, 1873-03-29
Exciting Debate on Tho Lake-Front
Repeal Bill in tho Senate.
The Motion to Refer to the
Judiciary Committee
Defeated. -
House Action on The Report Of; the
Rummel investigating :;
COMMITTEES. i
The Cook County Co,rt-HIouse Bill
Passed III the Senate.

Defeat Of the Bill Relative to Polling.
Places ut Town Elections.
Jurisdiction OF County courts...Wost Side
Park Bills.
Special Dispatch to The Chicago Tribune.
LAKE-FnoNT BILL.
SPRINGFIELD, March 28.-Tho Honso Lake.
Front bill camo up on It's first reading, when Mr..
Palmer, Of Iroquoiu-opo Of Mr. Forts 9ona-
tora-moyod to refor 1t to the Judiciary Commit
teo, whero its opponents havo long boon trying
to got It, h1r. Reynolds argued that tho opin-
lon Of lawyers on tho judiciary had botter bo
given On tho floor Of tho Senate. Mr. stoolo,
who made the original motion last week to refer
tho sonato bill to tho Judiciary, was in favor Of
tho reference. He waB not inspired by hontflity
to tho repeal as he hnd been accused, but It
should goto tie Judiciary to 500 IL tho Iegisln-
turo rea1ly had tho powor to undo what tho Log
islature Of 1860 had done. Ho waB Satisfied
the act was carried through that body
by fraud and corruption, but for all that
they might not be 'ahlo to ropaal It. Tho
bill should go tho Judcinry. It involved mill
ions it nas Of importance to tho entiro .pooplo
Of the State. II rights had boon vested undcr
tho act tho Judiciary COMMITTEE, should con-
siaor whether thoBe rights could DO divested.
Tint WAS tho question. It WAS not true ho wag
actively in tho interest Of railroads. IIo had
mover boon railroad attorney, and mover ex-
pected to DO, though it ,was charged no vas to
got al ettornoyshlp for h,s aervicos on bohalf Of
that bill. No corrnpting influences had boon
brought to boar upon him. lie Was acting un-
dor his Interpretation OF the oath be took to
: should go tho Judiciary. Tho Lake Front bill
was wicked thing that should DO blotted out
tit could bo without doing irrparable injury or
alvesting rights that had become vested tn-
dor 1t. .
Mr. Whiting believed tho act ehonld be vipod
or tho statute books as rebuko to tho corrup-
tion by which It was passed. Hc hnow tho Leg
bar Of tho stato, all in favor Of the bill. The
press Of the State was m1lzzlod, and it wRs run
through tho Legislature with money.
h1r. Loo raised tho point that tho gentleman
WAS not talking to tho point.
MI: Whiting Was opposed to the reference to
the Judiciary.
hIr. Casey asked il it would bs disreputublo to
refer to tho Judiciary Committee.
the Judiciary, but It would be diRreputable to
tho sonato to hostato In passing tho bill. There
woro railroad attorneys Of groat adroisnoss, and
who always carried their point. working to do
Mr. Steele wished to know it lo retorred to any
attorney In the Spnnte.
Mr.. Whiting replied that ho did not, espoci-
@ a no. e he ae tbs s eG
any occurred. The courts would take caro- Of Ill
vested rights. They noed not be afraid OF that
Corporations wero well ablo to take caro- Of thom-
Helyos, and tic courts we're nercltul enough to
gsd sa'd decided fsats that s e's' raosds 1mnGa Gaa
no vested rights under tho act, why hesitate to
repeal it 7 1niquity presided over tho concop-
tion Of the Hchome, fraud was present at lis
ri nt.T nf T0&}
This was worao thnn Crodtt Mobier, Balary
steal, and all the iniquities perpetratod by Con-
gToas.
Mr.. Mcarnth had confidence in tho Judiciary
Committee, and in tho gentleman who made the
motion to rofer, but llo could not aee TINT any
complex legal question was involved. He could
prove that no rights Ind beon acquired under
the not, and that tho railroads had not complied
with single requirement. Of the law.
Mr. Caaey regarded it ae o pure question of
Inv. It Was not the duty Of tho Senate to pnss
tho bill anyhow, and leave it's construction to
tho court. It nstonishoa him to hcar the gon-
carried tho bill, aud got tho gontloHan had not
at tho time denounced bribery and corruption /;
shat bribery waa ,proper, subject for inyos.lga-
ton then, why did not that senator then pro-
poso inyostlgatiou9 Ho Lad no interest in tho
question, which vas purely legal ono. Why
sock to avoid decision by tho Judiciary. The
tntlmntion that the Committee would delay and
kill tho bill Was in i11Biuuation against tho Com
mitteo and an injustice to its mombors. Whom
gentlemon refused to rofor, they admitted the in
justice Of the cause thoy cspouaed. It was not
aqneston Of bribery, but whether rights bad
vested rights could DO diycytcd. Whore could
tho legal problem bo soIved 30 we'll Us in the
Judiciary Committee? IIo Ind heard the bill
called steal. Perhaps it was. That was not
question now. Tho question was, lad legal and
gestcd rights accrued under tho act? WHO said
tho Conmittoo would kill tho bill7 Whooyor
said 40 malgned tho Committee.
hfr. Palmer desired to explain why ho made
tho motion, as no did not wiah to be placed ia a
false position. He made tho motion to refer tho
BILL not at the solicitation Of any Senator or out
sidor, but that tho bill might take the usual
COURSE Of bills. Ho would amond his motion to
compel tho Committee to report tho bill by Tuoa-
hrr. Leo did not think thoy could report 80
soon, az thoy would not meet.
Mr. Waito would not agroo to any auch propo-
Bition, as no committee ahould 10 hurfiod in
ronsidoring question. (Cres of "night.'1
btr. Palmer wont on to say it camo with poor
grace from man to introduce bill to roneal m
act he had voted for twice, ono time over tho
Governors veto. Ho.wisled 1t known that ho
would vote for repeal anyhow.
h1r. Hampton said bill precisely like tho ono
under confederation had been before tho Senate
commltteo already. Who're would tho legal quos-
tons hayo to be finally nottlod but in tho
fonnte? md ho wonld like tho legal men to givo
their legal viows In onon sonato. They nll
WhutGu 10 ubhE luEbD 1obul f4GH6. IL NaH no
new question, md he did not SEQ tile upo or pro
prioty OF q roforonce.
bfr. Youngblood regretted to see tlnt It was
necessary for Honator, in advocating reference
Of tho bill, to deny that he was employed by
railroad. Why tho opposition to roforonce7
Wore Senators determined to pass tho bill,
whether or not7 Ho was sorry to hear that tho
Representations OF the poop1o III 1860 sold thor
birthrlght for .. mess OF pottage, but
suppose they did, should tho State Of
illiloie plogd the baby net and repeal the law ?
Tho Legislature could not legally and rightfully
repeal tle net: II t1loy shut their eyes and ro-
peaiod tho bill thoy would disgrace the State
: forever. Why wero tho friends OF repoal afraid
Of the opinion OF tile Judiciary Committee
We're they afraid tho Committee would report
ngaiust 1t ? He wau no railroad attorney, aud
. neyor expected to bo. Ho was in tho intorost OF
tho people OF tho stato Of Illinois, who would ro-
celye no bonotit from tho repeal. It was simply
Af1gnt botweon railroad corporations, which lad
Bpent millions under tho bill, and private COM
pany which doslroa to got tllo property.
hlr. Leo did not Aeo why tho bill should not
rrof IN ff1fo For