HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
MONDAY, Feb. 26,1883-9 a. m.The SPEAKER announced a quorum present and ordered he reading of the Clerk's minutes of Saturday's preceding.
Mr. CAMPBELL introduced a bill [H. R. 463] to Authorize the issuing of bonds by any Bridge Company incorporated under the laws of this State, which was read the first time.
On motion by Mr. KESTER the bill [S. 287] to exempt from taxation moneys and choses in action held by execution for scientific, benevolent or charitable institutions, was pressed to th9 final vote and passed the House by yeas, 66; nays, 4.
On motion by Mr. HEFFREN the Constitutional rules were suspended and the following described bills ware read the first and second times by title only, and ordered to the third reading:
The bill [S. 87] to provide for the location and erection of an additional Asylum for the Insane.
The bill [S. 285] to regulate the terms of the Circuit, Court held in the County of Pulaski.
The bill [S. 151] relating to County, State and other officers, and the paying over by them of all money in their hands at the expiration of their term of office.
The bill [S. 105] to legalize the incorporation of the town of Waynetown, Montgomery County.
FEES AND SALARIES.
The bill [S. 172] supplemental to an act fixing fees of certain officers, etc.-see page 120 of the Brevier Reports.
Mr. HEFFREN offered an amendment providing fee for Clerk's attendance, which, on his further motion was considered engrossed, and the bill read the third time and that the Constitutional rule be suspend so as to put it on its passage.
Mr. MOODY: I heartily indorse the statement of the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Heffren], that some bill should be passed on this subject, but I go farther and say that a bill should be passed by this Legislature that will in fact, and not merely in fiction, cut off constructive fees. This bill, known as the Bayless bill, is a tub thrown to the whale, and is expected to quiet the people in their demands for a reduction of the fees of County officers The gentleman from Washington says he is satisfied that this bill is the only bill hat can pass this Legislature. I do not know by what authority members insist that this Legislature must accept this bill or nothing. The House Committee on Fee and Salaries have carefully considered House bill 316, and have been ready to report it back to the House for some time, and I am desirous to see the House pass this bill prepared as it has been by the Committee, and let the responsibility of its failure rest with the Senate. I trust the Constitutional rule will not be suspended for the purpose of passing this sham at the expense of all bills before the House on this question.
Mr. HEFFREN was in favor of suspending the rules. He was in favor of the other bill but if he could not get the other bill he thought it would be best to take this one.
Mr. WILLIAMS, of Knox, hoped that the Constitutional rules would not be suspended. He had examined both bills, and he believed the bill [H. R. 316] now in the hands of the Committee and ready to be reported was much better and wiser legislation. He did not believe and could not understand why some gentlemen state that no fee and salary bill could be passed by the Legislature.
Mr. MOCK was fully satisfied that no fee and salary bill could be passed. He was in favor of suspending the rules and passing this bill.
The motion to suspend the rules failed for want of a Constitutional majority-yeas, 59; nays. 26.
The bill [S. 174] concerning the Supreme Court was read the second time and referred to the Committee on the Organization of Courts, with instruction to report Wednesday
NEW STATE HOUSE.
Mr. HEFFREN, from a majority of the New State House Investigating Committee, submitted a report thereon substantially as follows:
Your Committee finds from the evidence that the prices of material and labor entering into the construction of the new State House are now, and have been for some time, at least 20 per cent higher than when the contract was awarded.
We also find that the work has been done in accordance with the plans and specifications on file in the Commissioners' office, the material and design being unexcelled.
We also find from the evidence that there have been many changes in the plans and specifications found necessary by the Board in the progress of the work that all the changes have been made by the Board i'i strict conformity with the contract.
The evidence further discloses that one William page: 258[View Page 258] B. Howard now owns Kanmacher's interest in the contract, but that he is not recognized by the Board as a contractor. The evidence, while very meager upon that subject, would seem to Indicate that the contractors, Kanmacher & Denig, are not financially very responsible.
While the evidence of the contractors allowed that they have expended upon the building $996,308.98, making an apparent loss of $287,434.10, this apparent lose Includes the 10 per cent. retained by the Board, together with all interest upon the amounts advanced over and above the amounts received by contractors upon estimates for work done, as well as plant, machinery, etc., reducing the total loss of the contractors on the building proper to $100,000.
In view of all the foregoing facts we are of the opinion that the State House can be built within the amount allowed by law if completed under the present management of Howard & Denig-$2,000,000-but not at the contract; price, $1,762,207.58. We are of the opinion, from the evidence, that if the contract is relet to the other contractors the building can never be completed within $2,000,000. We believe, further, from the evidence, that a reletting to new contractors will retard the completion of the building at least one year. We also find that Mr. Kanmacher is a non-resident and Insolvent, and that Mr. Denig has little financial ability, and that without pecuniary aid he can not complete his contract. We also find that the sureties are non-residents of Indiana. We also find by a communication from the Board of State House Commissioners that the contractors are desirous to be released from their contract, and that the contract be let to Howard & Denig.
We report resolutions for adoption, and recommend that the House take some action in regard to the preservation of the evidence in the case. We also report a bill for the consideration of this House.
The report is signed by Messrs. Heffren, Moody, Shockney and Huston. The bill, prepared by the Board of State House Commissioners, which the Committee will submit to the Legislature, is supplemental to the existing statute, and provides for the reletting of the contract to Howard & Denig, who will be required to give bond in a sum not less than $250,000, with ample and acceptable security, and one of the bondsmen shall be a resident of Indiana. The reletting of the contract is upon the condition that the State House Building shall be tally completed within the time specified by law and at a cost not exceeding $2,000,000, which shall include the expenditures already made upon work. The bill authorizes the Board of State House Commissioners to make the new contract. The resolution referred to provides for the payment of the expenses of the investigation.
Mr. McCORMICK submitted a minority report Betting forth that the entire management indicates a disposition to favor the contractors, and aid them in securing from this Legislature an additional appropriation; that the work has not been done in accordance with the plans and specifications as originally adopted, as many changes have been made on account of the incompleteness of the original plans and specifications; and that all of said changes have been made at an increased cost to the State in some cases three prices were paid. The management of the work team not been economical, costing more than was necessary. From the facts deduced from the evidence the Committee were of the opinion it was the duty of the contractor to proceed with the building according to the contract for the amount specified in the original contract.
These reports were made the special order for 2 o'clock Wednesday.
Mr. Frazer's bill [H. R. 37] to create the Court of Appeals it provides that the Governor shall appoint, to serve until the next general election, five Judges of an Appellate Court, one from each Supreme Court District, two of them to be Republicans, two Democrats and one National, their salary to be $3,500 a year] was read the third time.
Mr. FRAZER, after reciting the necessities that caused the creation of ^be Supreme Court Commission, stated that there could be no doubt that the Commission must be continued or an Appellate Court created. The Commission has only reduced the number of cases before the Supreme Court 500 in the last two years. He was of the opinion that at least one half more business could be dispensed with by the Court, should it be created, than by the Supreme Court Commission. The bill strong y advocated itself to him as an economical measure and it would in the various ways prove a saving to the State of some $11,000 per year. It would also save one-sixth of the time of the Supreme Court Judges for under the Commission the Supreme Court Judges expend about one-sixth of their time in reviewing the decisions of the Commission, This bill meets the approval of the people, and meets the approval of two out of the five Supreme Court Commissioners. The passage of the bill was preferable to the continuation of the Supreme Court Commission now in existence, for the further reason that the Appellate Court would not be subject to the provision of the Constitution, which required a written opinion in every case, but would only wire opinions in cases where the decisions of lower Courts were reversed.
Mr. WILLIAMS, of Knox, thought the bill should not pass. It is too far from the people. It is as high in its provinces as the Supreme Court itself. This bill provides that in all cases where the amount does not exceed $3,000 it, should go to the Court of Appeals. An examination of the matters will reveal the fact that nine-tenths of the cases before the Supreme Court do not exceed that amount. Should this bill become a law this- would be the only State hi the Union that has two Courts of last resort. He hoped that the bill would not pass and that the Commission would continue for two years more.
Mr. JEWETT was of the opinion that that part of the Constitution which says that justice must be administered speedily and without delay is not faithfully carried out at present. It must be conceded that this bill must pass or the Supreme Court Commission must be passed. He knew that he voiced the opinion of the majority of the people when he asserts that the Supreme Court Commission has been a failure. It will require more money to run the Commission for the next two years than to create the Court of Appeals and keep it running for the next two years. He was in favor of giving this Court of Appeals a fair test for the next two years.
Mr. HAM was opposed to the bill. He feared that if this Court of Appeals was created, it would, be impossible for the people to get rid of it, even though it proved an unsatisfactory experiment.
Mr. WILSON, of Marion, believed that the Supreme Court Commissions were becoming more unpopular every day. When the Commission was created it was expected that it would clean up the docket in two years, but after a trial of two year they were only about 500 cages from where they were when the Commission was established. We have now reached a point where we must continue that Commission or create another Court. This Court is indispensible; the people want it: he was in favor of it.
Mr. HEFFREN: I have no right to speak for any constituency but my own. I believe that I know their wants, desires and requirements. I know that they are opposed to any increase of page: 259[View Page 259] Courts in this State. I know that at every session of the Legislature new propositions for new Courts are proposed, and the cry is that the public business requires it. Whenever a new office is proposed there is always a horde of persons ready and clamoring for places where they may be fed at the expense of the State. I am opposed to this bill because it will not do what its supporters contend it will. Let this bill pass and we never will get rid of it. The people do not want it. They are already burdened with taxation and demand relief. This will make no saving. If the Commission is continued for two years it will expire of its own accord. This bill is one to open the doors of the Treasury to feed hungry officers at the expense of the people. I hope it will not pass.
Mr. GORDON was of the opinion that this bill, should it pass, could not afford immediate relief. It could not try the 1,000 cases now before the Supreme Court; it would only try new cases. In two years more the Commission, at the same rate, will have brought up the Supreme Court docket as nearly as it is possible to be done. He concurred in the remark previously made that this Court, should it be created, would assume nine- tenths of the business of the Supreme Court.
Mr. GIBSON stated that it was a mistake that this Court would get nine-tenths of the work of the Supreme Court. This question was carefully considered by the Committee, which divided this work so as to give about one-half to the Court of Appeals and one-half to the Supreme Court. He was informed that the Supreme Court was against the Commission and was in favor of the Court of Appeals. He thought the bill had better pass creating this Court.
Mr. PATTEN thought the bill was very fair and very reasonable, and that it would give great relief to the people of the State. He felt that the Supreme Court must have some relief. This relief must come by the Commission or by the creation of this Court. From a financial standpoint he was in favor of the creation of this Court. It would be a saving of $500 per year on each Judge. Should this Commission he continued it would require six years to clear the docket of the Supreme Court.
Mr. FRAZER was of the opinion that the opposition came from the Districts where the present Commissioners desired a continuance of this Supreme Court Commission that they might not lose their positions. He was forced to the conclusion that some members were working in the interest of members of this Commission and not in the interest of the people If any gentleman would prove to him. that the bill did not save some $11,000 to the people each year he would vote against the bill.'
The bill was rejected by yeas, 37; nays. 50, as follows:
Yeas-Messrs. Adams, Antrim, Barr, Best, Brazelton, Campbell, Copeland, Ferriter, Frazee, Frazer, Furnas, Genung, Gibson, Holler, Howland, Huston, Jewett, Kirkpatrick, Knowles, McClelland of Lawrence, McMullen, Mellett, Mosier, Patten, Pettibone, Robinson, Shockney, Smith of Lagrange, Smith of Tippecanoe, Spain, Sterret, Stranghan, Wiley, Wilson of Kosciuko, Wilson of Marion and Mr. Speaker-37.
Nays-Messrs Akin, Beeson, Brooks, Cabbage, Carr, Chandler, Davis, Deem, Fisher, Fleece, Gantz, Berber, Gilman, Gordon, Ham, Heffren, Henderson, Kennedy, Kester, McCormick, McHenry, Marsh, Mauck of Harrison, Mering, Miller, Mock of Wells, Montgomery, Moody. Mutz, Nave, Peters, Pruitt, Pulse, Robertson, Schloss. Shaffer. Shaw, Smith of Blackford. Smith of Perry, Stevenson, Stewart, Stucker, Sutton, Thompson, Tuley, Weaver, Westfall, Whitsit, Williams of Knox and Woodling-50.
So the bill was rejected.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The special order being Mr. Ferriter's bill [H. R. 316] concerning legal advertisements, it was called up by Mr. Shockney and read the third time.
Mr. GIBSON was opposed to the passage of the bill. He was satisfied that it is legislation that the people of Indiana are not demanding.
Mr. SUTTON thought that because the gentleman from Clarke [Mr. Gibson] had some private grievance against some gentleman, was no reason why this bill should not pass. He believed that most people read the daily papers and not the weekly papers, especially in the cities. He was satisfied that it is a good bill as far as it goes. The bill does not seek to increase advertisements. It simply gives the persons most interested the privilege of having the advertisement done wherever he desire. There is nothing wrong in the bill.
Mr. WILLIAMS, of Knox, thought that the gentleman from Clark [Mr. Gibson] labored under a misapprehension in regard to the provisions of the bill. It simply provides that this advertisement shall be printed in a daily newspaper. It does not say that it shall be printed in the Sentinel, Journal, Times or News. It gives the man who has the advertisement to do to go to the paper where it can be done cheapest.
The bill passed the House by yeas, 58; nays, 31.
The SPEAKER announced that in the absence of Principal Clerk Edwins, Emmet L. Rose would assume the duties of Principal Clerk.
INDIANAPOLIS CITY TREASURER.
Mr. WILSON'S, of Marion, bill [H. R. 338] to abolish the office of City Treasurer in cities of 60,000 or more inhabitants was read the third time.
Mr. WILSON stated that the bill is not a political measure. The idea of uniting the office of City and County Treasurer emanated from a prominent Republican journal. It will save to this city about $100,000. It seeks to have but one assessment, but one duplicate, but one time and place of paying tax. It is a matter of economy. There have been a half dozen editorials in the Journal and In the Sentinel and one in the News asking why this bill has not been passed. He hoped, that the bill would pass and become a law.
Mr. MELLETT was tired of. hearing bill's advocated as good, wholesome measures for the city of Indianapolis. He was of the opinion that what was a good, wholesome measure for Indianapolis would be a good, wholesome measure for any other city in the State. He could not understand' why, in drafting these bills, they were not made? to extend to the o'l.aer c'Kies of tine ^tate
Mr. HEFFREN believed that Indianapolis was the only city that had, through its press, businessmen and Board of Trade, demanded such a measure. It is one of the measures that the people without distinction of party have asked for. He thought the Legislature should grant this request.
Kr. MOCK thought the bill was right in prince pie, and thought the House should accept it and get all the good possible out of it.
The bill passed the House by yeas, 69; nays, 28.
STOCK AT LARGE.
Mr. SHIVELY called up his motion to reconsider the vote by which Mr. Helm's bill [H. R. 462] to amend Section 1 of an act to provide for the regulation of stock running at large was rejected by the House February 22.
Mr. SHIVELY stated that in all fairness and justice this hill ought to pass. He was at his home, on the Wabash last Saturday and yesterday. He talked with farmers living along the Wabash and other streams, and they told him that something must be done or they can not farm their ground this year. The argument that the poor man's cow should be allowed to run at large should not be considered in this question. There are these page: 260[View Page 260] large farmers with their fertile valleys, and unless something is done these men can not farm their lands. Their fences are al swept away.
Mr. McMULLEN hoped the bill would pass. It has been stated that the bill should simply apply to the valleys of the Ohio, Wabash and other large streams. Such a law would be unconstitutional. We could not make it apply to a single locality or any particular localities and make It constitutional. As soon as the cropping season of 1883 and 1884 are past, the provisions of this bill go out of force, and the present law comes into effect again. He knew of a strip of bottom land thirty miles in length where not a fence was left.
Mr. HOLLER said under the present law the line of toe owner of the lauds was recognized as his fence, and he was not compelled to enclose his lands with a fence to prevent the trespass of stock unless the Commissioners of the County grant the privilege of stock running at large. He believed the County Commissioners and citizens of any County of the State were more capable of judging whether stock should run at large in their Counties or not than the members of this House. He thought this bill if passed and recognized fully would work great hardship and inconveniences in some Counties.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe, had made a culculation, and of the 13,000 square miles in the State nearly one-thirtieth of this whole area is without fences. He desired to place himself on record as being in favor of the passage of this bill.
Mr. MOCK was from a County that was traversed by the raging Wabash, but he thought the Board of Commissioners of his County knew better than himself what the people warned in reference to the question. He hoped the bill would not pass.
Mr. MONTGOMERY lived In a County where they have a river. He desired to say that for the last few years they have had but little fencing along this river, but the people have been magnanimous enough to keep up their stock. He thought the people should appeal to the County Commissioners.
The motion to reconsider was agreed to by yeas, 57; nays, 30.
The bill passed the House by yeas, 55; nays, 29.
Mr. JEWETT, from the Committee of Free Conference on the general appropriation bill [H. R. 302], submitted a report of agreement on some eighteen separate items.
The report was concurred in by yeas, 51; nays, 43.
Mr. GORDON, from the Committee of Free Conference on the subject of roads, reported the recommendation that the bill [S. 6] pass with amendments, and that bill [H. R. 48] lie on the table.
The report was concurred in by yeas, 82; nays, 5.
Mr. GILMAN'S bill [H. R. 7] concerning railroads and other corporations was taken up, and pending its consideration-
The House adjourned until to-morrow at o'clock.
