THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS
VOLUME TWENTY-TWO
INDIANA
LEGISLATURE.
IN SENATE.
MONDAY, Feb. 9, 1885 - 10 a.m.FISH LADDERS.
Mr. Sellers's bill [S 180] for the construction of fish ladders coming up in regular order it was read the second time.
Mr. WINTER moved to strike out the provision that each fish shall constitute a separate offense.
Mr. OVERSTREET: In all prosecutions I have ever witnessed under the fish law which provides that the offender shall pay a fine of $5 for each fish caught, he can always compromise with the prosecution by pleading guilty to catching one fish, even though he may have caught a wagonload.
Mr. SELLERS: I desire the law shall be effective, and if the amendment will make it so I have no objection.
Mr. WINTER: My idea in offering the amendment was to make the bill more effective. Where the penalty is so extreme the law is apt to be a dead letter. i would favor increasing the penalty from $10 to $50, and even from $75 to $200 It is a question in my mind whether a provision declaring that each fish caught shall be deemed a separable offense and not be unconstitutional, for in point of fact it is not separate, but one act, and it would be punishing a man more than once for the same offense.
The bill was ordered engrossed.
CHILDREN LABOR.
On motion by Mr. BAILEY his bill [S. 20] to prohibit the working of children under fourteen years in mills or manufactories, was taken up with a committee amendment to strike fourteen and insert twelve in lieu. He moved to amend so the bill shall stand as originally introduced.
Mr. HILLIGASS: we have a stave factory in our town employing about 100, many of whom are boys whose mothers are dependent upon them for support Many boys fourteen years of age are able to earn men's wages, and in many cases are getting the wages of men, and I take it the committee acted wisely in proposing to amend the bill by making its provisions apply to children under the age of twelve years.
Mr. WILLARD: As this an important question and should not be decided without a quorum of the Senate present, I move it be postponed.
Mr. MAY: I favor the amendment to the bill for the same reason stated by the gentleman from Huntington (Mr. Hilligass). In our county we have a large cotton factory which employs a large cotton factory which employs a large number of these boys - dozens of them - children of poor people, and boys fourteen years of age get good wages And some of them are employed around the coal mines. While it might be well enough to prevent children from overwork, I don't think boys fourteen years of age should be prevented from working in cotton mills and coal mines.
Mr. BAILEY: My amendment proposes to restore the bill to its original provision - fourteen years instead of twelve - as provided in the committee amendment. I consider it my duty to bring up the question and let the Senate decide it. It seems to me there can be no doubt but that the children under that age, with the provisions we have for public schools, should not be employed in work detrimental to their health and which breaks down their constitutions. And then they supplant men with families to support, and prevent such heads of families from obtaining the wages which are paid to these children page: 168[View Page 168] at a time of life when the children ought to be in school. I advocate this change because I was elected upon a platform that has in it the following clause - the third plank in the Democratic State platform [Reads.] That is one of the things we promised to do, and I believe we ought to keep these promises. If we change the age from 14 to 12 the efficiency of the bill is greatly destroyed.
Mr. CAMPBELL of Hendricks: The Senator has given some reasons why he favors his bill, and he gave the very one which I was suspicious of when he introduced it I was a boy once myself. I know men sometimes get jealous of boys when about to supplant them in the workshops, factories, and other fields of labor, but I believe in giving the boys a chance I believe if the boy can do the work of a man, it is not right to allow men to procure legislation by which boys shall be excluded from doing that work, therefore I favor fixing the age at 12, if we legislate at all on the subject and not say by law that he shall not have a fair chance.
Mr. SELLERS: The Senator from Hendricks has made my speech.
Mr. FOULKE: I think there is a reason why children under the age of fourteen should not be permitted to work in manufactories and mines. The purpose, which seems to be a laudable one in this measure, is to develop the mind of these children. Although it may be a hardship in some cases to prohibit boys of such age from helping to earn the living for the family, yet we should legislate in this matter, not for the present, but for the future. It is the future of the boy we should consider. Ordinarily I am in favor of letting every man take care of his own rights. At the same time it is within the legitimate domain of law to establish the time which a boy should be in school and during that time he should not be permitted to work in such places.
Mr. Magee: I think as little legislation as possible is the best. While I am in favor of the principle in the party platform, still I would like to vote for this bill with an amendment making a discrimination. I think it ought to be left somewhat to the discretion of the parent and to the child also. We ought not to make a cast iron rule which will deny all children this privilege In our city a great many boys obtain employment during school vacation, and many would like to do some little work rather than run on the commons In all mechanical trades the unions refuse to allow a man to employ only a given number of boys, and as years roll on we are losing that new element that should come into the several trades, and simply because the boys are denied this privilege. The ratio is so very small that in a few years the trade would run out if they were not imported from Europe or somewhere else.
Mr. McCLURE: It seems to me there is a strong tendency to interfere with the rights of heads o families, and an attempt to regulate their children in this respect. There are a great many instances where a child 14 years old and perhaps 12, can earn a living and earn a competence. It strikes me we ought to be very careful how we undertake to interfere with the jurisdiction of the heads of families ever their won children If the purpose is to provide for their education and to say when they may be sent to school how much better it would be get up a bill for compulsory education It would be much better than to undertake to interfere with the control of parents over their children, under the pretense of keeping them from this or that employment in order that they may be sent to school. I think it is absolutely impossible to enact a law that will do justice to all concerned and prevent children of that age form being employed in the difference avocations of life.
Mr. FAULKNER: I am opposed to the bill on general principles. I was a boy once myself, and I remember well when I worked for the pitiful sum of twenty cents a day to earn a living. I am for the boy first, last and all the time; and the whole theory of this bill in my judgment is wrong. I would rather vote for a bill to make the boys work and the men too. We have too many idle men and boys in my judgment.
Mr. BROWN: I am opposed to the bill on general principles also. It proposes to legislate in a way I don't feel like sustaining.
Mr. MARSHALL: I am opposed to the fourteen-year amendment, because a child ought to go to school until he is fourteen years of age, and if a law is passed that he shall keep out until he is fourteen, we have no law to put him in the school house. If we are to have a compulsory law in one way, we ought to have in the other. Another thing, it seems to me it is going too far toward interference in the family relation to say what a father shall have his child do and what he shall not have him do. Another thing, our country districts where the coal mines are located the schools are not in more than six months in length, and if we pass a law taking boys of fourteen years out of the coal mines and factories for xi months we have not sufficient amount of money in the school fund for the other half of the year. As the Senator from Ripley (Mr. Faulkner) says, I am opposed to i on general principles. I believe a boy should have a chance to make a dime or dollar whenever he can. And I think we ought to have laws to put them in school.
Mr. WILARD: I believe every boy ought to have an opportunity to enjoy the facilities for education which Indiana gives in so large a degree. I don't believe, on general principles, that the bill is right when we have these means of education. But I am not one of those who believe a party should get into power upon certain pledges, and once in power disregard those pledges. Upon on question presented before this Senate I have yielded my person convictions because it was a matter in the party platform and that was as to the necessity of a Consti page: 169[View Page 169] tutional Convention. The Democratic party declared against it, and although I conceive there is the greatest necessity for a convention I yielded my person idea. One of the promises it made to the workingmen for their votes, and upon which it obtained a large number of votes, was quoted by the Senator from Marion; that the Democratic party favors enactment of such laws as prohibit - prohibit - I call attention to that word - the employment - I call attention to that word - the employment of children under fourteen years of age in our manufactories, mines and workshops, and goes on state other matters it promises. I say now, no matter what party goes before the people and makes pledges of this kind, whether they be right or wrong (in this case I think it is right), ought not to come afterward, when it is in power by two-thirds, and refuse to fulfill that pledge. For that reason I am in favor of the amendment of the Senator from Marion.
Mr. YOUCHE: As has been said by several Senators, I am opposed, on general principles to this whole thing In most all cases, though there are exceptions, the test men are the results of industry in early life. If you want to spoil a boy put him in a situation where he won't be employed. I have to find the first ruined man who can point to early employment as the cause of his ruin. But many men reason of not having been employed when boys have gone to ruin. I appeal to Senators on the Democratic side if they feel that obligation in the Democratic platform was dictated by a consideration for the best interests of the boys. We know that is not the case. The purpose of that provision, I am sorry to say, was to prevent competition - to make more employment for full grown men by keeping employment from boys. It is pampering to men who have votes and can make themselves felt in party conventions to the detriment of boys who have no votes.
Mr. DUNCAN, of Hamilton, moved to amend so that the prohibition should be only during school term in the district in which such manufactories are situated He said: I am also in favor of giving the boys a chance. During the session of the public schools I believe the boys ought to be protected so they will have the benefit of the public schools; but when the public school is not in session the best thing to do with a boy is to put him to work, and with this idea I offer this amendment.
Mr. SELLERS: I move that this bill and amendments be recommitted.
Mr. HILLIGASS (after dinner): I think we had better dispose of this question now, I am in favor of the bill as reported from the committee, placing the age at twelve. I think we owe a duty to ourselves and tot he laboring, as well as to the children of the State. Whatever may be said with reference to the position of political parties on this question, I think the honors are easy. I remember when the Senator from Wayne was elected to the Senate his party stood upon the same kind of a platform as we did at the last election. So on that score I think we have a very fair stand-off. I undertake to say the period allotted for the education of children is ample, from six to twelve years, and affords time for an average education. I think we would do a great injustice and wrong by cutting off a majority of the boys in this State from employment by the passage of the amendment. We ought not to undertake the parental care of children between twelve and fourteen years of age in reference to this matter. I don't think it our privilege to legislate these people out of employment. Boys ought to be educated to work as well as educated in mind. If we pass a law of this kind affecting children under the age of fourteen we will be encouraging idleness among that class which depend upon their labor for maintenance. As far as we can go with safety to ourselves is to pass a law prohibiting the employment in manufactories of children less than twelve years of age, hence the committee concluded we ought to so amend the bill. I hope the bill will be ordered engrossed as it came from the committee.
Mr. BAILEY: I have been somewhat surprised to learn from a number of Senators of their absolute disregard of the platform upon which they run and have been elected. But with reference to the merits of the bill, in view of the fact that we have in large cities - in this city from 5,000 to 8,000 men out of employment, and in whose places boys of twelve to fourteen years of age are placed, at wages from thirty to forty cents a day, there should be some legislation, viewing from that point, that would put them back in the schools and thus give opportunity for employment to men who need money for themselves and for their families. It has been said by the Senator from Ripley and others, that boys ought to be encouraged. I agree with that sentiment, but is it better to encourage boys to make money or rather encourage them to lay a good foundation for proper citizenship?
Mr. SELLERS changed his motion: That the bill be referred to the Committee on Health and Vital Statistics.
INSANE WOMEN TRANSPORTATION.
The special order supervened, being the bill S. 73 - see page 126.
Mr. FAULKNER objected to the Superintendent having the appointment of the attendant. Every insane person has some, acquaintance, male or female, who can handle them, while others can not. They will all get to the hospital soon enough without the Superintendent selecting a person to bring them.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings, referred to a charge of $200 for taking a patient to the hospital from Vanderburg County, when the cost should not exceed $40, and declared this bill to be a proposition in the direction of economy. He deprecated the practice of page: 170[View Page 170] transporting insane women to and from the hospital in charge of male attendants Experience has thought those in charge of the insane that it is better to have the shackles stricken from the limbs of this class of unfortunates. The time has come when the humane policy proposed by this bill should be pursued In most cases insane women have no female friend desirous of accompanying them, except where they have the benefit of wealth or the influence of family name. The Superintendent of hospitals will select one trained and accustomed to the treatment of the insane, and he would not refuse the wishes of the friends at home.
Mr. McCULLOUGH: The theory of this bill is all wrong. The expense of transportation is taxed against the county, and the principle that would permit a State officer to make charge for such service as against the county is certainly wrong. Under the present law, a relative can now, by request, accompany the patient, and receive the prescribed fee. There is no use for such legislation as this.
Mr. WEIR: This is a subject that does not demand any legislation whatever He believed it simply for the purpose of increasing employes at the asylums of making several counties pay their transportation expenses. He moved to lay the bill and amendments on the table.
The motion was agreed to by yeas 24, nays 14.
Mr. FOWLER, explaining his affirmative vote: I am heartily in sympathy with the principles of this bill, but like the Senator from Laporte (Mr. Weird) I don't think there is any necessity for the legislation on this subject I think probably the present statute is sufficient, and would have no special objection to having a bill of this character passed. I am opposed to the second section, and without the amendment must vote against the whole bill. I shall vote "aye" at present.
Mr. WINTER, in explanation of his vote said: I desire to have an opportunity to support the pending amendment; and am not prepared to say that the second section of the bill is not necessary and proper, therefore I vote "no."
The vote was announced as above.
MORTON'S MONUMENT.
The following message from the Governor was laid before the Senate:
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
INDIANAPOLIS, Feb. 9, 1885.
GENTLEMEN OF THE SENATE -
I have the honor to transmit herewith a copy of a communication of the 8th inst., received by me from Hon Conrad Baker and others, trustees of the Morton Monumental Association, presenting to the State of Indiana the bronze statue of the late Governor Oliver P. Morton, recently erected in the Governor's Circle in this city, and asking that the same be accepted by the General Assembly now in session, as the property of the State, with a request that I will transmit to you such communication, or a copy thereof. The same is submitted to you for such action as you may consider necessary. A communication similar to this has been transmitted to the House of Representatives.
ISAAC P. GRAY, Governor.
The letter referred to in the foregoing was as follows:
To his Excellency, Isaac P. Gray, Governor of Indiana:
DEAR SIR -
The undersigned, Trustees of the Morton Monumental Association, beg leave to say that, soon after the death of the late Oliver P. Morton, an effort was set on foot to raise funds with which to erect a monument to his memory, and an association was formed for that purpose. The association subsequently determined that the structure to be erected should consist of a statue of Governor Morton to be placed in some public pace in the city of Indianapolis in January, 1884, a bronze statue was completed and erected int he Governor's Circle, in the city of Indianapolis, where it now is. The cost of the structure was between $13,000 and $14,000 and has been paid for mainly out of voluntary contributions of the people of this State. Acting on behalf of the contributors of the fund, we desire to present, and do hereby present, the statue to the State of Indiana, and ask that it may be accepted by the General Assembly of the State, now in session, as the property of the State, and that such protection may be given to the structure as is accorded to other public property. Trusting that your Excellency will transmit this communication, or copies thereof, to the General Assembly, with such recommendation in relation thereto as your own judgment may approve, we are very respectfully yours.
CONRAD BAKER, W.R. HOLLOWAY, JOHN COBURN, W.A. KETCHUM, E.B. MARTINDALE, J.A. WILDMAN.
Indianapolis, Feb. 8, 1885.
On motion by Mr. FOULKE a concurrent resolution was adopted accepting the gift.
BALLOT-BOX PROTECTION.
On motion by Mr. Campbell, of Hendricks, his bill [S.4] to procure fair elections was taken up and read the second time. He asid: Experience has taught us that the present law will not be enforced because of the extreme punishment provided. There is no subject upon which there is more need of legislation, and legislation of a kind that can be enforced. It has been said that the Republican party bought the State in 1880. Whether that be true or not the Democratic party have the State now, and you don't want us to buy it back. I hope to live to see the day when an election can be held that is reasonably fair and free from corruption. It is admitted that ten per centum of the voters of the State absolutely out their votes on the market; that they sit in groups till late in the evening of election day, waiting for the highest bidder. I say such a class ought to be disfranchised, and I believe the men who tempt them by offering them oney are also guilty of crime. I hope this bill will be passed.
Mr. MAGEE: There ought to be some way to prevent frauds upon the ballot-box. I believe this purchasable commodity that the Democratic party has had to wrestle with for many years is the result of the policy provided by the party of which the page: 171[View Page 171] Senator from Hendricks is a member. I am in favor of some of the provisions of the bill. I think a man who sells his vote is a dangerous element in the commonwealth, and he ought to be disfranchised because he has ceased to be a free, upright and honorable man. I would have the Trustee or Sheriff, or some officer charged with the duty of the posting up copies of this bill, printed in large type, in every voting precinct.
Mr. FOWLER: I am heartily in favor of the bill, but am afraid the question of disfranchisement goes too far. I think there will be no great danger of doing injustice to anyone. I offer an amendment to fix a minimum sum for the fine - not less than $10, and strike out the natural life disfranchisement and insert in lieu, "any determinate period."
Mr. DUNCAN, of Tipton, obtained the floor.
And the Senate adjourned.
