THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
VOLUME
TWENTY.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
SPECIAL SESSION.
IN SENATE.
WEDNESDAY, April 6, 1881--9:30 a. m.NEW PROPOSITIONS.
The following described bills were introduced:
By Mr. CHAPMAN [S. 373]: To authorize and empower the Trustees of the State Hospital for the Insane to confer upon any incorporated street or Horse Railroad Company the right and privilege to enter upon and construct, lay and maintain its tracks on the grounds connected with said Hospital.
By Mr. TRAYLOR [S. 374]: To legalize the acts and proceedings of the Board of Trustees of the town of Bedford, Lawrence County, etc., was introduced, read three times by title, pressed to the final vote and passed.
CONCERNING DECEDENTS' ESTATES.
On motion by Mr. VIEHE, the bill [S. 351] concerning the settlement of decedents' estates was put upon its passage He said it was read the third time at the night session yesterday.
The bill passed by--yeas, 35; nays, 5.
STREET IMPROVEMENT.
On motion by Mr. OWEN, the bill [H. R. 305--see page 144] authorizing owners of real estate of petition for improvement of streets and highways, to obtain right-of-way for such, etc., etc., was read the first, second and third times, and finally passed the Senate.
ALIEN FREEHOLDERS.
On motion by Mr. KAHLO, the bill [H. R. 90] to authorize aliens to hold real estate in Indiana, being read the third time--
Mr. HEFRON regarded the laws of Indiana now as very liberal to holders of real estate. The license and authority embodied in this bill is neither just or right, nor is it conducive to the wellbeing of the State. It has had no discussion in this body, so he knew not what good can be accomplished by its passage. If the United States is not good enough for men to come and live in, it is not good enough for them to hold property in for speculative purposes. It is an attempt to establish a system of tenant farming that we hear so much complaint of. Its object is to allow foreign residents to invest their money in Indiana for the object of gain and take the money derived therefrom away to foreign countries where they reside.
Mr. GRUBBS could not concur with the Senator. If he believed the results referred to would follow he should oppose the bill, but believing great benefit would result under it by immigration to the State of Indiana, he favored the passage of this bill. Our great State is as yet comparatively undeveloped--not only in her mineral, but in her agricultural resources. One-half of the land in Indiana is yet uncultivated. Because he believed the effect of this bill would be to bring these lands in cultivation, he favored the bill. A large portion of lands in this State can not be made productive by individual effort--the swamp lands of the State--and believing this part of the State would be made productive under the provisions of this bill, he desired to see its passage. The objection to the bill proceeds upon the presumption that aliens would hold real estate in Indiana, and to some extent that objection can be maintained; but any man who has the energy and will to come from a foreign land and foreign sale and here invest his money, such a one would probably take the other step to invest himself with the rights of a citizen. No foreign corporation can afford to hold lands in Indiana under tenancy, for the simple reason it will not pay. Then all such would be subject to the laws of Indiana, and could not transfer to our soil the laws of their country. In surrounding States are laws exactly a transcript of this, and no such deleterious results have followed as were suggested by the Senator. On the contrary, the vast tide of emigration has flowed into those States, sweeping by Indiana because here laws are illiberal on this subject. There is organized in Scotland a corporation to encourage emigration to America. One purpose of that corporation is to purchase land in Indiana, divide it in small tracts, build houses on it, and sell to emigrants on time, so they may find a home ready when they come. The effect of that would be to bring under cultivation a great portion of our uncultivated land page: 138[View Page 138] And this is one reason he favored this bill, believing such a class of citizens would be of great benefit to the State.
Mr. HEFRON did not believe anybody supposes these corporations will invest money in the swamps and wet lands of the State. The State has already been held back because thousands of acres of these lands are held by men who do not improve them. It is the true policy not to allow lands to be bought up in large quantities. Experience demonstrates that in their own country these foreigners have wrung from their fellowcountrymen the last farthing, and it is not to be supposed they will be liberal toward those they have oppressed by sending them to homes in this country. The Eastern States, where these foreigners first operated, none of them have such a law as this pill proposes, but require owners to be residents. The entire domain of Scotland is owned by some 1,200 men, who, not contented with owning Scotland, desire now to own large tracts of land in Indiana. The principle of this ill is wrong, and our statute since 1861 is right. Let us enjoy the benefits accruing from the development of our own resources.
Mr. SPANN characterized one argument by the Senator from Daviess (Mr. Hefron) as trying to raise a bugaboo--the argument, per se, that it is not the citizen that becomes dangerous, but the land becomes dangerous because a non-resident ownes it. The Senator forgets that it is becaus England makes land laws for Ireland that the face of the poor is ground. He favored the bill, because there is not a State in this Northwestern country but has this identical law on their statute books, and in this fact lies the reason why emigration sweeps past and through Indiana.
Mr. MORRIS should vote against the bill because the principle is wrong. It is contrary to the genius of our institutions to encourage the relations of landlord and tenant. He believed these foreign corporations desired to obtain large bodies of land and rent it out in small parcels to tenants. There are not steamships enough to transport all the foreigners who desire to come here to live, and he favored giving such a class of immigrants all the inducements possible, but opposed anything looking to the encouragement of rich foreigners and foreign Companies buyirg up large parcels of land.
Mr. GARRIGUS would like Senators opposing this bill to point out why it is worse for foreigners than for our own citizens to buy up large bodies of land. They say they would like to have foreigners come here, but want to legislate against them. There is no reason why Indiana should not be as liberal to them as are other States.
Mr. MENZIES knew of one tract of 30,000 acres owned at one time by one Scotchman [Robert Dale Owen] which is now parceled out to about 150 owners. He thought time would remedy the evils feared from this bill.
Mr. BROWN did not think it right or wise to encourage persons with fortunes living on foreign soil, to invest in large tracts of lands in Indiana. Older States are too wise to enact such laws. Suppose a family in Scotland having millions seeking investment should desire to buy up lands in this State, is it wise to encourage such investment when it is proable the purchase would lie unproductive possibly for centuries? Instead of encouraging a unification, it encourages the opposite. This bill asks no duty or obligation from them--leaving it to the discretion of the purchasers as to what class of people they will send, or whether they will let the land lie idle for years and years. And a large body settling in one place might bring about complications international, that might be difficult to avert, by their applying to their mother country to protect their property here, and in other ways.
Mr. LANGDON--If correctly informed, should vote against the bill. Being a bill of great importance, he moved it to be passed over for the present and made the special order for 10 o'clock to-morrow.
The motion was agreed to.
OHIO RIVER BRIDGE.
On motion by Mr. RAHM, the Evansville bridge bill [H. R. 370--see page 58 and 70, vol. 20] was read the second time by title only, under a dispensation of the constitutional restriction, with a favorable majority report and a minority report recommending amendment.
Mr. WILSON declared the bill, while general in its character, was intended to apply particularly to Evansville. The minority report seeks to place in the bill provisions similar to a bridge bill passed by this Legislature. The majority report proposes to give a foreign corporation building bridges an advantage over home Companies. He favored the minority report.
Mr. MENZIES also spoke against the majority report. He opposed granting an unrestricted charter to build a bridge, obstructing navigation, and laying an embargo upon the trade of Southwestern Indiana. He regretted the sense of duty which impelled him to oppose the majority report and declare that the minority report is but right and just.
Mr. RAHM said the majority report ought to be adopted. All this howling of the Senator from Posey (Mr. Menzies) doesn't amount to a cent, because misrepresenting the people of Vanderburg County. What they want is a bridge on which they can take freight across all the year round and at any season. The Louisville and Nashville Road own a transfer boat which is a monopoly, and it takes two hours to get across from the river bank to Evansville. For six weeks this winter not a single pound of anything could be shipped across. Three hundred and fourteen of the business men have signed a petition in favor of this bill. Give us a bridge and more railroads will be built. The Bridge Company will not build under the minority report, because they could not sell their bonds under it. So we must have the majority report or no bridge. We have waited ten long years; and the objection that it will obstruct navigation on the Ohio--there is nothing in that. A bridge there is to the advantage of every farmer in that section who raises a bushel of corn or wheat, as well as to every business man and manufacturer. Every man is in favor of the bill with the majority report.
The minority report was rejected by yeas, 19; nays, 26.
The bill was read the third time.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The bridge bill passed-yeas, 33; nays, 7.
LIQUOR PROHIBITION.
On motion by Mr. SPANN, the joint resolution [H. R. 7] and other propositions to amend the Constitution, were made the special order for to-morrow at 10 o'clock a. m.
VIGO SUPERIOR COURT.
On motion by Mr. BISCHOWSKY, the bill [H. R. 17] to establish a Superior Court in Vigo County was read the first and second times by title only, and the third time by sections.
Mr. BICHOWSKY said the original bill provided for abolishing the Criminal Court, but that objectionable feature has been taken ont, so the Criminal Court is kept in existence till the third Monday in November, 1882.
The passed-yeas, 42; nays, 2.
GENERAL APPROPRIATION BILL.
On motion by Mr. GRUBBS, the Senate refused to recede from its amendments to the general p- page: 139[View Page 139] propriation bil1 [H. R. 422] and requested a Committee of free conference.
Mr. WILSON tendered his resignation as Chairman of the Finance Committee, which was accepted--yeas, 27; nays,16.
SHEEP PROTECTION.
On motion by Mr. VAN VORHIS, the report of the Committee on Free Conference on the dog bill [H. R. 36--see pages 46 and 47, vol. 20] was concurred in--yeas, 27; nays, 12.
STREETS THROUGH UNPLATTED LANDS.
On motion by Mr. CHAPMAN, the bill [S. 345] to amend Section 2 of the act of April 27, 1869, to enable towns to lay out, open, etc., streets, alleys, etc., so as to provide where a street or alley is opened through unplatted lands, no assessment shall be made against that land for benefits, unless the owner was a petitioner, was read the third time and passed.
Mr. BRISCOE objected to the proviso, and hoped the bill would fail.
Mr. HOSTETTER hoped the bill would not fail, and referred to cases in his town where such an act was needed, It is hard to take a man's land for streets and alleys and then assess benefits against the owner, when the land is used only fo agricultural purposes, and causing additional expense by making fences, etc. The bill does not screen the owner from any tax. He hoped the bill would pass.
Mr. HENRY said: The objection is it will not allow benefits to be assessed for opening a street or alley against any ground not plotted, whether it is used for agricultural purposes or not. If it simply related to farm lands he would vote for the bill, but in its present shape he would not.
Mr. CHAPMAN insisted the bill simply provides as he before stated.
The bill was rejected--yeas, 16; nays, 22.
THE CRIMINAL CODE.
The Senate returned to the bill H. R. 367.
Mr. BROWN moved to strike out Section 220. It is substantial nullification of what is in the organic law, that a man shall not be put in jeopardy twice for the same offense.
Mr. COMSTOCK supposed when a witness or a Prosecuting Attorney were taken sick it would work no hardship to postpone the trial for a short time.
Mr. BROWN insisted such cases were covered under the present law, but this section would allow a Judge to continue such case from term to term. There is no safety to an accused going to trial, but he may be tried over again. It is unsafe to a fair administration of justice to put it in the power of a Judge to grant a continuance.
The motion to strike out was agreed to.
On motion by Mr. HENRY, Section 230 was amended so as to read: The Prosecuting Attorney in capital cases may challenge peremptorily six Jurors; in other cases three Jurors--being the present law.
On motion by Mr. TRAYLOR, Section 273 was amended as to read: "When the defendant is found guilty the Jury must state in their verdict the amount of fine and the punishment to be inflicted, and where the plea is guilty or the trial is by the Court, the Court shall assess the amoumt of fines and fix the punishment to be inflicted."
The Senate adjourned till 9:30 a. m. to-morrow.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
WEDNESDAY, April 6, 1881-9 a. m.AID TO AGRICULTURAL SOCIETIES.
Mr. Adrian's bill [H. R. 430] authorizing allowances to aid Agricultural Societies [making it optional with the County Commissioners to loan such Society money and take a lien on the grounds] was read the third time.
Mr. MEREDITH said this is a bill carefully guarded in such a way that the County can be properly protected with no chance of loss on the part of the County.
The bill failed to pass--yeas, 49; nays, 38--for want of a constitutional majority.
SHERIFF SALE NOTICES.
Mr. Baker's bill [H. R. 480] to regulate all Sheriff sales providing for written and printed notices in newspapers. [The parties to the suit to dictate the paper for such publicaton.]
Mr. BAKER--This bill should become a law. To leave this Sheriff's printing in the hands of men disposed to be honest is all right, but in the hands of men otherwise, it is a source of political corruption from one end of the State to the other. I claim that the men whose money and interest are involved should be the parties to control the Sheriff's printing. I can not see why an officer, who is well paid for all his services, should dictate in any form or manner, or have anything to say as to where these notices shall be published. Let the parties make their own contracts in their own way, and it certainly can be done cheaper than under the present system. There is no reason on earth why the plaintiff, who has recovered judgment when the orders to execute are issued, should not say in what paper he notice shall be inserted, or if the defendant happens to have a stay of execution to have the same privilege. I hope the bill will become a law.
Mr. FANCHER favored the bill, beause he knew of cases in his County where such publication cost $5 or $20, and the parties to the suit would or could have had the work done for $5 or $10. By giving the parties this privilege there will be created a competition which will reduce the price of publication at least one-half.
Mr. FRAZER said: This bill don't strike me as being what it ought to be. For instance, if one of the parties is a Democrat and the other a Republican, and each has his particular paper in which to publish this notice, now who is to decide and say where this publication shall be made? There is no provision in the bill to that effect. In that respect it is defective. There should be some provision, when the parties can not agree, that the Sheriff may publish where he pleases.
Mr. KENNER favored the bill, because it went upon the principle that the parties concerned and interested will always get better terms than a official who is merely performing his every-day duty.
Mr. THOMPSON was opposed to the bill. He considered the bill as it now stands a good one--authorizing the Sheriff to publish in a paper located nearest to the parties to the suit.
The bill failed--yeas, 37; nays, 41.
TOLL ROADS.
Mr. Hinton's bill [H. R. 449- see page 63, vol. 20] to regulate the toll charges on pikes, macadamized and gravel road-beds ceded by the United States to the State of Indiana, being read the third time--
Mr. FANCHER said that this same bill, or one containing the same provisions, had been before the Legislature in 1877 and again in 1879, and he had quite a distinct recollection of the object of the bill, and it seemed to be about as pernicious a bill as had been before this House during the present session. Under those provisions of this bill the owners of this road would receive only 10 per cent on what the road originally cost before the original owners had expended one cent, which you can see would be next to nothing. It is artfully drawn, and the object is to draw the wool over your eyes, and if passed would effectually confiscate this road to all intents and purposes. What would you think of a bill with provisions that you should be allowed just enough to pay the running expenses of your farms and 10 per page: 140[View Page 140] cent. on what your farm costs you originally--say four years ago. The bill is wrong and ought to pass.
Mr. FLOYD said these road were organized under the law, and they have a right to be protected by the law the same as any other organization. Although the stocks cost them only a nominal figure, they have been to a large expense keeping the road in repair. I am oppose to fixing the toll upon these roads.
Mr. CARTER--This law only applies to what is known as the National Road. It was ceded to the State by the United States. The State gave it to the County, and it was then known as the Central Pike Road Company. It existed until the year 1864. They collected toll. For some reason the Courts decided that the tax of the road had become forfeited; that decision was sustained by the Supreme Court. When that was sustained a new Company was organized which took possession of it under the general law. This Company organized, built a new road, expended money, and it would be nothing more than right to say that they shall charge toll as any other road. The Legislature, I believe has the right to regulate the amount of toll and charges of these roads the same as all other roads. It is the duty of this body to step in between the people and the Company, and say what shall be the toll--and give them a fair compensation. This bill provides that the road shall give an account of what the road cost the present Company, and they shall be allowed to charge a toll equal to 10 per cent. above the cost of operating the road, salon'es repairs, general expense plus 10 per cent. interest upon the cost of the road. It seems to me that this is just.
Mr. WILSON, of Montgomery, said: I shall vote against this bill, because it does not establish the toll of all the roads in the State. Being special legislation upon this subject, I think it would be unconstitutional.
Mr. SCHWEITZER was of the opinion that the Legislature had no right to say to any individual what toll he shall charge upon his road or what profit he shall have on anything else. These parties have a right to collect toll, and he thought the Legislature had no right to discriminate betwe n this particular road and others and say that they shall have a profit of 10 per cent It would be just as competent to say to the farmer, or legislate to that effect, that he shall only be allowed a profit of 10 per cent. upon a bushel of wheat, or any other article of produce.
Mr. BARTLETT said this bill has for its object the accomplishment of that which can never have my approval or support I am opposed to any measure that will take the property of another without giving proper equivalent for it The parties owning this road became possessed of it through honorable means. The title is in them, and being their absolute property, they are entitled to control it. This road belonged to the United States Government, and by them it was ceded to the State. From the State it was ceded to the Companies in the different Counties, the several corporations assuming to do work on the road, and to make certain improvements, all of which has been done. The friends of this bill claim that the stock has been watered but I say that it has been watered only by work done on the road. I hope the bill will not pass.
Mr. RYAN was opposed to the bill for the reason that he did not favor legislation upon the subject embraced in the bill, and did not think the Legislature had any right to regulate the charges upon private property. He thought if the Assembly recognized the corporation as a legal one in the eyes of the law, it should not take the stand as attempted in this bill, to regulate the charges upon such highway.
The bill failed to pass--yeas, 13; nays, 73.
HOSPITAL FOR INSANE FEMALES.
The SPEAKER announced the special order being the consideraton of Mr. Meredith's bill [H. R. 189] to establish a Female Hospital, and providing for the organization and government thereof, which was read the second time.
Mr. MEREDITH said this bill is to reform the present system of caring for the female insane by taking them out of the control men and putting them into the hands of women. This principle has been adopted in Pennsylvania, Iowa and Massachusetts, and it has worked well. In all these Institutions they have female physicians to treat the insane. Women are a great deal better adapted to treat and care for women--women being more sympathetic and peculiarly adapted to take care of the sick, and better informed as to the peculiar diseases with which her sex is afflicted. The inmates fare much better and are more successfully treated.
Mr. HAMILTON favored a measure of this kind, and thought the department ought to be under the care of women so far as possible.
The bill was ordered engrossed.
BENEVOLENT INSTITUTIONS.
Mr. Hamilton's bill [H. R. 206] to provide for the qualification, election and government of the Trustees, Superintendent and other officers and employes of the Indiana Asylums for the blind, deaf and dumb and Hospital for the Insane, their management, etc., was read the third time.
Mr. HAMILTON--This bill is simple, plain, and can easily be comprehended. The crowning feature of it is that it takes these Institutions out of the hands of political parties and provides that they shall be governed by persons chosen from both political parties. You can easily see what can be gained by that. I have seen more or less of the Legislature for the last sixteen years, and I have always heard complaint of these Institutions, it matters not whether they are under the supervision of Democratic or Republican managers, and by passing this bill, we shall avoid all this political gaugle. The Superinendent can not assume control of the Institution without the consent and confirmation of the Governor. The growing demand for what isknown as a Female Department is supplied by this bill. It provides that as far as possible that Department shall be under the charge of women. What more can we expect. If it is possible to put them under the treatment of a lady physician, that will be done. This is a wise measure, and every member ought to vote for it.
The bill failed--yeas, 43; nays, 44.
HOUSE BILLS PASSED.
Mr. Bartlett's bill [H. R. 469] to legalize the town of Spiceland, the election of the Board of Trustees, and matters pertaining to their offical acts, was read the third time and passed--yeas, 74; nays, 1.
Mr. BEATTY called up the bill [H. R. 120] appropriating money for the benefit of the former employes of the Orphans' Home for loss sustained by fire.
By unanimous consent, Mr. WALKER amended the bill by striking out $1,050, claim of Rev. R. F. Brewington, and insert instead $600, the difference, $450, being the estimated value of his private library.
The bill passed--yeas, 74; nays, 11.
MUTUAL RELIEF ASSOCIATIONS.
Mr. Benham's bill [H. R. 4] to authorize railway and other employes to organize Associations for mutual relief, and legalizing existing Associations, was read the third time.
Mr. Benham said: We have no law on this subject in operation in the State of Indiana, and there is no law authorizing organizations of that kind. The bill is carefully drawn. It gives an opportunity to form Mutual Benefit Societies; that each member may pay in a certain specified amount and receive so much in case of injury, accident or death. It is a matter of very great importance, and I hope the bill will pass.
The bill passed--yeas, 82; nays, 1.
page: 141[View Page 141]AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. WILSON, of Morgan, introduced a bill [H. R. 519] to provide officers' salaries in certain Counties therein named, prescribing their duties, etc., which was read the first time.
TEMPERANCE LEGISLATION.
The special Committee raised to consider the bill [H. R. 505] regulating the sale of liquors recommended its passage with amendments.
The report was concurred in, the bill was read the second time and ordered engrossed.
The Special Committee reported on the bill [H. R. 502] requiring persons to secure individual license for the purpose of drinking intoxicating liquors, recommending its passage.
The report was concurred in, the bill was read the second time and ordered engrossed.
CITY TAXES.
Mr. KENNER introduced a bill [H. R. 520] to amend Sections 2 and 3 of an act to provide for the collection of taxes for municipal purposes on shares of stock owned in banks doing business in this State, approved March 4, 1873.
Mr. KENNER moved to suspend the constitutional rule, that the bill just read may be read a second time by title, the third time by sections and put on its passage.
The motion was agreed to--yeas, 78; nays, 0.
The bill passed--yeas, 77; nays, 0.
THE NEW STATE HOUSE.
On motion by Mr. Cauthorne, the regular order of business was suspended and the bill [H. R. 407--see page 75 of these Reports, Vol. 20] to provide a revenue to complete the State House building, authorizing money to be borrowed to meet any casual deficiency, appropriating such revenue to the completion of the State House and other matters pertaining thereto, was read third time.
Mr. RYAN said it has been suggested to me that the limitaton in the bill of the appropriation of $100,000 of the cash balance to the general fund, may possibly defeat the bill. That ought to be changed to "any fund not otherwise appropriated." The Treasurer of State might avoid the purposes of the bill by transferring and changing the fund in such a way as to defeat the appopriation. A little verbal change would avoid it.
Mr. CAUTHORNE said: I have no objection to the amendment.
Mr. RYAN, by unanimous consent, offered the following amendment, which was adopted: By striking out the words "of the general fund" and insert in lieu thereof "in the treasury not otherwise approprated."
The bill passed--yeas, 69; nays, 6.
SUPREME COURT COMMISSIONERS.
Mr. RYAN called up his bill [H. R. 489--see page 115 of these Reports] concerning the Supreme Court for the appointment of five Commissioners, which failed for the want of a constitutionl majority.
The bill passed--yeas, 62; nays, 23.
OFFICES AND OFFICERS.
The regular order--the bill [S. 325] concerning officers and offices--was resumed, commencing with Section 60.
Mr. KENNER moved to amend Section 101 by adding the following: "And a certified copy of the printed acts of each session of the General Assembly." He said, in setting forth what the Secretary of State shall preserve, it is also necessary that he preserve a copy of the printed acts. That is the purpose of the amendment.
The amendment was adopted.
SESSION HOUR.
Mr. Hinton's resolution, to change the rule of the House so as to meet two night of each week (Wednesday and Thursday nights) was taken from the table and adopted.
THIRTY-NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT.
On motion by Mr. FANCHER, the constitutional rule was suspended and the bill [H. R. 521] to define the Thirty-ninth Judicial Circuit, and fixing the time for holding Courts, was read the first and second times by title, the third time by sections.
Mr. CAUTHORNE said he had something to do with changing the Circuit up there, and he felt satisfied that the business of the Circuit could all be done if Pulaski County were added. He had no objection to this change.
Mr. CARR, of White--The Judge says emphatically, "No;" that he don't want the County attached to ours (White), as he has already thirty-six weeks occupied, and if he takes Pulaski, it gives him forty-eight weeks, more than any man on earth ought to expect. I am decidedly opposed to the annexation of Pulaski County to our District.
The bill passed--yeas, 53; nays, 23.
FOREIGN INSURANCE COMPANIES.
The Committee on Insurance reported on the bill [H. R. 494--see page 102 of these Reports, vol., 20] to regulate foreign Insurance Companies doing business in this State, recommending its passage.
The report was concurred in, the bill was read the second time and ordered engrossed.
Mr. BUSKIRK said this was a very important bill, and moved to suspend the constitutional rule, that the bill be read a third time by sections and put upon its passage.
The motion was agreed to--yeas, 68; nays, 6--and the bill was read the third time.
Mr. KENNER--There is a simple amendment that I would like to get into this bill. I will you why. Under our present laws are is a discrimination against one Insurance Company known as the Underwriter's Agency. It is composed of two Companies, the Germania and Hanover, both of New York, both doing business under the Underwriter's Agency. The Auditor of State construes this combination and says there are two Companies, and increases the expense just double to that of one Company. They only issue one policy in one State, and it is unjust discrimination against them. It would save them several thousand dollars. I want to insert after the word "Companies" the words "Or Insurance Organizations." That lets them out.
The amendment was agreed to and considered engrossed.
Mr. BUSKIRK said this to meet a class of cases that I know of where the Company did business, took risks and then left the State. In one instance the judgment was out, but they could not be reached. One case where a widow woman was kept out of a large amount of money due her, and we could not get service because the Company closed to have officers in this State, and there was nothing upon which we would get services, and the only thing to do was to take an attachment, which is troublesome. One of the principal objects of the bill is to meet cases of this kind. I hope the bill will pass.
The bill passed--yeas 58; nays, 13.
BILLS PASSED.
Senator Smith's bill [S. 16] to amend Section 79 of an act for the incorporation of cities, was read the third time and passed--yeas 69; nays, 1.
Mr. GARDNER called up his bill [H. R. 418--see page 225 of these Reports] to amend Section 54 of an act to repeal all general laws now in force for the incorporation of cities, prescribing powers, duties and the manner in which it shall be done, approved March 5, 1867, was read the third time and passed--yeas, 76; nays, 1.
Then the House took a recess until 7;30 p. m.
EVENING SESSION.
An evening session was held to continue the reading of Senate bill 325, and after the reading of about 100 sections, the House at 9 p. m. adjourned.
