The Indianapolis sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1880-1904, 1885-02-18
he Senate then adjourned.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.


TUESDAY, Feb. Il, 1Ss5-lO q, m.
DITCH LAWS.
On motion, the House resolved itself into
q Committee Of the Whole ar. Gordon IN
the Chair for the consideration of substi-
tute for Mr.. Boyd's bill 81 r. 222l reported
by the Committee on Dykes and Drains, the
provisions Of which are II the County Con-
missioners'shsll appoint the Ditch Commits
sioner, instead of the Circuit Court as no =
provided; 81 bat one commissioner instead
of two shall be appointed, to act in con-
junction with the County Surveyor; 90
that when a majority of property owners
along the line OF proposed ditch shall re-
monstrate against it, IL shall not be built
Mr.. ENGLE moved TO amend Section , of
the dill by striking out the words two or
mere" in the first line and substituting the
word one." Very often but two men are
directly inte rested in the ditch, which will
however, be II public utility, and IL it would
take two O u,ore 10 start proceed ings for a
ditch, a ca ike that Just stated could not
be reached. One man should have power 70
move for q q = "a this instance.
Mr.. STALEY: think with few amsnd-
ments this law is what our people need aud
want Drainage laws are too valuable to be
neglected or thrown aside. One man should
have the power 10 move for ditcn in cases
like this.
Mr.. SAYRE: think that tbs "one man
power" is dangerous in cases where great
many are affected. IL should read two or
more land owners" or 80 per cent. or more
OF such land owners" | hope the section
will remain asst as it is. uRless some better
amendment than the one proposed is found
Mr.. DUNN: 1t makes no difference
whether one, two or more land owners start
N nj no
bill provides that a majority of the land
owners shall go De fore the court, and that
the same shall decide from their testimony.
Mr.. McHENRY This bill will be an i'm
provement on the old law. An amendment
should be made cuftailIng remonstrances
after the ditch has been ordered.
Mr. SMITH. OF TippecsnOe: The gentle
man from Allen Mr.. McHenry) will fad
further IL the bill 8 remedy for the evil be
fesrs. l have no personal grievance in this
bill. My ditch is done. Bat l look to the
views of the people over the State. l believe
power bat that it should be 90 per cent. or
more OF the land owners
Mr. BROWNIES NY motion is that the
petition should be signed by two or more-I
would rather it we're twenty-but two will
do, for lands not named in the petition will
be affected. This section should stand.
The only men who can demonstrate are
those not named in the petition, but re.
ported by the Drainage Commissioners.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr.. SrALEY: l move to amend as fol-
lows: Add TO Section the following: ain
case there are but two landowners affected,
then one shall be sufficient to petition"
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr.. TAYLOR moved to amend Section so
that, instead of notices being sent to the
postoffice address of such owners, they shall
be notified by summons. He said am Cd
posed to all laws that may make it possible
to levy upon any mans property without due
course of law. There is only one law of that
kind now-the highway law.
Mr.. SMITH, of Wsrrick: | hope that the
amendment of the gentleman from Davies
Mr.. Taylor will not prevail. This law says
that every land. owner shall be notified and
noue can be harmed by it. The amendment
will double the costs oil the ditch. II this
amendment is tackled on, l shall be COM
PEELED to vote gsinst the whole bill.
Mr.. MOCK, of Wells: If this amendment
il attached, | shall have TO vote against the
bill
On motion, the Committee OF the Whole
arose, reported progress and was discharged
from the further consideration of the bill.