IN SENATE.
MONDAY, February 14, 1881--2 p. m.The Lieutenant Governor commanded attention while the Divine blessing was invoked by Rev. J P. Williams.
The special order coming up--Mr. Wood's bill [S. 132] to appropriate $6,000 to remove a sand-bar in the Calumet River--the question being on a Committee report recommending that it lie on the table--
Mr. WOOD advocated the passage of the bill as an act of justice to people who are sustaining injury every year because of an act of an agent of the State. He spoke as follows:
MR. PRESIDENT-Several years ago the State dug a ditch from Cady Marsh Lake to the Calumet River. The ditch was dug through a high sand ridge directly to the river, so that the fiowage from this marsh washed the sand from the ridge into the river channel and filled it, a distance of three quarters of a mile. In dry seasons, with no freshets, the small farmers along this stream raise good crops, but when freshets come all their crops and labor are lost. The State dug this ditch and ought to appropriate this sum of money to remove the sand-bar caused by the negligence or unskillful conduct of its agents who performed the work. The people badly damaged some years and more or less others, have no redress but to appeal to the justice of the General Assembly. If individuals had caused this damage to the small land owners by digging this ditch, they could sue and receive some compensation for the injury done, but the State can not be sued. No proceedings were had to condemn the lands or appraisements had of damages to the lot-owners whose lands are rendered partially worthless for growing crops in wet seasons, by reason of this sand-bar. I have an affidavit of two of our best and oldest citizens upon this subject, which I now read (affidavit read). Now Senators, this is a small sum of money and I state upon this floor that no equal sum of money appropriated for any purpose by this General Assembly will be more beneficial in its results and more just in its purpose.
The report was rejected and the bill ordered engrossed.
FREE GRAVEL ROADS.
Another special order coming up--being Mr. Comstock's bill [S. 79] concerning the purchase of toll roads and their maintenance--
Mr. RISTINE moved to amend by substituting new matter for Section 4, providing for paying off the bonds in the same way as bonds issued for the construction of free gravel roads, and that lands assessed for the construction of free roads shall be exempt from taxation. The bill would work a hardship, because it would require parties assessed for free gravel roads to pay an equal amount for the new roads.
Mr. COMSTOCK doubted the propriety of the amendment in its present form. He defended the provision in the bill which includes for taxation those lands which have paid amounts for the building of gravel roads--the additional tax would not be construed as any great hardship. And the policy of issuing bonds when there is money on hand would not be commended by business men. He should regret to see the amendment adopted.
Mr. SHAFFER heartily favored the adoption of the substitute for Section 4 of the bill. He doubted whether many Counties in the State would be affected by the bill. The unfairness of taxing the entire taxable property of the County for the purchase of new roads should be apparent to all.
Mr. RISTINE replied to the objections urged by the author of the bill.
Mr. COMSTOCK moved to amend the amendment by debarring Counties in debt from purchasing roads.
This amendment was agreed to, and the amendment as amended was adopted.
Mr. SMITH moved to strike out all that refers to submitting to a vote of the people. He favored the passage of some law favoring purchasing of roads by County Commissioners. This bill requires a submission to a vote of the people, and Townships through which the road does not pass will vote against the proposition. The Legislature should assume some responsibility in this matter.
Mr. GARRIGUS was in accord with the Senator who has just taken his seat. A system of free roads is best for the people of the State. If the page: 179[View Page 179] proposition for purchase is to be submited to a vote of the County he did not believe one County in the State would vote for it. The effect of a law such as this bill proposes would be nugatory. Let us not make it more difficult to purchase a toll road than to build a free gravel road. The ampendment aims in the right direction.
Mr. GRAHAM favored the bill as it now stands, for the reason he did not believe power should lodge with County Commissioners to purchase roads and levy tax to raise a revenue to do so. When we tax the people we should go as near to the people as possible. We could see how unfair this bill might prove to be. The Board could purchase a road against of the will of the people. He favored free rcads, and spoke for a district having a large extent of toll roads it. It would be dangerous to allow County Commissioners to discriminate as between the way that roads should be purchased. If there is really any necessity for purchasing a toll road, it could be done under the provisions of the bill as it is. Let the people be consulted, and let them determine whether they desire a road purchased or not.
Mr. SPANN regarded this as a bill of considerable importance. He was decidedly opposed to the amendment. It is giving more power to the County Commissioners of the County, while the County Commissoners have too much power already, and by this amendment it would put it in their power to purchase every gravel road in their respective Counties upon a petition of fifty men, and it would put the whole purchasing power in the hands of six men, who might be corrupted. As has been said, the people should be consulted upon such questions. The men who raise the tax to raise money to pay the bond should be consulted. In the County where he lived there is not a free gravel road; they are all to-day in the hands of a few men composing soulless corporations. Every on of these roads have been built at the expense of the people--nearly every one by taxation of the people, and by this bill the tax-payer can be made to pay for them over again. In the of all that is good and true, have not the County Commissioners of Indiana now power enought in their hands? How easy would it be to get fifty persons along the line of the road to petition for its purchase and to find three men ao appraise it at a high price and get it purchased by the County Board. There is no safeguard against a fraudulent transaction under the pending amendment. It is proposed in this bill to tax all the land and all the property in the Count to purchase any road the County Commissioners may choose, etc.
Mr. BRISCOE believed in free speech, free vote, free trade and sailors' rights, but was opposed to this amendment. There is a cat in the meal tub. He did not like the idea in this amendment providing that all power shall be taken from the people and vested in County Commissioners and three others, with the Judge of the Circuit Court. There you are getting a ring within a ring. Those six men shall determine, without any expression from the people, as to whether a road shall be purchased or not. He opposed clothing two, three or six men with absolute power to make a contract with the County Commissioners and fix the price the County shall pay for a toll road. How easy for skinners and thieves to get together, good at addition, division and silence, and divide the spoil with corporations who desire to get rid of their roads. He opposed the bill in toto, unless the people of the County are allowed by a free and honest vote to say whether the County shall purchase or not. He was astonished at such a proposition coming from the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Smith), who represents a County where you can not ride hardly forty rods without being caught under one of these dead-falls--a long pole swinging over the road --controlled by men with more power than the Queen of Great Britain, and yet irresponsible to the law.
Mr. COMSTOCK regarded the provisions submitting this question to the County Commissioners as being a harmless one.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. BELL moved a substitute for Section 4 by changing the proviso relating lands over-assesed. He said after the matter was submitted to the vote of the people it is not mandatory, but left discretionary with the Board whether the price be paid or not. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to comply with Section 4 as it now stands. At any rate it would result in diffculty and confusion.
Mr. RISTINE opposed the injustice of assessing lands more than once for the purchase of roads. It would certainly be equitable.
Mr. GARRIGUS considered the amendment as unfair, in that it exempts the lands of those who helped build the road. If they are benefited with all the others, their lands should be assessed.
Mr. MARVIN thought this question a little complicated. If land is taxed to build a toll road and then taxed again to buy that road in order to make it a free road, of course that is double taxation. He did not see how this system could be carried out in justice to all the people of the County where many such roads have been built. In one of the Counties he represents some gravel roads have been built by taxation and some toll roads have been built as stock roads, and now they are building free gavel roads by taxation of the land within two miles on either side. Now, if a law be passed taxing all the people equally to pay bonds issued for the purchase of free roads, and some of the people will be taxed unjustly and wrongfully. Free gravel roads are the roads for this country, and they who procure the passage of a bill making all the roads free, will be doing an act that will benefit the whole State. This bill will not accomplish such a work.
The substitute was rejected.
Mr. SHAFFER moved a substitute for Section 5, so if this bill should become a law and the County Commissioners should convert any toll road into free roads they would stand on the same footing as other free roads.
Mr. COMSTOCK had no objection to any amendment which would improve the bill, but he doubted whether this amendment would be an improvement.
Mr. GRUBBS thought the amendment obviates a difficulty by placing these roads where they ought to be and where the existing law places them. To place them under Road Supervisors would destroy harmony in their management.
On motion by Mr. MENZIES, the emergency clause was stricken out.
The bill was ordered engrossed.
The bill [H. R. 27,] to provide for submission of legal questions by the General Assembly for decision to the Supreme Court was read the second time, and indefinitely postponed.
The bill [H. R. 23] to enable certain foreign corporations to hold and convey real estate in this State was passed to the third reading.
WORK FOR COMMITTEES.
The following described House bills were read the first time and referred to appropriate Committees:
The bill [H. R. 39] relating to the purchase of rail and other roads; [H. R. 61] concerning Telephone Companies; [H. R. 59] to authorize the sale of certain State roads; [H. R. 34] for a Police Judge in Indianapolis; [H. R. 107] to establish a Superior Court in Vanderburgh County; [H. R, 132] to authorize Auditor of Dearborn County to report; [H. R. 32] to define cruelty to animals; [H. R. 66] to legalize bonds of chancery; [H. R. 71] for speedy publication of laws containing emergency clauses; [H. R. 105] Justices of the Peace to pay over fines to County Treasurer; [H. R. 119] concerning voluntary Associations; [H. R. 123] to legalize elections in Brookston; [H. R. 91] to allow aliens to hold real estate.
page: 180[View Page 180]By Mr. MENZIES, for the Revision Committee [S. 288]: For the protection of private fish-ponds and fish preserves.
By Mr. BELL [S. 289]: To amend Section 11 of the stree, alley and highway act of March 17, 1875. [It changes the existing laws so as to authorize cities to collect benefits assessed for opening streets, as delinquent taxes are collected instead of by precept.]
By Mr. BELL [S. 290]: To amend Sections 20 and 61 of the general city repeal incorporation law of March 14, 1867. [So that they may levy and collect road labor tax instead of having it worked out on the streets. Also, reducing the price of keeping city prisoners to forty cents per day, the same as is now paid for County prisoners.]
By Mr. CHAPMAN [S. 291]: To repeal the act authorizing railroad aid by Counties and Townships of May 12, 1869, and acts supplementary thereto.
By Mr. COFFEY [S. 292]: To legalize the election of officers of Jonesville.
By Mr. GRAHAM [S. 293]: To amend Section 19 of the liquor law of November 17, 1875. [So as to give Justices power to summon and compel the attendance of witnesses the same as a Grand Jury to testify as to violations of the liquor law.]
By Mr. GRUBBS [S. 294]: To amend the Sunday law by providing that any deed, note, contract or other obligation in writing executed on Sunday, shall have the same validity as if executed on any other day than Sunday. [Its purpose is to meet the decision of the Supreme Court, that such an obligation in the hands of an innocent holder is void, if executed onSunday, though it may be dated as of a secular day.]
By Mr. LEEPER [S. 295]: Concerning County Boards of Education. [It takes from the County Boards of Education the Chairman of School Trustees of such cities and towns as are not under the supervision of the County Superintendent, so as to harmonize the law with Senate bill No. 52. Also, except incorporated towns from theu provisions of the law relative to change of text-books.]
By Mr. TRAYLOR [S. 296]: To amend Section 32 of the fee and salary act of March 31, 1859, fees of Township Trustee.
By Mr. WHITE [S. 297]: Concerning common schools. [County Superintendent to be appointed by County Commissioners.]
And then the Senate adjourned.
