HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
THURSDAY, February 21,1861.Mr. JENKINSON asked again and now obtained unanimous consent to make a motion to reconsider the vote on the passage of his bill No. 5, to restrict the taxiing power of the County Commissioners, with the object to strike out the words which he had interpolated since it passed the House, but which did not effect the sense of the bill. He wanted to restore the bill as it passed the House, and send it back to the Senate.
Mr. WOODHULL objected, too late.
Mr. FRASIER did not think the bill was right, and wanted it to sleep. He did not think the House should put the seal of its approbation on the act of the interpolation of words after a bill had passed. He moved to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.
The yeas and nays being demanded and taken thereon resulted-yeas 21, nays 51 : so the House refused to lay the motion on the table; and then the vote was reconsidered, and the bill takes its place on the Calendar.
PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.
Mr. STOTSENBERG presented the petition of 81 citizens of Georgetown township, in Floyd county, without respect to party, asking the General Assembly to instruct the delegation of the State in the Peace Congress, and instruct our Senators and request our Representatives in Congress to co-operate with the Wends of peace upon the basis of the Crittenden propositions, or some other basis equally fair and honorable.
Mr. PACKARD presented a similar petition by Andrew W. Porter and others; which petitions were referred to the Committee of Thirteen.
Mr. RANDALL presented the memorial of J. D. Nelson, President of Noble County Agricultural Society, and others, asking for legislation for the protection of sheep from sheep killing dogs; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. ANDERSON presented the petition of Jno. Ellis and others, citizens of Elkhart county, for a law declaring that worthless seed-stock shall not be free commoners; which was referred to the same committee.
Mr. TURNER presented the claim of Morris & Ray, attorneys, for legal services, $1000; which was referred to the Committee on Claims.
Mr. BURGESS presented the claim of N. F. Cunningham; which was referred (without reading) to the Committee on Claims.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Mr. WOODHULL, from the Committee on the Judiciary, returned Mr. Brucker's bill [99] to amend the Treasury act of the last session, with a motion to lay it on the table. He stated that the object of the bill was attained in the Embezzlement bill, No 1.
The report was concurred in.
Mr. BRANHAM, from the Committee on Ways and Means, returned the resolution, for a substantial iron fence around the Governor's Circle, with the expression of opinion that the proposed improvement is inexpedient.
The report was concurred in.
Mr. GIFFORD, from the Committee on Ways and Means, returned the petition of sundry citizens of Franklin and Dearborn counties, for legislation to correct the valuation of the Harrison and Brookville Turnpike, with a report, that existing laws provide ample remedy for the case. They refer to the first volume of the Revised Statutes of 1852, chapter 6, sections 82 and 86.
The report was concurred in.
Mr GROVER, from the Committee on Education, returned the resolution, for the amendment of the School law, so as to require the ten per cent School tax levied in each county, to be retained in the county, and reported a motion that the resolution be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
The report was concurred in, page: 260[View Page 260] He also returned Mr. McLean's bill [239] to amend the 6th section of the Assessment act of June 21, 1852, with pending amendments thereto, recommending that the bill and amendments be laid on the table, and that the bill be amended by striking out and inserting new matter after the enacting clause, [exempting public property from taxation, generally conformable to the bill and instructions referred.]
Mr. DAVIS proposed to amend the amendment of the Committee, by striking out "300," and inserting "160." He considered that 160 acres was enough to exempt for any institution; which was adopted.
Mr. BRANHAM proposed further to amend, by adding "Agricultural Societies," in the proper place; which was adopted.
Mr. STOTSENBERG proposed to amend further, by adding a clause exempting the property of all persons insane, of idiots, of all blind and deaf and dumb persons to the extent of $800; which was also adopted.
Mr. STEVENSON proposed to amend further, by exempting from taxation the personal property of all males over 60 years of age where the same does not exceed $300; which was rejected.
The bill, as thus amended, was ordered to be engrossed.
Mr. Harvey had leave of absence-sick.
Mr. COLLINS, of Adams, from the Committee on Education, returned Mr. Brucker's bill [232, to amend part 6, section 6, of the assessment act, with a motion to lay it on the table; which was concurred in.
JOHN VALENTINE.
Mr. DOBBINS, from the Committee on Claims, returned the petition of Uriah Ballard and others, citizens of Monroe township, Morgan county, with a joint resolution for the relief of John Valentine from the repayment of $180 of said township funds, lost by his deposit thereof in the Indianapolis Savings Bank. He said the petition was signed by the principal taxpayers of the township-signed by nearly every citizen of the township. It was money belonging to the township alone, and they were willing to be taxed for the loss.
Mr. HEFFREN. Did he deposit in his own name ?
Mr. DOBBINS did not know anything about that.
Mr. Speaker ALLEN (Mr. Frasier in the Chair.) The money was deposited in the individual name of the treasurer, who was to receive the interest, &c. It did seem to him that the passage of this joint resolution would be establishing a precedent from which bad results would follow. It would encourage township treasurers to deposit trust funds for their individual benefit, by assuring them that if they lost, they could come back upon the Legislature and be relieved. It would be to Say to them: "If your investments are profitable, you shall have the profits; but if they are not profitable, the people shall sustain the loss." He considered that the Legislature should not establish such a precedent, even if every man in Morgan county should petition for it.
Mr. McLEAN. The people of Monroe township might make up the money by private subscription.
Mr. FERGUSON was fully satisfied that the people of Monroe township were willing lose this money. If it was shown on the face of the petition that Mr. Valentine deposited the township money in his own name, he would not press the claim; but he was not so advised. The people generally of Morgan county deposited in the Indianapolis Savings Bank.
Mr. DOBBINS. It was a matter that concerns the people of Monroe township. It was wholly their business.
On motion by Mr. PARRETT, this proceeding was laid on the table.
ANDREW J. GRAY.
Mr. SLOAN, from the Committee on Claims returned the memorial of Andrew J. Gray, for a claim of $600 on account of returning fugitives from justice under the order of the Governor; with the expression of opinion that the claim ought to be allowed by the county commissioners.
Mr. GRESHAM moved the recommitment of the report.
Mr DOBBINS had no doubt Mr. Gray expended the money as he states, but on examination of the Governor's order amongst the papers in the case, he found this statement: That the party executing this paper must do so at his own expense-that the State of Indiana would not be responsible for the cost. Mr. Gray undoubtedly made the arrests, knowing that he had no prospect of remuneration from the State.
Mr. GRESHAM and Mr. ROBERTS insisted that there were individual merits in this case, and desired that Mr. Gray should have a full hearing.
Mr. SLOAN said the case was precisely similar to that of Matthews and Johnson, which was reported against yesterday by a majority of the same committee.
The House refused to recommit, and the report was concurred in.
STATE OF THE UNION.
Mr. BUNDY moved to suspend the order of business and take up the consideration of the Reports of the Majority and Minority of the Committee of Thirteen.
Mr. SMITH of Bartholomew preferred the order of Reports from Committees.
Mr. McLEAN proposed to amend the motion by making the subject of the Reports of the Committee of Thirteen the special order for to-morrow at two o'clock.
Mr. CAMERON demanded the previous question, and under its operation, Mr. Mc page: 261[View Page 261]Lean's motion was rejected; Mr. Bundy's motion was adopted, and the orders of the day were suspended.
The Majority Report of the Committee of Thirteen being read by the Clerk-
[See pages 141, 142 of these Reports.]
Mr. BUNDY moved the adoption of the majority report.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Floyd.
Mr. CAMERON demanded the previous question.
Mr. Stotsenberg's amendment, calling for a Convention of the people of the several States, was then read.
The demand for the previous question was seconded, affirmative 52, negative not counted.
Mr. HEFFREN suggested that the first question would be on the motion of Mr. Sherman, to reject the minority report. All he wanted was a fair and square vote.
The SPEAKER No ruling of the Chair could be interposed to prevent a fair and square vote. The Chair explained the order. The first question was on the adoption of Mr. Stotsenberg's amendment.
Mr. STOTSENBERG insisted that under the 8th Rule a member had a right to offer a brief reason for his vote, notwithstanding the previous question.
The SPEAKER decided that a member can give his reasons for asking to be excused for not voting ; but not reasons for his vote. His reasons must not apply to the merits of the question.
Mr. DOBBINS demanded the yeas and nays, which, being ordered and taken, resulted yeas 36, nays 57: so Mr. Stotsenberg's amendment was rejected, and the question recurred on the adoption of the resolutions reported by A majority of the Committee of Thirteen.
Mr. STOTSENBERG asked to be excused, and thereupon said: If I vote for this report, I shall vote against the instructions of my constituents, 19-20ths of whom are for the Crittenden propositions, as well as against the well-known sentiments of the State of Indiana. I shall vote against them because they are like the people of Laodicea of old, they are neither cold nor hot, but lukewarm, and the people of this country will spew them out of their mouths.
After Mr. DOBBINS'S demand and withdrawal of the yeas and nays upon talking across the House-
The House refused to excuse Mr. Stotsenberg.
Mr. DAVIS asking to be excused, said: I cannot vote for this report in justice to my constituents, because they have instructed me to vote for some mode of adjustment which these resolutions do not contain.
Mr. EDSON. There is a portion of the majority report that I can approve, but that portion which declares that the citizens of Indiana have not done anything to offend against the South, I cannot vote for, &c.
Mr. ROBERTS. I cannot support the resolutions of the majority as an entirety, although there are many things in them, that I do approve. Sir, I approve the preamble as a whole, and also the second, third and fourth resolutions. I could also approve the first resolution as an entirety, were it not for that part of it which says that "we (the people of Indiana) have not, in the past, contributed in any degree to bring about that state of things which threatens to result in overwhelming calamity and unparalleled crime." Sir, this is a grand error as to a part of the people of this State-too grave to receive an indorsement at my hands. There is no denying the fact that the crusade which has and is being prosecuted against the people of the South and their institutions by the Republican-Abolition party of the North has brought upon us the troubles now imperiling us. Therefore, sir, on account of this grave error I shall decline to vote upon the report at all.
Mr. COOPRIDER, I have been at home, and mingled with the citizens of the county of Clay, and have received their positive instructions not to vote for these resolutions. Therefore he asked to be excused from voting.
Mr. POLK. I wish to be excused from voting for the majority report, because it offers no remedy to the existing difficulties, but is a dallying with serious and weighty matters.
Mr. STOTSENBERG desired, "but was refused leave, to propose to amend the resolutions, by adding after the word "citizens." these words, "and that we are in favor of the Border State propositions, or any other honorable and fair plan of adjustment, and we hereby instruct our Delegates to the Washington Convention to that effect."
The yeas and nays were now reported yeas 58, nays 26, as follows:
YEAS-Messrs. Anderson, Bingham, Boydston, Branham, Brucker, Bryan, Bundy, Burgess, Cameron, Campbell, Cason, Grain, Dashiel, Epperson, Erwin, Feagler, Ferguson, Fisher, Fordyce, Fraley, Frasier, Gore, Gresham, Grover, Hall, Haworth, Henricks, Hopkins, Hudson, Kurd, Jones of Tippecanoe, Jones of Wayne, Kendrick, Lane, Lee, Lightner, Moody, Moorman, Nebeker, Newman, Orr, Parrett, Eagan, Randall, Sherman, Sloan, Smith of Miami, Thomas, Thompson, Turner, Underwood, Veatch, Wells, Williams, Wilson, Woodhull, Woods, and Mr. Speaker-58.
NAYS-Messrs. Black, Brett, Collins of Adams, Davis, Ford, Gifford, Heffren, Horton, Howard, Jenkinson, Kitchen, Knowlton, Lods, McLean, Moss, Mutz, Owens, Packard, Pitts, Polk, Prosser, Prow, Bobbins, Stevenson, Stotsenberg, and Trier-26.
The SPEAKER directed the Clerk to enter upon the journal as present and not voting, Messrs. Atkisson, Cooprider, Dobbins, Roberts, Smith of Bartholomew, and Warrum; and that they were not excused by the House.
So the majority resolutions were adopted.
The SPEAKER announced the next thing in order to be the consideration of the resolutions and report of the minority of the Committee of Thirteen; and they were read by the Clerk, [See pp. 142, 143 of these reports.]
page: 262[View Page 262]The SPEAKER announced the next question to be on the motion of Mr. Sherman to reject the minority report.
Mr. SHERMAN withdrew the motion.
Mr. FRASIER. In order to give gentlemen an opportunity to vote fairly and squarely on the report, I now move the adoption of the minority report.
The report was then read by the clerk from the printed copy on page 43 of these Reports-
Mr. HEFFREN stating that the resolutions are printed incorrectly by leaving out a few immaterial words.
Mr. STOTSENBERG proposed to amend by striking out all after the word "Indiana," and inserting, That our Commissioners at Washington be instructed to vote tn said conference for a basis of settlement, such as the Crittenden proposition, or for any other fair and honorable mode of adjustment, and demanded the yeas and nays thereon.
Mr. DAVIS was ready to vote for that amendment. He was instructed in that direction. That was all he cared about. He cared nothing about preambles and accompaniments, He would vote for some direct instructions for action ; and he believed this amendment would have been voted for by Republicans, if it had been offered to the majority report.
Mr. FRASIER. I would not vote for it if it were appended to the Apocalypse.
Mr. DAVIS excepted ultra men.
The amendment was rejected-yeas 36, nays 53.
Mr. McLEAN proposed to amend by striking out nil after the word " Indiana" and inserting "That our Commissioners at Washington be and they are hereby instructed to vote in the Peace Conference for a plan of adjustment on the basis of the Border State resolutions, or any other equally fair and honorable adjustment of our national difficultits."-He enforced this with a little speech.
Mr. CAMERON moved to lay the amendment on the table.
The yeas and nays thereon resulted-yeas 67. nays 43; so it was laid on the table, and the question again recurred on the minority resolutions.
Mr. ATKISSON proposed to amend by striking out all that which relates to ministers of the Gospel; also, all that which relates to furnishing the South with men in case of war,&c. [Laughter.]
He considered tbe report and the resolutions go together. he resolutions were all right.
Mr. BRANHAM moved to lay the amendment on the table.
Mr. STOTSENBERG and Mr. HEFFREN made the point that it was not competent for the House to amend a report of the views of a Committee.
The SPEAKER sustained the point of order, and so Mr. Atkisson's proposition was ruled out.
Mr. STOTSENBERG proposed to amend by striking out all after the word "Indiana," and inserting, That our Commissioners at Washington be and they are hereby instructed to vote in said Conference in favor of a recommendation for a call of a Convention of the States, under the fifth article of the Constitution of the United States.
Mr. HEFFREN proposed to amend th amendment, by adding to the following effect: Whereas, a difference of opinion has between the people of the Northern and the people of the Southern section Union, respecting the common territory, there-fore, as a ground of compromise and to restore peace, the State of Indiana proposes, as a basis of settlement, to restore the Missouri Compromise line, with all the rights of the States and people north and south of it as they formally existed, or any other basis of settlement, which would not infringe upon the rights of the States and the people of any part of the Confederacy He said this amendment was word for word a copy of the original unanimous report of the Committee of Thirteen, wanting but a single word, "constitutional."
It was rejected-yeas 30, nays 53.
On motion by Mr. CAMERON, Mr. Stotsenberg's amendment was laid on the table-yeas 52, nays 33.
Mr. PROSSER. This proceeding having run its course long enough, he moved the previous question.
Mr. EDSON appealed to the gentleman to withdraw the demand; but Mr. Prosser adhered, and there was a second.
Mr. STOTSENBERG, under a motion to be excused for not voting, proceeding to discuss the general question so far that-
Mr. FERGUSON made a point of order against him, which was sustained by the Chair.
Mr. PROSSER now moved to reconsider the second for the previous question.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. McLEAN (by unanimous consent) submitted an order, which was adopted, giving the use of the flag on the dome of the Capitol to the Indianapolis City Greys for their annual ball to-morrow night, in commemoration of the birth of the Father of his country.
STATE OF THE UNION.
The SPEAKER announced the question to be on Mr. Prosser's motion to reconsider the second for the previous question.
Mr. PARRETT and Mr. ORR hoped it would not prevail.
Mr. FRASIER hoped it would. There were gentlemen desirous of speaking on this question who had not yet spoken, and he was disposed to give an equal chance to all.
Mr. JONES of Vermillion, said the time had been when he would like to say something; but he was not now solicitous. His constituents were for saving the Union by all means, page: 263[View Page 263] and they knew they had his hearty sympathy and cooperation, and he supposed the work would be done quite as well without his occupying the time of the House.
The second for the demand of the previous question was reconsidered, and the demand was withdrawn.
Mr. EDSON had not made speeches to be reported and sent to the country, and did not now propose to do so. He believed this the most important question that could come before this body. Whilst he was for the Union with all his heart, he was opposed to coercion. There were now two governments within the limits of the former Confederacy, and we must coerce, or recognize the action of the cotton States. Their action had not his sympathy. He did not believe in the right, of secession ; but he desired that everything should be done that could be done to retain the eight border States. Such resolutions as we passed this morning would waste the strength of the Union men in those States. He represented, in part, two counties, giving some 7,000 votes. These counties divided in the late elections ; but they were now nearly unanimous for compromise. He referred to a recent Union meeting, presided over by Judge Pitcher, a Republican, (and a majority of its officers and active men were also Republicans and Americans,) whose resolutions he had presented here. He believed a very large majority of the people in the southern portion of the State were in favor of adjustment and compromise, on something like the Crittenden propositions. Being questioned by Mr. Frasier, as to how Douglas Democrats could accept so readily the Crittenden propositions, he replied, that he was not for those propositions in the abstract, but for popular sovereignty as a great national principle that must ultimately prevail. He showed the Republican mistake here, as to the effect of the Crittenden propositions: which he read, to show that they were not the Breckenridge platform with the addition of a slave code, as asserted by Judge Bundy. He believed this question of the extension of slave territory, was a question of climate and not of legislation. The Crittenden propositions apply restrictions only to existing territory south of 36 deg. 30 min. ; whilst they apply unrestrictedly to territory north of that line. He hoped we were be able to get restrictions upon the future acquisitions of territory the source of all our national difficulties. With respect to these minority resolutions and his position, lie endorsed the sentiment on the Indiana marble block in the Washington monument that Indiana knows no North, no South, no East, no West, nothing but the Union. He exhorted to the duty of pacification by all means to save the border States, and bring back, if possible, the seceding States. He did not recognize the right of secession ; but there was a right of revolution. There was another government de facto if not de jure, in those six: cotton States. He denied the policy of coercion, and commanded the forbearance at Washington by which the seceding States were still recognized, and their names still called in Halls of Congress, though none of their representatives were there to answer. Being interrogated, he said, it was absurd to affirm that there were seven millions of traitors in the Southern States. He endorsed the minority resolutions, but not the report. He could not, and would not join in a sweeping denunciation of any class of citizens-as the report denounces ministers of the Gospel. He believed in the freedom of speech and of the press, and that ministers had the same civil rights of other men-out of the pulpit. He objected to this part of the report, as having no connection with the matter in hand. He elaborated again his position on the right of secession. He could admit the doctrine no more in the case of a State, than in the case of a county or any portion of a county. He admitted the difficulty in the question, whether coercion should not follow where there is a violation of natural right If these seceding States could not be recovered, he objected to the policy of coercion, or committing ourselves to any line of policy with respect to this division, as to which side we would fight for; but if the cotton States will go, let them go in peace. The question of the Union was infinitely higher than mere party successes and party spoils. He believed that all platforms and politicians, including Abraham Lincoln, would be compelled to subside before the will of the American people, when they shall rise up in their might and declare that the Union must and shall be preserved. He closed by referring to the singular character of the Republican record here on the Crittenden propositions.
Mr. POLK, proposed to amend, by adding the following:
Resolved, That it is impolitic and inexpedient to coerce by force of arms any seceding State.
On motion by Mr. Cameron, it was laid on the table-yeas 53, nays 37.
Mr. CHAIN now demanded the previous question.
Mr. McLEAN (by unanimous consent) said, That as a member of the Committee of Thirteen who submitted the minority report, he asked the privilege of making a brief statement. As certain Republican members of the House had charged that there was a vein of secession running through that report, and that the right of secession was virtually admitted in it, he would say for himself, that he was no apologist for secession. He had no words of honied sympathy for those reckless Hotspurs who had set this unrighteous and unholy movement on foot. If the minority; report contained one word of sympathy for those who, regardless of all duty and every dictate of patriotism, had set that ball in motion, he had not read it aright. He did not thus interpret it. The legal and constitutional right of a State to secede is against the page: 264[View Page 264] plainest letter of the preamble of the constitution, it is the wildest vagary that ever entered a madman's brain. Admit the right of a State to go out of the Union at pleasure, and for every fancied grievance, and there is an end of all government. As well might you say that a county, yea, an individual, could secede from the State, or from a municipal government. The constitution of the United States was called into existence by the people, and not by the States, as such, of the Union. It is a contract binding alike upon each and every citizen of the United States, and its design is to maintain a government for the benefit of the whole people. It must, therefore, by paramount to all State constitutions, and all other civil authority whatsoever. As to coercion, that was simply a question of expediency. Every Republican must know that the first blow for coercion in the South, yea, even though that blow were struck in South Carolina, would unite the entire South as a wall of living fire. From every hill and hamlet and valley of the South would bristle the bayonet and glitter the sword. The heather-hidden bands of Clan Alpin never responded with more alacrity to the shrill whistle of their chief, than would the solid South rise up, as one man, at the first blow of coercion struck within their borders. Let the laws be enforced to the extent of cutting off the mails in the seceding States, where the postal system costs the United States more than the revenue received therein. Let the ports of Charleston, Savannah, Mobile, and other ports in those States be declared, by act of Congress, no longer ports of entry, with privileges to grant clearances to vessels. That would be the extent of the coercion he could favor. Coercion, in the lips of many modern Republicans means war, and war means disunion; final, everlasting separation. [Applause.] As used by many of them, it had still another meaning. It meant folly, madness. Nothing could be accomplished by such coercion, except the final and everlasting disunion of the States. It could accomplish no other object. [Applause, which was promptly suppressed by the Chair.]
Mr. HEFFREN, under a pro forma motion to bo excused from voting, explained that in the reference in the minority report to ministers of the gospel there was no intention of saying anything against ministers as a class, when they attended to their own business in the pulpit.
Mr. ATKISSON (pro forma.) I shall vote against the resolutions, because there is not one of them which every Democrat here has not voted for time and again; and because they were connected with other matters to which I object.
Mr. ROBERTS, (pro forma.) I desire to give a reason for the vote which I shall cast on the minority report. I shall vote "aye" on the resolutions, and in so doing I do not understand that I approve the argument presented by the minority in their support, believing that the argument, or report, and the resolutions are wholly disconnected under the parliamentary law by which we are governed, and that we are voting on the resolutions only, and not on the argument or report. I approve the resolutions entirely, but there are many parts of the report which I could not support, under any circumstances whatsoever, which I will not take the time to point out now.
Mr. STOTSENBERG (pro forma). There is one resolution here that it would not be wise to vote for. (He referred to the third, and re-cited it, and proceeded to remark upon the merits of the question until he was arrested by the chair.)
Mr. FORD (pro forma). There is not a single word or sentiment in these resolutions in which I do not concur, and in voting for the resolutions I do not intend by any means to endorse the accompanying report. I have a great reverence for ministers of the Gospel ; and I do not want to be considered as favoring the right of the secession of a State, any sooner than I would favor the same right in a county, township, or individual.
Mr. SMITH of Bartholomew, (pro forma). I ask to be excused from voting. [Consent, and laughter.]Mr. SMITH. The consent is not unanimous. Several about here say "no consent."
The SPEAKER. The chair did not hear a, dissenting voice, but he will now recognize the dissenting voices on the word of the gentleman. [Laughter.]
Mr. SMITH. The reason why I want to be excused is, because I desire to wait for the result of a challenge which several days ago I sent to your honor, to make a speech against me on this question. Since that time I have spent sleepless nights in preparing my speech for that occasion. [Laughter.]
Mr. McLEAN. I move that the gentleman have leave to deliver that speech now.
Mr. SMITH. It might not be as lengthy as some, but I doubt not that it would be the most important of the session. [Laughter.]
The SPEAKER. The Chair would say that when he accepted the challenge referred to, he was not fully aware of the powers of the gentleman from Bartholomew. Becoming better informed of the gentleman's powers he has concluded to retire from the contest. [Laughter.]
Mr. BLACK. I have before voted directly in favor of every one of the propositions contained in these resolutions. I find them now coupled with matter I do not entirely approve of. I therefore ask to be excused from voting.
The House refused to excuse.
The yeas and nays were now reported as follows:
YEAS-Messrs. Black, Combs, Cooprider, Davis, Dobbins, Edson, Fleming, Ford, Heffren, Horton, Howard, Jenkinson, Knowlton, Lods, McLean, Moss, Mutz, Owens, Packard, Pitts, Polk, Prosser, Prow, Roberts, Smith of Bartholomew, Stotsenberg, Trier, and Warrum-28.
page: 265[View Page 265]NAYS-Messrs. Anderson, Atkisson, Bingham, Boydston, Branham, Brucker, Bryant, Bundy, Burgess, Cameron, Campbell, Cason, Crain, Dashiel, Epperson, Erwin, Feagler, Ferguson, Fisher, Fordyce, Fraley, Frasier, Gifford, Gore, Greshman, Grover, Hall, Haworth, Henricks, Hopkins, Hudson, Hurd, Jones of Tippecanoe, Jones of Vermillion, Jones of Wayne, Kendrick, Lane, Lee, Lightner, Moorman, Sloan, Smith of Miami, Thomas, Thompson, Underwood, Veatch, Wells, Williams, Wilson, Woodhull, Woods, and Mr. Speaker-59.
So the minority resolutions were rejected.
BANK OF THE STATE.
On motion of Mr. VEATCH, his bill [62]-to authorize the Bank of the State of Indiana lay off and create five additional bank districts, and to locate and establish branches therein, was taken up from the position on the table where it failed for want of a constitutional majority, i.e., fifty-one votes.
Mr. STOTSENBERG insisted that the matter under consideration at the adjournment of yesterday, was a resolution for a report from the Committee of Thirteen, and that it had precedence now under the rules of the House.
The SPEAKER sustained the point, and Mr. Stotsenberg's resolution was taken up.
On motion by Mr. CAMERON, it was laid on the table-yeas 57, nays 32.
The House then resumed the bank district bill.
Mr. STOTSENBERG moved that the bill be recommitted to the Committee on Banks, with instructions to report an amendment, providing that the privilege conferred shall not be granted but upon the condition precedent, that the President and Directors of said Bank shall enter upon record their consent to the repeal of so much of the 15th section of their charter, as exempts their capital stock from taxation for municipal purposes.
Mr. VEATCH moved to lay the motion on the table, which was agreed to.
Mr. HEFFREN proposed to recommit the bill with instructions to amend, by adding a clause, requiring that the books for subscription of stock shall be kept open from 10 o'clock to 4 o'clock, for six consecutive days; and if more stock be subscribed for than is allowed by law, the deduction shall be provided for pro rata between the several subscribers.
Mr. FISHER. This proposition; requiring the consent to be unianimous, would be just as fatal to the bill as that of the gentleman from Floyd.
Mr. BUNDY moved that the bill and amendment be made the special order for Tuesday next, 2 o'clock ; which was agreed to by consent.
On motion by Mr. BUNDY, the Senate concurrent resolution for a Joint Committee of Eleven, (six on the part of the House and five on the part of the Senate,) to consider the subject of apportioning the State for Representative purposes ; and that the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House confer together about the formation of the Committee, so that there shall be one member from each Congressional District in the State, was taken up and concurred in.
On motion by Mr. DOBBINS, his bill [60] in relation to stock killed by railroads, was taken from the calendar and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
On motion by Mr. HEFFREN, his joint resolution and bill (17) in relation to the public printing, which had been made the special order for this day, was made the special order for Tuesday morning, at half-past 9 o'clock.
The SPEAKER announced the next order to be the consideration of the joint resolution [22] for the amendment of the second section of the second article of the Constitution, declaring what is the residence of a voter[one year in the United States and the declaration of intention of naturalization, and sixty days in the township, the Committee proposing to reduce the latter to thirty days.]
Mr. ROBERTS moved to make the county residence thirty days, and the township residence ten days.]
Mr. PROSSER was satisfied the first resolution was wrong. Thirty days was too long. Ten days was long enough for a residence in a township. He proposed thirty days in the county, also.
Mr. STOTSENBERG proposed twelve days in the township.
Mr. BUNDY moved that the report and pending amendments be recommitted. The motion was rejected.
Mr. EDSON and Mr. ORR thought Mr. Prossor's amendment all that was necessary.
Mr. NEBEKER insisted on fixing a township residence.
Mr. SMITH of Bartholomew. It was often the case that there was as much interest in the township as in the general elections. There was a necessity for a township residence.
Mr. CAMERON insisted on thirty days in the township. A residence of two minutes was all that the law now requires. Hence the frauds.
Mr. PACKARD indorsed the view of the gentleman from Warren, that we should have a township limitation. He preferred thirty days in the county and ten days in the township.
Mr. JENKINSON opposed the township limitations; ten days was too short. He was in favor of the Committee report. He called for a division of the question.
Mr. DAVIS made an ineffectual motion to lay the subject on the table.
Mr. THOMAS favored the township limitation.
The two branches of Mr. Roberts' amendments were both adopted.
Mr. HEFFREN moved to include incorporated towns and cities ; which was agreed to; and then,
In this shape, the joint resolution was passed-yeas 75, nays 11.
The House then adjourned.
