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
