IN SENATE.
FRIDAY, MARCH 6, 1863.A report from a committee recommending that the bill H.R.72 (See page 68) be laid on the table, was concurred in.
BILLS ON THE THIRD READING.
Mr. Waterman's, [H.R.27] authorizing county officers to call special sessions of county Boards, in case of the death of an Auditor or Clerk was passed by yeas 38. nays 0.
Mr. Lamb's [H. R. 143] authorizing Auditors to issue fee bill for costs before Commissioner's Courts was passed by yeas 37, nays 0.
NEGRO EXCLUSION.
On motion by Mr. WOLFE the order of business was suspended and his bill [140] to enforce the 13th article of the Constitution was taken up.
page: 219[View Page 219]The pending motion was to lay the motion to reconsider the vote to recommit, with instructions, on the table.
The motion to table was rejected yeas 15, nays 27; and the motion to reconsider agreed to by yeas 27, nays 16.
On motion by Mr. DOWNEY the instructions were amended so as to make them "to inquire into the expediency."
Mr. FERGUSON moved to amend by adding: "that no certificate shall issue to any negro upon his own evidence, unless corroborated by other testimony; and in case of the refusal to grant such certificate that the right of appeal to the courts shall be given."
Mr. LANDERS opposed the amendment. He was not sent here to legislate for the negro. The right of appeal would open the doer for endless litigation.
Mr. RAY thought the instructions to give the right of appeal useless, it would cause litigation, and in the a vent that the negro got his certificate, it would not place him in any better condition. It was not an appeal from a final judgment, but merely an appeal from an interrogatory.
Mr. BEESON favored the amendment.
Mr. WOLFE was also in favor of the amendment. If wrongs were committed, either intentionally or unintentionally, there should be some means left to correct them He would not accept the amendment for fear that it would jeopardize the bill.
Mr. RAY said the same proposition of appeal had once before been offered by the Senator from Delaware [Mr. March] and voted down.
Mr. MELLETT spoke of the legal effect of the bill with its several amendments.
Mr. LANDERS wished the vote taken. He feared if it was debited much longer the Democratic members would get as full of negro sympathy as were the Republicans. Already we see two or three of them joining with the Republicans in their efforts to guard with jealous care the rights of the negro. More time had been spent over these legal quibbles than would be given were the legislation for the white man. He wanted the bill passed, and he wanted a bill that would effect the object intended.
Mr. BROWNE of Randolph, made an ineffectual motion to make the amendments imperative--yeas 18, nays 27.
The amendment to the instructions was adopted yeas 27, nays 11 and the motion to recommit agreed to by yeas 29, nays 20.
THE GOVERNOR'S CONTINGENT FUND.
Mr. WILLIAMS said, in presenting the report the majority of the Committee on Finance [yesterday forenoon] I had nothing at heart but fairness and justice to all parties concerned. I shall speak of the minority report first. Now the minority report goes on to say that if any meetings of the Committee were had the minority have no knowledge of it. I will put the Senator from Henry [Mr. Mellett] on the stand and ask whether there was not submitted to him in the committee room a copy of the vouchers embraced in this report within the last 15 days?
Mr. MELLETT. I do not propose to be examined in the manner and form the gentleman proposes. I will not answer questions during his speech, but when he is done I will answer. I do not propose to go into the case a pettifogging like they do before Justices of the Peace.
Mr. WILLIAMS. The gentleman declines to answer.
Mr. MELLET (interposing.) I desire the Reporter of the BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS to state that I did not decline to answer; but if the gentleman will give me an equal amount of time with him I will answer.
Mr. WILLIAMS. The Senator from Vermillion [Mr. Davis] is not in his seat I believe. I will ask the Senator from Floyd. [Mr. Bradley.] if he does not recollect of this matter being submitted to these gentlemen in the committee room within the last 15 days?
Mr. BRADLEY. I recollect a meeting which the Committee on Finance had some days since--
Mr. MELLETT (interrupting.) I call the Senator from Knox [Mr. Williams] to order. That gentleman has but five minutes under the rule to make his speech in, and no Senator has the right to rise upon the floor and bring witnesses on the stand and make inquiries around. It is unparliamentary and unusual.
The PRESIDENT (Mr. Moore in the chair.) I suppose he has the right to ask questions.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I will ask leave of the Senate to interrogate these gentlemen?
Voices"Consent." "consent," "yeas and nays."
Mr.BRADLEY. Will the Senator from Knox yield the floor for one moment?
Mr. MELLETT (interrupting.) I am going to give full testimony and I apprehend my testimony will not differ from that which will be given by the gentleman from Knox and Floyd. I insist it is discourteous for a member to undertake to call up witnesses to prove certain tacts which he is going to make a speech upon.
Mr. WILLIAMS was not particular.--He denied the assertion that the minority had no notice of the intention of the majority to make the report they did, or to meet with them and examine the facts presented. He would appeal to members of the minority to bear him out. He controverted at length the position taken by the minority, and referred to the acts of the last Legislature to sustain the views presented by the majority. The record shows page: 220[View Page 220] that the act appropriating $100.000 was passed before the act legalizing the borrowing of $25.000, and yet it was not signed first by the Governor, and why? That is for the Senate and the public to determine. He contended that this fund was drawn on before it existed; that it had been managed with irregularity; that an amount had been drawn from the general fund and disbursed, which should have been drawn from the contingent fund; that the money was not applied as the law intended it should be; and proceeded step by step to prove these statements by official documents and other papers in his possession.
Mr. DOWNEY. I am satisfied from the facts stated that there has been some irregularity and error committed in the paying of chums, as to the fund out of which they should have been paid. If the Auditor of State has made a mistake in not drawing from the proper fund, that is the mistake of the Auditor, and the Governor would not be responsible for that unless the Senate supposes he is bound to have an oversight over the Auditor also. I am unwilling by this report to do any injustice to any one, but still if the facts operate against an individual or official, of course that is a matter I do not and can not control. The motion which I make to amend is in this sentence: "The Governor quietly put his hands into the Treasury of that fund and pays the loan of $25,000 while he has $80,000 of the Governor's contingent fund on hand." I presume Senators do not desire to make this imputation unless the facts are such as require it. I am willing to observe this rule in regard to every official; I will presume that he has done his duty as the law requires until facts are shown which shall justify me in corning to a different conclusion. After carefully listening to both reports I am unable to bring myself to the conclusion that there is any intentional wrong shown on the part of the Executive, and until I am satisfied of that I am not willing to censure him; and with this report amended as I propose, it will not place us in the awkard position of drawing an inference unwarranted by the facts in the case. I propose to amend the majority report by striking out the words "the Governor quietly puts his hand into the treasury of this fund;" and inserting the words, "the Auditor of State out of this fund."
Mr. WILLIAMS. If the minority will withdraw their report we will make the amendment at once.
Mr. CLAYPOOL. I will say that the Senator has notified my on several occasions that the Committee on Finance would meet, but not for the purpose of examining that matter. I was aware that the Senator was prosecuting some investigations, but not aware that he was making them for the purpose of making a report. I never was informed that the Committee on Finance were to meet to examine this matter. The main object of this report seems to be to indicate to the country that the Governor has been guilty of indiscretions, and to let it go to the country as an electioneering document The important charge is that the Governor took out of the treasury $25,000 improperly--They don't say the money was improperly used; and they are now willing to accept of the amendment by the gentleman from Ohio which takes from the report its virus. I believe the majority and minority reports show the facts, and I am willing those two reports shall go to the country side by side. If discrepancies existed in the accounts of the Auditor, the Governor was not responsible. And the Auditor of State should not be censured without first having an opportunity of showing whether such irregularities existed or not, and explaining them if they did exist. His character for integrity could not be impugned. From the time the State of Indiana was a State until the present time, the Administration of the Auditors department has not been more able and honest than under the administration of Albert Lange.
Mr. MELLETT stated that the Chairman of the committee [Mr. Williams] had called upon him to look over an abstract of vouchers, and he had replied that it would be time enough to look into the matter when the committee clerk found discrepancies on the Auditor's books, he had no other notice that the matters stated in the report were to be embodied there, he admitted there were irregularities in the account, but there were no charges of misapplication of the funds, and there could be none. The Auditor's accounts were susceptible of explanation, and if a fair chance were given that officer to defend himself from these charges, without doubt he could do so satisfactorily. The Governor had clone nothing in the management of the funds under his control that any one could take exception to.
Mr. LANDERS. The Finance Committee, sir, have been careful in their investigations. They quoted the laws, and showed where the laws had been violated. What is the use of making laws if the State officers and the Governor could violate them at pleasure? I take the bold ground that an officer who would draw a warrant upon a fund not in existence subjects himself to the heavy penalties of the embezzlement law. The minority excuse these violations. The $25.000 which should have been paid out of the Contingent Fund, as the law contemplated, was not so paid, and there was a surplus in that fund now. What use is there of passing a law if it can be set aside at pleasure? It was a violation of law, and those page: 221[View Page 221] who violated the law deserve punishment for it. It was plead in excuse that no harm had been done by it. That was no excuse. If the precedent was set that the Governor could draw without drawing from any specific fund, it would be useless to meet here at all. It is an act of men violating the law. Those men know the law, and it is evident from the facts in this majority report--which is correct to a letter--every letter is correct-- that they wanted to keep a large fund for them to use; and if we sanction this act of the Governor's it will matter nothing to him whether we pass appropriation bills or not; he can draw his warrants upon any money in the treasury without any law whatever, lie can go along using the public funds as he pleases. I will not vote to excuse this gentleman for he don't want to respect the law.
Mr. BROWNE, of Randolph. I think the Committee on Finance has paid the Governor a high compliment, for after having worried itself by a long and learned investigation, and spreading out its report over numberless pages of foolscap, it has made the discovery, not that a cent has been used wrongfully, or that frauds to the amount of a farthing or a dollar have been committed, against the treasury, or that the people have lost anything by mismanagement, but that the Auditor of State has directed his warrant to the wrong fund for payment. I tell Senators there has been no fraud committed, even if the facts are true.
Mr. LANDERS. I would ask whether the Senator can explain how it happened that this order for $25,000 was changed by a pen mark drawn over it after it was filled out?
Mr. BROWNE. I do not know anything about that. If the Senator will call upon the Auditor who drew the warrant, if any such change was made perhaps he can ascertain. He knew that the warrant in this case had been drawn by the Auditor without any consultation with the Governor.--The Governor had paid out of the contingent fund sums properly chargeable to the General Fund. Large amounts had been paid out of the contingent fund in aid of our sick and wounded soldiers. I wish Senators to look at these things as statesmen and not as partizans.
Mr. RAY. I do not think that any corrupt motive actuated either the Governor or the Auditor in the irregularity that all admitted. There was no evidence that the Governor ever knew, advised or connived at the drawing from the Military Fund. The simple question is, does the public interest demand the condemnation of the Auditor. Now if he done this thing himself for corrupt purposes he ought to he condemned. It was evidently a violation of the embezzlement law. But there was no positive evidence of corruption anywhere. He objected to the language used in the majority report that the Governor pat his hands into the Treasury and took what he had no right to. Technically it was a violation of the embezzlement bill by the Auditor, and he was willing to say so, but he was unwilling to charge the Governor with wrong when no intention of any wrong doing was shown.
Mr. DUNNING (Mr. Moore in the chair.) I have not had an opportunity of examining the two reports, but I can briefly state that the object I have in view is simply to know that no more money has been expended by the officers of State than what was authorized by law to be expended; and that there is no double charging of the matter. I have conversed with Governor Morton in reference to this very transaction and he informs me upon the honor of a gentleman, and, as I take it, upon his official oath--for I take it he is at all times acting under oath when talking about official matters that he was not in the city of Indianapolis when this warrant, was drawn; had given no authority for it; had no personal knowledge of its being paid; and that it was a master entirely with the Auditor. Now I am not for throwing censure upon the Auditor. In a word. if there has been no fraud practiced upon the State I don't think we ought to be severe in censuring our authorities. It does not seem to make much difference whether it was paid out of one fund or the other
Mr. LANDERS (interrupting.) I desire to ask the Senator what is the use of making appropriations for any purpose at all? and what is the use of passing the embezzlement bill?
Mr. DUNNING. I hope the Senator will not understand me as saying it is right that a warrant should be paid out of a different fund from what the law has set apart for a certain object, and I trust he will not think I am likely to cover up the embezzlement bill. But suppose he gave an order or certificate for $500 for Legislative expenses, and the Auditor charged it to the Military Fund, would he be held liable? Certainly not; let the fault fall upon the Auditor, Let the law be vindicated but do not censure, where censure does not properly belong. I have no doubt the Senator from Knox [Mr. Williams] is doing what he considers right in the case. I have examined the warrant and I have seen that it was headed in print "Military Fund" but there is an erasure. When the Senator from Randolph [Mr. Browne] appeals to the Senate to lay aside party. I do not think he appeals in vain. It will require all we can do, and more I am fearful, to put down this rebellion as soon as it should be. We should look to the one grand object.
Mr. COBB. I presume as far as the majority of the committee is concerned, they page: 222[View Page 222] have done what they conceived to be their duty. I know they have given this subject their serious consideration; and there has been a violation of law, if the papers are not forged. It is nothing but begging the question when these officers violate a law, to say that they have not done it corruptly. There is nothing here, so far as I have examined it, to show that the Governor has done wrong; but, sir, there is a damnable wrong here somewhere. This $25,000 was drawn, it would scorn from the heading, from the Military Contingent Fund, and if drawn upon the Military Fund it was illegal, because the law making he appropriation had not been passed Then there was a palpable violation of law It is well known for what purpose this embezzlement bill was passed. It was insisted upon by the Republicans four years ago and by me. We then passed that law and it was vetoed by Governor Willard. Two years ago the law was passed by the friends of these officers and by the votes of Democrats,I voted for it,and it should not be evaded with impunity.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. JOHNSTON said the object of making distinct appropriations, was that warrants should only be drawn upon the distinct appropriations, and if that object was not carried out the law was violated, and those who violated it should be punished. The law had been violated, bat it was said without any evil intent. Money had been taken from one appropriation and applied to another purpose. The officers of State had no right to do any such thing. The committee simply showed the State of the facts. The officers take the law out of the hands of the Legislature, and this one fund is increased larger than the Legislature designed it should be. The defense was a pettifogging one, and the speeches might be appropriate on the stump, but not here. The report should be printed, and gentlemen might make their defense before the people, who were the jury to try the case.
Mr. BEESON said that as a member of the committee he had failed to find out any thing to warrant the declaration made by the majority of the committee, that the Governor had put his hands into the treasury and drawn out $25,000 without warrant of law.
Mr. MURRAY said that the facts elicited by the reports and debates had convinced him that the Governor's skirts was clear of the charges preferred.
Mr. BRADLEY. I desire to say one word in regard to the investigation of the committee. There were two resolutions passed this body and sent to that committee for the purpose of ascertaining certain facts: First, to ascertain whether the $100,000 appropriation was spent according to law, and the other to see whether the embezzlement law was violated. The question as to whether the State of Indiana has received "value received" in the disbursement of this fund has not been before the committee. The committee intended to have an investigating committee to sit after the adjournment to investigate this fact, but owing to revolutionary measures in the other end of the capitol that has been frustrated.
Mr. LANDERS contended that investigation so far had and reported on, did not say that Governor Morton had or had not applied the money to a proper use. Vouchers were found for the sums expended, but the committee had not examined these vouchers, and could not and did not say that they were given for a proper and praiseworthy purpose.
Mr. RAY said the discussion took a wide range. The question was simply, did the Governor corruptly thrust his hands into the Treasury and take money therefrom. He was willing to say that the Auditor had made an error-- violated the law technically, but there was no evidence of fraud. The error was the Auditor's, and therefore he was willing to vote for the amendment which charged the wrong where it belonged.
Mr. McCLURG. I think the amendment proposed by the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Downey] is nothing more than an net of justice. It does seem to me the justness of the correction which the amendment demands is so palpable that it can require but a word to explain it. Her is a proposition which would indirectly cast an imputation of fraud against an officer of State. Let his politics be what they may it is nothing mere than just that we should mete out to him the merits of his case. The facts in the report itself does not sustain the inference that would seem to me pat on it by the report. And I do not apprehend when I shall vote in favor of the amendment presented by the Senator from Ohio that I will be voting in favor of a winking at a violation of the embezzlement law. If these are the only acts of wrongs or fraud--the only violations of law--that can be brought against Governor Morton, it does seem to me to be a small affair to make a fuss about. I would be as willing to mete out justice to him as any other man, although I differ with him in everything as far as politics are concerned.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I have no disposition to make charges against Governor Morton or any other State officer which are not warranted by facts, as I said in the outset, and I said to Senators this morning that if they would withdraw the minority report the correction will be made. That seems to be about all they complain of for they don't seem to pay any attention to warrants drawn before, the 21st of May.
The amendment was agreed to.
page: 223[View Page 223]On motion by Mr. MURRAY the minority report was laid on the table--yeas 26, nays 19.
The majority report was then concurred in--yeas 26, nays 21.
NEGRO EXCLUSION.
Mr. WOLFE, from a select committee, reported back his bill [140] to exclude negroes from the State, with amendments according to instructions adopted this morning.
The amendments were concurred in and the bill passed by yeas 27, nays 20--as follows:
YEAS--Messrs. Bradley, Brown, of Wells, Cobb, Corbin, Davis, of Cass, Douglass, Downey, Ferguson, Finch, Fleming, Fuller, Gifford, Hartley, Hoagland, Hord, Jenkins, Johnston, Landers, McClurg, Marshall, Moore, Ray, White, Williams, Wilson, Wolfe and Mr. President--27.
NAYS--Messrs. Bearss, Beeson, Berry, Brown, of Randolph, Campbell, Claypool, Culver, Davis, of Vermillion, Dickinson, Graves, Grubb, Mansfield, March, Mellett, Murray, New, Pleak, Reed, Teegarden and Wright.--20
Mr. DOWNEY, from a select committee, made a report on the death of Miles J. Fletcher, late Superintendent of Public instruction, accompanied by appropriate resolutions,which were unanimously adopted.
FEDERAL RELATIONS.
Mr. COBB, from Committee on Federal Relations, made a report, returning sundry resolutions referred to that committee, with a recommendation that they be laid on the table; also, reporting a preamble and resolutions on the state of the Union.
Mr. MARCH, on behalf of the minority of the Fame committee, submitted a series of resolutions on the same subject and moved that they be substituted for the resolutions reported by the majority of the committee.
The motion was rejected--yeas 20, nays 25.
Mr. MANSFIELD offered as a substitute, a series of resolutions (the same introduced into the Senate, a few days ago by Mr. Downey see pages 189 and 190 of these Reports.
On motion by Mr. COBB the amendment was laid on the table by yeas 25, nays 23.
Mr. DOWNEY moved to add to the majority resolutions, the 8th and 9th of the resolutions just laid on the table, (see page 190.)
Mr. WOLFE offered an amendment declaring that while this was not, perhaps, the proper time to have an armistice, yet it was the duty of the government to favor un armistice when occasion offered without withdrawing our armies.
On motion by Mr. CLAYPOOL the amendment (Mr. Wolfe's) was laid on the table by yeas 31, nays 16.
Mr. WOLFE moved to add to the amendment (Mr. Downey's) "provided that it is the duty of the President to immediately withdraw his emancipation proclamation."
The motion was agreed to--yeas 25, nays 22.
The amendment as amended was rejected, by yeas 23, nays 24.
Mr. DOWNEY moved to amend by adding resolution numbered 12 of the series printed on page 190 of these Reports.
Mr. WOLFE moved to amend by striking our after the resolving clause and inserting: "That the charge that the Democratic party or any of its members was in favor of establishing a Northwestern Confederacy, the reconstruction of the Union with any of the States left out, or the attachment to the Confederacy, is a base and wicked slander. The Democracy now as ever are for the whole Union with an unbroken Constitution."
Mr. BROWNE, of Randolph, said that there were members of the Democratic party who favored a Northwestern Confederacy, and it was no falsehood to change that fact. If the party as a party was opposed to such a scheme it was proper enough to say so.
Mr. LANDERS. No good Democrat was ever in favor of anything but the whole Union.
Mr. MELLETT. If the Knights of the Golden Circle, and all who favored the recognition of the Southern Confederacy were kicked out of the Democratic party, we shall beat you terribly at the next election.
The amendment was then adopted by the following vote:
YEAS--Messrs. Bradley, Brown, of Wells, Cobb, Corbin, Davis, of Cass, Douglass, Dunning, Downey, Ferguson. Finch, Fleming, Fuller, Gifford, Hartley, Hoagland, Hord, Jenkins, Johnston, Landers, McClurg, Marshall, Moore, Murray, Kay, Williams, Wilson, and Wolfe--27.
NAYS--Messrs. Besson, Blair, Browne, of Randolph, Campbell, Claypool, Culver, Davis, of Vermillion, Dickinson, Grubb, Mansfield, March, Pleak, Teegarden, and Wright--14.
REFUSED TO VOTE--Messrs. Bearss, Berry, New, and Reed--4.
EXCUSED--Messrs. Mellett and White--2.
On motion by Mr. DOWNEY the resolutions reported by the committee were further amended by adding the resolution numbered 14--printed on page 190 of these Reports.
Mr. MELLETT moved to amend by adding foundry resolutions adopted by the soldiers at, Murfreesboro.
On motion by Mr. HORD they were laid on the table--yeas 24, nays 22.
Mr. BLAIR offered an additional resolution that resilience to law is revolution, and that any resistance to the conscription act, the revenue, or any other law of Congress should be frowned down and promptly met and suppressed by proper authority.
Mr. RAY said the same thing was better expressed in the majority report, and he would move to table the amendment.
page: 224[View Page 224]The motion was agreed to by yeas 25. nays 21.
Mr. MURRAY moved to further amend by adding the following:
And be it further resolved, That the same measure of condemnation implied of the soldier who deserts his post, is hereby meted out to all other servants of the Government absent from their posts, be they Judges, Jurors, or Legislators, and that there is no obligation resting on one class to discharge their duties according to law and the obligations of their oaths, which are not equally applicable to and binding on the other.
Mr. COBB demanded the previous question, which was sustained, and under its operation the amendment was adopted-yeas 34, nays 11.
The resolutions were adopted as a whole by yeas 26, nays 17.
REVENUE BILL.
The bill H. R. 139, to raise revenue for 1863 and 1864, was read the third time and passed, by yeas 42, nays 0.
NIGHT SESSION.
Mr. BROWN, of Wells, offered a resolution raising a committee of five to investigate frauds in the Quartermasters Department, and other expenditures, with power to sit forty days after the adjournment of the Legislature, and to send for persons and papers.
Mr. MOORE moved to strike out five and insert three.
Mr. CLAYPOOL. I am opposed to the investigation because no respectable person makes a charge. I ask will Senators on this floor vote out of the Treasury of this State four, five, six or ten thousand dollars for the purpose of gratifying the idle curiosity of some one? I shall vote upon this measure out of regard to the public Treasury of the State, out of regard to the public interests and the spirit of justice that ought to control it. Why, sir, has it come to pass that no man can occupy a public position--an office, no matter how well he does it that some committee shall not be appointed to go around, to investigate and hunt up charges, when the searching eye of party for two years, fails to get up charges against him? Sir, I would not do it unless some respectable gentleman preferred a charge against him. The political status of Indiana is low enough, God knows, and I ask that Senators will not give it another kick and knock it still lower. I trust Senators are not willing to do this thing; and trust no Senator wants to be upon such a committee. I trust the resolution will be voted down; and that will deprive members on this floor of the opportunity to vote in myself or my friend from Wells [Mr. Brown.] But suppose such a committee were organized, what could they do? They meet--no charges are preferred, and they go to work smelling around the purlieus of the public offices, and summons A, B and C, and ask them if they know anything about frauds. If there is a single, solitary Senator upon this floor willing to make a charge of malfeasance against any officer I would vote for a resolution authorizing an investigating committee.
Mr. BROWN, of Wells. Mr. President: I regard it as a healthy sign for the Senator who has just preceded me to say that he is in favor of an investigation when any Senator will make a charge of sufficient importance to warrant it. But he says no Senator has made any charge upon this floor against any public official. The gentleman certainly could not have been present the other day when I read to the Senate from Mr. Washburne's report of the Select Committee of Congress appointed by the House to examine into the Government contracts. Let me refer him sir, to the charges made by that Republican investigating committee. Let me refer him to what was said on the floor of Congress, by Mr. Van Wyck, of New York, a Republican, and chairman of that investigating committee that "the mania for stealing seemed to have run through all the relations of Government; from those nearest the throne of power down to the merest tide-waiter every man who dealt with the Government seemed to feel or desire that it would not long survive, and to think that each had a common right to plunder it while It lived." And if this be insufficient, then let me call the gentleman's attention to the statement made in this chamber the other day by the Senator from Lawrence (Mr. Cobb) that the poor laborer in the State Arsenal was compelled to pay a certain per centage of bis scanty earnings as the price at which only he could retain his place.
But let us see what the Congressional investigating committee say. They come to our own State--they make due investigations and say that the Quartermaster in this city has performed his duties in such a manner as compels them to question his fidelity. And they stop not with this statement. They intimate further, that if Mr. Vajen (they speak of him by name) had been a United States' officer instead of a State official, his conduct would warrant a special report, and they impliedly advise the State authorities to give his transactions a rigid investigation.
The gentleman speaks about the mere matter of expense. A small item it will be, sir. Three men to sit forty days at three dollars a day amounts to $360, and the contingent expenses might be $50 more. But say it will cost $500; what is five hundred dollars on the part of the State of Indiana? Why, sir, I can go into my own district and easily raise enough by subscription to pay the expenses of this committee, and my people would willingly pay it for the satisfaction of knowing page: 225[View Page 225] who have discharged their duties well who have been faithful to the trust and confidence reposed in them and who have not.
But what will be the moral effect, sir, of voting this resolution down? It has been charged upon one State official, at least, that he has violated the trust committed to him, and if he be not brought to an account, may not others commit more frauds, thinking to escape? They can say there was not a majority of this Legislature in favor of investigating the conduct of recreant officials. They can say the honorable Senator from Lawrence made a charge fro in his seat in this Senate that laborers in the arsenal were compelled to buy their situations there with a per cent-age of their hard earned pay, and the Legislature refused to investigate the matter, therefore, we may commit frauds, peculations, yea, steal as much as we wish without fear of the Legislature.
Mr. President, I must refer again to the matter of cost. The gentleman says it will cost something. I have intimated it may cost five hundred dollars. What is the small pittance of five hundred dollars to the great State of Indiana? Why, the public treasury of the country is drawn upon every day to the amount of a million of dollars, without the objections of these gentlemen, to carry on an ungodly civil war that should never have been commenced and ought not to be prosecuted one day longer, and yet they object to paying five hundred dollars for the purpose of seeing what has been the extent of these transactions which, an honorable Senator says upon this floor, smack of peculation, fraud and dishonesty. They are in favor of draining the treasury of its last dollar and the North of its last man in the prosecution of this destructive civil war, and yet cannot vote live hundred dollars for this investigation. For one, sir, I want to know what Senators will refuse to vote for this investigation on this ground.
I desire to say one word further. This is a matter I have had under my especial care and charge, and the resolutions which have been introduced here, exhibiting towards me parliamentary discourtesy, hall not affect in the least my purpose to prosecute it to an ultimate termination. But gentlemen, or men, I will say, who can so far forget the courtesy due to a fellow Senator, shall hereafter receive from me the treatment that is due to any one but a gentleman. I, sir, am the peer of any man upon this floor. I, sir, by the laws of the State, represent as honorable a constituency as any man here. I, sir, have had reposed in me the confidence of a people who expect me to do my duty in this Senate chamber, and I will march straight forward in its pursuit, regardless of the ungentlemanly insinuations implied by any such resolutions.
Sir, I intend to favor this resolution until I get it through the Senate, or it falls. I shall discharge my duty at any rate.
The resolution was adopted by yeas 27, nays 9.
The PRESIDENT made the committee on the part of the Senate to consist of Messrs. Brown, of Wells, Cobb and Claypool. Messrs. Wolfe and Browne, of Randolph, were added to the committee by a resolution of the Senate.
The bill [H. R. 69] prohibiting the State Librarian from letting books go outside of the capitol building, was passed by yeas 34, nays 0.
Mr. DUNNING offered a resolution, which was adopted, fixing the compensation of the Secretaries and their Assistants at $4 per day, and the Doorkeeper, the Assistant Doorkeeper, and their employees at $3 50 per day.
THANKS TO THE PRESIDENT.
On motion by Mr. CLAYPOOL it was--
Resolved, That the thanks of the Senate be, and the same are hereby tendered to the Hon. PARIS C. DUNNING, for the prompt, dignified and impartial manner in which he has presided over the deliberations of the Senate during the present Session.
The bill H. R. 75 (see page 82) was read the third time.
