.

Mr. CHAPMAN moved to strike out Section 78.

Mr. COMSTOCK thought it proper that a price should be fixed. It will avoid bargaining every time an advetisement is desired to be made.

Mr. BELL moved to refer Sections 78 and 79 to a Special Committee of five.

Mr. CHAPMAN--The value of an advertisement depends on the circulation of the paper, and no fixed price can be set that will work justly, if the object be to make public certain facts.

Mr. OWEN favored the motion to refer. No publisher can obtain any great advantage from publishing executions or small advertisements, but the Sheriff's and some other advertisements are sometimes enormously charged for, and he cited an instance in a paper before him.

Mr. KEISER did not believe there is a publisher in Indiana who will swear to a publication made by him which is not right and proper, and if Senators assumee that the publishers of Indiana are thieves the assumption is unfounded and can not be sustained by facts. One dollar a square for the first, and fifty cents for each subsequent insertion is not too much. These men are working every day of their lives of for the best interests of the State, and a great majority of them scarcely make a living. The great trouble is legislation is too often enacted without careful consideration. He counselled obtaining information from persons experienced in matters desired to be considered, and made no opposition to the motion to refer this section to a Select Committee.

Mr. VAN VORHIS said that in Indianapolis municipal advertisements are printed the year round for twelve cents per square.

Mr. WOOD asked why Senators are struck with such a streak of economy just at this point in the bill? He was willing the law shall stand as it has stood for a number of years.

The motion to refer Sections 78 and 79 to a Select Committee of five was agreed to, and the Chair appointed Messrs. Bell, Keiser, Comstock, Chapman and Foster said Committee.

Mr. KEISER declined to serve, being an interested party.

The Chair appointed Mr. Owen in place of Mr. Keiser.

Mr. CHAPMAN could see no reason of re-enacting laws set down in the Constitution of the State as is proposed in Sections 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86 and 87 of this bill. He moved to strike them out.

Mr. MENZIES, although the statement of the Senator is true, saw no objection to retaining these sections in the bill to preserve its symmetry, so any person can find all law appertaining to the Governor in one place. As a matter of convenience to people who are not lawyers, he saw no harm in leaving the sections in the bill.

Mr. BUNDY considered the object of this bill is to compile all statutes on this subject under one act.

Mr. BROWN at first was inclined to support the motion to strike out, but upon reflecting that one object here is to codify propositions under different heads in the Constitution and in the statute, infinite convenience and much good may result therefrom.

Mr. COMSTOCK saw force in the objection to retaining these sections in the bill, but not sufficient to overbear the advantge of having all points on one subject placed together.

The motion to strike out was rejected--yeas, 13; nays, 21.

Mr. GRUBBS said: "There is not one word in the five sections--95, 96, 97, 98 and 99--but may be found in the Constitution," and he moved to strike them out.

Mr. BROWN--If the object--codification--in view when this bill was prepared is to be carried out, then these sections should remain.

Mr. URMSTON could see no justification in voting for coupling provisions of the Constitution with subject matters of our statute laws.

Mr. CHAPMAN asked what right the General Assembly had to waste time and money for the purpose of putting in the statute book the organic law of the land? If the Legislature has no better business than re-enacting the Constitution of the State it had better adjourn and go home.

Mr. COMSTOCK thought the Board of Revision had not exceeded its duty in the preparation of this bill, This bill is to revise the laws on this subject, as a matter of convenience--to simply abridge and make them complete.

The motion to strike out was rejected by yeas, 14; nays, 23.

The Senate adjourned till to-morrow.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

CITY AND TOWN ELECTIONS.

Mr. WRIGHT offered a resolution that a Special Comnmittee of four--two from the House and two from the Senate--be appointed to consider the bills [H. R. 122 and S. 84] concerning elections of city and town officers, etc., and report thereon to the General Assembly. He said the Senate has passed a bill [S. 84] proposing to amend the law on the subject of town elections, and this House has passed a bill [H. R. 122] on the same subject. The two bills are widely different, therefore introduce this resolution in order that one or the other bill may become a law.

The resolution was adopted, and the SPEAKER made the Committee on part of the House to consist of Messrs. Wright and McIntosch.

COMMON SCHOOLS.

The House resumed the consideration of the bill [H. R. 322] concerning Common Schools.

Mr. MURRAY moved to amend Section 98 by striking out the word "eight" and inserting in lieu thereof the word "seven" per cent. interest.

Mr. MORGAN moved to amend the amendment, viz.: "Not less than 6 nor more than 8 per cent."

Mr. DAVIS offered a substitute by striking out the word "eight" where it occurs and inserting in lieu the word "six."

Mr. MURRAY said: "This amendment simply reduces the rate of interest on the school fund."

Mr. EDWINS--In view of the fact that our Government is loaning its funds at from 4 1/2 per cent. to as low as 3 1/2 per cent., and the legal rate of interest our own State is 6 per cent. I do not think that our school fund, which is loaned amongst ourselves and for the benefit of our smaller class of farmers, ought to be loaned for more than 6 per cent. interest. While I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from Union (Mr. Huston) I can not but be impressed with the fact that the business the gentleman is engaged in precludes the posibility of his supporting the measure under consideration. The business of banking is and always has been at variance with a low rate of interest, and while I concede the fact that a man should at all times look well to his own interest, I do not consider that a Member elected to represent a County on this floor ought to use that position to advance his own interests. Did you ever con- page: 53[View Page 53]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 53 sider the difference in the manner of borrowing money from the school fund on one hand and borrowing money from your neighbor and neighboring bank on the other? On the one hand you go to your neighbor, or neighborhood bank, with your personal security on a plain note of hand, and get your money at 6 or 8 per cent. On the other hand, in the first place you have to file with the Auditor the certificate of the Clerk and Recorder that there is no incumbrance on your land, and you pay for that; you must have your little plat of land appraised, and you pay for that; you have a mortage drawn by the Auditor, and you pay for that; you have your mortgage recorded and you pay for that; the Auditor demands his interest in advance, and you pay that. Count all this up, and see if this 8 per cent. don't amount up to 9 or 10 before the mortgage is finally released. Then Mr. Speaker, as money is floating all around us at from 4 to 6 per cent. interest, why should not we loan to our farmers our school fund at 6 per cent. rather than allow it to accumulate on our hands at 8 per cent. and not bring into our school fund any revenue at all?

Mr. STEWART said he was willing that the school money should be loaned at a less rate than money of individuals. He considered it an imperative necessity to loan this fund at a less rate because it requires more stringent security. He favored the substitute because the demand in some Counties is greater than in others, and money can be loaned out in some Counties at 7 per cent. where in others it would lie in the treasury for want of borrowers. It is better to have the money loaned out all the time at a little less rate of interest than to have part of the fund lying idle and another part drawing a high rate of interest.

Mr. WRIGHT was opposed to reducing the rate of interest on this fund, and thought the substitute offered by the gentleman from Vigo [Mr. Morgan], would not do at all, because County Auditors have particular friends to whom they would be very likely to loan this money at a low rate, and those on not so friendly relations with the County Auditor would have an opportunity to pay 8 per cent. He opposed reducing the rate for the other reason that nearly all the money could be loaned at the present rate.

Mr. COMPTON thought it a gain to have all the money loaned out at 6 per cent. than but a portion at a higher rate.

Mr. MORGAN understood that if the County does not succeed in loaning all the money they are responsible for the interest on the full amount anyway. Some thirty or forty Counties have a large amount of this fund on hand which they can not loan. He favored giving the County Auditor discretionary power to loan at 6 or 8 per cent., thus giving as much freedom as possible, which will prevent Counties from paying interest on money not loaned.

Mr. HUSTON did not object to fixing the rate of interest at 7 or 6 per cent., but he considered it a serious objection to allow County Auditors to fix the rate of interest on this fund. There would necessarily have to be some enactment requiring the Auditor to show that the money was loaned at a certain rate. He thought the only wise step to be taken in this matter would be to establish some rate of interest.

Mr. CABBAGE thought 8 per cent. interest was too high a rate for the farmer to pay. He said the House was called upon to say what is just in this matter, rather than what they can compel the farming community to do. He favored a 6 per cent. rate.

Mr. MOODY thought there ought to be a uniform law all over the State, and also a provision by which school funds not loaned in one County may be tranferred to another County where there is a demand for the money.

Mr. MORGAN withdrew his amendment.

Mr. RYAN said there is no difficulty in loaning the school fund at the present rate of interest. The difficulty seemed to be the clause in Section 97 compelling the payment of the interest by the County on the money, whether loaned out or not. There is a solution of that problem, a better one than to charge the rate of interest, which is to change the provision requiring Counties to pay interest on unloaned money.

Mr. RYAN moved to strike out of Section 112 the words "attorneys' fees," also the words "on failure to pay such principal and interest and 2 per centum of damages." He said there is no reason why the borrower of the State of Indiana should pay an attorney for collecting that money.

Mr. COLE hoped the amendment would not prevail, as a party who is to blame for the non-payment of a claim ought to be compelled to pay attorneys' fees. When a man employs an attorney he did not think the State of Indiana ought to pay his attorneys' iees. He believed the section was right as it is.

Mr. MOODY favored the amendment.

Mr. FRAZER--This is a question whether or not the State should be compelled to pay attorneys' fees where the borrower puts the State to costs.

Mr. RYAN thought it no more than right that the State should protect individuals against exorbitant attorneys' fees.

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. KAIN offered an amendment to Section 104, providing that the attorney should receive no compensation for examining titles of applicants to the real estate offered for mortgage to secure a loan of the school fund. He said: We have first the certificate of the County Clerk, and also that of the County Recorder to the effect that no incumbrance endangered the real estate offered as security to the State for the use of a small portion of the school fund, the State certainly should feel secure under the certificate of these officers taken directly from the records. And another very serious objection is that to obtain the opinion or approval of the County Attorney will doubtless entail an expense that will render the lending of the funds extremely diffcult, if not defeat it entirely. We regard it impolitic to thus incumber the school funds with such heavy expense as to compel their loan at a low rate of interest, and thus defeat the ends intended to be subserved.

Mr. AKIN-It occurs to me that Section 129 provides for that. There is no necessity for the amendment. It sets the price for each item to be charged. I believe that these fees should be charged. I, therefore, move to lay the amendment on the table.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. CAUTHORNE moved to amend Section 123 by striking out the words "by him." He said the object is simply to leave the debt to be prosecuted by the State of Indiana. If it is a foreclosure the Sheriff is there to do it.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. RYAN moved to amend Section 129 as follows: Change the figures in line two to twenty-five cents, recording mortgages in line three to fifty cents, drawing up mortgages, twenty-five cents, Clerk's certificate in line six, twenty-five 'cents, recording certificate, fifty cents. He could see no good reason why this reduction should not be made. He knew that men who have had experience in loaning money, it took them about fifteen minutes to perform this duty, and by being employed all day there is no telling how much he could make.

Mr. BUSKIRK sa4d there was more work on a school fund mortgage than a common deed, for which the law now allows $1.25. He ought to have at least as much for recording a school mortgage as an ordinary deed. He opposed the amendment.

Mr. FLOYD thought the amendment was about page: 54[View Page 54]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 54 right; since the Constitutional Amendments were adopted, we ought to begin to regulate fees and salaries.

Mr. MOODY thought it unwise to maek such a radical change. A good attorney would not give his opinion upon the validity of a paper, leave alone performing labor upon it for the small amount of fifty cents.

Mr. CARTER was opposed to this wholesale reduction. When an abstract of title costs $10, it is beyond all reason to require an attorney to draw up a deed for the small sum of fifty cents.

Mr. BAKER--There is no danger of the officers going to the Poor House by the operation of this amendment. I favor this amendment because it is radically right and ought to pass.

Mr. BUSKIRK moved to amend the amendment by inserting therein "$1.10" for recording mortgages, instead of fifty cents.

Mr. MURRAY--The fees as they stand in this bill are the same as they were twenty years ago. My experience and observation is that they are small enough. This includes the abstract and everything necessary to make it a record. I am opposed to the ameudments.

AFTERNOON SESSION.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. RYAN moved to amend Section 142 by striking out the words, "five per cent. damages." He said: After the purchaser of the land has paid the interest and cost after the land has been taken from him, he did not see any reason why he should be further punished by the payment of 5 per cent. damages. The man has already suffered enough by losing his land without paying this penalty.

Mr. WALZ was opposed to striking out. He referred to a case in his own Township where a man purchased such school land on credit, cut off the timber, and made over $1,000 from the proceeds of the timber and gave the land back. He thought a 5 per cent. a small damage in case the owner surrenders the land to the school fund.

Mr. KENNER--I am afraid these many amendments are going to destroy the effect of this school bill. If a man buys land, and without paying for it removes the timber, if he does that there ought to be a penalty imposed.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. RYAN moved to amend Section 143 by inserting the words "together with 2 per cent. damages on the principal sum." He said: It occurs to me this matter of damages ought to be stricken out, and would be benefited by it. The principal, interest and cost is recovered; the State has recovered its own, and why is it incumbent upon the purchaser to pay this damage?

The amendment was adopted.

On motion by Mr. COTTON, the vote laying his amendment on the table yesterday was reconsidered. It seeks to amend by inserting in Line 1, after the word "Townships," the following: "The Presidents of the Board of School Trustees of incorporated towns."

Mr.FLOYD--County Superintendents are elected by the Trustees, and these City and Town Boards have no voice in the matter. He is forced upon them, and they have no voice in his election. It does seem to me that in the natural order of things it would make the relations of the Superintendent a great deal more congenial and pleasant in going into cities and towns, to hold examinations, if he were elected with their assistance, as well as the Township Trustees. Since the country schools are represented in his election through their Trustee it is but fair and right that the towns and cities should be represented in his selection by the Chairman of their Boards.

Mr. BUSKIRK moved to amend the amendment by inserting at the close thereof the words, "Having a separate school organization." He said: The original amendment ought not to prevail, because the people of the towns and cities are fully represented in the selection of the Trustee, and through him have a voice in selecting the County Superintendent. They often dictate who the Trustee shall be. Often he comes from the country, but most frequently from towns. If the amendment prevails, they will have a double representation in saying who shall be the Superintendent; but if the idea imbedded in my amendment prevails, then I want to exclude towns which have not a separate school organization, because in such a case the principal burden of maintaining the schools is on the Township, and the towns are mere beneficaries to a large extent to the Townships, and certainly ought not to have a double voice in the selection of the principal school officers of the County. My amendment to the amendment will prevent this effect.

Mr. COTTON--This amendment merely provides that cities and towns shall have one vote in the selection of the County Superintendents, that is all there is in it.

Mr. HAM--The School Board of incorporated towns have their Representative through the Township Trustee as they help to elect him. Cities and towns help to elect the Trustee the same as though they were not incorporated, and to give them the privilege proposed by this amendment, would be giving them a double representation.

The amendment to the amendment was adopted.

The amendment was also adopted--yeas, 48; nays, 34.

Mr. KENNER moved to reconsider the vote by which the amendment offered by the gentleman from Lake County [Mr. Fancher] relative to paying teachers for attending Township Institutes, was laid on the table yesterday.

The motion was agreed to-yeas, 46; nays, 30.

Mr. KENNER said: Township Institutes must be held. The poorest teachers in the Township who attend these Institutes in a short time are as good as the best instructors. Some say it educates teachers, therefore they should not be paid. That is rather a selfish motive. The children get the benefit of instruction. By bringing the teachers together in these Institutes they absorb ideas from one another, systems and modes of conducting class work, such as they could not accumulate otherwise, and in a few years they are the very best of teachers. That is what the school money is for--to educate the teacher as well as the children.

Mr. FLOYD--Public money is for the purpose of paying teachers for teaching, and not to educate teachers. If it is the object of the school fund to educate teachers, then we ought to pay them to go to College. It is certainly not the object of this public fund to pay teachers to prepare themselves, I claim that these men who are preparing themselves to teach ought to do so at their own expense.

Mr. ROBINSON--I think this amendment ought to be adopted. There is no similarity between the teacher's preparation and that of other professional men. These teachers have gone to the expense of preparing themselves to teach. If it is right to compel them to attend these Institutes or require them to forfeit a day's wages by not attending them, I say it is no more than right and just that that that they should be paid for the time they are compelled to lose. Teachers, as a general thing, are not overpaid for the work they do. This Legislature is not in the habit of compelling its members to do something without pay. We have no right to compel a teacher to spend a day without remunerating him for it.

The bill finally passed--yeas, 55; nays, 26.

Then the House adjourned.

page: [55][View Page [55]]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page [55]

THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
VOLUME TWENTY.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
SPECIAL SESSION.

IN SENATE.

A BAPTIST ASSOCIATION.

Mr. HART moved to take up his bill [S. 274] to legalize the incorporation of a Baptist Association in Gibson County. He said he had letters from citizens of his County, urging the passage of this bill, who would not ask anything unjust, or anything that is not right. They were from an ex-Congressman, from the Treasurer, and the Auditor of the County and from many of the best citizens known to him personally, and the writers say the bill seeks simply to correct a mistake made by an attorney in drawing up papers for the Association; therefore he hoped the bill would be passed. It affects nobody but the Association, and it is but just and right that it should pass.

The motion was agreed to, and the bill being read the second time with a Committee report recommending that it lie on the table--

Mr. HART moved to amend the report of the Committee so it shall read favorable to the passage of the bill.

Mr. MENZIES favored the motion. The bill is intended to make clear the title of some real estate this Association has.

Mr. VOYLES, as a member of the Committee, the bill is very broad in its terms, and the Committee were not satisfied but what there might be an effort in it to kill off some pending litigation, or in some way affect what might be termed vested rights.

Mr. FOSTER understood there is a division among the people down there about the propriety of this bill, and therefore he thought it ought not to pass, but that the report of the Committee should be concurred in.

On motion by Mr. HART, it was referred to a Special Committee of three, which the Lieutenant Governor made to consist of Messrs. Hart, Sayre and Ristine.

HOUSE OF REFUGE.

Mr. MACARTNEY, from the Joint Committee appointed to investigate the management and affairs of the Indiana House of Refuge for Juvenile Offenders, submitted a report that it has not deemed it advisable to proceed with such investigation, for the reason that the only charges preferred against the management of said Institution, which have come to the knowledge of the Committee, were contained in an anonymous communication published in a newspaper of the city of Indianapolis; that the author of said communication has not availed himself of the opportunity afforded him by the Committee of filing with them his grounds of complaint, and of furnishing the Committee with such other information at his command as would enable them to proceed with such investigation. No information from any source whatever has been furnished the House of any other persons knowing, or likely to know, any matter discreditable to the management of said Institution; that since the appointment of this Committee, the House Committee on Reformatory Institutions, at the suggestion of whose Chairman this Committee was appointed, have visited said Institution and reported favorably thereon; and that from the best information obtained by the Committee, no just grounds of complaint exist against the management of said institution. The Committee is of opinion that it is not warranted in proceeding further in the premises, unless some reputable citizen of the State shall file with the Committee, over his own signature, specific charges against the management of said Institution, or that such other information shall be furnished the Committee as will render it reasonably certain that an investigation will not prove a useless expenditure of time and money.

On motion by Mr. FOSTER, the report was concurred in.

FEEBLE-MINDED ASYLUM.

On motion by Mr. BUNDY, the report of the Joint Special Committee appointed to investigate the condition and management of the Asylum for Feeble-Minded Children and the Soldiers' Orphan Home, recommending a change in the su- page: 56[View Page 56]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 56 perintendency (see pages 270 and 271 of these Reports) was taken up and read.

Mr. FOSTER hoped the report would not be concurred in. No Senator will more readily than he vote to condemn the mismanagement of such an Institution; but it is unjust to condemn officers when they have not the proper facilities to take care of these children. Then he was informed by the Superintendent that he had not had an opportunity to present his side of the case, and was also informed by a Senator who had a position on the Committee that he is willing to vote for a new Committee to investigate that Institution and give the Superintendent an opportunity to present his side of the case to the Committee, and every Senator ought to be willing to do that. If a second Committee is allowed to go there and investigate that Institution and reports anything wrong, not caring what side of the political question the management is on, he would vote to condemn it. He wanted the man who presides over that Institution to have an opportunity to present his side of the case.

Mr. BELL said: This report, in the last sentence, censures a gentleman whom I know to be, from personal knowledge and acquaintance, one of the most consciencious, upright, and worthy gentleman to be found in the State of Indiana--Mr. Ibach. If he has done wrong, he ought to receive censure; but if he has not, he ought not to receive censure. He has sent a petition to be presented to this General Assembly, which is as follows: [Praying for the appointment of another Committee to investigate the affairs of said Institution]. I can not conceive that any Member of the Senate would desire to censure Mr. Ibach for things which were taken entirely out of his control. He has made the management of such Institutions a special study, and his reputation is established in this and other countries as being a prominent specialist in such matters. Leaving personal matters out of the question, it is due to any man that he should be given a full opportunity to defend himself agairst any charges which reflect upon his conduct as a man or as an officer. He moved to refer the report of the Committee to a Special Committee of five, with instructions to inquire who is responsible for the abuses therein named, to afford an opportunity for officers to be heard, and to report the testimony to the Senate.

Mr. VOYLES--Certain duties are incumbent upon the Superintendent of this Institution for the performance of which he must be held responsible. He is there all the time--the Trustees are not. It is the duty of a humane man to see that these little children were properly placed in sleeping apartments. The dormitories were crowded while there were other rooms in the building that might be used for that purpose which the Superintendent said were used for reception rooms. It might possibly be that the next Investigating Committee will find the beds in better condition than this found them--it is to be hoped it will.

The food on the soldiers' orphans' side would not satisfy him. The Committee found the condition of the beds very bad. We tumbled the beds upside down, and found them entirely indecent and so unclean that there was a stench rose from them. If another Committee find the beds cleaned up and so report it can't change the facts as we saw them. For himself, if he were Superintendent, no such beds would be kept there one-half hour. He heard no excuse for such gross dereliction of duty. The motion for a new Committee would but open up crimination and recrimination, The Committee, acting under oath, sought to do right, and the evidence was of such a character it could not be disputed. He saw no necessity for another investigation.

Mr. BUNDY would not oppose a further investigation, because if there are other facts that ought to be known he was willing the people should have them. One of the sacred duties of the State of Indiana is to see that the orphans of her soldiers are taken care of, and properly taken care of. He would be the last person to oppose a free and full investigation into the management and condition of Soldiers' Orphans' Asylums. A communication has been read by the Senator from Allen [Mr. Bell], written by the Superintendent of that Institution, in which he asks that a further investigation be had--in other words, that the Committee appointed to investigate him be investigated. He says the members of the Committee did not make a fair investigation. This report is made on ocular proof and careful examination, and made from statements of the Superintendents who protests against this report. The fact he did not examine the bills of the Institution is enough of itself to condemn him. If there is any explanation of the purchase of rose geranium, rose-bud toilet soap or razor straps he was willing to hear it.

The Committee asked explanation of this, and the Superintendent stated he had no explanation to offer, because he did not remember of the purchase of these goods. These employes should not use the money of the State for their own personal ends. Then there is a large reception room in that building that might be utilized as a dormitory, and it is a shame that such a change is not made. There has been a new wing erected not quite as large as the original building, and there is more actual space given for the sixty-three feeble-minded children than the 165 soldiers' orphans. One or the other of these Institutions has got to die, for it is impossible to keep the two together. It is as impossible as it is for an idiot and a sound person to live together. It was wrong to put them together. It is not the proper thing to put a healthy child in the same building or in adjoining rooms with feeble-minded, idiotic children, and the State ought not to permit it to continue any longer.

AFTERNOON SESSION.

Mr. SPANN thought unjust charges were made against the Committee--not directly, but indirectly in the petition of the Superintendent of these Institutions, which were untrue and unjust. That gentleman went with the Committee through every one of the rooms; and the books were gone through in his presence by experts. He had full and ample opportunity to state all he might have desired to. The bookkeeper even not understand the accounts and could not explain them. Under the law, the Trustees do not visit the Institution but once in a month. The Superintendent allowed purchases made by a number of parties who had no authority to expend the State's money: and for that reason, if no no other, it is high time that Institution was placed in other hands. The Superintendent's prejudice against the soldiers orphans' branch of of the Institution incapacitates him from being the Superintendent of the other branch. Mr. S. opposed the motion to refer this matter to another Committee, and favored concurrence in the report of the Joint Investigating Committee.

The bills of fare showed that the 165 healthy children every night were called to a long table in a dark room and given only oat meal, molasses and tea in battered tin cups for 365 days in the year. The officers eat off of dishes as fine as can be found in this city, probably, filled with nice food, in a room finely carpeted and lighted. There was not a single clean bed in all the rooms where the orphan children slept, and the straw was changed not oftener than once in three months, as the testimony showed. Money was taken out of the Orphan Asylum fund to buy comforts for the feeble-minded children, and luxuries for the officers. One-third of the building only is set apart for 165 orphan children of the dead soldiers of Indiana, while two-thirds of the building is given up to sixty-three feeble-minded children. This can not be made a question of politics. Any man that will allow an Institution to be run as page: 57[View Page 57]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 57 that has been run, ought to be unceremoniously removed and kicked out of good society.

Mr. URMSTON favored the motion to refer. The report of the Committee came down to one proposition, viz: Nobody is to be condemned but the Superintendent. One thing is certain, this Committee has been looking after affairs out there, and have condemned a party without giving him an opportunity of bringing forward witnesses to controvert what it has heard. The law provides that the Trustees shall control and direct matters out there, and how can any Senator say the Superintendent is to blame for all the matters condemned in this report.

Mr. BROWN--If the debate had not departed from the members of the Committee would have remained silent. The two Senators speaking against the report seem to have taken the course usually pursued by criminal lawyers who have a bad case; they seem to charge the Committee with adjudging against the Superintendent without allowing that officer to bring witness in his behalf. The duty of the Committee by the terms of the resolution was to report the truth derived from such information as they might employ. No one denies that but there has been gross mis-management of the Institution, but the desire is to remove or shift the responsibility. In his judgment, the report of the Committee should be sustained unless better reasons are given than have been yet shown. It is begging the question to say the Superintendent had not the power to furnish these children with clean instead of filthy beds, and with tea instead of battered tin cups; and for the dereliction he deserves condemenation.

Mr. WOOLLEN felt it a duty to state reasons why he supports the motion to refer. It has been a rule of his life to censure no man and to smirch no man's character until he shall have a chance to prove his innocence. He was astonished to see members of the Bar advocating a course that may destroy the character of a citizen of Indiana without giving him a chance for defense. If such a course were pursued by those not acquainted with the laws of the Courts, it would not be a matter of so much astonishment, but to see lawyers favor such a thing was truly astounding. He would cast no reflections upon any member of the Committee, but they should have gone to Mr. Ibach and told him they saw delinquencies and asked him to bring evidence to explain his conduct before presenting their report to the General Assembly. Now, justice requires that this report shall be recommitted, with instructions to inquire further into the matter. Mr. W. cared nothing about the political aspect of this case. His course has shown that the question of politics has not influenced his votes. Let justice be done to every one. As one of the representatives of the people he never will cast a vote of censure on any man until he has been heard in his own defense.

Mr. BELL declared that his motion casts no reflection on the Committee, nor does it contemplate all that Mr. Ibach prays for in the petition. The report establishes the fact that abuses do exist in this Institution, and all he desired to know was where to fix the responsibility. The report strikes a blow at a subordinate officer, who asserts he is not responsible, and that is not fair. This officer states that he had no opportunity to show that fact to this Committee, and that it is within his power to show the responsibility rests with his superiors. Mr. B., continuing, said:

I make the charge as a Senator on this floor, based on the speeches of the Senator from Rush (Mr. Spann) and the Senator from Henry (Mr. Bundy) and the Senator from Washington (Mr. Voyles), and you can't afford not to investigate it--that if these gross abuses exist, they exist with the knowledge and by the consent of the Board of Trustees, who could have removed that Superintendent at any moment. I make this charge--now let us have a full investigation. How does it happen that there is no censure attached to the Board of Trustees? If one-half the charges made by the Senator from Rush as to the management of that Institution are true, every single one of these persons ought to be kicked out.

I am not saying that this report is unfair except in this: That these other persons ought to be held responsible, as well as the Superintendent. Don't censure the creature and let the creator go. If this report goes out to the world it will look very much like this Committee had been hoodwinked, or that the Trustees, to shield themselves, have made a scapegoat of the Superintendent, or, by some strange fatality, this thing has been brought about. Or is there something behind all this? Will you declare that these Trustees are not to blame, condemn the Superintendent, and then let Governor Porter remove them, because they kept a Superintendent there who, as shown by the records of the Senate, failed to do his duty? I do not believe it; but it is open to all these charges. I think, Senators, that you can not afford to go on record in that sort of shape.

In order to shield these Trustees, I ask Senators on this floor if they will condemn Mr. Ibath by concurring in this report before giving him a hearing, when he is here upon the floor of the Senate with a written statement, saying that it is not true? Let us give these Trustees an opportunity to show what the real facts are, that is not much to ask, and it will not take long. I have a right to ask it, and to insist upon it for myself as a Senator, aside from Mr. Ibach's petition praying for this simple act of justice. We have charges made in a substantial form. The Committee do not tell us who is responsible. The Superintendent says: "If you will give me an opportuity, I will show it was not I." I think this examination was directed by persons outside (unconsciously to the Committee) who had sinister purposes to subserve, and I think it my duty to insist that Mr. Ibach shall have an opportuntity to be heard before his character is smirched in a place which he can not reach.

The Courts can not reach our acts, because they are privileged; and that one fact, if no other, ought to increase our care and caution before we do anything that may injure the character of the humblest citizen, as because of the position we occupy we can escape a punishment that would be just.

The motion to refer was rejected by yeas, 12; nays, 20--two present and not voting because paired--Mr. Bell stating that Mr. Brown, before leaving the Chamber, expressed a desire to be excused from voting on this subject because of his relationship to one of the Trustees.

Mr. BELL made an ineffectual motion to strike out the last clause of the report--recommending the removal of the Superintendent.

Mr. CHAPMAN demanded the previous question, and under its operation a vote was taken on concurrence in the report of the Committee, which resulted--yeas, 21: nays, 8--three Senators not voting because paired.

Pending the vote--

Mr. COFFEY, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said: This report shows great and gross mismanagement of that Instituiion. Believing others are to blame as well as the Superintendent, he voted to refer this matter to another Committee, that there might be a thorough and complete investigation. Believing, also, that the Superintendent has not discharged the duties of that position, Mr. C. voted in favor of concurring in the report of the Committee.

The result was then announced as above.

No quorum voting--

The Senate adjourned.

page: 58[View Page 58]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 58

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

BILLS PASSED TO THE THIRD READING.

The Judiciary Committee reported on the bill [H. R. 462] in relation to Railroad Companies constructing and operating telegraph lines, recommending its passage with amendments.

The report was concurred in, and the bill was read the second time and ordered engrossed-

On motion by Mr. AKIN, the bill [H. R. 411] to amend an act fixing the per diem of members of the General Assembly, was read the second time and ordered engrossed.

Mr. LINDLAY'S bill [H. R. 114] to provide for trial by Jury, and fixing the number that shall concur in making a verdict, was read the thlrd time, and made a special order for next Tuesday, at 2 p. m.

SCHOOL BOOKS FOR PAUPER CHIDREN.

Mr. SCHWEITZER'S bill [H. R. 51] authorizing Township Trustees and Trustees of cities and towns, to purchase books for schools, was read the tird time.

Mr. SCHWEITZER--This bill provides for the buying of school books for poor children. We have many poor children in the several Counties of the State who will be greatly benefited by this measure, and I hope the bill will pass.

The bill passed--yeas, 64; nays, 18.

WITNESS FEES.

Mr. M'SHEEHY'S bill [H. R. 117] concerning witnesses subpenaed on part of the State in civil cases, required to attend outside of the County in which the witness resides, was read the third time.

Mr. M'SHEEHY--When this bill first came up it met with strong opposition. It simply provides that witnesses shall receive $1 per day for attending cases and five cents a mile. It also excludes trials before Justices of the Peace. The measure is a just one, and I hope the bill will pass.

The hill passed--yeas, 64; nays, 16.

STATE AUDITOR'S BOND.

Mr. Wilson's, of Morgan, bill [H. R. 163] to amend Section 1 of an act prescribing the powers and duties of the Auditor of State, approved May 24, 1852 (shall give bond in the sum of $25,000), was read the third time.

Mr. FRAZER said the codification bill fixes the duties, powers, etc., of all the State officers. He suggested that the bill for the present lie on the table.

It was so agreed.

ESTRAYS AND ADRIFT.

Mr. Cole's bill [H. R. 203] amending Section 1 of an act regarding estrays and articles adrift [such articles must be advertised three days after being taken up] was read, the third time and failed to pass-yeas, 39; nays, 38--for the want of a constitutional majority of one-half of the Members constituting the House.

LEGALIZING ACTS OF JUSTICES AND NOTARIES.

Mr. Marshall's bill [H. R. 217] to legalize the acts of Notaries Public and Justices of the Peace after the expiration of commission, was read the third time and passed--yeas, 54; nays, 19.

PARTITION FENCES.

My. CAUTHORNE moved to reconsider the vote upon which the bill [H. R. 150] concerning partition fences was lost.

Mr. FANCHER said: The law now in force provides that in cases where there has been a partition fence, that one of the adjoining land owners may serve notice on the other adjoining owner to repair the division fence, and if he fails to do it, the party serving the notice may proceed to repair the same and recover the cost of such repair with 10 per cent. damages. So it can be seen that the law now in force only applies to cases where has been a fence. The amendments proposed will so change the law that after proper notice by one of the land owners and on failure of the other to construct a new fence within the time prescribed in the notice, the party giving the notice may repair the old fence or construct a new one, and recover the cost of constructing or repairing the same with 25 per cent. damages. The object of the amendment is to reach cases where there has been a partition of lands, and to cases where a portion of a farm has been sold at Sheriff's sale or tax sale and become vested in the purchaser, and to cases where there has been a division among portions of lands owned jointly, and to where the division line agreed on or, established by Court is fixed at a place where there has not been a fence before. It does not apply to lands unoccupied.

The motion to reconsider was agreed to, and the bill [H. R. 150] to amend Sections 16 and 17 of of an act concerning inclosures and partition fences, approved June 4, 1852, was read the third time.

Mr. MOODY--I am opposed to the bill. It seems seems to me it ought to be amended so as not to limit the time to fifteen days, or else the penalty be taken out. As it now stands, if a man does not construct the fence fifteen days after the notice is given, the adjoining land owner constructs the fence and collects cost from the party so refusing, with 25 per cent. penalty. I do not want to vote against the bill, but as it now stands it is too stringent.

The bill passed--yeas, 52; nays, 29.

SCHOOL LAND RECORDS.

Mr. Lindlay's bill [H. R. 223] defining the duty of County Auditors pertaining to school lands was read the third time.

Mr. LINDLAY said there was no record of the school land of the State at any other place than the County Auditor's office. This provide that a duplicate shall be furnished to the State Auditor, so in case of fire there will be a record of such land.

The bill passed--yeas, 70; nays, 1.

OHIO RIVER BRIDGE.

Mr. Messick's bill [H. R. 370] supplementary to an act for the incorporation of Companies for the purpose of constructing bridges over streams on the State line, was read the third time.

Mr. FRAZER said he understood these bridges were to be built in the interest of a railroad corporation with privilege to charge toll. He opposed its passage.

Mr. CAUTHORNE--There is nothing in this bill specifying whether these Companies shall charge toll or not. It simply provides for a corporation already formed and the capital stock is already paid in.

Mr. MESSICK was opposed to referring the bill to the Committee, as the people of Evansville want the bridge, for when the river freezes over their commercial facilities are cut off. He hoped the bill would become a law.

Mr. CAUTHORNE said: This bill, if it passes, will not hurt anybody, becanse if they charge too high a toll there are plenty of laws on the subject regulating that. The only question is: Will the State of Indiana allow a foreign corporation to build a bridge between this and another State? They do not propose to call upon us for money; they build it themselves.

Mr. KENNER could see no reason for the opposition to the bill. It only empowers corporations of other States to do what corporations may do in this State. There is not a thing about this bill objectionable.

Mr. GARDNER--If the citizens of Kentucky want to establish a connecting link between our State and theirs, it will not put us in a worse position, but, on the contrary, it will open up page: 59[View Page 59]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 59 commercial relations which will prove beneficial to the State. The New Albany bridge was cited as a bridge to be built under a similar bill. It is entirely different in this respect. When that bridge was proposed to be built the Company asked the city of New Albany to indorse their bonds to the amount of 25 per cent. of the value of that bridge; and in this case the citizens of Kentucky desired to build the bridge contemplated without any assistance from the State of Indiana. The only possible objection that can be urged is that it tends to obstruct the Ohio River. The height of the bridge and distance of the spans is such as to overcome the objection, as the navigation will not be materially obstructed. I do hope the bill will pass without any further delay.

Mr. SCHWEITZER said when the bill came up for the construction of the New Albany bridge there was scarcely any opposition, and there should be none to this, as it requires or asks for no Indiana capital to aid the corporation, and does not interfere with a bridge anywhere else. He favored the passage of the bill.

Mr. ROELKER said: In the winter, when the river is frozen, there are thousands of car loads of produce standing at Evansville. and this bridge would give them an outlet to the Southern market. I am in favor of the bridge. It does not cost us anything, and if the corporators of it do not treat us right we can build another bridge.

Mr. MITCHELL moved to refer the bill to a Special Committee, with instructions--one of the Committee to be the gentleman having the bill in charge.

The motion was agreed to--yeas, 66; nays, 14.

SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGES.

Mr. Carter's bill [H. R. 248] in relation to the satisfaction of mortgages, prescribing the manner the same may be done, flxing the fees of Recorders, etc., was read the third time.

Mr. CARTER said: This bill simply regulates the manner in which mortgages may be satisfied, on the record in the Recorder's office. There is no law in this State upon that subject. There has been a difficulty in some Counties where persons come to represent themselves to be the mortgagee and got mortgages satisfied on the record, when they were not the proper persons to satisfy the mortgage. This bill regulates the manner in which this satisfaction shall be made by providing that where the person is not known to the Recorder, he shall be identified the same as when presenting a check at a bank to be cashed. It also provides, where a mortgage debt has been standing twenty years, that it shall be satisfied, unless the party holding the mortgage file a statement in the Recorder's office that the amount remains unpaid.

The bill passed--yeas, 52; nays, 17.

Mr. FANCHER protested against the ruling of the Speaker of the House on yesterday in which the Speaker refused him [Mr. Fancher] the right to speak on a question of privilege in reply to remarks that were personal, made by another member of this body, for the reason that such was ruling was instigated by a personal motive and contrary to all parliamentary usages. He [Mr. Fancher] asks to have the same entered on the journal of the House.

AFTERNOON SESSION.

LEGALIZING ACTS OF NOTARIES.

Mr. Cotton's bill [H. R. 251], to legalize acknowledgements and the recording of certain instruments, was read the third time.

Mr. CARTER--This bill simply legalizes acts of Notaries Public where their commission has expired without being aware that such was the case.

The bill passed--yeas, 37; nays 11.

RAILROAD FREIGHT TARIFF.

Mr. SKINNER moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill [[H. R. 138--see page 61 of: these Reports] regulating charges of railroads, was passed. He said: There has been considerable talk over the bill and it is thoroughly understood. The reason I make this motion is because there was some misunderstanding in reference to its construction. The bill provides that Companies shall not charge a greater price for carrying freight a short distance than it does for a greater distance. The only question is whether the word "price" has any reference to rates. Some admit that this bill does not apply to rates, while others contend that it does. I submitted this bill to a railroad man this forenoon. His opinion as to the construction of the words "price" and "rates' is that they are synonomous terms, but by the wording of the bill it is questioned whether a Railroad Company can charge more for hauling a larger amount of freight a short distance than a small amount a long distance.

The SPEAKER--The bill is in the Senate and can only be returned by a demand of the House.

Mr. SKINNER--Then I withdraw my motion to reconsider.

WHIPPING POST.

Mr. CUMMINS' bill [H. R. 202-see pages 143 and 144 of these Reports] to provide for the punishment of certain assaults and batteries committed by the husband upon his wife, was read the third time.

On motion, the vote on the passage of the bill was deferred until more members are present.

REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.

The Judiciary Committee reported on the bill [H. R. 333] in relation to Companies obtaining judgment against persons who have obtained money wrongfully, recommending its passage.

The report was concurred in, the bill was read the second time, and ordered engrossed.

Also the bill [H. R. 404] for the examination of a surviving party to a suit at law, recommending its passage.

The report was concurred in, the bill was read the second time, and ordered engrossed.

LIABILITY OF EMPLOYERS.

The Judiciary Committee returned the bill [H. R. 246] in relation to the liability of employers. A majority recommending the bill lie on the table, and a minority recommending its passage.

Mr. DAVIS--I hope the minority report will prevail. It simply provides for the use of proper precaution, in order that operators may be protected. This bill work no hardship to anyone. It may prevent accidents even to the employers themselves, and obviate numerous serious accidents to the employes.

Mr. BUSKIRK said if many different kinds of machinery were even slightly guarded, it would avoid accidents to persons, and not incur much expense to the owner. The bill ought to pass. It certainly can do no harm, and the chances are favorable to its working good results.

Mr. RYAN--This bill is merely to require employers and operators of machinery to place the proper safeguards about it in such a manner as to avoid as much as possible accidents. I believe such a measure is in the interest of employer as well as the operator.

Mr. FLOYD thought this bill in the interest of humanity, but he doubted the accomplishment of the purposes designed. It is to the interest of the employer as well as the operator, in a pecuniary way, to avoid all accidents. That being the case, every precaution is now used to avoid accidents. Therefore, he thought this bill would fail in its results.

Mr. GIBSON--The words "all possible safeguard" are very indefinite, and would bring about much litigation. If the bill is amended so as to define what a proper safeguard is, I will support the bill.

The further consideration of the bill and re- page: 60[View Page 60]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 60 ports was postponed until Monday on account of the slim attendance of Members.

GRAND JURY DUTIES.

A majority of the Judiciary Committee reported on the bill [S. R. 160] defining the jurisdiction of the Grand Jury, recommending that the bill lie on the table, a minority recommending its passage.

Mr. BUSKIRK--The object of this bill is to take away from the Grand Jury these many small cases of felony and misdemeanor, and assault and battery cases, and confer jurisdiction to Justice of the Peace. Every lawyer knows that about one-third of the time in Courts is taken up with the trial of misdemeanors and disturbances of the peace. These cases are usually contested, and take the better part of the day. My object in this bill is to get rid of this class of cases as much as possible.

The minority report was adopted, and the bill was read the second time.

Mr. CARTER--This Grand Jury duty ought not to be swept away in this manner. The way to inquire into crimes, is through the Grand Jury, and the only way in which a great many persons can be prosecuted. It is in secrecy, and does not require a person to file an affidavit. I think it is dangerous to take away this power from the Grand Jury.

The bill was ordered engrossed--yeas, 22; nays, 28.

LIBRARY EXEMPTION.

The Judiciary Committee returned the bill [H. R. 431] in relation to exempting private libraries from taxation, recommending indefinite postponement, for the reason that the Committee considers the bill an unconstitutional one.

The report was concurred in.

ANOTHER LEGAL HOLIDAY.

The Judiciary Committee returned the bill [H. R. 44] declaring the 22d of February a holiday, recommending its passage.

The report was concurred in, the bill was read the second time and ordered engrossed.

GUARDIAN AND WARD.

Also, the bill [H. R. 000] concerning guardian and ward and regulating suits on bonds of guardians, recommending its passage.

The report was concurred in, the bill was read the second time and ordered engrossed.

Then came an adjournment.

page: [61][View Page [61]]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page [61]

THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
VOLUME TWENTY.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
SPECIAL SESSION.

IN SENATE.

The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR commanded attention while prayer was offered by Rev. J. N. Beard.

Mr. LANGDON offered a resolution referring the bill [S. 325] concerning offices and officers to a Special Committee of one from each of the Standing Committees of Finance, Judiciary, Organization of Courts, Elections, and Fees and Salaries, to the report by bill or otherwise, at the earliest day practicable.

Mr. COMSTOCK was sure all Senators felt an interest in the fair consideration of all bills coming before this body, and did not believe a reference of this bill would facilitate the dispatch of business. The bill has merit in it aside from fixing fees and salaries, after that part of it were stricken out, and it was his intention to make such a motion at the proper time. A very safe way is to go on and consider the bill by sections.

Mr. KRAMER agreed with the remarks just made. It is very questionable whether this Legislature will have time to touch on the subject of fees and salaries during this special session, and it is better to go ahead wi h this bill as has been commenced. When the part referring to fees and salaries comes up it may be referred to the Committee on Fees and Salaries.

Mr. LANGDON regarded the only objection to this resolution is that the Senate is as ready to consider this bill of 139 large printed pages as well without a first reading, and as well without a second reading, as after it shall be considered the Committee proposed in the resolution. That is stretching very far the ability of the Senate, to say it can take up a bill of this kind and consider it, as it were, extemporaneously, and on its first actual reading. While the Senator from Spencer [Mr. Kramer] because of his experience in the discharge of the duties of public office, may consider himself competent to proceed with the bill, it is not safe for the rest to proceed on the rule as the Senator. The people of the State demand a revision of the fees and salaries of officers--there ought to be a fair compensation for such officers, but none of them ought to get rich at public expense. The fees in this bill are in defiance of public opinion, and ought to be wiped out. The subject should be taken hold of fairly, squarely and manfully, so no one should wring from the people sums of money far in excess of the value of services rendered to the public. The action of the people should not be ignored on the Constitutional Amendment recently enacted. The safe and judicious way is to refer this bill to a Committee composed as indicated in the resolution, if it is the intention to go into legislation so comprehensive at this session.

Mr. BRISCOE, if such reference would facilitate business, would not oppose the resolution. But suppose a Special Committee works on this bill from this hour, when it comes back it will have to be reconsidered section by section, and in what way would time be saved? Already over 100 sections of the bill have been considered, and if this plan is continued it will be perfected much sooner than if referred to the Committee. The fees in this bill are the same enacted by the Legislature two years ago, and which probably the author of this resolution voted for. He hoped the resolution would not prevail.

The yeas and nays were demanded on the adoption of the resolution. and being ordered and taken resulted--yeas, 13; nays, 18.

No quorum voting--

A recess was taken till 2 o'clock p. m.

AFTERNOON SESSION.

The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR directed the Secretary t resume the reading of the bill [S. 325] concerning offices and officers, commencing at Section 100.

On motion by Mr. KRAMER, a substitute section was adopted requiring the Secretary of State to send the acts and journals hereafter by express to the persons and Counties entitled to copies thereof.

Mr. BROWN called up the resolution pending at the time of the noon recess.

Mr. SPANN desired to know why the author offered such a resolution at this stage of the reading of the bill.

page: 62[View Page 62]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 62

Mr. LANGDON, as a member of the Revision Committee, was not present when this bill was considered in the Committee, and understood it did not receive the attention of a full Committee. Then the bill has not yet been read in the Senate. More matter is incorporated in this bill than relates to the compensation of officers, and a Committee can more quickly and carefully consider the bill than it can be done in the Senate.

Mr. RISTINE offered a substitute for the resolution, that the sections of the bill referring to fees and salaries be referred to the Committee on that subject.

Mr. CHAPMAN opposed the substitute and favored the original resolution. There was an hour when he was willing to bow down before the Board of Codifiers, but that hour has long since passed. He did not think the Board of Codifiers has done any work worthy the consideration of the Senate. If they have done any work worth $4,000 a year, as is proposed in a bill before this General Assembly, he would like to see it, or any portion of it. The work of the codifiers of this bill is a recommendation that we re-enact the Constitution of the State. We sit here like solemn owls, and delibrate on the question whether or not we shall adopt, for instance, Section 82 (relating to the Governor). If it were not adopted, would we have to send out a discoverer to find out where the executive power of the Government is lodged?

Mr. GRAHAM favored the committal of that part of this bill relating to fees and salaries, for the purpose of taking away an infamy that is now before the Senate. He saw no necessity for referring the other portions of the bill.

Mr. GRUBBS opposed recommittal of the bill. If it is intended to kill the bill, kill it right here and now. He would not oppose the substitute; but the Senate should proceed with the consideration of this bill section by section, get it out of the way, and then take up other necessary legislation.

Mr. SPANN saw no necessity for referring this bill to a Committee, except that part referring to fees and salaries. He thought an unwarranted attack has been made on the Codification Committee, believing that Committee has done its work well, and in a creditable manner.

Mr. COMSTOCK opposed the reference of the bill. About four out of five of the remaining sections of the bill are old matter. If this reference was desired, it should have been made earlier. Considering the length of the bill, if it is referred that would be the end of it, because of the length of time required to be given to the reconsideration ofsuch a large amount of matter.

The substitute was adopted by yeas, 20; nays, 19.

Mr. CHAPMAN opposed the amendment. There is a gross injustice in regard to fees and salaries, many officers being paid ten times more than they deserve, and some officers are being paid by way of perquisites far beyond what any persons but these officers themselves may know. He believed in paying liberal salaries. He did not believe the 8heriff or Clerk of this County should be paid as much as the five Judges on the Bench, or three of them for that matter, and looked forward to the time when men in office shall be paid according to that they deserve. Unless we incorporate a change of fees and salaries in this bill, he feared the necessary legislation in that direction would fail.

Mr. BELL favored the reference of the question, of fees and salaries in order that the Committee might arrange a bill in accordance with the recently adopted Constitutional Amendments.

On motion by Mr. LANGODON, the substitute was amended by directing the Committee to report a bill covering the subject of fees and salaries within five days.

The substitute as amended was adopted.

FEEBLE-MINDED ASYLUM.

The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR directed the roll to be called on the question pending at the adjournment last Saturday--being on concurrence in the report of the Joint Committee of Investigation, on the Soldiers' Orphans' Home, recommending the removal of the Superintendent, etc.

Mr. MENZIES raised the point of order that this matter can not be called up now.

Mr. BELL--The special order of the afternoon sessions, made so by special action of the some days ago is the consideration of the the work presented by the Revision Committee.

Mr. SPANN would like to, know why Senators were so anxious to avoid a vote on this matter.

Mr. BELL desired to get rid of the previous question, and would take advantage of Parliamentary law to do so. Then there are Senators, not confined to his side of the Chamber, who are convinced the action heretofore had on this subject was wrong. And further, he did not want to commit this outrage, and have it go on record, the same day the father is burying his son.

Mr. CHAPMAN thought the point of order well taken. The Senate surely does not want to break down its rule for the sake of carrying any question, no matter what its merits are. He referred to the rules by number and sustained the point of order.

The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR would have no trouble about this matter were it not for the previous question in operation when the vote was taken on Saturday, which showed no quorum.

Another vote would have been the order of business this morning, before the reading of the journal, had a quorum been present; but the matter was passed by, till the Chair thought it his duty to put the question. He was not anxious about the matter--if the Senate will let it go over he was willing.

Mr. SPANN moved that this matter be postponed till Wednesday afternoon.

The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR would not entertain any motion, but it may be passed over by consent till that time.

Mr. MENZIES entered a motion to reconsider the vote of Saturday, rejecting a motion to refer to a Special Committee the report of the Orphan Asylum Investigating Committee.

OFFICES AND OFFICERS.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill [S. 325].

Mr. CHAPMAN moved to strike out 1,600, and insert l,000 as the number of copies of the Senate and House and documentary journals to be printed. It is pretty useless printing any how.

The motion was agreed to.

On motion by Mr. GRAHAM, the clause was stricken out of Section 128, authorizing the State Auditor to employ counsel to prosecute suits instituted at his instance on behalf of the State.

Mr. MARVIN said Section 143 refers to an officer he had never heard of before--the Commissioner of the Michigan Road. He had lived on that road over thirty-six years, and had never yet heard of such an officer.

Mr. BUNDY (in his seat.) That officer resigned in 1837. [Laughter.]

Mr. MARVIN moved to strike that section the bill.

Mr. VAN VORHIS knew nothing of the duties of the Agent of the town of Indianapolis, referred to in the same section.

Mr. GRAHAM thought it better to retain the section; there may be some part of the old Michigan road still belonging to the Government.

Mr. MARVIN said the Michigan road in Marion and Boone Counties has been given to the Counties and the Counties have transferred it to the Gravel Road Companies. If it is thought best to keep it in, he would withdraw the motion to strike out this section.

Mr. VIEHE moved to strke out the clause in page: 63[View Page 63]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 63 Section 154 requiring monthly statements of the State Treasurer to be published.

The motion was agree to.

Mr. KRAMER moved to strike out the clause requiring a annual publication of the condition of the State Treasury in two Indianapolis papers, and provide in lieu for the publication of 500 copies in pamphlet form to be distributed in the several Counties.

Mr. VOYLES moved to strike out the section.

Mr. MARVIN--The Senator from Washington [Mr. Voyles] the other day offered an amendment to the tax bill, which was adopted, that the delinquent list should not be published. Now, the same Senator moves to strike out Section 155, so as to prevent the publication of a statement of the condition of the State Treasury once a month. He opposed it, believing in the fullest publication of all acts of public officials, that the people may be advised of what is being done by their public servants. He hoped the Senate would vote the motion down.

Mr. LOCKRIDGE suggested a portion of this section should not be stricken out--that portion which requires a report to the General Assembly. That is information necessary to the intelligent framing of revenue, appropriation and other bills.

The motion to strike out was rejected.

The amendment was also rejected.

Mr. CHAPMAN moved to amend so this monthly statement shall be printed in but one paper.

Mr. BUNDY offered a substitute, striking out all relating to printing.

Mr. MARVIN was not here the advocate of any newspaper, but favored publishing the acts of all public servants, so the people may know what they are doing. These statements should be published in a paper of general circulation of each of the two political parties in the city of Indianapolis. It is not paying to these newspapers a subsidy, but it is paying a duty we owe to the people to inform them of the acts of their public servants. What do we have published the acts of the general Legislature for, if we don't want the people to know what we are doing here? He opposed the amendments, and hoped the Senate would not pass them.

Mr. GARRIGUS thought the papers would publish such matters as items of news. Why publish in two papers in this city, and not in papers in other parts of the State?

Mr. BUNDY saw no good to result from the publication of these statements in two papers in this city. The people of the State generally do not see these papers, and it is a useless expense.

The substitute was rejected.

Mr. SHAFFER moved to amend the amendment so that the publication shall be made in some newspaper of general circulation in each County in the State.

Mr. SPANN opposed the amendment on the ground of economy, if no other. It would amount to the sum of $3,000, and it is unnecessary and not what ought to be done.

The amendment to the amendment was rejected by--yeas, 1; nays, 35.

The amendment was rejected by-yeas, 7; nays, 28.

Mr. BENZ explained his negative vote when his name was called, by saying: "As I am not able to take two newspapers, as I am a Democrat, I take the Sentinel, and the State being Republican these statements will be printed in the Journal. I Note 'no.'"

So the amendment was rejected.

Mr. CHAPMAN moved to amend by striking out the words "at Indianapolis," and inserting, in lieu thereof, the words, "of opposite political parties. He said: "We are proposing to vote a subsidy to our own party organs. There is no disguising that fact. There is no use in assuming that by this clause we want to disseminate knowledge. All we want to do is to contribute to the support of our party organ. This amendment will bring the thing down squarely and strip off the thin disguise. There is no attempt to assume any false colors--no putting on of a mask, or any clothing that don't belong to us. All we want to do is to attempt to make the public do that which the political parties failed to do--to support their respective party organs." In order to give Senators an opportunity to vote for what they are in favor of, and what he is against, he offered this amendment.

Then the Senate adjourned till to-morrow.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

The Committee on Roads recommended that the bill [H. R. 449] regulating tolls on public highways be laid on the table, but the House refused to concur in the report, and ordered the bill engrossed for the third reading, after the following remarks by--

Mr. FLOYD--This bill has been before the Legislature several times, and is known as General Streight's bill. The object of this bill is to reach cases in this County, but what effect it will have on other Counties is a matter to be considered also. This bill proposes to allow 10 per cent. dividend over and above expense for repairs, etc. It is claimed that the original value of the stock in this County is a very nominal one, and that the toll would be reduced by the operation of this bill. In some Counties this stock has been bartered, and the parties owning the stock are innocent purchasers--in some instances they are widow women--and the probabilities are that this bill would depreciate this stock very largely. If the parties did obtain this stock at a nominal figure it was their good fortune, and as all principles of justice and equity are involved in this case the same as any other case where stock is bought and sold, these cases ought to come under the general laws now in force upon that subject. I am positively in favor of free gravel roads, a system to which we must come sooner or later. I would urge to the Members of this House as the proper method by which all these difficulties may be overcome, what we need more than anything else is to build as many free roads as possible, so as to depreciate the stock of plank roads, so tha they will fall in with the system of free grave roads.

REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.

Favorable Committee reports were presented on the bills: [H. R. 305] allowing owners to petition for improvement of highways; [H. R. 233 concerning gaming contracts; [H. R. 374] to prevent adulteration of food; [H. R. 398] to encourage the destruction of wood-chucks.

The above were ordered engrossed for the thir reading, as were also the bills [H. R. 135] to le bridge contracts; [H. R. 394] concerning publi printing; [H. R. 409] to pay the War loan; [H. R. 424] Vernon incorporation act; [H. R. 450] concerning decedent estates.

Reports from Committees recommended tha the following described bills lie on the table: [H. R. 225] authorizing the construction of gravel and other roads; [H. R. 22] concerning fisheries; [H. R. 203] to amend Section 253 of the practice act; [H. R. 287] concerning married women; [H. R. 365] regarding the solemnization of marriages; [H. R. 373] in relation of gravel roads; [H. R. 385] for appointment of State examiners; [H. R. 368] concerning weights and measures; [H. R. 288 reimbursing Township aid to Railroad Companies.

The bill heretofore reported [H. R. 323] concerning the inspection and sale of petroleum oil was also laid on the table.

BILLS INDEFINITELY POSTPONED.

The bills [H. R. 240) defining certain mimeanors; [H. R. 419] prohibiting the receiving page: 64[View Page 64]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 64 applications for life insurance on the tontine line, were indefinitely postponed.

SENATE BILLS READ THE FIRST TIME.

The bills [ . 110] to license and regulate the business of pawn brokers; [S. 75] enabling the owners of wet lands to drain the same; [S. 119] legalizing acts of the Board of Trustees of Monroeville; [S. 82] touching guardian and ward; [S. 142] regarding the adoption of heirs; [S. 103] to protect the property of Public Libraries; [S. 161] authorizing the appointment of short-hand reporters in Courts; [S. 183] authorizing the issuance of military stores to certain Colleges; [S. 179] legalizing the employment of persons to discover unassessed property.

Were severally read the first time,

The bill [S. 271] concerning proceedings in civil cases was read the first time by title only and made a special order for to-morrow morning.

The bill [S. 214] concerning drainage; [S. 2] to repeal the whistling law of March 29, 1879: [S.97] to appropriate real estate for school purposes,

Were severally read the first time.

SENATE BILLS READ THE SECOND TIME.

The bill [S. 209] to legalize the acts of notaries public whose commissions have expired; [S. 156] to amend the partition law; [S. 162] amending Section 3 of the Voluntary Association act; [S. 333] amending Section 3 of an act for the protection of fish,

Were severally read the second time.

The bill [S. 42] relating to unexpended 3 per cent. fund, was reported back favorably from the Committee having it in charge.

Mr. Cauthorne's bill [H. R. 407] to provide a reserve to complete the State House building, was read the second time, and made a special order for Wednesday, March 23, 1881, at 2 p. m.

On motion by Mr. BUSKIRK, the vote on the bill [H. R. 160] defining the jurisdiction of Grand Juries, was reconsidered, and the bill was ordered engrossed.

NEW PROPOSITIONS.

The following described bills were introduced, read the first time and severally referred:

By Mr. SINCLAIR [H. R. 466]: To fix the term of office of Prosecuting Attorneys of Criminal Courts [four years].

By Mr. HUSTON [H. R. 467]: To provide for the care, custody and maintenance of children whose parents, or either of them, are deceased. [Any reliable family having adopted a child or children one year can not be deprived of the same.

By Mr. MILLS [H. R. 468]: To legalize the incorporation of the Central Normal College, of Danville, Ind.

By Mr. BARTLETT [H. R. 469]: To legalize the elation of the Board of Trustees and other officers of the town of Spiceland, Henry County, Indiana.

By Mr. CARTER [H. R. 470]: Defining cruelty to animals.

By Mr. COLE f. R, 471]: In relation to good behavior of persons confined in State Prisons.

By Mr. COLE [H. R. 472]: To amend an act in relation to the charge of public highways, approved March 11, 1869. [May be done upon a petition of the landowners where such road exists.]

By Mr, GILMORE the bill [H. R. 473]: To authorize the County Surveyor of Jasper County to make a survey of certain unsurveyed swamp lands in Jasper County.

By Mr, CARTER the bill [H. R. 474]: To prevent the pollution of water in canals and streams. [It is unlawful to render impure canals or streams running by cities out of which water is used for drinking purposes.]

On motion of Mr. COLE, Mr. Fancher's bill [H. R. 148], concerning the construction of fences, gates, farm crossings, etc., was made a special order for Thursday, at 2 p. m.

AFTERNOON SESSION.

The Judiciary Committee reported on the bill [H. R. 300] in relation to the issuance of marriage licenses, recommending a substitute for the bill.

The report was concurred in, the bill was read the second time and ordered engrossed.

MUSTER ROLLS.

Mr. SCHWEITZER offered a joint resolution that the Adjutant General of the State of Indiana be and is hereby authorized and empowered to hear evidence in all cases where claim is made of having served in the Indiana Militia, and to that end is authorized to administer oaths to claimants and witnesses, examine them as to the claim, and if he is satisfied as to the justness of the claim of the party as to being in such service, their names shall be entered upon the roll of their respective Companies and Regiments, and payment for such services shall be made in the manner now provided. He said: We have passed a bill here to pay the Indiana Legion, and I find that every day we get applications from persons whose names are not enrolled. This resolution merely provides that their names should be enrolled so they can get their money the same as those now enrolled.

The resolution was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs.

STATE ASYLUM SEWERS.

Mr. CAUTHORNE'S bill [H. R. 436], for making a contract with the city of Indianapolis for constructing a sewer to the Institutions for the Education of the Deaf and Dumb and Prison and Reformatory for Women and Girls, was read the third time and failed to pass--yeas, 49; nays, 21--for the want of a constitutional majority.

WHIPPING POST.

Mr. Cummins' bill [H. R. 302], to provide for the punishment of certain assaults and batteries committed by the husband upon his wife, was read the third time.

Mr. COMPTON was in favor of the bill because, in an indirect way, it was in the interest of temperance. When a man gets drunk he usually whips his wife, thereby imposing a penalty upon him.

The bill failed to pass--yeas, 35 nays, 34--for the want of a constitutional majority.

ROAD SUPERVISOR.

Mr. Vawter's bill [H. R. 143-see page 181 of these reports] making the Township Trustee of each civil Township Superintendent of Roads and Highways in his Township, and fixing the computation on road tax, was read the third time.

Mr. COTTON called the attention of the House to the fact that by this bill in 1882 Commissioners are elected, thus leaving the State one year without a road tax, as the bill provides that the tax shall be levied in 1882 by the Road Superintendent, with the concurrence of the County Commissioners, and that tax not being collected until one year afterward, would leave the State one year without a road tax.

Mr. THOMPSON moved to amend the bill by adding thereto, "The Superintendent of Roads shall cause all roads in his District to be mowed twice a-year, to-wit: during the months of June and August, to the end that all noxious weeds and thistles are destroyed."

The amendment, by unanimous consent, was adopted.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed that amendments may be offered.

Mr. GILMAN moved to amend the bill by adding to Section 27 the words "Provided, That nothing in this act shall take from the owner or owners of property the right to work out their road tax, under the rules and regulations as prescribed in Section 16 of this act."

Mr. MEREDITH said under the provisions of page: 65[View Page 65]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 65 this bill a Road Superintendent could have as many teams of his own as he liked and charge it up with the rest. It would be one of the grossest frauds ever committed upon the people of Indiana to pass that law.

Mr. MARSHALL-The present system of road working is unfair to the young man just beginning in life, who, in May and June work, has to put in his two or four days along with the wealthy man. The poor man who carries his flour home on his shoulder is called on to labor on the roads as much as the man who hauls off his thousand bushels of wheat.

The ad valorem system is the true one; it has given other States good roads, and, when properly applied, will give us good roads in Indiana. The people are demanding a better system of road working, and we need better roads. Let the roads be let out by contract, as this bill provides, and in ten years we will have good roads. There is another good feature in this bill, and that is this: Men who own the land, men who have the good farms and men who have to use the roads most are the very men whom a good road benefits. Make a good, smooth road along by the side of a farm, and that farm is worth more money than if it had a poor road. Then is it not fair that the man who owns the farm should do more labor or pay more money to make that a good road than the hired hand? Then again, if a man has 160 acres of land, and his next neighbor eighty acres, is it not fair that the man owning the 160 acres should do as much again work on the roads provided their value is the same per acre?

Mr. ROBERTS said a large number of people would find it difficult to pay tax. On the other hand, under the present law, they can work it out, thereby giving an equivalent. He was opposed to this measure as too radical a one to force upon the people at this time.

Mr. WALZ--The people where I live demand a change of our present road law. There is no question about it. If you adopt that feature as an amendment, we had better retain the old law as it stands, because what the amendment seeks to accomplish is to destroy this new feature. The advantage of this bill is that the tax-payer pays his money to have the work done to the Supervisor, who lets the work out by contracts where the money does the most good. The tax-payer has an opportunity equally with any one else to take these contracts. I want a road law that works to the interest of the roads, not the tax-payer. If the road system is advanced the tax-payer is also advanced.

Mr. MOODY--I am in favor of the best system of road work that can be adopted, but I am opposed to this bill, and I want the peopie of my County to know that I not only voted against this unfair and, to my mind, unjust law, but that I solemnly and earnestly protest against it. There are many poor men who can not pay this tax, but who can do an honest day's work on the highways and who will be absolutely deprived of the opportunity of doing this work, if the amendment is lost and this bill becomes a law. It may all be well for soft-handed lawyers and doctors to theorize on this law, and the fine roads which are to stretch themselves magic-like all over our country, but I can not forget the large number of men in my own County that it will work a great hardship to, despite their beautiful theory. I do trust that the good sense of the majority of this House will not pass the bill, but will adopt the amendment, I know that if you put this money in the hands of any man and authorize him to hire the work done, that many hard-working, honest laborers will not get any of it to do, but a few of the friends of this new-fledged officer will get the pap and the officer take the cow of some other man to pay for the work his friend has done. I believe that this is unfair and eminently unjust.

Mr. MORGAN--I hope the amendment will not prevail. The bill will be to the advantage of the poor man as well as the rich man. If this measure passes, the rich man with his five or six hundred acres of land, will work out his own road tax instead of the poor man, as is the case now. At the present time a man owning no property is compelled to work as much as one owning his hundreds of acres. If you allow this amendment to prevail you had better let the old law stand.

Mr. STEWART moved to amend the amendment as follows: Provided the person owing tax shall apply to the Superintendent to do such work, and will do the same at such time and places as the Superintendent may direct.

Mr. CARTER was in favor of the bill as it stood. He did not consider the existing law required the poor man to work the same number of days as the rich one. Under this law they would not have to work at all. There are many good features in this bill. These contracts are supposed to be let out to the citizens in the immediate vicinity where the roads are being worked.

Mr. THOMPSON said there were thousands of dollars expended in Elkhart County every year on the roads, and scarcely anything to show for it. The people demand a good road system. I am willing to vote for a radical change in the road system. My friend from Steuben [Mr. Roberts] says the old system is good enough. Probably it is good enough for the people of Steuben County, but the people of Elkhart County demand a better system. Under this bill, we have a Road Trustee, who can repair the roads and collect the taxes, and make a good road out of a bad one.

Mr. COMPTON said the field was open for all to get to do his work by contracting with the Road Superintendent; that there was nothing unjust, as the bill gave the land-owner the same chance to do the work and get the same allowance as anybody else. He appealed to the members above all other things to give the State of Indiana a good road law.

Mr. NEFF considered this bill most too radical a change to undergo at the present time. There is a bill prepared by the Revision Committee he considered more applicable to the State of Indiana.

Mr. SMELZER--The people are taxed for roads, and I think under this bill we would get exactly what we want. It would do away with this miscellaneous working of roads. I hope the bill will pass.

Mr. FULLER thought the bill insufficient. The tax imposed would not half meet the demands as specified in this bill, therefore he would oppose it.

On motion by Mr. BUSKIRK the further consideration of this bill was postponed till Wednesday at 10 a'clock a. m.

The House adjourned till to-morrow.

page: [66][View Page [66]]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page [66]

THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
VOLUME TWENTY.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
SPECIAL SESSION.

IN SENATE.

Mr. COMSTOCK moved for an order for an evening session, in order that Senators who have local bills can call them up at that time, with the understanding that there shall be very little general legislation.

The motion was agreed to.

JOHN MARTIN'S CLAIM.

Mr. GRUBBS, from the Judicary Committee, returned the claim of John Martin for over $67,000 for balance of brick work on the Insane Hospital, with a report of its compromise for $45,000

The report was concurred in.

NEW PROPOSITIONS.

The following described joint resolutions and bills were introduced, read the first time and referred to Appropriate Committees:

By Mr. SHAFFER [S. J. R. 12]: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State, prohibiting the manufacture, sale or keeping for sale, spirituous, vinous, malt or any other intoxicating liquors, except for scientific, medical, mechanical, and wine for sacramental purposes.

By Mr. YANCEY [S. J. R. 13]: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution, conferring the privilege of the elective franchise on females possessing the same qualifications as males.

By Mr. YANCEY [S. J. R. 14]: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution to entitle females having the same qualifications as males to admission to the practice of law in all the Courts.

By Mr. BENZ [S. 339]: Concerning County Judges.

By Mr. HOSTETTER [S. 340]: To amend Section 2 of the act to enable towns to lay out, open, etc., sreets, approved April 27, 1869.

By Mr. KEISER [S. 341]: To limit the operation of an amendatory act touching the laying out, vacating towns, streets, alleys, etc., approved March 3, 1881.

By Mr. BUNDY [S. 342]: To authorize married women to apply to the proper Courts of this State for alimony in certain cases therein specified.

By Mr. COMSTOCK [S. 343]: To provide for the appointment of a Clerk for Grand Juries; prescribing the pay and duties of such Clerk.

By Mr. DAVIDSON [S. 344]: To make the Township Trustee of each civil Township Superintendent of roads and highways in his Township, and fixing a commutation road tax in connection with road labor. [It was read the first time by title only under a dispensation of the Constitutional rule.]

By Mr. MACARTNEY [S. 345]: To amend Sections 15 and 17 of an act providing for the election and qualification of Justices of the Peace. [Defining jurisdiction in replevin cases.]

By Mr. RAHM [S. 346]: To amend Sections 1 and 5 of an act to promote the science of medicine and surgery by providing methods whereby human subjects for anatomical and scrientific dissection and experiment may be lawfully obtained. [The object of the bill is to allow Medical Colleges, upon proper application, to have the use of all bodies of persons having died in any State, County or City Prison or Asylums, whose bodies are not claimed by next kin or relatives or friends within twenty-four hours after such death. Where relatives of such dead persons are known notice is to be given them, so they can claim and bury such corpses at their own expense. This is also to apply to any person or felon meeting with an accidental death, where an inquest is held, etc. Coroners and Superintendents not complying with this law, after proper application for such dead bodies are made, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and fined from $25 to $100 for each offense.]

By Mr. HENRY [S. 347]: To repeal a supplemental act authorizing cities and towns to negotiate and sell bonds to procure means with which to erect and complete unfinished school buildings, approved March 20, 1879. [It provides for the repeal of the law now in force requiring the school Trustees of a city to get the order and consent of the Common Council of the city before purchasing any real estate for school purpose.]

By Mr. RISTINE [S. 348]: For the relief of the commissioned officers of the Twelfth and Fifteenth Regiments of Indiana Volunteer Infantry. [Allowing one-quarter pay, they having heretofore received but three-quarters.] page: 67[View Page 67]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 67 By Mr. SAYRE [S. 349]: To legalize the incorporation of Lagro, Wabash Country, etc.

By Mr. SHAFFER [S. 350]: To regulate and license the sale of spirituous, malt and other intoxicating liquors, prescribing penalties for intoxication, and providing for the recovery of damages for injuries growing out of sales of intoxicating liquors, and requiring police officers and Constables to see this act enforced, which was read the first time by title only, under a suspension of the constitutional rule.

ASSESSMENT FOR TAXATION.

On motion by Mr. MENZIES, the message announcing the concurrence of the House in sundry amendments of the Senate to the bill [H. R. 204] concerning proceedings in civil cases, and its non-concurrence in sundry other amendments was taken up.

On his further motion the Senate refused to recede from its amendments, and requested a Committee of free conference. Messrs. Spann and Menzies were appointed said Committee on the part of the Senate.

Subsequently this Committee submitted a report which was made the special order for tomorrow at 2:30 o'clock p. m.

The bill [H. R. 240] to legalize ordinance 63 of the town of Edinburgh was pressed through under a dispensation of the constitutional restriction and passed.

AFTERNOON SESSION.

OFFICES AND OFFICERS.

Mr. VAN VORHIS offered a resolution to refer the bill [S. 325] concerning officers and offices, except the portions already referred to the Committee of Fees and Salaries, to the Finance, Judiciary and Fee and Salary Committees.

Under the operation of the previous question, resolution was rejected by yeas, 10; nays, 32.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill [S. 325] at Section 155, the question being on the amendments pending at the adjournment on yesterday.

They were severally rejected.

Mr. Van Vorhis made an ineffectual motion to insert the word "greatest" before the words "general circulation," referring to the papers in which the monthly statement of the Treasury shall be printed.

Mr. URMSTON moved to amend Section 160, so that the State Treasurer shall notify County Treasurers ten days previous to the time they are required to pay over moneys.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. BROWN moved to refer to the Judiciary Committee Sections 168 to 180 inclusive--the sections that provide the power and duties of the Attorney General--which should be looked into inquired about by a Committee.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. KRAMER moved to strike from Section 198 the clause requiring the binding of newspapers regularly sent to the State Library.

Mr. BELL and Mr. FOSTER opposed this motion. The State does little enough to preserve her current history. A better history of the passing events of a general nature can not be found than that printed in the newspapers of the day.

The motion was rejected.

Mr. CHAPMAN moved to strike out Section 201, the clause authorizing the preservation of fifteen copies of the local laws.

Mr. BELL--There are only a few local laws--there is not much expense attending this requirement. They are important enough to claim the attention of the General Assembly, and they should be preserved.

The motion was rejected.

Mr. CHAPMAN moved to amend Section 219 by requiring County Commissioners to give a $5,000 bond.

Mr. RAHM did not see why County Commissioners should not be required to give bond. If compelled to give bond these officials will be more careful before they vote appropriations or enter into contracts contrary to law. The way it is now they give no bond, and sometimes vote away the people's money without the considertion they might otherwise give were they made pecuniarily responsible for their action.

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. GRAHAM moved to strike out Section 247; "No Court shall have original jurisdiction of any any claim against any County in this State in any manner except as provided for in this act." He desired citizens should have a right to sue a County in the first instance.

Mr. OWEN believed this Section ought to remain in the bill, for the reason that persons having a claim against a County should not be permitted to sue on it until the claim has been presented to the representatives of the people of the County, who can then have a chance to allow the claim if they consider it just and owing.

Mr. GRUBBS favored striking out this section. There are a class of cases where parties ought not to be required first to present their claims to County Commissioners. Take for examples cases for injury on public highways or bridges, where it requires a complaint setting out all the facts, or where action lies for damages against a County, and there are joint creditors. There are a large class of claims the Commissioners would not allow, and it is useless to compel such cases to be first brought before the Board of County Commissioners.

Mr. URMSTON opposed the motion. There are some cases, perhaps, where it is a hardship to be compelled to try them first before the Board of Commissioners, but such cases might be excepted by an amendment to this section. To strike this section all out, and require that every person having a claim of a dollar or so shall go first into the Circuit Court would not be advisable.

Mr. GRAHAM--When it comes to determining rights of property and assessing damages, Justices of the Peace are a Court supreme to Boards of Commissioners. The Board of Commissioners can be sued and they can sue like other corporations, and why should they have the right to pass on all claims of citizens? They don't act on their own judgement; as a general thing they have no individual judgment; they usually rely on a County Attorney for their opinions. He would not give these gentlemen the right to pass on the claims of citizens.

On motion by Mr. URMSTON, Section 247 was amended by inserting after the word "claim" the words "arising out of contract."

Mr. HENRY moved to add to Section 247 a provision for an appeal from a decision of the County Board without filing a bond.

Mr. MENZIES opposed this amendment.

Mr. BROWN could see no reason that would influence him to support the amendment--no reason why the County should be placed at a disadvantage no citizen is placed.

Mr. WOOD desired to see Counties on the same plane with individuals before the Courts.

Mr. BELL gave reasons why this amendment should prevail.

The amendment was rejected by--yeas, 8; nays, 28.

Mr. WOOD offered an amendment to do away with the evil where Board of Commissioners will only hear a case at their own sweet will. It is in their power to stave off a trial year after year.

Mr. VIEHE offered a substitute embracing the amendment which was accepted by Mr. W., who withdrew his.

The amendment [Mr. Viehe's] was adopted.

Mr. KRAMER moved to strike out Section 251 allowing County Commissioners to employ counsel.

Mr. GRAHAM favored this motion--the seotion would be productive of great evil and would be an expensive luxury.

page: 68[View Page 68]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 68

Mr. FOSTER resisted the motion. The County Attorney is a very important office, and every County has need of the advice of a good attorney.

Mr. KRAMER insisted it is wholly unnecessary to create this new office of County Attorney.

Then came a recess till 7:30 o'clock p. m.

NIGHT SESSION.

Mr. COMSTOCK introduced a joint resolution [S. 15] for an amendment to the Constitution of the State so that the Supreme Court shall consist of not less than five nor more than seven Judges, which was read the first time and referred to the Judiciary Committee.

The bill [H. R. 119] amendatory of the Voluntary Association Act was read the second time, with a favorable Committee report.

Mr. VOYLES moved that the bill be recommitted with instructions.

On motion, the further consideration of the bill was postponed till to-morrow.

The bill [H. R. 61] concerning Telephone Companies was read the second time with amendments reported by a Committee.

On motion by Mr. COMSTOCK, the report was amended and concurred in as amended.

Mr. LANGDON moved to take up the bill [S. 325] concerning offices and officers.

The yeas and nays were demanded, and, being ordered and taken, discovered no quorum present.

Then came an adjournment.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

ASSESSMENT FOR TAXATION.

The Ways and Means Committee reported on the Senate amendments to the bill [H. R. 204] concerning taxation, recommending concurrence in most of the amendments, for the reason that many are merely verbal corrections, and recounting sections without material changes.

Mr. RYAN moved that the House concur in the report of the Committee.

Mr. EDWINS moved to amend the motion by concurring in a section at a time as the amended sections are read.

Mr. GILLUM moved to lay the amendment to the motion upon the table.

This motion was agreed to--yeas, 54; nays, 29.

The report was concurred in--yeas, 56; nays, 27.

NEW PROPOSITIONS.

The following described bills were read the first time and referred:

By Mr. O'NEAL: The bill [H. R. 475] for the relief of Allen Luckton, John J. Peter, Henry Edrith and John Holiday, on account of loss of money.

By Mr. RYAN [H. R. 476]: To remove restrictions of commerce by abolishing wharfage and dockage.

By Mr. WILSON [H. R. 477]: To prohibit the infliction of corporal punishment on the person of pupils by the teachers of Common Schools of the State. [Teachers are authorized to expel pupils for habitual idleness or such conduct as would require corporal punishment.]

By Mr. AKIN [H. R. 478]: Concerning the bonds of administrators, executors and guardians. [The bond must be signed by the member and each assurety in the presence of the Clerk of the Circuit Court.]

By Mr. MILES [H. R. 479]: For the relief of Thomas M. Jones and Lawrence S. Shuler. [Amount, $15,000.]

By Mr. BAKER [H. R. 480]: Regulating the publication of Sheriff sales, providing for the notice by the Sheriff--duties, etc., in regard to the same. [Parties concerned in a suit can choose the paper in which a Sheriff's sale is advertised.]

By Mr. BAKER [H. R. 481] for the protection of game. [Prohibiting the killing deer only at specified times of the year.]

By Mr. CARR of White County [H. R. 482] concerning witness fees. [When witness fees are paid in, it is the duty of the County Clerk or Justice of the Peace to notify the claimant. The person notifying shall receive for his service two cents.

By Mr. BERRYMAN [through Mr. Sinclair] the bill [H. R. 483] to amend an act concern Circuit Courts. [The Counties of Clay and Owen to constitute the Fifth Judicial Circuit; Johnson and Morgan Counties the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit; the Counties of Shelby and Marion the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit; the Counties of Hendricks and Putnam the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit.]

REPEAL OF THE PROVOKE LAW.

Mr. JOHNSON moved to reconsider the vote by which the report of the Committee to indefinitely postpone the bill [H. R. 240] to repeal a misdemeanor act, was adopted.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. JOHNSON said it was not treating him with the proper respect to dispose of his bill in that manner during his absence; especially so, as it is a very meritorious one, repealing one of the worst acts on the statute books.

The same matter being included in the civil code, on motion the further consideration of this bill and report was postponed until one week from to-day.

TOWNSHIP TRUSTEE.

Senator Kramer's bill [S. 69--see page 155 of these Reports] in relation to the office of Trustees, the manner in which they shall be chosen, powers, duties, etc., [extending the termof office to two years], was read the third time and passed--yeas, 72; nays, 5.

SALE OF STATE PROPERTY.

Mr. Gibson's bill [H. R. 175] to authorize the sale by the State of Indiana of lot No. 77 in Jeffersonville, Ind., to William N. McCoy, was read the third time.

Mr. McCLURE read a report of the County Auditor of his County, showing wherein it was to the advantage of the State to make this sale.

The bill passed--yeas, 76; nays, 33.

COMMON SCHOOLS.

The motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill [H. R. 322] concerning Common Schools, passed, was called up.

Mr. KENNER moved to lay the motion on the table.

The motion was agreed to--yeas, 43; nays, 33.

THE CIVIL CODE.

On motion by Mr. KENNER, the constitutional rule was suspended and the bill [S. 271--see pages 188, 213, 223 of these Reports] concerning proceedings in civil cases, was taken up and read the first and second times by title only under a dispensation of the constitutional rule.

On motion by Mr. GIBSON, the further consideration of this bill was deferred until Thursday at 10 a. m.

INDIANAPOLIS MARKET HOUSE.

On motion by Mr. LINSDAY, Mr. McSheehy's bill [H. R. 391] authorizing the Common Council and Board of Aldermen of cities having a population of 60,000 or more inhabitants to levy, assess and cause to be collected, a special tax of five cents on the hundred dollars, on the taxable proprty, each year for four years, for the purpose of building market houses and other public buildings, etc., was read the third time.

Mr. McSHEEHY said the city was already in possession of about $75,000 for this purpose, and they wanted about $125,000 more. This bill simply provides for the submission of the question to the people of the city of Indianapolis, whether they wish to levy this tax or not. I hope the bill will pass.

The bill passed--yeas, 76: nays, 2.

page: 69[View Page 69]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 69

FEES AND SALARIES.

Mr. BARNETT moved to take up his bill [H. R. 311] to amend Section 26, of an act providing for certain employes, fixing certain salaries, compensation, duties, liabilities of officers and clerks therein named providing for the disposition of certain moneys, etc.

Mr. BARNETT said the labor of the session, in all probability, will take up the time so there will be no fee and salary bill passed. The existing law upon that subject is the most infamous ever put upon the statute books of Indiana, ansd I think it is high time to remedy this evil. I hope the bill will pass.

Mr. FRAZER made an effectual effort to lay the bill on the table. He did not see the necessity of so many fee and salary bills; there is a bill in the Senate now on that subject.

The bill passed--yeas, 66; nays, 1l.

LEGALIZING COURT RECORDS.

Mr. Buskirk's bill; [H. R. 414] to legalize and render valid the records of the Circuit and Common Pleas Courts in various Counties in the State, being read the third time--

Mr. CAUTHORNE--I doubt the propriety of passing this bill. The law is plain upon this subject, and the Judge should know the law in these Courts, and the law ought to be complied with, and the Judge should read these minutes and sign them. I am opposed to any one coming in to legalize this thing.

Mr. BUSKIRK--This bill proposes simply where the records are already accepted to make them right, or where there has been an omission made by the parties. There have been legalizing acts passed here on almost every subject. There can be no harm in passing this bill, and great harm may come if it is not passed. In the United States Courts the records are not signed at all, and yet it is a valid record, but by our statute it must be signed in Circuit and Common Pleas Courts befor it becomes a valid record.

Mr. CAUTHORNE--The gentleman says it merely legalizes a record already right. Who is to tell us whether it is right or wrong--whether the Clerk did his duty or not? It is not the judgment of the Court, because the record is not signed. These records have not been made in conformity with the law, and this bill proposes to come in and make them records. When we pass a law, persons are to act under that law. They are to observe the law. The Legislature has been bothered a good deal with these little legalizing acts. Here is a bill trying to make judgments of things that are not judgments.

Mr. WRIGHT--The cases affected by this bill are complete records, and the only trouble is the simple fact that the Judge has neglected to sign the judgments. As I understand this bill, it is simply to render valid a judgmen, already valid in other respects, and it does seem to, me that it ought to pass.

Mr. KENNER said if a Court holds a session and the record is unsigned, there is no life in it. Can you put life in it by a legislative act, that is the question? It is unconstitutional the moment it strikes the Supreme Court. These are the reasons why I am against this class of legislation.

Mr. COLE--This is a bill that ought to pass. The records of a Court is the work of the Clerk. There was a bill passed this session legalizing the records of the Circuit Court of Vigo County. It seems to me if that could be done constitutionally, certainly the present bill is a Constitutional one.

The bill failed to pass--yeas 42; nays 33--for the want of a constitutional majority.

AFTERNOON SESSION.

Mr. SULZER'S bill [H. R. 451] fixing the time for holding Courts in the Second Judicial Circuit, was read the third time and passed--yeas, 65; nays, 4.

ASSESSMENT FOR TAXATION.

On motion, the message announcing the Senate's refusal to recede from its amendments to the bill [H. R. 204] concerning taxation, and asking for a Committee of Conference to make the disposition of the same, was taken up and the request granted, whereupon--

The SPEAKER made the Committee of Conference on the part of the House to consist of Messrs. Kenner and Cauthorne.

RAILROAD TELEGRAPH LINES.

Mr. Linsday's bill [H. R. 452] to authorize Railway Companies to construct, acquire and maintain and operate telegraph lines for commercial and other purposes, was read the third time and passed--yeas, 69; nays, 0.

STATE ADJUTANT GENERAL.

Mr. Compton's bill [H. R. 291] defining the right, powers and duties of the Adjutant General of the State, fixing his salary, providing for a Deputy, etc., [his salary to be $1,800, and Deputy, $800] was read the third time.

Mr. COMPTON said the duties of the Adjutant General are arduous, and from the testimony of the outcoming Adjutant General, the salary and appropriations for that office have been wholly insufficient. I am in favor of giving a salary to this officer sufficient for him to perform his duty. It is right that the records should be preserved and put in proper form, so that in case of fire there will be some means of saving them. As they exist now in drawers, the record will soon be gone. The salary at the present time is wholly inadequate, and the Adjutant General is not able to perform the duties of the office in the making these records without the passage of this bill, and I do not think that the General Assembly of Indiana ought to place him in a position where he can not make a proper record of the soldiers of the State of Indiana.

Mr. NEFF--The Ways and Means Committee have appropriated $1,200 per annum, as the salary of the Adjutant General, and the duties of the office are not such as to require that the salary of the office be increased, nor do I believe that we would be justifiable in creating another office at $800 per annum.

Mr. BUSKIRK said: I know the salary of $1,200 to be insufficient for the duties to be performed in this position. I have the evidence, that the out-going Adjutant General paid out over $800 for a Deputy, and what I know of the office, an increase of $600 would be a very small salary for the services to be rendered. If you have an office such as this should be, then we ought not to pay the manager a mere pittance. I am in favor of this bill. While I am in favor of economy, there should be some sense and judgment used in making appropriations, but we ought not to vote against a thing because it is to the interest of economy to the State Treasury, when it will injure individuals of the State.

Mr. SCHWEITZER--The soldiers of lndiana are entitled to all the benefits of the late War. I am not one of those men to cry: "We are paying out too much money!" If a man goes to that office and sees the records he can form some idea of the amount of work required. The Adjutant General ought to have more than $1,800. I am opposed to voting away money of the people of the State, but when I see it is needed, and the soldiers of Indiana require it, then I say "Amen" to it. I hope the bill will pass.

Mr. COLE thought the duties of the office of Adjutant General merely nominal. If it is a fact that the men holding that position have not been competent to do that work, the proper way to do is to appoint an Adjutant General who knows how to write, so as to dispense with the necessity of employing a clerk. He said there were enough State offices tow; and, as he was opposed to page: 70[View Page 70]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 70 creating a new office, therefore he opposed its passage.

Mr.MOODY-I think a complete record should be preserved of all that may be of benefit to the soldier who left his all and answered the call of his country. If all the work is done by the Adjutant General required of him, I am certain no man would have reason to say he receives too much pay under this bill. We pay large sums of money to furnsh books to keep records of the titles to our lands, and who will say that the record of an honorable discharge of a soldier is, or may be, of less importance and value to his family than the record of title deeds? I am satisfied that the tax-payers of this State are not going to find fault with the small amount of money it is going to require to put this office in good shape, and I hope, the bill will pass.

Mr. WILSON, of Morgan--None of my constiuents are asking me to support a bill of this kind. The record of their dead has been perpetuated or will be perpetuated, and I think very likely it is on file in the Adjutant General's office. I can not see the necessity of this bill. We had an Adjutant General during the War, and have had one since the War, and if these records are not kept, is it because the officer has not done his duty? If that is a fact I do not see the necessity of appropriating $400 more. I am opposed to this bill because it creates a new office when the people of the State are not demanding it. I hope the bill will not pass.

Mr. MESSICK said there was more labor to be performed in that office than ever before, in the way of correspondence and inquiries from all parts of the country. Some days there are as high as twenty-five letters to answer. He thought the citizens owed this duty to the soldiers of the War to take good care of those records.

Mr. ROBINSON did not believe in paying one man $1,800 and the other $800 in this office. If it is necessary to keep a transcript of documents in that office, he favored making a specific appropriation for that purpose. To create an additional office at this fixed salary, he was opposed to.

The bill was rejected--yeas, 31; nays, 41.

HOUSE BILLS PASSED.

Mr. Vawter's bill [H. R.] for the relief of Joel F. Davis, authorizing the refunding of damages paid by him into the Treasury of Bartholomew County, was read the third time, and failed to pass--yeas, 28; nays, 42.

Mr. Murray's bill [H. R. 175] to legalize the incorporation of the new Pittsburg and Hanover Turnpike Company was read the third time.

Mr. MURRAY said this is a bill that no one is opposed to. All the parties affected by it are in favor of the bill.

The bill passed--yeas, 66: nays, 2.

Mr. Kain's bill [H. R. 239] to legalize the corporation of the town of Geneva, was read the third time.

Mr. KAIN said the general legalizing bill did not reach this special case. If the bill does not pass the corporation of this village would be destroyed.

The bill passed--yeas, 69; nays, 2.

CONCERNING BRIDGES.

Mr. Gillum's bill [H. R. 266] to amend the first section of an act providing for the erection and repair of bridges over streams forming the boundary between two Counties, was read the third time.

Mr. BUSKIRK--I do not think this bill a good one. I do not think one County has a right to build a bridge to another County without the consent of that County. The bill is in the right direction, but it goes a little too far, for the bill provides that it would not be necessary to construct this bridge for the other County to take any part in it or even give its consent. It gives one County the privilege to build a bridge across a stream connecting with another County without the consent of the adjoining County. That is wrong. They ought to have at least the consent of the County adjoining.

Mr. GILMAN said the bill would meet a case in his County, and it would be detrimental to their interests in case the bridge is not built--that being a means of securing an outlet to the Chicago market.

Mr. EDWINS moved to recommit the bill to the Committee, with instructions to amend the County into which the bridge is run must give consent to the building of the bridge.

The motion was laid on the table.

The bill passed--yeas, 54; nays, 9.

A majority of the Select Committee to whom was referred the bill [H. R. 370] incorporation of Bridge Companies reported, recommending its passage with an additional proviso to Section 2. A minority of the same Committee recommended its passage with amendments to Section 1, restricting the Bridge Company to transport at a rate agreed upon, and if no agreement upon rates can be reached the Circult Court is to establish the rate for such conveyance.

Mr. MESSICK thought the adoption of the minority report would defeat the bill.

Mr. CAUTHORNE--I hope the minority report will not prevail. I do not think that any Company would be willing to spend $2,000,000 with a proviso that another Company could use that bridge, and if they do not pay as much as they think proper, they could go to the Circuit Court and have the rate fixed. The supposition is, if a foreign corporation builds a bridge costing millions of dollars, the State gets the benefit of the improvement. They are seeking to connect with the city of Chicago, and if that trade does not go through the State of Indiana, it will go elsewhere. They want the most direct line they can get between the South and Chicago. By building this bridge at Evansville, this State gets the benefit of it. I hope the minority report will not prevail.

Mr. FRAZER said ever since the bridge was built across the Ohio River it has always been exorbitant in its charges, and it went on until it was necessary to build another bridge along the side of it to overcome the monopoly. I thought we would put in a clause that would prohibit making such a monopoly as exists at Jeffersonville. I hope the minority report will be adopted.

The minority report was rejected and the majority report was made a special order for Wednesday morning.

ASSESSMENT FOR TAXATION.

The Committee on Conference, appointed to consider the Senate amendments to the bill [H. R. 204] concerning taxation, reported that they reached a compromise upon the same, and asked the House to concur in the report.

The report was concurred in.

IN MEMORY OF A FORMER SPEAKER.

Mr. FRAZER offered a resolution, that on account of the death of J. U. Pettit, at his home in Wabash, Ind., yesterday, many years a prominent citizen of the State, and once Speaker of this body, the House do now adjourn, to show a mark of respect to the deceased.

The resolution was adopted, and the House adjourned.

page: [71][View Page [71]]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page [71]

THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
VOLUME TWENTY.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
SPECIAL SESSION.

IN SENATE.

SOLDIERS' ORPHANS' HOME.

The report of the Investigating Committee proposing to depose the Superintendent of the Soldiers' Orphans' Home and the Asylum for Feeble Minded Children, was concurred in, by yeas, 29; nays, 14; under the operation of the previous question holding over from the adjournment of Saturday.

Mr. Spann moved to reconsider the vote adopting the report, and to lay that motion on the table. The latter motion was agreed to, by yeas, 23; nays, 17.

CASS SUPERIOR COURT.

Another vote was taken on Mr. Kahlo's bill to abolish the Superior Court in Cass County--it having failed to pass February 28--the result being--yeas, 31; nays, 6; so the bill passed.

BANK CAPITAL STOCK.

Mr. Kramer's bill [S. 278] to amend Section 8 of this act regulating banks of discount and deposit in this State, approved February 7, 1873, so that the capital stock may be reduced, was read the third time and passed, by yeas, 35; nays, 1.

A TURNPIKE COMPANY.

Mr. Comstock's bill [S. 206], concerning the Richmond and Liberty Turnpike Company, was also passed--yeas, 35; nays, 0.

SALE OF STATE PROPERTY.

On motion by Mr. MENZIES, the bill [H. R. 175] to authorize the Auditor of State to sell to Wm. N. McCoy lot No. 77, in Jeffersonville, was passed through the three readings, and finally passed the Senate.

NOTES PAYABLE IN BANK.

Mr. Hefron's bill [S. 83--see page 182 of these Reports] in relation to notes payable in bank in this State, repealing all laws in conflict therewith, and declaring an emergency, was read the third time.

Mr. CHAPMAN said this bill would strike a serious blow at the commercial interest of Indiana. The Judiciary Committee made a recommendation that it be indefinitely postponed. It proposes to let in all defenses aganst a note payable in bank--such a propositfion as we can not afford to make part of the statute law of the State.

Mr. VIEIHE--In this State the law is not as in some others on this subject. In 1818 the law was passed which is substantially the present statute. He did not think the bill would answer the purpose intended, because it can be so easily evaded and opposed its passage for other reasons.

Mr. HEFRON could see no branch of business this bill could injure, were it to become a law. If such fact can be pointed out he was willing to ask leave to withdraw the bill. Its only purpose is to place notes payable in bank on the same footing with ordinary promissory notes. It can only affect the class of persons who go over the country for the purpose of swindling.

Mr. MENZIE--Bank notes perform the office of money only so far as they are kept in vaults or other reserve places till due. This class of paper has been made the cloak for frauds innumerable in this State; and the theory that they perform the office of money has been exploded long ago. If this bill will have but a little tendency to stop the mischief so loudly complained of all over the State following the making and negotiation of bankable notes, let it be passed.

Mr. SPANN opposed the bill, not on the ground of protecting a few verdant greenhorns, for there is plenty of law to punish those who go around forging the names of farmers on such class of paper. He believed every man has the right to make a contract and sign a bankable note, if he wants to do so. We ought not to strike down this class of commercial paper unless some better reason can be shown than to protect persons frequently as dishonest as the sharpers who get the notes.

The bill failed to pass--yeas 22; nays, 17.

AFTERNOON SESSION.

HOUSE BILLS READ THE FIRST TIME.

On motion by Mr. URMSTON, the bill [H. R. 462] to enable railroads to erect and maintain Telegraph Companies, etc., and--

page: 72[View Page 72]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 72

On motion by Mr. BUNDY, the bill [H. R. 176] to legalize the incorporation of New Pittsburg and Hoover Turnpike Company

Were severally read the first time and referred to appropriate Committees,

STATIONERY.

Mr. VAN VORHIS offered a concurrent resolution, which was adopted, requiring a report of the value of stationery used during the regular session by the Committees and officers of each House.

ASSESSMENT FOR TAXATION.

Mr. SPANN moved to concur in the report of the Committee of Free Conference on the bill [H. R. 204] concerning assessment for taxation.

Mr. CHAPMAN demanded the previous question, which was seconded, and under its operations the Senate concurred in the report.

OFFICES AND OFFICERS.

Mr. VAN VORHIS, from the Special Committee thereon, returned Section 250 of the bill [H. R. 325] concerning officers and offices, recommending a substitute section concerning County Physicians to prisoners and paupers.

Mr. SPANN believed this substitute section would make the Health Officer physician of the County, under pay, establishing and creating a new office in each Township. With the Board of Public Health act passed by this Legislature, under th section there will be no end to these kind officers, and no limit to their pay.

Mr. VAN VORHIS explained the substitute simply changed the original section by connecting the Health Officer with the duties of physicians to the poor. It will be a very great addition to the efficiency of the Board of Health act if this section be passed. On moton by Mr. OWEN, the substitute was amended so thaat the County physician shall receive no pay as health officer.

The substitute section was then adopted.

Section 258 authorizing the publicatlon in a newspaper of the largest circulation in each County a list of allowances made at each session of the county Board, being read--

Mr. FOSTER said the rule from time immemorial has been to give public printing to newspapers of general circulation. He moved to insert the word "general" instead of the word "largest" If the section remains as it is it would be productive of strife, which might frequently get into the Courts.

Mr. CHAPMAN said the day has gone by when newspapers having a large circulation desire to conceal it. The paper in accord with the Auditor would be the one selected under the proposed amendment without reference to the question whether the paper has the greatest circulation.

Mr KEISER thought it immaterial which word was used. This printing does not put much money in the printer's pocket--the pay is nominal. This statement ought to be published in two papers in each County. Every County can afford to pay for such publication at the price named.

On motion by Mr. HENRY, a substitute was adopted, providing for the publication in two papers having the largest general circulation representing the two leading parties in the County.

Mr. BROWN, from the special Committee there on, reported a substitute for Section 251, concerning County Attorneys, which was adopted.

Mr. FOSTER made an ineffectual motion to increase the pay for printing from five to eight cents per each allowance.

Mr. FOSTER moved to amend Section 260 so that the publication of uncalled for allowances shall be made in two papers representing the two principal political parties.

Mr. CHAPMAN--The question presenting itself is, if we are to go on and have all public printing done by two papers repreenting the two principal political parties?

The motion was rejected by yeas, 16; nays, 18.

Mr. BUNDY offered an amendment to Section 267 in the interest of temperance, so that no change of venue shall be taken from an order refusing to grant a license to sell intoxicating liquors.

Mr. BROWN thought the amendment ought not to prevail. There is no question in which public opinion will take such strong sides as in cases where resistance is made to an application for license to sell spirituous liquors.

Mr. SPANN favored the amendment. The only question on which Commissioners refuse to grant license generally is on moral character. There is right of appeal to Circuit Court. Then if change of venue is taken, the people in another County have not so much interest in the matter, and wrong may be done to the locality where the license may be issued.

Mr. FOSTER thought the liquor seller should have the same right to change of venue as other citizens.

Mr. MENZIES suggested the inadvisability of adopting this amendment, as it is in conflict with the civil code.

Mr. BELL said the Court would overthrow such an amendment--it would not be valid.

The amendment was rejected by--yeas, 12; nays, 27.

Mr. URMSTON made an ineffectual motion to amend Section 269, so that suits for claims shall be brought directly in the Circuit Court,

Mr. KRAMER moved to strike out Section 273 and 274, authorizing County Boards to contract for stationery. He thought it unwise. These supply firms will go into a collusion, one sending its solicitors in one part of the State, and another in another part.

Mr. FOSTER opposed the motion. It is better to advertise for proposals to furnish stationary needed for the County. Whoever bids the lowest is likely to furnish the articles needed.

The motion to strike out was rejected.

Mr. WOOD moved to amend Section 277 by authorizing County Boards to purchase the Statutes for Justices of the Peace.

Mr. MENZIES opposed authorizing Boards of Commissioners to furnish the Justices with the Statutes. If the bill authorizing the State to furnish them is ever to be heard from again that will cover the case if passed. It has been in Committee a long time, and seems to be asleep. Some one has chloroformed it probably.

Mr. HENRY (in his seat)--We will certainly hear from that bill some time soon in some way.

The motion was rejected.

Mr. BELL moved to amend Section 287 by striking out the word "bridge." This, is an old section, and this word has been the source of much trouble. This will make the Commissioners, in effect, select specifications before hand.

Mr. CHAPMAN said there ought to be a clause providing there shall be bidding for some certain character of structure.

On motion by Mr. HENRY, Sections 287, 288, 289 and 290, relating to contracts, were referred to a select Committee, viz: Messrs. Bell and Chapman.

The Senate adjourned till to-morrow.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

NEW PROPOSITIONS.

The following described bills were introduced, read the first time and referred:

By Mr. HOTTELL [H. R. 484]: Relating to the fees of Jurors.

By Mr. FLOYD [H. R. 485]: To repeal an act for the appointment of Coal Oil Inspectors.

By Mr. LINSDAY [H. R. 486]: Providing for the page: 73[View Page 73]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 73 selection of Grand and Petit Jurors by Jury Commissioners.

By Mr. LINSDAY [H. R. 486]: Concerning Grand and Petit Jurors. [The Judge shall appoint two special Jury Commissioners to select Grand and Petit Jurors.]

By Mr. RYAN [H. R. 487]: Concerning the Supreme Court. [Te Supreme Court shall appoint five persons, citizens of the State, to assist the Court in the performance of its duties: salary equal to that of the Judges; term of office three years.]

OHIO RIVER BRIDGE.

The majority report of the Special Committee on the Evansville bridge bill [H. R. 370], recommending its passage as amended, was concurred in.

The bill passed--yeas, 74; nays, 4.

STATE MORTGAGE SALES.

Majority and minority reports were submitted ou the bill [H. R. 109] legalizing the sale of lands mortgaged to the State of Indiana, both recommending its passage with amendments, the minority report seeking to strike out Section 2, which legalizes invalid sales.

Mr. BUSKIRK--I am opposed to the bill because it is objectionable in legal aspects. I understand that the bill was originated in Vigo County, as it is intended to affect certain cases there. When this bill was before the Committee, the gentlemen for and opposed to it appeared before us, and statements make by the opponents of the bill that it would legalize invalid sales in Vigo County; that in one instance, a man's land worth $3,500 was sold for $58; in another case a person's property worth $7,000 was sold for $300. Statements not denied I take to be true. Even in a legal sale where the land goes for one-half its value, for it can not be mortgaged for more than that. It would be an outrage and robbing to legalize an invalid sale where the land has not brought one-tenth of its value. The minority report proposes to strike out the section which legalizes these invalid sales, and recommends the passage of the bill when this is done. The bill in this shape may have the effect to legalize invalid mortgages, and in that respect it is not objectionable, as the rights of parties have not been foreclosed in any way, but it would be wrong to relieve the speculator from the rule of caveat emptor by passing this bill containing the second section, and relieving him from the effects of his own negligence.

Mr. MORGAN--I hope the House will concur in majority report of the Committee. It is a matter of great public importance. The State sent her Common School fund to the Counties to be loaned. The Auditors loaned this money, taking as security mortgages on real estate. Now, it comes to light that many, perhaps thousands, of these mortgages are void on account of the County and State in which said real estate was situated being omitted. The Auditor of Vigo County now holds nearly 100 of these mortgages. To some extent, the same is true in every County in the State. In the Forty-second and Fifty-second Indiana Reports the Supreme Court holds that these mortgages are void, and can not, under the present law be enforced. This implies a loss to the school fund, or the people of the different Counties must be taxed to refund this money to the State. These loans were made years ago. The Auditors making these mortgages are gone, dead, and bankrupt. Their bondsmen are released by the statute deciding in their favor. This Legislature has the power to legalize these mortgages, making the school fund secure against loss, and relieving the Counties from a heavy loss on account of a mistake on the part of County Auditors long out of office. The second section of this bill, which the minority report proposes to strike out, imply proposes that where these sales have been made in good faith, and the law has been substantially complied with, and the money long ago paid, that simply the failure of the Treasurer to make, file, and sign said statement, shall not vitiate said sale. This seems to me to be a just law. Our country has rapidly improved, lands and city property has greatly enhanced in value. The persons who bought these lands deserve the benefit of the advance in the price of their property. I believe the bill is of vital importance to the public, that it will protect the school fund from loss, that it will prevent endless vexations, and costly litigation, and that it is just and fair and for the public good.

Mr. CARTER--I am opposed on principle to legalizing sales--Sheriff sales or otherwise as it not the proper thing to do. If we undertook to legalize all tax sales it would take twenty years do the work. The Legislature ought not to attempt to put life into a thing which has no life. The Supreme Court has decided that mortgages of this kind can be set to right, that this land will not be lost. I think it is wrong to legalize tax sales or sales of any other kind.

Mr. RYAN--This Legislature has already established a bad precedent in this respect. Every Justice of the Peace who failed to properly account for the funds in his hands, or by accident loses them, is here with bill to relieve him of the responsibility--every Notary Public who performed official duties beyond the term of his office, is here by his friend with a legalizing act, seeking to correct any inaccuracy or imperfection that exists. It seems to me the Legislature ought to halt. It is not a Court where the people of the State can rush as a sort of refuge. There is no such a thing as a guarantee or warantee in the judicial sale of this kind. It is a proceeding that comes under the rules of the Court and not the Legislature. These cases arise, as a rule, where the party has taken the chances with a view of speculation. The purchaser finds the deed bad and seeks this means of escape. There is no reason why these men investing in these mortgages should not be subject to the laws, because any business man--it would not require a lawyer--would have known upon the reading of these mortgages, that they were not valid mortgages, and an unsound investment. I hope the minority report will prevail.

Mr. MOODY--I am in favor of the minority report. I think legalizing legislation as a rule is dangerous. Aside from the special limitations of the Constitution, the Legislature can not exercise powers which are in their nature essentially judicial or executive. These are by the Constitution distributed to other departments of the Government. It is only legislative power given to us and not judicial, and we should be very slow to enter the Judicial Department of the Government and attempt to dispose of the legal rights of the citizens of the State. If there is an isolated case of hardship to any citizen of the State to whom the Judicial Department have failed, or one unable to do justice by, let him present the case to the Legislature and I am satisfied the relief wll be awarded him. But should this bill pass, it is general and applies to all cases, and who can say that while we are assisfing and relieving one man we at the same time may not be legalizing colossive robbery against many others.

The minority report was agreed to, and the bill was read the second time and ordered engrosed.

MEDICAL LEGISLATION.

The bill [S. 74 to regulate and improve the practice of medicine in the State of Indiana was read the third time, as amended by the House.

Mr. KENNER said: I am in favor of the of the bill. There are a great many good features about this measure. It will dispose of the imposition of frauds who infest the country. A man should not be permitted to follow a profession page: 74[View Page 74]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 74 which he does not fully understand, and especially sp where human life is at stake.

Mr. EDWINS--Gentlemen, this is a compromise measure between the physicians of the House. There was some disposition on the part of some members of the House not to concur in the Senate bill when it came up. The bill was amended, and now that it has reached its present stage, I hope this House will pass the bill.

The bill passed by--yeas, 73; nays ,10; as follows:

Akin, Baker, Barnett, Bartlett, Benham, Bryant, Car of White, Carter, Cauthorne, Chandler, Cooper, Compton, Cotton, Davis, Edwins, Fall, Frazer, Furnace, Gibson, Gillam, Gilman, Gregory, Hammond, Hargrove, Hinton, Hottell, Huff, Huston, Jackson, Johnson, Kain, Kenner, Kerr, Lee, Linsday, Marshall, Mason, McClure, McCormick, McDowell, McIntosh, McSheehy, Melrath, Meredith, Messick, Miles, Moody, Neff, Null, O'Neal, Roberts, Robinson of Decatur, Robinson, of Ripley; Roelker, Ryan, Schwetzer, Shields, Sinclair, Skinner, Stewart, Sulzer, Sumner, Taylor of LaGrange, Taylor of Noble, Thompson, Vawter, Walz, Westfall, Wilson of Montgomery, Wilson of Morgan, Wolfe, Wright and Mr. Speaker.

Nays--Beatty, Cabbage, Floyd, Franklin ,Ham, Lindley, Miller, Mitchell, Weaver and Wheeler.

So the bill passed.

SUPERVISOR OF HIGHWAYS.

The SPEAKER announced the special order for this hour to be the consideration of the bill [H. R. 143--see page 181] to make Township Trustees Superintendent of Public Highways the question being on the amendments pending Monday afternoon.

Mr. GILMAN was opposed to this bill. He said people in towns and cities would probably be willing to pay their tax to have the roads worked, but farmers and people living in the country are strongly opposed to this proviso, and it would work to the detriment of that class of people. He said if his amendment, as proposed the other day, prevails, those living in the country who want to work out their road tax under the same rates and conditions for which help can be employed, can do so, thus obviating the hardship which would often times occur where money must be paid out for this purpose.

Mr. MITCHELL, after consulting with his constituents, considered the amendment to the bill a good one, allowing those who so desire to work out their own tax.

The amendment to the amendment and the amendment were adopted.

Mr. SKINNER--Under our present road system we have about 9,000 Supervisors, who are authorized to collect road money, put it in their pockets, and give no security whatever. Under this law we have a Supervisor to meet these cases.

The bill passed--yeas, 53; nays, 28--as follows:

Yeas--Messrs. Baker, Bartlett, Cabbage, Carter, Cauthorne, Chandler, Cole, Cooper, Compton, Cotton, Davis, Floyd,