would desire to go into a cavalry regiment, either as a private or as an officer, at three-fourths the pay granted to other men in the service. When I fight, I fight for my country. But I desire when I go out and stand shoulder to shoulder with other men, to fight a common cause, against a, common foe, to have the same remuneration that others get coming from other quarters.
Mr. FISHER. I presume the House would be willing to give full pay to those in actual service. The three-quarters pay is for those in camp for drill - not in actual service.
Mr. JENKINSON. It is the State service.
Mr. HEFFREN. I know no difference between fighting for my State and the United States. The artillery as well as the cavalry was the life of this system. Half a dozen companies of flying artillery and one company of cavalry would do more on the border than all the rest in the bill. The three quarters pay would destroy the bill, and until the commissioned officers were placed on an equality with those in the service of the United States, in this respect, he must vote against the bill.
Mr. PARRETT. This matter is "confusion worse confounded." Some understand the bill that it is raising troops for the United States, as so soon as the requisition shall be had by the President, on this assumption all that is said with reference to these regiments defending the border is all nonsense. Another portion of the House take the bill to read that it is to raise State troops for three years. And now I submit, if it is susceptible of both these constructions is it such a bill as is required by the emergencies of the State? On the assumption that it is a bill to raise troops for the protection of the border, is it a proper bill? If it is to protect the border, it ought to be a bill providing for two regiments of cavalry, for they do not want infantry there. Six regiments of infantry would just go down there and eat them out - that's all they could do. But they want two or three regiments of cavalry. But now let us have a bill that we can understand. I am as keen for war as any man on this floor; but I do say, we ought to put it down clearly in our minds whether these troops are for the State or for the United States. I want a bill that admits of no double construction. Why, if they are to be kept here three years, what do we want of these regiments of infantry?
Mr. JENKINSON. To draw their pay.
Mr. PARRETT. I think so. And "if they are for the service of the United States, what can we expect for these cavalry?
Mr. PROSSER. If they are to be turned over to the General Government, would it not be our duty to raise six regiments more?
Mr. PARRETT. Just so. If they are for the United States army the bill is a deception ad to the object sought by the men on the border. Then I ask again, what are we doing? I'll tel you how this confusion arose - and it's in the minds of all the members. The bill was, in part, framed to provide for the troops that have come here to Indianapolis, and in endeavoring to make that provision we forgot to designate what they were for. Now if the cavalry is for the border, let us say so. If this infantry is for the United States, let us say so.
Mr. FOSTER. Does not the bill clearly define and say that they shall be turned over by the Governor to the United States, whenever the President shall require them?
Mr. PARRETT. Then away goes our cavalry, and if they don't make the requisition then I suppose they don't go. [Laughter.] I tell you, sir, I'll have the thing stated so I shall know what I am voting for, or I'll vote against the bill.
Mr. EDSON proposed to amend the bill by inserting in the 15th line of the first section these words: "For the protection of the persons and property of the citizens of the State;" and these words: "As the Governor in his discretion may determine." The amendment, he said, is to provide that the troops raised under the provisions of this act are for the purpose of repelling invasions in this State, and if the President makes a requisition to place it in the discretion of the Governor to say whether they are to go or not.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. BUNDY proposed to amend by adding to the first section:
Provided, That the troops herein provided for shall be held in readiness and turned over to the United States whenever required; and it is expressly understood that they are not to be supplied by others.
We certainly ought to know whether these troops are to be held for the State service, or whether they are to be held for the service of the United States. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I am voting for this bill with the expectation and understanding that there either is now or shortly will be a requisition for the troops to be raised under it; and so, I believe, a large majority here are voting. Are we voting that these six regiments are to be kept here three years at the expense of the State? No, sir; we expect they will be turned over to the United States service. We provided yesterday for the organization of the militia of the State of Indiana. I voted for the most efficient militia bill I could get, for the defense of page: 70[View Page 70] the interior - every part of the State - I know no distinction between sections. But I know that if this rebellion is not suppressed there will be a demand for troops for the service of the United States; and I want these troops turned over to that service, and I want no mistake about it.
Mr. Speaker ALLEN. (Mr. Nebeker in the Chair.) My object is, by this bill, to provide for the defense of the State. The gentleman, living where he does, may fold his arms in a feeling of security. But I know there is a necessity for defense. I know that it is necessary to have forces on the border - that it is necessary to have a force there to anticipate and prevent invasion by its presence, or to repel invasion if it came. That is what I see and know for myself. The gentleman will pardon me when I say he is unmindful of his duty to his fellow-citizens on the border, when he refuses to vote the means for their protection. Is it possible that we are getting up six regiments here for the protection of Indiana, when they are to be turned over, perhaps, tomorrow morning into the service of the United States? Is there really a diversity of opinion as to the object of this bill? I thought it was announced at the outset that the object was to provide means for the protection of the State against invasion. I thought that had been announced till no gentleman could doubt it
.Mr. BUNDY. Has it not been argued here that they should be turned over to the General Government?
Mr. ALLEN. I have heard gentlemen so argue, but, the bill will not bear that construction. The only construction that can be placed upon it is, that the Governor may, in his discretion, do so; or he may call again for volunteers. But I have never yet dreamed that the troops should be taken out of the State unless others were immediately provided in their place. But the gentleman from Henry puts the lives and property of the people in one end of the scale and dollars and cents in, the other, and allows the former to "kick the beam." Sir, I will do anything for the protection of the people of Indiana; if it cost a hundred millions I will do it, where a necessity is admitted, and it will be admitted here by every man who is not blind. I do not stop to count the cost. And I tell every man who does hesitate now, his patriotism is not worth a bauble - a hill of beans, says the gentleman from Washington and Harrison. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Vanderburgh and Posey met my hearty approval. I was perfectly willing to see it declared expressly that these troops were not to be removed from the State. Do gentlemen understand the feeling amongst to people of the State? I say no man here dare go home to his constituents and say he has failed to provide for the protection of the border counties.
Mr. BUNDY. Will not the militia bill do that?
Mr. ALLEN. For that purpose it is not worth a hill of beans. Gentlemen here may go home, put their wits together and go to work, and they can't organize a legion under it in three months.
Mr. JENKINSON. They get the first arms, and we have sent them five thousand muskets.
Mr. ALLEN. We get the first distribution of cavalry arms, and five thousand cast off old muskets, changed from the flint-lock piece. Any man might shoot at me 200 yards off with one of them all day. We feel thankful to you, gentlemen from the lakes, for this small favor, but we still ask you to provide for our defense, and for the defense of the State. We urge and demand that every portion of the State shall be put in that position which is necessary for the protection of the lives and property of her citizens; and whenever any gentleman here shall be obliged tell his constituents that he has neglected to do this - that he has neglected to throw upon the border counties a force which shall be sufficient for protecting them, his constituents will say him: You have not been faithful to your trust you have not acted towards others as you would have them act towards you. I hope the bill will prevail, with the amendment of the gentleman from Vanderburg and Posey, notwithstanding the gentleman from Henry says he will not vote for it if it is to supply troops for the service of the State. Let it be declared that this force is to be retained within the limits of the State, and gentlemen can't find any better argument against it than that of quasi patriotism of dollars and cents, they should keep quiet. But if they a satisfied of the necessity that calls for these troops they should vote for the measure, let cost what it may. We are not here for the purpose of counting the cost. We are here for the purpose of providing for the defense of the State, and the people will foot the bill. I am ready to go home and say to the people that I voted for a defense that will cost fifty millions, because the protection of their rights and interests demanded it.
Mr. GRESHAM. The author of the bill Wagner of the Senate) had told him that the primary object of the bill was the defense of the State, and if the men raised were yielded to the President others were to supply their places. There was no necessity for passing a bill of this kind to provide for responding to any call of the President for troops. He suggested that the term of three years was long.
Mr. BRETT. Was the General Government to give us no aid?
Mr. GRESHAM. The United States will remunerate this State for the expense incurred.
Mr. KNOWLTON had supported the bill under the belief that these troops were to be turned over to the United States. He understood that the United States could not call for volunteer for so long a period as three years, that it required a State law to call them out. It was the proper business of the General Government to protect every State in the Union. He had been anxious to have the bill acted on. But he should vote against the bill if it was for raising troops exclusively for State purposes.
Mr. CAMERON demanded the previous question, and under its operation Mr. Bundy's proposition was rejected - yeas 26, nays 60.
Mr. HEFFREN proposed to amend by striking out the sixth section; also, by inserting "cavalry" before "artillery," in line thirteen of section first so that the Governor may divide the regiments into cavalry, artillery or infantry, as he may think best.
The amendment was adopted.
page: 71[View Page 71]Mr. SHERMAN moved to amend so as to make the term of service one year, and strike out the words "three fourths" as to pay.
Mr. CAMERON demanded the previous question, and under its force the first of these amendments was adopted, on a division. The second amendment was rejected - yeas 33, nays 55.
Mr. Speaker ALLEN had voted for this amendment to give him an opportunity to move a reconsideration. It was strange that the House should make an inviduous distinction against the officers of these regiments. Did gentlemen expect competent military men would take charge of these men under this inviduous distinction.
Mr. JENKINSON. Yes.
Mr. ALLEN. Yes! they could get men to lead them to dishonor and death. All that is to be saved by this inviduousness is less than $5,000. Who would like to march under men subject to the taunt that they were only "three quarter officers." Were such the officers to repel invasion - to protect our homes and firesides?
Mr. JENKINSON confessed that the pay was reduced to defeat the bill. He believed that the bill was got up by ambitious men. The bill was wrong and ought to be voted down. You'll find men enough-able to lead - who will go into this fighting for defense as fast as occasion shall call for them - men, sir, that would not look at $5,000 in the way of compensation for a service.
Mr. BUNDY. The question had been decided - two to one - that those officers' should have but three-fourths the pay of the regular army. The reason of this was, they were at home, whilst the officers in the regular service were on the frontier.
Mr. GRESHAM demanded the previous question, and under its operation the motion to reconsider was rejected - yeas 33, nays 57.
Mr. FISHER proposed to amend the bill by adding a section, viz:
SEC.- That when said regiments, or any part thereof, shall be called into actual service, to repel invasion or to protect our border, the commissioned officers thereof shall receive the same pay as officers of the same grade in the United States army.
He thought this would commend itself to the judgment of every man.
On motion by Mr. SMITH of Bartholomew, the amendment was laid on the table.
Mr. CASON proposed to amend by adding a section authorizing the organization of a corps of sappers and miners.
Mr. BUNDY regarded this as an amendment that will ride down the bill. He had been counted amongst its enemies, but he was not.
Mr. CASON said he had uniformly voted in favor of the bill.
Mr. SHERMAN said such a provision had been asked for by every officer in Camp Morton.
Mr. JENKINSON declared that the whole matter of the bill was a good illustration of a corps of sappers and miners and their work. The sappers and miners were the friends of the bill, and the fort was the treasury up there. The trouble was that they would dig the hole on the wrong side of the parapet. [Laughter.] They would begin their work on the inside.
Mr. VEATCH considered there were too many regiments in the bill. He considered three or four regiments might suffice. What had been done - for arms. According to one of our bills we were to have but 20,000 arms. The number of regiments should be reduced or the number of arms should be raised. Appeals were coming up to him every day for arms. He proposed three or four regiments, and then invest two millions for arms, and arm every man in the State capable of bearing arms, and we would be far better off, practically, than with these seven regiments, in every common sense view he could take of it.
Mr. Cason's amendment was rejected.
Mr. PARRETT proposed to reduce the number of regiments to three, and to making but one Brigadier-General.
Mr. LANE concurred in Mr. Veatch's views.
Mr. CRANE proposed four regiments; which was rejected.
Mr. Parrett's amendment was then adopted.
Mr. GRESHAM proposed to add these words to the fourth section: "So far as the same is not inconsistent with any law in force in this State for the organization and regulation ot the Indiana militia."
Which was adopted.
Mr. JENKINSON make an ineffectual motion to strike out "half pay," and insert "no pay" for the retired list in the close of the fifth section.
The bill, as thus amended, was now passed the final reading in the House - yeas 65, nays 15 - as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Anderson, Atkisson, Bingham, Brett, Brucker, Bryan, Bundy, Cameron, Cason, Collins of Whitley, Chapman, Combs, Cooprider, Grain, Dashiel, Edson, Erwin, Ferguson, Fisher, Fordyce, Fraley, Frasier, Gore Gresham, Hall, Harvey, Haworth. Henricks, Hopkins, Horton, Howard, Hudson, Hurd, Jones of Tippecanoe, Jone of Vermillion, Jones of Wayne, Kendrick, Lods, Lee, Lightner, McClurg, McLean, Moody, Moorman, Nebeker, Newman, Owens, Parrett, Pitts, Ragan, Randall, Roberts Sloan, Sherrnan, Stevenson, Thomas, Thompson, Turner, Underwood, Veatch, Warnum, Wells, Wilson, Woodhull Woods, and Mr. Speaker - 65.
NAYS - Messrs. Campbell, Collins of Adams, Epperson, Gifford, Hays, Heffren, Holcomb, Jenkinson, Kitchen, Lane, Polk, Prow, Robbins, Smith of Bartholomew, and Trier - 15.
So the bill passed, with an amendment of the title, "to provide for the employment of three regiments," &c.
Ordered, That the Clerk acquaint the Senate thereof.
Mr. KITCHEN asked to have the journal corrected, so that it shall not show that he was "present and not voting," on the two million bill. He was not present.
Ordered, That the journal be corrected accordingly.
The House then adjourned.
Enrolled Act No. 4 of the House of Representatives.
AN ACT making appropriations to defray the expense of preparing to respond to the call of the President of the United" States for troops.
SECTION. 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana, That the sum of one hundred thousand dollars be and the same is hereby appropriated to the Governor's contingent fund, for the purpose of paying the expense of calling out and sustaining the militia, under the requisition of the President of the United States, and that the same shall be drawn on the order of the Governor, specifying the articles, and page: 72[View Page 72] whom purchased, the services rendered, by whon and that the said order shall be filed in the Auditor's office, before a warrant is issued therefor, except in such cases where the same may be deemed inexpedient by the Governor, but that he keep a detailed statement thereof, and report to the ensuing General Assembly all disbursements by him made out of said funds, specifying each item thereof.
SEC. 2. It is hereby declared that an emergency exists for the immediate taking effect o this act. Therefore it shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage.
[Approved May, 1861. For legislative action thereon, see pp. 15, 18, 19, 40, 41, 42 an 63 of these Reports.]
