IN SENATE.
THURSDAY, February 14, 1861.The PRESIDENT laid before the Senate the 9th annual report of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, which was laid on the table, and 200 copies ordered to be printed. Also, a report from the State Librarian of stationary furnished to Senators during the past two weeks, which was referred to the Committee on Finance without reading.
Mr. MURRAY gave notice that he should, to-morrow, move to change the rule for but one session a day.
PETITIONS, MEMORIALS, &C.
By Mr. WILLIAMS: which was referred to the Committee on Claims without reading.
By Mr. RAY : Proceedings of a Union meeting lately held in Shelby county in favor of .the Crittenden. amendments, &c., which was referred to the Committee on Federal Relations. Also, a similar memorial from Rush county, which took the same reference without reading.
FEDERAL RELATIONS.
Mr. WILLIAMS asked leave to offer a resolution rescinding the vote of the Senate sending all matters relating to the State of the Union to the Committee on Federal Relations.
Mr. ANTHONY objected.
The Senate refused to grant leave by yeas 19, nays 84.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Mr. CONNER: Judiciary-returning Senator Hamilton's bill 31-see page 45-with amendments, recommending passage.
QUALIFICATION OF VOTERS.
Mr. MARCH : Judiciary-(majority)-returning Senator Blair's bill 30-described on page 45 of the Brevier Legislative Reports-with amendments, recommending passage.
Mr. NEWCOMB: Judiciary-(minority)-dissenting from the majority report, and objecting to the passage of the bill unless the second section be stricken out.
Mr. MARCH. The point in controversy is simply this : the power of the Legislature to require a residence as a condition for voting. That matter has been discussed to a considerable extent, during the present session, and I do not deem it necessary now to go into it at any length. I have expressed it as my opinion, and do so now, that the Legislature has the power to define what constitutes a residence. I hope the bill will pass with that section in it; it is the only effectual means by which we can preserve the purity of the ballot box. If it should turn out that the courts should not agree with the Legislature, no harm is done; but if the courts agree, much good would be accomplished.
Mr. LINE moved to concur in the majority report, with an amendment striking out 30 days, and inserting in lieu thereof 15 days.
Mr. LANDERS. I cannot see the propriety of this motion. If we have power to require a residence of 15 days, we have the power to require 30 days. I am inclined to support the majority report. Give us thirty days for transient persons, for we do not propose to require any length of time for heads of families.
Mr. COBB. I concede the fact, that we ought to have some law to protect the purity of the ballot box more than we have now ; but I believe, from reading the Constitution, that we cannot fix the time required to constitute a residence beyond what, the Constitution fixes it itself. I am of opinion that whenever a person settles down for the purpose of residing, it becomes his residence at once. That being the case, any law we may enact fixing the time of residence will amount to nothing. If we can require thirty days, we can require thirty years. I think a great deal of injury might grow out of the passage of a law of this kind, in case it was unconstitutional. A case would not come up until an election takes place, and it is not propable the judges will throw aside the law; but they will act under it,, and thereby disfranchise thousands of our citizens. Yet I say there ought to be some change upon the subject, but we will have to go back to the Constitution before we can do so-the constitution must be changed. I have found decisions in New York courts, where when a person settles down in any place with the intention to make it his or her home, it becomes his or her residence to all intents and purposes.
[The PRESIDENT announced the special order for this hour (10 o'clock) to be the consideration of the minority report of the Committee on Federal Relations, identical with the joint resolution S. 4-see pages 44 and 45 page: 218[View Page 218] of the Brevier Legislative Reports. On Mr. ANTHONY'S motion, it was made the order for this day week at this hour.
Mr. CLAYPOOL. There is a general disposition here to pass some such law as the one now reported by a majority of this committee. So far as I am concerned, I am exceedingly anxious that something of this kind shall be done, for the reason that I think it will tend to purify the ballot box. I am willing to take the leap, let the consequences be what they may. My own judgment is in favor of the constitutionality of this law. This is a matter of much importance. I can vote for this proposition, looking to past legislation, with a good grace; believing it is within the perview of this Legislature to give a definition to the term "residence." I therefore trust this minority report may be concurred in. The length of time, thirty days, is sufficiently short.
On motion by Mr. LANDERS, the motion to recommit was laid on the table by yeas 82, nays 10.
Mr. NEWCOMB. I am desirous to join in the passage of any law to protect the ballot-box. I think I can see so many evils that I cannot conscientiously vote for this bill. To discriminate between different classes of men, as this bill proposes, seems to me to be contrary to the Constitution. If there is any duty over another this Legislature owes to the people., it is to enact a better law for the prevention of frauds on the ballot-box.
Mr. MURRAY. This is a question of the utmost importance, and the people demand its careful consideration at our hands. There is no other way of preventing election frauds than by the adoption of the very clause the gentleman, by his minority report proposes to strike out, unless you get up registry laws to prevent the importation of voters. The Constitution defines who shall be a voter in the State; and we want to fix what shall constitute a residence-that is what we want. I am going to support the bill, because I believe it to be constitutional.
Mr. RAY. The district I represent demands that there should be some radical reform in our election laws. One objection made to the bill is, that it is an invasion of a provision of the Constitution. There is no objection to its necessity or expediency ; all agree in that opinion ; gentlemen are compelled to admit the necessity of this law ; both parties seem to demand it. The objection is far-fetched when based upon the Constitution of the State. The Constitution having left undefined what constitutes a residence; it is assumed that the word "residence" is an arbitrary term fixed by jurisprudence and the lexicons of the country, which is not true. I hold it is an open question in Indiana, what is a residence for voting purposes, and it is within the power of the Legislature to make a definition. I think our hearts and judgments should be for preserving the purity of the ballot-box at the risk of the law being unconstitutional.
Mr. JOHNSON. It is not because I think the court will decide this, act unconstitutional that I shall vote against the bill, but because I think it is unconstitutional myself. And it is not that I am opposed to some law being enacted that will prevent illegal voting; I am for all laws that will punish illegal voting anything that will purify the ballot box I am for.
Mr. ANTHONY. This question has been discussed for a number of years past, and this constitutional question has been a matter of great doubt, among those who have the power of discrimination with regard to questions of this character. There is no doubt but what frauds have be,en committed; ballot box stuffing is a very common thing (getting to be) in this State. There is no one thing so fast destroying our country as this infringement upon the elective franchise. If there is a question of doubt, let us have that doubt settled : let us pass the law. and if the Supreme Court see proper to decide it unconstitutional, let them do it, and let the responsibility be with them; if there is any reponsibility in the matter. We will have discharged our duty, and given the people an earnest of our desire to protect their rights. For this reason alone I shall give the bill my hearty support.
Mr. CARNAHAN. I feel as anxious as any Senator upon this floor to preserve the purity of the ballot box, but I am well satisfied a large portion of .the inhabitants of the State would be robbed of their rights by the passage of this bill. I have never heard any complaint of frauds in my portion of the State, but I have heard of it in other portions and in other counties, and owing to that report, I would be willing to vote for a bill requiring a person to reside in a township ten or fifteen days. But I am satisfied while we have the men to control the ballot box we do have, we cannot have it better. It is controlled by the judges, clerks and inspectors. We always have men who love mercy, do justice, and walk humbly before God. [Laughter.] As the bill now stands, I shall vote against it.
Mr. FERGUSON. I have heard a good deal said at different times about fraudulent voting, but as a general thing more noise has been made about it than is necessary. It is a good deal like milk-sickness, which we often hear prevails to a considerable extent at a distance, but seldom can be found at home. Defeated candidates, instead of frankly acknowledging that they were fairly beaten, because they did not get votes enough, are apt to complain that fraudulent votes was the cause of defeat. I take it that the best way to purify the ballot-box, is to see that the box is kept under the control of honest officers. We will find it very difficult to define by law what is meant by the word "residence" in the Constitution. Suppose we say that men shall reside page: 219[View Page 219]in a township, for county for a certain period before they are allowed to vote, even the term not, sufficiently defined. How reside ? Simply stay in the township so long before the Section; or shall they stay there under such circumstances as entitles them to a residence under the Constitution, given by courts to the leaning of the words. So the question of residence will still be open for different constructions. I take it that a man's residence depends entirely upon his intention; hence the Constitution declares that no soldier or seaman shall acquire a residence in the State in consequence of being stationed within the state. Such men are subject to the commands of the government, and cannot exercise any discretion or intention in regard to their residence. I do not think we can constitutionally pass any law on this subject. When we voted the other day to submit a proposition for the amendment of the Constitution, so as to give the Legislature the right to pass such a law as now proposed, we thereby admitted that we dad no such right under the present Constitution. I therefore think we cannot consistently vote for the bill, and must wait until the people, by an amendment to the Constitution, gives us the right to pass such a bill.
Mr. BLAIR. I do not understand in passing that resolution, we conceded the point that we had no power to pass such a law as this. I gave my vote for it merely for the purpose of making assurance doubly sure, that we might have the remedy ; that we could renlly and constitutionally eradicate this evil. The Senator from Lawrence, [Mr. Cobb,] said if we could require thirty days residence we could require thirty years as well. I think that is doing great violence to that clause in the Constitution defining the qualification of voters. I believe the opinion was expressed first by Governor Wright in 1857, that we should pass a law requiring a residence in a township of sixty days, and he gave it as his opinion, that that was the only remedy. Governor Hammond made a similar recommendation. I am certainly willing to concede that they, are entitled to a considerable respect in construing the meaning of our Constitution. I think the majority report should be concurred in. It is a measure demanded by the people, and if the Supreme Court choose to take the responsibily of deciding this bill unconstitutional let the responsibility rest with them. Mr. SHIELDS. I shall support this bill. I can recollect when this constitutional question prevented the passage of a similar law years ago. Let the people of Indiana see that we are disposed to amend our election laws give them proof that is clear, that we are in earnest.
Mr. CONLEY demanded the previous question.
The demand being seconded,The majority report was concurred in by yeas 31, nays 10.
By Mr. MARCH : Judiciary-returning Senator Lander's bill 47-see pages 96,97, and 192-recommending that it lie on the table, for the reason that the provisions of the bill are embodied in another bill (the one just acted upon) already reported to the Senate.
By Mr. BEESON : Agriculture-returning Senator Lomax's bill 73see page 96with amendments recommending passage.
By Mr. LINE: Select Committee thereon-returning his bill 149-see page 194-recommending passage.
Which reports were severally concurred in.
NEW PROPOSITIONS.
The following bills were introduced, and severally passed the first reading:
By Mr. CONLEY: [176] To regulate the granting of pardons.
By Mr. O'BRIEN : [177] To amend section 5 of an act fixing the time of holding common pleas courts in this State, &c., approved March 5, 1859.
By Mr. SLACK: [178] To amend section 2 of an act establishing courts of conciliation, approved June 11, 1852 ; to make the court to be composed of circuit clerks.
BANKS AND BANKING.
On motion by Mr. CLAYPOOL, his bill 86-described on page 105 of the Brevier Legislative Reports-was taken from the table-the question being on the amendment proposed by Mr. Tarkington-see page 150 of these Reports.
Mr. TARKINGTON. The amendment is simply this: The bill requires banking upon Done other than Indiana bonds, which are worth more by 20 per cent than any Southern bonds. 'My amendment requires for every $100 circulation a deposit of $105 in Indiana bonds. This would bring our bonds home, is conceded to be a safer banking basis than the old law, which required a deposit of $110 for every $100 of circulation.
Mr. MARCH opposed the amendment.
Mr. HAMILTON was willing to vote for the bill either way, but should vote against the amendment.
Mr. LANDERS. I am in favor of the bill as originally reported by the committee, but if the amendmant proposed is adopted, I will certainly have to vote against this bill upon the ground that the bill holder will not be saved. At the same time the bankers of the country do not desire it-they are satisfied with the bill as it is.
Mr. CONLEY. I have examined this bill with some care and think the bill holder is better secured than under the provisions of the old law. I am oposed to the amendment.
Mr. STEELE. By the report of the State Auditor we see that there is one million of dollars banking capital in the State, $400,000 of which predicated upon Southern stocks. Now in order to get these banks to exchange their stocks for the benefit of the bill holder, we must offer some kind of inducement.
page: 220[View Page 220]On motion by Mr. CONLEY the amendment was laid on the table by yeas 27, nays 13.
Mr. ANTHONY moved to concur in the Committee report by striking out the words "and five" in the committee amendment and inserting the words "and ten."
Mr. A. said: My proposition is to leave it as it was under the old law-$110 shall be deposited for every $100 circulation. Gentlemen have asserted that Indiana stocks are better in the market than those of other States. That is true at present and may be so to-morrow, next week and next year, but the year following it may be untrue. In the present condition of the country there is a likelihood they may change in the market. If in a single instance Indiana should fail to meet the interest due on her bonds her stocks will go down. It is possible a large amount, of money may be required-I understand there is $20, 000 interest due in the city of New York, in a few days; Senators have prevented the passage of a bill raising money; and if these are the feelings, how long will it be before there is a failure to pay over the interest and the stocks of Indiana will go down in the market? If we are going to protect the bill holder, let us do it. I am in favor of the passage of the bill, but think this security should be in it.
Mr. TARKINGTON moved to amend the amendment by making it " twenty" instead of " ten."
Mr. CLAYPOOL. I desire to provide the citizens of the State of Indiana with a good currency; I have no other object in view. I can with $50,000 break up half a dozen free banks. Your free bank money is not worth; within fifty cents on the dollar of what it is circulating for. [Mr. C. explained his bill. When he had concluded]-
The Senate adjourned.
