THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
VOLUME
TWENTY.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
SPECIAL SESSION.
IN SENATE
TUESDAY, April 5, 1881, 9:30 a. m.SENATE BILLS PASSED.
On motion by Mr. MARVIN, his bill [S. 370] to legalize the incorporation of Kirklin corporation, in Clinton County, was read the second time by title, third time by sections, made a dispensation of the constitutional rule, and passed.
On motion by Mr. RISTINE, his bill [S. 232] allowing City and Town Marshals the same fee and powers as Constables, was read the third time and passed.
TEMPERANCE LEGISLATION.
On motion by Mr. SPANN the joint resolution [H. R. 7--see page 102 and 107 of the Reports, vol. 20] proposing an amendment to the Constitution forever prohibiting the manufacture, sale or keeping for sale in the State of Indiana spirituous, vinous, malt, or intoxicating liquors, except for medical, scentific, mechanical, and wines for sacramental purposes, and providing for repeating sales for such purposes, was read the first time.
Mr. SPANN moved its reference to the Committee on Temperance.
Mr. CHAPMAN moved to amend by referring it to the Judiciary Committee. He said the Judiciary Committee should examine with reference to the legality of this proposition. In his judgement the second section of this resolution proposes to devolve a power upon the General Assembly not only antagonistic to the bill of rights, but to the essence of republican Government. If it will not stand successfully the scrutiny of the Judiciary Committee it certainly should not be passed by the General Assembly. Amendments to the Constitution should be exceedingly well considered. We have no legal right to submit to the people an amendment not conformably to the billof rights, or to the form of Government under which we live. If this should become a part of the Constitution, under it the General Assembly might invest in one party the right to manufacture all the spirituous, malt or intoxicating liquors used in Indiana. When the Democrats shoulc be in power in the General Assembly they would have men here seeking this monopoly, which would be greater than any one is willing to believe. This would become a large monopoly in the hands of one or two men. In the face of the theory and genius upon which our fathers based this Government, it is proposed to pass this kind of a resolution. It is a serious proposition, and the Judiciary Committee is the proper one to consider the expediency of passing the second, even though it be expedient to pass the first proposition. He saw no need of speeding this matter to an immediate and final vote. These matters can not be examined as they should be on the floor of the Senate to-day. He hoped the Senate will consent to the reference he suggested.
Mr. SPANN moved to instruct the Committee to return the resolution to-morrow morning. He feared, unless instructed, this resolution would sleep the sleep of death in that Committee. He desired this proposition, so near the hearts of the people, to be met fairly and squarely.
Mr. BROWN opposed the instructions, because it was an impeachment of the motives of the Committee to insinuate that it would strangle any measure referred to it. He protested against this attempted stigma being put on that Committee without cause.
Mr. SHAFFER saw no need of referring this resolution to any Committee. The little technical points presented by the Senator from Marion [Mr. Chapman] he did not know were worthy the attention of a Committee.
Mr. KAHLO demanded the previous question, which was seconded by the Senate without a division, severel Senators demanding the yeas and nays.
The main question was ordered, and under the operations of the previous question the resolution was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. SPANN gave notice that he should file a protest against the act of the Chair in not recognizing the constitutional demand for the yeas and nays, which he subsequently submitted in the following words:
We, the undersigned, hereby enter this, our
page: 132[View Page 132]protest, on the journal of the Senate, against the ruling and decision of the Chair when a viva voce vote had been taken on the question of referring House resolution No. 7 to the Committee on Judiciary with instructions, and before said vote was announced. Senators Bundy, Spann and Foster demanded the yeas and nays, but the Chair disregarding said demand refused to give the said Senators a call of the roll for the ayes and nays. And we hereby protest against the ruling of the President of the Senate, regarding it as the right of Senators and a question of the highest privilege to have a call of the Senate for the ayes and nays when demanded at the proper time.
JESSE J. SPANN, Rush County,
E. H.
BUNDY, Henry County,
E. R. WILSON, Jefferson
County,
A. H. SHAFFER, Huntington
County,
SIMEON T. YANCEY, Hancock
County,
T. J. FOSTER, Allen County.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR--The Chair desires to state that this paper don't set forth the facts as the Chair understands them. There was no demand or voice of any kind heard by the Chair for the yeas and nays on the final vote. A few Senators sat in their places yelling out something like a call for the yeas and nays, but they were out of order, because they didn't address the Chair. They have no right to demand the yeas and nays without addressing the Chair. The Senate will ear me out in the statement that in no case has the yeas and nays been denied by the Chair on a proper demand.
Mr. MENZIES desired to enter a protest against any ruling that looks to depriving any two members of their constitutional right to demand the yeas and nays, even after the result of a vote is announced.
THE CRIMINAL CODE.
The Senate resumed consideration of the bill [H. R. 367--see pages 225 and 237, of volume 14, these Reports.] concerning criminal procedure, commencing at Section 102.
On motion by Mr. TRAYLOR, Section 103, defining what an indictment is, was stricken out.
BEAVER LAKE LANDS.
Mr. MAJOR called up his bill [S. 269] to relinquish the right of the State to certain lands (some 9,000 acres) in the bed of Beaver Lake, in Newton County, which was read the second time, together with lengthy majority and minority reports from the Judiciary Committee, the former favorable and the latter unfavorable to the passage of the bill.
Mr. LANGDON understood this bill is to take from the proper forum--the Courts of the country--a dispute as to the ownership of these lands. Such measures should never come into the General Assembly, inasmuch as the Courts of the country provide full relief. He moved to indefinitely postpone the bill.
Mr. BROWN opposed the motion to indefinitely postpone the bill. He thought the bill right; that the State can not afford to allow this suit to be prosecuted, in justice and right to her citizens. It is a disputed question whether or not the Courts can grant relief. If that were an undisputed question he would be willing to relieve the Legislature of it. Has the conduct of the State been such that the State should uphold the claim? If it goes to the Courts it is a legal and not a conceivable question. He insisted the State should not prosecute this suit. The State stood by and saw some $16,000 worth of improvements made upon this land, and yet an Attorney General, without asking the advice of the Legislature, seeks to take away these improvements. When the State recognized the fact she did not own these lands by gathering taxes from those in possession of the lands, she merely stated facts without argument, or an attempt to draw conclusions. This is only a grasping effort of some to line their own pockets, and would fix a blot upon the State which it would take ages to wipe out.
Mr. GRUBBS regarded this as a question whether or not the State would quit claim her title to some 9,000 acres--a question now pending in the Courts of Newton County, and the United States Courts also. He insisted the proper place to settle this question is in the Courts. We are asked to do this against the protest of the Attorney General of the State. The Courts have full authority to settle the legal as well as equitable questions involved in this case. No estoppel can grow up against the State because she receipted taxes on these lands under the circumstances that have surrounded these lands.
Mr. BELL insisted that the State ought, under all circumstances, to act justly and do right, and be ready at all times to set the example of right-doing and just action. The question here is whether the State, having the power, will deal wrongfully with her citizens. He recited the facts in the case as he understood them, and yielded for a recess till 2 p. m.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. WHITE, from the Committee of Free Conference thereon, reported an amendment to his Coal Oil Inspector bill [S. 25] that said Inspector shall appoint a deputy in each Congressional District, except the one in which he resides.
The report was concurred in.
Mr. BELL continued: The State Attorney General of course, as the Attorney of the State, desires this case shall be prosecuted because there is a good fat fee in it for that officer. In justice to those interested he asked that this matter shall not be indefinitely postponed. He preferred to see the bill fall for want of time. Senators are in haste, restless and uneasy, but let the bill pass over till time can be had for a full and fair discussion.
Mr. COMSTOCK thought the State can afford to do justice, and risk controversies between citizens to the Courts. This bill proposes to take from Courts questions that properly belong to Courts. If any injustice was likely to be done to any citizen, he would not be a party to that injustice; but it is not doing violence to any principle of right to allow these questions to be decided by the proper tribunal. He should vote for the indefinite postponement of the bill.
The motion was rejected--yeas, 18; nays 19.
On motion by Mr. CHAPMAN, the bill and reports were laid on the table--yeas, 22; nays, 16.
THE CRIMINAL CODE.
The Senate returned to the bill H. R. 367.
Mr. BROWN moved to strike out that part of Section 108 requiring the Prosecuting Attorney to put in writing motions to nol pros. and read reasons therefor in open Court. That is a useless clause for the reason that the action of the Court in refusing a nolle prosequi can not be reviewed.
Mr. COMSTOCK said there were undoubtedly many ceases in which the authority given the Prosecuting Attorney under this section has been abused; but the section had better remain as it is.
Mr. GRAHAM saw no reason sufficient to require this written notice. He favored the motion to strike out.
Mr. MENZIES thought it might act as a deterrent from not prosecuting many cases--especially liquor cases. The Prosecuting Attorney will treat indictments with a little more seriousness if required to put his reasons in writing for all cases nolle prossed on his motion.
The amendment was rejected by yeas, 18; nays, 20.
Mr. GARRIGUS moved to amend Section 14 so that no Judge shall suffer a defendant to go at large on his own recognizance.
Mr. BUNDY opposed the amendment. It would put a petty offender in Jail, when a recognizance should be taken at the discretion of the Judge.
page: 133[View Page 133]Mr. GARRIGUS insisted this matter ought to be regulated by law. Where the Judge is a man of large sympathy criminals are turned loose on their own recognizances.
The amendment was rejected on a division--yeas, 12; nays, 12--the Lieutenant Governor deciding.
Mr. GRAHAM moved to amend Section 153 by inserting the words "such cost as the Court may adjudged to be paid to him" in place of the words "all costs."
Mr. HENRY opposed the amendment. No Court would forfeit the recognizance of a prisoner when sick or unable to attend.
The amendment was adopted by yeas, 20; nays, 15.
Mr. BUNDY offered an amendment to Section 188 to make it more definite by inserting the word "tenant" after the word "bailee" where it twice occurs.
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. BUNDY desired to restrict the number of changes of venue to one from the Judge and one from the County, and he so moved to amend. As the section now stands these may be indefinite changes.
The amendment was agreed to by--yeas, 18; nays, 17.
Mr. GRAHAM moved to strike out Section 215, as the fee bill makes provision for Sheriff's compensation, and this would but add to that officer's compensation.
This motion was rejected.
A JUDICIAL CIRCUIT.
Mr. WOOD introduced a bill [S. 372] defining the Thirty-ninth Judcial Circuit-Carroll, White and Pulaski--which was read the first time.
SHEEP PROTECTION.
Mr. VAN VORHIS, from the Committee on Free Conference, submitted a report on the bill [H. R. 36] for the protection of sheep, which lies over under the rules for one day, objection being made to its immediate consideration.
CITY CHARTER AMENDMENT.
On motion by Mr. COMSTOCK, the bill [H. R. 378] to amend the general city incorporation law, with Senate amendments disqualifying a Councilman from holding any other office during the term for which he is elected, and authorizing a general levy of taxes for sewer construction, was considered as engrossed, read the third time and passed.
The Senate took a recess till 7:30 o'clock, with the understanding that the decedent's estate bill [H. R. 351] will be read the third time and no other business transacted.
NIGHT SESSION.
Mr. Viehe took the chair and directed the Clerk to read the bill [H. R. 351] providing for the settlement and distribution of decedents' estates. When he had declared the third reading completed--
An adjournment was had till to-morrow.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
TUESDAY, April 5, 1881--9 a. m.The Committee on Benevolent Institutions reported that they examined the Institutions hereinafter named, and make the following recommendations: For the completion of the eight wards in the female department of the Insane Hospital, $25,000, and $3,000 for a warehouse; for the enlargement of the Deaf and Dumb Asylum, $10,000; and $12,000 for the enlargement of the work-shop connected with the Blind Asylum.
The report was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.
NEW PROPOSITIONS.
The following described bills were introduced, read the first time and referred:
By Mr. KENNER [H. R. 515]: To repeal Section 22 of an act for the incorporation of Insurance Companies. Approved April 18, 1852.
By Mr. GARDNER [H. R. 516]: To legalize the acts and proceedings of the Board of Trustees of the town of Bedford, Lawrence County, Indiana, for the levy of taxes therefor, and all official acts of the year 1880.
By Mr. GILLUM [H. R. 517]: For an act prohibiting the running of railroad trains on Sunday, and fixing the penalty. [No construction or freight trains shall be run; this act shall not include relief or recking trains, etc.]
By Mr. KERR [H. R. 518]: To prevent discrimination on account of sex in the matter of fixing compensation for teachers in the Common Schools of Indiana, and instructors in the Reformatory and Penal Institutions of the State. [Their compensation shall be dependant upon the competency and qualification, and teahers of the same grade shall receive the same pay.]
REORGANIZATION OF THE STATE PRISONS.
The SPEAKER announced the special order for this hour to be consideration of Mr. Meredith's bill [H. R. 98] to provide for the organization and government of State Prisons by a Board of Directors, and other matters pertaining to the discipline thereof. [Five Directors to be appointed by the Governor, three of the dominant political party and two from the party having the next highest vote.]
The bill failed--yeas, 38; nays, 42.
INSPECTOR OF ELECTIONS.
Mr. Walz's bill [H. R. 457] to amend Section 14 of an act for the incorporation of towns, providing for the election of officers, etc., was read the third time.
Mr. WALZ--The law for the incorporation of towns fails to provide for the filling of vacancies in case of death or other absence of any of the Inspectors, at the time for opening the election for the first town officers. This bill should pass to supply a want in the law. There is a case in my town now, where one of the Inspectors died and the citizens do not know how further to proceed in electing the first town officers, unless it passes, a special enabling act will have to pass, to permit them to fully organize their corporation.
The bill passed by yeas, 79; nays, 0.
CRUELTY TO ANIMALS.
Mr. Carter's bill [R. H. 470] defining cruelty to animals, declaring it a misdemeanor and providing for the destruction of animals in certain cases, was read the third time.
Mr. CARTER said this is the same bill brought up once before. The bill is re-drawn so as to meet all the objectional features put forth by the same members. I hope the House will vote for the bill and that it will become a law.
The bill passed--yeas, 69; nays, 10.
CITY WATER SUPPLY.
Mr. Carter's bill [H, R. 474] to prevent and punish the pollution of water in streams and canals used by Water Works Companies, etc., for cities and towns, was read the third time.
Mr. EDWINS thought the bill should not pass. Under the provisions of the bill, no one could erect a stable anywhere near White River.
Mr. CARTER--The object of this bill is to prevent the pollution of water in any canal or stream from which water is drawn to furnish cities and towns through the instrumentality of Water Works It provides that within the corporate limits of such city it will be unlawful to erect a slaughter house, pig pen or stable upon the banks of the stream out of which water is used for drinking purposes. I think it is right. When page: 134[View Page 134] gentlemen come to Indianapolis they ought not to be compelled to drink water that is drawn from barn yards and stables above the city. Another provision of this bill is that in all cities having a population of over 60,000 Water Works shall not take their supply from a stream within the corporate limits of the city, and they are obliged to construct their reservoir above the city.
The bill passed--yeas, 52; nays, 22.
AID TO RAILROADS.
The Committee on County and Township Business reported on the bill [H. R. 83] to repeal an act authorizing the people to vote aid to railroads, recommending indefnite postponement, for the reason that the people are fully competent to decide whether they will aid in the building of a railroad, and when they so desire should be allowed to do so.
Mr. KENNER said: I am in favor of this bill. I believe the day has come when it is wrong to vote a tax to put into the hands of corporations that which does not belong to the State or its inhabitants, and which afterward returns no substantial benefit to the givers of the money. There are a great many States that declare this thing unconstitutional. The State of Michigan never would permit a Township or County to vote a tax to build railroads. Take the result of this: We find that the men who pay the tax do not have control of the affair. I have seen it in all its hideousness in my own County, where a large portion of the voting population pay no taxes, and those owning property are overwhelmed by this class of persons at the ballot. What is the result of it? You will to-day vote aid to build a road, and in three months from to-day some large corporation comes along and snaps it up; so where is the competition if two or three roads run through a town and all are owned by one corporation? I say the day has passed for voting aid to railroads. In the earlier days it was necessary to develop the country, but that day has passed. The people ought not to be forced to build and give to other corporations of this kind I am in in favor of passing this bill and voting down the report.
Mr. EDWINS--I am somewhat interested in this bill, as we are going to have a trial on this very subject on the 13th of this present month. We are now suffering from the effects of just such a tax as this in my County, levied some years back for the building of the White Pigeon Railroad--not levied by a vote of the real tax-payers, but by the vote of irresponsible parties who never pay a dollar of taxes themselves, but who are always ready to put their hands in their neighbors' pockets and vote away their property. You are all aware to what extent corruption has crept into our elections, and how a few thousand dollars can control our elections. They can very readily spend $5,000 for the purpose of $25,000 or $28,000 voted in aid of their road. I am not opposed to railroad; I am their friend, but I want those who get the benefit of them to build them. After we give them our money, in the shape of taxes, they charge us the same rates for transporting our hogs, grain and other marketable produce as if we had never paid them one cent. And again, the Companies who start to build those roads never complete them, but sell them to a wealthier Company, and so on, until they finally land in the hands of Jay Gould, who eventually gets the benefit of our taxes. I move to lay the report of the Committee on the table, read the bill a third time and place it on its passage.
Mr. FRAZER--I am one of those who believe the American people are smart enough to take care of themselves and am sick of this baby talk about imposing upon the majority of the people. I know the gentleman from Huntington (Mr. Kenner) is interested in the law--he wants it repealed. Those sections which have voted aid to railroad building, if they had the opportunity, would not take their money back and give up the road. Their are Counties in Indiana which have very few roads, and they would gladly vote aid to the construction of a, railroad. In Crawfordsville they voted by the voice of a majority to give aid to a road, because they want a live road running east and west which would give them competition. As the law stands now, if a majority of the voting population desire a railroad they have the right to do so. I think the law should not be repealed.
Mr. THOMPSON said if there was one thing upon which he was instructed it was for the repeal of this law allowing Townships and Counties to vote aid to railroads. The instructions of the Democratic as well as the Republican candidates were the same in this respect. He considered the voting of aid in his County to railroads is, and always has been, wrong. The taxes voted to aid railroads, gravel roads, and the various taxes authorized by the Legislature, altogether amounts to a large amount. He wanted this law repealed, and felt satisfied that a majority of the people, in the adoption of the Constitutional Amendments, would be opposed to this subsidy to railroads.
Mr. ROBERTS was opposed to the repealing of this law. Because Elkhart and other Counties have plenty of railroads that is no reason why the other Counties of the State, having no railroads, should be deprived of the privilege of aiding such construction.
Mr. BARTLETT said: There is a great deal of difference between voting money to railroads and turnpikes. Money invested in a wagon road is beneficial to everybody, but money voted to railroads, as soon as the road is built it is absorbed by a new Company and they become bankrupt. I do not think we ought to vote one farthing in this way.
Mr. GILMAN was in favor of the bill. In his section of the country they were voting money to aid a railroad now, thus compelling a man to pay a tax whether he wants to or not. He hoped the report would be tabled and the bill put upon its passage.
Mr. MOODY--I hope this bill will pass. I am not opposed to the building of railroads, or the building of any public enterprises, but I am opposed to taxation without representation, and the present law authorizing the voting of a tax to aid in the building of railroads is a law authorizing taxation without representation in its worst form. Persons who are subjects of other countries and who own propertyin these Townships proposed to be taxed; people who reside in other States, Counties or Township, and who have property here; widows, married women and orphan children have no voice in voting this tax, and yet this law, if not repealed, proposes to tax their property against their will and give it to a private enterprise. I think this law a bad one in principle and should be repealed.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. WILSON, of Montgomery, said: I represent a County which has already voted aid to railroad constructions of $350,000, and about four weeks since in Union Township there was voted a tax of $26,000 to aid a raiload, and still I think I represent my constituents when I oppose the repeal of this law, because I believe popularity is a better and stronger evidence than the Democratic platform. I hope the report of the Committee will be adopted.
Mr. TETER said the people of this country are capable of governing themselves, let them be Democrats, Republicans or Greenbackers. It that be true, why is it that we are afraid to trust the people to vote upon any and all matters in which they have an interest? In the County of Clay there are now four railroads, where ten years ago there was only one. If the priviledge did not exist we would be where we were many years ago--plodding through the mud. So far as page: 135[View Page 135] I am concerned and know the wishes of my constitutents, they still want that law upon the statute books. We are not forced to aid railroad corporations. We can control ourselves, and I think we can trust ourselves yet to vote. Whilst I believe in the doctrine laid down, yet I do not believe in the doctrine--Vox Populi, Vox Dei--that the voice of the people is the voice of God. I say, let this law remain upon the statute books until you find that they have abused it, then I would be in favor of a remedy.
Mr. RYAN said it was not the desire of his people to have this law repealed. He thought, notwithstanding the fact that the Railroad Companies have grown rich and increased the value of land more than 50 per cent. in the State of Indiana, this thing of corporations becoming rich is a thing which can not be avoided or controlled by the Legislature. There is no possibility of preventing the accumulation of money or accumulation of riches by the use or investment of money so long as money continues to be one of the commodities of the country, and the idea that it carries with itself value is no reason why the people should deprive themselves of the benefits that come to them by the operations of these corporations. He was opposed to the repeal of this law.
Mr. FLOYD said: I am in favor of gravel roads, because they are progressive in their nature, and I am favor of railroads, because they largely increase the wealth of the State. The principle that underlies popular government is that the voice of the people in this land of ours is the voice of the sovereign. Local option, I say, upon gravel roads; local option upon railroads, and local option on temperance, or any other question, are my sentiments.
Mr. HAMILTON said about twelve years ago that law was placed upon the statute books, and by virtue of it the State has increased in power and value. Many Counties at that time had no railroads, and since that they have been enabled to help themselves, and they have doubled their wealth. Suppose that the aid had not been extended by virtue of this act? The chances would be that we would have no more railroads now than we had fourteen years ago, and instead of having a market, we would have to convey our produce to other points by wagon. The gentlemen who are here opposing this measure, if they do not want to build railroads do not need to do so, but let the law remain, so that Counties that do want to vote aid can have the privilege.
The report was concurred in.
So the bill was indefinitely postponed.
THE JURY SYSTEM.
The SPEAKER announced the special order, Mr. Linsday's bill [H. R. 114--see page 219, vol. 19, of these Reports] providing for trial by Jury and fixing the number that can make a verdict.
Mr. LINSDAY said: I want the members of this House to understand that I am decidedly in favor of Jury trial, and a Jury of twelve, if they can be had. I do not think that the members of this House generally understand this bill. It provides for twelve Jurors, but as I said the other day I apprehend there is no man to be found in the State of Indiana wise enough to give the reason why the number "twelve" was agreed upon. I can not tell why. It never was founded on reason; still I do not war against the principle, but this idea of unanimity had no foundation in reason; then had it ought to be perpetuated? What was the reason of this unanimity? Was it because the facts would be decided or the evidence more overwhelming? I do not think I would be far from the fact by saying that it was founded on barbarism. Juries were compelled to make verdicts unanimously, and if a Juryman did not agree with the rest, he was locked up and given neither eat or drink or fire or anything else, and kept there. Whether the minority yielded to the majority or the majority to the minority or not, that would make no difference; but where is the reason for it, and why should we as intelligent men hang on to it? The bill provides that there may be twelve on the Jury, and that a verdict may be brought in by nine of the twelve, a Jury of nine may be agreed upon, and in that case seven may be a sufficient number to constitute a verdict after three hours' deliberation. It has been intimated by some gentlemen that this bill would be unconstitutional. I say to you, as I said the other day, I have no doubt upon that subject; I believe it is a constitutional act, and would be constitutional, but I find Judges and lawyers divide upon tis subject. I do not know except we pass the bill and leave it with the Court to decide whether it is or is not constitutional.
Mr. TETER said there are objections urged to this bill. I learned long ago that the greater the benefit which naturally results from anything the more pernicious are its effects when diverted from its proper course. The objection, therefore, which the gentleman makes to the unanimity of a Jury is its highest eulogium. He says why should we have the number twelve? All that I need to say upon that point is simply this: The number twelve was adopted a long time ago, and it has been used for hundreds of years. The system has worked well for a long time, then why change it? The gentleman says that upon the right of trial by jury depend the liberties of the people of this country. Then I ask methodically why this invasion, unless we can show that the work of it has been harmful?
Mr. MITCHELL was in favor of the bill. He said the trial by Jury remains inviolate. There shall be twelve men to render decision, if they can be had, and this bill provides that a verdict can be brought in by nine out of the twelve. He did not apprehend any danger by reducing the nnmber making a verdict.
Mr. GILMAN thought the paramount question should be, How can justice be the nearest obtained. He could see no injustice in a law allowing nine out of twelve to bring in a verdict, and considered it at least more economical. He wanted the bill to pass.
Mr. JOHNSON said when this bill first come up I was opposed to it, and when it was put upon its passage I voted against it, but since that I have come to the conclusion, upon the arguments of a number of lawyers in its behalf, that it is a good measure and I hope it will pass.
Mr. RYAN was opposed to the passage of the bill.
The bill failed to pass--yeas, 49; nays, 38--for the want of a constitutional majority.
VIGO SUPERIOR COURT.
On motion of Mr. MORGAN, the bill [H. R. 14] to establish a Superior Court in Vigo County was passed-yeas, 79; nays, 0.
DRAINAGE COMMISSIONERS.
The SPEAKER announced the special order to be the bill [S. 214--see page 253 of these Reports, vol. 19] concerning drainage. The bill was the third time.
Mr. GILMAN said a bill passed a few days ago covering all the ground provided for in this bill. He could not see the necessity of two bills on the same subject.
Mr. FRAZER said: This bill was prepared by the Revision Committee. We have had a great deal of trouble in our portion of the State on the subject of ditches. They are built, a few people get the benefit of them, and a large number of land owners surrounding its location are obliged to help pay for its construction. The old bill pro- page: 136[View Page 136] vides that in case of dispute on settlement or assessment, etc., the matter is referred to the County Commissioners for dispositian. This bill provides that you can go before the Circuit Courts, and they settle the matter. I do not see anything in this bill that the House should object to. It does not make it obligatory, but simply says those can go who want to; and I hope the House will pass this bill. It will not do any one any harm, and certainly do a great deal of good.
Mr. EDWINS thought the bill an expensive one, as it took the law out of the hands of the County Commissioners and put it in the hands of the Circuit Court, thereby creating a new Commission. He opposed its passage.
The bill passed--yeas, 73; nays, 9.
OFFICES AND OFFICERS.
On motion by Mr. CAUTHORNE, the constitutional rule was suspended--yeas, 72; nays, 1--and the bill [S. 325]--see pages 25 and 99 of these reports] concerning officers and offices, was read the first and second times by title only, and the reading by sections the third time was commenced--
When the House adjourned.
