THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
VOLUME
NINETEEN.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
IN SENATE
TUESDAY, January 25, 1881--10 a m.After prayers by the pastor of Fletcher Place M. E. Church--
Petitions were presented by Messrs. Lockridge, Hart, Wilson, Bundy, Hostetter, Viehe, Menzies, Ristine, Grubbs, Sayre, White Davidson, Compton, Voyles, Macartney, Marvin, Keiser, Chapman, Davis, Garrigus, Shaffer for Owen and Brown, which Were referred to the Committee on Temperance, without reading. By Messrs. Smith, Yancey, Bandy, Leeper, Davis, Bell, Davidson, Woods, White, Bayre and Foster, which were referred to the Committee on Education.
Mr. LANGDON announced his pair for one week on political questions with Mr. Hutchinson, who has leave of absence on account of sickness.
GOVERNOR GRAY'S APPOINTMENTS.
Mr. BUNDY, from a majority of the Committee on Executive Appoin tments, submitted a report asking further time for the consideration of the sundry appointments of Trustees of the Benevolent Institutions,submitted for the confirmation of the Senate by Governor Gray.
Mr. BROWN, from a minority of the same Committe, submitted a report recommending that the said appointments abe taken up by the Senate and considered at once.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR declared the question to be on concurrence in the minority report.
Mr. BROWN insisted that the disposition of these Executive appointments ought not to be procrastinated for any great length of time. He called attention to the act of 1879 upon this subject, and read therefrom, beginning at the first section. It will be observed that the Board of Trustees of the Benevolent Institutions is not continuous, but that the term of office of its members expires on the 1st day of February next. In this act it is not provided, as it is in the act establishing the Institution for Feeble Minded Children, or the act concerning the Reformatory for Women, and some of the other institutions of the State, that the Trustees are to be continued in office until their successors are appointed and confirmed. The office in this case ends with the expiration of four years. If the Senate does not take action on these appointments before the 1st February, vacancies in these offices will occur. Under the act just read, the Governor can not recall these appointments. They are here for the disposition of the Senate, the question is, is the Senate discharging its duty faithfully in sitting idly by and permitting the vacancies to occur? Isn't this postponement asked for the purpose of having vacancies occur on the 1st of February, in order that the Governor may fill them? [Several Senators on the left: "No, sir ;" "No, sir."] These appointments have been sent in here,and it is very doubtful whether the Governor, after the 1st of February, can even then fill such vacancies until the Senate passes upon these appointments.
Mr. CHAPMAN directed attention to Section 3, Article 15 , of the State Constitution.
Mr. BROWN--Perhaps that clause applies to constitutional offices only. If so, it is not applicable to the subject matter in hand. But it is not the spirit of the law that vacancies should be allowed to occur if avoidable. We should not wait for these terms of office to expire, and then provide for the filling of the vacancies at their expiration.
The minority report was rejected on a tie of the Senate, the Lieutenant Governor giving the casting vote--yeas, 21; nays, 22.
Pending the roll call--
Mr. POINDEXTER, when his name was called in explanation of his vote, said: "I would be willing to give the Committee some further time, but not enough for these appointments to die on our hands."
The result was announced as above, so the Senate refused to to concur in the minority report.
Mr. BROWN moved to amend the majority report by appropriately inserting the words:"which time shall not be later than the 28th day of this month."
Mr. BELL hoped this amendment would be concurred in, and that if there are any objections to the appointments they will be made apparent during the time named in, the amendment. If this Committee want to make any examination into the qualifications of these appointees, let them go at it at once.
Mr. LANGDON--Some indications have been page: 79[View Page 79] thrown out that this delay is asked for political purposes. Speaking for himself and for a number of gentlemen on that side of the House, and, in accord with the position taken by himself two years ago, on the same subject, he was in favor of confirming every nomination made by the Governor, if the appointee be a proper and fit person, irrespective of politics. That is his position, and he thought it was the position of Republicans generally on this floor. [Several Voices- "Republicans generally."] Yes, sir. If Governor Gray has appointed Democrats to these positions, and they are good men, for one he was in favor of confirming the appointments; but it is due to this Committee,and the magnitude of the trusts to be committed to the habits of these Trustees, that it proceed with deliberation and with caution upon the investigation, as to their qualifications. He opposed limiting the Committee to three days for its investigation, because he could see nothing in the point made about the 1st day of February. The committed should have a reasonable time to make such inquiries as it may deem proper.
Mr. SPANN made an ineffectual motion--yeas, 9; nays, 35--to lay the amendment on the table.
Mr. CHAPMAN was not in favor of keeping this matter open for an indefinite length of time, waiting for an indefinite result. Believing it in the province of the Senate to call for a report from a Committee at any time, if there is any undue delay, he should vote for concurrence in the report.
The amendment was agreed to--yeas, 22; nays 18--and the report, as amended, was concurred in by yeas, 23; nays, 19.
The joint resolution [H. R. 2] requesting Indiana congressmen to favor a law granting pensions to surviving soldiers of the Mexican War, was read the first time and passed to the second reading.
On Motion by Mr. MENZIES, the Senate accepted an invitation from the Irish-American Land League to attend a lecture by James Redpath.
NEW PROPOSITIONS.
The following described bills were introduced, read the first time, and severally referred to appropriate Committees, except those from the Revision of Laws Commission, which were passed to the second reading.
By Mr. COMSTOCK, for the Committee on Revision of Laws, [S. 168]: To amend an act amendatory of the eleventh section of the act touching the relation of guardian and ward, approved March 9, 1867.
By Mr. COMSTOCK, from the same Committee, [S. 169]: To amend an act defining who are persons of unsound mind, authorizing the appointment of guardians of such persons, defining the duties of such guardians; declaring void the acts of persons of unsound mind and providing for their restraint when necessary, approved May 29, 1852. [If the court shall be satisfied by the testimony in open Court of a reputable physician that that such person alleged to be of unsound mind can not, without injury to his health, be produced in court, his personal appearance may be dispensed with.]
By Mr. RAHM [S. 170]:Authorizing the Auditor of State and county Auditors to satisfy mortgages in part, of release a part of mortgaged premises, on payment of the full proportion of the sum secured by such mortgage.
By Mr. SPANN [S. 171]: To authorize any Railroad Company in this State to lease or purchase a part or all of the lines of another railroad constructed or in process of construction, when the lines are continuous or connected, and not competing, etc.
By Mr. WOOD [S. 171]: Defining the powers of Court in certain cases, and providing for the appointment of attorneys to defend poor criminals, etc. [Such person as the defendant may choose, the court to grant resonable compensation.]
By Mr. BENZ [S. 173]: To amend Section 5 of the act creating the Forty-second Judicial Circuit.
By Mr. CHAPMAN [S. 174]: Limiting the time for redemption by junior incumbrances from sales upon foreclosure of mortgages in certain cases- barred after five years.
By Mr. HENRY [S. 175]: For the relief of the estate of a deceased Trustee from a judgment on bond.
ORPHANS' HOME INVESTIGATION.
Mr. BUNDY offered a concurrent resolution authorizing the appointment of a Joint Select Committee, consisting of three Senators and four Representatives, to investigate the charges of mis- appropriation of funds, etc., in connection with the management of the Soldiers' and Seamen's Orphans' Home and Asylum for Feeble-Minded Children at Knightstown, with power to send persons and papers.
After ineffectual motions by Mr. MENZIES--yeas, 21; nays, 23--to refer the resolution to the Committee on Benevolent Institutions, and--yeas, 20; nays, 21--to lay the resolution on the table, it was adopted without a division.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR made said Committee, on the part of the Senate, to consist of Messrs. Bundy, Spann and Voyles.
Mr. COMSTOCK called up his bill [S. 39] authorizing county Commissioners to establish Asylum, for Indigent Children, heretofore read the third time. Being again read on demand of a Senators Mr. C. asked and obtained unanimous consent to change the sum per day allowed for each child from 20 to 25 cents.
Mr. Bell called attention to the fact that the bill was not compulsory in terms. It is expected that but a few of the large Counties would avail themselves of its provisions.
The bill passed the Senate by yeas, 43; nays, 0.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
On motion by Mr. CHAPMAN, his bill [S.39] authorizing Water Works Companies to purchase property and franchises of pre-existing Water Works Companies at judicial sale, was taken up, read the second time, Committee Amendments concurred in, the bill considered as engrossed under a dispensation of the Constitution restriction, read the third time, and passed the Senate by yeas, 41; nays, 0.
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR announced the special order, being Mr. Brown's bill [S. 3], providing for the calling of a Constitutional Convention, which was read the second time.
On motion by Mr. BROWN, it was amended so that the Convention shall consist of fifty members.
Mr. SPANN moved to change the time of meeting from September to June.
Mr. FOSTER opposed the amendment, as he desired the farming community to be represented in the Convention.
Mr. SPANN feared if the Convention met in September it would run till spring.
The motion was rejected.
Mr. VIEHE moved to amend so that two-thirds of the Convention shall constitute a quorum, as is the practice under our present Constitution.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. VAN VORHIS moved to strike out the enacting clause, thinking it should be determined first whether we want a Convention or not before proceeding to perfect this bill.
Mr. MENZIES thought, as an act of courtesy, the author should be heard on the merits of his bill before it is so summarily disposed of and it is evident to those present that he is not in a condition to properly present it to-day.
Mr. VAN VORHIS withdrew his motion.
Mr. VAN VORHIS made an ineffectual motion--yeas, 25; nays, 19--to postpone further considera- page: 80[View Page 80] tion of this bill till next Tuesday, at 2 o'clock p.m.
Mr. WILSON moved an amendment limiting the sessions to ninety days.
Mr. CHAPMAN contended that the Legislature could not limit the length of sessions for a Constitutional Convention.
Mr. SPANN took a contrary view--that the legislature has the right not only to limit the length of time, but also to fix the place where and when the Convention shall meet, the number of officers it shall have, and to place any other reasonable limit.
Mr. VIEHE thought the work ought to be done in thirty days, but such a body should not be limited as to time by the General Assembly.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. GRUBBS moved to make the pay of members $10 a day.
On motion by Mr. FOSTER, it was laid on the table.
On motion by Mr. BROWN, the bill was ordered to be engrossed for the third reading and made the special order for Wednesday of next week, at 2 o'clock p. m.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR announced the special order for this hour being the bill [H. R. 16] providing for the submission to the qualified electors of this State for ratification or rejection the proposed Constitutional Amendments as adopted by the General Assembly at the sessions of 1877 an 1879. [May be ratified by a majority of the votes cast.] It was read the first time, and referred to the Judiciary Committee.
GRAVEL ROADS.
Mr. Ristine's bill [S. 54], to amend Section 7 of the gravel road law of 1879, was read the second time, with a Committee report, which was concurred in.
Mr. MARVIN moved to amend the bill by restoring the proviso, and doubling the amount of outstanding bonds allowed by the existing law. Increasing from $50,000 to $100,000.] We have tried the $50,000 limitation for two years and like it well, and now we are willing to double it, and then if it be thought wise to throw off all limit it can be done.
Mr. RISTINE explained the purpose of the bill was to leave off the proviso to Section 7 of the present law, and opposed the proposed amendment.
Mr. SCHAFFER was sure his County could not construct roads as fast as the people demand, because of the limitation in the present law. He favored the bill because it strikes out the limit.
Mr. BRISCOE--His section of the country has eshausted the $50,000 limitation of the law. His people were willing the limit shall not exceed $100,000. He opposed an unlimited amount. It is well that County Commissioners should have their hands tied, otherwise the County would be swamped with indebtedness on account of gravel road bonds.
Mr. URMSTON cited a case in which the proposed amendment would work a great hardship--where the roads are all on one side of the County. He opposed any restriction.
Mr GARRIGUS referred to two gravel roads in his County which were for a long time in litigation,, just ended, resulting in a deduction from the assessment of 18 per cent., and now, as the bonds were issued by the County, the County must pay the balance, there not being enough left from the assessments to pay them. He was in favor of free gravel roads, but did not like to render the County liable to pay the bonds issued for their construction.
Mr. RISTINE contended that the present law was a dead letter in many Counties, by reason of this restriction. This law has been the means of building and improving many gravel roads. As it stands, it works injustice in that one part of the County gets roads, and other parts of the Counties are cut off. Two-thirds of the County of Montgomery is unable to construct roads because the limitation has been exhausted in the other one-third. When it is remembered that it is not the debt of the County, but of those parties adjacent to the road, why is this objection made to removing the restriction?
Mr. VAN VORHIS favored the proposed limitation.
Mr.GARIGUS moved to amend by adding proviso that the County shall not be liable payment of the bonds.
Mr. URMSTON resisted the amendment, fearing if it were adopted no sale could be made of bonds.
Mr. RISTINE also thought the amendment would take away the market value of the bonds, and thereby render the law useless.
Mr. CHAPMAN considered there would be really no market for such a bond and the law would be nugatory. A bond at par value, payable by assessments on A, B and C, bearing 6 per cent, could not find a market.
Mr. VAN VORHIS believed discussion has developed the wisdom of the amendment proposed and rejected a little while ago. If Counties are liable for these bonds there ought to be a limit fixed.
Mr. GRAHAM lived in County having more gravel roads in proportion to territory than any other County in the State. He opposed the bill as it stands while proposing no limitation, and opposed extending, but rather favored limiting the powers of County Commissioners, and would at this time favor the pending amendment. Unless such bonds can be sold without indorsement of the County they had better not be issued.
Mr. URMSTON reported such an amendment as simply saying the bonds issued by the County are of no validity. He would rather see the law wiped out than that such an amendment should should prevail.
Mr. CHAPMAN understood a bond issued under the pending amendment would be a bond without any payor, as the parties assessed would not be parties to the bond. Such a law would be worthless entirely, and had better not be placed on the statute books.
Mr. GRAHAM did not intend to act foolishly in the endeavor to protect County Treasuries. The purpose of the bill is to enable organizations to construct gravel roads. Under former laws they were constructed without the aid of Counties, and why can not it be done now.
On motion of Mr. RISTINE, the further consideration of this subject was postponed and made the special order for Thursday, at 2 o'clock p.m.
And then the Senate adjourned?
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
TUESDAY, January 25, 1881--9 a.m.The session was opened with prayer by Rev. T. F. Kain, a member from Adams, Jay and Wells. On motion by Mr. FANCHER, the reading of the Clerk's minutes of yesterday's proceedings was dispensed with.
TIPTON COUNTY SWAMP LAND CLAIMS.
The SPEAKER announced the question pending at the time of adjournment (the swamp land claim) would be taken up--the question being on the motion to reconsider the vote concurring in the minority report.
Mr. KENNER said he tried to find out all about this claim, and thought if the principal was due the men who did the work over thirteen years ago, and the State has debarred them from their just dues that they were entitled to the interest and ought to be paid. If the report says the interest is due, under what law, equity or common sense ought we to withhold interest? Whenever there is a claim filed against the State, its validity is spoken of as if some one is trying to get their arm into the State Treasury. It is an honest debt and ought to page: 81[View Page 81] be paid, the same as if an individual had honest debts which ought to be paid. These people did this work, that is admitted, and according to the rule of law and equity the interest is due.
Mr. MESSICK--When there is anything due a man he should have the whole of it. If the State owes a man anything, it is able to pay, and especially to a poor man, therefore I am in favor of paying them all that is due them.
Mr. FULLER--This claim has been presented to this body some ten times for its payment. Why is it if these are just claims, that they were not settled ten or twelve years ago? Former Legislatures could understand this question a great deal better than we can at this late date. It does seem to me that there is something rotten in Denmark, or this claim would have been settled long ago.
Mr. HAM--Every effort possible under the circumstances has been made by the laboring men of Tipton County to get these claims allowed. Every claim was small and insignificant, with the exception of one, and that claimant became bankrupt. there is an impression that if this money is taken out of the Treasury Indiana will lose so much money. Those lands in Tipton County were presented to the State under certain conditions. They were sold and the money paid into the State Treasury. The contracts were held under a law of this State, by the Commission whose duty it was to settle those lands and apply the moneys to the improvement of the same. We are not here simply to act as watch dogs of the Treasury of the State, but we are here to protect the rights of private citizens as well, and I believe it is our duty to see that these poor people of Tipton County get every cent due them from the State.
Mr. TETER--It appears to me that if these claims are right now, they have been right for the past thirteen years, and vice versa. About the justness of the claims there appears to be no trouble, and if they are just, they ought to have been paid years ago; but the very fact that they were not paid is not evidence sufficient to convince me that they are wrong, and because previous Legislatures failed to make the required appropriation is no argument at all against the justness of the claims, as we do not know how much evidence other Legislatures had. We are here as a Jury to determine upon the facts in the case.
Mr. MOODY said he was satisfied from reports that there never was a greater swindle perpetrated upon the people of the State of Indiana than this swamp land swindle, and thought if a man has an honest and just claim-especially, if a citizen of the State of Indiana, where Legislatures, Courts and Juries seldom fail to recompense honest toil--if such a claim is not allowed after so many efforts, there is probably something radically wrong.
The motion to reconsider the vote on the adoption of the minority report was agreed to.
On motion by Mr. NEFF, the reports were recommitted.
A message from the Governor was then read, requesting the consideration of the geological survey made by Mr. Campbell, U. S. C. and G. Surveyor, etc.
It was referred to the Committee on Statistics.
On motion by Mr. KENNER--yeas, 72; nays, 2--the Constitutional rule was suspended, and a bill [H. R. 204] from the Committee on Codification of the Laws, containing 286 sections, entitled: "A bill for an act concerning taxation," was read the first and second times by title only, and referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.
On motion by Mr. CAUTHORNE, 200 copies were ordered printed for distribution among the members.
WORK FOR COMMITTEES.
The following described bills were read the second time and severally referred to appropriate Committees:
The bill [H. R. 191]: To amend Section 120 of an act concerning Justices of th Peace, their general jurisdiction and mode proceeding, etc, approved January, 1852.
The bill[H. R. 192]: To amend Section 8 of an act concerning Justices of the Peace, the mode of proceeding before them, etc., approved June 9, 1852, and June 11, 1861.
The bill [H. R. 193]: To amend an act providing for the settlement of decedent estates, proscribing the rights, liabilities and duties of officers connected with the management thereof, the heirs thereto, and certain forms to be used in such settlement etc., approved June 9, 1852.
The bill [H. R. 194]: Fixing the ownership of property held for school purposes.
The bill [H. R. 195]: To enable two or more Agricultural, Horticultural or Mechanical Societies to consolidate with each other and confer on the consolidated Companies the same powers as those of the original Societies.
The bill [H. R. 196]: To abolish the office of Assessor in cities and incorporated towns in this State.
The bill [H. R. 197]: To amend an act touching the relation of guardian and ward. Approved June 9, 1852.
The bill [H. R. 198]: To amend Section 8 of an act to enable Trustees to receive lands and donations, and to convey the same for the use of schools, Churches, Lodges, Societies, Masonic and Odd Fellow Lodges, construct cemeteries and houses of worship, and approved June 17, 1852.
The bill [H. R. 199] to amend an act prescribing who may make a will, the effect thereof, what may be devised, regulating the admission to probate, revocation and contest thereof, approved May 31, 1852.
The bill [H. R. 200] amending an act regulating descents and the apportionment of estates, approved May 14, 1852.
The bill [H. R. 201] concerning County Prisons.
The bill [H. R. 202] to amend Section 126 of an act providing for the election and qualification of Justices of the Peace and defining their jurisdiction and powers in civil cases, approved June 9, 1852.
The bill [H. R. 203] to amend Section 1 of an act regarding estrays and articles of drift, approved June 15, 1852.
Mr. HUESTON offered a concurrent resolution, reciting that the Committee for the codification of the insurance laws had completed its work and were ready to report. Therefore,
Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives, That 200 copies of the same be printed for the information of the Legislature.
Mr. BERRYMAN, from the Committee on Rights and Privileges, submitted a report on the bill [H. R. 75] concerning marriages, recommending its indefinite postponement.
Mr. MITCHELL said this was one of his bills, and he considered it a good one. The bill prohibited from a matrimonial alliance habitual drunkards, felons, and those infected with syphilitic diseases, and he thought it a duty due to mankind in general, and to the propagation of the race in particular, to restrict the marriage privileges as specified in this bill.
The report of the Committee was concurred in.
Mr. McSHEEHY,from the Committee on the Affairs of the City of Indianapolis, submitted a report, recommending the passage of the Police Judge bill [H. R. 34], with certain amendments. The bill provides for the election of a Police Judge for the city of Indianapolis.
The report of the Committee was concurred in.
Mr. FRAZER, from the Committee on Revised Statutes, submitted a report concerning the purchase of Revised Statutes for the use of the Assembly, and offered a resolution that the House indorse the action of the State Librarian in the purchase of the Revised Statutes for the House from Bingham & Co.
page: 82[View Page 82]The resolution was adopted by yeas, 47; nays, 42.
On motion of Mr. CAUTHORNE, the Constitutional rule was suspended--yeas, 72; nays, 14--and the bill [H. R. 205] for the regulation of insanity inquest and the committal of insane persons to Hospitals for the Insane, and their discharge therefrom, was read the first time, the second time by title, and referred to the Committee on Benevolent Institutions.
And then the House adjourned till 9 o'clock tomorrow morning.
