body inviting the Senate to a joint convention at 2 o'clock, for the purpose of electing a United States Senator; and asked the return of the House resolution authorizing a joint committee on apportionment.
CLERICAL AND POLICE FORCE OF THE SENATE.
The LIEUT. GOVERNOR laid before the Senate communications from the officers thereof, stating the number of assistants employed by each, to wit: By the Principal Secretary, four clerks; by the Assistant Secretary, four clerks; by the Doorkeepers, four assistants each-sixteen, besides the four principals-total, twenty clerks and doorkeepers.
NEW COUNTIES AND COUNTY LINES.
Mr. CONLEY, from a majority of the select Committee to which was referred his bill, [S. 6,] repealing the new county and county boundary act of March 7, 1857, reported it back with an amendment repealing the act of '59 also.
Mr. ANTHONY. This seems to be a matter of great importance. Two years ago, those of us not directly interested in the matter voted for the passage of the bill more out of personal friendship to members urging it, than anything else: thus we pass general laws for local purposes, and the consequence is we are getting upon our statute books a kind of legislation which a provision of our Constitution is designed to prevent. I object to this report being acted upon at this time. I am satisfied the committee has not had time to make the proper investigation of the subject. It seems that one of the special reasons assigned why the law of '59 should be repealed is that there is some informality appertaining to its passage, upon the journals of the House, by reason of which they say it is wholly invalid. If so, they ought not to desire its repeal. I move the reference of the whole matter to the Committee on County and Township Business.
Mr. CONLEY. I hope the reference will not be made. There is not a county in the State having a surplus of territory but that has experienced various difficulties growing out of the passage of the act of 1859. I have no objection to the formation of new counties out of certain territory, if the consent of the whole people to be affected could be obtained.As a matter of justice to the older counties, we ask protection from the injurious effect of these laws.
Mr. WAGNER. This is a perfect exemplification of hasty and inconsiderate legislation ; and this kind of action always affects persons which never were intended to be affected by it. I ask Senators to take time and think before passing this bill. I move to recommit with instructions to strike out all that relates to the law of 1859, as an amendment to the motion submitted by the gentleman from Floyd, [Mr. Anthony.]
Mr. BLAIR. I hope this bill will be re-committed to the proper committee. There are conflicting opinions in regard to the passage of this bill. I voted for the passage of the law of 1859, and have heard of no inconvenience to my constituents resulting therefrom. If gentlemen want amendments to the law let them come up and propose them without endeavoring to strike out all the provisions in relation to this matter.
Mr. JOHNSON. The only difference between the law of 1857 and the law of 1859 is, the former prescribes that the limits of a county shall not contain less than 400 square miles, while the latter reduces the number of square miles to 200.
Mr. WOLFE. I believe the statute of 1857 ought to be repealed. Therefore I am opposed to a reference. Under the statute of 1857 permitting a change of county boundaries, a county may be cut wholly in two without the consent of any considerable portion of its citizens. A more outrageous law was never upon our statute book.
Mr. STEELE was in favor of referring to a committee with instructions to strike out the law of 1859. Nine-tenths of his constituents were opposed to that law. It was rushed in at the close of the session, and rushe through, when he voted for it without knowing its effects. He was now in favor of its repeal.
Mr. TURNER regarded the law of 1857 more objectionable than the law of 1859. He was in favor of repealing both the law of 1857 and the law of 1859.
Mr. MARCH had no local interest in the law, but preferred to have further reflection before voting squarely upon the repeal of the law, and would vote to refer the matter to the page: 52[View Page 52] Committee on County and Township Business.
Mr. HULL. Ripley county feels deeply interested in the repeal of the law of 1859. He should vote for re-committal with the instructions proposed by the Senator from Warren, [Mr. Wagner.]
Mr. WAGNER wanted to vote for the unconditional repeal of the law of 1859, but not for the repeal of the law of 1857. No Senator can justify the law of 1859. He would like to see a law passed leaving this matter to a majority of the parties interested.
Mr. ANTHONY had reason to believe there were political considerations connected with this subject, though probably not confined to any one party. He regarded these laws to be exponents of the doctrine of popular sovereignty, and was surprised to see the Senator from Green, [Mr. Conley] and from Harrison, [Mr. Wolfe,] opposing them.
Mr. WOLFE, (interrupting) more properly squatter sovereignty. [Laughter.]
Mr. ANTHONY confessed lie was at a loss to tell the difference. There was great impropriety in legislating upon this report, because it comes from the friends of the measure. This discussion proves the necessity of sending this bill to a disinterested committee, that it may report what legislation is necessary.
Mr. STEELE. If the question were submitted to his county, there would not be more than one township out of the thirteen that would vote for the law of 1859.
Mr. CONNER moved to refer to the Committee on County and Township Business, with instructions to report by bill what legislation they deemed necessary on the subject.
Mr. TEEGARDEN was anxious that this matter should be freely investigated. Under the act of 1859 there was an effort made to take a slice out of his county to its injury. Three-fourths of his constituents would favor a repeal of that act. He favored the reference of this subject to a committee.
Mr. CONLEY urged immediate action by the Senate, and hoped the matter would not be sent back to a committee.
Mr. Conner's amendment to the amendment was agreed to: affirmative 20; negative 17.
The amendment as amended was rejected upon a division.
Mr. WAGNER moved to concur in the report by striking out all that refers to the law of 1857. The objectionable feature in both laws is, that it gives the right to a few to dismember a county.
Mr. TARKINGTON, as a test vote, moved to lay Mr. Wagner's motion on the table.
This motion was agreed to by yeas 30; nays 14.
Mr. WILLIAMS made an ineffectual motion to concur and re-commit, with instructions to strike out all that relates to the law of 1857.
The report of the Committee was then concurred in.
ELECTION OF U. S. SENATOR.
Mr. MURRAY moved to suspend the regular order, and take up the House resolution calling for a Joint Convention to elect a U. S. Senator this afternoon.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. STEELE moved a concurrence in the resolution by the Senate.
Mr. MARCH desired to elect a United States Senator this day. The true rule is to elect in separate session. The Republican party in this body to be consistent, must vote for this proposition. The very object of having two Houses in the General Assembly is, that one may act as a check upon the other.
Mr. SLACK. In order for the Republican party to be entirely consistent they ought not to go into an election at all. [Laughter.] I recollect four years ago the Republican party absolutely refused to go in.
Mr. CONNER. How was it in 1844-5?
Mr. SLACK. I was not here then. But I approbate the proposition of the Senator from Delaware, [Mr. March.] I do hope to see, in that party of which he is so prominent a member, something like consistency.
Mr. BEARSS. The Senator from Huntington, [Mr. Slack,] is mistaken. We were invited thereat least we did not refuse to go there. They went in such haste that they would not wait till the time came.
Mr. SLACK. Are you sure the clocks agree now ? [Laughter.]
Mr. MARCH. As I. recollect, we did not refuse to go, but they left us as Joseph left Potiphar's wife. [Laughter.]
Mr. STEELE withdrew his motion to concur.
Mr. MURRAY renewed it.
Mr. WAGNER moved that the consideration of the resolution be postponed till 2 o'clock.
Mr. SHOULDERS made an ineffectual motion to adjourn.
Mr. MURRAY. There never has been a question raised in regard to the legality of election of U. S. Senator, either by joint ballot, or concurrent resolutions ; and as the House has signified its desire to go into the election at 2 o'clock to-day, I think the best plan is for the Senate to concur in that resolution.
Mr. CLAYPOOL. I do not hold myself responsible for previous legislation, and have no desire to maintain a consistent record for any party or for myself. Whenever I am satisfied that a principle of action is right, I shall so vote, and it seems to me a very poor argument for gentlemen to say that we may not act consistent with former proceedings. It is a matter of no importance to the party to which I belong whether the election be by joint session or by separate action ; but a different state of affairs may happen two years hence. We may have the control of but one House, and if that should be the case, I am in favor page: 53[View Page 53] of joint action of the two Houses. Let the public will be carried out, no matter what party be in power. I am, therefore, against post-ponement and for immediate action.
Mr. MURRAY made an ineffectual motion to lay Mr. Wagner's motion on the table.
The motion was then agreed to, upon a division.
SOLDIERS OF 1812.
Mr.DICKINSON offered a resolution, which was adopted, inviting Col. John Vawter, and any other soldier of the war of 1812, to seats on the floor of the Senate.
And then-
On motion, the Senate took a recess till 2 o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. CRAVENS offered the following :
Resolved, That the Senate and House of Representatives shall, upon the passage of this resolution by either House, proceed immediately thereupon to choose a person to represent this State in the Senate of the United States for six years from and after the fourth day of March.
Second. That the person who shall receive a majority of the votes given in both Houses, shall be declared duly elected to serve as such Senator.
Third. The President and the Secretary of the Senate, and the Speaker and Clerk of the House of Representatives shall, immediately upon the choice, as herein provided for by their respective Houses, certify the same to the Governor, who shall commission the person so chosen as such Senator.
Mr. SLACK, made an ineffectual motion to lay the resolution on the table yeas 16, nays 31.
Mr. SLACK. This seems to me to be a strange sort of proceeding. It is the first time in the history of the State that an attempt has been made to reverse the rule which has worked so well for nearly half a century in the State of Indiana. I can see no good reason for it. Though I presume the gentleman who introduced the resolution can give one.
Mr. CRAVENS. I will say in reply that we are to-day as we have been since the adoption of the present State Constitution without any law regulating the choosing of U.S. Senators, and inasmuch as the Constitution of the United States prescribes that they shall be chosen by the Legislatures of the several States, we go back to that Constitution to ascertain what is 'our Legislature. We find that it shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. Now, sir, we choose this method, for we have no law in our Constitution authorizing a joint convention. The only instance wherein that instrument contemplates a union of the two Houses, is that which prescribes a certain duty of the Speaker of the House in opening the votes cast for Governor and Lt. Governor, and in my opinion it does not contemplate a joint session then. It is the duty of the Speaker to count the votes in the presence of both Houses: he may first go to one House and then to the other, or he may stand between the two. In my opinion the way proposed is the only way we can proceed to choose the Senator.
Mr. SLACK did not say that the way proposed was illegal, but he could see no reason why we should be called upon to do away with a rule which has succeeded so well for so long a time.
Mr. RAY thought if the reasoning of the Senator from Jefferson, [Mr. Cravens,] be valid, a Senator could only be elected by a bill, and if by a bill, then the bill must be read a first, second and third time taking the regular constitutional mode of maturing a bill. This proposition is but a proposition to check a time-honored custom. He would make no factious opposition to the resolution, but insisted that no invasion should be made upon the practice heretofore obtaining in our Legislature. We ought not at this time to set a bad precedent when there is no need of it.
Mr. TARKINGTON raised a point of order, that the first business of the Senate was to dispose of the House resolution, which was made the special order for two o'clock.
The point was sustained.
Mr. CRAVENS, with the consent of the Senate, withdrew his resolutions, and on his motion the House resolution was laid on the table by yeas 25 nays 20.
Mr. CRAVENS again offered his resolution, demanding the previous question; the demand was sustained by yeas 28, nays 20.
The main question being ordered-
The LIEUT. GOVERNOR declared the resolution adopted.
[A message from the House announced the passage of a resolve to elect a United States Senator by concurrent vote of the two Houses ; which resolution the Senate concurred in after casting its vote for Senator.]
Mr. SLACK offered a resolution identical with the one offered by Representative Heffren at the organization of the House, [printed on page 7 of these Reports.]
The LIEUT. GOVERNOR decided nothing to be in order but the vote for Senator.
Mr. WAGNER. In accordance with the decision of the Chair, I nominate Henry S. Lane as a candidate for that office.
Mr. LINE. I present the name of Joseph A. Wright.
The roll was called and the following the viva voce vote resulted: for Henry S. Lane, 27; for Joseph A. Wrigt, 21.
Mr. CRAVENS. I believe Henry S. Lane has received a majority of the vote cast.
The LIEUT. GOVERNOR. Yes, sir.
Mr. CRAVENS. I move that the House be immediately informed of the action of the Senate.
The motion was agreed to by consent.
[The last message received from the House was taken up, and the accompanying resolution concurred in by the Senate.]
NEWSPAPERS FOR MEMBERS.
Mr. SLACK offered a resolution directing the Doorkeeper to subscribe for the use of the members and officers of the Senate, for three page: 54[View Page 54] copies each of the Daily Sentinel and the Daily Journal, two to be enveloped and stamped, and three copies each of the Volksblatt and the Free Press, enveloped and stamped.
The resolution was decided out of order until the resolution subscribing for newspapers, adopted yesterday morning, should be rescinded.
Mr. LINE made a motion to reconsider the vote adopting the resolution of yesterday.
After some remarks by Messrs. Bearss, Claypool, Murray, Ray and others-
Mr. WAGNER made an ineffectual motion yeas 20, nays 26-to lay the motion on the table.
The motion to reconsider was then agreed to by yeas 32, nays 15.
An ineffectual motion was made to adjourn.
On motion by Mr. SLACK, the resolution of yesterday was laid on the table.
Mr. SLACK then offered his resolution printed above.[A message from the House announced the concurrence of that body in the Senatorial resolutions relating to the mode of electing U. .S. Senators; also, that "the House has elected Henry S. Lane U. S. Senator for six years from the 4th of March, 1861;" also, the adoption of resolution inviting the Senate to repair instanter to the Hall of the House to witness the inauguration of the Hon. Oliver P. Morton as Governor-he becoming such in consequence of the resignation of Hon. Henry S. Lane.]
On motion by Mr. WAGNER, the resolution before the Senate was laid on the table, in order to accept the invitation from the House.
The LIEUT. GOVERNOR laid before the Senate the resignation of the Hon. Henry S. Lane of his office as Governor of the State.
On motion by Mr. TEEGARDEN, this letter of resignation was ordered spread upon the journal of the Senate.[It is substantially recited in the House proceedings of this day.
The LIEUT. GOVERNOR called Senator Cravens to the Chair.
The invitation of the House was then accepted, and Senators immediately left the Chamber to respond thereto.
When the Senate returned-
On motion by Mr. MURRAY, the newspaper resolution was taken from the table.
An ineffectual motion was made to adjourn.
Mr. NEWCOMB moved to amend the resolution by adding the words "three copies of the American"
Mr. SLACK demanded the previous question; and the demand was seconded by yeas 32, nays 15.
The amendment was agreed to by yeas 25, nays 23.
The resolution as amended was adopted by yeas 24, nays 23.
And then-
On motion, the Senate adjourned.
