ROADS AND HIGHWAYS.
Mr. BENZ called up the special order, being his bill [ S. 6] for the election and appointment of Supervisors of Highways [see pages 28,78 and 98 pf the Brevier Reports.] The question being on a substitution for the bill. [See page 98.]
Mr. WILLARD believed there was no piece of legislature enacted by the last Legislature that was so execrated as the road law. All parties are untied in Southern Indiana in demanding that the system of Road Supervisor shall be repealed and that we go back to the old system that the people understood. Senators now desire to tempt us with amendments. In Section 8, line 3, of the substitute, no one in exempted from working on the road over twenty-one years of age. Every industry is applying here for ceded legislation, and with the Senate give relief to all but the farming interest. The old law is well settled, has been satisfactory, is construed by the Courts, and the and the desire for the old law is universal in Southern Indiana, as compared with the new. He trusted all substitutes and amendments will be voted down and the demand for the old road law acceded to
Mr. FOULKE heard from all parts of his County the clamor give us back the old law. The people knew exactly the operations of the old law. Then it is said the Trustees are improper persons to take charge of the roads.
Mr CAMPBELL was satisfied this road bill is of as great importance as any measure that will come before the body. He moved a recommittal with instructions to report next Monday at 2 o'clock in order to give members time to more fully understand the merits of the propositions before the Senate.
On motion of Mr. VOYLES the motion to recommit was laid on the table.
Mr. McINTOSH traveled over his two Counties in the late canvass and was satisfied there were not in favor of the repeal of the present and the re-enactment of the old law. A certain odium attached to every man who had a place in the Legislature when the present law was passed. The author says this substitute is very like the old law. If it is like the old law let the Senator from Crawford [Mr. Benz] have the credit of it and have his bill passed.
Mr. McCLURE: If he felt instructed on one subject more man another it is to help restore the old law for the one working of roads, which has given so much satisfaction, and with which they have been so long familiar. Therefore he should vote for the bill of the Senator from Crawford [Mr. Benz] on its final passage.
Mr. BELL thought the lack of provision for furnishing money for work during the first year of the law more than any other feature brought odium upon it. It has many provisions which are improvements over the old law. Under the old law it was almost impossible to have good roads in his section. Although funds have been had under the new law but one year, there is quite an improvement in the roads in his County. The old law was defective in many respects. The substitute will probably do away with the particularly objectionable features of the present law. Two years ago he said if it were adopted and did not work well he would vote for its amendment when opportunity offered, and he was ready to redeem that promise now.
Mr. VOYLES opposed the eliding substitute. If there be any amendments desired they should be made to the original bill.
Mr. KEISER was not here to make a speech for home consumption. If farmers look to their own interests they will spend more on roads than on anything else but their own farms. It has been claimed that the cry is universal for the old Supervisor law. While there is dissatisfaction with the present law, he had yet to hear the first man who wants to go back to the old system under the old law. The people want a law which will give better roads than under the old law. He could not see where the great cry arises against the pending substitute. It makes some man responsible for the roads of the Township. Suppose it does cost a little more to have good roads, they ought to be had. Under the old law there certainly must have been a great waste of money. In his County every year they were credited with putting $11,000 on the roads. Under the old law hundreds of dollars were acredited for taxes and not hour's work done therefor. There ought to be a provision in every road law to prevent this. Abuses under the old road law have had a great deal to do with its inefficiency. He hoped the substitute [Mr. Henry's] would be adopted in place of the original bill and then amended.
Mr. HILLIGASS cited a, main objection to the present law viz., that the work is not well or properly distributed throughout the Township. He objected to a superintendency of the roads by the Township Trustee, as proposed in the pending substitution. That would interfere with the present gravel road law. He also objected to the power of removal by Trustees of Supervisors. On this subject the same objections lie to the present law. And there is a demand that the present law be amended or repealed there is no pro-provision in the present law that requires an equitable expenditure f road moneys. The old road law has been satisfactory in the past. He saw nothing in the substitute that, would remedy the defects of the present law. He favored senate bill No. 6 as introduced.
Mr. HENRY replied to objections to his substitute. He believed with a few changes it is a systematic bill. He knew of no reason why a man above fifty years of age should not pay a road tax according to the value of the land owned by him. Under this bill the per capita tax and commutation is applied by the Supervisor in his own road district; and the bill No. 6 does not provide the same things. The two differ in this more than in any other one point. The section authorizing removal of Supervisors is a desirable feature.
Mr. LOCKRIDGE, seeing a lack of understanding of this important matter, moved to postpone the further consideration till Monday next at 2 o'clock.
The motion was agreed to-yeas, 24; nays, 25-the Lieutenant Governor giving the casting vote.
And then came a recess till 2 o'clock.
