of the State every year. Credits are extended to the people of our State based upon the yearly amount of our agricultural products. He could not consent to putting off the collection of this information longer than two years.
Mr. JOHNSTON moved to recommit with instructions to require the report to be made every two years, and to strike out the emergency clause.
Mr. WAGNER moved to add the words "and that an abstract be published."
Mr. WALLACE was opnosed to the bill. He would rather expend $25,000 annually to have these tables published to the world than to fail of it. He was opposed to the two year amendment, and hoped the law would be allowed to remain as it stands now.
Mr. CARNAHAN expressed himself as in favor of the bill as it stands, and opposed to the amendment. He was surprised to hear Senators say that this information costs nothing; for the expense of his own county has increased to three times the amount of what it was under the old system. He would even be in favor of letting the person who takes the census be the collector of this information. He moved to lay the pending motions on the table.
This motion was agreed to by yeas 23, nays 20.
Mr. TARKINGTON thought the law as it now stood was imperfect; but it was much better than though amended as proposed by this bill.
Mr, KINLEY said the publication of this information only once in five years amounted to nothing, and he thought it poor economy to throw away $18,000, as it were, into the bottom of the ocean every five years, but refuse to expend that amount every year for the collection of this invaluable information. He was opposed to the bill.
Mr. McLEAN expressed himself in favor of the bill, but rose for the purpose of calling the attention of the Senate to the fact that there was a special order set for this hour.
The Senate refused to take up the special order.
Mr. LINE again made a few remarks in favor of the bill.
Mr. WAGNER occupied the floor again in opposition. He would be willing to take up with the proposed two years amendment if he could not have the law as it stands.
The question was then taken on the passage of the bill.
A constitutional provision requiring the yeas and nays - they were ordered, and being taken resulted - yeas 21, nays 25 - as follows:
YEAS. - Messrs. Beeson, Bennett, Carnahan, Conley, Fisk, Hargrove, Heffren, Line, Lomax, McClure, McLean, Miller, O'Brien, Odell, Robinson, Shoemaker, Stevens, Studabaker, Tarkington, Williams and Wilson- 21.
NAYS. - Messrs. Anthony, Blair, Bobbs, Brown, Cobb, Conner, Cravens, Craven, Culver, Gooding, Hamilton, Hendry, Hill, Jennings, Johnston, Jones, Kinley, March, Rice, Slack, Steele, Thompson, Turner, Wagner and Wallace - 25.
Mr. BENNETT, when his name was called, said he desired to vote upon this question as should best subserve the interests of Agriculture; that he had not sufficiently observed the practical operations of the present law, to form an opinion of its utility: but as he found his friends, the Senators from Wayne and Franklin, both of whom are farmers, and one of them Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, voting for the new bill, he, in this case, would follow their lead and vote for the proposed amendment.
Mr. BOBBS, in explanation, said: He thought no Senator could vote for a better proposition than that the State should always show up her productions, and that money expended in that way was expended judiciously.
Mr. STEVENS: I vote in favor of the bill under consideration, the provisions of which I relieve will save to the State at least eighty thousand dollars, every five years. The present law requires the information sought, to be gathered and published yearly, the performing of which, will cost not less than twenty thousand dollars annually, hence, if only done once in five years, the State will be largely the gainer pecuniarily, and I certainly am not able to see any equivalent in return for so large an expenditure. Senators say that farmers desire the information yearly, in order that they may have some basis, on which to found their opinions as to what product the ensuing year would yield them the greatest profit. I do not believe that this would afford them any valuable information in that direction, for the reason that seasons often fail to secure to the agriculturist his expectations. Corn crops prove some times almost an entire failure, when the farmer anticipates an abundant yield. The same may be said of wheat, and other kinds of grain; and of late years the hog crop has proved equally uncertain (on account of cholera.) In place then, of such report yearly, being an advantage in that respect, it would more often confuse and derange the farming interest. Again, as a general thing, not one-fourth of the farmers of the State ever see or read these reports, consequently the State pays a large page: 146[View Page 146]sum yearly, under the law as it now is for the supposed benefit of very few, at the expense of the many. Further, the farmers are often misrepresented as to the number of hogs and cattle they have for market; the result of which is, that they often, when taking the surplus they really have, to market, have to contend with the prejudice made on the minds of produce dealers by these exaggerated reports; and often the price of pork and other articles, is largely reduced by the reports showing millions of hogs in the hands of the farmers, when they only have thousands for market.
So the bill was rejected.
ADULTERATED LIQUORS.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore announced the special order, it being Mr. Cooper's bill (130) to prevent the sale of adulterated liquors and the adulteration thereof; the question being upon the adoption of the amendments proposed by the Committee from which the bill is reported.
Mr. HEFFREN took it that if the bill was amended as is proposed by the committee we would have a law that would be carried into effect, and one that would effectually do away with drugged or impure liquors. Members, if they were to drink the liquors furnished them now-a-days in this city would be burned out in the time they lived here during one session of the Legislature. [Laughter.]
Mr. SLACK thought the analysis of the liquors proposed in the bill was impracticable, for he did not believe there was a competent chemist in half the counties of the State. He thought the thing impracticable and was opposed to the whole bill.
The first amendment - requiring the County Commissioners at their first regular meeting in June to appoint a competent person to examine and analyse all spirituous and malt liquors and vinegar to be sold in the county was adopted.
The second amendment - requiring the chemist to give certificates whether the liquor be pure or adulterated - was adopted by consent.
The third amendment was then read. It allows to the chemist $2 for his examination of the first barrel or parcel and 50 cents for each additional parcel presented at the same time; to be paid by the person presenting the same.
Mr. TURNER was opposed to the pay of the county chemist. Every country merchant sells vinegar. According to this bill they would have to get it analyzed, and as they hardly ever get more than one barrel at a time it would materially increase the price of that article. He was in favor of striking out the word "vinegar" wherever it occurs, but would vote for the bill, because he would throw no impediment in the way of any temperance bill that may come up.
Mr. BOBBS thought if we could make this bill perfect it would be a good thing.
Mr. WALLACE preferred the bill passed by the House of Representatives to any other bill that had been introduced. He desired to see it perfected and passed by this body.
Mr. HEFFREN was in favor of giving the people a law and trusting to the courts for the right construction. He hoped the amendment would be concurred in.
Mr. MARCH had no objections to the general principles of the bill where it refers to intoxicating liquors, but thought the vinegar clause was impracticable.
The third amendment was then adopted.
The fourth and last amendment was then adopted by consent. It provides that any person who may barter or sell any impure or drugged liquors or vinegar shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and be fined for the first offense not less than $10 nor more than $50; for the second offense not less than $25 nor more then $200, to which may be added imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding 30 days.
Mr. McCLURE moved to recommit with instructions to amend by incorporating in the bill some kind of a standard by which the purity Or different kinds of spiritous liquors and vinegar may be tested.
On motion by Mr. HEFFREN, this was laid on the table
Mr. MARCH moved to amend by striking out of the bill all in relation to vinegar.
The motion was agreed to by consent.
Mr. McLEAN inquired if this bill would conflict with the Temperance bill which had been reported from the House.
Mr. HEFFREN said this bill was intended to stand upon its own merits, entirely independent of any other.
Mr. BROWN thought the compensation was too little for the chemist.
Mr. BLAIR proposed to amend by striking out of the second section the provision which requires the chemist to have a diploma from a medical college.
Mr. Bobbs and Mr. March favored the amendment, pending which -
The Senate took a recess till 2 o'clock P. M.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. Blair's amendment, pending at the time of taking the recess, was adopted. The bill was then ordered to be engrossed.
EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION.
The PRESIDENT, pro tempore, announced the special order for this hour - Mr William's bill (43) to amend the 23d section of the valuation and assessment act, approved June 1,1852 the question being on the amendment proposed by Mr. Fish, as follows:
Amend so as to exempt the tax-payer who may own any property on the flrst day of January and sell the same before he is assessed, from paying taxes on the property owned on the first day of January and on the money or obligation he has received.
On motion by Mr, CARNAHAN, the amendment was laid on the table.
The question then recurred on the adoption of the amendment recommended by the Committee on Finance, to insert in the 12th section the words "within this State," so that the clause would read:
Each tax payer may and he is hereby authorized to Deduct the amount of his indebtedness within this States out of his personal property or solvent claims.
Mr. HEFFREN, for the purpose of testing the sense of the Senate as to whether we will tax all the property of the tax-payer or only what he is worth above his indebtedness, moved to recommit with the following instructions:
page: 147[View Page 147]Amend so as to allow each person to take all his indebtedness out of his personal or real property, or both.
He was opposed to his own proposition to induct the committee to so amend the bill; and was in favor of taxing all the property of the State without any reference to indebtedness.
Mr. STEVEN'S was satisfied with the amendment, for he, too, was in favor of making every person pay taxes on all his property without taking into account his liabilities.
On motion by Mr. MILLER, the motion to recommit was laid on the table.
Mr. MILLER moved to recommit with instructions so to amend as to compel all property to be taxed irrespective of the indebtedness of the owner.
Mr. CARNAHAN was opposed to the motion to recommit, and in favor of the amendment proposed by the committee. He moved to lay the motion to recommit on the table.
This motion was agreed to.
Mr. MURRAY was content with the law as it stands, and saw no necessity for the amendment proposed by the bill under consideration. He moved to indefinitely postpone the bill and pending amendment.
On this motion the yeas and nays were demanded, and being ordered and taken, resulted yeas 28, nays 18 - as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Anthony, Beeson, Bennett,Blair, Bobbs, Brown, Conner, Craven, Culver, Fisk,Hargrove, Heffren, Hendry, Hill, Johnston, Jones. Kinley, Line, Lomax, McLean, Murray, O'Brien, Slack, Stevens, Tarkington, Thompson, Wallace and Wilson - 28.
NAYS - Messrs. Carnahan, Cobb, Conley, Cooper, Hamilton. Jennings, McClure, March, Miller, Odell, Rice, Robinson, Shoemaker, Steele, Studabaker, Turner, Wagner and Williams - 18.
Mr. ANTHONY, when his name was called, said: He was in favor of the bill but thought it bad policy to pass it for the reason that we have already made our estimates for the next two years, and if it should be passed, the probabilities are that it would take a great proportion of the property away that would be taxed by the law as it now stands, and we might suffer in two years from this time for want of sufficient revenue.
Mr. HEFFREN, in explanation, said the point had been decided by the courts in the Second Circuit that a man under the present law may take his indebtedness out of his property, money, or anything else. He was satisfied with the law and should vote "aye."
Mr. MILLER, in explanation, said he believed the present law was unfair, and ought to be amended. He was in favor of this proposition or the one voted down a little while ago.
Mr. SLACK, in explanation, said: It strikes me if this law prevails we will have but very little taxable property in Indiana; I therefore vote "aye."
So the bill was indefinitely postponed.
BANK OF THE STATE OF THE INDIANA.
On motion by Mr. MURRAY, the order of business was informally passed over and Mr. Conley'a bill (42) to repeal the charter of the Bank of the State of Indiana was taken up for consideration - the question being on the recommendation of the minority of the special committee from which it was reported, to indefinitely postpone.
Mr. BOBBS said circumstances had forced him into this bank controversy against his own desire in the premises; that he was a State Bank man, but if called upon to vote directly on the repeal of this charter he should so vote. The Senator spoke an hour and a half. When he had concluded -
Mr. BEESON demanded the previous question, but withdrew for -
Mr. GOODING, who read a reply to some personal remarks contained in Mr. Heffren's speech last Friday evening.
Mr. BEESON renewed his demand for the previous question, and there being a second, the vote stood - yeas 29, nays 18, as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Anthony, Beeson, Bennett, Blair, Brown, Cobb, Conner, Cooper, Cravens, Craven, Culver, Hamilton, Heffren, Hill, Johnston, Jones, Line, Miller, Murray, Odell, Rice, Slack, Steele, Stevens, Tarkington, Thompson, Turner, Wagner, Williams - 20,
NAYS - Messrs. Bobbs, Carnahan, Conley, Fisk, Gooding, Hargrove, Hendry, Jennings, Kinley, Lomax, McClure, March, O'Brien, Robinson, Shoemaker, Studabaker, Wallace, Wilson - 18.
ABSENT - Mr. Green.
Mr. McLean paired off with Mr. Weir.
Mr. ANTHONY, when his named was called, said he was a bank man and represented a community finding it necessary to have these institutions. He had nothing against the bank charter as it was designed to be operated by the Legislature; but did object to the manner in which it , has been administered by some of its branches; and when amendments shall be proposed which will restrict them to the construction of their charter as the Legislature designed, he would vote for them. But he must object to repeal, when no better reason is given than that the charter was conceived in sin and brought forth in iniquity. It was not material to him what motives operated upon that General Assembly, the question was, has the Legislature the power to repeal? and if so, is it policy, as a matter of expediency? But some two or three of the twenty-five Senators fresh from the people, would vote for repeal. The withdrawal of the five million of this bank circulation would seriously affect the commerce of the country. He could not assent to the doctrine that the Legislature have not the power of repeal a doctrine which puts it in the power of the Legislature to dispose of franchises in a matter which may directly affect the interests of the people beyond the power of recall. He could not endorse that. But he could not think the people demanded repeal, and if they did it must work to their injury.
Mr. BLAIR, in explanation,said: He found authority for this charter in the Constitution, It was given to certain individuals for 20 years, to furnish a currency. He did not believe this Legislature had the power to take that charter from them at the present time, neither did he believe it would be right to do so. He voted for indefinite postponement.
Mr. CARNAHAN, in explanation, said: He never had recorded himself as a bank roan in any shape or form. He preferred the free bank system as the safest. The war between these bank factions has been of long standing since the Constitutional Convention. They passed page: 148[View Page 148] this charter, uninstructed by the people, and, as I am satisfied, they did it through fraud.
Mr. CONLEY stated his position on the bank question. He had been unjustly charged with being friendly to the free banks. No Senator on this floor was more averse to their worthless trash than himself, &c.
Mr. JONES, explaining, said: Mr. President, it is admitted on all sides that the question now under consideration, is one of vast importance. I desire, therefore, briefly to give some of the reasons that will influence me in giving my vote. First, I desire not to undo the work of a former Legislature without some intimation from those I represent, that they desire such work undone. The charter that is now proposed to be repealed was granted by a former Legislature. Under that charter, banking has commenced; banking-houses have been purchased, and many business transactions entered into; bank bills have been issued, and such bills to a large amount, are now in the hands of the people. I know but little, personally, as to how that charter was obtained, yet I have no doubt but that improper influences contributed to that result, and that the great representative principle, peculiar to our form of government, was violated by the Legislature in granting that charter.
I am aware also that the people I represent on this floor, in 1855 and 1856 were almost united in hoping that our courts would decide against the validity of that charter. They, when they became aware of the frauds practiced in obtaining that charter, were indignant, and for a time looked upon the issues of that bank with distrust. Since that time, however, the stock in that bank has changed hands. Responsible men, and men of known financial skill and integrity control that institution and the consequence is, no one now refuses the paper of that bank; its circulation has become general and the agricultural portion of our people regard it as far more safe than any bank in Indiana. Notwithstanding: all the care and deliberation in framing and guarding the free bank law in Indiana and in other States, the losses to the bill holder have been frequent and disastrous; hence a large portion of the people of Indiana look upon the issues of free banks with distrust and doubt and indulge the hope and belief that the Bank of the State will furnish a safe and secure circulating medium. I am not willing at this time to destroy and dissipate that hope. I am not willing, by any act of mine, to create distrust and suspicion against an institution in our own State, when I know that suspicions thus created, would advance and promote the interests of institutions in other States, where the security of the bill holder is not more reliable than the Bank of the State of Indiana. I would not, however, be understood to admit that we have not the right - that the Legislature has not the right to repeal the bank charter. I make no such admission, and whenever I am convinced that the public interest demands a repeal of the charter, then I will vote for the repeal.
But, Mr. President, some Senators on this floor manifest much feeling on this question. They say that fraud and selfishness procured the charter of this bank, therefore it ought to be repealed. They argue the question as though a few prominent individuals were alone concerned or interested in this question. Were this true, I would not hesitate to vote with them for the repeal. If by so voting, the consequences, however fatal, were to fall alone upon those few prominent men, I say I would not hesitate for one moment. They, no doubt, deserve it all, and more, but I am not willing to jeopardize the interests of the honest thousands in an attempt to punish a few dishonest men. I, therefore, shall vote against the bill.
Mr. LINE, in explanation, said he found constitutional authority for this charter. It had been passed; and the Courts, he understood, had decided that the Legislature have no power to take away franchises thus conferred.
Mr. MILLER, in explanation, said: Mr. President, I have made no speech on this subject, nor do I desire to make one; but perhaps I should explain my vote, and especially as it has become the habit. Perhaps no Senator on this floor has given more votes on the subject of banking in the last eight or nine years than myself. While that subject occupied the attention of the Constitutional Convention for thirteen days, I uniformly voted for the free banking principle, as against State banking; and in the revising Legislature I voted for the Free Banking Act. I was and am opposed to the principle of State banks, as all my votes show, and in giving this vote it may seem not to be in keeping with my former votes. But this bank is now in operation, and its paper is circulating all over the country, and at this time, I think, to repeal the charter, would much embarrass the financial condition of our people. On that account, I vote to indefinitely postpone the bill, pledging myself to vote for any healthy amendments that may come up in any bill for amending the charter.
Mr. RICE, explaining, said: Mr. President: Not having sought or desired to take part in the discussion of this question, which has occupied too much of the time of the Senate, yet I feel it due to myself and to my constituents, to give briefly the reasons which influence me in casting my vote for the indefinite postponement of this bill. They are as follows: 1st. I deem it to be a principle of sound policy as well as of settled law, that neither the Legislature nor the courts of the country have any right to go behind the journals of the Legislature to inquire into the passage of any law, to ascertain what influences were brought to bear on members in the casting of their votes, &c., &c. Were such an inquiry allowed, whole statutes might be overthrown, the Legislation of the country unsettled and the most sacred rights invaded; therefore, assuming the Charter of the Bank of the State to have passed through the constitutional forms necessary to become a law, we are precluded from further scrutinizing the history of its passage. 2d. I hold it to be an incontrovertable proposition that when the terms and conditions of this bank charter were complied with by the corporators, it became a valid and binding contract between the corporation and the State, and that the rights which have accrued to the corporators under that charter are vested rights which the Legislature has no constitutional power to abridge or impair. 3d. As a question of mere policy (inde- page: 149[View Page 149] endent of other considerations,) I should deem it unwise and impolitic to pass this bill repealing the bank charter, which would blot out of existence some $5,000,000 of the best bank currency of the State which is now in the hands of the people - a currency in which the people have confidence and with which the great majority are satisfied. Such an act would most certainly result in the greatest financial distress and embarrassment to the people. Therefore, Mr. President, I vote aye.
Mr. ROBINSON, explaining, begged leave to say he never held on this question any other than anti-bank principles. Banking was systematized public plunder. It might not be good policy to repeal: but he held that no Legislature could bind their successors. He never could endorse the doctrine that the General Assembly of 1855 could sell out his people and this Legislature for 20 years.
Mr. STEVENS: I vote for the indefinite postponement of the bill, for the reasons, 1st, That the people are satisfied with the institution as it is. It has thus far furnished a safe currency for the circulation of the State, a currency that is good in every part of the Mississippi Valley. For one, I do not wish to disturb it, until something is done on the part of its officers to destroy confidence in its management. 2d, I do not believe that any circulating medium could, for years to come, be substituted in its place, that would be as satisfactory to the people of the State as the bills of the Bank of the State of Indiana. I do not wish to be instrumental in destroying a bank that the people approve and endorse, to give place to the issues of foreign bank paper that we know but little about; and the introduction of which into the State, might prove ruinous to the best interests of its citizens. Again, the Supreme Court of the State, has decided the right of the bank to exercise its franchises, as a banking institution, for the term for which it was chartered, and I do not believe the Legislature to have any right to interfere with its operations, unless its charter is violated by the act of those who have control of it.
Mr. TURNER, explaining, said he had participated in the passage of this bank bill in 1855 without knowledge of undue influences to effect its passage; but recent developments satisfied him there was more or less corruption - corruption that should never be countenanced in any legislative body. Notwithstanding that, he now doubted the propriety of repealing this charter satisfied that were it repealed, before the close of the present session another bank bill would be introduced, and the same corrupt influences brought to bear upon it, and probably successfully. [Laughter.]
Mr. WALLACE, explaining, read from the Madison papers extracts going to show the intent of the fathers of these governments to crush out bills of credit, and secure a hard money currency. It was emphatically for the protection of the people - of his constituents - that he voted for this repeal.
So the bill was indefinitely postponed.
Mr. WAGNER moved a reconsideration of this vote, and to lay the motion to reconsider upon the table.
The latter motion was agreed to - yeas 28, nays 18the same as recorded above, except that Mr. Fisk did not vote. and Mr. Turner voted No!
The Senate then adjourned.
