THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
VOLUME TWENTY-TWO.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
IN SENATE.
WEDNSESDAY, Feb. 25, 1885 - 9:30 a.m.ANOTHER JUDICIAL CIRCUIT.
On motion by Mr. PETERSON the bill [H. R. 66] fixing court terms in the Twenty-first (Fountain and Warren), Twenty-second (Montgomery), and Forty-seventh (Vermillion and Parke) Judicial Circuits was read the second time by title and the third time by sections under a dispensation of the constitutional restriction.
Mr. OVERSTREET: In view of the fact a committee has been appointed to redistrict the State for judicial purposes, it seems to me there ought not to be new circuits created. There will be too many on hand, and they will be hard to get rid of. At the last Septembar September term of the courts there was but little business done anywhere in the State on account of the political canvass, and now use they are a little overflowing it is not to be wondered at. There are enough circuits already established to do all the business of the State with dispatch.
Mr. FOWLER: I have some knowledge of the business of some of the counties proposed to be created in new circuits. The bar of Montgomery County is not unanimous on the measure. Park and Vermillion have about three weeks' court in each, and I understand that is ample time to transact all the business in those counties; indeed, there is not more than two-thirds labor in counties for a Judge to perform. And the committee appointed to redistrict the State ought not to be hampered by the creation of new districts.
Mr. WILLARD: I have some experience with committees appointed to sit during the recess. Last session there was a committee appointed on prison convict labor, and yet to-day that subject is no better digested than it was two years ago. It is simply impracticable; the committee men can not afford to leave their private business without pay, to attend to such matters. I have never cast my vote for a new circuit, but as the county of Montgomery is a year and a half behind with court business, it would be practical a denial of the constitutional provision that justice shall be dispensed speedily and without delay, unless relief is granted. I think the bill ought to pass.
Mr. MARSHALL: The people should have justice meted out to them, and it seems to be an utter impossibility for Montgomery County to get along without the relief asked for in this bill.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks: I understand the Senators from these districts not only advocate this bill, but state there is a necessity for it, and I shall vote in favor of it.
Mr. HILLIGASS: I understand there is a necessity for this bill and consequently shall vote for it. There is no State in the Union but has more courts and different courts than the State of Indiana.
Mr. McCULLCUGH: There are less than 8,000 voters in Montgomery, and there are 500 000 in the State. Upon that basis there would have to be more than sixty Judges to do the work of the State, to be paid out of the State Treasury. I am opposed to this measure. There it nothing to show these counties should have Judges they ask for.
Mr. BAILEY: In Montgomery County they are over 500 cases behind, including four murder trials, and there is an urgent necessity for the passage of this bill.
page: 249[View Page 249]Mr. WILLARD demanded the a previous question.
The demand was seconded, and under its operations bill passed by yeas 80, nays 13.
Mr. FAULKNER: Though it has been insinuated that those who may vote against this measure are parsimonious and so on, I am not influenced by any such talk, and I vote "no."
Mr. MAGEE, being informed they can't very well get along up there without this bill, voted "aye."
Mr. WEIR: Out of deference to the presiding officer and to the Senator from Montgomery, and from information I have received from private parties, I vote "aye."
The vote was announced as above.
So the bill finally passed.
CIVIL SERVICE REFORM.
Mr. Foulke's Civil Service bill [S. 1 - see pages 18 and 205] was read the third time and failed to pass - yeas, 17; nays, 24.
Mr. RAHM: In explanation of my vote I will say: Although the author introduced this bill for the sake of civil service reform, I do not believe he is in favor of it himself, because when we had the Metropolitan Police bill before the Senate last session, which was a civil service reform measure, he was opposed to it. I believe the Republican party needs civil service reform, and very badly, but inasmuch as the Democrats have control of the State and National governments, I think it is fair to let President Cleveland and Governor Gray and the balance of the Democracy show that there is a necessity for civil service reform. I believe they will reform everything to the satisfaction of the majority of the people. As this bill is for buncombe anyhow, I vote "no."
Mr. SELLERS, when his name was called, said: I am in favor of civil service reform, but I desire it made applicable only to Democrats, and as this bill makes no such provision I vote "no."
The vote was then announced as above, so the bill was rejected.
DRIVEWAYS OVER RAILROADS.
Mr. Youche's bill [S. 12] to authorize owners of tracts of land separated by the right of way of a railroad company to construct wagon and driveways over the same, was read the third time.
Mr. YOUCHE: I introduced this bill at the request of a gentleman who is affected by a railroad running through his land, not giving him a crossing. Since then it has occurred to me it may be unconstitutional. If it were constitutional we could all vote for it.
Mr. FOULKE: The right of way of a railroad company is said to be not a fee simple, but an easement only; yet there are Supreme Court decisions declaring that the right of way of a railroad company is exclusive. The matter is not wholly free from doubt.
M. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks: If the parties under this bill could in any way attempt to interfere with the right of way of a railroad, it would be objectionable, but I think the bill ought to pass in the interest of the public at large, and let the question constitutionality come up afterward if occasion should require.
On motion by Mr. YOUCHE the bill was passed over informally, to give friends of the measure a further opportunity to examine its provisions.
INSANE HOSPITAL CONTINGENT FUND.
Mr. McClure's bill, S. 15, being read the third time -
Mr. McCLURE: On the first day of the session I introduced this bill: the Senator from Jennings also introduced a similar bill, which I returned to the Senate, but it was voted down. I requested the Senator from Marion (Mr. Winter) to write a bill including the provisions of the two, which he did, and this is the bill. It is a just one. It is for the purpose of having a contingent fund sat aside from which the Superintendent of Insane Hospital may draw from month to month to pay contingent expenses of the institution.
Mr. WINTER: The bill provides that $2,000 shall be set apart out of the appropriation for the asylum as a contingent fund for the use of the Superintendent of the Hospital for the Insane. The necessity of it is stated in a letter from the present Superintendent, Dr. W. B. Fletcher. [Reads.] During every month he borrows from $500 to $1,500, which he disburses for this institution, as I understand. I don't think that sort of responsibility ought to be placed upon him. The Board of Trustees, as I am informed, are in favor of this bill.
Mr. THOMPSON: I am satisfied of the propriety of passing this bill. This will release the Superintendent from considerable trouble.
The bill passed by yeas 38, nays 0.
CHILDREN LABOR.
Mr. Bailey's bill [S. 20 - see pages 167 and 210] to prohibit the employment of any child under the age of twelve years in mining or manufacturing companies, was read the third time and failed to pass for want of a constitutional majority by yeas 25, nays 15
Pending the roll-call -
Mr. BRWON BROWN , in explanation of his vote, said: Believing this to be a vicious bill, I vote "no."
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph: If this bill proposed to state what children under twelve years of age should do; that is, if it required them to be in school, I should be in favor of the bill, but as it simply provides that they shall not be at work to aid their parents in providing for the family home - in other words, as it leaves them to run without employment on the streets - I believe it is vicious legislation, and therefore vote "no."
page: 250[View Page 250]Mr. JOHNSON of Tippecanoe, when his me was called, said: I think the best feature of the bill was destroyed when the limitation of fourteen years was stricken out. I also, like the Senator from St. Joseph, would be in favor of another clause for compulsory education under the age of fourteen years, but as it is the best we can do I vote "aye."
The vote was then announced as above.
So the bill failed to pass.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
DRIVEWAYS OVER RAILROADS.
Mr. YOUCHE submitted an amendment to his bill, requiring the owner to keep the gates securely closed and be liable for any damage or accident consequent upon negligence of the owner or employes. [S. 12.]
Mr. WEIR: That amendment would make a man liable without being in fault. Suppose some one trespassing should leave a gate open, it might make the owner of the land liable to heavy damages. I am in favor of the bill just as reported from the committee.
Mr. OVERSTREET suggested a difficulty. Suppose the gate is left open, it must be shown that it was negligently left open.
The amendment was agreed to upon a division - affirmative, 22; negative, 10 - Mr. Youche insisting he had unanimous consent this forenoon to so amend.
The bill passed by yeas 29, nays 7.
LIVE STOCK CORPORATIONS
The bill [H. R. 70 - see pages 189 and 194] coming up on the third reading -
Mr. FOULKE explained the provisions of the bill as he did on page 189.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings: I have examined this bill, heard both sides, and I think it ought not to become a law. Foreigners may assist in the organization of such corporations - as many as may be possible to organize. There is no question that if this bill becomes a law in less than five years the entire agricultural interest in the State will be controlled by corporations of this kind so far as the raising of live stock is concerned. I do not believe the Legislature dare to lay its bands upon the agricultural interest and say it shall be controlled by corporate powers. If this bill be enacted into a law there will be no reason why persons may not come to the next Legislature, asking to be incorporated for the purpose of raising wheat and corn in Indiana. Step by step are the people losing control and being overshadowed by corporations. This is the worst bill which has been introduced in this body, though I believe it comes from pure yet mistaken motives. One of great objections to this bill is that it gives the power to corporations to buy up real estate in Indiana, and if it becomes a law in less than five years millions of acres will be owned by corporations, and a corporation never dies; it has neither blood nor brains, soul nor heart. I insist on the defeat of this bill.
Mr. FOWLER: I see no danger in creating a stock corporation of this character. I anticipate no trouble in that respect, and the other provisions will be sanitary.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph: I believe that this proposition to throw the importing and trading in imported stock into the hands of large corporations must be of great harm to the farmers of this State, who are as much interested in the raising and selling of stock as they are in the raising of grain. If monied corporations are to take lands, and with a capital stock of $250,000, which by surplus may be raised to any amount, are to take this business, the farmers who are conducting it in a small but profitable way must be injured, as for the last few years profits on grain have been small, and farmers are more and more looking to fine stock for profits. The agricultural interests are paramount to all others, and I hope this bill in the interests of monied men and against agricultural interests will not pass
Mr. MAGEE demanded the previous question.
The Senate seconded the demand, and under its operation the bill failed to pass, for want of a constitutional majority - yeas, 24; nays, 17.
Mr. BROWN, when his name was called, said: Beleiving Believing this bill if it passes would be a dangerous law to the agricultural interests of the State, I vote "no"
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks: Believing that this bill if it passes will promote the agricultural interests of the people of Indiana, I vote "aye."
Mr. FOULKE: I would like to say in explanation of my vote, that when this bill was originally introduced I had grave fears that general stock raising business would interfere with the agricultural business, but I think we have hedged that around so as not to endanger competition, except as to importing and breeding from imported cattle, and in as much as I think it may be productive of good in that way, I vote "aye."
The vote was then announced as above.
So the bill failed to pass.
SOLDIERS' ORPHANS' HOME
On motion of Mr. SMITH, of Jennings, his bill [S. 338] authorizing the Governor to appoint Trustees for the Soldiers' Orphans' Home and Asylum for Feeble-Minded Children, was taken up under a suspension of the rules - yeas, 38; nays, 1 - and read the second time by title.
He said: I offer an amendment, at the suggestion of the committee which is making the investigation. One great cause of trouble has been a conflict between the power of the Trustee and Superintendent to discharge employes. This gives that power to the Superintendent.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. ADKISON moved that the Trustees be chosen from the two political parties casting the highest number of votes.
page: 251[View Page 251]Mr. WILLARD: I demand the previous question.
The demand for the previous question was seconded, and under its operation -
The amendment [Mr. Adkison's] was rejected by yeas 20, nays 24.
The bill [S. 338] was read the third time and passed by yeas 40, nays 3
THE DEFICIENCY BILL.
On motion of Mr. WILLARD the House message announcing the refusal of the House to concur in the Senate amendments to the Deficiency bill [H. R 327] and asking a committee of free conference was taken up (without reading) and the Senate adhered to its amendments. The Lieutenant Governor made the conference committee on the part of the Senate to consist of Messrs. Willard and Youche.
ATTORNEY GENERAL FEES.
On motion of Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks, his bill [S. 302] in relation to fees of the Attorney General was taken up under a suspension of the constitutional rule - yeas, 39; nays, 0 - read the second time by title, the third time by sections, and passed the Senate by yeas 37, nays 0.
CLAIMS AGAINST MUNICIPALITIES
Mr. Moon's bill [S. 34] in relation to claims against municipal corporations coming up -
Mr. BAILEY: I regard this bill with suspicion. The Senator who introduced it says he does not know much about it; that he introduced it by request.
Mr. DAVIS: The bill requires that claims shall be presented to the corporation before suit be brought, etc.
I know no objectionable features, and I think the bill ought to pass.
Mr. WINTER: Persons frequently meet with an accident on streets, and the plaintiff has the right to join in an action all persons he may think liable. This bill cuts that off, and the claimant would be compelled to sue all in a separate suit, which might result in no recovery against any.
Mr. WILLARD: This bill provides the only remedy shall be an appeal from the section of the Common Council, and the result will be Councils will throw the onus on the claimant. I don't believe this bill should pass.
Mr. FOULKE: A skillful lawyer, under this bill, could keep a claimant out of his money for a long time. It is much worse than existing laws.
On motion by Mr. Smith, of Jennings, the bill was indefinitely postponed.
On motion by Mr. Smith, of Jay, the constitutional rule was suspended - yes, 36; nay, 1 - and his bill [S. 192] concerning appeals to the Supreme Court, was read the second time by title, the committee amendments agreed to, the third time by section, and passed by yeas 35, nays 4.
The Senate adjourned till 9:30 to-morrow.
