The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-01-20
AN ANTITRUST BILL.



them He said that ne had great respect
for the papers and for the reporters, but
when matters come up suddenly in the
House the papers do not have time to as
certain the public feeling on the questions,
and they can only express their personal
opinions. These are not always right he
insisted. This side of the House., said he
believes that the Sentinel is always wrong
The gentlemen on the other side believe
that the Journal is always wrong. The gem
tlemen on both sides believe the News is
usually wrong. and l can prove by the
Journal. the Sentinel and the News that
the Sun is always wrong. From this he
argued that the newspapers were not to be
accepted as lnfallibie. he said that the cry
of Roby IS. wolf when there is no wolf
of ghost when there is no ghost" He
claimed that the friends of this bill had ap-
pealed To prejudice to pass 1t. He stated
that the reople in that neighborhoOd are not
all heather, but they have churches, Ii
braries and schools He said that the law
by which jury trials are given should not
be swept away by one law, and that if this
bill passes no Republican will be elected
from that county for years He said the
people charge that pools are sold at Roby.
KNOTS BOUGHT A POOL"
Mr.. Knots then displayed a pool he pur-
chased within a poolroom within two blocks
Of the Statehouse. Mr.. Eichhorn interrupt
ed him long enough to ask on what horse
he bet and Mr.. Knots replied that he
bought joe Shelby, 10 to l, and lost" He
that they wanted the State to be able to
bring injunction proceedings without bond,
but their real purpose was to hit Roby and
the waste of gas. He had presented bill
which provided everything the Governor
asked on injunctions, but the House had
unanimously rejected it, He said the law
now applies to Roby, and that he is willing
to support special act against the track.
lie claimed that the present law also applies
to the waste of gas and that it can be
reached by injunction proceedings. He closed
with an urgent plea that the bill should be
Mr.. James favored the law and said, in re-
ply to Mr.. KnOtts's claim that if the Demo-
Gratis meant what they said in their plat
form about lnlunctions that they would vote
against this bill, that the Democrats had
found IN two campaigns that the people
want government by injunction and he in
tended to support the bill. Mr.. Noel, of this
city, acknowledged that there are gambling
halls here, and he cited instances where
lost. He said that was so much the more
reason why this bill should become a law,
as these places can then be closed. He
closed by asking the passage of the bill
lin the name of Governor Matthews whom
all the Republicans and all the Democrats
loved
Mr. Eichhorn took up the claim that had
been made that the jury system should be
permitted to deal with such questions, and
that the people had confidence in the jury
system He said that lynchers have faith in
the jury system. Roby people had faith IN
the jury system, for they always have their
interests looked after under the jury system.
He, as q Democrat considered it an ingen-
ious argument that the Democrats should
vote against this measure because OF the
injunction feature. He said that he favored
it because this injunction can only be
brought in the name of the State and not
apply to those who walk out of a shop. 1t
refers only to criminal offenses, and the
bill ought to be passed because it helps
to suppress crime helps to keep things down
which are menace to society ana as
such deserved the support of all people. Mr.
Huff asked if, under the provisions of this
act, a conviction of a former offense would
not be necessary, and Mr.. Eichhorn replied
that he believed the court would have to be
satisfied of former violations of the law. Mr..
Huff had previously asked that question OF
Mr.. James. -.
but Mr. Huff protested so vigorously that 1t
was not pressed. Mr.. Artman said that he
was in favor of the measure, even II no Ike
publican was sent to the next House, ana
that politics should not enter into it Mr.:
Huff then argued against the bill lie Salu
that he was surprised that but one speech
had been heard against so nefarious bill
as this. He claimed that it strikes down
the Jury system and takes Indiana jurispru-
dence back to the middle ages. He declared
that 1t denies to every man the right 10
have his case passed on by a jury of twelve
men, He again said that it is most ne
farious bill and will put an end to the jury
system and will make Indiana the only pi sb
in the country where jury trials are for
hidden He said he did not know anything
of Roby or the cry of Roby and dld not
want to. but he was opposed to the bill be-
cause he did not wish to see the jury sys-
tenn stricken down. He said 1t makes tne
criminal law subject to the civil. Mr.
Blankenship claimed that Mr.. HUN had ms
interpreted the bill, and he defended it, MI
Roots said that he had faith in the purify
of the bench TO justify him IN placing TINS
responsibility in its hands. MIR: Downey al
mitted the evil at Roby, but said he thought
this bill was a step towards the invasion Oh
the rights of the people. Mr.. Barlow spoke
briefly in defense of the bili, ana Mr. WHIT
comb, of Marion moved the previous ques-
ton. Mr.. Knots rose to a question OF per
sonal privilege to say that he was not IN the
Labit of buying pools and had .1i never pought
The roll was then called and the oftlclal
call showed As yeas and 40 nays. II was
doubly defeated, as the consutuuonai ma
jority had not been reached by those favor
ing the bill Tt was afterwards round that
there were four errors in the official roll
call, and there will be a reconsideration OF
the vote in order to get the record corrected
The official roll call shows Manifold as Vot-
ing NO" when he voted Aye; May as
voting Aye" when he voted NO. Null nnd as +
does not show Lawrence as having voted at
all when he voted No" The correct Ist
shows. 46 ayes and 46 noes; therefore ot me
for the passage of the bill were Artman,
Barlow, Beardsley, Blankenship, Bonham,
Burrier, Canada. Compton Gatley, ravens nsl
Fuller. Giants, Geisel. Graham, Green, Han,
Holcolnb Hedgecock, James, Kerwood,
Kirkpatrick, Krick, McGary Manifold,
Marsh, Null Neal, Noel, Owen, Rifenburg,
Roberts, Roose, Roots, Ross, Scott OF Mont
gomery Scott of Lawrence, Shldeler, ste
vens, Whitcomb of Vigo, Whitcomb Of Ma
rion. Williams. Wise, Littleton.
Those opposed were Baker of Whitley,
Baker of Martin, Burkhart, CafaWay Clark
Claycomb, Clements, Crayens OF W yI
ton, Guilty, Durham, Downey, Furness,
Hayes of St Joseph. Hays of Greene, Heur-
ing, Huff, Herod, Herrold, Knots. LAIR,
Lawrence, Lief LOuttit, Marshall, MeSslck,
den, May. Morrison, Murphy of White
Myler, Osborn. OBannon. Powers, Patter-
SON Reece ReSer, Schrader Strong, Schaal,
Shirley, Sullivan, Titus and Vogel.
Absent-Aikin. Brown, Cotner, Fest
Glossbrenner King, Somers, Willoughby.
ROOSES BILL OPPOSED.
The bill by Mr. Roose which provides for
county commissioners to have on file plans
and specifications before letting contracts
for the building of courthouses, jails, county
or township buildings, bridges and monu-
ments: requiring advertising and posting
notices and providing that the contract shall
be let to the lowest responsible bidder and
requiring bond giving laborers and ma
terial dealers right of action against con-
tractors and bondsmen, met with much OPP
position. Mr.. Marshall of Lafayette, read
a speech against the bill, in which he argued
that If competent persons were employed to
prepare bridge specifications the expense TO
county surveyors are qualined TO prepare
them. He was interrupted by Mr.. Blanken-
ship, who asked him If he was not a stock
holder and connected with tie Lafayette
Bridge Company. Mr.. Marshall replied that
he was not and had not been for two years
Mr. HGd0ePOCk smoke against the bill be-