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.
