IN SENATE.
TUESDAY, March, 29, 1881--10 A. M.On motion by Mr. COMSTOCK, the bill [H. R. 322] concerning common schools--being a codification of the laws relating thereto--was read the first time by title only, under a dispensation of the constitutional restriction, and referred to the Committee on Education.
OFFICES AND OFFICERS.
Mr. WILSON moved to refer the bill [S. B. 325] to a Committee of Three, with instructions to amend by stating in appropriate sections the number of Clerks and other attaches to which each officer therein named shall be entitled, and the duties of each. He said: It is admitted by Senators that the principle involved in this motion is right and should prevail, but they claim there is no time now to do it. I submit that the office and officer's law should not only provide for every office and officer, but also provide for every attache or employe in each office, thus 1aying a proper basis for a fee and salary bill, to fix by law the proper compensation for each person thus authorized by a prior law to receive it. This officer's bill is yet before the Senate, and if this motion prevails, it can be so amended and returned here by to-morrow morning, thus making no delay in its passage.
The motion was laid on the table.
Mr. WILSON moved that the Committee on Fees and Salaries be instructed to fix the salary to be paid each officer and employe for whom an appropriation is asked. He said: Senators also admit that this motion is right if we had time to do it, but oppose it simply on the ground of want of time. We have plenty of time. This Committee is now in session, and have the fee and salary bill now under consideration. If, as is admitted by all the Senate, this and my other motion just voted down is right, I ask when we will ever have a better time to begin doing a right thing? We are now beginning a new era in legislation, codifying and revising the entire law. It is just the time to reform these abuses. If not done now, before our laws again become a jumbled, voluminous mass of inconsistencies, it never will be done. As we legislate now, fee bills fix one rate of compensation, and often, to to the same person, an appropriation bill fixes a greater sum, and the officer either draws both sums, as has been done, or the largest sum fixed, thus utterly defeating the design or intention of the law-makers, and burdening the State with large expenses. It should be changed, changed now, and let us get it right.
Mr. BROWN had no objection to the motion if it applies to the future, but if it intended to cut out the items in that appropriation bill that has passed the House, and leave this to the uncertainty of another bill, he would oppose it. He moved to lay the motion on the table.
The motion was ageed to--yeas, 24; nays, 16.
Mr. SPANN said: I desire to occupy a few minutes' time on a question of personal privilege. On last Friday the Senate had under consideration a question as to the publication of the semi-annual statements of foreign Insurance Companies, during which I made some remarks on the floor of the Senate. On that Friday afternoon I was called away from the city on offical business. On my return I found an editorial had been printed in the Evening News of this city, making a personal attack on myself, and raising a question of veracity between the editor and myself. It is not usual for members of any parliamentary body to rise to a question of personal privilege in a matter of this kind; but as the article I refer to states that if the Senator mentioned therein, repeats the statement he would be denounced in the public prints as a person of untruth, or as "a liar," to use the words in the article, I have concluded to meet it.
Mr. President--I made the statement in question advisedly, and I simply want to re-iterate the statement I then made together with some additional facts, as I have gathered them, in relation to this matter, after reading from this editorial in the Evening News the following: "Senator Spann in defending the insurance steal said, the reason the News denounced that robbery was because if had been left out--that it had tried to be a third page: 96[View Page 96] party to the steal. Senator Spann may have been ignorant of the truth, but notice is herewith served on him, so that in the future he will plainly understand that the statement that this paper tried to be a third party to the steal is a lie, and the man knowing these statements who re-asserts the same is a liar."
In view of that editorial I will make my statement advisedly--and the contest is simply between the Editor of the News and myself on a question of veracity,--and when I make my statement I shall not enter into any discussion through the newspapers, but this statement shall be the end of the whole controversy as far as I am concerned.
I desire to state that in 1877, when this law was originally enacted, that the editor of the News went to the editor of the Sentinel and the then proprietor of the Journal and tried to enter into collusion with them, or demanded of them that he be taken in as a third party to these advertisements. This statement I make upon statements made to me by citizens of Indianapolis whose shoes the editor of the News is unworthy to unloose. Failing to accomplish his purpose, he applied to the Auditor of State, and urged that official to use his power under the law to exclude the Sentinel and take the News in as one of the parties to this insurance swindle, as he calls it. Failing in that, he went into the Courts of Marion County--into Superior Court and there brought a suit seeking by law to compel the Auditor of State to print these advertisements in his paper. He sought to force by law the advertisement of these semi-annual insurance statements in his own little, dirty sheet. Failing in that, the Indianapolis News denounced the publishing of these adverstisements as a swindle, simply because it has been left out from being a partaker in what it denounces all over the State as a swindle and a robbery. Then it began to play the part of a monkey and went out through circulars addressed to the country papers, which it attempted to use as a cat's paw to draw the chestnuts out of the fire with A statement like that, printed in the News office, was laid upon the desk of every Member of the Legislature, and circulars were sent to the country newspapers, which came out of the News office, holding out the tempting bait that if they would stand in with the News they might be a party with the News in the steal by publishing these statements in their papers, and instead of allowing the country newspapers to send their circulars to Members, it printed these circulars in the News office and sent them to the Members. I say there has not been a printed circular from a country paper brought into this Legislature, but that every one has come out of the News office; they emanated from that source, and that source alone.
The action of the Evening News has been mercenary in its character from beginning to end upon this whole question. It says this is a steal. It says these Insurance Companies are paying $6,160 for these advertisements. It says "Eleven squares of steal, $11; two steals per year, $22; two thieves to a steal, $44; 140 Insurance Companies to steal from, $6,160." Now, if this Evening News was honest, and this is a high-handed outrage, why did it want to put upon these Insurance Companies the burden of printing their statements in every country newspaper, making a cost of over $560,000, a tax upon these Insurance Companies that would increase the price of insurance to be paid by manufacturing and mechanical industries of the State. Yet this Evening News denounced this $6,160 as a steal, and yet, in order to manufacture public opinion, was willing to fasten upon the people a steal of $560,000 from these Insurance Companies in order to accomplish its own mercenary ends.
Now, Mr. President, I am through with this statement. It is only a question of veracity between Mr. Holliday and myself. I made my statement on Friday. Friday night I went to Louisville and returned Monday. In the meantime this editorial was published. When I came back a vote was taken on the statement I made, and in the light of that editorial twenty-six Senators said I didn't lie, and only six Senators said I did. I am willing to stand or fall with the twenty-six Senators and leave the Indianapolis News to take care of itself.
GENERAL APPROPRIATION BILL
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR announced the consideration of the bill [H. R. 422] making appropriations for the years 1882 and 1883--the question being on a motion pending at the adjournment yesterday to strike out the clause creating a messenger for the Governor's office.
Mr. HEFRON favored supplying all public officers with pay suitable to their surroundings, but it seems this place is unnecessary and causes additional expense. The only assistance provided for Governor Williams by the last General Assembly was a private clerk, while this bill gives to that office not only a private Secretary, but a clerk and a messenger also. There is not so much difference as to create two new places as assistants to the Governor's private Secretary. One additional ought to be enough. He didn't think we should surround that office with outriders and footmen, the principal duties of the office being to sign Justice's commissions and make after-dinner speeches.
Mr. WILSON said this item was in the act of 1877, but under a different name. Under the name of janitor a man was provided to keep up fires, carry confidential messages, etc. The bill does not increase the number of employe in the Governor's office in this particular case of messenger or janitor.
Mr. FOSTER believing a mistake was made in reducing the Governor's salary, and believing it proper and right that official should have a messenger for his own use, opposed the motion to strike out.
Mr. MARVIN at first thought he would vote to strike this employe from the list, inasmuch as the last Governor got along with but one Private Secretary, but this is the appropriation bill framed by the majority of this Assembly, and it they want this extra office, he should vote to let it stand.
Mr. OWN said it was proposed in this bill to vote openly what pay each officer shall have, and not go around the stump in order to increase the pay of any one. He opposed the motion to strike out.
The motion was rejected--yeas, 10; nays, 27.
Mr. GRUBBS believed $1,200 not sufficient salary for the Adjutant General. The law provides no fees, so that this salary is substantially all the compensation for this office. There is no appropriation made for a deputy. The office is an important one. It has charge of all the records of Indiana during the War. Two years of hard work ought to be done in that office. Many rolls are almost beyond deciphering, and in a few years many of them will be utterly so. He moved to make the salary $1,500.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. BENZ moved to increase the salary of the Secretary of State's Clerk from $700 to $1,000. He said the Governor's Private Secretary got that salary, and the Secretary's Clerk ought to have the same.
Mr. OWEN saw no necessity for the increase.
The motion was rejected by yeas, 10; nays, 27.
The Committee report proposing to reduce the pay of Clerk of the Printing Bureau from $1,200 to $900 being read--
Mr. CHAPMAN opposed this reduction. A sufficient salary should be paid to keep a perfect expert in the art of printing and bookbinding in this place. If he has insufficient salary, there are page: 97[View Page 97] constant temptations to cause inattention to the duties of the position. This officer's duties are twice, if not ten-fold, more important than the duties of clerk to the Secretary of State.
Mr. OWEN said there was but $800 appropriated to this official two years ago.
Mr. HEFRON insisted the office of an appropriation bill is not to fix salaries, but as long as the fee and salary bill fixes a definite sum, this appropriation bill should name that definite sum--no more and no less.
Mr. WILSON remembered but once since the creation of this office has the salary exceeded $900. The late incumbent of the office told the Committee he had never detected errors that saved the State any money.
Mr. VAN VORHIS called attention to the fact that the act creating this office states expressly the salary shall not exceed $900.
Mr. GRUBBS regarded this office as an important one, and inasmuch as the act passed two years ago makes it his duty to index and superintend the printing of the Senate and House journals, moved to make the salary $1,200.
Mr. OWEN said the indexing of the Senate and House Journals was not done the last time satisfactorily, and as there is a bill now before the Senate making it the duty of the Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House to perform that duty, the Committee thought $900 was sufficient.
Mr. CHAPMAN referred to the clerk of the Printing Bureau to index the Senate and House journals, and superintend the proof-reading and the printing of the same, under a law passed by the last General Assemby. This is the existing statute which prescribes a part of his duties; $1,200 is under the average of the salaries.
Mr. OWEN said it is a question whether this Assembly desire the Clerk of the Printing Bureau to index the journals, or whether the clerks of the two Houses shall perform that work. He thought the clerks were the proper persons to attend to that duty.
Mr. FOSTER asserted that the last journals are the most unsatisfactory books ever bound as far as the indexing is concerned. He thought the officers of the two Houses were the proper parties to make the indexes and superintend the printing of the journals.
Mr. LANGDON thought the salary of his clerk was fixed by the act of 1875, and if that officer is to do the indexing $1,200 is a small compensation. If the same person is to perform this work that did it last he should decidedly object. He favored giving $1,200 to this official aside from the indexing.
The $1,200 motion was agreed to by the casting vote of the Lieutenant Governor--yeas, 21; nays, 20.
The report of the Committee as amended--by inserting $1,200 instead of $900--was concurred in.
On motion by Mr. GRUBBS, the appropriation for the Auditor's clerk was increased from $700 to $1,000.
Mr. COMPTON moved to amend the Committee report by appropriating $3,000 salary for the State Treasurer instead of $10,000.
Mr. BELL--It is a solemn act that the State Treasurer shall not use a dollar of the public moneys. This law ought to be repealed, or we should proceed on the theory that this officer be paid as though he would not disobey the law.
Mr. FOSTER was surprised to see a bill brought in here to strike a blow at the only man in office in this State with a limb off, reducing the salary of that official from $3,000 to $1,000.
Mr. WILSON regarded this as only a question of right and propriety and of law--not as to whether the official is maimed or not. The present official is an honest man, and did not attempt to conceal anything from the Committee with regard to the fees of the office. He understood the minimum sum usually on hand was from $500,000 to $600,000, and was loaned out among the banks of the city at from 4 to 5 per cent., which is done under a decision of the Supreme Court that this officer is responsible on his bond for the money. Senators can determine for themselves what the emoluments of this office are--$2,000, and if it were the only compensation would be but a bagatelle for the responsibilities of this office.
The came a recess for dinner.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. HENRY introduced a bill [S. 362] to legalize acts of the town of Alexandria, Madison County, which was read the first time and referred to the Commmittee on Corporations.
Mr. COMSTOCK said: I ask leave of the Senate to introduce a bill upon the important subject of registration for the purpose of having it read the first time and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. The bill has been carefully considered and drawn by a former distinguished member of this body, Hon. Charles Reeve, and it is the result of his best judgement upon a matter to which he has given much thought. It is the worthier of earlier consideration from the fact that Mr. Reeve formulated the amendments to the Constitution so recently ratified by the people.
Leave being granted--
Mr. COMSTOCK introduced a bill [S. 363] creating the office of Register in each County in this State, which was read the first time and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
THE GENERAL APAROPRIATION BILL.
The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill [H. R. 422] making general appropriations for the years 1882 and 1883.
The Finance Committee recommended that the Attorney General be allowed a salary of $3,000.
Mr. BROWN moved to amend by making it $2,500. He said the compensation above $1,000 was not changed until 1862-63, and it is a fact that Attorney General Denny made not less than $12,000, and from that up to $15,000 a year. That officer skimmed off all the cream, but there is much milk left yet, and pretty rich milk too. The last Legislature fixed the salary at $2,500. The present Attorney General accepted service at these figures.
The motion was agreed to by yeas, 29; nays, 9.
The Committee reporting $1,500 for clerk hire for the Superintendent of Public Instruction being read--
Mr. FOSTER insisted that was too little for this work. He would like to see these clerks receive a decent price.
Mr. OWEN stated there was no need of two clerks all the time in the Superintendent's office.
Mr. BROWN is told the Superintendent of Public Instruction requires three or four clerks, and $1,800 is as cheap as the office can be run.
On motion by Mr. FOSTER, $1,800 was allowed the two clerks of the Superintendent of Public Instruction.
The Senate returned to the consideration of the salary of Treasurer of State.
Mr. LANGDON understood the income of this office for years has been about $21,000 annually. The public funds are deposited for greater safety in the banks of the city, from which he received some 3 or 4 per cen. on the balances, which would average $600,000 every day in the year.
Mr. BROWN--The law which seeks to make it a felony for State officers to appropriate public money is a dead letter, it is said. Whether it is or is not every public servant ought to obey the expressed will of the Legislature, whether that will can technically stand before the Supreme Court or not. The proposed reduction of the salary of the State Treasurer to $1,000 will carry with it legislative sanction to use the State funds and speculate on them as he may desire, and in furtherance of that desire he may lend the State money to some bank that will break, and when sued on his bond will point to this legislative en- page: 98[View Page 98] actments that gave him license to do so. This amendment will be virtually saying to the Tresurer of State that we expect you to make as much as you can from lending the public funds. If $3,000 is given to him, he can live on that and act honestly in his office.
Mr. LANGDON acknowledged there are grounds for difference in this matter, but the Courts have held a County Treasurer is an absolute debtor for the public funds, and an insurer for the return of the funds, whether he loses the principal or not, when demanded by the proper authority. Being thus responsible, the public interest is better subserved that to place that officer in the position of . If he be liable for the principal, to be returned on the public demand, then that officer should have the right to put the interest in his pocket. If is part of prequistes of the office. The Commonwealth ought to be served by the best skill and best honor in the Commonwealth, and such salaries should be paid as will attract such persons to the public service.
Mr. BELL is satisfied this Committee did not look in the law very closely. The bill concerning offices and officers declares the State's money shall be kept in the place provided therefor, and the State Treasurer is expressly prohibited from loaning the public moneys.
Mr. CHAPMAN objected to the impression going out that this body assents to the loaning out of public funds by its custodians. If the State Treasurer does deposit public funds, loan it out or receive interest therefor, he is guilty of felony. A salary ought not to be based on the idea that the Treasurer is to make money in an illegal way. If proof is made that such an officer has received interest, it can be recovered by a proper proceeding instituted by the Attorney General.
Mr. WOOLLEN favored reduction of salaries when the public good will admit of it, but as the reduction of the salary would be a tacit admission that the State Treasurer may loan out the public funds he should oppose it.
Mr. Comptons motion to allow the Treasurer of State a salary of $3,000 was agreed to by yeas, 33; nays, 6.
Mr. GRUBBS moved to amend the Committee report to giving the State Librarian $1,200, Assistant $750, Janitor $600, Night Watchman, $500. He believed an Assistant Librarian necessary--the report of the Committee to the contrary, notwithstanding He would like to know why the Committee propose to leave that office not only without an assistant but without a janitor and night watchman also.
Mr. OWEN explained that a janitor is provided for in another part of this bill. It was the intention of the Committee to let the Librarian employ an assistant out of the $1,500.
Mr. WILSON stated that the salary of State Librarian is fixed by law at $1,200. It is not advisable to expend money for the purchase of books for the State Library because of the insecure and inappropriate quarters the Library will have to occupy until the completion of the new State House. The Committee amendment proposing $,500 for the Librarian ought not to prevail. There are only about an average of five letters received per day.
Mr. FOSTER opposed the Committee amendments to this section. As soon as the new State House is completed there will be ample work for all the officers named in the House bill; indeed, there is work enough for them now, and he desired to see the bill remain in this particular as it came from the House.
Mr. GRUBBS' amendment was agreed to, item by item.
Mr. COMSTOCK moved to increase the pay of Prosecuting Attorneys from $500 to $800. They are a poorly paid class of officials. This slight increase would bring to the aid of the State a better class of talent for these responsible positions.
Mr. GRAHAM could see no reason for increasing these salaries. He thought the present incumbents are competent, and never knew it to be the case where an increase of salary benefited the service. He would prefer to make a large deduction in some of the salaries of judicial officers. He opposed the amendment, and opposed an increase of almost any salary.
Mr. SPANN believed it a fact that the office of Prosecutor was of as much importance as the Judges, and where competent should be paid as much as the Judges of the Circuit Court. We want stringent liquor and other laws, and yet we are not willing to pay competent men to enforce these laws, but make the salary so low it has to be left to third-rate men to see our enactments are respected and carried into effect.
Mr. FOSTER knew that $500 was not enough pay for Prosecuting Attorneys. He thought $1,000 would be little enough. The Codification Committee thought their salary should be $1,500.
Mr. BELL thought Prosecuting Attorneys ought to be paid better. There is no use of passing laws unless they are enforced, and their enforcement should not be left to incompetent men. He favored the amendment.
Mr. GRUBBS referred to the statute instructing the compensation of these officials at $500.
Mr. TRAYLOR contended if this bill appropriates more than the statute names, only the sum in the statute could be drawn. In many cases citizens club together to employ assistance for Prosecuting Attorneys. The enforcement of the criminal law is all the security citizens have that when they retire at night their property will be safe when they rise in the morning. He favored the amendment.
Mr. BROWN moved to amend by increasing the pay of Prosecuting Attorney to $1,000. If his business receives reasonable attention he has no time to give other business any attention.
Mr. GRAHAM believed the compensation be made from $1,500 to $2,000 in every District in Indiana. If there are meager fees it is because the laws are not enforced. These laws of this State are enforced as well as the laws of and State in this Union.
Mr. HENRY favored the amendment, being satisfied Prosecuting Attorneys are not paid as they should be. Admitting the average Prosecuting Attorney gets $2,000, they have to work too hard for it. In order that we may have the criminal law obeyed these offices should be filled by competent lawyers.
Mr. GRUBBS thought there is force in the objection to this amendment that a statute fixes the salary of a Prosecuting Attorney at $50. In this appropriation bill it is not right to appropriate more than the salary fixed by law. Can the administration of the criminal laws be improved by increasing the salary of Prosecuting Attorney? If that is desired, let the fees be increased and make it to their pecuniary interest to enforce the criminal laws of the State. In a majority of the Circuits the Prosecuting Attorney is well paid. He believed the State ought to be represented by as able men as any representataive at the Bar of our Courts.
Mr. URMSTON believed it admitted that better pay will bring in a better class of officers. The Prosecuting Attorney's pay should command men who can bring out all the facts withoug having to bring in outside help. It will deter criminals, because they will know the State has men capable of prosecutirg her pleas to a successful termination.
Mr. GARRIGUS, for the first time this session, favored an increase of salary. Those who represent the people as Prosecuting Attorney in many cases have to fight the world, the flesh and the devil, with nobody to hold up his hands, and nobody to hunt up witnesses for him.
Mr. BENZ never knew of any candidate refusing the place in his District. Indeed, one man paid about $200 to get the place down there.
The amendment allowing a $1,000 salary to page: 99[View Page 99] Prosecuting Attorneys was rejected by yeas, 13; nays, 28.
The amendment proposing $800 was also rejected--yeas, 17; nays, 25.
So the salary remains as in the House bill at $500.
Mr. COMSTOCK moved to amend by making the appropriation for Prosecuting Attorneys $700. Pending which motion--
SEWER TAX IN INDIANAPOLIS.
Mr. VAN VORHIS moved to take up the bill [S. 246] allowing the Common Council of Indianapolis to levy a special tax for sewer purposes, dispense with the constitutional rule, read the bill the second time by title, the third time by sections and put it on its passage now.
The motion was agreed to--yeas, 36; nays, 1.
The bill was read by title only for the second reading, the third time by sections, and passed the Senate by yeas, 36; nays, 0.
REVISION OF ELECTION LAWS.
On motion by Mr. CHAPMAN, the bill [H. R. 225] concerning elections, embracing a codification of all laws relating to elections, was taken up and, under a dispensation of the constitutional restriction, read the first time by title only and referred to a Special Committee of Three.
The Lieutenant Governor makes this Committee to consist of Messrs. Chapman, Viehe and Lockridge.
The Senate took a recess till 7 1/2 o'clock.
NIGHT SESSION.
The PRESIDENT pro tem [Mr. Chapman in the Chair] directed the Clerk to read the bill [S. 325] concerning Offices and Officers; and a short time thereafter declared the bill read the third time.
The Senate adjourned until to-morrow.
DEFERRED DEBATE--PAGE 92, 2ND COLUMN.
Mr. HEFRON said it was not my purpose or desire when this discussion began to take any part in it, nor would I do so now were it not for some reflections made by the opponents of this insurance law upon the motives of those who support it. And since Senators have seen fit to characterize that law in rather harsh terms and impugn the motive of its authors and supporters, I deem it due to myself to say a word in reply.
I will not retort upon Senators in kind, for I trust what I have to say will be said without indulging in personalities and within the bounds of parliamentary usage and decorum.
I will not say that those Senators who so violently oppose this insurance law do so because of some personal grievance or spite against the Sentinel and Journal, because that would be impugning their motives. Neither will I say that their opposition to this law is due to and the result of urgent appeals made by jealous and selfish newspapers, because that would be unparliamentary.
This debate has take a wide range, and in the course of the discussion the insurance law of 1877, requiring foreign Insurance Companies doing business in the State to cause to be published semi-annual statements of their condition, in two newspapers having the largest circulation in this city, has come in for a large share of denunciation. I am free to say that I had the honor to be a Member of the General Assembly of 1877, and that I voted for that law.
I was again a member of the General Assembly of 1879, and voted against its repeal; and I am here to-day to take back nothing that I said or did in its support. I believed when I voted for that law that is was right, and neither time, experience or the argument of Senators has furnished me sufficient reason to change my first judgment.
This law requires all foreign Insurance Companies, before they can do business in this State, to file with the Auditor of State a statement under the oath of the President or Secretary showing the amount of capital stock, which shall not be less than $200,000, its resources and liabilities in detail, which statement shall be renewed semi-annually in January and July, and the Auditor shall cause to be published a copy of such statement in the two leading daily newspapers of the State having the largest circulation, and that such publication shall be paid for by the Company--not to exceed $1 per square.
Will some Senator tell me what is wrong with this law? Is it not the purpose of the law to have none but safe and solvent Insurance Companies in this State for our people to do business with? so that when they pay their money to a Company for carrying a risk they may have some assurance that when misfortune overtakes them, they, or those they leave behind them will reap the benefit of the investment and be honestly paid. Isn't it a fact that this law has driven every shaky and insolvent Company from the State? Do you object to that? Do you object to letting the people know the character and standing of the Companies with which they are dealing? If not, then why are you opposed to publishing these statements? If it is right to publish these statements at all, isn't it right to publish them in the newspapers having the largest circulation? It so, then the law is right.
These Insurance Companies take from the people of Indiana, every year, about $1,200,000, take it out of the State to be expended elsewhere, and in my judgment it is not asking of these Companies too much to make and publish twice a year these statements of their condition at an expense to each Company of about $60 per year. It is required in the interest of and for the protection of the people, and does no injustice to the Insurance Companies.
But this law is now characterized as a "steal," and I desire to remind Senators who use the term so flippantly, that the term "steal" was in this connection coined and put in circulation by a newspaper of this city after it failed to get a part of the advertising. That newspaper invoked the power of the Courts to compel the Auditor of State to publish these statements, under this law, in its columns, as the records in this Court House will show, and having failed in its attempt to get a part of the advertising, it turns around and stigmatizes the law as a "steal." According to its own logic, it ought to be made a receiver of the stolen goods, and having failed to get the plunder it denounces the robber.
But Senators say that these statements are padded and leaded and display too much. I would like to know when these foreign Insurance Companies became the especial wards of those Senators that they must look after the business advertising for them. When did these grasping corporations become so weak, powerless and incompetent to attend to their own private affairs, that the Evening News and a few country newspapers have felt called upon to inform them that they are paying too much for their advertising? I do not know whether they are paying too much for these advertisements or not, and I wouldn't swear that those newspapers that are making so much fuss about it do not measure the legal advertisements in their own columns with an elastic rule. For aught that I know, or that this Senate knows, these advertisements may be a good investment for the Companies; they may bring back the money put in them four fold. Certain it is, that the only parties affected by these publications and the only parties that know or have a right to know whether this advertising business is just or unjust, are not here asking for page: 100[View Page 100] any change. No memorial or petition has been presented to this body by the parties affected, asking for a repeal of this law. They are not asking for it. In fact we have it from the lips of the leader of this movement, the Senator with the fine Italian hand, that they are not asking for it, that no officer, agent or Attorney of any Company ever spoke to him upon the subject, but his bowels of compassion are moved solely and absolutely in the name of sweet charity, in behalf of these down-trodden and oppressed corporations.
I have before me copies of this morning's Sentiel and Journal, in which are published two of these statements, and I invite Senators to inspect their columns and they will fine that the adversisments of the business men of this city published therein are more heavily leaded and largely displayed than the statements of the Insurance Companies. And bear in mind that these business notices are voluntarily published, and from day to day, perhaps year round, whilst the insurance notices are published but twice a year. Why not advise these merchants that they are displaying their advertisements too much? that they are paying too much money to the newspapers? Senators certainly ought to take more interest in their welfare that in that of those foreign corporations that have no interest in common with us, unless it is secured by a mortgage. Whenever these Insurance Companies, by their officers, agents or attorneys, make known to this Senate their belief that this law is unjust, and that they desire its modification or repeal, I stand ready to award them a full and a fair hearing; but until that is done, I want these statements published. and that in a way too that the people can read them without glasses.
SENATOR BELL.
Mr. Bell--It is not right to advocate or opppose this measure on the ground that it is being done in the interest of or in opposition to any newspaper. The only thing that gives us the right to require publication of the statements of the condition of foreign Insurance Companies doing businesse in this State at all, is that the people may know their condition--the people they have to deal with. If we have the right to require them to publish at all, it must rest upon that ground. If it is right to require these statements to be made, it is right that they be made in the papers having the largest general circulation in the State. The minority report of the Committee in which I joined would leave the law standing as it now is and has been since 1877, namely--that they should make these statements semi-annually; that they should be published in the two leading newspapers published in Indiana having the largest general circulation, and the substitute would also allow them to continue to be published as display advertisements. I believe this to be right, especially as they are published only once--a single insertion, not like other advertisements, continuing for three or four weeks in a paper. It ought to be published in such a shape to display and attract attention of the reader. I have examined this matter, and I find whenever Insurance Companies, in their own interest, have advertisements inserted, they universally display them at least twice, usually four timesthe extent that the Auditor requires these official statements to be displayed. I have not heard of a single Insurance Company that objected to the publication as now being done; but, on the other hand, I have conversed with some of the agents of the leading Companies; not only were they satisfied with the law, but so well satisfied with the publication, I learned they were in the habit of going to the newspapers and having them inserted of their own accord and paying for them themselves. I have in my hand (exhibiting them for the inspection of the Senators) four publications in the Indianapolis Journal of a recent date, where the Insurance Company have and paid for a large quantity of space to make additional display to that required by the Auditor. At least $25 is added to the four statements for the very purpose of giving display head lines, and paid for additional by the Company. To allow them to crowd such advertisements into small type in some obscure corner in the paper would be to allow weak Companies to avoid scrutiny, for such advertisements are intended to appear for the benefit of the people. Strong Companies, those Companies that the people would be sure in doing business with, are willing now and in the future to continue to pay for these as advertisements of their Companies I find that in Indiana there is less paid for the publication of these official statements, and they occupy less space than any other State in the Union, with the single exception of Ohio. In Illlinois the publication of such reports cost at least twice as much as they cost in Indiana. This is really a small matter to these Insurance Companies, but is of great importance to the public and the people. This, in no other respect, compares with the ordinary legal advertisement, Sheriff sale, or anything of that kind, in that such advertisements, as I said before, run through several insertions, while these pub1ications made at Indianapolis are of interest all over the State, and are for but a single insertion; therefore, it is of more importance that they should be displayed so as to answer the purpose for which they were brought into existence. It is not fair to discuss this as being in the interest or in opposition to newspapers. We should consider what is right to be done in the interest of the people, and until those who are called upon to pay for these display advertisements--namely, the Insurance Companies--at least until some one of the responsible ones can be heard objecting, we might well continue to publish as they are now, and it will be time enough when those parties object.
SENATOR FOSTER
said: Mr. President, I have no other object in view but fair play in this matter. I want my good-looking newspaper men on this floor to understand that it is through my interposition that they have seats here. The gentleman from Posey can not object, for the newspaper men have published nearly every word the Senator has spoken while some of us have said nearly as much and have been noticed less frequently, so that the Senator from Posey can not complain on this score. I am not a candidate for Lieutenant Governor, or any other office that so places me under obligations to the Journal or Sentinel, so I have nothing to expect from either except fair treatment. The question is, is it right that these pubiications should be made. For one I contend that it is proper and right that foreign Insurance Companies should be compelled to make semi-annual statements of their condition and standing in order that the people who insure may know what are reliable Companies and what are unreliable. Since the law went into effect compelling such publications, we find that about fifty-two spurious Companies have been compelled to withdraw from the State, and the Companies now doing business in the State are reliable and safe to deal with. The arguments of some of the Senators that the advertisements set in solid type is sufficient I think is not correct, and unwise. If the publications are to be made at all, let the Companies--the officers of which spend $15,000 to $20,000 for suppers and wine and revel in luxury--pay for a respectable display that will not require spectacles to discover and read it. The Senator from Rush says that he is in favor of helping the poor printer and publisher; they are a poor class, page: 101[View Page 101] and hardly able to take care of themselves, which statement is entirely incorrect; newspaper men are generally well fixed financially, but I must say that lawyers are the most forsaken, poverty-stricken class on the face of the earth, I never knew a lawyer to have $5 in his pocket-book at a time in my life. [Here the Senator from Rush shook his pocket-book at the Senator from Allen, saying he had more than that.]
Probably you have, for I just saw you draw your salary as a Senator. Taking all things into consideration, I am in favor of the minority report.
