THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS
VOLUME
TWENTY.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
SPECIAL SESSION.
IN SENATE.
THURSDAY, March 10, 1881, 10 A. M.Mr. BROWN called up the House concurrent resolution providing for a Joint Convention to-day at 2 p. m., to witness the destruction of bonds and stocks redeemed by the State Treasurer, and it was adopted.
ASSESSMENT FOR TAXATION.
The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill [H. R. 204] codifying assessment and taxation laws.
On motion by Mr VIEHE, Section 88 was amended so that a bank may pay the tax due from any of its stockholders, and retain the amount thereof with interest from any subsequent dividend.
Mr. COMSTOCK moved to strike from the Committee substitute for Section 91 all relating to the taxing of Express Companies. He regarded it as unjust to tax the gross receipts of any Express or other Company. He looked upon the principle of taxing receipts, whether gross or net, as wrong. There is a difference between Express and Insurance Companies--the former employ many men in the State at large salaries. The tax on Express Companies will, in some form or other, have to be paid by their customers. He did not question the power of the Legislature to impose such a tax on foreign corporations, but doubted the justice or policy of it. It is class legislation upon a particular class of people.
Mr. GRAHAM insisted Indiana has granted more favors to foreign corporations than other States, for the reason they have not been taxed as other States tax them. He favored taxing receipts of Express Companies as well as foreign Insurance Companies in fact, he regarded the former as more in the character of monopolies than the latter.
Mr. BELL yesterday favored taxing foreign Insurance Companes. They have no tangible property in this State. The same rule should not apply to Express Companies. There is a very great difference between the two, and there ought to be a great difference made in levying a tax on the two. Express Companies employ a vast army of men in this State. It is stated there was paid in this State $1,200,000 for the maintenance of the business and stock of Express Companies, last year. In every town and hamlet they have their stock, their horses, wagons and furniture--tangible property that can be taxed.
Mr. HEFRON--The effect of this motion will be to strike from the section all that refers to the taxation of receipts of Express Companies. In his judgment this amendment ought not to be adopted, but the section as it now stands ought to be allowed to remain. He believed foreign insurance Companies own thousands of dollars of tangible property in this State, where Express Companies own but hundreds. Insurance Companies own good buildings in many of our cities, and they own land all over the State. The Express Companies can afford to pay 1 per cent. of their receipts if foreign Insurance Companies can afford to pay 3 per cent. He desired to treat foreign Companies with the same consideration as people of the State.
Mr. MENZIES also believed the effect of the amendment would be to destroy the section. Do Senators want to make fish of one and fowl of the other--to tax Insurance Companies 3 per cent. and to allow Express Companies to go free of taxation? Express Companies earn more annually in this State than foreign Insurance Companies.
Mr. WOOD said: My only desire is do right in taxing all classes and all property in the State alike. I have no prejudice against corporations doing business in this State, but I do desire to have their property and their earnings taxed just the same as the farmer, the manufacturer, the mechanic and the laborer. This provision of the bill does that. Now, to relieve American Express Companies from taxation as the substitute practically provides, is a discrimination against all classes of our own people. It is unjust favoritism to corporations and the worst kind of class legislation.
Mr. GRAHAM was not in favor of making any more favorable conditions in reference to these corporations than is proposed by the substitute page: 21[View Page 21] recommended by the Committee. He desired to see the amendment defeated, and the bill amended so as to increase the tax on Express Companies, making it equal to the tax imposed on foreign Insurance Companies.
Mr. LANGDON listened with patience for the purpose of learning why any business from other States coming here should be treated as inimical to the public interests. He had not heard one single reason that justifies legislation which has been successfully carried through the Senate proposing taxation of foreign Insurance Companies, and to be consistent the same rule should be applied to every other foreign Company doing business in this State. Where is a monopoly in Indiana? A monopoly in business is a new thing to him. With all the experience and sagacity of business men in Indiana, they do not seek to organize Express Companies. He favored a fair tax--such an amount as is consistent with the principle of "live and let live"--and it ought to be upon profits only. The Senate should reconsider its action of yesterday, which taxes foreign Insurance Companies upon their gross incomes.
Mr. WOOLLEN had no unfriendly feeling toward any Express Company, but the State requires a great deal of money to be raised in taxation, and shall that money be raised from citizens alone, or shall not non-resident Companies doing business here be compelled to assist in raising revenue for the carrying on of the government?
Mr. FOSTER opposed the amendment. Not believing any big bugaboo ought to be raised here about foreign Companies, he was disposed to be fair and just toward them, and desired they should pay a fair tax in just proportion with that exacted from the farmer and laboring men of the State.
The amendment to the Committee's substitute was rejected by yeas, 4; nays, 40.
Mr. GRAHAM moved to increase the tax on Express Companies from 1 to 2 per cent.
Mr. BROWN didn't think this amendment should prevail. There is no similarity between foreign Insurance Companies and Express Companies, and the Committee has fixed the tax about right at 1 per cent. He hoped the Senate would adhere to the action of the Committee.
The amendment was rejected--yeas, 6; nays, 38.
Mr. CHAPMAN moved to amend the Committee substitute for Section 91 by authorizing a deduction from the gross receipts of Express Companies of "the amount of wages paid to employes within this State, and the amount paid for the purchase of tangible property within this State," in addition to the deduction of the amount paid to railroads within this State for the transportation of their freight within this State. The section as it came from the House nobody apologizes for or defends or justifies. Nobody claims that a 3 per cent. tax would be just.
Mr. WILSON (in his seat)--I justify it.
Mr. CHAPMAN was glad to have discovered one Senator who justifies the levy of 3 per cent. There is not a Senator who knows the gross earnings of any Express Company, nor the amount paid by them to Railroad Companies for transportation within this State. He opposed the ideae of taxing on gross revenues. It is unjust, but he was willing to waive that objection if a fair result was willing to waive that objection if a fair result can be obtained. Some here seem to be anxious to compel people living beyond the border to pay the expenses of the State government, running after some ignus fatuus which shall lift the burden of taxation off the shoulders of the people of the State and place it on those outside the limits of the State. He could not see any justification for saying any shall pay on that portion of receipts from business that is paid to employes, or that is paid for tangible property. When it is said that gross receipts shall form the substrata for taxation.
Mr. KRAMER insisted the only way to tax such Companies who have not a large capital in fact is by taxing receipts.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. GRUBBS moved to amend the Committee substitute for Section 91, by adding to the deduction therein named, the words: "Or investments during each year in tangible property subject to taxation, which shall be held and owned by such Company within this State on the first day of April."
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. GRUBBS contended unless his amendment was adopted Express Companies would be compelled to pay double tax on part of their property.
Mr. GRAHAM could not see how it would be taxing them twice if they are to pay on gross receipts.
Mr. CHAPMAN believed Senators confound the terms "receipts" and "profits" and fail to recognize that the substitue requires a return of aggregate receipts from every source. He was anxious the Senate shall vote understandingly on this and every other question that may come before it.
[Here, Representative Cauthorne appeared at the Bar of the Senate, and being recognized by the Chair, announced that himself and Representative Carr were a Committee on the part of the House to escort the Senate to the Hall of the House for a Joint Convention. Thereupon Senators left the Chamber. When they retrned]--
Mr. BROWN said this amendment ought not to be adopted. The government of the State belongs to the State and her people and of course it devolves upon Indiana people and Indiana propertyto pay the expense of that government. When the State is so liberal as to permit others to enjoy the privileges and benefits of her government, she has the undoubted right to tax the business carried on within her borders by such foreign corporations. The section under consideration proposes to exempt the amount the Express Companies pay railroads for the transportation of their freights in this State, and that is exemption enough.
Mr. COMSTOCK was opposed to the principle of taxing these Companies on their gross receipts, and favored the amendment because it is not so gross an injustice as to tax the entire gross receipts. The amendment goes some distance toward righting the wrong proposed by the Committee substitute.
Mr. MENZIES has been unable to find any tangible property owned by these Express Companies; they own a horse and wagon in the several towns in the State, but outside of Indianapolis they own but little tangible property in this State.
The amendment pending at the time of the noon recess was rejected by yeas, 12; nays, 28.
Mr. LANGDON moved to add to the deductions in the Committee substitute for Section 91 the sums paid by said Companies for services rendered.
This motion was also rejected by yeas, 10; nays, 30.
The Committee substitute for Section 91 was agreed to by yeas, 34; nays, 5.
Mr. BROWN made an ineffectual motion to strike out the Committee substitute for Section 94, taxing Sleeping Car Companies 2 per centum.
Mr. BELL said this section would put Sleeping Car Companies about equal with Express and Insurance Companies. Sleeping cars cost about $10,000 or $12,000 each, and there is at least two employes with each car.
Mr. Chapman--If there is any class of foreign corporations that should be burdened with an extraordinary tax it certainly should be Sleeping Car Companies. It is a mere cumbrous growth--a mere sucker of another corporation; it sucks the life's blood from the corporation over whose road it carries its cars; page: 22[View Page 22] It is a notorious fact that there is no Corporation in the country which has given so vast on so little capital as these Sleeping Car Companies. He desired to see the bill harmonious; but whether made harmonious or not, he expected to vote against it.
Mr. BROWN insisted there is a greater hardship in laying a tax of 1 per cent. on a Sleeping Car Company that in laying a tax of 1 per cent. on Express Companies. Suppose there is a railroad accident in which several sleeping cars are wrecked and destroyed, thousands of dollars are lost. The Express Company is a carrier of goods, and the Sleeping Car Company is a carrier of human beings, and 1 per cent. is a sufficient tax for either.
Mr. MENZIES explained that 2 per cent. was fixed as the tax for Sleeping Car Companies, because there is no tangible property in the State belonging to Sleeping Car Companies, while both Insurance and Express Companies have such property here that can be reached by the Assessor.
Mr. TRAYLOR moved to amend the Committee substitute for Section 72 by fixing the tax at "1" instead of "2" per cent.
Mr. CHAPMAN made an ineffectual motion to make the tax 4 per cent.
Mr. BROWN made an ineffectual motion to substitute 1 1/2 per cent
Mr. HENRY made an ineffectual motion to substitute 3 per cent.
The amendment (Mr. Traylor's) was rejected--yeas, 8; nays, 32.
The Committee substitute for Section 94 was concurred in, and the Committee recommendations, as to Sections 100, 103 and 108, were concurred in.
Pending the consideration of Section 91--
LEGISLATIVE EXPENSES.
On motion by Mr. URMSTON, the constitutional restriction was dispensed with and the bill [H. R. 453] to appropriate money to pay the expenses of the present special session of the General Assembly was read the first and second time by title only, the third time by sections and passed by--yeas, 36; nays, 2.
RELOCATION OF COUNTY SEATS.
Mr. URMSTON, by request, introduced a bill [S. 335] concerning the relocation of County seats. [When one-fifth of legal voters, one-half freeholders, shall petition for relocation with title deed to two acres, Commissioners shall order an election.]
The Senate adjourned till tomorrow.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
THURSDAY, March 10, 1881--9 a. m.The session was opened with prayer by Rev. D. F. Kain, member from Adams, Wells and Jay.
The following described bills were read the first time and referred:
By Mr. GILLUM [H. R. 454]: To enable County Commissioners to remit penalties against insolvent delinquent tax-payers, and giving discretionry power to remit the taxes against such parties when in the judgment of the Commissioners it would be right to do so, prescribing the duties and powers of Commissioners in the premises, etc.
By Mr. HOTTELL [H. R. 455]: To amend Sections 4, 8 and 11 of an act regulating marriages, approved March 8, 1852.
PRICE OF CONVICT LABOR.
Mr. MARSHALL offered a resolution, which was adopted, that the letting of convict labor at the extreme low rates heretofore prevailing has proved detrimental to carpenters, coopers, and other classes of laboring men, and that we recommend the passage of an act forbidding the letting of convict labor for less than seventy cents per day.
COMMON SCHOOLS.
The consideration of the bill [H. R. 322] to regulate Common Schools pending at the time of adjournment was resumed.
Mr. COOPER offered an amendment to Section 31 so as to provide for the election of County Superintendents.
Mr. LINDLEY moved to further amend by adding a priviso that any vacancy that may occur in the County Superintendent's office shall be filled by election by the Trustees of the various Townships and the Presidents of the School Boards of incorporated cities and towns of said County.
Mr. KENNER thought the tendency of these amendments was to run this office into political matters, which would be deleterious to the Common School system. He felt satisfied that the the County Superintendency is a great advance over the old examining system, and appealed to the members to vote down these amendments, as they seek to strike down the present system.
Mr. NEFF said the people were capable of electing Trustees and other officers, and they ought to have the privilege of electing County Superintendents. He opposed the election of County Superintendents by the Trustees of the County because the relation existing between these officials were usually such as to impede the selection of the most competent person.
Mr. BUSKIRK thought there was a prevailing tendency which should not exist for members to put themselves on record for the ultimate purpose of re-electionor be elevated to some other office. He thought, as a rule, that the best men are not elected to office, because they carry out their own desires rather than the wishes of constituents. He attributed the prejudice against the County Superintendents much of the same character as that against the Common Schools--one without good foundation. The office of County Superintendent he considered a good feature and favored letting well enough alone.
Mr. THOMPSON'S objection to this bill was the heavy expense incurred upon the State. This bill does not propose to remedy that evil and reduce the salary.
Mr. FRAZER--I want to say there is no officer in the State of Indiana that is so bound up and made a slave as is the County Superintendent. I see no reason why the people of Indiana are not as competent to select the County Superintendent as they are to elect the Treasurer or any other officer of the State.
Mr. GILMAN was opposed to both the amendments. The question is merely how the Superintendent was to be selected.
Mr. FLOYD considered the present mode of selecting County Superintendents the best one and the most systematic, as it has been tried and found to work well. Trustees are elected by the people, and if they do not perform their duty, they can be deposed at the proper time.
Mr. SCHWEITZER said he could not see why there should be any more corruption or political manipulation in the election of County Superintendents by the people than in the election members of the General Assembly. There would be no more politics in it.
Mr. CARR made an ineffectual motion--yeas, 32; nays, 51--to lay the amendments on the table.
Mr. DAVIS--It seems to me that this is the groundwork of our Common School system. There is nothing political about it. If there is any political bias on the part of the Township Trustees they are the members of the strongest party.
Mr. BERRYMAN moved that the pending bill be referred back to the Committee on Education with instructions to amend the bill by striking out all of said bill that pertains in any way to County Superintendents, and providing for a County Examiner, whose duty it shall be to examine teachers for license.
Mr. BERRYMAN could see no use in the office, page: 23[View Page 23] except to incur an expense upon the people of the State. Under the old system there was simply a County Examiner, and under the law as it now stands we have a County Superintendent, who is simply an ornamental office-holder who goes about the country--especially so in his County--as the Chairman of the Democratic Central Committee.
Mr. FANCHER thought the amendment of the gentleman [Mr. Berryman] amounted to just this: It would change the County Superintendent back to the old form of School Examiner; it would be taking a step backward instead of forward; it would be a retrogression instead of progression. He wanted the bill to pass in its original form because it would come nearer meeting the demand in this direction.
Mr. CAUTHORNE--At the last session there were eighty members of the House who thought proper to vote to abolish the office of County Superintendent. The people of Knox County, and even the teachers there, are opposed to it as a useless and expensive thing. When the old bill instituting this office was introduced I voted for it simply because I wanted some reformation on the school question. If there is any change made in the way of amendment I will vote for the motion refer, as I think it ought to be adopted.
Mr. STEWART said if there was any one thing he and his constituents were in favor of, it was to abolish that useless office. He had not as yet been able to see the use of that office. The teachers of the County have an idea of the time the County Superintendent comes around to visit the school and drill their pupils for the occasion. If this money--from $4 to $5 per day--the Superintendent gets to visit the schools was paid to the teacher to continue the school a longer term, it would be much better for the people of the State. He was opposed to the passage of the bill in its present shape.
Mr. RYAN said if the office of County Superintendent is beneficial to the school system of Indiana, it makes no kind of difference what it costs as it gives the State prominence among other States of the Union, and it is the only thing that will accomplish this result. He did not favor condemning the system because of its being loosely conducted, or a disregard of the law. He considered it a great National benefit to the schools. Superintendency is essential to the proper conduct of any kind of business, and the Common Schools are no exception to the rule.
Mr. MARSHALL did not object to the office of County Superintendent particularly, but, he objected to any useless office. His experience as teacher of Public Schools for over ten years has convinced him that the office of County Superintendent has not improved the condition of the Public Schools
Mr. COMPTON--I do not think Indiana ought to take a backward step, and I do believe these amendments would be a backward step in the cause of education. One of the leading merits of the County Superintendent system is that it raises the standard of scholarship, and I do hope that this resolution will not prevail. The County Superintendency to-day is worth more that it cost us, and I feel that we ought to stand by it.
Mr. FRAZER hoped the motion to refer would be voted down.
Mr. LINSDAY--As we are all expected to visit our constituents between now and next Tuesday, I therefore move that the further consideration of this bill be postponed until Wednesday next at 2 p. m., and that it be made a special order for that hour.
The resolution was adopted.
OLD STATE BONDS.
Mr. CAUTHORNE offered a resolution that the Auditor and Secretary of State be requested to produce before the Joint Convention of the Senate and House of the General Assembly, to be held this day in the Hall of the House, the official records pertaining to the redemption of the bonds required to be paid in his office under act of 1872, and to be present with such records at 2 p. m.
The resolution was adopted.
HOUSE BILLS PASSED.
Mr. Kenner's bill [H. R. 124] relating to sales of real and personal property by infants, recovery of property, restoration of same, etc., was read the third time and passed--yeas, 66; nays, 9.
Mr. Faucher's bill [H. R. 126] requiring all railroads running into and through the State of Indiana to remove and destroy the rubbish and other combustible matter accumulating on the right of way, was read the third time.
Mr. FANCHER said the main feature of the bill was this: A person sustaining damage from the Railroad Company can get a judgment and penalty of twenty-five dollars. There are many people who sustain small damages by having their hay or barn burned who hesitate to bring suit, and after they do bring suit they have great difficulty to collect anything over and above the fees required to prosecute the case.
The provision in this bill that "the Railroad Company shall settle all the damages" (whereas you now come out at the end of a case without anything) obviates this objectionable feature. He hoped the bill would pass.
The bill passed--yeas, 74; nays, 4.
SALARY OF PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS.
Mr. Buskirk's bill [H. R. 127] in relation to the election and qualifications of Prosecuting Attorneys, defining their duties and providing for their compensation, etc., was read the third time.
Mr. ROBINSON--There is a tendency manifest here to increase salaries. If I understand the provision of this bill, the salaries are increased in every respect. This matter of increasing salaries of Prosecuting Attorneys you will remember came up during the consideration of the Criminal Code bill. That bill provided for an increase of the Prosecutor's salary, and if I recollect right there was an amendment adopted providing for the same salary that he has heretofore been getting. This bill increases his salary to $1,000 a year. If you want to vote to increase the salary of Prosecuting Attorneys, then vote for this bill, and if you want it retained at a more reasonable figure, vote against it. These men acting as Prosecuting Attorneys, elected under the old law, were willing to hold their offices at the salary as fixed by the law at the present time. I ask you what reason there is why these salaries should be increased? If these gentlemen can not make a living under present salaries, they are at liberty to resign their offices. I am opposed to the bill, because it increases the salary.
Mr. MOODY-I am opposed to the passage of this bill. There are forty-one Prosecuting Attorneys in this State, elected at the last election, and this bill proposes to donate $1,000 of the people's money to each of them, aggregating $41,000. I ask you, gentlemen, whether this is right. What equivalent do the people get for this large sum of money? Gentlemen say they favor this bill, believing it will bring to the discharge of the duties of this office better and more efficient men. I do not believe it will. I believe that the men elected last fall to fill this office compare favorably in ability and integrity with the Bar of the State. I know this office is sought after, and is usually filled by young men, but this alone does not prove to my mind, that they are inefficient to discharge the duties of this office. Suppose the argument is true that these men are inferior in ability, the why donate to them this large sum of money? I am in favor of paying such a salary to our Prosecutors as will command ability and integrity, but I am opposed to passing any bill that takes out of the Public Treasury $40,000 or $50,000 of money and giving it to any class of men. page: 24[View Page 24] Mr. EDWINS desired to enter his protest against the raising of this salary. It is no $500 a year. It is sufficiently remunerative for any young man to accept the office. It would be bad policy to increase the salary Prosecutors.
Mr. GIBSON was of the opinion that the State would save money by paying $500 more and electing good Prosecuting Attorneys, for the reason that there is not a County in the State but what pays out more than $500 for special assistant attorneys, whereas if old and proficient lawyers were properly remunerated they would avoid the necessity for special attorneys.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
JOINT CONVENTION.
Mr. CAUTHORNE moved that a Committee of Two be appointed to inform the Senate that the House is ready to meet them, and that seats be prepared for them on the right of the Speaker.
The motion was agreed to, and Messrs. Cauthorne and Carr were appointed as said Committee.
This Escort Committee soon returning with the Senate--
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR called the Joint Convention to order, and directed the roll to be called, which discovered forty-one Senators and eighty-three Representatives present.
The concurrent resolution authorizing this Convention and the act of December 12, 1872, being read--
Senator CHAPMAN discovered no provision in the act for the burning of old State bonds, and didn't think this Convention had any duty to perform under the law.
Representitive CAUTHORNE called attention to the fact that the House, by resolution adopted this morning, had requested the Auditor and Treasurer of State to be present at this hour with a record showing how many State bonds had been redeemed under the provision of this act.
State Auditor WOLFE produced a book in which he said was recorded a list of thirty-nine bonds presented to the Treasurer of State and paid by him.
Senator VIEHE moved that the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House be directed to make a complete list of the bonds, to be presented to a Joint Committee.
Senator LANGDON did not hear anything in the law read that gives authority to a Joint Committee to take any action with respect to these bonds. This is not a proper body to legislate concerning any property of the State. Such functions are to be performed when the two Houses are separate and acting as in the ordinary course of legislation. He therefore moved that this Convention adjourn.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR (having put the question which was evidently lost by the sound) said this Convention has no power under the statute to proceed with this business, but might adjourn to meet at another time, which he would prefer should be done in order to save a question which he would otherwise have to decide.
Senator BELL insisted the Convention has a right to pass the motion made by the Senator from Knox (Mr. Viehe).
Senator CHAPMAN demanded a decision from the Chair on the motion to adjourn which was put to vote and either carried or lost.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR--The Chair will decide it was lost. [Laughter.] As many as favor the motion made by the Senator from Knox say "aye;" contrary "no." The ayes have it.
On motion by Senator CHAPMAN, the Joint Convention adjourned sine die.
When Senators had retired and order was restored--
SALARY OF PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS.
The House resumed the consideration of the bill [H. R. 127] pending at the noon recess.
Mr. BUSKIRK--I do not think gentlemen opposing the bill understood it import. They did not treat the bill fairly in refusing to give me an opportunity to put it in as good a shape as possible. It grows out of the simple fact that there are anumber of men here so fearful that they will vote upon a provision that seeks to pay a man too large a salary. This bill is not got up particularly in the interest of prosecutors, especially those who were elected last fall. The tendency of the measure, if adopted would be in the interest of Justice by calling to the administration of that department a higher class of talent. Everybody knows that a good lawyer will not take the Prosecutor's and it is an exception when a good lawyer does accept it. Those now serving in that capacity are young men in the practice of law. If this law were to pass, a Prosecutor a decent salary, such as the men of average or good ability could make in the ordinary practice of law or medicine, there would be called to the administration of that office men of that class for which $500 a year would be a very small salary. It would save the County more than that amount in making unnecessary additional attorneys' fees.
Mr. FRAZER--While I am in favor of increasing the prosecuters' fees, there are other features of the bill which I consider objectionable. Therefore, I shall vote against it.
Mr. KENNER--Part of the bill I am in favor of, and the other part I consider objectionable. I would like to have had the bill referred and the objectionable features taken out. In its present condition I shall vote against it.
The bill was rejected--yeas, 13; nays, 69.
HOUSE BILLS PASSED.
Mr. Neff's bill [H. R. 196-see page 77] to abolish the office of Assessor in cities and incorporated towns in this State was read the third time and passed--yeas, 73; nays, 7.
Mr. Neff's bill [H. R. 197] to amend a guardian and ward act approved June 9, 1852, was read the third time.
Mr. NEFF said this bill was prepared by the Revision Committee to remedy lame places in the existing laws, providing for the payment of money by the guardian, etc.
The bill passed--yeas 72; nays, 4.
Mr. Frazer's bill [H. R. 202] to amend Section 126, providing for the election and qualification of Justices of the Peace, approved June 9, 1852, was read the third time.
Mr. FRAZER--As the law stands now there is no law by which one Justice of the Peace can commission another. This measure is to confer upon Justices that power.
The bill passed--yeas,78; nays, 0.
Mr. Buskirk's bill [H. R. 46] consolidating the Congressional Township funds for the purpose of loaning, etc., was read the third time.
Mr. BUSKIRK--This bill proposes simply to consolidate the loan of the school fund, and requires a record to be keptso that each Township or parts of Townships can accurately ascertain the amount on hand.
The bill passed--yeas, 68; nays, 3.
Mr. Mitchell's bill [H. R. 74] amending the Common School act so as to allow Joint Institutes of four Townships, was read the third time and failed to pass--yeas, 46; nays, 34.
Mr. Thompson's bill [H. R. 134--see page 61] amendatory of an act concerning the employment of short-hand reporters, was read the third time and passed--yeas, 74, nays, 5.
Mr. Furnas' bill [H. R. 155] concerning the licensing of shows, Theaters and other exhibitions in connection with saloons, billiard halls or pool rooms, and appropriating such proceeds to Agricultural Societies, being read the third time--
Mr. GIBSON thought it all right to charge a circus $25 license, but he considered it inconsistent and pernicious to impose such a tax upon Theaters, etc. He moved to recommit the bill.
page: 25[View Page 25]Mr. FURNAS--The gentleman misapprehends this bill. If he will refer to the law passed in 1852, he will find a law regulating this very thing. That law fixed the license of theatrical performances at $5, and other performances, such as circuses, at $25. In attempting to frame this bill, I have lowered that amount [extending from $1 to $25], making it optional with the County Commissioners; $25 is the amount authorized for circus shows.
Mr. MEREDITH--It occurs to me that the bill is in pretty good shape. The explanation of the gentleman is satisfactory.
Mr. CARTER said it would be impossible for the Legislature to classify all the different kinds of shows. This bill is intended to apply to these cases in a general way, and gives discretionary power to the County Commissioners to set the definite price to be charged in each special case. He said it was proper and right that such fund should go to the County Agricultural Society, and if there is no County Agricultural Society, it goes to the State Agricultural Society.
Mr. RYAN thought if there was one class of institutions that ought to be taxed it is the shows.
The bill failed to pass--yeas, 46; nays, 29.
The House adjourned till to-morrow.
GOV. PORTER'S FIRST VETO.
To the Secretary of State:
I file in your office, with my objections thereto, House bill 309, passed at the last regular session of the General Assembly, entitled "An act to amend Section 34 of an act entitled 'an act fixing certain fees and salaries to be taxed in the offices, and the salaries of officers therein named, providing for certain employees in certain public offices, and fixing their compensation and defining certain duties and liabilities of officiers and persons therein named, providing for the disposition of certain moneys, making certain appropriations, declaring certain violations of the provisions of this act to be a penal offense, and prescribing the punishment and repealing all conflicting laws, approved March 31, 1879.'"
This bill was presented to me on the 5th day of March instant. It increases the fees of Jurors in the Circuit, Superior and Criminal Courts, and also the fees of Grand Jurors, from $1.60 a day, which is the present rate, to $2 a day, and the mileage of such Jurors from five cents a mile, the present rate. to ten cents a mile. If the bill established the fees of Jurors at $2 ad day only when Jurors are in actual attendance at Court, I should not withhold my approval. The section of the act of 1879, of which this bill is amendatory, provides that fees shall be paid only when the Jurors are in actual attendance. The bill under consideration has no further scope than to amend that particular section by substituting another section in place of it. The section substituted omits the provision that the fees prescribed should be allowed to jurors only when in actual attendance. The natural legal inference, from the omission of this provision, is, I think, that Jurors summoned for the Circuit, Superior and Criminal Courts. and Grand Jurors, should be allowed fees for what is called constructive attendance. Jurors summoned for the term are often dismissed for a considerable time when the Judge is requested by the parties to try a cause, or when he is engaged in other business of the Court which renders it unnecessary that the Jury shall be present. Jurors also are often challenged, and thereupon excused from attendance for several days at a time, where it is expected that the trial will be a protracted one. In such cases, and generally when a Juror is notified by the Judge not to be in attendance, he ought not to be allowed fees. The tendency of the administration of justice in the Courts is to a constantly increasing expense. The expenses are not paid by the litigants alone, but in great part by those who do not litigate, as part of the general expenses for conducting the government of the State. They ought, therefore, to be kept in check and never to be allowed to be increased except under a strong necessity. There is no such necessity, in my opinion, for Jurors being paid when they are not in attendance at Court.
ALBERT G. PORTER.
