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.
