HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
SATURDAY, JANUARY 10, 1863.GOVERNOR'S MESSAGE.
Mr. PACKARD from a select committee appointed to wait on the Governor and inform him of the readiness of the House, as a constituent branch of the General Assembly, to hear his message, reported that the duties enjoined had been performed, and that is Excellency declined to appear in person before the two houses in joint Convention, as the Constitution of the State provides.
Mr. PACKARD offered a resolution that the House respectfully decline to receive the message of his Excellency's private Secretary, and that the same be returned to his Excellency, to be delivered hereafter by him in person to the General Assembly of Indiana, the House meanwhile notifying his Excellency when it will suit it's convenience to hear him.
Mr. PACKARD detailed the circumstances of the interview of the Committee with the Governor. The manner of transmitting the message was an act of discourtesy to the House. It was a positive insult. This House should demand of every co-ordinate branch of the Government not only respectful consideration, but an adherence to the Constitution and laws and all the precedents grounded thereon.
Mr. FORESTER went into a legal argument to show that the method proposed by the Governor in transmitting his message was in accordance with the practice in Congress by the President, and also obtained in many of the States. The communicated, therefore, being respectful in its character, and not irregularly before the House, should be received and respectfully considered.
Mr. NEWMAN followed in a like argument
page: 32[View Page 32]Mr. HARNEY argued to show that a long line of precedents had established the manner of delivering the Governor's Message. It was expected by the people that he should appear in person before the General Assembly and deliver it. This was a time which demanded of every man that he should do his duty. He would hold the Governor to his. He would tell him that this General Assembly was no mob, to have his communications contemptuously thrust in their faces by a clerk. He would hold that gentleman to precedent, usage, the Constitution and laws. No revolution should be attempted by him and his friends. In consideration of past usage, in consideration of the present crisis, in consideration of the character of this General Assembly, the Executive of this State must stand before the representatives of the sovereign people and give an account of the manner in which he had performed the momentous duties entrusted in his hands. The interests, the vital interests of the whole State, nay, of the whole country demanded this. Upon this the majority on this floor would Insist.
Mr. VAN BUSKIRK argued in favor of receiving the message as the Governor had transmitted it.
The SPEAKER, in explanation, said he had permitted the discussion to proceed thus far, although it was out of order, unless his decision of yesterday, that the message could not be received, was reversed by the House. The ruling yesterday was placed on two grounds; 1st. That the message should be delivered in joint convention, Although he had taken counsel of a number of gentlemen in high legal position, he had not yet been convinced that his position was erroneous. The second position was that there must be two Houses in session to constitute a General Assembly in the purview of the Constitution Of this there is no doubt. This House, then, had been officially notified, yesterday. that the other branch of the General Assembly was not in session; so that, therefore, no session of the General Assembly was being held. The Speaker did not desire to assume any responsibility not imposed on him, but he would execute the orders of this House. The House had appointed a committee to inform his Excellency that there was no General Assembly in session, and that it would not receive his message. So long as the resolution, adopted yesterday is not reconsidered, it is the duty of the Speaker to enforce it.
Mr. MORGAN doubted somewhat the propriety of transmitting the message in a manner not customary; yet as it has been done we should receive it. We should not, in disrespectful terms, send it back to His Excellency. He could see nothing which would justify us in returning the message. The practice in the National Congress was referred to by him in support of his proposition.
Mr. BROWN urged that the reception of the Governor's Message was a thing that could only be done in joint convention. That was written in the Constitution.-- Some good had arisen out of this discussion--some good at least. It had caused Republicans to look into the Constitution, an instrument which they had been trampling on for the last two years. His Excellency had, by one of his hirelings--a man whom he kept to sweep out his office sent his message to be flung contemptuously on the Speaker's desk.
Mr. KENDRICK called the gentleman to order; he should not speak disrespectfully of the Governor's private secretary.
Mr. BROWN repeated what he had said, and argued that the General Assembly must convene before, under the Constitution, the message could be received. If the Governor did not choose to give us his august presence, he should at least be held to the observance of the Constitution. He was not for running to Congress in these days of Abolitionism for precedents. The State of Indiana was one thing, and Congress was another. The message of the Governor of Indiana should be delivered to us as our fathers were accustomed to receive it. If we would but return to the practice of our fathers, the whole country brought to ruin by Abolition misrule, would soon again be reunited under one flag. This Legislature should pay respect to the construction which had been placed upon the Constitution and laws by Governors, Legislative bodies and courts of justice for the past twenty-five years.
Mr. VAN BUSKIRK replied, repeating his argument, relying upon Congressional precedents and customs in other States.
Mr. ANDERSON took a like view of the matter; going to Great Britain, and adducing the practice in the English parliament to show that his Excellency's message ought to be received.
Mr. BRANHAM said that the Governor was ready to deliver his message yesterday at two o'clock. There being no quorum in the Senate he could not deliver it in person. He (Branham) was confident no disrespect was meant toward the House by the manner in which circumstances had forced his Excellency to transmit Ms message.
Mr. BUSKIRK, (Mr. Holcomb in the chair) argued relying on precedents, that the message must be d livered not to the Senate, not to the House but to the General Assembly. Was there a General Assembly in session yesterday? What did this House legislatively say yesterday? You said under oath there was no General Assembly in session yesterday. You said that you would not receive this message. page: 33[View Page 33] The presiding officer of this House must carry oat your orders and resolutions.-- He said to his republican friends that it was time for them to pause; to consider what they were doing. You come here, take an oath to support the constitution, and in twenty-four hours you secede from the Legislative halls, and by revolutionary conduct prevent all business. You denounce revolution in the South--and justly do you denounce it, for infamous traitors are engaged in attempting; to overthrow the constitution--you do all this, yet you at home are revolutionists! Pause and consider, gentlemen, what you are doing. If you have a right to say that you will not have United States Senators elected, that you will revolutionize to prevent necessary legislation, has not the majority the same right to say that they are opposed to your measures-- nay, even to the war itself? Because traitors had seceded from the Union in the South, it did not justify Republicans in seceding from the Legislature of Indiana. He had been told before this Legislature met that the election of United States Senators would be prevented by bolting. O yes!, said his Republican friends, this would be revolution, but only on a small scale! Don't tempt us too far, gentlemen! if you determine that we shall not elect United States Senators, we may come to the conclusion that your Republican Governor may manage the affairs of the State of Indiana without money. The majority will not submit to dictation by the minority, You can't dictate to us. If there is no legislation you will be held responsible. We, the Democracy, are determined to do our duty to the people of the State, and, if necessary, every one of us will resign and appeal again to the people, confident of an endorsement of our conduct and an emphatic condemnation of yours.
Mr. GREGORY urged the reception of the message. A little informality should be overlooked. He was opposed to doing any thing that would widen the breach between the Governor and the House, He urged coolness, calmness and moderation.
Mr. MILROY argued in favor of the resolution. This was a time of all times when precedent should be enforced. Tins was a time of all times when the dignity and rights of the white man should be enforced. When it came to talking about the rights of the black man he had nothing to say.
Mr. NIBLACK supported the resolution, To say the least of it, the Governor, by the manner in which he sought to transmit his message, had violated all precedent, and had been guilty of an act of unquestionable discourtesy toward the House. The practice with regard to transmitting President's messages to the national Congress, referred to by gentlemen, was not applicable to our method of conducting affairs in Indiana. This was our State, and its government was our government, to be administered as it had been administered when the constitution and the laws were obeyed by all in authority. He indorsed fully the expressions of the Speaker [Mr. Buskirk] and he sincerely believed, as that gentleman had said, if this revolution should be persisted in by Republican members, and by his Excellency the Governor, and the Democratic members should resign, compelling also the resignation of the Republicans, appealing again to the people, in view of the conduct of the minority here, and especially since the President's emancipation proclamation of the 1st of January, there would not be returned here enough Abolitionists to break a quorum, prevent legislation, disorganize, revolutionize and secede, notwithstanding any oath of office they might have taken to support and obey the Constitution and the laws.
Messrs. KEMP, HUMPHREYS, HOLCOMB and others continued the debate.
Mr. BRANHAM, one of the Committee who had waited on the Governor said that he was sure his Excellency meant no disrespect to the House by the manner in which he had transmitted his message. Nothing should deter him from doing his duty as the representative of a free people? Never could he countenance revolution. The majority on this floor might elect every officer they wanted, but in his opinion the Constitution in certain circumstances justified the minority in bolting. He would bolt for one whenever in his judgment the public good demanded it. He would not bolt on a trifling occasion. But the right to bolt was guaranteed by the Constitution to the minority, He concluded, protesting his devotion to the Constitution and Union. He had tent one motto: One country, one destiny or one graveyard. Being interrogated by several members he admitted that the right of revolution belonged to a State and also the right of secession.
Mr. ROBERTS. Two years ago the honorable gentleman from Jefferson [Mr. Branham) and myself occupied seats on this floor. I wish to ask him if then he did not declare against all bolting against all revolution?
Mr. BRANHAM, I recognize under certain circumstances, the right of revolution. The only question is, does sufficient cause for revolution exist?
Mr. BROWN. Will the gentleman be kind enough to define the difference between secession and revolution?
Mr. BRANHAM. There is none at all. Secession is revolution.
Mr. NIBLACK. Now, who are to determine the question as to whether there Is sufficient cause for revolution?
page: 34[View Page 34]Mr. BRANHAM. The party proposing to revolutionize or secede.
Mr. NIBLACK. That is good enough i secession doctrine, pronounced by a Republican.
Mr. MOORMAN demanded the previous question.
The demand was sustained by the House and under the operation of the previous question the resolution was adopted by the following vote:
YEAS--Messrs, Abbett, Abdill, Atkison, Bird, Blocher, Bregan, Brown, Barton, Collins, Cook, Davis, Donaldson, Ferris, Garvin, Given, Hall, Hanna, Harden, of Washington; Hardin of Perry; Harney, Hetfield, Holcomb, Hon, Howard, Howell, Howk, Humphreys, Kemp, of Dubois, Kemp, of Vigo, Lake, Lasselle, Lee, Lemmon, of Harrison; Lemon, of Spencer; Mason, McGauchey, Miller, Milroy, Mustard, Mutz, Niblack, O'Brien, of Martin; Osborn, Packard, Pendleton, Priest, Puett, Reitz, Richardson, Rippey, Roberts, Shaffer, Shoaff of Jay Shoaff, of Allen, Spencer, Veach, Waterman, William, Wolfe, Woollen & Mr. Speaker--61.
NAYS--Messrs. Anderson, Baker, Branham, Budd, Byerle, Cass, Chambers, Forester, Gregory, Hershey, Higgins, Hostetter, James, Johnson, Jones, Kendrick, Kilgore, Lamb, Leeds, Marshall, Moorman, Morgan, Newman, Noyes, O'Brien, of Hamilton; Perry, Pettibone, Robinson, Stone, Tarkington Van Buskirk, and Woodruff--32.
So the SPEAKER ordered the Clerk to return the communications to his Excellency the Governor, together with the resolution adopted rejecting it.
THE $200 EXEMPTION
Mr. DONALDSON offered the following:
WHEREAS, The sixth section of the twelfth article of the Constitution provides that no person conscientiously opposed to bearing arms shall be compelled to do Indiana duty, but such person shall pay an equivalent for exemption, the amount to be prescribed by law.
Resolved, That the Committee on Military Affairs be instructed to inquire by what authority such equivalent was fixed at two hundred dollars and whether any legislation is necessary upon the subject, and to report by bill or otherwise.
The resolution was adopted.
NEW JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
Mr. BIRD introduced a bill [2] creating the 16th judicial district, which was read the first time and passed to the second reading.
On motion by Mr. HARNEY, it was--
Resolved, That when the House adjourn it be till 2 p.m. on Monday.
