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.
