HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
SATURDAY, Feb. 24, 1883-9 a. m.The House was called to order by the Speaker pro tem. [Mr. Gibson], who announced prayer by Dr. Moss, of the State University.
page: 252[View Page 252]On motion by Mr. MONTGOMERY the reading the journal wan dispensed with.
Mr. ADAMS offered a resolution that
Whereas, the tenure of office is uncertain in the Senate: Resolved, that that Body be compelled to place statements of the officers of that Body, at least twice a day, on the desk of the members of the House.
The resolution was adopted.
SPECIAL APPROPRIATIONS.
On motion by Mr. FRAZER the House resolved itself into Committee of the Whole on the State of the Commonwealth for the further consideration of the specific appropriation bill [Mr. Frazer in the chair].
Mr. CHITTENDEN moved to strike out item 8 of the appropriation bill-being the claim of John Martin for work and material furnished in the erection of the Insane Hospital at Indianapolis, for the sum of $46,736.40.
By consent a majority and minority report from the Committee on Claims, the former recommending the allowance, and the latter recommending the rejection of the claim, were read.
Mr. ADAMS believed this is a question which ought to be considered by the members cf the Legislature. He did not desire any claim or item 'Allowed that was not justly due. He believed it WAS just as much the duty of members to pay these claims which the State honestly owes, as it was for him to pay his private individual debts. The Legislature ft few years ago, In 1875 he believed, decided the building of this new Asylum. The properly appointed Board of Commissioners advertised for contracts, and Porter came and contracted for this work: according to the specifications laid down by the architect. This contract provides that the work shall be done and after it is completed that it shall be measured according to mason's measurement. The bids were received upon the principle that that measurement be adopted, and after that was done these men refused to make the measurement. With the majority of the Committee on Claims he recommended that this claims be allowed. He believed this amount to be $20,000 less than is really due Mr. Martin. He believed as citizens of Indiana, as Representatives of this people, if we do not allow this claim we will be doing a great injustice to a citizen of the State of Indiana. In answer to a question, he answered that Mr. Martin had agreed with the Provisional Board to receipt for the claim in full provided the Legislature allowed him $45,000.
Mr, GIBSON stated that this claim was before the Legislature two years ago. It was looked upon with a good deal of disfavor then, and he thought it was looked upon with a great deal more disfavor now. He understood that after the contract was drawn by the Provisional Board, the word "mason's measurement" was inserted between the lines, and was not a part of the original contract. During the life time of Mr. May, the architect of this building, nothing was heard of Mr. Martin's claim, but after Mr. May's death and a new architect was appointed, this gentleman comes in and demands a new measurment. He was obliged to say that he believed this claim should not be allowed.
Mr. McCORMICK, as one of the Committee who investigated this question, desired to say that he would vote for every claim that he believed to be lust and that the State should pay. We find that the Provisional Board employed a man to come from Georgia to make a measurement of' the number of brick in the Insane Asylum. This measurement, made the number of brick twenty-three million and some thousands. According to this gentle man's measurement the State has overpaid Mr. Martin some ten thousand and more dollars. Dr. Jamison was before our Committee, and he said that Mr. Martin was paid more money by the State than was due him, and he [Mr. Jamison] was a member of the Board at that time. Mr. McCormick did not believe that the Stale owed Mr- Martin one dollar, and that the State had paid him more money than he was entitled to, and that the claim is unjust and should not be allowed.
Mr. SHIVELY, like other gentlemen on the floor, did not desire, and he hoped that no unjust claim would be allowed by this House- But he did hope that, in their extreme desire to protect the State, they would not reject any claims that ought rightfully to pass. He had taken some little time to investigate the claim of Mr. Martin. He was not personally acquainted with Mr. Martin, but he 5mew that he was a citizen of this State, and that, he was a mechanic, and he further knew that he was a Democrat. He understood from his neighbor that Mr. Martin is an honest man. Here is a written contract signed by John Martin on the one hand and the State's Provisional Board on the other, in which Martin agrees to do certain work. This work was done in pursuance of the provisions of the contract, and the question now is what construction will you place upon certain words of the contract? It provides that the work, shall be done, Had that it shall be measured ac^ cording to mason's measurement. Now, then, the question comes to this House, how will you construe these words "mason's measurement?" We find that this Provisional Board, who were authorized to draw warrants for the construction of this building, did draw warrants in favor of John Martin tor the performance of this work in 1881 this Board issued to John Martin a warrant for forty-six thousand and some hundred dollars, which warrant Mr. Martin possesses to-day. These warrants were drawn in pursuance of the statute authorizing this Provisional Board to draw warrants. [Mr. Shively read the Statute giving the Board the power to issue warrants.]. He hoped that for the good name of the State of Indiana that this just claim would no longer late, denied or refused. Men who have devoted their time and their labor to the State should have their just remuneration. You must remember, if the claim is large, that the contract was large.
Mr. WILLIAMS, of Knox, was at the beginning of the session favorably impressed with the John Martin claim, especially when the Governor: spoke of this man and his claim in a manner that brought cheers from the gallery and tears from the members of the House. But he believed was an open fact that this claim did not belong to John Martin, but that it belonged to the lobbyists on the floor of the House and to a large banking company in this city. He desired to state in regard to the number of brick in the building that according to the first measurement made by Mr. Worden, the gentleman whom the Provision Board employed to take the measurement, to the number of brick was 23,000,000, and that his second measurement he made it several millions more. When this gentleman was question concerning the difference in the estimate of the two measurements, he said be was a friend of Mr. Martin's and had not come there to do him an injury.
Mr. PATTEN wanted to say in reference to claim, and he got his information from gentlemen who were here before, that this claim come limping into this House on crutches. He deal to state that the contract brought into this House is not the original contract between John Martin and the Provisional Board, and that the words "mason's measurement" were not in the original contract but were Inserted between the lines after the original contract was made. He was satisfied that John Martin knew that he had received every dollar that was due him, and not only that by that he had received some $10,000 more than was justly due him. Whenever any claim is presented by the lobbyists as this claim has been you feel sure something is wrong about it. In speaking of ex-Governor Williams' connection with the claim, Mr. Patten was of the opinion that if Gov page: 253[View Page 253]ernor Williams was alive and here to-day he would oppose this claim as he oiA up to the day of his death.
On motion by Mr. PATTEN the Committee rose, reported progress and asked leave to sit again at 2 o'clock.
The report of the Committee of the Whole was concurred in by the House.
PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS.
Mr. WILEY called for the special order, being the several resolutions agreeing to the amendments proposed to the Constitution of the State by the last General Assembly.
The joint resolution proposing an amendment to Section 2, Article 2, of the Constitution of the State of Indiana and amending Section'2 of Article 2 thereof, so that it will read as follows:
Sec. 2 In all elections not otherwise provided for by this Constitution every citizen of the United States of the age of twenty-one years and upwards, who shall have resided in the State during the six months, and in the Township sixty days, and in the Ward or Precinct thirty days Immediately preceding such election, and every person of foreign birth of the age of twenty-one years and upwards who shall have resided in the United States one year and who shall have resided in the State during the six months, and in the Township sixty days and in the Ward or Precinct thirty days immediately preceding such election, and shall have declared his or her intention to become a citizen of the United States, conformably to the laws of the United States on the subject of naturalization, shall be entitled to vote in the Township, Ward or Precinct where he or she may reside, If he or she shall have been duly registered according to law, was read the third time.
Mr. JEWETT trusted that the House would bear with him only a few minutes. He thought that the members would remember that during the protracted argument which took place on the amendments he held his peace. It is also well known that he is one of the minority of the Democrats in this Chamber, respectful in number at least, who have from the first pursued a course which they believed would bring these amendments directly before the people. He would vote against this amendment at the polls, believing that 98 per cent. of the women of the State did not desire this privilege. Concerning the amendment in relation to the election of State and County officers he stated that he believed ministerial and judicial officers should be elected as frequently as would be consistent with the duties of the offices. The prohibitory amendment he was opposed to on principle, and in every way that is honorable and fair he would oppose this amendment. He did not question the right of the majority of the people to place this amendment in the Constitution if they desired to do so.
Mr MONTGOMERY had come into the Legislature unpledged to his people He did not pledge himself or tell his people that he would vote for or against this amendment. He told them that he was opposed to what was known as the prohibitory amendment, and also to the woman suffrage amendment, and that he was in favor of the other amendments. Two of the amendments he would cheerfully vote for, and two of the amendments he would heartily oppose. But he would so cast his vote on these resolutions that his constituents would have the privilege of voting their sentiments on this question.
Mr. PATTEN moved the previous question which was seconded by the House, and under its operations the resolution passed, the House by yeas, 51; nays, 40-as follows:
Yeas-Messrs. Adams, Akin, Antrim, Beeson, Best Brazelton, Campbell, Copeland, Deem, Fleece, Frazer, Furnas, Gants, Gilman, Graham, Hanson, Helms, Henderson, Holler, Huston, Jewett, Kirkpatrick, Knowles, McCormick, McClelland of Lawrence, Marsh, Mauck of Harrison, Mellett, Mering, Montgomery, Mozier, Patten, Pettibone, Pulse, Robertson, Robinson, Shaffer, Shively, Shockney, Smith of Lagrange, Smith of Tippecanoe, Sterret, Stewart, Straughan, Thomas, Thompson, Westfall, Wiley, Williams of Knox, Wilson of Kosciusko and Wooding-51.
Nays-Messrs. Barr, Bowers, Brooks, Bryant, Cabbage, Chandler. Chittenden, Davis, Ferriter Fisher, Gerber, Genung, Gibson, Gordon, Greene, Heffren, Howland, Kennedy, Kester, McHenry, McMullen, Miller, Mock of Wells, Moody, Mute, Nave, Peters, Price, Pruitt, Schloss, Shaw, Smith of Blackford, Smith of Perry, Spain, Stevenson, S tucker. Tuley, Weaver, Whitsit and Wilson of Marion-40.
So the joint resolution for a woman's suffrage amendment to the Constitution was adopted.
The joint resolution proposing an amendment to Section 1 of Article 6 of the Constitution, and amending Section 1 of the sixth article, was read the third time as follows:
Section 1 There shall be elected by the vote of the State a Secretary, an Auditor and a Treasurer of State, who shall severally hold their offices for four years. They shall perform such duties as may be enjoined by law, and no person shall be eligible to either of said offices more than on term, or four years in any period of eight years.
The joint resolution was passed the House by yeas, 55; nays, 38-as follows:
Yeas-Messrs. Adams, Akin, Antrim, Barr, Beeson, Best, Brazelton, Campbell, Copeland, Deem, Fleece, Frazer, Furnas, Gants, Genung, Gilman, Graham, Ham, Hanson, Helms, Henderson, Holler, Huston, Jewett, Kirkpatrick, Knowles, McCormick, McClelland of Lawrence, Marsh, Mauck of Harrison, Mellett, Mering, Montgomery, Mosier, Patten, Pettibone, Pulse, Robertson, Robinson, Shatter, Shively, Shockney, Smith of Lagrange, Smith of Tippecanoe, Sterret, Stewart, Straughan, Thomas, Thompson, Westfall, Wiley, Wilson of Kosciusko, Woodling and Wright-55.
Nays-Messrs. Bowers, Brooks, Bryant, Cabbage, Chandler, Chittenden, Davis, Ferriter, Fisher, Gerber, Gordon, Green, Heffren, Howland, Kennedy, Kesier, McHenry, McMullen, Miller, Mock of Walls. Moody, Mutz, Nave, Peters, Pruitt, Schloss. Shaw, Smith of Blackford, Smith of Perry, Spain, Stevenson, Stucker, Sutton, Tuley, Weaver, Whitsit, Williams of Knox and Wilson of Marion-38.
The joint resolution proposing an amendment to Section 2 of Article 6 of the Constitution, and amending Section 2 of the sixth article was read the third time, as follows:
Sec. 2. There shall be elected in each County by the voters thereof, at the time of holding general election, a Clerk of the Circuit Court, Auditor, Recorder, Treasurer, Sheriff Coroner and Surveyor, who shall severally hold their offices' for four years, and no person shall be eligible to either of said offices more than four years, or one form. In any period of eight years.
The resolution passed the House by yeas, 53; nays, 40, as follows:
Yeas-Messrs. Adams, Akin. Antrim. Beeson, Best, Brazelton, Campbell, Copeland, Deem, Fleece, Frazer, Furnas, Gants. Genung, Gilman, Graham, Ham, Hanson, Helms, Henderson, Holler, Huston, Jewett, Kirkpatrick, Knowles, McCormick, McClelland of Lawrence, Marsh, Mauck of Harrison, Mellett, Mering, Montgomery, Mosier, Patten, Pettibone, Pulse, Robertson, Robinson, Shaffer. Shively, Shockney, Smith of Lagrange, Smith of Tippecanoe, Sterret, Stewart, Straughan, Thomas, Thompson, Westfall, Wiley, Wilson of Kosciusko, Woodling and Wright-53.
Nays-Messrs. Barr. Bowers, Brooks, Bryant, Cabbage, Chandler, Chittenden, Davis, Ferriter, Fisher, Gerber, Gordon, Greene, Heffren, Howland, Kennedy, Kester, McHenry, McMullen,
page: 254[View Page 254]Miller, Mock of Wills, Moody, Mutz, Nave, Peters, Pruitt, Schloss, Shaw, Smith of Blackford, Smith of Perry, Spain, Stevenson, Stucker. Sutton. Tuley, Weaver, Whitsit, Williams of Knox and Wilson of Marion-40.
The joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Indiana by inserting Article 17, forever prohibiting the manufacture, sale or keeping for sale in the State of Indiana spirituous, vinous, malt or any other intoxicating liquors, except for scientific, medical, mechanical and wines for sacramental purposes, and providing for regulating sales for said purposes, so as to amend by adding thereto Article 17 was to read as follows:
Section 1. The manufacture, sale or keeping for sale in said State, spirituous, vinous, malt liquor or any other intoxicating liquors, except for medical, scientific, mechanical and wines for sacramental purposes, shall be and is hereby forever prohibited in the State of Indiana- Was read the third time and passed the House by yeas, 56; nays 36, as follows:
Yeas-Messrs. Adams, Akin Antrim, Barr, Beeson, Best, Brazelton, Campbell, Copeland, Deem, Fleece, Frazer, Pumas, Gants, Genung, Gibson, Gilman, Graham, Ham, Hanson, Helms, Holler, Huston, Jewett, Kirkpatrick, Knowles, McCormick, McClelland of Lawrence, Marsh, Mauck of Harrison, Mellett, Mering. Montgomery. Mosier, Patten, Pettibone, Pulse, Robertson, Robinson, Shaffer, Shively, Shockney, Smith of Lagrange, Smith of Tippecanoe, Sterret, Stewart, Straughan, Thomas, Thompson, Weaver, Westfall, Wiley, Henderson, Wilson of Kosciusko, Woodling and Wright-56.
Nays-Messrs. Bowers, Brooks, Cabbage, Chambers, Chittenden, Davis, Ferriter, Fisher, Gerber^ Gordon, Green, Heffren, Howland, Kennedy, Kester, McHenry, McMullen, Miller, Mock of Wells, Moody. Mutz. Nave, Peters, Pruitt, Schloss, Shaw, Smith of Perry, Span, Stevenson, Stucker, Sutton, Tuley, Whitsit, Williams of Knox, Wilson of Marion-36.
So the joint resolution for the liquor prohibition amendment to the Constitution was adopted.
Mr. AIKEN moved to reconsider that vote and to lay that motion on the table.
The latter motion was agreed to.
A resolution, offered by Mr, Jewett, instructing the Judiciary Committee to prepare a proper till providing for a proper time to submit the amendment to the people was laid on the table by yeas, 58; nays, 30.
The House adjourned until 9 o'clock Monday.
