Skip to Content
Indiana University

Search Options

View Options

Table of Contents

Brevier Legislative Reports, Volume XXI, 1883, 311 pp.




WEDNESDAY, January 31, 1883-10 a. m.

The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR called the session to order and directed the reading of the Secretary's minutes of yesterday's proceedings.

On motion of Mr. MAGEE the leading thereof was dispensed with.


Mr Foulke's bill [S. 2] to enable Turnpike Companies in this State to connect with turnpike roads operated in an adjoining State, was read the third time,

Mr. FOULKE explained that it provides where a turnpike road outside of the State runs up to the State line, any turnpike in this State within two miles, may construct a road to connect with the road in the other State. An instance in his own County desired such an enabling act, and that is the only case known where the bill would apply.

Mr. MARVIN received a letter from a man owning the land through which this contemplated road would run-if there be no compulsion about it he would not object.

The bill passed me Senate by yeas, 40; nays, 0,


Mr. Brown's bill [S. 1] for the better management of the Benevolent Institutions of the State [see pages 87 add 105 of the Brevier Report]-being read the third time-

Mr. WILLARD demanded, the previous question.

The Senate seconded the demand for the previous question-yeas, 25; nays, 22.

Under the operations thereof the bill passed the Senate by yeas. 27; nays, 20.

Mr. BROWN moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill passed, and moved to lay the motion to reconsider on the table. The latter motion was agreed to by yeas, 28; nays, 19.

Pending the roll call-

Mr SPANN, in explanation of his vote, when his name was called, said; There is an important section in this bill put there by an amendment offered by myself, and because of that amendment I had made up my mind to vote for the bill, that amendment tailing away a great part of the objectionable features the bill otherwise would have. But I voted against my own amendment and that bill because there was placed upon the Senate a gag rule [the previous question]. Simply because toe members of the other side have the brute force-a majority-they stopped my mouth and that of other Senators on this side- And I voted against the bill because I am opposed to having the previous question put as a gag to discussion upon any bill, and especially anything that affects the people as this bill does. I admire the generosity of the Senior from Jackson [Mr. Brown], who sits in his chair and did not move the previous question, but that it was left for the Senator from Lawrence [Mr. Willard], who has been made the tool of the Senator from Jackson to apply the gag rule and move the previous question. I vote "no"

Mr. WILLARD, when his name was called said: I vote "yea" for the reason that this is a political question, and I so give notice to the other side of the House that I am the tool of no man, but as a member of the Democratic party on this floor I do not propose that when a political question has been agreed upon by the Democratic party to stand upon the floor and have the other side waste day after day in discussing measure whenever a vote is taken, and for that reason I made the motion for the previous question, and I stand by it. I made the same motion four years ago on another bill on this question which passed through the other House. I stood by that action then and was returned to this Senate by the unanimous vote of my constituents-Democrats, Republicans and Greenbackers. I believe that it is a right of the majority upon the floor to control its own action without factious opposition from the minority. For that reason I vote "yea."

Mr. YANCEY, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote said: I am another member on this floor sent here by Republicans, Democrats and Greenbackers. The reputation of the Democracy proves true-the members of that party are afraid of free and open and fair discussion of any question that affects the vital Interests of the people of the State. We have bad ample evidence of that fact from. the beginning of this session of the General Assembly. The Republicans and Greenbackers were subjects of mis page: 136[View Page 136]placed confidence when they sent the Senator from Lawrence [Mr. Williard] here to put a gag rule on the Senate when considering laws for the benefit of the State. It is so narrow and it is so unfair in every sense. This bill is an invasion of the rights of the people, and it is political from beginning to end. It is a means by which to put men in office who, is they had just dues, would be banished from the United States. [Laughter,] I vote "no."

The vote was then announced as above recorded.

So the motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


Mr. Smith of Jay's bill [S. 89] to amend Section 4,501 of the Revised Statutes of 1881, was read the third time.

Mr. SMITH explained that because there is some doubt about the term of schools, this bill is introduced by request, to prevent any litigation. There is no very great change in the bill. If the teacher's license expires during the term of school it shall not stop the school.

Mr. HENRY opposed the bill. A teacher unfit, whose license only run a week, might complete a term for which employed, though it run a year. If a teacher can not renew his license there is no need for his being allowed to complete the term.

The bill passed by yeas, 33; nays, 13.


Mr. Ristine's bill [S. 22] to amend Section 5,097 of the code of 1881, being read the third time. See page 39 of the Brevier Reports-

Mr. RISTINE insisted this act has been a great advantage to Counties. This bill proposes to allow a tax of 1 1/2 per cent. for the repair and construction of good roads. The present law is a dead letter in many Counties for the want of more funds.

Mr. MARVIN'S constituents objected. Under the present law over $9,000,000 in bonds can be issued by County Commissioners. There should be a limit to this thing. He opposed putting $20,000 more of this kind of burden on his constituency.

Mr. GRAHAM also objected to this proposed increase of tax for road construction purposes. The roads constructed under the law of 1877 are most of them worn out. Unless there be a fund to keep gravel roads in repair there had better be no gravel roads at all. One hundred thousand dollars is sufficient for any County to use for such a purpose. The curse of to-day in Indiana is special taxes. It makes tax outrageous an burdensome. And there is great danger of the Counties being made primarily liable for the expense of such improvement. There is no good reason for increasing the liabilities of Counties one-half. Another objection is the County Commissioners have the right to locate these new roads.

Mr. HILLIGAS asked careful consideration of this bill. It is justice to limit by per centum the right to issue these construction bonds. Hence this bill ought to pass; there is justice in the proposition. It is the highest prerogative of people to encounter their own real estate in order to secure good road facilities.

Mr. HENRY also hoped the bill would pass, it being an equitable provision. Two years ago there was not a mile of free gravel roads in the County of Madison, while now there are roads complete and in process of construction to the amount of $90,000. So there can be no more built without an increase of taxation. There is nothing in the argument about increasing indebtedness.

Mr. MAGEE opposed the bill. The result would be some portions have bad, while other portions of the County have good roads. Probably no county in the State has better material for roads than Cass County. Another bad result would be that in five or six years the County finds herself indebted to a large amount, and worn-out roads. As a legal proposition the County can be held responsible for these bonds in many instances. The plan is not a fair and equitable one. It is better to proceed carefully and cautiously in this matter. If the people want gravel roads and have the right kind of spirit, they will form corporations and build the said roads under the laws of the State.

Mr. RISTINE replied to objections: The bill requires no County to build a single road or to increase its indebtedness. The Courts have already passed upon the main features of this law.

The bill finally passed the Senate by yeas, 31; nays, 12.

Then came a recess till 2 o'clock.


Mr. Bell's bill [S. 5] authorizing pay to Supreme Court Commissioners-see page 28 of the Brevier Reports-being read the third time-

The bill passed the Senate by yeas, 34; nays, 6.


Mr. Duncan's bill [S. 113] to amend Section 1,467 of the code of 1881 being read the third time-

Mr DUNCAN explained the bill confined changes of venue before Justices to one from the Justice and one from the Township. Under the present law in criminal cases as many changes may be taken as the parties see fit to swear to, which often becomes a means of defense with a view to wear out the prosecution without giving a chance for trial.

Mr. BROWN saw no necessity for this bill, understanding there is a decision which declares that but one change of venue from a Justice is allowable.

Mr. FOULKE also favored the bill, but doubted whether it would accomplish the desire of the author as to criminal cases.

The bill passed-yeas 39, nays, 0.


The bill [H. R. 212] to fix the terms of Courts in the Thirty-third Judicial Circuit affecting the Counties of Whitley and Kosciusko, was read the first time. Referred to the Committee on Organization of Courts.


T The Senate resumed the consideration of Mr. Voyles' bill [S. 91] to change the name of the House of Refuge pending at the adjournment yesterday afternoon, the question being on Mr. Voyles'amendment to make as Trustees, Lewis Jordan, Levi Barnett and Hamet M. Helms

Mr. SPANN moved to amend the amendment by inserting the name of Finley Bigger, of Rush County, in place of Hamet M. Helms for the reason that his gentleman is a Democrat pure and undefiled. If we have to accept the inevitable, as we must, he desired to see this name inserted. If Democrats displace Republicans he wanted to get a good, honest Democrat in at least one position.

Mr. BROWN conceded the gentleman named was worthy and competent, but all have to take their chances.

The amendment to the amendment was rejected by yeas, 22; nays, 25.

The amendment [Mr. Voyles'] was agreed to by yeas, 26; nays, 19.

Pending the roll-call-

Mr. SPANN, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote said: The law as it now stands gives the Governor of the State the power to appoint these Trustees, while this bill leaves that power in the hands of the Governor only when there shall be a vacancy after the bill shall have passed and become a law. I shall vote against this amendment fixing the three names in the blank, for the reason I can not understand, and wish the Senator from Washington, or any other Senator, would tell me the reason or necess page: 137[View Page 137]sity for ousting any person or changing the Trustees of that Institution. If there has been any inefficiency, incapacity or dishonesty, or any charges made against the Trustees, and there is a necessity for a change, let it be stated. This Institution, reformatory in character, should have a first place in the hearts of every citizen.

Mr. BROWN made the point of order that the Senator is not giving reasons explanatory of his vote, but discussion the merits of the bill.

The Presiding officer [Mr. Bundy in the Chair] would not undertake to decide.

Mr. SPANN (resuming]: I am trying to explain that I am willing to vote for this amendment if the Senator will show me it is not a damnable outrage, or if he will show me there is a necessity. I say there is no necessity except a political necessity. Therefore, I vote "no."

The vote was then announced as above recorded. So the names were inserted.

Mr. FOULKE moved to amend. Apart from its political character, which he deplored, the bill contains some excellent provisions. The provisions of the present law allowing parents to send their incorrigible children to the House of Refuge is open to abuse. One of his amendments proposes to change the bill to the present law, making warrants for Trustees' pay paid on the order of the Governor [without casting any reflection on the Superintendent, but because the principle is right.] In Section 3, line 2, he moved to amend by making the subordinates appointed by the Governor on recommendation of the Superintendent, as the present law provides. The other amendment adds to Section 11 a proviso, saving commitment from being void for want of strict compliance with the form prescribed. The last amendment is to require a record to be kept of the boy after discharge, in the words recommended by the Trustees of said House of Refuge in their last report. He suggested other amendments, but made no motion in reference to these suggestions.

Mr. VOYLES did not think any of these pro posed amendments were either necessary or essential.

The PRESIDING OFFICER [Mr. Bundy in the Chair] stated the question to be on the first amendment the money to be drawn on the warrant of the Governor for pay of Trustees.

Mr, BROWN opposed this first amendment.

Mr. BELL: The warrant can not be drawn for more than the law allows, and as a matter of convenience it should remain as in the bill.

The first amendment was rejected by yeas, 14; nays 32.

The second amendment adding the words "not to exceed the number approved by the Governor" as in the present law-referring to the number of subordinates-was also rejected by yeas, 15; nays, 4.

The third amendment adding to the eleventh section the words "Provided that no commitment shall be void for failure to comply with this provision," was agreed to.

The last amendment, requested by the Board of Trustees, requiring a record of the conduct of boys after leaving the Institution to be kept, coming up-

Mr. BELL thought the less record kept of a boy after he gets out the better it will be for the boy in after years.

Mr. HILLIGASS also thought each a record might come up to plague the boy in after life.

Mr. FOULKE withdrew the amendment.

Mr. SPANN moved to amend so that this bill shall not take effect till after the terms of present Trustees expire. He offered this amendment to learn what was the reason of this proposed change

Mr. BENZ: Because there is a Republican over there, and we want to kick him out. [Laughter ]

Mr SPANN considered this a frank and honest confession. Two of the Democratic Trustees' terms expire in November. Why then do Senators want to turn out one of their number? Has there been any dishonesty discovered? Why is it? He hoped gentlemen would be as frank in answering as the Senator from Crawford [Mr. Benz].

Mr. BROWN said this was carrying out a great Democratic principle-rotation in office-a short official life for each individual-the public offices to be distributed so as to give the largest number of persons official engagement. He demanded the previous question.

The demand was seconded by the Senate-yeas, 27; nays. 15.

Under the operations of the previous question the amendment was rejected by yeas, 18; nays, 2[6?]; and the bill was ordered engrossed for the third reacting.

Pending the consideration cf the above bill-


Mr. McCULLOUGH from the Committee on Elections submitted a report, setting forth that Wm. L. Rude. of Morganstown, Morgan County, has failed to obey a summons issued by said Committee requiring him to appear and testify before said Committee in the contested case of Johnson versus Overstreet [the sitting Senate ] bringing with him certain papers, in said subpoena specially named; wherefore the Committee, upon the consent motion and request of both parties and their respective attorney ask that an attachment be ordered to be issued and served upon said witness, that his attendance may be enforced and testimony procured by the Committee and said papers be produced.

Mr. BELL said the return shows a personal service, but there is said to be some sort of an excuse for the witness not appearing. The Committee propose to instruct the Doorkeeper if certain, papers be in the witness' hand and are produced and there be a real necessity for the witness to remain away, to so permit. There is no desire to act harshly, but simply to have the power to bring the witness and papers here.

The report of the Committee was concurred in, and-

The PRESIDING OFFICER [Mr. Bundy] said: The resolution is adopted [Mr Bell, sotto voce-"and the attachment is ordered issued"-] and the attachment is ordered issued.

The Senate adjourned till to-morrow.