HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
TUESDAY, March 22, 1881--9 a. m.ASSESSMENT FOR TAXATION.
The Ways and Means Committee reported on the Senate amendments to the bill [H. R. 204] concerning taxation, recommending concurrence in most of the amendments, for the reason that many are merely verbal corrections, and recounting sections without material changes.
Mr. RYAN moved that the House concur in the report of the Committee.
Mr. EDWINS moved to amend the motion by concurring in a section at a time as the amended sections are read.
Mr. GILLUM moved to lay the amendment to the motion upon the table.
This motion was agreed to--yeas, 54; nays, 29.
The report was concurred in--yeas, 56; nays, 27.
NEW PROPOSITIONS.
The following described bills were read the first time and referred:
By Mr. O'NEAL: The bill [H. R. 475] for the relief of Allen Luckton, John J. Peter, Henry Edrith and John Holiday, on account of loss of money.
By Mr. RYAN [H. R. 476]: To remove restrictions of commerce by abolishing wharfage and dockage.
By Mr. WILSON [H. R. 477]: To prohibit the infliction of corporal punishment on the person of pupils by the teachers of Common Schools of the State. [Teachers are authorized to expel pupils for habitual idleness or such conduct as would require corporal punishment.]
By Mr. AKIN [H. R. 478]: Concerning the bonds of administrators, executors and guardians. [The bond must be signed by the member and each assurety in the presence of the Clerk of the Circuit Court.]
By Mr. MILES [H. R. 479]: For the relief of Thomas M. Jones and Lawrence S. Shuler. [Amount, $15,000.]
By Mr. BAKER [H. R. 480]: Regulating the publication of Sheriff sales, providing for the notice by the Sheriff--duties, etc., in regard to the same. [Parties concerned in a suit can choose the paper in which a Sheriff's sale is advertised.]
By Mr. BAKER [H. R. 481] for the protection of game. [Prohibiting the killing deer only at specified times of the year.]
By Mr. CARR of White County [H. R. 482] concerning witness fees. [When witness fees are paid in, it is the duty of the County Clerk or Justice of the Peace to notify the claimant. The person notifying shall receive for his service two cents.
By Mr. BERRYMAN [through Mr. Sinclair] the bill [H. R. 483] to amend an act concern Circuit Courts. [The Counties of Clay and Owen to constitute the Fifth Judicial Circuit; Johnson and Morgan Counties the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit; the Counties of Shelby and Marion the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit; the Counties of Hendricks and Putnam the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit.]
REPEAL OF THE PROVOKE LAW.
Mr. JOHNSON moved to reconsider the vote by which the report of the Committee to indefinitely postpone the bill [H. R. 240] to repeal a misdemeanor act, was adopted.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. JOHNSON said it was not treating him with the proper respect to dispose of his bill in that manner during his absence; especially so, as it is a very meritorious one, repealing one of the worst acts on the statute books.
The same matter being included in the civil code, on motion the further consideration of this bill and report was postponed until one week from to-day.
TOWNSHIP TRUSTEE.
Senator Kramer's bill [S. 69--see page 155 of these Reports] in relation to the office of Trustees, the manner in which they shall be chosen, powers, duties, etc., [extending the termof office to two years], was read the third time and passed--yeas, 72; nays, 5.
SALE OF STATE PROPERTY.
Mr. Gibson's bill [H. R. 175] to authorize the sale by the State of Indiana of lot No. 77 in Jeffersonville, Ind., to William N. McCoy, was read the third time.
Mr. McCLURE read a report of the County Auditor of his County, showing wherein it was to the advantage of the State to make this sale.
The bill passed--yeas, 76; nays, 33.
COMMON SCHOOLS.
The motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill [H. R. 322] concerning Common Schools, passed, was called up.
Mr. KENNER moved to lay the motion on the table.
The motion was agreed to--yeas, 43; nays, 33.
THE CIVIL CODE.
On motion by Mr. KENNER, the constitutional rule was suspended and the bill [S. 271--see pages 188, 213, 223 of these Reports] concerning proceedings in civil cases, was taken up and read the first and second times by title only under a dispensation of the constitutional rule.
On motion by Mr. GIBSON, the further consideration of this bill was deferred until Thursday at 10 a. m.
INDIANAPOLIS MARKET HOUSE.
On motion by Mr. LINSDAY, Mr. McSheehy's bill [H. R. 391] authorizing the Common Council and Board of Aldermen of cities having a population of 60,000 or more inhabitants to levy, assess and cause to be collected, a special tax of five cents on the hundred dollars, on the taxable proprty, each year for four years, for the purpose of building market houses and other public buildings, etc., was read the third time.
Mr. McSHEEHY said the city was already in possession of about $75,000 for this purpose, and they wanted about $125,000 more. This bill simply provides for the submission of the question to the people of the city of Indianapolis, whether they wish to levy this tax or not. I hope the bill will pass.
The bill passed--yeas, 76: nays, 2.
page: 69[View Page 69]FEES AND SALARIES.
Mr. BARNETT moved to take up his bill [H. R. 311] to amend Section 26, of an act providing for certain employes, fixing certain salaries, compensation, duties, liabilities of officers and clerks therein named providing for the disposition of certain moneys, etc.
Mr. BARNETT said the labor of the session, in all probability, will take up the time so there will be no fee and salary bill passed. The existing law upon that subject is the most infamous ever put upon the statute books of Indiana, ansd I think it is high time to remedy this evil. I hope the bill will pass.
Mr. FRAZER made an effectual effort to lay the bill on the table. He did not see the necessity of so many fee and salary bills; there is a bill in the Senate now on that subject.
The bill passed--yeas, 66; nays, 1l.
LEGALIZING COURT RECORDS.
Mr. Buskirk's bill; [H. R. 414] to legalize and render valid the records of the Circuit and Common Pleas Courts in various Counties in the State, being read the third time--
Mr. CAUTHORNE--I doubt the propriety of passing this bill. The law is plain upon this subject, and the Judge should know the law in these Courts, and the law ought to be complied with, and the Judge should read these minutes and sign them. I am opposed to any one coming in to legalize this thing.
Mr. BUSKIRK--This bill proposes simply where the records are already accepted to make them right, or where there has been an omission made by the parties. There have been legalizing acts passed here on almost every subject. There can be no harm in passing this bill, and great harm may come if it is not passed. In the United States Courts the records are not signed at all, and yet it is a valid record, but by our statute it must be signed in Circuit and Common Pleas Courts befor it becomes a valid record.
Mr. CAUTHORNE--The gentleman says it merely legalizes a record already right. Who is to tell us whether it is right or wrong--whether the Clerk did his duty or not? It is not the judgment of the Court, because the record is not signed. These records have not been made in conformity with the law, and this bill proposes to come in and make them records. When we pass a law, persons are to act under that law. They are to observe the law. The Legislature has been bothered a good deal with these little legalizing acts. Here is a bill trying to make judgments of things that are not judgments.
Mr. WRIGHT--The cases affected by this bill are complete records, and the only trouble is the simple fact that the Judge has neglected to sign the judgments. As I understand this bill, it is simply to render valid a judgmen, already valid in other respects, and it does seem to, me that it ought to pass.
Mr. KENNER said if a Court holds a session and the record is unsigned, there is no life in it. Can you put life in it by a legislative act, that is the question? It is unconstitutional the moment it strikes the Supreme Court. These are the reasons why I am against this class of legislation.
Mr. COLE--This is a bill that ought to pass. The records of a Court is the work of the Clerk. There was a bill passed this session legalizing the records of the Circuit Court of Vigo County. It seems to me if that could be done constitutionally, certainly the present bill is a Constitutional one.
The bill failed to pass--yeas 42; nays 33--for the want of a constitutional majority.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. SULZER'S bill [H. R. 451] fixing the time for holding Courts in the Second Judicial Circuit, was read the third time and passed--yeas, 65; nays, 4.
ASSESSMENT FOR TAXATION.
On motion, the message announcing the Senate's refusal to recede from its amendments to the bill [H. R. 204] concerning taxation, and asking for a Committee of Conference to make the disposition of the same, was taken up and the request granted, whereupon--
The SPEAKER made the Committee of Conference on the part of the House to consist of Messrs. Kenner and Cauthorne.
RAILROAD TELEGRAPH LINES.
Mr. Linsday's bill [H. R. 452] to authorize Railway Companies to construct, acquire and maintain and operate telegraph lines for commercial and other purposes, was read the third time and passed--yeas, 69; nays, 0.
STATE ADJUTANT GENERAL.
Mr. Compton's bill [H. R. 291] defining the right, powers and duties of the Adjutant General of the State, fixing his salary, providing for a Deputy, etc., [his salary to be $1,800, and Deputy, $800] was read the third time.
Mr. COMPTON said the duties of the Adjutant General are arduous, and from the testimony of the outcoming Adjutant General, the salary and appropriations for that office have been wholly insufficient. I am in favor of giving a salary to this officer sufficient for him to perform his duty. It is right that the records should be preserved and put in proper form, so that in case of fire there will be some means of saving them. As they exist now in drawers, the record will soon be gone. The salary at the present time is wholly inadequate, and the Adjutant General is not able to perform the duties of the office in the making these records without the passage of this bill, and I do not think that the General Assembly of Indiana ought to place him in a position where he can not make a proper record of the soldiers of the State of Indiana.
Mr. NEFF--The Ways and Means Committee have appropriated $1,200 per annum, as the salary of the Adjutant General, and the duties of the office are not such as to require that the salary of the office be increased, nor do I believe that we would be justifiable in creating another office at $800 per annum.
Mr. BUSKIRK said: I know the salary of $1,200 to be insufficient for the duties to be performed in this position. I have the evidence, that the out-going Adjutant General paid out over $800 for a Deputy, and what I know of the office, an increase of $600 would be a very small salary for the services to be rendered. If you have an office such as this should be, then we ought not to pay the manager a mere pittance. I am in favor of this bill. While I am in favor of economy, there should be some sense and judgment used in making appropriations, but we ought not to vote against a thing because it is to the interest of economy to the State Treasury, when it will injure individuals of the State.
Mr. SCHWEITZER--The soldiers of lndiana are entitled to all the benefits of the late War. I am not one of those men to cry: "We are paying out too much money!" If a man goes to that office and sees the records he can form some idea of the amount of work required. The Adjutant General ought to have more than $1,800. I am opposed to voting away money of the people of the State, but when I see it is needed, and the soldiers of Indiana require it, then I say "Amen" to it. I hope the bill will pass.
Mr. COLE thought the duties of the office of Adjutant General merely nominal. If it is a fact that the men holding that position have not been competent to do that work, the proper way to do is to appoint an Adjutant General who knows how to write, so as to dispense with the necessity of employing a clerk. He said there were enough State offices tow; and, as he was opposed to page: 70[View Page 70] creating a new office, therefore he opposed its passage.
Mr.MOODY-I think a complete record should be preserved of all that may be of benefit to the soldier who left his all and answered the call of his country. If all the work is done by the Adjutant General required of him, I am certain no man would have reason to say he receives too much pay under this bill. We pay large sums of money to furnsh books to keep records of the titles to our lands, and who will say that the record of an honorable discharge of a soldier is, or may be, of less importance and value to his family than the record of title deeds? I am satisfied that the tax-payers of this State are not going to find fault with the small amount of money it is going to require to put this office in good shape, and I hope, the bill will pass.
Mr. WILSON, of Morgan--None of my constiuents are asking me to support a bill of this kind. The record of their dead has been perpetuated or will be perpetuated, and I think very likely it is on file in the Adjutant General's office. I can not see the necessity of this bill. We had an Adjutant General during the War, and have had one since the War, and if these records are not kept, is it because the officer has not done his duty? If that is a fact I do not see the necessity of appropriating $400 more. I am opposed to this bill because it creates a new office when the people of the State are not demanding it. I hope the bill will not pass.
Mr. MESSICK said there was more labor to be performed in that office than ever before, in the way of correspondence and inquiries from all parts of the country. Some days there are as high as twenty-five letters to answer. He thought the citizens owed this duty to the soldiers of the War to take good care of those records.
Mr. ROBINSON did not believe in paying one man $1,800 and the other $800 in this office. If it is necessary to keep a transcript of documents in that office, he favored making a specific appropriation for that purpose. To create an additional office at this fixed salary, he was opposed to.
The bill was rejected--yeas, 31; nays, 41.
HOUSE BILLS PASSED.
Mr. Vawter's bill [H. R.] for the relief of Joel F. Davis, authorizing the refunding of damages paid by him into the Treasury of Bartholomew County, was read the third time, and failed to pass--yeas, 28; nays, 42.
Mr. Murray's bill [H. R. 175] to legalize the incorporation of the new Pittsburg and Hanover Turnpike Company was read the third time.
Mr. MURRAY said this is a bill that no one is opposed to. All the parties affected by it are in favor of the bill.
The bill passed--yeas, 66: nays, 2.
Mr. Kain's bill [H. R. 239] to legalize the corporation of the town of Geneva, was read the third time.
Mr. KAIN said the general legalizing bill did not reach this special case. If the bill does not pass the corporation of this village would be destroyed.
The bill passed--yeas, 69; nays, 2.
CONCERNING BRIDGES.
Mr. Gillum's bill [H. R. 266] to amend the first section of an act providing for the erection and repair of bridges over streams forming the boundary between two Counties, was read the third time.
Mr. BUSKIRK--I do not think this bill a good one. I do not think one County has a right to build a bridge to another County without the consent of that County. The bill is in the right direction, but it goes a little too far, for the bill provides that it would not be necessary to construct this bridge for the other County to take any part in it or even give its consent. It gives one County the privilege to build a bridge across a stream connecting with another County without the consent of the adjoining County. That is wrong. They ought to have at least the consent of the County adjoining.
Mr. GILMAN said the bill would meet a case in his County, and it would be detrimental to their interests in case the bridge is not built--that being a means of securing an outlet to the Chicago market.
Mr. EDWINS moved to recommit the bill to the Committee, with instructions to amend the County into which the bridge is run must give consent to the building of the bridge.
The motion was laid on the table.
The bill passed--yeas, 54; nays, 9.
A majority of the Select Committee to whom was referred the bill [H. R. 370] incorporation of Bridge Companies reported, recommending its passage with an additional proviso to Section 2. A minority of the same Committee recommended its passage with amendments to Section 1, restricting the Bridge Company to transport at a rate agreed upon, and if no agreement upon rates can be reached the Circult Court is to establish the rate for such conveyance.
Mr. MESSICK thought the adoption of the minority report would defeat the bill.
Mr. CAUTHORNE--I hope the minority report will not prevail. I do not think that any Company would be willing to spend $2,000,000 with a proviso that another Company could use that bridge, and if they do not pay as much as they think proper, they could go to the Circuit Court and have the rate fixed. The supposition is, if a foreign corporation builds a bridge costing millions of dollars, the State gets the benefit of the improvement. They are seeking to connect with the city of Chicago, and if that trade does not go through the State of Indiana, it will go elsewhere. They want the most direct line they can get between the South and Chicago. By building this bridge at Evansville, this State gets the benefit of it. I hope the minority report will not prevail.
Mr. FRAZER said ever since the bridge was built across the Ohio River it has always been exorbitant in its charges, and it went on until it was necessary to build another bridge along the side of it to overcome the monopoly. I thought we would put in a clause that would prohibit making such a monopoly as exists at Jeffersonville. I hope the minority report will be adopted.
The minority report was rejected and the majority report was made a special order for Wednesday morning.
ASSESSMENT FOR TAXATION.
The Committee on Conference, appointed to consider the Senate amendments to the bill [H. R. 204] concerning taxation, reported that they reached a compromise upon the same, and asked the House to concur in the report.
The report was concurred in.
IN MEMORY OF A FORMER SPEAKER.
Mr. FRAZER offered a resolution, that on account of the death of J. U. Pettit, at his home in Wabash, Ind., yesterday, many years a prominent citizen of the State, and once Speaker of this body, the House do now adjourn, to show a mark of respect to the deceased.
The resolution was adopted, and the House adjourned.
