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.
