IN SENATE
Wednesday Night - in continuation.
Mr. SLACK had no objection to Mr. Line's amendment, but objected to Mr. Carnahan's.
Mr. CARNAHAN moved to lay Mr. Line's amendment to his amendment on the table.
The motion was rejected - yeas 14, nays 25.
The amendment to the amendment was adopted.
Senators Murray, Slack and Steele favored, and Senators Johnston, Carnahan and March opposed.
Mr. COBB moved to indefinitely postpone the report and pending amendments.
Mr. HEFFREN said he should vote for the postponement, believing that we would not get a vote on the subject to-night nor to-morrow, and knowing that more important legislation was suffering for action.
The motion was rejected - yeas 18, nays 21, as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Anthony, Beeson, Bennett, Blair, Brown, Cobb, Cooper, Gooding, Heffren, Hendry, Johnston, Jones, Lomax, McClure, O'Brien, Robinson, Thompson and Wilson - 18.
NAYS - Messrs. Bobbs, Carnahan, Conner,Cravens, Culver, Hamilton, Hargrove, Hill, Kinley, Line, March, Miller, Murray, Odell, Rice, Slack, Steele, Stevens, Studabaker, Turner and Wagner - 21.
Mr. BLAIR makes the following explanation of his vote:
Mr. President: I acknowledge the force of the arguments of those who live on the line of the canal for some legislation for their relief, and I would be unwilling from any mere imaginary fear to withhold my vote for any measure that would give them actual and substantial relief. Neither do I believe that any Senators, who are page: 242[View Page 242] asking the passage of this bill, would be willing to compromise the interests of the State, or willingly do any act that would compel us to assume the payment of any portion of the debt, which was liquidated by the arrangements made with the bond holders. But I must be allowed to say, that in my opinion they are unnecessarily alarmed By the act of 1846, the State of Indiana conveyed by deed to the Trustees, the Wabash and Erie Canal, "and alt the property, right, title and interest of the State in and to the same, with all its appurtenances," &c., "to have, hold, possess and enjoy the same as fully and absolutely as the State can, or could do."
We can not conceive of language more positive, and, to my mind, it placed the canal, its tolls and revenues completely in the power and control of the Trustees, subject only to the right of the State to compel the faithful execution of the trust, and after twenty years to redeem the certificates. Serious charges have been made by the bond holders, that we have by legislation impaired the obligations of the compact then made, and although I will not for a moment admit the charges to be true, yet I am unwilling by any further legislation - unasked for by them, open up this subject, and give them even an additional argument, whereby they may obtain admission to the Halls of legislation. This bill will be received by them as an acknowledgment, clothed with the sanctity of law, that the revenues of the canal are totally insufficient to fulfill the purposes of the trust. l am, therefore, compelled to vote for its postponement.
Mr. HENDRY makes the following explanation of his vote:
Mr. President: My reasons for voting against this bill are simply these: We have arranged a portion of the State debt with the transfer of this canal to the Trustees, the rights of the bond holders, the State and the Trustees, in whose hands the canal is placed, are closely defined by the act constituting the State debt arrangement. It is by no means clear to me, but what this very act is intended to disconnect the bond holders with the contract. If A, in failing circumstances, agree with B, his creditor, that he will place in the hands of a trustee certain property, the rents of which the trustee shall faithfully apply to the discharge of the indebtedness A, finding the trust property does not pay largely, proposes to the trustee that in case B will give his consent A will divert the rents and profits arising from the trust property to purposes that in the opinion of A will be more advantageous to the trust. B can have no interest in looking to the trust property longer when it does not pay. I am unwilling the State shall take the position that she desires the trust in its original form to cease, and thereby e ther leave the bond holders without any prospect of getting pay at all, or compel them to resuscitate the old debt against the State. When the bond holders demand a change of the trust property they will ask us, and that will be in time to act.
Mr. Carnahan's amendment - striking out the 5th section - was then rejected by yeas 18, nays 18, as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Beeson, Brown, Carnahan, Cooper,Gooding, Hargrove. Heffren, Hendry, Johnston, Jones, Kinley, Lomax, McClure, March, Robinson, Thompson, Turner and Wilson-18.
NAYS - Messrs. Blair, Cobb, Conner, Cravens, Culver, Hamilton, Hill, Line, Miller, Murray, O'Brien, Odell, Rice, Slack, Steele Stevens, Studabaker and Wagner - 18.
Mr. MARCH moved to concur in the report of the committee, with the following amendment to the sixth section:
"The release and all other provisions of this act a made upon the express condition that they are accepted by the bond-holders and others interested or connected, with out enlarging or extending the liabilities of the State."
The amendment was adopted by consent.
Mr. LINE moved to amend the first section by adding after the word "reserved" the words:
Provided, Nothing in this act shall be so construed as preventing the State of Indiana, by her Legislature, from fully and to its full entent enforcing the contract, as made with the bond-holders by the acts of 1856-7, and the supplementary act of 1857-8."
Mr HEFFREN moved to amend by striking out and inserting a substitute for section 1, renouncing the reserved right of the State to redeem, and agreeing never to exercise it, and recognizing the right of the bond-holders to rent, or lease, or sell said canal and all lands, &c., belonging thereto.
Mr. STEELE said he would never surrender the right to bond holders to do as they please with the canal, and if this amendment is adopted he would vote against the bill. He urged the passage of the original bill, in an earnest and argumentative speech of nearly half an hour.
Mr. GOODING moved to lay the motion to amend on the table.
A division of the question being demanded -
The motion to strike out was not laid on the table - yeas 4, nays 32.That portion of the amendment which proposes to insert was laid on the table - yeas 33, nays 4.
The motion to strike out was not agreed to.
Mr. LOMAX moved to strike out all after the date "1857" in section 6.
On motion by Mr. CONNER the amendment was laid on the table, and the bill was ordered to the third reading to-morrow.
And then the Senate, at 10:23 o'clock, adjourned.
