HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
TUESDAY, December 21, 1858.On motion of Mr. MURRAY, the reading of the Journal of yesterday was dispensed with.
THE COMMON SCHOOLS.
On motion by Mr. MANSFIELD, the order of business was further dispensed with, and be had leave to submit a report, as follows:
Mr. Speaker: The Committee on Education, to whom was referred a resolution offered by the Representative from Warren, stating that the State was indebted to the Sinking Fund in two several debts, one of which amounted in the year 1853, to the sum of $800,000 and the other to $128,000, and instructing said committee to report a bill to more effectually secure said fund in payment of these debts, have had the subject under consideration and they have instructed me to report:
That the State debt of $128,000 as referred to in the resolution, has already been disposed of in the House bills 98 and 99, which are now pending before the House.
In regard to the other debt of $800,000, which was incurred by the State under an act of the Legislature of February 6, 1841, and under a joint resolution of January 31, 1842, the committee beg leave to state that this debt with interest at the rate of six per cent, per annum,is justly due to the Sinking Fund; that it is of nearly eighteen years standing, that no interest has ever been paid thereon, and that no provision has as yet been made for the payment of the principal or for the payment of the interest. The committee are of opinion that it is of vital interest to the system of our common schools, and that the honor of the State requires that this debt should be fully secured to the Sinking Funk without delay, and thst provisions should be made for the payment of the interest thereon. To this intent said committee respectfully recommend the introduction of the following bill.
A bill (No. 101) to secure to the Sinking Fund a debt which the State owes to said fund, and to provide for the payment of the interest on said fund.
The bill was passed the first reading.
page: 173[View Page 173]Mr. MANSFIELD, (by unanimous consent,) said: Mr. Speaker, there has been a debt, as is well known, created by the State to the Sinking Fund, under the act of the Legislature of the 6th of February, 1841, and another under a joint resolution of the 31st of January, 1842. These two debts have run on to the present day without any provision whatsoever having been made for the payment of the interest thereon. That the means which are at our disposal of this Sinking Fund, and which will ultimately revert to the common schools, ought to be held secure for that purpose, is a matter I need not now dwell upon. Where a debt has had a standing of eighteen years with out any attention having been paid to it, so much as to provide for the interest, I think, as in the case of an individual, the law should prevent the obligation from the entire loss of his debt. This sum has accumulated to such an extent - $1,100,000 - that it would be burdensome to the people to cancel it at once. The provisions made in the bill are, that the interest on the original debt shall run to the 12th of January, 1861; that then the interest shall be added to the capital and considered as together with it bringing interest from that date. To secure this, the fund is to be given to the custody of the Sinking Fund Commissioners, payable at any time, at the pleasure of the State, bringing interest at six per cent, per annum after that date - and the debt can be paid off so the burden shall fall as lightly as possible on the Treasury. It will not be a very great burden upon the Treasury to pay this interest in the year 1862. But I think, sir, that on a question of this kind, we should not stop to consider whether the obligation be a heavy or a light onethe question being simply whether we shall act as honest menwhether we shall fulfil our obligations, or find some means for avoiding them. But, sir, I will mot dwell on the subject. It is a clear matter; and at the proper time I shall expect the aid of friends of this fund better informed than I on the whole subject.
RAILROAD APPRAISEMENTS.
On motion by Mr. LAWHEAD, the order of business was further suspended, and the bill (S. 5) to amend the 31st section of the act [in reference to the appraisement of railroad property in counties,] of June 21,1852, was taken up, passed the first and seeond readings, and referred to the Committee on Corporations.
PILOTS OF THE OHIO FALLS.
Mr. CARR, (the order of business being further suspended,) from the select committee to whom was referred the bill (S. 59) relative to licensing pilots at the Falls of the Onio, returned the same without amendment, with a recommendation that it pass; and, accordingly, the bill was passed the third and last reading in the House of Representatives by yeas 88, nays 9.
TELL CITY.
Mr. BROTHERTON, (the rule being further suspended for the purpose,) submitted a report from the Committee on Corporations, returning the bill (S. 20) to authorize the incorporation of Associations formed for building towns in this State - [to meet the case of the Tell City Association in Perry county] - with several amendments thereto, and adding a provision: "That nothing herein contained shall be so construed as to exempt such lands from taxation as other lands are taxed," and recommending passage.
The amendments were concurred in.
On motion and explanation by Mr. BLYTHE, the amendments were considered as engrossed, and the bill was passed the third and last reading in the House of Representatives by yeas 82, nays 2.
Mr. BROTHERTON proposed amending the title better to suit the subject matter of the bill, which was concurred in.
TEMPERANCE.
Mr. DOUGHERTY, (the order being further suspended,) submitted a resolution to the following effect:
Resolved, That as it is of vital importance that such a temperance law should be enacted as shall meet with the approbation of the people, aud as several temperance bills are now before the committee of this House, which it will be impossible to consider at the present session, it is therefore ordered, that 200 copies of each of these bilIs be printed for the use of the House ot Representatives.
The resolution was agreed to on a division - affirmative 42, negative 36.
THE FUND COMMISSIONERS BILL.
Mr. HUNTER, (the order of business being further suspended,) moved that his motion of yesterday to reconsider the recommitment of the bill (H.R. 98.)
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. MURRAY demanded the yeas and nays on the motion to reconsider.
Mr. BRANHAM said this bill was of paramount importance. It was to provide for the dificit in the Treasury. There was no existing law by which this could be done without violating, at least, the spirit of the Constitution. He was unwilling to go home without such a provision of law. The measure had met with unexpected opposition. With the committee it was only a choice between evils - between going into the market with the bonds of the State, and borrowing from the Sinking Fund. It was imperative that we should provide these Sinking Fund Commissioners. He knew that the State bonds were already made and signed, and probably on the way to New York; but he alleged it was done in violation of the spirit of the Constitution, the debt of the State involved taxation, and the right of taxation belonged alone to the Representatives of the people. He rehearsed the provisions of the bill. It makes an assignment of the State revenue to reimburse the Sinking Fund. What objection could there be to that? It was obliged to be loaned or locked up. The officers of the fund had assured him that six per cent, on the loan to the State would be better than seven per cent, loans on mortgages. He spoke against the present system ot managing the public finances, not against the State officers, He might yet offer them a vote of thanks for having done as well as they have under the injudicious discretions allowed to them by law.
Were gentlemen willing to go home and shirk the responsibility of amending the law in this respect? He would not touch the fund, but to benefit the fund itself. A domestic debt would be much more likely to be provided for than a page: 174[View Page 174] foreign one. He believed the present incumbent of the treasury had acted with a fidelity unsurpassed by any of his predecessors. The reputation of these citizens of the State was the brightest heritage we have. Some things had been unfortunate - calling loudly for amendment of the law. He said the system we had given justified the officers in the discretion they had taken. Their duty should be distinctly and definitely defined. He was as ready as any man to vote for repaying the loans of 1841 and 1842. He would give the best assurance of good faith in making the proposed loan from this fund. It was only a temporary measure. He complained of the op position to bills because no better system was proposed by its enemies. This bill came in by the unanimous recommendation of the committee, and it had been resisted at every step since its introduction on the 12th of December. If it was not right, vote it down; but gentlemen should remember, it is much easier to vote down the bill than to provide the remedy. Should it go to the country that we are unable to devise a safe and adequate system of revenue? He admitted that the report of the Committee on Ways and Means on the assetts of the State was crude and unreliable; but he ventured the estimates would be sustained by time and events. There was another bill we ought to have up - that is for the cancellation of the stock of the State. He insisted on action, and could not expect unanimity, &c. He had been amongst those in a former Legislature, who had successfully resisted the proposition to place these funds in the Bank of the State. He insisted, at all hazards, to pay the interest on the public debt - to preserve the public honor inviolate. The acts of the Governor and Auditor were void in these loan negotiations - but this did not go to a declaration that they should not be paid. The loan of $165,000 of last July was not necessary to meet the interest on the public debt. The State of Indiana held $391,000 of her own stocks, yet these men propose to borrow money to pay the interest on tuese stocks in their own hands!
Mr. MURRAY was opposed to the motiono to reconsider, He replied to Mr. Branham. There was on the table two distinct propositions sufficient to meet the State's exigencies - one to authorize the necessary loan from the Sinking Fund, and the proposition to continue that Board. Let these bills be passed, and if they are not, the responsibility of their failure must rest with the Committee on Ways and Means, because they have so zealously pressed this measure.
Mr. TURPIE argued against the bill, from the nature of the trust funds, referring to the constitutional provision in reference to the same. How could it be a faithful application of the Sinking Fund to subject it to the check of the Treasurer? He would vote for the embezzlement bill of Mr. Mellett, and the abstract proposition for a loan to pay the January interest. The very amendments of the committee themselves was a confession of the imperfections of the bill. He argued against the practicability of the bill in its present shape, giving numerous illustiations. The Treasurer will be a mere automaton, a shadow, by the side of the Board of Fund Commissioners. The Board would just pay such checks as they please. They would have the pocket lien on the State, and the Treasurer's checks would be waste paper. The bill was incompatible, also, with the revenue bill already passed and signed by the Governor. The Treasurer was a constitutional officer elected by the people, but this bill was to set him aside for a Board of Commissioners not only not elected by the people, but thev were to be eligible for an indefinite period.
Mr. DAVIS took the floor and spoke at length in opposition to tne financial system proposed in the bill and to the motion to reconsider. His speech, written out by the Reporter, is reserved for correction, and will appear hereafter.
Whilst he occupied the floor -
A message from the Senate announced the passage in that body of the bill (S. 28) prescribing time and manner of the election of United States Senators, &c The objections of the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding.
A message was received from the Governor by Mr. Osborn, Executive Messenger, announcing that he approved and signed the bills (S. 3, H. R. 39, &c.,) as in the report of the Senate proceedings above.
Mr. SMITH, of Perry, next obtained the floor, and spoke at length in support of the bill. His remarks, written out by the Reporter, are withheld for authentication. He concluded by demanding the previous question.
There was a second for the previous question, and under its operation the vote consigning the bill again to the Committee on Ways and Means was reconsidered by - yeas 48, nays 43, as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Austin, Blythe, Boyd, Boxley, Branham, Brotherton, Cavins, Comstock, Cotton, Davidson, Duval, Edwards, Fordyce, Gregory, Griffin, Hall of Grant, Hall of Rush, Hamilton of Boone, Hamilton of Wayne, Harrison, Hunter, Johnston, Kempf, Major, Mansfield, Mellett, Miller, Martin, Nebeker of Vermillien, Nebeker of Warren, Parks, Power, Prcsser, Ritter, Robinson, Row, Scott. Sherman, Shields, Smith of Miami, Smith of Perry, Stiles, Thompson of Elkhart, Treadway, Whetzel, Whiteman, Wildman, and Mr. Speaker - 48.
NAYS - Messrs. Black, Bowman, Carr, Claypool, Clayton, Clements, Colgrove, Collier, Davis, Dobbins, Dougherty, Durham, Early, Firestone, Giflford, Hancock, Harney, Jeflfries, Jones, Jordan, Kelly, Knowlton, Lawhead, Lewis, Massey, Murray, Nelson, Newton, Parrett, Rynerson, Shockley, Shull, Snyder, Stanley, Sullivan, Sumners, Tebbs, Thompson of Madison, Turpie, Usrey, Waterman, Wheeler, and Wood - 43.
Mr. Stanfield had paired off with Mr Merrifield.
And then the question recurred on the motion to recommit.
The House then took a recess till 2 o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
A call of the House ascertained the presence of 98 members.
Mr. GREGORY moved to lay the motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on Ways and Means on the table, demanding the yeas and nays.
Mr. BAIRD explained his vote. He should vote to lay on the table, without being committed either for or against the bill.
The vote resulted - yeas 51, nays 46. So the motion to recommit lies on the table, and the question recurred on the engrossment of the bill.
page: 175[View Page 175]Mr.COLGROVE moved to amend the bill by striking out sections 11 and 12, (heretofore described.) These sections, he said, were not necessary to the bill. With an amendment to sections 1 and 6 of the bill 99,and striking out these 11th and 12th sections, he could support the measures; and without the support of those who stood with him it was psssible that the bill could not pass. He demanded the yeas and nays on his motion, which, being ordered and taken, resulted - yeas 47, nays 50 - as follows:
YEAS. - Messrs. Baird, Black, Bowman,Carr, Claypool, Clayton, Clements, Colgrove, Collier, Davis, Dobbins, Durham, Early, Eastham, Firestone, Gifford, Hancock, Harney, Hartley, Jeffries, Jones, Jordan, Keefer, Kelly, Knowlten, Lawhead, Lewis, McLain, Massey, Murray, Nelson, Newton, Parrett, Rynerson, Shockley, Shull, Fnyder, Stanley, Sullivan, Summers, Tebbs, Thompson of Madison, Turpie, Usrey, Waterman, Wheeler and Wood - 47.
NAYS. - Messrs. Austin, Bly the, Boyd, Boxley, Branham, Brotherton, Cavins, Comstock, Co'ton, Davidson, Duval, Edwards, Fordyce, Gregory, Griffin, Hall of Grant, Hall of Rush. Hamilton of Boone, Hamilton of Wayne, Harrison, Hunter, Johnston, Kempf, Major, Mansfield, Mellett, Miller,Martin, Nebeker of Vermillion, Nebeker of Warren, Parks, Power, Prosser, Ritter, Robinson, Row, Scott, Sherman, Shields, Smith of Miami, Smith of Perry, Stiles, Stinson, Thompson of Elkhart, Treadway, Whetzel, Whiteman, Wildman and Mr. Speaker - 50.
So the House refused to strike out.
Mr. DOUGHERTY proposed to amend the 14th section of the bill, by inserting after the word "made," these words: "to the State officers for the payment of the July, 1858. instalment of interest on the foreign debt." The object was to remove an ambiguity in the bill. It might, without this amendment, be construed that the Sinking Fund should have a lien until all the advancements heretofore made by it to the State shall have been paid.
The amendment was adopted without a division.
Mr. AUSTIN now demanded the previous question, and under the operation thereof the main question, viz: Shall the bill be engrossed for a third reading, was then taken - the vote resulting - yeas 50, nays 46, as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Austin, Blythe, Boyd, Boxley, Branham, Brotherton, Cravens, Comstock, Cotton, Davidson, Dougherty, Duval, Edwards, Fordyce, Gifford, Gregory, Griffin, Hall of Grant, Hall of Rush, Hamilton of Boone, Hamilton of Wayne, Harrison, Hunter,Johnston, Kempf, Major, Mansfield, Mellett, Miller, Martin, Nebeker of Vermillion, Nebeker of Warren, Power, Prosser, Ritter, Robinson, Scott, Sherman, Shields, Smith of Miami, Smith of Perry, Stiles, Stinson, Thompson of Elkhart. Treadway, Whetzell, Whiteman, Wildman and Mr. Speaker - 50.
NAYS - Messrs. Black, Bowman, Carr, Claypool, Clayton, Clements, Colgrove, Collier, Davis, Dobbins, Durham, Early, Eastham, Firestone, Hancock, Harney, Hartley, Jeffries, Jones, Jordan, Reefer, Kelley, Knowlton, Lawhead, Lewis, McLain, Massey, Murray, Nelson, Newton, Parks, Parrett, Row, Rynerson, Shockley, Shull, Snyder, Stanley, Sullivan, Summers, Cebbs, Thompson of Madison, Turpie, Usrey, Waterman, Wheeler and Wood - 46.
So the bill was ordered to be engrossed.
Mr. EDWARDS moved that the order of business be suspended, and that the bill be considered as engrossed and read a third time now.
Mr, DAVIS demanded the yeas and nays, which being taken, resulted - yeas 51, nays 45.
So the motion was agreed to, and accordingly the bill was read and considered on the third reading.
The bill being again read through by the Clerk -
Mr. WHITMAN demanded the previous question, and under its operation, the main question: Shall the bill pass? was taken, and the vote resulted - yeas 51, nays 46 - as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Austin, Blythe,Boyd, Boxley, Branham, Brotherton, Cavins, Comstock, Cotton, Davidson, Dougherty, Duval, Edwards, Fordyce, Gifford, Gregory, Griffin, Hall of Grant, Hall of Rush, Hamilton of Boone, Hamilton of Wayne, Hrrrison, Hunter, Johnston, Kempf, Major, Mansfield, Mellett, Miller, Martin, Nebeker of Vermillion, Nebeker of Warren, Parks, Power, Prosser, Ritter, Robininson, Scott, Sherman, Shields, Smith of Miami. Smith of Perry, Stiles, Stinson, Thompson of Elkhart, Treadway, Whetzel, Whiteman, Wildman and Mr. Speaker - 51.
NAYS - Messrs. Black, Bowman, Carr, Claypool, Clayton, Clements, Colgrove, Collier, Davis, Dobbins, Durham, Early, Eastham, Firestone, Hancock, Harney, Hartley, Jeffries, Jones, Jordan, Keefer, Kelly, Knowlton, Lawhead, Lewis, McLean, Massey, Murray, Nelson, Newton, Parrett, Row, Rynerson, Shockley, Shull, Snyder, Stanley, Sullivan, Summers, Tebbs, Thompson of Madison, Turpie, Usrey, Waterman, Wheeler and Wood - 46.
So the bill passed the third and last reading in the House of Representatives.
ELECTION OF UNITED STATES SENATORS.
On motion by Mr. MURRAY, the order of business was suspended, and the bill (S. 28) prescribing the time and manner of the election of United States Senators, &c., was taken up, as communicated this day from the Senate, it having been passed by that body, notwithstanding the Governor's objections. The question being,shall the bill pass, notwithstanding the objections of the Governor?
The bill was again read through by the Clerk, with the Governor's objections thereto. Mr. BLYTHE regretted to find himself obliged to vote against the passage of the bill. He regretted this because of the inconvenience it might bring to the Republican party, but still he must do his duty. He was convinced that the Governor's view was right, and according to his sense of right he must sustain him. He called the attention of the House to the title of the bill. It was to fix the time and manner of this election and to prescribe penalties. There were two subjects embraced in the bill, whereas, as the Governor says, the Constitution prescribes that a bill shall embrace but one subject and matter pertaining thereto. He also concurred in the objection of the Governor, taken with reference to the penalty. If his attention had been called to the matter earlier, the result might have been different. but now he must sustain the veto, &c.
Mr. Speaker GORDON (Mr. Edwards in the Chair) replied to Mr. Blythe, and reasoned briefly against the veto.
The vote on this question - yeas 49, nays 48 - resulted as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Austin, Baird, Boyd, Boxley, Branham,Brotherton, Cavins, Colgrove, Collier, Comstock, CottonDavidson, Duval, Edwards, Fordyce, Gregory, Griffin, Hall of Grant, Hamilton of Boone, Hamilton of Wayne, Hairison, Hunter, Jeffries, Johnston,Jones, Mansfield, Mellett, Miller, Murray, Martin, Nebeker of Vermilion, Nebeker of Warren, Parks, Power, Ritter, Thomson, Row, Rynerson, Scott, Sherman, Smith of Miami, Stiles, Thompson of Elkhart, Treadway, Whetzel, Whiteman, Wildman, and Mr. Speaker - 49.
NAYS - Messrs. Black, Blythe, Bowman, Carr, Claypool Clayton, Clements, Davis, Dobbins, Dougherty, Durham, Early, Eastham, Firestone, Gifford, Hancock, Harney, Hartley, Jordan, Keefer, Kelly, Kempf, Knowlton. Lawhead,
page: 176[View Page 176]Lewis, McLain, Major, Massey, Nelson, Newton Pamtt, Prosser, Shields. Snockley. Shull. Smith of Perry, Snyder, Stanley, Stinson, Sullivan, Summers, Tebbs, Thompson of Madison, Turpie, Usrey, Waterman, Wheeler and Wood - 48.
So there not being a majority of all the members voting in the affirmative, the bill failed of its passage against the objections of the Governor.
A message from the Senate announced the passage in that body of Mr. Smith, of Perry's bill (H. R. 79) ior the removal of the Perry county seat to Cannelton, with amendments.
And then, at 4:10 o'clock, the House adjourned.
