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.
