HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
MONDAY, March 5, 1883-9 a. m.The House was called to order by Mr. Speaker Bynum, who announced prayer by Representative Frazee, of Rush County.
A call of the House, which was ordered and taken, discovered ninety-two members present and answering to their names.
The SPEAKER stated the question before the House was the appeal taken from the decision of the Chair, on Saturday, March 3, when he ruled out of order Mr. Kester's motion to take up the general appropriation bill [H. R. 302], and concur in the report of the Free Conference Committee.
Mr. JEWETT: He had examined the question since that time and did not desire to press the question, and with the consent of the gentleman from Putnam [Mr. Gordon], who joined in the appeal, be would withdraw it.
Mr. GORDON stated that a the opportunity had passed for accomplishing the object aimed at, he was also desirous to withdraw the appeal.
The SPEAKER stated that the appeal being withdrawn the question recurred on the passage of the bill [S. 247] to provide for the the profitable hiring of the convict in the State's Prisons.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe, raised the point of order that Senate bill 217 can not now be put upon its passage for the reason that Section 14, Article 5, of the Constitution provides that no bill "hall be presented to the Governor within two days next preceding the final adjournment of the General Assembly.
The SPEAKER ruled the point of order not well taken and that the House could pass the bill at the present time, but could not under the Constitution present it to the Governor.
Mr. McMULLEN thought the point of order made by the gentleman fr* m Tippecanoe [Mr. Smith] WAS not well taken. He took the position that the House could pass the till, and in case of an extra session, arguing from the standpoint that we do not know that there will not be a session to-morrow, the bill could then be presented for his signature or veto. He took the ground that under the Constitution no bill could be presented to the Governor for two days next preceding the final adjournment, but that bills could be passed up to the final adjournment.
Mr. JEWETT thought in the consideration of his question the House should proceed with great deliberation. The Constitution provides that no bill shall be presented to the Governor for two days next preceding the final adjournment of the General Assembly. He did not like to see a plain provision of the Constitution overridden in this way. He did not desire to put the Governor in this dilemma of having a bill presented to him at this late day-he would take that back, he would wish to put him in any dilemma, seeing the dilemma in which he had placed the other House of this General Assembly. It would be establishing a most dangerous precedent, as if the Governor should accept the bill, it would establish the rule that the Governor and a majority of the Legislature when they agreed might substantially decide what bills should or should not become law. He objected to asking the Governor to establish any such precedent
Mr. SHIVELY desired to inquire into the statue of this bill. It occurred to him that any action now would be totally at fault. He thought it had been regarded by all Central Assemblies since the Constitution was adopted that the legislative day expired on Saturday night at 12 o'clock. He believed it was the first time In the history of the State since the Constitution was adopted that any attempt has been made to pass bi'ls and do legislation on the last day of the session. The Constitution says that no bill shall be presented to the Governor within two days of the final adjournment, and when we send a bill there we would be trampling upon the Constitution and be in contempt of our oaths.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe, desired to say that the Constitution is above all other authority-that any provision of the statutes concerning the business of the General Assembly could not take precedent of the Constitution. He agreed with the remark made by the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Heffren] when he said last Saturday that it was the last day in which bills could be presented to the Governor.
Mr. Speaker BYNUM [Mr. McMullen in the Chair] thought the provisions of the Constitution harmonize in all particulars. The question of passing a bill and the question of presenting a bill to the Governor are two different matters entirely. He thought it would be wrong to present a bill at this time, still he did not think that the legislative power of this body ceased Saturday night at 12 o'clock. The only question now is whether or not we have power to pass this bill.
Mr. GORDON was a member of the Enrolling Committee whose duty it was to present bills to the Governor, and he now desired to know if it page: 296[View Page 296] would not be their duty to present this bill to the Governor should it be passed by the House.
Messrs. FRAZER and ADAMS now sent up an appeal from the decision of the Chair, in which they set forth the point of order made by Mr. Smith, of Tippecanoe, and made the rule of the Chair on that point.
Mr. SPEAKER BYNUM [Mr. Gordon in the Chair] did not desire to be misunderstood. His opposition was simply this: He did not see anything in the Constitution limiting the power of this Legislature in the passage of bills up to the last hour. He did not know whether or not there was any precedent upon this question. The provision of the Constitution which says that no bill shall be presented to the Governor within two days next preceding the final adjournment does not prevent this House from passing bills during that time.
Mr. ADAMS (interrupting) asked the question does a certain section of the Constitution provide that no bill shall be presented to the Governor within two days of the final adjournment; and does it not further provide that all bills passed shall be presented to the Governor?
Mr. BYNUM (resuming): Certainly; all bills passed up to the time of limitation must be presented. He argued that the bill might be passed, and could be presented to the Governor, in the event of his calling a special session.
Mr. FRAZER thought this question would be referred to by coming Legislatures as a precedent. He hoped that the members would turn to the Constitution and examine it that they might vote knowingly upon this question. The Constitution provides that every bill passed by the General Assembly shall be presented to the Governor. It further says that no bill shall be presented to him for the two days next preceding the final adjournment. The only order given by this House that a bill shall be presented to the Governor is the passage of that bill. If we pass this bill to-day we thereby give order and power to this Enrolling Committee to present this bill to the Governor. He agreed with the gentleman from Clark and Scott [Mr. Jewett] when he said this would be establishing a dangerous precedent.
Mr. WILSON, Kosciusko, argued the question from the same standpoint as the gentleman who had just finished.
Mr. McMULLEN contented that whether this General Assembly met again or not the passage of this bill would be binding, and the next General Assembly might and should present it to the Governor two years from now, if it did not reach him before.
Mr. ADAMS was of the opinion that if we should construe the Constitution as the gentleman from Dearborn [Mr. McMullen] had suggested we would have to admit that the Convention which assembled thirty years ago authorized the General Assembly to do something that could never mature into a law. The Constitution provides that no bill be presented to the Governor for the two days next preceding the final adjournment, and that all bills shall be presented to him. It simply means, if it means anything in the world, that the General Assembly shall not pass bills on the last two days of the session. If it means anything else it would be giving the General Assembly to do something that could never mature into a law. It would be a mere farce. The Constitution was clear that the General Assembly could not pass bills after the time had expired for the bills passed becoming law. He was certain that the next General Assembly would have nothing to do with bills passed by the present General Assembly that had failed to become law.
Mr. HEFFREN thought the question had been fully discussed and demanded the previous question, which he withdrew with the understanding that the vote would be immediately taken upon the appeal from the decision of the Chair.
The question being shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House? the vote resulted, yeas, 47; nays, 43 so the decision of the Chair was sustained.
A message was received from the Governor announcing that he had returned the bill [H. R. 133], the metropolitan police bill, with his veto.
The question recurring on the passage of the bill [H. R. 247] the bill was rejected by the House by yeas, 24; nays, 59.
METROPOLITAN POLICE BILL.
Mr. HEFFREN moved to take up the message from the Governor on the bill [H. R. 133] the metropolitan police bill. The motion was agreed to.
The message was read as follows:
Gentlemen of the House of Representatives:
I return to you, with my objections thereto, House bill No. 133, commonly known as the metropolitan police bill.
The bill declares that, in cities of this State containing 29,000 or more inhabitants, according to the United States Census of 1880, there shall be established a Board of Metropolitan Police, to consist of three Commissioners, to be appointed by the Governor, and the Secretary, Auditor and Treasurer of State. One of the Commissioners shall be of "opposite politics" to the other two. It provides that these Commissioners shall have power to appoint a Superintendent of Police, Captains, Sergeants, Detectives and such other officers and patrolmen as they may deem advisable, to be appointed equally between the two political parties. The number of patrolmen is limited to one for each thousand inhabitants. No limit whatever is placed upon the number of Captains, Sergeants and Detectives. Though they might be made so numerous to gratify party or personal favorites, as to impose a most unjust burden upon the City Treasury, the voters of the city can do nothing to regulate this number.
There are but two cities in the State the population of which is shown by the census of 1880 exceeds 29,000 inhabitants. They are Indianapolis and Evansville, the City Governments of which have been, except during great intervals, in the control of officers holding different political opinions from a majority of the members of the General Assembly.
Fort Wayne, by the census of 1880, contained a population of nearly 29,000 inhabitants. The City Government of Fort Wayne is steadily under the control of officers who agree with the majority of the members of the two Houses of the Legislature in political opinions. Fort Wayne is not included within the provisions of the bill. Nor are any of those provisions of the bill which its advocates claim are necessary for good municipal government and fair elections made applicable to that city either by the bill itself or by any other bill which has been before the present Legislature. It is evident, therefore, that the design is for merely party reasons, to deprive the citizens of Indianapolis and of Evansville of the power, through officers chosen by themselves, to appoint their police.
That these are the controlling reasons is placed beyond doubt by the mode provided for selecting the Commissioners of Police. Instead of appointing two or four officers equally divided in political opinion to make the selection, three State officers differing in political opinion from the Governor are appointed along with him to make the choice. These are officers, too who unlike the Governor, are eligible, under the Constitution, to re-election at the end of their present terms and who, naturally desirous of being re-elected, may well be supposed, without meaning to judge them with any disrespect, to be peculiarly susceptible of party bias.
The Commissioners to be selected are not required to be equally divided in political opinion,
page: 297[View Page 297], but are to consist of three persons, one of whom shall be of "opposite politics" from the other two. It is well known, of course, from the composition of the Board chosen to appoint them, of what politics the majority of the Commissioners will be, and the member required to be of "opposite politics" need not, under the terms of the bill, be a member even of one of the two leading political parties. He may belong to any party opposed in opinion to the majority of the Commissioners, no matter how inconsiderable maybe its numbers.
The Commissioners are required, in appointing the officers and men who shall compose the police, to appoint "equally between the political parties."
This fair-sounding phrase will deceive nobody acquainted with the courses of parties. If men are to be chosen as policemen Impartially, the men who choose them must be impartial. When no careful provision is made that it shall not be impartial, it is easy to foresee what will be the real party composition of the police. Those who agree In political opinion with a majority of the Commissioners will be bold, aggressive partisans; those who do not will, for the most part, be likely to be persona of weak political convictions, and will be afraid to utter their sentiments lest by doing so they may lose their places.
The citizens of Evansville and Indianapolis are by this bill to be deprived of the political rights which belong to the citizens of Fort Wayne because a majority of their inhabitants chance to differ in political opinion from a majority of the members of the General Assembly. This majority, claiming to be members of a party favoring popular rights, propose to set the first example in this State of depriving the people of a right to regulate their own law affairs. They have found out, as they suppose, a better way of educating the people for the duty of self-government than by confiding to them the management v of their own local concerns. They are better pleased it would seem, with the aristocratic forms which give to others than the people the right to determine what is best for the people I refuse to subscribe to such views. The best Governments have faults, but the best Government, in the long run, in that which confides to the people the greatest power in regulating their local affairs.
The best way to cure the evils of bad local administration, where such evils exist, is to make the people affected by them fell that they will suffer from them until they exert themselves locally to remedy them. But especially I object to the bill for several reasons. It is the beginning, if it shall pass into a law, of party contests at each recurring Legislature to take cities out of the control of the majority of the inhabitants when a majority in the Legislature differ from them on party questions. Like the scheme to renew the old abuse of giving to the Legislature the appointment of the Trustees of our Benevolent and Reformatory Institutions, its inevitable effect will be to increase party wrangling and frenzy up the two Houses, to make the real interests of the people subordinate to party triumphs, and prolong the sessions of the Legislature beyond the limit prescribed by the Constitution for regular sessions of that body
The present session of the Legislature is an illustration of the effect of this merely partisan legislation. The Constitution of the State gives to the Governor three days exclusive of Sunday for the consideration of every bill after the day it shall have been presented to him. It is a very brief time under ordinary circumstances, but especially is it so when, as during the present session, party strife has postponed the passage of nearly all legislation until the closing hours of session. Bills enough are on my table properly to occupy at least a fortnight in order to be considered with even reasonable care; yet, because I have not been willing to waive my Constitutional right to deliver it for the brief term of three days, upon the provisions of the bill now returned, the two Houses refused to pass the general appropriation bill. They have said in substance that they will not allow the State Government to be carried on if they can prevent it, unless a co-ordinate branch of the Government will yield to their will and surrender a plain and mot necessary Constitutional right.
It is believed that, if this bill should become a law, the city of Indianapolis will not be able, under the levy and assessment it is now allowed by law to make, to meet its necessary expenses. The city is now operating under an assessment as high as the law allows. The expense of the present police force is stated to me by the Mayor to be $50,210 a year. The annual expense of the police force provided for by the present bill will be, at a moderate estimate, as I am assured by persons competent to judge, more than $80,000.
The fourteenth section of the bill now returned is in my opinion repugnant to the Constitution. It requires that the fees fixed and allowed to City Marshals "shall be taxed and allowed in all cases where the arrests are made or protests served by any of the police force of said cities in favor of said city, and shall be collected in the same manner as other costs are collected, and shall be paid into the City Treasury of said city by the officer or party or person collecting the same every three months" Section 12 of Article 1 of the Constitution ordains that justice shall be administered "freely and without purchase." In a case which arose under a statute giving a salary to Clerks and Sheriffs and requiring them to pay all their fees and costs into the County Treasury, Judge Worden said that "while it may be that litigants can be required to pay docket fees or otherwise contribute to the support of the Judiciary in such manner as might be provided by law, it is clear to my mind that they can not be required through the medium of Clerks and Sheriffs nominally as for their fees, to put money into the County Treasury which may be used for general purposes, and as the condition upon which justice can be administered to the litigating parties by the Courts of the State." The opinion of Judge Worden was adopted as a true statement of the law in Fulk vs. Board of Commissioners of Monroe County (46 Ind., 150.) Under that decision it appears that the requirement that the fees allowed to Marshals shall be paid into the City Treasury is unconstitutional.
For the several reasons above stated, I am constrained to return this bill without my approval.
ALBERT G. PORTER.
The question being on the passage of the bill notwithstanding the Governor's veto, the vote resulted yeas, 54; nays, 42; as follows:
Yeas-Messrs. Akin. Barr, Bowers, Brooks, Bryant, Cabbage, Carr, Chandler, Chittenden, Davis, Elev, Ferriter, Fisher, Gerber, Genung, Ham, Heffren, Howland, Jewett, Kennedy, McHenry, McMullen, Mauck of Harrison, Miller, Mock of Wells, Montgomery, Moody, Nave, Patten, Peters, Price, Pruitt, Pulse, Robertson, Schloss, Shaffer, Shaw, Smith of Blackford, Smith of Perry, Spain, Stevenson, Stucker, Sutton, Thomas, Tuley, Weaver, Whitsit, Williams of Knox, Williams of Posey, Wilson of Marion, Woodling and Mr. Speaker-54.
Nays-Messrs. Adams, Antrim, Beeson, Best Brazelton, Campbell, Copeland, Deem, Fleece, Frazee, Frazer, Furnas, Cants, Gibson, Hanson, Helms, Henderson, Holler, Huston, Kester, Kirkpatrick, Knowles, McClelland of Lawrence, McClelland of Porter, Marsh, Mellett, Mering, Mosier, Pettibone, Robinson, Shively, Shockney Smith of Lagrange, Smith of Tippecanoe, Sterret, Straughan, Thompson, Westfall, Wiley, Wilson of Kosciusko and Wrightr-42.
So the Metropolitan Police bill passed House.
page: 298[View Page 298]AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. HOWLAND Introduced a concurrent resolution, which was adopted, authorizing the location and construction of a highway across the grounds of the Asylum for the Deaf and Dumb.
Mr. HELMS offered a concurrent resolution, which was adopted, granting each member of the General Assembly the privilege of keeping file copy of the Revised Statutes furnished him, provided he would pay the Secretary of State $1 for the same.
Mr. MOZIER offered a resolution, which was adopted, authorizing the Secretary of State to send to each member copies of the journals of the two Houses, and copies of the acts of this Genera Assembly, together with five copies of the Brevier Legislative Reports.
Mr. HEFFREN moved to take from the table the report of the Free Conference Committee on bill [H. R. 302] the general appropriation bill.
Mr SHOCKNEY offered a protest against the passage of the bill at this time. He did not believe that any action of the General Assembly or the Governor could make it a law. Such an attempt is in direct opposition to the provisions of the Constitution,
The motion to take the report from the table was agreed to by yeas, 42; nays, 31.
Mr. HEFFREN now moved to concurr in the report of the Conferrence Committee.
The motion was agreed to by yeas, 52; nays, 32.
A resolution allowing Mr. Ribold, proprietor of the Bates House, $600 for the use of Committee Booms was, on motion by Mr. ANTRIM, reduced to $[?]00, and the resolution so ammended was adopted.
The Senate concurrent resolution to accept the copyright secured by the Revision Commission of the Code of 1881, was adopted.
Mr. Speaker BYNUM delivered the following valedictory:
Gentlemen of the House of Representatives:
Our labors are at an end. The present session has been one of special importance to the people. I congratulate you upon the faithful discharge of your duties. You have labored earnestly and diligently, and, although at times there has been excitement and division in your ranks upon some questions, upon all those which affected the people directly and universally, there has been but one desire and sentiment, and that was to formulate and enact the best laws in the briefest period. No member of this House should feel the slightest hesitation in saying we have assisted to accomplish a good work. We began our labors with many disadvantages. The Constitutional amendments were thrust upon us in the most complicated form. We were confronted with the proposition that unless an in increased price of more than a quarter of a million dollars was given to the State House contractors the building would be abandoned at a great loss to the State. Upon these we had to gather information and make up our minds, whether correctly or not remains a question. Deducting the time required for the consideration of these questions, we have assisted to enact more good and beneficent laws than any preceding House in the same length of time. We have assisted in the enactment of a law in relation to the settlement of decedents' estates which will prevent their being squandered in costs and fees; we have assisted to enact a road law universally demanded by the people in all parts of the State. We have assisted in the enactment of many other laws which are elss in importance only because of their local application. When your labors are laid before your constituents, and fully tested, I have no fears but what your labors will meet with their hearty approbation. As for myself, I can only say I have labored hard to advance your work. No person who has not occupied the position assigned me can realize the cares and labors it imposes. When chosen to preside over your deliberations, I felt that my elevation was to some extent a personal sacrifice. I accepted it with the firm intention of strictly enforcing the rules of the government and pressing legislative business as fast as possible. At times I may have seemed harsh and arbitrary, but nothing was farther from my thought or purpose. If I have done any member a wrong it was unintentional and caused by the excitement incident to legislative work. I have used my utmost endeavors to favor each and every member, and to assist them in securing the passage of laws in which they felt a special interest, and only regret that I have not been able to accomplish more in this particular.
I have nothing but the kindest of feelings for each and every member of this House, and return to you my thanks for assistance you have given me in the discharge of my duties and for the uniform kindness shown me. My relations with the officers of the House and their assistants have been pleasant throughout, and to them I also extend my thanks for the courteous manner in which they have at all times assisted me in my labors.
Mr. JEWETT moved that the House adjourn sine die.
The motion was agreed to and the House of Representatives of the Fifty-third General Assembly stood adjourned at thirty-five minutes after 3 o'clock Monday, March 5, 1883.
