State printer. I can not see how gentlemen, coming here under professions and pledges to practice economy, can vote against this bill.
Mr. McLEAN. I shall explain my vote before my constituents.
Mr. DAVIS-pro forma. I have no friends to reward or punish. I am in favor of the bill if we can save money to the State.
Mr. SMITH of Bartholomew asked to be excused from voting. He could not decide between the bill and the plan proposed by the chairman of the special committee, which was to reduce the price of the public printing, under the advice of journeymen.
Mr. ROBERTS-pro forma-bore an earnest testimony against the gag.
Mr. BUNDY asked to be excused, in good faith. If to the victors belonged the spoils-
The SPEAKER here arrested the debate under plea of brief statements.
Mr. WOODHULL. I vote aye on principle; not the spoils principle.
The vote was reported-yeas 44, nays 57 as follows:
YEAS-Messrs. Bingham, Boydston, Branham, Bryan, Bundy, Burgess, Cameron, Campbell, Cason, Collins of Whitley, Grain, Dashiel, Epperson, Erwin, Feagler, Ferguson. Fisher, Fordyce, Fraley Frazier, Gore, Grover, Hall, Haworth, Henricks, Hopkins, Kurd, Jones of Tippecanoe, Jones of Vermillion, Jones of Wayne, Kendrick, Lane, Lee, Lightner, Moody, Nebeker, Newman, Orr, Randall, Sherman, Sloan, Smith of Miami, Thomas, Thompson, Turner, Underwood, Wells, Williams, Woodhull, and Mr. Speaker-49.
NAYS-Messrs. Atkinson, Black, Brett, Collins of Adams, Combs, Cooprider, Davis, Dobbins, Edson, Fleming, Ford, Gifford, Gresham, Hayes, Heffren, Horton, Howard, Jenkinson, Kitchen, McClurg, McLean, Moss, Mutz, Owens, Packard, Parrett, Pitts, Polk, Prosser, Prow, Robbins, Roberts, Stevenson, Stotsenberg, Trier, Warrum and Woods,-37.
So the bill was indefinitely postponed.
The SPEAKER announced the next question in the special order to be on the adoption of Mr. Heffren's joint resolution, to give the printing to Thomos A. Goodwin.
Mr. CAMERON moved to lay it on the table.
Mr. HEFFREN demanded the yeas and nays, and they were ordered.
Mr. PROSSER (by unanimous consent) gave his reason for voting against this resolution. It was in his objections to Mr. Goodwin as a public man.
The joint resolution was laid on the table yeas 53, nays 35.
On motion by Mr. CAMERON, his apportionment bill [285] was taken up and referred to the Joint Select Committee on Apportionment.
WORK FOR COMMITTEES.
Mr. Heffren's bill 302, with amendments by Mr. Jones, of Tippecanoe, and Mr. Underwood; Mr. Black's bill 303, Mr. Veatch's 304, Mr. Heffren's 308, 308, 313; were severally considered on the second reading and referred to the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. Cameron's 305 was referred to the Committee on Claims.
Mr. Ragan's 306-Temperance.
Mr. Heffren's 307, Mr. Packard's 312, Mr. Craven's 314-County and Township Business.
Mr. Cameron's 310 was laid on the table.
Mr. Henrick's 312-Banks.
AMENDMENTS TO THE LIQUOR LAW.
Mr. Jones of Tippecanoe's bill [315] to amend sections 3, 4, 5, 9, 11 of the liquor law, coming up-
Messrs. HEFFREN, HAWORTH, UNDERWOOD and ANDERSON proposed amendments, which were laid on the table.
Mr. GIFFORD proposed to amend the law by reducing the license fee from $50 to $25. My constituents, he said, are opposed to the present fee for license. Franklin county pays about a thousand dollars into the school fund from this source, and gets not a cent back. There are other counties drinking as much whisky as Franklin, utterly refusing to grant or pay any license at all. We want those counties to come in and drink less than a quart. [Laughter.]
The amendment was laid on the table-yeas 66, nays 22.
Mr. STOTSENBRGERG proposed "knowingly" after the "shall," but it was rejected.
The yeas and nays being demanded and ordered on the engrossment of the bill-
Mr. BUNDY asked to be excused for not voting, saying, for reason, That he was opposed to the whole license system. It was a cheat and a delusion. You can't license a man to do wrong.
Mr. PROSSER, Mr. EDSON, and Mr. STOTSENBERG (pro forma) stated general opposition to the amendments of the liquor law in the bill. The law had worked well for a liquor law, and was sustained by the Supreme Court, page: 292[View Page 292] though it might be amended, if the Constitution were not in the way.
Mr. RAGAN-pro forma. The license system is all wrong. I believe it's a curse to our school fund, to have the price of blood which it furnishes mingled with it. When we authorize licenses we become responsible for the consequences of the sale of liquor. I want the venders to sell on their own responsibility.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed, by yeas 44, nays 42.
Mr. Newman's bill [316], with Mr. Frasier's amendment, was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
WM. F. BAGGETT.
The SPEAKER said the writ had been served on Mr. Baggett, and he was now here in the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms.
Mr. HEFFREN. He should file his affidavit of the facts, and purge himself of contempt of the House.
Subsequently, Mr. Baggett appeared, by Mr. Heffren, and filed his affidavit with the Clerk, That his non-appearance before the Prison Committee last Friday was on account of the sickness of his wife; that he came to the city as soon as he could safely leave his family.
He was thereupon discharged from custody.
On motion of Mr. VEATCH, the Dog bill, [176] was taken up and referred again to the Agricultural Committee with Mr. Jenkinson's amendment.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
New bills were introduced in order, and passed to the second reading, viz.:
Mr. Heffren; [318] To amend section 447 of the Practice act.
Mr. Packard: [319] To regulate the business of Insurance Companies to be organized in the State of Indiana after the passage of this act.
Mr. Campbell: [320;] Providing for the better organization of the Indiana University, and the management, of its affairs.
Mr. BUNDY: [321] To compel road companies, which have heretofore, or which may hereafter, construct their roads through the streets of towns, to gravel said streets.
Mr. Crain: [322] To repeal section 38 of the act of May 11, 1852, providing for the incorporation of railroad companies.
Mr. Wilson: [323] To amend sec. 12 of the common school law of June 14. '52.
JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON APPORTIONMENT.
The SPEAKER now announced this Committee, one from each Congressional District, viz:
On the part of the House-Messrs. Branham, Stevenson, Crain, Feagler, Brett, and Grover.
On the part of the Senate-Messrs. Mellett, Wagner, Bearss, Wolfe, and Studabaker.
FIVE ADDITIONAL BANK DISTRICTS.
The SPEAKER announced the further special order for this day, viz : Mr. Veatch's bill [62,] for five additional branches of the Bank of the State of Indiana-the question being on Mr. Heffren's amendment, adding a second section, requiring the consent of the Bank to regulate the subscriptions for stock in said branches books to be opened for six consecutive days, &c.
Mr. HEFFREN. showed from his observation as chairman of the Bank Fund Investigating Committee of 1857, that the gravest charge against the administration of the bank was in the favoritism that obtained in subscribing stock. He wanted the people to have a chance to subscribe stock as well as bank men and peedy politicians.
Mr. VEATCH. The very provision the gentleman was asking for was in the charter. The bank had control of the subscription; and honesty was conceded to the present directors.
Mr. FISHER. The amendment contemplates an amendment of the bank charter, requiring the assent of all the branches. The amendment is desirable, but it can not be assented to. The bill was asking the bank to give the people what they want. With one exception, every bank man he had seen was opposed to the bill. More partners were to be imposed by the bill, and it would throw additional responsibility upon the bank.
Mr. HEFFREN. Who is to take the stock?
Mr. FISHER understood the stock was already taken, and it would be sold out, he supposed, to those having money to invest. He yielded to none in his detestation of the means resorted to, to obtain the charter, but the institution had passed into the hands of honest men. A desirable proposition should not be defeated because of the manner of taking the bank stock years ago. The security of the note-holder was good now-equal to the best. It was in the honesty of the management of the bank, and the liberality of its charter.
Mr. PROSSER believed the bank desired this bill. They came up two years ago with arguments and money to buy through the Legislature a bill similar to this. This variation was an electioneering tack. He spoke at length. He was for the amendment, but with or without the amendment, he should vote against the bill.
Mr. PACKARD considered that no bill of the session had received so large a share of attention outside. Bank men in his region were for it. He concurred in the objections taken by Mr. Prosser, and replied to Mr. Fisher.
Mr. CRAIN. The sole object of legislation should be to benefit the people. Did not the people seek after the money of the Bank of the State more than the bills of the stock banks? That answered the question which institution ought to be chartered, for the benefit of the people. The stock was all taken: and for this reason the amendment could avail page: 293[View Page 293]nothing. He spoke at length; not, however, as a special friend of the Bank of the State.
Mr. JENKINSON. The legitimate business of banking was to afford facilities for the shipments of produce. That was what made the enterprise of Fort Wayne, and made it the best spot in the State. [Laughter, and "no consent."] A bank so administered was a benefit to the people. It enabled the Fort Wayne merchants to pay the highest price for produce 10 cents higher for wheat than any other market in the State.
Mr. VEATCH replied to the objections urged against the bill. Everything that is valuable in the amendment is embraced in ban'k charter (the 79th section), which he read.
Mr. HEFFREN insisted that there was no sufficient guard. The books could be opened "any time" between 9 and 12 o'clock.
Mr. VEATCH proceeded at length to show that an increase of partners was an increase of the security and means of stability of the institution. Each stockholder was responsible not only for the amount of stock subscribed, but for an equal amount individually. He also spoke at length.
Mr. EDSON. The object of the bill being not to increase but transfer the Bank stock, the effect of its passage would be to authorize the bank to sell out stock and locations of branches to the highest bidder. He spoke at length against the bill.
Mr. McLEAN raised a point of order against the latitude taken in the debate.
The SPEAKER, however, ruled that the amendment was not germain to the bill.
Mr. HEFFREN withdrew the motion to recommit, &c.
Mr. KNOWLTON moved to recommit the bill, with instructions to amend, so as to require the branches already organized to furnish the required supply of stock for the new branches without premium to stock subscribers, and that such branch furnish its pro rata share of such stock.
Mr. KNOWLTON spoke generally against the bill. The benefits of these new locations were to be enjoyed by those branches having more stock than they can use profitably, who would sell to new subscribers at 20 to 25 per cent, premium, &c.
On motion of Mr. CAMERON, the motion and proposed amendment were laid on the table-yeas 57, nays 39.
Mr. STOTSENBERG moved to recommit, with instructions to amend to require the consent of the Bank of the State to create and establish a branch in every county in the State where a branch is not now established.
The SPEAKER ruled the amendment out of order.
Mr. FRASIER demanded the previous question ; and there was a second.
Mr. SMITH of Bartholomew, (by unanimous consent,) gave the reasons why he should now change his intention and vote for the bill.
It was under instructions from his constituents, wanting to invest in bank stock.
The bill was then passed the final reading in the House-yeas 55, nays 39.
The House adjourned.
