The Indianapolis sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1880-1904, 1885-04-01

Inc Senate concurrent resolution pr0p05-
ing an amendment to the Constitution 50
that the Supreme Court shall consist of seven
Judges was rejected by yeas is, nays Is.
Mr.. BENZ: l am opposed to amending
the Constitution, besides think five judges
are enough. / vote no."
CIRCUIT COURT DITcHISG BILL.
Mr.. CAMPBELL, of st. Joseph, said there
we're provisions of the bill that he would like
to support, but as the bill now stood il had
contradictions and antiquities and imprac-
teal features that would make it the
in its object OF ditching. He thought
that as the Drainage Commissioners
are entirely Under control of the
Judge of the Court be ought to appoint
and not the Board of County Commission
ers. Section 1 provides removal by the
Beard OF Commissioners, while Section
permits the Court to remove. The two Com
missioners first appointed shall give bond
snd may be objected to for cause, but no
provision is made for the third Commits
sioner TO give bond or 10 be objected to, yet
this Commissioner may have charge of the
work and handle money. No provisions are
made that assessment shall be ratably on the
assessment as were the provisions of the old
law. The provision requiring the contracts
TO be in divisions of not more than 100 feet
is impractical and burdensome. Ditching
must begin from the lower end. IL
feet by some one who is slow, ii
would be very grea. detriment, it ought to
require representation OF az least Que half
the land to set aside ditch by remolstrance.
When en- engineer other than the surveyor
is appointed he should be required to turn
his notes over to the surveyor TO; pressrVa.
ton. In keeping bitches open ten days is
not long enough to give the surveyor, es
pecia!ly as be might have other work to do
and could rot get to the ditch and the bill
made him Unable, besides to pay the sttor-
ney fees of the plaintiff; and showing cause
for neglect did not constitute a defense. He
called attention to the ambiguity as TO who
should make assessments for clearing q
ditch, and as to who should determine
whether obstruction was the fault OF the
owner, and that the forms for application
were left out of this bill which wodlG COM
pei the employment OF an attorney.
Mr.. MOON spoke IN favor OF the passage
of the bill
Mr.. MAGEE: This is in the nature OF q
domestic bill. 1t authorizes taking private
property for public uses. Such a law must
be arbitrary, and made so il can be enforced
sgainst any one individual who may object.
There are some provisions in this bill feel
l must condemn by my vote. II is the duty
of the Legislature to adopt laws that will
develop the resources Of the State. The great
objection TO this bill is that it will REQUIRE
al adjudication OF every question that will
IL. IL
laws that the Supreme Court has adiudica-
ted upon. Every question that could grow
out of the present ditch law has been set.
tied, and the friends OF the bill have not
shown where 1t is superior in all respects TO
the present law. 1t vould incur a great ex.
pense to the people to litigate these new
questions. IL the present law is distur bed
except to amend it where experience has
shown it needs amendment, the whole sys-
tenn will De upset. These drainage laws have
done more than any other to add to the
wealth and prosperity OF the State. The peo-
pie have become familiar with them, and if
another law is enacted the many questions
will have to be readjudicated.
Mr.. HILLIGASS: ] am heartily in favor
OF this bill. It's object Is to provide a better
and an equitable system OF drainage. Bat
one objection has been made to this BILL ex-
cept a general one. The interest of the peo-
pie in the northerR part OF the State require
the passage of this measure, as the present
law has proved to be unsatisfactory.
Mr. YOUCHE: I signed the committee re-
port with the statement il bill must pass
would rather see this one. as amended. than
the one that came from the House, bat
should oppose this. The most serious ob-
lection is that q two-thirds remonstrance
would defeat ditch though their aggregate
amount OF assessment may DE only $50. and
while the aggregate amount on the other
side may be s., 600. There sesms 70 be as
dangerous notice required ss possible II By
accident all lands are not included in the
petition, the petitioners must again pay for
serving notice. There are other objections
to this bill.
Mr.. CAMPAELL of So. Joseph, moved
that the bill be rscommitted with instruc-
items to report the present law, with the oro-
visions in this bill for appointment By Com.
missioners, for service OF notics, aad four
others.
Mr.. HILLIGASS: 1 h1pe this motion
will not prevail. l demand the previous
questoo
The Senate seconded the demand, sad I'M
ders its operations the motion 10 reclmmit
was rejected by yeas Is, nays %
The bill passed by yess 50 nays II.
Mr.. CAMPBELL, OF st. Joseph: l believe
the drainage OF this State would be in bet
ter condition il tile present Law were re-
Iealed than we're this bill to pass.
Mr.. DRAKE: l concede there are two or
three objections to the present law. bat this
bill is so unjust and so unfair Lvote NOS
Mr. MACY: / am satisfied that this bill
would encourage litigation, and therefore I
vote no"
so the bill passed.
HOUSE OF REPRES ENrATIVES.