The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-02-22
They Also Sent Seymour Water Works
and Lake County Court Enactment
Over His Veto.
INDIANAPOLIS SCHOOL BOARD
SENATE PASSES UNANIMOUSLY THE
BILL CONCERNING 1T.
Salary Ora in the HOuse-Caucus De-
cides to Push County
Reform.

A6SLtA0dy was llG MlOSI IIlpOI ant udy OL
the session thus far in the House and it
was marked by a number of important ac-
tons. The township reform bill was reached
on the third reading and was passed by 50
ayes to 43 noes. Clements, Guilty, Geisel,
Null and Titus Joined with the Republicans
and secured its passage. During the noon
recess a caucus was held by the Democratic
members and strenuous efforts were made
to hold all of that party in line against the
bill. An attempt was made to make the OPP
position a caucus matter, but the five above
named refused to he bound by a caucus ac-
ton on this bill and the effort was aban-
doned.
A number of speeches were prepared on
the bill, but they were useless and rendered
so by Mr.. Artman, who moved the previous
question as soon as the bill was called up.
Mr.. Noel complained of lobbyists on the
floor who were annoying the members, and
Speaker Littleton stated that he would or
der the floor cleared if this was not stopped.
He called for the second of the House to
the demand for the previous question, and
it was seconded by 49, for and IL against.
The steering committee went to work and
the members came in the hall in a rush for
the final vote. Nearly all those who voted
against the bill occupied their minute in
speaking against the bill and great len
iency was showed by the speaker and some
of them were permitted to speak for several
minutes. Mr.. Brown said that he voted
against the bill because the amendments of
the minority, which were drawn in good
faith, had been treated with discourtesy.
He said the Democrats might nave sup
ported the bill had not this been the case.
Mr.. Burkhar said that he believed the ma
jority Of trustees are honorable men. When
Mr.. Clark's name was called, he sat in his
seat and did not answer. The clerk called
his name three times. before Mr.. Clark an
swered. Mr.. Galley said the bill would in
crease expenses, as offices cannot be in
creased without increasing expenses. Mr..
Downey read a written protest, in which he
declared himself to be in favor Of a COM
plete revision of the laws on county and
township government. but not for this bill,
as he did not consider the creation of new
offices a reform. He handed in his protest
to be entered on the records.
DOING BUSINESS ION TIME"
Mr.. Eichhorn said the Democrats were
mere machines and were not permitted to
take any part. He spoke at some length
and contended that, as the bill is drawn,
while it is the intention hat the officers
first elected on the board shall serve two
years and that they shall be elected in the
middle of the trustees terms, yet it really
provides that they shall be elected when
the trustees are and that the officers first
elected will serve for four years. He claimed,
further, that. as the bill is drawn. it will
require all business to be done ION time"
in that the assessment is made in April, the
levy is fixed the following September and
the taxes are not collected until the follow
ing May. Hence, for thirteen months, the
business will have to be transacted ION
time as the assessment made in April is
for the business to begin that month. Mr..
Roose and MIR. B~lankenship interrupted him
and Mr.. Eichhorn voted and sat down.
Mr.. James said this bill will not reform,
for the members of the board will trade
votes to secure improvements in their par
ticular portion of the township. He pre-
dicted that some who vote for the bill will
want it repealed. Mr.. Krick said that the
trustees are honest. and Mr.. Lief said he
favored reform, but he did not favor this
bill, although he is a Populist. Mr.. Louttit
said he was in favor of reform, but not of
this bill, although it could have been so
amended that he would have supported it.
He said that the gag rule was un-Ameri-
can and unpatriotic and declared that the
Democrats represent just as good people
as the Republicans although they do not
have so much corruption" MIR. May read a
written protest, which ne sent UP to be in
Guided in the journal, and Mr.. Murphy, of
White, said he should oppose the bill be-
cause he had seen the same system in OPP
Grafton in Illinois. Mr.. O'Bannon said he
NOA ICIOA H. IA AtQ lAQl IdFOA lIAC VI Ed
ton of new offices and he believed that
many of the majority were voting for the
bill simply because Of the party lash. Mr..
Patterson declared for a reform other than
the plan of the bill and sent up a written
protest to be embodied in the journal.
Mr.. Reser said he opposed the bill for the
honest trustees and for thousands of Re
publicans who We're opposed to it. He
claimed that the man who wrote the section
relating to trustees had vengeance in his
heart. He stated that the judges could not
be compelled to make these appointments
and those who framed the bill knew it and
had provided that in case they should re-
fuse to the Governor should. Mr.. Gloss
brenner objected to the length of the re-
marks and Speaker Littleton held that he
had INDUCED the others and he would do
the same with Mr.. Reser. Mr.. Reser then
continued that reform should begin at home
and if this bill passed there would be town
ship dummies instead of trustees.
THE DETAILED VOTE.
No one of the majority said a word ex-
cept to vote and the detailed vote was:
Ayes-Aikin, Artman, Baker of Whitley,
Barlow, Beardsley, Blankenship, Bonham,
Burrier, Canada, Caraway, Clark, Compton,
Clements, Guilty, Fuller. Furness, Giants,
Glossbrenner, Geisel, Hall, Hayes, Hays,
Heuring, Huff, Kerwood, King. Kirkpat-
rick, Knots, McGary, Manifold, Marshall,
Messick, Null, Neal. Noel, Osborn, Owen,
Powers, Rifenburg, Roberts, Roose, Roots,
Scott of Montgomery, Scott Of Lawrence,
Shideler, Somers. Stevens, Titus. Vogel,
Whitcomb of Vigo. Whitcomb OF Marion,
Williams and Littleton.
Noes-Baker of Martin, Brown, Burkhart.
Galley, Claycomb, Cravens of Washington
CravenS of Monroe, Dilley, Downey, Dur
ham, Eichhorn, Feist, Graham. Green, Hol-
comb Hedgecock. Herod, Herrold, James,
Miller, Murphy of Marion, McCarty.
Madden. Marsh, May, Morrison, Murphy Of
White, Myler, OBannon, Patterson, Reece,
Reser, Schrader, Strong, Schaal, Shirley,
Sullivan and Wise.
Ab~sent-COtner Cunningham, Ross and
Mr.. Hun clinched the vote by a motion to
reconsider and then TO table his own motion,
which was done.
OVER THE VETO.
This over, Mr.. Hedgecock sent up a motion
to reconsider the votes by which the SUI
perior Court bill for Porter, Lake and La
porte counties and the Seymour water works
bill, together with the messages from the
Governor announcing their veto. had been
set for Friday afternoon as special orders.
Mr.. Artman moved to table the motion, but
his motion was lost by a vote Of IS ayes to
66 noes and the vote to reconsider was
overwhelmingly in favor Of such action On
Mr.. Eichhorn's motion the special order
motion was tabled and Mr.. Knots occupied
his full time in an argument Tor the bill
and was followed by Mr.. kirkpatrick, who
Mr.. Durham and Mr.. Artman took the side
of the Governor. MIR. Hedgecock moved the
previous question and Mr.. RifenbulB closed
the debate. He said that the sentiment in
the northern part Of the State Was unanl
nous for this bill, and that the conventions
had declared for IL He was nominated he