IN SENATE.
WEDNESDAY, February 15, 1865.The Senate met at 9 o'clock A. M.
On motion of Mr. BROWN, of Wells, the reading of the Secretary's journal of yesterday's proceedings was dispensed with.
JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.
Mr. CARSON submitted the following:
MR. PRESIDENT-The judiciary committee to whom was referred Senate resolution introduced by Mr. Cullen. [See page 167 of the BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS,] in relation to the expediency of limiting the number of Justices of the Peace to one in each township, and extending their jurisdiction in civil actions throughout the county, have directed me to report that in the opinion of the committee there is no necessity for any change in the existing law upon this subject, and would therefore recommend that the same do lie on the table.
The report was concurred in.
page: 248[View Page 248]NEW PROPOSITIONS.
The following bills were introduced, read the first time, and passed to the second reading.
By Mr. FULLER, [S. 165] to amend sections 1 and 2 of an act regulating the mileage of Sheriffs in conveying convicts to the State Prison, and of County Treasurers in making, deposits, and in their settlement with the Treasurer and Auditor of State, and the mileage of the members of the General Assembly, approved June 17. 1862, so as to increase the mileage of Sheriff and Treasurers.
By Mr. BONHAM, [S. 166] disqualifying certain persons from holding office under the laws of the State, and prescribing punishment for the violation of the same.
[Every person who, since the 4th day of March, 1861, has been in armed hostility against the Government of the United States or of this State, or who has given aid, comfort or encouragement to such; or expressed a desire for the triumph of their cause; or who has ever been connected with any secret disloyal organization; or who have encouraged dessrtion; or who have openly resisted, or advised, aided, or abetted others to resist the laws of the United States; or who have left the State or the United States with a view of avoiding the draft. Penalty on conviction-forfeiture of pay and $1,000 fine.
By Mr. CASON, [S. 167,] to amend section 21 of an act prescribing the powers and duties of justices of the peace in State prosecutions, approved May 26, 1862, concerning their semiannual reports.
By Mr. WRIGHT, [S. 158] fixing the time of holding the courts in the 12th judicial district.
By Mr. BENNETT, [S. 169,] to amend section 2 of an act fixing the time and mode of electing State Printer, defining his duties, fixing compensation, and repealing all laws in conflict with this act, passed March, 1849.
[Increasing the price for composition on plain matter from 45 to 65 cents; on figure work from 60 to 80 cents; on rule and figure work from 75 cents to $1; on index matter from 45 to 60 cents; on press work, sixteen page form, from 40 to 60 cents per token of 250 impressions; on broadsides from 50 to 75 cents. On folding reports and bills from 10 to 15 cents a hundred. This law to take effect from and after its passage.]
By Mr. NILES, [S. 170,] to authorise parties to sell and convey trust estates, and to reinvest the proceeds thereof.
VISIT TO THE MILITARY CAMPS.
The Lieutenant Governor announced that he had been informed by a message from his excellency, Governor Morton, that carriages were in waiting to convey Senators on the proposed visit to the military camps near the city, whereupon-
The Senate adjourned till 2 o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The Senate concurred in the House resolution requesting the Governor to return the bill, [S. 55] concerning the Fifth Judicial District Common Pleas Court.
WITNESSES.
The bill, H. R. 219, (see page 64 of the BREVIER REPORTS,) was read the first time and passed to the second reading.
WORK FOR COMMITTEES.
House bills numbered 7. (see page 41,) 45, (page 73,) 63, (page 83 ) and 84, (page 83 ) and Senate bills 161 and 162, (introduced day before yesterday,) were read by title only and appropriately referred.
ORDERED ENGROSSED.
Senate bills 104, 108, (see page 129,) 114, (page 134,) and 127, (page 138,) were read the second time and ordered to be engrossed for the third reading to-morrow.
INCREASED PAY TO SOLDIERS.
The joint resolution, S. 9, (see page 63,) was read the second time.
Mr. OYLER moved to strike out "thirty," and insert "twenty," as the monthly pay of private soldiers.
On motion by Mr. HANNA, his motion to strike out was laid on the table by yeas 28, nays 18.
The joint resolution was ordered engrossed.
REBEL RAIDS.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR announced that the hour had arrived for the consideration of the special order.
The Senate then resolved itself into Committee of the Whole-Mr. Richmond in the Chair-and proceeded to consider the Morgan and other rebel raids bill [S. 15] the question being on the amendment, striking out from the bill all that relates to the appropriation of money from the treasury.
Mr. VAWTER in support of the proposition which he laid down that it wes the moral duty of the State to reimburse her citizens who have suffered losses in property by the Morgan raid, took as his text the doctrine laid down by Governor Morton in his message to the Legislature at the beginning of this session, wherein His Excellency says: "The true theory of our government is that it shall protect the people in their persons and property against invasion and loss from the public enemy, or injury by domestic insurrection. Where losses in property have been thus sustained, it is much easier for the people of the State to bear them in their collective capacity, than it is for the particular individuals upon whom they have fallen.
Upon that theory and upon the implied assurance that they should be repaid, the majority of His Excellency was swelled in Southern Indiana. The Legion had been summoned away on the day before this raid; the people of Jennings county were absent, protecting the hearthstones of gentlemen from the Northern part of the State; and is it not right, as a matter of justice, to repay them their losses--many of them being very much embarrassed in consequence? While absent on duty, as military defenders of the State, the invader comes and destroys their property; and now they come up and ask a generous people to reimburse them. Is it not right they should do so? Was it any fault of the people of Southern Indiana, that Morgan came in upon us? At the time of the Morgan raid, there was not a single page: 249[View Page 249] county in Southern Indiana, but that in addition a to having filled their quota of men, had furnished from one to one and a half regiments in the Legion for the protection of the border. And there never has been a call for money, on Southern Indiana, but that they have done their duty. They have not been behind in aid societies, in sanitary commissions, and in everything that tends to alleviate and mitigate the sufferings of soldiers. Men from the northern part of the State could not get down to help us, before he was driven off; and now we ask yon who were protected by our citizens, to assist us ia reimbursing those men who suffered. It is not a question of right and wrong, so far as payment for horses impressed by Union troops, is concerned, but that ia a legal liability. At least one-half of those claims are for horses and property taken by Union troops. And by whom were they sent there? Were they sent there by the General Government? No, sir; they were sent there by Gov. Morton, and it was his duty to send them there. They impressed horses, and took property by virtue of the authority of the Governor or of Indiana.
But it may be said that General Wallace was in the United States service. General Wallace was in fact a United States officer, but was without a command, and while in our town received official permission from the Secretary of War to act under Governor Morton. He was not acting under the authority of the United States Government at all; neither was he there as a United States officer. It was under the authority of Governor Morton and under no other authority did he come.
Mr. CHAPMAN asked whether these horses were not turned over to the General Government by this same officer.
Mr. VAWTER The officer that impressed the horses was Colonel Sauler, of Hendricks county, who was a Colonel in the Indiana Legion, and held no position in the United States army. He acted under an official order signed by General Love. It is likely that many of these horses were turned over to the General Government, but if that were the case it does not help our citizens nor release the legal liability of the State. If our citizens released them to the State authorities they must look to the State authorities for pay. As a moral right the State should reimburse her citizens out of the public treasury for damages sustained by them in consequence of the Morgan raid. Your servants came among us and took our property, end we ask you to pay us for it. I do trust that Senators are prepared to give to Southern Indiana the justice that I believe the gallantry and patriotism of her people demand. I hope the amendment of the Senator from Kosciusko (Mr. Chapman) will not prevail.
Mr. CORBIN. Mr. PRESIDENT--It was not my intention to have spoken upon this question at this time, and not until others had done so, but as no one appears to be ready to speak, I will offer a few suggestions concerning it, not so much to the bill itself as to the pending amendment. I am not opposed to the principle of reimbursing the citizen for damages due in the destruction of his property by an enemy in arms against the government in which he lives. In the theory which lays at the foundation of all government is, that the citizen shall be protected, among other things, in the enjoyment of his property. This is a duty which the government owes to her citizens, and a right which the citizen can claim of his government as a return for that allegiance which he undertakes to perform it when he becomes a citizen thereof. In the question now before the Senate, I will make no war upon this principle. The amendment proposes simply an adjustment of the claims by the State, and opposes the payment of the same out of the treasury; the bill, without the amendment, pays a $300,000 cut of the treasury. It is not a new question whether the people have suffered or not,but should be considered upon the basis of whether we have the power to redress their grievances. I read from the 10th and 11th sections of the fifth article of the constitution of this State, that the Legislature has no power to contract debts, except in certain cases specified, (Reads from the Constitution )
The right to pay these damages is not one of the powers enumerated; then I hold this legislature is without power to do the act, however much they might feel disposed to do it. But it has been contended that because I live in the northern part of the State, away from the effects of the raid, that I, with others, are opposed to it. Might I not say to these peculiar friends of the bill, that they are for it only because they are living in the vicinity of the raid and personally interested in it, aside from any considerations of justice.
When a citizen of this State asks a favor at the hands of this Legislature, it is no question of mine try ask what portion of the State he lives, but have we a right to grant the relief demanded? does the Constitution confer upon us the authority? If it does not, then we should not assume to exercise it, however much the party may be injured by our refusing to do it, or how great the necessity for it. Ours is no mission of charity and benevolence, but a duty, guided and restrained by the Constitution as our chart. I have been taught the doctrine of strict construction of constitutions, and will not admit of any necessity to justify a loose, construction.
This is not a raid against the State of Indiana, but the General Government. If it had not been engaged in war this raid would not have been made. It was a raid against the power of the General Government, and for the purpose of crippling that power. If there is a war against the General Government, upon whom does the duty of paying damages occasioned by that war devolve? Surely not upon the State, for it is not her war, but upon the General Government who calls upon the citizens of Indiana to protect her against her common, enemy, and the citizen calls upon the General Government to protect him in the enjoyment of his property. The proposition seems too plain to argue further. If then the debt is one of the General Government, upon what plea can we justify paying it out of the State Treasury? Is it because the Government is unable to pay? ls it because Indiana is more able to pay, or her resources greater? She has no machine to grind out greenbacks like her protector; wherein does possess such facilities for immediate page: 250[View Page 250] relief. It is contended that it is justice we should pay this out of the State Treasury. I say it is the greatest injustice to the citizens of Indiana to bear this burden.
The Union for which the war is prolonged, is composed of many States, some removed far from the theater of war and the damages consequent thereon, while others occupy that unhappy position. The justice in imposing burdens in a Government is measured by the equality of these burdens. And must not all see the great inequality in making Indiana bear this burden, while others, remote from the scene of warfare have been growing rich off the war, without any of the burdens. Upon the score of justice to the persons asking relief, my belief is they can get it quicker from the Government than the State. We have not got a tithe of the money in the treasury to meet the appropriations which we shall make before the session closes, if we go on the way we have commenced. Then how are we going to pay but by taxing the people? The Government does not have to resort to this tardy process to get money; all they have to do is to take a few more turns on the machine. If the State but pays the debt, the General Government will refund it. Same contend, but my judgment is different, if the necessities of the people are once relieved, that plea can no more be urged to Government; but one State must get upon its knees in Congress, and ask twenty other selfish and soulless States to reimburse it for what it had advanced for them? If you do this, it will be the last Indiana will see of the money. These are some of the motives which prompt my action in this matter, in favoring the amendment. Does the Constitution give the powers demanded? And if it does, is it expedient to establish this new precedent at this time of universal taxation.
Lt Gov. BAKER. I agree with the Senator from Lawrence, that this measure involves important principles--principles which are at the foundation of all government. I also agree with him when he says government owes protection to the citizen, and the citizen owes obedience to the government. But when he goes further, and says that protection comes first in order, and that the obedience due from the citizen is the result of, and springs from the fact that he is protected by the government, I must dissent. I know that Blackstone and other writers on the British Constitution assert this doctrine, and tell us that each individual, when he esters into society, makes an implied contract with the government that he will be obedient to the government in return for the protection it affords him. This idea is of feudal origin, and is not the American, nor the true idea, in my judgment. Under the feudal system, the vassal owed fealty to his immediate lord in return for the protection afforded him, and so on up to the lord paramount, to whom all owed allegiance, in return for the protection afforded.
The true idea, in my opinion, is that allegiance and protection are reciprocal duties, because the relationship existing between the Government and the citizen, is of Divine origin. Man is created a social being, and without being consulted or being permitted to exercise any volition on the subject, finds himself in society and subject to law; and because this is apart of the Divine economy, the Government owes protection, and the citizen allegiance. As well say that the child owes obedience to the parent because the parent protects him, or that upon his birth he enters into an implied contract, to render obedience in return for protection, as to say the same of the citizen in relation to his Government.
The Senator from Lawrence asks me if government is of Divine origin, and obedience to government a consequent duty, now I justify our fathers in resisting the British Government? I reply, by saying just as I would justify a child whose parent would endeavor to bring him up in vice and crime, in throwing off the parental authority. Obedience is the general rule in both cases; resistance or violence the exception, and neither must be exercised except in a clear case of outrage or oppression. The facts must be such as will justify the resistance or revolution in the eyes of the wise and the good everywhere. If there is any doubt in either case as to the coarse of action to be taken, that doubt must be in favor of the parental or governmental authority.
It is the duty of the citizen everywhere to be governed by conscience. I hold that sovereignty in this nation resides in the people, and they delegate part of that authority to the United States, and another part to the several States. They are entitled to protection from the General Government and from the State Governments.
Haven't we got the power to organize as militia? to collect taxes? and don't the Constitution say the Governor shall be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of our State? It is a thing not to the credit of Indiana that 4,000 rebels were permitted to invade the State. It is like the invasion of the old State of Pennsylvania when Chambersburg was burnt, she having more people in her borders than the whole thirteen colonies had at the Declaration of Independence. It is the duty of the State of Indiana to protect Indiana against invasion when it is not in overwhelming force. The force seat against our border was only such a farce as should be put down by the requisite foresight and preparation. Not certainly to exceed 6,000 men crossed our borders. The campaign was culminating at Vicksburg and at Gettysburg, and the United States had as much as it could attend to. I say the citizens of the State of Indiana have the right to such protection of the State against this invasion. They owed allegiance to Indiana as well as to the Federal Government.
The only appeal that can be made to the Federal or State Government for indemnity is to the moral sense of the Nation or to the State. This people make this appeal and say they were unable to protect themselves.--One regiment of cavalry would have protected that border; nay, I believe a battalion of mounted men could have done it. It was known that the State was liable to invasion at any day. Our citizens stood on duty day after day, and night after night to guard the border, in addition to our other duties as citizens; but our position made it necessary for us to do this page: 251[View Page 251] much more, and we did it. But the raid came, and because you have not a sufficient military law in the State of Indiana it was successful to a certain extent, and the raiders traversed your State, and went on into Ohio, where they were ultimately caught. But gentlemen assume that if the Government can't perfectly protect the citizen the Government is bound to pay the damages. Where do you get that principle? I say the practice of the General Government is to the contrary. I believe the only exception was in the case of the Oregon war; we then did pay citizens for the depredations of Indians, but the general practice is not to restore to the citizen damages in consequence of a public enemy. It is the duty of the State to protect my property against larceny and arson; but if the torch is applied to my dwelling, and it is burned, does the State reimburse me? It punishes the incendiary when he is caught. That much the General Government did in this case. The only appeal that can be made is to the moral sense of the State or Government, and it is purely with the Government to say whether reimbursement shall be made or not, although our citizens were not protected as they should have been. Did the State of Indiana do all that could be reasonably done to prevent this destruction of property? If she did everything that ought to have been done I should not say a word more than I would say if one of our towns were burned down, and the people were starving. In that case I would say appropriate money to aid them, as in cases of public calamities.
The gentleman from Marshall (Mr. Corbin) says there is a constitutional objection here. We most not create a debt. We don't propose to pledge the credit of the State for one dime, but we propose to adjudicate the claims, and, if there is any money in the treasury, pay them, and if there ain't, they don't get paid, that's all.
But how do gentlemen come to the conclusion that it is the duty of the Federal Government to pay these damages? We hear a great deal of talk about State rights, but it seems there is no such thing as State obligation. My theory is that we owe allegiance to two Governments, and they are not inconsistent one with the other, and these Governments both owe us protection. In this case the State of Indiana didn't afford that protection she ought. It is much easier for the State ot Indiana to keep a small force on that border than for the United States to carry on the great war in which it was engaged. The State of Indiana is direlect because we bad no proper legislation to protect the border. The State don't require a large force in order to protect this border. We had more than 200,000 inhabitants subject to military duty, and there was not one of them in the service of the State to protect that border.
It was out of the question for the Government of the United States, who was at the same time fighting the battles of Gettysburg, Vicksburg and Helena, and at other points where the presence of troops was imperatively demanded, to keep such a force on the Ohio border as could repel any raid that might be thrown against it. A good cavalry regiment would cost the State about $1,000,000 to keep it in the field a year, and as a matter of dollars and cents it would be cheaper so far for the State to do as it has, for the damages already sustained don't exceed $300,000, than to keep a battalion in the field for one year.
But my friend, the gentleman from Kosciusko, [Mr. Chapman,] says that if this bill is passed, you throw open the doors of the Treasury wide for the payment of an amount beyond all calculation by future legislation. We can't pass any act preventing future legislation from opening the doors of the Treasury.
Mr. MILLIGAN (interrupting) Didn't the people of Southern Indiana petition the Governor two years ago to remove troops from the border?
Mr. BAKER. No, sir. A few members of the Legislature did. It was not the people. Not at all. Now, I ask the Senator from Koscinsko if we don't do anything whether the doors of the Treasury will not be just as wide open? When this bill was introduced there was nothing of the kind in it, and I drew up this section and called the attention of the Senator having the bill in charge to it. It is designed not only to prevent the very thing he says will take place, but for another purpose. From the best inquiries I have been able to make, I don't think the just claims ought to exceed $300,000, I may be mistaken.
Mr. VAWTER, (interposing.) . The damages on the line of the raid will not exceed $250,000.
Mr. BAKER, Then there was inserted in the bill a section which I drew up providing that not a dollar should be paid until all the claims should be adjudicated, and if the sum exceeded $300,000, there was to be a pro rata, deduction so as to reduce the aggregate to $300,000. Another thing I had in my mind. We know that men will get up fraudulent claims; that claims of the kind will be presented and supported by fraudulent testimony. What I wanted was to make every, man who had an honest claim to oppose every dishonest one, and I think it will have that effect. Every single man who has an undoubted honest claim will see that the bogus claims are excluded.
Mr. CHAPMAN. Would that be a final settlement?
Mr. BAKER. Certainly it settles it unless some future legislation pleases to do something more, and you can't tie the hands of future legislation. If you act, or refuse to act, it don't tie their hands. This is an appeal addressed to the moral sense of the State. She can say she will pay one-half, and no more, or one-fourth, or three-fourths, or the whole. The fact that we agree to pay one-half creates no obligation to pay the other half. I think it is perfectly clear that here is a moral claim, and the very kind of legislation these gentlemen have been engaged in. What is the soldier's relief bill? Why do you propose to tax three mills on the dollar for the support of soldiers and soldiers' families. Aint it the duty of the General Government to take care of the soldiers? Certainly it is, and I undertake to say it does to the fullest extent of its ability; but we come in and do something more.
page: 252[View Page 252]The day may come when the Canada border will be invaded, and it may become the duty of the people of the State to reimburse for doings done there, and I ask gentlemen not to set a precedent that may be quoted against them. We say that the protection that was in the power of the State was not afforded. The State is not doing as much to protect its own citizens as the General Government is doing, considering the great war in which the General Government is engaged. When you consider the number of arms-bearing population, and the resources of the State, I say that more ought to have been done to protect the border than was done. But it won't do to say that this man or that man, that this party or that party is responsible for it. I say it was the duty of the whole State, and all parties in the State; and when the proper legislation is not furnished, or the proper force is not furnished to protect the State from invasion, the State ought to reimburse its citizens for damages sustained in consequence.
But I don't think I can enlighten the Committee further on this subject I believe my views are correct; and ought to prevail. I believe this bill, ought to pass; but I look upon the motion of the gentleman from Kosciusko as a motion to reject it. I don't want the bill to pass as far as I am concerned, if you take out the appropriation. The way to get the General Government to act upon this claim is to show you believe it to be right and just, by not only auditing, but paying it. But for us to say that we will appoint a committee to transmit these claims to the authorities at Washington, with the Senator from Jefferson, [Mr. Allison] I trust the Legislature will do no such thing. I trust when we ask for bread you will not give us a stone. I trust we will not imitate the Legislature of Pennsylvania on this subject. When Chambersburg was burned up, and they applied to that great commonwealth, what do you think the Legislature of Pennsylvania, did? They gave $100,000 to reimburse a loss of $5,000,000. If you don't intend to give this people anything, say so, but don't strike out every thing of value in the bill.
Mr. CARSON. Mr. President, I did not intend to say anything on the question now under consideration, but it seems to me that the position assumed by the Honorable the President of the Senate in his remarks is so untenable that I cannot remain silent. I speak, sir, with all due respect to the eminent ability of that gentleman. I understand his position in relation to this question to be, "that there is no legal obligation on the part of the State, or the United States to reimburse those persons injured by the Morgan raid." I am aware, sir, that upon the principles of international laws as laid down by some of our most eminent elementary writers upon that subject, that the sovereign is not held responsible for the damages done to the citizen or subject by a public enemy, but the injury which is done by the forces of the Sovereign in repelling invasion should be compensated for. There is an obligation on the part of the soveriegn to reimburse his subjects for injuries done by his forces in repelling invasion, for instance, the impressing of the property of the citizens, the taking possession of his lands, houses, horses, provision or other property.
But, sir, I take it that we are not left to the elementary principles of international law to deduce our duty upon this subject. Our Government is in the nature of a compact. The Constitution of the United States determines our relations to the Federal Government, and our State Constitution, our relations to the Government. To these instruments we look, and from them we deduce our reciprocal rights and duties. The Federal Government has its powers clearly defined-its relations to the State and the citizens thereof; hence, both the State and its citizens being parties to this compact, they are to look to that instrument for their rights under it. I hold, sir, that there is a plain, positive, and express provision in the Constitution of the United States, equivalent to a guarantee on its part to protect us against this invasion. The 4th section of article 4 of the Constitution of the United States provides that, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion, and on application of the Legislature, or the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence." Can there be more positive language than this?
Sir, does this language impose no positive obligation on the part of the Federal Government to protect us from invasion by any public enemy? I hold, sir, that it is clear beyond controversy, that it is the imperative duty of the Federal Government to protect us against all such invasions as the one now under consideration; but His Excellency (Mr. Baker) seems to argue that it was our duty as a State, to have anticipated this invasion, and place forces on our border sufficient to protect it, and repel any attempt of the public enemy to invade it; and hence we are morally bound to indemnify the sufferers by these raids. But, sir, I take it that it was the imperative duty of the General Government to have had her forces there to protect us against this invasion, She has so stipulated in the bond. She has put it in the compact, aid must be presumed to know the condition of our border and the forces of the public enemy, as well and better than we do and to her we are to look for protection. She has so stipulated. It is her duty to afford it to us, and if she fails, we think that she is legally and morally bound to reimburse us for the damages we have sustained by her neglect of this imperative duty. I apprehend it would be difficult to relieve her from this obligation. We look to her for this protection, because we find it in the bond. It is her duty to afford it to us; and if she fails in this, she alone is responsible to the injured parties, if the citizens of Indiana have suffered by neglect in this matter. I cannot conceive that she would be so unjust to her citizens as to refuse to reimburse them in full for all the damages they have sustained. She has recognized the claims of the citizens of other States for similar injuries, and I am satisfied she will be equally just to the citizens of Indiana, and carry out to the page: 253[View Page 253] the obligations on her part to protect against this invasion.
Mr. President, I understood from the friends of this bill when it was first introduced, that eventually the United States must pay the but that the necessities of those injured by this raid, were such that they required immediate payment, and should the State pay them, she would hold a claim against the General Government for the amount thus advanced.I do not feel willing to assume the responsibility of such action. I do not think my constitution would sanction my acts in the premises. I have no right to expect they would. I am not here to represent my own views and interests, but to reflect the views and represent the interests of my constituents. I am not authorized to lend their money or credit to any arson and more particularly to assume the obligations of the General Government, and run the risk of being at some future day reimbursed. They would not justify the act. I can not vote to assume a duty and obligation which, to say the least, must be of very imperfect and doubtful force, when it must be apparent to every mind that duty and obligation is an imperative and legal obligation resting on the General Government.
Mr. MILLIGAN. I think there are facts in this case which have not yet been brought out in this discussion. I take it that we had a sufficient force sent there two years ago, by the Governor, to protect the border. The Governor was re quested to remove these troops from the border, and he refused to do so until the people of Southern Indiana, through their Senators and Representatives, have petitioned him to remove them. This was just about two years ago and about three months afterward this raid took place, if I remember right. I am not positive about the time the raiders were roaming through Indiana, but we had troops on the border during the winter two years ago, and the Governor did not remove these troops till the people, through their Representatives, requested him to do so.I would further add that in my opinion this is not the place to correct these wrongs. The friends of this bill claim that a great deal of these losses sustained by the Morgan raid, was caused not so much by Morgan, but by the troops of General Hobson in his chase after Morgan. General Hobson was an officer of the United States, and acting under the authority of the United States. It can not be expected that the State of Indiana will open up a commission and pay these claims. They must certainly go the General Government to have their wrongs righted.
Mr. VAWTER (interposing.) There were no troops, as I understand it, in the counties of Harrison, Washington, Floyd, Jennings, Scott, Jefferson, Ripley, Ohio, Switzerland, or Dearborn, where Morgan went through.
Mr. MILLIGAN. I can't say what counties they were in, but I know there were troops there.
Lieutenant Governor BAKER (in his seat.) There were a couple of companies at Rockport that mobbed a Democratic paper there, and the governor was petitioned to recall them, and he did so.
Mr. ALLISON. There never has at any time been troops stationed in my county Switzerland, or the county below me, ana no petition from Clark, Jefferson, Switzerland, Ohio, or Dearborn counties ever asked the Governor to withdraw troops from the border.
On motion by Mr. BROWN, of Wells, the committee rose, reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again on Friday, at 9 o'clock A. M.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Was obtained for Mr. Van Baskirk till Friday, on account of sickness in his family.
SESSION HOURS.
Mr. BENNETT gave notice that on to-morrow, or some future day, he shall offer the following:
Resolved, That the first standing rule of the Senate be amended as follows:
After the word "precisely." in the first line thereof, add the words "at 9 o'clock in the forenoon, and."
WASHINGTON'S BIRTH DAY.
The LIEUT. GOVERNOR announced the committee on the part of the Senate authorized by the concurrent resolution adopted yesterday, viz : Messrs. Brown, of Wells, Beeson and Bennett.
And then the Senate adjourned.
