IN SENATE
TUESDAY, February 8, 1881--10 a. m.Prayers were offered by Rev. William H. Milnes, of St. Paul's Cathedral P. E. Church, of this city.
Mr. GRUBBS offered a concurrent resolution, which was adopted, for a joint Convention of the two Houses next Friday forenoon, the 11th inst., for the purpose of electing one Director for the State Prison North and three for the State Prison South.
Mr. MAJOR introduced a bill [S. 269] to relinquish the title of the State to the lands in the bed of Beaver Lake, Newton County, which was read the first time and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
RAILROAD WHISTLING.
Mr. Briscoe's bill [S. 2] to amend the. railroad whistling act approved March 29, 1879, being read the second time.
Mr. CHAPMAN--As near as he could gather from the reading the second section, was incomprehensible. He moved to strike out certain words. Common law makes what he proposes to strike out the law already, except a qualification which should be inserted. There is no occasion for adding the words referred to. With the words stricken out the law would stand just responsible and fair, and would make Railroad Companies responsible for injury, unless resulting from the negligence or carelessness of the person injured. it has been thoroughly well construed that Railroad Companies are liable for whatever injury is occasioned by neglect to whistle on approaching crossing of a public highway.
Mr. BROWN did not think the amendment either changes or modifies the bill. The law is: "Where one person receives injury from the negligence or carelessness of another, he is subject to damage." The amendment may remove doubt and uncertainty, and therefore it might be well to adopt it.
Mr. FOSTER stated that the bill supplies an amission in the act. Instead of saying the engineer shall sound the whistle before coming to a crossing, the act reads that he shall sound the whistle continuously. Now, the Senator from Marion (Mr. Chapman) proposes to amend the second section very properly.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. LANGDON moved to amend so as to have all pending suits determined according to the last named act.
Mr. CHAPMAN--Out of fair justice to itself, the Legislature can not afford to pass this amendment, as the statute supposed to be passed provided not for a continuous blast of the whistle. There is no special propriety in saving from suits for violation of a statute that never was intended to be enacted.
Mr. LANGDON doubted the propriety of amending the act except to make it speak as the General Assembly intended. But as now amended there is added a liability for injury attached. If the party injured contributed by his own negligence to such injury he could not be awarded damages. The tendency of the bill is to promote diligence. The original amendment ought not to pass, but if passed this reservation should be added, to procure remedies for any wrong committed.
Mr. BELL said the statute, instead of tending to preserve life and limb, destroyed the efficiency of sounding the whistle as a means of alarm. Then it was bringing on deafness of engineers. Better repeal the statute and leave the common law to govern, which furnishes a complete remedy. We say the first section is wrong, and yet propose to keep alive a penalty for its violation.
Mr. URMSTON thought the first section, as amended, was all right, but as to Section 2, the first suggestion made by the Senator from Marion (Mr, Chapman) was a good one. There is no clause to enforce the provision of one of the sections. There is one clause which runs counter to common law by providing that the Company as well as an engineer shall be liable for injury to an employe.
On motion by Mr. SPANN, the bill and amendments were referred to the Committee on Railroads.
SENATE BILLS READ THE SECOND TIME.
Mr. Bell's bill [S. 114] permitting amendment of bonds, when void for want of substance, upon request of all the obligors, or a new and perfect bond may be substituted therefor, was read the second time and ordered engrossed for the third reading.
Mr. Ristine's bill [S. 129] to authorize magistrates to imprison for non-payment of cost in State prosecutions, was laid on the table by concurrence in a Committee report so recommending.
Mr. Foster's bill [S. 38] to establish a State Public School for dependent children--
page: 146[View Page 146]Also, Mr. Shaffer's bill [S. 144] requiring railroads to fence their track in thirty days after notice, were laid on the table by concurrence in a Committee report so recommending.
JURISDICTION OF JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.
Mr. Yancey's bill [S. 133] to reduce the number of civil magistrates, was read the second time with a Committee report recommending that it lie on the table.
Mr. YANCEY hoped the Senate would not concur. The main object is to do away with an unnecessary number of Justices of the Peace. It also provides there shall be but one for each Township, and one additional for each incorporated town, and two additional for each incorporated city. Senators may object to having one Justice in a Township because it does not give a chance for change of venue, but where a change is taken it is usually sent to another Township.
And there may be some objection to the jurisdiction of $500 into it. Exclusive jurisdiction in sums of $25 is right. The common people would like to have some such law in regard to Justices Court. Were this bill to pass, men of character would be more apt to seek the office.
Mr. BELL said it would not do to enact this bill into a law. There is absolute need of more than one Justice in each Township. To give Justices jurisdiction in sums of $500 would take away business from higher Courts. This bill gives exclusive jurisdiction in civil cases where the fine does not exceed $25. In the larger Counties there is no necessity for such a provision as this. The inconvenience of changes of venue where there is but one Justice of the Peace in a Township would be very inconvenient. The bill is certainly very objectionable.
Mr. GRAHAM called attention to a statute provision in reference to Justices of the Peace where the number maybe regulated by Boards of County Commissioners. He opposed extending their jurisdiction because they do not take good car of their jurisdiction as a general thing. The Courts of the State are not so crowded with business as to grant additional jurisdiction to Justices of the Peace.
Mr. SPANN--There are not ten Justices of the Peace out of every 100 competent to make a record upon a judgment rendered by themselves. This bill would but encourage litigation. Many having small judgments rendered against them, knowing they could get a reversal from a higher Court, do not take an appeal because the amount in litigation is so small.
Mr. YANCEY desired to see the minds of Justices expanded by adding to their jurisdiction, and decreasing te number. He hoped the report of the Committee will not be concurred in.
The report was concurred in.
REDEMPTION FROM JUDICIAL SALES.
Mr. Majors' bill [S. 126], to provide that realty may be redeemed from executive sale by paying 6 per cent. interest, was read the second time with a Committee report recommending indefinite postponement.
Mr BROWN opposed the majority report and would recommend the passage of the bill, because it is right. The law allowing 10 per cent. was passed in 1861 when money was scarce, borrowers were numerous and lenders were few.
Mr. COMSTOCK insisted this indulgence to the debtor should not be extended at the cost of the creditor. It is not just, and the report of the Committee should be adopted.
Mr. MENZIES also thought the report should be concurred in, because it seeks to amend a repealed act, and its purposes would be to attempt an impossible thing. There is a bill now being prepared by the Committee on Revision of Laws on this subject. For himself he would favor an 8 per cent. penalty.
Mr. HEFRON had not listened carefully to the reading of the bill, but submitted that the principle is a good one. The law to-day, passed in 1879, allows no higher rate than is provided in this bill. Why should the judgment creditor have 10 per cent. after, when the law says he shall have but 6 per cent. before. The report should not be concurred in, but the bill allowed to pass to the third reading.
Mr. BROWN regarded the business of a Committee to be to cure defects in bills, and not report for indefinite postponement where the measure is susceptible of easy perfection. He didn't know that he would favor a redemption at all. It seems the hard creditor is the better for the debtor in the long run.
Mr. TRAYLOR--The 10 per cent. is a just penalty for not complying with contracts. Seven per cent. of all debts arise not from transfer of property, but from exchange of commodities, where hard-working men are deprived of the use of money they need. He hoped the report will be concurred in.
On motion by Mr. MENZIES, the report was concurred in, with an amendment that the bill lie on the table, to be considered with the bill prepared by the Board of Revision of the Laws.
And then came a recess till 2 o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Senate bills on the second reading:
Mr. Voyle's bill [S. 111]: To authorize Town Trustees to take possession of uninclosed commons; and--
Also, Mr. Langdon's bill [S. 87]: To amend Section 782 of the general practice act; and--
Also, Mr. Coffey's bill [S. 137]: Recognizances to bind real estate, were severally laid on the table by concurrence in the Committee's reports so recommending.
Mr. Coffey's bill [S. 150]: Supplemental to the act requiring surviving partners to file inventories was indefinitely postponed by concurrence in a Committee report.
Mr. Voyle's bill [S. 163]: To amend the provoke law was laid on the table.
Mr. Henry's bill [S. 175]: For relief of estate of a deceased trustee was read the second time and ordered engrossed.
The Revision Committee's bill [S. 216]: Concerning Superior Courts was read the second time.
Mr. LANGDON contended that it would be a saving of time to send this bill to some Committee.
Mr. COMSTOCK and Mr. CHAPMAN thought the way to facilitate business was to let the bill go along in the regular course.
The bill was ordered engrossed.
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Mr. BROWN thought it apparent that neither of these bills can be passed today, there being a rather thin Senate. Inasmuch as so many Senator are absent, it seems to me it would be an occupation of time to no benefit to consider these bills this afternoon. I have consulted with the Senator from Morgan [Mr. Grubbs] on the subject, and we have come to the conclusion that it is better to postpone the special order for this hour until next Friday at 10:30 o'clock a.m., when we expect a full Senate, and make that motion.
The motion was agreed to.
BILLS ON THE SECOND READING.
The Revision Committee's bill [S. 212] to regulate ferries and ferrymen was read the second time.
Mr. MENZIES said it remodeled the main features of the laws of neighboring States, and is to prevent ferrymen on the Ohio and Wabash Rivers from avoiding the Indiana law, and to put them on the same footing with ferrymen acting under the laws of Kentucky and Illinois.
The bill was ordered engrossed.
The Revision Committee's bill [S. 213] in relation to incorporations of Public Libraries, was read the second time.
page: 147[View Page 147]Mr. MENZIES stated there is no law permitting such incorporations. This bill exempts Public libraries from taxation, and it permits individuals to associate themselves into an organization to maintain Public Libraries.
The bill was ordered engrossed.
The Revision Committee's bill [S. 216] concerning drainage was read the second time.
Mr. GARRIGUS moved to refer the bill to the Committee on Swamp Lands.
Mr. BELL thought this would prove a most admirable bill, and unless there be some objection, he hoped it would pass to the third reading.
Mr. FOSTER thought a bill of such importance Should be carefully considered.
Mr. HENRY said the bill was prepared by one of the Commissioners on the Revision of the laws (Judge Frazier). While having quite an interest in the bill he was willing it should be referred.
Mr. BUNDY submitted amendments he desired should go with the bill to the Committee-a civil engineer shall be appointed as one of the Swamp Land Commsssioners, etc.
Mr. Henry urged an early report from the Committee.
The motion to refer was agreed to.
The Revision Committee's bill [S. 215] for consolidation of the State Prisons under one management was read the second time, and referred to the Committee on Prisons.
Mr. Chapman's bill [S. 189] defining powers of attorney was read the second time, and ordered engrossed.
The joint resolution [H. R. 1] in relation to Congressional aid in the construction of the Wabash and Erie Canal was read the second time, and passed to the third reading.
ACCOUNTS OF COUNTY OFFICERS.
Mr. Yancey's bill [S. 22] to authorize expert examination of County officers every two years, was read the second time, with a Committee report recommending that it lie on the table.
Mr. YANCEY hoped the report of the Committee would not be concurred in. The bill is not for the benefit of the experts, but for the benefit of tax-payer of the State of Indiana. Its object is to unearth fraud. In a great number of the Counties one political party holds all the offices. The bill authorizes the Judge of the Circuit Court to appoint two experts--one from each of the two political parties--whose duty it shall be to examine the accounts of the County officers. It is desirable to have a power making it obligatory to investigate these matters. This bill was not forty-eight hours old till he had received a letter wanting to know the provisions of the bill, and he afterward learned in that locality they would oppose such a measure.
Mr. BROWN opposed Investigating Committees, and never knew of any good resulting from their labors. If a can be cited where any good has resulted from any investigation he would like to know of it. Oftentimes the party investigated seeks to get it in order to cover up blame. The party investigated seeks first to make friends with the experts, and generally succeeds. The people will lose more in the expense of investigations than they can make in trying to get dishonest officials to disgorge.
Mr. YANCEY insisted the bill was very generous, as it divides the experts between the Republicans and Democratic parties.
Mr. VOYLES reminded the Senate that the present law provides the same as this bill, with the exception that the bill is pre-emptory. The several Counties can take care of their own affairs. This bill indicates that every officer is in the wrong.
The report was concurred in.
BILLS PASSED TO THE THIRD READING.
Mr. MENZIES' bill [S 53]: To prevent certain domestic animals from running at large, and exempting Railroad Companies from the provisions' of this act, and
Also, Mr. COMPTON'S Bill [S, 40]: To amend Section 3 of the Township election act of March 3, 1877, were read the second time and severally passed to the third reading.
WEIGHT OF CORN.
Mr. BENZ'S bill [S. 73]: To amend Section 3 of the act regulating weights and measure, being read the third time,
Mr. GARRIGUS moved to amend by making the weight of a bushel of corn on the cob seventy pounds, instead of sixty-eight, as in the bill. In every direction the weight in surrounding States is seventy pounds.
Mr. KRAMER thought a change of weight would operate against the producer, and would be wholly in the interest of grain dealers. He opposed the change.
Mr. WOOLLEN also opposed the amendment.
Mr. SHAFFER favored the adoption of the amendment. It will equalize the weight of corn in Indiana as compared with other States There is a memorial before this body from a Board of Trade, asking for this change.
Mr. HART has had experience in raising and selling corn. After the 1st of January a bushel of corn will weigh sixty-eight pounds and pay for the shelling.
Mr. HEFRON--If we change the weight of corn in the ear it will destroy the rule that has governed the weight of corn for years in Indiana. On the general average the present law fixes it where it ought to be. Petitions for a change came from grain speculators. He was opposed to disturbing the standard that has been maintained for so many years.
Mr. DAVIDSON has tested this matter personally and could say the weight of corn on the cob varies with the condition of the ear as to the dryness and dampness. In the northern part of the State sixty-eight pounds is ample weight, on an average. He favored the bill as it stands, and opposed the amendment.
Mr. MENZIES, representing one of the largest corn producing regions in the State, has changed his mind since last session, and while opposing this change then he should favor it now. As a commercial proposition, Indiana should not stand out for sixty-eight pounds, while the States on all sides have seventy pounds Indiana should fall into line with the surrounding States. The weight in the Illinois side of the Wabash and on the Kentucky side of the Ohio, both being the same, should fix the weight in this State.
Mr. COMSTOCK two years ago introduced a bill embracing this amendment. He then thought it right, and his experience has confirmed his first judgment. He hoped the amendment would prevail.
The amendment was rejected by yeas, 18; nays, 24.
Mr. Hutchinson's bill [S. 166] for relief of sureties of a former Trustee of Coolspring Township, Laporte County, was laid on the table by concurrence in a Committee report.
FRANCHISE FOR WOMEN.
Mr. Yancey's bill [S. 186] to enable women to vote for Presidential Electors was read the second time.
On motion by Mr. WILSON, the bill was made the special order for Tuesday at 2 p. m,
BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS,
Mr. Woollen's bill [S. 95] to punish bribery in connection with primary elections and Conventions of the people, was read the second time with a majority report recommending the indefinite postponement of the bill, and a minority report recommending passage with amendments.
Mr. COMSTOCK moved to concur in the minority report.
Mr. BELL hoped the motion would not prevail. The law knows nothing of a primary election. He page: 148[View Page 148] believed in giving the independent scratcher a chance. If we can prevent fraud at real elections it will be well enough without trying our hand at the people's primaries. No good purpose can be served by this bill, Let us legislate as against greater evils.
Mr. WOOLLEN referred to the well-known fact that money is shamefully used at primary elections. In other States there are such laws as this bill proposes, and they are very proper enactments. It is of about as much importance to prohibit the use of money at primary elections as at general elections.
Mr. HEFRON heartily favored the minority report. It is the well-known history of political affairs in this country that there is a growing tendency with candidates to secure by corrupt influences, not only their election, but their nomination. A law of this kind will restrain the use of improper influences and tend to give nominations to men of a better class than those who succeed through chicanery and bribery.
Mr. COMSTOCK--There is no question but that money enters largely into the results of primary elections, and a candidate so nominated will use the same means to secure his election.
Mr. MENZIES questioned whether the public sentiment of Indiana would enforce such a law as this would be. Bribery and corruption stalked through this State last fall, when men were bought like sheep in the shambles. He objected to putting any such law on the statute book, to be hooted at by every Ward bummer in the land.
Mr. SPANN was of opinion the law-making power should enact laws right in themselves, without reference to public opinion. If this minority report be adopted it is a step in the right direction. Any law that looks to the purification of the ballot is surely in the right direction, and will tone up the morals of the people.
Mr. BROWN was of the number who believed his neighbors and associates are abouta s honest as himself. There is no necessity for bribery in his Counties, or in the Counties in Southern Indiana where he is acquainted. He opposed the bill because it is imperfect and incomplete.
The minority report was rejected by yeas, 22; nays, 23; the Lieutenant Governor giving the casting ballot.
And then the Senate adjourned.
