Indiana daily times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1914-1922, 1921-02-21

Representative Abrams with currying
favor with certain individuals IN ask
ing that the bill be defeated.
The minority report Of the Committee
IN Judiciary = which considered the
bill. favoring indefinite postponement'
was adopted by a viva yoce vote
Almost an hours time was consumed
in discussion OF the Barker bill, when
provides for Capitalization OF control OF
the three educational institutions OF the
State. The Committee on Education re-
turned a divided report. the majority
Representatives Knapp, Willis of Steu-
ben. Gill. Phillips and Leer-favoring in
definite postpOnement and the minority
favoring passage.
Representative Barker, Boone County,
who introduced the measure, declared the
bill should pass, although he was OF the
opinion that sentiment may be against II
we are faced with the situation he
said. ''of pooling the interests Of the
schools when an appropriation is asked
and there is a lobby consisting OF rep
resentatives Of all the schools endeavor-
ing to obtain the appropriation If this
pooling Of interests IS good in one in
stance, why not in anOtherf
1.-The result would be greater efficiency
and more economy. The organization
which the schools now have in trying to
obtain their appropriation Is one that
can hardly be broken down." he said.
The bill was opposed by Representa-
tive Paul Haworth. Marion County. He
declared the trouble with the institutions
now is that too many men unfamiliar
with the needs Of educational institutions
have been placed on boards Of trustees.
He stated, however, that the present
boards are efficient and added that he
could see no reason why the new plan
should be adopted.
He objected TO the salary Of $1,000 that
would be paid members OF the proposed
board, stating that the salary might as
well be abolished. The plan has been
tried In Michigan and other States, he
said. and has been found unsatisfactory.
The vote on substitution Of the minor
ity report for that Of the majority was
adopted, 46 to 81. The bill now goes to
second reading.
PRIMARY BILL DIES
BY OVERSIGHT
Unknown to most Of the members OF
the House, the Willis bill, providing for
repeal OF the primary election law, was
killed by a report OF the Committee on
Elections. The bill was reported out for
indefinite pOstpOnement and In the rush
10 complete committee reports the House
accepted the committees recommenda-
tons.
The bill, while it was never officially
received by the administration forces,
was one Of a series of moves made by
Republican leaders to XIII the primary
law. Representative Willis declared he
introduced the bill on his own initiative
but It was generally regarded as de-
signed for a test Of strength.
The Senate had killed the Beardsfey
anti-primary bill and for that reason the
House was selected as the next place Of
attack. After the administration forces
were decisively beaten in the Senate and
were out-maneuvered by the pro primary
men in other circles il came to be gen
orally accepted that the move against the
statute was dead.
As was expected, a divided report was
returned by the Committee on judiciary
A on the bill which would abolish the
departments Of banking and insurance.
The signers Of the minority report, which
favored passage, were Representatives
Omer c. Newman, Marion County, and
r. o. Barker, Posey County, co-authors.
1t was stated by Representative Claude
Smith, one Of the authors of the measure.
that 1.-The departments were costly and
inefficient.
ct say now, as said when the depart-
ment was created, that it is merely some
thing to create more salaries for political
pie hunters" said Smith.
The department was defended by Rep
resentatives Mann and Freeman, who de-
clared the department has resulted in A
saving to the people through regulation
of the banking and insurance business.
Representative Chester a. Davis, jay
County, declared the bill should not pass
because the public did not desire it. He
said that at public hearing not one per-
son spoke in defense of the bill and that
the 1I5 persons who attended were all
in favor of retention Of the departments
Representative Russell \. Bedgood.
TippecanOe County, one Of the co-authors
OF the bill, declared that the departments
should be separated and the insurance
department returned to the auditor Of
State
The majority report was overwheIm-
ingly adopted, thereby indefinitely post
pOning the bill