The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-03-03

vital question to posterity, these principles
ought to be taught in the public schools 1t Is
not fanatcism to teach the evil effects of narcot
les on the human system.
Mr.. Smith of Jay-It should not be the desire
to bring the common-schools into the dirty cess
pool of politics. as this bill would do. believe
this bill is the outgrowth of persons disappointed
in the success of prohibition This bill should
not become law.
Mr.. Campbell of st. Joseph-When it is said
that even the schoolteach and many doctors
do not know enough about the evil effects OF the
narcotics to pass the examination required in
this bill, | regard that as strong argument III
favor OF its passage
Mr.. Magee-I am not in harmony with the
principles of this bill. / don't think it would
correct the evils complained Of. The most eth
cacious teaching is the frightful example of the
effect of alcoholic stmulants frequently seen on
the streets but it does not restrain the of in
toXicating liquors have suspicious that there
is a job behind this BILL The second section of
the bill would turn out probably two thirds OF
the teachers of the State. I don't believe in
making the common schools medical institute.
don't believe this bill would be in the interest
of the people the interest Of the children of the
State.
Mr. Foulke-Why is the history of the United
States made branch of instruction in the COM
mon school and not the history Of Englandf
The effect of alcoholic stimulants should be
taught as specially affecting the people of the
United States.
Mr. Smith of Jay moved to indefinitely post
pone the BILL and demanded the previous gus
ton. The demand was seconded and under it's
operation the motion to indefinitely postpone
the bill was rejected by yeas 81 nays "a. The
majority reportwas nonconcurred in by yeas q,
nays %. MIR. Smith of Jay moved to refer the
bill to the committee on education. The motion
was agreed to by yeas %, nays H.
The special order-Mr Hoover's bill IS. 254]
came up for consideration, the pending ques-
ton being on motion to reconsider the vote
by which the bill failed to pass. On mo-
ton of Mr. Youche this motion was laid on the
table by yeas %, nays IA.
A motion to reconsider the vote by which the
Senate refused to amend rule "a by requiring a
ajority" instead of ''two-thirds" vote to sus
pend the order of business, came up as special
order for consideration. The motion was agreed
to by yeas %, nays Il
Mr. Willard moved to suspend the regular
order, and to take up the congressional appor
tionment bill III. r. 422l. The motion was
agreed to by yeas %, nays IA.
Mr. Benz, when his name was called, said:
II don't believe in taking up political bills and
rushing them through. We have other bills here
of interest to the people l vote mo"
Mr. Sellers offered an amendment changing
several of the districts. It was agreed to-
On motion by Mr. Willard, the amendment
was ordered engrossed Mr. Magee moved that
the bill be printed, and made the special order
for this afternoon. at o'clock and that speeches
for and against the bill be limited to twenty
agreed to.
THE APPELLATE COURT
Mr. Mccullough called up the bill IS 45l for
three appellant courts, to consist of three judges
each, to meet in the northern, central and
southern districts to be appointed by the Gov
ernor, to serve until the next State election, and
then elected for term of four years. The bill
was read second time.
Senator Fowler-This bill is to create three
new courts and nine new judges. I believe that
opo orr ,rE i'll ,I; lie
do all the work. If this bill was bill to create
three judges it might be feasible. hope the
bill will not pass, for several reasons. The most
important reason is that we don't need it
Mr. Magee--There has been a demand for
more rapid decisions. The question of cost
ought not to enter into this discussion The
difference in price is nothing il the people get
speedy justice. The Supreme Court desire that
there should be court to relieve them, and as
between commission and a court they in
favor of court. Will we let that commission,
confessedly inefficient, stand, will we estab-
fish system of judicature that is desired by the
people? 1t entails only an additional cost of
seven thousand dollars over the present system,
an amount that ought not to be taken into con
sideration. 1t is the same system in vogue in
Illinois, and Ohio, and other States, and is recog-
nized as the best.
Mr. Overstreet-From the very fact that there
would be three different courts there would be
as many different decisions. I believe we have
not much regard for the commission, and we
will not have any more respect for the appellate
courts. The main purpose for the introduction
of this bill was to give relief to the Supreme
Court, but don't believe that will be accom-
plished.
Mr. Foulke-In the first place, was in favor of
one court of five judges, sitting at Indianapolis,
but there is no doubt but that we need appellate
courts now. The only additional expense would
be $1,000 1t seems to me by the law we can
have good system of judicature in this State.
In regard to the different decisions it can be said
that the various courts Of the State now make
different decisions. It is true of all appellate
courts
The bill failed to pass-yeas o. nays 81
On motion, the legislative apportionment bill
LEI. r, 423l was taken up. Mr. Campbell offered
an amendment