Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1861-04-10

Mr.. BLAKEaLEE offered q. resolntion
authorizing. the sergeant-at-Arms % em'
ploy Thomas Lally TO assist 10 keeping the
Hall, and that be be paid 81 per day, which was
agreed to. (3 !. ~ \ .ttN..{3
On leave, the following bills were Introduced
and read the first time;
I H. B. 4s7, by Mr. BROWNE, of Miami---,
Making appropriations for the Public Works.
II, B $50, by Mt. BURR--To amend the as.
sessment laws, so ss TO include transient book
or jewelry stores.
IL. B, l6O-To abolish the Office Of superin.
tendent OF the State House--was read a third
time, when et "kftt n ftifkk e II
MI. SCOTT of Warren, explained the OBJ
ect Of the bill, that it Was to reduce the expen-
ses Of the superintendence Of the Public Build7
ing by having an officer to perform services that
do not require more than the time Of one man.
| The bill was. then passed-yeas rs, nays 3.
H. B 469--To abolish the office of Steward
! 10 the different Benevolent Institutions of.the
| State--was read third time, when. 3, ..,,i,
Mr.. SCOTT, of Warren, moved that the bill
be recommitted 10 the committee on Benevo
lent Institutions. i,io Fattfi Hotp tl.a
Mr.. CONVERSE moved to refer the bill
with instructions to provide that all purchases
of provisions, etc. of over $50, shall be by con
tract upon public letting. .a5tis y
Mr.. PLANTS suggested that a steward wat
needed in all these institutionH, however they
may be regulated. ~ ssG .
Mr.. BRUFF moved that the bill be indefinitely
| postponed .lg N8ILfiW tl04a.
Mr.. ANDREWS supported the motion t.
postpone the bill, as the Stewards are o propei
check upon the 5uperintendents. u p qutn ..
1 Mr.. SLUSSER was In favor of the genera
provisions of the bill, though he thought tht
Iii ,hk ho rto 4, raviuod I.I.f
Mr.. FELLOWS thought the Steward an Off
Ger necessary to q proper management OF th,
Institutions. He Ia a proper check upon III
management Of the Superintendent, who other
wise may run into extravaganza. Till bette
4 advised he should 60 against the bill. .-i8..
Mr.. SCOTT, Of Warren, urged the reference
the bill, that 1t might be amended, and provid
against many aagrant abuses that exist. or q
least are liable TO grow up under our present sys
TEN. ..5.-.- $50. ..If-ft.rf ..ssia
j Mr.. WELSH was in favor of the reference
but not for discontinuinig the office Of Steward
which he held to be necessary. a "a
Mr.. CONVERSE thought all the. usual du
, ties OF the Steward might be discharged by th
J Superintendent, under proper contract system
: He hoped that the bill would be referred. q
Mr.. PARSONS opposed the bill, as 1t wa
q impracticable to adopt contract system; au
. as TO the management Of such things by superiI
: tendents, who are mostly professional mel
they are not qualified to discharge such dl
I ties; beside which, the responsibility wou
not be so we'll secured as now s5c, essoi
i Mr.. SCOTT, of Warren, defended the bill
and further explained the Importance OF r
d form In the management Of these institution
9 aud retrenchment of expenses. i,7a95W {
2 The bill was then referred. ,s.- ~. si
y | ID M 1AI hv M pARICH-To nrnvif
II gas works for lighting the Peutentiary and OF
Ter State buildngs-was read a third time.
o Mr., BROWNE, of Miami, moved that u
* further consideration of the bill be deferred 4
to morrow, at Q 3UP. M, which was agreed I
b. S!B No 24l-To provide for and regula
es street railroad companies--was read thi
Mr.. PARRoTT offered an amendment I
quiriog companies organizing under this act,
3. buy out the stock Of omnibus lines to be supe
seded by the etreet railroad lines. 'sai ,r52
N Mr.. JE5SUP opposed the amendment.
le Mr.. JONAS also opposed ii, as it might lie
ie to abuses
l. Mr.. ROGERS supported the amendment, e
e. planning that It only applied to competing lin
MIR FLAGG could not see any more propri,
N Of requiring the buying cut Of such lines, th
{ to require a common railroad to buy out
W. the old stages. ui. ! ,"rr.4
te Mr.. SCHIFF also opposed the amendment,
g. it was a specially for the protection of clas
Mr. HILLS opposed the amendment.
n never expected to have somebody to buy out
OF old wagon when he could not use 1t 8
ne Mr.. SCOTT, of Warren, opposed this anne
ment, because it would load down compan
ne With an expense that would preclude the est
AS lisbment of any roads at all. i 10
MIR STEDMAN thought you might as "