THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
VOLUME
NINETEEN.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
IN SENATE.
MONDAY, February 7, 1881--2 p. m.The Senate met pursuant, to adjournment, Lieutenant Governor Hanna in the Chair.
Prayer by Rev. C. M. Livingston.
NEW PROPOSITIONS.
The following described bills were introduced, read the first time and severally referred to appropriate Committees:
By Mr. FOSTER [S. 259]: to amend Section 24 of the highway supervision act of March 5, 1859.
[So as to prevent farmers from throwing brush or any refuse matter into the public highways, by appropriately inserting these words: "or who shall place, or cause to be placed in or on any public highway any rubbish, brush, trash or refuse."]
By Mr. GARRIGUS [S. 260.]: Concerning Common Schools--powers of Superintendents and makes properly connected therewith.
[It changes Township Institutes (which must now be held on Saturday at least once in each month during which Public Schools are in progress, and maybe two Saturdays), so that they may be held on any day of the week. and that two or more Townships may, in the discretion of the Trustees and County Superintendent, be united for the purpose of holding such Institutes. Now the teachers get no pay for attending such Institutes, and forfeit one day's pay if they don't go! This bill proposes to pay them for prompt attendance and faithful performance of duty thereat, such amounts as in the discretion of the Trustee of the Township wherein he teaches is proper under the rules established by the County Board of Education. The existing law is a gross outrage as to lack of pay and yet penalty. On appeals now the County Superintendent has no power to call witnesses in any case. One party may induce witnesses to attend, while the other may not be able to do so, and thus be deprived of justice, and how can the County Superintendent properly decide without evidence and witnesses? Seeing the lack and knowing the need in practice, this bill proposes to give him the power to summon witnesses before him in appeal cases, that he may hear the facts on both sides, and thus be enabled to do justice.]
By Mr. RAHM [S. 261]: To amend Section 1 of an act amendatory of the Coroner's duty act of May, 1852. [To more particularly define the bodies upon which Coroners shall hold inquests- exempting deaths from casualty where competent physician is in attendance.]
By Mr. TRAYLOR [S. 262]: To amend Section 2 of the misdemeanor act of December 2, 1865. [By striking out the portion making it a crime to "at' tempt to provoke," etc., and by increasing the fine from $20 to $25.]
By Mr. VOYLES, [S. 263]: In relation to the partition of real estate and supplemental to the act of May 20, 1852, concerning the partition of lands. [It provides that no partition of a decedent's real estate among his legal representatives, shall be had, until it is fully ascertained that none of such real estate will be needed by the administrator or executor to be converted into assets to pay the debts of such decedent's estate.]
By Mr. WILSON [S. 264]: For the protection of fish, defining certan misdemeanors and providing penalties for the violation of this act.
By Mr. COMPTON [S. 265]: Exempting certain property from taxation for municipal purposes. [Exempts personal property in the hands of guardians and executors and administrators from corporation tax by towns and cities, when the wards of the guardian live outside of such city, and as to executors and administrators, when the decedent lived and died outside of the city, when the guardian and administrator has no beneficial interest in such property.]
By Mr. DAVIS [S. 266]: To prevent the levy of unnecessary taxes by Township Trustees.
By Mr. SAYRE [S. 267]; To protect bridges, defining misdemeanors, and prescribing punishment therefor.
By Mr. LEEPER [S. 268]: To amend Section 29 of the general city incorporation law, approved March 14, 1867. [So that City Marshals shall be entitled to same fees as Sheriffs and Constables for the same service. A decision of Supreme Court uow cuts off such fees.]
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.
Mr. HEFRON demanded the special order, and thereupon--
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR announced the consideration of the bills [S. 3] to provide for the page: 140[View Page 140] calling of a Constitutional Convention, and the Committee report recommending a substitute for the bill [H. R. 16] to provide for a resubmission of the proposed Constitutional Amendments to a vote of the people, the question being on concurring in the report of the Committee,
Mr. BELL said:
I do not intend to detain the Senate a great length of time, and I do not know that an expression of my views will have any substantial effect upon any Member of the Senate, but it seems to me that an individual Member should avail himself of the privilege on such important matters of giving his views, especially if he has decided views upon any question. As to the power of the Legislature to call a Constitutional Convention I agree with the Senator from Jackson (Mr. Brown) that there can be little if any doubt. That power must be found somewhere. The Constitution makes no provision on the subject.
In the case cited by the gentleman from Marion (Mr. Chapman) in 7 Howard, the case of Luther vs. Borden, it is shown that the right to strike down an old Constitution and build up a new organic law of the land is vested in the people. The Constitution of 1816 was made pursuant to an act of Congress, and the Constitution framed by that Convention went into effect upon its adoption, by the members of that Convention. The Convention of 1852, which framed our present Constitution, was called by an act of the Legislature, and the Constitution framed by that Convention was submitted to a vote of the people for their ratification, and one of the provisions contained in the schedule attached to that Constitution was that it should be considered as ratified and adopted after it should receive a majority of all the votes cast at the election at which it was submitted to the people. Our own Constitution, our present one, contains no provision with reference to calling a Constitutional Convention. But as I have already said, the power must reside with the people to do this thing, whether the existing Constitution provides for it or not. But in the case of Luther against Borden, referred to in the discussion of these bills, it was so held. In that case the State of Rhode Island was acting under the old colonial charter, and had never adopted any other Constitution. Her people assembled and provided for the adoption of an entirely new Constitution. It was acted upon by the political departments of the Government, and the Supreme Court of the United States held that, having thus been called into being, it constituted and formed a Constitution for that State.
As to the reason for calling a Constitutional Convention, which shall decide my action in the affirmative upon that question, I propose to state them quite briefly. I agree with the Senator from Jackson in many of the positions assumed by him, while in others I am constrained to disagree. I am opposed to resubmitting to the people the proposed amendments to the Constitution, for several reasons, which I shall discusss in my advocacy of the bill proposing to call a Constitutional Convention. I recognize fully the force of all that has been said by the Senator from Jackson as to the changed condition of affairs since the time of the adoption of the present Constitution, which was almost thirty years ago. Indiana has almost doubled in population, almost all her interests are largely different from what they were then, and there are many grave questions pressing themselves upon us for our determination, many of which were referred to by the Senator from Jackson, and I agree with him as to some of these questions, that it will not be possible for us to defer their consideration much longer. They will be thrust upon us. We must consider them, and we must determine them. For instance, the question of the control of the great corporations in this country. And right here let me say that I do not agree with the Senator from Marion (Mr. Chapman) or Morgan (Mr. Grubbs) that the calling of a Constitutional Convention will be a dangerous experiment. Neither do I fear the people's representatives in the framing of a new organic law. I concede it is better that such a Convention or bod of men should be called together at a time when the public excitement does not run high, and when men will be inclined to moderation, but I am of the opinion that if we defer the consideration some of these questions, very long, the public mind and temper will be such that when it does come to deal with them there will be much more reason to fear the action of the Convention than there would be in calling it under circumstances that exist now.
But, Mr. President, aside from this--aside from the question of favoring the call of a Constitutional Convention, I am opposed to a re-submission of the amendments, heretofore proposed to the Constitution. First, because I think some of these amendments are very objectionable, not to say vicious in their character. Some of them I approve of. They are good, and they ought to be adopted as soon possible, if adopted in any regular manner, so as to become valid. For instance, the second and fourth amendments, which would only make our Constitution conform to the provisions of the Federal Constitution. As to the time for holding the elections, the one providing for holding a separate election for judicial officers, meets my hearty approval. The one as to registration I consider decidedly objectionable, for reasons given with a great deal of force by the Senator from Jackson. Registration does not protect. Experience has proven that; and I agree with his statement that if we desire to protect the purity of the ballot-box, it can be accomplished best by a reduction in size and an increase in the number of Voting Precincts. If we had Voting Precincts where, say at each, not more than 100 votes would be cast, it would be almost impossible for frauds to be perpetrated at any election. In that case men would be able to know of their own knowledge each person presenting himself to vote. Frauds upon the ballot-box, it has been my experience, are not committed in the country, where each man living in a Township knows every other man living there, but it is in our cities, where from 300 or 500 to 1,000 votes cast are at one Precinct. The most dangerous frauds ever committed have been committed under registration laws. [A Voice-So Mr. Porter said the stump.] I am reminded that Governor Porter said so in the canvass, and if so, it is but the experience of every one who has had any experience on the subject.
I differ with the Senator from Jackson in his approval of the amendment which attempts to regulate fees and salaries. I regard that as the most vicious of any amendment proposed. While it was not the intention of the amendment, in my judgment it would permit local legislation upon the subject of fees and salaries. It provides that fees and salaries shall be graded according to population and the amount of services rendered. As far as "services rendered" is concerned, I think that the proper theory, but when you come to regulate it upon the graduation of population then I say it is a most vicious enactment, and great trouble would almost with absolute certainty follow any attempt to enforce the provision of this amendment. It seems to me there would be little, if any, difficulty in drafting a bill under such an amendment, providing that in certain Counties containing a certain population, the fees and salaries of certain officers should be thus and so. I could draft a bill which would apply to my own County only, and yet it would have upon its face the appearance of a general law; or a bill could be drafted having reference to the County of Marion only. That such a measure as this would be vicious can hardly be disputed. That was an evil page: 141[View Page 141] that had grown up under our old Constitution, a very grievous evil it was, and when the makers of the present Constitution come to enact a constitutional provision upon this subject, they recognized the evil of local legislation with reference to fees and salaries and undertook to strike it down. I say they were wise.
I doubt not many of my fellow Senators have noticed the great number of local bills with reference to fees and salaries enacted by the last Legislature preceding the one first called under our present Constitution. Why, Mr. President, they even descended to provide for the fees and salaries of John Smith, a Constable in such a Township, in such a County.
Hundreds upon hundreds of such bills were passed, and it proved to be an enormous evil. In my opinion that evil would grow up under the provisions of this proposed amendment, and it never should be in the power of the Legislature to enact local laws with reference to fees and salaries. Suppose the Democracy were in power in the Legislature and should feel that the officers of Marion County were spending their money a little too freely on election day, and the Legislature should conclude that it will take away their provender and enact a law which might substantially legislate them out of office because they were of different political faith. On the other hand, suppose a Republican Legislature should conclude that it would stop the Allen County officials from spending money in political matters, and enact a law, general in provisions, yet applying to Allen County only, and substantially legislate them out of office. Such an amendment would open an avenue to the grossest frauds. When a member would arise and propose an amendment to the "fees and salary bill," and state that it would be applicable to his locality alone, he would ask his fellow members to let the bill pass, as he was responsible for it, and it would affect his locality only. I regard this amendment not only as objectionable, but absolutely vicious, and for this reason I oppose its re-submission.
The amendment in reference to limiting the powers of municipalities to tax themselves beyond a certain extent I most heartily approve. I think we need that one and the one with reference to vesting the judicial power of the State in a Supreme, Circuit, and such other Courts as may be created from time to time I likewise approve. We must have something in this direction. We can not give jurisdiction to any intermediate Court between the Supreme and Circuit, and we must provide some relief, either by a commission, as is proposed by a bill now on the files of the Senate, or by a Constitutional Convention.
Whatever my views upon the propriety of calling a Constitutional Convention, or however objectionable the proposed amendments might be, or however heartily I might approve of them, I am opposed to their resubmission because I believe we have no power to resubmit them. I believe the Legislature has exhausted its power wiih reference to those amendments, and has no right to resubmit them| I can not agree with the position on taken by the Senator from Morgan upon this question, and while I do not like to apply the term applied to it, by the Senator from Marion-reductio ad absurdum-it seams to me the gentleman from Morgan, unless driven to the wall. would not have taken the position he did on this subject. I desire to call attention again to the provision of the Constitution upon this subject [reads Section 1, Article 16,]. Then, not thereafter at some future time, but then, it shall be the duty of the Geueral Assembly to submit such amendment or amendments to the electors of the State, and if a majority of said electors shall ratify the same, such amendment or amendments, shall become a part of this Constitution.
The Senator from Morgan was driven to the Position which he took boldly and squarely and fairly, that these amendments must be re-submitted, and that it was the duty of each succeeding General Assembly to re-submit them, even if it were not done till the year 1900, 1950 or 2000. That is the legal sequence of his argument, and I must say, to his credit, that he did not dodge it or seek to dodge it. It seems to me this can not be true. It seems to me this could not have been intended by the framers of this instrument.
As regards the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the State against Swift as to the validity of the submission of the proposed amendments at the last April election, it seems to me there has been much said amiss about that decision, and much that is not justifiable by the terms of the decision itself. It seems to me it has been much misquoted and generally misunderstood, and while I do not feel that it is incumbent upon me to enter upon any defense of that decision, it seems to me it is entirely proper to consider briefly what it was with reference to what s decided in relation to our power to again subimit the proposed amendments to the people.
In this connection let me say that I was very much pleased with the dignified position assumed and the sound utterances made by the Senator from Morgan, when referring to this decision. His utterances were just and such as we might have expected from a gentleman occupying the position he does at the Bar; and they did credit to himself, credit to the learned profession of which he is a member, and to which he does honor. I regard it as of the highest importance, not only that members of the Bar should regard with reverence and veneration the decisions of the Court of last resort, and treat them fairly and candidly, and recognize their binding force and effect, but it seems to me every person ought to recognize it as important that this idea should be instilled into the minds of the people, for without this, would come revolution and anarchy, It is one of the best characteristics of the Anglo-Saxon race that it bows its head with ready submission to the Courts of last resort. Therefore, I was pleased with the utterances of the Senator from Morgan, and I think it would be well for many others, especially since the wave of political excitement that rolled over this country last autumn has passed away, to come to the consideration of this question as Senators ought to and look at these matters in a cool, calm and dispassionate manner.
As to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to hear and determine whether these amendments were adopted or not, it seems to me there can be no doubt, though the Senator from Marion said in very broad terms, I believe, that it was a usurpation of jurisdiction on the part of the Supreme Court. I must disagree with the learned Senator. It seems to me the true rule is as follows: While the absolute power rests with the people to strike down and abrogate an existing Constitution and create a new and entirely different organic law at will, yet it they have restricted themselves by the terms of an existing Constitution as to the manner in which it shall be amended, while these restrictions exist and action is taken under them, they must be complied with.
It seems to me that must be the law ex-necessitat. In the case referred to by the Senator from Marion, the case of Luther vs. Borden, in 7th Howard, it was held, as I said, that where the people met together, without any enactment of law, and changed their old colonial charters and framed a new Constitution, while it is held they had the power and right to do so, yet I submit that those facts were not the same as those attending the case of the State vs. Swift. It is true it is said, thaf if the Judicial Department might hear and determine this question, they might detain themselves in office after the Constitution under which they were acting, had struck down their authority and relieved them from power; but I call attention to the fact that these very page: 142[View Page 142] amendments were Submitted under a provision of our Constitution by which the people settled their own action in this respect as to the manner in which the Constitution should be amended, and who else was to determine unless it be the Judiciary whether or not the terms of the existing Constitution with reference to amendments had been complied with? This Court was created by our existing Constitution, and it is its business to construe its terms. They are a co-ordinate branch of this Government. I can not agree with the gentleman from Marion that the Legislative is superior to the Judicial Department. The Executive, Judicial and Legislative Departments, within their proper sphere, occupy a common ground; and I thought that was the idea which unders lie our whole theory of Constitutional Government.
I will now call attention in this connection to the adoption of the Wabash and Erie amendment. It was submitted at an election when no other question was voted upon, and I desire to refer to the peculiar terms of the statute under which it was submitted. [Reads from the report of the case of the State vs. Swift, page 513.] That was all the Governor, by the terms of the act, was called upon to do. He did not determine by proclamation whether or not this amendment had been adopted. All the act called upon him to do was to proclaim and declare the number of votes for and against the Constitutional Amendments. This I say to the Senator from Marion, that the case he cites is not in point; that the political and the executive departments of the Government was not called upon to act, and did not act, in reference to the question as to whether there had been a ratification of these amendments or not, while in the case he cites in Rhode Island, the political department had acted. In this case the political department had not acted and could not act. How was it to be determined? You could not resubmit the question to the people again, and where, I ask, did the power rest if not in the Supreme Court? [Reads from the case of the State vs. Swift, and continues at some length on this point, referring to the decision again and again.]
Mr. B. criticised the speech of the Senator from Marion quite freely, making, among other statements in reference thereto, the following: The Senator makes a strong argument against resubmission, and then announces that he will vote for the bill resubmitting. Mirable dictu! Can such things be and o'ercome us like a summer cloud without our special wonder?
Can it be possible that the learned Senator has received his order from a political tribunal, whose mandates he fears and obeys rather than the dictates of his reason and the monitions of his conscience? Has King Caucus pointed with his sceptre the pathway to be trodden by the learned Senator, and does he meekly obey? Has the sting of the party lash more terrors for him than the silent upbraidings and sharp prickings of that they called conscience? Does party fealty rise above the obligatations of official oath and station? O tempora! O mores!
Mr. BROWN--There was a little understanding between the Senator from Morgan (Mr. Grubbs) and myself that we would not call a vote upon either of these bills until there was a full Senate. I know our little arrangements are not binding upon the Senate; but I would like to have about twenty minutes at some time in the future to close this discussion. Trusting there are other Senators who desire to speak on the subject, and I propose to leave the matter open, and therefore move that the bills be set down for final discussion either to-morrow or Wednesday.
Mr. GRUBBS (in his seat)-To-morrow.
Mr. BROWN--Well, to-morrow afternoon at 2 o'clock.
The motion was agreed to.
TEMPERANCE MEETINGS.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR laid before the Senate a request for the use of the Senate Chamber for temperance meetings on Friday evenings the 18th and 25th inst.
Mr. CHAPMAN considered the Senate has no right to grant the use of this room to any one. We have no right to farm it out. Some one of the County Committee is almost constantly in a room below, and no doubt these people can get another and as good a room for their meetings as this one.
Mr. BELL also thought application should be made to the Committee. We are here only as sort of tenants by right of the new State House act. It would be exercising a little cheek on our part to undertake to grant the use of this room to any body.
Mr. BROWN--Inasmuch as he was the only advocate the temperance people of Indiana have upon the floor of the Senate, of course, looked with a jealous eye upon their interests. He moved the Senate recommend to the Board of Commissioners to grant their request.
Mr. CHAPMAN thought there was a certain sort of courtesy due to the Commissioners, who represent the owners of this building, and if we have the right to grant the use of the chamber to these people, or anybody else, we have the same right to farm it out to a circus. Then Friday night is generally a very busy night for the Secretaries of the Senate; that night they commence to make up the calendar of business for publication, and they ought not to be disturbed.
Mr. MENZIES favored granting the request, and made a formal motion to that effect.
Mr. BELL moved to amend the amendment by referring the matter to the Board of County Commissioners, with a favorable recommendation.
It was agreed to.
On motion, the whole matter was referred to the Committee on Temperance.
RESOLUTIONS FROM THE HOUSE.
The concurrent resolution of the House for a Joint Convention to-morrow at 11:30 o'clock, to elect Directors of the State Prisons, being read--
On motion by Mr. Grubbs, it was laid on the table.
The joint resolution [H. R. 3] to admit George Measer to the Soldiers' and Sailors' Orphans' Home at Knightstown, was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs.
The joint resolution [H. R. 4] requesting Indiana Congressmen to favor the passage of a law equalizing bounties to soldiers in the War of the Rebellion, was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs.
SENATE BILLS ON THE SECOND READING.
Mr. Urmston's bill [S. 65] to amend Section 766 of the general practice act, was read the second time, with two Committee reports, the majority recommending indefinite postponement of the bill and the minority recommending its passage.
The bill and reports were made the special order for to-morrow at 10:30 o'clock.
Mr. Hart's bill [S. 101] to amend Section 315 of the general practice act of June 18, 1852, [see these reports of January 18] was read the second time with a Committee report recommending indefinite postponement.
Mr. HART hoped this report would not be concurred in. In his District they have been in the habit of holding Courts four times a year, and the Judge believes a saving of one-third could be made under such a bill as this.
The report was concurred in.
The joint resolution [S. 4] requesting Congressmen to favor the passage of a law pensioning soldiers of the Mexican and Florida War was read the second time, and referred to the Committee on Rights and Privileges, with instructions to strike out all in reference to Mexican soldiers--a similar resolution concerning them having already passed.
Mr. Kramer's bill [S. 104] to amend Section 2 page: 143[View Page 143] and 4 f the Common School law [See these reports January 18], also his bill [S. 67] to extend terms of Township Trustees, were read the second time and ordered engrossed.
Mr. Wilson's bill [S. 167] authorizing the Governor to appoint all officers now elected by the Legislature, being read the second time with a Committee report, recommending that it lie on the table--
Mr. WILSON feared if the Committee report were concurred in, that it would be the last of the bill. It is said that the time for legislation is too short. To illustrate the point aimed at in this bill, he referred to the time taken up in consideration of claims. Congress set a good example by creating a Court of Claims. The bill is intended to take away an issue that takes up probably one-quarter or nearer one-third of the of the time of the General Assembly in caucussing and filling the offices in the gift of the body. It is designed to relieve members of this button-holing process, so that they can the better attend to the business properly before them. The bill proposes to place the appointment of all the officers elective by the General Assembly into the hands of the Governor. This may be only an effort like that of John the Baptist in the Wilderness--preparing the way for the enactment of such a measure at some time in the future.
The Senate refused to concur in the Committee's report, but ordered the bill engrossed.
Mr. Smith's bill [S. 16] authorizing cities to consolidate Wards was read the second time, and ordered engrossed for the third reading.
Mr. Voyles' bill [S. 72] authorizing the distribution of unexpended 3 per cent. funds to Township Trustees by County Boards, was read the second time and ordered engrossed.
Mr. Rahm's bill [S. 13] to reduce interest on school loans from 8 to 6 per cent., was read the second time and ordered engrossed.
And then the Senate adjourned.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
MONDAY, February 7, 1881--10 a. m.The SPEAKER announced prayer by Rev. Mr. Dudley, of this city.
The reading of the Clerk's Journal of the preceding session was commenced, when--
On motion by Mr. BUSKIRK, the further reading was dispensed with.
NEW PROPOSITIONS.
The following described bills were introduced, read the first time and severally referred to appropriate Committees.
By Mr. ROELKER [H.R. 290]: To amend Section 3 of an act providing for a more speedy trial of causes, to facilitate the transaction of business in Courts, to provide for Judges to try causes, fixing their compensation in certain cases therein named, and authorizing adjournment terms of Court and enlarged jurisdiction in certain specified cases, approved March 7, 1877. If the regular judge fail to appear for two days, on the second day the Sheriff and Auditor shall elect some competent attorney of the County to act as Judge pro tem.
By Mr. COMPTON [H. R. 291]: Defining the a duties the powers and duties of the Adjutant General of the State, fixing his salary, etc. [He shall be the mustering officer of the State, keep a complete record of the companies of the State and militia officers commissioned by the Governor, and all generals and special orders pertaining to the Indiana Legion, make inspection, etc.]
By Mr. COMPTON [H. R. 292]; To amend Section 31 of an act for the relief of the poor, approved June 9, 1852; and amending an act to provide for the support of the indigent, blind and other infirm persons, approved March 4, 1857. [Such keeper to give bond for $2,500; the County Commissioners to inspect such Institution every spring and fall; to report on the condition of each pauper, industry, expense, condition, etc.]
By Mr. FALL [H, R. 293]: To restrain domestic animals from running at large, prescribing the the duties of certain officers in relation thereto, etc.
By Mr. FALL [H. R. 294]: To amend Section 16 of an act to provide for the election or appointment of Supervisors of Highways, prescribing certain of their duties and those of County and Township officers in relation thereto, approved March 5, 1859. [He shall construct ditches, remove any wood or trees that may be necessary, and any person may petition the Township Trustee for the assessment of damages. In such case the Trustee shall appoint three disinterested persons to view the locality whee such grievance was committed, and assess damages within twenty days after such appointment--the Trustee to pay such amount out of County funds.]
By Mr. GREGORY [H. R. 295]: To legalize the incorporation of Greenhill Seminary Corporation, located in Greenhill, Warren County, Indiana, which was designed to be incorporated under an act for the incorporation of High Schools, Academies, Universities, Theological Institutions and Missionary Boards, approved February 28, 1855; also, an act supplementary to an act approved March 9, 1867.
By Mr. GREGORY [H. R. 296]: A bill for an act amending Section 527 of an act to revise, simplify and abridge the rules, practice and pleadings in civil cases in this State, and abolish distinct forms of equity and provide for the administration of justice in a uniform mode of practice, pleading, etc.
By Mr. GREGORY [H. R. 297]: To amend an act to enable owners of wet lands to drain and reclaim them, when the same can not be done without affecting the lands of others; prescribing the powers and duties of County Boards and other officers in the premises, and providing for the repairs of such drains, approved March 9, 1875: [The County Commissioners shall have power, with consent of a regular or special session of Court, to construct any covered or open ditch or water course that may be conducive to public health and benefit within such County].
By Mr. CABBAGE [H. R. 298]: To exempt the timber land of the State from all State and County taxes for the purpose of increasing the growth of the same.
By Mr. MITCHELL [H. R. 299]: To amend Section 3 of an act to provide for the election, compensation and prescribing the duties of the Attorney General of the State of Indiana, and adding a supplementary Section to the foregoing act. [His bond to be $50,000].
By Mr. MITCHELL [H. R. 300]: For an act in relation to the issuance of marriage license and matters properly connected therewith. [It shall be unlawful to issue license to a person or persons of so weak a mind as not to be able to attend to his or her business, of maintaining himself or herself, or when the person or persons is incapable of entering into or making a civil contract-any citizen to have the right to file a written objection. Such objector shall not incur civil liability by reason of such objection.]
By Mr. CUMMINGS [H. R. 301]: For the prohibition of the Grand Jury system, and providing additional means and modes for the prosecution of misdemeanors and felonies, and defining the powers and duties of Justices of the Peace, Circuit Courts and proceedings of Prosecuting Attorneys. [Prosecution for misdemeanors shall be instituted only by affidavit before the Justice of the Peace, saving the right of appeal to the Circuit Court to be taken within thirty days after the rendition of judgment.]
By Mr. CUMMINGS [H. R. 302]: To provide for the punishment of certain assaults and batteries committed by a husband on his wife, and declaring the duties of certain officers in connection page: 144[View Page 144] therewith. [Any husband convicted of committing an assault or battery on the person of his wife, by beating or whipping, etc., shall be punished by whipping with a cat-o'-nine tails, with not less than five nor more than twenty strokes, on the bare back, and imprisonment in the manner now prescribed by law--a whipping-post to be located at the County seat and also in each incorporated city or town.]
By Mr. LINDSAY [H. R. 303]: For an act to provide for a homestead to every resident "head of a family" in this State, exempting it and certain amounts of personal property from sale on execution, distress for rent, or any other final process of any Court, other than for judgments rendered for amounts due on mortgages or bill of sale for balance of purchase money, or for taxes, and defining who is a resident head of a family under this provision.
Mr. LINDSAY says that every State in the Union has such a law except six, and Indiana was one of the exceptions. The bill exempts $1,500 in real property, and $1,000 in personal property, where the debtor is the head of a family, and in other cases $300 in books or tools, when the debtor is not a family man.
By Mr. CARR [H. R. 304]: To legalize the election of the Board of Trustees and all other officers of the town of Monon, White County, Indiana, for the year 1879 and 1880; to legalize all their official acts, by-laws, ordinances, regulations and proceedings executed by them, in pursuance of the act for the incorporation of towns; defining their powers, providing for the election of officers thereof, and declaring their duties; approved June 11,1852.
By Mr. KENNER [H, R. 305]: In relation to opening highways. When the County Commissioners are petitioned by a majority of property owners, shall grant a right of way for the improvement of such street, alley or highway, and the petitioners can proceed to grade or pave such highway, under the supervision of a Civil Engineer.
By Mr. SUMNER the bill [H. R. 306]: To revoke certain acts of the Board of Trustees of Center Township, Marshall County Indiana.
By Mr. JACKSON [H. R. 307]: An act to regulate the manufacture and sale of commercial fertilizers. [Every package of commercial fertilizer offered for sale for manuring purposes shall have plainly stamped upon the same the name and place of manufacture, the weight, contents and analysis, stating the per cent. contained therein.]
By Mr JACKSON [H. R. 308]: To repeal Section 10 of an act concerning married women. [The section providing that married women shall not mortgage her separate property as security for the debt or liability of her husband, or any other person, be and is hereby repealed.]
By Mr. HINTON [H. R.309]: Fixing certain fees and salaries to be taxed in offices therein named, and describing their duties, approved March 31, 1879. [The fees of Grand Jurors in Circuit Courts shall be $2 per day, and ten cents for each mile traveled in going and coming.]
By Mr. GARDNER [H. R310]; To establish a Department of Geology and Natural History in this State. [The Governor shall appoint a suitable person, skilled in the art, as State Geologist, who shall have power to appoint as many assistants as he may deem necessary. The State Geologist is to serve four years, at an annual salary of $1,800. He shall continue the geological survey of the State, giving special attention to the discovery of mineral stones. He shall also be Curator of the Geological Cabinet.]
Mr. GARNER states: "There is no more reason for doubling up the Statistical Bureau and the Geological Department, than there would be in a union of a street-cleaning department with of fine arts."
By Mr. BARNETT, [H. R. 311]: to amend Section 26 of an act fixing fees to be taxed certain officers and the salaries of officers therein named, providing for certain employes, in public offices and fixing their compensation, defining certain duties and liabilities of officers and persons therein named, and liabilities of officers and person therein named, and disposing of certain moneys, making appropriations, etc.
By Mr. HOTTELL, [H. R. 312]: to amend section 6 of an act containing several provisions regarding landlords, tenants, lessees and lessor, approved May 20, 1852.
By Mr. TAYLOR [H. R, 313[: Fixing the salaries and fees of County Auditors, and repealing Sections 22, 23, 24 and 25 of an act fixing certain fees, etc., approved March 31, 1879. [The County Auditor shall be allowed the sum of $1,200 per year in Counties where the population does not exceed 10,000; and shall be allowed the additional sum of about $90 per each one thousand inhabitants in excess thereof, besides fixing the fees to be charged to individuals for outside matter.
RESOLUTIONS.
Mr. GREGORY offered a resolution, That the Committee on Benevolent Institutions be requested to examine into the practicability of the passage of a bill, during this session, to establish a State Board of Visitors, investiged with powers to visit at any time any and all of the Benevolent Institutions of the State, with full authority to investigate into anything pertaining to the management of such institutions, to send for persons and papers to inquire into the charges so preferred. Such Board to be elected by the General Assembly.
The resolution was adopted.
Mr. ADRIAN offered a resolution which was adopted; That the Secretary of State be instructed to forward, without delay, to the different County Auditors of this State, the blank inquiries, in regard to the number of orphan children in the County Poor House, and that the principal clerk see that this resolution be carried into immediate effect.
Mr. ROBINSON offered a resolution, which was adopted--yeas, 78, nays, 0--that our Senators and Representatives in Congress are respectfully requested to use their best efforts to secure the passage of a law by Congress equalizing the bounties of soldiers of the late war of the Rebellion.
Mr. SWITZER offered a resolution, which was adopted, that the Attorney General be requested to inform this House of the steps taken by himself or predecessor in the matter of bringing suit against E. B. Henderson, late Auditor of State, for the recovery of moneys from foreign Insurance Companies, as directed by the General Assembly of 1879, etc.
The House adjourned.
