IN SENATE.
FRIDAY, March 25, 1881, 10 a. m.Mr. CHAPMAN offered a resolution--which was adopted--directing the Committee on Revision to prepare a bill codifying all election laws to conform with the Constitutional Amendments recently ratified by the people.
CORNER-STONE OF THE NEW CAPITOL.
Mr. SPANN moved to take up his concurrent resolution (see page 153 of these Reports) for a memorial in the new Capitol building commemorating the services of the Indiana soldiers.
Messrs. MENZIES and BROWN would vote in favor of taking up the resolution at any time when the Senator from Allen and Whitley [Mr. Bell] was in his seat, but in the absence of that Senator they should vote against the motion.
The motion was rejected--yeas, 26; nays, 19--two-thirds not voting in the affirmative, as required by the rules.
Subsequently, on motion of Mr. WOOD, this resolution was taken up--the question being on the pending substitute [see page 183] for the Committee report.
Mr. SPANN said the removal of the corner-stone of the new State Capitol would not involve a breach of contract with the builders, and to fail to place in that receptacle the commemoration of the fact that there had been recently a great war to preserve the hearthstones of her citizens, was a violation of decency and right which no State in the Union has failed to observe since the war, on an occasion of that kind. This is one of the most serious matters that has come before the Senate this session, and it should not be treated any other than a serious manner.
Mr. BELL insisted this is not a matter properly political, and it can not be made so unless by distortions, twistings and perversions. He should not so treat it. With the report of the Committee to which this resolution was referred he had no fault to find. Instead of placing something in the corner-stone whlch might not be seen for 2,000 years, it is part of the plans of the State House Commissioners to have tablets placed in conspicuous places or niches in the building, properly commemorating the deeds of Indiana's heroes where posterity can see and read and be constantly reminded of the heroic deeds of her heroic soldiers. Layers of stone have been placed above the corner-stone, extending all around the building, the plan being from the first to build by putting in layer after layer, in order that the building may settle not in one place more than another. To tear out the corner-stone now would affect the superstructure, and unless it can be shown that an insult was offered our heroic dead, such a thing should not be done. He hoped the substitute would be voted down, and that the report of the Committee would be concurred in.
Mr. GRUBBS demanded the previous question, which was seconded by the Senate.
Mr. SPANN had no intention of hurting the feelings of any one; but the vote on this substitute will go down in history, and the 100,000 soldiers now living will remember those who vote against it. It can not be objected to on amount of expense, because the stone can be removed at a cost not to exceed the sum of $100. He charged on the Commissioners that this omission was not an oversight but surrounded as they were by Democratic influences, it was a slight for the purpose of covering up a record of the War.
The substitute for the Committee's report, instructing the Commissioners to remove and relay the stone after placing therein some memorial of the soldiers of Indiana, was rejected--yeas, 11; nays, 32--Mr. FOSTER withdrawing his negative vote because of his belief that this is a political question--he being paired with Mr. Shaffer.
The Committee's report, recommending that in some way a memorial be placed in said building, which shall be a fitting and equally lasting memento of the gallant part taken by Indiana soldiers in the War of the Union, was concurred in by yeas, 44; nays, 0.
Mr. MENZIES moved to reconsider the vote just taken, and to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.
The latter motion was agreed to.
page: 83[View Page 83]APPELLATE COURTS.
Mr. LANGDON, for the Committee on Revision, introduced a bill [S. 350]: To create an Appellate Court. [To establish three Appellate Courts in as many Districts of the State, these Courts to hear appeals from Circuit, Superior and Criminal Courts, except appeals by defendants and the State in felony cases, and appeals from Superior Courts having a general term. The Court in each District shall consist of three Judges, to be chosen at the next general election, one to serve two years, one three years, and one four years, terms thereafter to be for four years. The bill is to take effect upon its passage, the Governor to appoint the Judges who shall serve until the next general election. An especial feature of the bill is a provision for the cumulative voting feature upon what is known as the "Illinois' plan. Electors may cast two or three votes for one man if they desire. This will render the Appellate judiciary non-partisan, the political minorities thus being given a choice.]
POLICE JUDGE FOR INDIANAPOLIS.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR announced the order of business to be the consideration of the Police Judge bill [H. R. 34] pending yesterday at the time of taking the recess for dinner.
Mr. COMSTOCK moved to amend the Committee report by stiking out the clause fixing the salary of Mayor.
Mr. CHAPMAN referred to the two remonstrances against the passage of this bill--one signed by nearly the entire Bar of the city, and the other by a large number of merchants. If the bill were so amended as to leave it optional with the City whether it will create such an officer, it would not be so objectionable. There are comparatively a small number of the citizens of Indianapolis desiring the passage of such a bill as this. He was induced to modify his objections upon condition that the maximum of the salaries shall be indicated in the bill, and that is the purpose of the amendments proposed by the Committee report--the Mayor $2,000, and the Police Judge $1,800--and if the Senate see fit to adopt the pending amendment, which he did not urge, then he shall ask for an amendment leaving it discretionary with the city whether it shall have such an officer or not. He could not believe the Legislature should establish this officer peremptorily. He feared, if the bill were passed without the amendment, the salaries would be allowed to run up too high in figure.
Mr. HEFRON objected to the bill because it takes away from the city the power to say whether it wants a City Judge or not. He favored Home rule--and the bill was against sound policy in that it proposes members of this Legislature from every part of the State shall dictate what the city of Indianapolis shall do. This city has a Legislature of her own, and he had yet to hear a good solid reason why such a peremptory measure should pass. The existing law provides for all necessary machinery to run the city government, and this bill proposes to take from the city authorities the power to avoid the expense of this new office, if it should not desire such an officer: or, if under this act the city should desire to dispense with this officer, it could not.
Mr. COMSTOCK thought the late of the bill should be determined by the wishes of the immediate representatives of the city, but it should be left to the city to say what compensation should be paid to its officers. The amendment should be adopted--on principle. Whether the bill is voted up or down he cared not.
Mr. VAN VORHIS believed a necessity exists for a Police Judge in this city. The Mayor has more to do than any one man can properly perform. He had more confidence in the City Council than his colleague (Mr. Chapman), and was willing to trust that body with the responsibility of fixing the salary of all public oficers. He was not so wedded to this measure as to be heart-broken if it be defeated, but he believed a majority of the people desired the bill to pass, and knew of but one or two parties now opposed to it, who have heretofore interested themselves against this bill.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Committee report as amended was adopted.
On motion, by Mr. CHAPMAN, the bill was amended so as to leave it discretionary with the Common Council and Board of Aldermen whether the city shall have a Police Judge or not.
The amendments were ordered engrossed.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill [S. 325] concerning offices and officers, commencing at Section 424.
On motion by Mr. MARVIN this section was amended to as to require all surveys in the construction of gravel roads to be made by the County Surveyor.
Mr. BELL offered an amendment to Section 433, allowing appeal from Surveyor's report.
Mr. HENRY regarded this amendment as unfavorable to the people. There should be an end to these matters. If there is shown to be a mistake the Court would direct a resurvey.
Mr. GARRIGUS opposed setting up one man to decide such matters who may not know much about surveying.
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. BUNDY understood all these amendments were in the interest of surveyors, being recommended by a meeting of thoe gentlemen, and thought they were being hurried through here without the consideration they ought to have.
Mr. HEFRON moved to reduce the Notary bond "$2,000" to $1,000 [in order to give the ladies a chance.]
The motion was agreed to by yeas 19, nays 18, the Lieutenant Governor giving the casting vote.
Mr. MENZIES moved that all sections referring to fees and salaries be stricken from the bill. The remaining matter may be of a permanent nature, while the fee and salary bill may be frequently the subject of amendment.
Mr. CHAPMAN favored this motion.
Mr. HENRY thought the motion should designate the sections.
On motion by Mr. MENZIES this motion was referred to a special Committee of three, with instructions to designate the sections by number.
This Committee subsequently reported numbers, which report was concurred in.
Mr. LANGDON moved to strike out the clause in Section 174 by which every County, Township or municipal officer may call upon the Attorney General--such classes embracing about 8,000, who will be permitted to propose interrogations and demand replies.
Mr. CHAPMAN saw no reason why this officer should not give his opinion to these officials when called upon, inasmuch as he receives good round salary.
Mr. GARRIGUS opposed the amendment.
It was adopted yeas, 26; nays, 11.
Mr. VOYLES moved to strike out Section 471, limiting the Township Trustee to two terms.
Mr. GRUBBS hoped this section would not be stricken out.
Mr. MENZIES thought this a wholesome provision. The school teacher ring and the pauper ring may combine and re-elect most any Trustee. He hoped the section would be stricken out.
Mr. VOYLES--If it be true these sort of rings be about the Trustee, the office should be abolished. The people generally like to retain a good Trustee. It is not an office much sought after, and if that officer is eligible for re-election the people will re-elect the good one, and the bad one will get the go-by.
The motion to strike out was rejected--yeas, 13; nays, 28.
Mr. COMSTOCK moved to amend Section 471 by exempting cities from its operation. He thought page: 84[View Page 84] cities ought to have the privilege of re-electing Township Trustees as often as they pleased.
Mr. VAN VORHIS opposed the amendment, as every objection in out Townships applies with tenfold force to cities.
Mr. HEFRON believed a good deal of bad management in office was due to the eligibility for re-election.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. WOLLEN moved to amend Setion 371 allowing Coroners a $3 fee for viewing a dead body and mileage.
Mr. MENZIES opposed the amendment. He thought the amendment would be productive of mischief.
Mr. WOOLLEN did not contemplate the Coroner should hold an inquest the first time he views the body, but only to make inquiry concerning the death.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. GARRIGUS offered an amendment tp Section 249, which was adopted, authorizing the Board to appoint some person to receive work on ditches when completed, and satisfy liens on account thereof, etc.
Mr. COMSTOCK, from the Special Committee, to which was referred Sections 77 and 78 referrring to the publication of legal advertisements submitted a majority report recommending that all such notices be set solid, etc.
Mr. BELL submitted a minority report proposing to amend the majority report by excepting the printing of semi-annual statements of foreign Insurance Companies.
Mr. BELL did not believe these kind of public notices should be set in solid reading type, as provided in the report of the majority.
Mr. COMSTOCK said there is no attempt in the majority report to attack the insurance law, but it requires that all legal advertisements shall be set solid. He saw no reason why a statement of foreign Insurance Companies should receive any more delay that other legal notices required by law to be given.
Mr. BROWN challenged the production of any foreign Insurance Company advertisement, made under its own private contract, that was not equal in display to that made by the Sentinel and the Journal.
Mr. MENZIES denounced the "insurance steal," so-called, as a dirty piece of iniquity. The majority report does not repeal the act of 1877, which is unworthy a place on the statute book, being in the interest only of two newspapers in Indiana. This thing of exacting a tribute from these Foreign Insurance Companies is similar to the highwayman's threat "to stand and deliver" for the benefit of these two newspapers. The State should not be a party to this filching from Foreign Companies. It is too little, too contemptible, and beneath the dignity of a State. Every burden put on Foreign Insurance Companies have to be borne by the manufacturing interests of the State in extra premiums paid for insurance.
Mr. SPANN had made investigation of this matter, and failed to find a single party representing foreign Insurance Companies who has said that they were being abused by these papers. The only demand for the repeal of this law has come from the Daily News of this city, and a few country papers. These Insurance Companies can give wine suppers costing from $10,000 to $15,000, and can pay their Presidents salaries of $40,000, and they can afford to pay for such display of their advertisements as is made by enterprising merchants.
Mr. FOSTER stated it was a fact that the Senator from Posey [Mr. Menzies] had been fairly represented by these papers whenever he has spoken on this floor, and had no right to oppose them on that score. It is a good and wholesome thing to make publication of these statements in a respectable shape, too. He refused to sign the majority report because he believed it wrong.
Mr. WOOD--I champion no individual or corporate interest here, but I do say that foreign Insurance Companies should advertise their semi-monthly statements in the papers having the largest general circulation in the State. That is the reason the Journal and Sentinel do it now. The question presented in the majority report is (and it is the only one before the Senate) what kind of type shall be used in their advertisemts, whether small reading type or large display type. They should advertise in at least as effective a manner as a patent medicine man. The object is to inform the people the condition of all companies; this should be done in large type, so that it may attract attention, and not in small type the same print as contained in their policies.
Mr. BELL objected to the statement that Senators voting for the minority report are voting to subsidize certain newspapers. He stood in the interest of the people, and declared it right that the people should know by advertisements, well displayed, the condition of these Insurance Companies.
Mr. CHAPMAN believed the purpose of gentlemen speaking on this subect has been to muddy the waters, and hoped the majority of the Senate can see clearly the point to this question. No Senator can say the General Assembly has a right to require that any notice advertised in a newspaper shall be printed in large poster or hand-bill type. It is but reasonable to provide for the display usual in the paper making the publication.
Pending the above proceedings--
SENATE BILLS PASSED.
On motion of Mr. BELL, the Constitutional restriction was dispensed with, and his bill [S. 330] auhorizing the Bishop of the Episcopal Church to transfer property of the Churches held by him in trust directly to the Churches themselves, and to legalize the corporate powers of trustees therein named--
Also his bill [S. 205] to amend Section 1 of the act incorporating the German Theological Seminary of the German Evangelical Synod of Missouri, Ohio and other States of January 21, 1880, so as to change the name of the College, and legalizing certan acts of Directors done thereunder, were severally read the second and third time, and passed the $Senate.
SANDBAR IN CALUMET RIVER.
Mr. WOOD called up his motion entered heretofore to reconsider the vote by which his bill [S. 132] appropriating $6,000 to remove a sandbar in the Calumet River was passed.
The motion was agreed to.
The Senate adjourned till to-morrow.
