EXECUTIVE COUNCIL.
Mr. HANNA introduced a bill, [141] to create an executive council. It is as follows:
AN ACT to create an Executive Council and to define the duties thereof.
SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana, That the Secretary of State, Auditor and Treasurer of State, and Attorney General shall constitute the Council of the Governor, and shall be known and designated as "the Executive Council "
SEC. 2. The Secretary of State shall he the President, and the Attorney General the Secretary Of the Executive Council, and the signatures of a majority of the Council shall be attached to all official papers issued by the same. When, however, the Governor shall be present at a session of the Council, he may preside, and in case of a tie, may give the casting vote.
SEC. 3. The Executive Council shall consult, and the assent of a majority thereof be obtained, before any pardon shall be granted, and the Council, as such, shall discharge all other duties imposed on them bylaw; they may hold their sessions whenever the public interest may require it, any two members thereof having the power to call a meeting.
SEC. 4. It is declared that an emergency exists for the immediate taking effect of this act, and therefore this act shall be in force and take effect from and after its passage.
Mr. CASON said the bill was simply a covering to hide the attempt to strip from the Governor,his executive powers. It required their consent, signature and seal to the executive acts of the Governor. It was urged that we pass it, and let the Supreme Court decide its constitutionality. It was the right and duty of the members of this House to decide the constitutionality of all laws, and they were sworn to perform this duty. The Supreme Court had no right to pass upon laws till the House had determined their constitutionality. As this bill was, in his view, the first step toward the consummation of a very important measure, he wanted at this early moment to assert his disapproval of what, in his judgment, was sure to follow. He, therefore, without any desire to seem discourteous toward the gentleman from Vigo, who had offered the bill, would move to reject it.
Mr. HANNA partly agreed with the gentleman from Boone and Hendricks (Mr. Cason)--it was an important measure--important in itself, and more especially so because it had its origin in the constitution, the fountain-head of all the legislation which members on this floor could hope to establish for the government of the people of Indiana. And that he might be fully understood in his position, he page: 120[View Page 120] would call the attention of gentlemen of the other side of the House to section XVII, of article V of the Constitution, as the latter clause of that section, in defining the measure of power granted to the Executive, declares " that the General Assembly may by law constitute a Council, to be composed of officers of State, without whose advice and consent the Governor shall not have power to grant pardons in any case, except such as may by law be left to his sole power." He was not afraid to legislate within the provisions of the Constitution ; thus far this body had a right to go--no farther--and he understood the bill to be drawn within the strict meaning of the Constitution.
Mr. GRIFFITH wanted to know how this had been ascertained.
Mr. HANNA. There it is--read it--it has been published to the world--it will stand or fall by the ordeal of the Supreme Court, whose province it is to pass upon its validity.
Mr. NIBLACK argued against the motion. If the bill was objectionable, it could be amended, and upon the third reading defeated. It was an unusual proceeding to move the rejection of the bill.
Mr. BRANHAM said no such measure as the one proposed should be entertained now. The excited state of public feeling ought to preclude it.
Mr. NIBLACK. (interrupting) I ask the gentleman from Jefferson (Mr. Branham) if he had not,in a public speech at Columbus, on Saturday last, threatened members who should vote for any such proposition with hanging ?
Mr. BRANHAM, in reply, complained of the assaults upon the Governor ; upon officers, particularly burgeons in the army. Why was this done? Taking them altogether they meant something. They meant violent opposition to the Government. If the dominant party sought to violate the constitution--sought to strip the Executive of his rightful power; he, for one, would return to this hall, if he left it, and was forced back by those who would thus trample down the laws, only to assist in hanging those who would attempt to do it. That was what he had said at Columbus ; nothing more , nothing less. He did not propose to threaten any member of the House. Neither did he intend that any threats should deter him. He had taken his position calmly and determinedly.-- He had resolved at the commencement of the session that he would do nothing to wound the feelings of any member on the floor. He had determined that no act of his should have a tendency to inflame the public mind, now already fearfully excited with what we had done and left undone here. When the question came up, whether we should stand by the glorious flag of our country or perish, he would stand there or perish. We must stand by our soldiers in the field. We must redeem our pledges made to them when they left us. We must redeem our pledges to the loyal people of the State.
Mr. PRIEST (interrupting) asked the gentleman if he would not take the decision of the majority on all questions.
Mr. BRANHAM. No, sir. If this Legislature should resolve to take Indiana out of the Union I would resist it to the last. I would submit in this matter to the judgment of no set of men in God's universe.
Mr. HOWARD asked the gentleman if he really supposed that there was a purpose on the part of anybody to take the State of Indiana out of the Union?
Mr. BRANHAM. What mean all the resolutions and measures the majority have introduced here ? What mean their denunciations of the Administration, State and National? What mean your denunciations of officers in the army--the Surgeons?
Mr. HOWARD. Does the gentleman take these things as conclusive evidence?
Mr. BRANHAM. I do.
Mr. LASSELLE. Can the Legislature take the State out of the Union ?
Mr. BRANHAM. It can, as the Legislatures of the rebel States did against the voice of the people. He had said that if secession was attempted here, and the majority undertook to bring the minority back into the House, he would not come back to the House except to take the majority and hang them. He repeated it, now. The nation could be sustained by men, money, and moral sentiment. And the course of the majority tended to destroy moral sentiment, the strongest arm of the nation.
The SPEAKER (Mr. Branham proceeding with some vehemence) reminded the gentleman and the House of the rules of decorum within which debate must be confined.
Mr. NIBLACK hoped the gentleman would be allowed to proceed. There never was a cooler set of men or a set of less scared men than the majority on this floor now.
Mr. BRANHAM proceeded. Ho did say clown at Columbus something about secret orders. Gentlemen knew that they existed. If it was necessary, perhaps he could name the lodges.
VOICES--" Name them ! Name them !
Mr. BRANHAM. You will hear of them soon enough in another form.
VOICES--"What form? No threats here!"
The SPEAKER here called gentlemen to order.
Mr. NIBLACK. Did not the gentleman state at Columbus that the majority on this floor were in communication with Jeff Davis through an emissary, who had been in their council room ?
page: 121[View Page 121]Mr. BRANHAM. I did say at Columbus, and I had it from the high priest of the temple himself, that it was the design of the majority to take such a stand as to bring the moral power of the Government and its financial standing into utter ruin. I spoke of secret orders. Members on this floor know of their existence as well as myself. They have been in them.
Mr. ABBETTT. Do you belong to any secret political order ?
Mr. BRANHAM. I do not. I did not say that the majority of this House were in consultation with Jeff. Davis, but that an emissary of Jeff. Davis was in consultation with members of this House on a certain night.
Mr. PRIEST. Name them. If there are any members in consultation with an emissary of the Southern Confederacy, I would vote to expel them.
Mr. BRANHAM. I said it was a gentleman from the Southern States in consultation with members of this House. The gentlemen in consultation with him knew his object.
Mr. BUSKIRK, (Mr. Lasselle in the Chair) said it was an imputation upon the House, and he asked that the House be told who the parties were.
Mr. BRANHAM. I will do that when I get ready.
Mr. BUSKIRK. Name the gentleman on this floor with whom he conferred.
Mr. BRANHAM. I will do that also when I get ready.
Mr. BUSKIRK. The gentleman then refuses to answer my questions, and give the House the information he professes to have ?
Mr. BRANHAM. I do.
VOICES--" We do not believe you then."
Mr. BRANHAM did not wish to threaten any one ; but If it was a threat to say that we intended to stand by the Constitution and the old flag, it might be so taken, for we intended to do that thing, though all should go to ruin around us. The majority had refused to lay such resolutions on the table--a test vote by which they had endorsed them. The effect of such resolutions was to destroy the confidence of the people in the government, and would give aid to traitors. You cannot introduce measure after measure, some of which are in direct conflict with the State Constitution, with any other intention than to cripple the Government. Such a lull as this has never been introduced before, because it was not needed. Nor is it needed now. Like men and patriots, we should confine oar legislation to the legitimate subjects of legislation, allay excitement, and give our moral support to the government, and it will succeed, despite all the efforts of traitors and the tyrants of the Old World.
Mr. BRANHAM demanded the previous question.
The House sustained the demand.
The main question being on the motion to reject the bill--
The yeas and nays were demanded, and being ordered and taken, resulted-- yeas 40, nays 50, as follows:
YEAS--Messrs. Abdill, Anderson, Atkison, Baker Branham, Budd, Byerle, Cason, Cass, Chambers, Davis, Forester, Gregg, Gregory, Griffith, Hershey, Higgins, Hostetter, Hutchings, James, Johnson, Jones, Kendrick, Lamb, Leeds, Marshall, Moorman, Morgan, Mustard, Newman, Noyes, O'Brien, of Hamilton, Perry, Pettibone, Robinson, Roe, Stone, Tarkington, Van Buskirk and Woodruff--40.
NAYSM--Messrs. Abbett, Bird, Blocher, Burton, Collins, Cook, Donaldson, Ferris, Garvin, Given, Hall, Hanna, Harden, of Washington, Hardin of Perry, Karney, Hetfield, Hon, Howard, Howell, Howk, Humphreys, Kemp, of Dubois, Kemp, of Vigo, Lake, Lasselle, Lee, Lemmon, of Harrison, Lemmon, of Spencer, Mason, McGauchey, Miller, Milroy, Mutz, Niblack, Osborn, Packard, Pendleton, Priest, Puett, Richardson, Ryan, Shaffer, of Allen, Shoaff, of Jay, Spencer, Veach, Waterman, Williams, Wolfe and Mr. Speaker--50.
So the bill was not rejected.
