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
