THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
VOLUME
NINETEEN.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
IN SENATE.
THURSDAY, February 10, 1881--10 a. m.In the absence of Lieutenant Governor Hanna, Mr. Grubbs was called to the Chair. On motion by Mr. Viehe, Rev. W. H. Hinkley. of the New Church offered prayer.
Mr. COMSTOCK'S bill [S. 168] touching the relation of guardian and ward, regulating suits on bonds of guardians, and amending the eleventh Section of the act referring thereto, approved March 9, 1867, was read the third time and passed the Senate by yeas, 40; nays, 0.
NEW PROPOSITIONS.
Mr. COMSTOCK, on leave, introduced a bill [S. 271] embracing the civil code of laws as prepared by the Board of Revision and the Revision Committee, and, inasmuch as it filled 985 pages of manuscript, that was considered a sufficient "case of emergency" to dispense with the Constitutional rule requiring every bill to be "read by sections on three several days in both Houses" and so, forty two Senators voting "aye," the bill was read by title only, and made the special order for Wednesday at 10 o'clock.
The following described bills were introduced, read the first time (except in the case excepted) and referred to appropriate Committees.
By Mr. BROWN [S 272]: To regulate the transportation of freight by the different railroad corporations and common carriers in the State of Indiana.
By Mr. Voyles [S. 273]: Making it unlawful for residents of Indiana to garnishee, attach or reach by other mesne process in the Courts of another State, the personal earnings and wages of resident householders of this State who are not worth more than is allowed them by law as exempt from execution, due from any corporation doing business in this State, and providing a remedy.
By Mr. HART [S. 274]: To legalize the act of certain voluntary Associations, organized in Gibson County.
By Mr. HENRY, for the Committee on Revision, [S. 275]: Supplemental to the act regulating prosecutions in cases of bastardy.
By Mr. COMSTOCK, for the Committee on Revision [S. 276]: Concerning Criminal Courts.
By Mr. MENZIES, for the Insurance Commission [S. 277]: Concerning insurance. Was read by title only, under a dispensation of the constitutional rule.
By Mr. KRAMER [S. 278]: To amend Section 8 of the act of February 7, 1873, to regulate banks of discount and deposit in Indiana. [May reduce capital stock.]
By Mr. KAHLO [S. 279]: To amend Section 18 of the general city incorporation act of March 14, 1867 [so that Mayors of cities of 10,000 inhabitants and upward may turn over their dockets to any Justice of the Peace].
By Mr. HOWARD [S. 280]: Abolishing the death penalty, and providing for the commutation of the death penalty by the Governor to imprisonment for life.
By Mr. MENZIES, for Mr. Rahm [S. 281]: To amend Section 2 of the act of March 14, 1877, authorizing the acquisition of Green River Island.
By Mr. SAYRE [S. 282]: To authorize County Commissioners to purchase books, stationery and other articles for County officers, and the conduct of County business.
By Mr. TRAYLOR [S. 283]: To amend Sections 6 and 7 of the amendatory act of March 6, 1877, concerning reports of the decisions of the Supreme Court. [To be sold at $2.50 per volume.]
By Mr. YANCEY [S. 284]: In relation to taxes levied for Township purposes within the corporate limits of any city or town.
PURDUE AND STATE UNIVERSITIES AND
NORMAL
SCHOOL.
By Mr. MENZIES: A resolution instructing the Committee on Education to inquire into and report at an early date the average actual attendance at Purdue University during the past College year; the actual number in attendance at the present time; the residence of those in attendance; how many of the scholars are from Lafayette, or the immediate vicinity thereof, not estimating those appointed from the various Counties of the States. Also: To inquire into and report upon the revenues of the University independent of the State aid, and whether an appropriation is necessary from the State over and above the revenues of the University.
Mr. WILSON moved to amend by including "the State University at Bloomington and the page: 164[View Page 164] State Normal School at Terre Haute, and that the inquiries be made fully and completely as to all these Institutions."
Mr. MENZIES did not like the amendments tacked on to his resolution. He did not think it germane to the subject matter. The purpose of the resolution is to bring before the Senate some facts to form a basis for making up a judgment as to whether it will be necessary to vote to Purdue University a permanent fund of $20,000 a year. We are asked to take a long forward step in regard to that University, and it is desirable to have information as to whether the appropriation is necessary or not. He had no favoritism for one University over another, but preferred each Institution should stand by itself in this instance. If the Senator will frame a resolution covering the others, he would vote for it.
Mr. OWEN favored the amendment, thinking it for the good of the State that the Legislature should know something about where these students some from. Let the inquiries be included in one resolution.
Mr. WILSON did not desire to embarrass the resolution, but these matters have come before the Committee on Finance, and it desires to be informed as to all these educational institutions. The Committee has sought information by letter, but, so far, has failed to obtain answer.
The amendment was agreed to, and the resolution, as amended, was adopted.
THE WHISTLING NUISANCE BILL.
The Committee on Rights and Privileges returned Mr. Foster's resolution exhonerating ex-Senator Nathan Cadwallader from blame for the stupid blunder which made his railroad signal bill a by word, with a recommendation that it pass.
Mr. FOSTER repelled the statement that ex-Senator Cadwallader had been on this floor asking for the passage of such a resolution as this.
The resolution was adopted by concurrence in the Committee report.
Mr. LEEPER oftered the following:
Resolved, That it is the sense of this Senate that the interest on public funds, interest on purchase money of canal, college, school or saline lands, and upon the permanent school fund, shall be reduced from 8 per cent. to 6 per cent.
Mr. HENRY moved to amend by striking out the word "six" and inserting the word "seven" in lieu.
The yeas and nays on this motion were demanded by Messrs. Spann and Foster.
Mr. BROWN thought the rate of interest on school funds ought to be a little higher than the current rate on other moneys. He did not believe the Senate was ready to vote on the question, and, in order to give time for consideration, moved to postpone further action on the subject till Tuesday at 10 o'clock.
The motion was agreed to.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
NEW PROPOSITIONS.
By Mr. COMPTON, by request [S. 285]: To enable cities to make donations to Manufacturing and Mining Companies, and [to enable construction of works within one mile of the city.]
By Mr. COFFEY [S. 286]: Defining the fees of Constables for serving and returning subpenas in criminal cases [twenty-five cents and mileage, where more than one, ten cents each.]
By Mr. GRUBBS [S. 287]:To enlarge the capacity married women whose husbands are insane, and to enable them to convey their husband's interest in real estate [joining with duly appointed guardian.]
The above described bills were read the first time and severally referred to appropriate Committees.
SUPERIOR COURTS.
The Committee on Revisions bill [S. 21] concerning Superior Courts, being read the third time--
Mr. GRUBBS moved to postpone its further consideration till Friday of next week at 10o'clock a.m.
It is designed to embody all in the statutes with reference to Superior Courts. As there are two bills on the files, one to abolish the Superior Court of Cass County and one to establish a Superior Court in Vigo County, it would be well to postpone further action on this bill till the two bills referred to shall be finally passed upon.
The motion was agreed to.
ANIMALS AT LARGE.
Mr. Menzie's bill [S. 33] to prevent the running at large of horses, cattle, mules, sheep, goats or swine being read the third time--
Mr. MENZIES said the bill embodies the Ohio law, with the stringent measures excluded, and has worked well there for many years. The amount of money expended for building fences to keep out stock, has amounted to about $1,000,000,000, with cost of repairs about $1,000,000 annually. The object of the bill is to compel owners of stock to fence them in. This bill is more desirable by the people representing the agricultural interests of the State, than any other measure before the General Assembly.
Mr. FOSTER was satisfied a bill of this kind would not be acceptable to his people, it being mandatory in its character.
Mr. TRAYLOR also opposed the bill as it would work great hardships to people of limited means. It will compel the poor man owning a cow to sell her, or she will b e gold by tn Marshal.
Mr. LOCKRIDGE said the Committee were favorable to the passage of this bill. The State contains a population of nearly 2,000,000--the sixth in population--and the time has come when we should legislate in favor of agriculture. Most of stock running at large becomes breechy. This is a fair bill--a majority of the people are in favor of it, and he hoped it would pass.
Mr. BELL called attention to page 62 of the acts of 1879. This law leaves the matter wholly in control of local authorities, where it ought to rest. It is better adapted to our needs. In certain portions of the State are large bodies of land.
Mr. Spann did not think the law of 1879 comes up to the standard required by the people. In his part of the State some Townships petition while adjoining Townships do not, and so the law is inoperative. This seems to be a wholesome law that will meet the approval of all classes of citizens. While a friend to the laboring man, and a poor man himself, he insisted no one has a right to let stock trespass on the lands of another.
As Mr. URMSTON understood this bill he favored it. The cost to the farming community in this State for fencing against stock amounts $5,198,000 annually, and such a measure as the one proposed would save most all that heavy expense.
Mr. KRAMER believed the present stock law sufficient to meet the wants of the farming community. In Perry County a great portion of the wild land never can be made tillable, and there stock runs at large, though no record of restraint has been made by the Commissioners of that County. It is better for the community, and better for the land. Owners of stock should not be compelled to pay damages. The present law is working well enough.
Mr. HART would like to see a stock law, but his constituency do not want such a law, and he would represent their wishes though conflicting with his own. The Commissioners passed a restraining order against the running at large of hogs, last April, but no attention was paid to it.
Mr. GRAHAM opposed the bill as a matter of principle. Under it malicious persons would tear down fences for the purpose of releasing stock and getting pay for taking up the estrays, for such stock would be the moment they would get into the highway. It opens a door for fraud.
page: 165[View Page 165]Mr. WOOLLEN would have to vote against the bill. To the people living in small places it would lead to great hardships. If it is desirable to legislate for those who own farms, it may do to pass this bill, but if it is desirable to mix up humanity in our law-making and legislate for the many, it is better not to pass it. Believing the present law meets all present demands, he should vote against repealing it.
Mr. HENRY believed no bill before the Senate would be of as much service to the people in the agricultural interests of the State as the one now under discussion. The running at large of cattle and hogs destroy the ditches along public highways, and owners of forty acres and less in his locality are favorable to such a measure. A man that can keep a cow during the winter can pay $1 or $1.50 a month as pasture rent during the summer. The bill is in the interest of small farmers who do not wish to expend all his money in putting a stake and rider fence around his forty acres.
Mr. BENZ was in favor of the bill personally, but his constituency being opposed to it, he would vote against it.
The bill failed to pass by yeas, 19; nays, 25.
SENATE BILLS FINALLY PASSED.
Mr. Benz's bill [S. 53] to amend the act of June 9, 1862, regulating weights and measures, so that eleven pounds of sorghum molasses shall make a gallon.
Mr. BENZ said the bill adds sorghum molasses to the list enumerated in the present law, and that is all the change it proposes to make.
The bill passed by yeas, 31; nays, 8.
Mr. Bell's bill [S. 114] to permit amendment of bond when defective and void for want of substance, being read the third time--
Mr. BELL explained the bill provides that where a bond required in any judicial proceeding is void for want of form or substance, on petition of all interested, it may be amended, or a new bond substituted.
The bill passed by yeas, 41; nays, O.
The Committee on Revision's bill [S. 157] to amend Section 4 of the act touching the relation of guardian and ward, being read the third time--
Mr. LANGDON explained that it amends the existing law in the fourth section by requiring two or more resident freehold sureties for the bond of the guardian of any minor who shall be bound jointly and severally.
The bill passed by yeas, 35; nays, 0.
RELEASE OF BONDSMEN.
Mr. Henry's bill IS. 175] to relieve the estate of deceased Trustee--Martin S. Pruitt--in Madison County, being read the third time--
Mr. HENRY explained the situation: Funds were deposited in First National Bank of Madison, which failed, so the money was lost, He argued in favor of the passage of the bill.
Mr. MENZIES questioned the right of the State to declare a judgment satisfied, after it becomes a vested right in the inhabitants of a Township.
Mr. LANGDON said: Once throw down the bars and permit bills like this to be passed through the Legislature, and almost every class of excuses will be presented that can be conceived in order to escape liability on the part of bondsmen for those who have had custody of the public moneys.
Mr. TRAYLOR admitted there may be merits in this case, but the more merit there is in such a case, is not it all the more dangerous to place such enactments upon the statute books? If this is to go on much longer it may be a serious question as to whether or not to do away with all contracts. Being a dangerous precedent, he should vote against all such bills.
Mr. VOYLES doubted the propriety of such legislation, but being on the Committee, and hearing that every one in the Township affected was willing to see the bill passed, and that if would be like taking bread from the mouths of this deceased Trustee's children, this case appeals so strongly to humanity that his conscience was satisfied this relief would be proper.
Mr. COMSTOCK believed the facts stated show this Trustee had used great diligence, such as calls for relief from this body.
Mr. MENZIES favored bill under protest, on account of the peculiar circumstances connected with the case. He did not believe in the principle.
The bill passed--yeas, 30; nays, 7.
Mr. Compton's bill [S. 40] to amend Section 3 of the act of March 3, 1877, to provide for Township elections, being read the third time--
Mr. COMPTON explained that the bill changes rs the commencement of the term of Assessor from April to the 1st of September.
The bill passed by yeas, 36; nays, 0.
And then the Senate adjourned.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
THURSDAY, February 10, 1881--9 a. m.The session was opened with prayer by Rev. Mr. Duncan, pastor of Grace M. E. Church, this city.
On motion by Mr. COMPTON, the reading of the Clerk's journal of the previous day was dispensed with.
The SPEAKER laid before the House a communication from the Attorney General (Mr. Baldwin), in response to a resolution of the House, refering toa suit against Henderson for moneys collected from foreign Insurance Companies, stating that the money was collected unlawfully, and at so forth, &c.
Mr. M'CLURE introduced the bill [H. R. 316] for the relief of William J. Richy, late Trustee of Scott County, Finlay Township, Indiana, which was read the first time and referred to the Committee on County and Township Business.
On motion by Mr. CARTER the House suspended the regular order of business and proceeded to the reading of bills the third time.
Mr. Berryman's bill [H. R. 39] relating to the purchase of railroads, plank roads, turnpikes, be macadamized roads, etc., being read the third time--
Mr. BERRYMAN said there were two acts passed by the Legislature previous to this of a similar character. All there was in this bill was of the legalizing of purchase of gravel roads, where parties in good faith have invested their money in the purchase of roads and failed to organize within the time fixed by law, where they merely failed to comply with a technical form of the statute. He thought the bill ought to pass.
The bill passed by--yeas, 55; nays, 27.
Mr. Buskirk's bill [H. R. 44], supplementary and amendatory to an act providing for a uniform assessment of property, and the collection and return of taxes thereon, approved December 21, 1872, being read the third time--
Mr. CAUTHORNE said the bill should not pass because the Committee unanimously rejected it, and the Committee on Ways and Means is preparing a bill upon the subject of taxation, and further, that the National Banks escape taxation.
Mr. BUSKIRK--It is said this bill is unconstitutional, because it discriminates against banks. It is simply an amentatory act of the law of 1872. The Committee had no right to pass upon the constitutionality of this bill. I am going to submit it to this House to see whether they will pass it, and I will not submit to being squelched by the Committee on Ways and Means, because it has a bill under preparation which it desires shall be passed. It is said that it exempts certain species of proper page: 166[View Page 166] from taxation while the Constitution requires all property toe equally taxed. There is nothing unconstitutional about it. The law says there can be exemptions. It merely provides that when a man ha property worth $10,000 and owes $10,000, he does not need to pay taxes. It would be unjust to require a man to pay taxes on property which he does not own, and especially when the indebtedness which he owes is paying taxes also. There is nothing unjust about the measure, and I hope it will pass.
Mr. KENNER thought if this bill passes we would not be able to collect a dollar of taxes from the National Banks. The Constitution says taxes must be uniform. In this bill there is a clause, "provided, however, that this bill shall not apply to banks."
Mr. --------- moved that the bill be laid on the table.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. Carr's bill [H. R. 123] to legalize the election held in 1878, 1879 and 1880, in the town of Brookstown, White County, Indiana, and the official acts of all its officers was read the third time and passed, by--yeas, 78; nays, 0.
Mr. Meredith's bill [H. R. 91] to encourage emigration to the State of Indiana, was read the third time and passed, by--yeas, 77; nays, 1.
Mr. CARTER'S bill [H. R. 32] defining cruelty to animals, declaring it a misdemeanor, and providing for the destruction of animals in certain cases, being read the third time--
Mr. CARTER said the bill had been carefully prepared. It is similar in all respects to bills adopted in other States upon this subject. The Committee unanim usly agreed to it, and he thought it should pass.
Mr. FANCHER thought the section making it compulsory to stop a vehicle or conveyance to which a crippled animal is attached, or in process of transportation in a railroad car, might prove inconvenient and injurious in many cases. He favored the amendment of that clause in the bill. The bill passed by--yeas, 56; nays, 3.
Mr. Murray's bill [H. R. 61] concerning Telephone Companies, and supplemental to an act for the incorporation of Manufacturing and Mining Companies and Companies for Mechanical, Chemical and Building Purposes, approved May 20, 1852, was read the third time and passed by--yeas, 78; nays, 2.
Mr. Frazer's bill [H. R. 71] to provide for a speedy publication of certain laws [All acts containing an emergency clause immediately on their final passage shall be sent by mail to the Clerks of the Circuit Courts] was read the third time and passed; yeas 80; nays, none.
Mr. Teter's bill[H. R. 85] to establish a uniform method for the computation of interest when partial payments have been made, was read the third time.
Mr. TETER said the bill comprehended a great deal; that this measure gives both the borrower and lender their just dues, where, in the old mode of computation, such is not the case. In the old mode interest is often paid when, in fact, it is not due. The creditor ought to have all that is due him and no more. In the old form of computation thousands of dollars are paid yearly where the money is not due: therefore, he favored the passage of this bill.
Mr. GIBSON was decidedly opposed to the passage of this bill.
The bill failed to pass-yeas 43, nays 36--there not being a constitutional majority of two-thirds voting in favor thereof.
Mr. Moody's bill [H. R. 98] for the relief of Silas T. Brandon, Trustee of DeKalb County. Jackson Township, being read the third time--
Mr. MOODY said the person for whose exoneration this bill provides was a poor man, and was at the time this money was stolen from his residence Trustee of Jackson Township. The funds in his possession belonged to said Township. The loss not being occasioned by any neglect of his, the citizens of the Township respectfully petition this body to relieve said Brandon from the liability of paying this loss so sustained, and that the same be supplied from the Township fund.
Mr. NEFF--This House has no right, I care not what the circumstances are, to vote to remit money lost, lawfully, negligently, or any other way. When a man accepts an office, he accepts with it the responsibility. If a poor man loses his all--if it had been his own money--nobody would have thought of coming here and asking to have it refunded. I ask, members, if you do not believe you are transcending your duty to pass such a measure, and in your magnanimity shorten the school fund in the Township $500?
Gentlemen, that is not all. If that bill passes this House, how many more will you be called upon to vote for during this Assembly? For the last ten years I have watched this mater to some extent. When we go upon a man's bond, we say to the public if he does not pay such an amount we will. That is what a bond means, or it means nothing. If the people are so magnanimous as to sign this petition, let them put their hands in their pockets and make up this sum. I hope that a majority of the members of this House will not support this bill.
Mr. FULLER--This is a question confined altogether to Jackson Township and for them to decide. The gentleman from Putnam ]Mr. Neff] undertakes to have us believe that in this case if we exonerate the Trustee from paying this money, that the children of that Township will lose this money. This money if replaced as is the object of this bill, comes from the tax-payers of that Township. The children do not loose it, from the fact that the tax-payers propose to replace that by levy on the taxable property of the Township. If the citizens are willing to replace that money, I do not see why we should object.
Mr. MOODY -- The people of this Township who elected this Trustee, say, irrespective of party, that they will not see him sustain this loss but would rather pay it themselves. I have affidavits to the effect that it would require no additional levy of tax. In examining the House Journal, I find that there has scarely been a session but what acts have been passed for the relief of persons of this description.
Mr. WALZ said it was adopting a dangerous precedent. If this bill should pass, his people would find it out, and he would be called upon to introduce two such bills himself, and he would expect the House to pass the same and the Assembly would be flooded with such bills. He gave it as his opinion that the Legislature had no right to legislate against the wish of the minority of the Township. Because a majority of citizens petition the Legislature to relieve a single officer, it was not right to encroach on the rights of the minority by so doing. These majority petitions are gotten up very loosely, and oftentimes they do not represent one fourth of the wealth of the Township. If these subscribers want this paid let the subscribers pay it. If we keep on entertaining bills of this nature, we will have two weeks work more than if we promptly voted them down.
Mr. HAMILTON said the question was whether or not, in the passage of this bill, the school children will lose the money, or whether it would be made up by another levy. He cited a case that occurred in Madison County, in which the money was absolutely lost to the school children, while the Trustee so relieved had the money to send his own son to College. He thought it wholly wrong that the school children should be cheated out of this fund.
Mr. FANCHER thought the Legislature had a right to relieve a man under such circumstances, and ought to exercise it. He could see no reason why this body should not do so in this case.
Mr. WRIGHT--I hope the bill will not pass. I wonder if it ever occurred to the gentlemen singing this petition that it would cost the Legis- page: 167[View Page 167] lature thousands of dollars to pass this bill. The amount is insignificant, and I am in favor of defeating this measure.
Mr. BUSKIRK--I am opposed to legislation this kind upon general principles, but think this case is an exception to the rule. I have no doubt but that the money has already been replaced in order to carry on the schools. The matter has been adjusted by levy already. I think, under the circumstances, that the bill should become a law. The gentleman seems to think that there is a minority who object. They knew this bill with the petition would be presented. Why did they not enter a protest? That argument does not apply to this case, and I think this bill should become a law.
Mr. O'BRIEN said he was a member of the Committee which passed upon this bill, and inferred that there was not proper precaution used in keeping the funds; but as the petition was signed by nearly every property holder in the Township, it being well canvassed, and there being no protest, he favored the passage of the bill, although he was opposed to opening the door for the admission of such claims.
The bill passed by yeas, 60; nays, 23.
Mr. Jackson's bill [H. R. 105] relating to the duties of the Justices of the Peace, in making returns of funds collected, to the County Treasurer, was read the third time and passed, by yeas 71; nays, 6.
Mr. Furnas's bill [H. R. 119] to amend an act supplementary to an act concerning the organization and perpetuity of voluntary associations, and repealing an act concerning voluntary associations, authorizing County Commissioners to furnish homes to homeless children, was read the third time and passed--yeas, 77; nays, none.
Mr. GREGORY'S bill [H. R. 295] to legalize the incorporation of Green Hill Seminary Corporation, located at Green Hill Warren County, Indiana; was read the second time.
The bill was ordered engrossed.
On motion by Mr. GREGORY, the constitutional rule was suspended--yeas, 78; nays, 2--the bill read the third time and passed--yeas, 78; nays, 0.
The SPEAKER laid before the House a communication from the Chairman of the Insurance Commission, John Finch, Esq., [See yesterday's Senate proceedings] which was referred to the Insurance Committee.
Then the House adjourned to meet to-morrow at 9 a. m.
