THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
VOLUME TWENTY-THREE.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
IN SENATE.
TUESDAY, March 17, 1885 - 9:30 a. m.COUNTY EXPENDITURES.
Mr. Foulke's bill [S. 359] coming up with a majority committee report recommending a $20 000 limit and a minority report recommending a $100 000 limit -
Mr. FOULKE explained: It is intended to restrict large expenditures by County Com missioners without the consent of the tax-payers.
Mr OVERSTREET: All buildings necessary to the carrying out of the business of the county should not be delayed till an expression of the people can be obtained.
Mr. MACY opposed the majority report on this bill. He moved to substitute the minority instead of the majority report.
Mr McINTOSH: I had no idea when the bill was introduced but that it would pass unanimously. I am in favor of the bill as originally brought in the Senate.
Mr SMITH, of Jay, made an ineffectual motion - yeas, 18; nays, 20 - to lay the bill on the table.
Mr. FOULKE moved to amend the report of the committee so the limit shall be $50,000
Mr. SMITH, of Jay: It should be a rule when a public building is erected at the expense of the taxpayers that it should be built with a view of two or three generations ahead of the times. This bill would result in putting Boards of Commissioners at the mercy of those who would not look far enough in the future. The advanced idea now is to put up good buildings and build substantial bridges. With all the safeguards now on the statute book this bill would prove vicious.
Mr. FOULKE: In a good many counties there has been a disposition on the part of County Commissioners to expend a vast deal more money than is desirable on the part of the taxpayers, frequently a large portion of them. An excellent Court-house can be built for from $40,000 to $50,000. The one in Wayne County only cost about $20,000, and is ample for that large county for years to come. Tens bill proposes nothing but what is just and right.
Mr. MARSHALL: I am in favor of the amendment. There are sometimes large expenditures made by County Commissioners which are unwarranted, and in opposition to the wishes of a majority of the taxpayers. There is a principle involved in this bill, and that is to put a proper check upon the servants of the people, by the people themselves; and that is right. It gives the people of any county the right to build as fine buildings as a majority may desire. It is beat for the people to regulate such affairs as they seem right.
Mr. SELLERS moved the bill and amendments be printed and made a special order Friday at 2 o'olock.
The motion was rejected upon a division - affirmative, 17; negative, 19.
Mr. OVERSTREET: Any action taken in this direction would embarrass any county desiring a public building. An officer should not be afraid to move until instructed; if it were otherwise he would not amount to much. Commissioners will not be extravagant more than necessities require. The statute requires they shall provide a Court house and a place for all the county offices. A fire proof Court-house can not be built for $50,000. Such a bill would page: 49[View Page 49] accomplish nothing. Commissioner should have the discretion to act in such matters.
The $50,000 amendment was amended to by yeas 24 nays 14
The minority report as amended was concurred in
On motion by Mr. FOULKE the bill was read the second time.
Mr. McINTOSH moved that the bill be ordered engrossed.
Mr. OVERSTREET: I hope the motion will not prevail. There are bad features in the bill.
Mr. McINTOSH: I understand in Ohio the Commissioners are not allowed to tax the people for an expenditure of over $10,000 without first obtaining consent of the taxpayers.
Mr. WEIR opposed the motion.
The motion was rejected by yeas 19, nays 20.
SOLDIERS' MONUMENTS.
Mr. Ensley's bill [S 148] to authorize County Commissioners to erect monuments in the several counties of the State was returned with a committee amendment that such expenditure shall be only upon a petition of a majority of voters.
Mr. OVERSTREET made an ineffectual motion to amend by substituting taxpayers for "voters"
The report was concurred in.
The bill was ordered engrossed.
CONVICT LABOR.
On motion of Mr CAMPBELL, of St Joseph, his bill [S. 164] concerning the hiring of convict labor was read the second time, with a committee amendment changing the hours for a day's work from eight to nine hours. He said: After two years of careful study on this question I have embodied my conclusions in this bill. The object of eight hours for a day's work is to cut down the product of convict labor about 20 per cent The free laborers of the State do not have an opportunity to produce more on an average than would amount to what could he done in eight hours a day. This bill is an effort to help free labor as much as possible. The man who once gets a contract in these prisons has a monopoly forever, under what is called the lapping co tracts; so there is no competition as between those desiring to employ prison labor. Section 6 of this bill is intended to open competition for convict labor. The question is how best can this labor be regulated so as not to come into injurious conflict with free labor. This bill does this as far as practical by limiting amount of product, and putting it in such competition as to bring the highest price.
Mr. YOUCHE moved to amend by striking out all except Section 6 of the bill, which is intended to prevent the lapping of contracts.
The amendment was agreed to.
The committee report as amended was concurred in.
The bill was ordered engrossed.
INTEREST AND USURY.
Mr Smith's, of Jay, bill [S. 179] to fix a penalty of five times the usurious interest bargained for was read the second time. He explained the penalty is now so small for the exaction of usurious interest that the law is practically inoperative. The bill simply re-enacts the law in operation previous to 1881.
Mr. FOULKE: Every county and every business man would be seriously injured by this bid, which prescribes penal offense. The penalties do not accomplish the purposes designed. Wherever a contract of this kind is made the subject of a penal statute the contract is void. The bill would be simply for the protection of scoundrels. A law of this kind would cast suspicion upon all commercial paper. The bill has no merit of any kind. He moved to lay the bill on the table.
The motion was agreed to by yeas 13, nays 23.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay, voted "aye" for the purpose of moving a reconsideration of the vote just taken, that he might reply to the objection made against this bill that it would injuriously affect commercial paper. The bill is just. No person should be protected in charging usurious interest. If there is to be no penalty for usurious interest, then do not enact a law fixing any rate of interest. The bill ought to pass, and should become a law
The motion to reconsider was rejected by yeas 15, nays 21.
Then came a recess for dinner.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
RIGHTS OF WOMEN.
Mr. Foulke's bill [S. 122] to remove disabilities of married women, coming up as the special order, the question being on the amendment [Mr. Youche's] to strike out the words "and that all disabilities of coverture shall cease."
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. FOULKE offered an amendment entitling the husband on the death of the wife to the same interest she would have were he to die first.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. SELLERS moved to amend by adding to Section 1 the following: "Provided that no married woman shall become surety for her husband or any other person "
Mr. FOULKE: I am opposed to this amendment. The old law proceeded upon the idea that a married woman was sui generis - she could not act in any capacity separate from her husband. There is still a remnant of that old idea in the law which now exists. In accordance with the spirits that pervade our American institutions to-day, she is as competent to manage her own affairs as she was before marriage. The only way to protect her is to allow her to protect herself. The bill is right in principle, and I page: 50[View Page 50]should regret to see this amendment incorporated in it
Mr. SELLERS: While many do not need that protection, yet many are dependent on their husbands for the management of their business. The law ought to protect her from becoming security, not only for strangers, but her husband. This bill ought not to pass without this provision.
The amendment was rejected by yeas 18, nays 23
Pending the roll call -
Mr. MAY, when his name was called, said: I oppose the bill, but believing it less objectionable with this provision, I vote "aye."
Mr. OVERSTREET, in explanation of his vote, said: This amendment in no sense differs from the present law, and therefore I vote "no"
Mr. SMITH, of Jay, when called upon to vote, said: I am against this bill, but if it should pass this amendment should be a part of it. I vote "aye."
Mr. WEIR, in explanation of his vote, said: I am opposed to the bill, but if it should pass I would rather it should embrace the amendment, therefore I vote "aye"
The vote was then announced as above.
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. YOUCHE moved to amend by providing that where a married woman joins with her husband in a deed conveying his land by warranty she rece ves nopart of the purchase money, she shall ever be made liable for damages for any breach of such covenant.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay, made an ineffectual motion - yeas, 17; nays, 24 - to lay the amendment on the table.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. DAVIS moved to amend so that a married woman shall have no right to encumber land by mortgage. He said: I believe the disposition of lands should not be made without the consent of both consortors.
Mr. McCULLOUGH: I believe the time has come when litigation will be saved by putting married women on an equal footing with their husbands. We have complications in law growing out of the statutes of 1879 and 1881, and the sooner we put married women, so far as the management and ownership of property is concerned, on an equal footing with men, the better it will be for all concerned.
The amendment was rejected by yeas 16, nays 25.
Mr. FAULKNER, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said: I believe the law we have now is sufficient to protect married women, without any change, therefore I vote "no."
Mr. SHIVELEY, when his name was called, said: I am opposed to this bill and shall vote against it on its passage. I think, however, it would be better for this amendment and shall, therefore, vote "aye"
The vote was then announced as above.
So the amendment was rejected.
On motion by Mr. FOULKE - yeas, 22; nays, 20 - the bill was ordered engrossed.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph, in explanation of his vote, said: I have seen so many cases where married women's homes have been secured by the prohibition of the law that they can not become security for their husbands that I think the law had better be left as it is. I vote "no."
APPLICANTS TO SELL LIQUOR.
Mr. Foulk's Foulke's bill [S 190] to amend Section 5 314 of the liquor law so that applicants for license shall have resided in the township for one year, was read the second time with a majority committee report recommending indefinite postponement, and a minority report recommending its passage.
Mr. YOUCHE explained the bill was intended to remedy a defect in the existing law. If it is a fact that only a man of good moral charact r shall be entitled to engage in this business, it is proper that he should have a residence in the township, so it may be known whether or not he is a man of good moral character. He should live there at least one year so the community may know whether or not he is a fit person to be engaged in such a business. The greatest odium brought upon the saloon business is by those who are utterly unfit to engage in that or any other business. I move to substitute the minority for the majority report.
On motion by Mr. SMITH, of Jay, the motion was laid on the table by yeas 23, nays 18.
HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION.
Mr. Adkison's bill [S. 326] to exempt a $1 000 homestead and personal property from sale on execution was read the second time, with a favorable committee report.
The Senate refused to concur in the report.
Mr. ADKIS0N explained: The bill is in the interest of the poor man. It proposes a freehold homestead, but does not change the present law in regard to the exemption of personal property. It is not exempt for purchase money or for material purchased or labor done thereon. The bill is almost a literal copy of a bill introduced in the House of Representatives (by Mr. Linsday). It behooves to afford that relief to our citizens which States around us have. The bill gives no chance for a fraud. It is only the industrious, honest and economical man that can hold a homestead under this bill. I hope the bill will pass.
Mr ZIMMERMAN made an ineffectual motion - yeas, 13; nays, 27 - to lay the bill on the table.
Mr FOWLER: I am very much in favor of the provisions of this bill, but I move to recommit the bill with directions to so amend that a homestead of $1,000 shall be exempt from execution and the owner shall encumber it in no way. It is for the protection not only of the man, but of his wife and children also. As the bill stands it is no exemption, because homesteads would be encumbered with mortgages and in a short time would be lost.
page: 51[View Page 51]Mr. ADKISON: I hope the instructions will will be more so the committee may consider other amendments. I move to amend so that the bill be referred to a Special Committee of Three with instructions to amend as they may see fit.
Mr. FOWLER accepted the amendment.
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sellers) made the committee to consist of Messrs. Adkison, Overstreet and May.
TURNPIKE ROADS - RE CHARTER.
Mr. Overstreet's bill [S. 12] to authorize gravel and other turnpike road companies to extend their powers and franchises, was read the third time.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay: I don't think the bill ought to pass These class of roads more than pay for themselves many times over before their charters expire. They are generally operated and owned by but few persons.
Mr. OVERSTREET: I am apprehensive the Senator and some other Senators do not understand what this bill is. There is a provision in the law that any toll road ma be purchased where an affirmative vote is had. This bill provides where the vote is negative a majority of all were assessed for its building may petition for the renewal of a charter running not to exceed twenty years, with a restriction that the tolls shall be one-half authorized under the original charter. All we ask is to have our roads kept up. I insist the bill is a good one, and ought to become a law if it is proposed to keep up gravel roads at all
Mr. SMITH of Delaware: It seems to me the argument is not consistent with the object of the bill. It decreases the rates of toll so that but few roads could maintain themselves in my opinion. The roads in my counties barely pay with full rate tolls. I do not think this is a good bill. The bill proposes an unjust and unwarrantable discrimination against a certain class of roads and ought not to pass
The bill failed to pass by yeas 5, nays 21.
APPLICANTS TO SELL LIQUOR.
Mr. FOULKE moved to take from the table his bill [3 190] to require applicants for liquor license to reside in the township for one year. He said society has the right to this protection from imposition it is now subject to in such matters as this.
This bill is supported by every Republican Senator and three Democratic Senators; and dealing to give Democratic Senators a chance to repent I move to take the bill from the table.
Mr. FAULKNER: If the Senator desires to have us repent, we had better adjourn, so as to have time to think over it [Laughter.]
The motion to take from the table was agreed to by yeas 21, nays 16.
Pending the roll call -
Mr. FAULKNER, when his name was called, said: As the Senator would give me no time to repent I shall have to vote "no." [Laughter.]
Mr McINTOSH, in explanation of his vote, said: I am almost persuaded, but as I have not made up my mind to disturb the present license law. I vote "no."
Mr. FAULKNER: If you had waited till to-morrow you would have been altogether persuaded. [Laughter]
The vote was then announced as above.
So the bill was taken from the table.
The question recurring on the motion to substitute the minority for the majority report recommending the passage of the bill -
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings, made an ineffectual motion - yeas, 14; nays, 25 - to recommit the bill.
He also made an ineffectual motion to make this bill the special order for Friday at 10 o'clock.
Mr. FAULKNER made an ineffectual motion to adjourn.
Mr FAULKNER: As they won't give us no chance to repent nor to adjourn, I now move to indefinitely postpone the bill. [Laughter.]
The motion was rejected by yeas 19, nays 22
Mr. SMITH of Jay, moved to strike out all after the enacting clause.
Mr. YOUCHE demanded the previous question.
The Senate seconded the demand, and under its operations the motion to strike from the bill all after the enacting clause was rejected by yeas 17, nays 23.
The motion to substitute the minority for the majority report was agreed to by yeas 22, nays 13.
The report of the committee was concurred in.
On motion by Mr. FOULKE the bill was ordered engrossed by yeas 20, nays 16.
Mr. JOHNSTON, of Dearborn, when his name was called, said: I have not taken up much of the time of the Senate in explaining my votes this session, but I will take this opportunity to consume a few moments time, as the Senate seems to have plenty of time to bestow on foolishness this afternoon. I therefore wish to say to the Senate that we passed a resolution a few days ago dispensing with a great many clerks and doorkeepers, and the engrossing of this bill will entail considerable labor on the clerical force of the Senate. Therefore I vote "no."
ADJOURNMENT SINE DIE.
Mr. YOUCHE moved to suspend the regular order of business to enable him to introduce a resolution that this session of the General Assembly adjourn sine die on the 6th of April.
The motion was agreed to by yeas 25, nays 11.
Mr. YOUCHE then offered the following:
Resolved, By the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring, that the present session of this General Assembly shall not extend beyond the 6th of April, 1885.
page: 52[View Page 52]Mr. McCULLOUGH moved to amend by inserting the "25th of March" instead of the "6th of April."
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay, made an ineffectual motion - yeas, 18; nays, 19 - to adjourn.
The question being on the resolution amended -
The yeas and nays being demanded, ordered and taken, resulted - yeas, 30; nays, 0.
No quorum voting -
Mr. YOUCHE demanded a call of the Senate.
It being ordered and taken, twenty-nine members were reported as present and answering to their names.
And then came an adjournment till tomorrow morning.
