IN SENATE
WEDNESDAY, March 2, 1881.--10 a. m.The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR commanded attention while prayers were offered by Rev. W. A. Bartlett, D. D., of the Second Presbyterian Church of this city.
The reading of the Secretary's journal of yesterday's proceedings was dispensed with as usual.
JOURNALS OF PREVIOUS SESSIONS.
Mr. SHAFFER offered a concurrent resolution authorizing the Secretary of State to employ a Clerk to copy the Senate and House journals of several sessions past, and have the manuscript bound for preservation in his office.
It was referred to the Judiciary Committee.
STATE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS.
Mr. OWEN, from the Committee on Education, submitted a report as to the condition and needs of the State Educational Institutions. Purdue University has at present 220 students matriculated, representing forty-fve Counties, against 203 students last year. Of this number twenty-eight reside in Lafayette. The future yearly revenues of Purdue, independent of State aid, include $17,000, the interest on the endowment fund, and $2,000 income from students. The University asks for a $20,000 annual appropriation. The State Normal School at Terre Haute has 259 students enrolled, 243 of whom were present when the report was called for, and of this number 226 represent sixty-five different Counties and seventeen are from other States, and forty-one live in Terre Haute, and nine others in Vigo County. The schoo1 has no endowment fund or independent sources of revenue, and is dependent altogether on State aid. The State University at Bloomington has 169 students in the Collegiate and 128 in the Academic Department. Of the former, thirty-six are from Bloomington and Monroe County, and forty six other Counties are represented; in the latter fifty are from other Counties than Monroe. The University has a revenue of $10,000 independent of State aid, and asks for an appropriation of $97,000 for buildings, books, etc.
SUPERVISORS' PAY.
Mr. Foster's bill [S. 139] to amend Section 1 of the Supervisors' of Highway act of March 18, 1879, being read the third time--
Mr. FOSTER said the only change from the present law was to increase the pay of Supervisors from $1 to $1.50 per day. Every one will acknowledge the present pay Is too low to commend the services of competent men for that position. If he could he would increase the pay to $2 per day.
Mr. BELL preferred to vote for the bill to abolish that office, but would vote for this one.
Mr. GRAHAM voted against the bill because he did not believe it right.
Mr. BENZ remembered that two years ago the author of this bill was for economy, but now for extravagance. He voted "No."
Mr. MARVIN promised his constituency not to increase any officers' salary but the Supervisors'. He, therefore, would vote for this bill.
This bill was rejected--years, 17; nays, 29.
SIZE OF ELECTION PRECINCTS.
Mr. Hostetter's bill [S. 84--see page 51] to amend Section 8 of the act defining duties of officers in relation to elections being read the third time--
Mr. HOSTETTER said the town he hailed from polls about 300 votes and has more than one voting precinct. The object of the bill is to make but one voting place in smaller towns. Talk about fraud; we don't know anything about it up North. We always have voted at one precinct until the last year, and without any fraud in the election.
Mr. BUNDY favored the passage of the bill. A large number of small towns are divided, some into as many as five wards. The existing law provides that the Judges and Inspectors are to be freeholders, and in some places in his County it was difficult to find freeholders enough to hold the election. The present law has given a great deal of dissatisfaction. In a town of 500 or 600 inhabitants all should vote at one precinct, thus saving the trouble of holding elections in small precincts where there may be only twenty voters. The present law is a nuisance.
Mr. SPANN regarded the bill as a good one, but believed its main feature is embraced in a proviso in the present law which leaves it discretionary with town trustees to construe it as public convenience may demand. It is purely a ques- page: 253[View Page 253] tion of construction. If it is not optionary, then this bill in necessary.
Mr. GARRIGUS did not believe the law should be left so uncertain in its terms. The statutes should be plain. We boast about the superiority of our Public Schools, and yet send men to the Legislature who pass laws that have to be construed by appeals to the Courts or the Attorney General. There is a public demand for the repeal of this section, and he favored the passage of the bill as in the interest of justice and fair dealing.
Mr. GRAHAM thought this bill ought to pass. No one can justify the expense of holding four or five elections in a precinct where one is ample.
Mr. HEFRON preferred to see the law stand as it is on the Statute Book. Its purpose was a good one, and there were good reasons for such an enactment. If small towns desire several voting precincts they should be permitted to have them. The present law is in the interest of minority representation--to let each part of a town stand on its own footing and elect their own Representative in the Board of Town Trustees.
Mr. WOOLLEN also should vote against this bill--refusing to support any measure requiring towns to have but one voting Precinct. The dominant party under this bill would have all the officers, whereas, if the Precincts were small, there would be a division of polical sentiment.
Mr. VOYLES thought the bill right. He saw no strength in arguments against this measure.
Mr. KRAMER favored the bill. All the voters of the town should vote for its officers.
Mr. BROWN moved to recommit the bill with instructions to amend it so as to leave it in the discretion of town officers, whether the town shall have one or more voting Precincts, regardless as to the number of population.
Mr. VOYLES opposed the motion. This matter should not be left discretonary with town authorities. They may not act at all times as they should, and it is better to have it specifically stated in the law that there should be but one voting Precinct.
Mr. SPANN objected to the instructions. One year a Board may establish but one voting precinct, and the very next Board may turn round, on account of some political matter, and establish voting precincts in different districts, so there will be no uniformity in this matter. Say they must have a voting precinct in every Ward, or say they must have but one.
Mr. URMSTON favored the motion to recommit with these and other instructions. He did not consider the item of expense in this connection worth mentioning.
The motion to recommit with instructions was rejected by yeas, 15; nays, 28.
Mr. BROWN said the present law has been generally construed that the Boards have the discretion to fix the number of voting precincts, and believed that to be the intention of the framers of the law. Under this bill the majority can stifle and smother the rights and privileges of minorities in all towns not exceeding three thousand inhabitants. He hoped that the bill would not pass.
Mr. GRUBBS hoped the bill would pass. While acknowledging the construction of the existing law to be as stated, he thought the question ought to be definitely settled by statute. He did not believe in having voting precincts in every small Ward, because the interest of those small towns are substantially one. Besides that, the correct construction of the law he believed to be that every Precinct vote for all the Trustees of the town, no matter how many voting Precincts there may be.
Mr. FOSTER believed the present law good enough and saw no necessity for the bill. He should therefore vote against it.
The bill was passed by yeas, 32; nays, 10.
GRAVEL, PLANK AND OTHER ROADS.
Mr. RISTINE moved to concur in the House amendment to his bill [S. 54--see pages 80, 135, and 155 of these reports] to amend the gravel road act of March 3, 1877. He said: The House amendment requires that the bonds shall be payable at annual intervals inside of eight years. The only difference this amendment makes is that the County Commlssioners are required to make installments mature at annual intervals, instead of putting them off eight years and letting the funds accumulate in the hands of officers
The motion to concur was agreed to, and so the House amendment was adopted.
On motion by Mr. HENRY, the House amendment adding an emergency clause to his reinstatement of burnt-records bill [S. 211] was concurred in.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
On motion by Mr. CHAPMAN, the House amendments to the bill [S. 86--see page 51 of these reports] appropriating $16,990.71 to minute men serving in the the late War were read and concurred in.
LEGALIZING ACTS OF NOTARIES.
Mr. Hostetter bill [S. 209] to legalize the acts of Notaries Public whose commissions had expired or were ineligible to office being read the third time--
Mr, HOSTETTFR said this was a bill simply to legalize the acts of Notaries Public performed after their terms of office had expired, or the acts of those improperly appointed. He hoped the bill would pass.
The bill passed the Senate by yeas, 85; nays, 0.
JUNIOR IMCUMBRANCES--LIMITATION.
Mr. Chapman's bill [S. 174] limiting the time for redemption by junior incumbrances from sales upon forclosure of mortgages in certain cases being read the third time--
Mr. CHAPMAN said the bill proposes to limit the right of redemption in favor of junior incumbrances to five years where not cut off by decree. There is a provision giving two years in addition in certain cases, and to those who labor under any disability. It is a statute of limitation against junior incumbrancers who have not been made party to the decree. As the statute now stands it is a question whether in such cases the junior imcumbrance has fifteen or twenty years. He did not think the bill was inequitable in any particular, and believed all rights are saved for a period sufficient for the exercise of the right of redemption if it is to be exercised at all.
Mr. MENZIES objected to the bill--it might extend for five years the time of those now restricted to one year--indeed, that seems to be its inevitable effect.
Mr. TRAYLOR was satisfied there is no use of this bill becoming a law, unless some lawyer has failed to make a junior lien-holder a party to a suit.
Mr. BELL thought there could not be anything in some objections made to this bill. It is only a question of policy or propriety whether these lien-holders shall have five, fifteen or twenty years in which to redeem; and that is about the only question in the bill.
Mr. HENRY opposed the passage of this bill. The length of time proposed is too short. It only applies where the junior incumbrancer has had no notice, etc. Under the present law the sale does not affect the junior incumbrancer, and his right may have been barred before the sale.
Mr. CHAPMAN challenged anyone to find good and substantial reasons why a junior incumbrancer should have a term of twenty years in which to redeem property from sale. Instead of extraordinary solicitude in behalf of that class, such solicitude rather should be shown to those whose ownership is open, disclosed, above, and page: 254[View Page 254] who have entered into possession of the property which they have been improvng and making more valuable to themselves and to society. He moved to recommit the bill, with instructions, so as to give two years in all cases after the passage of this act within which junior incumbrancers may have the right to redeem.
Mr. BROWN opposed the bill, and considered it open to the objections named. Case may occur where an undue and unjust advantage can be taken under it.
Mr. CHAPMAN regarded the criticisms as to acquired rights as wholly unjust.
The motion to recommit was agreed to by yeas, 20; nays, 16.
PROTECTION OF PUBLIC LIBRARIES.
Mr. Henry's [S. 103] to protect books, magazines and other property of Public Libraries against mutilation or defacement, being read the third time--
Mr. HENRY said: The bill makes a violation of its provisions a misdemeanor.
Mr. FOSTER thought the bill a good one. Something ought to be done to prevent the mutilation of books in Public Libraries.
The bill passed by yeas, 33; nays, 4.
Mr. MENZIES moved to reconsider the vote just taken, because this bill brings a crime into existence in the twinkling of an eye, so to speak. It is against an unbroken line of precedents and customs. No matter how grave the offense, it is an outrage and a wrong to have statutes creating a crime go into effect witout notice.
Mr. HENRY replied that the bill requires two copies thereof to be posted in conspicuous places in each Public Library, which would give ample notice.
Mr. BROWN--The posting of the notice does not relieve the bill of the objection. There is no need of the law, though in absence of the emergency clause he would vote for the bill.
On motion by Mr. HENRY, the motion to reconsider was laid on the table--yeas, 22; nays, 12.
PARTITION OF REAL ESTATE.
Mr. Menzie's bill [S. 156--see page 151 of these Reports] concerning the partition of land coming up--
Mr. MENZIES said the Committee had struck out some matter objected to when the bill was read the third time. It is a good bill and one that ought to pass.
The bill was passed by yeas, 29; nays, 5.
CREEKS AND HARBORS.
On motion by Mr. POINDEXTER, the House amendments to his bill [S. 32--see page 85, second column] to amend Section 2 of the voluntary association act, approved February 12, 1855, were read and concurred in.
DRAINAGE COMMISSIONERS.
Mr. Henry's bill [S. 214] concerning drainage being read the third time--
Mr. HENRY said the bill was prepared by Judge Frazier, of the Revision Commission, then referred to the Committee on Revision, and then amended as recommended by the Committee on Swamp Lands. It provides for the appoinment by the Circuit Court of three Commissioners of Drainage, to erve for a term of three years. The bill is well guarded, and is as perfect as any bill of this kind he had ever seen. All expense is paid out of the lands, except the first view.
Mr. WOOD had examined this bill very carefully, and believed it as near perfect as any bill he had ever read on the subject.
The bill passed by yeas, 28; nays, 9.
The the Senate adjourned till to-morrow.
