HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
FRIDAY, January 30, 1863.The reading of the Clerk's journal of yesterday's proceedings was dispensed with.
NEW PROPOSITIONS.
The following bills were introduced, read the first time, and severally passed to the second reading:
By Mr. LAKE. [107] to relieve Ninevah Berry.
Mr. SPENCER, [108] to amend the 16th section of the act regulating County Commissioners--having reference to the care of county buildings.
By Mr. MILLER. [109] to amend the 1st section ot the act for the relief of the borrowers of the Sinking Fund, approved March 9, 1853.
By Mr. ROBERTS, [110] to amend sec. 1 of an act amending sec. 3 of the act regulating weights and measures, approved June 9. 1852, approved February 28, 1855.
By Mr. WATERMAN, [111] to provide for the transfer of Sinking Fund mortgages to the counties in which the lands lie.
By Mr. MCGAUCHEY [112] to amend section 19 of the assessment law, approved June 16. 1852.
By Mr. O'BRIEN, of Hamilton, [113] to amend section 14 of the plank road law, approved May 12. 1852.
By Mr. MILLER, [114] to require Recorders to certify their records of deeds and mortgages, and other instruments admissible to record.
By Mr. HOLCOMB, [115] to amend the game law, approved February 26, 1851.
By Mr. HOWK, [115] to amend the second section of the act regulating the duties of the Supreme Court Reporter, approved February 15, 1852.
HOUSE EMPLOYEES.
The report of the committee thereon, (printed in yesterday afternoon's proceedings,) being the special order for this hour--10 o'clock--
On motion of Mr. ROBERTS, it was ordered that the doorkeeper have the privilege of a brief hearing before the House.
On motion by Mr. ANDERSON the vote making this order was reconsidered, upon a division of the House affirmative 46, negative 35.
The question recurring on the motion that the Doorkeeper be heard in his own defence--
Mr PUETT opposed it, because it was an indignity to the House to permit him to speak on a question where he had refused the committee proper information.
Mr. ROBERTS contended that members who had denounced arbitrary arrests, without allowing the accused a word in defence, now proposed to dismiss an officer of the House without a hearing.
Mr. PUETT replied that the Doorkeeper plead a delay of two or three weeks, and finally refused to give the names for reasons of his own. The members of the committee had labored with him personally, but only received insults, and were compelled by self-respect to report as they had done. Mr. Burns had treated the committee with direct insult. He was not in favor of this man corning into this House and repeating his insults before the sovereignty of the State here assembled. The dignity of the House forbade it. The self-respect gentlemen owe to themselves forbade it.
Mr. BROWN argued in favor of hearing the Doorkeeper. If his communication was a respectful one, it ought to be entertained. It was true that he (Mr. Brown) believed that the Doorkeeper had not discharged his duties as well as he might. He had doubtless been extravagant. But every man publicly charged, even though he be the darkest criminal, had a right to be heard.
The motion (Mr. Roberts') was again agreed to--affirmative 44, negative 33.
The DOORKEEPER (Mr. Burns) slated in his own defence, that he was impulsive and inclined to resist any interference. But he had been unfortunate. Had lost heavily in party services. Needed the post, and got it, but was compelled to make certain promises to secure his election. No sooner was he elected than he was beset by five hundred men for places, and was actually compelled to disguise himself on leaving the State House, to reach his room. He had suffered terribly at the hands of office seekers. His appointments had been made at the suggestion of prominent Democrats in the House, who had promised to sustain him. He had eighteen adult appointees, and six pages. He was a partisan, a bitter one, and believed that to the victor belonged the spoils, and had appointed none but Democrats. His politics was his religion. He had been a John L. Robinson Democrat, and the Chairman of the House had been on the other side, which fact he thought might have something to do with the matter. He thought the party ought not to disgrace himself and his family by expelling him ; justifying his stubbornness on the ground that he had been required by the committee to give information on not required by the resolution.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. LASSELLE moved to refer the report to a select committee of five, to whom the Doorkeeper should furnish the names and number of his employees ; and that the committee report on Tuesday morning.
Mr. ABBOTT made an ineffectual motion--yeas 37, nays 42--to lay on the table the motion for reference.
The motion to refer was agreed to.
page: 110[View Page 110]NEW PROPOSITIONS.
The following bills were introduced, read the first time and severally passed to the second reading:
By Mr. PACKARD. [117] relative to Congressional School Fund, in the counties of Newton and Jasper.
By Mr. VAN BUSKIRK, [118] amending sec. 12 of the act regulating sale of liquors--against adulteration.
By Mr. SHAFFER, [119] amending 21st section of Common Pleas law--relative to terms of said Courts in Wabash, Kosciusko, Fulton, Cass and Miami counties.
By Mr. ROBERTS, [120] amending section 11 of act prescribing duties of County Surveyors.
By Mr. LASSELLE, [121] to prohibit and punish arbitrary arrests.
By Mr. BURTON, [122] amending 1st section of act providing a mode of doing township business.
By Mr. LASSELLE, [123] amending sections 47 and 49 of act punishing misdemeanors--providing for obedience to writs of habeas corpus.
By Mr. PACKARD, [124] amending section 2 of act prescribing the duties and fixing compensation of Agent of State--requiring bond of said officer, to be approved by the Secretary of State instead of the Governor.
Mr. PACKARD moved that the rules be suspended, and the bill read a second time.
The vote stood yeas 57, nays 16.
The SPEAKER decided that the rules were not suspended, two-thirds of a full house being required to that end.
Mr. PACKARD (joined by Mr. HARNEY) took an appeal from the decision of the Chair. He thought two-thirds of a quorum were sufficient.
The question being Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House ?
Mr. LAMB quoted the constitution, arguing that one hundred members constituted a House.
The SPEAKER referred to the same clause of the constitution, and to the general principles of parliamentary law.
Mr. NIBLACK replied that the House never actually consisted of one hundred, and that, if that number was required, we had no House in point of fact. He spoke of the present condition of Congress. There is not a full Senate or House. In estimating a quorum it is necessary to count the vacant seats. He was satisfied that only two-thirds was necessary to constitute a quorum. He was satisfied the ruling of the Chair was wrong.
Mr. GRIFFITH pursued the argument, sustaining the Speaker.
Mr. HARNEY sustained the appeal.--The representatives of the people should not be hampered by a rigid construction of the constitution, where there was any doubt. The benefit of the interpretation, therefore, should be in favor of the House, and no strict and rigid interpretation insisted on.
Mr. PACKARD also argued in support of his appeal. He urged the arguments used by the gentleman from Knox [Mr. Niblack] and the gentleman from Montgomery [Mr. Harney.]
Mr. BRANHAM followed in favor of the ruling of the Chair. The object of the constitutional provision was to prevent hasty legislation. It evidently was the intention of the framers of the constitution that no bill should be introduced and passed the same day unless the necessity was so great as to convince two-thirds of one hundred.
Messrs. LASSELLE and VAN BUSKIRK continued the argument in favor of the position held by the Chair.
The House sustained the decision of the Chair by yeas 65, nays 9.
On motion by Mr. NIBLACK, it was--
Resolved, That when the House adjourn it be till Monday at 2 o'clock P. M.
