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.
