The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-02-21
THE sENATE's SESSIONS.



The bill introduced by Senator Fortune
authorizing any citizen to bring quo war
ranto proceedings upon giving bond for
costs was passed by the Senate yesterday
afternoon by a vote of &c TO 20. Owing to
the Importance of the measure and its
reaching effect the fact that its provisions
were not debated when called up for its
last reading has led to the supposition that
many OF the senators voted without any
real knowledge of the bill. 1t is said by
those who have acquainted themselves
with the provisions of the bill that 1t is
nothing more nor less than a stringent
antitrust measure which will enable any
citizen at any time that he thinks a cor
p~oration or othec combination of capital is
exceeding the provisions of its charter or
franchise 10 prosecute an information
against the company or corporation on his
own relation upon giving bond for costs.
AS an example of the operation of the
above measure il is said that If a gas COM
PAM should undertake to pipe gas out of
the State any citizen could file an informa-
ton to ascertain by what right it did so.
IL the bill SHOULD become a law Ii would
also enable any citizen to bring proceed
ings in quo war-anto for the purpose of
dissolying any trust that he believed was
tACcCQiDS II DIONlSiOlS o L CDdTI6F DY
interfering with the rights of smaller COM
panies or individuals.
TITLE DOESN'T TELL.
The title of the bill is not calculated to
give any indication of the true import of
the measure, as it reads IAN act concern
ing proceedings in civil actions" The i'm
rortant section of the bill is as follows:
The information may be filed by the
prosecuting attorney in the Circuit Court of
the proper county upon his own relation
whenever he shall deem it his duty to do
so or shall be directed by the court or other
competent authority or by any person on
his own relation whenever he claims an
interest in the office, franchise or corpora
ton which Is the subject of the informal
ton. Provided, however, tina In case of
she wrongful or Unlawful exercise IN any
city or town OF any franchise or license
granted by such city or town by any per-
continued violation of any license or fran
chise or the declared purpose of violating
it by the possessor Thereof any citizen may
prosecute such on his own re-
lation Upon giving bond for costs, Ind If
such information be sustained the court
shall give Judgment against the defendant
end exclude him or it from the exercise of
such franchise or license
Those who voted for the passage of the
bill were Agnew, Ball. Corr, Cregor, Crum-
baker. Darby, Fortune. Gard, Gwin, Heller.
Aiit OiliSlOI \CeneN, Nell IamDGTt
LAWYER, Lindley, Matstn, Minor, Ogborn,
Purcell, Stillwell. Thompson. Wampler
Winfield and Woloott-2t.
Those opposed to the bill were BinkIey,
Brooks, Burns, Charles. Conlogue, Crum-
packer. Dausman, Gochenour. Goodwine,
Guthrie, johnson. Joss Keyes. Kittinger.
and Wocd--20.
Senator's whitcomb. Harrison, Fleming
end Barlow were absent.
SENATOR WOODS BILL.
The bill INTRODUCED by Senator Wood
which provides that when any court OF The
State shall have granted a party an appeal
in a criminal case such court shall admit
to bail such party, except in murder in the
first degree, manslaughter. treason. end
criminal assault, until the final determine
ton of the appeal was called up on third
reading yesterday afternoon. and after a
spirited debate was defeated by a vote of
g. to is. Those who voted against the
passage Of the hill were Agnew, Barlow,
gor. Crumpacker, Darby, Dausman, Gard,
Gochenour. Goodwine. Johnson, kell,
Keyes. LAWYER. Layman, Legeman, Lind
ley. Matson. Miller, Minor. Ogborn. Os-
Wampler and Wolcott-31.
Those who. voted for its passage were:
Ball, Burns. Corr, Crumbaker, Fleming,
Fortune. Gwin, Harrison. Heller. Inman,
Johnston, Joss. keeney, Kittinger, Lam
bert. Whitcomb, Winfield and Wood-1S.
Those who opposed the bill argued that
1t was a discrimination in favor OF the rich
and against the poor. They said also that
the bill was vicious in its effect because IL
tended 10 increase delay In having an ap-
peal They maintained that the
newspapers and the people at large were
against the passage of the bill and there
fore they were in duty bound to vots
against II. Senator Wampler, In opposing
the bill, said that it should be entitled an
act Ito encourage crime and ~debauchery
among the rich" for il gave them an op-
portunity 10 evade the operation of the
law.
TALKS o HIS BILL
Senator Wood made a strong appeal for
the passage of his measure saying that
there was great merit in the bill. He had
known OF many men who were convicted
OF crime that were entirely innocent and
the bill had been designed. he said. in order
that the innocent should not have theii
| lives wrecked by being sent TO the peniten.
| t,ary without the last court of appeals
| had confirmed the decision of the lower
| court. He had the moral courage TO ash
| for the passage OF the bin. he said, becaus,
| he thought IL was right.
. Senator Thompson opposed the measure
| because he thought ii was a d-iscriminatior
against the poor. and when he had con,