THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
VOLUME
NINETEEN.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
IN SENATE.
THURSDAY, March 3, 1881--10 a. m.FOREIGNERS TO HOLD REAL ESTATE
On motion, by Mr. SPANN the bill [H. R. 23] tp authorize foreign Manufacturing and Mining Companies to purchase and hold real estate in this State, being read the third time--
Mr. WILSON explained its provisions, and said it is desired in his district and elsewhere.
Mr. LANGDON moved to refer the bill to a Committee, with instructions to amend so that corporations shall proceed and continue to develop and manufacture within one year after purchase.
Mr. SPANN--There is not a State in the West but has such a provision on the statute book as is proposed in this bill, and why should Indiana behind hand in this matter?
Mr. COMSTOCK thought it to the material interest of the State to encourage the investment of foreign capital for legitimate use in this State, and it would be very impolitic to have the bill recommitted, which might insure its defeat.
Mr. LANGDON would use his influence at all times to encourage the bringing in and investment of foreign capital in this State, but he opposed allowing the investment of foreign capital so as to tie up property that otherwise might be made available by others. The bill can be amended and reported back in ten minutes.
Mr. CHAPMAN considered the matter of delay to be of trivial importance, but these corporations are only so in theory. They are not made up of men belonging to a hostile government; and the dangers are imaginary rather than real, and he could see no reason why the bill should not pass as it comes from the House.
The motion to refer was rejected by-yeas, 21; nays, 23; as follows:
Yeas--Messrs. Bischowski, Compton, Davidson, Howard, Hutchinson, Keiser, Kramer, Langdon, Lockridge, Marvin, Owen, Poindexter, Rahm, Ristine, Smith, Urmston, Voyles, White, Wood and Yancey--21.
Nays--Messrs. Bell, Benz, Briscoe, Brown, Bundy, Chapman, Comstock, Garragus, Graham, Grubbs, Henry, Hostetter, Macartney, Major, Menzies, Sayre, Shaffer, Spann, Traylor, Van Vorhis, Viehe, Wilson and Woollen--23.
Mr. BELL as a general principle opposing allowing corporations, especially foreign corporations, from holding real estate other than necessary to their legitimate business of manufacturing, but with the restrictions in this bill he should vote for it.
Mr. WOOD favored the general features of the bill, but as it allows foreign corporations to come in for the purpose of preventing competition in their own business by buying up coal mines and clay beds, thus building up gigantic monopolies, he opposed the bill.
The bill passed by--yeas, 33; nays, 9.
NEW PROPOSITIONS.
By Mr. DAVIS [S. 328]: To authorize Judges of Superior and Circuit Courts to sign the records in certain case. He said, in explanation, that this bill comes from Vigo County, and it provides: When from death, resignation or other cause a record is left unsigned, the succeeding Judge may sign it as though the proceedings were taken before him. He moved for a suspension of the constitutional rules that the bill may be read the second time by title only, considered as engrossed, read the third time and put on its passage.
The motion was agreed to-yeas, 45; nays, 0--and the bill was passed through to the final vote and passed the Senate by--yeas, 45; nays, 0.
By Mr. WOOD [S. 329]: To amend Section 22 of the fee and salary act of March 31, 1879. [Auditors shall be paid $1,200 annually for their services in Counties having a population of 15,000, and $125 for each 1,000 between 15,000 and 20,000; $100 for each 1,000 between 20,000 and 35,000, and $25 for each 1,000 over 35,000. The Auditor is allowed $100 for making reports.]
By Mr. Bell [S. 330]: Supplemental to the act authorizing the P. E. Church to raise a fund for the support of its Bishop, approved July 15, 1844, and to eulogize the corporate powers of the Trustees therein named.
By Mr. TRAYLOR [S. 331]: Defining the Eleventh Judicial Circuit.
FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT.
Mr. WILSON moved to suspend the constitutional restriction, in order to pass through the three readings and to a final vote the bill [H. R. 284] proposing to change the times of holding Courts in his District. He said it was a measure desired by the Bar of his County.
page: 259[View Page 259]Mr. WOOLLEN had a protest signed by a majority of the Bar of the County of Switzerland protesting against the passage of the bill; the Senate can do as it chooses.
The motion was rejected--yeas, 30; nays, 12--the requisite two-thirds not voting in the affirmative.
MEDICAL LEGISLATION
Mr. Yancey's bill [S. 74--see pages 208, 212, and 216 of these reports] to regulate the practice of medicine, being read the third time--
Mr. YANCEY, referring to the discussion already had on this bill, considered it unnecessary to say more than that the people of the State are desiring the passage of the bill.
Mr. HENRY objected to the way Section 6 was drafted. Since the action on that section he had received a communication from the Secretary of a County Medical Association, in which the bill is characterized as a fraud, and having taken some pains to inquire, was satisfied that three-fourths of the physicians of the State were objecting to its passage. He also referred to a letter stating that every physician in the County from which the letter comes had contracts with druggists to divide receipts on their prescriptions.
Mr. SPANN, in good faith, offered an amendment to the bill the other day which would have covered a large class of quacks, but his motives were impugned, nad it was charged the amendment was offered in order to kill the bill. In almost every town every few days quacks appear, heralded by flaming bills and advertisements, and when an amendment was offered requiring them to go before a Board of Examiners to get a permit to practice their specialties, the friends of the bill voted it down. They should be included among those required to apply for a certificate of qualification.
Mr. SHAFFER--Admitting this is not such a bill as the medical profession desire, nor as perfect a bill as the people want, yet he hoped it would be passed in its present shape, and if it should be found not to work well, in two years from now it can be amended.
The bill passed by yeas, 29; nays, 17--as follows:
Yeas--Messrs. Bell, Benz, Bischowski, Brown, Bundy, Compton, Foster, Hefron, Howard, Hutchinson, Kramer, Langdon, Lockridge, Macartney, Menzies, Owen, Rahm, Ristine, Sayre, Shaffer, Traylor, Urmston, Van Vorhis, Viehe, White, Wilson, Woollen and Yancey--29.
Nays--Messrs. Briscoe, Chapman, Coffey, Comstock, Davidson, Davis, Garrigus, Grubbs, Henry, Hostetter, Keiser, Leeper, Marvin, Poindexter, Smith, Spann and Voyles--17.
Pending the roll call on the passage of the bill--
Mr. CHAPMAN said he did not believe in the theory of the bill, and saw several very imperfect provisions in it. He voted "no."
Mr. DAVIS, when his name was called, said: If the doctors were agreed on it, I should vote to support this bill; but the old saying is true that doctors do not always agree. As I do not believe a man should be compelled by law to employ a certain class of physicians, I vote "no."
Mr. FOSTER, simply because this bill does not come up to his expectations, should not oppose it. He did not think the doctors had pushed this thing through the Senate, but believe the people desired it.
Mr. GARRIGUS, for an opposite reason, believing there is no call for such legislation as this, would vote against it. It is a pernicious kind of legislation; it is a class legislation. If we pass such a law for doctors, we should pass one for dentists, and for preachers, and for lawyers, for farmers and for every particular class or profession. If the principle is right, we ought to establish a protectorate over every particular class of business. Having opposed sucha measure two years ago, since which time never having heard man, woman or child speak in favor of it, but having heard many speak against it, he voted "no."
Mr. KEISER, when his name was called, said; I would like to vote for this bill if I could conscientiously do so. While I do not believe there is any great demand, or a hue or cry from the people at large for a medical bill, I have no doubt that one well guarded and properly digested would be of benefit to the people of the State. This bill has some objectionable features, which forces me to vote against it, and as far as I can learn from the practicing physicians in my County and District, they are not in favor of this bill. Therefore I vote "no."
Mr. TRAYLOR, when his name was called, said he did not look at this bill as being in favor of doctors, but rather a lick at them; and, believng it is intended for the public good voted "aye."
Mr. VOYLES, when his name was called, said: I desire to explain my vote. I did not antagonize the measure by a speech. I now desire to say that if the provisions of the bill would conduce mainly to bringing the medical standard up to the level occupied by the author of this bill--the Senator from Hancock--I would support the bill, if for no other reason, on account of personal compliment to the honorable Senator, but as I have no great or exalted opinion of the proposition, and being opposed to carrying sumptuary laws too far into the business affairs of our State, I shall not vote for the bill. Having thus given the author of the bill a quantum sufficit of'taffy," I proceed to vote "no."
So the bill passed.
ASSESSMENT FOR TAXATION.
On motion by Mr. MENZIES, the constitutional restriction was dispensed with, and the bill [H. R. 204] concerning taxation was read the first time by title only. A lengthy Committee report thereon was submitted and ordered printed without reading.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
RAILROAD WHISTLING.
The bill [S. 2] prescribing certain duties of Railroad Companies, and requiring such Companies to sound the whistle on all locomotive engines at the crossing of all public highways, heretofore read the third time, was passed by yeas, 34; nays, 3.
HONORS TO CHARLES H. REEVE.
On motion by Mr. COMSTOCK, the Senate took a recess of ten minutes to give opportunity for greeting Hon. Charles H. Reeve, ex-Senator from Marshall County. [Mr. Reeve, at the urgent solicitation of several Senators, made a short speech, in which he referred with the pride of a true Indianian to the manner in which legislation had progressed this session, as he learned from day to day through the newspapers.]
When the ten minutes had expired--
FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT.
On motion by Mr. BROWN, under a dispensation of the constitutional restriction, the bill [H. R. 284] for a change in the Courts of the Fifth Circuit (see this morning's proceedings) was pressed to the final vote, and passed the Senate by yeas, 45; nays, 1.
GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS.
On motion by Mr. GRUBBS, the bill [H. R. 422], making appropriations for the State Government and its Institutions, just received by message from the House of Representatives, was read the first time by title only, under a dispensation of the constisutional restriction , 200 copies ordered printed, and it was referred to the Committee on Finance.
INSPECTOR OF ILLUMINATING OILS.
Mr.White's bill [S. 25-see pages 227 and 241 of these Reports], to remodel the inspection of oil page: 260[View Page 260] act, heretofore read the third time, was passed by--yeas, 36; nays, 9.
REMODELING OF ROAD LAWS.
Mr. Bell's bill [S. 187--see pages 201 and 207], to make Townships Trustees Road Masters, etc., being read the third time--
Mr. BUNDY moved to refer the bill to a Special Committee of one, with instructions to strike from Section 8, line 3, the words "who shall be a freeholder."
Mr. KRAMER insisted this bill confers too much power on the Township Trustee. It is too much of a radical change from the present road law, and imposes too much labor, and more than can be done by the Township Trustee in many instances.
On motion by Mr. BELL, and by unanimous consent, the word "freeholder" was stricken out of line 3, Section 8. He was sure this bill would meet the approval of the great masses of the people who want good roads. Over $700,000 of taxes levied in this State every year are now wasted on the public roads. He combatted the objection that this bill places too much power in the hands of Township Trustees. The only radicals change is a provision that whatever taxes are levied shall be collected and honestly applied to the working of the roads, through the Trustee, who can appoint Road Masters. The Township Trustee is the nearest financial officer of the people. With a bill like this, inside of ten years the roads of this State will be well drained, in good condition, and many with hard-pan beds
Mr. DAVIS--I hope this bill will not pass. I believe the present law as good as can be devised. [He recited some of its provisions.] I believe this law, under which the roads of Indiana have been kept in repairs for the last fifty years, is exactly as it should be. The public highways contemplated by law are simply neighborhood conveniences, and a ride to the railroad station or the village where we trade is the extent of travel on them nowadays. Hence the law has allowed a man to work out his road tax in the district where he lives, and for the additional reason that these roads belong to the people of each road district. It never was contemplated by law that extraordinary work should be done on the highways. * * * I undertake to say if this bill becomes a law the Trustee will be compelled to double the tax throughout the State because the running of the machinery of this bill will take nearly all the money which the average County or Township now has for the purpose of improving the highways. He continued at some length contrasting the cost of keeping roads in repair under the present system, and under that proposed in the bill claiming that the former is $718,000 while the latter would be $2,500,000. He pointed out other objections to this bill, and declared if it should pass there will be dissatisfaction expressed with a longer whistle than that of Ex-Senator Cadwallader's, and that whistle will be to the Senator's ears like the music of the Angel's compared with the howling that will be made by the tax-payers of the State.
Mr. HERON was not in the Senate when the bill was open for amendment, and has not had opportunity to give the bill the examination that he would wish. He had an objection, though not of sufficient importance to make him vote against it. He believed it better to have a general County road tax, managed by a County Road Master, so the tax may be uniform. Then the Township in which the County Seat is situated needs more money than other Townships in the County, and if the tax was a County one, the money could be expended on those roads traveled by most of the people of the County. The time has come for a change in our road system. The road labor system is a failure and a fraud. He had felt he public pulse of his part of the State as to this law, and to his great surprise found all farmers heartily in favor of this measure.
Mr. SPANN said the present system rests on a false basis, in that the tax is allowed to be worked out. The large land owners are the most benefited under this system. For thirty years this system has been a crying shame and an injury to tax-payers. Take the amount of money expended for the past thirty years and expend it under a system of the kind now proposed, and there would have been no need to pass such a bill as was passed here the other day, authorizing the issue of $100,00 worth of bonds to aid in the construction of roads in every County in this State. We now have a chance to revolutionize a road system that has been an iniquity in Indiana for thirty years, and we ought to do it.
Mr. FOSTER had satisfied himself by receipt of letters from his home and otherwise that the people do not want this bill. It is not right to make farmers--tax ridden as they are--build roads for the benefit of the merchants in the towns and cities.
Mr. VIEHE hardly knew whether to vote for this bill or not. The Constitution says bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.
Mr. BELL had considered that question and saw no conflict. And he would not be influenced by one or two letters, referred to by his colleague (Mr. Foster). Instead of $718,000 as stated by the Senator from Vermillion (Mr. Davis) almost $1,500,000 independent of poll tax and work is expended aunually on roads in the State of Indiana.
Mr. DAVIS failed to see how this bill would compel those who have control of the roads to keep them in better order than under the old law, or how the labor can be applied any better. The money is as liable to be squandered after collected, under this bill, as the labor is likely to be misapplied. Under the present system whenever the tax-payer finds the money is to be paid to and expended by the Trustee as that official may choose, the people will be almost universally dissatisfied. This can not be an improvement on the old law. A similar bill was passed in Illinois, but repealed at the next session of the Legislature, and he predicted if this passes into a law it will be repealed two years hence.
The bill failed to pass for want of a constitutional majority--yeas, 23; nays, 20--as follows:
Yeas--Messrs. Bell, Bischowski, Briscoe, Bundy, Chapman, Comstock, Garragus, Grubbs, Hefron, Henry, Howard, Keiser, Lockridge, Menzies, Owen, Poindexter, Rahm, Ristine, Shaffer, Spann, Urmston, Van Vorhis and Yancey--23.
Nays--Messrs. Benz, Brown, Coffey, Compton, Davidson, Davis, Foster, Graham, Hostetter, Hutchinson, Kramer, Leeper, Macartney, Major, Sayre, Traylor, Viehe, White, Wilson and Wood--20.
Pending the vote--
Mr. BENZ when his name was called, in explanation of his vote said--I think we ought to have some changes in our road law, but I am afraid this bill is too extravagant a reform, therefore I vote "no."
Mr. GRAHAM, when his name was called, said--I do not want to set my judgment up in matters of this kind against the people I represent. I have taken some pains to inquire, and I understand under the law we have at this time allowing the construction of free gravel roads, the provision of this bill making the road tax payable in cash, would impose an additional burden upon the people. I think some reform in our road system is necessary. If the people would see that the Supervisors discharge their duties better there would be much more benefit derived from the present road system. I think it my duty to vote "no."
Mr. HOSTETTER, when his name was called said: "I have had some instruction from the peo- page: 261[View Page 261] ple I represent in regard to this bill. The principal objection seems to be that they do not believe in one man power. They don't believe in centering power in the hands of a Township Trustee or Road Master. They think they are capable of selecting their own overseers, and are not willing to put this thing in the hands of one man. Another objection is, under this bill they have not the privilege of working out their own road tax. Therefore I vote "no."
Mr. HOWARD, when his name was called, said: I have seen so much waste of money and labor under the present system that I have become thoroughly disgusted with it. I do not know what this law will give us in the shape of economy, but in the hope that we may find something better than the present system, I vote aye.
Mr. KEISER when his name was called, said: While this bill does not just exactly suit me, and I do not know that it will suit my constituents exactly, especially in my own County, where we have a great many men that, as far as this world's goods are concerned, are like myself--they are poor--yet I believe this bill will give us a start on a new road system that will enable us to get out in all directions from our County Seats, and little towns at any season of the year. When the frost goes out of the ground this spring the bottom will drop right out. There is not a road leading into our County-town on which a man can haul a load of wheat unless he has a team of six horses. The trouble has been under our present law that Supervisors of roads don't do their duty, arising mainly from the fact that they do not like to domineer over a neighbor by telling him he has not done an honest days's work. I hope we shall have the begining of a good road system under this bill. I have no fear of this vote doing me any material damage. I vote for the bill because I believe it to be for the best interest of the people I represent. I vote "aye."
Mr. POINDEXTER, when his name was called, said: I have taken some pains to ascertain what the farmers of my section of the State think on this subject, and I believe a majority of them prefer to try this bill. They know the system we have has not given satisfaction. Believing that this bill is for the public benefit, and if passed into a law will give us better roads than we have had, I vote "aye."
So the bill failed to pass.
Mr. CHAPMAN entered a motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill [S. 132] appropriating $6,000 to remove a sand-bar in the Calumet River was passed the Senate. He also offered a resolution requesting the House of Representatives to return the bill to the files of the Senate. He said there is no safeguard in the bill, and no guarantee that the $6,000 will be expended as intended. The very hour in which the bill passes the Commissioners of Lake County could draw the money; that is not the way to make an appropriation of this kind.
Mr. WOOD could not understand why the anxiety to reconsider the vote passing this bill. If it was because he voted against the road bill just now, let it be put squarely on that ground. He was willing all possible guards shall be put around the bill, but let that be done in the House.
The resolution was adopted by yeas, 23; nays, 21.
PROPERTY CONDEMNED FOR SCHOOL PURPOSES.
Mr. Bundy's bill [S. 97] to provide for the appraisement of real estate appropriated for school purposes, being read the third time--
Mr. BUNDY explained the object of the bill was to allow property to be appropriated for school house purposes--giving school authorities power to apply to the Circuit Court for the appointment of three persons to make appraisement of its value, etc.
The bill passed by yeas, 33; nays, 10.
The Senate adjourned till to-morrow.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
THURSDAY, MARCH 3, 1881--9 a. m.GRAVEL ROADS.
Mr. COOPER introduced a bill [H. R. 438] concerning gravel roads. [Providing for forfeiture of charters in cases of neglect and failure to keep the road in repair.]
AID TO BRIDGE AND ROAD CONSTRUCTION.
t. On motion by Mr. KERR, the bill [S. l31] to amend an act providing for the incorporation of Companies to construct bridges under a constitutional dispensation, was read the first and second times by title, the third time by sections, and passed-yeas, 83; nays, 0.
ASSEMBLY CLERKS.
On motion by Mr. NEFF, his bill [H. R. 271] concerning the Clerks of the General Assembly, was read the third time and passed--yeas, 85; nays, 0.
GENERAL APPROPRIATION BILL.
The bill [H. R. 422] making appropriations for the State Government and its Institutions, was read the third time.
Mr. KENNER--I want to correct what is seemingly a false impression in regard to the amount of this appropriation. It is reported that this appropriation is in excess of the annual amount allowed two years ago in the sum of $300,000. When the bill came into the House the amount proposed was $1,148,000. The bill two years ago was $1,129,000. The House raised the amount of appropriation to the Educational Institutions $15,000 and cut it down in other respects probably $5,000. Now, I want to say this bill has been prepared with a view of no deficiency. I do not think the Republican party believes in a mode of screening--of going before the people on a principle of false economy that afterward turns out in large deficiencies.
The claim against the Insane Asylum is about $100,000, which, if sued, will very likely be granted. Other deficiencies altogether amount to over $100,000. If we add to the bill of two years ago the deficiency, where it propery belongs, it would amount to $1,250,000, as aganst $1,148,000, the amount included in this bill.
The bill passed--yeas, 64; nays, 27.
JURORS' FEES.
in- On motion by Mr. WRIGHT, Mr. HINTON'S bill [H. R. 309] fining certain fees and salaries to be taxed in offices therein named, was read the third time and passed--yeas, 86; nays, 1.
DECEDENTS' ESTATES.
Mr. CHANDLER'S bill [H. R. 200] to amend an act regulating descents and apportionment of estates, approved May 14, 1852, was read the third time and passed--yeas, 86; nays, 2.
JURY INSPECTION OF PRISONS.
Mr. Chandler's bill [H. R. 201] concerning County Prisons was read the third time and passed--yeas, 87; nays, 0.
SUPERIOR COURT FOR VIGO COUNTY.
Mr. Kenner's bill [H. R. 17] establishing a Superor Court in the County of Vigo was read the third time. He said the bill was introduced at the request of the Representative from Vigo who is unfortunately kept at home on account of sickness. Under our present Constitution we have only two Courts of general jurisdiction. The objection had to putting the civil jurisdiction into the Criminal Courts is throwing together that which would not work well; and, fur- page: 262[View Page 262] ther, that the Circuit Courts all over the State today are better adapted to take care of the criminal business than the Criminal Courts themselves. He thought the bill ought to pass.
Mr. COLE--The fact of the case is this: A bill was introduced here which had the support of the entire Democratic Bar of Vigo County, and about half of the Republican Members of the Bar, for the conferring of civil jurisdiction on the Criminal Court of Vigo County concurrent with the Circuit Court of that County, except on matters of probate. Of course that falls entirely to a separate Court. It had the approbation of a large majority of the Bar of the County. Now, I can see no reason, either from an examination of the facts or after hearing the arguments of these gentlemen, why one Court should be abolished and another be established, if the same men can not be retained in the same Courts. I can see but one object or reason for the passage of this bill and that is to legislate out of office a Democratic Judge and Prosecuting Attorney, each of whom have been three times elected successively in that County by a large a majority, and legislate a Republican Judge and Prosecuting Attorney into power. I hope this bill will not pass.
Mr. NEFF--In my judgment, a legislative body without some great cause or some special emergency ought to be slow in voting against the will of the people. The people of Vigo County have elected a Judge and Prosecuting Attorney. This bill simply seeks by its adoption to legislate one man out of office and another in. Three years ago, upon petition, there was given to the people of Vigo County a Criminal Court. When the Court is workng well this measure is urged which seeks to strike down their jurisdiction. I ask you to rise above party spirit and let the people of Vigo County have the men they elect.
Mr. CAUTHORNE--They have already the machinery in operation. If they need more Court facilities there we can relieve the Circuit Court of a part and confer it upon the Criminal Court already in operation. I do not care whether the Judge is a Democrat or Republican--that should be out of the question. There is no limit to the jurisdiction you can confer upon Criminal or Circuit Courts. The objection to this bill is that it will put Vigo County to the expense of electing a new Judge. We can relieve them of that trouble by leaving the thing as it is; therefore, I hope this bill will not pass.
Mr. MELROTH thought the Legislature had a right to legislate men out of office as it has to legislate men into office. He said the County would not be at an expense of an election, as the Governor would appoint a Judge until a regular election.
Mr. JOHNSON said there was no objection to the bill from the citizens of Vigo; that two years ago when the wheels of G overnment went in the hands of the Democratic members did not cry "Rise above party." He believed this bill to be in the interest of Vigo County, and it ought to pass this House and become a law.
Mr. GIBSON opposed the bill because there would be no gain by such a change, and it might work a bad result.
Mr. CARTER thought it was time to abolish the criminal Court and relieve the County of its civil business. It would be a singular thing if the Court, organized for the purpose of criminal jurisdiction only, should be restricted to civil jurisdiction. It would be something strange. He hoped the bill would pass, so the people of Vigo County could have relief in civil jurisdiction.
Mr. KENNER--I do not believe that the gentleman from Miami (Mr. Cole) or any other member on this floor, can cite to a single instance where civil jurisdiction has been conferred upon a Criminal Court, whereas, in every County in this State, we have a Civil Court with criminal jurisdiction. I say a Criminal Court is a recognized Court under the Constitution of this State, that it is a creature of statute, and it must exercise the jurisdiction of the statute that created it. I am opposed to conferring civil jurisdiction on Criminal Courts.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. COLE made an ineffectual motion to indefinitely postpone the bill--yeas, 37; nay 52.
The bill passed--yeas, 52; nays, 37. ge
LIQUOR LICENSE.
The SPEAKER announced the special order for this hour to be consideration of the bill [H. R. 402] amending acts regulating the sale of liquor--the question being on the majority report of the Committee on Temperance, recommending the passage of the bill.
The report was concurred in by--yeas, 46; nays, 43.
Mr. BENHAM made an ineffectual effort to amend the bill by reducing the fine from $125 to $75.
Mr. BUSKIRK was opposed to the bill. He considered it a mere subterfuge, which fact is apparent upon the face of it. The people of the State were in want of a prohibition law, instead of a subterfuge.
Mr. FLOYD, for many reasons advocated this bill. He thought every member upon this floor ought to accept a well-defined and well-drawn local option bill and vote for it.
Mr. KENNER--When the Democratic party had full sway they trampled under foot the prohibitory legislation of that day. When the Baxter bill came up they struck section after section out of it until they ruined it, knowing that they had the power. They are prompted to chide us to-day. There are two provisions in this bill that are good. We have Counties in this State where the people, through the Board of Commissioners, stop immoral men from getting license. The Board of Commissioners are the men to have final jurisdiction on this question, because they are directly connected with the people. That is one good provision of this bill.
Mr. MITCHELL thought the wording of this bill was too much like the old law, in reference to the character of the individual applying ror license. The wording is the same as in the old law; it does not say that he shall be a man of high moral character, or it does not define what kind of a character he shall be, it simply says "of good character." He thought the Republican were standing between two fires, trembling and quaking for fear of passing a bill here that will not satisfy the constituents of temperance people of the State, and afraid to act for fear that the whisky element of Indiana will go against them, thereby losing the State two years hence. He wanted a temperance law that means what it says and that will protect the temperance people and the people of Indiana, but he was not in favor of bringing a bill here containing the same features of the old bill with the exception of a few changes such as raising the license $25 in each case.
Mr. HUSTON--When the time comes to cast my vote I expect to vote for the temperance bill. As the gentleman from Wayne has said, nothing would please me betcer than the passage of a local option or prohibitory law. I am opposed to this bill, but do not understand that I will not vote for it, because I will vote for any temperance bill that is proposed, any bill that takes one step forward; but I am opposed to this bill for various reasons. In the first place I think that $2,000 as a bond is insufficient. I believe that should be increased, and increased largely, so as to prevent men from getting license. It has been said by the Democrats upon this floor that Republicans are afraid. One Republican here thought it unwise to do it. page: 263[View Page 263] I think under the circumstances, it is unwise to do it. We tried that a few years ago, and I think the question whether or not Republicans shall be in the supremacy in the State of Indiana is of far greater importance than whether or not we shall have a temporary suspension of local business. [Applause.] As has been said, if the Democrats were in power they would not pass a local option law. I think they are too shrewd to do it. We need only look back to the passage of the Baxter law; that killed us, and you need ngs expect Democratic brethren to be caught in the same trap. For another reason, I believe that a man who engages in the liquor traffic needs laws as strong and firm to regulate his action as you do with men who happen to be engaged in the banking business. He moved to amend Section 1, line five, by striking out the words: "$2,000" and inserting in lieu thereof "$5,000."
Mr. COLE--I hope the bill will not be ordered engrossed now. I think the House can use the time much better in disposing of the bills before it than discussing question which can not possibly come before the House for passage at this session. But since the question is up, I agree with the gentleman from Fayette and Union [Mr. Huston] that it is to the interest of the saloon keepers to have the law which governs the sale of intoxicating liquors plainly and clearly defined in every particular.
Mr. HUSTON said this amendment could do no harm nor cause a political division. He thought the merits of this amendment were apparent to every member, as there were many men who could give a bond of $2,000, but when it comes to give a bond of $5,000 the matter changes wonderfully. The amendment will work no hardships to men who are legitimately engaged in business.
Mr. HAMILTON did not think it prudent to legislate beyond the sentiments of the people. While this bill did not wholly meet with his approbation, he considered it the best measure under the circumstance, and favored its passage.
Mr. LINDLAY said he would vote for the strictest temperance measure that could be brought forward, and his constitutents would indorse his conduct. He hoped the bill would be ordered engrossed.
The amendument to raise the bond to $5,000 was adopted.
Mr. GIBSON moved to amend Section 1 by insertting in line 13 after the word "Commissioner" the following: "And shall file with his application a petition signed by a majority of the voters of the Township, Ward, city or incorporated town in which he desires to sell."
He said: I have taken this opportunity to show the constituency of the gentlemen on the right, if they come here expecting to support a local option measure that amendment gives it to you. It provides that no person shall have license unless a majority of the voters in the Township, city or Ward so vote, I want to see what you will do with this amendment. The Republican party has always claimed that it was the better party--the unsullied party. It went before the country in the last campaign, hoLding up its hands, claiming to be the temperance party. I am ready to vote for a stringent option law. I believe my contituency would favor it, but I do not care whether they would or not.
Mr. FALL made an ineffectual effort to lay the amendment on the table.
Mr. COLE moved to amend the amendment by inserting the following; "Praying that license be granted to said applicant."
Mr. KENNER said such a measure would be unconstitutional.
Mr. McSHEEHY made an ineffectual motion to postpone further consideration until to-morrow at 2 p. m.
Mr. CARTER--If that amendment were put in this bill it would not be a local option bill. If the Democrats want to vote for that they can have an opportunity. It would be simply nonsense to put that provision in this bill. The gentlemen are consuming this time to the great detriment of the public service. I therefore move to lay the amendment on the table.
The amendment to the amendment was laid on the table.
The amendment offered by [Mr. Gibson] was rejected.
Then the House adjourned till to-morrow
