THE CLAIM OF EDWIN MAY'S WIDOW.
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.
