HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
FRIDAY, January 27,1865.The House met at 2 o'clock P. M.
The journal of yesterday was read and approved.
SPECIAL COMMITTEES.
The SPEAKER announced the following special committees:
Special committee on Mr. Coffroth's bill, [H. R. No. 4] fixing the per diem, of members of the General Assembly, &c:
Messrs. Griffith, Stewart, Buskirk, Boyd and Lassalle.
Special committee on Mr. Shoaff of Allen's dog bill:
Messrs. Collins, Stringer, Gregg, Gregory of Montgomery, Abbett and Shoaff of Allen.
Special committee on Mr. Miller of Tippecanoe's resolution of January 19th, (inquiring into the loyalty of Mr. Lasselle, Representative from the county of Cass:)
Messrs. Miller, of Tippecanoe, Dunhan, Lockhart, Frather, and Coffroth.
Special committee on the organization of Courts of Common Pleas:
Messrs. Coffroth, Emerson, Groves, Prather, Ferris, Kilgore, Newcomb, Humphreys, Roach, Lasselle, and Shuey.
AMENDMENT OF THE RULES.
Mr. GRIFFITH moved to reconsider the vote of yesterday, by which the proposition of the gentleman from St. Joseph, [Mr. Henricks,] to amend the 58th and 59th rules was rejected. He made this motion at the request of other gentlemen, without committing himself to the support of the proposed amendment.
Mr.BUSKIRK trusted the vote would not be reconsidered. The House decided right. The best way to hasten legislation was to adhere strictly to established parliamentary rules. He would have bills defeated, if they should be, by a direct vote: and allow every man to make his own record.
Mr. HENRICKS stated his object in proposing this amendment of the rules, It was to facilitate business. No man could sufficiently inform himself of a bill by the reading at the Clerk's table. How many could tell what was in the journal of yesterday that had just been read by the Clerk? Bills have to go to the committees some time, and he could not see why they should not go at once. He wanted to get along with business. We were now in the fourth week of the session, and of some ninety bills introduced, but a very small portion of them had yet been referred.
Mr. GRIFFITH was not clear yet that the amendment would expedite business. The precedents were against it; but at all events he would vote for the reconsideration.
The vote was reconsidered.
The proposed amendment of the 58th rule was then reported by the Clerk. It adds words to this effect: "The bill [introduced] shall then be referred to the committee without debate. Any member desiring to offer an amendment, may hand it in in writing, or by any member of the committee. In the 59th rule it inserts "re" before the word "committed."
Mr. BROWN moved to amend the amendment of the rule, by striking out the words ''without debate."
Mr. GRIFFITH saw now, since the reading of the proposition, that it would cut off amendments in the House, and give the committee control of amendments.
Mr. BRANHAM. Amendments may be sent,the Committee, or submitted in the House. The member can make his own record just as well. The advantage of the modification page: 127[View Page 127] would be this, that where we have several bills on the same subject, the committee would give us but one.
Mr. BROWN submitted that it would take longer to dispose of one bill under the amended rule, than to pass upon five as the rules now stand. But if the rule was to be amended, he insisted that the words "without debate" should be stricken out. He would not give the committees power to make final disposition of bills without the action of the House.
Mr. Brown's amendment was rejected--affirmative 33, negative 37.
Mr. HENRICK'S amendment (of the rule 58) was then adopted-- affirmative 42, negative 33.
The other amendment was taken by consent.
Mr. BUSKIRK. This action of the House render his amendment of the Rules much more necessary than it was before. He now moved the adoption of the following amendment--adding a new rule, of which he had filed his notice, viz:
"Rule-. When a bill or joint resolution has been committed or re-committed to either a Standing or Select Committee, and such committee shall recommend amendments thereto, such amendments and such further amendments as may be offered thereto shall be immediately acted on, unless the consideration thereof, at such time, shall be postponed by the House."
Mr. BUSKIRK explained the operation of this rule, submitted considerations to show its advantage over the practice under the ruling of the Chair.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Power was continually stealing from the many to the few. Since the adoption of Mr. Henricks amendment, a few members might as well take all the business of legislation in hand, and let the balance of us go home. He had voted for the reconsideration above given, and so far helped it on. He now appealed to the friends of that innovation, to remedy the difficulty by adopting this.
Mr. BRANHAM objected to the proposed rule, because it would place it in the power of a few men in the committees to occupy the entire time of the House, by reporting amendments and insisting upon their consideration. He hoped to see the time when every important bill would be printed.
Mr. MILLER, of Tippecanoe, took a similar view. As the rules stood now, they repressed debate.
Mr. BUSKIRK. This was all specious reasoning. He denied that the rules now restrained debate, or that the amendment would invite debate. Gentleman talked of this as an innovation. The former practice in this body had been in consonance with this rule which he had now offered.
The SPEAKER said, if the ruling of the Chair subverted usage, the House had adopted rules that subverted the precedents. The Chair stated the ruling and the reasons for it at length.
The proposed amendment to the Rules was rejected--affirmative 30, negative 43,
Mr. BIGGIN'S now submitted his proposed amendment to the first rule, adding these words: "unless by a vote of the House the reading; of the journal be dispensed with."
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. NEWCOMB moved ineffectually to suspend the order of business to enable him to report back the county war bond bill, No, 70.
Mr. GRIFFITH gave notice of his intention, at some future day of the session, to move to amend the rules so that only a majority vote shall be necessary to suspend the rules.
Mr. DUNHAM gave notice that on Monday, perhaps, be would move to amend the 59th rule so that a bill on the third reading may be referred with special instructions to amend--according to universal parliamentary usage.
Mr. MILROY submitted the following:
Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed to return to this House immediately the Senate Bill No. 3, in relation to the right of counties to levy a tax for bounty purposes.
LEGISLATIVE EXPENSES.
Mr. BURWELL moved that the order of business be suspended to admit of taking up the Senate Bill No. 1, providing for Legislative expenses.
The motion was agreed to, and the bill was taken up, viz: The bill, (S. No. 1,) appropriating $75,000 for Legislative expenses, &c.
It was read the second time by the Clerk.
Mr. WRIGHT made an ineffectual motion to refer the bill to the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. HIGGINS proposed to amend, by adding to the third section these words: "And the Auditor of State shall also audit and issue his warrant to such of the Members of the House of Representatives of the year 1863 as had their per diem reduced, for the amount so reduced."
Mr. BROWN moved to lay the amendment on the table, and demanded the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered, and being taken resulted--yeas 41, nays 44, as follows:
Yeas--Messrs. Abbett, Beckett, Bird, Brown, Burton, Burwell,Buskirk, Coffroth, Colover, Croan, Dunham, Glazebrook, Gregg, Griffith, Hargrove, Harrison, Humphreys, Hunt, Lee, Lemon, Lopp, Milroy, O'Brien, Usborn, Perigo, Puett, Richards, Richardson, Roach, Sabin, Shoaff, of Allen, Shoaff, of Jay, Stenger, Stivers, Stuckey, Sullivan, of Scott, Thacher, Upson, Veach and White--41.
Nays--Messrs. Banta, Bomier, Boyd, Branham, Barries, Chambers, Church, Cox, Emerson, Ferris, Foulke, Goodman, Gregory, of Warren, Groves, Henricks, Hershey, Higgins, Hogate, Hoover, Kilgore, Lockhart, Major, Meredith, Miller, of Tippecanoe, Montgomery, McVey, Newcomb, Olleman, Prather, Reese, Riford, Shuey, Sim, Stewart, Stringer,, Welch, Whiteside, Willis, Woodruff, Woods, Wright, Zeigler and Mr. Speaker--44.
So the motion was rejected and the question recurred on Mr. Higgins's amendment.
Mr. BROWN recited the history of this reduction of per diem. It was resolved by the House that the amount so reduced should be paid into the military fund. He could not say that it was so paid. He moved to amend the amendment, by making the amount payable to members that ''bolted."
Mr. BUSKIRK read the law regulating the per diem-itself reducing the per diem of members "absent without leave." Should an amendment change the law without the formality of repeal?
Mr. NEWCOMB. We did not amend the law. Laws cannot have a retro-active force. We make an appropriation.
Mr. COFFROTH proposed an allowance of mileage to the bolters to Madison and back.
page: 128[View Page 128]The SPEAKER. It was out of order.
Mr. HIGGINS recited the reason for that bolt-the "Military bill." No amount of money equal to the amount embraced in his amendment, had ever been applied to an object better subserving the public welfare. He read the proceedings on that "Military bill' from pages 476, 620 of the last House journal, by way of reply to matter heretofore advanced in debate on this subject, going to show the reason why the "Military bill" was pressed by the majority. He knew that Democratic members were not opposed to the passage of that bill. But since that time a change had come over them. It was only since that time they had begun to say the bill could not have passed. The State ought to pay that minority for the time they spent in defeating that bill.
With reference to the Appropriation bill of that session, he said, it was introduced on the day before the last day when it could be sent to the Governor. It was not the design of the majority of that House to pass the Appropriation bill. They proposed to force the Governor to call another session of the Legislature. He was sustained in this statement by the gentleman from Delaware, (Mr. Kilgore.)
Mr. MILLER, of Tippeconoe, moved to lay Mr. Brown's amendment on the table:
Which was agreed to--yeas 49, nays 33.
Mr. BUSKIRK submitted an amendment to the amendment, viz:
After the word "absent" in the amendment insert the following: "and not engaged in the business of the General Assembly, and not being able from sickness to attend to the business of the House."
Mr. BRANHAM made an ineffectual motion to refer the bill and pending amendments to the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. HIGGINS moved to lay Mr. Buskirk's amendment on the table.
The yeas and nays (demanded by Messrs. Milroy and Beckett) were taken thereon, resulting--yeas 49, nays 36--as follows:
YEAS-Messrs. Banta, Bonner, Boyd, Branham, Burnes, Chambers, Church, Cox, Emerson, Ferris, Foulke, Goodman, Gregory, of Montgomery, Gregory, of Warren, Griffith, Groves, Henricks, Hershey, Higgins, Hogate, Hoover, Kilgore, Lockhart, Major, Meredith, Miller of Tippecanoe, Montgomery, McVey, Newcomb, Olleman, Prather, Reese, Rhoads, Riford, Sabin, Shuey, Sim, Stewart, Stiver, Stringer, Trusler, Upson, Welch, Willis, Woodruff, Woods, Wright, Zeigler and Mr. Speaker-49.
Nays-Abbett, Beckett, Bird, Brown, Burton, Burwell, Buskirk, Coffroth, Colover, Croan, Durham, Glazebrook, Gregg, Hargrove, Harrison, Humphreys, Hunt, Laselle, Lemon, Lopp, Milroy, O' Brien, Osborn, Perigo, Puett, Richards, Richardson, Roach, Shoaff, of Allen, Shoaff, of Jay, Stinger, Stuckey, Sullivan, of Scott, Thacher, Veach and White-36.
Mr. GRIFFITH (explaining.) I contend that the business of the General Assembly is the business of the State. We were absent on the business of the State. I vote aye.
So the amendment was laid on the table.
Mr. BROWN proposed to amend the amendment by adding, "Provided there shall be appriated a sufficient sum to pay to a certain man in Madison by the name of Belcher, who keeps a saloon there, the debts contracted with him by the bolters, for ale and beer."
The SPEAKER. Will the gentleman send up his amendment in writing?
Mr. BROWN. I would ask the gentleman from Jefferson, whether those drinking debts were paid?
Mr. BRANHAM. Mr. Belcher has no claims.
Mr. BROWN withdrew the amendment.
Mr. BRANHAM suggested items of inequality, if not injustice in the bill, and urged that this was the only bill of the kind that the House had refused to refer to the Committee on Ways and Means, He would not vote to supply ourselves with money till we relieve our soldiers' families. He went into some argument and some specific statements with reference to the bolt of the minority of the House at the last session of the General Assembly-asserting that the gentleman from Laporte had shown clearly the determination of the majority there to pass the Military Bill. And Mr. B. alleged that it was originated and urged upon that House by a secret, revolutionary political organization then meeting nightly in this city, and styling themselves American Knights, or Knights of the Golden Circle.
Mr. COFFROTH (interposing, and Mr. B. giving away.) The American Knights or Sons of Liberty were mot organized till August, 1863.
Mr. BRANHAM had heard of them in November, 1862.
Mr. NEWCOMB (interposing). The grand jury of the United States District Court made presentments in the latter part of 1862, which brought it to his certain knowledge that there was a secret political order at that time in the State.
Mr. COFFROTH (interposing), The order he had mentioned was organized at Terre Haute in August, 1863; and on the 10th of September, the same year, the Grand Council met in Indianapolis for the first time.
Mr. MILROY (interposing) was a member of the House Military Committee of the session of 1863. He neither belonged to any secret political order, nor was he influenced by any; and the man that will say he was ever influenced by any such order in his action in the House tells a falsehood.
Mr. PUETT (interposing) made a similar statement. He did not intend to vote for that bill on its final passage. Other members had signified to him that they would not. The engrossment was ordered at a moment of excitement.
Mr. ABBETT (interposing) said he was here, met at a Democratic caucus, during the cession, and he never had any knowledge of any secret society in Indianapolis, and was not certainly influenced by any. Since he left the seductions of the contemptible Know Nothing organization there was nothing in that direction that he could admire or advise with.
Mr. BRANHAM (resuming) went into a more particular statement of the proceedings of Democratic caucuses during that session. He recited things connected with a committee appointed to investigate a charge he had made on the floor, endorsing in his speech every opposition to the Military bill, denouncing and declaring that the object of the originators of that bill was revolutionary. And he was willing to bear any words of obloquy that might be cast upon him for his opposition to it, page: 129[View Page 129] so long as he felt that he had saved his State from the devastations of civil war.
He felt a good deal better here now than he felt here last session. He saw himself now backed by a majority of the House, and that majority backed by a majority of the people of the State.
How came it about, if these gentlemen had no knowledge of the schemes of their leading men, that they followed their lead so far? He could not tell. And these leaders only developed their schemes by way of securing themselves under the baby act, against merited punishment. And when Republican members proposed to resign and go before the people, they got for answer-We've got the power, and we mean to use it. After taking a wide range, he sat down, he said, having administered but a part of the dose.
Mr. KILGORE moved that the House adjourn, but gave way for-
Mr. BRANHAM, who moved that when the House adjourns, it shall be till Monday at two o'clock P. M.
Which was taken by consent.
Several members obtained leave of absence till Tuesday and Wednesday.
The SPEAKER laid before the House a Message from the Governor, responding to Mr. Brown's resolution, calling, on him to lay before the House the annual reports of the Auditor and Treasurer of State, together with all other reports which by law he is required to present to this House,-transmitting the reports of the Auditor and Treasurer of State; and stating that the report of the Superintendent of Public Instruction has not yet come from the press.
And then, [at 5:30 o'clock,] the House adjourned till Monday two o'clock P. M.
