THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
VOLUME
TWENTY.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
SPECIAL SESSION.
IN SENATE.
MONDAY, April 11, 1881--9:30 a. m.PUBLIC OFFENSES.
The consideration of the bill [H. R. 393] concerning public offenses and their punishment, was resumed, commencing at Section 376.
On motion by Mr. CHAPMAN, an additional section was adopted in these words: "Every person undergoing imprisonment in any Prison or Jail upon a conviction for any public offense shall be disfranchised during the period of such imprisonment.
Mr. VAN VORHIS offered an amendment, which was adopted, fixing severe penalties for the sale of diseased meats or for any article of food or drink when sold for something other than than it really may be. The object of the amendment is to check the sale of oleomargarine.
Mr. WILSON offered an amendment, which was adopted, fixing a fine of not less than $50 nor more than $500 for attendance upon prize fights The amendment does not admit the attendance of newspaper reporters.
On motion by Mr. CHAPMAN, an amendment was added to protect the property of Public Libraries.
Mr. WOOD offered an amendment which was adopted, imposing a fine not less than $10 nor more than $29 on anyone letting or loaning a seine for the purpose of fishing in any lake or stream in this State in violation of the provisions of this act.
Mr. VAN VORHIS offered an amendment, that whoever shall knowingly sell to any person or deliver to any cheese or butter manufactory any milk diluted with water or in any way adulterated, or milk from which any cream has been taken, or milk, commonly known as "skimmed milk," or shall keep back any part of the milk known as "strippings," with intent to defraud, or shall knowingly sell milk from any diseased cow, or cow fed upon the refuse of distilleries or breweries, or shall knowingly use any poisonous or deleterious material in the manufacture of cheese or butter, shall be fined not less than $50 nor more than $500.
The amendment was adopted.
On motion by Mr. GARRIGUS, the words "grown within this State" were stricken out of the prohibition against adulterating "any wine made from grapes grown within this State."
A vote on the report of a Special Committee on the section permitting pool selling at horse races--which was postponed on Saturday morning till a quorum shall appear--was now taken by yeas and nays, but no quorum voting, the roll-call was laid aside by unanimous consent till other Senators shall come in. Subsequently, after a sufficient number of Senators had appeared the vote was completed and the result announced--yeas, 13; nays, 24.
So the report was not concurred in.
Eleven Committee and eleven other amendments were adopted.
SOLDIERS' ORPHANS' HOME.
Mr. URMSTON, from the Committee thereon, returned the bill [H. R. 129--see page 89 of this volume] to appropriate certain money's [$3,953] to reimburse employes for losses sustained by the burning of that Institution several years ago, with a favorable report thereon.
The question being on concurring in the report--
Mr. VOYLES--Opposed the passage of this bill.
Mr. SPANN and Mr. VAN VORHIS thought it an equitable measure.
Mr. BROWN opposed this class of claims--proposing making the State a guarantor for losses to employes occasioned by casualty.
Mr. COMSTOCK also thought it wrong as a general thing, but in this particular instance these employes showed they regarded the trust confided to them as a sacred one; and on that ground it is proper to reward fidelity.
Mr. URMBTON stated the only parties claiming are teachers and employees--all but three women, and the most of them widows and orphans. Two years ago this matter passed one Honse, but failed to pass the other.
Mr. VOYLES did not believe this is a right thing to do. There is no law that would allow one citizen to demand extraordinary pay of another for services at a fire. It is a duty one citizen owes to another to assist in such cases, and not ask afterward a reward.
Mr. WOOD was sorry to see opposition to this page: 162[View Page 162] bill. These claimnts saved hundreds of helpless children in this Institution, and in so doing lost their own personal property.
Mr. BUNDY favored the bill and hoped the favorable report of the Committee would be concurred in. The items are none of them large, and consist principally of clothing, as he understood it. If this bill was rejected it would be regarded as an instruction to persons in charge of the State Institutions to hereafter take charge of their own personal effects and let the State's go.
The report was concurred in--yeas, 29; nays, 6.
The roll-call of the vote commenced some time ago--on the Committee report on the section concerning pool selling, legalized betting at horse races, was now completed and resulted--yeas, 13; nays, 24.
So the report was not concurred in.
WOMEN LAWYERS.
Mr.VIEHE, from the Special Senate Committee to which was referred the joint resolution [S. 14] proposing to amend the Constitution so that women may be allowed to practice law in the State, reported that the resolution be so amended that it should read: "Amend the Constitution by striking out the twenty-first section of article seven thereof." This was a more direct method of getting at the same result contemplated in the original resolution.
FEE AND SALARIES.
Mr. CHAPMAN presented the petition of a number of leading property holders of the city of Indianapolis praying the Legislature to pass the fee and salary bill, as it will relieve the tax account of many thousand dollars.
REDUCTION OF CITY LIMITS.
On motion by Mr. HOWARD, the bill [H. R. 428] authorizing cities and town to disannex territory from corporate limits, was passed the three readings under a dispensation of the constitutional restriction.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
FEES AND SALARIES.
Mr. GRAHAM called up the special order, being the fee and salary bill [S. 369].
DRAINAGE OF WET LANDS.
On motion by Mr. KRAMER, the bill [H. R. 147--see page 124 of this volume] to enable owners of wet lands to drain and reclaim them. when the same can not be done without affecting the lands of others, was read the second time by title only, under a dispensation of the constitutional restriction, with a report of a Senate Committee proposing amendments, which were adopted.
Mr. HOSTETTER offered an amendment that will require the County Surveyor to go out and inspect the work instead of the three provided for in the bill, who would have to employ a regular surveyor to do the work anyhow. He said the House Committee consent to this amendment, and he hoped it would prevail.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Senate amendments were ordered engrossed.
INSPECTOR OF ELECTIONS.
On motion by Mr. MENZIES, the bill [H. R. 457--see page 133 of this volume] to amend Section 14 of the bill for the incorporation of towns was read the second time by title only under a dispensation of the constitutional rule, and passed to the final vote. It passed the Senate by yeas, 37; nays, 0.
COMMON SCHOOLS--COUNTY SEATS.
Mr. OWEN said the bill [H. R. 322-see pages 47 and 52 of this volume] concerning Common Schools was referred to the Committee before it was read, and it would be better to have the new matter pointed out by a Committee, and he would be willing to wait an hour to have that done. He moved to suspend the constitutional rule that the school bill [H. R. 322] may be taken up and read the first and second times by title.
Mr. BROWN moved to substitute the bill [S. 298] concerning the re-location of County Seats, and as a speech in support of this motion sent to the Clerk's desk and had read a petition signed he said, by many prominent citizens of Seymour, praying for the passage of this bill.
The substitute was rejected, as was also the motion to suspend the constitutional rule.
FEES AND SALARIES.
On motion by Mr. SAYRE, under the operations of the previous question, the bill [S. 369] to provide fees and salaries for County officers, was made the special order for to-morrow at 9:30 o'clock.
ELECTIONS AND ELECTION CONTESTS
On motion by Mr. CHAPMAN, the constitutional rule was suspended and the bill [H. R. 225--see page 39 of this volume] concerning elections and the contest thereof, being a compilation and revision of existing laws on subject, was read the second time by title only.
The Committee substitute for Section 1, changing the day of the general election to conform with the recently ratified Constitutional Amendments, was adopted.
The Committee amendment to Section 17 being read--
Mr. CHAPMAN stated, in case any authorities see fit to adopt such a box as is referred to in the bill, the Committee amendment provides that no ballot should be counted except such as is stamped, and strikes out all else in reference to the patent ballot-box.
Mr. TRAYLOR did not think the section ought to be adopted as it is. He moved the section be referred to a Select Committee of three, which he named.
The motion was rejected.
Mr. MARVIN moved to strike out all in reference to a ballot-box.
The motion was agreed to.
Ten or a dozen Committee amendments were adopted.
Mr. LANGDON moved to reconsider the vote by which the Committee report was concurred in, making the voting Precincts to consist of 500 instead of 350 voters. He was satisfied one of the greatest safeties of the ballot-box is in making Precincts so small that respectable citizens may know every one entitled to vote in the Precincts. The greatest frauds are perpetrated in Precicts where there are so many voters it is impossible to know them all. There will be no need of devices in patent ballot-boxes where the Precints are small.
Mr. GRUBBS thought substantially the same guards can be thrown around Precincts of 500 as around Precincts of 350.
Mr. BELL--While it may be contended that it is more trouble and more expense, yet he hoped the motion would prevail.
The motion to reconsider was agreed to.
The question occuring on the Committe report making voting Precincts to consist of "500" instead of "350" voters--
The report was rejected by yeas, 15; nays, 21.
Some seventeen other Committee amendments were adopted.
Only such sections of the bill as are proposed to be amended by the Committee report were read.
The amendments were ordered engrossed.
SHERIFF'S FEES.
Mr. SAYRE, from the Committee thereon, returned the bill [R. R. 311] cutting off constructive mileage fees by Sheriffs, with a favorable report thereon.
The report was concurred in and the bill was read the second time.
page: 163[View Page 163]Mr. HENRY moved to amend by cutting off a constructive fee by the Clerks.
The amendment was adopted.
On motion by Mr. HENRY, the constitutional rule was dispensed with, the Senate amendments engrossed, the bill read the third time and passed the Senate.
SHORT-HAND REPORTERS.
On motion by Mr. RISTINE, the bill [H. R. 134] to amend Section 1 of the act for the appointment of short-hand reporters, so as to render females eligible to appointment, was read the third time and passed.
REVISED STATUTES OF 1881.
On motion by Mr. LANGDON, the constitutional rule was dispensed with, and the bill [H. R. 437] concerning the publication of the Revised Statutes of 1881, was read the first and second times by title only, with a Senate Committee substitute therefor.
Mr.MENZIES moved to increase the number of Commissioners to be appointed by the Governor to perform the duties prescribed in the bill, from two to all of the Members of the Board of Revision of the Laws.
Mr. COMSTOCK thought the work of a character that could not well be divided. He moved a substitute to reduce the number to one.
Mr. BELL opposed the substitute. This sort of work can properly be subdivided--let one Commissioner take one portion of the code and another Commissioner another. It should be done speedily. No one or two men can do the work properly in eight months. These persons can go on with this work rapidly now.
Mr. GRUBBS should stand by the report of the Committee believing two sufficient to do the work. The work can be better done by two than by three.
The substitute was rejected.
Mr. RROWN would favor the reduction did he suppose it could be done more economically; but there is just so much work to be done, and it is important this publication should be made as soon as possible. Court Judges will doubt and hesitate to decide cases, awaiting for the revision to be published. He favored the amendment rather than the report of the Committee.
Mr. LANGDON also favored the amendnment, beliveing this labor will require all three of the Board of Revision, and three gentlemen are better prepared to do this work that two. The bill provides the work shall be completed in six months, and the three Commissioners should be retained, an odd number being desirable in case of a difference of opinion.
The amendment was agreed to.
On motion by Mr. CHAPMAN, the words "and such Commissioners shall hold the position until the 1st day of November,1881" were added to Section 1.
Mr. BUNDY made an ineffectual to have the advertisement for bids for the publication of the Revised Statutes of 1881 in "three" papers in Indianapolis instead of "two" as the bill provides.
Mr. WILSON made an ineffectual motion to reduce the number of papers to "one."
The the Senate took a recess till 7:30 o'cl ck p. m. for the sole purpose of reading the bill [H. R. 393] concerning public offenses.
NIGHT SESSION.
Mr. VIEHE took the Chair and directed the Clerk to read the bill H. R. 393. After some time--
An adjournment took place till to-morow.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
MONDAY, April 11, 1881--9 a. m.STATES RIGHTS.
Mr. CAUTHORNE offered a resolution that the Joint Assembly of the State of Indiana declare the fidelity and allegiance to the Government of the United States, created by the Federal Constitution. Also that we indorse the political ideas defined by the immortal statesmen, Adams and Jefferson, under the possession and exercise of sovereign power. Also, that the several State Governments are sovereignties to the full extent and meaning of the term, possessing all the attributes of sovereignty possessed by the people thereof, respectively. Also, that all Governments are organized for public police purposes, and shcould be so administered that its benefits and burdens will fall equally upon its citizens, as the dews of the Heavens fall upon the earth, and that all its citizens should contribute equally, as nearly as possible, according to ability, toward its maintenance and support, etc.
Mr. CAUTHORNE said as it impossible to pass any bills the last two days of the session, instead of throwing paper wads and fooling away the timewe might as well discuss these questions; therefore, he moved that the resolution lie on the table until Friday at 2 p. m., when it shall be taken up and considered.
The motion was agreed to.
ORDER OF BUSINESS.
Mr. Cauthorne's resolution to appoint a Committee of seven to arrange a calendar of the most important bills to be considered the remainder of the session, was called up from the table. He said: I think this is eminently proper. We are in the throes of dissolution, and a small matter will create a panic feeling at the end of the session. There are a number of very important bills on the calendar, and for the purpose of putting the matters forward that are of public interest, I think we ought to pass this resolution.
Mr. MILES--I presume, under the existing arrangement, every important bill will be called up. The call is proceeding down the roll, and every member has an opportunity to call up a bill. If we change this rule, it is probable, and the objection is that the parties who have already called up bills will get another opportunity to call up their bills. I think it is unjust.
Mr. FANCHER--I think myself the resolution ought to pass, although it may seem a little unfair to the gentlemen whos names have not been called; but I think that the Committee appointed by the Speaker would, perhaps, show them some courtesy, and if their bills are of any importance they would be put in the list, and in that way the whole matter would be harmonized.
Mr. MILES moved to amend by adding: Provided that no bill be included in said list introduced by any member whos name has been called under the rule now in force.
The amendment was rejected, and the resolution was laid on the table.
DECEDENT ESTATES.
Senator Viehe's bill [S. 351] concerning the settlement of decedent estates was read the third time by sections.
Mr. EDWINS moved to amend Section 44 by striking out the words "and ornament." He said: I do this from the fact that I think, after the decease of a person, the word "ornament" might embrace a great deal of property in the shape of diamonds and other valuable jewelry, and it would leave a very large loop-hole that ought not to be in there.
Mr. STEWART--That has been the law since 1852, and I never have seen any difficulty under it. If you strike out the words "and ornament," then the administrator could go and pull the wedding ring off the widow's finger and sell it.
On motion by Mr. FANCHER, the amendment was laid on the table.
Mr. HUFF moved to amend Section 126 as follows: Add after the word "value," in the sixth line, the following: Provided, however, that nothing in this act shall be so construed as to prevent the appraisers of one County from appraising the page: 164[View Page 164] lands of decedents situated in an adjoining County, where it is convenient to do so. He spoke in favor of the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. CARTER moved to amend the bill by striking out Sections 9, 3 and 94 of the printed bill. He said that these sections provided that no action can be brought against decedents on account of contracts executed by other parties. The practice heretofore has been that a suit should be brought against the persons still living, and the adminstrator be made a defendant with the decedent when judgement was rendered. If that law stood, that would be sufficient against the administrator without filing a claim against the estate. Under these sections a litigated suit would have to be brought against the persons still living, and also file a claim against the estate, and both parties be litigants, thus causing two suits, whereas if the amendment prevails one suit would be all that is necessary.
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. KENNER moved to amend section 167 by adding the following condition upon the finding of the Court upon any report showing the receipts and expenditures by the executor or administrator. An appeal will be to the Supreme Court as in final judgment. He said we oftentimes find estates which have administrators and executors a long time, and oftentimes leave a will and oftentimes estates remain unsettled until the youngest child becomes of age, and the administrator may go to Court with a report showing a certain condition of affairs, and the Court says: It is not right, and rejects the report, and there is no appeal and the administrator must submit to what the Court says. This amendment gives the privilege to appeal to the Supreme Court, with a report showing receipts, expenditures, etc.; the same as a party would upon the final report. I think it is right and in the interest of administrators settling estates. Courts may disagree, and wrongfully, too.
The amendment was adopted.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Mr. THOMPSON offered a concurrent resolution to amend the Constitution of the State of Indiana as follows: Amend Section 11, Article 2. There shall be elected for each County of the State a Prosecuting Attorney who shall hold his office for four years.
It was read the first time.
GRAVEL ROADS.
The Committee on Roads reported on the bill [H. R. 498] to authorize and empower Macadamized and Gravel Road Companies to enter upon and condemn land, and appropriate stone and gravel thereon to be used for the construction of the road, recommending its passage.
The report was concurred in and the bill was ordered engrossed.
DECEDENTS' ESTATES.
The reading of the bill [S. 351] concerning the settlement of decedent estates was resumed, commencing with Section 197.
Mr. CAUTHORNE moved to amend Section 189, line one, by striking out the word "some," and insert in lieu thereof, the word "the," and by striking out in line two the words, "of the country," and insert in lieu thereof the words, "that settled said estate." He said, as this bill was originally defeated, there was a provision made for a public administrator for each County. That was stricken out in the Senate, and this is one section in which they failed to strike out that word, public administrator, and this amendment simply harmonizes the bill.
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. MITCHELL moved to amend Section 172, line 2, by striking out"or may refer the same to the Master Commissioner of the Court for hearing." He said: I have examined the bill carefully, and find that there is an apposition of terms "Master Commissioner" as used in connection with the settlement of decedent estatates. I can not see the use of this Master Commissioner. We have our Circuit Courts and Judges, and I do not believe they are so loaded down with work but what they can attend to this. I can see this feature in this measure: To take as much as possible of these estates--to eat up as much as possible. If I understand this matter now, an admintstrator or executor who has property to settle goes and employs an attorney--he chooses an attorney--he pleases, and the money come out of the decedent's estate. I do not see the necessity of this Master Commissioner, who gets $5 per day, and the chances are that he would put in every day in the year.
Mr. CAUTHORNE--I don't think the amendment ought to prevail. The object of that provision is this: If the business of the County so demand it the Judge shall employ an attorney to assist him, and the Court may allow him a reasonable fee for his services. It is as the law stands now. It does work injustice to anybody. I move to lay the amendment on the table.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. BENHAM moved to strike out Section 53 of the printed bill. He said: It occurs to me that this matter of referring everything to a Master Commissioner is a great outrage on the descendents' estate. In the County officers bill we have a Master Commissioner appointed by the Circuit Court--we have a Commission for each County. That Master Commissioner is allowed $5 per day for every day's services. The law provides that the Judges or Master Commissioner shall examine all inventories, etc., etc., of the administrator, and indorse the same. Anyone knows than neither a clerk, Judge, or anyone else, can tell whether the inventory is correct or not except the administrator himself, and I would like to know what sense there is to submit an inventory to a Master Commissioner or the Judge before it is filed. I think the section is an outrage. The cost of the Commissioner, the costs of the Court and the cost of the administrator would consume half the estate.
Mr. CAUTHORNE said: I do not think the amendment ought to prevail. Everyone who has had any experience in the County Clerk's office knows that perhaps one-half of the inventories filed are imperfect; that they are a disgrace to the State of Indiana, having such an immense school fund, and they are not gotten up in propr form, not spelled right, not added up right, and never ought to be filed. The Judge gets no fee; there is no fee provided for this. It does not add one single cent's expense to the estate. This is a part of the Judge's duty, and, in case he is away, the matter is referred to the Master Commissioner. There is no expense connected with this matter. It simply requires this inventory to be presented to the Judge for examination, to see if it is drawn up in proper form, and whether it ought to be filed at all.
Mr. RYAN--I do not suppose there is a County in the State where there ha not been a large amount of money lost to the State on account of the insufficient and bad condition of the inventories, and no man could take the files and tell anything about what there was. I do not know what the gentleman means by saying that it will entail a great deal of expense upon the State. There is nothing in the bill that provides any such expense as was spoken of. The law regulates the payment of the Master Commissioner--provides that the Court shall have control of the Master Commissioner and what ahall be paid him. Now, something of this kind in absolutely necessary in every County of the State of Indiana. I think the section ought not to be interfered with.
Mr. STEWART thought everything in this bill relating to Master Commissioner ought to be page: 165[View Page 165] stricken out; that a Commissioner could affix his indorsement to an inventory once a day, and charge the estate $5 for it. He was opposed to this office in connection with the Judge.
Mr. KENNER said the civil code just passed compells every Circuit Judge to appoint at least one Commissioner in his County, and he is paid out of the County Treasury just what the Judge can get for him. If you will act as Master Commissioners, the Judge will hire you for $2 or $3 or $4 a day, or whatever you agree upon. It is necessary to have a Master Commissioner to act in the absence of the Judge, to issue habeus corpus, etc. We have got him and must pay him.
Mr. CAUTHORNE said it was not the duty of the Clerk of the Court to examine the inventories filed. He has not the power to charge a single thing. It is his duty to receive and file them. That is his whole duty. The object of this provision is to relieve the Judge of this task during the term of Court, and not impose upon him an over amount of duties. This is nothing new. The law has been in force since 1852. The Judge allows whatever he thinks is right, and I am willing to trust the Judges of the State of Indiana, and I hope the Section will remain as it is.
Mr. LINDLEY moved to strike out the words, "Master Commissioner," where it occurs in this bill, and insert, instead, the words, "Clerk of the Circuit Court."
The motion was ruled out of order.
Mr. LINDLEY--This portion of the bill ought to be stricken out. I can not see why the Clerk should be required to hand over a paper to the Master Commissioner before he is allowed to file it. I ask what can the Judge or Commissioner tell in relation to an inventory that has been made if he can not appoint two appraisers and go over the whole list to seee whether it is correct or not?
Mr. CARR, of White, made an ineffectual motion--yeas, 32; nays, 40--to lay the amendment on table.
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. MURRAY moved to amend Section 241 by striking out of line three the words "Or common pleas," and insert in lieu thereof the words, "Having probate jurisdiction."
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. STEWART made an ineffectual motion--yeas, 31; nays, 43--to recommit the bill to a Committee of three, with instructions to strike out all relating to "Master Commissioners."
Mr. COLE moved to indefinitely postpone the bill with the amendments.
Mr. MILES thought the motion should prevail.
Mr. CAUTHORNE moved to lay the motion on the table.
It was so agreed--yeas, 43; nays, 33.
The amendment were considered, engrossed, and the bill passed--yeas, 57; nays, 15.
RECORDS OF COURTS.
Mr. BUSKIRK called up the bill [H. R. 414]: To legalize and render valid the records of the Circuit and Common Pleas Courts of the various Counties in the State of Indiana, and it was passed the House--yeas, 67; nays, 6.
THE SPECIFIC APPROPRIATION BILL.
The Committee on Ways and Means reported on the bill [H. R. 439], making specific appropriations, recommending its passage with amendments.
The report was concurred in and the bill was read the second time.
Mr. FULLER moved to amend the appropriation bill by striking out the $300 allowed John A. Finch.
Mr. KENNER-Two years ago the Legislature created a Commission to codify the insurance law and we find the law before us now. This body authorized the employment of these men to do this work and Mr. Finch was employed in consequence of that law. He went on and codified the law and files his claim before the Committee on Claims, and my recollection is that it was favorably reported. They find that $300 is a much smaller sum than he asked before for doing it, and the House concurred in the report.
Mr. FULLER said: I have nothing to say for or against this measure more than this: If a man is appointed to do the work that Mr. Finch was and can not give us something better than this insurance bill, he ought not to be paid.
The amendment was adopted--yeas, 40; nays, 29.
Mr. WALKER moved to amend by striking out the ninth clause, which allows David R. Munson $5,128.
Mr. EDWINS moved to substitute a clause giving him (David Munson) $600. He said: I do not believe that all of this claim ought to be allowed. This subject was thoroughly investigated two years ago and shown that this was not a just claim. The Commissioners so determined last session, and concluded that $600 should be allowed, and I think the House ought to make that the amount.
Mr. CARTER could see no reason why the House should object to this claim from the fact that is was a valid one directly contracted for by the Superintendent of the institution for the Insane. He thought there was a contract, and the House ought not to repudiate it.
Mr. MITCHELL was opposed to allowing this claim, on the ground that it had been fully investigated at the previous session, and the claim was refused; and for the further reason that lightning rods are a humbug.
Mr. THOMPSON thought this or any other claim legitimately contracted for by the Representatives of the State in any of the Public Institutions for which value was received, should be allowed
The substitute was rejected and the amendment was adopted--yeas, 43; nays, 35.
Mr. MORGAN moved to amend the bill by inserting after the word "building" the followng: "and for the purpose of library, or philosophy, chemical and other apparatuses and teaching of the natural sciences." He said: This section appropriates $8,000 for the purpose of purchasing a boiler and other heating appliance to be used in heating the State Normal School building. You will observe that the money could be used for no other purpose. To secure proper heating apparatus for this building may not require more than $4,000. The proposed amendment simply provides that any of this money not necessary for the purpose named herein, may be used by the Trustees in buying apparatus to teach the natural sciences and for the purchase of a library. The Institution is badly in need of apparatuses of this kind. The amendment proposes to appropriate no more money, and I hope and believe no gentleman will vote against its adoption.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. FULLER moved to strike out all the claims for swamp-land ditching in Tipton County.
Pending which the House adjourned.
