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.
