IN SENATE.
MONDAY, February 28, 1881--10 a. m.The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR being absent--
On motion by Mr. MENZIES, Mr. COMSTOCK was called upon to preside.
Prayer was offered by Rev. H. J. Talbott.
NEW PROPOSITIONS.
The following bills were introduced, read the first time and referred to appropriate Committees:
By Mr. SHAFFER [S. 321]: To amend Section 22 of an act concerning inclosures, partitions and trespassing animals, approved June 4, 1852. [In relation to fences, each party shall give eight feet, so as to leave a lane of sixteen feet where they refuse to join.]
By Mr. VOYLES [S. 322.] To amend Sections 17 and 18 of an act providing for the organization of County Boards, approved June 17, 1852. [So as to authorize Boards of Commissioners to issue bonds, upon which interest may be payable semi-annually instead of annually, as the law now is.] The author of the bill believes that it will materially aid in the negotiation of County bonds if interest can be collected on them semi-annually.
By Mr. HEFRON [S. 323]: To amend Section 22 of the act of May 14, 1856, relating to decedents' estates. [Under the present law, when a man dies without issue, intestate, leaving a widow surviving and leaving neither father or mother, the whole of his property goes to his widow, and at her death it all goes to her heirs. The amendment proposes to give to the widow one-half in fee and the residue to the brothers and sisters of the deceased husband--provided that if the whole estate does not exceed $2,000, the widow shall take it all.]
By Mr. WILSON [S. 324]: To regulate the business of telegraphing in this State, fixing the rates for telgraphing, etc. [It fixes the uniform rate of twenty-five cents for every telegram of ten words, and at the same ratio from point to point.] The object of this bill is to prevent a consolidated monopoly from charging whatever rate it may please.
THE CIVIL CODE.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore announced the order to be the reading of the bill [S. 271] concerning procedure in civil cases.
When the reading thereof was declared completed--10:30 o'clock--
Came a recess till 2 o'clock p. m.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR said the civil code bill [S. 271] concerning procedure in civil cases--see pages 188, 190, 194 to 196 and 198 of these reports--having been read the third time, the question is: Shall the bill pass?
Mr. KRAMER moved to postpone the vote on its passage till to-morrow.
Mr. BENZ demanded a call of the Senate, which being taken, discovered thirty-seven present.
The motion to postpone was rejected.
Mr. BELL desired an omission supplied by unanimous consent in the section providing for appointment of receivers for corporations. The matter of forfeiture is a right the State only can enforce, and it has been suggested that these words "nor has been adjudged to have forfeit its corporate rights" be appropriately inserted.
Mr. VIEHE moved to reconsider the vote rejecting the motion to postpone the vote on the passage of this bill till to-morrow. The reason is that the code repeals all practice in the Circuit and Superior Courts; but there is one Court to which there is no reference in the code, and that is the Superior Court of Marion County, and the repealing clause will seriously affect that Court. This thought occurred to him on Saturday, and there is a consultation desired by members of the Revision Committee and others on this point.
Mr. COMSTOCK suggested that the amendment could be made in the House of Representatives; as it is not a matter of vital importance to have it done here, he should oppose the motion to postpone.
Mr. BROWN moved to postpone the consideration of the pending motion to reconsider till 4 o'clock.
This motion was agreed to.
APPOINTMENTS CONFIRMED.
A message from the Governor transmitted for the confirmation of the Senate his nominations of George I. Reed, of Miami County, and Barnabas C. Hobbs, of Parke County, as members of the page: 240[View Page 240] Board of Trustees of the Indiana State Normal Sehool, each to serve for four years from December 20, 1881. The former to succeed Alexander C. Hopkins and the latter Timothy Nicholson.
The nominations were severally confirmed.
ABOLISH CASS SUPERIOR COURT.
On motion by Mr. GRUBBS, the Constitutional restriction was set aside--yeas, 37; nays, 0; and Mr. Kahlo's bill [S. 299] to abolish the Superior Court in Cass County was read the second time by title, considered as engrossed and read the third time.
Mr. BROWN opposed the bill. At a late day it is introduced. The Court was established by a solemn act of the Legislature. There has been a great protest filed against it, and it seems too much like a political measure, and ought not to pass.
Mr. VAN VORHIS desired to hear from the Chairman of the Committee which considered a similar measure.
Mr. LANGDON said the Committee unanimously refused to recommend the passage of a similar measure. After hearing all the evidence and argument of lawyers and citizens, the Committee came to the conclusion the people of Cass County could not get along without this Court.
Mr. GRUBBS was also a member of the Committee, and the conclusions were substantially as stated, but that measure, besides providing for the abolishment of the Superior Court, provided for creating a new circuit; therefore he, for one, became satisfied the people of Cass County desired the abolishment of this Court, though some lawyers there were opposed to it. This bill simply provides for abolishing the Superior Court, leaving Cass and Pulaski Counties a Circuit. The unanimous conclusion of the Committee was that the bill before them ought not to pass.
Mr. KAHLO referred to the failure of a bill in the House of Representatives by reason of a lobby of lawyers. But if left to a vote there would not be one in twenty in Cass County but would favor such bill. He did not want any one to think there was any politics in this matter; the contrary is the case.
Mr. VOYLES thought the bill is being hustled along a little too lively.
Mr. KAHLO appealed to the Senate to help and assist him in this matter. He assured members that there would be no call for a Criminal Court there if the bill be passed--he would guarantee that.
Mr. GRAHAM was informed there was a general demand among the citizns of Cass County to abolish this Court.
Mr. URMSTON was present, by courtesy, in the Committee Room when a similar bill was discussed and there were three to one against the passage of the bill. He remembered that it was stated then that at a consultation called in Cass County for getting an expression on this subject there were some thirty odd for such a measure and forty-nine against it. Attorneys then present insisted if that Court is abolished there must be some other provision made for disposing of the the Court business. It was there stated that some two years ago a bill similar to this passed the Senate and came near passing the House, and the question was put to the Senator why he had not introduced the bill, and he replied to the effect there was too much feeling about it in his County.
Mr. VAN VORHIS said it was manifested and acknowledged by one at least asking for the abolishment of this Court that there was a personal feeling against the Judge--a number desired to get rid of him.
Mr. CHAPMAN believed this bill should be passed. It is presented by the immediate Representatiave of that County. The presumption is that there is a competent man on the Circuit Bench, and every lawyer knows the Judge can perform, with plenty of leisure time, all the business of two Counties with no more population than the Counties of Cass and Pulaski. He favored setting these Superior Courts out of way whenever an opportunity offers, and such action is due to the people where it can be done without doing injustice.
Mr. SPANN understood the creating bill was passed in 1877, with the understanding it was created to give temporary relief, and the people gave their consent expecting the Court was to be abolished in 1879. The bill passed the Senate, and was defeated in the House by only three votes. It should be the duty of the General Assembly to abolish Courts whenever the people demand it. He affirmed it as a fact that both Mass Conventions in that County passed resolutions in favor of abolishing that Court.
Mr. URMSTON desired to have the Senator state the vote.
Mr. SPANN considered that unnecessary--the statement already made is sufficient.
Mr. BUNDY found that in several Circuits there were from 16,000 to 15,000 more inhabitants than the Cass Circuit that have but one Court; he thought Superior Courts were a humbug everywhere in the State except Marion County. He favored the passage of the bill.
Mr. GARRIGUS happened to know considerable about the state of feeling in Cass County. The attorneys there are divided, though not politically. A large majority of the people have been urging the abolishment of this Court for years.
Mr. HEFRON ordinarily was in favor of the people of a community regulating its own affairs.
Mr. BROWN (interrupting) read a dispatch from from Logansport, stating great surprise at learning of the introduction of this bill.
Mr. KAHLO knew the author of the dispatch to be a third-class lawyer.
Mr. HEFRON continued, stating that four years ago after the bill passed the Senate, the Senator from Cass after advocating its passage went to the House and endeavored to defeat it, but passed the House also. The citizens of Indiana are only interested so far as a part of the pay of the Judges is concerned. He thought the bill ought to be passed so as to get finally rid of this question which has troubled the Legislature for so many years.
The bill failed to pass by--yeas, 24; nays, 13.
ORDER OF BUSINESS.
Mr. COMSTOCK moved to proceed with the consideration of the calendar as of Wednesday.
Mr. SHAFEER moved to take up House bills.
On motion by Mr. WILSON, the motion to consider House bills was laid on the table.
The motion to proceed as with Wednesday's business was agreed to by yeas, 27; nays, 11.
LEGALIZING ACT.
Mr. Comatock's bill [S. 192) to legalize proceedings of Board of Trustees of Milton, Wayne County, being read the third time.
Mr. COMSTOCK said: "The Board some time ago borrowed and expended money for school purposes, and the present Board desire to pay off that debt, but are not authorized to do so. The people are unanimously in favor of the legalizing measure."
The bill passed the Senate by yeas, 39; nays, 0.
COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES.
Mr. Wilson's bill [S. 24--see page 168 of these Reports] to authorize the appointment of a Commissioner of Fisheries by the Governor, to serve for two years [appropriating $2,000], was read the third time and passed by yeas, 32; nays, 8.
Pending the vote on its passage--
Mr. FOSTER, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote said: Heretofore has been opposed to a bill of this kind, but, believing it to be in the interest of the poorer class of people in this State, he voted "aye."
So the bill passed.
page: 241[View Page 241]PAY OF PRESIDING OFFICERS.
Mr. Henry's bill [S. 261] fixing the compensation of the Speaker of the House of Representatives at $10 a day, being read the third time--
Mr. BELL hoped the bill would pass. Submitting that it is true economy to pass such a bill as this. The Presiding Officers of the two Houses should receive a respectable per diem.
Mr. COMSTOCK thought there would be no question as to the propriety of the passage of this bill.
The bill failed to pass by yeas, 24; nays, 14.
Pending the roll call--
Mr. SHAFFER, in explanation of his vote, when his name was called, said he did not support this bill from the fact that the compensation is the same as that of members, while their duties are very little more. Then the great honor conferred upon Presiding Officers is sufficient to compensate them for any extra duties. He opposed an increase and therefore voted "no."
Mr. SPANN, when his name was called, said he did not agree with the Senator (Mr. Shaffer). While the duties of these officers are the same, they involve a large amount of responsibility; and as other States have adopted the rule of paying the Presiding Officers more than the Members, he voted "aye."
The bill failed to pass.
LAYING STEAM PIPES IN STREETS.
Mr. Menzie's bill [S. 245] to enlarge the powers of incorporated cities (see page 174 of these Reports) was read the third time and passed by yeas, 34; nays, 2.
PAWNBROKERS' LICENSE.
The substitute for Mr. Van Vorhis' bill [S. 110] to regulate the licensing of pawnbrokers, being read the third time--
Mr. SPANN called upon the author to explain the necessity for this bill.
Mr. CHAPMAN stated the necessity to be to place pawnbrokers under control, and to raise revenue. The main object is to place them under control. This bill is fraimed under the laws of Missouri and Maryland--the most carefully provided laws discovered. It requires them to keep a list of their articles subject to inspection of the Chief of Police. They are licensed in most of the large cities of this country; the rates are lower than in either of the States referred to, and lower than the pawnbroker's rate of interest.
Mr. BROWN was sure there is a necessity for a bill of this kind. The poor and dejected classes of society came an easy prey to these pawnbrokers. He would speak no more against this business in this city than elswhere, but it is of such monstrous character and is carried on in such a way that the Legislature should prohibit it by license.
The bill passed by--yeas, 40; nays, 1.
TWENTY-FIVE WARDS IN INDIANAPOLIS.
Mr. VAN VORHIS' bill [S. 18 see page 184 of these Reports], supplemental to the general city incorporation act, being read the third time--
Mr. VAN VORHIS explained that this bill refers only to Indianapolis. It changes the present law so Wards shall not be increased to over twenty-five, and not more than 600 voters shall vote in any one Precinct; and makes the fiscal year commence with the calendar year.
The bill passed by--yeas, 37; nays, 8.
INSPECTOR OF ILLUMINATING OILS.
Mr. WHITE'S bill [S. 25], to remodel the act for the inspection of mineral or petroleum oil for illuminatiug purposes, was read the third time.
Mr. WHITE said he had endeavored to frame a bill superior to that in operation in other States. It would increase the illuminating qualities of oils used hereafter.
Mr. BRISCOE opposed the bill. The people want no such law. It is a gross imposition. If its requirements could be carried out strictly to the letter he would be satisfied. We have had meaner oil under the present law than we ever had before in Indiana. This inspection is a direct tax upon the people without any benefit. He is the only Senator on this floor who voted against the passage of the present law, and he made an ineffectual motion to have this bill recommitted with instructions to strike out the enacting clause and insert new matter, repealing the existing act.
Mr. SPANN did not believe this bill nor the bill of 1879 would bring to the people pure illuminating oil. There is a tendency to throw around the people a system of guardianship, which he deprecated. This bill ought to be entitled a bill to bring $10,000 or $12,000 into the pocket of a leech appointed by the Governor.
Mr. VOYLES declared this bill affords safeguard for the people, its provisions being so strict that none but qualified men could hold the office of Inspector.
Mr. BRISCOE found this bill proposes but a few sections in addition to the existing law. There is no demand for such a measure, and he resisted is passage.
The bill failed to pass--ayes, 24; nays,1l.
Pending the roll-call--
Mr. BUNDY said: "As a matter of choice between this bill and the existing law, I voted for this in order to get rid of the other,"
Mr. MACARTNEY said: "Were the bill to repeal the existing law, he would much prefer it, but as between the two evils he should vote for this bill."
Mr. SHAFFER thought this an improvement on the old law. He would much rather vote for the repeal of the old law, but would now vote for this bill.
Mr. TRAYLOR was satisfied the intention of the bill would not be accomplished by its provisions. He desired, also the repeal the existing law.
Mr. Wilson would also be glad to vote for the repeal of the present law, but understanding that can not be accomplished on account of the action of the House of Representatives, and believing this bill an improvement on the present law, he should vote "aye."
So the bill failed to pass.
AID TO ROADS AND BRIDGES.
Mr. Wilson's bill [S. 131--see pages 113 and l83 of these reports] to authorize cities to guarantee part payment of bridge bonds, being read the third time--
Mr. Wilson believed the bill as amended would meet the approbation of Senators. Its object is not to enlarge but to circumscribe the powers of cities to take stock in the building of bridges. It will enable cities to assume a second liability.
Mr. VOYLES hoped the bill would pass as it relates chiefly to cities on the Ohio River. There is not great probability that cities assuming such second liability will ever have the bonds to pay. He assured the Senate the city in his District was largely in favor of the bill.
The bill passed by yeas 34; nays, 0.
INSPECTION OF MINES.
Mr. Compton's bill [S. 5] to amend Sections 17 and 18 of the act regulating the working of coal mines, etc., of March S, 1879, being read the third time--
Mr. COMPTON stated that miners and operators have agreed to this proposed amendment of the existing law. The old law requires the Inspector to inspect every mine. This bill amends that clause so that, unless there are more than ten miners working in a mine, it does not require inspection. And this bill requires a map to be made only when paid for by the person interested. The qualification of the Inspect r is changed so as to require him to be a practical miner, only striking out the twelve years' experience; then his page: 242[View Page 242] term of service is restricted to two years, with a salary of $1,500, to be paid out of the State Treasury. State officers should be paid out of the State Treasury, and especially such an officer as this.
Mr. HENRY saw no reason why a Mine Inspector should be paid out of the State Treasury. The bill up a few moments ago provided dealers should pay the Oil Inspectors' fees, and why not coal operators pay the Coal Inspectors' fees?
Mr. COMPTON insisted miners should be protected by State law as they work frequently eighty or 100 feet below ground, and especially while the operators are anxious to get out coal as cheaply as possible In Pennsylvania and Ohio the Mining Inspector is paid out of the State Treasury and the plan has been found to work well.
Mr. SPANN heartily favored the passage of this bill. The mining of coal, he knew from experience, is one of the most dangerous kinds of work. The Inspector's relations should be divorced from the operator as far as possible. It is for the safety of the lives of laboring men that such a measure should be passed. That being right, it is our duty to enact a law that will tend to that end. He favored the bill as an act of justice to the miner.
Mr. TRAYLOR also favored the passage of the bill, if for no other reason that the Inspector will hereafter get his money from the State, and not from interested operators. Under the old law the Inspector would tax every farmer who opened a mine on his land, while this bill exempts such as mine only for their own use, and this is another good feature of the bill.
Mr. HENRY doubted the propriety of passing but would vote for it on the representation of its author.
The bill passed--yeas, 35; nays, 0.
The Senate adjourned till to-morrow.
