IN SENATE
SATURDAY, April 9, 1881--9:30 a. m.THE CRIMINAL CODE.
The bill [H. R. 367--see pages 123 and 132 of these Reports] concerning proceedings in criminal cases passed the final vote, with numerous Senate amendments heretofore made, by yeas, 37; nays, 5.
RELEASE OF BONDSMEN.
The bill [H. R. 316] for the relief of a Trustee in Scott County, who lost $900 of the public funds by the failure of a bank in Kentucky, was read the third time and passed--yeas, 36; nays, 5.
POLICE JUDGE FOR INDIANAPOLIS.
The bill [H. R. 34--see pages 70 and 83] to provide for the election of a Police Judge in cities having a population of 60,000 and over, being read the third time--
Mr. MENZIES could see no reason for having a Police Judge, since the jurisdiction of the Mayor had been cut down one-half.
Mr. VAN VORHIS did not understand that any jurisdiction had been taken away from our Mayors. He thought the city ought to be able to call to its Mayoralty a business man, and not be compelled, as now, to call a lawyer to that chair, so he may be qualified to act as Police Judge.
The bill failed to pass for want of a constitutional majority--yeas, 19; nays, 18--as follows:
Yeas--Benz, Chapman, Comstock, Garrigus, Graham, Grubs, Henry, Hostetter, Kahlo, Keiser, Langdon, Lockridge, Owen, Ristine, Sayre, Van Vorhis, White, Wilson and Yancey--19.
Nays--Briscoe, Brown, Bundy, Coffey, Compton, Davidson, Davis, Vaster, Hart, Hefron, Hutchinson, Kramer, Marvin, Menzies, Traylor, Marston, Voyles and Wood--18.
CARE OF PAUPER CHILDREN.
The bill [H. R. 119] amending an act concerning the organization of voluntary associations being read the third time--
Mr. SPANN belived a bill passed the Senate covers the same ground.
Mr. VAN VORHIS explained that this bill provides the per diem for keeping the child can be paid at once without waiting for one year under the present law. The bill passed the Senate is not a mandatory act, while this is an amendment to an existing statute.
The bill was rejected--yeas, 15; nays, 21.
PUBLIC OFFENSES.
On motion by Mr. COMSTOCK, the Senate returned to the consideration of the bill [H. R. 393--see page 17] conoerning public offenses, commencing where it left off yesterday, at Section 165.
On motion of Mr. URMSTON, the minimum fine for selling intoxicating liquor to an intoxicated person was reduced from fifty to five dollars.
Mr. HENRY made an ineffectual motion to make it ten dollars.
On motion by Mr. COFFEY, all was stricken out, proposing a fine for the second, and a fine and imprisonment for the third conviction of being found is a a public place in a state of intoxication; so the section stands with a simple fine of five dollars for that offense.
Mr. BROWN moved to strike out all in reference to imprisonment for the sale of spirituous liquor to an intoxicated person. It is too much of a punishment for so trivial an offense; it is out of all reason. This section does not confine the punishment to confirmed drunkards, and would be placing in the power of some malicious person to jail one whom the State has licensed to sell liquors. The enormity of the penalty will in many instances defeat the object of the section.
Mr. HENRY thought the punishment should be left discretionary, and so moved to amend.
Mr. COFFEY opposed the motion to strike out. The talk about non-execution of the law is bosh. The penalty should be such as to deter men from violating laws. Is it wrong for a person engaged in the sale of intoxicating liquors to sell such to persons in a state of intoxication? The law declares it is a public offense, and unless sufficint penalties are imposed men engaged in the traffic will not be deterred from so doing. If a small fine is imposed they care but little for it, but if in addition they are to be imprisoned, that punishment will be a deterrent. Unless this page: 156[View Page 156] clause is left in the bill, the whole section might as well be stricken out.
Mr. SPANN also opposed the motion to strike out. There should be such a penalty affixed that such a crime will not be repeated. The penalty we have is not sufficient. This section is not harmful to the man selling the liquor, because it requires proof to be made that the seller had direct knowledge of the fact that the buyer was intoxicated.
Mr. FOSTER believed the motion to strike out is right, and opposed the adoption of the section as it stands. It unfair and unjust.
Mr. HENRY withdrew his motion.
Mr. BROWN said there would scarcely ever be a conviction under this section. Encouraging prosecutions of this kind would be to encourage prosecutions of some poor unfortunates unable to defend themselves. The more wealthy and highly connected would almost invariably avoid the penalty.
The motion to strike ont was agreed to.
Mr. Henry reoffered his amendment, leaving imprisonment in the discretion of the Court or Jury trying the case.
Mr. BROWN believed the same evil, in many instances, would occur, and hoped the amendment would not prevail.
The amendment was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER decided the bill is before the Senate for commitment or amendment, after which the question will be: Shall the Senate amendments be ordered engrossed?
AFTERNOON SESSION.
On motion by Mr. DAVIDSON, the bill [H. R. 283] to legalize the corporation of the town of Argos, Marshall County, was read the first time and passed over because so few Senators were present.
The Committee amendment striking out the disfranchising clause was concurred in.
Mr. TRAYLOR moved to strike out the imprisonment clause for selling to intoxicated persons.
Mr. WILSON hoped the section would remain just as it stands.
Mr. WOOD insisted this bill was too savage in its character. He would be willing to see a reasonable law passed.
Mr. GARRIGUS insisted no man should have license another moment after violating a notice forbidding the sale to any son, father or relative.
Mr. GRAHAM could not describe the enormity of the offense. It ought to be punished with imprisonment for a long term.
Mr. BRISCOE said liquor-sellers knew their customers and are well aware of their habits, and should not be permitted to sell, to the class who are in the habit of getting intoxicated. He opposed the clause allowing notice to be given by any citizen of the Township or Ward, because it would productive of mischief. No man has the right to interfere with the domestic relations of another. He desired such notice to come directly from some member of the immediate family. And he opposed striking out a cent of the penalty. The punishment can not be too severe, after notification in writing. If a fine would prevent this evil, though it be $5OO, he would vote for it. He would do anything in reason to stop that kind of business.
Mr. FOSTER was surprised to notice the position of the Senator from Blackford [Mr. Briscoe], in asmuch as that Senator voted against the joint resolution for a prohibitory amendment to the Constitution.
Mr. BRISCOE regarded his vote against local option as something to be proud of. The present law was much better than a local option measure.
The motion to strike out was rejected.
On motion by Mr. GRUBBS, the imprisonment was made discretionary with the Court or Jury trying the cause.
Mr, KRAMER made an ineffectual motion to substitute $50 for $100 as the maximum fine.
Mr. BRISCOE made an ineffectual motion to strike out the words, "any citizen of the Township or Ward wherein such person resides," and insert in lieu thereof "any member of his family" after the words, "notice shall have been given him in writing by."
Mr. BELL, from the Special Committee thereon, returned Section 169, with an amendment which would not prevent betting on races, but would prohibit such at Agricultural Fairs.
Mr. GARRIGUS saw no reason for making a distinction in this matter. The proposition of this Committee is to say betting is illegal at State and County Fairs, but is legalized everywhere else. He opposted making that kind of an amendment.
Mr. FOSTER would vote as he believed a majority of the better class of his constituents desire. He did not believe anybody ought to be allowed to gamble, and did not believe the people were demanding any such an amendment as this. It has been thoroughly tested and found to be true that a larger number would attend Agricultural Fairs and such meetings where there is no betting than where betting is allowed.
By consent the vote on concurring in the Committee report was deferred till more Senators are present.
Thirteen Senate Committee and eight other amendments were adopted.
SHEEP PROTECTION.
On motion by Mr. VAN VORHIS, the Senate reconsidered the vote by which the report of the Committee of Free Conference was concurred in on the bill [H. R. 36] to protect sheep husbandry, and the Senate consented to another meeting of said Committee to consider the disagreements between the two Houses on this bill.
SURPLUS TAX FUND.
On motion by Mr. SAYRE, the bill [H. R. 390] to amend the act of March 14, 1877, concerning the distribution of the surplus tax fund, was read the first time and passed to the second reading.
GOVERNOR'S VETO.
A message from the Governor was laid before the Senate, transmitting his Excellency's veto of the bill [S. 176] to amend an act of February 22, 1875, amending the act regulating the adoption of heirs, approved March 2, 1855.
The Governor sets forth his reasons for the veto at length, and states the belief that "the bill has been passed without due consideration."
The message is in the following words:
GENTLEMEN OF THE SENATE-
I respectfully return to the Senate, with my objections thereto, Senate bill numbered 176, entitled "An act to amend the first section of an act entitled 'An act to amend an act regulating the adoption of heirs approved March 2, 1855,' approved February 27, 1875."
The act of 1872, with respect to the adoption of heirs, as amended by an act of 1875, provides that any person who shall desire to adopt a child shall file his petition therefor in the Circuit Court of the County in which the child resides. It requires that the petition, besides giving the name of the petitioner and the child, and stating it has property, shall also state whether the child has father or mother living, and if so, where they reside; and the fifth section of the act, which is referred to in the above title as the first section of the act of 1875, provides that the Court shall not order the adoption of a child if it have father or mother living, unless the father or mother appear in open Court and give consent thereto. Provision, however, is made that if the petitioner shall show by two competent witnesses that the residence of the father or mother is unknown, or if the childe be in the House of Refuge for Juvenile Offenders or
page: 157[View Page 157]the Reformatory Institution for Women and Girls, committed to these Institutions by law for other reasons than the conviction of crime or incorrigibility, the Court may order the adoption upon terms therein provided, notwithstanding the consent of the father or mother may not have been obtained.
In the bill under consideration the clause of the existing law is ommitted, which provides in substance that in case where the child is not an inmate of the House of Refuge or of the Reformatory Institution for Women and Girls, it shall not be adopted when neither father or mother appears in Court, unless it is shown by two competent witnesses that the residence of the father or mother is unknown, and it substitutes for that clause these words:
"Provided, that where the father or mother do not appear, the child shall not be adopted without the consent in open Court of the Trustee of the Township where such child resides."
The rules concerning adoption, prescribed by the bill now returned, is in the following terms:
"Such persons shall not adopt such child if it have a father or mother living, unless such consent thereto; provided, that in all cases where the father or mother do not appear, the child shall not be adopted without the consent in open Court, of the Trusteee of the Township where such child resides; and, provided, further, that if such child be, at the time of filing and hearing such petition an inmate of the House of Refuge for Juveline Offenders, or of the Indiana Reformatory Institution for Women and Girls, committed therto by law for other reason that the conviction for crime or incorrigibility, such petition may be filed in any Circuit Court or Superior Court of the Sate, and upon tbe failing of the written consent of the Board of Control of the Board of Managers of such Institution to such adoption, then such Court may adopt such child."
It seems to me that under the provisions of this bill it would be competent for the Court to order the adoption of a child upon the application of a petition, if the Trustee of the Township should consent in open Court, notwithstanding the parents of the child might well be known, might be able to support it, might be ignorant of the pending of the application for adoption, and might be within easy reach of the process of the Court.
It is believed that the bill has been passed without due consideration, and that no member of either House would be willing to confer a power so dangerous upon any tribunal.
ALBERT G. PORTER.
Mr. HENRY said he introduced the bill at the suggestion of the Revision Committee, but until he showed the members of that Committee the original bill they would not admit they had gotten it up.
Mr. BROWN made an ineffectual motion to have the veto message made a special order for Monday at 9 1/2 o'clock a. m
REVISED STATUTES OF 1881.
On motion by Mr. LANGDON, 100 copies of the bill [H. R. 437] concerning the publication of the Revised Statutes of 1881, were ordered printed.
NEW PROPOSITIONS.
The following described bills were introduced, read the first time and severally referred to appropriate Committees.
By Mr. KEISER [S. 377]: Supplemental to the act approved April 8, 1881, defining the Thirty-first Judicial Circuit, by declaring that the same shall take effect immediately.
By Mr. WILSON [S. 378]: Concerning the organization and business of the two Houses of the General Assembly and matters properly connected therewith. (For the purpose of organizing the Senate: the Lieutenant Governor, or, in his absence, the oldest member of the Senate holding over. The Speaker of the last House to organize the House of Representatives, or, if he be not present, the Chief Clerk of the last House, or, if he be not present, some member elect, to be designated by the Governor.)
PUBLIC OFFENSES.
The consideration of the bill [H. R. 393] concerning public offenses and their punishment was resumed.
Mr. BROWN moved to postpone its further consideration.
The yeas and nays were demanded, and being taken showed no quorum present.
The came an adjournment till Monday at 9:30 a. m.
