HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
TUESDAY, March 29, 9 A. M.TITLE TO REAL ESTATE.
Mr. Walker's bill [H. R. 317--see page 170 of these Reports] prescribing the duties of Clerks of Circuit Courts and County Recorders in certain cases, prescribing for their compensation, etc., was read the third time.
Mr. BUSKIRK said this bill provides where there has been a change in title by proceedings in Court, the clerk shall make a record of those proceedings and transcribe the record certified to by the Recorder, and it shall have the same force as other records of title.
The bill failed to pass--yeas 49; nays 33--for the want of a constitutional majority.
LIENS ON WATER CRAFTS.
Mr. McClure's bill [H. R: 329] concerning liens on water crafts was read the third time.
Mr. McCLURE said: This bill simplifies the mode and manner of enforcing laws in this respect.
Mr. RYAN--This bill was prepared by the Revision Committee for the benefit of those cities and towns along the borders of the Ohio River. It is simply to amend the statute by fixing a remedy for persons who have furnished supplies to crafts, etc., which makes it easier to enforce the laws against boats. It is one of the most difficult things for persons to enforce their claims against boats for supplies and repairs, especially when they are owned by parties residing in other States.
The bill passed--yeas, 83; nays, 0.
COMPULSORY EDUCATION.
The SPEAKER announced the special order for this hour to be Mr. Ryan's bill [H. R. 8] to protect the rights of children, providing for a uniform system of common schools, compelling the attendence of children, defining certain duties of Township Trustees, etc., which: was read the third time.
Mr. BAKER said there are some things about this bill that I do not like; yet, knowing that the next Legislature can repeal any law passed by this body which is obnoxious to the peop1e, I will vote for it, but with a great many misgivings, as I do not like to vote for any bill that strikes at the rights and liberties of the people. I do not know that we have a right to interfere with a poor man, I care not how poor he may be, any more than we have to enter the palace of the rich man and say to him, you shall educate your children at Purdue University, when this land is filled with Universities? Have we the right to interfere with the poor man in his domestic relations? There is nothing dearer to man on earth than liberty, and no man want an official, I care not by what power he is clothed, to enter his home and interfere with his rights. Under the old common law of England, on which our statute law is founded, the poor man's home, how ever humble, is considered his palace, and even the King can not invade.
Mr. FLOYD--I think this bill will bring gladness to the hearts of many poor parents. I do not regard it as being adverse to their liberties and inalienable rights, but as a means of protection against the cruelty of tyrants.
Mr. RYAN said I can not see the propriety the argument that this bill is invading the rights and liberties of any citizen. No principle in it is in contravention to the rights of anybody. The bill is peculiarily republican. It had its origin in America. Compulsory education was originated and put forth in Massachusetts in 1850, and from the United States it was transported into Germany and other countries. The principle was so manifest in the Franco-Prussian War, when it was found that in the knapsack of every German soldier he not only had a map of all the roads, byways and localities in France but that he could read the map and could take care of himself; on the contrary the soldiers of the French army were so illiterate that when they were found to make their escape, they were at the mercy of their enemies because they did not know enough of the geography of the country to get out of it. Indiana to-day is more illiterate that all of New England put together. Indiana has fallen behind in her school attendance of every one of the States, especially the Western States, which have enforced the compulsory school laws.
Mr TETER--I am prompted to say that there is one thing about this bill that has probably not received the attention to which it is entitled, and that is the name that is given to the bill, wich is in itself a misnomer, viz.: "Compulsory Education." I do not understand it. I can not see where there is any compulsion about it. It is only making the way possible for the poor children of the land to receive an education. Is it any advantage to the gentleman to my left that he is an educated man; that he can read, write and, as the boy says, "sifer;" know something about geography and history, while without it he would not be exactly the very same kind of a man he is? We may look all over this Assembly, or go around and visit the 2,000,000 of people in the State of Indiana, and you mark the educated man or woman every time you meet them.
The liberties of the country are based upon the intelligence of the people. I might ask what is intelligence? I might justly say it is that by which man is enabled almost to score over the heavens and earth and make the whole empire of matter tributary to his power. Then will we say that this intelligence shall not be cultivated? Shall it lie there dormant and die? I say let it live, let every child in the land have the opportunity to go to school--give it a chance. Talk about compulsion! It is foreign to the facts.
Mr. MEREDITH favored this bill on principle. He believed if the people are taxed for the purpose of creating Public Schools, it as much to their interest, and nothing more than justice that the children should be required to attend them.
Mr. CAUTHORNE said: I am opposed to this bill on principle. I like to hear a man talk the same way on the same subject. The other day, when it was proposed to interfere with the institution of County Superintendent, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Ryan) treated us to school-boy lectures as to the advantage of the County Superintendent; that the County Superintendency advanced the Common School system--they perfected it, and that was the reason it was so perfect, and all owing to the County Superintendent. Now, the condition of affairs has changed somewhat. The system is not perfect, and the gentleman gave us the startling information that the Common School system is retrograding; that it is the worst of any State in the Union.
The teacher will furnish the Trustees with an enumeration of all the children that do not attend, and the Trustees are authorized under this bill to hunt up the children, invade the family circle, go in there and find out why it is that the page: 102[View Page 102] children have not been to school; and it they can give no sufficient reason, to prosecute them for it. I am in favor of furnishing all the facilities for education, and not deprive anybody of this priviledge, but when we have done that that is all we should do. Let the people avail themselves of it. It is dangerous to put this power into the hands of Trustees.
Mr. McSHEEHY--This bill strikes at the fundamental principles of our Government. All men were created free and equal. We have certain rights, among them is liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and this bill proposes to enter into the home of the parent and child. That of itself strikes at our free Institutions. The gentleman says it provides for those who are unable to send their children to school by sending an officer around to ascertain how many children he has, etc. It is a well known fact our Trustees are not the most intelligent class of people; and they will exercise this power as they think best, and oftentimes unwisely. I hope this bill will not pass.
Mr. FURNAS hoped the bill would pass, as it would work good in many cases.
The bill failed to pass--yeas, 46; nays, 40--as follows:
Ayes--Baker, Bartlett, Beatty, Carr of White, Compton, Cotton, Davis, Edwins, Fall, Fancher, Floyd, Frazer, Fuller, Furnas, Gardner, Gillum, Gilman, Gregory, Hamilton, Hinton, Huston, Johnson, Lindley, Linsday, Marshall, Mason, Meredith, Miles, Mitchell, Murray, O'Neal; Roberts, Robinson of Decatur, Ryan, Schweitzer, Smelzer, Stewart, Sulzer, Taylor of Lagrange, Taylor of Noble, Teter, Westfall, Wilson of Montgomery, Wilson of Morgan, Wright, and the Speaker--46.
Nays--Barnett, Benham, Bryant, Cabbage, Carr of Whitley, Cauthorne, Chandler, Cole, Cooper, Cummins, Franklin, Gibson, Ham, Hammond, Hargrove, Hottell, Huff, Jackson, Kerr, Lee, McClure, McCormick, McDowell,. McIntosh, McSheehy, Messick, Miller, Moody, Neff, Null, O'Brien, Robinson of Ripley, Roelker, Shields, Sinclair, Thompson, Walker, Walz and Weaver--39.
for the want of a constitutional majority.
FEES AND FORFEITURES.
Mr. Linsday's bill [H. R. 224] to provide for the collection of judgments for fines, forfeitures, etc., was read for information and passed--yeas, 66; nays, 15.
TAX ON MORTGAGES.
The SPEAKER announced the special order for this hour to be the consideration of the bill [H. R. 247] to regulate the proper entry for taxation of mortgages, prescribing duties of officers therein named, etc. It was read the third time.
Mr. EDWINS said that this bill was for the purpose of getting at a certain species of property had heretofore escaped taxation--the mortgages held by the wealthy classes on the real property small farmers and homesteads of people living in towns. He was aware that any measure looking to the taxing of property of the wealthier citizens, was in bad odor with some members of this House, and was not surprised at the direction the opposition came from.
I am aware of our $80,000 loaned in my County alone on mortgaged property, and not one mill of taxes has that $80,000 ever paid into the Treasury. This is the property of one person, and there are others in my County of a less amount, say in all about $150,000. I am informed also, from well-informed parties, that there is at the least calculation in the city of Indianapolis over $750,000 hid away from taxation in the shape of mortgages.
Mr. CARTER--I have examined this bill, and do not think it ought to pass. While this bill is intended and will remedy one evil; if it goes into operation it will create another evil greater that the one which it attempts to remedy. Our tax law already provides that every citizen of this State shall, under oath, make a return to the Assessor a statement of all notes, accounts, etc., that he may have, and if he does that then all the notes and mortgages provided for in this bill will be taxed anyway.
Mr. THOMPSON--Under this bill a mortgage that is given in County A upon a note, the Auditor is to inform the Assessor of County B of the amount of money those men have in County A. I know of instances where there are thousands of dollars loaned that are not assessed for taxes, while the property is visible in the shape of farms, etc. The man who loans the money is taxed, but the sharpers loaning go untaxed.
There is a necessity for something of this kind. Whether the gentleman's bill will reach or not, I can not say. I am in favor of the bill, and will vote for it.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. EDWINS moved to recommit the bill with instructions so as to relieve Building and Loan Associations from the taxing of their mortgages.
The motion was agreed to.
Senator Voyles bill [H. R. 72] in relation to the 3 per cent. fund remainin unexpended, authorizing its application for repair of road, was read the third time.
Mr. MITCHELL explained and advocated its passage.
The bill passed--yeas, 69; nays, 2.
Senator White's bill [S. 25--see pages 227 and 241 of these Report]--to repeal an act providing for the appointment of Coal Oil Inspector, was read the third time.
Mr. CARTER said he was informed by scientific men that this test, as required in the bill, can not be sustained. He moved to recommit the bill to a Special Committee of Five, with instructions.
Mr. NEFF said are had learned from men in whom he had confidence, that some principles of this bill would be inoperative, and for these reasons he favored recommittal, so that the objectionable feature can be remedied.
Mr. GARDNER--There is not a single part of the bill which relates to what is termed the scientific but what has undergone strict investigation. I hope the bill will be allowed to pass, as it is very much in the interest of public safety, and certainly in the interest of commerce.
The bill passed--yeas, 57; nays, 29.
FOREIGN INSURANCE COMPANIES.
By Mr. BUSKIRK [H. R. 494]: To amend Section 1 of an act regulating foreign Insurance Companies doing business in this State, approved March 3, 1877. [Requiring a reserve fund of Fire Insurance Companies of 59 per cent., and of Life Insurance Companies from 4 to 4 1/2 per cent., according to "American Experience Table of Mortality." Also requesting Companies to give power of attorney to some attorney of the State, upon whom service can be had so long as the Company has risks outstanding.]
THE CIVIL CODE.
The House resumed the consideration of the bill [S. 271] concerning proceedings in civil cases.
Mr. FANCHER offered an amendment to authorize the taking of the deposition of a person who may become a party to an action hereafter instituted for the purpose of perpetuating his evidence. As the law now stands it authorizes the taking of its deposition of a person who may be a witness to perpetuate his evidence, but there have been different opinions and practice prevailing among our Courts, and this amendment makes plain what is now ambiguous and uncertain.
Mr. TETER--It has been said in Court soem times that certain parties are waiting for another party to die, so as to get rid of his evidence, therefore I think the amendment a good one.
The amendment was adopted.
The bill passed by yeas, 75; nays, 10.
page: 103[View Page 103]SENATE BILLS PASSED.
Senator Bell's bill [S. 205] to amend Section 1 of the special charter of Concordia College of Fort Wayne, approved January 2, 1850, was read the first and second time by title, the third time by sections and passed--yeas, 79; nays, 1.
Senator Bell's bill [S. 330] authorizing the Protestant Episcopal Churches in this State to raise funds for the support of the Bishop, was read the first and second times by title, the third time and passed--yeas, 75; nays, 0.
TEMPERANCE LEGISLATION.
A majority of the Committee on Temperance reported on the House joint resolution No. 7, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Indiana by forver prohibiting the manufacture or sale spirituous, vinous, malt or other intoxicating liquorsx except for specific purposes, ecommending its adoption.
A minority of the same Committee recommended that it lie on the table, for the reason that so radical a change in the present system of distilling and malt brewing business as is proposed by the joint resolution is unwise and far from being demanded either by public sentiment or the exigency of the times.
Mr. SULZER--It is due to myself and to my constituents, in view of the stand I have taken in offering to the House a minority report from the Committee on Temperance, in opposition to the report of the majority of that Committee, involving, as it does, grave objections to the recommendation of the majority, that I should give my reason for my action, and as best I may, explain my postion upon the subject. Mr. Speaker, my business pursuits and associations and my habits of thought have influenced me from my youth to mature manhood to look at questions bearing upon all subjects relating to the development of the material resources of my County and State from a strictly utilitarian and business standpoint, and I do not now propose to discuss the questions involved from other points of observation. I have no desire to champion the liquor interest of the State more than justice and fair play demand at my hands, and while I make no pretensions as a public speaker, and have seldom obtruded myself upon the attention of the House, I profess to be a close observer of public thought upon all matters affecting the material interests of my constituents and the people generally, and I am, therefore, fully persuaded that it is not the part of wisdom nor for the commercial and industrial welfare of Indiana, for the amendment to the Constitution, as proposed by the majority of the Committee on Temperance, to be submitted to the people. I do not believe that it is the part of wisdom for this House to concur in the report of the majority of the Committee on Temperance. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the business of manufacturing whisky and beer and other alcoholic liquors, by whatever names they are known, is a legitimate business, and this every fair-minded man must concede. The General Government is now receiving vast revenues from the business, and Indiana, by her laws upon the subject, is also in receipt of large sums annually. The amount of money invested in the business simply enormous; to strike it down would be to inaugurate a revolution in the commerce and industries of the State. Not only would distillers and brewers suffer, but hundreds, yes thousands, of people would at once be thrown out of employment, and be compelled to suffer all the ills entailed by idleness and destitution. Nor will it do to suppose that the demoralization would stop with distillers, brewers and their employes. The distilling and brewing business in its extended ramifications, if disturbed by rash legislation, would seriously affect other departments of business, resulting in widespread calamity. In view of the facts which I have outlined, I am persuaded that the right thing to do is to table the amendment proposed by the majority of the Committee on Temperance. The amendment, if su bmitted to a vote of the people by the action of this Legislature, and if adopted, by the people, which I do not believe would be the result, would in no degree change the demand for the prohibited articles. The people of Indiana can not be reformed by statutes, nor by constitutional amendments. What then? Simply this: the people of Indiana, instead intead of buying the home-made article, and retaining the wealth secured by its manufacture and sale, would send their money to neighboring States where such laws do not exist, and to that extent the state would be impoverished, for no sane man believes that prohibition prohibits drinking, or that anywhere prohibitory liquor laws have contributed to the wealth of the State where they now exist, or have hitherto existed. In the beginning of my remarks I said that I proposed to discuss the question from a commercial and industrial point of view, and, notwithstanding I believe there are other considerations that should influence the action of this House, I refrain from alluding to them. It is quite sufficient for my purpose to indicate such business objections as, in my opinion, will meet with general approval.
Mr. FLOYD said: In view of the numerous petitions before us from the constituency we represent, we ought to give this matter candid and careful consideration. For us to take upon ourselves the responsibility to go into the Legislature, we ought to hold ourselves always ready to throw away our claim as legislators and submit to the people the responsibility that justly belongs to them. The people have to suffer the evils imposed upon them by the liquor traffic all over this State. The question is not as to whether the adoption of this resolution will result favorably or unfavorably upon the commercial interests, but it is a right vested in the people when they demand at our hands an opportunity to vote upon any given subject. This proposition as recommended by the majority report its simply to allow the people the privilege of voting upon this subject. I think it is becoming and democratic, and the Legislators on both sides of the House ought to acquiesce in this demand of the people and let them settle the question. I know that this thing is an extensive evil and an enormous luxury--one that we can illy afford to support. The question is simply whether we will step in and settle the question, or whether we will let the people have their rights to speak out upon this subject. For my part I am willing to trust this matter in the hands of the people.
The minority report was laid on the table--yeas, 51; nays, 43--and the majority report was adopted--yeas, 54; nays, 30.
Mr. RYAN moved that the resolution be referred to a Special Committee of Five, consisting of Messrs. Floyd, Gregory, Hamilton, Huston and Akin to consider and report to the House to-morrow morning.
The motion was agreed to.
Then the House adjourned.
