Skip to Content
Indiana University

Search Options

View Options

Table of Contents

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




MONDAY, Feb. 26, 1883-2 p. m.

The reading of the minutes was dispensed with. On motion by Mr. FOULKE the Constitutional restriction was dispensed with by yeas, 34; nays, 7; and he introduced a bill [288] to amend Section 3,347 of the Revised Statutes of 1881, which was read twice by title, the third time by sections, and passed the Senate by yeas, 43; nays, 3.

Mr. FOULKE explaining that the bill is intended to appropriately insert the words " and in case there be no acting Justice of the Peace therein, then before the Justice of the Peace residing nearest to said town in the County in which such town is situated."

Mr. YOUCHE, from the Committee on Swamp Lands, under a suspension of the Constitutional rule-yeas, 34; nays, 9-introduced a bill [S. 289] to amend an act concerning drainage approves April 8, 1881, and declaring an emergency. [It is a long bill and embodies the provision of half a dozen or more bills on the subject of drainage.]

It was read twice by title.

Mr. SAYRE moved to amend by adding a section so the provisions of this bill as to the time in which a remonstrance may be filed shall relate to all proceedings now pending where a contract for the construction of the same has not been made.

Mr. HENRY stated objections to this amendment-it would open up every ditch proceeding where there is no contract made, though assessments are paid.

Mr. BELL thought adjudications under the law had better be left alone.

The amendment was agreed to by yeas, 21; nays, 18

The bill was considered engrossed, read the third time, an emergency clause added, and the bill passed by yeas, 39; nays, 2.

A Committee from the House of Representatives [Mr. Heffren Chairman] announced, because of the absence of the chief clerk, Mr. Emmet L. Rose, of the principal clerk's corps, has been designated by the Speaker to deliver messages to the Senate from the House.

On motion by Mr. BROWN the bill [H. R. 91] concerning the relocation of County seats-see pages 107 and 165 of the Brevier Reports-was read the first time and referred to a Select Committee of Five, viz: Messrs. Brown, May, Compton, Bundy and Spann.


Mr. WILLARD, from the Committee on Free Conference on the General Appropriation Bill [H. R. 302], reported the result of said Conference, embracing some eighteen different items. The House agrees to all the Senate amendments, except the raising the expenses of the Attorney General from $500 to $600, and increasing the salary of the Assistant Librarian.

Mr. SPANN protested against this thing of reducing the pay proposed for a woman.

On motion by Mr. BELL the report of the Conference Committee was concurred in.


On motion by Mr. GRAHAM the bill [H. R. 200] to provide for the payment of certain claims-over $[?],000-for labor performed by ditching by persons living in Tipton County, was taken up under a suspension of the Constitutional rule by a two-thirds vote, read twice by title the third time by sections and passed by yeas, 32; nays, 16.

Mr. McINTOSH, protecting against its passage, when his named was called, understanding these claims are fifteen years old and that they are in the hands of brokers. These claims were in the Legislature two years ago when the Legislature sat 101 days and they failed to get them through, and as far as he can find out, the parties who did the work will not get the money.

On motion by Mr. McClure his bill [S. 120] to amend section 8 of an act amendatory of the charter of Clarksville, in dark and Floyd Counties, was read the second time by title, under a suspension of the Constitutional rule by a two-thirds vote, the third time by sections, and passed the serial by yeas, 37; nays, 2.

Mr. McCLURE explaining his bill is the result of an amicable settlement.

Mr. SPANN opposed the bill. Being a member of the Committee to which this bill was referred, he declared there had been concealed the fact that that certain parties had bought 1,000 acres of land there and desired to lay out a town.

Mr. McCLURE conceded the fact that Wash C. DePauw and John H. Stotsenberg bed bought & page: 256[View Page 256] certain tract of land on which they proposed to lay out a town, with the consent of the inhabitants there.


Mr. BUNDY read the following, and moved for a suspension of the order of business and its adoption:

Whereas, The ex-State Treasurer who retired from office on the 37th of February was responsible to the State for about $700,000, which by law was required to be kept in the Treasury of the State and turned over to his successor in office in lawful money; and

Whereas, The said funds of the State of Indiana were not turned over to the present Treasurer of the State of Indiana in cash but in certificates and checks, and are not now in the vaults of the Treasury, but are loaned by the present Treasurer of State to certain banks of the city of Indianapolis; and

Whereas, By law the loaning of said funds by the Treasurer or keeping them elsewhere than in the vaults of the Treasury is a misdemeanor, and the funds of the State are in danger of being lost, as the bond of the Treasurer of State is only $150,000, while the funds for which he is accountable at this time amount to more than four times that 1 gum; and Whereas, The fact that said funds not being in the Treasury, as required by law, amounts to a defalcation which requires imediate action to protect the Treasury; therefore;

Resolved, That a Committee of three Democrats and two Republicans be appointed by the President of the Senate with power to examine witnesses to investigate the Treasury of the State count the funds found therein, and what deficiency exists, if any, as shown by the books of the Auditor of State, and report what steps are necessary to protect the public funds as required by law.

Mr. BUNDY offered this resolution for the purpose of protecting the State Treasury of Indiana. In the Treasury is $700,000, and suppose all that money is lost lo-morrow. what protection has the people of Indiana but the Treasurer'" bond for $150,000? He was informed and believed that this money is in banks and other places, instead of being in the vaults of the State where it be longs, and that the State Treasurer is loaning it at 4 per cent., and receiving the interest on it.

Mr. BELL (interposing) would be glad to know where the vaults of the treasury are located. There is an old safe in the State Treasurer's office which cost about $200.

Mr. BUNDY (resuming): There is a statute providing for the safe keeping of the moneys of of the State, and establishing a vault for that purpose, and to keep it any place else is a violation of law. He hoped the resolution would not be taken in a partisan sense.

Mr. MAGEE (interrupting) inquired if this thing has not existed for a year or two, and if the Senator had not been cognizant of the fact.

Mr. BUNDY (continuing): Did not ascertain until to-day that this money is loaned out in this way.

Mr. MAGEE (in his seat): You knew it in a general way. [Laughter ]

Mr. BUNDY (continuing): Whatever he knew on the subject, it is not possible now, by bringing up the fact that it has existed for two years, to make it right This Legislature is about to close its session, and something should be done to protect the State Treasury from the possible loss of half a million dollars. The fact that no member on the other side has introduced a resolution for the purpose of protecting the public funds is no argument why it should not be done now.

Mr. SMITH (interrupting) asked why the Senator did not introduce the resolution in the early part of the session.

Mr. BUNDY (resuming) had already stated he did not know until to-day that this money was loaned out at a specific rate of interest, and was not in the Treasury vaults. He asked if the Senator from Jay has known it?

Mr. SMITH (in his seat): I don"t yet.

Mr. MAGEE said the Senator ought to know that to make this examination thorough so as to acquaint this Senate with any facts that might come into its possession would take Committee a month or six weeks, so the pure motives of the author of this resolution should have been stirred up much earlier in the session. Admitting that $700,000 is, a good deal of money, and that $150,000 is not a sufficient bond for the officer having it in charge, yet to the credit of every Treasurer this State has had no one, either Democratic or Republican, has failed to account for every dollar of the public fun'-is that has come into his hands. He would join with the Senator in an investigation if there has been any wrong done on the part of any Treasurer, or if the public funds are not on hand and he thought the majority on this floor would aid in an investigation as soon as needed. If the Treasurer of State gets interest on the public funds that is a matter between himself and the people who pay the interest. Every officer in the State having charge of fiduciary funds does the same thing, and as he understands, the Supreme Court says they have the right to do it He opposed the resolution because he did not believe it was offered in good faith and he did not propose to give a vote that will cast reflection upon the conduct of an officer who has not had time to commit any wrong. He counseled Senators to sit down on this proposed investigation coming in at the heels of the session and for no other purpose than that gentlemen on the other side may go to their constituency and say that a Democratic Senate refused to investigate a Democratic officer for loaning the public funds, when at the same time every Republican official receives interest on public money.

Mr. BROWN also opposed the resolution. The Senator who offers it insists that the Treasurer of State shall keep $700,000 in the State's safe or vault, as he calls it, which the Senator from Allen and Whitley, who knows all about it, says is an old dilapidated safe which originally cost only $250.

Mr. VOYLES declared that in the absence of the statute to the contrary the Treasurer of State has the right to loan the public moneys and make a profit on it, and nobody can say him "nay."

The motion to suspend the order of business was rejected by yeas 7; nays, 25.

Pending the roll-call-

Mr. McMAGEE, when his name was called, said: Following the authority as laid down in the case of the State on relation of the Attorney General against Nathan Kimball, formerly a State Treasurer, I vote "no."

Mr. RAHM, when his came was called, said; I voted twice against suspending the rules in order that the special order may be taken up, and I will vote against it again. But I will vote for this resolution whenever it comes up at the proper time. I don't care if Governor Porter is a stockholder of the bank that borrows the State's money, any bank that will pay 4 per cent. on deposits is bound to break. I don't believe in depositing this money at 4 per cent.; better take 2 or 3 per cent., then the bank can live and the people' money be safe. I don't believe in putting the State's money in a safe that cost but $250; because it would be stolen in six months. I vote "no."

Mr. SPANN, when his name was called, said: We have heard recently from the States of Tennessee, Alabama and Mississippi on the question of State Treasurers, and now having a Democrat in that office In this State, and knowing the uncertainty of confidence to be placed in them in the light of that history, and knowing the statute on the subject of loaning this money, I vote "aye."

page: 257[View Page 257]

The result of the vote was then announced, so the motion was rejected.


The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR announced the special order being Mr. Campbell's bill [S. 101] and Mr. McCollough's bill [S. 19] defining unjust discriminations of railroads-see page 239 of the Brevier Reports-the question being on a Committee report, recommending that the bill [S. 19] lie on the table

Mr. BELL hoped the report of the Committee will be concurred in and thus the bill be laid on the table. The purpose of the bill is good enough, and if it, would accomplish that it should have his hearty support. The evils aimed ought to be controlled and prevented. The vice lies in the second section of the bill, which rests upon an assumption which is not true. It will not do to assume it is unjust to charge more for carrying a less distance than a greater. If this bill were to become a law it would deprive competing points of the benefit of competition, as he proceeded to illustrate. To stop and start an ordinary freight, train of say twenty cars on an ordinary grade costs from $1 to $3. Distance is not the main element to take into consideration when computing proper rate of charges.

Mr. FAULKNER cited unjust, discriminations by railroads as against the town in which he lived.

Mr. BELL: Such action is wrong and ought to be stopped; but for a few abuses he would not enact a law that would seriously affect places where there is competition. It would be unwise, injurious and injudicious to pass this bill. To a certain extent, a railroad ought to be under the control of the Legislature. What is set forth in the bill should not be considered as unjust discrimination; it would deprive people at competing points of an advantage. The policy of the State should be to encourage competition. There are very objectionable features in this bill. You affect injuriously the railroads of this country and you affect the very heart of business. This bill would injuriously affect the interest of thousands where it would advance the interests of one.

Mr. CAMPBELL: It has been stated that an Indiana Assembly has neither brains nor integrity enough to enact railroad legislation He believed the contrary to be true. It is a question of great magnitude, and one which demands specific legislation. A Railroad Company can transport ten car loads at a less rate per car than it can transport one, and the price may be based on cost and not go beyond what is equitable. If he received one car load and another ten cars the Company may make a difference as to Ac ex^ct cost, or percentage of cost. Mr. C. gave way for a motion to adjourn.

The Senate adjourned till 9 o'clock to-morrow.