HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
THURSDAY, January 27, 1881--9 a. m.The House was called to order at the usual hour and prayer was offered by Rev. T. M. Hamilton, a Member of this body from Boone County, after which--
The reading of the journal was commenced, when--
On motion by Mr. FULLER, the further reading was dispensed with.
Call was then made by Counties for the report of Committees.
Mr. CARTER, from the Committee on Elections, returned the bill -[H. R. 45] concerning Trustees, recommending its indefinite postponement, which was concurred in.
Mr. BARTLETT from the Committee on Elections, returned the bill [H. R. 84] to promote purity in elections, recommending indefinite postponement, which was concurred in.
Mr.---, from the Committee on the Judiciary, returned the bill [H. R. 59] for sale of certain land in Porter County, with amendments, which were concurred in, and the bill ordered engrossed for the third reading.
BENTON COUNTY CLAIMS.
The Committee on Claims returned the bill [H. R. 81], providing for the payment of $973.70 to parties in Benton County, for expenses incurred In the prosecution of a murder trial.
Mr. NEFF said the bill provided for extraordinary expenses incurred in the prosecution of some murder trial in Benton County. If we vote a precedent of that kind, half the Counties in the State will bring claims of a similar character, and our special appropriation bill will be loaded down with thousands of dollars. It seems, without further information as to the peculiar circumstances under which this matter has been brought before the House, it is a little dangerous to approve of this report without any further evidence. It is simply appropriating 900 and so many dollars out of State Treasury to go to Benton County for doing what was perhaps the duty of the County officers. There is nothing said about how much went to the Sheriff, whose duty it was to comply with the law without extra charge. I tell you, this matter ought not to be so summarily disposed of. He thought the House was not sufficiently informed to adopt the report.
Mr. CAUTHORNE--In answer to my friend (Mr. Neff), I would direct his attention to a statement published in pamphlet form in regard to that affair. The man who was murdered was not a citizen of Benton County, and expenses were incurred in prosecuting a man who, while traveling through the County, committed the crime. They prosecuted and convicted him, and he is now in the Penitentiary, and, inasmuch as he was not a citizen of it and they have been compelled to prosecute and convict him, they ought to be reimbursed by the State. That is the ground upon which they bring the charge against the State. It presents no claim at all against the State either in law or equity. There is no County in the State but what is compelled to prosecute just such cases as this. There has not been a murder committed in our own town (Vincennes) by our own citizens, but generally by persons traveling through from St. Louis or Cincinnati. We have the same claim against the State that Benton county has to be reimbursed. There is one allowance in this matter of $500 to the attorney. This claim has been time and time again. I do not know if the Commissioners of the County are asking for this appropriation or not, but I do know that heretofore in the history of the State there has been lobbying about this House, and I have heard of such men being here now, and I think it is time for the members of this House to stand on their rights and protect the people and tell those men to go home, and not open the Treasury for their benefit. It would be laying down a precedent that would be dangerous. It has been said that the last Legislature asked the advice of the Governor or some other officer of the Administrative Department. It was a bad precedent that the Legislature of 1879 laid down.
This session we have been trying to fish out the idea from the Supreme Court and Attorney General as to what we should do here. There are three departments of this Government, the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial. We ought to stand by our rights and investigate these things for ourselves, and not fish for opinions from other people. I think, gentlemen, it is opening a broad door for men to get into the Treasury and get money; therefore I do not think the report ought to be concurred in.
Mr. KENNER thought it wrong to discuss the merits of the case on the report of the Committee, as this was a matter that ought to have a fuller investigation.
The report was rejected.
LIABILITY OF EMPLOYERS.
Mr. COOPER, from the Committee on Rights and Privileges reported that they had under consideration the bill [H. R. 29] fixing the liability of employers for injuries to employees, and recommend its indefinite postponement.
Mr. CARTER thought it a very important bill, and moved that it be referred to the Judiciary Committee for their consideration.
Mr. COOPER said the bill had been before their Committee at two meetings, and they considered the bill one that should not pass. It is peculiar in its provisions. It is a bill which, If it should become a law, would be unfair to the employer and unfair to the employe. There is a provision in the bill which implies that a party who employs an agent shall be liable for the negligence of the agent, without any knowledge on his part. page: 91[View Page 91] Such legislation would be injurious to the manufacturer, and I trust that the bill will not be again referred.
Mr. SWEITZER said he was in business himself, and though if such a law passed it would squelch the manufacturing interests of the State, for the reason that when an employe receives an injury in any way, the penalty provided in this law is so heavy as to bankrupt the manufacturer. He hoped the bill would never pass.
Mr. MOODY concurred in the report as read. In case a servant is injured by reason of negligence of the employer, the responsibility is limited. The employer is liable to this extent: To three times the amount of wages paid to the employee. He was satisfied there are bad features in the bill but would favor its reference to the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. CARTER did not desire to injure the manufacturing interests of the State, but, on the contrary, would do what he could to encourage that interest. There is a simple act of justice in this bill.
Mr. COLE hoped the bill would not be summarily disposed of,as he believed the bill has many good points that ought to be considered. It seems an act of simple justice to require an employer to be responsible for injuries to his employes.
Mr. DAVIS thought it would be well to have this bill recommitted, though not in favor of the bill or any of its provisions.
Mr. NEFF had as much regard for the manufacturing interests as anybody, and would be the last man to throw obstructions in its way: but after having heard remarks thereon, believed there are some good features in the bill. There ought to be some remedy in certain cases, whether this bill is looking in that direction or not. He opposed indefinite postponement.
On motion by Mr. CAUTHORNE, the bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee.
ILLUMINATING OILS.
Mr. COOPER, from a majority of the Committee on Rights and Privileges, returned the bill [H. R. 90] to repeal an act for the inspection of petroleum and illuminating oils, recommending that the bill be indefinitely postponed.
Mr. TAYLOR, of Lagrange, from the same Committee, submitted a minority recommending that the bill do pass.
Mr. COOPER favored an amendment rather than the repeal of this law. There should be laws regulating the purity of many things.
Mr. KENNER never heard any complaint of this law. If there is any thing that can be done to relieve the people, we ought to do so. He favored the majority report.
The minority report was rejected by yeas, 32; nays, 63.
The majority report was concurred in.
SURVEY OF INDIANA.
Mr. O'NEAL, from the Committee on Statistics, returned the communication from the Governor, transmitting a letter from Mr. Campbell with reference to the survey of Indiana by the United States Corps, with a recommendation that the survey be speedily prosecuted with reference to the feasibility of the drainage of swamp lands in the Northern part of the State.
On motion by Mr. CAUTHORNE, the report was concurred in.
NEW PROPOSITIONS.
The following described bills were introduced, read the first time, and severally passed to the second reading:
By Mr. ROBINSON [H. R. 211]: To enable County Commissioners to contract for the publication, printing and advertising, including the delinquent list, and providing when the publication of the same in the newspapers may be dispensed with. [County Boards must give public notice at least three weeks previous that they will receive bids for the publication of all notices and advertisements.]
By Mr. MOODY [H. R. 212] To amend Section 343 of an act to revise, simplify and abridge the rules practiced and pleadings, etc.--the general practice act, approved June 18 1852.
By Mr. MOODY [H. R. 213]: To provide for the filing of short- hand notes of testimony, for their preservation, and for a new trial in case of their loss. [The reporter shall file his notes in the County Clerk's office,and obtain an order of the Court in order to get them for transcription.]
By Mr. RYAN [H. R. 214]: To amend an act to provide for the election of a Reporter of the Supreme Court. [The Judge ,at the time of making decision, shall prepare a syllabus of proceedings. The compensation of such Reporter shall be $2,000 per year.]
By Mr. RYAN [H. R. 215]: A bill for the relief of gravel and macadamized roads and the directory of said Companies, and the collection of assessments that have been made on the land, pursuant to an act of 1869, authorizing the assessment for such purposes, and prescribing the manner of collection of the same.
By Mr. THOMPSON [H.R. 216]: To amend Section 3 of an act providing for more speedy trial of causes and facilitate the transaction of business of Courts, and provide for Court Judges to try causes and fixing their compensation in cases therein named, providing adjournment, term of Courts, and enlargement of jurisdiction in certain specified cases approved March 7,1877. [If a Judge fail to attend, or is kept from presiding, the County officials shall meet in the Court House and elect some competent attorney to act as Judge.]
By Mr. MARSHALL [H. R. 217]: An act to legalize the acts of Notaries Public and Justices of the Peace. [All acts administered by a Justice of the Peace, such as acknowledgement of deed, mortgages, etc., after the expiration of the Justice's commission, are declared legalized and effectual to all intents and purposes.
By Mr. MARSHALL [H. R. 218]: To amend Section 2 of an act amending an act to discourage the keeping of useless and sheep-killing dogs. Approved June 15, 1852, and March 2, 1865.
By Mr. KERR [H. R. 219]: An act concerning husband and wife. [No real or personal property of a married woman shall be liable for the debts of her husband ; a married woman can not enter into partnership in business without the written consent of her husband thereto].
By Mr. MARSHALL [H. R. 220]: Concerning liens of mechanical laborers and material men.
Mr. ROBINSON, of Ripley, offered the following resolution, which was adopted:
That the Attorney General of the State of Indiana be invited and requested to meet with the Committee on Claims at the meeting of the Committee to investigate the validity of the swamp land claims of the parties from Tipton County.
By Mr. MASON [H. R. 221]: For the relief of Francis Wade, Richard Smyth, James Kell, William F. Kendle and Samuel D. McCormick, bondsmen of a late Township Trustee.
Mr. MASON offered a resolution, which was adopted, that a Special Committee of Three be appointed to inquire into the charges made against the Asylum for the Deaf and Dumb, with power to send for persons and papers to investigate these charges and report to the House at an early day.
The SPEAKER made the Committee to consist of Messrs. Mason, Gilman and Hargrove.
By Mr. LINDLAY [H. R. 222]: Providing for the appraisement and sale of lands forfeited to the State.
By Mr. LINDLAY [H. R. 223]: Defining the duties of County Auditors as pertaining to school lands.
By Mr. LINDSAY, of Howard, [H. R. 224]: Providing for the collection of judgment for fees, page: 92[View Page 92] forfeitures, recognizances, and prescribing the duties of Clerks, Sheriffs and Constables in relation thereto.
The SPEAKER, laid before the house a message from the Governor transmitting a copy of the proceedings of a meeting of the citizens of Marion County, held at Indianapolis on November 22, regarding the death of Governor Williams.
On motion by Mr. CARTER, it was made a part of the special order set for to-morrow at 2 o'clock p. m.
Then the House adjourned until to-morrow morning at 9 o'clock.
