THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
VOLUME
NINETEEN.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
IN SENATE.
MONDAY, February 21, 1881--2 p. m.On motion by Mr. FOSTER, it was ordered that Senate will devote the morning session to the regular order of business, and the afternoon session to the consideration of the business of the Codification Committee.
PUBLIC ROADS.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR announced the consideration of Mr. Bell's bill [S. 187] to make Township Trustee Superintendent of Highways, which was pending at the last adjournment.
Mr. SPANN moved to amend Section 8, by adding a proviso that the road master shal be a freeholder, and not of kin to the Township Trustee making such appointment.
Mr. HENRY made an ineffectual motion to strike out the words "be a freeholder."
The amendment was agreed to.
On motion by Mr. MARVIN, Section 9 was amended so as to require that the "work shall be done in a workmanlike manner."
Mr. GARRIGUS moved to reduce the pay of Trustee from $2.50 to $2 a day.
Mr. BELL was as of opinion the bill was right as it is.
Mr. WOOLLEN did not think it wise to increase the pay to $2.50, as the present per diem is $2.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. GARRIGUS moved to amend Section 15, so as notice of letting of contracts shall be given at least twenty days. He said the bill was silent in this particular, and some notice should be given.
Mr. BELL thought the suggestion a very good one.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. KRAMER offered an amendment restricting the letting out of contracts by the Trustee to a cost not exceding $100. He did not think it proper to allow Trustees to let out large contracts, and cut out men only able to contract for a mile or half a mile.
Mr. BELL said the smaller class of work should be done by the Trustee, but if there is a bridge to be built or larger work to be done, the Trustee should have the right to contract. He should dislike very much to see the amendment pass.
Mr. KRAMER objected to that view, and insisted his amendment should be adopted as a matter of justice to smaller contractors. He referred to the construction of gravel roads, which requires a good deal of money, and under the limtation of the bill of a twenty-five cent levy and the commutation tax, the Trustee would not have any more money than now, and that is not more than sufficient to keep the roads in ordinary repair.
Mr. WOOLLEN moved to amend the amendment by striking out all limiting the cost of improvements.
Mr. BROWN favored this amendment to the amendment, and insisted the law ought not to hamper the Trustee so he can not properly discharge his duties.
Mr. HENRY opposed the last amendment.
It was agreed to, and the amendment as amended was adopted.
Mr. VOYLES moved to add to Section 15 these words: "Provided that no contract for work shall be awarded to any person for more than $250, and no one person shall have more than one contract with reference to roads in the same Township." He said: It is fair to distribute the work among the people of the Township. One objection made to this bill is it requires the roads to be kept up on a money basis entirely. It does not provide for tax-payers working out their own road tax. He personally favored that feature. The old-time formality of working on the roads does not benefit the roads as the system underlying this bill would if enacted in a law.
Mr. MARVIN opposed the amndment. This bill would do away with working on the roads by men of small means, because road machines cost a good deal of money, and a man desiring to work roads must have large contracts to justify the buying of new and improved machery. The old-fogy system had better be continued than to adopt this amendment.
Mr. BELL hoped there would be no effort made to defeat the bill by attaching objectionable amendments. To make the bill practical and practicable it should stand in this particular as it is.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. HENRY protposed to amend so as to leave the discretion, where the contract is less than $100, with the Trustee, and compel the letting to the lowest bidder where it is over $100.
The amendment was agreed to.
page: 208[View Page 208]Mr. Leeper moved to add to Section 20 the words, "the owner of such lands may, however, in all cases have his damages therefor assessed and paid as provided in Section 19 of this act.
This amendment was agreed to.
On motion by Mr. GARRIGUS, Section 6 was amended so as to limit the pay of engineer to $4 a day.
The bill was ordered engrossed for the third reading.
MEDICAL LEGISLATION.
On motion by Mr. CHAPMAN, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of Mr, Yancey's bill [S. 74] to regulate and improve the pratice of medicine in the State of Indiana, to provide penalties for the infringement of the same, and declaring an emergency. [It proposes to divide the State into nine Districts, the Governor to appoint in each a Board of three Medical Examiners to represent each of the several Schools of Medicine now existing,one to serve one, one to serve two and one to serve three years; to determine as to the fitness of physicians to practice medicine, and to issue certificates of qualifications to such as may be competent--the standard of qualification to be uniform.]
Mr. CHAPMAN moved to amend Section 4 by adding the words, "reputable in character," having referenee to the schools of medicine. He thought the amendment would commend itself to the favor of the Senate. This barrier should be placed around the medical profession as the framers of the Constitution placed it around the legal profession; all practitioners shall be of good moral character.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. BELL moved to amend Section 6 by providing a fourth class to whom certificates of qualification may be issued, viz.: To persons who shall present satisfactory evidence of having passed examination before some Board established in any foreign country for the examination of persons proposing to engage in the practice of medicine. He offered this amedment upon the suggestion foreign-born resident physicians. Many of such came here with certificates equal to our University degree.
Mr. VAN VORHIS favored the amendment. Such examinations are much more severe than usual in Medical Colleges in this country.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. COFFEY moved to amend Section 6 by strikg out the clause authorizing certificates of qualification to be issued to physicians not graduates in medicine who have practiced ten years in this State. If legislation is necessary upon this subject to protect the people against quacks, why does the bill propose to continue in the practice men who have been practicing medicine for ten years? It well know that in almost every neighborhood there are those who have been practicing for ten years who are notoriously unfit and unqualified. Then strike this out of the bill and not impose this class upon the people.
Mr. VAN VORHIS was satisfied the friends of the bill would prefer to see the amendment adopted, but it has been thought best to leave this clause in, because to strike it out would endanger the passage of the bill. There is probably more humbuggery in the practice of medicine in this State than all other humbuggery combined, and the object of this bill is to protect the people from imposition.
Mr. SPANN favored the amendment, as it would do away with a class of men practicing as specialists who are known in their neighborhoods to be quacks. This bill should put every doctor upon the same footing.
Mr. SHAFFER opposed the amendment, not because it is not right and it would be well to have it in the bill, but as has already been said it would have a tendency to weaken the measure. So far as medical practitioners who have practiced ten years are concerned there are among that class those just as competent to practice medicine as some who are graduates of medical school, and many of them more so. We can not expect to enact a law reaching all the emergencies it should.
Mr. WOOLLEN said the true theory would be to compel every man to submit to a medical examination. But this bill is an experiment; and no matter what bill is passed it will meet with objection from some quarter. Now only a grooundwork can be built for a better superstructure hereafter. The ojections just made are well taken and are just. The line must be drawn somewhere. Many people would feel bad if they could not have the physicians they have known in times passes, and who have have carried them through spells of sickness. A man can qualify himself to practice medicine without going to a Medical College, though such cases are rare. Two years ago he took great interest this question, but now felt incompetent to draft a bill suitable to the wants of the people. Many objections can not be met, and though experimental, some such a measure may be productive of good to the people at large.
Mr. Henry moved as a substitute clause requiring every one to undergo an examination. He saw no reason why any person desiring to practice shall be excused from being examined by the Board. It is said by Senators, who are practicing physicians, that this bill is offered for the good of the people. If that be true, will they answer why a man who has practiced for ten years shall be exempt from examination. It would seem to the ordinary mind that effective and simple test should be put on one as well as on the other. If the bill passes at all it should pass in order that the people shall be protected. If for that purpose, then put the clause in that every man shall appear before a Board of his own school and stand the test of examination. Physicians on this floor favor this amendment personally, but they are afraid to vote for it for fear the physicians of the State will use such an influence as to kill the bill, which goes to prove it is not in the interest of the people.
If in the interest of physicians, it should stay out, but if in the interest of the people, it should go in. A crew of these proposed legislation quacks in this State have been preparing for it, spending probably one-fifth of their time in some Medical College.
Mr. BELL thought the Senator hardly deals fairly with physician Senators. They recognize the fact that every reform must be builded up gradually. Much good has been accomplished by the agitation of this question, according to the Senator who has just taken his seat, for it has caused some quacks in the State to attend medical lectures.
Mr. VOYLES agreed with much said by the Senator from Madison [Mr. Henry], inasmuch as we have many empirics in Indiana. If we can get rid of them, it is but justice to the people that we should strike at them in this bill. We should reach every element of good that can be brought about. This bill recognizes certain schools of medicine. He did not like the idea of forming a a mutual admiration society under the forms of law. He did not like the idea of striking a weak or paralytic blow. If it is our duty to do right, why need we fear the quacks and their friends?
Mr. VAN VORHIS regarded it as gratifying to see so many Senators taking such high grounds in reference to the qulifications of practitioners of medicine. It is desirable to get the best thing we can, but it is better not to ask for too much at the start. The proposed amendment really ought to be adopted, but that is not the point of view from which we desire to consider it. The experience is we cannot get what the people demand on this question. Then let us get all we can. If the friends of this amendment think we can pass the bill with this amendment, then all right; but if they think we can not, then they are not acting fair with the friends of this bill.
page: 209[View Page 209]Mr. FOSTER did not think there was any Senator or Representative in the Legislature who can remember when there was not a bill before the Legislature to regulate the practice of medicine. He did not agree with statement, if we can not strike down all the quacks let us not strike at any. We must proceed gradually with this kind of a measure. He came this session prepared with a bill similar to the one he came near getting through the General Assembly four years ago, but had withdrawn it at the suggstion of friends. He believed legislation on this subject is necessary. Physicians who have been practicing ten years are better qualified than the newly-fledged student with his diploma, obtained the Lord only knows how.
The substitute was rejected by yeas, 8; nays, 26.
The amendment was also rejected by yeas, 4; nays, 30.
Mr. GARRIGUS moved to amend so as to strike out the clause authorizing the issuing of certificates to graduates of Medical Colleges or Schools.
Mr. COFFEY thought this legislation is not in the interest of the people--they are not here demanding by petition that such a measure shall be enacted. Then if this legislation is not needed to protect the people, why pass such a law? The conclusion is formed upon his mind that the bill if in the interest of certain physicians, and of Medical Colleges. Are all physicians holding diplomas qualified to practice medicine? It is conceded by medical men on this floor that they are not. He pointed out a discrimination in this bill against a certain class of physicians, and contended they all should be placed on one common level.
Mr. CHAPMAN considered this legislation in the line of a good deal of legislation proposed; It goes upon the principle that he people are not competent to select their medical, legal or spiritual advisers, and that the Legislature should put a guardianship over the people; and that there is just as much need to throw these legal barriers around people as there is a need to protect sheep against sheep-killing dogs. If there is a need to protect the people, if the common people are not able to select their physicians, as they select thei lawyers, there is no propriety in the position taken in favor of keeping in a portion of the incompetents. No professional courtesy should deter their being lopped off, and it seems apparent we can not, out of consideration for one another's measure, we can not justify ourselves in stopping short of going the extreme so as to provide legal means for stopping the career of these people who are working so much injury to society. These Boards of Examiners, if good for anything, which he doubted, should be put to work on every one proposing to practice medicine. If the Board to be the test, that and that alone should be the test for all of them. There should be one standard and not a dozen.
Mr. FOSTER dared say the citizens of Indiana desired legislation of this kind as well as legislation against thieves and swindlers and gamblers and confidence men. The people are not supposed to know all about medicine and surgery, and those of us who do know how the people are imposed upon should legislate to protect them in this as well as in other matters.
The yeas and nays were demanded on the adoption of the amendment, and being ordered and taken, resulted--yeas, 11; nays, 22. No quorum voting--
The Senate adjourned.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
MONDAY, February 21, 1881--2 p. m.The folllowing described bills were introduced, read the first time and referred to appropriate Committees.
By Mr. COLE [H. R. 403]: To amend Sections 48 and 49 of an act to regulate general elections, prescribing the duties of officers in relation thereto, etc., approved June 7, 1852. [Each Inspector, Judge or Clerk to be allowed the sum of $2.50 per day for his services, to be paid out of the County Treasury.]
By Mr. RYAN [H.R. 404:] To provide for he examination of surveying party to a suit at law.
By Mr. MITCHELL [H. R. 405]: For an act prohibiting certain animals running at large in the State, providing remedies for damages done, prescribing the duties of certain officers, and excepting railroads and Railway Companies from the provisions of this act.
By Mr. SMELZER [H. R. 406]: To amend Section 7 of an act for the incorporation of Building and Loan Fund Associations, approved March 5, 1877, and March 6, 1873, and legalize all such Associations now in existence.
FREE ROADS.
Mr. FLOYD called up the special order, being his bill [H. R. 77] providing for purchase and making free roads of toll roads, which was read the second time, with a majority report from the Committee on Roads recommending its passage, with an amendment to Seetion 3, adding these words: "Providing that the bonds issued under the provisions of this section shall at no time exceed 1 per centum of the assessed value of the taxable value of the property of the County."
The report was concurred in.
Mr. CARTER moved to amend Section 1 by adding the following: "Providing that the County Commissioners shall not purchase any gravel roads, except upon petition of a majority of the legal voters in the County."
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. FLOYD--In speaking upon this bill, I am not actuated by any personal considerations of profit to myself; nor am I unmindful of the obligation that is upon me in legislation to labor for the good of the whole people. It is a fact, Mr. Speaker, the mere mention of which will secure the mental assent of every gentleman this floor, that nothing adds so much to the wealth of a State as her public highways,and nothing indicates so clearly the spirit of progress in a State, or marks the status of the improvement and development of a State as the condition of her public highways. Moneys appropriated to the application and operations of a systematic method of working and improving the highways of the State bring in returns to the Treasury of the Commonwealth far in excess of what can be known by any method of computation.
The improvement of the public highways affect the general prosperity of the State to such an extent that every branch of industry responds to such improvement as the springing grass responds to the gentle showers of springtime.
In speaking of the importance and utility of such public improvements as are now under consideration, I know I shall not be considered as drawing a fancy sketch. But beliving that gentlemen upon this floor are fully aware of the vast wealth-producing power attaching to public highways, I proceed to speak of the merits of bill now before us as embodying a system by which the material wealth of the State may certainly and equitably be developed by a process at once simple and practical.
The bill proceeds upon the principle that to every highway there attaches a local value and a public, or general, value. Those who live along the line of the road receive the greatest benefit. This is what I mean by a local value. It is of greater value to them because of their location in proximity to the road. Then, Mr. Speaker, I hold that every gravel road, and every other highway that is constructed in the State, has a general value attaching to it; that is, it is of value to the public--it increases the public wealth. It adds to the general wea1th more, vastly more, in the aggregate, than to the individual wealth of the few who live along the line of any given road. The present law proceeds upon the assumption that a page: 210[View Page 210] gravel road is of but little advantage to the public, or to anyone axeept those who live within a distance of one mile and a half or two miles. Now, gentlemen, I take it that this view is not only narrow in itself, but it involves a principle that is inequitable and unjust. Can anyone establish before a Court of Equity the obligation of parties in a given locality to tax themselves to make a public improvement? Upon what prnciples of justice or equity, I ask, are parties along a given line of road required to make public improvement, which adds materially to the wealth of the State, even though such parties may be benefited thereby more than the same number of persons living more remote from such improvement without any aid from the public? If this improvement was exclusively local, then I admit it would be just for parties desiring it to bear the entire cost of making it. But since it is general, and because it adds to the public wealth, and to the convenience of the public in traveling, I claim that the public ought to bear a part of the expense of building every gravel road that is built in the State. I claim it not only upon the ground of equity, but upon the ground of profit to the State. The State's wealth is increased by building or purchasing gravel roads by the same method and to the same extent that individuals,or corporations, are increased in wealth by building or purchasing them. If the State should build these roads and bear the entire expense, it would simply be a large corporation swallowing up the smaller ones. But then could she control this interest to the advantage of the people? and then, too, would she rise rapidly to a point of respectability and profit in the improvement of roads? Private property, or individual rights in roads is so antagonistic to the public interest that the attention of the Legislature ought to be at once devoted to the best methods of brnging about the result contemplated in this bill, viz: the absorption of individual rights in roads. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the principle of private property in public improvements if it were applied to our State Institutions, e. g., our Deaf and Dumb Asyum, our Blind Asylum, our State House or our Educational Institutions, would at once appear to the most casual observer as an unwise method of managing these Institutions. But sir, it would involve the same method now existing in the management of our public highways.
A public highway as legitimately and justly belongs to the State, considered in the light of its object and use, as does a State House or any of the Benevolent Institutions of the State. It will readily be seen that the provisions of this bill pertaining to the construction of roads as provided in Section 7 are intended and that they do blend the local and the general interests together so as to secure the rights of individuals along and adjacent to the road, nor does it work any injustice to the tax-paying public. But on the contrary it secures to the citizens of the County large returns for the money invested. This is true in its application to every man owning real estate or doing business in the County. Nor are cities or towns any exception to the rule in this case. Cities and towns are dependent upon the country adjacent to them for their prosperity. As a rule the measure of their prosperity is determined by the development and prosperity of the country surrounding them. Hence, they should be as much interested in the development of the country as the yeomanry of the State, for the reason that the interests of the former and the interests of the latter, as it pertains to public improvements are, and of necessity must be mutual.
Nor will it change the obligations of cities or towns as it petains to a measure so important and so general as that contemplated in this bill for such cities and towns to refuse to support the bill, because they may have roads already built leading to their city from every point of the compass. It is not expedient for cities and the rural districts to separate their interests in matters of public improvement and public enterprise.
There are too many Court Houses, State Houses, Benevolent and Reformatory Institutions to be built and maintained, for which the whole people of the State must be taxed to justify a city or town in opposing the general good, as provided for in any bill, upon the hypothesis that they are provided for, and that therefore they are under no obligation to aid a measure in the interests of the State.
These remarks, I apprehend, do not apply to any town or city in the construction of gravel roads, but only in the purchase of such. Nor do I know that they apply to any considerable extent to the purchase of gravel roads. But the local value of gravel roads to a city or town is so apparent that they always contribute liberally to their construction.
Mr. F. proceeded to show that it is to the interest of the State to absorb by a gradual process all the gravel road corporations within the State, and to convert all the toll roads into free roads.
Mr. CARTER--It seems to me that this measure is a dangerous one. We will have within six months after the passage of this bill every County in debt and owning all the toll roads in the County. I think it would be an injurious thing to put in the hands of Commissioners the power and require them to exercise it at once. Another thing unfair in this bill to the people of this State is this: A bill passed the Legislature two years ago, authorizing the people of any portion of a County to build their toll-roads and tax the land within a certain distance on each side of the same. A large number of Counties have, under the operations of that act, taxed the people and built roads in the last two years. If this bill passes, you will tax these same people and make them help pay for the new roads, thus taxing them twice. A great many gravel roads, under the law of this State [making them free roads after existing twenty years] will soon become free under the operation of the existing law. I do not believe the people want this law. It would be a very unwise thing to require the County Commissioners to buy every toll road in the State as soon as possible. I hope this bill will not be ordered engrossed.
On motion by Mr. STUART, the bill was recommitted to the Committee on Roads.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
The Judiciary Committee reported on the bill [S. 22] amendatory of Section 4 of an act concerning voluntary associations, etc., recommending its passage with amendments.
The report was concurred in and the bill was read the second time.
LIABILITY FOR INJURY TO EMPLOYES
The same Committee reported on the bill [H. R. 29] fixing liabilities of employers for injury to employe, recommending its passage with amendments.
Mr. RYAN moved to amend as follows: "In case the injury received by any employe when such employe would be entitled to recover except for carelessness of some co-servant, such carelessness of such co-servant shall be no bar to such recovery by such injured party." He thought this measure a very unjust one. In cases where the employer and employe are equal, there would be no harm in such a rule, but take a Railroad Company in that case: The employe goes to the service of the employer perfectly ignorant of all the duties and particulars pertaining to that business. The contracting parties are not equal, thus putting the employe on an additional responsibility of dligence. The law as it now reads is to the effect that every individual who takes employment from a corporation or individual, becomes thereby not only the page: 111[View Page 111] guarantee of his own carelessness in the performance of his duty, but is put, by the operation of the rule, the guarantee of every one of his co-servants. Where dangerous machinery is in operation, and a person loses an arm or leg in consequence of carelessness of a servant operating a particular machine, he can recover from his employer, notwithstanding the fact that the machine was dangerously arranged. Every individual takes a position with a full knowledge of the responsibilty, subjecting himself to such accidents as may result, but it is an unjust rule that he should become the guarantee of his fellow-servants. It is for this purpose that the amendment is offered.
Mr. GIBSON believed when a man engages himself he assumes certain responsibilities connected with such employment. He said decisions of Courts in cases of gross negligence were that the road becomes liable, and under this amendment it would destroy what is known as the doctrine of contributory labor, and he did not think the amendment ought to prevail. The passing of this amendment will force Railroad Companies and corporations to compel employes to sign deadline warrants.
Mr. COLE--I think the amendment ought to prevail. Take for instance the case of a fireman being injured by the carelessness of the engineer, where it was not in the power of the fireman to guard against the carelessness of the engineer. I think a Railroad Company or any other Company ought to be responsible for injuries caused by the negligence of other employes. Some body must be responsible; the railroad can use the proper care and diligence, a thing which the sub-employe can not do. They are, as the law now stands at the very mercy of these powerful corporations. In reference to the dead-line warrants, I am in favor of enacting a law, making every dead-line warrant null and void.
Mr. ROBERTS said the law did consider them void, and always considered such documents illegal. He said in case of an accident, the person can collect damages under the existing laws, and he did not see the necessity of such legislation.
Mr. CARTER said in running upon railroads there is a risk, and somebody must assume the responsibility of that risk. This amendment changes it so that the Company shall carry the risk in place of the employe.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. COLE moved to amend the bill as follows: "All contracts between an employer and employe by which the rights of the employe under the provisions of this act are waived shall be void."
The amendment was adopted, the Committee report was concurred in, and the bill ordered engrossed.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
The following described bills were returned from the Judiciary Committee with faverable reports, which were concurred in, and the bills severally ordered to be engrossed:
The bill [H. R. 162] relating to wild game; [H. R. 378] concerning incorporated cities; [H. R. 361] referring to Building and Loan Associations; [H. R. 379] winding up of corporations, etc.; [H. R. 389] relating to Churches.
A majority recommended that the bill [H. R 328] to reimburse Clark County for $3,880, expenses incurred in a murder trial, be laid on the table. A minority recommended its passage. The minority report was rejected and the majority report was concurred in.
The House adjourned till 9 o'clock to-morrow.
