The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-03-18
0O0 and is ample for the use Of that large county
for years to come. This bill proposes nothing

ana Is ample Tor tile use d that large
for years to come. This bill proposes nothing
but what is just and right
Mr.. Marshall-Iam in favor of the amendment
There are sometimes large expenditures made by
county commissioners which are unwarranted,
and in opposition to the wishes of q majority OF
the tax payers. There is principle involved in
this bill, and that is to put proper check upon
the servants of the people, by the people them
selves; and that is right 1t gives to the people
of any county the right to build as fine buildings
as majority may desire. 1t is best for the peo
pie to regulate such affairs as they deem right
Mr. Oyerstreet-Any action taken in this di-
rection would embarrass any county desiring
public building. An officer should not be afraid
to move until instructed, if it We're otherwise he
would not amount TO much. Commissioners are
only elected for three years, and will not be ex-
travagant more than necessities require. The
statute requires that they shall provide court
house and place for all the county Offices. A
proof courthouse cannot be built for 500, GEO.
Such bill would accomplish nothing.
Mr. Smith OF Jay-With all the safeguards
now on the statute book this bill would prove
vicious
The amendment was agreed to by yeas "a
nays IA, and the minority report. as amended,
was coTcurred in. On motion, by Mr. Foulke
the bill was read the second time and Mr.. Me-
1ntosh moved that it be ordered engrossed. He
said that In Ohio the commissioners are not al
lowed to tax the people for expenditure of
over $40, 900 without first obtaining the consent
of the tax payers. Mr. Weir opposed the motion
and demanded the yeas and nays. The motion
was rejected by yeas 49, nays 20.
Mr.. Ensley's bill IS. 1881 TO authorize county
commissioners to erect soldiers monuments at
an expense not to exceed $25 600, was read, with
a committee amendment that such expenditures
shall be authorized only upon petition OF a
majority of the tax payers of the county. The
amendment was rejected and the bill was
ordered engrossed.
On motion by Mr. Campbell of ST. Joseph his
bill Is. l64l concerning the hiring of convict
labor was read the second time, with commit
tee amendment limiting the hours for day s
work to nine, instead of eight. He said: "After
two years of careful study of this question: /
have embodied my conclusions in this BILL do
not concur in the committee amendment The
object of eight hours for q days 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 be done IN
eight hours a day. The bill is an effort to help
free labor as much as possible. The man who
gets contract in these prisons has a monopoly
forever, under what is called the Tapping con-
tracts, SO there is no competition between those
desiring to employ prison labor. Section g of
this bill is intended TO open competition for con-
vict labor. The question is how can this labor
be regulated so not to come into injurious con-
fict with free labor2s
Mr.. Youche moved to amend by inserting a
section intended to prevent the tapping of con-
tracts. The amendment was agreed to. The
and the bill ordered engroSsed.
Mr.. Fowler introduced bill to authorize the
appointment of railroad commissioner, and to
limit passenger rates to three cents per mile, be-
ing substitute for Senate bill 1884, The bill
was read the first time and referred to the COM
mite on the judiciary.
Mr. Smiths of Jennngs) bill is. 176l to amend
section 80 of the supervisors act of March 2,
1883, was read the second time, and favorable
committee report was concurred in.
Mr. Smiths tof JAY bill IS. 179l to fix apenalty
of five times the usurious interest charged by
any money-lender, was read the second time.
Mr.. Smith explained that the penalty for the ex
action of usurious interest is now so small that
the law is practically imperative The bill
simply reenaets the law in operation previous to
1881.
Mr. Foulke--Every county and every business
man would be seriously injured by this bill.
which prescribes penal offense. The penalties
do not accomplish the purposes designed.
Wherever a contract of this kind is made the
subject of penal statute, the contract is void.
1t would be simply for the protection of scoun-
drels am opposed to any usurious interest
law. A law of this kind would cast suspicion
upon all commercial paper. The bill has no
merit OF any kind. Imove TO lay the bill on the
table
The motion to lay the bill on the table was
agreed to by yeas %, nays 10.
Mr. Smith of Jay voted AYE for the pur
pose of moving a reconsideration of the vote.
The motion to reconsider was rejected by yeas
Is, nays 81.
Then came recess for dinner.