AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. Graham's bill [H. R. 256] to provide a fund for the permanent endowment of the State University was made the special order for 2 o'clock to-morrow.
FEMALE REFORMATORY SEWER.
The SPEAKER announced the first special order to be Mr. Wilson, of Marion's, bill [H. R. 52] to construct a sewer from the Female Reformatory to connect with a sewer in the cty of Indianapolis.
Mr. WILSON explained the necessity of this bill, stating that a suit had been brought by the Federal Government in the United Stales Court of this District to abate the nuisance of The sewarage passing through the Arsenal Grounds, and, the Court was Just waiting to see what action the Legislature would take before proceeding with the abatement. The State is a party to this suit, and, unless something is done the Institution, will be closed, and the expense the State has incurred in creating the Institution would be an entire loss. He further stated that the cost of the sewer would be, as he was informed, something less than $30,000, while the loss to the State by refusing to construct the sewer would be more than $100,000.
Mr. SHOCKNEY was of the opinion that the city of Indianapolis was to receive some of the benefit of this sewer should it be constructed and therefore thought that the city should pay a portion of the expense. He had been informed that the property to be drained by the sewer was not worth more than the sewer. He was opposed to the passage of the bill-at present, and made an ineffectual motion to postpone the further consideration until to-morrow at 2 o'clock.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe. considered this a very necessary work. The State had already appropriated one hundred and thirty thousand dollars to this Institution, and it would not do to refuse this appropriation as provided in the bill and incur the loss of the entire amount appropriated.
Mr. HEFFREN thought the only question before the House was whether or not the State would protect its own property. This Reformatory is a State Institution, and it is not a question of benefiting some one else, but it is a question of protecting an institution of the State.
Mr. MOODY felt that if the members were not, fully acquainted with the provisions of the bill it was their fault, and not the fan It of the persons, who are urging the passage of the bill. Suppose this sewer does benefit the city of Indianapolis page: 212[View Page 212] it is an absolute annihilation of one of the State Institutions if this sewer is not constructed. He toped that the bill would pass immediately, and allow an opportunity to take up some other legislation,
Mr. STEWART occupied the same position in regard to this matter at the beginning of the previous General Assembly as the gentlemen who are now hesitating about passing this bill. He was not sure that the selection of the present site for the location of this Institution was a wise one; but since the State had incurred the expense of erecting the buildings and the other expenses necessary to establish the Institution, it would not pay to allow the Institution to be closed simply to save the necessary appropriation of $30,000 required to build this sewer. He considered it a matter of economy, and felt that the money in the hands of the proper persons would be judiciously expended. He urged the necessity of immediate action upon the question.
Mr. FLEECE stated that ii; was not for the benefit of the city, but it was exclusively for the use of the State, and that the sewerage coming down from this Institution through the small creek, as it does at present, was the cause of much sickness to persons living along this stream. He favored the passage of the bill.
M. MELLETT desired to say to the House that there are provisions in the bill that he could not favor. He was not us fully informed on the question as he would like to be. Under the circumstances he thought there was but one thing to do and that was to construct the sewer.
Mr. ADAMS was not informed concerning the provisions of the bill, and did not like to vote for i a measure until he fully understood it. It might be his own fault, but this was the first time he had seen the bill. He thought the bill should provide for a commission to decide whether or not the city of Indianapolis is to be benefited by the construction of this sewer. He was of the opinion that the next Legislature, should this sewer be built, would be petitioned to allow citiizens of Indianapolis to tap this sewer, and thereby receive the benefit of the sewer.
Mr. BRAZELTON moved the previous question, which was seconded. by the House, and under its operations-
The bill passed the House by yeas, 75; nays; 19.
PRICE OF SUPREME COURT REPORTS.
The Speaker announced the next special order to be Mr. Wiley's bill [H. R, 39] r,o provide for the election of a reporter of the Supreme Court, etc., allowing $2.50 per copy for reports of the Supreme Court.
Mr. SMITH considered the passage of the bill about equivalent to closing up the reporter's office.
Mr. HEFFREN stated that the reports cost less than half the sum allowed the reporter.
Mr. MOCK was of the opinion that the reporter of the Supreme Court would clear not less than $60,000 during his term of office.
Mr. WILEY was satisfied that we are paying more in the State of Indiana for our reports than any State in the Union, and was of the opinion that, the measure was fair and equitable.
The bill passed the House by yeas, 87; nays, 7.
The next special order was Mr. Mock's bill [H. R. 51] to provide for the taxing of dogs. It was read the third lime and passed the House by yeas, 77; nays 15.
STOCK RUNNING AT LARGE.
Mr, Howland' bill [H. R. 134] to amend Section 1 of an act to provide for the regulation of stock running at large, was read the third time.
Mr. PATTEN opposed the passage of the bill, considering the present law sufficient. He thought the present bill would impose hardships upon the farming communities, and create innumerable lawsuits, without benefiting anyone in the least.
Mr. JEWETT was opposed to the bill because it recognized the principle that co one but a freeholder should have a voice under its provisions, He considered every man entitled to a voice, whether he was a freeholder or not. He was not seeking to influence others' votes, but there were the reasons why he could not support the bill.
Mr. MONTGOMERY thought the people of this State are satisfied with the present law, and was therefore opposed to the bill.
Mr. HOLLER believed the bill would create legislation, and for that reason opposed it.
Mr. KESTER favored the passage of the bill.
Mr. Mutz was opposed to changing the present law.
Mr. WILSON. of Koscinsko, also opposed the passage of this bill.
Mr. McHENRY regarded this bill as against the interests of the poorer class of farmers.
Mr. DEEM thought this bill in the interest of large and against the interest of small farmers, and hoped it would be voted down.
Mr. THOMAS believed his constituents are opposed to this bill and consequently should vote against it.
Mr. SUTTON was sure this bill places the matter in the hands of those most interested-just where It should be. He favored the passage.
The bill was rejected-yeas, 36: nays, 50.
Mr. Shively's bill [H. R. 103] concerning liens of mechanics, laboring men and others, was read the third time and passed the House by yeas, 85; nays, 0.
The House then adjourned.
