THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
VOLUME TWENTY-ONE.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
IN SENATE.
FRIDAY, Feb. 2, 1883-10 a. m.The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR called the Senate to order at 10 o'clock.
Prayer by Rev. John Baltzley.
The Secretary's minutes of yesterday's proceedings were read until stopped by
A CORRECTION OF THE JOURNAL.
Mr HILLIGASS, who said: I desire to state that the journal is not right as to recording my vote on the resolution offered by the Senator from Brown [Mr. Duncan]. I am recorded as voting for the resolution, when in fact I think every Senator will recognize the fact that I voted against every proposition that came up on removal of the Doorkeeper until the final vote selecting Mr. Edmonds. I ask to have the journal corrected so as to show I voted against the resolution.
Mr. SPANN thought it right and proper for the Senator to explain his vote on the floor so as to put himself right before the Senate and the world, but it is not right or proper to correct the journal, to which he objected.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: I think the record ought to Si-and unless there is unanimous consent, to the change.
Mr. VAN VORHIS: I have no doubt but that the Senator intended to vote as he says; bull must say the record shows just as he voted. I way watching particularly that vote, and know whereof I speak when I say the Senator voted as the journal shows. And I was surprised. I think it due that the Senator's explanation should be made, and that his explanation that he intended to vote otherwise should go upon the journals of the Senate.
Mr. HILLIGASS: I think the Senator from Marion [Mr. Van Vorhis] is mistaken, I certainly knew what I was doing at that time, and if a response when my name was called led him to believe I was voting for the resolution, it came from somebody else than myself, I ask as a matter of justice to myself that the journal be corrected and I hope no Senator will object. I would not desire to have any Senator wrong upon the record.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: Let us see if we can't fix it this way: we can't well go behind the returns we acted upon, but if the Senate will give consent let the Senator [Mr. Hilligass] change his vote, in the event it would not change the result. I don't think any man has any right to change the result Or let him make a statement in writing and put it on the record. The Senator for Marion,[Mr. Van Vorhis] said he voted the the other way. I can't recollect.
Mr. VOYLES: The journal ought to speak the truth.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: If the Senator voted "no" the journal ought to say that; but the journal ought not to say he voted "yes" when he voted "no."
Mr. VOYLES: I am satisfied the Senator from Marion [Mr. Van Vorhis] is in error.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: The best testimony would be the return made to the officer of the Senate.
Mr. BELL cited a precedent where there was a bill reported as passed on the last day of a session in which a bill could be passed, where a Senator was recorded as having voted for the bill-and a house bill too-who came in the next morning insisting he had not voted for the bill. After thorough discussion and presentation of authorities the record was changed his vote was placed against the bill and the law failed for that reason. While this proposed change may make s particular difference, I think it is within the power of the Senate, in every case, to have the record speak the truth. I will take a brother Senator's word about what his vote was, because a man who would make the statement that he is improperly recorded, when such was not the truth, would not be fit for any gentleman to associate with in a Legislative or any other body. Unless it is apparent the Senator is mistaken his statement ought to be received as true. I would not care a fig for this except for the precedent. Now if the Senate itself does not have full control of the journal-if it may not at any time before its final approval of the journal, without question from any source, make the journal speak the exact truth, then this Senate is at the mercy of some inefficient, careless or corruptt Clerk. I don't mean to say we have such a Clerk, but to point out the danger if we should have one and this right should not be extended. It would be entirely wrong to question our power over the journal-until it is finally approved, to page: 147[View Page 147] make it speak the exact truth. If there be a doubt as to the fact it is right for the Senate to vote on the testimony. In the absence of unusually strong testimony showing a Senator is mistaken his statement should be taken as true. But suppose the statement of the Senator be questioned, and we have an opposite statement from another Senator on the same point, then the question of fact comes before Senate.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: Then you have the Secretary of the Senate.
Mr. BELL: I acknowledge the force to a certain extent of the fact that we have a roll-call made by a Secretary of the Senate. I don't want it to go unquestioned, because it may have some weight in determining the fact, but it has nothing of conclusiveness about it at all. We all know when there is any confusion or noise in the Chamber, how easy it if for the Clerk to make a mistake in his record Pie is but a finger, so to speak, on the right hand of the Senate, and no mistake of any Clerk can effect the right of the Senate to correct its journal. Here is a matter of fact for us to determine. We have the right to make the journal speak the exact truth, we might institute an investigation into the facts if it were a matter of sufficient importance. I speak only because of the Importance of acting so as not to set a bad precedent.
Mr. VAN VORHIS: I do not want to be understood in any sense as calling into question the word of the Senator from Huntington [Mr. Hilligass]. I think that under the excitement of the moment for he was considerably excited, that he does not know just exactly how he did vote, but that he voted as he now says is a mistake. I have no question he is honest in his belief he voted as he now states, but I was so situated when that vote was being taken, and watching the vote particularly to hear that gentlemen on that side were voting "aye" on that question, and I heard an affirmative response in answer to the call of Senator Hilligass' name, and was surprised when it was announced. There are other gentlemen on this side of the House who observed just exactly the same thing. Of course, what the Senator from Allen and Whitley [Mr. Bell] says about the record speaking the exact truth, there is no question about that; but the question is, what is the truth? I have no objection, if not taken as a precedent, that the Senator shall have the right to record his vote as he now says he intended to vote. But that he voted as recorded I thought it was due to the Clerk I should state as I have stated.
Mr. BROWN, without stating anything as to what is right or wrong on this question, hoped the Senator from Rush [Mr. Spann] would withdraw his objection, and allow the journal to be corrected as desired by the Senator from Huntington [Mr. Hilligass], and we agree that it will not be taken as a precedent. We do this now for the purpose of allowing a brother Senator to stand on the record as he desires.
Mr. SPANN withdrew his objection.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: By unanimous consent, Senator Hilligass changes his vote on the roll call.
Mr. HENRY: There is another correction. On the point of order made by the Senator from Clinton [Mr. Marvin] that no Doorkeeper could be elected by a resolution. He waived that and therefore the journal misstates the point of order.
Mr. DUNCAN: The first point of order raised by the Senator from Clinton [Mr Marvin] was that my resolution was not in order. The Chair decided I had leave to introduce the resolution because the Senate had just declared it would proceed at once to the election of a Doorkeeper. Then the Senator from Clinton raised the point of order that we could not elect an officer of the Senate by a resolution.
Mr. BROWN: That is the newspaper report, also.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: I recollect it the way Senator Duncan has it.
Mr. HENRY: There was a ruling only on the one question.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: I think that is the way it was.
Mr. MARVIN: I did not waive any point I made.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: The Senator raised a point that the Doorkeeper could not be elected by a resolution, but it was not acted upon. I don't think I passed on that question. The question is: Shall the min lies stand, as far as read and corrected, as the minutes of me Senate? It is so ordered. The Secretary has made a mark on the Journal up to where it is read and approved, and the Committee will have to examine the balance of it.
A NEW SCHOOL BILL.
Mr. YANCEY, by consent, introduced a bill [S. 212] concerning Common Schools within the limits of a town of not exceeding 1,000 inhabitants shall not become a municipal corporation for school purposes until an ordinance therefor be adopted] which was read the first time.
PETITIONS, MINORITIES AND REMONSTRANCES.
Mr. ADKISON presented a remonstrance from Miami County, against the passage of any bill to regulate or control pharmacy.
Mr. JOHNSON presented a petition from Dearborn County, on the subject of public health, asking the repeal of said act.
These petitions were referred, to appropriate Committees.
JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.
A report from the Judiciary Committee recommended the passage of the Van Vorhis bill [S. 193] to amend Section 1,4IS of the Revised Statutes, 1881, (introduced yesterday), with amendments.
Mr. VAN VORHIS asked and obtained consent to consider the report now. He explained that the Committee recommended amending the bill so that the number of Justices in a Township shall not exceed two with one additional for each incorporated town and city in the Township, and that they be required to reside and hold Court in the Township, town or city for which they are elected or appointed. It will give the city of Indianapolis the same number as now, but will require them to reside and hold Court in the town or city where elected or appointed.
On his further motion the Constitutional rule was set aside yeas, 37; nays, 1-the bill read the second time by title only, the Committee amendment agreed to, the bill considered as engrossed, read the third time and passed the Senate by yeas, 37; nays, 1.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES,
coming up in the order of the day, many were submitted, all of which were placed upon the calendar to come up for consideration in the order of bills on the second reading.
The Senate took a recess till 2 o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. FOULKE offered a resolution for a Select Committee of Three to take into consideration a reapportionment of the school fund, with power to report a bill,
It was adopted, and the Committee. Messrs. Foulke, Johnson and Bichowsky, was appointed by the Chair.
NEW PROPOSITIONS.
The following described bills were introduced, read the first time, and severally referred to appropriate Committees, unless otherwise stated:
By Mr. FLEMING (by request) [S. 213]: To enable Counties to more readily obtain judgments page: 148[View Page 148] against officers or other persons who wrongfully obtain moneys, or other thing of value, from any County or the Treasury thereof. [Designating who shall be relator in suits on behalf of a County, exempting such relator from liability for costs, and declaring an emergency. Any taxpayer of such County may, without being liable for costs (unless malicious), institute a suit on the relation of such County for recovery of such money or thing of allowance from the Board of County Commissioners authorized by law, no stay of execution to be allowed on judgment obtained, nor benefit of any valuation or appraisement law be given.]
By Mr. FOULKE [S. 214] appropriating $1,500 to create and enlarge libraries in the State Prisons (North and South) and the Reformatory Institute for Women, [to be expended in equal proportion for each under the direction of the Ex-Convict Aid Society.]
By Mr. RISTINE [S. 215] to amend Section 1 of and act concerning the opening, vacation and change of highways so as to give County Commissioners jurisdiction over the laying out and changing of roads and highways, approved March 5, 1859, being Section 5,105 of the Revised Statutes of 1881. [to amend Section 15, in relation to the petition and voting in change or location of highways] Mr. R says: The act of 1867 amend the law of 1852, when it should have amended the law of 1859. This is to reinstate the section as it is in the Revised Statutes of 1876.
By Mr. FOULKE [S. 216] for the promotion of good behavior of persons convicted of crime, and for the maintenance of better discipline in Prisons, [Any inmate of either of the Penitentiaries or the Reformatory for Women obeying the rules and laboring with diligence and fidelity shall have deducted five days from the period of his sentence for each month, and a portion of his earnings not exceeding one-tenth of the price of convict labor. After one full year as above, the deduction shall be seven days each month. After two years, nine days each month. After three or more years, the deduction shall be ten days for each month. For every violation of the rules and discipline, or for want of fidelity and care in the performance f work, the convict shall not only foreit all gained time and earnings for the month in which the delinquency occurred, but, according to the aggravated nature or frequency of his offense, the Board may deduct a portion or all of his previously earned time or money, or both of them.]
SENATE BILLS ON THE SECOND READING.
Mr. Youche's bill [S. 28] to regulate interest on school funds, was read the second time and laid on the table by concurrence in a Committee report.
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.
Mr. Smith's, of Delaware, bill [S. 58-see page 39 of the Brevier Reports] to regulate weights and measures was read the second time.
Mr. RISTINE understands the act proposed to be amended by this bill is void and not in the Revised Statutes of 1881, consequently, it can not be amended now.
Mr. SMITH was understood to say he found it in the code.
Mr. DAVIDSON recollected the bill was voted down in the Senate two years ago when he made some remarks on the Question.
Mr. HILLIGASS moved to insert "68" instead of "70" pounds with reference to the weight of corn.
Mr. SMITH stated the object of this bill was to make the legal weight of corn seventy pounds in order to conform to the custom of neighboring States. There is no loss to the farmer, because the difference is always taken from them in price.
Mr. MARVIN did not know of a warehouse dealer but desired the change made to seventy pounds.
Mr. WHITE believed his people preferred the standard as the law now provides.
Mr. HILLIGASS also preferred the standard should remain as the law now fixes it. Men in the business are the only ones favoring a change. Farmers are not.
Mr. DUNCAN believed only warehouse-men are clamoring for this change. It was not the farmers He favored sixty-eight pounds to the bushel in the in few it of his own corn-raising district.
Mr. MARVIN, as one farmer and as a Senator, should favor the proposed increase.
Mr. GRAHAM was sure the price would correspond with the number of pounds to the bushel, and to secure uniformity he favored the bill as introduced.
Mr. SMITH stated it to be the universal desire of both trading men and farmers that seventy pounds should be the legal standard, to correspond with adjoining States, as they are accustomed to doing now.
Mr KEISER, having no expression from his people, would favor the present standard and oppose a change. The yeas and nays were ordered on the adoption of the amendment (Mr. Hilligass'), and being ordered and taken, resulted-yeas, 21; nays, 1.
No quorum voting-
Mr. Willard demanded a call of the Senate, which discovered 29 Senators present and answering to their names.
An ineffective motion was made to adjourn.
After a time-no other Senator appearing-
The Senate adjourned.
