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.
