AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. GARRIGUS, from the Special Committee thereon, returned the bill, H. R. 204, with a report recommending that the sections should not be re-numbered till after final action on the bill by the House of Representatives.
The report was concurred in.
Mr. BROWN moved that the vote on the passage of the bill be taken at 2:30 o'clock this afternoon. He demanded the previous question, which was seconded by the Senate, and the main question ordered.
The motion was agreed to.
Subsequently, when the time arrived--
Mr. BROWN demanded that the vote be taken on the passage of the bill.
The bill passed the Senate by--yeas, 33; nays, 12--as follows:
Yeas--Messrs. Benz, Briscoe, Chapman, Coffey, Compton, Comstock, Davis, Garrigus, Graham, Grubbs, Hart, Henry, Hostetter, Kahlo, Keiser, Kramer, Langdon, Lockridge, Major, Menzies, Owen, Poindexter, Ristine, Sayre, Shaffer, Urmston, Van Vorhis, Viehe, Voyles, White, Wilson, Wood and Yancey--33.
Nays--Messrs. Bell, Brown, Bundy, Foster, Hefron, Hutchinson, Leeper, McCartney, Marvin, Smith, 8pann and Woollen--12.
Mr. BELL, in explanation of his vote, says: "I am sorry I can not vote for this bill. Our tax law needs revision. It is crude and incongruous. So, in many respects, is this bill. I have done all I could to aid in perfecting it--at least getting it in the best shape possible. Still, in my opinion, many of its provisions are unwise, impolitic and of doubtful validity and constitutionality. I need not at this time point out more specifically these defects. My objections have been made from time to time during the consideration of the bill. I am constrained to vote 'No.'"
Mr. COFFEY, in explanation of his vote says: page: 51[View Page 51] There are provisions in the bill that I do not approve. I can not now take the time to point these out. I will, however, refer to one, that on dispensing with the publication of the delinquent tax list. Why Senators should upon this floor, thus stab the newspaper press of our State I can not understand. It is not only in the interest of newspapers that the lists should be published, but it is in the interest of the people. It is to be presumed that many of our citizens will pay their tax who otherwise would not, rather than have their names appear in the publication of the delinquent list. The publication of the list costs the public nothing, the expense thereof is borne by the delinquent tax-payer, and this is an additional inducement for him to pay his tax, and not become delinquent. But while these objections to the bill exist, it contains many provisions not contained in the present law. Under it property heretofore not taken will be subjected to taxation, and revenues derived from sources from which heretofore none were derived. It is is many respects a much better bill than the present law. The defects in the bill can be remedied in the House, and believing that they will I vote "aye."
Mr. HOSTETTER, in explanation of his vote, says: I do not like this bill in several respects, but believing it the best bill we can get and thinking it an improvement on the old law, I will vote "aye."
Mr. McCARTNEY, in explanation of his vote, says: The self-constituted guardians of the tax bill, after setting the seal of their own approval upon it, have repelled all efforts at amendment, and now sttempt to force its passage under the gag law. The bill has many good points, but has so many defects requiring amendment that it is unfit to become a law. I vote "no."
Mr. LEEPER, in explanation of his vote, says: I voted against the bill for the reason that the multiplicity of amendments adopted have rendered it decidedly crude and incongruous, so that, as a whole, it is perhaps no improvement on the present law, while some of the changes proposed, in my judgment, are palpably objectionable.
Mr. MARVIN, in explanation of his vote, says: When House bill No. 204 was put upon its passage I voted against it for the reason that amendments were made to it that I could not vote for, particularly the one that struck out Section 206 in regard to the publishing of the delinquent tax list by the County Auditor in a weekly newspaper of the County for three weeks before the sale of the delinquent lands. I believe it is unjust and wrong to sell a person'a land for any purpose without first giving due notice thereof, and I believe a great wrong may be done thereby.
Mr. SPANN, in explanation of his vote, says: In my judgment this bill has been driven through the Senate under whip and spur--in other words, under what may be termed the gag rule. This bill has been very hastily considered for one of so much importance, for I consider it to be the most important piece of legislative work done by this body during this session. In all that I have said on the merits of the bill while the same was under consideration, I have endeavored to deal fairly with all classes, but in some of my views as to what would be justice to individuals and corporations, I have been overruled, and I can not now vote for a bill which I do consider very unjust in some of its parts. Not deeming this the time to point out these objections, I vote "no."
Mr. WOOLLEN, in explanation of his vote, says: So far as this bill aims to tax foreign corporations doing business in this State I indorse it; but some of its provisions I conceive to be crude and conflicting, while others I belive to be positively vicious and impracticable. Especially is this the case with that section abolishing the long-established custom of advertising the delinquent list. That the State should proceed to sell the land of any citizen without giving him due notice of such sale to me a preposterous proposition, and I hesitate not in saying that under the operation of this section, if it becomes a law, more than one honest citizen will lose the title to his land, if tax titles are held to be legal when the land has been sold without due notice of such sale having been given. There are other sections, also, in the bill that I can not sanction, and hence am compelled to vote against the passage of the bill in its present form.
And so the tax bill passed under the operations of the previous qnestion.
THE GENERAL APPROPRIATION BILL.
Mr. BUNDY offered a resolution that at 2 o'clock Monday the Senate will proceed to the consideration of the general appropriation bill, and continue the same until it is disposed of.
Mr. OWEN said it was evident that not sufficient care and attention was given to the preparation of this bill. The Senate Committee on Finance have had it under consideration for some time, and have felt it necessary to summon the Superintndents of the different Benevolent Institutions to appear before it for examination as to the real wants of these Institutions. The Senate ought not to take up this bill until the Committee on Finance has had a fair opportunity to find out what the real wants of these Institutions are. The Committee will not be ready to report before Thursday, for the facts necessary for a proper base to the appropriation bill can not possibly be obtained before that time.
On motion by Mr. FOSTER, word "Thursday" was substituted for the word "Monday" in the resolution.
The resolution as amended was adopted.
OFFICES AND OFFICERS.
The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill [S. 325], being a compilation of all the laws concerning offices and officers, beginning as Section 59.
Mr. KRAMER insisted co-sureties on an old bond are interested in the release of sureties on said bond, and should of right be notified of such proceeding. He moved to amend Section 30 so as to provide for such notice.
Mr. BELL offered a similar amendment on yesterday to a different section, supposing the case was covered by subsequent section. If one surety seeks to be releived, his co-sureties ought to be notified.
Mr. V1EHE understood this section does not contemplate the release of any surety.
Mr. URMSTON insisted that in other sections this matter is covered. He moved to refer this Section 30 to Messrs. Viehe and Comstock.
Mr. COMSTOCK thought it unnecessary to refer this section. It is clear; it does not propose to release any security; it simply requires additional security. He should vote for the amendment though believing it unnecessary.
Mr. HENRY opposed both the amendment and the motion to refer. There are provisions for adding securities in other portions of the bill. There can be no good reason why the co-sureties should be notified. This section simply allows another to sign the surety bond. It is for the advantage of the old sureties, and they are in no way injured by the proceeding.
Mr. MENZIES, being so informed, opposed the amendment, fearing it may mar the symmetry of the bill.
Mr. URMSTON did not see this point as the two Senators who have last spoken. If a party can show good cause why he should be released from a bond, under a provision of law, he should be released. He insisted on his motion to refer the section.
Mr. FOSTER noticed a disagreement among lawyers on this question--something unusual here--and he desired to see a farmer on this Com- page: 52[View Page 52] mittee. He moved the Special Committee shall consist of three.
This motion was agreed to.
The motion to refer was rejected.
The amennment was lost.
Mr. MENZIES offered an amendment to Section 77 that all printing, under any existing statutes, shall be done on the same equality as County printing. He had nothing but the kindest feeling for the "two leading newspapers" in this city.
On motion by Mr. URMSTON, the Section 77 was stricken from the bill.
Mr. COMSTOCK said Section 78 is in the act of 1879, fixing prices for public printing.
Mr. CHAPMAN moved to strike out Section 78.
Mr. COMSTOCK thought it proper that a price should be fixed. It will avoid bargaining every time an advetisement is desired to be made.
Mr. BELL moved to refer Sections 78 and 79 to a Special Committee of five.
Mr. CHAPMAN--The value of an advertisement depends on the circulation of the paper, and no fixed price can be set that will work justly, if the object be to make public certain facts.
Mr. OWEN favored the motion to refer. No publisher can obtain any great advantage from publishing executions or small advertisements, but the Sheriff's and some other advertisements are sometimes enormously charged for, and he cited an instance in a paper before him.
Mr. KEISER did not believe there is a publisher in Indiana who will swear to a publication made by him which is not right and proper, and if Senators assumee that the publishers of Indiana are thieves the assumption is unfounded and can not be sustained by facts. One dollar a square for the first, and fifty cents for each subsequent insertion is not too much. These men are working every day of their lives of for the best interests of the State, and a great majority of them scarcely make a living. The great trouble is legislation is too often enacted without careful consideration. He counselled obtaining information from persons experienced in matters desired to be considered, and made no opposition to the motion to refer this section to a Select Committee.
Mr. VAN VORHIS said that in Indianapolis municipal advertisements are printed the year round for twelve cents per square.
Mr. WOOD asked why Senators are struck with such a streak of economy just at this point in the bill? He was willing the law shall stand as it has stood for a number of years.
The motion to refer Sections 78 and 79 to a Select Committee of five was agreed to, and the Chair appointed Messrs. Bell, Keiser, Comstock, Chapman and Foster said Committee.
Mr. KEISER declined to serve, being an interested party.
The Chair appointed Mr. Owen in place of Mr. Keiser.
Mr. CHAPMAN could see no reason of re-enacting laws set down in the Constitution of the State as is proposed in Sections 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86 and 87 of this bill. He moved to strike them out.
Mr. MENZIES, although the statement of the Senator is true, saw no objection to retaining these sections in the bill to preserve its symmetry, so any person can find all law appertaining to the Governor in one place. As a matter of convenience to people who are not lawyers, he saw no harm in leaving the sections in the bill.
Mr. BUNDY considered the object of this bill is to compile all statutes on this subject under one act.
Mr. BROWN at first was inclined to support the motion to strike out, but upon reflecting that one object here is to codify propositions under different heads in the Constitution and in the statute, infinite convenience and much good may result therefrom.
Mr. COMSTOCK saw force in the objection to retaining these sections in the bill, but not sufficient to overbear the advantge of having all points on one subject placed together.
The motion to strike out was rejected--yeas, 13; nays, 21.
Mr. GRUBBS said: "There is not one word in the five sections--95, 96, 97, 98 and 99--but may be found in the Constitution," and he moved to strike them out.
Mr. BROWN--If the object--codification--in view when this bill was prepared is to be carried out, then these sections should remain.
Mr. URMSTON could see no justification in voting for coupling provisions of the Constitution with subject matters of our statute laws.
Mr. CHAPMAN asked what right the General Assembly had to waste time and money for the purpose of putting in the statute book the organic law of the land? If the Legislature has no better business than re-enacting the Constitution of the State it had better adjourn and go home.
Mr. COMSTOCK thought the Board of Revision had not exceeded its duty in the preparation of this bill, This bill is to revise the laws on this subject, as a matter of convenience--to simply abridge and make them complete.
The motion to strike out was rejected by yeas, 14; nays, 23.
The Senate adjourned till to-morrow.
