UNIVERSITY SQUARE.
The Senate concurrent resolution that a Committee of Five [two Senators and three Representatives] be appointed to inquire into the propriety and advisability of selling the University Park in Indianapolis, being read--
Mr. BUSKIRK--I do not think that resolution ought to prevail, for this reason: That any action of the House would not amount to anything. This property belongs to the State, and I do not see what the Legislature wants to do with it. It is out of the hands of the Legisture. There is no use disguising the fact that the jurisdiction of the General Assembly does not extend to such disposition--they should not interfere with the matter at all.
Mr. NEFF thought it would not do any harm to appoint a Committee. It is well known that it is a disputed question as to the authority of the Legislature in this respect. He thought the State had some rights in the matter, and did not know of a better way to find them out than to appoint a Committee to report,
Mr. BUSKIRK--I do not think the Legislature should take any steps in this matter as it is not a question to be settled by that body.
Mr. THOMPSON--This is a question that always comes before the Legislature by resolution otherwise. There are parties in this city who want to purchase this land. The General Assemblies hereto fore always failed to sanction the sale of that land. I think the concurrent resolution unnecessary and unwise.
The resolution was rejected.
Mr. Fancher's bill [H. R. 150] to amend Sections 16 and 17 of an act concerning inclosures, trespassing animals and partition fences being read the third time--
Mr. FANCHER said: "This bill proposes to amend Sections 16 and 17 of the law pertaining to partition fences. As the law now stands one adjoining land-owner may compel the other to repair a partition fence already existing or repair it himself and collect what it costs, but the of the amendment is to apply the cases where there has never been a partition fence, so amending said section as that one adjoining land-owner may serve the ordinary notice to constrct a new fence and recover the cost of the same as when there has existed a fence. It does not apply to land unoccupied."
The bill failed to pass--yeas, 36; nays, 39.
