IN SENATE.
THURSDAY, February 24, 1881--10 a. m.Temperance petitions were presented by forty Senators, which were referred to the Committee without reading.
On motion Mr. SHAFFER, his local option temperance bill [S. 30], to regulate and license the sale of spirituous liquors, was taken up under the operations of the previous question, and read the second time.
Mr. YANCEY moved that the bill be ordered engrossed, and on that motion demanded the previous question, which, being seconded, under the operations the motion was rejected by--yeas, 32; nays, 15.
Pending the vote on the motion to order the bill engrossed--
Mr. BELL, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said: While willing to vote for the previous question in order to cut off debate, I think this bill ought not to be engrossed as it is, but that it should be amended so as to make it more perfect. Therefore I vote "no."
Mr. COFFEY, when his name was called, said: I desire to explain my vote. I believe this Legislature should enact some sort of temperance legislation, because the people of Indiana are demanding it at our hands. And I feel, as a Representative of a part of the people, that I would be recreant to the trust that has been imposed in me if I should vote to engross this bill in its present shape, because that means its death, and for that reason I vote "no."
Mr. FOSTER, in explanation of his vote when his name was called, said: If this bill is to be passed at all, I want its friends to have an opportunity to amend it. I vote "no."
Mr. HENRY, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said: For the same reason I voted against the seconding of the demand for the previous question, I vote "no" on this. The bill is imperfect, as originally introduced, and should not engrossed in that form.
Mr. MENZIES, in explanation of his vote, when his name was called, said: Believing that this is an attempt on the part of the enemies of this bill to strangle it to death, I vote "no."
Mr. SHAFFER, when his name was called, said: Just a word of explanation in regard to my vote. While I am in favor of this bill as it is amended because it is just what the friends of temperence want, and what the people want, but if this bill be engrossed and placed where it can not be amended, it will not meet the wants of the friends of the bill, consequently I shall vote no.
Mr. SPANN, in explanation of his vote, said: As it is understood that I am a friend of temperance, and if this bill as it was drawn by a Committee representing the temperance sentiment of Indiana, and as a Committee of the Senate has seen fit to report certain amendments, for the purpose of giving us necessary legislation on this question, I shall not vote to gag the work of this Committee, therefore, I vote "no."
Mr. VIEHE, when his name was called said: Believing all measures ought to have a fair chance before the Senate, and that has not been shown this bill yet, I vote "no."
The vote was announced as above; so the motion to engross the bill was rejected.
A report from a majority of the Committee on Temperance recommending some twenty-six amendments and two adverse minority reports were read.
Mr. GRAHAM moved that the majority report be concurred in, and under the operations of the previous question the amendments were concurred in, except proposing to amend the last clause of Section 3.
The amendment proposing to strike out the words "number of," in the clause declaring that the poll list of the last general election shall be presumptive evidence of the number of voters therein was rejected by yeas, 6; nays, 37.
Pending the roll call on this vote--
Mr. BROWN, in explanation of his vote, when his name was called, said: The reason I shall vote against that portion of the report of the Committee before the Senate is this: If the amendment is adopted, it will leave this bill open to the fraudulent conduct and practices which defeated the operations of the Baxter Bill. I can not see why it was the Committee struck out the language of the bill and put in this unless it was to bring along the mal-administration practiced under the Baxter Bill. The reason I shall vote against concurring in this report is this: If this amendment is adopted, it would allow the petitioners for license the opportunity of putting names of per- page: 223[View Page 223] sons upon their petitions who are not residents of the Ward or Precinct, and obtain licenses by that fraudulent conduct.
Mr. CHAPMAN when his name was called, said: I desire to explain my vote, without indicating whether I shall support a local option bill or not at this time; I desire, if a local option bill shall pass, that it shall be a genuine local option bill, and one that can be enforced. If the amendment proposed by the Committee shall be incorporated in the bill it would emasculate the bill, and as a law it would be worth nothing, for the reasons indicated by the Senator from Jackson (Mr. Brown). It opens the door for fraud--any names can be put on the petition whether such names were on the poll list or not. There should be evidence, not only of the number of voters in the Ward who voted at the election, but who the voters are, so than the truth of the application may be tested by the poll lists. Believing, if a law is going to be passed by the General Assembly, it should be an earnest and effective--one that can be made effective, and not one that can be avoided; and desiring that it shall carry wtth it all the means that will make it effective in the community, I vote "no."
Mr. MARVIN, when his name was called said: "My vote explains itself. I vote 'aye.'"
The vote was announced as above recorded, and so the amendment was rejected.
The bill was then ordered engrossed for the third reading by--yeas, 25; nays, 21, as follows:
Yeas--Messrs. Bischowsky, Briscoe, Bundy, Chapman, Comstock, Garrigus, Graham, Grubbs, Hostetter, Hutchinson, Kahlo, Langdon, Lockridge, Macartney, Majors, Marvin, Owen, Ristine, Sayre, Smith, Spann, Van Vorhis, Viehe, White and Yancey-25.
Nays--Messrs. Bell, Benz, Coffey, Compton, Davidson, Davis, Foster, Hefron Henry, Howard, Keiser, Kramer, Leeper, Menzies, Poindexter, Rahm, Shaffer, Traylor, Urmston, Voyles and Woollen-21.
So the bill was ordered engrossed.
On motion by Mr. BROWN--yeas, 38; nays, 5--the bill was recommitted with instructions to strike out the emergency clause and report the bill back to-morrow morning.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
THE CIVIL CODE.
Pursuant to order heretofore adopted, the Senlate proceeded to the consideration of the civi code bill [S. 271], concerning procedure in civil cases, the question being on the amendment pending at the adjournment last evening.
Mr. COMSTOCK--The purpose of the amendment is to obviate the necessity of dismissing the suit by settling the question as to whether the parties are in Court or not.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. MENZIES offered an amendment embracing new matter to follow Section 74 of the code, page 71, prepared by the President of the State Bar Association, and by some inadvertance not incorporated in the bill. The intention is to make affidavits a part of the record for the purposes of appeal, etc. It would cut out a good deal of Judge-made law, etc.
Mr. LANGDON opposed the amendment, regarding it as proposing only a matter of convenience.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. LANGDON offered an amendment that the execution plaintiff may designate the paper in which notice shall be given.
Mr. HEFRON considered the present law sufficient on that subject. It leaves the discretion where it ought to be--with the Sheriff.
Mr. CHAPMAN thought the matter ought to rest with the parties to the suit.
Mr. FOSTER was of opinion the Sheriff was the proper party to say where the notices ought to be published.
Mr. GRAHAM also opposed the amendment. The effect of the amendment would be bad. The execution plaintiff maybe the friend of a paper that has but a small circulation, and it would be his prerogative to say that the notice shall be printed in such a paper which can not give the notice other papers of larger circulation could give.
Mr. VIEHE said the Sheriff was only responsible for his errors.
Mr. LANGDON was in favor of the people, and of the people having the largest liberty to contract as they please.
Mr. BUNDY regarded the Sheriff as being responsible for such a class of advertisements, and to the Sheriff this matter ought to be left. The amendment would lead to no good results, and he hoped it would not prevail.
Mr. KRAMER was decidedly in favor of the amendment. In his experience, in nine cases out of ten the execution plaintiff pays the advertising fee, and it is right and proper that that party should control the advertising of Sheriff sales.
Mr. BROWN opposed the amendment. It will incumber legal proceedings with a routine that will prove of no benefit.
Mr. SPANN understood the execution defendant usually pays the bill, and he is the proper party to control this matter. He moved to insert "defendant" in lieu of "plaintiff."
Mr. FOSTER opposed the amendment to the amendment. Many times the execution defendant knows nothing of the publication until after it is made, and sometimes long after.
Mr. TRAYLOR opposed both amendments. If it is made the duty of the Sheriff to ask another where the notice shall be published that officer may have to go twenty miles to get consent.
The amendment to the amendment was rejected by yeas 11, nays 30, and the amendment was also rejected by yeas 20, nays 21.
Mr. COMSTOCK moved to amend Section 357 by requiring corporations to answer interogatories as natural persons through such officer the Court may direct.
Mr. LANGDON resisted the adoption of the amendment, the remedy under existing law being preferable.
Mr. COMSTOCK did not understand the correctness of the objections urged against his amendment.
The amendment was agreed to by yeas, 24; nays, 15.
On motion by Mr. GRUBBS, Section 35 was amended by adding a provision for service of process on persons of unsound mind.
On motion by Mr. SPANN, Section 374 wa amended where it refers to actions for recovery of personal property.
Mr. COMSTOCK offered a new Section to follow 802, authorizing the Court to require copies to be filed with complaints, answers or replies.
Mr. HEFRON regarded the amendment as proposing unnecessary labor and unnecessary expense. He saw in the report made of the argument here the other day it was stated that lawyers would resort to to the practice of abstracting papers from the files, and he believed such a person would resort to that practice as well when a copy is on file as when only the original is there. Such a rule would unnecessarily incumber the record,
Mr. TRAYLOR asserted that in time it will be necessary to increase the number of circuits in this State to fifty under the opeations of this amendment, if enacted into a law, and instead of Courts being held two weeks they will continue four weeks.
Mr. BELL submitted there could be no real hardship resulting from the adoption of this amendment. The Court could take all the circumstances into consideration before adopting such on order. In the Speaker's own city this amendment would work well. The Court would adopt the rule that no original paper should leave the files. He appealed to Senators who had page: 224[View Page 224] practiced in the Federal Court, where this rule prevails. It does not work more costs in the case, as has been suggsted. The copy goes with the original, for which no fee shall be charged.
Mr. HEFRON moved to amend the amendment, that where an opposing party or his attorney, desire a copy, on motion, the Court makes a rule requiring the other party to make a party.
Mr. BELL believed this amendment to the amendment would destroy the usefulness of the amendment. If left as it is, every party filing a claim would file a letter-press copy with it.
The amendment to the amendment was rejected, and the amendment was adopted by yeas, 26; nays, 14.
Mr. Kramer moved to reconsider the vote adopting Section 38, so:
It was not intended to place in power of parties to suits to advertise in any paper they saw fit. This amendment precluded any choice where there is but one paper printed in the County. In 1879 the Legislature passed an act making it legal to print any legal notice in a German or any other paper, provided the matter itself was printed in English.
The motion was rejected by yeas, 18; nays, 23.
Mr. CHAPMAN moved to amend Section 569 so as to require all transcripts filed in the Supreme Court to be printed, the cost to be taxed to the losing party. He said: The printing of the transcript would do as much toward expediting business as any action we could take. It would boil down the record so that transcripts the Supreme Court would have to consider would not average one-half in bulk. This rule obtains in the Supreme Court of the United States and in most of the States. It would be a great advantage, not ony to attorneys, but to litigants.
Mr. BROWN regarded the adoption of that as the Iaw would be an absolute denial of appeals in a lalrge number of cases. In suits where a large amount is involve, and litigants are able to pay, they can have them printed now if they want to.
THe amendment was rejected.
On motion, the bill was ordered engrossed.
The Senate adjourned till to-morrow.
