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.
