HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
THURSDAY, February 14, 1861.On motion by Mr. STOTSENBERG, (Mr. Speaker Allen being for the moment absent,) Mr. Bingham was called to the Chair.
PETITIONS.
Mr. McLEAN presented the petition of J. D. Boyd, M. D., representing the Grand Division of the Sons of Temperance, memorializing the Legislature upon the subject of establishing an asylum for inebriates, which was referred to the Committee on Temperance.
Mr. LANE presented two petitions, of Walter B. Lander and 224 others, citizens oft Putnam county, asking for repeal of the new county law of 1859.
Mr. EPPERSON presented a similar petition, and they were severally referred to the Committee on County and Township Business.
Mr. ROBERTS presented a petition from Fulton county, requesting, in view of the present disturbed state of our national affai the passage of a joint resolution, asking our Senators and Representatives in Congress use their influence to preserve the constitution of the United States as it is, to maintain the Union unbroken, and take such measures 6 shall secure the protection of all federal property and promote the enforcement of the federal laws in our common country; which was referred to the Committee of Thirteen.
Mr. McLEAN presented the petition of Hugh W. Smith and others, praying for the repeal of the amendments of the divorce law at the last session of the General Assembly; which,on the motion of Mr. JENKINSON, was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. DASHIEL presented the petition of J C. Kennedy, of Pierceville, Indiana, asking for a special act for the admission into the Asylum for the Insane, of his wife, Nancy C Kennedy, now in the Ohio Asylum; which was referred to the Committee on Benevolent Institutions.
Mr. FLEMING presented the petition of Charles V. Lange and others, citizens of Dubois county, against the dismemberment of said county, and the attachment of a portion thereof to the county of Orange ; which was referred to the Committee on County and Township Business.
ADDITIONAL BANK DISTRICTS.
Mr. VEATCH, from the Committee on Banks, returned his bill [62,] to authorize the Bank of the State of Indiana to lay off and create five additional bank districts, and to locate and establish banks therein; with a recommendation that the amendments proposed thereto be laid on the table, and that the bill be passed.
The report argues at length for the passage of the bill. With reference to the unequal distribution of the branches of the Bank of the Bank of the State, it says that section 91 of their charter authorizes the establishment of additional branches, by the consent of two-thirds of the stockholders ; and for any other amendment of the charter, it requires unanimous consent. The object of the bill is to extend banking facilities to those portions of the State now left without them. It does not propose to increase the capital stock, but to allow the location of additional branches where they are needed, so as to place all the different portions of the State on an equality as to commercial advantages. No doubt is entertained of the soundness of the Bank of the State. Its credit is good, and its bills are sought after everywhere. The principal Objection urged against extending the number of branches is, because the bank is not liable to taxation for municipal purposes, on its capital stock, and it is urged that no more branches should be established without they surrender this principle. Without discussing the question whether this ought to have been allowed, or not, it was allowed, and so become a settled page: 221[View Page 221]question, and the bank, like an individual, is not likely to surrender a privilege so settled and established. But we think this consideration ought not to influence the action of the on the question of the establishment of other branches, &c.
Mr. DOBBINS was satisfied there was sophistry in this report-satisfied that the interests of the State did not require an increase of branches. The first question the report presents was the ground upon which this increase is claimed- that the Bank of the State is a sound and safe institution. It was matter of history (he referred to the Bank Frauds Report,) that the charter of this Bank, obtained in 1855, was enacted in fraud, iniquity, corruption. With such a history, how could they ask for an increase of powers at this time ? We find also in their charter (page 229,) the 3d section specifies the number of bank districts that shall be made in the State-not less than 15 nor more than 20. We find, by referring to another section, that 20 shall be the entire number of branches. And here comes this bill to create five additional branches, without a repealing clause. To make the bill accord with the constitution, this third section Of the charter should be amended so as to read not less than 15 nor more than 30 branches. He read the whole of the third section.
Mr. VEATCH. Will the gentleman allow me to call his attention to section 91, which gives the right to authorize and establish additional branches by the consent of two- thirds of the board. The bill is founded on that.
Mr. DOBBINS. He had that before him. He undertook to say, if they had applied at Rockport, they could have had a branch. But they were perhaps unwilling to open the books for stock as the speculators at that time required. He thought the people had lost material sovereign power, by the enactment of that bank charter, to which he called especial attention. In section 79 of that charter, it will be found that the books may be open between the hours of 10 and 2 o'clock-not from 10 to 2-but any time between these hours-so excluding honest men from taking stock, by opening and receiving all the stock in ten minutes, He undertook to say that these additional branches should not be established. Did they want one at Rockport, with exemption from taxation ? The people at this time would prefer to loan their money to individuals, and on private securities. On page 250 of the document in his hand, there was a clause [sec. 91] giving to the Legislature the right to establish additional branches by the consent of two-thirds of the stockholders. Our State Constitution provides that no law shall be passed, the taking effect of which shall depend upon any authority than that recognized m that Constitution. Here was a law made dependant, not on the will of the people, but of two-thirds of the stockholders. The pleadings for bank facilities below New Albany, he answered by referring to the banks at New Albany and Vincennes-near enough for all purposes. He could not think these branches were demanded by the people of the country in the counties of Spencer, Sullivan, &c. It was class legislation, for the benefit of those whose interests were carefully fostered in late legislation here. He referred to that, provision of the embezzlement bill which authorizes the collection of taxes in bills of the State Bank, to the exclusion of the free banks, &c.; and to those other provisions which will lock up in her vaults continually the whole amount of the current revenue of the State. Doubtless, champaigne and other emblems of rejoicing, would inaugurate the passage of the bill in many places in the State, notwithstanding the plea that it was not desired by the bank. He admitted, with the report, that the bank of the State was now in the hands of honest, men ; and he did not want to offer again a temptation to repeat the frauds by which the stock of this institution was taken for all the other branches. He referred the gentleman from Spencer to the free banks for "facilities."
Mr. JENKINSON alleged that a man could not now borrow a thousand dollars in the lower counties, on such acceptable terms as the Bank of the State affords: He lived in a region where the people have these facilities, and he was willing to extend the benefits of the State banking institution equally throughout the State. He would supply the loss of the free banks by branches of the Bank of the State. Men should have the facilities of borrowing money at home, where they could get endorsers, where their property was located, and where they were known appreciated.
Mr. STOTSENBERG had done all in his power to give this bill a fair hearing, by voting for the printing. But when such a report as this is presented, we ought to consider the question carefully. Any rich man could be exempt from taxation upon just as good a plea as that made for the Bank's exemption. The men who got up the bank were responsible for the unequal distribution of the branches ; and those who had sought and obtained branches, had realized a curse instead of a blessing. Honest business men laboring men spent their substance in paying usurious interest to the Bank of the State. Did they want one in Rockport, with exemption from taxation ? He objected not to a bank that stands on the same footing with individuals or corporations. When they ask for additional districts, he would tell them they should never have another privilege till they gave up those privileges which they had filched from the people. His remarks were arrested at 10 o'clock by the special order-the consideration of Mr. Nebeker's new county bill.
On motion of Mr. NEBEKER, the special order was postponed till 11 o'clock.
page: 222[View Page 222]Mr. STOTSENBERG resumed, and spoke at length against the bill. He was satisfied that the bank did want those branches; and that rather than lose them, the bank would give up that part of their charter which exempts them from taxation in cities, which was making the institution so odious all over the State. But he objected further to the banks dealing exclusively in bills of exchange, and to her power to demand interest in advance, as provided in the 5th and 13th sections of their charter. Bank facilities were dearly bought. And this was the foundation of the pleadings here for 10 per cent, interest on contract. But this once granted to the people, the banks would avail themselves of it as well, and so increase their power to a dangerous extent. He warned the body against the bill, and exhorted not to vote for it without a provision that would bring the banks in point of privilege on a level with the individual.
Mr. VEATCH believed that gentlemen opposing this bill did so from their prejudices, which were established years ago, perhaps, and not on its real principles and merits. He thought so from the wide mistake made by the gentleman from Martin, when he supposed we were extending the, exclusive privileges of the bank. Not a single word of the sort was in the bill. Gentlemen seemed to have conceived a sort of bank mania, and to strike right and left at anything having the name of a bank. With regard to the rejoicings over the embezzlement bill, they may themselves have participated in the champagne suppers.
Mr- STOTSENBERG was guiltless of champagne.
Mr. DOBBINS would not object.
Mr. VEATCH. What, then, was this bill? Simply power granted to create five additional branches. It allows not a single dollar more of stock. It grants no privilege-no new power. It allows of no new right or interest, but simply provides that the Bank of the State may extend five additional branches. And the reasons, he thought, were exceedingly plain. All admit that wrong was done in locating the branches in 1855; and this bill is attacked, as though that wrong was going to be repeated under it. The power of locating the original branches was placed in the hands of commissioners-of trading politicians. Now that power is proposed to be granted to the bank alone ; they will look to the locations as a matter of interest-they will be careful not to place a branch where it is not needed, because they are responsible for the managementment of all the,branches ; and the gentleman grants the bank is now controlled by honest men. Being controlled by honest men (he thanked the gentleman for the admission,) the House might trust the bank for these locations.
This question of exemption from municipal taxation, he thought the whole of it might probably consist in the fact, that the gentleman from Floyd is asking the friends of this measure to constitute themselves a mud-wagon to draw the city of New Albany out of her difficulties in this question. He says the bank will be compelled, by the moral power of public opinion, to give up to the Legislature; but Mr. V. would ask him to bring in a separate bill to repeal that portion of the Bank Charter, and he would vote for it. When the branch was about to be established at New Albany, no man there raised his voice against it. They were glad to forego the right to tax for the sake of the branch; and now, sitting comfortably round their bank, they ask the Legislature not to give other portions of the State equal rights with themselves in this respect, simply because they want to tax this branch.
But as to this question of taxation. The gentleman mentioned Rockport as a location He supposed the location for that district would be made at a proper place, somewhere in one of the counties of the district-Dubois Spencer, Perry, or Craw ford. He would be content to leave that with the people and the judgment of the "honest men" of the bank. If the location should be made in the town of Cannelton, the difficulty about the question of taxation would be with the men of Connelton. How could the people of Rockport, or of the town of Dover in Martin county, be effected by it? Or if Rockport got it, would Connelton, or any other town be interested in the question, whether we got municipal taxation or not? Why, then, should New Albany concern themselves about us? Now she has got a bank, why should she compel us to wade through this difficulty, of lifting olf that section of the Bank Charter before we may have any share in its benefits? He insisted, that whether right or wrong, this exemption has nothing to do with this bill. The exemption is in the charter, and we have no power to take it off. Then why fight it? The gentleman says the Supreme Court has decided that they have a right to that exemption. Will the bank surrender this right? or will the gentleman introduce his bill to allow them to do so? It will require the consent of all the branches. If a single branch dissent, his bill avails nothing. His bill would be just as successful alone, as on this bill. Would he insist upon denying us a right he enjoys, when its possession by us could do him no harm ?
Every man conversant with banking operations knows that the Bank of the State of Indiana can use her six millions of stock as profitably where her 20 branches now are, as she could by the proposed extension. It is notorious, also, that she could use twelve millions of capital, and make the same per cent, of profits. But he desired to disclaim any bank influence operating on his mind. No bank man had desired this bill of him ; but the people of a portion of Dubois and Warrickin that fine agricultural region had demanded it. They all say, when our federal difficulties page: 223[View Page 223] are composed, and the things of trade return to their proper channels, if this bill pass, the bank might be induced to extend a district in our direction. No bank man had desired it. He did not believe the bank desired it, because each additional branch would but give them additional partners. But they yield to the de-sire of the people, if the Legislature choose to give them the power. The whole thing turned on this question. There are six millions of bank capital. Shall these six millions be concentrated in the favored towns and cities? or shall a portion of it be placed within the reach of every town and city in the State? Will you only fatten and build up your favorite localities, or will you generously allow this capital to be distributed into these agricultuaal portions of the State, and enable them to move their produce to market? All this talk about privilege, he insisted, did not touch the question.
Mr. OWENS. It might by some be thought anomalous for a Democratic representative to support banks. But banks were necessary to an advanced state of civilization. He gave examples. With 16,000 people down in his county they had not a bank. Banks had sprung out of the Christianity of the age. What were Commerce, Agriculture what would be the condition of our merchants without them? Banks were able and always willing to make loans on more favorable terms than the bankers.
Mr. CAMERON insisted now on the previous question, and under its operation, the report was concurred in-yeas 50, nays 41.
Mr. VEATCH. I now move that the bill be considered as engrossed, and passed the third reading.
Mr. STOTSENBERG proposed to amend by adding, to this effect: Sec. 2. The several several branches of the Bank of the State shall betaxed to the full amount of the capital stock subscribed and paid in the same as the personal property of individuals or other corporations. 3. It shall not be lawful for them to issue notes for circulation on deposits, notwithstanding their charter. 4. They shall not have interest in advance on money loaned, nor compel their customers to pay more than the legal rate of interest. 5. They shall accept the whole of this act or none.
Mr. VEATCH. Inasmuch as the 17th section of the Bank charter prescribes that they shall not take any more than the legal rate of interest; and inasmuch as they have a right to demand interest in advance, I move to lay the amendments on the table.
The yeas and nays being demanded, ordered and taken on this motion, resulted-yeas 53, nays 41-as follows:
YEAS-Messrs. Bingham, Boydston, Branham, Brucker, Bundy, Burgess, Cameron, Collins of Whitley, Crain, Dashiel, Epperson, Feagler, Fisher, Fordyce, Frasier, Gore, Grover, Hall, Harvey, Haworth, Henricks, Hopkins, Hudson, Kurd, Jenkinson, Jones of Vermillion, Jones of Wayne, Kendrick, Lane, Lightuer, McLean, Moody, Moorman. Nebeker, Newman, Orr, Owens, Parrett, Ragan, Randall, Shennan, Sloan, Smith of Miami, Thomas, Thompson, Turner, Underwood, Veatch, Wells, Williams, Wilson, Woodhull,and Mr. Speaker-53.
NAYS-Messrs. Andersen, Atkisson, Black, Brett, Campbell, Cason, Collins of Adams, Combs, Cooprider, Davis, Dobbins, Erwin, Ferguson, Fleming. Fraley, Gifford, Hayes, Holcoinb, Horton, Howard, Jones of Tippecanoe, Kitchen, Knowlton, Lods, Lee, McClurg, Moss, Mutz, Packard, Pitts, Polk, Prosser, Prow, Bobbins, Roberts, Smith of Bartholomew, Stevenson, Stotsenberg, Trier, Warrum, and Woods-41.
So the amendment was laid on the table.
Mr. DOBBINS proposed to amend, by adding a provision, That if said banks establish said branches then thereafter but one-fourth of their capital stock shall be used for bills of exchange payable out of the State-the remaining portion to be used for the purpose of discounting notes payable at some one of the branches of said bank; and said branches shall not contract for or receive any greater rate of interest than six per cent, including exchange.
This was laid on the table-yeas 56, nays 38-and the question recurred. Shall the bill pass ?
Mr. CAMERON demanded the previous question, and under its force, the vote was taken and reported-yeas 46, nays 46,-as follows:
AYES-Messrs. Bingham, Boydston, Branham, Brucker, Burgess, Cameron, Campbell, Collins of Whitley, Crain, Dashiel, Epperson, Feagler, Fisher, Fordyce, Frazier, Gore, Grover, Harvey, Henricks, Hopkins, Kurd, Jenkinson, Jones, of Vermillion, Kendrick, Lane, Lightner, McLean, Moorman, Nebeker, Orr, Owens, Ragan, Randall, Sherman, Sloan, Smith of Miami, Thomas, Thompson, Turner, Underwood, Veatch, Wells, Williams, Wilson, Woodhull, and Mr. Speaker-46.
NAYS-Messrs. Anderson, Atldnson, Black, Brett, Bundy, Cason, Collins, of Adams, Combs, Cooprider, Davis, Dobbins, Ferguson, Fleming, Ford, Fraley, Gifford, Hall, Hayes, Holcomb, Horton, Howard, Hudson, Jones of Tippecanoe, Jones of Wayne, Kitchen, Knowlton, Lads, Lee, McClurg, Moss, Mutz, Newman, Packard, Parrett, Pitts, Polk, Prosser, Prow, Robbins, Roberts, Smith of Bartholomew, Stevenson, Stotsenberg, Trier, Warrum, and Woods,-46.
So the bill was defeated.
The SPEAKER laid before the House tin 9th annual Report (printed) of the Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Mr. Dobbins had leave of absence-his sister at the point of death.
NEW COUNTIESCOUNTY BOUNDARIES.
Mr. Nebeker's bill, [39] To authorize the formation of new counties, and change county boundaries, and to repeal all laws in conflict with this act, coming up as the special order-
On motion by Mr. McLEAN, the House resolved into Committee of the Whole thereon Mr. McLean in the Chair.
The bill having been read through-
Mr. NEBEKER discussed the provisions of the bill. It provides but one material change of the law-that no county shall be dismembered, nor a county line changed, without a vote on it by all the people interested. He referred to the examples of fraud and deception practiced under the law as it is. No page: 224[View Page 224]county was exempt from the operations of the act of 1857; and it admitted of an exchange of territory by two adjoining counties, containing less than 400 square miles. He showed, by example of the counties of Fountain and Warren, the injurious effects of that law-disfranchising the people of the south end of Fountain, and the north end of Warren county, and sending them where they did not want to go,and where they were not welcome; as he showed a few days ago, when one of the reporters (the Journal reporter) represented him as ignorant of the geography of his own county, which circumstance, however, he had not thought important enough to bear a correction. He explained the provisions of the act of 1859, and gave some account of its passage. The House bill was superseded by the Senate bill No, 208. He quoted copiously from the Journal of the last. House of Representatives, viz : from pages 979, 1023,1024, 1031, 1033, 1062, 1083,1114, 1119, to show that there was no emergency clause in the bill, as it passed the House, and that Dr. Snyder's proviso, viz: "Provided that no new county shall be formed without the consent of a majority of the. qualified voters of the county or counties out of which it is proposed to be formed,1' which is not in the published act, was put into the act at the time it passed the House: and thereupon he charged fraud as resting between the clerk of the House and the Committee on Rights and Privileges, last reporting on the bill in the House. He was satisfied, however, that the clerk of that session [Dick Ryan] had no interest in the matter, and that the fraud must have been practiced by interested parties. He thought now he had fully answered the gentleman from Boone and Hendricks, as to whether the last Legislature knew what they were about on that bill.
Mr. CASON would like for the gentleman to tell how the bill got through the Committee on engrossed bills? and where was the gen tleman from Warren, who was a member of the last House ?
Mr. NEBEKER. I was at home, or I do not believe it would have passed. I was called home by an affliction in my family.
Mr. CASON. How could the Committee report the bill as correctly engrossed, without seeing the error?
Mr. NEBEKER. There is a good deal in this that I know nothing about, never expect to know. It was done in the night time. I tell you, however, I think Mr. Devoll knew all about, it. I cannot answer the question of the gentleman from Boone. I wish he could.
Mr. CRAIN. There were but two propositions before the committee-one, the bill, and the other, the saving clause of the minority report. We had seen, with Mr. Nebeker, that the bill of the last session did not pass in its shape in the acts ; that the journal shows that an amendment was engrafted by Mr. Snyder, giving all the people interested the power to vote. That amendment wns never seen afterwards. It was taken out of the bill before it went again to the Senate. The Senate concurred in the other amendments that came from the House; and the act is printed with an emergency clause never read in the House. It was a bill to make lawsuits, and it had made lawsuits which would not probably be settled in the next twenty years. He objected to the saving clause of the minority. It was a clause calculated to disturb and convulse the interests of several counties, had procured the passage. If interested parties had procured the passage of the bill of last session, and therefore involved themselves in lawsuits, were such interests, created under such circumstances, to be protected by a saving clause ? That act gave the people at large no notice, and no chance to know what is going on by interested parties getting up the petition for a change. Only one county had been formed under it, that is the county of Newton,out of Jasper-so large as not to affect the constitutional provision. The object with him was to arrest pending proceedings for new counties.
Mr. WOODHULL explained that he was op. posed to the existing law, and opposed to a saving clause here, to protect interest created in actions commenced under a base law.
Mr. DOBBINS explained his position on this bill, as a member of the last General Assembly, by reading his remarks sketched in Draper's Brevier Reports; and corroborated Mr. Nebeker's statement with reference to the Snyder amendment. [See vol. ii., pp. 295,296.] He considered both the act of 1857 and thea ct of 1859 wrong. He referred to a suit pending in his region to get a portion of Dubois county attached to Martin, based on these acts, which made him to doubt what his vote should be as to the proposed saving clause.
Mr. CASON, having been alluded to, deemed it proper to make a few remarks. The gentleman from Warren made the charge of fraud, without asking for investigation-without saying anything about it till investigation is too late. The gentleman could not tell how the act got through the committee on engrossed bills. The worthy gentleman referred to, as concerned in the alleged fraud, was known to be wholly above such a charge. Who were opposed to this saving clause? He charged that political influences, in favor of the Democratic party, were operating in the proposed change of lines between Fountain and Warren, and favored by the gentleman from Warren; aud all gentlemen situated in counties proposed to be divided were opposed to the saving clause. Gentlemen who stood by and saw a bill passed by fraud, (they prove it by the record,) should be slow now to charge fraud, for they themselves are culpable if there be fraud. Were we to sit in judgment on the action of the last Legislature? Several actions had been commenced for new counties under the act of 1859, which the Supreme Court had decided valid, page: 225[View Page 225] and those interested in opposition to those changes come in here and seek legislation to throw the costs of these proceedings on those who have commenced in good faith. If this saving clause is not passed, it would be to pass judgment against the last Legislature, andd to disregard the rights of innocent parties. The lobbies, which had been inferred, were on both sides of this question, but mostly against this saving clause. Gentlemen say the courts will protect vested rights then why oppose the saving clause ? The bill before the House was as unjust as a proposition could be; was a keeping back of the possibility of making any new county: for the majority were generally controlled by those around the county seat.
The CHAIRMAN here directed the reading of the minority report, which also recommends the bill with an amendment, saving the rights of parties where suits have been commenced forth organization of new counties.
Mr. FRASIER. The gentlemen says the bill is as unjust as anything can be, because it requires a majority of the voters interested to change the line. Had we not a statute that requires two-thirds to remove a county seat? and there were in this House examples of the same rules. He considered that some changes of county lines embraced interests equally grave with that of the removal of a county seat. He said it was an injustice for a few persons to make a change of lines, without consulting the majority. It was evident from the journal, that there was some juggling and stuffing in the passage of the bill of 1859. It was a new doctrine that repealing this act would implicate the last Legislature in fraud or unjustifiable blundering. Was this indeed without precedent, as the gentleman says? A repeal, without a saving clause was no impeachment of the former Legislature. He was not interested in any manner, but supported the bill without the saving clause, because he believed the existing law was bad from the beginning.
On motion of Mr. CAMERON, the committee rose, reported progress, and asked and obtained leave to sit again to-morrow at 9 o clock.
Mr. FEAGLER had leave of absence-sick.
On motion of Mr. BRANHAM, Mr. Jenkinson's Circuit Court bill [172] was taken up the motion to print was reconsidered and rejected, and it was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
On motion by Mr. JENKINSON, his tax bill [5] was made the special order for Monday 3 o'clock.
Mr. CAMERON had leave to refer his bill to the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. BRUCKER had leave of absence till Monday.
The House then adjourned.
