HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
SATURDAY, JANUARY 15, 1859.Leave of absence till Monday was accorded to Messrs. Carr, Parks, Kempf, Robinson, Whetzel and Hall, of Rush; and to Mr. Knowlton till Wednesday, on account of sickness in his family.
ADJOURNMENT TILL MONDAY.
Mr. SNYDER submitted a resolution making it a standing rule to adjourn from Saturday at 11 A. M. to Monday, 2 P. M.
The SPEAKER. It can not be considered now because it proposes a new rule.
Mr. SNYDER withdrew the resolution, and moved to suspend the order of business to enable him to make a motion to take up Mr. Park's resolution, submitted last Thursday, which proposes a standing rule for Saturday's adjournment, to the same effect.
page: 43[View Page 43]Mr. POWER should vote for the resolution,out of consideration for those members standing here in opposition to the Republican party,who had been to a weding and infair last night and needed rest. [Laughter.]
The rules were suspended and the resolution was taken up.
Mr. HALL, of Rush.The adoption of this rule would not retard business.
Mr. MURRAY preferred that gentlemen gohome on leave, and leave a sufficient number disposed to work, at least to read the journal and submit their reports, and asked the House to vote the resolution down.
Mr. RITTER was willing to adopt the rule provided the House would act upon another rule - not to excuse the aboence of any gentleman, except for sickness in his family. The fact was, we sit here too long. It was a clog to legislation to sit here when we ought to be at work in the committees.
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
A message from the Senate by Mr. Vawter,their Secretary, announced the adoption in that body of the following resolution:
Resolved, That the Door-keeper be directed to contract A. E. Drapier & Son for six hundred copies of "Brevier Legislative Reports" of the Proceedings and Debates the present General Assembly, after the style of their reports of the proceedings of the late extra session in the"Legislative Sentinel" - said reports to be made up from columns of some daily newspaper printed in the town of Indianapolis, and laid upon the desks of members as fast as they shall complete sixteen pages in double newspaper column: provided the cost of the same shall not exceed one dollar per copy, the House adopting a similar resolution.
[A message from the Governor, by Mr. Osburn, Executive Messenger, announced that his Excellency had approved and signed the Fund Commissioners bill (18. 12.10.) introduced by Mr. Smith, of Perry.]
The rule for adjourning over from 11 till Monday 2 o'clock was adopted, by yeas 25, nays 29.
WOMAN'S RIGHTS.
Mr. WHITEMAN moved further to suspend the rules to enable him to make a motion to take up the consideration of the Senate's concurrent resolution; inviting certain ladies to present a petition in their own persons, in the Hall of the House of Representatives, on Wednesday next, the 19th instant, at 2 o'clock P. M.
The motion was agreed to and the resolution was taken up.
On the motion of Mr. DOUGHERTY, the blank was filled with "two."
Mr. MERRIFIELD, and Mr. THOMPSON, of Madison, demanded the yeas and nays on the question of concurrence.
Mr. BRANHAM hoped the House would not concur. He was in favor of the right of petition, but did not think it right to waste the time of the House with such an exhibition as was proposed. It was unnecessary for these petitioners to come into this presence. If they wish to petition for a redress of grievance, let them proceed as in other cases of petition to the Legislature. He considered it due to the reputation of our wives and mothers to refuse to concur in this resolution.
Mr. LAWHED spoke in favor of the adoption of the resolution.
Mr. STILES should vote against the resolution out of consideration for the sex.
Mr. DEVOL, understanding that the petition was to be presented by the ladies in person, was very anxious that the resolution should be concurred in.
Mr. CLAYTON thought this was carrying the joke a little too far in the way of petition. Such an exhibition he believed had never before been proposed in a deliberative body.
Mr. MURRAY was willing to concur in the resolution, with the following amendment:
"That the House will not organize till said petition is presented, and the parties presenting the same shall retire from this Hall."
If he understood the reading of the resolution, it was that this petition should be presented in person by the ladies at 2 o'clock next Wednesday. He was in favor of giving the ladies the use of the Hall for the presentation of their petition. They desired to present it to the Legislature to read it themselves. He supposed it was to be read. It was directed to the Legislature of the State of Indiana, and all the ladies claimed was the right to read it to us as the Legislature of the State. With the gentleman from Jefferson, (Mr. Branham,) he held that it would be setting a bad example to give the right to these ladies to come in here and occupy our time; for if we allow it to them, we ought not to with old the same right to the humblest petitioner in the State. But what right had the Senate to set apart this Hall for this purpose? Why did they not permit the ladies to come into their chamber?
Mr. POWER should vote for the resolution, because his mother was a woman, and because he loved the ladies generally.
The SPEAKER. On reflection, the Chair decides the amendment out of order.
Mr. HAMILTON, of Boone, did not under stand the programme; but if the petition was to be presented by the ladies in person - read by themselves, and acted on here under their influence and dictation, he could not but be apprehensive for the result of such legislation. Still he could not refuse the exercise of the right of petition, and would vote for the resolution with the proposed modification.
Mr. COLGROVE interupting. Is the gentleman from Boone a married man?
Mr. HAMILTON. I am, sir, and have three little babies.
Mr. COLGROVE. Then it was not to be supposed that the gentleman was in danger of coming too much under the influence of these ladies. [Laughter.]
Mr. Speaker GORDON (Mr. Blythe in the Chair) was never averse to doing an act of page: 44[View Page 44] kindness - and least of all doing an act of kindness to the gentler sex. He did not think we could consume more time in the hearing of the proposed petition, than we have occupied this morning in discussing this resolution. Many ladies (he continued) not only in our own State, but in every State of the Union, deem themselves neglected, and their God-given rights withheld by our legislation. This may be true. I am not going to discuss that. But I will say that they certainly have the right of petition. There can be no discussion about the right - the only question is as to the manner of petitioning. Here the ladies ask to be heard - to present their petition in their own proper persons - to present their grievances in their own way. And as for the influence of their presence here, there was need for it this moment to repress the discourteous language of gentlemen, for who could believe that in the presence of ladies, any gentleman could indulge in expressions of contempt for their proposition? Gentlemen have made themselves merry over it - have made this proposition a subject of burlesque and ridicule. It is not right that ladies should be treated in that way. If we look at the history of the right of petition, and the manner in which it has been exercised in connection with legislation - all we have of this is derived from the parliamentary history of Great Britain - we shall find it as old as the right of representation in that Island, that men and women entered the parliament of Great Britain, submitting their grievances in their own proper persons. We find laws enacted to limit the number that shall present a petition, and to restrain petitioners from coming into the parliament with arms upon their persons, so that the lives and liberties of members might not be endangered. But here, sir, there is no danger from these ladies. True, some of us may be conquered by them, but if so, of course it will be in a way that we can not regret. I hope, indeed, that we may be conquerred so far as to do justice, and to be courteous in all cases where the rights of ladies are in the question - that, we shall have the manhood to give to the ladies that position in civil society which shall enable them to press the demand for all their right to the utmost extent - to the very furthest verge. This is due to them. Let us remember that the ladies constitute half the people of the State, and, as we all say, the better half.
Mr. MURRAY interrupting. Does the gentleman know the object of the proposed petition?
Mr. GORDON. I do not. I know some of the ladies concerned in it. I have the honor to be acquainted with Mrs. Thomas and Mrs. Birdsall, who have both written to me upon the subject, and I will here say, that more worthy or intelligent ladies do not live in the State of Indiana. They are ornaments to the State and to their sex. * * * *I am just now informed of their object. Part of it I should vote against and part of it I should be willing to concede. The first is to give them an equal right with men to property. The second is to give them the right of sufrage. They reason that the right of taxation follows the right of property, and that taxation and representation should go together. There is force in this. It was upon this very ground that our fathers went to war in 1776.
Mr. GIFFORD, Mr. MERRIFIELD and Mr. MANSFIELD each spoke against concurra and the resolution was further supported Messrs. SCOTT, HALL, of Rush, and Mr. LAWHEAD.
Mr. RITTER demanded the previous question, and under its force the House concurred by yeas 44, nays 37 - as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Austin, Bowman, Boyd, Boxley, Brotherton, Clark, Colgrove, Collier, Comstock, Cotton, Davidson, Dougherty, Devol, Early, Firestone, Griffin, Hall of Grant, Hall of Eush, Hamilton of Wayne, Harney, Jeffries, Johnston, Jordan. Keefer, Kelley, Lawhead, McLain, Miller, Nebeker of Vermillion, Nebeker of Warren, Parks, Power, Scott, Shockley, Smith of Miami, Snyder, Stanley, Thompson of Elkhart, Treadway, Usrey, Waterman, Whiteman, Wildman and Mr. Speaker - 44.
NAYS - Messrs. Baird, Blythe. Branham, Cavins, Claypool, Clayton, Dobbins, Durham, Edwards, Fordyce, Gifford, Gregory, Hamilton of Boone, Hartley, Jones, Lewis, Major, Mansfield, Massey, Merrifield, Murray, Martin, Nelson, Parrett, Prosser, Ritter, Row, Shields, Shull, Smith of Perry, Stiles, Stinson, Summers, Tebbs, Thompson of Madison, Turpie and Wood37.
BANK OF THE STATE OF INDIANA.
The SPEAKER laid before the House the reports from the officers of the Bank of the State of Indiana and its several Branches.
On motion by Mr. EDWARDS, they were referred, without reading, to the Committee on Banks.
ASYLUM FOR THE DEAF AND DUMB.
The SPEAKER laid before the House a communication from Thomas McIntyre, Superintendent of the Hospital for the Deaf and Dumb, appointing next Wednesday even: for the time, and Masonic Hall the place, for an exhibition of the proficiency of the pupils under his care - no tickets to be given out but to members, who are invited to occupy reserved seats.
It was referred to the Committee on Benevolent Institutions.
HOSPITAL FOR THE INSANE.
The SPEAKER laid before the House the annual report of Dr. James S. Athon, Superintendent of the Indiana Hospital for the Insane for the year ending October 31, 1858.
On motion by Mr. EDWARDS, it was ordered that it lie on the table - the order for printing to be made on Monday.
FOREIGN WILLS.
Mr. STILES asked and obtained leave to introduce a bill (No. 67) in regard to the contest of foreign wills and testaments, [parties interested in foreign wills admitted to probate page: 45[View Page 45] may contest under the legal provisions for contests in cases of the probate of domestic wills,] which was passed the first reading.
Mr. STILES asked that the rules be suspended to enable him to move the second reading of the bill.
Mr. DOUGHERTY would ask whether the bill is not intended to apply to a special casethe will of the late Hon. H. L. Ellsworth.
Mr. STILES. Only in part. The law now provides only for the contest of domestic wills. If a person dies out of the State, and his will be brought into the State, there is no provision for contest, but in compliance with the provisions of the law of the State where the testator died. If the rules were suspended, I should move to refer the bill to the Committee on the Judiciary.
The rules were suspended by yeas 69, nays 63; and then without further action.
The House (at 11 o'clock,) adjourned till Monday 2 o'clock, P. M.
