HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
FRIDAY, March 2, 1883-9 a. m.The session was opened with prayer by Representative Brazelton, of Jennings County.
TAX EXEMPTION.
Mr. Schloss' bill [H. R. 290] to repeal Section 105 of an act concerning taxation, being Section 373 of the Revised Statutes of 1881, was read the third time.
Mr. WILSON, of Marion, was in favor of the passage of this bill. He believed as the statutes now stand, the men who form these Associations page: 282[View Page 282] to pay double and sometimes treble tax.
Mr. McMULLEN was from a County in which several such Associations exist. They are composed entirely of poor, laboring men, who can pay only up one or two dollars per week. By joining these Associations and paying a small assessment into the general fund of the Association, a member may draw from the fund a stipulated Amount. With this amount he can purchase a Sot or build for himself a small house, and this is the object of these Associations. This bill is simply to relieve the shares held in such Associations from tax.
Mr. STERRITT stated that several of the Associations exist in the County which he represents. He thought it was unjust to tax the men upon the shares held in such Association and at the same time tax him upon the property that he buys with the money secured on these shares.
Mr. MONTGOMERY said these Building Associations loan all their money each Monday and take a mortgage upon the property purchased by the member securing the loan. He did not think it just to tax he property and at the same time tax the share-holder in such Association. It was simply to avoid double and triple taxation, and he, therefore, thought the bill should pass.
Mr. SHOCKNEY said; This bill ought to become a law. It is directly in the interest of a large number of laboring people who are striving to obtain a home of their own by depositing small pittances of their meager earnings with these Association's, and investing the same in small houses. Under the law as it now is these poor people are compelled to pay taxes on shares of stock they hare surrendered as well as on the property they buy, while the Associations, also, are compelled to pay taxes on the mortgages lead to secure the payment of dues-making treble taxation upon a needy class of industrious, but poor, laboring people.
The bill was rejected by yeas, 40; nays, 45.
MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES.
Mr. Shively's bill [H. R. 293] concerning Mutual Life Insurance Companies was read the third time [The bill provides, first, that all Insurance Companies doing business on the assessment plan shall issue a bond payable to the State of Indiana for the faithful performance of their contract with their policy-holders. It makes it a felony for any Insurance Company doing business in this State to take out a policy on the life of an infirm, aged or crippled person. It also compels all such Companies doing business in this State to make a report on or before the 31st day of August of each year to the Auditor of State, giving a detailed account of its business. And a failure to do so will work a forfeiture of its charter.]
Mr. SCHLOSS said Building and Loan Associations are in existence all over the State for the purpose of mechanics and laboring men to acquire homes by monthly payments into the Society of $15 per month each month. Two shares are drawn for, $500 each, and such shares are given to such members as are applying for them. They will have to buy lots or build houses for such money and give real estate security. In this way poor people will get homes. This bill will do away with taxing the shares, but all money drawn is put into property, and such property is taxed according to law.
Mr. SHIVELY believed that all the members would agree with him that some legislation was necessary upon this subject of insurance. If there has been more complaint about one than another it has been about this matter of insurance, and the matter of doing business for the last few years. The bill was drawn up by the Insurance Committee and it comes here recommended by that Committee.
Mr. MELLETT agreed with the gentleman from Wabash [Mr. Shively] when he says that there is demand for protection against fraudulent Insurance Associations, and if this bill provided such protection he would heartily indorse it. He called upon the members to examine it can fully before they indorsed it to see whether or not it does provide this protection. This bill seems to be entirely different from the one offered by the gentleman from Wabash at the beginning of the session. He did not believe this bill would give satisfaction to the people of the State. In the first place it, confers too much power upon the Auditor of State. So far as that is concerned, you might strike out all but he one section and leave the whole matter with the Auditor of Stale. He also e is to say whether or not a Company shall do business in this State. The bill provides that any ten members of any corporation may upon demand request the Auditor to make an investigation of the affairs of such Association. Now, if ten men are sufficient to require an investigation, why not say that one man may demand an investigation? Under the provisions of this bill no man is allowed to renew his Insurance, it matters not how long he has been injured in the Company, or how prompt he map have been in his payments, though it has relapsed, because of failure to pay an annuity for a single day or even an hour, for that matter. The previsions of this bill make it a felony for that, man or any of his friends, to renew that policy. If this bill becomes a law, so far from protecting the people, so far from giving satisfaction to the people, it will be the means of crushing out every organization of this kind organized in this State, and turning this business over into the hands of foreign Insurance Companies.
Mr. WILLIAMS, of Knox, was satisfied that the reason why the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Millett] was opposed to the bill was because he did not, understand the provisions of the bill. There is a demand from every part of the State that the "Death Rattle" Insurance Companies should be cut off. Representatives of the leading and solvent Insurance Companies are here in the interest of this bill. The only objection they have against this bill is that it discriminates against foreign Companies in favor of Companies in this State. The objection is that this bill gives the Auditor of States too much power. This objection comes from these "Death Rattle" Companies that shrink from an investigation. In answer to an objection made against the bill that it did not require a foreign Company to give resident security on their bonds, he did not think it would be just to require them to do so, for the reason that it might be difficult for them to do so, even though they are good, solvent Companies. This bill simply provides that Companies doing business on the assessment plan shall not issue endowment certificates. These Companies can not do a fair business and issue endowment certificates.
Mr. HEFFREN bought the matter was fully discussed, and therefore moved the previous question, which was seconded by the House.
The bill passed the House by yeas, 67; nays, 21.
THE WIDOW OF EDWIN MAY.
On motion of Mr. HUSTON the joint resolution [S. 2] for an appropriation of $10,000 to Mrs. Sarah May, wife of the late architect of the new State House, was read the third time.
A motion by Mr. SCHLOSS to recommit with the instruction that the amount be reduced to $5,000, was laid on the table by yeas, 52; nays, 40.
The resolution failed to pass-yeas, 49; nay, 47-for want of a Constitutional majority.
THE NEW STATE HOUSE.
The special order was called up [Mr. McMullen in the Chair] being bill [H. R. 466] supplemental to an act to authorize and provide for the erection of a new State House and for matters incident thereto.
The question recurred on the amendment offered by Mr. McCormick striking out all after the page: 283[View Page 283] enacting clause and inserting new matter in lieu thereof.
Mr. HEFFREN hoped that the amendment should not prevail for the reason that there is nothing in it farther than to strike out all after the reacting clause and insert entire new matter. There is nothing in the proposition to provide tor the continuance of these bonds given by the old State House Commissioners. He believed the State should get through this matter and keep within the $2,000,000, and according to the evidence before the Committee he believed that it coul4 be built with that amount. He was of the opinion that no public building in the United States was ever constructed with more economy and better management than has this building so far as the work had progressed, and if constructed within the $2,000,000 it will be the cheapest public building in the country. He added that although the bond of the present contractors was good, it was doubtful if there could be any recovery upon it until the building was completed.
Mr. MOCK was in favor of holding to the original contract, and in holding the present contractors to their contract. He thought they had no right to change that contract. The change in the price of labor and material, of which we have heard so much, should, have nothing to do with the original contract. If these men do not desire to stand by their contract, let them give it up.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe, was impressed with the question whether or not, like Shylock, we were going to hold every man to his pound of flesh. Whether the State of Indiana, whether it be right or wrong, will require the pound of flesh from every man? If this contact was made at a time when material and labor was at a low price, and it has since advanced, in consequence of which three men have been great losers, the State of Indiana should not say there is your bond, now we want the pound of flesh cut from next your heart. He was on the floor when the bill was passed for the erection of the new State House, and the prevailing opinion then was that the State House could not be built for $2,000,000. Viewing this matter as he did and taking into consideration the fast that the provisions of the bill of the gentleman from Bartholomew-[Mr. McCormick] are for $4,000,000, he was in favor of the bill that did not break the original contract.
Mr. HAM did not understand that the amendment proposed that the State House shall cost two million dollars. His understanding was that if this amendment is adopted it will simply re-enact the old law with one or two exceptions. Now the original bill provides that it may be relet the same contractors, that the Commissioners may relet this contract for a sum not to exceed two million dollars, but no other persons shall be allowed to put in a bid. He was of the opinion that if this contract was relet to the same parties they might be knocking at the door of the next Legislature for another appropriation.
Mr. HUSTON was a member of the Committee which investigated this question, and he was opposed to the adoption of this amendment. He was opposed to the amendment because it required the reletting of the contract, thereby causing great delay in the work and injury to the building in its present condition. Mr. Huston continued at some length.
Mr. HEFFREN moved to postpone the further consideration until 2 o'clock, which was agreed to.
Mr. Bowers' bill [H. R. 191] to regulate the practice of medicine, mid wifery and surgery, was taken up, read the third time, and postponed until 3 o'clock this afternoon.
The House took a recess until 2 o*< look,
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The special order being the bill [H. R. 466] to authorize and provide for the erection of a new State House, is was called up.
Mr GIBSON moved to postpone the further consideration until 9 o'clock to-morrow.
Mr. HEFFREN made an ineffectual motion-yeas, 21; nays. 54-to lay the motion on the table.
Mr. GIBSON was of the opinion that as the House had appointed a Committee, had employed a stenographer, had rented rooms, had incurred the additional expense of having the sworn testimony taken before that Committee printed, it should postpone this question until to-morrow, when this printed testimony and evidence would be before the House.
Mr. MOODY regarded this proposition as one of the most important questions that was before the House this session. He was not in favor of waiting for the printed evidence, or postponing this matter tor that purpose.
Mr. JEWETT was in favor of considering the question now. He was not in favor of retarding the matter by any subterfuge, and desired to meet the question fairly and, without delay. He was satisfied that the members would not have time to examine the printed evidence at this late hour.
Mr. PATTEN was in favor of postponing the question until to-morrow. He thought the discussion had gone far enough and demanded the previous question.
The previous question was seconded by the House-yeas. 66; nays, 31-and under its operation the motion to postpone was agreed to by yeas, 52; nays, 44.
Mr. ROBINSON called up the bill [S. 139] to amend Sections 5,472 and 5,480 of the code of 1881, concerning coal mines. The bill was read the third time and passed the House by yeas, 88; nays 0.
A MEDICAL BILL.
Mr. Bowers' bill [H. R. 91] to regulate the practice of medicine, midwifery and surgery, was taken up as the special order.
Mr. ANTRIM thought there were some provisions of the bill that should not become a law in this State. He thought in some cases it would work a hardship.
Mr. STRAUGHAN was a physician and was in favor of the passage of this bill. It was legislation not to protect physicians of the State, but to protect the people from quacks and pretenders driven into this State by stringent medical laws enacted in other States.
Mr. PATTEN was opposed to the bill. The learned physicians from his County bad requested him to oppose the bill. They did not desire such legislation.
Mr LOWERS was in favor of the bill. He desired K see the standard of medicine raised in the Sta's. And this was the object of sued legislation. He moved that the bill be recommitted to a Special Committee with instructions.
The motion was agreed to.
BILLS PASSED.
Mr. Peters' bill [H. R. 429] to appropriate money for the erection of a family building and putting in gas mains at the House of Refuge, and apropriating $10,000, was read the third time an d passed the House by yeas, 86, nays, 0.
Mr. Genung's bill [H. R. 27 270 ] to legalize the incorporation of the town of Oakland, Gibson County, Ind., was read the third time and passed the House by yeas, 87; nays, 3.
Mr. Greene's bill [H. R. 227] to legalize the acts of the Board of Trustees and other officers of the town of Jasper, Dubois County for the years 1879, 1880, 1881 and 1882, was read the third time and passed the House by yeas, 76; nays, 0.
Mr. Gordon's bill [H. R. 297] to legalize the incorporation of the town of Roachdale, Putnam County, was read the third time and passed the House by yeas, 74; nays, 0.
Mr. FRAZEE, from the Special Committee, reported back the resolution authorizing the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House to return thanks to James Gordon Bennett for the page: 284[View Page 284] princely gift for the relief of the sufferers from the Ohio River floods. The resolution was adopted.
Mr. Brooks' bill [H. R. 313] to amend Section 4 of an act providing a Treasury system for the State of Indiana was read the third time, and passed the House by yeas, 81: nays, 0.
Mr Wilson's, of Marion, bill [H. R. 176] to amend Section 6 376 of the code of 1881, concerning taxation, was read the third time and passed the House by yeas, 73; nays, 0.
Mr HEFFREN moved that when the House adjourned, it be until 7:30 p. m. The motion was agreed to.
Mr. Williams', of Knox, bill [H. R. 65] to amend Section 3 of an act concerning damages, was read the third time and passed the House by yeas, 65; nays, 3.
The bill [S. 45] supplemental to an act to Incorporate the Ohio Insurance Company, the title and name being changed to the Commercial Bank by decree of Court, November 12, 1881, was read the third time and passed the House by yeas, 73; nays, 3.
Mr. Robinson's bill [H. R. 259] to repeal all laws for the protection of English sparrows, was read the third time and rejected by yeas, 36; nays, 43.
The House took a recess until 7:30 p. m.
EVENING SESSION.
Mr. HOLLER introduced a resolution, which was adopted, authorizing the printing of 4,000 copies of the report of the Fishery Commissioner.
The House took up and concurred In the Senate amendments to [H. R. 223] concerning decedents' estates.
Mr. Bowers' bill [H. R. 191] to regulate the practice of medicine, midwifery and surgery, was taken up. The amendment providing that its provisions should not affect any person who is now practicing; medicine in the State was concurred in by the House. The vote recurring on the passage of the bill it was rejected by yeas, 41; nays,46.
BILLS PASSED.
The bill [S. 189] to authorize Railroad Companies to guarantee the bonds of any other Railroad Company organized under the laws of another State, was read the third time and passed the House by yeas, 75; nays, 11.
Mr. Schloss' bill [H. R. 372] concerning voluntary Gymnastic Associations, was read the third time and passed the House by yeas, 65; nays, 29.
Mr. Gordon's bill [H. R. 245], a bill concerning the incorporation of towns, was read the third time and passed the House by yeas, 59; nays, 19.
Mr. Mosier's bill [H. R. 332] to amend Sections 49 and 50 of an act concerning criminal cases, was read the third time and passed the House by yeas, 78; nay, 1
The House adjourned until 9 o'clock to-morrow morning.
