HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
SATURDAY, January 21, 1865,The SPEAKER took the Chair at 9 o'clock A. M., and ordered the roll call, which proceeded, and discovered a quorum present.
The journal of yesterday was read and authenticated.
A message from the Senate announced the passage there of a concurrent resolution for a flag on the dome of the Capitol.
ROADS.
Mr. SABIN presented a memorial from sundry citizens of Steuben county, asking for $1 50 a day for labor on the highways; which was referred to the Committee on Roads.
SUBSTITUTE BROKERAGE.
Mr. TRUSLER, from the Committee on the Judiciary returned the resolution referred to them with reference to the Indianapolis substitute brokerage ordinance, with a recommendation that it be referred to the Select Committee on that subject.
The report was concurred in.
SAMUEL H. PATTERSON.
Mr. BOYD, from the Committee on Claims, to which was referred the petition of Samuel H. Patterson, reported that the committee were satisfied that the State was indebted to the said Patterson in the sum of $2,091 34; and he also reported a bill to pay him.
The report was laid on the table.
A POINT OF ORDER.
Mr. HENRICKS. Mr. Speaker, should not the bill just reported be read? The practice of the House has been that a bill reported by a committee be read the first time when reported.
Mr. BROWN submitted that the bill should be read in the order for the introduction of bills.
The SPEAKER. If a committee report a bill, it goes to the calendar, and when we reach the calendar, it is read the first time, but of course the Chair submits to the authority of the House.
Mr. HENRICKS. When will it be read?
Mr. GRIFFITH. It was his impression that concurrence in the report of the Committee, places the bill on the first reading.
After further debate on the order
Mr. MILLER, of Tippecanoe, submitted the following:
Resolved, That when a Committee makes a report on any matter referred to them, accompanied by a bill or resolution, the bill or resolution be read and acted on at the time of making the report.
The SPEAKER entertained the resolution.
Mr. BUSKIRK submitted, that the resolution was a proposition to change the rules. It required one day's notice. An amendment of the rule on Monday might correct the difficulty. He was ready himself to give notice of his intention on Monday to move to amend the rules, to the effect, That when a Committee report a bill or resolution, action should be taken thereon at the time; and that when the Committee report an amendment to a bill action shall be taken at the time on concurring in the report.
Mr. MILLER, of Tippecanoe, would rather adopt that course.
The SPEAKER. It might work better if the resolution of the gentleman from Tippecanoe limited the action, of the House to the first reading of the bill or resolution.
Mr. MILLER acquiesced and so modified his resolution.
Mr. BROWN. It cannot be done but by notice.
The SPEAKER considered the resolution not in the nature of a change of rules, but simply the adoption of a resolution declaring the sense of the House as to the meaning of a rule, which could be changed any day of the session.
Mr. MILLER, of Tippecanoe, withdrew his resolution for the purpose of giving notice of amendment of the rules.
COMMON SCHOOLS.
Mr. GREGORY, of Warren, from the Committee on Education, reported back the joint resolutions [H. R. 3 and 4], by Mr. Woods, to enable towns and districts to levy and collect taxes for the support of Common Schools; and also to amend the State Constitution on the same subject, with the expression of opinion, that legislation on that subject at this time is inexpedient. The difficulty sought to be removed can be remedied by increasing the taxes for the support of Common Schools under the present Constitution. This committee is now preparing a bill on that subject, of a uniform character, so that common schools may be taught for from six to eight months of the year in every town and district in the State.
The report was concurred in.
PER DIEM OF MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.
Mr. MAJOR, from the Committee on Fees and Salaries,to which was referred Mr. Griffith's bill [H. R.4 ] to fix the per diem and mileage of members of the General Assembly, and provide officers therefor, reported the same again to the House, with an amendment striking out the second and third sections thereof, alleging that section 8, of article 4 of the State Constitution fully provides that cash House shall choose its own elective officers.
page: 92[View Page 92]Mr. GRIFFETH asked that the 2d and 3d sections of the bill be read. He desired also to know whether the report did not recommend the passage of the bill as proposed to be amended ?
The report then went to the table, under the foregoing ruling of the Chair.
Mr. GRIFFITH stated that at sometime he would have to appeal from the ruling in this order.
The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman appeal from the decision of the Chair?
Mr. GRIFFITH. The pressure on the rules was too small now.
INTERCOURSE BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES.
Mr. BROWN submitted an order by way of resolution to the effect, that clerks of the Senate in delivering messages to the House of Representatives be requested to wait till there is nothing before the House before their messages are announced.
Mr. B. said he understood that the clerks of this House, charged with messages to the Senate, were compelled to wait at the door of that body till the pending business was disposed of He considered that order of the Senate right and proper, But he had introduced this resolution now more particularly because he had learned, that the concurrent resolution on this subject submitted by Mr. Groves, and adopted by the House the other day, when it came before the Senate, was treated with no respect whatever-honorable Senators declaring that the Senate would attend to its own business in its own way, and would submit to no dictation from this House.
Mr. NEWCOMB supposed he could sympathize with the feeling of indignity evinced by the gentleman from Jackson, if he had as much dignity as that gentleman. Bat, as it was, though the lex taliones might be a good principle, and answer well in practice in some cases, he advised to drop the matter. Little good could come from agitating small matters.
Mr. GREGORY, of Warren, suggested a committee to report the cost of this frivolous legislation-catching mice.
Mr. CHURCH. Such an order might put an effectual stop to the intercourse between the two Houses.
Mr. NEWCOMB showed that it could not be adhered to in the closing business of the session.
The SPEAKER. The Chair begs to say, with reference to the resolution of the gentleman from Brown, that he has regarded this matter as amply provided for by the Rules of the House; and in pursuance of the authority of the Chair, he has informed the Doorkeeper, that no message should be announced when business presses on the House. I think this is the general ruling in such cases as to the order of intercourse between legislative bodies. The Chair certainly could not recognize a messenger, at a time when he could not recognize a member on the floor of the House.
Mr. BROWN withdrew his resolution.
Mr. Branham's motion to amend rule 54, recited yesterday, was now taken up and adopted.
Mr. RHOADS, from the Joint Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported that said committee had presented to the Governor Mr. Brown's enrolled act [H. R. 3] for signature.
HON. HENRY WALKER.
Mr. GREGG submitted an order, which was adopted, tendering the use of the Hall of Representatives to the Hon. Henry Walker, next Tuesday night, for a public lecture on the condition of the country.
NEW PROPOSITIONS.
Mr. BIRD introduced a bill [H.R. 71,] for an act for the relief of Ann Vizard:
Mr. HENRICKS called up from the table the Finance Committee's report, submitted this morning by Mr. Boyd, and their bill [H. R. 72] for an act to reimburse Samuel H. Patterson, lessee of the Jeffersonville prison, in the sum or $2,091 34, for money paid by him for convict labor:
Mr. RICE introduced a bill [H. R. 73 ] for an act to amend sections 6, 10, 14, 20 of the Supervisor's act of March 5, 1859:
Mr. MILLER of Clinton, introduced a bill [H. R. 74] for an act relating to the forms of conveyancing of real estate sold by Sheriffs, prescribing certain duties of Clerks of Courts in relation thereto, and providing compensation therefor:
Which bills were severally read and passed to a second reading.
WINSLOW, LANIER & CO.
On motion by Mr. BRANHAM, the regular order of business was dispensed with, and the House took up the consideration of the bill,[S. 49.] to authorize the State Treasurer to refund Winslow, Lanier & Co. moneys paid by them by request of the Governor, as interest on State bonds with interest on amounts so paid, and declaring an emergency.
Mr. COFFROTH proposed to amend the bill by striking out all after the enacting: clause, and inserting an appropriation of $640,000 for the payment of the several installment interest due on the State debt, to be disbursed by the Treasurer.
Mr. C. said his proposition was simply to pay the interest on the State debt through the Treasurer of State-not to pay it to particular individual, as A, B, C, D, &c. By calculation she interest was ascertained to be so much-He desired the yeas and nays on the adoption of the amendment.
Mr. BRANHAM. If there was no other object in offering the amendment it would at least delay the passage of the bill. It was well known that this interest could not be paid in the usual form. The Senate bill was as near the usual form as we could get it. Gentlemen were mistaken when they say the definite amount to be paid is ascertained. Winslow, Lanier & Co. were paying this interest now every day.
Mr. COFFROTH. Could we not know what is the debt, and what the interest? It was an easy matter for us to compute the amount.-Payment could as well be authorized in the usual form now as at any other time past. If any person had seen proper to pay this interest, he has become the creditor of the State, and is entitled to receive the money by the operation of the amendment.
page: 93[View Page 93]Mr. BRANHAM. We could not pay it in the usual form. There was no Agent of State, at least none to whom we would be willing to transmit the money.
Mr. SPENCER. Were not these men (Wins-lows, Lanier & Co.) buying up these coupons and getting them assigned to them as brokers?
Mr. HOGATE. They were registered stock.
Mr. BROWN. Had not Winslow, Lanier & Go. refused to pay anything for the State till the States' money was deposited to secure them?
Mr. BRANHAM never heard any intimation of the kind.
Mr. BROWN. It was known that Mr. Brett, the State Treasurer, had deposited $400,000 in New York, to the credit of the original bondholders of the funded debt, and that Winslow, Lanier & Co., assumed their liability after that.
Mr. BRANHAM. Either the gentleman from Jackson [Mr. Brown] or himself was mistaken. Prior to the time of the State's interest falling due, Winslow, Lanier & Co. deposited in one of the banks in New York a sum of money sufficient to pay the interest. They had nothing to do with checking out the money-did not pay it from their own counter. It was under the control of the State-deposited to the credit of the State. All he knew about this $400,000 was that it has been customary for the Treasurer of State to transmit and deposit in New York an amount of money sufficient to pay the accruing interest. But Mr. Brett did not do this. As he understood it this $400,000 was not under the control of Winslow, Lanier & Co., but that M. L Brett could take it again to-day. He got his information from Mr. Brett himself. It could not make much difference how this interest is paid, so it is paid. Better let Mr. Brett do the business: for, considering the extraordinary circumstances under which Mr. B. hag been placed, Mr. Branham thought he acted very prudently-saying nothing about his refasing to pay the interest when due.
Mr. BROWN. What was the rate of interest proposed by the Senate bill-was it the rate in the bonds ?
Mr BRANHAM. Seven per cent.
Mr. COFFROTH. When was it ever heard of that a State had paid interest upon interest?
Mr. BRANHAM. When was it ever heard tell of that a State refused to pay her debts, with plenty of money in the Treasury ?
Mr. BROWN. It was when a Governor refused to call the Legislature together to make the appropriation.
Mr. BRANHAM. As to the question of interest upon interest, the State had been making money out of funds which should have paid this interest. He understood that she had realised some $12,000 or$14,000 by the financeering of the Treasurer.
Mr. DUNHAM would like to ask the gentleman whether there is anything due to the State Treasurer for that service--whether that $12,-000 or $14,000 amounts to anything more than this: that the State Treasurer had received into the Treasury as a part of the revenue of the State interest bearing Treasury Notes? Were these $12,000 anything more than the proceeds ?
Mr. BRANHAM'S understanding was that these interest-bearing Treasury notes were not received for revenue--that they were bought by the Treasurer for the purpose of making money.
Mr. DUNHAM asked for the authority of law by which the Treasurer should change that money?
Mr. BRANHAM. It was in the same volume where the law was found authorizing pay for the State printing.
Mr. DUNHAM. That would do very well for buncombe, but he would be obliged to the gentleman to show the particular clause of the law that authorizes the Treasurer to make that exchange. On the contrary, he would ask the gentleman whether there was not a positive law against it?
Mr. GREGORY, of Warren, read from Gavin & Hord, page 650, to show the authority for the Treasurer to have paid the interest as it fell due. He had understood that some of this interest had been paid from the Treasury, which had been made necessary on account of rebel confiscations--it having been thought better to pay it than to go into court. He spoke no blame against the Treasurer. He could see no reason why we should not pay interest upon interest to Winslow, Lanier & Co., on the money actually paid out for us.
Mr. BUSKIRK showed that Mr. Branham's objection was not well taken. There were four installments of interest due and unpaid-those of July, 1863, January and July, 1864, and January, 1875. These four installments amounted to $640,000 at the rate of interest fixed by law--part bearing 5 per cent, and part 2% per cent. The amendment of the gentleman from Huntington, [Mr. Coffroth,] proposes to appropriate that sum. The gentleman had said all the interest has to be paid. Concede it. The amendment provides that the Treasurer of State shall pay to the bondholders such interest as shall be due on their bonds. Then it provides that he shall pay to the assignees of the bondholders the amount due them. In that way it provides for the whole interest due the last two years. The Senate bill simply makes an appropriation for the amount that has been paid by Winslow, Lanier & Co., and leaves unpaid the amount that has not yet been claimed by the bondholders. Some of the bondholders had not fifed their claims.-- The original bill makes no provision for such--the amendment does. The gentleman conceded that there is a difficulty in making payment in the usual way, in COD sequence of the particular condition of the Agent of State. By the terms of the amendment, this money was placed tinder the control of the State Treasurer, who was direcred and empowered to pay it out. This was the advantage of the amendment over the original bill; it makes an appropriation for the whole amount of interest due the last two years, while the Senate bill is only for the amount that; has been paid by Winslow, Lanier & Co.
Mr. NEWCOMB understood that the amendment proposes making an appropriation for the interest on the debt--ignoring the fact that the interest has been advanced and paid by Wins-low, Lanier & Co., and ignoring, also, the fact that they have been requested to do so. The page: 94[View Page 94] original bill recognizes both--that the State's creditors were satisfied--that these men had become our creditors in their stead. He objected to delay; every day's delay increased our indebtedness to this firm, and the bill ought to be passed promptly. Members are going home at 12 o'clock. He would move to lay the amendment on the table.
Mr. DUNHAM appealed to the gentleman to withdraw that motion.
Mr. BUSKIRK. All we ask is to have a square vote on the amendment.
Mr. BROWN. And we might go to Madison.
Mr. NEWCOMB withdrew the motion, and demanded the previous question.
The SPEAKER, The previous question applies simply to the pending amendment.
Mr. NEWCOMB withdrew the demand.
Mr. Coffroth demanding the yeas and nays they were ordered and taken, resulting--yeas 31, nays 49--as follows:
YEAS--Messrs. Beckett, Bird, Brown, Burwell, Buskirk, Coffroth, Collins, Colover, Croan, Dunham, Gazebrook, Gregg, Hargrove, Harrison, Howard, Hunt, Lemon. Lopp, Miller, of Clinton, Milroy, O'Brien, Osborn, Patterson, Perigo, Roach, Shoaff, of Allen, Stenger, Stuckey, Thatcher and Veach--31.
NAYS--Messrs. Banta, Boyd, Branham, Burnes, Chambers, Church, Cox, Crook, Emerson, Foulke, Goodman,Gregory, of Montgomery, Gregory,of Warren, Griffith, Groves, Henricks, Hershey, Higgins, Hogate, Hoover, Johnson, Kilgore, Major, Meredith, Miller, of Tippecanoe, Montgomery, McVey, Newcomb, Ollerman, Prather, Reese, Rhoads, Rice, Riford, Sabin, Shuey, Sim,Stewart, Stivers, Sullivan, of Posey and Vanderburg, Trusler, Upsen, Welch, Willis, Woodruff, Woods, Wright, Zeigler and Mr. Speaker--49.
So Mr. COFFROTH'S amendment was rejected, and the question recurred on the engrossment of the bill.
Mr. BUSKIRK proposed to amend by striking out all after the enacting clause and inserting the following:
That the sum of $640,000 be and the same is hereby appropriated to pay the interest upon the public debt, falling due July, 1863, January and July, 1864, and January, 1865. That upon the passage and approval of this act, the Auditor of State shall draw his warrant on the Treasurer of State for said sum of money, and that said sum of money is hereby placed under the control of the Treasurer of State, who is authorized, empowered and directed to pay the owners of the bonds of the State such interest as may be due and unpaid thereon, and to the assignee or assignees of the several installments of interest on such bonds, and the said Treasurer is directed to take proper receipts for such interest, and an assignment to the State of the assignments made by the bondholders for such interest.
Section 2. That interest at the same rate as is borne by the bonds themselves shall be paid to the bondholders or their assigns us on the unpaid installments of interest on such bonds from the time such installments became due to the present time; and such farther sum is hereby appropriated as may be required to pay such interest on the unpaid installments of interest on our public bonds.
Mr. BUSKIRK. It would be perceived that the only difference between this and the amendment of the gentleman from Huntington, [Mr. Coffroth,] was in the second section. la the first section it provides for an appropriation of $640,000. t The second section provides that we will pay interest at the rate of five per cent, end 2 1/2 per cent. Say $5,000,000 of the bonds bear interest at 5 per cent. And all advancements to pay the State's interest to the present time shall draw 5 per cent. Then say there are three millions of the debt only bearing 2 1/2 per-cent ; we propose to pay that amount of interest on the advances mads on that. Winslow, Lanier & Co., having paid it, we propose to allow them just the same rate of interest that the bonds themselves beer. We do not know upon what principle these gentlemen in New York can voluntarily make payment of the State's interest at 2 1/2 per cent, and than ask us to pay them 7 per cent. It is a well known principle of law, that the sovereign never pays interest except it chooses to do so. Now if this had been paid on contract with Winslow, Lanier & Co., then I concede that the law of the State of New York would govern as to the amount of interest. But when I asked Mr. Chapman about that the other day, in the Senate Chamber--and he was at the time consulting with the Governor--he said there was no such claim or understanding with Winslow, Lanier & Co.--that there was no contract. It is not pretended that there was any contract for the payment of seven per cent, or any other rate of interest. Then, as there is no legal demand for interest, we propose to pay the same amount of interest the bands themselves call for.
Mr. CHURCH demanded the previous question.
Mr. BROWN. If this gag system is adopted, and we are to be cut off from discussion, we will take the responsibility of doing what we should to protect our rights.
The Speaker's hammer interposed, and there was a second to the demand for the previous question.
Mr. BROWN demanded the yeas and nays on the main question, which being taken, resulted--yeas 44, nays 33.
So the main question was ordered, viz: "Shall the Buskirk amendment be adopted?"
Mr. BUSKIRK Moved that the House adjourn; but on consultation he moved on order that when the Houss adjourns to-day it shall be till Monday at 2 o'clock P. M., which was agreed to.
On motion by Mr. HIGGINS, it was--
Ordered, [informally,] That this subject be made the special order for Monday, 3 o'clock P. M.
The SPEAKER laid before the House a communication from Private Secretary B. R. Sulgrove, stating that Mr. Brown's Common Pleas Court Bill, [H. R. 3,] had been approved and signed by the Governor.
Mr. Thatcher obtained leave of absence for Mr. White.
And then--at 12:5 P. M.--the House adjourned till Monday, 2 o'clock P. M.
