VIGO COUNTY COURTS.
The Committee on Organization of Courts, to which was referred the bill [H. R. 17] in relation to the establishment of a Superior Court in Vigo County, reported the same back with a recommendation that the bill pass.
A minority report was also submitted recommending that the bill do lie upon the table.
Mr. MORGAN said, as a Representative from Vigo County, he wanted to see the minority report voted down and the majority report concurred in. Ten years ago, there was a bill passed the Legislature providing for a Criminal Court to be established in Vigo County. At that time the population of Terre Haute was about 17,000 and the County, perhaps, 35,000. Since then the population of Terre Hute has increased about 10,000, having now nearly 27,000 inhabitants. There has been a difference of opinion among the people as to whether Vigo County needs another County Court of civil jurisdiction, We all agree upon one point, that is, that the Circuit there is very much behind in its business, and it, perhaps, will never catch up until the County is given another Court of jurisdiction. Men of all parties and members of the Bar insist emphatically on the passage of a bill to establish a Superior Court in that County, and abolish the Criminal Court. In accordance with that wish this bill was drafted and submitted to various lawyers of all political parties, and was brought here thinking it was merely carrying out the wish of the people of that County.
By Mr GIBSON--There is a bill on the calendar to extend to the Criminal Court now in existence, civil jurisdiction concurrent with the Vigo Circuit Court. This bill [H. R. 17] is a bill to abolish the Criminal Court and create a Superior Court. It is my desire in considering these two bills to get at the merits of the provisions. It appears to me that the bill [H. R. 80] extending to the Criminal Court of Vigo County civil jurisdiction, had all the evidences of economy in it, and I verily believe that if every Member of this House could understand these two bill, that the report of the minori ty in this case would prevail. For instance, $800 salary is paid by the State of Indiana to the Judge of the Superior Court. We are here, or ought to be, as watch-dogs of the Treasury. Now, the salary of the Judge and Prosecuting Attorney of the Criminal Court is paid by the County of Vigo. The State of Indiana does not pay $1 for running that Court. If you abolish the Criminal Court and create a Superior Court, the State of Indiana has to pay $800 for the salary of the Judge. I hope the report of the minority will prevail.
By Mr. KENNER: To hitch civil jurisdiction on the Criminal Court, never ought to be done, but we propose by special action to give them civil jurisdiction. By this bill a Circuit Court is created with entire civil jurisdiction, having no criminal jurisdiction whatever, and the criminal jurisdiction is to be transferred to where it belongs and where the statute places it-in the hands of the Circuit Court. He favored the majority report.
Mr. SINCLAIR, being one of the members of that Committee, said: We acted with a view of carrying out a policy, one that I think should be carried out, and that is, not to pass any laws or repeal any, without strong reasons. At the time we acted we had just two bills before us. One was to prevent, as my colleague says, the extension of the jurisdiction, and the other was for the purpose of establishing a new office or new Court and abolishing the other one. At the time we acted, we had before us a petition from some of the best lawyers in the County of Vigo, asking to extend the Criminal Court jurisdiction. Among the number was our present United States Senator. The names of Mr. Voorhees, Mr. Carleton and some sixteen Republicans were on that petition. After that, inasmuch as the people of Vigo County, two years ago, by their choice elected two men to fill the offices of that Court, respect ought to be given to the voice of the people.
The gentleman from Vigo, who advocates the abolition of the Criminal Court and the establishment of a Superior Court, was elected to the place he holds here by that same people. Now, what I want to know is, do the majority of the people of Vigo County demand this? For my part, I do not favor the abolishment of a Court without strong reasons, Where there is an opportunity given to the citizens of the County to be relieved in any be other way, I think it is not the policy of the law to legislate men out of office and legislate others in. My friend across the way always mixes up politics, and sometimes talks about the Democratic party being legislated into Heaven; but that is no reason why Democratic officers of Vigo County should be legislated out of office and Republicans legislated in. I do not think that is our purpose here, and these are the reasons which actuated the minority of that Committee.
Mr. MORGAN--These fact are well known: That the salary of the Judge will be $800, and that amount will be paid out of the State Treasury; but you must bear in mind also that the Prosecutor whom we abolish will not receive his salary, and there is $500 in our favor, so that will only be $300 out of the State Treasury. I want to know gentlemen, if the citizens of Vigo County need this Court In the interest of justice, I want to know if it is economy to prevent the people of that County from hav- page: 122[View Page 122] ing judgment speedily and without delay on account of $300, when other Counties in this State have Superior Courts? I have not made this a party question, but ask every one here to put aside politics and vote for the majority report.
The yeas and nays were demanded by Messrs. Cauthorne and Cole, and the vote on the adoption of the minority report was--yeas, 33; nays, 54. So the minority report was rejected.
The majority report was concurred in, and the bill was ordered engrossed.
Mr. LINDLEY submitted a report from the majority of the Committee on the Organization of Courts on the bill [H. R. 80] in relation to civil jurisdiction of the Criminal Court of Vigo County, and recommended that it do lie on the table.
Mr. GIBSON submitted a report from the minority of the same Committee, recommending the passage of the bill.
The minority report was laid on the tably by--yeas, 55; nays, 30.
The majority report was concurred in.
Mr. GIBSON, from the Committee on Organization of Courts, submitted a report on the bill [H. R. 107] establishing a Superior Court in the County of Vanderburgh, with a recommendation that the bill pass.
The report was concurred in, the bill read the second time and ordered engrossed.
The bill [H. R. 66] to legalize the incorporation, etc., and ordinance for issuing bonds of the town of Chauncey, was read the third time, and passed by yeas, 83; nays, 2.
The bill [H. R. 199] to amend an act prescribing who may make a will, the effect thereof, what may be devised, regulating the admission to probate, revocation and contest, etc., was read the second time.
Mr. SINCLAIR--Inasmuch as the House took a recess of ten minutes to shake hands with Senator Voorhees a short time ago, I move that we take a recess of ten minutes now to shake hands with Ben Harrison, United States Senator-elect.
The motion was agreed to.
When the SPEAKER had commanded order--
Mr. McDowell filed a motion to reconsider the vote of yesterday on the resolution to appoint a Committee to investigate the propriety and expediency of establishing a new State Educational Institution.
The bill [H. R. 141] regulating the sale of brass, iron or other worn or scrap metal by railroad officials was read the second time.
Mr. KENNER said this was to remedy a wrong so prevalent at our large railroad shops. After night there are poor children running loose, picking up iron scraps, which they sell to junk dealers. You can not arrest these little children and confine them in Jail. This provision strike directly at the dealers to whom these commodities are sold. Prohibiting the sale of those articles puts an end to the stealing.
The House adjourned till to-morrow morning at 9 a.m.
