THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
VOLUME TWENTY-TW0
INDIANA
LEGISLATURE.
IN SENATE.
THURSDAY, Feb. 12, 1885 - 10 a m.SENATE BILLS PASSED.
Mr. Bailey's bill [S. 119] that recorded wills in one county may be recorded in another, was read the third time and passed by yeas 44, nays 0.
Mr. Duncan's, of Brown, bill [S. 132] to legalize acts of Brown County Commissioners, was read the third time and passed by yeas 43, nays 0.
Mr. Brown's bill [S 120] to raise funds to pay expenses of teachers' institutes by charging a fee of fifty cents for examination of teachers desiring license, was read the third time and passed by yeas 40, nays 7.
Mr. Winter's bill [S. 129] to amend section 2,505 R.S. being read the third time -
Mr. WINTER: I will say a few words in explanation of this bill Under the law when a person makes provision for his wife in a will she may elect to take under the will or under the law which we all know is one-third of the real estate. The law says the widow shall not have both A weak place in the law is there is no provision for the manner in which that selection shall be made or as to its being filed in any public office, so the public may know what election she has made; and so there is great doubt and uncertainty about the title of real estate. And to put at rest the doubt and uncertainty as to whether the widow has taken under the law or under the will, provides the election shall be made in writing within six months signed by her, acknowledged before a proper officer and recorded in the record of wills.
Mr. DAVIS: There is no provision in this bill for giving the widow notice of the existence of a will.
Mr. WINTER: If a man and wife have been on such terms that she does not know of his will she wouldn't want to take under the will at all.
Mr. YOUCHE: It seems to me six months is a short time to allow her to make her selection. She may know of the will, but have no knowledge of this law. So if she happens to pass by making a selection for six months she would irretrievably lose the benefit of this provision.
The bill passed the Senate by yeas 43, nays 3.
Mr. Davis' bill [S 137] to amend Section 1 330 R S., was read the third time and passed by yeas 42 nays 1 Mr D explaining: The law provides no execution shall issue upon a judgment until the proceedings of the court are drawn up, read in open court and signed. The practice in some courts is not to read the daily record for weeks. This bill requires the Judge, when requested by either party, to sign the record that judgment may be made up.
ANOTHER NEW JUDICIAL CIRCUIT.
Mr. Hilligass' bill [S. 139] so as to make Adams and Jay the Twenty-sixth, Huntington and Wells the Twenty eighth and Grant and Blackford the Forty-seventh Judicial Districts being read the third time -
Mr SMITH, of Jay: It is an absolutely necessity that these two districts be changed They are the largest in the State. The business is behind, and it is utterly impossible to keep it up.
Mr. FOWLER: If this bill passes, this Legislature ought to create ninety-two circuits and give to each county in the State a Judge.
Mr. McCULLOUGH opposed the bill with all the force he knew how. If this outrage page: 185[View Page 185] is perpetrated upon the taxpayers of Indiana, as similar outrages have been heretofore, the taxpayers ought to damn the Legislature for it. He moved to recommit the bill with instructions that four Judges shall do the work of the eight counties of Adams Jay Huntington, Wells, Grant, Blackford Delaware and Randolph.
Mr. HILLIGASS: There was an increase of over 400 pages of record last year over the year previous in the county of Huntington Senators opposing the bill need no relief The Senators representing the six counties Interested in this bill are unanimously asking for this relief. We are asking more than our constituents demand. the bill was not introduced to balance political parties or to place any friend on the bench The courts were blockaded by business. The pages of record in Huntington County increased from 808 in 1874 to 1,200 in 1884 and the voting population had increased 2,112 in the same period. The business of Northern Indiana was increasing with wonderful rapidity, and the Senate could not afford to cripple it by legal delays.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings: The people of Indiana are paying $50,000 a year more for Circuit Judges and Prosecuting Attorneys than they ought to. We have forty-five Circuit Judges in the State, paid at a salry of $2 500 a year. Thirty judges can do every bit of business now before the courts or that will come before the courts in twenty years. there is not a circuit in the State that can show an increase of business within the past two years; on the contrary, it has been decreased to an extent that was driving lawyers out of practice. Even in Jefferson County, with the city of Madison in its limit, the business was transacted in one week out of the four allowed by law for a term of court Judges everywhere were under worked.
Mr. SHIVELY: The reasons why this bill should pass, and why, in my opinion, there should be a new circuit created out of these counties have been so well and ably stated by the Senator from Huntington, that I think it unnecessary for me to repeat any of those reasons, or offer any in addition. I will state, however, that the judicial circuit which I, in part, have the honor to represent upon this floor, is a large one It is composed of the counties of Huntington, Grant, and Blackford I am not prepared to give the number of inhabitants but I do know there were about 15,000 votes cast at the last election in that district. But as far as my observation is concerned, the decision of such questions as this, either by the number of voters or population, amounts to nothing. I was informed by the Judge of that district, in this chamber a few days ago that there was at this time about 1,400 cases upon the docket in these circuits, and he said if we do not obtain relief many of these cases must be prolonged in court for two or three years. Now, Mr President, it is for this Senate to say whether any relief shall be afforded or not. I trust the necessary relief will be granted by the passage of this bill.
Mr. MAGEE: If the people demand this relief they should have it, and who here knows better than the Senators representing those counties The base for litigation can not be made on wealth and population. The speedier trials can be had the less business there will be. Counties south of the National Road have twenty-nine Circuit Judges, while north of the National Road there are but seventeen Judges. The expenses are paid out of the general fund, but the expense should not weigh against the necessities of the district.
Mr. FOULKE: Justice is a thing one can't pay too much for. Two thousand five hundred dollars ought not to stand in the way of getting justice administered speedily. The Senators interested say this legislation is demanded, and their statement should be received as true.
Then came a recess for dinner.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay: These people asking relief by this bill are denied the justice which the passage of this bill would give them. The Judges of the several circuits are not lazy men, but they earn evry cent of money they receive. If some were paid by the case they try, they would not get as much as the ordinary Justice of the Peace. it is asking too much of any one Judge to do the business in this Circuit. He opposed the motion to recommit as one fatal to the bill.
Mr. FOWLER did not believe there is any necessity for the passage of this bill. Thirty Judges if their labor is equalized can do the business of the State.
Mr. HILLIGASS: This bill asks for no more than is justly due, and no more than the business in these judicial circuits require. He submitted figures to substantiate his statements The court business in his county is one year behind hand.
Mr. MAY: The people are occasionally imposed upon in the creation of judicial circuits. He cited an instance where a Circuit Judge had not a jury trial in one of the counties of the circuit for twelve months, and but one trial - a divorce case - which went by default.
Mr. WILLARD demanded the previous question.
The demand was seconded by the Senate and under its operations the motion to reconsider was rejected by yeas 18, nays 31.
The bill passed the Senate by yeas 30, nays 18.
SENATE BILLS PASSED.
Mr. Zimmerman's bill [S. 159] to amend Section 3 628 R. S. was read the third time and passed by yeas 41, nays 2.
Mr. ZIMMERMAN, explaining: This bill provides that Directors of turnpike companies which may desire to appropriate any public highway shall give fifteen days' notice page: 186[View Page 186] prior to the regular term of the County Commissioners. This is to protect people who live along the line of any highway the Directors of turnpike companies propose to use, so that in case of unwillingness on the party of any interest they may have a hearing before the Board of Commissioners and a chance to remonstrate. In our section of the country turnpike roads are mostly toll roads, and frequently companies obtain control of highways against the wish of people along the line. This bill would stop that abuse. It also provides that notices shall be posted, one at the Court House and four along the line of such highway.
Mr Fowler's bill [S 169] to amend section 650 of the code was read for the third time and passed by yeas 43, nays 1, Mr. Fowler stating the object is to cut off the voluminous amount of testimony sent up to the Supreme Court in order to get a ruling on the instructions of the Court below.
Mr. Rahm's Farm Tax bill [S. 174] - see pages 138 and 142] was read the third time and passed by yeas 38 nays 2.
Mr. Sellers' Fish Ladder bill [S. 180 - see page 167 of these reports] was read the third time and passed by yeas 34 nays 7.
Mr. Winter's bill [S. 182] to abolish the offices of City Assessor and Treasurer in all cities of over 70,000 inhabitants, was read the third time and passed by yeas 42, nays 10, Mr. W. explaining: It only applies to the city of Indianapolis, and is a bill which has been demanded by the citizens of this city for some-time. The bill has been carefully prepared. It has been submitted to the Auditor of this county, has been examined by him, and its provisions are such, according to his statement and my own belief, as will be found to work well in practice.
Mr. Foulke's bill [S. 191] to restrain the manufacture, sale and use of dangerous explosives, was read the third time and passed by yeas 29, nays 8.
INDIANAPOLIS UNION DEPOT.
Mr. Winter's Union Railway bill [S. 189] being read the third time -
Mr. OVERSTREET: I concede there is a great necessity for a larger union depot in this city, and that it can't be built without the vacation perhaps of streets and alleys and the condemnation of property, but I don't think to accomplish that end the Senate ought to strike down the rights of private citizens without giving them a hearing. Under this bill property can be condemned in fee simple, streets and alleys vacated and the title in fee simple vested in the corporation, and the owners of property have no right to appeal. It does seem to me the right to appeal ought to be given to citizens who might feel themselves aggreived.
Mr. FOULKE: I feel favorably inclined to this bill, but if there is any doubt as to its provisions properly protecting the rights of individuals I think it would be well, and I move to refer it to a special committee of three to report it back to morrow, and that its consideration be made a special order for to-morrow afternoon at 2 o'clock.
Mr. WINTER: Instead of striking down the rights of property holders this bill affords a greater protection to property-holders here than anywhere in the State of Indiana as against railroads. The whole theory of allowing railroads to take possession of property is that it is for the benefit of the public at large. If every citizen had the right to take an appeal I would like to know when a railroad could be built. One would take an appeal after another and the result would be the railroad would have to stand and wait until these cases were decided, before the first nail could be driven for a union depot. The effect would be to nullify this bill if a provision were inserted giving parties the right to appeal. I have distributed copies of this bill among a number of our citizens and requested them to state objections to it; this matter has been agitated for over a year. It has been discussed in the papers, but I have not heard of a single person who has the slightest objection to this bill.
Mr. YOUCHE: I am thoroughly in favor of the project to enable this Union Railway Company to build a union depot, but I think we should make haste slowly, and we should very careful to see that the rights of all parties are properly protected and cared for. It is necessary of course to condemn land, but this bill ought to provide for that according to the general law in force in this State at this time. We should give this company no greater rights as against private individuals than the general law
The motion to refer was decided on a division - affirmative 18, negative 18 - but the yeas and nays being demanded, ordered and again resulted yeas 21, nays 21. So the motion was rejected.
Mr. WINTER again called attention to the provisions of the bill.
The bill passed the Senate - yeas 39, nays []
Mr. OVERSTREET: In explanation of my vote, I desire to say I expect I [ ] much in favor of the contemplated Union Depot in this city as any citizen of Indianapolis, but I feel it could be built without depriving owners of property a hearing in the courts; and most all - one at least of the most prominent and influential citizens of Indianapolis who has property to be affected, feeling it is an outrage upon him, and believing he has just reasons for it, I am content to vote "no"
Mr. YOUCHE, when his name was called, said: There are some provisions in this bill which are so objectionable I don't feel justified in voting for it, and therefore I vote "no."
And then the Senate adjourned.
