Skip to Content
Indiana University

Search Options

View Options

Table of Contents

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




WEDNESDAY, Feb. 21, 1883-9 a. m.

The Senate met at 9 o'clock a. m.

On motion by Mr. COMPTON, the reading of the minutes was dispensed with, and his bill [S. 174] to extend the office of Supreme Court Commissioners was read the second time, and with an amendment by Mr. Voyles requiring the Commissioners to be selected one from each Supreme Court Judicial District, the bill was considered as engrossed, and under a dispensation of the Constitutional restriction by a two-thirds vote, read the third time and passed by yeas, 34; nays. 7.

Mr. WILLARD voting "no," because the bill would practically establish a new Court unknown to the Constitution.

On motion by Mr. WHITE his bill [S. 163] concerning County Teachers' Institutes, was read the second time and ordered engrossed.


Mr. VOYLES, from a majority of the Special Committee thereon, returned the bill fs 87] for the location of a new Insane Asylumn at Evansville, Vandergurg County, recommending the substitution of new matter, authorizing the Governor to appoint two Commissioners from each of the two political parties, who, with the Governor, shall select suitable sites over fifty miles from Indianapolis for three new Insane Hospitals on not exceeding 160 acres of land, Commissioners to be allowed $5 per day and expenses; $300,000 appropriated for 1883 and the same amount for 1884. The Board to appoint Superintendents of builings and also Superintendents of the Hospitals. No patient to be discharged until permanently cured. The capacity of each to be from 200 to 700 patients.

Mr. BELL, for the minority of the same Committee, recommended the passage of the bill reported by the majority, with the provision that one of the Asylums shall be located at Evansville signed by himself and Mr. Rahm.

Mr. VOYLES opposed naming any place for a location, as is proposed by the minority, and favored leaving this question in the hands of the Commissioners.

Mr. YANCEY believed, in justice to all concerned, that the minority report should prevail, inasmuch as the citizens of Evansville seem to have taken more kindly to the proposition for establishing another Insane Hospital than any other city in the State. Though it be in the pocket, that city should have justice dealt out to it.

Mr. ADKISON opposed the minority report, and saw nothing in the argument just advanced. That city may be more enterprising than many others, but he denied it had more interest in the unfortunates of the State than many other places, mentioned or not mentioned. It can afford to enter into with other places desiring the location of this Institution.

Mr. VAN VORHIS regretted feeling compelled to vote against the minority report-thus encumbering the bill with the selection of one location which would be unwise. If one is to be selected, all should; if only one, then none should be.

Mr. BELL conceded some force in the last remarks, and yet the minority report commends itself above such reasoning. In the discussion yesterday there was a decided feeling expressed in favor of locating one of these Asylums at Evansville, and that being a large center of population, easily and cheaply accessible, with other considerations, influenced the minority to bring in its report. There seems to be an agreement upon Evansville all over the southern part of the State. While there are so many cities in the northern part of the State seeking the location it is better to leave that interest in the hands of the proposed Commission.

Mr. BUNDY supposed both reports and favored the bill as originally introduced. He objected to expending several thousand dollars just to locate these Asylums when it can be better done by the General Assembly. As between the two reports, he preferred the minority, because it definitely locates.


Mr. BROWN called up a special order for this hour, being the consideration of his bill [S. 1] for the better management of the Benevolent Institutions of the State, and moved the passage of the bill, the Governor's veto to the contrary notwithstanding; and on that motion he demanded the previous question, which was seconded by yeas, 28; nays, 17.

page: 232[View Page 232]

Upon the operation thereof the bill passed by yeas, 26; nays, 21.

Mr. BROWN moved to reconsider the vote just taken, and to lay that motion on the table. The latter motion was agreed to.


Mr. DUNCAN, from the Flood Relief Committee, submitted a report from the flooded districts that no person was found in all their travels suffering for the necessaries of life. The Committee visited New Albany, Jeffersonville, Aurora, Lawrenceburg and other places, where about 14,000 persons are receiving supplies of the necessaries of life, which number will speedily be reduced so as to need no further help.

The report was referred tot he Committee on Finance.


was announced by the Executive Messenger, as follows:

To the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:

The day before yesterday several gentlemen who were appointed for the purpose by the Board of Trade of Indianapolis appeared before the State Relief Committee to represent the urgent necessity that the General Assembly shall pass the pending bill for the further appropriation for the relief of the sufferers from the floods. I annex to this communication the report of their statements. I am satisfied the present appropriation is insufficient, and that a larger appropriation should be made. The present appropriation has thus far been used merely for the purchasing of food, clothing and medicines for the sufferers. When the flood shall have subsided the suffering from injuries to property by persons in very reduced circumstances, especially in towns that have been wholly or in great part submerged, will be found to be so great that it will be manifest that some aid should be given to such persons to render their homes habitable. If the General Assembly shall desire that part of any appropriation be applied in that manner it should be provided in the Pending bill.


It was referred to the Committee on Finance.


Mr. MAGEE called up a special order-the general appropriation bill [H. R. 302]- and demanded the previous question on its passage.

The bill was read the third time and passed by yeas, 30; nays, 15.

Mr. FAULKNER saying this is one of a class of bills he disliked to vote against, but believed there are provisions in it that will cause a blush of shame to tinge the cheek of many members before two years pass away.


Mr. MAGEE, from the Joint Committee on Public Buildings, recommend an appropriation of $10,000 in favor of Sarah May, widow of Edwin May, late Architect of the New State House.

Mr. BROWN stated that the State House Commissioners recommend the allowance of this claim.

Mr. BUNDY was sure the recommendation of the Joint Committee in this matter should be sustained.

Mr. MAGEE, of the Committee on Public Buildings, stated Mr. May was paid $[?],000 for plans worth $18,000, in order to complete which he mortgage after his death.

Mr. VAN VORHIS said by reason of these plans the Commissioners were enabled to save probably $10,000.

On motion by Mr. BROWN the report of the Committee was concurred in by yeas, 35; nays, 12.

On motion by Mr. BROWN the Joint resolution allowing $10,000 to Mrs. Sarah May, widow of Edwin May, was read the first time. He moved that the Constitutional rule be suspended that the resolution be pressed to its passage now.

Mr. McCULLOUGH resisted the motion, claiming the measure to be unjust in several particulars, which he mentioned. The administrator should be the applicant; then there is a gratuity in this sum of over $7,000. This estate should be as every other. Claims should be collected for the benefit of heirs and creditors-not for the widow.

Mr. BROWN explained that Mr. May contracted indebtedness by reason of a contract with the State. The State has been the gainer by his death, by the appropriation of his work.

Mr. HILLIGASS regarded the way in which this claim is pressed as begging the question, understanding the State House Commissioners can settle it. The heirs and creditors will be barred against this money which will go direct to the widow.

Mr. VOYLES opposed the claim.

Mr. Magee had investigated the claim, and would not have favored it for the reasons referred to by the Senator from Washington [Mr. Voyles]-that of outside influence. The Commissioners made a hard contract with Mr. May, knowing of his necessities and taking advantage of them. Now, the State of Indiana can not afford to be unjust.

Mr. CAMPBELL was convinced this is an equitable claim, because the Chairman of the Committee stated it would have cost the State this sum had the architect lived. This is simply a question of equity.

Mr. VAN VORHIS after investigation could corroborate what is said by the Senator from St. Joseph [Mr. Campbell] that it is a just one, and it ought to be paid whether it can be collected or not.

Mr. BUNDY understands this claim has the unanimous indorsement of both the State House Commissioners and the Joint Committee on Public Buildings of the two Houses of the General Assembly, and that is sufficient to entitle the claim to passage. He demanded the previous question.

The demand was seconded, and under the operations of the previous question he motion to suspend the Constitutional rule was rejected by yeas, 31; nays, 15, two-third not voting in the affirmative.


On motion by Mr. BROWN, the special order was taken up, being the bill [S. 102] for the reorganization of the Asylum for Feeble-Minded Children. He moved to concur in the House amendments, and demanded the previous question on that motion.

The Senate seconded the demand, and under the operations of the previous question the House amendments were read and concurred in by yeas, 27; nays, 16.

Then came a recess till 2 o'clock.


Mr. NULL, by consent, introduced a bill [S. 282] to divide the State into Congressional Districts, which was read the first time.

Mr. BROWN moved to reject the bill.

Mr. BELL desired to see the Congressional Districts remain as they are, but the late law of Congress providing for the members of the Forty-eighth Congress is so framed that it requires each State to re-district for representative purposes. We ought to re-enact the present law, so that there shall be no mistake about Indiana's representation in the next Congress. He did not favor the bill.

Mr. WILLARD would not oppose a bill, if there be a necessity, re-establishing the old apportionment. He hoped this bill would be rejected.

Mr. BROWN was not troubled with the fears entertained by the Senator [Mr. Bell]. A simple page: 233[View Page 233] resolution re-enacting the old laws will satisfy the Congressional demand. He opposed the bill, and would not vote for it under any consideration. He demanded the previous question.

The demand was seconded, and under the operations of the previous question the motion to reject the bill was agreed to by yeas; 24; nays, 23.


Mr. RAHM, from the Committee on Finance, returned the flood sufferers' relief bill [H. R. 419] with a recommendation that it be amended so that so none of the money shall be expended except to relieve present necessities in the way of board, clothing, bedding and medicine; reducing the amount to $60,000, and allowing pay to members of the Relief Board for expenses, and a per diem to the Lieutenant Governor; and that all unexpended moneys be returned to the Treasury April 1.

Mr. SPANN thought this commission should employ men at $1.25 a day and thus extend relief and work at the same time to sufferers.


The Senate returned to the consideration of Mr. Rahm's bill [S. 87] for the creation of an additional Insane Asylum at Evansville.

Mr. McCULLOUGH favored concurrence in the minority report, and the selection of the location by the General Assembly, rather than to delegate that species of legislation to four or five men. Evansville has many advantages among others the purchasing of supplies, probably, more cheaply than in any other portion of the State. If a location is selected in any other part of the southern portion of the State, it would be doing injustice not only to Evansville, but also to the entire State. There is no reason why the location for the southern part of the State should not be fixed at Evansville.

Mr. VOYLES did not like to be placed in the attitude of favoring any one locality over another, and it is unjust to designate but one point in the bill, leaving others to be selected by a Committee.

Mr. MAGEE favored the minority report, and was very anxious to see the bill advanced to the final vote and passed.

Mr. FOULKE opposed the minority report. The theory of referring the question of selection to a Commission is that the claims of every locality may be fairly and justly considered, and one locality should not have any advantage over another. The minority report does not propose a logical or fair solution of the question: it simply would shut out the presentation of claims from other cities in the southern part of the State.

Mr. SPANN could not see the force of the argument just made. There should be no Hesitancy in adopting the minority report. Evansville is located in the proper place geographically and has all facilities for ingress and egress, besides the advantage of climate. Conceding these facts why not concur in the minority report &s the necessity is apparant for more and better accommodations for the insane? The same movements will be made before the Commission proposed to be created as have been made before this Senate: and as no city in Southern Indiana has come up here asking for an Asylum, except Evansville, that locality might as well be adopted and without further delay.

Mr. FLETCHER regarded Evansville as the only place the southern portion of the State for the location of one of these Asylums, from the fact it has among other advantages cheap building material, and a large population about it. In the northern portion of the State there are several sides presenting equal claims, a selection from which it may be well to leave to the Commission. He favored the minority report.

Mr. Van Voorhis contended if such be the case the matter can be safely left to the Commission because it can not go around Evansville as a location.

The minority report was concurred in by yeas, 33; nays, 14, and the majority report, as amended by the minority, was recommenced.

The bill, as amended, was ordered engrossed.


On motion by Mr. YOUCHE the House amendments to the Lake and Porter and Pulaski and Starke Court bill [S. 257] were concurred in, also the House amendments to the qualification of Jurors bill [S. 20] on motion by Mr. Overstreet.

On motion of Mr. ADKISON the bill [H. R. 329] to authorize the Auditor of State to issue patents m certain cases to the purchasers of Wabash and Erie Canal lands was read the first time.


On motion by Mr. FLETCHER the Constitutional rule was dispensed with-yeas, 38; nays, 6-and the bill [H. R. 52] to construct a sewer from the Female Reformatory down Market to New Jersey, and down New Jersey to connect with the Washington street sewer, or at the eastern end of the Washington street sewer-appropriating $30,000-was read the first time, and again by title.

Mr. VAN VORHIS opposed the route named in the bill as entirely impracticable.

Mr. FLETCHER moved to strike out the words "Market street" and insert in lien the words "Washington street" and insert "Pine street" instead of "New Jersey street."

The motion was agreed to.

The bill was read the third time and passed by yeas, 29; nays, 14,


Mr. BROWN, by request, moved to reconsider the vote of this afternoon rejecting Mr. Null's hill [S. 282] to divide the State into Congressional Districts (notwithstanding his opposition to the bill.

Mr. BELL favored the motion, and called attention to the late law cf Congress concerning Congressional apportionment.

Mr. HENRY conceived the purpose of the bill to be to re-district the State for Congressional purposes. Where no change has been made in the number of members from any one State the late law of Congress does not apply. Indiana is not affected by it in the least.

The motion to reconsider was agreed to by yeas, 25; nays, 22.

Mr. BROWN withdrew his motion to reject.

The bill was referred to the Committee on Congressional Apportionment.


On motion by Mr. SAYRE the bill [H. R. 103] concerning liens of mechanics and laboring men was read the first time.


Mr. VOYLES called up his motion, notice of which he gave the other day, to amend Rule No. 54 so that the daily "order of business shall be suspended upon a majority vote of the Senators present," instead of a two-thirds vote, as the rule now requires. He demanded the previous question.

The Senate seconded the demand by yeas, 24; nays, 20 and under the operations thereof, the motion to change the rules was agreed to by yeas, 27; nays, 20.


Mr. BELL, by consent, introduced a bill [S. 283] to abolish the Criminal Court of Allen County on the first day of January, 1884, which was read the first time.

Mr. BELL moved for a suspension of the Constitutional rule, that the bill may be pressed to the final vote now. The motion was agreed to-yeas, 44; nays, 0- page: 234[View Page 234] the bill read by title only, then by sections, and finally passed the Senate by yeas, 42; nays, 0.

On motion by Mr. WHITS, the bill [H. R. 408] to amend Sections 7, 21 and 41 of the Common School law, was read the first time.


Mr. HOWARD, by consent, introduced a bill [S. 284] to amend an act amendatory of the decedents' estates act, being Section 2,484 of the Revised Statutes. [Relating to the protection of bona fide purchasers of real estate, where wife in second marriage joins in conveyance, providing that she or her heirs shall not claim interest in such estate after conveyance without restitution of payments made and for value of necessary improvements thereon.] It was read the first time and referred to the Judiciary Committee.


Mr. VOYLES from a majority of the Judiciary Committee returned the bill [H. R. 133] for a metropolitan police force for the city of Indianapolis with a favorable report.

Mr. VAN VORHIS from a majority of the same Committee, submitted a report declaring that the bill proposes to take from Indianapolis the right of self-government, and the right to choose the instruments by which good order may be preserved, and compel them to submit to that most vicious, outrageous and unjust policy of taxation without representation. It may force the city to expenditures beyond the limit prescribed by law; it increases the public expenses of the city more than $25,000, and thus reduces the outlay for fire protection, street lights, sanitary provision, etc., etc. It is a plain and bold proposition to organize the police force for partisan purposes, and to give the Democratic State officers control of a large amount of money without accounting to anybody for its expenditure, which they may expend without any pretext whatever in connection with the police. The bill is vicious in principle and tyrannical in effect, loosely and imperfectly drawn so as not in any way to protect the city. The report recommends its indefinite postponement, and is signed by three members of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. BROWN moved to make the bill and reports the special older for 2:15 o'clock to morrow.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. JOHNSTON offered a concurrent resolution to supply officers who may have lost the statutes by flood or overflow with other copies on application to the Secretary of State.

It was adopted.

The Senate adjourned.