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.
