HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
TUESDAY, Feb. 10, 1885 - 10 a.m.ORPHAN AND INDIGENT FEMALE ASYLUMS.
Mr. SMITH's of Tippecanoe, bill [H. R. 84] coming up on the second reading, Mr. Smith said: This is a bill providing for an Orphan Asylum. It also provides for the care of indigent females. It provides that articles of incorporation may be filled with the Clerk or Recorder of the county, and whenever that i done they may ask aid of the county, but the article of association must declare in it that it is under no denominational control. The county may extend aid to them not to exceed one-third of the cost, and in case of dissolution the county has the first lien on the real estate. The bill was most carefully drawn by Judge chase, of Lafayette. The bill is an entirely proper one and will reflect credit of this General Assembly.
The bill passed by yeas 59, nays 26.
HEDGE FENCE TRIMMING.
Mr. Osborne's bill [H. R. 87] providing for the trimming of hedge fences coming up for a second reading -
Mr. FRENCH said: I think the requirements of this bill are too severe and the penalty too severe. Between now and then first day of next June the farmer must go out and cut down his hedge fences or suffer a fine of fifty cents a rod. Besides, in the next two or three months the farmers will have to plow, and they can not stop to at page: 177[View Page 177] tend to things of this kind. I say the bill is too severe, and I shall not vote for it.
Mr. BROOKS: I am opposed tot he bill.
Mr. ADAMS: I want to say just a word about this bill. For my part I am decidedly in favor of it. It is for the purpose of protecting the highways. I think it ought to be passed.
Mr. KELLISON moved to amend by striking out that part of the bill requiring a hedge to be kept within the limit of six feet under penalty.
On motion by Mr. GORDON the amendment was laid on the table.
The bill failed to pass by yeas -, nays - ,
AFTERNOON SESSION.
CORONERS' PER DIEM.
Mr. Ely's bill [H. R. 107] coming up on the second reading, he said: The bill is to equalize the pay of coroners The law now authorizes Coroners in but four counties to charge $10 for the first day and $2.50 for each subsequent day. In the other counties it allows $4 for the first day and $250 for each subsequent day. This bill allows all over the State alike $6 for the first day and $2 50 for each subsequent day.
This bill, the gentleman says, is too equalize the pay of Coroners Now, the bill provides for the cutting down of the pay of Coroners in four of the counties, but it increases the pay of every Coroner in eighty-eight counties. It seems to me when you take the two together you would have to vote to increase the pay of eighty eight officers in the State and only decrease the pay of four.
Mr. BROWNING: I think there is good reason why the bill should be defeated. In counties like Marion it just requires enough of a man's time to keep him from doing other work. The bill decreases the pay in four counties and increases it in all the rest. I am in favor of retrenchment and economy. I will therefore vote against the bill. It does not commend itself to me.
Mr. DONHOST demanded the previous question. The demand was seconded by the House, and under its operations the bill failed to pass
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.
Mr. Robertson' bill for the perfect organization of Boards of County Commissioners was defeated in the House of Reps. The bill provides that when a majority of the board are absent from any regular meeting the Sheriff and Auditor shall adjourn the meeting till next day; the same shall be done the next day if a majority is not present If on the third day a majority is still absent the Sheriff and Auditor shall proceed to appoint a board form the reputable citizens of the county, and from each unrepresented district
OFFICERS LIABILITY FOR COSTS.
The bill introduced by Mr. Reeves, of Bartholomew, exempting State officers and Prosecuting Attorneys from liability for costs when acting as relators for the State, came up on the third reading. Mr. Adams attacked the bill vigorously, declaring if the bill becomes a law, the State can sue a citizen, make him pay costs and he could not recover costs. He thought this was wrong, as the State is able to able to pay costs as any of her citizens. He thought there should be a provision for paying the costs out of the general fund. Mr. Reeves defended the measure, saying that the law requiring the Attorney General to pay costs when acting as relator for the State, naturally prevented him from bringing suits except in such cases where there is absolutely no doubt. The bill was defeated.
INTEREST AND USURY.
Mr. Williams' bill [H. R. 146] to fix the rate of interest at 6 per cent., coming up on the second reading -
Mr. SMITH of Tippecanoe, said: Indiana does not produce money. She raises cattle, corn and wheat, which she exchanges for money. Other States furnish money. Money seeks a financial level the same as water seeks a level. For, notwithstanding money in Ohio, Michigan, Illinois and Kentucky is higher than it is in the State of Indiana, money will flow into the other States unless is a redundancy. I do not think we ought to attempt to place any restrictions upon the price of money.
Mr. GOODING: I am in favor of this bill, It provides for 6 per cent, and n agreement for a higher rate would be valid unless the same be in writing and signed by the party to be charged thereby. I think this House intends to have a clean-cut bill for 6 per cent. and no more, whether in writing or not. I understand that this House is representing the people, and is in favor of 6 per cent. and no more. I will vote for the bill.
Mr. MOCK, of Wells: I think I would not do my duty if I did not make a statement for my people. I never loan money, but always borrow, and a great many of my constituents are in the same condition. I undertake to say that in one county I know of there was a loan association that received as high as fifty applications to borrow money of Easter companies, and contracted at 8 per cent. interest, and could not get it. I think as much of my people as anybody, but the fact is that Wells County has mortgages plastered all over lands - mortgages that will soon be due and calling for 8 per cent. interest and attorneys" fees. When the time comes to pay off these mortgages were are you going to get the money? We can not better the 9 per cent. law. Give us 6 per cent. and we can' get it at all. If you prohibit us paying 8 per cent. we can not get it. These are hard imes. I think it is entirely wrong to prohibit men from making contracts for a higher rate of interest if they want to do it.
