The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1893-01-21

all State and county officers. and. as a re-
suit. tabulate their Investigations and pre-
cent them to the next Assembly. Senator
McCutche0n pronounced the bill. as one
who had signed the majority report. I'm,
practicable. The commission defined would
be q junketing party. expensive ana use
less to the State. Rather had the senate
demand pers onal reports from these dl1er-
ent officers. whereby the senate could Dc
informed as TO the exact status OF AFFAIRS.
Senator Stuart was of the same opinion.
Senator KopeIke objected to the bill be.
cause il put off adjustments for period of
two years. The present condition OF az
fairs was unsatisfactory to both the people
and the officers. The Legislature. he
thought, had no time, however, TO adjust
the matter.
The minority report was rejected. Sena-
tor Loveland's motion to have the bill
printed and left over was also lost. and the
majority report prevailed Internationally.
Every body got o crack at the fee and sal
ary target in the afternoon who desired it.
The committee on fees and salaries recon-
ator Moore's bill No. III. which was in the
same reform line of several others that had
been referred to the committee to meet the
Same doom. Senator Fulk protested
against the committee following the post
ponement policy further, and was of the
opinion that the people of the State would
sanction the best efforts made in mending
the fee and salary bill.
Senator Kopelke made q long speech, de-
claring that after all their professions Of
reform effective legislation was neces-
sary. The people of the State demanded
q fair legislation. and would not be put by
with any halfway measures. Ii the act OF
1891 were constitutional 1t were palpably
unjust. The act would not bear inspection
when the question of it's permanency was
considered. The law should be flexible
and adjustable. Senator Kopelke then
asked that the bill De referred back to the
committee on fees and salaries.
Senator Holland found fault with the
present law. and believed several amend
ments should be added to the act of 1891
before IL would be good law. He was OPP
posed to the committee on fees and salaries
rejecting or postponing all these bills on
the ground that the act of 1891 should be
given q fair trial. because that law had al
ready been tried and found imperfect. and
was, according TO Senator Kopelke. uncon-
stitutlonaL The Senate was called upon.
he believed, to take some decided action.
STATISTICS were offered showing the paltry
fees received by several sherltfs, clerks. etc.,
under the law. Senator Sellers followed in
the wake of those who had gone before, de-
nouncing the present law, etc., etc.. etc..
while all this while Senators McHugh. OF
Tippecanoe, and Magee sat silent as brass
monkeys, without q breath of sentiment
escaping them-almost as silent as the
Hancock county sphinx. Senator Kopelke
made q second speech on point of the un-
constitutionalIty of the 1891 law. affirming
that the Assembly had no right to pass q
law regulating the salaries of officers IN.
less it were based upon the population and
the amount of service performed. Senator
Cranor expressed the opinion that the law
of 1891 was unconstitutional and rested on
false basis. and tn at it wa I'M practicable.
because it's provisions were made by men
not familiar with the Offices. The debate
at last eliminated in resolution intro
duced by Senator Kopelke:
va1 hat faoa ~
salaries be requested to consider the subject OF
fees and salaries of county officers and to report
bill which shall be reasonable and just to the
people well as to the officers, and practicable
and permanent as system.