HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
SATURDAY, April 2, 1881--9 a. m.The session was opened with prayer by Rev. G. M. Coonbar.
FREE GRAVEL ROADS.
The reading of the Clerk's journal was dispensed with.
Senator Comstock's bill [S. 79--see page 178 of these Reports] for the purchase of toll roads and providing for the maintenance of free roads, was read the third time.
Mr. KENNER said the people of the State have come to the conclusion that they want free grael roads. Of all the bills introduced in this Assembly this bill is the most mild. It provides that if a majority of the voters of a Township declare that they wish to buy a toll road, the Board of County Cmmissioners may cause it to be appraised, and if in their discretion the appraisement is a fair one they may act upon it. If they deem it too high they may reject it, and have another appraisement, Then it is in their discretion whether they will purchase it or not. It also guards against the purchase of a road if the County is in debt for a road previously bought. This bill is of the utmost interest to the whole State and I hope it will pass.
Mr. CARR, of White, said: There are some things in this House that have been neglected during this session. With all the eloquence displayed, not one single man has ever raised his voice here in the interest of the tax-payer of the State of Indiana--not one single word has been heard. Because of the fact that the bill is well page: 124[View Page 124] guarded, is no evidence at all that it is right, This is almost like the law we had a few years ago, to allow Counties to vote taxes to aid railroad corporations. We soon saw where that we t to, and repealed the law, and now here are similar bills, for the voting of taxes to aid in the construction of gravel roads. It will lead the same thing. We have turnpikes running from our Township into the city of Lafayette. Under this bill we would have the power to tax all the balance of the County, where there is not a single gravel road, for the construction of a gravel road from our Township to Lafayette. I submit that this would work a great hardship. I hope the bill will not pass.
Mr. MEREDITH--This bill is in the interest of my people and I think in the interest of the people throughout the whole State, who like free roads. I have, as well as many others here, advocated the cuuse of the tax-payers and poor people of the State, and I think the assertion of the gentlemen [Mr. Carr] is a broad one to make--that there is no one here to advocate the interest of the tax-payer. There are plenty of us here who are standing between the people and these expenditures just as well as the gentleman from White. I think it would be carrying out the wish and desire of the people to pass this bill.
Mr. WILSON, of Montgomery, said his constituents were anxious to have some such legislation upon the subject of roads as is contained in this bill. He favored its passage.
Mr. EDWINS said personally he favored such a bill, but the people of his County being opposed to it because of the taxation upon people distant from the roads, he would vote against it on that account.
Mr. SINCLAIR--There are some toll roads that are not paying which must be sold. If that is the case--if these roads do not pay for the keeping of them--let the owners have the County take them and keep them up. It looks to me as though there was some job in this matter--that somebody wants to sell out their roads; therefore, I shall vote against the bill.
Mr. ROBERTS spoke in favor of the passage of the bill.
The bill passed--yeas, 53; nays, 29.
CIRCUIT COURTS.
Mr. CAUTHORNE moved to suspend the constitutonal rule, which was agreed to--yeas, 68; nays, 18--and the bill [S. 369] defining the Thirty-first Judicial Circuit and fixing the time for holding terms of Court therein was read the first and second times by title, and the third time by sections.
Mr. FANCHER said: This bill has not taken me by surprise. It was introduced in the Senate and rushed through under suspension of the consttiutional rules. Judge Field is opposed to the passage of this bill. By tacking Stark County to St. Joe and Laporte it makes it just as convenient for the Judge of those Counties to get to Stark County as it will our Judge. Judge Field has been opposing this bill all through, and many people are opposed to it. This matter is being rushed. through too hastily. Let's have a little time to consider the matter. If this bill can not be amended a new bill can be introduced, so as to tack Stark County to St. Joe and Laporte, thereby equalizing the work of the Judges of those two Districts. In all fairness between man and man that should be the case.
Mr CAUTHORNE--I call the gentleman's attention to the fact that this matter was thoroughly discussed in 1879, when both political parties resolved that the Superior Court of Cass County should be abolished [see pages 167 and 188, Vol 17 of these Reports], when the people there were almost united in the sentiment that it should be abolished on the ground of economy, and they came here and asked that it should be done. The Republican Members were almost universally in favor of abolishing the Court, and to-day they are proposing to make the same change. It was not a Democratic measure. It was fought by the Democrats and defeated because it would legislate a Democratic Judge out of office. I was ashamed that members of my party took the ground they did and not rise above party question, but simply because they had a Democratic Judge in the Superior Curt who would have been thrown out of office, they refused to accommodate the people and make this important change.
Mr. BEATTY said he never heard the Judge of his County (Stark), express any dissatisfaction in any shape or manner, in regard to the proposed change. He favored the passage of the bill,
The bill passed--yeas, 70; nays, 10.
On motion of Mr CAUTHORNE, the constitutional rule was suspended--yeas, 68; nays, 18--and the bill [S. 366] to create the Twenty-ninth Judicial Circuit of the State of Indiana, and providing for the transfer and completion of business pending in the Circuit Court, was read the first and second time by title.
Mr. CAUTHORNE moved an amendment, which was adopted, by appropriately isserting the following: "Provided that in 1881 the spring term shall be held the third Monday in April, and continue for twelve weeks."
The amendment was adopted.
The bill was read the third time and passed--yeas, 82; nays, 0.
Mr. Moody's bill [H. R. 397], fixing the time for holding Courts in the Thirty-fifth Judicial Circuits, was read the third time and passed--yeas, 79; nays, 1.
INSURANCE COMPANIES.
Senator Chapman's bill [S. 368] to amend Section 1 of an act regulating foreign Insurance Companies, was read the first time and referred to the Committee on Insurance, with instructions to report the same back as soon as possible.
DRAINAGE OF WET LANDS.
The SPEAKER announced the special order to be consideration of Mr. Taylor's [of Lagrange] bill [H. R. 147] to enable owners of wet lands to reclaim them when the same can not be done without affecting the land of others, which was read the third time.
Mr. KENNER said--We have two bills before the House upon the subject of wet lands. This bill, as I understand, is a remodeling of the law of 1875, which I think was the best ditch law we have had in the State of Indiana. While we must decide upon some law (and i believe we must have some relief upon this subject), from investigation of both these bills and testing the sense of the people, I have come to the conclusion that the bill just read is the one which ought to be passed by this House. This bill remedies the defects of the ditch law of 1875.
The bill passed--yeas, 78; nays, 0.
NEIGHBORHOOD ROAD IMPROVEMENT.
Mr. Kenner's bill [H. R. 305] to allow the owners of real estate to petition for the improvement of streets, highways, etc., by a majority land owners, was read the third time.
Mr. KENNER said--I introduced this bill upon the request of a large number of people. it is out of the line of gravel road bills. A great many people who live along roads would gradually like to gravel it, but they do not want to gravel a portion of it and then have some corporation come along and complete the work and charge toll.
This bill simply gives them the privilege to improve a road of their own accord gratuitously, and the Board of Commissioners must give them the right of way when they do that so that no corporation or Company can come along, complete the work and take it away from them. They make the road for their own convenience. There have been instances of that kind in our County, where in course of four or five years several miles were page: 125[View Page 125] graveled, after which corporations got control of the road and reaped the benefit of the work.
The bill passed--yeas, 68; nays, 0.
LEGALIZING TAX ASSESSMENTS.
Mr. MORGAN called up Mr. Johnson's bill [H. R. 241] amending Section 1 and 2 of an act legalizing the assessment, equalization, levy and collection of municipal taxes for the years 1873 and 1874. He said: "This is a law legalizing the assessment of taxes. It is a general law, but will affect to no great extent no city, so far as I am informed, except Terre Haute. The officers of that city are having trouble in collecting the municipal taxes, including the tax levied for school purposes, and it is feared that were the matters tested in the Supreme Court the party refusing to pay his just taxes might be successful. The bill simply is to provide that every man shall pay his just and fair taxes, and to prevent vexatious litigation. I hope no gentleman will vote against the bill.
The bill passed--yeas, 70; nays, 0.
Mr. CAUTHORNE made a motion, which was agreed to, that when the House adjourn it will be to meet again on Monday at 2 p. m.
Mr. HUSTON made an ineffectual motion to take up the bill [H. R. 380] amending Section 6 of Water Works act.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
The Committee on Banks reported on the bill [S. 149] amending Section 29 of the act concerning the organization of Saving Banks, recommending its passage.
The report was concurred in.
The Committee on Prisons reported on the bill [H. R. 471] in relation to good behavior of prisoners, recommending its passage.
The bill was read the second time and laid on the table.
The Committee on Claims reported on the bill [H. R. 363] to appropriate $3,800 to reimburse Adjutant General for the employment of a Deputy, recommending that the bill lie on the table, for reason that they could find no law authorizing the appointment of a Deputy.
The report was concurred in.
THE STATE PRISONS.
The Committee on Prisons report on the bill [H. R. 440] to lease and hire convict labor, recommending the indefinite postponement of the bill.
Mr. EDWINS--The Committee make this report thus from the fact that the subject matter is embodied in the other prison bill. They think the other bill ought to be brought before the House the early part of next week, and not take up the time of the House with side issue bills.
Mr. KENNER said: This is a bill to prohibit the Directors of the State Prisons from letting prison labor at a less compensation than so much. The State of Indiana may just as well have $125,000 from the Northern Prison as $78,000. We can just as well get sixty or seventy cents for each day's labor performed by prisoners as thirty or forty cents. This bill is a proper one, and I hope the House will lay the report on the table and let the bill be considered as any other bill; let it stand upon its merits. I want the House to go upon record and say whether the honest laboring men of the State shall be compelled to compete with prison labor at forty cents a day.
Mr. FANCHER--There is now a bill before this House which provides for the reorganization of our Prisons--prescribing that the Governor shall appoint five Directors, three of whom shall be Republicans and two Democrats, etc. I am opposed to this bill, and hope the report will be concurred in.
The House adjourned until Monday at 2 p. m.
