AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. OVERSTREET moved to amend by striking out $10,000 and inserting -in lieu $4,000. Two years ago I voted for this claim as a whole without any personal examination. Since that time I have taken the pains to ascertain what would be right. In point of law there is nothing due, but inasmuch as the commissioners were able to let the contract at a more reasonable price, whatever was saved by that transaction I am willing this claimant shall have. The Commissioners s say if Mr. May had lived and performed his contract $4,000 would have been every dollar that would have been due, and they say there is no legal obligation to pay a single dollar on this claim.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay: I have come to the conclusion that this is a just claim and ought to be paid, every dollar of it. It is not right, for a sovereign State to refuse to allow a just claim preferred by any citizen.
Mr. McCULLOUGH: While it is the duty of the Legislature to devise just claims, the Legislature should see that no unjust claims are allowed. The State house Commissioners have the full power under the law to pay any debt contracted onaccount of the construction of that building. Then, let them pay all such just claims and not throw the responsibility on the Legislature.
Mr. FOULKE: Until there is some means of determining whether a claim not, we should not refuse a just claim because some unjust ones have been allowed. There is more danger in refusing to pass this bill to the engrossment than order it engrossed. This is an unsatisfactory way to ascertain the justice of claims, but we have no better way. The State-house Commissioners know better than any man whether this claim is just or not. The state can afford to do right whether it can be compelled to do right or not.
Mr. MAGEE: I had the honor two years ago to be the chairman of the committee which considered this claim, and I took exceptionable pains to examine it. It is unfortunate there is no tribunal before which citizens can go with their claims against the State. This is the only forum where claimants can press their claims. No man hearing the testimony could do otherwise, were he sitting as a juror, than to give judgment for the full amount of this claim. I know of no other way to ascertain facts for our guidance than to have a committee investigate and report as to the matter. I bottom this claim on what is right and what is just, and I support this bill and support it cordially. When he had concluded, he dmanded the previous question.
The Senate seconded the demand, and under its operations the motion to amend the bill by reducing the sum to $4,000 was rejected by - yeas 15, nays 34
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks, in explanation of his vote, said he should vote upon the recommendation of the committee and the State-house Commissioners.
Mr. FAULKNER said as he did not believe the State owes one dollar of this claim he should vote "no."
Mr. FOWLER: I shall vote for the amendment because it is preferable to the $10,000; but on the final passage I shall vote against the whole proposition.
Mr. SELLERS, when his name was called, said: There has been no testimony or argu- page: 245[View Page 245] ment showing the State owes Mrs. May $10,000 or $4,000; therefore I vote "no.'
Mr. WINTER: There has been no question that has embarrassed me more thaw this matter since the beginning of this session. The State should not deal with her subject as one private citizen would with another. I don't think a legal right enters into this question, but I have no doubt this claimant has a moral right to $4,000. The argument here has made me think she probably should have more than $4,000; therefore I vote "no."
The bill was ordered engrossed for the third reading by yeas 24, nays 24.
The Lieutenant Governor, in giving the casting vote, said: I feel, under the circumstances, the State of Indiana can not afford not to pay her just debts, therefore I vote "aye." [Applause.]
Mr. FAULKNER: Acting as a sworn juror to justice, if I thought it just, if everybody voted against it I should vote for it, but as I don't think it is just and as the committee all concur there to no legal obligation to pay this sum, therefore I vote "no."
Mr. OVERSTREET felt that $4,000 could be allowed without injury to the State, but feeling that $10,000 is not supported as a claim against the State he should vote "no."
Mr. YOUCHE: Two years ago voted against this allowance, and is more satisfied now that upon all questions of paying claims the State should not screen herself under the fact that she can not be sued; but such things should be decided as they are between man and man; therefore I vote "no."
Mr. ZIMMERMAN voted for the $4,000 but thinking the $10,000 too much, voted "no."
The vote was then announced as above.
So the bill was ordered engrossed.
