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.
