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.
