THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
VOLUME
TWENTY.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
SPECIAL SESSION.
Members of the Fifty-second General Assembly of Indiana convened Tuesday, March 8, 1881, at 9 o'clock a. m., at the Marion County Court House, in the city of Indianapolis, in pursuance of proclamation of His Excellency, the Governor of Indiana.
IN SENATE.
TUESDAY, March 8, 1881--9:30 a m.The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR directed the Auditor of State (Hon. E. H. Wolfe) to call the Districts and names of Senators.
Forty-eight Senators answered to their names.
Mr. Foster, of Allen, and Mr. Hart, of Warren and Pike, were absent.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR said, there being a quorum present, the body is ready to proceed with business.
Mr. LANGDON offered the following, and demanded the previous question on its adoption:
Resolved, That for the purpose of a speedy organization of the Senate, Wm. H. Schlater be and he is hereby declared the Principal Secretary of the Senate; that Robert B. Sears be and he is hereby declared the Assistant Secretary of the Senate, and that Richard B. Huncheon be and he is hereby declared the Doorkeeper of the Senate for the special session.
Mr. HEFRON raised the point of order that the resolution is not in order, for the reason that it does not choose or elect as the Constitution requires. It simply declares A and B and C elected. The Senate can not declare its officers elected; they must be chosen.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR--The point of order is not well taken. The Auditor will call the roll, the yeas and nays having been demanded.
The demand for the previous question was seconded by yeas 26; nays, 22.
The question being on the adoption of the resolution--
Mr. HEFRON demanded a division of the question.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNGR--Under parliamentary law, outside of any other rule, I don't think it can be divided.
Mr. HEFRON thought the resolution easiy susceptible of division, as it contains three and distinct propositions, either one of which might carry or might fail, and not depend materially on the disposition of the other two. The resolution simply refers to the selection of officers, and if one is selected and other defeated, one does not depend upon the other. So the Senator's argument that the resolution is not susceptible of division seems not well founded.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR--Where a question is divided, it is the same as different amendments. If the Senate were not operating under the previous question, and each separate proposition were offered as an amendment, of course it would be voted upon; but as we are acting under the previous question, you have to vote on the resolution as it is before the Senate. Therefore, I think the point is not well taken.
Mr. HEFRON--Such has be the custom. Two years ago, when a similar resolution was introduced, a division of the question was demanded by the other side, and granted by Governor Gray, who was then President of the Senate, and a vote was taken separately on each proposition.
Mr. LANGDON said the point of order was not well taken, for the reason that we are now acting in the absence of any rule of the Senate, and are governed by the common parliamentary law of the land, under which a demand for a division of the question is never dependent upon any one member, and has to be predetermined, not by the arbitrary opinion of the Chair, but by a decision upon a vote of the body. And another thing: A motion for a division of this question can not be put because the Senate is now operating under the previous question, when no amendment and no motion can be entertained. And the point of order is not well taken because parliamentary law requires a question shall be so divided that there will be left an intelligent and separate proposition after taking away a part; and in this case, the vote on Pincipal Secretary should fail, there would be nothing left in this resolution after taking that away from it.
Mr. BELL gave notice he should present--other Senators joining--a protest against the ruling of the Chair, as follows:
page: 10[View Page 10]Now, therefore, the undersigned respectfully protest against said ruling and action of the Chair, and present this their protest in behalf, and ask the same to be spread upon the records of the Senate at length.
H. M. MAIVIN, R. C. BELL,
W.
H.DAVIDSON, D. J. HEFRON,
W. B. HUTCHISON, S.
E. URMSTON,
F. M. HOWARD, D. R. LEEPER,
T.
M. COMPTON, Wm. RAHM, JR.
The resolution was adopted by yeas, 26; nays, 23, as follows:
Yeas--Messrs. Benz, Bischowski, Bundy, Chapman, Comstock, Garrigus, Graham, Grubbs, Henry, Hostetter, Kahlo, Keiser, Landgon, Lockridge, Macartney, Owen, Ristine, Sayre, Shaffer, Smith, Spann, Van Vorhis, Voyles, White, Woods and Yancy--26.
Nays--Messrs. Bell, Briscoe, Brown, Coffey, Compton, Davidson, Davis, Foster, Hefron, Howard, Hutchinson, Kramer, Leeper, Majors, Marvin, Menzies, Poindexter, Rahm, Traylor, Urmston, Viehe, Wilson and Woollen-23.
Mr. LANGDON moved to reconsider the vote adopting the resolution, and to lay that motion on the table.
The latter motion was agreed to by the same vote adopting the resolution.
On the further motion by Mr. LANGDON, the Secretary, Assistant Secretary and Doorkeeper elect were sworn in by Judge Howe, of the Superior Court.
JOINT COMMITTEE ON REVISION.
On motion by Mr. GRUBBS, it was--
Resolved, the House concurring, That a Joint Committee of the two Houses be appointed, to consist of five Senators on the part of the Senate and eight Representatives on the part of the House, to which shall be referred the report of the Commission on the Compilatory Revision and Amendment of the Laws, and that said Committee shall have authority to employ a clerk and to report at any time to either House.
PAGES--STANDING COMMITTEES.
The LIEUTENAINT GOVERNOR named the Pages, viz,: Henry Richardson, of Putnam County; Aair Overstreet, of Johnson County; Harry Bowser, Herbert Spenser and Rudolph Bauer, of Marion County. He also announced that the Standing Committes of the Senate will remain the same as at the close of the regular session.
INSANE ASYLUM INVESTIGATION.
t Mr. SHAFFER, from the Joint Special Committee appointed last session to investigate the Insane Hospital, reported want of time to complete said investtion, and recommended that the investigation be continued during the special session.
This report was laid on the table by yeas, 28; nays, 7.
SPECIAL SESSION--BUSINESS.
Mr. BELL submitted the following:
MR. PRESIDENT--
Your Special Committee, appointed to inquire into and report as to the purport and effect of the act of December, 6, 1872, providing for the completion of unfinished business of a preceding sesson of this General Assembly, would respectfully report that they have considered said subject, and, in the opinion of the Committee, the unfinished business pending in the regular session at the close thereof can be taken up in the same order in which it stood at the termination of said regular session, and disposed of in the same manner that it might have taken up, transacted and disposed of at such preceding regular session, subject only to such change in the rules of procedure as either House may see proper to make.
R. C. BELL.
E. R.
WILSON,
D. W. COMSTOCK.
COMMITTEE CLERKS.
Wm. A. Brown was appointed clerk of the first group; C. A. Cox, of the second; W. A. Smock, of the third; Albert W. Fullerton, of the Judiciary, and Luke H. Wrigley, of the Joint Committee on Revision, on the part of the Senate.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill [H. R. 204 concerning taxation.
Mr. BROWN moved to strike out Section 51, relating to tax on "gift book stores."
Mr. SPANN opposed the motion to strike out.
On motion by Mr. LANGDON, Section 51 was referred to a Select Committee, viz: Messrs. Spann, Brown and Chapman.
Mr. YANCEY called up his motion to reconsider the vote by which two amenmendments and one substitute for the seventh subdivision of Section 8 was rejected on Saturday, the casting vote being given by the Lieutenant Governor.
This motion to reconsider was rejected by yeas, 20; nays, 26.
Mr. BELL saw unfairness in Section 53. The proper way to tax pawnbrokers would be to tax the amount advanced on pledges during the year, and he offered an amendment to that effect.
Mr. KRAMER failed to see any reason why this section should be retained in the bill.
Mr. SPANN suggested these men only advance about one-quarter or one-third of the cash value of property left in their hands.
Mr. CHAPMAN moved to strike out the section. It s simply the work of reiteration, as this section is covered by the provisions of another section.
Mr. MENZIES could see no reason why the section should not remain in the bill. Its purpose is to send the Assessor after a class of property that will escape listing, unless the Assessor's attention is particularly directed to it.
Mr. SPANN opposed the motion to strike out this Section 53. The bill would then leave a loophole for the escape of a large amount of a certain class of property.
Mr. CHAPMAN--It does not make any officer more vigilant to increase the bulk of a law; making it more unwieldly too cumbersome, and less liable to be understood. This section is applicable to every corporation or person who loans money on collateral. It is too sweeping an assertion to state that all who borrow money from pawnbrokers are thieves and gamblers--many in indigent circumstances pledge their property in order to raise a little ready money.
The great desideration in any law is to express its object in as few words as possible.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. MARVIN moved to add to Section 3 a proviso that when any real estate has been specially taxed for the building of a free gravel road through the same, it shall not for the same year be taxed for common public highways also. He said page 83, Section 4, Acts of 1877, show what lands are taxed for that purpose, and page 87 show how much can be taxed in a year. While lands are being taxed year by year for free gravel roads, the same land should not be assessed the same year for other roads. It may be a hard task to regulate this so as to make it equal, but it is a new thing to allow the people to build free gravel roads in this State and justice should be shown to those thus taxed.
Mr. SPANN insisted the proviso would bring about confusion, and that those paying tax for free gravel roads have their lands enhanced in value by that kind of improvement.
Mr. MARVIN feared the putting of hardships on top of hardships on lands having to pay taxes for free gravel roads, and desired his amendment adopted in order to afford relief to this class of farmers.
page: 11[View Page 11]Mr. GARRIGUS saw no reason for releasing free gravel road land from assessments to aid in building other County roads.
Mr. URMSTON called attention to the fact that Sectino 3 simply describes what kind of property shall be taxed, and submitted that the proviso, being in the nature of an exemption, could not properly be attached to this Section, unless shown to be for educational, benevolent or scientific purposes.
Mr. FOSTER favored the amendment.
Mr. TRAYLOR thought the amendment should not be adopted.
Mr. KRAMER moved to amend Section 19 so that the production of a tax receipt or duplicate thereof shall be evidence of tax paid in another County. This section, without the amendment, would leave it discretionary with the Auditor somewhat, as to what evidence is given to show tax has been paid in another place.
M. BELL opposed the amendment, thnking the filing of an affidavit as required by the bill sufficient truth.
Mr. WOOLLEN suggested the tax receipt or a duplicate thereof be required in addition to the affidavit. He moved such an amendment
Mr. BELL insisted the section was well guarded. If the Auditor felt any doubts as to the affidavit he can require further evidence.
The amendments were both rejected.
Mr. Sayre moved to amend Section 19, so as to require the evidence to be both "written and verified."
He thought this amendment ought to be adopted because the section gives a good deal of power to the party interested, and if such power is to be be given it should be made to depend upon written evidence sworn to, in order that it may form a publie record for the inspection of the public, so that the power given may not be abused.
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. BELL moved to amend Section 54 by striking out the words "and the books of all corporations." The section provides for a species of inquisition that should not be tolerated. As this section now stands, any Assessor or Deputy Assessor would have the right to examine all the books of any Manufacturing Company or any bank in the State without let or hindrance. This would be dangerous.
Mr. MENZIES thought this section would prove a littel wholesome to corporations in this State. It thei books are all right and.straight, they won't object. This section is meant for corporations who are covering something up.
Mr. BELL--This attacks every corporation, private as well as public. Both ought to be compelled to pay their full quota of taxation, but they should not be subjected the inquisition proposed by this section. The present law furnishes a remedy for any refusing or who are suspected of not properly reporting effects for taxation, and books can, by due process of law, be brought out for proper inspection. No officer should be trusted with a blank floating search warrant of this kind.
Mr. WILSON did not think it right to presume that public officers will take advantage and abuse the powers granted to them. Every well-regulated corporation ought to have its books in shape so that any one can understand them at sight, and these smaller class of corporations should not object to an inspection to which the banks of this country are and have been subected to for many years.
Mr. CHAPMAN proposed a substitute restricting the right to examine book to the County Auditor.
Mr. MENZIES said the amendment would open a wide door for construction. It would give a right to go, upon a proper showing, and examine the books of a Telegraph Company. Now, there would be a contest as to the meaning of the words "a proper showing."
Mr. CHAPMAN should vote to strike out the entire section unless it is modified. If there is no right to examine books of individuals, there is none to examine the books of corporations for the purpose of bringing money into the coffers of the State. Justice should be done in all cases.
The substitute was rejected--yeas, 15; nays 29.
Mr. COMSTOCK offered a substitute authorizing the County Auditor, upon affidavit of the Assessor, that he believes property is not properly listed, to examine books of corporations.
Mr. WOOD said he was opposed to the substitute of the Senator from Wayne, and in favor of the section in the bill. The Assessor has a right under present laws, and by the terms of this bill, to search for property on every farm. They can hunt out every horse, cow, hog and sheep, and all the rye, corn and wheat in the barn. Why should not the Assesor have the right to hunt the intangible property of all corporations which is kept upon their books, and no where else? If they can hunt everywhere for tangible property to assess, why not examine all books of every corporation to hunt for all intangible property. All property should pay its full tax.
The substitute was rejected by yeas, 17; nays, 27.
Mr. BELL said the question was presented fairly and squarely whether an officer can be permitted without restraint to examine books. That this amendment is full of danger, no lawyer will dispute. Of so great importance has this matter been considered, that in almost every Constitution it is provided a person's property shall not be subject to unreasonable search. No petty officer should have the right to require all books of a corporation submitted for his examination at his own sweet will. No such outrages should be permitted. Suppose some Deputy Assessor, who has some spleen to gratify, or spite to inflict, takes up day after day in the examining of books for the very purpose of annoying, you can do nothing with him, for he is in pursuance of his duty under this section as it now stands. If an examination is wanted of private books, some affidavit should first be submitted to justify it.
Mr. BROWN regarded the words proposed to be stricken out as about all there is in the section. The constitutional provision referred to was not intended to prevent a rightful inquiry. While not approving of the section as it stands, he opposed a nullification of it. Where an invidual sequestrates his property, the law makes provistion. No such provision affects corporations or affect individuals. The section ought to be guarded so petty spite and malice should not be allowed to work out its ends.
Mr. COMSTOCK thought it apparent that the section was not in such shape as the Senate desires, and in order to a careful consideration he moved to refer this section and pending amendment to a Select Committee to consist of Messrs Bell, Brown, Spann, Wilson and Viehe, with a view of harmonizing the section.
Mr. Viehe opposed the amendment as well as the section as it stands. Corporations should be protected against unreasonable search, but this section evidently will have to be reconstructed before that can be accomplished under it.
The motion to refer was agreed to.
Pending the consideration of Section 59--
A MESSAGE FROM THE GOVERNOR
was laid before the Senate by the Chair viz.:
EXCUTIVE DEPARTMENT,
INDIANAPOLIS,
Ind., March 8, 1881.
Gentlemen of the Senate and House of Representatives:
The Constitution provides that the Governor shall, from time to time, give to the General Assembly information touching the condition of the State, and recommend such measures as he shall judge to be expedient. My official duties since my inauguration, during the late regular session, have been so onerous and your
page: 12[View Page 12]own opportunities to acquire a knowledge of the condition of the State through your Investigating Committees and through other means have been so considerable, that I do not regard myself as being possessed of any important information relating to the condition of the State of which you are not in possession also. Some of the measures which I had the honor to recommend to you in my inaugural address have been adopted. An adoption of the others has been proposed in pending bills, and they are now in a condition to be considered by you. I renew my recommendation of these pending measures. I specially urge the passage of the bill, with whatever change or additions may be deemed expedient, providing for ascertaining the best way of reclaiming the vast body of lands, the natural means for the drainage of which is through the Kankakee River. The important bill concerning taxation ought also to receive your early attention, so that there may be no failure to pass the clauses providing for taxing the receipts of Teleagraph, Telephone, Express and Fast Freight Companies, etc, instead of taxing merely their visible property.
The exigency which has rendered it necessary for me to call you together in special session could not well have been avoided. The extraordinary labor imposed upon you by your undertaking critically to consider the vast body of legislation proposed to you for adoption by the Commission appointed by the act of 1879 to compile and revise existing statutes has required you to occupy much time in the Committee Room and upon the floor in that work, which otherwise would have been spent in considering ordinary legislation.
Many important changes of existing law have been proposed by th Commission. It is proper that these shall receive careful attention, in order that they may, so far as they shall be adopted, not represent what is deemed best by the Commission merely, but reflect the deliberative judgment of each House. In the progress of the further consideration of these proposed enactments, amendments will doubtless from time to time be found to be necessary. I venture to suggest, however, with the most respectful deference, that hasty amendments will be not less likely to work harm than a too inattentive consideration of the enactments proposed. Even the Commissioners will not always be able to perceive at the moment their entire scope and effect, nor how far they may introduce inconsistencies and ambiguity, which will leave the meaning of the law uncertain until it shall be determined by the Supreme Court. There is a subject which at first view may be deemed of little comparative importance to which I wish to invite your serious attention. In referring in bills to the title of acts meant to be amended there have been frequent instances during the regular session in whch these titles have been recited incorrectly, and at some stages of not a few bills passages or words have been changed, the effect of which has been in some cases to alter or to obscure the sense, and in others will be to convey the idea to uninformed readers that the measure has been imperfectly considered. Such faults in laws are ever a fruitful source of litigation and of consequent expense. The way of avoiding them is easy, and is familiar to such of your members as have had previous experience in legislative bodies. It is earnestly hoped that a diligent effort will be made to finish the work which you have in hand within less than forty days, allowed by the Constitution for a special session, and that a constant desire will be felt to restrain expenses where it is not obviously proper. While not withholding appropriations where they may be necessary from the public welfare, it should be your constant effort to make the burden of taxation as light as it can be made, consistently with a wise administrationof the affairs of the State.
ALBERT G. PORTER, Governor.
The Senate adjourned till to-morrow.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
TUESDAY, March 8, 1881--9 a. m.Dr. E. R. Hawn, on taking the Chair, said under the law, it fell upon the Secretary of State to organize the House in the absence of the Speaker.
The session was opened with prayer by Rev. P. M. Hamilton, Member from Boone County.
The Members were called in alphabetical order in groups of about twenty, and the oath of office was administered by Judge Byron K. Elliot, of the Supreme Court.
Mr. KENNER nominated for Speaker of the House for the extra session Hon. William M. Ridpath, of Clay County.
Mr. BUSKIRK presented the name of Henry S. Cauthorne, of Knox County.
Mr. Ridpath received 55 votes, Mr. Cauthorne 39.
The SECRETARY OF STATE appointed Messrs. Cauthorne and Ryan to escort the newly-elected Speaker to the Chair. After reaching the Chair--
Mr. RIDPATH said: "Gentlemen of the House of Representatives. I thank you for this renewed expression of confidence and respect. I realize very keenly, and you no doubt realize the importance of the work before us. Yesterday we closed a very profitable as well as a very pleasant session. It is to be hoped that our relations will continue as pleasant as they were during the last session, and that we may appreciate the importance of the work which we have before us. It is not only important to us that we may make records, but also important that the legislation of this body may be such as to work well to the people of the State. I hope that this session will prove profitable and pleasant. I thank you, gentlemen, again for the renewed confidence which you have placed in me."
Mr. KENNER nominated Cyrus L. Nixon, of Marion County, for Clerk of the House.
Mr. WALKER nominated Arthur C. O'Brien of Martin County.
Cyrus L. Nixon receiving fifty-three votes and A. C. O'Brien forty, Mr. Nixon was declared elected.
Mr. FANCHER placed in nomination Clinton C. Riley as Assistant Clerk of the House.
Mr. NEFF nominated Jerry Huff, of Martin County for Assistant Clerk.
Mr. RILEY receiving fifty-five votes and Mr. Huff thirty-eight, Mr. Riley was declared elected.
Mr. KENNER nominated for Doorkeeper James Wood, of Warrick County.
Mr. HAMMOND nominated Wm. Bennett, of Crawford County.
James Wood receiving fifty-five votes and Mr. Bennett forty, Mr. Wood was declared elected.
Mr. MEREDITH offered a resolution that the present employes of this House, having proved worthy and efficient during the session closed, many of them being wounded soldiers, it is hereby requested that they be retained in their present positions.
The resolution was adopted.
NEW PROPOSITIONS.
The following described bills were read the first time and severally referred:
By Mr. BRYANT [H. R. 446]: To amend Sections 21 and 59 of an act to divide the State into Circuits for judicial purposes, approved March 6, 1873.
By Mr. FANCHER [H. R. 447]: Legalizing the official acts of the Boards of Trustees of the town of Cadiz, Henry County.
By Mr. CARTER [H. R. 448]: To amend Section 8 of an act concerning interest and usury, approved March 10, 1879. [School, College and canal funds, etc, shall be loaned at 7 per cent., page: 13[View Page 13] except in cases where there is too much on hand to be loaned at that rate, in which case it can be loaned at a less rate.]
By Mr. HINTON [H. R. 449]: To regulate the tolls charged on Plank and Macadamized Roads ceded to the United States by the State of Indiana and matters properly connected therewith. [The charges for toll not to exceed a maximum of over 10 per cent. of the actual amount invested and keeping up repairs, etc.]
By Mr. McSHEEHY [H. R. 450]: Concerning licensing of vehicles in all cities of this State, having a population of 60,000 or more inhabitants as shown by the census of 1880. [The Board of Aldermen and Common Council shall have the power to enact ordinances regulating the running of vehicles, etc.]
By Mr. SULZER [H. R. 451]: Concerning the regulation of the time for holding Courts in the Second Judicial Circuit.
By Mr. BERRYMAN [H. R. 452]: To amend Section 14 of an act of 1879 concerning exemptions.
DESTRUCTION OF BONDS.
Mr. CAUTHORNE offered a resolution, which was adopted, that the Treasurer of State be and is hereby directed to produce before the General Assembly of the State of Indiana, in Joint Convention assembled in the Hall of the House of Representatives, on Thursday, March 10, at 2 p. m., the bonds surrendered and paid under an act providing for the payment of sundry bonds and stocks of the State issued prior to 1841. The Senate is requested to meet the House of Representatives in Joint Convention in said place and make suitable disposition of such bonds as in the State Treasurer may then and there produce and exhibit.
AFTERNOON SESSION
RE-SEATING OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. MARSHALL offered a resolution that the Speaker's and Clerk's desk be located on the south side of this room, and that the members desks so changed as to face the Speaker. He said a large portion of the members of the House have not been able to hear the proceedings or to know what was going on, those coming into the room passing between the Speaker and members.
The resolution was adopted.
RECESS OF THE ASSEMBLY
Mr. BUSKIRK offered a resolution, the Senate concurring, that each branch of the General Assembly adjourn on Friday. March 11, 188l, at noon, until Wednesday, March 16, 1881, at 10 a. m.
Mr. NEFF thought the House would make a mistake by adjourning, as he did not consider the Constitutional Amendments of sufficient importance to adjourn the General Assembly to attend the election. There is not sufficient difference. The parties are too equally divided here for anybody to claim that it will change the result. He thought the members would have much more influence here than to go home to electioneer.
Mr. MITCHELL was opposed to the resolution to adjourn for so long a time as the resolution provides.
Mr. STEWART moved to amend the resolution by striking out "Friday" and insert "Saturday;" strike out "Wednesday" and insert "Tuesday at 2 p. m."
Mr. NEFF made an ineffectual motion to lay the resolution and amendment on the table.
Mr. MEREDITH thought the Legislature ought to hold its sessions right along so as to get through, as the spring work was coming on, when it becomes more necessary for members to be at home. He favored continuing the sessions and excusing from four to six members at a time to go home.
Mr. ADRIAN insisted that members of this House are interested in the passage of these amendments, and to that end they ought to be at home at least for a few days previous to the election.
Mr. GIBSON thought it would be better for the people of the State if the members were at home to work up an interest. He said he voted for the amendments and he wanted the House to adjourn so that members could go home to hold public meetings.
Mr. THOMPSON was opposed to any adjournment on the ground that it would be an injustice to ourselves and our constituents. He thought there was enough of interest throughout the State in the amendments without the assistance of the Legislators.
Mr. LINSDAY entered a protest against the adjournment. He thought the forty days would be fully consumed without adourning. He thought if the Members would do their duty in the Legislature the people would do the same on the constitutional question.
Mr. FALL thought it would be beneficial for this body to go home and stay several days, even if there was no election.
Mr. COMPTON said the eyes of the epople of Indiana are upon us. While he was in favor of the Constitutional Amendments, and of trying to renew an interest in this question before them, he did not think the people were willing that the House should adjourn simply to go home and shake hands with the people and vote for or against the amendments.
Mr. FLOYD thought it apparent that the people were not very well informed upon this subject; that the amendments of themselves were of sufficient importance to justify members going home and making a few speeches in favor of them. He thought there ought to be due deference paid to the importance of the measures placed before the people.
Mr. BARNETT said the people are wide awake in this matter--that they need no stirring up. He wanted the Legislature to stay here and do the business before it, and the people would take care of the amendments.
Mr. LINDLEY lived but twenty-one miles from here, and wanted to record his vote in the ballot box.
Mr. GILLUM moved to indefinitely postpone the resolution.
Mr. BAKER made an ineffectual motion to lay the motion to indefinitely postpone on the table--yeas, 31; nays, 51.
The resolution was indefinitely postponed--yeas, 48; nays, 40.
MEDICAL LEGISLATION.
A majority of the Committee on Sanitary Affairs reported on the bill [S. 74] regulating the practice of medicine in the State of Indiana, recommending its passage by striking out all after the enacting clause and substituting new matter.
A minority of the same Committee recommended the passage of the bill.
Mr. MELRATH said he was a physician, and did not care particularly about a medical law, but he favored the adoption of the minority report.
Mr. KENNER favored the bill as advocated by the minority report, requiring persons to be examined by a Board of Medical Examiners, because this thing of going before the County Clerk, so far as pertaining to qualification is concerned, is a mere burlesque. In the first place the Clerk is not a competent officer to know anything about a man's medical qualifications. He favored the passage of a law that had some system of examination which would define the qualification, therefore he favored the minority report.
Mr. McINTOSCH said he had practiced medi- cine about forty years now, and did not care if the General Assembly passed a medical bill or not. He did not favor such stringent legislation as to require a person to get a prescription for every little article, however common, in the drug line. He favored the passage of the bill originating in the House on this subject.
page: 14[View Page 14]Mr. GIBBON was of the opinion that the Senate bill had too much machinery connected with it, and creates too many offices, therefore he favored the the House bill.
Mr. CARTER hoped the minority report would prevail. He favored District Boards of Examiners, so men can be examined in their own District. This bill provides, also, that a man moving out of one District in to another must pass an examination, thus doing wawy with the quacks that infest the country, and that is virtually what the bill is for. He favored sustaining the majority report and the passage of the House bill.
Mr. NEFF said, from information gathered by association with medical men, he felt assured that the passage of the House bill as recommended by the majority report, would be satisfactory to the profession, for the reason that it is milder in its terms than the Senate bill.
Mr. MITCHELL opposed the passage of any bill giving the right to practice medicine to persons of particular qualifications and exempting others, as it would give the practice of medicine into the hands of those who are wealthy, and have the means to take a course of lectures. He looked upon medical skill as a natural faculty, in a great measure, and contended that some men with one course of lectures are more able to practice that others who possess diplomas; that a certificate of graduation was not a citerion by which to judge a man's ability in the art; for that reason he opposed all medical legislation.
Mr. BARTLETT, while he favored a stringent medical law, thought it best to adopt the House bill--the one recommended by the majority report--as it had the least machinery connected with it. He thought one bill would reach the same end as the other.
Mr. SINCLAIR offered a resolution that a Committee of five be appointed, three of the House and two of the Senate, to consider the several medical bills, and report which bill should pass.
Mr. EDWINS interposed an objection to the resolution, for the reason that the bills have been before the House for the last sixty days; the result is that two bills are now before the House for the last sixty days; the result is that two bills are now before the House for action. He thought it is time that the House should take action thereon.
Mr. SINCLAIR said he noticed considerable antagonism between the House and Senate on these bills, which induced him to introduce this conciliatory measure to bring about a compromise.
Mr. HAMILTON favored the resolution, because the doctors did not agree upon what they wanted themselves.
The resolution was rejected--yeas, 36; nays, 47.
Mr. WRIGHT--The physicians of this body and the State of Indiana are asking for this legislation out of the goodness of their hearts, because they want to practice their profession against the imposition of quackery that is brought in the State. It is certainly within the knowledge of every one here that that time and again a wise-looking fellow, who knows comparatively nothing about medicine, will go into a village and displace physicians of experience--men who thoroughly understand their business. It is one of the weaknesses of human nature, when death is brought near the family. They do not stop to reason. He gave the physicians of this body credit for being sincere in a desire to protect themselves against these frauds that travel through the State. Here are physicians who spent years of their lives in reading, qualifying themselves to practice medicine, and yet here comes some quack and runs them out. It does seem to him that of all things in this world human life is the most precious and the Legislature can pass an act by which the standard of the medical profession can be raised. There is no question about that. There is one objection to the Houses bill. The provisions of that bill are that if a physician is a graduate of a Medical College he shall have his license to practice medicine. If he has practiced ten years he shall have his license to practice medicine. If he had practiced five years and taken one course of lectures he shall practice. The Senate bill is superior in this particular: If a man has not attended a Medical College he can go before a Board, be examinded and practice medicine without a diploma. It does not impose upon a young man the necessity of attending a Medical College at all if he can pass an examination before the Board. The only objection to this bill is that there is perhaps a little too much machinery about it, but still, in his judgement, the Senate bill should be substituted and pass both Houses.
Mr. M'DOWELL--The qualification is nearly the same: the question is: Which is the better way to find out the qualification? It is better to go to the County Clerk and produce the testimony there than to be carried off to a Medical Board. There is always a great deal of jealousy existing between medical men. This Board is to be appointed by the Governor of the State. It will be one of the greatest political frauds that we ever had in the State of Indiana. The Governor, no doubt, will be greatly influenced by politics and by Indianapolis in making the appointments, and the Boards will be biased. As provided in the House bill, a man merely goes before a County Clerk and shows the evidence of efficiency and good moral character. The County officers are governed by rules and regulations the same as State Boards. I am strongly in favor of the House bill.
Mr McCLURE believed it much better for the people that the Legislature should pass some kind of measure by which the profession can be elevated in its proficiency. The bill favored by the majority of the Committee is simple and plain in its provisions. It only requires one to make application for a license before the Clerk of the Court, and prove the requisite qualifications.
The House adjourned till o-morrow.
