The Indianapolis sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1880-1904, 1885-01-31
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIV YES.
FRIDAY, Jan. 50, $3.50 q. m
ALIEN LAND HoLDEI


Mr.. Roblnson's bill II r. ISl to repeal an
act authorizing sliens to hold titles to real
estate, coming up in regular order was read
the third time.
Mr.. SAYRE: / AN convinced that this
DILL in its present condition ought not to
pass, for the reason that il is simply repeal.
ing law. 1t will REQUIRE further legislation
declaring that aliens shall not hold real es
tate. The Senate bill contains these pro.
visions, and that bill has already gone
through the Senate. l think it would be
better to postpone the consideration OF this
bill. Besides. the title of this bill is not cor.
rectly stated here.
Mr.. WILLIAMS: l desire TO say that the
title is rectly stated. l believe that the
consideration of this bill ought not to be
postponed. / think the bill ought to pass.
1t may be that by the passage of a bill of
this character some further legislation may
be needed, and il that is true l will vote for
the Senate bill. This bill comes here in the
regular order. Out of a considerable num-
Der Of bills this bill was selected for passage.
1t has received the Endorsement OF the in
dietary Committee, and l can see no reason
why this bill should be postponed.
Mr.. ROBINSON: | am not in favor of post
poning this bill. Two years ago 1 had the
pleasure TO IN troduce bill OF the same pur-
port, and while it was the intention of that
House to pass that bill, it was defeated by
postponing, and never reached vote. The
title of this bill is copied from the original
bill. If there is any defect it was in the
title of the original bill. Even if there is a
Senate bill already passed that body l see
no improperly in passing upon this bill. IL
gives 81 impetus TO the idea. II the Senate
bill reaches farther up, see no reason why
the passage of this bill should obstruct the
passage OF the Senate bill. 1t has been asked
whether, if this passes and becomes a law, il
will prevent aliens from possessing real es.
tate IN hfx1n 10
emergency clause in it. am not in favor
of passing unfavorably upon this bill, so a
to obstruct legislation upon that subject.
M. LLOYD: This is a very important
measure, and it is expedient on the part d
the House to use discretion IN passing it,
am opposed to this bill and in favor of the
Senate bill, which l think is full and com
plete. The bill before the House repeats the
law that gives aliens the right to hold rea
estate in the State of Indiana. spprehend
that the passage of this bill would give rise
to different questions of doubt, and possibly
involve Ren who have acquired rights under
our laws in long and continued legislation.
The Senate bill makes some provisions for
men who have purchased real estate under
the existing law. The bill before the House
does not do this. approve the sentiment
OF the bill as far as il goes. bu. think we
should not be too basty and enact legislation
that will require additions to il.
Mr.. BROWNING: l am in favor of the
provisions of this bill, but while that is true
/ don't think il right and proper for this
House to proceed and pass the bill while the
Senate bill, which contains all the pro-
visions of the present bill, is before oar COM
mittee. We don't need these two bills. The
title is not good because it has been copied
from the old bill. II is defective / 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 mo-
ton. We al agree IS to the merits and the
ideas of this bill. 1 don't believe this bill
will reach the ends that We all want TO
reach. The bill that comes from the Sen.
ate gives aliens five years in which to dis
pose of their property,
Mr.. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: | favor the
postponement Of this because II can't hurt
the bill. few days delay Will not affect
the bill.
Mr.. KELLIS0N: It has been stated that
If this bill is passed in its present form we
would De without law upon this subject. In
other words, that aliens could not take by
descent, There is 3 law upon this SUBJECT.
That law is still IN force and was not re-
pealed by the act of 1881. So the effect OF
repeating this act would leave the law in
force that is already in force authorizing