THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
VOLUME
TWENTY.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
SPECIAL SESSION.
IN SENATE.
WEDNESDAY, April 13, 1881--9:30 a. m.PUBLIC OFFENSES.
The Lieutenant Governor directed the Clerk to call the roll on the passage of the bill [H. R. 393] concerning public offenses.
The bill passed by--yeas, 29; nays, 5.
SUPERVISOR OF HIGHWAYS.
On motion by Mr. YANCEY, the bill [H. R. 143--see pages 64 and 74 of this volume] to make the Township Trustee Superintendent of Public Highways, was read the third time.
Mr. BUNDY said this bill is substantially the same as House bill No. 187, from which the Senate struck a clause, now in the fourth clause of this bill. He made a motion to strike it out. It was agreed to by unanimous consent.
Mr. BELL believed every objection urged to the House bill No. 187 is removed from this one. This makes Townships, for all practical purpose, a road District to itself.
Mr. DAVIS called attention to the fact that towns were exempt from tax for keeping up the roads, and that is not right. If a portion of the Township want a gravel road into a town, the town is exempt from any tax to help its construction.
Mr. HEFRON thought it right to exempt towns and cities from the operation of this bill because the towns have enough to do in keeping up roads and streets within its own limits. Taxes are collected for the promotion of the public good. As far as he had examined this bill it meets with his approbation. Any good departure from the present system, which has proved a failure will, no doubt, be hailed with pleasure by the people.
Mr. WHITE objected to the taxation in one part of the District for the building of roads in another part, miles away. He opposed any such measure.
Mr. GRAHAM would vote against this bill because in his District and in other Counties where the people are enterprising enough to coustruct roads this bill proposes to oppress and put upon the people taxation they are unable to bear.
Mr. HART believed the people are clamoring for a new road law. There is one feature in the old law he did not like, and that is making men owning no property work as much as those who do. This bill proposes they shall work two days or pay a road tax of $2. While the bill did not meet his approbation entirely in every respect, he should vote for it in order to try the experiment.
The bill passed by yeas, 28; nays, 14.
Mr. SAYRE moved to take up the bill [S. 369] concerning fees and salaries of County officers.
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.
On motion by Mr. BROWN, the bill [H. R. 271], concerning clerks of the General Assembly, was taken up instead and read the third time, with numerous Senate amendments.
Mr. CHAPMAN said he understood there was a section in it that ought to be out--carrying forward the business of one General Assembly to another General Assembly.
Unanimous consent was obtained to propose amendments, as the bill shall be read the third time.
Mr. WILSON offered a substitute for the first five sections of the bill--being his bill [S. 378] introduced last Saturday.
It was rejected.
The bill was passed by yeas, 45; nays, 2.
DECEDENTS' ESTATES.
Mr. VIEHE, from the Conference Committee on the probate bill [S. 351], submitted a report on the numerous disagreements between the two Houses, which report, referring to the nine sections by numbers, was concurred in without a division.
REVISED STATUTES OF 1881.
On motion by Mr. LANGDON, and by unanimous consent, the Secretary was directed to have enrolled as a part of the bill [H. R. 437] a clause directing the State to furnish the Revision Committee with stationery necessary for the discharge of their duties.
THE CRIMINAL CODE.
Mr. HENRY reported from the Committee on Free Conference on the disagreements between the two Houses on the bill [H. R. 367] concerning page: 172[View Page 172] criminal proceedings, which report, referring to the sixty sections by figures, was concurred in without a division.
REVISED STATUTES OF 1881.
The Lieutenant Governor directed the bill [H. R. 437] concerning the Revised Statutes of 1881 to be read the third time.
Mr. HART moved to recommit the bill to a Committee, with instructions to strike out the clause giving copies of the Revised Statutes to members of the General Assembly.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR ruled the motion out of order, as that has been passed upon already.
The bill passed by yeas, 36; nays, 9.
STATE GEOLOGIST.
On motion by Mr. DAVIS, the bill [H. R. 310] to establish a Department of Geology and Natural History was read the third time.
Mr. COMSTOCK though it unnecssary to establish a department which was abolished two years ago.
The bill passed--yeas, 28; nays, 10.
STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE.
On motion by Mr. LOCKRIDGE, the bill [H. R. 136] for the relief of the State Board of Agriculture was read the third time.
Mr. LOCKRIDGE explained a mortgage on the ground for $60,000 is overdue and the holders are awaiting this legislation, and if sold under the hammer it is believed the trust deed held by the State for $25,000 would be cut out. This bill appropriates $4,000 a year for interest on the new loan.
Mr. HEFRON questioned the propriety of this bill. It is time to call a halt upon this institution.
Mr. COMSTOCK would vote for this bill on account of the reasonableness of the demand.
The bill passed--yeas, 31; nays, 13.
L. S. SHULER AND T. N. JONES.
On motion by Mr. BENZ, the bill [H. R. 179] for the relief of Lawrence S. Shuler and Thomas N. Jones, was read the second and third times under a dispensation of the constitutional restriction and passed, by yeas, 33; nays, 3.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
On motion by Mr. KIZER, his bill [S. 377] t amend the act of the 8th of this month to define the Thirty-first Judicial Circuit so it shall go into effect immediately on the passage of the act, was passed to the final reading and passed to the Senate under a setting aside of the constitutional restriction.
SALES BY INFANTS.
On motion by Mr. COMSTOCK, the bill [H. R. 124--see page 150 of this volume] relating to sales by infants, was taken up, the Lieutenant Governor stating it has heretofore been read the third time, directing the roll to be called on its passage.
Mr. MENZIES said the Senate to-day has been doing things at break-neck speed. The effect of this bill is to take the real estate of infants out of the hands of the Courts, indirectly, by permitting them to deal with real estate as if they were of lawful age.
Mr. COMSTOCK insisted the two sections of the bill should be considered together. He challenged any Senator to point out anything unjust or inequitable. It is a bill which provides for the enforcement of good faith in the performance of contracts.
Mr. BELL said: The bill provides only that those falsely representing themselves of age shall not take advantage of their own money. The Court ought to say, as this bill does: "Release your hold on the consideration falsely obtained for the property in dispute." It only applies to cases where representations have bee fraudulently and falsely made.
Mr. MENZIES said this second section is an encouragement to minors to go around and represent themselves as of age, and the intriguing party of mature age, anxious to get hold of a piece of real estate, having a convenient witness, can go into Court and beat the minor every time. The bill will also be an encouragement to land-grabbers to go around and take advantage of minors.
Mr. SPANN could not see that this bill is against minors, but rather against the interest of some lawyers, shrewd enough to get minors after they come of age to disaffirm sales and divide the land with their attorneys under the existing law affecting contracts with minors.
Mr. TRAYLOR asserted the first section of this bill is not right because an existing law says minors can not alienate real estate inherited from parents. Trifling husbands can get hold of part of the property of a minor wife and dissipate it away, leaving no remedy for the wronged wife. This bill, if passed, would be an act in the interest of lawyers and litation. The second section of this bill is equally as odious as the first; and he gave instances to prove the position he took on this question.
Mr. FOSTER thought the bill ought to be passed, and he cited an instance in which, under the present law, a great wrong was done in the County he represents. No Senator can back up a vote against this bill.
Mr. BROWN considered the policy of law always has been to prohibit minors from making deeds to real estate. Such deeds are presumptively void, and the law should not provide for making it good by parole evidence. He would vote for the first section above very cheerfully.
Mr. CHAPMAN did not think the bill goes far enough, but as far as it does go it is in the right direction. This bill guards the right of minors. There should be no hesitation in providing that in order to disaffirm a sale the infant in law should make restitution.
The bill passed by yeas 31; nays, 15.
BENTON COUNTY CLAIM.
On motion by Mr. MAJOR, the bill [H. R. 81--see page 90, volume 19] to make an appropriation ($973.70) to Benton County for extraordinary expenses incurred in the conviction of James McCollough, of Henry County, for the murder of Wm. C. Morgan, of Grant County, was read the second and third times, and passed the Senate--yeas, 37; nays, 4.
SOLDIERS' ORPHANS' HOME.
On motion by Mr. VAN VORHIS, the bill [H. R. 129--see page 89 of this volume] to appropriate moneys--$3,503--to certain persons therein named, on account of losses sustained in the burning of the Soldiers' Orphans' home at Knightstown, was read the third time and passed--yeas, 32; nays, 5.
STREETS, ALLEYS, ETC.
On motion by Mr. CHAPMAN, the bill [S. 289--see page 180 of volume 19] concerning the laying out of streets, alleys, etc., was read the third time.
Mr. CHAPMAN explained the bill amends Section 11 of the act of 1867 so as to make it possible for cities to collect benefits for opening streets and alleys, etc.
The bill passed without opposition.
UNSIGNED COURT RECORDS.
On motion by Mr. LANGDON, the bill [H. R. 414] to legalize and render valid all unsigned records of Courts was read the first, second and third times under a dispensation.
Being called on for an explanation--
Mr. LANGDON said in some cases Judges failed to sign records before the Commons Pleas Courts were abolished, and in some cases Judges have died when the records were only partially signed. He did not know much about the bill. he was requested to call it up.
Mr. HENRY thought there had not been a more page: 173[View Page 173] dangerous bill before this Senate. It would be exceedingly hazardous to pass such a bill.
Mr. BELL also thought the provisions of this bill were altogether too broad. It would be unwise to validate these old records.
The bill was passed over by consent.
FINES AND FORFEITURES.
On motion by Mr. MENZIES, the bill [H. R. 224] concerning the duties of Clerks, Sheriffs and Constables in relation to judgements, fines, forfeitures, etc., was read the second and third times under a dispensation.
Mr. MENZIES said the bill proposes to make it a misdemeanor on part of clerks and printers to collect costs and not collect fines.
Mr. URMSTON thought the bill did not make the provision stated by the Senator from Posey [Mr. Menzies.] He opposed the passage of the bill and could not understand why it should receive the favorable vote of one Senator.
The bill failed--yeas, 21; nays, 17.
THE NEW STATE HOUSE.
On motion by Mr. GRUBBS, the bill [H. R. 407--see page 75 of this volume] to provide a reserve fund to complete the State House building, was read the second time.
On motion by Mr. BELL, the Senate resolved itself into a Committee of the whole [Mr. Chapman in the Chair] for the consideration of this bill.
The report of the Judiciary Committee being read--
Mr. GRUBBS explained the Committee recommend a further appropriation of $100,000 for the purchase of iron.
Mr. BELL favored the amendment proposed by the Committee. Provision ought to be made so as to insure the rapid progress of this work--the largest State House in the Union.
Mr. HEFRON moved to amend by increasing the appropriation proposed by the Committee from $100,000 to $200,000. He opposed levying a tax for 1882 for the State House fund.
Mr. LANDGON stated that the moneys already appropriated and the sums asked for amount to more than the contract price for the entire building. He was willing to vote every dollar that can be properly expended under the law in the construction of this building. These Commissioners are making too rapid strides in the treasury of the people. He opposed the bill because it is asking more money than is necessary. He thought the building could go ahead withoug appropriating a dollar by this General Assembly.
Mr. GRUBBS said there is a State House building on hand which the Legislature is bound to continue, and we should appropriate sufficient money to carry on the work for the next two years. One proposition in the bill is that not a dollar of indebtedness shall be incurred, and this Assembly should see to it that the provisions of the law are complied with.
Mr. VOYLES insisted if we are to take the judgment of the State House Commissioners for this matter, they might as well be furnished with a carte blanche. There are some matters connected with this work that should be explained. He saw no necessity for increasing the revenue to be raised by taxation and appropriating so large a sum at this time.
Mr. WOLLEN also hoped the recommendation of the Committee would not be concurred in. He opposed any appropriation out of the Treasury, but as the session is late, he would vote for the bill as it comes from the House. He thought it improper and unsafe to buy iron for use years hence.
Mr. HEFRON withdrew his amendment, avowing the purpose to offer it as an amendment to the bill.
The report of the Judiciary Committee was concurred in upon a division--yeas, 17; nays, 16.
On motion of Mr. BELL, the Committee arose, and through its Chairman, reported progress to the Senate.
Mr. LANGDON moved to amend the report of the Committee by striking out the appropriation--$100,000.
Mr. CHAPMAN opposed this amendment. He saw no reason why the building could not be put under roof in 1883, and if so the iron for the roof must be contracted for in 1882. If the General Assembly desire to retard the progress of the work it will limit the appropriation. There is no reason to apprehend that the building will cost more than the sum fixed in the act authorizing its erection.
Mr. LANGDON thought it right to look at the figures and facts in this case and see if these State House Commissioners have not their elbows now too deep in the Treasury. If we pass no other act there is under their control $481,000. This bill proposes ti appropriate $540,000, which, together with the amounts they have expended, make $1,399,476, while the contract price of the building is about $1,117,000 This going rather fast for the third year.
Mr. FOSTER confessed to not being as well posted on this question as he should be. He recollected in the Legislature of 1877 the Senator from Tippcanoe voted for the State House bill while he was protesting against its passage, because the people were too much tax-riddin. Now the building has been commenced, does the Senate desire to retard its progress? Certainly not.
The Senate took a recess till 7:30 o'clock to read the bills [H. R. 225] concerning elections and [H. R. 147] relative to the reclaiming of wet lands.
NIGHT SESSION.
Mr. HENRY took the Chair and directed the reading of the bills H. R. 225 and 147.
After some time spent therein came an adjournment till to-norrow.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
WEDNESDAY, April 13, 1881--9 a. m.OFFICERS AND OFFICES.
The reading of the bill [S. 325] concerning officers and offices by sections was resumed, commencing with Section 467.
Mr. M'CORMICK moved to amend Section 289, line 6, by inserting the words "of Indiana" after the word "assurities," and striking out the word "double" in the same line and inserting the word "had." He said: The reason I want to insert the word "Indiana" is to allow assurity to be given by any one in Indiana, and not necessarily confine it to the County. Also, if a County has a contract of $100,000, according to this bill the contractor would have to give a bond of $200,000, That is the object of striking out the word "double." That is too much money. There are not many contractors in the State who could do that. I want to change that to one-half--that is, if the contract is for $100,000 the contractor sha11 give a bond for $50,000.
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. WALZ moved to amend Section 472 by adding the following paragraph: "He shall fill all vacancies that occur in the office of Inspectors for town elections not otherwise provided for by law." He said the Senate passed a bill a few days ago which would provide for the filling of vacancies, but the House has refused to concur in the amendment.
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. McCORMICK moved to amend Section 288 by inserting after the word "Jail" the word "bridge." He said: The object to be accomplished is this--the section omits bridges. It is more important to have plans for bridges than for houses. The amendment makes it necessary to have plans and specifications for bridges. I hope the amendment will prevail.
The amendment was adopted.
page: 174[View Page 174]Mr. MASON moved to amend section 424 by striking out the words, In the "Court House." He said these words make it necessary for the County Surveyor to have his office in the Court House. Some Court Houses are too small to have these offices there, and this amendment does not make it obligatory to have this office there.
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. MITCHELL moved to amend section 486, line 3, by inserting after "Trustee" the words: "By the testimony of two disinterested witnesses." He said: I have known of cases where the trustee made allowances upon the claim of a person having sheep killed by dogs, where there was no evidence of anything of the kind. This amendment makes it necessary to have two disinterested witnesses to testify that such is the case.
Mr. ROBERTS was opposed to the amendment, because it would incur more expense and trouble than the sheep are worth in most cases.
The witnesses may live four or fve miles away, in which case it would be very expensive to get their testimony.
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. CARTER moved to amend the bill by adding a section allowing to County officers as follows:
To the County Treasurer, $150 for every 1,000 inhabitants not to exceed 10,000, and $75 for each 1,000 in excess of 10,000, and one-fourth the commission for the collection of delinquent taxes.
The County Auditor to receive $175 a thousand for the first 5,000 inhabitants, $125 for the second 5,000, $100 a thousand for the next 25,000, and $125 a thousand for all in excess of that number; also, the fees for transferring land for taxation, and one-fourth the fees for issuing liquor licenses, and 1/2 of 1 per cent. for managing the school fund.
Clerks and Sheriffs to receive $200 a thousand for the first 5,000, $150 for the next 5,000, $125 for the next 25,000, and $150 per thousand for all in excess, and $150 for each Court other than the Circuit Court.
Mr. GILMAN moved to amend the amendment in such a manner that the amendment relating to fees and salaries shall not take effect until June 1, 1882.
The amendment to the amendment was laid on the table.
Mr. GILMAN moved to amend Section 3 by adding thereto the following: Provided, in Counties of less than 12,000 inhabitants the Treasurer shall receive all the commissions and fees for collecting delinquent taxes. He said everything that is attempted to be done in this House seems to be in favor of the large Counties as against the smaller ones. The people of our County are not objecting to the fees and salaries of our officers, but they do object to illegal taxation. Of the knowledge I have of the duties of County officers of our County, especially the Clerk of the Court, I know that he ought to have all the fees under the present law--that it is no more than an ordinary salesman gets--than an insurance agent commands. In our County, Treasurers for the last ten years went, out of the office poorer than they went in. The people of my section are willing that the County officers shall have a fair compensation. Unless there is something done which will give the smaller Counties a fair showing, I can not support the bill. I do not think it is fair that the members from large Counties fix this thing up in this way, as injustice is done to the smaller Counties. I hope this amendment will prevail.
Mr. MITCHELL was unable to understand the provisions of this amendment. The people of the State are demanding that we do something in this direction, and he was opposed to introducing amendments which have a tendency to kill the bill.
Mr. Mitchell said: I am in favor of a fee and salary bill which will do justice to both the tax-payers and the officers of the various Counties of this State, but I am opposed to both the amendment and the amendment to the amendment. This amendment offered by the gentleman from Marion (Mr. Carter) I know but little about, but I know enough about it to know that it increases the salary of the Treasurer of my County about $700. It gives that officer $150 per thousand for the first 10,000, $75 for every thousand in excess of the first 10,000 and one-half of the commission and per cent. now allowed by law for collecting the delinquents. Every Member upon this floor knows that this amendment increases the salaries of County officers in the medium Counties of this State. As Members of the Fifty-second General Assembly, the people having ratified a Constitutional Amendment which requires the fees and salaries of County officers shall be graded according to the population and the services rendered, we can not afford to vote for this amendment. The people have demanded relief at our hands; shall we give it? I tried yesterday to have the fee and salary bill made a special order for 9 o'clock this morning, but my efforts proved futile. I considered it a measure which required much and careful deliberation, for the subject of fees and salaries does not affect the Democrats alone nor the Republicans alone, but it falls upon all the tax-payers of the State. Hence I do not view this subject from a political standpoint, but from a standpoint of doing justice to all my constitutents alike. The voice of the people should be heard and should rule. Their voice has been heard every Member upon the subject of fees and salaries. That voice is no new thing; it has been heard long and often. They are not here in person, but their voice and will are here, and here pleading for some relief. Shall we give them a heavier burden by passing upon this amendment blindly, which does increase the burden of taxation, as I have shown?
Mr. Speaker, I want to vote for a fee and salary bill which I can explain and justify. This amendment was begotten in and by the Republican caucus last night, brought here this morning in its infancy, to be incorporated in this officers' bill and become a law. The members know but little of this new infant, but I tell you, Mr. Speaker, this infant may become very heavy for the Members of this Assembly to carry, if it should be blindly incorporated in that bill and become a law. This measure should have been considered three weeks ago, with calmness, instead of dropping upon the heels of this Assembly in hot haste, with no time to consider it in the light it ought to be considered.
Mr. EDWINS moved to postpone the further consideration of this bill and take up the specific appropriation bill. He said, in support of this motion: I desire to say that the forcing of this fee and salary bill at this late day is not in the best interest of the people, but is aimed to be put through under the gag rule in the interest of the County Officers, just as it was done two years ago. Then, as now, a bill wholly in the interest of the officers was put through under the gag. Why, Mr. Speaker, was not this bill considered earlier in the first part of the session? The Constitutional Amendment was passed for the purpose of relieving the people and tax-payers by passing a regular salary bill that would be just to the people and officers both and not choke a bill down our throats that would again rob the people of their hard earnings. I am in favor of a good and fair bill, and not one surreptitiously slipped into this bill. Whoever votes for this amendment votes for an extra session. I don't think the people want this.
On motion by Mr. FRAZER, the motion was laid on the table.
Mr. Gilman's amendment was also 1aid on the table.
Mr. GILMAN moved to amend Section --- by page: 175[View Page 175] adding "Provided, that in Counties of 12,000 or less the County Auditor shall be allowed 1 per cent. for managing the school fund.
Mr. KENNER said: If this House strikes at the smaller Counties in such a manner you can not pass this bill. Under this amendment the County of Blackford would pay the Treasurer $600. I say it is an outrage for a Legislature to attempt to pass a bill giving the Treasurer of a small County $600.
The County of Marion under this bill will draw $12,000, which will be a princely salary, while you grind down the smaller Counties into the earth. The salaries in the amendment is about the same as in the law of 1879. You can not mature a fee and salary bill in twenty-four hours.
Mr. MOODY was opposed to the adoption of the amendment until it was fully examined and considered. In addition to the fees already provided for he could not see where this amendment reduces the amount of fees.
Mr. Moody said: I am very much in favor of a fee and salary bill, but am opposed to voting for any bill that I have not had an opportunity to examine.
This bill is of great importance to the people, and they have been demanding the enactment of such a law for many years, and the party now in power promised in the last election that they would pass such a law. The Constitutional Amendments have been passed for a long time, and yet no step has been taken by the majority of this House to enact such a law until this morning, for the first time, a fee and salary bill prepared in a party caucus is by a party vote tacked to the officers bill, and we are compelled either to vote for this bill we know nothing at all about, and one that may, for what I know or any other Democrat in the House may know, increase the salary of some officers while it unjustly reduces the fees of other officers in different Counties of the State. I am not going to vote for any bill or measure that I have never had an opportunity to examine.
Mr. FRAZER--I say the people of Indiana have been crying aloud and demanding at the ballot-box, saying to the Legislature of Indiana you shall reduce these salaries, and the object of this bill is to reduce them, and not to increase them.
Under this law there would not be a County in the State but what we would pay the County Treasurer at least $1,200. The gentleman says the County of Marion will pay the County Treasurer $12,000. I tell you it is worth $4,000, and now move to lay the amendment on the table.
The motion was agreed to--yeas, 50; nays, 43.
Mr. BUSKIRK moved to strike out what he regarded a very bad feature of this bill. If that was stricken out something else would have to be inserted. It makes it necessary for the Clerk and Sheriff to get their fees of the parties. Under this bill it makes it the duty of the officers to proceed immediately to collect their fees, and it is a matter of necessity that they should do it. By the adoption of this amendment they would issue their writs at once and enforce collection.
Mr. MEREDITH said: This bill has been fully considered and matured, and it is a good one. While the subject of fees and salaries is an old one, yet this is an experiment. This bill will only be in effect for twelve months before another General Assembly meets--it begins on the 1st of January and will work no great hardship, and in case it deos not work well the next Legislaturewill be able to act with more intelligence than we have been able to do. There is one thing that can not be denied here to-day, that the people are demanding this thing, they are demanding some change, and i say that we must and are compelled to do something--make some changes.
Mr. FANCHER said two years ago there was a fee and salary bill passed, and instead of cutting down the salaries it increased them. He wanted to vote for a bill to reduce the salaris and did not propose to vote for any measure which was not fully considered.
Mr. WRIGHT moved to lay the amendment on the table.
The motion was agreed to--yeas, 52; nays, 38.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS.
Mr. Carter's bill [H. R. 525] to amend Sections 1 and 7 of an act for the organization and formation of limited partnerships, fixing the liability of several partners and proceedings against them, was read the third time and passed--yeas, 87; nays, 0.
AID TO RAILROADS.
Mr. Wilson's (of Montgomery) bill [H. R. 511] to amend ection 18 of an act to authorize aid to the construction of railroads by Counties and Townships taking stock and making donations to railroads was read the third time and passed--yeas, 82; nays, 2.
PURDUE UNIVERSITY.
Mr. CAUTHORNE called up Senator Langdon's bill [S. 177] in relation to the Trustee Fund of the Purdue University, providing for reinvestment, was read the the third time and passed--yeas, 81; nays, 1.
OFFICES AND OFFICERS.
Mr. STEWART moved to amend the amendment [Mr. Carter's] to the bill [S. 325] as follows: Provided, that in Counties of less than 12,000 inhabitants, the Treasurer shall receive all the commission. Amended also, by adding after the last work of the written portion of page 3, the following: And in Counties of less than 12,000 inhabitants the Clerk of such County shall be allowed twenty-five cents for each entry; also in Counties having a population of less than 12,000, the Auditor shall receive 1 per cent. for loaning the school fund; also by adding, in Counties of less than 12,000 inhabitants, the County Clerk's and Sheriffs shall be allowed $2 per day for attending the Courts of their Counties.
The amendment to the amendment was accepted.
Mr. JOHNSON moved to amend the amendment by striking out "50" for mileage allowed the Sheriff of Jefferson County for conveying convicts to the State Prison, and insert in lieu thereof the figures "70."
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. WRIGHT demanded the previous question, which was seconded by the House--yeas, 53; nays,43--
And under its operation the amendment was adopted--yeas, 54; nays, 43.
Mr. CARR moved to amend Section 251 by authorizing County Boards to employ a County attorney. He said all the charge this makes is that the attorney shall defend poor persons when they are not able to employ an attorney, and they are not compensated only under the regular employment and by the County Commissioners.
Mr. MOODY was opposed to the amendment and thought the proper way was to leave that with the Prosecuting Attorney or the Court, as under the existing laws upon that subject.
Mr. CAUTHORNE favored the amendment as being a good one,; that the County Attorney is good enough to defend criminals and thieves who have not enough means to employ their own counsel. He thought the Commissioners would appoint competent men to do this work; besides, it would be a step toward economy.
Mr. CARR of White, said: I challenge any member in this House to deny the fact that Counties have not been imposed upon by this class of attorneys. In our County an attorney defended a murderer three days and charged $500, and he got it. It is to the interest of the tax-payers of the State that this amendment should become a law.
page: 176[View Page 176]Mr. WALKER made an ineffetual motion to lay the amendment on the table.
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. GILMAN move to amend the bill by striking out the emergency clause and inserting in lieu the following: "Provided, that the provisions of this bill shall not be enforced until January 1, 1882."
Mr. EDWINS said: I do not desire to vote for this amendment, neither do I desire to vote for the bill as amended. It is obvious to every one that this bill is an illy considered one, and should not pass. It is undigested and immatured, therefore I shall vote against it.
Mr. TETER said: I examined the bill on fees and salaries thoroughly and after a time I discovered that there had been amendments made to it. I had been changed in some important features, and we were told by some gentlemen on this floor that they had this bill on their desk for days. I only had part of it. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am called upon with many others to vote for this bill--a thing we have neither examined fully nor had an opportunity to examine. I say, for one, I will not do it. I will vote against it.
The amendment was adopted--yeas, 56; nays, 38.
Mr. FANCHER moved to restore Section 319, stricken out by the Senate, which allows each Commissioner 5.00 a day. He said there is nothing in the fee and salary bill at all affecting this subject.
Mr. CAUTHORNE thought the amendment should be restored or some provision made by which the Commissioners' per diem is regulated.
Mr. MURRAY moved a substitute by making the per diem $4 per day.
Mr. KENNER moved to amend the subststute by making it $3.50.
The amendment was accepted, and the substitute was adopted--yeas, 73; nays, 9.
Mr. GIBSON moved to amend the bill by inserting a printed copy of the fee and salary bill as prepared by the Revision Committee.
The SPEAKER ruled the amendment out of order without reading it.
Mr. GIBSON appealed from the decision of the Chair, and claimed that under Rule 38 any paper presented by a Member shall be read.
The SPEAKER (Mr. Carr, of White, in the Chair) said: I leave it to the individual Members of this Assembly to determine whether my conduct toward the Members of this General Assembly, the visitors and the member from Clarke, who seeks to appeal from the decision of the Chair, is and has been such as will warrant this House in sustaining him or saying that I shall not be sustained in my ruling. I say that the gentleman from Clarke, in presenting this paper, seeks to make fraud and farce out of the action of the Indiana Legislature, and I say it is not entitled to respect.
Mr. GIBSON considered the decision of the Speaker entirely wrong upon this question. He said he favored a fee and salary bill--one which had undergone investigation--and this amendment which is sought to be attached to this bill was a thing unknown to the majority of the members upon this floor, and that he offeder this amendment in good faith. If being carefully prepared by the Codification Committee, he considered it a far superior measure to the one originated in a Republican caucus. That was his motive in presenting the amendment.
The decision of the Chair was sustained--yeas, 56; nays, 34.
Mr. MEREDITH demanded the previous question, which was seconded by the House--yeas, 56; nays, 37--and under its operations the bill passed by yeas, 57; nays, 18.
Pending the roll call--
Mr. GIBSON said: I vote "No" for the reason that I have had no opportunity to find out what is contained in the bill. It has never been printed. It has been asserted by some members upon this floor that it is the same bill introduced in the Senate, and by others it is denied. Besides that I do not know what is in the bill, therefore I vote "No."
Mr. MOODY said: I vote "No" because I do not know anything about what I am voting for.
Mr. SINCLAIR said: I am in favor of a fee and salary bill, but I do not know anything about this bill. It will take a Philadelphia lawyer to understand it. Knowing nothing about the bill, and wishing to vote for a good bill, I prefer not to vote at all.
Mr. CAUTHORNE asked the House to excuse Mr. SINCLAIR.
The request being refused, he voted nay.
Mr. MITCHELL wanted a fee and salary bill so formed that every member could understand it, but on the bill in its present shape he should vote "no," and so the bill passed the House of Representatives.
The House adjourned until 7:30 o'clock.
NIGHT SESSION.
SPECIFIC APPROPRIATIONS.
The bill [H. R. 439] making specific appropriations was taken up.
Mr. KENNER moved to amend the bill by adding the items as follows: To the State Prison South, to furnish the Chapel and Hospital $4,000; to furnish the new cell house, $3,600; to purchase three and one-third acres of ground for a grave yard, $4,000; total, $11,600.
Mr. GIBSON said two years ago, $2,000 was appropriated to build a cell house. There was no allowance made to equip it. It is also necessary to have some ground for burial purposes. The ground that they are using now belongs to the city. It is absolutely necessary to have this appropriation to set them in shape.
Mr. MEREDITH said, as a member of the Prison Committee, he knew nothing definite of it, but considered it unnecessary from the fact that the Committee did not recommend this allowance.
Mr. CAUTHORNE said, as a member of the Committee, he remembered considering these cases, and the Committee thought the appropriation ought to be made.
Mr. ROLEKER--I say it is necessary to buy the ground for a graveyard. The present burial ground does not belong to the Prison and has no fence around it, and the hogs and cattle run over it. I think it is very necessary that the State buy a graveyard and have it fenced to bury their dead.
Mr. MEREDITH moved to amend the amendment by striking out that part relating to the purchase of a burial ground.
The amendment to the amendment was rejected.
Mr. GIBSON offered a substitute, which was adopted, inserting $3,000 for the purchase of a burial ground.
Further amendments were adopted, viz:
By Mr. CAUTHORNE, $6,500 for additional buildings at the Institute for the Deaf and Dumb.
By Mr. BUSKIRK, $3,000 for a heating apparatus in Bloomington University.
A yea and nay vote discovering no quorum--
Then came an adjournment.
