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.
