HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
WEDNESDAY, February 1, 1865,AFTERNOON SESSION.The SPEAKER resumed the Chair at 2 o'clock P. M,, and stated the question to be on the Committee's amendment to the 7th section of the bill, adding, "who have not otherwise sufficient means for a eomfo1 table support--to be ascertained by the disbursing officer.'
Mr. WHITESIDE saw that in the amendment which was against the spirit of the bill. The spirit of the bill was to do a public duty to men in the field. The amendment was to make those families, not having the means of a comfortable support, mere beneficiaries of this fund. He stood by the soldier. They all fought for the same object, and he stood here to prevent discriminations between them. He showed how the object of the bill might fail, (if the amendment prevail,) in the hands of dishonest and partial trustees. It seemed to him as though this amendment might have been drawn expressly to defeat the bill. He was distinctly friendly to the bill.
Mr. KILGORE'S sentiments were forcibly expressed by the gentleman from Wabash.
Mr. FERRIS. If gentlemen were so much opposed to discrimination, why not say the provisions of the bill shall extend to those having no family? He was for the amendment.
Mr. WOODS opposed the amendment. If the State would do a public benefit, let it be done gracefully and generously.
Mr. COFFROTH. A stranger might conclude from this debate that a large portion of members here were Copperheads. The general Government provides for its soldiers; it does not call on us for that. Good qualities were variously distributed amongst soldiers as other men, and it was impossible to equalize the condition of their families. He showed the fact that the soldier gets $840 a year; and if his family is to be provided for, the military becomes the most profitable of ordinary public employments. Did gentlemen consider that this single bill proposes a tax nearly double the amount of that required for the entire civil page: 144[View Page 144] expenses of the State? With reference to the amendment, he asked, was it right that a family living in opulence should be aided at such a cost to the people?
Mr. BRANHAM had considered this matter, and determined to leave it as in the original bill. He thought also that exemptions would be wrong. Nine-tenths of the men in the field have not received any home bounty. He hoped the amendment would not prevail, but should vote for the bill any how.
Mr. EMERSON thought, if this amendment were adopted, the bill should not have the title for the benefit of the soldiers' families, but it would be a bill for the benefit of the poor. If we tax the property of men in the field for this purpose, let all the soldiers' families have the benefit alike.
Mr. BUSKIRK. If, as it had been said, this was a bill to increase the pay of soldiers, he was opposed to it. But he regarded it as a proposition to relieve suffering. He did not call it charity, though he favored the amendment. Every man owed the Government a doubly interested duty in time of war-to secure protection for his person and protection for his property. The amendment proposes relief to those with insufficient living.
Mr. CHURCH. Was there not danger that this money would be distributed unequally?
Mr. BUSKIRK. The danger was, perhaps, that the bill would have too liberal a construction as to disbursements. He considered that this bill was to take the place of the act of 1861, which authorized County Commissioners to tax for this relief-it was to make it a State matter instead of a local one. He showed how enormously the taxation would have to be raised from $1 to $1 50 and $2 on the hundred dollars. Whatever is needed we ought to give.
Mr. CHAMBERS proposed to strike out the words, "who have not the means of a comfortable support," and insert in lieu who have not taxable property to an amount exceeding $3000"
Mr. BURTON supported the amendment. If the soldier sacrificed more than other men, he had his compensation-he had more glory. He did not propose to tax the people in this bill, for any case that did not require relief at our hands. It was the State taking in hands to do what the several counties could not do as well. But if the amendment was stricken out, the bill would be to increase the soldiers' pay, and he would oppose it.
Mr. HIGGINS was in favor both of the bill and amendment. These four mills assessments would raise a little more than two millions of dollars; but if the amendment be stricken out, it would require five millions to satisfy the demand that would flow from the provisions of the bill.
Mr. HUMPHREYS did not believe we could raise enough money to make these appropriations, as contemplated in the original bill. He could not vote for the bill without the amendment. There was an unreasonable mania about the expenditure of public money. Nothing but taxation would cure this insanity.
Mr. MILLER, of Tippecanoe, spoke again ; against the amendment. In his county they would return every family for this relief whose head has gone into the army. He showed how the amendment would make strife. There would be no justice in the administration of the bill with the amendment.
Mr. BECKETT. If the bill is to be made uniform, why not extend its benefits to substitutes?
Mr. BUSKIRK. Why not include officers?
Mr. MILLER. We have never yet wanted for officers. The amendment requires the soldier to live out; his substance before he Is relieved. Then the soldier, by taxation, is required to help to afford this relief. This bill, without the amendment, would work the most effectual encouragement to volunteering. He could hardly vote for the bill with this inquisitorial amendment. It changed the whole character of the bill. He had no fear of the taxation involved. He could not defend the amendment ; but, without it, he could defend the bill both before the soldiers and the people.
Mr. RICE. It was no relief to put our hands into the Treasury to pay out money to soldiers' families that do not need it. Were not gentlemen seeking a cheep popularity ? Were we not liable to the stigma of demagoguism? He was for a reasonable bill for relief--to supply families in need. Further he would not go. It was important to curtail the public expenditures, and that was one form of relief.
Mr. SHUEY was in favor of the amendment. About half of these families do not need relief-about half do. If we include all, at $8 per month for the wife, and $2 to each child under 12 years of age, it were probable that we shall not have half money enough.
The gentleman from Tippccanoe had said that the bill without the amendment, would promote volunteering. He thought the amendment itself would encourage volunteering, because the inducement was directed to the poor man.
Mr. PUETT would not vote for the bill, if he thought it would put money into the pockets of anybody that can take care of himself. What right had the Legislature to do such a thing? The bill with the amendment would hardly supply the real cases of need. Call it charity if you will. Was it not our business to take care of the poor?
Mr. NEWCOMB said objections to the amendment had been answered so well as to leave him little to say. The bill required enumeration of these dependent families, to be sent to the County Commissioners. There was inducement to divert this fund. The guards against a partial administration were well provided
Mr. BROWN moved to lay Mr. Chambers amendment on the table.
And the yeas and nays being demanded and taken thereon, resulted-yeas 75, nays 11. So it was laid on the table, and the question recurred on the committee's amendment
.Mr. CHAMBERS moved to lay the committee's amendment on the table-Mr. Chambers and Mr. Whiteside demanding the yeas and nays.
The motion was rejected-yeas 28, nays 58.
So the House refused to lay the amendment on the table, and the question again recurring page: 145[View Page 145] the committee's amendment was adopted-yeas 62, nays 24.
The last amendment of the committee, prescribing that payment shall be made directly to the beneficiaries, &c., was voted down--
Mr. NEWCOMB having advised the House to leave a discretion here with the disbursing officer.
Mr. BRANHAM submitted a clerical amendment which was agreed to.
Mr. STRINGER proposed to amend by reducing the amount of assessment from "four' to "three mills."
Mr. BUSKIRK submitted estimates to show that the assessment might be safely reduced.
Mr. NEWCOMB said the gentleman's estimate of families would require over nine millions of dollars.
Mr. BRANHAM had not submitted the bill without first having made careful estimates.
Mr. STRINGER was pledged to vote for some such relief as this. He submitted a statement of figures going to show that this tax would impose an intolerable burden. He was ready to vote for a fair and reasonable amount of tax
Mr. GRIFFITH hoped the amendment would not prevail. He went into a statement of figures to show that there would be a deficiency in the fund with the assessment of "four mills."
Mr. WRIGHT said we were going to be taxed heavily. We should not embarrass ourselves too much. He would vote for the reduction.
Mr. BURNES. The act of 1861, as an act for the relief of soldiers' families, was good enough for him. He advised a careful husbanding of our resources. He would vote against the bill, if the assessment could not be reduced.
Mr. ZEIGLER spoke in favor of the amendment, and indicated a still farther reduction of the burden by reducing: the monthly allowance.
Mr. COLLINS would be in favor of two mills.
Mr. MEREDITH demanded the previous question and under its force the House voted on Mr. Stringer's amendment.
Mr. WRIGHT demanded a division of the question.
The first question being on striking out "4," and inserting "three"-it was decided in the affirmative-yeas 52, nays 31.
The other branch ot the amendment, striking out "one dollar," and inserting "fifty cents," [poll tax] was rejected yeas 38, nays 45.
Mr. BECKETT proposed an amendment.
Mr. WOODS also desired to offer his amendment.
Mr. BROWN, under a question of order, contended that we were still under the force of the previous question, and that it cuts off amendments as well as debate.
Mr. BRANHAM moved that the bill be considered as engrossed, and passed the third.
Mr. BECKETT gave notice of protest against the bill.
The bill was then read through the third time by the Clerk.
It was passed the third reading in the House of Representatives; by yeas 63, nays 18.
Mr. NEWCOMB moved that the gentleman from Monroe, (Mr. Buskirk,) and the gentleman from Huntington (Mr. Coffroth,) be requested to vote on the passage of this bill.
After debate, the motion was agreed to.
Mr. COFFROTH submitted that this requirement was equivalent to a change of the rules, which denies a member without the bar at the time his name was called, the right to vote, except by unanimous consent. There was but one proposition before the House that he would go outside the bar to prevent its passage that was the negro testimony bill.
Mr. BUSKIRK sbould not ask to vote till this question could be settled. He had been called out, and went, with no intention to avoid the vote.
After further debate by Messrs. Newcomb, Laeselle and others--
On motion by Mr. BROWN, this question of order was laid on the table.
Mr. BUSKIRK, Mr. COFFROTH and others without the bar at the time their names were called, now asked and obtained permission to record their votes.
So the bill passed the House of Representatives.
The SPEAKER announced the appointment of Mr. Willis to the vacant place of Mr. Staffer, (deceased,) in the Committee on Railroads.
And then, at 5:35 P. M., the House adjourned till to-morrow morning 9 o'clock.
