THE SPECIFIC BILL.
The special order being bill [H. R. 460] the specific appropriation bill, it was taken up.
Mr. FRAZER moved that the House go into Committee of the Whole House to consider this bill.
The motion was agreed to and accordingly the House of Representative resolved itself in a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Commonwealth [Mr. Frazer in the Chair.]
The Chairman announced the question before the Committee to be the specific appropriation bill, and ordered the Clerk to read the bill by items for amendment.
On motion by Mr MERING, the appropriation to Theo. A. Hough, administratrix of the estate Daniel Hough, deceased, was raised from $1,000 to $1,120.
Pending the vote on the adoption of the amendment, Mr MERING staled that the Legislature two years ago by joint resolution authorized the purchase of this library, but the specific appropriation bill failed to pass the Senate, and consequently this money was not paid at that time.
Mr WILSON, of Marion, thought that in granting this appropriation the State would simply be doing justice to private individuals.
Mr. JEWETT moved to amend by striking out item 4, being the claim of F. A. W. Davis. assignee of a claim of Mr. Reiley, former Treasurer of Marion County, for the sum of $579.75.
Mr, JEWETT thought it might be possible that the gentleman was entitled to the amount claimed, but was of the opinion that he should not have allowed the claim to lie until the limitation of the statute passed.
Mr. WILSON, of Marion, was in favor of allowing the claim. The Supreme Court had decided in favor of this gentleman, and it comes with poor grace for any Representative to oppose it The State of Indiana can not afford not to pay this claim. He was in favor of paying it and paying it with interest.
Mr. PATTEN was in favor of letting the Supreme Court take care of itself, and the Legislature doing the same thing.
Mr. SHIVELY thought that it was but just and equitable that this money, which is now in the Treasury of the State, and which rightfully belongs to this man, should be paid over to him.
Mr. STEWART thought that in the face of the decision of the Supreme-Court, this claim was a just one.
The claim was rejected upon a division affirmative. 50; negative, 31.
Mr. SCHLOSS moved to strike out the sixth item-being the claim of Baker, Smith & Co.
Mr. ADAMS had investigated this claim thoroughly, and felt in duty bound to say a few words to regard to it. As a member of the House he could not favor any claim unless he believed it was honestly due. After a careful examination of the facts he was satisfied this was a just claim, and one which should be allowed by the Legislature.
Mr. Schloss' motion to strike out the claim was agreed to.
Mr. PATTEN moved to strike out item seven being the claim of Simon Thompson for services rendered the State in the Newton Circuit Court.
Mr. GILMAN could not understand why the gentleman made the motion to strike out the claim. The claim was originally for $1,000 for services rendered to the State, and in Newton County for certain property. This gentleman was Prosecuting Attorney for that County at the time, and he became satisfied that this property under question was rightfully the properly of the State, He entered suit for the State and followed the matter to the Supreme Court, where finally the suit terminated in favor of the State, and the State is now holding property valued at $5,000 as the result of this claimant. He earnestly advocated the granting of the claim as one every way just.
Mr. PATTEN thought it was bad policy for the State to attempt to pay all attorneys' fees in the State. He was not in favor of granting the claim.
Mr. MOODY favored the allowance of the claim
Mr. SHIVELY understood that the Committee on Claims had unanimously recommended the allowance of the claim.
An amendment by Mr. GIBSON to make the claim $500 and allow the same, provided the claimant would give a receipt it full for all services, was adopted, after an ineffectual motion by Mr. SCHLOSS to lay the same on the table.
On motion by Mr. WILSON of Marion, the Committee rose, reported progress and asked leave to sit again to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock.
