AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. SPANN offered the pending resolution with a desire to divide the question and place it in a position that will be fair to the Senator from Johnson, Mr. Overstreet.
Mr. BELL thought this will be in advance attempting to determine a legal proposition which may prove embarrassing. If knowledge is brought home to enough of the voters to determine the result, the contestor would be entitled to the seat. So he oppossen the attempt to circumscribe the action of the Committee as proposed in the pending resolution. The inquiry will necessarily have to be taken separately, the testimony being oral. He knew nothing of the merits in this controversy, not having even talked about it with contestor or contestee, or either of their attorneys. The resolution already adopted is the only one that should go before the Committee to which the question may be safely left.
Mr. FOULKE moved to amend by instructing the Committee to require the contestant to specify the persons to whom and the things offered as a bribe in each case, etc., etc. Senators on the other side have spoken about this not being a political matter, yet it seems a curious thing that even in preliminary matters we divide exactly at the party line. In this matter it may be well for them not to go too far. The Democratic Senators voted to a man this morning in favor of the demand for the previous question, thus stopping further debate. It is not enough to show that one or two or three voters had notice of a bribe. He desired a full and fair investigation, and by his vote no man shall retain a seat here who has blistered a hand with giving a bribe to secure an election. We must be governed by ordinary rules of legal procedure. Witnesses may be obtained page: 68[View Page 68] and suborned, and the sitting member may not know the charge till it is spoken by the mouth of the witness. No man should be called to answer an infamous crime without full knowledge of the charge in every particular item.
Mr. BROWN: The statement that the sitting member has been guilty of offering and giving bribes is in exact accord with the precedents in this State. To the end that we may make some honest effort tot do something in this case before being called from time to eternity, he moved to lay the resolution on the table.
The motion was agreed to by yeas, 24; nays 19.
Mr. SPANN offered a preamble and resolution requiring the informer to make specific terms as to the charge of bribery; requiring a return of the paper making a charge of bribery from the Committee, and that this inquiry be before the entire Senate in Committee of the Whole. In supporting which, he remarked: It has been said by a Senator on the other side that these witnesses were desired in order to bring them face to face. Now in all fairness he demanded that witnesses shall be brought before the face of every Senator, and not that the evidence shall be taken before a Committee composed largely of Senators of opposite politics.
Mr. BROWN liked the old way the best. There never was a time in the history of Indiana when the action proposed by this resolution has been resorted to. He moved to lay the motion on the table.
This motion was agreed to by yeas, 26; nays, 19.
VERBAL FALSE PRETENSE.
Mr. Ernest's bill [S. 12] to define the crime of false pretense coming up in regular order, it was read the third time.
On motion of Mr. BROWN the emergency clause was stricken out.
Mr. HENRY opposed the passage of the bill, stating the proposed change is to allow any person to be convicted by making any false pretense, even under a verbal presentation, the law being now that it must be under a written pretense. He opposed allowing the criminal law to be used by persons to force the collection of a debt; as would be the case under an act such as proposed by this bill.
Mr. BELL favored the bill. It simply places the law back to where it was previous to 1881, and he regarded it as an omission by mistake. He saw no reason why the getting of money or goods by verbal false pretense should not be punishable. Another change proposed is imprisonment from one to seven instead of from two to ten, as now.
Mr FOULKE joined in the desire that the bill may pass. Under the present law a party can be punished only where the false pretense is written, while in the bill the punishment is also for oral false pretense. The fact a law may be abused is no reason why a good and salutary law should not be enacted. There is a hiatus in the present law that ought to be filled, and this will fill it.
Mr. GRAHAM has noticed that under the law of 1881 the people are left without remedy from a class of swindlers. He could conceive of no case where this bill would interfere with the rights of an honest man.
Mr. HENRY remembered this clause was left out of the code at the last session on purpose, and it ought to remain out. It persons would ask for the representation to be put in writing they can be protected under the law as it now is. The law is right as it stands, because the question of conviction is in writing and does not depend upon the testimony of persons who may be angry.
The bill finally passed the Senate by yeas, 33; nays, 13.
[Messrs. Spann and Voyles were appointed a Committee to invite Mexican soldiers to visit the Senate Chamber on motion of the former. ]
TELEPHONE MESSAGES.
Mr. Graham's bill [S. 32] to punish persons who disclose messages or conversation passing over telephone wires, being read the third time-
Mr. GRAHAM said bill was very nearly the law governing the transmission of telegraph messages.
The bill passed the Senate-yeas, 41; nays, 2.
Mr. RISTINE'S bill [S. 22] to amend Section 5,097 of the Code of 1881 concerning the construction of McAdam and other roads (see page 29 of the Brevier Reports), with an amendment adopted heretofore allowing 2 percentum of each $100 valuation, being read the third time-
Mr. SAYRE objected to the 2 percentum tax-the entire legal limit-being permitted for the buildup of gravel roads
Mr. WILLARD made the point of order that the bill does not refer to the section of the Revised Statute proposed to be amended.
The PRESIDENT pro tem. directed the Secretary to have the section of the Revised Statute replaced.
Mr FOULKE intended the rule which he drew up to be for the convenience of the public more than for the Senate.
JUROR QUALIFICATIONS.
Mr. Overstreet's bill [S. 20] relating to the qualification of Petit Jurors was read the third time.
Mr. HENRY said the bill was the re-enactment of a law of 1875 or 1877. There is a question whether it is in force or not. This law is held to be repealed by implication.
Mr. FOULKE objected to the emergency clause.
Mr. BELL thought the provisions of this bill commends itself to everybody. It strikes at the professional Juror, who, under this bill can only get one strike a year at you anyhow.
Mr. OVERSTREET spoke a few words in favor of his bill, inaudible at the reporter's table.
The bill passed the Senate-yeas, 39; nays, 3.
The Senate Committee on Invitation appeared with the Mexican veterans, who were received by Senators standing. General Mahlon D. Manson, the Preside of the Association, responded to the welcome address of the Lieutenant Governor. Speeches were also made by Major Jonathan W. Gordon and Governor Porter. On Major James B. Mulkey's motion, and by a vote of the veterans present, Governor Porter and Lieutenant Governor Hanna were made honorary members of the Association, and invested with badges.
Mr. SPANN offered a resolution, which was adopted, recognizing the grand achievements of Mexican soldiers, and pledging the Senate's aid in obtaining from the General Government recognition for their services.
The Senate took a recess for interchange of courtesies-
And them came the adjournment.
