The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-02-02
Chamber Fell Into Disorder Over Dis
cussiOn of the Bill ReguIat-
ing Damage Suits.
AN AMENDMENT INTRODUCED
WAS THE CAUSE OF MUCH HIGHLY
PITCHED ORATORY.
The "MOrmOn Question" Brought Up
During the Morning Session
The Senate.

The House was yesterday afternoon the
scene of the first lively fight of the session,
and a beautiful somersault was executed in
a strictly parliamentary manner. The hill
up which the members marched on Tues
day and down which they marched yester-
day was the bill by Senator Hugg which
provided that in suits for damages 1t shall
not be necessary for the plaintiff to prove
the want of contributory negligence. The
bill was strongly opposed by all corpora
tons. and it was discussed at length on
Tuesday. After a stubborn fight an amend
ment was inserted which modified the bill
to a great extent, and it was then ordered
to engrossment. The vote on Tuesday was
46 to 49,
In the contest yesterday Mr. Noel led the
friends of the bill as amended, as it was his
amendment which had been voted in. The
charge on the amended bill was led by Mr..
Huff and Mr.. Eichhorn, and they forced the
friends of the amended measure back, inch
by inch, until they had nothing left to
stand on.
The first sign of the coming storm was
IN the~roll call for counties for the intro
duction of bills. When ST. Joseph county
was reached Mr.. Hayes arose and moved
that the vote by which Senate Bill q had
been passed to third reading be raconsid-
cred Mr.. Huff promptly seconded the mo-
ton, and Mr.. Shdeler as promptly moved
to adjourn. Speaker Littleton failed to
foresee what was coming, and made a few
remarks against such an early adjournment
He spoke with SUCH Vehemence that Mr.
Shideler. with a wave of his hand as though
he washed his hands of he consequences.
said, well, then, L withdraw my motion"
Speaker Littleton then saw what the idea
was, and after Mr.. Shideler has protested
against his failure to tut the question as
to adjournment he said he would put the
question. By this time Mr.. Shideler was
in rather belligerent mood and insisted
that he had withdrawn the motion Mr..
Huff said he had seconded the motion to
adjourn and he would refuse to consent to
the withdrawal of the motion. Mr.. Baker
claimed he had seconded the motion so as to
cut off further debate on this question
Speaker Littleton put the question, and the
motion to adjourn was lost.
FIGHT BEGINS IN EARNEST.
This test of strength was satisfactory to
those opposed to the bill in It's amended
form, and they bestirred themselves to see
just where they stood In the meantime
the roll call was continued, and the friends
of the bill counted noses and saw they were
outnumbered. 1t was decided to die hard,
and die hard they did. Mr.. Noel himself
precipitated the fight by calling up Mr..
Hayess motion as soon as the roll call of
counties was completed. 1t had been sug-
gested that it lie over until to-day and then
be taken up as yesterday was the last day
on which a motion to reconsider could have
been received. 1t was for that reason it
was made, so as to secure for it place in
tie record
Mr.. Noel said that the lobbyists who were
and had been working all day to secure a
revision of the bill IS it stood should not
be given another day on the floor, and he
wanted it settled. The other side was not
quite ready and. Mr. Eichhorn protested
because Mr.. Hayes was out Of his scat.
Mr. Noel said that Mr.. Hayes was not far
off, and he should insist that the question
be settled. He moved to table Mr.. Hayes's
motion to reconsider. This was lost by 80
ayes to 40 noes. The detailed vote was as
follows:
Yeas-Aiken. Baker of Martin, Burrier,
Furness, Heuring, Holcomb, Kerwood,
King, McGary Manifold, Marshall, Messick,
Miller, Murphy of Marion, Murphy of
Roose. Schrader, Scott of Montgomery,
Shideler, Strong, Vogel, Whitcomb of Vigo,
Whitcomb of Marion Williams Willoughby
and LittletOn.
Nays-Barlow. Blankenship, Bonham,
Brown, Canada, Caraway, Compton, Glenn
ents, Cravens of Washington, Cravens of
Monroe. Cunningham, Guilty, Downey, Eich-
horn. FeiSt, Giants, Glossbrenner, Geisel,
Green, Hayes of St. Joseph, Hays of Green,
Huff, Hedgecock, Herod. Herrold, James,
kirkpatrick, Krick, LAIR, Lawrence, Left,
I4outtit, McCarty, Madden, Marsh, May,
Morrison, Null, Myler, Neal, Osborn, O'Ban-
non, Reece, Rifenburg, Roberts, Scott of
Lawrence. Somers, Sullivan and Wise.
Mr.. Huff then asked that the bill be made
a special order for Friday at 2 p. m, but
his motion was declared out of order and
the bill as amended on Tuesday was placed
before the House on the second reading.
Mr.. Eichhorn fired the first shot by NOV
ing that the vote by which Mr.. Noels
amendment had been adopted be reconsid
cred, but his shot went wild, as he had
not voted for the amendment and his motion
was ruled out of order The mistake was
rectified by Mr.. Hayes, who had voted for
the amendment, and he made the motion.
Mr.. Huff seconded 1t and the battle was on
in earnest.
Tended his amendment and denounced the
present action of the House at length. He
claimed that the members have no right to
waste their time in dilatory tactics. Mr..
Eichhorn interrupted him to ask him If any
member had wasted much time in the
House as he had. Mr.. Noel claimed that
the amendment and the bill had had fair
and free discussion on Tuesday and that
it had been decided to be the proper thing
He stated that this action had been secured
by lobbying lawyers who make a specially
of damage suits and he charged that the
members should be ashamed to have been
influenced by the lobby which was at work
during the day. He said that the bill as
originally drawn was a most nefariOus bill
ard as amended it did not suit the lawyer
who follows the ambulance to get a suit for
damages.
Mr.. Huff replied to the speech He said
that last Monday Mr.. Noel had declared
that the United States Supreme Court was
pure and was beyond the influence of poll
tics. To-day. because that court has the
sents. Mr.. Noel had declared that it was
arbitrary court because he had said
that the judges of that court had the power
to enforce such rules which the state judges
did not have He declared that the intent
of Mr.. Noels amendment had been to kill
the bill, and he was satisfied that was so
because the last section of the bill had not
been amended so as 10 be in harmony with
the amendment, and the bill was full of err
rors in consequence He claimed that the
corporations had fought the bill in the Sem
ate. had followed it across the hall and had
fought IL in the House committee, and now
had come to fight ii on the floor of the
House. AS between the Supreme Court and
Mr.. Noel. he declared ie would follow the
wisdom of the court.
A YOUNG MAN PICTURED.
Mr.. Blankenship advocated reconsidering
the vote on the amendment also He pic
tured a young man like Mr. Noel. with tai
cnts, ability and brains. surrounded by cor
porate influences. and he begged Mr.. Noel
and the members of the House to throw off
the influence of the corporations and assert
their manhood