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.
