HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
TUESDAY, April 12, 1881--9 a. m.STOCK IMPROVEMENT.
By a viva voce vote the House agreed to resume the regular order: Bills on the third reading as called up by members in alphabetical order.
Mr. M'DOWELL called up Mr. Meredith's bill [H. R. 400] to encourage the improvement of live stock, and it was read the third time.
Mr. MEREDITH said: This is an important bill to the stock-raising, farming community. It provides for a license on stallons and jacks in the public service, and gives the person owning the stallion or jack a lien upon the produce, thereby rendering safe any contract that a man may make, and I think it is highly necessary. We all know that there are so few fine horses in the State, and by the passage of such a measure as this it will encourage owners of fine horses to bring them into the State for the purposes indicated. The farming community will reap a vast benefit from such a bill.
Mr. McINTOSH was in favor of the bill, and considered it right and just that a man owning a stallion or jack should have a lien on the offspring, in order to secure him against the losses now so common that way.
Mr. CARR, of White, said he had but little faith in what was said about horses and jacks, or men either. He thought if one-hundredth part said about the blood of horses and jacks of this coun page: 169[View Page 169] try be true, we would have horses that would trot a mile in one-fourth of a minute, and jacks that would make stallions instead of mules.
Mr. GILLMAN was opposed to the bill, because he thought it would work to the detriment of the farming community, and to the profit and benefit of those owning stallions.
Mr. BUSKIRK could see nothing wrong in giving a lien upon the property of a man receiving services in cases of this kind any more than any other. If the claim is a just one, it should be paid, and this merely gives the necessary assurance of its payment.
The bill passed the House--yeas, 56; nays, 25.
FIRE INSURANCE POLICIES.
Mr. M'CORMICK called up his bill [H. R. 95] to regulate Fire Insurance Companies, making the face of the policy the amount of damages to be paid in case of fire, unless the Company prefer to rebuild, was called up from the table, considered engrossed and read the third time.
Mr. HUSTON said the Committee on Insurance unanimously reported that the bill should lie on the table. The Committee throughly discussed and examined into the merits of the bill, and agreed that this bill would work an evil rather than a benefit.
Mr. BUSKIRK said notwithstanding he had a great deal of confidence in this Committee, yet the bill was a good one. He considered the practice of Insurance Companies insuring property for almost any amount and in case of fire paying what they think the property is worth a bad practice and an erroneous idea. Under the provisions of this bill the Company is obliged to pay the face of the policy or replace or rebuild the property, which is right and proper. He considered this bill in the interest of the people, and favored its passage.
Mr. M'CORMICK--I do not believe the Committee considered the bill properly. I understand that the report of the Committee was not unaninmous, as some members say they were not present when the report was made. The same law is in force in the States of Ohio and Wisconsin, and the law works well there, and I believe that it is a good bill and one that should pass. It is also in the interest of Insurance Companies, from the fact that they will be compelled to have a better class of agents than they have at present, if this bill passes.
The bill passed the House--yeas, 57; nays, 28.
GENERAL APPROPRIATION BILL.
The Conference Committee reported on the general appropriation bill [H. R. 422.]
Mr. MEREDITH moved to concur in the report, except that part of the recommendation to give Prosecuting Attorneys $700 a year instead of $500, as under the existing law.
Mr. GIBSON moved to strike out of Mr. Meredith's motion the exception, and concur in the report.
Mr. KENNER was opposed to the exception, and favored the adoption of the report.
Mr. GIBSON considered the present compensation of Prosecuting Attorneys entirely too small to command the attention of able men, such as should serve in that office.
Mr. MITCHELL opposed raising the prosecutor's salary.
Mr. MOODY spoke against the raising of the prosecutor's salary, for the reason that when they accepted the office, they did so with an understanding that their salary would be $500. There is no call or demand for the increase, and it will not improve the talent now in office to give them this extra allowance.
The motion [Mr. Meredith's] was agreed to.
Mr. McClure's bill [H. R. 500] for the relief of Horatio S. Hazzard, a former Trustee of Vienna Township, Scott County, was read the third time.
Mr. McCLURE said: "This Trustee deposited the funds belonging to the Township in a bank at Louisville, Ky., which failed. He gave a mortgage on his farm and paid the money that was lost. His neighbors, and the tax-payers of the Township, have almost universally petitioned that he be released in order that he may save his farm, and I think it right that we pass this bill. The Trustees of Vienna Township mortgaged his farm precisely under the same circumstances. I was not aware of the existance of this case until this session or I would have incorporated both cases in one bill."
Mr. RYAN--It is a suspicious circumstance that these losses both occurred in that County and with the same bank, and at the same time. If we undertake to legalize every circumstance of Trustees' acts we will have our hands full. If these citizens are so anxious that this Trustee should be relieved why do not they put their hands into their pockets and replace the money instead of petitioning this body for his relief.
Mr. McCLURE--The suspicion cast upon me by the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Ryan) comes with very bad grace. If the other bill, for which he voted, is right this one is also, and I can not see why there should be any objection when the tax-payers of this Township only are concerned in the passage of this bill, and the payment of this money.
The bill passed--yeas, 67; nays, 12
Mr. Gilman's bill [H. R. 512] to prevent the growth of briers and other noxious weeds in the public highways was read the third time.
Mr. ROBINSON, of Ripley, was opposed to the bill, and considered it rather a joke than a proposition for a regularly established law to compel a man to remove weeds, etc., from the public highways.
Mr. GILMAN--This bill is one in which every farmer is interested. Every good farmer now, without law, performs all that is provided for in this bill, but in every neighborhood there is the shiftless and lazy, and in this cure the actions of the shiftless and lazy beings, not only a punishment upon himself, but upon his industrious neighbors, and because of the failure of one to do what he ought in the proper season all others must continue to perform a large additional amount of labor every year, and for all future time, and without hope of change unless we can have a law compelling him to do what he of right ought to do for his own benefit. Unless this, or some similar measure shall be enacted, the day is not far distant when not only the northern part of the State shall be afflicted, but these burrs will spread over the highways and farms of the State.
This bill is in the interest of economy and good farming, and should be supported as such by every farmer on this floor. We can not drive our horses on the roads without stopping to clear their fetlocks of burrs from their tails. And this constant vigilance must be kept up by the whole neighborhood in order that one lazy, shiftless man may be relieved from doing what every interest--yes, even his own interests--demands that he should do.
PLATE GLASS INSURANCE.
Senator Chapman's bil [S. 368] supplemental to an act regarding foreign Insurance Companies, prescribing the duties of agents, etc., was read the third time.
Mr RYAN said: I have an opinion of the Attorney General, certified to by a certificate of the present Attorney General, stating that the opinion was written by the Attorney General on the 8th of May, 1879, in which the Insurance Company was told it was an illegal organization, and had no right to do business in the State. I have a certificate also, made by the Auditor of State, in which he says the application for license was not made until July, 1879, so that these gentlemen who are in Court now asking for this privilege, have gone on since that time, knowing- page: 170[View Page 170] ly acting in violation of law. The Attorney General decided that the Company had no right to do business in Indiana, and since they run against the ragged edges of the law, members are here trying to suspend the rules and rush this measure through, seeking to enforce this act over the head of the Legislature? Why is this necessary? Why not let it take the regular course of legislation? I hope this bill will not pass, because it is against the interests of the people of Indiana.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. FRAZER said--Plate Glass Insuance Companies insure nothing but plate glass in buildings; their losses are small, and risks are small; therefore, if $200,000 is enough for Fire Insurance Companies and Life Insurance Companies carrying the value of millions of dollars, then certainly $100,000 capital of a Company which insures nothing but glass, is sufficient capital. The second section declares that all Insurance Companies engaged in insuring plate glass, not incorporated under the laws of the State, shall be deemed a foreign Insurance Company, and any person transacting business for such Company shall be deemed an agent, etc. One object is that they may have agents in this State upon whom services may be had when sued in the State, so we are not obliged to follow them into some distant State. In order to avoid the law which is laid down for the government of insurance, Companies have formed partnerships. They come into the State, go into the insurance business; they make no statement, and so evade the law without paying taxes. They are amenable to no law of Indiana, because they claim that they are partners and our laws are weak. They can not be forced to pay a single loss that they sustain in this State, because they are residents of other States and we must go to the State where they reside.
If you defeat this bill, what is the result? You drive out of the State Insurance Companies, which seek to insure plate glass, and you open the door and let into Indiana these partnership Companies which are not governed by our law. There is no bugbear in this thing--there is no scare in it; therefore, Mr. Speaker, this bill should receive the vote of every member of this House.
The bill failed to pass--yeas, 44; nays, 47.
OFFICERS AND OFFICES.
The reading of the bill [S. 325] concerning officers and offices was resumed, commencing at Section 397.
Mr. THOMPSON moved to amend Section 231 by adding, "and such County Commissioner shall cause a complete and correct index to be made of all their books of record." He said: In going into a County Commissioner's office it is necessary to look over a number of books until you find what you want. By having them indexed a person can turn directly to what is wanted.
The amendment was adopted.
A majority of the Special Committee, appointed to consider the sections relative to the County Superintendents, recommended the adoption of Mr. Ryan's amendment, requiring County Superintendents to visit schools, not to exceed in days, half the number of the schools in the County.
The minority of the Committee recommended that the amendments relative to the County Superintendent lie on the table.
Mr. MORGAN--I think this amendment should not pass, because it is out of place in this bill, and our school law is regulated by a different bill. The present law for County Superintendents provides that they shall not be allowed to visit schools more the number of school days in each year. The codification of the school law was a compromise matter. I submit to every fair-minded member that this is a fair proposition--the compromise proviso allowing him to visit schools three-fourths the number of days of school in the year. The adoption of this amendment would strike out the very heart of the County Superintendency. My opinion is, if you want to adopt a measure like this, you had better bolish the office altogether and have a School Examiner. If there is anything desirable in an official visiting schools I submit to you that the Superintendents ought to be allowed to visit them so that they will benefit them, and find out the workings of the school. I know very well that no man can go into a school room, stay two or three hours, and tell anything about the real nature of the management.
The minority report was adopted--yeas, 40; nays, 30.
Mr. GILMAN moved to amend Section 428, printed bill, line 4, by inserting after the word "thereof" the following: "Or to have any unsurveyed tract of land surveyed." Also, insert in sixth line: "Or that such lands have not been surveyed." He said this amendment merely applies to land that has not been surveyed. The County Surveyor shall have the same authority where it has been surveyed as where it has not been surveyed. We have a large tract of land in our County which has never been surveyed and under the present statute we have no authority to survey it.
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. BAKER moved to amend Sectfion 77 by adding thereto: "In allcases where publication is required, by law to be made the party at whose instance the publication is to be made, shall have the right to determine in what newspaper it shall be so published, etc." He said : I claim that there is not a member upon the floor of this House who can give a good reason why this amendment should not be adopted. It is in the interest of the people from the Ohio River to the Michigan line, and from the State of Ohio--now the mother of Presidents--to the broad prairies of Illinois. It is in the interest of the people and should recive the support of every Democrrt, Republican and Greenbacker (Laughter) What does the amendment propose? It provides that the people shall control their publications as they deem proper; in other words, it allows them to conduct their domestic affairs in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States.
Mr. FRAZER made an ineffectual motion to lay the amendment on the table.
The amendment was adopted--yeas, 49; nays, 31.
WAR LOAN BONDS.
On motion by Mr. CAUTHORNE, the regular order was suspended and the bill [H. R. 405] to authorize and provide for the payment of the war loan bonds of the State was read the third time and passed--yeas, 85; nays 0.
The House adjourned till to-morrow.
