THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
VOLUME
TWENTY.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
SPECIAL SESSION.
IN SENATE.
WEDNESDAY, March 30, 1881--10 a. m.THE GENERAL APPROPRIATION BILL.
On motion by Mr. SPANN, the vote of yesterday, appropriating $700 to a Clerk to the Secretary of State, was reconsidered, and he moved to increase the sum to $800.
Mr. OWEN objected to taking up time in voting to any officer more pay than is allowed in the fee and salary bill, because the excess can not be legally drawn.
Mr. BROWN cared not what the fee and salary bill says, the Legislature has the power to fix compensation of officials in this appropriation bill--it being the last expressed act of the General Assembly. He thought this Clerk ought to have $800.
The motion for $800 was agreed to.
The Committee amendment, providing for two extra janitors for the State officers' building, being read--
Mr. OWEN said the Committee thought it best have two janitors for each building, to be placed under the control of the State Auditor. If this amendment be adopted the Senate should reconsider its action of yesterday, placing an extra janitor in the State Library rooms.
Mr. WILSON was sure, if the Senate knew what the Committee does, it would not have voted in this case and in others as it did yesterday.
THE CIVIL CODE.
On motion by Mr. VIEHE, the Senate refused to concur in the House amendments to the bill [S. 271--see pages 217 and 223 of these Reports] concerning proceedings in civil cases, and requested a Committee of Conference.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR appointed as such Committee, on the part of the Senate, Messrs. Viehe and Comstock.
OFFICES AND OFFICERS.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR called up the bill [S. 325] concerning offices and officers, declaring the question, to be on its final passage.
Mr. MENZIES proposed an amendment allowing the Attorney General to employ collectors to be paid not exceeding 10 per cent. of the sums collected.
This amendment was adopted by consent.
On motion by Mr. CHAPMAN, the section repealing acts modified or repealed by any special provision of this act was stricken out.
The bill then passed the Senate by--yeas, 36; nays, 6.
GENERAL APPROPRIATION BILL.
Mr. WILSON (continuing his remarks)--The concurrent testimony of all the officers in the State Building is that three Janitors can do all the work--there are three now allowed, but one claims to belong exclusively up stairs. They refuse to serve except in certain rooms, and the janitor to the State Library refuses to act in any other department. The report of the Committee will require these employes to work for all the rooms in the State Building, occupied by the State officers.
Mr. FOSTER thought the four janitors might be reduced to three, still believing the States Librarian should have a janitor exclusively for the library rooms.
Mr. BENZ was willing to stay by the Committee on Finance and favored its recommendations.
Mr. OWEN moved to amend so as to provide for three janitors at a salary of $600 each.
Mr. GRUBBS favored this amendment.
It was adopted.
On motion by Mr. OWEN, the vote allowing the State Librarian a janitor was reconsidered.
Mr. LEEPER moved to amend so as to require that janitor shall act for the entire building.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Committee amendment cutting down the appropriation for repairs of State buildings, etc., from $10,000 to $2,500 was concurred in.
Mr. GRUBBS believed in making ample appropriations for the Insane Hospital. He moved to make the sum $220,000, and for repairs $10,000 being satisfied that sum is sufficient, and that $245,000, $15,000 for repairs and $12,000 for clothing, as recommended by the Committee is exorbitant. Two years ago that Institution did not expend the page: 105[View Page 105] appropriation by $16,000, and now they ask $45,000 more than two years ago.
Mr. OWEN stated there were then less than 900 inmates, but this year there are 1,100 inmates, and the appropriation of two years ago, it is evident, will not be sufficient.. Further than that, the building is not completed, and the question is whether the General Assembly desires to complete the building. The cost per capita was about $188, and on that same basis it has required over $200,000 this year. After the building is completed it will accommodate 1,300 inmates, and $45,000 increase in the appropriation will be required for maintenance. If the building is not completed this $45,000 extra will not be required. The building should be completed, so as to accommodate this class of unfortunates, who are now huddled in County buildings all over the State.
Mr. VAN VORHIS did not think more than $200,000 was needed for the present population in the Insane Asylum. He was satisfied these inmates can not be kept as they should be for $188 per capita. Eleven hundred is the present capacity of that Institution, and he favored an appropriation above the sum of $200,000.
Mr. GRUBBS insisted that in any view of this case his amendment proposes a sufficient appropriation.
Mr. BROWN said if we could look into the recesses of the future the keeping of these inmates at a cost of something over $184 per capita might be calculated upon. Some three years ago it cost nearer $300 per capita. For the reason that no man can foretell the future it is unwise to fix a given sum per capita, and make the appropriation the exact result of that calculation. The capable and honest management of that Institution lately has enabled it to cover in the Treasury a balance of the appropriation made two years ago. If future events prove the amount proposed by this Committee is too much the State will lose nothing because the overplus will be turned back into the Treasury. He favored the report of the Committee.
Mr. VAN VORHIS offered an amendment which proposes $230,000, including repairs and clothing. If the building is to be completed he would vote for an increase in the appropriation.
The PRESIDENT pro tem (Mr. Spann in the Chair) decided this amendment out of order.
Mr. MARVIN favored the recommendation of the Committee on Finance--regarding that Committee as qualified to make the proper figures. The Insane Asylum building should be finished, and many wards In the female department could be completed in ninety days' time. He hoped the Senate will reject the pending amendments,
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. WHITE moved that the Senate do not concur in the House amendment to his petroleum oil inspector bill [S. 35-see pages 227 and 241 of these Reports] and ask for a Committee of Conference thereon.
The motion was agreed to, and the Lieutenant Governor appointed Messrs. White and Coffee as said Committee on the part of the Senate.
GENERAL APPROPRIATION BILL.
The Senate returned to the question pending at the noon recess.
Mr. BRISCOE, as an Indianian, looked with pride on the Institution for the Insane--ranking as it does, higher than any other Institution of the kind on this continent. He favored the increased appropriation recommended in the report of the Finance Commmittee. If this Legislature would make such appropriations as it should, many incurable insane lying in the Poor Houses of the State could find a comfortable Asylum there. If there is an institution which appeals to our humanity and liberality in all this broad land, it is this Institution in the interest of the poor unfortunates of our race. Let no retrograde movement be mades in reference to this Institution. He favored the amendment reported by the Committee, and opposed all amendments or substitutes.
CIVIL CODE.
Mr. VIEHE, from the Committee of Free Conference thereon, submitted a report on the sixteen disagreements between the two Houses on the bill [S. 271] concerning procedure in civil cases.
The report was concurred in.
GENERAL APPROPRIATION BILL.
Mr. SPANN desired to express reasons influencing him in sustaining the recommendation of the Committee. Shall we believe the statements of the Trustees and Superintendent and the report of this Committee, or shall we overturn all these and adopt the view suggested by some Senator on this floor? He desired this Institution placed in a condition to reflect credit on the State as it has done, occupying as it does a position second to none in the world. The appropriation is short compared to what it ought to be for the maintenance of this Institution. He would vote for the highest appropriation proposed, and should vote for more if necessary.
Mr. VAN VORHIS insisted the amendment proposed by the Senator from Morgan (Mr. Grubbs) gives this Institution all and a little more than the management has asked for. It is not wisdom to make an appropriation of $30,000, $40,000 or $50,000 more than there is an immediate demand for, while no appropriation is proposed for the improvements on the Deaf and Dumb Institution, so much needed and so much desired by all connected with it.
Mr. WILSON--The basis upon which the Committee are asking appropriations is the year 1879--the most prosperous year in the history of the Institution. He expected to vote for money to complete that Institution, as a separate item to the specific appropriation bill, for if such an item is not sent here from the House, the Senate Committee on Finance will so amend the House bill, and Senators will have a chance to vote upon it. One-half of the female department of that Institution is still in an unfinished condition.
The substitute [Mr. Grubbs'] was rejected by yeas, 12; nays, 26.
Mr. VAN VORHIS offered a substitute, appropriating for maintenance and repairs, $272,000.
It was rejected.
The report of the Committee was concurred in--$245,000 for maintenance; repairs, $15,000; clothing, $12,000.
The Lieutenant Governor called up the amendment offered by Mr. Comstock yesterday to increase the salary of Prosecuting Attorneys from $500 to $700.
Mr. GRAHAM indicated his opposition.
Mr. COMSTOCK would feel different about this matter if these gentlemen had no responsibility, or if their duties did not require large legal ability and skill. They represent, or should represent, the peace and dignity of the State.
Mr. GRUBBS insisted Prosecuting Attorneys were amply compensated under existing laws paying them salaries of $500 and fees. He knew of Prosecutors who make more money than the best lawyers in the Circuit.
Mr. BROWN counseled Senators to take a large and comprehensive view of this case.
The amendment making the salary $700 was agreed to by yeas, 21; nays, 16.
The Committee report recommending $3,000 instead of $5,000 for the Normal School at Terre Haute being read--
Mr. WHITE moved to make it $10,000.
Mr. OWEN said the Committee's allowance embraces all asked for as a general appropriation by the management of the State Normal. The other items they want, amounting to some $7,000, if page: 106[View Page 106] allowed at all, properly belong in the specific appropriation bill.
The motion (Mr. White's] was rejected.
Mr. HOSTETTER moved to strike out $3,000 and insert $2,000 as the appropriation to Purdue University.
Mr. SPANN moved to make it $10,000.
Mr. LANGDON relied upon the good judgment of the Senate to make proper appropriations for this ward of the State. He was not surprised at these motions to reduce the appropriations, for it has been the fortune or misfortune of this University to meet with such treatment from some member of every Legislature. He declared that University possessed the finest buildings of the kind to be found anywhere in the West, and the sum appropriated by the House in this bill is not too great for such an Institution. It ill becomes a Legislature to discriminate against those who desire an agricultural education--against the brightest lads of the State who desire schooling in this Institution, founded by the munificent hand of Congress, aided by a distinguished philanthropist of this State. The great State of Indiana ought to plant herself decidedly on the side of an Institution which gives to the youth of the country an education qualfying them to aid in the better development of the greatest resource in the State--the agricultural interest.
Mr. OWEN believed the future of this Institution is largely involved in the decision of the Senate to-day upon what appropriation shall be made to this University. He should think after the experience the State has had with the management of the Bloomington University, by this time there would be no question about how the General Assembly ought to deal with Purdue University. It has an excellent start, and we have an opportunity to make it, with reasonable liberality, the greatest Institution of its kind in the West. He did not believe the people of the State would ask us to appropriate any less than the amount agreed upon in the House of Representatives. If we can't have a literary Institution in the State to be proud of in comparison with some others, let us build up an Industrial College that will command the respect of the country. It is a State Institution, and as such deserves the support of every liberal-minded man on this floor.
Mr. WOOLLEN hoped the appropriation asked for would be voted. Two years ago he favored the $9,000 appropriation to Purdue. Since then he has made some study of the Institution, and now believed the graduates of the University will exert an influence greater than that of the graduates of any other school in the State. It is yet in its infancy, and what we see now is only a glimpse of what it will be if proper appropriations are voted.
Mr. SPANN was not opposed to the education of children of the State as wards of the State, but the question is, simply, shall we vote appropriations to do the business of these Institutions, taking into consideration the number of students, from whence they came, present needs etc. It should not be a drain upon the public treasury when it does not do the work of private Institutions carried on without aid from the State. The State Educational Institutions should be consolidated, and the expenses thereby cut down. Asbury, Wabash, Hanover and Butler University, kept up by three of the largest religious denominations in the State, send out graduates at a cost of 95 per cent. less than the State Institutions. These four private Institutions have graduated over 700 in the past ten years, while the State has but forty-two, at a cost of $1,500 each. There has only been an average of twenty-one students to the Professors and teachers in the State Institutions of learning in the past eight or ten years.
Mr. BENZ said: I don't understand the Senator from the Sixth District [Mr. Spann]. There are forty-three Prosecutors in our State, and he voted to increase the salary of each of them $200, which makes $86,00. Now he thinks, "I must get that money back." So he strikes at this school in Tippecanoe County. And he says to his constituents, "I do a great work--I cut that school down." I honestly was surprised at the Senator from the Sixth District when he voted that money to the Prosecutors. I thought he was a better economist. I was there this winter and saw this Purdue University. I was in the Legislature four years ago, and I was here two years ago, and I voted an appropriation to it, and I am willing to do the same thing over. I am not afraid to go to my constituents and say I voted $20,000 to it. Senators voting against that proposition can't say they are doing the fair thing. Schools are the upholders of our country. I didn't have an opportunity in my life to go to these schools--if I had I would be another man. I had to go to my work. We ought to support these schools. You voted $40,000 for drainage from the State Asylums yesterday, and here comes a school asking for $20,000. I say give it. If the Senator from the Sixth District wants economy that way, I don't want it. Not a Prosecutor wrote up here and says, "I want this increase," but he got it.
Mr. OWEN thought, it a shame to talk about a less appropriation to this Institution than is named in this bill. It has greatly aided the elevation of the standard of education in the other Institutions.
Mr. MARVIN was one of the few agricultural Senators on this floor, and why are they so few and the members of the legal fraternity so large here? Because these gentlemen are more generally learned and fitted to represent the people of this great State. He favored voting appropriations to Purdue in order that farmers' sons may be educated to cultivate the soil so as to make farming more profitable; that they may not be going off the farms to learn to be lawyers or doctors or some other profession that is more profitable. We have got to do something to bring back the fruitfulness of the virgin soil.
Mr. GRAHAM should vote cheerfully for this appropriation to Purdue University. He desired to encourage the youth of the land to engage in industrial pursuits. He favored liberal appropriations to educational Institutions, but opposed large salaries to officers.
Mr. CHAPMAN agreed with the importance of educating the youth of this country, but disagreed with the idea of furnishing by the State means of education that can not be reached by all the youth of the country. All the people of the country can afford to spare their children for a period of seven years in order that they may acquire an education. The State drew a white elephant when it drew Purdue University, and he ventured the assertion that the State has appropriated more money to the State University than would sustain Harvard University, and yet Bloomington University is not so well known to-day, comparatively speaking, as it was twenty years ago. He was willing to jump from $9,000, heretofore annually appropriated, to $10,000, for he believed that to be a fair jump, but he was not willing to vote for the $20,000 appropriation.
Mr. WILSON could not believe any Senator desired to vote a penurious or insufficient sum to any of the State Institutions. He was opposed to vote for the appropriation named in this bill. He believed the State should never carry out any enterprise that would be carried out by individual effort. Four or five little dwindling educational institutions will not give credit to the State. He desired to see Purdue University flourish because she turns out boys who become producers instead of consumers in the land. He hoped this discussion will develop a thinking among the people which may be productive of good results two years hence.
Mr. HOSTETTER had intended to give reasons for his motion, but, believing members are tired of speaking, he would be content with accepting page: 107[View Page 107] the amendment proposed by the Senator from Rush (Mr. Spann), and withdrawing his amendment--
The $10,000 amendmend was rejected--yeas, 11; nays, 30.
Mr. SPANN moved to make the appropriation $15,000 insetead of $20,000 to Purdue University.
This motion was also rejected--yeas, 11; nays, 29.
The section was permitted to stand as adopted by the House, viz., $20,000.
A recommendation by the Finance Committee that the appropriation of $40,000 for the House of Refuge be increased $5,000 was concurred in.
The Senate amendments to this bill were ordered engrossed.
And then came an adjournment.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
WEDNESDAY, March 30, 1881-9 a. m.The consideration of the following joint resolution [H. R. 7], pending at the adjournment yesterday, was resumed:
Resolved, By the General Assembly of the State of Indiana, that the following amendment be and is hereby proposed to the Constitution of the State of Indiana, to be submitted to the vote of the electors of the State, viz.: Article 17, as follows:
Section 1. The manufacture, sale, or keeping for sale, in said State, spirituous, vinous, malt liquors or any other intoxicating liquors (except for medical, scientific, mechanical, and wines for sacramental purposes) shall be, and are hereby prohibited in the State of Indiana.
Sec. 2. The General Assembly of the State of Indiana shall provide by law in what manner, by whom and at what place such liquors should be manufactured or sold for medical, scientific and sacramental purposes.
Mr. RYAN moved to strike out all with reference to the manufacture or sale of intoxicating liquors in the State for scientific, mechanical, medicinal or sacramental purposes.
Mr. FLOYD--I am surprised that the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Ryan] should submit an amendment so different from the scope and intent of the resolution, and this seems the more strange since the resolution comprehends all that the temperance people ask. There are two ways of defeating a measure. One is to argue against it squarely and fairly, and the other is to advocate it by extreme measures. I am in favor of a practical method of prohibition. Never has there been in the history of Indiana an amendment of the Constitution submitted to the people upon which there has been so much general expression by the people, but they are not demanding this sweeping, impracticable method of disposing of the question. Pass this amendment and the way of success in carrying it at the election will be greatly hedged up. The gentleman from Delaware has too much practical sense not to see the point. I am opposed to the amendment because I am in favor of prohibition.
Mr. HUSTON--The amendment proposed is in the highest sense impracticable, and its adoption would tend to defeat the amendment when presented to the people. We do not want, at this time, to burden this resolution. One serious objection to this amneunent is its restriction upon the sale of wines for sacramental purposes. Many religious denominations use fermented wines for sacramental purposes, and a large amount of alcohol is used in the arts and sciences. I trust the amendment will not prevail, because I think it would be the death knell to the amendment when considered by the people. We need this amendment. The people of the State demand the right to decide by majority vote whether this curse of rum selling shall continue or not. The majority should rule--and it is but right that the people be allowed this privilege they have asked at our hands, as evidenced by the petitions of the many thousands of voters of Indiana that have been presented to this House. It has been urged that this resolution is not sufficient. I submit to all fair-minded people if it is not what the petitioners have asked for. They want prohibition as regards the sale of intoxicants as beverages. I hope this amendment will not prevail, and that the resolution will at once passed.
Mr. TETER--I received from Clay County the names of several hundred people--voters--about which there was no mistake that they either wrote their names themselves or had others write it for them at their request. I do not know how many thousands of these petitions have been filed in this Assembly upon the subject of temperance. Yesterday I voted as I did because I was so instructed, and I think it my duty to obey the instruction of my people in regard to the petitions which have been sent here. There has been no protest from any quarter of the State. No one has said to me: "Do not vote for it." But I can not vote for this amendment, for to vote for that amendment would be voting against the petitions which I have received.
Mr. FALL was in favor of any strict temperance law that would secure to the people immediate relief from this dire evil.
Mr. FULLER said: While I am in favor of the resolution, I am opposed to the amendment for the reason that enough is enough of anything. When we get that which prohibits the manufacture, sale and use of the beverage, we have done enough.
Mr. RYAN--The principal hostility, as I understand among temperance people, to past legislation has been that it is wrong to license the sale of intoxicating liquors in any form or shape, either by the Court, people or in the form of a local option law. All proposed in my amendment is to adopt a constitutional provision that will prohibit the Legislature from passing laws for the manufacture of intoxicating liquors for any purpose whatever in the State of Indiana. An member upon the floor can conjure up in his mind 10,000 purposes for which he can both manufacture and sell intoxicating liquors. They may manufacture it for bathing purposes; they may manufacture it to swim in; they may manufacture it for scientific purposes, and every possible way it could be used. Under the resolution, what is to hinder a man from going into a place and buy it, upon the plea that it is to be used for vinegar or medical purposes. This resolution is a snare and imposition upon the temperance people. I want an amendment to the Constitution that will probibit the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors.
The amendment was rejected--yeas, 40; nays, 46.
Mr. FRAZER moved to amend the resolution by striking out the words, "for sacramental purposes."
On motion by Mr. AKIN, the amendment was laid on the table--yeas, 48; nays, 40.
Under the operations of the previous question, the joint resolution was considered--yeas, 56; nays, 34--read the third time and passed by yeas, 55; nays, 35, as follows:
Yeas--Messrs. Akin, Baker, Bartlett, Beatty, Bryant, Buskirk, Carr of White, Carter, Compton, Cotton, Cummins, Fall, Fancher, Floyd, Franklin, Frazer, Fuller, Furnas, Gardner, Gillam, Gilman, Gregory, Hamilton, Hinton, Huston, Johnson, Kain, Lindley, Lindsay, Marshall, Mason, Meredith, Miles, Mitchell, Moody, Murray, O'Brien, O'Neal, Roberts, Robinson of Decatur, Ryan, Shields, Smelser, Stewart, Sumner, Taylor of La Grange, Taylor of Noble, Teter, Thompson, Vawter, Weaver, Westfall, Wheeler, Wilson of Morgan and Wright-56.
Nays--Messrs. Barnett, Benham, Cabbage, Carr of Whitley, Cauthorne, Chandler, Cole, Cooper, Davis. Edwins, Gibson, Ham, Hammond, Har-
page: 108[View Page 108]grove, Hottell, Huff, Jackson, Kerr, Lee, McClure, McCormick, McDowell, McIntosh, McSheehy, Messick, Miller, Neff, Null, Robinson of Ripley, Roelker, Schweitzer, Sinclair, Sulzer, Walz, Wolfe. and Mr. Speaker--35.
INTEREST AND USURY.
Mr. Buskirk's bill [H. R. 3] concerning interest and usury, repealing laws relative thereto [making the established rate 6 per cent.], was read the third time.
Mr. SUMNER said--I believe that 6 per cent. is a just and equitable interest for the use of money. In addition to that I believe we ought to have one rate of interest in law.
The failed to pass--yeas, 42; nays, 36--for the want of a constitutional majority.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mr. FRAZER moved to change the rules so as to consider bills prepared by the Revision Committee every afternoon until they are disposed of, leaving the forenoon to the regular order.
The motion was agreed to.
AFTFRNOON SESSION.
Mr. CAUTHORNE offered a concurrent resolution, which was adopted, than there shall be printed for the use of the General Assembly 1,500 copies of the Civil and Criminal Code, as passed by this Legislature, and that ten copies be distributed to each member of the House and Senate.
The resolution was adopted.
CORNER-STONE OF THE NEW CAPITOL.
The SPEAKER announced the special order for this hour to be consideration of the Senate concurrent resolution, that a memorial be placed in the new State House building which shall be a fit memento of the gallant part taken by the Indiana soldiers in the War for the Union.
Mr. HUSTON offered a substitute, that the Commissioners are authorized to proceed at the earliest moment to remove the corner-stone of the new State House and re-lay the same with such public ceremonies as may seem proper, and deposit in the corner-stone such fitting records and commemorations as shall honor and perpetuate the memory of the citizen soldiers of Indiana in the late war for the suppression of the late Rebellion.
Mr. CAUTHORNE--I hope the amendment will not prevail. I am willing to vote in any way to perpetuate the memory of Indiana soldiers, but I do not think it necessary to open the corner-stone and put a record of their services that will never be seen. I am willing to commemorate their memory by building a monument, but I am not willing to do anything that will hazard the contract for the erection of the building.
Mr, HUSTON said I offered the substitute because I thought it due to the soldiers of Indiana, that there should be some evidence or some record preserved of the services that they rendered during the War for their country. Other States wherein corner-stones have been laid held memorial exercises, and invariably there was deposited with other matters a record of their soldiers. In this corner-stone not one single word was mentioned that Indiana ever did have a soldier engaged in putting down a rebellion, or rendered any assistance. Is it reasonable to suppose, after doing what she has done, that Indiana should at this late day ignore an apparent mark of respect to her dead soldiers? It is as important a feature that a correct record be preserved of the War in which Indiana was engaged as it is to perpetuate or keep any other item of history.
Mr. CAUTHORNE offered an amendment to the substitute, that the Governor is hereby authorized to advertise for plans and specifications for the erection of a monument as a memorial for the services rendered by the soldiers of Indiana upon the field of battle in the Indian War, the Mexican War and the War of the late Rebellion; said monument not to cost to exceed $75,000, to be built in Indianapolis in the Governor's Park, and that the same be inserted in the specific appropriation bill.
The amendment to the substitute was laid on the table.
Mr. NEFF said the State House Commissioners are more than anxious to have this Legislature to place a construction upon the original contract. There is no man who has more admiration for the gallant men who fought for this Union than I. So far as I am concerned it makes but little difference to me whether you put their names in the corner-stone or not. I understood that any citizens had the right to go there and deposit whatsoever he desired. The point is this: Shall this Assembly pass a sweeping joint resolution to tear up a portion of the building, thereby giving the contractors an opportunity for a loophole to recede or vary from their contract? I am in favor of the joint resolution as it came from the Senate, or any other resolution, to perpetuate the memories of Indiana soldiers.
Mr. THOMPSON said: Four years ago when the bill came up, it was agreed that there should be two Republicans and two Democrats on the State House Commission, One of these Commissioners is a military man. and if he has overlooked the interest of the soldier in laying that corner-stone, I censure him. So far as I am concerned, I wanted the history of the Indiana soldiers placed there, but since the work was done as it is I am willing that it shall remain. I voted for the substitute of the gentleman from Knox (Mr. Cauthorne) because I think it is a fairer representation of what is necessary to perpetuate the memory of the soldiers than to put it in a rock where it will never be heard from again. The State House Commissioners have a contract for the construction of that building, and I do not wish for any purpose to invalidate the contract. I do not think the Legislature has any right to dictate what the Commissioners shall do in that respect. It is just as necessary to perpetuate the memories of those who fell in the Indian War, War of 1812, or the Mexican War as in the late Rebellion.
Mr. RYAN moved a substitute for the amendment, that a proper and fitting statute be prepared and fixed in the center of the colonade of the Capitol of the State as a commemoration of the deeds and memory of the dead soldiers, as a fit commemoration to the devotion and patriotism of the Indiana soldiers, etc. He said if a monument is erected it should be placed where the last generations of time can see it, and be subject to the vision of the sons and daughters of Indiana. It should be such a monument and so placed that time can not claim or deface it; will be not only a fit monument, but it will be so placed and situated as to not only be an everlasting example to the people, but it will continue to be a shrine at which the people of Indiana can pay their devotion so long as Indiana remains a State.
Mr. FRAZER was opposed to the substitute had amendment, also to the joint resolution, because it is indefinite and means nothing. He moved to refer the resolution to a Special Committee of three.
Mr. BUSKIRK--I desire to say in connection with this subject that the soldiers of Indiana do not need to be comnmemorated in any such way. Their deeds are printed in such broad letters that they do not need to be commemorated in any corner-stone. Deeds of Indiana soldiers will not die. They remain in the minds and hearts of the present generation, and as long as the State of Indiana lasts the Indiana soldier of the late War will be remembered the same as soldiers of any other country. I say this is all flaptrap, and we have taken up too much time on this subject already.
Mr. MITCHELL said the soldiers of the Rebellion, who fought to preserve the Union of the page: 109[View Page 109] American States, have already written their names in the character of light in the memories of the American people--written their names in such bold and indellible characters that they will never be defaced. We may erect a statue containing all the names of the Union soldiers, and then, I tell you, that they will not last so long as the monument they have built for themselves.
Mr. WRIGHT said that it seemed strange to him that, in running over the list of things that were placed in the corner-stone, the names of citizens who assisted in the preservation of the Government, and fell in so doing, should be so utterly forgotten. He thought if there is a single record of that corner-stone which deserves to stay where it is, it ought to be turned up and at least a record of the Indiana soldiers placed in there.
Mr. CARTER said as a soldier he served in the late Rebellion, and considered the laying of the corner-stone in the manner in which it was conducted an insult to the soldiers of Indiana. The soldiers of Indiana demand that provisions be made by which a record of their deeds be deposited in the corner-stone, so as not to be ignored entirely.
Mr. MARSHALL said that the soldiers of Indiana demanded that a copy of the records of their service in the late War be placed in that stone to preserve and perpetuate them.
Mr. GIBSON said: I think this is a subject that was born in demagogism, rocked in the cradle of flap-trap and fanned by the winds of nonsense. I am one who believes that a monument would not throw one bright ray of light upon the deeds of any soldier of the State of Indiana. What is the history of all this flap-trap? Where did it originate? In a message delivered to the Assembly. The history of the soldier is not a history of Indiana; it is a National history, and our corner-stone was laid to perpetuate mere local things.
Mr. MEREDITH said this matter was fully discussed throughout the campaign, and it was the desire of the soldiers of the State that the corner-stone should be re-laid, as it can be done at a cost of several hundred dollars.
The motion to refer the resolution to a Committee of Three was agreed to.
ROADS AND HIGHWAYS.
Mr. Neff's bill [H. R. 229] concerning highways, for the laying out of roads upon petition of the land owners, requiring the road to be at least thirty feet wide, was read the third time.
Mr. NEFF said this bill is a revision and improvement over the old road law. The bill was prepared by the Revision Committee.
The bill passed--yeas, 65; nays, 5.
DIVORCE LAWS.
Mr. Linsday's bill [H. R. 388] concerning divorce was read the third time.
Mr. LINSDAY said: "This bill is a modification of the present law on the subject, and the practice in such cases is so changed as to bring it in harmony with civil code practice. It also provides for a judgment of alimony in favor of the wife, which shall be without relief from valuation or appraisement laws. It also provides that the Court may, in its discretion, decree to the wife a portion of the property of the husband, either real or personal or both, instead of judgment for alimony in money."
The bill passed--yeas, 73; nays, 4.
ENUMERATION IN 1883.
Mr. Chandler's bill [H. R. 235] concerning the enumeration of male inhabitants over the age of twenty-one years [the next enumeration to be in 1883 and every six years thereafter], was read the third time.
Mr. CHANDLER said the old statute contains a long provision requiring the enumeration of white males, and in 1877 there was a law passed for the enumeration of white people. This bill combines both of those acts, using almost the same words, only combining both races under one bill.
The bill passed--yeas, 74; nays, 3.
Then the House adjourned.
