THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
VOLUME TWENTY-ONE.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
IN SENATE.
THURSDAY, Feb. 22, 1883-9 a. m.The reading of the minutes was dispensed with.
On motion by Mr. COMPTON his bill [S. 45] to incorporate the Commercial Bank, was read the second time and ordered engrossed.
PUBLIC FUNDS.
On motion by Mr. LOCKRIDGE his bill [S. 151] to amend Section 5,852 of the Revised Statutes was read the second time.
Mr. LOCKRIDGE explained the bill simply provides penalties in case Clerks, Treasurers and Sheriffs-officers having charge of public monies-fail to pay over such monies into the hands of their successors in office.
The bill passed the Senate by yeas, 4[?]; nays, 0.
FEES AND SALARIES.
Mr. VOYLES moved to dispense with the Constitutional rule that his bill [S. 173] supplemental to the fee and salary act, may be passed through two readings and to the final vote. He explained it would prevent, constructive fees-officers violating its provisions may be removed on application of any taxpayers. The charging of any constructive or excessive fee by a County or Township official is made a cause of civil action on the part of the person insured, who may recover damages, in addition to the amount overcharged, of not less than $10 nor more than $30.
The motion was agreed to-yeas, 36: nay, 4-and accordingly the bill was read the second time by title only.
Mr. GRAHAM moved to amend the bill by appropriately inserting the words; "Knowingly tax, receive or demand any fee to which he is not entitled by the law now in force," and substituting for "taxpayer" the words, "freeholder feud resident."
Mr. MAGEE favored the first eight sections of the bill, but objected to giving the right to every taxpayer to have an officer removed-the 9th Section should be amended as Section 8 provides sufficient penalties.
Mr SPANN moved to strike out Section 9.
Mr. GRAHAM opposed this motion. It seems certain no legislation will be had on the fee and salary question this session that will amount to much. The trouble has been the abuse of the fee and salary law. In some Counties officers are receiving three and four times as much as the law allows. Section 8 does not impose a sufficient penalty. This leaves the fee bill as it is but says if officers tax any more than they may be removed from office. If this amendment and this bill prevail, it will be sure to stop this evil so much complained of all over the State. He referred to the Clerk of a comparatively small County, who is receiving and demanding amount $15,000 a year. Under the present law these officers can demand almost any fee they choose to tax. He desired to do all he could to prevent these abuses and hoped there was virtue enough in the Senate to restrain the ravages of County officers upon the people of this State.
Mr. VOYLES referred to the fact that Section 8 provides for a civil remedy, and if it be the will of the Senate to strike out Section 9 still the bill will go a long way in advance. If that Section is retained it probably should be amended.
Mr. SAYRE regarded Section 9 as of not very great importance. If it be said this bill is accumulating penalties it is nothing more than what public officers have done by accumulating fees. Section 8 will be sufficient to restrain the taxation and collection of illegal fees. He favored the retention of Section 9, though the remainder of the bill will be productive of as much good as any law which has received the attention of the Senate this session.
The motion to strike out Section 9 was agreed to by yeas, 83; nays, 11.
The bill was considered engrossed, read the third lime and passed by yeas, 45; nays, 0.
Mr. GRAHAM regarding it as a piece of useless yet harmless legislation.
ADULTERATION OF SUGARS.
On motion by Mr. FLETCHER his bill [S. 101] to prevent frauds in the adulteration of sugars was read the second time, with Committee amendments.
Mr. VAN VORHIS questioned whether there is much to be gained by the bill, except a lucrative field for the State Chemist, and whether there would be any benefit at all to the consumer. He favored this class of legislation, but of all other page: 238[View Page 238] things sugar is the one article that needs less legislation than any other. A great many other articles of food are adulterated in such a way as to be detrimental to health.
Mr. McCLURE, so far as this bill is concerned, could see no practical advantage to be derived from it. The retail merchants, to be safe from prosecution, would have to obtain an analysis of all syrups and sugars sold by them. In order to know they would not violate the law. He opposed the bill.
Mr. FLETCHER stated the following points in favor of the bill: There is scarcely a pure syrup or sugar sold. Glucose and other matters of adulteration are frequently injurious to health. Adulteration often exists in syrups as great as 90 per cent. Sugar 10 to 20 per cent, one house in Chicago using 20,000 bushels of corn per day for sugar and syrup adulteration. The starch sugar costs less than four centers per pound, but used for adulteration sells for eight to ten cents per pound. The bill does not make the adulteration unlawful. It demands that the quantity of adulteration shall be made known to the purchaser. The method of securing analysis and labels is precisely the same as on use for determining commercial fertilizers. It encourages the sugar industry in Indiana, encourages home growth and manufacture, and enables the Indiana farmer in making pure sugar and syrup and to dispose of such pure goods without the competition of cheap adulterations, sold as pure, at fancy prices. It protects all retail dealers. It works no hardship on dealers without the State who do an honest business. There are not exceeding a dozen sugar refineries in the Union, and these make perhaps six different grades of sugar. All the analysis any one refinery would have to make would be these, and these once made would be good indefinitely for that grade or brand. Grades of straight syrups are even fewer. Refiners would have, of course, to make analyses for the various wholesale dealers using their goods in Indiana. The bill does not take a single dollar out of the public treasury of Indiana. After a careful examination by the Committee of Agriculture, the bill has been reported back to the Senate with the recommendation that it do pass.
FLOOD SUFFERERS.
On motion by Mr. BENZ the Senate took up the bill [H. R. 419] for relief of sufferers by the flood.
Mr. VOYLES moved to amend by allowing of a reasonable sum to be applied in rendering habitable the recently overflowed houses of persons reduced to straightened and distressed circumstances.
Mr. SPANN offered a substitute, authorizing the employment of worthy persons to assist in restoring the sanitary condition of the flooded districts, and righting up the property of the destitute, thus accomplishing a double purpose-assisting the distressed, and at the same time relieving the wants of the worker's family.
Mr. HENRY thought the able-bodied citizens who receive relief should be required to assist the destitute to fix up their homes-that is a much better way. The Committees in the various towns can better direct the work in their own towns. It would be an unsafe thing to allow this Commission to hire men.
Mr. BENZ opposed the amendment. Each town has its own Relief Committee and it knows best what shall be done. He favored an appropriation of $100,000. Those sufferers need provisions and clothing. From Cincinnati to below Mount Vernon money is needed. This Commission will not take the money out of the Treasury unless it is needed.
Mr. McCLURE believed these matters should be left to the Relief Committees of the various localities. There are blocks after blocks of poor laborers' cottages, where bed, bedding and furniture, or whatever water could destroy, were destroyed in Jeffersonville, and they will need such supplies for a month to come. Only thirty blocks or squares were exempt from overflow. Nearly every grocery and dry goods store were flooded and but little saved.
Mr. BROWN was inclined to the opinion that the bill had better be left alone, having full confidence in the Commission. It is more capable of doing what ought to be done than the Legislature. These amendments may tend to defeat the bill. He desired to see the bill passed as it came from the House.
Mr. SPANN withdrew his substitute-not desiring to endanger the passage of the bill.
Mr. VOYLES explained the object of his amendment to be to fix more certainly some of the duties of the Relief Commission.
Mr. HENRY: The best argument that the amendment should not go in is that Senators representing the flooded district are opposed to it.
Mr. MAY, living in the flooded district, believed the appropriation should not be restricted by the proposed amendment; the local Relief Committee should be left free to act as they think best in such matters.
The amendment [Mr. Voyles'] was rejected.
Mr. RAHM had a talk with the Commissioners, especially the Governor, who recommended no greater appropriation than $60,000, which would be used in relieving the sufferers in any way the Commissioners may see fit, and that is the reason he consented to the reduction.
Mr. HENRY offered the Committee amendment adopted yesterday (but left out in the engrossment), reducing the amount appropriated from $100,000 to $60,000.
This amendment was agreed to by yeas, 21; nays, 20.
On motion by Mr. HENRY the bill was read the third time-
Mr. MARVIN voted against the other bill, for the reason lie didn't believe any law authorize the vote of a dollar in this way, and he should vote against this bill for this and other reasons.
Mr. VAN VORHIS thought it directly in the line of duty for the State to take care of her poor.
Mr. GRAHAM: It is the duty of the Legislature to practice economy, but not to shut its eyes to suffering.
Mr. DUNCAN: The duty of taking care of the poor devolves upon Boards of County Commissioners, but a great public calamity has befallen the people so that the local authorities can not provide for the wants of those persons; and in such cases the Legislature has the power.
Mr. SPANN had not seen anything to change his opinion, as a lawyer and as a Senator, that the principle of voting this money is a wrong one, and will return to plague the people of this State in the future.
The bill passed by yeas, 37; nays, 7, with an amendment of title striking out $100,000 and inserting $60,000 in lieu.
LOCAL COURT BILLS.
Mr. YOUCHE, by consent, introduced a bill [S. 285], to legalize a term of Court held in Pulaski County in June, 1881, which was read the three times under a setting aside of the Constitutional restriction by a two-thirds vote, and passed the Senate by yeas, 41; nays, 1.
Mr. BICHOWSKY stated that about eight days ago a bill was passed fixing a term of the Vigo County Court on the 1st day of May, 1883. There is a term pending which the provisions of the new bill cut off. There are from thirty to thirty-five prisoners in the Jail awaiting trial, and on this account there was a supplemental bill [H. R. 461] introduced and passed the House yesterday, providing that the first term for this year shall commence on the 1st of March. As the time is short, he moved for a suspension of the Constitutional rule that the bill may be passed the Sen page: 239[View Page 239]ate. The motion was agreed to by a two-thirds vote, and the bill passed-yeas, 41; nays, 0.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. YOUCHE, by consent, introduced by a bill [S. 256] to provide for the drainage of certain swamp lands, [to create a State Board of Drainage, viz: the Governor, Attorney General and two citizens resident in the Kankakee Valley] which was read the first time, no copies ordered printed, and referred to the Swamp Land Committee.
RAILROAD TARIFF.
On motion by Mr. McCULLOUGH his bill [S. 19] defining unjust discriminations of railroads in rates of charges for transportation of freight or passengers, was read the second time with a Committee report recommending that it lie on the table.
Mr. McCULLOUGH: He nor the people he represented have no quarrel with the railroads, but there are many unlawful wrongs being perpetuated by Railroad Companies, which, the Legislature of Indiana must consider and right sooner or later, and the sooner the better in justice both to the people of the State and to the Railroad Companies. His bill does not propose to fix any rate per mile, but to prevent charging more for conveying twenty five miles than for conveying fifty miles, or as much for conveying twenty-five as for thirty miles. There is not a clause in the bill prohibiting a Railroad Company from doing anything but what is palpably unlawful tinder the present law. The person overcharged may recover that amount, and in addition a sum sufficent to pay the expenses of the suit. In the decision of all Courts, wherever the question has arisen, it has uniformly been decided, and the Courts have held that railroads have no right to make the discriminations they do make, and that everybody knows they make Railroad men generally admit that they do make discriminations such as are in violation of law, but there is no excuse for the Legislature to permit it. Every time a Railroad Company violates the provisions of this bill they violate the law as effectually as a mob that would stop their trains. It is not justice to the people of the State that they should come continually to the Courts, as they do, claiming the protection of the State. Why, they themselves say, "We will not obey the laws of the State." The Legislature will be recreant to its trusts if it does not come speedily to the relief of the people of the State and stop the gross, outrageous and unlawful discrimination continually being perpetuated by Railroad Companies. He spoke at length in opposition to concurrence in the report of the Committee.
Mr CAMPBELL cemented it was the duty of the General Assembly to throw round th people a protection from outrages and unjust railroad discriminations. He bad no desire to wage war upon the railroads, but the magnitude of this problem deserves careful consideration, which urged the Senate to give to this Question, His bill says but little on the railroad legislation, out proposes a Railroad Commisison with instructions to prevent unjust railroad discrimination. There is a necessity for arbitration between railroads themselves, as there is a necessity for arbitration of railroads and the people. There is unjust and extortionate charges made between intermediate points by nearly all Railroad Companies, and some thing should be clone for the correction of the evil. Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio and various other States have similar Commissions, but the best of all is the one in Georgia, from which his bill is made up. This plan has been in operation in Georgia since 18[?]9, and has been found to work satisfactory and to bring the railroad authorities and the people on better terms than were ever known before. In conclusion he asked the Senate to consider this subject carefully and refuse to concur in the report of the Committee recommending that the bill lie on the table.
NEW INSANE ASYLUMS.
On motion by Mr. Rahm, the bill [S. 81] for the erection of three new Insane Asylums-one to be located at Evansville described in Senate proceedings early yesterday-was read the third time: and passed by yeas 37; nays, 8.
INDIANA REFORM SCHOOL FOB BOYS.
On motion by Mr. Voyles, the Governor's veto of his bill [S. 91] for the more efficient government of the Indiana reform School for Boys, was read. Some of His Excellency's objections are: The terms of office of all but one of the Trustees of the House of Refuge have expired. Dr. William Freeman runs under the appointment until as March 1, 1885 The present bill, however, puts an end to Dr. Freeman's term of office. I refuse to make myself a party to this proceeding, which I would do by giving my approval to the bill now returned. Section 13 provides that boys, for whatever cause committed, may at any time be discharged or released on trial by the Board of Control. In the case of a person convicted of crime, it not being treason or a case of impeachment, the power of pardon resides under the Constitution in the Governor. The Governor may pardon absolutely or conditionally, but the power can not be transferred by the Legislature to any other person or to any body of persons. It is not pleasant to be obliged to differ from a majority of the Legislature on the propriety of the passage of a bill, but it seems to me to be a plain duty to return this bill with an earnest expression of disapproval.
Mr. SPANN hoped the Governor's veto would be sustained. He could not sit by and see such a wrong perpetuated simply for party purposes. The history of this State has not shown so much iniquitous legislation purely and simply for partisan purposes as has been enacted this session. The bill legislates out of office men who have done their duty well and faithfully. There has been no charge against any of them one of them, in whom there is no guile, a brother of a former Governor, who has been honored since his inception into politics, and now in his old age when he asked as a crumb that he be continued in office; they turned out to die, because he would not be controled and whipped in like a dog by Democratic caucuses. Where is the necessity of legislating Finley Bigger out of office? Only for the purpose of satisfying the greed of a party which has been out of power for twenty years. Then it legislates out of office a soldier, who has done his whole duty. The history of the future will bear out toe prophecy that in the next two years soar reformatory institutions will need investigation. Then he believed the bill to be of doubtful Constitutionality.
Mr. FOULKE would leave to Democratic conscience the propriety of passing a bill which purpose it is to legislate out of office an old soldier, who has performed faithfully his duties: but there is a question beyond that the question of the Constitutionality of this bill. It has been claimed all doubt; should be given on the side of the Constitution and against our right to legislate, but in this case there is no doubt the provision against the Constitutionality of this bill is as plain as black and white. The lower of pardon is placed by the Constitution exclusively in the hands of the Governor, while under this bill the Board of Control of this Institution may discharge or release on trial. That can be done by no power in the world but the Executive, and by the letter of the law that bill is unconstitutional.
Mr. VOYLES was surprised any good lawyer would say there was any question at, all of a Constitutional character. This section now objected to has been in the law for sixteen years last past. This bill is a fair and just revision of all laws page: 240[View Page 240] upon this subject. He understands the Republican legislated out of office has been negligent in his duties in being absent from ten out of twenty four meetings of the Board in the past two years.
Mr. YANCEY opposed the bill because it is not of his political complexion. He would not object go seriously in turning out Union soldiers occasionally if the Democratic party were not so much in the habit of turning in soldiers who fought on the other side. To day there are Benevolent Institutions governed by men who did everything in then power to destroy the institutions of their country.
Mr. BUNDY: Compared with some political measures thrust upon us this session, this is a small affair. It is not pretended that the provisions of this bill are an improvement upon the laws of the Statute books. It is policy of Democrats to fill the offices if they can get the. The Insane Asylum of the State of Indiana, so far as subordinate positions are concerned, is a House of Refuge for the Confederate Army. The bill is an outrage and ought not to pass.
Mr. GRAHAM made an objection to the bill when before the Senate originally, that it was in violation to the Constitution. It might prove a serious matter if by this bill this Institution should be left without any government at all. The Senator from Cass the other day admitted the purpose of the bill was to change its management. The Institution was going along very well and there is no complaint of the Statute. governing this Institution. Is not this bill an infamous and high handed outrage, and is there not virtue enough on the Democratic side of the Chamber to say we will go no further in this direction? In the light of this bill he felt like prophesying that in both ends of this General Assembly in two years from now instead of a Democratic a Republican majority will be found.
Mr. HILLIGASS deprecated the wide range of this discussion, especially its political direction. He referred to seven Democratic Senators with honorable discharges from the Union Army, and comes with bad grace for their fellow Senators to charge them with standing cheek by jowl with Confederate soldiers, and that there is nothing that can be admired in the Democratic party. WE have set patiently and listened to such tirades day in and day out till forbearance ceases to be a virtue. He demanded the previous question.
The demand was seconded by yeas, 28; nays, 19, and under the operations of the previous question the bill was passed, the Governor's objections to the contrary notwithstanding, by yeas, 28; nays, 20.
The Senate then adjourned.
