AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. BAILEY resumed and concluded his itemized statement.
Mr. McINTOSH: If the Senator had not attempted to lasso a part of the Senate holding over, I probably should not have said anything. Where are the taxpayers who do not represent much wealth in these townships? In these hard times and low prices for produce and stock this bill asks the tax payers to make up for losses sustained by the failure of banks. I intend to vote against this bill.
Mr. OVERSTREET: If this was a case in court I feel that I could successfully defeat gome of the allegations made in this case. I undertake to say these banks were interest-paying banks. I understand most of the money lost was lost in the Indiana Banking Company, and other banks would not hold the checks of that bank over night for months before its failure. It is said a large majority of taxpayers have signed these petitions. There are some eight or nine of these Trustees, and their bondsmen are a much larger number, and we know how petitions of this kind can be gotten up, especially where there are so many bondsmen. These petitioners ask us to compel those who are unwilling, to help to pay these losses - many of the them unable to pay. This would be one of the most dangerous precedents ever established, and the bill ought not to pass.
Mr. WINTER: If I was to consult my own feelings, I would keep silent and vote for the bill. I have no right to regard what might be considered as popular in my locality. It was never intimated before the election that this measure of relief would be presented to this Assembly, and so the people did not express themselves upon that question. Although petitions were circulated previous to the election, two weeks before this session commenced was the first time I knew of them. These measures should be decided upon what is right and just. The law holds each one of these Trustees liable for every cent of this money. [Reads the note to section 5991 of the code.] The law says the Trustee is answerable for every dollar, and has undisputed right to do with the money as he pleases, answering only for the principal. If bills of this kind are passed, that will be no security for the public funds. The care of public moneys is one of the most sacred trusts of the Legislature. But I don't propose to rest this case upon a bare legal proposition only. Every one of these Trustees placed this money in the bank to obtain interest, and did receive interest with perhaps one or two exceptions. I took the trouble to go to the books of the three banks now in the hands of receivers, and I am speaking from the record with reference to these facts. Three had their accounts in Fletcher & Sharpe's Bank. When men come with affidavits, such as those presented here, trifling with the law, they have no right to receive any consideration at the hands of the General Assembly. [Reads some of the affidavits and figures and dates from bank books to refute them.] A number who signed these petitions have come to me and said they were induced to sign them under misrepresentation. I make the assertion there is no precedent in the statute book for any such bill as this. It is not the amount of money to be taken from the taxpayers twice in itself, although a considerable sum - $20,000 - but behind that is the Treasurer of this city with some $40,000, the Treasurer of this county with some $20,000, and the Clerk of this court with some $15,000, and the Treasurer of Greene County some $8,000, all of whom could come in under a bill similar to this
The establishment of such a precedent should be stopped.
Mr. BAILEY: There is no analogy to the the county officers referred to, as none of them come here with two-thirds of the taxpayers willing to take this burden from their shoulders.
Mr. YOUCHE made an ineffectual motino - yeas, 18; nays, 18 - to indefinitely postpone the bill.
Mr. ADKIS0N, explaining: I have invariably voted against indefinitely postponing every measure. I desire every bill be page: 273[View Page 273] decided upon its merits. I therefore vote "no."
Mr. BENZ, when his name was called, said: I don't think it right to postpone this bill indefinitely. We have had worse bills than this. I think this bill ought to have a show. I think everybody ought to have a show in this Senate, therefore I vote "no."
Mr. FOWLER (explaining): I had not fully made up my mind as to how I should vote until after I heard this discussion. I have been asked about this measure, and I stated if these Trustees came here with a petition substantially representing the taxpayers of the several townships interested, I should vote to relieve them, but after listening to the argument of the two Senators from Marion, especially Judge Winter, I am very profoundly impressed that this bill ought not to pass, therefore I vote "aye."
The vote was then announced as above.
Mr. BAiLEY made an ineffectual motion - yeas, 11; nays, 25 - to concur in the report of the committee.
Mr. McCULLOUGH, explaining: There mty be cases where it is right for the Legislature to relieve Township Trustees, but they ought to be extreme exceptions to the rule. I am unwilling to vote any more in favor of these private matters until there is a record made on the ground on which we vote the appropriation. There was connected with the matter of this kind two years ago a good many other matters, and now it is cited as a general precedent. I feel that I can not vote for a precedent like that. I vote "no"
The vote was then announced as above.
On motion by Mr. YOUOHE the bill was laid on the table by yeas 24, nays 10.
The Senate adjourned till Monday at 9:30 o'clock a. m.
