HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
SATURDAY, March 19, 1881-9 a. m.BILLS PASSED TO THE THIRD READING.
The Judiciary Committee reported on the bill [H. R. 462] in relation to Railroad Companies constructing and operating telegraph lines, recommending its passage with amendments.
The report was concurred in, and the bill was read the second time and ordered engrossed-
On motion by Mr. AKIN, the bill [H. R. 411] to amend an act fixing the per diem of members of the General Assembly, was read the second time and ordered engrossed.
Mr. LINDLAY'S bill [H. R. 114] to provide for trial by Jury, and fixing the number that shall concur in making a verdict, was read the thlrd time, and made a special order for next Tuesday, at 2 p. m.
SCHOOL BOOKS FOR PAUPER CHIDREN.
Mr. SCHWEITZER'S bill [H. R. 51] authorizing Township Trustees and Trustees of cities and towns, to purchase books for schools, was read the tird time.
Mr. SCHWEITZER--This bill provides for the buying of school books for poor children. We have many poor children in the several Counties of the State who will be greatly benefited by this measure, and I hope the bill will pass.
The bill passed--yeas, 64; nays, 18.
WITNESS FEES.
Mr. M'SHEEHY'S bill [H. R. 117] concerning witnesses subpenaed on part of the State in civil cases, required to attend outside of the County in which the witness resides, was read the third time.
Mr. M'SHEEHY--When this bill first came up it met with strong opposition. It simply provides that witnesses shall receive $1 per day for attending cases and five cents a mile. It also excludes trials before Justices of the Peace. The measure is a just one, and I hope the bill will pass.
The hill passed--yeas, 64; nays, 16.
STATE AUDITOR'S BOND.
Mr. Wilson's, of Morgan, bill [H. R. 163] to amend Section 1 of an act prescribing the powers and duties of the Auditor of State, approved May 24, 1852 (shall give bond in the sum of $25,000), was read the third time.
Mr. FRAZER said the codification bill fixes the duties, powers, etc., of all the State officers. He suggested that the bill for the present lie on the table.
It was so agreed.
ESTRAYS AND ADRIFT.
Mr. Cole's bill [H. R. 203] amending Section 1 of an act regarding estrays and articles adrift [such articles must be advertised three days after being taken up] was read, the third time and failed to pass-yeas, 39; nays, 38--for the want of a constitutional majority of one-half of the Members constituting the House.
LEGALIZING ACTS OF JUSTICES AND NOTARIES.
Mr. Marshall's bill [H. R. 217] to legalize the acts of Notaries Public and Justices of the Peace after the expiration of commission, was read the third time and passed--yeas, 54; nays, 19.
PARTITION FENCES.
My. CAUTHORNE moved to reconsider the vote upon which the bill [H. R. 150] concerning partition fences was lost.
Mr. FANCHER said: The law now in force provides that in cases where there has been a partition fence, that one of the adjoining land owners may serve notice on the other adjoining owner to repair the division fence, and if he fails to do it, the party serving the notice may proceed to repair the same and recover the cost of such repair with 10 per cent. damages. So it can be seen that the law now in force only applies to cases where has been a fence. The amendments proposed will so change the law that after proper notice by one of the land owners and on failure of the other to construct a new fence within the time prescribed in the notice, the party giving the notice may repair the old fence or construct a new one, and recover the cost of constructing or repairing the same with 25 per cent. damages. The object of the amendment is to reach cases where there has been a partition of lands, and to cases where a portion of a farm has been sold at Sheriff's sale or tax sale and become vested in the purchaser, and to cases where there has been a division among portions of lands owned jointly, and to where the division line agreed on or, established by Court is fixed at a place where there has not been a fence before. It does not apply to lands unoccupied.
The motion to reconsider was agreed to, and the bill [H. R. 150] to amend Sections 16 and 17 of of an act concerning inclosures and partition fences, approved June 4, 1852, was read the third time.
Mr. MOODY--I am opposed to the bill. It seems seems to me it ought to be amended so as not to limit the time to fifteen days, or else the penalty be taken out. As it now stands, if a man does not construct the fence fifteen days after the notice is given, the adjoining land owner constructs the fence and collects cost from the party so refusing, with 25 per cent. penalty. I do not want to vote against the bill, but as it now stands it is too stringent.
The bill passed--yeas, 52; nays, 29.
SCHOOL LAND RECORDS.
Mr. Lindlay's bill [H. R. 223] defining the duty of County Auditors pertaining to school lands was read the third time.
Mr. LINDLAY said there was no record of the school land of the State at any other place than the County Auditor's office. This provide that a duplicate shall be furnished to the State Auditor, so in case of fire there will be a record of such land.
The bill passed--yeas, 70; nays, 1.
OHIO RIVER BRIDGE.
Mr. Messick's bill [H. R. 370] supplementary to an act for the incorporation of Companies for the purpose of constructing bridges over streams on the State line, was read the third time.
Mr. FRAZER said he understood these bridges were to be built in the interest of a railroad corporation with privilege to charge toll. He opposed its passage.
Mr. CAUTHORNE--There is nothing in this bill specifying whether these Companies shall charge toll or not. It simply provides for a corporation already formed and the capital stock is already paid in.
Mr. MESSICK was opposed to referring the bill to the Committee, as the people of Evansville want the bridge, for when the river freezes over their commercial facilities are cut off. He hoped the bill would become a law.
Mr. CAUTHORNE said: This bill, if it passes, will not hurt anybody, becanse if they charge too high a toll there are plenty of laws on the subject regulating that. The only question is: Will the State of Indiana allow a foreign corporation to build a bridge between this and another State? They do not propose to call upon us for money; they build it themselves.
Mr. KENNER could see no reason for the opposition to the bill. It only empowers corporations of other States to do what corporations may do in this State. There is not a thing about this bill objectionable.
Mr. GARDNER--If the citizens of Kentucky want to establish a connecting link between our State and theirs, it will not put us in a worse position, but, on the contrary, it will open up page: 59[View Page 59] commercial relations which will prove beneficial to the State. The New Albany bridge was cited as a bridge to be built under a similar bill. It is entirely different in this respect. When that bridge was proposed to be built the Company asked the city of New Albany to indorse their bonds to the amount of 25 per cent. of the value of that bridge; and in this case the citizens of Kentucky desired to build the bridge contemplated without any assistance from the State of Indiana. The only possible objection that can be urged is that it tends to obstruct the Ohio River. The height of the bridge and distance of the spans is such as to overcome the objection, as the navigation will not be materially obstructed. I do hope the bill will pass without any further delay.
Mr. SCHWEITZER said when the bill came up for the construction of the New Albany bridge there was scarcely any opposition, and there should be none to this, as it requires or asks for no Indiana capital to aid the corporation, and does not interfere with a bridge anywhere else. He favored the passage of the bill.
Mr. ROELKER said: In the winter, when the river is frozen, there are thousands of car loads of produce standing at Evansville. and this bridge would give them an outlet to the Southern market. I am in favor of the bridge. It does not cost us anything, and if the corporators of it do not treat us right we can build another bridge.
Mr. MITCHELL moved to refer the bill to a Special Committee, with instructions--one of the Committee to be the gentleman having the bill in charge.
The motion was agreed to--yeas, 66; nays, 14.
SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGES.
Mr. Carter's bill [H. R. 248] in relation to the satisfaction of mortgages, prescribing the manner the same may be done, flxing the fees of Recorders, etc., was read the third time.
Mr. CARTER said: This bill simply regulates the manner in which mortgages may be satisfied, on the record in the Recorder's office. There is no law in this State upon that subject. There has been a difficulty in some Counties where persons come to represent themselves to be the mortgagee and got mortgages satisfied on the record, when they were not the proper persons to satisfy the mortgage. This bill regulates the manner in which this satisfaction shall be made by providing that where the person is not known to the Recorder, he shall be identified the same as when presenting a check at a bank to be cashed. It also provides, where a mortgage debt has been standing twenty years, that it shall be satisfied, unless the party holding the mortgage file a statement in the Recorder's office that the amount remains unpaid.
The bill passed--yeas, 52; nays, 17.
Mr. FANCHER protested against the ruling of the Speaker of the House on yesterday in which the Speaker refused him [Mr. Fancher] the right to speak on a question of privilege in reply to remarks that were personal, made by another member of this body, for the reason that such was ruling was instigated by a personal motive and contrary to all parliamentary usages. He [Mr. Fancher] asks to have the same entered on the journal of the House.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
LEGALIZING ACTS OF NOTARIES.
Mr. Cotton's bill [H. R. 251], to legalize acknowledgements and the recording of certain instruments, was read the third time.
Mr. CARTER--This bill simply legalizes acts of Notaries Public where their commission has expired without being aware that such was the case.
The bill passed--yeas, 37; nays 11.
RAILROAD FREIGHT TARIFF.
Mr. SKINNER moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill [[H. R. 138--see page 61 of: these Reports] regulating charges of railroads, was passed. He said: There has been considerable talk over the bill and it is thoroughly understood. The reason I make this motion is because there was some misunderstanding in reference to its construction. The bill provides that Companies shall not charge a greater price for carrying freight a short distance than it does for a greater distance. The only question is whether the word "price" has any reference to rates. Some admit that this bill does not apply to rates, while others contend that it does. I submitted this bill to a railroad man this forenoon. His opinion as to the construction of the words "price" and "rates' is that they are synonomous terms, but by the wording of the bill it is questioned whether a Railroad Company can charge more for hauling a larger amount of freight a short distance than a small amount a long distance.
The SPEAKER--The bill is in the Senate and can only be returned by a demand of the House.
Mr. SKINNER--Then I withdraw my motion to reconsider.
WHIPPING POST.
Mr. CUMMINS' bill [H. R. 202-see pages 143 and 144 of these Reports] to provide for the punishment of certain assaults and batteries committed by the husband upon his wife, was read the third time.
On motion, the vote on the passage of the bill was deferred until more members are present.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
The Judiciary Committee reported on the bill [H. R. 333] in relation to Companies obtaining judgment against persons who have obtained money wrongfully, recommending its passage.
The report was concurred in, the bill was read the second time, and ordered engrossed.
Also the bill [H. R. 404] for the examination of a surviving party to a suit at law, recommending its passage.
The report was concurred in, the bill was read the second time, and ordered engrossed.
LIABILITY OF EMPLOYERS.
The Judiciary Committee returned the bill [H. R. 246] in relation to the liability of employers. A majority recommending the bill lie on the table, and a minority recommending its passage.
Mr. DAVIS--I hope the minority report will prevail. It simply provides for the use of proper precaution, in order that operators may be protected. This bill work no hardship to anyone. It may prevent accidents even to the employers themselves, and obviate numerous serious accidents to the employes.
Mr. BUSKIRK said if many different kinds of machinery were even slightly guarded, it would avoid accidents to persons, and not incur much expense to the owner. The bill ought to pass. It certainly can do no harm, and the chances are favorable to its working good results.
Mr. RYAN--This bill is merely to require employers and operators of machinery to place the proper safeguards about it in such a manner as to avoid as much as possible accidents. I believe such a measure is in the interest of employer as well as the operator.
Mr. FLOYD thought this bill in the interest of humanity, but he doubted the accomplishment of the purposes designed. It is to the interest of the employer as well as the operator, in a pecuniary way, to avoid all accidents. That being the case, every precaution is now used to avoid accidents. Therefore, he thought this bill would fail in its results.
Mr. GIBSON--The words "all possible safeguard" are very indefinite, and would bring about much litigation. If the bill is amended so as to define what a proper safeguard is, I will support the bill.
The further consideration of the bill and re- page: 60[View Page 60] ports was postponed until Monday on account of the slim attendance of Members.
GRAND JURY DUTIES.
A majority of the Judiciary Committee reported on the bill [S. R. 160] defining the jurisdiction of the Grand Jury, recommending that the bill lie on the table, a minority recommending its passage.
Mr. BUSKIRK--The object of this bill is to take away from the Grand Jury these many small cases of felony and misdemeanor, and assault and battery cases, and confer jurisdiction to Justice of the Peace. Every lawyer knows that about one-third of the time in Courts is taken up with the trial of misdemeanors and disturbances of the peace. These cases are usually contested, and take the better part of the day. My object in this bill is to get rid of this class of cases as much as possible.
The minority report was adopted, and the bill was read the second time.
Mr. CARTER--This Grand Jury duty ought not to be swept away in this manner. The way to inquire into crimes, is through the Grand Jury, and the only way in which a great many persons can be prosecuted. It is in secrecy, and does not require a person to file an affidavit. I think it is dangerous to take away this power from the Grand Jury.
The bill was ordered engrossed--yeas, 22; nays, 28.
LIBRARY EXEMPTION.
The Judiciary Committee returned the bill [H. R. 431] in relation to exempting private libraries from taxation, recommending indefinite postponement, for the reason that the Committee considers the bill an unconstitutional one.
The report was concurred in.
ANOTHER LEGAL HOLIDAY.
The Judiciary Committee returned the bill [H. R. 44] declaring the 22d of February a holiday, recommending its passage.
The report was concurred in, the bill was read the second time and ordered engrossed.
GUARDIAN AND WARD.
Also, the bill [H. R. 000] concerning guardian and ward and regulating suits on bonds of guardians, recommending its passage.
The report was concurred in, the bill was read the second time and ordered engrossed.
Then came an adjournment.
