HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
TUESDAY, March 3, 1885 - 9 a. m.A communication from the Speaker assigning to the chair in his absence Mr. GOODING was read by the Principal Pprincipal Clerk.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: As there may be an unconstitutional procedure in this I move that the House elect Mr. Gooding to the Speakership pro tem.
The motion was put by Mr. Smith, and was agreed to.
THE APPROPRIATION.
Mr. McMULLEN moved that the House do now resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the appropriation bill.
Mr. MOODY moved to lay the motion on the table.
The motion was agreed to - yeas, 45; nays, 38.
THE REGULAR ORDER.
Mr. McMULLEN moved that the House take up the bill [H. R. 487] making special appropriations.
On motion of Mr. PASSAGE this motion was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tem: It is evident that this House wishes to proceed with the stated regular order of business - that of the call of counties for bills on the third reading.
THE KNIGHTSTOWN INSTITUTION.
Mr. LOYD: I move that the House now take up the bill [H. R. 527] to reorganize the Knightstown Institution
On motion by Mr. HAWORTH this motion was laid on the table by yeas 53, nays 27.
Mr. BROWNING explaining his vote said page: 290[View Page 290] that he thought that this House had badgered long enough. A square and fair agreement was entered into to read bills the third time. If we are men let us stand by that agreement like men. It has been said in one of our principal newspapers that we are holding for this agreement in order to make a special session. I want to hurl that back into the teeth of the man who wrote it as an infamous lie. Still, if necessary for my constituents, I shall vote for a special session.
Mr. LOYD: Because it will take but little time to pass this important bill I vote "no."
Mr. PASSAGE: I have as much sympathy for the orphans at Knightstown as any man upon this floor. I believe my feelings were as much moved by the recital of their wrongs as any man upon this floor. But, sir, I am opposed to any man coming upon this floor and stealing the robes of Heaven to serve the devil in. My Corporation bill is the next bill in the regular call. That bill has been stolen, and I was put to the trouble of getting it reinstated, and now this motion is made to defeat its passage at the behest of interested corporations.
Mr. MOODY: Because such votes as this are but to consume time, I vote "aye."
The vote was then announced as above.
So the motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
PAYING EMPLOYES.
The bill [S. 47] to compel corporations to pay their employes at least once per month was read the third time and finally passed, by yeas 82, nays 0.
Mr. PASSAGE: Believing in the rights of labor to its just reward, I drafted this bill. I vote "aye."
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.
Mr. MOODY'S bill [H. R. 211] regarding weights and measures was read the third time and passed - yeas, 77; nays, 1.
WRITS.
Mr. TAYLOR'S bill [H. R. 219] regarding the levying of writs was read the third time and passed - yeas, 79; nays, 2.
COMMON SCHOOL LAW.
Mr. DONHOST'S bill [H. R. 115] to amend the school law regarding the loaning of moneys was read the third time.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe, opposed the bill because the increase of the ratio of pupils demanded the use of a greater amount of money. This bill has been called the "poor man's fund," yet it is better to give it to the children than to loan it to the poor fund.
Mr. CORY: I can't see how the children will suffer by this. Seven per cent is enough to pay for money at any time. This money is loaned to the people in small amounts. All the expenses of getting it makes the money cost 8 per cent. That, in God's name, is enough to pay for money. By this means all this money can be kept in use. Then the money will not be locked up.
Mr. DONHOST: My first intention to introduce this bill for 6 per cent, but finding that some counties were leading at 8 per cent., I changed it to 7 per cent., as the of it will be at the end 8 per cent.
The bill failed to pass - yeas, 49; nays, 39 - for want of a constitutional majority.
PUBLICATION OF SUPREME COURT REPORTS.
Mr. REEVES' bill [H. R. 8] providing for the speedy publication of decisions of the Supreme Court, was read a third time.
Mr. DEBS moved that the bill be recommitted to the Judiciary with instructions.
Mr. PLEASANTS made an ineffectual motion - yeas, 28; nays, 52 - to lay this motion on the table.
Mr. KELLISON said that a reform was needed in this office. It was time to advance it.
The motion to recommit was rejected.
The question recurring upon the passage of the bill -
Mr. REEVES: Some of the gentlemen here are afraid to vote for the bill because it will affect the salary of the present incumbent of the office of Reporter of the Supreme Court. Some one must be affected at some time. It is a burning shame Democrats can not be true to their oaths above party. This bill puts the publication of the Supreme Court Reports in the hands of the Reporter. He is to publish them and charge net more than $3.50 per copy. There are ninety two counties in the State, and suppose two copies were to go to each county - that would be 184, and then ten to the colleges of the State, and now the rest so into the archives of the Supreme Court - to be given away to the pets of the Reporter of the Supreme Court. This is done to distribute in order to influence legislation in behalf of the office of Reporter. In the last ten years the Reporter has got five volumes per year. That makes a total expense to the State per year of $8 750. This law seeks to repeal this outrage. Besides this, the Reporter has been allowed to sell his books to the lawyers at $3 50 per copy, and they cost him but ninety-five cents each. And the right to copyright is also given to the Reporter, and one publishing firm has recently offered a Reporter $20,000 for his copyright. That is the kind of a law you are asked to keep on the statute books of Indiana. This bill of mine proposes that the publication of these reports shall be let to the lowest bidder, and the Reporter shall be allowed a salary of $3,000 per year. Some say that the salary is too small. Don't fear but that you will find a man to fill it. I will give a bond of $10,000 myself to fill the office We have heard a great deal of prating about reform. Let's see if they are sincere about it. This matter is worth considering - far more than the rights or large salary of one man.
Mr. FRENCH: If I ever own a Supreme page: 291[View Page 291] Court Report I have it yet to buy. So I shall have no selfish motive. I do not want to correct one evil by inflicting another. This bill leaves out of the question the fact that the office of Reporter demands three assistants, and to reduce, as this bill does, will be but to legislate the office out of existence. We can not afford to do that. That is the reason I shall be compelled to vote against it. The bill to establish the Appellate Court will, if passed, take a good deal of work from the Supreme Court, and thus lessen the income of the Reporter.
Mr. REEVES: It has been said here that the Reporter must have three assistants. Now under this everything going to the Reporter goes to him written out. All he has to do is to write out a small syllabus.
The bill failed to pass by yeas 40, nays 47.
Mr. BROWNING, explaining his vote, said: Believing that the bill is unfair in all its provisions I vote "no."
Mr. GORDON: Believing that this bill would be quite as unjust to the Reporter as the present law is said to be to the people, I vote "no."
Mr. HARRELL: Because the bill does not give a sufficient allowance I vote "no."
Mr. HOBAN: Because the new bill does not give a sufficient allowance I vote "no."
Mr. JEWETT: Two years ago I voted for a reasonable reduction in the salary of this office, the reduction to take effect, however, at the expiration of a term of office, so that the man to be elected would know what the fees would be. As I am opposed to changing an official's salary during his term of office, I vote "no."
Mr. KELLIS0N: Because I want a reform in this office and in hope that the Senate will amend this in some particulars, I vote "aye."
Mr. PASSAGE: For the reason that as the law now stands those who receive the books pay for them, and for the reason that the bill will call for $3,000 of the people's money, I vote "no."
Mr. WILLIAMS: While the bill is not without objection, yet the bar at my home and my constituents demand a reform, and hoping it will be considered in the Senate, I vote "aye."
Mr. GOODING: As a reform is needed, and as I hope the bill will be amended in the Senate, I vote "aye."
The vote was then announced as above.
So the bill failed to pass.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Speaker Jewett resumed the chair at the opening of the afternoon session.
THE APPROPRIATION BILL.
The SPEAKER: There are two special orders now pending, the General Appropriation bill and the bill creating an Appellate Court. I have been informed that the House refused on Monday morning to take up this appropriation bill, which was set for that morning. Of course that is past and can not be helped. But it should come up.
Mr. GORDON: This very important bill should now come up, and if the smaller bills are not reached let them go.
The SPEAKER: The special order must be disposed of, but in two ways - either to go into the Committee of the Whole or postpone it. It was not postponed on Monday; it must come up now.
Mr. McMULLEN: I move that the House do now resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole for the consideration of the Appropriation bill.
The SPEAKER: A test vote on it would better be to postpone it. The gentleman from Dearborn (Mr. McMullen) can withdraw his motion.
Mr. SEARS: I have too high an opinion of the members of the House to believe that the House will go back on its agreement to first dispose of bills on the third reading. If this appropriation has to go over let it go. Why was not this Appropriation bill brought up sooner? One of the first things always done here is to provide for the State institutions, and then some are ready to go home. If a special session is necessary let it come. I had to vote to day against the Knightstown Institute bill coming up when I favored it, because I wanted to stand by my agreement - that of bills on the third reading.
Mr. MOCK: My understanding when I voted for these bills to be read in order the third time was that we should dispose of the special orders when they came up in order.
The SPEAKER: It takes no motion to bring this before the House. It is before the House It takes a motion only to go into a Committee of the Whole.
Mr. BROWNING: I understand that the majority on Saturday postponed this appropriation bill, which was on the Friday night before made a special order. If, as said by some, this appropriation bill can not see daylight, then I say let it stay in the dark. If the time has come when I can not trust the word of my fellow-members - that we go on with reading bills the third time - then I want to resign and go home.
Mr. SAYRE: I am distinctly opposed to this bill. If this appropriation bill is not reached let it go. If Governor Gray has not lost his Republican courage and his Republican cunning he will run the State as well as ever. I am unable to understand the sudden turning of the gentleman from Dearborn, (Mr. McMullen) who formally fought off this bill. I believe the Speaker is wrong in saying that a special order for Monday morning is a special order for Tuesday afternoon. The House agreed to go on with the bills on third reading. It was agreed that every county should be called and bills refuted. The term is expiring, the Governor is refusing to call an extra session, and the Democrats see confusion before them. We are at the Oats bill in the callender - away up in the "D's" - the gentleman from DeKalb's bill - and yet some of the bills above page: 292[View Page 292] that are to be taken up yet. I move as a substitute, that bills on the third reading be continued.
The SPEAKER: I would suggest that the motion be to postpone, and then it would require but a majority instead of a two-thirds vote.
Mr. COPELAND: I believe that this special order was set in good faith. I believe that it is buncombe for any party to saddle an extra session upon the other party. For one, I am ready to go home before my people on a special session. These are the piping times of peace, and the crack of the party whip has no terror. I believe that the period of sixty-one days is too short a period. It was put upon away back on the frontier, and before the great pulse of business was throbbing as it is now, and before commerce permeated every part of the State. The Democrats dare not, if business demands it, refuse to call a special session. I believe there is enough integrity and honesty among these members to stand by a solemn pledge.
Mr. GOODING: It is our duty to pass this bill in some shape, and you all know I am not much for appropriations. I don't know that I shall vote for it as it is. My bill has not been reached; yet I am willing to let it go for eternity, if needs be, for one more important. I understood that when we voted for these bills on the third reading that we were to proceed with the special order. I thought this bill should come up yesterday. I so spoke then. For the last time, then, I appeal to the majority to vote for it.
Mr. WILLIAMS: I voted "aye" at every roll call before this to bring this appropriation bill, but now I shall vote against its coming up at this time. This is no time to bring it up. We agreed on our legislation, and it is no time now to forsake that and our words to bring up the Appropriation bill. Let us cease talking of this man or that man being a Democrat or Republican. There are other very important bills to be considered - countless of them. This House has yet the Knightstown bill concerning insane asylums; countless claims, and many others not introduced by demogogues. I might go on and on. Are you going home and leave all these undone?
Mr. McMULLEN: I want to say that in the first place this matter of considering this special order has never been postponed. Every member on this floor did not enter into an agreement to read these bills before these special orders. Many of us voted against it. The gentleman from Kosciusko (Mr. Sayre) is himself on the roll as against it. Ail those who voted for the call of the counties knew that the special orders would come up at this hour. But one time has this bill been urged when it would be a political measure, and that was when the gentleman from Kosciusko urged it to take the place of the Apportionment bill. Then why does he say that I have opposed it? I deny it. Where is his authority? I voted against it but the once - when it was called up by him I move the previous question.
The motion that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole was rejected by yeas 37, nays 50.
Mr. ADAMS, explaining his vote, said he should vote against it because he thought it unfair.
Mr. BROWNING: For the same reason I vote "no."
Mr. PASSAGE: Having gone into this compact to read bills the third time, I would regard it as dishonorable to break it. I vote "no."
Mr. REEVES: Because to take it up would be unfair, I vote "no."
The vote was then announced as above.
So the motion was rejected.
Mr. BROWNING moved that the two special orders be now discharged.
The motion was agreed to
Mr. FRENCH moved that the General Appropriation bill be made a special order for Wednesday morning at 9 o'clock.
On motion of Mr. KELLIS0N this motion was laid on the table - yeas, 50; nays, 30.
FISH LADDERS.
The bill [S. 180] relative to fish ladders was read the third time and passed - yeas, 68; nays, 11.
GRAVEL ROADS.
Mr. Browning's bill [H. R. 9] to allow County Commissioners to construct gravel roads was read the third time and passed - yeas, 57; nays 27.
IMMORAL LITERATURE.
Mr. Barnes' bill [H. R. 120] to prevent the sale of obscene literature and papers devoted exclusively to the publication of crime, was read the third time and passed - yeas, 73; nays, 5.
LEGALIZING ADMINISTRATORS' SALES.
The SPEAKER: The county of Clark has been reached, and under it I call up the bill of Senator A. G. Smith [S. 16], an act legalizing the sales of real estate by Commissioners in proceedings by an executor or administrator. The bill passed - yeas, 86; nays, 0.
CRIMINAL PRACTICE.
Mr. Robinson's bill [H. R. 377] concerning proceedings in criminal cases was read the third time.
Mr. ROBINSON: Under the present law, if a man is fined but $1 it costs him $15 to pay out. A fee of $5 is always charged up against the defendant for the Prosecuting Attorney when the prosecutor nor his deputy neither is present. This bill provides that when the defendant pleads guilty the fee shall not be allowed to the prosecutor. The bill is in the interest of the fund for the reason that it will lessen the fine, and will be an inducement for the defendant, if guilty, to plead such.
The bill passed by yeas 58, nays 24
Mr. BEST, explaining his vote, said: For the reason that I do not think the bill in the page: 293[View Page 293] interest of Indiana, but of the criminal classes, for the reason that it shuts out the allowance to the Prosecuting Attorney, who is now the poorest paid officer in the State, I vote "no."
Mr. FRENCH: As one who has had experience as Prosecutor I vote "no."
Mr. GOODING: I do not think this favors the criminal, but that it is criminal to draw a fee when he is not present. The present law is robbery - to rob and plunder unfortunates. It prohibits the gain of those Deputy Prosecutors who go about hunting up petty violations of law, and thus robbing wives and children of necessaries of life.
So the bill passed.
ON SECOND READING.
Mr. BARNES, from the Committee on Military Affairs, reported back Mr. Staley's bill [H. R. 400] authorizing colleges to acquire real estate, recommending that it pass
The report was concurred in and passed to the third reading
The House took a recess until 7:30 o'clock.
NIGHT SESSION.
GRAVEL ROAD LAWS.
Mr. Harrell's bill [H. R. 29] authorizing County Commissioners to construct a free turnpike instead of bridges was read the third time.
Mr. HARRELL said the people of his county favored it.
Mr. CORY opposing it, said that it put too much power in the hands of the County Commissioners.
Mr. McMULLEN believed that the bill should pass.
The bill failed to pass - yeas, 48; nays, 31.
BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS.
Mr. TAYLOR'S bill [H. R. 309] concerning building and loan associations, was read a third time and passed - yeas, 70; nays, 7.
LEGISLATIVE DAYS.
Mr. WILLIAMS called up his joint resolution [H. R. 13] so amending the Constitution as to fix the legislative session at 100 days instead of 60.
The resolution was adopted - yeas, 68; nays, 11.
PUBLIC FUNDS KEEPING.
Mr. FLOYD S bill [H. R. 411] to provide for a safe keeping of public funds was read the third time.
Mr BROWNING: The man who wrote this bill must have written before we raised the bond of the Treasurer of State to $700,000. We need no guardian for him.
Mr. FLOYD: Under this bill a finance board for guarding the public funds of the State is created. They will be well qualified to know as to the best of security. This is a question of economy of resources.
The bill was rejected - yeas, 33: nays, 44.
AGAINST COUNTIES.
Mr. MOODY'S bill regulating the presentation against counties was read the third time and passed - yeas, 65; nays, 5.
The House adjourned.
