HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
MONDAY, February 4,1861.JEFFERSONVILLE PRISON.
The SPEAKER laid before the House a communication from the Warden of the Prison, responding to a resolution of the House of January 26th, submitting the account of contractors with the Prison and the amount due from each: which on the motion of Mr. BURNHAM, was referred to the Committee on the Penitentiary.
VISIT OF THE PRESIDENT ELECT.
The SPEAKER aunounced the select committee to make arrangements for the visit of the President elect on the 12th, viz: Messrs. Gresham, Burgess, Bingham, Sherman, Brett, Jenkinson, and McLean.
REPORTS FROM THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
By Mr. BUNDY, returning a resolution for amending the laws for the punishment of crimes and misdemeanors so as to extend the statute of limitations to five years, and reporting further legislation inexpedient.
He also returned the resolution of inquiry whether there is any law authorizing agricultural societies to hold real estate, and reported that such societies have such power according to the provisions of the act of February 7, 1855 ; that further action on the resolution is inexpedient, and that it be laid on the table.
By Mr. VEATCH. returning the petition of Geo. McClure and others, of Martin county, in relation to the killing of stock by railroad companies, &c., and reporting that the laws now give ample remedy in the case ; that fencing railroads was expedient and proper, but not the work of the Committee; that the Committee cannot recommend any measure that would make an insolvent corporation a solvent one; and thereupon they report that the petition lie on the table.
He also returned a resolution for the amendment of the law relative to the pardoning power, so as to prevent the abuse thereof, reporting legislation inexpedient, and that the resolution lie on the table.
These reports were severally concurred in.
He also returned Mr. McLean's bill [33] to perfect the title of purchasers of railroads on foreclosure of mortgages, &c., so as to to enable them to organize and exercise corporate and other powers, with amendments. That no sale under this act shall be valid unless advertisement of time and place shall have made for 60 days in some newspaper of general circulation in the City of New York and in every country through which the road passes ; and other provisions to save the rights of parties in pending actions.
After some conversation upon Mr. McLean's motion to print, in which Messrs. Bundy, Frasier, Nebeker, Roberts, Ford, and Woodhull took part-the latter promising a report adverse to the bill by a minority of the Committee-
The amendments were adopted, and it was ordered that 200 copies of the bill as as amended be printed.
Mr. VEATCH also returned the petition John Wheeler and others, of Crown Point, in Lake county, for a law to punish timber stealing, stating that said committee had already reported a bill on that subject, and reporting a motion that the petition lie on the table.
Mr. EDSON returned the resolution for amendment of the execution laws, so that no person shall be entitled to their benefit of exemptions unless he make out and present to the sheriff an inventory of all his property and reported further legislation on the subject inexpedient.
Mr. BINGHAM returned the resolution for amendment of the law concerning justices of the peace, so as to require them to make out a list of unpaid fees every three months, and reported, legislation inexpedient thereon.
Mr. EDSON returned the resolution for amendment of the law, so as to allow justices of the peace a fee of one dollar on every case and reported, legislation inexpedient.
Mr. CASON returned the resolution for amendment of the law, so that none but the proper officer shall receive the proceeds of execution, and reported, further legislation inexpedient, and that the resolution lie on the table.
Mr. NEBEKER resisted the report-wanted a bill favoring the resolution. A sheriff could not collect his fees under a recent decision of the Supreme Court.
Mr. VEATCH. It might be the committee had not understood the object of the author of the resolution, (Mr. Smith, of Bartholomew.) But the change the language indicated was eminently wrong. If a decision had been made which cuts the sheriff out of his fees, the remedy would be in a bill to amend the law regulating fees. He promised a report on that matter.
These several reports from the Committee on the Judiciary were concurred in.
Mr. BINGHAM, from the Committee on the Organization of Courts of Justice, returned Mr. McClurg's bill [22] to repeal the act establishing Courts of Conciliation, recommending its passage.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed.
He also returned Mr. Cameron's bill [58] to amend section 42 of the act establishing the Common Pleas, so as to regulate the docketing, &c., recommending indefinite postponement.
He also returned the resolution for justices of the peace to hear evidence and try cases in the absence of the plan tiff.
These reports were severally concurred in.
Mr. McCLURG, from the Committee on Rights and Privileges, returned Mr. Dobbins's bill [60,] providing that railroads shall deposit bonds and freehold securities, as a lien for damages on account of stock killed by page: 167[View Page 167] them with amendments; striking out "Knox"and inserting " Marion;" striking out "Ohio and Mississippi," and inserting " all."
On motion by Mr. McCLURG it was laid on the table-Mr; Dobbins being absent.
Mr. ANDERSON, from the Committee on engrossed bills, reported that said committee had examined the engrossed bills numbered 9, 36, 41, 42, 44, 52, 69, 81, and found them to have been correctly engrossed.
Mr. COLLINS, of Adams, from the Select Committee on the resolution with reference to losing fences at the crossings of streams of tester, submitted an adverse report, and asked to be discharged.
The report was concurred in.
NEW BILLS.
The following new bills were introduced and passed to the second reading:
Mr. DAVIS. [164] To authorize the Auditor of State to loan funds arising from estates without heirs-[as other school funds are loaned.]
Mr. BLACK: [165] To amend section 3 of the Common Pleas Act of March 5, 1855-[changing the times in Dubois, Spencer,Perry, Crawford and Orange.]
Mr. POLK : [166] In relation to Dogs-[one dollar tax.]
Mr. ROBERTS: [167] Concerning notes, bills of exchange, and other instruments of writing.
Mr. JONES, of Tippecanoe: [168] Authorizing suits for alimony, and the disposition of property in certain cases.
Mr. VEATCH: [169] To provide for a change of venue in actions; for another judge to preside where there is incompetency ; and to repeal former laws on the subject.
Mr. VEATCH: [170] Authorizing the County Board to procure and preserve the history of their counties, and to pay the expenses thereof.
Mr. WILLIAMS: [171] To amend sec. 15 of the act concerning promissory notes and bills of exchange[taking away the validity of the clause, "waiving the benefit of valuation and appraisement laws."]
Mr. KENDRICK: [172] To amend the first and second sections of the act prescribing the number and defining the powers and duties of Constables.
FEES PAID THE ATTORNEY GENERAL:
The SPEAKER laid before the House a communication from the Auditor of State, responding to a resolution of the House of the 17th inst, calling for a statement of the fees paid to the Attorney General since the 1st of January, 1859. The total amount being $900.
On motion of Mr. WOODHULL, it was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. ORR submitted a resolution, which was adopted, that the Committee on Education inquire into the expediency of amending the law that the tax collected in each county for school purposes shall be expended therein, and distributed according to the number of scholars in each township.
Mr. - submitted an order, which was adopted, directing the Clerk to deliver the Journal of the House to the State Printer, and that the Printer proceed with the printing of the same, and complete it at as early a day as possible.
STATE OF THE UNION.
The SPEAKER now announced the consideration of the unfinished business, being the consideration of the majority and minority reports of the Committee of Thirteen.
Mr. CASON. It was his intention to be brief. He would confine himself to the consideration of the minority report. Its friends tell us we should sink the partizan in the patriot ; yet there is nothing but party in the report itself-nothing but an effort to restore the Democratic party. It charges all kinds of sentiments against the Republican party. It proposes sacrifices on the altar of our country. Sacrifices of principle were an abomination, but there was only the pretence here. The Republicans had proposed the enforcement of the laws to preserve the Union. The official oath of every officer in the land required this; and a failure would be perjury. The Democrats propose concession for their remedy. The Democratic party was ever a party of concession. The South never made a demand that they were not ready to concede. He quoted from the bill of rights of the Virginia Colony before the revolution, recognizing the right of all to "life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety," and referred to the ordinance of 1787, as Republican in doctrine; and proceeded at length to show what the Democracy conceded in 1820 in the Missouri Compromise, and then cut it down under another demand from the South in 1854. They would, if let alone, give up everything demanded, till the whole country shall be covered all over with the curse and blight of slavery. They lived on concession. It was the very life of the party-they all fattened on it. Did they not now encourage the Southern treason? They said 100,000 Indianians would stand against coercion. The South would not take a step backward after such words of encouragement. This was all the South wanted.
He replied to Mr. Jenkinson's doctrine-the necessity for the extension of slavery to give freedom to these States. Should slavery have the first fruits of the virgin soil of this whole continent to the valley of the Amazon ? The Democracy were sticklers for the Union, but they cared nothing for principles. They do not propose to preserve the Union as it is, but as it may be after they have yielded every demand of the South. They would give up the freedom of speech and: of the press, and the power to extend slavery indefinitely. Then page: 168[View Page 168] they would stand bravely and defend a dishonored flag.
The Republicans propose to preserve the Union as our fathers made it. Anything the Constitution requires was not concession. They would maintain the Constitution as it is. But Mr. Jenkinson, as a last resort, proposes peaceable division. There was nothing that might be settled by treaty out of the Union, but could be better settled in the Union, under the Constitution. The true remedy was, to abide by the Constitution strictly on all hands, and do our duty faithfully, and make no concessions.
He concluded by a respectful, but most explicit and emphatic dissent from the minority declaration about 100,000 Indianians resisting the enforcement of the laws by the national government.
Mr. ROBERTS hoped to be able to rise above the partizan, and address himself to the questions here involved as an American citizen. It was maintained by secessionists that the confederation was simply a mere compact, and that any State can release themselves at pleasure. This was Mr. Calhoun's doctrine. A strange doctrine. It was going back to the old confederation. That was found insufficient by our ancestors, and the formation of the Constitution for the government of the United States became a necessity. He quoted from John Quincy Adams, the following:
"The Constitution of the United States was a return to the principles of the Declaration of Independence, and the exclusive constituent power of the people. That it was the work of the one people of the United States; and that those United States, though doubled in numbers, still constitute, as a nation, but one people."
He quoted also from Mr. Webster's works, vol. iii. p. 464:
"The Constitution of the United States is not a league,confederacy, or compact between the people of the several States in their sovereign capacity; but a government pro-per, founded on the adoption of the people, and creating direct relations between itself and individuals."
It were useless to multiply authorities, but he would read the preamble of the Constitution of the United States, to show that the Constitution operated on individual citizens, as well as on the States. It was the supreme law of the land; and those refusing to yield submission, must be compelled. Secession was rebellion-civil war, if carried on in blood-it was classed with the highest crimes known to the law. If the general government objects to secession, and secessionists persist, it was treason. As a Democrat he was in favor of the enforcement of the laws, let the consequences be what they may. At the same time he abhorred civil war. But should we give up the Constitution to gratify South Carolina? [Never.] He would never favor such a policy-never advocate the right of a State to secede in disregard of constitutional laws. He was not in favor of coercing a State. A State was an ideal thing; but the Constitution and laws of the United States operate on the people, and, when violated, their enforcement-was against individuals-as in the cases execution and violation of the fugitive slay law. Then with what consistiency could & man say, if the people of Charleston, Cincinnati, Chicago or Detroit, resist the collection of the revenue, they should not be punished? He was gratified at the introduction of the resolution of Mr. Jenkinson for punishment of the men that fired on the Star of the West. Mr. Heffren would say 100,000 would resist the enforcement of the laws he begged him not to include the Democracy Of the Fourth Congressional district. He expressed his warm admiration of the course of Senator Johnson, of Tennessee, and others, in the present crisis, including Mr. Holman, his district's representative. But his ears were not deaf to the voice of compromise. He would accept anything fair and honorable on both sides. He objected to the assailment of the Christian ministry in the minority report And if the report can bear the construction' that the Democracy will resist the execution of the laws, he could give it no countenance whatever. He was for the Union as it has been, now is, and he hoped ever would be. To countenance the non-enforcement of the laws was anarchy-despotism. To prevent the effusion of blood he was willing to accept the Border States proposition, or the Crittenden amendments. The fathers were all concession men the Huguenot of South Carolina, the Catholic of Maryland, the Quaker of Pennsylvania. But those who had trampled on the Constitution should not escape condign punishment.
He had understood that Governor Morton issued circulars to those men whom he appointed to ascertain their views on the propositions of remedy. He disliked that; for it was desirable that these men should go up uninstructed and untrammeled, to consider of the terms of conciliation. Indiana should have responded to the call of Virginia, without qualification, because we came out from her. He would hail with great delight a favorable consummation of the labors of the Washington convention which convenes this day. He felt the solemn responsibility of his own position here, on this question, and was earnest for the perpetuity of the Union.
Mr. GRESHAM considered the minority report. It assumes that the difficulty arose out of the infidelity of the North to the Constitution. Hardly a Democrat could believe that. He took the admission of Mr. Jenkinson, that the South wanted the extension of slavery, and that the Republican platform was in the way of that. He believed that if the Union were dissolved, it would be because the North had conceded too much. Now it was demanded that slaves should be recognized as property, and be taken to the Territories and be protect ed as such. If a slave was property, as a horse, where was the necessity for a fugitive slave law? That law was an admission page: 169[View Page 169] against the assumption. The assumption that slaves are recognized as property in the Constitution, was new. The power of Congress over the institution, and the anti-slavery policy of the early days of the government, was seen in the ordinance of 1787. The same principle was recognized in 1820 in the Missouri Compromise, which was disregarded in 1850, and removed in 1854, upon the demand of the South. Even Mr. Pugh acknowledged lately in Cincinnati, that the great mistake of the Democracy was in their submission to the slave power. His effort was to show that the North was not in the wrong in this conflict. He read from the minority report to show that it was to be understood as justifying the South, as sternly and properly protecting their own rights." This was also endorsed by Mr. Heffren, in his speech last Friday. He could hardly expect to hear the endorsement of this doctrine from any other man on this floor. Secession was justifiable! Resistance to the laws was justifiable !! He indicated the inconsistency of Mr. Heffren's position in this speech, with the doctrine of the first report of the Committee of Thirteen, to which he was fully committed. How could he say, after that, that he would interpose his body as a rampart, to resist the Federal force called out to execute the laws of the South? In a time like this, he could co-operate heartily with the gentleman from Dearborn, except that he could not go with him for the Crittenden amendments. Mr. Heffren, but seven days before his speech last Friday, declared, also, that he could not accept the Crittenden propositions. That Crittenden amendment would be construed so as to carry slavery where the people do not want it. He could not endorse that. He did not think the common mind could submit to that anywhere. Such a thing to be done for compromise and peace ! It was a plan to subjugate the majority in the Southern Territories. Was not the conscience of the Northern to be respected ?
Mr. ATKISSON. The people can make their State Constitution free.
Mr. GRESHAM. Certainly. But he assumed that the power of the Government would drive out the majority, and force the adoption of slavery. He recognized fraternity with the South. He would concede some things. He would divide the territory now free, and say, North of that line it shall be free-South slave, subject to popular will, without question or restraint. He could never consent to a proposition that would not recognize the control of the majority in all cases. He did not believe in the patriotism of South Carolina. That vanished in their response to the call of Virginia. In that they declared that their separation to be final, and they would have no compromise. Such a people, if they ever came into the Union, it would be the force of necessity that would drive them back. The minority report also stated, by indirection, that the Douglas platform was a mere empty abstraction, to be given up for peace-to be"laid as a sacrifice upon the altar of our country." It is called "a specious fallacy in regard to slavery." Was popular sovereignty a specious fallacy ? Would Democrats submit now to what they declared at Charleston they never would? He believed that Democrats here in this minority report were committed to that which their maturer judgment could not sanction. The man that puts himself in the way of resisting the enforcement of the laws, puts himself necessarily in the position of a rebel and a traitor. He believed that some men, in the ardor of speech, said things stronger than they think or feel. He felt called on to dissent from the declaration of Mr. Heffren. He gave him the benefit of the explanation, that he would resist coercion against States, as States. The punishment of rebels and resistants of the laws, was quite a different thing from war against a State. He hoped to hear further Democratic expositions of this minority report.
Mr. McCLURG next obtained the floor.
Mr. STOTSENBERG obtained leave of absence.
Mr. ROBERTS submitted an order, which was adopted, requiring the chairmen of committees to give notice to the authors bills, of the time they will be reported.
The House then adjourned.
