of horse-thieves, reported a bill (187) to repeal that act.
Senator Wagner and Senator Rice expressed themselves as opposed to the repeal of the law referred to.
Mr. BOBBS opposed the repeal of the law authorizing the formation of associations for the detection and apprehension of horse-thieves. He was willing to hear from such Senators as had objections to the law, as to their reasons, and if there be abuses practiced under cover of the law, see if they cannot be provided for. The recommendations of the Governor are entitled to receive the consideration of the Senate, but many of his most respectable constituents are opposed to a repeal of the law, and he was here to represent their wishes. He said there were organizations in his county embracing among their members some of our best citizens, who believe they have been enabled to render great service to the community in the protection of their property, in the manner allowed by this law. Some of those have remonstrated against the repeal, and he did not know any of his constituents who are directly interested in the question, who desire the repeal; he, therefore, was opposed to the repeal, and hoped the Senate would not concur in the recommendation of the committee.
Senators Heffren and McLean were in favor of the repeal, and cited the cruelties, murders and unrelenting inhumanities perpetrated under this act by those regulators in Noble and Brown counties, as unanswerable arguments in favor of concurring in the report of the committee, and of the immediate passage of the bill recommended by it.
Mr. GOODING dissented from the report, holding that the law itself was good, but admitting that it was not properly carried out.
Mr. HAMILTON said the people of the region of Noble county for years were under the influence of the greatest set of rascals the country ever produced; but he did not justify the murder spoken of in that county, as committed by the regulators. He was opposed to the repeal of the law.
Mr. CONLEY was satisfied gross outrages had been committed under the law, but that was no the fault of the law. The perpetrators of the outrage alluded to as having occurred in Monroe county were composed of the rag-tag and bobtail of the country round about. He did not agree to a concurrence in the report of the committee, and expressed the hope that it would not be made a party test. [Laughter.]
Mr. HILL might not vote in favor of the report; he was directed by the committee to make it; had done so, and should not be dissatisfied if the Senate refused to concur.
Mr. TURNER was opposed to the repeal of this law.
Mr. STUDABAKER moved to indefinitely postpone the consideration of the report.
The motion was agreed to - yeas 34, nays 12.
Mr. MURRAY, by consent, offered the following resolution, which, under the rules, lies over one day.
Resolved,That the following additional rules be adapted for the government of the Senate:
RULE.-Any Senator desiring to give an explanation of the reasons for his vote upon any question before the Senate, may do so before the calling of ayes and nays is commenced, and not after, without the unanimous consent of the Senate.
RULE.Every Senator shall be limited in debate to not more than ten minutes at a time, and not more than twice on the same question.
Mr. KINLEY, from the Committee on Rights and Privileges, returned Mr. Garnahan's bill (86) to amend an act regulating marriage, approved March 22, 1852; and Mr. Hill's bill (22) to prevent the inter-marriage of first cousins, &c.; recommending that No. 22 lie on the table, and submitting a substitute for No. 86 providing that all marriages between first cousins or between persons of closer degrees of consanguinity which may hereafter take place in this State, shall be void: and to amend the title so that it shall read "An act to prevent the intermarriage of blood relations."
Mr. CONLEY moved to amend by inserting in the proper place the words "second cousins."
Mr. CARNAHAN was satisfied with the report of the committee.
Mr. GOODING concurred in the spirit of the bill - opposed the marriage of blood relations, but objected to that provision which makes the marriages of cousins void.
Mr. MURRAY moved to lay the amendment on the table.
Mr. WAGNER moved to amend the motion by laying the whole subject on the table.
Mr. BENNETT demanded a division of the question.
The amendment proposed by Mr. Conley was laid on the table by yeas 29, nays 16.
The motion to lay the bill and amendments on the table was rejected - yeas 9, nays 37.
Mr. CONNER was not in favor of the marriage of cousins, but proposed to amend as follows:
Provided, This act shall not affect marriage contracts now existing between cousins and which have not been consummated.
page: 162[View Page 162]Considerable merriment sprung up upon a conversational debate on this amendment, when -
Mr. CARNAHAN said he was sorry to see sport made of such a grave matter.
Mr. CONNER said his amendment was offered in good faith.
Mr. CARNAHAN did not doubt that, but referred entirely to the mirth made out of it.
Mr. MARCH hoped the amendment would be adopted.
Mr. MURRAY was in favor of the provisions of the bill.
Mr. HEFFREN was opposed to the amendment.
Mr. CARNAHAN moved to lay the amendment on the table.
The motion was agreed to by yeas 25, nays 21, as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Anthony, Beeson, Bennett, Blair, Bobbs, Brown, Carnahan, Conley, Culver, Hamilton, Hargrove, Heffren, Jennings, Jones, Kinley, Line, Lomax, McLean, Murray, O'Brien, Odell, Shoemaker, Studabaker, Williams and Wilson - 25.
NAYS - essrs. Cobb, Conner, Craven, Fisk, Gooding, Hendry, Hill, Johnston, McClure, March, Miller, Rice, Robinson, Slack, Steele, Stevens, Tarkington, Thompson, Turner, Wagner and Wallace - 21.
Mr. LOMAX proposed to amend by inserting in the proper place the following:
"Provided, This act shall not take effect till after the first of September, 1859."Mr, STEVENS proposed to recommit with the following instructions:
Amend by prohibiting Clerks of Courts from issuing marriage license to first cousins, and attach penalties there for by prohibiting any person from performing marriage ceremonies of parties they know to be first cousins, under penalties, and by subjecting all parties who may apply for or obtain license and marry, who are first cousins, to penalties.
Mr. LINE demanded a division of the question, first upon the proposition to re-commit, and then upon the instructions.
Mr. BOBBS said the principles of the bill are right, and the subject was a proper one for legislation, but he was not satisfied that the bill provided the best mode of preventing the evil. Beside this was not so general as seemed to be assumed by gentlemen. Where intermarriages occurred within the relationship of consanguiuity named by the bill, for successive generations, the evil results were manifest and very serious; but such marriages were not frequent in this State, and its evil results are overrated. In older communities, as in the slave States, or others where wealthy arristocracies existed, and class distinctions in society had become established, intermarriages among related families were more frequent, and entailed misfortune upon offspring. If Senators were governed by the statistics furnished by our asylums they were liable to be misled, as the statistics of other nations did not sustain the position.
The objections which present themselves to me are that the bill proposes to amend the marriage contract, instead of preventing these within certain degrees of consanguinity. All the parties need to do, is to cross the line into some adjacent State, and have the marriage solemnized there. The law would therefore fail to prevent the evil to be provided against. It seems to me the law ought to provide against the consumption of such marriages by opposing obstructions to them. Prohibit any person from solemnizing marriages within this State, and within the relationship of consanguinity proposed; and any clerk from issuing licenses for such purposes, to parties so related. He favored the suggestion of the amendments of the Senator from Decatur, and would prefer to have the bill go to the Committee of the Judiciary, to be modified and perfected in conformity with these suggestions, and therefore move such recommendation.
The report was then referred to the Judiciary Committee.
On motion by Mr. CONNER the instruction were also referred to the same committee.
On motion by Mr. WALLACE the committe were instructed to inquire into the expediency of amending so as to make it a part of the affidavit now required for a license, that the parties ar not cousins within the meaning of the statute.
Mr. McLEAN, from the Committee on Rights and Privileges, returned his bill (16) to amend the first section of a license act, approved June 15, 1852, and for the encouragement of Agriculture, &c., approved March 7, 1857, recommending its passage. The report was concurred in and the bill ordered to be engrossed.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. LINE, by consent, offered a resolution which was adopted by consent, authorizing the State Librarian to sell the desks lately used in the Senate Chamber.
On Mr. HEFFREN'S motion, the special order for this hour, being his Cuba resolution, was postponed till Monday next, at two o'clock.
NEW PROPOSITIONS.
The following bills were introduced and severally passed the first reading:
By Mr. WAGNER: (187) to authorize the Bank of the State of Indiana to lay off and create six additional bank districts and establish branches therein.
By Mr. MARCH: (188) to provide for oral argument and speedy decision of cases in the Supreme Court.
By Mr. COOPER: (189) prescribing the length of residence in count) and township, necessary to constitute a person a legal voter therein, and amending sections 21 and 22, of an election act, approved June 7, 1852.
By Mr. LOMAX: (190) to authorize the formation of companies for the detection and apprehension of horse thieves and other felonies, and defining their powers.
By Mr. HEFFREN: (191) to amend section 38 of the felony act approved June 10,1852.
By Mr. STEVENS: (192) regulating the public printing of the State, fixing compensation therefor and prescribing the duties of certain officers therein named.
The rules were suspended, the bill read the second time by title, and referred to the Committee on Printing.
Mr. CARNAHAN: (193) to regulate the sale of spiritous and intoxicating liquors.
Mr. MILLER: (194) requiring a debtor claiming benefits under an act to exempt property from sale, approved February 17, 1852, to furnish to the officer a schedule, under oath, of all property page: 163[View Page 163] held by him or in trust for him, designating such property that is exempt.
On motion by Mr. WAGNER, the rules being suspended, Senator Carnahan's bill (192) was read the second time by title.
Mr. MURRAY moved to amend the bill so that no person "shall knowingly suffer" the liquor to be drank on his premises.
This amendment was agreed to by yeas 23, 20, as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Anthony, Beeson, Bennett, Blair, Carnahan, Conner, Cooper, Craven, Culver, Gooding, Green, Hargrove, Hendry, Hill, McLean, March, Murray, Rice, Robinson, Stevens, Thompson, Turner and Wagner -2 3.
NAYS - Messrs. Brown, Cobb, Conley, Fisk, Hamilton, Heffren, Jennings, Johnston, Line, Lomax, McClure, Miller, O'Brien, Odell, Shoemaker, Slack, Studabaker, Tarkington, Williams and Wilson - 20.
REFUSING - Mr. Bobbs.
On Mr. MURRAY'S motion the words "for every such offense" was added to the second section.
Mr. GOODING moved to amend the second section so that it will read "in person, or by agent to sell or barter away any spiritous or intoxicating liquors."
The motion was agreed to by yeas 31, nays 13.
Mr. GOODING moved to amend by adding a section providing that this law shall go into effect on the 1st day of May, 1859.
Mr. HEFFREN moved to amend by striking out "May," and inserting "July."
Mr. GOODING accepted.
The amendment was then agreed to - yeas 30, nays -
Mr. SLACK moved to amend by inserting in the proper place "except for medicinal purposes."
On motion by Mr. GREEN, this amendment was laid on the table by yeas 28, nays 16.
Mr. WAGNER moved that the bill be considered as engrossed and read the third time now, and upon this motion he demanded the previous question.
There being a second, under its operation the bill was considered as engrossed - yeas 28, nays 18 - read the third time, and finally passed the Senate by yeas 26, nays 20 - as follows:
YEAS - Mesrs.Beeson, Bennett, Blair, Brown, Carnahan, Conner, Cooper, Craven, Culver, Gooding, Green, Hargrove, Hendry, Hill, Jones, McLean, March, Murray, Rice, Robinson, Steele, Stevens, Tarkington, Thompson, Turner and Wagner - 26.
NAYS - Messrs. Anthony, Cobb, Conley, Fisk, Hamilton Heffren, Jennings, Johnston, Line, Lomax, McClure Miller, O'Brian, Odell, Shoemaker, Slack, Studabaker Wallace, Williams and Wilson - 20.
Mr. Bobbs refused to vote.
Mr. ANTHONY, when his name was called, said there was another bill pending which he believed would do more to promote the cause of temperance than the one before the Senate. He did not believe this one would amount to anything at all.
Mr. BOBBS, in explanation, did not know the wishes of his constituents on the subject, and would reserve his vote.
Mr. CONLEY, explaining, believed a large majority of his constituents was in favor of a license law. He would vote for a stringent license law, but not for this.
Mr. GOODING, in explanation, said he voted for this bill because he believed it was constitutional, and he should vote for all temperance bills that were constitutional.
Mr. HEFFREN, explaining, said he would vote for the bill if it contained a clause requiring all liquors to be pure and unadulterated.
Mr. LINE, explaining, had not read the bill and would not vote for it on that account.
Mr. MILLER, in explanation, said: I shall vote against this bill, and I desire to give some reasons for doing so. I will vote for any good temperance bill, and have been waiting patiently to get a chance to do so. Here, sir, we have been waiting on the Committee on Temperance during the whole of the extra session and over half the present. The bill that passed the House is here, and the bill recently reported by Senate committee, both ready to be taken up. Why, then, introduce a bill here and pass it through the Senate in less than one hour, and that under the gag or previous question? How can we vote understandingly on this bill which in the midst of the confusion could but very indistinctly be heard read, not even having a chance to examine it. I vote "no."
Mr. STUDABAKER, in explanation, said he had not examined the bill and could not vote for it till he had that opportunity.
So the bill passed.
By Mr. MARCH: (195) to enable married women to make a will.
Bv Mr. LINE: (196) to amend section 1 of article 8 of the State Constitutian.
The rules were suspended, the bill read the second time by title, and referred to the Judiciary Committee.
By Mr. ROBINSON: (197) to amend the act establishing the Bank of the State of Indiana, approved March 3, 1855.
By Mr. SHOEMAKER: (198) providing for the taxation and collection of docket fees in certain cases and the payment thereof to the County Treasury.
By Mr. STUDABAKER: (199) to authorize and empower Clerks of Circuit and Common Pleas Courts to enter satisfaction of record of all mortgages that may have been foreclosed and judgments rendered thereon and paid and satisfied in said courts.
By Mr. TARKINGTON, (200) to amend section 16 of an act limiting the number of grand jurors, approved March 6,1852: so as to give cognizance of misdemeanors to grand jurors.
On motion by Mr. HEFFREN, the bill (H. R. 147) was read the first and second time and referred to Senators Heffren, Steele and Hill.
On motion by Mr. WILLIAMS, his bill (145) was made the special order for ten o'clock tomorrow.
Mr. Bobb's bill (25) providing for the investment of the Sinking Fund in bonds, stocks, &c., coming up - the question being on the adoption of Mr. Studabaker's substitute distributing th fund in the various counties -
Mr. WAGNER moved to lay the substitute on the table.
On motion by Mr. STUDABAKER, a call of the Senate was had, and five members reported as absent.
On motion by Mr. TURNER, further proceedings in the call were dispensed with.
page: 164[View Page 164]The motion to table the substitute was then rejected by yeas 15, nays 31.
The substitute was then adopted by yeas 32, nays 12 - as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Anthony, Bennet, Blair, Brown. Carnahan, Cobb, Conley, Conner, Cooper, Fisk, Gooding, Green, Hamilton, Hargrove, Hendry, Hill, Jennings, Johnston, Jones, Line, Lomax, Miller, Robinson, Shoemaker, Slack, Studabaker, Tarkington, Thompson, Turner, Wallace, Williams and Wilson. - 32
NAYS - Messrs. Beeson, Bobbs, Craven, Culver, Heffren, March, Murray, O'Brien, Odell, Rice, Steele and Wagner. - 12.
On motion by Mr. STUDABAKER, the bill was referred to Senators Studabaker, Tarkington, Line, Wallace and Green.
Mr. GREEN moved to instruct the committee to inquire into the expediency of amending so as to correspond with the 103d section of the State Bank Charter, "That it is now the pleasure of the State to redeem its outstanding bonds" that notice be given so as the interest on the same may be stopped.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. WAGNER moved that the committee be instructed to strike out these words in the 12th section:
Provided, That the congressional township fund shall not be taken into account in making such distribution.
These instructions were referred to the same committee as a matter of inquiry.
On motion by Mr. BOBB'S, his bill (112) to amend an act to repeal all general laws for the incorporation of cities. &c., approved March 9, 1857, was taken up, read the third time and finally passed the Senate by yeas 33, nays 3.
Mr. JENNINGS, by leave, introduced a joint resolution (11) in relation to the African slave trade for its suppression, &c., which was referred to Senators Jennings, Heffren, Carnahan Kinley and Brown.
Mr. KINLEY obtained leave to vote "aye" throughout, on the Temperance bill passed this afternoon.
Mr. TURNER, by leave, introduced a joint resolution (12) having reference to the suppression of the revival of the African slave trade; which was referred to Senators Turner, Green, Conner, March and Anthony.
And then the Senate adjourned
