HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
TUESDAY, January 24, 1865.The House met at 9 o'clock A. M. The journal of yesterday was read and authenticated.
PETITIONS.
Mr. MEREDITH presented the petition of sundry citizens of Sullivan county, relative to he equalization of the draft, which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. HIGGINS presented the memorial of Stephen P. Leeds, late Sheriff of Laporte county; and
Mr. KILGORE presented a memorial for a claim; which were severally referred to the Committee on Claims.
page: 103[View Page 103]REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
MR. WRIGHT, from the Committee on Manufactures, returned Mr. Branham's bill [H. R. No. 14] for the relief of soldiers' families, &c., with an amendment, and when so amended, recommending its passage.
The report lies on the table.
ANDREW WALLACE.
Mr. MEREDITH, from the Committee on Scientific and Benevolent Institutions, to whom was referred the resolution by Mr. Buskirk,to inquire into the management of said institutions, and whether any officer thereof has furnished them with supplies contrary to law,reported the general satisfactory condition and management of said institutions, and a recital of facts by way of exculpating Andrew Wallace from any charge of violation of law and all suspicion of speculation in the furnishment of supplies of groceries for said institutions.
Mr. BUSKIRK said he had a bill on the subject and on his motion the report was laid on the table.
THE STATE LIBRARY.
Mr. STEWART, from the Committee on the State Library submitted a report, commending the service of the late Librarian in the neatness and good order of the room-recommending that $1,000 be annually appropriated for binding and refitting; an increase of the compensation of the Librarian; and a contingent fun in his hands to pay Library expressage; and recommending the repayment of $10 to the late Librarian for expense incurred by him on the Douglas portrait.
Mr. WHITESIDE having learned that the language of his resolution relative to the matter of this claim on the Douglas portrait was taken as a reflection on the official reputation of the late Librarian, he asked leave to withdraw it. He desired to remove any impression of that sort. He regarded the resolution as a mere business transaction.
The SPEAKER said it could not be withdrawn.
Mr. STEWART explained the circumstances under which the late Librarian, Mr. Stevenson, had paid the $10 on the portrait.
On motion of Mr. BRANHAM, the report was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.
AMENDMENT OF THE RULES.
Mr. HENRICKS gave notice, that on to-morrow, or some future day cf the session, he would submit an amendment to the 58th and 59th rules of this House, so as to allow bills to be referred on the first reading.
BILLS INTRODUCED.
Mr. GROYES introduced a bill [H. R. 75] for an act empowering railroads to build branches to the neighboring coal mines.
Mr. MILLER, of Clinton, introduced a bill [H. R. 76 ] for an act to amend the 79th and 97th sections of the Common School act, approved March 11, 1861.
Mr. NEWCOMB introduced a bill [H. R. 77,] for an act to provide for the settlement of estates of persons who have been absent from their places of residence and not heard from for seven years or more.
Mr. JOHNSON introduced a bill [H. R. 78,] for an act to provide for the sale of certain lands belonging to the State of Indiana in the counties of Jasper and Newton.
Mr. STRINGER introduced a bill [H. R. 79,] for an act to amend the 6th. 8th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 20th, 29th and 30th sections of the Road and Supervisor's act, approved March 5, 1859.
Mr. OSBORN introduced a bill [H. R. 80,] for an act to raise revenue for State purposes for the years 1865 and 1866.
Mr. COFFROTH introduced a bill [H. R. 8,] for an act to amend the second section of the act to enable owners of wet land to drain and reclaim them, when the same can be done, without affecting the rights of others.
Which bills were severally read and passed to the second reading.
THE CLINTON CONTEST.
Mr. MILLER, of Clinton, rose to a privileged question. He made a further application to the House tor further authority to go out and take the testimony of Mr. Waddell, to be read in the contest for his seat here, to aid him in his defense. He feared that the witness would not obey the summons of the Committee. He was expecting same of his friends to move a resolution for him.
Mr. SHOAFF, of Allen, submitted the following:
WHEREAS, the contestor for the seat of Cornelius J. Miller, Representative from the county of Clinton, has been notified by the contestee in the paid case, of his (contestee's) intention to proceed to take the deposition of one B. N. Waddle, on Thursday day the 26th instant, at Micbigantown in Michigan township in said county, to be read in evidence in said case; therefore
Resolved, That the said contestee be allowed to take the deposition of said witness at the said time and place; and that the same be admitted in evidence in said content; and that said contestee be granted leave of absence for that purpose.
Mr. MILLER appealed to the majority to do him justice in this matter. He caused the affidavit of Benjamin M. Waddell to be read by the Clerk, to exculpate him from the censure in some quarters, implied in a surmise that the letter from said Waddell which he had before caused to be read to the House, was not genuine.
Mr. BROWN submitted that Mr. Miller had made a case that the House ought to regard, and send a summons to compel the attendance of this witness.
Mr. KILGORE made a statement of the proceedings of the Committee on Elections, alleging that there was no intention on the part of any member of the committee to prejudice the rights of either party, He wished only that the matter be attended to soon.
Mr. GRIFFITH proposed to limit the time of taking this deposition by adding to the resolution these words: "Provided said depositions be taken within/one week from the present time."
Mr. COLLINS. The gentleman from Allen accepts the modification.
The resolution was adopted.
REBEL RAIDS.
The SPEAKER announced the special order, viz: the consideration of Mr. Prather's bill [H. R. No. 13] for the relief of the Morgan raid suffer- page: 104[View Page 104] ers-the pending question being on Mr. Brown's amendment.
Mr. BROWN asked and obtained leave to withdraw his amendment, and submit the following amendment to Mr. Shuey's amendment:
Provided, That no person or persons who shall have been duly convicted by any competent court having jurisdiction of the offense, of having accepted a commission or commissions from any person or persons, State or States, or other enemies of this State or of the United States, for the purpose ot joining or commanding any army or band of men hostile to, or in rebellion against, this State or the United States, or who shall knowingly and wilfully and or assist any enemies in open war, or persons in rebellion against this State or the United States, by joining their armies, or by enlisting, or procuring, or persuading others to enlist for that purpose, or by furnishing such enemies or persons in rebellion with arms, ammunition or provisions, or any other article for their aid or comfort, or by shipping, sending or carrying to such enemies or rebels, or their agents, any arms, ammunition or provisions, or other articles for their aid or comfort, or by carrying on a traitorous correspondence with them, or shall form, or be in any wise concerned in forming any combination or plot or conspiracy for betraying the State or the United States, or the armed forces of either into the hands or power of any foreign enemy, or of any organization or pretended Government, engaging resisting the law or authority of the Government of the United States of America, or shall give or send any pretended intelligence to said Government--such person or persons shall not be entitled to the benefits of the foregoing bill.
Mr. BUSKIRK moved an order, that when the House adjourns it shall be till 2 o'clock P. M. this day; and he moved to postpone the further consideration of the special order till that hour.
The motionswere severally agreed to.
WINSLOW, LANIER & CO.
The SPEAKER next announced the order of the consideration of the hill [S. No. 49] to repay Winslow, Lanier & Co , &c.,-the question being on the adoption of Mr. Brown's amendment.
Mr. BRANHAM, (being entitled to the floor,) said it was enough for us to know that the reason this interest was still unpaid was in the failure of the last Legislature, The honor of the State was pledged for the payment of this interest. It was not put upon the ground of a legal obligation, but on higher ground. When the State pledged her honor, it amounted to more than simple compliance with law. The Governor of the State, as every man should, felt an interest in preserving the honor and integrity of the State; and he set about, as in duty bound, to see what he could do in order to preserve the public credit; and he found those who were not only able but willing to step forward and pay this interest. I know that in the last canvass it was said on the opposite side, that they never would refund one dollar of this money. That issue was discussed before the people; and the people made their verdict, and with that verdict I am content.
The gentleman from Floyd has made a speech on this subject, in which he carried out the idea that the Governor had trampled under foot the Constitution of the State, and that it was by disregarding that instrument that he was enabled to make these payments. But still we point to this as a faithful act of the Executive Governor Morton never attempted to use one single dollar of the public money to meet this public obligation. He did not propose to divert from the State or County Treasuries one dollar of money controlled by law. But in obedience to the requirements of law he goes about to see if he can maintain the public credit of the State--and he accomplishes it. And there is not a true friend of the State--a man who loves honor, truth and justice in this broad land--but will applaud the act of the Governor, and applaud the act of those men who stepped forward and saved the public credit. And all the gentleman's remarks about violating the Constitution has no more to do with this matter than Don Quixotte's fight with the wind will.
But following the gentleman from Floyd, comes the gentleman from Monroe with an amendment to pay these men the same amount of interest due on our bonds.
Mr. B. rehearsed the manner of the origination ot this State debt--how the five per cent. bonds were given-and how the 2 1/2 per cents--for accumulated interest.
And now, when the Treasury is full of money we refuse to pay this interest. One gentleman says, the State is sovereign, and they can not compel us to pay interest, and you may take what you can get. If that is what is meant by sovereignty, I thank God that I am not a sovereign. But, sir, I will say that no honest man-I make no pretensions as a lawyer-can excuse the State from paying interest on this interest from the time it fell due until it shall be paid.
He gave illustrations. He did not propose to ventilate the session of 1863 till we shall have got through with these financial questions. Not one dollar of those deposits by Mr. Brett was paid on this interest.
Mr. BROWN. Will the gentleman explain then why those deposits of $640,000 were made?
Mr. BRANHAM. I cannot explain an action that never took place.
Mr. BROWN. Why then did Winslow, Lanier & Co. assign their assignment from the bondholders to M. L. Brett?
Mr. BRANHAM. I will state the facts. After the failure to pay the interest in July, 1863, Governor Morton made an arrangement with Winslow, Lanier &Co. to make the requisite advancements. But in consequence of a secret combination here in Indiana, Mr. Walker, Agent of State, refused access to the books, so that the interest could not be paid properly. I could read the correspondence that took place thereupon-and I will say that the House owes it to the country to publish that correspondence-but I will not consume time. But after a while they got a copy of the Stock Register-some time in December, 1863, and this company made their deposits for the interest. On the first of January, 1864, their deposits had not all been taken ont. Then they deposited, I think, $94,000 more, for the purpose of paying the January interest.
At that time not one dollar had been received in New York from Indiana. They had also paid the interest accruing the July following. And sometime about the first of November, 1864, Mr. Lanier came out here and assign- page: 105[View Page 105] ed to Mr. Brett receipts for the interest they had paid, and Mr. Brett makes a special deposit in New York, to his own credit, of about $400,000. Not one dollar of that has been used by Winslow, Lanier & Co., and M. L. Brett can take it out at any time. Consequently, this firm have not used one dollar ot the State's money in this transaction. "What I talk about I got from Mr. Brett. It is true that the money is there to his credit; and it is true, also, that if this bill passes, Winslow, Lanier & Co. will get that money. This is the object of the bill- to settle for the payment of this interest on the State debt, with interest at the New York rate.
Mr. DUNHAM. This $630,000 was on special deposit; was it for the purpose of inducing Winslow, Lanier & Co. to pay the January interest; and they refused to pay the January interest until that money was deposited.
Mr. BRANHAM explained that Winslow, Lanier & Co. had checked out money deposited for a special purpose. He had the statement of Mr. Lanier corroborated by Mr. Brett, that they bad not used one dollar of that $630,000.
Mr. DUNHAM. What benefit did they expect to derive from that deposit of $630,000?
Mr. BRANHAM could say nothing more than he had already with reference to the benefit they expected from that deposit.
He replied to Mr. Buskirk's allegation yesterday, that "the bolt" of the last session was not on account of the certainty of the passage of the military bill. He suggested that that bill was maneuvered in the secret counsels of the opposition. He, at that session, appealed to the Committee on Ways and Means to pass over that bill, and let us do the pending business of pressing public importance. He told the House that bill should not pass. He gave emphatic notice. If they did not intend to pass that bill why was it passed to the engrossment? He recited something of the severity of parliamentary oppression indured by the minority in that Legislature--a motion that the door be closed, and a remonstrance against it applied to the doorkeeper, which could not fully be expressed in words. He regarded it as the proudest period of his public service to have resisted the majority of that House of Representatives, and it would have been well for all the border States if the designs of unscrupulous partizans could have been as successfully resisted in them.
Mr. BUSKIRK next took the floor. He submitted again that the Military bill was not the true pretext for the bolt. He stated the duty of minorities generally. They should not act with sole reference to embarrassing the majority. He quoted Mr. Branham's opinion that the Constitution justified the majority in bolting, pending the report of the committee to wait on the Governor on the second day of that session ; and with regard to the right of revolution-more than a month before the Military bill was reported. Mr. Branham then claimed the right of revolution in its broadest sense. He also read from the same official record [The Brevier Reports] a sketch of his own remarks at that time, showing the small difference between disunionism in the South and the principle by which it was sought to justify the Republican bolt of the last session.
Mr. B. alleged that it was the inflammatory speeches of the gentleman from Jefferson [Mr. Branham.] that brought about the vote ordering the engrossment of the "Military Bill." The majority were not to be intimidated by the gentleman. It was well known that that bill was voted down in three caucuses, and that the Military Committeerefused to report it, and Mr. Hanna had to introduce it himself.
Mr. BRANHAM (in his seat,) why did not the majority bring back the minority?
Mr. BUSKIRK. They had not the power to restrain such a disregard of the Constitution and laws. He had shown that the gentleman was an apologist for bolting. When he (Mr. B.) consented to bolt, he would not justify himself under the Constitution.
By way of answer to Mr. Griffith yesterday, be read the ten several conditions on which the Republican members of the last House were willing to come back to their places?, and he canvassed their character, and the dishonor that would have followed on the submission of the majority. A conqueror could hardly propose harder terms than did this recusant minority. No wonder that their terms were rejected with scorn and loathing.
He then showed the condition of the calendar of business at the time of the bolt, in connection with the rules requiring two-thirds to take up business out of order, and inferred the impossibility of the passage of that Military bill-151 bills on the Speaker's table, having precedence of that bill.
Mr. KILGORE inquired whether there was not a time early in March, when the Republicans asked but one condition on which they would return?
Mr. BUSKIRK admitted that the gentleman did so propose, but it was not in writing, and considered too late by the caucus, and that proposition also placed the majority at the mercy of the minority. Those interviews were regarded somewhat in the light of the attempted negation up there at Niagara Falls.
Mr. GREGORY, of Warren, said hereafter he should insist on the enforcement of the 31st rule. No member shall speak twice without leave. He denied that there was any issue before the people with reference to that previous Military bill. He stated what were the issues of 1862. The Democrats succeeded that year, because they would have a more vigorous prosecution of the war. The difficulty with the last House of Representatives was that they endeavored to make issues, instead of carrying out the decisions of the people. He denounced the last Legislature, and especially the Military bill, the climax of its absurdity, and disregard of the Constitution. He then recited the issues of the canvass of 1864, especially the bolting question, and the executive acts of Governor Morton, and the Republicans were sustained by a triumphant majority. He justified his bolting on the ground that it was taken with the motive to counteract and resist the tendencies to revolution.
In conclusion, I will say to gentlemen of the other side, oppose this bill as bitterly as you please-defeat it if you can-but before-you cast that dishonor upon the State of Indiana, for God's sake, by some act of yours, blot page: 106[View Page 106] out her proud record in this war for the preservation of the Union. Ignore your association and connection with the brave sons of the Hoosier State, whose blood has reddened every battle-field, from Gettysburg to the Rio del Norte. Tear from the flags deposited in the tender keeping of the State, to perpetuate the valor of her sons, the names of the sanguinary fields upon which they have vindicated and sustained the proud name of Indiana, and which you propose to destroy by your opposition to this bill. Say to the world that you have lost all sense of honor--all patriotism--all regard for the men who have sacrificed their lives for the preservation of the Union, and then place upon the journals of the House, if you will, your votes to go down through all time to come, so that future generations, when you, Mr. Speaker, and I, and all who hear me now have gone down to the slient grave-when the mould shall have gathered upon our memories, as it will upon our tombs, may pronounce upon your action and mine in reference to this bill and the vindication of the honor of the State and her patriotic dead, the verdict we respectively deserve.
And then the House took a recess till two o'clock P. M.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. DUNHAM rose to a personal explanation. The other day, in debate on this bill, (Mr. Prather's H. R. No. 13) the gentlemen from Delaware saw proper to contradict a statement he then made. He now held in his hand the Ritual of the Union League, and he desired to read with reference to the truth of what he then affirmed. Article 10, page 2 of that document he read:
"Each member of this lodge shall promptly provide himself with at least one good shotgun, musket or rifle, and a sufficient supply of fixed ammunition for the effective use of the same."
He stated also that he was misrepresented in the Indianapolis Journal in the statement that "Mr. Dunham defended the order in its acts," referring to the Sons of Liberty. So far from justifying that order, he had constantly and earnestly condemned all secret political orders and associations.
Mr. NEWCOMB had not seen the article referred in the Journal--certainly he did not write it. But he understood the gentleman to justify their arming.
Mr. DUNHAM. The whole history of his life was a testimony against bearing arms secretly about the person.
Mr. BROWN submitted a motion to refer the bill and amendments to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. BUSKIRK proposed to amend the fourth section by adding these words to the end of the section:
"And shall as soon as their labors are completed, report their proceedings and the facts upon which each claim is founded, to the "Revisory Board," separating said claims into the following classes:
- Claims for property taken, destroyed, or injured by rebels.
- Claims for property taken, destroyed, or injured by Union forces under the command of U. S. officers.
- Claims for property taken, destroyed, or injured by Union forces not under the command of United States officers, with a statement showing specifically in each case under what circumstances, and by what authority, such property was so taken, injured and destroyed.
- Each claimant for personal property shall prove whether the same was listed in his name in 1863, for taxation in this State and if so, whether be placed the valuation thereon; and no claimant for the loss or destruction of property so listed, and valued by himself, shall be allowed a greater sum than such valuation.
Mr. BROWN. The reason why he desired this matter to go to the Judiciary Committee was this: If the amendment of the gentleman from Elkhart and Lagrange be adopted, there will have to be two Commissions appointed one to inquire into the legality of the claims and the other to inquire whether the person to whom the claim, is owing is loyal or disloyal, He disputed the power of a commission to sit on such a grave question, &c.
The motion was agreed to.
WINSLOW, LANIER & CO.
On motion by Mr. MILLER, of Tippecanoe, the regular order of business was suspended, and the House took up the bill [S. No. 49,] to repay Winslow, Lanier & Co.
The question pending being on the adoption of Mr. Brown's amendment.
Mr. WRIGHT having the floor, recited the history of the State debt. The faith of the State was pledged for the interest. It was the opinion of eminent, lawyers that, if the State failed in paying this interest, her creditors might come back for the original amount of the debt. He also adverted in deprecating terms to the course of the opposition in the issues of the late election canvass, and the proceedings of the last House of Representatives. When he had concluded-he demanded the previous question.
Mr. BROWN desired the floor.
Mr. DUNHAM desired to offer an amendment, to be read for information.
Mr. WRIGHT adhered to the demand, and there was a second affirmative 38. negative 35.
Mr. BROWN and Mr. COFFROTH demanded the yeas and nays on the question, Shall the main question be ordered, which being taken resulted-yesas 48, nays 37 so the main question, viz: Shall Mr. Brown's amendment be adopted, was ordered to be put; and the yeas and nays having been ordered thereon, and being taken, resulted-yeas 33, nays 52, as follows.
YEAS-Messrs. Abbett, Bird. Brown, Burwell, Buskirk, Coffroth, Collins, Colover, Croan, Dunham, Glazebrook, Gregg, Hargrove, Harrison, Hunt, Lasselle, Lemon, Lopp, Milroy, O'Brien. Osborn, Perigo, Puett, Richardson, Roach, Shoaff, of Allen, Shoaff, of Jay, Stenger, Stuckey, Sullivan, of Scott, Thatcher, Veach and White-38.
NAYS-Messrs. Banta, Bonner, Boyd, Branham, Burnes, Chambers, Church, Cox, Crook, Emerson, Ferris, 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, Olleman, Prather, Reese, Rhodes, Rice, Riford, Sabin, Shuey, Sim, Stewart, Stringer, Sullivan, of Posey and Vanderburg, Trusler, Upson, Welch, White, Whiteside, Willis, Woodruff, Woods, Wright, Zigler and Mr. Speaker-52.
So the amendment was rejected, and the question recurred on ordering the bill to be engrossed.
page: 107[View Page 107]Mr. DUNHAM desired to propose an amendment and moved to refer the bill and amendment to the Committee on Claims.
The SPEAKER explained the order, ruling out the amendment.
Mr. BROWN, Mr. COFFROTH and Mr. BUSKIRK insisted that the bill was still being considered on the second reading.
The SPEAKER. The main question on Saturday was simply on the amendment; but to-day when the bill may be passed the third reading there was another vote beyond the Amendment, viz, the ordering the bill to the third reading, and that question is reached by the operation of the previous question. Authorities were presented.
The bill was then ordered to the third reading and read the third time by the Clerk.
Mr. DUNHAM now moved his amendment again, with the motion to refer the bill to the Committee on Claims with special instructions.
Th'e SPEAKER held that the previous question carried the bill through to the title.
Mr. DURHAM and Mr. BUSKIRK argued that the force of the previous question was exhausted in the vote ordering the bill to be read the third time. That there was now another question beyond the ordering to the third reading, not under the operation of the previous question, namely: "Shall the bill pass?" and that the amendment was in order.
Mr. PUETT insisted that we could discuss the merits of the bill on its passage; and if so there was no force remaining in the previous question.
Mr. DUNHAM insisted that there was a necessary implication for the admission of his amendment by way of reference with special instructions, in the latter clause of the 59th rule. His motion would be to refer the bill to the Committee on Claims with instructions to strike out in lines eight and nine these words: ''From the date of the deposit to meet skid interest to the time of payment" and insert in lieu these words: * "from the time of payment of interest paid by them until the time of deposit with them by the Treasurer of State in November, 1864."
Voices. ''Object."
Mr. BRANHAM demanded the previous question; and there was a second, by the House.
Mr. COFFROTH and Mr. BROWN made the point: If the Chair hold the bill under the operation of the previous question, how does the Chair entertain a motion by the gentleman from Jefferson for the previous question?
The SPEAKER overruled the point.
And so the main question was ordered, and the bill put on its final passage, the vote resulting--yeas 52, nays 33--as follows:
YEAS-Messrs. Banta, Bonner, Boyd, Banham, Burnes, Chambers, Church, Cox, Crock, Emerson, Ferris, 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, Olleman, Prather, Reese, Rhoads, Rice, Riford, Sabin, Shuey, Sim, Stewart, Stringer, Sullivan, of Posey and Vanderburg, Trusler, Upson, Welch, Whiteside, Willis, Woodruff, Woods, Wright, Zeigier, and Mr. Speaker-52.
NAYS-Messrs. Abbett, Beckett, Bird, Brown, Burwell, Buskirk, Coffroth, Collins, Croan, Dunham, Glazebrook, Gregg, Hargrove, Harrison, Hunt, Lasselle, Lemon, Lopp, Milroy, O'Brien, Osborn, Patterson, Perigo, Richardson, Roach, Shoaff, of Allen, Shoaff, of Jay, Stenger, Stuckey, Sullivan, of Scots, Thatcher, Veach, and White-33.
Mr. SHOAFF, of Jay, (when his name was called,) explained that while he was willing to pay all just,and legal debts of the State, he was not convinced that the bill in its present shape should meet his approbation; and therefore he voted "No."
So the bill passed the House of Representatives.
Mr. BROWN desired unanimous consent to offer a resolution for allowing Messrs. Glazebrook and Milroy $30 for expenses incurred by them for carrying home the remains of the late Mr. Shaffer.
Mr. HENRICKS objected.
Mr. BUSKIRK desired unanimous consent to present a claim of Morrison and Ray.
Mr. DUNHAM objected.
Mr. BROWN made an ineffectual motion to adjourn.
Mr. NEWCOMB moved to reconsider the vote just taken, and to lay the motion en the table.
Mr. BROWN demanding the yeas and nays, they were ordered, and being taken, the vote was reported--yeas 56, nays 27.
So the bill was finally passed the House of Representative beyond reconsideration.
SENATE BILLS.
The SPEAKER announced the regular order, the consideration of messages and bills from, the Senate.
The bill [S. No. 1] to appropriate $75,000 for the expenses of the present General Assembly.
The bill [S. No. 4] providing tor records in case of changing county lines.
The bill [S. No. 7] changing the times of Common Pleas in Blackford, Jay, &c.
The bill [S. No. 8] to amend section 58 of the city corporation act, approved March 9, 1857.The joint resolution [S. No. 10] relative to the establishment of a bonded warehouse at Evansville.
The bill [S. No. 11] to repeal section 1 of the Court of Conciliation act.
The bill [S. No. 14] to amend the act relative to County Treasurers-
Were severally passed the first reading.
The joint resolution [S. No. 5] affecting certain persons therein named on the United States pension roll, was ordered to the third reading.
PER DIEM OF MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.
Mr. GRIFFITH'S bill [H. R. No. 4] fixing the per diem and milage of members of the General Assembly, and providing officers therefor, &c., coming up in order, with the amendment of the Committee on Fees and Salaries, proposing to strike out the 2d and 3d sections.
Mr. GRIFFITH explained the provisions of the bill, showed wherein it proposes to amend the general statute, page 356, and urged considerations against the adoption of the amendment.
Mr. BUSKIRK preferred to retain these sections.
Mr. MAJOR. It was thought by the committee that the constitutional provieion was sufficiently explicit as to officers of the General Assembly.
Mr. BUSKIRK. The Constitution prescribes that each House shall elect its own officers, and the laws prescribe what the offices shall be.
page: 108[View Page 108]Mr. BRANHAM. It was a law that would never be observed; but the committee objected chiefly to the compensation and the authority of the principals to appoint assistants, beyond the control of the House.
Mr. GRIFFITH. He did not understand that the bill gave the privilege of the appointments of assistants beyond the control of the House. He observed also that the committee did not recommend the passage of the bill.
Mr. BUSKIRK proposed to amend further by inserting appropriately, these words after the words "shall appoint their assistants," "except the pages, who shall be appointed by the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives."
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. KILGORE proposed to amend by making the compensation of Clerks and Door-keepers "$5" instead of "$4,"
It was rejected.
Mr. GRIFFITH proposed an amendment to obviate the objection of Mr. Branham, by appropriately inserting these words: "If their respective houses permit."
It was agreed to.
Mr. HENRICKS proposed an amendment byway of substitute, playing upon the fact of the hundred dollars appropriation to each member for newspapers and postage, as a precedent for each successive General Assembly voting its own pay.
Mr. BUSKIRK moved to reject it.
Mr. HENRICKS withdrew it.
Mr. HIGGINS proposed to amend, by striking out all that part of the bill relating to the compensation, of officers;
Which was agreed to.
And then, on motion of Mr. GRIFFITH, it was referred to a Select Committee of Five.
Mr. BUSKIRK now asked and obtained leave to present the claim heretofore indicated by him, and it was referred to the Committee on Claims.
Mr. NEWCOMB had leave to present a memorial from the same parties, and it took the same reference.
ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT.
Mr. WHITESIDE, from the Committee on the Judiciary, obtained unanimous consent to report back Mr. Coffroth's bill [H. R. No. 46,] fixing the times of courts in the 11th Judicial Circuit, with an amendment.
Mr. COFFROTH asked the indulgence of the House to consider the bill now.
Mr. BUSKIRK objected, in order to get up his amendment of the Rules, but failing in that, he withdraw his objection.
On the motion of Mr. WHITESIDE, the order of business was suspended, and Mr. Coffroth's bill was taken up.
The amendment of the Committee was concurred in.
Mr. LASSELLE. This bill was simply reversing the order; of the Courts in this Circuit. He should vote against the bill unless good and sufficient reasons be given for the changes.
Mr. COFFROTH said the changes proposed met the approbation of the Judge; and they were desirable for other reasons which he recited.
Mr. WHITESIDE gave further reasons for the proposed change of times.
Mr. LASSELLE did not think the public interest required the proposed changes.
Mr. WHITESIDE again urged the passage of the bill.
The bill was then passed the third and last reading in the House of Representatives-yeas 91, nays 5.
The Senate concurrent resolution to raise a flag on the dome of the Capitol was considered and adopted.
The Senate concurrent resolutions, embracing a memorial to Congress relative to the discharge of troops recruited to fill up old regiments at the time of the discharge or expiration of the term of enlistment of the soldiers of such old regiments, (printed at length on pages 54 and 55 of these Reports,) coming up-
It was adopted without a division.
On motion of Mr. MILROY, (at 5:15) the House adjourned till to-morrow morning at nine o'clock.
