HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
FRIDAY, March 4, 1881--9 a. m.The session was opened with prayer by Representative Floyd.
PUBLICATION OF STATUTES OF 1881.
On motion by Mr. RYAN the bill [H. R. 437] for an act concerning the publication of the Revised Statutes for 1881, was read the third time and passed-yeas, 70; nays, 14.
Mr. Cauthorne's bill [H. R. 435), to repeal an act to provide for the payment of sundry bonds and stocks of the State issued prior to the year 1841, approved December 12, 1872, being read the third time--
Mr. CAUTHORNE said: This bill simply repeals the act passed December 12, 1872, which was intended to make provision for the payment of sundry bonds issued by the State for internal improvement purposes. I propose to briefly urge upon the House the propriety of passing this bill for two reasons. First, Because the State of Indiana is under no legal or moral obligation to pay any part, either of principal or interest of the bonds referred to in the act of December 12, 1872. All the bonds referred to in that act were issued for internal improvement purposes, and were issued before any member on this floor had any concern with the management of the affairs of the State. They are evidences of the folly and improvidence of our ancestors. The State of Indiana should not attempt to shrink from any legal liability incurred, nor, on the other hand, should not assume by new legislation any additional liability than that already fixed and determined by the laws authorizing the issue of these bonds. I hold that it is a clear and tenable legal proposition that the State is not legally liable to pay any part of these bonds, and that the act of December 12, 1872 should never have been enacted.
I was a Member of this House at the time it was passed, and did all in my power to prevent it. Under its operation there has already been taken from the State Treasury several hundred thousand dollars, and if it is not repealed many more thousands of dollars will flow out for the same purpose, all of which I regard as no more than a donation on the part of the State to the holders of these bonds. The bonds provided for by the act repealed by this act were issued under various acts of the General Assembly which made different provisions for the bonds authorized under them, and imposed upon the State different liabilities. All the bonds referred to were issued under acts passed in 1832, 1834, 1835 or 1836. Under the act of 1832, found in acts of that year on page 4, the fifth section provides for the payment of the bonds authorized to be issued under it, and for that purpose irrevocably pledges the canal and its revenues. The act of 1834, by section two on page 30 of the acts of that year, provides for the payment of the bonds authorized to be issued by it and again pledges for that purpose the canal and its revenues. The general improvement act of 1836 by Section 9 on page 10 of the acts of that year provides for the payment of the $10,000,000 loan authorized by it, and again pledges the canal and other internal improvements and the revenues thereof for that purpose. The act of 1835 by Section 3 on page 25 of the acts of that year makes provision for the payment of the bonds authorized to be issued under it, and for that purpose "the faith of the State of Indiana is hereby irrevocably pledged." This was the only act ever passed authorizing the issue of bonds for internal improvement purposes, which pledged for their payment the faith of the State and made them directly a charge upon the State Treasury. Every one of the bonds issued under that act have been fully paid by the State. Not one of the bonds issued under that act was ever surrendered under the acts of 1846 or 1847. All the bonds therefore outstanding are bonds issued under the acts either of 1832, 1834 or 1836, and for the payment of which the canal was pledged and not the faith of the State. The holders of these bonds were aware of the means provided for their payment when they took them. They remained unpaid with accumulated interest until 1846, when the act of that year, called the "Butler bill," was passed at the instance and request of the holders of the outstanding bonds. By the pro- page: 267[View Page 267] visions of the act of 1846, which has been held by the Courts to be in the nature of a contract between the State and the holders of the unpaid bonds, provision was made for the adjustment and satisfaction of all these bonds; and by the act of 1847, called the "Supplement," the State declared she would never make any other or different arrangement for the payment of these bonds than that provided by the act of 1846. The act of 1872 is in violation of this express declaration, and does make another and different provision for their payment, and is so far in bad faith with the great body of the holders of such bonds who accepted the provisions of the act of 1846 in the belief that it was the only arrangement the State would ever make. I hold no such thing should be done. There is no legal or, moral obligation resting on the State to provide for their payment. All of the outstanding internal improvement bonds were liens on the canal, and when the compromise was effected between the State and the holders of these bonds under the acts of 1846 and 1847 and the State transferred to Trustees the canal and its tolls and revenues and all the lands donated by the General Government to aid in its construction. The transfer was made and accepted subject to existing liens. The act of 1846 authorizing the Governor to make such transfer in Section 8, pages 6 and 7 of the acts of that year contains the following: The transfer of said property shall be made "Subject nevertheless to all existing rights and equities against the State on account of the same or liabilities of the State growing out of or in relation thereto." This, we think, makes it clear that the Trustees received the canal subject to all liens. The view we have taken has been judicially determined by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Trustees of the Wabash and Erie Canal Company vs. Beers, 2 Black, 448. That case decides that these bonds are in the nature of liens on the canal and have priority according to date, as mortgages, and that the Trustees accepted the canal subject to them and must provide for their payment. It also decides that they are in the nature of contracts, and that the State is precluded by the Constitution of the United States of diverting, altering, impairing or otherwise varying their force and effect. We therefore hold that the act of 1872 should never have been passed and should be at once repealed.
We will briefly state the reasons why this bill should pass from another view, Even admitting the State should provide for the payment of these bonds, the act of 1872 is so loosely and inartificially drawn that it should be wiped out. It purports to appropriate money to pay these old bonds, but no certain amount is named as being appropriated. It simply says that sufficient money is appropriated to pay them, and confers power upon the Governor, Auditor, Attorney General and Treasurer of State to adjust the amount. This was certainly going very far in the direction of appropriating money contrary to the Constitution. The Constitution, in Article 10, Section 3, provides that "no money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in pursuance of appropriations made by law." What would this House think of the Committee of Ways and Means if they had reported to you a bill appropriating to the Benevolent, Educational, Penal and Reformatory Institutions as much money as might be needed for them? Such a bill would undoubtedly have been rejected. But the act we propose to repeal makes just such an appropriation, and for that reason should be repealed. But in addition the act confers power upon the State officials named to make the computation of the amount due upon these bonds and to pay the amount they shall find due. The holders of such of these bonds as have not yet been paid are not satisfied with the decision of the Board so constituted under said act and demand the shape of interest more than said Board thinks due and by resort to the Courts by way of mandate proceedings are attempting to compel the Treasurer of State to pay more money out of the Treasury than said Board have found due. The Supreme Court of the State has already reached a decision in the mandate case adverse to the interests of the State Treasury, and unless the General Assembly interferes and repeals this law will compel the State officers to pay more money than the Board constituted by said act have found due.
The repeal of this act will not prevent the State in future making any just and proper provision for the payment of the outstanding bonds if such a course is thought right and just. We therefore think this bill should pass.
Mr. BUSKIRK--From what the gentleman from Knox (Mr. Cauthorne) has said I am entirely and utterly opposed to the bill because it seeks to forego an obligation due from the State to certain parties, as has been decided by the Courts of the State and the United States Supreme Court. I infer that the object of this bill is to relieve the State from the legal obligation resting upon her, and which has been decided by the Supreme Courts to be valid. The credit and honor of the State is of more importance than the dollars and cents involved in this bill.
Mr. KENNER--The Court, by its mandate, has ordered to be paid out by the Treasurer of State more money than was appropriated by the body legally elected by the State to appropriate money. There never has been appropriated a dollar to pay these bonds by the State of Indiana. This bill simply says that the Treasurer of State shall pay no money except as appropriated by the Legislature. If this is a good debt let it come before the Legislature, and if they refuse it then the State is not in honor bound to pay it.
Mr. RYAN--I hope this bill will pass. The holders saw fit to withhold the bonds when notified by the act of 1847, and not accept the proposition then made by the State, therefore it is not bound to pay these bonds. It would be wrong to make the people pay these old debts. I hope every member will vote cheerfully and heartily in support of this bill.
The bill passed--yeas, 86; nays, 3.
MEDICAL LEGISLATION.
On motion by Mr. EDWINS, the regular order was suspended and Mr. Yancey's bill [S. 74--see pages 208, 212 and 216 of these Reports] regulating and improving the practice of medicine was read the first time and passed to the second reading.
RAILROAD TARIFF.
The Committee on Railroads reported on the, bill [H. R. 138] regulating charges of railroads, recommending its passage with amendments.
The report was concurred in.
On motion by Mr. FRAZIER, the bill was laid on the table and 200 copies ordered printed.
PARTIES TO ACTION.
Mr. Traylor's bill [S. 17, see page 111] concerning partes to action was read the third time.
Mr. BUSKIRK--The Supreme Court has decided that for the purposes of relieving real estates action could not be maintained in the person's own name. The purpose of this bill is to do away with this old rule and allow the man who has a claim to the land to bring the suit in his own proper name without reference to the title of some other man. It seems to me that the law as it has existed for years is unjust, therefore I want to see it changed, and hope the bill will pass.
The bill passed--yeas, 86; nays, 0.
On motion by Mr. M'CLURE, House bills on the third reading were taken up.
HOUSE BILLS PASSED.
Mr. McCure's bill [H. R. 316] for an act to relieve William J. Richey, Trustee of Finlay Town page: 268[View Page 268] ship, Scott County, Indiana, was read the third time and passed--yeas, 54; nays, 28.
Mr. Kenner's bill [H. R. 141] to regulate the sale of iron, brass, or other worn or scrap metal, by officers and employes of Railroad Companies and other persons, being read the third time--
Mr. KENNER said the principal feature of this bill is to impede the tendency of educating thievery on the part of poor children who pick up these iron scraps and sell them.
The bill passed--yeas, 67; nays, 16.
Mr. Huston's bill [H. R. 199] to amend an act prescribing who may make a will, the effect thereof, etc., approved May 10, 1852, was read the third time and passed--yeas, 80; nays, 1.
Mr. Jackson's bill [H. R. 7], providing for the protection of quails and pheasants, prescribing penalties, etc.[to protect these birds from destruction for two years], was read the third time.
Mr. GIBSON thought the law on that subject now was fully sufficient for all practical purposes.
Mr. KENNER said the quails and pheasants add very much to the agricultural wealth of the country, and they should be protected.
Mr. FALL wanted the bill to become a law.
The bill passed--yeas 80; nays, 7.
Mr. Wilson's (of Morgan) bill [H. R. 48] to amend Section 2 of an act concerning inclosures, trespassing animals and partition fences, approved June 4, 1852, was read the third time and passed--yeas, 66; nays, 21.
Mr. Swizer's bill [H. R. 53] to amend Section 1 of an act prescribing certain duties of Railroad Companies, requiring such Companies to sound whistles on all locomotives at crossings of turnpikes and public highways, was read the third time.
Mr. SWITZER said this bill provides nothing more than was contained in the law of 1879. That law required them to sound the whistle. The engrossing clerk made a mistake. In place of being "three blows of the whistle," the clerk wrote it "continually." This bill amends so as to make it read "three distinct blows."
On motion by Mr. KENNER, the bill was recommitted for amendment.
MEROM COLLEGE.
Mr. AKIN'S bill [H. R. 65] to legalize the incorporation of the Union Christian College of Merom, Ind., and all the acts of said corporation and contracts made with and by said corporation, was read the third time and passed--yeas, 83; nays, 0.
BENTON COUNTY CLAIM.
Mr. CARR, of White's, bill [H. R. 81--see page 90] to make an appropriation to pay Benton County, Indiana, a portion of the extraordinary expenses incurred in the arrest, trial and conviction of Charles L. McCullough for the murder of William Morgan, of Grant County, Indiana, was read the third time.
Mr. CARR felt satisfied that the gentlemen who opposed this measure several weeks ago did not fully understand its object or they would not have opposed the bill. He felt sure the claim was an honest and just one. The parties not being residents of the County in which the heavy expense was incurred, Benton County should not be made liable for a prosecution which did not concern the County.
Mr. BUSKIRK was opposed on general principles to allowances of such claims, or making appropriations of this sort, but he was willing to vote for is appropriation principally upon the ground that the people of Benton County acted upon the promise made by the State officers. These officers had a right to make this promise, as there is a contingent fund provided for that purpose, and they have a right to dispose of that as they think proper.
Mr. THOMPSON said the Claims Committee concluded they would submit the claim to the action of the House. There was some merit in the claim.
Mr. FANCHER said the claim was quite old; that it was presented to previous Legislatures. The Governor encouraged the Prosecuting Attorney of Benton County to proceed. The Attorney did so, and it would be nothing more than right that the County at least be reimbursed for the extraordinary expenses -- that is, the amount actually paid out. He said the Governor would never have suggsted its payment by the State had he not thought it an equitable claim.
Mr. MITCHELL believed the claim should be allowed by this body, for the reason that Benton County is poor and can not well bear this expense. He did not approve of the principle of allowing such claims, but in consideration of the County's financial condition, he thought the amount should be allowed as a matter of benevolence and charity.
Mr. CARTER--From the fact that the State officers encouraged this prosecution and promised to defray these expenses, under those circumstances I shall support this bill. I hope it will pass as a simple act of justice to the County.
Mr GIBSON said he favored the passage of the bill because he thought it a just one, and the Governor encouraged the prosecution with promises of compensation, notwithstanding the fact that he [Mr. Gibson] introduced a similar bill in this body which was rejected.
Mr. FRAZER--I am opposed to this bill. That the Prosecuting Attorney received encouragement from the Governor of State amounts to nothing, as it was a sworn duty of the Prosecuting Attorney to prosecute every crime committed in the County. The Judge is also bound to try every cause in that County. It is the duty of every County, irrespective of its worth or poverty, to prosecute every crime committed in it, and I doubt not that every County in the State has prosecuted similar claims. If we pay this claim we must pay every similar claim in Indiana. The principle of this thing is wrong.
Mr. MITCHELL said the amount asked for was not the actual expense of this trial, but simply the amount actually expended for witnesses--money paid out. Under these circumstances he could see no impropriety in the State officials guaranteeing to the County the actual expenses.
Mr. CARR--The expense of the prosecution is over $2,000. The extraordinary expense--that is, the money paid to witnesses and outside expenses. I ask no sympathy or generosity, but simply justice. I hope the bill will pass as a matter of justice.
The bill passed--yeas, 56; nays, 31.
THE WORLD'S FAIR.
On motion by Mr. CAUTHORNE, the House took a recess of five minutes to hear remarks by Hon. I. Haynes, of New York, one of the Executive Board of the World's Fair.
After the intermission Mr. KENNER offered a resolution that the Committee on Ways and Means be instructed to inquire into and report to the House what legislation is necessary to have Indiana represented at the World's Fair in 1883.
It was adopted.
SPECIFIC APPROPRIATION BILL.
Mr. KENNER introduced a bill [H. R. 439] for an act making specific appropriations.
It was read the first time.
On motion by Mr. GIBSON, the bill was laid on the table, and 200 copies were ordered printed.
On motion by Mr. SWITZER, the Special Committee thereon reported back the bill [S. 64] to amend Section 1 of an act authorizing cities to fund indebtedness, with an amendment, recomending its passage.
The report was concurred in.
page: 269[View Page 269]On motion by Mr. WRIGHT, the amendment was considered engrossed.
Mr. WRIGHT said: Senate bill No. 64 authorizes cities and towns having a population of less than 16,000 to fund their indebtedness by negotiating bonds in denominations not less than $50 nor more than $1,000, payable after two years, in equal annual installments, not exceeding in all fifteen years, the bonds to draw 6 per cent. semiannually, and to be negotiated at not less than par. Section 2 requires the city or town to assess taxes sufficient to pay the interest accruing on the bonds, and to pay the principal thereof as they become due.
The Senate placed no limit upon the time the bonds should run. As amended by the House, the limit is fixed at fifteen years, and sinkinfg fund taxes are not allowed to accumulate in the hands of officers.
The bill passed--yeas, 83; nays, 4.
ABANDONED CEMETERIES.
Mr. WRIGHT moved to suspend the regular order of business and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill [H. R. 12] to vacate cemeteries within corporate limits.
The motion was agreed to.
EXECUTION SALE OF GRAVEL ROADS.
Mr. BERRYMAN'S bill [H. R. 88], authorizing sale of plank, macadamized and other roads under execution, and empowering purchasers to reorganize, was read the third time.
Mr. BERRYMAN said the object of this bill was to permit the sale of gravel roads on execution. He could see no reason why gravel roads, where there is an execution obtained against them, could not be sold on execution as other property. As the law now stands it could not be sold on such a claim.
The bill passed--yeas, 56; nays, 25.
COMMON SCHOOL LIBRARIES.
On motion by Mr. MCDOWELL, the regular order was suspended, and the Committee on Ways and Means reported on the bill [S. 7, see page 124] establishing Public Libraries in connection with the Common Schools in cities of 15,000 and over, recommending its passage with the following amendment--
"In any city where there is already established a library open to all the people no tax shall be levied for the purpose therein named."
The report was concurred in.
On motion by Mr. KENNER, the constitutional rule was suspended--yeas, 74; nays, 6.
The bill was read the third time and passed--yeas, 82; nays, 0.
STATE BENEVOLENT INSTITUTIONS.
Mr. Miles' bill [H. R. 101] to amend an act to establish a Female Prison and Reformatory for Girls and Women, and providing for the organization and government thereof, and making appropriations, approved May 13, 1869, was read the third time and passed--yeas, 76; nays, 4.
Mr. Miles' bill [H. R. 102] to amend an act to establish a House of Refuge and Reformatory for Juvenile Children, approved March 6, 1870, was read the third time and passed--yeas, 80; nays, 8.
Mr. WRIGHT moved to adjourn. He thought the House was not paying enough attention to vote intelligently upon bills.
This motion was withdrawn.
Mr. HUSTON moved to suspend the constitutional rule, and that the bill [H. R. 241] to amend Section 182 of the act of March 11, 1875, to legalize the levy of municipal taxes, be read the second time by title, the third time by sections and put upon its passage.
The motion was rejected--yeas, 44; nays, 46.
The House adjourned till to-morrow.
