THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
VOLUME
TWENTY.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
SPECIAL SESSION.
IN SENATE.
SATURDAY, March 19, 1881-10 a. m.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] 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] 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]HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
SATURDAY, March 19, 1881-9 a. m.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] 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] 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.
