HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
SATURDAY, February 26, 1881--9 a. m.The session was opened with prayer by Rev. Rufus D. Flack, pastor of Pattison M. E. Church, of this city.
The reading of the Clerk's journal of the previous day's proceedings was dispensed with.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
The Judiciary Committee returned the bill [H. R. 317] relating to County Recorders, recommending its passage.
The report was concurred in, the bill was read the second time and ordered engrossed.
Also, the bill [H. R. 341] abolishing capital punishment, recomending its passage.
The report concurred in, the bill was read the second time and ordered engrossed.
Also, the bill [H. R. 386] regulating marriages, recommending its passage.
The report was concurred in, the bill was read the second time and ordered engrossed.
Also, the bill [H. R. 308] concerning married women, recommending its passage.
The report was concurred in, the bill was read the second time and ordered engrossed.
Also, the bill [H. R. 381] in relation to Mayors of cities and voting for city officers, with the following amendment: Insert after the word "vote" the words "in case of a tie." When so amended recommending its passage.
The report was concurred in. The bill was read the second time and ordered engrossed.
Also, the bill [H. R. 271] concerning Clerks of the General Assembly, recommending its passage with the following amendment: Add to the first section "provided, that at any time, when the duties of the principal Clerk of the House or principal Secretary of the Senate may require it either of said officers may appoint one additional clerk, by and with the consent of the House, to perform any duties that may be assigned him."
The report was concurred in,. The bill was r ad the second time and ordered engrossed.
Also the bill [S. 176] in relation to the adoption of heirs, recommending its passage.
The report was concurred in, the bill was read the second time and passed to the third reading. Also the bill [H. R. 281] in relation to securing sub-contractors for work done on railroads, recommending that the bill lie on the table.
The report was concurred in.
Also the bill [H, R. 219] in relation to husband and wife, recommending its passage.
The report was concurred in, the bill was read the second time and ordered engrossed.
MECHANICS' LIENS.
Also the bill [H. R. 69] in relation to liens of laboring men, recommending its passage with the following amendment to Section 3: "Provided that the lien shall not have preference over any previous recorded lien, judgment or mortgage; provided such lien, judgment or mortgage is for value received; also provided that proper notice shall be given to protect innocent persons in the purchase of property subject to the lien.
The report was concurred in.
Mr. GIBSON moved to recommit the bill to the Judiciary Committee with instructions to amend so as to define what shall be a proper notice.
Mr. MITCHELL--If I understand the purport of the law as to a proper notice, it is that there shall be a record. If that be true, I am opposed to referring this bill any more. It has been referred a time or two, therefore I move to lay the motion on the table.
This motion was agreed to.
Mr. EDWINS moved to refer the bill to a Special Committee of Three with instructions to insert a section to define what constitutes a proper notice.
Mr. MOODY--I am opposed to this bill passing in its present condition. I think the bill a good one when it is amended so that all persons will be equally protected. This bill provides--in Section 1--that hereafter all property of any Company, corporation, firm or person engaged in any manufacturing, mechanical, mercantile or commercial business is liable for all debts contracted on account of work done, or services rendered by laborers, mechanics or employes which have accrued by reason of their labor or employment in and about the business of such Company, corporation, firm or person.
Section 2 provides that all claims growing out of the above causes are liens upon all stock on hand and all property which is employed by any such Company, corporation, etc.
Section 3 provides that such liens shall take preference of any claims of other creditors growing out of any other causes than those above enumerated, and of any claim because of the relation of wife or married women, and shall be enforced and collected as other liens are enforced and collected. Section 3 has been amended, by concurrence in the report of the Committee, so that it provides that proper notice shall be given to protect innocent purchasers of any property subject to any liens provided for in this bill.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I think this bill should be referred to a Special Committee with instructions to define what shall be a proper notice. If the act itself does not define and prescribe what shall be a proper notice, then the bill can have no effect at all and will only open a door for litigation in every case. The gentleman from Owen [Mr. Schweitzer] says that the statutes provide what shall be a proper notice. I think the gentleman on examination will find that it does not, and if he insists on a vote on this bill as it is, I am satisfied it will be defeated. I-am a friend to the bill and desire to see it passed when properly amended so that any man may know where to look for the evidence of liens and thereby enable him to protect himself if he be vigilant, and will not be left for some Court or Jury to say that his case is an exception and he has had no proper notice and he must lose his investment.
A motion to lay on the table the motion to recommit to a Special Committee was rejected by yeas, 28; nays, 47.
Mr. SCHWEITZER said the statute defines fully what constitutes a proper notice, and that it is unnecessary to refer this bill again.
Mr. FRAZER said every statute prescribes the time in which notice must be given. He thought this measure would be inoperative and amount to nothing if it passed.
The motion to refer to a Special Committee was agreed to, and the SPEAKER appointed Messrs. Edwins, Wilson of Morgan, and Roelker as said Committee.
PATERNITY OF REVENUE BILLS.
By consent, Mr. CAUTHORNE made the explanation to the House in regard to the tax bill introduced and referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, He said the bills go under the name of the gentlemen introducing them, but are virtually bills drafted by the Committee on Ways and Means. He cautioned the Members to consider well before they passed these measures.
SESSION HOURS.
Mr. BUSKIRK offered a resolution that when the House adjourn it shall be to meet again 10 a. m. February 28, 1881.
Mr. FALL moved to amend the resolution, making the hour for adjournment to-day at 4 p. m., to re-convene at 9 a. m. on Monday.
The amendment was rejected and the resolution was adopted.
EXTRA ALLOWANCE TO COMMITTEEMEN.
The Committee to which was referred the resolution requesting the allowance of expenses of the Prison Committee, reported that they are page: 237[View Page 237] unable to make any recommendation in regard to the matter knowing no rule of the House governing or allowing them to make such allowance. The Committee recommend that the House adopt one of the three following plans:
(1) That Committees that officially visit Public Institutions under order or leave of the House, be allowed the same mileage as members, and per diem equal to the ordinary charges of hotels; or
(2) That Committees which officially visit Public Institutions under order or leave of the House be allowed the amount of their actual traveling expenses, to be set forth in itemized bills; or
(3) Those visiting Public Institutions under order of the House, be allowed to do so and pay their own expenses.
The report was laid on the table.
THE CRIMINAL CODE.
On motion by Mr. RYAN, the consideration of the bill [H. R. 367] concerning criminal proceedings was resumed.
Mr. MOODY moved to amend Section 239 of the bill by striking out of the section all after the word "thereof," being these words: "The single evidence of the cashier of the bank purporting to have issued the same may be received as sufficient." He thought the amendment ought to be adopted for the reason that the single evidence of any person, even though he may be a cashier of a bank, ought not to be conclusive evidence to establish a fact that would deprive a man of his liberty; and for the further reason that this principle is susceptible of great abuse in the hands of designing men, who might avail themselves of this provision not only to prosecute an innocent man, but in many cases to relieve the criminal.
Mr. NEFF was of the opinion that if a party is charged with stealing a bank note or bill, you have got to show the fact that he did steal that property, also that the bill or note was genuine, and, in case of larceny, the Prosecuting Attorney ought not to be required to hunt up three cashiers, as is required in the preceding portion of this section; therefore, he opposed the motion to strike out this proviso.
Mr. BUSKIRK said when a cashier comes in and swears that a bill is genuine, a suspected criminal should never be convicted upon the evidence of a single individual.
Mr. MOODY--It makes no difference about this part of the evidence, beause the evidence required by the cashier is to make a prima facia case and put it to the Jury. The State rests there. That would be the case if this were stricken out. There is nothing to prevent the State's Attorney from introducing all the evidence at their command, but, on the contrary, it is his duty.
Mr. RYAN--This clause does not go to the question involved in case of forgery or crime, but to the question of value of the property alleged to have been stolen. Further, this rule is not obligatory in law, but in the absence of other testimony, in case where there is no other testimony that can be introduced to meet just such cases as would fail for the want of testimony of that kind. I think it is well that the testimony in such cases, that the testimony of one cashier may be taken as sufficient on the value of property.
Mr. MURRAY offered as a substitute for the amendment to Section 239, by adding to the section the words, "when not contradicted."
The substitute and the amendment were rejected.
Mr. STEWART moved to amend Section 259 [manner of procedure in criminal cases] by adding after the word "case" the following: "If the defendent or his counsel refuse to argue the case after the Prosecuting Attorney has made his argument, that shall be the only argument that shall be allowed in the case."
Mr. STEWART said it did not change the law any more than where the Prosecuting Attorney had made the opening argument and the opposing counsel refuses to come forward, that no other attorney shall be permitted to take his place. This amendment can not do any harm to the present text of the bill.
Mr. GIBSON said, under the operation of this amendment, advantage would be taken in cases where, by some mishap, the opposing counsel fails to respond. He moved to lay the amendment on the table.
This motion was rejected.
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. BUSKIRK moved to amend Section 239 by striking out at the close of the section the word "sufficient," (being in the sentence "the single evidence of the cashier of the bank purporting to have issued the same may be received as sufficient"), and insert the following words: "And admit prima facie evidence."
The amendment was adopted.
The reading of the bill [H. R. 367] by sections was finished, and the biil was passed to the third reading by yeas, 81; nays, 0.
ELECTION BOARDS.
The Committee on Elections, to whom was referred the bill [H. R. 403] concerning officers and Boards of Elections, reported on the same, recommending its passage with amendments.
The report was concurred in and the bill was read the second time.
GENERAL LEGALIZATION OF ELECTIONS.
Mr. WRIGHT moved to take up the bill [H. R. 280] for the general legalizing of city and town elections. He said several members of this body have been deterred from introducing bills on the subject, upon the presumption that this bill would be hurried through and become a law.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. Wright's bill [H. R. 280] to legalize the election of officers of incorporated towns in this State, and the official acts and proceedings of Township Trustees and other officers, etc., was read the third time and passed--yeas, 78; nays, 0.
THE WORLD'S FAIR.
By consent, Mr. Furnas' bill [H. R. 346] to provide for a Superintendent and Board of Managers for this State at the World's Fair, to be held in the city of New York in 1883, being read the third time--
Mr. FURNAS said this is a bill to provide for Indiana's representation at the World's Fair. We have great mineral, agricultural and horticultural wealth, but we can not exhibit it, of course, without some expense. The object of this bill is to make our resources fully known to the world and induce a better class of immigration to settle in Indiana. The appropriation asked for is not as extravagant as those of our sister States. Kansas appropriated a great deal more money, also Illinois and Ohio. Indiana being situated right in a central location, with all its railroad facilities and resources yet to be developed, it would be a shame not to be represented at the World's Fair.
The bill failed to pass--yeas, 40; nays, 40--for the want of a constitutional majority.
COMMITTEE CLERK.
The concurrent resolution, providing for the appointment of a Clerk for the Special Committee to investigate the Indiana Soldiers' and Seamen's Home and Asylum for Feeble Minded Children, such Clerk to be allowed the same as other Clerks of the House, was adopted.
JUSTICES' JURISDICTION.
Mr. NEFF submitted a majority report from the Committee on Judiciary on the bill [H. R 260] to grant exclusive jurisdiction to Justices of the Peace in certain misdemeanors, recommending that the bill lie on the table.
Mr. TETER, of the same Committee, submitted a minority report on the bill [H. R. 260] to grant page: 238[View Page 238] exclusive jurdiction to Justices of the Peace, etc., recommending its passage.
Mr. WILSON, one of the minority of that Committee, thought a Justice of the Peace should have exclusive jurisdiction where the fine does not exceed $25. He appealed to the House for concurrence in the minority repot, as a large majority of charges brought before the Grand Jury are unimportant and expensive, and justice could be obtaied fully as well before a Justice of the Peace.
The minority report was rejected, and the majority report was concurred in.
Then the House adjourned to meet on Monday, at 10 a. m.
