Copyright 2009 Trustees of Indiana University
Indiana University provides the information contained on this web site for non-commercial, personal, or research use only. All other use, including but not limited to commercial or scholarly reproductions, redistribution, publication or transmission, whether by electronic means or otherwise, without prior written permission of the copyright holder is strictly prohibited.
This electronic text file was created by Optical Character Recognition (OCR), and has been encoded and edited using the recommendations for Level 3 of the TEI in Libraries Guidelines for Best Encoding Practices. Digital facsimiles are also provided.
The Maurer School of Law, Indiana University, Bloomington received an LSTA Grant to scan, markup, and make available the Brevier Legislative Reports. The Reports are a transcription of the proceedings of the Indiana General Assembly from the Special Session of 1858 to the Regular Session of 1887.
Page 258: the last bill was introduced by Mr. TAYLOR not "Davis;" the number should be 526 and the one above 525.
Page 292: Mr. WILLIAMS' closing words should read as follows: "This House has yet the Knightstown bill, a bill to provide fire protection to the Insane Asylum, countless claims, and many other important bills not yet disposed of; are you going home and leave all this business undone."
Page 301: In Mr. SMITH'S [of Jay,] remarks the first word in the 3rd line should be "decrease" instead of "increase;" and his closing words should read: "and believing when such Commission expires and such Appellate Court is established that $2.75 per volume would not be a sufficient remuneration for the Reporter, I vote 'aye'."
Introduced during the Regular Session of the 54th General Assembly showing which provoked the most discussion. The first column of figures indicate the number of the bill, and the figures that follow indicate the page on which the bill is considered.
BILLS ORIGINATING IN THE SENATE.
This being the day prescribed by the Constitution of the State of Indiana for the meeting of the General Assembly,- pursuant to a provision in Article IV, Section 9, Senators holding over and Senators elect assembled in the Superior Courtroom, in the northeast corner of the Marion County Court house, in the city of Indianapolis, at o'clock a. m.
THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. (Hon. Thomas Hanna Of Putnam County), by virtue of his office, being President of the Senate, commanding order requested Senators to stand while Rev. Dr. Marine, of the M E. Church offered prayer.
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: in order to plate tie organization of the Senate, the chair will appoint William L. Taylor of Marion, Principal Secretary pro tem., and William B Roberts, of Sullivan County, Assistant Secretary pro tem. will call the names of Senators holding over.
All the Senators elected In 1882, and who, served in the Fifty-third General Assembly, answered to names, except Messrs. Atkinson, of Miami, Johnson, of Tippecano.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: The Secretary will call over the districts of Senators elected at the last election, and they will please answer to their names.
All the Senators elected In 1884 appeared and received the oath of office at the hand of Hon. George V. Howk., one of the Judges of the Supreme Court of the State.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: The Senate is now ready to proceed to the election of a Principal Secretary.
Mr. WILDARD : I have the honor, as well as the pleasure, of placing in nomination for the office of Principal Secretary of the Senate Hon. Albert J. Kelley of the County of Vigo.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph: As the gentleman who occupied the positions of, Principal Secretary during the two terms of the last Assembly, and was twice elected during the longer term, has been placed in nomination, there seems to be a peculiar fitness in nominating the man, who served the intermediate and shorter term that session. I therefore place in nomination Cyrus T. Nixon, of Hancock County.
There being no other nomination the ballot resulted - for Mr. Kelley, 32 votes: for Nr. Nixon, 16.
Mr. Kelley was declared elected. He was sworn into office by Judge Hawk.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR announced the election of Assistant Secretary to be in order.
Mr. SCHLOSS nominated H.C. Huffstetter, of Lawrence County.
Mr. YOUCHE nominated Charles F. Griffin, of Lake County
The ballot resulted: For Mr. Huffstetter, 82; for Mr. Griffin, 15 The former was declared elected and sworn in.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR announced the next thing in order to be the election of Doorkeeper.
Mr. NULL nominated J.W. Cope, of Allen County
Mr. CAMPBELL of Hendricks, nominated Captain James W. Hamrick, of Hendricks County.
The ballot resulted: For Mr. Cope, 32; for Mr. Hamrick, 16. The former was declared elected and sworn in.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: I declare the Senate now organized and ready for the transaction of any business that may be brought before it.
Mr. MAGEE offered a resolution that the rules of the last regular session of the Indiana Senate be adopted for the government of this session until otherwise ordered, which was adopted.
Mr. FOULKE offered a resolution, which was adopted, authorizing the appointment of a committee of two Senators, to serve with a like committee on the part of the House, to prepare rules for the government of the two houses.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR made said committee on the part of the Senate to consist of Messrs. Foulke and Magee.
Mr. MAY offered a resolution, which was adopted for the appointment of a committee of two to inform the House of the organization of the Senate.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR appointed as such committee Messr May and Drake
Mr. WILLARD offered a resoultion, which was adopted, that the Chair appoint a committee of three to receive bids for committee rooms for the use of the Senate.
The Lieutenant Governor appointed Messrs. Willard, Lindley and Hoover said committee.
On motion of Mr. Smith, of Jay, the Chair appointed Mr. Smith of Jay, and Mr. Campbell of Hendricks, a committee to wait on the Governor and inform His Excellency that the Senate is ready to receive any communication he may be pleased to make.
Mr. Foulke offered a resolution, which was adopted, directing the Principal Secretary to place on the desk of each Senator, every Monday morning, a printed calendar of business showing the number and title of bills, by whom introduced and when, and a brief abstract showing their present status and the action taken thereon.
The following described bills were introduced, read the first time, and severally referred to appropriate committees:
By Mr. FOULKE [S.1]: To regulate and improve the civil service of the State of Indiana. [Three Commissioners to be appointed by the Governor, or with the advice and consent of the Senate, at least one from the adherents of each two greatest political parties; to serve four years and $5 per day and expenses.
Mr. FOULKE: As this bill relates to a subject which has been regarded as very important in its bearings, I move that it be referred to a Committee of the Whole Senate one week from to-day at 2 o'clock in the afternoon.
Mr. THOMPSON - I want to know if that bill embraces overseers of the poor>
Mr. FOULKE - it does not embrace any specific offices. It provdes exactly as the New York law does, and exactly as the National civil servce reform law does. It provides that there shall be a certain classification, and where the rules of th United States Civil Service Commission are applicabe they shall be applied to this State, Such officers as are appointed by the Governor, with the advise and consent of the Senate, are excluded from the operations of the bill.
Mr. M'Clure - I am in favor of every bill going to its appropriate committee. Let it be considered there and reported back.
Mr. WILLARD moved to amend by referring the bill to the Judiciary Committee
Mr. FOULKE being willing withdrew his motion.
The Lieutenant Governor - The bill is referred to the Judiciary Committee.
By Mr. Smith [S. 2 ] concerning real estate and the alienation thereof. [Any alien declaring his intention to become a citizen may hold real estate]
By Mr. BRYANT [S. 3] to prevent the spread of Canada thistles.
By. Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks [S. 4] to protect the ballot-box, to procure fair elections, to prevent the purchase and sale of votes, to provide means of proving such offences. [Penalty, disfranchisement and rendered incapable from holding any office of trust or profit for natural life.]
By. Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph [S. 5], to require that new plats of additions to cities or towns shall be submitted to the authorities of such cities or towns before being placed upon record.
By Mr. FOULKE [S. 6] to provide for the registration of all persons entitled to vote.
By Mr. SCHLOSS [S.7] to authorize Boards of Commissioners of counties where the construction of Court Houses and other public buidings has been commenced, and when the proceeds of the sale of bonds of 1 per centum on the assessed valuation of taxable property is insufficient to complete such buildings, to issue and sell county bonds to an amount not exceeding 1 per centum on the assessed valuation of the taxable property of such counties, in addition to any bonds which may have heretofore been issued and sold.
By Mr. BROWN [S.8] to provide for the election of County Superintendents [at a general election in each county, for four years.]
By. Mr. THOMPSON [S. 9] prescribing the duties of teachers or other persons securing human bodies for the purpose of medical or surgical study, or for any purpose, bearing marks of violence.
By Mr. WILLARD [S. 10]: To amend section 273 of an act concerning proceedings in civil causes approved April 7, 1881.
By Mr. WINTER [S. 11]: Enacting the amount of taxes that may be levied by the Board of Commissioners in counties containing a voting population of over 25,000 [Not exceeding thirty-three cents on the $100 for county purposes, and three cents for township purposes, but in the township containing the county seat the tax shall not exceed one cent on to $100.]
By Mr. YOUCHE [S.12]: to authorize owners of tracts of land separated by right of way of a railroad company to construct carriage and driveways over such right of way, and providing that the railroad company shall not be liable in certain cases for animals killed on such railroad.
Then came a recess till 2'o'clock.
Mr. McCOULLOUGH offered a resolution requesting Oliver H. P. Abbott, of Indianapolis, to act as Chaplain during this session of the Senate.
Mr. SMITH moved to amend by requesting the pastors of the different denominations in the city to open the sessions with prayer
Mr. SMITH, of Jay, made an ineffectual motion - yeas, 8; nays 36-to lay the amendment on the table.
The amendment was agreed to - yeas, 24; nays 22 - and the resolution as amended was adopted.
Mr. DAVIS offered a resolution directing a copy of the Revised Statutes be laid on the desk of each senator, which was adopted.
The following described bills were introduced, read the first time and severally referred to appropriate committees .
By Mr. WIER [S. 13] defining the rights and liabilities of hostel, inn and eating houses.
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR appointed two Pages: Walter Woodson and Harry Richardson, of Putnam.
By Mr. SMITH, of Jsy [S. 14] to amend Section 1 of an act of March 10, 1875, concerning attorney's fees in notes.
By Mr. McCLURE [S. 15] for the better government and regulation of the Hospital of the Insane [so as to relieve the Superintendent from necessity of advancing money for necessary expenses.].
By. Mr. SMITH, of Jennings [S. 16] to legalize, the sale of real estate made by a commissioner in proceedings by an executor or administrator to sell the real estate of the decedent to pay debts, and to outdate the deeds of such commissioner In that behalf.
Mr. MAGEE offered a resolution requiring the principal Secretary to obtain the signature of President of the Senate to all requisitions for stationary.
Mr. WILLARD made an ineffectual motion - yeas, 6; nays, 35-to refer the resolution to the Committee on Rules.
The resolution was adopted.
Mr. MOON introduced a joint resolution [S. 1] instructing Senators and requesting Representatives in Congress to favor the passage of an act of Congress which shall embody a provision granting everyone one who served three months in the military service a pension - those disabled now recieving $8 to be entitled to $12 per month, etc., which was read the first time and referred to the Committee on Federal Relations.
The Senate adjourned till 10'clock tomorrow.
This day being the Constitutional day for the meeting of the Fifty-fourth General Assembly, the members elect of the House of Representatives came together in the Criminal Court Room in the Marion County Court House in the City of Indianapolis, and were organized according to law under the direction of the Hon. W. R. Myers, Secretary of State.
At the hour of 10 a. m. the Secretary of State, the gavel on the ,Speaker's table, said: The House will be in order. Prayer by Rev. Mr. Abbot.
The SECRETARY of STATE: The first thing in order I believe, will be the calling of the roll of members-elect who have certificates from the clerks of their counties, Mr. Dickinson will call the roll, and members-elect, will please answer and a position in front of the Speaker's desk, until thirty of them are in line, and they will be sworn in. This order being carried out the members took the oath as administered by Judge Zollars, of the Supreme Bench.
The SECRETARY OF STATE: The next thing before the House is the election of a Speaker. Nominations are now in order.
Mr. WILLIAMS : I have the honor of placing in nomination Hon. Charles L. Jewett, of Clark
Mr. DEEM: I have the honor of presenting the name of a gentlemen eminently qualified for the high and responsible position of Speaker of the House. A gentleman whose character is without spot or blemish, and one whom all voters love. He is always the same high and honorable citizen. By his courteous demeanor, fine talent and his firm and dignified hearing upon this floor among legislators two years ago, he earned for himself honest admiration of Representatives of all parties, and secured for himself the hearty indorsment of his constituency at home. I place in nomination the gallant young-Republican from Morgan County, George A, Adams.
There being no other nomination the ballot resulted: For Mr. Jewett, 65, votes, and for Mr. Adams, 35 votes.
The SPEAKER was sworn in and addressed the House as follows :
[See Appendix]
The SPEAKER announced the next business in to be the election of the Principal Clerk.
Mr. DITTEMORE nominated Henry C. Darnell, of Putnam County
Mr. BEST. I desire to put in nomination a gentleman who was a member of the last General Assembly, Hon. U. Z. Wiley, of Benton County.
The ballot resulted for Mr.. Darnell, 65 votes: for Mr. Wiley, 35 votes. The former was declared and sworn into office.
The SPEAKER. The next thing in order is the election of an Assistant Clerk
Joseph J. Fanning, of Marion County, and David E Ranger, of Vermillion County, were placed in nomination.
The ballot resulted: For Mr. Fanning, 65 votes: for Mr. Ranger, 35 votes. The former was declared and sworn into offi
The Speaker - The next thing in order is the of a Doorkeeper.
Mr. Mock nominated Henry Frye of Grant County.
Mr. Mock nominated Henry Frye of Grant County.
Mr. Wilson nonlinaled Alexander Boyman of Kosciusko.
The ballot resulted : For Mr. Frye, 63 votes Mr. Boyman, 31 votes.
The former was declared elected, and sworn into office
On motion: by Mr. Copeland; the Speaker appointed Messrs. Copeland and. Gooding a committee on the part of the House to act with a like committee of the Senate to ascertain at what time, the Governor will be ready to deliver his biennial message to the General Assembly.
Mr. ROBINSON ottered s resolution, directing the Doorkeeper to invite the clergy of the city to open each session of the House with prayer.
Mr. PENDLETON moved to amend by inviting Rev. O. H. P. Abbott to offer such service continually during the session.
Mr. GOODING - There is no member who has more personal regard for Mr. Abbott than myself. He is an excellent man, but I do not wish or, think it proper for this douse to discriminate among or between the churches. I think all the churches should be represented before us. Being a Methodist, my raising and training having been in that line, but I do not wish to be sectarian, and I will therefore not support the amendment.
On motion by Mr. MOOD the amendment was laid on the table.
The original resolution was adopted:
Mr. CORY offered a resolution that the Principal Assistant Clerk of the House, and all employes who may act for the House, shall make requisition upon the Commissioners of Public Printing and Binding for all stationery used in the House.
Mr. MOSIER moved to amend by striking out the word "employes" and adding these words "That all stationery procured elsewhere is unauthorized, and is hereby forbidden."
Mr. SMITH, of, Tippecanoe,, unless the number authorized to draw stationery were reduced, would not favor the resolution. He offered a subsitute omitting the words "and employes.".
The substitute was agreed to.
Mr. McMullen, by consent, introduced a bill (H. R.1 ] appropriating $125.,000 to defray the expenses of the Regular session of the Fifty-fourth General Assembly of the State of Indiana and declaring an emergency which was read the first time, the second time by title, the third time by sections under a dispensation of the Constitutional rule - yeas 84, nays 13, and finally passed by yeas 96, nays 8.
Mr. DEEM offered a resolution that the Librarian procure of the Secretary of State and furnish each Member with a copy of Revised Statutes of 1881.
Mr. Gooding made an ineffectual motion- yeas 11, nays 89 - to lay this resolution on the table.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe, moved to strikeout all reference to the Librarian.
The amendment was accepted and the resolution adopted, Then came a recess till 2 o'clock.
Mr. DITTEMORE, from the committee appointed, to wait upon the Governor, reported that His Excellency will be rep dy to deliver his message to the General Assembly at 10:30 o'clock tomorrow.
The House adjourned till 10 o'clock to-morrow,
The senate met, Lieutenant Governor HANNA In the chair.
Lewis D. Adkison, a Senator from the counties of Miami and Howard, appeared in his seat.
Prayer by Rev. Dr. Joseph S Jencks, of the Episcopal Church
The Journal of yesterday was read, corrected and approved.
Mr. SMITH, of Delaware, offered a resolution questing the Secretary of the Young Men's Christian Association to secure chaplain service for the Senate
On motion of Mr. FOWLER the resolution was laid on the table.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Jo, offered a resolution limiting the number of employes to the number in the Revised Statutes of 1881, except a, keeper of the cloak room. In his judgment, looking at this matter from a business standpoint, ample provisions are made in the statute for caring for the Senate some thirty or thirty-two employes - with large pay for other employment. Last session the number-reached forty or more, and it cost $70 a week to have letters brought here from the post office, which cost should not have exceeded $2 in the usual way of business. For such reasons as these he desired to see the resolution adopted.
Mr.MAY made an ineffectual motion - yeas, 23; 21-to lay the resolution on the table.
Mr. McINTOSH moved to amend by striking out the additional employe proposed by the resolution.
Mr. MAY Moved to refer the resolution and pending amendment to the Committee on Rules.
The motion was agreed to by yeas, 26; nays, 21.
Mr. RAHM offered a concurrent resolution authorizing the appointment of a committee of three on the part of the Senate, to act with a like committee on the part of the House, to make arrangements for the inaugural ceremonies of Governor Gray.
It was adopted, and the Chair appointed Messrs. Rahm, Marshall and Wier said committee of Senators.
Mr FOULKE offered the following, under the benign influence of the spirit of reform:
Resolved, That the Senate of Indiana is in full accord with the declarations contained in the late letter of Hon. Grover Cleveland to the President of the National Civil Service Reform League, pledging himself to the fair and honest enforcement of the civil service reform of 1883, and Blaring that a removal of the present incumbent from their Government positions, disconnect with the policy of the administration, shall not made during the terms for which they were appointed, for the purpose of putting in their places those who are in political accord with the appointing power, and declaring further that a due regard for the people's interest do not permit faithful party work to be always re warded by appointment to office, and that selections for office not embraced within the civil service law be based on sufficient regard as to fitness rather than upon persistent importunities and self-solicited recommendations.
Resolved, That in the impartial and non-partisan enforcement of these principles the President-elect will have the earnest support of the body, and, as we believe, of those whom we represent without distinction of party.
On motion by Mr. WIER, the resolutions were referred to the Committee on Federal Relations by yeas 29: nays 18.
Pending the roll call-
Mr. MAGEE, in explanation of his vote, when he roll was called, said: I am in favor of a resolution of the character of the one before the Senate, or of he sentiments expressed in that resolution, but can not consent to vote for it as it now stands. I object somewhat to the language. And as this is simply a motion for a reference of the resolution to a committee to report thereon at some future time, I shall vote "aye." And I want to congratulate Republicans that they have finally -
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR (interposing):
That ain't exactly an explanation of your vote, Senator. [Laughter]
Mr. MAGEE: Yes, it is. [Renewed laughter.]
I want to congratulate the Republicans that they have finaly came to look up this
question as we Democrats do. We are all in favor of civil serv
Mr. MAY when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said: I wish to say of the sentiment of civil service reform that I favor it; and if this resolution went further and stated, as the letter of the President-elect referred to did, it would favor the putting out of office all those who used their offices for partisan purposes. I should probably vote for it. As it is, I vote for the motion to refer. I vote "aye"
The vote was announced as above recorded.
And so the resolutions were referred to the Committee on Federal Relations.
A message from the House of Representatives announced the readiness of that body to receive the Senate, whereupon
On motion of Mr. MAGEE, the Senate repaired to the hall of the House, to hear the Governor's biennial message in Joint Convention.
When the Senators had returned to their chamber -
Senator RAHM, from the committee appointed to make arrangements for the ceremonies incident to the inauguration of Governor-elect Gray, reported that they would take place at English's Opera House on Monday next at 2 o'clock p.m.
Mr. HILLIGASS offered a resolution, which was adopted, directing the Doorkeeper to procure copies of the statues of 1881 for the use of the Senators. He said the Secretary of State requested him to offer such resolution, in order that the Doorkeeper might receipt to him for the books, etc.
Then came a recess till 3 o'clock.
On motion by Mr. HILLIGASS 1,000 copies of the Governor's biennial message were ordered printed for the use of the Senators.
Mr. SMITH of Jennings, offered a concurrent resolution providing for a joint convention of the Senate and House of Representatives to witness the inaugural of Governor-elect Gray, at English's Opera House, next Monday, at 2 o'clock p.m. - the two Houses to meet at 1:30 o' and proceed to the Opera House in a body.
It was adopted.
The following described bills were introduced, read the first time, and severally referred to appropriate committees
Mr. BAILEY [S. 17] to provide additional remedies in cases where insurance companies fail to pay policies issued by them without suit.
By Mr. SHIVELY [S. 18] to regulate the practice of medicine and surgery. It provides that all persons shall be considered qualified to practice medicine or surgery who present one of the following evidences of qualificiation: (1)A diploma from a reputable medical college. (2) A license or approval from a lawfully organized medical society. (3) A successful and reputable practice of medicine for ten years or more in this State. The bill also provides for registration in the office of the Clerk.
By Mr. FOULKE [S 19] to amend section 272 of an act concerning public offences and their punishment, approved April 14, 1881. {To modify the statues so as to conform to the new registry law. proposed in his bill introduced yesterday.]
It was ordered that when the Senate adjourn it adjourns till Monday morning at 10:30 o'clock.
Mr. HILLIGASS offered the following:
Resolved, That the Senate of the State of Indiana, the House concurring, does hereby congratulate the soldiers of the State of Indiana upon the triumphant election of General Mahlon D. Manson, a grave and gallant soldier of two wars, to the position of Lieutenant Governor of Indiana
Mr. FOULKE: If this resolution was worded so as to make it refer only to General Manson, there would probably be no objection to it. The only thing is that the wording of the resolution makes it an improper thing for the Republications of the Senate to congratulate themselves or any one else, on the election of a Democratic candidate. He moved to refer the resolution to a special committee of three, where it can be amended so as to make it pesonally complimentary to General Manson, and then Republican Senators can vote for it.
The motion was rejected by yeas 14, nays, 30
Mr. FOULKE offered the following substitute
Resolved, That the Senate of Indiana desires to express its high sense of the personal and military worth of Lieutenant Governor Manson, who is so soon to preside over our deliberations.
The substitute was adopted on a division - affirmative 25, negative 7.
The question recurring on the adoption of the substitute resolution
The yeas and nays were demanded by Messrs. Foulke and Youche.
Mr. MAGEE moved to postpone the further consideration of the resolution till Monday Morning at 10:30 o'clock.
The yeas and nays were demanded by Messrs. Youche and Foulke.
On motion by Mr. Smith, of Jay - yeas 31; nays 15 - the Senate adjourned under a previous order, till Monday morning at 10:30 o'clock.
The House was called to order by the Speaker, who said: The house will be opened with prayer by E.S. Frazel, a Representative from the County of Rush.
The SPEAKER: The next thing in order will be the reading of the journal.
The journal was being read, when -
The journal was being read, when - Mr. McMULLEN moved that the further reading of the journal be dispensed with.
The motion was rejected, and the Clerk proceeded with the reading.
The Doorkeeper having announced a message from the Senate -
A member of the Senate said: I am directed by the Senate to inform the House of the passage of the following resolution to regard to convening the two Houses in joint session to receive the Governor's message.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: Considering the amount of work to be done, I move we suspend , the further reading of the journal I do that for the reason that the reading of the journal is a mere formality. If it is necessary to find out what business has been transacted we can refer to the journal. Any member can inform himself of that by referring to the journal. We have other butdnes to be accomplished, and as the hearing of the message comes this morning, I think we bad better not hear the journal read, I will say to the House, however, I am not particular
Mr. GOODING: For the commencement I think it is a bad precedent to dispense with the reading of the journal. I insist that we ought to hear the reading of the journal every morning, so that each member may know what the journal says, and I insist upon the reading of the journal, and the Governor's message can come afterward.
Mr. KELLISON: I suppose the proceedings of yesterday of the most importance. Put the question to the House and I will abide by its decision.
Mr. GORDON: I think any member can have an inspection of the journal at any time.
The motion was rejected upon a division.
The reading of the journal proceeded until -
On motion by Mr. LOYD, the reading of the journal was dispensed with.
The SPEAKER appointed as pages Joseph Feebleman, Charles Murphy, James Burns and Edward Doyle.
The resolution from the Senate providing for a joint committee of the two Houses at 11 o'clock to-day, for the purpose of publishing the votes cast for Governor and Lieutenant Governor at the last general election, and hearing the biennial message of the present Governor, being read -
It was adopted
The SPEAKER appointed Messrs. Loop, Hayden and Haworth a committee on the part of the House to act with the Senate committee to wait on the Governor.
Mr. WILLIAMS offered a resolution, which was adopted, authorizing the appointment of a committee of two to conduct Senators to this hall for the session of the joint convention.
Whereupon the SPEAKER appointed Messrs. Williams and Best said committee.
Mr. BOYD offfered the following:
Resolved, That it is the sense of the members of this House that the Congress of the United States should at once place General U. S. Grant upon the retired list of the army for his services, for what has done in the Way of restoring peace and giving to us an undivided country.
Mr. GOODING: I think we have more important, business. For the present I move to lay it on the table.
The SPEAKER said, the time has arrived for the Joint Convention of the two Houses.
The Senate appearing and Senators being furnished seats in the center of the hall.
he LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, sitting on the right of the speaker of the House, called the Convention to order, saying: The purpose of this Joint Convention is to hear the biennial message of the Governor, and after that to count and publish the votes cast for the Governor and Lieutenant Governor elect. The Joint Committee heretofore appointed to wait upon the Governor will please attend to that duty. In order to expedite matters I will call upon the Speaker of the House to publish the votes cast for Governor and Lieutenant Governor at the last election, and we will then have the returns referred to the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House to tabulate the votes, so we may not be able to publish the result at the close of the reading of the Governor's message.
The SPEAKER of the House: I suppose the exhibition of these returns [lying on the table in front of him in bundles] of the vote cast at the last November election for Governor and Lieutenant Governor of the State, will be considered sufficient compliance with the law on the subject. These are the returns that have been delivered to me and if there is no objection they will be in this manner referred to the Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House of Representatives for tablution
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: It is so ordered. The clerks will please take these returns, to tabulate them and report the result.
Governor Porter now walking up the aisle in advance of the committee of the two Houses appointed to inform him the Joint Committee was waiting to hear his message, was received with applause. When he reached the Speaker's dias -
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR said: Gentlemen of the Joint Committee - I have the pleasure of introducing to you the Governor of this State, who will no deliver his biennial message, as follows:
GENTLEMEN OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES- The circumstances, under which you meet are not so auspicious as they were when Legislature last assembled. Low prices prevailed for farmers' products. Our manufacturing industries have been depressed. Our mines of coal have not found a ready market for all coal they could produce. Labor, in many occupations, has not been rewarded with steady employment nor with adequate returns. When the resources of the people are diminished it is the duty of the legislator to make the public burthen as light as possible. The following is a
The item of "twenty-four internal improvements bonds past due, $24,000," which appeared in this statement of my last biennial message, no longer exists, those bands having been paid on the 25th day of May, 1883.
The temporary loan bonds mentioned in the foregoing statement, announcing in the
aggregate to the sum of $585,000, though not due. until 1859, are now, by the terms of the
bonds payable at any time sooner at the pleasure of the State. As; they bear 5 per cent .
Interest, and the money requisite to discharge them can be obtained considerably below that
rate, I recommend that authority be given to the Governor, and Auditor of State to borrow
the requisite sum at, the lowest practi
The general fund, at the present rate of taxation, will not be sufficient, unless it shall augmented from some new source, to meet the ordinary current expenses of the State and the extra ordinary expenses rendered necessary for the completion of to three additional Hospitals for the Insane the usual loans to the State House Fund. It is evident that unless economics can he introduced which will relieve the deficit the rate of taxation will have to be somewhat increased or a sufficient sum borrowed to meet the exigency. In the event that a loan shall be made, provision should be simultaneously made for the creation a sinking fund for the discharge of the debt at an early day. But before imposing any additional tax or providing for any loan, every report should be made to avoid the necessity thereof by reducing all needless expenses.
The failure of the General Appropriation bill at the last session of the Legislature was not followed by the inconveniences which were by most persons anticipated and the propriety of my determination not to call an extra session, which would have put upon the State an expense, at least, of from $70 000 to $80 000, has been fully vindicated. It was found that laws were in force under which the State Government and all its machinery could be conducted, notwithstanding the failure of that bill. The General Appropriation bill, if it had become a law, would, indeed, have limited the expense for each object for which it made provision to the amount specifically appropriated therefor, whereas the laws above referred to did not, in most instances, contain any exact limitation upon expenditure. But the General Appropriation bill having passed both Houses and having been subsequently reconsidered for other reasons than that its provisions were not satisfactory, it was deemed to contain an expression of the sense of the Legislature. To guard, therefore, against expenditures greater than the Legislature would have sanctioned, a conference was held between the Treasure and auditor of State and myself, at which my determination not call an extra session was made known to them, and a decision was adopted, that the expenditures of the several objects specified in the General Appropriation bill should not in any instance be exceeded. The effect of this decision has been that, through an effort to keep down expenditures for the objects specified in that bill to the lowest practicable amount, the expenditures have been less than they would have been had the bill passed. An examination of the expenses of the executive department, especially, will show that no greater economy could possibly have been practiced.
The failure of the General Appropriation bill, however, occasioned great inconvenience to two or three of the public institutions, from the fact that now law could be found under which sufficient provision could be made for them. The inconvenience will be doubtless be redressed by you by proper legislation.
Your particular attention is invited to the remarks contained is the report of the Auditor of State, on the subject of the Stile's printing has, during the last few ears, increased very much in quantity, yet there has been no corresponding increase in the appropriation to pay for it. The law is also defective in no defining with precision what matter shall be printed since the law of March 13, 1875, was enacted, specifying the reports which shall be printed a considerable number of new offices have been created, the incumbents of which are required by law to make annual reports. It has been the practice to print these reports under a very vague and doubtful authority containing in the act creating the Bureau of Public Printing. The Legislature should clearly express its will with respect to what reports shall be printed.
It is believed that some of these reports should be published but once in two years, in season to be printed and laid on the desks of members at the meetings of the Legislature in regular session. Other reports, allowed to be printed annually might properly be limited in length and restricted in topics, at least in the years following the regular session. In this way a very considerable and prudent saving of expense might be effected.
The Legislature should require a paper of better quality to be used in printing most of the reports than the law now requires. The paper used is by no means equal to paper generally used in other States of like wealth and advancement.
Notwithstanding the Legislature at its last session failed to make an appropriation for the Public Printer, the present contractor, Mr. W. B. Burford, has printed the reports of public officers, the acts of the Legislature and the House and Senate Journals, with the expectation that you would at the present session make a proper appropriation to pay him for such printing at the rates specified in the State's contract with him. The work has been done promptly and to the satisfaction of the officer required by law to inspect it. I recommend that the appropriation be made as soon as practicable.
the act of 1859, "to provide a treasury system for this State" - which act is still in force - declared that the room then occupied, or which might thereafter be assigned to and occupied by the Treasurer of State, together with the sales, vaults and other necessary means for the security and safekeeping of the public money, should constitute the Treasury of the State: and that the Treasurer of the State should be required to use the Treasury so constituted as the sole place for the deposit and safekeeping of the State's moneys; and the Auditor and Treasurer were required, under the direction of the Governor to provide such additional locks, safes and vaults as might render the public funds absolutely secure against fire and burglars, and "appropriation" was thereby made "of such money as may be necessary to obtain the same"
During the last summer many articles appeared in the public press charging that the Treasurer did not keep the public funds in the safe or vaults of the Treasury, and urging that if, as was alleged, the safe or vaults were insecure, the Governor should require the Auditor and Treasurer to provide such additional locks, safes, and vaults as were contemplated in the act above cited. If the appropriation to which I have referred was a continuing one, available whenever the safe or vaults were it secure, the duty of the Governor to require the Auditor and Treasurer to provide additional locks, sales, and vaults was clear. It had, however,for many years been notorious that the safe and vaults were insecure, yet no requirement of this sort had been made by any of my predecessors. It not appearing obvious, therefore, from the statue that the appropriation was a permanent one, I inferred that it had not so been regarded by my predecessors as being so, and might not be so regarded by the Courts. I decided, however, when the question was urged, to take the opinion of the Attorney General. After a careful examination, he advised me that the appropriation was still available. I then appointed two highly competent experts, belong to different political parties, to examine the sales and vaults and to report whether they were secure after a careful examination, they reported that they were not secure either against fire or burglars. I thereupon addressed a letter the Auditor and Treasurer, informing them of the result of the examination, and requiring them to provide such locks, safes, and vaults as would render the Treasury secure in both these respects.
They, however, decided not to comply with the requirement. As the statue, with respect to the availability of the appropriation is not entirely clear; as a requirement similar to the one I made had not been made by any of my predecessors; and as a proceeding against these officers by mandate could not, in all likelihood, be prosecuted to a conclusion before the present meeting of the Legislature, I decided to abstain from legal proceedings, and to refer the matter to you for such action as you might deem appropriate.
The safe and vaults are without doubt insecure. Their known insecurity has for many years furnished the excuse to Treasurers for depositing the State's moneys in banks, and for loaning them, it is believed, to individuals. No matter what political party has been in power, the public moneys have thus been disposed of. Repeatedly, when the Legislature has been in session, the fact of such misappropration has been publicly stated in debates in the two houses. That such a usage should be allowed is unjust to the taxpayers, and not creditable to the State. That if it is long tolerated a great loss of the State's money will sometime occur, can not be doubted. Yet that the public moneys, so long as they are deposited by prudent Treasurers in banks, or loaned in private individuals, are not less secure than they would be if kept to the safe and vault now provided for them, is undeniable.
The Treasury law, as it now is, furnished no protection for the Treasury except in so far as it requires the Treasurer to give a bond with sureties for the safe keeping of the State's moneys. Yet though at certain seasons of each year he has nearly $2,000,000 of money in his hands, the bond given by him is in the sum of $150,000 only.
The legal provision for an examination, under direction of the Governor, of the books, etc., of the Treasurer is predicated upon the supposition that a suitable vault and safe have been provided for the custody of the State's moneys. The means afforded for an examination, under the Governor's direction, are absurdly insufficient. The The statue provides that is shall be his duty, when ever the law, or, in his opinion, the public interest requires it to appoint some competent and trustworthy accountant "of the highest ability and skill" to make an examination of the assets and effects, books, claims, vouchers, etc., which are or should be in the Treasury, but it enjoins that the accountant shall not be paid more than $3 a day for his services. The services of no accountant of the highest skill and ability, nor indeed of any skill, could be procured for that sum.
If you desire that the State"'s moneys shall be kept in its Treasury you should immediately provide for the purchase of a proper safe, and, if deemed needful, for the building of a vault in which the safe shall be placed; and you should greatly amend the requirements intended to secure their being kept in the Treasury. The expense of securing such a safe and constructing such a vault would be utterly trifling compared with the risk to which the taxpayers are exposed every year by the practice of lending the State"s moneys.
If, however, you prefer - as I can not believe you do - that the State"s moneys shall be placed on general deposit in banks, or loaned to individuals, you should provide, under the most particular and rigorous requirements, that all interest or profit received for the use of them shall be into the State Treasury
On account of the calamities that have recently befallen some leading banking institutions in Indianapolis, and the disturbance of credit, I recommend that an examination shall be made by persons of competent skill of the condition of the State Treasury. If two substantial businessmen, skill in accounts, were appointed and empowered to employ an experience book keeper at a competent salary, an investigation could be speedily made which would show whether the State"s moneys are certainly safe, and would tend to enlighten you respecting the legislation needed for future protection of the Treasury. No harm could ensue from such investigation. Much good might come from it.
The permanent fund for the support of th common schools of the State amounts now to $9,339,827.68. The increase of the furd during the last year from fines, forfeitures and other sources was $65,159,57. The accessions to the fund during the last ten years from the same sources have averaged $62 898.09 a year. The revenue derived from taxation for the support of schools and from interest on the school funds amounted last yeer $1,458,91.69. The outlay for the maitenance of schools-not including the cost of new school houses - was about $4,000,000. The number of public school houses in the State is 9,664.
The number of children of school age, according to last year's enumeration, is 722,851. The number who actually attended school was 501,142. The number of children of school age who do not attend school, as indicated by these figures, shows the grave necessity for more energetic measures to secure a greater proportionate attendance A compulsory attendance should not exacted until all other means fail. Would not a law that would grant a reasonable bounty teachers who would secure the largest attendance within their districts, in proportion to schtool population, provide a means of judicious experiment.
The condition of our public schools, except the respect above mentioned, is regarded by the Superintendent of Public Instruction as highly satisfactory. A uniform course of study and has been adopted under a recommendation made last year by a State meeting of County Superintendents, and no in pursuance of any requirement of law.
A continual improvement is being made school architecture, including mode of heating and ventilation. The embellishment of school grounds by the cultivation of trees and flowers, through the efforts of teachers and pupils, without expense to the State, is also becoming general.
Since the last meeting of the General Assembly, a serious calamity has befallen the State University by th destruction by fire of the newer of the two college buildings, and the valuable geological and ichthyological collections, museum and laboratory.
The loss has been partially repaired by a payment made on an insurance policy, and by a very generous contribution by the citizens of Monroe County, But a large sum more would be required to replace the loss.
The trustees of the University have done themselves much credit, and greatly increased the opportunity of the University for usefulness, by electing from within the State for its head Professor David S. Jordan a young man of fine natural abilities, whose attainments in the natural sciences have made his name favorably known to scientists of eminence in the United States and in Europe.
The report of the trustees is commended to your serious and earnest attention.
I Invite your attention also, with pleasure, to the very able and interesting report of
the trustees and faculty of Purude University. It presents, with a conciseness and
perspecuity deserving special commendation, the condition, the work, and the needs of the
several departments of that institution. Its new President has entered upon his work with
great zeal and energy, and with a wise comprehension of the sphere of this university in
the State"s system of education. I hope that it will be your pleasure promptly to
provide for the payment of the debt necessarily incurred by the trustees on account of
The State Normal School, under its efficient Superintendent and able corps of instructors, continues to increase in usefulness. The institution is notable for its thoroughness, and the number of students steadily increases.
The subject of the State Library is one that should be of special interest to the, Legislature. The books are provided with peculiar reference to the wants of the members and officers of that body and of the State officers. The selection of new books should not be confined to a single person, but to a competent number of persons, occupations indicate a possession of the knowledge which would enable them to make a judicious selection. A member of the Legislature needing information during the session to enlighten him with respect to his duties, or a State officer needing like information, should have the assistance, when practicable, of a librarian who can instantly refer to whatever has been written upon the subject which he desires to read or investigate. Librarians, in all the great libraries, are trained persons, chosen for the variety and freshness of their knowledge, and a faculty of finding, with instantaneous facility, whatever is contained in the books in their charge. The State Library should, in my opinion, be placed in charge of the State Board of Education, and that board should select the Librarian. The board was established in 1875, and is composed of Governor, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, the President of the State University, the President of Purdue University, the President of the State Normal School, and the Superintendents of Common Schools of the three largest cities in the State. Its fitness for an intelligent performance of the duties will. I believe, be recognized by you and by the people of the State generally.
The trustees of the Indiana Hospital for the Insane report the cost per capita for maintenance of the insane during the last fiscal year as $( )77.02 a patient, as against $194 a patient during the years 1882 and 1883 and as against $185 during the years 1881 and 1882. Most of this reduction is ascribed to the reduced price of provisions during the year 1884.
At the last session of the Legislature I urged upon that body the importance of defining the elements that shall be regarded as making up the per capita expenses of the inmates of our benevolent and penal institutions, sometimes all repairs of a merely temporary character have been treated as a part of the per capita expenses; at other times they have not been so regarded; and no uniform rule of estimation has ever existed.
In the Asylum for Feeble-Minded Children the salaries for officers and teachers, school books, medical stores and fuel and light, which are obviously a part of such expenses are omitted, as well as repairs of every kind. Until a fixed and intelligible rule shall have been prescribed by the Legislature the relative expenses per capita of maintaining the inmates of the several institutions can never be ascertained, and the reports will in most cases be misleading. I advise, on account of the difficulty in distinguishing between temporary and permanent repairs, that repairs shall not be taken into the account.
I invite your particular attention to the gratifying statement that the experiment of the disuse of mecanical restraints in the treatment of the insane, begun a little more than a year since, has proved satisfactory, and that it is deemed to have been demonstrated that a Hospital for the insane can be managed without confining the inmates in cribs or tying them to stationary objects or using other of the milder mechanical restraints which until lately have been usual in American hospitals. In foreign hospitals, it is well known, the use of such restraints has been abandoned to a much greater extent than in the hospitals of the United States. Kind treatment, united with increased vigilance, has been found to be a more effective means for restoring the curable and governing the incurable than any of the severer methods.
I also invite your attention to the experience of the Indiana Hospital during the last year in relation to the use of alcoholic liquors as a remedial agent among the insane. It is stated that spirituous liquors have been found detrimental to insane patients, except in cases of low vitality, and that even in such cases other remedies have been found to be preferable. At a time when facts are being diligently collected, in an impartial and scientific spirit, with reference to the effects of alcoholic stimulants in cases of mental disease, this contribution will be deemed of interest.
The recommendation of the Trustees concerning the necessity of purchasing a small strip of ground adjacent to the northern line of the Hospital, to prevent houses in a village near the Hospital from being built inconveniently near to department for women, is commended to your earnest consideration.
The extensive new building, constituting a part of the hospital, designed exclusively for women, was completed on the second day of June, 1884. At that time some claims for work done remained unsettled, and a slight question existed whether the act contemplated a dissolution of the Provisional Board appointed to construct the building until these claims were paid. But, believing that the expenses of keeping the board in existence should cease as soon as the building had been complete and that the trustees of the Indiana Hospital might properly adjust these claims board was, upon my request declared to be dissolved, in conformity to what I believed to be the requirement of the act by which it was created.
Insanity among women is known to be largely owing to diseases peculiar to their sex. The delicacy which recoils from the necessary conditions of treatment is often heightened by the fact that reason is not at the helm to control emotion. Upon obvious grounds, therefore, I urged upon the Legislature at its last session the appointment in the Woman's Department of at least one woman physician. The Legislature neglected to consider the recommendation; but the good sense of the trustees made up for the neglect. A lady of execellent attainments in the medical profession has been appointed a physician in that, department, and the trustees and Superintendent unite in acknowledging the value of her services.
By the act passed at the last session of the General Assembly, providing for the
building of three additional hospitals for the Insane, the Governor was required to appoint
four commissioners (two from each of the principal political parties) who together with the
Governor, were charged with the duty of selecting the locations of two of the hospitals,
and of selecting the sites of the and of constructing the buildings. One of the hospitals
was required by the terms of the act to be located in Vanderburg County. One hundred and
sixty acres was the maximum quantity of land which the commissioners were authorized to
purchase for the use of any one of the hospitals. The commissioners were, however,
empowered to receive, on behalf of the State, donations of lands or other gifts. I
appointed as commissioners, soon after the adjournment the Legislature, Messrs, John
Robinson and DeFoe Skinner, Democrats, and Messrs. William Grose and Joseph R. Gray,
Republicans, who accepted the appointments and immediately entered upon the discharge of
their duties. In conducting hospitals under the system now approved, the insane are kept as
much as possible in the open air
In conformity to the requirement of the act, the commissioners, after they had selected the sites for the several institutions, proceeded to advertise promptly for bids for the construction of the buildings. For building the hospital hear Evansville the lowest bid was $286,585.20 for building the hospital near Richmond the lowest bid was $269,760.93; for building the hospital near Logansport the lowest bid was $362,802.29. These bids were accepted, but not until provision bad been made for considerable reduction of expense to the State by simplying the style of architecture, and contracts were entered into accordingly. To reconcile a differeace of views among the commissioners, the cottage plan of buildings was adopted at Richmend; a system of detached buildings connected by covered corridors was adopted for the hospital near Logansport, and the congregate plan of building was adopted for the hospital near Evansville. The foundations of the several buildings have been completed. A large amount of material has also been collected, and extensive preparations have been made for the prosecution of the work on these buildings during the next season.
I can not too highly commend the interest taken by the commissioners in all that has been thus far done. But I deem it proper to add that the necessary cost of constructing hospitals of the capacity proposed proved to be so much larger than the commissioners had anticipated that, for the purpose of diminishing the cost, I personally advocated a a very considerable decrease of capacity. It seemed to me that it proper designs were adopted the capacity of the hospitals might be increased as exigencies might hereafter require. In this opinion the majority of the boars did not agree with me and the hospitals are being constructed on the large scale as at first proposed.
This communication would be too much prolonged by a reference to further matters of interest connected with these asylums. I therefore refer you to the very clear and intelligent report of the commissioners, which has been printed and wil be promptly placed before you.
The report of the directors and superintendents respectively of the institutions for the blind and deaf and dumb will be laid on your tables, and will be found instructive. Provision should be made for the indigent inmates of these schools curing the vacation of the schools, so that the reproach may no longer continue of their being often compelled to seek a home in poor houses to have them from suffering.
These two institutions, incongruously under one roof, and the appropriation for which, being made separately, render it nearly impracticable to keep correctly the accounts, should engage your anxious attention. I recommend the appointment of a committee at an early period in the session, to investigate their affairs and also to report what additional legislation is necessary to simplify and improve the management. There are important recommendations in the report of the trustees and Superintendent which I recommend to your consideration
The average number of prisoners at the State Prison North during the fiscal year was 547. At the State Prison South the average number was 570. The receipts of the Northern Prison from the labor of prisoners have exceeded by $7,202.71 the outly for current expenses. The receipts from the labor of prisoners at the Southern Prison have not equaled the outlay for these expenses. The deficiency in the receipts of the latter prison is ascribed to the inferior quality of the building used for manufacturing purposes, the want of land for raising garden products, and other disadvantages which do not apply to the more favored Northern Prison. In the State Prison South the use of the lash for the correction of prisoners has ceased. The enlightened and humane sentiment which requires that it shall cease in all our prisons should, be expressed in laws commanding its discontinuance.
The reports of both prisons urge that a better provision shall be made for insane convicts. A suitable building should be erected at one of the prisons at which all these should be collected, and should receive the care and treatment required by their condition. To remove insane prison to the present hospitals for the insane would be injudiciouson two accounts; that the friends the reputable insane would not be willing to see their insane kindred to an institution used for the confinement of criminals, and that the proving prisoners insane, in order to remove them places where the opportunities for escape would be enhanced, would soon grow into a business.
The report of the Southern Prison shows that 61 per cent. of the convicts are thirty years of age and under, and that 45 per cent. of the crimes of violence, for which were prisoners are there confined, were committed by persons not past the age twenty-five. These grave facts, should stimulate to even greater and more constant endeavors the efforts of the humane to reclaim erring children and youth, and to invade, with all good influences the nurseries in which children are brought up in vice.
In the exercise of the pardoning power I have taken great care to avoid turning loose
upon society dangerous malefactors. I have endeavored also, to abstain from such frequency
in exercising the power as would make the punishment of crime appear to be uncertain. With
whatever care the power may be exercised, it is almost :ear. taip to be used, in many
cases, with unjust, though unintended partiality. The Executive can seldom be familiar with
all the merits of the case. He must rely, therefore, upon appearances, and pardons are too
apt, in spite of all, the vigilance that can be exercised, to be unconscious concessions to
the energy which has secured influential names to petitions, rather than to the actual
merits of the applicant. To introduce a more just and impartial practice toward prisoners,
I recommended to the Legislature, at its last session, the allowance of a much larger
credit for good conduct upon the terms of sentences than had before been granted. The
Legislature , adopted my recommendation, and the good effect of this legislation upon the
discipline of the prisons has been so evident as to elicit from the wardens expressions of
great satisfaction. The Trustees of the Northern Prison, say of this law that "it has
proved to be a valuable moral force in the, administration of the prison," and that
"the good effects of the law, through its encouragement to good behavior on the part
of the convicts exceed the expectations of the most sanguine friends or the measure."
The warden of the
The tendency of the cheap price of convict labor, as employed in our two prisons, to diminish, unjustly, the price of articles manufactured alike by free and convict labor, has naturally, produced complaints from free laborers injuriously affected. The two leading political parties in this State, in their last platformss condemned the present prison contract system, and the last Legislature having to agree upon any chance in the present system the Senate appointed a committee to present a suitable bill at the present session. Having felt interested the subject, I entered into correspondence with several persons who, I supposed had given it consideration, and shall transmit it to the Senate Committee, to whom was committed the preparation of a bill, the form of a bill prepared and sent to me by a gentleman in another State, who has given to the whole question of administration prolonged reflection and study.
The average number of boys in the Reform School during the past year was 895. The Superintendent states in his report that "The health of the boys has never been better, the work of reformation has never been more thoroughly and the industrial' features of the school never been more satisfactory." As it will no doubt be your pleasure to visit the school early in session, I deem it unnecessary to say more than that I deem it is well conducted, is working many sound reformations, and deserves your favor.
This institution, exclusively under the management of women, continues to be conducted in a satisfactory manner. The average number aces in both departments during the last year was 186. The number of thorough reformations that have been effected by this institution is most encouraging. A just regard for economy, and a conscientious determination to keep expenditures within the appropriations made for the institution, is a marked, characteristic of the management.
The value of the work done by the State Geologist is recognized abroad scarcely less than at home. His learned reports justly engage the attention of scholars. There haying been no permanent appropriations available to pay the expenses of his office, he has been obliged, in consequence of the failure in 1883 of the Appropriation bill, to advance the means necessary to carry it on. He should be promptly reimbursed.
The progress made in the construction of the State-house since the last meeting of the Legislature has been most satisfactory. There is good reason for expecting that like satisfactory progress will be made until the structure is completed. It is believed the building will be ready for use by the Legislature at its next regular session. The work has as far advanced as to render it obvious you should at the present session make appropriation to enable the commissioners to purchase the furniture that will be required for the building to grade the grounds, and to construct a suitable fence around them.
The report of the commissioners is commended careful attention.
A due regard for brevity will prevent my referring, with as particularity as I should desire, to the subject of the State Militia. For its efficiency and its increase in numbers during my administration I am greatly indebted to Adjutant General Carnahan, and to the members my military staff. I refer you to the Adjutant General's report with an earnest hope that you will give great weight to its valuable suggestions. The militia now consists of thirty-six companies of infantry, eight companies of artillery, ones platoon of Gatling guns, and one company, of cavalry. In case of a sudden outbreak of war they would be valuable, not only in active service, but in training raw troops for duties in the field. It is not creditable to the State, and is in great contrast to the course of States which surround us, that the State does not contribute properly toward the expenses of these organizations, whose help would be so useful in military emergencies.
The Constitution of this State provides that "the militia shall consist of al1 able bodied white male persons between the ages of eighteen and forty fire years, except such as may be exempted by the laws of the United States or this State." Section 5,358 of the Revised Statutes. of 1881 also provides that "the militia shall consist of able bodied white male persons between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years." This retention the odious discrimination implied In the term "white" in the cases above cited, is a reproach upon the character of the State, and the most energetic means should be adopted by you to remove it from these clauses of the Constitution and laws.
The report of the Chief of the Bureau of Statistics is being printed, and will soon be laid before you. The Commissioner, after the adjournment of the last Legislature, was obliged to borrow money to carry on his office, in consequence of the failure of the appropriation bill. This, happily, he did with little difficulty. I recommend that an amount sufficient to discharge the sum, borrowed be repaid to him.
The difficulty in several of the counties of collecting the statistics required to be furnished by county officers, is shown by him: the officers of these counties being unwilling to collect and furnish statistics unless paid for their services. His suggestion of the means of overcoming the difficulty should engage your early consideration.
The report of the State Board of Agriculture will soon be laid before you. It will be found to contain essays and discussions interesting to farmers. I beg, however, a second time to express my very strong conviction that a change should be made in several particulars in the composition of the board. I ure especially that the professors agriculture and chemistry in Purdue University (our agricultural college), shall be made members, exofficio of the board, and required always to be present at Its annual January session. The freshness of their studies of subjects relating to agriculture would enliven and impart additional interest to the proceedings of the board, and the discussions and intimate association with their agricultural associates would tend to give a constantly practical character to their studies.
As the success of the farmer depends quite as much upon a skillful adoption and use and
care of the various kinds of agricultural machinery as it does upon on the study of soils
and crops, and as the chief interest in the fairs centers in such machinery, a certain
proportion of the members should be specially skilled in the mechanic arts: To prevent,
also, a tendency of a board which elects its own members to too great a monotony of thought
and methods, I believe it would be wise to provide that the Governor shall appoint as many
at least as one-fourth of its members. The good which a board could accomplish, if composed
in such a manner as to be constantly reinforced by an accession of fresh and vigorous
The services of the State Board of Health are believed to have been of much benefit in inducing better sanitary conditions throughout the State in bringing to light very grave faults in the sanitary management of our jails and poor houses, and in devising and causing to be successfully executed methods for permanent collection of vital statistics. Their report and the accompanying report of their able and efficient Secretary, will no doubt be read by you with interest.
The last legislature adopted the several amendments to the mining law, which I had the honor to recommend. The report of the Mine Inspector for the year 1884 has not yet been received. His report of the year previous, which will be laid before you, contains a recommendation of further amendments.
The Inspector finds it impracticable to give an accurate statement of the annual coal production of the State, on account of the unwillingness of a number of mining companies to furnish prompt and reliable returns of the tonnage of their mines. The law should, in his opinion, make it compulsory on the owners of mines, and under a penalty, to furnish the Inspector the necessary statistics.
Section 10 of the mining law enacts that no owner of a mine shall place in charge of any engine used for conveying employes into our out of a mine any but experiences, competent and sober engineers. Complaints are sometimes made by miners that their lives are jeopardized by the employment of engineers of a different character. The law does not define who shall be a judge of the fitness of the engineer when such objections are charged to exist. It is evident that the State Inspector should be me made the judge in every such instance.
A requirement that mine "bosses" shall visit the miners at their several places of work at least every two days is urged by very forcible reasons.
Other recommendations not less impressive are made, which I have not time here to repeat. I commend all suggestions of the Inspector, who is a practical miner of long experience, to your most careful consideration.
The last Legislature, by an act approved February 15, 1883, appropriated $40,000 to be expended for the relief of the sufferers on the Ohio, Wabash and White Rivers in this State from the then recent and then prevailing floods in those streams. The Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State and Auditor of State were constituted a board to disburse the fund. It was required that any part of the fund which might remain after affording the relief contemplated should be covered into the Treasury. While the officers appointed were engaged in distributing the sum thus appropriated, the Legislature, by an act approved February 27, 1863, appropriated a further sum of $60,000, "to be expended in relief from present and pressing needs" of persons residing along the same rivers who were destitute or suffering by reason of the overflow of those streams; but it was provided by this last-named act that none of the money appropriated by it should be used or expended except to furnish or purchase food, clothing, medicine, bedding and fuel with which to relieve present necessities, and any part of the sum remaining unexpended on the last day of April, 1883, was required to be covered back into the Treasury. The same officers appointed to expend the first appropriation were direct to "to dispense and direct the application of" the second. The board was empowered to distribute the sum appropriated through the agency of any other person. The Governor was appointed President of the board, and was required, as far as the exigencies of the case would allow, to make a record of the expenditures, and to take vouchers from the persons to whom the money was paid for distribution or application. But it was provided that this last requirement might be disregarded if found in any degree to embarrass the prompt and immediate application of these fund to the relief of the persons to be benefited.
Of the sum appropriated $36,269.29 were disbursed for relief, and $63,734.80 were covered back into the Treasury
The limitation in the manner of relief in the last act was so specific that the needs specified it were regarded as having been fully provided for very soon after the act was passed by expenditures under the first appropriation and by private relief. A small part, therefore, only of the appropriation was expended. The first appropriation being broader in the relief allowed, a considerable part of it was applied toward the repair of houses of sufferers whose means were extremely limited and, to the supply in some extreme instances of farming implements. Great care was taken by the board in selecting persons to whom means were sent to be disbursed to sufferers, or to provide supplies for them, and, persons of sound reputation for integrity were selected. But notwithstanding diligent efforts to secure receipts through these persons, from the parties to whom relief was directly furnished. it was found practicable in only a few instances obtain them. The haste, confusion, and difficulties under which the application of relief was made rendered it impracticable in many instances to take receipts. I can not, without too much extending, this message give a more particular account of the disbursement of, the sums expended, and shall, therefore, furnish a more detailed account of it in a separate communication. In behalf of the board I ask now, while the transaction is recent, that some committee, in one or both the Houses, shall be directed to examine in the manner in which the duties of the board were discharged.
I invite your attention most earnestly to the importance of legislation for the establishment, on a sound foundation of savings banks. The laws of some of the older States in which such institutions have long existed and in which few instances of losses to depositors have occurred might be consulted by you with great advantages, and the recent disastrous experience of institutions ill conducted will no doubt furnish to yon instructive lessons to enable you to correct evils against which the best laws have failed heretofore to provide sufficient safeguards. These banks, where confidence exists in the wisdom and integrity of their management, cultivate in the communities in which they are established a habit of judicious saving which is the best foundation for business prosperity, a restraint against immorality, and a flam support of public order.
On the important subject of fees and salaries, I beg to repeat to you the words contained in my last biennial message:
"For many years complaints have been made in the more populous counties that the
fees and, salaries of officers were too large for the services performed. It has also been
asserted that the means to which there are often strong temptations to resort, for
obtaining nominations for officers so lucrative, and for securing, success at the polls,
have a corrupting effect upon elections. Before the adoption of the constitutional
amendments in 1881, the Legislature was deprived of the power of curing this supposed evil.
In that year an amendment meet was passed which has removed the difficulty. This amendment
was submitted to the electors of the State, and prevailed by a majority of more, than
90,000 votes. A session of the Legislature
When the last Legislature assembled a suit was pending, instituted by the United States, to enjoin passing of a sewage from the reformatory institution for women and girls through the bed of a small stream which flowed from the grounds of the reformatory along the southern border of the the grounds United States Arsenal. As no other means existed for disposing of the sewage, the granting of an injunction was known to imminent unless prompt and efficient measures were adopted for putting an end to the alleged nuisance, the Legislature passed an act placing at the disposal of the Governor $30,000, and directing to cause to be constructed with the least, possible delay, a good, substantial underground brick sewer, from a point at or near the reformatory, and to connect with sewer belonging to the city of Indianapolis on Washington, street, at New Jersey street: and it was provided that if the city should extend its sewer on Washington street to Noble or Pine street, the sewer for the Reformatory should terminate at the eastern end of such extension, and should then be connected therewith, and that the Governor should pay to the to aid in the extension of its said sewer, an amount equal to the cost of the construction of Reformatory sewer, had the latter been constructed for an equal distance on Washington street. Pursuant to the provisions of the act I appointed a competent civil engineer to superintend the work and avertised for bids for its construction. An award was made to the lowest bidders, who proceeded with diligence to construct the sewer from, the point of beginning, at the Reformatory, along the route prescribe by law to Noble street, to which street during the progress of the work, the city's sewer on Washington street bad been extended. Had the season been an ordinary one the sum appropriated would have been more than sufficient to pay for the work; but the excessive rains which had prevailed before the work was begun, and which prevailed during its progress, caused the water to filter through the sandy bottom of the ditch, so that pumps had to be used from the beginning to the end of the work, to enable the sewer to be made at all, and the lower surface of the sewer had to be laid on oak planks nearly its whole length. The consequence is that the expense of constructing the sewer has exceeded the appropriation in the sum of $3.184 69. The contractor have been paid in full, but there is due to the city of Indianapolis the sum last mentioned. So soon as I discovered that the appropriation was likely, to be exceeded, I should have stopped the work promptly until the Legislature could been consulted, but for the extreme exigency of the case, the fact that the Legislature had directed I should cause the sewer to be constructed with the least possible delay, and the likelihood that if the work were stopped the State be involved in a loss much above the excess of the cost of the work over the appropriation. The Legislature of 1881 had indeed appropriated $40,000 for the same purpose, but the work had not been done.
I recommend that an appropriation be made in favor of the city of Indianapolis for the amount of this deficiency
The exemption of a homestead of reasonable value from the demands of creditors has dot been found in practice in the States where such exemptions exist to interfere injuriously with trade. The maintenance of the home, with its endearing associations and its' promotion of private virtue favors the habits which promote honor and thrift in commercial transactions. The family established in its own homestead is one of the best supports of the State. In a large majority of the States homesteads of reasonable value are exempted from execution. I believe they should be exempted in Indiana, and I recommend the passage of a fair homestead bill.
The last General Assembly failed to enact any law to facilitate and hasten the reclamation of the extensive region covered by the Kankakee marsh. The survey made under the direction, of the State by Professor John L. Campbell, and an able corps of assistants was completed so recently before that Legislature convened that no blame can attach to it for omitting to enact proper legislation. The large area of fertile lands now practically valueless by being covered or saturated with water: its convenience, by proximity and by extraordinary railroad facilities to the best markets, and the sanitary benefits which would ensue from its drainage, should be considerations of such momentous importance as to Induce you to spare no effort to adopt means, through wise legislation, for its early reclamation.
By an act of Congress passed in 1850 the United States granted to the several States in which it then owned swamp and overflowed lands the whole of such lands as by reason of being swamp and overflowed were unfit for cultivation. Before a survey was made to determine specifically the lands included in the grant the Unite States in some, if not all of these States, sold to private purchasers a considerable body of these lands. Some of the States, by extraordinary diligence have ascertained what lands belonging to them have thus been sold and have recovered from the United States the price paid for them. I have strong reason to believe that a considerable quantity of swamp and overflowed lands in this State embraced in said grant have been sold by the United States. The proceeds of these sales properly belong to this State, and would be paid to it if the quantity were ascertained and a definite claim presented. The employment of an agent to attend to this business is confident by law to the Attorney General, who, I hope, will soon be able to recover for the state the sum thus justly owing. Every sum thus recovered augments the school fund and diminishes the burden upon taxpayers for the support of schools.
Indiana paid the whole of the direct tax imposed by the Unite States upon lands of new
inhabitants, to assist in defraying the expenses of the war for the suppression of the
rebellion. The amount was $769,141.03. The insurrectionary States yet owe $2,725,104.61 on
account of the direct tax levied fro the same purpose on those lands of their inhabitants.
Non insurrectionary States and Territories also owe in the aggregate on direct taxes,
$183,922.90. It can hardly be the policy of the Unite States, in the present overflowing
condition of the Treasury to coerce payment of the direct taxes yet owing. Justice,
however, to the States have paid their quota of these taxes, requires that if payment of
the direct taxes thus owing shall no be enforced, the
In the administration of the chief executive office of the Auditor of State has much intimate official relations with the Governor than any of the other State officers, and I can not allow this occasion to pass without expressing my high estimate of the capability and integrity of Hon. James H. Rice, the incumbent of that office, and my thanks to him for numberless courtesies.
During the period that I have held my important trust which I am about lay down my endeavor has been to administer it for the common good of all the people, and I have been continually cheered and strengthened not only by friends from whom, on account of political relations, I might naturally have expected support, but from many who differ from me on questions of National Policy. To all I avail myself of this occasion to offer my sincere grateful acknowledgements.
ALBERT G. PORTER.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR then published the vote cast at the last general election in this State for Governor and Lleutenant Governor, saying: Hear the announcement of the votes cast:
Isaac P. Gray having received a plurality of all the votes cast over every other candidate I declare him elected Governor of the State of Indiana [Cheers.] Hear the vote for Lieutenant Governor:
Mahlon D. Manson having received a plurality of all the votes cast over any other candidate I declare him elected Lieutenant Governor of Indiana [Cheers.].
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR also directed the reading of a message, just announced by a Doorkeeper, from the Governor, in relation to certain United States documentary journals, journals of the two Houses of Congress, and also a message transmitting a communication from the Indiana Commission to the New Orleans World's Fair, and a communication from the United States Commissioner of Agriculture.
On motion by Mr. Representative SMITH, of Tippecanoe, the Joint Convention adjourned, sine die.
When the Senators had retired -
The SPEAKER called the House to order.
Mr. SEARS, from the committee to make arrangements for the inauguration of Governor-elect Gray and the Lieutenant Governor-elect Manson, reported that place agreed upon for the ceremonies is English's Opera House, and the time 2 o'clock p.m. Monday, January 12.
Mr. Gordon: In order to facilitate business, I move that the message of the Governor be referred to a select committee of five, and there be 300 copies ordered printed.
Mr. HAWORTH moved to amend so that the number of copies be 1,000
The amendment was agreed to.
And the resolution as amended, was adopted.
On motion the House adjourned until 10 o'clock Monday morning.
The Senate met pursuant to adjournment, Lieutenant Governor Hanna in the chair.
Prayer by Rev. J. Albert Rondthaler, pastor Tabernacle Presbyterian Church.
The Secretary's journal of Friday's proceedings was read and approved.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR announced the unfinished business of Friday afternoon being the consideration of the substitute adopted in lieu of the resolution (Mr. Hilligass's) congratulating the soldiers of Indiana upon the election of General M.D. Manson, Lieutenant Governor of Indiana.
Mr. HILLIGASS offered the following as an amendment to the substitute :
" Resolved, That the Senate of the State of Indiana hereby congratulates the soldiers of the State upon the election of Colonel Isaac P. Gray, General Mahlon D. Manson, Captain William R. Myers, James H. Rice, and Captain J. A. S. Mitchell, soldiers of the late war, and especially do we express our esteem and high regard for the military worth of Lieutenant Governor Manson, who is soon to become the presiding officer of the Senate.
Mr. WILLARD demanded the previous question.
The Senate seconded the demand by yeas, 28; nays, 12.
Mr. WINTER raised a point of order that the amendment was out of order, under rule 28.
Mr. MAGEE though that rule would not apply to a case of this kind.
Mr. WINTER
The rule says no new proposition admitted under color of amendment for the motion or proposition under debate.
Mr. MAGEE insisted that the pending amendment was in order under the rule referred to.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR decided the amendment was in order as an addition to the substitute adopted Friday afternoon
The amendment [Mr. Hilligass's was adopted.
Mr. OVERSTREET demanded a division of the question - the vote first to be taken on the part applying to Mr. Manson. He was willing to vote for that proposition.
The part referred to was agreed to.
The other part of the resolution was agreed to by a second vote.
On motion by Mr. WILLARD, the bill [H.R.1] to appropriate $125,000 to defray the expenses of the regular session of the Fifty-fourth General Assembly of the State of Indiana, and other matters connected therewith, and declaring an emergency, was read the first time and referred tot he Committee on Federal Relations.
Mr. MAY offered a joint resolution [S. 2] instructing Senators and requesting our Representatives in Coggress to use their influence in urging the passage of appropriate laws granting pension to soldiers of the Mexican War, and to all those suffering from disabilities or injuries incurred In the War of the Rebellion: and to amply provide for the widows and orphans of such; and make efforts to repeal the arrearage act of 1860, so that soldiers' pensions may begin at the date of receiving such injuries. It was read the first time and referred to the Committee on Federal Relations. On motion of Mr. McCullough it was ordered that when the joint convention of the two Houses adjourns, after the inauguration ceremonies, the Senate shall stand adjourned for to day.
Mr. MAGEE offered a resolution tendering the thanks of the Senate to Lieutenant Governor Thomas Hanna for the impartial manner in which he has presided over the organization of the Senate of the Fifty-fourth General Assembly of Indiana and kind regards in his future life. The Lieutenant Governor vacated the chair, and called upon the Senator from Cass [Mr. Magee] to preside.
The resolution was adopted nem. con.
Mr. WIER moved to adjourn, inasmuch as under an order adopted by both houses, they meet this afternoon at half-past one o'clock, and there remains a good deal to be done in the way of preparation for the inaugural ceremonies.
The motion was agreed to.
The Senate maet at half-past one o'clock, according to the order adopted last Friday, Lieutenant Governor Hanna in the chair.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR announced that as the retiring Governor [Hon. A.G. Porter] and the Governor-elect Hon. Isaac P. Gray] were both present, and as the time set for leaving the chamber had passed, Senators would please march in double file, and Lieutenant Governor elect Manson would probably meet them on the way, he having been sent for.
Accordingly, Senators vacated their chamber.
And so, pursuant to an order adopted this morning, at the close of inaugural ceremonies which took place at English's Opera House -
The Senate adjourned till 10 o'clock to-morrow
The House met pursuant to adjournment with Speaker Jewett in the Chair, who announced prayer by: Representative Smith, of Warrick. Mr. SMITH of Warrick, prayed as follows: Oh Lord, in Thy presence are fulness of joy, at Thy right hand are pleasures forevermore. We thank and reverence Thy great name for life, together with all its blessings. We now invoke Thy blessings upon this assembly. Bless each member of this General Assembly. Bless the Presiding officer. May each object be pursued in an honest way. Grant in Thy mercy to guide us in this a assembly. Bless the subjects of our prayers everywhere. Bless the officers of our State and Nation, and oh God, may they be men of clean hands and pure hearts. Grant that their administration redound to the blessing of the people. We ask Thee to guide this assembly in all ways so that when we leave these halls the sense of of a proper performance of our duty will bring to to merit ad peace, and Thine be the praise forever. Amen.
By direction of the Speaker the roll was called and eighty-four members answered to their names
The Clerk's Journal of- Friday's proceedings being read, when -
On motion by Mr SEARS, the further reading of the journal was dispensed with.
The SPEAKER: I ask the House to indulge me while I announce the standing committees of the House. Three of these, all of the highest importance, and upon which the character of our work wil largely depend - I speak of the Committees on Engrossing, on Enrolling and on Phraseology of Bills- It is my opinion, as well as the opinion of many others, that these committees should not be committees of the House,. but ,should be paid experts. However, for the present we are compelled to take members of the House. It is of the highest importance that bills should be correctly engrossed and be correctly enrolled. The phraseology of bills, should be in pure English, calculated to leave no doubt as to the intention of the legislator. You remember a few years back a bill passed requiring railroad companies to ring the bells and blow the whistles of locomotives on approaching railroad crossings; and, as it passed, in the hurry of enrolling and engrossing, you will remember it became a law that railroad engineers should whistle their locomotives continuously and ring the bell continuously within and until eighty rods past every crossing. The result was the people of the State were annoyed almost unbearingly, and in a sense the Legislature became the laughing stock of the State. That was not the fault of the Legislature, but it was the fault of the Committee on Engrossing. I desire that this body may be dignified, and that every measure may receive the respect of the people, and so I speak of this. The Speaker then announced the followings as the Standing Committee of the House for the present session.
Mr. MONK, of Wells, from the Committee on the Procurement of Rooms for the Use of the House Committees, asked and obtained further time to report - till to-morrow.
The SPEAKER: I will say to the House that two House Committees have been increased from seven to nine members. The two Committees so increased are the Committee on Education and the Committee on Railroads, last session so recommended
By direction of the Speaker the Clerk called the Representative Districts by counties for the introduction of bills.
The following described bills were introduced read the first time and passed to the second reading.
By Mr. HAYDEN [H. R. 2] a bill to amend Section 2 of an act approved March 10, 1873, the same being Section 1,375 of the Revised Statues of 1881, entitled "An act to fix the salaries of Judges of the Supreme Court, Superior and Criminal Circuit Courts, of this State, and to provide for the time and manner of payment, and declaring an emergency"
By Mr. BROOKS [H. R. 3] a bill for an act to amend section 4 of an act to provide a treasury system for the State of Indiana, for the manner of raising, holding and distributing the public money of the State, and for the safe keeping of the public monies. (Acts 1859, page 227, Revised Statues of 1881, Sec. 5,632.
By Mr. HAYDEN [H. R. 4] to amend Section 7 and 9 of the act in relation to the laying out, opening, widening and improving the condition of streets, alleys, highways and water courses; providing for the appointment of commissioners, assessing the benefits and damages, providing for collection of assessments and damages, and prescribing the duties of officers in relation thereto approved March 1, 1881, being section 3,173 and section 3,175 of the Revised Statues of 1881.
By Mr. McHenry [H. R. 5] a bill for an act to amend section 2 of an act entitled "An act to amend an act entitled an act to provide for a general system of common schools, the officers thereof and their respective powers and duties, and matters properly connected therewith, and prescribing the fees for certain officers therein named, and for the establishment and regulation of township libraries, and to repeal all laws inconsistent therewith: providing penalties therein described. Approved March 6, 1865 and adding supplementary sections thereto, approved March 8, 1873. " the same being section 4,424 of Revised Statues of 1881, and to provide for the qualification and election of County Superintendents by the voters of the several counties of the State.
By Mr. ELEY [H. R. 6] a bill for an act to prohibit ball-playing on the Sabbath Day, prescribing punishment therefor and declaring an emergency.
By Mr. ELEY [H. R. 7] a bill for an act to amend Section No. 38 of Revised Statues of 1881, Section No. 38 of Revised Statues of 1881, Section 1,464, of an act entitled " An act providing for the election and qualification of Justices of the Peace, and defining their jurisdiction, powers, and duties in civil cases" approved June 9, 1852, and declaring and emergency.
By Mr. REEVES [H. R. 8] a bill for an act to provide for the speedy publication of the decisions of the Supreme Court and the compensation of the reporter of such court, and providing for an emergency.
By Mr. BROWNING [H. R. 9] a bill for an act authorizing Boards of County Commissioners to construct gravel roads macadamized or paved roads declaring an emergency.
Mr. MOSIER asked and obtained leave absence until next Thursday.
By Mr. BROWNING [H. R. 10] a bill for an act defining the jurisdiction of Justices of the Peace in certain cases, and repealing all laws in conflict therewith.
By Mr. MOCK, of Wells, [H. R. 11] a bill for an act to create the Forty-sixth Judicial Circuit to amend sections 27, 29, 65, 67, of an act entitled "An act to divide the State into circuits for judicial purposes, fixing the time of holding courts therein, abolishing the Court of Common Pleas, and transferring the business thereof to Circuit Courts, and providing for the election of Judges and Prosecuting Attorneys in certain cases." Approved march 6, 1873; and to provide for holding terms of court in the Twenty-sixth Judicial Circuit; and all matters connected therewith, repealing all laws in conflict and declaring an emergency.
The SPEAKER laid before the House of Fifth Annual Report of the Indiana Bureau of Statistics.
THen came a recess until 1:30 o"clock.
The SPEAKER said:: The Senate concurrent resolution adopted by the House this morning provides that the Senate and House shall proceed in a body to English's Opera House. It might be well enough for the House to appoint a committee to ascertain it the Senate is ready. If there be no objection the Chair will appoint a committee for that purpose.
There being no objection -
The SPEAKER named the gentleman from Vigo [Mr. Debs], and the, gentleman from Gibson [Mr. Twineham]
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe, suggested that the proper course for members to go down two by two.
Mr. GOODING suggested that the roll be called, and the members go down two by two.
The SPEAKER directed the Doorkeeper to act as marshal.
The Committee thereon, reported the Senate on the sidewalk in front of the Court House waiting the coming of Representatives.
And thereupon -
The House of Representatives repaired to English's Opera House to witness the ceremonies attendant upon the inauguration of Governor-elect Gray.
Arriving at the Opera House, Lieutenant Governor Hanna called the joint convention to order and announced prayer by Rev. O. H. P. Abbott, this city.
Mr. Abbott prayed as follows: Our Heavenly Father, to Thee we give thanks, We thank Thee
for the civil government secured to us on this earth. We invoke Thy blessings, oh Lord,
to-day upon these Thy servants just entering upon their official duties, to which the
people bas called them. We pray the Divine blessings to rest upon the Governor and
Lieutenant Governor, that they may be endowed with wisdom for the duties and
responsibilities of their offices, We
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR said the oath of office will now be administered to Governor elect Gray, by Judge William E. Niblack, of the Supreme Court.
Hon ISAAC P> GRAY then took the following oath of office, as administered by Judge Niblack:
"You do solemnly swear to support the Constitution, of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Indiana, and that you will honestly and faithfully discharge the duties of the office of Governor of the Stateo of lndiana, on which you are now about to enter. "
Lieutenant Governor Hanna said the oath of office will now be administered to Lieutenant Governor-elect Manson.
The oath was administered to Hon. Mahlon D. Manson by Judge Niblack in terms similar to that taken by Governor Gray.
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR HANNA said.: Gentlemen of the Convention - I now introduce to you your Governor, who will now deliver to you his inaugural address.
GOVERNOR GRAY then read his message.
GENTLEMEN OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY - To be chosen the Chief Magistrate of the State is an honor that impresses me deeply, and for which I am profoundly grateful. I approach the discharge of the labors of this high trust with a full sense of the responsibility involved, but with a determination to perform the duties of the office faithfully for the public good; and to that end I solicit your earnest co-operation and support. You are convened by virtue of the Constitution to enact such laws as will promote education, suppress vice and immorality, punish crime, protect the rights of person and property, advance the general welfare of the people, and the prosperity of the State, thus continuing to exalt the renown of this great Republic, of which Indiana is so conspicuous an integral part, ever mindful that a republican form of government can not endure longer than simplicity, integrity and economy characterize its administration and fidelity marks the conduct of its public servants.
The political struggle, State and National through which we have recently passed stirred the ocean of our polities as a mighty storm, and like nature's provision for purifying her great bodies of water by agitation of the tempest, it is hoped will eliminate the impure elements from our political sea, purify the body politic, and record in the history of our Government once more commencement of an era of retrenchment and reform.
THE PRINCIPLES UPON WHICH OUR GOVERNMENT IS FOUNDED.
and under which we have increased from thirteen to thirty-eight States, with large areas yet unorganized, create vast and varied interests which naturally divide public opinion as to the policy of the Government. The continuance of our national existence and prosperity, depending upon a wise, and honest administration of powers and duties of the Government, will always develop political dissensions and create party divisions, thus periodically arousing masses to pass judgment upon alleged evils of legislation and deviation from constitutional principles. A check is put upon maladministration reforms are peaceably brought about, the Government policy as to great political questions is directed and determined as a majority may demand.
The present depressed condition of business and industrial interests of the country invites the careful attention and study of the legislator.
The earth has yielded bountiful harvests, produce is abundant, all of the material for active business and increased prosperity seems to exist yet the last year has witnessed a succession of failures and disasters, among the commercial, industrial and financial institutions of the country that has shaken confidence and seriously disturbed the business interests of the whole land.
The rapidity with which colossal fortunes have been accumulated in late years by private individuals the development and fostering of railway and other corporate bodies of vast wealth by Government aid ; the aggregation of the money of our country in various combinations of power, and the influence which they exercise in shaping legislation raises the inquiry whether legislation has not been too much in the interest of capital and wealth, and against the industrial masses of the country.
The laboring classes constitute a great portion of our population, and to this element we largely indebted for our prosperity.
They comprise in a great measure the honest, intelligent, thinking citizens, who, by their suffrages, seek
GOOD GOVERNMENT.
and rightfully demand recognition of the fact that labor is honorable, that employers shall not be discriminated in favor of as against the employed, and such protection under the law as will enable them to assert their rights when endangered by combinations of capital. The general welfare of the State is largely dependent upon the individual success of its citizens, and we should always bear in mind that the sure avenue to competence and wealth is not by the inflated bubble of speculation to which in the main our periodical disaster to trade and commerce attributable, but by honest toil, patient industry and a legitimate exchange of actual values and products. The passage of laws having in view the foregoing objects and conditions of capital and labor and the abolition of unnecessary taxation which eats up the fruits of labor, is in the interests of the many reforms demanded to give us substantial business prosperity. I am aware that these reforms can only be generally and successfully inaugurated through the exercise of the powers of the Federal Government, but do no deem it improper to refer to them upon this occasion.
The closing days of our biennial sessions of Legislature are invariably flooded with a mass of bills, all demanding immediate action. By reason of haste and confusion many of them become laws that are carelessly framed and not properly matured and considered. I sincerely hope you may be able to adopt some rule or regulation that will to some extent avoid the evils attending this recurring condition of legislative affairs.
There is not much danger of erring on the side of too little law. The world is governed
too much,
Laws that by long existence have become familiar to the people, and the observance of which is established should not be changed without reasons that are cogent and unquestionable, as frequent alterations and amendments tend not to only confuse the public mind, but the learned one of attorneys, counselors and jurists are often at a loss to agree upon and determine what the law really is, and the practical application and observance of it fail by reason of its uncertainty.
Changes in the law are frequently made at the solicitation of an inconsiderable portion of the people and in the interest of localities without being demanded by the general public or of general application, the principle of which is prohibited by our Constitution.
It is to the repeal modification and judicial construction of this class of hasty and impracticable legislation that so much of the time and attention of our Legislature as well as our courts is given.
The supposed necessity for a change in the law is often more imaginary than real, as exemplified by a comparison of the legislation of different States.
In an adjoining sister State, the Constitution of which and the occupation, commence and business of its people being similar to our own, no stay of execution on judgment in a court of record is allowed. All property sold at judicial sale must bring two-thirds of the appraised value, and no redemption of real estate after judicial sale is permitted, while in Indiana we have a general provision for stay of execution on judgment of court, a law authorizing a provision in contracts waiving the benefit of valuation and appraisement laws, and a right of redemption of real estate sold on execution. Most of these laws have been in force for over of a century, and, notwithstanding so very different, seem to be well settled and accepted as satisfactory by the people of each State. To do away with the stay of execution and the right of redemption of our State would undoubtedly be regarded as oppressive by the debtor class, and the repeal of the act authorizing a waiver would be considered by the creditor as an impediment to the collection of debs. Upon the other hand the people of our sister State would undoubtedly consider a law authorizing the state of execution and the right redemption as unreasonably delaying the collection of debt and the sale of property without appraisement unjust to their debtor class.
The biennial message contemplated by the Constitution, touching the condition of the State and recommending measures for yoru consideration, having been submitted to you at the opening of this session by my predecessor, it will not be expected of me to make specific recommendations in this address, but during the progress of your deliberations, whenever the occasion for such action arises, I shall communicate the same to by special message.
I would, however, invite your attention to the act of Legislature of 1881 giving aliens the right to acquire, hold and convey real estate. This is such an innovation upon the spirit of our institutions that the same is open to criticism, and, in my judgment, demands your consideration as to its necessity, and, if deemed necessary, whether the same is properly guarded in its provisions to prevent vast landed monopolies by aliens, which, by slow and insiduous growth, may become detrimental to the interests of the state.
Section 1 of. Article 7 or our State Constitution provides that "The Judicial power of the State shall be vested in a Supreme Court, in Circuit Courts and in such other courts as the General Assembly may establish." The amendment to this section adopted in 1881, by which its provisions were enlarged, was clearly the result of years of agitation brought about by the limited judicial power of the State and a demand for relief from the delays attending the constant increasing business of our Supreme Court.
The act of the General Assembly of 1881 in creating offices of Supreme Court Commissioners and the re-enactment of 1882 extending their term for two years were both legislative expressions in response to the requirements of this amendment of the Constitution in 881, which was undoubtedly adopted to give the Legislature constitutional authority to establish other courts than the Circuit and Supreme. In order that the administration of justice might be facilitated and the business of the Supreme Court thereby lessened to such an extent as would enable it to promptly consider and decide, as contemplated by the Constitution, the questions appealed to it for judicial determination. In view of the fact that nearly 700 cases are now pending in the Supreme Court, after years assiduous aid of the Supreme Court Commissioners, I submit for your consideration the question of the expediency of continuing the commission as a means of accomplishing the judicial relief contemplated by the constitutional amendment, and earnestly invite your attention as to whether or not the practical working and effect of the commission is not in violation of the intendment of Sections 2 and 5 of Article 7 of the Constitution. It seems to me that litigants are entitled to have their matters in controversy decided by the court established by the Constitution.
In many cases they do not get this right under the working of Rules 2 and 3 of the Supreme Court for the government of its commissioners. The Supreme Court under those rules decides causes referred by the commissioners upon the opinion rendered by the commissioners, and no upon the question arising in the record as required by the Constitution.
I am aware that the Supreme Court is compelled to such a course in order to make the labors of the commissioners available, but it raises the query whether practically it does not make the Supreme Court to consist of ten judges when the Constitution says it shall not consist of more than five.
The educational interests of the State are worthy of your careful consideration and generous support. In addition to the ordinary and necessary needs of our education institutions; it would not be improper for me to call your attention to the great loss sustained by the Indiana University since the last meeting of the Legislature.
One of the main buildings, as well as the library and museum, have been destroyed by
fire. The extent of the loss as well as the aims and hopes for the future of that
institution is set forth in the report of the Trustees to the Governor.
Your attention is called to the alarming spread of pleuro-pneumonia among the cattle of our sister States of Ohio, Illinois and Kentucky, and that our own State is threatened with the invasion of said disease which is said to be both con- contagious and infectious and has already caused disastrous results to the live stock interests of those States. Timely precautionary measures may to a large extent save the cattle interests of Indiana from the ravages of this disease. The consideration of the same is submitted for such action as in your judgment it may demand.
I am advised that several of the States which furnished regiments of volunteers in the Federal Army that participated in the battle of Gettysburg, have made appropriations for the purpose of erecting tablets to mark the position occupied by their troops in that great and decisive event. Indiana had five regiments of infantry Seventh, Fourteenth, Nineteenth, Twentieth and Twenty- seventh - and two companies of the First and sixth companies of the Third Cavalry that were engaged in that, perhaps the greatest battle fought by the Army of the Potomac, and it is eminently proper that our State should do as much as any other to commemorate the heroism displayed by persons in defense of the Union upon that memorable battlefield. I therefore invite your attention to this subject for such action as you may deem proper.
I am informed that of the sum of 85,000 allotted to Indiana by the Commissioners of th World's Cotton and Industrial Exposition, now open at New Orleans, but a small portion remains for the further use of the Commissioners of our State. It can readily be conceived how inadequate this sum would be if a full representation was made of Indiana's material and industrial forces. It is not a display of fabrics and wealth to excite jealous rivalry for superiority in methods of production of resources, however varied or rich they may be it is a Nation's ambition, uniting the arts and sciences with a genius of advanced thinkers, of productions's of not only of our own country, but all nations, from which we as a people must be greatly benefited, for while the commerce, of older countries shall bring thither their troubles of handiwork, skill and products, the spirit of our development in agriculture, alone, will seize upon whatever may be distributed to our vast and almost limitless domain to the profit of American genius.
While other States have deemed it wise to add to the sum thus allotted to them, if it shall be thought best to the further and complete showing of Indiana's productive growth, industrial and mineral wealth, to add to this sum in a measure sufficient only to make sure that we shall not fail in standing where we rightfully belong, second to no State, such appropriation will meet my approval.
In this connection. I am gratified to address you upon a kindred subject, this mention of which, I feel is sufficient to commend to your approval.
It is the purpose, I am informed, of the managers of this World's Exposition to invite the soldiers of the North and South to come together in a grand encampment in New Orleans.
To this end, I understand, a large and sufficient, Sum has been set apart. What more propitious than this opportunity, the fist since the war of a national character, to reunite the men of a common country and ancestry, who, only a few years ago, stood arrayed against each other in battle? If such a meeting can be consummated in the fullness of the spirit that prompts the movement, our country will be closer knit.
If the North shall send down her regiments of men, not as she did twenty years ago to the sound of martial drum beats but to the music of "piping times" of peace, nothing, I believe, could so firmly reunite the fellowship born of a common heritage, and which would give assurance, that when the soldiers of a Nation who have borne arms against each other can come together as brothers, strife can never again come between us as a people.
If statesmen have failed to accomplish what the war assured, the duty of the hour would seem naturally to belong to the solders, who stood for their convictions at a cannon's mouth.
I deem it therefore proper to call your attention to this contemplated encampment, that in your capacity as representatives of this State, made illustrious by the deeds of her soldiery, you may express such approval and take such action, as may seem to you to be proper, in reaffirming the pride of our people in the truth of history, that Indiana, as in war, so in peace and good-will to man, stands at the front.
Humbly acknowledging our dependence upon the Divine Ruler of the Universe, our hearts should be filled with gratitude for
THE BLESSING OF PEACE
health and abundance. Among the great sisterhood of States the history and growth of Indianapolis affords an example of development and prosperity of which we may well be proud.
In all things necessary to constitute a State, she stands to to-day one among the brightest in the grand galaxy of States that comprise our Federal Union. Occupying territory from the broad lakes of the north to the great natural thoroughness of water on the south, and intermediate in geographical position east and west, she will forever be within the pathway of commerce and travel between the oceans. Her fertile soil, varied and salubrious climate, great natural advantages, munificent fund and system of common schools and universities of learning, her liberal and elaborate system of benevolent, charitable and reformatory institutions, all keeping peace with the progress and demands of the age, offer inducements and invite the capital, enterprise and skill of other lands, and afford an asylum for the oppressed from abroad.
Then let it be our highest ambition to further promote the prosperity and renown of the State, supporting unswervingly the Union and its Constitution, the wisest and best instrument for the government of man ever yet devised, demanding unflinchingly the constitutional rights and liberties of all citizens without regard to race or color; cultivating good will among the people of every section of our common country, so that we may be one people in feeling as well as in name, moving on harmoniously together to that destiny under God's providence awaiting us in the future - the grandest and mightiest Republic of free men and women upon which the sun of God has ever shone.
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR HANNA said: I now have the pleasure to introduce to you Lieutenant Governor Manson.
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MANSON said:
GENTLEMAN OF THE SENATE - In assuming the duties of this station, so
generously assigned me by the people of Indiana, I am not unconscious of the grave
responsibilities it imposes. It is easy to make mistakes - it is difficult to mend them. I
shall greatly rely upon your fairness and complacency. They will render my yoke easy and
my burdens light. Grave questions must occupy your attention. They will doubtless engender
disagreements, but I believe they will be tempered with that lofty spirit of patriotic
decorum the weight of public duty so certainly foresees and imperatively demands. You are
the people's representatives, and I know how conscientiously and zealously you will
bring into requisition every gift of mind and tongue to vindicate the public welfare and
advance the honor of the Commonwealth.
The Joint Convention then adjourned sine die.
The Senate met, Lieutenant Governor MAHLON D. MANSON in the Chair, who said the Senate will please come to order. [After a pause.] The session will be opened with prayer by Rev. Mr. Abbett.
Prayers were offered by Rev. O.H.P. Abbett of this city.
The Secretary's minutes of yesterday's proceedings were read.
Mr. WILLARD offered a resolution proposing the appointment of two additional pages. He said: This is a proposition for the creation of additional pages. The. Lieutenant Governor has exercised the prerogative in the appointment pages, and stated, to the Senate there were two, Democratic boys, if they can be so termed, were continued by him under the appointment of the previous President of the Senate pro tem. [Mr. Viche.] Being as strict a partisan as any Senator on the floor, he declared there is a limit to the question of patronage. There is neither Democracy or Republicanism in boys of such age. The boys named in the resolution were the pages of the last session of the Senate, are aware of the duties of the place, and know how to perform; and as a matter of justice and of precedent they should be continued. He felt more than ordinary interest in this matter, as his first service inside of legislative halls was in 1861, when the Republican party had carried the Union and the State of Indiana, and left the Democratic party as supinely upon its back as the Republican party stands to-day, yet the Hon. Cyrus M. Allen appointed him a page upon the floor of the House - the only Democratic page there was.
Mr. MCULLOUGH raised the point of order that the proposition is not in order, because Section 4,981 of the Statutes provides who shall appoint the pages, and in the face of this law it is not in the power of the Senate to say who the pages shall be.
Mr. WILLARD: It has always been the custom of the Senate, whenever it has found it necessary to have additional officers to employ them by resolution.
Mr. WILLARD said he would insert the word "additional"s in the resolution. When he was making this amendment -
Lieutenant Governor MANSON said: while the Senator (Mr. Willard) is amending his resolution I will state that I have appointed the following pages, and in explanation I wish to say I was not aware of the custom as spoken of by the Senator. I would have gladly continued these boys in if I had not been committed to the boys I have appointed, who live a great way from here and they are here to take their places. Their are John T. Hanua, of Montgomery County; Harry Fritz, of Owen County, and Walter C. Taylor, of Crawford County.
Mr. WILLARD thought the precedent established two years ago by Lieutenant Governor Hanna one that we can well afford to continue. There is no partisanship among boys of this age.
Mr. FOWLER, understanding the proposition is one to increase the number of pages to five, moved to lay the motion on the table.
The motion was agreed to.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR laid before the Senate the annual reports of the Auditor of State, the State Librarian and the State Statistician.
On motion of Mr. McCULLOUGH the rules of the Senate were altered so that President of the Senate shall appoint the standing committees of the Senate, he having given notice thereof yesterday.
Mr. BAILEY offered a resolution authorizing an additional standing committee on labor, to consist of seven members.
It was referred to the Committee on Rules.
On motion by Mr. MAGEE a committee of five were authorized upon the rules, viz., Messrs. Magee Bailey, Willard, Foulke and Moon.
Mr. Bailey asked and obtained leave of absence for to-day and to-morrow for his colleague, mr. Winter.
The following described bills were introduced read the first time, with the exceptions named, and referred to the appropriate committee.
By Mr. BAILEY [S. 20] to prohibit the employment of any child under fourteen years by any person or corporation engaged in mining.
By Mr. BROWN [S. 21] to amend Sections 1, 6 and 20 of the act approved March 2, 1883, concerning highways and the Supervisors thereof. [Concerning supervisors.]
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph [S. 22], to amend the County Commissioners' act authorizing the purchase of asylums and providing for the sustenance of orphan children, approved March 8, 1881, being section 3,511 of the Devised Statutes of 1881.
[So as to permit Commissioners of different counties to unite in the purchase of grounds and buildings for an orphan house (to the amount of $5,000) and declaring an emergency.]
By Mr. DAVIS [S. 23] a bill for an act to amend Section six (6) of an act entitled "An act in relation to allowances in State prosecutions," Acts, 1853, p. 3, Sec. 1,417 Revised Statutes.
[So that ' Section 6 shall read; "The Circuit Courts may also make allowances for necessary expenditures incurred under their order to women, children or aged or infirm or poor persons, summoned as witnesses in State prosecutions, and to such other persons for their services as may be necessary to procure the efficient execution of the criminal laws.]
By Mr. DAY [S.24] to amend Section 3.106 of the Revised Statues of 1881, concerning the government of cities, and authorizing the assessment of a tax not to exceed 85 on carriages used exclusively for private purposes, etc., etc.
By. Mr. ENSLEY [S. 25] to fix the times of holding the circuit Courts in the Thirty-fifth Judicial Circuit [affecting the counties of Steuben, DeKalb and Noble.]
By Mr. FOULKE [S.26] to provide for the call of a convention of the people to make a new Constitution of the State of Indiana: [In April, 1885 elect 100 delegates by the same electors as choose Representatives, the Convention to meet on the first Tuesday in September, 1885.)
By Mr. FOWLER [S. 27] to repeal the commissioner of fisheries act, approved March 6, 1881. [Read by title only.]
By Mr. HOOVER [S. 28] a bill for An act relating to live stock importing, breeding and herding companies, authorizing the incorporation of the same and declaring an emergency. Section 1 provides that whenever three or more persons may wish to form a company for the purpose of importing and breeding improved blooded stock, or conducting a general breeding and herding business, they shall each sign and acknowledge before some officer authorized by law to take acknowledgements a certificate of incorporation, which shall state the corporate name of the company, the object of its formation etc.
Sec. 2 Provides that whenever such certificate of incorporation shall have been so executed and filed, the signers thereof and their successors shall be a body politic and corporate and by their corporate name may sue and be sued, and do and perform all acts necessary and proper in conducting the business of importing breeding purchasing, owning holding and selling live stock, in or out of the State of Indiana, etc.
Sec. 3 Provides that the capital stock of such company shall be divided into shares of one hundred dollars each, etc.
Sec. 4 Provides that the capital stock named in the articles of association may be increased by a vote of the stockholders, at any regular or special meeting, etc.
Sec. 5. Provides that the directors shall make such by-laws as may be required for the management of said company, etc.
Sec. 6 Provides for the penalties for any violation of the constitution and by-laws of the company, etc.
Sec. 7. Emergency clause, etc.
By Mr. HUSTON [S. 29] to amend Section 74 of the Common School Law, of March 6, 1865, being Section 4,869 of the Revised Statues.
By Mr. MACEY [S. 30] requiring railroad corporations to fence their right of way and construct and maintain cattle-guards at railroad crossings.
By Mr. MAGEE [S. 31] to amend the drainage act of 1881 and 1883.
By Mr. MARSHALL [S.32] to repeal the act authorizing aliens to hold and convey real estate; being Section 2,967 of the Revised Statues.
By Mr. MAY [S. 33] to legalize the incorporation of the town of Cannelton, Perry County Ind., the election and qualification of its several Boards of Trustees and other officers, and all the acts orders, ordinances, resolutions, by laws, minutes and proceedings of the Boards of Trustees of said town and other matters connected therewith, and declaring an emergency.
Mr. MAY, in order to expedite the business of the Senate, moved that the constitutional restriction be dispensed with in order that the bill may be read the first and second times by title, the third time by sections, and finally passed the Senate. Two years ago he introduced a similar bill, and by letting it take its course lost it in the House of Representatives.
The motion was agreed, and the bill thus finally passed the Senate by yeas 48, nays 0.
Mr. MAY stating, in reply to an inquiry by Mr. Campbell of Hendricks, that the bill contained a clause declaring it should not affect pending litigation.
Then came a recess till 2 o'clock.
By Mr. MOON [S. 84) in relation to claims against municipal corporations, and the adjucation of claims against the same.
By Mr. McCULLOUGH [S. 35] concerning bridges and culverts
By Mr. NULL [S. 36] to amend Section 1,375, Revised Statues, so as to allow the Judges of the Circuit Court of each county not having a Criminal Court and a population of fifty-four thousand (54,000) inhabitants and upward the same as the Judges of Superior Courts.
By Mr. OVERSTREET [S. 37] to amend section 20 of the general road law, by fixing the compensation of teams employed in working out road tax at $2.50 per day.
By Mr. RAHM [S. 33] supplemental to the act of June 4, 1871, to provide for the incorporation of street railway companies.
By Mr. SCHLOSS [S. 39] to amend section 4,556 of the Revised Statues, concerning the Normal School fund.
By Mr. SHIVELY [S.40] to repeal the act of April 8, 1881, and March 8, 1888, concerning drainage.
By Mr. SMITH of Jay [S.41], concerning the collection of attorney fees in certain cases.
By Mr. SMITH, of Delaware [S. 42], for the protection of Inn keepers and limiting their liability.
By Mr. THOMPSON [S. 48] to protect all citizens in their civil and legal rights of whatever nativity, race or color.
By Mr. THOMPSON [S. 44] to abolish the office of city assessor in all cities having a population of 20,000.
By Mr. WIER [S.45] to create an appellate court and define its jurisdiction and procedure.
By Mr. WIER [S. 46] to validate acknowledgements and affidavits of officers whose commissions have expired.
By Mr. WIER [S. 47] in regard to the payment of employes. Every corporation and association employing labor to make payment in full in money at least once in each and every calendar month.
By Mr. WILLARD [S.48] to amend Section 6 of the act of March 2, 1883, concerning highways and supervisors thereof. Eight hours to constitute a day's work on roads.
By Mr. WILLARD [S. 49] to amend Section 32 of the act of April 21, 1881, concerning elections and the contents thereof. Ballots to be read one by one and give the judge of opposite politics the right to look over and inspect the ballots.
By Mr. YOUCHE [S. 50] to amend Section 1 of the act of March 29, 1879, being Section 5,206 of the Revised Statues of 1881. [Concerning debts owing to laborers.]
By Mr. ZIMMERMAN [S. 51] to amend Section 375 of an act of April 7, 1881, being Section 497 of the Revised Statues of 1881, concerning witnesses and the testimony thereof.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph: I rise to a question of privilege. I have information which I have taken the trouble to telephone to test the reliability of and find it is tue, that our distinguished Indiana fellow-citizen, Schuler Colfax, fell dead this morning. It seems to me eminently proper that this body, out of respect for one who has been so eminent a citizen of our State, as well as of our nation, should adjourn out of respect to his memory, and, I move you, sir, that the Senate adjourn.
The motion was agreed to.
And so the Senate adjourned till 10 o'clock tomorrow, under the rules.
The House met, Speaker Jewett in the chair.
Prayer by Representative Townsend, of Wayne County.
The reading of the minutes of yesterday's proceedings were dispensed with.
Mr. Mock, of Wells, submitted a report from the Committee on Rules. Mr. McMULLEN moved to amend the report of the committee; a motion to lay proposed amendments on the table, if it prevail, shall not affect the several subjects to which said amendments are offered.
Mr. WILLIAMS offered a substitute for this amendment so that a motion to lay on the table an amendment shall not affect the original motion unless the motion to lay on the table shall extend to the original motion. He insisted that members may desire to lay an amendment on the table and not the original proposition, which can be done if his substitute be adopted.
Mr. MOODY understood a motion to lay ont he table does not carry the original proposition if the amendment does not embody the original motion.
The SPEAKER: In the absence of any rule, a motion to lay an amendment on the table carries the entire subject with it.
Mr. MOCK, of Wells: There was some difference of opinion in the committee as to the effect of laying on the table an amendment as to whether it carries the entire question on the table. In order to facilitate business it may be better to adopt the rule 66 of last session.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe, signed the report of the Committee on Rules in order to make it unanimous. The majority usually endeavor to curtail the rights of the minority. We have to go back to England to obtain the best rules for the government of legislative bodes, which is an astounding fact. Whenever a proposition comes before a legislative body disliked by a member, he is most sure to try to hustle it off by moving it lay it on the table, and thus send it off without debate, and, in the majority of cases, without proper consideration. This is a mischievous motion, and as long as he represents a constituency he did not intend to move to lay any proposition on the table. He entered his protest against such a mischievous rule. These rules are not in accord with the grand common school system of Indiana. While indorsing their subject matter, he could not indorse the language as elegant.
Mr. GORDON had found the rules to work vary during the last session.
Mr. SAYRE did not know long this rule had been in operation. It has been operation at least several sessions. There is a sufficient majority in the present House, under any conceivably condition of things, to carry out legislation in a manner satisfactory to the majority. Under parliamentary usage there is no occasion, with the insignificant minority that happens to be on this floor, to have such a rule. It is simply a gag rule, and does not expedite legislation. It merely cuts of debate, and keeps the minority from entering a protest by its votes against any legislation.
Mr. GOODING on this floor represented the people, and thought it very important the rule be made for this session. Otherwise a greater portion of the time might be spent in useless discussion. We came here to do business, and it is our business to legislate for the highest interests the State. The people expect us to pass pure laws and to attend strictly to business. If endless discussion is permitted an extra session will be necessitated. Minorities often try to render majorities odious to the people by useless discussions. He hoped we will not wait for the Constitution to adjourn the Legislature, but that we will do the business necessary before our constitution time shall expire, and that the people shall then say to us, "Well done, good and faithful servants.".
Mr. SAYRE (interposing) again insisted that this rule would not expedite legislation; that the majority could cut off debate whenever in its opinion discussion became useless.
Mr. GOODING thought it would expedite legislation. Minorities often propose amendments for the purpose of protracting debate, and discussions often became useless, protract the session and are expensive.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe, (interposing) asked the gentleman from Hancock, (Mr. Gooding) who is an experienced legislator, having been in the General Assembly in 1868.
Mr. GOODING (interrupting) No sir: in 1858. [Laughter.]
Mr. SMITH inquired whether parliamentary rules were made for the protection of majorities or minorities.
Mr. GOODING: They are made for the protection of both and are made more especially for the protection of the people.
Mr. SMITH: In what sense are they made for the protection of the people, if not for the protection of the people as represented by the minorities?
Mr. GOODING: Parliamentary rules are made to aid in the enactment of good laws to promote the welfare and benefit of the whole people. It is unnecessary to permit useless amendments and endless discussion; and regarding this amendment as a very important one, he trusted it would be adopted.
Mr. KELLISON insisted the rule should be so that a motion to lay on the table an amendment should carry with it only the amendment. The amendment may be so objectionable the House may desire to lay it on the table and yet consider the subject matter.
Mr. FRENCH demanded the previous question.
The substitute was rejected, and the amendment [Mr. McMullen's] agreed to.
Mr. GOODING moved to strike out Rule 14, relating tot he custody of members, and whether such discharge shall be with or without paying fees. He denied the right of the House to refuse to admit a member to his seat. The majority might put the entire minority under arrest, and that would be a high-handed and arbitrary measure. He object to a rule that would place that power in the hands of a majority. It has a right to send for members and bring them into the House, but he denied the power of the House, under Constitution to prevent any country a representation on this floor. The member is admitted to his seat when he is sworn in, and he never loses his right ot his seat until his constitutional term expires or he is expelled.
Mr. GORDON thought if the rule were stricken out it would deprive the use by the power to compel the attendance of members. If the gentleman's motion prevail it will not be in the power of the minority to compel the attendance of the majority this House. He moved to lay the motion on the table.
Which was agreed to, on a division - affirmative 44; negative 40.
Mr. KELLISON moved to strike from Rule 69 the closing words "without consent of the Speaker;" and insert these words: "if any member of the House makes objection to such admission"
On motion of Mr. WILLIAMS, this motion was laid on the table.
Mr. GOODING moved to substitute Rule 57 of the last House for Rule 57 as reported by the committed. He was not willing to depart from old parliamentary rules.
Mr. TAYLOR thought there was no reason in having bills read the second time before reference to committee. For the purpose of economizing time let them be referred on the first reading; they can then be returned to the House and read the second, third fourth and fifth time if necessary.
Mr. McMICHAEL did not think bills can be read too often before passing. The Constitution provides that bills shall be ready for the edificiation of members; that each bill shall be read by sections three several times etc.
Mr. BROWNING was as much in favor of that as any one. But the Constitution gives us the right to make rules for the government of the House. The Constitution also allows us to suspend that rule. It is necessary to economize time, and therefore he favored reference to committees after the first reading.
Mr. PATTEN thought it eminently just and proper to expedite business. We should have rules to shorten up this matter as much as possible. The committee rules would consume as little time as possible. Four hundred and sixty-six bills were introduced in this House two years ago, many on the same subject, many worthless bills, and a great many bills were upon local matters.
Mr. McMullen: One-half the bills after reference to a committee can be consolidated with other bills or indefinitely postponed. If we can not do something to get rid of reading some of the bills, something else will have to be done, to economize time. If this rule prevails we can save a good deal of time. His recollection is that last session the House adopted some such rule.
Mr. REEVES demanded the previous question, which was seconded by the House, and under its operations -
The amendment was rejected.
The report of the Committee on Rules, as amended, was then adopted.
The SPEAKER, by consent, referred the bills introduced yesterday to the appropriate standing committees.
Mr. MOSIER from the committee thereon, submitted a report embodying a proposition from the Grand Hotel to furnish four rooms for $750, the Bates, four rooms for $900; the Hotel English four rooms for $700; and the Occidental five rooms for $550.
Mr. BROWNING thought such rooms as are offered should be procured for on-half the price asked, and moved to refer the report to a special committee.
Mr. PATTEN said the committee had inquired at several places, but considering th locality and conveniences this was the best it could do.
On motion of Mr. BOOE the motion to refer to a Special Committee was laid in the table.
Mr. WILLIAMS moved that House accept the proposition made by the Occidental Hotel, being the most reasonably and lowest.
Mr. HANLON moved to accept the proposition of the Grand Hotel.
Mr. DITTEMORE made an inneffectual motion - yeas 54, nays 41 - to lay this motion on the table.
Mr. BROWNING from the Committee on Mileage, submitted a report showing the number of miles traveled and the amount of mileage due each member of the house.
Corrections were made by Messrs. McHenry Floyd and others, and the report was concurred in.
Mr. GORDON, from the committee appointed on the Governor's message, made a report refering the several portions thereof to the appropriate standing committees of the House.
Mr. McMICHAEL offered a resolution that all resolutions of a political nature be referred to the Committee on Federal relations.
On motion the resolution was laid on the table.
Mr. Crecellous offered a concurrent resolution instructing Indiana Senators, and requesting her Representatives in Congress to use their influence to secure the passage of an act repealing the act of 1879 in regard to the payment of pensions to soldiers.
On motion of Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe, it was referred to a Committee of Three, the chairman of which was the mover, Messrs. Crecellus and McHenry.
Mr. MOODY offered a resolution for the appointment of a Committee of Five to investigate as the building of the Insane Asylums authorized by the act of March 7, 1883, and which will be completed in the summer of 1885, provided a sufficient sum be appropriated.
Mr. MOODY moved that it be referred to the Committee on Public Expenditures.
Mr. PATTEN moved that it be referred to the Committee on the Supervising Architecture.
Mr. SAYRE moved to amend by referring it to the Committee on Benevolent and Scientific Institutions.
Mr. MOODY made an ineffectual motion - yeas, 44, nays, 50 - to lay it on the table.
On motion of Mr. GOODING the further consideration of the motion was postponed until Thursday at 2 o'clock.
On motion by Mr. PATTEN the House returned to the consideration of the subject pending at the time of the recess for dinner, being the report the special committee to secure rooms for the standing committees of the House. He offered a resolution directing the committee to examine rooms more fully and report the House.
Mr. HANLON moved to amend by discharging the committee and authorizing the Speak to appoint another and similar committee to act.
The following described bills were introduced, read the first time, and referred to the appropriate committees:
By Mr. MOCK, of Wells[ H.R.12] concerning publications of the decisions of the Supreme Court, the election and salary of an official reporter.
By Mr. ROBERTSON [ H. R. 13] to repeal the act authorizing aliens to acquire and convey real estate, approve April 16, 1861.
By Mr. ROBERTSON [H. R. 14] ot amend the voluntary association act for the insurance of farm property.
By Mr. STALEY [H. R. 15] making an appropriation ($40,000) to Purdue University
By Mr. STALEY [H. R. 16] relating to the study of physiology and hygene in the public schools.
By Mr. TAYLOR [H. R. 17]: To legalize the appointment of Trustees in certain cases - voluntary assignments.
Mr. ADAMS: I heard a very few moments ago that a very distinguished gentleman, a citizen of the this State, Mr. Schuyler Colfax, dropped dead at his home. I lear also the Senate in respect to his memory, has adjourned. I therefor move that we adjourn in memory of Schuyler Colfax.
The motion was agreed to, and so the House adjourned until to-morrow morning under the rules.
The Senate met, Lieutenant Governor Manson in the chair.
Prayer by Rev. O.H.P. Abbot.
The Journal of yesterday's proceedings was read until -
On motion of Mr. Weir, the farther reading was dispensed with.
The Lieutenant Governor laid before the Senate a communication from the Governor announcing the appointment of Pierre Gray as Executive Messenger.
Lieutenant Governor MANSON said: I have the honor to communicate to the Senate the Standing Committees of the Senate. And I wish to say in explanation that I have done the very best I could possibly do. I have spent a great deal of time on it, and I have endeavored to treat every Senator fairly; and I hope they will be as satisfactory as such appointments generally are. I know I have a great many mistakes, bu tit is not possible for me to do any better than I have done. I wish to say further that I designed and very much desired to the minority the chairmanship one of the important standing committees, but owing to some peculiar circumstances not necessary for me to explain at this time, I was unable to do it. I have followed the rule adopted by the Senate of the United States in putting the names of members in the majority all together in regular order. I say this is explanation of what may be noticed, that the names of some distinguished gentleman are low down on the committee.
Mr. FOULKE: I notice my name is upon the Committee of Railroads. I would like tos ay that I have been ever since 1875, an attorney of tow railroads in this State. Under these circumstances, I see that by acting upon that committee, having special reference to railroad legislation, I may be liable to misrepresentations, and my usefulness on such a committee might be somewhat impaired. Other Senators will appreciate my motives. I desire to take as little part in railroad legislation as I can, and I would rather not be placed in a position to be responsible for railroad legislatoin or its absence, and I ask the Senate to excuse me form serving on the committee.
It was so ordered.
Mr. THOMPSON, stating this has name was on the Standing Committee on Temperance [as chairman] declared his viewers are not in accord with advanced views on the temperance question, and he therefore desired to be excused from service on that committee. Some Senator who possessed more advanced views on the question of temperance should be placed on the committee in his stead.
Mr. MAGEE happened to know that President of the Senate had taken a great deal of time in arranging the Standing Committees and would have to go all over the list again if excuses are made and grant. Legislative experience has qualified the Senate from Marion [Mr. Thompson] to be at the head of that committee and he should be retained.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay, also hoped the Senator would not be excused. If requests for excuses be come general and they be granted, we would soon have no committees. As an old adage runs "there is always bitter with the sweet.
Mr. FOULKE offered the following:
Resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring, That the portion of the Governor's message relating tot he loaning of the public funds by the State Treasurer to private parties and the deposit of the same in banks of this city be referred to a special committee of three from each House, appointed by the Chair; that said committee be empowered to count all moneys in the Treasury of State, to employ a competent expert to examine the amounts of the said Treasury, and to send for persons and papers generally; and that said committee report at the earliest practical moment to each House what disposition has been made of the public funds in the hands of the Treasurer, and upon what terms.
Mr. FOULKE said: In moving the adoption this resolution I do it, not as a mere partisan matter or for the purpose of clap-trap of any kind, but simply because it comes to our knowledge from the highest source from which we can obtain knowledge, that there has been an improper use of the public moneys. Speaking of a safe or vault for the keeping of the public funds, Governor Porter in his biennial message says : [Reads from the message, commencing with the words 'There can be no doubt the vaults provided for the safe keeping of the public moneys are insecure." etc. and continued the reading for several paragraphs.
I make this motion in pursuance of a recommendation by the Executive, and the resolution is made concurrent, so that one investigation may be sufficient. If the matter be referred to a special Standing Committee of the Senate, and the House also refers the matter to a committee there, we must have two, which would not be so satisfactory as one. That members of this General Assembly will leave such a matter without any investigation, upon such information, I can not believe. I tis our paramount duty to see that the State moneys are safe the hands of the State Treasurer. When we receive information that they are not safe, and when we learn that State funds are loaned to private individuals and to banks, we know they are not safe. I desire to call the attention of the Senate to the statues which are made and provided for such cases - for the preservation of the public treasure. [Read Section 5,636 from the Revised Status of 1881; also Section 2,053 of the Criminal Law of this State; also Section 5,641, as to the authority to make this proposed investigation.] It appears from the language of the statue, that we not only have the authority to do it, but we are required to make that examination, whenever necessary. The message of the Governor informs us that the law has been violated. Two years ago a resolution was introduced here to make a similar investigation, but it was stated that there was not sufficient information for such a resolution, and it was disposed - probably laid on the table and never heard of afterward.
Mr. MAGEE, interposing: The then Senator from Henry introduced a resolution two years ago, about two weeks after the present Treasurer of State took possession of his office, requiring him to account for interest if he had received any, and I moved to amend so as to include the outgoing Treasurer, and if I am not mistaken the gentleman from Wayne (Mr. Foulke), with his associates on this floor, allowed the matter to go upon the table. The investigation was not ordered because my amendment would have included a Republican as well as a Democratic Treasurer.
Mr. FOULKE: My recollection differs from that of the Senator. At the last session such a resolution was introduced and it was not passed. As I have said, I do not introduce this resolution as a partisan merely: it is our duties as Senators - Democratic as well as Republican 0 to see to it that the moneys in the Treasury of the State are safe. If the law has been violated - if any sums of money have been received by the Treasurer for his own personal use, he should account for these funds. The proposed investigation is in the interest of public economy, and ought to be supported by every member of the General Assembly, because it is our sworn duty to see that the funds of the State are properly and safely kept; and it has come to our knowledge, by the highest authority, that the law in that respect is being violated.
Mr. WEIR endorsed everything the Senator from Wayne [Mr. FOULKE] has said so far as favoring any necessary investigation of any State officer is concerned, and thought action should be taken on this subject: he therefore moved that it be referred to the Committee on Finance with instructions to report at an early day.
Mr. FOULKE: I object to the proposed reference to the Committee on Finance for two reasons. It would probably result in two separate investigations - one by the Senate and one by the House; and for the other reason that the Committee on Finance has not power to send for persons and papers nor has it the power to employ an expert to examine the accounts of the State Treasurer, no to count the moneys in the Treasury, and for the additional reason that the resolution should be a concurrent one, and the two Houses ought to join in the investigation.
Mr. HILLIGASS: I think the State of Indiana, through its Representatives, can not be too careful in guarding the interests of the State; and I shall at the proper time favor the adoption of this resolution, or one of a similar character, in justice to the State Treasurer. I presume there is not a Senator on this floor, even the Senator who offered this resolution, who thinks for a moment there is any deficiency in the accounts of our State Treasurer. I undertake to say, Mr. President and follow Senators, there may be a two-fold object in this resolution. And I undertake to say further that the circumstance that surround the out-going Governor of the State of Indiana are not such as warned me in supporting this resolution at this time. For four years Mr. Porter has held the office of Governor, and for tow years of that time the present Treasurer of State has disbursed the State funds. No Senator will deny but that the statutes of the State of Indiana give the power to the Governor of the State, at any time, to institute an investigation of the condition of the Treasury of the State - in fact it is made his duty to do so. I will read the section of the statute bearing upon this question. [Reads Section 5,644 of the Revised Statues of 1881.]
Now Mr. President, for tow years the Governor of the State of Indiana, with an adjoining office to that of the Treasurer of State, and with the knowledge he has conveyed to this General Assembly in his message concerning the dereliction of duty of the Treasurer of State, has quietly sat there and allowed this thing to go on without complying with the requirements of the statute. I am informed that he has had no business connection with the Treasurer of State; that he has not gone into the Treasurer's office to inquire into the condition of the Treasury, or for any other purpose except to draw his salary as Governor of the State of Indiana. In view of the statue and of the character of the language of the Governor in his message, I undertake to say it is no doing justice to the Treasurer of the State for the Governor to make such an allusion to the Treasurer of State has he did in his biennial message. And I undertake to say it is the duty of the General Assembly, if it believes there is a dereliction of duty on the part of the Treasurer of State, o investigate the matter; but, air, in view of the fact that the Governor of the State has quietly sat by for two years and has not complied with the language of the statue to make an investigation, as was his duty, I am opposed to the passage of the resolution and move it be indefinitely postponed, and on that motion demand the previous question.
Mr. WEIR desired to withdraw his motion refer to the Committee on Finane, being of opinion, as this is a concurrent resolution, it should not be so referred. I move it be made a special order for next Monday at 2 o'clock p.m., and upon that motion I demand the previous question.
Mr. FOULKE: This motion is out of order, inasmuch as the previous question was demanded by the Senator from Huntington (Mr. Hilligas) on his motion to indefinitely postpone.
Mr. HILLIGASS: I withdraw my motion and second the demand made by the Senator from Laport [Mr. Weir] for the previous question.
The Lieutenant Governor sustained the point of order.
Mr. WEIR renewed his motion.
The Senate seconded the demand for the previous question, and under its operation -
The motion to postpone the further consideration of the concurrent resolution till Monday at 2 o'clock p.m., was agreed to.
Mr. WILLARD offered a concurrent resolution authorizing the appointment of two Senators and three Representatives to attend the funeral of Ex-Vice President Colfax. He did not desire to be appointed to that committee, but thought it due to a citizen of Indiana who had been so eminent that a resolution of this kind should pass as a mark of respect to the memory of one who has in former years served in both branches of this General Assembly.
Mr. McCOLLOUGH moved to amend the resolution so that the members going shall pay their own expenses.
Mr. ADKISON suggested any member could go and pay his own expenses without such an amendment
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: I would withdraw that.
Mr. FOULKE: I would dislike to see it go upon the record of the Senate that with regard to attending the funeral of Schuyler Colfax members of a Committee of the Senate shall pay their own expenses. That would be a most unseemly proceeding.
Mr. FAULKNER did not see why the State should pay the expenses of a few when the expenses of all were paid. Let all be treated alike.
Mr. MAY took a different view of this matter, and did not think the amendment ought to prevail. To appoint a committee and say the members shall go at their own expense, would be taking from the action all the respect intended to be shown a distinguished citizen, rather than see the amendment adopted he would prefer to see us all stay here and do our duty to the State of Indiana. There ought to be such a committee appointed out of respect to the people of Indiana, who have in many ways honored Mr. Colfax, and who years ago was serving both in this body and in the other branch of the General Assembly.
Mr. MAGEE thought one of the customs that should be observed was the paying of respect to honorable citizens when they die. I especially desire to see this body pay respect to the memory of Mr. Colfax. I have been a resident of his district all my life. The first political speech I ever heard was made my him. It so happened afterward that I belonged to a party differingly widely from him. To-day he is a dead citizen of the State of Indiana, and it seems to me we can not pay too much respect to the memory of a man who by his talents has added renown and prominence to this commonwealth. Therefore, I am in favor of making such an appropriation and appointing such a committee as will testify to the respect we have for this dead statesmen.
Mr. McCOLLOUGH: It has been the custom for legislative bodies to send committees to attend the funeral of distinguished men. Probably hundreds of people will go to the funeral of Mr. Colfax who pay their own expenses. The people have sent members of the Legislature here not for the purpose of attending funerals and having committees travelling over the country at the State''s expense and with the people's money to show respect for the honored dead. The resolution will put the Senate upon the record if that is what Senators desire to do. If there are gentlemen in this body or in the other house who desire to attend that funeral, if they pay their own expenses they will do no more than hundreds of other citizens of the state will probably do. Whatever may be said of the custom of paying the expenses of committees to attend funerals, it is a custom that has grown into a great abuse of late years, and for that reason I insist upon my motion that if a committee of the Senate is appointed it must be upon condition that they pay their own expenses.
Mr. MAY regretted to differ with the Senator from Gibson (Mr. McCollough) but could not see why we should narrow this down to a question of paying the expenses of a committee to attend the funeral of a man who has been Vice President of the United States. It is purely a question whether the General Assembly of Indiana, by concurrent resolution, will pay that respect due a dead statesmen, regardless of political proclivities, and not a question who shall pay the expenses or how they shall be paid.
Mr. WILLARD: I am certainly astounded at the manner in which this resolution has been received by some members on this floor. I am aware every Senator has the right to attend that funeral at his own expense. I am away further that this resolution is not offered as an individual resolution, but of this body acting as the Senate of Indiana desirous paying respect to a man who has far as official position is concerned has been the most honored citizen of the State. I regret that the Senator from Gibson (Mr. McCOLLOUGH) has thought it proper to introduce this penny wise and pound foolish attempt at saving an expenditure in a matter of this kind. I think it would be a disgrace of this body to place that amendment to a resolution offered as a testimonial of respect. If a committee goes, it will go not as individual members, but they go as representing the Senate. H say sit is not the duty of Senators to go around the state attending funerals; that is not for what we are sent here. I say in reply I never have known of a funeral of an eminent citizen of Indiana that has not been attended by the State officers, and I have yet to learn that they have been charged with a neglect of duty for paying these respects.
Mr. McCOLLOUGH (interrupting): Did you ever know of the State officers getting their expenses paid out of the State Treasury for attending a funeral.
Mr. WILLARD: No, I never did, because they did not represent any body. If the Senate sends a committee to the funeral of Schuyler Colfax out of respect to his memory, they should do it in accordances with the customs of parliamentary assemblages. I know of no exception to that custom, either in Congress or in the Senate of the United States, and have never known an exception attempted to be made until this amendment was offered by the gentleman from Gibson. I trust the amendment will be voted down the resolution in its original form may be sent to the House.
Mr. HILLIGASS: I know somewhat of the history of the life and character of the late distinguished citizen of Indiana, Schuyler Colfax. I remember him in that history as an orphan boy clerking in a dry goods store in the northern part of our State. He was appointed Deputy Auditor of his County, and while in that position took hold of the law and read the text-books of that profession. We next find him engaged in the newspaper business, and when a young man was sent by the Whigs of Indiana as a delegate to a National Convention. By reason of his ability he was honored by his party, and i might say by the people of Indiana, from the fact that he had carved out his own way in life and rose to eminence by reason of his own ability. I differed with him in the past upon political questions, but there is a time when that difference ceases, and that is at the grave. I presume there is nothing political in this proposition. It is only a question of propriety. I shall favor the resolution of the Senator from Lawrence [Mr. Willard] because I believe it due to the memory of this distinguished citizen of our State.
Mr. McCOLLOUGH now sent up his amendment in writing, viz: "Provided that the members of the committee who attend such funeral shall do so at their own expense"
The amendment was rejected by yeas, 10; nays, 36.
The resolution was adopted by yeas, 39; nays, 8.
Mr. McINTOSH in explanation of his vote when his was called, was understood to say that he did not see any impropriety in a committee' goign to attend the funeral of Mr. Colfax, and as the Senate has decided a committee shall go he should vote aye.
The vote was then announced as above recorded.
And so the resolution was adopted as originally introduced.
Mr. WILLARD asked and obtained consent to return from the Committee on Finance the bill [H. R. 1) appropriating $125,000 for the expenses of the regular session of this General Assembly, with the recommendation that it do pass.
On his further motion the constitutional restriction was dispensed with - yeas, 46, nays1,1. The bill was read the second and third times, and finally passed the Senate without amendment by yeas, 47; nays, 0.
Mr. McCollough offered a resolution that the various parts of the messages delivered by ex-Governor Porter and Governor Gray to the present General Assembly be referred by the President of the Senate to appropriate committees.
Mr. Foulke moved to amend by adding these words, "except the portion thereof relating to the State Treasury," on the ground that there is already a resolution before the Senate on that subject which has been made the special order for Monday next. He did not suppose this motion intended to supersede that; if it is we had better discuss that matter now.
Mr. McCOLLOUGH did not know that the reference of other portions of the messages had anything to do with it.
Mr. McCLURE: I see no particular necessity of making that exception.
Mr. FOULKE withdrew his motion with the understanding expressed by the Senator from Gibson [Mr. McCollough that it will not preclude the other matter.
Mr. BAILEY offered the following:
Resolved, That there be appointed by the President of this Senate a special committee of five whose duty it shall be to consider and report upon the propriety of introducing before this body a bill providing that certain cities of this State, having efficient fire departments, shall be empowered to levy upon all property-holders within such cities a special tax, which shall be reserved as a fire insurance fund, and that such cities shall under conditions provided by such law, be liable to any property-holder for loss sustained from fire.
The resolution was adopted, and the Lieutenant Govenor makes said committee consist of Messrs. Bailey, Day, Sellers, Marshall, Youche.
The following described bills were introduced, read the first time, and severally referred to appropriate committees.
By Mr. SMITH of Jay [S. 52] to protect sheep husbandry and provide for registering, taxing and killing dogs.
By Mr. MAGEE [S. 53] to amend an act regulating descents and the apportionment of estates.
Then came recess for dinner.
was entirely taken up in the introduction of bills numbered 54 to 81 inclusive, which were severally read the first time and referred to appropriate committees.
The House met, Speaker Jewett in the Chair.
Prayer by Rev. Mr. Branstetter, of Jay County.
The reading of the journal was dispensed with,
The following described bills were introduced, read the first time, and referred to appropriate committees;
By Mr. TAYLOR [H. R. 18] to create an Appellate Court.
Provides for five Judges. The court to have exclusive jurisdiction of all appeals from Circuit Superior and Criminal Courts, expect appeals by defendants in cases of felony, and appeals by the State in criminal cases, and appeals from any Superior Court having a general term. Provides for appointment of five Judges from the two dominant parties to serve until the next general election, and until Judges for said court shall be elected and qualified, and provides for tilling vacancies by the Governor. Provides for the election of Judges at the next general election, to serve four years, or so long as they shall behave well, expect at the first election when two shall hold for tow years, and three for four, to be determined by lot.
By Mr. McMULLEN [H. R. 19] to regulate foreign fire insurance companies doing business int his State. How to regulate foreign fire insurance companies doing business in the State, which provides that all losses on policies shall be paid within sixty days or the companies shall be assessed 10 per cent, damages additional to the amount.
By Mr. McMULLEN [H. R. 20] to amend Section 8 of the act relating to the powers and duties of Coroners, being Section 13 of the Revised Statues of 1881.
By Mr. HAYDEN (for Mr. Moody) [H.R. 21] to define the rights and liabilities of inn keepers.
By Mr. Hayden {for Mr. Moody,)[H.R.22] to provide for the appointment of a Commissioner of Railroads, defining his powers and duties, fixing his compensation, etc. Three thousand dollars per annum, with a deputy at 31,000, the first appointed by the Governor, whose duty it shall be to receive annual reports from the various railroads, and who shall be a member of the State Board of Equalization, the duties being similar to those of like officers in other States.
By Mr. LINVILLE [H. R. 23] to amend an amendatory act concerning highways and the supervisors thereof.
By Mr. LINVILLE [H. R. 24] for the better protection of quails and pheasants. To prohibit the shoot of quails and pheasants from now until October, 1887; and one to prevent the gigging and shooting of fish by making it a finable offense in the sum of $5 to $25 for every fish so killed and by the offering $5 for the name of each offender presented to the Grand Jury.
By Mr. FISHER [H. R. 25] to amend Section 12 of the act concerning highways and the supervisors thereof. [To make eight hours constitute a day's work on the roads.]
By Mr. MOSIER [H. R. 23] to fix certain fees and salaries of officers therein named.
By Mr. HAWORTH [H. R. 27] to repeal Section 4,487 of the Revised Statues of 1881.
By Mr. BOOE [H. R. 28] to regulate the practice of medicine in Indiana, providing for a State Board of Medical Examiners, not connected with any college or in an official capacity with any college or in an official capacity with any school, who shall examine all applicants who shall desire to engage in the profession in Indiana.
By Mr. HARRELL [H.R.20] authorizing County Commissioners to construct free turnpikes in certain cases.
By Mr. BROWNLEE [H R. 30] for the repeal of the drainage act of April, 1881.
By Mr. HELMS [H. R. 31] to amend Section 2,009 of an act concerning crimes and punishment thereof approved April 14, 1881, being Section 3,117 of the Revised Statues of 1881.
By Mr. HELMS [H. R. 32] to provide for the purchase of stationery for the county officers by the Commissioners.
Pending the introduction of bills -
By Mr. BOYD [H. R 33] to amend Sections 5,097 and 5,100 of the Revised Statues of 1881 so that pike roads can be constructed without issuing bonds, and providing a way to construct roads running on county lines or our of one county and into another.
By Mr. BOYD [H. R. 34] to amend Section 3,333 of the Revised Statues of 1881, so as to empower Township Trustees to impound hogs or stock running at large, etc.
By Mr. MAUCK [H. R. 35] to amend Section 5 of an act to create the Forth-third Judicial Circuit.
By Mr. MAUCK [H. R. 36] to amend an amendatory act concerning the duties of Prosecuting Attorneys.
By Mr. FLEESE [H. R. 37] to appropriate money for the building of a brick barn and kitchen for the Boy's Reformatory, appropriating $40,000.
By Mr. DEEM [H. R. 38] to define what class of persons may be admitted to the Indiana Soldier's Seamen' Orphans' Home.
By Mr. LINDSAY [H. R. 41] to exempt homestead property from execution.
By Mr. BARR [H. R. 42] for the better protection of game.
By Mr. WILLIAMS [H. R. 43] to amend Section 3,413 of Revised Statutes of 1883 in regard to Building and Loan Associations
By Mr. WILLIAMS [H. R. 44] to regulate the renting of telephones.
By Mr. WILSON [H.R.44] to make an appropriation to Kosciusko County of $141.41, the same being the expense incurred in the arrest, trial and conviction of Charles W. Butler for the murder of Abbie Butler, of Franklin County, Ohio, by her husband.
By Mr. WILSON [H.R.46] providing for the erection of a memorial hall in memory of and for the soldiers and sailors of Indiana.
By Mr. KLAAS [H.R.47] to amend an act for the appointment of short-hand reporters in courts of record in this State, approved March 10, 1875.
By Mr. KRUEGER [H.R.43] an act to amend an act concerning taxation, approved March, 1881.
By Mr. KRUEGER a resolution to amend the Constitution of the State of Indiana by declaring that the Clerk of the Circuit Court, the Auditor the Treasurer, the Sheriff and Coroner shall be elected for the term of four years, and that no person shall be eligible to but one term in a period of eight years.
By Mr. JAMISON [H.R.49] to amend an act concerning proceedings in civil cases, approved March 5, 1878, being Section 1,714 Revised Statues of 1881.
By Mr. JAMESON [H. R. 10] to amend an act concerning husband and wife, approved April 16, 1881.
By Mr. JAMESON [H.R. 51] to regulate hours of labor in the employment of women and children and prohibiting the employment of minors under fourteen years of age.
By Mr. SCHLEY [H. R. 52] to legalize the organization of the Zionsville Turnpike Company
By Mr. FARRELL [H. R. 53] to repeal an act authorizing aliens to hold title to real estate and convey the same.
By Mr. SCHMIDT [H.R. 54] to amend Section 1,721 of the Revised Statues of 1881 concerning public offenses.
By Mr. SCHLEY (for Mr. Pendleton) [H. R. 55] to abolish the office of City Assessor.
By Mr. PENDLETON [H. R. 66] to relieve Joshua Aworth and surties as Trustees of Harrison Township, and Robert N. Hurdy and sureties as Trustees of Warren Township.
By Mr. GOODING [H.R. 57] to annul the act concerning proceedings in civil cases approved April 17, 1881.
By Mr. KELLISON [H. R. 58] to amend Section 650 of the Revised Statutes of 1881.
By Mr. KELLISON [H. R. 59] to repeal an act authorizing aliens to hold and convey real estate.
By Mr. PASSAGE [H. R. 60] in regard to the payment of employes of companies, corporations and associations.
By Mr. PASSAGE [H. R. 61] in relation to fencing railroads, and providing for the payment of stock killed by engines and cars thereon.
By Mr. ADAMS [H. R. 62] concerning taxation.
By Mr. ADAMS [H. R. 63] to authorizing boards of county commissioners to change the direction of streams and water-courses.
By Mr. PLEASANTS [H.R. 64] to amend Section 4,4433 of the Revised Statues of 1881 in regard to Common Schools.
By Mr. PLEASANTS [H. R. 65] to amend Section 2,108 of the Revised Statues of 1881, concerning public offenses.
And then the House adjourned until to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock.
Lieutenant Governor MANSON called the Senate to order and announced prayers by the Senator from the counties of St. Joseph and Starke. [Mr. Campbell.]
After prayers the Lieutenant Governor asked and obtained consent to substitute Mr. Adkison for Mr. Huston on the Standing Committee on Public Buildings - it being a mistake made in the transcribing of the list of committees. The change is satisfactory to both Senators.
Mr. CAMPBELL of St. Joseph, under the call for petitions, memorials and remonstrances: I deem it not appropriate to state that I called yesterday morning, In South Bend, upon Mrs. Colfax, crushed as she was under the sad news of her husband's death suddent death. I told her of the prompt action of this Senate in adjourning out of respect for Mr. Colfax, and I told her how the Senate gathered about, expressing so much interest and respect for him. She asked me to improve the earliest opportunity to express to the Senate how keenly she appreciates that spontaneous tribute of respect for the memory of Mr. Coflax, and I take this opportunity to express that appreciation on her behalf.
Mr. ERNEST presented a petition from citizens of Knox County for the enactment of a law requiring in all schools supported by public moneys instruction in physiology and hygiene, which shall give special prominence to the effect of alcoholic drinks, stimulats and narcotics upon the human system.
It was read and referred to the Committee on Education.
Mr. DRAKE offered the following:
Whereas, Senator Henry Hostetter, a member of the Senate in the Fifty-third General Assembly, departed this life before the expiration of his term of office, therefore,
Be it Resolved by the Senate, That we hereby express our acknowledgement of his high personal character and official integrity, and direct that this resolution be spread upon the records of the Senate
Mr. YOUCHE: I desire to move to amend the resolution by requiring the Secretary of the Senate to forward a copy of the resolution to the family of the deceased Senator.
Mr. DRAKE accepted the amendment.
The resolution, as amended, was adopted.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph, called up his resolution of Friday (which was made the special order for yesterday, but not considered because of his absence, declaring that the pay of employes except where fixed by statue, shall be $2.50 and that pages and paper-folders shall receive $1 per day.
On motion by Mr. HILLIGASS it was indefinitely postponed by yeas, 31, nays, 16 -
Mr. ADKISON explaining his negative vote by saying he was not in accord with the resolution as introduced, but voted against the motion with a view of offering an amendment to the resolution.
Mr. RAHM moved that Mr. Foulke be added the Committee on Public Buildings, inasmuch as the State has located one of the Insane Asylums at Richmond, where the Senator resides.
Lieutenant Governor Manson said: I had intended to put the Senator from Wayne [Mr. Foulke] on that committee, and I don't know how it came that I finally forgot to do so.
It was so ordered.
On motion by Mr. WIER it was ordered that the Doorkeeper be instructed to call upon the pastors of the different churches in this city, and arrange for their presence at the opening of the Senate from day to day, under the resolution heretofore adopted.
The following described bills were introduced, read the first time and severally referred to appropriate committees.
Br Mr. DRAKE [S. 82] to amend Section 12 of the act of April 8, 1881, concerning drainage. [It proposes to change the law by requiring the several counties to contribute to the expense of the survey where lands are affected in more than one county. The costs of the survey, as the law now stands,fail: entirely on the county in which the petition is filed.]
By Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph [S. 83], to amend the act of March 2, 1883, concerning
highways and the Supervisors thereof, so that townships shall pay $100 toward the building
of all bridges, allowing Commissioners to build and require Trustees to pay $100, or
commissioners may
By Mr. FOULKE [S. 84] to provide for the speedy publication, distribution and sale of the Indiana Reports by the Reporter of the Supreme Court, and repealing all laws except the Section 1 of the set of March 13, 1875.
By Mr. FOWLER [S. 85] to fix the number of Senators and Representatives to the General Assembly.
By Mr. HULL [S. 86] to amend Section 2 of the general city incorporation act, being Section 3,266 of the Revised Statues.
By Mr. HILLIGASS [S. 87] to legalize the incorporation of the Union Loan and savings Company of Marion County and to legalize all the acts thereof, and all contracts made and with said company, and all the official acts of the Board of Directors thereof, and declaring an emergency.
By Mr. HOWARD [S. 88] supplemental to the act of May 11, 1861, for the organization and regulation of the State Militia.
By Mr. MACY [S. 89] to amend Sections 1 and 7 of the act of May 13, 1852, prescribing the duties of the Clerk of the Supreme Court.
[It provides for the increase of penalty of bond of Clerk of Supreme Court from $2,000 to $10,000 that such clerk shall keep cash book and register of receipts in his office as now required by law of County Clerks; that at the close of his term he shall pay over to his successor all money in his hands belonging to other parties, and fixing a penalty for his refusal to permit the inspection of any fee book in his office.]
By Mr. MAGEE [S. 90] to amend the act of April 14, 1881, regulating insanity inquests, and the committal of insane persons to hospitals for the Insane.
The Senate took a recess til 2 o'clock.
By Mr. McCULLOUGH [S. 91] to amend section 1 & 2 of the act of February 16, 1882, and an amendatory act approved March 8, 1883. [Concerning libraries and reading rooms in towns of less than 10,000 inhabitants.]
On motion of Mr. MAGEE the House concurrent resolution (just received by message) for the appointment of a joint committee of the two Houses to draft resolutions expressing the feeling of this General Assembly at the unexpected demise of the Hon. Schuyler Colfax, was taken up, read and adopted.
The Lieutenant Governor appointed Messrs. Magee and Foulke as said committee on the part of the Senate.
By Mr. RAHM [S. 92] to provide for the organization and administration of the additional hospitals for the treatment and cure of the insane.
By Mr. SCHLOSS [S. 93] to suppress and prevent the spread of pneumonia among cattle, glanders among horses, mules and asses. [to create the office of State Veterinarian, etc.
By Mr. SELLERS [S. 94] concerning the duties and compensation of the Reporter of the Supreme Court - $4,000 per year with an assistant on salary. The bill was accompanied by a petition in favor thereof signed by attornies in Cass County.
By Mr. THOMPSON [S. 95] to amend Section 184 of the act of March 7, 1881, to establish a State Board of Health, etc.
By Mr. WINTER [S. 96] to authorize manufacturing corporations to buy and sell goods not of their own manufacture.
By Mr. YOUCHE [S. 97] to amend Section 5 of the act of March 17, 1875, concerning the sale of intoxicating liquors, proposing a license of $500 for all spirituous liquors and $200 for malt and vinous.
By Mr. BAILEY [S. 98] for the relief of the Trustees of Decatur, Warren, Perry, Lawrence, Franklin, Pike, and Wayne Townships of Marion County, Indiana. (Some $18,000 asked to be refunded on account of loss by failure of Indianapolis Banks.
By Mr. BROWN [S. 99] to amend an amendatory act of May 5, 1869, and of March 6, 1865, being Section 4,497 of the Revised Statues - concerning the common schools of this State [Authorizing the German language to be taught.]
By Mr. CAMPBELL of St. Joseph [S. 100], to amend the act concerning the taxation of lands lying inside of cities and towns, being Section 3,261 of the Revised Statues.
By Mr. DAY [L. 101] to amend Section 67 of the general town incorporation act of June 11, 1852, as amended by the act of March 12, 1877, being know as Section 3,347 of Revised Statute of 1881.
Mr. FOULKE said this is a bill wholly of local application, as was the bill introduced and passed the Senate the other day on motion of the Senator from Perry [Mr. May.] The section proposed to be amended provides that any person violating the provisions of the law may be prosecuted before a Justice of the Peace of the town. The amendment proposed by this bill is that if there be no such Justice in the town, the prosecution may be had before a Justice of the Peace residing in the county nearest to the town. There is a town in Wayne County that has no Justice of the Peace within its limits. He could not conceive any objection to the bill and moved that constitutional vote be dispensed with that the bill may read three times and finally passed by the Senate now.
Mr. FOWLER: What is the emergency?
Mr. FOULKE introduced a similar bill two years ago, but in the presence of business it was lost.
Mr. FOWLER: Are you afraid it will be lost again?
Mr. FOULKE was afraid it would be crowded out
Mr. WINTER: While there may be no objection to the bill, it may be unnecessary. He thought thee is a decision by the Supreme Court, in which it is held that any Justice of the Peace of Township is Justice of the Peace of every town in the Township.
Mr. FOULKE: The attorney of the town referred says he has examined the law carefully and can not find authority to prosecute before any Justice, there being non in his town.
The motion was rejected by yeas 26, nays 14 - two-thirds of all the Senators elect not voting the affirmative.
By Mr. FOWLER [S. 103] to repeal the act creating a State Bureau of Statistics and Geology.
By Mr. SCHLOSS [S. 104] for the relief of Lewis S. Culder.
By Mr. SELLERS [S. 105] to repeal Section 9 of the act to provide a general system of common schools of March 6, 1875 and March 8, 1873, being Section 4,620 of the Revised Statutes.
By Mr. SMITH, of Jay [S. 106], to appropriate $10,00 to aid the exhibit of the State of Indiana at the World's Industrial and Cotton Exhibition at New Orleans.
By Mr. THOMPSON [S. 107] to amend Section 7 of Chapter 6,135 of the Revised Statutes, authorizing the appointment of female moral instructors in State Prisons.
Mr. THOMPSON said great many men and women think there is but little reformation among
convicts in our penitentiaries. There is nothing in the world that induces them to be
grateful for the treatment they receive while in prison. There is no such thing as a
virtuous influence exercised among prisoners under present methods of instruction. A great
many philanthropists insist there ought to be discarded entirely from prisons all physical
torture, and that women are better calculated to draw out the finer
It was so ordered.
By. Mr. CAMPBELL of St. Joseph [S. 108], to create a county dog fund out of which to pay sleep killed by dogs
The following described bills were introduced, read the first time and severally referred to a appropriate committees:
By Mr. BAILEY [S. 54] to secure to operatives and laborers engaged in and about all manufactories and by railroad corporations the payment of their wages at regular intervals and in lawful money of the United States.
By Mr. BENZ [S. 55] concerning the behavior of lifetime convicts in the State Prisons and the Indiana Reformatory for Women and Girls. [It provides that all persons sentenced to imprisonment for life shall, after they have served fifteen years, and if their conduct has been exemplary, be entitled to release under a system of ticket-of-leave, the Governor to have power to recommit.]
By Mr. BROWN [S. 56] concerning taxation of railroads.
By Mr. DAVIS [S. 57] to amend Section 6 of an act to authorize cities and incorporated towns to construct, maintain, and operate water works, approved March, 25 1879.
By Mr. DAY [S. 58] to amend sections 5,998 and 5,999 Revised Statues, regulating the reports of township trustees.
By Mr. DRAKE [S. 59] to fix the time of holdings courts in the Thirty-fourth Circuit.
By Mr. FOULKE [S. 60] relating to the study of physiology and hygiene and the effects of alcoholic stimulants and narcotics in the public schools.
By Mr. DUNCAN, of Tipton [S. 61], concerning County Commissioners and regulating the term of office thereof.
By Mr. HOOVER [S. 62] to provide for the continuance of a term of court where a trial is in progress at the expiration of the regular term.
By Mr. FOWLER [S. 63] to repeal an act to authorize aliens to hold title to real estate, convey the same, etc., approved April 16, 1881.
By Mr. MACY [S. 64] to amend Section 5 of an act authorizing the appointment of short-hand reporters for certain courts of record in this State.
By Mr. MAGEE [S. 65] providing for an act for the completion and equipment of there additional Hospitals for the Insane and for the support thereof. [Two hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars to carry the work through the fiscal year ending with October, $300,000 for the work during 1886, $30,000 for maintenance of the institution at Evansville during 1886 and $60,000 for 1887. For the Richmond asylum $42,000 is appropriated for 1886 and $80,000 for 1887. An appropriation for the Logansport hospital, which will be completed before the last of next year, of $70,000 is proposed for maintenance in 1887.]
By Mr. MAY [S. 66] establishing provisions respecting private corporations, created and existing at and prior to November, 1851, and other matters.
By Mr. McCULLOUGH [S. 67] concerning the collection of taxes of incorporated towns and cities.
By Mr. OVERSTREET [S. 68] to amend Section 12 of an act concerning drainage approved April 8, 1881.
By Mr. RAHM [S. 69] to amend Section 1 of an act in relation to marriage, approved February 2, 1877, being Section 5,324 of the Revised Statues of 1881.
By Mr. SCHLOSS [S. 70] in relation to the unexpended balance of general and specific appropriations and declaring an emergency.
By Mr. SELLERS [S. 71] to legalize and make valid the sale and conveyance of real estate by cities incorporated under the general law for the incorporation of cities, where such sale and conveyance has been made upon a vote of a majority of the Common Council of such city, and without appraisement.
By Mr. SHIVELY [S. 72] to provide for a reduction of fees, to require county officers to keep an account of fees, and pay into the treasury certain amounts when their fees exceed $2,000. Limits the fees of County Auditors to 30 per cent. of all received in excess of $2,000 a year.
By Mr SMITH, of Jennings [S. 73] for the better government and regulation for the Hospital for the Insane.
By Mr. THOMPSON [S. 75] to pay to Patrick Kerland for a swamp land ditching claim against the State of Indiana.
By Mr. WEIR [S. 76] to amend Section 471 of an act entitled an act concerning proceeding in civil cases, approved April 7, 1881, so as to exemept State officers and Prosecuting Attorneys acting as relator for the State, from liability for cost.
By Mr. YOUCHE [S. 77] to prevent townships in this State from making or voting appropriations of money to aid any railroad company in constructing its railroad.
By Mr. ZIMMERMAN [S. 78] to amend Section 293, Revised Statues - concerning proceedings in civil cases.
By Mr. HILLIGASS [S. 79] to amend Section 8 of the dog law of March 7, 1883.
By Mr. DAY [S. 80] to amend Section 3,676
of the Revised Statues concerning the incorporation of cities.
By Mr. BAILEY [S. 81] to amend Section 1 of the Justices' act of February 26, 1876.
And then the Senate adjourned til to-morrow morning.
The House met -Mr. Speaker Jewett in the chair.
The session was opened with the following prayer by the Representative from the counties of Madison, Hancock and Henry, Rider Joseph and Franklin:
Our Father Who art in heaven, hallowed by Thy name. We come before Thee this morning in this attitude to praise Thee, the Creator and upholder of all things visible and invisible. We come to Thee with our sense of dependence and to Thee with our sense of dependence and obligation for mercies and blessings in our lives past. We thank Thee that Thy preserving care has been over us through the darkness and silence of another night. Thou has brought us through another night to this morning under circumstances favorable as we could expect. We pray Thy blessings upon us, May we enter upon the duties of this, another day, in the fear of the Lord, May we rightly discharge our duties therein. May we maintain integrity and manhood in all that we do. Be gracious to those dear ones from whom we are separated by coming together here. Bless and save us for Christ's sake. Amen.
The journal was being read when
On motion of Mr. FRENCH, the further reading thereof was dispensed with.
Mr. TAYLOR offered a resolution, which was adopted, providing that the Clerk shall furnish the several committees with stationery under such restrictions as is now in force for furnishing the same for the use of the House.
The SPEAKER announced that the hour had arrived for the consideration of the special order of the day, being a resolution providing for the appointment of a committee for the new Insane Asylum
On motion by Mr. GOODING the consideration of the resolution wa spostponed until next Thursday at 10 o'clock.
The following described bills were introduced, read the first time and severally referred to appropriate committees:
By Mr. AKINS [H. R. 66] to create the Twenty-first Twenty-second and Forty-seventh Judicial Circuits, fixing the time for holding courts therein.
By Mr. SMITH, of Perry [H. R. 67], supplementary to an act concerning drainage, approved April 8, 1881.
By Mr. GORDON [H. R. 69] a bill for an act for the incorporation of towns, defining their powers, providing for the election of officers thereof, declaring their duties, and repealing all laws in conflict therewith.
[ A message from the Governor announced that he has approved and signed the bill [H. R. 1] appropriating $125,000 for expenses of this session, and has caused the same to be filed in the office of the Secretary of State.]
By Mr. GORDON [H. R. 70] relating to live stock, importing, breeding and herding companies, authorizing and prescribing the manner in which they shall be incorporated, etc.
By Mr. ENGLE [H. R. 71] for an act requiring railroad corporations and other persons operation and controlling railroads to fence the track of the same and keep the same in repair, and providing remedies and penalties for failing to do so.
By Mr. ENGLE [H. R. 72] to amend Section 5,830 of Revised Statues of 1881.
By Mr. LOYD [H. R. 78] for an act to provide for a safe deposit for county and township funds, providing for the security thereof, and other matters connected therewith.
Mr. CORY offered a concurrent resolution a committee of two Senators and three Representatives to draft resolutions express the sense of the General Assembly concerning the death of ex-Vice President Colfax, which was adopted nem. con., and the Speaker subsequently appointed Messrs. Corey, Staley and Smith, of Tippecanoe.
By Mr. FRAZEE [H. R. 75] to amend an act to allow the charter of Turnpike and Gravel Road Companies to be extended by County Commissioners in certain cases, approved March 6, 1865
By Mr. FRAZEE [H. R. 76] to amend Section 1 of an amendatory act of March 9, 1881, concerning the election of justices of the peace.
By Mr. HOBAN [H. R. 77] to regulate the running of passenger and accommodation trains.
By Mr. HOBAN [H. R 78] concerning notes given for attorneys fees.
By Mr. BEST [H. R. 79] to fix the times for holding court in the Thirty-fifth Judicial Circuit.
By Mr. BEST [H. R. 80] to empower the Township Trustees to purchase and keep in repair public cemetaries
By Mr. McMICHAEL [H. R. 81] to amend Section 8 of an act of March 8, 1873, amendatory of Section 34 of the common school law - being Section 4,369 of the Revised Statues of 1881.
By Mr. McMICHAEL [H. R> 82] to amend Section 1 of the act to authorize County Commissioners to provide suitable asylums for children who are a charge upon the county - being Section 3,511 of the Revised Statues.
By Mr. PATTEN [H. R. 83] to amend the act creating the Forty-third Judicial Circuit.
By Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe [H. N. 84], to provide for the incorporation of an asylum for indigent females, and authorizing the grant of aid thereto.
Mr. PATTEN offered the following:
Whereas, There has been intimation made by Governor Porter in this biennial message to this House touching the affairs of Treasurer of State, that certain irregularities exist in that office which call for examination and inspection, therefore
Be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring, that a
committee of three on the part of the House, and a like number on the part of the
Senate, be appointed to make a complete examination and inspection of all books,
vouchers, accounts, records, bonds, securities, claims and assets of the effects which
are, or should be, in the treasury, and to count all monies in such treasury, and
compare all books, vouchers, accounts and records with those of the Auditor of State,
and it is hereby made the duty of such Auditor to place them at the disposal of such
committee on demand, submit to the inspection of such committee of all his books,
vouchers, accounts, records and other papers, together with all vaults, space or rooms,
or other apartments of his office; and if said committee should find it necessary, at
any period, for the purpose of examination, that an expert accountant should be
employed, then, in that case, such facts should be reported to the General Assembly for
its action thereon. Said committee shall have the power of extending their examination
and inspection to a period of [ ]
Mr. GOODING: I understand there is a law directing the Governor to make such an investigation as is proposed; and I desire to examine that law before i vote upon this resolution. Therefore I move to postpone the resolution until to-morrow at 2 o'clock.
By Mr. SMITH of Tippecanoe [H. R> 85], to amend Section 8 of an act providing for the appointment of Notaries Public.
By Mr. OSBORN H. R. 86] for the relief of Matilda Hall, heir of Edwin Kendall, deceased, appropriating the sum of $518.71 for money having escheated to the state.
By Mr. VICHERY [H. R. 88] fixing the time for holding in the Thirty sixth Judicial Circuit.
On motion by Mr. STALEY the constitutional rule was suspended by yeas, 74; nays 19 - the bill read the second time by title, the third time by sections and finally passed the House by yeas, 95; nays, 1.
By Mr. HARGRAVE [H. R. 89] to amend Section 8 of an act concerning taxation, approved March 29, 1881.
By Mr. MURPHY [H. R. 90] to empower voluntary associations incorporated and to be incorporated for the purpose of establishing homes for the care of aged females, to receive in such homes superannuated and aged men also.
By Mr. DEBS [H. R. 91] concerning the classification of railroad engineers.
By Mr. DEBS [H. R. 92] concerning the liability of corporations and the negligence of their employes.
By Mr. BUTZ [H. R. 93] to amend Section 2, 055 of the Revised Statues of 1881 concerning public offenses.
By Mr. SAYRE [H. R. 94] to provide for the establishment of corporate boundaries of cities and towns.
By Mr. McBROOME [H. R. 95] to legalize the incorporation of the town of Ambia, Benton County.
By Mr. SMITH, of Warrick [H. R. 96], concerning highways and the Supervisors thereof.
By Mr. MAUK, of Wayne [H. R. 97], to authorize County Commissioners to confer awards for the killing of obnoxious animals and birds.
By Mr. MAUK, of Wayne [H. R. 98], to legalize the acts of Notaries Public whose commissions had expired and who have been inelegible to the office.
By Mr. TOWNSEND [H. R. 99] to abolish the distinction of race and color made in the laws.
By Mr. TOWNSEND [H. R. 100] to amend Section 3,805 of the Revised Statues of 1881 concerning public libraries.
Mr. McGOVERNEY [H. R. 101] to amend Sections 1, 6 and 20 of an act concerning highways and the supervisors thereof.
By Mr. TIMMONS [H. R. 102] to relieve certain veteran volunteers.
By Mr. GARRISON [H. R. 103] to amend the act of March 21, 1883, concerning highways and the supervisors thereof.
By Mr. GARRISON [H. R. 104] concerning breeders of horses and mules, giving lie upon the foal to the owner of a jack or horse.
By Mr. PASSAGE [H. R. 105] to provide for the payment of officers for reclaiming swamp lands [on Attorney General and associate counsel.]
The SPEAKER: Adjutant General Carnahan is present by your invitation and he will now address you.
The Adjutant General of the State then spoke of Indiana's exhibit at the exposition. When he had concluded -
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe, offered a resolution tendering thanks to General Carnahan for his energetic efforts and Indiana's Commissioner; and that the interest of the State require a judicious expenditure of money to continue and extend this exhibition.
On motion of Mr. Gooding the first part of the resolution - the thanks - was agreed to.
The second part of the resolution was referred to a special committee of three, which was made to consist of Messrs. Williams, Garrison and Smith of Tippecanoe
Mr. GORDON offered the following:
Resolved, that the Committee on Fees and Salaries be instructed to find out, as nearly as may be done, and report to this House at an early day, all the fees and salaries that are received by the several State officers respectively, and the aggregate compensation received by each of them.
Mr. ADAMS: I move to amend by substituting instead of Committee on Fees and Salaries, a special committee of five.
On motion by Mr. BROWNING the amendment was laid on the table.
Mr. SAYRE moved to amend by adding: "and such committee shall have power to send for persons and papers" He said: It seems to me that such committee would be powerless unless they have authority to send for persons and papers and compel the attendance of witnesses under oath, without it, it seems to me, the investigation will be almost useless.
The amendment was laid on the table by yeas 49, nays 46.
Mr. McMULLEN demanded the previous question, which was seconded by the House, and under its operations the original resolution was adopted.
The concurrent resolution of the Senate (Senate Schloss) instructing our Senators and requesting Indiana Representatives in Congress to use their influence to secure the passage of House Bill No. 420, pensioning soldiers confined as prisoners during the late war, was read.
Mr. CORY moved to refer it to the Committee on Military Affairs.
Mr. BROWNING saw no reason for postponing this matter at all. I can not think there is a man on this floor who has any objection to granting pensions to soldiers that have been disabled from confinement in rebel prisons. Democrats should see to it that this resolution be passed at once.
Mr. PATTEN heartily concurred with the gentleman from Brown and Monroe (Mr. Browning.) If we are going to do anything for the soldiers now, let us vote upon it now. Soldiers who suffered in prisons ought to be pensioned. Democrats and Republicans ought to see to it.
Mr. CORY did not see why we should hesitate a moment to vote for this resolution. It is wholly unnecessary to defer action on it. Democrats and Republicans alike should vote for pensioning soldiers who suffered in rebel prisons.
The resolution was concurred in.
Mr. Hayden' [H. R. 2] provides that Circuit Judges of counties having 54,000 inhabitants and which have no Criminal Court would receive $3,000. The present salary is $2,000
Mr. Brook's bill [H. R. 3] to increase the State Treasurer's bond to
$1,000,000,and pro
Mr. REEVES' Supreme Court Reporter bill [H. R. 8] provides that the Reporter shall receive a salary of $3,000; that the reports shall be sold at 25 per cent. advance on the cost price; that only the decisions of importance shall be published, and that the electrotypes shall become the property of the State.
Mr. Mosier's fee and salary bill [H. R. 26] provides that salaries shall be reduced as follows: Treasurer of State, from $1,000 to $1,500; Governor's private secretary $500 to $1,200; Deputy Auditor of State, $1,500 to $1,200; two clerks of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, $900 to $750; State Librarian, $1,200 to $1,000; Assistant Librarian, $750 to $600. Instead of $1,200 the salary of Auditors in counties of 10,000 population shall be $1,000a year, $5 per 100 for an additional 30,000, and $8 per 100 for all in excess of 40,000. The County Treasurers, the bill provides, shall receive 1 per cent. on the first $50,000 of taxes collected, and one-half of 1 per cent. on all over that amount.
Mr. Helm's bill [H. R. 34] provides for the purchasing of all stationery for the use of county officers by the County Commissioners on sealed bids, contracts to be let to the lowest responsible bidder.
Mr. Helm's bill [H. R. 32] proposes to amend the fish law by prescribing heavy penalties for fishing with gig net or drags in any of the rivers or small streams of the State of Indiana; also, providing for the payment of those informing upon the violators, the rewards to be paid by the defendant addition to fine and all costs.
Mr Linsday's bill [H. R. 40] provides that every head of a family shall be entitled to hold a homestead of an appraised value not to exceed $1, 500 which shall be exempt from sale on execution, and that the personal property of any householder, to the value of $1,000 shall not be liable to sale for rent or any execution upon suit. However, the payment of wages to servants or mechanics is required.
Mr. William's bill [H. R. 46] provides that telephone companies in Indiana shall not charge more than $3.00 per month for a single instrument, or $2.50 per instrument where two are used in one place, and fixing the rate for use of telephones between various cities in the State at fifteen cents for the first five minutes, and not exceeding five centers for each five minutes thereafter.
Mr. Wilson's bill [H. R> 46] is to provide for the erection of a Soldier's Memorial Hall in the Governor's Circle and Indianapolis. It proposes that a Board of Commissioners shall be appointed by the Governor not later than next July, to consist of two persons who shall have United citizens during the War of Rebellion, one who shall have served as an officer and one as a private, and the entire commission to be composed equally from the two political parties. The amount to be expended in erecting the proposed hall is limited to $40,000, and that sum is to be raised by a two-cent tax,
Mr. Jameson's bill [H. R. 50] is to prohibit married women from becoming sureties, but providing that they are still to have the power of joining with their husbands in mortgaging their property.
Mr. Schley's bill [H. R. 53] prohibits the employment of any minor under the age of fourteen years in any factory, manufacturing establishment, mine or mill in the State of Indiana; prohibits the employment of women and minors of any age more than ten hours in each twenty-four; prohibits any woman or minor from cleaning or repairing any belting, pulleys, shafting, etc., of any factory, manufacturing establishment, mill or mine, run by stream, water, or other motive power, while running, and making the penalty not less than $50 no more than $200 for each and every such offense.
Mr. Smith's, of Tippecanoe, bill [H. R. 84] proposes to give authority to County Commissioners to build homes for orphans and indigent females in counties where ten persons file articles of incorporation for assuming charge of the work. The cost of the building shall not exceed $10,000 in each county. Child4ren may be sent to these charitable institutions, it is provided, for maintenance at a cost of twenty-five cents a day.
Mr. Townsend's bill [H. R. 99] to provide for a State civil rights law, provides that all distinctions of race and color made in any and all of the laws of the State are hereby repealed, and that whenever any right, privilege, capacity, office or appointment, is or may be granted to, or any duty or obligation is or may be imposed upon any class of citizens of this State, or any persons or individual therein, the same right, privilege, capacity, office or appointment, duty or obligation, shall be granted to or imposed upon the citizens and individuals of every other class, according to the same terms, without reference to race, color or previous condition of servitude.
The House adjourned.
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MANSON announced prayer by a Representative from Wayne County - by Rev. Mr. Townsend.
The reading of the journal was dispensed with.
On motion it was ordered that when the Senate adjourned this afternoon it stands adjourned till MOnday at 10'clock a.m.
A report from the Judiciary Committee recommending the indefinite postponement of Mr. Foulke's Bill [S. 26] for calling a Constitutional Convention.
Mr. FOULKE did not understand that this report was to come in this morning.
There is a minority report declared to prepare, and would endeavor to have it ready today.
Mr. MAGEE: Make it a special order for some day.
Mr. FOULKE was perfectly willing. Let the Senator suggest some day.
Mr. MAGEE suggested Wednesday next at 2 o'clock
It was so ordered.
Subsequently Mr. FOULKE submitted a minority report from the Judiciary Committee, signed by Messrs. Winter, Campbell of Hendricks and Foulke, in favor of the passage of his bill.
Mr. BAILEY offered a resolution, which was referred to the Committee on Rules, to create a standing Committee on Cities.
A report from the Judiciary Committee recommended the passage of a bill [S. 4] concerning real estate and the alienation thereof, with amendments that aliens may inherit real estate, but most dispose of all interest therein within five years.
Mr. MAGEE moved that the constitutional role be suspended that the bill may be read the second and third times now, and finally passed the Senate.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay, objecting.
Mr. MAGEE thought every Senator was well informed of the provisions of the bill. It is simply a bill to prevent aliens acquiring large tracts of real estate in Indiana. There is plank in the Democratic platform favoring just such class of legislation, and I think the Republican platform has one likewise. This bill simply takes us back to where the law was prior to the enactment of the statute of 1881. Senators have probably formed their judgment as to the merits of this bill. He made this motion to expedite the business of the Senate.
Mr. SELLERS favored the bill if he understood its provisions aright.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings: The object of the bill is to prevent aliens - those who are not residents of the State of Indiana and who have no filed an intention of becoming citizens of the United States - from holding real estate in Indiana. That has always been the policy of this State from its organization to 1881, but by the act of 1881 that policy was changed non-resident alients, whether they resided in the United States or in a foreign county, are allowed to acquire and hold real estate in the State of Indiana the same as a citizen thereof. That is law is a bad law. Under its provisions thousands of acres of real estate have been purchased by non-resident aliens at tax sales and sheriff's sales, and all kinds of sales, until it is said that non-resident aliens, by means of capital they can not invest profitably in foreign land, have come into this State and purchased a belt of country of our land in extent from Ohio to Illinois seven miles in width. I do not know how much they have acquired, but it is true they have acquired a great deal.
They have acquired this great possession against the provisions of the laws of this State which existed previous and up to 1881. How the law of 1881 was gotten through the Legislature, it is not necessary for me to state on this occasion. It is sufficient to know that non resident aliens have come into this State and will in time create a landed estate here similar to the one they now have in Ireland. In the States west of us, millions of acres of our best lands have been bought up by aliens, and they hold it now as landlords.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay: I am not opposed to this Senator's bill; I am opposed to the suspension of the rules to pass ab ill through this body without knowing that the provisions of the bill are.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings: I did not understand that my distinguished namesake was against the bill. It was my purpose to give him information of its provisions.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay: It seems to me, under our rules, this discussion as to the merits of the bill is out of order.
Lieutenant Governor Manson: I was waiting for some Senator, if the Senator from Jennings is out of order, to call him to order.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings: I don't know that I am out of order.
The Lieutenant Governor: I don't know whether you are or not.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings: I shall not proceed unless by consent of the Senate.
Mr. SMITH of Jay: While I would consent to the bill being discussed under ordinary circumstances, I must insist upon my point of order.
The Lieutenant Governor: The Senator from Jennings will please take his seat.
The motion to suspend the constitutional restrictions was rejected by yeas 32, nays 9 - two-thirds not voting int he affirmative.
Mr. MACY offered a resolution for the appointment of a committee of three to ascertain from Clerks of the Circuit Courts in the several counties the whole number of civil, criminal and probate cases begun, the number of estates settled nd in process of settlement, the number of guardianships settled and pending in each of said Courts, from January 1, 1881, to January 1, 1885, inclusive.
Mr. McCULLOUGH moved to refer the resolution to the Committee on Organization of Courts. The resolution is too broad to be adopted as it is. The committee would have to employ clerks to get this information, or have the Clerks bring it here. From districts where a change is desired they always come with an abundance of evidence that they are overworked. The evidence obtained under this resolution would be as onesided as the other.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay, opposed the resolution going to the Committee on Organization of Courts. The information sought for by this resolution should be had so that the committee can act intelligently upon bills that may come before it asking relief. The resolution ought to be adopted.
Mr. SELLERS opposed this adoption of the resolution. If the people who desire a change in their districts can not furnish the committee sufficient evidence upon which the Legislature can give them relief, it ought to report adversely upon their bill.
Mr. MACY: This information can be had at a small expense and would be important to the Senate. If the circuits asking to be divided are indeed overburdened we should be informed of the facts in the case. The Judges are paid by the State at large, and unless one has more work to do than the average Judge he should not be relieved.
Mr. CAMPBELL of St. Joseph, asked the Senator if he would not be willing to have the resolution amended so as to read that the information shall be obtained from those circuits petitioning for a change. As the resolution reads it would involve an amount of labor entirely unnecessary, for a large number of circuits are not asking for a change.
Mr. MACY: the whole subject should be considered in making changes. Ten or $15 at the outside would pay the expense, and then committee would have information as to the whole amount of labor done by every Judge.
M. McCULLOUGH: How will these statements be verified.
Mr. MACY did not think any clerk would certify to a lie in order to get a change made.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay: Fifteen years ago our circuit was created. It has since increased to 80,000. We have a circuit that is worked to death, and yet there are persons advocating new circuits that have not half the work of our circuit. Every Legislature has seen persons coming here from different portions of the State, and obtaining new circuits created upon the ex parte evidence.
Mr. SELLERS opposed the resolution because it incurs an expense entirely for the benefit of those circuits that may be asking for changes. Another objection is that the information will be unreliable unless made under oath. Unless the clerks are paid for the service they will not faithfully report from every county. The argument of the Senator from Jay confirms me in the idea that this resolution is wrong and the information south for unnecessary. He says many districts have not as much work as his district. That would be a sufficient reason to report adversely upon a bill for a change of a circuit having less work to do that his. I will move the previous question.
The demand for the previous question was seconded, and under its operations -
The motion to refer the resolution to the Committee on Organization of Courts, was agreed to.
Mr. ADKISON offered a concurrent resolution for the appointment of a special committee to consist of two Senators and three Representatives to draft and report at an early day a bill providing for the separation of the Soldiers's Orphans' Home and the Asylum for Feeble Minded Children, and for the management thereof, separate and apart and as distinct institutions.
Mr. ADKISON: I consider this a very important resolution, As state in the preamble, some years ago a few private citizens through patriotic motives, donated as um of money for the purpose of erecting a home for the orphan children of soldiers of this State. The Legislature, for some reasons satisfactory, saw proper to consolidate that institution with the one for feeble minded children. Whenever a soldier has had opportunity, either in a public meting or in private conversation, to express his disapproval of that consolidation it has been done. I therefore dream it but a simple act of justice to the patriotism of the citizens of this State that these institutions shall be separated, and that he Soldiers' Orphans' Home shall be re established in pursuance of the intention of the original donors I hope this resolution will meet with the unanimous approval I thin it is due to the soldiers who have laid down their lives on the battlefield; it is due to those who died in prison pens and hospitals; it is due to the survivors of those soldiers and due the dignity of the State of Indiana that those institutions should be separated. I therefore move the adoption of the resolution.
Mr. WILLARD: I think this resolution should go with all other similar resolutions which have been introduced here, to the Committee on Rules, and I make that motion. In 1879 I had the honor of being a member of the House of Representatives, and I well remember that the bill for the consolidation of these two institutions was introduced by the gentleman from Henry Country, where the institution was located; that it was passed by that Legislature, and that the consolidation took place at that time. The only change made by the Legislature of 1883 was a change as to the government.
Mr. ADKISON: The point I make is the necessity for separation.
Mr. WILLARD: That may be. I have not examined the question, and I do not wish to speak on it at this time.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph: I can not understand what the Committee on Rules has to do with any of the institutions of the State. I supposed that committee was appointed so prepare rules for the government of the Senate.
Mr. WILLARD: And one of its duties is to say what the standing committees of the Senate shall be, and what shall constitute the joint committees of the House and Senate. Every resolution heretofore introduced to raise a committee has been so referred.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph: I can see a possible propriety in referring ti to the Committee on Benevolent Institutions, but can see no propriety in referring it to the Committee on Rules.
Mr. FOULKE: I hope this resolution will not be referred to any committee. To refer to one committee a resolution for the appointment of another committee would seem to be an extraordinary proceeding. Either the committee the resolution provides for should be appointed or it should not, and the proper place to determine that is in the House and not in another committee. I think this resolution ought to pass. The origin of these two institutions was entirely different and the character of the inmates are entirely different. Why should they have been consolidated.
Mr. MAGEE interrupting: Why can't this matter be accomplished by a bill?
Mr. FOULKE: But one of the most proper ways of introducing a bill is for a committee to take the matter inquired about into consideration and report to the House, if a bill is necessary, a proper bill. And a committee would be most likely to be entitled to the support of the Senate than a bill introduced by any member. This proposition is one that is entitled to the respectful consideration of this House. No Commonwealth or Republic can or ought to live that is not grateful to the men who bore its flag. Gratitude consists not simply in granting them liberal pensions, which has been done by our Government, but also in providing for those they leave behind them - their widows and orphans. I suppose the principal cause of the consolidation was economy, which is laudable but there are points beyond which economy should not pass. If the orphans of soldiers must be sent to a public institution, and must be sent to the same one provided for feeble minded children, the instincts of everyone revolt at that idea. The expense of a few dollars is nothing as weighed in the balance with the implied disgrace to the orphans of every soldier that has to go to an institution where feeble minded are instructed. Why should they be under the same roof any more than the insane and the convict? There is not reason for it. I think the resolution ought to be adopted unanimously by the Senate.
Mr. MAY: While I would go as far as the Senator from Wayne [Mr. Foulke] or any other
Senator in providing for the orphans of soldiers, as to the merit of this matter I am not
prepared to speak and for that reason I am in doubt as to how I shall vote on this
resolution. I am opposed to making a record with yea and nay vote upon a proposition I
don't understand, and for the purpose of getting it out of the way so we may at the
proper time enact a proper
Mr. WILLARD accepted the amendment.
Mr. ADKISON: I suggest that this resolution only proposes that the Joint Committee shall draft a bill - there can be no harm done by that. The method of supervision of these institutions of course will be reopened in the bill, but Senators on the opposite have full control and can take ample time in discuss the methods when reopened. Therefor I am opposed to the motion.
Mr. MAGEE was no ready to vote for the resolution, for that would seem to indicate a pledge to stand by the action of the committee. If abuses exist, it would seem that the Trustees, whose worn duty it is to make annual reports to the Governor, would say something about them in their report. He had read the reports of the penal and reformatory institutions of the State, and had found no oarge against the management of these institutions. If it was an error to consolidate the Soldiers' Orphan Home with the Home for the Feeble Minded, it is an error of the party to which the distinguished Senator belongs. It is only from experience that we learn whether a system applied is beneficial or not. It is not a party measure, and the proper committee to have charge of this matter is the one whose duty it is to oversee the condition of the unfortunate of the State.
The motion to refer the resolution to the Committee on Benevolent Institutions of the State was agreed to by yeas, 23; nays, 17.
Pending the roll call -
Mr. FAULKNER when his name was called, in explanation of his vote said: I was in the other end of the capitol when the bill for the consolidation of these two institutions originated, an old Mr. Hubbard, a Quaker gentleman, examined it thoroughly, and worked faithfully and honestly for it, and he thought he done his whole duty in regard to it. As far as soldiers' orphans are concerned, there is not a man in the great State of Indiana to-day that will do more, according to his worth, for their benefit I. I have done as much - the records will bear it out - for the soldiers' widows and orphans as any man in the State of Indiana, and I would do it again. If there is nothing wrong in regard to it, and it will elevate them any more, I will vote for it as cheerfully as any man on this floor. But first let us know whether it is or whether it ain't. I vote "aye"
Mr. LINDLEY, when his name was called, said: Before I vote on this question I want a little information if I can get it. I am paired with Senator Hoover on political questions. If this is considered a political question by the Senate I will not vote.
Several Senators: "No," "No"
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: There is no politics in this.
Mr. LINDLEY: I vote "aye"
Mr. YOUCHE, when his name was called, said: I am paired on political queititions with the Senator from Vigo [Mr. Schloss], who is absent. It is said this is no political question, but the great criterian as to whether it is or not, s to see how it is voted for. I am at the end of the roll call and I see Democrats without exception have voted "aye."
A Senator: Oh, no; I voted "no."
Mr. YOUCHE: Well then thee is one exception. If any Democrats have voted -
Mr. ADKISON [interposing]:I submitted this resolution to the Senator from Huntington, [Mr. Hilligass] with whom I am impaired, and stated my intention of introducing it, and that it was not for political effect, and asked whether I should do it in his absence, and he said could vote upon it. I believe he is considered pretty good Democratic authority.
Mr. YOUCHE: With that explanation I desire to vote "no."
The vote was then announced as above.
So the resolution was referred tot he Committee on Benevolent and Reformatory Institutions.
Then came a recess for dinner.
On motion by Mr. Duncan, of Tipton, the bill [H. R> 88] to fix the time of holding courts in the Thirty-sixth Circuit, was read there times under a dispensation of the constitution restriction - yeas 35; nays, 1 - and finally passed the Senate by yeas, 35; nays -
The following described bills were introduced, read the first time, and severally referred to appropriate committees:
By Mr. BAILEY [S. 109] providing for the inspection of steam boilers, the appointment of a State Boiler Inspector, the licensing of engineers in charge of steam boilers, and the creation of a board of engineers.
By Mr. BRYANT [S. 110] to protect the people of Indiana in the sale of poisons and the compounding of medicine by incompetent persons [the same as the bill H. R. 122] It provides that the State Pharmaceutical Association shall submit to the Governor the names of ten persons who have had least ten years' experience in pharmacy for appointment as members of a State Pharmaceutical Board. All persons engaged in the drug business will be required, if the bill becomes a law, to obtain a license from this board, which shall be evidence of their qualifications for the work of a pharmacist. The license will cost $2, and when an examination of the applicant is necessary, a charge of $5 will be made. The State Board will be empowered to enforce any regulations deemed advisable in relation to business. The bill specially prohibits the retail sale of poisons.
By Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks [S. 111] in relation to the election and appointment of Judges of the Circuit Courts and county officers, and to render the commencement of the terms of such officers more uniform.
By Mr. FOWLER [S. 112] to regulate conditional sales of personal property and providing for the recording in the Recorder's office, the terms of the conditions, providing compensation for the Recorder.
By Mr. LINDLEY [S. 113] to repeal an act to legalize certain records in the office of County Recorder, etc.
By Mr. MAY [S. 114] empowering incorporated towns to issue bonds for the erection of bridges and sewers, levy taxes for the payment of the same.
By Mr. NULL [S. 115] to legalize the incorporations of the town of New Haven in Allen County.
By Mr. SMITH, of Jennings [S. 116], to amend Section 122 of an act providing for the settlement and distribution of descendents' estates approved March 14, 1881.
By Mr. YOUCHE [S. 117] to amend Section seven (7) of a supplemental act concerning fees and salaries, approved February 28, 1883.
By Mr. DUNCAN, of Tipton [S. 118], to amend Section 4,433 Revised Statute concerning the compensation of County Superintendents.
Mr. MAGEE, from the joint committee appointed to prepare resolutions in regard to the death of Hon. Schulyer Colfax, submitted the following:
The General Assembly of Indiana has heard with regret of the death of Hon. Schuyler Colfax, by which has been terminated a career that has added lustre to the Commonwealth and impressed itself on the history of the Nation. From a humble lad, with no aid but his ability and indomitable industry, he rose to many of the most exalted stations in public life. In the numerous trusts confided to him by the people, as a member of the convention which framed our present State Constitution, as Representative in Congress. Speak of the House of that body, and as Vice President of the United States, he exhibited a marked fidelity to their interests and discharged them to the acceptance of his fellow citizens; therefore, be it
Resolved, That we hold his memory in public service in sincere regard, and tender to his famiy our sympathy in their great affliction.
Resolved, That a copy of this concurrent resolution be forwarded to his family and spread on the journal of each house of the General Assembly.
The resolutions were concurred in.
And the Senate adjourned.
The SPEAKER in the Chair:
The house was opened with prayer by the Rev. David Knickerbocker, Episcopal Bishop of the Diocese of Indiana.
The reading of the Journal was dispensed with.
Mr. LOYD offered a concurrent resolution, which was adopted, instructing Indiana Senators and requesting her Representatives to use their influence to repeal so much of the United States law requiring applicants to prove soundness at the time of enlistment.
The following described bills were introduced, read the first time and severally referred to appropriate committees:
By Mr. FRENCH [H. R. 106] to amend the common school law.
By Mr. ELEY [H. R. 107] proposes an amendment to the fee and salary law fixing the fees of Coroners for the first day's inquest at 46; for each additional day, $2 50, for mileage, ten cents for each mile. He is allowed a clerk, who shall receive $2 a day while employed.
By Mr. HAYDEN [H. R. 108] authorizing Councils of cities to enforce ordinance and requiring contractors to receipt estimates on records, etc.
By Mr. HAYDEN [H. R. 109] supplemental to an act in relation to laying out of streets, etc.
By Mr. BROOKS [H. R. 110] requiring notice to municipal corporations by persons receiving injuries on account of negligence of such corporation.
By Mr. BROOKS [H. R. 111] to amend Section 22 of an act fixing certain fees to be taxed in the offices and the salaries of the officers therein named, providing for certain employes, etc.
By Mr. McHENRY [H.R. 112] to amend sections 3,4,5,6 and 7 of an act providing for the running at large of stock.
By Mr. REEVES [H. R. 113] providing that railroad corporations organized under special charter may acquire real estate, etc.
By Mr. REEVES [H. R. 114] to amend section 471 of an act concerning proceedings in certain civil cases, approved April 7, 1881.
By Mr. DONHORST [H. R. 115] to amend section 8 of an act to amend an act providing for a general system of common schools.
By Mr. MOCK, of Wells [H. R. 116], requiring a widow to take under the will of her deceased husband, unless she elects to take under the law.
By Mr. MOCK of Wells [H. R. 117], concerning gravel and macadamized roads.
By Mr. BROWNING [H. R. 118] to amend Section 1,606 Revised Statues, 1881, requiring bond, etc., for cost.
By Mr. BARNES [H. R. 119] in relation to the removal of obstructions from public high ways, etc.
By Mr. BARNES [H. R. 120] prohibiting the publication or sale of immoral literature.
By Mr. STALEY [H. R. 121] amending the act providing for the holding of teachers institutes and their attendance, etc.
By Mr. STALEY [H. R. 122] to protect the people of Indiana in the sale of poisons, etc. Similar to the bill [S. 110].
By Mr. TAYLOR [H. R. 123] to amend Section 2 of an act amending 2,3,4,5,6,7 8 and 10 of an act concerning drainage.
By Mr. TAYLOR [H. R. 124] to amend Section 59 of an act entitled "An act concerning proceedings in civil cases, approved April 7, 1881"
By Mr. McMULLEN [H. R. 125] to amend Section 13 of an act concerning taxation, approved March 29, 1881.
By Mr. McMULLEN [H. R. 126] supplemental to an act for the organization and regulation of the Indiana militia.
Then came a recess for dinner,
Mr. McMULLEN, from the Committee on Ways and Means, the bill [H. R. -] in regard to increasing the bond of the Treasurer of State, with a recommendation that the bill be amended so as to increase the bond $1,000,000.
Mr. TAYLOR moved that the further consideration of this subject be postponed until next Thursday, at 2 p.m.
Mr. WILLIAMS demanded the previous question, which was seconded, and under its operations the motion was agreed to.
Mr. FLOYD introduced a concurrent resolution for the appointment of a joint committee to consist of four Representatives and two Senators, to report a fee and salary bill for the officers of the various counties of this State.
On motion of Mr. ROBERTSON, it was laid on the table.
Mr. HANLON offered the following:
"Saturday, January 17 being fixed as the time of the funeral ceremonies of the late Hon. Schuyler Colfax, ex-Vice President of the United States;therefore, in honor of the distinguished dead, be it
'Resolved, That when this House adjourn this afternoon, it be until 10 o'clock Monday morning"
Mr. GOODING said: I wish to inquire where Mr. Colfax will be buried. (He is informed by the Chair that Mr. Colfax will be buried at South Bend.) I can see no reason why this House should adjourn. it costs this State a thousand dollars a day to run it. We have already adjourned in honor the death of Schuyler Colfax. I shall oppose the motion for the reason that it will not add anything to the honor of Schuyler Colfax, and it will cost the people of the State unnecessarily at least $500, and I move to amend the resolution by providing that when the House adjourns at 12 o'clock Monday.
The SPEAKER: The House can not say to-day when the House shall adjourn to-morrow
Mr. SAYRE: I have heard several times these statements how much it cost to run this House, as though it cost any more to run it when it was not in session that when it when it was not in session than when it was. It costs just as much whether this House is in session or not in session. The pay of members and employes goes on just the same. It seems to me that ought not to be regarded this House. I hear no objection when members want to be excused, and nine times out of ten it is to go home to attend to their own private business. Members have been excused and leave anyway, and it seems to me as an additional mark of respect to the memory of Schuyler Colfax this resolution ought to be adopted.
Mr. TAYLOR: I shall certainly favor the motion. I think it would be quite appropriate for this House to adjourn in honor of Mr. Colfax's memory. The Congress of the United States has deemed it proper to adjourn. So far as personal feeling is concerned, it shoudl have nothing to do with it. I differed from him politically, but he is on of Indiana' most distinguished sons. There is nothing to be lost by paying this tribute to his memory. I differ from the gentleman from Hancock (Mr. Gooding) when he says the memory of Schuyler Colfax will not be made more illustrions. I think we will do honor ourselves and to Schuyler Colfax by adjourning. As I said, he is one of our most distinguished citizens - or hs been. It is nothing more than right and proper that we adjourn in honor to his memory. in the event of the death of Hon Thomas A. Hendricks, whome I believe has been twice elected Vice President of the United States, would we doubt for a moment the propriety of adjourning? I think it is necessary to pay this tribute to his memory, and i hope we may pay the honor due to the distinguished dead.
Mr. BROWNING: I think it is due to ourselves that we take the course suggested by our friend from Daviess [Mr Taylor]. I think it is proper as long as the Congress of the United States has adjourned that we shall adjourn in honor of the memory of Schuyler Colfax, and if it was simply a motion to adjourn over until 10 o'clock Monday I should favor the motion, and why? Because leaves of absence have been granted to ten or twelve members. And my experience in legislation is that when these members come back next Monday or Tuesday they will take up as much time asking for an explanation of what we have done in their absence as if we adjourned over until Tuesday.
Mr. GOODING: I have not opposed paying due respect to Schuyler Colfax. As I remarked in
the first place, this House has once adjourned in honor to Schuyler Colfax. I am actuated,
sir, by no person motives. I was personally acquainted with Schuyler Colfax, and our
relations were friendly and cordial. It is out of no personal matter that I am opposed to
adjourning this House, but this House has been adjourned from time to time on different
excuses, and now this is simply an excuse to adjourn over until Monday. It is said some
members have been excused, but business will go on the same. That is no reason for
adjourning. It is said the Congress of the United States has adjourned. It can
The resolution was adopted.
The following described bills were introduced, read the first time and severally referred to appropriate committees:
By Mr. MOSIER [H. R. 127] to amend an act concerning proceedings in criminal cases.
By Mr. HANLON (for Speaker Jewett) [H. R. 128] to amend Sections 196, 206, 262 and 263 of an act entitled an "Act concerning proceedings in criminal cases, approved April 19, 1881," [Puts changes of venue in capital cases on the same footing as other felonies, and make the continuance of criminal causes a matter of discretion with the trial judge. It limits the verdict of the jury to the question of guilt, leaving the punishment with the court.]
By Mr. HARRELL [H. R. 129] to amend Section 3 of an act appointment short hand reporters, prescribing their duties, etc.
By Mr. TWINEHAM [H. R. 129] to legalize the incorporation of the town of Owensville, Gibson County, Indiana.
By Mr. HOLMES [H. R. 131] to amend Section 1 of an act amending Section 3 of an act regulating weights and measures.
By Mr. HOLMES [H. R. 132] prescribing the powers and duties of coroners.
And then House adjourned.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings, bill [S. 2] concerning real estate and the alienation thereof, coming up with a favorable committee report, it was read the second time.
Mr. FOULKE: I move that it be ordered engrossed and passed to the third reading. In regard to that bill, which was introduced by the Senator from Jennings [Mr. Smith], who is absent, I think it is a bill that no two members of the Senate would disagree upon. At present aliens may hold real estate in Indiana, and very large tracts of real estate are being purchased in some counties of this State by persons beyond the sea, who are holding them for speculative purposes. I take it, that it will be conceded that the land of the State belongs to the people of the State, or at least to the people of this country, and that we don't desire to have a repetition here of the same policy which is now existing between England and Ireland, where the land in one belongs to the landlords in the other, and they drain the resources of one for the benefit of a foreign community. It was considered by the committees unanimously that the general provisions of the bill are such as should receive the favorable consideration of the Senate.
The bill was ordered engrossed for the third reading.
Mr. FOWLER offered a preamble and a resolution to examine the contracts entered into for the construction of the three new insane asylums, to see if under existing contracts the work on two of these institutions can not be postponed until such a time as the State can complete the same without op pressing the taxpayers of the state.
Mr. MAGEE opposed its adoption.
At the author's suggestion it was not then further considered.
The special order for this hour coming up being the resolution for an investigation
into the condition of the State Treasury, Mr. FOULKE: In the discussion last Wednesday
there was a matter brought up by the Senator from Cass [Mr. Magee] in reference to what
took place on the introduction of a similar resolution two years ago. This resolution was
not introduced an a party measure; it was not introduced to makeparty capital, but because
we have been informed from a source entitled to recognition by this body that the public
funds are not safe; that the State moneys are on deposit in the different banks of this
city, and loaned out to private individuals, while the statute prescribes the method in
which these funds shall be kept, and declares in regard to all loans, any fee or bonus
which is paid to the State Treasurer for the use of any State moneys shall belong to the
State. I had occasion to refer to the fact that two year ago a similar resolution was
introduced, which for some reason failed to pass. The Senator from Cass said it occurred
in this way: That the Senator from Henry at that time introduced a resolution for an
investigation and that he proposed to amend it so as to include the retiring Treasurer,
but as on as we found there was to be a Republican investigated the resolution was not
pressed. I have been unable to find in the Senate Journal the resolution, but the Brevier
Re
It seems to we that this is a question upon which there should be no shirking on account of party lines. The Senator from Huntington (Hilligass) stated the other day that he would favor the adoption of this resolution at the proper time, and yet he followed that with a motion to postpone the resolution indefinitely. It seems to me the position of the Senator is not consistent. It is true at the instance of another Senator he withdrew that motion. If it be true that Governor Porter had neglected his duty, is that any argument for us to neglect ours? It is our bounden duty that we should not shift this responsibility upon the shoulders of anybody else. The law has given us the right and imposed upon us the duty to make it.
McCULLOUGH: I desire to offer the following amendment to the resolution:
Resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring, That the portion of ex Governor Porter's message relating to the State Treasury be referred to a special committee of five from each House, to be appointed by the respective chairman thereof, to report by bill or otherwise what legislation, if any, is necessary with reference to the State Treasury, and also to report whether an investigation into the affairs of the State Treasury by a legislative committee is at this time probably necessary or proper.
Mr. McCULLOUGH: A good deal has been said about the law upon the subject of the State Treasury and I think much more good will come to the people of the State by a thorough investigation of the law on the subject than by an examination into how the books of the State Treasurer have been kept. I thin it is improper to appoint a committee to make the proposed investigation unless more knowledge comes to this body than comes to it through Governor Porter's message. By a law of 1859 it was made the duty of the State to provide a safe in which the Treasurer could keep the moneys absolutely secure. Confessedly, the State has not done that. The State Treasurer, according a recent opinion of the Attorney Genral, is absolutely responsible for every dollar of the State's money that comes into his hands, and he receives, perhaps, $2,000,000 per year. If burglars take it form him, or iby fire it is destroyed, the Treasurer is bound to return that amount of money. The State has never provided a safe place to keep it, and the Treasurer is compelled to hunt some place which, in his judgment, would be a secure place in which to keep the money of the State. Sec 5,644 being a part of the act of 1859 which provides that the Legislature may appoint a committee to investigate - in more direct terms, if possible, requires the Governor of the State to investigate. Now why is it the Governor of the State has not investigated when he says the newspapers of the State have been bothering him about it since 1883 (Reads from page 8 of the Governor's printed message) The statue which empowers him to investigate he regards as binding upon him as Governor, because that statue has application in a case where the State has provided a safe place for keeping the public moneys, which he has not done confessedly by his own message. Then, under the provision of that statute, the Legislation certainly is excused, for its power is given in the same statute and in the same section. Whether the statute is in force or not is a question of importance. The Governor says, in effect, it is not. That is one reason why I suggest a committee of investigation. If that statute does not apply to the Governor, there may be some quest on as to whether it applies to the State Treasurer covering money into the State Treasury.
It is in the same act and upon condition that the State furnish a place for the safe keeping of the public moneys that the Treasurer is required to pay back the money he may receive for interest. One other among many reasons why I think there ought to be an investigation is that the State Treasurer has to give a bond for $150,000 while the Treasurer of the United States is but $10,000 for the custody of a great deal more money, and yet, for some reason or other, gentlemen want to ascertain if the State Treasurer has not been loaning out money, and hold an inquest over it. This same statue that provides that the State Treasurer shall not loan the State's money provides that his salary shall be but $3,000 per year. He handles $2,000,000 of the people's money; he gives a bond that puts in jeopardy his all and probably the all of every friend that goes on his bond, and if fire or a burglar takes the money there is no excuse; the money must be returned. It has been a recognized fact that the State Treasurer must take care of the public's money wherever he best can, and if he receives interest upon it it is to pay him for the risk he assumes. If it be true that the Governor is excused from acting under the present state. I am in favor of passing a paw which will require him to act when it has come to his knowledge that there are irregularities in the conduct of the State Treasurer.
Mr. HILLIGASS: I stand upon this resolution as I stood the other day. If there is a
necessity for this investigation I am for it. I don't understand that the Senator
from Wayne [Mr. Foulke] desires this to be a party question; but I am sorry to see that it
Mr. MAY: I have thoroughly investigated this matter so far as alleged irregularities by the State Treasurer are referred to in the Governor's message, and I have made up my mind that a Governor of a commonwealth like the State of Indiana ought not to come to the General Assembly in a message and say that we ought to investigate the most important office in the State without making a specific charge against the officer. What does Governor Porter say about the State Treasurer? He simply says that the newspapers since 1883 have been saying that there is something wrong. If the General Assembly proposes to act upon newspaper charges we can investigate almost every office and everything in Indiana. The resolution of the Senator from Wayne goes much farther than the Governor himself proposes. The resolution of the Senator from Gibson is in accord with the recommendation of the Governor. Upon the direct question of an investigation based upon the Governor's message, I should not hesitate to say I would vote against investigating the Treasurer upon such charges as the Governor alleges because there is no specific charge upon which to base an investigation. I am willing to go with the Governor in his message and vote for a proposition that will result in necessary legislation so that an investigation of the Treasurer can be had at any time. For that reason I shall support the amendment of the Senator from Gibson.
Mr. ADKISON: I would not say a word except for an insinuation that has been thrown out by the Senator from Huntington (Mr. Hilligass) against the conduct of Governor Porter. If I had no other reason for supporting the resolution of the Senator from Wayne, the insinuation of the Senator from Huntington would be sufficient to induce me to cast my vote for that resolution. The Senator from Huntington said that Governor Porter at the commencement of the term of office of the State Treasurer advised him to place the State's money in banks, and the Governor has a right to appear before investigation committee and be allowed the privilege of explaining. It might be true at that time it was the best thing to be done under the circumstances, but the changed financial condition of the country and the failure of a bank in this city that for thirty years was considered solvent is sufficient to justify the Governor in changing his mind on the subject. Therefore, I am opposed to the amendment and favor the resolution as originally introduced.
Mr. DRAKE: I am opposed to the amendment offered by the Senator from Gibson. It is too much like a motion for continuance in a criminal case. It is conceded here that the moneys of the State are scattered about the tow, and the argument upon both sides seems to concede the established custom of the loaning of the money of the State. The proposition from the Senator from Wayne is to examine as to where that money is - whether or not it is secure, and to make sufficient guards to keep it secure. The only argument that has been made against that resolution is that you must not cast suspicion on Mr. Copper, the Treasurer of the State. The proposed amendment will go as far to cast a stigma upon Mr. Cooper as the original resolution, but it will not go to the extent of making a full, fair and free investigation of this charge. The original resolution proposes to go to the bottom of the imputation, and furnishes the means of doing it successfully. I therefore am opposed to the amendment.
Mr. MAGEE: It is not my purpose to take any part in this discussion. It seems by
quotations from the Brevier Reports read by the Senator from Wayne that I once had my say
about this question. As the Senator from Wayne has confronted me with the record I made
here two years ago I feel it is just to explain that the Senator from Wayne suppressed
part of this record. The lan
Mr. FOULKE (interposing): I will ask whether the record does not state that you even objected to the reading of the resolution, nd refused to allow the rules to be suspended in order that it might be introduced.
Mr. MAGEE: The Senator from Wayne has brought in part of the record and another part he has suppressed. I admit he is in earnest in this, but when he thinks there is any Democrat is opposed to a thorough investigation he is clearly mistaken. We are here not as Democrats nor as Republicans on this question. We have the interests of the people in our charge, and it is our duty as well as desire to see that their interests are subserved. Let us examine the good faith of the Governor of the State when he calls the attention of the General Assembly to the State Treasurer. He says he did not hear of it till 1883, when it came out in the public prints. This man, who has lived in the city of Indianapolis all his life, who knew years ago as well as to-day, being a director of a bank in which a part of the State funds were deposited and from which he drew a per cent. as a stock holder - knew they were so deposited, yet he said in the first line of this paragraph, in referring to the condition of the public Treasury, in effect, if not the exact words, that it came to his knowledge in 1883, and upon the next page he says it came to his knowledge repeatedly during sessions of the Legislature. This is a simple and pureminded Governor who gets his information from divers, various and sundry sources and is willing to make charges against a man upon such a flimsy base. In December 1884, the Treasurer of State presented the Governor, as the law requires, a report showing the condition of the Treasury at that date, and I read upon this report that it was examined by the Governor and filed in his office. The law requires the Governor to make an examination of the State Treasury and he signs his name stating that it was examined by him, and when Governor Porter called attention to the Treasurer in the insinuating manner in which he did, he did not do it because he believed the Treasurer of the State was unfaithful, but because was desirous of injecting into his message a little of that demagogical spirit he has never been able to suppress either as a Governor or as a private citizen. It seems to me that the present system adopted in the United States Treasury might be adopted in this State with profit of the people.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks: It seems to me the only question we have to determine is which of the two resolutions should be adopted, or rather whether the amendment of the Senator from Gibson is preferable to the resolution offered by the Senator from Wayne. I have been desirous of information that I may vote intelligently, and I had hoped some Senator would read the original and the amendment, and point out the difference and show which is the better of the two. It has been insinuated that the Governor has unfairly case an imputation upon the Treasurer of State by certain language in his message. If so it was wrong. My idea about it is, the best way is to make an investigation into the condition of the Treasury, and refute the imputation, if it can be so done. I would investigate whether the funds of the State are sufficiently secure, and if found that they are not would adopt such legislation as would make them more secure. If the amendment would make a more thorough investigation than the original resolution, I am for the amendment. I think it is necessary, both for the credit of the State and of the State Treasury, that an investigation shall be had. If it is not made and made fairly, so it will show that everything is secure, it will be to the discredit both of the State and the State Treasurer. The only question is which resolution will give opportunity for the most thorough investigation. I don't believe we ought to act upon ordinary rumors, but having gone thus far we ought all to favor a full and complete investigation; and unless the amendment gives more power to the proposed committee than the resolution I am opposed to the amendment and in favor of the resolution.
Mr. WEIR: Inasmuch as consideration time has been consumed, understanding the question to be upon the adoption of the amendment of the Senator from Gibson (Mr. McCullough), I now demand the previous question.
Subsequently this demand was withdrawn.
The amendment was adopted by yeas, 28; nays, 15.
The resolution as amended was also adopted.
A message from the Governor announced his appointment of Thomas A. McQuade, of
It was referred to the Committee on Executive Appointments.
The Lieutenant Governor announced the following:
Mr. Brooks's bill [H. R 3] to fix the bond of the Treasurer of State at $1,,000,000, being second time -
KELLISON moved to amend by striking out the words "one million" and inserting the words "five hundred thousand" in lieu.
On motion by Mr. CARTWRIGHT, the amendment was laid on the table.
Mr. PATTEN moved to amend by striking out the words "one million" and inserting "two millions."
On motion by Mr. McMULLEN it was laid on the table.
Mr. BUTZ moved to strike out the word "12" and insert the word "20" before the word sureties.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. ROBINSON moved to amend by making the bond one million five hundred thousand.
On motion it was laid on the table.
Mr. GORDON moved that the bill be ordered engrossed for the third reading.
Mr. PATTEN: If the bond is to cover the amount of money in the treasury, it should be large enough to cover the amount of the public moneys at any time in his hands. I think we should have a committee to investigate this matter; and if it is necessary to have a bond to cover one dollar that we should have a bond to cover the whole amount. No one ought to be favored by us it is our duty to look at it in that light, so that the people will be protected. I don't see and understand how any member can serve his constituents in this matter by voting for a bond of one million when the Treasurer has a larger amount coming into and passing through his hands. I say this bill ought not now to be engrossed. I don't believe that it ought to be passed under the circumstances. I think we ought to give this matter a fair investigation and then we will be qualified to pass upon the merits of this bill.
Mr. GORDON suggested that there has been an expression of the House on the desire to fix the amount of the bond, and thought further amendments unnecessary.
Mr. McMULLEN: The gentleman seems to think that members are rather anxious to hurry this bill along. For one, I am anxious to hurry it along for the reason that within the next twenty days the Treasurer will file his bond. Under the old law he will only be required to file a bond of '150,000. I want to get the bill through before he files his bond.
Mr. KELLISON: I am not here for the purpose of obstructing the bill. The gentleman from Putnam says that the sentiments of this House have been thoroughly tested. I hope that this bill will not be engrossed in its present form. There are other considerations to be looked at in the fixing of the amount of the bond. There should be the consideration of the honor and integrity of the person whom we elect to this office. It seems to me that it will be impossible almost to secure a man to make a proper bond for the larger sum proposed. Also, it looks to me as if he would be obliged to put himself in the hands of his bondsmen, and the probability would be that the office would be run by persons outside. We have had a bond of $150,000 for many years, and it has always been ample security.
Mr. LOOP moved to amend by striking out the words "one million" and inserting the words "one million two hundred and fifty thousand" in lieu.
On motion by Mr. GORDON the bill was amended by adding an emergency clause.
On motion by Mr. OSBORN a proposed amendment to strike out the words "one million" and insert the lieu the words "tow million five hundred thousand" was laid on the table.
On motion by Mr. CARTWRIGHT the bill was ordered engrossed.
Mr. Smith's, of Perry, bill [H. R. 67] supplemental to the drainage act was read the second time, with a committee recommendation for its passage.
Mr. SMITH: I move that the consideration of this bill be postponed until Wednesday at 2
o'clock. I have stated that this bill was the same bill that passed the House to years
ago and was vetoed by the Governor. It is nothing more than right that we should have this
bill as vetoed from the Secretary of State. It seems to be a very innocent bill, but in
fact it is a bill that may remove all the mill dams in the state of Indiana. We have
fifteen splendid water-mills in Tippecanoe County, and I would dislike ex
Mr. MOCK, of Wells, believed that the present drainage law covered everything except the part on private donation. This bill might be just as well engrossed at this time.
Mr. GORDON did not think anything ought to be made a special order unless it be a matter of emergency. I can't see that this as a matter of ordinary legislation, should be made a special order. It disarranges all legislation both before and after.
Mr. SAYER: It embidies the same feature of a bill of two years ago. That bill was vetoed and should be returned tot he House. He moved that the bill be recommitted to the Committee on Dykes and Drains without instruction.
Mr. ENGLE's bill [H. R. 72] to amend Section 7 of the Supreme Court not being read second time, Mr. Sayer moved to amend by inserting in the proper place the following: "And the clerks shall not be entitled to receive any fee whatever from any person whatever for making any entries by this act."
Mr. SAYRE said: This bill ought to become a law of the State of Indiana. it will afford information that has long been needed. It is well known that whenever any writing is it be done by a public officer, even if only a name, it involves a cost ten, fifteen or twenty cents. I think that the fees and emoluments already provided are quite sufficient.
The amendment was adopted and the bill ordered engrossed.
Lieutenant Governor MANSON: This being the day set apart by the laws of Congress to vote for United States to serve for six years from the 4th of March next, and this the hour set by this Senate therefor, the Senator from Vigo has the floor.
Mr. SCHLOSS said:
Mr. PRESIDENT - The smoke of battle has been arisen from the contest
in which we were but lately engaged, and, in the clear and healthful atmosphere of the time,
we can overlook the entire field and with party pride and satisfaction contemplate in all
its fullness our decisive and glorious victory.
We can now look down upon our prostrate foes with a more humane pleasure, I trust, than that which seizes the victorious hosts of an actual warfare, even though our feelings are no less triumphant than those of a conquering army whose General is valiantly sustained, and whose position is impregnably secured.
Our principles are triumphantly established, and our leader is victorious by being elected to the highest position in the sight of the world. In every State of the Union the suffrage of the Democratic party loyally aided in securing us the great object of our contest, and every Democratic voter, wherever he may cast his ballot, is entitled to his share of praise for his zeal, his ardor, and his faith.
But success depends, unquestionably, upon the great States of New York and Indiana. The Democratic representatives of Indiana came here to-day, convened in their General Assembly, congratulating each other and the entire country upon the united and untiring efforts that accomplished this glorious result. Indiana can be signally happy in the election of her very distinguished citizen and statesmen, Thomas A. Hendricks, to the second place in the gift of the people. That his name was an element of great strength to the ticket in Indiana and elsewhere is so well understood as to need no repetition here. But in addition to this great name, Indiana has many illustrious Democrats, around some of whom it is the delight of the party to rally on all occasions.
It is my great pleasure to-day, to name as foremost of these, our distinguished fellow-citizen, Daniel W. Voorhees. The integrity of his principles, the fame of his statesmanship, the magnetism of his presence, the eloquence of his voice: all have made him a figure of pride to his followers, and to all citizens of the State. This pride is so sincere and so universal that it is not and can not be confined to party lines; and I therefore know with absolute certainty that the action the General Assembly will this day take with reference to this distinguished statesman and leader will meet the sincere approval of citizens in all professions, in every calling, and in all the walks of life. It must not be forgotten that in the contest carried to so successful and glorious a consummation, one of the great objects to be attained in Indiana was that this favorite representative of the people should be his own successor in the Senate of the United States. This being borne in mind, it must never be forgotten that the Democratic candidates for the Legislature of this State received a total majority over their Republican opponents of 21,000 votes. I believe that no other Democrat in the State of Indiana could have gained so signal, so remarkable a triumph as this.
Mr. President, I regard this as the crowning moment of my life, when I present, as I now do, the name of Hon. Daniel W. Voorhees as again the choice of the Democracy of this State for the position he has so long, so faithfully and so ably occupied as the representative of the State of Indiana in the Senate of the United States. I have one ambition remaining after this, and that is to be able to give this distinguished statesmen my enthusiastic support when he shall become the standard bearer of the entire Democracy of the Union in a national contest, which shall terminate in even greater glory than has that from which we have so recently emerged.
Mr. WILLARD said:
Mr. PRESIDENT I, rise to second the nomination made by the Senator from
Vigo.
I would not, if I could, pluck a single laurel from the brown of the able Republican
statesman whose name will be presented by the Senator from Marion, but the people of Indiana
demand that the next Senator from this State shall be a man
When the time arrives for a people to reach a higher plane of political morality a mysterious and all-pervading sentiment seems to prepare the minds of men for the coming change. Against this great popular impulse, the well-laid plans of skillful political strategists can not avail, and even the most unwilling seem to impel the change as if in obedience to some overruling law of human nature. It is this irresistible force of popular sentiment acting upon a free people which as wrought the downfall of the Republican party, and enabled the Democracy to wash from the sands of opportunity the gold of success.
We have triumphed because the principles of the Democratic party represent, in the highest measure, the hopes, the desires and aspirations of the manhood of America.
To have done with the enmities of the war, to have done with the feelings of sectional strife, to raise on high a flag which shall not be the flag of the North alone, but the starry flag of a Union of freemen, to secure to every man his civil and political rights, to save the lands of the people from the grasp of alien corporations, to whiten the seas with the sails of American commerce, to protect American citizens at home and abroad to have a true and complete reformation of the civil service to give to the people a purer and better administration, and to strike from the limbs of labor the chains of monopoly - that is what it means to be Democratic.
Upon issues like these the party of the people be triumphed, and be not deceived, my Republican friends, we have come to stay. To the youngest man within the sound of my voice I say, your hair will be white as silver, your gait lagging and infirm, and your limbs tottering on the brink of the grave when power shall again be wrested from the giant grasp of Democracy. Thus to retain the fruits of our victory we must deserve the confidence of the people, and that confidence may best be secured by confiding the interests of the party to leaders who have been tried in the past. The Democracy of Indiana is peculiarly fortunate in having three great leaders who have deserved and received the esteem of the people of this Union in their conduct of National affairs. One, that great statesman who has so steadily and unwaveringly adhered to this honest convictions, whose great legal mind has so strongly left its impress upon National legislation, that true friend and sound counselor, large-hearted, noble-minded Joseph E. McDonald.
Another, a man under whose skillful guidance the Democracy has marched again and again to victory, whose character is esteemed and revered by men of all parties, whose name is a loved household word among all the people of the State, a man whom the citizens of the United States have twice elevated to the second place in the grandest Government on the planet - Thomas A. Hendricks.
Lastly, that splendid representative of the andvanced ideas of the young Democracy, whose name has already been ably presented, who is the peer of any political leader in the Union, and who is the unanimous choice of the Democracy of Indiana, to succeed himself in the high position he now holds.
What wonder that the Democratic masses rally round his standard, for where they could they find a more intrepid leader, a safer counselor, a more generous nature, a more indomitable heart?
As we contemplate the fierce and desperate conflicts into which he has led our forces, we may say of him as the versatile English litterateur said of the Crusader Knight of St. John:
" In the forefront of every battle was seen his burnished mail, and in the gloomy rear of every retreat was heard his voice of constancy and of courage "
In his seven year career as Senator, he has been true to the interest of the State, careful to aid her industrial progress, alive to the needs of her people, and has most amply and completely deserved the encomium."Well done, good and faithful servant," and to-day we give him that indorsement as we tender to him a re-election by the largest majority ever given a Senator in the history the State.
I desire to second his nomination, not for his spotless integrity and great abilities, nor on account of the zeal, energy and industry with which he has discharged his public duties, not on account of the persuasive eloquence with which he has trilled the hearts of the people of Indiana, although he deserves recognition on account of each and all of these qualities, but I second his nomination because, in the full and splendid stature, eh is the representative of the priciples of Jeffersonian Democracy. Mr. President, in behalf of a large majority of the people of this growing commonwealth, in the name of her countless sons of toil, with whose aims he is in such hearty sympathy, in the name of the mechanics who crowd our factors, in the of the farmers who till our fertile prairies, in the name of the artisans who throng our workshops, in the name of the soldier heroes whose advocate and champion he has ever been, and finally in the name of the gailant and united Democracy of the great Democratic State of the Northwest. I second the nomination of Daniel W. Voorhees.
Mr. HILLIGASS: It is fitting and proper at all times to recognize the valuable services and genuine worth of a faithful public servant.
When men have been honest and trusted with office, and the responsibility and duty of that trust has been carefully and honestly discharged, it is then that the people's interests are best subserved.
In the office of United States Senator once of the highest legislative trusts exist.
The power for good or evil affecting the welfare of the whole people is proportionate with that trust.
The man selected for the high responsible position should be a man not only possessing capacity, but with it the purest fidelity to principle.
He should be a man with experience and conversant with the wants and diversified interests of 55,000,000 people.
He should be a man of convictions and the courage to adhere to the right as embodied in the Jeffersonian idea of government.
No higher standing could possibly be given the great State of Indiana in the sisterhood of States than to elect such a man to the United States Senate.
We have that man, Mr. President, in the person of Daniel W. Voorhees.
Wherever he has labored, in the halls of Congress, and, during the past six years as United States Senator, the people of this Nation heard and recognized his ability and devotion to their cause.
Especially, sir, is this true of the soldiers of the country. In Senator Voorhees we have had a friend and earnest advocate of our claims in the eternal principle of Democracy: "Equal and exact justice to all men and exclusive privileges to none "
Every soldier in the State of Indiana,
This being true, Mr. President and gentlemen of the Senate, it is with pride, and in the name of many thousands of my late comrads in arms, as well as in the name of the Democracy of the great State of Indiana, that I second the nomination of Senator Voorhees for a reelection to the high and responsible position of United States Senator.
Mr. FAULKNER: I have been with Senator Voorhees for the last six years. I have been his intimate friend, and I want to bear witness and tell you all to-day that there is no such a man in the halls of Congress to attend to the interests of his constituents as Senator Voorhees. And he does what no other Senator in that Senate does for soldiers. He gives strict instructions to never fail to refer to him soldiers' letters, and they come to him from Maine to California, and he attends to the business of the soldier, let him be black or white, no matter where he comes from. He has labored more and he has done more for the soldier than any other Senator in the United States of America. Go to my part of the State and I will show you where it is dotted all over with little cabins built by his hard word in getting pensions that have kept the wolf from the dorry of many a soldier's widow and children, and children are now in school that otherwise would have been in poor houses. I have got letters to him - nearly as many as a man can carry - returning thanks to him from nearly every State in the Union. I have saved them for somebody to read hereafter. One man writes that he has his picture hanging in his house to teach his children that is the man who saved their home. I second the nomination of Daniel W. Voorhees, and I have but one other thing I wish to live for - I have but one other ambition, and that is to see the day when I can vote for him for President of the United States.
Mr. FOWLER: I can say what probably no other man in this Legislature can say, and that is that I voted for Mr. Voorhees every time he has been a candidate for Congressional honors. Six years ago, when he was elected to the United States Senate, I had the honor of a seat on this floor. I voted for him then, and I think if he could be candidate 1,000 times, and i had the opportunity, I should vote for him every time. I heartily second the nomination.
Mr. SELLERS: The only reason urged by the Republicans of my district why I should be elected, was that if elected I should vote for Hon. Daniel W. Voorhees for United States Senator. I was elected, thus demonstrating the desire of my people that I should vote for him. I believe the State of Indiana are paying themselves the highest compliment by honering him by reelecting him to that position. As the representative of Northern Indiana. I desire to say, though she may change her people and change her politics, the people of Northern Indiana will never change their love of Daniel W. Voorhees. In behalf of the Democracy of Northern Indiana, who place him higher than any other Democrat in the Union, and do not change their regard for him I desire to second the nomination of Daniel W. Voorhees.
Mr. ZIMMERMAN: I wish to second the nomination of Hon. D. W. Voorhees to be his own successor for the exalted position of United States Senator, and to express not only the personal esteem in which I hold the distinguished statesmen, but a just expression of the will and wishes of the people of the counties of Marshall and Fulton, whom I have the honor to represent on this floor. In particular, however, in seconding the nomination of him who has so ably and faithfully represented the people of Indiana in the United States Senate for the past six years, I am conscious, Mr. President, that I voice the true sentiment of the German-American citizens of this great commonwealth. Among the public men in Congress and without D. W. Voorhees is nearest to their hearts. In him they recognize a true and reliable friend, and a stern defender of their rights and privileges as adopted citizens of a great and common country. That the valuable services of D. W. Voorhees be continued on the floors of Congress during the next six years is the decided wish of the German-American population, no only of Indiana, but throughout the Republic. Therefore, it is with profound respect and high regard for the candidacy of Hon. D. W. Voorhees for the United States Senate that I second the nomination.
Mr. WINTER: It is more becoming in the bold warrior to boast upon putting of his armor
rather than when putting it on. This sentiment I command to the eloquent Senator from
Lawrence (Mr. Willard). A great party can not die simply because it failed of success in a
Presidential election by a paltry plurality of 1,100 in an aggregate of a population vote of
over 10,000,000. The Republican party looks forward with assured confidence to the not
distant future, when freed from temporary dissension, and united in the support of its
distinctive features, it will again appeal to the administration of affairs of the National.
The Republicans of Indiana have no lack of gallant leaders from whom they may select without
difficulty or danger of mistake a man worthy in every respect to represent the State in the
Senate of the United States. Taylor and Calkins, Browne and Thompson. Cumback and Butler,
may be mentioned without invidious distinction as men endeared to the Republicans of Indiana
by reason of distinguished services to the people at large, as well as their party. Any of
them would worthily occupy the chair of Lane and Morton; nor would they suffer by comparison
with the distinguished gentle
Mr. HUSTON: I rise for the purpose of seconding the nomination made by the Senator from Marion [Mr. Winter] I do this most heartily because I recognize in the honorable gentleman he has named one especially deserving the honor, and eminently fitted for the position, one who has been entrusted with many official responsibilities, the satisfactory execution of which has ever been rewarded at the hands of his party by additional favors. A man who is strictly in accord with his party and who has always vigorously advocated its principles, and under whose leadership the party attained the signal victory of 1880. A man thoroughly equipped, well versed in the law, and conversant with the wants of the people' admitted to be the peer of any man in our State; whose public and private character is without reproach. One who has been Governor of the State for four years immediate preceeding the inauguration of the present incumbent, and whose every official act will bear the closest scrutiny. His administration was marked for its honesty, wisdom and prudence, upon his return to private life he retains the respect, confidence and admiration of his friends throughout the entire state.
There are doubtless some men in public life whom to retire to their constituents. On the other hand, there are those whose conduct and character and achievements have been such as whom to reinvest with the with the habiliments of public office is to honor both officer and constituents. My intelligent constituents in the large and industrial county of Elkhart depute me, ans their humble Representative in this General Assembly, to voice their unanimous desire to his distinguished excellency Albert G. Porter, go up higher. And in thus assuming to speak for those who have honored me by making me their Representative, I presume to speak for a large majority in this Commonwealth of both the young and old members of that party, grand in her mighty and proud achievements, and old in the wisdom and experience of her counsellors.
The modest gentleman, whose names has last been mentioned for the high office United States Senator, represents no clan. He is neither the center nor in the circumference of any political ring nor is the smell of the fire of human wrath, or of abloquy upon his garments; a man in those days that tried men's souls whose missions where to strengthen and build up, and not to weaken and tear down; the earnest, constant friend and defender of the brave and gallant boys blue in times of war and in times of peace also; a man who has an earnest advocate of a sound national currency, pledged upon the life and integrity of a bleeding Nation, and who had the faith to believe, and whose life of a kind Providence spared to see that its Redeemer lived. Mr. President, with my whole heart, and with all my energy, I second the nomination of Governor Porter.
The ballot resulted: For Mr. Voorhees, 30 votes; for Mr. Porter, 16 votes.
Mr. Speaker JEWETT announced the order for this hour to be a vote for a United States Senator to succeed Hon. Daniel W. Voorhees; and declaring nominations to be in order, granted the privilege of the floor first to the majority side of the House.
Mr. DEBS said:
Mr. SPEAKER - A privilege in connection with my duties as a member of
this House, which I esteem an honor of high consequence, has fallen to my lot, and I shall
ask the generous indulgence of the Chair and of my fellow Representatives while to the best
of my ability I respond to a request well calculated to embarrass men of more years and
experience than I can boast, I need not state to thise House, as a matter of information,
that the important duty of electing a United States Senator to be the successor of Hon.
Daniel W. Voorhees devolves upon the General Assembly, I could not hope, did the agreeable
task I have assumed require it at my hands, to enlighten this House in regard to the
superior abilities necessary to enable a Senator of the United States to meet
The man who in public life has been proved and tested, who again and again has passed through the ordeal of temptation without scar or blemish, becomes a public benefactor, defying the ordinary methods of computation whereby to estimate his value to the State; and wisdom and patriotism win universal applause when the people retain such men in official positions.
Mr. Speaker, I shall not detain this House by an extended reference to the lives, the characters and the deeds of the distinguished men who have represented Indiana in the Senate of the United States. We frequently hear men who, in speaking of the past, deplore, in comparison, the degeneracy of the present. I shall stop no longer to say I am not in sympathy with their vagaries. In the month of November, 1877, James D. Williams, then Governor of Indiana, appointed Daniel W. Voorhees as the successor of Oliver P. Morton, deceased, to represent Indiana in the United States Senate. The name and fame of Morton had filled the land. His great abilities had made him the leader of his party in the Senate. It was thought to be no ordinary responsibility to occupy the place made vacant by the death of Morton. It was deemed a herculean task to maintain the advanced position of the State which the admirers of Mr. Morton claimed was due to his masterly powers, but, sir, I do but repeat the truth of history when I say that as soon as opportunity offered mr. Voorhees came to the front in a speech which triumphantly vindicated the prescience of Governor Williams, a speech which electrified the Nation by the profundity of its statesmanship, the majesty of the grasp and the overwhelming power of its arguments and eloquence, and whatever else may be said of the sad event, the fame of indiana did not wane by the death of Morton. Voorhees caught the standard as it fell from Morton's hands, and the whole country, as he bore it aloft in the fierce contest between monopolists and the people with a united voice gave him an ovation of gratitude. In 1878 a Democratic Legislature ratified the wisdom of Governor Williams' appointment by electing Daniel W. Voorhees to a seat in the United States Senate, and for nearly six years he has, in a manner worthy of the highest commendation, maintained his own and Indiana' renown in that august body. His term expires on the 4th day of March next, and now, Mr. Speaker, I nominate Daniel W. Voorhees to be his own successor in the Senate of the United States for the ensuing term.
Mr. Speaker, the fact that I am one of the Representatives of Vigo County, the home of Mr. Voorhees, is doubtless the reason why the honor has been given me to nominate him for Senator, and, though I am among the youngest members of this House, with legislative experience as limited as that of any other member, I am neither so juvenile or unschooled as not to be familiar with the scholastic attainments, the erudition, the statesmanship and patriotic devotion to the welfare of Indiana, and the whole country, which have pre eminently distinguished the official career of the citizen and Senator whom I have the honor to place in nomination to-day. Coming here as a working man, with whatever duties attach to my position as the representative of workmen. I feel just pride in placing nomination for the exalted office a man who has availed himself of every opportunity to champion the cause of tolling people of the State and Nation, in every emergency Mr. Voorhees has been the friend of labor, and the foe of monopoly, and the defender of the eternal right. And fully appreciating the patriotism, the privations and heroic services of his fellow-citizens, who went forth at the call of their country to battle for the Union and preserve it "one and indivisible," he has on all occasions demonstrated by prompt action and eloquent works, his unerring devotion to the interest of the Union solder. In the campaign just closed, which has placed the Democratic party of the Republic in power, a splendid aray of great men has been in the van of the Democratic hosts, and of them all not has rendered more effective service than the eloquent orator and distinguished statesman whom I now nominate to be his own successor in the United States, and whom the people of Indiana delight to honor - Daniel W. Voorhees.
Mr. GOODING: Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in seconding the nomination of Daniel W. Voorhees for re-election to the Unite States Senate for the next six years. Personally, the relations between Senator Voorhees and myself are most cordial and of the most friendly character. But my pleasure in voting for him arises more particularly from the fact that his sympathies and his public acts and votes are ever on the side of the masses of the people whom he as faithfully served. "
Mr. GORDON: I should feel I had hardly fulfilled my duties as the representative of Putnam County if I failed to second this nomination. It was in Putnam County that perhaps the best days of the distinguished citizen were spent. It was here that the people knew him in his early boyhood. It was at Asbury University that he acquired his education. It was here that he gave evidence of those splendid abilities which have given him such renown. It was here that he found the companion of his life whom I believe has been a joy and solace to him in his last days. It was here that his early years were spent and his son, now a delegate in Congress, was born. The people of Putnman County knew him not only as a college student, but they have delighted to listen to his oratory. It is but fitting, therefore that I should second his nomination. All of the powers of this distinguished citizen are of a senatorial type. He is one of the few men fitted for this exalted position. Mr. Speaker, I second the nomination of Daniel W. Voorhees.
Mr. TAYLOR: I don't desire to engage the attention of the House for any length of
time. Mr. Voorhees was distinguished more perhaps at an early age for a speech he de
Mr. McMICHAEL: I had the distinguished honor to cast my vote for the gentleman sitting at the Speaker's side, and I have never regretted coasting that vote; and I hope to see him as a counsellor in the council of the incoming administration. I heartily second the nomination of Daniel W. Voorhees to-day, and I do but voice the opinion of the Democratic constituency, as well as that of many Republicans who cast their vote for me, that I should cast my vote for him.
I have the honor on behalf of the Republicans of Indiana to place in nomination as their candidate for United States Senator, Governor Albert G. Porter. Indiana has been honored by many illustrious eons, some of whom she has crowned with her choicest honors, but it is to the splendid achievements of the genius of her own sons, born on her own soil, educated in her own institutions and clothed with the panoply of citizenship within her historic borders that she turns with keenest pride. Her thousands of soldiers, living and dead by their matchless heroism, have made imperishable her fame for dauntless courage and sterling patriotism. The intelligence and energy of her citizens have made her one of the brightest jewels in the great galaxy of States that constitutes the mightiest freest nation on the face of the globe. In the name of the Republicans of Indiana and reflecting their united voice, I nominate a man who needs no eulogy to endear him to the hearts of the people of this his native State. I nominate a man of the rarest talent and most commanding character; a man whose moral qualities are as faultless as is intellectual constitution is vigorous and brilliant; a man to whose acknowledged fitness for great public trusts and responsibilities there is no limit but the Constitution of his country.
Mr. ADAMS: It gives me pleasure to second the nomination of the gentleman just named - a man that first entered the political arena int he famous Congressional contest against the gallant leader of opposition, Martin M. Ray. And in that contest, when the standard of Martin M. Ray went down the standard of Albert G. Porter went up. The party of the minority in the House, after following on to defeat under the leadership of the gallant Thomas M. Browne, then united in following General Ben Harrison, and then the Hon. Albert G. Porter was called from a lucrative position in Washington to be the standard-bearer of the Republican party in Indiana. Under his leadership the Republican party assumed control of Indiana, and it has had Albert G. Porter at its helm ever since. I believe that more credit belongs to him for the Republican victory which resulted in the election of the martyred Garfield that to any other one man in Indiana. It is but proper that we should give our votes for that gentleman, so well known for his integrity and intellectuality; and it is but fitting that we should in this way send a greeting to the State of New York, which to-day elects the Hon. William M. Evarts to the United States Senate. Give us Evarts and give us Porter, and you give us two among the giant intellects of the age. In behalf of the Republicans of Morgan County, I heartily second the nomination of Albert G. Porter.
Mr. SEARS: Coming here, as I do, from the western part of the State, and representing a constituency that has always been loyal to the Republican party, I deem it my duty on behalf of those people, to cordially second the nomination of the Hon. Albert G. Porter. A man in whose hands, four years ago, the Republican party of Indiana placed their standard, and said, "Carry it to victory in this campaign." which he did, and was triumphantly elected. And in the last campaign, when he was in the act laying aside his official career, the people, from one end of the State tot he other, rose up and greeted him with the plaudit of, "Well done, good and faithful servant" On behalf of the people of the State, as well as the people of the entire country, we propose, as a representative man of this country, where any one coming to this land whether he be a serf from Russia or a slave from Brazil, the moment his foot touches our soul, that soil hallowed as the resting places of a Washington, a Lincoln, and a Garfield, that moment the shackles fall from his limbs and he becomes a free man. On behalf of these people, on behalf of that party which I have the honor in part to represent, I cordially and enthusiastically second the nomination of Hon. Albert G. Porter.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: In the flush of partisanism we are always liable to forget the
dignity of the occasion that calls forth our action and the significance of the work we have
to do. I wish to say that it gives me profound gratification to indorse the nomination of
Albert G. Porter, a man eminently qualified to fill the position of
The ballot resulted - for Mr. Voorhees, 64 votes; for Mr. Porter, 35 votes.
Lieutenant Governor MANSON in the chair.
The session was opened with prayer by Rev. F. A. Ward, of the California M. E. Church.
The reading of the journal dispensed with.
The Lieutenant Governor announced the unfinished business of last evening, being an amendment to the report of the Committee on Rules that a motion to lay on the table an amendment, if agreed to, shall not carry, the original proposition -
Mr. McCULLOUGH opposed it. If debate be allowed on the original proposition, debate should also be allowed on the amendment. The long established rule ought not to be changed.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. WILLARD offered an amendment giving the author of a bill the right to vote in any committee during the consideration of his bill, and the right to submit a minority report.
Mr. FOULKE: At present every Senator introducing a measure is a member of a committee, except to vote, while his proposition is being considered. The amendment would simply add to the committee reports, and add to the already cumbersome journal which has to be printed at the expense of the State, while as at present the author can oppose an adverse report in open Senate, and there seems no necessity of adding to the bulkiness of the journals of the Senate.
The amendment was rejected.
The report of the Committee on Rules was adopted and 150 copies ordered printed, including the standing committees and joint rules.
The Lieutenant Governor laid before the Senate a communication from the Governor stating that he had forwarded to members of Congress copies of the concurrent resolution of the Senate with reference to the pensioning of soldiers.
Mr. DRAKE presented a petition for scientific temperance instruction in the public
schools. Similar petitions were presented by Messrs. Bryant, Day, Lindley, Peterson [for
better security as against grand larceny]; by Mr. Foulke, [for protection against obnox-
Mr. RAHM, from the Committee on Public Buildings returned Mr. Magee's New Insane Hospitals Completion bill [see page 50] with amendments in Section 2 appropriation for each of the three hospitals $40,000 to February 1, 1997 and striking out Section 3.
The bill was read the second time on motion of Mr. Foulke.
Mr. Fowler and Mr. Weir thought this a very important bill. It appropriated a very large amount of money. It ought to be printed, with the amendments.
It was so ordered.
Mr. MAGEE There is no disposition on the part of the friends of this bill to suppress any information or close up any source of information in reference to these institutions. The committee last night carefully considered the bill, and cut out a proposed appropriation for $162,000 for the fiscal year ending in 1887. It is necessary that legislation action be taken at once, so those who have made contracts with the State may know whether the Legislature will carry them out in good faith. I move that this bill be made a special order for Monday, at 2 o'clock p.m. This bill has been printed and on the desks of Senators for the last ten days, and I want it considered at once.
The motion was agreed to.
Lieutenant-Governor Manson submitted his appointment of the following additional standing committees, authorized by the new rules of the Senate:
On Labor and Statistics - Baily, Hilligass, Duncan of Brown, Thompson, Sellers, Ensley, Moon.
On Cities - Thompson, Rahm, Null, Bailey, Schloss, Day, Foulke.
On motion of Mr. McCULLOUGH, it was
Ordered, That the only business to be transacted at this afternoon's sessions will be bills on the first reading.
On his further motion, the Committee on the Judiciary was granted leave of absence for the remainder of the day.
At ten minutes before noon the Lieutenant Governor requested Senators to proceed to the Hall of the House of Representatives for the purpose of comparing the vote cast by the two Houses separately on yesterday for a Senator to represent the State of Indiana in the United States Senate for six years from the 4th day of March next.
When Senators returned to their chamber -
The Senate took a recess for dinner.
The following describe bills were introduced, read the first time and severally transferred to appropriate committees:
By Mr. SMITH, of Jennings [S. 143], concerning sales of real estate for delinquent taxes.
By Mr. WEIRD [S. 144] authorizing State patents for lands in certain cases.
By Mr. BROWN [S. 145] to amend Section 4,698 of R.S. of 1881 concerning elections.
By Mr. DRAKE [S. 146] to regulate the running of freight trains.
By Mr. DUNCAN, of Brown [S. 147], to amend Section 243 of the act of April 14, 1881, concerning public offenses.
By Mr. ENSLEY [S. 148] to empower county commissioners to appropriate money for the erection of soldier's monuments.
By Mr. HOOVER [S. 149] to amend Section 4,521 of Revised Statues, to encourage teachers' institutes.
By Mr. HUSTON [S. 150] to amend Section 4,520 of the Revised Statues, concerning Township Institute.
By Mr. JOHNSTON [S. 152] to prevent obstructions on gravel roads.
By Mr. NULL [S. 153] concerning tax sales and the inforcement of tax liens.
By Mr. PETERSON [S. 154] to legalize the incorporation of the town of Alamo, Montgomery County, and all acts of the Board of Trustees of said town.
By Mr. SCHLOSS [S. 155] to prohibit the charging or contracting of illegal fees by any officer created by the laws of Indiana.
By Mr. SELLERS [S. 156] to provide for the election of Judges of the Superior and Circuit Courts on the last Tuesday in August of the odd year next preceding the expiration of their terms of office.
By MR. SMITH, of Jennings [S. 157], to amend the act of May, 13, 1852 concerning the duties of the Clerk of the Supreme Court.
By Mr. SMITH, of Delaware [S. 158], authorizing counties having not exceed 20,000 votes to insane and sell bonds to construct or repair county buildings, or to fund any indebtedness.
By Mr. ZIMMERMAN [S. 159] to amend Section 3,628 of the Revised Statutes concerning the location of plank, gravel or mcadamized roads.
Pending the introduction of bills -
The Committee on Executive Appointments reported favorably on the appointment the Governor of Thomas McQuade, of Clay County, as Mine Inspector.
The report was concurred in, and so the nomination was confirmed by the Senate.
Then came the adjournment.
Speaker Jewett announced prayer by the Representative from Warren (Mr. McBroome), who prayed:
Our Father and our God, we come before Thee within these halls and lift up our voiced with our hearts's warmest affections unto Thee for the blessings of the past. We realize, our Heavenly Father, that it is in Thee we live and move and have our being. We thank Thee for this opportunity of meeting in a legislative capacity; we invoke They blessing upon us, and pray Thee to so guide us that we may wisely legislate. Bless us, our Heavenly Father, in all our deliberations, and may nothing be done with the spirit of strife. May we each emulate each other in our desires to legislate for the good of the people. Will the Lord bless not only this Assembly, but the Senate of the United States, the rulers of this State and all the rules of the Nation. And direct us, our Heavenly Father, in the way we should go through the coming life; prepare each and every one of us for the dark and trying hour when we shall step down into the cold river of death. These mercies and blessings we ask in Jesus' name. Amen.
The journal reading was dispensed with.
Mr. BROWNING called up the resolution of Mr. Mock, of Wells, proposing to amend the rules so that the Speaker may designate Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, for the second reading of bills. He regarded it a very valuable rule for the furtherance of the House, and moved its adoption.
The resolution was agreed to.
The Committee on Agriculture returned Mr. McHenry's bill [H R> 212] to amend the act concerning the running at large of, with a recommendation that it be indefinitely postponed.
Mr. McHENRY moved to recommit the bill to the Committee on County and Township Business. He said: I want to call the attention of the House to this bill. The law as it now stands makes it the duty of any person to take up any animal running large, and the result is, as no one likes to make an enemy of his neighbor, that almost all kinds of animals are running at large indiscriminately. It appears to me that if them with level heads give a fair consideration to the provisions of this bill, which provides for Supervisors, and fixes a penalty for allowing animals to run at large, that they will not sustain the report of the committee.
Mr. BROWNING preferred the law as it is to this bill, which proposes the constitute the Supervisor as a sort of smelling committee.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe did not wish to see the bill strangled, but it is an important measure, and should be carefully considered.
Mr. MOODY: I hope the report of the committee will not be concurred in by the House. If the House refuses to concur in the report of the committee, then the bill will remain on the Speaker's table, and be taken up any time and its merits discussed. If the report of the committee is concurred in, then this bill is killed, and in all human probability it will be the end of all legislation on this question. The present law seems to be fair and satisfactory. The Board of County Commissioners may by order, provide what kind, if any, stock may run at large, but when they make an order restraining stock from running at large the order is usually of little effect, for the reason there is no law making it the duty of any person to enforce the law. This bill provides that it shall be the duty of Township Supervisors to take up all stock fond running at large. Now what could be more proper than to clothe these gentlemen, whose duty it is to look after the highways with authority to take up all stock roaming about, and thereby carry out the law as intended. I trust the report of the committee will not be concurred in.
The motion to recommit was laid on the table and the House refused to concur in the report of the committee.
The following described bills were introduced, read the first time and severally referred to appropriate committees.
By Mr. CARTWRIGHT [H R. 201] to appropriate $50,000 to the Indiana State University to rebuild the buildings destroyed by fire.
By Mr. McHENRY [H. R. 202] to regulate the sale of spiritous liquors, prescribing penalties for intoxication, etc. - [a high license liquor measure, providing that every saloon-keeper shall pay to the County Treasurer a license fee of $500 per year for selling spiritous, vinous and malt liquors in less quantities than a quart; and $300 per year for a license to sell simply vinous and malt liquors - wine and beer.]
By Mr. McHENRY [H. R. 203] in regard to drainage.
By Mr. REEVES [H. R. 204] to prohibit the sale of liquor within one mile of a place of religious worship.
By Mr. REEVERs [H. R. 205] regulating the appointment of jurymen.
By Mr. MOCK of Wells [H. R. 206], concerning trusts and powers.
By Mr. MOCK, of Wells [H. R. 207] concerning proceedings in criminal cases.
By Mr. CARTWRIGHT [H. R. 208] concerning highways and supervisors of thereof.
By Mr. STALEY [H. R. 209] to prevent the sale of Canada thistles.
By Mr. STALEY [H. R. 210] to provide for the settlement of decedent estates.
By Mr. MOODY [H. R. 211] for the regulation of weights and measures.
By Mr. LINVILLE [H. R. 212] for the punishment of public offenses.
By Mr. MOSIER [H. R. 213] for the establishment of teachers' institutes and the payment of officers.
Pending the introduction of bills -
The Speaker announced the Committee on State Medicine, viz: Messrs. Passage, Loop,
Senators now appearing int he Hall of the House and being seated in the center benches -
The Lieutenant Governor on the, right of the Speaker, said: The joint session of the two Houses will now come to order. We have met to compare the vote cast yesterday in each House for a candidate to represent Indiana in the United States Senate.
By his direction the report of the Senate and House journals of yesterday, containing the ballot for United States' Senator was read, showing that Daniel W. Voorhees received 30 votes int he Senate and 64 in the House of Representatives.
The Lieutenant Governor then said the Hon. Daniel W. Voorhees having received a majority of the votes of all the members of the Legislature - having 94 to 51 - I therefore declare the Hon. Daniel Webster Voorhees elected United States Senator from the State of Indiana for the six years from the 4th of March next.
Senators then withdrew and the House took a recess.
By Mr. [H. R. 214] to amend section 6,376 of the Revised Statutes 1881 concerning taxation and the fees of Assessors.
By Mr. BOOE [H. R. 216] to regulate the payment of miners' wages.
By Mr. MOSIER [H. R. 27] to regulate the amount to be paid to printers for printing advertisements required to be printed by law.
By Mr. TAYLOR [H. R. 218] authorizing the return of writs in certain cases.
By Mr. TAYLOR [H. R. 219] to authorize the recognition of the acts of Notary Publics in other States.
By Mr. TWINEHAM [H. R. 220] to regulate voluntary assignments.
By Mr. HELMS [H. R. 221] to regulate the sale of spiritous, malt and other intoxicating liquors.
By Mr. BOYD [H. R. 222] to abolish the office of Ditch Commissioner.
By Mr. MAUCK [H. R. 225] to legalize the incorporation of the town of Sulphur Springs.
By Mr. DEAN [H. R. 225] to legalize the incorporation of the town of Sulphur Springs.
By Mr. DITTEMORE [H. R. 226] in regard to public schools. (Two hundred copies ordered printed.)
By Mr. CRECELIUS [H. R. 227] to provide for the uniform expiration of the office of County Treasurer.
By Messrs. Robertson, Dunn, Eley, Rivers, Williams, Reiter, Krueger, Schley, Jameson, Pendleton, Gardner, Passage and Adams.
Mr. ADAMS offered a concurrent resolution instructing Senators and requesting Representatives from Indiana in Congress to use their influence to secure the passage of a law requiring the Attorney General of the United States to bring suits against railway companies to test the validity of such grants and to quiet the title to such lands as have been granted to corporations who have forfeited their right to the same.
The House adjourned.
Lieutenant Governor MANSON: The hour for the special order having arrived, the Senate will proceed to the consideration of bill [S. 26] to provide for the calling of a Constitutional Convention.
Mr. FOULKE: I move that the Senate substitute the minority for the majority report and concur in the report of the minority of the Committee on the Judiciary. It was adopted as a rule by the Judiciary Committee for the facilitation of its business that before the details of a bill should be considered the committee would pass upon the question as to whether it would favor the general principle or idea embraced in the measure. If it decided adversely, the recommendation to the Senate should be that the bill lie on the table or be indefinitely postponed without further discussion of the bill.
That was the course which was taken in regard to this bill.
The advisability as to the general provisions or separate details of the bill were not discussed; and, as for as the questions of details is concerned, I think there would be little difficult about them, and I venture to say they could be arranged satisfactorily to all, provided the principle of the bill was satisfactory. I have no special desire that the bill shall be passed as it stands, provided the principle be accepted. The present Constitution was adopted under the provisions of a law of 1841 which required that the question as to whether a Constitutional Convention should be called or not must first be submitted to a vote of the people. That was done, the people so decided, and the convention was called. This bill provides for calling the convention at once. It is substantially the same as the one introduced on this floor four years ago by the then Senator from Jackson [Jason B. Brown] and the same in terms as the one brought into the Senate in pursuance of the recommendation of the present Governor of Indiana [Isaac P. Gray] And the reasons why I insist that this Generall Assembly shall a Constitutional Convention are in many instances the same as his. In Governor Gray's message to the General Assembly he says: "It is nearly thirty years since the present Constitution of the State was adopted, etc.". [See Brevier Reports, vol. xix page 15] This bill provides that the convention shall consist of 100 members That was a provision in the bill as originally introduced by the Senator from Jackson four years ago [Mr. Brown] but it was amended so that the number should be but fifty - one member from each of the Senatorial Districts of the State. If this Assembly should desire that amendment to this bill, as far as the details are concerned there will be no question.
But, sir, the time has come for a new Constitution, and it is upon that principle that
these committee reports are presented ot the Senate. And I would like to call the attention
of the Senate to one of the highest authorities on the question of constitutional law, at
least to gentlemen ont he other side of the House, that we have in American history - to the
words of Thomas Jefferson, in a latter to Samuel Kerchival, dated July 12, 1816, in relation
to a Constitution for the State of Virginia. Mr. Jefferson says - [Reads.] Now, sir, the
State of Indiana has far outgrown the present Constitution, which was established more than
thirty years ago. During that time the prosperity of the State has been something almost
unrivalled. As the Senator from Jackson remarked, in presenting his Constitutional
Convention bill four years ago - [Reads, commencing at the top of page 126, vol. xix,
Brevier Reports.] I
The provision in our Constitution in regard to legislative machinery is one which should be radically amended. We have every two year a meeting of the General Assembly, and so great is the dissatisfaction of the people that the convening of the General Assembly is looked upon with regret, and its adjournment is treated as a matter of congratulation. So great is the dread that unwholesome laws may be created at the biennial sessions of our Legislature that the people are glad when they see us go home It was that general fear the Legislature would unsettle the laws which led to the introduction in the present Constitution of the provision that we should meet only once in two years, and shall only remain in session but sixty days. The framers of the Constitution were afraid to let us sit as long as wished or thought it necessary, but required we should go home at the end of sixty days whether we passed the legislation necessary or not. It was thought the danger of enacting bad laws was so much greater it was decided we must meet but once in two years, and then only sit sixty days. The possibilities of evils by the General Assembly ought to be granted without unnecessarily crippling their possibilities of evils by the General Assembly ought to be granted without unnecessarily crippling their possibilities for good. If a court of justice could not be relied upon for equitable decisions, would we say it would be a proper remedy to limit its sittings to once very two years and provide it shall only sit for sixty days? Could not as much evil be done in sixty days as in two years? The true way is to pass such regulations as will enable us to properly consider the bills presented to us, rather than that we should adjourn and go home with out properly considering th measures presented. It is utterly impossible in the time prescribed. The Judiciary Committee has been in session four or more evenings until midnight, and its members know it is not possible to foresee expenses likely to arise, or to provide against necessary evils of proposed laws, as well to protect the evils which demand relief from legislation. There are bills before the Senate now, of which we do not know whether they would be productive of more harm than good. We vote for bills pushed hurriedly through sometimes tenfold worse than the evil we hoped to remedy. This is a sad commentary upon our mode of legislation, but how can it be otherwise when hundreds of bills are introduced, some of them over 400 pages long. How under the sun can we compare in the sixy days' limit each one of these bills with preceding legislation and compare each clause therein with existing statutes. Under the circumstances how can we pass bills which shall give satisfaction to the people at large? A good part of this session will be devoted tot he repeal of laws which previous Legislatures have passed. There ought to be some means of correcting this. The way is not to limit the sessions of the Legislature. Biennial session may be frequent enough. There should be a provision in the organic law that now law can be passed or even proposed for our consideration, until it is so published, that any and every one who has rights to protect against it, or is interested therein, can in some manner be heard by members of the General Assembly. As new, when it comes to legislation, it is all ex parte. The promoter of a bill shows his side, but the other side is not presented. We do the best we can. We pass the bill, and in a year or two we repeal it. Our legislation should not fluctuate backwards and forwards like a pendulum. We should act right int he first place; but we can't get right in the first place until everybody is heard. There is a provision in the Constitution which requires that bills shall be read three several times on three several days. No one can know the contents of a bill on the first reading except the author, or whoever may have seen it previously. On the second reading of a bill but little more attention, if any, is paid it. If the bill is printed, that is some security, and we are apt then to know something about it before it comes to a final vote. There ought to be some way of publishing tot he people all proposed legislation before its enactment. Just that thing is done today in the Parliament of Great Britain. NO one bill can be introduced affecting the financial interests of the country before it is published in what is called "public orders." There weeks before the session of Parliament such bills must there be presented. And any person having an interest in these bills is entitled to be heard. The result is, after hearing both sides, members can judge of the merits which is best. Every one knows we can not do our work properly sixty days, and it is not right to limit our capacity for usefulness by prescribing a sixty days' session. Sometimes a bill effecting important interests will be introduced, read three times on one day, and passed under a suspension of the rules, and no one having any interest adverse to the bill knows anything about it until it becomes a law of the State. There ought to be more careful deliberation in the first place.
Under the provisions of our present Constitution every idiot and every insane man, and men
that are neither able to read, nor write, and and men who can not reason intelligently upon
any subject, can be brought in wagons to the polls and voted at any general election in this
State for any office whtaver. If we limit the right of suffrage to sex we ought to limit it,
at least to some extent, as to intelligence. If we do not open the franchise doors and allow
women to vote, the Constitution at least
Mr. MAGEE (interrupting): Did I understand you to say that you favor a constitutional limit as to suffrage?
Mr. FOULKE: Personally, I do not. I do not there is any danger in throwing the doors as wide open as possible, except as to a person who is idiotic or who is wholly irresponsible for his own acts. I do not believe such an one ought to vote.
Mr. MAGEE: Neither do I.
Mr. FOULKE: I believe that even ignorance has the right to protect itself against intelligence, and not in leaving the rights of one in the hands of another, but that each class, white, black, male, female, should have the God-given right of saying what is best for itself. But that, sir, is a matter of personal preference. It may be said: If the Constitution is to be amended, why can not that be done by offering specific amendments? I answer, for the reason that it involves the remodeling of the whole Constitution. You can't go over a single article without seeing a point that is radically defective. It needs to be gone over from beginning to end, and the only body competent to do that is a constitutional convention.
[Before he concluded the Senate took a recess for dinner.]
Mr. HILLIGASS: It seems to me the very principle underlying the argument of the Senator from Wayne why we should have a Constitutional Convention is sufficient within itself as an argument against the calling of a Constitutional Convention. We have seen cropping out a disposition for the concentration of power in the administration of public affairs - a disposition to concentrate the power of the Government in the hands of a few men; and the ideas advanced by the Senator from Wayne [Mr. Foulke] remind me of the old Hamiltonian doctrine advanced at the time of the foundation of our Government - a departure from the Jeffersonian idea of government, with which he saw proper to twit the Democratic side of this Chamber. The forms of government across the water, to which he alluded, are what the American people combatted when they formed this Government. I can not agree with the Senator that there is any power delegated to the Legislature to call a Constitutional Convention. I don't often quote from Republican authority and accept it as good doctrine to act upon, but in this case I will read from the message of Governor Porter to the same General Assembly to which Governor Gray's message was delivered, from which the Senator saw fit to refer, and upon this same question. Governor Porter says - [Reads from Brevier Reports, vol. xix., page 30.] I shall have to adopt this language, and will adopt it as part of my argument as an objecting to calling a Constitutional Convention. Four years ago every Republican on the floor of the Senate voted against a proposition for the calling of a Constitutional Coentional Let me read - [Reads the vote on page 169 of the Brevier Reports, vol. xix.] Senator Grubbs, at that time one of the leading lights on the Republican side of the Chamber, who was afterward nominated for Congress and ingloriously defeated in the late avalanche that broke over the country, said upon this question [Reads from the Brevier Reports, Vol. xix., page 128.] Now, sir, I am opposed to this bill, and I believe with Senator Grubbs that amendments should be made under the provisions of the Constitution; and I believe that the people of this State, after thirty odd years of success and advancement in the grand march of civilization, have a right to know what amendments are proposed to the Constitution of their State, under which they have made such signal progress.
Mr. McCULLOUGH: Under existing circumstances, it is the duty of every Democrat who aspires
to represent the will of the majority to vote against this Constitutional Convention bill. I
was opposed to a Constitutional Convention because the party to which I belonged declared
itself against it. There is a great deal of fallacy in the arguments put forth in calling a
Constitutional Convention. There are some things which grow better by being old. The
argument that because the State of Indiana has grown large under this Constitution, the
argument that we ought to have a new Constitution because the present one is thirty years
old, to my mind is an argument against a new one, unless there can be some other good reason
shown. As well might a man say who had bought his forty or eighty acres of land at a small
price, and after cities or towns are built upon his land, because there has been such a
growth of wealth, he ought to have a new title to the land. One of the arguments made by the
Senator from Wayne is that our present Constitution, upon the question of suffrage, is a
disgrace; that insane persons idiots and ought not to be permitted to vote; and if they are,
that the opposite sex ought to be permitted to vote. I desire to call attention to the fact
that the Constitution on that question is not thirty years old. It is but four year sold.
Within the last six years, aye, within last four years, a constitutional amendment has been
adopted in this State fixing the qualification of voters. That article went through two
Legislatures and was ratified by the people, so that provision is not thirty, but four years
old, which the Senator is so dissatisfied with. Another provision to which the Senator
referred is the one with reference to the Judges of the Supreme Court. I take it that the
people of the State, as well as the General Assembly, have passed upon that very question
within the last six years, for, in 1877, there was an amendment proposed to the Constitution
involving that question;
Mr. FOULKE (interrupting): Does not the Senator think something is necessary to protect the people against extravagant charges of railroads?
Mr. McCULLOUGH: I think a Constitutional Convention would be plied against the railroad magnates just as the Legislature is, and the necessity of being put in a more favorable attitude would open the Constitution up to give them another grab and take away what protection there now is for the people as against these corporations. Until some constitutional amendments are matured in the minds of the people I see no necessity for calling a Constitutional Convention and setting the old Constitution and aside. Until that is done there ought to be no convention to put this clause in to suit one member and another to suit another, and by a log-rolling process to force a Constitution upon the people that is not in accordance with the opinion of even a majority of the people of the State. When he concluded
The Senate adjourned
Mr. TAYLOR, the Committee on the Judiciary returned Mr. Patten's bill [H. R. 187] to abolish Grand Juries, with a recommendation that it be indefinitely postponed
Mr. PATTEN: I don't particularly care about a bill of that kind myself, but I have drafted that bill in the interests of economy. I know that the Grand Jury system is a very expensive one, and I undertake to say, and I believe everybody will agree with me, that is a system of barbarism and inquisition. The Grand Jury is of service to nobody. It is not effective. It has retarded justice. This bill provides that the prosecution shall be by any one. It gives to the officers of the State of Indiana full power to file an information against his informant, or to compel parties to go up before the court of jurisdiction and file the affidavit. There is a great deal of expense in bringing people before the Grand Jury. To illustrate, Governor Hubbard, of Texas, said upon several occasions that, when a young man, he was Prosecuting Attorney, and there was an old man drawn who was deaf in one ear and said he could not her well. "You are just the kind of man expected to sit on a Grand Jury; you are not expected to hear out of one ear " It is only a one-sided examination. I undertake to say that after the examination has once been gone through with before the Grand Jury, the whole matter has to be gone through with, and the whole expense and cost incurred again the Court. I don't purpose to go into the details of the merits of this bill, but to say that it ought to have a fair hearing before his body. I had hoped that the wisdom of the Judiciary Committee would prepare a more perfect bill and present it to the House. The Grand Jury defeats the very object for which it was instituted, therefore I ask that the report of the committee be laid upon the table, and bill recommitted to the Committee on the Judiciary. I asked to be informed when the bill came before the committee that I might appear before them, but I was not informed.
Mr. DAVIS: I don't remember of his request to be heard before the committee. I assure him that no disrespect was intended him.
On motion by Mr. PATTEN the bill was recommitted.
Mr. TAYLOR, from the Judiciary Committee, returned Mr. Jameson's Woman's Rights bill [H. R. 59] with a recommendation that it be indefinitely postponed.
Mr. JAMESON: This is a bill to amend the section of the Married Woman's act, 1881, which provides that a married woman shall not enter into any contract of suretyship. The courts, by construction have extended the effect of this section to prohibit married women, their husbands as tenants by entirety. If the present law is to stand some of our best lawyers think the same reasoning by which the courts have arrived at the construction of the law now placed upon it would inevitably lead to the conclusion that a mortgage of a man and his wife on real estate owned by the husband would be void as to the wife's interest in real estate of her husband, mortgaged by husband and wife to secure the husband's debt, is security only for the husband's debt, is security only for the husband's debt, is security only for the husband's debt. The bad effect of this needs no comment. While the opinion of the Judiciary Committee on purely legal matters is entitled to weight, on a matter of the character of the one in question the opinion of a lawyer is entitled to no more weight than that of any other man of equal intelligence. The question is not a legal one; it is one of justice of expediency law is no real protection, is productive of no good, but is a harmful law. It imposes disabilities known to no former law. In cases where its provisions should afford some protection it is continually avoided by indirection it is continually avoided by indirection. Dishonest husbands and wives collude to use the law as an instrument to commit fraud on honest creditors, and intelligent women are prevented from a free and proper use of their property to which in justice they are entitled and are often forced to sacrifice their property by sale because they have not the power to mortgage it.
Mr. TAYLOR: This bill has been very thoroughly discussed by our committee.
Laws are not made so much for the enjoyment of the rich as they are for restricting the vicious and protecting the weak. This bill seems to have been conceived for the purpose of making easy the power and influence of the husband over the property of a wife. I think, sir, the law as it is now exists is a very proper one. It has not been placed there by a sudden gush of feeling, but in the wisdom of the Legislature, the members have seen proper to put such laws upon the statue books. The law is well settle din Indiana that no woman can become the surety of her husband. The point is, whether such as is proposed by the gentleman of Marion, shall become a law in the State of Indiana, and thereby repeal the safeguard thrown around the home of married women. Sometimes a man uses his power over his wife to make her sign a mortgage. A mortgage generally means a deed, and it means that the property may be taken from the wife if he is improvident. The Legislature of this State would be doing a violence to its conscience to take away any safeguard they have thrown around the married woman. I am perfectly willing to have this matter discussed before the House. I don't believe the sentiment of the House would be for repealing this law.
Mr. McMULLEN: This is a question in which we are all interested and it seems to me that under our rules this is not the proper time to discuss the merits of this bill. It seems to me it would be right to recommit this bill so that we all might have the right to discuss it.
Mr. MAUCK, of Wells: I am opposed to recommitting the bill. The present law is that a mortgage executed by a married woman to property belonging to her husband is valid. Our Supreme Court has decided that a married woman can convey her property. It is simply a humane provision of our law to protect married women from being induced by their husbands to convey away their property.
Mr. REEVES: It has long been the tendency of this Legislature for years to question the rights and privileges of married woman. It has been held that she may carry on her separate business, and that she may make contracts of her own. If this is the sentiment of the people they certainly have come to recognize the fact that women within themselves have some inherent sense; that they are not a lot of dummies to be led by their husbands into all sorts of foolishness. I say this law is not imposing any hardship upon the women. A great deal of gush has been expended on this subject. It seems to me that gentlemen seem to think that the interest of the husband is antagonistic to the interest of the wife, that the husband wants to invade and take away the domicile of the wife. I had always supposed that the husband's and wife's interest were common. I don't it has come to be regarded that the husband is the natural foe of his wife. These amendments to the law simply give them rights where necessity seems to demand them. I am not in favor of concurring in the report of the committee.
Mr. GORDON: Ten years ago the Legislature saw it fit to take the first important step in enlarging the rights of married women. It was then enacted that when real estate was held conjointly the wife had the right of partition. The Legislature realized the hardship of that matter, and they passed a law allowing her to enjoy her part of the real estate. In 1879 they were rights to contract. The gentleman from Bartholomew [Mr. Reeves] has said that t was a step recognizing the ability of married women to contract for themselves. Let us not forget that while they were enlarging their rights by contract they were diminishing their rights by mortgage. If a married woman to day desires to mortgage her property to carry on her own business, she can do that under the law as it now stands. The report of the committee ought to be concurred in.
Mr. BROWNING: I am in favor of concurring in the report of the committee for two reasons, the first of which is that we have too much change of law; we have too much legislation on many subjects and this is one of them. And it has come to be the rule that one Legislature passes a law, and in about four years the people learn what it is, and then the next Legislature will change it. Second - I venture to say that you can't find a memorial praying for such a measure, with five names of women attached to it, in this Legislature. It is the improvident husbands who want this change. That is the strongest point.
Mr. G. ADAMS: This is a bill of great importance for the reason that a good many estates that have been held in entirety have been mortgaged or will be mortgaged soon. While I may not indorse a good deal of the sentiment just expressed, yet I think this bill should pass to a second or third reading. I therefore move you Mr. Speaker, to amend the report by striking out the recommendation therein read, and that the bill pass to the second reading.
The motion was rejected.
Mr. GORDON demanded the previous question, and under its operation the report of the committee was concurred in by yeas, 54; nays, 30.
Mr. Patton's concurrent resolution concerning the funds in the hands of the State Treasurer came up as the special order.
Mr. Gooding said that as there was a resolution in the Senate to the same import he
moved that the matter be postponed till to-day at 2 o'clock. Mr. Patton said that he
Mr. McMullen here introduced the following:
Whereas, There as been an intimation made by Governor Porter, in his biennial message to the General Assembly, touching the affairs of the Treasurer of State - that certain irregularities exist in that office which call for investigation and inspection; and,
Whereas, The said Governor making such intimation or charge has been the Executive of the State during the entire term of the present incumbent in the office of Treasurer; and,
Whereas, it is by law made the duty of the Governor, whenever the public acts require it, to cause an examination of the Treasurer's office to be made; and,
Whereas, It is the duty of such Governor under the law of the State whenever he has information of any irregularities in the Treasurer's office to cause immediate investigation to be made and if it is found that the law has been violated, to at once cause the arrest of the State Treasurer; therefore be it
Resolved, By the House (the Senate concurring) that a committee of there on the part of the House and two on the part of the Senate be appointed to inquire into the matter in sad message touching said intimations of irregularities, and ascertain when the Governor received the information touching the same, and also to inquire into the cause of the Governor's failure to cause investigation to be made of said office nd official conduct of said officer.
The matter was introduced in the form of an amendment, but the Speaker said he thought it was more in the nature of a substitute, but he had no objection to the Hourse treating it as an amendment. Mr. Sears moved to lay the amendment on the table and the yeas and nays were demanded. The motion was lost by a vote of 42 to 41. The amendment was then adopted by a vote of 45 to 34.
The following motion was then offered by Mr. Twineham:
And such committee shall have authority to send for persons and papers, administer oaths to witnesses, have access to all books, papers, vouchers and documents in the possession of the Treasurer of State that pertain to said office, and shall make full and thorough investigation of the condition of the State Treasury; what persons, banks or corporations. if any, has or have recently had any of the State's money on deposit or by way of loan, and what interest, bonus or gratuity the Treasury of State has received, or by any contract or understanding with any person or persons is entitled to receive for such deposit or loans, and that said committee make report as soon as may be to this General Assembly.
The amendment was voted down.
At this point the Speaker said that he had decided that Mr. McMullen's resolution was a substitute, taking the place of the original resolution, and that it should be adopted by the House as such and not as an amendment. The question of adopting the substitute was then put and carried.
The Senate concurrent resolution for the appointment of a committee to see if an investigation into the affairs of the State Treasurer is necessary was then called up, and Mr. Taylor moved that it lie on the table, including in the motion an amendment offered by another member that the committee have power to send for persons and papers. The motion was lost by a vote of 43 to 41. A motion to table the amendment prevailed, and the House concurred in the Senate resolution by a vote 81 to 1.
Lieutenant Governor Manson said: The Senator from Perry has the floor on the special order.
Mr. MAY: I think the question of calling a Constitutional Convention has been settled in a way binding upon a majority of the members of the General Assembly. In a country of this kind, where all our State and National Governments are dissilimar in many respects to the Government of England, I should regret to see our country retrograde by adopting the institutions of England. For instance, I hope it will never come to pass in this country that representatives shall be elected from districts out of which they reside as members of Parliament are elected. While the Senator from Wayne [Mr. Foulke] in many of his arguments is in advance of the times, in other propositions he is behind the times. For instance, he is in advance of the times when he urges that there ought to be a provision in the Constitution for woman suffrage. His model Government of England has never attempted to go so far as that.
Mr. FOULKE (interrupting): Is the Senator not aware that in England women are entitled to vote in all municipal elections?
Mr. MAY: Women in this State are allowed to vote in district school meetings, but not in matters of National importance. And I am opposed to following the civil service system of the English Government. The intention of American institutions is that the people are sovereigns - that they shall chose their officers from time to time, and their tenure of office is not to be perpetual. I can see but two or three arguments urged by the Senator from Wayne in favor of his bill for a Constitutional Convention. You might engraft into a new Constitution a prohibitory amendment, but unless the people elect Legislatures in accord with that provision, not such legislation would be enacted. Can you show me when the General Assembly has acted under the new provisions of the Constitution in regard to fees and salaries? The same thing may be said of woman's suffrage were a Constitutional provisions enacted. On these propositions the Senator is in advance of the times. The question of calling a Constitutional Convention has been settled by the people at the polls, and i think the people's voice paramount to the Legislature. I don't care how plausible the arguments are in favor of it, if the people are against it we ought to stand by the people who have voted against it. It is the duty of every Democratic Senator, who reprents a Democratic constituency, or who is identified with the party, to vote against the bill calling this Constitutional Convention. The only question is what is the sentiment of the people of Indiana, and having that out, it is our duty to abide by it. For that reason I propose to vote against this bill. I know my people are opposed this bill. I know my people are opposed to it, and that is about the only reason I have for saying what I have said. I believe it is the duty of Senators to place themselves on record on this proposition.
Mr. MAGEE: The position the two political parties find themselves in shows with what facility we can change our opinions upon important questions. Four years ago Democratic members favored the calling of a Constitutional Convention, but the Republican members, and they were in the majority, opposed it. Two years ago, with that facility which as always characterized that party for changing its front, it favored the calling of a Constitutional Convention and the Democrats opposed it. In the last campaign it was a direct issue made with the people, and upon that there has been a judgment. This argument for a convention is like the argument of an attorney who, after judgment, insists there has been some error in the judgment and wants to reopen it. On this side we are assured we have the commendation of the people. The people of Indiana, by over 21,000 majority in a vote of nearly 500,000 have declared they do not want a Constitutional Convention. While I agree with the Senator from Wayne (Mr. Foulke) in a great many propositions he state yesterday, there are a great many in which I disagree. I never thought we needed a Constitutional Convention. The framers of that instrument wisely put upon it a provision that will meet every demand the progress or development of the State may require.
If the material progress and development of the State should make a new demand upon the people, and if the Constitution don't quite cover these new interests, we can propose by action here in the General Assembly such amendments as we will meet the immediate and necessary want. This Constitution was made two generations ago. At that time there was no corporation wealth scarcely in the State, and as yet no one has complained that the provisions of this instrument are not equal to any emergency in relation to the care of those great interests.
I don't see any good result that can come from calling a Constitutional Convention. The people are familiar with our present Constitution, and the practice and forms under it which have been maintained for the past thirty-three years, and if we wipe out this old instrument under which we have progressed from a people of less than 100,000 to over 700,000, we might enter upon radical reforms which would take another generation to settle.
Now I wish to call the attention of the senate to a question of dollars and cents. I had a statement prepared for me by the Auditor of State, and while I would not base the calling of a Constitutional Convention upon a mere money consideration, yet I think that ought to have some weight with members of this General Assembly. The comparative cost of a Constitutional Convention, which I do not believe is one of the demands of the hour, is $162,750. We have already torn out some of the barbarisms of the present Constitution, and i hope it will be left to a Democratic Legislature to strike out the world 'black' where it occurs in the Constitution, as the crowning act of the Democratic part. I think I am as liberal in my political views as any Republican I ever met. I believe in the broadest liberty to every man. I believe every man in this country ought to have the protection of the law, no matter what his social condition or what the color of his skin. The senior Senator from Marion has introduced a bill to abolish all those old landmarks of Bourbonism, if that is what you please to call it. The people have decided that old things are passed away and all things are to become new. [Laughter]
I don't want to see a centralized Government, such as is advocated by the Republican party. That party wants to make a stronger Government; it insists that wealth ought to represented in the legislative halls of this country, and for years men have taken their merchandise into the halls of Congress. Not so in the State of Indiana; our Constitution forbids that.
It was a Democratic Convention that framed our present Constitution; and one of the brightest men that ever lived in the State drew that portion which gave us our matchless school system providing for the education of the children of the State. To Mr. Owen, one of the advanced thinkers, as he was termed, is due the credit for that act; and all subsequent legislation has been owing to the intelligence and morality of the Democratic party.
The Senator from Wayne desires to apply some of the precedents established in England to our own forms of government. While I believe some of them are valuable, yet, nevertheless, some of them could not be applied here with the same good results they have there. Our financial, social and political conditions are entirely different from those of England, and we can't transplant their political ideas here and expect them to grow and flourish. England has no written law. She has a law that has grown up by custom. It is different with us. Our laws are written, and those laws are a guide for our people in their social, political and other conditions. I don't want to see new and strange methods introduced into the common polity of this State. I don't want to learn too fast. I believe in holding as much power in my hand as I possibly can, when I give back to the State a party of my personal liberty and right for the protection she gives to me.
Mr. FOWLER: I demand the previous question.
Mr. FOULKE: It seems to me it would only be fair, where an attack has been made on the Republican party and where reference has been made to my position personally, that I should be allowed, say five or ten minutes to answer.
Lieutenant Governor MANSON: I am glad he has withdrawn it.
Mr. McCLURE: I would like to see the opposition given a chance to present themselves as
favorably as they can reference to this matter. you may have noticed that
Mr. FOULKE: As to the argument in favor of calling a Constitutional Convention, the Senator from Huntington [Mr. Hilligass] said yesterday that there were only three or four points in which the Constitution needed amendment in accordance with my argument. There are no less than eighteen, and not one of them has been answered by any Senator upon this floor. Not in one instance in which I have shown the Constitution needs revision has there been any argument in denial of that fact. We are told that Indiana has grown splendidly under the present Constitution, therefore we should leave it be as it is. That argument is like attributing the prosperity of the United States to the coinage of silver, to the tariff, or to a free trade policy, or to things of that kind. The growth of Indiana has been not in consequence of the Constitution, but in spite of it. These things reach beyond the law. It is in spite of restrictions imposed by the Constitution that we have grown up and will continue to grow whether we call a Constitutional Convention or whether we don't. We may do something to accelerate this progress, or we may do something to retard it. We should give the people more power.
The Senator from Gibson (Mr. McCullough), said that some of the provisions I have pointed out as needing amendment or revision have been established since the adoption of the Constitution, Does that show that they are proper, or that they should not be abrogated? He says we don't a new Constitution to aid the railway interests, and that railroad men are demanding a new Constitution in furtherance of their interests. That is hardly a fair argument. Nobody has said it is to further railroad interests that a new Constitution is demanded. On the contrary, it is because the railroads and other corporations; it is because wealth has been consolidated in few hands, and because it wields a mighty power, that there is need protect the people against that power. That is why a new Constitution is desirable.
It is said that I desire to see a Constitution in which prohibition and woman's suffrage may be maintained. Whatever may be my personal views on either of these questions, my desire is that the people of the State shall have opportunity to determine whether the right of suffrage shall be as broad as the world and as free as the air we breathe, and that the people shall have the right to determine upon regulations for the liquor traffic in their respective towns and townships. And the best way to do that is to submit these propositions to the people in separate provisions by a Constitutional Convention.
It is said that I am bringing my models from England; that sometimes I am in advance of the times, and at other times behind. I recognize that there are institutions in England which would be a curse to transplant in this country, but whenever I find anything that is good, whether it be in Hindoo, Chinda, or Japan, I am willing to adopt it.
Mr. FOWLER: I now renew the demand for the previous question.
The Senate seconded the demand, and under its operation the motion to substitute the minority for the majority report was rejected by yeas 16, nays, 29.
Mr. WILLARD, explaining his negative vote, said: For twelve years, with varied experience in both branches of the Legislature I have always favored the calling of a Constitutional Convention. I believe, personally, that the interests of the State require it. I believe that Section - in Article 1 of the Constitution will prohibit, as long as it stands, the enactment of a proper fee and salary law in this State. I concede the necessity, at no distant day, for a new Constitution, but the last State Republican Convention saw fit to throw a sop to the prohibitions by declaring in favor of a Constitutional Convention if it came into Republican hands, would let the people have the question of prohibition submitted to them. Upon that point by 21,000 majority, the people have decided, and, therefore, I yield my personal views to the idea of a party policy, believing that no minority of a party is as wise as the majority. I vote "No"
The majority report, recommending indefinite postponement of the bill, was concurred in without a division.
The House concurrent resolution for an investigation into the cause of the Governor's failure to make an examination of the State Treasurer's office, coming up by direction of the presiding officer [Mr. Magee in the chair.]
Mr. HILLIGASS said: I move the adoption of the resolution.
Mr. YOUCHE: We should not permit political bias to influence our judgment upon a
resolution of this kind. I think we do not fully discharge our duty to our constituents
when we let a matter of this kind rest without investigation. The public prints of this
and other States are full of insinuations to the effect that is something wrong in the
Treasury of the State of Indiana. I am surprised that the majority in this chamber and the
other chamber will rest under an insinuation of this kind. I am always in favor of
investigation, and I believe it is the duty of a political party, when it wants to
strengthen it
Mr. HILLIGASS: I am very glad to know that the Senator has found, coming from Democratic source, a resolution which he can support; but sir, the insinuations he speaks of as coming from the public press of the country, are just such insinuations as we have had any may expect to have as ong as the Republican party exists; because it is a party of insinuations it is a party of charges, and when charges of such a character have come from Republican sources it ill becomes the Governor of the State Indiana -
Mr. ADKISON (interrupting): I will ask the Senator if the Sentinel, the acknowledged organ of the Democratic party; has not demanded an investigation of the State Treasurer.
Mr. HILLIGASS: I am not able to say whether it has or has not. My time has been so taken up that I have not been reading the Sentinel editorials, but I will undertake to say this in behalf of the Sentinel, that it has made no charge of corruption, or fraud, or mismanagement of the public funds against Treasurer Cooper. But, the Senate for Lake [Mr. Youche] has seen proper to insinuate that it is the purpose of the Democratic side of this chamber to smother an investigation - that we desire to evade an investigation. We don't think an investigation necessary in his matter, which rests solely upon a charge made in the public press of the country, and that pubic press the Republican press. I want to say to the Senator that it has proven too unreliable in the past, and I don't take it as such authority upon which the General Assembly of the State should act in this matter. I want to say, further, as I said the other day, that for two years Govornor Porter, has Governor of the State, was vested by the statute with authority to make this investigation at any time, and having failed to make that investigation it illy becomes any Senator upon this floor to hold him up as authority why his investigation should be made. And I will repeat that at the time Treasurer Cooper came into possession of this office, the authority upon which the Senator from Lake professes to make this investigation had an advisory talk with the State Treasurer and urged him to follow in the footsteps of his predecessors in reference to the State funds and not to withdraw them from the banks of the city. And in addition I will say now that Governor Porter at that time was a director of one of the banks, and in that bank the Treasurer had kept part of the funds of the State of Indiana; hence the Governor was interested in having these funds kept there. He said it would destroy the credit nd cripple the business interests of the city to have the State's money withdrawn from the banks of the city.
We have sought to avoid an exposure of this conversation between Governor Porter and the Treasurer of State, but in view of the insinuations that have come to us from the Republican side of this chamber that we are wishing to smother the investigation of this office, we have felt called upon to show our position by revealing this conversation and I feel that I betray no confidence in thus relieving the pressure upon the Democratic side of the house form the insinuations made by the Senator from Lake. I advocate as much care over the people of the State, her funds and finances as any Senator upon this floor, and I don't wish any Republican Senator to impugn my motives in moving that this resolution be passed. I stand upon the Democratic side of this chamber, and I believe we are more interested in this matter than the Republicans are. If there is any dereliction of duty on the part of the Treasurer of State we want to know it. We want to wash our hands and leave our skirts clear form screening that officer for neglect of duty. When the opposite side seek to impugn our motives we have a right to resent that imputation. As the Republican side, through the Senator from Lake, has had its say and I have spoken in behalf of the Democratic side, I hope, of this Chamber, I demand the previous question.
SEVERAL SENATORS: I hope you will not do that.
Mr. HILLIGASS: I will withdraw it.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks: I shall vote in favor of this resolution. When a resolution
was before the Senate a few days ago providing for an investigation into the office of
State Treasurer, I doubted the propriety of such resolution. I doubt the right of any
Senator to inquire into the action of any public officer of State, because I re
Believing an investigation if carried out in good faith according to the terms of this resolution, will bring before this Senate and Legislature information we desire, and that it will report to us the condition of the Treasury, and the manner in which the funds have been kept; and having the utmost faith in the management of the State's funds by the officers in charge, I shall vote for this resolution, and hope every member of the Senate will do likewise. Let us have an investigation wherever the law authorizes it. Let us know what is done with the people's moeny as far as the law enables us to inquire into it.
Mr. DUNCAN, of Tipton, moved to amend the House concurent resolution by adding thereto the following:
"And such committee shall have the authority to send for persons and papers, administer oaths to witnesses, have access to all books, papers, vouchers and documents in posession of the Treasurer of State that pertain to the business of said officer and shall make full and thorough investigation of the condition of the State Treasury"
It was agreed to without a division.
Mr. MAY moved to reconsider the vote just taken.
This motion was rejected by yeas, 12; nays, 30
Pending the roll call -
Mr. MAGEE said: I believe the law is very defective relating to the office of Treasurer of State. I can see no harm to come from an investigation, therefore I shall vote against the motion to reconsider the amendment of the Senator from Tipton. I vote no.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings, when his name was called, said: I don't believe it is right to investigate any public officer unless sufficient charges have been preferred against him by a properly constituted tribunal. I don't believe it is right then to investigate the conduct of any public officer upon mere rumor. The resolution first introduced in the Senate was vague in its character; it had not the merits of a bill of discovery, because in that kind of an instrument you have to set out the character of the evidence you intend to discover, and for that reason I voted against the resolution of the Senator from Wayne (Mr. Foulke).
I am willing to vote for an investigation of the Treasurer of State, or any other
officer of State, when the investigation is placed upon foot by proper machinery and
contain specific charges, such as an intelligent man may base an investigation upon. This
whole matter is predicated upon a message of a Governor of the State, wherein he by
implication, charges that there is something wrong in the office of Treasurer of State. We
have heard that message read, and we heave read it since it was delivered, and I am
willing to say that the facts stated by the Governor of Indiana upon the occasion do not
justify the conclusion that he drew in his message. I would not investigate anybody upon
such a charge. The charge, it seems to me, grew out of something existing behind it -
something that had malice in it; something of the character that plainly shows the people
of Indiana that Albert G. Porter and John J. Cooper have had a personal difficulty, and in
order to assail him in a message to th General Assembly he did it under cover of a claim
that he was doing justice to the people of Indiana by calling their attention to an
existing fact; and then to make it appear that he was fair and not charging an officer
with something that did not exist, and that were was no other motive behind, he casts over
another officer of State a great lot of taffy and dresses
Mr. SMITH, of Jay, when his name was called, said: The Governor says to the General Assembly that there should be an investigation of the State finances. Whether that statement is founded upon mere suspicion or upon actual knowledge I do not know. If the Governor had said there in fact did exist some trouble I would vote for this resolution and amendment; but as he simply casts a suspicion I don't intend to vote for the amendment, and I vote "aye."
Mr. WILLARD, when his name was called, said: The resolution, as it comes from the House, provides for an investigation as to whether Governor Porter was correct in the charge he made against Mr. Cooper. In order to have an investigation that amounts to anything, that committee must have power to send for persons and papers to investigate both. I don't believe in dodging. I believe in saying, in plain language, that it is necessary to investigate Governor Porter at the same time. I believe in going to the bottom of it. I don't propose to have it go out to the people of the State I was afraid to have a Democratic officer of State investigated. [Applause.] The Senator from Jennings says the result of adopting this amendment will be that the House of Representatives will kill the resolution. I say, if there is to be any responsibility for killing this investigation let it rest with the House; the Senate will be cleared of it. Therefore, I vote "no."
Mr. MAY: I was in the chair when my name was called, and I want to say that I made this motion to reconsider from the fact that there seemed to be some disposition to, and in order that there might be a free expression of sentiment upon this subject. I believe if we are going to investigate, it ought to be a full and a fair investigation. While I am of opinion that the Governor in his message has said nothing sufficient to warrant an investigation, yet, as the two branches of the General Assembly have determined to have an investigation, I want a full, free and fair investigation. For that reason I am in favor of the resolution.
The vote was then announced as above recorded, so the motion to reconsider was rejected.
On motion by Mr. FOULKE the House concurrent resolution as amended was adopted by yeas 41, nays 2. He also moved to reconsider the vote just taken, and to lay that motion on the table.
The latter motion was agreed to, and then Senate adjourned.
Mr. TAYLOR, from the Committee On Rights and Privileges, returned Mr. Townsend's bill (H. R. 99) to abolish all distinctions of race and color with a recommendation that it be indefinitely postponed.
Mr. GOODING moved that it be recommitted to the Committee on Judiciary.
Mr. TOWNSEND I am decidedly interested in that bill. I am interested in it all, the more because it does not affect only the 42,000 colored people in this State, but it affects a large class of white citizens as well, and before the recommitment of that bill I should be very glad to be favored with the opportunity of making some remarks in reference to the bill, and I think I would be able to show most conclusively that the colored people of this state are discriminated against.
Mr. BROWNING: I can not see any reason why this bill should be recommitted. The only right the colored people do not, possess is the right to be members of the State Militia. That is a constitutional provision which can not be reached by a bill of this character. The only right which is not already guaranteed is the right of amalgamation, and I am opposed to giving them that right.
Mr. TOWNSEND: That is just the a attitude I assume upon this question. I take the position that the law as it now stands, does discriminate, both against the white and black.
The motion to recommit was agreed to.
Mr. McHENRY'S bill [H. R. 51 to provide for the election of County School Superintendents at the general election of 1886, and that they first secure a teacher' license from the State Board of Education, was reported back with an amendment that the time of the first election be in 1887.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe, offered an amendment requiring the County Superintendents to hold special professional license, instead of teacher's license. He said: There is a great demand for an elevation in the standard of County Superintendents, and with this demand I believe the license proposed would be one of the highest incentives that was ever offered to any young man to press forward and secure it. We would find in every county in the State ten, fifteen or twenty young men applying for this license.
Mr. PATTON: I think the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tippecanoe is nothing more than fair, and should be adopted.
Mr. FRENCH offered a substitute striking out all referring to the qualifications of the County Superintendents. He said: I have had some experience as a County Superintendent, and I have had the pleasure of knowing a good many County Superintendents of this State. The gentleman [Mr. Smith] seems to think we need a bill requiring County Superintendents to have particular qualifications. I think the County Superintendents now are of a high standard, and that they are constantly raising the standard of education. The amendment means to knock it out of politics. I have heard no clamor from the people on this subject; I have seen no memorials requesting that the County Superintendents be specially qualified, and I don't think the people are demanding it.
Mr. LOYD: I have the good fortune to represent a county that has always been competent under the existing laws to select her own County Superintendents. I belong to a county that ranks among the first counties of the State in education interests. Our County Superintendents have been taken from among the teachers of the county. They have given satisfaction, and we have always been equal to the emergency and have elected good ones. Therefore I shall oppose any class of legislation that will put a restraint upon the people of any county. They have given satisfaction, and we have always been equal to the emergancy and have elected good ones. Therefore I shall oppose any class of legislation that will put a restraint upon the people of any county telling them what kind of a superintendent they shall have Under our present laws, Indiana has advanced to the position as foremost State in the Union in education. Therefore our system is and must be a wise one and I shall always oppose any bill which shall compel a County Superintendent to have special professional license.
Mr. WILSON: I hope the substitute of the gentleman from Posey [Mr. French] will not pass While much has been said on the common school system, t does seem to me a little strange that teacher sin the common schools who are now compelled by law to be examined before entering the school, are compelled to be examined by men who are not fitted for that position by education.
Mr. McMULLEN: I think it is a recognized fact that the different professions are always reaching out for more power. We find the doctors, the lawyers and the school teachers continually reaching out for more power and taking away from the people. We never hear of a court of limited jurisdiction; doctors and school teachers are similar in that respect. I am opposed to delegating the rights of the people to a few men. The people have a right to say who shall be their Superintendent as much as any other body has to appoint their own officers. Our school Superintendents rank with the school Superintendents of any other State. The people are not going to elect anybody who don't know anything the duties or is not fitted for the office County School Superintendent. I am in favor of the substitute.
The substitute was adopted, and the bill was ordered engrossed for the third reading.
Mr. Deem's bill [H. R. 39] to authorize County Commissioners to make provisions for pauper children, comping up on the second reading with a favorable report thereon -
Mr. TAYLOR moved that the Superintendent of County Asylums be required to send the pauper children to school.
Mr. ADAMS: I don't think this is a wise motion. If the Superintendent of County Asylums would do this he would overflow all the public schools in that vicinity. It would be an unjust burden on the schools.
Mr. HARRELL: There is a law upon the statute book which requires the Board of Commissioners of each county to see that all the children in these poor asylums, of sound mind, be put in the charge of a matron and be provided with a house and lot,a nd that she has to see that they are properly sent to the county schools of the county. The law as it now stands on the statute book fixes a home for the pauper children. I think the amendment to the law is unnecessary, therefore I am opposed to it.
I find this trouble the county where I live: That we have not a sufficient number of pauper children to require the employment of a matron. I expect this is the condition of half the counties in the State. Therefore I am in favor of the amendment.
Mr. TAYLOR: This amendment was instigated simply by what I was informed to be the condition of things in my own county. I have prepared my amendment to cover those wants. As the gentleman from Owen has said, we know that Superintendants of the county poor have only two or three or four children under their charge, and a county does not care to go expense of building asylums for so few children. The children are only there for a few months, and where is the necessity of making the county build asylums for taking care of only two or three or four children? This amendment is to require the Board of Commissioners to compel these Superintendants of County Asylums to do their duty. In our county it is a growing shame that has not been done. It has been remarked that the children have school privileges. That is true when they have guardians or parents who are human. But this amendment is for the protection of children who have no parents or guardians or protectors.
Mr. DEEM: Gentleman are laboring under a misapprehension as to what this bill means. The object of the bill is to relieve the school districts where these children are in asylums, whether in the Poor House or under the care of a matron. Thew hole object is to authorize the Boards of Commissioners when in their judgment it is necessary, to make provision for the education of pauper children.
The amendment was agreed to, and the bill ordered engrossed for the third reading.
The Senate was not in session.
Mr. MURPHY offered a concurrent resolution, which was adopted, instructing Senators and requesting Representatives in Congress from Indiana to use their influence to secure pensions and bounties to soldiers in in the late war, so as to earn the gratitude of soldiers who fought in the Union army.
Mr. McMullen's bill, R. R. 125, being read the second time with a favorable committee report thereon -
I will state that this video for but one change - allowing appeals to the Circuit Court from the Board of Equalization. The question as to whether it is meritorious bill is not to be considered now.
The bill was ordered engrossed.
Mr. Williams 7 per cent. interest bill [H. R. 146] being read the second time -
Mr. BROWNING moved to strike out "seven" and insert "eight" in lieu.
Mr. WILLIAMS: That would be folly That is the statute as it now stands. My bill proposes to reduce the contract rate of interest from 8 per cent to 7. There is room for only two opinions: Either the rate ought to be reduced, or it ought to remain as it is. In fairness to that class of people who are demanding a reduction in the rate of interest the bill ought to pass. I move to lay the amendment on the table.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. PLEASANTS moved to strike out the word "seven" and insert in lieu thereof the word "six"
Mr. SMITH of Tippecanoe: This begins to look not like a bill to regulate the price of money, but to drive all the money out of the State. There are a few men on this floor whose districts are absolutely flooded with money; and where there are men going around crying money to loan at 6 per cent., and find no takers. But I have never been in those districts. TO-day I have been looking over a schedule of the rate of interest in several States, and we have just as low as any other State.
Mr. CARTWRIGHT made an ineffectual motion to lay the amendment on the table.
Mr. WILLIAMS: I am sorry amendments have been offered to this bill; either to complicate
it, or to make an occasion for members put themselves on record in favor of a lower rate of
interest. Six per cent. is too much of a reduction. I am certain this clamor for a
reduction of interest will be satisfied with a 7 per cent. rate. The fact that these
galleries are filled from time to time with laboring men is not because there is a
financial depression in our cities. It is known there is depression in every class of
trade; in all manufacturing establishments, and in every city throughout the length and
breadth of the land. It has been said that this bill ought to be entitled a bill to drive
capital out of the State. Gentleman, that is the same cry made when the bill was introduced
to reduce the contract rate of interests from 10 to 8 per cent. It was said no money would
remain in Indiana. These objectors were false prophets. No money-lender in the State of
Indiana took
Mr. PLEASANTS: I offered the amendment to reduce the contract rate of interest from 7 to 6 per cent in perfect good faith. I believe the time has come when interest can very well be reduced to 6 per cent. I know a large amount of money lying idle, and if the rate is reduced to 6 per cent, there would be much more money borrowed.
Mr. BROWNING: I hope this amendment will not prevail. A very strong reason against it is that there are places where money will command more than 6 per cent. Then we have a large school fund loaned 7 per cent., and this bill would reduce the rate on the school fund. If money from outside of the State can be had at 6 per cent, the income from the school fund should not be reduced by the passage of such a bill as the one under consideration. The worst thing we can do for the laboring man would be to reduce the rate of interest to 6 per cent.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippacanoe: Will the fixing of the rate of interest at 6 or 7 per cent. bring back prosperity to the country? Do manufacturers turn men out of employment because it is a question of 6 or 7 per cent.? The cry is not for a reduction of the rate of interests to 6 per cent. I am willing to leave the rate as it stands upon the statute. Two years ago, when I made a motion to make the rate of interest 7 per cent., the gentleman from Knox (Mr. Williams) was the first man to move to lay it on the table.
Mr. MOODY: It seems to me that the gentlemen in the discussion of this question lose sight of one material fact, th supply and demand. An amendment to fix the contract rate rate of interest at 6 per cent. would kill the bill, and it seems to me now is a good time to test the sense of the House on this question as ny other time. It seems to me the law on the subject of interest in this Sate is one of the very best that could be enacted, which provides for a contract rate of 8 per cent. Of course if there is plenty of money to be had it can be borrowed at 6 per cent. But just as sure as a 6 per cent. law is passed money would leave our State, and instead of such a measure assisting the poor man he would be unable to borrow money at all. I am opposed to the amendment.
Mr. REEVES: I am in favor of getting as low a rate as can be had, but I don't believe it would be best to pass a law reducing the rate of interest in this State to 6 per cent. To say the least, 6 per cent is a very low rate of interest. It is claimed that such a reduction would be for the benefit of the poor man. That may be true in one sense, b that class of men are much more interested in general business prosperity of the country than in borrowing a small amount of money at a low rate of interest. A reduction of the rate from 8 to 6 per cent. would disturb the business of the State. A great deal of the business of our State is done on borrowed capital. If I thought business interests would not be shaken by I would be in favor of the amendment. I do not fear a reduction to 7 per cent., but I do fear a reduction to 6 per cent.
Mr. KELLISON: I am not in favor of the amendment. It would be an injury to the business interests of the State. There are thousands of mortgages falling due soon and it would be absolutely impossible to renew their loans unless the lenders could get more than 6 per cent. To the borrowing class it would be a positive injury. And while I would be in favor of reducing the rate to 6 per cent. if it would not drive money away from the State to places more favorable, yet I believe at this time it would be a bad step to take. I am not quite sure but that am in favor of letting the interest law remain as it is at the present, until a higher authority than the Legislature of Indiana has regulated this difficulty and brought ust he remedy - until the $400 000 000 of money now rusting in the United States Treasury is set free and sent into the business channels of this country
Mr. RIVERS: I am in favor of this amendment. The fact is at the rate of 8 per cent. at the present time is not giving employment to the workingmen of this country. There is a desire to give them employment. There is money not loaned because the business men of the coutnry can not afford to pay 8 per cent., why not reduce the rate to 6 per cent.? There is some remedy for the present business stagnation, and that remedy is to reduce the rate to 6 per cent. Farms can't afford to pay 8 per cent, and therefore for these, among other reasons, I am in favor of reducing the rate.
Mr. ROBINSON: My recollection is that when the law was changed from 10 to 8 per cent. the
same arguments were used by the gentlemen who opposed the reduction that are now being
used. I desire in my humble capacity to stand for the people of this State, and I am in
favor of the reduction of the rate of interest. I do not believe a reduction will drive
from our State money so we can not secure it. I believe the price of our products and the
price of our labor have been reduced fully 2 per cent. within the past four years, so that
6 per cent. fully represents 8 per cent. four years ago. The cry from the opposition to the
reduction is what we can not borrow on the on the proposed reduction, but I undertake to
say money holders do not loan money unless they obtain good collateral. They require first
mortgages on real estate. In just to the laboring men of Indiana I insist the rate of
interest ought to be reduced. Labor and capital are represented as joint partners. The rate
of interest has
Mr. SMITH, of Warrick: It seems to me we ought to reduce the rate of interest on moneys to 6 per cent. TO do justice to the mass of the people, let us make the reduction. I am decidedly in favor of the amendment.
Mr. BOYD: Just at this time I think we can reduce the rate 1 per cent., because Eastern capitalists are only asking 7 per cent. for their money here in Indiana. I think we can safely enact a law reducing the rate to 7 per cent., but it would be fully to reduce it to 6 per cent. I would favor voting down this amendment.
Mr. DITTEMORE demanded the previous question, which was seconded by the House, and under its operations the amendment was agreed to by yeas, 39; nays 33.
The bill was ordered engrossed for the third reading by yeas, 60; nays, 12.
The President pro tem. [Mr. Magee] announced the special order being his New Insane Asylum Equipment bill [S. 65], and called the Senator from Jay [Mr. Smith] to the chair.
The amendments reported by the Committee on Public Buildings [see page - of the Brevier Reports] being read -
Mr. MAGEE repeated the history of the legislation which resulted in the passage of the bill last session providing for the erection of three new insane asylums, designed to take care of about 1,200 persons and expected to be ready for occupancy between the months of September and December, 1886. According to the census of 1880 thee are 3,542 insane persons int he State. One thousand four hundred twenty are now at the main hospital near Indianapolis and the others are not subject to any hospital treatment. From 1850 to 1880 the population increased two to one, while the insane ratio increased six to one. Indiana has a less ratio of hospital treatment than any State in the Union, and spends less money for the care and treatment of the insane than any other State in the Union. it has been uniform rule that at insane asylums the cost is about $1,000 per patient. It will cost in this State something less than $900 for each patient to be taken care of. Indiana is a wealthy State and able to make this expenditure. The State debt does not exceed the debt of Marion County very much, and her valuation is 100 per cent more than that of this county. Two years ago no man thought to object that it was ill advised. We went before the people last year, and not a single newspaper or citizen raised his voice in condemnation of the General Assembly for making the appropriation for this purpose. If this bill be opposed on the ground that we ought not to expend the money under the present condition of business affairs, that objection can be met with the statement that we have more taxables than ever, as the next assessment will show and the increased revenue at the present rate of taxation will complete these buildings for the care of the most pitiable and sorrowful condition of human helplessness. If the completion of these buildings is postponed over two, three or four years, all the work that has been done will all be lost. The brick, lumber and tile on the grounds are perishable property. The contractors have entered on their work, and it is not to be considered for a moment that this General Assembly will break the faith of form General Assemblies.
One reason why these buildings were located in different parts of the State was that if fire should overtake one there would be another asylum which could afford protection. Only the other day an insane asylum at Kankakee, Ill, was destroyed by fire. [Reads a letter from the Superintendent of the Indiana Insane Asylum, stating that institution to be without protection from fire and urging legislative remedy.] These buildings ought to be completed as rapidly as possible. If the insane increase as rapidly in the future as they have the past twenty years we will have to build one or two more.
Mr. FOWLER moved to amend the bill so as to appropriate a sufficient sum to complet5e but
one of these insane asylums ready
The sum total that these three institutions shall cost is put down at $1,213,785 09. Twelve hundred thousand dollars and over is proposed to be appropriated now in the short space of year for the erection of these three Insane Asylum. A detailed estimate of essentials not yet contracted for is put down at $263,500. That is the amount not contracted for, and nobody will be injured if this Legislature fails to make an appropriation for that sum of money, because nobody has taken a contract for any part of it. IT is shown by the report of the Commissioners that the amount of liabilities for which contracts have been entered into and no appropriations made amounts to $324,386.34; $418,386.34 will enable the Commissioners to carry out the contracts already entered into and complete one of these institutions ready for occupancy by the time the next General Assembly well meet, and leave the session to provide for the reception of inmates and finish the other two.
This will make a difference between the amount asked to be appropriated by this bill - $683 800, and the amount appropriated, $418,386 34 - $265,413 61 - a difference of nearly one half.
Mr. President, can we do more than this; can we appropriate this immense sum of money without raising the taxes eighteen or twenty cents on the $100, or borrowing the money to complete these buildings, or to carry on the State Government or maintain the existing charities of he State? Many other appropriations must be made, ought to be made, they must be made. The State Government must be provided for. The insane under treatment must be provided for. The deaf, the blind, the soldiers' orphans and feeble-minded are asking and must have aid for their support and education. The penal and reformatory institutions must be looked to, and their needs provided for. Our colleges and universities are knocking at the door of this General Assembly, asking aid and a generous support. This Legislation will be required to appropriate money for other necessities and charities - can we make all these vast appropriations and be just and faithful to those who bear the heat and burden of the day; who eat their bread in the sweat of their brow, and toll on, day after day, with the promise and a hope that these burdens, which are growing heavier as the years roll on, will soon begin to lighten? But each year they see the accumulation of taxes, promises broken, and additional privations of the necessaries of life, and beggary, poverty and wretchedness are found just around the corner, while we sit here unmindful of destitution everywhere, and vote away fabulous sums of money with a cruel and unsparing hand to be unjustly and oppressively swung from the taxpayers of the State to gratify the desires and ambitions of these sections or localities. Can we vote this appropriation without being unfaithful to a confiding cinstituency, without adding sorrow and oppression to the cup which is already full to overflowing.
If you make this appropriation how do you propose to get the money? If you get it by taxation you must raise the tax levy to 18 or 20 cents on the $100 Nobody believes that ought to be done. But if you don't do that you must borrow the money. And it is not the thing to borrow the money. And it is not the thing to borrow money to build houses with, unless they are absolutely necessary. it would be reckless extravagance,a nd would be unfaithfulness to the people of Indiana to levy another mill of tax upon the already heavy burden of taxation they now pay.
[The Senate took a recess of twenty minutes to hear United States. Senator Voorhees address the House of Representatives.]
In conversation yesterday with Judge Robinson, one of the Insane Asylum Commissioners, he said it was his deliberative judgment that the Legislature ought to provide for the completion of these institutions; that there ought to be an appropriation made sufficient to carry on the work so the buildings would not damage, but there should be an appropriation made for the completion of one only. No Senator would vote more cheerfully for the appropriation asked for if necessary and the Treasury was in a condition to bear it, but the three asylums are unnecessary, and the necessity will not warrant raising the money, either by taxation or by borrowing.
Mr. BROWN moved to refer the bill to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. WILLARD: I believe it will be conceded that the bill for the creation of three new
insane asylums had no firmer friend than myself, nor do I feel disposed to stop their
erection by failing to vote appropriations: but I desire to call attention to the fact that
the committee reporting this bill may perhaps feel a lively interest in secur
Mr. HILLIGASS: It will be remembered that I heartily supported the measure to erect one insane asylum, but when there was coupled with that a proposition to erect two additional asylums; my vote stands recorded against. We are in the attitude of a man crossing a stream, we have got in the middle and can not now recede. In the light of the statistics of the State of Indiana, as shown in the census report of 1880, it is necessary that we complete these asylums. I stand ready to support the measure now to support the measure now to continue this work to its completion. I don't believe, in view of the authority granted by the last Legislature, that we can honorably recede from these contracts. In view of the statement that there is now some 2,000 insane people in the county asylums, and provided for by their friends, and the necessity of better provision being made this class of people, I will favor this bill going to the engrossment, with the understanding that there is to be some provision made, and made at once, by which these funds can be secured, either by a loan at not to exceed 3 per cent., or else provide in a bill for a benevolent fund.
Mr. MAGEE: I don't know why this bill should to the Committee on Finance. The Committee on Public Buildings simply reported this bill back, changing nothing except to cut down the appropriation for the maintenance of these asylums. The Finance Committee has no information outside of general information. That committee can shed no new light upon this question. I do not want this bill to become law if it will bankrupt the State or interfere with the business interests of the State.
Mr. YOUCHE: I live in a county that has no direct interest in this matter. I voted two years ago in favor of building three additional insane asylums and I shall now support the bill that has been brought forward and recommended by the Committee on Public Buildings. I don't think it is right that this matter should be referred to another committee. It is a most singular proceeding.
Mr. RAHM: This bill was referred to the Committee on Public Buildings simply to find out whether it was right and proper we should report in favor of making these appropriations; whether the money was needed and whether the buildings were in such condition that they ought to completed or not. We looked over the matter; there were eight Senators on that committee, and everyone of those eight have signed the report recommending that the bill do pass.
Mr. THOMPSON (interposing): My name was signed to the report, but I was mistaken in the bill and the amount of money appropriated.
Mr. RAHM: Only seven members were present, and after all signed it I went to Senator Thompson and he objected to the bill. I told him we had cut down the sum for maintenance $160,000 and under the circumstances he signed the bill. Of course if he was mistaken he can withdraw his name.
Mr. THOMPSON: I did not look at the bill. I signed the report under a misunderstanding.
Mr. RAHM: We have taken an oath to support the Constitution of the State as Senators, and it is our duty to provide for these unfortunate people. We know there are 2,000 insane persons unprovided for in the State. We can complete these asylums now as well as at any other time. The foundations are begun and there are millions of brick on the grounds, beside lumber and other materials. It is true the State can stop the buildings by refusing to make appropriations, but the contractors were led to believe the work would go ahead, and if it is stopped it will bankrupt every one of them, I think we can go before our constitutions and defend our action in voting for this bill. I venture to say there is not a single man on this floor in the other House, who is instructed to oppose the finishing or the building of these asylums. We need them, and they should be finished without delay. If we can't do it by taxation in ore two years, let us borrow the money, and if we can't get it at 3 1/2 percent., I don't care if we pay more. it is our duty to build them now. It is not right to recommit the bill to the Committee on Finance. We want to decide first whether we will build them, and then it is the duty of the Committee on Ways and Means to make the necessary provisions for the money. There is no use to delay the matter; let us have a fair and square vote upon it.
The motion to refer the bill to the Committee on Finance was rejected by yeas, 11; nays, 30
The following message was received by the Senate from Governor Gray:
The lot on which the Indiana State Normal School building is situated was formerly the Vigo County Seminary lot, and was on July 30, 1853, under and pursuant to an act of the General Assembly, approved June 12, 1858, sold by the Auditor and Treasurer of Vigo County to the Common School Corporation of the city of Terre Haute, the purchase money to be payable in ten annual installments, as provided by the statute.
On March 22, 1867, the city of Terre Haute executed its note for the balance of the principal and interest of the purchase money owing for said lot by the school corporation of the city of Terre Haute, to the county of Vigo for the use of the school fund.
Th County Auditor, on the order of the Commissioners of Vigo County, executed a deed to the city of Terre Haute for said lot, and the city conveyed the lot to the Trustees of the State normal School as a part of the donation to secure the location of Normal School at that city, and in which donation the School Trustees of the city of Terre Haute joined.
In 188[] the State, on the relation of the Attorney General, for the use of the school fund, instituted a suit on the nete against the city of Terre Haute in the Vigo Superior Court. The city demurred to the complaint, and the demurrer was sustained. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court, by which the judgement of the Court below was affirmed. The Court above held that the city of Terre Haute had no power to make the alleged purchase of the seminary lot, nor did it have the power to bind itself by the promissory notes given.
Therefore, the city had no title to the seminary lot when it made a deed for the same to the Trustees of the Normal School, nor the power to make such donation if it did have the title.
It seems to be well settled that municipal corporations have no power to make donations of corporate property, and certainly that School Trustees have no no power to make a donation of property held by them in trust for school purposes.
The equitable title to the lot is in the common school corporation of the city of Terre Haute, and the State has no title to the ground on which the Indiana State Normal School Building stands.
The matter is submitted to you for such examination and action as your judgment may demand. A communication similar to this has been transmitted to the House of Representatives.
It was referred to a special committee.
And then the Senate adjourned.
Speaker JEWETT announced that the session would be opened with prayer by Rev. E.S. Frazee, Representative from the county of Rush.
The journal was dispensed with.
The following described bills were introduced, read the first time and severally referred to appropriate committees.
By Mr. PLEASANTS [H. R. 248] to prohibit druggists from selling liquor in larger quantities than a quart without keeping an account of it. By Mr. SMITH, of Perry [H. R. 249], to establish provisions for private corporations.
By Mr. McCLELLAND [H. R. 250] to provide for the incorporation of railway companies.
By Mr. HARGRAVE [H. R. 251] concerning the relocation of towns.
By Mr. HARGRAVE [H. R. 252] concerning taxation, designating land exempt from taxation.
By Mr. GORDON [H. R. 253] concerning highways and supervisors thereof.
By Mr. GORDON [H. R. 254] concerning highways and supervisors thereof.
By Mr. ENGLE [H. R. 255] concerning proceedings in criminal cases.
By mr. ENGLE [H. R. 256] concerning public offenses and their punishment.
By Mr. FRAZEE [H. R. 257] to enable owners of land to drain it
By Mr. HOBAN [H. R. 258] to provide for the repair of abandoned turnpikes.
By Mr. HOBAN [H. R. 259] to permit seining in rivers where the fish due during the summer.
By Mr. BEST [H. R. 260] to fix the salary of certain officers of the State.
By Mr. BEST [. R. 261] to regulate the taxation of dogs.
By Mr. - [H. R. 262] to provide for a State Board of Health.
By Mr. PATTEN [H. R. 263] relating to attorney's fees.
By Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe, [H. R. 264] relating to drawing, etc., in public schools.
By Mr. OSBORN [H. R. 265] concerning the manufacture and selling of iron to corporations.
By Mr. HAWORTH [H. R. 266] concerning highways and supervisors thereof.
By Mr. PRUITT [H. R. 267] to prevent the stealing of horses and mules.
By Mr. MURPHY [H. R. 268] to provide for the inspection of steal boilers.
Pending the introduction of bills -
The Speaker announced the following committee on the part of the House to investigate that portion of the Governor's message referring to the State Treasurer, viz: Messrs. Patten, McMullen, Gooding, Sayre and Brownlee.
At half past three o'clock Senator Voorhees, ex-Senator McDonald, Hon. William H.
English and Secretary of State Myers appeared upon the floor of the House entering by the
cloak-room, and their coming was the signal for a general clapping of hands, nearly all the
members rising to their feet. A resolution, which had evidently been prepared before the
coming of the distinguished Senator, was sent up and read by the Clerk, asking for a
committee to invite Senator Voorhees to address the body at 4 o'clock. As he was
already present, the Speaker said the appointment of the committee would be dispensed with.
The Senators at this time en
GENTLEMEN OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF INDIANA, AND LADIES AND GENTLEMEN
- It was with no purpose to interrupt your proceedings except for a few moments that I have
called this afternoon to pay my respects to you. I did so earnestly desire to look upon
this Legislature that I could not withstand the temptation to cross the mountains and see
you together as I saw most of you singly during the recent canvass of the State.
I desire to renew my acquaintance so pleasantly made at that time, and to embrace the opportunity to express, as far as in the feeble power of words to express, the gratitude of my heart for your generous confidence in your recent action. I have been now for a number of years one of the representatives of the State of Indiana in the highest representative position she has to give. I can claim but one merit, and that, I believe, the people have granted, and that is that i have aimed under all circumstances, earnestly, and without evasion or reservation, to stand by the interests of the people of Indiana as I understood them. And in saying this I can speak without partisanship or lines of thought, for I can appeal to the searcher of our hearts that no man, woman or child of any party or of any complexion of politics or religion, or even race and color, has ever applied to me for anything within my power to grant in the way of assistance that I have failed to respond to the best of my ability.
To my political friends on this occasion I tender my sincere heartfelt thanks; to my political opponents I have non but the best wishes and the utmost kinds to express.
The public man who expects to be successful must at least be faithful to the people. I think we are prone to underrate the perception or intelligence of the people: and how quickly they understand whether a man is in earnest upon their aide or not. When this Government was founded the great question prevailing in the minds of thousands of men was whether a government of the people could stand; whether a government could be based upon the intelligence and the virtue of the people unrestrained by kingly authority of power. It was a question yet unsolved in this history of men but it has been solved in favor of the theories of our great Revolutionary ancestors. We have reached a period when it behooves us to look closely to the issues which will begin appearing; issues which involve the power and right to the power on the one hand, and the pretentions of corporate powers, monopolists, upon the other. In contests like these I shall stand as i have heretofore, to the best of my knowledge and ability, on the side of the laboring masses of the country, in the fields labor all the prosperity of this Nation is involved. The laboring interests of the country are to be cared for, and when I speak of these I speak with not the sligtest design of arraying, even in thought, the interests of labor and wealth, because in the business interests of this country lies the prosperity of the laboring man. The business interests of this country in the broadest sense embracing finance, revenue, and all kindred interests are connected intimately with the prosperity of the laboring man; and the wise man, the faithful man in public position, is truest to his trust when he does not make hostile issues between different classes of industry and wealth but tries to harmonize them and consequently increase the prosperity of the country. I will not proceed into any extended remarks that I might make upon this and kindred thoughts. One word, however, for our great and glorious State. You have in keeping here the interests of the greatest State, according to area and population, that lies under the American flag. Indiana is not of the large States in territory, not one of the large States in acreage or in square miles, but she ranks alongside of those who the largest in the American Union. In point of diversified interests, agricultural products, manufacture resources and products, as well as educational advantages, Indiana is second to no State.
In the last thirty years she has made more progress in educating her people, spent more money per capita, according the number of men, women and children in her territory, than any other State in the Union or any other Commonwealth on the globe.
I am not a States-right man in the sense of those who once believed that a State has right to break its relations with its Union. I never held such a thought in my breast; but at the same time, I have the keenest possible State pride in the State that I represent in the Senate of the United States, and I appreciate the continued compliment which this great State has bestowed upon me. You are the law-makers you legislate for future wealth and future prosperity and happiness, and you have wanted me to work with you in the seat of the General Government in doing my duty there. I can only say that I renew the vows that I took upon myself, when something more than seven years ago I took the oath of office to serve these people faithfully and well. Here in your presence now I renew these vows, that if life and health are granted me by the beneficient Providence for the next six years, I shall serve the interests of this State faithfully and well to the best of my ability.
At the conclusion of Senator Voorhees' remarks loud calls were made for McDonald, and he responded as follows:
GENTLEMEN OF THE LEGISLATURE OF INDIANA - came here to join with you in
paying our respects to our distinguished Senator-elect, and not to undertake to address
you.l But, gentlemen, when Senator Vorhees referred to Indiana I knew it would be cold day
when Daniel W. Vorhees could not speak a good word for Indiana, and it would be cold day
that I would not willing listen to him, not for a brief time, but for any length of time,
in discussing that subject. I am glad, fellow-citizens, that my fortunes have been cast in
this State, where I have lived now for over fifty-five years, and hope to live the balance
my days. One word I may say in addition to while Indiana is one of the most prosperous
States in the Union, she has within her limits the largest proportion of homesteads and
family homes of any State in the Union. We do not have large domains held by single
persons; but farms or homes of honest industry, of independent American industry, ar found
all over our State. When we have a political contest, it is no boy's play. Our
political adversaries are worthy of our steel, and sometimes they are able to vanquish us
and take away the prize, but when the battle is over we are friends together and citizens
of the State of Indiana. Let me make one suggestion to you, that, perhaps, has not come
into your minds with reference to the late political contest that has secured for my
distinguished friend the seat in the United States Senate, and that is that proportion to
its voting population than any State in the Union. [Applause.] I am speaking by the book,
for according to the statistics, well authenticated, of the entire possible vote in Indiana
of every man who is qualified under the constitution and laws of our State to vote, we
voted within 7 per cent. of that whole voting population. While no other State came
anywhere near to us. Ohio was next; she lacked but 12 per cent. West Virgina followed her
and many States did not cast but half their votes. The returns show that while we were busy
our adversaries were busy also, and every bush in the State of Indiana was shaken for
Now, my friends, I have spoken longer than I intended to do, so I thank you kindly.
Hon. William H. English was then called for. He said it was not his wish to make a speech. That he had attended only for the purpose of hearing our big-hearted and big-brained Senator, Daniel W. Voorhees. H said that in attributing these characteristics to his friend Voorhees, he did not wish to be understood as speaking disparagingly of our other Senator, as he considered Senator Harrison a gentleman of ability and thought that Indiana, as a whole, could afford to be proud of the ability of her representatives in the Unite States Senate.
The House adjourned.
Mr FAULKNER, from the Committee on Federal Relations, returned Mr. May's resolution instructing and requesting Indiana Congressman to use their influence in favor of legislation amply providing for soldiers of the Mexican War [see page 31 of the Brevier Reports] with a recommendation that it be amended so as to insert the words "except Jefferson Davis," etc, etc
Lieutenant Governor MANSON: I am sorry the Committee on Federal Relations has honored Jefferson Davis by mentioning his name at all in the report.
Mr. MAY: That is my resolution. The amendment was proposed by Republican members of the committee, as I understand it, and without objection on my part.
Mr. WILLARD moved to amend by adding these words: "Provided, however, hits shall not apply to Jefferson Davis in case he shall vote the Republican ticket for the balance of his life" [Laughter]
Mr. FAULKNER: The Democratic members of the committee were satisfied to report that amendment to accommodate the Republican members.
Mr FOULKE: The amendment to the amendment is plainly out of order. Since the question as to Jefferson Davis has come up, it might not be inappropriate to say here that I have taken this view of that matter: While, of course, I should regret to see Mr. Davis pensioned, whose motives, I think, in attacking the American Union were not those of principle, but of ambition, that it was for personal purposes, and not because he believed in its principles, for he was a false, I think, to the principles of the so-called Confederacy as he was to those of the Union he sought to destroy - at the same time I feel unwilling that the insertion of his name in this resolution shall in any affect the claims of those who really are entitled to pensions. Since the matter has come before the Senate I would like to propose as a substitute for the amendment the following: [Reads] My motive in offering that amendment is this: If pensions to Mexican soldiers can be granted without the name of Jefferson Davis I think they should be so granted; and if the exclusion of his name is going to take away the right of any man that has performed his duty and is entitled to grateful recognition of the country, then I am in favor of throwing the door wide open. It seems to me my substitute expresses the matter as both parties desire. We don't want Jefferson Davis placed on the pension list if we can help it. He is a man whose crimes are a subject of detestation, but we don't want anybody else to suffer vicariously; therefore, I am in favor of leaving it to our Representatives in Congress, who can best judge whether the bringing up of his name or its exclusion is going to jeopardize the claims of those who are justly entitled to pensions.
Lieutenant Governor MANSON: If the Senate would indulge me, I would like to say a word or
two. ["Consent, consent."] I have had considerable to do with this subject for
the last twelve years. I have been President of the Indiana Association of Veterans of the
Mexican War, as well as Vice President of the National Association. I know Jefferson Davis
is anxious to have his name mentioned in a pension bill as being excluded from its
provisions. He has been entitled to draw a pension from the
Mr. MAY: I hope the substitute will not prevail; not upon any question in relation to Jefferson Davis, because it was not my intention to bring that matter up in the original resolution, but because the original resolution goes further than the substitute, and that arrearage act of 1879 be repealed, and it also includes widows and orphans of soldiers in the late rebellion. If the substitute covered the whole ground I should have no objection.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay: I think the whole thing ought to be recommitted to the Committee on Federal Relations, therefore I move to recommit the original resolution, the report of the committee, the amendment and the substitute, with instructions to leave out the name of Jefferson Davis.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. MAGEE: I rise to a question of privilege, I desire to refer to the calamity that overtook the department for women in the Hopital for the Insane last night. I suppose every Senator has heard of it. I received a letter this morning before I was up from the Superintendent of the institution (Dr. W. B. Fletcher) which I desire to read. [Reads: "We have burned out. Loss $75,000 I am too cold and blistered on my hands to write more than this. The State should make us an appropriation to day. Let us have a committee with experts and an architect at once. We have no means of cooking except by gas and no means of keeping warm except by blankets."I think this calls for immediate action on the part of the Senate and the House. It seems to me the Committee on Benevolent Institutions of both Houses ought to go out at once to the asylum and ascertain what is necessary. It is properly in their charge. I understand no action has been taken by the committee at all. I think the Senate ought to make some provision to meet this emergency.
Mr. MAY offered a concurrent resolution that the Committee of both Senate and House on Benevolent Institutions be requested to visit the asylum immediately and report the amount of damage done and the necessary steps to be taken to repair the same.
Mr. McCLURE: I was not aware of that fire until this session commenced. I do not know that these committees can determine what is best to be done, but shall ask leave of absence for the Senate Committee on Benevolent and Reformatory Institutions to visit the Insane Asylum after dinner, or sooner if we can get off.
It was so ordered without objection.
Mr. HILLIGASS moved up to amend so that said committees be authorized to inquire into the expediency of providing the necessary protection by water supply, and call to their aid suck experts as may be necessary to secure such information.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St Joseph, desired to avoid devolving upon these committees any work that would embarrass the Trustees of the Insane Asylum.
Mr. MAGEE: It is possible the trustees have ample power to make any necessary repairs, and to protect the buildings and inmates from fire by providing a complete water works system; but if the board do that, and come to the Legislature two years form now with a deficit and ask the Legislature to make an appropriation to pay for that expenditure some member of the Senate or the House will rise in his place and want to know what all this means; his constituency sent him there as an economist, and these bills come in age in session after session until they are paid. It is the history of this Legislature form the time I have known anything about it, that there is always objection to making a fair and square payment for these kind of claims. The parsimony of the General Assembly in not making an appropriation for fire protection in this case has cost the State over $75,000. Here is an institution containing 1,400 persons, situated a mile and a half or two miles from a water supply, and without a dollar's insurance. The Legislature ought to overhaul this matter, and possibly this very fire may be the means of causing a reformation in these things.
Mr. HILLIGASS: I agree with the Senator that the State should employ some means of protection, and it will be held responsible by the people of the State if it does not make provision for the insurance of the vast property and the protection of the lives of the people therein.
Mr. MAY: As the mover of the resolution, I am willing to accept the amendment, for I think these committees ought to be granted the power as fully intended. I don't want to take up time in discussing this matter, for we might act a good deal like Nero of old did - we might fiddle away our time while the institution burns up.
Mr. WIER moved the committee be directed to report progress to-morrow morning and show what is necessary to be done at once.
Mr. MAY: I consent to that amendment.
The amendment was agreed to and the resolution as mended was adopted.
Mr. WIER offered a concurrent resolution, which was adopted, authorizing a Joint
Committee of two Senators and three Repre
The presiding Officer [Mr. Foulke] appointed as said committee on the part of the Senate Messrs. Wier and Schloss; Mr. Wier declining, Mr. Overstreet was appointed in his stead.
The President pro tem. [Mr. Magee] announced the considesation of his bill [S. 65] for the completion of the three new Insane Asylums, pending at the adjournment yesterday, the question being on the amendment offered by the Senator from Owen [Mr. Fowler.]
Mr. WIER, for various reasons unnecessary to mention, among others that might be mentioned to give Senators opportunity to examine this bill, as there seems to be some difference of opinion, moved to postpone the further consideration of the bill and make it a special order for Monday next at 2 o'clock p.m.
Mr. FOULKE opposed the motion.
Mr. WILLARD: The objection I make is that this bill does not specify as to what the appropriation is for.
Mr. FOULKE: Does not the Senator think the Commissioners are better qualified to direct where the appropriation shall be applied? Is the Senator not willing to trust these Commissioners.
Mr. WILLARD: I am willing to trust these gentlemen as far as we ought to trust them; but they were limited to $600,000 for the building of these institutions, and they have made contracts for $440,00 more and before I am willing to vote any more I want to limit it. I don't care whether this motion to postpone is carried or not.
Mr. WIER withdrew his motion.
Mr. WILLARD moved that he bill be referred back to the Public Buildings Committee with instructions to report what these appropriations are specifically.
After further debate [see appendix]
Mr. MAGEE demanded the previous question, which was seconded by the Senate, and under its operation the motion to recommit the bill tot he Committee on Public Buildings was rejected by yeas 12, nays 28.
The amendment [Mr. Fowler's] was also rejected by yeas 7, nays 31.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for the third reading by yeas 33, nays 4.
And then the Senate adjourned.
Mr. CORY, from the Committee on Fees and Salaries, to which was referred a resolution inquiring as to the amount of fees and salaries received by the State officers, reported the following as given in by them to the committee:
Auditor of State - Salary, $1,500; Deputy, $1,500, Insurance Clerk, $1,200; Land Department Clerk, $1,200; General Clerk, $1,000. The receipts during the last fiscal year were: Insurance fees, $3,935.44; Land Department fees, $77; salary, $1,500; total salary and fees, $5,512.44. Expenses, $700; leaving net salary and fees, $4,812.44
Secretary of State - Salary, $2,000; fees from January 16, 1883, to January 16, 1882, $2,452; average fees, $1,226; total salary and fees, $3,226
Treasurer of State - Salary, $3,000; office expenses, $200. No fees.
Attorney General - Salary, $2,500; total fees for 1884. $4,898.88; paid to the collectors and experts, $3,196.79; additional clerk hire, $600; net income from fees, $2,596.79: total salary and fees $5,096.79
Bureau of Statistics - Salary, $1,200. No fees.
Reporter of Supreme Court - Receipts from sales of reports at $3.50 per volume, $6,000 per year. No salary nor fees.
State Geologist - Salary, $1,800; average yearly expenses $5,000.
Clerk of the Supreme Court - Total receipts for 1884, $10,549.66: clerk hire and expenditures, $5,765.45; net income for the year, $4,784 21.
Superintendent of Public Instruction - Salary, $2,500: two clerks, $1,800; traveling expenses, $600; total, $4,900: no fees.
State Librarian - Salary, $1,200; assistant, $750; janitor, $600; watchman, $500: total, $3,000.
Mr. McHenry introduced a bill [H. R. 272] to provide for the adoption of a uniform system of text books in the common schools. Which was read the first time.
Mr. GORDON moved to reject it.
Mr. McHENRY: This bill may stir up the depths of more than one heart. I expected that it would. But the passage of this bill would save the good people of Indiana $200,000 for text books, and it would give them better text books.
Mr. COPELAND: With the kindest wishes to the gentleman from Putnam {Mr. Gordon) I see no reason why this bill should be treated in the manner suggested. In my opinion there is not subject that has come before this General Assembly that is more desired by the people of the State of Indiana. Legislation upon the subject of a uniform system of text books is earnestly desired by the people of this State.
Mr. DITTEMORE: It seems to me that this is not a fair way to dispose of this bill, which has been presented in goo faith. If there is any one thing in which the people of Indiana are more interested in than another it is the common schools.
Mr. GORDON: I hope members will compose themselves. NO outrage was intended upon
anybody's rights by my motion to reject this bill. I desire to call attention of
members to rule 57, which states that the first reading of the bill is for information and
for commitment, and if there is opposition the question is whether it shall pass to the
second readng. I wish to say that gave some attention to the reading of that bill, and
there are some provisions to which I am opposed. I can see no reason why the adoption of
text books should be put in the hands of the State Board of Education, but
Mr. McMULLEN: I believe it is just as proper a time now as any other time to consider this bill There has been a continued effort, it seems to me, since the opening of this session to give this State Board of Education unlimited power, and we have had some three or four tests of that matter in this House, and I think we are as ready to vote upon it now as at any other time. It would certainly save some time to take definite action on this bill it would save the second reading and engrossing. I think a majority of the members of this House think that the State Board of Education have powers enough. The other day we spent the whole afternoon talking about the State Board of Education and their powers. I think the majority of this House have faithfully listened to the this bill, and I don't know why they can't vote upon it just now. I am opposed to giving any more power to the State Board than it has now, and I think the House has concluded that the State Board of Education has just as much authority as it ought to have.
Mr. MOODY: I don't I don't know but I have already expressed my views on such a bill as this. This is not the first time that a bill has come in here to give a monopoly to the State Board of Education. This bill would certainly make it a perfect monopoly. These repeated attempts coming into this Assembly to create a monopolist power shall meet my opposition every time, whether it is rejected at this point or not. I stand opposed to this bill.
Mr. DEEM: There seems to me a crying demand of remedy this evil of the change of school books. It seems to me that to treat this bill fairly it should be allowed to the committee. If it is a good bill it ought to go to the committee and the committee have the right to amend the bill.
Mr. McHENRY: Inasumuch as the motion now pending, if it prevails, will be the death of the bill, and insamuch as it has been assailed by the gentlemen of the House as an improper measure, it devolves upon me, as the introducer of the bill, to say something in its defense. I introduced that bill in good faith. It was not produced on the spur of the moment, but after many years consideration. Gentlemen on this floor know very well that the respective County Boards and Township Trustees will vote for the adoption of text books without ever looking into them. They would be unable to tell anything about the text books. You know very well that Township Trustees are chosen in a great many instances on account, not of their fitness, but on account of most anything else than their knowledge of text books. When it comes to pass upon school matters they are no better fitted for it than the average citizen. The object is not to put more power in the State Board of Education, but to put the selection of school books in the hands of men fitted to select them, and so they can't be changed at the whim of the County Boards. The imputations made here against the honor and integrity of the members of the State Board of Education are entirely unwarranted. I have the highest regard for the abilities of the State Board of Education. We require a uniform system of text-books. People passing from one county to another leave one class of text books and meet with another class, and they are obliged to buy a new set of books to send their children to school with. I have given in short the reasons why I have introduced this bill. I have introduced it with the best considerations of all parties, and not with a view to increase the power of the State Board of Education.
Mr. BROWNING: I had concluded to vote against that motion until I heard the author of the bill speak. Now I am opposed to the bill. I can not agree with him when he says that the County Boards and Township Trustees are ignoramuses. I am willing to stand by the Township Trustees. What might be right and proper for one county in regard to text books might not be right and proper for another. We have grown to our exalted position in education under and by virtue of County Boards selecting the text books. I am opposed to the centralization of power in the State Board of Education. I think we had better conclude to let well enough alone. We have to at the head of the heap, and why do we desire to get up farther?
Mr. ENGLE: I am satisfied that the mem
Mr. WILLIAMS: I am strongly opposed to the passage of this bill; still I shall take great pleasure in voting against the motion to reject it. Every member ought to have a right to go before a committee and try to satisfy the members of the committee that it is just and fair bill. I think that courtesy ought to be shown to every member.
Mr. LOYD: If there is any subject more than another, in my opinion, that commends itself to this body it is this very subject of text books in the common schools. If there is one evil prevailing among the people of the State that commends itself for remedy to this body more than another it is the evil that is creeping into the system of common schools in the way of text books. And whether this bill passes or not, in my opinion this House ought to delegate some power to some committee that will investigate and bring up a bill requiring a uniform system of text books in the in the State of Indiana. When it comes to this that he poor people of this State are compelled to make an investment of $8 or $10 a year for text books, and when they move to another county they have to buy another class of books, when this evil creeps in, it is a subject worthy of our consideration. The bill under consideration, if not in proper form or shape, should be considered by the members of the House and amended so that the people of Indiana will have a uniform system of text books. Therefore I hope that this bill will not be summarily cast aside, but that the members of the House will give it their attention before rejecting it.
Mr. GORDON: I will suggest to members whose ideas of propriety have been outraged that they repeal rule 57. To my mind a motion to strike out the enacting clause is equally as summary as a motion to reject It is said that members don't understand the law as it exists; if it is desired a little information can be given on this subject. Now the text books are adopted by the County Board of Education, and they are provided to continue in use six years. Except by unanimous consent of that board no change can be made in that time. I will also state that in most cases the County Board of Education are guided by the advice of the County Superintendent. If the County Board vote unanimously to make a change of text-books they can do so. For what reason do we desire to that the power of selecting text books shall be put in the hands of the State Board of Education? Is it proposed that the text books they select shall be perpetual? If there is an adoption to be made that can't be revoked or changed, and an evil book gets into schools it can't be dropped or changed for a better one. Do you prefer that the County Board shall make changes for you - they are in your reach and you can control them - or do you prefer that the State Board of Education shall make the selection of text-books? They are out of the reach of the people. This is one of the pet theories of this State Board that has found its way into the Legislature in the shape of bills.
Mr. McMICHAEL: I desire to explain my vote upon this question. I am unalterably opposed to the provisions of that bill, but I desire to give every member the same privileges that I would like shown to myself on my bills. Under the present law textbooks can't be changed oftener than once in six years except by unanimous consent of the County Board. Cities are not compelled to comply with the action of the board. Communities differ. Text-books that might be considered good in one portion of the county might not be considered good in one portion of the county might not be considered good in another portion. I am opposed to the bill, but I am in favor of giving it a fair hearing.
Mr. GARRISON: I am opposed to the bill but in favor of giving it a futher consideration.
The motion to reject the bill failed by yeas, 9; nays, 79; and it was referred to the Committee on Education.
Speaker Jewett submitted a communication from John M. Goar, a Trustee of Soldiers' Orphans' Home and Asylum for Feebled-minded Children, praying for the appointment of a special committee to investigate the charges against himself, and also charges preferred by him against Mr. White, the Superintendent. It is as follows:
DEAR SIR - On the 22d inst., I addressed the following
communication:
Hon. Samuel Williams, Chairman House Committee on Benevolent Institutions:
DEAR SIR - Referring to the conversation between us, to-day, and
your suggestion that I resign my office of Trustee of the Soldiers'
Orphans' Home and Asylum for Feeble-Minded Children, and that if I would do so
your committee would report and have adopted a resolution of compliments to myself, I
have this to say: I am either unfit to hold the office, or the charges to which you
allude are false. If they are true, the great Democratic party of this State can not
afford to allow me to resign my trust with a complimentary resolution testifying that
I have well and faithfully performed my duties. If I am under serious charges before
your committee, as you assert, it is your duty to make the most searching inquiry as
to the truth. This duty you owe to your oaths, to the whole people of the State, to
the soldiers' orphans, and to myself and family.
Knowing that you have received your inspiration from Superintendent White, deem it
proper to inform you that for months past I have demanded his dismissal upon what I
deemed more than sufficient reasons - reasons which I can pre-
I think much good can come from such an investigation. First, it will determine whether I am guilty or not. Second, it will disclose the most brutal and immoral practices upon the soldiers' orphans and the unfortunate feeble-minded children, of which Mr. White has had full knowledge, and in certain cases has been a party to; and also the immoral practices of his two sons - debaucheries and cruelties which the people of Indiana are entitled to know all about. I ask, however, that I may be notified in regard to the action, or intended action, of the committee, that I may be present to not only present my own case, but also such evidence as I have to offer regarding the general conduct of the two institutions. I have no concealments in this matter, and there should be none, nor do I ask anything but justice at the hands of your committee.
Since the presentation of this letter I have remained here at considerable expense and great inconvenience to my business, but as yet the Committee on Benevolent Institutions has not acted, and now I appeal to the House to take some definite act upon the letter which I sent to the Chairman of the committee. I can not afford to dance attendance upon the Chairman of the committee simply because he desires me to resign an office rather than make an investigation which he assumes would result in harm to my reputation. I therefore ask you to present this communication to the House, as I have no other means of officially communication with that body. For the reasons which are given above I ask the appointment of a special committee to investigate all the matters set forth in the communication to Mr. Williams.
Mr. MOODY offered a concurrent resolution for the appointment of a committee, to be composed of two Senators and three Representatives, to investigate the charges against the Trustees and employes of the Soldiers' Orphans' Home and the Asylum for Feeble-minded Children, and that the committee have power to send for persons and papers.
Mr. KELLISON offered an amendment to confine the investigation to charges against Mr. Goar.
On motion of Mr. BROWNLEE the amendment was laid on the table.
Mr. PATTEN moved to amend so that the committee shall consist of members of the House only.
Mr. GOODING opposed the amendment and favored the original resolution.
On his motion the amendment was laid on the table.
Mr. PATTEN: When Mr. Goar comes before this House and attempts to blacken the reputation of the members of the committee, and to assail not only the Superintendent of that Asylum, but the whole family of orphans, and implies that such gross immoralities are being carried on, it behooves us that we rigidly investigate the man making the charges. This communication, take as a whole, is simply an insult and an outrage to this House. It is a courtesy to allow it to be read. I see no reason why John M. Goar should ask for the investigation of all members of the board. A good reason why we should not pay any attention to the investigation of the other members is because he asks it. We should see whether the charges against John M. Goar are cleared up before we pass to the investigation of the other members.
Mr. WILLIAMS: I never had the honor of receiving any communication from John M. Goar, either upon this or any other subject. I hope that a special committee will be appointed to investigate the charges made against Mr. Goar. A charge coming from this source ought to have considerable weight. I think the investigation should be pointed directly at Mr. John M. Goar while Trustee.
Mr. TAYLOR: I think the resolution of the gentleman from DeKalb [Mr. Moody] covers the whole ground. I understand no charge has been made directly against John M. Goar. John M. Goar comes here and tells this House that certain charges have been made against himself. He demands that they be investigated. He also makes charges against another man by the name of White. We can't say that we will investigate one man and not investigate the rest. Since Mr. Goar demands an investigation he ought to have it. The resolution of the gentleman from DeKalb doe snot say we shall investigate Mr. Goar singly, but investigate all of them; let them all suffer for their infamy and wrong.
On motion of Mr. ADAMS the further consideration of the resolution was postponed until to-morrow at 10 o'clock
The Senate concurrent resolution directing the Senate and House Committees on Benevolent and Reformatory Institutions to repair immediately to the scene of the Insane Asylum fire last night and report the damage done to-morrow morning was concurred in.
Mr. STALEY, a Representative from Clinton county, offered a resolution which was adopted, which authorizes the appointment of a committee to which shall be referred all matters appertaining to women. Representatives Staley, Toner, Jameson, Linsday and Brownlee were appointed the committee.
Mr. Magee's bill [S. 65] for the completion and equipment of the three new Insane Asylums [See Brevier Reports, pages 75, 94, 95, 96] coming up on its third reading nd being read the third time -
Mr. McCLURE: I was absent yesterday when the Senate had this bill under consideration. Whenever there is a bill of this importance before the Senate, upon which we are called upon to give our votes. I have generally been in the habit in a very few words of giving the reasons that govern me in casting my vote. It is not because I have not the proper sympathy for the afflicted who will become inmates of these institutions that I shall vote against this bill. Two years ago at the last session of this Senate. I was one of eight that voted against the bill for erection of three new Insane Asylums When the bill was first presented, providing for but one institution of the kind in the State. I was in favor of it. I was willing to cast my vote for one institution should be located centrally, and not at one side of the State, thought if located at Evansville or any other place, I was willing to give my vote for that one But when Senators began to multiply these institutions - when they began to pool their issues; or in other words, adopt a log-rolling system for the purpose of the passage of a bill of that kind, I determined to cast by vote against it. I thought one institution sufficient to meet the emergency, and I thought the holding out the different localities of the State the probability of getting one of these institutions was not a fair way in which to legislate. I consequently gave my vote against that combination - that log-rolling system - for the purpose of establishing more institutions than the exigences of the surrounding circumstances demanded or required. And now I am perfectly willing to vote for the completion of one institution, let that one be the one at Evansville, Richmond or Logansport, because I sincerely believe that one institution is completed, as fast as the emergencies or requirements of that class of unfortunates are presented, why, then complete and equip another one of these institutions, or both of them, if they are required. I think it is safe to vote against all bills that hold up inducements to obtain votes for an appropriation more extensive than present requirements demand. I shall vote against the bill.
The bill then finally passed the Senate by yeas 44, nays 3.
Pending the roll-call -
Mr. FOWLER: Probably the amendment to this bill I offered a day or two ago would be a sufficient explanation of the vote I am going to cast. As I then said: The opposition I then made to the bill was no factious opposition. I thought it unwise to appropriate this large amount of money to carry to completion these institutions at this time. But the temper of the Senate has been otherwise; yet I do not believe it would be prudent to appropriate no money at all; and while I would very much prefer to vote for the bill with the amendment, yet I do not feel called upon to vote against the bill, and I shall therefore vote aye.
Mr. THOMPSON, when his name was called, said: I voted against the engrossment of this bill because a number of my constituents, in whome I have the utmost confidence as to financial capacity, have requested me not to vote for this bill. I made my opposition to it, but the Senate did not agree with the sentiments I expressed. The Senator from Cass [Mr. Magee] has been a kindly man in the Senate, and as I would like to favor him - as a compliment to him and out of any respect to the bill. I will vote for the bill. [Laughter.] I vote aye.
Mr. WILLARD: I am distinctly in favor of continuing the work on these asylums. Had this bill shown how the money was to appropriated, and had its object been simply the completion of the asylums, I would be happy to vote for it. But as it mingles the construction and maintenance of all three into one general appropriation so that it will allow these buildings to cost a million and a half dollars, for all we know; and as the appropriation a large amount of money, without saying to whom it is to go, I will, at present, although I know the demands of the State, vote no.
The vote was announced as above recorded, and so the bill finally passed the Senate.
Lieutenant Governor MANSON: The concurrent resolution introduced by the Senator from Wayn (Mr. Foulke) and amended on motion of the Senator from Gibson (Mr. McCullough) was concurred in by the House and returned tot he Senate several days ago. It was not sent in a regular manner, and got overlooked. It authorizes the appointment of a committee of five Senators and five members of the House to investigate the Treasurer of State. I will appoint on that committee Senators McCullough, Hillgass, Smith, of Jennings, Foulke and Lindley. I wish to say in explanation that I understand it is customary to appoint the mover of a resolution as Chairman of the committee was raised by it, but as Senator McCullough's substitute was adopted, which took the place of the resolution of the Senator from Wayne. I have appointed Mr. McCullough as Chairman of the committee and the Senator from Wayne as the foremost man of the minority. I hope it will be satisfactory
On motion of Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph, his bill [S. 22] to provide for the establishment of an orphans' home by two or more contiguous counties, was read the second time. He explained the provisions of the bill and said: We have situated in Mishawaka, a town about four miles east of South Bend, one of these homes that has been doing some very fine work, and has been successful in making a start in the right direction toward taking care of the orphans of the State. The report shows that in the last two years it has had 108 orphans its care, and it has secured permanent homes for seventy-five of its wards. The great object of this work is to take children from county alms houses and other places where they can not be properly cared for, and furnished them with comfortable surroundings until permanent homes can be found for them. This home has charge of orphan children from the counties of St. Joseph, Elkhart, Laporte, Marshall and Kosciusko. The first question will be on the amendment to the bill proposed by the committee that all the Commisioners of every county in the association shall unite before an order for the sale of the association property can be made. The bill provides that two-thirds of the counties may order a sale.
Mr. SELLERS: The proposed amendment would place too much power in the hands of one man. The most stubborn men - bullheaded men is an expression that reaches it - are sometimes selected for County Commissioners. Under this bill a half dozen counties might join in an association and one stubborn County Commissioner to prevent a sale of associated property at a time when it ought to e disposed of.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay: As a member of the committee I will say the committee recommended that amendment because we thought there was a time in life when stubborn man might do a great deal of good.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks: There is a difference between a Board of Commissioners governing a county and the Commissioners of a county. I should object to passing any bill authorizing County Commissioners as individuals to do anything in any in any capacity. Let it be the Board of Commissioners in every case. If that wording is used the action becomes the act of the Board of Commissioners - the action of a corporation. It would be unwise to allow the bill to pass into an act without amending it in that respect. I believe it right that contiguous counties should be permitted to join in the erection of orphan asylums, for in many cases one could not or would not build an orphans' home, where several counties could and would. I am opposed to the provision which requires all the Boards of County Commissioners to act together in order to order a sale of the property of the association.
Mr. MAGEE: This is a meritorious bill; but the word "all" should be stricken out- it would enlarge the powers of County Commissioners, which would be viscious legislation.
Mr. DRAKE, as a member of the Committee on Benevolent Institutions, did not know that the
bill was before the committee, but called attention to what he feared is a defect in the
bill. It provides that two or more counties may join in building an orphans' home, but
before a sale of the joint property can be made two-thirds shall order it. Usually the
joint organization will be by but two counties.
Mr. YOUCHE moved to amend the bill by inserting before the word "commissioners" wherever it occurs the words "board of" and by striking out the words "two-thirds." so it will require unanimous action of all the counties to order a sale of the home.
Mr. WINTER: I don't think that part of the amendment proposing to strike out two-thirds should be adopted. The counties should be unanimous in ordering a sale. It seems to me there should always be a veto interposed by the county in which the property is located, if that county is opposed to the proposed sale.
The Senate took a recess for dinner.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph, demanded a division of the question.
The first portion of the amendment (Mr. Youche's) was agreed to, but the latter portion (to strike out "two-thirds") was rejected.
On motion by Mr. DAVIS Section 1 was amended by inserting the word "regular" before "sessions" (of the Boards of Commissioners)
On motion by Mr. DRAKE the bill was further amended in Section 1 by authorizing each county in the association to appropriate $5,000 for the purpose of erecting a Home.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings, moved to amend Section 1 so that where an Orphans' Home Association is formed the County Board of Commissioners "shall" purchase suitable grounds and buildings.
Messrs. Foulke, Magee, and Campbell of St. Joseph, opposed the amendment.
Mr. McCULLOUGH: I am utterly opposed to the principles of the bill. I believe it is the worst kind of legislation; not because I am opposed to having orphan children and other poor persons provided for. The law now provides that these voluntary associations may be formed in every county in the State. Were counties allowed to operate under the provisions of this bill, in one, two or three years they would be in a worse altercation that the Senate has been in all afternoon on this bill. Were a proposition made for the State of Indiana and the State of Ohio to go into partnership in building hospitals or asylums, every member would say the proposition would be foolish. In my judgment it is just as objectionable to have two or more counties go into such partnership. That any individual who is the owner of an undivided interest in real estate can force a separation has always been the law of the land, yet you propose that County Boards shall buy real estate and become owners, and yet there is no provision made by which one county can draw out of that partnership.
Mr. WILLARD demanded the previous question.
The demand was seconded by the Senate and under its operations and amendment was rejected and the bill ordered engrossed.
The special order coming up, being Mr. Smith, or Jennings, delinquent tax sales bill [ S. 143] it was read the second time with an unfavorable majority and a favorable minority report.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings said: It is one of the objects of this bill that the right of redemption shall be remitted to those who have lost their property in the in the past and those who may in the future lose their property by means of a sale made by order of court under proceedings to foreclose a tax lien. The right of redemption should be granted the owner of the land within one year from date of sale. In all other sales the right of redemption is reserved to the owner of the land by statue. But as the law now stands there is no redemption from a sale granted under an order of court on a tax deed. Another change proposed in the bill is to reduce the per cent, which the court has the right to asses in suits upon such Auditors' deeds from 20 to 10 per cent. Before he had concluded -
The Senate adjourned.
The Speaker announced prayer by Mr. Staley, a Representative from the County of Clinton.
The special order being Mr. Moody's resolution introduced yesterday for an investigation of certain charges against trustees officers and employes of the Soldier's Orphans's Home was announced, the question being on Mr. Cory's substitute that the investigation be of John M. Goar only.
Mr. SAYRE: I am not aware that any charges have been preferred by an person against John M. Goar, although the substitute seems to speak of it as though charges have been preferred against him, I know by public rumor that charges have been preferred against him.
Mr. CORY: The letter written by Mr. Goar to the House acknowledged that charges have been made against him. He acknowledged in his letter that he had made a partial defense of his conduct.
Mr. SAYRE: That communication does not come from an irresponsible party, but it comes
from of the trustees of this asylum - an officer of the State of Indiana, chosen as the
Democratic General Assembly of 1880 and in this General Assembly I believe there are
thirty-eight persons of Democratic faith who voted for him for that office. Therefore, I
think it is not proper for the members of this House to ignore his communication. There are
questions presented in the communication that this House dare not
Mr. CORY: I have said, nd I presume no member on this floor will deny, that charges are preferred against John M. Goar. He acknowledges the fact in the communication he makes to this House. He declares further, that the Post of the Grand Army of the Republic, of which he is a member, has had these charges under consideration, he has appeared before the post and presented a partial defense. Why partial? Why does this man appear before an honorable body and make a partial and incomplete defense against charges so dishonorable?
Now, we should remember that no one but John M. Goar is at the present time under charges. John M. Goar, criminally charged, throws out insinuations here against honest and honorable men, and I regret to say that some of my Republican friends would have us investigate these honorable men whose character is smirched or attempted to be smirched by this man who rests under criminal charges. John M. Goar I don't know. I do know that the charges of criminal conduct stand against him. For the sake of humanity I hope they may prove to be untrue. I am in favor of the fullest investigation of the charges preferred. I am not in favor for the sake of pleasing some Republican members, of traveling out of the way to attack Voorhees, the Chairman of the committee on Benevolent Institutions, or any one else. It is our plain duty to investigate the charges preferred against Goar first. If other charges should be preferred against other parties, then, and not till then, should we take cognizance of them. The substitute I have offered for the original resolution and amendments ought to be adopted.
Mr. SEARS: I am not here to take the part of John M. Goar or anybody else that is connected with that institution. I know John M. Goar personally. He comes here and says that rumors have been set afloat against him. Who makes them? We do not know. John M. Goar, one of the Trustees of that institution, in a written communication says and prefers grave charges against the other members of that institution. The substitute only wants to investigate John M. Goar, yet John M. Goar comes in here and makes charges against some other members of that institution. Are you going to stifle him and say he has no right to demand an investigation.
Mr. GOODING: I am not disposed to talk about Democrats and Republicans. These are charges made by one who occupies an official position. I know the parties personally. I don't know whether there is any guilt or not. But the charges are here. They are here in proper form, and this Legislature can't afford to ignore them. There ought to be the most thorough sifting and investigation of all the parties charged. There is but one course for this Legislature to take, and that is to appoint a committee and give the whole master an investigation. If none are guilty and none and all are innocent, I will be most glad.
Mr. ADAMS: An officer of our State has come into our Assembly and voluntarily said to the General Assembly that certain improprieties are being indulged in in one of our public institutions. I am inclined to accept the proposition of a man's guilt or innocency in accordance with the general theory to recognize every man as innocent until the contrary is proven. This man comes to our Assembly clothed with the authority of an officer of State and tells us that certain rumors have been circulated against him, and he also states that these rumors are false, and that other parties are the guilty ones. He says an investigation of this institution and the officers will disclose the most brutal practices. Are you take it for granted that a trustee is coming into this House and General Assembly as a scoundrel and liar, and that you will investigate only him? It would be a shame and disgrace not to investigate all of them. I never saw Mr. Goar, or any of the officers of this institution, but it is due to all concerned that the guilty ones be punished. I am in favor of a fair and just investigation of all members of that institution.
Mr. TAYLOR: This subject is a very grave one. The references to political matters that
have been injected into this discussion I think are entirely uncalled for. We have been
told by an officer of this State, and one who holds a high position of trust, that there
have been gross cruelties practices in this institution. We should purge ourselves of these
men who infest these public institutions. We can't do justice to ourselves unless we
do so. It is due to all of us that the fullest, the fairest, and the freest investigation
shall take place, and let no guilty man escape. If there is dirt there, throw it out, and
cast it where it
Mr. GORDON: This communication comes before the House in the regular way. It was presented to the Speaker in the regular way, and, therefore, demands our attention. John M. Goar, in his communication, says rumors were preferred against him. In that same communication he makes charges against the officers of that institution. Let us go to work and prove whether they are guilt or innocent.
Mr. FRENCH I am somewhat astonished at the range the discussion has taken. As has been said, I don't know whether there is anybody down there guilty or not, but I think this whole thing ought to be investigated. I never knew than an investigation of the part included an investigation of the whole. There is no use starting out to investigate but one individual. I am opposed to the amendment and substitute that have been offered. I think we ought to have a committee to investigate everything down there. I think we ought to give this investigation a broad gauge.
Mr. McMULLEN: It seems to me that everybody in this Houss is in favor or an investigation. Mr. Goar is an officer of the State of Indiana elected by the General Assembly, and he makes charges, and that is sufficient for an investigation. The purport of the original resolution was to embrace every officer connected with that institution.
I move the substitute lie on the table.
The motion was agreed to.
On motion of Mr. McMULLEN the amendment [Mr. Sayres' directing the investigation to the management] was laid on the table by yeas 60; nays 37.
The resolution was adopted.
Mr. Pendleton's bill [H. R. 56] for the relief of ten Trustees of Marion County who lost public monies by the failure of banks, coming up in regular order it was read the second time.
Mr. REEVES moved that it be indefinitely postponed.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: I hope that a bill of his character will not be indefinitely postponed at this stage. An immense amount of suffering has been entailed upon the people of this county by the failure of these banks. These men deposited just where I would have deposited my money, with institutions that have stood for years, firm and fast and had the confidence of the people. I don't think it would be right to make them suffer for an unavoidable calamity.
Mr. BROWNLEE: I desire to enter my protest against this passage of this bill. I believe it would be a precedent that ought not to be set by this General Assembly. The people of this State and of the several townships have a right to look to the bond of these Trustees for the money, and to prosecute to the full extent of the law.
Mr. PENDLETON. This is not a question of whether the State shall provide the money lost by Trustees. There is not a dollar lost. The bill does not require the funding of a single dollar. The people of this county ask not for the funding of money. They ask for the privilege or taxing themselves to make good the loss. A majority of the people, more than 75 per cent. of the whole number of taxpayers, have petitioned that this bill pass. Does this carry no force with it. I believe this bill ought to have a further consideration.
Mr. MOCK of Wayne: The old adage is that great men differ. I have not a great deal to say, but I rise in favor of this bill. We are men, and have done things of like character as these Trustees in good faith: and we would not like to have the iron heat set down on these men for an unavoidable calamity I am willing to pay my share rather than make paupers of good, deserving men.
Mr. BEST: If this bill were to pass a general law to provide that whenever a Trustee' funds were lost, he should be reimbursed, it would appeal with much more force to this General Assembly than a bill proposing relief to a particular man under like circumstances. When a County Trustee or State Treasurer loans out the funds that are in his hands he is entitled to receive the interest thereon, and for this reason he ought to be held to a strict account for any money that is lost. Even though there is a petition from 75 per cent. of the people of this township, yet we have no right to make the strong arm of the law reach down into the pockets of even 1 per cent. and turn their money over into the pockets of private individuals for private purposes. I am opposed to the principle at this bill. While I regret the loss of these men I would gladly respond to my share in repaying the loss. I don't believe this General Assembly can afford to establish such a precedent. Let the Trustees bear the loss, and let their neighbors help to reimburse them.
Mr. LOYD: I desire to say that this bill came before the committee accompanied by a long and strong memorial. To this memorial were attached the names of the majority of the taxpayers of Marion County and the owners of a majority of the taxable property. No Representative of Marion County is on this floor opposing this bill. Numerous bills of a like character have passed; this bill, if it passes, will affect no other county except Marion. According to a recent decision of the Supreme Court a Trustee is not liable for such a loss. [Then came a recess for dinner.]
Mr. JAMESON: This bill seeks to make a contribution of money from the taxpayers of the
several townships to their Trustees. If the contribution be voluntary, I have no objection.
If, however, the taxpayers in
Mr. REEVES: I think whenever a measure is attempted to be put upon this House which involves matters opposed to the sentiments of this House then is the time to dispose of it. If it be true, as has beed said, that the Supreme Court has decided that a Trustee can be reimbursed for money thus lost, then what is the use of this Legislature making any more laws for it? I don't think the question of locality cuts nay figure here. As to the memorial, I would ask why can't these men make donations instead of coming before this Legislature asking for a tax?
Mr. ADAMS: I am opposed to this way of disposing of this bill. I would rather vote on its merits. He argued against the motion to indefinitely postpone the bill.
Mr. GOODING also opposed postponement.
He did not think Trustees should be held accountable for things that unaccountably happen.
Mr. GORDON demanded the previous question.
The House seconded the demand, and under its operation the motion to indefinitely postpone was rejected and the bill ordered engrossed.
Lieutenant Governor MANSON opened the session by reciting from memory the 133d psalm of David - Senators standing.
On motion by Mr. SELLERS the Committee on Phraseology was authorized to employ a clerk.
Mr. MAY moved that George A. Ross be appointed a page.
Lieutenant Governor MANSON: There are three regularly appointed pages now. I understood in former sessions there have been four and sometimes five in the Senate. You know, gentlemen, whether you need another page or not.
Mr. THOMPSON: I understand the modesty of the President prevents his asking a page. I trust the Senate will give him one.
The motion was agreed to by yeas, 25; nays, 16.
Pending the roll-call -
Mr. DUNCAN, of Brown, in explanation of his vote, said: I understand these pages as sist us in the transaction of business in the Senate, and it is the wish of the presiding officer for that purpose to have an additional page appointed, so I vote "aye"
Mr. FOWLER, when his name was called: This matter has been up a time or two and I have uniformly voted "no," but on information received from the Senator from Ripley (Mr. Faulkner) I vote "aye."
Mr. OVERSTREET in explanation said: I don't like to obstruct the business of the Senate, but I am informed that three pages do the work in the House or Representatives, and if so, I can't see why three are not sufficient in the Senate, therefore I vote "no."
The vote was announced as above.
Mr. MAGEE, by consent, introduced a bill [S. 196] to authorize the Governor, Treasurer and Auditor of State to make a temporary loan of $600,000 to run five or ten years at 4 per cent. interest; and to authorize the funding of the State debt at a lower rate of interest than at present paid. The bill being read the first time -
Mr. MAGEE said: During discussions of the bill for completing the three new insane asylums, this question of making a loan was also discussed as a collateral branch of the insane asylum completion question. I understand from the State officers that it is possible to make a loan at 3 5/2 per cent., including commission and all expenses of making the loan. This bill also authorizes the refunding of the State debt it can be done at a lower rate of interest that at present paid. It is carefully drawn and guards the interests of the State in every particular. I move the constitutional rule be suspended and that the bill be read the second tiem now by title only.
Mr. FOWLER: I hope this important bill will take the usual course and be referred to a committee.
The motion to dispense with the constitutional restriction was rejected - yes 33, nays 7 - two-thirds by the Constitution to suspend a constitutional rule.
The bill was referred to the Finance Committee
Mr. Rahm's bill [S. 38] to authorize a tax on street railroad cars, being read the second
Mr. MAGEE: The object of this bill is to raise revenue in cities where they have exceeded the limit of the law for taxation. The men who have helped build up cities should be protected by the Legislature form paying this extraordinary rate of taxation. This bill proposes that a tax of $25 may be levied on each and every street car, in additional to what the owners pay on the same for State, county and other purposes. The State don't need revenue to be raised in that way. There has also been a bill introduced here, called the omnibus bill, which proposes to tax everything under heaven except the air we breathe and the water we drink. Like of these devil fishes, it attacks everything in sigh. This species of legislation is wrong. Last session a committee of the Senate reported unanimously against this species of legislation, and no member of the Senate raised his voice in favor of such vicious legislation.
Mr. RAHM: This is simply a bill to protect cities by providing that certain corporations shall pay a share of the burden of city taxes. In Evansville a street railway company has a charter which runs forty years and it uses any of the streets of that city without paying a cent of damages. We tax every poor drayman who owns a dray and horse and in additional he has to pay a tax, whatever the assessment may be on his dray and horse. This bill provides that there shall be a tax not to exceed $25 on each street railway car. The City Council will be just and fair - they may tax each car only $1, $2, or $3 per annum. If Senators think $25 is too much, let the bill be amended so the tax shall not exceed $5 or $10 per car.
Mr. MAGEE: Did the Senator ever know a City Council to levy a tax any less than the limit? I understand there are 300 saloons in Vanderburg County taxed only $25 Would it not be as well to raise the tax on saloons, and lower the tax on the poor man's dray?
Mr. RAHM: That might be the case where they have mean whisky; but where they have good beer, like in Evansville, that is not the case. [Laughter] I don't want to charge anybody with fighting for then, but it seems like every time it is proposed to touch corporations there is objection, because it is special legislation on. There is no reason why railway corporations in cities should be allowed to cut up the streets in front of the nicest properties, and not pay a cent of tax for that privilege. This bill does not propose special legislation, and ought to pass.
Mr. THOMPSON: Our street railway has been of vast benefit to this city. It has absolutely developed the c ty. The present proprietor of oru street railway has had great trouble in the past five years in keeping up his railway. He has 150 or 200 mules and 120 men employed, and I understood last year, be scarcely made receipts meet expenses. He has 100 cars and perhaps more. He has attempted to accommodate the street car system to the wants of the community, so a man can hardly go in any direction to a given point and have to walk more a few squares. A great many gentlemen who used to keep carriages and buggies have laid them aside as a matter of economy, and now take the street cars. I don't know of any greater calamity that would occur to Indianapolis than that the system of street cars should be legislation out of existence. The city is full of praises for Mr. Johnson, the owner of our street railway. He has sacrificed a great deal of capital in order to extend street railway facilities to the residents of our city. It is the poor man's carriage. I hope the bill will not pass.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks: I am a member of the Committee on Corporations, which reported in favor of the passage of this bill, and I want to explain that I was not present when it was considered or I should have opposed that favorable report. I am opposed to the bill on principle.
Mr. WIER: There is one reason which should be a sufficient one why this bill should not pass. In the State of Indiana we have no large cities where the rights granted to street railways are of any particular value. If we had within our borders a New York, a Cincinnati, or a Chicago, there might be occasion for a proposition to tax street railways in this manner. This bill provides that every street railway car may be taxed as high as $25, whether in a large city or a small one of only 25,000 inhabitants, where the citizens may have seen fit to build a street railroad. When you compare the cities of this State with the large cities of other States where street railway franchises are of great value, it seems to me a sufficient reason is to be seen why this bill ought not to pass. I am opposed to it, not on the plea of special legislation, but simply because it would cripple every enterprise of the kind referred to in the State, the one in the city of Indianapolis included which is the largest city in the State.
Mr. OVERSTREET: This identical bill, as I now remember, was before a Senate cemmittre
last session, and I joined in a report against its passage. Finding the bill here again,
and knowing it can apply but to few cities in the State, mine no being of them; and having
no personal interest either now or prospective, I joined this time in a report recommending
its passage. I did this upon the supposition that cities in the State having street
railroads desired the passage of such a bill. If they did, for one, I was not in favor of
preventing them from having it. I would not be in favor of imposing it upon a single city
that would oppose it. I did not know but that the time had come when street railroads in
cities were looked upon as nuisances like saloons. I signed this report merely for the
purpose of ascertaining whether it was the uniform wish of all cities having street
railways to
Mr. CAMPBELL of St. Joseph: We have in South Bend a fine street railroad (on paper) but we have the projectors under bond of $1,000, and forfeit if they fail to build it. In our experience we have found that companies are not anxious to take a franchise of that kind in an enterprising city like South Bend. For a long time we had prospects of a street railroad being built, and from our experience I conclude the profits are not enormous.
Mr. FOWLER: I have always regarded this kind of legislation ad vicious. It is said that hacks and carriages are taxed, and that City Councils have authority to tax a special class of properties. That may be true, but I have no argument to offer in favor of that kind of legislation. This bill would make a dangerous precedent to follow. If this bill should pass at the next session of the Legislature some Senator would probably introduce and insist on the passage of a bill taxing every steam engine or cart or wagon.
Mr. MAGEE: A bill of that kind is here now.
Mr. FOWLER: I am not astonished. The theory of law is that everything should be taxed in proportion to tis worth. Street car mules and every other species of property is taxed as other property is taxed. Why can it be necessary that we should pass a law authorizing an additional tax of $25 on every street car I can't imagine. As the Senator from Marion has suggested, it would drive out of existence the poor man's carriage I am opposed to such legislation.
On motion by Mr. MAGEE the report was laid on the table and the bill indefinitely postponed by yeas 34, nays 10
Mr. WINTER, explaining his affirmative vote, said: In the last canvass the candidates of both parties for the Legislature in this city made pledges that they would not in any shape favor an increase of taxation. We have a law which limits city Councils to ninety cents on th e$100 of taxables. I regard this whole thing has nothing but an effort to evade the provisions of existing laws. The bill is but an entering wdge for the omnibus bill referred to, which attempts to tax every milk wagon, brick wagon, carriage and every vehicle; and to tax every business man, every doctor, lawyer, merchant, and every person engaged in every business in this city and every other city the State - the very men that make and build up our towns and cities. The principle of the bill I regard as utterly wrong and an attempt to evade the law. I vote "aye."
The vote was announced as above.
Then came a recess for dinner.
Mr. SMITH'S (of Jennings) Delinquent Tax Sales Redemption bill [S. 143], on its second reading, came up as a special order, with a majority report from a committee recommending that it lie on the table and a minority report that the bill do pass.
Mr. SMITH continued his speech cut off by last night's adjournment. What good reason is there why a man who invests his money in the purchase of delinquent tax titles should have any more interest upon that investment than the man who loans his money? It is against the policy of laws that there should be class legislation upon any subject. But the greatest evil under our present tax law is that it cuts off the right of redemption. This bill seeks to raise the black flag the law has placed over the poor man's home - the protection of the Nation in time of war and the glory of the State in time of peace. But it may be said that it is doubtful whether the Legislature can make a law which is retroactive in its character. In answer of that desire to say that these tax laws in most every feature are remedial. The Supreme Court has held that where an act is remedial the Legislature following the one which made the law may change or alter that remedy, or destroy it, indeed, if it desires. I undertake to say it is lawful for this Legislature to make an act retroactive in its character, so that these people who have lost their lands may redeem them by the payment of a 10 per cent. penalty And it may be said it will not do the to change the rate of interest, because the people will refuse to bid at these sales. During the time the law of 1881 was in force, which reduced the per cent. from 25 to 8, there were as many tax sales as since the act of 1883 which increased the per cent from 8 and 10 to 20. But rather than have the bill defeated because the per cent. is too low, I would consent to increasing it in order that we may grant the people the right to redeem their homes from such sales. I insist that the minority report on this bill ought to be adopted and I insist that it was misguided official conduct that the Judiciary Committee decided against reporting in favor of this bill in the first place, and upon a question so important I felt it my duty not to abide their judgment, but to bring this bill by a minority report, to the consideration of every Senator upon this floor. I insist upon a fair full, deliberate and honest consideration of the report.
Mr. FOULKE: It was from no spirit of antagonism to the poor man whose land is sold for
taxes that the Judiciary Committee reported against this bill, nor from a spirit of
friendliness to the man who might purchase for a nominal consideration land worth
infinitely more than the price bide. This bill provides that an additional year shall be
allowed to perosn whose lands have been foreclosed under tax deeds, and the author desires
to make provision retroactive. Under the Constitution of this State if we pass such a law,
it will not do the Senator nor those the represents any good. There is a policy we can not
ignore,
The minority report was rejected by yeas, 23; nays, 24.
Mr. SELLERS explaining his negative vote: With the assurance that the bill will be referred to another committee so its defects may be correct, I vote "no"
The majority report was also rejected by yeas, 22; nays, 25
Mr. WILLARD: I move that the bill be recommitted to the Judiciary Committee, that it may be perfected. There have been several defects in it discovered. I take it as the sense of the House that a bill of this character ought to pass.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. Staley's bill [H. R. 15] to appropriate $40,000 to Purdue University bing read the third time -
Mr. STALEY: The trustees of this institution were short of money and they borrowed enough to carry on the institution until the present time, and they ask that the money that ought to have been appropriated then be appropriated now. The State is bound, first by the acts of Congress, and secondly by the acts of the State, to maintain this institution. Should the State at any time fail to comply with the provisions of the grant this donation of land and every thing pertaining to this institution would at once pass to the United States. The State stands as the guardian of this trust. Unless this appropriation is made I don't see how the institution can be carried on for another day. It will have to close.
Mr. WILLIAMS: I am fully satisfied in my mind that Purdue is not a State University. The statute provides that the Trustees shall not borrow money. Is it necessary for them to ineur this indebtedness? They got the interest on their loan, and that ought to be sufficient. There were only 160 pupils there. It is the business of the State of Indiana to give a good common school education to its people; not to make lawyers, doctors, moulders, etc. This institution has cost too much money already. There has been no showing to me of what has become of the money. I represent an agricultural constituency, and I believe agricultural colleges are a failure, and I hope this appropriation will be defeated
Mr. McHENRY: It would seem that an agricultural college in this State was an innovation, and something that ought to be watched with the utmost scrutiny. We should not expect too much Purdue University. As yet it is young - scarce ten years old. Give it time and chance, and I venture to say that it will give results that will satisfy the State.
Mr. DALE: I speak in behalf of Purdue University. I am astonished at the assertion that a common school education is the foundation of a good farmer. The educated farmer is the foundation of all prosperity in this country. I ask that the appropriation which failed at the last Legislature be made now. Intelligent labor is the only sure foundation for further prosperity, and I do hope and pray that we perpetuate that institution.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: This institution was not established to teach Latin and Greek or higher mathematics, but it is an institution that will develop the handiwork of the man who engages his skill with the educated brain to make the earth yield more bountifully. Experience shows that agricultural colleges have been of inestimable value to every country. It is essentially a State University. In the case of an emergency th State of Indiana took $340,000 of the funds of this University and gav a non-negotiable bond bearing 5 per cent. interest. So you have borrowed her endowment fund at 5 per cent. interest and now will say you will give her no more. That noble citizen, John Purdue, gave $150,000 to aid this institution, and the county of Tippecanoe gave $50,000 more, and the citizens of Tippecanoe County gave 150 acres of land. When he had concluded -
Mr. TAYLOR demanded the previous question.
The House seconded the demand, and under its operations the bill passed the House by yeas 73, nays 17.
Mr. Moody's Inkeepers' Protection bill [H. R. 21] being read the third time -
Mr. BROWNLEE: I am opposed to the bill for the reason that it is legislation for a class.
It provides that whenever a guest comes into a hotel that the hotel has a lien upon his
baggage for the payment of the bill. It also provides that any person who shall obtain food
or lodging or other accommodation with an intent to defraud the owner shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor, and the proof shall be his failure to pay the bill on demand. i don't
believe in putting any
Mr. ROBERTSON: I am opposed to the passage of the bill. It makes provision for a special class, which I think wrong. I think a hotel or inn-keeper ought to be guilty of a misdemeanor if he fails to pay any of his own debts.
Mr. MOCk, of Wells: Our committee examined this bill very carefully, and were of the opinion this bill ought to pass. The charge that this bill creates a monopoly is mistake There has been a law allowing hotel keepers a lien on the baggage of his guest ever since I can remember. This is no new law There has always been a distinction between those who are traveling and regular boarders The hotel-keepers have had a lien ever since I can remember on the baggage of the guest They are compelled to take in every person who calls for lodging, and unless they are protected by a lien, such persons can gather up their baggage and leave the hotel, and the proprietor has no remedy. No honest man will object to paying the bill and will not have a lien put upon his baggage. The intent of this bill is all right, There are persons who go to a hotel with the intent of beating the landlord There is no landlord in the State who would undertake maliciously or willfully to, prosecute any one
The bill was rejected by yeas 10, nays 83.
Mr. McHenry's bill [H. R. 5] to make County School Superintendents elected by popular vote, being read the third time -
Mr. FRENCH: I don't believe the people the State are demanding a change of the law. Out of the ninety-two Superintendents in the State there may be some of them that are not qualified, yet I don't believe that any law that we could pass would bring about the millennium in any of the institutions of our State It is the fault of those who execute the law, and not the fault of the law itself. I undertake to say that Indiana has efficient corps of County Superintendents as any State in the Union. Feeling as I do that the laws as it now stands gives an average efficient corps of County Superintendents; that the people do not demand the change, and that under the present law we are accomplishing all that we can accomplish any way, I am in favor of letting the law remain as it is. I think we ought to keep the subject of politics and our public schools apart. What would this change do? It would require every person desiring to become County Superintendent to go through the political wire-pulling necessary to get the situation. It brings politics right into the school-room. All the County Superintendents will go out in June. Unless there are grave and potent reasons for bringing about this new order, we had better leave the law as it is. If there is anything Indiana has to be proud of, it is her system of public schools. No class of persons in the State has done more to accomplish this than the present corps of County Superintendents, For the sake of keeping politics out of the public schools, and on the principle that we should legislation stand if it fulfills its purposes. I am opposed to this bill.
Mr. TAYLOR: I maintain that the gentleman on this floor who best represents his constituents prevents vicious legislation rather than adds simply tot he volume of its statues. I don't know that there are any people sending petitions here asking for the passage of this bill under discussion I am a friend of public education. My candid judgment and belief is that there is no necessity for a change of this law. The further removed you have common schools from the cesspool of politics the better for the educational interests of the State. For this reason I will vote against the bill. I don't think that the people are crying out for a change through any petition or any memorial, and I don't think any change should be made.
Mr. BOYD: My objection to this bill is that it makes our County Superintendent an elective officer. I believe it would be a bad plan to take this matter of the hands of the trustees. My constituents are not demanding that the law be changed, and for this reason alone I shall vote against the bill.
Mr. HARRELL: I don't think there ought to be a distinction between the County Superintendents and the selection of Judges of the Courts and other officers. We want to bring our officers down as near to the people as possible. The gentlemen arguing against this bill say it would put the selection in politics. So far as politics are concerned, I think affairs are just as much agitated on the election of the Trustees as they would be in the election of the County Superintendents. It is much more easy to corrupt one or two Trustees than to corrupt the whole county. Why do you elect the Superintendent of Public Instruction and not elect the County Superintendent? The people demand a change in this matter. It should be brought down directly to the people I am in favor of the election of County Superintendents by the people.
Mr. WILSON: Under the present system of electing our County Superintendents it occurs to
me it is easier to set up a job than it would be under the proposed change. The only
argument used against this measure is that it is dangerous to trust the people with their
own interest. I take it that the people are the source of all power. The people said to us
s representatives you may pass any measure or law that you choose to pass, and we have no
way to circumscribe your powers in this matter. It is said by the opposition that if we
take this election out
Mr. GORDON: I favor the bill for the reason that I believe in the wisdom of the people in all matters in which their government is concerned. I suppose that no member would say that the people were not wise when they selected him to represent them If there is such a thing as a cesspool of politics this affair is already plunged into it.
Mr. DEEM: I am in favor of this bill for two reasons; first, I believe it is right, and second, my constituents demand it. We want to make these men come direct from the people and let them be responsible to the people for the careful conduct of their offices.
Mr. MOODY: I certainly am opposed to any change in reference ot the manner of selecting our school officers. I believe that the County Trustees will select the best men, and they will select them at a time when the question of politics is not at a fever heat. Why should we experiment? The people are satisfied. We are the petitions asking for the passage of this bill?
Mr. COPELAND: I think this a very important matter. It has been said by gentlemen on the floor several times already that it is the custom of Indiana Legislatures to be continually hampered with laws. I think it one of the distinguishing marks of the prudence, wisdom and erudition of the English Parliament that they are inclined to let well established laws alone. We should go slowly when making radical changes. It has been said that one of the reasons why we should elect a County Superintendent by the people is because we elect a State Superintendent of Public Instruction. There is a wide difference in these two officers One is removed far above the scandal of public politics; he has no close relations with the people; yet petty dislikes may defeat a good man for the office of County Superintendent. This bill would make room for incompetent men. By their peculiar ways of manipulating the machine of politics they would be able to triumph over men of influence and ability. I shall heartily oppose this bill.
Mr. ROBERTSON: There have been two well defined theories: One is that it is unsafe to trust the people; the other is that it is safe. I change to be one of those who think that the people can be trusted. I have confidence in the intelligence of my people, and I believe that they can be fully trusted for the selection of public servants. I an in favor of giving to people the power rightly belongs to them.
Mr. PASSAGE demanded the previous question.
The demand was seconded by the House, and under its operations the bill was rejected by ayes 35, nays 10.
Mr. Magee's bill [S. 65] for the completion of three new insane asylums with a pending amendment to complete bu tone, was under discussion - the question being on a motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on Public Buildings [See page 102 of these Brevier Reports.]
Mr. MAGEE said: I don't know how Senators can ascertain anything new about this question by a recommitment of this bill. There is a printe report of the commissioners for the construction of these new hospitals, in which is a specific statement of the items which are estimated expenditures. This pamphlets has been on the desk of every Senator since the opening of this session. The State has spent half a million of dollars upon these buildings already. No man has questioned the proposition that they are absolutely required. Nobody has questioned, or dares to question, the integrity of the commission that is to have charge of this fund. No man can sit down and specify each item, and fix a limit upon it. You must appropriate a sum in gross for the purposes named. But in order to give the Senate and House of Representatives as full information as the commission itself has, each item is specified in the printed report. I can see no good come from a postponement of this matter.
I am aware some Senators say they would like to know what provision is to be made to obtain the money with which to complete these buildings. In a few days a bill will be introduced providing a way to raise this fund. It can't originate in the Senate, but will be presented in the other branch of the Legislature. It is competent for the State to make provision in two ways; one by a loan,a nd the other by a tax levy. I am informed that it is possible for the State to borrow money at 3 1/2 per cent., and it will cost 1/8 per cent. to place the loan, making the total interest 3 5/8 per cent., which, in my judgment, is better than to levy a tax. I know of no community suffering in the State to-day. The business interests of the country are depressed, the farmer is not now getting a very large return for his product; but everybody hopes and everybody knows that in the next year or eighteen months we will be on the same plane of prosperity as in 1871 and 1872. The State is in a better financial condition relatively than any town or county in the State. It has proportionately less debt and more wealth than any city or county in this Union We are amply able to do this work now. We will have upon the present levy money enough to meet the additional appropriation required in 1885 to construct these buildings. The tax levy won't have to be changed one iota. We will be able to pay the appropriation made herein for the completion of these buildings without borrowing money, unless it a temporary loan until we realize upon the tax. Next year we will have a mew assessment. The Senator from Owen (Mr. Fowler) says the assessment will be reduced.
Mr. FOWLER (in his seat): I get my information from the Auditor of State.
Mr. MAGEE: I don't believe the Auditor of State knows any better than you or I, or
any other man. The money to be realized from the present levy will cover every contingency
under that appropriation. If this
Mr. WILLARD: I do not think a better illustration could be given in favor of having this bill recommitted than the very table in this report of the commissioners appointed to erect these buildings. [Reads from the report.] Two years ago there was appropriated $600,000 for construction, and now they come in with a bill to appropriate $338,000 for one year and $225,000 for another year, which added to the $600 000 makes $1,163,000 for this purpose when the report of the commission, to which attention has been called, showed they ought to cost $834,000
Mr. WEIR: What was the estimated cost?
Mr. FOULKE: $1,200,000. The $600,000 appropriation was to carry them through the first two years.
Mr. FOWLER: I am informed it was understood at the time the bill passed that $600,000 was appropriated, and it was supposed that sum would build these asylums, although there were no estimates made at the time. It was impossible to have estimates, because various plans of construction were discussed, both the cottage and detached, but there were no architects' plans made and no estimates submitted. They only asked for the construction of these buildings $834,000, and yet they propose now to appropriate in a lump without specifying what it is for, the sum - together with the $600 000 already appropriated - the sum of $1,163,000; $163,000 over a million of dollars If this bill will show specifically what this large appropriation is for, what parties are to carry out the contracts, and how the money is to be applied, I will support it; but I don't propose to be pu in a false position by the remarks of the Senator from Cass (Mr. Magee). I don't propose it is to be said that Senators what want this bill to specifically state what the money is appropriated for, that they are in favor of stopping this work.
I am here to vote every dollar necessary for the completion of these buildings. I am here to see their construction goes on as cheaply as possible for the State of Indiana. I don't want one-half million of dollars thrown after $600,000 already appropriated, without knowing what the money is to go for, who is to get it, or how it is to be applied. I think the Committee on Public Buildings ought to state what proportion of this money is to go in one direction and what in another. The report of the Commissioners has a good many "extras" in the estimates, yet we are asked to appropriate in a lump a very large sum of money, which may all go as extras to these contractors, unless some limit is placed upon these appropriations I believe it to be the duty of the committee when they reported this bill here to show the estimates upon which they based it. The bases of the committee does not correspond with the basis of the commissioners for the erection of these asylums at all. There is a difference of over $300,000 between the estimates of the commissioners and the committee which report this bill. When they come with this bill in a proper form, I believe that there will not be a single opposing voice.
Mr. CAMPBELL of St. Joseph: I had the pleasure of being on the committee two years ago which had under consideration the bill providing for the erection of these buildings, and, as far as my recollection goes, there was no such idea that the cost of these buildings should be limited to $600,000. Section 1 of that bill -
Mr. FOWLER: The then Senator from Allen County (Mr. Bell): told me last night that it was the general sense of Senators, who supported that bill, that it would cost only $600,000 to complete these buildings. I give it to the Senate just as Senator Bell gave it to me.
Mr. CAMPBELL: I was going to call attention tot he act [Reads.] It was not expected they would be completed in two years, but at the expiration of that time other commissioners would be appointed to carry on the work. I believe the work will be better done if we pass this bill appropriating the aggregate amount, leaving specific amounts to be fixed by the commissioners as we did two years ago.
Mr. McINTOSH: I want to refer to a matter the Senator has just spoken of, and I want to
state what I know. I was in the Senate all the time that bill was considered in open
Senate, and, as it happened, I heard the committee discussing the question some. I t was
plain and easy understood, and every Senator ought to know that the $600 000 was to build
those hospitals I urged upon the Senator from Vanderburg (Mr. Rahm), when the bill provided
for but one hospital, not to allow any other hospital to be added to it. I told him I
wanted to vote for his bill, but he told that Senator Bell insisted he must have one at
Fort Wayne; and they got the bill amended so as to build three. On the floor of the Senate
no one estimated what they would cost. But the tenth section of the bill implies, and the
understanding was that $600,000 was all that would be asked for. That is the way I
understood it, although I voted against the bill. Here is where they got away with those
who had an implied understanding that $600,000 would build these institutions [Reads]
Mr. MAGEE: In 1880 seventy-five counties reported 658 persons in the alms-houses, incurable insane, but it was estimated that there are about 2 000.
Mr. McINTOSH (resuming): Superintendent Fletcher says there is some error in gathering the statistics of 1880, and there was a false impression made. As he has made this a business and a study, I rely more upon what he says than anything I could gather myself. Two years ago, I confess, I was under the impression that there was a larger number; but I have changed my mind about that. There is another singular thing about this: Eight hundred and thirty-four thousand four hundred and forty one dollars, they claim, is the contract price for building the three institutions, so they ask, with the appropriation contained in this bill, $228,358 more than the printed price of all three buildings It is the duty of this Senate and of the General Assembly to take care of the interests of the tax-payer and I for one expect to stand here advocating their cause until the close of the session.
Mr. FOULKE: It is a very excellent thing, and highly gratifying to the tax-payers to know that there are men on the floor of the Senate so ready and willing to champion their cause. The Senator from Owen (Mr. Fowler) said among other objections to this bill there are other claims before us that we should consider. I ask every Senator upon this floor if there is any other claim in this wide world which is paramount to the claim of the insane? I ask if there is any class of beings under the sun so utterly under your power for protection as that class who it has pleased Divine Providence to deprive of their reason?
Mr. WEIR: Has the Senator from Wayne any reason to suppose there is any Senator on this floor not in favor of doing all that can be done for that unfortunate class of people?
Mr. FOULKE: The Senator must have forgotten that there has been within twenty-four hours a proposition made here to cut off two of these asylums; that the contracts should be carried out, but only one should be furnished for the space of the next two years. It is said by the Senator from Greene (Mr. McIntosh) that Superintendent Fletcher reports that there are only 508 outside of the asylums unprovided for. I sumbit if he had red a line or two farther the paper shows no such thing. [reads] Now what are the fact - in the County Poor houses alone there are more than 508 persons who require treatment. The only question to consider is how many insane are there in this State unprovided for, and what means should be taken to provide for them. The aggregate capacity of the three institutions will be nearly 1 034; the act provides the minimum shall be 600 and the maximum 2,100. I remember it was stated committee two years ago that $600,000 would carry us two years. My recollection is that statement was made by the Senator from Allen (Mr. Bell), who now says he understood the entire appropriation was to be $600 000
Something has been said s to the manner in which this law was put through. That act upon
the part of the last General Assembly was as proper as anything of the kind could possibly
be. It was the opinion of every Senator who express himself that three small hospitals
would be better than one large one, and we acted upon that principle. The last General
Assembly did right in providing for three. The ratio all over the world shows that the
opportunity for cures is largest in asylums erected on the cottage plan The Senator from
Greene is not aware that the asylum at Richmond is to be built on the cottage plan. We have
in view the restoration of the insane, and it is not proper for the General Assembly to
look at a few dollars and a few cents The duty is imposed upon us by the Constitution,
which every one of us, when we came here, lifted his right had and swore he would support.
That does not mean inadequate provision; it does not mean that we should keep 300 or 400,
and let 4,000 or 5,000 go wandering about th State. We should not allow a single insane
wanderer in the State A few dollars and a few cents are not be weighed in the balance
against them The Senator from Allen (Mr Bell) made an elegant speech upon this subject two
years ago, in which he urged by every impulse that can actuate hu
An objection by the Senator form Lawrence (Mr. WILLARD) and one other Senator (Mr. McIntosh) is that this bill calls for a great deal more money than the contract price; that the contract price is $800 000, and the bill calls for $1,100,000. Including the $600,000 appropriated already. The Commissioners come to us with a statement of things absolutely essential. The Senator from Lawrence asks what the objection is to specifying how much shall go to make every window and door, and how much for heating apparatus and so on. My objection is this: You never can erect a building of any size in which you can tell beforehand to a dollar and a cent how much will be needed for this and for that.
Mr. WILLARD: Can''t you say how much will be needed for the hospital at Evansville, how much for the one at Richmond, and how much for the one at Logansport?
Mr. FOULKE: We can't say that intelligently. It may be that the price of materials in a year or so will so change that it may cost a little more to build in one place or a little less in another. What I object to is the putting of these Commissioners under a cast iron rule. If in their discretion they can do better by putting $800 in a heating apparatus at Evansville, or taking off $500 at Richmond, they ought to have the right to do so; or if they can give additional facilities in the matter of water works at Richmond or Evansville or Logansport, I believe they can tell better than we whether it is necessary or not. I don't suppose any Senator can tell us whether any of these estimates cover the exact amount. We have left it to four of the best men, with the Governor, of the State, believing their only purpose will be to perform the duty which the law imposes upon them. I believe in leaving it tot hem, and not with us, who know nothing about such things, to determine what this money can be best expended for.
Mr. THOMPSON: Certainly the Senator who has just taken his seat does not think for a moment that there is any member of the Senate opposed to taking care of the insane of the State. Our State is not able to raise the means this bill proproses to appropriate. Senators may talk about the ability of the people, but for the last three, four or five years this State has been losing in population. If there was a question in the last canvass that was brought forward with determination, it was by the Democrats reflecting upon the Republican administration of the affairs of this State. We came into power, as I understand it, on the promise of the economy and opposition to increased taxation in this State. That was the procuring cause of my presence in this Senate. I am opposed to any more taxation; and now you get up a scheme - for it is a scheme - it was prompted by some three gentlemen in this Senate Chamber - one couldn't agree that the other should take the building; and finally they agreed they would take one building apiece. It will afford me the greatest pleasure to vote for the taking care of the insane and the oppressed whenever we have the ability to do it; but we are going to shipwreck ourselves if we go back upon the promises made by the party of which I am a member, and go into an avalanche of speculation on an avalanche of speculation on insane asylums or anything else, I am decidedly opposed to it. The State now is owing debts to her citizens who are not knocking at our doors, and she is refusing to pay. I regard a refusal to pay on the part of the State as a very great reflection upon the honor of the State. We have the ability to build one asylum and finish it, I think, entirely, and we have the ability to protect the other two against injury; and in two or three years we may be able to finish these also.
Mr. FAULKNER: I have long since learned that two wrongs never made one right. I think it
was wrong to build three, thought so before, and never changed my mind about the State
undertaking to build these three asylums at once. My judgment was we ought to build one,
for we needed it. When they got three together I voted against it. But we are now in for
it. We have spent some $600,000, and for the only way I see out of it, with any honor to
the State, is to build three institutions. I think my friend from Lawrence (Mr. Willard) Is
right about it; we ought to know where this money is going. We ought to have some
specifications. The idea of voting that much money without knowing any thing about it,
would be wrong. I will vote as liberally to take care of these unfortunates as any Senator
on the floor. I have been called, and it has been thrown up to me that I am the watch dog
of the Treasury. That is not the case; we have but one watch dog in Indiana. I have tried
to vote the best I could for all concerned. If we can't get this bill in a better
shape I shall vote for it as it is, but I shall first try to get it in better shape. I am
sorry to hear
Mr. RAHM: I had the honor to introduce a bill two years ago for the erection of one asylum. It was amended so as to provide for three. The original bill was to appropriate $200,000. The Senator from Allen (Mr. Bell) increased that amount to $600 000. That appropriation did not mean to build all three, but that it two years we could appropriate the necessary amount. I venture the assertion that there was hardly a single Senator but knew we would have to make additional appropriations I don't want the impression to go out that we intended it would only require $600,000 to build the three asylums. The law provides for the accommodation in these asylums of not less than 200 nor more than 700 each. The idea was to provide for 1 500 in the three. The reason 200 was put in there is that there was an old college building at Logansport which Dr. Fletcher, now Superintendent of the Central Asylum, thought we could fix up in a couple of months so as to hold from 200 to 300 patients. That was the one for the 200 patients, and the others were to be on a larger plan. Now here we are, having authorized three by law; and they are in process of construction, each one; and the contractors are on the ground; and if you hold back an appropriation it will bankrupt them. The Senate from Lawrence (Mr. Willard) asks why the committee didn't specify what we need that money for. The bill went before a committee and was investigated thoroughly, and came to the conclusion that the money asked to be appropriated was proper. We have confidence the commissioners with the Governor. I don't see how they can make any more detailed statement than they have in their report. Certainly, whatever money is not required the commissioners will not draw, and when the buildings are completed the money, of course, reverts back to the Treasury. I stand ready to vote for the bill, even if we have to raise the money by direct taxation.
Mr. McINTOSH: I stated when I was up before that I had understood $600,000 would be all the money required to build these institutions. Some Senator who followed me tried to make sport of that declaration. The only trouble two years ago about building an additional asylum for the insane was the place it should be located; that was all the trouble I want to read from Senator Van Voorhis' speech on page 227. [Reads from vol. xxi of the Brevier Reports.] Now if they had built six according to that idea (at $100,000 each) the cost would have been only $600,000 [Reads.] Nobody ever doubted this conclusions. There is a little amusing thing occurred along here. For the edification of the Senator from Cass (Mr. Magee) I wish to read a little speech he made [Reads.] He was against building them, if that was all the reason.
Mr. WINTER: I don't believe the people of this county are proposed to the
appropriation this bill calls for. The appropriation is large; there is no question about
that at all; but the subject for which the appropriation is made is much larger than the
appropriation. I am very much rejoiced that there has not been a single Senator that has
for one moment questioned the obligation that rests upon members of the Senate, and,
indeed, upon the people of the State to make full and adequate provision for the care the
insane. The feelings common to all humanity appeal to us in the strongest possible way to
make such provision. And in additional we have the positive mandate of the Constitution
which imposes the duty upon us. The only question is whether it is judicious or proper at
this to make the appropriation of the general propriety of these appropriations I am
heartily in accord with the bill and opposed to the amendment offered by the Senator from
Owen (Mr. Fowler). It is a conceded fact that the State of Indiana has commenced the
building of three asylums and has actually paid out about half a million of dollars, and to
that extent we have got into the enterprise, and there is not retrograding out of it. by
the amendment we would have had one asylum completed; which one we don't know. That
would give rise to a struggle as between Evansville, Richmond and Logansport, which would
induce lobbying in the interests of each one of these three points as to which one would be
favored by the Commissioners. That would be a spectacle for the edification of the people
of Indiana! That would the be first result to follow the passage of the bill were this
amendment adopted. Then it provides that two are not to be completed. They are to be left
standing uncompleted for at least two years from this time, and we don't know how much
longer, because when once stopped the force of inertia has to be overcome to get started
again. It strikes me that will not commend itself to the wisdom of this body as a very
business-like proposition, losing sigh of the welfare of a great number of insane who will
not be provided for. If this bill is passed it will furnish accommodation for every man,
woman and child in the State, and that will satisfy the demand made on us by the
Constitution of our State, a demand that has been neglected very much to the discredit of
the State, to make full, complete and adequate provision for the insane of the State. It
has been said that this bill does not specify for what purpose this money is to be
appropriated. It has not occurred to my mind that there is any
The motion to recommit and the amendment were both rejected. THe bill was ordered engrossed. [See page 102.]
Mr. FOWLER called up his proposed amendment to the rules, so that when a committee report favorably on a bill but seventy-five copies shall be printed if the committee so recommend. He said it will cost $10,000 this session to print bills under the rule as it now stands.
Mr. YOUCHE opposed the amendment. The present rule is an improvement on the practice session, and there would be less expense under the present rule than was incurred during the past one or two Legislatures. Unless bills are printed but few members on which they will be called upon to vote. It is an easy matter when bill is of small importance for some Senator to move that it be not printed.
Mr. MARSHALL: Many bills are of a dangerous character of legislation. The Alien bill of several years ago was not printed, and it passed both houses easily. If it had been printed it would not have passed, and that bill has been of great damage to the people of the State. Every Senator should have a fair chance to understand the provisions of every bill - especially those reported favorably from committees.
Mr. McINTOSH was of opinion there was already been more printing this session than during the whole of last session. He spoke of the stringing out of the printed matter unnecessarily, which increases the cost. When a bill is read some member can determine if there are vicious principles in it, and if so, it can be ordered printed. He hoped the amendment would be passed in the interest of the economy.
Mr. SCHLOSS thought it for the information of every Senator to have bills printed. Enough time has been spent in discussing this question to pay for the printing of probably fifty bills. He demanded the previous question.
The Senate seconded the demand for the previous question, and under its operations the proposed amendment to the rules was rejected by yeas 12, nays 30.
Mr. FOWLER called up from the files his notice for an amendment of the rules so that the daily sessions shall commence at 9 o'clock a.m.
Mr. McCOLLOUGH opposed the amendment. He desired the Senate should be as industrious as possible, but as we all know the work of this body now is being done in the committee rooms. With a little more attention, the business is this Chamber can be done in four hours per day. Committee members should not be compeiled to sit in committee rooms till 11 and 12 o'clock at night, when so much time is idled away in open Senate.
Mr. WILLARD: SO far as the amendment would be economy in time, it would have the contrary effect. An early hour for meetings would show no quorum present, and possibly force and early adjournment on that account. it is well enough later in the session when all the committee work is in, to meet earlier, but now it would prove an absolute loss of time.
Mr. FOWLER desired a change so that members might have a chance to blow off their gas
between 9 and 10 o'clock and so be able to get down to business by 10 o'clock. He
believed as many members would be here at 9 as at 10 o'clock. It is the general
The amendment to the rule was rejected by yea 17, nays 28.
Mr. FAULKNER (explaining his negative vote): If rule 15 were enforced we would gain more than this hour between 9 and 10 o'clock
Mr. FOULKE: I rise to a question of privilege. A few days since you did me the honor, Mr. President, to appoint me as a member of a committee to whom was referred that portion of the Governor's message in regard to the State Treasury, which committee was required to report whether an investigation was proper and necessary. A state of facts has occurred since that time which, in my humble opinion, renders it impossible for any man who respects himself to continue longer a member of a committee whose only purpose, as he believes is to stifle an investigation in regard to which it was authorized to inquire. I wish to lay this matter before the Senate and ascertain whether the Senate desires, under the circumstances that I should longer remain a member of the committee. The committee met on the afternoon of day before yesterday at the Bates House -
Mr. McCOLLOUGH (interrupting): I rise to a point of order I don't think there is any question of privilege about this. The Senator proposes to state what has occurred in the Committee room. I don't think he has nay right to make that sort of a statement under the claim of a question of privilege.
Mr. FOULKE: I should be very glad to refer to Senate as to what are questions of privilege under parliamentary law. They are questions relating to the conduct of the members, and the complaint of one member against another. These have been decided and questions of privileges - as to the conduct of a member, and as to whether or not it is proper that I shall continue longer a member of a committee -
Mr. McCOLLOUGH (interposing): I insist on my point of order.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: I will refer this question or order to th Senator from Lawrence (Mr. Willard) and the Senator from Marion (Mr. Winter) to decide whether this a question of privilege or not.
Mr. WILLARD: When would you like to have a report from this committee.
The LIEUTENTANT GOVERNOR: At once - immediately.
While this committee was in consultation -
Mr. Duncan, of Brown, introduced a bill [S. 201] for the relief Joel L. Davis, and authorizing the refunding to him of certain damages paid into the treasury of Bartholomew County, which was read the first time.
Mr. WILLARD: The committee agrees that this matter introduced by the Senator from Wayne (Mr. Foulke) is not a question of privilege, and bases the opinion upon the following authority: [Reads] The Senator from Wayne seems to think it is a question of privilege to ask to be excused from service on a committee. It is decided otherwise. [Reads.]
Mr. FOULKE: I will ask, sir, not as a question of privilege, to be excused from serving on that committee, and desire to state the reasons why I ask.
Mr. WILLARD: That is not in order, under our regular order of business We should have to suspend the regular order of business.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: The Senator from Wayne (Mr. Foulke) will take his seat.
Mr. FOWLER: I move that the regular order of business be suspended that the Senator may state why he does not wish to act further with the Investigation Committee.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: I hope there will be objection.
Several Senators - "Consent," "consent," "regular order"
Mr. FOULKE: On the occasion of the first meeting of the Investigation Committee the State Treasurer was invited by some members of the majority to be present, and no objection was made whatever by any member of the committee. The committee, after attending to some preliminary business -
Mr. McCULLOUGH: I have no objection to everything that has been done before that committee being told: but if the Senator is to have the floor to make a speech we should the right to reply.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: I requested the Senator from Wayne to take his seat until the motion should be decided by the Senator from Lawrence and the Senator from Marion, and they have decided against him.
Mr. McCULLOUGH: I object to the Senator taking the floor in this manner for the purpose of delivering a political speech. He does not seem to understand that he is returned with the minority here, and that the majority have the responsibility upon them; that same spirit which caused the minority four years ago to dictate what the legislation should be and what not be has shown itself in this case, and the minority on that committee are determined to have their own way about it or refuse to act. The committee will in due time make a report, when the minority can also make report. I object to him making insinuations against the members of the committee.
Mr. FOULKE: It is unfortunate in the extreme -
Mr. WILLARD (interrupting): I rise a point of order. The Senator from Wayne has no right to come upon this floor and impugn the motives of any other member of a committee.
Mr. FOULKE: I impugn the motives of no one.
Mr. WILLARD: You are doing it. If he is not satisfied with the action of the committee he has a regular parliamentary remedy. He can make a minority report in such language as he sees fit to use, and if the language is not proper he is amenable to the rules of the Senate.
Mr. FOULKE: I have had, as I understand it, consent of the Senate to state the facts upon which I am asking to be excused from serving on the committee.
Mr. WILLIARD: You have not stated the facts.
Mr. FOULKE: I was proceeding to do so when interrupted by the Senator from Gibson (Mr. McCollough)
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: I intended to call your attention to the fact that objection was made.
Mr. FOULKE: If the majority of this Senate feel that they can afford not only to stifle the treasury investigation in their committee, but also to stifle an account of the transactions of their committee upon the floor of the Senate, I am content. [Calls of "order" and raps of the gavel caused the Senator to raise his voice to a high pitch.]
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR [rapping with his gavel]: The Senator will take his seat. Bills on the second reading was the order at the adjournment, and under the rules, I suppose, that order shall be continued.
Mt. Hilligass't Sheep Husbandy Encouragement bill [S. 79] coming up in regular order, it was read the second time.
Mr. HILLIGASS: This bill provides that a registry of sheep killed shall be kept, and the sheep paid for in the order in which they are registered. That is fair and just. It makes it impossible for the Township Trustee to give preference to his neighbors in the payment of losses The bill also provides that the surplus funds shall be apportioned pro rata between cities and towns. It is well known a great portion of the tax levied upon dogs comes from cities and towns, and it is proper that cities and towns should have their pro rata share of the surplus.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph: It seems to me there would be a decided propriety in recommitting this bill to the Committee on Agriculture for this reason: There are two if not three other bills on this same subject now before the Committee on Agriculture, a report on which has been delayed because some Senators want to lay these bills before a convention of sheep raisers to meet in this city some time soon.
Mr. HILLIGASS: Out of courtesy to the Senator from St. Joseph I consent that the bill may be referred to the Committee on Agriculture.
It was so referred with an amendment proposed by the Senator from Elkhart (Mr. Davis), which was not read.
Mr. FOWLER's bill [S. 112] to cut off fraudulent sales of personal property was read the second time.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay, moved to amend so the Recorder shall receive the same fee for recording sale notes as for recording chatall mortgages.
Mr. FOWLER: These bills of sales might cover many pages, and it might be injustice to require an officer to record them at the same price as chattel mortgages. It seems to me the bill ought to pass just as it is. It proposes t give the officer compensation for what he does and nothing more.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. WINTER moved to amend so the Recorder's fee shall in no case be less than fifty cents.
Mr. WILLARD moved to strike from the amendment the word "less" and insert in lieu of the word "more"
Mr. FOULKE: I don't think the amendment would be just to the Recorder. There are instances where such instruments cover eight or ten pages, and it would not be fair to say the fee for recording shall not be more than fifty cents.
Mr. MAGEE: The Recorder is the lowest paid officer in the county. He is not paid sufficiently in some counties to support himself and pay necessary clerk hire. I think the motion of the Senator from Jay was right. I am opposed to the amendment to amendment.
It was rejected and the amendment [Mr. Winter's] was agreed to.
The bill was ordered engrossed.
Mr. Smith's of Jennings bill [S. 73] to provide that a female attendant shall accompany insane women while being conveyed to and from the Insane Hospital and that the Superintendent shall have $2000 per month set aside as a fund for contingent expenses what remains at the end of each month to be returned to the Treasury, coming up in regular order -
Mr. McCLURE: This bill is for the convenience of the Superintendent who now has to pay current expenses out of his own picket, and then depend on making out of a bill and collecting it when the next monthly meeting of the Board of Trustees takes place. It adds no more to the expense.
Mr. MAGEE: This bill should be amended so as to apply to all the other Insane Hospitals.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings: The part relative to female patients could not be made to apply to the other hospitals, but the setting aside a contingent fund might He moved to suspend the constitutional rule that the bill might be passed to the final vote now.
Mr. MAGEE: I think this way of suspending the constitutional provision is all wrong.
The motion was rejected by yeas, 24; nays,
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph, explaining his negative vote: Section 1 of this bill seems to contemplate that whatever has heretofore gone to the Sherrif for mileage in the transportation of female patients to and from the Insane Asylum shall go to the Superintendent of the institution. It seems to me the aggregate profits would be very large. And I apprehend there are no other features in this bill which the Senate should carefully consider. Therefore I vote "no"
On motion by Mr. Smith, of Jennings, the bill was read the second time.
On motion by Mr. MAGEE it was referred to a select committee of three [Messrs. Magee, Smith of Jennings, and Foulke] with instructions to amend so it shall apply to all the insane hospitals, which committee soon returned the bill to the Senate with said amendments.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings: This bill is intended to provide a humane way of transporting female patients to and from the Hospital for the Insane. There is such an inhumane practice now in vogue which we can not endure any longer. I move to adopt the report of the committee to which the bill was originally referred, and also the amendments reported by this special committee.
Mr. MACY: In my opinion this bill proposes to take from the Sheriffs of the various counties a duty which is devolved upon them by the statutes, and give it to the Superintendents of the Hospitals for the Insane. For that reason I don't think it should be passed. I believe the fees and emoluments of the Superintendents of the Hospitals from this source would amount to thousands of dollars. I move to make this bill a special order for Thursday at 2 o'clock p.m.
Mr. WINTER: There are several things in this bill which should receive much more careful consideration. The law which now regulates the transportation of patients to the Insane Hospital makes ample provision for female attendants; it does not use the word "female," but it covers the case. There is ample provision made to send not only a female assistant tot he Sheriff, but some female relative of the patient. The Superintendents of hospitals, according to the provisions of this bill, are to have the compensations now allowed assistants. Section 2,871, R.S. of 1881, allows eight cents per mile to every assistant both ways, which, by this bill, is to go into the pockets of the Superintendents of these asylums. I don't for one moment imagine it was intended anything of that kind should be done under this bill. Again, I do not understand why $2,000 a month for contingent expenses should be put in the hands of the Superintendent of the central hospital and $1,000 a month in the hands of each of the Superintendents of the other hospitals. Twenty-four thousand dollars and $36,000 makes $60,000, which is a large sum of money to be disposed of in that way. Therefore I think the motion to postpone the consideration of this bill should prevail.
Mr. MAGEE: That section is not properly guarded in relation tot he compensation for bringing patients to the asylums.
The motion to postpone was agreed to.
Mr. Robinson's bill [H. R> 13] to repeal an act authorizing aliens to hold titles to real estate, coming up in regular order was read the third time.
Mr. SAYRE: I am convinced that this bill in its present condition ought not to pass, for the reason that it is simply a repealing law. It will require further legislation declaring that aliens shall not hold real estate. The Senate bill contains these provisions, and that bill has already gone through the Senate. I think it would be better to postpone the consideration of this bill. Besides, the title of this bill is not correctly stated here.
Mr. WILLIAMS: I desire to say that the title is correctly stated. I believe that the consideration of this bill ought not to be postponed. I think the bill ought to pass. It may be that by the passage of a bill of this character some further legislation may be needed, and if that is true I will vote for the Senate bill. This bill comes here in the regular order. Out of the considerable number of bills this bill was selected for passage. It has received the indorsements of the Judiciary Committee, and I can see no reason why this bill should be postponed.
Mr. ROBINSON: I am not in favor of postponing this bill. Two years ago I had the pleasure to introduce a bill of the same purport, and while it was the intention of that House to pass that bill, it was defeated by postponing, and never reached a vote. The title of this is copied from the original bill. If there is any defect, it was in the title of the original bill. Ever if there is a Senate bill already passed that body, I see no impropriety in passing upon this bill. It gives an impetus to the idea. If the Senate bill reaches farther up, I see no reason why the passage of this bill should obstruct the passage of the Senate bill. It has been asked whether, if this passes and becomes a law, it will prevent aliens from possessing real estate to morrow. Probably not. There is not emergency clause in it. I am not in favor of passing unfavorably upon this bill, so as to obstruct legislation upon that subject.
Mr. LOYD: This is a very important measure, and it is expedient on the part of the House
to use discretion in passing it. I am opposed to this bill and in favor of the Senate bill,
which i think is full and complete. The bill before the House repeals the law that gives
aliens the right to hold real estate in the State of Indiana. I apprehend
Mr. BROWNING: I am in favor of the provisions of this bill, but while that is true I don't think it right and proper for this House to proceed and pass the bill while the Senate bill, which contains all the provisions of the present bill, is before our committee. We don't need these two bills. The title is not good because it has been copied from the old bill. It is defective. I move that the further consideration of this bill be postponed until next Thursday morning.
Mr. ADAMS: The motion to postpone this bill until next Thursday is a wise motion. We all agree as to the merits and the ideas of this bill. I don't believe this bill will reach the ends that we all want to reach. The bill that comes from the Senate gives aliens five years in which to dispose of their property.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: I favor the postponement of this because it can't hurt the bill. A few days' delay will not affect the bill.
Mr. KELLISON: It has been stated that if this bill is passed in its present form we would be without law upon this subject. In other worse, that aliens could not take my descent. There is a law upon this subject. That law is still in force and was not repealed by the act of 1881. So the effect of repealing this act leave the law in force that is already in force authorizing real estate to pass to aliens by descent. In the absence of all statutory law I undertake so say that no alien has a right to hold real estate in the State of Indiana. I hope the bill will not be postponed.
Mr. WILLIAMS demanded the previous question.
The House seconded the demand, and under its operation the motion to make this bill a special order for Thursday next was agreed to by yeas 55, nays 36.
Mr. Helms' bill [H. R. 32] to provide for the purchase of all stationery for county officers by the County Commissioners, coming up in regular order, was read the third time.
Mr. HELMS: Our county has tried the plan of purchasing stationery after the plan suggested in the bill, and found it worked admirable. At the close of 1884 our county learned that by purchasing stationery themselves they made a saving of $900. Thinking that it would make a general saving throughout the State, I have introduced this bill, and ask its passage.
Mr. STALEY: We have had some experience in this line in my county, only our experience is just in the other way precisely. We found that it was a loss of money and that we did not get as good stationery by allowing the County Commissioners to purchase it. I am opposed to the bill.
Mr. GOODING: There is a good deal int he character and quality of paper, and I think the clerks and officers of the county are better judges of what kind of paper they want than the County Commissioners. I think the county officers are better qualified to know the quality of the paper they want.
Mr. HARRELL: As far as the officers of my county are concerned I consider them honorable gentlemen. As has been said, they know what they want. The stationery men will form a combination on the County Commissioners, and they will be obliged to take the Stationery at the price offered by this combination. I am opposed to the bill.
Mr. ENGLE: There seems to be a misunderstanding about this bill. The only difference between this bill and the law is that the bill provides that the furnishing of stationery shall be let by public auction. The law provides that the County Commissioners shall by all the paper they want. This bill would cause a reduction in the cost of the stationery, and I think it ought to pass.
Mr. DITTEMORE: For two years past the county officers of my county have been cutting down the price of stationery by letting the furnishing out to auction. I believe this is a wise measure, and ought to pass.
Mr. LOYD: I believe that county officers are elected with a view to their fitness and qualifications. I apprehend that a Board of County Commissioners know as little about the wants of a certain clerk as it is possible for them to know. I believe the bill before the House would be the means of brining into use in the offices an inferior class of stationery, and this is especially not desirable, when we come to include the different books or records and tax duplicates etc. It is necessary that they be of the very best quality. I can not conceive who could be a better judge of the stationery they want than the County Auditor, County Clerk, or any other officer. I am opposed to the bill.
The bill finally passed the House of Representatives by yeas 52, nays 41.
The Speaker announced the special order for his hour, being the consideration of the Senate amendment [see page 88 of the Brevier Reports] to the House concurrent resolution for an investigation into the Governor's failure to make an examination of the State Treasurer's office.
Mr. McMULLEN moved that the further consideration of the concurrent resolution
Mr. SAYRE: I hope the motion to postpone the consideration of this concurrent resolution will not pass. I hope so because I feel from the information that I am possessed of that the subject demands immediate attention. If all the members of this House don't know, some of the members do know that the condition of the Indiana State Treasury is in no wise in the condition that the law or public safety require it. On that account I believe that this Senate amendment ought to be concurred in, authorizing the formation of a committee. I do this for the reason that the Senate has awakened to the public demand upon this question that the Treasury of the State of Indiana was in an unsafe condition and that it should be investigated, and the Senate paid heed to that voice and reversed its action upon this subject. I believe that the House ought to concur in this amendment, and that a committee ought to be formed with power to send for persons and papers. I think I am not going beyond what the people generally believe that the Treasurer of the State of Indiana for the last two years has been constantly violating the law; that he has is a criminal under the laws of the State of Indiana; and I believe by investigation their officer will be shown to be an embezzler, and when he takes the oath of office it will be moral perjury on his part. This is the condition of the State Treasury. Where there should be $486,000 I feel safe in saying there is not one half that amount. I feel safe in saying that all sorts of schemes and devices have been resorted to by the Treasurer and his friends to make an appearance or a showing that might satisfy a committee only asking of witnesses not under oath, I don't believe that any useful information will be derived from the report of the committee we have already appointed, and on that account I think the further consideration of his question ought to be postponed. Because of a misunderstanding between the members of the committee as to their power and authority, they can not and will not afford this House any information that will be useful upon this question, in no way can this matter be settled so that the people of Indiana will be satisfied except by the appointment of a committee with the authority to send for persons and papers and making a complete showing of the Treasury of the State of Indiana. I believe I am warranted further in giving information to this House and I am not quite sure that it is violating etiquette that the committee that is now in the investigation of these affairs are utterly powerless to make investigation. I can show that the Treasurer holds $60,000 worth of Marion County orders drawing interest. While the law requires that he shall have the cash in the Treasury to pay on demand, yet he exhibits as assets county orders issued to John C. Shoemaker that are more than twelve months due and drawing interest. This committee has not power to find out whether these orders are the equivalent of cash. I have said this much why the investigation ought not to be postponed. The Treasurer is soon to file a new bond, and before his term commences or is entitled to commence under the law this investigation ought to be made complete and thorough. Any legislation upon this subject will be retarded and prevented if it is possible. So that the wise thing for your to do if you want to be faithful tot he public interest and protect the funds that have been raised by the hard processes of taxation, is to make this investigation now that the people may feel entirely safe in relation to the condition of their funds in the State Treasury.
Mr. McMULLEN: I shall not go into the discussion that the gentleman has indulged in. This resolution was passed by this House and taken to the Senate, and before that resolution came back they passed a resolution asking that the House concur with them in the making of a committee to investigate the part of Governor Porter's message referring to the State Treasury. The majority of this House passed that resolution. That committee has been doing its work and doing it well. Contrary to what the gentleman has said this committee hs understood the resolution very well. I know that they understood it so well that every Democrat voted on one side and Republicans on the other. I don't know of any misunderstanding. Now it is fair and right to appoint another committee before the one already appointed has had time to report? This is the best reason in the world why the consideration of this resolution and its amendment be postponed until Wednesday at 2 o'clock, and by that time I have reason to believe that the committee that has been appointed to see whether this investigation was necessary will have reported, and the House can tell what to do. I demand the previous question.
The House seconded the demand, and under its operation the motion to postpone was agreed to by yeas 54, nays 33.
The House resolved into a Committee of the Whole, for the consideration of the General Appropriation bill, the time of the traveling expenses of the State Superintendent was reduced from $600 to $500, and $450 was added for the purpose of meeting all outstanding obligations not paid through failure of the Appropriation bill of the last session. An effort was made to strike out or reduce the appropriation for a Deputy Attorney General, but the movement was a failure. The bill was ready by sections, and discussed and amended as far as the section making an appropriation for the State Librarian an then committee arose to meet again Monday at 2 o'clock.
Lieutenant Governor MANSON announced prayer by Rev J.A. Rondthaler, of the Tabernacle Presbyterian Church, Indianapolis.
The journal reading was dispensed with.
Mr. ERNEST offered a joint resolution [S.6] proposing an amendment to Section 14, Article 5, of the Constitution by adding the following proviso:
Provided, however, that the Governor shall have power to disapprove of any item or items of any bill making an appropriation of money embracing distinct items, and the part of parts of the bill approved shall be the law, and the item or items of appropriation disapproved shall be void unless repassed by both Houses, as provided here in for the repassage of the other bills.
Resolved, That in submitting this amendment to the electors of the State to be voted on, it shall be designated as Amendment No. 1.
Mr. BAILEY offered a joint resolution [S. 7] instructing Senators and requesting Representatives in Congress from Indiana to use their influence for the more strict enforcement of the National eight hour law, and that they endeavor to so amend said law as to make eight hours the measure of a day's labor in all industrial employments throughout the United States.
These two joint resolutions were read the first and severally referred to appropriate committees.
Mr. BAILY offered a concurrent resolution for a State Commission to be appointed by the Governor to examine and report before November, 1886 on the difference systems of convict labor in operation in the United States and other countries, with suggestions so as to prevent as far as practicable injurious competition on the one hand between convict labor and free labor, and on the other the reformation and welfare of convicts, and appropriating not more than $3 000 for said commission.
It was referred to the Committee on Labor
Mr. WILLARD (stating that the next thing in the regular order being business that there are not a sufficient number of Senators present to consider) moved to take up bills from the House on the second reading.
The bills [H. R. 6] to prohibit Sunday ball playing; the justice pleading amendment bill [H. R> 7] Section 1, 464 R.S.; to appropriate $60,000 to Purdue University [H. R. 15]; [H. R. 17] to legalize appointments of more than one trustee by the courts heretofore; [H. R. 20] to amend Section 5 879 R.S. concerning coroners' post mortem; [H. R 35] to change court terms in the Forty second and Forty third Districts; [H. R. 37] to build a brick barn, gas works, and kitchen at the Reform School; the delinquent list certificate bill [H. R. 48] section 6,487 R.S. and the county officers' stationery bill {H. R. 32].
Then came a recess for dinner.
On motion by Mr. FOWLER the House concurrent resolution was taken up directing the State Librarian to purchase a suitable flag or ensign, and have the coat of arms of the State appropriately inscribed thereon, that a State flag may be sent to the Committee of Arrangements on the dedication of the Washington monument on the 21st of this month He said the resolution seems to be a little broad; there ought to be a price fixed, and not leave the cost entirely with the Librarian.
Mr. WILLARD moved to fix the cost at $500.
Mr FOWLER: Five hundred dollars is too much.
Lieutenant Governor MANSON: I don't think it will cost $100.
Mr. Fowler moved to amend by the amendment by providing the cost shall not exceed $150.
Mr. FAULKNER: We have a very economical little lady for State Library, and I think we had better leave that matter with her. She will get it up in good taste, and one that the State will be proud of, I am satisfied, and not break up the State, either.
Mr. WILLARD withdrew his motion.
The resolution was concurred in.
The Lieutenant Governor announced a special order, being Mr. Macy's Court Reporters' bill [S. 64], on the second reading, with pending amendment, proposed by Mr. Macy, so that the report shall receive his pay from the parties litigant, and not from the county, as the law now is.
Mr. McCULLOUGH: The present law provides that a short hand reporter may be appointed either by the Judge or on agreement of parties. It also provides the reporter shall be paid not to exceed $10 per day out of the County Treasury. The amendment provides that the Judge, if he deems it necessary, shall appoint the reporter, but he shall not be paid over $7 a day. It takes from the parties litigant the power to appoint by mere agreement, and have the reporter paid out of the Treasury of the county. The report may never be used - simply parts of it may be used by the Court - it may always remain in short hand as far as that is concerned, and it is wrong to compel parties to pay for that kind of a report unless they want to use it.
Mr. WILLARD" My opinion is that this is practically the creation of a new officer. I can't see it in any other way. In actual practice we never find the Judge of his own motion appointing a short-hand reporter.
Mr. MAGEE: The most economical arrangement is to try cases with a short hand reporter.
Mr. WILLARD: I guarantee that when it comes to practical operations under this bill that wherever a motion is made by reputable attorneys for a short-hand reporter he will be appointed The object of the bill as originally introduced evidently was to take this burden from the County Treasury, but the Judiciary Committee in amending the bill have struck out that idea. The original feature ought to prevail.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay, thought the amendment proposing to pay the reporter by the parties litigant was fair and just, but did not think it right for parties to go into the Circuit or Superior Court, and have the Court appoint a reporter and pay him out of the County Treasury. He thought it better that the fees of the reporter be taxed as other costs.
The amendment (Mr. Macy') was rejected by yeas 15, nays 20.
Mr. SELLERS moved to amend so that the caption and Judge's certificate may be certified by the clerks; and also to reduce the per diem from $7 to $5. In my opinion $7 per day is too much as there are so many beginners in short-hand, and at the same time reporters ought not to be paid within a dollar a day of as much as the Judges get, and in addition be allowed $8 or $10 more for transcribing notes, and making his pay $10 or $15 a day, while the Judge only gets $8.
Mr. DAVIS: There may be circumstances when it may be right to pay some reporters more than $7 per day. I understand there are some Judges who will not allow more than $5 per day now.
He demanded a division of the question.
The first part was agreed to.
Mr. CAMPBELL of Hendricks: I think short-hand reporters are becoming so numerous that they can be had for $5 a day; and the nay ought to be limited; if not limited the Judge will allow $7.
The latter part of the amendment was also agreed to, and the bill ordered engrossed for the third reading.
The Lieutenant Governor announced the special order for 3 o'clock being Mr. Magee's bill [S. 196] to provide for a temporary loan of $600,000 - the question being on amendments reported by the Finance Committee.
Mr. FOWLER moved to amend the bil by striking out the first section after the enacting
clause, which states the loan is made necessary by appropriations made by this General
Assembly. No such contingency has as yet arisen. No bills have yet passed making
extrodinary expenses, and until that has been done I think a provision of this kind
injudicious. There is already a fund that might be considered. There already a fund which
might be considered a contingent fund that is yielding some $35,000 or $40,000 a year,
known as the permanent endowment fund of the State University. The Legislature ought not
to provide for anything of this kind unless there is some demand made fo it, and it seems
to me there is none yet. What appropriation is it necessary to meet? None
Mr. WILLARD: The Finance Committee gave this bill thorough consideration and it was reported back as a matter of absolute necessity at this time. After this Legislation adjourns there can be no provision made for meeting the expenses of the State until 1887. This Senate by almost a unanimous vote less than a week ago passed a bill appropriating $568 000 for building three additional hospitals for the insane. Now we have starring us in the face that five hundred and over thousand dollars to provide for. How are you going to provide for that? You have got either to increase the levy, and that wont reach it the first year, or you will have to let the State officers provide for it by a temporary loan, or leave a deficit and the Treasury without money to run the government until the Legislature meets again. As tot he second amendment - to strike out the word temporary - that evidently was proposed under a misapprehension. I don't think any Senator could desire to reduce the school fund loan. We don't want to force the State to borrow money, but we will have to do something to provide for the extraordinary expenses we believe which we believe both branches of this General Assembly are in favor of.
Mr. MAGEE: I supposed this question had been so thoroughly discussed last week that it would not be necessary to go over the same ground again. This is simply a question of business. We have a loan (costing us 5 per cent interest) amounting in round numbers to $700,000, known as a temporary loan. Under the provisions of that bill we can refund that loan at an expense of 3 5/5 per cent. Since I came to the Senate chamber to-day I received a note from a gentleman who does not care to have his name mentioned, but a man who can carry out any proposition he makes, stating that if this bill is amended so as to make the bonds 10 20 bonds, he will take the entire loan at 3 1/2 per cent. So there is no doubt but that the State officers can make a contract for 3 5/8 per cent. There was not a dissenting voice as to the business sagacity of this bill. We ought to have a law so that at any and all times the State officers can refund a debt if it can be done so as to save the people's money. Under this bill in the next two years the State can save $16,000.
The Senator from Owen (Mr. Fowler) says the bill making the appropriation for the three insane asylums has not yet become a law. Grant all that: there would be no harm in passing this bill because it is a prudential measure. One of the objections to the hospital asylum bill was that there was no provision made for the money appropriated. Now we have made provision for raising the money and the Senator objects to it. All the money required to carry on these buildings and to do anything necessary for the State will be on hand with our increased amount of taxation. We have expense of $35,000 to rebuild the Women's Department of the insane asylum, which has damaged by fire the other day. Then there will be an appropriation for Purdue University, covering several years: there will be an appropriation for the State University, on account of fire there; and the State will require more money than we can raise by levy for the present year, because the new assessment will not be returned until 1886. We will have about one hundred million of taxables. The Senator from Owen says that only 60 per cent. of the taxes are collected. I think the Senator is mistaken.
Mr. FOWLER: I get my information from the Auditor of State.
Mr MAGEE: I know that is not so - able as that officer is -as able as any officer who ever occupied the position There is not one county in the State but what pays more than 60 per cent; 98 is about what we average. The Auditor must be mistaken, if he says that 40 per cent is not collected. I don't suppose there need be any further discussion of this question, I therefore move to lay the amendment on the table.
Mr. FOWLER: Oh, no, don't do that.
Mr. MAGEE: I withdraw the motion, with the understanding that I renew it.
Mr. FOWLER: The Senator calls in question the statement of the Auditor of State. The Auditor is correct, as his books show.
Mr. MAGEE: They say there is a great amount of bad bookkeeping about those State buildings [Laughter]
Mr. FOWLER: I don't believe it.
Mr. MAGEE: I don't either, and I don't believe there is 40 per cent. delinquent on tax collections.
Mr. FOWLER: I have known those men for many years and I don't believe there is any bad book-keeping there. But here is the statement of the Auditor [Reads.] I don't care to discuss that. The Senator from Lawrence (Mr. Willard) says his understanding is that we have no permanent bonds, but that they are all temporary. I understand we have canal bonds issued away back in 1840 issued away back in 1840, yet standing against the State. These are permanet bonds and they would not be included in the bill. I offered my amendment with the view, if these bonds can be refunded for a less rate of interest than they are drawing to authorize the State officers to do it. I don't mean to include the school fund bonds.
On motion by Mr. MAGEE, the amendments were laid on the table.
Mr. SMITH, of Delaware: Does not that vote carry the bill tot he table also?
Mr. MAGEE: I will look up the authorities, and if it does will move to reconsider the vote just taken.
Mr. FOWLER: I will move to lay that motion on the table.
Mr. WILLARD [reads from Wilson's Parliamentary Digest]: The amendment was not so germane as to carry the bill with it. Then the bill was not here.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks: If the amendment was in order, laying it on the table carries the bill with it.
The motion to reconsider was agreed to.
Mr. WILLARD demands the previous question.
Mr. FOWLER: I insist on my motion to lay the motion to reconsider on the table. There was a second to it.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: The Senator from Cass (Mr. MAGEE) was still on his feet at the time you offered your motion to reconsider on the table. I don't know whether you claim the floor or not.
Mr. FOWLER: If the Chair decides I didn't why, no matter.
The Senate seconded the demand for the previous question, and under its operations the report of the committee was concurred in and the bill ordered engrossed for the third reading.
The SPEAKER laid before the House a communication from the Secretary of State transmitting to the House a bill [H. R. 351] to provide for the removal of mill dams, passed by the last General Assembly, to which the Governor (Porter) filed objections in the office of the Secretary of State within five days next after the adjournment of said General Assembly.
The SPEAKER: The Constitution says when a bill is returned from the Governor, with his objections to the House in which it originated, the House shall proceed to consider the bill, and if a majority of the House do say so, it shall become a law.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: I want to say to this House that after this bill was presented tot he Governor to sign I wrote home to my constituency about it. We have fifteen mill dams in Tippecanoe County I asked the Governor not to sign the bill until I wrote with regard to the matter. I believe this thing is all wrong. Behind this thing, I think, there is an interest somewhere. We have four or five laws by which mill damns can be abated. And there is another question. The mills supply materials for brad, and their improvements are placed in jeopardy by this act. I f there be a mill-dam that is a nuisance, there are laws to abate public nuisances - if they are not used or misused. But if every possible kind of mill property in Indiana may be seized upon and the owner requested to take as many dollars for it, he is forced into court without a prima facie case I see no right in this. The law does not give anybody this right, and it is not for public utility Many persons when I was called home who were interested in this matter, spoke to me of it. I am opposed to this bill simply because it takes a man's property without the right of trial by jury. I simply think it is all wrong.
Mr. TAYLOR: I shall sustain the veto of the Governor.
Mr. GOODING: As I understand it the bill denies the right of trial by jury. I will vote for no bill that denies the right of jury trial.
The bill failed to pass over the objection of the Governor (Mr. Porter) by yeas 5, nays 69.
Pending the roll call -
Mr. ADAMS, when his name was called, said: I desire to say one word. I shall sustain the veto. I voted for the bill two years ago but I shall now vote against it. I therefore vote "no."
Mr. BEST, in explanation of his vote, said: I desire to explain my vote. Two years ago I voted for this bill, but there is now a bill before the House substantially the same, which can be modified so as to allow a jury trial, which I believe a man ought to have in a case of this kind. I therefore vote "no."
Mr. GORDON, in explanation of his vote, said: I will vote against this bill, although I voted for it two years ago - not indicating what position I shall take again.
Mr. HOBAN, in explanation of his vote sad: I think the bill is too broad in its character, therefore I shall vote "no."
Mr. WILLIAMS said in explanation of his vote: I believe I opposed this bill on the floor of the House two years ago. I am of the same opinion still. I therefore vote "no."
On motion by Mr. GORDON the house resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole (Mr. Gordon in the Chair) and proceeded to the consideration of the bill [H. R. 327] making appropriation for the State Government, commencing at the seventh item in Section ---.
Mr. PENDLETON moved to strike out the appropriation ($20,000) for Purdue University.
Mr. WILLIAMS: We have just considered and passed a bill giving a special appropriation of
$40,000 to this institution. Now this bill makes an additional appropriation of $20,000 to
Purdue University, indicating that this institution, as you might say, is playing in the
roll of Oliver Twist. I am
The amendment was agreed to.
Sundry other amendments were made.
On motion of Mr. Smith, of Tippecanoe, the committee arose and the Chairman reported a recommendation that the bill be passed with sundry amendments.
Pending the second reading of the bill the House adjourned.
Hon. Francis Johnson, a Senator from the county of Tippecanoe, appeared in his seat after being confined to his house by sickness for fourteen weeks.
Mr. JOHNSON, of Tippecanoe, offered a joint resolution [S. 8] proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Indiana by the insertion of Article 17, forbidding the hiring out of the labor of the convicts of the penitentiaries and inmates of the reformatory institutions of the State, and providing for the regulating the employment of said convicts and inmates, which was read the first time and referred to the Committee on Labor and Labor Statistics.
Mr. WILLARD, stating that we have hardly a working quorum here, moved to suspend the order of business that he might introduce two bills which the Senate for Jasper (Mr. Hoover) left with a request that they be presented to the Senate.
The motion was agreed to, and for Mr. Hoover he introduced the bill [S. 254] for the encouragement of life time convicts in the State Prisons, and providing that twenty-five years shall constitute a life sentence int he State Prisons of Indiana. Also the bill [S. 255] to amend Section 4 of the act of March 8, 1883, concerning the behavior and time of convicts. They were read and referred to the Committee on Prisons.
Mr. Shively, from the Committee on Executive Appointments, returned the following message from the Governor with a recommendation that the appointments therein made be confimed by the Senate:
By an examination of the official record I find there has been no appointment made for nearly four years of Trustee of the Indiana State Normal School, and by this means officers have been permitted to hold office for than four years contrary to the letter of the law and against the spirit of the constitution, which limits official terms unless reappointed subject to the approval of the Senate.
By Section 4, 544 of the Revised Statues of 1881, the term of office of a trustee is four years, and two members of the Board of Trustees of the Indiana State Normal School shall retire every two years.
Therefore, in order to comply with said section nd preserve the usual date for the retirement of said two members, I have the honor to make the following appointments, subject to the approval of the Senate, for the terms hereinafter stated, to-wit:
Murray Briggs, of Sullivan County, to be member of said Board of Trustees, to succeed himself and to serve as such for a term of four years from the 20th day of December, 1881, and until his successor shall have been appointed and qualified.
William E. McLean, of Vigo County, to be a member of said Board of Trustees, to succeed Joseph Gilert, and to serve as such for a term of four years from the 20th day of December, 1881 and until his successor shall have been appointed and qualified.
Benjamin F. Spann, of Madison County, to be a member of said Board of Trustees, to succeed George J. Reed, and to serve as such for a term of four years from the 20th day day of December, 1883, and until his successor shall have been appointed and qualified.
Benjamin F. Spann, of Madison County, to be a meember of said Board of Trustees, to succeed George J. Reed, and to serve as such for a term of four years from the 20th day of December, 1883, and until his successor shall have been appointed and qualified.
Barnabas C. Hobbs, of Parke County, to be a member of said Board of Trustees to succeed himself, and to serve as such for a term of four years from the 20th day of December, 1883, and until his successor shall have been appointed and qualified.
The report was concurred in, and so the appointments were confirmed by the Senate.
Mr. Smith's of Jay, bill [S. 41] to make void attorneys' fees in instruments of writing coming up on the second reading:
Mr. SMITH: The reason I introduced this bill is not because I have an antipathy to the payment of notes containing such an agreement, but because there is a growing abuse of the attorney fee law to such an extent that warrants legislative interference. And if this Legislature did nothing else than to prohibit the entering into such agreements it would do a wise and judicious thing. One continually growing abuse of the present provision is that persons will make an agreement with the holder of the note in many cases to pay back a portion of the attorney fee. It seems to me this bill was not fairly considered int he committee I do not wish to impugn the motives of the Judiciary Committee, but I would like to have an opportunity to appear before it and explain the reason why I introduced this bill. The practice under the present statute is carried to such an extent that it is bringing the legal profession into disgrace. It is said that it would be unwise and injudicious to enact this bill into a law, for the reason that the party who loan money should not be put to the expense of collecting the note and paying attorneys's. Where a party loans money, if he expects to have to sue for it he would never loan a dollar; and if a man loans money, expecting to bring a suit to enforce the collection of it, he is not a safe man to do business, and there should not be a law which would enable him to collect attorney's fees. Another objection urged against the bill is that it would drive capital out of the State. Men who have money to loan and foreign corporations who loan money in this State are more magnanimous than some of our own citizens. I undertake to say there is not a note executed in this State to a nonresident but what specifies in the note the amount of the attorneys' fee. Another objection to this bill may be that it is not constitutional. If any Senator is laboring under an impression of that kind, I want to say this bill was drawn up by as good a lawyer as there is in the State of Indiana. It seems to me it is within the power of the Legislature to say whether or not such a contract shall be illegal and void.
Mr. ADKISON: What effect would the bill have upon foreign corporations inserting five per cent. in their notes?
Mr. SMITH: I don't think it would drive a single cent out of the State. I believe it would put every person upon an equal footing. There should be a law enacted that every person loaning money should stipulate the attorney fee to be paid.
Mr. SELLERS: I rise to a point of order. I see upon examination of this bill which the Senator has introduced that it does not comply with one of the rules of the Senate - the one which requires all bills to refer to the section of the Revised Statues sought to be amended. I move that it be recommitted.
Mr. SMITH: I have not examined the bill carefully, and it was drawn by a person who is not acquainted with the rules of the Senate. I will consent to the motion to recommit so the Judiciary Committee.
It was so ordered by consent.
SEVERAL SENATORS - "Regular order."
Mr. WILLARD: I think we had better get on with the business we have been doing this morning, for the reason that there is no quorum present.
Mr. Huston's bill [S. 29] to authorize school moneys to be loaned at 6 or 7 per cent. when 8 per cent. can not be obtained coming up on the second reading with as unfavorable majority and a favorable minority report from a committee.
Mr. HUSTON: The statue requires each county to pay in the State Treasury 8 per cent. on
all school fund moneys held by the county under the distribution of that fund. There are
counties where it is impossible to make loans of this kind at 8 per cent. interest, and the
result is the money is lying idle practically, yet the county is required to pay the 8 per
cent. into the State Treasury every year. Union County, one of the smallest counties in the
State, for years has been unable to loan the school fund moneys. The Treasurer has had
these funds in his possession, and the Commissioners of the county are not allowed to use
it. The fact is, a bank is being run in the lower part of this State having for its basis
the unloaned school fund of that county. The county could loan this fund out at 6 or 7 per
cent. This bill provides simply this, that where, in any county, that it is impossible to
make loans of the school moneys at 8 per cent, the County Auditor, after having gained
consent of the Board of County Commissioners, is authorized to make loans of this fund at
any rate of interest not less than 6 per cent. It would enable Union County, instead of
paying 8 per cent on twenty or thirty thousand dollars, if she could loan this money at 6
per cent to pay simply 2 per cent. back to the State Treasurer This bill does not in any
sense release the county from the payment of 8 per cent. interest into the State Treasury.
It seems to me the counties who have endured the hardships spoken of under the present law
are entitled to relief. Two years ago 95 per cent. of those school moneys was loaned out.
Some Senators may say there is an urgent demand for money at 8 per cent interest, but in a
few counties that demand does not exist and I think it not more than right that relief
should be given them. This bill, I think, is surrounded with safeguards. No County Auditor
would loan this money at 6 per cent. if a higher rate could be obtained. It would be no
argument against this bill to say that the County Auditory, in collusion, might loan the
school fund at 6 per cent. The law pro
Mr. McINTOSH: The committee had doubts about the workings of this bill, and fears it would cause the taxpayers to make up a certain amount of interest that would be lost under its provisions. As has been suggested, there is not a quorum in the Senate probably, so I move the further consideration of the bill be postponed until Friday, at 11 o'clock, and made the special order for that hour the committee was afraid the County Commissioners and parties who wish to borrow money would consider the matter and loan the school fund at a lower rate of interest when it might be loaned at the regular rate; and was not sure but the workings of it would upset some of the provisions of the school law, and with these doubts the majority of the committee reported against the passage of the bill.
Mr. WEIR: I regard this as an important measure, and I hope it will secure a very full and fair consideration. I am not one of those inclined to think the Auditors or any other officers are rascals, or that there is any general tendency to dishonesty on the party County Commissioners. The county I live in has been paying interest at the rate of 8 per cent. on $25,000 for five years. I understand this bill simply permits the loaning of the school moneys at 6 per cent. interest, and the county makes up the valance to 8 per cent., which is paid into the State Treasury. This is the first time I have heard of this bill, and know nothing of it except from the Senator's statement. I favor the motion to postpone.
It was agreed to.
Mr. Brown's bill [S. 120] to provide an additional county institute fund, coming up on the second reading -
Mr. OVERSTREET: The law now provides that a certain sum of money may be appropriated by the County Commissioners to pay the expenses of county institutes, and this bill is adding an additional sum to to that. It don't limit the County Superintendent to what the Board of Commissioners allow, but the pending bill is to increase the amount the County Commissioners may pay toward the expenses of holding a County Teachers' Institute I think the amount raised from the teachers under this bill ought to be applied so as to diminish the amount paid by the County Commissioners; otherwise we would be duplicating what is to be paid for county institutes. I hope the bill will not be ordered engrossed for the third reading, but that it will be left open for amendment at the proper time.
Mr. BROWN: This bill is intended to provide a fund for the holding of County Teachers' Institutes without cost to the people of the county. There is one bill in the Senate and two bills in the House providing that there shall be an additional money tax out of the county treasury. This bill provides that each teacher shall pay fifty cents into a county institute fund. The object of the bill is to prove a fund to hold county institutes. It will prevent a large number of scholars attending school from applying for an examination to obtain teacher's licenses and have their papers referred tot he County Superintendant adding that much to the expenses of the county, $4 a day for the time the Superintendent occupies in examining these papers. In our county it costs not less than $100 for the examining of applications from parties who appy for licenses but do not intend to teach. If they have to pay fifty cents for an examination they will not burden the County Superintendent so much as now with their application papers.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay: I believe there ought to be an examination of teachers' papers by the County Superintendent I understand the County Superintendents have laid out what shall constitute a day's work for the examination of teachers' papers, for which they shall receive $4. In my judgment, if there is a fraud practiced in the State of Indiana at all, it is in the examination of teachers' manuscripts, for which the County Superintendent receives $4 a day; and I am opposed to placing the burden of these teachers' institutes upon the teachers, for if there is a class of people in the State earning every cent they get, and do more work for the money than any other class, it is the common school teacher. My judgment is that the law in reference to the County Superintendents examining teachers' manuscript should be regulated in some way, or changed so that when they examine these manuscripts they shall not receive so much money for it. I believe in many counties these examinations cost from $150 to @200 and $250, on account of persons applying who do not intend to teach, and those who do intend to teach should not be burdened with this expense. So I hope the bill will not be ordered engrossed, but left open for amendment.
On motion by Mr DAVIS the bill was amended by appropriately inserting a proviso that no such applicant shall be required to pay more than fifty cents in any one year.
Mr. OVERSTREET: The present law still remains in force and there is nothing to prevent the County Superintendent from drawing all allowed under Section 4 521 of the Revision, and also get all the teachers may pay him. If this bill is passed to raise a fund off the teachers this section, 4,521, ought to be repealed or the County Superintendent will get both funds.
Mr. DUNCAN, of, of Brown: I understand this fund to be raised by this bill is intended to assist in carrying on other institutes that occur in the county The law at present does not provide a sufficient fund for the purpose of carrying on county institutes, and this bill is for the purpose of creating a fund to supply the deficiency, and instead of taking an additional amount out of the County Treasury it provides that those supplying for teacher's license shall fund in.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph: I don't see anything in the bill that contemplates an expenditure for township institutes. I apprehend it intends to furnish, as the title says, an additional fund for county institutes
Mr. BROWN: If there is any fund left over after paying the expenses of county institutes, it shall be held for the purpose of holding township institutes. The bill is intended to prevent any further expense to the county for holding county institutes.
It was ordered engrossed
Mr. Rahm's bill [S. 174] to repeal section 3,261 R. S. 1881, coming up on the second reading -
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph, moved to amend by providing that such tracts where bounded on three sides by platted land shall be assessed the same as other city property, otherwise to pay school and road tax only. He said: My amendment is predicated upon the idea that these lands of more than five acres in extent which are situated with in the corporate limits of cities and towns should only be taxed the same as lands within the civil township in which they are situated that lie side by side, except that lands within the corporation should be required to pay tax for school purposes: the same as lands in the civil townships except they should pay for school purposes as lands in the city. My observation is that farms contiguous to cities are brought in the corporation limits principally for purposes of taxation, and often for the purpose of increasing the population to such an extent that they may be incorporated as cities Repeal section 3,261 and these lands within corporate cities will pay exactly the same as is now paid by city property.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings could not comprehend why such property should not bear its equal burden of taxation, not only for school purposes but for all other purposes. After arguing against the amendment awhile in order that the author of the bill may have a change to be heard, he moved that the Senate adjourn.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. BROWN introduced a bill [S. 256] for
An act to establish State and County Boards of Finance, prescribing their duty, and that of others connected therewith.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:
Section 1 That the Governor, the Auditor of State, and the Attorney General shall constitute ex officio, a State Board of Finance, whose duty it shall be to select and designate certain persons or banks or depositaries for the public moneys of the State.
Sec 2. Immediately after the passage of this act, or within then days from the taking effect thereof, the said State Board of Finance shall meet at the office of the Auditor of State, and shall select, designate and name such banks and persons as may appear best to them for such purpose as depositaries of the public moneys of the State.
Sec. 3 Such bank and persons so named shall be notified of their designations as such depositaries by the Auditor of State, and if agreeing thereto shall file their bond in such penal sums as may be required by the State Board of Finance. Such bond shall be conditioned for the safe-keeping of the public moneys and the repayment thereof on demand to the proper officer in person; such bond shall be made payable to the State Indiana, with sureties to be approved by the said State Board of Finance, and shall run fur one year and be renewable at the end thereof upon approval by the said Board aforesaid: said bonds shall be deposited in the office of the Auditor of State and shall be suable by the State upon the relation of the Attorney General for any breach or defalcation therein.
Sec. 4. Upon the filing and approval of the bond of such designated depositaries aforesaid, the Auditor of State shall forthwith notify the Treasurer of State of the names and places of such designated depositaries: such notice shall be in writing, and upon receipt thereof the Treasurer of State shall deposit with such designated depositaries the public moneys in his hands as they accrue: and such depositaries shall hold and safely keep such moneys subject to the order or draft of the said State Treasurer therefor.
Sec. 5. The Board of County Commissioners in the respective counties of this State are hereby established as County Boards of Finance herein, whose duty it shall be, with the advice and approval of the County Auditor, to select and designate certain banks or persons as the depositaries of the public moneys of the county and to townships.
Sec. 6. At the first regular meeting of said Board after the taking effect of this act the said Commissioners shall, by an order entered upon their records, name and designate certain banks or persons as depositaries to the public moneys of the county and townships.
Sec. 7. The County Auditor shall thereupon notify in writing the said depositaries of their designation. If such designation be assented to by the parties named they shall immediately thereafter file a bond, payable to the State, conditioned for the safe keeping of any public funds deposited the safe keeping of any public funds deposited with them and for their repayment thereof upon demand by the person of officers entitled thereto.
Sec. 8. Upon the filing of such bonds by such depositaries the County Auditor shall immediately notify the County Treasurer and the several Township Trustees of the names and places of business of such designated depositaries; such notification shall be in writing, and the said Treasurer and the said Trustees shall thereafter deposit the public funds in their possession with such depositaries subject to their draft or order therefor.
Sec. 9 The bonds of such depositaries shall be made in such penal sum, and with such sureties as may, by the Board of Commissioner, be approved of; shall be filed with the County Auditor, and shall be suable in the names of the State upon the relation of any officer or person injured by any breach thereof.
Sec. 10 If any interest accrue upon any
S. 11. The bonds of county depositaries shall run for the period of one year. At the expiration of which time they shall be renewed in the same manner, and subject to the same approval, as provided herein for their original execution.
It was read the first time and referred to the Committee on Finance
The session was opened with prayer by Rev. E. H. Staley, a Representative from the County of Clinton, as follows:
Our Father who art in Heavon, permit us this morning to call Thee our Father, for we feel that in Thee we have a father and a friend. Bless us, we pray Thee. As we have assembled, prepare us for this day, and qualify us for its duties, and for all that is to come up before us. Give us grace as Thou sees we need. Enable us in all we do that we may do it to They name's honor and glory. Bless, we pray Thee, this Legislative Assembly and its officers. Bless the people of Indiana and the people of the United States, and all in authority over us. Guide us, we pray Thee, with Thy counsel, and finally accept us for Christ's sake, Amen.
The House resumed the consideration of the bill [H. R. 327] making appropriations for the State government, which was pending at the adjournment yesterday.
Mr. FLEESE offered and amendment which was adopted, rpoviding that the sum of $3,000 shall be appropriated in order to erect tablets marking the positions occupied by the Seventh, Fourteenth, Nineteenth, Twentieth and Twenty-Seventh Indiana Regiments, and the Third Indiana Cavalry, in the battle of Gettysburg, the money to be expended under the direction of the Governor Lieutenant Governor, Adjutant General and five members of the said regiments.
Mr. McMULLAN moved to amend by striking from the bill the appropriation of $400 to the State Horticultural Association. He asked if any member on the floor can tell what benefit this association has been to the State. Members of that Horticultural Board come up to Indianapolis to have a good time, and use this money to pay their hotel bills and traveling expenses.
Mr. ENGLE: I think instead of making this appropriation $500 it ought to be made $2,000 There is not association in the State to-day that is doing more for the horticultural interest than this society. It is encouraging the cultivation of fruits, and that interest has been largely enhanced and advanced by socity. I can not see why this society, representing a leading industry - growing industry of the State - should not be encouraged by the appropriation proposed, and this appropriation, comparatively speaking, is a very small one. I move an amendment to the amendment by inserting instead of $400 "$2,000."
Mr. GORDON: To avoid any question of order I move to reconsider the vote, appropriating $400 if the gentleman will withdraw the amendments.
Both amendments were withdrawn.
Mr. MODDY: It certainy seems to me that when any members says that any part of this $400 has been used for traveling expenses and hotel bills that it is certainly unfounded. These questions ought to be treated fully. I believe this associate is beneficial. This appropriation ought not to have been confined to that amount. I understand that the State of Illinois has appropriated $1,000, and the State of Ohio $1,500 annually for the same purpose, and the small pittance of $400 has been appropriated in Indiana. This sum is appropriated for the purpose of enabling this society to examine and propogate fruits of the best class in the State. It is largely to the interest of the agricultural people of the State to know what class of wheat and what kind of fruits are hardy and most adapted to the climate of the State Unless it be to increase the appropriation of $400 I hope the motion to reconsider will be lost.
Mr. McMULLEN: I think the gentleman from DeKalb (Mr. Moody) misunderstood me. I said I wished the committee to show me where one single dollar of that amount had gone. If he had shown where the money had gone, that it had been spent beneficially to the State of Indiana, it would be different I say I want to know more about it.
Mr. DEEM: The gentleman wants to know how this money has been appropriated. I would say that these gentlemen composing the Horticultural Society Board have not spent this money in traveling and paying hotel expenses. They have not met here in the city of Indianapolis alone, but on the other hand if you make an examination you will find that they have circulated throughout the State. I believe the last time they met they met at Winchester. Now, as to how this money appropriated has been spent - it has been spent for the best interests of the State. They have placed this year upon the desk of each member a beautifully bound volume. This one is worth $1, and if the members will examine that volume they will find it to be incalculable value to all persons engaged in raising fruit, for it shows what fruits are best suited to the State. These volumes are distributed to those who are engaged in horticultural pursuits. If the gentleman from Dearborn (Mr. McMullen) desires to plant an orchard he will find it a complete treasure. He will find what fruits are hardy and what fruits are adapted to the climate. It is of the greatest importance to the people of the State to be well informed in regard to this matter. I hope the motion to reconsider will prevail.
Mr. GORDON: I am not in favor of this association because I do not think it is of
Mr. ROBINSON: It is exceedingly refreshing for the gentlemen of the legal profession to withdraw from the close confinement of their office and go into the country to rusticate. Other States have given their support to horticultural societies - States that are new than Indiana, and States that rank far above in the production of fruits. This appropriation is but a small amount. I do not undertake to say that the gentlemen will see in return large sums of money flowing directly from the Horticultural Society into the State Treasury, but by the proper education in horticulture and cultivating the feeling in this direction among the people, and stirring them up on this subject, I believe the State will realize largely in excess of the small pittance given to this association. I believe we ought every year to give some encouragement to horticulture I am opposed to reconsidering the vote.
Mr. CORY: I am in favor of the proposition to reconsider the vote by which $400 were appropriated to the State Horticultural Society. Not that we may be able to strike out, but that we amend by making the appropriation $800 instead of $400 I am surprised to hear gentlemen argue that this appropriation is to not purpose. My friend from Putnam argues that if we appropriate to this association we will be called upon to appropriate for the tile-makers and kindred associations. My friend should remember that the tile-makers are very few in number and organized solely to make their business profitable to themselves. On the other hand the Horticultural Society is composed largely of men who give their time and money to promote the interests of a science which properly developed must benefit every man, woman and child in the State. I heard long ago of the man who didn't care a continental whether the wheat crop was good - because he bought his bread at the baker's but 0 I have had heard for the first time to-day, and in this discussion, that we should ignore the Horticultural Society, because we purchase our orchard and garden products from street peddlers. Some of these men have spent their lives in this favorite field of study, and all that they know they give to us in their reports, that go into every corner of the State and yield a large return to the people. To properly publish their reports and pay the officer for preparing them and encourage scientific investigation on this line, I am willing to vote twice the amount named.
Mr. COPELAND: I hope it will not delay the purpose of the amendment, whatever it may be. I hope it will be increased rather than decreased. What I have to say in regard to this matter is in the interest of a growing industry, in the southern part of the State particularly. That is the grape culture. Throughout the entire southern part of the State there is a decided tendency to develop the culture of the grape. In the last two years in the experience of the Horticultural Society through this department, the interests of this industry have prospered, and in behalf of the grape culture in the southern part of the State, I say I hope the members will not lose sigh of the importance that this society has sustained to this industry, and place it alongside this $400. This is a very small and very insignificant sum compared with the great results which have already come to the entire people of the State. I hope this appropriation will be made - on behalf of the agricultural people of the State, I hope it will be made.
Mr. PATTEN: I think I can coincide with everything said by the gentleman from Putnam (Mr. Gordon) Now you go into the orchards and you will find decay. The State Board of Horticulture have destroyed our orchards, they have destroyed our vineyards and small fruits in the State of Indiana. In other words, they have attempted to introduce fruits that could not stand the climate of the State of Indiana. If we have institution like that of Purdue University, for the purpose of examination into these things and we have appropriated $40,000 to it, why make this appropriation? I am opposed to it.
Mr. HOBAN: I am in favor of reconsidering this vote.
The motion to reconsider was rejected upon a division - affirmative, 25; negative, 34.
Mr. Brownlee's bill to repeal the present ditch law was reported unfavorably by the
committee. Speaking of the bill, Mr. Brownlee said that ditching under the Circuit Court
law costs 40 per cent. more than it
The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill [S. 174] pending at the adjournment yesterday, the question being on the amendment proposed by Mr. Campbell, of St. Joseph.
Mr. RAHM: The amendment does not particularly interfere with the object of the bill. There are a large number of tracts of land lying within the limits of the city of Evansville, with city lots around them. These tracts are exempt from taxation for city purposes, and I don't think that is right. These lands are owned, some of them, by Eastern capitalists, and some of them by heirs. The object of this bill is to tax these lands at a reasonable figure. There is no City Council that will tax them up to their full value. I think the bill ought to pass and the section of the Revised States therein referred to be repealed, because it exempts a certain class of lands from paying a city tax which they ought to pay.
Mr. BAILEY: The amendment would materially affect property in this city. We have one or two large tracts of land within the limits of this city paying no municipal tax, they being held for a rise in values, where they ought to be subject tot he same taxes and burden as other property. Therefore I am opposed to the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The bill was ordered engrossed.
Mr. Faulkner from the Committee on Federal Relations, reported the following: Mr. PRESIDENT - Your Committee on Federal Relations, to whom Senate
Resolution No. 4 was referred, beg leave to report favorably on so much of the instrument
as reads; "Resolved, That the Senate of Indiana is in full accord with the
declarations contained in the late letter of Hon. Grover Cleveland to the President of the
National Civil Service Reform League, pledging himself to the fair and honest enforcement
of the civil service reform act of 1883. "
Your committee read that letter without surprise, inasumuch as Hon. Grover Cleveland was the standard bearer of a constitutional party, the traditions of which are faithful to an honest enforcement of all laws, and will gladly indorse these declarations in their entirely, but not the isolated and misinterpreted parts as given in the resolution aforementioned.
C. R. FAULKNER,
Chairman.
The bill [H. R. 3] to increase the bond of the Treasurer of State from $150 000 to $1,000,000 coming up as a special order -
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings, moved to amend by striking "$1,000,000" and inserting in lieu $500,000; and by reducing the number of bondsmen from twenty to twelve.
Mr WILLARD: I first desire to call attention to the necessity for immediate action on
this bill one way or the other. The bond of the Treasurer of State for the next two years
must be filed at the latest next Monday. The term of office which he now holds expires on
that day, and he will be obliged to file a new bond at that time. It is but fair to the
Treasurer, to the House and the Senate, that action should be taken as soon as possible in
order to enable the Treasurer to know the amount in which he will be required to be
responsible, and to avoid all questions as to the amount of the bond. The late
investigation of the affairs of the Treasurer of State has shown one thing which Senators
of all political parties can agree upon, and that is, it is
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings: I believe the Treasurer of State ought to give a good and sufficient bond, but I don't believe the law ought to require him to give a bond which is not within the reach of ordinary individuals If all the Senate from Lawrence (Mr. Willard) said were true, it is no argument that the penalty on this bond should be increased, unless he desires to become the advocate of a special class of persons who can only place themselves, by reason of their wealth or influence in that direction, in the hands of those who would control the Treasury of the State if he had to give such a bond. It is very clear if the Treasurer of State is required to give bond of $1,000,000 that the only persons he could secure to go upon his bond would be acceptible would be those who are operating monopolies and banks, therefore he would be placing himself directly in the hands of monopolies and banks, who would require giving into their hands every dollar of the State's money. In other words, it is placing the Treasurer of State in the hands of monopolies. For that reason the amendment ought to prevail. It can not be truthfully said that the State would be in danger of losing a single cent of money if the bond shall be placed at $500,000. There are only two or three months in the year when a greater sum than the amount named in the amendment would ever be concentrated in the State Treasury, and then it only remains there a short time; it is paid out almost as soon as it is paid in.
Mr. JOHNSON, of Dearborn: I am in favor of the amendment of the Senator from Jennings (Mr. Smith) and will vote for it whenever an opportunity presents itself. My reasons are, that this is a different trust from the trust of a guardian or an administrator. We don't make the Treasurer of State trustee in this matter. When the new State House is completed I presume there will be a proper place provided for the Treasurer to keep the money. Then the Treasurer will simply act as an agent of the State and hold the money for her use. He will have no right to touch the money other than to dispense it upon proper warrant drawn by the State Auditor. And it will be a great hardship for a man of ordinary means, I care not what his reputation may be, to make a bond for a million of dollars. It will be a big thing to get twenty men worth $100,000 a piece as bondsmen. It is a difficult matter to find twenty men worth $100,000 each who are willing to risk their all upon another man's bond, and I think it will be a very difficult matter for a Treasurer to procure a bond of $1,000,000, unless he is very nearly worth the amount himself We don't want to exclude a poor man from such an office as the Treasurer of State, and I trust the amendment will prevail.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings: This is a step in the direction of special legislation, and that is what the Democratic party has always opposed. An honest man - man in medium circumstances - a man who may be able to give an adequate and valid bond in a reasonable sum, is forever estopped from being a candidate for the office of Treasurer of State if this bill becomes a law as it is. The Senator from Lawrence (Mr. Willard) refers to the bond of a guardian. That is not in point. The trust of a guardian of minor children continues on and on until the minor children come to their majority, from, perhaps, on year of age. The office of Treasurer of State does not continue twenty years. It continues but two years I am in favor of immediate action, but we should take such sensible action as the great body of the people of Indiana will approve.
Mr. WEIR: I concur with the Senator from Jennings (Mr. Smith) There is no occasion to pass this bill as it came from the House. I care not whether the House passed it by 99 to 1, it is for this body to act upon its own judgment in determining what legislation is necessary. The first question, when we come to consider matters of legislation, should be this: Does the public interest demand the passage of the bill? If it does it should not be passed; if it does not, it should be not be passed. Because, apparently, there has been a little panic produced in the other House by various rumors that have gone out about the State Treasurer's office we should not make undue haste. When Governor Porter in his message gave out by innuendoes, if you please, that there is something wrong in the Treasurer's office, an investigation was prompted, and but this morning we have had a report from the majority of that committee, and I say I believe the whole thing was originated and prompted by nothing else in the world by party capital, so that something may be made out of it one way or the other. It is that which has produced the panic, which I feel justified to term it, in the other House. This investigation has been carried out and the committee report that every single dollar of the people's money is perfectly safe; but in the meantime the House has passed a bill to require the State Treasurer to give a bond in the sum of $1,000.000. It ought to be entitled "an act to provide that no man who is not a millionaire shall ever become a Treasurer of the State of Indiana." [Applause.] In other words, if a Treasurer of State shall be elected under this bill, however honest, he may be or from whatever section of the State he may come he must be handed over the mercies of the financiers of the city of Indianapolis. I don't believe there is any demand for this legislation, and had not the Senator from Jennings offered his amendment I should have proposed a reduction to $300,000. The Treasurer of the United States has charge of over $400,000,00, and I think he gives a bond in the sum of $10,000 only, and why is that rational, sensible men - men of experience and judgment should be carried off their feet under such circumstances as surround this question in both Houses of the Legislature? I am aware there may have been a violation of the statute, but I undertake to say ] ]an can discharge the duties of Treasurer of State without doing it.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph: I am one of those who believe that when the people elects a man State Treasurer and his friends have become security for the money to the amount of $500,000, that the people who select him should assume whatever security is needed beyond this amount. To give a bond of $1,00,000 will, in my opinion, make it so that candidates will be compelled to arrange with moneyed men in order to get such a bond, and that these moneyed men or corporations will not only practically control the disposition of the money, but largely dictate who shall be the Treasurer - a condition of neither equitable nor safe, hence I favor the amendment.
Mr. SMITH of Jennings withdrew all of his amendment except the portion to reduce the Treasurer's bond from $1,000,000 to $500,000.
It was agreed to by yeas 30, nays 15.
Mr. CAMPBELL of Hendricks, explaining his negative vote: I believe a bond of half a million amply sufficient for all practical purposes. I feel, with the Senate from Laporte (Mr. Weir), that we should not be governed by the section of the House of Representatives at all, but faring this amendment will kill the bill I shall vote "no"
Mr. WILLARD (after the recess for dinner) moved for a dispensation of the constitutional restriction that the bill may be passed to the final vote.
Mr. McCULLOUGH: I am opposed to the motion at this time, not because I am not favor of
the bill as far as it goes, but I think it ought to be postponed till to morrow, for this
is one of those matters which, in my judgment, needs cool and careful deliberation as to
what the law is now, and what the effect of this bill will be. I think there is an undue
scare about haste in this case, for if there is anything the Supreme Court has decided it
is that the Legislature may increase or diminish the bond of an officer at any time. I
think the most dangerous thing in reference to the State Treasury is the condition in which
the law is. It is doubtful whether his bondsmen would be liable if a loss of funds should
occur without fault of the Treasurer. I am desiring to put that question at rest, and to
say by statute that the bondsmen of the Treasurer, as well as he himself, shall be
responsible for every dime with which he is chargeable, and can not be excused there from
by loss on account of fire, burglary, or any other casualty. It may be said that we might
pass this bill t-day, and next week or tomorrow amend another section of the statute so as
Mr. WILLARD: If the Senator thinks there is any difference in that regard, the bill was open for amendment, and he could offer an amendment. I differ with him in regard to the question, after a man has assumed an office whether his bond can be increased. It would be a condition subsequent.
The motion to suspend the Constitutional rule was rejected by yeas 33, nays 10, two-thirds of all Senators elected not voting in the affirmative.
On motion by Mr. WILLARD the bill was made a special order for 10:30 o'clock to morrow.
The special committee appointed to make investigation and report whether in their judgment, and investigation of the affairs of the State Treasury was necessary, made a majority and minority report, the Democrats joining in one and the Republicans in another. As the committee was appointed under a joint resolution of the House and Senate, majority and minority reports were submitted in both branches, being, of course, identical in fact and figure. Messrs. McMullen, Patton and Gooding, constituted the majority on the part of the House, with Senators McCullough, Smith of Jennings and Hilligass; and Messrs. Sayre and Brownlee, with Senators Lindley and Foulke composed the minority.
The majority report states that on the 29th ultimo the committee examined the books in the office of the Auditor of State, and also the assets of the State Treasurer. The Auditor's books show that on the first day of November, 1884, the Treasurer was chargeable with $431,206.59; that between the first day of November, 1884, and the close of business hours on the 28th of January, 1885, the Treasurer had received the further sum of $1,420,154.23, making the total chargeable $1,857,360.82, and during this time the said Treasurer had disbursed, according to law $1,364,479 78, leaving in his hands $486,881 04. The Treasurer exhibited at his office assets in the sum of $491,869 24 Of this sum $7,600 was in cash; $410,049 91 consisted of drafts checks and certificates of deposit issued by various banks of this city, and convertible into cash at any moments. The sum of $74,069.33 consisted of county orders, $60,000 of which was upon Marion County, and $10 000 was upon Hamilton County, "which said orders are better than the cash, and the Treasurer has an arrangement by which he can convert the same into cash at any moment." The sum of $4,067 33 consisted of various county orders which are good, but the committee cash at a moment's notice. The committee also report that they called upon the various banks of the city and learned from them that the Treasurer had deposited the various sums with them, as represented by the drafts, checks and certificates of deposit held by him, and the money on special deposit was exhibited to the committee.
"Taking into consideration," says the report, "the fact that the State
furnishes the Treasurer no safe place in which to keep the money, and that he is compelled
to deposit the same in one or more banks for safe keeping, your committee is of the opinion
that the manner in which the Treasurer has the money deposited secures to himself, his
bondsmen and the State the least possible risk of any great loss that could be secured by
any disposition of the same. And it enables the Treasurer at any time he may be required by
law to pay any or all of the amount with which he is chargeable." The majority
therefore report that they see no reason whatever why a Legislative Committee or any other
committee should be appointed at this time to investigate further into the affairs of the
State Treasury. "But if," says the report, "it were desired for any reason
to investigate thoroughly into the affairs of the Treasury for the term now closing, such
an investigation would involve a detailed examination of the books of the Auditor of State,
because in those books the accounts of the Treasurer are kept, and such an examination
could not be made thorough and complete by any committee in the short period of sixty days,
the time allowed for the regular session of the Legislature." The committee express
the opinion that if an investigation should be deemed necessary it would be better that it
be conducted under the direction of the Governor and Secretary of State, and inasmuch as it
is claimed by Porter that $3 is not enough to pay an expert it is asked that such expert be
allowed $8 per day, in order that there may be no excuse for not investigating whenever, in
the opinion of the Governor, such an investigation is necessary and proper. The committee
submitted a bill for an increased penalty on the Treasurer's bond, with the amount
left blank. It had been a notorious fact, the committee said, that ever Treasurer of State,
for years, had deposited funds in the banks, because no safe vaults had been provided. The
Supreme Court had held that the County Treasurers may be held liable for the loss of money
by fire or burglars, and they were not chargeable with
The minority report sets forth that at the first meeting of the committee, Mr. Cooper, Treasurer of State, was present, and "stated that he would admit for the purpose of the inquiry, that all the facts stated in Porter's message in regard to the State Treasury were true;" that at the next meeting Governor Porter was present by invitation of the minority, and when the majority was informed that the ex-Governor was present, and a motion made that he be requested to state what knowledge had of the matters contained in his message, objection was made by a member of the majority, and the Governor was not called or examined. The minority wanted to inquire as to the ownership of the money and vouchers found int he banks in the Treasurer's office, and as to whether he had loaned any money and what had been done with the interest, but these propositions had been voted down by the majority. The committee found that the Treasurer, instead of paying and receiving all sums in currency, transacted most of the business of the office by check, as the vaults of the Treasury are considered unsafe. The assets in the hands the Treasurer are there set forth as in the majority report. A number of questions regarding the habit of the Treasurer in depositing money, in what banks the same was placed, and whether he had received interest therefor we asked, but the questions were ruled out by the majority and excluded. The report charges as follows:
In conclusion, the minority declare that the majority was unwilling to permit any inquiry
as to the real condition of the Treasury and the ownership of the vouchers therein. The
belief is expressed that there should be a full investigation. Says the report: "We
regard the present condition of the State Treasury as extremely critical, and it is our
belief that there is a large deficiency therein, although we are unable, to state with
certainty the precise amount owing to the refusal of the majority to permit us to make any
inquiries. We have grave fears, however, that it exceeds the entire penalty of the
Treasurer's official bond. It is our clear conviction that an immediate and thorough
investigation is imperatively
Mr. SYARE: Every Representative on this floor is interested int he safe-keeping of the funds of the State, and every member has the same duty imposed upon him, and that is to see to it that the funds of the State shall be faithfully applied to the purposes for which they are raised. I presume everybody here is familiar with the law pertaining to the State Treasury. They know that any kind of orders and certificates of deposit or supposed deposits in banks, and drafts upon banks, and all things of that kind, are not the kind of money required to be paid by the people of the State. The funds that go into the State Treasury go there in the shape of money, and the law requires that the Treasurer of State should be at all times ready to account to the people of Indiana the General Assembly, or to those to hom investigation should be referred, the kind of money he receives. The majority report as signed doe snot give in detail, as I remember, the assets that the Treasurer of State has shown this committee. The minority of the committee have undertaken to give this Legislature in detail what the Treasurer of State pretends to hold in the vaults as assets. Now, think for a moment. Is it such money as the law requires? I want to call the attention of this Legislature to the facts set out int he minority report. On the 16th of last November, which was on Sunday, there was issued by the cashier of the Merchants' National Bank of Indianapolis a certificate of deposit to the amount of $45,000, payable to himself, and a certificate of $10,000 and another one for $5,000; this bank received from its own cashier the certificate of deposit payable to himself; and that certificate, after the indorsement of the cashier the Treasurer of State exhibited to the committee, and on inquiry whether John J. Cooper was the owner, this investigation was not permitted to be made. When it was brought before the committee that these deposits were made on the Sabbath Day, and that this was out of the ordinary and usual course of business, inquirty was not permitted to be made. Does any man here believe the Merchants' National Bank was open on the 16th day of last November, which was on Sunday? Another thing - the report of this minority shows that there should have been in the treasury of State on the 9th day of January 1885, $480,000. Now, there is no pretense by the Treasurer of State or by any of his friends or by the majority of this committee that such money was either on hands or on special deposit. There is no pretense that the money is placed where it will be absolutely safe. I presume the banks of Indianapolis now existing here are perfectly sound. I have no heard any intimate to the contrary, but last summer everybody thought Harrison's bank was safe; everybody thought Fletcher & Sharpe's bank was in a safe condition, and yet today they are in ruins and their ordinary depositors are deprived of thousands and thousands and hundres and hundreds of dollars. Another thing the members of this committee in the minority asked this General Assembly for authority to send for persons and papers so they could make an investigation, and it was not allowed. - Now, John J. Cooper as loaned large sums of money to the Meridian National Bank and to his bondsmen, ore a part of his bondsmen, for the purpose of carrying on ordinary business or to engage in speculation. We were further informed that the money represented by the certificate was not in the vaults of that bank. Another thing, there is $60 000 that the majority of the committee reported to this as better than cash - that it is worth more than 100 cents on the dollar - and that is the orders on the Treasury of Marion County. The County Commissioners of Marion County on the 1st of last June made a temporary loan for six months, and on the 29th day of January it had been due twenty-nine day sand it was not paid. I want to see a complete and thorough investigation of the affairs of the Treasury.
Mr. ADAMS: What I shall say upon this question is not because I am a Republican and the State Treasurer' office is now held by a Democrat, but because I believe the people of Indiana, as they have a right to, desire to know how their money is being used. Now the law is very plain, and it empowers the General Assembly to enforce its provisions or stop the penal violation of it. The law expressly prohibits any loan or deposit in any bank or with any person or persons, and the Treasurer of State is expressly prohibited from receiving any interest, gratuity or bonus upon the funds of the State. Now I say to this General Assembly that the State Treasurer has within the last two years received immense amounts of interest, gratuity, and bonus upon the funds in his hands. Why do I say it? I say it because i am told that the amount of interest he has so received amounts to the sum of $25,000. This money belongs to the State. It is not the Treasurer's money; it is the money of this State. It is the money the taxpayers that have paid it into the Treasury; that is whose money it is. Now the Treasurer is prohibited from receiving interest on that money. The majority report says it is a doubtful question. Is it a doubtful question? The state says he shall receive no interest except for the use of the State. If Mr. Cooper stands square with the State to-day he can not be injured; his bondsmen can not be injured; nobody can be inured by an investigation; but the people of Indiana will feel safe if they know the money is being used for the purpose it should be. The minority ask for an investigation because it is right.
Mr. GOODING: I do not propose to discuss this question upon the minority report, for that is untrue, unfair and incorrect in its statements. So far as the committee is concerned a majority of them know that in many respects it is unfair and uncandid. I feel as do a majority of this committee, that they want to see this matter correctly represented before this House and before the people of the State I have seen in the last two weeks in the Indianapolis Journal all that is in this minority report It is not new to me. I knew when I heard it read that it sounded the same old thing I had been reading in the Indianapolis Journal. Now in the first place, what is this report? The minority assails the majority. It seems to me that the majority of the committee compare favorable with the minority as to the honestly integrity and patriotism. [Laughter.] Why, from what has been said, our constituents might draw the conclusion that the majority of the committee stood in with Mr. Cooper has scarcely spoken to me since this investigation commenced. Now the minority complain because this investigation was not carried further. We have no authority to send for persons and paper. I have the resolution here. Now this committee has discharged its duties, why make any further investigations If the Treasurer of State is collecting interest for money on deposit the Attorney General can bring suit on his bond. And the Governor is empowered to make an investigation at any time. Now then, I do not wish to stand by dishonest officeholders I say, so far as Mr. Cooper is concerned, I want the money to be accounted for I stand by the people to the very last farthing
On motion by Mr. WILLIAMS the minority report was laid on the table, by yeas 55, nays 31.
Mr. PATTON: As a member of the committee to whom was referred the Senate concurrent resolution appointing a Special Committee of five members of each House to examine that part of ex-Governor Porter's biennial message relating to the State Treasury, and to report by bill or otherwise, what legislation, if any, was necessary in reference thereto; also, to report whether or not an investigation into the affairs of the State Treasury by a Legislative Committee is at this time probably necessary or proper, I would say a double duty was imposed upon us by the resolution, and I think it but proper and right to state to this House in detail the extent of the examination made.
The Auditor of State, J. H. Rice, furnished the commitee with the following statement, viz:
The following is a condition of the State Treasury as appears by the records of this office:
(Signed)
J. H. RICE,
Auditor of State.
After the receipt of this statement the committee proceeded to the office of the Treasurer of State, and then and there made a full and complete examination of the apartments, vaults, safes, books, vouchers, papers, drafts, checks, orders, certificates and money on hand or pertaining to said Treasury. The examination developed the following state of facts as to the assets of said Treasury:
A sub-committee examined the special deposits in the various banks and found the amounts
to correspond to the certificates in the Treasurer's office. The committee went to the
farthest limits of their power under the resolution to ascertain the true condition of the
State Treasury. It is true that the letter of the statute has not been strictly complied
with, but this certainly has not been the fault of the Treasurer, as he had no authority or
power to do more than receive and disburse the public funds, hedged in by the following
restrictive statute: "The room now occupied, or which may be hereafter assigned to and
occupied by the Treasurer of State, together with the safes, vaults and other proper and
necessary means for the security and safe-keeping of the public money thereto belonging,
shall constitute the Treasury of the State of Indiana, and the Treasurer of State shall be
required to use the Treasury so constituted as the sole place for the deposit and
safe-keeping of the monys of the State." To the unsophisticated
It therefore seems to me that the worthy ex-Governor has not only been conversant with all the facts and knowledge in relation to the condition of the State Treasury and the practices of the various Treasurers, but in full accord and sympathy during the Republican administration, and permitting him to go on until the close of his official duties without censure or investigation, but it was impossible for the distinguished and honored ex-Governor to abdicate his great office and retire to the shades of political oblivion with out giving his old time enemy - the Democratic party - a stab through one of its honored officers. Therefore, the committee, after a full examination of the assets of the Treasury, were of the opinion that the charges made by ex-Governor Porter in his biennial message were without foundation or sincerity.
The minority of the committee talked fair, but played a game of double dealing in the report. The minority report was never submitted to the committee, nor did any member of the majority know what it contained until read on the floor of this House, and members of the committee were greatly surprised to find it teeming with a mess of verbiage and statements which were never suggest or spoken of or in the presence of the committee.
And the gentleman from Wabash and Kosciusko puts on his feathers and war paint and constitutes himself the Republican Warwick, and like the Colossus of Rhodes bestrides the swash of Republican corruption and attempts to purify the polluted waters of the Stygian stream by dragging the untarnished reputations of Democratic officers into it, but the gentleman, like the puny, ephemeral insect which dances in the sunshine for a moment and then ignominiously perished, when he came in contact with the blaze of Democratic investigation, with his false charges, was scorched to death, and he can not avert the fate of his party, which will be overwhelmed by the waves of oblivion, and sunken deeper in the obscurity than the long-list Atalantis, which lies buried thousands of fathoms deep at the bottom of the ocean. We have opened the books, and the first score is for an honest man and Democratic reform.
After further debate [see appendix].
Mr. WILLIAMS demanded the previous question.
The House seconded the demand, and under its operations the majority report was concurred, by yeas 53, nays 31.
The Senate proceeded to consider the special order, being the consideration of the majority and minority reports of the Joint Committee to inquire as to whether an investigation of the State Treasury is necessary at this time.
Mr. Lindley moved to substitute the minority for the majority report, and that the minority report be adopted.
Mr. McCULLOUGH: It has been assumed from the time this question arose with reference to the Treasurer of State that the statute prohibited him from loaning the State funds to banks or to persons, and that if he does loan them and receives interest thereon, the interest is the property of the State. In my judgment that is what prompted the attempted investigation - a wish to show that the State Treasurer had probably received interest on the State's money, and then go to the people with the cry that the interest belongs to the State I wish to call attention to the law on the subject. [Reads] Every true gentleman assumes what Governor Porter has stated as a fact in his message, that for years the State Treasurers have received interest on public moneys; they assume that the men who have held that high and responsible position are felons, and ought to be placed in a felon' cell. Suppose it is the law that they should account for this interest. According to Governor Porter the Legislature has time and again recognized the fact the State and Treasurers have been getting interest on the State's moneys and not accounting for said interest to the State Treasury, and it never occurred to anybody to make a fuss about it until a Governor that held the office for four years was retiring and turning over the office to another at a different political faith. I take the position that the interest on these funds is not the State's. You can't place money in the hands of an officer and say to him. "You shall pay be back every dollar." and at the same time say to him "You shall pay back every dime of interest you receive on it." If you charge him with the interest he receives upon it you have got to make him your agent, and stand any loss by fire, burglary or other casualty. By not giving him any secure place to keep the State funds, and by allowing him only the pitiful salary of $2 000 a year a sum that no insurance company would insure the money for - the Legislature has recognized that the interest the State Treasurer gets from the State funds is his own, and that fact, in my judgment, would be recognized by the Supreme Court, if the officer whose duty it is were to sue the Treasurer and litigate with him for ten years to come. The State of Indiana does not want to loan her money. The State wants the principal of her money. The State wants the pricipal of her money, and she wants every dime of it. The majority of the committee recommend that the law shall be so amended as to leave no question about it - that the Treasurer and his bondsmen are absolute insurers of the money.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings: For thirty years prior to the time Governor Porter delivered his
message to this General Assembly no suspicion was ever breathed against a Treasurer of the
State - the fair name and famed Indiana for financial honesty and integrity stood out as
bright as the noonday sun
Mr. WINTER: I have listened with great patience to the speeches by the Senator from Gibson and the Senator from Jennings County, and with disappointment and I do not affect anything when I say that there has been, in my judgment, an utter failure to make any answer whatever to the grave charges they are called upon to face. This is a question which rises above politics. It is a question as to whether Senators here by the votes they will give on these reports are willing not only to put themselves in the attitude in which the Senator from Gibson says former Legislatures have been occupying for many years, as conniving at violations of the statute, but whether they will put themselves in the attitude of active participants in violations of the law in the future. It may be true, as the Senator says, that all Treasurers of State have violated the law and it may be true that Legislatures and Governors have connived at its violation, but I submit in all candor we can not afford to go on conniving at the violation of law when it is brought before us officially that the law is violated. We have taken an oath to see that no violation of law shall continue if it is in our power to stop it The Senator from Gibson has attempted to argue that the Treasurer of State has a right to keep the public moneys where he pleases the speculate with them as sees proper, to make whatever profit he may out of them, and no one has any right to call in question his acts. I tak eissue upon that statement as to the law. The very authorities the Senator quoted show the proposition he has been advocating is not law, and never has been. [Reads] Will Senators undertake to say the statute does not mean what it says? Isn't that language plain and specific? It is conceded that the Treasurer of State has been violating the law in discharge of his duties. That face alone creates an imperative demand for a full and complete investigation.
Mr. MAGEE: I desire to address myself rather from an individual standpoint than any
other. I find it impossible for me to agree with the majority on this question. I have been
assured this was not a political question, and I take it that it is not. It reaches beyond
a political question. It is a question that involves the integrity of an officer of State,
and the safe-keeping of the funds which the people of the State have contributed for the
maintenance of the Government of the State; a question as to whether the funds are in the
custody of the proper officer or not - as to whether the Treasurer of State is able at any
time to produce the money with which he is chargeable; and I can not conceive how it is
that there could be any obstruction or any delay in that inquiry, or why it should not be
so full and complete as to make it as a satisfactory as it would be to inquire into the
trust of any other citizen; or why this inquiry is not to be met in that spirit of fairness
which a man would want to meet, and show that he develops close scrutiny as to his trust.
It is not a question as to whether the Treasurer has been guilty of felony, neither is it a
question of an attack on Ex-Governor Porter I care not if the insinuation of Governor Por-
was begotten in malace, the people have the right to know whether they moneys they have
paid in for taxes are on hand or not. The majority report says it is. That may be. But what
harm would it be to ascertain whether it is there or not? I understand to say it is not
there. I charge that no longer than to-day a warrant drawn against the general fund has
been protested, and I have the authority of the gentleman who holds that warrant for saying
so. Whether that
Mr. HILLIGASS: The report of the minority is based almost exclusively upon newspaper rumors upon the streets of Indianapolis. There is sought to be made out of this by the minority and by the ex Governor of the State some political capital for the future. We had no knowledge of what the minority report would contain, while they had the full benefit of the majority report on this question. No baser falsehood was ever concoted on paper than here exists in this minority report.
Mr. FOULKE: I have felt it to be an honor to be singled out by gentlemen who signed the minority report as the object of their attack. As far as the accusations made in the minority report are concerned, we stated every fact just as we learned it. It is said that we have brought in this minority report for a partisan and political effect. Why is it that the Democratic organ of Indiana, published at Indianapolis and the Democratic organ of Cincinnati Ohio, published at Cincinnati, both took the same view the minority of the committee took? Why is it that the Senator from Cass and men who have stood as leaders of the Democratic party say the Treasurer of State needs an honest investigation?
When he concluded -
The Senate adjourned.
The following six described House concurrent resolutions were passed the Senate: Requesting Senators and instructing Representatives in Congress to use their influence to secure the repeal of the limitation act of 1879, etc. Also (another concurrent resolution) to vote for the repeal of that clause of the pension law which requires an applicant to prove himself of sound health at date of enlistment. Also (another) that all Mexican or disabled union soldiers should be pensioned. Also (another) that suit may be brought against railroads which have forfeited their land grants. Also (another) to equalize bounties and secure pensions to those entitled thereto. Also (another) to have laws for the improvement of the Ohio River amended so as to afford protection to holders of property in Indiana on th Ohio River.
The House took up the consideration of the bill [H. R. 68] to repeal the act authorizing aliens to hold real estate on the second reading.
Mr. PENDLETON: It is time for us to awake from our lethargy. It is time for the people of this country to proclaim their protest against any further encroachment upon our domains, proclaim our protest against aliens holding lands within the boundaries of our State. We invite all people to come among us, and we proclaim to all the world and to all nations except the Chinese to come here and partake with us of our freedom and of our country. I believe it right to welcome them and most cordially and heartily invite them, but we ask them to tear a just proportion of the burdens of taxation. It is our duty to-day to wipe from the statute everything of this character.
Mr. BROWNING: I am of the same opinion I was when these bills were presented a few days ago, but still I am opposed to this bill because I do not think it is necessary to encumber the statute with two bills. I think the Senate bill will accomplish all that is necessary. The other bill repeals the law and allows all parties five years to dispose of their property. I think the Senate bill a better bill.
Mr. MOCK: When the committee investigated this bill and made their report there was a difference of opinion as to whether or not this law repeals the law of 1881 It may be it will by implication but there is a question about it. I am not in favor of repealing the law absolutely. I will vote for this bill, however, or any bill repealing that kind of an act.
Mr. ADAMS: I think the statue ought to be so framed that the party will have five years to perfect his title and dispose of his real estate.
Mr. KELLISON: There is another objection to the bill, and that is it has no saving clause. I am in favor of repealing the law with a saving clause. It seems to me we ought not to pass this bill upon the supposition that another bill will pass. I do not think that it is wise. This bill does not provide for rights acquired under the law. I therefore move that the bill be recommitted to the Judiciary Committee, with instructions to attach a saving clause.
Mr. WILLIAMS: This is one of the first bills on the House calendar. There is no bill that
calls more for affirmative action. Of all the laws of the State of Indiana this is the most
infamous. It is a disgrace to the State. From the time that House Bill 1[] came up from
consideration until now gentle
A division being called for the motion was laid on the table. Affimative, 36; negative, 29.
Mr. MOODY: Now, with all due deference tot he terms of this bill, I want to know before its passage if it will accomplish anything. I have not heard a single gentleman state the object to be accomplished by this act. If this bill passes, I undertake to say if a man acquires a lien or acquires a mortgage under the existing law it will throw a could on his title. I am in favor of repealing this law; yet at the same time, I am in favor of saving every person, be he alien or be he resident of the United States. If an alien has acquired any property under the law we have no right to confiscate it. The Senate bill is the best bill. I know it has been said the law should be repealed. I believe it.
Mr. GOODING: I do not understand the passage of this bill to interfere at all with the rights acquired under this law. It is a well settled rule of law, I think, that laws enacted by the Legislature operate prospectively unless they provide otherwise. Now, the report of this act will not affect the title of any right acquired by foreigners until the time of taking effect. And the repeal of the law will not affect the rights acquired under the law.
Mr. KELLISON: I ask the gentleman if he is clear upon that legal proposition if aliens having acquired rights could convey real estate acquired under the law of 1881, if not repealed.
Mr. GOODING: I would not say certain, but I have given the gentleman my opinion. It seems to me there should be an emergency clause. If we are going to repeal the statute it had better take effect right away, and not allow aliens to go on acquiring real estate for the next six months.
Mr. ROBINSON: The time has come for the passage of this bill. There has been several opinions expressed and I want to call attention to them. The first is that there should be an emergency clause. If we are going to repeal the statute it had better take effect right away, and not allow aliens to go on acquiring real estate for the next six months.
Mr. ROBINSON: The time has come for the passage of this bill. There has been several opinions expressed and I want to call attention to them. The first is that there should be an emergency clause. This was suggested by the author of the bill, and it was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and they struck it out. The report of that committee has been concurred in by the House, but I still favor an emergency clause; bit it seems to some objectionable - there can not be an emergency clause without delay. A similar bill to this was delayed two years ago until it was not passed I do not desire to impugn the motives of any one, but I fear if we delay this bill it will share a similar fate. I do not refer to the gentleman from Hancock. I think is for the bill. I question whether the law was passed in good faith. When it passed the Assembly the caption of the law was "An act to encourage immigration into the State of Indiana." After it passed the Assembly the title was changed so as to read " Concerning aliens holding and conveying real estate." I am in favor of the bill. The Senate bill, I think, doesn't cover the ground. I demand the previous question.
The House seconded the demand, and under its operations the bill was read the third time and passed by yeas 68, nays 15.
Pending the roll call -
Mr. ADAMS said: I am not in favor of this bill. I therefore vote "no."
Mr. BEST, in explanation of his vote, said: I believe in repealing the law, but I am not in favor of the provisions of this ibll. I therefore vote "no."
Mr. GOODING said: The bill is not what I think it ought to be, but half a loaf is better than bread. I therefore vote "aye."
Mr. HARRELL said, in explanation of his vote: I am not in favor of aliens holding real estate, but still the provisions of the bill are not what they ought to be. I therefore vote "no."
Mr. KELLISON said: On reflection I am inclined to vote for the bill. I therefore vote "aye," making the gentlemen from Hancock (Mr. Gooding) and the gentleman from Putnam (Mr. Gordon) a scape-goat for any legal complications.
Mr. LOOP, when his name was called, said: This bill is not all I desire. I therefore vote "no"
Mr. MOODY said: I am in favor of the repeal of the alien law enacted in 1881, but inasumuch as this bill will not, as the Senate bill does, save all rights acquired by the operations under the law of 1881, I vote "no"
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe, said: Because this bill is imperfect and the Senate bill is the better of the two, I vote "no."
Mr. TWINEHAM said: I am not in favor of residents avoiding their honest debts, and for that reason I will vote no "no."
The vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. GORDON: I am informed that House Bill No. 3 has been returned from the Senate. I therefore move to suspend the order of business and take up the bill.
The motion was agreed to, and the Senate amendment being read -
Mr. GORDON said: This bill, after mature deliberations and amendment, was passed by this
House. I do not believe that a million dollars is any too much for the amount of the State
Treasurer's bond. Five hundred thousand dollars is not a sufficent bond,
Mr. GOODING: I am willing to vote for a bill making the bond one million, but I am informed next Tuesday the Treasurer will commence his new term of office, and unless we pass some kind of a bill he will give a bond for $150,000 only. I am in favor of concurring in the Senate amendment of $500,000.
Mr. McMULLEN: This House considered this bill and came to the conclusion that the amount of the bond ought to be $1,000,000
Mr. HARRELL (after the noon recess) said: When this bill was before the House the amount of the bond was fixed at $1 000.00. I am still of the opinion that is the proper amount. It has been argued before this House that it would be better to concede to the Senate than let the matter pas over until next week. I am inclined to think it would not be. If the judgment of the House is that the penalty of the bond should be 1,000,000, we ought to stick to it. On the first of November, 1884, there was a balance of cash in the Treasurer's hands to the amount of $431,256.54. Now a bond of $500,000 would scarcely cover that. I find further, on the 29th of January, 1885 the total amount the Treasurer has received to be $420,154 33 It seems to me the bond ought to be enough to make the people of the State feel secure. The State Treasurer ought to be required to give a bond for everything he is to account for. The bond should be sufficient to cover every dollar in that treasury vault or wherever it may be.
Mr. BROOKS: I do not believe the bond is sufficient to cover all the money that comes into his hands.
Mr. ENGLE demanded the previous question.
The House seconded the demand, and under its operations the House refused to concur in the Senate amendment by a vote of years 28, nays 47.
Mr. GORDON moved for a committee of Free Conference, and that two be appointed on the part of the House.
The motion was agreed to and the Speaker appointed Messrs. patten and McMullen.
The bill [H. R. 16] to provide for the teaching of physiology and hygiene in the public schools, coming upon the second reading -
Mr. GOODING: I am not willing to say to the school teachers they shall pay special attention to the teaching of physiology and hygiene with special reference to the influence of alcohol and narcotics on the human system, to the exclusion of all other branches. We have enough taught in our common schools. I move the bill be recommitted.
Mr WILSON: I think this bill should pass.
Mr STALEY: It is not a matter of policy but a matter of right. It is conceded that it is a moral question, therefore I think the bill should pass. We should legislate on moral questions
Mr. BROWNING: I understand the people want no more legislation on that subject. He would vote against prohibition every day in the week, but it favored this bill.
Mr. McHENRY opposed the bill.
Mr. MOODY demanded the previous question.
The demand was seconded by the House, and under its operations, the bill was read the third time and failed to pass by yeas 43, nays 42, for want of a constitutional majority.
The Senate resumed the consideration of the reports pending at the adjournment yesterday.
Mr. WILLARD: In discussing the question of the substitution of the minority for the
majority report. I shall endeavor to be brief: but in the remarks I shall make I desire to
have no interruption, and therefore I request Senators if they have any questions to ask
they will defer their inquiries until I have finished, when I shall be happy to respond. I
have ever regarded this question of investigating the funds in the hands of the Treasurer
of the State beyond the point of ascertaining the amount, as a matter instigated simply for
the manufacture of political capital. I believe this Legislature has the right to know what
every dollar of the State's money is safe and secure; and I believe when the fact is
learned the inquiry should stop there. It is true there may have been some dereliction from
law on the part of the Treasurer of State, as there has been confessedly upon the part of
the Republican Governor of State in the discharge of his duty to the State, but the real,
central question of all this investigation resolves itself into this one single inquiry:
Are the funds of the State safe? Is the State protected against loss? If it is, then I
claim we are not authorized to go further, under the statute which gives both the Governor
and either branch of the Legislature the right to inquire into this matter. In advance of
the reports of the committee, and even before the matter was ascertained a Democratic
member of the House of Representatives introduced a bill raising the bond of the State
Treasurer to the sum of $1 000 000. In the House it was passed by a unanimous vote. It came
to the Senate, and even under the assurance of the Treasurer of State that he doubted
whether he could give so large a bond, it was passed with an amendment making the bond half
a million, by a vote of two to one. I stood upon this floor and by every means in my power
tried to fix the bond at the first named sum. The Senate disagreed with me and I bowed in
submission to its decision, and from that time to the present on every occasion when I
thought I could advance the bill I have called it up, and now I find that bill going to the
Governor with a provision requiring the Treasurer of State to give a $700,000 bond, thus
protecting the State against any loss of funds in his hands. How much further ought we to
go? What more can be demanded? The only fact shown in either of these reports with which
the Senate has anything to do is the fact that $491 000 is in the hands of the State
Treasurer. Has any reason been shown - I mean not rumors - to doubt that these funds are
there? On the contrary, both reports show that he has in his hands $5 111 more than he is
charged with on the books of the Auditor of State. I spoke for an investigation to find out
what sums were due the State, and I have spoken for the protection of these sums
absolutely. The Democratic party has investigated the Treasurer of State so far as the
statute permits him to be investigated and add to the security of the public funds they
have placed his bond higher by $200 000 than the amount in his hands. With this record I
believe we can safely go to the people and bear all the slander and innuendos of the
Republican ex
Mr. HUSTON: It was not my intention when this question was first sprung upon the Senate to take any part in the discussion. I had hoped it would not assume a political character, but it certainly is now a question that has divided this Senate in accordance with their political preferences We have before us to reports - a majority and minority report, but are not considering a motion to substitute the minority for the majority report. That has been the question before the Senate this morning and yesterday afternoon, and I leave it to the candid judgment of the Senate if the speakers upon the opposite side have confined themselves to the question. A stranger coming upon this floor would naturally have thought ex Governor Porter was on trial for the commission of a crime. The majority on this floor do not deny or disprove a single charge made in the minority report. Many charges have been made against the Republican party. The Republican party is not afraid to stand upon the record it has made, not ony upon this question, but upon all other questions. The opposition are not satisfied to speak of the question at issue, but go back to attack that great and good man who retires to private life with the confidence and respect of the entire people, Albert G. Porter, but that grand and gallant leader, James G. Blaine, [applause] they can't attach his public record - a man that for twenty years has been in public life. [Laughter] Democrats may well laugh now, but the time will come when James G. Blaine will yet cause them to laugh on the other side of their face. The Republican party is not dead, nor is James G. Blaine dead, nor are the priciples James G. Blaine advocates dead. They were not satisfied to attach James G. Blaine's public life, but they had to resort to the extent of going into the sanctity of his household, and attack him -
Mr. Magee: Will you allow a question?
Mr. HUSTON: No, I will take the same course of the Democratic speaker who preceded me. This question has assumed a political significance, and I want every Republican member on this floor to define his position upon this question. It was charged that Republicans are afraid to father the minority report, but they will find out the Republican members are not afraid to father the report they have made. We believe this minority reprot should be adopted, for we think it is demanded in the interest of the people of Indiana. The law provides that the State Treasurer shall keep the funds of the State on hand in money. Has he got the State's money on hand? There as not been a single Senator on this floor who has had the audacity to claim that John J. Cooper had the money. It was even shown that on yesterday a warrant drawn on the State Treasury was protested for want of funds with which to make payment. He had certificates of special deposit for $6,000 but the minority of the committee were not given a change to ascertain whether it was his money or somebody else's. The people of Indiana are looking with great interest to see the solution of this question; the people are interested in it, and I sincerely hope and trust that Democratic members will see it to their interest to vote in support of this minority report.
Mr. JOHNSON, of Tippecanoe: I did not expect to take the floor on this occasion and to
participate in the discussion of the merits of the two reports submitted by the Special
Committee. I have read both reports and have listened attentively to the debate which has
taken place in regard to their merits, but I must confess that neither the majority report
nor the minority report fully satisfies me, and that I would much prefer to get a fuller,
more thorough, and at the same time entirely impartial, statement of the condition of our
State Treasury, before I would like to vote for either. While I am fully as much convinced
as the Senator from Jennings, or Gibson, or Huntington, who have so eloquently advocated
the adoption of the majority report, that our present State Treasurer has managed the
affairs of his high and responsible office with as much prudence and integrity as any of
his predecessors in office, and that the public funds are entirely safe and secure in his
custody, so that no loss to the State will ever accrue through any negligence or criminal
action of his, yet the report of the majority of the committee leaves on the mind of the
reader a certain feeling of vagueness, uncertainty and ambiguity as to the character and
cash value of the Treasurer's assets, so that I would prefer a clear, plainer, more
explicit and detailed exhibit of these assets, good and sure as they undoubtedly are. On
the other hand, the minority report, which nearly in every line displays a tinge of
partisan hostility, not only to the Treasurer himself, but also to the majority of the
committee associated with the minority fails to convince me of the correctness of its
allegations and the substantial foundation of its fears and apprehensions from the very
fact that its undeniable partisan spirit detracts from the ability with which it is written
and from the value of the charges preferred in the report. I am here in this Senate not as
a partisan - not as a Democrat or Republican - blinded by the desire to help either my part
or a great State official out of a difficulty, but I am here as one of fifty Senators, to
whom the citizens of Indiana have delegated the power and entrusted the care to watch over
their interests and to guard their interests against loss of injury. In every vote which I
have cast I have conscientiously asked myself whether to the best of convictions and
judgement, this vote should be given or not, always willing to be enlightened and corrected
in case of error, and this same course I intend to pursue this
Whereas, The special committee appointed to consider that portion of ex-Governor Porter's message which refers to the State Treasury have submitted a majority and minority report as the result of their investigation;
Whereas, Either of these reports, on account the short time alloted to the investigation of the important questions involved, fails to satisfy this Senate as to the true condition of affairs in the State Treasury;
Whereas, We have the fullest confidence in the honesty, integrity and probity of State Treasurer John J. Cooper and are convinced that he can give as satisfactory an account of the conditions of the State Treasury and of the safety of the public funds entrusted to his official care as any of his predecessors in office;
whereas,The great party which has twice honored and said John J. Cooper by an election to the high and honorable office of a custodian of the public funds of the State feels aggrieved and insuled by the aspersions on his character as a public officer, and deems it due to its honor to prove the utter groundlessness of the fears and apprehension concerning the existence of a large deficiency in the Treasury, expressed in the minority report; and
Wheras, This great party, whenever its character is thus assailed and its honor sullied by open charges, as contained in the minority report of the special committee, or by the inuendoes contained in the message of ex-Governor Porter, never shrinks from its duty to the people of this State to establish a full, air, thorough and impartial investigation of all the facts connected with a charge involving large public interests and creating a feeing of uneasiness in the minds of the people;
Resolved, That the two reports above named be referred to a special committee of five, to be appointed by the President of the Senate, to further investigate he condition of the State Treasury, with power to send for persons and papers and with instructions to employ three experienced accountants at a salary of not more than $6 per day, and to proceed to a full and thorough investigation of the State Treasury, to verify the vouchers submitted to them and to ascertain the exact cash value of the money, papers and valuables exhibited by the said John J. Cooper as the property of the State in his custody.
Resolved, That the investigation of said committee shall effect the principal, the money really paid into the hands of the State Treasurer, and shall not enter into any questions, whether interest on said principal or any part of it was paid to him or not.
Resolved, That the three experts employed by the special committee shall make their report to the special committee appointed them no later than ten days before the termination of the regular session of this General Assembly
Let the resolution be carried on in a spirit of justice, fairness and impartiality, with out fear or favor, worthy both of the high character of the officer whose official conduct is to be investigated, and of the dignity of the Senate. I have not the least doubt that such an investigation, carried on in such a spirit, will lead to the full exoneration of Mr. Cooper, and will satisfy public opinion that the high and responsible office which he administers is to-day in safe hands, and that the large amount of public funds entrusted to him is in no danger of being lost or recklessly jeopardized
I move the adoption of the resolution as read:
Mr. FOULKE: I am in full accord with the Senator from Tippecanoe who desires to have this matter referred to another committee. The only result that we desire and that the whole people desire, is that there shall be an examination of that Treasury. While we believe every statement made the minority report has been justified by the information we received and the facts we know from the investigation of the assets we were permitted to make, not for the sake of investigation, but because we believe, aye, we know, it is demanded by the best interests of the State for which we will sacrifice anything else. We say, amend that report almost any way you like, and which will give the investigation necessary. We don't do it for political capital. We don't ask for anything better, nor could we ever have you in a better place than now, if that were our purpose. What we want to know is that the money of the State is safe. So far as the main resolution of the Senator from Tippecanoe goes, I will most heartily give my co-operation, for I believe has had done honor to the Senate and to the Democratic party of Indiana in demanding that investigation. This resolution as to the investigation we are to a man, I think, in favor. It has, however, been coupled with a number of preambles for the purpose, as it would appear (I don't charge that upon the Senator from Tippecanoe), but it looks as if the same spirit was trying to get Republicans to vote against the resolution because we don't agree with the preamble, [Reads.] There is one objection to that preamble. It is not our business as a Senate to decide a case before we have investigated it. We have no business to pronounce him innocent. An opinion as to guilt or innocence would disqualify any man from sitting on a jury, and it is hardly competent for this Senate to express that opinion before making an inquiry. Of course a man is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proven against him.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings, raised the point of order that the Committee making these reports was a Joint Committee. The house has acted upon the reports and has discharged its parts of the committee. The substitute proposes to refer this matter to a Senate committee, and is out of order.
Mr. SELLERS: I desire the Senator from Gibson shall occupy my thirty minutes. At the close of his remarks I shall claim time for the purpose of moving the previous question.
Mr. McOULLOUGH (in concluding his speech) said: As was suggested by my
Mr. MAGEE: I would ask the Senator to withdraw that motion. I wish to move to strike out a part of the minority report.
Mr. McCULLOUGH and several Senators: "No," "no," "no,"
Mr. MAGEE: If the majority here want to stifle all discussion and inquiry, let take the responsibility.
The demand for the previous question was seconded by the Senate, and the main question being ordered -
The motion to substitute the minority report for the majority report was rejected by yeas 15, nays 25.
Pending the roll call -
Mr. FOWLER said: I have not been in the Senate much during the discussion of this question owing to my not being able to be here. I am not satisfied with either of these reports, but in view of the fact that the Governor has full authority to make an investigation at any time to ascertain the condition of the State Treasury, I vote "no"
Mr. MAGEE, when his name was called, said: I stated yesterday that neither one of these reports was satisfactory to myself. I had no opportunity to offer the amendment I desired to modify the report of the minority. The Senator form Laporte and others objected to my doing so this morning. As I had no opportunity of moving to separate a portion of the minority report, which is very objectionable, from that which I think is proper, nevertheless, under the circumstances, not be able to concur with the majority report, I vote "aye."
Mr. THOMPSON, when his name was called said: I had a great deal of interest in this discussion and from my confidence in Senators, without a reference to their politics from either side, I have been very much troubled, and I went to a financial adviser - a gentleman known all over this Nation - and that is William H. English, and asked him some questions, and he told me that John J. Cooper stood fairer and conducted the State Treasury better than any other man that had ever been there with the exception of one man, and that was Matthew Brett; that his affairs were all sound, and all he said he had in the banks he had, and he didn't know a safer man in the Union than John J. Cooper to manage the Treasury of Indiana. Under these circumstances I feel well pleased to vote "no"
The vote was then announced as above.
The majority report was concurred in by yeas 26, nays 15.
Mr. JOHNSON, of Tippecanoe: In explanation of my vote I would like to say that in voting for the majority report of this committee I do it in order not to give any misconstruction as to my idea. I have arrived at the same time conclusion as the majority, however will hereafter move a resolution for an investigation.
Mr. GOODING offered the following:
Resolved, That it is the sense of this House that the percentum of State tax should not, at the present session of the Legislature be increased, and that the appropriations should be economical as far as practicable, avoiding the increase of expenses by issuing bonds or otherwise.
Mr. GOODING: I think it is important to say something upon the propriety of the right to increase the taxation. By making appropriations we will be either compelled to increase the taxation or to issue bonds. I hope the resolution will be adopted.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: I remember a few years ago and it was declared in one of the political platforms that the levy should not be over so much on the hundred dollars and at the ensuing session of the Legislature I remember the House was in session until midnight on the last day, and adjourned without passing the appropriation bill That was in 1877. And I remember one branch of the House was in favor of a 5 per cent, levy, and the other branch was in favor of 12 per cent, and I remember that to the party which adopted the platform belonged the gentleman that is soon to be inaugurated Vice President of the United States. He was then Governor of the State. I think we had better not determine how much cloth we have to buy before we know how many persons we have to clothe. I think it is simply going it blind.
Mr. TOWNSHEND: I wish to ask the gentleman from Hancock (Mr. Gooding), the author of the resolution, if it is the purpose of the resolution to prevent a refunding of the State debt.
Mr. GOODING: I ask the gentleman to read the resolution.
Mr. WILLIAMS: For the first time since I have been here I find myself exactly concurring with the gentleman from Tippecanoe. I move this resolution be referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. GOODING: Perhaps the House were not paying attention carefully to the reading of the resolution I am opposed to a reference of it, and I hope if it is referred the committee will report it back favorably, and then I will be heard on the subject.
Mr. GORDON: If you will allow me, I desire to say that nearly every measure before this House has been carried into politics' we have been making political measures of them. The gentleman from Hancock says he wants an opinion of this House to enable him to know how to vote on the appropriations. In my opinion we should exercise our own judgment. The gentleman shall have my vote to enable him to know how to vote on the appropriation bills.
Mr. LOYD: I am in favor of maintaining the State institutions by liberal appropri
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. McMULLEN: I move that the resolution lie upon the table.
The motion was agreed to by yeas 65, nays 28.
Mr. Gooding's bill [H. R. 57] coming up on the second reading -
Mr. GOODING said: I wish to state to the House the purpose of this bill. Equitable cases before the act of 1852 were tried by the Court and not by the jury. The right of trial by jury was restricted to common law cases. This bill, instead or requiring cases of an equitable character to be tried by the Court, it allows either party, if they demand a jury trial, to have their cases tried by a jury. If a person wishes to have his case tried by the Court why of course he can; but this bill provides that if a person desires to have a jury trial he can have it in suits in equity as well as in common law. I do not propose to take the time in discussing the merits of this bill. I think it is a bill which ought to pass. I can see no reason why it should not.
Mr. TAYLOR: I think this is one of the most important bills presented to this House for years and years. Now, when a person comes into court for the foreclosure of a mortgage, in some cases the Court will deny the party a jury, and very often the ruling of the Court will be sustained when the party goes to the Supreme Court. And when the plea of fraud is set up and ca be supported by facts, the party is denied the right to go before a jury in many cases. There are many cases where a party may desire to call upon a jury - twelve peers of the realm - to determine the facts. For this reason I say this bill should be become a law. When I say this I do not wish to reflect up in a Judge of the State or the Judge of our Court, for I believe he is a man who has superior intellectual attainments, so far as that is concerned. I hope the bill will become a law.
Mr. ADAMS: Two years ago I favored a bill similar to this. I agree with the gentleman from Daviess (Mr. Taylor) that this is one of the most important measures before the Assembly. I would rather go before a jury of twelve men and trust to their common sense and honesty than to try a case before the Court in many instances.
Mr. MOCK: I favored the bill for the same reason stated by the gentleman, not intending to say anything to the discredit of our Judges and attorneys. I undertake to say there are few cases in which the equitable and legal principles are easily distinguished. It is very difficult matter for the Court in many cases to determine whether a case is a legal or an equitable case. Many cases are taken to the Supreme Court to determine the question whether it is a legal or an equitable case. I am in favor of jury trials.
Mr. BROWNLEE: I believe that a jury is the highest tribunal on this earth. I am willing in all cases of fact that they may decide for me. I hope this measure will pass this House and become a law.
Mr. KELLISON: I am in favor of the passage of this bill. I believe it would be a sorry day for this country when all questions of fact, as well as law, would have to be settled by th Court. Men who have been long separated from the people - Judges holding office for a long time - are not as competent to determine many questions of fact as twelve men fresh from the body of the people Now these are my views upon the bill. I hope this measure will pass and become a law.
Mr. SAYRE: I must say I have been surprised at this discussion. Why, the gentleman a little while ago talked as though he was addressing his argument to a jury - as though this House was a jury and he was addressing them. Now I do not see what is to be gained by trying this class of cases before a jury. If the Court sees fit, in his discretion, he can grant a new trial. The law of 1881 was drafted under the direction of the Bar Association. I believe it is a good law. I believe this law ought not to pass. I believe it would make additional delay in litigation.
Mr. WILLIAMS: Two years ago a bill of similar character was introduced into this House, and we occupied a good deal of valuable time in its discussion, and it did not pass. Since that bill was defeated I have given the subject some consideration, and I have come to the conclusion in many cases a Judge is not competent to try a case. I think a tribunal of twelve men is much more competent to try questions of fact than a court. The gentleman has said the law of 181 was drafted under the direction of the State Bar Association. I do not want to hold the Republican responsible for the blunders of the State Bar Association, but I certainly think the Republican legislature made a blunder when it passed the law of 1881. I would rather try questions of fact before a jury than any judge. I hope the bill will pass.
Mr. BROWNING: I move the previous question.
The House seconded the demand.
Mr. GOODING: There are one or two points I wish to answer. The gentleman from Wabash (Mr.
Sayre) contended that
The bill was read the third time, and passed by yeas -, nays - .
The Senate having under consideration the majority and minority reports pending at the adjournment yesterday -
Mr. McCULLOUGH: I do not speak because I desire to speak to the Senate or because I am
fond of speaking, but I have realized there was a duty devolving upon the Democratic
majority, and all I have done in committee and out of it, and all I am going to do or say,
I do to discharge my duty to the State and the people of the State. It has been that the
people are clamoring for an investigation of the State Treasury,and I would have an
influence against us unless there was an investigation. I believe if members will deal with
questions which rightfully come before them, and enact proper legislation, that the
intelligent demand of the people will be met. The Senator from Marion (Mr. Winter) on
yesterday insisted, as other members have asserted that the interest on public funds
collected by the State Treasurer is the property of the State, and that we ought to
investigate to see how much interest he has received in that way. [Reads Section 5636 of
the Statute] As I said yesterday, to a person unacquainted with the law and the decisions
of the courts, that section would see to make the Treasurer account for the interest. I
also cited sections of the statute concerning County Treasurers that were just as strong.
And the holding has always been by the Supreme Court that the County Treasurer is not
chargeable with interest. The Senator from Marion refers to the note at the bottom of the
section, and contends that the note shows the able lawyers who revised the Code of 1881
thought there was a difference between th County and State Treasurer. I acknowledge the
ability of these lawyers. But the fact that the note is inserted where it is shows that in
the mind of the commissioners there was doubt, upon the subject. If not, why did they
insert the note at that place? It is 100 pages from the statute governing County
Treasurers. The note would never have been inserted in the statute governing the State
Treasurer but to call attention to what the Supreme Court had decided about County
Treasurers, and to suggest the doubt as to what would be the construction of the section it
follows Considering th fact that for more than twenty yeas the State has had no place in
which the Treasurer could keep the money, and that he has been compelled to keep it in bank
notwithstanding that section, and during al of that time no interest has been required of
any Treasurer, although it was known by the Governor Porter's message, that the
Treasurer was receiving interest, no man can say that it is the law that he should account
for interest until the courts of the State have decided it. The Legislature can not settle
the question. It is not a court. The Attorney General is the law officer of the State, and
it is his duty to see if the interest belongs to the State Such suit has never been brought
against any Treasurer. What good then will investigation do? Why take the time of this
Legislature disputing over this matter, and no good could come of it. The Legislature has
no power to settle the rights of parties or officers in the past.
But, says the Senator from Cass (Mr. Magee), the State Treasurer has no right to take county orders. That, again, depends upon the construction of the statute above. If, like the County Treasurer, he has a right to invest the money in what security he pleases until called on by law to pay it out, then it is not unlawful for him to take the orders. But whether it is right or wrong, what can the Legislature do about it? It can not take the orders away from him. It has no power on earth to do anything with reference to the orders. Both reports show that he has the orders. Now, what more light can be thrown upon the question by an investigating committee?
Says another, it is hinted that the Treasurer lost some money in a blank that broke. Suppose he did and you investigating committee should find that to be true. I say to you that for one I am unutterably opposed to making an appropriation to the Treasurer to make up the loss. And I know of now power the Legislature would have to compel a broken bank to make it up.
Says another, there is a rumor that the Treasurer has borrowed the money to supply the loss he has met with. Suppose that is ascertained to be a fact, is the Legislature going to say that you shall not borrow money? Why the law would require him to supply the deficiency, if he has met with loss, and it would make no difference, so far as the State is concerned, whether he borrowed the money or not, so he got it. The people of this State are interest in having proper legislation upon the subject. We can pass laws to govern in the future, not the past. We want to do that carefully deliberately. For the purposes of legislation we want to investigation the old law, see wherein it is wrong and where it is doubtful. Then carefully amend it. Leave no doubt for the future, so far as it is within our capacity to prevent it.
If this Legislature will tarn its attention from balderdash and political clap trap to the law, and make secure the people's money for the future, it will accomplish its duty in that regard, and what the people have a right to expect of it. On the other hand if for noise, excitement and clap trap, the time is spent in investigating and disputing, and the legislation is neglected as it will be if this thing continues, and the minority hope to have it, the people will hold us to an account for our negligence. And they ought.
The Legislature is in session but two months in twenty-four. Before I was a member of it, I used to hear expressions (not sure but I took part in them myself) to the effect that it would be better if the sessions were shorter and less frequent (of course nothing of that kind has been hinted lately.) Since 1859 the Governor of the State has had power to investigate the State Treasury at any time without warning. Twenty two months out of the twenty-four it must be left to the Governor to investigate. And twenty-four months out of twenty-four it ought to be left to him to investigate. If you want game you do not go hunting with brass bands; and when you want to make a genuine investigation you don't want a Legislative Committee to do it, a part of such committee going for political buncombe, usually, and especially so with the minority of the committee in this case.
Within a few days the Treasurer will be required to give a bond for $700,000.00. The men who go on his bond will investigate him in a business-like way. They will not rely upon the Legislative Committee's investigation. And it is the duty of the Governor, under the law, to investigate the bondsmen and approve the bond. With that the Legislature has naught to do.
Governor Porter tells us in his message that $3 is not enough to pay an expert to investigate. The committee have reported in favor increasing the salary of such expert, and such amendment should be made. The Governor and Secretary are the representatives of all the people of the State, and they can make the investigation any moment without warning when it may seem necessary.
One prominent member of this General Assembly is almost exhausted endeavoring for thirty days to get his committee together. It looks now as if by continued industry he would succeed in obtaining a meeting in thirty days more. Think of a committee like that investigating the State Treasurer's office, together will all of the other work that is to be done here in sixty days, and surviving.
For the purposes of legislation. I am willing to assume the worst state of facts that any of the gentleman who want to investigate can imagine. For the purpose of legislation assume that the money is loaned; assume that the Treasurer had met with loss; assume that he has had to borrow to make up the deficiency, or if that is not the case at present, assume that there might be a time when these things would exist, and make your legislation accordingly. The safe legislator is the one who endeavors to think of every possible contingency that might arise, and legislate with reference to it. I am in favor of stopping this noise and clamor, and endeavoring to enact proper legislation to make the money of the State perfectly secure, and attending to the business properly before this General Assembly.
[Continued on bottom of page 157.]
Mr. Shively's bill [S. 18] to regulate the practice of medicine coming up on the second reading -
Mr. McINTOSH moved to amend the bill so that if a physician desires to prove he has practiced medicine for ten years continuously he has to prove that fact by two reputable witnesses, either householders or freeholders of the county in which he proposes to practice, and also that he is a man of reputable character. He said: I hope that people as well as the profession Some of our fellow-citizens, especially those of the legal profession, may smile when we talk of proving moral character, especially of a physician. But I believe a physician ought to have a good moral character in order to practice medicine. The medical colleges of this State and all well regulated medical colleges in this country require of a student before he is allowed to matriculate to present evidence of a good moral character. But in Indiana any man can practice medicine, whether he has been run off from other States on account of lack of moral qualifications or not. There is another slight amendment to the bill in the one I offered - that the Clerk shall have twenty-five cents for the affidavit and pay for recording, etc.
Mr. WEIRD: Under the amendment, as I understand it, which I am opposed to, if the most eminent physician that lives comes into the State and desires to become a citizen and engage in the practice of his profession, he is unable to do so until he finds two freeholders or householders to swear in his moral character. Inasmuch as there are others who have given this bill more attention and are better able to discuss its merits, I will not detain the Senate further than to call attention to that one point, as it occurred to me when the amendment was read.
Mr. WINTER: I introduced a bill [S. 223] on this subject, which has been carefully prepared by a committee appointed by the State Medical Society. It was referred to the Committee on Public Health, and I am informed did not reach that committee til after it had reported the bill under consideration. There seems to be a very general desire that there shall be some legislation on the subject, and we should legislate intelligently and with a full knowledge of the matter before us; and to consider the various bills presented at the same time is the only way in which we can do so. I move to amend the amendment by striking out all after the enacting clause of the bill and inserting in lieu Senate bill 223.
Mr. SELLERS: This committee has letters from about half the physicians in the State. Some one has sent a circular out asking them to write their opinion to their legislators, and about nine of every ten favored this bill. I believe this bill will give better satisfaction than any bill that has been introduced in this Legislature. I understand this same committee of the State Medical Society, after their bill had been introduced, expressed themselves as satisfied with this bill Perhaps it is not as strong as they would desire, but they believe it as much so as any that ought to be passed at this time. This class of legislation must be proceeded with in a careful manner. We must approach perfect by degrees. The amendment provides that one of the qualifications shall be a good moral character. Who is to judge of the standard of moral character?
Mr. McINTOSH: My amendment proposes that two witnesses shall fix it.
Mr. SELLERS: I object to that manner of fixing the standard because no two will agree as to what it is. Another objection is, if the persons character should become bad after having obtained a license, he would be liable to continual prosecution by ever person in the State. Another objection is that whoever makes a false affidavit shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. I hope no amendment will be made to the bill.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks: I shall ask some of the advocates of this bill to give some reason why there should be any legislation upon this subject. So far as this discussion has gone, it is as to which is the better of the two bills. For my own part, as at present advised. I shall vote against either and both, on the ground that no good reason has been shown for legislation on the subject.
Mr. HILLIGASS: Was not the bill 223 prepared by one of the schools of medicine?
Mr. WINTER: I understand it has bee submitted to the homeopathic school, and received their approbation. I don't know, but I am inclined to say legislation is necessary because surrounding States have adopted laws, under the effect of which quacks have flocked into Indiana. I will move that the bill be recommitted.
Mr. FOULKE: It seems to me it is the opinion of the citizens of the State should be taken as to the necessity of legislation; it should be for the interests of the people of the State, and not what the doctors desires. I have some doubts as to the advisability of attempting to protect the people against empyricism at all, or whether it can be done under any circumstances. I know an instance where a man who has practiced for ten years stated that the circulation of the blood was from the heart through the lungs directly into the system; and upon being asked where the heel bone is situated stated that it was at the bottom of the vertebral column. To a man who practiced medicine in my own town for ten years I handed a collection of bones from a human foot, and on asking him to distinguish between them, he told me I was bringing in comparative anatomy; that they were not the bones of a human foot, but the bones of an animal. Such men are not competent to practice medicine. You should establish a higher qualification than is proposed either in the amendment or in the bill. Medicine is a little like that of which a poet spoke in regard to another matter; you must "drink deep or taste not the pierian spring."
A State Board of Examiners is objected
Mr. WINTER: I desire to change my motion, that the bill and amendment be printed and made the special order for Tuesday at 10 o'clock
Mr. SHIVELY: I second the motion. The Senator from Wayne states there is not requirement for qualification in this bill. When a man or woman presents a diploma obtained from a reputable medical college, by attending that college three, four or five years, studying day and night it ought to be some evidence that the individual has some qualification to practice medicine. The bill provides that any person, male or female, who has practiced ten years, and has attended one full course of medical lectures, may obtain a license It appears to me, under such requirement, there must be some qualification. Those who have practiced medicine for ten years and labored day and night to qualify themselves, and having the advantage of one course of lectures in some reputable medical college, I calculate they ought to have learned something and know something about the practice of medicine It may be in the county of Wayne some of the profession are so ignorant that they can't tell a human bone from that of a beast, but I don't think that is the case with the profession generally throughout the State of Indiana. i think we have a very intelligent profession throughout the State.
Mr. THOMPSON: I have been very much astonished since this session of the Senate commenced at the number of letters from physicians, that both the Senators from Marion County have received, protesting against any law on this subject, but if any favoring the Senate bill. We have some eight or ten prominent physicians in this city protesting against any law. We are confused as to what we ought to do in the premises.
The motion to postpone the further consideration of the bill and amendments and make it a special order for Tuesday next, at 10 o'clock, was agreed to.
Mr. Huston's bill [S. 29 - see page 136] coming up on second reading -
Mr. HUSTON: No man would hesitate longer before advocating a measure to lessen the receipts of the school fund than I. The rate must be reduced eventually to 6 per cent. We are coming to it gradually, but we had better proceed with a sliding scale in the way indicated by this bill. The question is whether or not it is better for the General Assembly to lessen the rate of interest to 6 per cent, in counties where they find it impossible to loan this fund at 8 per cent, or whether interest on the entire fund shall be lessened to 6 per cent. That is the question we have to meet. About $240,000 a year goes into the State Treasury for the use of the school fund of the State. Now, it 90 per cent of that fund is loaned at 8 per cent., I submit if it would not be bad policy to lessen that rate of interest to 6 per cent., on the whole, simply to loan out the other 10 per cent. that now remains unloaned. Reducing the per cent. from 8 to 6 means just $60,000 lost to the school fund every year. There are counties in which, they say, they could loan three times as much as they have at 8 per cent., and there are other counties that find it impossible to laon what they have. I earnestly hope the relief to which they are entitled will be given by the passage of this bill.
Mr. WEIR: It seems to me, in counties where there is no demand for this money the County Commissioners, with the Auditor ought to be permitted to loan it as a rate not less than 6 per cent., and thus the counties would be compelled to make up to the State only the difference between what they receive and the 8 per cent. In the county I live you can borrow all the money you want for 7 per cent., and in the larger counties the rate is 6 per cent. This bill affects no other counties but those needing relief, and it seem sbut just that they should be allowed to loan money at the best rate they can get above 6 per cent, and make up the difference to the State It seems to me hardly necessary to take up much time in discussing this bill. It seems to me the merits should meet with such a general indorsement upon the part of Senators as to cause its immediate passage.
Mr. BROWN: I move to strike out the word "eight" and insert in lieu the word "seven." I regarded it as bad legislation when the rate was changed from seven to eight. When the rate was 7 per cent. we heard no complaint that the people who needed this moeny was not atking it out of the Treasury. It is only since the rate was placed at 8 per cent. - an exhorbitant rate when you take it to consideration the expense necessary to obtain it - that complaint has been made Reduce the rate all over the State to 7 per cent. and it will avoid all difficultly and complaint in the future. It will only cut the rate one-eighth. I hope the amendment will be adopted.
Mr. McINTOSH: I hope the amendment will not be adopted. It seems to me that to cut down the interest on the fund belonging to the school children of the State is the wrong place to begin. As regards the bill itself, all I have to say is the Committee on County and Township business considered it at two meetings, and the committee was unanimous against the passage of the bill. The author of the bill insisted he would like to have the bill returned with a minority report so he could have it considered in the Senate, and one of the committee presented a minority report to accomodate him.
Mr. FOWLER: I think it would be bad policy to reduce the rate of interest on school moneys to 7 per cent. because I feel sure the money can be loaned in a majority of the counties at 8 per cent., and where it can it ought to loaned at that. It is not an exhorbitant rate, and there is no good reason why it should be reduced to seven.
Mr. OVERSTREET: I am decidedly in favor of the amendment. As I understand it the school money of the State is distributed to the several counties so that the citizens of each and every county might have equal chance to have the use of the money I think upon principle, even if the money can't be loaned in some counties, the State can't afford to say the citizens in one county may have the money at 6 per cent. and in another county exact 8 per cent. off of those who need the money. The General assembly in fixing the rate of interest either upon individual claims or on the school fund, should make it equal allover the State, and have no uncertainty about it. Let it go out that the citizens of Laporte County, or Union County, are getting the benefit of the public fund at 6 per cent, the citizens of Johnson County would say: " We should not pay more than the citizens of Laporte and Union". If they are so prosperous in one county that money won't command more than 6 per cent., you should not go to county less prosperous and exact 8 per cent All laws ought to be general. We might as well say the rate of interest in one county in individual transactions should be 6 and not 8. We must deal out fair and exact justice to all citizens. to all who have the privilege of borrowing school moneys, the rate of interest should be uniform.
Mr. DAVIS: The citizens of Elkhart are sufficiently loyal to the interests of the children of the State to borrow all the moneys in the school fund they can get at 8 per cent.
Mr. RAHM: I decidedly favor the amendment offered by the Senator from Allen and Whitely (Mr. Brown), for this reason: I think it is not right and fair for the State of Indiana to compel the people to pay 8 per cent. interest, when we all know that it is notoriously too much Just because some of our citizens and neighbors happen to be poor, and because we have the power, we say to the County Auditors: "Go ahead and continue to ask 8 per cent, and the balance you can't loan at 8 place at 6" At this time 8 per cent is an outrageous high right. The Government is getting money at 3, and the State is offered money at 3 1/2, and why should we compel our citizens who may want money out of the school fund to pay 8 per cent? I think the amendment is right and proper. It is half way meeting our citizens, even if it does reduce the present rate 1 per cent. I claim to be as much in favor of schools as any man, but I say it is only right and just and proper to come down with the interest and keep up with the times. if we reduce the rate of interest, I venture all the money will be placed. Don't let us make fish of one of and flesh of another.
Mr. HILL: I favor the amendment of the Senator from Allen and Whitley (Mr. Brown) because I think it will produce more money for the school fund than the present rate. The present is 8 per cent., and that is charged and taken in advance Then there are certain expenses attending the getting of this money, and after all these costs are paid the person who gets the money pays 9 and in some cases 10 per cent. If the rate of interest is reduced to 7 per cent. we will likely realize more than we do at 8, the present rate, and for that reason I propose to vote for the amendment.
Mr. McCULLOUGH: I am opposed to a bill which would require individuals to pay 6 or 7 per cent to the county and the county pay 8 per cent. to the State. That would be compelling the county pay 1 or 2 per cent. for nothing I don't think that part of legislation would be valid. It is only because of a clause in the Constitution that the county is required to pay interest to the State. The Constitution provides that the county shall take care of the principal. it is not a trustee for the purpose of loaning. If a law is enacted making the rate 6 per cent. and requiring the county to pay 8 per cent. to the State, then the 2 per cent difference is not interest at all; it is simply a taxation of 2 per cent. I am in favor of making the rate of interest uniform throughout the State.
Mr. WEIR: I hope the amendment offered by the Senator from Whitley will not be adopted. It proposes to reduce the rate of interest on the school fund to 7 per cent throughout the State, and thus reduce the income just one-eighth. Now, there may be something in the constitutional question raised by the Senator from Gibson (Mr. McCollough), but I am not able to agree with him. The county has to pay 8 per cent. to the State, and this iron-clad rule that they must loan it at 8 per cent., and not be allowed to loan it at something near 8, simply takes out some County Treasurer $2000 a year, and yet the money lies idle. If the county only has to make up 1 or 2 per cent, I can see no reason why the county should not be better off. I think this bill ought to pass.
Mr. SELLERS: I am opposed tot his bill because I can see how, under its provisions the Auditor and Commissioners of a county, when they are candidates for re-election, may favor every doubtful vote in the county with a loan of money from the school fund. They will loan to those persons who favor their candidacy at a lesser per cent., and the citizens of the whole county will be obliged to make up the difference, thus allowing candidates for re-election to have their campaign expenses paid by the citizens of the whole county. I rather favor the amendment of the Senator from Whitley, and yet I am not really ready to vote upon it.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks: This question involves too much to be considered hastily. This bill relates simply to the loan of school moneys in certain counties remaining unloaned. The amendment concerns the interest on five millions, in round numbers, and involves a question of so much much more importance than the bill, the whole subject should receive careful and deliberate attention. I move that the bill and amendments -
Mr. WEIRD: Inasumuch as the question of the constitutionally of the bill has been raised, and inasmuch as that is a most important question, I ask the Senator of he will not move that the Judiciary Committee report as to its constitutionality.
Mr. CAMPBELL: Certainly; send it to the Judiciary Committee with instructions to report on its constitutionality.
It was so ordered.
And the Senate adjourned.
Mr. Sellers's bill [S 180] for the construction of fish ladders coming up in regular order it was read the second time.
Mr. WINTER moved to strike out the provision that each fish shall constitute a separate offense.
Mr. OVERSTREET: In all prosecutions I have ever witnessed under the fish law which provides that the offender shall pay a fine of $5 for each fish caught, he can always compromise with the prosecution by pleading guilty to catching one fish, even though he may have caught a wagonload.
Mr. SELLERS: I desire the law shall be effective, and if the amendment will make it so I have no objection.
Mr. WINTER: My idea in offering the amendment was to make the bill more effective. Where the penalty is so extreme the law is apt to be a dead letter. i would favor increasing the penalty from $10 to $50, and even from $75 to $200 It is a question in my mind whether a provision declaring that each fish caught shall be deemed a separable offense and not be unconstitutional, for in point of fact it is not separate, but one act, and it would be punishing a man more than once for the same offense.
The bill was ordered engrossed.
On motion by Mr. BAILEY his bill [S. 20] to prohibit the working of children under fourteen years in mills or manufactories, was taken up with a committee amendment to strike fourteen and insert twelve in lieu. He moved to amend so the bill shall stand as originally introduced.
Mr. HILLIGASS: we have a stave factory in our town employing about 100, many of whom are boys whose mothers are dependent upon them for support Many boys fourteen years of age are able to earn men's wages, and in many cases are getting the wages of men, and I take it the committee acted wisely in proposing to amend the bill by making its provisions apply to children under the age of twelve years.
Mr. WILLARD: As this an important question and should not be decided without a quorum of the Senate present, I move it be postponed.
Mr. MAY: I favor the amendment to the bill for the same reason stated by the gentleman from Huntington (Mr. Hilligass). In our county we have a large cotton factory which employs a large cotton factory which employs a large number of these boys - dozens of them - children of poor people, and boys fourteen years of age get good wages And some of them are employed around the coal mines. While it might be well enough to prevent children from overwork, I don't think boys fourteen years of age should be prevented from working in cotton mills and coal mines.
Mr. BAILEY: My amendment proposes to restore the bill to its original provision -
fourteen years instead of twelve - as provided in the committee amendment. I consider it my
duty to bring up the question and let the Senate decide it. It seems to me there can be no
doubt but that the children under that age, with the provisions we have for public schools,
should not be employed in work detrimental to their health and which breaks down their
constitutions. And then they supplant men with families to support, and prevent such heads
of families from obtaining the wages which are paid to these children
Mr. CAMPBELL of Hendricks: The Senator has given some reasons why he favors his bill, and he gave the very one which I was suspicious of when he introduced it I was a boy once myself. I know men sometimes get jealous of boys when about to supplant them in the workshops, factories, and other fields of labor, but I believe in giving the boys a chance I believe if the boy can do the work of a man, it is not right to allow men to procure legislation by which boys shall be excluded from doing that work, therefore I favor fixing the age at 12, if we legislate at all on the subject and not say by law that he shall not have a fair chance.
Mr. SELLERS: The Senator from Hendricks has made my speech.
Mr. FOULKE: I think there is a reason why children under the age of fourteen should not be permitted to work in manufactories and mines. The purpose, which seems to be a laudable one in this measure, is to develop the mind of these children. Although it may be a hardship in some cases to prohibit boys of such age from helping to earn the living for the family, yet we should legislate in this matter, not for the present, but for the future. It is the future of the boy we should consider. Ordinarily I am in favor of letting every man take care of his own rights. At the same time it is within the legitimate domain of law to establish the time which a boy should be in school and during that time he should not be permitted to work in such places.
Mr. Magee: I think as little legislation as possible is the best. While I am in favor of the principle in the party platform, still I would like to vote for this bill with an amendment making a discrimination. I think it ought to be left somewhat to the discretion of the parent and to the child also. We ought not to make a cast iron rule which will deny all children this privilege In our city a great many boys obtain employment during school vacation, and many would like to do some little work rather than run on the commons In all mechanical trades the unions refuse to allow a man to employ only a given number of boys, and as years roll on we are losing that new element that should come into the several trades, and simply because the boys are denied this privilege. The ratio is so very small that in a few years the trade would run out if they were not imported from Europe or somewhere else.
Mr. McCLURE: It seems to me there is a strong tendency to interfere with the rights of heads o families, and an attempt to regulate their children in this respect. There are a great many instances where a child 14 years old and perhaps 12, can earn a living and earn a competence. It strikes me we ought to be very careful how we undertake to interfere with the jurisdiction of the heads of families ever their won children If the purpose is to provide for their education and to say when they may be sent to school how much better it would be get up a bill for compulsory education It would be much better than to undertake to interfere with the control of parents over their children, under the pretense of keeping them from this or that employment in order that they may be sent to school. I think it is absolutely impossible to enact a law that will do justice to all concerned and prevent children of that age form being employed in the difference avocations of life.
Mr. FAULKNER: I am opposed to the bill on general principles. I was a boy once myself, and I remember well when I worked for the pitiful sum of twenty cents a day to earn a living. I am for the boy first, last and all the time; and the whole theory of this bill in my judgment is wrong. I would rather vote for a bill to make the boys work and the men too. We have too many idle men and boys in my judgment.
Mr. BROWN: I am opposed to the bill on general principles also. It proposes to legislate in a way I don't feel like sustaining.
Mr. MARSHALL: I am opposed to the fourteen-year amendment, because a child ought to go to school until he is fourteen years of age, and if a law is passed that he shall keep out until he is fourteen, we have no law to put him in the school house. If we are to have a compulsory law in one way, we ought to have in the other. Another thing, it seems to me it is going too far toward interference in the family relation to say what a father shall have his child do and what he shall not have him do. Another thing, our country districts where the coal mines are located the schools are not in more than six months in length, and if we pass a law taking boys of fourteen years out of the coal mines and factories for xi months we have not sufficient amount of money in the school fund for the other half of the year. As the Senator from Ripley (Mr. Faulkner) says, I am opposed to i on general principles. I believe a boy should have a chance to make a dime or dollar whenever he can. And I think we ought to have laws to put them in school.
Mr. WILARD: I believe every boy ought to have an opportunity to enjoy the facilities for
education which Indiana gives in so large a degree. I don't believe, on general
principles, that the bill is right when we have these means of education. But I am not one
of those who believe a party should get into power upon certain pledges, and once in power
disregard those pledges. Upon on question presented before this Senate I have yielded my
person convictions because it was a matter in the party platform and that was as to the
necessity of a Consti
Mr. YOUCHE: As has been said by several Senators, I am opposed, on general principles to this whole thing In most all cases, though there are exceptions, the test men are the results of industry in early life. If you want to spoil a boy put him in a situation where he won't be employed. I have to find the first ruined man who can point to early employment as the cause of his ruin. But many men reason of not having been employed when boys have gone to ruin. I appeal to Senators on the Democratic side if they feel that obligation in the Democratic platform was dictated by a consideration for the best interests of the boys. We know that is not the case. The purpose of that provision, I am sorry to say, was to prevent competition - to make more employment for full grown men by keeping employment from boys. It is pampering to men who have votes and can make themselves felt in party conventions to the detriment of boys who have no votes.
Mr. DUNCAN, of Hamilton, moved to amend so that the prohibition should be only during school term in the district in which such manufactories are situated He said: I am also in favor of giving the boys a chance. During the session of the public schools I believe the boys ought to be protected so they will have the benefit of the public schools; but when the public school is not in session the best thing to do with a boy is to put him to work, and with this idea I offer this amendment.
Mr. SELLERS: I move that this bill and amendments be recommitted.
Mr. HILLIGASS (after dinner): I think we had better dispose of this question now, I am in favor of the bill as reported from the committee, placing the age at twelve. I think we owe a duty to ourselves and tot he laboring, as well as to the children of the State. Whatever may be said with reference to the position of political parties on this question, I think the honors are easy. I remember when the Senator from Wayne was elected to the Senate his party stood upon the same kind of a platform as we did at the last election. So on that score I think we have a very fair stand-off. I undertake to say the period allotted for the education of children is ample, from six to twelve years, and affords time for an average education. I think we would do a great injustice and wrong by cutting off a majority of the boys in this State from employment by the passage of the amendment. We ought not to undertake the parental care of children between twelve and fourteen years of age in reference to this matter. I don't think it our privilege to legislate these people out of employment. Boys ought to be educated to work as well as educated in mind. If we pass a law of this kind affecting children under the age of fourteen we will be encouraging idleness among that class which depend upon their labor for maintenance. As far as we can go with safety to ourselves is to pass a law prohibiting the employment in manufactories of children less than twelve years of age, hence the committee concluded we ought to so amend the bill. I hope the bill will be ordered engrossed as it came from the committee.
Mr. BAILEY: I have been somewhat surprised to learn from a number of Senators of their absolute disregard of the platform upon which they run and have been elected. But with reference to the merits of the bill, in view of the fact that we have in large cities - in this city from 5,000 to 8,000 men out of employment, and in whose places boys of twelve to fourteen years of age are placed, at wages from thirty to forty cents a day, there should be some legislation, viewing from that point, that would put them back in the schools and thus give opportunity for employment to men who need money for themselves and for their families. It has been said by the Senator from Ripley and others, that boys ought to be encouraged. I agree with that sentiment, but is it better to encourage boys to make money or rather encourage them to lay a good foundation for proper citizenship?
Mr. SELLERS changed his motion: That the bill be referred to the Committee on Health and Vital Statistics.
The special order supervened, being the bill S. 73 - see page 126.
Mr. FAULKNER objected to the Superintendent having the appointment of the attendant. Every insane person has some, acquaintance, male or female, who can handle them, while others can not. They will all get to the hospital soon enough without the Superintendent selecting a person to bring them.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings, referred to a charge of $200 for taking a patient to the hospital
from Vanderburg County, when the cost should not exceed $40, and declared this bill to be a
proposition in the direction of economy. He deprecated the practice of
Mr. McCULLOUGH: The theory of this bill is all wrong. The expense of transportation is taxed against the county, and the principle that would permit a State officer to make charge for such service as against the county is certainly wrong. Under the present law, a relative can now, by request, accompany the patient, and receive the prescribed fee. There is no use for such legislation as this.
Mr. WEIR: This is a subject that does not demand any legislation whatever He believed it simply for the purpose of increasing employes at the asylums of making several counties pay their transportation expenses. He moved to lay the bill and amendments on the table.
The motion was agreed to by yeas 24, nays 14.
Mr. FOWLER, explaining his affirmative vote: I am heartily in sympathy with the principles of this bill, but like the Senator from Laporte (Mr. Weird) I don't think there is any necessity for the legislation on this subject I think probably the present statute is sufficient, and would have no special objection to having a bill of this character passed. I am opposed to the second section, and without the amendment must vote against the whole bill. I shall vote "aye" at present.
Mr. WINTER, in explanation of his vote said: I desire to have an opportunity to support the pending amendment; and am not prepared to say that the second section of the bill is not necessary and proper, therefore I vote "no."
The vote was announced as above.
The following message from the Governor was laid before the Senate:
I have the honor to transmit herewith a copy of a communication of the 8th inst., received by me from Hon Conrad Baker and others, trustees of the Morton Monumental Association, presenting to the State of Indiana the bronze statue of the late Governor Oliver P. Morton, recently erected in the Governor's Circle in this city, and asking that the same be accepted by the General Assembly now in session, as the property of the State, with a request that I will transmit to you such communication, or a copy thereof. The same is submitted to you for such action as you may consider necessary. A communication similar to this has been transmitted to the House of Representatives.
The letter referred to in the foregoing was as follows:
To his Excellency, Isaac P. Gray, Governor of Indiana:
The undersigned, Trustees of the Morton Monumental Association, beg leave to say that, soon after the death of the late Oliver P. Morton, an effort was set on foot to raise funds with which to erect a monument to his memory, and an association was formed for that purpose. The association subsequently determined that the structure to be erected should consist of a statue of Governor Morton to be placed in some public pace in the city of Indianapolis in January, 1884, a bronze statue was completed and erected int he Governor's Circle, in the city of Indianapolis, where it now is. The cost of the structure was between $13,000 and $14,000 and has been paid for mainly out of voluntary contributions of the people of this State. Acting on behalf of the contributors of the fund, we desire to present, and do hereby present, the statue to the State of Indiana, and ask that it may be accepted by the General Assembly of the State, now in session, as the property of the State, and that such protection may be given to the structure as is accorded to other public property. Trusting that your Excellency will transmit this communication, or copies thereof, to the General Assembly, with such recommendation in relation thereto as your own judgment may approve, we are very respectfully yours.
On motion by Mr. FOULKE a concurrent resolution was adopted accepting the gift.
On motion by Mr. Campbell, of Hendricks, his bill [S.4] to procure fair elections was taken up and read the second time. He asid: Experience has taught us that the present law will not be enforced because of the extreme punishment provided. There is no subject upon which there is more need of legislation, and legislation of a kind that can be enforced. It has been said that the Republican party bought the State in 1880. Whether that be true or not the Democratic party have the State now, and you don't want us to buy it back. I hope to live to see the day when an election can be held that is reasonably fair and free from corruption. It is admitted that ten per centum of the voters of the State absolutely out their votes on the market; that they sit in groups till late in the evening of election day, waiting for the highest bidder. I say such a class ought to be disfranchised, and I believe the men who tempt them by offering them oney are also guilty of crime. I hope this bill will be passed.
Mr. MAGEE: There ought to be some way to prevent frauds upon the ballot-box. I believe
this purchasable commodity that the Democratic party has had to wrestle with for many years
is the result of the policy provided by the party of which the
Mr. FOWLER: I am heartily in favor of the bill, but am afraid the question of disfranchisement goes too far. I think there will be no great danger of doing injustice to anyone. I offer an amendment to fix a minimum sum for the fine - not less than $10, and strike out the natural life disfranchisement and insert in lieu, "any determinate period."
Mr. DUNCAN, of Tipton, obtained the floor.
And the Senate adjourned.
The Senate and House of Representatives met in joint convention at 2:30 o'clock, the President pro tem [Senator Magee] presiding in the absence of Lieutenant-Governor Manson. The object of the convention was to elect officers for the several positions for which nominations have been made. The following were elected: State Librarian, Miss Lizzie O. Callis; Chief of Bureau of Statistics, W. A. Peelle; Director State Prison North, George Major; Director State Prison South, John Horn; Trustee Insane Hospital, B H Burrell; Trustee Deaf and Dumb Institute, J B Green; Trustee for Blind Asylum, Calvin Stogdill.
Mr. Krueger's joint resolution [H. R. 4] proposing an amendment to section one (1) article (6) of the Constitution so that the Secretary Auditor and Treasurer of State shall be elected for the term of four years, and shall not be eligible for a second term, coming up on a second reading -
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe, moved to amend so as to include the Superintendent of Public Instruction. He said: I see no propriety in making an exception to the office of State Superintendent.
Mr. KRUEGER: It seems to me it would require a separate amendment to the Constitution to change that office.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: I understand it to be a constitutional office because the Constitution provides that this officer shall be elected biennially. I see no reason why there should be an exception to this office.
The joint resolution was ordered engrossed.
Mr. Moody's bill [H. R. 211] for the regulation of weights and measures, coming up on the second reading, with a committee report recommending its indefinite postponement -
Mr MOODY: I trust the report of the committee will not be concurred in by the House. I feel that the committee have not carefully considered the change sought by this bill or they would have recommended its passage. The Legislature of 1881 changed the standard weight of a bushel of oats in the State of Indiana from thirty two or thirty-three pounds. The bill originated in the Senate, and as many supposed the only change the bill of 1881 made in the law was fixing the standard weight of a gallon of sorghum molasses, the bill crept through both branches of the Legislature, aided s it was by the grain dealers of the State.
This may seem to gentlemen a small matter, but I want to say in all candor no law enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana in the last fifty years has caused so much dissatisfaction as the enactment of the law of 1881, changing the weight of a bushel of oats. All the great grain-growing states of the North and the West give and take 32 pounds to the bushel. Vermont, 32; Massachusetts, 32; New York, 32; Oh, 32; Michigan, 32; Illinois, 32; Wisconsin, 32; Minnesota, 32; Missouri, 32; Kansas, 32; California, 32; and Indiana standing alone, by reason of the acts of the Legislature of 1881, compelling her farmers to sell 33 pounds of their oats for a bushel.
Mr. PENDLETON: I have nothing to say on this subject except in confirmation of what the gentleman from DeKalb (Mr. Moody) has said. Why, the whole State, more or less, asks for the repeal of that law. Ever since the passage of the law in 1881 it has been continual source of annoyance to farmers and shippers.
The House refused to concur in the report of the committee, and the bill was ordered engrossed.
Mr. Hopkins' bill [H. R. 270] coming up on the second reading with a committee amendmendment to make the voting district to be composed of 500 instead of 750 voters -
Mr. SAYRE said: I hope this amendment of the committee will not be adopted. Where there
are more than 300 voters this bill provides that a consolidation may take place, so that a
precinct may contain 750 voters. It is not imperative. The County Commissioners may
consolidates as they deem best. It simply permits them to consolidate so that there may be
750 voters in a precinct, and to amend it and change it to 500 would hardly better the
condition of things, while 750 would. Now in the county I live we have 25 precincts, and we
have 500 electors in each precinct, and there are no large towns. Election comes late in
the fall - in Novem
Mr. WILLIAMS: I am opposed to the amendment. I hope the amendment will be defeated as well as the bill. I think the law of 1881, in this respect, is the best law Indiana ever had. You can get a fairer and fuller vote, because under the present law there is less opportunity to tamper with the returns. If you have a precinct so large it takes twenty-four, thirty-sex or forty-eight hours to count the votes and the men will become weary and tired for want of refreshment and sleep, while it gives more opportunity to tamper with the votes. For that reason I think the law of 1881 is the best law we ever had on our statute books. I hope the bill will be amended if it becomes a law.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: Now, since the law was enacted in 1881, we have changed the time of elections from the 1st of October to the 1st of November, making the time from sunrise to sunset, nearly forty minutes shorter. Some have proposed opening the polls at 6 o'clock in the morning I am opposed to that. I am in favor of opening the polls as soon as it is light - as soon as citizens can get together. I am in favor of giving the laboring men in large cities a chance to exercise the right of suffrage. Now if you would change the law so as to make 750 voters in a precinct, a great many perhaps would have to go away without exercising the right of suffrage. The right of suffrage is the dearest right a man can have I am in favor of protecting the people and giving them an opportunity to cast their votes and have them counted. I shall stand by the present election law in Indiana because I believe it is the best law. If we change it this session it will be an invitation to the next Legislature to make a change. I am opposed to the amendment and I am opposed tot he bill before us, and I shall vote against both of them.
The House refused to concur in the committee amendment and also refused to order the bill engrossed.
Mr. PATTEN, of Sullivan county, introduced Congressional and Legislative apportionment bills, which make some changes from the present apportionment. In the bill redistricting the State for Congressional purposes Crawford County is changed from the Third District to the Second, Sullivan from the Second to the Eighth, Warren from the Eighth to the Tenth, Rush from the Six to the Fourth, and Grant from the Eleventh to the Sixth.
In redistricting the State for Senatorial and Legislative purposes the Senatorial changes are as follows: Knox and Sullivan are changed to Knox and Pike, Green and Daviess to Sullivan and Greene; Pike and Warrick to Warrick and Spencer; Spencer and Perry to Dubois and Perry, and making a Senatorial District of Daviess and Martin; Harrison, Crawford and Orange are changed to Washington, Orange and Crawford; Floyd and Washington to Floyd and Harrison; Scott and Clark to Clark, Scott and Jennings; Jefferson to Clark and Jefferson (the Senatorial float is taken from Dubois, Martin and Lawrence); Ripley and Franklin to Ripley, Franklin and Union; Monroe, Brown and Bartholomew to Bartholomew and Johnson; Johnson and Morgan to Brown, Morgan and Monroe; Parke and Vermillion to Vigo, Parke and Vermillon; Henry and Delaware to Henry and Fayette; (Senatorial flat given to Madison, Tipton and Hamilton); Montgomery to Montgomery, Boone and Clinton; Carrol, White and Pulaski to Carroll and White; Cass to Cass and Miami; Howard and Miami to Cass, Miami and Howard; Newton, Jasper and Benton to Benton, Newton, Jasper and Pulaski; Lagrange and Noble to Lagrange and Steuben; Steuben and DeKalb, to Noble and DeKalb.
The Reprsentative changes are as follows: Posey, Vanderburgh and Warrich given a float; Pike and Dubois changed to Pike and Knox; Sullivan, Greene and Knox to Sullivan, Vigo and Vermilion; Lawrence to Lawrence, Orange and Dubois; Floyd, Clark and Scott to Floyd, Clark and Jefferson; Jennings to Scott and Jennings: Ripley, Decatur and Franklin to Dearborn, Franklin and Union; Monroe and Brown to Brown and Morgan; Morgan and Monroe, Morgan and Brown; Marion, Shelby and Bartholomew to Marion, Hancock and Shelby (taking away the float from Madison, Hancock and Henry); Hendricks, Putnam and Clay to Putnam, Boone and Montgomery (one Representative is taken away from Tippecanoe and made a joint with Clinton); White and Benton to White and Pulaski: Cass and Miami, a Joint Representative; Wells, Adams, and Jay to Adams, Jay and Blackford; Blackford and Wells to Wells; one Representative from Allen and joined with Whitley; Kosciusko and Wabash to Elkhart, Noble and DeKalb; St. Joseph one additional representative. The entire apportionment will give: Congress - 10 Democrats, 2 Republicans, and one, the Ninth District, doubtful Senators - 34 Democrats, 16 Republicans. Representatives - 66 Democrats, 34 Republicans.
And the House adjourned.
The Senate resumed consideration of the bill [S. 4] to prevent the purchase and sale of votes, pending at the adjournment yesterday.
On motion by Mr. MAGEE, an amendment was adopted requiring the posting of printed copies of the act on the morning of each election day at each voting place.
On motion by Mr. THOMPSON, his Civil Rights bill [S. 43] was read the second time. He said this bill was passed by Congress, but set aside by the Supreme Court of the United States upon the ground that it was the duty of the several States to pass it if they chose; and it had already been passed by many of the States.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay: I believe the common intelligence of the people will regulate these matters without placing on the statute book any such a bill. And I don't think any bill ought to pass creating a misdemeanor to which is attached an emergency clause.
Mr. FOULKE: I wish to move to add an additional section tot he bill, in order to make it more effective, as follows:
That all distinctions of race or color are hereby abolished, and whenever by the laws of this State any rights, privileges, capacities or immunities are granted to persons of any race or color, such rights privileges and capacities shall, under the same circumstances, be granted to persons of any other race and color.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks, moved to add to this amendment a proviso that this act shall not apply to the laws on the subject or marriage.
Mr. MAGEE: I don't pretend to be the special friend of any particular class of persons of whatever race or color, but I am in sympathy to a certain degree with this bill. I am not in favor of constable enactments- of passing a law and putting a constable behind that law to enforce it. I believe in the colored man having every right that I have, and I think he has them now under the present law. Suppose we were to pass a bill that the rights of white people under the law should be enforced, would t amount to anything? The question is whether or not such a law as this would not excite unnecessary prejudice against the colored man? I am opposed to the amendment, and I think as much as we can do if we have to pass any act of this kind will be to pass the bill as originally introduced.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay: i am not only opposed to the amendment, but I am opposed to the bill. The enactment of any law which will single out any class in the State, white or black, should not be a principle that actuates a Legislature. In reference to the colored race I am as friendly to them as I am to any, but I don't believe this Legislature should undertake to legislature it higher than its place socially. I don't believe it right to undertake to legislate one above another. The bill proposes to place a colored man above a white man. His rights are just the same as yours and mine now, and this bill proposes to give him additional rights which you and I do not enjoy. That was the principle upon which the Supreme Court of the United States rested its decisions. I believe it stated that they were enjoying all the rights referred to in the bill.
Mr. MAGEE: Didn't the decision to say that under the amendments to the Constitution
the colored man was a full fledged citizen, and that it was not competent to say he
Mr. SMITH: I believe that is so. And there are provisions in this bill which are contrary to the provisions of free institutions. I offer the following as a substitute for the amendment: "Strike out the enacting clause."
Mr. HILLIGASS: The first section of this bill re-enacts, in effect, the privileges now granted to every race and condition of mankind in Indiana, and to that there can be no objection. I'm opposed to the second section; for I am opposed putting it in the power of any individual, either white or black, to enter any public pace, without reference to his condition, and without reference to the ability of the party to accommodate him, and after being denied accommodation, to have the right to sue and obtain judgment of $100 damages and prosecute criminally It is granting a special privilege not only to one class but to all classes. It is giving rights they ought not to have under statute laws. I am opposed giving that right to white, black or any other race or color. This Legislature would be going beyond its duty to grant a dead-beat, no matter what his color, the privilege to sue under such circumstances. It is a vicious provision, and I am opposed to it. As to the third section, who is to determine when an officer has purposely failed to summon any citizen to sit as a juror? Am I to determine that the officer has passed me by and go into court and prosecute him criminally for passing me by? I am not in favor of excluding men on account of race or color from serving as jurymen, but I am opposed to that provision which will empower him to say, "I have been passed by, and the officer must be imprisoned for that offense." A more vicious provision was never proposed. I am opposed to the entire bill and hope to see it voted down
Mr. FOULKE: There is no question which has come before this Senate, nor any which can come before this General Assembly, in which I feel a deeper interest than this bill which has been introduced by the gentleman from Marion (Mr. Thompson), I am glad to see him place himself in this position. He seems to be the almost solitary instance, among the friends of his party, to advocate the ideas advanced by the Republican party for lo these many years.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay: Didn't a Republican Supreme Court of the United States hold this very bill to be unconstitutional.
Mr. FOULKE: As a matter of law. But the Republican party has ever been, and still is, in favor of the principles of the bill. I would ask the Senator whether sitting upon the bench as a judge of a matter which, in his judgment, contravened the Constitution of the United States - whether he would not declare it unconstitutional?
Mr. SMITH: Certainly; but I would not come to the Legislature and advocate the same bill that I hold unconstitutional as a matter of law.
Mr FOULKE: If held unconstitutional as a matter of law, because it was a proper subject for State legislation. I would advocate it in the very place in which it is unquestionably lawful legislation. This law would not impugn the provisions of the United States or the State Constitution. Sir, my own feelings for many years have been the same as that which I am declaring upon this floor. I am the son of an old time Abolitionist. My father's house was one of the stations on the underground railway. The Senator from Cass talks about being a philanthropist. This is not a question of philanthropy. It is a question of right.
Mr. WILLARD: I am confidence every Senator on the floor knows exactly ow he will vote on this question I have withdrawn the motion once I do not believe in occupying any further time, and I now again move the previous question.
The Senate seconded the demand, and under its operations the substitute (Mr. Smith's) was rejected by yeas 6, nays 34.
Mr. CAMPBELL, explaining: We have laws on the subject of marriage which forbid parties to marry within certain degrees of relationship, and which forbid marriage within certain ages, and this amendment shoudl be incorporated in this bill. I vote "aye."
Mr. McCULLOUGH, when his name was called: I am opposed to the amendment and favor the original bill It is substantially the old Civil Rights bill which passed Congress and has been passed in the States of Ohio and New York. I believe under existing circumstances, for many reasons, such a bill ought to be passed by the Legislature of Indiana this year. I therefore vote against the amendment. I vote "no."
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings: I desire to say a word in explanation of my vote. I believe the amendment of the Senator from Wayne (Mr. Foulke) would be absolutely obnoxious to the people, and no Senator could go home and justify his vote in its favor. I am in favor of the amendment of the Senator from Hendricks. I vote "aye"
Mr. THOMPSON: I have been exceedingly anxious for the passage of this bill. Senators have
declared upon this floor that the colored man is entitled to all the rights and privileges
of the white man, and I don't see what harm there is in ingrafting that into a law. We
know a prejudice against the colored man is seen every day. I would
Mr. WILLARD: I have not had the pleasure of the acquaintance of any white lady who desires to marry a negro gentleman, but if there are any such in the State of Indiana I believe in giving them that privilege. I vote "no."
Mr. WINTER: I desire to say in explanation of my vote that I can not reconcile my conscience to cast any vote that will be directly indirectly in favor of establishing or upholding any discrimination against any man on account of color or race, therefore I vote "no."
Mr. YOUCHE: I am in favor of the bill as originally introduced. I am in favor also of the amendment offered by the Senator from Wayne with the restriction proposed to be placed upon it by the Senator from Hendricks. I believe the colored man should have all the rights under the law that the white man has. I believe it is our duty when we find a distinction imposed by Jehovah himself we should conform our human enactments in accordance with divine law. I vote "aye."
The vote was then announced as above.
The amendment (Mr. Foulke's) was also rejected by yeas 11, nays 28.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks, explaining: I would be pleased to vote for the amendment if it had been amended as I proposed, but in its present shape I vote "no."
Mr. FOWLER, in explanation of his vote, said: I am in favor of this bill, as originally introduced without an amendment. If the amendment should prevail I certainly shall vote against the whole bill. In view of that fact I vote "no"
The vote was announced as above.
The bill was ordered engrossed.
On motion by Mr. FOULKE the constitutional rule was dispensed with - yeas, 34; nays, 6 - and the bill read the third time and passed the Senate by yeas 36, nays 5.
Mr. SELLERS: I desire to explain my vote. I don't believe this bill will grant to the colored man any right he does not now enjoy under the law. It is therefore useless and needless legislation, and in a sense, vicious legislation.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings, when his name was called, said: I have persistently voted against this bill at every step. I am one of those who in past life have never interposed a barrier to the advancement of the colored man, and in my future life I shall never do so. I do not believe in that character of legislation which does no good. This bill can bring no good to the colored man. It is needless legislation, and in the language of the Senator from White, needless legislation is a kind of vicious legislation. Therefore I vote against the bill, I vote "no."
The vote was then announced as above.
So the bill passed the Senate.
Mr. Weir's bill [S. 45] for the creation of an Appellate Court, being read the second time, Mr. W. Said: There is a generally conceded necessity for some measure of this kind for the relief of the Supreme Court. The Governor in his inaugural message called the attention of the Legislature to this fact. The first thing to be considered in regard to a measure introduced in the Senate is. Is there a demand for it? If so, it should receive favorable consideration. If not, it certainly should not. The term of office of the Commissioners of the Supreme Court expires some time in the month of April, and what is done should be done in as short length of time as possible. I, therefore move that the bill be engrossed.
Mr. MAGEE: This bill is not what he would desire to see. Such a court should hold its sessions at other points than in this city. He moved to amend so that the argument before this court shall be upon written or printed briefs unless the parties otherwise agree.
MR OVERSTREET opposed the amendment Such a court is needed, but there should be no haste in passing this bill. He favored the idea of oral argument. The advantage in an oral argument is that you can get the ear of all the Judges.
MR. McCULLOUGH was not able to agree with a majority of the committee in recommending the passage of this bill. He thought there ought to be more than one such court, and they ought to sit in different districts throughout the State. Then the court should permit oral argument. He would oppose but one court to sit in Indianapolis; such legislation would be unpopular and such court would be unpopular and such court would do great injustice to citizens of the State - the proposition being not to publish the decisions He moved to recommit the bill with instructions to amend for three courts of three judges each to sit in different portions of the State. It will be impossible for one Appellate Court to do the business of this State. The taxpayers are compelled to pay the tax by which these courts are sustained The Appellate Court should have concurrent jurisdiction in all amounts, and a man not satisfied with the decision of the Appellate Court can pay an additional expense and take his case to the Supreme Court
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks, favored testing the sense of the Senate before recommitting
the bill, in as much as it was thoroughly discussed in the committee. He moved to amend the
motion by instructing
Mr. McCULLOUGH suggested a danger in the amendment; If one court be required to travel over the State and sit in five different districts, the business could not help but get seriously behind.
Mr SMITH, of Jay, opposed the bill on general principles. If one or two barriers were removed the Supreme Court could catch up with the business on the docket within one year. It was not nearly up with all submitted cases. If that be true, where is the necessity for the creation of an Appellate Court?
The amendment was agreed to by yeas 28, nays 11.
Mr. WEIR, explaining his vote: I feel anxious that some bill of this kind should pass, and that we should agree upon some measure of relief, therefore I vote "aye."
Mr. WINTER: I wish to explain my vote. I don't believe a perambulating court will give satisfaction at all. I prefer the arrangement proposed by the Senator from Gibson (Mr. McCullough) if we must choose between a perambulating court and more than due court. I will vote against this amendment. I vote "no."
The vote was then announced as above.
The amendment as amended was greed to, and so the bill was re-committed.
Mr. Howard's bill [S. 83] for the organization of the State militia, a special order was read the second time.
Mr. HILLIGASS: This bill provides for an organization of a State militia, to be composed of some 4,500 men. Under the law of Congress there has been appropriated some $200,000 to be apportioned among the States according to the enrollment, and for the encouragement of the militia. As the law now stands there is no militia in this State that can be compelled to serve or, indeed, compelled to obey any orders of their commanders. This bill appropriates $20,000, provided the Governor calls out the militia for a general muster and drill. Some $7500 worth of arms and munitions were received last year from the General Government, but under this bill that amount would perhaps be quadrupled. The State of Indiana, with her militia organization, probably stands at the foot of every State. We have but thirty-eight sections of artillery. It is the duty of the Legislature to pass this bill.
Mr. WEST: The bill grants too much power to Mayors and other civil officers named in the bill.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings, moved to strike out the section which appropriates $20,000 a year and its distribution.
Mr. MAGEE: If that is stricken out it would leave the militia not much better off financially than it is now. The condition of the social order is such that a well disciplined militia might become not only the glory but the safety of the State. The military branch of the State Government has always been neglected. The entire number of men enrolled is only about 2,000, scattered all over the State.
Mr. ADKISON was in full accord with the Senator who just spoke. If the amendment be agreed to he should vote against the bill.
Mr. HILLIGASS: If the amendment is agreed to the efficiency of the bill would be destroyed. He moved to amend so as to make the $12 appropriation run through the three years instead of being an annual appropriation.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph, hoped the bill would pass.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings, would not make any petty opposition to the bill. He would support the bill without an appropriation; but we are making too many appropriations. Hard times are spreading all over this State, as well as other States. This appropriation is to be made for the purpose of the organization of 4,500 militia. Nine times out of then militia companies are organized for the sole purpose of parade, and dress parade at that. This bill was defeated in the House because of the very section the pending amendment proposes to strike out,
Pending this discussion -
The Senate adjourned.
Mr. SMITH's of Tippecanoe, bill [H. R. 84] coming up on the second reading, Mr. Smith said: This is a bill providing for an Orphan Asylum. It also provides for the care of indigent females. It provides that articles of incorporation may be filled with the Clerk or Recorder of the county, and whenever that i done they may ask aid of the county, but the article of association must declare in it that it is under no denominational control. The county may extend aid to them not to exceed one-third of the cost, and in case of dissolution the county has the first lien on the real estate. The bill was most carefully drawn by Judge chase, of Lafayette. The bill is an entirely proper one and will reflect credit of this General Assembly.
The bill passed by yeas 59, nays 26.
Mr. Osborne's bill [H. R. 87] providing for the trimming of hedge fences coming up for a second reading -
Mr. FRENCH said: I think the requirements of this bill are too severe and the penalty too
severe. Between now and then first day of next June the farmer must go out and cut down his
hedge fences or suffer a fine of fifty cents a rod. Besides, in the next two or three
months the farmers will have to plow, and they can not stop to at
Mr. BROOKS: I am opposed tot he bill.
Mr. ADAMS: I want to say just a word about this bill. For my part I am decidedly in favor of it. It is for the purpose of protecting the highways. I think it ought to be passed.
Mr. KELLISON moved to amend by striking out that part of the bill requiring a hedge to be kept within the limit of six feet under penalty.
On motion by Mr. GORDON the amendment was laid on the table.
The bill failed to pass by yeas -, nays - ,
Mr. Ely's bill [H. R. 107] coming up on the second reading, he said: The bill is to equalize the pay of coroners The law now authorizes Coroners in but four counties to charge $10 for the first day and $2.50 for each subsequent day. In the other counties it allows $4 for the first day and $250 for each subsequent day. This bill allows all over the State alike $6 for the first day and $2 50 for each subsequent day.
This bill, the gentleman says, is too equalize the pay of Coroners Now, the bill provides for the cutting down of the pay of Coroners in four of the counties, but it increases the pay of every Coroner in eighty-eight counties. It seems to me when you take the two together you would have to vote to increase the pay of eighty eight officers in the State and only decrease the pay of four.
Mr. BROWNING: I think there is good reason why the bill should be defeated. In counties like Marion it just requires enough of a man's time to keep him from doing other work. The bill decreases the pay in four counties and increases it in all the rest. I am in favor of retrenchment and economy. I will therefore vote against the bill. It does not commend itself to me.
Mr. DONHOST demanded the previous question. The demand was seconded by the House, and under its operations the bill failed to pass
Mr. Robertson' bill for the perfect organization of Boards of County Commissioners was defeated in the House of Reps. The bill provides that when a majority of the board are absent from any regular meeting the Sheriff and Auditor shall adjourn the meeting till next day; the same shall be done the next day if a majority is not present If on the third day a majority is still absent the Sheriff and Auditor shall proceed to appoint a board form the reputable citizens of the county, and from each unrepresented district
The bill introduced by Mr. Reeves, of Bartholomew, exempting State officers and Prosecuting Attorneys from liability for costs when acting as relators for the State, came up on the third reading. Mr. Adams attacked the bill vigorously, declaring if the bill becomes a law, the State can sue a citizen, make him pay costs and he could not recover costs. He thought this was wrong, as the State is able to able to pay costs as any of her citizens. He thought there should be a provision for paying the costs out of the general fund. Mr. Reeves defended the measure, saying that the law requiring the Attorney General to pay costs when acting as relator for the State, naturally prevented him from bringing suits except in such cases where there is absolutely no doubt. The bill was defeated.
Mr. Williams' bill [H. R. 146] to fix the rate of interest at 6 per cent., coming up on the second reading -
Mr. SMITH of Tippecanoe, said: Indiana does not produce money. She raises cattle, corn and wheat, which she exchanges for money. Other States furnish money. Money seeks a financial level the same as water seeks a level. For, notwithstanding money in Ohio, Michigan, Illinois and Kentucky is higher than it is in the State of Indiana, money will flow into the other States unless is a redundancy. I do not think we ought to attempt to place any restrictions upon the price of money.
Mr. GOODING: I am in favor of this bill, It provides for 6 per cent, and n agreement for a higher rate would be valid unless the same be in writing and signed by the party to be charged thereby. I think this House intends to have a clean-cut bill for 6 per cent. and no more, whether in writing or not. I understand that this House is representing the people, and is in favor of 6 per cent. and no more. I will vote for the bill.
Mr. MOCK, of Wells: I think I would not do my duty if I did not make a statement for my people. I never loan money, but always borrow, and a great many of my constituents are in the same condition. I undertake to say that in one county I know of there was a loan association that received as high as fifty applications to borrow money of Easter companies, and contracted at 8 per cent. interest, and could not get it. I think as much of my people as anybody, but the fact is that Wells County has mortgages plastered all over lands - mortgages that will soon be due and calling for 8 per cent. interest and attorneys" fees. When the time comes to pay off these mortgages were are you going to get the money? We can not better the 9 per cent. law. Give us 6 per cent. and we can' get it at all. If you prohibit us paying 8 per cent. we can not get it. These are hard imes. I think it is entirely wrong to prohibit men from making contracts for a higher rate of interest if they want to do it.
Mr. Bryant's bill [S 3] to prevent the spread of Canada thistles was read the third time and passed the Senate by yeas 39 nays 3.
Mr. Campbell's of Hendricks bill to prevent the purchase and sale of votes [see page - of these reports] was read a third time and passed by yeas 38, nays 6.
Mr. McINTOSH saying: I expect to vote for the bill thought it is not just the kind of bill I should like. I would rather the penalty were affixed against the purchaser votes.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay, when his name was called, said: Is hall nto vote for this bill for two reasons; one is, it proposes to punish the man who sells a vote and does not punish the one that buys Another objection is, the bill allows a bonus to a person who will testify against a neighbor by letting him go scot free. I vote 'no.".
The result was then announced as above.
Mr. Campbell's of St. Joseph, plats of additions to towns bill [S 5] was read the third time and passed by yeas 38: nays 2. Mr. C., explaining: Its object is simply to require that before plats of towns are placed upon record, such plats shall be submitted to the Council of the city or Trustees of the town, and they may require that the streets therein shall be made co-terminous to the streets in the city or town which the plat joins.
Mr. Schloss' bill [S. 7] to authorize County Commissioners to issue bonds or other public buildings was read the third time and passed by yeas 37, nays 6.
Mr. Campbell's of St. Joseph, county orphans' house bill [S. 22 - see page 107] was read the third time and passed by yeas 27, nays 17.
Mr. Ensley's Steuben, Dekalb and Noble County Court bill [S. 25] was read the third time and passed by yeas 42 nays 1.
Mr. Weirs' bill [S. 46] to validate acknowledgements and affidavits heretofore made by officers whose commissions have expired was read the third time and passed by yeas 45 nays 1.
Mr. Willard's bill [S. 49] - see page 38] was read the third time and passed by yeas 41, nays 0 M. W explaining: It permits a Judge of opposite politics from the Inspector who does the counting to have the privilege of looking over the ballot as it is counted and making objection if he sees fit.
Mr Davis' bill [S. 57] was read the third time and passed by yeas 44 nays 0. Mr. D explaining: It leaves it discretionary with towns of less than 10,000 to appoint a committee of the Town Board to perform the duties of three Water Works Commissioners, which the present law requires, thus saving the salary of said three Water Works Commissioners.
Mr. Drake's Elkhart and Lagrange Court bill [S. 59] was read the third time and passed by yeas 43, nays 0
Then came a recess for dinner.
Mr. Hoover's bill [S. 62] to provide for the continuance of a term of court where a trial is to progress at the expiration of the regular term, was read the third time and passed by yeas 38 pays 0.
Mr. McCULLOUGH, explaining: A good deal of doubt has been expressed whether the section of the statute of 1843 was in force and it is for the purpose of removing that doubt that this bill should be passed.
Mr MACY'S bill [S. 64] to reduce the per diem of short hand court reporters to $5, was read the third time and passed by yeas 40 nays 2. Mr. Macy, explaining: The bill has been so amended that it is not as originally introduced I don't think it ought to be considered now as my bill There is a law which provides for the appointment of shorthand reporters in the courts, and that he shall be paid out of the county treasury which I think is wrong, but as this fixes the maximum amount to be paid, which is less than the law now gives, I shall vote "aye."
Mr. McCULLOUGH'S bill [S. 67] was read the third time and passed by yeas 43 nays 1.
Mr. McCULLOUGH explaining: Its provisions are that in cities less than 70 000 where the office of City Treasurer has been abolished the Council may impose the duty of collecting city taxes upon the Treasurer of the county. And it provides the tax may be paid in installments as the State taxes paid now.
Mr. Smith's, of Delaware, bill [S 74] to create a new judicial circuit by making the County of Randolph the twenty fifth and the County of Delaware the forty-sixth judicial circuit was read the third time. Mr. Smith stated that the previous Judge left the bench three years behind. The present Judge is one of the most industrious beginning his daily sessions, even in the winter time at 8 o'clock, continuing until 5 o'clock, and sometimes at night, and even with that kind of work the docket can not be kept clear. The bill is an imperative necessity, and receives the commendation of the entire bar.
Mr. FOWLER opposed the passage of the bill at this session. The population of the two counties would not seem to justify court in each. There is a great inequality in the judicial circuits of the State, and by the next session there may be some plan for equalizing this matter.
Mr. McCULLOUGH: There are circuits that are a disgrace to the legislation of the State. One in the southern part of the State has not enough business to keep the Judge in practice. Better have a little too large a circuit than one too small. You can never get rid of a Judge - at least for the term of six years.
Mr. SMITH: One of these counties shows an average of 1,900 and the other 2,100 cases.
Mr. McCULLOUGH: There is a very broad latitude as to what constitutes a case, when they are counted for one purpose or for another.
Mr. MACY read some statistics to show the necessity of the passage of the bill.
Mr. DAVIS knew no other way of determining the necessity for judicial circuits than to consider the voting population and the wealth of the proposed districts. He also submitted figures, and by comparison found a number of other districts were in excess of the counties of Delaware and Randolph, and came to the conclusion there was not a necessity warranting the extra expense proposed by this bill.
Mr. BROWN is informed by worthy citizens of Randolph County there is no urgent necessity for the passage of the bill.
Mr. FOULKE did not believe a Judge in the Second goes through the same amount of work as the Judge of the Twenty-fifth District. The cases are rattled through too fast and thus it is not possible to administer justice in the way it ought to be administered. There is a large amount of litigation in proportion to the population in those two counties. Under the circumstances an additional Judge should be allowed.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay, favored the passage of the bill. In the opinion of the Judge, the work in that district is too for one man to do.
Mr CAMPBELL, of Hendricks: When Senators representing a district agree, he should vote in accord with their wishes.
Mr. WEIR opposed the passage of the bill, believing it not demanded by public interest. If there were a reasonable necessity he should vote for a new Circuit, but it is time the creation of new Circuits in the State should stop.
Mr. HILLIGASS had as much means of knowing the wishes of the people in Delaware County as any Senator except the Senator from Delaware. It is the earnest wish of the representative and businessmen of that county that a new Circuit should be created for them. The question is as to the business and the demands of the people. If the court business can not be transacted, the people should have relief.
Mr. SMITH, of Delaware, was astonished at the objections said to come form the counties of Delaware and Randolph. He had never heard the slightest objection coming from those counties. There is no evidence so good as to the needs of a Circuit as the statement of the people themselves. The wants and demands of that people are not met and not be under the present arrangement. This is not a numerical question. The people are demanding what is their privilege under the Constitution, that justice shall be meted out to them speedily and without delay.
The bill passed by yeas 27, nays 18.
Mr. Weir's bill [S. 76] to exempt State officers ex rel. from liability for costs was read the third time and passed by yeas 40, nays 0.
Mr. Winter's bill [S. 96] to authorize manufacturing corporations to buy and sell certain kinds of goods, not of their own manufacture, was read the third time.
Mr. WINTER: The bill provides that any manufacturing or mining company may buy and sell
goods of the same character or appertaining to the same kidn as they are manufacturing.
And it requires the word "limited" or "incorporated" to be added to
Mr. FOULKE: It is my impression and strong conviction that we have gone a little too far in conferring franchise and powers upon corporations in this State. They have done of great deal of good - led to the concentration of a vast amount of wealth, and have materially advanced the material progress of the State. At the same time there are other tendencies they have developed, which, it seems to me, threatens a greater injury than the good they have accomplished. A man will invest to a greater extent in a corporation where he has but little liability, where he would not risk his entire capital and credit in a partnership. These corporations are used to develop industries. Industries develop faster this that way. Where they are able to divide labor they can manufacture and sell cheaper and do everything cheaper than upon a smaller scale. And the necessary result is that the smaller dealer, doing business of the same character, is crowded out. These corporations can manufacture cheaper, and the small dealer can not afford to do business on the same terms. The result is the man who is doing a small business near the large corporations is being gradually crowded out and is eventually obliged to take a position with the larger corporation next door. While a thing of that kind contributes to the wealth of a community, its general effect upon society is injurious. As the Senator from Jennings (Mr Smith) said some days ago, "the homes of the poor - the independent homes of men doing business on their own account - is the safeguard of the Nation in times of war and her glory in times of peace." The man who works independently though not able to do so much, yet he preserves his independency. The corporate system tends to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. In view of that fact, we have gone far enough, if not too far, in granting corporate powers. Under this bill a general manufacturing company can carry on a general business in any goods they manufacture. They can carry on commercial business in almost every department. They are entering the lines of commerce as they did in manufacturing. If a man wants to go into the dry goods business it is not too hard a penalty to say he shall be liable to the last dollar on any contract he makes by which he expects to profit. I believe individual rights will be benefited if we stop right here in giving powers to corporations.
Mr. WINTER: What the Senator has said would be a good argument against corporations generally. Corporations are a great id in developing the commerce of the State and country. It has been the policy of the State to enlarge and extent this class of legislation. There has scarcely been a session of our Legislature since the present Constitution was adopted but that this statute for the promotion of manufacturing and mining companies has not been extended so as to encourage incorporations and extend the benefits of the act to different branches. I am not prepared to say, although the Senator's argument is very seductive, that we have all been mistaken for thirty years, and we ought now to prevent the formation of any more incorporations in this State. It is easy to say that corporations have a tendency to aggregate capital and oppress the poor man. That is an argument I didn't look for from the Senator from Wayne; such an argument would be expected from the Senator from Jenning (Mr. Smith). There is no man upon the floor of the Senate more in sympathy with the poor man than I. There are a great many case in which it is necessary for the carrying on of a manufacturing business that there should be added to it something that is not manufactured by the company. They can't dispose of their goods to advantage unless they have other articles of a general character. and not the precise character they manufacture But it would not be right to allow them to become a dealer generally in all kinds of merchandise, and that is not the object of the bill at all. It restricts them to the same character and the same line of goods, and I don't see that there is any great danger in that. I don't see how that would have a tendency to oppress and crush out the poor man.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph: As far as my observation goes, and I have had a great deal of observation in this line. I apprehend the bill goes but little farther than to legalize that which is constantly in practice now. And my observation of incorporations is that they are in the interest of the poor. A young man who has a trade and some article to manufacture but lacking the funds with which to push it because a corporation can be formed, he gets assistance and capital and thereby goes on and grows with the business to a wealthy corporation which employs many men. I believe it is right that this bill should pass.
The bill failed to yeas - yeas 19, nays 24.
Mr. Brown's bill [S. 99] to amend Sec. 4,479 R.S. so that the consent of the County Superintendent must be obtained in order to have German taught in the public school was read the third time and passed by yeas 42, nays 0.
Mr. Lindley's bill, S. 113, was read the third time and passed by yeas 44, nays 6.
Mr. LINDLEY (explaining): It is simply
Mr. Youche's bill [S. 117] being read the second time -
Mr. YOUCHE said: The object of this bill is to repeal the proviso to Section 7, Acts of 1883, page 49, which gives to County Clerks the sum of $2 a day for attending Court Before the act of 1882 Clerks received no pay out of the County Treasury for attending the Circuit Court. It was supposed that his fees furnished sufficient compensation. When this act was introduced in the Senate last session there was no proviso in the bill. When it came back here from the House it seems there was a proviso in it, but it came back on one of those closing days, when bills are passed hurriedly. The proviso in the bill was not read. I listened to the reading attentively, and I don't believe there were there members of the Senate who knew they passed a law raising the Clerks' fees $2 a day. It amounts to the sum of $25,000 every paid out of the County Treasuries to the Clerks. This bill is to restore the law as it was before 1883. I think there can not be any well-grounded opposition to it.
Mr. OVERSTREET: If there is any reason why the Clerk of the Superior and Criminal Court is entitled to $2, it would apply to the Clerk of the Circuit Court. We are told that in counties where there is Superior and Criminal Courts, the Clerk has to hire a deputy to attend those courts. But that deputy performs similar work that the Clerk of the Circuit Court does, and he receives the same fees, which amount to more than he pays that deputy. If the bill also repealed the statute giving $2 a day to Clerks of Superior and Criminal Courts, I would support it, but as it stands I will vote against it.
Mr. FOWLER: I concur in what has been said by the Senator from Johnson (Mr. Overstreet), but do not arrive at the same conclusion. I think this bill is good as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. There ought to be distinction between clerks where there is a Superior and Criminal Court and where there is none.
The bill passed by yeas 28, nays 14.
And the Senate adjourned.
The Speaker announced the unfinished business of yesterday being the consideration of the 6 per cent. interest bill [H. R. 146] on the second reading.
Mr. ROBERTSON: There never has been a bill to reduce the rate of interest but what there has been some argument made to defeat it. When there was a proposition to reduce the interest of the funds of the National Government the same argument was used. I believe it has been said that the supply and demand regulate the price of money. I am in favor of increasing the supply.
Mr. HARRELL demanded the previous question.
The demand was seconded by the House.
Mr. WILLIAMS: There is no difference between this bill and the statute, except the rate, and it is 6 per cent. contract or no contract, instead of 8. The gentleman from Putnam talks of this bill very sarcastically. He said this bill ought to be entitled a bill to confiscate property and labeled a humbug. I understand my duty on this floor to represent my people. I don't believe it is right to discuss a bill in this way, by saying it ought to be labeled a humbug. I don't believe it is right to impute such motives to the author of the bill. It has been said that legislation in this direction is not requested. I insist that the people of this State demand relief in the way of reduction of the rate of interest. The rate of interest has been regulated ever since the days of Moses. We have always been regulating the rate of interest, and we have a right to regulate the rate of interest. I do hope the bill will pass.
The bill failed to pass - yeas, 34; nays, 61.
The bill [S. 196] authorizing a temporary loan by the State officers, coming up on the second reading -
Mr. WILLIAMS moved the further consideration of the bill be postponed until 2 o'clock next Wednesday.
Mr. SMITH: The suggestion of this gentleman is a good deal like a Jay county promise to pay - there is no time fixed. This session is rapidly running away. I don't wish to throw any reflection upon anybody; but why make this dilatory motion? We are about to construct insane asylums, and we are in need of funds. I believe, to facilitate and hasten matters, we ought to consider this bill now. We probably would not reach the regular order next Wednesday. I am oppressed to the motion.
Mr. BROWNLEE: It seems to me the consideration of this bill ought not to be postponed. We ought to go right ahead with this business in the regular order.
Mr. GOODING: There seems to be a disposition on the part of this House to postpone this measure until next Wednesday.
The friends of this measure to seem to want to pay no attention to the committee, no matter what the report may be, but want this bill to go through without any amendment. My vote shall depend very largely upon the report of the committee. It is certainly a matter of no small importance, and this House can well afford to wait for the report of the committee before acting upon this bill. This bill has come from the Senate. It has passed the Senate, and we have four or five weeks yet. If this bill is right it ought to pass, and if it is not right it ought not to pass. this House appointed a committee to report upon the passage of such bills. The probabilities are that the committee would be able to report by next Wednesday. There is ample time to pass this bill. It ought not to pass with out our knowing something about it It only involves about $600 000. We ought to wait and see whether we ought to vote for that much money or not. For some purpose the gentleman from Tippecanoe desires to rush it through without consideration and without deliberation. Let them do it if they have the power. I want this House to have some time to understand something about the contract between the commissioners and the contractors fro the insane asylums. It has been shown to this House that the law has been violated that the contract is not where the law requires it to be. There are reasons why we should hesitate and deliberate - why we should know what we are going. If the friends of the measure can not wait it is the best evidence that something is wrong.
Mr. BROWNING: Does the gentleman understand this bill votes away a single dollar?
Mr. GOODING: I so understand it. It authorizes the State offices to make a temporary loan of $600 000. Now, what would be the rise of borrowing this $600 000 if it is not intended for these three new asylums? Why borrow it if is not to be appropriated for that purpose? For what purpose is it to be borrowed if it is not to be appropriated? It certainly is not to be borrowed to lie in the Treasury. That is not the purpose. Now, i want to know before you borrow it what are you going to borrow the money for? I know there are gentlemen on this floor, when a member rises in his place and speaks against running the State in debt, they call in buncombe I will stand against the appropriation of $600,000 or the borrowing of $600 000 unless the specified purpose for which it is borrowed is know. I trust you will postpone the consideration of this measure until next Wednesday at two o'clock.
Mr. TAYLOR: This bill I think is for the purpose of raising revenue for the support of the Government Now I do not pretend to be a constitutional lawyer, but it occurs to me there is one thing in the way of this bill. The Constitution of the State of Indiana says, "Bills may originate in either House except bills for raising revenue, which shall originate in the House of Representatives." What is this bill unless it is to raise revenue? It is to borrow money. if that is not to raise revenue what is it? I think the bill should originate in this House, therefore I interpose this constitutional proviso as against this bill. That question has recently created a great deal of discussion in congress, and Congress has well adhered to the prerogative of the Lower House. It is raising evenue. I care not whether you do it by taxation or by borrowing it. It seems to me to be an encroachment upon the province of the House. If the House should enact a law creating a tax for the purpose of extinguishing a debt. It occurs to me that this would be for the purpose of rasing revenue. It has no right to come from the Senate.
Mr HARREL: I would like to know whether it is absolutely necessary to give the Governor and State offices such unlimited power. I believe every person here who paid any attention to the provisions of the bill would like to have more light upon the subject. Now, if you vote for the bill you will be giving tot he State officers unlimited power without knowing whether it is necessary. I will not say whether I am going to vote for or against the appropriation for the new insane Asylums, or what position I will take upon it. I want to know first if it is necessary to pass such a bill or not.
Mr. WILLIAMS: The purpose of my motion seems to be misunderstood at this time I agree with a good many of the gentlemen who spoke upon this question. We have not sufficient information before us to enable us to vote intelligently upon the passage of the bill. For that reason and that reason alone I made the motion that the further consideration of this bill be postponed until next Wednesday, and in the mean time the report of the special committee might enable us to vote intelligently upon this important measure. For the purpose of preventing further discussion I move the previous question.
The demand was seconded by the House, and under its operation the motion was agreed to
Mr WILLIAMS introduced a resolution in the House of Reps., which requires that President Smart report to the House by Monday next, the names and residences of all pupils, instructors and employes, the cost of boarding them, the amount of money in the treasury and of debts outstanding. Mr. Smith moved to refer the resolution to the Committee on Education, which was laid on the table by a vote of 43 to 26, and the resolution was then adopted - yeas, 64; nays, 11.
In discussing his minority report on the State University Appropriation bill, reduc
MR. SPEAKER - I desire to explain my minority report. I shall confine my remarks to the amendment. I am glad the gentleman consented to withdraw the proposition to lay on the table. I am glad and willing to enter into the discussion of this proposition. Gentlemen of the House. I want to explain my minority report. The original bill was introduced by Mr Cartwright was a simple proposition to appropriate $50,000 to the State University. One of the committee from the State University. One of the committees from the State University has made an itemized statement of $50,000. The statement is headed by $1,500, cost for lighting, $2,000 for boiler house, $5,800 for furniture $2,000 for museums, $2,000 for graining, $2,000 for chemistry, $5,000 for library, and to a $50,000. This Ways and Means Committee has voted to recommend the passage of the bill and hence I as a member of the committee offer the minority report It is this, to substitute $30,000 instead of $[]0 000 and that this appropriation shall be in full for all moneys received by the State, under the endowment act passed two yeas ago. That endowment act provides for the levying of a tax of one-half cent for the purpose of producing a permanent endowment. That tax will have been continued three years altogether. That was the law of two years ago. that bill provides further that tax received for that endowment should be received into the State Treasury and it should be used for the payment of interest bonds held against the State of Indiana. It was to be used as long as any bonds were held against the State of Indiana. Whenever that tax was collected it was to be paid to the Treasurer of State, and the Auditor of State was to execute bonds in favor of the Trustees of Indiana University bearing 5 per cent. interest to be paid by the State Treasurer semi-annually. Now then this money was to be loaned to the State Treasurer, and it should be secured. The state should be a preferred borrower under that bill.
The revenue thus raised would be increased every year for thirteen years and it would amount to somewhere between $500,000 and $600,000, and that fund was to be a permanent endowment for the State University.
The provisions of this bill are that it shall be in lieu of all money raised from that tax, or which might be derived by reason of the endowment bill. There has been $30 000 or $40 000 already collected as such tax, levied in 1883 and 1884. The taxes of 1883 and 1884 have been already collected. The provisions of the minority report are that the $30 000 shall be in full of the payment of such tax levied by the State, and which has gone into the State Treasury. The proposition is that the appropriation of $30,000 shall be in full payment and discharge of all moneys received by the State from that source, and in full discharge of all bonds. I understand no bonds have been issued. The State Auditor was to issue bonds for the money already received.
Now we are told that the State University ought to stand as the great head of our common schools. Now this statement I do not think is argument. In other words, the body can not exist without the head. Now do you believe, and does this committee believe, the common schools can not exist without the State University? If you close up the State University do you think it will close our common schools? I think not. I think, so far as our common schools are concerned, they are independent of the State University. I think that argument is rather for an affect. It seems to me the State Normal is the head of our common schools. You might just as well say Purdue University is the head of our common schools as to the say the State University is.
Mr. Patton: I would like to ask the gentleman if the De Pauw University is not in your own county.
Mr. Gordon: I am not subserving the interests of that institution. If there was no institution existing there I should not be in favor of this appropriation. There is no antagonism, there is no rivalry, there is none whatever between De Pauw University and the State University. I say right here I put the broad proposition to the Representatives of the State, are you going to make an appropriation to every institution that asks for it? If you do you will have to keep on giving. it takes annually $700,000 or $800,000 to run the Cornell University, it takes $149,00 to run Michigan University, so that it is a far-reaching proposition. Are you ready to help every institution? I am opposed to the State of Indiana supporting universities.
Mr. Williams: Let me ask the gentleman if he is in favor of supporting this institution at Lafayette?
Mr. Gordon: I am not.
Mr. Patten: Are you in favor of supporting our common schools?
Mr. Gordon: I am, sir, but I do not think it is a proper policy for the State to support universities. I know it is a custom and long revered. But must you necessarily follow tradition? I am not in favor of sustaining an institution because it is in the State of Indiana You have no right to and the people of a State making provisions for the support of such institutions by private contributions, but the people of the State have no right to be taxed for maintaining such Institutions. It is unjust to the people, because a great majority of them do not attend for want of means to pay their board and transportation. How many people of the State send? How many children do they accommodate? In my opinion you could do a grander work with this money to distribute it throughout the whole State; put it in every school district, so they could have school nine months out of the year. It would benefit a great many more.
But you are met with the proposition you are not in favor of maintaining the Institutions of the State. I say it is not right. It is unjust to the taxpayers and people of the State. I tell you, gentlemen of the House, what you are doing, you are maintaining an institution down there for the citizens of Monroe County I believe we ought to be just to the people of the whole State. A half of the students of this institution are residents of Monroe, more than of them are residents of Monroe County. Where does the benefit come to the State of Indiana? Probably there are 150 altogether, and 120 of that number are from Monroe County and thirt of them from the balance of the State of Indiana. I say are you ready to do this at the expense of the State?
Now, with reference to the endowment law, I believe that law ought to be repealed.
Do you believe the people of the State ought to be taxed for coming generations.
These burdens are already bearing hard upon the people. We are building three new insane asylums. And now shall we endow this university? Are you willing to tax the people still more? I believe the burdens of the people of the State are now heavy enough without sustaing this additional burden.
Mr. Bailey's bill [S. 119] that recorded wills in one county may be recorded in another, was read the third time and passed by yeas 44, nays 0.
Mr. Duncan's, of Brown, bill [S. 132] to legalize acts of Brown County Commissioners, was read the third time and passed by yeas 43, nays 0.
Mr. Brown's bill [S 120] to raise funds to pay expenses of teachers' institutes by charging a fee of fifty cents for examination of teachers desiring license, was read the third time and passed by yeas 40, nays 7.
Mr. Winter's bill [S. 129] to amend section 2,505 R.S. being read the third time -
Mr. WINTER: I will say a few words in explanation of this bill Under the law when a person makes provision for his wife in a will she may elect to take under the will or under the law which we all know is one-third of the real estate. The law says the widow shall not have both A weak place in the law is there is no provision for the manner in which that selection shall be made or as to its being filed in any public office, so the public may know what election she has made; and so there is great doubt and uncertainty about the title of real estate. And to put at rest the doubt and uncertainty as to whether the widow has taken under the law or under the will, provides the election shall be made in writing within six months signed by her, acknowledged before a proper officer and recorded in the record of wills.
Mr. DAVIS: There is no provision in this bill for giving the widow notice of the existence of a will.
Mr. WINTER: If a man and wife have been on such terms that she does not know of his will she wouldn't want to take under the will at all.
Mr. YOUCHE: It seems to me six months is a short time to allow her to make her selection. She may know of the will, but have no knowledge of this law. So if she happens to pass by making a selection for six months she would irretrievably lose the benefit of this provision.
The bill passed the Senate by yeas 43, nays 3.
Mr. Davis' bill [S 137] to amend Section 1 330 R S., was read the third time and passed by yeas 42 nays 1 Mr D explaining: The law provides no execution shall issue upon a judgment until the proceedings of the court are drawn up, read in open court and signed. The practice in some courts is not to read the daily record for weeks. This bill requires the Judge, when requested by either party, to sign the record that judgment may be made up.
Mr. Hilligass' bill [S. 139] so as to make Adams and Jay the Twenty-sixth, Huntington and Wells the Twenty eighth and Grant and Blackford the Forty-seventh Judicial Districts being read the third time -
Mr SMITH, of Jay: It is an absolutely necessity that these two districts be changed They are the largest in the State. The business is behind, and it is utterly impossible to keep it up.
Mr. FOWLER: If this bill passes, this Legislature ought to create ninety-two circuits and give to each county in the State a Judge.
Mr. McCULLOUGH opposed the bill with all the force he knew how. If this outrage
Mr. HILLIGASS: There was an increase of over 400 pages of record last year over the year previous in the county of Huntington Senators opposing the bill need no relief The Senators representing the six counties Interested in this bill are unanimously asking for this relief. We are asking more than our constituents demand. the bill was not introduced to balance political parties or to place any friend on the bench The courts were blockaded by business. The pages of record in Huntington County increased from 808 in 1874 to 1,200 in 1884 and the voting population had increased 2,112 in the same period. The business of Northern Indiana was increasing with wonderful rapidity, and the Senate could not afford to cripple it by legal delays.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings: The people of Indiana are paying $50,000 a year more for Circuit Judges and Prosecuting Attorneys than they ought to. We have forty-five Circuit Judges in the State, paid at a salry of $2 500 a year. Thirty judges can do every bit of business now before the courts or that will come before the courts in twenty years. there is not a circuit in the State that can show an increase of business within the past two years; on the contrary, it has been decreased to an extent that was driving lawyers out of practice. Even in Jefferson County, with the city of Madison in its limit, the business was transacted in one week out of the four allowed by law for a term of court Judges everywhere were under worked.
Mr. SHIVELY: The reasons why this bill should pass, and why, in my opinion, there should be a new circuit created out of these counties have been so well and ably stated by the Senator from Huntington, that I think it unnecessary for me to repeat any of those reasons, or offer any in addition. I will state, however, that the judicial circuit which I, in part, have the honor to represent upon this floor, is a large one It is composed of the counties of Huntington, Grant, and Blackford I am not prepared to give the number of inhabitants but I do know there were about 15,000 votes cast at the last election in that district. But as far as my observation is concerned, the decision of such questions as this, either by the number of voters or population, amounts to nothing. I was informed by the Judge of that district, in this chamber a few days ago that there was at this time about 1,400 cases upon the docket in these circuits, and he said if we do not obtain relief many of these cases must be prolonged in court for two or three years. Now, Mr President, it is for this Senate to say whether any relief shall be afforded or not. I trust the necessary relief will be granted by the passage of this bill.
Mr. MAGEE: If the people demand this relief they should have it, and who here knows better than the Senators representing those counties The base for litigation can not be made on wealth and population. The speedier trials can be had the less business there will be. Counties south of the National Road have twenty-nine Circuit Judges, while north of the National Road there are but seventeen Judges. The expenses are paid out of the general fund, but the expense should not weigh against the necessities of the district.
Mr. FOULKE: Justice is a thing one can't pay too much for. Two thousand five hundred dollars ought not to stand in the way of getting justice administered speedily. The Senators interested say this legislation is demanded, and their statement should be received as true.
Then came a recess for dinner.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay: These people asking relief by this bill are denied the justice which the passage of this bill would give them. The Judges of the several circuits are not lazy men, but they earn evry cent of money they receive. If some were paid by the case they try, they would not get as much as the ordinary Justice of the Peace. it is asking too much of any one Judge to do the business in this Circuit. He opposed the motion to recommit as one fatal to the bill.
Mr. FOWLER did not believe there is any necessity for the passage of this bill. Thirty Judges if their labor is equalized can do the business of the State.
Mr. HILLIGASS: This bill asks for no more than is justly due, and no more than the business in these judicial circuits require. He submitted figures to substantiate his statements The court business in his county is one year behind hand.
Mr. MAY: The people are occasionally imposed upon in the creation of judicial circuits. He cited an instance where a Circuit Judge had not a jury trial in one of the counties of the circuit for twelve months, and but one trial - a divorce case - which went by default.
Mr. WILLARD demanded the previous question.
The demand was seconded by the Senate and under its operations the motion to reconsider was rejected by yeas 18, nays 31.
The bill passed the Senate by yeas 30, nays 18.
Mr. Zimmerman's bill [S. 159] to amend Section 3 628 R. S. was read the third time and passed by yeas 41, nays 2.
Mr. ZIMMERMAN, explaining: This bill provides that Directors of turnpike companies which
may desire to appropriate any public highway shall give fifteen days' notice
Mr Fowler's bill [S 169] to amend section 650 of the code was read for the third time and passed by yeas 43, nays 1, Mr. Fowler stating the object is to cut off the voluminous amount of testimony sent up to the Supreme Court in order to get a ruling on the instructions of the Court below.
Mr. Rahm's Farm Tax bill [S. 174] - see pages 138 and 142] was read the third time and passed by yeas 38 nays 2.
Mr. Sellers' Fish Ladder bill [S. 180 - see page 167 of these reports] was read the third time and passed by yeas 34 nays 7.
Mr. Winter's bill [S. 182] to abolish the offices of City Assessor and Treasurer in all cities of over 70,000 inhabitants, was read the third time and passed by yeas 42, nays 10, Mr. W. explaining: It only applies to the city of Indianapolis, and is a bill which has been demanded by the citizens of this city for some-time. The bill has been carefully prepared. It has been submitted to the Auditor of this county, has been examined by him, and its provisions are such, according to his statement and my own belief, as will be found to work well in practice.
Mr. Foulke's bill [S. 191] to restrain the manufacture, sale and use of dangerous explosives, was read the third time and passed by yeas 29, nays 8.
Mr. Winter's Union Railway bill [S. 189] being read the third time -
Mr. OVERSTREET: I concede there is a great necessity for a larger union depot in this city, and that it can't be built without the vacation perhaps of streets and alleys and the condemnation of property, but I don't think to accomplish that end the Senate ought to strike down the rights of private citizens without giving them a hearing. Under this bill property can be condemned in fee simple, streets and alleys vacated and the title in fee simple vested in the corporation, and the owners of property have no right to appeal. It does seem to me the right to appeal ought to be given to citizens who might feel themselves aggreived.
Mr. FOULKE: I feel favorably inclined to this bill, but if there is any doubt as to its provisions properly protecting the rights of individuals I think it would be well, and I move to refer it to a special committee of three to report it back to morrow, and that its consideration be made a special order for to-morrow afternoon at 2 o'clock.
Mr. WINTER: Instead of striking down the rights of property holders this bill affords a greater protection to property-holders here than anywhere in the State of Indiana as against railroads. The whole theory of allowing railroads to take possession of property is that it is for the benefit of the public at large. If every citizen had the right to take an appeal I would like to know when a railroad could be built. One would take an appeal after another and the result would be the railroad would have to stand and wait until these cases were decided, before the first nail could be driven for a union depot. The effect would be to nullify this bill if a provision were inserted giving parties the right to appeal. I have distributed copies of this bill among a number of our citizens and requested them to state objections to it; this matter has been agitated for over a year. It has been discussed in the papers, but I have not heard of a single person who has the slightest objection to this bill.
Mr. YOUCHE: I am thoroughly in favor of the project to enable this Union Railway Company to build a union depot, but I think we should make haste slowly, and we should very careful to see that the rights of all parties are properly protected and cared for. It is necessary of course to condemn land, but this bill ought to provide for that according to the general law in force in this State at this time. We should give this company no greater rights as against private individuals than the general law
The motion to refer was decided on a division - affirmative 18, negative 18 - but the yeas and nays being demanded, ordered and again resulted yeas 21, nays 21. So the motion was rejected.
Mr. WINTER again called attention to the provisions of the bill.
The bill passed the Senate - yeas 39, nays []
Mr. OVERSTREET: In explanation of my vote, I desire to say I expect I [ ] much in favor of the contemplated Union Depot in this city as any citizen of Indianapolis, but I feel it could be built without depriving owners of property a hearing in the courts; and most all - one at least of the most prominent and influential citizens of Indianapolis who has property to be affected, feeling it is an outrage upon him, and believing he has just reasons for it, I am content to vote "no"
Mr. YOUCHE, when his name was called, said: There are some provisions in this bill which are so objectionable I don't feel justified in voting for it, and therefore I vote "no."
And then the Senate adjourned.
The Speaker announced the consideration of Mr. Cartwright's bill [H. R. 201] to
appro-
Mr. ADAMS: If it were possible for us, as members of the Legislature, to get on the good side of our constituents by saying we are standing by the people and standing by the Treasury, when we go home, we certainly would have a warm place in the hearts of our constituency. This question is one that demands some attention at our hands, and this bill demands this attention of the people of the State of Indiana. I presume every one of us and our constituents are somewhat interested in this measure, the question being as to whether or not we are going to appropriate a sum to the Indiana State University as will put her on a good bases and enable her to go on in the good work she is now doing. The trustees have asked us to appropriate $50,000 to enable them to equip the buildings now constructed. We all know that two years ago a serious fire swept over the State University, destroying and seriously impairing her libraries, etc, and over $125,000 or $150,000 was lost to the State of Indiana. This bill proposes to get back all that was lost for $50,000 That is the size of it. And we get back better buildings and property. Now, the gentleman from Putnam is opposed to the appropriation of $50,000. We ought to put some credit in what the Board of Trustees say. They are reputable men They are business men, and they come from all quarters of the State, and have the interest of the State at heart. Now they propose, with this $50,000 to put in a museum and library and equip the buildings they have already built. Without the appropriation the buildings will stand there without any benefit to the State. But we have been told that there are other universities where young men and young women can be educated. Now what is the argument? That we shall strike down Indiana University, at Bloomington, and put our young men and women in sectarian institutions such as that at Wabash and Greencastle. You might just as well talk about striking down the common school system in Indiana.
Mr. PASSAGE: It resolves itself into this question, whether the State of Indiana is going to maintain a State University or not. Fifty thousand dollars is a very small amount for such a purpose. I put the question whether this State is going to be the only State without a university?
Mr. FRENCH: Indiana is proud of her institutions. There has been something said about the taxpayers. Now I think if you make calculation you will find that this bill costs the taxpayers less than five cents apiece, and yet you grumble about it. Indiana claims to be second to no State in the Union as to progress, and the question is, are we going to maintain a State University? I will not claim the attention of the House any further, because I am satisfied that this appropriation will be voted.
Mr. MOCK, of Wells: As I do not desire to explain my vote, I wish to say a few words now. I consider this a very important matter. I was here last session, and voted against a similar endowment bill. I did not believe it was right then, and I am of the same opinion still. In 1867 there was an appropriation of $8000 made to this institution, and in 1873 there was an additional one of $15,000, making $23,000. And only last session we were told if we would favor that bill and vote for that endowment, they would ask for no further appropriation. If you will examine that law you will find this proviso: "Provided, further, that no further appropriation shall be made to the State University," and, notwithstanding that, they are asking for this appropriation. I will be compelled to vote for the amendment.
Mr. McMULLEN: I do not think I can add anything to what has been said. Now it has been said by some gentleman that some of the counties do not derive any benefit from these appropriations. I venture to say that one-half of the people do not derive any benefit from the common schools - some of them do not derive a single cent's worth of benefit, and yet would you say you must not help to support the common schools? Gentlemen, this question long since has been settled in the State of Indiana. The people have said that the educational institutions are a part of the people. I believe the appropriation asked for is just and right. I believe it will be to the benefit of the people of the State. I am for the appropriation just as it is.
Mr. MOODY demanded the previous question.
The demand was seconded by the House, and under its operations the minority report was rejected by yeas 43, nays 45.
Mr. GORDON moved to reduce the appropriation to $30 000.
Mr. McMULLEN made an ineffectual motion - yeas 40, nays 49 - to lay the amendment on the table.
The amendment was agreed to by yeas 46, nays 42.
The bill was ordered engrossed.
Mr. Kellison's bill [H. R. 58] being read the third time -
Mr. KELLISON said: I regard this as an important bill. The question of getting a case
before the Supreme Court in the cheapest manner must be important to any one in the State.
We have but one court of appellate jurisdiction to which questions can be taken as a court
of last resort. The lives and property of the people of the State are in the hands of the
judiciary of the State. It is very important to every citizen of the
The present manner of getting that record before the Supreme Court is by transcript, which must be made not only of all the original papers filed in the court below that are parts of the record, but of all such papers filed in the case pending the proceedings which have been made parts of the record by a bill of exceptions. The cost of an ordinary transcript is $50 and upward, which must be prepaid before a person can have the right to appeal a case to the Supreme Court. The Constitution of the State of Indiana provides that the courts shall be open to every man for injury done to his person, property and reputation, and he is to have remedy by due course of law. It is to be fairly without purchase, and speedily without delay. When you take a case to the Supreme Court it takes about three months to get a bill of exceptions properly filed. The earliest possible time a case can be gotten before the Supreme Court so it stands for trial is about fourteen months, and generally it takes two or three years to dispose of a case; and while the case is pending in the Supreme Court the original papers are lying in the Clerk's office. This bill proposes to send all the original papers up, including every paper filed in the case the instruction given by the Court, the instructions asked by the parties, the bill of exceptions, but the transcript shall only contain such record entries as are in the order books. This bill is not without precedents. That is the law in the State of Ohio in regard to the appeals to the Appellate Courts, and I am informed it is the law in the State of Pennsylvania. I believe this law should be favored by every lawyer in this House. It has the indorsement of the bar of Marshall County and I can see no argument against this bill.
Mr. BROWNING: I hope that this bill will not pass. It is important to lawyers that papers in a case should remain in the Circuit Court where the trial is had. The original papers ought not to be taken from the files of the Court. If you wanted to get any information concerning a case you would have to come here to the city of Indianapolis, and it would cost cliants more than any other way. It would be a very great additional expense to litegants
Mr. MOCK: I am opposed to this bill, but not exactly for the same reasons that were given by the gentleman from Monroe (Mr. Browning) This bill is a very important bill. It makes a radical change in the practice. The present practice has existed since 1852, and to make this change have a greater effect on the practice any man on this floor knows of. It would require a change in the rules of the Supreme Court. And how are we to determine just what papers should be sent up? The only reason given by the gentleman is that it would make litigation cheaper. Now if a man is not able to pay the cost of a transcript he had better not go to the Supreme Court. The present practice has become settled, and I am not in favor of changing it.
Mr. ENGLE: I think there are many objectionable features to the bill. It has been my experience that a large majority of cases that are appealed from the lower court to the court of last resort are taken up for time any way. I think before this bill becomes a law it should be considered well.
Mr. HARRELL: I am inclined to look at this bill with deliberation and consideration. I think it would be a very dangerous measure for this one reason, as it has been stated by some member. As it now stands a case appealed to the Supreme Court we have a record of the papers in the court below and in the Supreme Court. Suppose the court below only had the papers and they got lost, that would be the end of the case. I think it would be a dangerous practice, and for that reason I think the bill ought not to pass
Mr. KELLISON: There is not one man upon this floor that has given a good argument against the passage of this bill - not one single valid or substantial reason. The question of losing the papers is easily answered. Section 1,645 of the Statues provides that where the parties require it the clerk shall keep a complete record of all the proceedings in the case. Now, this question of losing the papers is absolutely a bug-a-boo. There is nothing in it. I say it is very important to the people of the State of Indiana that they can obtain justice, according to the spirit and letter of the constitution - fairly, without purchase, and speedily, without delay. Now, if it will be no injury to litigants, why should it not pass? And I have shown there is none. I believe it would save litigants of the State $100,000 in the first year after it has been adopted.
The bill failed to pass by yeas 27, nays 55.
The House then adjourned.
The bill [H. R. 74] to. legalize the Union Loan and Savings Company of Indianapolis, and all official acts of the Board of Directors, being read the first time, and on motion by Mr. Hilligass, who stated that there was a question as to whether there were a sufficient number of directors chosen to fill the requirements of the statute, the constitutional restriction was set aside by a yea and nay vote, the bill was read the second time by title and the third time by sections, and finally passed by yeas 35 nays 0.
The bill [H. R. 95] to legalize the incorporation of the town of Ambla, Benton County, was passed to the final reading under a dispensation of the constitutional rule, on motion by Mr. Weir, and passed the Senate by yeas 34, nays 0.
The bill [H. R. 100] to amend Section 3,805 of the code, concerning the establishment of public Libraries, was read three times under the suspension of the rule by a yea and nay vote (on motion by Mr. Foulke, who explained its provisions would apply to Richmond only, authorizing the levy of five instead of one cent tax), and finally passed by yeas 47, nays 0.
The bill [H. R. 142] to amend the act incorporating the town of Vernon, Jennings County, was carried to the third reading and finally passed, on motion of Mr. Smith, of Jennings, by yeas 27, nays 0.
The bill [H. R. 37] to appropriate $6,800 for building a brick barn, completing the gas works, and building an addition to the boys' kitchen at the Reform School for Boys, was read the third time and passed by yeas 35, nays 0.
On motion by Mr. Duncan, of Brown, his bill [S. 61] concerning the beginning and ending of terms of County Commissioners, - to begin in December, to serve three years, each three alternating - was read the second time.
Mr. FOULKE, from the Special Committee thereon, returned Mr. Hoover's Live Stock Company Incorporation bill [S. 28], recommending the, substitution of a similar bill [H. R. 70] with amendments. He said the amendments are intended to afford protection against the ultimate tendency to drive out the small stock farmer by limiting such incorporations to the importation of foreign blooded stock and breeding therefrom. The acquisition of land is limited to 2 500 acres, with the privilege of leasing 2 500 acres more, and with the additional right to lease other lands from year to year. I think it a dangerous thing to permit a large quantity of land to be owned by a corporation. Then the committee amendments provide that the company shall not own over 2,500 head of stock. The capital stock not to exceed $250,000. I think the privileges are sufficiently large with these limitations, which will secure stock farmers against dangerous competition.
The report was concurred in.
On his further motion the bill S. 70, as so amended, wa read the second time.
On motion by Mr. WINTER, the rules were dispensed with, by a yea and nay vote, and the bill read the third time.
The question being: "Shall the bill pass?" -
Mr. BAILEY: When the Senate bill was referred to the
Mr. SMITH, of Jay: I dont think that bill ought to pass without that provision is incorporated in it.
On motion by Mr. Foulke the bill was referred to a Special Committee of One with instructions to report it back with the amendment referred to at 2 o'clock.
The motion was agreed to, and the President pro tem. (Mr. Magee) appointed Mr. Bailey as said committee.
Then came a recess for dinner.
Mr. SHIVELY'S bill IS. [S. 18 - See page 162-3 of the Brevier Reports] coming up on the second reading, the question being on a motion to substitute the bill S. 233 therefor -
Mr. SHIVELY said: The substitute offered by the Senator from Marion (Mr. Winter) is a bill known as one recommended by the Indiana State Medical Society, and I regret to oppose it, because it is a society for which I have the most profound respect, and a society of which I have been an humble member for more than thirty years. Since I had the honor to introduce this bill I have received 300 letters from physicians throughout the State expressing a preference for it. The bill offered as a substitute provides for a Board of Examiners, to consist of seven members, four of whom are to be nominated by the State Medical Society, one by the Eclectic State Medical Society, one by the Homeopathic Medical Society, and one by the Physio-Medical State Society, and from these nominations it is made the duty of the Governor to appoint this board. All I have to say is that from the extensive information I have received from physicians throughout the State there is a general objection to that feature of the bill, and I hope it will be voted down.
Mr WINTER: I have no interest or feeling whatever for or against any particular bill. I Informed Doctors Rogers, Woodburn, and Hobbs, of Knightstown, there were some features in it that didn't m et my approval, but that the bill could be amended in the Senate. I believe the medical profession, which is a numerous and learned profession, and one entitled to respectful consideration, are desirous of some legislation upon this subject. If there is to be any legislation whatever there ought to be an effort to adopt a bill that will attain some good result. The objection I have to the bill introduced by the Senator from Grant (Mr. Shively) is that I don't consider it will be beneficial in its operations. It would not secure the people of the State against quackery. The object of these bills is, as I understand it, to prevent this State from being overrun by quacks which been driven into this State by the laws of other States; and the bill of the Senator from Grant County, in my opinion. will prevent that. It may be a quack will be required to commit perjury to get practice, but I think a man so devoid, of principle as to purchase a diploma will not be deterred from continuing in his evil practice, simply because he is required to make an affidavit, he has a diploma some reputable medical college. I am inclined to think that the effect of the bill will be to aid the quack to deceive the people. Another objection: The bill I introduced might be amended so that the Examining Board shall consist of nine members - three from the old school and two from each of the other schools. I don't think it right that a majority of the should be taken from any one school. The letters with which members have flooded from physicians are based upon a misapprehension of this bill, the writers understanding this bill requires old practitioners to go before the board and be examined. These letters are written in answer to a circular stating the features of these two bills. The House bill is the same as Senate bill 223. It was intimated in the circular under the provision of the House bill every physician, no matter what his attainments would have to go before the Board and be examined as a mere tyro in the business. That accounts for the expressions of physicians in favor of Senate bill No. 18. The provisions of the other bill is more liberal than the bill No. 18, for the bill 223 does not require an examinations of one who has practiced for five consecutive years. This bill requires all others to convince the Board that the applicant has an academic education. A man may qualify himself to practice without having graduated in a medical college, though this bill 223 requires that. That provision can be stricken out, however. This bill will give better satisfaction to he profession, and it will more effectually rid the State of disreputable practitioners.
Mr. McINTOSH hoped the Senate would give a fair consideration to these bills. A medical bill ought to be passed this session. He was not a stickler for any particular bill, but there is one material defect in the No. 223, because if it passed no physician who has practiced but four years, though he attended two, three or more courses at a medical college, could obtain a license. Any man who can pass a successful examination of the board, whether he ever attended a course at a medical college or not, ought to be permitted to have a license. If the Senate adopts the substitute it must take the risk of proving it up. If No. 18 is passed it should be amended so that the proof of a ten years practice by two reputable witnesses should be sufficient, and the same proof should be required of one who has practiced three years and attended a full course of lectures.
Mr. THOMPSON: For the past twenty five years the school of medicine to which he belongs has made application to the Legislature for a bill to protect and raise the standard of the medical practice. Two-thirds of the letters received on this subject are satisfied without any law on the subject, while nine-tenths making comparisons between the two bills favor the Shively bill. The people are being fooled out of their money by quacks, but they do not petition for protection from them; but the physicians petition the State for protection to those who are qualified. He favored the Shively bill.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings, stated objections to the bill of the Senator from Greene (Mr. McIntosh) It requires proof of good moral character; but how is that question to be determined? Under the law it is about as different as the different phases of the human mind. Then it requires a diploma from some regularly chartered medical college, while as he understands, many of the oldest and most reputable colleges do not possess a charter. A stranger, though ever so reputable a physician, can not obtain a license because he must obtain the affidavit of two freeholders or householders that he is well known to them. It may be true we should have some sort of legislation, but every Legislature for eighteen years has failed to pass one because the doctors will not agree. When doctors disagree who shall decide?
He also cited objections to the bill S. 223: None but graduates of some medical college shall be eligible to an examination. If everybody were required to have a diploma from reputable medical college, what need is there of legislation on the subject? There is no reason why a young man fresh from a medical college with his diploma should be examined by such a board. If there be colleges who sell diplomas legislation should be against these, so as to wipe them out of the land as well as to punish the purchase of such diplomas Of all the veriest quacks, the worst one of them could prove a practice of five years. It is a dangerous bill. He favored Senate bill No. 18 While it may not be all the profession or this Legislature desires, yet it is a step in the right direction - a basis upon which future legislation may be had. The bill is guarded with sufficient penalties, in all respects more carefully guarded than in either of the other bills. There is provision in it made for a record for the doctor. The liberal policy is incorporated in the bill introduced by the Senator from Grant (Mr Shively).
Mr. McCULLOUGH favored Senate bill No. 18. It is not a radical bill, and we do not want radical legislation on the subject. The objection is made that practitioners would commit perjury under it to avoid which there should be an amendment requiring their affidavit to contain a statement as to the exact locality in which the applicant has been practicing for the prescribed term of ten years.
Mr. SMITH, of Tay, thought the passage of this bill [S 18] would allow most any practitioner to continue the practices on the payment of $3. If there is to be any medical legislation, there should be some examination that should require a board of skilled physicians to determine who is qualified to practice medicine.
Mr. SELLERS: No bill should be passed that will discriminate against some and in favor of others, and how can it be otherwise with a board of seven, with four belonging to one particular school. Another objection is the requiring all physicians to come to Indianapolis to stand an examination. The ten years' practice feature is a good one. Many such may not be as skillful as some who have received diplomas, but they have acquired what may be termed a vested right. In every respect the provisions of Senate bill 18 is preferable to those in Senate bill 223. There were in 1880 4,696 physicians in Indiana, all of whom under the bill 223 must pay from $5 to $25 to this Board of Examiners besides paying their expenses to Indianapolis. No quack will be allowed to practice where the rights of reputable physicians are guarded.
Mr. WILLARD, stating he was heartily in favor Senate bill 18, moved the previous question, but withdrew that motion on being assured discussion would cease
The motion to substitute the bill, S. 223, for the bill, S 18, was rejected by yeas, 4, nays 35.
Mr. Overstreet moved to amend by reducing the fee from $3 to $1 50 by striking out the requirement of witnesses, and also striking out Section 7.
On motion by Mr. McCullough the amendment was amended by requiring the affidavit to contain a statement of the locality where the ten years' practice was had.
A division of the question being demanded -
That part of the amendment proposing to strike out the provision, for witnesses was agreed to, as was also the second subdivision reducing the fee to $1 50, and also the third part striking out the seventh section.
Mr. DAVIS made an ineffectual motion to amend, by declaring the provisions shall not apply to consulting physicians from other States, or officers of the army.
Mr. WILLARD demanded the previous question, and under its operations the bill was ordered engrossed.
On motion by Mr. SMITH, of Jennings, the constitutional rule was dispensed with - yeas 34, nays 5 - the bill read the second time by title, the third time by section, and passed the Senate by yeas 28, nays 11.
Mr. BAILEY, explaining: I have received a good number of letters from my constituents, all of then against any medical legislation whatever. I therefore vote "no."
Mr. DAVIS, when his name was called, said: I have received quite a number of letters from
various physicians, some of
Mr. ZIMMERMAN, in explanation of his vote, said: Inasmuch as the people in my district don't demand any legislation upon the subject of regulating the practice of medicine, I vote "no."
The vote was then announced as above.
Mr. Brown's County Superintendent election bill [S. 8], being read the second time, with two committee reports - one favorable and the other recommending that the bill lie o the table -
Mr. HILLIGASS opposed taking the election of County Superintendent out of the hands of Township Trustees, and making that officer a creature of an election by the popular vote of the people. A man, without reference to qualification, as far as sobriety and efficiency and honesty, may succeed in securing the nomination of a political party for the position of County Superintendent, although he may be able to secure a certificate, of qualification to hold the office. I am opposed to interfering with the present plan that has worked so successfully, and, as far as I know, satisfactorily.
Mr. WILLARD: There is a report signed by three members, recommending the passage of the bill, and another report, signed by three members of the committee, one of which I am, recommending that the bill lie on the table. In order that members may think over this rather unusual occurrence, he moved that the Senate adjourn.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. Robinson's bill [S. R 169] to amend the dog law, coming up on the second reading with a committee report recommending its indefinite postponement -
Mr. ROBINSON said: The committee may not see the importance of this bill. I think it is one of importance to the people of the State. It is not an act for the protection of dogs, but it is, as I understand it, an act for the protection of the people of the State engaged in the industry of sheep husbandry. The bill simply provides an amendment to the law, whereas under the present law, if you to refer to the section of the statute, you will see there is a penalty for killing any dog which has been listed for taxation. There are many dogs through the State listed for taxation, upon which the tax has never been paid, and many worthless curs that go untaxed. They are listed, but the tax is never paid upon them. The amendment suggested simply provides a penalty for killing any dog upon which the tax has been paid. It simply removes the protection given under the law to dogs upon which the tax has not been paid. It has been said that if you remove the protection from the dog simply because the tax has not been paid you might as well remove it from the cow and horse. I think there is much difference. I insist that the report of the committee ought not to be concurred in.
The House refused to concur in the report of the committee.
The bill was ordered engrossed.
Mr. Linville's bill [H. R. 212] coming up on a second reading, with the committee recommendation that it be indefinitely postponed -
Mr. LINVILLE: I hope the report of the committee will not be concurred in. There are two provisions in this bill. The first limiting the manner of catching fish, and the second prescribing penalties for the violation of it. I understand under the present law there is no protection to fish on other men's property.
Mr. KELLISON: I would like to the gentleman explain where the difference is from the present law.
Mr. LINVILLE: The only change that it makes from the present law is that persons who own ponds may catch fish out of the river for the purpose of stocking their ponds. It also provides for the protection of fish in these private ponds. As I understand present law it does not protect fish in these private ponds.
Mr. MOCK: The objection is that it makes a criminal offense of what, under the law, would be a trespass, and perhaps there is already a law covering this offense. We have so many criminal laws that committee thought this was unnecessary.
Mr. PATTEN: I have heard no good reason given why this should not become a law. I think the bill is a good one. It does not interfere with the rights of the citizens of the State. Therefore I am in favor bill.
Mr. BEST: It seems to me the objections that have been made to this bill at this time would be more proper to be made by amendment to the bill. The bill contains two propositions. It provides for the stocking of private ponds. It allows persons who own private ponds to stock them with fish by going to the lakes and rivers seining for fish. I think it is of some importance to encourage the breeding of fish in ponds whereby the farmers, can raise other things beside wheat and corn and hogs. This bill has some merit and it ought to be allowed go to the second reading and passed for the farmers' protection.
The House refused to concur in the report of the committees.
The bill was ordered engrossed.
Mr. McGovney's bill [H. R. 101] coming up on the second reading -
Mr. GORDON moved to strike out the word "ten" in line 3, page 3
Mr. McGOVNEY said: This bill was reported back by the committee with the recommendation that it pass the House. The bill 101 proposes to amend Section 20 of the highway law of 1883. You will find it on page 68 of the acts of 1883
The old system was when a man worked out his road tax on the highway he was given a receipt by the Supervisor, and he presented that receipt at the Treasurer's office when he went there to pay his taxes. The receipt was to go in payment of so much taxes, and he received credit for it in the the settlement. Now if a person works out so much tax on the highway he receives a printed blank, and the amount is written in generally with a led pencil, and there is nothing to prevent a man from making a change in the receipt. For instance, if man has worked to the amount of $2 50 he might change it to $7 50. I have been informed that that was the useage and it sometimes prevailed further than any one knew of. The highway law of 1883 provides that the supervisor should make out a list of all the persons that worked in the whole road district, swear to it and present it to the Township Trustee. The Township Trustee would have a list of all the persons that worked the road in the township, and from these several lists he must make out a list in alphabetical order, and the Township Trustee is sworn to that and presents it to the County Auditor. I think the amendment would avoid a great many errors. It does not propose to amend any section but Section 20.
Mr. MOCK, of Wells: There are two objects in the bill: The first is a saving of expense of about $40 000 a year or over to this State. The expense of the Trustees making out this list the object is to cut off. The other object is to have the receipts taken by the Treasurer as cash. Now this bill requires the supervisors to make a complete report under oath, stating all the facts fully, the same as the Trustee of the township; and there is nothing wrong about that.
Mr. McMULLEN demanded the previous question.
The demand was seconded by the House, and under its operations the amendment was adopted.
On motion of Mr. Bailey, the bill was recommitted to the
Mr. Pleasants' bill [H. R 248] coming up on a second reading, with a committee recommendation that it be indefinitely postposed -
Mr. PLEASANTS said: I hope the report of the committee will not be adopted. The bill provides that druggists shall keep an account of every prescription sold and of all liquor, and the name of the party purchasing it and the object for which it was purchased, and file a sworn statement of this account in the office of the Clerk, making the failure to do so a misdemeanor, for which a fine may be assessed, not to exceed the sum of $20
Mr. WILLIAMS: I think the bill ought to be indefinitely postponed. I think it would make men commit perjury in addition to violating the law.
Mr. ELEY: It would be a dead-letter; a man would not criminate himself.
Mr. DALE: The saloon men, while they traffic in liquor, are put under heavy license. I hope this bill will pass and the report of the committee will not be concurred in.
Mr. MOCK: The
Mr. DEEM: I desire to say I, am opposed to this bill. I would be in favor of it if all the druggists in the State would comply with it. But the honest druggists of the State would comply with it, while the dishonest druggists would fail to do so; and again, if all the druggists would do it they would criminate themselves. It seems to me improper to ask a man to criminate himself.
Mr. MOODY demanded the previous question.
The demand was seconded by the House, and under its operations the House refused to concur in the report of the committee.
On motion of Mr. GORDON the bill was ordered engrossed.
And then the House adjourned.
The session was opened with prayer by Rev. Thomas H Lynch, whom the Lieutenant Governor introduced as a minister of more than fifty years service.
Mr. BAILEY: A special committee to which was referred the Live Stock Companies Incorporation bill [H. R. 70, see page 192] with instruction, reported the same back with amendments. He said: This is the Live Stock bill which the Senate referred to a select committee to embrace therein the following section: "That each stockholder and member of such corporation shall be individually liable to creditors of the corporation to the amount of unpaid stock subscribed by him, and for an additional amount equal to the stock subscribed by him." This committee report embraces that with the following two sections, in substance, "that an annual report shall be made by the corporation setting out its libilities and the absolute condition of business, and that report shall be signed by the Secretary and a majority of the directors and sworn to by them;" and the following section states "if such report be not as made and published, or be false in any material statement, and any person is misled or deceived by that report, the individual members shall be held liable for the amount of damage incurred by that report, and any company neglecting or failing to make and publish an annual report shall lose and forfeit any right of immunity or protection given by this act, except that any neglect or failure shall not relieve any member from the liabilities of this act." It may be said that this proposes to make a distinction against these companies as compared with companies organized under the mining law. The law simply makes stockholders liable for the full face of the stock subscribed by them, and in addition renders them individually liable for all debts to employes of the corporation. As to telephone and telegraph and street railway companies, they are made liable exactly as provided in these proposed amendments. I am not especially in favor of this bill anyhow, but if it is to pass I hope these amendments will be concurred in.
Mr OVERSTREET: My recollection is that on yesterday the House bill [70] was just like the Senate bill [28] with the exception of the first amendment suggested by this report, and the bill [H. R. 70] which was substituted for the Senate bill was referred to a committee of one with instructions to add that amendment. I think that committee of one has transcended its powers when it goes beyond the instruction of the Senate, and adds two other sections to the bill.
Mr. BAILEY: Will the Senator permit one word? I certainly did not understand the committee to be restricted to that amendment. I was talking to the Senator who introduced it [Mr. Hoover introduced the bill S. 28] and he suggested these two additional sections; I therefore reported them as being very proper. I think it important that such companies should make annual reports of the condition of the corporation and make the directors swear to the report.
Mr. OVERSTREET: I insist that these two other proposed amendments have not been referred
to such a committee as the Senate rules prescribe. Why refer an important bill to such a
committee of one, restricting it to do a certain thing; and then allow
Mr. BAILEY: If that was going beyond the instructions of the Senate, I will withdraw these two sections and offer them as an amendment to the bill
Mr. MAGEE: Yesterday when this bill came up for passage a motion was carried to recommit to a committee of one to make certain amendment. That, I believe, was the extent of the authority of the committee; not to add any new sections to the bill, but simply to make a short amendment. The Senator who introduced the bill, as well as Senators who were appointed on this committee which considered this bill, are absent this morning, and I ask that its further consideration may go over till Senator Hoover returns. This bill affects farmers more than any other class, and I move that it be postponed till Monday at 2:30 o'clock.
The motion was agreed to.
On motion by Mr. BAILEY, his Oleo-margerine bill [S 136] was made the special order for Tuesday at 2 o'clock p. m
Mr. WILLARD gave notice that he would move on Monday, or some subsequent day, for amendment of rule 54, so as to make the regular order of business imperative unless suspended by a two-thirds vote.
Mr. MAGEE moved that the Senate hold an afternoon session for the further transaction of routine work, the presentation of petitions, resolutions, and the introduction of bills only.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay, said the clerks were complaining that the Senate had already cut out work enough to keep them up till midnight.
Mr. MAGEE replied that it was far more important that Senators should work than that clerks should rest. There were several bills in sight which would require debate and consideration. At such times the clerks had a soft snap, at others they had to toil over rapid transactions of detail.
The motion was agreed to.
Then came a recess for dinner.
Mr. FOWLER offered the following:
Whereas, There is great inequality in the labor required of the Circuit Judges in this State,
And Whereas, Many bills are now pending before this General Assembly for the creation of new circuits,
And Whereas, It is inexpedient to create new and additional circuits and entail additional expense upon the State, if the labor of the present Judges can be so equalized as to enable the present Circuit Court Judiciary to transact the business of the Circuit Courts without delay, and with reasonable dispatch; therefore be it
Resolved, That a committee of nine Senators, holding over, be appointed by the Chair to serve without compensation, to take into consideration the inequality of the Circuit Court districts, and to redistrict the State for judicial purposes, and as far as can be to equalize the labor in the several Judicial Circuits of the State and that said committee make report to the next General Assembly by bill or otherwise.
It was made the special order for Monday at 11:30 a.m.
Bills for acts were introduced, read the first time and severally referred to appropriate committees by Messrs. Bryant, Campbell of Hendricks, Davis, Day, Drake (2), Ensley (2) Fowler and Benz.
By Mr. ADKISON [S 313] for the separation of the Soldiers' Orphans' Home from the Asylum for Feeble-minded Children, and appropriating $50,000 for the building of a Soldiers' Orphans' Home at Knightstown, the building now used by the soldiers' orphans to be occupied by the feeble-minded children.
By Mr. ADKISON [S. 300] to require foreign insurance companies to pay 10 per cent. of their earnings into the State Treasury.
By Mr. BAILEY [S. 314] to prohibit foreign contract labor.
By Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks [S. 302] to provide that the Attorney General shall receive no fees for collecting State moneys. (This bill is in anticipation of the State receiving $1 000 000 indemnification money for losses during the civil war).
By Mr. DAY [S. 312] to limit the pay of the employees of the Legislature to $3 per day and of pages $2 per day.
The Senate adjourned under the rule, till Monday morning at 10 o'clock.
The session was opened with prayer by Elder James S. McBroome, a Representative from the counties of Warren and Benton.
The reading of thee Clerk's journal of yesterday's proceedings was dispensed with.
MR. FLEECE offered the following:
Resolved, That the
It was referred to the
The
Mr. BARR offered the following:
Whereas, The benefits of an open channel for the Kankakee and Little Wabash are of so much importance to the citizens of the State of Indiana, for purposes commercial and manufacturing and sanitary: and
Whereas, The main obstructions in those chanels are caused by a stone ledge in the
channel of
Whereas, These obstructions are of such a character as to entity prevent navigation in these waters; therefore,
Be it resolved by the House, the Senate concurring, That our Senators in Congress and our Representatives be requested to use their influence to secure an item of $25,000 for the removal of the obstructions in the channel of the Kankakee River at Momence; and also an item of $25,000 for the removal of the stone obstructions in the channel of the Little Wabash, east of the city of Huntington; and that these items be made a part of the river and harbor bill now pending.
On Motion of Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe, it was referred to a special Committee of three, made to consist of Messrs. Smith, Barr and Reeves.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe, offered the following:
Whereas, The Governments of France and Germany have passed and enforced unjust restrictions upon American agricultural products, particularly hog products;
And whereas, These restrictions are very detrimental to the business interests of the inhabitants of Indiana.
And whereas, Large quantities of wines, brandies and other liquors are imported into the United States from these countries, which are known to be adulterated end impure.
And whereas, All rights are and ought to be reciprocal. Therefore,
Resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring, That our Representatives in Congress be requested and our Senators instructed to use all their influence to pass through Congress a measure to prohibit the importation into the United States of all wines, brandies and other liquors from France and Germany.
It was, on his motion, referred to the
Mr. SAYRE offered the following:
Resolved by the House, That the
It was adopted.
The following described bills were introduced, read the first time, and severally referred to appropriate committees:
By Mr. BARR [H R. 449] to amend Section 4,281 of R. S. of 1881, concerning highways and streets.
By Mr. RIVERS [S. R. 450] to abolish the Criminal Court of Marion County, Indiana
By Mr. COPELAND: [H R 451] to regulate railroad passenger fares (fixing rate at three cents per mile)
By Mr. REITER [H. R. 452] to require foreign life insurance companies to establish at least one agency in the State.
By REITER [H. R. 453] to define the term Chief Engineer in cities and towns
By Mr. WILDMAN [H. R. 454] to regulate the location of Justices of Peace and defining their jurisdiction.
By Mr. WILDMAN [H. R. 455] to provide for the election of Justices of the Peace defining their powers in civil cases
By Mr. OVERMAN [H. R. 456] concerning the collection of passenger fares on railroads. [Prohibiting railroads from charging cash fares in excess of the price of tickets.]
By Mr. JAMESON [H. R. 457] to regulate the business of banking, and prescribing penalties for the violation thereof. [It provides that all banks shall file with the County Clerk a sworn statement of the amount of capital stock paid in and names of stockholders; that they shall publish quarterly statements of their condition, and that they shall not make dividends unless individual profits exceed all losses that have been sustained, that they shall not loan more than one-tenth of their capital to any person or corporation, and that they shall not use their capital for anything except the banking business. It provides further for the appointment by the Governor of one or more bank examiners, to hold office for four years, and confers full authority upon them to examine the banks as often as is thought necessary, and if any violation of the law is found out they shall report that fact to the Governor, and he to the Judge of the Circuit Court, who, if he finds the charges to be true, shall appoint a Receiver to wind up the affairs of the bank. The examiners are to receive $8 a day for their services
By Mr. JAMESON [H. R. 458] to regulate the business and organization of life insurance companies.
By Mr. PENDLETON [H. R. 459] to authorize cities to license and levy special tax on all vehicles used in cities.
By Mr. PENDLETON [H. R. 460] to create the office of Prosecuting Attorney in all Criminal Courts of the State.
By Mr. FARRELL [H. R. 461] to provide for the organization of savings banks.
By Mr. SCHLEY [H. R. 462] concerning actions on judgments.
By Mr. SCHLEY [H. R. 463] for a Metropolitan Fire Department in cities of 20,000.
By Mr. SCHMIDT [H. R. 464] to authorize cities to condemn and fill up mill races.
By Mr. PASSAGE [H. R. 465] to establish County Courts and defining their duties and powers.
By Mr. ADAMS [H. R. 466] to amend an act providing for the election, and fixing the compensation of the Attorney General of the State.
By Mr. DITTEMORE [H. R. 467] to repeal all general laws in force for the incorporation of cities, and prescribing their powers, etc.
By Mr. McCLELLAND [H. R. 468] to fix the time of holding the court in the several counties in the Twenty-First Judicial Circuit.
By Mr. LOYD [H. R. 469] to authorize
By Mr. BEST [H. R. 470] to legalize the incorporation of certain towns in Indiana.
By Mr. BEST [H. 471] to legalize the appointment of public guardians, etc
By Mr. HARRELL [H. R. 472] to authorize County Commissioners to construct gravel and macadamized roads free.
By Mr. SEARS [H. R. 473] to appropriate $1,500 in payment of a claim held by the State Geologist against the State of Indiana.
By Mr. TIMMONS [H. R. 474] to authorize the recording of the copy of wills, etc.
By Mr. TAYLOR [H. R. 475] to amend an act providing for the settlement of decedents' estates.
By Mr TAYLOR [H. R. 476] to compel Railroad Companies to make convenient crossings on and over their railroads in certain cases.
By Mr. TAYLOR [H. R. 477] to require certain State property to be insured against loss by fire.
By Mr. BROWNLEE [H. R. 478] to authorize and empower Commissioners to pay interest on bonds.
Then came an adjournment till Monday at 2 o'clock p. m.
Mr. Williams' bill [H. R. 146] to fix the rate of interest at 6 per cent, being under consideration -
Mr. MOODY said: I am opposed to this bill, and earnestly appeal to gentlemen on this
floor not to disturb the present law on the question of interest. I do not believe, as some
gentlemen insist, that legislation on this question will be in the interest of the debtor
class. I do not loan money, but unfortunately have always borrowed. Do gentlemen believe
that if we enact a law reducing the legal rate of interest to 6 percent., I or any other
man can more easily procure money wherewith to remove the mortgage from our little homes?
No, gentlemen, a greater delusion was never entertained by man, than to suppose you can
materially assist the poor man by enactments reducing the legal rate of interest. If such
results would follow in the pathway of such legislation, then why not make the law 5 per
cent? Mr Speaker, I believe that legislation on this question
Mr. FRENCH: I understood the gentleman from Hancock (Mr. Gooding) to say that members representing the people would vote for 6 per cent. Then I suppose if a member thought best to vote against this bill he don't represent the people. Now sir, I believe I am as well intended to represent the people as the gentleman, but I don't harp a great deal about it. The price of money is regulated by the supply and demand. The flow of money is not regulated by law. No man will deny that money, like water, will seek its level. It always seeks the best market. Do you suppose that voting for or against this bill will be any inducement for capitalists to bring money here and put it upon the market? I shall vote against the bill.
Mr. GORDON: I don't know whether you can get money at 3, 5 or 8 per cent, nor I don't care. It has nothing to do with this question. It has no particular bearing on this question. I think this ought to be entitled, "A law to confiscate property." Here is a man that has a mortgage on his farm, and insurance companies don't make loans for so long a time that they never fall due. Here is a man that has a loan of several thousand dollars bearing 6 per cent. interest, and when it becomes due they would not renew it at 6 per cent; it must be raised to 8. I do not believe in trying to humbug the people and at the same time do them a great injury. Suppose all the debts in the city of Indianapolis had to be paid under such a bill. What would be the condition of business? What would be the result if the debts in the city of Indianapolis would have to be paid to the foreign insurance companies and foreign loan companies under this bill? I think there is no demand for this law by the people. I will vote against the bill. I should vote against it if it was at 7 per cent.
Mr. HANLON made an ineffectual demand for the previous question.
Mr. WILSON: I should think myself recreant to my constituents if I did not say just a few words on this subject. On behalf of the farmers of my own county I would say there are many of them who have their farms shingled with mortgages. These mortgages are falling due every day. On these is interest at six, seven and eight per cent. They have no money to pay these mortgages when they become due, and if they can not renew them the mortgages must be foreclosed. I hope the bill will not become a law.
Pending this discussion the House adjourned.
Mr. McINTOSH offered a resolution directing the
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph: I hope that this resolution will not pass. It proposes to give an expression of this Senate upon the Circuit Court drainage law. The experience in our part of the State is that this is the most effective and the most economical drainage law that we have ever had. Under its provisions economical and effective work has been done, and I have reason to suppose that in both of the counties that I represent, as well as in all counties where drainage is desirable, it would be regarded as a great calamity if this law were repealed. In my counties I understand it has steadily grown in favor. We have had able and judicious commissioners and if all counties will see that they have such, I think opposition to the bill will cease.
Mr. SELLERS did not think this resolution should be passed. So important a matter should not be considered in the absence of so many Senators. He moved it be made a special order for 2 o'clock Thursday.
The motion was agreed to.
Messers. May, Willard, Duncan of Brown, Campbell of St. Joseph, and Huston were appointed a special committee to investigate certain newspaper charges that there are now eighteen more persons employed by the officers than the law authorises, and one of these has already drawn more than his pay for the entire session.
The joint resolution [H. R. 1] proposing an amendment to the State Constitution by declaring that County Clerks, Auditors, Treasurers, Sheriffs, Coroners, and Surveyors shall be elected for a term of four years and eligible to but four years in a term of eight years, coming up with a committee amendment that the terms of such officers shall commence on the first day of January after their election, and excepting Surveyors from the restriction—
Mr. CAMPBELL of Hendricks: The committee thought best to except Surveyors from the restrictions of a four year term because in many counties there is a difficulty in obtaining good and well qualified Surveyors.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph, could see no reason why Clerks, Treasurers and Sheriffs should not hold office four years the same as Auditors, Recorders, and perhaps others. Neither could he conceive why the simple fact of a man having had such an office for four years should be a reason—and the only reason—to preclude such an one from holding that office another four years if the people so desire. If this resolution must pass as it is the proposed amendment excluding the Surveyor from re-election is desirable. He moved to amend by striking out the restriction against re-election.
Mr. FOULKE opposed this amendment. Wherever there is an office elected at stated terms the motive to secure a re-election at all hazards should be removed.
Mr. WINTER: Such an amendment would be in contravention of a constitutional restriction that these officers shall not serve more than eight years in a term of twelve.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks, thought the constitutional restriction a wise one to prevent scheming for re-election.
The amendment (Mr. Campbell's) was rejected.
Mr. MACY offered an amendment that appointees shall hold only till the January next succeeding a general election.
It was agreed to.
Mr. SELLERS moved to exempt, from this proposed prohibition the Clerk as well as the Surveyor. There is as much difficulty in finding efficient Clerks well as Surveyors.
Mr. FAULKNER opposed that amendment. The object of the resolution is to prevent office-holders from using their offices to secure a re-election. They can so manipulate things as to re-elect themselves whether the people want them or not.
The amendment was rejected.
The committee amendments were adopted
The joint resolution was ordered engrossed.
Mr. FOWLER called up the special order, being his resolution offered Saturday afternoon. He said: There seems to be an imperative necessity for some action as this. He hoped the resolution would pass, but would not detain the Senate by advocating it.
Mr. WINTER moved to amend the resolution by inserting after the word "State" these words: "And providing for grading the salaries of the Judges according to the population of the circuits and the services required."
The amendment was agreed to.
The resolution as amended was adopted.
Mr. Macy's bill [S. 89] to amend Sections 5, 825 and 5,830 of the code, coming up as a special order for this hour, Mr. M explained its provisions. It proposes, among other things, to increase the bond of the Clerk, which is ridiculously small, from $2,000 to $10,000.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks, read the statute governing the Clerks of the Circuit Courts in keeping of amounts of moneys received for fees. If this is a good law for Clerks of Circuit Courts it would be a good law for Clerks of the Supreme Court, which this bill proposes. This bill ought to pass because the law should apply to Clerks of both courts.
Mr. BAILEY thought this bill of sufficient demand the attention of every Senator. It is a vicious and unfair measure. It proposes to throw open to the public the office of the Supreme Court, when Clerks and Sheriffs of counties are the only parties interested. It would open to the public the books of the Clerk, so that all classes of ferrets and shysters can go in that office and run down any fees that may be lying there uncalled for. A man living in Randolph County has a power of attorney from 800 men, authorizing him to go into the Supreme Court Clerk's office and collect such fees, if any, as may be due them. There is no reason for the passage of a law to make the Clerk or his deputy a criminal, if he should refuse to drop his business at any time to allow a ferret to come in and overhaul his books. Then, to make the record proposed in this law would cost this Clerk several thousand dollars. We ought not to pass a law simply to give power to one man to reap a rich harvest. He moved to indefinitely postpone the bill.
Mr. WINTER did not know till this bill came up there was such a weak place in the law as to allow a public officer to come into possession and claim as individual property certain fees, and carry them away upon going out of office. This bill proposes to cure this defect. Then there is no law requiring the Clerk of the Supreme Court to keep a record of fees paid in. The books ought to be a public record.
Mr. McINTOSH stated that every member of the committee who considered this was in favor of its passage. He hoped the bill will not be indefinitely postponed.
Mr. SELLERS thought the bill, S. 125, which requires the Clerk of the Supreme Court to keep a public record in which will be kept a register of these fees, and turn them over to his successor, is sufficient legislation in this direction. He favored the indefinite postponement of this bill.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings, understood this bill to be in the interest of a job or a class of fellows who are in a close co-operation to ferret out some dead fees in the office of the Supreme Court Clerk. In all courts, under the present machinery, any citizen can get his fees without employing a ferret. There are no fees belonging to anybody except two classes - those paid in for transcript of record, and where a writ issues from the Supreme Court to the Sheriff of any county and the Sheriff makes the service. The Sheriff in the court below keeps a record of his own cost, and does not need a ferret. This bill proposes to make the Clerk go to the expense of $5,000 to make a record, going back so many years, in order that some fellow may find out how much the Clerk of the Supreme Court makes out of his office.
The present statute covers all that should be required of this or any other public officer in this respect. The presumption is that every officer performs his duties until the contrary is made to appear. We should not cast reproach upon them.
Mr. WILLARD: The Clerk of the Supreme Court has no collection of costs, but the Sheriff,
who is a responsible officer, filing a bond in a large sum. The Senator from Jennings has
shown the law, as at present, is ample. This bill seems to be the offspring of a desire on
the part of the Republicans to cut down and absolutely ruin every office in Indiana, seeing
they are barred out for a long time. Another purpose has been re-
He moved the previous question.
The demand was not seconded by the Senate
Mr. FOULKE: This bill contemplates the keeping of a record from and after its passage only. It will cost nothing for the Clerk of the Supreme Court to open his books. Fair dealing is not afraid of the day light. The people of the State should know how much any public officer obtains by the way of fees or otherwise as compensation. The Clerk of the Supreme Court will not let it be known what fees are in his possession. There is no danger of a bill which simply provides that the books of the Clerk of the Supreme Court shall be thrown open. There is no valid reason why these records should made the public property of every citizen in the State
Mr. FOWLER: This bill has been misrepresented or misunderstood. If this bill is in the interest of a job he favored the job. He could see no job in it, however. Every man who assists in the support of a public office or public officer should have the privilege of examining the records of such office. This bill only requires the keeping of a record of fees after its passage. It is a good bill and ought to pass.
Mr. MAGEE had but just read the bill, but saw nothing wrong in it. The Clerk is not here resisting this bill nor asking friends to. He was for the bill with proper restrictions.
Mr. Macy understands the Clerk now keeps just such a record as the bill requires.
Mr. BAILEY withdrew his motion to indefinitely postpone.
On motion by Mr. MAGEE the bill was referred to a special committee of three with instructions to report tomorrow at 2 p.m.
On motion by Mr JOHNSON, of Tippecanoe, the bill [H. R. 15] - see page 115] to appriate $40,000 to Purdue University, was read the third time. He was physically unable to raise his voice in such a manner as he desired in favor of this bill. He had not the strength to go into the details of the present management, but spoke a few words in favor of the immediate passage of the bill, substantially as follows:
Mr. PRESIDENT - This appropriation was made two years ago by the General Assembly, butt failed on account of the failure of the appropriation bill, in which it had been embodied. After Purdue University had thus, by a mere technicality, and against the expressed opinion of the State, been deprived of its legitimate support, the question arose, what was to be done? The endowment fund granted by the General Governrment is a conditional one, and reverts to the United States Government of the State of Indiana fails to maintain the University. If Purdue on amount of the temporary absence of funds had closed its doors, that fund would have been forfeited, and Indiana would have lost one of her great educational institutions. In this predicament a number of patriotic citizens of wealth and influence came to the assistance of the University, and through their personal efforts secured the means to save Purdue to the State. For these efforts these men are entitled to the gratitude of the State of Indiana, because they were inspired by the unselfish and noble motives, prompted by the desire to do an act of justice and merit, and trusting to the honor and good faith of the state, which, through its General Assembly, had already declared for the appropriation, to be reimbursed for the assistance they had rendered.
It is this appropriation of two years ago which, then, by a decided majority of the Senate and the House was deemed requisite for the success of Purdue University, which I ask the Senate to allow without further delay. Certainly the Senate can not perform a fairer, juster and more meritorious act, for in doing so the Senate at once expresses its will to sustain the educational interests of the State, and it redeems an obligation for which, so to say, the honor of the State stands pledged.
Two years ago a certain opposition was made to this appropriation on account of a certain Greek fraternity rule which had been introduced and which was highly objectionable to some Senators. This rule has not been in practical operation for years and the University is now under the management of one of the best practical educators in the West, Professor Smart. It is for this Senate now to give Mr. Smart such a support as will enable him really to make Purdue University what we all want it to be, a pride to the whole State of Indiana. If it can be done, it will be done by President Smart. Let not a dissenting voice be heard against this bill.
The bill finally passed the Senate by yeas 34, nays 6
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks, said: I have persistently opposed the establishment of a college of that kind at the expense of the people of the State as going beyond the limit of education by taxation; and having voted against the original bill creating this university, I now vote "no."
Mr. FOULKE, in explanation of his vote, said: I was recently at Purdue University, and made a thorough inspection of this college with one or more of the professors. I am satisfied it is doing a great and a good work, therefore I vote "aye."
Mr. FOWLER, when his name was called, said: In explanation of my vote I want to read an extract from a speech of a Senator on this floor two years ago. He lives in the neighborhood of this university, and I read it in explanation of my vote [Reads Mr. Magee"s remarks, bottom of first column, page 217, Brevier Reports, volume XXI] On that information I vote "no."
Mr. THOMPSON said: I am pleased with a great many of the benevolent institutions of this State, but I have visited none that gave me such an exalted idea of the proper mode of instruction as Purdue University did. It draws the student from his books sufficiently to give him practical ideas of life, and at the same time turns him out a scientific gentleman. I saw perhaps fifty young ladies carving wood - opening out avenues to ladies, and giving them not only a scientific, but a mechanical education. I vote "aye."
The vote was then announced as above, and then the Senate adjourned.
Mr. Pleasant's bill [H. R. 64] concerning the duties of County Superintendents, comming up on the second reading -
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: I believe this is the bill said to render County Superintendents more efficient; however, I move that the bill be indefinitely postponed.
Mr. PLEASANTS: The bill will rectify a gross imposition practiced by County Superintendents. By its provisions, instead of a County Superintendent continually visiting schools as he may please, in order to put in time and draw his salary, such visits are put into the hands of and curtailed by Township Trustees. A great many schools need no visiting at all
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: There are two reasons, especially, why this bill should not pass. It provides that the County Superintendent shall visit every school a half day of each year. Taking my county as sample, you would be compelled to extend the calendar to provide for it. You might as well strike down our whole school system as to bind it as this bill will do.
Mr. LOYD: County Superintendents are allowed by law $4 per day for days actually employed, but all of them draw full compensation for every working day in the year. The Superintendent in our county draws per annum $1,300, and the school has only a five-months term per year. These salaries keep increasing. It is not, I say, the fault of the County Superintendents that they draw a salary for every working day in the year, but the fault of the law.
Mr. CORY: This is a very important question and should be looked at calmly and acted upon deliberately. The bill is a proposition to strike out of existence the office of County Superintendent virtually, I say, to destroy it. The bill provides that County Superintendents shall visit schools only when invited by Township Trustees. Now, many of the Township Trustees are arrayed against the office of County Superintendent, and they would not permit such officers to visit the schools under their jurisdiction. The gentlemen of this House should look well before they strike this fatal blow at our Public School system. Though there may be but five months school term in a year, yet the Superintendent has other duties, and many of them to perform. He has those duties that the law provides - nothing more, nothing less. This effort to stab our school system should be driven from this hall at once.
Mr. BROWNING: I sincerely hope that the motion to indefinitely postpone the bill will prevail. Last week some on the floor of this House contended that the Township Trustees were not competent to elect the County School Superintendents - that they should be selected by the State Board of Education. Now they come at us with the proposition to have these Trustees stand over and guard the Superintendents. If you want to repeal the law and destroy the office come out boldly and say so.
Mr. PATTEN: The idea of a man standing on the floor of this House and talking about stabbing our public school system is humbug. It certainly is not the intention of the law-makers or the taxpayers to have this law to create an office for somebody. The laws are to advance the education of the children. Twelve years ago we got along well enough with the plain School Examiner. Now we have Boards of Education, Trustees and a County School Superintendent. And this Superintendent rides around and draws his $4 per day for riding in his buggy or a sleigh. Gentle men, it is robbery - nothing less. The rich can send their children to graded schools, but the poor must be content with the public schools. And would it not be better for this money - this $4 per day - to be expended in another direction? Apply it where it will benefit the children; give them nine months school in the year instead of five months. The County Superintendents of this State cost on an average of $1,200 each.
Mr. MOODY: I have the figures to show that the average is not $400 each per year.
Mr. PATTEN: Even that is too much for the good they do.
Mr. CORY: Does the gentleman know that the County Superintendent is not paid out of the tuition fund, and therefore the money paid them could not be used in extending or lengthening the terms of school?
Mr. PATTEN: I know that, but it comes off the tax-ridden people all the same. Regard the
people at home a
Mr. FRENCH: When the gentleman from Sullivan (Mr. Patten) throws out such insinuations
concerning the office of County Superintendent, he throws the insinuations at the opinions
of such men as Milton B. Hopkins, John M. Boss, James H. Smart and other distinguished
educators. The County Superintendent is as needful now as ever. His enemies have come here
ever since the office was established to fight it, but they have been defeated every time
and will be this time. If any man does not wish to trust the County Superintendent as to
the amount of labor he performs, let him go home and call on the County Commissioners of
his county. They audit the bills of the Superintendent and allow them. Section 4,129 of the
code says what the duties of the Superintendent are, and the law further says that the
Commissioners shall state the number of days or the limit of the Superintendent's
Mr. WILLIAMS made an ineffectual motion - yeas 35, nays 38 - to lay on the table the motion to indefinitely postpone.
The motion to postpone was agreed to by yeas 39, nays 35.
Mr. Staley's bill [H. R. 121] to provide a fund for the holding of teachers' institutes, coming up on the second reading -
Mr. PLEASANTS: I move to strike out the enacting clause.
Mr. STALEY: I sincerely hope this motion will not prevail. The bill proposes that the sum of $50 shall be furnished to the County Superintendent by the county for the purpose of assisting in paying the expense of an institute which shall be at least a five days' session, and further that a very small fee shall be charged the applicants for teachers' license who apply for examination for such license, the same to be put into a fund which shall be held to pay institute expenses. There institutes should and will, if given an opportunity, last about two weeks. The cost for session like this is about $150 in anything like a good institute. A Superintendent is not going to hold an institute and bear the expense himself for fun. As it is now, with these examinations free, a large number attend Saturday after Saturday, costing the county a large sum of money, for the examination or grading of their papers takes the time of the Superintendent at $4 per day. Applicants appear again and again for merely the trial - not expecting to teach. A small charge for examination will have a tendency to decrease the number of applicatns, lessen the work and the expense of the Superintendent's office, besides creating a swelling fund for the payment of institute expenses.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: In the first place the bill aims to lessen the expenses County Superintendents by taxing those who apply only for fun or mere trial. These take as much time as any. Instead of Tippecanoe County having 600 applicants it will have no more than 400.
Mr. PLEASANTS: My objection to the bill is that the proposed plan to raise an institute fund does not lessen the $4 per day salary of the County Superintendent. He might continue the institute on and on, in order to draw, his per diem.
Mr. SMITH: He would hardly do that, when if he were disposed to draw $4 for every day, he might, instead of doing the hard work of an institute go on a visit to some small school.
Mr. LOYD: I would like to ask the author of the bill this: Does the bill in any way increase the per diem of the County Superintendant?
Mr. STALEY: Not in the least. It is to provide an institute for the teachers - that's all.
Mr. FRENCH: I do not favor the proposition in the bill to tax teachers for library to be held by the Gounty Superintendent. I prefer to invest my money in books on my home shelf, and not invest in one twenty or thirty miles away where it do me no good. The bill should be amended as to that
On motion by Mr. STALEY, the bill was recommitted to the
The House adjourned.
Mr. Smith's of Delaware, bill [S. 290] for the investment in interest bearing bonds or securities of the State of the 10 per cent, left on the work done and material accepted upon the new State-house, was read the second time - being the special order for this hour.
Mr. SMITH: In 1878 the State-house Commissioners under the law of 1877 contracted for the completion of the new State-home, and it was agreed that 10 per cent. of money due should be retained in the State Treasury as a guarantee that the contract would be carried out. There is now of that fund about $102,000. In case of a failure on the part of the contractors to carry out their agreement this fund belongs to the State. These moneys lie idle and there is a necessity for its use by the State just now. The bill also provides whenever in the future this amount shall reach $5,000 it is to be likewise invested, and it accumulates at the rate of about $2,000 per month. The contractors have lost money and will probably lose more, but the Commissioners say they are living up strictly and literally to their contracts. The bill will result to the benefit of the contractors or of the State and he hoped it would pass. It is universally approved
Mr. WILLARD saw no objection to the bill. It is proper that the contractors should enjoy the interest to be derived thereupon if they fulfill their contract. He moved to amend by striking out the word "par," and insert in lieu the words "at the lowest market rate, not less than par." The State should have the benefit of any rate above par that could be obtained.
Mr. FOWLER hoped the bill will not pass. Its title should be "a bill to grant the contractor more pay." He opposed the State laying its hand on the State-house contract in any manner, way or form. This is like the same old bill of two years ago, which proposed to give these contractors $300,000 more than their contract calls for. It is said they have lost money. Many contractors lose money, notwithstanding which it is their duty to faithfully carry out their contract. Not one dollar of the $102,000 the Senator from Delaware refers to is in the State Treasury, and never was. It was not the intention that 10 per cent. retained should be in the Treasury. Who is asking this to be done? The proposition is unfair to tax the people of the State on this $100,000 and $5,000 in additional as fast as it accrues, in order to pay the interest thus secured, over to these contractors, who have no right to it than anyone else. Why should they ask to be voted an additional bonus for doing what they have contracted and agreed to do? This is a bad bill. It is a proposition to vote these contractors a bonus over and above their contract price for building the State-house.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings, was at first inclined to believe this bill was a good thing -
believing it to be a proposition to take money lying idle and loan it to the State - but on
investigation soon arrived at a different conclusion. The bill proposes to loan 10 per
cent. of the cost of the State house, which exists only in the credit of the State. There
is no such fund anywhere. There never has been an appropriation made ex-
Mr. SMITH, of Delaware: That fund is somewhere, either deposited to the credit of the State or elsewhere in the hands of the Treasurer of State. He made the statement upon his own personal legitimate conclusion. It it infinitely better for this investment to be made than to have this large museum in the hands of the party it now is, subject to loss.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks: There are different statements made in regard to this matter. If there is in the Treasury a ten per cent. fund then the passage of this bill is merely supplying an omission in the original contract. It would be saying the contract should have read: The contractors would have the withheld ten per cent. with interest. If the contractors have earned the money and the money is lying idle, he greatly preferred the contractors should have the interest on it in case they completed their contract.
Mr. WILLARD read from the State-house contract and declared the money ought to be in the Treasury.
Mr. MAY preferred all investigations in regard to this matter should be made before the bill is ordered to the engrossment.
Mr. FOWLER also opposed its engrossment.
Mr. MAGEE did not suppose there would be much, if any, objection to this bill, it being a proposition that in one case would accrue to the benefit of the contractors, and in the other case to the benefit of the State. This bill is to fund and money already earned, the accrued interest thereon to go to the contractors if they complete the building according to their agreement, otherwise it accrues to the benefit of the State. The State House Commissioners suggested this bill, and he saw no valid objection to it. There is no authority of law to collect but 90 per cent of the State-house levy. These contractors have earned that 10 per cent - it is theirs absolutely, and why should they not have interest upon it? They have lost $300,000, and there is no bill here to reimburse them, nor will there be. This 10 per own per cent. has been collected and paid into the Treasury, as can be seen by referring to page eighty-five of the report of the State house Commissioners. To whom does it belong? The contractors have advanced this money, and it belongs to them in the eye of the law.
Mr. CAMPBELL of Hendricks, moved that the bill be referred to a select Committee of Three, with power to send for persons and papers, and ascertain as to whether or not this 10 per cent. is in the State Treasury.
The Presiding Officer [Mr. Willard in the chair] ruled it out of order.
Mr. CAMPBELL of St. Joseph, with great reluctance opposed any measure advocated by his respected seat mate (Mr. Smith). If this money were lying in the Treasury, he should favor this bill as a matter that would be fair either to the State or to the contractors. There is no money comes into the Treasury for State-house purposes except through the special levy therefor. The report of the committee would seem to indicate the money is in the Treasury, but it simply means this is due the contractors, entitled to be drawn when the work is done the amount stated $98,000, but the Auditor's report shows there is but $64,000, and these are the only books we have to go by. This $64,000 is all that there is in the Treasury for current expenses, and 10 per cent. contemplated in the bill is not yet collected. To the end we may have further knowledge on this matter. I move it be made a special order for Thursday at 10 o'clock.
Mr. SELLERS opposed the mmotion, and predicated his opposition to the bill on the wording of the contract itself. Under that contract not a dollar of this 10 per cent. is due till the entire contract is completed and the State house accepted. The 10 per cent. is not the money of the contractors, but the money of the State, any interest that may be given them would be but a present - a bonus - to the contractors. Senators who advocate this bill certainly do so under a misapprehension.
Mr. ADKISON two years ago was a member of the committee which investigated this State house matter. Then there was no question that this 10 per cent. fund was in the State Treasury in cash. Two years have since elapsed and larger sums have been expended than in any other two years of the construction of the State house. He moved to amend the motion for an investigation by making the committee 3 with instructions to report the condition of this fund.
Mr. MAY. This contract was made under the law. This money is only there conditionally, and in the event of the contractors failing, the money will never be in the Treasury. Two years ago it was the policy of the Legislature to let this new State House matter severely alone, and that policy ought now to be pursued. Any legislation, however trivial it may seem, might interfere with the satisfactory progress now being made. He opposed this bill as a matter of policy.
Mr. WILLARD: As Chairman of the
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings, made an ineffectual motion to recommit the bill to the
The motion for a select committee of three was rejected.
Mr. WILLARD moved to recommit the bill to the
The President pro tem. (Mr. Magee) announced a special order being Mr. Foulke's bill [S. 1 - see page 18] to regulate and improve the civil service of the State - similar to the New York and national civil service reform laws.
Mr. FOULKE spoke in favor of his bill a half hour before the recess for dinner and an hour and a half after. The wisdom of civil service reform is demonstrated not merely by reason, but by experience and historic fact. It is no longer an experiment. It has been tried, and is everywhere successful. Its success has been tested, not during a month or a year, but during a long series of years; not in one form of government alone, but by the governments of many of the most civilized communities in existence. It is self evident that the right of appointment to office is a trust; that the duty is to appoint the man best qualified for the office - the ones who will best serve the people in his official capacity. The notion that any man or party has a right to an office is erroneous. The right is in the whole people to have the best servants; the right is in the taxpayer to have the best work performed for the money which he is required to pay for it. It is just much a crime in principle to appoint to office one unfit to perform its duties, on account of personal or party services, as to devote the public money to personal or campaign uses. If there be any claim to office by any person it is the claim of the fittest person to hold it solely on account of his fitness. If these conclusions are correct, the only remaining question is: "By what system of general rules can the fitness of men for office be best determined?"
When he concluded -
The bill was ordered engrossed by yeas 24, nays 18.
Mr. Howard's bill [S. 88 - see page 176] coming up as a special order, on motion by Mr. Hilligass, Section 58 was amended by additional guards as to the authorities of militia in case of disturbances.
Mr. Hilligass moved to amend Section 73 so that there shall be an annual appropriation not exceeding $10,000 a year for uniforms, $12 to each militiaman, and $10,000 for a military fund - this as a substitute for a pending motion to strike out this section, made when the bill was last under consideration.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings: There is no more difference between this substitute and Section
73 than there is between tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee. This substitute is an appropriation
of $10,000 a year for clothes, a new suit for each militiamen every three years, in the
first division, and the second division is called section 74 and appropriates $10,000 a
year for a
Mr. HILLIGASS: These amendments propose to make specific appropriations for the militia. The original section proposed $20,000 a year. This bill is not advocated in the interest of one class against another. Capital and labor must alike be protected. It is one of the highest prerogatives of a legislative body to furnish means for the protection of her citizens against the irresponsible foreign element having no interest in our government. It is interesting to note what other States are doing for their militia. The following are some of the States making appropriations: Maine, $16,000; New Hampshire $28,000; Massachusetts, $150,000; Rhode Islanad, $23,000; Connecticut, $80,000; New York, $350 000; Pennsylvania, $220,000; Louisiana, $27,500; Kentucky, $10,000; Ohio, $60,000; Illinois, $150,000; Michigan, $57,000; California, $67,000.
Mr. MAGEE had made a rule to follow the recommendation of a committee as to the adoption of a bill or resolution. He hoped the day would never come when the unarmed citizen would be arrayed against the militia; but the fact stares us in the face that such a state of facts has taken place. It is the bane of our politics to array one class of men against another. This question, as all others, should be discussed above the question of class. He could see no harms in this bill. Is is the safety of the country to have a well-disciplined militia. If this amendment is not made the bill will be practically useless. If the time should come when the militia is needed, it will be needed at once, and needed badly. The bill ought to pass. This State, the richest in the Union according to area and population, by this bill would give but $20 000 a year to the support of her militia. If we have a militia we must appropriate money to carry it on. The oldest and best disciplined company in the State is at Logansport, kept up by the public spirited citizens
Mr. SMITH, of Jay, favored a military law for the regulation of the militia of the State,
but he opposed the amendment as in language not easily understood. It would take the mind
of Judge Story to tell what the proposed Section 73 means. He agreed
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings: The object of this bill is to create a paid militia in the State for the purposes named. He hoped the Senate would refuse to appropriate a dollar; such an appropriation can not be justified before the constituents of any member
Mr. HILLIGASS demanded the previous question.
The demand was seconded, by the Senate, and under its operations the first division of the proposed amendment - section 73, to appropriate a sum sufficient to pay $12 once in three years to each active militiaman, not exceeding $10 000 per year - was agreed to, by yeas 28, nays-11
The second division - section 74, to appropriate the further sum of $10,000 per annum to defray expenses of militia encampments - was also agreed to, by yeas 22, nays 18.
The bill was ordered engrossed, by yeas 26, nays 14.
The Senate then adjourned.
On motion, the House resolved itself into a
Mr. ENGLE moved to amend Section 2 of the bill by striking out the words "two or more" in the first line and substituting the word "one." Very often but two men are directly interested in the ditch, which will, however, be of public utility, and if it would take two or more to start proceedings for a ditch, a case like that just stated could not be reached. One man should have power to move for a ditch in this instance.
Mr. STALEY: I think with a few amendments this law is what our people need and want. Drainage laws are too valuable to be neglected or thrown aside. One man should have the power to move for a ditch in cases like this.
Mr. SAYRE: I think that the "one man power" is dangerous in cases where a great many are affected. It should read "two or more land owners," or "50 per cent. or more of such land owners.' I hope the section will remain just as it is, unless some better amendment than the one proposed is found.
Mr. DUNN: It makes no difference whether one, two or more land owners start the machinery in motion. Section 3 of that bill provides that a majority of the land owners shall go before the court, and that the same shall decide from their testismony.
Mr. McHENRY: This bill will be improvement on the old law. An amendment should be made curtailing remonstrances after the ditch has been ordered.
Mr. SMITH of Tippecanoe: The gentleman from Allen (Mr. McHenry) will find further in the bill a remedy for the evil he fears. I have no personal grievance in this bill. My ditch is done. But I look to the views of the people over the State. I believe that one man should not be given the power, but that it should be 50 per cent. or more of the land owners.
Mr. BROWNLEE: My notion is the petition should be signed by two or three more - I would rather it were twenty - but two will do, for lands not named in the petition will be affected. This section should stand. The only men who can remonstrate are those not named in the petition, but reported by the Drainage Commissioners.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. STALEY: I move to amend as follows: Add to Section 2 the following: "In case there are but two land-owners affected, then one shall be sufficient to petition."
The amendment was agreed to
Mr. TAYLOR moved to amend Section 3 as that, instead of notices being sent to the postoffice address of such owners, they shall be notified by summons. He said: I am opposed to all laws that may make it possible to levy upon any man's property without due course of law. There is only one law of this kind now - the highway law.
Mr. SMITH, of Warrick: I hope that the amendment of the gentleman from Davies (Mr.
Taylor) will not prevail. This law says that every land-owner shall be notified none can be
harmed by it. The amendment will double the costs of the ditch. If this amendment is tacked
on, I shall be compelled to vote
Mr. MOCK, of Wells: If this amendment is attached, I shall have to vote against the bill.
On motion, the
The bill [S. 115] to legalize the corporation of the town of New Haven, Allen County, was read the third time, and passed - yeas 76, nays 1.
The bill [S. 154] to legalize the incorporation of the town of Alamo, Montgomery
The bill [S. 182] to abolish the offices of City Assessor and Treasurer in cities of over 10,000 being read the third time -
Mr. PENDLETON: This is no political measure. Both of the conventions of Marion County which nominated the candidates to the Legislature last fall, pledged themselves to this measure. It looks especially to Indianapolis. In the offices which the bill designs to abolish, one is a Republican and the other is a Democrat. The bill will not legislate them out of office, but at the expiration of their terms the offices are done away with. I want it said, too, that there are five men in Marion County who will do right, and not be influenced by a corrupt and outrageous lobby.
Mr. DONHOST: It is not a political measure, and we have pledged our constituents to vote for the measure.
Mr. JAMISON: It is not a political measure, and it can do no harm. On the other hand it will be beneficial to the county, the city and the taxpayer. It will greatly reduce expenses.
Mr. MOCK: It should certainly pass. It is a move in exactly the proper direction.
The bill passed by yeas 89, nays 2.
Mr. Pendleton's bill [H. R. 56] to relieve Jesse A. Avery and others Township Trustee, who lost money by the failure of certain Indianapolis banks, was read the third time.
Mr. PENDLETON: Some have said that to pass this bill will be to establish a bad precedent. Had this loss come to any of these trustees through any negligence of their own or through any speculation, it would not be the just thing for us to release them. But those Indianapolis banks where the money was deposited looked to us all sound. It would be only an act of charity and right for us to relieve these trustees. The night before the suspension of the banks everyone thought that the banks were among the strongest. The trustees invested or placed their money at the very place which they thought was the safest. In the acts of 1881 we find a case precisely parallel with this; in 1883 we find another. The Constitution. the Supreme Court and the Speaker of the HOuse have held the justice of parallel cases.
Mr. BROWNLEE: I said some time ago that this act would be unconstitutional. I understand that in these cases there are judgments already rendered against some of them. I need not say to you that the judgments give vested rights that this Legislature or no other body has the right to destroy or curtail. I understand that there are some of these cases where judgments are not given. Here is where I make my point. This confirms the contract - if good in one case it is good in another. The banks were paving interest on this money deposited there and that is the reason that such funds were taken there. I do not care to go home and by my vote say to the trustees of our county that they can invest the people's money as they please - in park, in wheat margins, or any other avenue of trade. On the contrary. I want them to understand that they and their securities must be good for the money. I do not want them to think that they can lose the money and then that I will go to the Legislature and have them released as others have been.
Mr. GOODING: I did not intend to say another word on this bill, but the opposition remains persistent. It seems to have no charity for the unfortunate. The gentleman who just preceded me (Mr. Brownlee) seems to doubt the power of the Legislature to release these men. But against his opinion is the opinions of the highest courts of Indiana and that of preceding Legislatures. He finds fault with the trustees for putting this money in banks. Would they have kept it at home to be taken by robbers? Then he would have said that they were negligent, that they should have placed their money in the banks as business men do. The office of Township Trustee is not a paying one. And if a man takes it, and if the funds should by accident be lost, will his neighbors or the Legislature turn against him? Suppose the lightning from Heaven should destroy his home and the funds, would you take the trustee's stock or his all for the lost money? No one would think of that but the honorable gentleman who has just preceded me.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: This question of constitutionality can be settled in a word. The highest courts of the country sustain bankrupt laws, and bankrupt laws overthrow contracts entered into. Our hearts, of course, should not be our whole lives, but we should temper our acts with mercy. Two years ago we relieved a Township Trustee and a County Treasurer. I did not know the politics of these men; I merely inquired into the necessities of the case and voted for their relief. I have investigated this case, believing that we should be humane and that they were faultless, I shall vote for the bill.
Mr. CORY: From the interest manifested by certain parties here, one would be led to
suppose that a matter of very great importance is to be passed upon; that there will be
great loss and actual suffering unless by act of the Legislature relief is granted. What
are the facts? Certain Trustees of Marion County deposited money in Indianapolis banks that
failed. The most that is claimed is that some of them have been compelled to mortgage their
farms to obtain the money to pay these losses. Gentlemen claim that it would be an act of
charity to pass this bill, which authorizes the levying of a tax in each township to
reimburse the Trustee. If the loss to a Trustee is $2,000, backed by the action of the
Assem-
The bill passed by yeas 55, nays 34.
Mr. Barnes" bill [H. R. 119] in relation to the removal of obstructions from public highways was read the third time and passed by yeas 68, nays 12.
Mr. Barr's bill [H. R. 137] to prohibit the sale of dangerous toys was read the third time and passed by yeas 59, nays 23.
Mr. Pleasants' bill [H. R 162] to amend Section 79 of the common school law was read the third time, but failed to pass by yeas 20, nays 65.
The House then adjourned.
Mr. Winter's bill [S. 11] concerning the tax that may be levied by County Boards where the population is over 25,000 - applicable only to Marion County, it was said by Mr. Overstreet - was read the third time and passed by yeas 35, nays 3.
Mr. Duncan's, of Brown, bill [S. 61] intended to restore regularity of a three years' term of County Commissioners, to provide a method for calculating the terms and to prevent litigation, was read the third time and passed by yeas 37, nays 2.
Mr. Bryant's bill [S. 110 - see page 57] to protect the people from the compounding of medicine by incompetent persons, was read the third time -
Mr. McINTOSH was sorry to oppose this bill, because introduced by his colleague of years ago in the lower House. But it is the product of the State Pharmaceutical Association, and its object is to put the drug trade under the supervision and control of that association. It was printed by that association and distributed in this General Assembly. It requires the Governor to appoint just such a board as that association may direct. Before a man is permitted to continue in his business he will be required to obtain a license, such as the United States Government requires of certain trades. It only permits the sale of a few things, such as may be put up and labeled by a licensed pharmacautist.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings, moved to recommit the bill with instructions to amend by directing prosecutions to be made in the name of the State, not in the name of the people, as the bill reads.
This amendment was made by consent.
The bill failed to pass by yeas 18, nays 22.
Mr. Macy's bill [S. 125] to amend Sec. 1 of the act of March 5, 1883, concerning the paying over by officers of trust funds was read the third time and passed by yeas 32, nays 12.
Mr. MACY explaining: It is to cure a defect in the act which was intended to apply to all the officers, but only fixes a penalty as against Clerks, Treasurers and Sheriffs. This bill will make the law apply to all officers having the custody of trust funds.
The bill [H. 27] to amend Sec. 1,464 of the code in relation to the Justices of the
Peace, was read the second time and referred to the
The bill [H. R. 17] to legalize the appointment and acts of trustees in certain cases - when more than one has been made in cases of voluntary assignment, was read the second time, with committee amendments, which were concurred in.
The bill [H. R. 39 - see page 90] to authorize County Commissioners to make suitable appropriations for the education of pauper children was read the second time.
The bill [H. R. 49] to amend Sec. 740 of the act of April 7, 1881 - Sec. 1,240 of the code - concerning proceedings in civil cases, was read the second time.
The bill [H. R. 72] to amend Sec. 5,830 of the code, coming up on the second reading, two
reports from the
Mr. MACY said: It is substantially the Senate bill introduced by himself.
Mr. MAY: The committee was not full when the bill was considered, but he did not hear an objection to the majority report - four being present.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks, moved to substitute the minority for the majority report.
On motion by Mr. SELLERS it was laid on the table - yeas, 22; nays, 21.
Mr. Youche's bill [S. 12 - see page 18] was read the second time and ordered engrossed
Mr. Bailey's bill [S. 20 - see pages 37 and 167] coming up on the second reading, with a pending amendment to make the age fourteen instead of twelve.
The amendment was rejected - yeas, 16; nays, 26.
Mr. BAILEY moved to insert "thirteen" instead of fourteen as the limit of years under which no child shall be engaged.
This amendment was also rejected by yeas 20, nays 25.
Mr. FOULKE in explanation of his vote saying: I think the Democratic two third majority upon the floor of this Senate is entitled to the assistance of at least one or two Republicans in the able, earnest and disinterested efforts to prove to the people of Indiana that it meant what it said in its State platform; and if it can't prove it meant what it said, to help it come as nearly to what it said as possible; I am, therefore, in favor of the thirteen year limitation, and I vote "aye."
Mr. JOHNSON, of Tippecanoe: I desire to say in explanation that I voted in favor of the fourteen years old limitation, but that being out of the way, now I shall vote "aye" on this question.
Mr. McCullough, when his name was called, said: I desire to keep within the spirit of the Democratic platform. My friend, the Senator from Wayne (Mr. Foulke) has been reading Republican literature so long that he is unable to read aright a Democratic platform. So far as this legislation is intended to protect children from being employed in pursuits that are dangerous, or will cause them to be cruelly treated or overworked, that far I am in favor of the legislation. But the legislation must be on the ground of protection of the children, not on the ground of taking their labor out of competition with older persons. If it is put upon the ground of taking their labor out of competition with other persons, you might as well attempt to prevent all persons worth over $10,000 from engaging in certain employments. A proposition foreign to our institutions. Citizens of this country are supposed to be free and equal before the law. A monopoly ought not to be created or attempted by excluding from competition any class of persons. I think the age of twelve is the proper one to take the place of the restriction, and vote "no".
Mr. WILLARD, when his name was called, said: I think there can be no misapprehension as to what the Democratic platform says. It says distinctly [Reads.] I am distinctly in favor of that, no matter what the Republican party may have done, I am aware is has been false to every pledge for the last eighteen years, but that's no excuse for the Democratic party, when it came into power, to break pledges to the people it made to put it there. I voted to place that limit at fourteen years, just as the platform which we carried this State upon, and gained a two thirds majority in this Senate, says it should be: but I am not one of those who believe in "rule or ruin;" if I can't get all I want, I take the next best thing. I therefore vote, under protest, for thirteen years because I can't get fourteen. I vote "aye."
The vote was taken as announced above, and so the amendment was defeated.
Mr. BAILEY moved that the bill be engrossed.
Mr. DRAKE: If the purpose of the bill is to protect child labor from competition with adult labor it is defective, because there are thousands of employments outside of mines and factories where children come into competition with adult labor. If the purpose is to protect children who are too young to know the hazard of dangerous employments, I think it ought to be limited to a prohibition from laboring in those factories where there is danger to life or limb, and the bill ought to enumerate such dangerous employments. I am not willing to vote that a child shall not earn its own living in the best manner possible where there is no danger attached to the employment. For the purpose of protecting adult labor the bill should be much wider than it is. I move to strike out the words "or engaged in any other kind of manufacturing in the State"
Mr. BAILEY: I hope that amendment will not prevail. This bill seeks to prohibit child labor for several reasons, first because children under the age of fourteen ought to be in the public schools furnished by the State, not only for the purposes of education but because in factories and workshops their health and constitution are undermined. A good physical constitution and education are the foundation of good citizenship. A custom has grown up under which boys are forced to do men's work at boys' wages. If we attempt to limit the application of this bill to one or two classes of labor we would defeat the purpose of the bill and confine it to a much smaller limit than we as a party have agreed to legislate.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks: The proposition amounts to a prohibition against employing children in dangerous kinds of labor, such as mining coal, iron and other minerals, and the manufacture of iron and steel, and I think it ought to be adopted.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. WILLARD demanded the previous question.
The Senate seconded the demand, and under its operations the bill was ordered engrossed for the third reading by yeas 25, nays 20
Mr. DRAKE: I desire to explain my vote. While the bill is a little broader than I am in favor of, I am in favor of protecting these children from hazardous employment, and as this bill does that to a certain extent I vote "aye."
Mr. FOULKE: I desire to say in explanation that I believe if our children are kept out of mines and factories we will have a better race of young men and women in twenty years from now than were they permitted to work in such places. Therefore I vote "aye."
Mr. OVERSTREET, when his name was called, said: I believe the fathers and mothers of this State know better when and where their children shall work than either the Democratic or Republican party, or even the Senate. Therefore I vote "no."
Mr. RAHM: On behalf of the children of State - that they may have a chance to make an
honest living and not do the work children are compelled to do - a man's work for a
child's wages - I am heartily in favor of the bill, and only regret the age has not
been limited at fourteen. I think it is for the benefit of the children, for there good
many parents who do not use the
Mr. SELLERS, when his name was called, said: In deference to the expressed wish of the Democratic party, I vote "aye."
Mr. THOMPSON: I think the passage of the present bill will be a step toward compulsory education, therefore I vote "aye."
The vote was then announced as above, so the bill was ordered engrossed.
Then came a recess for dinner.
Mr. Brown's bill [S. 8] to provide for the election of County Superintendents, was read the second time, with a favorable committee report and a report recommending that the bill lie on the table.
Mr. WILLARD: This bill proposes to take the selection of County Superintendent from the Township Trustees, and have that officer elected by the people. We ought not to make such a violent change without there is popular demand for it. The Trustees have the best opportunities to judge of the necessities of the school. This office should not be placed in a popular election; if so, this office will go like all others, and being last on the list, will be subject to trades and political bargains. He has charge of the examination of teachers. Two years ago the grades of teaches were elevated by a law then passed. Under it a great many incompetent teachers have failed to pass examination, and to those dissatisfied men you give the power to say to that officer: "If you refuse me a license, you will meet with our opposition, not only in the canvass for the nomination, but at the polls." There has been no office kept so free from partisan rule as is this office of County Superintendent. I have heard no argument advanced or put forward for this change, except in some counties there are Superintendents some dissatisfied teachers desire to get rid of by an election.
Mr. DUNCAN, of Brown: Two years ago I introduced a bill not making so many radical changes as this bill does. I believe there are some radical defects in the selection, as now, of the office of County Superintendent. There ought to be more stability in that office, and my bid proposed, as does this one, to make the tenure of office four years. There are ways of remedying the defects, and still leave the selection in the hands of the Township Trustees. I have yet to hear a good reason why the people should not have the privilege of selecting the incumbent of this office. This bill proposes another improvement. That he shall present a certificate of qualification as a teacher running three years, and issued by the State Board of Education. Judges are nominated under our party system, yet I never heard of one swerving from his duty on that account; and the people can elect incumbents of this office who will discharge their duties without partisan bias. I have no fear such a course would degrade the office. This bill provides for results that will greatly benefit the school system. As now the people have little sympathy with the office. If the candidate were nominated by his party he would have their sympathy much more than were he elected by the Township Trustees.
Mr. BROWN: I believe in the people choosing their rulers. Practically the system in vogue is one where the people have delegated the power to Township Trustees. While I do not desire to discuss the measure I will read from the abstract of the Bureau of Education stating the mode of election of these school officers in each of the Several States of the Union. [Reads]. This report shows that in the great Northwestern States the idea of the election of this officer by the people is incorporated, and it ought to be relegated and left to the people in this State, who are better judges than the ten or fifteen Township Trustees. This office now has become subservient to the book agent, map and furniture rings.
Mr. WILLARD moved to substitute the last report - to lay on the table - for the first report of the committee.
The motion was agreed to by yeas 24, nays 22.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph, explaining: In St. Joseph County the office of County Superintendent has been entirely a non-partisan office. We have a Superintendent who has held office for years - elected by Democrats and Republicans unanimously. I believe better selections for the schools can be made by the Township Trustees, upon whom rests the direct responsibility of the schools, than by conventions, therefore I vote "aye."
Mr. WILLARD made an ineffectual motion - yeas 22, nays 23 - to concur in the first report as amended by the substitution of the last report.
On motion by Mr. Sellers the bill was recommitted.
Mr. Smith's, of Jay, bill [S. 14 - see page 136] to repeal the attorney fee clause in notes, coming up on the second reading -
Mr. MAGEE: In 1873, or previously, the General Assembly passed a law authorizing an
attorney fee clause to be put in a note. The man who is in default for non payment of money
should pay the expense of collecting, if collection has to be forced. The people ought to
have the right to make any contracts in relation to the loan and repayment of money they
see fit. If the Legislature is to take the paternal relation to the people in this and
every other thing, it may go so far as to reach inside of domestic relations. When we
invade the established order for the repayment of money so well known in every respect, it
should not be done in response to a demand from any particular part of the State. The
spirit of the law is that the person who has to pay the attorney fee should have the right
to recover it from the defaulting debtor. I never knew as able a
Mr. SMITH, of Jay: A promise to pay attorney's fees in a promissory note or draft is entirely wrong. The attorney's fee always comes off the other fellow, and the attorney charges as large a fee as he can. Without this provision in a note the holder usually makes a bargain as to what the fee shall be, but when the note contains the attorney's fee clause the holder hands it to the lawyer without making a bargain. The valuation of the lawyer's fee is regulated by a local custom in reference to the collection of commercial papers containing that kind of an agreement. This attorney's fee clause is nothing more or less than usurious interest, and will Senators justify usurious interest? He believed the bill is a righteous measure, and that it would not injure anybody. He moved a substitute for the committee's report that the bill be ordered engrossed.
Mr. FOULKE could not see how an indemnity against loss can be construed as usury or interest of any kind, or even compensation for the loan of money. The attorney fee clause is simply an indemnity. It is not just that a man who signs a note should impose upon the holder the further cost of collection, if forced to do so. I do not believe in this kind of legislation over people able to take care of themselves. It is for the good of the people that they should protect their own individual rights, and not that we should make that attempt for them. Repeal this law and in all classes of cases where there is any doubt of of collection, the rate of interest will go up in just those cases where the necessity is greatest, and it will hurt the poorer class of people. The interest is put up against the poor man, though it may not be known whether he will default or not.
The Senate refused to order the bill engrossed by yeas 19, nays 24.
The report of the committee that the bill lie on the table was concurred in by yeas 28, nays 14
Mr. McCULLOUGH, when his name was called, said: I oppose the bill because it is in principle wrong. It is an attempt to take away from the people the right to make such contracts as they please. I believe every lawyer will agree that instead of being a benefit to the actual practitioner of law it is a curse to the profession. It is a wrong to the people to say they shall not make such contracts as they see fit. I vote "aye."
Mr. Brown' bill [H. R. 21] to amend Sections 1, 6 and 20 of the Supervisors' act of March 2, 1883 was read the second time with a committee substitute therefor.
Mr. BROWN explained one section cuts down the hours for a day's work from ten to eight, and with other changes proposed, will make the road laws pretty nearly perfect; this substitute being a compilation of good features from similar bills.
Mr. MAGEE desired an amendment so as to leave the construction of bridges discretionary with the County Commissioners. And then the Senate adjourned.
Mr. HAYWORTH offered the following joint resolution [H. R. 12] instructing the Senators and requesting the Representatives in Congress, from the State of Indiana, to favor a certain bill therein mentioned:
Whereas, Hon. William E. English has introduced into the House of Representatives of Congress of the United States a bill for ceding the grounds known as the arsenal grounds, near the city of Indianapolis, to the State of Indiana, for the purpose of building thereon a university worthy of the State of Indiana, these grounds being about to be abandoned for arsenal purpose; therefore be it
Resolved by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana, That our Senators be
instructed and
The resolution was adopted.
Mr. DITTEMORE offered the following:
Resolved, That clerks of this House shall receive $5 per day for such days only as they are actually employed.
On his further motion the resolution was referred to the
Mr. GORDON offered the following:
Resolved, That as the veterans of the Mexican war are holding a meeting in this city, that they be invited to visit the House of Representatives, and that a committee of two be appointed to convey to them this resolution.
It was adopted, and the Speaker appointed as such committee Mr. Barney and Mr. Trout.
Mr. McMULLEN, from the
This appropriation bill makes an increase of about $150,000 over the amount provided for by the Deficiency Appropriation bill passed a few days ago, the principal items being as follows: Thirty-five thousand dollars to the Insane Hospital for a new boilers house, $3,800 for water attachments, $22,500 for repairs on the chapel and adjacent buildings, which gives the institution $60,000 in addition to the regular annual appropriation: $5,900 to Deaf and Dumb Asylum for various repairs; $25,000 for Purdue University for new buildings, shops and machinery; $5,000 additional to each of the State Prisons, and $10,000 additional to the House of Refuge at Plainfield. The total appropriations recommended are $1,381,891, divided for the various departments as follows: Judiciary, $174,700; Insane Hospital, $345,000; Deaf and Dumb Institute, $62,900; Soldiers' Orphans' Home, $37,000; Educational Institutions, $79,500; Board of Health, $5,000; Mine Inspector, $1,500; Fish Commissioner, $7,500; Executive Department, $14,620; Secretary of State's Office, $6,250; Auditors, $6,000; Treasurer's, $5,420; Attorney Generals, $3,600; Superintendent of Public Instruction, $5,300; State Librarian, $3,600; Statistical Department, $4,000; Penal and Reformatory Institutions, $285,000; miscellaneous interest account, etc., $312,200; balance due counties, $116,594; overdrawn by counties, $51,670.
The bill was ordered printed.
Mr. MOODY, from the Special Committee appointed to investigate the affairs of the new insane hospitals submitted a report which was duly signed by all the members of the committee, and contains the following findings and recommendations: (1) That there is at present a pressing need for accommodations for 1,100 insane people, whoa re scattered about the State in county asylums and private houses. (2) That the commissioners have been careful and economical in managing the affairs of the institution. (3) That they have employed approved any economical methods. (4) That the contracts have been carefully drawn, and are secured by good bonds. (5) The plans of the proposed buildings provide for the accommodation of 1,034 insane people. (6) That the foundations have been completed and the superstructures partially constructed in a satisfactory manner. (7) That the amount already expended is $365,202, the amount contracted for $834,441, and the cost of the grounds $51,584. (8) That the appropriation for the year ending October 1, 1885 be $275,000, and for the year ending October 1, 1886 be $338,000. (9) That all the contracts and papers in the hands of commissions be placed on file in the office of the Secretary of State.
The report of the committee was ordered printed.
Mr. BARNEY, from the
Mr. LOYD: I move that this bill be read the second time and that the Constitutional rule be suspended and the bill put upon its passage. This bill will recommend itself to the House. We should not, through our negligence, allow our war veterans to go to their graves as paupers.
Mr. TONER introduced a bill [H. R. - ] to authorize the loan by County Auditors to parties in other counties, such county funds which may have been in the County Treasury for three months; whcih was read the first time.
On his motion it was referred to the
On motion by Mr. COPELAND his bill [H. R. 451] regulating railway fares, etc., on the second reading was taken from the table.
Mr. GOODING moved to amend by making the fare for passengers two and a half cents per mile instead of three cents. He said: As the railways of Indiana are not charging over two and a half cents per mile, I think this bill should say so. The companies can make enough at two and a half cents. The railways will take care of themselves; let us take care of the people.
Mr. GORDON: I have no objection to the amendment itself, but I fear that it will endanger the bill. I therefore move that the amendment lie on the table.
This motion was rejected.
The amendment was agreed to - ayes, 60; nays, 34.
Mr. GOODING moved to amend so that an attorney's fee shall be taxed with the cost in all judgments against railroad companies.
Mr. MOODY: I hope the amendment will not prevail. I fully concur in the sentiment of the gentleman from Hancock (Mr. Gooding) that corporations should stand on an equality with individuals, but how can his position on this question be explained with such sentiment? I know of no statute or law in the State compelling a person to pay attorney fees unless he contracts in writing to pay. Then why does the gentleman offer this amendment compelling a railroad company to pay attorney fees in all judgments recovered against them? I never represented railroad company, but have uniformly, when employed at all, been employed against them; but, sir, I regard this amendment as wrong in principle, and will certainty endanger the passage of the bill. I am not in favor of a law that requires any man to pay attorney fees unless he contracts to pay them in writing.
Mr. GORDON moved that the constitutional restriction be dispensed with that the bill may be pressed to the final vote now.
The motion was rejected by yeas 63, nays 27, two thirds not voting in the affirmative.
Mr. STALEY moved to amend so that no fare for any distance shall be less than ten cents. He said. No railroad can afford to carry passengers from one station to another for five cents; they would abolish the station first. This would abolish two stations in Clinton County, these two being within two miles of the county seat.
On motion of Mr. GOODING the amendment was laid on the table.
Mr. McHENRY, from the
Mr. GOODING: If you will read carefully you will see that the bill also provides for the admission of colored children along with the whites in our schools.
Mr. BEST: I believe that the bill does not material effect the teaching of German, but relates wholly to the admission of colored pupils.
Mr. PLEASANTS: It does effect the teaching of German. It provides for it when wanted where it can not now be obtained.
Mr. FRENCH: The law now clearly defines the school matter as regards to color.
Mr. McHENRY: Some of the school authorities have ruled out German because they thought that enough branches were now taught.
Mr. PASSAGE: I introduced that bill because I wanted all children, white or black, to have an equal chance to the free schools of this free country.
The bill was ordered engrossed by yeas 50, nays 38
Mr. BROWNING, explaining his vote, said that he voted against it because the law already gave what the bill proposed.
Mr. GOODING, in explanation of his vote, said that he voted against it because it excluded Germans.
Mr. HOBAN, explaining, said he was opposed to some of the civil rights provisions, but as he had to take it without pepper or sauce he would vote "aye"
Mr. PASSAGE, explaining his vote, said: Knowing that the bill will not abridge rights of Germans in Indiana, but give equal rights to all, I vote "aye."
Mr. TOWNSEND, explaining his vote, said: It has been stated here that there are now equal school rights, and because I know that that this bill will not discriminate against the Germans, because the tax money is not properly divided, I shall vote "aye."
Mr. McHENRY, from the
Mr. CORY moved to strike out the enacting clause.
Mr. BROWNLEE: I am opposed to bill because it will allow, if not necessitate, a change of text books in the State and it will cost the school patrons in Indiana $3,000,000. It will also take from the hands of Schools Trustees and put it in the hands of a board which will have no interest in your county or mine
Mr. McHENRY: Gentlemen of this House can not question the integrity of the eight members of the Educational Board of State. They are honest, and certainly capable to adopt the best text books. They are all educated men. As it is now, before the Trustees of townships, there is too much jobbery - schools are too high. There is a wrong some where. The bill will not only give us good text books but very much cheaper. If there must be a job, let's have one instead of ninety-two. The chief agent of Van Antwerp, Bragg & Co., the school book publishers, has been on this floor lobbying against this bill. This indicates beyond dispute that the jobbery now going on in this State, for that firm now sells their readers in most all parts of the State.
The motion to strike out the enacting clause was agreed to by yeas 67, nays 23.
Mr. Patten's Congressional Apportionment bill [H. R. 422] coming up on second reading, being the special order for this hour, with majority and minority reports -
Mr. WILLIAMS moved that the minority report lay on the table.
Mr. SAYRE made a point of order that this bill could not be made a special order
Mr. WILLIAMS said that the question before the House now was not the special order, but a motion to lay the minority report on the table.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippeanoe: Nothing is in order that has been gained by wrong Parliamentary ruling
The SPEAKER: I hold that this motion to lay the minority report on the table is in order only as to this: Because it is the day for bills on second reading, and this bill comes up in my practice according to its number - if not a special order.
Mr. WILSON maintained that under the rules the Speaker was unfair.
The motion to lay the minority report on the table was agreed to - yeas 53, nays 37.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe, in explanation said: The minority report is the same as the present Congressional apportionment it is certainly fair enough for Democrats. I vote "no."
Mr. WILSON, when his name was called, said that the minority report was more favorable to Democrats than Republicans. I shall vote "no."
Mr. WILLIAMS demanded the previous question.
The House seconded the demand by yeas 53, nays 43, and under its operations the majority report was concurred in by yeas 52, nays 41.
Mr. FRENCH, explaining: The bill is unfair and I vote "no."
Mr. GLAZEBROOK, when his name was called, said: Democrat as I am I must vote against it. I vote "no."
Mr. KELLISON: I can not vote for the bill. I am in favor of leaving well enough alone. "No."
Mr. LOUP: It is unfair, and we should not press such a measure. I vote "no."
Mr. McHENRY: It will return upon us to swamp the Democratic party. "No."
Mr. MAUCK, of Harrison: It is the best thing for the State. "Aye."
Mr. GOODING: I cheerfully vote for the bill. No better one could be proposed. I vote "yes."
Mr. PATTEN: Because it is for the interest of the Democratic party I vote "yea."
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: Those who know me know that I am no partisan. It is an outrage to divide a State as nearly equal politically as this so as to give but two Republican Congressmen of the thirteen. A day of reckoning will come. I vote "no."
Mr. WILSON: My vote is "no," because, unlike the gentleman from Sullivan, I aim higher than party power.
The bill was read the second time.
Mr. WILLIAMS demanded the previous question.
The demand was seconded by the House, and under its operations the bill was ordered engrossed by yeas 57, nays 38.
Mr. WILLIAMS moved to reconsider the vote just taken and to lay that motion on the table.
The latter motion was agreed - yeas 56, nays 39.
Just before the adjournment, the State Mexican Veterans' Association visited the House in a body. The Speaker [Hon. C. L. Jewett] was made an honorary member of the association. General Manson was called upon and returned thanks in behalf of the association for the invitation to visit the House. He spoke of its efforts in behalf of pensioning the Mexican soldiers, and referred to the fact that but sixty-six veterans were now members of the association, while 5,000 men had gone out from Indiana to the Mexican war. Many of these, he said, were sleeping upon the battle-fields of Mexico. Of the fact that the Mexican War had cost but a little over $50,000,000 and resulted in the addition of territory to the United States which annually produced a revenue of $200,000,000. He declared that some politicians had refused to do justice to the Mexican soldier, making as a pretext the fear that Jeff Davis would be benefited. "Who the devil is Jeff Davis?" said the old gentleman, and the House roared with laughter. Major Gordon followed in a short address, and the business of the House, which had been interrupted by the entrance, of the association, was resumed.
The House then adjourned.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph, offered an amendment to the bill [S. 21] which was pending at the adjournment yesterday, so as the repairs of bridges where over $75 in cost shall be left to the discretion of the County Commissioners.
Mr. McINTOSH thought the Senate should consider this bill carefully. It would seem that every two years there is some new road law proposed, and we can not be too careful in tampering with a measure that affects every township in the State.
The amendment was adopted.
The bill was ordered engrossed.
The motion to reconsider the vote by which Mr. Winter's Union Railway bill [S. 189 - see page 186] was passed, was taken up.
Mr. WILLARD: It was
Mr. WINTER: During the thirty-three years since the law was enacted there has been but one Union Railway Company formed in this State, and that is the one in this city; and so it has come to be said that this bill will affect only the city of Indianapolis, while, in fact, such Union Railway companies may be formed in any city of the State where the surroundings afford an occasion. Now when this company find it necessary to build a much larger depot, which will require the expenditure of over $1,000,000, and to do so it must have authority to borrow money, such legislation as is proposed in this bill becomes necessary. While this has been a matter of agitation in the city for many years past and while all the papers of the city have united in urging upon the Legislature the passage of this bill and while not a single citizen that I know of has objected, it is most marvellous that the Senator from Lawrence (Mr. Willard) has discovered this company to be an oppressive monopoly. Myself and my colleagues have no interest in any of the railway companies that would make us champions of them rather than our constituents. The Union Depot was constructed in 1882, and since then has had the right to levy toll, and I have yet to discover that any citizen of Indiana feels that he has been robbed or plundered by anything of the kind. Whoever heard of a railroad company that has not a right to levy a toll? Why, Senators, what is a railroad company organized for? Another nightmare the Senator has discovered is that this railway company has the right to go out anywhere in the State and confiscate anybody's property. The Senator talks as though this was a new power. Let us see what powers are given by the present law [Reads Sec. 3,955 of the code]. For thirty-three sears the Union Railray Company has had these powers that the Senator says are so perilous to the inhabitants of the State of Indiana. He says that this company may condemn property under the provisions of the charter of any proprietary companies. Such a provision is also old with age [Reads Sec. 3,937.] Who has been hurt by it in the past thirty-three years? There is nothing new in the provisions of this bill on that subject. In this old law there is a provision that no advantage shall be taken of the benefits. The imputation has been made that the Senate has been imposed upon, and I want to show that is not the case. The argument that this corporation can go out any where in the State and condemn land is unworthy of notice; for every one knows property can be condemned only for the purposes stated - for the building of a Union Depot or for the purposes of a Union Railway Company. This bill, instead of being for the purpose of excluding., is brought here for the express purpose of bringing in all other railroad companies and giving them a voice in the management. The Union Depot and Railway belong now to but five railroads, and three of them are now controlled by the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, and that road practically controls, as there are but two outside of the Pennsylvania Company. They can shut out any road from running cars over their tracks. We can all see what a monopoly it has been for thirty-three years. Is this monopoly more odious now than at any time in the last thirty-three years? The other seven or six railroads running into this city have thought this should not be controlled by these five old companies. The dissatisfaction has been so great that last fall they entered into an agreement that all railroad companies shall have admission to equal rights with the original five proprietary companies. Does that look like excluding new railroad companies from the use of the Union Railway tracks? This contract says there shall be a Board of Managers, to consist of one from each company, including those that may hereafter come in. Instead of a monopoly it liberalizes the old monopoly. I have no objection to this bill being limited to the city of Indianapolis.
Mr WILLARD: Will the Senator consent the bill may be amended so a majority vote shall admit other railways instead of a unanimous vote? It should be like all other corporations.
Mr. WINTER: No, sir.
Mr. WEIR moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.
This motion was agreed to by yeas 43, nays 2
Mr. FOULKE, explaining his affirmative vote: There are two or three provisions in the bill which had better not be there, but being satisfied that the amendments will be made to the bill as indicated by the Senator from Marion (Mr. Winter) I shall vote "aye."
On motion by Mr. WILLARD the Senate resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole (Mr. Magee in the Chair) and proceeded to the consideration of the bill [H. R. 327 - see page 139] making appropriations for the State government.
The CHAIRMAN directed the clerk to read the bill item by item.
Mr. YOUCHE called attention to rule 45, which requires all bills, upon being considered in Committee of the Whole, to be first "read throughout by the Secretary." The committee can not change a Senate rule
The CHAIRMAN asked and obtained consent of the
The items of $800 to the clerk of the land department in the Auditor's office, and also $800 to the Auditor's clerk were increased on motion of Mr. Willard to $1,200 each.
On motion by Mr. WEIR the committee rose, reported progress and asked and obtained leave to sit again at 2 o'clock.
Mr. FOULKE offered a joint resolution [S. 11] proposing an amendment to Article 2,
Section 2 of the State Constitution by striking therefrom the word "male" and
inserting instead the words "without distinction of sex," which was read the
first time and referred to the
Then came a recess for dinner.
On motion by Mr. WILLARD the Senate resumed its sittings as a Committee of the Whole.
Mr. McCLURE moved to increase the salary of the Deputy Attorney General from $600 to $1,000
Mr. WEIR moved to amend by making it $1,200.
Mr. McCLURE accepted the amendment.
Mr. WILLARD thought $1,000 sufficient.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings: That officer has more business as a lawyer in connection with that office than any other lawyer in Indiana can manage. It takes a good lawyer, and $1,200 is not too much.
Mr. FAULKNER thought this was a reform Democratic Legislature, and now it seems they want to double up. He could find 500 men in his county who would take the office at $600.
Mr. WEIR had given some attention to criminal cases in the Supreme Court, and the Attorney General had not the time to give such attention as is required to details. $1,200 is little enough for the deputy.
Mr. McINTOSH: Has the Legislature the right to pass a bill in direct opposition to what the statute provides? $600 is the salary provided for in the law of the State.
Mr. WILLARD moved to amend by making the salary $1,000.
Mr. WEIR accepted the amendment.
Mr. DAVIS: If there were no other emoluments pertaining to this office the sum proposed would be fair; but in truth and fact the salaries given to State officers in this State are not one half or one fourth of what they receive. He favored $600
The $1,000 amendment was agreed to on a division - affirmative 22, negative 20.
Mr. WILLARD understands there does not exist, unless in some private library, a full list of the laws passed by this State, and an additional item of $75 is incorporated in this bill for the purpose of securing a full and complete set in the State Library.
It was agreed to.
Mr. WILLARD never learned what the item meant "for office and chamber expenses of
the Supreme Court, $2,000." The
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings, knew but little about this thing, but was informed the appropriations for the Supreme Court are so meager it is almost impossible for the surroundings to be made respectable. It is the most dignified court we have, and the places of work of the Judges should be made comfortable. Trusting in their integrity, I shall stand by this appropriation of $2,000.
Mr. FAULKNER: I say it is respectable and would be sorry to say otherwise. We pay those Judges all the law requires. There is no law requiring the State to find the Judges with a fine spring-bed and fine furniture.
Mr. FOULKE declared the Judges' room hardly fit places to live in. Some officers in the State are paid largely more than the Judges of the Supreme Court, and the State could well afford to make this $2,000 appropriation.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. WILLARD moved to make the item $1,500, all, as estimated by the Auditor of the State, that will be necessary.
The amendment was agreed to.
The
Mr. WINTER moved to amend by reducing the sum to $500.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings, resisted both motions. If the State can not take enough interest in the law library to insure it, the Legislature that shall restore it should not be blamed for making such appropriation.
Mr. WINTER: The Supreme Court Room is not used but about six hours in each year. In two or three years the Supreme Court will move into the New State House, so there is no occasion to furnish that room, but the law library should be insured.
Mr. HILLIGASS made an ineffectual motion to amend by adding "Supreme Court Chambers," and leaving the appropriation $1,500.
The amendment [Mr. Winter's] was agreed to.
The
Mr. WILLARD moved to cut down the appropriation for the maintenance of the Hospital for the Insane from $260,000 to $240,000 - the latter being the estimate of the Auditor of State.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks, moved to reduce the item for the Fish Commissioner from $2,000 to $500, believing this department to have been of little service to the State.
Mr. WILLARD: For many years this has been the regular appropriation. This Commissioner is doing a great work in the introduction of fish culture, as I am informed.
Mr. BROWN favored the amendment.
Mr. FOWLER moved to strike it all out. This Fish Commissioner is located at my town, and
of all the choice frauds ever per-
Mr. MAGEE: I voted for a similar proposition two years ago. The object of this bill is to preserve and propagate the fishes of the State. The object of the legislation is to develop the resources of the State. This is but a small appropriation. I shall never vote for any measure that is a retrograding measure. I believe in getting the moss off our backs and keeping abreast with the times. We protect our game, why not protect our fish? There is not one fish now where there were 1,000 twenty years ago. This has been a wise, economical and just proposition. I would like to see the fishes of the State protected and propagated
Mr. FAULKNER: Nobody who has ever eat German carp will say it is like a mud cat-fish.
They are A No. 1 - the best fish a man ever put in his mouth. Through the influence of
Senator Voorhees we have succeeded in getting a good many in Riply County, and they are
doing
Mr. WINTER: This money will have to be disbursed by the Fish commissioner under the provisions of the law. [Reads from the act of 1881 creating the office of Fish Commissioner.] A great source of food supply can be made made more abundant and cheaper by proper legislation in this direction.
Mr. BAILEY: The purpose is to place fish and protect fish in the streams and lakes of the State, and thus aid in producing a cheap food supply.
Mr. FOWLER: You may put 40,000,000 of fish in White River, and they will be no more numerous there, because they will go out. The former Fish Commissioner (Mr. Fletcher) has gone to a considerable expense, but his fishery is his own private property - it does not belong to the State.
The motion to strike out the item was rejected.
The amendment (Mr. Campbell's) was rejected.
The item was agreed to.
Mr. FOWLER moved to strike out the item of $300 for the State Horticultural Society. The Secretary of that society has charged has charged $180 for disbursing the $400 appropriated two years ago.
Mr. DAVIS favored the appropriation and opposed any retrograde movement.
The motion to strike out was rejected.
On motion by Mr. WILLARD, the committee rose, reported progress and was discharged from further consideration of the bill.
The report of the
Mr. WILLARD moved that the constitutional rule be suspended, the Senate amendments to the General Appropriation bill [H. R. 327] be considered as engrossed, the bill read the third time and put on its passage.
This motion was agreed to by yeas 45, nays 0, the bill was read the second time by title, the third time by sections and finally passed the Senate by yeas 42, nays 0.
By Mr. Hill 2; Johnson, of Tippecanoe; Adkison, Smith, of Delaware, by title only and severally referred to appropriate committees.
Mr. HUSTON introduced a bill [S. 325] to dissolve the Eastern Indiana Agricultural and Mechanical and Trotting Park Association, which was read the first time by title only, then under a suspension of the constitutional rule the second time by title only, the third time by sections and finally passed by yeas 31, nays 10.
The Senate adjourned.
Three motions to dispense with the further
Mr. LOYD moved that the further reading of the journal be dispensed with.
The motion was agreed to - yeas 54, nays 41.
Mr. GORDON: I wish to present a proposition to amend the rules.
The SPEAKER: It is not in order, as unfinished business has preference over everything else, and is now before the House.
The report of the
Mr. SAYRE: I make the point of order that the report is out of order, as it was set for
yesterday afternoon, and by a vote less
The SPEAKER: The point of order is not well taken. As I stated yesterday, the bill did not come up as a special order exactly, but in accordance with its number and place among bills on the second reading.
Mr. Sayre and Mr. Adams appealed from the decision of the Chair.
The question being, "Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House?" - (Mr. Gordon presiding) -
Mr. SAYRE said: Yesterday when this question for a special order was made the House was proceeding with regular business. There was a motion to suspend the regular order. The ayes and nays were called, and 63 voted for and 32 against it, lacking, under the rules of the House, the necessary two thirds majority. Another question: There is nothing in the rules on this subject but Rule 59, and that forbids it, save for appropriation bills, which are preferred. The House journal shows this report was made a special order, and no other construction can be put upon it.
The SPEAKER: I am sorry that this appeal did not come up at the proper time. The rules say that the Speaker may designate certain days for bills on second reading. I designated Wednesday. When the apportionment bills came up, Mr. Patten moved that they, on the second reading, be made a special order for 3 o'clock yesterday afternoon. I have no doubt that it requires a two-thirds vote to make a special order. I so stated yesterday. It takes a two-thirds vote, however, only when to make a bill a special order suspends the rules. When it does not suspend the rules a majority vote is sufficient. When bills, as this apportionment bill, have been reported upon, they stand for second reading, and, according to my practice, I arrange them according to their numbers. This is common fairness to all, and so it was done. These apportionment bills were perfectly in order, for they came in with their numbers. Coming to that Chair under flattering circumstances, I have desired to treat all members, brilliant or lowly, whether his measure is great or small, with equal attention, and I hope to leave that Chair with that name.
M. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: If I were to appeal privately to the Speaker to ask if I did not have the highest regard for him, he would say "yes." But I stand here believing with and representing the minority, and I must differ with the ruling. There is another rule wrapped in this one decided upon. Yesterday morning, according to our resolution, the reports of committees were made, and according to custom not even read, but the purport of them given, until we come to this particular one - the most important one yet coming up - when the committees report was read, and, contrary to all rules, it was made a special order for the afternoon. Why, the decision of the Speaker is that by a majority vote you can take up any bill on the second reading. By that process the majority could rush their own measures at all times, and swamp the minority. The rules are made to protect the minority.
Mr. REEVES: I desire to make the point of order that the question is not debatable
The SPEAKER pro tem: The point is not well taken.
On motion by Mr. GOODING the appeal was laid on the table - yeas 57, nays 37
Mr. WILSON made a point of order that the consideration of this bill is not properly before the House, because the bill does not come up in its regular order, and it would take a two-thirds vote to place it ahead of time.
The SPEAKER: The point of order is not well taken.
Mr. WILSON: I wish to appeal, and I sent the same to the Speaker's desk.
The SPEAKER: The appeal is a reiteration of the appeal just decided. It is out of order. I shall not entertain it
Mr. WILSON: I shall appeal from the decision just rendered.
The SPEAKER: The Reading Clerk will proceed with the reading of the reports of the committee.
The question being on the minority report, it was laid on the table by yeas 57, nays 39.
Pending the roll call -
Mr. ADAMS, in explanation of his vote, said: For the reason that the old apportionment is fair, and the new one an outrage, I vote "no."
Mr. COPELAND, when his name was called, said: I desire to enter the following protest:
MR. SPEAKER - We protest against the high-handed
and summary action of the majority on this floor in applying the gag law in the
disposition of the minority reports on House Apportionment Bills Nos. 422 and 423,
thereby absolutely throttling the minority of the House, and suppressing free speech and
debate in the Indiana House of Representatives, on a subject of so much importance as
redistricting the State for Congressional and Legislative apportionment.
Mr. FRENCH, explaining his vote, said: I have voted "no" on these measures, but, since the Republicans have seen fit to filibuster, I vote "aye."
Mr. KELLISON, when his name was called, said: I determined when I first learned of the provisions of these two apportionment bills to oppose them from first to last. I see no reason now for changing my mind. Because my party associates have seen fit to enact measures that are unfair is no reason why I should act and concert with them. Sir, I prefer to walk with my own manhood to sleep with my own self-respect, and I therefore vote "no."
Mr. McHENRY, in explanation, said: At the present time I vote "aye," but when it comes to the final vote I can not disgrace the record of my party by such injustice.
Mr. OVERMAN: For the reason that it is a most outrageous partisan measure; for the reason that small Democratic countries have the same representation as Republican counties twice as large, I vote "no."
Mr. PASSAGE: I am gratified to learn that the gentleman from Morgan (Mr. Adams) regards the present Democratic apportionment as so eminently just, and believing the proposed apportionment more just, I vote "aye."
Mr. REEVES: Because the minority report is fair, and because it was made by Democrats and they should be satisfied with it, I vote "no."
Mr. SAYRE: For fear that some may not understand my vote I shall explain. First, it abolishes the office I hold; but, seriously, because it disfranchises 6,000 or 8,000 Republicans. I vote "no."
Mr. SMITH, of Warrick, when his name was called, said: Because it is unjust and discreditable to my party, I vote "no."
Mr. TAYLOR: As I vote as I talk, and as a reminder to our apostate brethren, I vote "aye."
The vote was then announced as above.
And so the minority report was laid on the table.
Mr. WILLIAMS moved that the majority report be adopted, and moved the previous question.
The demand for the previous question being seconded by the House - yeas 58, nays 38 under its operations, the report of the committee was concurred in by - yeas 51, nays 41.
Pending the roll call -
Mr. OVERMAN, explaining his vote, said: In view of the fact that debate has been cut off and as I could not have an opportunity to say that in making but one Representative from the counties of of LaGrange and Steuben, the Democrats have used the only alternative, unless they should go over into Ohio or in Michigan for another county. I vote "no."
Mr. SMITH of Tippecanoe when his name was called said: I am sorry that I am not included in the invitation of the gentleman from Davies (Mr. Taylor) to go to their fatted calf with the apostate brethren
The SPEAKER: I have no doubt the gentleman will be included.
Mr. SMITH: You have no calves but those in your boot legs [Laughter.] As this is the last speech I may have a chance to make in behalf of my constituents I wish to make my "no" most emphatic. "No."
Mr. TWINEHAM: As this is the most
Mr. WILSON, when his name was called, said: As the Democrats of this State have taken this most outrageous plan of theft, not having courage to follow their brethren in Mississippi and the Carolinas by the tissue ballot and shot-gun, I vote "no."
The vote was announced as above.
So the majority report was concurred in.
The bill was read the second time.
The question recurring on the adoption of the amendments proposed by a majority of the
Mr. GOODING moved the previous question.
The House seconded the demand for the previous question, and under its operations the committee amendments were adopted by yeas 54, nays 41.
Pending the roll call -
Mr. BROWNING, explaining his vote, said: I should not have explained my vote here to-day had others not done so; but I want to say to the Republicans that we have been yelling "bloody murder" now for about a quarter of a century, and we propose to give them some of their own medicine. I vote "aye."
Mr. HELMS, when his name was called, said: As my county, Greene. gives 150
The vote was then announced as above, so the committee amendments to the bill were adopted.
Mr. GOODING moved that the bill be engrossed, and moved the previous question.
The demand for the previous question was seconded by the House, and under its operations the motion was agreed to.
The SPEAKER presented a communication from President Smart, of Purdue University,
transmitting a report of that institution in accordance with the resolution passed by the
House. It shows that the institution has an aggregate attendance Of 219, fifteen
instructors, whose annual salaries amount to $18,800, average salary, $1,260; eleven
laborers, who are paid from $25 to $65, a month. The questions relating to the expenses of
the board are referred by Mr. Smart to the President of the board for answer. The
university boarding-house is under the management of Mrs. M. L. Stocton, who charges $2.50
a week for students and $3 a week for instructors, and no control over it is exercised by
the President of the university. Fifty-four of the students and four instructors regularly
board there. The endowment fund applicable to the payment of teachers' salaries,
February 1 1885, was $12,555 and of the same amount $10,200
Mr. STALEY introduced a bill [H. R. 484] allowing manual training in schools of cities of over 10,000 inhabitants
Mr. FRAZEE presented a bill [H. R. 486] to legalize barbed wire fences.
Mr. WILLIAMS offered a joint resolution [H. R. 13] as follows:
Be it resolved by the General Assembly of the state of Indiana, That the following amendment to the Constitution of the State of Indiana be and the same is hereby proposed, to-wit:
Amend Section 29 of Article 4 so that it shall read as follows: The members of the General Assembly shall receive for their services a compensation to be fixed by the law; but no increase of compensation shall take effect during the session at which such increase may be made. No session of the General Assembly shall extend beyond the term of 100 days, nor any special session beyond the term of fifty days.
It was read the first time
On motion of Mr. Adams, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole - Mr. Adams in the chair - for the consideration of the bill [H. R. 479] making appropriations for the State government.
The bill was read item by item.
Mr. TAYLOR moved to amend item three by reducing the appropriation of $35,000 for the building of boiler houses for the Asylum for the Insane to $30,000. He said $30,000 would be extravagant enough, and he for one could make money on the contract.
Mr. GOODING thought that $25,000 even would be too high, and asked that a stop be put to the waste of money.
Mr. McMULLEN said that $30,000 was certainly needed, and he should so vote.
The amendment was agreed to.
On motion of Mr. LOYD the committee arose, reported progress and asked leave to sit again at 10 o'clock to-morrow morning.
The report of the committee was concurred in.
The House then adjourned.
On motion by Mr. FOWLER his bill, S. 185, was taken up with a majority report unfavorable and favorable minority report from a committee. He said: This bill provides where one is convicted of felony or misdemeanor where part of the judgment is imprisonment, he shall not be imprisoned while an appeal is pending. Great injustice is sometimes experienced under the present law. He ought to be permitted to give bail just as when first arrested. The object is to stave off imprisonment until the appealed man, so that no irrepairable injury shall be done unjustly. I move the part be concurred in.
Mr. FOULKE: Great mischief may be brought about by legislation of this kind. The time has passed when it is necessary to throw safeguards around persons convicted of a crime. It is now very seldom the case an innocent man is pronounced guilty. If the bail fixed would in all cases secure the appearance of the parties bailed such a bill might be passed without much injustice. We want to throw more safeguards around society and not around the men who attack society.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks: The committee agree with the purposes of the bill, but the practica1 effect would be the man able to give bail would escape, while the poor man would invariably have to go to jail. I move to lay the motion to concur in the minority report on the table.
The motion was agreed to.
The special order was taken up, being Mr. Foulke's bill [S. 60] requiring the study of physiology and hygiene, and the effects of alcoholic stimulants and narcotics, in the public schools, with a favorable majority report and a report recommending the indefinite postponement of the bill - the committee were equally divided -.
Mr. FOULKE moved concurrence in the first report. A bill like this has been asked for by petitions in large number - 15,500 and over. Two years ago there were also numerous similar petitions, but they were utterly ignored at that time. The request is so reasonable, it hardly would become the Senate to refuse it. This measure is no interference with personal liberty. It is a thing which the taxpayers have a right to demand, that children shall be taught conceded scientific facts which will tend to make them better citizens in after life. It has been ascertained by scientists that alcoholic stimulants increase the brain cells, and if used to excess, its evil effects are transmitted to posterity. Wherever there is a special liability to fall into special error, special efforts should be made to guard against it.
Mr. JOHNSON, of Tippecanoe, spoke in opposition to the bill, as follows:
MR. PRESIDENT - The main reason which induces me to
oppose this bill, and, if possible, to prevent it from becoming a law, is founded in the
fact that it is the outgrowth and offspring of that fanatical agitation which, for the last
ten years, has disturbed the public mind in regard to intemperance, its course,
preventives, and results. There is not a Senator on this floor but who knows and deplores
the evil and destructive effects which intemperance has on the human sys-
Mr. President, so far I have only objected to the general aim and tendency of the law, if
this bill should become a law. The very thing which our educational system should carefully
avoid, the introduction of intolerant hobbies and isms, will be effected by this measure.
There is plenty of room now for every teacher in our public schools to use his influence
and his example with his pupils in behalf of virtue, morality and all the ennobling
qualities of human character; all text-books used as readers are replete with lessons on
temperance and virtue. If our churches, our Sunday-schools and the daily instruction and
exhortations of our schools are powerless to avert the calamity of intemperate habits among
the young men of the Nation, what do you expect to effect by establishing a special branch
of instruction, which, from the very fact of its
Mr. RAHM saw no use in teaching temperance in the public schools. You can pass all legislative laws you please and there will still be drunkenness. We have Sunday-schools, churches and families, and those are the places to teach temperance. I don't think discussion will effect the fate of the bill, and I move to lay the motion to concur on the table.
The motion was rejected by yeas 20, nays 20.
Pending the roll-call -
Mr. McINTOSH said: I am in favor of the principles contained in the bill but opposed to its tyrannical provisions. For the purpose of giving its friends a chance to amend it, I vote "no."
Mr. SHIVELY said: I feel very largely instructed by my constituents to favor the bill before the Senate, so I will obey instructions and vote "no" on this question.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings: I am not opposed to the principles of this bill if properly incorporated therein and if necessary, but I am of opinion that the bill is wholly unnecessary, because this same question can be taught in the public schools now, and is taught wherever any one desiring to teach it has the ability to teach it. Therefore, there being no necessity for the bill as I understand it, I vote "aye."
Mr. WEIR: I am in favor of the principle of this bill as provided in the first section. I am not one among those who believe that because the question of protection of prohibition has been made a political issue it is not proper to teach hygiene and the effects of alcoholic stimulants to the children attending the public schools. I believe instead of that it is a duty to teach it. Not that it will interfere with the rights of pupils or the rights of their parents, but simply that they may learn what the effect is upon the human system. I know of no reason why this should not be taught. I have no apprehension that it will involve a political question. Therefore I vote "no."
The vote was then announced as above.
Mr. SCHLOSS moved to refer to a committee of seven.
Mr. WEIR moved to strike out Sections 2 and 3.
Mr. ADKISON: Nothing has been before the Senate on which the people have so favorably expressed themselves as on this subject. He opposed the motion to refer.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay, moved to strike out the enacting clause as a substitute for the pending motion.
Mr. DUNCAN, of Brown, was fully prepared to vote in opposition to the bill, but not opposed to teaching the effects of narcotics in the common schools. The bill is based upon the incorrect theory of what is now taught in the common schools. One of the eight branches required to be taught is physiology, and the effect of alcoholic poisons is one branch of that study. So it is nowt fully provided for in the public schools. Twenty pages in one of these books, used in seventy of the counties of the State, is devoted to the effect of alcoholic stimulants and tobacco upon the human system.
Mr. MARSHALL: I believe the people have a right to petition their representatives to carry out their views, and of all the subjects upon which we have received petitions this subject has had more in its favor. I don't think we ought to dodge so important a question. Four years ago I voted for a constitutional amendment to submit this question to the people, because I believed it constitutionally right, morally right and politically right. No teacher does his duty unless he teaches his scholars the dire effects of alcoholic stimulants upon the system. I shall vote for this bill.
Mr. HILILGASS: I was in favor of the first section of this bill, and of the amendment offered by the Senator from Laporte (Mr. Weir). If it is proper and right to teach this subject in seventy counties, why not make it uniform throughout the State? Senators who oppose this bill say the effects of alcoholic stimulants are becoming more and more fatal as the years go by. If that be true, it is our highest duty to put in the hands of children information that will enable them to shun its evil consequences and stay this tide of evil that is sweeping over the laud. We cannot evade the responsibility if we refuse to allow the evil effects of those narcotics to be taught in the public schools.
Mr. WILLARD demanded the previous question.
The Senate refused to second the demand by yeas 20, nays 24.
Pending the roll-call -
Mr. McINTOSH said: If I understand it aright, if the demand for the previous question is seconded and the Senate refuses to sustain the motion to strike the enacting clause from this bill, the bill will be carried to the engrossment without giving a chance to amend it. I, therefore, vote "no."
Mr. THOMPSON said: I am in favor, in the abstract, of teaching morals in the public
schools. I think it of the highest importance, and that we owe it to the children of the
State; but this idea of making it a
The vote was then announced as above.
The motion to strike out the enacting was also rejected by yeas 21; nays 23.
Pending the roll-call -
Mr. DUNCAN, of Brown, said: I am opposed to the bill, but I desire to see its friends receive fair treatment, and would like to meet that question squarely. Therefore I vote "no."
Mr. FAULKNER: I want to explain my vote. While I want to give everybody a fair chance, I want to get rid of this sometime or other. Therefore I vote "aye."
Mr. MAY: I simply want to say that I am not in favor of this summary way of killing a bill in any legislative body. Therefore I vote "no."
Mr. McCLURE: All the explanation I have is that I wish to give the friends of this bill a fair chance, and I consequently vote "no."
Mr. McCULLOUGH said: I am in favor of fair dealing but I think this bill has had more than a fair chance - a great deal more than a fair chance. It had more discussion than it was entitled to before the motion to lay on the table was made. There are but ten or twelve days before the close of this session, and if we are going to discuss bills of this sort and that sort a great deal of important legislation must go over. The Senate should not spend hours and hours upon a bill they all have their minds made up on. I am opposed to it all the time, and am willing to go on the record as opposed to it without any discussion. I vote "aye."
Mr. RAHM: The same reasons I gave when I made a motion to lay the bill on the able, are the same reasons I shall vote in favor of this motion; because there is no use in fooling away our time; and there is no chance to pass this bill here or in the other House. I vote "aye."
Mr. WEIR said: As the amendments I proposed show, I am opposed to some of the provisions, while the object of the bill I am in favor of. But there was no opportunity allowed to offer amendments, therefore I think the friends of this measure have not been treated in such a manner as they are entitled to upon a question of so much importance. I therefore vote "no."
The vote was then announced as above.
Mr. WILLARD moved to indefinitely the bill.
The motion was agreed to by yeas 24, nays 21.
Then came a recess for dinner.
Mr. FOWLER'S bill [S. 27] to repeal the act creating a Commissioner of Fisheries was read with a favorable and unfavorable committee report.
Mr. BAILEY moved to concur in the same majority report.
Mr. FOWLER moved to amend by concurring in the minority report. I think this is a useless expenditure for carrying on a purpose that benefits no portion of the State and but few people in it.
The motion was rejected.
The majority report was concurred in.
Mr. SCHLOSS' bill [S. 39] to appropriate $25,000 annually out of the school fund to the State Normal School, coming up on the second reading -
Mr. McINTOSH: I hope this bill will never become a law. There has been $20,000 already set apart to the State Normal School. Now this appropriation is to set apart a $25,000 a year more. It is now enough.
Mr. FOWLER: I think this is a pernicious bill in principle. It is all wrong. This shows how these things creep in. It never was intended to divert money from the common school fund for any purpose. Let all such appropriations, if they must be made, be made out of the general fund.
Mr. SCHLOSS: The Trustees of the State Normal School find it impossible to pay the teachers, and the school is now indebted for borrowed money. The school is increasing in usefulness and numbers. There were 1,175 students last year. The school fund can not be diverted for a better purpose than to the Normal School. I hope the bill will pass.
Mr. MAGEE: I saw a large number of small children attending the Normal School. Are the teachers of such paid by the State?
Mr. SCHLOSS: The Normal pays part and the city of Terre Haute part of the salaries of these teachers.
Mr. YOUCHE: This seems to be pernicious legislation. When the Constitution was adopted there was no such thing as a State Normal School, and it can't be said that is a common school. The Constitution should be liberally construed, but the Constitution prescribes in Section 185 [Reads] that the income of the school fund shall be distributed to the several counties. How can Senators get around this provision in the Constitution, and say this fund shall be distributed to this or that institution?
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks: I differ in the opinion, that this is a diversion of the money to the Normal School. I regard it in a different light from what I do the State University or Purdue University. I regard this State Normal School as part of the system of public schools, and it is an institution of which we ought to be proud.
Mr. DAVIS: The General Appropriation bill passed yesterday gives the State Normal School $7,000.
Mr. WEIR called attention to a communication from the Governor in reference to the title to the grounds on which the State Normal School is built, and insisted we should know more about this before any further appropriations are made
Mr. SCHLOSS: The committee has done its duty, and everything is in order, and the papers will soon be returned here, and the report of the committee will show all is right.
Mr. MAGEE: The proportionate amount of the school fund that should go for the instruction of children attending that school must be just. I doubt the constitutionality of an act that would divert money from the school fund for the education of teachers. I do not agree with the statement that the State Normal School is a part of the common school system of the State. I think there are about 800 children taught in the Normal School building, which is called a "model school." If the fund is used for common school purposes, it don't matter whether the children are taught in the Normal School building or elsewhere, so it is properly and justly applied. I am willing the portion Case County will give of this $25,000 shall go as this bill proposes. Therefore, I am in favor of the passage of this bill.
Mr. DAVIS understands this bill would make the appropriation to the State Normal School some $45,000 a year.
Mr. FOULKE: There is a doubt about the constitutionality of the measure, and he moved the
reference of the bill to the
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. Weir's bill [S. 47 - see page 38] to require corporations to pay employes in full in money at least once a month, was read the second time.
Mr. MAGEE knew no reason why individuals should not come under the provisions of this bill if its provisions be just. He moved so to amend. If such a bill were passed so many corporations would go out of existence. This bill, would require certain things to be done that it is utterly impossible to do under certain circumstances.
Mr. BAILEY: We have in this city large manufacturing establishments paying their men in store orders, and the men are compelled to take their supplies at a greater price than if they had lawful money; and sometimes these orders have to be sold by the men at a discount of sometimes 25 per cent. I shall favor the amendment but if it is defeated we should pass the bill. I refer Democratic members to their platform which says they will pass a bill that will make the payment of wages in lawful money of the United States.
Mr. MAY: All the information I have of the bill is received from this discussion, for I have not read it, but I do know it would have a deletreious effect in the locality where I live. By the co-operative system Tell City has grown to be one of the liveliest little towns in the State. This is a blow at co-operative institutions that will ruin them. There has not been a more pernicious piece of legislation attempted than this.
Mr. McCULLOUGH: The amendment means indirectly to defeat the bill. Corporations stand upon an entirely different plane from the individual. They have asked and obtained from the law-making power rights that private individuals have not, and the law making power can regulate their affairs as proposed in this bill. It is a false argument to say the Legislature shall take no control of them. The bill says, unless there is a specific contract to the contrary, the workmen shall be paid in full, in money, every month. I think that is right. Give the corporation the month's credit they always take, and then compel them, under penalties, to pay what they justly owe. The day is at hand when the Legislature must take hold of these corporations and see that justice is done by them. There is nothing in this bill but what is reasonable and just.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings: It is only the corporations that are doing business on credit that can complain of the provisions of this bill. There are a great many railroad corporations in this State doing business wholly on credit, and if workmen dare to quit they are told they will be lawed to the end of time and will never get anything. They have been driven to desperate deeds the cries of their children when asking for bread they could not give. This bill out to become a law. The man who earns his living by the sweat of his brow should be protected by the Legislature of Indiana. Owners of mines frequently pay their men in store script, payable only at the grocery owned by the corporation owning the mines, where the workmen have to allow a greater price for the necessities of life than money would buy. It is to protect the working people that this bill has been reported favorably to the Senate.
Mr. MARSHALL: The labor question has often been mentioned on this floor. If we will enact
this law, and the corporations will satisfy their
Mr. WEIR had intended to discuss the bill somewhat, but as it is getting late, and if the bill can be disposed of this evening, he would abandon that intention.
Mr. McINTOSH presented a petition of 376 laboring men from his district on this subject.
He favored the passage of the bill,
Mr. MAGEE: I never was employed by a railroad corporation in my life, but I am a friend to corporations so long as they deal justly to its employes. This bill, if it becomes a law, will harass and annoy corporations all over the State. It ought to be entitled "a bill to breed law suits." It is a pernicious and vicious measure.
The amendment (Mr. Magee's) was rejected.
On motion by Mr. MAGEE the bill was amended by requiring payment to be made within "thirty" instead of "ten" days
The bill was ordered engrossed.
On emotion by Mr. WEIR the bill was read the third time under a dispensation of the constitutional rule, and passed the Senate by yeas 36, nays 3.
Mr. DAVIS, explaining: This bill, if passed into a law, would very likely be detrimental to the interests of both the employer and the employe. I vote "no."
Mr. FOULKE: I am informed that in different parts of the State a great deal of hardship is borne by employes that this bill would remove. I vote "aye."
Mr. FOWLER: I represent some 3,000 miners, probably more than are in all the balance of the State, and these men working deep under the earth are constantly being defrauded out of their hard-earned toil. In Clay County wherever you find a mining shaft or wherever a car load of coal is taken out you will find a little grocery established for the purpose of furnishing groceries to the miners, and instead of paying them money they are paid in script, and they are obliged to pay from 15 to 25 per cent. more for their living. This bill proposes to remedy that great outrage, and that is the reason I vote "aye."
Mr. MAY: I also live in a coal mining and manufacturing region, but our people are paid regularly every month as a general thing in cash. So far as the bill grants a lein to the laboring man I am in favor of it, but as far as it affects co-operative institutions I am opposed to it; therefore I vote "no."
Mr. WILLARD: With the amendment made by the Senator from Cass (Mr. Magee) changing the time from ten to thirty days, I think the object of the bill is to a certain extent defeated. I think there should be placed in the hands of the laboring man immediate remedy, but hoping the ten day clause will be put back in the House I vote "aye."
Mr. WINTER: I don't know that a railroad company or any other corporation has the right to make a forced loan on workmen and then discount their wages by paying them in grocery orders; therefore, I vote "aye."
The vote was then amended as above.
So the bill passed the Senate.
The Senate adjourned till 9:30 o'clock to-morrow.
Mr. McMULLEN, reported from the
The House
Mr. GORDON from committee thereon reported a bill for the establishment of an Indiana
weather bureau. He said that a bureau is now in operation at DePauw University, that the
expenses were paid by that institution, and that no appropriation was asked from the State.
The bill was referred to the
The
Mr. FRAZEE'S bill [H. R. 486] to legalize barbed wire fences, under a suspension of the rules, was read the second and third time.
Mr. PATTEN: I hope the bill will fail, as I desire a law that will define the legality of all kinds of fences.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: The bill will hurt no other fence, but will merely legalize barbed wire fences.
Mr. MOCK, of Wells: This bill does not touch a fence now built, but refers only to those to be built. It provides that the posts and wires must be just so and so, and will necessitate the rebuilding of all wire fences now standing.
The bill passed by yeas 51, nays 41.
On motion of Mr. WILLIAMS, the House resolved itself into committee of the whole, Mr. Adams in the chair, and resumed consideration of the bill [H. R. 427] making appropriations for the State government.
Mr. DEEM moved to amend so that the sum of $3,000, instead of $2,500, be allowed the Feeble Mind Institution for allowance to the Superintendent and Trustees
Mr. LOYD said the amendment should pass by all means.
Mr. BROWNING: This bill does not propose to help the institution nor the inmates - only to increase the salaries of the officers. These officers get not only their salaries, but have their families boarded, and that makes a handsome pay. There are men in Indiana now running after us, pulling the buttons from our coats, to get the position at the old salary.
Mr. DEEM: The law allows the three Trustees each $500 per year, making $1,500, and the Superintendent $1,500, and your appropriation must be $3,000 to be good for it.
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. SAYRE offered an amendment providing that the Governor should have the power to remove, with or without cause, any officer or employe of the institution. He said: the recent investigation has disclosed a most outrageous scandal at that institution, yet no legislator has had courage to introduce a bill to remove some of the officials who have badly abused their positions.
Mr. GOODING moved to amend the striking out the word "without."
Mr. HARRELL: It would look strange to have such an amendment put in an appropriation bill.
Mr. JEWETT: I am so heartily in favor of this amendment that I can not remain silent. I go further, and say that the Governor should have the power to remove from our public institution any man, for cause. The amendment and the amendment to the amendment should carry.
Mr. WILLIAMS: I think this is the wrong place to make the law which these amendments propose. We should, in justice to ourselves, first hear a report from this investigating committee.
On motion of Mr. SEARS, the committee rose, reported progress and asked leave to sit again at 10 o'clock to-morrow morning.
On motion of Mr. BOOE the bill [H. R. 66] changing the boundaries of the Twenty-first and Twenty-second Judicial Circuits and creating the Forty-seventh Judicial Circuit was taken up.
Mr. MOODY: I do not want to oppose this bill, but as it makes a new circuit I am opposed to taking it up out of its order.
Mr. SEARS: I tell this Assembly, upon my honor as a man and upon my honor as a member of this body that you can not in any one of the five counties find a man who opposes this measure. On the contrary, they demand the passage of this bill. Montgomery County is 530 cases behind, Vermillion is in arrears and so is Parke County.
Mr. BROWNING: I do not believe in creating new circuits. I do not say but that this circuit is in need as badly as any. I do not know how it is in the northern part of the State but in the southern part of the State litigation is decreasing. I am afraid that in these circuits wanting less territories the judges do not work as hard as they should.
Mr. STALEY: I am authorized to speak only for Montgomery County. I will say that unless this circuit is changed the wheels of justice will be clogged.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: I can testify that Montgomery County needs this. Clinton County, not so large, has a circuit to itself.
Mr. TAYLOR: The Constitution says that every man shall have a trial speedily and without delay. We must have it arranged to that end.
Mr. BOOE: Montgomery is one of the large and populous counties of the State. Those counties are behind in business.
The bill passed - ayes, 77; nays, 11.
The bill [S. 196] to provide for a temporary loan of $600,000, came up as a special order.
Mr. GORDON moved to amend, that none of the money be used in the erection of the Insane Asylums at Logansport or Richmond.
On motion by Mr. TAYLOR, the amendment was laid on the table - yeas, 76; nays, 8.
Mr. GORDON moved to amend by stating from which fund the interest shall be paid.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: Unless the amendment is really necessary it should not be passed, as it will cause the bill to go back to the Senate.
The amendment was adopted
Mr. TAYLOR: I favor this bill because of the great necessity of it. We can't avoid it.
Mr. GOODING: I know I am in the minority. I have been so before, but there are those outside this House who are with me. I am not afraid to stand alone. There are many here who will speak after I do; they will fire from the rear. This money is to be borrowed to build the new Insane Asylums, which are not needed. I am here to call a halt. This money will come from the sons of toil. Of course we borrow it, but it will become due, with interest, some day. And again, this $600,000 will not go far enough to pay the appropriations. If you continue as you are going before the close of this session it will take $600,000 more. Let us show the country that the Democratic party meant it when it said that it was in favor of retrenchment and reform.
Mr. MOODY: In the present condition of the State's finances the importance of this
bill can not, in my judgment, be overestimated. This bill, originating as it did in the
Senate, was, as I understand, carefully and most thoroughly considered by the
You will thus see at a glance that the ordinary current expenses of the State for all departments last year was $973,572.31.
This may seem and in fact is a very large sum of money, yet it is less than fifty cents for each inhabitant of the State. On examination of the present appropriation bill gentlemen will find that it exceeds the expenses above given for last year's expenses by $150,000 in round numbers. For the present year it will then be safe to say that the current expenses will be as follows, to-wit: $973,572.31. Reads Auditor's estimate.]
To this sum of $1,864,127.87 should be added the excess of the General Appropriation bill of this year over the expenses for all purposes of last year, $150,000. Also, the following special appropriations, made at this session, and not found in the Appropriation bill: Appropriation for the House of Refuge, $6,800; for New Orleans Exposition, $3,900; for damage to Insane Hospital, $3,000; for Bloomington University, $30,000; making expenditure for the year, $2,057,827.87. How then is the State Treasury to meet the demand for the present year, to-wit, $2,057,827.87, is the question addressed to each of us. There was in the general fund, at the commencement of the present fiscal year (see Auditor's Report, page 7) $28,036.17. The receipts of the general fund last year, after deducting the $109,000 transfer warrants, were, as shown by the Auditor's report (pages 8 and 9), $1,422,915.19; add fund on hand, $26,036.17; available assets, $1,448,951.96. According to the Auditor's report (page 8) the State Treasurer called in in advance of the regular December settlement of the revenue for 1884 $61,222.27. So the receipts of last year were augmented by this amount, and the receipts of this year will fall below those of last year by that amount, so that we must not only provide for this $61,222.27 deficit, but $122,444.54. Deducting this amount from the $1,448.956.19 leaves the receipts for this year $1,326,507.34. In this calculation I have assumed that the taxes will be as closely collected as last year, which is extremely doubtful. The expenditures for this year, I have shown, will be $2,057,827.87; the receipts $1,326,507.34; deficit at the close of year, $731,320.53. This amount may still be increased by special appropriations made by this Legislature before its close. Since 1887 the tax levy has been twelve cents on the $100 and fifty cents poll. You will see by the Auditor's Report, page 70, that the assessment of real and personal property in 1884 was $797,884,706, being $56,205,419 less than in 1877.
Gentlemen, when we stop and examine for a moment the extraordinary expenditures for all
purposes in the last year it is not surprising that we are compelled to adopt some plan to
meet them. There is another matter which might very properly be considered at this time. We
have a 5 per cent. temporary loan of $585,000 in round numbers, now due and drawing 5 per
cent. interest. If this bill is passed these bonds can be taken up and be replaced with
bonds drawing 1½ per cent. less rate of interest. In these calculations I have not taken
into consideration the proposed appropriation for completing the new Insane
Mr. BROWNLEE: The insane that will be taken from the county almshouses, and thus relieve the counties of expenses, will more than pay for those asylums.
Mr. GORDON - I do not believe that this $600,000 will meet the demand.
The bill passed - yeas, 82; nays, 1.
Mr. BENZ introduced a bill [S. 329] to amend an act concerning the behavior and time of convicts in the State Prisons.
On motion of Mr. MAGEE the House amendment to the Temporary Loan bill [S. 196 - see page 131] adding the words "the interest shall be paid semi-annually out of the State Treasury not otherwise appropriated" was concurred in.
Mr. ERNEST offered a concurrent resolution, which was adopted, instructing Senators and requesting Indiana Congressmen to oppose any financial measure having for its object the stoppage of the coinage of silver dollars.
On Motion by Mr. LINDLEY the constitutional restriction was dispensed with by a yes and nay vote, and his bill [S. 294] to legalize the construction of a free gravel road in Parke County was read the second time by title, the third time by sections and passed by yeas 38, nays 0.
Mr. LINDLEY explained: It is purely local, affecting only a certain portion of Parke County, and there can be no question about the justice of the measure. It affects no litigation now pending, and will, in fact, prevent any litigation.
Mr. HUSTON's bill [S. 29 - see pages 136 and 164] coming up on the second reading with a pending amendment proposing to make the rate of interest 7 per cent -
Mr. OVERSTREET: The bill ought not to pass without this amendment. Under the Constitution no more than 6 per cent. can be collected from any counties that may lend at 6. Upon principle I think 7 per cent. is a fair rate. There are expenses incident upon making these loans that make it cost at least 1 per cent. more. If the people are relieved from this higher rate of interest it can be supplied by the entire State. To harmonize all feelings in this matter we ought to fix the rate at 7 per cent. as this amendment proposes.
Mr. BROWN: The practical effect of this bill will be to loan the school fund at 6 per cent. With the rate at 7, as proposed by the amendment, the bill will have the effect of loaning the entire school fund; and this would be a relief to a great many counties.
Mr. MAGEE: The object of the constitutional provision is to make this a permanent and certain fund. If it be loaned in Wayne County at 8 and in Cass County at 6, we in Cass County would have to make up this difference of 2 per cent.
Mr. JOHNSON, of Tippecanoe: Seventy counties can loan the entire fund at 8 per cent. Only eleven counties recommend the reduction to 7 per cent., and ten to 6 per cent. This amendment would reduce the school fund interest fully 12½ per cent., and the result would be we must cut down the terms of schools or reduce the salaries of teachers, either of which attempt would be a crime against the children now in this State and those yet unborn. Do not cripple the income which sustains the Common Schools. The Democratic party should bear in mind that it is charged with assailing the system of Common Schools. I am here to enter a solemn protest against doing so.
Mr. McINTOSH: The committee had this bill under advisement at two meetings. I am opposed to the amendment and to the bill because it cuts the rate of interest down from 8 to 6 per cent. There is but one section that fixes the rate of interest on the school fund, and that is the very section this bill would amend if it passes. Then there would be no law to hold the counties for 8 per cent.
Mr. WEIR would oppose the bill if it will reduce the rate of interest to 6 per cent.
The 7 per cent. amendment was rejected by yeas 16, nays 20.
Mr. YOUCHE moved to amend by providing that the several counties shall be held liable to pay the amount of interest as required under Section 4,226 of the Revised Statutes of 1881.
Mr. OVERSTREET: If the rate is fixed at 8 in this bill where it can be loaned at that and in others at 6, the 8 per cent. rate could not be enforced under the Constitution.
Mr. SELLERS also thought this amendment would render the law unconstitutional. The bill and the amendment ought both to disposed of in a summary manner.
Mr. WEIR: I do not think that county officers will loan this fund for any lower rate of interest than can be obtained.
On motion by Mr. SELLERS the bill and amendments were laid on the table by yeas 25, nays 11.
A report from the
Mr. SCHLOSS: As the Normal School will be without money for tuition purposes I will introduce a bill as a substitute for bill 39.
It was read and referred to a select committee of five, numbered S. 330.
Mr. ADIKISON obtained consent to introduce a concurrent resolution requesting Senators and Representatives in Congress to aid in the passage of measures pledging the faith of the Nation to a policy looking to the education of Indians and their voluntary citizenship; - as follows:
Whereas, Believing that the education of Indians and their voluntary citizenship in the United States will most justly, quickly, and economically solve the Indian problem; therefore
Resolved, By the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring, That our Senators and Representatives in Congress be and they are hereby requested to aid in the passage of measures solemnly pledging the faith of the Nation to the Indian policy embodied in the following principles:
1. That the unpaid sum pledged for educational purposes by the Government as part payment for the cession of lands by Indians, be appropriated for the purpose of stock, farming implements, tools, etc., for Indian manual-labor schools.
2. That so much of the net proceeds of the sale of Indian lands as may be necessary shall be set apart for the purpose of creating a permanent fund for the education of Indians.
3. That lands in severalty, making their titles inalienable for twenty five years, and United States citizenship may be granted at once to all Indians who so desire.
4. That the legal personality of all Indians may be granted, and that protection of law may be given them, as it is to all other races within these United States.
5. That the civilization of Indians may be hastened by providing for and rewarding their civilized industries.
6. That the salaries of Indian Agents be increased sufficiently to secure good men of large capacity and business experience, and to retain them in service.
It was referred to the
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks: I have been requested by a number of excellent Christian women to present the same resolutions, and had determined to do so in the regular order of business at the first opportunity. My failure to offer them was not on account of any want of respect for the women who asked me to present them, although I have but little faith in of the experiment to educate Indians.
On motion by Mr. SELLERS the constitutional rule was dispensed with and his bill [S. 71] to legalize the conveyance of real estate by cities was read the second time by title, the third time by sections and passed by yeas 34, nays 0. Mr. S. stating that it would affect only the city of Lafayette.
On motion by Mr. HILLIGAS the bill [H. R. 247] to appropriate $25,901.02 to pay the indebtedness of the State to William B Burford for printing, binding and stationary, was passed to the final reading, under a suspension of the rules, and passed by yeas 35, nays 0.
On motion by Mr. SMITH, of Jennings, his bill [S. 257] concerning contracts for improvement of streets and alleys in cities, was read the third time and passed by yeas 35, nays 0.
On motion by Mr. BROWN his bill [S. 21] to amend Sections 1, 6 and 20 of the Supervisors' Act of March 2, 1883, fixing the price for teams working on the roads, etc., was read the third time and passed by yeas 34, nays 0.
On motion by Mr. BRYANT his bill [S. 162] to amend Sections 1 and 4 of the act of March 7, 1883, establishing a State Board of Health, was taken up, but before it was read -
The Senate adjourned.
[Omitted from first column, page 151.]
The Senate having under consideration the majority and minority reports of the joint committee appointed to inquire as to whether an investigation of the State Treasury is necessary -
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings, concluding his speech, said: No evidence was taken by the
committee upon any of the pretended facts stated in the minority report. It stands
unsupported by the proof of a single fact, and
If fair play had been desired, and honest dealing had been intended, why is the minority report silent upon the author of the facts stated? If shame for the company they have been keeping has not admonished the minority to silence, why have they not placed before the public the authority for the charges contained in their report? But since silence has cast the mantle of protection about the head of the unworthy author of this political libel, it may not be improper if I should say that the ex Governor of Indiana, from the beginning of this investigation, shadowed the minority like the ghost of an ill-omen, and with his cold and designing nature guided its every action and inspired its every motive. From the lofty position of Governor of Indiana, he descended to the common level and vulgar plane of the lobbyist, that he might accomplish, through other means and by indirection, what he failed to do in an open and honorable contest. The minority report is as much work as if he had penned it. The hand is the hand of Esau, but the voice is the voice of Jacob.
The minority report should be rejected, and in dishonor and disgrace it should be consigned to the depths of an everlasting oblivion.
Mr. HANLON, from the
Mr. HARGRAVE and Mr. WILSON, from the same committee, presented a minority report recommending that it be engrossed with amendments.
Mr. HANLON made an ineffectual motion - yeas 10, nays 59 - that the minority report be laid on the table.
Mr. GORDON, explaining his vote, said: I am not exactly in favor of the bill as it is, yet with slight changes I would like to vote for it. I vote "no."
Mr. HOBAN: It is no more than right when a railway corporation takes our land for a right of way that they should fence the line. I vote "no."
Mr. PASSAGE: Inasmuch as many of the roads of the State have without compulsion fenced their lines, I think it no more than right that the other roads should do like-wise. I vote "no."
Mr. STALEY: There are some features in this bill I can not support. I vote "aye."
Mr. TAYLOR: Without saying what I shall do when the bill comes up, I vote "no."
The vote was then announced as above.
So the motion to lay on the table was rejected.
The question recurring on the adoption of the minority report -
Mr. BROWNLEE said: If there is any argument why a railroad should not fence its line to protect farmers' stock, I do not know what it is. I hope the minority report will be adopted.
Mr. FRENCH: Many farmers cultivate right up to the railway track, and this bill will shut that off, doing wrong and no good.
Mr. BEST: The railway and the farmer could waive the law in that case.
The majority report was concurred in, and so the amendments were agreed to.
Mr. FRENCH moved to amend that the farmer may enter into an agreement with the railway relative to omitting the fence, so that the land may be cultivated up to the tracks.
Mr. ENGLE: There is no penalty attached to this bill. The farmer through whose land the railroad runs may collect damages from the railway, but if he agree to omit the fence then the provisions of the bill may be evaded.
Mr. FRENCH: The amendment can do no harm, certainly.
Mr. BROWNING made an ineffectual motion to lay the amendment on the table.
Mr. SAYRE: The only objection to fencing, I fear, is that it costs too much. As farmers are compelled to fence, railways should be compelled also. I am opposed to the amendment because I think railways should be compelled to fence the whole line. I believe that the law should not be left in such a condition that a farmer can enter into a compact to abolish the fence. I believe that this amendment will make the law inoperative.
Mr. MOODY: I believe the railroad companies should be compelled to fence always. These railway companies frequently go through a man's land without paying a cent, and they should fence.
Mr. FRENCH: It is a mistake to suppose that farmers are compelled to fence. It is
The amendment was rejected.
The bill was ordered engrossed - yeas 70, nays 5.
The bill to compel railroad companies to fence their tracks where they extend through improved lands was ordered engrossed in the House of Reps. If the measure becomes a law it is estimated that the work will involve an outlay of $4,800,000.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe, from the special committee thereon, reported Mr. Barr's joint resolution [H. R. 14, - see page 195] recommending that it be adopted.
The report was concurred in.
Mr. HALON, of the
The bill was read the second time.
Mr. DEBS: This measure is a very important one, and is meant to protect laborers from carelessness of employers.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: I have made up my mind to push this bill as far as in my power to completion. In my county we were pledged to it. This not a political question, and all the candidates of our county were pledged to it. Judge Woods says that to secure these damages the Legislature must be appealed to. If a man out of the employ of a railroad lose his life while riding on it he may recover damages; and we should make it the same with employes. I rise and fall by this position
Mr. BROWNLEE: I arise to join the two gentlemen who have preceded me.
The SPEAKER: I think this bill would have been engrossed long ago but for these speeches.
The bill was ordered engrossed.
Mr. DONHOST, from the
Mr. McCLELLAND, from the committee, presented a minority report recommending that the bill pass.
Mr. SEARS: The point in this bill is to prohibit an applicant for liquor license who has been refused a license in a county, to secure a change of venue; whereas as it is now he has all recourse at the hands of the Circuit Court. The remedy is all there. I need go no farther.
Mr. MOODY: I argue that the prejudice which exists before the Board of County Commissioners exists in the Circuit Court. A question of fact comes up in this instance, and it should have an equal chance with all other cases.
On motion by Mr. WILLIAMS the minority report was laid on the table by yeas 42, nays 32.
The majority report was concurred in.
Mr. HAWORTH introduced a bill [H. R. 491] to amend the liquor law by providing this license to sell liquors should not be granted by a County Board to any person not a resident of the county.
Mr. HELMS introduced a bill, [H. R. 491] proposing to make it unlawful to compel any driver or other employe of a street car company to labor more than twelve hours out of twenty-four, and providing a fine of not less than $5 nor more than $50 for every violation of the same.
Mr. WILLIAMS introduced the bill [H. R. 489] to authorize the Trustees of the Insane Hospital to connect that institution with this city Water Works, so as to afford better fire protection. The committee is yet undecided whether the best plan to be pursued is to connect with the Water Works or to provide some other plan for getting adequate protection from fire. It will cost about $40,000 to connect with the city mains and put in such pipes and apparatus as will be necessary.
Mr. ADAMS moved to concur in the report of the
Pending which -
The House adjourned until Monday morning at 10 o'clock.
Mr. FOULKE offered a concurrent resolution for an amendment to the State Constitution by
striking therefrom Section 21 of Article 7. It was referred to the
The joint resolution [H. R. 1 - See page 47] proposing an amendment to Section 2 Article 5 of the State Constitution was read the third time and passed by yeas 32, nays 12.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks, explaining: It proposes to fix the terms of the office of Auditor, Clerk and Sheriff four years. No one to be eligible to more than one term in eight years, the terms to begin the first day of January after the election, and appointees to fill vacancies shall only hold until the succeeding election, the object being that the commencement of these terms shall become uniform, and continue to be uniform.
Mr. Youche's bill [S. 50] for the security of laboring men in the payment of wages due, coming up it was read the second time and ordered engrossed.
Mr. YOUCHE, explaining: Section 5,206 of the R. S. is proposed to be amended by appropriately inserting the words: "Agricultural or other business or employment." It is to put all laborers on the same footing, as is preferred claims before assignees.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings, introduced a resolution instructing a select committee to prepare a bill for reorganizing the Orphans' Home and Asylum for Feeble Minded Children, and placing the appointments of new Trustees in the hands of the Governor, such committee to report by to-morrow morning. Senators Smith, of Jennings, Weir, Winter, Overstreet and McIntyre were appointed such committee.
Mr. Bailey's bill [S. 81] to amend section 1 of the Justice act coming upon the second reading.
Mr. BAILEY explaining: It proposes to allow two Justices for each townships and one additional for each city.
Mr. OVERSTREET did not think all our legislation should be especially for Indianapolis. This bill would cut off incorporated towns. An additional justice should be allowed incorporated towns also.
Mr. WINTER explained the trouble among Justices in this city, where there are now six Justices, many more than are necessary; which suggests the necessity of some such movement as this.
Mr. SELLERS moved to amend by providing one additional Justice for each incorporated town, not to exceed four in any city.
This latter amendment was agreed to.
The bill was ordered engrossed.
Than came recess for dinner.
Mr. May's Second Judicial Circuit Court bill [S. 269] was read the second time, and under a dispensation of the Constitutional restriction - yeas 37, nays 0 - read the third time and passed the Senate by yeas - , nays - .
Mr. Hilligass' bill [S. 87] to organize the State militia coming up, several amendments were read -
Mr. HILLIGASS proposed that the Section 63 be so amended as to make it discretionary with County Commissioners whether an armory shall be built, and to strike out the section for an encampment.
Mr. FAULKNER objected to the discretionary clause. With that in the bill one part of the State will be taxed and another not.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings: There is a provision that will cost that State $100,000, and there are other dangerous provisions in the bill.
On motion by Mr. HILLIGASS the bill was recommitted with instructions to so amend.
Subsequently Mr. HOWARD, from the
On motion of Mr. HILLIGASS the report was concurred in and the bill was ordered engrossed.
On motion by Mr. ERNEST the bill [H. R. 83] to fix court terms in the Fourteenth, Fifteenth and Forty-third Judicial Circuits was pressed to the final reading under a setting aside of the constitutional rule, and passed the Senate by yeas 41, nays 0.
On motion by Mr. MAGEE the bill [H. R. 17] to legalize the appointment and acts of trustees in certain cases was read the second time by title, the third time by sections, and passed under a suspension of the constitutional rule by yeas 39, nays 0.
Mr. MAGEE stated this was to cover a case where two trustees were appointed while the law contemplates but one, and is a purely local matter. The bill proposes to legalize the appointment where more than one trustee has been appointed in cases of voluntary assignment.
Mr. FOULKE moved to change the hour of meeting in the forenoon from 10 to 9:30 o'clock.
Mr. McCULLOUGH moved to further amend by providing for night sessions to commence at 7:30 o'clock.
Mr. FOULKE accepted the amendment.
Mr. WILLARD made the point of order that the amendment to the amendment is not germane, and under the rules must lie over for one day.
The Presiding Officer (Mr. Fowler) in the chair overruled the point of order.
Mr. WILLARD made an ineffectual motion to lay the whole subject on the table - yeas 14, nays 26.
Mr. WILLARD demanded a division of the question. He was willing to meet at 9:30 o'clock in the morning.
Mr. HILLIGASS moved as a substitute for the whole proposition 9 o'clock instead of 9:30 o'clock.
This substitute was rejected upon a division - affirmative 19, negative 20.
Mr. McCULLOUGH: It is true the Senate may adjourn in the afternoon till some hour in the evening, but the business ought not to fail for want of time to mature legislation. If for the next two weeks we spend our time in some other place, it is just as well that the past forty days' work were not done. I hope the motion will prevail with the amendment.
The night session part of the amendment was agreed to by - yeas, 21; nays, 30.
The other part of the amendment, declaring the Senate will meet at 9½ o'clock every morning, was agreed to.
On motion of Mr. FOULKE, it was
Ordered, That when the Senate adjourn it be till 9½ o'clock to-morrow morning.
Mr. Magee's bill [S. 31], to amend Section 2 of an amended drainage act, coming up with committee amendments.
The report was concurred in.
Mr. YOUCHE moved to amend the second section of the bill, so that in case of disagreement between the contractor and laborers the court shall finally determine such matter.
Mr. MAGEE accepted the amendment.
The bill was ordered engrossed.
Mr. Drake's bill [S. 82] to amend Section 12 of the drainage act of April 8, 1881, coming up with committee amendments -
Mr. FOULKE did not believe one bill can amend two acts, as is proposed in this.
Mr. DRAKE explained: The committee added the second section.
Mr. YOUCHE: The first section proposes to amend an act of 1881, and the second section another section of the same act as it has been amended in 1883. The amendment, with the original act, compose the entire drainage law. So in amending the amendatory act of 1883 it is necessary to refer to that act
Mr. WINTER still insisted every act must relate to one subject, which must be expressed in the title read. This bill is obnoxious to the Constitution because it proposes to amend two different acts.
Mr. FOULKE: The two acts may be upon the same subject or upon two different subjects. It would make no difference. As it is now it is questionable.
Mr. DRAKE: As the committee have added to my bill what is not germane I move to strike out the amendment reported by the committee to the second section.
The bill was referred to the
Mr. YOUCHE'S bill [S. 97, see page 49] to amend Section 5 of the liquor law, with a
majority report recommending that the bill
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks, moved to substitute the minority for the majority report.
On motion by Mr. SELLERS this motion was laid n the table by yeas 25, nays 14.
Mr. MAGEE, when his name was called, said: I have great doubts whether I should vote for or against the motion to lay on the table. I have no confidence in the sincerity of Republicans on the temperance question. I don't believe they are in earnest upon this question. I have seen their shilly-shallying when a Republican Legislature defeated the fairest proposition ever offered on this question, and that was to send this question to the people for their decision. Believing the Republican party is entirely insincere in its advocacy of high license, for when it had the power it would not favor high license I vote "aye."
Mr. OVERSTREET: I would like an opportunity to briefly discuss this question. Whatever the Republican party may be in favor of, I stand as an individual conscientiously in favor of this increased license. Inasmuch as it is the best I can get I feel under obligation to support it, not because I want to make political capital one way or the other. I want a fair opportunity given to test the question whether the Democracy are in favor of it. The Senator from Cass (Mr. Magee) says the Republicans had an opportunity to present this question to the people two years ago, when he knows there were but three Republicans voting against it.
Mr. MAGEE: Was the Republican party not pledged to carry it out, and didn't it fail because the Republican party did not stand together.
Mr. OVERSTREET: In that same canvass the Democratic party was pledged in favor of that question.
Mr. MAGEE: Oh, no; our platform was on both sides of that question. [Laughter.]
Mr. OVERSTREET: Your speakers pronounced themselves in favor of that proposition. As it is, with no opportunity to be heard on this question, I vote "no."
Mr. SMITH, of Jay: In explanation of my vote, I am not an advocate of prohibition, but have serious doubts whether on this question the State of Indiana is regulated as it should be. I don't believe the present license fee is enough. I vote "no."
Mr. THOMPSON, when his name was called, said: There was certainly no issue made in this city upon the question. I pledged myself that I would not vote to disturb the old law. I should hesitate before I would say that the people ought to come up to this point when the matter was not joined in issue in this canvass. Therefore I vote "aye."
Mr. WINTER: I desire to say a word in explanation of my vote: I was not here two years ago when the question of calling a Constitutional Convention was under consideration, and I don't know how many Republicans voted against it. I always understood that the submission of a constitutional amendment to the people was a Republican measure, whatever some individual Republican Senators have done. There is no question but that the Republican party has declared itself itself in favor of the people of the State having the right to express themselves upon the subject of regulating the liquor traffic; and it was the position of the Democratic party, as a party, that the people should not have the right to declare themselves on that subject. And it was the Democratic party, as a party, that defeated a submission of that question to the people of this State.
Mr. MAGEE: Didn't a Republican clerk of this Senate by bungling, either purposely or accidentally, report back the constitutional amendments so they were defeated? And it was the fault of your party, as it had charge of the Legislature, and your party should have seen that it was properly done.
Mr. WINTER: I do know that the Republican party in 1881 was, as it is to-day, pledged to a proposition to give the people of this State the opportunity to express their views on any proposed amendments to the Constitution.
Mr. MAGEE: Why did it sit down on Mr. Cumback in the last State convention?
Mr. WINTER: In its last State convention the Republican party in this State did embody in its platform a proposition upon the subject of temperance - the only proportion feasible at that time. The other proposition had been acted upon by the people at a preceding election, and it was defeated by the Democratic party as a party. The only other measure feasable - the Constitutional Convention - the Republican party on the floor of this Senate have upheld.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings: I rise to a point of order; the gentleman from Marion is not explaining his vote.
Mr. WINTER: I am only following the Senator from Cass
Mr. MAGEE: Was there not presented in this Senate in 1881 a proposition for a Constitutional Convention and your party voted it down?
Mr. WINTER: Republicans as a party never voted down any such proposition. The Senator has attempted to assume that the Democratic party is the friend of temperance in Indiana. If there is any fact established as a matter of history, it is that the Democratic party has never been the friend of temperance.
Mr. FAULKNER: I rise to a point of order. Let him explain his vote but not make a stump speech. [Laughter].
Mr. WINTER: It comes with poor grace for any member of the majority on this floor to
object to a rather liberal latitude in the explanation of my vote, in view of the fact that
debate has been cut off by a motion to lay on the table. It wont do for any
Mr. MAGEE: Didn't the Democratic party pass the present temperance law?
Mr. WINTER: It ought to be called an intemperance law If there is anywhere a law that does less to regulate, less to mitigate or less to put a stop to the evils of this traffic, it is the law upon our statute books, for which the Democratic party is entitled to full credit
Mr. THOMPSON: Would you have been elected to this Senate if you had made the speech you made just now in the canvass?
Mr. WINTER: If there is a single voter in Marion County who voted for me upon idea that I was friendly to the sale of liquor, or that I don't think it is an accursed traffic, that man could have been very easily undeceived if he had come to me. I have sever postured as being a slave to the rum-selling power.
Mr. THOMPSON: Would you have been elected if you had made that speech before election?
Mr. WINTER: I think I would have been elected by a larger majority than I was if this issue had been made in the canvass.
Mr. McINTOSH: Has not the Prohibition party denounced the Republican party?
Mr. WINTER: It may be there are some Prohibitionists not pleased with the Republican party on this question. I know the Democratic party is not. While I say the record of the Democratic party has been consistently in favor of the free and unlimited selling of liquor, with the least possible restriction, I say the Republican party has always placed itself upon the other side of that issue.
Mr. HILLIGASS: What did your candidate far Governor state upon this question with reference to the temperance people of Iowa?
Mr. WINTER: I don't know what he stated. I believe the sentiment of the Republican party is in favor of such legislation upon the subject of temperance as will have some tendency to restrain and restrict the evils of the liquor traffic. This bill is an attempt in that direction. Therefore, as I believe it is the sentiment of the Republican party, as I know it is my own individual sentiment, I vote "no" upon this question.
Mr. HILLIGASS: Is the Republican party in favor of prohibition or license?
Mr. FAULKNER: Don't invite him up any more. [Laughter.]
Mr. WINTER: I never understood the Republican party to commit itself to prohibition. I do believe the doctrine of high license and strict legislation on the subject of this traffic is practicable and right, and the true policy as applicable to our people.
Mr. HILLIGAS asked that his name be called, and said: Upon this question I think I shall vote "aye." I am a native of Indiana, born in Rush County, and I have been conversant for twenty five years with the legislation of the different political parties upon the liquor traffic, and I have made up my mind the Democratic party is the only real temperance party in the State.
Mr. McCULLOGH made a point of order. If it is to be the rule that Senators may step out in the cloak-room and have their names passed, and then come in and ask that their names be called in order to make long speeches after all the other Senators have had their names called, I am opposed to it.
Mr. HILLIGASS: I would not have occupied one fourth the time the Senator has. I vote "aye."
The vote was announced as above.
So the motion was laid on the table.
Mr. RAHM moved to concur in the majority report.
Mr. OVERSTREET: The question is whether we will require those vending liquor under licenses granted by County Boards to contribute a reasonable portion to the expenses of the State. A man may set up the business of selling liquor on $50 or $100, and the income in proportion to the amount invested is four-fold the income in any other business.
Mr. McINTOSH: Have you any evidence that a $500 license will produce more than a $100 license?
Mr. OVERSTREET: I know that in the little town of Franklin, four or five years ago, before the present law was passed, we exacted, by an ordinance of the corporation, $500 license, and in one week seven men took out their license and paid in $3,500. We had a law under which we could charge $500 license, but that law was stricken down by the present license law. We are now asking to restore it. The bill ought to be passed on the ground that it will tend to curtail the evils of the liquor traffic. It would cut off a number of the saloons all over the State at county cross roads and in the smaller towns and in the suburbs of cities, and those are the little dens where the great mischief is done by men engaged in this business. I have no doubt if it were once the law that these men were compelled to pay a $500 license that the revenue would be largely increased and the evils of the sale of intoxicating liquors would be largely diminished. Then our officers would have fewer men to watch. Reduce the number of saloons and the violators of law would be more readily detected and punished.
Mr. RAHM: I think if the Senator from Johnson [Mr. Overstreet] and his party want to make an issue of this they can have a chance in two years from now. There is no evidence that the people want us to pass a $300 license law. I thought two years ago they had enough of that dose. Men who want to drink will drink under a $500 license just as much as under a $100 license. To save further time I move the previous question.
The Senate seconded the demand, and under its operation the majority report was concurred in by yeas 27, nays 14.
The Senate adjourned till 9:30 o'clock to-morrow.
The session was opened with prayer by Mr. Browning, a Representative from the counties of Monroe and Brown
The SPEAKER ordered a call of the House, which being taken discovered sixty-eight members present and answering to their names.
The reading of the Clerk's journal of Saturday's proceedings was dispensed with.
Mr. DITTEMORE offered the following:
Resolved, That all debate during the remainder of all the session shall be limited to five minutes each.
It lies over under the rules for one day.
The House resumed the consideration of Mr. Boyd's bill [H. R. 222], to abolish the office of ditch commissioner, etc., the question being on the amendment of Mr. Engles.
It was rejected.
The bill provides for the appointment of a ditch commissioner by the County Board, instead of the County Court Judge, and that a petition for a ditch shall be signed by a majority of property owners whose lands will be affected by it.
Mr. GOODING moved to amend Section 4 by striking out the words "without a," and inserting in lieu thereof the words "or a jury, as in the civil cases of law."
It was agreed to by yeas 63, nays 5.
On motion of Mr. ADAMS, Section 5 was amended by adding after the word "property" these words: "Or real estate other than that assessed or benefitted."
On motion by Mr. DUNN Section 10 was amended by striking of the words "as in his judgment they may be benefited," and inserting in lieu the words "in like proportion as benefits were assessed against said lands for the construction of said work."
On motion by Mr. GOODING Section was amended by adding after the word "petition" these words: "in all cases of appeal tried in the Circuit Court, and in all final trials in that court provided for in this act, either party shall have the right to demand, and have a jury trial as in other civil cases."
On motion by Mr. KELLISON Section 6 was amended by adding thereto the following:
"Whenever the assessment against any tract of land shall have paid in money, or satisfied by the construction of a portion of said work, as is provided for in Section 5 of this act, it shall be the duty of the Commissioner or person charged with the construction of such work, within thirty days from the time of such payment or satisfaction, to enter satisfaction of such lein upon the margin of the page where such assessments are recorded; or, if this be impracticable for want of room, then on some other page of the same or other record, reference being made thereto by marginal note on the page where such assessment is recorded."
On motion by Mr. ADAMS "ten" was substituted for "twenty" in Section 4.
On motion by Mr. WILLIAMS "ten" was substituted for "three" wherever it occurs in the bill as fixing the time for remonstrance.
On motion by Mr. McHENRY the words "so as to answer its purpose" were stricken from Section 10, and the following words inserted therefor: "so the full dimensions" as to widths, depths and slopes, as required in the original specification.
On motion by Mr. KELLISON the following was added to Section 5:
Provided that in all sales of real estate made under the provisions of this act the owner thereof or any person having an interest therein at the time of sale shall have the right to redeem the same at any time within three years from the date of sale, by paying into the County Treasury for the benefit of the purchaser at such sale the amount for which such land was sold, together with a penalty of 8 per cent. per annum for such time as may have elapsed from the date of sale until the time of such redemption.
On motion by Mr. ENGLE Section 10 was amended by inserting after the word "lands" in Section 10 the words: "or if the same is filled and obstructed by the cattle, horses, hogs 'or other stock of such land owner."
The motion by Mr. TAYLOR the
There were two reports on Mr. McHenry's high license bill, which provides for a $300 license for beer and wine saloons and $500 for those selling all kinds of liquors, the majority recommending its indefinite postponement and the minority that it pass. The latter was laid on the table by a vote of 41 to 26, and the bill wad indefinitely postponed.
The House took a recess for dinner.
Mr. GOODING, from the minority of the
The undersigned begs leave to briefly submit for the consideration of the House of Representatives some of the reasons why the said bill, without the amendments proposed by him, should not be enacted into a law, and why, if amended as proposed in his minority report, the bill amended should pass and become a law.
It seems now to be very generally conceded that the act of March 7, 1888, authorizing the erection of three additional hospitals for the insane was very unwise legislation and without an real necessity therefor, and in utter disregard of public economy, it is not necessary at this time and here to inquire into the means used or motives by which the enactment was procured. It is sufficient to know that it is the law without the Governor's approval. It is not now or here important or material to comment on the action of the Governor nor of the Board of Commissioners as to the exercise of the wide latitude of discretionary power given them by law. That in some way they were overreached and misled as to the necessity can hardly be a question. The number of insane was most likely greatly exaggerated, and the Board thereby misled. Be this as it may this Legislature is compelled to accept the situation, and to determine what action is best to be taken under all the existing circumstances. It is believed that not more than 800 insane persons of this State, who should be in an insane hospital, are not now provided with a home therein, and that the completion and finishing of the Hospital for the Insane, located at or near Evansville, together with the hospital near Indianapolis and now in use will afford ample accommodations for all the insane of the State who should be inmates of such an institution. That all such should be carefully and generously provided for with suitable accommodations in an Hospital for the Insane is not controverted or questioned, nor is there intent or purpose to refuse any necessary or proper appropriations therefor, but it is not believed that there is at this time, or that there will be for many years to come, any necessity or requirements for the contemplated Insane Hospital in Cass and Wayne Counties.
If the goregoing is correct, then it would seem to be unwise legislation to make further appropriations for the completion and furnishing of the hospitals at Logansport and Richmond. It is now apparent that the erection, completion and furnishing of these two hospitals, with necessary attachments, will cost the State about one million dollars before they are at all ready for use, and annually thereafter the necessary appropriations for the two hospitals, if inmates can be found by searching the State as with a lighted candle, including the pay of officers and employes, about the sum of $300,000. It is now evident that this Legislature will make appropriations in excess of the revenue of the State in a sum of one million dollars or more.
A bill bow already been passed by this House providing for the sale of State lands in the
sum of $500,000. It is conceded that it is inexpedient to increase the rate of taxation,
leaving from four to six hundred, thousand dollars of indebtedness unprovided for at the
adjournment of this Legislature, thereby greatly impairing the State's credit and a
future increase of taxation on the people already under the weight of taxation. The
adoption of ame
None will be damaged but the contractors, whose actual damages will be very small when compared with the actual costs of the State of continuing the work. The people can well afford to pay all the actual damages in preference to paying the annual Treasury. The land purchased and the material furnished can be sold for other uses at no very great loss. In no event would the entire damages exceed $100,000. To go on with the erection, completion end equipping of the two hospitals will cost appropriations not yet made of near $1,000,000, as it is believed, exclusive of the costs of running the same after the completion and equipment.
All of which is respectfully submitted, and the proposed amendments are recommended for adoption.
Mr. Bentz's bill [S. 269] to provide a Metropolitan Police in the cities of 20,000 or more, coming up, with a majority recommending its passage, and a minority report recommending its indefinite postponement.
On motion by Mr. WILLIAMS the minority report was laid on the table yeas 58, nays 31.
The majority report was concurred in.
The bill was read the second time.
Mr. ROBINSON moved to amend the bill so that no two of said commissioners shall be of the same political party.
On motion by Mr. DEBS the amendment was laid on the table by yeas 43, nays 40.
Mr. WILLIAMS moved that the bill be ordered engrossed.
On motion by Mr. PATTEN the motion was laid on the table.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe, moved to amend by providing that that the Commissioners shall be elected by popular municipal vote, and shall represent the parties as provided in the bill.
Mr. BROWNING moved to lay this amendment on the table.
On motion by Mr. PATTEN the further consideration of the bill was postponed until Thursday at 2 o"clock p.m.
Mr. Hanlon's bill [H. R. 289] for the planting of willows along the banks of streams, was read the second time and ordered engrossed for the third reading.
Mr. Brownlee's bill [H. R. 295] in relation to the taxation of dogs, was read the second time.
On motion by Mr. Gordon the following proviso was added to Section 2:
Provided, That all moneys remaining in the County Treasury on the first of May of each
year
Mr. BEST moved to amend Section 2 by inserting after the word "time" the words "he obtains knowledge."
On motion by Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe, the bill and pending amendments was recommitted to
the
On motion of Mr.. Gordon it was ordered that the daily sessions of this House shall commence at 9 o'clock a.m.
Mrs. Helen M. Gougar addressed a small audience at the House of Representatives at night on female suffrage; her subject being "The Relations of the Present Legislature to the State of Indiana." She was introduced by Mrs. Walace. Mrs. Gouger said that women are debarred from the juries, while men ignorant in every way, men of but merely nominal mental capacities, were not. Women were better jurors than men. Chief Justice Green, of Oregon, had tried women on juries, and had been so pleased with their performance in that position that he would never have a jury unless it was composed of women. Moreover, if a negro could have a jury of his peers, why should not a woman? In touching upon Dr. Hammond's Amercan Review article, written in opposition to woman suffrage, the speaker said that one of his objections was that women were too much inclined toward lying. "If this was a reasonable objection, how many editors," asked Gougar, "would then be allowed to vote?" The ballot was needed by woman. Her influence now had no practical effect. A ballot in the hands of the stupidest, most vicious men had more effect on men and measures in America than all the arguments and appeals of the brightest and best woman in the land. Give woman the ballot and she would vote for principle. But it was argued that woman suffrage would not cause any change, would double the vote, for wives would vote as their husbands did. This was in fact an argument for woman suffrage. The dangerous ballot of this country was the tromp vote, the "no home" vote. Double the "home" vote, and the "no home" would lose its power. Woman suffrage has been tried and was found good and practicable. It improved government. Indiana needed this. There was not a Mayor between South Bend and New Albany that was not a cross between a decent man and a scoundrel. There was no objection to woman suffrage that could not be met and conquered, aside from that of selfishness and prejudice. The Republicans had earned eternal fame by freeing the negro, and Mrs. Gougar urged that the Democratic members of the Legislature should make their party immortal by freeing woman.
Mr. WEIR moved to concur in the minority report on his bill [S. 45 - see page 195] for the establishment of three distinct Appellate Courts of three Judges each.
Mr. McCULLOUGH moved to substitute the majority report, in favor of one Court of five
Judges, to meet at
Mr. WEIR: Personally I am satisfied with either, but would like the Senate to decide between them.
Mr. RAHM: If we want a Court that will commend itself to the people, we ought to favor the minority report. The difference in cost will be trifling, but the saving to litigants will be a large sum. If it should not prove successful the law can be repealed in two years from now.
Mr. McCULLOUGH: There are many very objectionable features in both measures. The bill ought not to be engrossed till printed.
Mr. WILLARD moved to make this bill a special order for 7:30 this evening.
Mr. SMITH of Jay: This Senate has worked faithfully as any Senate Indiana has ever had, and I oppose making such a bill a special order for a night session.
Mr. WEIR: Senators can vote on this proposition now. It is a simple question as between the two plans.
Mr. McCULLOUGH: This is a matter of some considerable importance, and a decision as beteen two plans can better be determined by considering the provisions in the two bills, and the should be printed. Senators should not act hastily on this question. The provisions for the one court calls for a written argument; the three courts are to hear oral argument.
On motion by Mr. YOUCHE the bill was made a special order for Thursday at 10 o'clock.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings, from the special
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings: I make this motion because it is the unanimous desire of those who understand this matter. The time has come for the Legislature to take a decided stand in reference to this matter. If the General Assembly adjourns without passing this measure the same men whose characters are stained by the investigation progress will remain in charge. The present management ought to go and go forever. If we do less than this we will be recreant to our trust. It will take but a few moments to pass this bill.
Mr. FOULKE: All will agree that some bill of this character should be passed, but we should know the provisions, and the bill should be printed.
Mr. WEIR: That bill simply disposes of the present trustees and authorizes the Governor to appoint others. That is all there is of it.
Mr. FOULKE: If that is all I don't object.
Mr. MAGEE: Two years ago the General Assembly thought fit to take these appointments from the Governor and placed it in the Legislature. I have always been opposed to bringing the management of these benevolent institutions into politics. The only objection I have to this bill is that it does no require the Governor to appoint a non-partisan board. This seems to be the only way to escape from the present complication of affairs. The Democracy would not have been laboring under the cloud that now attaches to the management of the Knightstown institution if the Board of Trustees had been non-partisan. The benevolent institutions should have representatives of both parties on their boards. The law enacted last year was proven to have been a blunder.
The motion to suspend the Constitutional rule was rejected
Mr. WINTER: I prepared this bill with little time and in a hurried manner by direction of the committee. I therefore move it be made the special order for 7:30 o'clock this evening, and that the bill be printed.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. Hoover's Lifetime Convict Encouragement bill [S. 254 - see page 135] was read the second time.
Mr. WILLARD: This bill is a bill in behalf of better prison government. Nearly every State in the Union has passed what is called "good time laws."
The lifetime convicts are the only class exempted from the beneficient effect of such legislation. The object of this bill is to carry some degree of hope to men who are left without any hope for the future. A man thus sent to the State Prison who has wealth or wealthy friends has some hopes, but the poor man has no ray of hope unless some such measure as this be enacted into a law. This class of men ought to have extended to them a chance to ameliorate their condition by good behavior during their confinement. This bill is in the nature of a ticket-of-leave system, nor can any man escape from the walls of the penitentiary under it without a certificate of recommendation from the warden and directors of the prison, after serving the term of twenty-five years, and if within the period of five years he misbehaves he is returned with a life sentence. Life prisoners were not the vilest of the criminal classes. Murder for gain was generally punished by death, the murderers committed for life were generally men who acted under strong and perhaps uncontrollable temporary impulse, sometimes were unjustly convicted. I trust this bill may pass to its engrossment.
Mr. YOUCHE: I am opposed to this bill. We have only two crimes for which the life sentence can be pronounced - treason and murder. In a great majority of cases where the prisoner should suffer the severest penalty of the law, under a false sentiment of the community, he manages to obtain a life sentence in the penitentiary. This bill would release such, with time earned by good behavior, in thirteen years and one month. It reduces the punishment so that a man that should be hung will only be imprisoned from thirteen to fifteen years. I am much more inclined to look after the welfare of the entire community than that of a criminal class. The times would probably be better were there a more severe execution of the criminal statutes. The law passed two years ago is sufficient mitigation of prison discipline. Murderers needed severer punishments rather than lighter. Wherever capital punishment has been abolished murder had increased. Wherever capital punishment was rigidly enforced murder was comparatively rare. Imprisonment for life should be the mildest punishment inflicted for murder.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks, questioned whether the first section would not at once release all who have served the time prescribed in this bill, under the operation of the existing law.
Mr. WLLARD: The law of 1883 is not a retroactive.
Mr. FOWLER: I hope this bill will not pass. It seems to be a dangerous bil. It would turn loose upon society a class of men possessing the lowest instincts of humanity after confinement some thirteen or fiteen years. It certainly is not possible that our criminal laws need such amendment. If a little more hanging were done society would be much better off. The law as it stands is not any too strenuous an this class of prisoners
Mr. MARSHALL: I feel that I want to be on the side of humanity, and will support the bill. I have learned that the Good Time bill passed in 1883 has worked wonders in our penitentiaries. Every man is put upon his good behavior. When you consider the length of term they will have to stay in prison, there are very few men who live in prison so long. That such may have something to live for, this bill should be passed. I think the great object for which a man is put in prison has been accomplished in about two years' confinement.
Mr. McCULLOUGH: I am opposed to this bill. It proposes a material change in the criminal laws. That class of community disposed to commit crime should be shown what punishment will follow crimes. I believe murder is the worst of crimes. It is not honorable under any circumstances. If conviction follows, the doom of the convict should be the gallows, or incarceration in prison for life. Say that such men shall be turned out, and such legislation will be condemned by the people.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph: There has been no bill that has come before a committee on
which I act that I have given so much considration to. During the two terms I have been a
member of the
Mr. THOMPSON: If punishment is for reformation, the punishment heretofore inflicted has proven a failure. Men have served five and ten years, and have come out worse than when they went in. Instead of turning them out reformed, they are turned out with the spirit of devils. Many fires in cities are attributable to men who have served long terms in the penitentiary and feel they are cut off from other human beings. I believe hope never should be removed from the human breast. Where such is the case that man is no friend to humanity. I hope the bill will pass. It may need some amendment, but let Indiana take a step in advance in this matter.
The amendment was agreed to upon a division - affirmative 21, negative not counted.
The Senate ordered the bill engrossed for a third reading by yeas 25, nays 21.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks, explaining his negative vote: I believe it is a too radical change and would result in turning a great many life convicts loose.
Mr. Thompson's bill [S. 178] to appropriate $10,000 to Sarah May, widow of Edwin May, for services as architect of the new State-house, was read the second time.
Mr. CAMPBBLL of St. Joseph, explained the circumstances of the claim: The claim is based upon equity. There is not a dime due upon the contract - the committee and the commissioners of the State-house agree upon that.
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-
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.
Mr. Schloss' bill [S. 330] to appropriate $25,000 a year to the State Normal School was read the second time.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks: A bill has been fully considered by the friends of the school, which he offered as a substitute for this bill 330.
Mr. YOUCHE thought a provision to take this out of the general fund would be the proper way.
Mr. FOWLER: This bill ought not to be engrossed. It seems to have for its object the appropriation out of the 16 per cent. levy for school purposes. That is part of the common school fund of the State. This 16 per cent. levy has the same object as the common school fund, and this bill proposes to divert $25,000 of that fund to this one school at Terre Haute; and this diversion might just as well be made to other schools in the State until all the Common School fund is absorbed in that way. The bill should be amended so that the the money shall come from the general fund. Let us see what amount is expended for professors and teachers there. The first item is $3,000 for the President, when the President of the State University does not get so large a salary. [Reads.] Nineteen professors are teaching in that normal school. The number is too large and the compensation is too high, and that is why it is this school asks an additional appropriation every year. Twenty thousand dollars is all the Legislature ought to vote, and not another dollar more than the Legislature has been appropriating.
Mr. FOULKE: The State Normal School is an adjunct to the common school system of the State. There is no way in which the common school system can be aided better than by furnishing it good and trained teachers. This school is growing from year to year, and will need large appropriations as the years roll by.
Mr. McINTOSH: It would be very wrong to pass this bill. [He read a short extract from Governor Hendricks' last message to the Legislature, prefacing recommendations as to the school system of the State.] This bill comes directly in the line of perverting the common school fund from the purpose for which it was intended. He had a list showing that the State Normal School had but few in attendance in comparison other normal schools in this State. This State Normal School is a Terre Haute and Vigo County school. He demanded the money belonging to the children of this State be allowed to go to them. I hope this bill will never be engrossed and never passed.
Mr. OVERSTREET would not cast a vote knowingly that would tend to cripple the common schools of this State. I don't know why it is these large salaries are paid. In a college in our town there are professors who do as good work as any in the State, on a salary of $1,000 a year. I have heard no good reason stated why there is $5,000 more asked for than heretofore. I want to give this school enough, but desire to have a good reason for the additional appropriation. The people are beginning to feel that this is too expensive a luxury.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks: I can hardly understand the arguments made against this bill. While not as well informed on this subject as he would like be, it is thought the better plan is to raise this fund out of the fund which is raised by special taxation.
Mr. YOUCHE: This bill would be taking away 5,000 days of schooling from the children of this State.
Mr. CAMPBELL: It would make such a slight difference in the terms of the schools in the
State - one half-day in each school district - that it is thought to be less objectionable
to take the fund as proposed. Those in charge are indifferent as to what fund the
appropriation comes from. The trustees of this institution are the best judges of the
moneys needed to carry it on. More is need-
Pending the discussion
The Senate adjourned till 9:30 o'clock to-morrow.
The session was opened with prayer by Elder E. S. Frazse, a Representative from Rush county.
The SPEAKER directed a call of the House, which being taken discovered eighty-seven members present and answering to their names.
Mr. Dittemore's motion to limit debate to five minutes, submitted yesterday, was taken up and after considerable debate many motions to amend the resolution was indefinitely postponed.
Mr. WILLIAMS offered a concurrent resolution instructing Senators and Indiana Congressmen to seure a donation by the United States to the State of Indiana of the arsenal grounds located near Indianapolis for educational purposes.
It was read the first time and referred to the
Mr. ADAMS introduced a joint resolution [H. R. 14] as follows:
Whereas, The Government of the United States imposed a direct tax upon the heads of her inhabitants to assist in defraying the expenses of the war for the suppression of the rebellion; and,
Whereas, The State of Indiana paid her full assessment of said tax amounting to several hundred thousand dollars; and,
Whereas, the insurrectionary States yet owe upon said assessment about three million of dollars, and some of the non-insurrectionary States and Territories yet owe on said assessment about two hundred thousand dollars; and,
Whereas, It is deemed inexpedient under the present flourishing condition of the Government Treasury to coerce payment of said taxes yet unpaid; therefore -
Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of Indiana. That our Representatives in Congress be requested and our Senators be instructed to vote for and use their influence to pass a law releasing the inhabitants of the States in which these taxes have not been paid from all liability; and returning to the States which have paid these taxes the full amount paid.
It was laid on the table.
The following described bills were introduced, read the first time and severally referred to by appropriate committees:
By Mr. BAILEY [H. R. 494] to appropriate $40,000 for the straightening of Eel River in Clay County
By Mr. ROBINSON [H. R. 495] for the relief of George D. Armstrong, Trustee of Perry Township, Clay County.
By Mr. STALEY [H. R. 496] to reorganize this Soldiers' Orphans' Home, giving the Governor sole power of appointment and removal of Trustees
By Mr. FLOYD [H. R. 498] providing the appointment of three Fish Commissioners.
By Mr. LINNVILLE [H. R. 500] to prevent the spread of hog cholera.
By Mr. BARNEY [H. R. 502] authorizing County Commissioners to open books for receiving subscription to the proposed soldiers' monument.
By Mr. MOCK, of Harrison, [H. R. 505] providing for redistributing the school fund.
By Mr. WILLIAMS [H. R. 506] to repeal the act creating the office of Commissioner of Supreme Court.
By Mr. PENDLETON [H. R. 508] fixing the salary of township assessors and deputies in cities of 60,000 inhabitants at $3 a day.
By Mr. SCHLEY [H. R. 511] authorizing cities of 25,000 inhabitants to tax hucksters, peddlers, etc.
By Mr. OVERMAN [H. R. 512] limiting liquor licenses to be charged by cities to $200.
By Mr. ENGLE [H. R. 514] making it unlawful for railroad companies to give free passes to judicial or legislative offices
By Mr. GLAEBROOK [H. R. 516] to prohibit the killing of muskrats.
By Mr. BUTZ [H. R. 517] for the protection of trees and shrubbery.
By Mr. SAYRE [H. R. 518] to prohibit corporations from taking any forced contributions from their employes.
By Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe, [H. R. 519] to compel county officers to produce public records in court when so ordered.
A message from the Senate announcing that it had made certain amendments to the Deficiency Appropriation bill [H. R. 327] was read, and the House refused to concur in the amendments and decided to have a conference committee, the Speaker appointing as much committee on the part of the House Messrs. McMullen and Adams.
Mr. Murphy's bill [H. R. 90] empowering voluntary associations to be incorporated for the purpose of establishing homes for the care of aged and indigent females and orphans was read the third time and passed the House by yeas 89, nays 1.
Mr. Jameson's bill [H. R. 153] authorizing the acceptance of surety companies as surites upon bonds required by the laws of the State was read the third time and passed by yeas 76 nays 10.
Then came a recess for dinner.
Mr. Jameson's bill [H. R. 154] for the regulation of foreign surety companies doing business in this State, prescribing the duties of agents, etc., was read the third time and passed by yeas 77, nays 10.
On motion by Mr. McMULLEN, Mr. Farrell's bill [H. R. 167] appropriating $1,134 for payment of the claim of Carlon & Hollenbook for binding volumes 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the Brevier Legislative Report under an order from the Bureau of Public Printing, was read the third time and passed the House by yeas 90, nays 0.
Mr. Williams moved to take up Mr. Patton's Congressional Apportionment bill [H. R. 422] and on that motion demanded the previous question.
The demand was seconded by yeas 47, nays 45.
The main question was ordered by yeas 49, nays 44, and the main question was ordered put by yeas 53, nays 40, and the bill passed by yeas 53, nays 40.
The following protest was filed:
Mr. Speaker - We protest against the action of the majority of this House on the passage
of
The following appeal was presented:
Mr. Speaker - We, the undersigned, hereby appeal from the decision of the Chair, taking up House bill No. 422 out of its order, the House not having agreed thereto by a two-thirds vote. Warren G. Sayre, George A. Adams.
On motion by Mr. BROWNING (Mr. McMullen taking the chair) the appeal was laid on the table by yeas 55, nays 34.
The House adjourned.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
The House was opened with prayer by Rev. Thomas M. Smith, a Representative from the county of Warrick.
The SPEAKER directed a call of the House, which being taken, discovered 90 members present and answering to their names.
The reading of the clerk's minutes of yesterday's proceedings was dispensed with.
Mr. HELMS offered the following:
Be it resolved, That inasmuch as the department encampment of the Grand Army of the Republic is now in session at the Masonic Hall in this city, and they are entitled to the respect and confidence of the people as the brave defenders of our country.
Be it resolved, That the freedom of the House of Representatives is hereby tendered them, and that a committee of three be appointed by the Speaker to invite them to visit us at any time during their stay in the city.
Mr. WILLIAMS offered the following amendment: "And that the same courtesy be extended to the Grand Lodge of Knights of Honor."
The amendment was agreed to and the resolution as amended was adopted.
The SPEAKER made the committee to consist of Messrs Helms, Barney and Fleece.
The House proceeded to the consideration of the special order for this hour, being Mr. Boyd's Drainage bill [H. R. 222 - see page 206] proposing a repeal of all existing laws on the subject and the enactment of entirely new laws on the subject.
Pending which -
The House took a recess for dinner.
The House resumed consideration of Mr. Boyd's bill [H. R. 222] to abolish the office of Ditch Commissioner.
Mr. BROWNLEE: I do not believe that any man in the State thinks more of a good ditch law than I do. But the one at present in force should be amended or repealed. I believe in the majority theory. I do not think that any member here would vote to repeal the free gravel road law in regard to a majority petitioning for a road. I stand with the gentleman from Hancock (Mr. Gooding), that it should take a majority start the ditch. I was in hopes that the old bill would be repealed. I believe that this bill will do as I think is best for our drainage. I shall support it.
Mr. KELLISON Take it all in all this bill will make the best law. Property will be as
well protected under this bill - as well as any law on our statute books. The gentleman
from Wells (Mr. Mock) makes the objection that ten days are given for remon-
Mr. WILSON: I come from a county in which this old law has operated. In that county we have made over 100 miles of ditch under the old law, and in that county I have seen $20,000 of property confiscated under it. I am opposed to the majority confiscating the property of the minority, and, of course, I am much more opposed to the minority confiscating the property of the majority. I shall at least vote to repeal the old law, if we can not have the proposed bill made a law.
Mr. BOYD, There are some objections to this bill, but it is far better than the old one. When it goes to the Senate I hope that the bill will be so amended as to strike out lines 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31, and all before the word "provided" in line 32 of Section 3, page 3 (printed bill), to allow any man the right to drain his land if he is willing to pay damages.
Mr. GORDON moved the previous question.
The House seconded the demand, and under its operation the bill passed by yeas 60, nays 30.
Mr. FRENCH, explaining his vote, said that the bill had been so doctored as to become a monstrosity, and he would be compelled to vote "no."
Mr. GORDON, when his name was called, said: The bill is far better than the old one. It does away with the most objections, and I shall vote "aye."
Mr. HOBAN, in explanation of his vote, said: The old law was a robbery on poor men, who have hard struggles to support their families, and as poor men generally are Democrats I vote 'aye."
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe, said: This bill repeals a very bad law, and while the bill may not be free from objections, yet as it is far better than the law, I shall vote "aye."
The vote was then announced as above.
So the bill passed.
Mr. Staley's bill [H. R. 16] relating to the teaching of physiology and hygiene in the public schools was read the third time and passed by ayes 54, nays 39.
Mr. FRENCH, explaining his vote, said he thought that if there were morality and intelligence in the public schools,. this question would be properly taught; therefore he voted "no."
Mr. HARRELL, when his name was called, said he believed that such a law on the statute books would throw our schoolbooks to a change and make everything inconsistent; he therefore voted "no."
Mr. LOYD, explaining his vote: Ever since I have been here I have been opposed to all
laws that will necessitate unnecessary change in our text books, and as this bill, if it
Mr. McHENRY: For two reasons I do not favor this bill. One is because of the change of the text books; the other because it is too comprehensive to be defined clearly in any law. I vote "no."
Mr. McMICHAEL, when his name was called, said: I do not see in the measure where a benefit can occur, because it is not clearly defined. I vote "no."
Mr. PASSAGE: Because it will not necessitate a change in text books, and because the evils of alcohol should be learned in the schools. I vote "aye."
Mr. PATTEN, in explaining his vote, said: It looks like a jobbery, especially in our common schools. I vote "no."
Mr. RIVERS: Because it will teach children who will have no other means of learning it, the evils of alcohol, I vote "aye."
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: I am not a fanatical temperance man, but as the text books on this question are already prepared, and as it should be taught to check the era of drunkenness, I vote "aye."
Mr. STALEY, when his name was called, said: I owe its to my constituents to sup-
Mr. WILSON: It is not taught as it should be, and believing that it should be made mandatory, I vote quot;aye."
Mr. GOODING: If this bill were confined to alcohol and tobacco I should vote for it, but it embraces all narcotics, and to teach all the latter would be to consume all the school time. I vote "no."
The vote was then announced as above.
So the bill passed.
Mr. WILLIAMS: I move to reconsider the vote by which the bill passed. In the haste to call up the bill one feature of it was overlooked - that is that all pupils shall be so taught - even the abecedarians.
Mr. ADAMS: I move to lay the motion on the table. There could have been no surprise.
The motion to reconsider was laid on the table by yeas 58, nays 30.
Mr. Pendleton's bill [H. R. 56] for work done on the Insane Asylum came up on the second reading.
The question being upon the engrossment of the bill -
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe, said: The bill is just and should be passed. Last session it was examined and put in the specific appropriation, which failed to reach passage. The committee has just reported favorably upon it.
The SPEAKER: I would suggest that members wait until after the bill is engrossed and comes upon its passage to make debate.
Mr. PENDLETON: As author of the bill I want to say that the claim is just and should go through. The work was done, the claim is just.
Mr. PENDLETON moved the previous question. The demand was seconded by the House, and under its operation the bill was ordered engrossed by yeas 48, nays 39.
Mr. BROWNING, explaining his vote, said: There has been a good deal said about gag law, and here comes snap judgment from the quarter least looked for. We have no chance to amend it.
The SPEAKER: There was time given for amendment. Mr. Patten wished to offer an amendment out of order, but there was objection. A gentleman has just said to me that it was the understanding that the bill should be reduced to $46,000. The only way to get at it is to defeat the motion to engross and so amend it.
Mr. PATTEN, explaining his vote: I was shut off from debate and could offer no explanation as to the original contract, which was for $46 000. I vote "no."
Mr. PENDLETON: I feel that I have been compromised by expressions made on this floor. I
introduced this bill
The vote was then announced as above.
The motion that the bill be engrossed was agreed to.
Mr. Deems' bill [H. R. 371] to pay Simeon P. Thompson, Attorney of Newton County, $1,000 for legal services, came up for the second reading.
Mr. BARNES, from the
Mr. ADAMS moved an amendment to the amendment that the sum be $800.
The amendment to the amendment was adopted.
Mr. BROWNING moved to reconsider the vote adopting the amendment to the amendment. He said: Ten per cent. of the benefit done the State Treasury by this lawyer would be but $600. Four years ago his claim was but $400.
The motion to reconsider was rejected by yeas 54, nays 33.
The bill as amended was ordered engrossed.
Mr. TOWNSEND moved that his bill [H. R. 197], for the relief of Mrs. Theophania A. Haugh, be called up and put upon its passage.
The motion was agreed to, and the bill passed, by yeas 78, nays 0.
The House then adjourned.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph, made an ineffectual motion that his bill [S. 164] concerning the hiring of convict labor, be made a special order for Friday at 2 o'clock.
Mr. FOULKE, from the
On motion by Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks, the bill [S. 330] to appropriate $25,000 for the State Normal School was taken up, and he withdrew his substitute bill offered Tuesday just before the adjournment.
On motion of Mr. SMITH, of Jay, the constitutional rule was dispensed with by a yea and nay vote that the bill may be pressed to the third reading.
Mr FOWLER obtained unanimous consent to amend by reducing the appropria to $20,000
The pending majority committee report was concurred in, with an amendment reducing the appropriation to $20,000.
The bill was read the third time and passed, by yeas 45, nays 1.
Mr. McINTOSH, explaining: I was anxious to get the law repealed providing to take from the common school fund, and if it was not for the purpose of getting that law repealed I would not vote for this bill, from the simple fact I believe it is taking money for the benefit of a few - and a very few at that; but as it is, I vote "aye."
Mr. Youche's bill [S. 50] to amend section 5,206 of the Revised Statutes, concerning debts owing to laborers, was read the third time and passed, by yeas 45, nays 0.
Mr. McCullough's bill [S. 35] concerning bridges or culverts costing over $75, in any township, and the duties of County Commissioners thereon, was read the third time.
Mr. OVERSTREET: This bill is an unnecessary expense. The law as it now stands is much preferred to this bill. It will get up a matter of strife, one township thinking it has not as much as it should have. This bill provides for viewers to go out and report as to whether the bridge should be built, and at last the Commissioners are to decide.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph: I believe if this bill were voted down and Senator Brown's, bill passed with amendments it would be much preferable.
Mr. MACY objected to the bill because expense made by this bill would in many cases probably cost more than the bridge or culvert proposed to be built.
On motion by Mr. FOWLER the bill was laid on the table.
On motion of Mr. BAILEY the roll was again called on the passage of his Child Labor bill [S. 20], which failed to pass yesterday for want of a constitutional majority.
The bill was finally passed by yeas 36, nays 11.
Mr. Day's bill [S. 58] to amend Sections 5,998 and 5,999, concerning settlements of Township Trustees, was read the third time and passed by yeas 38, nays 0.
Mr. BROWN, explaining: This bill simply proposes to change the times of settlement of
Township Trustees from February till
Mr. Schloss' bill [S. 70] that unexpended balances of general and specific appropriations shall revert to the treasury on the 31st day of each October.
Mr. WEIR understood the Auditor and Treasurer have assumed the responsibility of so doing now, and that this bill would take every single dollar out of the State House Commissioners' hands. There is a dispute now between these Commissioners and the Auditor. As to the merits of this I don't know who is right, but the Commissioners find themselves out of funds, when they should have unexpended some $300,000. I don't think this bill is necessary.
Mr. OVERSTREET: It occurs to me this is a very dangerous bill to pass. This bill might leave the State House Commissioners without a dollar. It does seem to me there is no necessity for it.
Mr. FOWLER: When this bill was first read I was inclined to favor it, but after these
suggestions I am inclined to think it should not be passed. I move to
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. Hilligass' bill [S. 213] to authorize municipal corporations to purchase and hold real estate for sanitary purposes outside of city limits, was read the third time and passed by yeas 34, nays 3.
Mr. FOWLER explained: In view of the fact there is no limit as to how much real estate can be held under this bill I vote "no."
Mr. Bailey's bill [s. 81] to amend Section 1,418 of the Code, so that the number of Justices in each township shall be two, and one in addition for each city or incorporated town therein, provided the number shall not exceed four, was read the third time and passed by yeas 40, nays 0.
Mr. WINTER explained: In this township we have three or four small towns incorporated to prevent being brought into the city, and when Justices are elected therein they move into this city until now, I think there are seven who send their Constables around arresting people.
Mr. Youche's bill [S. 77] to repeal the Township Railroad Aid act, and to prevent townships from voting appropriations in aid of railways, was read the third time.
Mr. YOUCHE explained: It is for the purpose of prohibiting County Commissioners from taxing the people for railroad aid. The people should be no longer taxed for such works, the emoluments and benefits of which go to corporations. The time has come to stop this kind of public aid to private enterprises.
Mr. MAGEE: I think the railroad development of the State has brought about great beneficial results, but there are thirteen lines running through the north part of the State into Chicago, where not half of them are needed. The necessities for the present law have ceased. Capital is abundant, and if the people can be assured that by investing their money it will bring a fair return, there will be no trouble about getting such improvements made. The law can now be repealed without injury. I am in favor of protecting the interest of the taxpayer in this particular. It is a question of some importance. I have heard of no good reason why the law should not be repealed.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks: I have decided to vote against the repeal of this law. As far as I have observed no township has ever lost money by aiding the building of a railroad through it. There may be others who desire to avail themselves of the benefits of this law, and let therm decide whether they will tax themselves or not.
Mr. FOULKE: I am very warmly in favor of this bill. The time has passed when another dollar of subsidy should be paid to any railroad enterprise, which, although it has done great good, is a fruitful source of impending danger to the interests of the State. In the interest of the people, who ought to have the right to determine for what they will pay their own money, we ought not longer to continue the present law upon our statute books.
Mr. WILLARD: I sincerely trust this bill will pass. Under a bill like this I saw built through Lawrence and Greene Counties a narrow-gauge road, when the subscription was made for a broad-gauge road, and saw the taxpayer pay out $42,000 for no return whatever. It is almost impossible for taxpayer to defeat such a tax, after the County Commissioners have ordered an election to vote for or against railroad aid. It is almost always carried by corruption and by a floating vote. These taxes are laid for private enterprises, to build up corporations in which the people have no interest. The time has come when we should no longer say to corporations that you can put your hands into the pockets of the taxpayers for your private benefit.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings: I believe this law has produced great benefits to the people. I oppose this bill because it takes away from the people the right to govern their own affairs in this matter.
Mr. MAY: I believe I know the feelings of the people of Southern Indiana, who have not
the advantage of railroads the northern part of the State have, and who are anxious to take
advantage of this law. The only motive for the repeal of this law seems to be to prevent
competition. I have heard no demand for the repeal of this law. It is a disgrace to say
these propositions are carried by corruption. We want these railroads if we can get there,
and, for one, I am opposed to the repeal of this law. The argu-
Mr. HILLIGASS: I am opposed to the passage of this bill. One of the best investments our county ever made was voting a tax to secure the building of the Chicago and Atlantic Railroad, and I am not willing to cut off other counties from obtaining like benefits if they so desire.
Mr. WEIR demanded the previous question.
The demand was seconded by the Senate, and under its operations the bill was rejected by yeas 20, nays 24.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph, explaining: In our township, in the city of South Bend, we have within the last year received great benefits by the law now in force. I am willing other townships in the State shall have an opportunity to receive similar benefits from the operations of the present law, end so I vote "no" against the passage of this bill.
Then came a recess for dinner.
Mr. HILL'S bill [S. 86] to amend Section 3 266 of the code concerning the maintenance of water works by incorporated towns, coming up -
Mr. WINTER: This bill ought not to pass. It authorizes any town to go out ten miles to condemn a body of water, and appoint three of its own residents to assess damages
Mr. DRAKE: The provision of the present law on that subject is not changed.
Mr. WINTER: That is objectionable if it be the present law.
Mr. HILL: I introduced this bill by request, but there may be some provisions in that should be amended.
On motion by Mr. ADKISON it was laid on the table.
Mr. FOULKE'S joint resolution [S. 11] for an amendment to Art. 2 Sec. 2, by striking therefrom the word "male," being read -
Mr. FOULKE: I desire the question as to whether a woman shall be entitled to vote, shall go before the people of the State with the other amendments to the Constitution that are to be submitted for their ratification or rejection. I ask any man to state any good reason why the right of suffrage should not be conferred on women if they want it. That is an inherent right which God has given to woman as well as to man. There is only one bar remaining - the bar of sex. What right have we to draw a line which shall include us and leave women out? Every class is best qualified to take care of its own rights. It is an unjust government which imposes taxation without representation. There ought to be nothing the boy can aspire to but that the girl also ought to be allowed to aspire to.
Mr. OVERSTREET: It is a fact there is a large number intelligent men and women desirous of having an expression of the will of the people on this subject, and now when that privilege can be granted without expense, it is but a matter of justice that the opportunity should be given. If we desire to quiet these people, give them an opportunity to have it voted upon. Can any Senator object to have this question once for all passed upon? It is a right the people have to ask the privilege of testing in a legal way any such proposition, and they ought to have the opportunity of so doing upon this as upon any other question.
Mr. FAULKNER opposed the resolution.
Mr. THOMPSON: This subject has been agitated so long that it is about time the people should have a chance to vote upon it. We ought to meet this question as man, and not shrink from it.
Mr. McCULLOUGH: The vote for this amendment is just as much a vote for the principle as a vote for any bill is in favor of the measure contained in it. After two succeeding Legislatures agree to an amendment to the Constitution, then it is submitted to the people to ratify or reject. The great trouble is these gentlemen want to commence at the wrong end of the line. If an amendment to the Constitution is right - if gentlemen are willing to go before the people and advocate it as right - then they can consistently come in and advocate an agreement thereto by two consecutive joint assemblies. The first step to be taken is to submit to the people any proposed amendment to the Constitution, and then come to the Legislature with it. So I think the Constitution contemplates. I will vote for an amendment in order to let it go to the people, but must first be convinced a majority of the people want it. You make ladies electors and you make them qualified for Governors, Judges and jurors, as well as any other elective position
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph: While it is my belief that delicacy of instinct, peculiarity of sex, burdens of maternity, domestic cares and inclinations, all make it impracticable and undesirable that women should enter politics, I yet believe there is and has been a desire throughout the State to test this question at the ballot-box. I believe this to be right, and for this purpose I shall vote for the resolution.
The resolution was rejected by yeas 23, nays 25
Mr. MAGEE explaining: Believing the people have the right to say at the ballot-box what amendments shall be made to the organic law, and believing this is a question that has to be brought out some time in the future, I vote "aye."
Mr. HILLIGASS' bill [S. 200] to provide for public printing and binding was read the
second time, and on his further motion, under a dispensation of the constitutional re-
Mr. HILLIGAS explained: It is estimated that this bill will save at least $10,000 a year. It embodies all of the present law and provides that most of the reports shall be published semi-annually instead of annually, as now, and gives the Printing Bureau the right to eliminate from such reports any matter he may consider unnecessary.
Mr. WILLARD called up his resolution offered several days ago to amend rule 54 so as the order of business can be suspended by a majority instead of a two-thirds vote, and on that motion he demanded the previous question.
The resolution was rejected by yeas 21, nays 27.
Mr. FOULKE moved to reconsider the vote just taken and to lay that motion on the table.
The latter motion was rejected by yeas 20, nays 29.
On motion by Mr. Willard, the motion to reconsider was made a special order for 2 o'clock to-morrow.
Mr. Campbell's of Hendricks bill [S. 341] to authorize claimants against the State
to sue in Circuit Courts, and to authorize the Auditor of State to draw his warrant on the
Treasurer of State for the amount of the judgment was read the first time and referred to
the
Mr. Weir's bill [S. 45] to create an Appellate Court, being the special order for this hour, was taken up, the question being on the adoption of a minority report.
Mr. McCULLOUGH: This is an important measure. The original bill provided for a Court of five Judges, to sit at Indianapolis. A majority report recommends its passage. A minority report recommends the passage of a bill for three Courts of three members each, to sit in three several districts of the State. The latter bill is drawn by some of the best lawyers in the State. One objection to the bill providing for one Court is those Judges must be paid $4,000 a year, that is, $20,000 for the five Judges. There are 1,200 volumes of the Supreme Court reports sold, while numbers of the States around us sell reports running up to thousands. Only 100 are sold outside of the State, while 30,000 copies of Massachusetts reports are sold. The Supreme Court of Indiana is taking a very low stand. It shows Indiana Courts are not authority. Our Judges will, compare with the Judges of other States, but this discrepancy is because we compel them to pass upon cases without the consideration they should have the time to give.
Mr. WEIR: I would just as soon have the one as the other, perhaps I might say my preference would be for the three courts. If the Senate conclude there must be an Appellate Court, then the choice can be made as between the two. I believe this measure to be as important as any bill that has been presented to the Legislature.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings: This is a measure of great importance to the lawyers, to the
judges, and of greater importance to people of
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks: I don't entertain the opinion that there is an absolute need of this Court to enable the Supreme Court to catch up with the business. The time has been when the Supreme Court was farther behind than it is now. My principal reason for favoring an Appellate Court, is that it will supplant the Commissioners of the Supreme Court. An Appellate Court of five Judges would be no additional expense. I believe it better to have but one Appellate Court with three Judges.
Pending this -
The Senate adjourned till 9:30 to-morrow.
Mr. PENDLETON moved that the vote to engross his bill [H. R 361] to pay John Marshall a
claim for work on the Asylum for the Insane, be reconsidered, and that the bill be
recommitted to the
The substitute motion was agreed to.
Mr. McMULLEN, from the
Mr. CORY opposed this proposition saying this should not be allowed. The members of the committee received their pay the same as any of us, and I suppose they were visiting at no further expense than we in visiting our committee rooms.
On motion of Mr. PATTON the bill was recommitted to the
Mr. McMULLEN, from the
The SPEAKER said: This will take a concurrent resolution, as the expense arose from fitting up the Senate and House Chambers.
Mr. DAVIS offered a resolution authorizing the payment of the clerk hired by the Auditor
of State to investigate the swamp land fund at the same figures of legislative clerks.
Referred to the
New bills were introduced as follows:
By Mr. FRAZEE [H. R. 521] that gravel roads and all toll roads file an annual statement.
Referred to the
By Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe, [H. R. 522] defining the rights of married women. Passed to a second reading on a future day.
By Mr. BROWNLEE [H. R. 523] creating a fee and salary commission. Passed to a second reading on a future day.
By Mr. STALEY [H. R. 524] in relation to a general system of common schools in cities of
over 30,000 inhabitants. Referred to the
By Mr. REEVES [H. R. 526] relating to partition. Referred to the
By Mr. DAVIS [H. R. 527] providing for the computation of the average daily attendance of
pupils at the public school. Referred to the
On motion by Mr. SCHLEY the House took up the bill [H. R. 151] in operating Building and Loan Associations, and the bill passed - yeas, 84; nays, 3.
Mr. SAYRE made a motion that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the General Appropriation bill. The ayes and nays were called for.
Mr. LOYD said: As Chairman of the
The SPEAKER said: It can not be done pending roll-call. The only way is to
The motion was lost - yeas, 39; nays, 59.
Mr. LOYD from the
[A similar report was presented to the Senate by Mr. JOHNSTON of Dearborn.]
Mr. LOYD: I do not care to make a speech in submitting this report, but in view of the
fact that the interest of the State, the interest of the soldiers' orphans, and the
interest of the feeble-minded children have been at stake; in view of the fact that sore
charges are sustained against character, I deem it proper to say a little. It was the
honest aim of the
Mr. BOYD: To make an impartial investigation it became necessary for us to allow the men
against whom charges were made to introduce such witnesses as they chose. I have heard
to-day that there are men in this city able and ready to swear that Mr. Goar
Mr. HARRELL: Is this man Woodward the correspondent "Jayhawker?"
Mr. BOYD: The same I believe. The evidence goes on to show where Goar bought a jersey and dresses for Mary Thompson; that he undertook to entice her into a house of questionable character. In fact, there is every evidence against his character.
And as to Mr. White, the Superintendent, we find beyond doubt that he allowed a man who had lacerated the back of a soldier's ward with a rawhide to remain in the Institute for some time after he knew these facts. Mr. White knew of the imprisonment of boys in dungeons; of all character of cruelties. Mr. White, when put upon the stand before the committee, said he believed that for a year past Goar had been guilty of these evils, yet we find that he and Goar were on good terms less than a year. If he were a fit man to take charge of the institution he would not have been on as friendly terms as then nor kept an eye closed to the horrible truth. I do not believe that Dr. White was guilty of criminal in intercourse with females of the institution, but he was guilty of improprieties. Mr. White had the power to discharge and employ whom he pleased, yet with this power he allowed insubordination, and he is not a fit person to govern the institution.
Mr. DEEM: I would like to ask the committee why when the authorities drew $130 which they had no right to do, the committee says nothing of it in the report.
Mr. BOYD: There was not enough testimony presented to show that the Trustees were entirely to blame for that, and I did not feel like making a minority report on that point. I want to exclude Dr. White from blame in the private bills, which were attempted to be charged to the State. He adopted that. And I want especially to call attention to the testimony which shows that the most outrageous acts, such as sodomy, were committed on the persons of inmates of the institution by a man more vile than the chained demons in hell. Yet Dr. White failed to investigate this, because, as he lamely says, he did not believe it when told of it, though he was told of it frequently by responsible persons. Take this institution from politics, or at least allow the Republicans a minority representation on the board. Every man who has the good of the children of the dead soldiers at heart; when we think that daughters of our dead comrades were seduced in the very shadow of that institution; we should take some action of protection.
Mr. WILLIAMS moved that the report lie on the table, and that 500 copies be printed.
The motion was agreed to.
On motion of Mr. TAYLOR, Mr. Thompson's bill [S. 189] relative to a Union Depot at Indianapolis was taken up, the rules suspended and the bill read the second and third times.
Mr. WILLIAMS: I think the bill should not pass. It is proposed by the syndicate of railway corporations to condemn such property as they like for a union railway. This Legislature should not grant this. It should be done - this condemning - in the courts the same as other matters of like character. Otherwise but for this I would like to vote for it. I would be glad to see a decent depot at our Capital city.
Mr. BROWNLEE: Every man in Indiana, everyone who comes to Indianapolis, is interested in this bill. The bill will give to every man in Indianapolis his full and complete rights. I say this after a foil and complete consideration of the bill. It is the desire of the railway companies to build a Union Depot that will be of comfort to the cities. The bill has the indorsement of all the newspapers of this city, irrespective of party, and it ought to have the indorsement of every member of this body. There is no opposition to it by citizens.
The bill passed - yeas, 81; nays, 8.
Mr. McMULLEN moved to take up the bill [H. R. 423] for legislative apportionment.
Mr. WILSON moved to amend so that the General Appropriation bill be taken up.
The Speaker ruled the motion out of order.
The motion to take up the Legislative Apportionment bill was agreed to, by yeas 56, nays 38
Mr. BEST, explaining his vote, said: For the reason that the General Appropriation bill is the most important, and should be acted upon at once, I vote "no."
Mr. WILSON: I move that further consideration of the bill be indefinitely postponed.
The SPEAKER: The motion is not in order until the bill is read. Read the bill.
Mr. WILSON: I move that further consideration of the bill be postponed until next Wednesday afternoon at 2 o'clock.
Mr. BROWNING: I move to lay the motion on the table.
The SPEAKER: I am disposed to treat the minority fairly and give them a chance for debate, but dilatory motions will not do it. This is outside the record, but I hope the gentlemen will withdraw his motion and I will recognize him for debate now.
Mr. WILSON: I will withdraw it.
The SPEAKER: Do you wish to proceed with debate?
Mr. WILSON: No, not now.
Mr. KELLISON: I move to amend that instead of one representative being from Marion, Hancock, etc., it shall read Kosciusco, Marshal and Wabash.
On motion by Mr. WILLIAMS the amendment was laid on the table by yeas 55, nays 35.
The question being upon the passage of the bill -
Mr. SAYRE: From action on bills of this character for the past few days I do not believe remarks on the bill will do any good. I do not intend to refer to this measure as nefarious, damnable or anything of that sort, for such words would be complimentary to it. If this is to be the attitude of the reform of the Democracy which we have heard so much of, I say, God pity the American Government. There is some consolation to me in legislation of this kind, when I think of the history of gerrymander in Indiana. The Republicans, in 1872, made an apportionment bill which took nine of the Congressmen and a majority of the Legislators; yet in the succeeding campaign the people arose against it and reprimanded the Republican party by defeat. In 1879 the Democratic party repealed the Republican gerrymander and made one of their own equally as unfair. What was the result? Again, as is always the fate, the people, because they believe in equity and justice in politics as well as anything else, elected a Legislature that sent General Ben Harrison to the United States Senate instead of Hon. Joseph E. McDonald. Yet I do believe that if this bill could be made more infamous, the majority of the House would vote for it.
I will invite your attention to the little County of Floyd - Democratic - yet hardly large enough for one Representative, yet it joined to another of Democratic majority, and another and another until it helps send four Representatives here. Jennings County and the Republican majority is so joined to another county of larger Democratic majority until the voters of Jennings are disfranchised. Clay County, Democratic, is so favored that it is used to help to elect three Representatives. The Constitution says that the districts shall be composed of continuous counties. While this does not violate the letter of it, yet it violates the intention. Here is Vermillion County, Republican, put in with Democratic Sullivan to rob the Republicans of Vermillion - Sullivan County, where during the war the County Commissioners had put on the record an order seceding from the Union. Is this fairness? Is this the beginning of reform? Take the counties of Miami and Cass and Kosciusko and Wabash. Ail changed and so looped to disfranchise Republicans. The two Democratic have a much larger representation to a smaller population. Every place where a Republican majority can be disfranchised it is done. More than thirty counties that have Democratic majorities are not only permitted to vote for one but for three Democratic Representatives. Quite to the contrary are th« Republican counties. The counties, richer, larger, that have more school-houses, churches and therefore Republican - nearly twenty-five - there the people are permitted to vote for one, very rarely two, Representatives. As a part of my speech, I propose to read a quotation from Hon. Thomas A. Hendricks on the Republican gerrymander. [Reads]. This Democratic gerrymander, which gives them, lacking two, a two-thirds majority, shows the Democratic fear, which I believe is well grounded.
Mr. BROWNING: I should bot have risen but for the personal attack on me by the gentleman who has just taken his seat. I did not glory in what he calls the "Democratic shame" on this floor. I did say that Democrats had been yelling "bloody murder" for a quarter of a century, and now let the Republicans try it and see how it goes. I am not ashamed of this measure. The proudest moment in my life will be to go home and say to my constituents "I helped make another Democratic county or two." Take your Republican map and look at your own picture. You may just as well as not make up your minds to step down and out. You will have to go
Mr. BROWNLEE: If there was a question of property in this, there would be plenty of Democrats come to our aid. But owing to politics one-third of the voters must be disfranchised, and the months of Democratic members are closed. The truth comes home to me at this hour that the Democratic party has no faith in itself, with all its pledges of reform, and so on. They are so void in fact of any ability to manage the affairs of government that they propose to steal their way in. So they make ready to secure themselves in advance from all mistakes. It is no use to talk of this long. The bill will pass. But in the minority, as I am, I shall go down with my boots on. The old Democratic wagon can not be repaired. You can't paint out the warp in the boards and the shaggy wheels. It is there. In spite of all this, the Democratic party will go down with its broken promises - open the books for all. Put this bill through and from this body we appeal to the people.
Mr. KELLISON: I regret that I am not in a physical condition to speak as I wish. My
connection with my first apportionment bill is not a pleasant one. Of twelve years of
fidelity to the Democratic party, I have now found it necessary to leave the majority. I
want to stamp this measure as infa
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: When by any system in this Government one man is counted for more than another, then our idea of equality is destroyed. Since 1840 I have been a close student of political science. I have been able to call by name and from memory every Congressman, commencing at Maine and ending at California. Of all I have ever read this apportionment bill is the most outrageously unfair of any in history. I do not except the celebrated shoestring district of the times of Gerry. I defy any on to show me one as bad as this one. In the last enumeration of Indiana there is about 5,000 for each Representative and 10,000 for Senator. The idea of a picture of an apportionment does not convey all the truth. A fair apportionment might look hideous by the side of a gerrymander and yet be far more fair. The Democrats are not satisfied with 57 per cent. of power but they insist upon 97 per cent. or more. Is the insatitate maw unfilled or the craving or power unmitigated? In 1846 a party which would do such an act as this would be at once overthrown. Why here in Brown County, back among the hills - what meat has this Cæsar eat that it has grown so strong, that the little county shall govern four others? It is the worst of Mexicanizing. In New Hampshire at one time its Constitution prohibited an amendment to itself, yet the people arose in their power and made a Constitution for the people. This is not in the memory of the author of the bill, but I remember it. I am sorry my friend across the way (from Brown) (Mr. Browning) made the speech he did. It would be a good one for a campaign document.
Mr. BROWNING: Take it if it will do you good.
Mr. SMITH: It is altogether as to how we are constituted. The alligator can not help it because his hide is thick, nor can the other animal help it because a mosquito can torture it; and more, what right has Hancock County to a Joint Representative when it has not enough votes for one Representative? In the interest of good government, the rights of the people, and in justice to my oath, I can not support the bill.
Mr. LOYD: My conduct on this bill has been criticised. It has been said that the measure is not a just one. It has been said that this same kind of matter has overthrown the Republican party. Without going into detail concerning the iniquities of the Republican party, what have they proposed in opposition? What reason have they presented for relief but the Democratic apportionment of years ago? They have held off this measure until it has cost the State hundreds of thousands of dollars. My eternal and unbounded hatred for the Republican party of this country, their corruption, their grinding down the poor, setting laboring men idle, their bad financiering, has led me to support this. I am content to know, and the future will verify my conclusions, that the Republican party is forever overthrown.
Mr. MOODY moved the previous question.
His demand was seconded by the House.
Mr. PATTEN, the author of the bill, said he wished to set Sullivan County aright. Its County Commissioners did not write an order of secession, but that county was loyal, and sent its share of soldiers to the war. As to the Democratic brother from Marshall (Mr Kellison) the Democratic milk had curdled for him. This is the fairest legislative apportionment bill that has ever been attempted in Indiana. No gerrymandering scheme ever entered the heads in this House.
The bill passed by yeas 56, nays 38.
Mr. DEEM, explaining his vote, said: So far as Henry county is concerned it is eminently
fair. Henry county has the best
Mr. HOBAN said: I am sorry there is not a better religious atmosphere. I was to hear Moody last night, and he has given me strength for it. I am told that the Republican party did as much. Now we are even-handed. And as it will keep peace with the Democrats, and as it is in the interest of the Democratic party, I vote "aye."
Mr. MAUCK, of Wayne: Because I think it unjust to people, irrespective of party, I vote "no."
Mr. PASSAGE: The passage of gerrymander bills have defeated parties, it has been said here. That is not strictly true. In 1887 the Republican party gerrymandered the State and no defeat followed. In 1873 they again gerrymandered the State and were defeated in 1874; not because of their gerrymander, but because the party Congress had demonetized the silver dollar. A Republican who left his party by reason of gerrymander would bring more money to Barnum than Jumbo. I vote "aye."
Mr. PENDLETON: Because it is fair, and as one of its authors, I vote "aye."
Mr. RIVERS: There is no inconsistency as it seems, so I vote "aye."
Mr. SMITH, of Warrick: My first impression was to vote against it, as it affected my Senatorial District, but, as that is Republican and I am a Democrat, I vote "aye."
Mr. STALEY: As this bill doubles the representation from my county, and to vote against it would make me an ingrate, I vote "aye."
Mr. TAYLOR: If I were a Republican, would be a stalwart. I have no apology for my vote. Good-bye to my Republican friends "Aye."
Mr. TOWNSEND: I have always tried I be conscientious; I have always had the courage of my convictions, and because this scheme is malicious I shall vote "no."
Mr. TWINEHAM: For the reason that the franchise of the people is stolen by this bill, I vote "no."
Mr. WILLIAMS: While the Senatorial District of my part of the State is destroyed with its Democratic majority, as well as others there, I vote "aye."
Mr. ADAMS: Because of its outrageous unfairness I vote "no."
Mr. WILSON: There are times when patriotism should rise above politics. One of the greatest nations of the earth fell because its people were disenfranchised. Because this is so unfair I vote "no."
Mr. COPELAND: Because this measure tramples upon the rights of the people, "no."
Mr. HAYWORTH: Because it is not fair to the voter, I vote "no."
Mr. HELMS: Because there is no justice in it, I vote no.
The vote was then announced as above, as the bill passed.
Mr. GORDON moved that this vote be reconsidered, and that that motion lie on the table.
The latter motion was agreed to - yeas, 55; nays, 36.
The House adjourned till to-morrow.
Mr. Adkison's bill to erect a new Orphans' Home was read the second time.
It provides for the erection of a new Building on the farm at Knightstown institution, but on the opposite side of the road from the buildings now occupied. The new buildings to be for orphans exclusively, the trustees are to be ex-soldiers exclusively, and to be removable by the Governor. The bill appropriates $50,000 for the purpose contemplated.
Mr. FOULKE desired to more to amend amend it by making the trustees representatives of both parties.
Mr. McCLURE, committee chairman, said that the bill was needless; the Soldiers' Orphans' Home was now separate, to all intents and purposes, from the Asylum for Feeble Minded Chiidren.
Mr. WEIR, the Senator from Laporte co., said that the separation of the two institutions would be made still more perfect by the expenditure of few thousand dollars, $5 000. And the number of soldiers' orphans needing help was continually diminishing. He thought the bill was needless.
On motion of Mr. MAGEE Mr. Weir's Appellate Court bill [S. 45], pending at the adjournment yesterday, was taken up, the question being on substituting the minority for the majority report.
It was so ordered by yeas 29, nays 15.
Mr. McCULLOUGH moved to refer this matter to a select committee of five, and on that motion demanded the previous question.
The demand was seconded, and under its operation the motion was agreed to and Messrs. McCullougb, Smith of Jennings, Foulke, Winter and Weir were appointed said committee by the Lieutenant Governor.
By consent Mr. WEIR introduced a bill [S. 344] to repeal the act authorizing the appointment of Supreme Court Commissioners, which was referred to this special committee.
Mr. WILLARD, from the
The report was concurred in.
Mr. HILLIGASS' bill [S. 87] to legalize the incorporation of the Union Loan and Savings Company of Marion County, was read the third time, and passed by yeas 31, nays 10.
Mr. BAILEY: I am not well acquainted with the provisions of the bill, but Senator Hilligass says it simply proposes to legalize the acts of the company.
Mr. HOWARD'S Indiana Militia bill [S. 881, see pages 205, 236] was read a third time and passed by yeas 38, nays 10.
Pending the roll call -
Mr. FOWLLR: I was not in the Senate when this bill was under discussion, and didn't
have an opportunity of saying anything in regard to the merits of this bill. I regard all
bills of this kind as vicious legislation. It seems to me the sole object is to create a
attending army in Indiana, all of which I am opposed to in time of peace.
Mr. SMITH, of
The vote was then announced as above. So the bill was passed.
Mr. May's bill [S. 114] to authorize incorporated towns to issue bonds to erect bridges and sewers within such corporations, was read the third time and passed by yeas 34, nays 0.
Mr. MAY explained: It authorizes towns of 1,800 inhabitants and over to issue and sell bonds for the building of bridges and sewers inside of the corporate limits of such towns.
Mr. May, from the Special Committee appointed to investigate charges against officers of the Senate (see page 198), submitted a report. On his further motion it was made a special order for to-morrow at 10 o'clock.
The special committee appointed by the Senate to investigate certain newspaper charges that there are more than the legal number of assistants now in the employ of the chief officers of the Senate, and that certain officers had overdrawn their pay, made a report to Senate. The committee find as follows:
1. More than the legal number of assistants are employed, and the excess is as follows. Mr. Kelly, the chief Secretary, has eleven assistants on his pay-roll. Eight of these are authorized by the statute, two by resolution of the Senate, and one, a page, at $2 per day, without any authority, and the committee finds that said page has drawn $34. As to Assistant Secretary Huffstetter, the committee finds that he is entitled to seven assistants by law, and he has nine on his pay-roll, two of whom are without authority. Also that Max Dembufsky has drawn $35 for services under Huffstetter, without warrant of law. Also the committee say that the law provides that no enrolling or engrossing clerks shall be employed until bills are ready for them to enroll and engross, that seven enrolling and engrossing clerks have been employed, who have drawn pay at $5 per diem since January 8. That the books show that only three bills had been engrossed up to January 27. As to Doorkeeper Cope, the committee say that he is entitled by law to seven assistants, and that twelve are on the pay-roll, but that the extra force were appointed by special resolution of the Senate. All the clerks in the Secretary's employ had drawn pay from the 8th of January, except James Walsh, the reading clerk, who has drawn only from January 16, the date of hit appointment.
2. By reason of objection of the majority, the committee made no investigation as to whether the number was in excess of the needs of the Senate.
3. The committee finds that Mr. Huffstetter has drawn $75 in excess of the total amount
due him for
Mr. HILLIGASS offered a resolution requesting Mrs. Josephine R Nichols to address the Senate on the subject of teaching physiology and hygiene in the public schools with special reference to the influence of narcotics on the human system.
Mr. HILL: I have just had a conversation with the lady and she says she don't want but ten minutes' time, and is willing to take that after the adjournment of the Senate.
With that understanding the resolution was adopted.
On motion of Mr. MARSHALL the constitutional restriction was dispensed with - yeas, 40; nays, 0 - and Mr. Ensley's soldiers' enrollment bill [S. 328] was read the second time by title, the third time by sections, and passed by yeas 39, nays 0.
Mr. MARSHALL explained: Many old soldiers are entitled to but can not obtain pensions because they can not find the required evidence. This bill provides that assessors shall take a list of the soldiers of the State when taking the regular assessment and forward the list to the Adjutant General of the State, so that when one soldier wants to find any other soldier he can readily do so by writing to the Adjutant General of the State. If every State in the Union would pass this kind of a bill every old soldier would be enabled to find his comrade.
Mr. HILLIGASS: The committee have unanimously recommended that the bill do pass. It will not cost the people anything for making the report to the Adjutant General. The Assessor takes the enumeration as he passes around, and sends a certified copy of this enumeration to the Adjutant General of the State without expense to anybody.
Mr. Bryant's bill [S. 162] to amend Secs. 1, and 4 of the act of March 7, 1881, establishing a State Board of Health, was read the third time and passed - yeas, 26; nays, 21.
Mr. BRYANT stated it would make the
Mr. ADKISON, explaining his negative vote, had no objection to the Democrats turning the Republicans out, but did object to adding another trustee. Therefore he voted "no."
Mr. WILLARD: There has been no action in the Democratic caucus on this matter. The caucus action two years ago was against changing the State Board of Health. I am one of those who believe there should be no politics in an organization of this kind which is simply one for sanitary purposes. Once it was attempted in the city of New York to establish a Board of Health as a political organization, and the result was the ward bummers controlled it and made it an outrage upon the people. I don't believe in this proposed change. A caucus has not demanded it, and as the last action in caucus upon this subject was against the changes I vote "no."
The vote was then announced as above.
So the bill passed.
Mr. Thompson's bill [S. 177] to pay $5,152.69 to David R. Munson for lightning rods placed on the Insane Asylum seven years ago was read the third time, and -
Mr. THOMPSON and Mr. Foulke explaining the merits of the claim: The State has received the work and the State ought to pay for it.
Mr. FOWLER would not look with favor upon State claims, but this seems to be a just claim. I hope the good name and fame of Indiana will not be tarnished by a refusal to pay any just claim.
The bill passed by yeas 35, nays 9.
Pending the roll-call -
Mr. BENZ, when his name was called, said this was in the Specific Appropriation bill two years ago, but since Senator Fowler has talked in favor of lightning-rods, I know it most be an honest claim or he would not vote for it; therefore I vote "aye." [Laughter]
Mr. FAULKNER, in explanation of his vote, said: I am decidedly opposed to this bill. I don't believe it is just. Another reason is: If any man without authority went to England to bay a lightning-rod and put it up, it would be a disgrace to the great name of Indiana to pay the bill. I think it be worse and more of a disgrace to say we haven't a lightning-rod fit to put on our State institutions in this country; therefore I shall vote "no."
Mr. MAGEE: Two years ago when this claim was presented it was put in the Specific
Appropriation bill. I was against this claim then because I had no time to investigate it.
The Senator from Pike was the Chairman of the
Mr. MAY, when his name was called, said: Two years ago I was on the
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings: I am a member of the
Mr. WEIR: An Chairman of the
Mr. WILLARD: I have taken the opportunity to examine this claim, and I believe it to be
just, I consider it an outrage to an honest claimant that he is forced to go to a jury of
150 men for the purpose of prosecuting his claim. It is found under the provision of the
Constitution, referred to by the Senator from Jennings, allowing the establishment of a
Court of Claims absolutely impossible in this State, for the reason that if such a course
is permitted every one of the old internal improvement bonds of this State, against which
we have passed a con-
The vote was announced as above.
So the bill passed.
Mr. Thompson's bill [S. 178] to allow $10,000 to Mrs. Sarah May for the payment of a resolution passed in her favor March 3, 1883, was read the third time and failed to pass by yeas 22, nays 26.
Pending the roll call -
Mr. FOWLER: I have not been satisfied that this claim is a just claim due from the State, and having doubts about it, I therefore vote "no."
Mr. HILLIGASS: Two years ago when this bill was before the Legislature I resisted it and fought against it. Since that time I have made some inquiries about the justice of this claim, and I have consulted with men who ought to know, and I am informed that this is a just claim, and that the State of Indiana ought to pay it. I therefore vote "aye."
Mr. JOHNSON, of Tippecanoe: I think it would establish a very dangerous precedent for the General Assembly to allow this claim. Any contractor who might lose money under his contract might come to the General Assembly and demand indemnity. I vote "no."
Mr. McCULLOUGH: If the committee had reported the exact facts they could go into the journals, and our constituency could see what we are voting money for. The simple statement of Senators that this is a just claim is no explanation to our constituents why this Legislature should vote money out of the State Treasury. I vote "no."
Mr. THOMPSON: I was not able to examine into this case. I left that to the
The vote was then announced as above.
So the bill failed to pass.
Mr. HOOVER'S bill [S. 254] to prescribe thirty years term for life-time convicts less the time earned by good conduct, was read the third time.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph: As the bill now stands it embraces a material amendment made by myself. There has never been any incentive to life-time convicts for good conduct. The bill applies only to those now in prison, and in the future the jury may convict for a term of years not less than thirty. The good time may reduce that to twenty-two years. We should leave a ray of hope for such prisoners.
Mr CAMPBELL, of Hendricks: It seems to me if this bill is passed the Warden of prisons may choose to mark down every life convict now in the prison, so they may all I set free. Then we are passing a law that every man guilty of murder who has been in prison long enough to count up the good time under the present law, may go free. I don't believe we ought so hastily to pass such a bill. The pardoning power can be exercised in all meritorious cases. The bill I think, when printed, will make us appear somewhat ridiculous. I shall vote against it.
Mr. YOUCHE: There is a mistake as to the provisions of the amendment adopted. The effect would be to change the penalty for murder in the first degree to a term of seventeen or eighteen years. I think this principle is vicious in character. It in well known it is in the power of a jury to find him guilty of a lesser crime with a lighter punishment.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph, moved to refer the bill to a special committee of three.
On motion by Mr. FOWLER the bill was indefinitely postponed by yeas 24 nays 20.
Mr. SELLERS moved to reconsider the vote just taken and to lay that motion on the table.
The latter motion was rejected by yeas 18, nays 26.
On motion by Mr. MAGEE the further consideration of the motion to reconsider was postponed till Monday at 3 p. m.
On motion by Mr. YOUOHE this motion to postpone was laid on the table.
On motion by Mr. WILLARD the further consideration of the motion to reconsider was postponed till Monday at 2 o'clock p. m.
On motion by Mr. MAGEE, the bill [S. R. 154] to regulate foreign surety companies doing business in this State was read (under a dispensation of the constitutional restriction) the second and third times (by title only) and passed by yeas 31, nays 14.
On motion by Mr. ZIMMERMAN, the bill [H. R. 158] to legalize the incorporation of the town of Bourbon, Marshall County, was pressed through the three readings and finally passed by yeas 46, nays 0.
On motion by Mr. HILLIGASS, the bill [H. R. 157] to pay Carlon & Hollenbeck $1,018 for binding Brevier Legislative Reports volumes 17, 18, 19 and 20, was pressed through three readings and finally passed by yeas 39, nays 1.
Mr. Campbell, of St. Joseph, and Mr. Youohe inquired whether the bill included the printing of the Brevier Legislative Reports?
The Lieutenant Governor and Mr. Hilligass replied that it did not.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings, moved to reconsider the vote by which Mr. Thompson's bill [S. 178] appropriating $10,000 to Mrs. Sarah May failed to pass.
Mr. FOWLER made an ineffectual motion - yeas 17, nays 31 - to lay that motion of the table.
Mr. BROWN made an ineffectual motion to adjourn - yeas 14, nays 31.
Mr. WILLARD demanded the previous question.
The demand was seconded by the Senate. The main question ordered by yeas 29, nays 18, and the motion to reconsider agreed to by yeas 29, nays 18.
Mr. FAULKNER made an ineffectual motion to adjourn - yeas 18, nays 29
Mr. WEIR demanded the previous question.
The Senate seconded the demand, and under its operations the bill passed the Senate by yeas 28, nays 17.
Mr. McCullough: I desire to explain my vote. As long as legislative bodies are called upon to vote for things of this sort, and as long as members are seen changing their votes upon large claims two or three hours afterward, so long will it be charged upon legislative bodies that they are corrupt.
Mr. MAGEE: I rise to a point of order. That is a covert attach upon the motives of Senators on this floor who stand as high as the Senator from Gibson. For one, I repel it as emphatically as I know how.
Mr. McCULLOUGH: I impugn no one's motives. But I expect this bill will pass the Senate, and I protest that the State of Indiana owes this woman nothing, and the contract between the State-house Commissioners and her late husband shows it. I vote "no."
Mr. SHIVELY: I don't wish to appear inconsistent in my vote on this question. When it was up some time ago I voted under a misrepresentation. I voted against the bill when it was my intention to vote for it. I now vote for it. I vote "aye."
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings: In casting my vote for this bill I do so with a full realization of the duties and responsibilities devolving upon me, and I ask no advice and accept no criticism from any source or any person, or any Senator on this floor or off this floor. The way I cast my vote only concerns the persons to whom I have to answer. I cast it honestly and from a conviction of right and justice. I vote "aye" for this bill.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay: Two years ago I made an examination into the justice of this claim. I was a member of the committee which visited the Board of State House Commissioners to inquire this session as to whether this was a just claim, and I became convinced it is nothing more than justice that this Legislature should allow it. Hence I vote "aye."
Mr. WINTER: I was very much prejudiced against this claim at the outset. I realize the fact that members and committees of the Legislature were not provided with adequate means of ascertaining what the facts were, so I took the trouble to see the State House Commissioners and inquired as to the merits of this claim. I examined the original contract and papers and became satisfied that there were merits in this claim. I have consistently voted for that claim since, and I now vote for it. I vote "aye."
Mr. YOUCHE: I have uniformly voted against this claim, and, although I have voted for some of the minor questions with the friends of the claim, I still think the claim should not be allowed, and therefore I vote "no."
The vote was then announced as above.
And so the bill passed.
Mr. BRYANT offered a concurrent resolution, which was adopted, authorizing a joint committee to call the attention of the several States in this Union, with a view of securing a uniform system of laws in all the States and Territories on the subject of marriage and divorce, and report to the next General Assembly.
The House proceeded to the consideration of the favorable majority report from the
Mr. MOODY: I move to lay the minority report on the table.
Mr. GOODING: I hope the gentleman will not insist on that motion as I desire to be heard, as I am alone.
Mr. MOODY: As the gentleman has incorporated his speech in his report, I insist on my motion.
The motion was agreed to.
The question being, shall the bill pass to a third reading -
Mr. GOODING: My minority report recommends the stopping of work on these two superfluous
buildings. I do not propose to play bad faith with the contractors, but I want to pay them
for the work they have done and quit. These two asylums are not necessary. They are not
needed, and will be a heavy and unnecessary expense continually. An effort has been made
here to make the number of insane of Indiana larger than it is, in order to put through
this scheme. I should not have talked this long, but for the act of the gentleman from
DeKalb (Mr. Moody ) who has been so mysteriously connected with this bill. There are but
800 insane in Indiana outside of Indianapolis, and the Evansville Hospital will accommo-
Mr. TAYLOR: I think my friend from Hancock (Mr. Gooding) has not examined very carefully into the figures. The gentleman, by his own remarks, puts his own opinion as to these asylums against every other member on this floor, and then puts an imputation against all who disagree with him. He should be practical. A portion of the work on the buildings has been done. It is not a matter of economy with the gentleman. If the State does not pay for the care of these insane the county must in the Alms Homes. So the money comes from the taxpayer after all. These people must be provided for. Why was that $600,000 loan made or authorized the other day if not to pay for these buildings?
The bill was ordered engrossed.
The bill [S. 18] to regulate the practice of medicine coming up -
Mr. PENDLETON moved to amend that physicians write their prescriptions in the English language only. He said: There can be too much quackery accomplished under this system physicians have of the use of foreign terms.
Mr. PASSAGE. The gentleman is talking of something he knows nothing about. Some medical terms have no synonym in the English language.
Mr. MOUCK, of Wayne: I move to amend so that license may be granted to those who have attended "three" courses of lectures instead of "five" courses. I make this motion because the Special Committee, of which I was a member, had not time to properly examine it.
On motion by Mr. PASSAGE the amendment was laid on the table.
Mr. WILSON: I move to amend by striking out in the first section the words "this State," and inserting the words "United States." He said: I do this because there are a number of men past the meridian of life, competent physicians, who graduated at Rush College, and who have practiced ten years, but not ten years in this State.
Mr. McHENRY: If any bill is to pass relative to medicine, this bill as it comes from the Senate must go through. I, for one, wish to protect the people, and will vote for the Senate bill as it is.
On motion by Mr. PASSAGE, the amendment was laid on the table.
Mr. DEEM: I move that further consideration of the bill lie on the table.
Mr. PASSAGE: I move to lay the motion on the table.
The latter motion was agreed to.
Mr. TAYLOR, from the
Mr. HARRELL offered an amendment that the bill embrace other corporations.
Mr. MOODY: The gentleman from Franklin (Mr. Harrell) made that move to break down the bill, although it was closely scrutinized and passed the Senate. There are twelve men interested in the bill and but one man opposes it, and that one man will not be injured. It is mere contraryism.
Mr. LOYD: This one man who objects was before the committee; they head his grievance and they recommended the passage of the bill. I move the amendment lie on the table.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. DITTEMORE, from the
The report of the committee was concurred in.
Mr. Gooding's bill [H. R. 69] to provide for the incorporation of towns and for the election of officers came up on second reading.
Mr. McGOVNEY moved to amend that any qualified voter be allowed to vote as to whether the city be incorporated, instead of heads of families as stated in the bill.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. DEEM moved to amend that the number of Trustees be not less than three nor more than seven. He believed that larger towns should have a larger representation.
Mr. GORDON hoped that the amendment would not prevail Three Trustees are quite enough. These men govern large counties with large improvements going on.
Mr. HARRELL: I am inclined to think the amendment should prevail. So often the Trustees pay no attention, receiving little or no pay, and very often they failed to attend meetings. If you have more Trustees you will be more apt to have every meeting represented and the property will be closely guarded.
Mr. PATTEN: To have but three Trustees gives too much power in three men's hands. Give the people a fair representation.
The amendment was rejected.
The bill was then ordered engrossed.
Mr. LOYD, from a minority of the
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: I represent a corn-growing district, and I believe it should be sixty-eight pounds. The Ohio Legislature recently passed a law making it sixty eight pounds.
Mr. PENDLETON thought that it should remain seventy pounds. He was not here to antagonize the farmer, but they could not lose by it. The price would be so much more per bushel.
Mr. PATTEN: I am opposed to the legislation against farmers. They have little enough now. The amendment should prevail. It can do no harm.
Mr. HELMS: It seems to me that there are a great many farmers here to-night. I, too, am a farmer - was one twenty six years of my life. I do not believe that at seventy pounds for a bushel the farmers will be hurt. The farmer gets pay for the pounds he takes to market.
The amendment was agreed to.
The bill was ordered engrossed.
The Lieutenant Governor laid before the Senate the resignation of Henry C. Hoffstetter, Assistant Secretary of the Senate, and stated that by request of the Democratic caucus he would appoint J. D. Carter, of Orange County, to fill the vacancy.
On motion by Mr. Hilligass, John D. Carter was elected Assistant Secretary for the remainder of the session, the ballot resulting 42 votes for Mr. C., who was sworn in by Judge Pierce Norton, of the Marion Criminal Court.
The Apportionment bill for Congressional purposes [H. R. 422 - see page 206] was read the first time.
Mr. WILLARD moved that it pass to the second reading without reference to a committee.
Mr. FOULKE moved to postpone its further consideration till Friday.
Mr. WILLARD demanded the previous question.
The demand was seconded and the main question ordered put by yeas 25, nays 15, and under its operations -
The motion to postpone till Friday was rejected by yeas 17, nays 26.
The motion that the bill pass to the second reading without committal was agreed to by yeas 26, nays 13.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph, moved that the report of the
Mr. WILLARD moved that the report lie on the table and the committee be discharged.
Mr. FOWLER understood one Mr. Buskirk had drawn some $200 more than he ought to. If that be so, be wanted to know why it was not mentioned in the report.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St Joseph: The report did not state the names, but stated there were two clerks who had overdrawn.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: Why was the name of Mr. Dembufski put in?
Mr. WILLARD withdrew his motion to lay on the table.
Mr. CAMPBELL: We found no special irregularity in the pay of Mr. Dembufski, but in order to show that the committee had made a thorough examination it seemed right to state how and why the money had been paid. The committee did not think it was its function to name others.
Mr. FOWLER questioned whether this report was not a reflection upon every employe who was in the service of the Senate, and the report ought to be recommitted, with instructions to insert the names of the persons who have been drawing money from the State Treasury without authority of law. He made that motion, and that the committee be instructed to report whether or not the overdrawn money has been returned to the State Treasury.
Mr. MAY: The report will show the overdrafts and the return of moneys.
Mr. ADKISON: If the report shows that, why has it not been read?
Mr. MAY: I have no objection to its being read.
Mr. MAGEE: If, as the report shows, that unearned pay has been received, the persons so
receiving are liable to prosecution. The
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: The whole of the report has not been read. Let it be read for the information of all.
Mr. MAGEE: Certainly; but I think the report ought to be concurred in.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: Will you have it read first?
Mr. MAGEE: Yes sir.
After the report was read -
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR said: I should like a personal explanation of this matter. I have been in the habit of signing all warrants. The law makes it my duty to approve all the Senate warrants, as you know. It is impossible for me, under the circumstances, to ascsertain the correctness of the warrants. I relied altogether upon the Assistant Secretary to keep the books, and I asked the Secretary to be exceedingly careful that there was not a single dollar paid to any employe in advance. He stated that he posted the books every night so there could not be a mistake. I regret very much that I have trusted to him in this matter. I feel that the law ought to be changed so that the presiding officer, if compelled to be responsible to any extent at all, should have tbe say who shall be the clerk to draw warrants. I say to Senators now, I would not bave signed a single warrant to pay any employe or any Senator in advance. I feel it is contrary to law. The law pays so much a day. If a Senator had leave of absence to go to his home for a week, and desired to draw his pay for that week I feel it my duty to sign the warrant. I feel that the Clerk has made a great mistake in this matter. I know he has been pressed on all sides with anxiety to draw pay. I urged him to see when a party called for a warrant that he had authority from the Secretary of the Senate or the bookkeeper to draw the warrant I am not in favor of paying everybody who wants to come up here and loaf around the hotels unless they perform service. I will say further I want the new Assistant Secretary to understand that I shall sign no warrants for the pay of any employe or Senator in advance unless they have leave of absence from the Senate for the time they propose to be paid.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph: By some mistake the Clerk has failed to put in the statement of overpaid employes, which unintentionally has been left out. I ask that it may be appended to the report.
It was so ordered by consent.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph, offered the following:
Resolved, That the President of the Senate be requested to take such action as may be necessary to have the moneys covered back into the treasury that have been illegally paid to officers or employes during the present session of the Senate.
Mr. MAGEE: The President of the Senate ought not to be required to do this. The law makes that the duty of the Attorney General of the State. The President of the Senate can not take any official action. Mr. Huffstetter is outside of the jurisdiction of the Senate. It can't put its hand on him.
Mr. Campbell withdrew his resolution.
The report of the committee was concurred in.
Mr. CAMPBELL now offered his resolution, with the Attorney General substituted for the President of tbe Senate.
The resolution was adopted.
Mr. McCULLOUGH, from the special committee thereon, returned tbe substitute for the bill [S. 45 - see pages 175 and 240] with recommendations.
The report was concurred in, tbe bill ordered engrossed, printed and made the special order for Monday at 2:30 o'clock.
The bill [H. R. 423 - see pages 172 and 219] to redistrict the State for Senatorial and Representative purposes, was read the first time.
Mr. HILLIGASS moved that the bill pass to the second reading without reference to committee.
Mr. FOULKE moved to reject the bill.
The motion to reject the bill was rejected by yeas 16, nays 27.
Mr. SELLERS, explaining his negative vote, he desired to amend the bill.
Mr FOWLER, also: I could not support that bill in its present shape, but I understand it is to be amended; therefore I vote "no."
The question recurring on the motion to pass the bill to the second reading without committal -
Mr. WINTER moved to refer it to the
Mr. WILLARD demanded the previous question.
The demand was seconded by the Senate and the main question ordered by yeas 27, nays 15.
The motion to refer to the
The motion that the bill be passed to the second reading without committal was agreed to.
The bill [H. R. 56 - see page 110] for the relief of eight Trustees in Marion County, was read the second time, with a favorable committeee report.
Mr. YOUCHE: It seems to me this measure ought to be cut off at its earliest stage. I can't think the Legislature will release parties from default on official bonds. If this practice is established every man who is a defaulter will come here for relief, and we might as well pass a general law for relief. Sureties should understand that the signing of a bond means something. The report should not be concurred in.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay: I am informed this bill applies to Marion County, where certain Township Trustees had township funds in the banks that failed in this city last fall. The rule of law is that Township Trustees are the absolute insurers at money in their hands belonging to the township. They are not sureties as bailees. With this extraordinary rule of law, it is nothing more than fair to pass this bill, if the people in those townships ask the Trustees shall be relieved because these Trustees used due diligence by placing the funds in what was supposed to be secure banks.
Mr. BAILEY: The purpose of this bill is to afford relief to eight Trustees of this county because they lost funds belonging to the township, on deposit in the banks that have failed in this city in the past eighteen months. In every case the school fund has been paid in, and is intact. There are two thirds of the taxpayers in the several townships petitioning in favor of the passage of the bill. Perhaps in the cold letter of the law under decisions of the Supreme Court this is not a legal claim, but these men had no better place to put this money, for these banks had been considered solvent for thirty years, and, with but one exception, no interest has been received by any of these Trustees, and in that instance he deducted the interest he received from his pay as Trustee. Mr. Bailey submitted a detailed statement of the losses by these several Trustees. Tbey are among the best citizens in the county, and if their neighbors ask that the burden be placed upon them, it is but right the Legislature should allow that to be done. Before he had concluded -
The Senate took a recess for dinner.
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
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.
The SPEAKER: A resolution was under discussion at the close of the session last night, calling up bills to-day, on a call of the counties, on tbe third reading. I suggest that some of you get together and prepare a resolution which shall make a call of counties from day to day as we have time, and that members be allowed to name one bill for consideration. By that means over 100 House and Senate bills can be considered.
The bill [S. 178 - see page 144] allowing the widow of Edwin May $10,000 for architect services of the deceased on the new State House was read the first time.
Mr. GORDON: I move that further consideration of this bill be indefinitely postponed. It is claimed among architects that their plans belong to them; but in this case May became pressed for means and secured money on the plans from the State House Commissioners, so he really had no further claim against them. Of course Mrs. May is in unfortunate circumstances, but so are thousands of women in Indianapolis. To pay her that claim wouid be to give away $10,000 of the people's money. There is not a single particle of evidence to justify the claim or a single dollar of it. The State House Commissioners - or one of them - told me that May received every dollar he was entitled, and they could pay him no more under their bonds.
Mr. WILLIAMS: I introduced a bill like this - written by Governor Hendricks by request - and I am willing to give it fair consideration. I have no special pride in it. One of the bills - the House or the Senate bill - should be investigated. I do not care to kill the measure at this time. I am not that discourteous to this House. An attempt was made by the last Legislature to pass this claim, but by a technical error it failed. The bill was written, by someone's mistake, "Be it resolved" instead of "Be it enacted." Something has been said here about the State House Commissioners, but there are further means of investigation.
Mr. HARRELL: Why is this claim for Mrs. May, instead of Edwin May's administrator?
Mr. WILLIAMS: Because there was no estate to administer upon. Edwin May spent his all to prepare these plans. It cost him $17,000 to prepare them.
Mr. GORDON: Will the gentleman tell this House why this claim is even-rounded $10 000 - no fractionS of dollars - no cents?
Mr. WILLIIAMS: Of course. If the gentleman from Putnam had been consulted in this, he would have made it $999 99; but, as a fact, at Edwin May's death it was found that his services to the amount of $10,000 were unpaid.
Mr. PATTEN: Was not a new contract made by the State House Commissioners at May's death?
Mr. WILLIAMS: No. The building went right along under May's plans.
Mr. PATTEN: Did not May receive his contract price - 2 per cent. of the money expended?
Mr. WILLIAMS: In round numbers he received $27,000. That is on record here, but there is no profit on a building at its beginning for an architect.
Mr. GORDON: Did not May take up parts of plans of other architects for the building?
Mr. WILLIAMS: He did, but at the order of the State-house Commissioners Mrs. May has had trouble enough to get justice. Without undertaking to cut any one else off from debate, I move to lay the motion to indefinitely postpone on the table, and upon that I demand the ayes and nays.
Mr. BROWNING: That is gag law and should not be tolerated. I hope the motion will be withdrawn.
The SPEAKER: That may be, but it is parliamentary law. I am powerless.
Mr. WILLIAMS: I insist on my motion.
It was agreed to by yeas 58, nays 29.
Mr. BOYD: Because a preceding Legislature thought it right, and because the best authority in Indianapolis say the claim is just, I vote "aye."
Mr. BROWNING: As I said days ago I believe this a clean cut steal. While I think as much of Thomas A. Hendricks as any man, I do not care for his recommendation on this. I think for myself. I hold here in my hand the original contract, signed by Governor Williams and Mr. May, which calls for 2 per cent. and $6 000. That shows the truth of it. I am here in the interest of the taxpayer of the State.
I vote "no."
Mr. COPELAND: Because I believe in fair play and thorough investigation. I vote "aye."
Mr. CORY: This will be no hasty action. Our minds are made up, and I protest against this bringing in of the names of prominent men in this debate. I have taken the pains to send for the bill, and I say Mr. Hendricks did not write a syllable of it. I vote "no."
Mr. DITTEMORE: I am told by the State House Commissioners that the claim is just, and I vote "aye."
Mr. ENGLE: Without intimating how I shall vote on the final passage of this bill - in fact I do not now know - but in order to hear more of it, I vote "aye."
Mr. GORDON: I do not believe that Governor Hendricks or Governor Porter would care to have their names drawn in here as supporting this claim. It is not true. I vote "no."
Mr. HANLON: As a
Mr. HARRELL: I came here as a stranger, and sit in the hearing of this bill as an impartial juror. That it may be fully discussed, I vote "aye."
Mr. HAYDEN: That it may be investigated, I vote "aye."
Mr. HELMS: I investigated this two years ago, and believe it a just claim. I vote "aye."
Mr. HOBAN: I believe this bill would have been allowed by the last Legislature but for one word. I know nothing of the claim, and can not now vote intelligently. I have no axe to grind, but wish to learn what may be the side of justice. I vote "aye."
Mr. KELLIS0N: From all the light I can get upon this claim, I conclude two things: The claim is too large, but the lady is entitled to something. In order to put the bill in a position where it may be cut down and passed without equivocating, or where I may amend it, I vote "aye."
Mr. LOOP: As a member of the
Mr LOYD: It has been said tbat Governor Hendricks and Governor Porter are in favor of this claim. So is Mrs. May. But it is our duty to stand here opposed to this claim until it is proven good to us. But I am not in favor of cutting off investigation, so I vote "aye."
Mr. MAUCK: As I do not favor shutting off investigation, and without indicating, how I shall vote at the last, I vote "aye."
Mr. MOODY: For the reason that we heve no Court of Claims in this State; for the reason that the Senate, after thorough investigation, passed it, and for the reason that I hold in my hand the written and signed statement of the State House Commissioners that we owe this claim, I vote "aye."
Mr. MOSIER: For the reason that I have thoroughly investigated this and at one time voted for it; for the raeson that I have found no man with a good reason why it should not be paid, I vote "aye."
Mr. McCLELLAND: For the reason that we may thorouhly investigate I vote "aye."
Mr. PATTEN: For the reason that on a square and fair vote in the Senate this measure was voted down and then by some means worked through; for the reason that the House two years ago squarely voted against it, and then for some reason unknown to this body passed it; for the reason that the administrator of the late Edwin May did not bring suit for it, because the estate owed men for money for the comforts of life; for the reason that this claim has no bill of particulars; in view of all these facts I shall vote "no."
The SPEAKER: I must say - and I don't refer particularly to the gentleman from Sullivan (Mr. Patten) - that this thing of explaining votes is degenerating into speeches, and I shall hereafter call gentlemen thus digressing to order.
Mr. PASSAGE: I am not prepared to say whether this is a just claim or not, but believing in treating bills against the State respectfully, I vote "aye."
Mr. PENDLETON: For the reason that misstatements have been made here concerning this claim, and that further investigation may be had, I vote "aye."
Mr. SEARS: Because the Senate has investigated and passed it, and that we may further investigate, I vote "aye."
Mr TOWNSEND: For the reason that we may investigate, that we may vote for it if it is justly due, I vote "aye."
The vote was then announced as above.
So the motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. GORDON: I move to recommit this bill to the
The motion was agreed to - yeas, 74; nays, 6
Mr. Murphy's bill [H. R. 268] being a special order for this hour, was read a second time and ordered engrossed.
Mr. Engle's bill [H. R. 170] relating to persons who, after committing crimes, are declared insane, that they must be sent to an asylum, was read the third time.
Mr. HARRELL: The bill is fatal in this: If a man commits a crime and is not tried for some time, then when he may become sane he may be tried and found insane at the time tne crime was committed. Under this bill no further trial shall be had as to his sanity at the time the deed was done and the defendant, though he may now be sane, will be sent to an asylum.
Mr. TAYLOR: We want no Kentucky spectacles here - that of shooting down judges and their slayers at large as insane The laws protect men as to sanity. In any trial the man's sanity is on trial before the jary. This bill provides that to be sent to the asylum the man must be insane at trial time.
Mr. ENGLE: This bill corrects an evil which has long troubled us. If a man is sent to the asylum after committing the crime he can not be liberated until a jury hears the testimony and passes upon his sanity, and the officers of the institution can not liberate him at will. He must be taken back to the county from which he was sent for trial.
The bill passed by yeas 53, nays 28.
Mr. BROWNING explaining his vote said that he opposed it because it changed the law which declared a man innocent until proven guilty
Mr. BEST in explanation of his vote said he favored it because it successfully met a defect in the present law.
Mr. GOODING, when his name was called, said that he believed it contained a defect as to a man's sanity at the time of the commission of the crime and at the time of the trial.
Mr. HABAN voted "no" because of the defect as mentioned by the gentleman who preceded him.
Mr. KELLISON said that because if there was blowing hot and cold in these cases, it was a fault of the courts, and for its defects he voted "no."
Mr. MAUCK, when his name was called, said he opposed it because of its serious defects and voted "no."
Mr. MOCK thought that the bill was safe in all respects, because no sane man would be held in the asylums, because it does not often occur that a man is insane when crime is committed and becomes sane afterward. He voted "aye"
Mr. MAUCK: Because we will have the new insane asylums in spite of the objections of the gentleman from Hancock (Mr. Gooding), I vote "aye."
The vote was then announced as above.
So the bill passed.
Mr. MOODY offered a resolution that a call of counties be had for bills on third reading from day to day until every member has designated a bill.
Mr. BEST: The resolution is evidently unjust. Those who happen to come from a county beginning with the letter "A" have been first in everything, and now propose to stay first. Those who have been last all the time are nearly at the foot, and now propose by this means to go to the first again. I don't believe the members of the House will go into this arrangement.
Mr. GORDON: This is manifestly wrong. You begin with "A." and run down to "P," and then the majority having their bills in may change the resolution to begin at the head again.
The SPEAKER: The resolution says no bills shall be acted upon until all the counties are called.
Mr. MOODY: The House will not be so unfair as that. The members will not act in that way
Mr. ROBINSON said that he came far down the list, and he believed that this is the best thing to do.
Mr. PASSAGE moved to amend so that after the call is made bills be taken ap according to number.
On motion of Mr. WILLIAMS, the amendment was laid on the table.
The resolution was then adopted - yeas 61, nays 18.
The SPEAKER said that he hoped that the committee appointed to investigate the Insane Asylum would now, that it had completed its work, make its report so that the clerk could be relieved, there being no work for him to do.
On motion of Mr. DITTEMORE, the clerk's services were ordered dispensed with.
The bill [S. 209] to regulate the public printing of the State came up, in order, and
with it was read the following communication from the Governor, the bill and communication
both being referred to the
Your attention is called to the subject of public printing, in page 66 of the report
of the Auditor of State for 1884, in relation to the increasing cost of the State
printing. You will find upon examination of the report that this branch of the public
service has cost during the past four years the sum of $107,420.89. I can see no reason
for printing every year the report of the State Geologist and the reports of the State
Institutions for
Mr. CARTWRIGHT'S [H. R. 201 - see page 182] to appropriate $30,000 for buildings of the State University at Bloomington came up first, under the call of counties on third reading.
Mr. FRENCH hoped now that the bill had been cut down in amount there would be no opposition to it.
The bill passed - yeas, 65; nays, 16.
The bill [S. 65 - see page 118 and 239] providing for ths completion and equipment of the new asylums for the insane was read the third time.
The SPEAKER said: I asked my first leave of absence to-day. I shall for the first and last time explain my vote. I regarded this measure when it first came up as vicious legislation, but as the buildings have been begun I do not regard it the part of statesmanship to stop now. I believed one I one asylum sufficient for all, which should be built at Indianapolis. But as it is now I shall vote "aye."
The bill passed - ayes, 78; nays, 2.
The bill [S. 139] to divide the State into judicial circuits, fixing the time for holding circuits, etc., was read the third time as amended.
The bill passed - yeas, 64; nays, 8.
The House adjourned until 10 o'clock Monday forenoon.
It having been stated that neither Lieutenant Governor Manson nor President pro tem. Magee would be present at the opening of the session this morning -
On motion by Mr. Campbell, of St. Joseph, the Senator from Laporte (Mr. Weir) was called to the chair.
The Divine blessing was invoked by Rev. J. P. Cowan, of the United Presbyterian Church.
Mr. FAULKNER returned from the
It was concurred in.
On motion by Mr. DRAKE the constitutional rules were suspended by a yea and nay vote, and his Drainage bill [S. 82] was taken up, read the second time by title, the third time by sections, and passed - yeas, 35; nays, 0
Mr. SELLERS, explaining, said the bill provided that where lands to be drained were powered by two or more counties that the preliminary expenses of the establishment of the drain shall be paid by each county where the drain lies
Mr. WINTER moved to amend by adding to Section 1 the following: "The Commissioner charged with the construction of the works for drainage shall be paid out of the funds raised for its construction."
The amendment was agreed to.
The bill passed by yeas -, nays -.
Mr. MACY asked and obtained leave to introduce a bill [S. 345] to legalize a deed made by a former Treasurer of State to William M. Lock, which was read the first time. On his further motion the constitutional rule was suspended by a yea and nay vote, the bill read the second time by title only, the third time by sections, and passed by ayes 39, nays0.
On motion by Mr. HILLIGASS, the House amendments to his bill [S. 137] to divide the State into circuits for judicial purposes were read and concurred in.
On motion of Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph, his bill [S. 108] to create a county dog fund was read a second time.
Mr. WINTER moved to amend by changing the manner of the distribution of the funds so that the fund raised in each township shall be distributed therein.
The amendment was rejected.
The bill was read the third time and passed - ayes, 39; nays, 1.
Mr. FOULKE moved that the order of business be suspended in order that he might introduce a general appropriation bill. He said: A motion of this kind was introduced in the House and a motion also made that each member wonld have the right to call up one bill before the House would pass to the consideration of the general appropriation bill. The result will be that a general appropriation bill will be defeated. I believe that many Democrats as well as many Republicans are anxious that there shall be no special session, and in order that there may be no cause for an extra session, I ask that the order of business be suspended.
Mr. WILLARD: Never in the history of Indiana has a general appropriation hill originated in the Senate. I think it would cause a disagreement and the defeat of the bill. It is true, as the Senator has said, that an order has been made enabling counties to call up special bills, bat I understand that the House to-morrow will rescind it and take up the general Appropriation bill and send it to the Senate. No one more earnestly desires the passage of this bill than myself, yet I think that this action proposed to be taken by the Senate would lead to such a difference as would absolutely prevent the passage of such a bill.
Mr. HILLIGASS: I am opposed to the motion made by the Senator from Wayne (Mr. Foulke). I am not willing to go beyond precedence in the past and permit the appropriation bill to originate in the Senate. I am opposed to an extra session, and stand ready to resign if it becomes necessary to have one I suggest that the Senator from Wayne abide his time, and an appropriation bill will be passed in goad time. If there is any responsibility it must necessarily rest with the Democratic majority, and I will stand by that majority.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings: If the Democratic majority can stand the responsibility of not passing this bill I want to be counted out of this majority. I think the appropriations are addressed to the conscience of the members of the General Assembly and is not a party question. I believe we ought now to give the House an opportunity to see if they will not pass an appropriation bill. I am willing to trust them; but if at the last moment the time comes and no appropriation bill comes to us from the House, I stand ready to join the Republicans and pass a proper appropriation bill before the session expires, although if the appropriation bill fails and all other bills fail, there will be an extra session.
Mr. FOULKE: That is the reason we ought to see to it that the appropriation bill will mot fail. I am very sure that so far as the Republicans in the Senate are concerned there will be a desire to acquiesce in almost any kind of a bill. I think the effect of the Introduction of this bill in the Senate will be to accelerate the passage of the bill in the House. It did not behoove the Democratic majority at the last session when it could have passed the appropriation bill in the for the Speaker to take the floor and maintain it at the last day when he thought the bill could be passed, and it ill becomes the Democratic majority now to come and charge upon the Republican members the defeat of the appropriation bill of two years ago.
Mr. HILLIGASS: It is well known that the Republican members here, in the face of the majority, were enabled to get the floor and hold it for hours after hours, and I stand here, sir, to charge that this body alone was responsible for the passage of the Appropriation bill two years ago, and that failure was on the part of the presiding officer.
A motion to lay the motion of the Senator from Wayne on the table was agreed to by yeas 25, nays 16.
Mr. HILLIGASS moved that the report of the committee on the bill [H. R. 16] be concurred in.
Mr. FOULKE: I would like to say that very recently, within a week, acts of a similar character have been passed in Missouri and Alabama.
Mr. JOHNSON, of Tippecanoe: To have the effect of alcoholic liquor taught children in our public schools is not the proper remedy for intemperance. I think that if the influence of home, if the influence of the church and the Sunday-schools are ineffectual in conquering this great evil, certainly there will be no such result in introducing it as a course of instruction in our public schools.
Mr. McINTOSH: I made a minority report on this bill, and I am opposed to the bill as it now is. If my report could be adopted by the Senate, and then amended somewhat, I would be in favor of it.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings: I understand if this becomes a law it will be necessary for children to purchase new books. There are more children deprived from the benefits of a common school education on account of their being too poor to buy new books than from any other cause. Although I am opposed to the bill I desire to give every man a fair hearing.
The motion to lay on the table was rejected by yeas 16, nays 24
Then came a recess for dinner.
Mr. HILLIGASS: I move the adoption of the majority report. The only remonstration that has come to the Senate against the passage of this bill has come from an Eastern school-book firm. Any person acquainted with this subject at all knows that this question is entirely ignored in the public schools of the State. Two-thirds of all the paupers and three-fourths of the criminals come from the class of parents addicted to the use of narcotics. It is the highest duty of the Legislature to lay the facts in regard to the on of narcotics before the children of the State. As a vital question to posterity, these principles ought to be taught in the public schools. It is not fanaticism to teach the evil effects of narcotics on the human system.
Mr. McINTOSH: I am a fast and strong friend of the common schools, but I believe the
passage of such a bill will obstruct and practically destroy the common schools of the
State. I doubt if there are a dozen teachers who can pass the examination proposed in this
bill. There are many physician practicing medicine who could not pass such an examination.
Our school teachers are teaching these things as well as they know
Mr. SMITH, of Jay: It should not be the desire to bring the common schools into the dirty cesspool of politics, as this bill would do. I believe this bill is the outgrowth of persons disappointed in the success of prohibition. This bill should not become a law. This bill proposes additional labor for the the teachers, and we should hesitate about passing it for fear it will prove an injury to the common schools of Indiana.
Mr CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph: When it is said that even the school teachers and many doctors do not know enough about the evil effects of the narcotics referred to to pass the examination required in this bill. I regard that is a strong argument in favor of its passage.
Mr. MAGEE: I am not in harmony with the principles of this bill. I don't think it would correct the evils complained of. The most efficacious teaching is the frightful example of the effects of alcoholic stimulants frequently seen on the streets, but it does not restrain the use of intoxicating liquor. I have suspicions that there is a job behind this bill. The second section of the bill would turn out probably two-thirds of the teachers of the State I don't believe in making the common schools a medical institute. I don't believe this bill would be in the interest of the people or the interest of the children of the State.
Mr. FOULKE: Why is the history of the United States made a branch of instruction in the common schools, and not the history of England, France, etc.? It is because of the special need the boy should know of what most concerns him. And so the effects of alcoholic stimulants should be taught as specially affecting the people of the United States. I don't believe there is a school teacher in the State who can not before the taking effect of this act acquire a sufficient knowledge of physiology and hygiene to teach under the provisions of this bill. Then if there be a job behind this bill by book publishers there is open competition; the bill does not prescribe any one work. But if desired by the Senate, strike out that portion of the bill. There is nothing more required in this bill than is required in the teaching of any other branch in the common school. The adoption of the minority report would strike out the vitals of this bill without producing any good effect.
Mr. McCLURE: Upon general principles I am opposed to the bill. Every doctor fit to practice medicine is conversant with the science of physiology. Is not the true principle of physiology taught now in the public schools? I am so informed. There is no objection to teaching the children the pathological effect of stimulants upon the system. A common drunkard will tell you it is detrimental to health and will bring one prematurely to the grave. The evil goes back to the depravity in the human heart. Alcoholic stimulants have played havoc with the greatest intellects in the past and will continue to do so in the future. It is not in consequence of the people being uneducated in the fact that it is an evil? Most certainly not. Yet there is a something that impels a part of mankind on in this way until they come to a premature grave. I believe more in the law that governs the moral feelings in appealing to mankind to correct these evils. Some believe the laws of man will prove more efficacious than the laws of God or the laws of our forefathers.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay, moved to indefinitely postpone the bill and demanded the previous question.
The demand was seconded and under its operation the motion to indefinitely postpone the bill was rejected by yeas 21, nays 24
The question recurring on the substitution of the minority for the majority report was rejected by yeas 14, nays 23.
The majority report was concurred in by yeas 21, nays 23.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay, moved to refer the bill to
The special order being Mr. Hoover's bill S. 254, the pending question being on a motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill failed to pass -
On motion of Mr. YOUCHE this motion was laid on the table by yeas 28, nays 14.
The special order being a motion to reconsider the vote by which the Senate refused to amend rule 54 by requiring a "majority" instead of a "two-third" vote to suspend the order of business —
The motion was agreed to by yeas 28, nays, 14
On motion by Mr. WILLARD the motion was agreed to.
Mr. WILLARD moved to suspend the regular order, and to take up the Congressional Apportionment bill [H. R. 422].
The motion was agreed to by yeas 23, nays 14.
Mr. BENZ, when his name was called, said: I don't believe in taking up political bills and rushing them through; we have other bills here of interest to the people. I vote "no."
Mr. SELLERS offered an amendment changing some four or five districts.
It was agreed to.
On motion by Mr. WILLARD, the amendment was ordered engrossed.
Mr. MAGEE moved that the bill be printed and made the special order for to-morrow afternoon at 2 o'clock, and that speeches for and against the bill be limited to twenty minutes for each speaker.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. McCULLOUGH called up the bill [S. 45] for three Appellate Courts, to consist of three judges each, to meet in the northern, central and southern districts, which was read the second time.
Mr. FOWLER: This bill is to create three new courts and 9 new judges. I believe that one Appellate Court sitting in Indianapolis can do all the work. If this bill was a bill to create three judges, it might be passable. I hope the bill will not pass for several reasons; we do not need it, and these different places are not where they should be placed.
Mr. MAGEE: There has been a demand for more rapid decisions than the quality of them. The
question of cost ought not to enter into this discussion. The difference in is nothing if
the people get speedy justice. The Supreme Court desires there shall be a court to relieve
them of this kind of legislation and, as between a a Commission and a Court, they are in
favor of a Court. Will we let that Commission, confessedly
Mr. OVERSTREET: From the very fact that there would be three different Courts there would be as many different decisions. I believe we have not much regard for the Commission, and we will not have any more respect for the Appellate Courts. The main purpose for the introduction of this bill was to give relief to the Supreme Court, but I don't believe that will be accomplished.
Mr. FOULKE: In the first place I was in favor of one court of five Judges sitting at Indianapolis, but there is no doubt but that we need Appellate Courts now. The only additional expense would be $7,000 It seems to me by these laws we can have a good system of judicature in this State. In regard to the different decisions, it can be said that the various courts of the State now make different decisions. It is true of all Appellate Courts.
The bill failed to pass - yeas 21, nays 31.
On motion, the Legislative Apportionment bill [H. R 423] was taken up.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph, offered an amendment.
Then came the recess for supper.
The pending amendment was rejected.
Mr. FOWLER offered an amendment making Owen and Clay a Senatorial District.
Mr. ERNEST: The entire population of Sullivan and Greene are desirous of being together as a Senatorial District.
The amendment was rejected - yeas, 17; nays, 21.
Mr. JOHNSON, of Tippecanoe, moved to give Tippecanoe two and Clinton one.
Mr. MAGEE declared this bill to be more fair than any like measure ever imposed by the Republican party upon a minority in the Indiana Legislature. Gentlemen on the other side are the ones who set the example.
Mr. WILLARD: Irregularities in Representative Districts are made up in Senatorial Districts.
The amendment was rejected by yeas 15, nays 24.
Mr. DRAKE moved ineffectually - yeas 13; nays, 26 - to amend by inserting "Steuben" in the place of "Noble."
Mr. LINDLEY offered an amendment, the effect of which would be to have Vermillion County with a representative as it always has. I want the Senator from Lawrence of Case to explain the former's making a district over 100 miles long.
Mr. FOULKE: Some of these districts are not entitled to the term of "shoe-string" districts; they are forked-lightning districts. This is a poisoned chalice which the Democratic party offers us now.
Mr. HILLIGASS: In 1867 and 1873 the poisoned chalice was pressed to the lips of the Democratic party by the Republican party, and on the principle that the hair of the dog is a cure for his bite, I move the previous question.
The amendment was rejected - yeas, 17; nays, 25.
Mr. PETERSON moved to amend by giving the counties of Montgomery, Boone and Clinton two Senators.
The amendment was agreed to by yeas 25, nays 16.
Mr. FOWLER moved ineffectually to strike out "Bartholomew" and insert "Owen, Monroe and Brown, one Senator."
Mr. FOWLER moved ineffectually to amend by striking out "Hendricks" and inserting in lieu thereof "Owen and Putnam one Senator."
Mr. MAGEE offered an amendment: Strike out "one Representative for Case and Miami" and substitute "one for Kosciusko and Wabash."
Mr. HILLIGASS demanded the previous question.
It was seconded by the Senate upon a division - affirmative, 26; negative, 20.
The main question was ordered put by yeas 32, nays 18.
The amendment was rejected by yeas 15, nays 26.
On motion by Mr. WILLARD the amendments were ordered engrossed by yeas 25, nays 15
On motion by Mr. HILLIGASS the bill was made the special order for 3 o'clock tomorrow.
And the Senate adjourned.
The Principal Clerk read an order from the Speaker calling to the chair for the day and during his absence Mr. Gordon.
Mr. McMULLEN moved that the House do now resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole for the consideration of the bill [H. R. 479], an act making appropriations for the State government.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe, asked if this proceeding could go ahead in view of the fact not that the House had decided on a roll-call of the counties for bills on the third reading.
The SPEAKER pro tem.: I had a private conversation with the Speaker before he left and he was disposed to regard the call of counties for bills as unfinished business, and that it should go ahead unless otherwise ordered by the House.
Mr. SEARS protested against ceasing the unfinished business The fear expressed in the House on Saturday that after this call by counties had been begun it would be changed, had been verified.
Mr. GOODING thought that in view of the importance of the Appropriation bill it should be considered and the same taken up.
Mr. MOODY believed that the agreement entered into on Saturday - the call of counties for bills - should be kept. There are important measures which come up under this call - the people demand legislation contained in bills to come.
Mr. BROWNING desired to make the point of order that as the House had decided to go on with the bills on the call it could not take up the Appropriation bill without reconsidering the vote on Saturday for the call.
The SPEAKER pro tern, overruled the point of order.
The motion that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole was rejected.
Mr. AKIN'S bill [H. R. 352] authorizing Township Trustees to aid in the construction of bridges was read the third time.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe, said that it was regarded as a safe bill; while it was general in its application, yet it was local to Parke County.
The bill passed - yeas, 54; nays, 18.
Mr. CRECELIUS' bill [H. R. 283] relating to fees and salaries, allowing County Treasurers 6 per cent. for collecting delinquent taxes, was read the third time.
Mr ENGLE opposed the bill because in would unnecessarily increase the fees of county officers.
Mr MAUCK said it would greatly assist in collecting delinquent taxes.
Mr. ADAMS was of the opinion that the delinquent taxes collected would far more than pay the extra fees. This is in the interest of the taxpayer; it compels men who never pay taxes to come forward with their share.
Mr. LOYD: I am in favor of an economic administration of affairs, but I am of the opinion that County Treasurers get too little for his services. He is the most poorly paid of all county officers. I investigated before coming here, expecting that a fee and salary bill would come up. This measure would pay the Treasurer to make an extra effort to collect these delinquent taxes.
The bill failed to pass - yeas, 43; nays, 33.
Mr. BEST: Being a member of the committee which considered this bill, I want to explain my vote. The only bill on fees which will have a chance is this one. I am in favor of passing this bill increasing the fees, if the treasurers' fees could be reduced somewhere else. Therefore I must vote "no" at this time.
Mr. BROWNING: Believing that if this bill pass it will decrease rather than increase the tax of the general taxpayer; that it will be an incentive for the treasurer to collect taxes; that it will increase the fees in smaller places more than larger, I vote "aye."
Mr. CORY: Under this bill the income of some of the treasuries will be doubled, and for the reason that under it treasurers will not try to collect taxes until they are delinquent, I vote "no."
Mr. COPELAND: For the reason that it will assist in tax collecting I vote "aye."
Mr. DEEM: Because I do not believe in bribing County Treasurers to do what their sworn duty is I vote "no."
Mr. FRENCH: Because I believe the bill will work public benefit to the general taxpayers I vote "aye."
Mr. GOODING: Because it will oppress the unfortunate who can not pay taxes I vote "no."
Mr. HAYDEN: Because it will bring in our taxes I vote "aye"
Mr. HELMS: Because it is just and will fill the Treasury I vote "aye."
Mr. HOBAN: I think that this will have a tendency to oppress the people because it will increase the burden of taxpayers. I vote "no."
Mr. KREUGER: Being desirous of giving my county a chance to get some of the money due it from men who can and will not pay taxes, I vote "aye."
Mr. McHENRY: As I understand this bill, it not so much to increase the salary of the treasurer as to benefit the county, inasmuch as the treasurer will get 6 per cent. while the county gets 94 per cent. of the money. I vote "aye."
Mr. PATTEN: I think this bill is in the interest of honest people. Honest people pay their taxes. Unfortunate people must be compelled to pay their taxes, of course with a high penalty. That can't be helped. I vote "aye."
Mr. WILLIAMS: In voting for a bill like
The vote was then announced as above.
So the bill failed to pass.
Then came a recess until 2 o'clock
Mr. Robinson's bill [H. R. 280] relating to entrances to mines was read a third time and passed - yeas, 84; nays 1.
Mr. TOWNSEND: I desire, just at this point, if I have any rights and privileges as a member, to move that the bill [H. R. 94] regarding the colored race, which was the other day made a special order for 2.30 to-day, be now taken up. When, the other day, a call of the counties was made I called up this bill and would have made an argument on it that day, with the unanimous consent of the House.
Mr. MOODY: Because the House agreed to it is not and should not now be considered; but, Is it a special order?
Mr. TOWNSEND: Is the gentleman willing that this House should so stultify itself as to not adhere to that premise?
Mr. MOODY: The gentleman from Wayne can call the action of the House what he chooses.
Mr. TOWNSEND: Does not the gentleman understand that this bill is not engrossed, and that the House agreed to save time the other evening to allow me time at this hour?
Mr. GOODING: I think this House owes it to Mr. Townsend to adhere to his word. This without saying how I shall do by the bill.
Mr. ENGLE: This is a special order and the gentleman should be heard.
Mr. MOCK: I think the appropriation bill is more important than this measure, and that was voted down.
Mr. PENDLETON: I think that the gentleman from Wayne should withdraw his measure in favor of Senate bill No. 43
Mr. FRENCH: This House agreed to let Mr. Townsend have this floor. As one who would support every man's right, I think we should let Mr. Townsend have his turn.
Mr. PENDLETON: I move that Senate bill No. 43 instead of 99 be taken up.
The motion was ruled out of order.
Mr. DITTEMORE moved that further consideration of this bill be postponed until next Wednesday.
The motion was laid on the table.
Mr. GOODING offered an amendment to the bill.
Mr. TOWNSEND: I have introduced a bill here asking the repeal of the statutes of Indiana, known as the "black laws." The statute includes just what the amendment of the gentleman from Hancock (Mr. Gooding) includes and which is excluded in the bill I have offered. I am driven to make some remarks on the statutes of the State of Indiana as they stand. But as these statutes mostly stand on amalgamation, my remarks must be mostly on that subject. Limited time compels me to make but a summary of the case. These black laws should be repealed for these reasons:
1. That simple and exact justice may be done to every race and color.
2. Because they are repugnant to the principle underlying our constitutional government.
3. Because, in my opinion, they can not be reconciled with the State Constitution.
4. Because they as they stand are not in accord with personal liberty and personal contract; to choose in marriage as allowed to those not colored, though as a fact then are few of either color, who have taste, who are so inclined.
5. And because of this forbidding of intermarriage, license, aye encouragement, is given to the white man who may be so vile to ruin the colored woman, while she has no recourse in her shame.
6. And under this law unmarried colored women have no protection in the State against men responsible for bastardy.
7. Because children born of white and colored parents out of wedlock can not be legalized.
8 For the reason that this law allows that inequality which says that the colored shall suffer all the penalty of such wrong, while the white shall go free.
9 Because I believe that the prejudice, education and castes of each race will allow it to choose for itself without these laws. Society is self-distributing; society will take care of itself.
And for more than all, for the reason that a white man, so low, so degraded and interior
enough to dishonor and degrade a colored woman, should be made by the laws honorable enough
to marry the woman he has thus degraded. I have now given you briefly the reason I think
our lowest laws should be repealed. I now propone to make some general remarks. Look into
the history of the past - come from the past 260 fears ago down - a prejudice of the
American people has been bearing up the colored races, all continually inflicted upon them.
Here I have to deal with a most delicate question, more delicate than any gentleman upon
this floor has had to deal with. This bill purposes to wipe from Indiana's laws, to
say the least, the relic of the most barbarous age. This State stands alone in this
injustice, and this is the very last chapter of the black laws which have disgraced
Indiana. These are the laws preventing blacks from marrying whites and from their belonging
to the militia of the State. The colored men wen prevented from belonging to the militia,
On February 24, 1866, a gentleman well known upon this floor, and in the State and Nation, said that he did not believe the colored man equal to the whites, and that he did not care to see them placed on the platform on a level with the whites. The people who refused this freedom sent him there. It is not because I encourage intermarrying that I introduced this bill. The negro on that question has prejudice just the same as the white man. I must not be misquoted. I represent in this hall one of the most enlightened and cultured counties in the State. I am the peer of any man here as regards rights and duties. And in my official duties I have been treated with that courtesy and respect due any man by the members and the Speaker. I ask no man to accord me more. I am colored, it is true, but I am a man. I ask no favor nor shall I shrink from any responsibility. I am in favor of absolute freedom. I am a humanitarian and, thank God, a Christian. I am not wrong. Very often on the car seat I am shown the favor of a whole seat to myself. Very frequently at a hotel table I have the whole table to myself. The best class of colored, like that of white, do not desire a different color. But law should not regulate affection. When I was asked if I married a white woman I said, "No; I married a lady." In slave times whites were bought and sold as slaves. So they were regarded and so they existed. The laws of the State draws the line at one-eighth negro blood, but as no herd book has been kept to preserve pedigrees, it can not be determined when one is past that point. I want to say that with this law a man is granted the infamous license to betray colored women, and this had led some to believe that there is no such thing as virtue among colored women. In the South the mulatto grew from white fathers, but you scarcely heard of one born of a white mother. Let as have rights for the colored man - civil, political, business, church, State, everything. I plead no special legislation - no favor of grace. I am no sycophant. I want right. You can not legislate a man to my fireside, but there is no law but that of brute force to protect my family against the white. As Judge Taylor said on this floor the other day that laws are not for the rich nor the majority, but for the minority and the poor. True. Mr. Browning said as much. We have long appealed for perfect freedom. We have asked the pulpit for 260 years. We now appeal to this General Assembly. If refused, we can ask as we have asked since 1620, and look to heaven for aid. This much we must say, and that is that we put more faith in God than we do in political parties.
Mr. GOODING: Regarding the militia, the Constitution forbids that; the Legislature
abolished
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: If you will treat this man's bill like you did all the rest - order it engrossed and pass it to the third reading - well and good. We will take a hand if spades are to be made now. I demand the previous question.
The amendment [Mr. Gooding's] was rejected by yeas 35, nays 41.
Mr. BROWNING, explaining his vote, said that he should oppose it because he believed it unconstitutional; because a Senate bill was much better, and because he would rather his right hand should drop off than to favor the intermarriage of blacks and whites. Because he opposed it all, bill and amendment, he voted "no."
Mr. HOBAN, as be believed the amendment did not reach the case, voted "no."
Mr. LOYD: Because I believe in complete liberty to every rock, everything upon the earth, I vote "no."
Mr. McMULLEN voted "no" because he believed the amendment was not effectual.
Mr. WILSON: Because he favored equality of all men of one blood, he voted "no."
The vote was then announced as above.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. McMULLEN moved that the bill be indefinitely postponed.
Mr. BEST made an ineffectual motion to lay it on the table.
The motion to indefinitely postpone was agreed to - yeas, 43; nays, 40.
The House adjourned.
On motion of Mr. FOWLER, the rules were suspended, and the Senate took up consideration of the bill [H. R. 280] relating lo mines and mining, which was passed by ayes 42, nays 0.
Mr. FOWLER explained the changes it proposed to make in the present law, and stated its provisions were acceptable both to miners and operators.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks, called up bis bill [S. 341] relating to claims against the State.
An amendment by Mr. Willard to strike out in Section 1 the words "on any account whatever" was agreed to.
On motion by Mr. WEIR, the bill was further amended so as to quiet the title to real estate sold by the State and fully paid for.
Mr. FOULKE: The necessity of this measure is apparent. It is perfectly evident that it is necessary to have some proper court or tribunal which can proceed according to legal forms to ascertain the legality of claims against the State of Indiana. What would be the objection to allowing persons having claims against the State to file their claims in the Supreme Court and have the Attorney General represent the State. I move that all claimants be allowed to file their claims in the Supreme Court, and that the Attorney General represent the State.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Handricks; It is a great deal less expensive for a court to sit and hear witnesses on one of these claims than for 150 men to sit and hear the witnesses. Our experience has demonstrated that we are compelled to sit in judgment on claims involving many thousand dollars, of which we know almost nothing. It occurs to me that it would not only be a hardship to many claimants to have to file their claims in the Supreme Court, but it would be a burden to the Supreme Court to put that kind of business in their hands. I am quite sure that claims are allowed here that would not be allowed by a court. If this bill becomes a law, and a person presents a claim against the State of Indiana here we can refer it to a tribunal where it can have just and equitable action. When the Court of Claims was enacted by Congress it was an experiment, and from time to time the law governing that court has been amended until it is satisfactory. This law will only be in operation two years, and if experience shows that it is imperfect, it can be amended at the end of that time. It has been said that we may have Prosecuting Attorneys not honest enough to represent the people. I consider it an unjust reflection upon the officers of the State to say they would not properly look after the interests of the people. It is my opinion that if this bill becomes a law the amount paid out by the State for claims will not be more than one-half what it now is. The Court of Claims had from 1855 to 1880 considered and adjudicated claims amounting to $80,000,000, and the judgments rendered were a traction less than $20,000,000, whereas if the claims had gone before Congress the probabilities were that nearly the whole amount might have been allowed by Congress.
Several States of the Union have enacted laws permitting suits to be brought against the
States, and experience has shown the
Mr. FOWLER: This bill provides that after the claim has been adjudicated the Auditor of State shall issue his warrant for the sum. Wat costs there are ought to be paid by the State. I have no doubt if this becomes a law it will save thousands of dollars to the State of Indiana. I think it is right that the State of Indiana shall establish a Court of Claims.
Mr. YOUCHE: I am in favor of this bill, provided the amendment proposed by the Senator from Wayne is adopted. It is a recognized fact that the claimant brings his witnesses in the court and it always decides in favor of the claimant against the whole State. The proposition to permit the Circuit Courts of the different counties to adjudicate upon these matters I am opposed to.
Mr. McCULLOUGH: I am opposed to the bill as it now is, and I will vote against it. I do not believe it would be just to let courts and Prosecuting Attorneys stand between the parties and the claims. If you open fifty courts to turn loose thousands of claims upon the State, there will be claimants here and there who will undertake to get the State in debt to them for large amounts and take the risk of going into court and getting the claim. There will be no misunderstanding in regard to claims if the man who does work for the State understands that he must work under a written contract. The trouble about the matter is that men who have no contract are continually attempting to go to the Legislature and, without a fair showing, lobby their measures through.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks: Rather than have the bill fail, if the Senators who favor the measure will accept the amendment of the Senator from Wavne, I will accept it.
Mr. WILLARD made an ineffectual motion to strike oat Section 3 of the bill, saying: This is an attempt to destroy altogether the legislative power by making a continual appropriation bill without intervention of the Legislature.
Mr, Willard then moved to strike out of Section 3 the words "of any Circuit Judge."
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. CAMPBELL made an ineffectual motion - yeas, 30; nays, 13 - that the constitutional rules be suspended, that the bill be read the second time by its title, be considered engrossed, read the third time and put upon its passage.
Mr. McCULLOUGH, explaining his vote, said: A bill of this kind will be very far-reaching in its consequences. It would open the way to throw into the Supreme Court hundreds of cases. Therefore I am opposed to suspending the constitutional rules to put the bill through to-day.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings: I believe it is absolutely necessary that these claims should be removed from the Legislature.
Mr. WINTER, when his name was called, said: I was one of the members of the
On motion of Mr. Campbell the bill was ordered engrossed.
On motion of Mr. JOHNSON, of Tippecanoe, the constitutional rules were suspended, and the Senate took up consideration of the joint resolution [S. 8] proposing an amendment to the Constitution to regulate the hiring of convict labor.
Mr. JOHNSON: This is a very important measure, and one which Governor Porter recommended should be put immediately into operation. Two years ago I had the honor to introduce, on the floor of this Senate, resolutions and afterwards a bill looking towards that same thing, and while a majority of the Senators then here were in favor of the measure, it failed, on account of want of a proper remedy. It was only because we could not find the proper remedy that the measure failed. Anybody with an unbiased mind will say that the system ought to be abolished. Measures have been introduced in every Legislature in the country. The man that employs the convict labor at a merely nominal price, has an advantage over the free labor. The man who employs free labor must employ it at a loss. A great wrong is done to the moral nature of the convict. It would be marvelous if the convicts under the present system could reform. We turn them out ill-fitted for the labor of life. The convicts might be employed in making all articles necessary in their own and similar institutions.
Mr. WILLARD: The Democratic party in the last campaign stood firm upon this legislation. The Democratic platform asserts that it is in favor of using the convict labor so as not to compete with free labor. For four years we have attempted to repeal this evil. When Legislative Assemblies have found it impossible to pass this measure, it is time it should be looked to. The convict system is an outrage. The contractors all over this country have grown rich under the operation of this iniquitous system. The profits of the labor goes not to the State, but to individuals. We have had enough of half-way measures in this matter; for the past six years we have made various attempts. The convict is not taught a trade. This constitutional amendment will tend to the reformation of the convict.
The joint resolution was ordered engrossed by yeas 21, nays 18.
Mr. BAILY, in explaining his vote, said: I am very much in favor of this resolution. The present system of convict labor in not only injurious to the convicts themselves, but to free labor. I vote "aye."
Mr. WEIR made an explanation of his vote which he desired should go upon the records of the Senate, as follows: Mr. President, I vote no on the adoption of this joint resolution amending the Constitution, for the reason that the Constitution in force gires the Legislature all necessary power to regulate the matter, and this proposed Amendment is wholly unnecessary. The present Legislature can regulate the question of convict labor as well as to wait four years for the adoption of this amendment to the Constitution.
Mr. MAGEE suggested, as this explanation is not in the nature of a message or other paper which properly go on the journal of the House, it ought to go into the Brevier Reports, where the remarks of the rest of us go.
Mr. WEIR: Certainly.
It was so ordered by consent.
The vote was then announced as above.
So the joint resolution was ordered endowed for the third reading.
On motion by Mr. MAGEE the Senate proceeded to the consideration of the Congressional Apportionment bill [H. R. 424] which was read the third time.
Mr. JOHNSON, of Tippecanoe: It is with a feeling of regret, almost amounting to sadness, that I rise here to mke some remarks on this proposition to redistrict the State of Indiana in the manner in which it has passed the House of Representatives, or by the amendment to that bill. This proposition, I understand, has not only received the approbation of the joint Democratic caucus, but also the indorsement of the Democratic majority of the House of Representatives, and yet, Mr. President, in spite of these considerations, which in the eyes of many Democrats may be of paramount importance, I can not, persuade myself to support it and vote for it. My opposition to this apportionment bill, as it comes from the House, and also as it is amended, is caused by the conviction that it conflicts with my ideas of and my respect for right, justice and fairness, and that by voting for it I would sanction and help to commit a wrong which finds no excuse or apology in the dictates of party.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph: If any political measure ever offered for endorsement call
for all the attributes of greed that humanity can summon to stifle its natural tendency to
decency and equity, these Congressional and Legislative bills are such measures. Party
caucus and organization is right for the purpose of forwarding measures in the interest of
the people, but when against the people and against right, and against the spirit and
letter of the Constitution, it is then time to step out from caucus and walk alone, while
yet a man can
Mr. HILLIGASS: I will commence by saying that I am for this bill, and in presenting this apportionment for Congressional purposes to the people of the State of Indiana, I want to claim that there has been no such Congressional map given to the people in its contiguity of territory. It presents as just and as fair an apportionment as ever has been made of tbe State of Indiana. It is true we have nine of the thirteen Congressmen, but it is also true that in 1873 the Republicans made an apportionment that gave them eleven out of the thirteen Congressmen. I will say to the Democratic side of this House that we can stand before any audience in the State and hold that map up with pride. [See appendix.]
Mr. YOUCHE: If my party were in the majority and would present a bill which to my mind is
as unfair as this bill, I should not vote for it. I should take the position of the Senator
from Tippecanoe (Mr. Johnson) and say that I repudiated any action of that kind. Under this
bill it would take 24,514 Democratic votes to elect one Congressman, while it would tafce
79,248 Republican votes to elect one Congressman. In other words, one Democrat has as much
Congressional representation as three and
Mr WILLARD: Never in the history of Indiana was there an apportionment like that of 1872. The Republicans passed that law under the operations of the previous question without allowing discussion, and without even allowing the bill to be printed.
The result of that bill was to give the Republicans eight members of Congress and the Democratic party only five. This kind of talk about unfairness is something always heard whenever an apportionment bill comes up. This bill has been drafted upon the plane of making it equal as between the parties and the doubt was decided in favor of the party in power on this floor. Could we do less? This bill has been drawn in fairness. Were it not done in fairness I certainly would not give it my support. [See appendix]
The bill passed by yeas 29, nays 17.
On motion by Mr. Hilligasa the special order being the Legislative apportionment bill [H. R. 423] was taken up with the engrossed amendments made last night.
Mr. HUSTON: I feel that it is the privilege and a duty that devolves upon every Republican Senator upon this floor to as least express his disapprobation of this bill I admit the fact at the outset that we of the minority expect no good results from any argument we may make. Though we may show this bill ever so unfair, ever so infamous, or ever so unjust, it can in no sense affect the result. Therefore in speaking of the provisions of this bill I shall endeavor to point out those instances in which I feel the minority has been trampled upon. [See appendix.]
Mr. WINTER: I shall not call attention in detail to the enormities of this bill. That has been well done by the Senator from Fayette (Mr Huston). I wish to call attention to one feature, utterly indefensible. No party has a right to deliberately violate the Constitution which each of us have taken an oath to support. The Constitution requires that each county shall be given the full representation which its population entitles it to. I propose to show that this bill deprives at least one county (Marion) of its constitutional rights. [See appendix.]
Mr. MAGEE: This bill has grown out of that fair dealing we always try to show to our Republican friends. The Senator from Fayette (Mr. Huston) and the Senator from Marion (Mr. Winter) have both insisted that under the provisions of this bill the people would not enjoy their constitutional rights. This same State Constitution was in force in 1867 and 1872, and at that time the same argument made by Republican Senators now was made by Democratic Senators then in opposition to that gerrymander. The Democratic party has the strength of a giant, but it has not exercised it in the spirit of tyranny. The representation that bill gives to the Democratic party at the next General Assembly is not eqnal to the representation the Democratic party has to day in this General Assembly. We have a Democratic majority on joint ballot of forty-six, while under the provisions of this bill we would have but thirty-two. There is a concession to you of fourteen members of the General Assembly. [See appendix.]
Mr. MARSHALL: Some Republicans have said they believe the Democrats would lose the election if this bill were passed. I don't look at it that way. I believe their intention has been to so disfranchise the Republicans of this State and put their feet upon our throats that they will throttle the life out of us for the next twenty-five years. They are afraid to meet the Republicans of the State with the same kind of arms and munitions they ask us to meet them. [See appendix]
Mr. Overstreet, Mr. Foulke and Mr. McClure continued the discussion. [See appendix.]
Mr. FOWLER demanded the previous question.
The demand was seconded by the Senate, and under its operations the bill passed by yeas 30, nays 17
Mr. FAULKNER explaining his affirmative vote: I think this bill a very fair one - especially the Democratic side of it. [Laughter.] If we had any more Daniel W. Voorhees I would not be particular about having quite as large an advantage; but as we have not only him, but have more fully as good and better than the Republicans who want to go into the Senate and as this is the last day of Republican rule in the United States When the sun sets to day it goes down on Republican rule, and in the morning it rises on the great star of reform. In Washington the doxology is to be sung, and the great Mexican Band is to be there to blow the rogue's march. [Laughter.] I vote "aye."
The Senate took up the bill [H. R. 204] appropriating $30,000 to Indiana University.
Mr. DUNCAN, of Brown: Thirty thousand dollars is not enough. In 1883 a destructive fire destroyed the museum and the library amounting to $118 000. To cover this loss the county of Monroe gave $50,000, and the insurance was $27,000, amounting to $77,000. There were 143 students in that institution, and thirty-six belong to Monroe County. More than half of these thirty six are children of parents who have moved to Monroe County for educational purposes.
Mr. WILLARD: I can not see the necessity of appropriating $30,000. They want more for the
library than it originally cost. When they could have gotten ground free, they paid $300 an
acre for it and moved the university a mile off. They want $5,000 for chemical apparatus,
when they have already expended $5,000 for that purpose. There was no itemized report of
the expenses
Mr. McINTOSH: Will you get value received for the appropriation? The truth is, that institution is not worth that much to Indiana. There are other institutions in the State which have just as good instructors. The sooner you get rid of that institution the better. It is strange that these other institutions are able to pay their teachers and their expenses, while this State institution is a drag on the State. I move that the minority report be adopted.
Mr. MAGEE: I was at the Bloomington Institution three years, and I know the workings of the institution. I know the paltry salaries paid at Bloomington. We owe it to the people of Indiana that we give a suitable appropriation to this deserving institution. This institution has produced many of the brightest minds in the State. The institution is there, and ought to be supported liberally by this State. I would like to vote for $50,000 or $75,000 for this institution rather than but the small sum demanded. I hope to see the day when the Normal Schools and Purdue University and the Bloomington College will redound to the glory of this State. If the power of this institution has been crippled by anything it has been crippled by the parsimony of each succeeding Assembly. I hope there will not be a dissenting vote against the appropriation to this noble institution.
Mr. FOWLER: I know the Trustees, and I feel certain that they would not have purchased those lands for $300 per acre for any other than good reasons. I think the Trustees made a wise and prudent purchase. The old grounds were utterly unfit for the University. I know of no more eminent men that have graduated at any other institution than Bloomington. I believe that the institution ought to have more than $30 000. Bloomington is not a sectarian institution. I have been careful about voting money. I have always, however, voted money to educational purposes. I was uninformed when I voted on the Purdue University bill, and I was not enlightened until Dr. Smart, President of the institution, handed me the act of Congress, with the act of the Legislature of 1865 accepting the Constitutional gift. By the act of Congress it is made the duty of the State to support this institution, and on failure so to do, the State is held liable to return to the General Government the gift. When I voted against the appropriation the other day I did it under a misapprehension that there was no obligation resting on the State to support this institution, and I take this the first opportunity of correcting my error. I am in favor of liberally supporting all the State educational institutions of the State. The State University deserves to be liberally supported. I hope this bill will pass and the appropriation made. It is a worthy object, and we can not afford to smother it to death. If you are not in favor of making this appropriation, you ought to close the doors of the institution and drive the students from her halls. I trust this will never be done. Let it never be said that we are opposed to supporting our educational institutions. Let that time never come; but with a liberal hand and generous support uphold them by all reasonable appropriations. I trust the bill will pass.
The minority report was rejected.
On motion by Mr. YOUCHE the majority report was adopted.
On motion of Mr. WEIR the constitutional rules were suspended by yeas 43 nays 2; the bill read the second time by title, the third time by sections and passed by yeas 44 nays 2.
On motion of Mr. DAY the bill [H. R. 430] was taken up, the constitutional rules suspended, the bill read the third time and passed by yeas, 40; nays 0.
On motion of Mr. WILLARD the Constitutional rules were suspended the bill S. 352 taken up, read the second time by title, third time by sections and passed by yeas 39, nays 1.
A communication from the Speaker assigning to the chair in his absence Mr. GOODING was
read by the
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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."
Mr. MOODY'S bill [H. R. 211] regarding weights and measures was read the third time and passed - yeas, 77; nays, 1.
Mr. TAYLOR'S bill [H. R. 219] regarding the levying of writs was read the third time and passed - yeas, 79; nays, 2.
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.
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
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.
Speaker Jewett resumed the chair at the opening of the afternoon session.
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
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.
The bill [S. 180] relative to fish ladders was read the third time and passed - yeas, 68; nays, 11.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Mr. BARNES, from the
The report was concurred in and passed to the third reading
The House took a recess until 7:30 o'clock.
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.
Mr. TAYLOR'S bill [H. R. 309] concerning building and loan associations, was read a third time and passed - yeas, 70; nays, 7.
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.
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.
Mr. MOODY'S bill regulating the presentation against counties was read the third time and passed - yeas, 65; nays, 5.
The House adjourned.
Mr. BAILEY'S bill [S. 136] to fix the time of closing up saloons in Indianapolis and Evansville at 12 o'clock midnight -
Mr. RAHM: It leaves the laws in the other parts of the State as they are, except at Indianapolis and Evansville. These two cities are metropolitan cities; trains arrive at all hours of the day and night; these cities are under the Metropolitan Police system. It would be no hardship upon other sections of the country. This would leave election laws as they are.
Mr. FOWLER: I doubt very much whether such legislation is demanded by either of the citizens of Indianapolis or Evansville. Whilst there may be a very strong element in favor of such legislation, there is a strong element against it. I can't see the propriety of extending the hour at which the saloons in Indianapolis and Evansville close up. If he is a railroad man, instead of going to a saloon, he had better go home. There is no good reason why a law should apply to Indianapolis and Evansville, and not to the rest of the State. I move to lay the bill, with all the amendments, on the table.
The motion was agreed to by yeas 27, nays 17.
Mr. THOMPSON, explaining his vote, said: One reason alleged was that many times passengers come in late when most of the hotels are shut up, and many of the saloons have restaurants, and it is very convenient for the passengers to go to the saloons and get something to eat. I therefore vote no.
Mr. WEIR, when his name was called, said: I think a man ought to have all he wants to eat and drink.
On motion of Mr. WEIR the bill [8. 336] to pay for Brevier Legislative Reports heretofore ordered and authorized by the State was read the second time and ordered engrossed for the third reading.
On motion of Mr. Howard the constitutional rules were suspended and the bill [S. 323] relating to the payment of soldiers in the Indiana Legion, was read the second and third time.
Mr. HILL: This bill provides to pay certain officers and soldiers for services rendered in the militia in 1862 on the call of Governor Morton. Tɥere was a bill passed in 1867 to pay these troops, but the Captain of this company was in Alabama at that time. There was a provision to cut off the pay of all persons whose pay-rolls were not in at that time, and owing to the Captain being absent the pay-rolls could not be put in. I think there is nothing wrong in the matter. I hope the bill will pass. These soldiers have been kept out of pay for a long time. There is some $16,000 in the State Treasury now for the payment of these soldiers, and I think it no more than right that it should pass. In 1867 there was $30,000 appropriated to pay these soldiers.
Mr. MARSHALL: I want to make this statement: The Captain was away and he was written to
come home and make out his muster-roll and go to the Legislature and have his claim
allowed. He came, but he came too late to get their pay at that Legislature. The Captain
says he has felt em-
The bill passed by yeas 35, nays 0.
On motion of Mr. FOULKE the constitutional rules were suspended, and the bill [S. 91] to
amend the Public
On motion of Mr. CAMPBELL the bill [S. 341] to authorize the State to be sued, was read the third time and passed by ayes 30, nays 11.
The Senate then took a recess until 2 o'clock.
Mr. ENSLY offered a concurrent resolution of thanks to Congress for placing General Grant on the retired list to-day.
It was adopted.
Mr. Weir offered a resolution to pay rental claims, declaring it a privileged question.
Mr MAGEE raised the point of order that it was not a question of privilege, and insisted on the regular order.
The Lieutenant Governor decided that it was a question of privilege, stating that whenever a deliberative body contracts a debt to pay it should always be considered a question of privilege in the highest sense.
The resolution was adopted.
On motion of Mr. WEIR the constitutional rules were suspended and the bill [H. R. 79] for holding Circuit Courts in the Thirty-fifth Judicial Circuit, was read the third time and passed by ayes 36, nays 0.
The bill [H. R. 72] in relation to the duties of the Supreme Court Clerk coming up -
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings, offered an amendment that the Clerk of the Supreme Court be not required to keep for public inspection a record of his receipts.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings, made an ineffectual motion to strike out the enacting clause by yeas 13, nays 25.
Mr MACY moved to substitute the minority report for the majority report.
Mr. HILLIGASS: There never was a more vicious bill introduced into a Legislature. It opens the office of Clerk of the Supreme Court to ferrets, who may go and examine the books and then travel over the State and secure old claims. Let this bill be amended so as to give to the Clerk the custody of that record. I hope the bill will not pass.
Mr SMITH, of Jennings: We had this matter under consideration once before [see page 199] It was the sense of this Senate once to not allow the bill to pass. I am satisfied that the bill originated in the same place as the other bill. I have not the least objection that the unclaimed fees shall go where they belong. I object to the words "keeping a register of all fees, including his own." If the words "including his own" are stricken out, I see no very great objection to the bill. As the bill now stands it would require the Clerk of the Supreme Court to employ at least one clerk, and possibly two, to make and furnish the record. If he keeps a private record for his own convenience he ought not to be compelled to show them to the public. I move to strike out the words, "including his own."
Mr. MACY: The effect of this bill will be to require the Clerk of the Supreme Court to keep a register of all fees received, including his own. The principle difference between this bill and Senate bill is that it does not require the Clerk to give a bond. I ask a fair consideration of this bill.
Mr. McINTOSH: I see that the majority report was adopted on February 18.
Mr. FOULKE: The Senator from Jennings gave no reasons why the bill should not pass. There is no valid reason why the fees of the Supreme Court Reporter as well as any other public officer should not be kept open to the public
Mr. SELLERS moved to recommit the bill to the same committee that the Senate bill was reported to.
The motion was rejected by ayes 20, nays 21.
The amendment [Mr. Smith's, of Jennings,] was rejected.
The motion to substitute the majority for the minority report was adopted.
On motion of Mr. YOUOHE the amendment was ordered engrossed.
On motion by Mr. MAGEE the bill [S 45 - see pages 175, 257] being the nine Judge Appellate Court bill, which heretofore failed to pass - yeas 21; nays, 21 - was taken up for another vote on its passage.
Mr. MAGEE moved to take the bill up and put it upon its passage for the reason that it had failed for want of a constitutional majority, whereupon -
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings, said: Mr. President, I rise to a question of order. It is this. The bill when voted upon only received 21 votes, as against 21 votes in the negative.
The vote being a tie the bill was lost; not because it failed for want of a constitutional majority, but because it received a minority of all the votes cast. In other words, when a vote is tie the proposition is lost. That being true the bill can not again be taken up.
The CHAIR: I confess I am not able to decide the question correctly, and I therefore submit it to the decision of the older Senators who ought to be posted.
Mr MAGEE and Mr. FOULKE held the question of order not well taken, and it was so ordered.
The bill was then passed by yeas 27, nays 16.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings, changed his vote and voted for the bill for the purpose of moving a reconsideration.
Upon the vote being announced as above -
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings, moved to reconsider the vote just taken. He said: When this bill was defeated by a tie vote it ceased to be a living thing. There was no power that could revive it into life or give it a legal entity in this body, except that it could be again introduced and read three times on three several days, as is required of any other bill. But under the circumstances this bill has not received a constitutional consideration here, and consequently has not been legally passed, and the whole matter ought to be reconsidered. We ought not to take up a dead measure and breathe new life into it, without letting it take its constitutional course. [Here the Senator read from the rules of the United States House of Representatives sustaining the point of order]
The motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill had passed was rejected by yeas —, nays —.
On motion of Mr. WEIR the constitutional rules were suspended by a yea and nay vote, and the bill [H. R. 98] to legalize the acts of notaries public whose commissions had expired was read a third time and passed by yeas 38, nays 2
On motion of Mr. FOULKE the constitutional rules were suspended and the bill [H. R. 197] providing for the relief of Theophain Haugh was read the third time and passed by yeas 39, nays 0.
Mr. WEIR moved to make the bills that were a special order for this evening a special order to-morrow at 10 o'clock.
Mr YOUCHE moved to substitute S. 94 concerning the cost of Supreme Court reports.
Mr. YOUCHE: This is a bill that affects the price of the Supreme Court Reporter. It has been reported back from a special committee with a recommendation that the price of the Supreme Court Reporter be hereafter fixed at $2 75 instead of $3 50 which is the price at the present time. I hope the matter is of sufficient importance that it will be taken up and acted upon. We learn that there is an edition of 1,200 copies of each report sold by the Reporter. We also learn that the cost of publishing the reports of the Supreme Court, including printing, binding, etc., does not exceed $1.50 a copy. That was the highest estimate put upon it so that it so that it leaves the Reporter a clear net profit of $2; and at this rate his salary off of the reports would be something more than $21 000. Here is an officer getting more than the Governor, and more than the Judges of the Supreme Court. The bill that I am seeking to have made a special order, reduces the price of the reports to $2 75; that will still leave the Reporter a profit of $1 25 on each one and that would still leave him something over $13,000 a year profit on these reports. And if, as has been said, there are only six volumes gotten out, it would still leave the Reporter a profit of $9,000 a year. I think a bill that will regulate the price of these reports is a bill of great importance. The reports of the rounding States do not cost to exceed $2.75 a volume, and they run down to $1.10.
On motion of Mr. SELLERS this bill along with several others was made a special order for to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock.
Mr. THOMPSON moved to suspend the constitutional rules and take up his bill [S. 75] to pay Patrick Kerland for a swampland ditching claim, read the bill the third time and put it upon its passage.
Mr. THOMPSON: This is an honest claim and one that ought to be paid. It is the only one of these swamp land claims that has not been paid. I do hope that the Senate will do jutice to an honest man. This is one of the most distressing claims. The person is an old man who paid one thousand dollars in getting a $400.00 claim
Mr. McINTOSH: There is nothing in the claim that shows how the claimant became the owner of the claim. There are not enough facts here to warrant the passing of this bill to engrossment. All the information we get in regard to the claim is from the claimant. Whether there has been any legal assignment of the claim to this claimant I doubt, and for that reason I will vote against the bill.
Mr. WEIR: At the time the claim came before the committee we were satisfied that it was proper, and I have no doubt as to the justice of the claim. The only question was in the ownership of the claim and we were satisfied on that point.
Mr. FOWLER: I don't know anything about this claim, but in view of the fact that it has been recommended by the committee and Mr. Thompson, and in view of the fact that the papers laid before the committee are lost, and if the claim subsequently comes before any other committee it would be hard to convince the committee of the justice of the claim, I will vote "aye."
Mr. BAILEY: I know nothing of this claim, personally. I have talked to Mr. Bynum, ex Speaker of the House, who knew of similar claims that passed the last Legislature, and also to General Manson, who investigated this claim, and said it was just and ought to be paid. The man who purchased the claim of a poor old man did so as a matter of accommodation.
The constitutional rule was suspended and the bill passed by ayes 26, nays 11.
On motion of Mr. SCHLOSS his bill [S. 104] for the relief of Lewis L. Culder was read a second time, the constitutional rule was suspended, the bill read a third time and passed by yeas 37, nays 1.
The Senate adjourned until 9:30.
Mr. ORECELIUS, from the
Mr. ELEY moved to lay the report on the table.
The motion was rejected.
The report of the committee was not concurred in - yeas, 26; nays, 46.
Pending the roll-call -
Mr. BARNES, explaining his vote, said that he should vote "no" because he had asked a member of the committee what they had expended, and he said nothing.
Mr. BROWNING: Because the members of the committee were at no expense, and were junketing, while we were here at work, I vote "no"
Mr. DEEM: Because it cost them nothing, I vote "no."
Mr. FRENCH: I understand that none of this money is asked for by members who visited the Northern Prison, but only from visitors to the Southern Prison. Inasmuch as this committee reported more fun and no expense on the visit, I think that the claim is an outrage and should not be allowed. Such a thing should never be brought up in this body. I vote "no."
Mr. GOODING: We must presume a man guiltless until proven guilty. We don't know that these members had free passes. They should not have. We suppose they paid railway fare and table bills. I vote "aye."
Mr. GORDON: I am not aware that these men incurred any expenses. I vote "no."
Mr. HOBAN: I do not want to go into any presumption that they had railway passes. Still I don't know what these expenses were for. Therefore I shall vote "no" until further advised.
Mr. PASSAGE: I was with this committee, and we were dined and were treated royally. And so far as I know no one missed a meal or paid a cent; so I vote "no"
Mr. WILSON: I have just been informed that this committee was at some expenses. If, as intimated here, they had free whisky, it was worth $20 to drink it; if they refused, it was worth $20 to resist the temptation.
The vote was then announced as above.
So the report of the committee was rejected.
On motion of Mr. GORDON, Mrs. Carrie McChesney, clerk of the committee, was allowed $20 for services.
Mr. REEVES offered a resolution, which was adopted, that the Speaker appoint a committee of three to inquire into the condition of the State-house funds and report to the House to-morrow.
The SPEAKER appointed Messrs. Reeves, Mock and Twineham.
Mr. MOODY offered a resolution that the Speaker appoint a special committee of three to draft a bill for a Court of Claims.
On motion of Mr. GOOD1NG the resolution was amended so that the matter be referred to the
The resolution as amended was adopted.
Mr. McMULLEN offered a concurrent resolution [H. R. 13] that the State Librarian be allowed $813 for fixing the legislative halls for the present session.
The resolution was referred to the
Mr. CRECELIUS, from the
On motion the account was returned to the committee for incorporation in a concurrent resolution
Mr. WILLIAMS offered a concurrent resolution [H. R. 14] allowing the members of the
The resolution was referred to the
The Senate amendments to Mr. Patten's bill [H. R 243] to fix the number of Representatives and Senators in Indiana being read -
Mr. WILLIAMS moved that the amendment be concurred in and demanded the previous question.
The House seconded the demand and under its operations the Senate amendments were concurred in by yeas 58, nays 38
Mr. STALEY explaining his vote said: I will state that day after day we have voted to go on with this call of bills on third reading; and now that this thing comes up, I vote no.
Mr. COPELAND: Believing that the amendments offered by the Senate still leave this the most odious, unjust and subversive bill acted upon in the Indiana Legislature, and believing its every part to be revolutionary - to be infamous; and believing further, that the adoption of the amendments would be a continuance of a most inconsistent measure that ever throttled a free people; believing that it disfranchises the honest voter, I shall vote "no"
Mr. DEEM: If I understand this measure it abolishes the Indiana General Assembly and substitutes a Democratic caucus. I therefore vote "no."
Mr. HARRELL: About this hour of the day that party which has long controlled this Government goes out of power; and if this measure is a help to the party coming in I shall be happy; therefore I vote "aye."
Mr. OSBORN: If I were to speak of this whole scheme, I would speak of it in a
modification of the inspired writer who referred
Mr. SEARS: I shall not now make my farewell address; that must go to a future time; but believing this measure an unfair one, though we might take our medicine without kicking, yet I say that if the tide turns count on as to hoist the black flag and show no quarters. I vote "no."
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: At the door of the people of Tippecanoe County no charge of unfair elections has ever been laid. But still you rob us of oar representative, while other and smaller counties are given a greater representation. It is pure stealing. That is plain English and pure Anglo Saxon. I would not be true to my constituents if I did lift up my voice against the infamous outrage upon the people. We are made unequal two to one on this floor in the future. I enter my protest, and with it my "no."
Mr. SMITH, of Warrick: As this is the day when the Republican party goes out of power, and hoping that it will never return again, I vote "no."
Mr. WILSON: Because of its unfairness and infamy, and because of the dignity and persistence of the Speaker in refusing to recognise members who had the floor, I vote "no."
Mr. WILLIAMS: I move that the words be taken down.
The SPEAKER: No, no. Proceed with the roll call.
The vote was then announced as above.
So the amendment was concurred in.
The Senate amendments to Mr. PATTEN'S bill [H. R 422] to redistrict the State for Congressional purposes being read —
Mr. WILLIAMS moved that the amendments be concurred in, and demanded the previous question.
The House seconded the demand, and the Senate amendments were concurred in by yeas 58, nays 37.
Mr. GOODING, explaining his vote, said that though the assignment of Rush County was objectionable to him, he would, all things considered vote "aye."
Mr. GORDON would vote "aye," because he knew of nothing in the State Constitution providing that an equal number of Republicans should be in this body; or, for that matter, any Republicans; and, further, it was as fair as the Republicans made
Mr. LOYD: I explain my vote for the reason that before I voted against the bill. I now vote for it, because the objectionable features have been removed by the Senate amendments, chief among which objections was that Rush County was tacked on to my district. I vote "aye."
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: By these amendments my district is made certainly Republican beyond all contingencies save another gerrymander; still the bill is unfair to my neighbors, and I vote "no."
Mr. STALEY: When this bill came up I voted for it because it was party action — it was caucus action. But coming from the Senate amended it ceases to be caucus section. All these changes have been made at the expense of the Democrats of the Ninth District We had 900 majority to overcome in our district, and for our success this is the reward. In this the members have not been true to us, and had this been known this bill would never have left this House with the vote it did.
Mr. TAYLOR: As I stated when this bill first came up, I have no apology to offer for my support of it. I like the spirit of my friend from Vermillion [Mr. Sears], who talks of the black flag and no quarters. We have up our old flag now, and are pouring hot shot into the enemy. I shall vote "aye."
Mr. TOWNSEND: The man who puts on the armor should not boast of himself, but the man who puts it off. For the reason of its injustice, I vote "no."
Mr. TWINEHAM: This is not wholly a party question. I represent both Republicans and Democrats. One party in the House has a temporary majority, but the matter is in the hands of the voters. I shall never lift my voice and lend my aid to any measure to disfranchise a single voter. I vote "no."
Mr. VICKERY: Because of its unfairness to the Ninth District I vote "no."
The vote was then announced as above.
So the Senate amendments were concurred in.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe, raised the question that the bill should be again passed by 51 votes as amended.
The SPEAKER ruled that the bill was disposed of.
A concurrent resolution [S. 22] congratulating the President and Vice President elect upon their assension to office adopted and the Governor requested to transmit a copy of the same to those officials.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe moved to take up the Senate resolution of thanks to Congress for placing General Grant on the retired list.
Mr. BROWNING: I object.
The House took a recess for dinner.
The SPEAKER: Bills on the third reading are now the order.
On motion by Mr. McMULLEN another vote was taken on Mr. Harrell's bill [H. R. 29] authorizing County Commissioners to construct bridges in place of free gravel roads, and it was so agreed and the bill passed - yeas, 51; nays, 37.
Mr. STALEY'S bill [H. R. 400] authorizing universities and colleges to acquire real estate was read the third time,
Mr. STALEY said that Wabash College at Crawfordsville and DePauw University at Greencaatle were about to come into possession of real estate and their charters would not permit them to hold such.
The bill passed — yeas, 60; nays 8.
Mr. BROWNLEE: I vote against this because I am opposed to large corporations holding large tracts of real estate.
Mr. GOODING: For the same reason assigned by the gentleman from Grant (Mr. Brownlee) I vote "no."
The bill [S. 74] concerning the time of holding court in the 25th and 26th Judicial Circuits was read the third time and passed - yeas, 70, nays, 11.
Mr. FISHER called up on the call of counties the bill [H R. 479] making general appropriations for the State
Mr. FISHER moved that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole for the consideration of the bill.
The motion was rejected by yeas 42, nays 50.
Mr. BROWNING, when his name was called, said that this was snap judgment, but he supposed he would have to vote for it. He voted "aye"
Mr. DITTEMORE, in explanation of his vote, said that as he opposed it for its injustice, he would so continue.
Mr. MOODY: I was one of those who voted against it. The Speaker has ruled that any member may call up any bill at his time, and as the gentleman from Dubois (Mr. Fisher) has called for this bill I vote "aye"
Mr. MURPHY: To be consistent I vote "no."
Mr. PASSAGE: Understanding that our agreement refers only to bills on second reading I vote "no."
Mr. PATTEN: I do not think we should insist on our local measures in preference to one as important as the Appropriation bill. I vote "aye."
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: We are getting in a close place here. I want the Appropriation bill to pass, but I can not see that this bill should come in here. To vote "aye" would be to sacrifice my agreement and my honor. I vote "no."
The vote was then announced as above.
So the motion to go into the Committee of the Whole was rejected.
The bill [S. 57] concerning water works of cities was read the third time and rejected — yeass, 36; nays, 44
Mr. CRECELIUS' bill [H. R. 283] pertaining to fees and salaries was read the third time and rejected — yeas, 43; nays, 47.
The bill [S. 48 — see pages 176 and 205] regarding the militia of the State was read the third time.
Mr. HELMS: The present military code of Indiana is very imperfect. It does not give sufficient strength to our military organizations, and now is as good a time as we will ever have to remedy it It is not necessary that any great expense should be incurred. The provisions of the bill ask this Legislature to uniform the enlisted men now in the State service. Our companies are made up of the best young men. They are not able to attend a military school yet; they have so far borne all the expense of uniforms, armory rents fuel, lights, and traveling expenses, going to and returning from our State encampments, buying their guns and ammunition. They are liable to be called upon at any time to risk their lives in the defense of the property and the lives of our people. The militia comprises the best and cheapest police force that can be organized.
Can any gentleman on this floor assign a just and laudable reason why the State can not afford to aid, to some extent, the citizen soldiery of our State? Our State stands today second to none in all matters of public interest, but we lag behind in this one particular matter. It will not do for us to say that in case of war, that we have old and experienced officers that could organize companies and regiments.
The men must have confidence in the ability of each other, and the only way to accomplish this is by associating the men together. Every Legislature appropriates large sums of money for the mental culture of the young men; but why should the physical development that comes from a thorough military drill be wholly neglected by the State?
I know of what I am speaking about. I organized a company of fifty-eight young men more than two years ago and the members were hastened into the State service, me as their Captain, and out of all that number there was not one gentleman of leisure — all poor, but hard-working and honest young men. There is not one of that company able to attend any institution of learning, except it be a free school. My company will compare favorably with the other companies now in the Indiana Legion.
There is nothing that inspires a man or puts him upon his honor quicker than the uniform
of his State or country in whose service he has voluntarily entered, and from which he
receives aid and support. I hope that these matters will receive your careful consideration
and support, regardless of political affiliations. Most of the States recognize the
importance of an efficient organization by making suitable annual appropriations for the
support of their troops as follows: [See page 205 — second column]. The Commonwealth of the
grand old State of Indiana in her financial prosperity and educational advancements passes
her
The House adjourned till to-morrow.
Mr. SELLERS moved that the bill [H. R. 222] to abolish the office of Ditch Commissioner be read the first time by sections and the second time by title.
Mr. WEIR: The present law is a system of robbery. Under the present law a man may start a ditch scheme and rob the people of thousands of dollars. We need some legislation upon this question; the people are expecting and demanding it. In one county of this State I am told there are over sixty executions that have been returned, while the property assessed as benefited is not sufficient to pay the executions. This is an infamous law and ought to be changed.
Mr. YOUCHE: I hope that motion will not prevail. There have been bills introduced here and reported by the committee that would do away with the most objectionable parts of the drainage law.
Mr. WEIR: It is evident that no bill that has not gone through the House can originate in the Senate and then go to the House and pass this session. It is the duty of the Senate to take some action upon this matter.
Mr. MAGEE: This is going to make a radical change in the law. The people have become thoroughly familiar with the present law, and the law has worked satisfactory with few exceptions. I am opposed to this bill at this time.
Mr. WEIR: The people in my section have become so familiar with the law that they regard it as infamous. It is from this familiarity that the people demand a change.
Mr. MAGEE: I don't know why the bill should work one way in Cass County and another way in Laporte County. You can't have a public highway law that is not arbitrary. I insist that a bill so important as this, coming at this late day, ought not to be considered. It is utterly impossible to give this bill the proper attention. The first law that was passed in Indiana in regard to drainage was in 1865, and we have have changed that law until we have got the present law, and it is the best law we have ever had.
Mr. HILLIGASS: The present law is not satisfactory to the people of Indiana.
The present law is eminently satisfactory to one class of people, and that class of people is the attorneys. In my county, where a great deal of ditching has been done, the most satisfactory law is the Commissioners' law. A more arbitrary law has never been placed upon the statute book than the present one.
Mr. WILLARD: It seems to me that this Legislature in this late day of the session is trying to follow out the action of the Legislature of 1881, when several bills were rushed through that were afterwards found to work unjustly. I doubt whether there are three members on the floor of the House who understood anything about this bill It changes radically the entire drainage law of the State. We ought not to change the present law by passing a bill we know nothing about.
Mr. SHIVELY: I introduced a bill to repeal the present law in regard to drainage; this
was referred to the
Mr. McINIOSH: Nearly one-half of my county have written to me in regard to this law and spoken of its unjustness. I understand the intention of the bill is to keep the Ditch Commissioners from confiscating the property of the people.
Mr. YOUCHE: This bill proposes to repeal the present Circuit Court drainage law in toto, and to pass a new act upon this subject. It provides that there shall be a jury trial, and if there were five hundred witnesses, as might be the case, it would hardly be possible for a jury to do justice to the parties concerned. The jury provision would result in rendering inoperative the ditch law. This bill provides that if a majority of the residents of the county remonstrate against the ditch, it will go down. In the case of a nonresident, who owned land and paid taxes, having no friends in that county, it would work a very great hardship indeed. This bill comes to the Senate without any recommendation from any committee. I hope so radical a measure will not come up at this late hour of the session.
Mr. SELLERS: It is not too late to do justice. This bill was introduced January 21. It provides that where any two landowners of the county, or a majority of the land owners shall remonstrate, they shall proceed no further. I say that, a majority of the people should always have control of this matter. I move the previous question.
The demand was seconded, and under its operation -
The motion (Mr. Seller's) was agreed to — yeas, 34; nays, 11 — and the bill was ordered printed, with amendments proposed by several Senators.
The bills [S. 84 and 94] were taken up.
Mr. SELLERS: The report signed by the Senator from Wayne and myself proposes to sell these reports at a profit of seventy-five cents a volume, and provides a good salary for the Reporter. The State paid $14,560 for her share of these reports last year. I desire to be fair to the Reporter of the Supreme Court, but let this law be passed so that hereafter these Reporters may fully understand what the emoluments of the office will be.
Mr. YOUCHE: Two members of the committee were in favor of reducing the price of the Reports to $2 75.
The Senate took a recess for dinner.
The report submitted by Messrs. Sellers and Foulke was read.
The minority [Mr. May's] report, recommending indefinite postponement, was rejected by yeas 19, nays 27.
Mr. MAGEE, explaining: There is a demand for some legislation on this subject. I think it bad policy to indefinitely postpone this bill, so I vote "no."
Mr. SELLERS: With the view that the bill shall be so amended as not to take effect during the term of the present incumbent, I vote "no."
Mr. SMITH, of Jay: As the terms of the five Commissioners expire this year, which increases the number of reports about one-half, and as it is likely there will be an Appellate Court, which will still further reduce the number of reports, and believing they should not cost more than $2.75 a volume, I vote "aye."
Mr. BAILEY: In view of the explanation of Senator Sellers, I change my vote to "no."
So the Senate refused to indefinitely postpone the bill.
Mr. YOUCHE moved that the report signed by Mr. Fowler and himself be adopted instead of the other majority report, which leaves the law on this subject as it is, except that it proposes to cut down the price of the Supreme Court reports from $3.50 to $2 75. There is a great deal of detail about the other report.
Mr. SELLERS: The amendment which I propose met the favor of a majority of the House. The volumes will be cut down to not more than six a year. This bill provides that the State shall issue these reports, and have all the profit after paying all costs of publications and officers. I hope the report signed by Mr. Foulke and myself will be adopted. The measure as it stood without the amendment was defeated in the House, but after the bill was engrossed, an amendment similar to the one I have in my hands was intended to be offered, but could not be because the bill was ordered to be engrossed. I am satisfied the amendment will be accepted by the House. This bill gives to the State all the profits arising from the publication of these reports. This new system is easily understood. If we pass it to-day, I don't think there will be any difficulty in the House.
Mr. FOWLER moved to amend the report submitted by Senator Youche and himself by providing that the provisions of this bill shall not apply to the present incumbent.
Mr. JOHNSON, of Tippecanoe, moved as a substitute that the provisions of this act shall go into effect from and after the 1st of January, 1886.
The substitute was rejected on a division — affirmative, 14; negative, 23.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St Joseph, moved as a substitute that the provisions of this act shall not take effect till January 1, 1887.
Mr. WEIR: Inasmuch as we will probably have another session before 1887, I move the substitute lay on the table.
The motion was rejected by yeas 18, nays 26.
Mr. HILLIGASS: It is not just to cut down the emoluments of the office during the term of
an incumbent, who made the race understanding what the office would be
Mr. FOWLER: Like the Senator from Huntington, I hope the substitute will not prevail.
Mr. MAGEE: I undertake to say that these reports can be sold for $1 50. You can get the Pennsylvania reports for $1.25 a volume. It is entirely wrong that any officer in the State should get the salary that the Reporter of the Supreme Court gets. I can show that he gets nearer $25 000 a year than $20,000 — more than the Judges of the Supreme Court get. From every town in the State a petition has come up here asking us to pass such a bill.
Mr. McCULLOUGH: I don't believe in the theory that we can't cut down the fees or salary of an office during the term of an incumbent. I think we have the right to regulate the fees of any officer at any time. The only trouble I find is I don't know what are the emoluments or fees of this office. It has been said that tbe Supreme Court Reporter gets $20,000. That is robbery. The great tremble is to get at the facts about this office. These committees are utterly unable to get the ex-Reporters or any one else to give them any facts in regard to the cost of the reports. I believe we ought to make this law take effect in 1887, and if the Supreme Court Reporter sees fit, he can come before the next Legislature with facts and ask the Legislature to repeal the law. I am willing to put the price so low as to compel the Reporter to come in and show what the cost is. We are doing no injustice to the Reporter when we require a showing of the cost to be made.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph: The amendment proper does not meet with my sanction. I have made it as a sort of compromise. Heretofore we have cut down the salaries of various officers of the State, and I think it would be a bad precedent to say we could not pass upon the fees or salaries of an office during the incumbency of an officer. We have stricken $2 a day from the fees of clerks during the present session, and it would be a dangerous thing to say we shall not legislate upon the fees of incumbent officers.
Mr. SELLERS: This same proposition was voted down in the House. If we pass a law now fixing what will be the compensation of the office of the Supreme Court Reporter, the next applicant will seek this office with his eyes open.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay: Up to 1880 you could not get any reports for anything like the price mentioned by the Senator from Cass (Mr. Magee) A company in New York published United States Reports, four volumes in one, for about a dollar a volume. This proposed change will decrease the emoluments of that office about half, and, in addition, the introduction of the Appellate Court will take away a great part of tht business of the Supreme Court Reporter.
The substitute was rejected.
Mr. OVERSTREET questioned whether it is competent for this General Assembly to pass a law to take effect after the meeting of the next General Assembly.
Mr. FOWLER: I think the Constitution is sufficiently plain on that subject. [Reads.]
The amendment (Mr. Fowler's) was agreed to by yeas 26, nays 20.
The question being on substituting the report of Senators Youche and Fowler for the other report -
It was so ordered.
On motion by Mr. YOUCHE the report submitted by Mr. Fowler and himself concurred in.
The substitute proposed in that report ordered engrossed.
Mr. HILL: S. 322 is a bill to regulate the county school revenue. This is a matter of great importance, not only to every county in the State but also to the State officers. It is also a matter of great importance to every taxpayer, because it lessens the amount of liability of the State Treasury. If you keep this money in the County Treasury it will be much more safe than otherwise. I have had the combined wisdom of the Auditor of the State, Supervisor of Public Instruction, and the Committee on Finance to assist in formulating this bill. I move to suspend the constitutional rule, read the bill the second time by its title, the third time by its sections, and put it upon its passage.
The motion was agreed to, and the bill passed by yeas 39, nays 3.
On motion of Mr. MAGEE the constitutional rule was suspended by a yea and nay vote, in order that the bill [H. R. 29] authorizing County Commissioners to construct free turnpikes instead of county bridges might be read the second and third time and put upon its passage.
Mr. DAVIS: I move to strike out Section 4.
Mr. MAGEE: I think Section 4 ought to remain. Our city has more bridges than any city in the State. Section 4 puts in an emphatic form what has always been the law.
The amendment was rejected.
The bill passed by yeas 35, nays 10.
On motion of Mr. MAGEE the constitutional rule was suspended and the bill [H. R. 108] authorizing Councils of cities to enforce ordinances and requiring contractors to accept estimates, etc., was finally passed by yeas 43, nays 0.
Mr. FOULKE, on behalf of Republicans of the Senate, presented a lengthy protest against the passage of the apportionment bills. [See appendix to the Reports.]
On motion of Mr. BROWN the Weights and Measures bill [H. R. 211] was read the second time under a suspension of the constitutional rule.
Mr. OVERSTREET moved to amend so that fifty pounds of sweet potatoes shall constitute a bushel and seventy pounds of corn.
Mr BROWN opposed the amendment, believing that it would kill the bill at this late day in the session.
Mr. FOWLER: This is an amendment that strikes directly at the farming interest of Indiana. I move to strike out "seventy pounds of corn."
Mr. BENZ: All of the Western States, Kentucky and Illinois have seventy pounds to constitute a bushel. I therefore vote "no."
Mr. BROWN: I can see no reason for changing the present law. I vote "aye."
Mr. DAVIS: I am informed by a grain-dealer in Elkhart that every State in the West makes seventy pounds to constitute a bushel.
Mr. FOWLER: I am informed that the grain dealers of this State would be glad to have the law changed so they can get two more pounds on every bushel of corn than they now get.
The motion was agreed to — yeas, 23; nays, 16.
The amendment to make fifty pounds of sweet potatoes a bushel was agreed to.
On motion of Mr. FOULKE, the constitutional rule was suspended and the bill [H. R. 400] authorizing colleges and universities to hold real estate to the value of $500,000 was taken up.
Mr. YOUCHE moved to amend so that real estate may be received by donation or devise, but it must be disposed of in twenty years.
Mr. WEIR: I hope the amendment of the Senator from Lake (Mr. Youche) will not prevail. I am in favor of fair legislation in regard to the educational industries of the State. This bill has passed the House. There are those who feel toward this institution in such a way that they are prompted to leave to this institution a large endowment of real estate. I see no reason why the university should not hold this real estate.
Mr. FOULKE: I move to add after the word advise "to purchase on foreclosure of mortgage, give to secure any part of the endowment fund."
Mr. YOUCHE: The purpose of this amendment is not to prevent them from receiving the real estate, but the purpose is to prevent them from using up the real estate.
Mr. OVERSTREET: Why not give the institution the right to build up itself by private enterprise? Any educational institution should have the right to hold $500,000 if they can use it.
Mr. FOULKE: I don't think any university receiving $500,000 would cause any real estate crisis. I think we had better not jeopardize the bill by any amendments.
Mr. WEIR: At the time of the incorporation of DePauw it was allowed to hold real estate to the amount of $50,000. Now they are asking that they be allowed to hold real estate to the amount of $500 000, which some benevolent person desires to give them.
Mr. YOUCHE: I believe there are twenty such institutions in this State, and under this bill there would be $10,000,000 wrapped up in these institutions.
Mr. WEIR: I would not object if they held that much.
Mr. WINTER: The object of this bill is to allow every institution - to allow each and every one $500,000 more than they need for the purpose for which it was incorporated. I am ready to allow every educational institution the right to buy or receive by purchase property or anything else for the purposes for which it has been incorporated. Such action as that proposed by the bill is against all reason
Mr. THOMPSON: I am not afraid to allow institutions to receive large donations.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph: If a college has five hundred thousand dollars as an income the presumption is that it is going to be invested in real estate or some other live property to bring an income.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay: This bill is against the policy of our law. I am opposed to it.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings: The opposition to this bill is that the institutions would acquire by purchase or gift large amounts of real estate which they would not yield up. It would be the creation of a landed monopoly, with landlords and tenants. I am not sure that this would be the right sort of a corporation to create. When this $500,000 becomes invested in real estate it will be grasped by the university and not yielded up. The people of Indiana will live to regret that a university has been allowed to become a grasping monopoly. It is against the policy of our government and against the policy of human right that a university should hold real estate
The question being on the amendment (Mr. Foulke's) the vote resulted yeas 15, nays 16.
No quorum voting the Senate adjourned until 9:30 to-morrow morning.
The unfinished business was consideration of the bill [S. 88] to regulate the State militia.
Mr. BROWNING: I do not see how this bill can pass. The Constitution says that no colored men shall belong to it; and while I have no prejudice against that race, yet I am sworn to support the Constitution, and for that reason I can not support this bill.
Mr. TOWNSEND: Does not the Constitu-
Mr. BROWNING: I do not believe that the United States has any right to interfere with this State right.
Mr. PATTEN: I am a member of the G. A. R, and my post does not wish this bill. This is an unjust measure. It will throw an extra burden on the people. Do the men who labor ask for a military institution in Indiana? No. It is only the people in the cities who ask for it - and for what purpose? It is for the purpose of crushing out labor. It is a direct blow at wage laborers, and if they dare raise their voices to oppression this militia is to declare a riot and charge upon the laborers. The bill declares that the officers are to be chosen by an Examining Board. This is very objectionable. The militia, if there is one, should select its own officers. Then there is tax exemption, which would entail much loss to the State. We should rather encourage our young men to thinking rather than to marching. It is proposed to donate a large sum to purchase uniforms for these men to strut in. It will amount to over $100,000 per annum. It is an institution to rob the school fund. I hope the members of this House, especially the Democratic members, will assert themselves and see that this bill does not pass. We need have no fears of mobs under Democratic rule. It is not a militia but a standing army.
Mr. GORDON: I do not desire to make any attack without cause upon this bill. I do think
that a close scrutiny of the bill will develop no reason that will be approved by the
people why the bill should pass. If the bill pass, it should have, on one or two grounds,
that either it is an ornament to the State or that it is needed. Will anyone say that
because other States have it we should have it as an ornament, to satisfy the whims of a
few? We are told that there is to be an appropriation of but $10,000. Don't delude
yourself. Money will be demanded constantly and it is but the beginning of stupenduous
military organizations of the State. In private arguments the supporters of the bill say,
"give us a start." The cost to the State will not be less than $25 000 per annum.
Even though you have 17,000 petitioners for the bill don't forget the 500 000 voters
who have not been heard from. An organization to secure petitions against it would far
outweigh the petitions for it. Don't let it be said that on the very day a Democratic
administration came into power that the Indiana Assembly organized a standing army; we do
not need it. There is no foreign war coming on, nor is there an impending riot. No man need
charge that the Democrats on this floor are fearing labor riots. Go into the States which
have
Mr. GOODING: The gentleman from Putnam (Mr. Gordon) has stated this question most thoroughly. What is the necessity of enacting this bill into a law? Don't delude yourselves with the idea that the law can be repealed in two years. The military organizations will then be here with demands. Henry Clay once warned the people against military power. In time of war I am for soldiers; but in times of peace let us have peace. It is twenty years since the war, and even our Republican friends have discovered that it is over. What necessity is then for this bill now? It will make Indiana a general encampment for this militia. Some speak of riots in cities, where some corporation of great power is keeping men at starvation's door and want "protection." The Sheriff can call every man in the county to his aid to suppress riot. The Democratic party is for the people, and it can not afford to pass this bill.
Mr. SMITH, of Warrick: Being a member of the
Mr. LOYD: I would like to support a reasonable bill regarding the militia, but I would rather encourage something of benefit to the State. I would rather vote to organize farmers' sons into a company for better stock raising or a company of carpenter^ sons or the like. But such a scheme would not meet with favor here. I do not care to "point with pride" to any military organization. I happen to be adjutant of a post of G. A. R, and it does not favor it. We should not contemplate the organization of military even, I say, though the workingmen were organizing to protect themselves against oppression. Let it not be sent abroad that we oppose any labor organization.
Mr. DITTEMORE: While I am too old to take part in military parade, yet I favor the
education of the young men. I am no alarmist I am willing to trust the State officers of
whatever political party. When property is destroyed and the lives of inno-
Mr. GARRISON: I am the representative of a county which has an interest in this measure. It seems that this bill is an inroad against the principles of the Democratic party. We have provided our children with books instead of swords, and we are capable of self government. There is a dispute between capital and labor. I believe it would be calamitous alike to put the military in the hands of capital or in the hands of labor.
Mr. MURPHY: I am a member of the G. A. R., but I see no necessity for the bill
Mr. HARRELL: We are not here to make military laws. We do not need such, and the people will not favor it. The expense will be heavy and the good nothing. I have studied the bill carefully, but I can not find the need of the law. I believe the bill to be unconstitutional.
Mr. PENDLETON: I am an advocate of this bill. The opposition has drawn largely upon imagination regarding the bill and the cost. The long list of officers is complimentary - not one cent of tax upon the people. The only argument I have heard against this bill is the constitutionality of admitting colored men; but that may be so declared by the Supreme Court and stricken out We have five companies in Indianapolis, and they are all laboring men, and hard laboring men.
Mr. BARNEY: As the representative of 17,000 old soldiers, I must say that they are almost unanimously in favor of this bill. In the seventy-one counties where petitions come from, every old soldier is in favor of it. Go back before the war, when we were sleeping in peace, and a volcano suddenly bursts under our feet. The militia was the backbone of the war of 1812. We may need a militia suddenly in Indiana. No man regards brass buttons when he is going to be shot at. There is nothing in the ornament argument.
The bill passed — yeas, 56; nays, 35.
Mr. ADAMS, explaining his vote, said: Inasmuch as I hold in my hand a petition in favor of this bill from eighty-six taxpayers of my county, headed by the heaviest taxpayers of the county, I vote "aye."
Mr. BEST: Because I believe that it is demanded, I vote "aye."
Mr. BOOE: Because I am opposed to military powers in times of peace; because it is against the principles of our Government to equip and maintain large military forces; because it endangers the future peace of our country, in that it engenders a military spirit; because it will largely increase our burden of taxation; because this is an era of greatest peace and such a vast military force is not needed; because, lastly, the people do not demand it, but it is only asked by red-tape military companies, I vote "no."
Mr. BOYD: Because I think it needful, I vote "aye."
Mr. BROWNING: Because I believe it unconstitutional, and because I am opposed to taxing old soldiers to support home guards, I vote "no."
Mr. COPELAND: Being opposed to howling mobs and riots, and because I think a power should be put in the hands of the Governor, I vote "aye."
Mr. FRANKLIN: The bill is not free from objection, but it is better than no bill. I vote "aye."
Mr. HOBAN: I thought last night that I would vote for this bill, but as I think it anti-Democratic, and as I think that morality is better than firearms, and thinking it unnecessary, I vote "no."
Mr. KELLISON: Because I am not in favor of filling the laboring men with bullets instead of bread, because history has taught me that all other Republics have perished because of military tactics and standing armies, I vote "no."
Mr. MAUK, of Wayne: Because I have a petition signed by 350 people of the great Quaker county which Mr Gooding spoke of, and because I represent, with my colleague, those people, and not Mr. Gooding, I vote "aye."
Mr. McHENRY: Though a large petition was sent to me asking the passage of this bill, yet I believe it was signed under a misapprehension; I vote "no."
Mr. McMICHAEL: I have a petition of 250 names, from all parties of St. Joseph County, asking for the passage of this bill. I vote "aye."
Mr. OSBORN: I voted against the bill before, because I had a misapprehension. I vote for it now, because I understand it, and because the Senate has relieved it of its objectionable features. I believe in a system of protection to life and property. I vote "aye."
Mr. PASSAGE: Because the militia in this State has never been used for improper purposes, and because I don't believe it will be, I vote "aye."
Mr. REEVES: Because my people demand it, though I have some misgivings about the bill, I vote "aye."
Mr. ROBINSON: Because we should cultivate the acts of peace instead of the theory of war, I vote "no."
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: Because Constitution says that citizens may take up arms in their defense; because its spirit was indorsed by Thomas Jefferson, not because I fear riots at home; because I wish our army to be fully equipped and ready, I vote "aye."
Mr. STALEY: I am a man of peace, but in the time of peace prepare for war. The people of Indiana demand the law. I hold a petition signed by 175 men from my county, mostly working men, asking it: therefore I vote "aye."
Mr. TOWNSEND: Because I do not entertain the misgivings expressed, here, to-day;
Mr. WILLIAMS: Because I believe it contrary to the spirit of our country, I vote "aye."
The vote was then announced as above.
So the bill passed.
Mr. CRECELIUS, from the
The resolution was adopted.
Mr. McMULLEN moved to reconsider the vote passing the bill [S. 88] regarding the militia of the State.
Mr. DITTEMORE moved to lay the motion on the table.
The latter motion was agreed to by - yeas 51, nays 44.
Mr. PATTEN moved that the House at 3 o'clock take up the bill [H. R. 479] to make general appropriation for the State government.
On motion by Mr. DITTEMORE the motion was laid on the table - yeas, 56; nays, 39.
The Senate amendments to the bill [H. R. 430] changing the time of holding courts in Floyd and Clark Counties were concurred in.
The Senate concurrent resolution expressing a vote of thanks to Congress for placing General Grant on the retired list was adopted.
The bill [S. 325] authorizing the dissolution of the Eastern Indiana Agricultural Association was read the third time
Mr HARRELL
Mr. HAWORTH favored the bill because it was the wish of his constituents.
The bill passed by yeas 78, nays 10.
Mr. BARNEY explaining his vote said: All over northern Indiana are some old fair grounds which are an eyesore, and will remain so because of some stubborn member. I vote "aye."
The bill [S 7] to authorize County Commissioners to issue bonds for public buildings, was read the third time and passed - yeas, 79; nays, 1.
Mr. Hanlon's bill [H. R. 229] concerning the planting of willows on the banks of streams was read the third time and passed — yeas, 87; nays, 1.
Mr. Gordon's bill [H. R. 318] concerning taxation was read the third time.
Mr. GORDON: This bill takes the Board of Equalization from the County Commissioners and Circuit Judge and puts it in the hands of the County Commissioners and Assessors.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: I think the bill is not as good as the old law.
Mr FRENCH believed that it would be an improvement if the bill should pass.
Mr DONHOST: The present law has been in our county an improvement over the old law.
The bill was defeated - yeas, 28; nays, 53.
Mr. ADAMS, explaining his vote, said that the new law was too much like a man trying his own case in a lower court, and then sitting as a judge in a higher court upon appeal. He therefore voted "no."
Mr. Twineham's bill [H. R. 220] to provide for voluntary assignments, was read the third time and passed — yeas, 77; nays, 16.
Mr. TONER'S bill [H. R. 481] to provide for a general system of public schools, was read the third time and passed by yeas 56, nays 34.
Mr MOCK'S bill [H R 117] concerning gravel roads, was read the third time and passed - yeas, 78; nays, 6.
The House adjourned until 9 o'clock tomorrow morning.
The Lieutenant Governor [M. D. Manson.] presented a communication to the Senate from E.C. Nowles, an engrossing clerk and an employe of the Assistant Secretary, saying that he had been charged with a warrant for $45, drawn January 16 which sum Mr. Nowles says he never received. He says that he never authorized Huffstetter nor any other person to sign his name on such indorsement, or to draw such money. He asks that the Senate instruct the present Assistant Secretary to issue a warrant to him for the sum of $45. A committee consisting of Senators Sellers, Youche and Winter was appointed to investigate the matter.
On motion of Mr. FOWLER, the hill [H. R. 211] to regulate weights and measures was passed by yeas 32, nays 2.
On motion by Mr. DAY, the constitutional rule was suspended, and the bill [S. 293] concerning ferries was read second time by title, the third time by sections -
Mr. McCLURE: This bill, as a matter of course, is general in its character, but local in its application. It has no particular application except in the city of Jeffersonville The people in the vicinity of Jeffersonville have complained of the charge of ten cents for foot passengers. The Commissioners of Clark County have ordered them to carry passengers for five cents, but they have refused to accede to the demand of the Commissioners, and now they come here, for the purpose of getting litigation and still prolong their concurrence in the demand of the Commissioners.
Mr. DAY: Many persons in my district demand that this bill should be passed. As the matter now is, whenever the Board of Commissioners make a decision it is final. We want the right to go into the Circuit Court on appeal. We want to go back where we were under the law four years ago. The bill passed by yeas 30, nays 0.
Mr. BAILEY moved to take from the table his bill [S. 136] to allow saloons in the cities of Indianapolis and Evansville to keep open except from midnight to 4 a. m.
Mr. McINTOSH made an ineffectual motion - yeas. 16; nays, 19; - to lay this motion on the table.
The motion to take up the bill was agreed to.
On motion by Mr. BAILEY the report of the majority of the committee was concurred in - yeas, 22; nays, 20.
Mr. DAVIS, in explaining his vote, said: The bill throws down the doors for saloonkeepers to sell liquor whenever they please except upon Sundays and election days. I am not in favor of such liberal provisions for the sale of intoxicating liquors. I vote "no."
Mr. McINTOSH: I am opposed to the passage of this bill and therefore opposed to the
report of the committee. I am perfectly surprised at the votes that are being cast in the
Senate. Is it possible that the saloon-keepers of Indianapolis and Evansville can put ring
in the nose of the Democratic Senators in this Indiana Senate and make them vote what they
want? Is it possible that members who, a few days ago, voted to lay that
Mr. THOMPSON: The travelling public goming in at late hours of the night after the hotels bad been closed would be benefited by the extention of the time of closing saloons until 12 o'clock. My associate Senator (Mr. Bailey) has looked into this matter by day and night, and he says the travelling public demand it. I vote "aye."
Mr. MAGEE: Two years ago I was not in favor of the Metropolitan Police bill, but I have
been persuaded that is the right kind of legislation. We have got to have an
Mr. HILLIGASS: If this proposition was to apply generally I should oppose it, and since it is special I will oppose it. If such a law would be good in Indianapolis and Evansville it would be good in my town. I do not think it would be good in my town. I am opposed to taking up so much time in this kind of legislation. I vote "no."
The vote was announced as above.
So the report was concurred in.
Mr. BAILEY moved that the bill be engrossed. I submit that it is simply a police regulation that has fixed the hour of closing saloons in Indianapolis for the past two years. The statute upon this subject is not regarded. The saloons have not any particular hour for closing. It seems to me unfair that Senators from other districts should come here and vote for legislation unjust to this large city. The whole community were well pleased with the police regulation closing the saloons at 12 o'clock. One or two papers objected to it on the ground that it was a police regulation instead of a statute law. Therefore we are seeking by this bill to make the law conform to the demands of the traveling public and the people of this city. Indianapolis is the Capital city of the State, and there are a large number of respectable people on the street after 11 o'clock at night.
Mr OVERSTREET: I want to repel the Slander that is attempted to be perpetrated upon the traveling public of this State. The idea that there is a necessity after 11 o'clock at night for men to have access to a saloon is absurd. The bill is for the accommodation of the saloons. It would indeed be strange if a person could not procure in Indianapolis, after 11 o'clock at night, a sandwich without going to a saloon. I do hope and pray that the senior Senator from Marion will not surrender his manhood to the saloon-keepers.
Mr. THOMPSON: We would not be doing any violence by voting to allow the saloons of this city to remain open until 12 o'clock. I have come to the opinion that temperance is to be established in the family circle, in the Church and Sunday-school, and not by law. I have a horror of establishing religion by law.
Mr. WINTER: The only class of people that is demanding the passage of this bill is the saloon people and a small class of ward politicians. I know the sentiments of the better class of Democrats and Republicans of this city, and they are opposed to it. It is for political success that these small fry politicians court the saloon vote. There is no sentiment whatever among either Democrats or Republicans for a change in the present law. In an early day of this session there came before this Senate a memorial of the pastors of this city asking that the law in regard to saloon closing be not changed. In 1875 the saloon-keepers fixed the hour to close at 11 o'clock, and there is no occasion to make the hour later.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph, moved to indefinitely postpone the bill.
Mr. RAHM: The Republican Senators will vote straight ahead for temperance. So far as I know, everybody ta satisfied with the bill. I am here to defend the rights of the citizens, and I intend to do so by voting for the bill. It is not fair that a man should not have the right to drink from 11 to 12 o'clock. It is not the saloon-keepers and bummers in Evansville alone that demand this change.
The motion to indefinitely postpone was agreed to by yeas 24, nays 19.
Mr. JOHNSON, of Tippecanoe, in explaining his vote said: While my county is not interested in this bill, yet I am opposed to the motion to indefinitely postpone. In small cities life is ebbing away at 9 or 10 o'clock, while at Indianapolis life is just commencing. I don't think the Senate would commit any mistake in passing this bill. I believe the metropolitan character of the city of Indianapolis would justify the extending of the hour until 12 o'clock.
Mr. SHIVELY, when his name was called, said: While I am in principle opposed to the proposition of the bill, yet as it is local in its character and as a majority of the Senators representing these localities appear to be anxious for its passage, I vote against the motion to indefinitely postpone. I vote "no."
The vote was then announced as above.
So the bill was indefinitely postponed.
On motion of Mr. BAILEY, the Constitution rule was suspended, and the bill [S. 271] prohibiting the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine was read the second time.
Mr FOULKE: I think we ought to hear from some physicians as to whether then articles are
injurious. I think there ought to be a provision that a man could sell oleomargarine as
oleomargarine it he desired. If
Mr. BAILEY: This bill was copied from the law in New York. It was beneficial to both consumers and manufacturers. This bill is intended to stop an imposition upon the board upon the boarding public. If we simply say that nothing but genuine butter can be sold, it will be what the people demand.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph: I can hardly see how any law could be passed to prohibit the sale of anything unless it was shown to be injurious.
Mr. OVERSTREET: As I am in favor of prohibiting the sale of anything that is injurious — be it whisky or oleomargine — I am in favor of this bill.
Mr CAMPBELL: As no data has been given showing that this was injurious, and not knowing
The bill passed by yeas 40, nays 5
Mr. FOULKE, of Wayne, introduced a resolution indorsing the sentiments contained in the following extract from the inaugural address of President Cleveland in regard to civil service, and pledging unqualified support in the enforcement of the principle so declared:
The people demand reform in the administration of the Government and the application of business principles to public affairs. AS a means to this end civil service reform should be in good faith enforced. Our citizens have the right to protection from the incompetency of public employes who hold their places solely as the reward of partisan service, and from the corruptive influence of those who promise and the vicious methods of those who expect such rewards; and those who worthily seek public employment have thought to insist that merit and competency shall be recognized instead of party subserviency or the surrender of honest political belief in the administration of a Government pledged to do equal and exact justice to all men.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings co., moved to amend by adding the words, "and we concur in the sentiment of the whole message," which was accepted by Mr Foulke.
Mr. WILLARD then offered a substitute as follows:
Resolved, That we heartily concur in the sentiments expressed in the inaugural address of President Cleveland.
Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be forwarded to the President.
The substitute was adopted by a vote of 29 to 11.
The bill [H. R. 299] to provide for building, loan fund and savings associations coming up as a special order —
Mr. McINTOSH called attention to a proviso in Section 4, which seems to declare forfeited money paid in because the whole subscription is not paid in; also, in Section 12, providing for further forfeitures.
Mr. MAGEE understood Section 4 to mean that the money paid in was to be held as a sort of security for the payment of installments, but did not think a forfeiture would work without proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph: This bill comes under almost all objections to a usury bill; besides, preferred stockholders may hold 90 per cent of the stock. Then these corporations may hold almost unlimited property. A cursory glance at the bill indicates that it should receive a careful consideration. This seems to be, boiled down, vicious legislation.
Mr. HILLIGASS: There is a similar law on our statute books, commencing with Section 3,407 of the code. This bill gives a greater latitude than the present law. There can be no forfeiture except by a borrower. The bill gives the association the right to loan to outsiders, and does not interfere with the law as it now stands. He had known many men to acquire homes with the aid of these associations by paying but a little more than rent would cost for five, sir or seven years There can be no injustice growing out of this bill, but it would be productive of good.
Mr. DAVIS: I am very strongly in favor of the building and loan association law as it stands. This bill is not subject to the criticism made by the Senator from St. Joseph. These associations never charge more interest than the law allows But there are such serious objections to this bill I can not support it. It proposes some radical changes, to which I am opposed. The section proposing to make preferred stockholders is all wrong. There also are objections to Section 4
Mr. OVERSTREET: It is said the present law has worked well and done much good; then why not leave it alone? This bill prescribes that no premiums shall be deemed usurious. It is a dangerous bill, and ought not to pass
Mr. WINTER has been a manager of Building Association for many years, and by the aid of such associations many have acquired homes who otherwise would not have homes. This bill is an insidious effort to convert such associations from their legitimate purposes by allowing the managers to reap a rich harvest from outsiders. There is no wrong about it under the present law, but this bill would allow usurious interest of the worst kind. As now operated they may be called the poor man's bank. Under this bill a small minority of the stockholders would have all the profits, with but few exceptions.
The bill was rejected by yeas 7, nays 36.
On motion by Mr. McCLURE the bill [H. R. 119] in relation to the removal of obstructions from public highways, was read the second and third times under dispensation of the constitutional rule by aye and nay vote, and finally passed by yeas 37, nays 0.
The bill [H. R. 151] for the incorporation of building, loan fund and savings associations, a special order, was read the third time.
Mr. BAILEY: There has been no law upon our statute books that has done so much for the welfare of the people as this law. They encourage people to save their, earnings. In this city these associations have become more and more popular. They have built up hundreds of homes. They are managed so economically that the percentage of losses is exceedingly small. There would be no danger of making a continuous association. These associations have had an influence in lowering the rate of interest. Loans to persons outside of the associations have been allowed under the present law. Most of the associations receive only 6 per cent., while the law allows them 8 per cent
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph: As this bill now stands it is, in my mind, subject to great criticism. I see in it only a scheme to organize a corporation, with the power to have a million of dollars of stock, and under the name of premiums loan it at a usurious rate of interest, as it provides that loans may be made not only to stockholders, but to those outside, and premiums or bonus be taken as consideration for such loans being granted. There is no reason why such power of usury should be given to these associations any more than that such privileges should be given to savings banks. As the bill now stands it is vicious and dangerous
Mr. DAVIS: I believe the question has been fully discussed. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has decided that taking premiums for priority of loans is not usury. It has been decided this way in Indiana. The workings of these associations have been beneficial. The objection of their being associations with large capital is not valid, when we understand that the funds of the associations are put out in mortgages, small loans, etc.
Mr. WINTER: The contemplation of these associations is that, at first, the man who gets money from the association pays a high rate of interest, bat afterwards he receives a high rate of interest from the other borrowers; hence it would not be usurious Under the present law they can not loan their money to outsiders This bill provides that when the association can not loan to any of their members they can loan to outsiders at the legal rate of interest. This bill has been recommended by 250 loan associations of the State. The only capital the associations ever have is the weekly dues upon their shares. This bill provides that the loans shall only be at the legal contract rate. The provisions in the existing law in regard to holding property is not changed. Members desire some time to take out shares in favor of their children. We have no savings banks; our laws proved an utter failure in regard to them. These associations act as savings banks.
Mr. FOULKE, by consent, amended the bill so that loans to outsiders shall not be at more than the legal rate.
Mr. BAILEY: I am satisfied that the only purpose of this bill would be to make straight loans.
Mr. THOMPSON: I believe the spirit of fairness has always been exercised in these associations. None of the members of the associations have spoken against them.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph: Since the bill is amended so that loans to who are not stockholders shall not be at more than legal rates, and with no premiums, the great objection which I saw in the bill is largely removed.
The bill passed by yeas 38, nays 0.
The Lieutenant Governor laid before the Senate the veto of the Militia bill. [8. 88] The message is as follows:
GENTLEMEN OF THE SENATE - Senate bill No. 88, "an act supplemental to an act entitled 'an act for the organization and regulation of the Indiana militia,'" was presented to me yesterday, March 5, 1885 for my approval, which is respectfully returned to the House in which it originated, with my objections. While I recognize the importance of some additional legislation looking to a more perfect organization of the militia of the State and the necessity of the State extending, by proper appropriation, aid for its support yet, I am constrained to return this bill, on account of constitutional and other objections. The appropriations contained in the bill, and any authorized expenditure fron the military contingent fund, would, in my judgment, be insufficient to a practical and successful execution of the law. While the burden of taxation falls heavily upon our people, the financial condition of the State is not such as to warrant the outlay at the present, or in the future, necessary for such an organization of the militia of the State as contemplated by this act. If, however, I were to waive this objection, I still can not give my approval to the bill, on account of grave constitutional objections.
Section 53 of the act provides "that any member of the militia who shall fail to attend any drill, parade or encampment, or any other duty when ordered, shall be fined, and the commanding officer is authorized and directed, if such fine is not paid seven days after notice, to issue his warrant for the amount of the fine therein named, and deliver said warrant to the Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff, Town or City Marshal, or any Constable in the town or township where the delinquent resides, and suck warrant shall be levied upon the goods and chattels of the delinquent, and the amount therein named shall be collected wi hout relief from valuation, appraisement or exemption laws."
This is a very summary and arbitrary mode of collecting a fine, and, contrary to the spirit of our institutions, it makes no provision for either a Judge jury or trial. It makes the judgment of the officer final and denies the right of the delinquent to the benefits of the laws accorded to all in other cases.
Section 50 provides "that any person who shall fail, refuse or neglect to deliver
and return the books, blanks, arms or equipments or other military property, to the
person to whom the same has been legally entrusted, shall be deemed guilty of a
misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, may be fined in any sum not less than twice
the
Section 50 provides "that any member of the organization who shall conduct himself in a disorderly manner, incite any riot or tumult, or shall be guilty of drunkenness, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be liable to a fine not exceeding $50 or be imprisoned in the county jail not exceeding ten days, at the discretion of the court or jury trying the offender, said fines named in this and preceding section of this act to be imposed collected and paid to the treasury of the county to which delinquent or offender belongs, for the use and benefit of such company."
Section 60 further provides "that for any violations of its provisions the offender shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined in any sum not more than $200, or may be imprisoned in the jail of the county where such offender resides for not more than six months, or either, or both, at the discretion of the Court or jury trying the same, such punishment to be enforced by indictment or information in the name of the State of Indiana, in the Circuit Court of the county where the offender may reside."
It is further provided in Section 65 "that for any violation of the provisions thereof the offender shall be deemed guilty of misdemeanor, and, upon conviction, may be fined in any sum not exceeding $500 and confined in the county jail for a term not exceeding six months; and on violating the provisions of Section 64, shall be fined in any sum not less than $5 nor more than $20." And Sections 3, 4 and 52 provide "that any violation thereof shall be a misdemeanor and punished by fine."
Section 72 provides "that all fines and penalties for any violation of this act except as otherwise "specially provided, shall be paid to the Treasurer of the county in which such fines and penalties are assessed, and shall be paid by the County Treasurer to the Treasurer of State at the time such officer makes his annual settlement, and such sums of money so realized shall be by the Treasurer of State set apart as a portion of the military fund of the State for the sole use and benefit of the active militia of the State, to be paid out and expended on the order of the Governor"
In my opinion, the disposition sought to be made of the money realized from the fines in the foregoing sections divests the same from the common school fund to a military fund, and is contrary to the provisions of Section 2, Article 8, of the Constitution. It is provided in said section 2, Article 8 of the Constitution, "that all fines assessed for benefits of the penal laws of the State shall constitute a part of the common school fund."
For the foregoing reasons, and others that might be given, I can not give my sanction to the bill. It is not conspicuous for brevity; it contains seventy-five sections and its extreme length has prevented me from giving it a more extended review.
Mr. FOULKE moved to postpone the consideration of the veto message until to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock
The motion was rejected.
On motion of Mr. DAVIS it was ordered that the message be spread at large upon the journals.
Mr WINTER: I think the Constitution does not contemplate immediate action upon a veto. [Reads.]
Mr. WILLARD moved the Senate take up the consideration of the Governor's veto and demanded the previous question.
The demand was seconded by the Senate, and under its operations the motion was agreed to by yeas 21, nays 20
Mr. FOULKE believed the objections of the Governor would have weight with the Senate, and
the proper way to treat the message is to refer the bill to the
Mr. WILLARD insisted the previous question goes to the question "shall the bill pass the objections of the Governor to the contrary?"
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. McCullough in the chair) decided that the operation of the previous question had been exhausted.
Mr. SMITH, of Jenning. objected to the bill being referred to the
The demand was seconded by the Senate, and under its operation the notion to refer was rejected by yeas 16, nays 26.
The Senate sustained the vote of the Governor by yeas 6, nays 35.
Mr. CAMPBELL of Hendricks, when his name was called, said: I voted for this bill
believing that in a certain emergency it would do great service in preserving the peace. I
understood that the bill had been prepared by those competent and interested in the
measure, and had no reason to doubt its constitutionality. I gave little attention to the
details; the main provision of the bill was all I had in mind I am constrained to believe
and do believe that the Governor's objections are valid, and that certain parts of the
bill are unconstitutional. While I voted to refer the bill to the
Mr. JOHNSON, of Tippecanoe, in explanation ot his vote, said: I was in favor of the passage of this bill, but, believing the objections of the Governor valid I vote "no."
Mr MARSHALL: I voted for the bill, believing it to be a just one and believing that the
people of the State desired that the militia of our State should stand alone side of the
militia of Ohio and Illinois. I suppose, however, the Governor has examined the
constitutionality of the bill very closely, and should be
Mr. OVERSTREET: The Democratic Senators on this floor, who were the especial champions of the bill, seem to abandon it in its time of need. I do not know whether it is a constitutional measure or not, but as I give a great deal of weight to the opinions of the Governor, I vote "no."
Mr. WILLARD when his name was called, said: I am still in favor of a good militia, and the only reason that I now vote against the passing of the bill over the Governor's veto is that I believe the present bill unconstitutional. I vote "no."
Mr. WINTER: The bill is a very lengthy one, and there was no discussion of its provisions in detail. I think the Governor's objections are well taken, and as we have no right to pass an unconstitutional law, I vote "no."
Mr. YOUCHE: I voted for this bill on its passage, and should a proper militia bill be brought up, I should vote for it. The arguments of the Governor are insuperable, and I feel it is my duty to vote against the bill. I vote "no."
The vote was then announced as above.
So the Senate refused to pass the bill over the objections of the Governor.
On motion by Mr. FOULKE, the bill [H. R. 400] to allow educational institutions to hold $500,000 in real estate was passed by yeas 31, nays 4
The Senate adjourned till to-morrow.
Mr. MOSIER introduced a concurrent resolution to authorize the payment of $650 to the proprietor of the Grand Hotel for rental of committee rooms. The resolution was adopted.
The Senate amendments to the joint resolution [H. R. 1] to amend the State Constitution in relation to the terms of county officers, were concurred in - yeas, 80; nays, 4
The Senate amendment to Mr. Best's bill [H. R 79] to fix the time for holding courts in the Thirty-fifth Judicial Circuit, was concurred in.
In the regular order of call of counties for bills on the third reading, the bill [S. 178] to pay to Mrs. May $10,000, was called up by Mr. Fisher.
The SPEAKER said the bill had been read but once, and it would go over for a third reading on the following day.
The bill [S. 61] to regulate the terms of office of County Commissioners was called up by Mr. Reiter and passed - yeas, - ; nays, - .
Mr. HELMS called up Mr. Pendleton's bill [H. R. 361] to allow John Martin a claim of $55,616.68 for brick work done on the Asylum for the Insane.
Mr. WILLIAMS opposed the claim. He did not believe that the State owed the money to
Martin. There is no testimony to show that this claim is a just one. It has been said here
that the reason that this should be paid was that a warrant had once been drawn for it.
This warrant was issued under Governor Williams. John Martin's first claim was not for
$45,000 but $10,000. He first presented his claim for $10,000, which was refused; he then
secured a warrant by a mandate. A compromise was finally made between Governor Porter and
Mr. Martin, and the suit was dismissed. This claim has been before the
Mr. BROWNLEE: I hope the time will soon come when there will be other means of a man securing claims against the State than here. If a man has a claim he must give it attention, and thus he brings down on his head the criticism of a lobbyist. I was a member of the sub committee to examine witnesses relative to this claim, and after an impartial and thorough investigation I must say that I believe that the claim is just. Long before Governor Porter became a member of this Insane Hospital Board, the members of it then favored it. It is a strange thing to me that a single voice in this Legislature should be raised against the payment of an honest debt. It is the truth that, Martin's first claim was $76,000, but it has been cut down to $46 000. John Martin had a contract in writing, signed by Hon. Thomas A. Hendricks and other members of the Insane Hospital Board. It is no imaginary bill, but is for work actually done.
Mr. GORDON: I occupy an opposite position on this from what I did two years ago. The gentleman from Knox (Mr. Williams) has referred to me. It was said to me this morning that if I would withdraw my amendments to the May claim that the gentleman from Knox would not speak against this claim.
Mr. WILLIAMS: And it was said to me this morning that if I would withdraw my opposition to the Martin claim the gentleman from Putnam (Mr. Gordon) would not oppose the May claim.
The SPEAKER: This is not the question under discussion. Honors are even. The gentleman from Putnam will proceed.
Mr. GORDON: The reason why I opposed
Mr PATTEN: I have been entertained by the learned gentleman from Putnam (Mr Gordon) We have been traveling along together for some time, but we have come too a parting place in the road. I do not believe that this claim is just - I believe like the gentleman from Putnam did two years ago. This investigation did not go far enough back into the records as I hoped that it would. They have not examined it upon the merits of the case. This contract is not, as claimed, a sufficient guaranty of the claim. You see this is written in a bold hand, and afterward interlined with a fine hand I do not believe that the Provincial Board, when this contract was signed, knew anything of these changes. They say these changes were made by Edwin May - but they never made that claim until he was dead and gone He was always opposed to this
Mr. BROWNING: If I thought that the State owed John Martin one cent I would vote cheerfully for this claim But I do not believe that the State owes him a cent The friends of the claim say that Governor Porter and others think the claim is just. Suppose they do. Does that make it so? If it is such an upright and honest claim, why did not Governor Porter, when he was in office, take steps to have it paid?
Mr. MOODY: I have no apology to offer for voting for this claim. Two years ago I made a thorough examination of this and found it to be what I believe a just claim. Because the claim is old is no proof against it It was squarely agreed by the State that if the suits against the State were dismissed the claims would be paid Where did the authori y come from that Governor Williams said the State did not owe this?
Mr. BROWNING: John W Graham told me that he heard Governor Williams say it
Mr. MOODY: So it is all hearsay testimony? Are you going to rely on that? Are you going home to your constituents with that sort of evidence? Even the gentlemen opposed to this claim say that John Martin is an honest man. If he is an honest man, then be would not file a claim that is not correct. It has been said that the claim grows larger with time. I defy any one to show where it has grown beyond the original $46,000. We agreed to pay this if the suit was dismissed. Are we to turn our backs upon that? The claim is due and the service baa been rendered.
Mr ROBINSON believed the claim unjust and that it should not be allowed. He demanded the previous question.
The House seconded the demand, and under its operations the bill failed to pass - yeas, 47; nays, 39.
Mr. SAYRE, explaining his vote, said: Two years ago two committees gave this thorough examination, and I was familiar with the testimony; because two able attorneys were employed to assist the Attorney General regarding these claims, and they, upon investigation, recommended withdrawing the suit on the ground that the claim was just, I vote "aye."
Mr BARGES: I, being Chairman of the
Mr. BEST: Two years ago I made a thorough study of the claim, and believed it honest. I have learned nothing to change my mind, so I vote "aye."
Mr. DEEM: Believing in the honesty of Governor Williams, John Fishback and others, who concluded the claim was unjust, I vote "no"
Mr. GOODING: I believe that Indiana should pay its honest debts. I am slow to support schemes of appropriating money, but believing this bill a just debt, viewing from every light, I vote "aye."
Mr. HANLON: Being a member of the
Mr. HARRELL: For the reason that have heard no testimony justifying the claim, I vote "no"
Mr. HOBAN: From what I can learn, taking the best testimony, I vote "aye."
Mr KELLISON: As one of a hundred jurymen I have heard no conclusive testimony one way or the other which merits conviction of the mind. All the testimony is from hearsay and fearing that to vote for it, on the meager testimony, I might regret it, I vote "no."
Mr. MOCK: I have given the bill considerable testimony and do not believe the claim is equitable. I vote "no."
Mr. MAUK: Believing that the measure is non partisan, and believing in the rule laid down by Mr. Browning that the claim, like Burboun, grows better with age I think it good enough to vote "aye."
Mr. McBROOME: As I do not know enough about it, and have been unable to learn, I would like to be counted among the absentees.
The SPEAKER: The gentleman must vote.
Mr. McBROOME: Then I vote "no."
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: The difference lies in the written and the unwritten rules as to the measurement. As the printed rules were adopted, I vote "aye."
Mr. TWINEHAM: For the reason that it is a plain contract I vote "aye."
Mr. WILLIAMS: I have never believed it just and do not now, therefore I vote "no"
Mr. WILSON: I voted for it two years ago under a misapprehension, and now I vote "no."
The vote was announced as above.
So the bill failed to pass.
Mr. PATTEN: I will again, in my modest way, move to take up the bill [H. R. 479], the Appropriation bill as a special order.
The motion was rejected - yeas, 33; nays, 54
The SPEAKER: I hope no further time will be wasted on these roll calls on this Appropriation bill It is evident the House does not intend to take it up.
Mr. Boyd's bill [H. R. 33] to amend an act authorizing County Commissioners to construct gravel roads on county lines was read the third time.
Mr. BROWNING: One of the leading journals here having stated that if we did not have a special session, it would not be my fault, and to show that the writer was honestly mistaken, I move the previous question.
Subsequently the demand was withdrawn.
Mr. MOCK said the bill was unobjectionable and should pass.
The bill passed - yeas, 80; nays, 2.
Mr. GORDON moved to amend the bill [S 178] allowing Mrs. Sarah May $10,000 for architect services by her late husband, the late Edwin, making the sum $4 000. He said he was not sure but $4 000 was too much.
Mr. WILLIAMS: After the gentleman from Putnam (Mr. Gordon) has secured testimony which says the just claim is $12,000, it looks bad for him to come up here and propose such an amendment.
On motion of Mr WILLIAMS the motion to amend was laid on the table - yeas, 57; nays, 33.
Mr. LOYD, explaining his vote, said: I am not in favor of giving even the $4,000, therefore I vote "aye"
Mr. GORDON moved to amend so as to divide the sum among the heirs. He said. The gentleman from Knox (Mr Williams) has stated that all the members of the State House Commission had stated the money was owing. The testimony shows the contrary. This testimony shows that the State House Commissioners paid Mr. May $5,500 more than due him. The State doesn't owe Edwin May, Mrs. May or any of the May heirs a cent, but if the money is to be paid, let it be given to the proper persons. It has been stated here that the May broker had assigned all their claims to Mrs. May. I have here a letter from E. F. May, who denies this I desire to have it read as a part of my remarks
The SPEAKER: If the gentleman will vouch for its genuineness he may have it read.
Mr GORDON: I can not do that, of course.
The SPEAKER: Then the letter can not be read.
Mr. TAYLOR: It the gentleman will allow me a suggestion, I will say that I have seen a letter from two of the May heirs substantiating the assignment of the claims to Mrs. May, and their signatures by a gentleman who, I believe - Mr. Herrod.
Mr. GORDON: General Morrs and General Nelson both declare that they believe that Edwin May was fully paid.
Mr. WILLIAMS: I think this procedure is unfair at this very late day - for the reason that it is too late to be sent back to other end of the Capitol. So far as claims against Indiana are concerned, this is the only tribunal for claimants against the State
Mr. BROWNING: Do you on your honor as a lawyer, say that the whole claim should be paid alone to Mrs. May?
Mr. WILLIAMS: I do, because I have here a communication to the Senate from the May heirs assigning their claims to Mrs. May.
On motion of Mr. WILLIAMS the amendment was laid on the table.
Mr. HARRELL moved to amend that the money be paid to the administrator of the May estate
On motion of Mr DITTEMORE the amendment was laid upon the table.
Mr. GOODING moved to amend that the allowance be $6,000 instead of $10,000.
On motion of Mr HARRELL, the amendment was laid on the table - yeas, 54; 30.
Mr. BROWNING moved to strike out the enacting clause: I don't believe that a dollar of the claim is just; and I want to bring this thing to a direct vote. We should not dally with it longer. We can not afford to give Mrs. May $10,000, or $6 000, any more than we can make such a present to any other needy woman.
Mr. MOODY: While the State House Commissioners say in a general way that nothing is due, yet take up their statements page by page, item by item, and you will find that they declare that the money should be paid to Mrs. May.
On motion of Mr. McMULLEN the motion to strike out the enacting clause was laid on the table.
Mr. GOODING, when his name was called, asked to be passed until the end of the roll-call.
The SPEAKER: The rules say that a member shall vote when called.
Mr. GOODING: I would like to ask the Speaker why I am thus singled out.
The SPEAKER: The gentleman is not singled out and is out of order. How does he vote?
Mr. GOODING: Will the Speaker say why I am singled out.
The SPEAKER: The gentleman must vote.
Mr. GOODING: I am ready and vote "aye;" but I want to know why the Speaker singles me out for this rule.
Mr. OSBORN, explaining his vote, said as a doubt existed in his mind as to the justice of the claim, he would give the State the benefit of the doubt and vote "no."
The vote was then announced as above.
So the motion was laid on the table.
Mr. WILLIAMS moved that the bill be passed to a third reading.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. HELMS called up the bill [S 361] appropriating $55 616 68 to John Martin, which bill was in the forenoon defeated for want of a constitutional majority.
The bill passed - yeas, 57; nays, 36
The Home adjourned until 9 o'clock tomorrow morning.
On motion of Mr. BRYANT the resolution [H. R. 13 - see page 222] proposing an amendment to the Constitution increasing the regular term of the General Assembly from sixty to 100 days, and the extra from forty to fifty days, was taken up. Amendments were offered to substitute a fixed salary for members in place of per diem.
Mr. WINTER moved to pay members $300, payable quarterly.
Mr. WILLARD moved to amend the amendment by making it $500. He said: I believe the salary
should be commensurate with the length of the session The State of New York pays her
representatives $1,500 Every time that a fee and salary bill bill is attempted to be passed
we find protests against it. I state that the average salary of the four principal offices
in every county in the State is not less
Mr. FOULKE: I don't think a man ought to become a member of the Legislature for the purpose of making money. In the English Parliament there is no money paid the members. There ought to be enough paid to the members to pay expenses and enable a poor man to come to the Legislature just as well as a rich man. I think that $300 will be sufficient to pay the probable expenses of any man who chooses to live with reasonable economy. We ought not to exclude a poor, deserving man from the Legislature on account of the expenses.
Mr. MAGEE: To pay legislators the pitiable sum of $300 would serve to procure the cheapest class of legislators Men would come here with no experience Men of experience could not afford to leave their business and come here to legislate. Every other State pays their legislators differently. I think that resolution ought to fix the salary at $1,000 or $1,500 a year.
Mr. McCLURE: I generally stand opposed to all amendments to the Constitution. I think that sixty days is a sufficient time for us to legislate in behalf of the interests of the State, if, after we come up here, we attend to our business and accomplish it in the shortest time. My first experience in the Legislature was under the old Constitution, when the Democratic party came in under retrenchment and reform. By a joint resolution at that time we limited ourselves to six weeks of legislation, and we accomplished as much as we do now. At that time we received only $3 a day.
Mr. JOHNSON of Tippecanoe: I think it would be proper to make the compensation $600 for the two years, payable at the time of the Legislature. It would enable the legislators to pay for their expenditures while here.
The amendment to the amendment was rejected by yeas 19 nays 24.
Mr. DRAKE, in explanation of his vote said: I am opposed to the amendment and
M. McCULLOUGH: I am opposed to amending the Constitution. But if we are compelled to sit 100 days and then be called to sit fifty days more, I think $500 is about right.
Mr. McINTOSH: I am opposed to the amendments and resolution. The people will vote this resolution down. I vote "no."
Mr RAHM: I am in favor of the constitutional amendment lengthening the session to 100 days. I was a member of the session of 1881 end we sat 101 days and then did not get through with the business I vote "no."
Mr. SELLERS: I am in favor of the resolution and amendments. Senators say all necessary legislation may be passed in sixty days but it has not been done. I believe the passage of the resolution will save the people of the State more money than the entire expense incurred by it. The matters will be more fully considered, and it will not be necessary to hurry through immature bills. I believe that the people will ratify these amendments and adopt them. I think everybody believes that the time is too short. I know from experience that the salary received will not pay the expenses of the members of the Legislature. I vote "aye."
Mr. SMITH, of Jay: I intend to vote for this amendment because I think that $500 is small enough even if this resolution is adopted.
Mr. WILLARD: Since 1852 the population of the State has more than doubled and the business of the State has more than multiplied ten times. We enacted the Constitution of 1852 for a comparatively pioneer people. We now find ourselves toward the close of the nineteenth century with diversified industries, sitting only sixty days in two years. Other Legislatures sit three, four, five and six months. From 1861 to the present time no General Assembly has a General Appropriation bill in sixty days. It is false economy to continue in session only sixty days. I vote "aye."
The vote was then announced as above.
An ineffectual motion was made to lay the amendment (Mr. Winter's) on the table.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St Joseph, moved to amend the amendment by inserting $400 for $300, payable annually. He said: There is a certain amount of gush that causes some men desire to work without a sufficient compensation. There is not a Senator upon this floor who has any valuable business but what absolutely loses money in the neglect of his business.
On motion by Mr. HILLIGASS the resolution and amendments were indefinitely postponed by yeas 28, nays 15.
On motion by Mr. WILLARD, it was ordered that the special orders, as they appear on the President's desk [the bills S. 235 267, H. R. 222, 412 S. 94 H. R. 93 H. J. R. 14, S. 175, H. R. 47, S 305, and H. R 80], be taken up and disposed of.
On motion by Mr. BAILEY, the bill S. 336 was made the special order as soon as the order just made is exhausted.
The bill [H. R. 235] to amend Section 1.441 Revised Statutes, was read the second time, and on motion by Mr. WINTER, the constitutional rule was suspended, the bill was read the third time and passed, by yeas 35, nays 2.
The bill [H. R. 222, see pp. 229, 251, 300] to abolish the office of Ditch Commissioner, a special order coming up -
On motion of Mr, McCULLOUGH, the Senate resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole (Mr McCullough in the chair) for the consideration of the bill.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks, moved that the committee rise, as it is too late in the session to take final action on this bill, and recommend to the Senate that it lie on the table.
Mr. WILLARD moved to lay that motion on the table.
Mr YOUOHE: No statute needs action more urgently than the drainage law, but it is too late in the session now, and since this needs careful attention, I think we had better postpone it.
Mr. MAGEE: With some amendments to the old law, we would have a suitable law in regard to drainage. In our county the old law has operated beneficially. I want to know how we can intelligently act upon this long bill before the close of this session of the Legislature. I favor the motion of the Senator from Hendricks.
Mr. SELLERLS: There is no radical change in the law proposed by this bill.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks: It would be a radical change in the law to allow the majority to control the ditching. The minority might be drowned out at any time. I think the result would be that the majority might defeat a good object. I doubt very much whether any Senator has read the bill through.
Mr BROWN: I think that the majority of the people affected demand a change in the obnoxious ditch law.
Mr. WILLARD: The law is iniquitous as it stands, but shall we pass this measure and let it go back to the House amended in a hurried way, or shall we lay it on the table and take it up at a special session? The absolute necessity of an appropriation bill has been shown during the past two years, and we will have to have an extra session.
Mr. MARSHALL: I am not in favor of going home without giving the people relief in this matter. I will vote to lay it on the table, and will insist on taking it up at some other time when a better opportunity for careful consideration shall offer.
Mr. HILLIGASS: This bill has been before the House Committee for weeks, and it now comes to the Senate proposing but a few amendments to the present law; and if the Senate can take the responsibility of establishing a just law it will meet the approbation of the House. I think we can safely pass upon this bill as it comes from the House, and with the Senate amendments proposed it will be acceptable to the House
Mr. OVERSTREET: It is immaterial when this bill is considered. It is astonishing to see how this measure is pushed upon the Senate. My people are afraid we will change a good law. If it is forced upon us I want to be heard at length upon the question.
On motion of Mr. WILLARD the committee rose, reported progress, and asked and obtained leave to sit at 2 o'clock.
Mr. FOULKE moved to suspend the regular order of business to enable him to introduce a general Appropriation bill. He said: As yet the appropriation bill has not been taken up in the House I think we ought to do the best we can to have the Appropriation bill passed I should dislike to have a collision between the two branches, but unless something is done the bill will not pass and we will have to have a special session I believe the blame ought to rest where it belongs
Mr. WILLARD: By passing on this bill we would do so without knowing whether it is
economical or not. We would have to rush the bill through in order to get it to the House
in time. I believe the passage of the Appropriation bill would not avoid the necessity of
an extra
Mr. YOUCHE: It seems to me that the manner this bill has been treated by members of the House would relieve us from any scruples we may have upon the subject of considering the bill before they do. I do not believe in dictating to them, but I do not believe in their dictating to us. We have the plain constitutional right to consider and pass the Appropriation bill. I hope the motion will prevail.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay: There was under consideration, when the Senate adjourned, a bill of great importance, and I hope this motion will not prevail.
The motion was agreed to by yeas 21, nays 20.
Mr. FOWLER, in explanation of his vote, said: I don't understand that there is any politics in this matter. The House of Representatives had ample time to prepare and pass an appropriation bill, and they did not do so, and it seems to me they are not going to do so; therefore I vote "aye."
Mr. MAGEE: I desire to explain my vote. There is no man on this floor less desirous of a
special session than myself, I think, as far as the Senate is concerned, we have done as
much work as is usually done during a period of sixty days. Not only if the Appropriation
bill necessary to be passed, but it is absolutely necessary to make a provision for the
State House fund or work on that building will have to suspend. That bill has been
introduced and been in the hands of the
Mr. McCULLOUGH: I deprecate the idea of a special session, but I feel that the passage of this bill would not in any way tend to prevent that. If the taking up and considering this bill would secure its passage through both Houses, I would cheerfully vote for it, but it is utterly impossible for us to properly pass through this House a general appropriation bill. We ought to have more time than one day to pass it, and we do not and could not expect the House to pass it this session. If there must be a special session on account of the failure of an appropriation bill, this Senate can not void it. And if there is not to be a special session, this Senate ought not to pass the balance of this day in a useless attempt to pass an appropriation bill. To spend time in considering this bill in order to send it to the House would be to spend time uselessly.
Mr. McINTOSH: I have a word to pay in explanation of my vote. It is a very strange proceeding that some Senator should claim this morning lack of time to consider the Drainage bill, and say we hadn't time to give that attention and care that should be given to a bill like that, and then vote to take up a tedious appropriation bill without having it printed. I have not the slightest idea that the House would act upon this bill even if we did send it to them. Believing that some Senators desire to get some little "buncombe" out of the motion,I will support them in it, and vote "aye" to see how much they can make out of it.
Mr. SELLERS, when his name was called, said: I believe if we took up this bill and spend the afternoon on it, we would but waste that much of the people's time, therefore I vote "no."
Mr. SHIVELY: Believing it a waste of time to suspend the rules I vote "no"
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings: I believe that
Mr SMITH, of Delaware: I desire to assign a reason for the vote I shall cast as it will be against a majority of my political friends on this question I do not consider that the introduction of an Appropriation bill here will enable us to pass it. It will simply occupy time I am not in favor of establishing the precedent of allowing an Appropriation bill to originate in the Senate I do not believe since the organization of the Indiana Legislature an Appropriation bill has ever originated in the Senate, and being unwilling to assist in establishing a precedent, I vote "no."
The vote was announced as above.
So the motion was agreed to and accordingly -
Mr. FOULKE introduced a bill [S. 347] to make general appropriations to carry on the State Government
[A message announced that the House reused to concur in Senate amendment to the bill [H. R 400] authorizing colleges and universities to hold real estate, and thereupon, on motion of Mr. Day, the Lieutenant Governor appointed Messrs Day and Davis as a committee on the part of the Senate]
On motion of Mr. MAGEE the Senate resolves itself into a Committee of the Whole [Mr. Magee in the chair] to consider the Appropriation bill. [S 347]
Mr WILLARD moved to postpone the consideration of the Appropriation bill until Monday morning at 10 o'clock.
Mr. HILLIGASS: I am in favor of this motion. The truth is this bill is introduced in the Senate for the purpose of a little cheap notoriety - a little buncombe. We have carried the Senator along far enough with this Appropriation bill; now we ought to sit down upon it and go to business.
The motion was agreed to.
On motion by Mr. WILLARD the committee rose and the Chairman reported to the Senate the recommendation of the Committee of the Whole that the further consideration of the bill S. 347 be postponed till Monday at 10 o'clock.
The report was concurred in by yeas 30, nays 10.
On motion of Mr. SMITH, of Jay, the Senate resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole for the consideration of the bill [H. R. 222 - see pages 251, 300] the Senate had under consideration before the recess for dinner, the question being on the motion of Mr. Campbell, of Hendricks, that the committee rise, report progress, and recommend that the bill lie on the table.
Mr YOUCHE: This has been called a Surveyor's bill, and I believe it is a Surveyor's bill. In order to amend the bill it will have to be materially changed
Mr CAMPBELL, of Hendricks: I know of no case of hardship that amounted to a real hardship There is no reason why courts can not enforce the present law with right amendments and harm no one We are in great danger of doing injustice to many by hasty action on this last day of the session in the afternoon. Therefore, I think the consideration of this bill ought to be postponed
Mr. SELLERS: I hope the motion will not prevail. Nearly all this bill is a copy of the old law - the amendments proposed are few and easily understood.
Mr. DRAKE: This bill remodels this subject. It will change the method of commissioners, of remonstrances and the form of trial and the number of commissioners. It would be wrong to place in the hands of a jury decisions on points of facts.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph: I shall have to vote for laying this bill on the table. If I
believed this was the last day I would vote to take up this bill. The people of my county
desire some few amendments to the drainage law. The law that we now have has done so much
good work that I am afraid to go
The motion was rejected.
Pending the reading of the bill -
On motion by Mr. SELLERS the Committee rose, reported progress, and asked and obtained leave to sit again at 9:30 o'clock Monday morning.
On motion by Mr. SMITH of Jennings, his bill [S. 2 - see page 54] to repeal the alien land act of 1881, was substituted for the bill H. R. 13 - see page 127 - and finally passed under a dispensation of the constitutional rule by yeas 42, nays 10.
Mr. DAY, from the
Mr. YOUCHE: If this law is passed there is no power granted that they have not now.
A motion to concur in the report of the committee was rejected by yeas 18, nays 18.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings: I do hope the report will not be concurred in. The power
Mr. WILLARD: This bill proposes to create a real estate monopoly among universities. If the bill provided for the university to acquire real estate only by devise no one would support it more heartily than myself. But it proposes to create a real estate monopoly among the universities of the State I agree with the statement that it is a vicious measure.
Mr. FOULKE: This bill creates no gigantic monopoly. It does not grant the land tn the universities forever. It allows them to hold real estate for only twenty years. If any future universities are organized for the purpose of making money, the power rests with the Legislature to restrain them. I demand the previous question.
The demand being seconded by the Senate, under its operation the report of the
On motion of Mr. MAGEE the constitutional rule was suspended and the bill [H. R. 412] regulating presentation of claim against counties was read twice and passed by yeas 34, nays 4.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings, in behalf of Mr McClure, moved to reconsider the vote by which the Senate rejected the bill [S. 293] regulating ferry fares.
Mr. DAY resisted the motion, as there was a ferry company in his town which asked for the passage of the bill.
Pending the discussion of the bill -
The Senate adjourned till Monday morning, 9 o'clock.
The House proceeded to consider the bill [S 45 - see pp. 195, 257, 275] to create Appellate Courts
Mr. GOODING: I desire to say something on the amendment. The bill provides that the Governor shall appoint three Judges from each of the three circuits of the State, and that one of the Judges of each circuit shall be of opposite politics from the other two. The pending amendment is to strike out that one provision. The amendment says we shall not dictate to the Governor. When the Republicans were in power they never thought of giving a Democrat an office, but now that they are going out they propose to divide the offices with us. If the Republican party was in power now it would not make such a provision for Governor Porter. They never did it. They did not in twenty years put a Democrat on the Supreme Bench of the United States. Then why should we favor them?
In regard to the Board of Commissioners for building the Asylums for the Insane, some Democrats were put on, but that was done in order to carry it through the Legislature. Why should we dictate to Governor Gray in this matter? Are there Democrats or Republicans afraid to trust him? I am not in favor of the Governor making the appointment at all, but I have confidence that if he does it, he will do it right. The Democratic party is pledged to civil service reform - reforming the Republicans out and reforming the Democrats in Turn out the Republican dudes - clean out the Augean stable. The time has come for Democrats - they have walked through the wilderness for twenty-five years. If we are to divide the judges our Greenback friends should have a chance. They are far better than Republicans. Even the St John party might be remembered.
The SPEAKER (calling Mr French to the Chair) took the floor and said: This bill provides
that the Governor shall appoint one Judge of opposite party - not that he shall appoint
Democrat, Republican or any party man When it comes to the election of these Judges then
the question of party in this bill has nothing to do with it In practice I am a Democrat,
but here we are creating new offices and who says that if an election were to be held
to-day that all of the nine would be chosen from the Democratic party? People often break
from the party shackles. They did so when Thomas A. Hendricks was elected over Thomas M.
Browne, when the remainder of the Republican ticket was chosen. So in the case of Milton B.
Hopkins. The Supreme Court consists of four Democrats and one Republican. The proposed
Appellate Court would make legislation cheaper, safer and speedier, and its provisions were
eminently judicious and proper. He allowed no man to surpass himself in fidelity to his
party, but he did not believe in carrying partisanship to the bench. The Democrats could
not afford to say that the Republicans, with a vote of 240,000 in the State, should not
have a representative in such a court. He was glad to
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: I believe that the gentleman from Hancock (Mr. Gooding) aims to kill this bill by his amendment. When he charges the Republicans with always throwing away everything else for party's sake he makes a statement that is false in all particulars. The gentleman from Hancock is a political flea - when you put your finger on him he isn't there. Whenever, by political trickery or machinations, you make your courts partisan, that act is certain to be rebuked. I never asked, in voting for a Circuit Judge, about his politics. When I do I hope my constituents will keep me at home.
Mr. BROWNING: I favor the amendment for the reason that the bill is a direct insinuation against Governor Gray. I do not favor the amendment as Mr. Gooding does - for party reasons. The bill itself makes the Court partisan. It is a direct insult to the Governor. I favor civil service reform - not to turn competent Republicans out of office, but I do not favor putting more Republicans in. I do not see that we have use for this court anyway. Another thing against the bill is that men are leaving high places to lobby for it.
On motion of Mr. McMULLEN, the amendment was laid on the table - yeas, 65, nays, 27.
Mr. KELLISON (explaining his vote) said: Believing that the courts should be kept non-partisan, and believing that Governor Gray or any other Governor would appoint one man of opposite politics, but to relieve Governor Gray of the weight of partisanship, I vote "aye."
Mr. MURPHY (when his name was called) said: Believing that the Democrats should have a spirit of fairness, I vote "aye."
Mr. PASSAGE: My understanding of civil service reform is that civil Republicans should go out and civil Democrats go in, but as I think courts should be non-political, I vote "aye."
Mr PATTEN: The inducement to allow the Governor to appoint whom he chooses compels me to vote "no," and for the farther reason that there are enough good Democrats for the Judgeships.
Mr. STALEY: It a layman may be allowed to be speak on a question touching the State judiciary, I will say that, out of all deference to the gentleman from Hancock, I am not in favor of this amendment. I am willing to accept the bill just as it came from the Senate. I believe the nearer we can come making this Appellate Court as proposed to be formed, non-partisan, the better it will be. When our higher State Courts are composed in part of men from different political parties, the people generally have) more confidence in the decision of such courts. I think the people of the State favor the bill as it now is. I vote "aye."
The vote was then announced as above.
So the amendment was laid on the table.
The bill was ordered to the third reading.
The
The report of the committee was concurred in - yeas, 56; nays, 27.
Mr. DEBS: I move now that the claims be allowed.
The SPEAKER: I see that many have voted under a misapprehension. The roll will be called again.
Mr. LOYD: As one affected by this claim, I will say that I served on two or three
important committees and did besides 120 hours of extra work on this
Mr. BOYD: For the same reason I withdraw mine.
The
Mr. DITTEMORE made an ineffectual motion - yeas, 38; nays, 47 - that the report of the committee be laid on the table.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe, explaining: For the reason that the Commissioners of the Insane Asylums are not paid only for actual work, and for the reason these men were compelled to appear and be examined on this I vote "no."
Mr. TAYLOR: It has been said in the Good Book, which I believe has been referred to here once or twice, that Barrabas was a robber. As I do not choose to put myself alongside of him, I vote "no."
On motion these claims were recommitted to the committee with instructions to strike out those who are in the regular employ of of the State.
Mr. TAYLOR made an ineffectual motion - yeas, 38; nays, 57 - that the General Appropriation bill be made a special order for this afternoon at 2 o'clock.
Mr. PASSAGE, explaining his vote, said: As I am here in the interest of my constituents, who have important measures here, and as the Republicans have had the courage to spurn those who have undertaken to set themselves up as thinking machines, I hope Democrats will have like courage with me and vote "no."
Mr. TAYLOR: I believe I have always voted for this measure. I do not impugn the motives
of any man, but I think we
The vote was then announced as above.
The House refused to concur in the Senate amendments to the bill [R R 400] to authorize colleges to hold real estate
On motion of Mr. STALEY a
Mr. MOCK moved to take up the bill [S. 338] regarding the Knightstown Institute. He said it would be a disgrace to close this session without removing the officials there who have disgraced the Home.
Mr. BOYD moved to substitute the bill [H. R. 527] on the same subject.
Mr. BROWNING opposed the motion. He would vote for the bill but he insisted on the regular order. If the Governor did not want to take the responsibility of calling a special session let the matter go.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: If the Governor chose to he could easily remove these two men who have disgraced that institution. All this effort to bring the matter up in this bill is political buncombe.
On motion of Mr. WILLIAMS, both motions were laid on the table.
On the call for bills on the third reading, Mr. FISHER called up the bill [S. 178] for the relief of Mrs. Sarah May.
Mr. McMULLEN: I think it proper and right that this money, if paid, should be paid to Mrs. May. Every man wants to vote on this case according to the evidence. You have called the witnesses, and had their evidence. Are you now going to throw off their testimony? We asked these witnesses what the State owed this for, and they said for the two extra plans Mr. May prepared and the percentage of the cost. The plans were to be the property of the State, and the State has them and has not paid for them.
Mr. MOCK: We made a contract with May that he was to make over to the State all his plans, and his price was paid. It was a square and fair contract. There is not a court or a jury in Christendom that would allow one nickel in this case.
Mr. FRENCH demanded the previous question. The demand was seconded by the House, and under its operations the bill passed - yeas, 53; nays 42
Mr. BARNES, explaining his vote, said that if the money were paid it should go to the estate so that it might pay debts, and as it did not, he voted "no."
Mr. BROWNING: Believing that not a dollar of it is due, in view of the sworn statements of the State House Commissioners, I vote "no."
Mr. COPELAND, in explanation of his vote, said: Inasmuch as I find from the sworn testimony of General Nelson, one of the State House Commissioners, the following: "Mr. May, I think, is equitably entitled to all of $10,000," and inasmuch as I find in the testimony of General Nelson and Professor Collett, another State House Commissioner, that the estate of Edwin May is entitled to more than $10 000, and that it is a just debt and ought to be paid, and for the further reason that I am opposed to repudiation, I vote "aye."
Mr. CORY: In view of this testimony of the State House Commissioners, which declares Mrs. May is entitled to $10,000 or more, I vote "aye."
Mr. ENGLE: It is the province of this House to analyze as a jury the testimony of these witnesses. We are to take testimony, and not opinion; so I vote "no."
Mr. FISHER: I have read the evident carefully, and I believe the estate of Edwin May is entitled to the money, and shall vote "aye."
Mr. GORDON: No member here has yet claimed this money is due under the contract, but that the money is equitably due. He who has equity must perform equity. If this money is given, it should be given to the children - or their share of it. To give it to her alone would be an inequity; therefore I vote against it "no."
Mr. HARRELL: I was not at first certain on this; but after an examination of the law, I came to the conclusion that if the money is paid it should be paid to the estate, that creditors might receive their due from it. If this money is paid to Mrs. May, it will not bar the creditors from filing claims against the State. I vote "no."
Mr. HAYDEN: On the principle that it is better that ninety-nine guilty men should escape than one innocent man should suffer; and although there may be no legal right to pay this claim, yet it does seem there if some claim in equity that it should be paid, and giving Mrs. May the benefit of the doubt, and believing it is better that the State should suffer rather than a widow be wronged, I vote "aye."
Mr. HELMS: For the reason that I this claim careful attention and investigation two years ago and voted for it, and as I have seen or heard nothing during the investigation of the claim this session to change my mind, therefore, believing that this is a just claim and ought to be paid, I vote "aye."
Mr. HOBAN: To give Mrs. May the benefit of the doubt, her husband being gone the way of all flesh, and not able to appear for himself, I vote "aye."
Mr. KELLISON: Because I believe, that May was paid all due him, because I think Indiana
should be just to the taxpayers rather than charitable to a woman, who, is said, stood as
"a ministering angel" beside her husband's death bed: because the money must
come from taxes of the laboring man and of the women who toil at the wash-
Mr. PATTEN: One infamy follows another on the floor of this House. The people's money is appropriated too lavishly. First $55,000, then another, and here, on a technical claim, it is proposed to give away $10,000. On what ground is it to be paid? Who says that it is legal? If this claim is passed I shall, if ever I have opportunity, offer a resolution that the State House Commissioners pay every claim from their fund and not come in here and say: "Well, it isn't exactly due, but pay it for equity." If allowed it would be allowed to the estate. I vote "no."
Mr. REEVES: Mr. Hendricks, attorney for Mrs. May, and Mrs. May herself claimed, as I heard myself, before a committee, that the only ground for the claim was that the State gained by the death of Edwin May; that by the ceasing of his plans money was saved. If the money is due it is due to the estate. This plea of equity is weak. I vote "no."
Mr. SEARS: For the reason that this claim has heretofore appeared before the Assembly and has been passed upon; because it has come before this session and has been carefully examined by a committee, who examined witnesses under oath, who testified that the lady is entitled to the claim; for the reason that the testimony of Professor Collett, who has been known from childhood as one of the most honest of our State's citizens, favors the bill; for the reason that I believe my constituents will bear me out in my action. I cast my vote "aye."
Mr. SMITH, of Warrick: As the testimony shows that there is not a dollar due, I vote "no."
Mr. STALEY: I yesterday thought that $6,000 was due, and I thought the other $4,000 was a gratuity. Yesterday we gave a man $55,000, which might be a steal. He was a man, and able to be here in his own behalf with a cloud of witnesses. My gallantry to a woman says that I shall stand by a woman. I vote "aye."
Mr. TWINEHAM: Because I think it should be paid to the estate I vote "no."
Mr. WILLIAMS: I wish to explain my vote. Each person with knowledge of the facts who testified on this question says this claim is just, due and unpaid. The public records of Marion County show that the creditors of Edwin May have been paid, and the administrator discharged. The statement of the children of Edwin May is on file in the State Senate, showing that they desire the money paid to the widow. The Legislature two years ago [See Acts of 1883, page 211] allowed the claim. It is a just claim, and Mrs. May is the proper person to whom it should be paid. Therefore I vote "aye."
So the bill passed on the vote given above.
On the regular order of reading bills the third time, Mr. Gooding called up the bill [S. 43 - see page 173] regarding civil rights of citizens.
Mr. GOODING: The purport of this bill is that all persons shall enjoy the accommodations of public places - not private families. It is a complete civil rights bill, but does not change the law preventing intermarriage. It gives a person refused public accommodations on account of color the right to sue, or if they do not sue, the man thus discriminating may be prosecuted under the criminal laws. It seems that the colored man has his rights, but they feel that they are discriminated against. It will be policy to pass it.
Mr. TOWNSEND: The gentleman says it is policy. Is it not justice?
Mr. GOODING: Right is always policy.
Mr. TOWNSEND: Not always.
The bill passed by yeas 81, nays 0.
Mr. BARNEY, in explaining his vote, said: I was reared to think that to give this right would be to send the country to the devil; but I left that opinion behind when I crossed the Ohio. I vote "aye."
Mr. BROWNING: Wanting to give to the colored man what a Republican Supreme Court denied them, I vote "aye."
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: Because this act is abreast of the spirit of the age, and because the author of this bill was once one of the grand Republican party, and in it was baptized into these great principles, and because the gentleman (Gooding) who championed it on this floor for a little while, went in and out within, and spoke lovingly of Lincoln and his great confreres, and in memory of the two companies of the Fifty-fourth and Fifty-fifth Regiments of Volunteers, who could not under the Democratic laws of Indiana enlist, were compelled to seek their country's service in another State, and went down in the terrible charge at Fort Wagner, where the storm and smoke and fire became their beacon and glory flame, and because it seems that our Democratic friends are joining in a millennium shout, and feeling that at the close of the roll call we should teach our opponents the grand strains of the doxology: "Praise God from Whom all blessings flow, Praise Him all creatures here below," etc.; therefore, Mr. Speaker, I vote "aye."
The SPEAKER: I hope Democrats will remember that.
Mr. SMITH, of Warrick, when his name was called, said: As a matter of justice I vote "aye."
Mr. TAYLOR: I believe in exact justice. I am glad to see the race lines disappear. If
these people are
Mr. TOWSEND: I regret, sir, that the public sentiment of this State has been, and is
still so perverted, that it became necessary
The fact is, sir, that these infamous proscriptions stand at the gateway of every avenue to intercept the the colored man, and to prevent his entrance. What has the negro done that he should be thus treated? He is not an incubus on society. Colored people do not augment your pauper element. They are in the main law abiding. They are purely American. They accept at once your civilization, your education, and your Christianity. Your tastes, habits and customs are ours. Physiologically we are the same, the degrees of development only show a distinction; with equal chances we are equal. As citizens, we have ever been true and loyal to the flag of our country. No negro has ever committed treason in this land; 180,000 colored soldiers fought the battles of this country in the late war, upon 252 fields of carnage and death. We fought to defend the honor of a flag and the perpetuity of a Union which never did, and does not now, secure to us protection and liberty. By our sweat and muscle and unrequited toil we have opened up and developed the whole southern half of this continent, for during all the past we have been the driven sons of toil, the "hewers of wood and drawers of water." I vote "no."
The vote was announced as above.
So the bill passed.
The bill [S. 45] to create Appellate Courts was read the third time.
Mr. HANLEN demanded the previous question.
The House seconded the demand, and under its operations the bill failed to pass by yeas 41, nays 42.
Mr. BROWNING, when his name was called, opposed it because it would make his district so overwhelmingly Republican that Democrats would never see daylight.
Mr. CORY, explaining: Was not in favor of the bill because it meant political death to Democrats in his section.
Mr. HARRELL opposed it because it would be too expensive.
Mr. MOCK opposed it because of its expense.
Mr. McGOVNEY: Because a very small portion of the people in Indiana ask for this, I vote "no."
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: For the lack of a knowledge on the bill, I vote "no."
Mr. SMITH, of Warrick: Because it is not in accord with Democratic retrenchment and reform, I vote "no."
Mr. TWINEHAM: For the reason that I believe in the Supreme Court, I vote "aye."
Mr. WILLIAMS: The bill is a romance and is incomplete and objectionable. The law provides no place for the court to meet and no books for it. I vote "no."
The vote was then announced as above.
So the bill failed to pass.
The House adjourned till Monday at 9 o'clock a. m.
The Lieutenant Governor directed the Clerk to open the session by the reading of the hymn "Rock of Ages Cleft tor Me," - Senators standing.
Mr. WILLARD moved the appointment of a committee of three (of which he should not be one) to wait upon the Governor of the State and ascertain whether he has any further communication to make to the Senate.
The motion was agreed to, and the Lieutenant Governor appointed as such committee Messrs. McCullough, Magee and Moor.
On motion by Mr. MAGEE the House concurrent resolution for the payment of expenses of the
Mr. MACY moved to reduce the Doorkeeper's bill from $459 to $184, and increase the witnesses' allowance from $375 to $395, and reduce the stenographers' bill from $235 to $214. As Secretary of the committee he had kept an account of these expenses and believed his proposed amendment to represent a just statement.
Mr. McCULLOUGH: The Doorkeeper should not be allowed more than his expenses, as he receives a per diem as an officer of the House. He moved to refer the resolution to a special committee, to consist of Messrs. Macy and Johnson.
The motion was agreed to.
On motion by Mr. MAGEE the Senate took a recess till the committee appointed to wait on the Governor shall be ready to report.
At 10:55 o'clock the Lieutenant Governor called the Senate to order.
Mr. MAGEE, from the Committee appointed to wait on the Governor, reported that his Excellency informed the committee he had no further communication to make to this session of the Senate.
And then the Senate took a recess till 2 o'clock p. m.
The Lietenant Governor laid before the Senate the Governor's veto of the bill [S. 325] to authorize the dissolution of the Eastern Agricultural, Mechanical and Trotting Park Association.
The question being, "Shall the bill pass the objections of the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding?"
Mr. OVERSREET said: I can't say so much about the Governor's first objection until I hear the bill read. I am by no means satisfied, but the second objection is such I might respectfully differ with the Governor; that it would be unconstitutional to pass a law dissolving a corporation by a majority. I can't see what provision of the Constitution that would violate.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks: Unless some Senator is prepared to antagonize the opinions of
the Governor and show he is in error in deciding the bill unconstitutional, I shall vote to
sustain the veto. It strikes me his objections are
Mr. MAGEE: This bill was not discussed, but passed under a suspension of the
constitutional rules. There is but one way to wind up the affairs of a corporation under
the laws of Indiana, and that is by the appointment of a Receiver. The courts have decided
that there must be some reason for she appointment of a Receiver, and as this association
has ceased to exist there was no apparent reason for the appointment of a
The Governor's veto was sustained by yeas 7, nays 28.
Mr. WINTER (explaining his vote): In my opinion this bill is not unconstitutional. Therefore, I vote "aye."
Subsequently Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks, said: I was one of the majority voting on the
bill [S. 325] which failed to pass over the Governor's veto a few minutes ago. Since
that vote has been taken I have learned that the bill has been fairly considered by the
Mr. MAGEE: I rise to a point of order. The veto was sustained, and that is the end of it.
Mr CAMPBELL: I understand any vote may be reconsidered if the Senate choose, and the motion is made by one voting with the majority. I propose to enter the motion and let it stand over.
On motion of Mr. JOHNSON, of Tippecanoe, his joint resolution [S. 8 — see page 135] for a constitutional amendment to prohibit the hiring of the labor of convicts was read the third time. He said: For the last eight or ten years objection has been raised against the present way of hiring convicts out to contractors. The manufacturers of our State say their interests are jeopardized and endangered by this system. And they have protested against it until, finally, both parties thought themselves compelled to put in their State platforms that this system of contract labor should be done away with. And now it remains for this Assembly to say - both Democrats and Republicans - whether these solemn declarations in their State platforms shall be carried out in good faith. State platforms should embody the opinions of a majority of the party, and if that party is in power after wards it should carry out the spirit of the State platform by its votes in the General Assembly. The two parties have gone on record on this question; also Governor Porter in his message to the Legislature recommended speedy action in this very matter. The question whether the present system is injurious to free labor and to the manufacturing interests need not be discussed; it to admitted to be so. The States around Indiana have enacted laws prohibiting this system, and I ask the Senate of Indiana to give its endorsement to my resolution proposing to abolish the system.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph: I am in favor of doing all that can be done to remedy the evil effects of convict labor upon the labor of the State, and to do all that can be done for our laborers, but there is no call and no need of a constitutional amendment. The Legislature has full power now to do anything that it will do on this subject. It can regulate or it can abolish, and a constitutional amendment merely proposes to pat off for at least three years what we have power now to do. Why not do it at once? Why put it off? What excuse for not now meeting the question? I introduced a bill two years ago, which passed this Senate but failed to pass for want of time in the House. I have a bill before the Senate now to regulate this matter, but it has not yet come up for want of time. The special session will give an opportunity to discuss and pass it. I am in favor of doing now all that can be done, not dodge for three years and leave it for some one else to do.
Mr. MAGEE: I don't agree with the Senator from St. Joseph. I believe a party haying once expressed an opinion in a platform ought to adhere to it. This question of convict labor has had the serious consideration of governments. In some of the old countries and in New York advanced steps have been taken on this question, and steps should be taken so that in two or four years hence Indiana should be prepared to advance in this matter. It would be a great deal better to keep those men by taxation than that 1,000 or 2,000 men should be out of work because of competition with convict labor. I believe if one of the punishments was solitary confinement it would be a deterrent. Is there any Senator who desires to defend the present system of convict labor? The prisoner's labor can not be let on a sliding scale. There is a ring in the Northern Prison that makes the lowest possible contracts, and the result has been to drive out of the cooperage business large numbers of honest and free laborers. Legislation should be so wise as to protect all classes of citizens I am for the resolution and against a statutory enactment because contractors would be here until they obtained such legislation as would suit them.
Mr. YOUCHE: I will favor a law that would abolish the contract system, believing it wrong
for prison labor to come in conflict
Mr. THOMPSON: That there is some thing wrong in the present system of our State's
Prisons I presume but few, if any, will deny. Hence the mass of the people say in the two
party platforms "this thing is
Mr. OVERSTREET: The question as to whether this resolution should be submitted to the people has never been agitated. The legislation hinted at in the party platforms could be enacted without a constitutional amendment. Whenever any respectable portion of the people desire any question submitted to them for a constitutional amendment I will vote for it. There is no demand from any quarter that there shall be an amendment to that instrument on this question. This resolution is put proposing to dodge the question.
Mr. JOHNSON, of Tippecanoe: It is in order to compel the Legislature to take action that I desire a constitutional amendment.
Mr. OVERSTREET: Introduce a bill and see if your party will stand up to the plank in its platform. The planks do not imply a prohibition of convict labor, but such restrictions as the Legislature might think practicable. We have all the power we need. Let the Democrats introduce a proper bill and the Republicans will help pass it. We can now do all we desire, but put this in the Constitution and our hands are tied. This resolution is putting off four years what ought to be done before the close of the special session.
Mr. JOHNSTFN, of Dearborn, demanded the previous question.
The demand was seconded by the Senate and under its operation the joint resolution failed to pass for want of a constitutional majority - yeas, 17; nays, 16 (Mr. Campbell, of Hendricks, paired with Mr. Willard.)
Mr. BAILEY, explaining his vote, said: I am very much in favor of this proposed constitutional amendment. It does not seek to keep convicts in idleness; it simply proposes to do away with a system which is bad, detrimental to prisoners and to labor outside of prisons. The system has been abolished in New York, Ohio, California and one or two other States. This ought to be viewed in this light, if the system is wrong it ought to be abolished, not by statute law which may ba repealed by any succeeding Legislature, but it ought to be prohibited forever by constitutional amendment. It seems to me this proposition ought to be submitted to the people. I am not one who believes the General Assembly ought to submit a proposition to the people in order to get their view alone. I believe the Constitution contemplates it most pass the scrutiny of our judgment. My judgment is this system ought to be abolished; therefore I am consistent in wanting the views of the people on this subject. I vote "aye."
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph: Because there is no need of such a constitutional enactment; because I believe what ought to be done should be done at once, and because I believe it simply dodging to put off three years what should be done now, I vote "no."
Mr. FOWLER: Believing the Legislature has every power to provide what is
Mr. MACY: Believing this merely a dodge on the part of the Democratic party to put off what it ought to do now, and believing they never will do it until compelled to, I vote "no."
Mr. SELLERS: Believing this is a simple matter for legislative enactment, and not a proper matter to be engrafted in the constitutional law, I vote "no."
Mr ZIMMERMAN: I know of only two propositions which would do away with the competition of
prison contract labor as against home manufacturers. One is to keep the convicts confined
without performing any labor and be kept at great expense of the taxpayers of the State.
The other proposition is the adoption of the French exile system, by transporting our
convicts to some distant island to be engaged in agricultural pursuits. I find both
propositions highly impracticable and unprofitable. Our present
The vote was announced as above.
So the joint resolution failed to pass.
Mr. Zimmerman offered the following, which was adopted:
Whereas, It has been the custom of the Senate of Indiana at the closing day of the session of the General Assembly to allow by resolution additional amount to the salaries of its officers and employes, as provided for by statutes, and,
Whereas, This practice of wasting the people's money is highly detrimental and inconsistent with the paramount principles of reform, economy and honesty in public affairs, be it
Resolved by this Senate that it will not vote any allowances to any of the officers or employes of the Senate for services rendered during this session of the General Assembly in addition to the salaries provided for by statute except for such extra services as are indispensible hereafter to properly complete the journal of the Senate and other necessary clerical work upon its final adjournment.
Mr. WINTER offered a resolution of thanks to the Lieutenant Governor, which was adopted nem con.
Mr. BROWN moved that the Senate adjourn sine die.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: Before I put the motion to adjourn, I will say that I feel I am
under great obligations to the Senate for the passage of this resolution by a unanimous
vote. I feel highly complimented that I have been able to
And so - at 4:30 o'clock p. m. - the Senate adjourned sine die.
Mr. McMULLEN moved that be authorized to draw a warrant in favor of Joseph T. Fanning for indexing and proofreading the House journal for the session of 1885.
Mr. PATTEN moved to amend that the matter be referred to a special committal to report at 2 o'clock. Mr. SEARS said that the House was read to act now, and that the work is worth $400.
Mr. GORDON maintained that such work was the duty of the Assistant Secretary of the Senate and Assistant Clerk of the House.
The motion to refer to a committee was laid on the table by yeas 43, nays 31.
The resolution was then adopted.
Mr. WILLIAMS offered the following resolution, which was adopted:
Resolved, That the thanks of this House are due and hereby tendered to Hon. Charles L. Jewett, Speaker, for his uniform kindness and courtesy during the session, and for the able and impartial manner in which he has discharged his duties.
Mr. JAMISON offered a resolution that W. H. Drapier be allowed two-thirds of a cent per page per copy for 1,750 copies of the Brevier Legislative Reports of the present session.
The resolution was referred to the
Mr. McHENRY offered a resolution thanking Martin A. Morrison, Reading Clerk, for his courtesy and ability.
The resolution was adopted.
The SPEAKER: I am glad this has been adopted. Mr. Morrison has always been at his post, has been patient and most courteous.
Mr. WILLIAMS offered a resolution to allow the Reading Clerk and File Clerk $65 each for proofreading.
Mr. PLEASANTS moved to amend as that they be allowed $100.
The amendment was rejected by yeas 22, nays 39.
The resolution was amended, by allowing each $61, and passed by yeas 52, nays 20.
Mr. HELMS offered a resolution that the members of the House be allowed to retain the Revised Statutes in their possession by paying the Secretary of State $1.50 each per copy.
Mr. MOCK moved to amend by making the price $1 per copy.
Mr. WILLIAMS moved to amend that the members whose copies have been carried away or lost be excused from paying for them.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. KRUGER offered a resolution thanking the representatives of the press for their fair and impartial reports of proceedings.
Mr. WILLIAMS moved to amend that the resolution shall refer to only those truly good newspapers who have ever been true.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. GOODING made an ineffectual motion - yeas, 12; nays, 65 - to lay the resolution on the table.
Mr. BROWNING, explaining his vote, said that he was in favor of free speech, but the press of Indianapolis had been too free with their slander, lying and so on. He would see them in heaven before he would thank them.
Mr. GOODING: The reporters from the Republican press have lost no opportunity to assail Democrats on this floor who have felt it their duty to espouse causes which did not agree with the ideas of these reporters. They have abused their places and should be expelled from the House. They have lost no opportunity to abuse their trusts. If they were worthy of notice I should have paid some attention to them. It takes about three of the little gentlemen to make one man. am told there is to be a special session; if so I shall, at the close, arise to a question of privilege and have something to say. I expect these papers will continue in their abuse. But I shall not forget my manhood.
Mr. BROWNING: Has any Democratic paper defended the member?
Mr. GOODING: I am talking of Republican papers alone, I have an utter contempt for the little half bred, half idiotic reporters in this House. I vote "aye."
Mr. GORDON: I am disposed to thank the boys because they have done no worse. I shall note "no."
Mr. HOBAN: Thinking that what they have said has come from the head and not the heart, and believing that these boys will like us better as they become acquainted with us, I vote "no."
Mr. HELMS: Having been a newspaper man for several years, and realizing the fact that
editors and
Mr. LOYD: In view of the fact that I think the Republican press of Indianapolis has been kind and just, and in the face of the fact that the Democratic press, notably the Sentinel, has arrayed itself against the majority on this floor, I vote "no."
Mr. MOCK: Believing that the newspapers and reporters do not demand this, I vote "aye."
Mr. McMICHAEL: Because I believe in free speech and a free press I vote "no."
Mr. OSBORN: Because I believe the half has not been told I vote "no."
Mr. PATTEN: Life is a warfare and men differ. I have, it is true, had some trouble with reporters here: but when they were over all was past with me. I like a man better when I have had an old fashioned fight with him. I have no grievance now. I would not, had I a chance, vote a reporter from the floor. If what is said against a man is false, it will not hurt him. It is the duty of newspapers to criticise public acts. A personal fight should be below notice. We came from the same family, whether from the jungle or from the plain. If they accuse us of being hogs they are our kin. If I had a personal encounter with a reporter on this floor every day I should not vote to exclude a newspaper man. I vote "no."
Mr. PENDLETON: It you all knew how reporters have to draw on their imaginations at times as I do no one would say much. I vote "no"
Mr. PLEASANTS: By the way some gentlemen on this floor have squirmed and twisted because of criticism, I think a great many things were true, and I vote "no."
Mr. STALEY: Possibly in a small way I have as many grievances as any one - in my name being spelled wrong, speeches given me that I never said, and things I said have been omitted - still I am a member of the guild in a small way, and, as blood is thicker than water, I vote "no."
Mr. BEST: Because I have a kindly feeling for the reporters I vote "no."
The resolution as amended was then adopted.
SPEAKER JEWETT [Mr. Adams in the chair] offered a resolution of sympathy touching the illness of the Representative from Howard County (Mr. Lindsay).
It was adopted.
Mr. French and Mr. Floyd, of the committee appointed to wait on the Governor to ascertain whether his Excellency had anything further to communicate to that body, reported that they had performed that service and the Governor had nothing further to communicate to the House.
Resolutions thanking the clerks and employes of the House were adopted.
Mr. CORY moved to reconsider the vote by which the House allows the Assistant Clerk $400 for indexing and proof-reading the House journal.
The motion was laid on the table - yeas, 54; nays, 21.
Mr. PENDLETON, explaining his vote, said that the service was well worth the money. He should vote "no."
Mr. PLEASANTS: For the reason that to oppose this is false economy, I vote "no."
Mr. FRENCH moved at 12 o'clock noon that the House adjourn sine die.
Before announcing the result of the vote -
Speaker JEWETT said:
GENTLEMEN OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: The end of the regular session of the Fifty fourth General Assembly
of Indiana has been reached. Before declaring the House adjourned without day, I desire to
again express to you the thanks which I uttered on taking this chair at the beginning of
the session. For the united support you have given to my efforts and the great charity with
which you have treated my performance as Speaker, please receive my grateful
acknowledgment. If I have been in any degree successful it is because of your intelligent
aid when I was right and your generous forbearance when I was wrong. The first hour of this
session I declared that, in my opinion, this House was, in point of worth, the peer of any
that ever organized in Indiana. What was then an opinion is now a settled conviction. Day
after day I have seen you diligently and intelligently discharging your duties as worthy
representatives of those who seat you here. It were vain to hope that you shall now be
fairly judged, for faultfinding is easy, and criticism is the chief accomplishment of every
trifler. But I know you have been faithful, and for the confirmation of this I appeal to
the sober second thought of your constituents. To the elective and appointed officers of
the House, I also return thanks for their uniform courtesy toward me and their steadfast
adherence to their several duties. To them is due the credit that no work has been
neglected and that no scandal as to disposition of bills or the disbursment of money has
disgraced the House. And now, in uniformity to the vote just taken I declare the House
adjourned sine die.
Accordingly the House adjourned without day.
[Omitted from page 19.]
Hon. CHARLES L. JEWETT, when elected Speaker of the House, on taking the chair, said:
GENTLEMEN: - I assume this station with sincere gratitude for the
honor, and profoundly impressed with its responsibility. It is indeed an honor to be called
to preside over this house, for I express but the common belief of those who are best
qualified to judge, when I say never in the history of the State has a house of
representatives been possessed of a greater wealth of ability, experience and personal
worth. It is not the province of the speaker to suggest subjects of legislation; for that
belongs to the Governor and it would be equally impertinent to suggest the extent of
legislation, for that is a matter belonging exclusively to you, but the manner in which you
are to discharge your duties may be properly touched upon. No bill ought ever to be enacted
without careful consideration, and inconsiderate legislation, usually comes from an attempt
to atone for indolence during the greater portion of the session by excessive industry at
its close. In my opinion the time allotted us by the constitution is ample for the present
needs of State, provided none of it is wasted. Every citizen of the State is entitled to
respectful hearing and to have his proper request duly considered, but when any measure is
urged upon you by interested parties, I beg of you to remember it is your duty to represent
the great body of the people who have not been consulted and whose interest can only be
respected by you. Happily, there are few political questions demanding our attention, and
the party complexion of the house is so clearly defined that they may be disposed of without
obstruction or delay. I beg of you therefore, without, regard to party, to address
yourselves to the necessary legislation of the session, recognizing the fact chat your
highest duty is to the whole people of the State. If you do this we shall succeed, if not we
shall fail, and bear always in mind that for mistakes made here regrets elsewhere will be
unavailing and corrections will be impossible.
[Omitted from near bottom of first column, page 72.]
Mr. COPELAND: I have the honor, on behalf of the Republicans of Indiana, to place in
nomination their candidate for United States Senator, Governor Albert G. Porter. Indiana
has been honored by many illustrious adopted sons, some of whom she has crowned with her
choicest honors. But it is to the splendid achievements of her own sons - born on her own
soil, educated in her own institutions and clothed with the panoply of citizenship within
her historic borders - that she turns with peculiar pride. Her thousands of brave soldiers,
living and dead, by their matchless heroism have made imperishable her fame for dauntless
courage and sterling patriotism. - The intelligence and energy of her citizens have made
her one of the brightest jewels in the great galaxy of States that constitutes the mightest
and freest nation on the face of the globe. Her statesmen, by their broad ideas of
philanthropy, inflexible courage and aggressive leadership as developed in the most
perilous hours of the nation's existence,
Following Mr. Copeland, the nomination of Governor Porter was seconded by Mr. Adams, who said that Albert Gr. Porter was a man not known as seeking political honors - a man who had carried Indiana after such distinguished men as Thomas M. Browne and Benjamin Harrison had failed. He thought more credit was due to Porter for the election of the martyred Garfield in 1880, than to any one else. It would be fitting to send greeting to the Empire State that Albert G. Porter had been placed in nomination for senator from Indiana.
Mr. PASSAGE: Mr. Speaker and fellow Representatives: - Were the law such that we could choose a senator from any portion of the American Union, my first choice would be Mr. Voorhees. He has at all times defended the interests of the people. When the Republican party demonetized the silver dollar, he used his talent and energy to have silver restored to its legal tender quality. When the Republican party passed the law requiring the greenback currency to be taken up and destroyed, he raised his voice in favor of its restoration to the legal tender currency of the country. In the struggle between labor and monopoly, he has at all times been the friend of the people - a man who believes that "a day, an hour of virtuous liberty is worth a whole eternity of bondage."
[Ommitted from bottom of page 258.]
Mr. LOYD: I have often made the assertion, and urged it as a reason why Republicans
should not be retained in power, that they would not reform their own wrongs and abuses,
that gross revolutions of law and gross immoralities by those in high places in the
Republican Party were matters of general comment, undenied, unrebuked and investigated.
Great schemes and jobs have been investigated in the Republican party, the parties found
guilty of the most shameful abuses of public trust, in many instances amounting almost to
(Omitted from bottom of page 281.)
On the passage of the bill H. R. 283 to allow County Treasurers six per cent for collecting delinquent taxes.
Mr. PATTON, in explanation of his vote said: Honest people pay their taxes; unfortunate persons are compelled to pay theirs' at the end of of the law, but there is of course a class of persons who are able to pay their taxes, but take advantage of the six per cent penalty over the required delinquent duplicate and withhold payment, as money is worth more to them,thereby creating a large delinquent list. But if the penalty was increased to six per cent on all delinquent taxes it would insure prompt payment and it will not in any manner increase the pay of County Treasurers, as under the present law they call in their deputies after the 3rd of November until the 1st of April and then send them into the field again to enforce collections and if this bill becomes a law those very taxes which are delinquent for six months will be promptly paid without penalty.
[Omitted from first column, page 148.]
On motion, by Mr. Williams, the minority report of the Committee, recommending an immediate and thorough investigation of the affairs of the State Treasury, by the General Assembly, - see page 145 - was laid on the table by yeas 55, nays 31, as follows:
YEAS. Bailey, Barnes, Barney, Booe, Branch, Brooks, Browning, Butz, Cartright, Cory, Crecelius, Debs, Dittemore, Eley, Farrell, French, Gooding, Gordon, Hanion, Hargrave, Harrell, Hoban, Kellison, Klass, Loop, Loyd, Mock of Wells, Moody, Murphy, McGovney, McHenry, McMichael, McMullen, Medcalf, Passage, Patton, Pendleton, Pleasants, Pruitt, Reeves, Reiter, Rivers, Robertson, Schley, Schmidt, Shanks, Smith (of Perry.) Smith (of Warrick.) Staley, Taylor, Timmons, Toner, Vickrey, Williams, Mr. Speaker - 55.
NAYS. Adams, Akins, Best, Boyd, Brownlee, Carr, Copeland, Dale, Deem, Engle, Fleece, Floyd, Franklin, Garrison, Helms, Hopkins, Jameson, Linnville, Mauk of Wayne, McClelland, Osborn, Overman, Robinson, Sayre, Sears, Smith (of Tip), Townsend, Trout, Twineham, Wilson, Wynn - 31.
[Omitted from bottom of first column page 158.]
The majority report - see page 145 - was adopted, by yeas 26, nays 15, as follows:
YEAS. Bailey, Brown, Bryant, Day, Duncan (of Brown), Ernest, Fowler, Hill, Hilligass, Howard, Johnson, Johnston, May, McClure, McCullough, McIntosh, Rahm, Richardson, Schloss, Sellers, Shively, Smith (of Jennings] Thompson, Weir, Willard, Zimmerman - 26.
NAYS. Adkison, Campbell (of Hend'ks) Davis, Drake, Duncan (of Tipton), Ensley, Foulke, Huston, Macy, Magee, Moon, Overstreet, Smith of Del. Winter, Youche - 15.
[Omitted for bottom of first column page 226.]
On motion, by Mr. Willard, the bill - Senate No. 60 - to require the effects of alcoholic stimulants on the human system to be taught in the public schools, was indefinitely postponed, by yeas 24, nays 21, as follows:
YEAS. Bailey, Benz, Brown, Bryant, Duncan (of Brown), Ernest, Faulkner, Fowler, Hill, Johnson, Johnston, Magee, May, McClure, McCullough, Null, Rahm, Richardson, Schloss, Smith (of Jennings, Smith (of Jay), Thompson, Willard, Zimmerman. - 24.
NAYS. Adkison, Campbell (of Hend'ks), Davis, Day, Drake, Duncan (of Tipton), Ensley, Foulke, Hilligass, Hoover, Huston, Lindley, Marshall, Moon, McIntosh, Peterson, Shively, Smith (of Del.) Weir, Winter, Youche - 21.
[Omitted from top of page 239.
The report of the majority of the Committee, recommending that Mr. Youche's bill - Senate No. 97 - to allow cities and towns to require a saloon license of from $100 to $500 a year, be laid on the table, was concurred in by yeas 27, nays 14, as follows:
YEAS. Bailey, Benz, Brown, Bryant, Day, Duncan (of Brown), Ernest, Faulkner, Fowler, Hill, Hilligass, Howard, Johnston, Magee, May, McClure, McCullough, McIntosh, Null, Rahm, Richardson, Sellers, Smith (of Jen'ings), Thompson, Weir, Willard, Zimmerman - 27.
NAYS. Campbell (of Hend'ks), Drake, Duncan (of Hamilton) Huston, Foulke, Lindley, Macy, Marshall, Peterson, Overstreet, Shively, Smith (of Jay) Winter, Youche - 14.
[Omitted from bottom first column page 247.]
Mr. Patten's Congressional Apportionment bill - Ho. Reps. 422 - finally passed the House by yeas 53, nays 40, as follows:
YEAS. Bailey, Barnes, Barney, Barr, Booe, Branch, Brooks, Browning, Butz, Cory, Crecelius, Debs, Dittemore, eley, Farrell, Fisher, French, Garrison, Gooding, Gordon, Hanlon, Hargrave, Harrell, Hayden, Hoban, Mauck, Mock, Moody, Murphy, McGovney, McHenry, McMichael, McMullen, Medcalf, Passage, Patten, Pendleton, Pleasants, Pruitt, Reeves, Reiter, Rivers, Robertson, Robinson, Schley, Shanks, Smith (of Warricks), Staley, Taylor, Toner, Vickrey, Williams, The Speaker - 53.
NAYS. Adams, Akins, Best, Boyd, Brownlee, Carr, Cartwright, Copeland, Deem, Dunn, Engle, Fleece, Floyd, Franklin, Frazee, Glazebrook, Haworth, Helms, Hopkins, Kellison, Klaas, Linville, Loup, Loyd, Mouk, Mosier, McBroome, McClelland, Osborn, Overman, Sayre, Sears, Smith (of Tip), Timmons, Townsend, Trout, Twineham, Wildman, Wilson, Wynn - 40.
[Omitted from near top of page 249.]
Mr. Foulke's Civil Service Reform - see pages 18,205 - failed to pass the Senate by yeas 19, nays 23, as follows:
YEAS. Adkison, Bailey, Campbell (of Hend'ks), Campbell (of St. Jo.), Davis, Duncan (of Tipton), Ensley, Foulke, Hoover, Huston, Macy, Magee, Marshall, Moon, Overstreet, Peterson, Smith (of Del'ware), Winter, Youche - 19.
NAYS. Benz, Brown, Day, Duncan (of Brown), Ernest, Faulkner, Fowler, Hill, Hilligass, Howard, Johnston, May, McClure, McCullough, McIntosh, Null, Rahm, Sellers, Shively, Smith (of Jen'ings), Smith (of Jay) Thompson, Zimmerman. - 23.
[Omitted from bottom of page 284.]
On motion, by Mr. McMullen, the bill - Ho. of Reps. 99 - to abolish all distinctions of race and color made in the laws of Indiana, was indefinitely postponed, by yeas 43, nays 40, as follows:
YEAS. Branch, Brooks, Browning, Butz, Cartwright, Crecelius, Dale, Dittemore, Donhost;Eley, Garrison, Gooding, Gordon, Harrell, Kellison, Klaas, Kruger, Loup, Mock, Moody, Murphy, McGovney, McHenry, McMichael, McMullen, Medcalf, Patten, Pendleton, Pleasants, Pruitt, Reeves, Reitier, River, Robertson, Schley, Schmidt, Shanks, Smith (of Perry) Smith (of Warrick), Staley, Toner, Vickery, Williams - 43.
NAYS. Adams, Akins, Barnes, Best, Booe, Boyd, Brownlee, Copeland, Cory, Debs, Deem, Engle, Farrell, Fisher, Fleece, Floyd, Franklin, Frazee, French, Hayworth, Hoban, Jameson, Linville, Loyd, Mouk, Mosier, McBroome, McClellen, Osborn, Robinson, Sayre, Sears, Smith (of Tip), Timmons, Townsend, Trout, Twineham, Wildman, Wilson, Wynn - 40.
[Omitted from top of page 288.]
The Congressional Apportionment bill - Ho. Reps. 424 - finally passed the Senate by yeas 29, nays 17, as follows:
YEAS. Bailey, Benz, Brown, Bryant, Day, Duncan (of Brown), Ernest, Faulkner, Fowler, Hilligass, Hoover, Howard, Johnston, Magee, McClure, McCullough, McIntosh, Null, Peterson, Rahm, Richardson, Schloss, Sellers, Shively, Smith of (Jen'ings), Smith (of Jay) Weir, Willard, Zimmerman - 29.
NAYS. Campbell (of Hend'ks), Campbell (of St. Jo.), Davis, Drake, Duncan (of Hamilton) Ensley, Foulke, Huston, Johnson, Lindley, Macy, Marshall, Moon, Overstreet, Smith (of Delaware), Winter, Youche - 17.
[Omitted from first column, page 305.]
The State Militia bill - Senate bill 88 - finally passed the House by yeas 56, nays 34, as follows:
YEAS. Adams, Akins, Barnes, Barney; Best, Boyd, Brownlee, Butz, Carr, Copeland, Debs, Deem, Dittemore, Dunn, Engle, Fisher, Fleece, Floyd, Franklin, Frazee, Glazebrook, Hargrave, Haworth, Hayden, Helms, Hopkins, Jameson, Klaas, Krueger, Linville, Mauk, Moody, Mosier, McBroome, McClelland, McMichael, McMullen, Medcalf, Osborn, Overman, Passage, Pendleton, Reeves, Sayre, Sears, Smith (of Tip), Staley, Timmons, Toner, Townsend, Trout, Twineham, Wildman, Wilson, Wynn, The Speaker. - 56.
NAYS. Bailey, Booe, Branch, Browning, Cartwright, Crecelius, Dale, Eley, Farrell, Garrison, Gooding, Gordon, Hanlon, Harrell, Hoban, Kellison, Loyd, Mauck, Mock, Murphy, McGovney, McHenry, Patten, Pleasants, Pruitt, Rivers, Robertson, Robinson, Schley, Shanks, Smith (of Perry) - Smith (of Warrick), Vickery, Williams - 34.
List of Bills introduced in the Senate, the titles of which were not printed when first presented because crowded out by Debates. The author's name follows the figures indicating the number of the bill.
List of Bills introduced into the House of Representatives the titles of which were not printed when first presented because crowded out by Debates. The author's name follows the figures indicating the number of the bill.
Page 85, near middle of the first column Mr. FOULKE should be made to say: "It is not becoming and does not look honest for us to appropriate money to pay ourselves and withhold pay from other creditors of the State."
Page 155: the first speaker should be Senator FOWLER, wrongly printed "Parker'
INDEX TO SUBJECTS WHICH PROVOKED DISCUSSION In the 54th General Assembly showing the pages where printed.
Introduced in the Senate during the two sessions of the 54th General Assembly showing which provoked the most discussion during the Special Session. The first column of figures indicate the number of the bill, and the figures that follow indicate the page on which the bill is considered.
Introduced in the House of Representatives during the two sessions of the 54th General Assembly showing which provoked the most discussion during the Special Session. The first column of figures indicate the number of the bill, and the figures that follow indicate the page on which the bill is considered.
List of Bills introduced in the Senate, the titles of which were not printed when first presented because crowded out by Debates. The author's name follows the figures indicating the number of the bill.
List of Bills introduced into the House of Representatives the titles of which were not printed when first presented because crowded out by Debates. The author's name follows the figures indicating the number of the bill.
In pursuance of a proclamation by the Governor printed below, members of the Indiana Senate assembled in Superior Court room No 2, in the north-east corner of the Marion County Court house.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR (Hon. Mahlon D, Manson, of Montgo ery County,) commanded order and requested Senators to stand while the Divine blessing was invoked by Rev. O. H. P. Abbott, a former Representative from Bartholomew County.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: The Secretary will read the Governor's proclamation.
The principal Secretary, Albert J. Kelly, of Putnam County, read as follows:
Whereas the constitutional term of the present regular session of the General Assembly expires to-day, and the term has now elapsed within which bills should be presented to the Governor for approval, and
Whereas, The present regular session has failed to pass a General Appropriation bill, making provisions to carry on the State government and support the various State institutions for the years 1886 and 1887, a bill making specific appropriation, a bill to raise revenue and make appropriations during the years 1886 and 1887 to continue the construction of the new State-house, and other important bills which are now pending before the General Assembly; and,
Whereas, Section 3 of Article 10 of the Constitution provides that "no money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in pursuance of appropriations made by law," but to the legislative department alone is delegated the duty and authority to raise revenue by taxation and appropriate the same to the support of the State government and its institutions; that the disbursement of money from the Treasury, under the authority of the Executive and Administrative Departments of the State, in the absence of the regular legislative appropriations, is inaugurating a dangerous practice, unprecedented, and should not be resorted to except in great and unforseen emergencies, because it deprives the Legislature, as the representatives of the people, of its proper functions, and is contrary to the spirit and intention of the Constitution; that the Legislature should have a care and overnight in the expenditure of public money; and, whereas, the construction of the new State-house can not be continued without further aid from the State, and to discontinue such construction would entail a loss upon the State, at an increased expense to the people,
Therefore I, Isaac P. Gray, Governor of the State of Indiana, do hereby make proclamation that, in my opinion, the public welfare requires a brief special session of the General Assembly of Indiana, and I do hereby call a special session of the present General Assembly to be held in the Marion County Court-house, commencing on Tuesday, the 10th day of March, at 9 o'clock in the forenoon
In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and cause to be affixed the seal of the State, at the city of Indianapolis, this 9th day of March, in the year of our Lord 1885.
By the Governor:
WILLIAM R. MYERS, Secretary of State.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: The Secretary will call the roll of Senators.
This order being carried out, 40 Senators were reported present, as follows:
Messrs. Bailey, Benz, Brown, Bryant, Campbell of Hendricks, Campbell of St. Joseph, Davis, Day, Drake, Duncan of Tipton, Duncan of Brown, Ensley, Ernest, Foulke, Fowler, Hill, Hoover, Howard, Huston, Johnston of Dearborn, Lindley, Macy, Magee, Marshall, May, Moon, McClure, Null, Overstreet, Peterson, Rahm, Richardson, Schloss, Smith of Jennings, Smith of Jay, Smith of Delaware, Thompson, Winter, Youche and Zimmerman - 40.
Mr. MAGEE: Senator Adkison's wife is not expected to live, and he has requested
It was so ordered by consent.
Mr RAHM: Senator McIntosh is absent on account of sickness.
Leave of absence was granted for him.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR announced that Senator Weir went home yesterday on account of sickness.
Mr. MAGEE: I suggest that all Senators not in the city be granted leave of absence.
It was so ordered by consent.
Mr. MAGEE: I move that the Secretary, the Assistant Secretary and Doorkeeper of the regular session be continued in their respective laces during the extra session, unless otherwise ordered by the Senate.
The motion was agreed to
Mr SCHLOSS: I move that a committee of three be appointed to inform the House of Representatives that the Senate is organized and ready to proceed to business.
The motion was agreed to.
The Lieutenant Governor makes the committee to consist of Messrs. Schloss, Rahm and Overstreet.
Mr. RAHM: I move that a special committee of three be appointed to inform the Governor that the Senate has organized.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks: I move that the same committee authorized to inform the House of the organization of the Senate wait upon the Governor with the same information.
It was so ordered by consent.
Mr. BENZ offered the following:
Resolved, That whenever any employe of the Senate delires leave of absence he shall apply to the Senate for the same; and any employe who shall be absent from duty without leave from the Senate, shall secure no pay for the time he may be absent.
It was adopted.
Mr. YOUOHE offered the following:
Resolved, That the Secretary, Assistant Secretary and Doorkeeper of the Senate be required to report to the Senate the employes employed by them respectively, showing the dates of their employment.
It was adopted.
Mr. FOWLER offered the following:
Whereas, The Secretary and Assistant Secretary have agreed to furnish men of their corps to act in the capacity of committee clerks during the extra session, therefore -
Be it resolved. That all committee clerks (except the clerk of the
It was adopted.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: The Doorkeeper asks leave of absence indefinitely, as he has received a telegram announcing sickness in his family. [It was granted by consent.] And I am requested to inquire whether it is understood that the extra employes employed by the Doorkeeper are to be continued.
Mr MAGEE: Let the Doorkeeper report the number to the Senate.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: As the train he wishes to go on leaves at 10 o'clock he is pressed for time.
Mr. BROWN: I think Friday when we meet he can make that report.
It was so ordered by consent.
Mr CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph: I offer the following resolution, which the history of the last session, I think, will be a reminder of the need for it:
Resolved, That the officers of the Senate the required to post a list of their employes in a conspicuous place, as required by statute.
Mr. CAMPBELL: The statute was not complied with, and ought to be. You remember the history of the extra employes we had last session because of lack of that.
The resolution was adopted.
Mr. MAY offered the following:
Resolved, That the Assistant Secretary of the Senate be authorized to pay Joseph P. Clemens 830 for services rendered under ?aid officer prior to the appointment and transfer of said Clemena to a committee clerkship in the Senate.
Mr. MACY: The committee had that matter under consideration.
Mr. YOUOHE: As a member of the special committee who investigated this matter, I will say the resolution ought to pass. We found this employe had served under Huffstetter, the former Assistant Secretary.
Mr. YOUCHE: I move that a special committee of five be appointed to which shall be referred House Bill 222, with instructions to report at an early day. That is the ditching bill. Senators will remember when it was up the last time it was in such a confused shape it was almost impossible to do anything with it
Mr. FOWLER: I hope that motion will not be adopted. I can't see any necessity of
referring this bill to a special committee. There is a standing committee whose duty it is
to consider these kind of bills; let this bill go to the regular
A Senator - It has been there.
Mr. FOWLER: Let it go back there again.
Mr. SCHLOSS: I have no objection to this bill going to a special committee, but I want that committee to report it back at an early day. I have had several letters from our section of the country about this bill. If this committee is instructed to report the bill back at an early day I will be satisfied.
Mr. YOUCHE: That is in the motion.
The motion was agreed to.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: This committee will consist of Senators Youche, Magee, Sellers, Overstreet and McCullough.
[A message from the House of Representatives announced the organization of that
Mr. HUSTON asked and obtained consant to introduce a bill [S. 347] to designate and
provide for the observance of an arbor day — the second Wednesday in April shall be a
holiday in the public schools of this State, that the pupils may observe the same by tree
planting — which was read the first time and referred to the
Mr. MAGEE moved that when the Senate adjourn it adjourn till Friday at 10 o'clock a. m.
Mr. YOUCHE moved to amend by making the hour 2 o'clock in the afternoon.
Mr. MAGEE accepted the amendment.
The motion as amended was agreed to.
Mr WINTER: A bill has come to the Senate from the House, No 361, to make an appropriation for the benefit of John Martin of some $55 000. That bill ought not to be acted upon without being carefully examined and inquired into. Therefore I offer the following resolution:
Resolved, That engrossed House bill No. 361 be referred to the
Mr. WINTER: The House
The resolution was adopted.
Mr. SCHLOSS asked and obtained leave to introduce a bill [S 348] to release the city of
Terre Haute from liability to repair the State Normal School buildings and grounds, which
was read the first time and referred to the
Mr. BAILEY offred a resolution authorizing and ordering the usual number of copies of the
Brevier Reports for this present General Assembly, which, on his motion, was referred to
the
Mr. SCHLOSS offered a resolution to pay members of the
On motion of Mr. SMITH, of Delaware, it was referred to the
Mr. FOWLER offered the following:
Resolved, That the rules adopted as amended for the government of the Senate at the last regular session of the General Assembly be and are hereby adopted for the government of the special session of 18S5.
Mr. YOUCHE: I offer the following amendment to the resolution:
I move to amend so as to require two-thirds of all the Senators present to dispense with the regular order of business.
Mr. FOULKE: It seems to me that amendment is a very fair one. Of course if there was any political matter the majority wished to put forward they would want such a rule, but I supposed whatever was desired in the way of apportionment bills was passed at the regular session. We can get through I business promptly in one way and in no other, and that is not to spend half our time in suspending the regular order of business. If we come here at 9:30 o'clock and stay till noon, come again at 2 and stay till 5 or 5:30 o'clock, we can get through all the bills possibly in a little less than forty days. This talk of getting through in twelve or sixteen days is nonsense; we can't do it.
Mr. MAGEE: I agree with the Senators from Wayne (Mr. Foulke) and Lake (Mr. Youche), that these amendments ought to be adopted. This was a rule made for political legislation. The trouble has been in the regular session that we would proceed with the regular order a little while, and then turn to some other business desired by a particular Senator, and there was but little order about our business This amendment would require a two-thirds vote before there could be a change, and every one knows we would accomplish more legislation under it than to be changing from one thing to another. It has always been the rule, and has never been departed from except to advance some necessary political matter; and, as the Senator from Wayne says, we are over that, I trust. This special session has been called by the Governor because there is absolute need for certain legislation, and the quicker we get through and go home the better. This rule is in the interest of the speedy discharge of business, and I trust the amendment will be adopted.
Mr. FOWLER: lam just as desirous as any Senator on this floor that the business we have to do shall be done expeditiously, but I don't believe the changing of that rule will affect it. Where it requires a two-thirds vote to suspend the order of business, when that motion is made the roll will be called clear through, and it will often be found that two thirds are not voting in the affirmative, and then the time is lost; while if it simply takes a majority to suspend the order of business it will be done at once, in all probability. I think it is in the interest of economy, and in the interest of the business of the Senate, that the rule shall stand as amended last session.
Mr ERNEST made an ineffectual motion — affirmative, 14; negative, 22 — to postpone the further consideration of this matter till 2 o'clock Monday afternoon.
The amendment was agreed to.
The resolution as amended was adopted.
The Doorkeeper's force remains as it is with the exception of Folding Clerk and the assistant to the Doorkeeper, making the force two less.
PHILIP SCHLOSS,
I. H, FOWLER,
E. W. BROWN.
And then —
The Senate adjourned — under the order as above set forth — till Friday at 2 o'clock p. m.
SPEAKER JEWETT calling the House to order said this special session of the General Assembly was convened in response to the Governor's proclamation read for information in the House yesterday, and that under the law the officials of the regular session would continue in their positions unless the House resolved upon a different action. The Governor's message having been read would be spread upon the House journal of to-day without farther reading.
In reference to applications for leaves of absence —
The SPEAKER said that it was his opinion at this hour that a member would have first to appear and answer to his name before leave of absence could be granted, or before his name could be put upon the pay roll. He was not certain as to this, but would investigate during the day.
The SPEAKER decided that it was not necessary for the members to be sworn in for this special session. He directed the roll to be called — at the close of which he announced as present and answering to their names ninety members as follows:
Messrs. Adams, Akins, Barnes. Barney, Barr, Best, Booe, Branch Brooks, Brownlee, Browning, Butz, Carr, Cartwright, Cory, Crecelius, Dale, Debs, Deem, Dittemore, Donhost, Dunn, Eley, Engle, Farrell, Fisher, Fleece, Floyd, Franklin, Frazee, French, Garrison, Glazebrook, Gooding, Gordon, Hanlon, Hargrave, Harell, Haworth, Hayden, Helms, Hoban, Hopkins, Jameson, Kellison, Klass, Krueger, Linsday, Linville, Loop, Loyd, Mauck of Harrison, Mock of Wayne, Moody, Mosier, McBroome, McClelland, McGovney, McHenry, McMichael, McMullen, Medcalf, Osborn, Overman, Passage, Patten, Pendleton, Pleasants, Reeves, Reiter, Robertson, Sayre, Schley, Sears, Schmidt, Shanks, Smith of Tippecanoe, Smith of Perry, Smith of Warrick, Staley, Timmons, Toner, Townsend, Trout, Twineham, Wildman, Williams, Wilson and Mr. Speaker — 90.
The SPEAKER stated that in the hurry of adjournment of the regular session a protest by the Republican members against the Legislative Apportionment bill had been overlooked, and that now, as it was respectful in tone, it would be spread upon the House journal.
Mr. GORDON offered a resolution that the rules governing the regular session of the House be in force for the special session.
Mr. SAYRE submitted an amendment that the resolution which called up bills on the third reading as a regular order should not be interfered with
Mr. HARRELL made an ineffectual motion — yeas, 24: nays, 66 — that the amendment lie on the table.
Mr. HAYDEN moved to amend that no explanation of votes be allowed.
This amendment was aws laid on the table.
Mr. PATTEN submitted an amendment that no explanation of votes shall be permitted except by consent of the House
On motion of Mr. AD^MS the amendment was laid on the table.
Mr. CORY offered an amendment that rule 68 be so amended that a majority of the House may amend the rules.
On motion of Mr. Gordon the motion was laid on the table.
Mr. KREUGER moved to amend that a member be allowed but one minute in the explanation of a vote
On motion of Mr. BROWNING the amendment was tabled.
The resolution was adopted with the amendment.
Mr. PATTEN offered a resolution that the Doorkeeper and Assistant Clerk furnish the House the names of the employes under them, or those discharged, if there be any.
Mr. GOODING opposed the resolution because it was not the particular business of the House. He moved that the resolution lie on the table.
The motion was agreed to
[On motion Mr. TWINEHAM and Mr. TONER were appointed to notify the Senate of the organization of the House.]
Mr. TOWNSEND offered a concurrent resolution that the business of the Assembly be so proceeded with that an adjournment may be reached in fifteen days.
On motion by Mr. KELLISON — yeas, 57; nay, 37 — the resolution was laid on the table.
The House then proceeded with the regular order, that of reading bills the third time.
Mr. FLEECE called up the bill [S. 4 - see page 170 of vol. 22] to prohibit the buying
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: A man who would sell his vote should forever be disfranchised. One of the dearest rights is the right to vote. All rights pertaining to the ballot should be rigidly guarded.
Mr. STALEY: Two things should brought to attention. Buying and selling votes is one of the great crimes of the day, and how to prohibit it is a perplexing one The great trouble is that the buyer and seller stand together, and neither can be apprehended. The bill which will reach the buyer is the more important.
Mr. GOODING: This law says that "means" shall not be used to induce a man either to vote or refrain from voting. The word "corrupt" should precede the word "induce," as often a man may by legitimate argument "induce" a man to vote. We should all induce men to vote, but not corruptly induce them. The third section says that any one "suspected" of violating the law against inducing shall be, etc. Who will do the suspecting? The Grand Jury is organized to investigate violations of law. This "suspecting" puts too much power in the hands of the Prosecuting Attorney. The "suspected" may be, at his peril, brought before a Prosecuting Attorney for examination. The candidate who would, by any means but legitimate, induce a voter is unworthy of office. But the innocent should be guarded, as well as the guilty punished
Mr. GORDON: This bill does away with imprisonment as a punishment for the crime of vote buying or selling, and in place of it punishes the guilty party by disfranchisement.
Mr. BROWNLEE: I am in favor of a law that imprisons and disfranchises a man who sells or offers to sell his vote. Any man who is a candidate for office should not be held to an account upon the simple sworn statement of a man who says he has been approached to sell his vote. In that case it is giving an unfair advantage; any man without character, enraged at a candidate, may swear falsely against a candidate.
Mr. REEVES: This Legislature might experiment a little. The present law is a flat failure, and certain it is that a new law is needed. I can not see that this bill proposes hardships for anyone. If everybody connected with the affair is a criminal, you can get no one to testify. We want the system of turning State's evidence in it.
Mr. MOCK: The objections of the gentleman from Hancock (Mr. Gooding) ruin the present law. As a man can not be compelled to testify against himself, so you can not, under the present election law, compel a man to testify. If you relieve the man testifying from punishment, you have a chance to get at the case.
Mr. BROWNING: I do not believe the bill is as good as the present law. While I believe the man who will sell a vote is as vile as can be, yet I do not want every candidate put in the hands of every man in the country who wants to sell out.
Mr. FLEECE thought the bill a great improvement over the old one. The growth of vote buying and selling is alarming, and something must be done to stop it. The bill is not so much to punish a man for selling a vote, but to restrain that crime. The bill passed — yeas, 51; nays, 33.
Mr. Deem's bill [H. R. 38] to define what class of persons may be admitted to the Soldiers' Orphans' Home, was read the third time and passed by yeas 74, nays 1.
Mr. DEEM, explaining: The bill says that children of soldiers confined in insane asylums or in county poor farms may be admitted to the institution.
Mr. Deem's bill [H. R. 225] to legalize the incorporation of the town of Sulphur Springs was read the third time and passed by yeas 72, nays 3.
The bill [S. 218] to authorize cities to purchase real estate for sanitary purposes, was read the third time.
Mr. PENDLETON said that the bill grew out of an association of mayors held in this city some time ago. Two years ago the Sellers farm of 240 acres was established near this city. There the offal from slaughter houses and the like is deposited. This bill will legalize such purchases in this and other cities.
The bill passed by yeas 69, nays 10.
Mr. Robertson's bill [H. R. 484] to legalize the incorporation of Brownstown, was read the third time and passed by yeas 76, nays 0.
Mr. Dunn's bill [H. R. 231] covering highways was read the third time and passed by yeas 56, nays 25.
Mr. Rivers' bill [H. R. 528] concerning the abandonment of county offices and providing for declaring them vacant, was read the third time.
On motion of Mr. Reeves the bill was referred to the
Mr. Williams' bill [H. R. 402] defining the Tenth, Twelfth and Forty-Seventh Judicial circuits was read the third time.
Mr. WILLIAMS: This bill will make one new circuit. It makes Martin and Daviess County one circuit, Knox one circuit, and Lawrence and Monroe counties one circuit. The dockets are badly crowded.
Mr. BROWNING: I am opposed to the bill because it makes a new circuit. At this
Mr. GORDON: About 1873 the Common Pleas Court was abolished and the Circuit Court system adopted. There was more legal business then than now. There is no need of new circuits. More work is all that is needed.
Mr. PATTEN: I know that the business of Knox County demands this change. The business in that county is two years behind now, and the Judge is a good worker. He is painstaking, it is true, but industrious.
The bill failed to pass - yeas, 41; nays, 30 - for want of a constitutional majority of 51 votes.
Mr. Adams' bill [H. R. 369] to define the liabilities of railways for killing stock, was read the third time and passed by yeas 74, nays 1.
Mr. SAYRE called up the bill [S. 71] legalizing the sale of real estate by cities, which was read the third time and passed by yeas 66 nays 2.
Mr. WILDMAN called up the bill [S. 59] to fix the time of holding court in the Thirty fourth Judicial District, which was read the third time and passed by yeas 74, nays 6.
Mr. KLASS called up the bill [S. 50] to provide for the security and payment of laboring men and mechanics, which was read the third time and passed by yeas 79, nays 2.
Mr. KRUEGER'S bill [H. R. 237] to empower the Township Trustee of Cold Springs Township, Laporte County, to release judgments against Henry Keifer and Robert Curran, was read the third time and passed by yeas 71, nays 3.
The House adjourned.
The SPEAKER: I will call up Senate bill No 50. This bill was passed yesterday, but afterward I discovered it had been read but twice. It will now be put upon its passage. The bill [S. 50] to provide for the security and payment of laboring men by corporations, etc., was then passed by yeas 75, nays 0.
Mr. COPELAND'S bill [H. R 415] to regulate railway fares for passengers at three cents per mile was read the third time and passed by yeas 74 nays 3
The SPEAKER: I vote for the bill but I doubt its constitutionality. It requires railways to carry certain passengers free. I doubt if that can be enforced. However, I shall vote "aye"
Mr. PATTEN: This bill provides that if the railways overcharge, the passenger shall have so much damage; while as a fact the money obtained for damages, mast be put according to the damage. The bill ought to make a violation of the law a misdemeanor instead of a civil suit, for the reason that the bill says that "any employe" who violates it A great many employes are financially worthless. Why not make it a criminal offense.
Mr. PRUITT, from the
Mr. PASSAGE'S bill [H. R. 159] concerning the teaching of certain branches in the common schools, prohibiting the teaching of German, and prescribing who shall attend, was read a third time.
Mr. HARRELL: This bill says that the schools shall be open to all of every color, and yet it strikes agains the colored race. I oppose it on both grounds.
Mr. BEST: There are places in this State where the colored and white children attend the same school and sit in the same seats. I never heard of either being contaminated by it I am in favor of both colors attending the same school Anything else is a distinction without a difference. Keeping the schools separate is to have poorer schools for colored children. We passed the Civil Rights bill the other day. Let us see if that is meaningless. The time is coming when we will be broad minded enough and liberal enough to wipe out these color lines If you make the colored man a competent voter you must commence with the children of the colored people. It is a fact that a distinction is made in the schools against the colored children. The colored men should have their rights under the law
Mr FRENCH: No country on earth has to advanced a race as this country has in the colored
race You are always talking about the difference concerning the dealings with the whites
and the colored. If there be any it is as much a discrimination against the the white as
against the colored. The colored race has every advantage. In our county they have just as
good an opportunity as the white They have their superintendent. I have never heard a
complaint from them in my town of Mt. Vernon. In New Har-
Mr. SMITH of Tippecanoe: The first clause of the 8th article of the constitution has the same meaning of this bill. I am just a broad enough American to want taught in our schools the English language - neither the French, the German, or any other. I see no reason why we should teach the German language and neglect the Dane and the Norwegian. I have it from a County Superintendent that in five townships in this State the English language was not taught at all. Every township may have graded schools. When a man pleads here for the teaching of his mother tongue, some contemptible reason or fling is brought to bear against it. I will not be placed at a disadvantage here. I am thoroughly American, but I mean by American every one who is here for a home. An adopted citizen is as much American as any one.
Mr. BROWNING: I do not see in looking over this that any change is made but in one particular. The law already says that the colored people shall have all the freedom of the schools they want. Here is the law. [Reads] It merely affects German teaching. If the time comes to discriminate against either the colored race or Germans, I shall discriminate against the colored, but there is no need of any discrimination against either, and as I am opposed to it, I shall oppose this bill, which proposes to discriminate against the Germans.
Mr. PATTEN: You say that this law discriminates against German children entering public schools. Isn't it a fact that it does not affect their going to the schools, but merely prohibits the teaching of the German language?
Mr. BROWNING: I say that it discriminates against the Germans by prohibiting the teaching of branches they desire to learn. The bill is an indirect attact at the Germans.
Mr. GOODING: I move to recommit the bill to the
Mr. REEVES said that such amendment would put the bill in the frame shape as the present law. He moved that the motion to recommit lie on the table.
A motion to lay the motion to recommit on the table was tabled by yeas 42 nays 38
Mr. HOBAN, explaining his vote, said that he was in favor of the teaching of the English language only in the public schools. He did not oppose the attendance of colored children in the schools. I vote "aye."
Mr. PASSAGE: All gentlemen who speak so much about discrimination against the Germans use it as a shield to vote against the colored men. I vote "aye."
Mr PATTEN: In 1877 I was trustee of the schools at my home. We had a Democratic school board, and we put the colored children in the public schools. So all of us do not use this German discrimination to hide bekind as a shield. The law as it now stands does not discriminate against colored children, because they are now in the public schools. This bill, as a fact, makes no discrimination. I believe in the right of all children of every nationality to go to schools. This amendment ought to be tabled, and I vote "aye."
Mr. PENDLETON: Because the law is inoperative; because colored children are not admitted as they should be. I vote "no."
Mr. TWINEHAM: While I think that the coupling of these two sections is unfortunate, yet I favor it. I think it better that German should not be taught in the common schools, because in German districts it will make them clannish and neglect the English language. I vote "no."
The vote was announced as above.
So the motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The bill failed to pass - yeas 32, nays 49.
Pending the roll call -
Mr. PASSAGE (author of this bill) said: The bill does not curtail the rights of the Germans. It gives equal rights to all.
Mr. BROWNING, explaining his vote, said: Believirg this bill makes an unjust discrimination against the German population, I vote "no."
Mr DEEM, when his name was called, said: For the reason that it will destroy the employment of a large number of colored teachers, I vote "aye."
Mr. GOODING: I have made the best effort I could to get this bill in a good shape I have no desire to do aught to interfere with the Germans. They should have all the rights and immunities of the country. The bill says "graded" schools and I preferred it should say "common" schools. This bill denies no right of the Germans, but merely allows the teaching of the German language in the schools. In the hope that the Senate will amend the bill, and if not, with the hope that it is a good bill, I vote "aye."
Mr. HOWELL: If the bill becomes a law, it will open different constructions of the statutes and cause litigation, and for that reason I vote "no."
Mr. KELLISON: For the reason that I believe this will be of no good either to the German or colored race; for the reason that I believe that for the well being of the colored, and white races they should be sometime separated; for the reason that there is no discrimination or no separation unless there be a strong race prejudice, which is sometimes the case; and for the reason that I believe it better to let this color line die out than to legislate it out, I vote "no."
Mr. KRUGER: We ask for no protection. We merely ask that the law be let alone. I understand that this law has been drafted by the State Superintendent of Public Instruction. I am sorry to learn this. In my city, which is largely of a German population, the Germans pay taxes to educate the English children in the English language, and pay besides to have their children educated in German in private schools. They do not want that interfered with As to the colored race, they go to our public schools as well.
Mr. LOYD, in explaining his vote, said: I do not believe that colored children are discriminated against. In my county they are not. And in my county the Germans, largely in the majority, pay their taxes, and wish the law let alone. I vote "no."
Mr. MOODY: If this bill passes it will provide that if German is taught it must be in a graded school. If in a common school, the twenty five necessary under the present law to have German taught, could not procure it under this bill. I vote "no."
Mr. MURPHY, when his name was called, said: Because the Germans are discriminated against in it, and because the colored people have all our school privileges now, I vote "no."
Mr. McHENRY explained his vote: This State contains a large number of Germans. I share in the pride of teaching our mother tongue here. But so have the Germans a pride in theirs, and some attention should be paid to that. The colored people want no change in the present law. In deference to my constituency I vote "no."
Mr. McMICHAEL, when his name was called, said: For the reason that no further rights will be given the colored race by this bill, and for the reason that it will abridge the rights of Germans, I vote "no."
Mr. OVERMAN, in explanation of his vote, said: Making this distinction in favor of the Germans is making a distinction against all other nationalities not represented here - Italians, Danes, Norwegians, etc., and as I am opposed to such discrimination I vote "aye."
Mr. PASSAGE: Believing this bill does not discriminate against the Germans, and believing that it will put colored children on an equality I vote "aye."
Mr. PENDLETON: I am in favor at all times of the elevation of every race. I hope that the final action on this bill will leave it so that it can be amended. As it is I shall have to vote against it.
Mr. ROBINSON, when his name was called, said: Believing in the broadest liberty and educational equality, I vote "aye."
M . SMITH, of Tippecanoe: Because this bill detracts nothing from any right of any person, race or color now enjoyed by any race in the land; because it does not affect any graded school; because this law will place all the citizens of this State on an absolute equality in the free schools, and because this bill will harmonize the school system of the State, I vote "aye."
Mr. STALEY, explaining, said: Because the Germans do not wish the teaching of the German language in the common schools, but wish to be Americanized, I vote "aye."
Mr. TOWNSEND, in explanation of his vote, said: Gentlemen on this floor have argued that the colored children have equal school privileges with the white race This supposed fear of discrimination against the German children is a subterfuge to hide behind. I believe that if this Mil becomes a law it will enable the colored children to enjoy what the law has undertaken to afford them. Because I do not believe that it discriminates against the Germans, and because I do believe that it will be of benefit to the colored children, I vote "aye."
Mr. GORDON, asking that his name be again called, said: I believe that what is proposed here will come about in the course of events and better than what the law could accomplish; so I vote "no."
The vote was then announced as above.
So the bill was rejected.
The bill [S. 11] to limit the amount of taxes that may be levied by the Board of County
Commissioners in counties
Mr. PENDLETON: We want relief for the people of Marion County. There was what was thought a limit to taxation here, but subsequent laws were so construed that the County Commissioners thought the statute of limitation had been repealed, and they made debts against the county. This bill will limit taxation to 33 per cent. after this year. This year the taxation is allowed ta be put at 43 per cent.
The bill passed by yeas 66, nays 9.
Mr. SCHMIDT'S bill [H. R. 812] to authorize the city of Indianapolis to build a market house and other public buildings was called up, having been before defeated for want of a constitutional majority.
Mr. PENDLETON: I have a petition of 6,000 people asking for the buildings. A legal opinion says that the city may go ahead and build this structure, but to satisfy all conflicting opinions the law is asked for. The city authorities favor it. The building of the structure will furnish a magnificent hall for the capital city of the State. Had we this hall last year we might have had one or both of the national political conventions. This law is asked on the ground that the opinions as to the correctness of donating the ground for this purpose may be harmonized.
The
The bill passed - yeas 78, nays 5.
Mr. GOODING explaining his vote said: I am in favor of the bill, but have some doubts as to its constitutionality; still I will give the bill the benefit of the doubt. I vote "aye."
Mr. JAMESON, when his name was called, said that as the authorities had a disposition to build the hall he did not see that it would be proper to antagonize them, and therefore he would vote "aye."
So the bill was passed as voted above.
Mr. William's bill [H. R. 402] to define the Tenth, Twelfth and Forty seventh Judicial Circuits was called up again, having been before defeated for want of a constitutional majority and passed - yeas 69, nays 17
Mr OVERMAN, explaining his vote said as that the citizens of the counties affected were willing for the change, he would vote "aye."
Mr. Schley's bill [H. R. 152] concerning Building and Savings Associations - freeing them from taxation - was read the third time and failed - yeas, 50; nay, 30 - for want of a constitutional majority of 51 votes.
Pending the bill -
Mr. ENGLE in explaining his vote, said: It occurs to me that this bill would be a bad law. If it passes it will release these associations from taxation, and a rich person might invest largely in one or in many of them, and thus escape the payment of quite a large tax.
Mr. PATTEN (interposing): He can't hold but $1 000 in one, and must be a borrower.
Mr. LOYD: Even $1 000 is too much to escape taxation on, and I vote "no."
Mr. JAMESON, when his name was called, said: For the reason that this bill does not release any one from taxation, but on the contrary releases from double taxation, really, I vote "aye."
Mr. PATTEN: If the members understood this matter, they would not impose a hardship on the stockholders of these associations. They are trying to protect poor men who are trying to build homes. If a man borrows money of them he does it in real estate. He pays taxes on his property and the association has to pay taxes on the mortgage, thus making a double taxation. Therefore I vote "aye."
Mr. SMITH of Tippecanoe: For the reason that this system is an encouragement for homes, and that I may not impose a burden upon the men struggling for a home and to release double taxation, I vote "aye."
Mr. STALEY, when his name was called said: If I were to vote against this bill I could not look a lab ring man in the face. For the reason that double taxes are paid on them, and I wish to release it, I vote "aye."
Mr. GORDON": It is true that this does exempt from taxation the laboring man, but it is right to exempt any man from legal taxes? It is a discrimination against one taxpayer and in favor of another. I vote "no."
Mr HOWELL, in explanation of his vote, said: I do not favor exempting shareholders in this kind of an association any more than I would exempt from taxation shareholders in any other corporation; therefore I vote "no."
Mr. KELLISON: For the reason that I do not believe there is double taxation exscied; for the reason that these associations are not savings banks and property in them can not be listed as money in savings banks. I vote "no."
Mr. MAUK, when his name was called, said: After careful examination of the bill and the law I am constrained to vote "no."
Mr. McMICHAEL, in explaining his vote, said: If a man puts a mortgage on his farm he pays taxes on the farm; and the one holding the mortgage pays taxes on that. This bill proposes a parallel case, and I would as soon vote to exempt the farmer as the shareholder. I vote "no."
The vote was then announced as above.
So the bill was defeated.
Mr. RIVER'S bill [H. R. 528[ concerning the abandonment of county offices, and providing for declaring them vacant, was read the second time and ordered engrossed.
Mr. JAMESON'S bill [H. R. 363] making it a felony for any banker to receive deposits when insolvent, and providing punishment, was read the third time and passed by yeas 70, nays 8
The bill [S. 177] to pay David R. Munson for work done by him for the State was read for the third time
Mr. PENDLETON: This bill is for work done on the Asylum for the Insane. It was before the Legislature two years ago, allowed and put to the specific appropriation bid. It originated this year in the Senate and easily passed that body. Too much time has been wasted already in these claims against the State; the way they are treated is bringing Indiana into disrepute It will come about that State contractors will put their bids together higher in fear that they can not secure their money without tedious delay.
Mr. BROWNING: I think this a lightening rod claim. The fact that the bill is of several years standing convinces me that it is a steal. The charge of $1 per foot assures me that it is a big steal.
Mr. LOYD: This bill came to us after having been passed upon by a cool and deliberate body. The Senate, I am informed, gave the bill a careful investigation.
Mr. MOODY: I asked Mr. Browning if he ever heard of a man putting a lightning rod on a
smoke stack for less than eighty cents per foot. He replied that he never heard of putting
rods on smoke stacks. That is what I thought He was talking of something he
Mr. GOODING: I move to recommit this bill to the
Mr. WILLIAMS moved to amend that the committee be empowered to send for persons and papers
The amendment to the motion was agreed to.
Mr. GORDON moved to amend that it be referred to the
This amendment was laid on the table.
The motion (Mr. Golding's) to recommit to the
Mr. Kellison's bill [H. R. 314] relative to mechanics' leins was read the second time and ordered engrossed.
The bill [S 18 see page 163 190 of vol. 22] to regulate the practice of medicine was read the third time.
Mr. McHENRY: The State of Indiana has been made a central point to which have gathered all the refuse physicians and quacks from everywhere. It needs and demands at once some kind of legislation It is too late in the nineteenth century to talk about good physicians going from one place to another without a graduation certificate. There is no prescribed legal qualification now for a physician. Under this bill the attendance on a term of lectures is made a qualification, and this is better than nothing. This bill should be passed to elevate the profession and to protect the people.
Mr. MAUK: This bill gives some protection to the quack doctors; that is all there is to it. Some member of a medical college junior class who may have dallied around and then practiced three years in some out of the way place, comes up to the requirements of the case.
Mr. LOYD: AS Democrats we are opposed to any scheme that comes under class legislation. If this bill becomes a law a great many worthy, practicing physicians in the State would be thrown out, because they have not attended some high toned medical college. This bill is the outgrowth of a hitter contrast between two medical colleges. We can't afford to take up this fight. Physicians of my county say that the bill should not pass.
Mr. ADAMS: I have been besieged by physicians of my county regarding this bill. I believe this matter will in time regulate itself. If my neighbor has a physician who has not graduated I see no reason why I should take such a physician away from him. If a man has practiced for ten years he may continue without molestation - graduation or no graduation; if a man has been quacking for ten years he may under this bill continue to quack A physician may as well practice without a license as a lawyer may. There are many pettifoggers in the legal profession, and I do not care to have lawyers who have no certificate of graduation licensed. All men who graduate as physicians are not competent and all physicians who have not graduated are incompetent. No man not a doctor is favoring this bill
Mr. FRANKLIN thought the bill should not pass, as the people did not want it.
Mr. KELLISON. The people do not want this bill as it is. It is born of a wrangle among physicians. This bill proposes to license three kinds of doctors - one who makes affidavit that he is a graduate of a respectable medical college. Who is to decide this? Why, the men who makes the affidavit; and the Clerk is compelled to accept it. The man who would practice on the diploma of a bogus college would commit perjury. There are but three classes of persons in Indiana who are compelled to procure a license as to respectability and the like. They are the school-teacher, the saloonkeeper and the lawyer. To license a quack - and a quack to get a license - would be to put him on a level with reputable physicians. Another class of physicians under this bill is the man who has practiced ten years Yet some are never competent, in spite of experience. This bill will cut off the traveling specialists, some of whom have the finest educations. I believe the people are capable of deciding who they shall employ.
Mr. PASSAGE demanded the previous question.
The house seconded the demand, and under its operations the bill was defeated by yeas 36 nays 43
Pending the roll call -
Mr BARNEY explaining his vote, said: For the reason that my constituents demand it, I vote "aye."
Mr BEST, when his name was called, said: As there seems to be a demand for it I vote "aye."
Mr. BOYD, in explanation, said: As the physicians, like the Representatives, disagree upon this bill I vote "no."
Mr. BROWNING, when his name was called, said: I believe in protection to the people, but, I am told that this is no protection to the people, so I vote "no."
Mr. COPELAND, in explanation of his vote said: Believing the bill incomplete I vote "no."
Mr. DEEM: Believing that the true physician can not be manufactured to order by one horse medical colleges; believing that it is nobody's business where or how a man gets his knowledge and skill as a practioner and believing farther that this bill is in the interest of college dudes as against old and experienced members of the medical profession, I vote "no."
Mr. GARRISON: Because I do not believe the people of Indiana ask legislation on this subject, I vote "no."
Mr. HELMS: Being opposed to class legislation, and knowing that men have the choice in the employment of physicians, I vote "no."
Mr. HOBAN, when his name was called, said: I find that the physicians disagree on this point, but I believe in protection to the physicians. I vote "aye."
Mr. KRUEGER: As I stand in with the tombstone man, and as I have a brother sexton of a graveyard, and being anxious to help them, I will, if not ruled out on the ground of having an interest in the case, I vote "aye."
Mr. OSBORN, when his name was called, said: From the fact that I think this an unjust discrimination against certain worthy persons, I vote "no."
Mr. OVERMAN: Not as to my personal views, but following the wishes of ninety nine out of 100 of my constituents, I vote "no."
Mr. STALEY: Other States have medical laws, and as I do not wish Indiana to be the great dumping ground for quacks I vote "aye."
The vote was then announced as above.
So the bill was defeated.
The House adjourned.
Mr. SEARS called up a motion entered some days ago to recall from the Senate the bill [H. R 377] to do away with certain fees of prosecuting attorneys, which bill passed the House.
Mr.GOODING: It was passed here by a majority vote, and I do not see why it should be recalled. I know that prosecuting attorneys have been here to fight it.
Mr. MOCK: I voted for the bill, and I would like to know if this move is to reconsider it.
Mr. SEARS: I understand that the gentleman from Marion County (Mr. Jameson) has given notice that he will move to reconsider it.
Mr. ROBINSON: I understand that prosecuting Attorneys have been fighting this bill and misrepresenting it in the Senate. This bill makes but one short amendment — that Prosecutors shall not receive the $5 fee where the defendant goes willingly before a Justice of the Peace and enters a plea of guilty. If the Prosecutor or his deputy is neither present, the Justice shall not send for him. If the Prosecutor has worked up the case, he may be present upon the calling of his case and claim his fee. But the Justice shall not, as now, when he taxes up the cost, enter a fee of $5 for the Prosecutor, when the latter may not be present or never have heard of the case. This bill is to check this practice.
Mr. LOYD: I desire to make the point of order that the merits of the bill are not proper for discussion at this hour.
The SPEAKER: Only in a limited decree — whether the House wishes to again take up the bill, having not fully understood it. I will say this much for myself: I voted against the bill, but with certain amendments I can vote for it. In its present language it is liable to defeat in the Senate. If the bill is so changed that any guilty man against whom a case has been made through the effort of a Prosecutor may not, to save costs, go before a Justice and thus keep the Prosecutor from fees that he may have earned.
Mr. MOODY: It is a little difficult to vote upon whether the bill shall be brought back or not unless we understand something of its provisions. The bill destroys certain fees of the Prosecuting Attorney. A law has been on our statute books for thirty years that if a man violate the criminal law he shall not be his own prosecutor. If he assault his neighbor he shall not go to a remote part of the county and there enter a plea of guilty and prosecute himself. This bill proposes just such a procedure.
The motion to recall the bill was agreed to.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe, called up his motion, heretofore made, that the vote on the bill [S. 45 — see pp. 175 and 242, vol 22] creating an Appellate Court, be reconsidered.
Mr. PATTEN moved that the motion to reconsider lie on the table.
The motion to lay the motion to reconsider on the table was rejected by yeas 37, nays 40.
Pending the roll call -
Mr. GOODING, explaining his vote, said: Because the bill was thoroughly discussed when up before, I vote "aye" to lay the motion on the table.
Mr. MOCK, when his name was called, said: Because an Appellate Court will create unnecessary expense, and because it was before fully considered, I vote "aye."
Mr. MOODY, in explanation of his vote, said: Because I believe the court is needed, I vote "no."
Mr McHENRY, when his name was called, said: Before I voted for the bill according to the wishes of the Fort Wayne bar. Now I shall vote my own convictions, and vote "aye" to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.
Mr SMITH, of Tippecanoe, explaining his vote said: Without saying how I shall vote on the bill, and in order that it may be more fully examined, I vote "no."
The vote was then announced as above.
So the motion to lay the motion to reconsider on the table was tabled.
The motion to reconsider was then agreed to.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe, moved that the bill lie on the table and that 300 copies be printed
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. PENDLEFON" submitted a resolution that it is the sense of the House that when it adjourn in the evening that it adjourn until Monday morning at 9 o'clock.
Mr. STALEY: The House should not lose time as the Senate is far ahead of the House with the business of the session.
Mr. PATTEN said that, but two days would be lost, and most of the members had private business at home which demands personal attention. As an extra session was called, many have not their private affairs arranged.
Mr. GORDON: If you adjourn this evening until Monday afternoon, you lose three days — waste that much time; and that is the only thing you can make of it. I move to amend so that the House adjourn to meet on Saturday.
The amendment was rejected.
The motion that the House adjourn until 9 o'clock on Monday morning was agreed to.
Mr. OVERMAN'S bill [H. R. 472] concerning taxation was read the third time.
Mr. ENGLE: If I understand this bill it proposes to tax the borrower for the money which he may be unfortunate enough to have to borrow, and it makes a lein on the property for these taxes. Foreigners who have money loaned in Indiana will compel the borrowers to pay the taxes upon it. They will do it in some way or manner. It is another system of doable taxation. Taxes are paid on the property and the owner will be compelled to pay taxes on the money.
Mr. ADAMS: This bill is a stop toward equalizing taxation, which is not in this particular double.
Mr. BROWNLEE: In cases of mortgage on real estate, deed of trust or other means by which a debt is secured, the bill says the value of the property affected by the mortgage shall be assessed and taxed to the owner of the real estate, may be taxed on $2,000, and if I make a loan the bill says I shall be taxed on the value of the real estate less the value of the mortgage. So I am not doubly taxed. This tax may, under the bill be paid by either the owner of the mortgage or by the borrower.
Mr. GORDON: The bill is in the right direction, but because it does not go far enough I think the bill should not pass. It works an inequality.
Mr. BOOE: I hope this bill will not become a law for the reason that I believe it will debar to a great extent the men who desire to mortgage their real estate from doing so. It becomes sometimes an absolute necessity in business for owners to mortgage real estate, and under the bill the mortgagee pays taxes to the extent of his loan on the real estate. He has to contract for interest under the existing law, and out of that interest pay his proportion of taxes on the land Therefore, in the end the mortgagee will receive but a very small per cent, on his loan, which fact will drive money lenders to use their money in other ways, and the result will be that holders of real estate can not obtain money upon mortgages. I regard the bill as an obnoxious one; can not vote for it and hope it will not pass.
Mr. HOWELL: I think the law as it stands is much fairer than the bill.
Mr. TIMMONS: The appraised value of 200 acres of land is, say $4 400, but it is sold for $7,000, on which there is paid in cash $1 500, and that leaves $5 500. Now take the appraised value, $4,400, from the $5,500 and there remains $1,100 exempt, by the parties making long time at 6 per cent. say for six years on the $5,500. The average appraisement on land is about $12 in the county of White, and the average selling price for cash and on time is from $25 to $35 an acre. This shows how the bill would operate.
Mr. BEST: I think the arguments here against the bill are unanswerable. Indiana can not afford to adopt any fiat theory of this kind. If you tax a man in Ohio on mortgage he holds on Indiana land, you will drive the money lenders from Indiana. If this bill passes you tax a man on his real estate without regard to his indebtedness. If it pass it will exempt two-thirds of the taxble property in the State. Because a man has a mortgage over him it does not make him richer or poorer. I owe some debts for which I have not given a mortgage. Giving a mortgage for that will make me neither richer or poorer. If I borrow $1000 and give a mortgage for it, I have the money and I am no poorer, so I should not be released from taxation upon that.
Mr. BOYD hoped the bill would not pass, as it was not effectual.
Mr. OVERMAN: The bill may not cover everything. Some gentlemen think it does not
The bill was defeated by yeas 34, nays 42
Pending the roll call —
Mr. BARNES, explaining his vote, said: My objection to this bill is that it will allow most of the railways to escape taxation. I vote "no."
Mr. BARNEY, in explanation of his vote said: As it will necessitate our sending every assessor to a law school before he is competent, I vote "no."
Mr. BROWNING, when his name was called, said: For the reason that I believe this bill is in the interest of corporations and against the common people, I vote "no."
Mr. DONHOST, explaining his vote, said: For the reason that the bill will make necessary an increase of taxation in Indiana, and will exempt a large number of corporations, I vote "no."
Mr. GARRISON, when his name was called, said: For the reason that it will raise taxes where it should be and for the reason that poor men all over the State are calling for it, I vote "aye."
Mr. HOBAN in explaining his vote, said: It will lead to confusion, and while I believe that something in this direction is needed, yet I do not believe that this bill hits it, so I vote "no."
Mr. OSBORNE, when his name was called said: I like this bill for its good intentions, but in its present form I think it should not become a law, so I vote "no."
Mr. PLEASANTS, in explanation of his vote, said: Because I like the bill and believe that it is demanded by my constituents, I vote "aye."
Mr. REEVES, when his name was called, said: This bill will relieve the burdens of the hard-working class, and I vote "aye."
Mr. ROBINSON, explaining his vote, said: Believing that while all property should be taxed, none should be doubly taxed, I vote "aye."
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe, in explanation laid: I do not believe that the bill will do what is claimed for it, but will lead to confusion, I vote "no."
Mr. SMITH, of Warrick, when his name was called said: In view of the fact that I believe it will relieve the worthy, I vote "aye."
Mr. SPEAKER, in casting his vote, said: I was first moved to vote against the bill, but after the final appeal of the gentleman from Lawrence (Mr. Overman), I shall vote "aye."
The vote was tben announced as above.
So the bill was defeated
Mr. REEVS' bill [H. R. 528] concerning the abandonment of office and the appointment of an officer was then read the third time.
Mr. REEVES moved to amend so that the bill shall not apply to any deputy who may have
been appointed prior to the passage of this bill, and that the bill, with the amendment be
recommitted to the
Mr. BROWNING: I think the bill should not pass. As a fact it looks to me to be unconstitutional. However, to recommit would give time to examine the case from Johnson County
Mr. RIVERS: This certainly is a Democratic county and the successor, if any to the Recordership, would be of the same politics. This man, said to be deputy, is not a deputy, nor never was. In two or three weeks after the Recorder disappeared this man, now in charge of the office, offered and took the oath of office - some twenty five days after the Recorder was gone. It was no genuine appointment.
Mr. PATTEN moved that the bill be indefinitely postponed.
Pending which -
The House took a recess till 2 o'clock p.m.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe by consent, offered a resolution that when the House adjourn it adjourn until Saturday noon, to save a constitutional point.
The motion was adopted.
The House then took up the unfinished business, the question being on the motion of Mr. PATTON to indefinitely postpone the bill [H. R. 528] to declare a Recorder's office vacant
Mr. BROWNLEE: There is no way under the law, as it is, that an office can be declared
vacant. If any officer runs away his office can not be declared vacant. So the bill is not
local in its character. If a man is elected to an office he should attend to it or vacate
it. The effect of this bill is to put upon county officers greater vigilance in the
discharge of their duty. There is a quo warranto proceedings in which a deputy may be cited
to appear and show by what authority he acts, but that is the end of it.
The SPEAKER: I will interrupt the proceedings for this statement. I wish to withdraw from the House now to catch my train for home, and I will call the gentleman from Dearborn (Mr. McMullen) to the chair. I would advise that you discuss this question at will and then adjourn until Saturday. I I see that there is not "sufficient number of members" to give the bill a vote.
Mr DEEM: It has been sought to kill this bill by recommittal. I submit that the office ought to be declared vacant. The Commissioners of that county should have the right to appoint a man to that office, to save all questions as to legality.
Mr. MOODY: It is said here that you can not declare an office vacant, when an officer has absconded, because you can not have personal service. The law says that personal service may be had by leaving the summons at his last place of residence. To be an officer, a man must be a resident of the county. This is a proposition for special legislation — for if the bill is passed, it goes through with the express purpose of accommodating Johnson County. Under the present law the Court may vacate the office. The people of Johnson County want this case left where it is in my opinion. I have heard nothing, but I so judge because the bondsmen are not complaining of the man who is now serving.
Mr. REEVES: In regard to those bondsmen, I am informed that they did undertake to surrender the office, and the Judge, as able a man as there is on this floor, and he in open court did not find authority to remove the incumbent. In regard to the people, I represent them, and they want the office vacated. If some other gentlemen here represent Johnson County more than I. I propose to go home and remain there. If the measures proposed by this bill are already on the statute, why oppose it?
Mr. GOODING: If the gentleman will allow me a word: Some of the provisions are in the law, but not all, and some of those not in the law we oppose.
Mr. RIVERS: That Treasurer has been gone four months. I believe he is dead. I have been told that there is not a man in Johnson County who can locate the last residence of Clemmer.
Pending action upon the motion to indefinitely postpone the bill -
The house adjourned pursuant to the order heretofore adopted till Saturday afternoon at 2 o'clock.
The Senate met pursuant to adjournment, Lieutenant Governor Manson in the chair.
The session was opened with prayer by Rev. O. H. P. Abbott, a former representative of Bartholomew County.
A message from the House of Representatives [by Emmet Rose, File Clerk] announced the passage of sundry bills and resolutions by that body.
The reading of the Secretary's minutes of Tuesday's proceedings was dispensed with.
On motion of Mr. Bailey, the amendment made by the House of Representatives to the title of the bill [S 213] to authorize municipal corporations to purchase real estate for sanitary purposes, by adding the words, "and legalizing all purchases heretofore made," was concurred in.
On motion by Mr. BENZ the claim of the Grand Hotel, as embraced in a House concurrent
resolution, appropriating $650 for the use of rooms for committees, was taken up; also a
bill of $166 for the use of a room by the
On motion by Mr WEIR the $650 resolution was concurred in.
Mr. MAGEE moved the $166 resolution for rent of room for the use of the
The motion was agreed to.
Numerous leaves of absence were granted, when —
On motion by Mr. MAGEE leaves of absence were granted to all Senators out of the city.
On his farther motion it was -
Ordered that when the Senate adjourns it adjourn till Monday morning at 10 o'clock.
Mr. WINTER asked and obtained leave to introduce a bill [S 349] to prohibit business discrimination by telegraph and telephone companies. [The bill provides that any telegraph company in the State shall, during business hours, receive all dispatches, whether from other telegraph companies or from individuals, and shall transmit the same at the usual rates. All telephone companies doing business in the State shall also furnish instruments and service to any one, provided such applicant comply with reasonable regulations of the company.]
It was read the first time and referred to the
On motion of Mr. DUNCAN, of Brown, his bill [S. 272] for an act making it a felony for any officer or employe of any bank to solicit or receive any deposit from any person or corporation, or to permit any other officer or employe to solicit or receive any deposit in such bank, knowing at the time that such bank is insolvent, and prescribing punishment therefor, was read the second time with a committee amendment embracing new matter, and a recommendation that after the bill is so amended that it so pass.
On his further motion the report of the committee was concurred in and the bill ordered engrossed.
On motion by Mr. JOHNSON, of Tippecanoe, his bill [S 324] for an act to be entitled an act to authorize the Board of Trustees of any school city to pay out of the special funds of such city for real estate purchased for a public library was read the second time, with a favorable recommendation from the committee.
Mr. JOHNSON: Some years ago the school trustees of Lafayette purchased a building for a public library; half was paid in cash and a mortgage given for the remainder. The trustees now wish to be authorized to pay the remainder from the special school fund This bill is a local matter, having reference to the city of Lafayette. I move that the report of the committee be concurred in and the bill ordered engrossed.
The motion was agreed to.
On motion by Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks, his bill [S 204] to amend Sections 1, 2, 3 4 5 and 6 of an act entitled an act providing for the appraisement, purchase and conversion of toll roads into free roads, and for their maintenance as free roads, approved March 8, 1883, and declaring an emergency, was read the second time with a favorable committee report thereon.
Mr. CAMPBELL, in order to allow the Senator from Randolph (Mr. Macy) time to prepare an amendment, was willing to pass the bill over for the present.
On motion of Mr. HUSTON, his bill [S. 151] to amend Section 9 of an act entitled an act to provide for a general system of public schools, etc, being Section 4520 of the Revised Statutes of 1881, was read the second time with a committee amendment embracing new matter, and a recommendation that the substitute bill be passed.
Mr. HUSTON: This substitute amendment to the bill I introduced limits the number of times for holding teachers' institutes to one day in each of the first four months. Another provision is that the teachers, in not more than three townships, may meet together for an institute, so as to have a number of institutes in each county, and thus not require the attendance of teachers from distant parts of the county, which often causes great inconvenience.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay: Does this bill refer to county or township institutes?
Mr. HUSTON: It refers to county and township institutes both. I move that the report of the committee be concurred in, and the bill ordered engrossed.
The motion was agreed to.
On motion by Mr. BAILEY, the bill [H. R. 312] to authorize the building of a market house
and city hall, was read the first time and referred to the
Mr. JOHNSON, of Tippecanoe, asked and obtained leave to introduce a bill [S. 350] to amend the act entitled "an act to amend an act entitled 'an act providing for the appointment of notaries public, and defining their duties,'" approved February 12, 1855. [This bill provides that notaries public shall file their certificates in the office of the Secretary of State.]
The bill was read the first time and referred to the
Mr. JOHNSON asked and obtained leave to introduce a bill [S. 351] to authorize Trustees and Commissioners of Common Schools to add manual labor instruction to the course of study in such schools in cities of 10 000 and more inhabitants. [The bill provides that manual training may be added to the course of study, provided the additional instruction shall be optional with the parents or guardians of pupils of such schools.]
The bill was read the first time and referred to the
On motion by Mr. WEIR his bill [S. 236] providing that it shall be lawful for any person or persons to hunt on the uninclosed lands within the State of Indiana without having obtained permission from the owner or owners thereof, and declaring an emergency, was taken up and referred to a select committee of three.
The Lieutenant Governor makes that committee to consist of Messrs. Weir, Schloss and Marshall.
On his further motion his bill [S. 258] for an act to authorize the Governor to issue a patent to Frank Coffeen for certain Michigan road land in Laporte County, etc, was read the second time and ordered to be engrossed for the third reading.
On motion by Mr. DUNCAN, of Brown, the bill [H R 9] authorizing Boards of County
Commissioners to construct gravel roads was read the first time and referred to the
On motion by Mr. OVERSTREET his bill [S 318] to amend Section 19 of the fee and salary law approved March 21, 1877, being Section 5 857 of the Revised Statutes of 1881, and declaring an emergency, was read the second time (by title only), the report of the committee concurred in (without reading), and the bill ordered engrossed.
On motion by Mr. WINTER his bill [S. 299] appropriating the sum of $3,184 69 to reimburse
the city of Indianapolis on account of money expended by said city in
On motion of Mr. NULL the House concurrent resolution — see page 195 of Volume 22 of these reports — was concurred in.
Mr. FOULKE asked and obtained leave to introduce a bill - [S 352] - to appropriate $225 to pay the claim of William H. Schlater [The bill appropriates the sum to William H. Schlater, Secretary of the Senate in 1881 for indexing the journal for the special session of that year.]
It was read the first time and referred to the
On motion by Mr. WEIR the bill [S. 295] concerning the relocation of county seats, repealing all laws in conflict therewith, was read the second time and ordered engrossed.
On motion by Mr. HOWARD, his bill [S 141], authorizing the appointment of guardians of insane persons committed to the Hospital for the Insane, and defining the powers and duties of such guardians, was read the second time and ordered engrossed.
On motion by Mr. SMITH, of Jay, the bill [H. R. 397] to enable owners of land to drain
and reclaim the same, was read the first time and referred to the
On motion by Mr. FOULKE, his bill [S 274] to amend Section 18 of an act entitled an act to establish a Female Prison and Reformatory Institution for girls and women, to provide for the organization and government thereof, and making appropriation, approved May 42, 1869, was read the second time.
Mr. FOULKE: This bill proposes to add to Section 6,179 of the code, which provides that females over fifteen years of age may be sent to jail; that in counties in which there is established a Home for Friendless Women they may be imprisoned in such Homes. There is some doubt as to the legality of such proceeding, and this bill is proposed in order to avoid the doubt. I move that the bill be ordered engrossed.
The motion was agreed to.
On motion by Mr. BAILEY his bill [S. 181] for an act legalizing the organization of the Zionsville and Pike Township Gravel Road Company, and the official acts of the Boards of Directors thereof, was read the second time and ordered engrossed.
On motion by Mr. HUSTON, the bill [H. R. 486] to provide for the construction of wire
fences and to legalize the same, was read the first time and referred to the
Mr. BRYANT introduced a bill [S. 353], to remove driftwood from non navigable streams. [The bill provides that the owner of lands through which non-navigable streams run shall keep the same clear of driftwood; if said owner shall for six months fail so to do, the Township Trustee shall give him notice, and if in thirty days the owner still fail to remove the driftwood, the Trustee shall then remove it and be entitled to action against the land-owner for costs.]
The bill was read the first time and referred to the
Mr. JOHNSON, of Tippecanoe, offered the following:
Whereas, Occurrences of a grave character conclusively show that the consolidation of the Soldiers' Orphans' Home with the Asylum for Feeble-minded Children at Knightstown, and the management of these two institutions by one and the same Board of Trustees are incompatible with the purposes for which they have been established, be it
Resolved by the Senate of the State of Indiana, the House concurring, That a special committee composed of three members of the Senate and three members of the House of Representatives be appointed to report to both Houses of the General Assembly a bill under the provisions of which said two institutions may be separated, and to rebuild them, and to report in time for this General Assembly to act upon and pass such bill.
Mr. McCLURE: I don't see that there is any use in continuing to introduce bills and resolutions for the purpose of dividing these institutions and putting them under a different management. There is a bill now introduced for that purpose. It is known to every one who has taken the pains to read the history of both these institutions that they are practically separate, but one management, and I can't see for my life what objection there would be to that. Consequently I think the concurrent resolution ought not to pass.
Mr. JOHNSON, of Tippecanoe: I think great injustice is being done the children of dead soldiers by treating them the same way as the feeble minded children. If those soldiers who have given up their lives for their country could have a word to say, I think they would in the most energetic manner object to this way of caring for their orphan children. As long as the management remains the same there is no practical separation of the two institutions. I think the people of the State and the Legislature should see to it that the separation is made.
Mr. McCLURE: It will be remembered that the Senator from Miami (Mr. Adkison)
Mr. McINTOSH: I understand a bill has just come from the House of Representatives which
has something to do with the Soldiers' Orphans' Home, and I move that this
resolution be referred to the
Mr. JOHNSON: I move to amend so as to refer the resolution to a special committee of three.
Mr. McINIOSH: I hope the Senate will not do that. The
Mr. JOHNSON: I didn't intend to slight the committee.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. JOHNSON asked and obtained consent to withdraw his resolution.
On motion by Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks, the bill S. 204 was again taken up.
Mr. MACY offered an amendment - a proviso to Section 6.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. CAMPBELL: I move that the bill be ordered engrossed for the third reading.
Mr. MAGEE: The Senator moves to engross the bill without a quorum being present. We are here as a Senate under pure fiction. I don't think a bill ought to be engrossed in the absence of a quorum, because when the bill goes to the engrossment there is an end to farther amendment of it I don't know that there is any particular objection to this bill, but I oppose the engrossment of bills when there is no Senate present.
Mr. CAMPBELL: I think the Senator should have made that point long ago. There have been several bills ordered engrossed here this afternoon.
Mr. MAGEE: I withdraw the point of order on your bill.
Mr. OVERSTREET: This is a very lengthy bill. There are some features in this bill I don't approve of, but the Senator from Hendricks says if the bill is not right we can beat it on the final vote. I don't want to obstruct it now, but I don't see any necessity for haste with this bill.
Mr. MACY: I only want to say that under this bill it will take a majority of the owners of the acres of land returned by the appraiser; and it requires that the roads shall be put in good repair before being turned over to the county. In my county there hes been turned over to the county a half dozen gravel roads in very bad shape.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Henricks: After the bill passes to the engrossment if there is any error or defect in it. I will not ask the Senate to vote for it. It is intended to perfect the present law. The bill originated to the county from which the Lieutenant Governor comes. There is objection to having old roads with broken down bridges and culverts turned over to the county.
The motion to order the bill engrossed was agreed to.
The following described bills were read the first time [by title only] and severally referred to appropriate committees:
[H. R. 33] to amend Sections 7 and 10, being Sections 5,097 and 5 100 of the Revised Statutes of 1881, authorizing County Commissioners to construct gravel roads.
[H. R. 38] defining what class of persons may be admitted to the Soldiers' and Seamen's Orphans' Home.
[H. R. 10 ] to amend Sections 16 and 20 of an act concerning highways and the supervisors thereof.
[H. R. 117] concerning gravel and macadamized roads.
[H. R. 120] prohibiting the publication or sate of immoral literature.
[H. R. 170] to amend Sections 160 190, 213 and 215 of an act concerning proceedings in criminal causes.
[H. R 219] to authorize the levy of writs in certain cases
[H. R. 220] supplemental to act providing for voluntary assignments, etc
[H. R 289] for planting willows along the banks of streams.
[H. R 481] to amend Sections 78, 79, 83 of an act providing for a general system of common schools.
[H. R. 402] defining the Tenth, Twelfth and Forty Seventh Judicial Circuits
[H. R 239] authorizing and empowering the Township Trustee of Cold Spring Township, Laporte County, to release judgment against Henry Kiefer and Robert Curran.
[H. R. 225] to legalize the incorporation of the corporation of Sulphur Springs, Ind.
[H. R. 231] to amend Section 20 of an act concerning highways.
[H. R. 451[ regulating railroad passenger fares.
H. R 484] legalizing certain acts of the Board of Trustees of Brownstown, Jackson County, Indiana.
[H. R. 363] to amend an act concerning
[H. R. 369] defining the liabilities of railroads for killing stock.
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MANSON: I wish to make a statement to the Senate. At the organization of this Senate I appointed three boys pages; and I want to say, I am delighted with the manner in which they performed their duty. If it was left with me, I would be glad to continue them during the special session. But an old friend of mine - an old army friend, who lives on the Ohio River, made application to have a son of his appointed. It was impossible for me then to appoint his son, but I promised in case there was an extra session (but I didn't then, at that time, think there would be), I would appoint his son. Therefore, I appoint Montgomery Bemis, of Perry County, as one of the pages. And I have a petition, signed by a majority of Senators, asking the appointment of Harry Hathaway as a page. I think the President of the Senate ought to be governed as far as possible by the wishes of the Senate, and I will appoint him, to take effect from next Monday. I regret very much to part with Walter Taylor, for he has done his duty very well; but the Senate has signed a petition to appoint another in his place. And if there is no objection on the part of the Senate George A. Russ and Harry Fritz, the two boys who have served - one half the time and the other all the time - will be continued. If it is satisfactory to the Senate it will be entered on the books ["Consent" "consent."] It is so ordered by unanimous consent.
Mr. WEIR: I notice a number of Senators have come in, and others may come in to-night or to-morrow. I think we might do a great deal of business we just as well do as not, and I move to reconsider the vote by which it was declared that when we adjourn it be till Monday at 10 o'clock.
The motion was agreed to.
And then came an adjournment till 10 o'clock to-morrow.
The session was opened with prayer by Rev. Albert Rondthaler, pastor of the Tabernacle Presbyterian Church.
The reading of the Secretary's minutes of yesterday's proceedings was dispensed with.
The Lieutenant Governor called the Senator from Marion (Mr. Winter) to the chair. Mr. WEIR-, I move to take up House hills on the second reading. The motion was agreed to.
The bill [H. R. 6] to prohibit ball playing on the Sabbath day was read the second time and a favorable committee report thereon concurred in.
Mr. FOULKE asked and obtained leave to introduce a bill [S 354] concerning expert testimony, providing that in all courts except justices, expert witnesses might be called upon to testify, upon petition of either party to the suit, such witnesses to be selected by the court, and paid for their services whatever sum the court might deem just and proper.
The bill was read the first time and referred to the
Mr. SMITH, of Delaware, asked and obtained consent to introduce a bill [S. 355] to regulate the dissolution of incorporated towns and school corporations, and prescribing the disposition of the propersy of such dissolved corporations.
The bill was read the first time and referred to the
Mr. MACY, from the special committee thereon, returned the House concurrent resolution to
pay certain expenses of the
Mr. MACY: In relation to this report I will say that the amendment allows to the Doorkeeper of the House (Mr. Frye) the same mileage allowed Sheriffs by law. The Grand Hotel charged for more days than we occupied the room. I move that the amendments be agreed to and that the report of the committee be concurred in.
Mr. JOHNSTON, of Dearborn: I think this report ought to be concurred in from the fact that they have charged us from the 5th of February for the use of that room, and we did not occupy the room till the 10th as the notes of the Secretary of the committee show, and we abandoned the room on the 22d of Februarv. Including these two days it only makes fourteen days, while the Bates House has us charged with twenty-three days occupancy of that room. I think the report of the committee ought to be concurred in.
The report of the committee was then concurred in.
On motion by Mr. MACY, the resolutions as amended were each adopted by a separate vote.
The following described House bills were read the second time, and favorable committee reports thereon severally concurred in, excepted where otherwise stated:
The bill [H. R. 124] to amend Section 59 of an act entitled "An act concerning proceedings in civil cases approved April 7, 1881." [Clerk's notice of pending of action to be published three weeks in a newspaper, etc"]
The bill [H. R. 130] for an act to legalize the incorporation of the town of Owensville, Gibson County, Indiana.
The bill [H. R 137] for an act to prohibit the sale of dangerous toys.
Mr. FOWLER: It would seem that there was a difference of sentiment in the committee on this bill; and it would probably not be right to concur in this report until the minority of the committee be heard from. I move that further action be postponed.
The motion was agreed to.
The bill [H. R. 153] to authorize the acceptance of Surety Companies as sureties upon bonds, required by the laws of the State, etc.. and to prescribe the rights and liabilities of such companies, etc.
The bill [H R 180] for an act to amend Section 240 of an act concerning public offenses and punishment, approved April 14, 1881.
The PRESIDENT pro tem: That exhausts House bills on second reading.
Mr. WEIR: House bill No. 239 was yesterday referred to the
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. WEIR: I now move that the bill be read the second time and again referred to the
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the bill [H. R. 239] for an act authorizing and empowering the Township
Trustee of Cold Spring Township, Laporte County, to release judgment against Henry Kiefer
and Robert Curran, ($643 and cost of suit) was read the second time and referred to the
Mr. FOULKE: I would like to take a similar course in relation to the bill introduced by
me yesterday in regard to the claim of William H Schlater. I move to reconsider the vote by
which Senate bill No. 352 was referred to the
The motion was agreed to.
And accordingly the bill [S. 325] to pay William H. Schlater, Principal Secretary of the
special session of 1881, for making and publishing in the journal of the Senate a list and
index thereto of bills and joint resolutions acted upon during the regular and special
sessions of 1881, was read the second time and referred to the
Mr. FOULKE: I offer the following resolution:
Resolved, By the Senate — the House of
To strike from said Constitution Section 21 of Article 7 thereof.
I move that it be referred to the
It was so ordered.
On motion by Mr. SMITH, of Jay, his bill [S. 331] to authorize Boards of County Commissioners to audit and allow claims in certain cases — losses by fire while serving on a jury — was read the second time with a committee amendment. He moved that the report of the committee be concurred in.
Mr. FOWLER: I hope that will not be. It seems the entire committee does not concur in that report. I should like to hear from the minority.
Mr. SMITH of Jay: This is a local bill.
Mr. FOWLER: I know it.
Mr. SMITH: A gentleman who was summoned as a juror, and while serving in the jury room, had a fine horse burned in a livery stable. He supposed his horse was out, and everybody else supposed the horse was out, but the horse was burnt up. This bill is to authorize the Board of Commissioners in any county, under similar circumstances, to audit and allow a claim of this kind. This claim amounts to $200 I think there is nothing unreasonable in the bil. It was true there was not a full committee when the bill was considered, and the reason was because we could not get a full committee; but all the members of the committee present agreed that the bill should become a law.
Mr. FOWLER: I regard this kind of legislation as vicious. While this bill is intended to be local in application, in terms it is not local, for it applies to every county in Indiana. It simply creates each county in the State an insurance company to insure property against loss by fire. It is a bad precedent for a Legislature to set in pressing a bill of this character.
Mr.
Mr. FOWLER: I understand that, but I don't think any bill ought to be placed in a condition where it can not be amended without a quorum present.
Mr. OVERSTREET: I am aware there is considerable opposition to the bill. I don't see why this should be pushed to a vote on concurring in the report of the committee For my own part, I know several Senators who are not here who think this is a dangerous piece of legislation. Whether the report could be concurred in with a full Senate is a auction I consider doubtful.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay: The report of the committee will not stop any amendment that may be offered to the bill. I desire to advance the bill as far as I can because it is a bill in which there is some merit.
Mr. OVERSTREET: It is generally used as an argument for the passage of a bill that a report favorable to it has been adopted.
The report of the committee was concurred in.
On motion by Mr. BRYANT, his bill [S. 335] to require abstractors of titles to give bond, was read the third time.
Mr. SELLERS: I move to refer this bill to the
Mr. BRYANT: I hope the motion made by the Senator from White (Mr. Sellers) will fail. This is a good bill. It is in the interest of the people. It is a bill requiring abstractors to give bond against mistakes. There are abstractors all over the State making abstracts of titles to lands who are not responsible. They furnish parties abstracts and certify that they are correct, when in fact they are not, thereby causing the loss of money to the parties depending on the correctness of the abstract. Just a short time ago, in one of the counties I represent (Boone), a party lost $500; and such losses are occurring all over the State. The motion ought to fail, as it will retard the passage of the bill, and it has been passed on favorably by one committee, which should be sufficient.
Mr. SELLERS: I think this bill would have the effect to place the abstract; business of
the State in the hands of a few men, who will charge a great deal of money for making
abstracts. This bill provides that there is to be a civil liability, and it also provides
further that the person violating its provisions shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, uniting
the civil and the criminal law in one bill. So I think the
The motion to refer was agreed to.
Mr. FOULKE introduced a bill [S. 356] to provide that no person shall be confined, as an insane person, in any private asylum in the State, unless such asylum shall have been licensed by the Board of Trustees of the State Hospital for the Insane, and that said board shall visit such asylums at least twice a year, and shall appoint, in each county, a board of three or five visitors, whose duty it shall be to inspect the asylums at frequent intervals. One provision of the bill allows all persons confined in asylums to consult or communicate with any friends or advisers, medical or otherwise, outside, and shall be allowed to write such letters as they desire.
Mr. FOULKE: This bill prescribes the proceedings which shall be taken to declare a person
insane before committment to an insane asylum. I move it be referred to the
It was so referred.
On motion by Mr. Bailey his joint resolution [S. 9] instructing our Senators in Congress and requesting Representatives to use their influence for the strict enforcement of the laws against Chinese immigration, etc., was read the second time and ordered engrossed for the third reading.
Mr. FOWLER offered the following Senate concurrent resolution:
Resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring, That the
Mr. FOWLER: The Chair will remember, the other day he made a motion to have the bill to
pay this claim referred to the
Mr. OVERSTREET: If it is expected that this testimony, when taken, is to be left with a committee, I can not see any propriety in having it done. We have been paying some stenographers, and I have never heard or seen any of the testimony they have reported. It is not essential to have testimony written down for the benefit of a committee, because they hear the witnesses. If it is contemplated, when the testimony is taken, that it shall be read a part of the report of the committee, then I do not object.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay, did not think it necessary to retake this testimony, and opposed the resolution.
Mr. FOWLER: I presume the committee would not find it necessary to retake all this evidence reported they might hear, but the important part of the evidence ought to be taken down. There are a good many Senators who would like to know what that evidence is. There is a great deal of the evidence which it is necessary to reduce to writing.
Mr. FOULKE: Where a stenographer is employed the result is the testimony is always so bulky that it is never read A clerk who is a rapid writer can put on paper enough testimony to enable a committee to form a conclusion quite as correct, and it can be taken down so that somebody can read it. We don't employ a short-hand writer in our courts We can employ rapid writers who take notes more satisfactory than short-hand writers. I think a clerk for $2 or $3 a day can propably do as well as a stenographer for this committee.
Mr. FOWLER asked and obtained consent to withdraw his resolution.
And then came an adjournment till Monday morning at 10 o'clock.
Mr. BROWNING took the chair and directed the clerk to read a communication from the Speaker.
The file clerk (Mr. Emmett Rose) read a letter from Mr Speaker Jewett, addressed to principal Clerk Darnell, requesting the gentleman from Brown and Monroe (Mr. Browning) to preside.
The SPEAKER pro tem. directed the clerk to call the roll, as is the custom of the Speaker.
On motion by Mr. DITTEMORE, the calling of the roll was dispensed with - only eight members being present.
On his further motion the reading of the clerk's minutes of Thursday's proceedings was dispensed with.
On his farther motion an adjournment took place till Monday morning at 9 o'clock under the rules.
The Senate met pursuant to adjournment. The Senator from Marion (Mr. Winter) in the chair, who stated he was requested by the Lieutenant Governor to call the Senate to order this morning
The Divine blessing was invoked by a representative from the county of Wayne (Rev. J. M, Townsend)
The reading of the Secretary's minutes of Saturday's proceedings was disputed with.
The following described bills were introduced, read the first time and severally referred to appropriate committees:
By Mr. HOOVER [S 357] to amend Section 9 of the election law of March 21, 1881 so as to authorize County Commissioners to make such changes in election precincts as the public good may demand.
By Mr. ADKISON [S 358] providing for the appointment of a commission of three members, to be appointed bv tbe Governor and Lieutenant Governor, who shall meet in the city of Indianapolis, for a period not to exceed over sixty days and shall draft a bill fixing the fees and salaries of county officers and employes of the State institutions and General Assembly, and report the same to the next Legislature
By Mr. FOULKE [S. 359] providing that County Commissioners shall not authorize any expenditure in excess of $25 000, without first obtaining the consent of a majority of the taxpayers of the county, which may be expressed at any general election.
By Mr. MARSHALL [S. 360] requiring notaries public to make statement under their official signatures of the time when their commissions expire.
By Mr. MAGEE per Mr. Foulke S. 361] supplemental to the law for the incorporation of voluntary associations, requiring mutual assessment insurance companies to file copies of their articles of association with the Auditor of State.
Mr. WEIR returned from the
Mr. Macy's bill [S 89] for an act to amend Sections 1 and 7 of an act entitled an act providing for the election and prescribing certain duties of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, approved May 13, 1852 and declaring an emergency, was read the second time and ordered engrossed.
On motion by Mr. WEIR, the bill [S. 171] to amend Section No 9 of an act entitled an act
to enable the owners of lands to drain and reclaim when the same can not be done without
affecting the land of others, etc., was referred to the
Mr. SELLERS, from the
Subsequently the bill was read the second time and ordered engrossed.
Mr. FOWLER'S bill [S. 103] to repeal an let entitled an act providing for the establishment of a State Bureau of Statistics and Geology, creating the office of Chief of such Department, defining his duties, etc., was read the second time with a committee report providing indefinite postponement.
On motion by Mr. McINTOSH, who favored the bill, it was laid on the table till the author shall appear.
Mr. Ensley s bill [S. 148] to empower County Commissioners to appropriate money for the erection of soldiers' monument, was read the second time, with a committee report recommending amendments.
The report was concurred in.
Mr. ENSLEY moved to further amend by striking out the words "upon a petition of a majority of the taxpayers of such county."
Mr. McINTOSH: This amendment would leave the bill as originally introduced. The committee changed the bill so that the consent of a majority shall be obtained before the erection of the monument. This amendment proposes to destroy the will of the taxpayers, and allow the County Commissioners to go ahead and erect a monument without consulting the will of the taxpayers.
Mr. SELLERS made the point of order that this amendment should have been proposed as an amendment to the report of the committee, and that it is not competent now to strike out an amendment already adopted by the Senate.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay, suggested the way to get at it would be to reconsider the vote adopting the amendment.
Mr. FOULKE did not consider that concurrence in a committee report precludes further amendments, even in such a case as this.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Winter) sustained the point of order.
Mr. FOULKE moved to reconsider the vote by which the report of the committee was concurred in, in order to enable the Senator from De Kalb (Mr. Ensley) to offer his amendment.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. ENSLEY now offered his amendment as an amendment to the report of the committee. He said: I hope that this amendment will prevail. This bill now provides that by a petition of a majority of the tax payers of such county, the County Commissioners may appropriate money out of the county revenue, etc. I think that if this bill passes, as it now is, it will prove a dead letter and be inoperative. I think that the counties of this State should build their soldiers a monument. And there is a strong and fast-growing feeling throughout the State in the various counties that they should build a monument for their soldiers. Believing that after the State had furnished 200,000 soldiers, the life of the State at that time, of which thousands died on the battlefield and in the hospital, on the march under the bleaching sun of the South and the cold winds of winter, and in the Southern prison pens of Andersonville from starvation and brutal treatment, a horror to history without a single grave marked as far as Indiana is concerned. All such sacrifice (which never can be repaid by the people of the State) was for a united country, which the living of this State is now enjoying. The State has increased in wealth and population and prosperity at least double, all of which the State ows to its soldiers. And now we should give the counties of this State a law granting County Commissions the power to appropriate money for the erection of such monuments. The General Assembly appropriates annually here hundreds of thousands - yes millions of dollars - to run the various institutions of the State and its State Government; and when a bill is presented to build a monument to brave soldiers who died for the protection of our institutions it is crippled by the words, by a majority of the taxpayers. I hope the amendment will prevail, and I want to see the day when the proud State of Indiana will erect one grand monument at the capital of the State in commemoration of its soldier dead that will stand and tower high toward the skies, splitting the clouds as they pass swiftly by, with a soldier statuary on its top at order arms, as a warning to all future generations of the price of war, which would be a monument of beauty and an honor to the State, and which would tend to spread patriotism and loyally all over Indiana. I hope my amendment will prevail
Mr. SELLERS: It is always safe to leave such questions to a majority of residents. He opposed authorizing such an additional tax levy in addition to prevent burdens.
Mr. McINTOSH: The author of the bill states that a majority consent would be difficult to obtain. Yet there are petitions signed by majorities in favor of the Legislature voting money to relieve officials who have lost money belonging to the public, and certainly a petition as large would be obtained for more meritorious cases
Mr CAMPBELL, of Hendricks: This is a question of some importance. The committee recommend that such appropriations shall not be made without a petition of a majority of taxpayers. He favored the amendment. He moved the farther consideration of this matter be postponed till 2:30 o'clock, and made the special order for that hour, as it is desirable there shall be a full Senate present when a vote is taken on this matter.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr McCULLOUGH submitted a communication signed by himself as Chairman of the
J
A Senator: A senate resolution has dispensed with all committee clerks.
Mr. WILLARD thought the statute could not be abrogated by a resolution. The statute allots clerks for committees.
Mr. BENZ did not think the
Mr MAY insisted that committees under the statute can appoint clerks, and he made that point of order.
Mr. RAHM moved the resolution be referred to a select committee of three.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay: The statute provides certain clerks may be appointed by certain committees, and he made the point of order that, the motion is out of order.
Mr. RAHM withdrew his motion.
The recommendation from the Chairman of the
Mr. MAY offered a resolution authorizing the Doorkeeper to appoint a paper folder whose pay shall date from the first of the session, in order to settle the question raised just now.
Mr. McINTOSH raised the point of order that this resolution is out of order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER overruled this point of order.
Mr. McINTOSH insisted there was no need of this employe.
Mr. MAY: If this employe is not needed then repeal the statute.
Mr. OVERSTREET: If there is no need for an employe such an one can be discharged or not employed. The statute does not compel the employment of any officer or clerk. There has been a resolution passed by the Senate discharging all these employes. There are but three officers fixed by law, the Principal and Assistant Secretary and the Doorkeeper. The rest are employes. Unless there can be a necessity shown for restoring them they should not be re-employed.
Mr. FOULKE: It seems the statute is susceptible of easy construction. In regard to committee clerks the standing committees can not employ any more clerks than the statute entitles them to. In regard to the paper folder, the Doorkeeper has the right to employ that employee among others, according to the statute; the Senate only having control of those employes as to the pay.
Mr. YOUCHE moved to amend the resolution by so changing it that the Doorkeeper may have the right to appoint.
Mr. MAY accepted the amendment.
The resolution was adopted by yeas 23, nays 11
Pending the roll-call —,
Mr ADKISON, in explanation, said: Inasmuch as the Democratic party is in the majority and competent to run this Legislature for this forty days session, I vote "aye.'
Mr. BENZ when his name was called, said: I was opposed to any employes, but as the
Mr. FOULKE, in explanation of his vote, said: As I believe the Doorkeeper has an undoubted right to employ a paper-folder, it vote "aye."
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings, asked and obtained an excuse from voting.
On motion, by Mr. JOHNSON, of Tipptecanoe, his bill [S. 324] for an act to be entitled an act to authorize the Board of Trustees of any school city to pay out of special school funds of such city for real estate purchased for a public library was taken up. He explained its provisions as on Friday.
The bill was read the third time and passed by yeas 34, nays 0.
Mr. Foulke's bill [S. 122] for an act removing all disabilities of married women, imposing upon them the same obligations as unmarried women, and removing the disabilities of coverture, was read the second time, with a favorable majority report and a minority report recommending that it lie on the table.
On motion by Mr. FOULKE the majority report was concurred in.
Mr. YOUCHE moved to strike from Section 3 all after the words "unmarried women."
Mr. FOULKE opposed the amendment. The object of retaining the words proposed to be stricken out is to allow the statute off limitation to apply to women.
Mr. YOUCHE opposed any clause that would give the bill a retroactive application. If such a bill is passed applicable to the future it can be productive of no harm.
Mr. FOULKE: This objection would apply as well to any part of the bill as to the part proposed to be stricken out. There is no reason for striking out those words.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks: The amendment would lead to some trouble; while the bill as it stands would produce none. The clause fixes the matter. I hope this bill will be passed without the amendment. The sooner these distinctions are abolished the better. We have been unable to determine the status of woman. Give her an identity; the sooner we reach this end the better.
Mr. McCULLOUGH suggested a difficulty.
On motion of Mr. WEIR the bill and pending amendment was made the special order for to-morrow at 2 o'clock.
Then came a recess for dinner.
Mr. SMITH'S, of Jennings, bill [S. 143 concerning the sale of real estate for
delinquent taxes, and providing for the redemption thereof, and declaring an emergency
The report was concurred in.
On motion by Mr. WEIR this vote was reconsidered. He insisted the penalty was too high and the time for redemption too short as fixed by the committee amendments.
Mr. YOUCHE referred to objections made before the committee, and believed the amendments proposed were of so great value that without them he could not vote for the bill. It is necessary to have a stringent law for the collection of taxes. If the law is so lax that it pays a man to let his taxes go delinquent many will do so, while the man who acts honestly with the State is more heavily burdened. The man delinquent has a longer time to pay up than debtors usually have. Small delinquent land titles will not be purchased unless there is a penalty sufficient to reimburse for what is paid out, and also for what the purchaser may have to pay an attorney. Compound interest can not be collected — the court has so decided.
Mr. WEIR: It looks like it works a great hardship, but I would vote for the bill as originally introduced.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings: I have made examination of existing laws, and this bill will
operate beneficially to all classes. I had better take a half loaf than get no bread. I
contend that on land sold on execution the owner should have the equitable right to redeem
by due course of law. The kind of laws we have in reference to sale for delinquent taxes is
class legislation — a specific kind of laws reaching a certain class of people, and a more
able class reap the benefits. There should be a right to redeem in one year, but the
Mr. SELLERS moved to concur in the report.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks, moved to concur in the committee amendment which proposes to make the bill prospective and not retroactive.
Mr. FOULKE: The committee has acted wisely in proposing these amendments There should be no law retroactive if there could be. The State must provide means to to enforce collection from taxpayers. This law provides for 20 per cent; probably this is too high, but who would be so foolish as to invest his money for only 10 per cent in such a way? With the committee amendments bidders may be secured for most of tax sales. All the committee amendments are salutary.
Mr. YOUCHE moved to amend the report of the committee by providing in Section 2 that the owner shall have the right to redeem by paying in six months the full amount paid by the purchaser, with 8 per cent. interest.
The motion to amend was rejected upon a division.
Mr. McCULLOUGH moved to strike out of the report of the committee the repealing clause. It is a dangerous provision; at any rate, it would lead to a great deal of litigation.
The amendment was agreed to.
The report of the committee as amended was concurred in.
The bill was ordered engrossed.
Mr. Ensley's bill [S. 148], considered this forenoon, was taken up as the special order for this hour, and read the second time, with a committee report recommending an an amendment, inserting the words "upon petition of a majority of the taxpayers," the question being on the pending motion to strike from the report those words.
Mr. SELLERS: I hope the amendment will not be adopted. The people themselves should be consulted as to the levy of taxes otherwise than those needed for the necessary carrying on of the Government. Were this bill passed the County Commissioners in every county in the State would be called upon to build such monuments.
Mr. ENSLEY: I have had experience in getting up petitions of this kind. Unless the soldiers care to take interest enough in this matter to do so, it would not be done. This bill now would allow the counties to erect monuments in commemoration of the valiant deeds of these soldiers. I think the County Commissioners are endowed with sufficient intelligence and business qualifications to be trusted.
Mr.FAULKNER reminded the Senator that the Government furnishes a tombstone for the graves of dead soldiers.
Mr. ENSLEY: The Government furnishes a slab, but the day would soon come when a monument should be erected in each county of the State. I am surprised that any Senator should oppose this bill.
Mr. McINTOSH, as Chairman, said the committee carefully considered this bill and came to the conclusion that the taxpayers should be consulted before such an expenditure shall be ordered by the County Commissioners. The taxpayers are already oppressed, and without the committee amendment the bill should not be passed. At home, after the passage of this bill, if it should pass, I would sign such a petition.
Mr. FOULKE: I should be most willing to show, in all proper way, the debt, this Republic
owes to its dead soldiery. But such testimonials, in order to be a real tribute, should
come from willing hands. County Commissioners should not be allowed to divert from the tax
moneys without the con-
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks: I shall vote far the amendment. I am not afraid that County Commissioners will be unduly extravagant in the erection of monuments. The amendment of the committee will practically render the bill inoperative The people are now a new generation — many from the South and from other States — and it might be very difficult to secure a majority petition. I would like to see one grand monument here at the capital, and will support the amendment.
Mr. SELLERS moved a substitute for the amendment by adding the word "resident" before the word taxpayers in the committee report.
The substitute was adopted.
The report of the committee as amended by the substitute was concurred in.
Mr FOULKE moved to refer the bill to a special committee of three with instructions to consider the propriety of amending so as to provide for an election to decide the question.
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Overstreet) made the committee to consist of Messrs. Ensley, Sellers and Ernest.
Mr Brown's bill [S 145] for an act to amend Section 20 of an act entitled an act to concerning elections and the contest thereof, approved April 21, 1881. Section 4 688 Revised Statutes, was read the second time and engrossed.
Mr. Bailey's bill [S 160] for the incorporation of building, loan, fund and savings institutions, coming up, it was passed over because of the absence of the author.
Mr. Winter's bill [S. 163] to repeal Section 105 of an act entitled an act concerning taxation, approved March 29, 1884, being Section 6 373 Revised Statutes of 1881, was read the second time and ordered engrossed.
Mr. Benz's bill [S. 161] prescribing certain duties of County Clerks and Prosecuting Attorneys, and authorizing summons of witnesses to appear before Grand Juries, and other matters connected therewith was read the second time with a majority report that it lie on the table and a minority report that the bill pass.
On motion by Mr. BENZ the minority was substituted for the majority report.
The bill was ordered engrossed.
Mr. Hilligass' bill [S. 170] concerning liens and mortgages on real estate, was read the second time.
Mr. ADKISON regarded this bill as a dangerous bill, and hoped the report of the committee will not be concurred in.
Mr. FOUKE: I think the bill is a proper one — one of the very best that has come before this Legislature. Instead of being a means of promoting fraud is the only means of avoiding fraud. It is the law now in two-thirds of the United States. What earthly objection can there be to this law?
Mr. WEIR: I hope this bill will not be ordered engrossed. I move the bill an amendment be laid an the table.
This motion was agreed to upon a division — affirmative, 18; negative, 15.
Mr. Schloss' bill [S 175] to amend Section 1 of an act entitled an act providing for a metropolitan police in all cities of 29,000 or more inhabitants, and for the appointment of a Board of Metropolitan Police Commissioners for such cities, and defining their duties, coming up —
Mr. JOHNSON, of Tippecanoe, moved to postpone the bill till Thursday till 2 o'clock.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay, made an ineffectual motion — yeas, 13; nays, 27 — to lay the bill on the table.
Mr. McINTOSE made an ineffectual motion - yeas, 11; nays, 27 — to indefinitely postpone the bill.
Pending the roll call —
Mr. BENZ said the Democrats had a caucus and said they would vote for the bill; so he voted "no."
Mr. FAULKNER said: Out of respect to the author of the bill, who is not here, I vote "no."
Mr. FOULKE said in order to enable the Democrats to carry out their caucus resolve, he voted "no."
Mr. JOHNSON, of Tippecanoe, regarded this bill as taking an important matter out of the hands of politicians and ward bummers, voted "no."
The vote was announced as above.
Mr. FAULKNER made an ineffectual motion to adjourn.
Mr. McINTOSH made an ineffectual motion to amend the motion to postpone, by making it the special order for Saturday at 2 o'clock.
The motion to make the bill a special order for Thursday at 3 o'clock p. m. was agreed to by yeas 22, nays 15.
Mr. Huston's bill [S. 172] providing the mode in which voluntary associations and private corporations may be dissolved, was read the second time, with a majority report recommending that it lie on the table, and a minority report that it do pass.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay, moved to indefinitely postpone the bill.
Mr. HUSTON stated he had no particular interest in the bill. It is on the same subject matter as the one vetoed.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. Marshall's bill [S 173] for an act requiring the ballots to be placed in an envelope before being handed to the Inspector, was read the second time, with a favorable majority report and a minority recommendation that it lie on the table.
Mr. MARSHALL hoped the majority report would be concurred in; and made that motion. The object of the bill is to avoid getting two ballots from the same person in the ballot-box. There is no way of determining who put in the extra ballot. There is a way of doubling tickets together so when they are put in the ballot-box they fall apart. It has been a custom in some towns to blindfold an Inspector and have him draw out of the box the extra ballots, but that is unfair to the honest voter. The object of the bill is that every man shall have one ballot and shall have that ballot counted. It is in the direction of an honest and fair ballot. Suppose it takes an hour longer to count out the tickers, or suppose it takes two hours, how often has it occurred that one ballot decides an election? Where it is a close vote one vote counts for a great detail.
The motion was agreed to.
The bill was ordered engrossed.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay: I am friendly to the bill, but will move to recommit it, with instructions to amend the section prescribing the shape of the envelope, so as to state more particularly the length of the lap — so as to preserve uniformity, etc.
The motion was agreed to.
And then the Senate adjourned.
The House met pursuant to adjournment. In the absence of a
Upon calling order the SPEAKER said: The House met this morning, but as there were several gentlemen present who did not answer to their names another call of the roll will be had.
The call of the roll found present fifty-nine members.
From the hour of roll-call to 3-30 o'clock the time was given over to waiting for absent members.
First to be brought in by the Sergeant-at-Arms was Mr. Barney, who was, by a vote of the House, at once excused, as he thought the hour of meeting was to be at 2 o'clock.
Next to appear on the arm of the Sergeant-at-Arms was Mr. McMichael, who was excused on motion of Mr. GOODING after a motion by Mr. DITTEMORE that he be fined the coats accruing to the House officer had been ejected.
Mr. McMichael explained that he came as soon as he could reach the city from his home.
At 3:30 o'clock Mr. McCLELLAND appeared. It was found that he had been excused until Tuesday morning
Mr. KRUEGER and Mr. DUN appeared at this moment.
Mr. DITTEMORE moved that a fine of $6 be assessed against Mr. Krueger.
Mr. KRUEGER stated that he had come upon the first train that could bring him.
On motion of Mr. BARR the motion to fine was laid upon the table.
The unfinished business before the House being the bill [H. R. 528] concerning the abandonment of county offices —
Mr. REEVES said: There is no disguising the fact that this bill is meant solely to apply to the Recorder's office of Johnson County. The office there was vacated, the Recorder leaving for parts unknown The law already provides a means for removing a deputy if he is not there lawfully; so that there is no need for a new law. If a man has taken charge of an office unlawfully he may be removed under the law; if not unlawfully he should serve. There is no necessity for further legislation on this question. I am not here to violate the wishes of a county I do not represent. As it has been stated here that the bondsmen of Jefferson B. Clemmon were not willing to continue while the deputy, George B. Clemmon, served, I desire to have a memorial read from them. [The memorial was here sent to the Reading Clerk, who read a communication from two bondsmen, who stated they were satisfied with the Deputy Recorder]
Mr. RIVERS: I do not see why the bill should not pass. It seems to be the wish of the people of Johnson County.
Mr. ADAMS moved to recommit the bill to the
Mr. REEVES moved to lay the motion to recommit with instructions on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was not decided — no quorum being present. The ayes were 26, the nays 36.
Pending the roll-call -
Mr. HOBAN, explaining his vote, said: I understand this bill is meant to displace poor man who is lame, in favor of a partisan. I can not vote for such a proposition. We have got along well enough for seventy years without the law proposed in the bill, and we can get along seventy more years without it. I vote "no."
The vote was then announced as above.
No quorum voting
The House adjourned until 9 o'clock tomorrow morning.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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."
Mr.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
The SPEAKER: The unfinished business is, Shall the motion that the bill [H. R. 528] relating to the abandonment of county offices be recommended with instructions to amend so that it shall apply only to offices vacated after the passage of this bill lie on the table? The roll will be called.
The motion was rejected - yeas, 25; nays, 60.
The motion to recommit was agreed to.
Mr. KELLISON offered the following joint resolution [H. R. 1]:
Resolved, by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana, That the following amendment be and is hereby proposed to the Constitution of the State of Indiana: Amend Section 2, Article 7 so that it will read as follows:
Section 2. The Supreme Court shall consist of not less than three nor more than nine Judges, a majority of whom shall form a quorum They shall hold their offices for six years, if they so long believe well.
He said: I find by talking with my constituents that the idea of an Appellate Court does not find favor. I think if the Constitution were amended as here proposed the trouble now experienced would be obviated. I move that the constitutional rule be suspended and the resolution be read the second time.
The motion was rejected.
Mr. GOODING offered the following:
Resolved, That the
Mr. PATTEN: If the gentleman (Mr. Gooding) knew more of this institution he would not offer this resolution. There are 160 soldiers' orphans and seventy-nine feeble-minded children there. They are kept separate and p ay on separate grounds. There is no need of a movement such as this proposes.
On motion of Mr. HAYWORTH the resolution was laid on the table.
Mr. GORDON introduced a resolution to regulate the travel on toll and gravel roads. He said: This is aimed to check the hauling, of heavy loads over gravel roads when the roads are soft and are badly cut up.
Mr. McGOVNEY: It is a measure that should be adopted. Our roads are too badly cut up in bad weather.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: In the absence of the gentleman from Montgomery (Mr Trout), to whose heart this bill is dear by reason of a great many free gravel roads in his county, I want to say that the measure should pass.
The motion was adopted.
The SPEAKER: I want to say this for the first and last time and forever. There has not been fifteen minutes of necessary work done in this House since last Thursday afternoon. The time has been occupied in the offering of useless resolutions and with talk. Here we sat during yesterday wait log for a quorum that did not arrive, and unable to transact business. The matter bas become ridiculous, or fast traveling in that direction. And although he did not say they might not yet justify themselves, but he would say that so far as he was concerned he would use every possible effort to stop this thing of wasting time. He would add that without desiring to become offensive he would much prefer to leave the chair and leave the House than to see the time wasted as it had been the last two or three days. He had felt it his duty to say this much, and to call the attention of the House to the fact that their constituents expected them to work, and not to adjourn over for three or four days and then nave no quorum when they reassembled for the transaction of business. And now if the House did not choose to heed his suggestion he promised the House that he would say no more about the matter until the crack of doom.
Mr. PATTEN offered the following resolution:
Resolved, That the Speaker is not justified in his criticisms upon the members of this House, as it is not the province or duty of the presiding officer to formulate policies or dictate the conduct of members, or impair the dignity of the chair by delivering curtain lectures therefrom upon the conduct of the members,
On motion of Mr. REEVES the resolution was rejected by yeas 72, nays 12.
Pending the roll call -
Mr. DEEM, explaining his vote, said: The Speaker does not indulge in many lectures, and I believe that the criticism was in some measure merited. I vote "aye."
Mr. HARRELL: I think that the remarks of the Speaker were well timed and in proper place, so I vote "aye."
Mr. KELLISON: I feel that the Speaker's remarks were certainly uncalled for. It is hardly the place of the Speaker to lecture the members on this floor. His duty is that of a presiding officer and not a censor. As a fact, he has many times himself held back the business of this House. His criticism, if criticism it may be called, of the members was indiscriminate. As for myself, I have been at all times in my seat unless sick. While I do not like the wording of the resolution, yet the remarks of the Speaker were unauthorized and out of place. The lack of a quorum was the result of circumstances and the fault of no one intentionally. As to rejecting the resolution I vote "no."
Mr. MOODY. I believe I never cast a vote which perplexed me as this. While I do not think in was the province of the Speaker to indulge in the remarks he did, yet I do not like the wording of the resolution. I vote "aye."
Mr. PASSAGE: As I don't regard the Speaker's words a lecture, but advice which he was in place in giving, I vote "aye."
Mr. PATTEN: This resolution does not refer to advice, but a lecture on the part of the Speaker, his criticism of the conduct of members Every member has come here to do his duty. I vote "no."
Mr. REEVES: I do not regard the remarks of the Speaker as personal. It was advice for the future guidance of members. I vote "aye"
Mr. RIVERS: The remarks of the Speaker were directed toward those only, I believe, who make long winded speeches. As for myself I do not believe that I was included in the remarks. I vote "aye."
Mr. SAYRE: I believe that here the powers and responsibility go together. I belong to that class having no power and therefore no responsibility. The remarks of the Speaker were certainly directed to the majority and were well timed. I vote "aye."
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: I regret exceedingly that I am in a position to vote on the merit of the resolution. I would vote to table it, but it now stands upon its merits. The resolution is tr angular. It refers to the Speaker, the resolution maker and the press. Scattered as it will be by the latter the remarks of the Speaker will be taken in a bad light. As for myself I can not see that the remarks can apply to me. I have been here two terms. I have never been absent save when sent away by the House, have dodged but two votes, and my only failure has been to talk a little. However, upon the resolution I shall have to vote "aye."
Mr. STALEY: No one has a higher regard for the members on this floor than I. I think the criticism of the Speaker was eminently just. It is much better that it came from him than from the public or from our constituents. I regret only that the Speaker was compelled to do it.
Mr. TAYLOR: There is no one here who has a higher regard for the Speaker than I; but I must say that this lecture or criticism of his was not deserved. Had he said that we as members should proceed more rapidly or better, then he would have been in place; but to say officially that our conduct has been wrong, is beyond his bounds. If my friend should do wrong I will be the first to tell him, and on that principle I would say as much to the Speaker, but not on this floor. I would fell him without publication It should nave been the same with the Speaker. We are not school children, that we are to be chastised by the man whom we have put in that Speaker's chair. We are accountable only to our constituents - only to them, and not to the Speaker nor to the members on this floor. I stand here as a man, a freeman. I like to see men stand here as freemen. I know of men here who think as I do, but who, from abject weakness, have voted against this resolution. I remember when Governor Williams essayed to read a lecture to the General Assembly. Although a personal friend and neighbor of the Governor, I resented it. As to the Speaker, I believe that officially he has done wrong; personally he has not. I vote "no."
Mr. TOWNSEND: I do not believe that the Speaker has said more to us this morning than the people, our constituents, have. It is our duty to forward business. It is charged that we are here for the per diem. For myself, my record shows me clear from that. I may not agree with every word of the Speaker, but in the main he was correct. I vote "aye."
Mr. WILSON: I do not understand that the remarks of the Speaker were either reprimand or criticism, but advice to get down to business. I vote "aye."
The vote was then announced as above.
So the resolution was rejected.
Mr ENGLE offered a resolution to censure Mr. Patten (or the resolution offered against the Speaker.
The SPEAKER: I hope the gentleman will withdraw the resolution, so that this matter will cease.
Mr. PATTEN: If any member of this House thinks that I deserve censure I will resign and go home.
Mr. ENGLE: I withdraw the resolution.
Mr Kellison's bill [H. R. 314] concerning mechanics' liens was read a third time.
Mr. KELLISON: This bill is to protect men who labor in the building of railways. It gives them a security, no matter who may be the contractor or sub-contractor.
The bill passed by yeas 82, nays 0.
Mr. COPELAND offered the following:
Whereas, John M. Goar, present Trustee of the Soldiers' Orphans' Home, has been guilty of the most damning and outrageous conduct toward the deceased soldiers and inmates of said institution; and,
Whereas, The said Goar is now sitting in this hall; therefore, be it
Resolved, That it would meet with our approbation if the said Goar would refrain from visiting this room during the session of this General Assembly.
Mr. Dittemore moved to lay the resolution on the table, but this was defeated by a vote of 67 to 16, and the resolution was then passed.
Mr. LOYD: I move that the rules be suspended and that the bill [H. R. 527] concerning the organization of the Knightstown Institute be taken up and read a second time. I understand that Superintendent White is now discharging teachers there, taking advantage of his position.
The previous question was demanded and being seconded by the House, the motion was, under its operation, rejected by yeas 55, nays 35.
Mr. ADAMS, explaining his vote, said that as debate had been shut off on the motion, he should now vote "no."
Mr. DITTEMORE: By unfair means an attempt has been made to put this through, so I vote "no."
Mr. GORDON: Members here who claim that they do not wish to violate the compact to proceed with the regular order have just done so by voting for this buncombe resolution. I vote "aye."
Mr. HARRELL: It makes no difference whether unfair means were resorted to to bring this up. The question is, should the measure go through; so I vote "aye."
Mr. HOBAN: This matter should have been disposed of in the beginning We have gone far enough with dilly-dallying, so I vote "aye."
Mr. MOODY: I do not believe that this compact should be broken, for the reason that the time is near at hand when this matter will come up in regular order. I vote "no."
Mr. PASSAGE: For the reason that we will have ample time to finish up each man's business, I at this time vote "aye."
Mr. PATTEN: I belong to no compact as'an order of business, so I vote "aye," believing this is a good time for reform.
Mr. SEARS: If the gentleman from Ripley was so anxious to have this bill passed, why did he not select it in the call of the counties? This compact entered into should be observed. I vote "no."
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: This compact should be observed. Why, if these men were so anxious for this bill, did they not substitute it for their pickayune bills? When Tippecanoe County is reached I will substitute it for my bill.
Mr. HELMS: I am as good a friend to the soldiers' orphans as any man on the floor, but owing to the agreement heretofore made I vote "no."
The vote was then announced as above.
So the motion to take up the bill was rejected.
Mr. Peasants' bill [H R. 248] concerning druggists and their sale of liquors was read the third time.
Mr. HARRELL thought the bill a weak attempt to regulate liquor selling by druggists.
Mr. MOCK said that the bill would fall far short of its intention to prevent the illegal sale of intoxicating liquors by druggists.
Mr FRENCH: I do not see how this law will prevent the sale of liquors by druggists. A man who would violate the law by illegal selling would violate it in other ways.
Mr. MOODY: There is either some mistake in engrossing this bill or it is very peculiar. I think the bill is a very bad one on general principles.
Mr. BROWNING: In our county of the hills, in my town are two stores and neither of them sell liquor illegally. I do not now propose to come up and give them the trouble proposed in this bill.
Mr. McHENRY: I believe that the drug business is an honorable one and that honorable men engage in it We have no right to undertake to drag them down.
Mr. PLEASANTS: Our most respectable druggists ask the passage of the bill. It can do harm to honesty.
The bill was defeated by yeas 28, nays 56.
Mr. Hargrave's bill [H. R 251] concerning the removal of county seats was read a third time.
Mr. ADAMS: This question of the removal of county seats is a harassing one and should be dealt with carefully. This bill is not satisfactory.
Mr. BROWNING: This bill is meant solely to affect the county seat of Greene County. It is desired to change the county seat there. It should not be done for the reason that such procedure would take away the value of property at the present county seat.
Mr. HELMS: There is war in my county over the relocation of our county site, I am pledged to not vote for this bill, but am not pledged to vote against it. Therefore, in justice to my constituents on both sides of the question, I ask this House to excuse me from voting on this bill. I do not make many pledges, but when I make one I keep it at all hazards. Will the gentlemen on this floor accommodate me by granting this my first request? [Mr. Helms was excused]
The bill was defeated - yeas, 12; nays, 74.
The House adjourned.
Mr LINDLEY introduced a bill [S. 363] to amend Section 5.805 of the Revised Statutes of
1881 - County Commissioners may make allowances to agricultural societies - which was read
the first time and referred to the
Mr. MACY introduced a bill [S 364] to fix court terms in the
Messrs Macy, Hilligass and Smith of Delaware, explaining the necessity for the immediate passage of the bill.
On motion by Mr. WEIR the bill [S. 324] to pay Matthew M, Campbell for extra and other services as a teacher in the Indiana University - $1,700 - with a committee recommendation that it lie on the table.
Mr. THOMPSON moved that the bill be recommitted.
Mr. WEIR inquired if there was any additional evidence - if not, it would not be necessary to recommit.
Mr OVERSTREET: I have been watching for this bill I hope it will be recommitted I
don't undertake to say there is a legal right to recover; but if there ever was an
equitable claim this is one. I was in the institution at the time of the service referred
to and there never was a more faithful Professor. I am informed that he is now in quite
destitute circumstances. If that were not so, it is probable he would not ask this
pittance. At the last session this bill was put in the specific bill, and, I think, passed
the Senate. We frequently hear of claims being allowed here on the ground of equity; this
certainly is one based on equity. If this claim was ever before the
Mr. WEIR: I move to amend by
Mr. McINTOSH: While investigating; this claim two years ago Senator Johnson, who was chairman of the committee, said there was no claim and no pretension there ever was a debt on the part of the State. The Senator is mistaken about the result of the claim. I think it was defeated. It also came out; two years ago that the claim does not belong to the old Professor, but it has been farmed out.
Mr. FOWLER: I am in favor of the special committee. No harm can come of it.
Mr. FAULKNER: I have the understanding the Professor was paid every dollar, and if he gets anything more it will be a gift or a donation. I heard this claim discussed four years ago and two years ago and I think the Legislature has spent two dollars for one on it.
Mr. SMITH, of Delaware: I was on a committee four years ago, which examined this claim, and I went to Bloomington and examined into it and found there was no claim except an equitable one; we found there were here in the city lawyers who would have received the money, and in consequence of that we did not report it back. I am in favor of the motion for a special committee.
The motion was agreed to.
The Lieutenant Governor made said committee to consist of Messrs. Overstreet, Smith of Delaware, and McIntosh.
Mr. YOUCHE moved to take up his resolution for adjournment sine die on the 25th of March, which was pending at the time of the adjournment last evening.
Mr. SMITH of Jay, made an ineffectual motion - yeas 14; nays, 26 - to lay the motion on the table.
Mr. BENZ: I am tired of this buncombe doings. I am always in my place. If the lawyers would attend to the business we could have adjourned long ago. I vote "aye."
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings: I think the Senator voted against a resolution to adjourn on the 2d day of March. Those who condemned my course at that time are now pursuing the plan I laid down. I am still in favor of an early adjournment. I vote "no."
Mr. SMITH, of Jay: I voted for the resolution last night when there was no quorum. [Laughter.] I think the sense of the Senate was fully taken. I think it unprofitable to be calling such matters up, hence I vote "aye."
The result was announced as above.
So the motion was not laid on the table.
The motion was agreed to.
The question recurring on the resolution as amended, it was adopted by yeas 41, nays 0.
Mr. BENZ, explaining his vote, said: The only thing that I am sorry about is that the resolution don't say to morrow. Unless we do better than we have done since the extra session commenced we had better go home to-morrow. I vote "aye."
Mr. Macy's bill [S. 89] to provide for the election every four years of the Reporter of the Supreme Court, and that he shall keep a cash book, etc., was read the third time.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings: We have passed a bill like this that came from the House
Mr. MACY: The Senator is mistaken. The House bill has not yet passed the Senate Upon examination I find the amendments reported by the special committee, which were adopted, are not engrossed in the bill.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: There ought to be an explanation from somebody why amendments which have been adopted are not engrossed in the bill. Surely the amendments ought to be found among the papers.
On motion the bill was recommitted to the special committee which made the last report thereon.
The bill [S 94] concerning the Reporter of the Supreme Court, was read the third time. Mr. Sellers said this is not any thing like the bill he introduced. He opposed it as it now stands. If this bill becomes a law the State would have to pay $3.50 for 500 copies of these reports, while they would be sold to others for $2 75.
Mr. FOWLER: This bill, by implication, repeals the other section of the code which requires the State to pay $3 50 a copy. This bill is the best that could be done While it does not suit me, I hope it will be passed.
Mr. SELLERS insisted this bill affects but one section, while the others stand without change.
The motion to recommit was agreed to.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings, at the earnest request of citizens of Clark County, moved to take up his motion, entered several days ago to reconsider the vote by which the bill [S 293] was passed.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings: This is a motion which, originally, I had no interest in.
The PRESIDING OFFICER stated, the bill has gone to the House.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings: I move that the House of Representatives be requested to return the bill to the Senate.
The motion was agreed to upon a division.
Mr. Bailey's bill [S 109] to provide for the appointment of a State Boiler Inspector was read the third time.
The bill S. 109 failed to pass by yeas 4, nays 35.
On motion by Mr. Hilligass the bill S. 170; concerning liens and mortgages, was taken up.
Mr. ADKISON: I represent a loan company that has perhaps loaned as much money in Indiana as any other company. We have never charged any more interest on account of this law. We take an affidavit that they have not executed or permitted to be executed any deed or incumbrance in the past fifty days. The people have got used to the present system. It seems to me such a law as this bill proposes would be to open the door to fraud.
Mr. YOUCHE. There are several reason that satisfy me this is a good bill. No possible fraud can be perpetrated under it that can not be guarded against. We have been advancing in the direction of this kind of a law for many years There is not a State I know of but what has not adopted a role that priority shall date from the time of putting on record. This bill is in the direction of preventing fraud, and the bill ought to pass.
Mr. OVERSTREET: If this bill is passed it seems to me there would be a greater temptation
to commit fraud. I would be willing to bring the time for recording mortgages down to ten
days - the time for
Mr. FOWLER: In the interest of honesty and fair dealing, I hope this bill will not pass.
It is a snare. To say the one that gets into the Recorder's office shall have priority
over all others, seems a wrong principle. I move to recommit this bill to the
Mr. McCULLOUGH: I hope the bill will pass The practical effect of it would be very different from what some Senators think A man loaning money and taking a mortgage may frequently require an affidavit, but as a general thing the word of the borrower is taken in ninety-nine cases out of 100 If the law is changed as proposed by this bill it may be known in a very few days whether there was a mortgage executed before his and put upon record The opportunities are greater for fraud under the present law than they would be under this bill. The very fact that a man knows he has forty five days time in which to put a mortgage on record, is a reason for carelessness. The law ought to educate parties in the the necessity of putting such instruments on word. The more populous a State or county or city becomes, the more must records be relied upon. I believe the time has come in this State when the law ought to be changed.
Mr. WILLARD demanded the previous question.
The Senate seconded the demand, and under its operations -
The motion to recommit was rejected.
Mr FOULKE made an ineffectual motion - yeas, 20; nays, 25 - to order the bill engrossed.
Mr. FOWLER moved to indefinitely postpone the bill.
Mr. FOULKE: I know the great real estate interests of New York could not be carried on under our law. I know large amounts of capital have been kept out of this State for »h« reason that titles are not to good. This bill can not work harm to a single man on earth. It is the man who has his mortgage recorded early that is protected and not the man who sleeps upon his rights
Mr. FOWLER: The great real estate interest of Indiana has been very well carried on for many years, and I have never heard of any frauds. It may be there have been - it would be wonderful if there had not been. We are not here to legislate for insurance or loan companies but the people of our own State. I believe this bill would be dangerous and prolific of fraud
Mr. HILLIGASS: The Senator who has just taken his seat has but little understanding of the provisions of this bill. The present statute gives much more opportunity for fraud You make these transactions rest upon the day they are made, and there are transactions brought to daylight. This bill is legislation in the interest of the people; and the statement that it is in the interest of insurance or loan companies is an appeal to prejudice that is not warranted in this case. This bill ought to be passed, and in doing so we would but be keeping pace with the great States of this Union. There is merit in this bill, and Senators should give it a fair chance. I hope it will be recommitted and put on the same plane as chattel mortgages.
Mr. SELLERS: The theory of law is to protect the diligent man. At first I did not look so favorably upon this bill, but now I am in favor of the bill and hope it will not be indefinitely postponed.
Mr. FOWLER: Under this bill a collusion for fraud could be made between the
Mr. WEIR: I move to recommit to a special committee of three with instructions to fix the limit at ten days.
The motion was agreed to by yeas 34, nays 9
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR made the committee to consist of Messrs. Hilligass, Drake and Willard.
On motion by Mr. Macy his bill [S 89] to provide the Supreme Court Clerk shall keep a record book of all fees received by him, etc., which shall be open for inspection to the public, etc. -
Mr. WEIR: This is one of the most impracticable measures yet introduced in this
Legislature. According to the
Mr. MACY: The statement has been made on the authority of the Supreme Court Clerk on this floor that he now keeps just such a book as this bill requires, the bill only requiring it shall be kept open to the public. The statement that the bill will require such a vast amount of extra work is also without foundation in fact.
Mr. SELLERS: I think this bill will work injustice.
Mr McINTOSH: This is the same bill that was up this forenoon. It has been to a committee
some three or four times before. The provision of imprisonment penalty is stricken out. The
main point in the bill is that the Clerk of the Supreme Court shall turn over to his
successor the money in the House that don't belong to him, so that parties to whom the
money belongs may not be compelled to
The bill passed by yeas 28, nays 12
Mr. BROWN, explaining: For the reason this is a bill very like a law now governing every County Clerk in the State, I vote "aye."
Mr. Foulke's bill [S. 122] to remove disabilities of married women was read the third time.
Mr WEIR: There are objections to this bill. A fair construction would make the wife liable for guarantees in a deed when she joins her husband if she receive any part of the purchase money, however small the receipt may be on her part, and her property would be made liable to the full extent of the covenants for warranty.
Mr FOULKE was willing the words "she receiving no part of the purchase money" shall be stricken out, and he moved the reference of the bill to a special committee of one with with instructions to so amend.
The motion was agreed to upon a division - affirmative 27, negative not counted
The Lieutenant Governor appointed Mr. Foulke said committee.
Subsequently Mr. Foulke returned the bill amended as ordered.
The report was agreed to.
The bill failed for want of a constitutional majority - yeas, 22; nays, 19.
Mr. Schloss' bill [S 295] for the re location of county seats was read the third time, and passed by yeas 32, nays 5.
Mr. WEIR: I think this bill ought to pass. It requires a petition of 40 per cant, and 70 per cent. to favor the change.
Mr. Hilligass, from the special committee thereon, returned his bill [S 170] with amendment as instructed, requiring the recording within ten days.
On motion by Mr. Weir the bill was read the third time, and passed by yeas 36, nays 3
The bill [S. 336] to pay for Brevier Legislative Reports, heretofore authorized, ordered, accepted and bound by the State, was lead the third time.
Pending which -
The Senate adjourned.
Mr. TONER, moved that the Knightstown Institute bill [H. R. 527] be made a special order for 10 o'clock this day.
Mr. ADAMS made an ineffectual motion - yeas, 31; nays, 63 - that this motion lie on the table.
Mr. ADAMS, explaining his vote, said: I am in favor of tabling this motion because we can reach this bill as soon, or sooner, without it. I understand the gentleman from Tippecanoe (Mr Smith) will bring up the bill on the call of his county, which is now at hand.
The SPEAKER: The gentleman has named that bill on the call of his county.
Mr. McCLELLAND: My county is the first to be called this morning, and,unsolicited, I had selected the bill. Sol vote to table the motion.
The vote was then announced as above. So the motion was rejected.
The motion to make the a special order for 10:30 o'clock was agreed to by yeas 88 nays 0.
Mr. BEST, when his name was called said: Two years ago I had the pleasure of voting against making this man Goar aa Trustee, and also in voting against taking the government of the institution from the hands of the Governor. I have all along kept my faith regarding this regular order but for some reason - public counsel or private twitting of conscience - members here have decided to take the matter up now. I want to oust every scoundrel from that institution at once, so I vote "aye."
Mr. PENDLETON offered a resolution that the House adjourn on the 28th.
On motion of Mr. BROOKS, the motion was laid on the table.
Mr. DITTEMORE offered a resolution that the House adjourn sine die on Thursday, the 26th.
Mr. SEARS made an ineffectual motion - yeas, 40; nays, 45 - to lay the motion on table.
Mr. KELLISON, explaining his vote, said: As this motion implies that the House will remain in session after its legitimate business is done, and as I do not believe the would continue after the business is done, I vote "aye"
Mr. LOYD: This special session was called to transact the necessary business, and I do not believe that it will remain longer than to do that, so I vote "aye"
Mr. MAUK: This House, I believe, adjourn when the necessary business is done. This motion is made only to put us on the record and I vote "no" anyhow.
Mr. PASSAGE: Inasmuch as I believe that this House should work diligently until necessary business is done, I vote "aye."
Mr RIVERS: Believing that this House will adjourn as soon as its necessary business is done, I vote "aye."
Mr SMITH, of Tippecanoe: This session was called by the Governor to pass the
appropriation bill, the State House bill, and necessary legislation. The Knightstown matter
was not mentioned in the proclamation. The Senate has passed a resolution to adjourn on the
25th, and now this resolution proposes the 26th. That means that we
The vote was then announced as above.
So the motion was rejected.
Mr. SAYRE moved that the bill [H. R. 527] relative to the Knightstown Benevolent Institution, which was made a special order for this hour, be read, under a suspension of the rules, a second time by title, considered engrossed, read a third time by sections and put upon its passage.
The motion was rejected by yeas 65, nays 23, two-thirds failing to vote affirmatively.
Mr. DEEM, explaining his vote, said that he was opposed to considering the bill engrossed, as be had an amendment to offer, and the motion would shut oft any amendment.
Mr. McMULLEN moved to amend so that two of the Trustees be honorably discharged Union soldiers.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe, moved to amend the amendment that all the parties to honorably discharged soldiers.
Mr BOYD moved a substitute for both amendments that all be honorably discharged soldiers
Mr. KELLISON: I am opposed to the substitute only for this reason - that I would I like one of the Trustees to be a woman.
Mr. LOYD: As author of the bill, I am in favor of the Trustees being honorably discharged soldiers, but I do not, as a result of my investigations, favor a woman for Trustee
Mr. KELLISON: Was not John M. Goar an honorably discharged Union soldier, and did he protect the institution?
Mr. GORDON: I do not think that the soldiers ask for the management of the institution. We should not be first to take this step.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: I think you will find that the soldiers desire to care far the institute where are the orphans of their comrades. I do not say that all soldiers are good men, nor that all good men are soldiers, but I do say that the Governor can find capable men who are soldiers to manage that institution. I am willing that two good Democratic soldiers should be there. I want one trusty Republican to make it non-partisan.
Mr. ADAMS: Every man claims to be a soldiers' friend - especially when stumping the State. Now is our time to show our hand. The gentleman from Putnam (Mr. Gordon) thinks we should not take this step, as it is not observed elsewhere. It is time for Indiana to step to the front in this direction.
Mr. PATTEN: I do not believe the gentleman from Morgan (Mr. Adams) is sincere in his utterances concerning love for the Soldiers' Home. Four years aero, when a gallant soldier was before the Republicans for their votes for the Presidency, that hero of Gettysburg was not -
Mr. COPELAND (interrupting): Where was General Garfield - was he not at Chicamauga?
Mr. PATTEN: He took to the rear with Rosecrans then.
The SPEAKER: I do not see what the battles of Gettysburg have to do with the Knightstown institute.
Mr. PATTEN: I was at Chicamauga fighting for my country, and I did not see the gentleman from Morgan, who claims this love for the soldier, there, either.
The SPEAKER: The gentleman from Morgan was in the Mexican War with me, though.
Mr. PATTEN: The Grand Army of the Republic does not demand this. The Republican party has not done anything that it should step in here as the soldier's friend. Even your President, who was commander and chief of the G. A. R., when he had power -
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe (interposing): I hope the gentleman will not attack a distinguished soldier, especially when he is dying.
Mr. PATTEN: I am as good a friend of General Grant as the gentleman from Tippecanoe. I soldiered with him. The G. A. R. stands as an organization for its own protection. I has never asked the Republican party for a thing It does not ask special legislation in its behalf. The soldiers do not want special benefits. This move is all for buncombe by Republicans. The greatest friend the soldier had for many years is the Democratic chief, Hon. D. W. Voorhees. [Applause] He has done more for them than all your Grants or Garfields.
Mr. ADAMS: He called them "Lincoln dogs."
Mr. PATTEN: No, he never did. That was an infamous lie.
Mr. ADAMS: Then your own citizens are liars.
Mr. PATTEN: None of them have ever said that Voorhees said that thing. It was concocted by newspapers, and is false.
Mr. BROWNLEE: A very small matter has here grown to large proportions. Let me remind you
that whatever profession the members here may make, the public will go back to the record.
It will be remembered that nowhere save in this Democratic House is Daniel W. Voorhees put
above General Grant and James A. Garfield as the original friend of the Union soldier. That
grand Union soldier who has received the honors of all civilized nations, as the greatest
of all living soldiers, is put second to D W. Voorhees as a friend to the
The previous question was seconded by the House and the substitute to the amendment that all the Trustees be honorably discharged soldiers was agreed to by yeas 46 nays 41.
Mr. BOOE, explaining his vote, said: Because I believe that it is outside the soldiery of Indiana and because I do not want to handicap the Governor, I vote "no."
Mr. CORY: The proposition is to give the Governor the power to appoint, yet some propose to dictate to the Governor; and the gentleman from Grant (Mr. Brownlee) after making a mean speech, has very coolly moved the previous question Is that bravery? So we are to be cut off without a word. My friend from Tippecanoe (Mr. Smith) criticised the removal of a blind man from the Superintendency of the Asylum for the Blind. He claims that the blind should lead the blind. By the same process of reasoning he would have an insane man Superintendent of the Asylum for the Insane. I vote "no."
Mr HOBAN: My reason for opposing this amendment is that I think the Legislature has no right to discriminate between soldiers and civilians. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits it. We have no right to make distinctions. Every man should, under the law, be entitled to manage this trust. I vote "no"
Mr KELLISON: For the reason that over one half of the soldiers are Democrats to day, and were during the war; for the reason that in my county over one half of the soldiers are Democrats; for the reason that they are not asking this; for the reason that the institution is supported by men of all parties and for decency's and humanity's sake I think one of the Trustees should be a woman. I vote "no."
Mr. SMITH, of Warrick: For the reason that the soldiers are not demanding it, and for the further reason that I have confidence in the Governor of this State, I vote "no."
Mr. STALEY: For the sole reason that I think a woman should be selected as one of the Trustees, I vote "no."
The vote was then announced as above.
So the amendment that the Trustees be soldiers was agreed to.
Mr. STALEY
The Speaker ruled it out of order, in view of the amendment just adopted by the House that all the Trustees shall be honorably discharged soldiers.
Mr. ADAMS moved to amend that the Superintendent be an honorably discharged soldier.
Mr. KELLIS0N moved to amend the amendment that the Superintendent be a woman and the widow of an honorably discharged soldier.
Mr. LOYD: I hope the amendment to the amendment will not prevail. A live business man should be Superintendent there.
On motion by Mr. WYNN the amendment to the amendment was laid on the table by yeas 63, nays 22.
On motion by Mr. LOYD the amendment that the Superintendent bean honorably discharged soldier was also laid on the table by yeas 45 nays 38.
Mr. ROBINSON moved to amend so that no two Trustees can be of the same political party.
Mr. DITTEMORE made an ineffectual motion - yeas, 42; nays, 43 - that the amendment be laid on the table.
Mr GOODING, explaining his vote, said he was opposed to dictating to the Governor; but if it were found necessary to divide, he was in favor of the Green backers (represented by Mr. Robinson) rather than Republicans. He voted "no"
Mr. PATTEN moved that the bill and pending amendments be recommitted to a select committee of three, to be appointed by the Speaker, with instructions to report it back to the House at 2 o'clock to-morrow, and that it be made a special order for the hour.
Mr KELLISON: I hope the motion will not prevail. All the defect cited by the gentleman can be overcome by amending the title.
Mr. SAYRE: This outrage has gone far enough. It is time now to take up the bill and pass
it. The regular order of business was suspended for that purpose. Let the matter now go
through. To-morrow afternoon some of the Democrats may move to further commit. No further
delay should
Mr. LOYD: I can not see how this bill can be helped by postponing. As an humble Representative of this Assembly I profess to represent the Democracy. The Republican members are on record as opposing bringing up this bill, having voted against it during the regular session, claiming a contract for a regular order. What has come over them now that they propose to break the alleged contract? Some action should now be taken. I am not a stickler for this bill because I am its author Some prefer the Senate bill. Let it pass - anything to wipe out the disgrace.
Mr SMITH, of Tippecanoe: The gentleman who has just spoken, at one time said that he regarded the Senate bill an insult to the committee which had investigated the Knightstown trouble. All the records made here will amount to nothing - nothing more than to encumber the journal. I am opposed to recommitting the bill
Mr. GORDON: I oppose recommitting the bill. The only objection to it is the title, and we can correct it by simple substituting the title of the Senate bill. One hour and all trouble can be corrected.
On motion of Mr. Gordon the motion to recommit was laid on the table.
The amendment that no two of the same political party be selected Trustees was agreed to.
On motion by Mr. BARNEY the salaries of the Trustees were fixed at $400 instead of $500 per year.
On motion by Mr. DEEM the bill was further amended so that the salary of the Trustees shall cover all traveling expenses, and that no further money be allowed them.
On motion by Mr. GORDON the title was amended to conform with the bill as amended.
Mr. GORDON moved that the bill be considered engrossed.
Mr. ADAMS moved to amend that the bill be ordered engrossed and be made a special order for to-morrow morning at 9 o'clock.
The motion as amended was agreed to.
Mr. FRENCH'S bill [H R 426] providing for the appointment of a Boiler Inspector was read the third time.
Mr. FRENCH: The bill proposes to create an office which is needed for safety. It provides no salary, but fees.
Mr STALEY: It is evident that this office will be a bonanza - too great in fees.
The SPEAKER: And the worst of it is the Constitution prohibits any member of this Assembly from holding the office. [Laughter.]
Mr. REEVES moved that the bill be recommitted, with instructions to cut down the fees proposed.
Pending which the House adjourned.
A Senate substitute for the bill [H. R. 101] was passed by yeas 32, nays 3.
A message from the House of Representatives announcing the passage of the bill [H. R. 527] concerning the Soldiers' Orphans' Home and the Asylum for Feeble Minded Children -
On motion by Mr. Hilligass it was read the first time.
Mr. FOULKE moved that it be referred to the special committee heretofore appointed on that subject, with instructions to report to-day.
The motion was agreed to.
The bill [S 94] to reduce the price of Supreme Court Reports to $2.75 coming up as the special order it was read the third time.
Mr. YOUCHE: I notice there is a mistake in the engrossment again. The fine is placed at $5 instead of $500.
Mr. OVERSTREET: I don't think this bill ought to pass, because it will be inoperative for four years. Two Legislatures will intervene before it goes into operation. Why should we pass any law that is not to take effect until after two General Assemblies shall meet?
Mr. HILLIGASS: I concur fully in what was said by the Senator who has just taken his seat; and as this bill has been discussed, I move it be indefinitely postponed, and on that motion demand the previous question.
The Senate seconded the demand for the previous question, and under its operation the motion was agreed to by yeas 29, nays 12.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks: Understanding this bill will not take effect for four years, I vote "aye."
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph: I have endeavored to pass this bill, amended, but would rather take this than none at all. I vote "no."
Mr. FAULKNER: I don't believe in working for fellows four years from now; let them do their own work, and we do ours. I vote "aye."
Mr. FOULKE: I believe in planting trees for the benefit of future generations to enjoy.
Mr. McCULLOUGH: I do not believe in planting for future generations trees that will bear unwholesome fruit; I am unalterably opposed to such a bad and unjust precedent. I vote for the indefinite postponement of the bill.
Mr. SELLERS: I think the system of publishing these reports should be changed, but this bill is not what it should be, I vote "aye."
Mr. YOUCHE: This bill would be a concession that the Legislature has not independence enough to reduce the salary of an officer who gets $25,000 a year. I vote "aye."
The bill [S 336] to provide payment for Brevier Legislative Reports heretofore authorized, ordered, accepted and bound by the State, coming up as the unfinished business pending at the time of the adjournment last night -
On motion of Mr. FOULKE it was referred to a special committee of five with instructions
to report the facts constituting the obligations on the part of the State, and the contract
express or implied made for the reports
The motion was agreed to.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR makes this committee to consist of Messrs Smith of Jay, Rahm, Huston, Youche and Willard Mr. Foulke declined to serve because of other pressing committee engagements.
Mr. Howard's bill [S. 141] to authorize the appointment of guardians of insane persons committed to the Hospital for the Insane, etc. was read the third time.
Mr. Sellers and Mr. Overstreet explained its provisions. It saves two jury trials and the expense incident thereto. The Judge of the court can appoint a guardian.
The bill passed by yeas 33, nays 2.
Mr. Smith's, of Jennings, bill [S. 143] concerning the sale of real estate for delinquent taxes, and providing for the redemption thereof, was read the third time and passed by yeas 29, nays 8.
Mr. BROWN'S bill [S 145] to amend Section 4,998 of the code concerning elections - the polls may be opened at 6 o'clock in the forenoon upon petition of twenty voters and freeholders - coming up in regular order, it was read the second time.
Mr. OVERSTREET: I believe that provision would be injurious. It would lead to trouble. If persons want to practice deception they would be apt to do so before substantial men could get to the polls, and then get in their dirty work.
Mr. DRAKE: This is an exact copy of the present law down to the word "provided." The object is to give opportunity for laboring men to go to the polls, and not have to lose a day's work by so doing on election day. It is a pretty general rule in all manufactories that men must lose all day if they lose an hour or two in going to the polls.
Mr. BROWN: This bill is for the convenience of workers in large manufacturing establishments and for railroad men. It is a bill that will give great relief, and is not open to the objection urged by the Senator from Johnson (Mr. Overstreet). It is also a copy of the law in Ohio.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph: The bill is unnecessary and dangerous There are no manufactories, as far as I know, but give their employes time to vote. The bill proposes undue haste, when we consider the dignity of the voting privilege.
The bill failed to pass for want of a constitutional majority - yeas, 25; nays, 11.
Then came a recess till 2 o'clock.
Mr. SCHL0SS Metropolitan Police bill [S. 175] coming up as a special order on the second reading with a committee report favoring an amendment making it applicable to cities of 12,000 instead of 16,000, and a minority report recommending that the bill lie on the table -
Mr. JOHNSON, of Tippecanoe, spoke in favor of the bill. Had it not been introduced he would have brought forward elicit a measure. At his suggestion an amendment is now proposed to reduce the required number of inhabitants of a city to which its provisions shall apply from 16,000 to 12 000.
Mr. FOULKE: A good deal has been said about this being a civil service reform measure. I am ardently in favor of civil service reform in every case; if it is a good thing for a policeman it ought to be a good thing for a fireman. But I am opposed to the Metropolitan Police bill because it violates the principle that each city and community should manage its affairs in its own way and should have the right to determine whether or not each city desires to leave its police system in the hands of its council, which costs nothing, or to Police Commissioners who will cost $3 000 or $4 000 per annum or more To say they shall necessarily have a Board of Police Commissioners they do not want and that a majority of the people are opposed to is a thing I do not believe we have a right to force upon them. In Richmond there is only one dissenting voice against 9 000 who say they do not want such a Metropolitan Police bill. The principle is wrong.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay, moved to amend by appropriately inserting the words "less than 25,000" in the first section.
Mr NULL made an ineffectual motion - yeas 19; nays, 22 - to substitute the minority for the majority report.
Mr. THOMPSON in explaining his vote, said: I was very much opposed to the Metropolitan Police system when first introduced, but it has worked so well that I am in favor of it now, and shall vote for its introduction elsewhere. The minorities of all cities should favor the Metropolitan Police system. Strangers and all classes of people should be protected, and in my opinion you can not get a local police that will do justice on election day. I have seen the police arrest men in this city and keep them in duress for hours simply to influence elections. I vote "no."
Mr. WINTER moved to amend the majority report by substituting the words "Board of
Alderman and Common Council of said city," instead of the words "Governor,
Secretary and Auditor of State," and providing for the election of said Commissioners
by the Alderman and Council, and fixing the number of inhabitants at 29 000 to which the
bill shall apply. He said: I concur in the statement that the people of every local-
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings: In principle I am opposed to this kind of legislation. Matters of local importance should be controlled by the people of each particular locality. I challenge history to show where local self government has ever been denied the people except by Republican legislation. We do not have to go far back to find acts of Congress that have disfranchised whole States, and the inhabitants thereof have been ruled by those who were not inhabitants of those States. And it was a question whether free government would live or would perish at the hands of eminent civil service reformers like the Senator from Wayne. Home rule has been adhered to by the Democratic party since America took her stand among the nations of the earth. You gentlemen who talk about home rule and self government are from that party which has denied the people self-government. In the days of reconstruction negroes fresh from slavery were put in legislative halls at the point of the bayonet. U. S troops armed and equipped marched into the legislative halls of Louisiana and installed usurpers in the place of duly elected representatives of the people. You have been in favor of local self government when it would make votes for the Republican party and opposed to it when it would lose votes. I sat in this hall two years ago when it was full of policemen, armed with revolvers and sand bags, kept here by the Republican party represented by the then Lieutenant Governor, when the friends of the civil service reformer was trying to talk time to death. The necessity of a Metropolitan Police bill in Indianapolis grew out of the condition of affairs because of mis-management of the Republican party. Matters got so corrupt an election was known to be a Republican election, and every Republican policeman was understood to be worth twenty-five votes. There never was a city so badly disgraced by a police force as was the city of Indianapolis. It was that there should be a change for the better that the people of Indiana demanded there should be a police bill for the city of Indianapolis. It was not an appeal far relief from Indianapolis alone; I saw appeals from papers outside, stating that unless better government was had country merchants would not come here to buy their goods. If localities will not protect the people, a power above it must do so. The Metropolitan Police bill was a godsend to relieve them from the bonds of tyranny and corruption that held them down to the ground No citizen of Indianapolis who pays a tax and has due regard for his rights would come in here and ask for the repeal of that law. The Senator from Marion (Mr. Winter) desires by his amendment to pass these good results to the cesspool from which they sprang. I hope the amendment will be defeated and because I do not see the necessity for any more Metropolitan Police bills in Indiana I hope the bill will sleep the sleep that will know no waking till the gavel falls at the last hour of this session.
Mr MARSBALL: I think the amendment is fair and just, and hope it will be adopted As a Republican among the other fifteen on this floor, we have been continually hearing from the Senator who has just spoken that the Republican party have been preventing the people from governing themselves. I deny that, if the people have I ever been denied self-government, it has been done by the Republican party. As a Republican, young in those days, I find nothing in the history of that party where it has disfranchised the people on any occasion. The whole trouble of the election in the Southern States must have been committed by Democrats, because I have heard on this floor the statement that the majority of the soldiers were Democrats. Talk about taking the rights of the people away! by, when the colored people were knocking for admission a Democratic Senate in Indiana broke a quorum and went home in order to defeat a measure to enfranchise them. The resolutions and platforms of the Democratic party about 1860 and after stated the war was a failure and they wanted peace. I would as soon expect to find reform in the Democratic party as to find an iceberg in Florida or an orange blossom in Iceland. [Laughter.]
Mr SELLERS moved a substitute for the amendment by inserting "and less than 26,500, and in all cities having a population of over 29 000," and demanded the previous question.
The Senate refused to second the demand.
Mr. HILLIGASS: I have peculiar ideas upon the organization of the police force, and I believe the State should make it a creature of law. But I see a disposition to exclude some cities and include others. This proposition dues not meet my approbation. I am not in favor of either amendment but would prefer the one offered by the Sector from Marion (Mr Winter). I move to indefinitely postpone the bill.
This motion was agreed to by yeas 30, nays 14.
The latter motion was agreed to.
Mr. Smith, of Jennings, returned the bill [S 527] with amendments providing the Board of Trustees shall consist of four members, one of which shall be a woman, one of which shall belong to the two parties casting the highest number of votes.
Mr. FOULKE explained other amendments: The pay shall be $500 for the Trus-
Mr. JOHNSON, of Tippecanoe: When I came here, six weeks ago, having just recovered from
an illness which had prostrated me for months, I found among the bills warmly advocated by
my Democratic colleagues the Metropolitan Police bill, introduced by the Senator from Vigo
(Mr. Schloss) If it had been possible for me to be present here at the opening of the
session I should myself have introduced a bill establishing a Metropolitan Police and Fire
Department of a non-partisan character, merely aiming at the greater security of the
persons and property of the inhabitants of our cities; but since illness prevented my
presence I was glad to find upon my arrival here that my attention had, if not fully, at
least in part, been carried out by the introduction of the bill we now have under
consideration. I expressed this pleasure to the author of the bill, and Senator Schloss
seemed to be highly pleased in having found in me a new advocate and friend of a measure
from which he anticipated the best results for his own city, as well as for the other
cities of the State. He even seemed to be willing to adopt my plan of extending the
provisions of the bill to the Fire Department of said cities, and to make other changes
which I suggested and
Two years ago the General Assembly passed a Metropolitan Police bill affecting only the two largest cities of the State, after a long, bitter partisan struggle, which led to some most disgraceful scenes on the floor of this Senate. The Republicans then, as they are doing to-day, most bitterly denounced the measure and heaped insult on the Democratic party for pacing it. And yet, looking at the provisions of the Metropolitan Police bill, as it has been in force in this State, or rather in the two largest cities of this State, and judging it in the light of strict impartiality, I consider it an act deserving the praise and commendation of every well-meaning citizen.
Now what is this Metropolitan Police bill; what does it intend and what is its effect? It
intended only one thing - to take the police force in the two largest cities of Indiana out
of the hands of politicians and make it entirely independent of parties and party politics,
and as a necessary result, more efficient and reliable. The police force of a city is there
to protect the parsons and the property of citizens; and the faithful and efficient
performance of this duty should be all that ought to be demanded of a policeman. Now this
is exactly what the Metropolitan Police bill does; and it seems to me that in nearly every
city of this State there is a great necessity for such a law as we have now under
consideration. Our public officers in cities, especially the members of the police force,
instead of attending to their official business and duties exclusively, have but too often
been used as willing tools and arrogant, bulldozing electioners in the interest of the
party which put them into power. Before the election they influence voters by either
promising them official favor if they will vote for their party ticket or by threatening
and intimidating them with official persecution if they dare vote against the
policeman's party. Their acquaintance with saloon keepers and the proprietors of
gambling roams, who are more or less dependent on the good will and friendliness of police
officers and who dare not provoke their hostility for fear of being prosecuted for any
little violation of the law they may have committed or might commit,
If this bill becomes a law it will give the same chance to both parties; if the voters of a city prefer a Republican administration of their municipal or county affairs they can say so at the polls, and they will have it. If a majority is in favor of a Democratic administration, their will and intention can no longer be frustrated by overbearing policemen overawing them with their stars and maces. The strictly non-partisan character of the bill, which I wish had also included the Fire Department of these cities, with the additional feature of creating a greater efficiency in a public service, upon which, to a large degree, depend the life, prosperity and security of the citizen - these are the reasons which, above all others, recommended this bill to my favorable consideration and induce me to vote for it.
On motion by Mr. WEIR the report of the committee was concurred in.
Mr. HILLIGASS: I think it would be wisdom to have this bill printed. It is an important matter, and we can't afford to pass it through in such haste, I move the bill be printed and made the special order for to-morrow at 10 o'clock.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings: There is an urgency for the passage of this bill now. I would like to see it it printed, but I think the urgency for passage will overbalance that convenience.
Mr. WILLARD: A man can not get a good understanding from the reading. The amendments should be printed.
Mr. FAULKNER: I have seen bills run through in double-geared lightning time, and this is a very important bill, one that ought to be well guarded and we ought to have it printed. You can't get any bill up for the protection of soldiers' orphans but what I would vote for it.
Mr. RAHM: This bill has been referred to a committee, and I believe it a disgrace for the Indiana Senate to delay a bill of this kind. The bill is short, the amendments are easily understood, and I believe in passing the bill to-night and let it go to the House to-morrow. It is a disgrace to allow that man Goar to remain a Trustee any longer.
Mr. WEIR: Senators have been waiting for days, and I might say weeks, for this bill to come in here, and I for one am opposed to delay.
Mr. ADKISON favored the motion to print.
Mr. McCLURE: I can not see why there is so much hurry about this bill. I would
Mr. MARSHALL: The House has spent considerable time on this bill, and I think we should give the House a lesson on this matter. Without reflecting on the House, this bill should have been passed long ago, and we ought not to delay an hour till we place this matter in the hands of the Governor, and let him appoint Trustees to go down there and wipe out the disgrace on our record.
Mr. WEIR: There is no reason why we can not dispose of this bill to-day, and I am opposed to the delay the printing will cause.
Mr. MACY: Let the amendments be taken up separately. Some of them have been voted down in the House.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks: I desire to vote for this bill, and as I will have to be absent to-morrow, I trust it will be acted upon now.
The motion to print was rejected upon a division - affirmative, 19; negative, 20.
On motion of Mr. WEIR, the constitutional rule was dispensed with, and the bill read the second time.
Mr. FAULKNER demanded the previous question.
The Senate seconded the demand, and under its operations the committee amendments were concurred in, the bill read the third time, and passed as amended, by yeas 40, nays 0.
Mr. FOULKE stated for Mr. Johnson, of Tippecanoe, that he was called away, and were he present would vote "aye."
Mr. THOMPSON, when his name was called, said: I must express my admiration of the bill and my perfect satisfaction with the report of the committee. The idea that these orphan children shall have the benefit of the tender voice of woman and her motherly care as to their wants is refreshing, and shows Indiana is advancing, I vote "aye."
Mr. WEIR moved to take up the bill [S. 537] to make appropriations for the expenses of this General Assembly.
Mr. FAULKNER made an ineffectual motion to lay it on the table - yeas, 17; nays, 21.
Mr. BENZ, in explanation of his vote, said: I am not in favor of taking up this bill till the House send over the General Appropriation bill. They will send over a bill to get their own pay, but they will not send over the bill to appropriate money to carry on the State Government. I vote "aye."
Mr. FOULKE hoped the consideration of this bill would be postponed till after the General Appropriation bill shall come from the House of Representatives. It is a shame that the General bill should be delayed and such a bill as this allowed to take precedence.
Mr. WEIR demanded the previous question.
The Senate seconded the demand, and under its operation -
The motion to take up the bill was agreed to.
Mr. YOUCHE moved to refer the bill to the
Mr. FOULKE: I move to amend the amendment by referring the bill to the
This amendment to the amendment was rejected by yeas 16, nays 22
Mr. WEIR moved, as a substitute, that the bill shall first be read, and then referred to
the
The Senate seconded the demand, and under its operation -
The substitute was adopted by yeas 21, nays 16.
Accordingly, the bill was read the first time and referred to the
Mr. FOULKE moved to instruct the
Pending which came an adjournment - yeas, 18; nays, 14 - no quorum voting.
The unfinished business being the consideration of the bill [H. R. 426] concerning the appointment of a boiler inspector -
On motion by Mr. REEVES was recommitted with instructions to reduce the fees of such officer for the annual inspection of each boiler in the State from $3 to $2.
Mr. LOYD'S bill [H. R. 527] concerning the organization of the Knightstown Institute, being a special order for this hour, was read the third time.
The previous question was demanded and being seconded by the House, under its operation the bill passed by yeas 87, nays 0.
Pending the roll call -
Mr. LOYD said: At this time I shall not refer to the investigation or the abuses at that
institution, but will confine myself to a comparison of this and the Senate bill. This bill
cuts down the salary of the Superintendent from $1,500 to $1,200. The Superintendent has
board for himself and family, and $1,200 is enough. The Senate bill provides
Mr. FLEECE, explaining his vote, said that he had in hand a communication from a post of the G. A. R., asking that the children be separated.
Mr. GORDON said he would vote for the bill, but entered his objection to the qualification of the Trustees - that of being honorably discharged soldiers.
Mr. McGOVENEY, when his name was called, said: There are objections to the bill. It gives the Superintendent the right to employ teachers arid takes it from the hands of the Trustees. This is dangerous one-man power. There are other objections to the bill, but I will vote for it, however.
Mr. PENDLETON, in explanation of h:s vote, said: Because I believe that all benevolent institutions should be non-partisan in their character I vote "aye."
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: I here hold a communication from Post No. 3, G. A. R, of Lafayette, which demands a separation of the children. There being objection, of course I can not read it. The post desired that two institutions be made, but as this bill is the best we can do at this time I vote "aye."
Mr. PATTON. I arise to a question of personal privilege, I call the attention of the
House to an article in the Indianapolis Journal of this day. In its report of this House
that paper says that I said that General Garfield took to the rear with General Rosecrans
at the battle of Chicamauga. I think that is a mistake. I believe that I said no such
thing. It is all an error in making me make such a statement. Further on I am reported as
saying that the G. A. R. does not demand that
Mr. ADAMS: I arise to a point of order. I have sat hear and listened to the abuse of the illustrious dead until I desire to hear it no longer.
The SPEAKER: I think that the gentleman (Mr. Patten) exceeds the bounds. He has a right, as a privilege, to say that certain statements are not true. I regret to make this point especially against the gentleman as it might indicate that I spoke directly against his right of defense.
Mr. PATTEN: I speak in justice to myself. I have been attacked and am here to defend myself. I have the right to defend myself against all attacks. I do not see that I should stand here and be criticised with no word of reply. The gentleman (Mr. Adams) can have the floor after me. This article says further: "A man with no more sense of honor than wantonly to attack the fame of the patriotic dying and dead is unfit to mingle with honest men. Such a man is fitted best to plunder the wounded and dead upon the field of battle after a struggle in which he was too dastardly to take part "He is the Thenadier of his day - a buzzard among eagles. He is beneath deserving to be abused. Away with him to the man who takes charge of carrion; he is a stench in the nostrils of decency." I suppose this article came from a man who deals in carrion, taken charge of by a man who knows more about carrion than anything else. It cuts me to the quick to be assailed on my record as a soldier. I remember when the country was shaken the morning we left for the field of the South; the old cabin where I lay unconscious for sixteen days; the five years that I was engaged in defending the flag; when I went to the ranks with a broken arm. I guess I have said enough to be understood. This, I believe, is all that is necessary for me to say at this time. I believe I have made my remarks so they can all be understood.
Mr. FRENCH introduced a bill [H. R. 536] to allow County Treasurers 6 per cent. for
collecting taxes. The bill was read the first time and referred to the
Mr. FRENCH introduced a bill [H. R. 537] to allow $60,000 for expenses of the special of the Legislature.
On his motion the constitutional rule was suspended, the bill read the second time by title, the third time by section and passed by yeas 77, nays 10.
Mr. MAUK, of Wayne, explaining his vote said: Because I believe that this voting "no" is only buncombe and that those who do so will he the first to draw their warrant, I vote "aye."
Mr. DEBS: I move that the bill [H. R. 92] concerning the liability of corporations to employes be recommitted to a special committee with instructions to add a section preventing corporations from compelling employes to sign a contract releasing said corporations from such liability.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. TWINEHAM introduced a bill [H R 38] relative to a standard measure for County
Surveyors. The bill was referred to the
Mr. HELMS offered a concurrent resolution to allow Nina Moore $20 for reporting testimony in the Munson claim.
The resolution was adopted.
Mr. BOYD arose to a question of privilege, having a letter read from Superintendent J. W. White, of the Knightstown Institute, denying that he had discharged any employes save the cook, who was relieved for swearing in the hearing of the children. Mr. Boyd said that such information had been conveyed to him, but he would give Dr. White the benefit of his letter.
Mr. BARR introduced a bill [H. R. 539] to regulate the sale of township property and the
building of bridges, etc. The bill was read the first time and referred to the
Mr. SAYRE introduced a bill [H. R. 540] to make the number of Representatives of the State sixty in number, and the number.
Mr. GOODING moved to reject the bill.
The previous question was demanded and seconded by the House, and under its operations the motion to reject was rejected, by yeas 41, nays 51.
Mr. SAYRE said that it was not a gerrymandering scheme. It was intended solely as a measure of economy. The Legislative sessions were by many regarded as a calamity. He had heard it 250,000 times that the gentleman from Hancock (Mr. Gooding) was a friend of the economy, and here he was opposing this system to economize
Mr. ADAMS, explaining, said he hoped that the bill should pass, as a matter of business and the saving of expense. It was in the interest of the taxpayer. He voted "no."
Mr. BEST: Early in this session high authority said that this session was to be in the interest of retrenchment and reform. He favored such and would vote "no."
Mr. COPELAND: This is no Republican measure as a political scheme. It is something the people want. He voted "no."
Mr. DALE thought the measure would he beneficial, so he voted "no"
Mr. DITTEMORE: The Republicans have got so far away from the public crib that they now propose to keep us out. I vote "aye."
Mr. ENGLE: Every gentleman on this floor will seriously think the measure should pass. So will their constituents. It should not be disposed of thus. If a little wrong it should go to a committee for correction.
Mr. FRENCH: If this bill was seriously introduced I might consider it. The Republicans have been in the majority many times and never introduced such a measure. It is now offered for political capital, so I vote "aye."
Mr. GOODING: When there was plenty of time for this bill it was not brought in, but is now thrust upon us. It is deathbed repentance now for the Republicans to urge this measure. It could not pass the Senate, and would be a waste of time. So I vote to reject.
Mr. GORDON: If the gentleman from Wabash (Mr. Sayre) were serious I might look at it, but during his five terms here he has not introduced such a bill before. I vote "aye."
Mr. HAYWORTH: As I think the smaller number of representatives would do better work, I vote "no"
Mr. HELMS: For the reason that I advocated a measure of this kind during the recent canvass, and it met with the approval of my constituents; and for the reason that I believe a bill of this kind would ha a step in the proper direction, and a great saving of money to the people, I vote "no."
Mr. HOBAN: If we go to reducing in this ratio, in ten years we will have only one-man power. It is easy to have economy on paper, but the Republicans had time to pass this measure and did not. I vote "aye."
Mr. LOYD: I can not believe this bill emanates from a sincere motive. It is too late in the day now for the Republicans to be serious in this.
Mr. MAUCK: Believing that the bill comes from buncombe, I vote "aye."
Mr. MOCK: I believe in such a measure, and had the bill been introduced at the proper time, I would support it, but it is too late. I vote "aye."
Mr. MAUK: I have favored this measure for years and have so expressed myself to members on this floor. It would be justice to the people. I vote "no."
Mr. MOODY: As some gentlemen have here said that they promised their constituents to bring about this measure, and as they have not thought of it till now, I do not know what to believe. I shall vote "aye."
Mr. OSBORNE: Large bodies move slowly, as this session of the Legislature verifies. Favoring a small body, I vote "no."
Mr. PATTEN: Believing this the worst
Mr. PENDLETON: As it is a cheap buncombe measure, I vote "aye."
Mr. REEVES: I hope I will be excused forgetting in bad company. Were the Republicans in the majority they would not propose this, but do so because they are in the minority. I do not favor the bill as it is. I vote "no."
Mr. ROBINSON: There are good provisions in this bill, no matter the motive. I vote "no."
Mr. SAYRE: We have plenty of time to pass the bill. We have yet at least thirty-one days.
The apportionment bill was put through last session
Mr. SMIIH, of Tippecanoe: I believe this is a movement in the right direction. Half the number of the Assembly could do the business half as quick. It has been a pet measure of the gentleman from Wabash (Mr. Sayre.) I know he is serious about it, One Democrat here said - and probably because he handled language badly - that no Republican ever originated an honest thing. I would not say that about a Democrat for $1,000. I have more than $1,006 self respect than that. I vote "no."
Mr. STALEY: As this bill would be the entering wedge to break the villainous Congressional apportionment of my district, I vote "no."
Mr. TAYLOR: Not that I would vote for the bill, but because I would not treat a member so discourteously as to reject his bill without consideration, I vote against the motion to reject.
Mr. TWINEHAM: Believing that the principles of the measure are right, that the people demand it, and that there is time for it, I vote "no"
The SPEAKER: The reason why I vote as I do on this bill is because I do not believe in the discourteous treatment of any bill that is courteous in language and apparently constitutional. I do not say I favor the bill. I do not know how many Senators there should be; but in looking over this House I do not see that we could spare any of them - not even twelve. [Laughter.] I vote "no."
Messrs. Gordon, Murphy, Pleasants, Pendleton, Patten, Hobau, Rivers, Loyd, Harrell and Crecelius changed their votes to "no."
The result was announced as above.
So the motion to reject was rejected.
The bill was referred to the
Mr. SCHLEY called up his bill [H. R. 152] to abolish taxes on the stock of building and loan associations, which heretofore failed to pass for want of a constitutional majority.
The bill again failed to pass - yeas, 49; nays, 36.
Mr. GORDON'S bill [H. R. 168] relative to guardianship records, was read the third time.
The bill [H. R. 168] was defeated by yeas 41, nays 46.
Mr. Engle's bill [H. R. 71] concerning the fencing of railways was read the third time.
Mr. GOODING: The law as it is does not require railways to fence their tracks, but permits them to do it. In case they fence they are not liable, except for negligence or wilfullnes. Under this bill the farmer is required to do nothing, the railway company all. If the railway fail to build a fence the farmer may do so and charge the same to the railway.
Mr. GORDON believed that the law is needed by the people. This law ought to have been passed thirty years ago. It is high time to pass it now.
Mr. FRAZEE: Small losses by railroads are serious injuries. For instance, a sheep or a hog is killed; a farmer can not afford to enter suit for so small a loss, yet it is a loss. But so long as nine-tenths of the members of the Legislature and Judges of the courts carry railroad passes, where is the farmer to get justice?
Mr. BROWNLEE: The bill is due the people. Here is a duty that the railway company ought to perform, and this bill gives them plenty of time.
Mr. DITTEMORE offered the following:
Resolved, That all members of the House of Representatives, before voting on House Bill No. 71, be and are hereby requested to surrender to the Clerk of the House all railroad passes now held by them.
The resolution was ruled out of order.
Mr. LOYD: It has been asserted here that the railways pay more now for stock they kill than New York butchers. The condition that farmers should come to Indianapolis to enter suit is an inconvenience that should not be countenanced. I have a railway pass, and have used it, and will do it again; but that will not deter me from doing my duty. The bill is a good one and ought to pass.
Mr. ENGLE: I introduced this bill as the first one I brought forward. It was delayed by
the committee, but finally came up here. This bill is drawn after a law in Ohio, Illinois
and Iowa. By recommendation of the
The bill passed by yeas 60, nays 26.
Mr. Loyd's bill [H. R. 172] to prevent gambling on fair grounds was read the third time and passed by yeas 81, nays 3.
The House adjourned.
Mr. WEIR: It is well understood that the business of the Senate is well advanced, and the principle work to be done is to come from the House, and to accommodate many Senators who desire it, I move that when the Senate adjourn at noon it adjourns till Monday at 2 p. m.
The motion was agreed to.
The following described bills were introduced, read the first time and severally referred to appropriate committes:
By Mr. HUSTON [S. 365] relating to the collection of interest on school fund loans.
[The law now simply provides that the County Auditor "may" collect the interest semi-annually, and this bill makes it mandatory. It is said that in some counties under the existing law, school fund interest has not been collected in some cases for twenty years.]
By Mr. MARSHALL [S 366] to fix terms of court in Fountain and Warren counties.
By Mr. THOMPSON [S 367] for a dentist to serve the benevolent institutions of the State at a salary of $1,800 and expanses of traveling.
Mr. WILLARD, from the
On his farther motion - yeas, 26; nays, 9 - the bill was read the second time.
On motion by Mr. SELLERS the bill [S. 148] to authorize County Commissioners to appropriate not exceeding $25,000 for the erection of soldiers' monuments, upon petition or a majority vote at an election held for the purpose, was read, with a committee report recommending the addition of an emergency clause.
The report was concurred in.
The bill, having been heretofore read the third time, was passed the Senate by yeas 34, nays 0.
The bill [S. 151] to devote one day only in the first four months of school for a teachers' institute was read the third time.
Mr. HUSTON explained: This is a substitute for his bill on the same subject. It excepts cities as to institute model school work. It also provides the institutes shall not be held on Saturdays, but under the County Superintendent's control, who shall fix the times of meeting, and for County Teachers' Associations, providing pay for teachers, fixing the penalty for non-attendance of teachers at one day's wages. The Township Institutes are restricted to not more than three townships; so as to prevent the teachers traveling so far to attend these institutes.
The bill passed by yeas 28, nays 7.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay, explaining his negative vote, said: I am opposed to any school teacher being compelled to forfeit a day's work in order to attend these institutes.
Mr. Campbell's, of St. Joseph, bill [S. 164] concerning the hiring of convict labor was read the third time, and passed by yeas 31, nay 4.
Mr. YOUOHE explained: The purpose is to prevent the overlapping of State convict labor.
Mr. BENZ when his name was called, said: I oppose this bill. The reason I oppose it is: our prison labor gets along first rate; the Northern Prison and the Southern Prison pay expenses, and I don't like to disturb this thing. I vote "no."
Mr. HOWARD'S bill to amend Section 9 of the drainage act, so as to require publication, was read the third time and failed to pass - yeas 21, nays 15 - for want of a constitutional majority.
A message from the House of Representatives announced a refusal on the part of that body
to concur in Senate amendments to the road bill [H. R. 101], and asking a
On motion of Mr. BROWN, the Senate refused to recede from its amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Willard in the chair) appointed Messrs. Brown and Campbell of
St. Joseph a free
Mr. SMITH'S, of Jennings, bill [S. 176 concerning highways and supervisors thereof, to amend Section 38 of the act approved March 2, 1883, was read the third time and rejected, by yeas 12, nays 22.
Mr. SELLERS moved to reconsider the vote by which the Senate agreed to adjourn till Monday.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Willard in the chair) decided the motion out of order. It is not in order to reconsider a motion by which the Senate agreed to adjourn to a day certain.
Mr. SELLERS: I appeal from the decision of the Cha r.
Mr. RAHM: It being well understood that agreement has been made to adjourn till Monday, several Senators have left, and there is no use of keeping Senators here now when some can catch the noon train and get home to-night.
The question being "Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Senate?" [Mr. Willard having called Mr. Youche to the chair] it was so decided by yeas 19, nays 15.
Mr. McINTOSH, changing his vote from "no" to "aye" because of a decision of the then Lieutenant Governor at the last session of the Senate found on page 167 of the twenty-first volume of the Brevier Legislative Reports (which he reads) that in the absence of our rules we should be governed by the rules of the Lower House of Congress.
Mr. FOULKE moved that the order of the
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Willard): I believe that motion is in order.
Mr. YOUCHE: If I had been here when the order was made I should have voted against it, but it would not be treating certain Senators fair, who have obtained leaves of absence on the faith of that order, for us to rescind it now. And now because of that action other Senators have hurried away to catch the 11 o'clock trains.
Mr. SMITH, of Delaware: It would place these Senators in the position of being absent without leave.
Mr. DUNCAN, of Brown: I voted against the motion to adjourn over, but as since then some Senators have gone home, I think if we stayed here and spent the time as we are now spending it, it would be of no advantage to us or to the people who sent us here.
The motion to rescind was rejected.
Mr. JOHNSON, of Tippecanoe, returned the bill [H. R. 16] to provide for the teaching of physiology and hygiene in the public schools, with a majority and a minority report thereon.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St Joseph, moved to make this subject a special order for Tuesday at 2 o'clock p. m.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay, made an ineffectual motion - yeas, 15; nays, 19 - to lay the motion on the table.
Mr. BENZ, in explaining his affirmative vote, said: I believe it isn't right to make any more special orders this late in the session. We have got some more important business here than that bill is. I vote "aye."
Mr. JOHNSON made an ineffectual motion - yeas, 16; nays, 18 - to amend so as to make it the special order for Thursday at 2 o'clock p. m.
The motion to make it a special order for Tuesday at 2 p. m. was also rejected by ayes 21, nays 13 - two birds not voting in the affirmative, as required by the rules of the Senate.
And then the Senate adjourned - at noon - till Monday at 2 p. m., under an order adopted early this morning.
The call of counties for the introduction of bills was resumed.
Mr. KLAAS introduced a bill [H. R. 541} for the protection of laborers, which was read the first time.
Mr. KELLISON withdrew his joint resolution [H. R. 1] relative to amending the Constitution by making the number of Supreme Court Judges not less than three nor more than nine, and offered a substitute joint resolution [H. R. 2], as follows:
Be It resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring, That the following amendment is hereby proposed to the Constitution of Indiana: Amend Section 2, Article 7 to read as follows:
The Supreme Court shall consist of not less than six nor more than nine Judges. They shall hold their offices for the term of six years, if they so long behave themselves.
Amend Section 3, Article 7 to read as follows:
The State shall be divided into three districts, and such districts shall be formed of contiguous territory as nearly equal in population as, without dividing a county, the same can be made. Not less than two nor more than three Judges shall be elected from each district and reside therein, but said Judges shall be elected by the electors of the State at Large.
The Judges of the Supreme Court shall be divided into not less than two nor more than three benches, and three Judges shall constitute a bench, and the majority of the Judges in any bench shall constitute a quorum. Each bench of Judges shall have exclusive jurisdiction of such class or classes of appeals and such original jurisdiction as the General Assembly may prescribe. When all the Judges of any bench having jurisdiction of a cause desire it they may submit such cause to all the Judges of the Supreme Court, and in such case a majority of them shall constitute a quorum.
Mr. STALEY offered a resolution that the House meet at 7 o'clock this evening to consider the general appropriation bill in Committee of the Whole House.
On motion of Mr. SEARS the resolution was laid on the table.
Mr. PASSAGE offered a resolution that members in the discussion of a measure be limited to five minutes time in discussion, and one minute in the explanation of votes.
The resolution lies over under the rules for one day.
The following described bills were introduced, read the first time and referred to appropriate committees, except where otherwise stated:
By Mr. McCLELLAND [H. R. 542} concerning assignments of mortgages and cancellation of mechanic's leins.
By Mr. FRENCH [H. R. 543] concerning the compensation of County Treasurers and collecting delinquent taxes.
Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana, that the County Treasurers of the State of Indiana shall receive and retain 6 per centum, and no more, of all delinquent taxes by them collected, whether before or after the levy, and also whether before or after such delinquent taxes have been carried over to the next year's duplicate; and no Treasurer shall receive or retain any greater sum than is herein provided, except that they shall be allowed to collect fees and charges for demand, levy and sale, and expenses for caring for the property, as is now provided by law.
Sec. 2. All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this act are hereby repealed.
Sec. 3. Whereas an emergency exists for the immediate taking effect of this act, therefore the same shall be in force from and after its passage.
By Mr. ROBINSON [H. R. 544] for the relief of John Hutchinson, school trustee of Carbon, who lost money by the suspension of the Commercial Bank of Brazil. Passed to the second reading.
By Mr. ENGLE [H. R. 545] concerning the powers of cities and water works. Passed to the second reading.
By Mr McMICHAEL [H. R. 547] concerning the General Assembly and its business. [The bill cuts down the pay of clerks to $4, other employes to $3, and pages to $1.50 per day.]
The bill was passed to the second reading.
By Mr. PATTEN [H. R. 548] regulating estates. The bill was read the first time and passed to a second reading.
By Mr. VICKERY [H. R. 549] to legalize the town of Windfall. Passed to the second reading.
By Mr. SEARS [H. R. 550] concerning the distribution of money in unincorporated towns of Vermillion County. Passed to the second reading.
By Mr. DALE [H. R. 551] concerning abstract of titles. Passed to the second reading.
By Mr. STALEY [H. R. 552] to amend the Revised Statutes, so that all applicants for liquor license shall be residents of the town, township or ward where they apply. Passed to the second reading.
By Mr. TAYLOR [H. R. 553] regulating the division of estates. Passed to the second reading.
Mr. JAMES0N offered a resolution to compliment Frank L. Denny for his valliant services in the navy at the bombardment of Alexandria.
The resolution was referred to the
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe, offered the following joint resolution [H. R. 37]:
Resolved, by the General Assembly cf the State of Indiana, That the following amendment to toe Constitution of the State of Indiana be and the same is hereby proposed to-wit: Amend by adding thereto Article 17, so as to read as follows:
Section 1. The labor of the convicts of tbe Penitentiaries of the State shall not be hired out to contractors, corporations or private citizens, nor snail any law be enacted under whose provisions said labor shall in any way or degree pass from under the immediate control and supervision of the State and its officers.
Section 2. The Legislature of the State shall provide by law in what manner and by whom convicts of the Penitentiaries and the inmates of the Reformatory institutions shall be employed, having special regard to the interests of the State and the reformation of the convicts.
It was read the first time.
Mr. FLEECE offered a resolution that as time is precious, money scarce and taxes
The resolution was adopted.
In the call of counties for bills on the third reading -
Mr FRAZEE'S bill [H. R. 75] concerning the extension of charters and the maintenance of free gravel roads was read the third time.
Mr. FLOYD moved to recommit the bill, with instructions that at the expiration of the charters the county shall take charge of the roads, no matter what the condition of the same may be.
Mr. ENGLE moved to amend the motion to recommit so that the county shall take charge only if the road is in good repair.
The motion to amend was rejected.
The motion to recommit was also rejected.
The bill was defeated by yeas 33, nays 53
On motion of Mr. ENGLE, the vote defeatiag the bill was reconsidered and the bill recommitted.
The Road bill [H. R. 101] was returned from the Senate with amendments; the House refusing to concur in the latter, a conference committee, consisting of Messrs. Gordon and Smith, of Tippecanoe, was appointed, and the Senate notified of the action of the House.
Mr. HOBAN called up Mr. Moody's bill [H. R. 291] to pay John W. Pullen $750 for services in guarding prisoners during the war.
Mr. HOBAN said: The record will show that Mr. Pullen did the service and that he has never received his pay. He is needy and the claim should be paid at once.
Mr. BARNEY: I am not here to advocate the claim on the ground of sympathy, but because it is a just claim. I know it.
Mr. MOODY: I introduced this bill at the request of Mr. Pullen himself, and I know nothing more about it than the testimony sub mitted to the committee appointed to investigate the claim. It was found just. When the law was enacted allowing these claims, Mr. Pullen was in Illinois, and his claim was not audited. This act allowing the Indiana Legion claims, of which Legion Pullen was a member, was passed in 1881. [Reads] The evidence of his Captain is that the claim is just, and is here presented to the Clerk, who will read.
Mr. PATTEN: I do not see that under this law it is necessary for the bill to pass. The law already appropriates the money to pay these claims. No evidence is here presented that he was ever mustered in the service. Let him get that and also his discharge. This bill if passed would upon the door so that every man who drove a team for a quartermaster will be here with a claim.
Mr. MOODY: The argument of the gentleman from Sullivan (Mr. Patten) is suicidal. If a record of a muster and a discharge is all that is necessary, why was the law of 1881 necessary? If this bill is not passed this feeble old man can not get his pay. The money can only be paid on the certificate of the Adjutant General. The record is lost, but his services for the country were not lost. To refuse to pay him is grand larceny.
The bill passed by yeas 57, nays 29.
Mr. BOOE asked and obtained leave to introduce a resolution that the principal clerk find the number of House bills in the Senate.
The resolution was adopted.
Under a resolution of the House the Clerk subsequently reported there are now fifty-seven House bills pending in the Senate and undisposed of; twelve have been indefinitely postponed and eight passed by the Senate.
MR. LOYD: I arise to a question of privilege. My attention has been called to an article is the Indianapolis Sentinel, of this morning. It is from Knightstown, and says:
KNIGHTSTOWN, Ind., March 18 - We, the undersigned, teachers and employes of the Indiana Asylum for Feeble-minded Children and Soldiers' Orphans' Home, unwilling to longer see a faithful and conscientious officer slandered in the public prints, take the privilege of saying, in answer to Mr. Loyd and Mr. Boyd, who are reported as saying, "The teachers are being discharged and the children abused who testified against Dr. White in the late investigation," that this is unqualifiedly false. The teachers are all in their places and the children are receiving the same good care and attention that they have always had.
This is done without the knowledge or consent of Dr. White.
Alice Brant, Matron; Sallie Egbert nurse of hospital; Kanna Texton, Anna Brayery, Mary L. Longwood, M. Elma Talbert, governess; Mrs. Alice Beltz, teacher Asylum school: Maggie Texton, Mary Avela, governess; Lucien E. Sample, attendant boys' division; Robert H. Hazleton, William M. Perky, baker; Marcy C. Cary, Nelly M. Strode, governess; Mary E. Pfarrer, Ella O'Connell, Lizzie Terry, John Harrison, Mary L. Bundy, cook; Rea B. Cochran, help in dining-room; Ellen Brannenburg, Michael Dewine, Mrs. Bringnorth, James Daugherty, Mrs. L. M. Walker, William Bresland and Maggie Clark.
This is signed by a number of the attaches of the institution. Now I want to say something concerning some of these names to this paper. Miss Elma Talbert, whose name is here signed, is the sweetheart of the son of Dr. White. This Mrs. Alice Baltz is a relative of Dr. White. Mrs. Ames, the governess, does mostly sewing for Dr. White, and most of her time is employed in White's family, although she is paid by the State. Others are -
Mr. CORY (interrupting): I do not see how the dignity of this House is affected by all this reference to those parties.
The Speaker: This is out of order beyond doubt.
Mr. LOYD: I will then conform to the ruling of the Speaker. Miss See Ray Wilson was discharged. She took a part in the investigation and was released soon after that. As soon as the statement was made to this House by me that Dr. White was discharging employes, he saw the statement in the newspapers and at once went to Miss Wilson and reinstated her, on condition that she would claim that she had never been discharged. And this bully, Robert Hazleton, whose name is to this paper, is the same one who so mercilessly strapped those little boys and was never taken to account by Dr. White or John M. Goar. I have further testimony against others who have signed that statement. In this House at this very time stands a man who was one of the most useful employes of that institution, who was discharged because he took part in this vindication. He lost his place for the part he took. I say this in justice to myself and Mr. Boyd, who were in that investigation. This Dr. White stood by and knew of this Hazleton strapping the inmates - cruelly punishing them. He knew of children being starved. All this could emanate only from the heartless individual that Dr. White is.
Mr. LOYD referred to a letter he had received from Miss Susie Ray Wilson and handed the same to the reporter. One paragraph referring to Dr. White, reads: "Since the morning papers came he has been raving around the house - says he did not discharge me, etc. But on last Friday, previous to my dismissal, he wrote to Mrs. Laura M. Walker, telling her to come at once, as he could give her a teacher's position. She is now in the house, but has taken no position as yet. * * * My discharge was the topic of conversation throughout the Home, the different ones telling the children that Mr. Walker was coming to be their teacher." Near the end of the letter, the writer says: "Dr. White was here just now and wanted me to make a statement that I had not been discharged. I told him I could not say that, but I would make one stating that I had been, but was not now. He would not accept such, and says that he intends to refute these charges."
A message from the Senate announced the passage by that body of the bill [H. R. 527] relative to the Knightstown Institute with amendments that one of the Trustees be a woman, and that the salaries of certain officers be increased, etc
Mr. DITTEMORE: I move that the House do not concur in the amendments from the Senate.
Mr. GOODING: I call for a division of the question, so that we may vote on each amendment separately.
The SPEAKER: The chair will so direct. The first amendment provides one member of the Board of Trustees shall be a woman, and, plainly, that one shall be a Republican and one a Democrat.
The amendment was agreed to by yeas 52, nays 37.
Mr. BOYD, explaining his vote, said: I have no objections to a woman on the board, but I am especially anxious that a Republican and a Democrat should serve on the board. I know that the man who outraged the little boys was kept there for two months that he might vote.
The SPEAKER: The gentleman is out of order.
Mr. BOYD: I do not say this as a reflection on Democrats. Both parties are too prone to shield their party men. I vote "aye."
Mr. DEEM: If I thought that a lady would exert any good influence on the board I would vote for the measure; but I have no such faith. And as a woman whipped the soldiers' orphans with a rawhide I am compelled to vote "no."
Mr. GOODING: As the Democrats have to bear the responsibility of the government of this institution I think they should have control of the institution. I do not want to make it a political institution, but, as the responsibility rests on the Democrats, I think they should govern it. So I vote "no."
Mr. HARRELL: I am an Andrew Jackson Democrat and believe that Democrats should control. So I vote "no."
Mr. HOBAN: I believe that a woman is more competent to take care of these children than a man is. I therefore vote "aye."
Mr. KELLISON: For the reason that I believe in purging our benevolent institutions from politics, and for the reason that I believe that woman is the friend of the homeless, the weak and the friendless, I vote "aye."
Mr. LOYD: So far as the non-partisan part is concerned, I favor it; but I do not favor a woman on that board. Women govern the children now, but as I believe the Trustees should be live business men, I vote "no."
Mr. MOUK: As I do not think that the best interests of the State demand a woman on the board I vote "no."
Mr. McBROOME: I do not like the language of the amendment, and I vote "no."
Mr. McMICHAEL: There are more women there now than there ought to be; so I vote "no."
Mr. PATTEN: I am in favor of three women on that board; but that we may have a conference committee, I vote "no."
Mr. ROBINSON: As I do not favor the minority in tine Senate dictating to the working members here, I vote "no."
Mr. TAYLOR: Believing, as I do, that the institution needs the care of a good, motherly, virtuous woman, I think the Senate did right. I think the presence of a woman would avoid scandal. No one can sympathize with the unfortunate like a woman. I vote to concur.
Mr. TOWNSEND: I remember that during the war the women were ministering angels to oar
soldiers, and believing that all
The SPEAKER: I believe that our institutions would be better in the hands of women - even all the Trustees should be women. I most cheerfully concur in the amendment and vote "aye."
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: I heartily believe a woman should be a Trustee. I vote "aye."
Mr. BOYD: That we may settle this at once, I change my vote to "aye."
Mr. LOYD: For the reason that we may have this matter settled at once, I also change my vote to "aye."
The result was announced as above.
So the amendment was adopted.
The remaining amendments to increase the salary of the Superintendent from $1,200 to $1,500, and the salary of the Trustee from $490 to $500 per year, were then severally agreed to.
Mr. DONHOST'S bill [H. R. 115] to reduce the interest on the common school fund from 8 to 7 per cent. failed to pass - yeas, 46; nays, 42 - the affirmative vote not constituting a constitutional majority.
Mr. RIVERS' bill [H. R. 355] prescribing punishment for fishing in the streams of the State with seins, coming up for consideration on the second reading -
Mr. BUTZ offered an amendment exempting the Wabash River from the provisions of the bill.
Mr. DITTEMORE proposed an additional amendment including White River in the exemptions from the provisions of the bill.
Mr. PATTEN further proposed to add to the amendments of Mr. Benz and Mr. Dittemore the words "and their tributaries."
Mr. Patten's amendment was rejected and the others were adopted.
Mr. BARNEY moved to strike St. Joseph River from the exceptions to the provisions of the bill.
This motion was laid on the table.
On motion by Mr. CORY the enacting clause of the bill was stricken out - yeas, 44; nays, 41.
Mr. Metcalf's bill [H. R. 384] to legalize the town of Rockport, Spencer County, was passed by yeas 74, nays O.
Mr. FRAZEE'S bill [H. R. 75] relating to keeping in repair free gravel roads, was read the second time and ordered engrossed for the third reading.
Mr. BEST offered a concurrent resolution to strike from the Constitution the word white, relative to the State militia.
The resolution was adopted by yeas 76, nays 23.
The bill [S. 22] to allow County Commissioners to make purchases for Orphans' Homes, was read the third time and by yeas 73, nays 3.
The House adjourned.
The Senate was not in session to-day.
Mr. MOCK, from the
On motion of Mr. KLAAS the report was laid on the table, and the bill was passed to the second reading.
Mr. SCHLEY, from the majority of the
Mr. MOSIER submitted a minority report
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe, moved to recommit the bill to a committee of three to report at any early day.
The SPEAKER hoped that the motion to postpone would prevail. He said that these reports were curtailed to a great extent - began at the middle and ended at neither end. The Senate proceedings were more complete, which gave out the impression that the Senate did better work than the House.
Mr. McMULLEN was of the opinion that the Reports are not worth the price asked.
Mr. LOYD: The reason I oppose this measure is I do not propose the people shall pay for these books that the members may have them for electioneering purposes.
The motion to recommit was rejected, and the motion to concur in the minority report was agreed to.
Mr. BUTZ offered a resolution that 500 copies of the apportionment map be purchased and distributed among the members of the House.
Mr. GOODING: It is not right that the people's money should be taken for this. The members should buy copies for themselves if they need them. I move to postpone the resolution.
Mr. PATTEN: Mr. Burford, who is printing these maps, has taken the trouble to set out the vote in each district. The maps are very correct.
Mr. MOODY: While this is a very useful map, it is a good deal like the hand book of politics - a man should buy it if he desire it.
The motion to indefinitely postpone the resolution was agreed to by yeas 47, nays 30.
Pending the roll-call -
Mr. CORY,
Mr. HARRELL, in explanation: Believed that there would be means of the people learning without making this purchase.
Mr. GOODING, when his name was called, said: The press of Indianapolis has already fully published this apportionment bill, and this would be a waste of money: I vote "aye."
Mr. OVERMAN, in explanation of his vote, said: Our county has never had a Democratic
representative, and as there are several who want to make the race, I want
Mr. REEVES, when his name was called, said: This idea of disseminating knowledge over all of Indiana with 500 copies is a humbug. I vote "aye."
Mr. ROBINSON, in explaining his vote, said: For the reason that the Greenback party is intelligent and needs no maps I vote "aye."
Mr. SMITH, of Perry, when his name was called, said: As this is a question of whether the members here shall spend their own money or some one else's, I vote "aye."
Mr. STALEY, in explanation of his vote, said: For myself I do not care to see this map, neither do the people of the Ninth District, so I vote "aye."
The SPEAKER, when called upon to vote, said: For the reason that there is a good deal of interest in this apportionment, and for the reason that the people at home are abusing him like a pickpocket, under a misapprehension of boundaries, he favored the resolution.
The vote was then announced as above.
So the motion to indefinitely postpone was agreed to.
Mr. Robinson's bill [H. R. 377] to abolish fees for Prosecuting Attorneys where, in minor cases, the defendant pleads guilty, having been called back from the Senate -
Mr. ROBINSON moved to recommit the bill with amendment.
The motion to recommit was rejected - yeas, 36; nays, 51
Pending the roll-call -
Mr. GOODING, when his name was called, said: I voted for this bill when it passed the House under the belief that it was proper and just. The amendment now proposed is that neither the Prosecuting Attorney nor his deputy shall have fees unless they render some service in the case. If a Prosecuting Attorney renders no service he should have no fee.
The SPEAKER Pro Tem (Mr. Gordon in the chair): The gentleman is making a speech, and will take his seat until permitted to proceed by the House.
Mr. GOODING: Has that been the practice here? I suppose the Prosecuting Attorneys are here -
The SPEAKER pro tem.: It is the rule.
Mr GOODING: Then this ruling will come home to roost. I shall see that it is enforced. I vote "aye."
Mr. PATTEN, when his name was called, said: I voted for the bill when it was up here before. I think it is right to recommit the bill that it may be corrected.
The SPEAKER: The gentleman is out of order. He is making a speech and not explaining his vote.
Mr. GOODING: I insist that the rule be enforced, and that the gentleman sit down.
Mr. PATTEN: I will vote differently from the way I did before, and explain why. I think the amendment will materially help the bill, so I vote "aye" to recommit.
Mr. ROBINSON, in explaining his vote, said: At the time the bill was up before I thought that some members were not serious. Now I know it.
Mr BEST made a point of order that the use of this language is unparliamentary.
The SPEAKER: The language is unparliamentary, but I think the gentleman does not mean exactly what he says.
Mr. SEARS, when his name was called, said: The gentleman from Clay, Putnam, and Hendricks seems to doubt the sincerity of those who voted to have this bill returned. I made the motion to recall it, and I did it that the bill may be killed. I am willing to bear the responsibility of this. The best thing to do with the bill is to kill it quick.
The vote was then announced as above.
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The regular order being now reached for bills on the the third reading -
Mr. PATTEN called up the bill [H. R. 479] making general appropriations.
On his further motion the House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole (Mr. Adams in the Chair) for the consideration of the bill.
The question being upon an amendment by Mr. GOODING to an amendment by Mr. SAYRE concerning the removal of officers of the Knightstown Institute -
Mr. LOYD said: As the bill concerning the
Mr. GOODING withdrew his amendment to the amendment, and on his motion the latter was rejected.
Mr. LOYD offered an amendment that the item for repairs at the Knightstown Institute be $3 300 instead of $2 000.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. GORDON moved an amendment to strike out the item giving $24,000 to Purdue University. He said: I move to strike this out and leave it blank, so that it may be filled by a smaller sum. If there is one single good reason why the appropriation for Purdue should be increased, I would like to know it. There has been a standing together here for legislative log-rolling.
Mr. BARNEY: This standing together of rival State institutions is good for them, but death on the taxpayer.
Mr. FRENCH: The gentleman from Putnam (Mr. Gordon) should be generous enough to say what
there should be, if too large. It may be that by cutting off these State institutions, that
sectarian institution will be helped. There has been a question raised that Purdue
University is not a State institution. If so, this appropriation should not be given. But
the history of Purdue show it to be a State institution. Two years ago President White
wanted $25,000 from the State, and when this was refused, he resigned
Mr. LOOP: I firmly believe that if all these members had visited Purdue, and had seen the progress there, they would not object to this item. I was prejudiced against the institution before I visited it, but soon changed my opinion.
Mr. FRANKLIN: We need the sciences as taught at Purdue University. The science of farming is successful at this day. Machinery has so been applied to agricultural pursuits that men should know the underlying principles. We need schools to discover these principles. Purdue University does that to a certain extent. The members on the floor should see to it that these institutions are protected.
Mr. LOYD: The point has been made that Purdue University is a State institution, not
whether Bloomington is a State institution or not, but from Ripley County the idea looks to
us that to pay these large sums for the education of the small number of students that
annually
On motion of Mr. COPELAND the committee arose, the Chairman reported progress, and asked leave for the Committee of the Whole to sit again at 2 o'clock.
The report was concurred in by the House -
And then came recess for dinner.
Mr. REEVES moved that when the Committee of the Whole rise this evening the House stand adjourned until 10 o'clock Monday morning.
Mr. SEARS made an ineffectual motion to amend by making the hour 2 o'clock Monday.
The original motion was agreed to.
Mr. KELLISON asked and obtained leave to have his joint resolution [H. R. 2] to amend the Constitution relative to the Supreme Court read the second time, and on his further motion the joint resolution was ordered engrossed.
On motion of Mr. REEVES the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole (Mr. Adams in the chair) for the further consideration of the bill [H. R. 479] making general appropriations for the State.
Mr. McHENRY: The
Mr. GOODING: The Government of the United States and the State of Indiana have entered
into a compact to support Purdue University. The State's honor is pledged to the
United States that Purdue shall be sustained. However I might wish to economize, the fact
is I feel that we cannot afford to break that good faith. Fidelity and good faith with the
United States forbid it. Refer to the act of Congress and you will see that I am correct. I
will not presume to think that any member here will think of breaking this faith. The only
question is, how much money is necessary to carry out this obligation? As a State we can
not afford to sully our honor by breaking our obligation. It is not a question whether we
shall sustain Purdue. We are bound in honor to do that. The only question is, is this much
money needed? In Indiana, the great agricultural State of Indiana, the farmers have no
other institution. The mechanics have no other college. It is the only institution for
them. While we are voting large sums for other institutions is there a man on this floor
who says there is to be no institution for the farmer or mechanic? There is not a member on
this floor dare oppose it and then vote to donate only to institutions to educate lawyers
and gentlemen of leisure and
Mr. PATTEN: It delights me to hear that horny-handed farmer of Hancock (Mr. Gooding) here speaking for the farmer. He is here preaching economy and voting against it.
Mr. STALEY: I call the gentleman to order.
Mr. PATTEN: There is another geraniun who speaks for economy and votes against it. Here is the gentleman from Hancock speaking for the people. The Government of the United States, had it known what disposition would have been made of its allowance in this direction, would never have made it. This is simply class legislation - this proposition to educate at Purdue. Very few farmers' sons have been educated there. Three from my county have gone there. None of them were farmers' sons and none of them are farmers. President Smart says the mechanical shop is not half large enough, and he wants a new one. Farther, the farm should have more stock; a new carpet is wanted; the library is not adequate, and thousands of dollars are wanted for it. Here I hold the tenth annual register of the institution. I want to call attention to the buildings Here is shown where $4,000 was paid for stock, and yet these gentlemen want further appropriations to buy some blooded stock. I will read further items of expense. [Reads] The enormous amount of $148,500 has been paid to Purdue University besides what it receives from its endowment fund, which pays 5 per cant. The State has already given Purdue $7 000 for stock, and they want more to experiment with. Is this what is to be done with the farmer's hard-earned moneys? I suppose that it is an open secret that these Professors there have been down with a microscope examining which end of the crawfish is the front end. [Laughter.] They also have prepared treaties on the clinch bug. President Smart knows no more of farming than my nine year old boy, and not as much. He is a school teacher. All this argument here is made by those who undertake to ingratiate themselves in the good graces of the farmers. No one ever heard of a farmer being benefited by Purdue University. The farm boy knows much more from experience than any one about the colleges.
On motion of Mr. REEVES the committee arose, and the Chairman reported progress and asked leave to sit again.
The House concurred in the report of the Committee of the Whole.
And then, pursuant to an order adopted this afternoon -
The House adjourned till Monday owning at 10 o'clock.
The Senate met at 2 o'clock p.m., pursuant to adjournment, the Lieutenant Governor (Hon. Mahlon D. Manson) in the chair.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, commanding order, announced prayer by member of the House of Representatives, Rev. Thomas Smith, a Representative from the county of Warrick.
Rev. Mr Smith invoked the Divine blessing in the following words: O Lord God, our Heavenly Father, the Creator and Preserver of all things, we most solemnly invoke Thy blessing to rest upon the members of this General Assembly. And in an especial manner, O Lord, we ask Thy blessing to rest upon the presiding officer of this Senate. We realize and believe that it is through Thee we live and move and have our being. We are left under existing circumstances to mourn the loss of one of our number, who has been called from labor to repose. O Lord, in tender mercy, wilt Thou shield and protect and comfort the bereaved hearts of those left behind. We ask Thy blessing to rest upon all the inhabitants of our State. Bless all our presiding officers and those in authority over us, and make them men of clean hands and pure hearts. Grant O God to lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil, and grant O Lord that while we sojourn in the world, may we so act that at the time of our departure shall arrive, we can realize as did one of old that we have fought the good fight, have kept the faith and are ready to be offered. When this life with all its labors landed receive us to Thyself in glory, and Thine be the praises forever and ever. Amen.
On motion by Mr. WILLARD, the reading of the Secretary's minutes of Friday's proceedings was dispensed with.
Mr. DUNCAN, of Brown: Mr. President, I offer the following resolution:
Whereas The Senate has just been informed of the death of W. W. Browning, a Representative in the Fifty-fourth General Assembly from Brown and Monroe Counties, which occurred in this city; therefore, be it
Resolved, That a committee of the Senators be appointed to make arrangements to attend the funeral and to present proper resolutions in regard to the deceased.
Resolved, That as a mark of esteem in which the deceased was held by this body, that the Senate do adjourn until to-morrow morning at 9 o'clock.
Mr. DUNCAN, of Brown: Mr. President, I move the adoption of the resolution.
Mr. WILLARD: I second the motion.
Mr. WEIR: I would suggest whether it would not be better to appoint the committee proposed to be raised by the resolution, previous to the adjournment of the Senate.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: I don't understand that the resolution adjourns the Senate at once.
The resolution was adopted.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: I will appoint as the committee Mr. Duncan, of Brown; the Senator from Huntington (Mr. Hilligass), and the Senator from Fountain (Mr. Marshall).
Mr. MAGEE: I would suggest that if there is to be any further resolutions offered or any
action taken on this matter, it might better be done this afternoon. The committee might
retire at once and make a report in a few minutes, and whatever is to
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: I understand the House will soon send a message to the Senate inviting the Senate to attend in a body, and together with the House escort the corpse from up here on Delaware street to the Union Depot.
Mr. HILLIGASS: I was informed by a member of the House that the Senate would be invited.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. It would only take a few minutes for some Senator to frame resolutions, as suggested by the Senator from Cass.
Mr. MAGEE: I move that a committee of three be appointed to draft resolutions expressing the sense of the Senate on the death of Mr. Browning.
The motion was agreed to.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: I will make the committee to consist of the Senator from Case (Mr. Magee), the Senator from Wayne (Mr Foulke), and the Senator from Lawrence (Mr. Willard).
Mr. FOWLER: I don't know whether I fully comprehend the scope of the resolution introduced by the Senator from Brown (Mr. Duncan).
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR [to the Reading Clerk]: Read the resolution.
The clerk again read the resolution.
Mr. FOWLER: As I understand the resolution the committee appointed under it is to attend the funeral and accompany the corpse to the place of the burial.
Mr. WILLARD, from the special committee thereon, reported the following:
Whereas, The Almighty in his infinite providence has called from our midst one of our members, Hon. W. W. Browning, Representative from the counties of Brown and Monroe; therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate of Indiana, That this body has heard with deep regret of the loss of this one of our members.
Resolved, That the memory of W. W. Browning is endeared to us on account of his uniform courtesy and kindness and his distinguished ability as a legislator.
Resolved, That we tender to his bereaved family our sincere condolence in their affliction.
Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be spread upon the journal of the Senate, and that an engrossed copy be sent to the family of the deceased.
The resolutions were adopted.
Mr. WEIR: I move that the Senate do now adjourn and proceed in a body to the place of the funeral of the Hon. W. W. Browning, deceased.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Senate adjourned till 9 o'clock to-morrow morning, pursuant to the resolution first adopted.
The House met, pursuant to adjournment, the Speaker (Hon. Charles L. Jewett, of Floyd County,) in the Chair.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe, offered the following prayer:
O God, our help in ages past, our hope in ages to come: our shelter in the stormy blast, our strength in the hour of adversity. We come this morning into Thy presence, the only source from which life and strength come, the only source from which an Allwise, unfailing guidance can be vouchsafed to us, from which comes the only balm for our aching hearts in times of our sorrow and bereavement, and by whom all our afflictions are made light We have come and gone through this session, and over us the dark wings of death have not rested until to day. Thou art allwise and good, and the ways of Thy unscrutable providence are past finding out. And today we are called, after the pale horse with his rider has passed. Our band of 100 is broken, and from the ninety and nine of us that are left, one is called to that bourne whence no traveler ever returns. And it saddens our hearts and says to us, as he sleeps, so shall ye also sleep. May it be the happy lot of us to sleep as peacefully as he sleeps - blessed are those who sleep in Jesus. Help us bow to Thy will, and held us send forth our sympathies to those more closely united to him than we and whose hearts are more deeply wounded than are ours. There is a home in deep sadness, a wife stricken with sore sorrow, and the one who calls him father - his listening ear will never hear it more. May the afflicted family, and all of us, find consolation in the hope of a happy eternity. May we be in our hearts more closely united in the friendships felt here, and may we at the end of our lives be as he was - an honest man and one of God. And in this hour of sorrow help us to say and feel: Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name; Thy kingdom come; Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us; lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil, and Thine be the kingdom, the power and the glory forever and ever. Amen.
The SPEAKER directed the Clerk to call the roll, and when it was completed he reported - - members as present and answering to their names.
On motion, the reading of the Clerk's journal of Saturday's proceedings was dispensed with.
Mr. TOWNSEND said: In view of the fact that I, as a member of the
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe, said: A member of the Fifty-fourth General Assembly has been taken from us. I deem that it is in accord with the custom of all legislative bodies, and I believe my heart is in sympathy with every other member on this floor, that it is not proper for us to-day to continue the discharge of ordinary business. I think that we should take appropriate action in honor of the dead. This House should assemble in the afternoon and in a body attend the funeral cortege. A committee should be appointed to attend the body of the departed one to the grave. I have expected to hear of the death of another member of this body, but I was shocked to read in the press this morning of the death of Representative Browning, from the counties of Brown and Monroe. I move that such action be taken by the House.
The SPEAKER: I do not know what action the Senate may desire to take, but as that body does not meet until 2 o'clock this afternoon it will be best that the House now take action
Mr. ADAMS: Inasmuch as the Senate does not meet until this afternoon, I move that the members of the House accompany the remains to the depot, and that a committee of six be appointed to accompany the body to the burial ground.
The motion was agreed to.
The SPEAKER: Mr. Browning was a Mason - a Knight Templar - of Columbia Commandery, and that body will officiate at the funeral. He was an ex-soldier, a Captain, a brave and efficient officer, and for that reason I shall appoint on the com - the committee ex-soldiers. I take the liberty to make the committee consist of seven, appointing as Chairman Mr. Adams, whom Mrs. Browning desires to accompany the remains to the burial place, and for others of the committee I select Messrs. Patten, Medcalf. Barney, Helms, Linnville and Mosier. If any of these gentlemen can not serve, they will so state, and others will be appointed.
Mr. PATTEN: I should like to serve on the committee to accompany the remains of my deceased brother and comrade, but the condition of things forbids it. In the hard days, when the country was aroused by war, the deceased went out for his country. He saw many soldiers' eyes closed in death, and saw them buried with no tear of home ones for the dead. To day this is changed, and he lies himself in death, away from his home. He was a gallant soldier, an honorable man. There are many gallant ex-soldiers here, any one of whom can serve in my stead.
The SPEAKER: For the reason given I appoint in place of Mr. Patten, Mr. Loyd.
On motion of Mr. SEARS, a committee of eight, consisting of the following gentlemen, was appointed to draft suitable resolutions of respect and condolence: Messrs. Sears, Twineham, Smith of Tippecanoe, Copeland, Staley, Pleasants, French and Eley.
Mr. DITTEMORE moved, out of respect to the memory of the dead, that the House adjourn till 9 o'clock to-morrow morning, with the understanding that members meet here at 2 o'clock and proceed in a body, to escort the remains of the late Representative from Brown and Monroe (Mr. Browning) to the depot.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the House adjourned till 9 o'clock to morrow.
Mr. WEIR asked consent to call up the bill [S. 537] to appropriate $60,000 for legislative expenses.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rahm) heard no objection and ordered the bill taken up.
Mr. FOULKE and Mr. YOUCHE appealed from the decision of the Chair, to-wit: We, the undersigned, appeal from the decision of the Chair in directing the Clerk to read H. R. 537, upon the ground that no opportunity to object was given, and that the Senate never consented to such order.
On motion by Mr. WILLARD the appeal was laid on the table by yeas 26 nays 11.
Mr. FOULKE moved to postpone the consideration of the bill till to-morrow at 2 o'clock.
The bill was read the second time.
Mr. WEIR demanded the previous question.
Mr. FOULKE desired to offer an amendment by substituting for this the General Appropriation bill, which could not be done if the demand for the previous question is seconded.
The Senate seconded the demand, and under its operations the bill passed by yeas 37, nays l.
Mr. BENZ and other Senators explaining their affirmative votes were cast to save time.
On motion by Mr. MAGEE the bill [S. 296] to include the words "or any portion thereof" in the statute relating to vacation of streets and alleys, was read the third time and passed by yeas 38, nays 0.
On motion by Mr. FAULKNER the bill [H. R. 172] to prevent gambling on county fair grounds was read the third time.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings, insisted this bill should be considered by a committee. Not much
evil grows out of this class of so-called gambling on fair grounds - base ball and horse
races would be effected by this bill as much as anything else. He moved to refer the bill
to the
Mr. YOUCHE: This bill seems to be loosely drawn. He favored the motion to refer.
Mr. FAULKNER objected. The
Mr. HILLIGASS: I see no necessity for referring this bill to any committee, but do see a necessity for its immediate passage.
This bill is a stroke against schemes opened up at almost every fair ground that are leading away from correct paths the farmer boys of our State and robbing them of their money. It is not open to the objection urged that it would apply to races or base ball playing. This bill is proper and right in every particular.
Mr. SELLERS: I think this bill should be referred to a committee. The first section should become a law, but the second section should not, for it would subject, an officer to a fine for something that officer might not be able to correct or control.
Mr. WEIR: It seems to me there is no necessity for this bill. The present statute
Mr. FOULKE moved to amend so as to refer the bill to a special committee of five to be made up in part of lawyers and in part of agriculturalists.
Mr. FAULKNER accepted this amendment.
Mr. WEIR made an ineffectual motion - yeas, 5: nays, 35 - to lay the bill on the table.
On motion by Mr. SMITH, of Jennings, the bill was referred to a select committee of five, which the Lieutenant Governor makes to consist of Messrs. Smith, of Jennings, Foulke, Faulkner, Peterson and Hoover.
Mr. FOULKE: I move to reconsider the vote by which the bill, H. R. 537, passed the Senate. It is not becoming and does not look honest for us to appropriate money to pay other creditors of the State.
On motion by Mr. WILLARD, this motion to reconsider was laid on the table by yeas 25, days 16.
Mr. Overstreet's bill [S. 127] to extend powers and franchises of plank, McAdam and gravel road companies, was read the third time.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay: If this bill becomes a law it will extend the charters of the gravel roads incorporated in 1865 for twenty years longer, when it was understood they were to become free in twenty years.
Mr. OVERSTREET: The provisions of the bill can not apply only in cases where the county refuses to purchase toll roads. The permission to extend the charter comes from a petition from a majority of all the land taxed to build the roads. Unless the road has been kept up up to the time the application is made, this bill will not apply.
Mr. WILLARD: There is one objection I have to this bill, and that is it creates, in terms, a perpetual incorporation of these gravel roads or turnpike companies.
Mr. HILLIGASS: I am opposed to the passage of this bill. This bill proposes to extend the charter of roads that should be taken by the counties and made free.
The bill was rejected by yeas 12, nays 25.
Mr. Benz's bill [S 161] to authorize the summons of witnesses before Grand Juries was read the third time.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks, would vote for the bill. Border countie's Senators desire it.
Mr. OVERSTREET: I can't see that this bill can do any good, and it may do harm. It would be imposing a large expense on the counties.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings: This bill is wholly unnecessary. The statutes already sufficiently provide for the punishment of public offenses. In many instances the Grand Jury system is objectionable. It would be better for the people were that system abolished. There is a an odium in every county attaching to the Grand Jury.
Mr. BENZ gave reasons why his bill ought to pass: There is trouble in his county, which is on the border, to get witnesses before the Grand Jury.
Mr. FOWLER: I see nothing in this bill that will work hardship to anybody. I don't believe much in a Grand Jury system where applied to misdemeanors, especially.
Mr. WILLARD: If crimes misdemeanors are stricken out and make the bill apply to felonies only I would vote for it.
Mr. DRAKE: I am in favor of the bill just as it is. We who live close to the line know the difficulty of breaking up a gambling house, or a place where liquor is sold to minors, and the only chance to make successful prosecutions in such cases would be under such a law as this bill would be.
The bill failed for want of a constitutional majority - yeas, 20; nays 17.
Mr. McINTOSH explaining: As the bill will simply apply to trivial offences, and increases expenses, I vote "no."
Mr. Foulke's bill [S. 190] to regulate the license for the sale of intoxicating was read the third time.
Mr. FOULKE explained: It is to require a year's residence before license shall be issued to an applicant. The bill has not an objectionable feature that I can see.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay: One year is entirely too long. He moved to refer to a specific committee of one with instructions that party shall live in the precinct sixty and the county one year.
The motion was agreed to.
Subsequently Mr. FOULKE on the part of said committee of one reported back the bill amended as directed.
The bill failed to pass for want of a constitutional majority - yeas, 22; nays, 15.
Mr. Peterson's bill [S. 195] to amend Section 3 431 of the code to make constables of certain persons designated by horse thief detective associations, was read the third time.
Mr. WEIR thought this bill would authorize too many - probably twenty in each county - and no one would know who they were.
Mr. SELLERS: The bill provides that the list shall be made a matter of record, which will obviate this objection.
The bill passed by yeas 34, nays 4.
Mr. YOUCHE, explaining his negative vote: These appointees would have the powers of any constable in the township.
Mr. Smith's, of Jay, bill [S. 226] to prevent the charging of usurious interest, was read the third time.
Mr. SMITH explained: This bill seeks to fix a penalty for usurious interest. It will relieve the people from charging usurious interest. No business can afford to pay a greater rate of interest than 8 per cent. The present law is inoperative because there is not a sufficient penalty affixed. All the value money has is what is given it by law. Money is a creature of the statute. If the statute is being violated it is the duty of the Legislature to affix a greater penalty. This bill is a righteous and just measure.
The bill failed to pass for want of a constitutional majority - yeas, 19; nays, 18.
Mr. Campbell's, of Hendricks, bill [S. 204] concerning the conversion of toll into free roads, was read the third time.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks: This bill provides that upon presentation of a petition of land owners and stockholders the County Commissioners shall appoint receivers to assess benefits on land owners who are to be benefited by the conversion of a toll road into a free road. To avoid having a poor road turned over to the public there is a provision that it shall be turned over in good ordinary condition.
Mr. OVERSTREET: It seems this bill is designed to have all the property of the county taxed to keep up free gravel roads. That is the present law, but it does not seem right.
Mr. MACY: The present law allows roads to be turned over in bad condition, while the bill provides they shall be in good condition.
Mr. HILLIGASS: I am surprised any Senator should oppose this bill, as it seeks to protect the taxpayers in this - that no gravel road shall be unloaded on the county unless an reasonable repair.
The bill passed by yeas 33, nays 3.
Mr. Zimmerman's bill [S. 237] to amend Section 2,341 of the code was read the first time.
Mr. Zimmerman explained its provisions It applies to such cases where the guardian of the heirs and the administrator are one and the same person. In all such cases the administrator, when petitioning the court for selling real estate, shall also petition the minor heirs, and the court shall appoint a guardian at litem to represent the interest of such minor heirs in court. This bill is for the protection of the interest and property of minor heirs.
The bill passed by yeas 35, nays 1.
Mr. McMULLEN moved that the House now resolve itself into a
The SPEAKER: At the depot, last evening, Mr. Adams asked me to request the House, on behalf of the members absent at Mr. Browning's funeral, that the Appropriation bill be passed over until they return at 9:30 o'clock to-morrow morning.
Of the committee accompanying the remains, six are favorable to the appropriation to Purdue, and one against.
Mr. FRENCH: I move, as a substitute, that on account of the absentees we proceed with the regular order of the day.
Mr. GORDON: We might go ahead with the Appropriation bill, passing the Purdue matter until to-morrow.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: In
Mr. McMULLEN: If in order, I shall withdraw my motion. I was not aware of this I request from the absentees - in fact, I had I not thought of this phase of the case.
Mr. McMULLEN, from the
Mr. MOCK: This bill provides for the completion of the State-house. There has been some little controversy between the State-house Commissioners and the Auditor of State relative to these funds In 1879 a $200,000 appropriation for the State was made; in 1880 a $100 000 appropriation was made This $300 000 has not been used. The State-house Commissioners claim that this money still belongs to the State-house fund, while the Auditor of State claims that because it was not used it goes into the general find of the State. In order to get out of this wilderness, this bill is proposed. It puts the money into the general fund and then merely appropriates a sufficient sum to carry on the State-house work.
On motion of Mr. REEVES, the two bills [H R 480 and H R 529] both relative to the State house funds, were made a special order for 3 o'clock to morrow afternoon.
Mr. Smith's, of Tippecanoe, bill [H. R. 435] was read the third time.
Mr. SMITH: This bill puts the terms of Township Trustees at four years. If a vacancy occur in the first two years an appointment is made only to the regular election following, when an election shall be held.
Mr. McMULLEN, by unanimous consent, amended the bill so that any one having been appointed to a vacancy shall not be ineligible to election.
Subsequently the bill, having been engrossed, was passed by yeas 57, nays 21.
Mr. GLAZEBROOK'S bill [H. R. 322] to authorize the Directors of the State Prison North to sell certain real estate was read the third time.
Mr. GLAZEBROOK: This bill is plain on its face This tract of land in Laporte County was procured by the State in 1861 in order to obtain clay for brick. It is proposed to sell these lands now which are not beneficial to the State, and to buy land nearer the prison.
The bill passed by yeas 72, nays 1.
Mr. MURPHY'S bill [H. R. 268] was read the third time.
Mr. MURPHY: On account of the already large and increasing use of steam in the State, this office, for the sake of safety, should be created. In our section of the State and everywhere else, I believe, there is a desire to have the most competent engineers in charge of them. The bill provides that the Stale shall be districted and local deputies scattered over the State, so that a deputy will be convenient to any one who will require his services. In regard to the licensing of engineers our people are unanimous as to that.
Under the operations of the previous question the bill was defeated - yeas, 34; nays, 39
Mr. COPELAND: I was desirous of being beard on this bill, but as the previous question has been demanded and all debate thereby cut off, I shall give the following reasons in explanation of my vote: First, it is in the interest of protection to employes whose lives are necessarily at the mercy of defective boilers: second, it is in the interest of protection to competent engineers as against incompetent and inexperienced engineers; third, it is in the interest of workingmen who desire and should receive first class living wages. I therefore vote "aye."
Mr. HARRELL: This bill is against the principles of free government in one sense of the
word. The office will be worth from $75 000 to $100,000 per year. The Inspector can inspect
as
Mr. HOBAN: I do not see how this law will bring about good results. Competent men shield care for engines. Improper care of the best boiler will explode it, and inspection one day will not prevent the explosion another. I vote "no."
Mr. LOOP: This will give the Inspector right to inspect all boilers, little ones in the country sawing wood or big ones in buildings. Some Inspector who knows nothing of boilers might in testing a stationary boiler blow up a building. I vote "no."
Mr. MAUK: I believe that this bill is, well intended, but in its construction it is so faulty that I vote "no."
Mr. McHENRY: If parts of the bill were stricken out I could support it, but as it is I shall vote "no."
Mr. McMULLEN: This bill may have some features that are faulty, but it is to protect the people. We should have our river boilers inspected the same as the United States have the boats on National waters. I vote "aye."
Mr. PATTEN: Boiler explosions are scarcely ever due to defects, but to carelessness. This is a bill against the many to create a fat office. The fees will come largely off the farming community. I vote "no."
Mr. REEVES: The bill has many good features, but it is seriously faulty. Boiler accidents are mostly due to carelessness, and not to defects. I vote "no"
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: Because I do not believe in measuring life by money, or shekles of gold by ounces of blood, I favor the bill. There are some objections to it, but for protection I vote "aye."
Mr. SMITH, of Perry: Because the bill is so faulty I vote "no."
Mr. STALEY: If a boiler were to explode in my county with serious loss of life - an engine having been left in the hands of boys, for instance - I would never forgive myself should I vote "no." I vote"aye."
Mr. WILLIAMS: I have seen at my home the frightful results of a boiler explosion. I have carried from the ruins the remains of five neighbors so charred that we buried them in unknown graves - unable to recognize them. I have seen also another catastrophe of that character. In both cases the accidents were the results of defective boilers. In protection to the laboring man who may be exposed to these dangers I vote "aye."
Mr. WILSON: In protection to the laboring men I vote "aye."
The SPEAKER: I believe in licensing engineers, while I do not exactly favor the boiler inspectors. I vote "aye."
Mr. ROBINSON: I now call up Mr. Jameson's motion to reconsider the vote passing the bill [H. R. 377] to abolish fees of Prosecuting Attorneys where a defendant in minor cases pleads guilty, and I renew my motion to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.
The SPEAKER: The bill is in a peculiar position. It is a question whether, having been
recalled from the Senate, it can remain
The motion to reconsider was rejected by yeas 34, nays 35.
Mr. COPELAND, explaining, said: I before voted for this bill, and shall now vote against it. Statements or insinuations have been made here that members who change their votes have been influenced by Prosecuting Attorneys. I want to say that so far as this relates to me it is wholly erroneous I voted for it before through ignorance. That bill was forced through the infamous gag law. I shall vote as I do for three reasons: First, it cuts down fees of Prosecuting Attorneys, who at present are only half paid; second, it will encourage lawlessness, because fighting will cost less; third, it will be in the interest of violators of the law and against the interests of the State of Indiana. I vote "no"
Mr HOBAN: I voted for the bill before, but I find now that attorneys
Mr. KRUGER: I voted against the bill before and shall do so again, but because I do not believe we should tie up the bill as it is, I now vote "aye."
Mr. MOODY: I voted for the bill before at the request of a very zealous advocate of it. Since I have examined it thoroughly, and find it vicious in the extreme. That a man can not be his own prosecutor is a law as old as Blackstone.
Mr. DEEM: Believing that the Senate will cure the defect in the bill, I change my vote to "aye."
Mr. BEST: Believing that there is no merit in the bill whatever, I vote "aye" to reconsider, so that the bill may be voted down. It is a vicious bill.
So the motion to lay the motion to reconsider on the table was rejected.
The SPEAKER: The question is, shall the vote by which the bill passed be reconsidered?
Mr. MOODY: The present law states already that the Prosecuting Attorney is to have fees only for labor. No defendant can be robbed under the law.
Mr. McMULLEN moved the previous question.
The demand was seconded by the House; under its operations the motion to reconsider was agreed to by yeas 45, nays 28.
Mr. WILLIAMS: I have voted for this bill at every stage and would gladly see it become a law, but I see by the roll call already had that it is hopeless; so I move that the bill be indefinitely postponed.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. Pruitt's bill [H. R. 267] prescribing a penalty for horse stealing, of not less than five nor more than ten years for the first offense and not less than ten nor more than fifteen for the second offense in the penitentiary was read the third time.
Mr. FRAZEE moved to amend by striking out all after the enacting clause and inserting after it the provision that for the second offense the punishment for life and the third offense death. [Laughter].
The amendment was not agreed to.
The bill passed by yeas 52, nays 19.
Mr. MOCK, explaining, said that he thought that the law being so severe would be calculated to shield the criminal. It is not the length of the penalty, but the certainty of it. He would vote "no"
Mr. McMULLEN said that this law was drawn by the Horse-thief Detective Association, and they had experience to know what they wanted. He voted "aye."
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: In my county the farmers have been sorely harassed by horse thieves We have sent horse thieves back the third time, and the penalty should be made sure enough to stop it. I vote "aye."
Mr. STALEY: As this is demanded by a large body of detective companies made up of farmers, I vote "aye."
Mr. TWINEHAM: If this bill would catch horse thieves instead of assessing punishment, I would vote for it. As it is, I do not see good in it and vote "no."
The SPEAKER: I vote as I do for the reason that it does not make material changes. I would vote to hang a man convicted the third time of horse stealing. I vote "no" on this bill.
So the bill passed as noted above.
Mr. Debs' bill [H. R. 92] being read the third time, Mr. D. said: I want to have it so that when an employe of a railway is hurt through the negligence of a colaborer or of the company, he may have redress from the company. The traveling public is protected, and the employes should also have redress. I appeal on behalf of the engineers, firemen and brake men for this bill.
Mr. ENGLE: It also protects employes of all corporations.
Mr. MOODY: The principles of this bill have for many years been demanded by the employes
of railroad companies The provisions of the bill are very broad, possibly too broad, as the
bill will apply with equal force to
The bill passed by yeas 76 nays 0.
Mr. BOYD, explaining, said: For the reason that it was in the interest of laboring
Mr. MURPHY: As this gives laboring men that which has been taken from them by soulless corporations, I vote "aye."
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: Because this bill given to laboring men equal rights with those who ride; because it is in accord with the spirit of the age, I vote "aye."
So the bill passed as noted above.
Mr. FRENCH'S bill [H. R. 543] to allow County Treasurers 6 per cent, for the collection of delinquent taxes was read the second time.
On motion by Mr. JAMESON Marion County was excepted.
Mr. SAYRE said that the law ought to be defeated. County Treasurers should be compelled to collect delinquent taxes without so much extra fees.
Mr. ENGLE moved to amend so that no per centage shall be allowed save when taxes are collected by a tax gatherer.
The amendment was adopted - yeas, 42; nays, 33.
The bill was ordered engrossed.
Mr. Foulke's bill [S. 274] was read the third time. He said: In the places where there is a Home for Friendless Women this bill provides that the judge may send female convicts to such homes instead of county jails.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay: It seems to me there can come no harm from the passage of this bill.
Mr. BROWN: I am heartily in favor of the provisions of this bill, and think it ought to pass.
The bill passed by yeas 39, nays 0.
Mr. Winter's bill [S. 299] was read the third time. He explained it was to reimburse the city of Indianapolis for $3,184.69 expended for the construction of a sewer from the State Women's Reformatory.
The bill passed by yeas 34, nays 2.
Mr. Drake's bill [S. 305] to pay $l,000 to Teresa and Charles Bachtell. damages for the death of their father at the Insane Hospital in 1882, was read the third time.
Mr. DRAKE knew nothing of this claim except its legislative history
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings, understood this night employe lost his life by falling to the basement of the building through an opening left uncovered.
The bill passed - yeas, 37; nays, 0.
Mr. Overstreet's bill [S 318] to
Mr. WEIR: I have examined the files and find there are thirteen House bills on the third reading and nine on the second reading and twelve on the first reading, while of Senate bills there are forty-three. While there has been much said about one house considering the bills passed by the other, I think we should transact as much business as possible, and I move to take up House bills on the third reading. This action would satisfy the House that the Senate is ready to do its part to the utmost.
Mr. YOUCHE: The regular order calls for House bills on the first reading. We have been following the regular order and have been making excellent progress, and I am in favor of proceeding with the regular order of business.
Mr. WILLARD: We have reached the order of business which enables every measure from the House to be considered in regular order. What is the use of commencing at the bottom instead of the top? The only true method we can pursue is to follow the order which is proven by past experience to be the best.
Mr. HILLIGASS: I favor the motion.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay: I hope this motion will not prevail. Under the regular order all bills from the House will have a fair show. The best way for deliberative bodies to pursue is to follow the order of business as it is laid down in the rules.
Mr. McINTOSH demanded the previous question.
The Senate seconded the demand, and under its operations the motion to change
All House bills on the files were read the first time, and severally reported to appropriate committees. The Senate then proceeded to the consideration of House bills on the second reading - in pursuing the regular order.
Mr. FOULKE moved to amend the bill [H. R. 16] to require physiology and hygiene to be taught in the public schools, by striking out from the enacting clause and inserting in lieu the following:
Section 1, The proper local school authorities shall, on and after September 1, 1885, require all pupils in all schools supported by public money, or under State control to study, as a regular branch, physiology and hygiene, which shall give special reference to affects of alcoholic drinks, stimulants and narcotics upon the human system.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay, objected to a provision in the amendment which practically prevents parents from saying what studies their children shall pursue.
Mr. THOMPSON offered a substitute that system of hygiene shall be taught and the text books selected by the State Board of Education, which was ruled out of order.
Mr. JOHNSON, of Tippecanoe: The decision of the Senate on this matter has already been
made - that this bill shall be rejected. No set of men can define the true effects of
alcoholic stimulants on the human system in general, because they differ according to the
conditions of the system,
Mr. McINTOSH read from a school book in support of his argument in favor of the proposed amendment of the bill offered by the Senator from Wayne (Mr. Foulke). Among the best, if not the best, medical minds in the world have condemned alcoholic stimulants.
Mr. SHIVELY: I can not see why the amendment proposed should not be incorporated in the law and made part of our common school education. As there are public acts and laws which, if observed, promote the health of communities, so there are rules of living and habits of life taught and inculcated by competent observers, by attention to which the health of the individual may be preserved. Therefore I think it of paramount importance that it should be taught in our common schools. For many years I have been a close observer of the effects of stimulants and narcotics upon the human system, and my observation has satisfied me that their regular use has a tendency to deteriorate the blood and to weaken and debilitate both body and mind consequently disease and death frequently follow. Therefore I can see no good reason why such facts should not be made known and taught in our common schools. In fact, I am almost inclined to say that the teaching of the physiological effects of alcohol, opium and other narcotics upon the human system should be made compulsory in all our schools.
Mr. WILLARD demanded the previous question, not for the purpose of cutting off debate, but so the Senate may return to the consideration of House bills
The amendment (Mr Foulke's) was agreed to upon a division - affirmative, 23; negative, 14.
This Senate amendment was ordered engrossed by yeas 24, nays 21.
Mr MAGEE (explaining): The sense of the Senate has been taken upon every phase of this question, and it has decided this bill should not become a law I am inclined to think this is not the right kind of legislation, and that it will not meet the expectation of its friends.
Mr. THOMPSON: I desire to see the bill amended as I proposed.
Mr. WILLARD: This bill proposes that all pupils, even the A, B, C classes, shall pursue these studies - there is no discretion given. I vote "no."
Mr. MARSHALL called up his bill [S. 173] which was read the third time. He said hundreds of men at every election vote two ballots on purpose, and there is a way of so folding two ballots that they will fall apart after being deposited in the ballot-box. The object of the bill is to secure a proper count of the God given right to cast a ballot. In this State there were 2,000 more votes put in the ballot-box than there were men voting.
Mr. WILLARD: Instead of having more machinery, we ought to have less attending our elections. A corrupt man can take money from a candidate and place sealed ballots in the hands of voters without giving them or anyone else an opportunity of knowing what ticket they vote.
Mr. MAGEE: I am opposed to this bill because the more machinery there is about the casting of the ballot the more abjectionable it is. This bill would be surrounding the ballot box with that sort of formality that may be the means of securing a contrary expression of opinion which an honest count would show; it might produce new rules in the way of a fair count and an honest ballot.
Mr. THOMPSON: This bill is surely in the right direction to purify the ballot-box.
The bill failed to pass for want of a constitutional majority - yeas, 21; nays, 17.
Mr. YOUCHE from the special committee thereon, returned the Circuit Court Drainage Bill [H. R. 122] with sundry amendments.
The report was concurred in.
Mr. YOUCHE moved that the amendments be ordered engrossed and printed, and made the special order for 2 o'clock to-morrow.
Mr. TELLER resisted the motion to print for fear of dangers in delay.
Mr. MACY and Mr. CAMPBBLL, of Hendricks desired to know what they are voting for, otherwise they vote against a measure. They favored the printing.
The motion (Mr. Youche's) was agreed to.
On motion by Mr. COPELAND the bill [S. 323] to pay $7 650 to members of the Indiana Legion was read the second time.
Mr. CORY: Why is it that these regiments of the Indiana Legion have not been paid before this? Why does this come us after fifteen or twenty years? It looks like a money-making scheme. It looks like something is rotten in Denmark
Mr. MOODY: This money for the Legion was appropriated in 1862 and most of it was paid. The remainder has since been in the State Treasury and this bill is to pay it to those men who have just proved that they are entitled to it.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: The bill mentions several regiments. I move to amend by including any other regiment which did State service.
Mr. PATTEN: Further legislation on this subject is unnecessary. The law of 1883 says this money shall be paid to men who were enrolled. If men have not been enrolled, it is their duty to go the Adjutant General and have their names enrolled.
Mr. CORY: After twenty years it has been discovered that some men did service for the country and their names have never been enrolled. Men who were "home guards" - who never dreamed of pay, under this amendment, which proposes to make it general, can draw pay for that service. Many years ago a commission was appointed to consider all this class of claims, and under its action Congress allowed several hundred thousand dollars, which was disbursed to the claimants according to the allowance of this commission, as payment in full for such services.
Mr. MOODY: Any amount of men who did service for the State have not had their names put on this muster roll by the commission appointed for that. Men were out of the State at that time and were overlooked.
Mr. PENDLETON: This money was earned by members of the Indiana Legion, and should be paid.
Mr GORDON: I move that the bill with amendments be recommitted to a special committee of five.
Mr. COPELAND: I hope the gentleman will not insist on that motion. The money must be paid before next January if at all.
The motion was agreed to.
The SPEAKER: I appoint as such special committee Messrs Gordon, Copeland, Smith of Tippecanoe, Moody and Wilson.
Mr. McBROOME called up the bill [S. 368] to incorporate a company formed to build hotels, bath houses, etc., in Warren County.
Mr. McBROOME: This is a bill for a local measure. Mineral springs in Warren County were recently discovered and some enterprising individuals organized there to build hotels, bath houses and so on.
On his further motion the constitutional rule was suspended - yeas, 77; nays, 8 - and the bill passed by yeas 73, nays 5.
On motion by Mr. TOWNSEND the bill [S. 102] was read the third time.
Mr. TOWNSEND: We have in Wayne County several little incorporated towns. They ask that they may guard their ordinances by the Justices' Court.
Mr. ENGLE: The only change made to the present law is that if there is no Justice of the Peace in the towns the Justice nearest the town shall have jurisdiction.
Mr. GORDON: This bill amounts to practically nothing. Under our criminal code there is no ordinance of any value under which a man may be arrested which the State laws do not embrace.
Mr. DEEM: As every town has already by law a right to a Justice of the Peace, I think the bill unnecessary.
Under the operations of the previous question, the bill was defeated by yeas 25, nays 59.
Mr. ENGLE: For the reason that there are many town ordinances which the criminal code do not embrace, I vote "aye."
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: Because I favor permitting the towns to work tramps who tramp rather than work, I vote "aye."
Mr. WILLIAMS: I think this bill has been misrepresented. It provides that violators of town ordinances shall either pay or stay fines or labor. I vote "aye."
Mr. FRAZEE'S bill [H. R. 75 to allow Turnpike Companies to extend charters was read the third time.
Mr. FRAZEE: The objectionable figures to this bill having been removed, I hope the House will pass it.
Mr. ENGLE: Many gravel road charters will soon expire. Then the roads become free and there is no provision to keep then in repair. This law provides a means to keep them in repair.
The bill passed by yeas 67, nays 6.
Mr. CORY, explaining, said: There is still one feature in this bill to which I object.
The charters of some gravel roads are perpetual. Men who live along them pay toll
Mr. SAYRE'S bill [H. R. 518] to prohibit corporations from forcing contributions from their employes for hospitals, reading-rooms and the like, was read the third time.
Mr. SAYRE: I do not know what other railways do, but the Wabash Railway retains from the wages of employes 50 cents per month when they receive $50 or more per month, and 35 cents when they receive less than $50 per month. The pretext is that the money is taken to build a hospital for the injured or sick employes. The total sum thus retained amounts to $800 per month. It so happens that the employes are always able to care for themselves when sick or hurt. The railway company has no contract with the employes, but merely keeps back this money.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: This same corporation is a grasping monopoly, pulling down workingmen, and I favor the bill. We passed a bill the other day to protect employes against just such corporations, and I see that the Wabash has entered suit in the United States Court against the State of Kansas for enforcing the law we passed the other day, that of liability to employes who are injured.
The bill passed by yeas 72, nays 3.
Mr. GARRISON'S bill [H. R. 200] was read the third time. He said: This bill provides that a man shall not be taxed for portion of his land used by public roads
Mr. TAYLOR: It is no more than equitable to make this deduction. If a man owns 1,000 acres of land much of it is taken up by roads, which he should be relieved from paying taxes on, because the public have the benefit of the land.
Mr. WILS0N: I see no use of this. It will only burden the statute books. On investigation we find that one two-hundredth part of the land of the State are highways, and that two-thirds of taxation comes from real estate. If you deduct roads from taxation it will only increase the rate of taxation.
Mr. ROBINSON: As a man has no returns from lands used as highways I think he should not be taxed for such.
Mr. HOBAN: I believe that it would equalize taxes. One man might own a large estate on one side of the road and his neighbor on the other side a small estate. Still, the man with the small estate might have land in a narrow strip lying along the road. He would then be taxed as heavy for the road land as his wealthy neighbor. So I think that it will equalize taxes to exempt the roads
The bill failed to pass by yeas 47, nays 31.
Mr. BARNES, explaining his vote, said: Now that Assessors never fail to deduct the roads, creeks and cliffs, he regarded it as unnecessary legislation, and voted "no"
Mr. COPELAND: Believing this to be in the interest of farmers - believing that they desire it, and as they have taken up little time of this House, and as very little has been done for them, I vote "aye."
Mr. DEEM. Believing that farmers are already well enough protected, I vote "no."
Mr. LINNVILLE: As a general rule, roads are a benefit more than an injury, and I vote "no."
Mr. OVERMAN: I am surprised that any fair-minded man can vote against this bill. Every measure to relieve the burdens of farmers has been voted down here. You might as well tax lot owners for lands of the streets as to tax farmers for roads. I vote "aye."
So the bill failed to pass for want of a constitutional majority.
On motion by Mr. WILLIAMS the further consideration of the Appellate Court bill [S. 45] was indefinitely postponed.
The bill [H. R. 480] relative to funds to complete the new State House being read -
Mr. MOCK: I move to amend that the money ($350,000) heretofore appropriated, and now in the Treasury, be appropriated to the State House fund. When this money, collected $150,000 in 1879 and $200,000 1883, was not used it went into the general fund in conformity to the views of the Auditor of the State. The State House Commissioners claim that this money should go toward the State House completion. There has been a controversy between the State House Commissioners and the Auditor of State, and this amendment will stop it.
Mr. REEVES: It is not necessary to be scared about these funds. They are safe and have not, strictly speaking, been misappropriated. This amendment will decide where the funds belong
Mr. MOODY: This money - the $350,000 - was turned over to the general fund without authority of law. There should be no controversy over this. This was done over the opinion of the Attorney General. The State House Commissionees were right and we should not sit here and say that the Auditor of State turned the funds over to the general fund by authority of law.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: We should by all means provide the State House Commissioners
with the money to complete the State House. We should confine ourselves to that and not
talk about was right and who
Mr McMULLEN: No one has taken the money away. The State House fund must have the money (the $350,000) and the amendment should prevail.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. MOUK moved to amend further that as there is no money in the general fund of the State Treasury, that the Governor, Auditor of State and Treasurer of State be authorized to make a temporary lean of $500,000, of which $350,000 is to replace the like amount appropriated to the State-house but used in the general fund, and $150,000 is to be used in the furniture for the building.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. ENGLE moved to amend by inserting the proviso that no more than $2,000,000 be used in the building as intended in the contract.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. McMULLEN moved that the rules be suspended, the bill be considered engrossed, read the third time, and put upon its passage.
The motion was agreed to - yeas, 75; nays, 2.
The bill passed by yeas 79, nays 3.
Mr. WEIR introduced a bill [S. 373] for the creation of an Appellate Court [similar to
his bill S. 45 - see pages 175 and 257 of volume 22] The
The motion was agreed to, and the Lieutenant Governor made the committee to consist of Messrs. Weir, McCullough, Foulke, Magee and Willard.
The
The report was concurred in.
The bill H. R. 6 being read the third time -
Mr. SMITH, of Jay: I am opposed to the passage of any penal statute containing an emergency clause. I move to recommit the bill with instructions to strike out the emergency clause and report back the bill at once.
Mr. HILLIGASS moved to instruct the committee to insert the words "where an admission fee is charged," and also the word "base." The bill as it is would subject boys to prosecution in every township in the State where they may be found tossing a ball on Sunday afternoon.
Mr. FOWLER: This bill is rather broad in its terms.
Mr. FAULKNER: The farmers' boys can take care of themselves; it is the city boys who play base ball and every other kind of a ball on Sundays, gathering a large body of people together and disturbing those religiously inclined.
Mr. OVERSTREET: A bill with the amendment proposed would amount to nothing. The farmers' boys are not the ones to violate such a law.
Mr. SELLERS opposed the bill.
Mr. WINTER: I think the bill should pass as it is. It would not be applied to small boys. It is just as much of an evil to play a game of ball where a large crowd is gathered together on Sunday, whether an admission fee is charged or not.
Mr. WILLARD: The amendment proposed would destroy the effect desired by the bill. I concur fully with the remarks of the Senator from Jay. Where boys toss a ball between themselves it is not a game. This kind of Sabbath amusement has grown to be almost infamous.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings: The more legislation enacted to compel the observance of the Sabbath day the more irreverence is inspired for it. He would not have so much objection to the bill if amended as proposed.
Mr. MAGEE: I would not restrict harmless enjoyments on Sunday if it did not disturb the people. I shall never vote to restrict individual liberty on any subject. Cities can pass ordinances to prevent lawlessness that will result from playing base ball on Sunday. Morality must come from the fireside and schools, and not from legislative enactment.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: I am told that at a preacher' meeting some one (I
don't care to give his name) stated that the Speaker of the House or the President of
the Senate informed a committee of minis-
Mr. THOMPSON: I have been informed that the other ministers were very much mortified over that statement. The idea they received was contrary to that expressed, inasmuch as the House had already passed the bill.
Mr. McCULLOUGH: No law should be put on the statute book that will not be respected. The fine imposed in this bill would not deter the game. I favor very large latitude on the question of Sunday laws. If such a law as this is enacted the penalty should be enforced against the employers of these base ball players as well as the players themselves, or against the ticket seller or those who attempt to take gate money, otherwise the company could pay the fine and continue the Sunday games. You might as well say it was unlawful to play marbles or to go in swimming on Sunday. A bill to stop money making by such games on Sunday would be much more effectual than the provisions proposed.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph, moved to amend the amendment by striking out of the amendment the word "base."
This motion was rejected upon a division - affirmative, 19; negative, 23
The amendment was agreed to by yeas 24, nays 19.
Messrs, Magee, Weir and Zimmerman voting "aye," though opposed to the bill.
The motion to refer was agreed to and the Lieutenant Governor appointed Mr. Overstreet as said Committee of One.
The bill [H. R. 7] to amend Section 1,464 of the code was read the third time with a Senate amendment.
Mr. WINTER explained: The party shall state additional proof will be required, and that they can not produce that proof at the time in order to secure a continuance.
The bill passed by yeas 35, nays 2.
The bill H. R. 16, with the Senate substitute adopted yesterday, was read the third time
Mr SMITH, of Jay: The bill as amended by the Senate is directory, and the result of its passage would be the common schools will be harassed by any person who may fall out with the school teacher. We ought to look beyond the question of temperance and consider whether such a statute would not lead to confusion and to the breaking up of many schools
Mr. FOULKE moved to postpone the further consideration of the bill till it comes up in the next order on the third reading of House bill.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay, moved to amend by indefinitely postponing the bill.
Mr FOULKE: The bill does not mean anything impossible - neither does it mean that physiology shall be taught to the A B C classes in the schools. The fact is demonstrable by medical science that alcoholic stimulants are injurious in this climate and in so far as science has demonstrated that fact, just so far will this bill propose to have the science taught.
The motion to indefinitely postpone was agreed to by yeas 22, nays 20.
Mr. BENZ, explaining his vote: I think this bill is proposed for buncombe.
Mr. HILLIGASS: I warmly supported this bill when it came from the House, but now, for the reason as amended it would compel the teaching of physiology and hygiene to children of six years of age, I am opposed to it.
Mr. MARSHALL: I do not think it will hurt any boy to teach him the harmful effects is of alcohol on the human system, even though so young as six years.
Mr. McCULLOUGH: The child can easily learn that fact without teaching in the schools.
Mr. McINTOSH: The Senate amendment makes the House bill more mild. It is an accepted fact that the effect of alcoholic is stimulants is injurious to the human system. I vote "no."
Mr. WEIR: Had this bill been amended as I desired I should have voted for it. As it stands I vote "aye" on this motion.
So the motion to postpone indefinitely was agreed to
Mr. MAGEE moved to reconsider the vote just taken, and to lay that motion on the table.
The latter motion was agreed to by yeas 23, nays 19
Mr SHIVELY, explaining: In order that the time of the Senate may not be taken up any more with this bill I vote "aye."
Mr. OVERSTREET, from the Special Committee of One, returned the bill [H. R. 6] with the amendements, as instructed by the Senate.
The report of the committee, inserting the word "base," was concurred in, yeas 24 nays 11
The other part of the report was also concurred in.
On motion by Mr. FOWLER the amendments were considered engrossed.
Mr. HILLIGASS: I offered the amendment so that, if the bill passed, it would be as little objectionable as possible. I shall vote against the bill, believing existing statutes are sufficient to suppress any nuisance in any locality.
Mr. BROWN: I am sorry the amendment has been engrafted on the bill, and heartily favored it, as it came from the House. I still favor it, notwithstanding the amendment.
Mr. THOMPSON: I favor the bill to discourage the demoralizing and brutalizing ball playing.
The bill passed by yeas 29, nays 16.
Mr. FOULKE: As a great majority of my constituents desire the bill shall pass I vote "aye."
Mr. SMITH, of Jay: Like the Senator from Wayne (Mr. Foulke) were I to consult my own feelings I should vote against the bill, but in deference to the wishes of my constituents I vote "aye."
Mr. WEIR: Believing the present statutory law is sufficient to suppress anything of this kind that may become a nuisance I vote "no."
Mr. WILLARD: Believing we should not make an exception in allowing base ball associations to work their men seven days in the week I vote "aye."
Mr. WILLARD moved to reconsider the vote just taken, and lay that motion to re-consider on the table.
The latter motion was agreed to upon a division - affirmative, 23; negative, 21.
The bill H. R. 172 was read the third time.
Mr. FAULKNER moved to concur in the majority report, it recommending its passage.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings: This bill is entirely unnecessary, and would but encumber the statutes. He moved to substitute the minority for the majority report, which recommends indefinite postponement.
Mr. HILLIGASS: Some agricultural fair associations have derived as much as $3,000 a week from men who bought the privilege of gathering from the people money without giving anything in return. This bill proposes to say that such persons shall not be allowed to go upon the fair grounds and practice their various swindling games.
Mr. YOUCHE moved to amend by striking out the word or "skill" and the words "for the purpose of wagering money or any thing of value."
Mr. FOULKE: There is no need of going a step farther with legislation of this kind in the face of the present laws. We have no business to pass laws that will do no good.
Mr. WINTER: This bill in its present shape I would not be willing to support. It can be put in such a shape as I think it ought to be passed. He yielded the floor to
Mr. WILLARD, who moved to amend the amendment by recommitting the bill and report to a select committee of three.
This motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDENT pro tem. (Mr. Magee) made said committee to consist of Messrs. Willard, Youche and Winter.
On motion by Mr. Howard the bill S. 171 was taken up.
Mr. HILLIGASS explained this bill is to authorize the publication of ditch notices, or rather to make the statute certain. The bill failed the other day for want of a constitutional majority.
Mr. WEIR: It inserts the words "in some newspaper" in section 4 293.
Mr. WINTER: These words were probably left out purposely. Newspaper advertising is very expensive.
Mr. HILLIGASS: This bill proposes to put it out of the power of any scoundrel who may follow the Sheriff and pull down the three notices that officer may post up. Information is what is sought to be gained. I hope this bill will be passed in the interest of men who are affected by the construction of drains or ditches, and not in the interest of newspaper men.
Mr. SELLERS: I have no doubt, the words "in a newspaper" was an omission in
Mr. McINTOSH: I regard this bill as proposing an increase of expense, and intend to vote against it.
Mr. BROWN: I believe these notices should receive the greatest publicity.
The bill was rejected by by yeas 15, nays 22.
Mr. DAVIS: Believing the Legislature intended to enact the law as written, and believing this bill is in the interest of newspapers, and not in the interest of men who are affected by the ditches, I vote "no."
Mr. DUNCAN, of Hamilton: Coming from a county which has constructed about 141 drains
under this present law, as I understand it, and having heard no complaint, and no one
asking for this change, and believing: it will add an
The Senate adjourned.
Mr. SEARS, from the committee thereon, presented a memorial report [see appendix] which, on his further motion was ordered spread on the House journals and a copy sent to the family of the deceased.
After a review of the life, character and public services of the deceased, the report says:
In private life, he was strictly honest, upright and conscientious, a member of the
Methodist Church, and for years a traveling preacher in that connection. In public life,
he was an earnest advocate of the strictest economy and most unfaltering fidelity to the
rights of the people. A man of strong convictions, he fearlessly defended them. His
ability on the floor of the House was marked by readiness in debate and the advocacy of
what he deemed the right, with fervor, earnestness, and often with, skill and power. His
heart was carried in his hand, and if in the heat of extempore debate he wronged any
one, he was more than ready to right the wrong. His advocacy of the great educational
interests of the State was marked and conspicuous during the session of the Legislature.
Because he was an intelligent, incorruptible and faithful legislator, we honor his
memory. Because he was a patriot, and counted his life as nothing in the
Resolved, That this desk and chair be draped with mourning through the remainder of the session, and that the members wear crape till the close of the same.
Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be spread at length on the journal of the House, and another copy be properly engrossed and forwarded to his afflicted family, as a testimonial of our appreciation of his worth, and an assurance of our sympathy, in their great bereavement.
On motion by Mr. McMULLEN the report was made the special order for Saturday afternoon at 2 o'clock
Mr. GORDON called up his bill [H R 168] which heretofore failed to pass for want of a constitutional majority.
Mr. MOODY: The gentleman from Putnam (Mr. Gordon) claims that the merits of this bill consists in this, that it requires the County Clerks to furnish a list of all the guardians and their bondsmen Section 2 221 of the code provides for the keeping of all records necessary to enable the Judge on the beach to know all the Clerk of the Court, if this bill passes, can furnish him. I am well satisfied this proposed law will simply pay the clerks for doing what the law now requires them to do without any pay. I think that if we pass no law reducing fees and salaries of county officers we at least should go slow in enacting a law to increase their pay. I am satisfied this bill is not what it is claimed to be, and ought not to pass.
Mr. GORDON: The gentleman misrepresents the bill. There is no statute now on the book as provided for by this bill.
Mr KELLISON: I am unable to see the merits in this bill. The great difficulty connected with estates now is not with the Clerk's reports. It is now the duty of the Judge to investigate the solvency of estates. This bill is only to increase fees.
The bill passed - yeas 51; nays, 30.
The bill [S. 111] to allow David R. Munson $5 115 69 for, lightning rods for the Asylum for the Insane, was read the third time.
Mr. PENDLETON: This is a just, undisputed claim. It does not embrace interest, and interest has been allowed other claimants. There is no need of argument here. The money would have been paid without question had there been money in the treasury when the work was done.
Mr. REEVES: I have here the testimony taken. Dr. Jameson's testimony here shows that "Munson put up the rods without having the contract, though I warned him against proceeding." Governor Williams was indignant when the bill came, as well as were other members of the board. Here is a sample of the persistence of the lightning rod man. Give them an opportunity and they cover your property with rods and charge a heavy price. There is undoubtedly something due Munson, but not this much.
Mr. PATTEN: I move to recommit the bill to the
Mr. PENDLETON: I move to amend by making it $3 800
The amendment was not agreed to.
The motion to recommit was agreed to.
Mr. French called up his bill [H. R. 543] to allow County Treasurers 6 per cent. for collecting delinquent taxes, the same having heretofore failed for want of a constitutional majority.
Mr. SAYRE: I wish to call the attention of the House to the present condition of the delinquent tax lists of Indiana. Section 6,427 of the Revised Statutes says that the County Treasurer shall make diligent search for such delinquent taxes. The next section puts the duty of collecting these taxes on the Treasurer without this extra pay. He must show that he can find no personal property which he can seize for delinquent taxes. The law makes him liable on his bond if he does not collect these delinquencies. Treasurers are not well paid for their services, and their duty is clearly defined. This proposition is a disguise to increase the fees of County Treasurers, and will do it at the rate of $1,000 for every county in the State.
Mr. FRENCH: There is no disguise in this bill. It means just what it says. It was drawn in its simplest shape so that all could understand it. It is not to merely increase salaries of Treasurers. The law of 1879 allowed County Treasurers to go out and collect delinquent taxes six months in the year and he was allowed 6 per cent. This bill simply allows the Treasurers to collect the delinquent taxes twelve months in the year instead of six months. If there is any reason why they should go out six months of the year instead of twelve I fail to see it.
The bill passed by yeas 55, nays 25.
Mr. McGOVENEY, explaining his vote, said: I think that a great many are making a mistake on this, and it will cost us but $6 on the hundred to collect this. It will be a relief to our school fund. So I vote "aye."
Mr. McMICHAEL: It is not difficult to find men to fill the offices at the present salary. Those now delinquent in taxpaying are not so with choice, but of necessity. It will only increase their burdens. I vote "no."
So the bill passed as noted above.
On motion by Mr. PATTEN the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, [Mr. Adams in the chair] and proceeded to consider the bill [H. R. 427] making general appropriations.
Mr. WILLIAMS: I favor the motion to strike out the item to appropriate $24 000 to Purdue
University. If I fail to convince the
Mr. WILSON: Section 862 of the statutes says that the State shall observe the stipulations laid down by Congress. What was that?
Mr. WILLIAMS: That the State should take care of the principal of this money, that the State should pay the interest. Some have an idea that this appropriation is to be $24,000 for two years. This is erroneous It means plainly $24 000 per year John Purdue did not ask money from the State, but said he would support this institution himself. All he wished was to call once in a while at Purdue and examine the books. I wish that John Purdue could examine those books now and make a report here in place of the one presented by President James H. Smart Now is it a State institution? Two years ago President White, when a question was raised here regarding secret societies in that college, claimed that Purdue University was a private corporation and sent here through the Representative from Tippecanoe (Mr. Smith), who is still on this floor, a remonstrance against the Legislature meddling The gentleman from Tippecanoe presented the matter to this body.
Mr. SMITH: Don't misquote me about this. I made no such claim.
Mr. WILLIAMS: I guess I must resort to the official record. I will read from the Brevier
Reports of the session of 1883 [Reads from Volume XXI.] This idea of a State institution is
of recent origin. This communication of President Smart intimates that there was no
opposition to an appropriation to Purdue University two years ago. But there was. The
Honorable Speaker of this House was then Chairman of
Mr. HAYDEN: If it is not a State institution why does the Governor appoint the Trustees?
Mr. WILLIAMS: The Governor appoints but two, and others are chosen by the State Board of
Agriculture, and so on. Even if a State institution it would be held to a strict
accountability as to its finances. All the State Institutions are compelled to cover back
into the Treasury all unused money. When has Purdue even turned back a single dollar? If
you can find the receipt for such I would like to see it and frame it that the public may
see it. Every boy who goes there, President Smart to the contrary, pays $15 per year
tuition, no matter whether he be sent by a county or not. This institution is kept up for
Tippecanoe County. There are 176 enrolled there. Their first names are not given, so we can
not tell how many are girls. As near as I can guess there are thirty-seven girls. But forty
counties are represented. Tippecanoe County has eighty seven members. The claim is made
that Purdue is young. It is as old as the Valpariaso Normal School, which has 1,600
Mr. TAYLOR: How much money does it take to run this?
Mr. WILLIAMS: No one can tell. President Smart, in response to this Legislature, says the salaries amount to $24 500; another time in his annual report it is given at $18,OOOr another time he puts it at $20,000; but I find the Lafayette Sunday Times gives an itemized statement which puts the salary figures at $28,000.
Mr. WILLIAMS resumed (in Committee of the Whole House): The report of the farming occupies but ten lines Let the man who goes to the County Treasurer's office to pay his taxes read this. There are many farmers in Indiana who never heard of Purdue University, who raise better crops than these ten lines show. "Corn, fifty bushels to the acre, although the crops had not been gathered or weighed." How is this? Then the crops were let out to farmers to gather. Some swivels were made by them, and the only thing curious about them was that it was hard to tell whether they were patterns of harrows or patent churns. The President of the University speaks of their blacksmith shops, yet his report shows an indebtedness to a blacksmith at Lafayette.
And here is more information from that agricultural college - that they have found that
you can dig post holes in compact as well as loose earth; and the only recompense they have
for this information is to give yon the name of the firm manufacturing these post holes.
And another thing they tell us is of a system they have of keeping hairs from blowing into
milk. What a beneficial thing! Now if they could only extend the same invention to boarding
house hash. [Laughter.] It costs the best you can make of it $500 per year to a boy. Your
son could attend Heidelberg for that. I am not favoring strangling Purdue, but I want it to
Mr. WILSON: It seems to me that the amendment to strike out this appropriation resolves itself into this thing: Shall Indiana support Purdue or let it die? and shall Indiana see fit to withdraw its support from educational institutions? The labor of an educated man is worth more than the labor of an ignorant man. This is acknowledged everywhere. It is our duty to educate - it is our patriotism. The gentleman refers to certain colleges which are doing great work. Still these colleges are no part of the State. Shall the State entirely cease educating. The gentleman refers us to Valparaiso? Valparaiso is in my part of the State, and I ought to be proud of it. But I must say that pupils attend that because it is a continuous picnic. Paying board and tuition is about all there is to that. We must not judge Purdue farm by the amount of grain grown, but the experiments made there. There were fifty-one kinds of grain grown there last year.
Mr. KELLISON: To the proposition to strike out this item I can not agree, I have heard the speech of the gentleman from Knox (Mr. Williams) It was eloquent, sarcastic and carefully prepared. If this college is not sustained, as the State agreed with the United States, then John Purdue's heirs may come in to reclaim the property. The college is not so much to put boys to the manuel of farm labor, but to teach them about it. It was never so contemplated in the founding and endowment of the college; but it was founded to teach the mechanical arts. They gentleman says that if they undertake to teach the mechanical arts to ladies they violate the contract. That is his idea, but is not mine. When the State may tire of this property, then the Legislature, by an act, can give back the property to John Purdue's heirs. There may be some doubt if Indiana can keep three half-starved institutions; it may be better to have only one; but so long as we keep possession of the money of John Purdue we must keep faith with the college. I am not in favor of $24,000, but I am in favor of giving a reasonable appropriation. Better have no State institution of learning than a starved one. This opposition comes from one or two gentlemen - led by the gentleman from Putnam (Mr. Gordon.) He has assaulted the State University, Purdue University, and we may look for him to charge on the State Normal School - all in the interest of monopoly of the DePauw University, named after a man who can not write a grammatical sentence.
Mr. FRENCH: I do not see why a rider should be put on this bill. The committee has decided that the institution shall have $18 500. There is no reason to say that they are a set of thieves at Purdue. By this system the college must necessarily be run on credit. Treat Purdue as you do other institutions.
Mr. GORDON: Seriously I do not see why the amendment should not be adopted. It is shown that the income of this institution is sufficient to pay the faculty. The President of that institution by his manipulations of the trustees of Purdue draws a salary of $3 000 per year, which is more than he ought to have. His salary is higher than other educators of equal capacity in the State. Two years ago when this matter was up before this body the President came here to lobby for the appropriation. He boarded with the member from Tippecanoe and was without expense, but when he went home he presented his bill and drew $150 for expenses, though he came here on a railway pass. That is why we ask a rider on this bill.
Mr. LOYD: The report of the President of the college shows that the cost of the instructors - for instructing seventy-three students outside of Tippecanoe County - was the enormous sum of a little over $17,000. The salaries of the librarian, janitor and others run the bills up so that it is proper for us to put a rider on this bill.
The amendment to the
The amendment was also rejected.
Mr. PLEASANTS offered an amendment that the money appropriated shall embrace the interest on the State bonds held by the university.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. LOYD moved to strike out the item to appropriate $25 000 for new buildings, shops, etc., at Purdue University.
The motion was agreed to upon a division - affirmative, 35; negative, 34.
Mr. WILSON moved to insert $15,000.
The motion was agreed to upon a division - affirmative, 33; negative, 32
Mr. KELLISON moved to reconsider the vote just taken.
The motion was agreed to.
The question recurring on the amendment to make the sum $15,000 -
Mr. KELLISON said that the full amount, if any, should be allowed. The object is to enlarge the building. The ambition of Professor Smart is to build that institution so it will tower above all others. We should not make an appropriation, however, now; wait until we find whether the people desire to continue all these institutions separate or as one
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: How long shall we wait until we know this? Does the farmer wait to build his house and barn until he knows whether he will succeed with his crops?
Mr. REEVES: There can be no half way place. If the building is constructed it
Mr. McBROOM: When I arose this afternoon to vote on the proposition to give Purdue $15,000, some one said: "Sit down, McBroom." That raised my Irish blood some, but it has gone down. I was in favor of giving Purdue enough to run it, but I do not want to impose the tax for this new building. We do not propose to build a wall around Lafayette for the sake of experiment.
On motion of Mr. DITTEMORE the committee arose and reported progress.
And then the House adjourned.
A message from the House announced the passage of the bill H. R. 480] to provide means
for the completion of the new State-house, which on motion by Mr. Willard was read the
first time and referred to the
Mr. MAGEE made an ineffectual motion to make it the special order for this afternoon at 2.
On motion by Mr. FOULKE, his bill [S. 352] appropriating $250 to W. H. Schlater for publishing and indexing a list of bills and acts in the Senate journal of 1881 was read the third time and passed by yeas 34, nays 6.
The special order being the bill [H. R. 222], to abolish the office of Ditch Commissioner, was read a third time.
Mr. MAGEE: This is a very important bill and should be considered by sections and amendments allowed. He made that motion.
Mr. FOULKE: Under the Senate rules no amendment by way of rider can be made to a bill on the third reading.
Mr. MAGEE: Any other amendment can be made.
Mr. SELLERS: I submit that under the rules these proceedings must be had in Committee of the Whole, if at all, on the third reading.
Mr. WILLARD contended that bills can be amended on the third reading. [Reads from page 901. Cushing's Manual of Parliamentary Law, Sections 2,326, 2,327 and 2,328.]
Mr. WEIR: This bill is here on the third reading To amend it would be contrary to the practice in this body for many years. If the Senator presents a correct parliamentary rule, his course would lead to such amendment as may defeat the bill.
Mr. SELLERS: The rule of the Senate clearly indicates the course to be pursued. [Reads Rule 39 ] That rule clearly indicates the time for amendment is before engrossment. [Reads Rule 45 ] The latter park of this rule applies to all bills, whether in Committee of the Whole or in the Senate. That bill can not be amended at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER [Mr. Campbell, of Hendricks, in the chair]: I don't think the question of amendment can be considered until an amendment is proposed.
Mr. MAGEE: I amend the first section so that the duty imposed upon the Board of Commissioners shall be devolved upon the Judge of the county.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: I shall hold that the amendment is in order, as I have heard no rule of the Senate or parliamentary law cited that prohibits the amendment of a bill at every stage
Mr. McCULLOUGH read from page 117 of Wilson's Digest of Parliamentary Law to sustain his position that amendments on the third reading are not in order.
Mr. YOUCHE read from Cushing's Manual, Section 2,128; the rule is if amendment would
require the bill to be re-engrossed, such amendment could not be made. When any course of
proceedings has been taken for
Mr. MAGEE: No authority has been cited that contradicts that read by the Senator from Lawrence (Mr. Willard), which (Cushing) is the best on parliamentary law. No rule prohibits amendment after engrossment.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph: We are about to confirm a usage that has been established here for a quarter of a century or we are about to depart from that It is desirable that at any stage the Senate should have the power to amend a bill, and the rules of the Senate provide amply for that. [Reads Rule 41.]
Mr. HILLIGASS reads from page 234, Congressional Digest. Upon the third reading it is a plain proposition no amendments can be offered Rule 39 of the Senate settles this question.
Mr. FOULKE: While it appears to be an extraordinary proceeding to amend a bill on the third reading, still it may be done [Reads from Cushing's Parliamentary Law.]
Mr. McCULLOUGH reads from 234, Congressional Digest, Rule 22. On the third reading a bill is not subject to amendment.
Mr. WILLARD: Page 200, Rule 22, clause 1, does not carry out what is there stated in the Digest.
Mr McCULLOUGH: The section, 2,326, in Cushing's Manual, read by the Senator from Lawrence, has no reference to the situation of the bill before the Senate.
Mr. WILLARD: This is a vital question; as to whether the Senate can at all times control any measure before it, and every part and portion of it. In no parliamentary digest can there be found a word that will tend to overthrow this proposition.
Mr. WEIR: This is a question whether a precedent that has been established here for years shall be overturned and a new rule made.
Mr. WILLARD: Every single authority quoted here today shows that bills are subject to amendment on the third reading. The rules of the Senate show it and the Constitution of the State testify to the fact that amendments, except by way of rider, are permisiable on the third reading.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: The Chair understands the almost universal rule is that after engrossment the question is "shall the bill pass?" The Chair is of the opinion that rules of the Senate leave the logical inference that other amendments than those by way of rider are in order. The decision of the Chair is that the amendment is in order.
Mr. YOUCHE and Mr. SELLERS submitted an appeal, to-wit:
The President of the Senate having decided that engrossed H. R. 222 can be amended on third reading without recommitting and over objection, we, the undersigned, respectfully appeal from the decision of the Chair.
E. B. SELLERS,
J. W. YOUCHE.
The question being "shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Senate?
The Senate refused to sustain the Chair by yeas 12. nays 31.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St Joseph, explaining his vote: I did not agree with the decision of the
Chair. I believe that our rules by implication and our practice did not permit amendment on
the third reading, but as I have just found an authority that seems to make it clearly
parliamentary to amend, I shall vote to sustain parliamentary law as against our custom. At
the bottom of Page 227, Jefferson's Manual, I find a discussion of engrossment and
this statement: "But the Senate of the United States is so much in the habit of making
many and material amendments at the third reading that it has become a
Mr. DAVIS (explaining): My personal views would be, as a matter of propriety, that amendments should be allowed upon the third reading of a bill, without requiring unanimous consent or reference to a committee. But this Senate has decided in a number of instances unanimously, and in cases where it would have been eminently proper to have a bill amended on the third reading, that it could not be done; and I believe to allow amendments on the third reading, without the guard of engrossment and with the thin showing of authority on the journals that such amendments were made, would, perhaps, in manv instances give opportunity to pass bills finally in an uncertain and ambiguous way. I am constrained to vote "no."
Mr. FAULKNER: It has never been held since I have been a member of the Senate or of the other House that a bill can be amended on the third reading, exempt by unanimous consent or sending the bill to a committee, so I shall vote "no."
Mr. FOWLER: Believing that the best interests of legislation requires that we should adhere to the rule heretofore adopted in passing bills I vote "no."
Mr. MARSHALL: I have come to the conclusion that it would be dangerous policy to adopt a rule now to amend a bill on the third reading, without unanimous consent or reference to a committee. Therefore I vote "no."
Mr. McINTOSH: Of all the arguments made, I think the little speech of the Senator from St. Joseph (Mr. Campbell) the most conclusive. In giving his reasons for changing his mind and voting to sustain the Chair, I think he voted wrong. We have ordered this bill engrossed, and I think the Senator was mistaken in his application. I vote "no."
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings: It has been held here on several occasions that a bill could not
be amended on the third reading. I didn't think that was a very fair way to get a bill
through, because you can not at all
Mr. SMITH, of Jay: Whenever I find authority absolutely against me I yield to the authority. I find the following. [Reads]. With this law in my hand I don't see how I can vote any other way than to sustain the Chair. I vote "aye."
Mr. WEIR: I have frequently heard this question decided at this session contrary to the decision just rendered The Senator from Cass, while in the chair the other day, so decided this very question. Taking all things into consideration I vote "no."
So the Senate refused to sustain the decision of the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: The amendment proposed by the Senator from Cass is ruled out of order in accordance with the decision of the Senate.
Mr. WEIR moved that discussion on this bill shall close at 10:30 o'clock to-morrow.
Mr. MAGEE: Every Senator has the right to express his views and have them go upon the record. This motion will not give time. By the time prayers are offered and the journal read as far as it is usually the hour named in the motion will nearly have arrived.
Mr. WILLARD: In the debate this afternoon it was stated by the friends of the bill that it should be discussed.
Mr. FOWLER: Some amendments referred to this committee were not incorporated in this bill, and I would like to know why.
Mr. WEIR: I insist upon my motion, that debate shall cease at 10:30 o'clock to-morrow.
On motion by Mr. HILLIGASS this motion was laid on the table.
Mr. WILLARD moved to make this bill the special order for 9:30 o'clock to-morrow.
Mr. MAGEE signed this report, at the request of other members of the committee, in order to get the bill before the Senate.
Mr. BENZ made an ineffectual demand for the previous question.
Mr. BRYANT: The present ditch law is a good law, but if it can be made better he would be in favor of such an amendment. The people are dissatisfied with the present law because of the expense.
Mr. WEIR moved an amendment that the vote shall not be taken before Monday at 2 o'clock.
Mr. WILLARD accepted the amendment.
The motion, as amended, was agreed to.
The Senate adjourned till to-morrow.
The SPEAKER: I have set apart this morning for Senate bills on second reading, so that such bills will be in a position to be passed upon by the House. If a local bill is read, one on which no discussion is likely to occur, it might be well to read it the third time and dispose of it. The Clerk will read bills the second time, after which will come reports of committees.
Mr. WILLIAMS: I move that the constitutional rule be suspended and that the bill [S. 20] to prevent the employment of children under twelve years of age in mines or manufactories be read a third time and put upon its passage.
The motion was agreed to by yeas 71, nays 4
The bill was defeated by yeas 42, rays 42.
Mr. OVERMAN, explaining his vote, said: I do not believe that members are giving this bill mature consideration. I am in the manufacturing business myself, and I know that there are many boys who are able to do work about these manufactories and support their widowed mothers or themselves, I vote "no."
Mr. SMITH, of Perry: For the reason that it is better for boys when not in school to be at work than in idleness. I vote "no."
Mr. STALEY: The bill makes no exception as to manufactories. For the reason that many boys are employed at light labor in stave factories in my town and thus given not only employment that is beneficial to health but needed, I am compelled to vote "no."
Mr. TAYLOR: If this were a bill to protect children and prohibit their labor over a
certain number of hours, I might support it. But no exception is made to this. The
Mr. WILLIAMS: For the reason that every labor organization and Trades Assembly in Indiana asks this bill, I vote "aye."
Mr. GORDON: If the bill prohibited heavy labor or that dangerous or injurious to bodily development, I should support it. Idleness enforced by failure to find work is bad enough, but idleness enforced by law it worse. I vote "no."
Mr. CORY: I voted for this bill under the impression that it was to prevent labor under ground; but as I find it has no exception, I change my vote from "aye" to "no."
Mr. PASSAGE: For the reason I believe that children under the age of twelve years should be in school; and if the parents are unable to send them to school the State ought to provide the means, I therefore vote "aye."
Mr. WILSON: For the same reason given by the gentleman I change my vote to "no."
Mr. MOCK: As the bill is too broad I change my vote to "no."
Mr. PENDLETON: For the reason that
The SPEAKER: Does the gentleman wish to change his vote?
Mr. PENDLETON: No, sir; I was going to say that I voted "aye" and would vote "aye" again.
So the bill was defeated as noted above.
On motion by Mr. GORDON the vote was reconsidered and the bill was referred to a select committee of three with instructions to amend so as to prohibit the employment of child labor in coal mines, iron and steel manufactories, and such other establishments as would be deleterous to their health, and that they should not be compelled to work more than eight hours a day.
Mr. LOYD made a motion, which was laid on the table by a vote of 9 to 17, to instruct the committee to report in favor of the indefinite postponement of the bill, the committee being composed of Messrs. Gordon, Williams and Hopkins.
Mr. OVERMAN made an ineffectual motion that the age be ten instead of twelve years.
Mr. LOYD: This bill ought not to be recommitted, but defeated at once. It is not the province of this Legislature to say what kind of work children shall do. In my county are 300 orphans who are engaged in wood carving, manufacturing on a small scale. They do work that men would not do, and support themselves, dress better and look better than idlers. I am in favor of keeping children in school, but the only way to bring that about is by compulsory education. This bill is nothing of the kind. It is class legislation.
Several Senate bills provoking some discussion on their second reading -
The SPEAKER said: I thought it well to have these Senate bills read the second time, and then if they were good they might be passed, or if bad defeated. But for the reason that so much time is taken up in discussion on the second reading, I find it impractical, and I can not longer push them and stand in the way of the Appropriation bill, So this order will not be pursued this afternoon. I hoped to have disposed of them all, but this could not be done.
The SPEAKER: Several members have expressed to me, since the forenoon session, a desire to go ahead with these Senate bills. Of course, I made the statement just before dinner in deference to what I supposed was the wish of the House.
On motion of Mr. McMULLEN, his bill [H. R. 342] to legalize the appraisement of real estate and assessments of taxes made by Common Councils, was taken up, read the third time and passed by yeas 80, nays 1.
Mr. TAYLOR: I move to take up the bill [H. R. 476] to compel railways built within the past five years, to make crossings where the road runs through a man's real estate.
Mr. PATTEN: I do not believe this is right. I called up this appropriation under the call of my county. It has been hanging fire since Friday last. It should in justice to ourselves and the people be completed.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. PATTEN: I move that further consideration of this bill be indefinitely postponed.
The motion was rejected by yeas 7, nays 77.
Mr. BARNES explaining his vote, said: In view of the fact that a great many have very small tracts of land near the railway, say a quarter of an acre, and as this would compel a crossing to be built there, I vote "aye" to postpone
Mr. BARNEY: I understand that the bill affects only where railways have been built is the last five years I vote "no."
Mr. PATTEN: Section 1 of the bill contains an error in a word being omitted or something wrongly worded. I think it should be postponed, and I vote "aye."
So the motion to postpone was rejected.
Mr. FRAZEE moved to recommit to the Committee on Railroads, with instructions to amend the bill so as to embrace railroads built within the past twenty-five years
Mr. TAYLOR: The reason why I put it five years is because roads built before that time have adjusted this matter with farmers whose lands are occupied. I had no object as to time.
Mr. HARRELL believed that the bill should be recommitted with the instructions.
Mr. GORDON moved to amend to embrace all railways.
The motion to recommit was then withdrawn.
Mr. CORY: The bill is now before the House, I believe. We have one railway passing through our entire county. Along its line are many small pieces of land - mere patches. To build a crossing for each one of these patches will be an enormous expense. It will cost $500 to build these crossings. Then would you put a $500 crossing on a patch not worth $100? The railway of that county makes no money - scarcely lives. The men who own it keep it up merely to save what they invested in it. While railways are servants of the public, they should be permitted to live. We don't want to drive out men because they have invested in railroads. This bill should be killed in its present shape; at least it should be referred to a committee that it may be corrected.
On motion of Mr. KELLISON the bill was recommitted to a special committee of three, consisting of Messrs Kellison, Frazee and Cory, with instructions to include all railways and report a 3 o'clock to-day.
On motion of Mr. HARRELL, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the
The CHAIRMAN: The question is on the motion of Mr. Gordon to strike out the item appropriating $24 000 to Purdue University.
Mr. STALEY: I was given the floor when the committee arose, but I will yield the floor if the committee will came at once to a vote.
It was so agreed.
The motion to strike out the item of $24,000 was rejected upon a division - affirmative, 22; negative, 41.
Mr. GORDON: I move to amend by making the sum donated to Purdue University $l0,000 instead of $24,000.
Mr. BOYD offered a substitute to make the sum $20 000.
Mr. WILSON proposed $23 000
Mr. LOYD proposed $12 000 He said: I am not in favor of giving a cent, but this is coming half way and compromising.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe, proposed $21,000.
Mr. FRENCH proposed $18,000.
Mr. WILSON proposed $23 000
All of which were severally rejected.
Mr. HAYWORTH proposed $15,000.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe A few thousand dollars from Indiana is not much to an institution whose life depends on the money. This is not a money-making institution, and your votes to-day are to say whether it shall live or die. In the name of Indiana, don't cut its throat. We need $24 000 - at least $20,000.
Mr. McGOVNEY: We
Mr. GORDON: It has been said here what the expenses are, and I will read from the record of the Auditor of State as to what it was [Reads]
Mr. COPELAND: Yesterday I opposed Purdue University and was in favor then, as now, of cutting off all appropriations for that institution, hoping to kill it outright, and I voted on the motion to strike out the $24,000 appropriation. But as the House has refused to strike out the whole amount asked for and as the attempt now is to starve it to death by degrees instead of killing it openly, I now stand ready to vote for the full amount asked.
The motion to substitute $15,000 was rejected.
Mr. CORY proposed $8 000. He said: I am no enemy to Purdue. I helped to create it. It is no life or death matter with Purdue. It is rich and will live.
The substitute was rejected.
Mr. FRAZEE proposed $16 000
Mr. FRENCH proposed $17,747.39.
The substitute was rejected.
Mr. FRENCH: I am a firm friend of Purdue University. I do not want it crippled James H Smart has the confidence of every man in Indiana.
Let us give according to the dignity of the State. Give it what it deserves, or cut it off and let it go.
Mr. STALEY offered a substitute that the sum be $18,500.
The substitute was agreed to upon a division - affirmative, 46; negative, 34
Mr. LOYD offered an amendment that after the word dollars be added the words:
"Provided, the money shall be used only for necessary expense, and that the money be
drawn only by proper vouchers presented to the
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: A great portion of this money will be needed to lay in winter supplies
Mr. McMULLEN: The amendment should not prevail. It will only make it necessary for the college to be continually buying on credit.
Mr GOODING: We have made no such requirement in regard to any other institution, and we should not discriminate against President Smart, than whom no man in the State has more confidence in the people than he.
Mr. STALEY: This is all duly met in the bill, and the amendment is unnecessary.
Mr. WILLIAMS offered an amendment to the amendment, that none of the money be applied on salaries. He said: It has been said here that there is enough money there to pay salaries. Now let this money be given to the college.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: The law says that the salary of the trustees must be paid from the appropriation. No riders should be put on this bill.
On motion by Mr JOHSTON, of Dearborn, the bill [H R. 342] to legalize the appraisement of real estate and assessment of taxes made by Common Councils was pressed through the three readings, under dispensation of the constitutional restriction, and finally passed by yeas 38, nays 0
Mr. Johnston explaining that it is intended to apply only to the city of Lawrenceburg.
On motion of Mr. DUNCAN, of Brown, his bill [S. 201] to refund to Joel S Davis certain damages paid by him into the Treasury of Bartholomew County, was read the third time and passed by yeas 28, nays 9 - after explanations by Mr. Duncan and Mr. Weir.
On motion by Mr. MARSHALL his bill [S. 388] to fix court terms in the counties of Fountain and Warren was read the second and third times, under a suspension of the rules, and finally passed by yeas 36, nays 0
Mr. WILLARD, Chairman of the
The only way a State debt can be created is under Section 197 of the Constitution [reads], which makes at least one of the amendments proposed by the committee absolutely necessary.
In order to conform to the requirements of the Constitution, the temporary loan should be for the purpose of covering a "casual" deficiency. He recommenced an additional change by making the interest on the bonds 4 per cent annually, instead of "4 per centum, payable semi annually." The language of the bill might also be interpreted as including the $150,000 for the improvement of the grounds and the appropriation of $350,000 for the completion of the building.
On his further motion the report of the committee was concurred in, the bill read the second and third times, under a suspension of the constitutional rule by a yea and nay vote, and finally passed the Senate by yeas 36, says 2.
Pending the roll call -
Mr. McINTOSH, in explanation of his vote, said: I believe the last Legislature was a very liberal if not an extravagant one, and I believe this Legislature is the most liberal if not the most extravagant one that ever met at the capital. Not a bill for the appropriation of money has failed during the session. We have already passed a bill for a loan of $600,000, and this bill is for a loan of $500,000 more, when we were told it would not be necessary to make another loan. This is an increased burden. The State is being plunged hopelessly in debt. Taxation will have to be increased, and somebody will have to answer for it. Bat as the bill is necessary, I am compelled to vote "aye."
Mr. SMITH, of Jay, from the special committee thereon, returned the bill S 336] to pay
for Brevier Legislative Reports hereto-
On his farther motion the report of the committee and accompanying evidence were ordered printed.
Mr. WEIR, from the special committee thereon, returned his Appellate Court bill with amendments increasing the pay of Judges from $3,500 to $4 000, etc.
The report of the committee was concurred in.
The Senate proceeded to the consideration of the special order, being the bill [H. R. 222] to abolish the office of District Commissioner, on its third reading.
Mr SELLERS: This bill is a new law embodying many of the provisions of the act of 1883 and 1881. The first section is similar to Section 4 273 of the Statutes of 1881, the only difference being that by this bill the Board of Commissioners shall appoint a Drainage Commissioner to hold office for two years, and who shall be acquainted with the wants and wishes of the people of the neighborhood. Section 2 is almost verbatim the act of 1883. Section 3 changes the law of 1883 (Section 2) with regard to notification by serving on the owner or occupant a written or printed notice in the same manner as summons are issued. A further provision allows notice to be served on agents of railway companies - the companies not owning land but only the right of way. As to non-residents, the old form of notices are to be given. The bill gives ten days in which to remonstrate against the petition. The law of 1881 gave no time - the law of 1883 gave three days. This bill changes the law of 1883. At the time set for docketing, if two-thirds of the owners remonstrate, the petition shall be dismissed so that no one man can force upon the community a burdensome and unnecessary proceeding. The bill authorizes the court to appoint a third disinterested commissioner in each particular case, thus giving to all interested a fair hearing; thence down to line 67 of the printed bill, Section 3, is similar to the old law. There the County Surveyor is required to note the lay of the ditches, the grade, etc., and turn over the notes to his successor. He shall give bond and be under oath. The bill provides that the notices shall be at the cost of petitioners. In Section 4, ten days is given to remonstrate, in every respect similar to the provision on page 176 of the acts of 1883 A person may sometimes find but one to join in making a drain, when a proceeding in court must be had. Where all interested agree, there is no necessity for court proceedings. The remonstrator should pay the costs. Section 5 materially changes the law: "Including reasonable attorney's fees" are new. The cost of serving notices may be avoided by the petitioner serving the notices himself. The attorneys' fees must be submitted to the court, who will adjudicate the amount to be allowed No costs or expenses, except on contracts, shall be paid until allowed by the court; that is a new provision. In the item of assessment there will be a greater saving than by reason of any other change, as but one notice is required where five notices were required formerly. A new provision is: The land owner assessed shall have the privilege of doing the work on contract at the same price as the lowest and best bidder, who can only bid by stations. There are some sixty executions in Jasper County now in cases where there are no bidders of sums sufficient to pay the assessments against the lands.
Mr. SELLERS (resuming) The provisions of the bill are intended to prevent delay in the
construction of the work. The next amendment to the old law commence at line 68, page 10,
of the printed bill. These in default should pay the additional expense. This was added by
the Committee and is one of the best provisions of the bill. It has frequently been found
that the land will not sell for the assessments made for the improvement, so everything the
owner may have may be swept away in order that the wet land he once owned maybe improved.
This can not happen under this bill. Section 6 is a copy of the old law down to line
sixteen. There a new provision is added. In many counties persons are
Pending Mr. Sellers' speech -
Mr. McCLURE asked and obtained leave to call the attention of the Senate to the fact that notwithstanding a motion has been formally entered to reconsider the vote by which the Senate passed the bill [S. 293] regulating ferry fares, the bill is now being considered in the House of Representatives
The PRESIDENT pro tem (Mr. Magee) directed the Assistant Secretary to hunt up the record of the motion on the Senate journal. (After some time). The Chair announced that the Secretary could find no entry of a motion to reconsider.
Mr. MACY read from page 320 of the Brevier Reports showing the motion to reconsider was made by the Senator from Jennings (Mr. Smith).
Mr. DAVIS moved that the Senate journal be so amended as to show that on March 7 the Senator from Jennings moved to reconsider the action of the Senate on Senate bill 293.
It was so ordered.
The Senate
Mr. KELLISON moved that the Senate concurrent resolution that an expert be employed by the Senate committee to compare the measurements of the walls of the Insane Asylum, relative to the Martin claim, lie on the table.
Mr. KELLISON, explaining his vote, said: I have been opposed to this claim from the first. I do not believe in appointing a man to further the claim. I vote "aye."
Mr. MOODY, when his name was called, said: The resolution does not appoint an expert to go out to the asylum and measure the walls, but to compare the measurements heretofore made. I vote "no."
So the motion was rejected.
Mr. KELLISON made an ineffectual motion to amend so that the expert be employed to measure the walls.
Mr. REEVES believed that the resolution proposed no advantage.
Mr. BEST: I believe that the claim is a just one, and am heartily in favor of concurring in the resolution. I believe that it will result in allowing the claim.
On motion of Mr WILLIAMS an amendment was adopted that the expert be allowed no more than $50.
Mr. BUTZ: I move to amend that the expert employed be a resident outside of Marion County.
Mr. BEST: I do not favor insinuating that the men of Indianapolis or Marion County are not honest The pay to be allowed is but $50, and to select a man outside will exhaust all the money allowed
Mr. PENDLETON: I fully appreciate the compliment paid Marion County by the gentleman, but I hope the amendment will prevail. Any man in Marion County will come here under a cloud. We ought to adopt the amendment that the expert should come from outside the State.
The amendment was rejected.
The concurrent resolution was then adopted.
On motion of Mr. ADAMS, the Senate concurrent resolution to allow the
On motion by Mr. PATTEN, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole (Mr. Adams in the Chair) for the consideration of the bill [H. R. 527] to make general appropriations for expenses of the State government.
The question being on the amendment by Mr. REEVES to allow Purdue University $l for new buildings.
Mr. PATTEN said: We are here talking to save the people's money. Here we have from
the catalogue a description of the present buildings. [Reads.] This shows that the present
capacity of the buildings is abundant. They have plenty of room and enough of tools. I am
not in favor of giving $1, but $1 is easier to pay than $25 or
The CHAIRMAN: The gentleman has gone far enough. The gentleman is out of order, and can not longer impugn the motives of the two gentlemen. The gentleman will proceed.
Mr. TAYLOR: The rule says the gentleman shall not proceed.
The CHAIRMAN: As soon as he is in order.
Mr. SAYRE: The rules say he shall take his seat, and may not proceed without the consent of the House.
Mr. McMICHAEL: I move that the gentleman be allowed to proceed.
The CHAIRMAN: The gentleman is granted the floor if he will keep in order.
Mr. PATTEN: That is fair and well enough. In eleven years Purdue has cost the State $7,000 for agricultural implements. And it is not an agricultural college nor is it a State institution.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: This gentleman talks as if no one outside the State could enter this institution, but residents of Tippecanoe County. Of course this is not true. The $25,000 asked for is to construct buildings and to provide them with tools. In all the history of Purdue, every single item of expense has been open to the world. I propose to state facts every time, upon the honor of a man. Tippecanoe County has done not only nobly by Purdue, but has given $77,000 to Asbury University. I think as much of De Pauw University as any man in the State. It you donate this money the building will be constructed, and you may rely upon it. You say that if we need $25,000 we are not in earnest if we take $15,000. However if we secure the $15 000 it may be invested in the buildings, and then if you give us the tools we can use them.
Mr. SAYRE moved as a substitute that the sum be $17 000.
Mr. STALEY: Gentlemen come here and ask for various sums to support the State institutions. We have met their wishes. We may have said that their expenses were high, but we have never before said that they needed nothing at all. The intimation back of this is that the State will abandon Purdue Any party or clique which may do so to go before the people of Indiana on that issue will go down. Purdue University constitutes an important part of the educational system of the State, though the youngest. When it comes to make appropriations for the State educational institutions the people are always ready for it. In our county the people are almost ready for prodigality; so are the people of the State. The educational institutions are for the common people; they are for the poor man. The people demand all the State educational institutions. We must give liberally - we can not, we dare not oppose it.
The substitute to make the sum $17,000 was rejected by yeas 34, nays 35.
Mr. REEVES withdrew his amendment to make the sum $1.
The amendment to make the sum $15,000 was rejected by yeas 34, nays 36
Mr. DEEM offered an amendment that the sum be $12,000.
This amendment was rejected.
On motion of Mr. GORDON the committee then proceeded to the next item.
Mr. DEBS moved that the item appropriating $7,000 to the State Normal School at Terre Haute be $10,O0O He said: This school ought to be generously supported by the State. This money is needed. The State Normal School educates teachers for the Common Schools. The bill in the Senate to make the tuition fund $25,000 failed, and the extra $3,000 is needed.
Mr. KELLISON: I hope this amendment will prevail The State Normal School is a part of our Common School system. It prepares teachers for our Common Schools. We ought not to fail to sustain it liberally. It has a reputation not confined to Indiana. While others are here lobbying for their institutions, no one is here in that capacity for the State Normal.
Mr WILLIAMS: As one citizen of Indiana I am proud of the Common School system, and as a part of our Common School system I favor the State Normal School. I think this sum is moderate enough.
Mr. GORDON: I believe the State Normal School is a creditable institution and should be supported. The Trustees, however, did not ask for the sum of $10,000.
Mr. BEST: The people of Steuben County are hard pressed, but they are willing to give to our educational institutions what is right.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: Give the $10,000 to the institution, for it needs it, and repair the wrong you have done to education by refusing Purdue. I am in favor of the State Normal with its 1,100 students, and am for Bloomington. I am no dog in the manger.
The amendment to make the sum $10,000 was adopted by yeas 39, nays 23
On motion of Mr. DITTEMORE the committee arose, reported progress, and asked leave to sit again at 2 o'clock on Monday afternoon.
The House concurred in the report of the Committee of the Whole.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: The Senator from Tippecanoe has just called my attention to the fact that the bill [S. - ] regarding the Lafayette Public Library should be passed, as court is in session and we are likely to lose the building. I move that the constitutional rules be suspended and the bill read a second and third times and put upon its passage.
The motion was agreed to.
Pending a vote on the bill, the House took a recess till 2 o'clock.
The SPEAKER: We have here some messages of the Senate which will be disposed of.
The bill [S. 201] concerning ferries, was read th first time and passed to the second reading.
Mr. ELEY'S bill [H. R. 7] concerning the jurisdiction of Justices of the Peace was reported back from the Senate with an amendment to the title.
The amendment was concurred in.
Mr. McMULLEN'S bill [H. R. 480] concerning the tax for the new State house was reported back from the Senate with certain amendments.
The amendment was concurred in.
The SPEAKER: This message (from the Senate) says that the base ball bill (No 6) has been seat here. The bill is not here, and I don't know where it is. I voted against it before, but if an attempt is made to dispose of it this way, I will feel disposed to vote for it. Neither are the amendments here
Mr. COPELAND: I move that a committee of inquiry be appointed as to where it is.
The motion was agreed to.
The SPEAKER, appointed Mr. Copeland and Mr. Eley as said special commite.
On motion of Mr. SMITH of Tippecanoe, the resolutions on the death of the later Representative Browning were taken from the table.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe, said that Mr. Browning was an honored citizen. He had buffeted with the cares of life, but he had played life's part well. It was a pleasure to remember Mr. Browning as the speaker remembered him. There had been excitement of debate, but this was all forgotten. He was a representative man, a patriot, and in the days that a cloud rested upon the country he went forth to fight the battles of his country. Patriotism is the highest type of manhood, and the deceased was indeed a patriot. We shall not meet our friend again, for he has passed to another land. Patriots of old may have died with but imperfect ideas of a future state, but it was not so with the man whose life is commemorated by these services, and we all feel that he has gone to tha rest which awaits those who follow the dictates of conscience and discharge their duties with honor and fidelity.
Mr. HELMS said that it had been his lot to know the deceased as a neighbor, as a soldier, as an officer of the law, and as a legislator. As a neighbor he was kind and good to all alike. He was an earnest advocate, and he never saw a case of any importance tried in the Brown Circuit Court but he was on one side or the other. As an officer in the army he was faithful in the discharge of his duties, kind to his men, and certainly no braver man was in the service. He was wounded in the fight at Rasacca, Ga., and incapacitated for further service. He was elected Prosecutor, and no man can say that he ever prosecuted a man in a spirit of revenge. He was a minister of the Gospel for the past sixteen years, and was a devoted Christian. He leaves a wife and daughter and a host of friends to mourn bis loss. "Although we differed religiously and politically, I feel that I have lost a friend who can not be easily replaced."
Mr. GOODING said he felt that Mr Browning had been a useful and honest Representative; always faithful to his trust.
Mr. ADAMS remembered him as a Union soldier, and he gallantly defended the flag of his country. For the past twelve years he had known him quite intimately, having frequently met him in court. He had also known him as a minister. Mr. Browning will be missed by his people. No man could have fallen in the community that would be more missed than he. He was dear to all his people, and especially to the young, with whom he was a general favorite.
Mr. McBROOMS had known the deceased from the assembling of the Legislature, and had been impressed with his course. Death is a fearful thing, but we have a panacea in the knowledge that there is a future state which possesses none of the cares and grave responsibilities of our sojourn here.
Mr. GORDON said that he knew but little of the deceased before the meeting of the
Legislature, though he had met him in conventions. He found him always earnest and bold in
presenting his
Speaker JEWETT said: "It were idle to expect that any word of mine could add to the fullness or merit of the tributes already tendered to the memory of our late companion,
"My opinion of this man who has gone from among us was wholly made up from his bearing and action as a member of this body. So I first met him and last saw him. As such I learned to admire the rugged honesty of his speech and the absolute integrity of his motives and acts. These latter are now the subject of Omnipotent judgment, and our weak comment thereon can neither please nor vex the dull ear of the dead. The death of this man or of any man has, it seems to me, no value or importance to those of us who yet remain save this, that it reiterates and emphasizes the truth that all who live shall die. So regarded such an event admonishes us to look upon each succeeding day as an added and perhaps a last opportunity to discharge the obligations of the present and the neglected duties of the past. Thus warned we may, in a spirit of self-sacrifice, hail each of the mornings yet to come with the brave thought -
The following letter was then read by the Clerk and spread upon the journal of the House:
"Permit me to return to you my sincere thanks for your many expressions of respect and sympathy for my deceased husband.
"It is the greatest possible consolation to me to realize that after some months of association with the members of the General Assembly, he had the uniform respect and regard of all.
The resolutions of respect were adopted by a rising vote.
The House adjourned until 10 o'clock on Monday morning.
Mr. BAILEY introduced a concurrent resolution to instruct Senators and request Indiana Representatives in Congress to use their influence for the most strict enforcement of the National eight hour law, and to amend said law so that eight hours shall be the measure for a day's labor in all mechanical and industrial employments except agriculture.
He said: This resolution is similar in terms to the joint resolution which was introduced here some time ago, but lost. I will ask now its adoption. I move it be adopted.
The motion was agreed to.
On motion by Mr. ZIMMERMAN the bill H. R. 481 was read the second time, with a favorable committee report.
Mr. YOUCHE: A great amount of money is lost to the school fund because the Auditors are not compelled to collect interest promptly on loans made therefrom; when a bad loan is made the county is compelled to make up the loss. This bill is proposing to take away some of the safeguards thrown around the school fund. It provides that loans may be made outside of the county. The purpose of the present statute is that loans may be made in small amounts, while this bill proposes to admit of loans to one person in the sum of $5,000. Such borrowers compel their friends to appraise the land high. We should not depart from the long established principle to loan this money to small borrowers. Then it is not a correct principle to allow the funds to be loaned outside of the county; so that the people of each county may have the benefit of the fund, which was the evident intent of the laws. I see nothing in this bill desirable. Where money is not loaned, it is only temporary, in a short time the demand for these funds come.
Mr. WEIR: The merits of this bill ought to be discussed before a full Senate. There should be some amendment to it. I move its reference to a select committee of three, with directions to report to-morrow.
The motion was agreed to and the President pro tem. appointed Messrs. Weir, Youche and Zimmerman.
It would be difficult to depict the manifestation of approval of Hon. Rufus Magee's appointment as Minister of this country to the courts of Sweden and Norway.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings, offered the following:
Resolved. That the Indiana Senate congratulate President Cleveland for his good judgment in soliciting the Senator from Cass, Hon. Rufus Magee, to the position of Minister to Norway and Sweden, and that the Senate now take a recess for ten minutes in honor of the Senator from Cass.
Mr.FOULKE congratulated the Senate and country on the excellence of the selection, saying that it disclosed the highest type of wisdom on the part of the appointing power.
Mr. YOUCHE expressed gratification at the appointment.
He was followed by Mr. JOHNSON, of Tippecanoe, Mr. THOMPSON, of Marion, and Mr. CAMPBELL,
of Hendricks, who
The resolution was adopted by a standing vote.
Tears that could not be concealed attested Mr. Magee's feeling, and, in response to repeated calls for a speech, he bespoke a few words of appreciation of a tribute so cordial and sincere. His heart was too full to say much.
After a short recess, during which Mr. Magee's hand was shaken in hearty congratulation,-
Speaker JEWETT spoke, alluding to the fact that he and the gentleman this day honored, something over twenty years ago, were students together in the State University. "Then, as now," continued Mr. Jewett, "young Magee was noted for his industry and truth, and his aversion to every character of artifice and chicanery. The integrity that has characterized his action in this body won the friendship of his fellow students."
Mr. JOHSON, of
Whereas, The President of the United States has appointed Hon. Rufus Magee, the Senator from Cass, American Minister to the court of Sweden and Norway;
Resolved, That the Senate of the State of Indiana express the great satisfaction and entire approbation of this appointment, and consider it a fit tribute to the eminent ability and worth of one of its most prominent members.
Resolved, That the Senate of Indiana cordially congratulates Hon. Rufus Magee on the distinguished honor conferred upon him by this appointment.
Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate be and hereby is instructed to forward certified copies of these resolutions both to the Secretary of State, Hon. Thomas F. Bayard, and to Hon. Rufus Magee.
M. FOULKE offered the following:
Resolved, That the Senate unanimously and without distinction of part communicate to the President our sense of the honor conferred on our body, as well as of the eminent fitness of the appointment of the Hon. Rufus Magee as Minister resident of the United States to Stockholm, and that we feel assured that in this appointment the United States will be most ably and fitly represented at the court of Stockholm.
These resolutions were adopted, and all of them ordered spread on the journals.
Mr. WEIR returned from a committee his bill [S. 236] with amendments.
Mr YOUCHE: This bill is a very important departure from the law heretofore, and it should be printed.
Mr. WEIR: All along the Kankakee hunting clubs from other States have purchased wet lands by the thousand acres, they have stretched one wire around the land, and now say to everybody else "stand off." There are but one or two sections in this bill and it is easily understood. There is no need of printing it. The bill only refers to untillable lands.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay: It is not right to allow aliens to come in the State and buy up lands in large bodies for sporting purposes and exclude therefrom citizens of the State of Indiana. This bill ought to pass without question.
Mr. WEIR: Where a club, so called, comes from other States, it should not be allowed to say to all the people of Indiana, "Keep off, these are our hunting grounds." It's the duty of the Legislature to say that our citizens shall not be guilty of a trespass by going on such lands. The bill provides it shall not be lawful to hold untillable lands for hunting purposes exclusively, whether enclosed or not. The more I reflect upon it, the more willing I am to consent to the printing of the bill, and that it be made a special order for to-morrow at — o'clock.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. FAULKNER moved to take up the bill [H R 172] to prevent gambling in county fair grounds.
The motion was agreed to by yeas 37, nays 2.
A majority report of a special committee recommended its passage with amendments, and a minority report recommending the adoption of all the committe amendments except Section 2 were read.
Mr. YOUCHE favored striking out Section 2 because it gives any person who notifies any President or Secretary that any game is being carried on in a fair ground, and if the officer does not remove the offender a fine is imposed on the officer, and it makes the notifier the prosecutor and the accuser. It puts too much power in the hands of any one person who thinks he has discovered a violation of the law. It gives extraordinary power and jeopardizes the passage of the bill.
Mr. FAULKNER: If there is no gambling there nobody will be hurt. When the officers of the fair are notified there is gambling going on they ought to put out these gamblers. I move to substitute the minority for the majority report.
Mr. DAVIS: I think Section 2 is plainly in conflict with the Constitution of the State. This bill gives an apparent sanction or authority to any officer to summarily destroy property. This provision is clearly obnoxious. I am in favor of some law more stringent and effective to prevent blacklegs from swindling the farming community at these fairs.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks: This section has no parallel on the statute books. Any one person may constitute himself a judge and determine that some gambling apparatus is in the fair ground which should be destroyed. He makes his report and is required upon information to execute the law, destroy the gambling apparatus and expel the owner from the ground, without even making a record of it.
Mr. OVERSTREET: This is a terribly de-
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings: If this bill was passed it would be the first time in the history of criminal jurisprudence when a man would be made criminally liable just because he had notice that another man is engaged in the commission of a crime. That kind of a law would be unconstitutional because it authorizes destruction of property without process of law.
The motion to substitute the minority for the majority report was rejected upon a division - affirmative, 10; negative, 18.
The majority report was concurred in.
Mr. FAULKNER moved that the constitutional rule be suspended, the amendments be considered as engrossed, the bill read the second time by title, the third time by sections and passed
Mr. FOULKE: If ever there was an instance of fool legislation it is certainly in this bill. Every man that desires the penalty for gambling at county fairs shall be brought down from $500 to $25 should vote for this bill. There are instances in which $25 is an utterly inadequate fine, and Senators opposed to gambling at county fairs should vote against it.
Mr. DAVIS: The penalty in the bill is not less than $25 nor more than $100.
Mr. FOULKE: The lowest amount is $10 and the highest is $500 under the present law. [Reads Section 2 079]. It is nonsense to bring up a law for every different exigency you can imagine. We are not here to stultify ourselves by any legislation such as that. We do not want separate and new laws to re enact the statutes we now have.
Mr. FAULKNER: I am surprised at the Senator. He can not show me a single case where any of these gamblers have been punished under the $500 fine law. I hope this bill will pass.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings: The people do not prosecute such cases, and they will not if forty such laws are passed. There never was a failure made in a case of prosecution for gambling, because they will not prosecute a man for gambling on the fairground. This bill comes from the House, introduced inconsiderately, and is now in charge of the Senator from Ripley, who is no lawyer. The criminal laws of Indiana is a better code of criminal jurisprudence than than this Legislature can make. I think this bill ought to be defeated.
Mr. HILLIGASS: There is no statute direct upon the question applicable to these cases. There are statutes touching the leasing and renting of houses for gambling purposes. As the bill is amended, striking out the second section, I think it ought to pass, to we can say to officers of agricultural grounds that you shall not rent your grounds for gambling purposes, just as we lay now to owners and agents of houses.
The motion to suspend the constitutional rule was agreed to by yeas 34, nays 8. The bill was read the second time by title, the third time by sections, and failed to pass for want of a constitutional majority by yeas 24, nays 16.
On motion by Mr. WEIR, his five judges Appellate Court bill [S. 373] was taken up and read the second time with committee amendments.
Mr
The report was concurred in.
Mr. FOWLER moved to recommit with instructions to amend so as to provide for three judges is three districts. He said three judges would be sufficient to do all the work. I have not been favorable to the creation of any court of this kind but if we are to have another court there should be but three Judges.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks: An investigation has satisfied me a larger amount of business would come with the location of this court. A very small percent of appeals amount to over $1,000. We have passed a bill giving the Supreme Court jurisdiction in cases of claims against the State, and if that passes the House the Supreme Court will have a large class of cases. I am now in favor of this bill.
Mr. WEIR: I hope the amendment will not be adopted. I call the attention to what the Governor says in his message in relation to the commission [Reads - see Brevier Reports, vol. xxii., page 35] This bill will not increase the expenses, because these Commissioners have been receiving $4,000 a year. The judiciary of this State cost the people less than that of any other State in proportion to population and value of property.
Mr. OVERSTREET: I realize the Supreme Court needs some relief. The amendment comes nearer to my views than anything which has been proposed, and I hope is will be adopted.
Mr. WEIR: I would favor an intermediate Appellate Court rather than an increase of the Supreme Judges.
The motion [Mr. Fowler's] was agreed to upon a division - affirmative, 18; negative, 13.
No quorum voting, a call of the Senate was demanded, ordered and taken, and further proceedings under the the call dispensed with upon the appearance of thirty-five members.
Mr. SHIVELY, from the
On his further motion the report was concurred in.
And then the Senate adjourned.
Mr. PASSAGE'S bill [H. R 368] to allow children to go and return from school in conveyances on toll gravel roads free was read a second time.
Mr. HAYDEN moved that the enacting clause be stricken out.
Mr. HENRY: This bill simply allows children in the county to go to and from school in bad weather, for instance, in conveyances without paying toll. Many poor children live a great distance from the school house who can not walk in bad weather and can not afford to pay toll.
Mr. GORDON: I do not think the bill is constitutional. We have no right to say who shall or shall not pay toll
Mr. PATTEN: Poor men are taxed arbitrarily to support these school houses, and free access should be had to them. The bill is in the interest of humanity, in the interest of poor children and their education. Funeral parties are freed from toll; certainly school children can be given the same freedom.
Mr. MOCK: I do not believe that this Legislature can make this law. It is taking property without compensation.
On the motion to strike out the enacting clause the yeas and nays were demanded, and being taken -
Pending the roll call -
Mr. GORDON, explaining his vote, said: Believing that this is an attempt to take property from one and give it to another; that if this toll be paid it should be done by a tax on all, and believing that every one who votes for this will soon be ashamed of it, I vote "aye."
Mr. PASSAGE: Believing that nineteen-twentieths of the gravel road companies of Indiana are a little better than a band of robbers, I vote "no."
Mr. PATTEN: In view of the fact that the bill will be just and fair, and that since 1885 we have had on our statute books a law exempting funeral parties from toll, and this would be but just to school children, I vote "no."
Mr. ROBINSON: I believe that we have the constitutional right to make this law. We have passed one or more similar - notably the Railway Traffic bill. I vote "no."
The SPEAKER now announced the result of the vote - yeas, 16; nays, 48 -
A quorum not voting
A recess was taken till 2 p. m.
Mr. HAYDEN withdrew his motion to strike out the enacting clause of the bill [H. R. 368] concerning the exemption of school children from toll on gravel roads, and the bill was ordered engrossed.
On motion of Mr. HARRELL the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole (Mr. Adams in the chair) for the consideration of the bill [H. R. 479] making general appropriations for the State.
The question being on the amendment to make the item appropriating money to the Northern Prison $75 000 instead of $85,000 -
Mr. Mc MULLEN: The Prison North in 1884 more than paid for itself by the labor of convicts, still that does not relieve the State from making the necessary appropriation.
Mr. KRUEGER: There is no doubt in the world, and I say it without fear of contradiction, that there is not so well a managed prison anywhere as the Northern Prison. It seems to me there is no statesmanship in this. Nothing is to be gained by cutting this down. The prison more than pays for itself, and the surplus goes into the State Treasury. It is only a matter of form, this making an appropriation. This thing of cutting down the amount is only cheap buncombe to make the Appropriation bill seem smaller than two years ago.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: I am in favor of the bill just as it stands. Because we are cut off in Tippecanoe County does not prompt me to oppose this bill. Nothing will be lost in making this appropriation.
Mr. BARR: I am opposed to cutting this down. The sum is based, per capita, on the prisoners. The number is constantly increasing. The only means to draw the money is by appropriation. The prison supports itself and cost the State not a dollar. The item should stand as it is.
Mr. LOYD: I do not want to make a fight on any necessary appropriation to the State institutions. The report of the Prison South contains a recommendation from the Board of Trustees that a firm be paid $6 000 for a building they built to replace one burned. This firm employed 300 convicts, and they make a speculation from them. There is a crying demand by laborers all over the State against all convict labor. Again another frame building is reported burned down, and this firm replaced it and want pay for that.
Mr. BARR: I desire to make the point of order that the gentleman is not discussing the general but the specific appropriation bill.
Mr. LOYD: We must get our figures of the firm through the Board of Trustees. I desire to offer the amendment that the sum be $60,000 That is quite enough.
The amendment and the amendment to the amendment were severally rejected.
The question being on the amendment by Mr. KRUEGER to build a work-house and bath-room, library, etc. -
Mr. KRUEGER: The officers can not go on and improve without the consent of the State, yet
this will not cost the Treasury $1. The bath-rooms and the work-house are
Mr. FRAZEE: We need all of these, especially the library. The library will make it what we want it to be - a reformatory institution. The convicts are shut up there many hours while not at work with nothing to occupy the minds of the prisoners. The library ought to be bought at once and additions made to it yearly. Every prison should have a respectable library.
Mr. SMITH, of Perry: There are five different items in this appropriation. I think we should vote on them separately.
Mr. MOODY: I do cot care to antagonize this, but I do not think best to put these items in the general appropriation. We ought to place these items in the specific bill.
Mr. KELLISON: I think the things asked /or in this amendment are really necessary. It is very important that the prison is kept in a good sanitary condition and that the prisoners should have access to a good library. The amounts are not so important, as the prison is self sustaining.
Mr. McBROOME: I was a member of the
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: We should correct or reform the bad as well as punish them. They have five hours for meals and reading, and they should have books for employment in idle hours. Our laws must not be unnecessarily severe. Do not build palaces for prisoners, but give them that food and care that will give them good health and insure an effort to reform them
Mr. MAUK: The authorities of the prison said that $60 000 or $70 000 would be sufficient to run the prison; but the bath house and library were not counted in that.
The amendments were adopted.
Mr. STALEY moved an amendment to the item making the appropriation to the Reform School
for Boys and the Reform Institute for Women that the trustees of the Female Reformatory be
allowed a salary of $300 each. He said: This provision is simply a copy of that
incorporated in the
Mr. McMULLEN: I am opposed to putting these items in the General Appropriation bill. We need more time to investigate than is given us here.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. WILLIAMS offered an amendment to appropriate $15,000 to build water mains from Eagle Creek to the Asylum for the Insane, and establishing pipes and work sat the Institution and at the creek.
Mr. LOOP: I understood at first that the cost of getting water from Eagle Creek to the Asylum would not be more than $7,000 or $8,000. If that be the case, I would not favor this proposition.
Mr. GORDON: I join in the opinion that these items should be considered not in the general appropriation bill, but separately.
Mr. HARRELL: I am not so certain that we need to expend this sum, as wells could be built there, quite sufficient, and at less cost.
Mr. WILLIAMS: At the last meeting of the committee on this question we requested Dr. Fletcher to examine as to the feasibility of bringing water from Eagle Creek. He replies here in a letter, which he says that water can be brought from the creek at a cost not to exceed $15 000, and that it can be done quickly and surely. I am of the opinion that the Eagle Creek scheme is the best; but I have no personal reasons. If you think best to change it to tapping the city mains the committee will not fight it.
Mr. McMULLEN: I do not favor acting hastily in this matter. Let us go ahead with the bill and we can put this amendment in at any time
Mr. CORY: Let the $15,000 be appropriated as the Superintendent suggests, and then if not all of it is used, so much the better.
Mr. DEEM moved to amend by making the appropriation $7 500 instead of $15,000.
The amendment and the amendment to the amendment were severally rejected.
Mr. DEEM moved to place the item of $28,000 for maintenance at the Knightstown Institute at $25,000, and to place the item of $2 000 for repairs at $4 000 He said this reduces the original amount $1,000, and is what is needed there.
The amendment was agreed to.
On motion the committee arose and reported progress
The House concurred in the report of the committee.
Mr WILLIAMS moved to amend the appropriation bill by inserting $15,000 to supply water works at the Asylum for the Insane.
Mr MORGAN: I feel that I am not prepared to vote on this bill now. Those in authority at
the Asylum seem to be unde-
Mr. PATTEN: All this seems to hinge on the letter from Dr. Fletcher We should not appropriate the money until we are certain. We do not own the land to Eagle Creek and do not know that we can get it
The amendment was rejected by yeas 33, nays 41
Mr. BOYD, explaining his vote, said: For the reason that we are not ready to decide this matter now, I vote "no."
Mr. LOOP: If we vote this down, what are we going to do? We are firmly convinced that this is what we want, and that it is certain. I vote aye"
Mr. WILLIAMS: There are but two ways to accomplish this; water must be obtained either from the city, or from Eagle Creek - wells can not do it I am not in favor of postponing, for fear those patients might burn some night, I vote "aye."
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe, offered an amendment appropriating $14.750 for new buildings at Purdue University, provided a similar amount is subscribed by other parties.
Mr McMULLEN made an ineffectual motion - yeas 25; nays, 46 - to lay the amendment on the table.
Mr. GORDON: I do not suppose that any member on this floor knows what that money will be used for; but some think they know what it will be used for because the authorities at the college say so.
Pending a vote on the amendment the House adjourned until tomorrow morning.
The Senate resumed the consideration of the Five Judge Appellate Court bill [S. 373], the question being on the motion (Mr. Fowler's) to recommit with instructions, pending it the adjournment yesterday.
Mr. MAGEE resisted the motion, and contended that five Judges for such a court as the one proposed is none too many. Upon general principles, all agree there should be another Court. If this bill passes it will be eminently satisfactory to the Bar of the State, while the Supreme Court Commissioners have not been, because an intermediate court is imperatively demanded.
Mr. OVERSTREET: Realizing that the Supreme Court needs some relief, I should regret to vote against any such measure; but I think three Judges will be sufficient, and do more business than has the Commission of five Judges. I have no doubt but in a few years the number of the Supreme Court Judges will be increased to seven, and if this Appellate Court is made to consist of three we will have ten Judges.
Mr. FOWLER: I insist three Judges are sufficient. By sitting in bank they can do about the work of five Judges, and that is what this bill provides for. I think it was a stretch of constitutional power to create the Supreme Court Commissioners. No Appellate Court will ever be on a plane with the Supreme Court, even were equal talent on both. It is the experience of legislation that when an office is created it can not be dispensed with. I will not vote for any court bill of this kind, but if this bill must pass let it pass with but three Judges.
Mr. YOUCHE: We are proposing to establish a court to mete out justice as between citizens that has no more stability than a statute of the State. When it comes to the courts there should be a firmer foundation than a mere statute. A resolution has been introduced to increase the number of Supreme Judges, and if it passes the relief can be had in a little over two years. The pressure upon that court has been relieved, and we can well afford to wait two years more. The fact that this would be a statutory court is sufficient reason for me to vote against the bill.
The motion to recommit was rejected by yeas 16, nays 25.
Mr. BROWN: I am opposed to the passage of the bill, but will vote "no" on this amendment.
Mr. FAULKNER: I am opposed to this bill, but if we have to have it let us take it in as small doses as possible. A few years ago Judge Berkshire did the business of the courts in three counties for $1 500, and now it costs some $7 500,and Judge Bicknell did the business of ten counties that now cost $10 000. The increase in population and business does not justify this I vote "aye" now, but will vote "no" on the whole business.
Mr. FOULKE also would vote "aye" now, but "no" when the bill came up on passage.
Mr. McINTOSH: Before discussion I was in favor of but three Judges, after the speech of the Senator from Cass, I was almost inclined to favor five Judges, but after the speech of the Senator from Lake I doa't know but I am opposed to the bill. I vote "aye" on this.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay: Judges are the guardian angels of the property and liberty of the
people, and are the most poorly paid of all
Mr. YOUCHE: Should vote against the bill but for this amendment.
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
On motion by Mr. WEIR the bill was ordered engrossed by yeas 29, nays 13.
The Senate proceeded to consider the special order - Mr. Weir's bill [S. 236], the question being on the motion (Mr. Macy's) to strike out Section 1.
Mr. WEIR was willing this amendment shall be made, as the second section was sufficient to accomplish the purpose desired.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings, regarded the bill as unconstitutional and in derogation of the rights of property.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay: I think the first section ought to become a law. It is not the policy of the State to allow clubs or any person to hold large bodies of land to the exclusion of citizens of this State. I am in favor of a bill that will prevent the purchase of large tracts of lands to be held exclusively for hunting purposes. I think it would be constitutional and a proper statute.
Mr. FOULKE: The principle of the bill is correct, but we ought not to apply that principle to take away rights already acquired and in my opinion we can not do it. This thing has gone too far, and should be stopped.
Mr. WETR: The people of my county are being frequently arrested because they have hunted on grounds belonging to a Chicago, Pittsburg or New York Club, or some gentleman of great fortune. This demands some remedy at the hands of the Legislature.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks: It seems to me the object of this bill is to permit hunting on enclosed lands owned by others I shall vote against this bill, but would vote for an amendment to the statute so as the principle may apply to lands not used for agricultural purposes. The owner of lands can use it for any purpose that is not immoral.
Mr. YOUCHE: This bill would affect my county very largely. I have my doubts about the constitutionality of this bill.
Mr. OVERSTREET: I don't think this bill can be amended so that the Legislature would or ought to pass it. The land up there is fit for nothing but duck and muskrat. I think when we come to the secret of this bill it is to protect sporting men in hunting on other men's land. They had better remain at home attending to business. It seems to me this bill ought to be voted down at once.
Mr. FOULKE moved to add a section excluding from the provisions of this bill all lands heretofore purchased.
Mr. FOWLER: I regard this bill as vicious and pernicious and move to indefinitely postpone it and everything connected with it.
The motion was rejected by yeas 11, nays 32.
Mr. Campbell, of Hendricks, voted "no" that a chance may be had to amend as he suggested.
Mr. FAULKNER: I don't think this bill ought to pass under any consideration. I think a man has just as much right to buy land to raise ducks or fish on as to raise anything else. I have a fish pond, and am afraid this bill would allow any one to take fish from it.
Mr. MAGEE: I am opposed to this bill, but refuse to vote for the indefinite postponement.
Mr SMITH, of Jennings: I think the principle of the bill is right, but I think it is unconstitutional. If the statute of 1881, Sections 2.110 and 2.111, were amended the whole subject could be covered. I vote "no."
Mr. ZIMMERMAN: In order to give the poor man a chance to hunt and fish, I vote "no."
So the motion was rejected.
Mr. MACY offered a substitute bill.
Mr. HILLIGASS: The substitute does not reach the question, but virtually leaves the law as it now stands. The bill is the kind of law that ought to be passed.
On motion by Mr. WEIR the bill and substitute were recommitted.
On motion by Mr. Benz, another vote was taken on his bill [S 161] to authorize
The bill passed by yeas 26, nays 16.
Mr WINTER, explaining: The effect of this bill will be that the fees will be charged to the county and paid out of the County Treasury.
Mr YOUGHE: I believe the bill contains a good principle, but I believe it will enable the
Sheriff to charge fees on every
Mr. Duncan, of Brown, for similar reasons changed his vote.
So the bill passed.
On motion by Mr. BAILEY the bill [S. 336] to pay for Brevier Reports heretofore authorized, ordered, accepted and bound by the State, was taken up and passed by yea 27, nays 14.
On motion by Mr. MARSHALL his Envelope Ballot bill [S. 173] was read the third time and passed by yeas 26, nays 14.
The Senate concurrent resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution so that the Supreme Court shall consist of seven Judges was rejected by yeas 18, nays 18.
Mr. BENZ: I am opposed to amending the Constitution, besides I think five Judges are enough. I vote "no."
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph, said there were provisions of the bill that he would like to support, but as the bill now stood it had contradictions and ambiguities and impractical features that would make it the cause of litigation and inoperative in its object of ditching. He thought that as the Drainage Commissioners are entirely under control of the Judge of the Court he ought to appoint and not the Board of County Commissioners. Section 1 provides removal by the Board of Commissioners, while Section 7 permits the Court to remove. The two Commissioners first appointed shall give bond and may be objected to for cause, but no provision is made for the third Commissioner to give bond or to be objected to, yet this Commissioner may have charge of the work and handle money. No provisions are made that assessment shall be ratably on the assessment as were the provisions of the old law. The provision requiring the contracts to be in divisions of not more than 100 feet is impractical and burdensome. Ditching must begin from the lower end. If a contractor must be impeded every 100 feet by some one who is slow, it would be very great detriment, it ought to require representation of at least one half the land to set aside a ditch by remonstrance. When an engineer other than the surveyor is appointed he should be required to turn his notes over to the surveyor for preservation. In keeping ditches open ten days is not long enough to give the surveyor, especially as he might have other work to do and could not get to the ditch, and the bill made him finable besides, to pay the attorney fees of the plaintiff; and showing cause for neglect did not constitute a defense. He called attention to the ambiguity as to who should make assessments for clearing a ditch, and as to who should determine whether obstruction was the fault of the owner, and that the forms for application were left out of this bill which would compel the employment of an attorney.
Mr. MOON spoke in favor of the passage of the bill.
Mr. MAGEE: This is in the nature of a domestic bill. It authorizes taking private property for public uses. Such a law must be arbitrary, and made so it can be enforced against any one individual who may object. There are some provisions in this bill I feel I must condemn by my vote. It is the duty of the Legislature to adopt laws that will develop the resources of the State. The great objection to this bill is that it will require an adjudication of every question that will come up under it. It is bad policy to change laws that the Supreme Court has adjudicated upon. Every question that could grow out of the present ditch law has been settled, and the friends of the bill have not known where it is superior in all respects to the present law. It would incur a great expenses to the people to litigate these new questions. If the present law is disturbed except to amend it where experience has shown it needs amendment, the whole system will be upset. These drainage laws have done more than any other to add to the wealth and prosperity of the State. The people have become familiar with them, and if another law is enacted the many questions will have to be readjudicated.
Mr. HILLIGASS: I am heartily in favor of this bill Its object is to provide a better and an equitable system of drainage. But one objection has been made to this bill, except a general one. The interest of the people in the northern part of the State require the passage of this measure, as the present law has proved to be unsatisfactory.
Mr. YOUCHE: I signed the committee report with the statement if a bill must pass I would rather see this one, as amended, than the one that came from the House, but I should oppose this. The most serious objection is that a two thirds remonstrance would defeat a ditch, though their aggregate amount of assessment may be only $50, and while the aggregate amount on the other side may be $5,000. There seems to be as dangerous notice required as possible. If by accident all lands are not included in the petition, the petitioners must again pay for serving notice. There are other objections to this bill.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph, moved that the bill be recommitted with instructions to report the present law, with the provisions in this bill for appointment by Commissioners, for service of notice, and four others.
Mr. HILLIGASS: I hope this motion will not prevail. I demand the previous question.
The Senate seconded the demand, and under its operations the motion to recommit was rejected by yeas 13, nays 29
The bill passed by yeas 32 nays 11.
Mr CAMPBELL, of St Joseph: I believe the drainage of this State would be in a better condition if the present law were repealed than were this bill to pass
Mr DRAKE: I concede there are two or three objections to the present law, but this bill is so unjust and so unfair I vote "no."
Mr MACY: I am satisfied that this bill would encourage litigation, and therefore I vote "no."
So the bill passed.
The SPEAKER: The unfinished business is the consideration of the amendment by the gentleman from Tippecanoe (Mr. Smith) that there be added to the appropriation bill $14,750 for new buildings for Purdue University
Mr. WILLIAMS: I move to amend by
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: I accept the amendment.
Mr. DEEM: I offer as a substitute for the amendment that the sum be $12,500 instead Of $14,500.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: I have been consistent on this floor in standing by all the State institutions. Long before the gentleman from Putnam (Mr. Gordon) had completed his college education Tippecanoe County had given more to Asbury University than any other county I represent a noble people, who are no beggars. They had a proposition and submitted it to the State, and it was accepted It has been said here by the gentleman from Putnam (Mr Gordon) that he would be willing to vote the whole property to Tippecanoe County. That can not be done, for the State is pledged in its compact to the United States to support Purdue as an educational institution.
Mr. HAYDEN: I think too much time has already been taken up on this - nearly four days. If there is a man in Indiana who can make a success of Purdae, Professor Smart is that man. Connected with him is a competent set of men. A vast amount of money has already been spent there and the ability of the faculty should be continued Professor Smart said to me that the new buildings were needed. As it is, the students are compelled to work in the cellars.
The previous question was moved by Mr. HAYDEN, and being seconded by the House, under its operations the substitute for the amendment was adopted by yeas 68, naos 22.
Mr. CORY, explaining his vote, said: I was in favor of giving Purdue $14750; but as those nearest the institutions seem willing to take $12 000, I vote "aye."
Mr. GARRISON: Of all the State institutions Purdue University is foremost. I vote "aye" on this proposition.
Mr. HAYDEN: The friends of the University are willing to take $12 000, so I vote "aye"
Mr. HOBAN: The money seems to be needed, and it would not injure the State's Treasury to give this sum. I vote "aye."
Mr. SMITH: The substitute was thrust upon me without my foreknowledge But we will accept the sum and Tippecanoe County will meet it. I vote "aye"
Mr. ADAMS: I wish to change my vote, and doing so will explain As some seem to be afraid that Purdue is likely to get a little money, and are fighting every inch to prevent it, I vote "aye."
The SPEAKER: After that remark I shall explain my vote, and I shall vote "no" on the proposition. If those buildings are needed the State should pay all of it. I am not an enemy to Purdue University. I do not believe in this thing of the State making an appropriation to extort money from any locality. It should pay the whole sum or none.
So the substitute was adopted.
Mr. WILLIAMS moved to amend the substitute that the money should, if secured at all, be taken in 100 days
On motion by Mr. FLOYD the amendment was laid on the table by ayes 18, nays 23.
Mr. ADAMS, explaining his vote, said: This is a scheme to defeat the appropriation. An idea prevails that Tippecanoe County can not raise their part of the money in 100 days.
Mr. REEVES: This amendment is unfair and I vote "aye"
Mr SMITH, of Tippecanoe: If Purdue should not get a cent I will oppose this. I vote "aye."
Mr. LOYD: That I may be recorded as not favoring a single dollar or a single cent to Purdue I vote "no."
So the amendment was laid on the table.
On motion by Mr SMITH, of Tippecanoe, I move the adoption of the amended substitute.
The motion was agreed to by yeas 68, nays 24
Mr. GOODING, explaining his vote, said: Because of the compact between the State and the United States to support this institution; because it is a college for farmers and mechanics I vote "aye."
Mr. GORDON: Because there is no compact between the State and the United States regarding this; because it is not an agricultural college, I still have the courage to vote "no"
Mr. HARRELL: Because the reports of the institution show that the management is violating the compact in not sustaining it as an agricultural college; because this money is wanted to extend an institution not an agricultural college, I vote "no"
Mr. MURPHY: Because I do not believe it is the province of legislation to go beyond the common schools, and because I believe this unjust to a majority of the taxpayers, I vote "no."
Mr. McBROOME: Because our people do not want this money appropriated, and because, though Warren County is within ten miles of Tippecanoe County, yet our children go to other colleges, I vote "no."
Mr. McGOVNEY: Because the people are already overburdened with taxation, and because this is not just, I vote "no."
Mr. McHENRY: I see a chance to give Purdue at least a scant allowance. The educators are looking, not up to us, but down upon us. I vote "aye."
Mr. McMICHAEL: This is not a question of sentiment but of the taxpayer. It is an outrage on the people of Tippecanoe County and of the S ate at large. I vote "no."
Mr TOWNBEND: Because I believe that the strength of a people depends upon its education,
and because I believe that the more money we spend for educational insti-
Mr. WILLIAMS: There are many reasons why I vote as I do. One reason is that the advocates of Purdue have defeated the amendment prohibiting the use of this appropriation for the payment of salaries to professors. I believe a part of this appropriation will be used for that purpose. They first told as that $31,500 was the least amount they would accept for building purposes, yet it is developed that they will take anything they can get. They want it for salaries, therefore I vote "no"
So the substitute was adopted.
Mr. GORDON offered an amendment that the salaries of the President be $2,500 and that of the Professors $1,500 per year.
On motion by Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe, the motion was laid on the table by yeas 54, nays 29
Mr. HAYDEN, explaining his vote, said: Because the trustees should regulate the salary, and not the State, I vote "aye."
Mr. ROBINSON: Though the salary of $2500 is reasonable enough yet the trustees should regulate the salary. So I vote "aye"
Mr. STALEY: Because the trustees should by all means regulate the salary, I vote "aye."
So the amendment was laid on the table.
On motion by Mr. McMULLEN the bill was ordered engrossed.
Mr. SCHMIDT, from the
Mr. REEVES moved to lay the report of the committee on the table.
The motion was rejected - yeas, 43; nays, 43
Mr. BEST, explaining his vote, said: It has been claimed that it is unconstitutional to prohibit the manufacture and sale of liquors; I vote "no."
Mr. GOODING: For the protection of those who are imposed upon at hotels by this I vote "aye."
Mr. KELLISON: For the reason that not one in a thousand would use oleomargarine, if they knew it, I vote "aye."
Mr. LOYD: Because I "think that the bill can be so amended that it can be passed, I vote "aye."
Mr. MOCK: I do not believe in destroying one industry to build up another. But as I think that oleomargarine not healthful, I vote "aye."
Mr MAUK: Because oleomargarine is as healthy as butter and as healthy as beef, I vote "no."
Mr MURPHY: Because bad butter is worse than oleomargarine, and because the latter is healthful, I vote "no."
Mr. McGOVNEY: Oleomargarine is next to and as pure as your beefsteaks. You can not tell it when properly made. I vote "no."
Mr. McMICHAEL: In the northern part of the State is an important manufactory, which makes the best quality of oleomargarine. I do not believe in destroying that industry. I vote "no"
Mr. PATTEN: It is made of putrid stuff, mostly, and is unhealthful. I vote "aye."
Mr. REEVES: Because there is a general demand for it, I vote "aye."
Mr. SEARS: Because we have a statute which says that no man shall sell it unless it is properly labeled and because I believe in letting a man buy it if he chooses to, I vote "no"
Mr. DEEM: For the reason that a large number of my constituents have petitioned for the passage of this bill, and for the further reason that it is favorable to the farmers, dairymen and the sanitary interests of all the people, and for the further reason that oleomargarine is often manufactured from rotten tallow, rancid mutton suet and dead cholera hogs, impurities which no chemical analysis can determine, I most emphatically vote "aye."
The SPEAKER: I do not much like the bill as it is, but in response to the petition of my constituents I vote "aye"
So the motion was rejected.
On motion by Mr. HILLIGASS, the bill, H. R. 518, was read the first time.
He explained: The bill prohibits assessments by railroad companies of employes, without their written consent, for the purpose of supporting reading-rooms, hospitals, etc. Oat of the three States of Indiana, Ohio and Illinois, one railroad company withholds about $30,000 a year to found a hospital in Missouri. I move to suspend the constitutional role that the bill may be read the second time by title, the third time by sections and put upon its passage.
Mr. WILLARD: I move to strike out the emergency clause. I don't think any penal statute ought to be passed with an emergency clause.
Mr. HILLIGASS: It is probable these statutes will not be published till along in August or July. I can't see anything wrong in this emergency clause It would save to hundreds of men in Indiana hundreds of dollars. Employes jeopardize their employment by resisting this wrongful demand.
Mr. SMITH of Jay: I want to vote for this bill, and
Mr. HILLIGASS: That rule may be a good one where the penal part of the law will effect all the inhabitants of the State, but as far as we know it will effect now but one corporation in the State, though it applies to all.
The motion to strike out was agreed to upon a division - affirmative, 19; negative, 15.
Mr. WINTER: The bill in its present shape I don't think ought to pass at all. It may be that railroad corporations have a contract with their employes that they shall make a certain contribution for the building of a hospital, and I don't think we can afford to pass a law proposing to disturb such a contract. I move to amend so that the bill shall not affect such contracts. Then this bill requires a written agreement "in each and every instance." I move to strike out these words.
Mr. HILLIGASS: The amendment would destroy the object of the bill. It would enable the railroad corporation to continue the levy to maintain this hospital in Missouri. The railroads would declare they had an implied contract.
Mr. WILLARD: The amendment will permit the railroad to go on with the assessment. If this bill is for the purpose of protecting the employe it should remain as it is. I trust this bill will be amended no farther.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St Joseph: It is impracticable to require a written content on every pay day. If consent has once been had that is enough. The other part of the amendment ought not to be tacked on to the bill. I move to strike from the amendment the proviso, leaving only the words "in each and every instance."
Mr HILLIGASS: It is as easy to embody the agreement in the monthly receipt as it is to embody the amount receipted for. The entirement is objectionable.
Mr. McINTOSH: There seems to be a fear that the employes will get some advantage of a great corporation. I am opposed to all amendments.
Mr. THOMPSON: There is a meanness about the withholding of wages in this way that is repulsive to us, and I will take pleasure in voting against the amendment.
The amendments were severally rejected.
The bill was read the third time and passed by yeas 36, nays 4.
On motion by Mr. ERNEST the bill [H. R. 402] defining the tenth (Monroe, Lawrence and Orange Counties), twelfth (Knox) and forty-ninth (Daviess and Martin) coming up on the third reading -
Mr. McINTOSH: This bill creates a new circuit. I have voted against every new circuit, but I have a petition in favor of this bill which I desire to have read. [The clerk reads.] There are about a dozen names signed to it. I know them and believe what they say, I shall have to vote for this bill and I hope it will pass.
The bill passed by yeas 32, nays 13.
Mr. JOHNSON, of Dearborn, explaining: I have decided convictions against creating new Judicial Districts, and believing the State can be redistricted so that the present number of Judges can easily do the work, I vote "no."
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings: I have been unsuccessful in opposing the creation of new circuits, and this, coming from my own neighborhood. I will now vote "aye."
Mr. WINTER: I have voted for all these bills for the reason this Legislature has no means of finding out the necessity, except the statement of members interested, and upon their statement I vote "aye."
Mr. FAULKNER: I have voted against every one of these new propositions, until I have almost come to the conclusion we had better make a circuit of every county. I understand in a term of five weeks in one if these districts they have never reached a dril case. So I vote "aye."
So the bill passed.
On motion by Mr. JOHNSTON, of Dearborn, the bill [H. R. 267] to suppress horse stealing was read the second time. He explained: It makes horse stealing grand larceny, it creases the penalty to imprisonment from five to ten years for the first offense, and from ten to twenty years for the second offense:
Mr. WILLARD: I am afraid the effect of the bill would be to repeal all former statutes. I
am in favor of the principle of the bill, but it contains a new definition of grand
larceny. I would not care if the third offense were punishable by capital punishment. I
move that the bill be referred to the
The motion was agreed to.
On motion by Mr. DUNCAN, of Tipton, the bill [R. R. 39] was read the third time. As explained, the bill simply provides for the education of pauper children. It is especially intended to apply to the county of Hamilton, which has an Orphans' Home, located at Westfield.
The bill passed by yeas 38, nays 0.
Mr. Weir's Five-judge Appellate Court bill [S. 373] was read the third time.
Mr. DAVIS moved to refer the bill to a select committee of three, with instructions to reduce the salary of the Judges from $4,000 to $3 500. He said: One of the objections urged to this bill has been its expense, and this amendment proposes the same salary paid to Superior and Criminal Judges. It is conceded this Appellate is an inferior Court, and the salary proposed is in accord with the grade. These Judges are not required to live in Indianapolis.
Mr. WEIR: I hope this motion will not prevail. The Judge must come here to discharge his official duties, though required to reside in the district from which he is elected. The side show (Commissioners) to the Supreme Court receive $4,000 each.
Mr. OVERSTREET: There ought to be some difference in the salaries of the Supreme and Appellate Court Judges.
Mr. WINTER: These Judges will be put to considerable expense, in that they can not remove their families to this city. A lawyer in full practice, fit to occupy a position of this kind, can not afford to give up his practice for a four-year term at $3.500. Then there is a statute prohibiting any Judge from practicing law in this State. The proposition to reduce the salary should not prevail, but a a provision should be made that the salary shall be paid quarterly. I move to amend by striking out all but the words "payable quarterly."
This amendment to the amendment was rejected by yeas 20, nays 25.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks: If I thought it would increase the popularity of the bill, I would vote to reduce the salary, thinking we might get competent men to serve for two years at $3,500, but as it is I will vote "aye."
Mr. JOHNSON, of Tippecanoe: I feel that first class legal talent can be secured for $3,500. I know competent gentlemen are working hard for less, and on that account I vote "no."
Mr. SMITH, of Jay: I don't think the State of Indiana ought to require any competent lawyer to leave his practice for less than $4 000.
The amendment (Mr. Davis') was agreed to by yeas 38, nays 7, and the Lieutenant Governor appointed Mr. Weir said committee.
Mr. HILLIGA88 offered a concurrent resolution that this General Assembly adjourn sine die on Monday, April 6.
Pending which came recess for dinner.
Mr. WEIR, the special committee thereon, returned his Appellate Court bill [S 373] amended as directed by the Senate.
Mr. JOHNSON, of Tippecanoe, moved to recommit the bill with instructions to so amend as that the Judges shall be elected by the State at large instead of from districts.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks: If the bill is so amended it will certainly lose one vote. It is desirable that this Court should be non-partisan. It was the unanimous expression of the Committee and also the Supreme Court Judges. A non-partisan court would be more desirable to the bar of the State and the people at large If the Judges are elected by the whole State of course the Judges would all be of one party. The Judiciary should be kept free from political influences
Mr. JOHNSON withdrew his amendment.
The bill passed by yeas 32, nays 12
Mr. BROWN, explaining: In deference to the wishes of the bar in my district, I vote "aye."
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings: In deference to Senators who desired to have the Three Court and Nine Judge bill, as a last resort, I vote "aye."
So the bill passed.
Mr. SELLERS made an ineffectual motion - yeas, 16; nays, 27 - to lay the resolution on table, pending at the noon recess
Mr. ERNEST moved to insert the words: "Provided the General Appropriation bill becomes a law previous to that date."
After remarks by Messrs. Foulke, Smith, of Jennings, Marshall and Willard, the amendment was agreed to, and the resolution was adopted as amended by yeas 36 nays 8.
On motion of Mr. Foulke [Mr. Magee also desiring the floor], the bill [H. R. 479, just reported from the House] was taken up, and the clerk commenced to read it the first time.
Mr. MAGEE moved that the further reading be dispensed with, 100 copies be printed, and the bill made the special order for 10 o'clock to morrow.
On motion by Mr. WILLARD, it was referred to the
The motion to print was agreed to.
On motion by Mr. BROWN a revote was ordered on his bill, S. 145.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph: I believe it is a dangerous, unnecessary and uncalled for provision that the ballot box shall be opened at 6 o'clock in the morning. Unless the polls are at the door of these manufacturing establishments no large number would vote before 7, and it is usual now to give time to vote during usual hours.
Mr. HILLIGA8S insisted that this bill wain the interest of ail classes of laboring men who commence work at 7 in the morning.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks, favored the passage of the bill.
Mr. OVERSTREET opposed its passage.
Mr RAHM: I am heartily in favor of this bill. In my town we have twenty-one voting precincts, and they could vote under this bill on their way to work. As it is now they are frequently driven to the polls in wagons, and vote in the way of their bread and butter.
The bill passed by yeas 31, nays 8.
Mr. ADKISON: We have in my county about 1,000 men laboring in shops and factories, and under this present law I never knew of one denied the privilege. I vote "no."
Mr. BENZ: It don't make much difference to us how long the polls are open. I vote "aye."
Mr. DAVIS: If there is one thing desirable it is uniformity of proceedings This law would work confusion It is not to be presumed that in all precincts applications would be made to open at so early an hour as 6. The Sheriff is required to give notice, and it would cause confusion in the advertising. I see no necessity for such a law as this. I vote "no."
Mr. Bailey's bill [S. 314] was read the third time. He explained: It simply is intended to prohibit the importation of foreign pauper labor. Of course it has no reference to immigration of those who come to remain as bona fide citizens.
Mr. OVERSTREET: No man would have the right under this bill to employ any one who is not or does not intend to become a resident.
Mr. FOULKE moved to recommit to a committee of one, with instructions to strike out the words "or other person."
Mr. WINTER: This bill does not treat the case its friends want.
Mr MAGEE: I agree in the spirit of this bill, but it is loosely drawn.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks: I do not think this bill would do a particle of good.
Mr. WEIR: I am unable to discover any merit in this bill. It is a most unheard proposition that a man shall not go across a State line and hire another to do a job of work in this State without incurring a penalty.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings: All the labor troubles in this country have grown out of the importation of labor under a contract system. The principle of the bill is right, though it is not so framed as to meet the desires of its friends. I move to amend by referring the bill to a committee of three to amend and report at 3 o'clock to-morrow.
The motion was agreed to. The motion as amended was agreed to.
The presiding officer (Mr. Smith,of Jay, in the chair) appointed as said committed
The bill [S. 177] to pay David R Munson for work done by him in putting lightning rods on the Asylum for the Insane.
Mr. PENDLETON: This bill as amended makes a loss to Mr Munson of $1,300 but he is willing to accept it and stop further trouble.
Mr. REEVES: A fashion here is if you have a claim make it very large - or, for that matter, no claim at all - and then wait for it to be cut down, generally above what it should be. That is about the condition of this claim. In order to incur a debt there must be a contract for the work and an acceptance of the work when it is done. I submit that the evidence shows that there is no contract, nor never has been concerning the putting up of these rods. That Provisional Board, as a board, never contracted for this work. One member of the board permitted a rod to be put on the smoke-stack. That is the extent of it. This is the only testimony in its favor. Other testimony shows there was no contract, no order made by the board. The board even ordered some taken down - there was too much up.
Mr. LOYD: This subject has been thoroughly and fairly discussed. It passed the Senate as $5,100, came here and was cut down to $2 500, recommitted to a committee with instructions to cut down.
Mr. PENDLETON: Great stress is put upon Dr. Jameson's testimony. The gentleman who has so much quoted from Dr. Jameson did not read the part where he says that Mr. Munson should be paid - that he has already been bid out of his money long enough. The bill has been cut down until there is no question about it.
The bill failed to pass for want of a constitutional majority by yeas 46, nays 33.
Mr. BEST, explaining his vote, said: This bill is tainted with the same old taint. These men were like the lightning rod men usually are. They were not satisfied to go and get this contract of the proper authorities, but like the style of lightning rod men, even went ahead and did more work than was necessary. Because of the Court of Claims, just established, where this case may go, I vote "no."
Mr. BOYD: I can come to no other con I elusion, after reading the testimony, than that it was a swindle perpetrated on the people of Indiana, and I vote "no"
Mr. GOODING: For the reason that I believe the claim just beyond a reasonable doubt; for the reason that the Court of Claims may not be constitutional; for the reason that if I were a juror sitting in this room I would allow it, therefore I vote "aye."
Mr. GORDON: If this case were in law it would not be allowed. There is absolutely nothing in law to support the claim. I vote "no."
Mr. MOCK: While the State may not be bound by contract, yet it is given out that there was a consent to the erection of these rods. I vote "aye."
So the bill failed to pass.
The House proceeded to consider the Senate amendment to the bill [H. R. 222] to abolish the office of Ditch Commissioner and create the office of Drainage Commissioner.
Mr. BOYD: I move that the House concur in the Senate amendments.
Mr GOODING: I hope that the House will not vote for these amendments until we make a close examination of them. In the first place this bill denies the right of a trial by jury. I think we would do well to put the amendment down for a special order on to-morrow afternoon. I can not vote for the bill as it is. We sent to the Senate the bill in good shape, but these amendments have taken the virtue from it.
The motion to concur in the amendments was agreed to.
The bill [M R 518] to prohibit forced contributions from employes by corporations was returned from the Senate with an amendment striking out the emergency clause.
The Senate amendment was concurred in.
The bill [S. 373] creating five Judges of an Appellate Court was read the first time.
Mr. BROWNLEE: I move that 300 copies of the bill be printed.
The motion was agreed to.
On motion by Mr. GOODING, the bill was referred to the
Mr. PATTEN making an ineffectual motion to amend by referring it to the
The SPEAKER: The rules say that the General Appropriation bill shall take precedence of all others unless otherwise ordered by the House. So the bill [H. R. 479] making general appropriations for the State will be read the third time
The bill passed by yeas 77, nays 6.
Mr. WILLIAMS, explaining his vote, said: If my vote was necessary to the passage of this bill I would vote for it, but before my name was reached on the call the bill had more than a constitutional majority; therefore, I can without defeating the bill emphasize my protest against the extravagant and unnecessary appropriations contained in some of the items of this bill by voting "no."
Mr. PENDLETON called up the bill [S 177] to allow a claim at David R. Munson, which failed to pass this morning for want of constitutional majority.
The bill failed to pass again for want of a constitutional majority - yeas, 35; nays, 34.
Mr. ADAMS (explaining): Having been on the committee to investigate this claim, and having read the testimony, I can not help but support it and vote "aye."
Mr. BOYD: I was not on the committee, but I read the testimony and must vote "no."
Mr. DEEM: Believing that to support this claim would be offering a premium for the introduction of unjust claims against the State by pretended contractors, and believing the claim, if founded upon a contract, is exorbitant beyond reason and because I believe the demand is unjust and should not be allowed, I vote "no."
Mr ENGLE: For the reason that this is not the place to settle claims, and that most of us are voting in the dark, I vote "no."
Mr. LOOP: Having confidence in the committee which examined this, and believing that this is the shortest way out, I vote "aye."
Mr. MAUK: Because I have confidence in the committee, because I do not believe that any man would be fool enough to make the expenditures thus without some order, and because I because we owe something, I vote "aye."
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: This matter was up two years ago, and I have never yet said a word about if. My prejudice against lightning rod men is intense, but it is the higher duty of manhood to pay any and all just claims of the State. Any higher court would allow this. The State has had the benefit and use of it, and my sense of right and justice says I should vote "aye."
So the bill again failed to pass.
The bill [S. 12] to allow farmers to construct crossings over railway right of ways was read the third time.
Mr. HOPKINS: There are many instances where railways refuse to let farmers construct crossings over their right of way.
Mr. TAYLOR: This is similar to the bill I introduced, save that mine made the railway and not the farmer build the crossings.
Mr. ENGLE thought that this bill should be passed as it had passed the Senate, as the one by Mr Taylor would likely not reach the third reading.
The bill passed by yeas 54, nays 26.
Mr. SEARS: I move to reconsider the resolution which says that the House shall take up the House bills in their order on the calendar. The Senate has all day debated the resolution to adjourn on Monday. They have not found a House bill for two weeks, and will not likely for another.
Mr. WILLIIAMS said that this resolution contemplated correcting this evil.
Mr ENGLE thought that the breach which new existed between these two branches should not be widened by this movement.
Mr. MOODY said that the Senate was willing to adopt a resolution similar to the one the House adopted, and that he had copied the House resolution for a Senator to offer in that body.
Mr KELLISON said that no such action should be taken toward a co-ordinate branch of the Assembly. It were better to work together He moved to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.
Mr. SEARS: I will withdraw my motion.
The SPEAKER: The resolution gives me the right to name the first half of each day for Senate bills on the third reading. There are twenty-seven of them yet on the calender. I shall designate the whole of to-morrow for the consideration of House bills.
The House adjourned.
Mr. BROWN moved to reconsider the vote by which the Senate adopted a concurrent resolution to adjourn next Monday.
Mr. HILLIGASS moved, ineffectually, to lay this motion on the table.
The motion to reconsider was agreed to by yeas 26, nays 18
Mr JOHNSON, of Tippecanoe county, introduced resolutions expressing the desire of the General Assembly that General M. D. Manson shall be properly recognized by the administration. The resolutions, which are as follows, were unanimously adopted:
Whereas, The Government of the United States has many offices of honor and trust in its gift by which to reward distinguished services of individual citizens; be it
Resolved, by the Senate of the State of Indiana, the House of Representatives concurring, that His Excellency, President Cleveland, is hereby respectfully petitioned to confer upon the distinguished Lieutenant Governor, Mahlon D. Manson, an appointment worthy of his high character as a veteran soldier and public man.
Resolved, That General Mahlon D. Manson, in the various portions that he has held as soldier and General in the field, as a legislator and State official, and as the President of the Senate, has given abundant evidence of his many sterling qualities of mind and character and he is eminently worthy of an honorable recognition by the General Government.
Resolved, That a certified copy of these resolutions, the free and voluntary expression of the unanimous sentiments of this General Assembly, be forwarded to his Excellency, the President of the United States, and that they be spread on the journals of the House of this Legislature.
Mr. SELLERS moved to suspend the order of business and take up the gravel road bill [H. R. 117]. He said: In my county there are many gravel roads that ought to be constructed which can not be without the passage of th s bill. It is one of the most important bills that has come to the Senate.
Mr. ADKIS0N: I hope the motion will prevail, as it is calculated to assist counties who have already exceeded the limit of bonds in the construction of gravel roads.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay: This bill will allow counties to go beyond the constitutional limit to construct gravel roads. A bill of that kind should not be passed under a suspension of the rules.
Mr. HILLIGASS: This bill does not repeal, modify or change any law upon the statute book. It does not seek to create a county indebtedness, but it grants privileges to those who construct a turnpike to issue bonds - it is their debt and not the debt of the county It is a cumulative statute.
The motion was agreed to by yeas 30, nays 11.
On the further motion of Mr. Sellers the constitutional rule was suspended by yeas 37, nays 8 and the bill was read the second time by title and the third time by sections.
Mr. SMITH of Jay, opposed the passage of the bill pointing out objections Under this bill
any man with a forty acre tract that may be assessed would have hanging over his land, as a
first lien, a certificate due in six, twelve, eighteen, twenty-four and thirty six months,
and if payment fails when the first is due the whole becomes due and payable. The limit of
1 ½ per cent. placed as the limit of county indebtedess in the Constitution does not
satisfy these gentlemen,
Mr. HILLIGASS: This bill is in accordance with statutes that authorize a majority to project a public improvement. It provides that if an error is committed no man not interested shall take advantage of that error. The interests of all parties are protected. Objection has been made to the provision authorizing donations but that is copied from the present law The bill is based upon the principle that the people within two miles on each side shall have the right to tax themselves to build a good road, making it an indebtedness on their lands.
Mr. SELLERS: This bill prohibits the issue of county bonds for these improvements, but, instead, certificates are issued similar to a provision in the ditch laws, which save many items of expense incident to the issuing of county bonds. In one county the expense of the Auditor, Treasurer and another amounted to $3 000 That is the difference between the old law and this - the contractor is to collect from those assessed at his own expense.
The bill passed by yeas 33 nays 8.
Mr SHIVELY explained: I was opposed to this bill at first, but after hearing a discussion of its provisions, I will vote "aye."
Mr. WILLARD, from the
Mr. BROWN [in Committee of the Whole Senate] moved to reduce the Governor's civil contingent fund from $2 000 to $1,000 and the military fund $500 - in accord with the recommendation of the Auditor of State
Mr FOULKE: The sum as proposed in the bill is less than a Republican Governor was allowed two years, and for one Mr. F. was willing to trust these expenditures to a Democratic Governor
The amendment was rejected.
The committee amendment increasing the amount allowed the Secretary of State for the distribution of public documents from $250 to $600 was agreed to.
The
The amendment was agreed to upon a division - affirmative, 25; negative, not counted
Mr. DAVIS moved to reduce the salary of the clerk of the insurance department from $1,200 to $1,000. The bill of 1881 made this salary $1,000, as also does another; and still another bill $800.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. DAVIS also made the same motion for the same reasons as applying to the land department clerk.
Mr. HILLIGASS: No man of family will have one cent over and above his living at such a salary, and they both should be left as they came from the House.
Mr. FAULKNER: I hope this amendment will prevail. In the first place the Auditor gets every dollar of that insurance money, yet he charges the State $600 for postage. It is a perfect nuisance from beginning to end
This amendment was also agreed to upon division - affirmative, 21; negative, 17.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay, moved to increase the salary of the Deputy Attorney General from $600
to $1 000 There is no competent person in the State can
Mr. McINTOSH: The statute fixes the salary of the Attorney General's clerk at $600.
Mr. FAULKNER: The Attorney General's office is better than the President's office. The salary put on here is only a sham. He goes over the country and takes out his 16 per cent. for collecting There was one case in Batholomew County where he took $750, and did no work for it.
Mr. WILLARD: The reason the committee left this as it is in the bill that came from the House is that the statute fixes this salary for the Attorney General's clerk at $600.
The amendment was rejected
Mr. BROWN moved ineffectually to strike out the $200 for office expenses of the State Librarian.
Mr. DAVIS moved to add as additional to Item 9 "for messenger of the Supreme Court, $360." That is what was allowed in 1881.
The amendment was agreed to upon a division - affirmative, 22; negative not counted
Mr. SMITH, of Jay, made an ineffectual motion to reconsider the action of the committee allowing a salary of $1 200 to the Adjutant General.
Mr. WILLARD: There are additional appropriations on pages 17, 18 and 19 amounting to $80
000 as to the necessity of which the
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks and Mr. McCLURE: These matters have never been referred to the
Mr ADKISON: Inasmuch as these two committees have confessed they have no knowledge of
these expenses I think these items should be referred back to the
Mr. YOUCHE: This bill raises the items
Mr. OVERSTREET: It this is referred to the
Mr. WILLARD moved as a substitute that the specific appropriations on pages 16, 17 18 and 19 be stricken out, as this bill will have to go to a conference committee anyhow.
Mr. BROWN: Here is a proposition to appropriate over $60,000 that no light can be thrown upon.
Mr. McCLURE: Upon whom does this responsibility rest? Is it not upon the
The substitute motion to strike out was agreed to.
On motion by Mr. HILLIGAS8 a proviso was added to item eleven.
Mr. DUNCAN, of Brown, moved to amend item twelve by inserting for the State University at Bloomington an additional sum of $30,000 for repairs of building, museum and library destroyed by fire. At the regular session there was a bill passed appropriating $3O OOO. The fire of 1883 entailed a loss of $135 000. There was about $100 000 to be applied by the State to make good the loss by fire.
Monroe County has generously donated $50,000. There is nothing in the $30,000 to supply the loss of the library. Buildings have been constructed, new grounds have been purchased, and the property is now securely in the State of Indiana. It ought not to be necessary for Trustees to come here and urge the appropriation they recommended in their report. It ought to be granted without questioning the motives of these institutions. This $20 000, in addition to the $30,000 already appropriated, will place this institution on a proper footing.
Mr. WILLARD: At the time the $30,000 was appropriated one of the Trustees claimed that
was enough; yet now they come here desiring $20 000 at one lump. At the close of the next
fiscal year there will be shown a State deficiency of $320,000. There is one way to help
reduce this, and that is to raise the amount to 6 per cent for County Treasurers'
delinquent collections Will you pile up these appropriations with the knowledge that there
will be a deficiency at the close of the fiscal year of over half a million dollars? With
this in view, the
Mr. FOWLER: The amendment ought to be adopted. The institution ought to be generously supported. This is what the Trustees thought they ought to have. They asked $50 000, and they ought to have it.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. JOHNSON, of Tippecanoe, moved to increase the appropriation to Purdue from $18,500 to $24,000 in the interest of that class of education of which Purdue University is the best representative in the State of Indiana. He spoke at length in favor of this amendment. When he concluded -
The Senate adjourned.
On motion by Mr. SHANKS the bill H. R. 26, concerning fees and salaries, was read the second time.
Mr. WILLIAMS: This is a substitute bill, and is well known. I move that the bill be ordered engrossed, and on that I demand the previous question.
The House refused to second the demand for the previous question.
On motion of Mr. ENGLE the motion to engross was laid on the table.
Mr SEARS moved that the bill be referred to a special committee of three to report on next Monday morning.
Mr. GOODING: If we are to pass such a bill we should not refer it, as that will be the death of it, as a bill reached on Monday will never see passage. Those who want to pass this bill, not as a perfect bill, but as the best thing that can be done here, should vote against the motion to refer. A great many people of Indiana are expecting a fee and salary bill to be passed. Let us treat them fairly. If this bill is better than the present law let us pass it. Let us have a square and fair vote on it. I do not pretend to know the force and effect of this bill I understand it will reduce fees and salaries of county officers. Let us not refer it to a committee to be defeated in a round about way. Meet it squarely.
The previous question was demanded, and, being seconded by the House, under its operations the motion to refer to a special committee was agreed to by yeas 54, nays 36.
Mr. CARTWRIGHT, explaining: I know that this bill was very carefully prepared. I know
that it will reduce salaries in Indiana to the amount of $100,000. Therefore I
Mr DEEM: I understand that this bill in entirely different from the one that was read, so I vote "aye."
Mr. ENGLE: For the reason that a reference means a defeat, and for the reason that it has already been examined by a committee; for the reason that this is a fair bill and will reduce salaries, and for the further reason that I am in favor of a reduction of salaries, I vote "no."
Mr. HANLON: I have examined the bill carefully, and after eight years' experience
Mr HARRELL: The bill is manifestly unjust and unfair. I vote "aye"
Mr. MOCK: For the reason that a reduction in fees and salaries is demanded; for the reason that I believe that to refer the bill will kill it, I vote "no."
Mr. MOSIER: To refer the bill will be to kill it. This bill needs amending, but if not amended is better than the new law, so I vote "no."
Mr. MURPHY: Being opposed to this bill on general principles, and believing that to have good officers we want to pay good salaries, I vote "aye."
Mr. McMICHAEL: As the present bill will save a great deal of money and work no hardship, and as I am opposed to strangling it in this way, I vote "no."
Mr. PATTEN: The bill does not cut down salaries, but fees, which are paid by everybody. It is a measure for political effect, and I vote "no."
Mr SAYRE: This bill has been for six weeks on the desks of members of this House. We might not expect a Democratic Legislature to take action on this. The fact is that this bill will reduce the salaries from 25 to 33 per cent. With one or two amendments it should pass. I vote "no."
Mr. SEARS: Representing one of the smallest counties in the State. I cannot vote for a measure to impoverish the officers, by reducing their salaries, which are now low enough. I vote "aye."
Mr SHANKS: I see no reason why this bill should be referred. I vote "no."
Mr. COPELAND: I have no desire to conceal the fact that I am opposed to any other bill that makes any reduction in the fees and salaries of county officers. I would much rather kill the bill for the following reasons:
First. In my county the county officers do not receive too much for their services. Second. The people of my county do not desire to reduce the fees and salaries of our county officers for we have as capable and deserving officers as there are in the State, and they are as poorly paid. Third If the people generally understood that in a county the size of Jefferson the Treasurer who gives a bond of $250,000 realizes only about $2,300, and in a county like Switzerland the Recorder realizes only about $600 per year they would not demand that the fees and salaries be reduced. I therefore vote to recommit this bill.
So the motion to refer was agreed to, and the Speaker appointed as such special committee Messrs. Sears, Cartwright and Shanks
The SPEAKER: The Senate has kindly sent to the House a copy of the amendments to the Sunday Base Ball bill (No. 6), which bill was lost. The Clerk will read the amendments
The amendments were concurred in.
The SPEAKER: Let the bill be enrolled.
Mr. HANLON called up his bill. [H. R. 288] relating to assessments on gravel roads, which bill was defeated on March 25 and the vote reconsidered.
Mr. HANLON: This bill legalizes some imperfection in the assessments on gravel roads.
The SPEAKER: I have received some remonstrances against the bill; but I voted for it on its passage before.
The bill passed by yeas 68, nays 20.
Mr. MURPHY'S bill [H R. 268] to license engineers, came up from the special committee appointed to strike out that part of it which relates to a boiler inspector
Mr. DEBS: I am heartily in favor of the bill and hope it will become a law. It will not only better the service but will throw around all the boilers a safeguard. This bill will not cost the State one cent - merely a slight fee from the engines examined.
Mr. ENGLE: Notwithstanding the amendments there are some objectionable features in the bill. The first is that it does not apply to portable engines, and again it makes necessary an examination once per year. If a man pass an examination and then have a year's experience, there is no reason that he should pass another and have to pay a fee of $5 for it.
Mr. HOWELL: The bill will do more harm than good. I doubt its legality. You can not say what kind of a man a farmer shall hire to drive his wagon or run his engine This bill will throw into the pockets of this Board a large amount of money.
Mr. COPELAND: I think this is a good bill, and I am heartily in favor of it. It is asked for by a very large and intelligent association in this State, namely, the Stationary Engineers' Association. For the purpose of protecting men who work in the factories under which are large boilers, and to protect children, this bill should be passed. It will also protect property For the farther reason, as stated by the gentleman from Vigo (Mr. Debs) - than whom I think there is a no more competent man in this Assembly especially as regards the wants of the laboring man - that this will elevate labor, I must give it my support.
Mr. MURPHY: This bill should be passed because it is in the interest of manufactories. It
gives them competent engineers; it elevates labor, and it protects the public - those who
work in large factories where an accident would have dire results This bill divides the
State into districts so that there is no hardship for those who may pass examination. A man
is always under the supervision of this board. The object of
The bill failed to pass for want of a constitutional majority - ayes 47; nays 29.
Mr. BAILEY (explaining): I vote as I do because I think the fees too high. The sum of $5 is too much for examination. I vote "no"
Mr GOODING: I will have to vote on a venture I vote "yes."
Mr. HOBAN: I would like to help my friend Murphy in this bill, but I see that twelve
house powers is not included. Now twelve horse powers are as likely to explode as are
twenty-horse power. It is something of class
Mr. LOOP: If a man is once competent for engineering he most become so after years of experience, and examinations every year are useless. I therefore vote "no."
Mr. REEVES: This bill will affect ten or fifteen engineers in my county - men who have held their places for ten or twelve years; perhaps they may not stand a technical examination. And for the reason that this bill tends to one particular class I vote "no"
Mr. SMITH, of Perry: In the belief that if this bill becomes a law the Examining Board may refuse to license every engineer, and there is no right to appeal. I vote "no."
Mr. TOWNSEND: Before I voted my conviction on this; but as I live in a large manufacturing city, and as some of the engineers there are opposed to some of the provisions of the bill, I vote "no"
Mr. LOYD: It seems that a large number of engineers in the State demand this, and as we can try it and repeal it if a failure, I vote "aye"
So the bill failed as noted above.
Mr KELLISON'S joint resolution [H. R. 2] to amend the State Constitution being read the third time, Mr Kellison said: Five judges of the Supreme Court are wholly unable to transact the business of the State The number must be increased, or we must have an Appellate Court. The object of the amendment is to make the number of judges either six or nine, and to divide them into benches, so that there will be more working boards. We are now paying a commission $20,000 per year to help tine Supreme Judges, and this is regarded by the Governor and State officials as unconstitutional Our Appellate Court will be an elephant of expense on the hands of the State Since I have introduced this I have heard favorably upon it from many of the leading lawyers of the State, and I am told that the opinion has come from the Supreme Judges that it would be a good movement. The plan is to divide the court into two groups, so that we can have business progressing quite as rapidly, and the most common sense way of disposing of appeals is by this plan. We have five judges; by this plan the number may be increased but one member - only $4 000 per year additional - while you may have two benches of three members each and work going on twice as rapidly. On one bench two will constitute a quorum and there will be three benches of three each. On important questions all can sit upon it.
Mr. MOCK: I am in favor of this resolution because it will avoid the necessity of an Appellate Court. Four years ago, as I understand, the Supreme Court was some two years behind with the business. The Supreme Court Commission was created in 1881, consisting of five members whose labor has been equal to that of three Supreme Judges, and in four years, with the assistance of the commissioners, the court is within less than six months of being up with the business. It is believed that seven Supreme Judges can do the business of that court if the Constitution shall be amended as proposed by this resolution, and then we will not have two sets of reports, other Court Houses, libraries, etc, and will not have one court for the man or corporation who has $1,000 involved in litigation or the man who commits a felony and an inferior court for the man who has a less amount involved or who commits a misdemeanor, as would be the case with an Appellate Court. It is conceded that five Supreme Judges can not do the business of the Supreme Court, and that some relief must be given, and I think this resolution will meet the demands.
On motion by Mr. BAILEY the bill [H. R. 56 - see pages 110, 207 271, vol. xxii.] for the relief of eight Trustees in Marion Township, who lost public moneys by failures of Indianapolis banks, was read the third time
Mr. WINTER resisted its passage. This bill goes farther than any other of this character, as it not only proposes to release these Trustees from losses they have not but also from losses they have paid. When he had concluded -
Mr. BROWN demanded the previous question.
The Senate seconded the demand, and under its operations the bill passed by yeas 27, nays 18.
On motion by Mr. WILLARD the Senate resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole [Mr. Magee in the chair] and resumed the consideration of the bill H. R 479, the question being on the motion to increase the appropriation to Purdue University from $18,000 to $24,000.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay: If I were to consult my own personal feelings I should vote for the amendment, but there is now outstanding nearly $1 500,000 of delinquent taxes in this State, and unless a law is proposed to aid in the collection of these taxes not another cent should be appropriated than is absolutely needed. In February there were eighty seven students in this institution from Tippecanoe County alone and only (seventy-seven from other counties in the State. Of the eighty-seven from Tippecanoe County seventy are from the city of Lafayette.
Mr. FOULKE: There have been some thirty-eight students enrolled within a week, and there are now fifty-four counties represented. That institution educates in a short time in the mechanic arts what otherwise would generally take a life-time to acquire. I believe it is doing a great and good work, and we ought not to give an institution of that kind a half-way support.
Mr. McINTOSH: Until 1881 there never was a dollar appropriated for this institution. An institution that has only 160 students and that pays its officers and employes $28,900, is taxing the many for the benefit of the few. It was an understanding when the institution was first founded that it should not be an expense to the State - Senator Dice, from Fountain County, so stated, as the Brevier Reports show.
Mr. MAGEE: The Senator referred to my opposition to this bill two years ago. I then stated at a night session that I was in favor of a liberal appropriation, but pupils had been excluded on account of their connection with a Greek fraternity, and it was intended to starve out offending officers. Indiana is a State of abundant resources with a small debt. It is not a credit to the State to treat her institutions with neglect. The State can not go too far in doing the right thing toward her educational institutions. It is objected that the young men of Tippecanoe County are the only ones educated. If it be so, what of it? Others are permitted to go, and if they do not it is not the fault of the institution.
Mr. WILLARD: While I can not vote for the motion I do not propose to have it stated that
the first appropriation for this institu-
Mr. FAULKNER: I believe I have never spoken in favor of giving these institutions so much money, but as this is the only institution in the State that proposes to do anything for the farmer, though they are doing it in a sly way, and, as these lawyers have given large appropriations to all the others, now I want you to vote in favor of increasing this to $24 000.
Mr. ADKISON: On account of the speech of the Senator from Ripley (Mr. Falkner) I intend to vote for this amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
On motion of Mr CAMPBELL, of Hendricks, the action of the committee yesterday afternoon, striking from the bill certain specific appropriations for the benevolent institutions, was reconsidered.
The committee took a recess till 2 o'clock.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks, in behalf of the
On motion by Mr. BROWN the item for the maintenance of the Blind Asylum was increased from $25 000 to $27,000, and the item for repairs decreased from $4,000 to $2,000.
Mr. CAMPBELL explained the boilers now in use at the Deaf and Dumb Asylum are dangerous, and the heating apparatus worn out.
Mr. WILLARD: The
Mr. CAMPBELL, o St Joseph: The Senate should adopt this suggestion made by the
Mr. SMITH, of Jay: I desire to point out some objections to the allowing or this item Each county is allowed to send two students to Purdue University free, but the State at large is taxed for every expense connected with it, and it is proposed to maintain and build up this institution at the expense of the entire State, which does not seem to be fair.
Mr. FAULKNER: This institution is the only place a farmer or mechanic can go, even if there are but two allowed to go free from each county.
Mr McCULLOUGH: I am opposed to this allowance. Under ordinary circumstances I would not be in favor of such an arrangement as is proposed in the bill, but with the present surroundings it is nothing but fair that Tippecanoe County should bear an equal part of this expense. Monroe County expended $50,000 for the rebuilding of the State University, destroyed by fire, because as a money proposition it was worth more to the county. For the amount of money expended on this university, it is a failure. I am in favor of the State building up educational institutions, and would much prefer to see Indiana have her educational institutions all together. How came it this institution was located in Tippecanoe County? For days and days the people of Tippecanoe County were here begging for the institution. I have the debates here. The State made a great mistake when it gave the name of "Purdue" to that university. We are told we are continually in debt to an institution with a name that is not intended to carry weight with it. Forty-two thousand dollars is already appropriated to be expended next year in that institution, and now this bill proposes to add $12 500 more.
Mr. JOHNSON, of Tippecanoe: Speaking not only as a Senator from Tippecanoe County, but as a citizen, I would be humiliated if the State were to carry out each a proposition as is contained in the provisions in this bill It is unbecoming a sovereign to make such a proposition for the support of a State institution. It was not a mistake that the State named a great educational institution for one of her most generous citizens, who gave a large sum of money to help establish it.
Mr. Willard having the floor -
The committee rose informally to receive a message from the House embracing a concurrent resolution that this General Assembly adjourn sine die on Tuesday, April 13.
On motion by Mr. FOULKE, the resolution was concurred in, and the Secretary was directed to notify the House at once.
Mr. WILLARD resuming (the Senate in-formally resolving itself again into a Committee of the Whole) spoke in favor of the proposed committee amendment.
It was agreed to.
Mr. YOUCHE moved to reduce the item for the Normal School from $10,000 to $5,000.
On motion by Mr. JOHNSON, of Tippecanoe, the $10,000 item was allowed to stand.
On motion by Mr WILLARD, the vote of yesterday on the item of $360 for a messenger for
the Supreme Court was reconsidered. He read a letter from the judges
Mr. DAVIS put the amount at what had heretofore been appropriated, and would heartily concur in this amendment.
On motion by Mr. WILLARD $600 was substituted for $360
On motion by Mr. HILLIGASS, the vote of yesterday reducing the salary of the insurance and land department clerks in the Auditor's office from $1,200 to $1,000 was reconsidered. The salary is fixed in the statute at $1,200 The receipts in the insurance department are over $137,000 per annum and the salary ought not to be curtailed. The business has increased over $20,000 in two years.
Mr. FAULKNER: The State Auditor gets 25 percent, of every dollar of this sum he collects, and he can afford to pay these clerks.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph: The acts of 1881, page 75, show the salary of these clerks under the statute is $1,000 each.
Mr. DAVIS: In the Auditor's report of 1884, on page 75, he recommends the salaries be $1,200 but the Legislature of 1881 fixes the salaries of these clerks at $1,000. He opposed a change in the statute.
Mr. Hilligass moved to make the salary $l,200
The motion was rejected on a division.
On motion by Mr. WEIR, the vote of yesterday fixing the salary of the Adjutant General was reconsidered and the salary increased from $1 200 to $1 400.
Mr DAVIS: The statute says the salary of the Adjutant General shall be $1,200
Mr. ADKIS0N made an ineffectual motion to make the salary $1 500.
The
Mr. WILLARD: The
Mr CAMPBELL, of St Joseph, of the
On motion the committee rose, reported progress and asked leave to sit again at 9:30 to-morrow morning.
The report was concurred in by the Senate, and then the Senate adjourned.
The SPEAKER: The unfinished business is the further consideration of the bill [H R 44] regulating the rental of telephones. The question is, shall the bill pass?
Mr. FRENCH: We should not make an unjust discrimination against the telephone. I am not here to champion telephone companies. I do not know a man in the State who I know has telephone stock. All I say is strictly upon the merits of the bill. Many telephone exchanges in small places are wholly long lines, connected with those at a distance. Then why should we say to them that they should charge only fifteen cents for a short conversation, while the Telegraph Company charges twenty-five certs for only ten words? This is unjust. We may safely let this go as it is for two years, for improvement of the telephone will go rapidly on until then. Every one knows the benefits of the telephone, and we can not afford to lame it in this way. We should vote down this bill.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: There are two branches to this - city telephones and country telephones in the small towns. Take Lafayette for a standpoint. About it are a number of small towns, Delphi, Mulberry, Fowler and many others, which are connected by telephone. This bill will destroy the lines to those places. Men do business for money, and as this will render it a loss it will destroy the systems. Men do a large amount of business over them - talk five minutes for twenty five cents. The company can not afford to do this for fifteen cents. As it is it is much cheaper than telegraphing.
Mr. BROWNLEE: The telephone in this State, it is true, is new. It is a wonderful invention and convenient. But we should open no door that we can not close There is no more profitable business than the telephone. Nothing pays so largely as stock in them. Men who operate them do not own them, but pay a royalty to the inventors. But the royalty is regulated by the amount of income from the lines. It is nonsense to say that this bill will cause the lines to cease operations. This is a fair bill, and the price a fair and reasonable price.
Mr GORDON: The only objection waged against the bill is that it will drive the telephones from this country. One that is only a hypothesis My opinion is that this legislation will double or treble the business on the lines. It has been said that the royalty on these instruments is $20 per year Do you not know that such is exorbitant? Money could be made on a royalty of $5 per year. I hope the bill will pass.
Mr. TOWNSEND: I desire to give a little history of this telephone as we had it in Richmond. The telephone company there undertook to raise the price from $3 to $6 per month. The citizens rebelled and two rival companies appeared and offered to give bond to furnish telephone for a smaller rental, and stated that they would have plenty of margin at that. Taking their statements I think the bill is reasonable.
Mr. WILLIAMS: As to the expenses and profits of telephones, at Vincennes the operating
expense for a year was $824 and the receipts for rentals $4,230, I have this from their
books. The Indianapolis News had
The bill passed by yeas 66 nays 9.
Mr. LOOP explaining: I believe this is a more of the telegraph company to strike down the telephone company -a monopoly trying to crush out the business. I vote "no."
Mr. McMULLEN: I am in favor of the provisions of this bill, but believe there is a constitutional objection to it; but in the hope that the Senate will remedy it I vote "aye."
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: I objected to this solely on the ground of destroying the service of the small towns; but sounding a note of warning to you, and that you may see how it operates, I vote as you vote and vote "aye."
Mr. WILSON: I think that the American people should protect a patentee in his rights, and on general principles I vote "no."
So the bill passed as noted above.
The Senate concurrent resolutions complimentory to Lieutenant Governor
Mr. TAYLOR: This administration could do no greater justice to itself than by recognizing the subject of the resolution, and bestowing upon him a position in the Government such as he so richly merits and deserves He is a grand old man; one of the living heroes of two wars, a kind father, a good neighbor and an honored citizen in private life, a true Democrat and a battle-scarred veteran.
It is hoped the President may be pleased to favorably consider the resolution, but whether or not he does, we can do the honor to the honest old man which our hearts dictates, and what we do will be the labor of love. I hope the resolution will pass.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: Not only did I follow General Manson from Rich Mountain to his seat in the Lieutenant Governor's chair, but I followed him, as a boy, in the history of Indiana. He was a patriot who did not falter in doubt as to the spoils. There is no office in the gift of the President that I would not rejoice to see General Manson appointed to.
The resolutions were adopted.
Mr. McMULLEN: I understand that the Senate is striking out some of the items in the General Appropriation bill for the reason, as urged here, that they belong to the Specific bill. I therefore move that the Specific Appropriation bill, set down as a special order for this hour, be postponed until Monday.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. Helms' bill [H. R. 557] to punish wife-beaters by forty stripes at the whipping-post, was read the second time.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: I move to amend "thirty-nine lashes" for "forty stripes" - the first word to make it Scriptural and the second to make it legal.
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. HAYWORTH made an ineffectual motion - yeas, 26 nays, 69 - to indefinitely postpone the bill
Mr. BARNEY (explaining): There are some men who have large wives, and in undertaking to whip their wives come out second best. But the large ones should be properly punished I vote "no."
Mr HARRELL: There are ample provisions in the law to punish wife beaters without resorting to the whipping-post, so I vote "aye."
Mr. McHENRY: The man who would lay violent hands on a woman is more intolerant than a whipping-post. I vote "no."
The bill was ordered engrossed.
Mr. ADAMS submitted a concurrent resolution that the Legislature adjourn sine die on Friday, April 10.
On motion by Mr. WILLIAMS the resolution was amended by making the date Monday, April 13.
The resolution as amended was adopted.
Mr. Adams's bill [H. R. 63] to authorize County Commissioners to straighten water courses was passed by yeas 69, nays 4.
Mr. TROUT'S bill [H. R. 367] to authorize County Commissioners to accept as free gravel roads and keep the same in repair, roads or parts of roads constructed by private parties, was read the third time.
Mr. PASSAGE: This is undoubted the same as the Senate bill 264, which has passed the Senate, and is now at its second reading here. I move to substitute that one for this.
Mr. TROUT: Then I consent that the Senate bill be substituted for mine.
The motion was agreed to and the bill passed by yeas 78, nays 1
Mr. GORDON'S bill [H. R. 69] relative to incorporation of towns and the election of officers, etc., was partially read the third time.
The clerk resumed the reading of the bill H. R. 69.
Mr. GORDON: This bill was not drawn for any motive of my own. It is intended to correct all the evils that exist in city laws, or, in other words, to perfect them.
The bill passed by yeas 56, nays 24.
Mr. HARRELL (explaining): I shall vote against this bill because it was not read by sections, as the rules say; secondly because the previous question was demanded, and debate was out off; for the reason that the bill is imperfect in the trial of a marshal for violation of his obligations. I vote "no."
Mr. HAYDEN: For the reason that no bill with eighty-nine sections can be written so that any gentleman can understand it, and read as this bill was, I vote "aye."
Mr. KELLISON: Because I can not understand the bill I vote "no."
Mr. LOYD:
Mr. PATTEN: Two years ago I -
The SPEAKER: The gentleman is out of order. How does the gentleman vote?
Mr PATTEN: I have a right to explain my vote.
The SPEAKER: You have been called to order.
Mr. PATTEN: I shall stand here until I am in order.
The SPEAKER: Call the next on the roll.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: Because I have had no plan to find out the bill, I vote "no."
Mr. WILLIAMS: I was in favor of amending this bill by striking out the first 311 sections and inserting in lieu thereof the ten commandments, the first thirteen chapters of Genesis, "Family Physician" and the shorter catechism, but it has not been so amended. However, it is usual for this bill to pass the House of each General Assembly, and desiring to follow the well-established precedent, I vote "aye."
So the bill passed as noted above.
Mr. PASSAGE made an ineffectual motion - yeas, 30; nays, 54 - to reconsider the vote just taken.
The bill [S 173] concerning elections, and making it necessary to place votes in envelopes, was read the second time.
Mr. GOODING moved to strike out the enacting clause.
The motion was agreed to - yeas, 47; nays, 33.
The bill [S 81] providing for the election and qualification of Justices of the Peace was read the third time, and defeated by yeas 31, nays 42.
The bill [S. 89] providing that the Clerk of the Supreme Court shall keep a public cash book was read the third time.
Mr. ENGLE: This law provides for keeping these cash books, and that the retiring Clerks of the Supreme Court shall turn over certain moneys to his successor. The bill does not grant extra pay, but it makes very little extra work. The Clerk is a public servant, and the public has a right to look at his books.
Mr. MOODY: As the Clerk of the Supreme Court is not now compelled to keep this cash book the work will be extra for him.
The bill failed to pass for want of a constitutional majority, by yeas 45, nays 31.
The bill [S. 58] concerning the annual settlements of Township Trustees was read the third time, and failed by yeas 16, nays 58.
The bill [S. 108] providing that the surplus of money from taxation on dogs not used to pay for sheep killed by dogs shall go to the school fund, was read the third time.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: The bill will create confusion in the township business, will make a number of extra books necessary and will make the expenses heavier.
Mr. ENGLE: The provisions are good. In some townships dogs are raised, in others sheep. The sheep townships have a small dog fund, but the dogs from the one township go over in the other and kill the sheep. The object of this bill is to make the fund a county fund so as to equalize it in all townships.
Mr WILLIAMS: One bad provision is that if a farmer has a lot of sheep killed and is the first to report to the township Trustees he would receive his pay in full and others would not get their pay for sheep killed by dogs.
Mr. McMULLEN: It provides that this registery shall be had so as to learn of this overplus. In our township, for instance, we have an overplus and other townships have not, so that a part of ours would go there
Mr. BOYD: The bill should pass.
Mr. GORDON: The purpose of this bill is to pay for all sheep killed - not those in put of the townships.
The bill passed by years 51, nays 19.
Mr. PENDLETON, explaining: Because I believe this bill will be a benefit to all townships alike, I vote "aye."
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: I don't believe the bill is understood. This is an unfortunate hill and will cause much confusion. I must vote "no."
Mr. TOWNSEND: I am anxious to vote intelligently on this bill. If it gives payment in full for sheep killed, and I believe it does, I vote "aye"
Mr. MOODY made an ineffectual motion to reconsider the vote just taken.
The House then adjourned.
On the motion of Mr. WILLARD the Senate resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole (Mr Fowler in the chair) for further consideration of the bill [H. R. 479]. The proviso to the prison appropriation being and -
Mr WILLARD: As the earnings show sufficient moneys this proviso says to the management instead of paying to the general fund, make your drawings out of the funds you have in hand. There is now no law requiring the turning over of the products of the State Prisons to the treasury This committee amendment would require to turning over of the balance after paying for these specified improvements.
The committee amendment - the proviso at the close of item 12 - was agreed to.
Mr. Foulke moved to add an item of $400 for the State Horticultural Society. The information that body furnishes to the State is very desirable, is of a local character,and can not be obtained in any other way.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. WINTER questioned whether the closing paragraph in item 13 would affect unexpended balances of other funds or appropriations
Mr. WILLARD thought not.
Mr. YOUCHE moved to add the words "made in this act" after the word "appropriating"
Mr. OVERSTREET: Would that cover the 2 per cent State house fund?
Mr. YOUCHE moved to amend by excluding from the appropriations to be paid in the fiscal year ending in 1887 the special appropriations of $25 000 for Bloomington and $20 000 for Purdue University.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. BRYANT moved to amend by adding $15 000 for additional water supply for the Hospital for the Insane.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks: Estimates were made for this purpose and that $15,000 is the estimated cost of getting the supply from Eagle Creek.
Mr. McCLURE: It will cost $35,000 to get a supply from the city water works, while from Eagle Creek a supply could be had for $15 000.
Mr WILLARD: I am informed there is a sufficient water supply there now, and this was voted down by the House.
The amendment was agreed to on a division. Mr YOUCHE moved to amend so that this appropriation shall be excepted from the appropriations from the year ending 1887. This amendment was agreed to. On motion by Mr. WILLARD the committee rose, reported progress, and was discharged from the further consideration of the bill.
On motion by Mr. YOUCHE the bill and amendments were ordered printed separately and made the special order for 2 o'clock Monday.
On motion by Mr. YOUCHE the bill [H. R. 92] concerning the liability of corporations and
companies for the injury or death of an employe was read the first time. He explained: The
bill precludes railroad companies, where the employe is injured through the carelessness or
negligence of a company's employe, from setting up such face of care-
Mr. WINTER: I am in favor of the principle of this bill, and move to amend the motion by
referring this bill to a
Mr WILLARD: I believe the committees of the Senate are made to consider such measures coming before the Senate which properly belong to them.
Mr. OVERSTREET: I hope this reference will be to a special committee, for a majority of
the
The amendment and the motion as amended were severally agreed to.
On motion by Mr. WILLARD his bill on the same subject was referred to the same committee.
The presiding officer (Mr. Fowler) made the committee to consist of Messrs. Youche, Willard and Winter.
Mr CAMPBELL of Hendricks: I move to take up House bill No. 34, and in order to save time and read it but once, will move to suspend the constitutional rule, read it the first and second times by title, the third time by sections, and put in on its passage. The bill simply proposes to incorporate in the law governing incorporated towns the section of the law governing cities which restrains the running at large of cattle, sheep, horses, swine, etc. - Section 3,333 of the Revised Statutes of 1881. It is intended to protect towns from the raids or cattle. At present if a man allows his cow to run at large in a town any person may make an affidavit against him and have him fined from $3 to $10 and the costs will amount to $15 or $20, while under the city law the animal is taken up and may be recovered by paying from fifty cents to a dollar pound fees.
The motion was agreed to, and the bill passed by yeas 35, nays 0.
On motion by Mr. JOHNSON, of Dearborn, the bill [H. R. 401] concerning the duties of cities and their Common Councils was taken up He said: It provides that assessments for street improvements may be paid in four annual installments instead of all at once The city can execute its bonds to pay for improvements and place the charges for as segments against the property on the duplicate as other taxes, and charge the owner of the property 6 per centum interest on the money advance, and allots the owner of the property to pay in installments, or he may elect to pay it all at once, as the law now is
Mr. BROWN: I think the bill ought to be printed.
Mr YOUCHE: I hone that motion will not be made, because of the danger in delay. The author informs me there is but one change in the law, and that is to enable a person against whom an assessment is made to have four years in which to pay an assessment for street improvements by paying 6 per cent. interest. The purpose of the bill is to give men who have acquired little homes by making small or monthly payments a chance to pay the assessments in easy instatments, so they may not have to mortgage their properties in order to pay at once.
Mr. OVERSTREET: It seems to me it amounts to this: When work is done streets the city has to pay the contractor, and then the city takes the chances of the assessments, which is sometimes connected with lawsuits, and then who is to pay the expense of the lawsuit? It seems this bill is of too much importance to pass through in a hurry.
On motion by Mr. FOULKE the bill was ordered printed and made the special order for Monday at 3 o'clock p. m.
On motion by Mr. McINTOSH, the bill [H. R. 124] was read the third time.
Mr. WINTER explained: It amends the section of the civil code which enumerates cases where service of publication may be made, and adds cases where the object is to obtain a review of judgment; to procure a new trial; to set aside a judgment; to enforce satisfaction of judgment on mortgagee; to set aside an entry of satisfaction of judgment, mortgage or other lein; to set aside sale of real estate, or to set aside a Sheriff's return - lein on excution.
The question being "shall the bill pass?" the roll was called, and resulted yeas 33, nays 0.
No quorum voting -
A recess was taken till 2 o'clock.
On motion by Mr. BAILEY, his bill [S. 267] to create a commission of five persons - three Democrats and two Republicans - to report information to the next General Assembly relative to prison labor and the management of convicts, was read second time.
On motion by Mr. WEIR, the House concurrent resolution tendering the thanks of the people of Indiana to First-Lieutenant Frank L Denny for his efforts to Americans in Alexandria, Egypt, was read and adopted.
On motion by Mr. SMITH, of Jennings, the bill [H R. 71] to require railroad companies to construct cattle guards at public crossings, was made a special order for Tuesday at 2 o'clock p. m.
The calendar was cleared of House bill on the first reading, and then came an adjournment, under an order made this forenoon till Monday morning at 11 o'clock.
The SPEAKER: The special order for this hour is the bill [S. 145] regarding the times of holding open the polls at elections - that they may be opened as early as 6 o'clock in the morning.
The bill was read the third time.
Mr. SAYRE: If I understand this bill, I think it should not become a law, as it gives us opportunity to defraud the ballot. It opens a way for the worst sorts of corruption.
Mr. PENDLETON: This bill is to give laborers a chance to vote - those men who labor for less than $1 per day for instance. If they take the time to vote they lose their wages. This bill opens the polls before working hours. I think the idea that it gives an opportunity for fraud, because the polls open earlier in the morning, is an error The officers are there to guard the sancity of the polls.
Mr ENGLE: The election laws now on our statute books are uniform. The passage of this bill will make them otherwise. The bill provides that when twenty or more cities petition to have the polls open early, it must be done. This will create confusion. The hour of 6 o'clock in the morning in November is an early one for the polls to open. That hour will be the hour for evil work. I must not be understood as saying that I believe the workingmen will do this fraud. They are the honest yeomanry; but designing politicians will be on hand for it. I do not charge that this bill will affect one party more than another.
Mr. REEVES: I know it to be true in my own city that a great number of laboring men, notably railway men, are compelled to go out of the city before the polls open. They can not afford to lose their day's work and possibly their jobs. The present law practically disfranchises them. The poll-, under this law, can not be oped surreptitiously. If there is danger of fraud it will be no trouble to get men of all parties out early. As it is the men work at the polls are up early. The circulation of the petition shows whether or not the voters want the polls opened at 6 o'clock
Mr. SPEAKER JEWETT: In the little city where the gentleman from Floyd (Mr. Hanlon) and I live a large number of men ask this Personally, I have no interest as I am scarcely ever out of bed by 6 o'clock. In our town hundreds and thousands who earn their bread in the manufacturies, are compelled to go to their work early in the morning. Many of them go to Louisville to labor in the manufactories there. These men by the present law are practically disfranchised They are good citizens of Indiana and are about divided equally, politically. No harm can come of it to any party. Three car loads of laborers leave New Albany every morning at 6:44 for their work at Louisville. There are 1,800 men in the DePauw glass works whose hour for beginning is early in the morning. It should be the policy of us all to induce every man to take an interest in the affairs of the nation and vote. It is enough for us to ask these laborers, who scarcely ever hold office, to vote, much less to lose a day's work. In behalf and on behalf of thousands of laboring men of New Albany I ask that this bill pass.
Mr LOYD: I find, by looking at the calendar, that the sun rises in November at 6:34 o'clock in the morning, and it is not, therefore, too dark to open the polls. It will check scheming politicians and remove temptations of undue influence over voters. As it is, men who can not afford to lose their day's work are paid for it on election day by politicians who use this as an influence.
The bill passed - by yeas 51, nays 25.
Mr. DEEM, explaining his vote, said: For the reason that my constituents do not demand nor require this measure, and for the reason that I believe it would lead to fraud and corruption, because it proposes to open the polls at an hour when honest men do not wish to, and in most cases will not attend the polls, I vote "no."
Mr. FARRELL: Because it is in behalf of the laboring men, I vote "aye."
Mr. HANLON: Because all men, if they have an interest in the affairs of the country, can get up at 6 o'clock in the morning as well as the laborers can get up at 5 o'clock in the morning, I vote "aye"
Mr. LINNVILLE: Because I believe the aim of the bill is for fraud and corruption, I vote "no."
Mr. SMITH, of Perry: I believe that it is in the interest of all laboring men, and vote "aye."
Mr. STALEY: I do not know that this bill will have much effect in our city. There are, however, no less than eight gangs of section hand who are compelled to leave early in the morning. These men are always under a boss, who may permit them an hour off to vote if they vote his way. I vote "aye."
Mr. TAYLOR: When this bill was read and the hour given as 6 o'clock in the morning, a cold chill crept over me But when I heard the Speaker and the gentleman from Putnam (Mr Gordon) early birds, advocate it, I thought I could stand it if they can, so I vote "aye"
Mr. WILSON: The bill is in the interest of fraud and corruption. It will open every ballot-box in the country by 6 o'clock a m., and will give the Kentuckians an opportunity to cross the line and do our voting for as and them go home. I vote "no."
Mr HARRELL: This bill puts too much power in the hands of twenty men. I vote "no"
Mr. BOYD: For the same reason I vote "no."
The SPEAKER announced the passage of the bill.
Subsequently Mr. WILSON said: I find that the clerk has fifty-one members recorded as voting for the bill Mr. Patten who was not present at roll-call, is recorded as voting for the bill.
Mr. PATTEN: I did not vote.
The SPEAKER: Then the bill fails for want of a constitutional majority.
The bill [S. 323] being read the third time -
Mr. COPELAND: This bill provides for the payment of all regular and independent companies of the Indiana Legion that performed service under the orders of the Governor in 1862 whose payrolls were not placed on file in the Adjutant General's office until after the llth day of March, 1867, through negligence of their commanding officers The Legislature of 1867 appropriated $30 500 to pay the regiments of the Indiana Legion, whose claims had been filed at the time of the passage of the act (March 11, 1867), and providing further, that no part of this sum shall be paid to any regiment or company whose claims had not been filed in the office of the paymaster previous to the passage of said act, and that thereafter no warrant should be drawn to pay any claims of said companies, except upon the certificate of the Adjutant General, indexed by the Governor; that the amount thereof is shown to be due by the rolls deposited in said Adjutant General's office, so that no company whose pay-rolls were not placed on file before the act of 1867 took effect can be paid under the present law although there remains for their payment about $16 000 out of the $30 500 appropriated in 1867; which amount under the amendatory act of 1883 will be covered back into the treasury after the 18th day of January, 1886, provided this bill should not become a law. In 1862 a company of the Ninth Regiment, Second Legion, known as the North Madison Rangers, commanded by Captain Samuel Steinberger, acting under orders of the Governor of the State, performed service for over five months, for which they have never received a single cent, while nearly all the other companies of the entire Legion have received their pay After the war and before any steps were taken to pay the members of the Legion, the Captain of the company went to the State of Alabama without filing the pay rolls of his company with the Paymaster in the Adjutant General's office and in his absence the act of 1867 was passed, which provided that no claims shall be paid unless the pay rolls had been filed before the passage of that act, and upon his return it was too late to file them. Captain Steinbarger, than whom there is no more honorable gentleman in the State of Indiana, has ever since been embarrassed from the fact that members of the company feel that if he had done his duty they would have received their pay long ago. Had he been in the State at the time the other companies filed the pay rolls he certainly would have done his whole duty I have in my possession a letter from at Adjutant General Carnahan to Captain Steinbarger saying that these claims ought to be paid, but until there is specific law for that purpose nothing can be done. I have recently talked with General Kountz, the present Adjutant General, and he says that these claims ought to be paid provided the claimants can establish their claims.
Mr MOODY: I hope the bill will pass, as it is extensive and covers the whole case.
The bill was passed by yeas 68, nays 1.
Mr. BARNEY, explaining his vote, said: I hope the bill will pass It should have become a law in 1867. The claims, which will be about $10 for each man, are already made out for those whom the money is due
The bill [S 349] to prevent telegraph and telephone companies from discriminations in business and prices, was read the third time.
Mr. MURPHY: This bill should become a law because its provisions are such that it will
make competition practicable between the Western Union Company and competing lines of
telegraph. This Western Union Company now enjoys such a stupendous monopoly that the B. and
O and other companies which are struggling for a living are only permitted to exist for the
mere matter of appearance, to delude the public into the belief that competition actually
exists, where in fact there is none. As matters are now if you send a telegram over any
line which requires transference to the Western Union it must be prepaid in order to induce
the Western Union to take it, and an additional ten cents is charged by the Western Union
for extra words written on the margin of this telegram, which are of no practical value to
the other company or the sender. On account of the extraordinary advantages possessed by
this gigantic monopoly, the Western Union Telegraph Co., they occupy a similar attitude
toward the public and other companies as a despot does toward his subjects. The company
combines with railroads and practically excludes all competition by its facilities for
getting right of way over principal railways and securing offices in their depots, while
other companies of such magnitude as could hope to compete can not be organized This law
will compel simple justice to be done to competitors and the public. This company is an
illustration of the power and greed of organized capital, and convinces us of the
This Western Union Company has combined with the Bell Telephone Company, another monopoly that has succeeded in gaining extraordinary privileges on account of the power of wealth. This law will invite competition, thereby promoting the interests of the public by weakening the power of this great monopoly, and will give employment to those who are forced into idleness that great profits shall accrue to these monopolies This bill will benefit the public as well as employes and competing companies, and should therefore pass.
The bill passed by yeas 71, nays 0.
On motion by Mr. ENSLEY his bill [S 329] to prevent the adulteration of food, drink or medicines, was read the second time, with committee amendments and on his further motion the report of the committee was concurred in.
Mr. BAILEY: We have passed a law this session prohibiting the manufacture of oleo margarine, one of the articles mentioned in this bill.
On motion by Mr. ENSLEY the constitutional rule was suspended that the bill may be passed to the final vote now.
Mr. YOUCHE moved to add to Section 4 that nothing in the bill shall prohibit the manufacture of oleomargarine provided it is stamped as such and contains no substance deleterious to health.
Mr. BAILEY: I knew of no establishment manufacturing oleomargarine in the State when the bill was passed with only five negative votes, which this amendment will defeat.
Mr. MAGEE: The bill which passed the Senate, should it become a law, would drive out of the State several large manufactories of oleomargarine. I trust the amendment will not prevail, because the industries of the State should be protected.
Mr WILLARD: As has been said, a bill has passed the Senate prohibiting the manufacture of oleomargarine. The amendment does not protect the class desiring protection. The question has been left where it should be left. The people injured are not the purchasers - not one family in 10,000 purchase oleomargarine knowingly. It is the hotel keepers who purchase it. When the bill prohibiting the sale of oleomargarine was passed, it was understood to be in behalf of the traveling public It is said to be impossible to detect oleomargarine without chemical analysis. This amendment will reverse the previous action of the Senate on this question.
Mr. McCULLOUGH: At the time the bill was passed prohibiting the manufacture of oleomargarine, I did not know its effects, but seeing everybody voting for it, I voted "aye" with the rest. Now I desire to see this amendment passed, that we may be put right on this subject. The Supreme Court has held as unconstitutional an act to prohibit the manufacture of alcoholic stimulants. We have no more right to pass a bill saying that oleomargarine shall not be manufactured than we have to pass a law prohibiting the manufacturing of intoxicating liquors. The Constitution secures to every citizen in the State the right to engage in any business that is not deleterious to public health. Section 4 permits the sale of oleomargarine if the parties are informed of its contents. If it is legitimate to sell it I see no reason why we should say to our citizens, "you must go over the line to manufacture," and say to everybody "you may sell it in the State."
Mr. BAILEY: This subject by itself has been presented in the Senate, has passed the Senate, and is now in the House. A similar bill passed in New York in 1881 and has been held to be constitutional. This substance is deleterious to health and has been so determined in Rhode Island, where one of the largest manufactories is located.
Mr. WEIR favored the amendment.
Mr. Faulkner opposed the bill.
Mr. OVERSTREET: The manufacture and sale of oleomargarine break down the price of genuine butter. There is a prohibition in our laws against killing and offering for sale any animal that is injured, yet the beef would not be injurious or deleterious to health. It is a fraud upon the public, is the why the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine should be prohibited.
Mr. YOUCHE: I didn't know that oleomargarine was manufactured in my county then I voted for the bill prohibiting its manufacture, and I did not take the time to investigate the subject. Then I had an idea that it was a deleterious substance, but I find it is made in connection with large slaughtering establishments, and an establishment not manufacturing oleomargarine as an incident to the slaughter house can not compete with one which does. They can pay from $2 to $3 a steer more than though they did not make oleomargarine. After the animal is killed the beef tallow is put through four different waters to take the blood out Then it is put in a machine called a hasher, which cuts it finer than a sassauge meat Then it is put into sacks the size of a shot bag, placed in layers between perforated iron plates until a large stack is made, when it is pressed by hydraulic pressure gradually and the oil from the tallow oozes out. Then fresh milk is bought and about seventy parts of this olione is mixed with ten to fifteen parts of fresh milk and the same proportion of lard, and that is the way oleomargarine is made. It is colored with the same material that dairymen use to color their butter. It is as little harmful or deleterious as about articles of food. If you take away the privilege of making oleomargarine it would interfere with the slaughter of beef on a large scale in this State. As healthy an article of food this we have no right to prohibit the manufacture of.
Mr. ENSLEY: This amendment should not prevail, but the bill as it stands should pass. Nothing is of more importance to people than good health Many common articles, especially in the confectionary line, are so adulterated that they are injurious to health.
Mr. WILLARD: It seems to me when this Senate has decided to give protection to the farming community by prohibiting the sale of a fraud it should stand by that action. We have said the quality of the butter from Indiana shall not be run down in the Eastern markets by the manufacture and sale in this State of oleormargerine At this late day the session we should not nullify that action by adopting the amendment, which practically destroys the operation of the bill heretofore passed by the Senate.
Mr. FOULKE: It is an absolute infringement on personal liberty to interfere with the manufacture of anything that is not noxious or injurious for which there is a demand on the market. The amendment does not interfere with the law requiring oleo-margerine to be marked as such, and punishing its sale unless it is so marked.
Mr. MARSHALL; The bill is fair enough. If oleomargarine, as has been claimed, is better
or as good as butter, then the bill is proper, anyhow. There has been a bill passed the
Senate that prohibits the manufacture of oleomargarine I believe the Constitution will
uphold such a bill. I believe we have a right to say a bogus article shall not be imposed
on the people as pure food. I don't believe it will interfere with any manufacturing
establishments, but if they are manufacturing
Mr. McCULLOUGH: The bill will have the opposite effect of what it intended. Under the law of 1883 oleomargarine can not be sold unless so branded or marked. If the present bill is passed without the amendment, oleomargarine can not be manufactured or sold under the bill heretofore passed the Senate if it passed the House. But this amendment will expressly legalize the sale. If this bill becomes a law it is express legislation permitting the sale of oleomargarine. The result will be to drive men out of the State who are doing a large business in the slaughter of beeves. It seems to me nobody wants such legislation as that.
The amendment was rejected by yeas 19, nays 22
Mr. BAILEY (explaining): It seems to me this is a strife between the farming interest of the State and a large corporation in Lake County. I am informed that the statement that the price of cattle is increased is not the fact; if it makes any increase it could not but be very small.
Mr. BROWN: I am in favor of this amendment, because I doubt the constitutional authority of the Legislature to prohibit the manufacture of any article of food or drink not deleterious to health when used temperately. I am opposed to any act of legislation which destroys vested rights and which confiscates property without compensation. Regarding this amendment as upholding the personal right of the citizen of the State to eat, drink, wear or manufacture what he chooses and as not interfering with the public interests, I vote "aye."
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks: I think the amendment is entirely foreign to the bill.
Mr. FAULKNER: I think it is one of the greatest swindles perpetrated on the people, as well as on the cows [Laughter.]
Mr.
Mr. MAGEE: I am in favor of the amendment, otherwise we would drive out of the State many
respectable and energetic business men engaged in an honest industry. The bill prohibiting
the sale of oleomargarine passed without due deliberation, and is an-
Mr. McCULLOCH: My constituents will sever ask for a law to legislate other men out of existence in order that they may not have competition. I am opposed to class legislation of any kind
Mr. McINTOSH: I understood when the bill was passed prohibiting the sale of substances for butter that there was no manufactory of that kind in the State, but I understood we sought to prohibit this substance from being sent into the State As I believe that bill is in the interest of the farmers and dairymen of Indiana, I still stand by it, and vote "no" on this amendment.
Mr. SCHLOSS: Two years ago the Democratic party opposed the prohibition of the manufacture of certain articles, because it was said it would destroy the property of brewers and distillers. This bill would destroy the property of another industry, therefore I vote "aye."
So the amendment was rejected and failed by yeas 19, nays 20.
Mr. McCULLOCH: We expressly authorize the sale by this bill and prohibit the manufacture of oleomargarine by the other bill which has passed the Senate.
Mr. YOUCHE: I can't believe this Legislature will enact a law that will say to citizens of our own State, "you shan't manufacture oleomargarine," as in the bill already passed the Senate, and then in this bill say that citizens from other States can come in and flood the State with it.
So the bill was rejected.
Mr. FOULKE moved to reconsider the vote of the bill just taken that the bill may be referred to a select committee of three with instructions to so amend as not to seriously affect any business interest in the State.
Mr. WILLARD made an ineffectual motion - yeas, 7; nays, 3 - to lay the motion on the table.
The motion (Mr. Foulke's) was agreed to and the Lieutenant Governor made the committee to consist of Messrs. Ensley, Foulke and McCullough.
On motion of Mr. McINTOSH a re-vote was taken on the bill [H. R. 124] which failed to pass Saturday noon for want of a quorum, and it was passed by yeas 32, nays 3.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR laid before the Senate a message from the Governor vetoing the bill [S. 341] to authorize claimants against the State to bring suit in the Circuit Courts of the State.
The following is a full text of the veto message:
GENTLEMEN OF THE SENATE - Senate bill No. 341,
"an act authorizing persons having claims against the State of Indiana to bring
suit in the Supreme Court of the State, and authorizing persons to bring suit in the
Circuit Courts to quiet title to real property in certain cases, prescribing the duties
of the Attorney General and Prosecuting Attorneys in such cases, and declaring an
emergency," which was presented to me for approval, is respectfully returned to the
House in which it originated with my objections.
It is not a pleasant duty for me to interpose my objections to the legislative wisdom of the General Assembly, and I would not do so were I able to convince my judgment from any view that I might take of the bill that it should become law. If the Legislature upon a reconsideration of this bill shall deem it a proper and necessary measure, the way is open for its enactment into a law without my approval. I fully recognize the importance of establishing some tribunal for the adjustment of claims against the State, and a law making provision for the same, with proper safe-guards, would meet my approval.
Section 1 of this act provides that any person having or claiming to have a money demand against the State may bring suit therefor in the Supreme Court by filing a complaint and calling summons to be served upon the Attorney General.
Section 3 of the act provides that upon the final decree or judgment of the Court finding any sum to be due to any person or persons from the State, the Auditor of State is directed to draw his warrant upon the Treasurer of State for the amount of the judgment, including interest, in favor of the claimant, his heirs or assigns, which warrant shall be paid by the Treasurer out of such funds in the Treasury as the Court may direct.
This is a most extraordinary provision as far as I am advised, without precedent in any State in the Union. The United States Court of Claims at Washington passes only upon the justness of the claim, and possesses no authority to order payment of the judgment which it renders, its action is only advisor. With Congress is still left the authority as to the correctness of the claim, or to make appropriation to pay it. But this bill makes the decree of the Court final, and directs the payment of the judgment rendered by the Court.
It is provided in Article 10, Section 3, of the Constitution that "no money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in pursuance of appropriations made by law," but this bill makes it the duty of the Auditor of State to draw his warrant on the Treasurer for the payment of the judgment out of any funds in the Treasury designated by the Court, and thereby raises a grave question as to the constitutionality of the bill. It virtually repeals all the laws now on the statute books, authorizing the State-house Commissioners and other provisional boards to determine their contracts, adjust allowances and expenses, by giving every person or persons who may have a claim against the State arising out of contract with such Boards of Construction, or Trustees of the various institutions of State, the right to ignore said boards, with whom the contract may have been made, and sue in the Supreme Court for the claim.
This bill is objectionable in another feature, that no legislative appropriations could be made with any degree of certainty to meet the wants of the State institutions because the same would be subject to the order of the Courts well as the proper boards of any such institution. One judgment of the Court, might exhaust the appropriation and leave the institution in no better condition than if no appropriation had been made.
The bill ma es no provision for obtaining testimony and procuring the attendance of
witnesses, it loads the Supreme Court with additional business not justly judicial, and
to some extent changes it from a judicial court of supreme judicature into a court of
original jurisdiction for the investigation of claims without regard to the amount in
controversy It does not authorize the employment of additional counsel by the State,
The State Treasury is the great heart of the commonwealth, from which comes the blood that gives life to all the institutions and machinery of the State, and it should be well protected and the approaches to it guarded with care The State, at least, should have all the opportunities for its protection that an individual possesses in his defense.
Section 3 of this bill provides that in all cases where the owner of real estate, purchased from the State, and the same has been paid for and no patent or deed has been issued and recieved therefor, such owner may bring his action in the proper Circuit Court, where such real estate is situate, to quiet the title thereto, and may make the State a party thereto the game as an individual. Under this section many suits may be pending at the same time in as many different counties, and it is, therefore, questionable whether the ordinary service of ten days would not be too short to allow a full investigation and examination of the record, referring to the sale of land by the State, now preserved in the office of the Auditor of State. In most cases, if not in all, the business between the Auditor and the proper Prosecuting Attorney will of necessity be transacted by correspondence. It would seem proper, in case of a suit of the above character, that the bill should provide suitable means for the State to procure any necessary testimony and allow the benefit of an appeal without giving a bond.
The question being shall the bill pass the objections of the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the veto was sustained by yeas 1, nays 41
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks, by leave introduced a bill [S. 378] to authorise persons
having claims against the State of Indiana to bring suit therefor in the Appellate Court of
the State of Indiana against the State of Indiana, and authorizing persons to bring suits
in the Circuit Courts of Indiana to quiet title to lands and providing for appeals to the
Supreme Court and declaring on emergency, which was read the first time and referred to the
The Senate took up the special order, being the General Appropriation bill [H. R. 479], which was read the second time with the amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
Mr. BROWN moved that the committee amendment to increase the Adjutant General's salary from $12,000 to $14,000 be rejected.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay, resisted the motion.
Mr. FOWLER: The Adjutant General has not been paid $1,400 as I understand. The law of 1879 fixes the salary at $1 200. I am opposed to raising the salary. There is nothing in Indiana that requires either an Adjutant General or a Quartermaster General. And this salary certainly ought not to be raised. I hope the motion will prevail. In accordance with the strict terms of law an officer can not draw more than is provided by statute, no matter how much is appropriated.
Mr WEIR: I hope the amendment of the committee will be concurred in. I learn by inquiry of the Auditor of State that the Adjutant General has been paid $1 400, and I see no reason why the present Adjutant General should not have as much as his predecessor. There is to be a new enrollment made out and many other things to do under the Military bill.
Mr. ADKISON: The other day I made a motion to increase this salary to $1 500. In frequent conversations with the former Adjutant General he favored the $1 500 salary to the present incumbent. I am opposed to the motion.
Mr. WILLARD: I trust the motion will not prevail. No man can live in this city and entertain as an officer should for $1 200.
Mr. BENZ: The Republican party made salaries extravagant, and I am not going to follow them up. I am opposed to the amendment and in favor of the motion to reject it.
On motion by Mr. YOUCHE the committee amendment was concurred in - yeas, 30; nays, 11 - fixing the salary at $1,400.
And then the Senate adjourned
The House was called to order by the principal clerk (Mr. Darnell) who read a telegram from Speaker Jewett, belated by a train behind time, assigning to the Chair Mr. McMullen.
On motion by Mr. HARRELL the House went into the Committee of the Whole, for the consideration of the Specific Appropriation bill, and upon his further motion, Mr. Adams was called to the Chair
On motion by Mr. JEWETT an amendment was adopted allowing Thomas F. Davidson $290 for services as a special judge.
On motion by Mr. DEEMS, an amendment was adopted allowing Simon P. Thompson $750 for legal services for the State in Newton County.
On motion by Mr. STALEY an amendment was adopted appropriating $3,000 for a hospital at the Reformatory for women and girls.
Mr. REEVES moved to amend the bill allowing Marion County $3 000 for rental of rooms for the use of the Legislature by reducing the sum to $1,500.
Mr. JAMESON; The sum of $3 000 is a low price, it is not put in here with the expectation of being cut down, but because the rental is worth that sum.
Mr. WILLIAMS: Marion County should be paid the full $3,000; but as a compromise I offer a substitute making the amount $2,000.
Mr. GORDON: The County of Marion
Mr. BARNES: An investigation will show that fuel and rental and all is worth fully the sum asked. I have taken some pains to investigate, and find that the item of fuel alone amounts to a considerable sum.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: Marion County pays one-eighth of the taxes of the State. If it rents to the State it should have the full amount of its rental value.
All amendments to the item allowing Marion County $3 000 were severally rejected, and that sum was allowed to remain in the bill.
Mr. WILSON offered an amendment to allow Koskiusco County $7,000 for expenses incurred in the trial and execution of Charles W. Butler, a murderer. He explained: This trial cost the county much more; but as the Legislature refused to allow the correct sum. I think this much at least should be allowed. This man murdered his wife in Ohio, and in his flight was caught in our county, tried and hung.
Pending further action on this item, the committee took a recess until 2 o'clock in the afternoon.
Mr. WILSON: I wish to make a further statement regarding my amendment. This is not a
farther amendment for item seven, regarding Marion County, but is entirely for Kosciusko
Mr. DITTEMORE made an ineffectual motion to a amend the amendment by making the sum $4,000.
On motion by Mr. KELLISON the item was so amended as to allow one cent.
The amendment as amended was then
Mr. ENGLE moved to strike out the item allowing John L. Case $110 for legal services for the State.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. HANLON moved an amendment that John Craig, Deputy Warden of the Southern Prison, be allowed $1 000 for extra services.
Mr. LOYD: The gentleman who is now in that office made a thorough canvass for the office. He knew what the salary was, and was willing to occupy it. The idea of asking for extra services is ridiculous. What extra services? Where could extra services come in? He merely wants an increase of salary, as his letter to this Assembly shows The Deputy Warden has all the perquisites from the prisoners and buying extras for the prisoners. While I do not want to be penurious in the matter of this bill, yet this should be sat down on.
Mr. JEWETT moved to amend by increasing the salary of the Deputy Warden of the Southern Prison to $200 per year from 1877, or $1,400 to date.
Mr. WILSON hoped the amendment would not prevail. The salary was large enough now.
Mr. REEVES: The question of salary of these deputies may be solved by the statement of the fact that there is a great demand for the position and if a Deputy Warden is dissatisfied he may resign
Mr. JEWETT: I know that the salary of the Deputy Warden was $800 thirty years ago, when a dollar was worth more then than now. It was a habit of the Legislature for a long time to make the salary $800 per year, and then give the deputy $200 per year extra in the specific appropriation bill. This was done because the Legislature had not the courage to increase the small salary. Since 1877 this $200 extra has not been allowed. The incumbent took that office with the understanding that he was to get this $200 extra. He is a capable officer and thoroughly honest. So it will be proper to increase the salary as in past years. He has the active management of the prison. He was wanted to be a candidate for postmaster at Jeffersonville, but there was objection about the prison. He has been connected with that institution for years and is still wanted there.
Mr. KRUEGER offered a substitute to strike out the words "Captain John Craig," and insert $200 per year for each of the Wardens of the Northern and Southern prisons.
Mr. TWINEHAM: This is bold move. We now have too much of salary grabs in this country to adopt such an amendment. This measure is not only to give a salary to the future but in the past. This logic is not good.
Mr ROBINSON: The salary is high enough. The Deputy Warden has managed to subsist on this pittance, was anxious for the position, and can continue to serve at the same figures.
Mr. HOBAN: I oppose this because I believe the people are oppose to it. Money is scarce, the wheat crop gives evidence of being a failure, and we can not now think of increasing salaries.
The motion was rejected -
The amendment to the amendment and the amendment ware also severally rejected.
A claim of Bert P. Davidson, of Lafayette, for $35, services as shorthand reporter for the State, was struck out on motion of Mr. Williams.
The item to appropriate $5,300 to buy three acres of land for the Southern Prison, being read -
Mr. HAYWORTH said: This is the only piece of ground that the prison or the State wants; it is worth a good deal and a good price must be paid for it.
Mr. DITTEMORE moved to strike out the item.
Mr. BARR: This is the only piece of ground over which the addition to the prison
Mr. McHENRY: I move to amend the amendment by appropriating $3,000.
Mr. HANLON: I know the ground and its owner. The land is not worth over $500 per acre.
Mr. FRAZEE: The State ought to own that land, but $500 per acre is enough for it.
Mr. McBROOME: I was one of your committee to visit the prison. That land is a sort of a dumping place for the city. At the price - a little more than $1,000 per acre - it is an expensive luxury. I do not believe, as a matter of fact, that we need it. They could use it and so could I use all the prairies of Warren County. As to repairs to the chapel it needs some casing and plastering, which would not cost over $200. I know what I am talking about, as I was a hod carrier myself one time. Let us not burden the State because we can. The gentleman from Rush (Mr. Frazee) said we should buy it now if we would have it. It will be there many years, and there will be many more tin cans on it than now before any man will buy it.
Mr. FRAZEE offered a substitute that the sum be $3,883
The substitute was adopted.
Mr. ENGLE moved to strike out the item appropriating $32,000 to build a stone wall around the Southern Prison.
Mr. LOYD: I would like to have time to write an amendment to give the Southern Prison all of the country and part of New Jersey.
Mr BARR: This protection is badly needed and should be built at once.
Mr. PENDLETON: This wall it seems is needed and at once.
Pending a vote on the motion to strike out the committee arose, reported progress and asked leave to sit again to-morrow morning at 9 o'clock.
The report was concurred in.
The House then adjourned until to-morrow morning at 9 o'clock.
On motion by Mr. DAY a re-vote was taken on the bill [S 293] regulating ferry fares, and after speeches by Messrs. McClure, Day, Willard and McCullough, it was defeated by yeas 16, nays 35.
Mr. FOULKE called up the bill [S 229] defeated yesterday, the question being on a special committee's amendment to permit the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine when properly marked or branded, and not deleterious to health.
Mr. WILLARD moved a substitute for the report by striking out all that relates to oleomargarine or any other substance to be used for butter. The attempt is here made to repeal a bill already passed the Senate to prevent the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine, as well as other acts on the statute book on that subject, so the committe amendment is not germain. In older to avoid this difficulty, I move to strike from the bill all having reference to oleomargarine.
Mr. YOUCHE: I hope the substitute will not prevail. What I said yesterday I will not repeat. The establishment I referred to in my county emoloys about 500 men, and the prohibiting of the manufacture of oleomargarine will take away the livelihood of some 2,000 people in that town, and stop the making of as wholesome an article of food as comes upon the table. I can not believe we will enact legislation against any citizen pursuing an avocation that will not interfere with the health of any one.
Mr. MAGEE: The substitute would destroy the effect of a bill that was passed the Senate without due consideration, which would drive out of existence a manufactory in Lake County, one of the largest of the State, with a capital of $100 000, upon which a tax is paid amounting to about $33 000.
Mr. BROWN demanded the previous question.
The Senate seconded the demand, and under its operations the substitute was rejected by yeas 18 nays 22.
Mr BAILEY: The committee amendment was voted down yesterday. It seeks to destroy the effects of a bill which has already passed the Senate. The manufacture of oleomargarine is only an incident to the business. It is not fair to argue that this establishment will be driven from the State, because an expenditure of $8,O00 or $10,000 would remove that incident to the business across the State line, a little ways from the main building. Then the great dairy producing business of this State should not be injured by the manufacture of such deleterious substances to take the place of butter, and thus reduce the price of that article, thereby oppressing the farming interests of the State.
The report of the committee was concurred in by yeas 22, nays 19
The bill failed to pass for want of a constitutional majority - yeas, 22; nays, 21.
The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill H R. 479.
Mr. FOWLER moved to strike out the item allowing $600 for a clerk to the Adjutant General. There is no law authorizing any such officer, and you can not create a statute in an Appropriation bill.
Mr. WEIR hoped the amendment would not be passed.
Mr MARSHALL: It does sot seem proper that the Senate should commence cutting down salaries on a one-armed soldier.
Mr FOWLER: I don't want to commence with a one-arm soldier or any other soldier. If the records in that office are in a bad shape, what has the Adjutant General been doing the past four years? He has been traveling over the State getting up sham battles. If these records need copying there can be plenty of men obtained who will do the work for less than $1 400 a year.
The amendment was rejected by yeas 15, nays 26.
Mr ADKISON: Believing you can not pay a soldier for the loss of an arm by monied consideration, I vote "no."
Mr. BENZ: The people look to the Democratic party for economy. We can't afford to give this man a clerk I vote "no."
Mr. McCULLOUGH: The number of offices should not be increased in an appropriation bill. I therefore vote "aye."
Mr. THOMPSON: The party in the majority here presented itself before the people as the party of economy, and I can not see why the party should forego that promise to the people. I vote "aye."
Mr WEIR: Believing this officer needs the services of this clerk, I vote "no."
Mr. BROWN moved to reduce the Governor's civil contingent fund from $2 000 to $1 000, in accordance with the estimate made by the Auditor of State.
The
Mr. WILLARD moved to reduce the item to $1 500. If any gentleman will show any reason for doubling this civil contingent fund I will yield If there be any exigency I want to know it; or, if the Governor demands it, he has no more sincere personal friend on the floor than I It will be said in the next campaign, "You have increased the Governor's contingent fund one half, and why?' What is the use of making appropriations larger than the amount necessary?
The motion was agreed to by yeas 22, nays 19.
The
The amendment of the
Mr. BENZ moved ineffectually - yeas, 22; nays, 23 - to make the salary $l,200.
Mr. HILLIGASS moved that the salary of the Auditor's clerk in the Insurance Department remain $1 200 instead of $1,000, as amended in the Committee of the Whole.
The motion was agreed to.
On motion by Mr. HILLIGASS the same action was taken with reference to the Auditor's clerk in the Land Department.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay, moved to make the salary of the Deputy Attorney General $1,000 instead of $600, as in the bill.
Mr. BENZ: For the last six or eight years we have never given more than $600 to this clerk.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: The salary of this office was $1 200 until the Democratic Legislature of 1879 put it down to $600.
Mr MAGEE: I would cut off every single fee and give a respectable salary. Let this officer have $1,000; it is as little as he can live on respectably in the city of Indianapolis
Mr. SMITH, of Jay: It is the duty of the Attorney General to attend to every State case, and he has to trust a great deal of this business to a deputy. Can he employ any competent person, who has to live in Indianapolis, for $600 a year?
The motion was agreed to by yeas 23, nays 21.
Mr. WILLARD moved to add an item to pay the Sheriff of the Supreme Court for the year commencing November, 1885, $500.
The amendment was agreed to
A suggestion being made to place this item in the Specific Appropriation bill -
Mr. FOULKE stated it had been many years since a Specific bill had been passed and it might not pass this year
Mr. ADKISON queried whether a special session of thirty five days was not a sufficient reason why the Specific bill should be passed.
The amendment adopted in Committee of the Whole adding an item of $600 for a messenger to the Supreme Court Judges was agreed to by yeas 33, nays 10.
Mr Youche's amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole adding an item for water supply for fire protection at the Insane Hospital, $15 000, was agreed to.
The proviso to item 12, adopted in Committee of the Whole on motion by Mr. Hilligass was agreed to.
The amendment of the Committee of the Whole, adding $20,000 for repair on buildings, museum, library, chemical and botanical departments of the State University at Bloomington, destroyed by fire, being read -
Mr. SMITH, of Jay: It is well known that County Treasurers do not make collection of delinquent taxes, and unless there be some law to compel the collection of over $1 000,000 of delinquencies in this State, there kind of appropriations should be kept down to the forest figure. The State University will not be hurt to wait a couple of years for these repairs.
Mr. FOWLER: The Senator has been acting as though there were millions in the treasury,
and I am glad he is waking up. The State has had to borrow $1,000,000, but I am not now in
favor or saying we shall stop, after we have been voting away money for all kinds of
purposes. I am in favor of this appropriation. I am not in favor of
Mr. MAGEE: I have voted for the largest appropriation called for on every measure On page 17 of the Auditor"s report will be found the statement that taxables have been increased since 1880, showing we are increasing each year in the amount of our taxable values. I hope the amendment will be adopted. After practicing parsimony for some years, we are at last compelled to pass a deficiency bill. I would not trust the State for $10 if I had to depend on the passage of a bill to pay it. She is the worst and the hardest paymaster that is. I want to see everything necessary for the growth and prosperity of the institutions of the State given to them without niggardly parsimoniousness.
Mr. WILLARD: Since 1879 the valuation of property has decreased over $70,000,000, and it comes from the policy of friends of a protective tariff. It behooves this Senate to consider well that under the present system of collecting revenue, at the end of the fiscal year in November, 1886, there will be a deficiency of $330 000 You must either cut down appropriations, devise some better way of collecting delinquent taxes, or face an empty Treasury. At the regular session you gave this institution $30 000. I asked for an itemized statement, but could not get it. When I am called on for an appropriation I want to know what it is for. Now they come here and ask another appropriation of $20,000. The best way to meet a deficiency is to avoid the necessity of it. I trust the amendment will not prevail.
Mr FOULKE: A prophecy has been made with regard to the finances of the State that has not been equalled since the prophecies of Jeremiah. [Laughter] There is no place the State can less afford to economize than in the upholding and upbuilding of her State educational institutions.
The additional item was agreed to by yeas 35, nays 9.
Mr. ADKISON: Believing that the next Legislature will be Republican, and not desiring a deficiency bill at that time, I vote "aye."
Mr. BENZ: I believe in voting in favor of educational institutions, and so I vote "aye."
The amendment of the Committee of the Whole increasing the item to Purdue from $18 500 to $24 000 being read -
Mr. SMITH, of Jay, moved to amend by reducing the sum to $20,000.
Mr. JOHNSON, of Tippecanoe: Nearly by a unanimous vote the Committee of the Whole Senate decided that the demands of the Trustees of Purdue University should be acceded to. Purdue is very unfortunate; in place of finding friends and benefactors, it finds those who are otherwise. I can not imagine where that spirit of hostility takes its origin. Those who want to curtail that institution, were they to come to Purdue, would be kindly received. While in Europe the treasuries are being exhausted in preparation for battle and slaughter, let us use our money for the purpose of preparing our sons and daughters for usefulness in life, and indorse the principle that education in this State stands highest. I hope the amendment to reduce the appropriation will not prevail.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay: It costs a boy in my county a great deal more to travel to Tippecanoe University than to attend school in an adjoining county. This bill will take money from the pocket of every taxpayer for the purpose of keeping up an institution in whose books is shown the attendance of but few pupils from the several counties in the State
The amendment (Mr. Smith"s) was rejected by yeas 10, nays 34.
The committee amendment was agreed to.
The
The amendment proposed by the Finance Committee to strike out the words "including publication of report" of the State Board of Health being read -
Mr. BROWN moved that these words be retained in the bill.
Mr. WILLARD: California appropriates $50,000 and New York $75,000 for State Boards of Health. This department of State should be treated like every other department of State, and the $5 000 in this item is little enough without requiring the board to do its own printing
Mr. McINTOSH: The law establishing this board makes the requirement that out of this $5 000 it should pay for the publication of us report
Mr. BAILEY: The publication of there report costs some $1,700, and that reduces the appropriation that much.
Mr. BROWN: I believe the bill should stand as it came from the House. The
Mr. RAHM: If you compel the State Board of Health to do its own printing you had better
abolish it. A few weeks ago a law was passed increasing the number of the members of the
board. The Secretary gets $1,200, and has a lady clerk. The $5 000 is not enough, and the
board ought not to be required to publish its reports out of that sum. We all know we are
threatened with the cholera this year, and the more the board has to look after the health
of the
The motion (Mr. Brown's) was rejected by yeas 14, nays 25
The amendment recommended by the Committee of the Whole was agreed to.
On motion by Mr. MARSHALL the House amendments to the bill [S. 368] amending and supplementing to the act for the organization of voluntary associations were concurred in by the Senate.
The House was opened with prayer by Hon. Erasmus H. Staley, a Representative from Clinton County.
The SPEAKER announced the consideration of messages from the Senate.
The bill [S. 314] to prohibit the importation or emigration of foreigners and others, under contract or agreement to perform labor within Indiana, was taken up, the constitutional rules suspended by a yea and nay vote, and the bill pressed through the three readings and the question being "shall the bill pass?"
Mr. SWICH, of Tippecanoe, said: No man can exceed me in efforts to protect the laboring man of this country, or in endeavor to elevate or protect them.
The previous question was demanded, and the House seconded the demand. Under its operations the bill passed by yeas 77, nays 6
Pending the roll call -
Mr. BARNEY, in explanation of his vote, said: For the reason that the previous question cut off a chance for debate, I will state I am decidedly in favor of the bill. I am not willing to favor any measure that may cause my son to be sent to put down a sentiment that this bill is intended to prevent.
Mr. GORDON, in explanation of his vote, said: I wish to call attention to the second petition of this bill. [Reads] The object of the bill is a good one, but I do not think the object will be accomplished by it. But giving the bill the benefit of the doubt I will vote "aye."
Mr. HARRELL when his name was called, said: I am decidedly opposed to this hasty manner of legislation This bill has not been read before in the House I do not understand its provisions and believe it my duty to vote against it. I vote "no."
Mr. HAWORTH: From the fact this is probably one of the most important bills that has come before the House, and as it has not been printed, I shall have to vote against it I vote "no."
Mr. HOBAN: I am opposed to corporations taking the advantage of labor in the way proposed in this bill, but being in favor of honest labor. I will vote "aye."
Mr. LOOP: I have confidence that the bill is right and I shall vote "aye."
Mr. MOCK: I am as much opposed to contract labor as any man in the House. There are some provisions that it is doubtful if they can be conferred. I want to be on the side of the laborer, so I vote "aye."
Mr. PATTEN: I am in favor of the first section, but there are some defects in the bill which at most destroys its usefulness. I suppose it will be a cold day when corporations will be convicted of a misdemeanor under this bill were it to become a law. I will not support any bill that will permit the pig tail Chinese to come here and compete with native labor in this country. I will support the first part of the bill but not the latter part.
The vote was announced as above.
So the bill passed.
Mr. Mock' bill [H. R. - ] to legalize certain acts of the Board of Commissioners of Wells County in relation to the Bluffton and Rockport Gravel Road Company was read the third time and passed by yeas -, nays -.
Mr. McClelland's bill [H. R. - ] to provide for the proper recording of assignments and cancellation of mortgages and mechanics' liens was read the third time and passed by yeas -, - nays.
Mr. Williams' bill [H. R. 204] to fix the time for holding court in the Tenth Judicial Circuit was read the third time and passed by yeas -, nays -.
Mr. Harrell's bill [H. R 292] to authorize the Board of County Commissioners to construct free gravel roads on boundary lines between States, each to defray one half of the expense, was read the third time and passed by yeas -, nays -
Mr. French's blil [H. R. 562] authorizing the Trustees of the Hospital for the Insane to use certain lands for the benefit of the institution was read the third time.
[The ground in question is known as the McCaslin farm, and is composed of 100 acres, situated two miles west of the hostpital. It ws bought by the State originally for the purpose of establishing a House of Refuge there, and in 1867 was sold to McCaslin, who failed to pay for it. After long continued litigation it reverted to the State, and it is now proposed to add it to the Insane Hospital farm.]
The bill passed by yeas -, nays -.
Mr. SEAR'S bill [H. R. 550] providing for the distribution of certain money and
funds in the treasury of the incorporated town of
Mr. GORDON'S bill [H R. -] to establish the Indiana volunteer weather service at DePauw University, failed to pass for want of a constitutional majority. Yeas 48, nays 29.
The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole for the consideration of the bill [H. R. -] making specific appropriations for the year 1885, the question being on the item appropriating $32 000 for a new stone wall around the Southern Prison.
A motion to strike this item out of the bill was agreed to by yeas 40 nays 14
The item appropriating $6,680 to the Perin & Gaff Manufacturing Company, of Jeffersonville, for building workshops at the Southern Prison being read -
Before a vote was reached a recess was taken until 2 o'clock.
The item was agreed to. Mr. HANLON offered as an additional item to the bill a claim by Reuben P. Main for furnishing goods and provisions to the Southern Prison while L. S. Shuler was Warden, the amount being $1 974 12.
Mr CORY said that the claim came up in the Specific Appropriation bill six years ago, and it was at the time shown that the debt had been paid in notes on the Jeffersonville Car Company, which subsequently became bankrupt.
The claim was rejected.
Mr SAYRE moved to add an item giving $360 to Calvin Cowgill and John U. Petit for services as Special Judges in 1878 in Wabash County.
The item was adopted by a vote of 27 to 20
On motion by Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe, to add to the bill an allowance of $750 for building an iron railing around the Tippecanoe battleground was agreed to.
Mr. DITTEMORE proposed an extra allowance of $400 for the last two years to Ed Price, Clerk of the Land Office, who had received only $1,000 a year, while he was entitled to $1,200 which was the amount allowed in the general appropriation bill that failed to pass.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. PENDLETON offered an item, which was adopted, allowing Baker, Smith & Co., for steam heating apparatus at the Insane Hospital, $4,636 18, to Seat R Greene, for fire house $452 and to Griffith & Williams, for plastering, $264.
Mr. RIVERS moved the adoption of an additional item, giving Mr R Slater $1,254 on account of the destruction of the printing material of the Democrat-Herald, a newspaper at Franklin, by Union soldiers during the late war.
Mr. BROWNLEE said he had hoped that no member would have the gall to propose the allowance of this claim The newspaper was destroyed because it was abusing Union soldiers, and was advocating disloyalty. It was a Democratic newspaper, and for that reason the claim might be allowed by the majority.
Mr. PATTEN opposed the allowance.
Mr. DITTEMORE said that property honestly acquired should be protected by the Government, and if destroyed by drunken soldiers he thought that the public ought to pay for the damages.
Mr. HOLMES thought the claim was entitled to no consideration. The printing press which was thrown from the window of the Franklin Democrat Herald he himself had owned and sold. It is now, he said, in use in Bloomington
The claim was rejected.
A motion by Mr. STALEY to incorporate in the bill the claim of Matthew M. Campbell for $1,300, as a teacher in the State University at Bloomington from 1839 to 1854, was rejected.
Mr. McMULLEN moved to add an item allowing W. B Burford the sum of $2,801.78, as interest on the State's indebtedness to him for public printing, which was adopted.
Isaac Taylor was allowed $250 50 for repairs on the Soldiers' Orphans' Home and the Asylum for Feeble-minded Children at Knightstown.
On the motion by Mr. WILLIAMS the Committee of the Whole arose, and was discharged from further consideration of the bill. The bill, as amended by the Committee of the Whole, was ordered engrossed.
The bill [S -] allowing County Commissioners to pay interest on bonds either annually or semi-annually, at their discretion, was read the third time and passed by yeas 66, nays 4.
Mr Mock's bill [H. R. -] amending Section 8 of the act concerning trusts and powers, the object of the measure being to prevent fraud by secret agreements in transferring real estate, was read the third time and passed by yeas 66 nays 6
Mr. Deem's bill [H R - ] giving incorporated library associations permission to change their names was read the third time and passed - yeas, 57; nays, 16
The House then adjourned until 7:30 o'clock in the evening.
At the night session the House adopted a concurrent resolution, offered by Mr. Mock, that 1,000 copies of the ditch and gravel road laws be printed in pamphlet form for distribution by members
Mr. Kellison's bill to authorize aid in the construction of railroads, by a two-thirds vote was read the third time and passed by yeas 55, nays 12.
Mr. Taylor's bill to provide for the redemption of personal property in thirty days, as was the law in 1875, was read the third time and passed by yeas 63, nays 4.
The Senate resumed consideration of the bill H. R. 479
The item of $8,000 for the bath, wash and dry house at the State Prison North being read -
Mr. PARKER: It seems to me $8 000 for a bath house is a big figure. I move to amend by inserting the word "four" instead of "eight."
The amendment was rejected.
The committee amendment adding after the appropriations for the State Prison North a proviso "that all specific appropriations herein made for additional buildings and machinery for the State Prison North shall be paid out of the earnings of said prison," being read -
Mr. WILLARD: $118,000 was the amount earned last year by the State Prison North. In this bill we have made a $20,000 appropriation in addition to the $85,000 for maintenance and repairs, leaving a surplus of earnings of $13,000. The earnings have just been held over from year to year - that is the way it has been heretofore They exceed the appropriations and say their earnings cover it.
Mr BROWN moved to add "no such expenditure shall be made in any one year unless the earnings are sufficient to meet the same."
The amendment was agreed to.
The committee amendment as amended was agreed to.
The amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole adding $400 for the State Horticultural Society, was agreed to.
Mr. WILLARD moved to amend Section 3 by adding an additional exception, stating that all appropriations herein made for additional buildings, libraries and all specific appropriations, are made but for one year - the fiscal year ending October 30, 1886
Subsequently, on motion by Mr. YOUCHE, the $15 000 item for water supply for the Insane Hospital was also excepted, as was also the extra appropriations to Bloomington and Purdue University.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St Joseph, moved to reconsider the vote declaring that no expenditure shall be made in any one year, unless the earnings are sufficient to meet the same. It in desired these repairs shall go on now in 1885, and be paid from the earnings of 1884, some $13 000 of which is on hand. This amendment provides the earnings used shall be those of 1885, which can not be obtained till the close of the year.
Mr. FOWLER moved ineffectually - yeas, 8; nays, 32 - to lay this motion on the table.
The motion to reconsider was agreed to.
Mr. BROWN withdrew the amendment the vote on the adoption of which was just reconsidered.
Mr. WILLARD to avoid ambiguity and definiteness, moved to insert instead of the words "are hereby" the words "in Section 2 of this act." If these words "are hereby" are left in the bill there will be a double appropriation.
Mr. YOUCHE: That makes confusion. I move as a substitute to strike out the word "hereby."
The substitute was rejected.
Mr. YOUCHE: I think I can show the effect of this amendment will be to double these appropriations. [Reads and comments]
Mr. McCULLOUGH moved that a select committee of three be appointed to frame the language so there can be no question.
The motion was agreed to and the Lieutenant Governor appointed as said committee Messrs. McCullough, Willard and Youche.
On motion of Mr. DUNCAN, of Brown, the bill [H. R. 565] to fix the time for holding courts in the Tenth Judicial Circuit was read three times under a suspension of the rules and finally passed by yeas 44, nays 0.
Mr. FAULKNER: This is another of those lawyer bills being passed by double-geared lightning, but I am willing to help them and I vote "aye."
Mr. Willard and Mr. Youche withdrew their amendments, and the special committee recommended striking out the first six lines on page 33 of the printed bill, except the words "or so," and inserting after the word "out" in line 8 these words, "of any money in the State Treasury not otherwise appropriated"
The committee amendment was agreed to.
On motion by Mr. WILLARD the constitutional rule was suspended, so the bill may be read the third time now.
The reading was commenced -
The reading was continued and the bill passed by yeas 34, nays 11.
Mr. BENZ, in explanation of his vote, said: There are several things in that bill too extravagant and I did all in my power to prevent the extravagance, but as we must have an Appropriation bill I will vote "aye."
Mr. FAULKNER, when his name was called, said: There are a number of things in the bill I
think are wrong. I did all I could to keep them out, but as one man can't have
everything he wants, and I don't think that a good
Mr. McINTOSH, when his name was called, said: I think there is at least $100,000 more in that bill than there ought to be - $100,000 more than is necessary, and I vote "no"
Mr. WILLARD: As Chairman of the
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks: I desire to change my vote and give the reasons I recognize
the fact that appropriations have to be made and that the majority are responsible for
them; but when the Chairman of the
Mr. HUSTON: For the same reason given by the Senator from Hendricks I desire to change my vote, I vote "no"
Mr. DRAKE: I desire my name shall be called again "No."
Mr. McCULLOUGH: Call my name. The Appropriation bills did not meet my judgment at all, but I notice the Republican minority vote for the largest appropriation as they came up, and if they want to make expenses of that kind I will assist, and vote "no."
Mr. MARSHALL: Inasmuch as the Senator from Gibson (Mr. McCullough) has charged that the Republicans on this floor have tried to make this bill as large as they could, and as I, for one Republican, have tried to keep these appropriations down as low as I could, and I see they are yet altogether too large. I vote "no."
Mr. THOMPSON asked that, his name be called, and said: Inasmuch as Senators around me are going back on what they have done, I, too, will repent, and will vote "no."
Mr. DAVIS: I desire to change my vote. "No."
Mr. ADKISON, asking that his name be again called: I understand that this Appropriation bill is the off spring; of the Democratic party, but as its father sees proper to go back on its off spring, I vote "no."
Mr. RICHARDSON desiring his name to be again called, voted "no"
Mr HILLIGASS: I want to say this in reference to my vote: We have been at work several days on this bill; we have worked upon it in a committee of the whole Senate, and we have agreed upon this bill. I see a disposition on the part of one or two individuals to charge the responsibility of passing this bill upon the Democratic party. The changing started on the Republican side of the House. I have no responsibility to shirk, and I don't desire to shirk. This bill is the work of members of the Senate, and the work of the Committee of Whole. I want to say to Republican Senators upon this floor that they have acquiesced in the main in all the work upon the Appropriation bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Willard in the chair): Does the Senator desire to change his vote?
Mr. HILLIGASS: I will tell you at the end of my speech.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: If not, the Senator is out of order.
Mr. ADKISON: I want to say I changed my vote became the Chairman of the
The Presiding Officer (Mr. Willard in the chair): No this bill is not the offspring of
the Chairman of the
Mr. HILLIGASS: Upon the call of the roll the Chairman of the
Mr. BENZ: I don't think the Senator has the right to make a speech when he has voted already.
Mr. Zimmerman voted "aye."
Mr. Peterson voted "aye."
Mr. SELLERS: I desire to say that this bill does not meet my approbation, but it has been prepared and passed by the House of Representatives, and amended by a majority of this Senate. I desire to acquiesce in the will of the majority. I can not assume the responsibility of helping to defeat the General Appropriation bill because it does not meet my approval, and, therefore, I vote "aye."
So the bill passed.
Mr. WILLARD: I move to suspend the regular order and take up House bill 543 That bill is more important than any bill which has been before this body, not excepting the General Appropriation bill: for it proposes to put back the compensation to County Treasurers for collecting delinquent taxes to 6 per cent
Mr. HUSTON: In the consideration of House bill 71 I have acted fairly. I hold that this effort to change the order is not being urged by those friendly to House bill 71. I agree with the Senator as to the importance of the House bill 543 but the Senate having repeatedly made the bill 71 a special order it should not now be set aside. It is a bill clearly in the interest of the farmers and not unfair to railroad interests I move to lay on the table the motion to suspend the order of business.
This action was agreed to by yeas 27, nays 21.
Mr. HUSTON moved that the Senate Committee amendments to the bill [H. R. 71] requiring railroads within six months to fence their tracks be ordered engrossed. It it similar to the laws in Illinois, Missouri, Iowa and Kansas, except it is much milder toward railroads.
Mr. MAGEE: This bill will be imposing a burden on railroad companies which they can not meet. If this bill is to pass it should be amended to give further time. I move to strike out the word "six" and insert in lieu thereof "eighteen."
Mr SMITH, of Jennings: I am not opposed to the bill in its right form. I am in favor of railroad corporations fencing their lines. I am constrained to believe this bill is in favor of large corporations and against small ones. On principles of equality and justice the doctrine of partition fences should apply to this bill. I don't mean that owners of property should fence one-half but that there should be some equality in the matter of fencing railroad tracks. The owner of the real estate should contribute to the building of the fence. A railroad company is now liable for the killing of stock without reference to negligence. The first section of this bill repeals that law. Another provision is clearly unconstitutional. No man has the right to enter upon the premises of another and commit any act without the privilege of the owner. The railroad corporations give more employment to the laborers than all other corporations combined. There is yet another feature in the bill - the reverse of every law on the subject in the State of Indiana.
Mr CAMPBELL, of Hendricks: I agree that six months is rather a short time, but eighteen months is too long; after the railroad company has had a reasonable time, the owner of the land adjoining should have the right to build the fence. The partition fence law was not made with referrence to the fencing of railroads This bill gives ample time to build fences and cattle guards considering the fact that it will not take effect till after publication of the laws.
Mr. HUSTON: This bill simply requires railroad companies to build fences where land is improved in six months but has no emergency clause which practically gives them nine months. It practically removes all liability for the killing of stock where the track is fenced. Then it gives the owner of land the right to fence where the railroad refuses, and allows the railroad sixty days to pay; then if the railroad tenders payment for the value of the fence within sixty days the claimant can not collect attorney fees. The farmers of Indiana have heretofore been building these fences, and it is but fair that railroads should hold up that end of the string now. Of the 3 500 miles of railroad track in this State all but about 900 miles are fenced. This bill, so fair, so just and so equitable, I trust will be passed by the Senate.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph: I move to amend the amendment by striking out the word "eighteen" and inserting in lieu the word "twelve." I believe six months is too short and eighteen months too long a time to require these fences to be built. The argument that there are some railroads upon which this bill will be a burden is the strongest argument to me why the bill should be passed, because if they are not able to build proves they are probably unable to pay for stock they kill.
Mr. WILLARD: While the amendment would relieve the bill of a dangerous feature, there is
still an objection to this bill. If it is in favor of any one it is in favor of the
railroad companies. There is only one way it can be construed as constitutional and that
is; it will be a, police regulation. The effect will be wherever roads are unsafe and where
they are already fenced there will be no way of securing pay for stock killed. I introduced
January 21 a bill that gave the farming community a chance for their protec-
The amendment to the amendment was agreed to upon a division.
The amendment as amended was also agreed to by yeas 24, nays 22
Mr. YOUCHE moved to amend by adding a Section 4. Nothing in this act shall change the liability of railroad corporations for stock killed or injured on that railroad.
Mr. McCULLOUGH: This bill would by implication repeal an existing law, as to all railroads at least that run through unenclosed lands. The amendment should be adopted. I am in favor of giving the farmer every right and every protection
Mr. HUSTON: I am heartily in accord with the amendment. I demand the previous question.
The Senate refused to second the demand for the previous question upon a division - affirmative, 21; negative, 26
Mr. MAGEE: I can see no necessity for the amendment.
Mr McCULLOUGH: It would not do to pass this bill and repeal the law in force. I think this amendment prevents vicious legislation in the bill.
The amendment was agreed to by yeas 34, nays 10.
Mr. WILLARD moved to strike from the bill the allowance of attorney fees. While I am opposed to the bill if it is passed this provision should be eliminated from it
Mr. MAGEE: I move that this bill and all amendments be referred to a special committee with instructions to report at 10 o'clock to morrow. It is now after 6 o'clock.
Mr HUSTON: I hope that motion will not prevail. The committee will doubtless report a cumbersome bill that will provoke as much discussion as this one will.
Mr. HILLIGASS: I think this motion ought to prevail. The only intelligent way is to refer this bill and amendments to a special committee.
Mr WEIR: I hope the motion will not prevail.
The Senate then adjourned.
Mr. William's bill [H R. 305] relative to the release of sureties on the bond of liquor dealers having been read the third time, Mr. Williams explaining, said: The chief liability is the surety is liable for fines and costs. Where a man is keeping a disorderly house the surety should have the right to say to his principal you must keep an orderly house.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: It is the clause, where he fails to get a bondsman than this liquor dealer, principal and all the bondsmen are acquit, that is objectionable.
Mr. WILLIAMS: Oh, no.
Mr. SMITH: This liquor selling is a privilege granted for which money is paid. I want to be careful not to release any obligations the principal or bondsmen have assumed.
Mr. TAYLOR: This bill ought to become a law. It provides for a release of sureties just as a person may be relieved from the bond of a criminal; and I think that is right. I see nothing wrong about it I think it a good bill and ought to become a law.
Mr. STALEY demanded the previous question.
The House seconded the demand, and, under its operations, the bill passed by yeas 69, nays 9
Mr. PATTEN: I don't believe we have power to relieve sureties from the responsibilities attendant upon the license while it is in force.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: I am opposed to the bill because of the possible danger in it, and I vote "no."
The vote was then announced as above.
So the bill passed.
The bill [S. 373] providing for the establishment of an Appellate Court of five judges at an annual salary of $4 000 each, at Indianapolis, was reported back from the committee without recommendation.
Mr. BOOE moved to amend by striking out the section which provides that the judges shall be elected by the votes of the respective districts which they represent.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: I come from a county like Marion that believes in non-partisan judiciary. I believe in such courts, but if this bill be amended so as to strike out the non-partisan features with which it comes from the Senate, I shall vote against the bill. It is my opinion that the judiciary can only be enthroned in the hearts of the people by its non-partisan character. All the people are interested in the courts, therefore the courts should represent the political opinions of the whole people. No other court can stand the test of favor. High qualifications, non-partisan characters and the representation of the people |is the present and will be the future test of a judiciary.
Mr. BROWNLEE: I am in favor of the bill as it came from the Senate. It is non-partisan in
its provisions, and will receive my support; but if the amendment is adopted, and the court
is to be placed upon the level of politics, I am against it. The judgment of the people -
those that do the voting and pay the taxes - demand that their courts shall be taken out of
and removed from politics. I believe the better judgment of all men is that the Judiciary
of the State
The motion was rejected by yeas 46, nays 47 The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. LOYD moved to strike from the bill the enacting clause.
Mr. McMULLEN made an ineffectual motion - yeas 25, nays 58 - to lay the motion on the table.
The motion [Mr. Loyd's] was then agreed to by yeas 56, nays 21.
Mr. SEARS from the special committee to which was referred the Cartwright fee and salary bill, reported it back, with the recommendation that it pass with amendments The House refused to concur in the amendments, and the bills were ordered engrossed.
Mr. WILLIAMS bill [H. R. 506] to abolish the office of Supreme Court Commissioners, was read the third time, and passed by yeas 72, nays 3
Mr. Overman's bill to prevent railroad companies from making extra charges where passengers fail to purchase tickets before getting on the train failed to pass for want of a constitutional majority by yeas 50, nays 43.
The bill [H. R. 487] - the Specific Appropriation bill - was read a third time and passed - yeas, 59; nays, 21.
The bill H. R 488] to establish the Indiana Volunteer Weather Service and locating it at De Pauw University, was passed - yeas, 65; nays, 13.
Mr. Robinson's bill [H. R. 14] to amend the act concerning voluntary associations formed for the purpose of insuring farm property, failed to pass for want of a constitutional majority - yeas, 41; nays, 29.
Mr. Overman's bill [H. R. 185] to amend Section 162 of the common school act failed to pass for want of a constitutional majority - yeas, 47; nays, 26
Mr. Smith, of Tippecanoe's, bill [H. R. 188] fixing the salary of the Superintendent of Public Instruction at $2 500 and giving him certain fees derived from certificates of license, was defeated - yeas, 35; nays, 36.
Mr. Staley'a bill [H. R. 210] to amend Section 210 of an act providing for the settlement and distribution of decedents' estates, was read a third time.
Mr. STALEY explained that the bill simply makes one change in the existing law, and that is demanded by a great many attorneys and courts of the State. It allows thirty instead of ten days' time for a transcript in probable proceedings to be taken to the Supreme Court. The bill passed - yeas, 67; nays, 3.
Mr. Linville's bill [H R 212] to amend Section 209 of the act concerning public offenses, was read a third time the author explaining that the only change from the present law for the protection of fish, was that it allowed owners of private fish-ponds to stock and replenish them by catching them with a seine or trap
The bill passed - yeas, 51; nays, 22.
Mr. HELMS moved that the House take up the bill [H. R. 557] providing for the punishment of wife-beaters by whipping them.
The motion was agreed to by yeas 38, nays 23, and the bill was read a third time, and under the operation of the previous question, the vote on its passage resulted ayes 42, nays 36.
Pending the roll call -
Mr. BARNEY: I would be ashamed to go home to my constituent and tell them that we had to recognize the necessity for a law like this. I vote "no."
Mr. DEEM: I am glad to say that I live in a section of the State where wife whipping is unknown. If this bill should become a law it would be a step back toward barbarism. I vote "no."
Mr. HARRELL: I regard it as unwise to put this law on the statute books, for it is unconstitutional. Article 1, Section 16, of the Constitution provides that no cruel nor inhuman punishment shall be inflicted. I vote "no."
Mr. HAYDEN: For the reason that I believe that no punishment can be too severe nor no degradation too great for a man who strikes his wife, I vote "aye."
Mr. HELMS: As I believe in protecting the weak, who are not able to protect themselves, I vote "aye."
Mr. ROBINSON'S bill [H. R. 169] to amend Section 5 of the act providing for the taxation of dogs was read a third time and defeated by yeas 29, nays 43.
The House then adjourned.
The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill [H. R 71] pending at the adjournment yesterday.
Mr. MAGEE withdrew his motion to recommit.
The question being on the amendment [Mr. Willard's] to strike out all that relates to attorney's fees, it was rejected by yeas 14, nays 22
Mr BAILEY, explaining his vote: The law in reference to mechanic's lien and in other cases provides for attorneys' fees, and I see no reason why such a provision should not be included in these cases, so I vote "no."
Mr. MAGEE: I don't think we can make such a provision apply to involuntary contracts. I therefore vote "aye."
Mr. McINTOSH: If this attorney fee is stricken out it will cost the farmer as much to hire a lawyer as the fence is worth, so I vote "no."
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings: I understand the friends of this bill put it on the ground of police regulation, and not on a contract basis. That uneducated professionals who may advise a suit for the sake of a fee may not profit by such legislation I vote "no."
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. WINTER moved to amend by inserting the word "receiver" after the word "assignee" wherever it occurs.
Mr. YOUCHE questioned whether receivers already appointed can be affected by such a provision.
Mr. WINTER considered they could under police regulations.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. YOUCHE offered an amendment that the fences may be constructed in part of wire. All the new fences in my part of the State are built of barbed wire.
It was adopted by consent.
Mr. OVERSTREET moved to strike out the words "with gates and bars." This bill ought to be fair and equitable to the railroad company as well as to the land owners. Is it reasonable when the railroad company have no use for the gates, when they are broken down the company is to be held responsible? Then the bill does not state how frequent these gates shall be built. The roads may be required to build them at every field.
MR. WINTER: I favor the amendment for the reason I don't believe the feature it proposes to strike is constitutional. The only right we have to pass a bill of this kind is to protect the public by police regulation from the liability of having trains thrown from the track by animals getting on it.
Mr. YOUCHE moved as a substitute an additional section, requiring gates and bars at farm crossings to be built and kept in repair and kept closed by the farmer in the absence of a written contract.
Mr. OVERSTREET: Adopt my amendment and then the amendment of the Senator from Lake (Mr. Youche) and all cases will be covered.
Mr CAMPBELL, of Hendricks: It occurs to me the position taken by the Senator from Johnson (Mr. Overstreet) is right. We have no right to require railroads to make gates at crossings; that is not for the protection of the public.
Mr. MACY: I don't know why the interests of railroads should be regarded as so
The substitute (Mr. Youche's) was rejected.
The amendment (Mr. Overstreet's) was agreed to.
Mr. YOUCHE now re-offered his substitute as an additional section.
It was agreed to.
Mr. SELLERS moved to amend by striking out "cattle guards and barriers" where they occur in Section 2. There ought to be no provisions that will allow any person to go upon and occupy the track of a railroad. The loss of one life is of more importance than all the advantages to be gained from this bill. No one ought to be allowed to tear up a track except an experienced railroad man.
Mr. HUSTON: Would not the railroad company put in such barriers and cattle guards within the time prescribed for notice?
Mr. SMITH of Jennings: This amendment would persons to go upon a railroad track and make it insecure - it is a most unreasonable thing
Mr WEIR: It seems to me this amendment is eminently proper and ought to be adopted
Mr. McINTOSH: If this amendment is adopted we might as well indefinitely postpone the bill. It is the knife that will slaughter it.
Mr. HILLIGASS: I think the amendment ought to be adopted.
The amendment was rejected by yeas 21, nays 23
Mr. BAILEY, explaining his vote: It seems to me the adoption of this amendment would in fact nullify the bill. Senators exaggerate the idea of inexperienced men working upon the track. I vote "no."
Mr. McCULLOUGH: I regard the amendment as wholly immaterial. If you strike out this clause you still require the tracks to be fenced. If a fence is run on two sides and no cattle-guard is placed where a road crosses, the track is not fenced.
Mr. WINTER moved to insert in Section 2 a thirty days' notice to the railroad agent.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings, moved to amend that such corporation shall not be required to build fences between the first day of December and the first day of May.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr RAHM moved to amend so that fences may be dispensed with by consent. In several townships in my county stock are fenced in, and there is no need of the tracks being fenced.
The previous question was demanded, and being seconded by the Senate, under its operation -
The amendment was rejected.
On motion the amendments were ordered engrossed.
On motion by Mr HUSTON the bill was read the third time and passed by yeas 33, nays 9
Mr. RAHM, explaining his vote: I favored the passage of this bill, but when it compels railroads to build fences of no use to anybody I can not vote for the bill. The fences cost a great deal of money; the farmers will have to pay the bill at last, and as corn and produce are too cheap already I vote "no."
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings: Every dollar required from railroads to pay for fencing will be gotten back by reducing the pay of laborers or increasing the charges for carrying freight, and with that view I vote "no."
Mr. WEIR from a committee returned the bill [H. R. 48] with an amendment provided that no land shall be sold unless the tax shall be delinquent for one year.
Mr. WILLARD: There are one million and a quarter delinquent taxes uncollected and due to the State, and now why the collection should be extended six months longer is something I can't understand.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks: The laws for the collection of delinquent taxes for many years have done more harm than good. The law making them payable in installments has probably worked a disadvantage.
The bill was rejected by yeas 15, nays 27.
Mr. BROWN explaining his vote, said: The effect of this bill will be to delay the collection of delinquent taxes for six months longer.
Mr. FOWLER: If there has been a bill before this Senate in which the principles of suffering humanity will apply it is this one and I vote "aye" with all my might.
Mr. WEIR: I have never read nor had time to examine this bill. It may, and probably would, make some difference in the collection of taxes; but it is unreasonable to sell a man's property for one installment of delinquencies. I vote "aye"
Mr. WINTER: If a man fails to pay taxes, after delinquency he still has four months, and that is long enough.
A message from the Senate announcing the refusal of the House to concur in the Senate
amendments to the General Appropriation bill [R. R 479]. On motion of Mr. WILLARD the
Senate refused to recede from its amendments, and Messrs. MaGee and Youche were appointed
as a
Mr. WILLARD moved that the Specific Appropriation bill be made a special order in Committee of the Whole for 2 o'clock today.
Mr. McINTOSH moved, ineffectually, that the bill be printed and made a special order for 7:30 o'clock this evening
Mr. WINTER moved as an amendment
The amendment was agreed to upon a division - affirmative, 22; negative not announced.
The motion as amended was also agreed to.
On motion by Mr. HILLIGASS the House concurrent resolution, for printing 1,000 copies of the ditch law and the gravel road law in pamphlet form for the use of the General Assembly, was concurred in.
On motion by Mr. MAGEE the vote passing a Senate resolution ordering 500 copies of the ditch law printed was reconsidered
Mr. ADKISON (the author) asked and obtained leave to withdraw the resolution.
D. R> MUNSON'S LIGHTNING ROD CLAIM.
On motion by Mr BAILEY the House amendment to the bill [S. 177] reducing the amount allowed from $5,125 69 to $2,500 was concurred in.
On motion by Mr HILLIGASS the Specific Appropriation bill [H. R. 487] as read the first time.
On motion by Mr. SCHLOSS the bill [H. R 543] to provide compensation to Treasurers for collecting delinquent taxes.
Mr. MACY moved to amend by limiting the per cent. to those cases only where demand has been made.
The amendment was agreed to.
On motion of Mr SCHLOSS the amendments were considered engrossed
Mr. MACY: The bill should be amended so as to make it the duty of the Treasurer to demand delinquent tax from the November collections. As this bill now stands I regard it as inoperative. It requires of the Treasurers, before they are entitled to the percentage, to do certain things which he is not under the law as it now exists, authorized to do and which this bill will not authorized him to do. I move that this bill be referred to a committee of three with orders to report to-morrow at 10 o'clock.
The motion was agreed to, and the Lieutenant Governor appointed Messrs Macy, McIntosh and Schloss said committee.
On motion by Mr. BRYANT the bill [H. R. 210] to amend Section 229 of an act for settlement and distribution of decedents' estates was read three times under suspension of the rules and passed by yeas 29, nays 0.
Mr. Sellers explained it extends the time allowing for filing a transcript of record thirty days instead of ten, as the law now is.
On motion by Mr. JOHNSTON, of Dearborn, the bill [H. R. 401] was read the second time.
Mr HILLIGASS: This bill provides the city shall have a lien upon the property improved instead of the contractor having the lien. The contractor gets the money and the city takes the chances of collecting the money. I don't think any improvement can be made upon the present law for street improvements I hope the amendment will not be concurred in nor the bill passed.
Mr. SELLERS: I thick the report ought to be concurred in. The property owner instead of owing a contractor, who he must pay at once, by this bill would be given four years in which to pay the assessment. It if a bill in favor of the poor man who has purchased a home, for which he is indebted. The bill provides the City Council may make these improvements in this way, and the petition must be signed by a majority of property owners. The city is fully protected. Under the present law the property holder in straightened circumstances is at a disadvantage
Mr HILLIGASS: The bill provides the money shall be taken out of the taxes of the poor man to improve the streets and alleys of the tows. Then this bill repeals all former acts, and cripples the power of Common Councils to improve streets and alleys, especially those cities already bonded to the full amount of the constitutional limit.
The Senate refused to concur in the report of the committee.
On motion by Mr ADKINSON his bill [S. 358] to authorize the Governor and Lieutenant Governor to appoint a commission which shall report a fee and salary bill to the next General Assembly, was read the third time and rejected by yeas 17, nays 23.
Mr. JOHNSTON, of Dearborn, explaining his vote: Inasmuch as this bill is a bill to increase officers and enact unnecessary expenses, as I think, I vote "no."
Mr. McINTOSH: I can't believe it possible that the Senate will pass this bill. Is it possible after remaining in session ninety-five days we will then appoint a committee to frame a fee and salary bill? Is it possible we will thus admit that we are not capable of framing a fee and salary bill? Will we authorize a committee for county officers to wine and dine and feed, and then after they have framed such a bill bring it to the next Legislators to be defeated? Every Republican is voting for this bill in order to condemn this Legislature.
Mr. OVERSTREET: I am a Republican, and would be glad to accommodate my friend who introduced this bill; but I am in the habit of voting my conscientious convictions, and I must vote "no."
On motion by Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph, the bill [H. R. 435] was read the third time and rejected by yeas 16, nays 21.
Mr. CAMPBELL explained: It is to restrict the office of Township Trustee to one
Mr. McINTOSH: As a personal proposition I think Trustees as honest as any other class of officers, and I am opposed to the passage of the bill.
Mr. BENZ: I oppose the bill. We sometimes may get in a Trustee that don't do very well and we would have to keep him four years; then if we get one who does well, we can't keep him longer than four years. I vote "no"
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings: This bill is not before the Senate in the ordinary parliamentary way, therefore I vote "no"
On motion by Mr. HILLIGASS the telephone rental bill [H. R. 44] was read the second time with a favorable majority report and a minority report recommending that it lie on the table.
On motion by Mr. WINTER it was made the special order for 11 o'clock to-morrow morning.
On motion by Mr. Lindley the bill [H. R. 550] to distribute undistributed money in the Treasury of Clinton, in the County of Vermillion, was pressed through the three read readings and passed by yeas 41, nays 0.
Mr. LINDLEY explained: It is entirely a local matter.
On motion by Mr. HUSTON the bill [H. R. 75] to allow extension of charters of turnpike or gavel road companies, was read the second and third times under a suspension of the constitutional rule, and passed by yeas 39, nays 1.
Mr. HUSTON explained its provisions.
On motion by Mr. BROWN the bill [H. R. 200] to amend Section 6 383 of the Revised Statutes, was read the third time.
Mr. BROWN explained the point in the bill is to exempt land occupied by highways from taxation, and the only change from the present law.
Mr. FOULKE: The present law is exactly right.
The bill failed to pass for want of a constitutional majority by yeas 21, nays 19.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks, from the
Mr. CAMPBELL: This bill is framed to avoid the objections in the veto message of the Governor. I move that the amendment be adopted.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. CAMPBELL moved the constitutional rule be suspended, the bill read the second time by title, the third time by sections and put upon its passage.
The motion to suspend the constitutional role was agreed to by yeas 36, nays 6.
The bill was accordingly read the second time by title, the third time by sections and passed by yeas 29, nays 14
The House met at 9 o'clock.
The session was opened with prayer by Rev. Thomas M. Smith, a Representative from the county of Warrick.
Mr. BARNES, from the
The report was concurred in.
Mr. Taylor's bill, authorizing the recognition of acts of Notaries Public of other States in certain cases was read the the third time and passed by yeas 64, nays 10.
Mr. Mauck's bill to prohibit the use or occupancy of buildings or rooms belonging to counties by persons other than legally constituted officers, failed to pass for want of a constitutional majority - yeas, 45; nays, 32.
A message from the Senate announced the passage of the General Appropriation bill [H. R. 498] with sundry amendments.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe, moved to concur in the Senate amendments.
Mr. GORDON demanded a divison of the question, which the Speaker ruled out of order, holding, however, that the House might order this division; but a motion to this effect failed - yeas, 33; nays, 46.
Mr. GORDON moved that the Senate
This motion was rejected by yeas 34, nays 50.
Mr. GORDON moved to non-concur and again asked for a division of the question, and
further, that the vote of the House upon each item be regarded as an instruction to the
The SPEAKER ruled the motion out of order both on parliamentary grounds and for the reason that the House had indicated that it did not wish a division of the question.
Mr. GORDON appealed from the decision of the Chair, Mr. Harrell joining.
The SPEAKER called Mr. French to the chair.
On motion of Mr. DITTEMORE the appeal was laid on the table - yeas, 47; nays, 37.
The previous question having been demanded and seconded by the House, under its operations -
The House refused to concur in the Senate amendments by yeas 36, nays 50.
The SPEAKER appointed as the House members of the
The House took a recess till 2 o'clock.
Mr. ADAMS: There are some things in the amendment which I do not approve, but believing that to vote against them would endanger the ultimate passage of the measure, I vote "aye."
Mr. COPELAND: I believe some of these items are grossly extravagant, and I therefore vote "no."
Mr. DONHOST: As most of the increased appropriations are for the benefit of the educational institutions which I desire to do all I can to support, first, last and all the time, I vote "aye."
Mr. DEEM. While I regard several of the items in the bill as extravagant and perhaps exhorbitant, yet I have reason to believe that a non concurrence in the Senate amendments would probably endanger needed appropriations for the State and her institutions. I have no desire to appear as an obstructor, and in the conservative spirit of compromise I am constrained to vote "aye."
The SPEAKER: In appointing the
The bill [S. -] to regulate the practice of medicine in the State, which previously failed to pass for want of a constitutional majority.
Mr. MOODY: I am in favor of this bill. Its author is an honorable and educated gentlemen of that most honorable profession, and I am desirous on his account that the House shall give this bill a candid and impartial consideration. This bill is not all its friends would like to have by way of medical legislation, but it is a step in the right direction, and I trust may in some degree aid in protecting, the resident physicians and the people of our State against charlatans and traveling quacks fleeing from other Status into ours, because of similar laws there enacted. I am satisfied this bill is so liberal in all of its provisions that it will not deprive any man from practicing medicine if he is a man fit to engage in so learned and honorable calling. I have never been over anxious to legislate in the interest of any particular class of men, but in my humble judgment we should have a law that will, if possible, protect our people against that class of men who are tramping over the country claiming to be able to cure any, and all diseases to which the human system is subject I believe this bill will accomplish much good if enacted into a law.
The bill passed by yeas 65, nays 18.
The bill [S - ] providing that children under twelve years of age shall not be allowed to
work in factories or mines was called up, with the report of the
The report of the committee was concurred in, and the bill passed - yeas, 63; nays, 9.
The bill [S. 107] to amend Section 7 of the Fee and Salary act of 1883 being read the third time -
Mr. ENGLE: This bill simply repeals that provision of the existing laws which allows County Clerks $2 a day for attending court. That was tacked on to the bill by the Legislature two years ago by false pretenses, and there is no reason for the Clerk getting this extra pay, when he already makes $10 or more a day for what he does during court.
Mr. HARRELL: I am opposed to the bill, because it would work a hardship on the Clerks of the smaller counties of the State, although it might increase the compensation of some Clerks who do not deserve it.
Mr. MOCK, of Wells: I favor the bill, because I believe the Clerks of the State make more money than they are rightfully entitled to now.
The bill failed to pass - yeas, 40; nays, 35.
The bill 120, authorizing a tax of fifty cents on each teacher for the expenses of County Institutes, was read a third time.
Mr. BROOKS did not think it fair or just to pass a bill entailing such a tax on school teachers.
Mr. GARRISON said that the bill was drawn up by the Superintendent of his county, and it had the approval of all the teachers there.
Mr. PLEASANTS thought the bill would work a great hardship on a class of citizens who are already overworked and underpaid.
The bill was defeated - yeas, 5; nays, 66.
The bill [S. 125] to compel county officers to promptly pay over to the succession all the public moneys in their hands was read a third time.
Mr. ENGLE said that the bill proposed to amend an act passed in 1883, making it a felony for certain officers to fail to pay over public funds to their successors, so as to include all State and county officers.
The bill failed to pass for want of a constitutional majority by yeas 47, nays 23.
On motion by Mr. Zimmerman the bill [H. R. 48] to amend Sections 4 373 and 4 374 of the Revised Statutes was read the third time and passed by yeas 28 nays 12
Mr. WEIR explained it allows the loaning of moneys to citizens of other counties, and in sums not to exceed $5,000, the County Commissioners to appoint the appraisers; or not to exceed one fourth the value of the property without improvements. There are seventeen counties in the State unable to loan this money. The county I live in has from $15,000 to $20,000 it can not loan. The county is responsible for the money and has to pay the interest on it.
On motion by Mr. SHIVELY the bill (H. R. 139] to prohibit the sale of dangerous toys was read the third time and passed by yeas 38, nays 4.
Mr. WILLARD called up the special order, being the Specific Appropriation bill, H. R. 487.
Mr. FAULKNER made an ineffectual motion - yeas, - ; nays, - ; - to indefinitely postpone the bill.
On motion by Mr. WILLARD the Senate resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole (Mr. Willard in the chair) and proceeded to the consideration of the specific bill.
The bill having been read through the reading by items was commenced. Item 2, to allow $48 to Thomas Hanna for services as a member of a commission to represent the State in law suits against corporations, being read -
Mr. BROWN moved to strike this item from the bill.
Mr. HILLIGASS: From the standpoint that if a citizen has rendered services to the State the State should pay the claimant, such items should not be stricken out without information. The House has passed these items, it is fair to suppose after the investigation, and they should not be stricken out unless found to be incorrect.
Mr. McINTOSH: My plan to if I don't know the claim is right to vote against it.
On motion by Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks, the item was allowed to stand.
The item allowing, $6,860, to Perrin & Gaff Manufacturing Company, for buildings erected at the State Prison South, being read -
Mr. HOOVER said this is a just claim and should be paid. He moved it be allowed to stand.
Mr. HUSTON: I know that contractors render bills monthly for repairs, which are allowed; they pay some forty five to fifty cents a day for convict labor and they the State $2 and $3 a day for such labor. I move the committee rise, report progress and recommend that the bill be referred to a special committee, of three with instructions to report at 2 o'clock.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks, moved as a substitute that this item be passed till the close of the consideration of the bill by the committee.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph: Under the care of the three Directors and the Warden, these buildings have been constructed, as to whether it was done right we must leave to these officers.
Mr. MACY: I have no information in reference to these items - he said as a member of the Finance Committee in answer to a question.
Mr. FAULKNER: This bill has never been before the
The motion to pass this item till the bill is considered, was agreed to upon a division.
Item 4 being read - to allow a special Judge $129.96 -
Mr. BROWN moved to strike it out.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks, moved as a substitute to pass the item to the foot of the bill.
Mr. RAHM: The
Mr. WINTER: Section 416 of the Revised Statutes makes provision for the payment of such claims.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Willard): This bill has never been referred to the
Mr. WEIR: We are fooling away a good deal of time. I move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask to sit again.
The CHAIRMAN: The question is now on a substitute offered by the Senator from Hendricks
The substitute was adopted, upon a division - affirmative, 28; negative, 18
Mr. WEIR: I now move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again at 3 o'clock.
Mr. FOULKE: I think this bill ought to be disposed of as far as possible now, and in Committee of the Whole.
Mr. DAVIS: I think it apparent it is a waste of time to consider items about which no member is able to give any reliable information.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings: The
Mr. FOULKE: This bill has passed the House, and presumably its provisions are just. After the Senate passes the bill a committee of conference will be at once appointed, and the House conferees can explain to the Senate members of the conference committee. I think the motion ought not to prevail.
Mr HILLIGASS: I think the motion ought to prevail, and let the
Mr. MAGEE: I think the best way to consider this bill is in Committee of the Whole. I am
a member of the
Mr. WINTER: There are several members of the Senate can act as intelligently upon now as they can a week hence. The best way to get through is to go ahead.
Mr. WEIR withdrew his motion.
Mr. HILLIGASS renewed it.
Mr. FAULKNER: If this bill is not sent to the committee to report on I shall vote against the last dollar in the bill.
The motion that the committee rise was rejected upon a division.
The three similar items following were passed to the end of the bill.
The item allowing $290 to Judge Thomas F. Davidson for services as special judge being read -
Mr. MARSHALL read the itemized bill for these services. At that time the law allowed pay for special services. I don'k think there is anything wrong about this claim. I move that this claim be allowed.
Mr. FAULKNER: The Senator pleads on the honor and justness of his man. It ain't on that ground I fight these claims. These judges are drawing $2 500 a year out of the State Treasury, and I say it is unrighteous to pay them one dollar for extra work.
The committee took a recess till 2 o'clock.
Item 7 to allow to Marion County for light and fuel for 1879 and 1883 $3 000, being read -
Mr. SCHLOSS made an ineffectual motion to reduce the sum to $1,500.
The item of $3,000 was agreed to.
Item 8 to allow $472.73 to C. Loy for sixteen head of cattle furnished to Indiana Reform School being read -
Mr, CAMPBELL, of Hendricks, stated that Mr. Ainsworth, former Superintendent, gave his check for the items contained in numbers 8 and 9
These items were severally allowed.
Item 10 was allowed.
Item 12 to pay $5 000 interest on the debt of the State Board of Agriculture being read -
Mr. FAULKNER moved, ineffectually, to strike it out. Every Legislature I have been in this board comes here for money to keep up a fancy place for fast horses and dogs, to which most of the people of Indianapolis have free passes, while the farmer who comes here has to pay his fifty cents to get in.
Mr. HILLIGASS: The Board of Agriculture owes $40,000; the State has guaranteed the bonds for this debt and this $5,000 is to pay the interest due on these bonds.
The item was adopted, as were also items 13 and 14
On motion by Mr. FAULKNER the item to allow B Rosenthal for goods furnished the State for the Prison South - $2,034 - was stricken out.
Mr. DAY moved to add an item of $1,974 12 for goods and materials furnished
Mr. BENZ: That is an unjust claim. He got his claim. It has been here in the Legislatures of 1879 and 1881.
Mr. DAY: The car company made a settlement with Mr. Shuler. Mr. Main accepted the note of the car company, indorsed by the Auditor of State, and the company failed, and Mr. Main has never got anything.
On motion by Mr.
This item to allow Simon P. Thompson $785 for expenses and services as an attorney in the recovery of real estate in Newton County being read -
Mr SELLERS moved to reduce the sum to $500
The motion was agreed to upon a division - affirmative, 29; negative, not counted.
Item 16 to allow $200 to a member of the Ohio River Commission being read -
Mr. RAHM moved to add to Marcus M. Sulzer and J. August Lencke each $100 for services as members of this Ohio River Commission. He said the board was composed of some four or five members; $100 will pay their actual expenses.
Mr. HILL: i am somewhat acquainted with one of these commissioners who made Several trips East. There was an application for an allowance two years ago, but there was some irregularity about the bill and they never got anything. Not only that, but they paid their own expenses.
Mr. FAULKNER moved, ineffectually, to amend by placing this at the end of the bill for consideration hereafter. I would like to see the record of men who will pay for sending men to Washington to lobby.
The amendment was agreed to upon a division - affirmative, 15; negative, 10.
Item l7 was allowed
Item 18, to allow $360 to estate of John M. Pettit, for forty-five days service as Judge, being read -
Mr. DAVIS explained the claim. I move to adept the item.
Mr. WINTER offered a substitute, reducing the sum to $180, the compensation the law allowed at that date.
The substitute was adopted.
Item 19, to allow $750 far an iron fence around the Tippecanoe battle ground, was agreed to after remarks by Mr. Johnson, of Tippecanoe.
Items 20 and 21 were agreed to.
Item 22, to allow $2,498.78 to William B. Burford, for interest on amount, due for public printing, allowed by this Assembly, was adopted, as was also the last item number twenty-three.
Mr. WEIR moved to amend to allow J. C. Johnson $600 and $400 to G. B. F. Cooper for
second and third best plans of specifications for the State House at the request of the
Mr. HILLIGASS: I hope this amendment will not be adopted.
Mr McINTOSH: I think we had better vote this claim down.
Mr WEIR: There is no dispute but that a reward was offered for the three best plans, and those plans have been used.
The amendment was rejected upon a division.
Mr. MAGEE moved to amend by appropriating to purchase a plot of twelve acres of ground adjoining the 160 acre grounds of the Logansport Hospital for the Insane, $2 000.
Mr. BROWN understood this ground can be bought for $1 500
Mr MAGEE: The owner was here yesterday and said his price was $2,000 Some day the State will be compelled to have this ground and money will be made by purchasing it now.
Mr. McINTOSH: This is an early commencement to ask for an appropriation before the building is erected. We have to borrow money to pay for these buildings, and in twenty years we can buy this ground for this amount of money. We have now 312 acres there.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. JOHNSON, of Tippecanoe moved to allow Bert Davidson for services as stenographer in making a transcript $36, at the request of the Attorney General.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. BAILEY moved to amend item 9 by allowing John R Rankin $86 76 for printing done for the House of Refuge under the administration of Superintendent Ainsworth in 1876.
Mr. BENZ: I was in the Legislature ever since 1877, and I never heard a word about that bill.
The amendment was agreed to upon a division - affirmative, 17; negative, 15.
Mr. ENSLEY moved to allow Teresa and Charles Bochtell $1 000 for damages on account of the death of their father at the Insane Hospital through carelessness of employes.
Mr WINTER: That would be unconstitutional. [Reads Section 120 of Revised Statutes of 1881]
The amendment was agreed to upon a division - affirmative, 21; negative not counted.
Mr WINTER moved to amend by allowing $500 to Dye & Fishback for services rendered the Provisional Board of the Hospital for the Insane in the case of John Martin against said board in 1881.
Mr. BAILEY moved to amend by allowing for Brevier Legislative Reports heretofore authorized, ordered, accepted and bound by the State; and also for these reports of the debates of the present Assembly.
The amendments were agreed to.
Mr. SMITH, of Delaware, moved to add $1 700, to wit: To George H. Fleming, $500; Cyrus F.
Nixton and Arson M. Tyler, each $600 for services in the publication of Revised Statutes of
1981. He said in 1881 the Board of Revision were empowered to em-
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. WILLARD moved to amend by adding $200 a year additional for the moral instruction of the Prison South.
Mr. McCULLOCH moved to insert the sum of $500.
The motion was agreed to.
On motion by Mr. McINTOSH the committee rose and the Chairman reported progress and asked leave to sit again at 10 o'clock to morrow morning.
The report of the Committee of the Whole was concurred in.
Mr. YOUCHE moved that the Senate refuse to concur in the House amendments to the bill S.
295 and ask for a
The motion was agreed to and the Lieutenant Governor appointed Messrs. Smith, of Jennings, and Youche, such committee on the part of the Senate.
Mr. WILLARD contended that the Telephone Rental bill [H. R. 44] had precedence as the special order.
Mr FOULKE insisted the John Martin claim bill is the special order.
The Lieutenant Governor decided the Telephone Rental bill had precedence.
The bill H R 44 was read, the question being on concurring in the minority recommending the passage of the bill.
Mr FOULKE: I believe any one having an interest in any bill has the right to speak with members concerning it, but on this measure no one has spoken to me in regard to this bill. I object to its passage. I have myself had trouble with the telephone company in my town. We took an oath to support the Constitution, and this bill is in direct violation of the fundamental law of both the State and Nation; and were it not the passage of the bill would be nothing more than the plunder of property. I shall oppose any kind of legislation which proposes to take property from one and give it to another. To protect the fruits of human inventive genius national laws have been enacted which States can not contravene, except so far as is necessary to insure the proper police regulation. This has been settled by the adjudication of the highest courts in the country The Constitution of Indiana prescribes that no man a personal property shall be taken without just compensation The company show that under this bill the Telephone Company can not do business in this State. They say they are only making a profit of 5½% per cent. on the cost of the plant. If this bill be passed it will work an absolute outrage.
Pending the consideration of the bill -
The Senate adjourned.
Mr. REITER introduced a bill [H. R. 569] authorizing citizens of any county to form voluntary associations for the purpose of insuring their property against fire or lightning, and moved a suspension of the constitutional rule so that it might be placed on its passage, explaining that its purpose was simply to allow farmers and others to the number of ten or more to form mutually protective associations for the purpose of insuring their property.
The motion to suspend the rules prevailed - yeas, 74; nays, 5 - and the bill passed - yeas, 67; nays, 7.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe, introduced a bill [H. R. 570] relieving the city of Terre Haute from any farther liability in the matter of keeping up the repairs on the State Normal School building, and moved a suspension of the constitutional rules to put it on its passage. He explained that, by a previous contract, the city of Terre Haute had agreed with the State to furnish certain grounds and pay $50 000 of the cost of the building, and to pay half the expenses of the repairs, on condition that the city should be allowed to use the building for High School purposes Recently an argument has been made by which Terre Haute was to give up her vested rights, and now it was proposed that the State should recede from the exactions made on her part.
Mr. WILLIAMS said that the bill proposed to break a solemn compact made by the city of Terre Haute, which promises for all time to pay half the expense of repairs on the building. That city made certain obligations, in consideration of which the State Normal School was to be located there, and now it is desired to break them. There is no hardship in it - it is right and should be lived up to.
The motion to suspend the rules was withdrawn.
Mr. WILSON introduced a bill [H. R. 571] providing for the better government of the State benevolent institutions, and moved for a suspension of the constitutional rules, saying that the bill proposed to reorganize the benevolent institutions and provide for the appointment of non-partisan boards.
Mr GOODING moved to refer the bill to the
The bill [S 67] concerning the collection of taxes was read the third time.
Mr. TWINEHAM said that this was a measure in the interest of economy and reform, for it simply provided that incorporated towns might, if they so desired arrange matters so that the Township Assessors might make the town assessment and the County Treasurer collect the municipal taxes, instead of having separate officers for this work.
The bill passed - yeas, 83; nays, 3.
The bill [S 145] authorizing the opening of polls on election days at 6 o'clock a. m. was called up by Mr. HAYDEN and another vote was taken, resulting in the passage of the bill - yeas, 68; nays, 12.
Mr. McMULLEN, from the
Mr. BROWNLEE stated that the Committee had been harmonious, and that the report was the best that could be agreed upon.
The report of the
Pending the roll-call -
Mr. GORDON, explaining: I want to say one word of farewell to this conflict. While I have
been opposed to some of the increased appropriations proposed in the Senate amendments, and
though the bill is still not without its objectionable features, I am pleased somewhat with
the work of the
Mr. LOYD, when his name was called: Although I have said that I would oppose to the last
allowing one dollar to these educational institutions, I am constrained from a desire to
uphold the
Mr STALEY, in explanation of his vote: I am in favor of sustaining the conference committee in the report which it has presented, but I desire to say that this educational institution is on trial, and if it does not in the next two years show itself to be a more worthy child of the State, it can not expect to resolve further support.
Speaker JEWETT, when his name was called said: The practical unanimity of the vote on this report is highly gratifying to the Speaker. I felt sure that the gentlemen appointed as confreres would fairly reflect the views of the House and fully justify their selection by me They were appointed under very delicate conditions, in view of the fact that it had been intimated on the floor that a partisan committee on conference would be appointed. The result disproves this and I thank the gentlemen, and cheerfully vote "aye."
The bill [S. 151] to amend the common school law, so as to give to teachers a day's wages for attending township institutes was read the third time.
Mr PLEASANTS said that the bill contained some good and some bad features. He didn't think it right to compel all teachers under all circumstances, to attend institutes, and to make them forfeit a day's pay for failure to do so. If enacted this bill would compel lady teachers to travel many miles in bad weather to attend institutes.
Mr. STALEY: This bill has been indorsed by a great many teachers and leading educators, who believe that it will help to increase the attendance and interest at institutes For this reason I support it.
Mr. ROBINSON: I am opposed to the bill because it allows the teachers extra pay for attending institutes
Mr. MOODY: I am in favor of this bill. For many years we have had a law on our statute requiring teachers to attend Township Institutes without pay, and in case they failed to attend them one day's wages is taken from them. This law is wrong. It is in violation of the bill of rights, which provides that "no man's particular services shall be demanded without just compensation." Again I am in favor of this bill for the reason the pay will be an incentive to a full attendance at these institutes, where teachers meet and receive mutual benefit by comparing methods and modes of teaching. School teaching is no longer an ordinary calling but is a science and today ranks among the highest of the liberal professions, and this bill I am satisfied is a step in the right direction, and I hope it will receive the hearty approval of this House.
The bill failed to pass for want of a constitutional majority - yeas 48; nays, 32
The bill 148 empowering County Commissioners to appropriate money for the erection of soldiers' monuments, was read the third time and passed - yeas 61, nays 15.
The bill to amend Section 4 of the act providing for the construction of plank or gravel roads, was read a third time.
Mr. KELLISON explained that the only change made in the present law was to allow five freeholders to remonstrate against the proposed construction of a road, and have a hearing before the County Commissioners.
The bill passed - yeas, 58; nays 12.
The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill [H. R 44] pending at the adjournment yesterday.
Mr. McCULLOUGH: I am in favor of regulating all corporations. I have no interest in
telephones other than I have one in my office. Telephone companies are a monopoly, and
being a monopoly no action at this time would be more popular than to vote for the bill,
but my convictions as to what would be to the best interests of the people and of the State
will compel me to vote against this bill. The
Mr WILLARD: There is no Senator who has a less personal interest or one whose
constituents could be less effected than mine, as I do not know of a telephone exchange in
my district; but I can not, as a Senator here, permit the opponents of this bill to deny
its constitutionality without speaking a word of defense for it. Where is the section in
the Constitution that shows this bill unconstitutional? The States of Georgia, Tennessee,
Kentucky and Wisconsin all of them have regulated by statutes the charges of railroad
companies, both upon freight and passengers. And such legislation has been sustained as
being within the limit of the sovereignty of the State by the Supreme Court of the United
States. I have no sympathy with the plan against striking down monopolies. I believe in
striking down monopolies The Democratic party believes in striking down monopolies, and I
believe the people of the State will approve the action of the Legisla
Mr. HILLIGASS: This discussion, I think, has fully met the question of the constitutionality of this bill raised by the Senators from Wayne (Mr. Foulke) and Gibson (Mr. McCullough). I demand the previous question.
The Senate seconded the demand for the previous question, and under its operation the Senate agreed to substitute the favorable minority for the unfavorable majority report by - yeas 34; nays 14.
Messrs Campbell, of Hendricks, Campbell, of St. Joseph, Davis, Faulkner, Faulke, Fowler, Hilligass, Johnson, of Tippecanoe, Marshall, McCullough, McIntoch, Shively and Smith, of Jennings, Mier, Willard, Winter and Youche explaining their votes. [See Appendix ]
The majority report, as amended by the substitution of the minority report, was concurred in by - yeas, 34; nays 14.
Messrs. Faulkner, Magee, Rahm and Weir explaining their votes [See Appendix ]
Mr. YOUCHE made an ineffectual motion - yeas, 21; nays, 20 - to take up the bill [H. R. 92] concerning the liability of corporations for injuring employes - two-thirds not voting to suspend the regular order.
The bill [H. R. 361] to pay John Martin $55,616 68 for work and labor done and material furnished the female department of the Hospital for the Insane, was read the third time
The majority report recommends the passage of the bill and the minority report recommends that it lie on the table.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay, moved to substitute the minority for the majority report.
Mr. FOULKE: The testimony before the committee has been exceedingly conflicting: we differed among ourselves. I will try to state the evidence (which he proceeded to do). He favored the passage of the bill.
Mr. McCULLOUGH: Some members must be in great doubt concerning this matter; some of them
have changed their mind since the adjournment for dinner. I mention this to show the great
doubt in reference to this case Under the law and under the contract I am exceedingly
doubtful whether he should receive. I want to show some of the
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hendricks: I came to the conclusion with reluctance to sign the majority report of the committee. It is my impression Mr. Martin would not have guessed there was more than $8 000 or $10 000 due. I should have been much better satisfied to have that building measured now, according to the contract, but that was impracticable. I don't want to guess away a man's right.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings: I have not the voice to make a speech of any considerable length. As I understand it the committee only disagreed on one thing, and that was as to how many brick there is in that building, measuring it by the rules in the contract. By that contract both parties are bound. It is true the board tried by some entry drawn by an attorney to preclude John Martin from further claim under that contract, without the knowledge of John Martin. The record made by the committee will cost the State some $220; and since the General Assembly adjourned two years ago there have been bills paid by the State in resisting this claim that will amount to $1,000.
Mr. WEIR: In advocating the justice of this claim said, it will not do to put off the claim of a citizen of Indiana, because this is the last day of the session. There was a general feeling that there never was a settlement with John Martin till 1881. You hear everywhere that the credit of the State is not good, because a claimant has to wait so long and be at so much expense in order to get a claim allowed, which is a fact and it is a shame and a disgrace to the State. From the evidence before the committee I should have been embarrassed, as to how to vote on this claim, but the record in the case and circumstances surrounding it, have made it appear a just and righteous claim.
The Senate took a recess 7:30 o'clock p. m.
Mr. FAULKNER: I have examined the record in this claim, and I see that men as honest as
ever drew the breath of life have certified that the claim is settled. They are now dead,
and after they are dead there is a new measurement of this work. The claimant said once, so
and so was due; and now after they are dead he comes in with a new meas-
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings, demanded a call of the Senate.
It was ordered and, being taken, discovered 47 Senators present and answering to their names
Farther proceedings under the call were dispensed with.
Mr McINTOSH: If I were to consult my own feelings and pay no attention as to whether it is a just claim or not, I would vote for it. I don't know anything about the claim but what I am told, but I believe this bill is a fraud and a swindle. I want to put my condemnation upon the assertion being continually made here and elsewhere that the State of Indiana is dishonest. If you all could see the record as made on this claim by John Martin himself you would condemn it. When you vote for this bill you vote to filch that much money out of the Treasury of the Stare of Indiana.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay, spoke in opposition to the bill.
The motion to substitute the minority report (that the bill lie on the table) for the majority report (that the bill do pass) was rejected by yeas 18, nays 26.
The majority report was concurred in, and the bill passed by yeas 28, nays 19.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay, from a
The special order being the bill H. R. 487 it was taken up.
Mr. SMITH of Jay, moved to discharge the special order.
The motion was rejected by yeas 22, nays 26.
On motion by Mr. FOULKE the Senate resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole (Mr Foulke in the chair)
Mr MACY moved to add an
Mr SMITH, of Jay, moved that the committee rise and ask leave to sit Monday morning at 9 o'clock.
The motion was rejected upon a division - affirmative, 22; negative, 24
The motion (Mr. Macy's) was agreed to.
Mr. WILLARD moved to add an item to Albert P. Ayers for services as Clerk in 1879.
It was agreed to.
Mr WEIR moved an item to allow $2,000 as a contingent fund to be placed at the disposal of the Governor for the employment of counsel in defending suits brought against the State.
It was agreed to.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph, moved to adopt item 3, to allow the Perrin & Gaff Manufacturing Company $6 860 for rebuilding shops destroyed by fire at the State Prison South., which item had been passed over.
The motion was rejected.
Mr. SELLERS moved to add an item of $20,000 for a monument at the Tippecanoe battle ground
Mr. YOUCHE made an ineffectual motion that the committee rise and ask leave to sit again Monday morning at 10 o'clock.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay, moved, ineffectually, that the committee rise, report progress and and ask leave to sit again Monday at 2 o'clock p. m.
Mr. YOUCHE moved to amend by adding $25,000 for a monument at Pigeon Roost, Clark County.
This amendment was ruled out of order.
The amendment (Mr. Sellers') was rejected.
Mr. RICHARDSON moved to amend by adding an item for ice furnished the session of 1883, $10.55.
It was agreed to.
Mr. BROWN moved that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again Monday afternoon.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the committee rose, reported progress and asked leave to sit again Monday afternoon.
The report was concurred in.
On motion by Mr. WILLARD the Senate took up the bill [H. R. 543].
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings moved that the report of the committee recommending that bill be passed as is came from the House be adopted.
Mr. WEIR demanded the previous question.
The demand was seconded.
The question refused to order the main question put by yeas 17, nays 19.
Mr. WINTER: The bill will defeat the the very object it is intended to reach. The amendment reported by the committee will put into the Treasurer's hands the machinery to operate the other provisions of the bill.
The motion [Mr. Smith's] was rejected by yeas 14 nays 21.
On motion by Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph, the substitute reported by the committee was adopted.
The bill passed by yeas 29, nays 30.
On motion of Mr ZIMMERMAN, the bill [H. R. 314] was read the third time.
Mr. FOULKE: The bill contains one provision which is not right.
Mr. WILLARD: Under the present laws, there is no adequate protection to laborers on railroads.
The bill passed by yeas 38, nays 2.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings: I believe in one respect, at least, this bill is wrong, and will have to vote "no."
On motion of Mr. WEIR, the bill [H. R.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. WEIR: I believe this bill to be as meritorious a bill of this character as ever passed the Legislature of Indiana.
The bill passed by yeas, 26; nays, 15.
On motion by Mr. WINTER the bill [H. R. 153] authorizing the acceptance of surety companies as sureties upon bonds, was read the third time. He said: I believe it is a good thing to take corporate sureties.
The bill passed by yeas 39, nays 32.
On motion by Mr. BROWN the bill [H. R. 200] to exempt highways from taxation, which heretofore failed for want of constitutional majority, was passed by yeas 27, nays 12.
On motion by Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph, the bill [H. R. 41] to legalize the official act of Drainage Commissioners not waged in the act of 1883, was read the second and third times and passed by yeas 33, nays 1.
Mr. PETERSON moved to suspend the constitutional rule that the bill H. R. 486 may be read the second time by title, the third time by sections, and put upon its passage.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay, objected, insisting this bill is of too much importance to be passed at this time, especially under a suspension of the rules. The Supreme Court has decided a barbed wire fence is not a legal fence. While he was speaking and being interrupted with the clapping of hands and other loud and boisterous manifestations -
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr Willard), having previously given warning that unless the disorderly proceedings ceased he would do so, declared the Senate adjourned, as the clock pointed to the hour of midnight.
And so the Senate adjourned till 9:30 o'clock Monday morning.
The House was called to order at 9 o'clock by Speaker Jewett and prayer was offered by Representative Staley.
Mr. SEARS offered a resolution authorizing the payment of $250 to Joseph T. Fanning, Assistant Clerk of the House, for indexing the House journals, leading proof etc.
Mr. PLEASANTS moved to postpone consideration of the resolution until Monday, which was laid on the table.
Mr. McMICHAEL moved to refer the resolution to the
On motion by Mr. SEARS this motion was laid on the table by yeas 52, nays 23.
The resolution was then adopted.
The bill [S. 170] was read the third time.
Mr. McMICHAEL said: The bill simply proposed to compel liens and mortgages to be recorded within ten days.
The bill was defeated - ayes, 10; nays 79.
The bill [S. 174] to repeal the act concerning taxation of certain lands within limits of cities was read the third time.
Mr. ENGLE moved to refer the bill, with instructions to a special committee.
Mr. BARNEY: The opponents and supporters of this bill have agreed upon a compromise, which it is proposed to incorporate in the report of the committee.
Mr. MURPHY: I hope that this bill will not be referred, for I believe such action will defeat it.
Mr. WILLIAMS: This bill proposes to tax certain tracts of land in cities which is now untaxed. I hope it will not be referred, but that a direct vote will be taken upon it.
The motion to recommit was rejected, and the bill was defeated by yeas 18, nays 65.
The bill [S. 191] to restrain the manufacture, sale and use of dangerous explosives, such as dynamite, etc., was read the third time and failed - yeas, 36; nays, 36.
The bill [S. 200] to provide for the public printing, binding and stationery was read the third time.
Mr. MOCK, of Wells: The Governor sent us a special message showing the enormity of the cost of the State's printing. This bill proposes radical reforms in that direction, and it is thought that it will save the State $15,0OO or $20,000 a year, and I hope it will pass.
The bill passed - yeas, 68; nays, 2.
The bill [S. 201] for the relief of Joel S. Davis - authorizing the refunding to him of certain damages paid by him into the Treasury of Bartholomew County— was lead the third time.
Mr. WYNN: This bill proposes to relieve a gentleman, who, as Trustee of a township, was defendant in a suit brought by the Auditor concerning the payment of certain funds, and in this capacity, he paid out of his private funds about $900 in costs and damages. It is proposed to pay him this money out of the township fund, and 276 of the 300 voters of that township have petitioned for the passage of this bill.
The bill failed to pass for want of a constitutional majority - yeas, 50; nays, 36.
Mr Pendleton's bill [H. R. -] appropriating $5 352 for the payment of claims on account of work done at the Insane Hospital. was called up and failed to pass for want of a constitutional majority - yeas 43, nays 27.
The bill [S. - ] for the punishment of horse thieves was passed by yeas 88, nays 3.
The bill [S. 206] for the conversion of toll roads into free roads was read a third time and passed by yeas 64 nays 4.
The bill [S. 117] to repeal the law allowing County Clerks $2 a day for attending court was called up for another vote and again defeated by yeas 31, nays 41.
The bill [S. 320] providing for the enrollment of soldiers, their widows and orphans, passed by yeas 69 nays 9.
The bill [S. 257] concerning street improvements was read the third time and passed - ayes, 53; nays, 25.
The bill [S 235], on which a vote was taken earlier in the afternoon session, was called up and passed by ayes 60, nays 12.
The bill [S 76] exempting from liability for costs in suits brought by the State certain State officers and Prosecuting Attorneys, who act as relators, was read the third time and passed by yeas 61, nays 17.
Then came a recess until 7:30 o'clock.
A message from the Senate announced that the Senate refused to concur in the House amendments to the bill [S. 76], and a conference committee being asked for, it was granted, Messrs. Sears and Moody on the part of the House.
The bill [S. 237] regarding the settlement of decedent's estates was called up for another vote, and it passed - yeas, 58; nays, 15.
On motion by Mr. HANLON the bill [S 271] prohibiting the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine, was taken up - yeas, 33; nays, 22 - and the bill was defeated by yeas 31, nays 41.
On
Mr. DITTEMORE made an ineffectual motion - yeas, 18; nays, 49 - that it be indefinitely postponed.
The bill failed to pass - yeas, 47; nays, 20.
Mr. GOODING made an ineffectual motion - yeas, 27; nays, 35 - that when the House adjourn it be to meet on Monday morning at 10 o'clock.
Mr DITTEMORE offered a concurrent resolution, providing for the sine die adjournment of the special session on Saturday the 18th.
On motion of Mr. ELEY it was laid on the table.
The bill [S. 296] to amend the act for the opening and vacation of streets, was read the third time and passed by yeas 64, nays 6.
The bill [S. 305] to pay $1,000 to Teresa and Charles Bachtell, was read the third time.
Mr. Williams: This bill is unconstitutional beyond all question. I know it has passed the Senate, but that does not change my opinion as to the unconstitutionally of the bill. This bill proposes to appropriate $1,000 of money out of the State Treasury for damages sustained by the death of one Bachtel, caused by reason of the negligence of some agent of the State. Now Section 24, article 4 of the Constitution of Indiana provides that provision may be made by general law for bringing suit against the State, as to all liabilities originating after the adoption of this Constitution; but no special act authorizing such a suit to be brought, or making compensation to any person claiming damages against the State, shall ever be passed."
The bill was indefinitely postponed.
The bill [S 322] regarding settlements of County Treasurers was read the third time and passed - yeas, 62; nays, 5.
The bill [S 378] providing that claims against the State may be prosecuted in the Superior Court of Marion County, was read the third time.
On motion by Mr. TAYLOR its further consideration was postponed by yeas 53, nays 20.
Mr. Pendleton's bill [H. R. 362] appropriating $46.36 for the payment of the claim of Baker, Smith & Co., was passed by yeas 51, nays 18.
Mr. HILLIGASS offered the following:
Resolved, That the thanks of the members of the Senate are due and hereby tendered General Mahlon D. Manson, Lieutenant Governor, for his impartial and courteous treatment of Senators as the presiding officer of this body, and that we extend to him our best wishes for his future success and happiness.
The resolution was adopted [Mr. Foulke in the chair ]
A call of the Senate discovered 35 Senators present and answering to their names.
On motion by Mr. FOWLER, by consent, the Senate proceeded to the election of a President pro tem.
Mr WEIR: I place in nomination Senator A. G. Smith, of Jennings County.
Mr. HUSTON: In behalf of the Republican members of the Senate caucus, I place in nomination as a candidate for President pro tem. of the Senate Senator L. M. Campbell of Hendricks County.
There being no further nominations the ballot resulted - for Mr. Smith, 28; for Mr. Campbell, 15
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr Foulke in the Chair): The Senator from Jennings is elected President pro tem. of the Senate.
Mr. HUSTON: I have been importuned by several members of the House to call up House bill 33, which is a bill of considerable importance to several counties. It is a bill to authorize County Commissioners to construct gravel roads, and it is now on its third reading in the Senate. I trust the Senate will take up that bill and give it consideration.
Mr. WILLARD: It has never been the custom nor the usage in the Legislature of Indiana to pass bills on this day of the session; nor can we pass bills on this occasion without violation of the Constitution of the State of Indiana for the Constitution distinctly states that no bill shall be presented to the Governor within three days of the final adjournment. Now, if we violate our oaths and go into passing bills the result will be that on the last day of the session all kinds of legislation will be rushed in. While I regret as much as any Senator that several bills have not beep enacted into laws, I do not think that to day we ought to engage in the passage of bills
Mr. WEIR: My views on this question are in harmony with the Senator from Lawrence (Mr. Willard) I have no objection to this bill, and would be glad to accommodate the Senator from Fayette (Mr. Huston) but if one bill may be taken up the whole day may be occupied in passing bills I hope we will not go into general legislation to day.
Mr. WINTER: I find two decisions of the Supreme Court on the question; one in fifty-third
and the other in ninety-fifth Indiana, in both of which cases the bills were presented in
the last three days of the session to the Governor, and he filed them in the Secretary of
State's office, merely noting on them the date when they were presented. The question
was raised as to whether they were laws. It was claimed they would not be laws in case they
were not presented previous to the two days of the close of the session. In neither case
did the Su
The motion was rejected.
On motion by Mr. FOULKE the joint resolution [H. R 6] proposing an amendment to Section 1 of Article 12 of the State Constitution by striking out the word "white" contained in said section, and that in voting on this amendment it shall be designated and known as Amendment No 3, was read the third time and passed by yeas 44, nays 0.
The House concurrent resolution that members of this General Assembly be allowed to retain the copy of the Revised Statutes now in their possession by paying the Secretary of State one dollar and fifty cents each and taking his receipt for the same, was adopted
Mr. YOUCHE offered the following:
Resolved, That the Senate of Indiana hereby expresses its appreciation of the ability, fairness and impartiality with which Hon. Rufus Magee has presided over the Senate and performed all his duties as his temporary President, and that the thanks of the Senate are hereby tendered him, with its best wishes for his success in the discharge of the high office to which he has been appointed by the President of the United States.
The resolution was adopted by a rising vote at the request of the Lieutenant Governor
Mr. Zimmerman offered the following:
Resolved, By the Senate that we most heartily wish a safe and happy journey across the waves of the Atlantic to Hon. Rufus Magee and family to their place of destination. And may he in the discharge of his arduous duties as Minister to Sweden and Norway by ever a true and faithful representative of American ideas pure and simple. And may the Stars and Stripes wave welcome protection from the headquarters of the American Legation at Stockholm, Sweden, to American citizens abroad from the highest to the most humble, while in charge of Minister Magee.
The resolution was also adopted.
On motion by Mr. RAHM, a committee of two on the part of the Senate was appointed to act with a like committee of the House in waiting on the Governor to inquire if his Excellency has any further communication to make to this body.
Subsequently, Mr. Huston, for said committee, reported that the Governor had no further message for this General Assembly.
Mr. ENSLBY offered the following:
Resolved by the Senate. That a vote of thanks be given to Joseph Cope for the able and impartial manner in winch he has discharged the duties of his office as Doorkeeper of the Senate.
It was adopted.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay, offered the following:
Resolved. That William H. Drapier be and he is hereby elected Stenographer of the Senate, and instead of a per diem he be allowed for the same number of copies of the Brevier Legislative Reports of the present Assembly, at the same price as has been paid by the State for said Reports since 1867, and for years before, under resolutions and act - in exact and identical words as to price and number of copies; and the President of the Senate is hereby directed to issue his warrant therefor, as in case of other officers of the Senate. The Bureau of Printing is directed to have said Reports bound, as heretofore by the State, as said Stenographer is directed to forward ten copies to each member of the Genera. Assembly.
The resolution was adopted by yeas 20, nays 16.
Mr. SMITH, of Jay, from the special committee thereon, reported in favor of allowing the Principal and Assistant Secretary $250 each for the discharge of the duties devolving upon them by sections of the Revised Statutes.
Ths report was concurred in.
The House concurrent resolution allowing extra pay to the Reading Clerk, Mr. Morrison, coming up -
On motion by Mr. BAILEY it was amended by allowing James Walsh, Reading Clerk of the Senate, $95 extra - yeas 19, nays 15.
The House concurrent resolution was adopted as amended.
Subsequently (the House being adjourned sine die) the Senate amendment was reconsidered and the resolution passed as it came from the House.
House concurrent resolutions allowing $10 pay to J. Milo Barr, a House page; also to H. Meeker $25 another page; also thanks to Sergeant Julius R Fredericks, of Indianapolis, for services with the Greely expedition; also Clarance Sears $25; also George P. Chittenden $15, and B P. Spann $10 for witnesses in the Munson claim; also Grand Hotel for extra rooms $50 were severally concurred in.
On motion by Mr. McCLURE, Journal Clerk John H. Anderson was allowed $1 a day extra during the regular and special session.
And then Mr. McINTOSH moved that this Senate adjourn.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: Before I announce the final adjournment of the Senate I wish to
return my sincere thanks to every member of the Senate for the kindness and courtesy they
have shown me on all occasions. It I have made errors in my rulings, and I have no doubt I
have made
This request was compiled with - Senators and Representatives (the House having adjourned) joining in the refrain -
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: The vote on the adjournment is yeas 24, nays 7 I now declare the Senate of the Fifty-fourth General Assembly adjourned sine die
And so the Senate adjourned sine die.
The House met at 10 o'clock a. m.
The session was opened with prayer by Rev. B. Wilson Smith, a Representative from the county of Tippecanoe.
The Speaker directed the roll to be called, and, that service being performed, ninety-one members were reported present and answering to their names.
Mr. JAMESON offered a concurrent resolution, which was adopted, that $1,500 be paid to the Board of Commissioners of Marion County for gas, fuel and extra rooms furnished this General Assembly.
Mr. FRAZEE offered a resolution, which was adopted, tendering the thanks of the House to the Speaker for the able, courteous and impartial manner in which he discharged his duties.
Resolved, That the thanks of the House are due and hereby tendered to the Speaker, Hon. Charles L. Jewett, for the able, courteous and impartial manner in which he has discharged the duties of presiding officer of the Fifth General Assembly. We assure him that our good wishes will follow him wherever his lines may fall or his lot in life be cast, being fully assured that he will be equal to every emergency, and fully equipped for any station of honor and trust to which the people may call him.
On motion by Mr. COPELAND a committee of two was appointed, to act with a like committee on the part of the Senate, to learn what further communication, if any, the Governor desires to make to this General Assembly.
The committee subsequently reported that the Governor had no message to transmit further than that he tenders this General Assembly his kindest wishes and his congratulations for the many excellent laws that have been enacted.
Mr CREOELIUS offered a resolution, which was adopted, that the thanks of the House be tendered all the employes for efficiency and courtesy.
On motion by Mr. AKIN the Webster Dictionary presented to the House at the commencement of the session, was presented to the Speaker.
Mr. HAWORTH offered the following:
Resolved, That the State Librarian be instructed that in preparing the Hall for the Legislature two years hence that fifty-five seats be set apart at the right hand of the Speaker's chair for the Republican members thereof.
It was adopted.
Mr. Smith, of Tippecanoe, offered the following:
Resolved, That the House with great pleasure present to our Speaker, the Hon. Charles L. Jewett, the gavel which he has wielded so faithfully and so well during the regular and extra session of this Assembly.
It was adopted.
Mr. DITTEMORE (at 3 o'clock) moved that the House adjourn sine die. Before announcing the vote on the motion Speaker Jewett addressed the House as follows:
GENTLEMEN OF THE HOUSE - The legislative
possibilities of this House of Representatives are at an end, and in a few moments it will
have passed away forever. Its achievements and failures will have become part of the
history of the State, and stand submitted to the deliberate and, let us hope, just judgment
of our fellow citizens. I will not at this time attempt to review in detail the laws which
henceforth shall remain as the monument of your labors. Nor have I the presumption to here
advance my own opinion of their necessity or merit. It is sufficient now to declare, what
all who hear me know to be the truth - that this House convened in the face of grave
responsibilities and an enormous amount of labor. No general or specific appropriation bill
had been enacted
Addressing you for the last time as your Speaker, I desire to again thank you for my elevation to it, and the consideration you have shown me while occupying it. If I have at times seemed arbitrary or tyranical, rest assured that it arose from no wish to be so. Such would have been a shabby return for all your goodness and forbearance toward me during the tireful days that have gone forever. Looking into your faces, both members, officers and gentlemen of the press, I see not one to whom I am not indebted in some degree of gratitude. It is an obligation I may never hope to discharge, but it shall, nevertheless, rest always upon my heart in all its generous force.
So with a heart full of pleasant thoughts of all of you I take my final leave or you as your Speaker, but with the hope that I may often meet each of yon as a private citizen. And in so doing I adopt in all sincerity what I deem the sweetest words of gratitude:
And so the House of Representatives of the Fifty-fourth General Assembly adjourned without day.
The following bills passed both Houses and have been signed by the Governor. Many of them have emergency clauses, and those not so provided will go into effect with their publication. There are yet several in the hands of the Governor unsigned:
Legalizing elections and official acts of the Board of Trustees of the town of Rockport.
Legalizing the incorporation and elections of the town of Owensville, Gibson County.
Appropriating $60,000 to pay the expenses of the extra session of the present Legislature.
Amending Section 2,108 of the Revised Statute of 1881, so as to outlaw the English sparrow.
Reorganizing the Soldiers' Orphans' Home and Asylum for Feeble-Minded Children, and providing that three Trustees, one of them a woman and the others honorably discharged Union soldiers, shall be appointed by the Governor as a board of management.
Legalizing contracts and proceedings of the Board of Trustees of the town of Brownstown.
Legalizing acts of the town of Cannelton.
Regulating the term of office of County Commissioners.
Requiring the full monthly payment of employes engaged in manual or mechanical labor, and making the claims of such employes preferred claims.
Authorizing the appointment of shorthand reporters for Courts of Record in counties with 10,000 or more inhabitants, and fixing the compensation at not more than $5 for each day actually employed.
Prohibiting gambling on fair ground.
Prohibiting Sunday base ball playing where any fee is charged, and prescribing a fine of not more that $25 for violation.
Prohibiting forced contributions of money or property from employes by corporations or their officers.
Amending Sections 1 and 2 and 3 of an act entitled "An act to create the Forty-third Judicial District, and to provide for holding terms of court in the Fourteenth, Fifteenth and Forty-third Circuits."
Authorizing County Commissioners to make suitable provision from the County Treasury for the education of pauper children.
Defining the Tenth, Twelfth and Forty-ninth Judicial Districts, fixing the times and terms of courts and providing for the appointment of a Judge and two Prosecuting Attorneys.
Levying a tax and authorizing a loan of $500,000 for the completion of the new State House.
Legalizing the incorporation and acts of the town of Ligonier, Noble County.
Legalizing certain acts of the Common Council of Lawrenceburg.
Permitting amendment of pleadings before Justices' Courts, before or during trial, new proof will not thereby be required by the opposing party.
Appropriating $465 to pay the claim of John D. Works, Gustave Hustsleiner, and the heirs of George B. Sleeth.
Defining the Twenty-fifth Judicial Circuit, creating the Forty-sixth, fixing time of
courts and providing for the appointment of a Judge for the
Legalizing certain sales of real estate by commissioners in proceedings by an executor or an administrator to sell such real estate.
Authorizing a temporary loan of $600,000 and making provision for funding the outstanding loan at a lower rate of interest.
Abolishing offices of City Treasurer and City Assessor in cities of over 70,000 people, and providing by the discharge of their duties by the County Treasurer and Township Assessor respectively.
Legalizing the incorporation of the town of Alamo, Montgomery County.
Legalizing the incorporation of the town of New Haven, Allen County.
Providing for the incorporation of fish ladders, defining misdemeanors and providing penalties.
Making the State Board of Health to consist of five members, instead of four, and providing for the election of a Secretary of the board, who shall serve two years.
Legalizing the construction of the Daniel Heath Free Gravel Road.
Authorizing municipal corporations to purchase and hold real estate for sanitary purposes, and legalizing purchases heretofore made.
Fixing time of holding courts in the Thirty-fourth Judicial Circuit, and repealing laws in conflict therewith.
Amending Section 5,200 of the Revised Statutes of 1881 so that claims not exceeding $50 for work performed at any time within the previous six months, by laboring men or mechanics, shall be treated as preferred debts against any corporation or person failing, assigning or having his business suspended by creditors.
Prohibiting a tax levy of mere than thirty-three cents on the hundred dollars in counties having a voting population of more than 25,000.
Prohibiting the buying and selling of votes, and prescribing penalties of disfranchisement and ineligibility to office.
Gerrymander the Congressional Districts.
Fixing the time of holding Circuit Courts in the Fourth Judicial Circuit.
Concerning the building of bridges across boundary streams between counties.
Appropriating $30,000 to the Indiana University.
Reapportioning the State for legislative purposes.
Proposing an amendment to Section 2 of the Constitution so that no county officer except Surveyor shall be eligible to a re-election for the term of office immediately succeeding a term already served by him.
Authorizing County Commissioners in certain cases to construct free turnpikes instead of free bridges, and authorizing boards to pay for bridges built within the corporate limits of towns and cities.
Preventing the spread of Canada thistles.
Providing for the reading in open court of the full record of each day's proceedings in the Circuit Courts.
Fixing time of holding court in the Thirty-fifth Judicial Circuit.
Validating acknowledgments taken before officers whose commissions had theretofore expired.
Extending for thirty years mining corporations existing before the State Constitution took effect.
Legalizing continuances of terms of courts heretofore and after this time beyond the expiration of the time fixed by law, where trials may be in progress at the time of such expiration.
Giving powers concerning libraries in certain cities, formerly held by Town Trustees, to Common Councils after such towns may have become cities
Legalizing certain acts of Brown County Commissioners.
Fixing time of holding and length of terms of courts in the Twenty-fifth, Twenty-eighth, Forty-sixth and Second Judicial Circuits.
Legalizing certain sales of real estate made without appraisement by majority votes of Common Councils of incorporated cities.
Appropriating $600,000 for the completion of the three new Asylums for the insane.
Creating the Forty-eighth Judicial Circuit and fixing the time of holding courts in the Twenty-sixth, Twenty-eighth and Forty-sixth Circuits.
Granting certain rights and franchises to the Union Railway Company of Indianapolis.
Concerning drainage: repealing certain laws, prohibiting the obstruction of drains, etc.
Increasing the bond of the State Treasurer to $700,000.
Appropriating $125,000 to defray the expenses of the regular session of the General Assembly.
Appropriating $3,000 to repair that portion of the Asylum for the Insane damaged by fire.
Prohibiting aliens from holding titles to real estate in Indiana.
Providing for the removal of obstructions from highways.
Appropriating from the general fund for the salaries and expenses of State officers and deputies, Supreme Court Judges and officers, Circuit Judges, Prosecuting Attorneys, executive and administrative departments, the various State institutions, the payment of interest on bonds, etc., and for the erection of tablets to the memory of Indiana soldiers who fell at Gettysburg.
Providing that in cities of loss than 10,000 inhabitants the County Auditor and Treasurer shall levy and collect the city taxes and turn them over to the proper city officers.
Regulating the practice of medicine, surgery obstetrics, and providing for the issuing of licenses to practice by the County Clerk.
Legalising certain records in the offices of County Recorders
Appropriating $2,500 to pay on lightening-rod claim of David R. Munson.
Amending an act creating and defining the Twenty-first, Twenty-second and Forty-seventh Judicial Circuits, and fixing the length of term and time of holding courts therein and providing for the appointment of a Judge of the Forty-seventh Circuit; for the appointment of Prosecuting Attorneys for the Twenty-first and Twenty-second Circuits, and declaring an emergency.
Providing a means of keeping in repair certain gravel roads, pursuant to an act of March 8, 1875.
Amending Section 2,455 of the Revised Statutes of 1881, providing that appeal bond shall be filed in less than ten days after the decision is made, unless the court, for good cause shown, shall direct it to be filed within one year.
Relieving Calvin J. Jackson, of Hancock County, who lost $1,999.70 State money by the failure of the Indiana Banking Company.
Distributing undistributed money in the Treasury of the town of Clinton, Vermillion County.
Amending Section 318 of the statutes of 1881 so that in certain civil cases where the defendant can not be reached, a notice of the date and nature of suit shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation.
Concerning gravel and macadamized roads.
Incorporating the town of Washington, Wayne County.
Relieving Jesse A. Avery, Cornelius B. Wadsworth, William B. Flick, William H. Speer, Robert N. Harding, Israel Connarroe, Joseph L. Hunton, Thomas W. Janeway, Chris Grube and Harvey R. Mathews, Trustees of the several townships of Marion County, of the responsibility for various sums of township money lost by the failure of banks.
Concerning the election, compensation and duties of the Attorney General of the State.
Appropriating $10,000 for the relief of Mrs. Sarah J. May.
Legalising the incorporation of the town of Laconia, Harrison County.
Fixing the time for holding court in the Tenth Judicial Circuit.
Amending Section 3,333 of the Revised Statutes of 1881 concerning the incorporation of towns
Legalizing certain assessments for the construction of the Bluffton and Bedford and Bluffton and Warren gravel roads.
Legalizing the incorporation of the town of Bourbon, Marshall County.
Fixing the time of holding courts in the Thirty-sixth Judicial Circuit.
Legalizing the incorporation of the town of Ambia, Benton County.
Appropriating $3,900 to maintain the Indiana exhibit at New Orleans.
Legalizing the incorporation of the Union Loan and Savings Company of Marion County.
Authorizing the levying of a township tax of 1 per cent, to support libraries.
Changing the time of holding court in the Forty-third, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Judicial Circuits.
Legalizing acts of Notaries Public whose commissions had expired.
Appropriating $25,901.64 to pay W. B. Burford for public printing.
Appropriating $1,013 for the payment of a claim of Carlon & Hellenbeck.
Legalizing the appointment and acts of trustees in certain cases.
Appropriating $40,0OO to Purdue University for the years 1883 and 1884.
Amending the act incorporating the town of Vernon, Jennings County.
Appropriating $6,800 for the erection of a new building at the Reform School for Boys.
Regulating the business of building, loan fund and savings associations.
Providing means for securing the health and safety of persons employed in coal mines prescribing penalties for violations and repealing all conflicting laws.
Empowering voluntary associations incorporated under the laws of the State for establishing homes for aged females, to receive into such homes aged men also.
Providing that interest on county bonds may be paid annually or semi-annually.
Prohibiting the importation of foreign contract labor.
Amending the act providing for the organization and perpetuity of voluntary associations.
Prohibiting discriminations by telephone companies.
Authorizing School Trustees to pay out of the special school fund money for real estate purchased for a public library.
Appropriating $3,184.69 to reimburse the city of Indianapolis on account of money expended in the construction of the Reformatory sewer.
Appropriating $16,990.71 for the payment of certain claims of members of the Indiana Legion.
Authorizing Boards of County Commissioners to accept gravel roads and maintain the same.
Amending the law providing for the taxation and registration of dogs.
Amending Section 32 of the election contest law, so as to give the judges the right to examine ballots after the same have been read and announced by the inspectors.
Providing a contingent fund of $2,000 per month to be disbursed by the Superintendent of the Hospital for the Insane.
Requiring plats of new additions to cities or incorporated town to be submitted to Council or Trustees before being recorded.
Authorizing owners of land separated by railroads to construct wagon and driveways over such railroads; also, releasing railroads from liability for stock killing on account of such driveway.
Legalizing a deed for certain land in Randolph County made by Aquilla Jones, as Treasurer of the State, to William M. Lock.
Authorizing the County Treasurer, Auditor and Recorder jointly to accept offers of compromise touching delinquent lands in certain cases by consent of the Auditor of State.
Legalizing the organization of the Zionsville and Pike Township Gravel Road Company.
Allowing County Commissioners of different counties to unite in the purchase of grounds and buildings for an Orphans' Home.
Providing that any person may appeal from a decision of County Commissioners in claims against counties to the Circuit or Superior Courts.
Authorizing universities and colleges to acquire, hold and dispose of real estate.
Regulating weights and measures.
Giving to all people, without regard to race or previous condition, the advantages of restaurants, inns, eating-houses, barber-shops and all places of public accommodation and amusement, and providing penalties for violation.
Authorizing Commissioners of counties with uncompleted Court-houses to issue bonds to raise funds for their completion.
Fixing the time for holding court in the Twenty-Fifth Judicial Circuit.
Authorizing the Councils of cities and Boards of Trustees of incorporated towns to pass and enforce ordinances requiring contractors to receipt estimate records within thirty days after payment of street improvement claims.
Appropriating $1,000 to pay the indebtedness of the State to the estate of Daniel Hough.
Requiring foreign Insurance Companies operating in the State to have a paid up capital of $250,000, of which $100,000 must be invested in stocks created under the laws of the United States, making the auditor of State the attorney of the State on the State's dealing with such companies, empowering him at any time to examine their accounts, and defining the duties of agents of said companies.
Creating and defining the Twenty-first, Twenty-second and Forty-seventh Judicial Circuits, fixing the length of terms and times of holding courts therein, and providing for the appointment of a Judge for the Forty-seventh and a Prosecuting Attorney for the Twenty-second.
Amending the act providing for the appraisement, purchase and conversion of toll roads into free roads
Amending the Justice of the Peace act so as to allow gravel road companies to sue for toll in any township.
Providing for the enrollment of late soldiers, their widows and orphans, by Township Assessors.
Concerning contracts made by the Common Council of cities for grading and improving streets.
Authorizing the Governor to issue a patent to Frank Coffee for certain land in Laporte County.
Releasing the State officers from liability for costs in suits against the State.
[Omitted from bottom of Page 104.]
During the discussion of the ditch law bill H. R. 222, Mr. ZIMMERMAN said: The people of my district demand the repeal of the Circuit Court drainage act. Whilst I admit that through this act the general health of the people and the looks of the country have been greatly improved, yet all this has been accomplished at the expense of a comparatively few, many of whom lost their property and homes through the operation of law, which places the power into the hands of one or two men put liens upon the property of scores of other men against their will and ability, yet it is a vicious and oppressive law and ought to be eradicated from our statute book. The bill now pending is sufficiently modified to be acceptable my constituents and I hope it will pass.
[Omitted from first column, Page 102.]
Mr. ZIMMERMAN moved to take up the bill H. R. 401, and said: This bill authorizes Auditors in Counties where a surplus of school fund money can not be loaned in such counties, to loan it out to applicants residing in other counties. Under the law each county is accountable for 8 per cent interest on school fund money whether loaned out or not. This bill gives the desired relief to such counties where a surplus is on hands and cannot be loaned. There is an additional safe guard provided in this act should the school fund money go to another county. In such cases the amount loaned will be upon one fourth the appraised value of such real estate exclusive of perishable improvements instead of one-half as now provided by law when the school fund is loaned in counties where it originally belongs. The bill also contains ample provisions for the appraisement of the real estate and the collection of interest and principle. As a proper relief measure and in no way endangering the safety of the school fund, I hope the bill will pass.
(Omitted from bottom first column page 116.)
Mr. PASSAGE: Mr. Speaker, I presented this bill [H. R. 368.] in the interest of education and to relieve the poor children of the State of the necessity of walking through snow and mud to and from school. It has been urged by the enemies of this bill that we have no right to take private property for public use. I submit sir that the highways of the State have been taken by these Gravel-road corporations and converted to their own use, and that such being the case they have no right to set a tax upon the school children of the State. In some of the counties of Indiana it is impossible to get to the school house without traveling over these toll roads; and children whose parents are poor, but have horses, wagons or sleighs and could convey their children to and from school were it not for the expense of toll, are compelled to walk through snow and mud in order to gratify the greed of a few men who have control of the highways over which they are compelled to travel. I have said this much as applicable to the men who have taken possession of the common highways and built toll roads at their own expense; but there is another class who, by a system of wrecking, well known to Rail-Road corporations have obtained possession of the gravel roads built by the people; obtained them for almost nothing and now their arrogant and defiant conduct toward the public makes legislative action a necessity. Mr. Speaker, in the interest of education, in the interest of humanity, in the interest of justice to the bright-eyed school-boy and school-girl whose hearts will be made glad, if this bill should become a law, I ask for its favorable consideration.
[Omitted from bottom of page 172.]
Mr. ZIMMERMAN moved to take up the bill H. R. 314, and said: This bill is in the interest of the laboring men. Under the present law, in the construction of Rail Roads, Sub-Contractors and laboring men are at the mercy of the first Contractors for their pay, and thus tens of thousands of poor laboring men have been defrauded out of their just earnings. This bill provides that whoever performs any labor or furnishes material for the construction of Rail Roads through the State of Indiana, shall have the right to a lien on the right of way and franchises of such Road to the extent of the claim due such person. It is the sacred duty of this Legislature to protect the laboring man. A law of this character ought to have adorned our statute books years ago. I hope this Senate will not adjourn before passing this important bill.
[Omitted from middle 2nd column page 24]
Mr. Passage's bill [H. R. 159] in relation to the teaching of German in the public schools and to declare them open to every color, failed to pass the House by yeas 32, nays 49, as follows:
YEAS. Adams, Akins, Best, Bord, Branch, Brownlee, Copeland, Deem, Dunu, Engle, Fleece, Floyd, Franklin, Frazee, Gooding, Haworth, Helms, Hoban, Hopkins, Linville, Monk, McBroome, Osborn, Overman, Passage, Robinson, Smith (of Tip), Staley, Townsend, Trout, Twineham, Wynn - 32.
NAYS. Bailey, Barnes, Booe, Browning, Butz, Cartwright, Dale, Dittemore, Donhorst, Eley, Farrell, French, Garrison, Glazebrook, Gordon, Hanion, Hargrave, Harrell, Hayden, Jameson, Kellison, Klaas, Kreuger, Loyd, Mauck, Mock, Moody, Murphy, McClelland, McGovney, McHenry, McMichael, McMullen, Medcalf, Patten, Pendleton, Pleasants, Reeves, Reiter, Rivers, Robertson, Schmidt, Shanks, Smith (of Warricks), Timmons, Toner, Vickrey, Williams, The Speaker - 49.
[Omitted from near bottom of 2nd column page 85.]
Mr. Foulke's bill [S. 190] to require a residence of one year in the county and sixty days in the precinct before license shall be issued to an applicant, failed to pass the Senate - yeas 22, nays 15, - for want of the constitutional majority of 26 votes, as follows:
YEAS. Adkison, Benz, Campbell (of Hend'ks), Day, Drake, Duncan (of Tipton), Ensley, Ernest, Foulke, Hill, Hoover, Huston, Macy, Moon, Overstreet, Peterson, Richardson, Shively, Smith of Del. Smith of Jay. Winter, Youche - 22.
NAYS. Brown, Bryant, Fowler, Hilligass, Johnson, Johnston, McClure, McCullough, McIntosh, Rahm, Smith (of Jennings.] Thompson, Weir, Willard, Zimmerman,] 15.
[Omitted from top of 2nd column page 96.]
The bill to require that the effects of alcoholic stimulants and narcotics upon the human system shall be taught in the public schools, was indefinitely postponed by yeas 22, nays 20, as follows:
YEAS. Benz, Brown, Bryant, Duncan (of Brown), Ernest, Faulkner, Fowler, Howard, Johnson, Hilligass, Johnston, Magee, May, McClure, McCullough, Rahm, Sellers, Smith (of Jennings), Smith (of Jay) Weir, Willard, Zimmerman. - 22.
NAYS. Adkison, Campbell (of St. Jo.), Davis,
Mr. Best's Joint Resolution [H. R. 7] proposing an amendment to the State Constitution, article II, section 2, by striking therefrom the word "male" wherever such word occurs therein, failed to pass the House - yeas 45, nays 43, - for want of the constitutional majority of 51 votes. The vote was as follows:
YEAS. Adams, Akins, Barnes, Boyd, Brooks, Browning, Carr, Copeland, Dale, Debs, Deem, Dittemore, Dunn, Engle, Farrell, Fleece, Floyd, Franklin, Frazee, Garrison, Hanlon, Hargrave, Hayworth, Hayden, Helms, Hopkins, Jameson, Linville, Mauk, Mosier, McMullen, Osborn, Overman, Patten, Pleasants, Robinson, Sayre, Staley, Taylor, Timmons, Toner, Townsend, Trout, Vickery, Wynn - 45.
NAYS. Bailey, Barney, Barr, Booe, Branch, Cartwright, Cory, Crecelius, Donhost; Fisher, French, Glazebrook, Gooding, Gordon, Harrell, Hoban, Kellison, Klaas, Kruger, Loup, Loyd, Mauck, Mock, Murphy, McBroome, McGovney, McHenry, McMichael, Medcalf, Pendleton, Pruitt, Reeves, Reiter, Robertson, Schley, Schmidt, Shanks, Smith of Perry Smith of Warik Twineham, Williams, Mr. Speaker, - 43.
[Omitted from middle of first column page 159.]
The House struck the enacting clause from the bill [S. 373] for the establishment of an Appellate Court, by yeas 56, nays 21, - as follows:
YEAS. Adams, Akins, Bailey, Boyd, Brooks, Brownlee, Carr, Cartwright, Cory, Dale, Deem, Dunn, Eley, Engle, Fleece, Floyd, Franklin, Frazee, Garrison, Glazebrook, Gordon, Hargrave, Harrell, Haworth, Helms, Hoban, Hopkins, Jameson, Kellison, Loup, Loyd, Mauk of Wayne, Mock of Wells, Mosier, Murphy, McBroome, McGovney, McHenry, Osborn, Overman, Passage, Patton, Robinson, Sears, Shanks, Smith (of Tip), Smith (of Perry,) Smith (of Warrick,) Staley, Timmons, Townsend, Trout, Twineham, Vickrey, Wilson, Wynn - 56.
NAYS. Barnes, Barney, Booe, Butz, Donhorst, Farrell, Fisher, Hanlon, Hayden, Kless, Mauck, Moody, McMullen, Pendleton, Pleasants, Reeves, Reiter, Schley, Schmidt, Taylor, Mr. Speaker. - 21.
[Omitted from page 39.]
Mr. SMITH, of Delaware, moved that the rules of the Senate be spread of record on the Senate journals. (See Senate journal page 628.)
The motion was agreed to.
They are as follows:
(Omitted from the top of page 108.)
Mr. SMITH, of Jay, from a special Committee, returned the claim for Brevier Legislative Reports heretofore authorized, ordered, accepted and bound by the State, [see Senate Journal of 1885, page 398], and, also, the bill [S. 336,] to pay for the same, with a lengthy report thereon, which was printed under an order of the Senate. It is as follows:
MR. PRESIDENT: - The undersigned, members of the
The committee have taken the testimony of W. R. Myers, Secretary of State, and of Mr. W. H. Drapier. The committee has also caused a compilation of the resolutions passed from time to time in relation to the State taking such reports, and have caused the pages of the House and Senate Journals since 1857 to be set out, and herewith make the evidence and copy of resolutions a part of this our report.
From the facts, as we get them, we are of the opinion that there is no legal binding contract between Mr. Drapier and the State, whereby the State agreed to take the reports. Mr. Drapier, however, has reported the debates of the Legislature since 1857, and has received therefor the uniform price of two-thirds of a cent per page per volume, up to 1879, which has been paid by the State, on resolution adopted at the close of the session, except where, in some instance, the resolution empowered the Doorkeeper to employ Mr. Drapier to make such reports.
We are unable to give the value of the reports, as such reports are not put on the market for sale.
We are of the opinion, that by resolutions passed by the General Assemblies of 1879, 1881 and 1883, it was the intention of the Legislature to take such reports at two-thirds (â…”) of a cent per page per volume, and that by mistake in the form of resolution the same was not paid, and, also, because of the failure of the specific appropriation bill.
We find that Mr. Drapier has placed the reports in the office of the Secretary of State, and that the claim, so far as the thirteen thousand one hundred and ninety-eight dollars and forty-four cents ($13,198.44,) is concerned, is the amount found due Mr. Drapier, provided the resolutions had been in the form of concurrent resolutions.
We also find that the State has caused some of said reports to be bound, and that it paid for said binding.
We further find that no resolution has as yet passed in this General Assembly authorizing the payment for said reports for this Legislature, but we would recommend the passage of the resolution* introduced at this session of the General Assembly.
1858. November 29. The Senate passed a resolution authorizing and ordering 200 copies of these Legislative Reports for the use of the Senate. See page 49. 200 copies.
November 30. The House passed a resolution authorizing and ordering 200 copies of these Legislative Reports for the use of members of the House. See page 58. 200 copies.
December 25. The Senate passed a resolution authorizing and ordering 150 copies of these Legislative Reports for the use of the Senate. See page 198. 150 copies.
December 25. The House passed a resolution authorizing and ordering 100 copies of these Legislative Reports. See page 199. 100 copies.
Total number of copies ordered, 650.
1859. Brevier Reports, page 37. Senate resolution: "That the Doorkeeper be directed to contract with A. E. Drapier & Son for 600 copies of the Brevier Legislative Reports," etc. 600 copies
Brevier Reports, page 65. House resolution, House Journal, pages 187-8: "Authorizing the Doorkeeper to subscribe for 500 copies of Drapier's Brevier Legislative Reports," etc. 500 copies.
Brevier Reports, page 297. Senate resolution: "That the Secretary of State procure and send to each member of the Senate, officers elect, and reporters, one copy of the Legislative Reports at the same price per copy of those furnished members during the session," etc. 60 copies.
1859. Brevier Reports, page 299. House Resolution, House Journal, page 1116-17: "That the Secretary of State procure and send to each member of the House of Representatives and to the officers and reporters thereof, one copy of the Legislative Reports at the same price per copy as those furnished members during the session," etc. To be bound in sheep. 110 copies.
Total number ordered, 1270 copies.
February 18, 1859. The Senate authorized explanation of vote to be handed to the Brevier reporter for publication in the Legislative Reports. See pages 208, 209.
1861. Brevier Reports, Regular Session, page 331. Senate Resolution. Senate Journal, pp, 497, 771, 772, 778: "That the Doorkeeper be directed to contract with Ariel W. H. Drapier for 600 copies of their Brevier Reports of the proceedings and debates of the present session of the General Assembly, one copy to be laid on the desk of each member of the Senate as printed, and the remainder to be bound and distributed as the Laws and Journals," etc. 600 copies.
Brevier Reports, page 357. House. - House Journal, page 919: "That Ariel & W. H. Drapier be allowed for 500 copies of the Brevier Reports." 500 copies.
Brevier Reports, page 341. Senate Resolution. Senate Journal, page 814: "That the Secretary of State be and he is hereby authorized to procure," etc., "one copy of the Brevier Legislative Reports of the present session for each Senator and elected officer of the Senate, and to forward the same to their postoffice address." Bound in sheep. 60 copies.
March 4, 1861. Mr. Claypool, from the
"Mr. P
"There being no objection, the report of the committee was concurred in." See page 331.
March 5. 1861. Mr. Line offered the following:
"Resolved, That the number of copies of the Brevier Legislative Reports, which the Senate has agreed to take [twelve copies for each Senator,] shall be held subject to the written directions of each Senator, without any additional expense to the publishers." - Senate Journal, page 793.
"Which was adopted NEM. CON." - See page 338.
1861. House Journal, page 1072. Also Brevier Reports, Regular Session, page 373. House Resolution: "That the Secretary of State procure and send to each member of the House, and to the Officers and Reporters thereof, two (2) copies of the Brevier Legislative Reports," etc., "to be bound in full sheep." 220 copies.
Total number ordered, 1,380 copies.
March 11, 1861. A resolution was adopted by the House of Representatives, directing the binding of 500 copies of the Brevier Legislative Reports (which Reports have been allowed by the House,) the same to be paid out of the contingent fund of the State. See page 374.
March 11, 1861. In Senate. Mr. Miller offered the following:
Resolved, That the Secretary of State procure and send to each member of the Senate, and to the officers and reporters thereof, two copies of the Brevier Legislative Reports of the present session, all to be bound in full sheep. Senate Journal, 1861, page 985.
April 25, 1861 - On motion of Mr. DeHart, it was ordered that the Doorkeeper be instructed to distribute to the members of the Senate, their respective numbers of the Brevier Legislative Reports of last session.
May 30, 1861. In the House of Representatives: Mr. Fisher proposed an additional section allowing to A. E. and W. H. Drapier for six hundred of the Brevier Reports, etc. It was adopted by consent.
1861. House Journal, page 56. Also, Brevier Reports, Special Session, page 31. House Resolution: "That the Doorkeeper contract with the proprietors for 600 copies of Drapier's Brevier Legislative Reports, embracing the proceedings and debates of the present sessions of the General Assembly, for the use of members of the House of Representatives," etc. 600 copies.
Brevier Reports, page 230. Senate Journal, page 246. "Subscribing for six hundred copies of the Brevier Legislative Reports. 600 copies.
Senate Journal, page 292. Also Brevier Reports, page 252. Senate Resolution: "That the Secretary of State procure and send to each member of the Senate, and to the officers and reporters thereof, two copies of the Brevier Reports, etc., to be bound in sheep. 120 copies.
House Journal, page 387. Also Brevier Reports. Special Session, page 253. House
Resolution: "That the secretary of State procure and send to each member of the
Total number ordered, 1,540 copies.
1863. Senate Journal, page 628. The
1863. Senate Journal, page 521. Also Brevier Reports, page 180. Senate resolution: "That the Doorkeeper be directed to contract with W. H. Drapier for 600 copies of the Brevier Legislative Reports," etc. 600 copies.
House Journal, page 709. Also Brevier Reports, page 234. House resolution: - "That the Doorkeeper be directed to contract with. W. H. Drapier for 600 copies of the Brevier Legislative Reports," etc. 600 copies.
Senate Journal, page 769. Also Brevier Reports, page 234. Senate resolution: - "That the'Secretary of State be authorized to procure and send to each member of the Senate, and to the officers and reporters thereof, two copies of the Brevier Legislative Reports," etc., "to be bound in full sheep." 120 copies.
1863. House Journal, page 737. Also Brevier Reports, page 237. House resolution: "That the Secretary of State procure and send to each member of the House, and to the officers thereof," "two copies of the Brevier Legislative Reports,' etc., "to be bound in full sheep." 220 copies.
Total number ordered, 1,540 copies.
1863. House Journal, page 683: "The
"The report was concurred in." - Brevier Reports, page 206.
1863. House Journal, page 734: "That W. H. Drapier be allowed for six hundred copies of the Brevier Reports of the present session, as per contract with the Doorkeeper of the House, in pursuance of a resolution."
February 7, 1865. "Mr. Richmond moved that all those Senators who had not an opportunity of giving their views upon the proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States, be permitted to write them out, and that they appear in the Brevier Legislative Reports.
"The motion was agreed to, and it, was so ordered by unanimous consent." - See Senate Journal, 1865, page 359. Also Brevier Reports, page 269.
March 6, 1865. "On motion of Mr. Bennett.
"Wm. H. Drapier was allowed sixty-six dollars for organizing the present session of the Senate." - See Senate Journal, page 603. Also Brevier Reports, 391.
1865. House Journal, page 803. Also, Brevier Reports, Regular Session, page 380. House: "For 600 copies of the Brevier Legislative Reports of the proceedings and debates of the present session of the General Assembly," etc. 600 copies.
Senate Journal, page 380. Also, Brevier Reports, page 387. Senate resolution: - "That the Auditor of State be and he is hereby directed to draw his warrant on the State Treasury in favor of A. E. and W H. Drapier for $1,500, or so much thereof as may be necessary to pay two-thirds of a cent a page per copy for 600 copies," etc. 600 copies
Total number ordered, 1,200 copies.
December 19, 1865. By unanimous consent, the
Sec. -. That A. E. & W. H. Drapier be allowed for Brevier Legislative Reports furnished last session, in compliance with resolutions then passed; and, also, at the same rate, viz.: two-thirds of one cent a page per copy for the same number of the current volume for the present session." Senate Journal, 1865, pages 510-11. Also, Brevier Reports, page 231.
1865. Senate Journal, page 580. Also, Brevier Reports, Regular Session, page 387. Senate resolution: "That the Secretary of State be authorized to procure and send to each member of the Senate and to the officers and reporters thereof, two copies of the Brevier Legislative Reports," etc., to be bound in full sheep. 120 copies.
House Journal, page 860-1. Also, Brevier Reports, page 397. House resolution: "That the Secretary of State procure and send by express to each member of the House and to the officers thereof, two copies of the Brevier Legislative Reports," etc., to be bound in full sheep. 220 copies.
Total number ordered, 1,540 copies.
1865. Senate Journal, page 233. Also, Brevier Reports, Special Session, page 132. Senate resolution: "That the Auditor is hereby directed to draw his warrant on the Treasurer of State in favor of A. E. & W. H. Drapier, for Brevier Legislative Reports furnished last session, in compliance with resolutions then passed; to he paid out of the fund appropriated for legislative expenses."
Brevier Reports, page 231. Senate. - Senate Journal, page 510-11: "That A. E. & W. H. Drapier be allowed for Brevier Legislative Reports furnished last session, in compliance with resolutions then passed; and, also, at the same rate, viz: two-thirds of one cent a page per copy for the same number of the current volume for the present session."; 1,540 copies.
1865. Senate Journal, page 612; also, Brevier Reports, Special Session, page 251 - Senate resolution: "That the State Printer be authorized to bind and send to each member of the Senate and the officers and reporters thereof, three copies of the Legislative Brevier Reports," etc. 180 copies.
House Journal, pages 744-5; also, Brevier Reports, page 270 - House resolution: "That the State Printer be authorized to bind and send to each member of the House, and the officers, clerks and reporters thereof, three copies of the Legislative Brevier Reports," etc. 330 copies.
Total number ordered. 2,050 copies.
January 16. 1867. Every Senator's reasons for votes authorized and ordered printed in the Brevier Legislative Reports, by the Senate, page 46, vol. IX.
January 31, 1867. Brevier Legislative Reports of the General and Special Sessions, ordered by the Senate to be furnished to a Senator-elect. Senate Journal, page 262. Brevier Reports, pages 134-5.
1867. Senate Journal, Regular Session, pages 899, 905: "That A. E. & W. H. Dra-
SEC. 135. That A. E. & W. H. Drapier be allowed for Brevier Legislative Reports, furnished last session in compliance with resolutions then passed; and, also, at the same rate, viz: two-thirds of one cent a page per copy for the same number of copies of the current volume for the present session. - Acts Special Session, 1865, page 74.
March 9, 1867. The following section of the specific appropriation bill being under consideration:
"Section 45. That A. E. & W. H. Drapier be allowed for the number of copies of the Brevier Legislative Reports for the session of 1867, furnished every session since 1857, at the same price per page for the last several volumes." - See House Journal, 1857, pages 1156, 1158.
Mr. Newcomb proposed to amend further (on account of indefiniteness) by striking out the words "at the same price paid per page for the last several volumes," and inserting in lieu "at not exceeding two-thirds of a cent per page." - House Journal, page 1162.
The amendment was agreed to, and then Section 45, as amended, was concurred in. - See Brevier Reports, vol. IX, page 443.
March 9, 1867. The Senate concurred in the House amendments to the order for the Brevier Reports, striking out the, words "at the same price paid per page for the last several volumes," and inserting in lieu "at not exceeding two-thirds of a cent per page." See Senate Journal, pages 942, 943.
March 11, 1867. The Senate adopted a resolution to furnish the compiler of the Brevier Reports with stationery, stamps, etc., as an appreciation of services. - See Senate Journal, page 968. Also Brevier Reports, page 445.
1867. Senate Journal, pages 7 and 8. - Also, Brevier Reports, page 11. Senate resolution: "That the Doorkeeper be instructed to furnish each Senator with one copy of the Brevier Legislative Reports of the last Regular and Special Sessions."
Brevier Reports, page 369. Senate - Senate Journal page 736: "That A. E. & W. H. Drapier be allowed for the number of copies of the Brevier Legislative Reports, furnished every session since 1857, the same price paid per page for the last several volumes."
Brevier Reports, page 448. Senate resolution (Senate Journal, page 968): "That the Secretary of State be authorized to have bound and sent to each member of the Senate, and the officers, clerks and reporters thereof, three copies of the Legislative Brevier Reports; to be bound in full law."
Total number ordered, 1,725.
March 11, 1867. The following resolution was adopted by the House of Representatives:
"Resolved, That the State Printer is hereby directed to transmit, by express or otherwise, to the members and officers of this House entitled thereto the number of bound volumes of the Journals and Brevier Reports of this General Assembly to which they are entitled by law, as soon as the same are published: Provided, That said documents shall be wrapped and directed to each member, and sent with the laws of the session." (See House Journal, page 1195. Also, Brevier Reports, page 152.)
Section 45. That A. E. and W. H. Drapier be allowed for the number of copies of the Brevier Legislative Reports, for the session 1867, furnished every session since 1857, at not exceeding two-thirds of a cent per page. Acts 1867, page 16.
1869. Senate Journal, page 11. Also Brevier Reports, Regular Session, page 18. Senate resolution: "That the State Librarian be instructed to place upon the desk of each Senator one copy of the Brevier Reports of last session."
The Brevier Reports index has no reference in the index to itself.
The State Auditor's Report shows on page 93, Senate Journal of 1875, that the State paid for 1,750 copies.
1869. House Journal, page 122. Also Brevier Reports. Special Session, 1869, page 81. House: "That A. E. and W. H. Drapier be allowed for the same number of copies of the Brevier Legislative Reports of the 46th General Assembly furnished every session since 1857, the same price paid per page for the last several volumes," (two-thirds of a cent,) 1,750 copies. Total number ordered 1,750 copies, and paid for by the State. See State Auditor's Report, Senate Journal, 1875, page 93.
Mr. Osborn said that he understood that the appropriation is for an allowance that shall embrace the Reports of the proceedings of both sessions.
Mr. Stewart, of Rush, understood that the price for these Reports is two-thirds of a cent per page per copy.
The amendment was agreed to. See B. R., vol. XI, page 81.
SEC. 99. That A. E. and W. H. Drapier be allowed for the same number of copies of the Brevier Legislative Reports of the 46th General Assembly as have been furnished every session since 1857, the same price, paid per page for the last several volumes. - Acts Special Session 1869, page 20.
1871. House Journal, page 939. Also Brevier Reports, page 348 - House resolution: "That the State Printer be authorized to bind in full law and send to each member of the House of Representatives, and the elective officers thereof, three copies each of the Legislative Brevier Reports."
The State Auditor's Report shows on page 93, Senate Journal of 1875, that the State paid for 1,750 copies.
1872. Also, Senate Journal, page 32-3. Brevier Reports, page 31 - Senate Resolution: "That the Doorkeeper be requested to obtain of the State Librarian and lay upon the tables of Senators one copy of the Brevier Reports."
Senate Journal, pages 423 and 424. Also, Brevier Reports, page 298 - Senate Resolution:
"That the Auditor of State be, and he is hereby directed to issue his warrant on the
State Treasurer in favor of A. E. & W. H. Drapier, for the same number of copies of the
Brevier Legislative Reports of the Forty-seventh General Assembly as have been furnished
every session since 1857, the same price paid per page per copy for the last several
volumes, to be paid out of the fund appropriated for Legislative purposes; and also, at the
same rate for the same number of copies of the cur-
Interest was paid for what was due on the Brevier Reports of the previous session.
On page 423, of the Senate Journal of 1872, is the following:
"Mr. Neff, from the
"MR. PRESIDENT - The
"Which report was concurred in and the resolution adopted."
1872. Senate Journal, page 473. Also, Brevier Reports, page 318. Senate resolution: "That the State Printer be authorized to bind in sheep and send to each member of the Senate, and the elective officers thereof, three copies each of the Brevier Reports."
The State Auditor's Report shows, on page 93, Senate Journal of 1875, that the State paid for 1,750 copies.
March 5, 1873. The House of Representatives passed a resolution that one copy of the Brevier Reports of this General Assembly be bound in library style for the use of each member and officer of the House of Representatives. See Brevier Reports, vol. XIV. pages 240 and 241.
March 8, 1873. In the Senate the section authorizing and ordering the Brevier Legislative Reports was amended by inserting the words "special and" before the words "regular session." See Senate Journal, 1873, page 1015. Also, Brevier Reports, page 253.
Section 40. That A. E. and W. H. Drapier be allowed for the same number of copies of the Brevier Legislative Reports of the special and regular session of the 48th General Assembly as have been furnished ever since 1857, the same price paid per page for the last several volumes. Acts 1873, page 12.
1873. Senate Journal, page 762. Also, Brevier Reports, page 215. Senate resolution: "That the Secretary of State be and he is hereby directed to place on the desk of each Senator, the Lieut. Governor, elective officers and reporters, three copies of the Brevier Legislative Reports of the recent Special Session of the General Assembly."
Senate Journal, page 950. Also, Brevier Reports, page 244. Senate Resolution: - "That the Board of Public Printing or Secretary of State be directed to have bound in sheep, and sent to each member of the Senate, the elective officers and reporters thereof, three copies each of the Brevier Reports, bound in sheep."
Senate Journal, page 1065. Also, Brevier Reports, page 265. Senate resolution: "That the Secretary of State be and is hereby directed to have bound in the usual style, the Brevier Reports of the proceedings and debates of this General Assembly, and cause the same to be distributed equally among the members thereof at as early a a day as possible."
See, Senate Journal, 1863, page 1005: "That A. E. & W. H. Drapier be allowed for the same number of copies of the Brevier Legislative Reports of the Forty-eighth General Assembly as have been furnished every session since 1857, the same price paid per page the last several volumes," which was concurred in. - See Senate Journal, page 1007.
1873. House Journal, page 947. Also, Brevier Reports, page 273. House resolution: "That the Secretary of State be authorized to send to each member of the House of Representatives, three copies of the Brevier Legislative Reports," "as soon as the same are printed and bound."
The State Auditor's Report shows, on page 93, Senate Journal of 1875, that the State, paid for 1,750 copies.
1873. The House of Representatives passed a resolution that one copy of the Brevier Reports of the special and regular sessions of this General Assembly "be bound in leather for the use of the members of this House." See House Journal, page 796.
"That A. E. and W. H. Drapier be allowed for the same number of copies of the Brevier Legislative Reports of the special session and regular session of the Forty-eighth General Assembly as have been furnished ever since 1857, at the same price per page for the last several volumes." - See House Journal, 1873, pages 908 & 911.
A resolution was adopted in the Senate, January 11, 1875, requesting the Secretary of State to place on the desk of each Senator, one copy of the Brevier Reports of 1872 and 1873. See Senate Journal. 1875, page 60.
RESOLVED, That the sum of one hundred dollars, be and is hereby
appropriated, and that the same be paid to William H. Drapier, for extra services, as
one of the clerks of the Senate, and whose assistance outside of his special duties,
from his long experience and accurate knowledge of parliamentary proceedings has been of
great value in expediting the dispatch of business and perfecting the Journal.
Mr. Cadwallader moved to amend the amendment by inserting "two hundred dollars" in place of "one hundred" for William H. Drapier.
Which was agreed to.
The question being on the adoption of the resolution as amended.
So the resolution as amended was adopted, by yeas, 22; nays, 16.
See Senate Journal, 1877, page 756.
RESOLVED, That W. H. Drapier be allowed five hundred dollars for
Brevier Reports printed last session, and that the President of the Senate draw his
warrant for the same, to be paid out of moneys heretofore appropriated for Legislative
expenses, in full of all demands to date. Adopted by yeas, 21; nays, 14. See Senate
Journal, 1877, pages 920 and 921.
1879. Senate Journal, page 145. Also, Brevier Reports, page 69. - Senate Resolution: "That the Secretary of State be requested to lay on the desks of Senators one copy each of the Brevier Legislative Reports," etc.
Senate Journal, page 169. Also, Brevier Reports, page 77. Communication from the Secretary of State to the President of the Senate: "In response to a resolution of the Senate, requesting the Secretary of State to lay on the desks of Senators one copy each of the Brevier Reports, I beg to say that such Reports were duly delivered on Monday last."
The contractor for the State printing bound 1,727 copies under an order from the State Bureau of Printing, which were distributed as since 1857. The binding was paid for by a bill passed by this (the Fifty-fourth) General Assembly.
1881. In the Senate Journal, page 648, will be found the following resolution:
"WHEREAS, The compiler of the Brevier Reports has been on
instant duty every hour of every session of the Indiana Legislature for twenty-one (21)
years last past; and
"WHEREAS, Such constant consecutive service has no parallel in
the history of this commonwealth; therefore, commemorating the attainment of his
majority-year since entering this Legislature.
"RESOLVED, That W. H. Drapier is authorized to continue the
Brevier Legislature Reports at the same price and the same number of copies furnished by
him to every General Assembly since 1857 for seventeen (17) years."
On page 1023 of the same Senate Journal is the following:
"Mr. Bell, from
"Goes on file under the rule."
Which resolution was adopted (see page 1068,) with a proviso (see page 1066,) to-wit: "Provided such Reports shall not exceed 750 in number."
The State Printer bound 1,738 copies, under an order from the Clerk of the State Bureau of Printing, which were distributed as since 1857. The binding was paid for by a bill passed by this (the Fifty-fourth) General Assembly.
March 5, 1883, the Senate passed the following resolution:
RESOLVED, That the Auditor of State be and is hereby directed to
issue his warrant on the State Treasury, at the end of the present session, in favor of
W. H. Drapier, Stenographic Assembly Reporter, for what may be due him for the Brevier
Legislative Reports, at the same price paid per page per copy as uniformly paid since
1857, to be paid one of the funds appropriated for Legislative expenses; - the number of
copies for the current session to be the same as heretofore published, ten copies of
each to be forwarded as soon as published to each member of the General Assembly.
I, A. J. Kelley, Principal Secretary of the Senate, do certify that the foregoing is a true, full and complete copy of Senate Resolution on Brevier Reports, passed by aye and nay vote of Senate, the vote being, ayes 25, nays 15, as copied from the original now in my possession.
House Resolution No. 83. by Mr. Mosier: MR. SPEAKER:
I move that the Secretary of State is hereby directed to send to each member of this House, officers and clerks thereof, five copies of the Brevier Reports, and each of the House and Senate Journals, as soon as they are printed and bound, and the acts of the present session.
Mr. Heffren offered the following amendment:
Amend by inserting "The acts of the present session."
The amendment was agreed to.
And the resolution as amended adopted.
I, S. W. Edwins, Principal Clerk of the House, hereby certify the above resolution authorizing the Brevier Reports,&c., was passed the House of Representatives this 5th day of March, 1883.
Question. What, if anything, do you know, either personally or by the records on file in your office, about any contract, written or oral, between the State and Wm. H. Drapier concerning the compilation and publication of the Brevier Legislative Reports?
Answer. I know of nothing excepting the joint resolution of the House and Senate of 1883, authorizing the publication of the Brevier Reports of that session. I have heard further contracts discussed by other State officers and Mr. Drapier, but know nothing of my own personal knowledge.
Q. Did the State at any time within the six years last past receive from Mr. Drapier any of such reports, and, if so, under what circumstances were they received; state fully?
A. My understanding is that Mr. Drapier has for a great many years published the Brevier Reports, and they have been received by the State, and that there is a very considerable difference of opinion between the State officers and Mr. Drapier as to the amount of money due him for said reports. Of this I have no personal knowledge other than the action of the Legislature from time to time in regard to the same. The Legislature of 1883, by resolution of each branch of the same, authorized the publication of a certain number of copies, the exact number of which I cannot tell without reference to the resolution. These reports Mr. Drapier published, and, as I understand, presented his claim or bill for to the Auditor of State, who refused to audit the same, and the matter was then referred to the courts, and was decided adversely to Mr. Drapier. In the meantime Mr. Drapier presented to me his Brevier Reports, the number of which I can't remember, which I declined to receive, for the reason that I did not. In any way, wish to implicate the State. I did, however, permit Mr. Drapier to deposit the same in the basement of my office, where they now remain.
Q. Did the State at any time within the last six years have any of these reports bound, and if so, for what purpose?
A. I round in my office a number of copies bound in paper covers, the same as those now deposited, of the Fifty-third General Assembly. As to whether the State authorized the binding I know nothing.
Q. Were any of the Brevier Reports of the Fifty-third General Assembly delivered to the Secretary of State, and if so, what was the number of copies, in what condition, under what circumstances, and by whom were they delivered?
A. Mr. Drapier now holds a certificate from me showing the number of copies of the Reports of 1883, which were deposited in the basement of my office, as stated above, all of which is more fully answered in the reply of the second question.
Question. How long have you been compiling these reports?
Answer. Twenty-seven (27) years.
Q. How many reports, on an average, have been furnished each General Assembly?
A. Seventeen hundred and fifty (1,750) copies uniformily, making a fraction over eleven (11) copies to each member of the General Assembly.
Q. Has the General Assembly, by resolution from time to time, since the commencement of the compilation of these reports by you, authorized the publishing of and the payment for such reports by the State?
A. Yes, as shown by tabulated statement herewith submitted and marked Exhibit "A," made a part of his answer.
Q. Was there a resolution offered and adopted by the General Assembly of 1881 and 1883, authorizing the publishing and payment of these reports?
A. Yes, as shown by Exhibit "A."
Q. Does the exhibit made and filed by you as a part of answer three (3) show the pages of the Journal of the Legislature from time to time, where such resolutions occur.
A. Yes.
Q. Was there at any time since the commencement of the compilation of these reports any contract, written or oral, between you and the State by which you were to compile and furnish such reports to the State, and for which the State agreed to take the same at any stipulated price?
A. Yes, there were a number of contracts as the tabulated statement marked "A" will show.
Q. Has there at any time, been any objection on the part of the General Assembly to your appearing on the floor of the House or Senate, and reporting and compiling the reports of the proceedings and debates of the different sessions of the Legislature, in the forms in which the Brevier Reports have been made?
A. Never in all these twenty-seven (27) years.
Q. What has been the uniform price for these reports, and by whom has it been paid?
A. The uniform price paid is two-thirds (â…”) of a cent per page, per copy, and has always been paid by the State.
Q. Do you sell copies of these reports to any person or persons, other than the State?
A. Never, excepting perhaps in a half dozen instances, and then only as a custodian.
Q. Do you mean by the last answer the whole number of volumes published in any one year?
A. No, I mean that I have sold only single copies and I can not now recall but three instances of this kind, - not to exceed perhaps, a half dozen, as stated in my answer to the last question.
Q. Is there any instance in which no price has been fixed for these reports?
A. In every order the price is uniformly stated, as the tabulated statement will show.
Q. What is the reasonable value of these reports?
A. Compared with the compensation received by me for similar services, during my professional life of 35 years, the Brevier Reports are worth more than double the price the State has ever paid me for them.
Q. How much is due you, from the State, for these reports for the year 1879, for the regular and special sessions of the Fifty-first General Assembly?
A. My claim for the regular and special sessions of 1879 - volumes 17 and 18 - is five thousand six hundred and forty-seven dollars and forty-two cents ($5,647.42).
Q. How much is due you, from the State, for these reports for the year 1881, for the regular and special sessions of the Fifty second General Assembly?
A. My claim for the regular and special sessions of 1881 - volumes 19 and 20 - is six thousand eight hundred and eighty-eight dollars and fifty-five cents ($6,888.55).
Q. How much is due you, from these State, for these reports for the year 1883, for the regular session of the Fifty-third General Assembly?
A. My claim for the regular session of 1883 - volume 21 - is four thousand and eighty-two dollars and thirty-eight cents ($4,082.38).
Q. What did the Court find to be due you for these Reports at the time of adjudication, in the Marion Circuit Court?
A. Thirteen thousand one hundred and ninety-eight dollars and forty-four cents ($13,198.44.)
The report of the Committee was concurred in and so 1750 copies of Brevier Reports of this Assembly were ordered.
The claim referred to, [$18,778.81, - see Senate Journal page 398,] as printed by order
of the Senate, together with the bill for its payment, (S. 336,) and the favorable report
of the
The State of Indiana, Debtor, to W. H. Drapier, Stenographic Assembly Reporter:
The State of Indiana, debtor, to W. H. Drapier, Stenographic Assembly Reporter.
Resolved, That the Auditor of State be and is hereby directed to issue his warrant on the State Treasury, at the end of the present session, in favor of W. H. Drapier, Stenographic Assembly Reporter, for what may be due him for the Brevier Legislative Reports at the same price paid per page per copy as uniformly paid since 1857, to be paid out of the funds appropriated for Legislative expenses the number of copies for the current session to be the same as heretofore published, ten copies of each to be forwarded as soon as published to each member of the General Assembly.
I, A. J. Kelley, Principal Secretary of the Senate, do certify that the foregoing is a true, full and complete copy of Senate Resolution on Brevier Reports, passed by aye and nay vote of Senate, the vote being, ayes 25, nays 15, as copied from the original now in my posession.
BY MR. MOSIER—Mr. Speaker: I
move that the Secretary of Stare is hereby directed to send to each member of this House,
officers and clerks thereof, five copies of the Brevier Reports, and each of the House and
Senate Journals, as soon as they are printed and bound, and the Acts of the present
session.
MR. HEFFREN offered the following amendment: Amend by inserting
"The Acts of the present session."
The amendment was agreed to.
And the resolution as amended adopted.
I, S. W. Edwins, Principal Clerk of the House, hereby certify the above resolution authorizing the Brevier Reports, etc., has passed the House of Representatives this 5th day of March, 1883.
This is to Certify, That the Sentinel presses printed seventeen hundred and fifty (1750) copies - eighteen signatures o sixteen pages, and one eight-page signature of the Brevier Legislative Reports, Volume 21 - the last page printed by us being page 304, Fifty-third General Assembly, 1883.
I have printed the first and last signatures, of eight pages each, of the above edition, the last page being No. 312.
Received, June 22d, the above 19½ signatures for binding.
Received of W. H. Drapier payment in full for binding the above mentioned 1750 books.
This is to Certify, That Mr. W. H. Drapier has this day deposited in this office what he claims to be 1750 copies of what he terms the Brevier Legislative Reports of the General Assembly or 1883.
Under the foregoing resolutions I presented my claim as heretofore set forth to the Auditor of State and demanded a warrant therefor. The Audidor questioned the legality of its payment under the resolutions, and refused to draw his warrant for any part thereof. To obtain an interpretation, and to determine whether I was entitled to receive a warrant, I commenced an action by mandamus in the Marion Circuit Court against the Auditor. The Court gave me judgement for the several amounts, less interest, charges for binding, etc., embracing only the number of days of each session and the number of pages of each volume at the usual and customary price of two-thirds of a cent per page per copy for the 51st, 52nd and 53d Assemblies - being volumes 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21; that is to say:
The State by her Attorney General appealed to the Supreme Court, and that Court, in 95 Ind., p. 33, held: First. That by reason of said Senate resolution not being concurrent with the House resolution: Second. That for said 53d General Assembly the amount not being a liquidated or stated sum: and, Third. That said 53d General Assembly could not pay out of its appropriation for expenses of that session for services rendered it at a preceding session; that therefore the relator could not recover.
I therefore ask the 54th General Assembly to make an appropriation for such Brevier Legislative Reports as have been authorized, ordered and sanctioned heretofore by the General Assembly as shown by the Senate and House journals for twenty-seven years past, at the same price uniformly paid by the State since 1857, conformably to the usage and custom of the Indiana Legislature for a quarter of a century.
State of Indiana, Marion County:
Personally appeared before me, this 23d day of February, 1885, William H. Drapier, who, by solemn affirmation, declares that the above account is in all things correct and just, and is unpaid, as he may answer under the pains and penalties of perjury.
Witness my hand and notarial seal this day and year above written.
An act making an appropriation for the payment of William H. Drapier, Stenographic Assembly Reporter of the Brevier Legislative Reports of the Debates and Proceedings of the 51st, 52d and 53d General Assembly of the State of Indiana.
Whereas, On the 5th day of March, A. D. 1883, the 53d General Assembly of the State of Indiana, by its Senate and House, separately in action, did declare:
Resolved, That the Auditor of State be, and is hereby directed to issue his warrant on the State Treasurer at the end of the present session, in favor of W. H. Drapier, Stenographic Assembly Reporter, for what may be due him for the Brevier Legislative Reports, at the same price paid per page per copy as uniformly paid since 1857, to be paid out of the funds appropriated for Legislative expenses: the number of copies for the current session to be the same as heretofore published, ten copies of each to be forwarded as soon as published to each member of the General Assembly.
I, A. J. Kelley, Principal Secretary of the Senate, do certify that the foregoing is a true, full and complete copy of Senate Resolution on Brevier Reports, passed by aye and nay vote of the Senate, the vote being, ayes 25, nays 15, as copied from the original now in my possession.
By Mr. Mosier - Mr. Speaker: I move that the Secretary of State is hereby directed to send to each member of this House, officer and clerks thereof, five copies of the Brevier Reports, and each of the House and Senate Journals, as soon as they are printed and bound, and the acts of the present session.
Mr. Heffren offered the following amendment:
Amend by inserting "The acts of the present session."
The amendment agreed to.
And the resolution as amended adopted.
I, S. W. Edwins, Principal Clerk of the House, hereby certify the above resolution authorizing the Brevier Reports, etc., has passed the House of Representatives this 5th day of March, 1883.
S. W. EDWINS,
Principal Clerk of the House of Representatives.
Wm. D. Bynum, Speaker of the House of Representatives.
And Whereas: Said Drapier did, in persuance of said resolution, cause to be published, bound and delivered to the Secretary of State, the Vol. 21 of said debates and proceedings of said Regular Session of said 53d General Assembly, as more fully appears by the following certificates:
This to Certify, That the Sentinel presses printed seventeen hundred and fifty (1750) copies - eighteen signatures of sixteen pages, and one eight-page signature - of the Brevier Legislative Reports, Volume 21 - the last page printed by us being page 304, Fifty-third General Assembly, 1883.
I have printed the first and last signatures, of eight pages each, of the above edition, the last page being No. 312.
Received, June 22d, the above 19½ signatures, for binding.
Received of W. H. Drapier payment in full for binding the above mentioned 1750 books.
This is to Certify, That Mr. W. H. Drapier has this day deposited in this office what he claims to be 1750 copies of what he terms the Brevier Legislative Reports of the General Assembly of 1883.
And Whereas, on mandate proceedings in the Marion Circuit Court to determine questions thereon raised, said Court did give judgement for the sum of $13,158 44, for the number of pages only at â…” of a cent per page per copy, the uniform price heretofore paid therefor, embracing the debates and proceedings of the Regular and Special Sessions of the 51st, 52nd and 53rd General Assembly of the State of Indiana, being vols. 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21.
And Whereas, on an appeal therefrom by the State, the Supreme Court has held that such action by said Senate and House, should have been concurrent, for the then present session, for the payment of said Brevier Legislative Reports, of their debates and proceedings, and further, that said Assembly, neither by its Senate or House could appropriate by resolution, moneys in payment of legislative expenses of preceding sessions. Therefore,
Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:
That the sum of (13,158 44) thirteen thousand one hundred and fifty-eight dollars and forty-four cents, be and the same is hereby appropriated out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, in full payment to William H. Drapier, Stenographic Assembly Reporter for the Brevier Legislative Reports of the debates and proceedings of the Regular and Special Sessions of the 51st, 52nd and 53rd General Assembly of the State of Indiana.
Sec. 2. An emergency existing for the immediate taking effect of this act, it shall be in force on and after its passage.
MR. PRESIDENT: Your Committee on Claims, to whom
was referred Senate Bill No. 336, introduced by Senator Bailey, have had the same under
consideration, and recommend that the same do pass.
This bill S. 336 was finally passed the Senate [see near the bottom of page 120 - also Senate Journal p. 843.]
[Omitted from near bottom of page 167.]
The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, [Mr. Willard in the Chair,] having under consideration the Specific Appropriation Bill [H. R. 487,] the following amendments thereto, copied from notes kept by the journal clerk of the Senate, were agreed to:
"By Mr. BAILEY: Mr. CHAIRMAN: I move to amend House Bill 487 as
follows: On page 13, after item 23, add the following items:
"ITEM 26. That William H. Drapier be allowed thirteen thousand
one hundred and ninety-eight dollars and forty-four cents [$13,198.44] for Brevier
Legislative Reports heretofore authorized, ordered, accepted and bound by the State - being
the sum in the Marion Circuit Court found to be due in 1883 - embracing the same number of
copies and the same price as have been paid for by the State since 1867 and for years
before under resolutions and Acts in exact and identical words as to price and number of
copies.
"ITEM 27. That William H. Drapier be allowed for the same number
of copies of the Brevier Legislative Reports of the present Assembly at the same price as
has been paid by the State since 1867 and for years before under resolutions and Acts in
exact and identical words as to price and number of copies."
These two items, as printed above, are on one sheet of paper with the following endorsements on the back: "H. R. 487." "Senate amendment, No. 10." "Adopted."
Mr. SMITH, of Jay,
RESOLVED, That William H. Drapier be and he is hereby elected
Stenographer of the Senate, and instead of a per diem he be allowed for the same number
of copies of the Brevier Legislative Reports of the present Assembly, at the same price
as has been paid by the state for said Reports since 1867, and for years before, under
resolutions and acts in exact and identical words as to price and number of copies; and
the President of the Senate is hereby directed to issue his warrant therefor as in case
of other officers of the Senate. The Bureau of Printing is directed to have said Reports
bound, as heretofore by the State, and said Stenographer is directed to forward ten
copies to each member of the General Assembly.
The resolution was adopted by yeas 20 nays 16. [See Senate Journal page 981.]
ERRATA - The head lines at the top of page 106 of this Appendix should be transposed.
To Subjects which have Provoked the most Discussion in the General Assembly, of Indiana, since the Establishment of the Brevier Legislative Reports--from 1857 to 1885.
[The Roman numerals indicate the volume of the Brevier Reports and the figures following the Roman numerals indicate the page of the volume where the debate can be found.]
First Baptist Church..Northeast corner Pennsylvania and New York streets. Services 10:30 a. m., 7:30 p.m.: Sunday School 2 p. m.
Second Baptist Church..North side Michigan street, east of West street. Services 10:30 a. m., 7:30 p. m ; Sunday School 9 a. m.
Third Baptist Tabernacle..124 Rhode Island street. Services 10:30 a. m., 3 p. m., 7:30 p. m.; Sunday School 9 a. m.
Corinthian Baptist Church..Southeast corner North and Railroad streets. Services 10:30 a. m., 7:30 p. m.; Sunday School 9 a. m.
Garden Baptist Church..168 Bright street. Services 10:30 a. m., 7 p. m.; Sunday School 2 p. m.
German Baptist Church..Southwest corner North and Davidson streets. Services 10:30 a. m., 7:30 p. m.; Sunday School 2 p. m.
Mount Zion Baatist Church..Corner Second and Lafayette streets. Services 10:30 a. m., 7:30: p. m.; Sunday School 9 a. m.
New Bethel Baptist Church..83 Beeler street. Services 11 a. m., 7 p. m.; Sunday School 9 a. m.
North Baptist Church. Northeast Cherry and Broadway streets. Services 11 a. m., 7:30 p. m.; Sunday School 9:30 a. m.
Olivet Baptist Church..Corner Coburn and McKernan streets, Services 11 a. m., 8 p. m., Sunday School 9 a. m.
South Cavalry Church..Northeast corner of Maple and Norris streets. Services 10:30 a. m., 7:30 p. m.; Sunday School 9 a. m.
South Street Baptist Church..Southwest corner South and Noble streets. Services 10:30 a. m., 7:30 p. m.; Sunday School 9 a. m.
Church of the Sacred Heart..Corner Union and Palmer streets. Mass 8 a. m., 10 a. m.; Vespers 6 p. m.; Sunday School 2:30 p. m.
St. Bridget's Catholic Church..Northeast corner West and St. Clair streets.
St. Francis' Church..Brightwood, Mass 10 a. m.; Vespers 4 p. m.; Sunday School 3 p. m.
St. Joseph's Catholic Church .. Southwest corner North and Noble streets... Mass 8 a. m., 10 a. m.; Vespers 3 p. m,; Sunday School 2:30 p. m.
St. John's Cathedral..East side of Tennessee street, north of Georgia street. Services from November to Easter, 6:30 a. m:, 8:30 a. m., 10:30 a. m.; Vespers 3 p. m. Summer months, half an hour earlier:
St. Mary's Catholic Church..South side of Maryland street, west of Delaware street. Mass 7:30 a. m., 10 a. m.; Sunday School 2:30 p.m.; Vespers 3 p. m.
St. Patrick's Church..Southwest corner of Dougherty and Short streets. Mass 8 a. m., 10 a. m.; Sunday School 3 p. m.
Central Christian Church..Southwest corner Ohio and Delaware streets. Sunday services 10:30 a. m., and 7:30 p. m. Sunday School 2:30 p. m. Prayer meeting Thursday night. Pastor's study in the church.
Fourth Christian Church..East side of West street, north of St. Clair street. Services 10:30 a. m., 7:30 p. m.; Sunday School 2:30 p. m.
Salem Christian Chapel..Northeast corner Illinois and Fifth streets. Services 11 a. m., 7:30 p. m.; Sunday School 9:30 a. m.
Home Avenue Christian Church..South side Home avenue, betwee Ash street and College avenue, Services 10:30 a. m., 7:30 p. m.; Sunday School 2 p. m.
Sixth Christian Church..Fletcher avenue, near Cedar street. Services 10:30 a. m., 7:30 p. m.; Sunday School 9 a. m.
Seventh Christian Church..North Indianapolis.
Church of Christ..East side Mulberry street, north of Poplar street. Services 10 a. m., 7:30 p. m.; Sunday School 2:30 p. m.
Mayflower Congregational Church..South side St. Ciair street, east of East street. Services 10:30 a. m; Sunday School 2:15 p. m.
Plymouth Congregational Church..South east corner New York and Meridian streets. Services 10:30 a. m., 7:30 p. m; Sunday School 9:15 a. m.
Christ Episcopal Church..Northeast corner Circle and Meridian streets. Services 10:30 a. m., 7:30 p. m.; Sunay School 2:30 p. m.
Church of the Holy Innocents..Northeast corner Fletcher avenue and Cedar street. Services 10:30 a. m., 7:30 p. m.; Sunday School 3 p. m.
St. George Chapel..Northwest corner Church and Morris streets. Services 7:30 p. m.; Sunday School 2:30 p. m.
St. James' Episcopal Chapel..Northeast corner East and Walnut streets. Services 10:30 a. m., 7:30 p. m.; Sunday School 2:30 p. m.
St. Paul's Cathedral..Southeast corner New York and Illinois streets. Services 10:30 a. m., 7:30 p. m.; Sunday School 2 p. m.
First Evangelical Association Church..Southeast corner New York and East streets. Services 10:30 a. m , 7:30 p. m.; Sunday School 2:30 p. m.
First Evangelical German Church..Southeast corner Wabash and New Jersey streets. Services 10:30 a. m., 7:30 p. m.; Sunday School 2:30 p. m.
Zion's German Evangelical Church..Corner Ohio and Bird streets. Services 10:30 a. m., 7:30 p. m.; Sunday School 9 a. m.
Friends Meeting House..Southeast corner of Delaware and St. Clair streets. Services 10:30 a. m,, 7:30 p. m.; Sunday School 9:00 a. m. Wednesday 10:30 a. m.
Emanuel German Reformed Church..Northwest corner Coburn and New Jersey streets. Services 10:30 a. m., 7:30 p. m.; Sunday School 9 a. m.
First German Reformed Church..East side Alabama street. south of Market street. Services 10:30 a. m., 7:30 p. m.; Sunday School 9 a. m.
Second German Reformed Church..West side East street, opposite Stevens street. Services 10 a. m., 7 p. m.; Sunday School 2 p. m.
Hebrew Congregtion..South side Market street, west of East street, Services 7 p. m. Friday; 9 a. m. Saturday.
Orthodox Congregational (Chevo Bene Jacob)..Northwest corner Pennsylvania and South streets. Services from 7 to 10 a. m. Saturdays, and 4 to 9 a. m. Fridays.
First English Lutheran Church..Northeast corner Walnut and Pennsylvania streets. Services 10:30a.m., 7:30 p. m.; Sunday School 2:15 p. m.
Second German Evangelical Lutheran Church..Northeast corner of East and Ohio streets. Services 10 a. m.. 2 p. 7:30m., p. m.
Danish Evangelical Lutheran Trinity Church..Southeast corner McCarty and Beaty. Services 10 a. m., one Sunday in each month.
Danish Evangelical Lutheran Church..East side New Jersey street, south of Merrill street. Services 10 a. m., and 7:30 p. m.
St. Paul Evangelical Lutheran Church..Northeast corner New Jersey and McCarty streets. Services 10 a. m., 7:30 p. m.; Sunday School 2 p. m.
Allen A. M. E. Church..East side Broadway street, north of Cherry street. Services 10:30 a. m., 7:30 p. m.; Sunday School 2 p. m.
Ames M. E. Church. Corner Madison avenue and Union street. Services 10:30 a. m., 7 p. m.; Sunday School 2 p. m.
Bethel A. M. E. Church..Northeast corner Vermont and Columbia streets, Services 10:30 a. m., 7:30 p. m.; Sunday School 2 p. m.
Blackford Street M. E. Church..Southeast corner Blackford and Market streets. Services 10:30 a m., 7:30 p. m.; Sunday School 2 p. m.
Brightwood M. E. Church..Services 10:30 a. m., 7 p. m; Sunday School 2 p m.
California Street M. E. Church..Sonthwest corner North and California streets. Services 10:30 a. m., 7:30 p. m.; Sunday School 2 p. m.
Central Avenue M. E. Church..Northeast corner Central avenue and Butler street. Services 10:30 a. m., 7:30 p. m.; Sunday School 2:15 p. m.
Coburn Street M. E Church..Northwest corner McKernan and Coburn streets. Services 10:30 a. m., 7:30 p. m.; Sunday School 2 p. m.
East Washington Street Union Sunday School..615 East Washington street. Sunday School 2:15 p. m.
Edwin Ray M. E. Church..Southeast corner Woodlawn avenue and Linden street. Services 10:30 a. m , 7:30 p. m.; Sunday School 2:30 p. m.
First German M. E. Church..Southwest corner New York and New Jersey streets, Services 10:30 a. m., 7:30 p. m.; Sunday School 2 p. m.
Fletcher Place M. E. Church..Corner South street and Virginia avenue. Services 10:30 a. m., 7:30 p. m.; Sunday School 2 p. m.
Grace M. E. Church..Northeast corner East and Market streets. Services 10:30 a. m., 7:30 p. m.; Sunday School 2 p. m,
Irvington M. E. Church..Services 10:30 a. m., 7:30 p. m.; Sunday School 2 p, m.
Meridian Street M. E. Church..South west corner New York and Meridian streets. Services 10:30 a. m., 7:30 p. m.; Sunday School 2 p. m.
North Indianapolis M. E. Chu ch..Services 10:30 a. m., 7:30 p. m.; Sunday School 2:30 p. m.
Seventh Street M. E. Church..Corner Seventh and Bellefontaine streets. Services 10:30 a. m., 7:30 p. m.; Sunday School 2:30 p. m.
Roberts Park M. E Church..Northeast corner Delaware and Vermont streets. Services 10:30 a. m., 7:30 p. m.; Sunday School 2 p. m.
Second German M. E. Church..Northeast corner Prospect and Spruce streets. Services 10:30 a. m., 7:30 p. m.; Sunday School 2 p. m.
Simpson Chapel..Corner Howard and Second streets. Services 10:30 a. m., 7:30 p. m,; Sunday School 2 p. m.
Third Street M. E. Church..North side Third street, east of Tennessee street. Services 10:30 a. m., 7:30 p m.
West Mission A. M. E. Church..West side of Blackford street, south of North street. Services 11 a. m., 7 p. m.; Sunday School 2 p. m.
Zion A. M. E. Church..Northeast corner of Blackford and North streets. Services 11 a. m., 7:30 p. m.; Sunday School 9 a. m.
First Methodist Protestant Church..Southeast corner Dillon street and Hoyt avenue. Services 10:30 a. m., 7:30 p. m,; Sunday School 2:30 p. m.
First Presbyterian Church..Southwest corner Pennsylvania and New York streets. Services 10:30 a. m., 7:30 p. m.; Sunday School 2:30 p. m.
Second Presbyterian Church .. Northwest corner Vermont and Pennsylvania streets. Services 10:30 a. m., 7:30 p. m; Sunday School 2:15 p. m.
Tabernacle Presbyterian Church .. Second street, between Meridian and Pennsylvania streets. Services 10:30 a. m., 7:30 p. m.; Sunday School 2 p. m.
Fourth Presbyterian Church .. Northwest corner Pratt and Pennsylvania streets. Services 10:30 a. m., 7:30 p. m ; Sunday School 2:15 p. m.
Fifth Presbyterian Church..Southwest corner Blackford and Michigan streets. Services 10:30 a. m., 7:30 p. m.; Sunday School 2 p. m.
Sixth Presbyterian Ciurch..Northeast corner of McCarty and Union streets. Services 10:30 a. m., 7:30 p. m.; Sunday School 2 p. m.
Seventh Presbyterian Church..East side of Elm street, north of Cedar street. Services 10:30 a. m., 7:30 p. m.; Sunday School 2 p. m.
Eighth Presbyterian Church..Corner Decatur and Beacon streets (W. I.) Services 7:30 a. m.; Sunday School 2:30 p. m.
Ninth Presbyterian Church..Northeast corner Tennessee and Michigan streets. Services 10:30 a. m., 7:30 p. m.; Sunday School 2:30 p. m.
Eleventh Presbyterian Church..East side of Olive street, north of Willow street. Services 10:30 a. m.; Sunday School 9:15 a. m.
Twelfth Presbyteaian Church..South side of Maryland street, west of West street. Services 11 a. m., 7:80 p. m.; Sunday School 9:30 a. m.
Memorial Presbyterian Church..Northwest corner Christian avenue and Ash street. Services 10:30 a. m.; Sunday School 2:30 p. m.
Belmont Mission Church..Sunday School 3 p. m.
North Indianapolis Mission..Services 7:30 p. m.; Sunday School 2:30 p, m.
New Church Chapel..333 North Alabama street, Services 10:30 a. m., 7:30 p. m.; Sunday School 9:15 a. m.
East side Oak street, between Vine and Cherry streets. Services 10:30 a. m., 7:30 p. m.
United Presbyterian Church..Northeast corner East street and Massachusetts avenue- Services 10:30 a. m., 7:30 p. m.; Sunday School 2 p. m.
Garfield Park..South end of East street.
Governor's Circle..Crossing of Meridian and Market streets.
Military Park..South side of New York street, between Blackford and West streets.
University Park..West side Pennsylvania street, between Vermont and New York streets.
Woodruff Place..East of United States Arsenal, between Clifford avenue and Michigan street.
Agricultural Library of the Indiana State Board of Agriculture ..Southeast corner of Markst and Tennessee streets. Contains about 1,000 volumes.
Bobb's Medical Library..Established 1872 for the use of the Indiana Medical College, under the provisions of the will of John S. Bobbs, M. D. Contains about 300 volumes. Rooms northeast corner Pennsylvania and Maryland streets.
Catholic Library for Working Men..Northeast corner Tennessee and Georgia streets. Open every day from 6 a. m., to 10 p. m.
Emerald Library..Southeast corner Meridian and Pearl streets. Organized 1877. Contains 500 volumes. Open to muembers only, Thursday evenings from 7 to 9, and Sundays from 2 to 5 p. m. Visiting brothers always welcome.
Horticultural Library of the State Horticultural Soeiety..Contains about 500 volumes. Southeast corner of Market and Tennessee streets.
Library of the Indianapolis Bar Association..55 Court House. Established 1880. Contains about 1,000 volumes.
Marion County Library..Established 1844. Court House. Contains 3,500 volumes. Open on Saturday from 9 to 12 a. m,, and 2 to p. m. Lucy Phipp, Librarian.
Public Library and Reading Room..Established 1873 and maintained under the authority of the Board of School Commissioners, for which purpose it is authorized to levy a tax each year of not exeeeoing two cents on the hundred dollars taxable property assessed for city taxos. Contains 34,543 volumes. Southwest corner Ohio and Pennsylvania streets (Library Building.) Open daily (Sundays included) from 8 a. m., to 9 p. m. Free to citizens of Indianapolis. Reading Room free to all. Wm. De M, Hooper, Librarian.
State Law Library..Separated from the State Library 1867. Contains 8,000 volumes. Southwest corner Washington and Tennessee streets. Charles E Cox, Librarian.
State Library..Established 1825. Contains 18,500 volumes. Southeast corner of Market and Tennessee streets.
Postal Note not exceeding $5...........3 cents
Rates of commission charged for domestic money orders:
On orders not exceeding $10
..... 8 cents
On orders not exceeding $15.....10 cents
Over $15 and not exceeding
$30.....15 cents
Over $30 and not exceeding $40.....15 cents
Over $40 and not
exbeeding $50......20 cents
Over $50 and not exceeding $60......30 cents
Over $60
and not exceeding $70......35 cents
Over $70 and not exceeding $80......40
cents
Over $80 and not exceeding $100....45 cents
The issue to a single applicant, in one day, of more than three ordiers, payable at the same office and to the same payee, is positively forbidden.
The applicant must, in all cases, write his own given name and surname in full. When the given name of the payee is known, it should also be stated in full: otherwise, initials may be used. The given names of married women must be stated, and not those of their husbands. For example: Mrs. Mary Brown must not be described as Mrs. William Brown.
Names of parties, places and streets, as well as numbers and amounts, should be written in full, and in the plainest manner possible. A money order must not be made payable to more than one person or firm.
FIRST-CLESS MATTER.--Embraces all matter either wholly or partly in writing: also, productions by the type-writer and manifold processes, and require postage at the rate of TWO CENTS for each half ounce or fraction thereof. The exception of this is that printed matter may bear the date, address and signature without subjecting it to first-class matter. (See third-class matter.)
Drop letters require postage at the rate of TWO CENTS for each half ounce or fractional thereof.
SECOND-CLASS MATTER.--Mail matter of the second-class requires postage at the rate of TWO CENTS a pound or a fraction thereof, and embraces all newspapers and other periodical publications (without board, cloth, leather or other substantial binding), bearing date of issue, paged and numbered consecutively; having a legitimate list of subscribers, and issued from a known office of publication, as frequently as four times a year. When mailed by others than publishers or news agents the postage is one cent for each four ounces or fraction.
SAMPLE COPIES AT SECOND-CLASS RATES.--After a publication has been determined to be of the second-class, sample copies of the same may be sent from the office of publication, at the second-class (pound) rate.
THIRD-CLASS MATTER.--Mail matter of the third-class embraces books, transient newspapers and periodicals, circulars and any other printed reading matter (not included in second-class), proof sheets, corrected proof sheets and manuscript accompanying the same, in unsealed envelopes, and requires postage at the rate of ONE CENT for each two ounces or fraction thereof.
PRINTED CIRCULARS--May bear the date, address and signature in writing at third-class rates.
REPRODUCTION BY ELECTRIC PEN AND OTHER PROCESSES.--Reproductions from originals produced by the electric pen, papygraph, metalograph and cheirograph processes, are entitled to pass in the mails in unsealed envelopes as third-class matter.
FOURTH-CLASS MATTER.--Mail matter of the fourth-class requires postage at the rate of ONE CENT per ounce or fraction thereof, and embraces all merchandise, etc., admitted to the mails, and all matter not included in the first, second or third classes, not exceeding four pounds in weight, and which is not liable to damage the mail bags or injure anyone connected with the service.
ADDRESS OF SENDER OF THIRD AND FOURTH-CLASS MATTER.--The sender of any package of the third or fourth-class may write or print his own name and address, preceeded by the word "from," and on fourth-class matter, write or print the number or names of the articles inclosed; and may also write or print upon, or attack to any such articles by tag or label, a mark, number or letter for purpose of identification.
UNMAILABLE ARTICLES--No liquids, poisons, explosives or inflammable articles, live animals, insects or reptiles, nor substances inhaling a bad odor, can be admitted to the mails in any case.
Albert G. Porter, Governor and ex-officio President of the Board.
William B. Fletcher, Superintendent of Construction.
Thos. H. Harrison, Philip M. Gapen, Robert H. Tarleton, John B. Elam.
Beach Medical College .. Hubbard Block. Organized March 6, 1883.
Central College of Physicians and Surgeons..Ryan Block. Organized 1879.
Indiana Electric Medical College..143 1/2 S. Meridian street. Organized 1880.
Medical College of Indiana..Northeast corner Pennsylvania and Maryland streets. Incorporated in 1878. Annual session from October to February.
Marion County Medical Society..Meets on every Tuesday evening in the Council Chamber.
Physio-Medical College of Indiana..28 1/2 Indiana avenue. Incorporated 1873.
Indiana Dental College of Indianapolis..Incorporated 1873 AEtna Building.
CHARITY ORGANIZATION SOCIETY. Central Office, Plymouth Building. District Office, Nos 1 and 2 Plymouth Building. Committee meets on Tuesdays, at 3:30 p. m.
INDIANAPOLIS BENEVOLENT SOCIETY. Room 2, Plymouth Building
EMPLOYMENT AGENCY. For Girls and Women, at same place. For Men and Boys, at Friendly Inn.
FRIENDLY INN AND WOOD YARD No. 290 W. Washington street.
INDUSTRIAL COMMITTEE. Meets during the Winter on Wednesday, at Benevolent Society Room, at 2 o'clock.
FRIENDLY VISITORS. Meet on Wednesdays, at 3:30 o'clock, at the Central Office.
FLOWER MISSION. Mrs. Hannah L. Chapman, P esident, No 617 North Meridian street. Weekly Meetings on Thursdays, at Plymouth Building.
FLOWER MISSION TRAINING SCHOOL FOR NURSE At the City Hospital.
INDIANAPOLIS ORPHAN ASYLUM. Corner of College and Home avenues. Mrs. John A. Bradshaw, President.
HOME FOR FRIENDLESS WOMEN. Cor. Eighth and Tennessee streets. Mrs. Mary R. Bullitt, Matyon.
COLORED ORPHAN ASYLUM. Corner Twelfth and Mississippi streets.
GERMAN ORPHAN ASYLUM. West side of Reed street, north of Cyprus.
ST. VINCENT's HOSPITAL. Vermont street. corner Liberty.
LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR. Vermont street corner Liberty.
TOWNSHIP TRUSTEE. Ernest Kitz. Office 10 l/2 East Washington street.
CITY DISPENSARY. No. 34 East Ohio street.
CITY HOSPITAL. Corner Locke and Margaret streets.
CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY. Having care of Free Kindergardens.
MATERNITY SOCIETY. Plymouth Building.
City Dispensary..34 East Ohio street.
City Hospital..Northwest corner Locke and Margaret streets.
County Infirmary..Indiana avenue, four miles northwest of city.
German Protestant Orphan Asylum..South State avenue, between Pleasant avenue and Cypress street.
Home for Aged Poor..North side of Vermont street, east of East street.
Home for Friendless Colored Children..Southwest corner Twelfth and Mississippi streets.
Home for Friendless Women..Southeast corner Ninth and Tennessee.
Indiana Hospital for the Insane..Washington street, three miles west of the city.
Indiana Institute for the Education of the Blind..North side of North street, between Meridian and Pennsylvania streets.
Indiana Institute for Educating the Deaf and Dumb..Southeast corner Washington street and State avenue.
Indiana Reformatory Institute for Women and Girls..Southeast corner Michigan and Randolph streets.
Indianapolis Orphan's Asylum..Northeast corner College and Home avenues.
St. Vincent's Infirmary..North side of Vermont street, west of Liberty street.
Crown Hill cemetery..Incorporated 1863. Situated on the Michigan road, three miles north of the city and comprises about 400 acres of land.
Greenlawn Cemetery .. Kentucky avenue, west of West street.
Jewish Cemetery..Bluff road, south of the city. Owned by the Indianapolis Hebrew Congregation.
Lutheran Cemetery..Bluff road, south of the city.
Roman Catholic Cemetery (English and German)..Bluff road, south of the city.
Trace each motion to its respective references and you master at a glance the intricacies of Parliamentary usages, comprising some three hundred points of order:
Motion to adjourn................... A E G I M N P
Motion to determine time to which to adjourn .................................B E H I M N P
Motion to amend...................C E H I M N P
Motion to amend an amendment ..C E G I M N P
Morion to amend the rules.........C E H I L N P
Motion TO appeal from Speaker's decision re indecorum......................A E H I M N Q
Motion to appeal from Speaker's decision generally............ .......... ...... C E G I M N Q
Call to order.................. ......A E G I M O Q
Motion to close debate on question.A E H I L N P
Motion to commit..................C F H I M N P
Motion to extend limits of debate on questions ..................................A E H I M N P
Leave to continue speaking after indecorum ..................................A E G I M N P
Motion that....do lie on the table. A E G K M N P
Motion to limit debate on question..A E H I L N P
Objection to consideration"of question ..................................A E G I L O Q
Motion for the orders of the day..A E G I M O Q
Motion to postpone to a definite time .................................. D E H I M N P
Motion to postpone indefinitely ...B L G I M N P
Motion for previous question ...... A E G I L N P
Questions touching priority of business .................................. A E H I M N P
Questions of privilege.............C E H I M N P
Reading papers.............. ......A E G I M N P
Motion to reconsider a debatable question ..................................C F G J M N P
Motion to reconsider an undebatable question ..................................A E G J M N P
Motion to refer a question.........C F H J M N P
Motion that committee do not rise.A E G J M N P
Question whether subject shall be discussed ..................................A E G I L O Q
Motion to make subject a special order ................................. C E H I L N P
To substitute in the nature of an amendment ........................... C E H I M N P
Motion to suspend the rules.......C E H J M N P
Motion to take from the table.....A E G K L N P
To take up a question out of its proper order ..................................A E G I L N P
Motion to withdraw a motion.....A E G I M N P
Questions of precedence of questions ................................. S T U V W X Y
Forms in which the question may be put ...................................Z a b c d e f
A. Question undebatable; sometimes remarks tacitly allowed.
B. Undebatable if another question is before the assembly.
C. Debatable question.
D. Limited debate only on propriety of postponement.
E. Does not allow reference to main question.
F. Opens the main question to debate.
G. Cannot be amended.
H. May be amended.
I. Can be reconsidered.
J. Cannot be reconsidered.
K. An affirmative vote on this question may not be reconsidered.
L. Requires two-third vote on this question unless special rules have been enacted.
M. Simple majority suffices to determine the question.
N. Motion must be seconded.
O. Does not require to be seconded.
P. Not in order when another has the floor.
Q. Always in order though another has the floor.
R. May be moved and entered on the record when another has the floor, but the business then before the assembly may not be put aside. The motion must be made by one who voted with the prevailing side, and on the same day the original vote was taken.
S. Fixing the time to which an adjournment may be made; ranks first.
T. To adjourn without limitation; second.
U. Motions for the Orders of the Day; third.
V. Motion that....do lie on the table; fourth
W. Morion for the previous question; fifth.
X. Motion to postpone definitely; sixth.
Y. Motion to commit; seventh.
z. Motion to amend; eighth.
a. Motion to postpone indefinitely; ninth.
b. On motion to strike out words, "Shall the words stand part of the motion" unless a majority sustains the words they are struck out.
c. On motion for previous question the form to be observed is, "Shall the main question be now put?" This, if carried, ends debate.
d. On an appeal from the Chair's derision, "Shall the decision be sustained, as the ruling of the house?" The chair is generally sustained.
e. On motion for Orders of the Day, "Will the house now proceed to the Orders of the Day?" This, if carried, supercedes intervening motions.
f. When an objection is raised to considering question, "Shall the question be considered?" objection may be made by any member before debate has commenced, but not subsequently.
* Appointed Postmaster, Angola, Indiana.
†Appointed Superintendent Insane Asylum.
*Deceased. †Appointed Justice of the Peace. ‡Speaker House of Representatives.
* Appointed June 13, 1884, to serve until his successor is duly elected and qualified.
There have been several omissions in the Official Register of the Governors of Indiana, extending from the territorial period down to the present time, which, for purposes of historical accuracy, we have deemed it proper to supply.
*Governor Harrison was appointed early in the year 1800, but was not sworn into office until January 10, 1801. John Gibson, the Secretary of the Territory, acted as Governor until his arrival.
†Jonathan Jennings, having been elected to Congress before the end of his second term, resigned the office of Governor September 12, 1822, and was succeeded by Ratcliffe Boone, who served until December 5 of the same year.
‡Governor Hendricks, having been elected a Senator of the United States, resigned his office on the twelfth day of February, 1825, and was succeeded by James B. Ray, the Lieutenant Governor, who served as Governor during the remainder of the term.
*Governor Whitcomb was elected a Senator of the United States December 27, 1848, and Paris C. Dunning, Lieutenant Governor, served as Governor during the remainder of the term.
†Governor Willard died on the third day of October, 1860, and Abram A. Hammond, the Lieutenant Governor, served as Governor during the remainder of the term, or until January 14, 1861.
‡Governor Lane was elected a Senator of the United States January 16, 1861 , and Oliver P. Morton, the Lieutenant Governor, served as Governor the remainder of the term.
||Governor Oliver P. Morton was elected a Senator of the United States on the 23d of January, 1867. On the day following he resigned his office, and Conrad Baker, the Lieutenant Governor, served as Governor during the remainder of the term.
§Governor Williams died November 20, 1880, and Isaac P. Gray, Lieutenant Governor, served as Governor the remainder of the term.
*Jesse D. Bright was elected to the Senate of the United States, March 6, 1865.
*Resigned December 2, 1882.
*Resigned May 8, 1883.
*Contested by W. E. English.
Representative from the counties of Greene, Knox and Sullivan; son of Casper and Mary E. [Bultmun] Reiter, natives of Germany; born September 1, 1849, at Vincennes; educated at Vincennes; married October 24. 1871, to Ellen Green, a native of Ireland; resided in Knox county all his life; was county auditor from November 1, 1875 to November 1, 1883; served as deputy auditor ten years previous to his election; has been secretary of the Knox county Agricultural and Mechanical society since 1881; elected to the House in 1884 as a democrat receiving 8,894 votes against 6,761 votes cast for William J. Young. of Sullivan on county, his opponent, Post-office, Vincennes, Knox county.
Representative from the county of Miami; born December 20, 1835, in Montgomery county,
Ohio; was raised in Cass county, ten miles from where he now resides; when a young man
taught school in Johnson, Shelby and Hancock counties - in 1855-6-7 - educated in the common
schools of the State and by private instruction, pursued classical studies; received the
Senator from the county of Jefferson; son of Jacob and Elizabeth Hill; born in Greene county, Pennsylvania; married April 22. 1845, to Mary Anne Taylor; is a farmer; resided nearly forty-eight years in Jefferson county; was county commissioner three years; elected to the Senate in 1882 as a republican, by a majority of 77 over his opponent, Rev. James W. Lanham. Post-office, Brooksburg.
Senator from the county of Vanderburg son of William Rahm, Sr., and Johanna Maria Rahm, who left Germany in 1843 with eight children, all living; parents celebrate their golden wedding May 30, 1884 born at Huekeswagen, Prussia-Germany, October 27, 1837; educated in Germany and at Evansville, married May 9, 1862, to Rose A. Hart; is a merchant and corn dealer; resided in Evansville since March 4, 1849; was seven years councilman; elected to Senate in 1880 by 273 majority, although Gov. Porter carried the county by majority; re-elected in 1884 as a democrat by 273 majority, receiving 5,600 votes against 5,329 votes cast for Fred J. Schulz his opponent. Post-office, Evansville.
Representative from the county DeKalb; born at Auburn, Indiana, February 22, 1845; educated at Auburn and Ann Arbor [Michigan] University; married November 21, 1869, to Miss Clara F. Grube, of DeKalb county; is an attorney-at-law; was elected to the House in 1880, 1882, and re-elected in 1884 as a democrat, over John W. Jackman, his opponent. Post-office, Auburn.
Representative from the county of Bartholomew; son of William F., and Hannah [Gilson] Reeves; born September 25, 1855, in Rush county; educated in district schools and at the Lebanon, Ohio, Normal school; married September 28, 1882 to Lina Strickland; is a lawyer; resided in Rush county twenty years and in Bartholomew county nine years; was elected to the House 1884 as a democrat. Post-office, Columbus.
Representative from the county of Marion; son of P. H., and Maria [Butler] Jameson; born
July 17, 1854, in Indianapolis; educated at Butler University; un-married; a lawyer; resided
all his life in Indianapolis; was the only republican of the five representatives elected
from Marion
Representative from the county of Wayne; son of William and Mary Ann Townsend; born August 18, 1841, at Gallipolis, Ohio; educated at Oberlin, Ohio, and in 1883 received the degree of D. D., from Wilberforce University; was married December 21, 1871, to Cornelia A., daughter of Josiah and Nancy A. Settle; residing about seventeen years in Indiana in the counties of Vanderburg, Vigo, Marion and Wayne; is a minister in the African M. E. church; having a strong conviction that the war of the rebellion would result in the emancipation of his race, he enlisted in the 54th regiment of Massachusetts volunteers - the first colored regiment to enter the service - and remained on the field until the a close of the war; was four years principal of the colored schools of Evansville; in 1876 was assistant secretary of the General Conference; was corresponding secretary of the Parent, Home and Foreign missionary society and re-elected by the General Conference of 1880, which position be now holds; was also chosen a delegate to the Ecumenical Conference, held at London, England; was elected to the House its 1884 as a republican, receiving 6,440 votes against 3,577 votes cast for his opponent, Orestes Kepler. Post-office, Richmond.
Representative from the county of Spencer; son of Allen Medcalf, a soldier in the war of 1813 against the Indians in this State; was born in Davis county, Kentucky, October 13, 1825; educated in the common schools; married May 26, 1850, to Miss Mirella Wood, whose father was with General Jackson in the battle of New Orleans; is a merchant; resided in Perry county since 1829; was a private in company "E," 4th regiment Indiana volunteers in the Mexican war, and captain of company "B," 42nd regiment Indiana volunteers in the war of the Rebellion; was captured at Chickamauga and remained a prisoner until the close of the war; was elected to the House in 1884 as a democrat, by a majority of 75 votes over John Sturman, his opponent. Post-office, Dale.
Representative from the county of Boone; son of Matthew and Francis A. [Reeves] Dale; horn in Boone county December 18. 1850; educated in the district schools and at Ladoga academy; married January 1, 1874, to Margaret Jackson; is a farmer; resided all his life in the neighborhood of place of birth; taught school for thirteen years in connection with his farming operations; was elected to the House in 1884 as a democrat, receiving 3,357 votes against 2,862 cast for his opponent, Francis M. Hurt. Post-office, Lebanon.
Senator from Hendricks and Putnam counties; born in Mason county, Kentucky, February 12, 1833; son of Lewis and Susan [Thomas] Campbell; educated at the country schools in Kentucky; married the second time June 26, 1867, to Lucinda, daughter of A. D. Hamrick, of Putnam county; taught school from the age of seventeen to twenty-one; read law with an elder brother in Maysville, Kentucky; admitted to practice in Hendricks county at the age of twenty-one; has never missed attendance upon a term of court since; resided in Jefferson county from 1834 to 1838, and in Hendricks county since 1852; was District Attorney for the Common Pleas court from 1854 to 1856, a member of the House of Representatives in 1867; is a lawyer; was elected to the Sensate in 1884 as an independent republican, receiving 5,337 votes against 5,246 cast for his opponent, John V. Hadley, republican. Post-office, Danville.
Senator from the counties of Huntington and Wells; son of John W., and Levina Hilligass, Kentuckians, who were among the early settlers of Indiana; born in Rush county, October 3, 1837; educated in the common schools of the State, followed by an academic course; married August 4, 1862, to Bess A. Ruder; is a lawyer and publisher of the Huntington Democrat; resided in Rush, Madison and Huntington counties all his life; was town trustee, and in the war to its close, in the 75th regiment Indiana volunteers; with the 14th army corps from its organization, and in Sherman's march to the sea; was in twenty-one regular battles; was wounded in battle and promoted on the battle-field, from the ranks to first lieutenant and brevet captain; was elected to the Senate in 1882 as a democrat, receiving 4,880 votes against 2,611 votes cast for Landon P. Milligan, his opponent. Post-office, Huntington.
Representative from the counties of Dubois and Martin; son of William (a soldier of 1812) and Mary Fisher; born in Dubois county, December 25, 1833; educated in the common schools; married December 14, 1865, to Wilhelmina Helfrich; is a farmer; resided fifty years in Dubois county; was captain of company "M," 10th Indiana cavalry from its organization in 1863 to the close of the civil war; was a member of the House in 1883, and re-elected as a democrat in 1884, receiving 4,254 votes against 1,173 cast for his opponent, George W. Alford. Post-office, Huntingburgh, Dubois county.
Senator from the county of Wayne; son of Thomas and Hannah S. Foulke; born at New York city, November 20, 1848, educated at Columbia college, New York; married in October 1872 to Mary T., daughter of Mark E., and Caroline M. Reeves; is a lawyer; resided eight years in Wayne county; elected to the Senate in 1882 as a republican. Post-office, Richmond.
Representative from Hendricks county; son of Charles and Mary [Harlan] Fleese; born in Boyle county, Kentucky, June 4, 1829; educated in a log school house on the banks of Eel river; married October 11, 1853, to Lettie Ashby; followed farming and was in the mercantile business for a time; resided in Hendricks and a short time in Montgomery county; was recorder of Hendricks county and captain of company "A." 51st Regiment Indiana volunteer; elected to the House in 1884 as a republican, receiving about 3,100 votes against about 2,150 cast for Jacob Kenady, his opponent. Post-office, North Salem.
Representative from the counties of Hancock, Henry and Madison; son of Benjamin and Mary
[Personett] Franklin; born in Henry county, September 13, 1834; educated at Fairview
academy: academical course married December 29, 1853, to Sarah E. Vanhook, who was reared in
Boone county; a minister and fruit gardener; resided first eight
Representative from the county of Rush; son of Dr. Ephraim and Susan [Doniphan] Frazee; born at Mayslick, Mason county, Kentucky, October 4, 1824; educated at Germantown, Kentucky and Bethany college, West Virginia; married March 7, 1847, to Frances E. Austen, of Fayette is a farmer and preacher; has resided on the farm where he now lives, in Rush county, for forty-five years; been preaching for the Disciples' or Christian churh where he resides, regularly for thirty-four years; elected to the House in 1884 as a republican, over B. F. Hall, democrat, by majority of 204 votes. Post-office, Orange.
Representative from the county of Putnam; son of Ann B., [Dickerson] a James S. Gordon, who has been in county longer than any other person except one; born near Bainbridge, Putnam county; educated at Asbury [now DePauw] University; married December 3, 1874, to Mattie A. Darnall; is an attorney; resided all his life in Putnam county; was county superintendent two years; elected to the House from Putnam county in 1882, a re-elected in 1884 as a democrat, receiving 2,941 votes against 2,590 votes cast for Dr. Joseph B. Cross, republican. Post-office, Greencastle.
Representative from the county of Johnson; son of John W., and Mary [Gilmer] Rivers; born
May 15, 1853, in Johnson county; educated
Representative from the county of Owen, son of George and Margeret A. Dittemore; born at Gosport, Owen county, January 19, 1834; his father was Sheriff in 1843 and Treasurer of Owen county in 1857-8; educated in the common schools of Owen county; married December 29, 1865, Dora L. Leonard, whose father was for several years deputy Treasurer of Owen county; is a lawyer; has always resided in Owen county; was a member of the House in 1869, and Senate in 1871-3: in the army four years; was Captain of Company "C," 97th Indians Volunteer Infantry; was elected to the Senate in 1884 as a democrat, receiving 1,923 votes, against 1,509 cast for S. C. Kennedy, his opponent. Post-office, Spencer.
Senator from the county of Elkhart; son of David J. and Sarah B. Davis, born in Fairfield county, Ohio, September 24, 1847; educated at the common and high schools in Fairfield county, Ohio, and graduated at Washington and Jefferson college, Washington county, Pa., in 1868; enlisted twice in the volunteer service and twice discharged because too young; married Oct. 9 1873, to Miss Mania McKeen, of Washington, Pa.; resided in Wells county from 1871 to 1878, in Elkhart from 1878 to the present time; is a lawyer; has been deputy prosecuting attorney; belongs to the Presbyterian church; has a decided leaning toward the prohibition of the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors in the State, but takes no stock in the so-called prohibition party; was elected to the Senate in 1884 as a republican, receiving 4,314 votes, against 4,227 cast for Chelius J. Pixley, and 98 votes cast for James A. Work. Post-office, Goshen.
Representative from the county of Carroll; son of John and Margeret [McCorkle] Cartwright; born at Jackson, Ohio; educated at Mount Union seminary, Ohio, and Indiana State University; married in 1860 to Susanna Hiett, a graduate from Terre Haute Female college; worked his way through college; after graduating was principal of Sugar Grove Institute for three years; superintendent of the public schools of Delphi three years; county school superintendent; has been fifteen years chairman of the Democratic Central Committee of Carroll county; came to the State in 1852; has resided in the counties of Wells, Monroe and Tippecanoe; is a lime manufacturer and farmer; was school examiner three years; mayor of Delphi four years and auditor of Carroll county eight years; was elected to the House as a democrat in 1884; over Albert L. Florence, his opponent. Post-office, Delphi.
Senator from the counties of DeKalb and and Steuben; son of Lydia [Nod] and Geo. Easley, ex-county commissioner; born at West Lodi, Seneca county, Ohio, February 28, 1841; educated at county schools and Auburn High school; November, 1861, enlisted as private in Company "K," 44th Regiment Indiana volunteers; mustered out of service September 14, 1865, as lieutenant; married February 21, 1864, to Helen, daughter of John A. Ditmer, an old settler of DeKalb county; was a farmer until 1866; in the mercantile business since '77; elected county treasurer in 1872; re-elected in 1874 by an increased majority; resided in DeKalb county since November, 1841; while in the military service, took an active pant in the battles of Shiloh, Seige of Corinth, Stone River, Perrysville, Chickamauga and Mission Ridge, besides weeks of skirmishes; wounded at Shiloh; marched all the long marches of 1862, army of the Cumberland, under Gen. Buell; detailed as chief clerk on military count martial at McMinnville, Tenn., in summer of 1863; was promoted company sargeant for being the only one from his regiment to volunteer on a skirmish line against the enemies' murderous fire in front of Mission Ridge; in spring of 1864 received a special detail from Maj. Gen. George H. Thomas as chief clerk in provost marshal's office in Chattanooga, Tenn.; promoted quartermaster sargeant of his regiment in spring of 1865; promoted second lieutenant and was acting quartermaster when mustered out of the service; was elected to the Senate in 1884 as a republican, receiving 2,454 votes in DeKalb and 2,224 in Steuben, against 2,915 votes in DeKalb and 1,416 in Steuben, cast for Lafayette J. Miller, his opponent. Post-office, Auburn.
Representative from the county of Fountain; son of Lorenzo D. and Elenor [Moffett] Booe; his mother's parents emigrated from Ireland in 1808; was born its Fountain county October 2, 1853, where he has always resided; graduated at Wabash College in June 1877; is a farmer and manufacturer; was elected to the house as a democrat in 1884, receiving 2,764 votes against 2,750 cast for his opponent, Prior Cates, republican. Post-office, Veedersburg,
Senator from the counties of Carroll, Pulaski and White; born 1851 in Perry county, O.; educated at Brookston, Indiana, and at Chicago Illinois; married in 1877 to Mary Woltz; is a lawyer; resided in White county nineteen years; was elected to the House, in 1884 as a democrat, receiving 5,702 votes against 5,110 votes; cast for John T. Holsinger, his opponent. Post-offie. Monticello, White county.
Senator from the counties of Perry and Spencer; son of Daniel L., and Rebecca [Van Winklea] May; born in Pike county November 28, 1846; educated in the common schools, at St. Luke's academy and under the tutorage of private instruction; married Gertrude, youngest daughter of E. M. Huntington, late U. S. District Judge for the State of Indiana; is a lawyer: resided nearly all his life in Perry county, was appointed school examiner in 1868 and served three years; was town trustee; was elected to the Senate in 1882 as a democrat, by a majority of 504 votes - the respective majorities being: in Spencer 215 votes and in Perry 289 votes over Joseph F. Sulzer, republican. Post-office, Cannelton, Perry county.
Senator from the counties of Parke and Vermillion; son of James and Ruth Lindley; born December 4, 1841, in Morgan county; educated at Bloomingdale, Indiana, and Haverford College, Pennsylvania; married November 29, 1866, to Alice H. Silliman, who died September 6, 1871; retired from business; came to Parke county twenty-two years ago; was captain of company "F," 11th Indiana cavalry; treasurer of Parke county from November 1867 to November 1872; was elected to the Senate in 1882 as a republican, receiving 3,785 votes against 3,334 votes cast for Claude Matthews, his opponent. Post-office, Rockville.
Representative from the county of Clay; son of Lewis and Nancy [Cole] Bailey, born in Harrison, now Barber county, W. Va.; educated in the old-time log cabin subscription school house in W. Virginia; married August 20, 1857, to Ruth McKee; is a farmer; resided in Clay county for thirty-four years; served as Township Trustee two terms and Justice of the Peace eight years; elected to the House in 1884 as a democrat, receiving 3,029 votes against 2,756 cast for James S. Barton, his opponent. Post-office, Staunton.
Representative from Allen county; son of William and Mary [Hobbs] Brooks; born in Berlin township, Erie county, Ohio, August 25, 1842; educated at Berlin; married May 25, 1870, to Margaret Burchfield; is a farmer; resided in Allen county since 1860; taught school nine winters; served as Township Trustee about six years; elected as a democrat to the House twice without opposition from the republicans; in 1884 receiving 8,918 votes against 156 votes cast for Joseph H. Omo, prohibitionist. Post-office, Chamberlain.
Representative from the counties of Crawford and Orange; son of Phillip W. Drusilla Crecelius; born in Crawford county, October 7, 1846; educated in Crawford county; resided in Crawford county all his life except about ten years in Harrison county as a bound boy; married December 23, 1869, Kate, daughter of Joseph Wilber the noted Ohio and Mississippi river pilot on the St. Juliett gun boat during the civil war; is a farmer; when but four years age left homeless by the death of his parents; elected Recorder of Crawford county in 1870; re-elected in 1874; elected Treasurer in 1878, and re-elected in 1880, making twelve years service as a county officer; was a private in Company "C" 74th Regiment, Indiana volunteers for one year; elected to the Senate in 1884 as a democrat, over Christopher Cox, his opponent. Post-office, Leavenworth, Crawford county.
Representative from the county of Clarke; son of McGannon and Rebecca [Fouts] Barnes; born at Saluda, Jefferson county, April 3. 1840; educated at Hanover College; married January 11, 1872, to Lydia A., daughter of James B. and Rebecca Buxton; was brought up on a farm; while young, engaged in teaching school; embarked in the saw-mill and lumber business in 1866, which he pursued until recently; left Jefferson county and located in Clarke county in 1862, where he has since resided; was elected to the House as a democrat in 1884, receiving 3,722 votes against 2,887 votes given for his opponent, Enoch Melloy, republican. Post-office, Charleston.
Representative from the county of Morgan; son of Jacob and Julia A. [Schell] Adams; was born at Morgantown, Morgan county, June 4, 1849; educated at the State University; married December 28, 1876, to Mattie Bennett, of Clay county; is a lawyer; resided all his life in Morgan county; elected a member of the House in 1882, re-elected as a republican in 1885, over Lewis Robbins, democrat. Post-office, Martinsville.
Representative from the county of Cass; son of Elizabeth and Henry Loop, who was a soldier
in the war of 1812-1814; born in Clermont county, Ohio, February 22, 1825; educated in the
common schools of Darke county, Ohio; married Sarah Wirts in 1844; is a retired physician;
resided four years in Carroll and thirty years in Cass county; practiced medicine
continuously for thirty years in the counties just named; was elected to the House in 1884
as a democrat, by 348 majority over Mahlon Bell, his
Senator from the counties of Grant and Madison; son of John and Tereacy Shively; born at Morgantown, West Virginia; educated at place of nativity; married April 20, 1837, to Harriet Marshall, resided in Rush county eighteen months, in Henry county two years and in Grant county forty-eight years; is a physician; was a Representative in the Legislature three terms: elected to the Senate in 1884 as a democrat. Post-office, Marion, Grant county.
Representative from the county of Tippecanoe; son of Abel T., and Deborah S. Smith; born January 19, 1830, in Harrison county, West Virginia; educated at Indiana Asbury University; married November 27, 1855, to Ruth A. Rankin, of Greencastle; is a teacher and minister; resided in White county nine years, Dearborn county three years, Porter county six years, Vigo county four years and Marion county four years; was professor of ancient languages in college 1855 to 1857; professor and president Valparaiso male and female college 1862 to 1867; pastor Centenary M. E. church 1867 to 1869; republican candidate for State superintendent of public instruction in 1872; elected to the House in 1882; re-elected in 1884 as a republican, receiving 4,999 votes, a majority of 634 votes over his opponent. Post-office, Lafayette.
Representative from the county of Warrick; son of Benjamin and Anna Smith; born in Bissell county, Ky.; married in 1876 to M. A. Wade; is a farmer; resided in Warrick county seven years and in Pike county four years; served three years and nine months in the 12th Kentucky regiment; in 1864 was captured by the enemy and conveyed to Andersonville prison, kept for six months and then exchanged; was elected to the House in 1884 as a democrat, receiving 2,505 votes against 2,149 votes cast for Jas. Furguson, his opponent. Post-office, Lynnville.
Representative from the county of Knox; son of Fleming and Elmira Williams; born February 7, 1851, at Mt. Carmel, Illinois; educated at Friendsville academy; lawyer; a bachelor; resided ten years in Gibson county and fifteen years in Knox county; deputy prosecuting attorney of Knox county two years; deputy clerk of Wabash county, Illinois, one year; represented Knox county in the Legislature of 1883 - a member of the judiciary, fee and salary and insurance committees - re-elected to the House in 1884 as a democrat, receiving 3,436 votes against 2,701 votes cast for his opponent, Eugene Crandall. Post-office, Vincennes.
Representative from the county of Clinton; son of Aaron and Catherine [Parsons] Staley;
born February 6, 1830, in Tippecanoe county; education self obtained, a graduate of Asbury
[now DePauw] University, at the head of the class, first honors, though paying his way
through college by doing janitor work and teaching; married Nov. 14, 1862, to Miss Salome
Barr; was a teacher and professor for twenty years and editor of the Frankfort Crescent for
thirteen years; resided in Tippecanoe county thirty
Senator from the counties of Fulton and Marshall; son of Peter and Margaret Zimmerman, natives of Germany, born August 2, 1844, in the Grand Duchy of Hessen, Damstadt, Germany; educated in the public schools in Germany; married November, 1886, to Martha Newhard, of Fulton county; is an undertaker and dealer in furniture, agricultural implements and other machinery; left Germany twenty years ago and has resided in Fulton county ever since; has served as councilman in the town of Rochester; was secretary of the Fulton county Agricultural and Mechanical society; was chairman of the Fulton county Democratic Central Committee; elected to the Senate in 1884 as a democrat, by a majority of 517 votes over his opponent, John S. Bender, candidate on the fusion, greenback and republican ticket. Post-office, Rochester, Fulton county.
Senator from Bartholomew, Brown and Monroe; son of Alexander and Sarah F. Duncan; born in Marion county, June 24, 1851; graduated at the State University, class of 1875; married July 28, 1880, to Jennie Buskirk; is a lawyer; resided in Marion county nine years, Bartholomew county three years and Brown county twenty-one years; was prosecuting attorney for the 9th circuit, composed of the counties of Bartholomew and Brown; elected to the Senate in 1882, as a democrat, over his opponent, Richard L. Coffey, Post-office. Nashville.
Senator from the counties of Starke and St. Joseph; son of Samuel A., and Harriett [Cornell] Campbell; his father is still living on the farm near Valparaiso where he has lived since the Indians left it, when he was twelve years old; born March 13, 1849, at Valparaiso; educated at Valparaiso College; married May 27, 1874, to Lillie A., daughter of John Broomfield; is a hardware merchant and manufacturer; resided in Porter county from birth to 1870 and since that time in St. Joseph county; taught High School in South Bend two years and in partnership with E. C. Cole, in the hardware business, two years and since 1874 alone in hardware business; elected to the Senate in 1884 as a republican, over Thomas J. Garoutte, his opponent. Post-office, South Bend, where his twin brother Myron also resides.
Senator from the counties of Howard and Miami; son of Robert and Rebecca [Henderson] Adkison; born May 26, 1816, in Fayette county; educated in Franklin county; married December 16, 1840, to Lucy Amelia Cole, whose father was associate judge and postmastar in Peru and Miami county; is a real estate and insurance agent; has resided in Fountain and Miami counties; was sheriff two years; county commissioner in California two years and sheriff four years; was elected to the Senate in 1884 as a republican,, over Addison P. Armstrong, his opponent. Post-office, Peru.
Representative from the county of Delaware; born November 4, 1833, in Delaware county have been twice elected township trustee and twice justice of the peace; enlisted as a private in the "69th" regiment Indiana volunteer infantry and was afterwards promoted to the captaincy of company "B" of same regiment; has been a republican since the organization of the party; was elected to the House in 1884 as a republican, receiving 1,546 votes over his opponent. Post-office, New Burlington.
Representative from the counties of Fayette and Union; son of Joel and Elizabeth [Maxwell] Haworth; born in Union county; educated at Beach Grove academy, in Union county, married to Carrie Brower; is a tanner; resided always in Union county; was a member of the House in 1861, and Senator from 1872 to 1876; was a delegate to the Republican National Convention in 1876; was elected to the House in 1884 as a republican, receiving 3,000 votes against 2,252 votes cast for his opponent, Squire B. Rude. Post-office, Liberty, Union county.
Representative from the county of LaPorte; son of Carl and Frederika Krueger; born at Mecklenburg, Germany, November 10, 1853; attended county schools three terms in Laporte county; married September 23, 1879, to Miss Rose Kensler; is a estate and insurance agent; resided in LaPort connty twenty years; was three times elected city clerk of Michigan City; was elected to the House in 1884 as a democrat, receiving 4.394 votes against 3,629 votes cast for his opponent, John Ernest Shultz. Post-office, Michigan City.
Senator from the counties of Johnson Morgan; son of Samuel and Elizabeth [Hawkins] Overstreet; born May 21, 1819, in Oldham county, Kentucky; educated the Indiana State University; married Nov. 10, 1849, to Sarah L., daughter of Lewis Morgan, a Baptist minister and one of the founders of Franklin College, is a lawyer; resided in Johnson county since October 1834; was prosecuting attorney; served in the 132nd regiment, one hundred days service, as a private; elected Senator in 1882 as a republican, by a majority of 87 votes over Richard M. Johnson, his opponent Post-office. Franklin, Johnson county.
Representative from the county of St. Joseph; son of John and Mary McMichael; born in Harris township, St. Joseph county April 27, 1841; educated at the public schools in Mishawaka; married February 2, 1881, to Minnie E. Roberts; is a printer resided always in St. Joseph county; was joint representative from Marshall and St. Joseph counties in the Legislature of 1875; served as deputy county recorder; elected to the House in 1884 as a democrat, receiving 5,101 votes against 4,474 votes cast for Christian Holler, republican and prohibition candidate. Post-office, Mishawaka.
Representative from the county of Ripley; born July 1, 1848, at Elrod, Ripley county; educated in the common schools and at Moore's Hill college; unmarried; is an attorney-at-law; admitted to the bar May 12, 1880; enlisted as private in company "C." 156th Indiana infantry, at the age of sixteen and served until the close of the war; was deputy clerk of Ripley circuit court from 1877 to 1880; is adjutant of Charles C. Wheeler Post, G. A R., No. 98, department of Indiana; author of several poems; elected to the House 1884 as a democrat, by a majority of 75 votes over his opponent. Post-office, Versailles.
President of the Senate, ex-officio; son of Sarah [Cornwall] and David Manson; a soldier of the war of 1812; was born February 20, 1820, near Piqua; Miami county, Ohio; educated in the primitive log school house, with its unglazed windows and rough benches; attended a course of lectures at the Ohio Medical College, of Cincinnati, and a partial second course at New Orleans, La.; married May 26, 1850, to Caroline Mitchell, of Crawfordsviiie; never engaged extensively in the practice of medicine, but became a druggist, and since the war has been farming; in 1842 moved to Indiana and has since resided there; was captain of Company "I," 5th regiment Indiana volunteers in the Mexican war; a member of the House in 1851-2; delegate to the National Democratic Convention, at Cincinnati, in 1865; in the spring of 1861 raised a company and within thirty days successfully elected captain of Company "G," major and then colonel of the "10th" regiment, Indiana volunteers; appointed brigadier general of volunteers without solication on his part, and assigned to command of the Second Brigade, Fourth Division Army of the Ohio; resigned in December, 1864, because of wounds which confined him to the hospital eighty-five days, lying, a portion of the time, at the point of death and rendering him unfit for active duty; was in the battles of Rich Mountain, Mill Spring, Corinth, Richmond, Stone River, Knoxville, Mossy Creek, Resaca, besides many skirmishes, and was taken prisoner; was nominated without his knowledge or consent, in 1864, as democratic candidate for Lieutenant Governor; in 1866, by acclamation, for Secretary of State; in 1868, by acclamation, for Congress; in 1870 re-nominated and elected to Congress by a majority of nearly 400, though the republican State ticket received a large majority in that district; in 1872 again a candidate for Congress, but defeated by a majority of 197 votes, though the republican national ticket in that district received over 2,000 majority; in 1873 was a member and in 1875 chairman of the Democratic State Central Committee; represented the State at large in the National Democratic Convention in St. Louis, in 1878 was elected Auditor of State, was a member and president of the board of trustees of Purdue University; elected Lieutenant Governor in 1884 as a democrat. Post-office, Crawfordsville, Montgomery county.
Compiler of the Brevier Legislative Reports of the Proceedings and Debates of the General Assembly of Indiana for twenty-seven years; has received several Legislative testimonials in the shape of highly complimentary resolutions; son of Martha [Spencer] and Ariel E. Drapier, editor, author and stenographer; born in Boston, Mass., Sept. 4, 1832; educated at Begg's academy, Louisville, Ky., and the University of Notre Dame du Lac; is a Stenographer; was editor and owner of the semi-weekly and weekly St. Joseph county Forum, eleven consecutive years; sole proprietor of the Indianapolis daily and weekly Sentinel establishment for a short time, also of the Commercial Gazette and Railroad Review, the Journal of Commerce and the Saturday Evening Mirror, all but the first named published in Indianapolis; was selected and commissioned Colonel and chief-of-staff of a Brigadier General of the State militia in 1861; elected and frequently re-elected an officer of the Indiana Editors' and Publishers' association; was elected without solicatation on his part, assistant secretary of the Indiana Senate in 1861, receiving the vote of every Senator present; has been Senate minute clerk a number of sessions since; was an attache to the corps of official reporters in the U. S. Senate, and in the Ohio and Indiana constitutional conventions; was official stenographer in the Kansas, Illinois and Michigan constitutional conventions; was House compiler of the Legislative Union and American in the Tennessee General Assembly before the war; was official stenographer of the highest military commission in the army of the Cumberland; elected official reporter of the society of the army of the Cumberland; secretary, and seven years resident trustee of the Physio-Medical college of Indiana; corresponding secretary of the Indiana Christian Sunday School Association four years, and member of the executive board eleven years; recording secretary of the U. S. General Christian Missionary Convention five years, and member of the general and active board of managers two years; corresponding secretary of the Missionary society of the churches of Christ, in Indiana, for four years, and member of the board of managers five years; recording secretary of the General Christian Sunday School Association of the United States two years. All official positions occupied by him have been tendered without his seeking. Post-office, Indianapolis.
Representative from the county of Henry; son of Thomas and Phœbe Deem; born March 9, 1840, in Greene county, Ohio; educated in the common schools of Henry county; was formerly a newspaper proprietor and is now a farmer and stock breeder; married in 1862 to Miss Lizzie Cloud; has resided in Henry county for thirty-six years; was school trustee of Knightstown seven years, deputy prosecuting attorney and representative of Henry county in 1883; founded the Knightstown Banner in the spring of 1867 and continued its publisher for fifteen years; designed and superintended the building of the Knightown academy building; was elected to the House in 1884 as a republican, by a majority of 1,685 votes over John W. Griffin, his opponent. Post-office, Spiceland.
Representative from the county of Posey. Son of L. C., and Elizabeth [Wilson] French. Born September 17, 1852, in Mt. Vernon. Educated at the State Normal school and at Union Law College, Chicago. Unmarried. On farm until the age of ten, taught school and was school superintendent eight years and in law business four years. Was elected to the House in 1884 as a democrat, by a majority of 783 votes over H. C. Pitcher, his opponant. Post-office, Mt. Vernon.
Representative from the county of Lake; son of Henry and Lizzie [Walltemots] Klass, born November 27, 1832, in Germany; educated in Germany; married in 1860 to Miss Louisa Branker; is a grain and stock dealer; was trustee three years; was elected to the House in 1884 as a democrat, by a majority of 182 votes over his opponent. Post-office, Dyer.
Representative from the county Decatur. Son of Mathias and Jermind [Cusher] Floyd. Born September 14, 1824, in Kentucky. Educated at the State University of Indiana. Married January 30, 1855 to Miss Ann G. Paul, whose father was a descendant of the famous John Paul Jones. Is a farmer, manufacturer and general merchant, Resided twenty-four years in Shelby county and thirty-six years in Decatur county. Was private in the Mexican war. Was elected to the House in 1884 as a republican, by majority of 187 votes over James Bannester, his opponent. Post-office, St. Paul.
Representative from the county of Porter, Son of John T., and Sarah M. McClelland Born February 26, 1830, in Lafayette, Indiana. Educated in South Bend. Married October 3, 1852, to Miss Sarah A. Wilmington, Has resided in Tippecanoe, St. Joseph and Porter counties. Is an insurance and real estate agent. Was elected to the House in 1884 as a republican, by a majority of 518 votes over his opponent. Post-office, Valparaiso.
Representative from the county of Wayne. Son of Gorge and Mary A. [Shult) Mauk. Born in Zanesville, Ohio. Educated in the common schools and at the Ohio University. Is a physician. Married November 19, 1877, to Miss Mary M. Daily. Has resided sixteen years in Wayne county. Was in the Ohio regiment for sixteen months. Was elected to the House in 1884 as a republican, by a majority of 2,772 votes over his opponents, his colleague, J. M. Townsend receiving 5,440 votes. Post-office, East Germantown.
Representative from the county of Parke. Son of W. S., and Jane [Stillwel] Akins. Born February 19, 1834 in Freehold, Monmouth county, New Jersey. Educated in the common schools. Married February, 1855, to Miss Sarah V. Williams. Is a merchant and grain dealer. Resided in Wayne county two years, Preble county two years, Darke county twenty six years; Randolph county county four years and in Montezuma sixteen years. Was trustee of Reserve township, Parke county, eighteen months. Was in the woolen and iron manufacturing business for a number of years. Was elected to the House in 1884 as a republican, by a majority of 328 votes over John E. Woodard, his opponent. Post-office, Montezuma.
Representative from the county of Marion. Son of George and Susan W. Pendleton. On the shady side of fifty. Education, self obtained. Married in 1856 to Miss Hannah Davis In early life a mariner and now in railroad business. Was elected to the House in 1884 as a democrat, by a majority of sixty-nine over his opponent. Post-office, Indianapolis.
Representative from the county of Huntington. Son of James B., and Susan S. [Borndin] Barr. Born in Wooster, Wayne county, Ohio. Educated in the common schools. Married in 1863 to Miss Harriett Dicky, of Budee, Illinois. Is a dealer in building materials. Was admitted to the bar in 1866. Was representative in 1883. Has resided in Huntington county for twenty years. Was elected to the House in 1884 as a democrat. Post-office, Roanoke.
Representative from the county of Steuben. Son of James C., an Jane E., [Doak] Best, both parents born in Virginia and had fourteen children, of which he is the youngest. Born June 16, 1850, in Huntington. Educated at Hillsdale college, Michigan, and National Normal University, Lebanon, Ohio. Married March 10, 1875, to Miss Mary E. Lancaster, of Baltimore, Maryland. Is an attorney-at-law. Was elected to the House in 1884 as a republican, by a majority of 700 votes over William W. Wyuck, his opponent. Post-office, Angola.
Representative from the county o Randolph; son of William and Lulicia [Cabe] Engle; born
September 13, 1846, in Randolph county;
Representative from the counties of Ohio and Switzerland. Son of Jas. K., and Charlotte Pleasants. Born August 14, 1855, in Vevay. Educated in the common schools and graduated at Buchtel college, Akron, Ohio, class of '76. Married June 26, 1883, to Miss L D. Goldenburg. Is a lawyer. Living in Switzerland all his life. Was school trustee, at Vevay, from June 1879 to November 1884. Was elected to the House in 1884 as a democrat, by a majority of twelve votes over Simon Beymer, his opponent, Post-office, Vevnay.
Representative from the county of Perry. Son of Francis and Nancy [Hartwell] Smith. Born
October 11, 1827, in Caledonia county, Va. educated in the common schools. Married in 1859,
to Miss Mary E. Conner. Is a farmer. Was a member of the 53rd General Assembly and
re-elected to the House in 1884 as a democrat, by a majority of 180 votes over August
Schribar, his
Representative from the county of Elkhart. Son of Cyrus F., and Rebecca Mosier. Born June
21, 1840, in Monroe county, New Jersey. Educated at Newville Ind. Married May 24, 1863, to
Miss D. L Roe. Is a publisher. Has resided in Elkhart county eight years. Was a member of
the 53rd General Assembly and was in the "12th," "55 h" and "118
h" Indiana volunteers. Was elected to the House in 1884 as a
Representative from the county of Franklin. Son of Stephen S., and Ruth Harrell. Born January 18, 1838, in Brookville, Franklin county. Educated at Brookville college. Married December 17, 1873, to Miss Sarah F. Carmichael. Is a lawyer. Resided all his life in Franklin county. Was county clerk for eight years and prosecuting attorney two years. Elected to the House in 1884 as a democrat, by a majority of 1,380 votes over John F. McKee, his opponent. Post-office, Brookville.
Representative from the county Tippecanoe; son of David and Anna Osborn, who were among the pioneers of Hendricks county, having moved from Guilford county, North Carolina in 1825; born June 20 1841, in New Danville, Hendricks county; educated at the Sulphur Springs Farmers' Institute and at the Western Manual Labor school; married August 19, 1863, to Hannah C., daughter of Buddell and Elizabeth Sleeper, of Tippecanoe county; is a farmer; has resided in Tippecanoe county since 1863; while at the Western Manual Labor school he received eight lessons per day and worked mornings, evenings and Saturdays, cutting wood, to pay his board and tuition; was elected to the House in 1884 as a republican, receiving 4,903 votes against 4 347 votes cast for James McGuire and 4,266 votes cast Isaac O. Parsons, his opponents, B. Wilson Smith, his colleague, receiving 4,899 votes. Post-office, Farmers' Institute.
Representative from the county Washington; son of William and Hannah [Cravens] Shanks, who were born in Virginia and moved to Indiana in 1822; born January 1824, in Charleston, Indiana; educated at Salem; married October 24, 1844 to Miss Joan Bulwer; is a farmer; resided in Clarke county one year and Washington county sixty years: was elected to House in 1884 as a democrat receiving 2325 votes against votes cast for Stephen A. Sayles, his opponent. Post-office, Salem.
Senator from the counties of Marion, Hancock, and Shelby; born in Wellsboro, Tiago county, Pa.; educated at Cornell University; is a lawyer; elected to the Senate in 1884 as a Democrat. Post-office, Indianapolis.
Senator from the counties of Crawford, Harrison and Orange; born March 9, 1834, in Germany; married July 4, 1856, Miss Caroline Nybower; is a tailor; was elected to the House in 1874, to the Senate in 1878, and re-elected in 1882; as a Democrat. Post-Office, Leavenworth.
Senator from the counties of Whitely and Allen; born in 1836; is an editor; served two terms as Township Trustee; and two terms as County Surveyor; and one term as County Clerk; elected to the Senate in 1884, as a Democrat. Post-Office, Columbia City.
Senator from the counties of Clinton and Boone; born March 11, 1837, in Lafayette; married Miss Sarah Gaster Dec. 20, 1859; is a druggist; served as town trustee, in the city council, two terms as county clerk, elected to the House in 1880, and to the Senate in 1884 as a Democrat. Post-Office, Frankfort.
Senator from the counties of Floyd and Washington; born in Floyd county in 1842; educated in the common schools: married Mary Hanary in 1867; was Superintendent of the L. N. A. & C. R. R.; elected to the Senate in 1884 as a Democrat. Post-Office New Albany.
Senator from the counties of Lagrange and Noble born in 1852 in Holmes county, Ohio; graduated at Michigan University; married to Miss Amanda Clugston, January 2, 1877; is a lawyer; served as Prosecuting Attorney of the counties of Lagrange and Elkhart two terms; was elected to the Senate in 1884 as a Republican by a majority of 950 votes over his competitor Dr. Parker. Post-office, Lagrange.
Senator from the counties of Tipton and Hamilton; born November 21, 1846; in Switzerland co.; educated at the Lebanon O., Normal School; served in the 153rd Indiana Volunteer Regiment; was elected to the Senate in 1884 as a Republican. Post-office, Russiaville.
Senator from. the counties of Sullivan and Knox; son of Benj. and Jane [Davis] Ernest; born in Sullivan county January 6, 1841; educated at the State University; married Miss Mary Brown May 25, 1876; is a merchant; was elected to the Senate as a Democrat in 1882. Post-office, Sullivan.
Senator from the counties of Ripley and Franklin; son of Cornelius and Lucinda [Holsted] Faulkner; born in Hamilton co. O., July 27, , 1820; educated in the common schools; married Miss Sarah Wells in September 1841; is a farmer; elected to the House in 1879, and to the Senate in 1882 as a democrat. Post-office, Holton.
Senator from the counties of Owen and Clay; son of John and Sarah [Kesler] Fowler; born June 7, 1834; at Lewisburg, Preble-county, 0.; graduated at the State University; is a lawyer; married Miss Vina Hollenbeck September 20, 1866; served two terms as county clerk; elected to the Senate in 1877 and again in 1884 as a democrat. Post-office, Spencer.
Senator from the counties of Jasper, Benton and Newton; son of Henry and Leann [Stinson] Hoover; born December 2, 1837 at New Castle; married January 29, 1859, Miss Martha Bowman; is a farmer; was a captain in the 69th Indiana Volunteer Regiment; served as county commissioner and director of the Northern Prison; elected to the Senate in 1882 as a democrat. Post-office, Remington.
Senator from the counties of Decatur and Shelby; son of Joseph and Lucy [Manville] Howard; borne May 9, 1840 in Jefferson co. married Miss Fanny E, Avery in 1864; is a Physician; was elected to the Senate in 1880 and again in 1884 as a democrat. Post-office St. Paul.
Senator from the counties of Fayette, Union and Rush; son of Wm. and Isabella Huston; born at Greencastle, Franklin co. May 11, 1849; is a banker; was elected to the House in 1880, and again in 1882, and to the Senate in 1884 as a republican. Post-office, Connersville.
Senator from the county of Tippecanoe, son of Lewis and Eliza Johnson; born Feb, 26, 1836 in Rostock, Germany; is an editor; was elected to the Senate in 1882 as a Democrat. Post-office, Lafayette.
Senator from the counties of Dearborn Ohio, and Switzerland; born in Manchester, Dearborn co. January 7, 1834; is a miller; was elected to the House in 1875, again in 1877; and elected to the Senate in 1882 as a Democrat. Post-office, Aurora.
Senator from the county of Cass; born in May 1855 at Logansport; is a lawyer; was elected
to the Senate in 1882 as a Democrat, appointed Minister to Norway and
Senator, from the counties of Randolph Delaware and Henry; born in 1843 in Henry co., married December 25, 1871 to Miss Sarah Edger; served in the 84th Indiana Regiment, as First Sergant also as county clerk four years; elected to the Senate in 1884 as a Republican. Post-office, Winchester.
Senator from the counties of Fountain and Warren. son of William and Junietta Marshall; born June 29, 1843 in Fountain co; served in the 63rd Indiana Regiment; married Miss Malissa Elwell May 3, 1866; is a farmer; was a member of the House in 1881; elected to the Senate in 1884, as a Republican. Post-office, Harveysburg.
Senator from the counties of Wabash and Koscuisko; son of George and Nancy [Simpson] Moon; born July 11, 1816, in the county Darry, Ireland; married Sarah Graves in 1841; is a farmer; was county treasurer from 1852 to 1856; member of the House in 1856 and 1857; revenue collector from 1869 to 1883; elected to the Senate in 1884 as a Republican.
Senator from the counties of Clark and Scott; is a physician; was a member of the House in 1843; again in 1853; and yet again in 1880. In 1856 was elected to the Senate and re-elected in 1882 as a democrat. Post-office, Jeffersonville.
Senator from the counties of, Gibson and Posey; son of Jacob and Lucinda [Noble] McCullough; born in Hamilton county, Ohio, April 1, 1847; graduated at the State University; married a second time Miss Ella Wilborn in May 1881; is a lawyer; was, elected to the Senate in 1882 as a Democrat. Post-office, Princeton.
Senator from the counties of Greene and Daviess; born in Marion county; is a physician; served as Justice of the Peace four years; was a member of the House in 1881, and elected to the Senate in 1882 as a Democrat, Post-office, Newark.
Senator from the county of Allen; son of Jesse and Lydia Null, born in 1840 in New Lisbon, Ohio; served one year in the 142nd Indiana Regiment; was a member of the House in 1881, and elected to the Senate in 1882 as a Democrat. Post-office New Haven.
Senator from the county of Montgomery; born January 25, 1825 in Greene county, O. is a farmer; was elected to the Senate in 1882 and again in 1884 as a Democrat. Post-office, Bowers.
Senator from the counties of Pike and Warrick; served as chairman of the Democratic Central Committee of Pike county; and was elected to the Senate in 1884 as a Democrat. Post-office. Petersburg.
Senator from the county of Vigo; son of Henry and Hannah Schloss; born May 2, 1836; in Rieneck, Bavaria; is a merchant; married Miss Laura Thowman, May 8, 1867; served in the army during the war of the Rebellion; was elected to the Senate in 1884 as a Democrat. Post-office, Terre Haute.
Senator from the Counties of Jennings and Jackson; born in Mays county Ohio; married Miss Ida Shellenberger, January, 19, 1879; is a lawyer; was elected to the Senate in 1884 as a Democrat, by a majority of 772 votes over Colonel Thornton Wells, his opponent. Post-offices, North Vernon.
Senator from the counties of Jay, Blackford and Adams; born September 29, 1853; in Jay county; is a lawyer; was elected to the Senate in 1884 as a Democrat. Post-office, Portland.
Senator from the counties of Delaware and Randolph; son of Oliver H. and May Smith; born April 11, 1825, in Connersville; educated at Asbury University; is a lawyer, was a member of the House in 1856, and 8 years Mayor of Muncie; was elected to the Senate in 1878, and again in 1882 as a Republican; by nearly 4000 votes over Dr. W. K. Smith. Post-office Muncie.
Senator from the county of Marion; born in Butler county Pa.; is a physician; served as Brigade Surgeon during the late war; was several years councilman; was elected to the Senate in 1872 and re-elected in 1884 as a Democrat. Post-office, Indianapolis.
Senator from the county of Laporte; born in Chenung county, N. Y., March 1, 1829, educated at Barbour's Academy, Elmira; N. Y.; is a lawyer; served as Prosecuting Attorney of the 9th Judicial Circuit; elected to the Senate in 1856; Mayor of Laporte in 1877 and 1879; re-elected to the Senate 1884 as a Democrat. Post-office, Laporte.
Senator from the counties of Lawrence, Dubois and Martin;, born in, April, 1848 in New Albany; educated at Hamilton college, and College of France in Paris, and the Law School in Vienna; married Miss Kate Newland in 1877; is a lawyer; was a member of the House in 1872 and 1879; elected to the Senate in 1882 as a Democrat. Post-office, Bedford
Senator from the county of Marion; born May 25, 1843, in Cincinnati, Ohio; is a lawyer; was deputy clerk of Bartholomew co. for five years; four years in the office of Collector of the Internal Revenue for the 3rd Indiana District; and City Attorney of Columbus two years; elected to the Senate in 1884 as a Republican. Post-office, Indianapolis,
Senator from the counties of Lake and Porter; son of Fredrick and Fredricha Youche; born in Winchester, Franklin county, O:; March 4, 1850; graduated at the State University; married Eunice Higgins January 1, 1874; is a lawyer; twice elected Prosecuting Attorney of the 35th Judicial District; and elected to the Senate in 1882 as a Republican. Post-office, Crown Point.
Representative from the county of Hamilton; born in Rush county July 4, 1849; educated in the common schools; married Miss Mary A. Stalker, of Westfield, March 27, 1872; is a lawyer; served in the 153rd Indiana Infantry till the close of the late war; was County Recorder six years; was elected to the House in 1884 as a Republican. Post-office, Noblesville.
Representative from the county of Grant; son of John and Mary L. [Weeks] Brownlee; born September 13, 1846, in Marion; educated in the common schools; married Miss Linnie McDowell August 30, 1877; is a lawyer; elected to the House in 1884 as a Republican. Post-office
Representative from the county of Jefferson; born in Jefferson county August 16, 1860; is unmarried, and a lawyer; was elected to the House in 1882, at the age of twenty-two; was re-elected as a Republican in 1884; the youngest man in the body. Post-office, Madison.
Representative from the counties of Dearborn, Franklin and Ripley; educated at Asbury University, where he graduated in the Law Department in 1857; married Mary P. Johnson, of Franklin county in 1857; is a farmer; was elected to the House in 1867, again in 1869; was reading clerk of the Senate in 1871; elected to the House in 1884 as a Democrat. Post-office, Fairfield.
Representative from the county of Daviess; was born in Cumberland, Md., January 25, 1837; where he married Josette E. Johnson, in 1857; is a lawyer; served as Postmaster of his native city; Prosecuting Attorney of Vincennes Circuit two terms; was elected to the House as a Democrat in 1878, and again in 1884. Post-office Washington.
Representative from the county of Hancock; son of Asa and Matilda Gooding; was educated at Asbury University; married Miss Frances M. Sebastian in 1844; is a lawyer; has served two terms as Prosecuting Attorney; one term each as Circuit and Common Pleas Judge; was United States Marshal during President Johnson's administration; was elected to the House in 1847. to the Senate in 1856, and again in 1884 as a Democrat. Post-office, Greenfield.
Representative from the county of Greene; son of Wilson and Mary Helms; born August 13, 1846 in Belmont county, Ohio; moved to this State in the year 1854; served as a private in Company I. 63rd Indiana until the close of the late civil war; is a lawyer; has been Justice of the Peace and Postmaster; was a member of the House in 1883 and re-elected in 1884 as a Republican over D. J. Terhune, a Democrat. Post-office, Worthington.
Representative from the county of Shelby; was born in Kilkenny, Ireland; in 1820; immigrated to this country before he reached his teens; he lived in New York and Connecticut till he removed to Shelby county in 1850; married in New York State, Delaware county, in 1843; is a farmer; has served five terms as Township Trustee; was elected to the House in 1884, as a Democrat.
Representative from the counties of Floyd and Scott; was born at Hanover, Ind., October 6, 1848; educated at Hanover College and the State University; is a lawyer; was three terms elected Prosecuting Attorney; elected to the House in 1882 and again in 1884 as a Democrat by a majority of 2300 votes over the Republican and Prohibition candidate - Ward H. Watson - when he was elected Speaker. Post-office, New Albany.
Representative from the county of Marshall; son of James and Elizabeth Kellison; born June 17, 1850, in Steuben county, New York; educated in the common schools and in the medical department of the University of Michigan; resided three years in Adams county; and since 1877 in Marshall county; is a lawyer; was elected to the House in 1884 as a Democrat. Post-office Plymouth.
Representative from the county of Dearborn; son of Samuel and Nancy McMullen; was born in 1838 in Dearborn county; is a lawyer; has served two years each as Surveyor of Sullivan county, and Prosecuting Attorney for that District; was elected to the House in 1882 and again in 1884, as a Democrat. Post-office, Aurora.
Representative from the counties of Wells and Blackford; son of Emsley and Ruth Mock; born April 20, 1840, in Randolph county; educated at the Farmer's Academy in Jay county and the Seminary at Winchester; married Rebecca C. Patterson, November 19, 1871; is a lawyer; served in the 84th Indiana Infantry; and eight years as Mayor of Bluffton; was elected to the House in 1882 from the counties of Adams, Wells and Jay; and again in 1884 as a Democrat, from the counties of Wells and Blackford; he is the tallest member, standing in his stockings six and one-half feet; his father was six feet five and one-half inches tall. Post-office, Bluffton.
Representative from the county of Sullivan; born May 26, 1838, in Sullivan county educated in the district schools of his native county; is a lawyer; served nearly four years in the 17th Regiment Indiana Volunteers, enlisting as a private and mustered out as a captain, during which he was badly wounded twice; was U. S. Census Marshal for Sullivan county in 1870; served as City Attorney of Sullivan city three years, and one term as city School Trustee; was elected to the House from the counties of Green, Sullivan and Knox, in 1884, as a Democrat. Post-office, Sullivan.
Representative from the county of Jackson; son of Andrew and Esther [Hamilton] Robertson; born March 8 1839, in Jackson county; educated in the common schools; has served as Township Assessor, Township Trustee and County Surveyor; was elected to the House in 1882 and again in 1884 as a Democrat receiving a majority of 1,120 over his opponent Peter Platter.
Representative from the counties of Clay, Hendricks and Putnam; born September 19, 1845, in Fayette county; educated at the Westfield, Ill. College; married Laura E. Carpenter in 1870; is a farmer; was elected to the House in 1882 and again in 1884, supported by the Democratic and Greenback parties. Post-office, Cloverland, where he served as Postmaster five years.
Representative from the counties of Wabash and Koscuisko; was born July 29, 1844, in Wabash county; educated at Union College, Schenectady, New York; served as school examiner over two years, and as Mayor of Wabash eight years; elected to the Senate in 1880 and to the House in 1884 as a Republican. Post-office, Wabash.
Representative from the county of Vermillion; where he was born in 1845; educated in the district schools of his native county; is a lawyer; entered the U. S. service in the war of the Rebellion as a private, serving nearly four years was mustered out as a captain; was Prosecuting Attorney three years; in 1881 elected Assistant Secretary of the Senate, and elected to the House in 1884 as a Republican. Post-office, Newport.
Representative from the county of Koscuisko; born there in 1850 where he has since resided; received an academic education; was married in 1873 to Miss Sarah A. Gibbens, of Iowa; whose grand father invented the present system of glass cutting, and whose father was the first to make practical use of it; is a school teacher, at present engaged in farming; was elected to the House in 1882 and again in 1884 as a Republican.
The Compiler expects to re-print this Legislative Directory for the next General Assembly, and to any one being the first to inform him by postal card or otherwise of an error in these pages, a copy of the correction when made will be mailed postpaid. Address William H. Drapier, No. 78 1/2 South Delaware street, Indianapolis.
Page 14, in "Classification of Mail Matter," fifth line, omit the word "half." The Provisional Board of Commissioners, has expired.
Page 43: the term of the chief of the Bureau of Statistics expires March 8, 1887.
Page 55: the last figures should be "1845," instead of "1865."
Page 89: in second line of second column read "Noel," not "Nod." In fifth line from bottom read "Senate," not "House."
Page 92: in lines nine and eight from bottom of first column read: "Brower," is a "farmer." not "Browne;" is a "tanner."
Page 96: Representative MOSIER was born in "New York," not
"New Jersey."