HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
WEDNESDAY, February 15,1865.The House met at 2 o'clock P. M.
The SPEAKER obtained leave to record his vote in the affirmative on the Putnam contested election case.
On motion of Mr. BRANHAM the reading of the journal of yesterday was dispensed with.
On motion of Mr. BIRD, Mr. Coffroth was added to the Special Committee on his bill, No. 71.
COUNTY BONDS.
The SPEAKER announced the special order for the hour, viz: the consideration of the bill, [S. No. 3.]legalizing bonds issued by County Commissioners, cities and towns, to furnish volunteers or substitutes, or for the maintenance of families of soldiers, with the amendments proposed thereto--[see pages 170, 171 of these Reports,]--the pending question being on Mr. Kilgore's motion to refer again to the Judiciary Committee and print 300 copies.
Mr. BUSKIRK urged expedition in action on the bill, and voting down hostile motions, such as that pending by the gentleman from Delaware.
Mr. SHUEY said he condemned this mode of fighting a bill. All understood the general provisions and merits of the bill. Down with strategy.
Mr. ZEIGLER was opposed to the principle of local bounties. But as the case was, there would be difficulties if the local bonds were not legalized. His opinion was that the bill should not allow the issuance of other bonds after a certain date. We should guard against high taxation. Money would not be always plenty. To meet the wishes of the people of so many counties, he was willing to vote for the bill
Mr. NEWCOMB. This bill would not legalise one dollar of bonds issued after its passage.
page: 254[View Page 254][Here, on motion, Mr. Hamrick, one of the Representatives elect from Putnam, came forward, received the oath, and took his seat in the place of Mr. Colover.]
Mr. HARRISON wanted the vote on this bill. He replied to the objections urged heretofore by Mr. Wright. Bonds had been issued in same counties, a year ago, and some were still issuing them. Those in the service-nearly all of them-have received liberal government bounties. Of those county bonds issued a year ago-a large portion of them were for the benefit of all. We could not pass this bill, legally, and make the exceptions proposed by the gentlemen from Jefferson.
Mr. WRIGHT said he proposed only to exempt soldiers' property from being sold for the tax levied under this bill.
Mr. HARRISON still insisted that such a provision would be nugatory. The bill was generally demanded, and but an act of common justice.
The SPEAKER. The merits of the bill were not in order on a motion to refer.
Mr. GREGORY, of Montgomery, if in order, would read a letter from an officer in the army, bearing on this question.
The SPEAKER. The Chair left it with gentlemen to determine for themselves what they would offer.
Mr. GREGORY. These bonds were generally gotten up by those more interested in dealing in the bonds than the welfare of the soldiers. He read from the letter of Major Kilborn, a constituent of his, dated "Headquarters 72d Regt. Ind. Vols , Gravelly Springs, Ala,, Feb. 3,1865":
"We get the paper here only once in a great while. We heard a few days since that the Indiana Legislature has passed-or was likely to pass-an act legalizing taxation by counties for the purpose of clearing them of draft. We were unwilling to believe that our Legislature would legalize such a palpable injustice. I received to-day your paper of January 24th, and find that the bill has passed to the second reading. It excites universal indignation among Indiana soldiers, and we still hope that Governor Morton, our never-failing friend, will veto it should it pass the Legislature. There are at least five hundred men in this regiment who are serving in the ranks, who left a profitable business at home and came into the army from a simple sense of duty. They have lost for every year's services from two to seven thousand dollars by the neglect of their business. Is it right now that these men should be taxed to clear of the draft those who have been staying at home at their ease, or to pay them large bounties for going into the service?
Every member who will vote for a bill so monstrous should be politically damned eternally. Mr. Editor, has the man who introduced this bill "ever been to war?" We say, let the draft come. Indiana has given sufficient proof of the loyalty of her people by the number of volunteers she has already sent into the field. Let the draft be vigorously enforced; it will fall in few places where it ought not to.
The soldiers of the 72d regiment are perfectly willing to serve out their three years, and after enjoying the society and comforts of home for a short space, will not object to taking their places again under their old banner, if the country needs their services. But they do most earnestly protest against Saying peace sneaks and Copperheads for staying at home and sneering at others for the sacrifices they have made and are making for their country. In the language of your Fountain county correspondent, let the Legislature give us some substantial proof of its care for us, and not "'buncombe resolutions."
It had been stated in this debate, that most of our men in the army were not heavy tax payers.
Mr. KILGORE. This bill was introduced by a man that has been three years in the army.
Mr. GREGORY, of Montgomery. This local bounty system had retarded volunteering. His county bonds were not now worth more than fifty cents on the dollar. If we even stop where we are, our tax burdens would be intolerable. To pass this bill here would be like the act of the man that cut off the limb of the tree that supported him.
Mr. NEWCOMB. The letter of Major Kilborn referred not to this bill, but the House bill No. 14, by Mr. Branham.
Mr. KILGORE. If this bill pass, would not the counties go on to issue other bonds?
Mr. NEWCOMB could not tell what would be done, but the bill would not authorize future issues. In many cases these bonds and orders had been demanded by the people. Most of them had been sold at par, and the money had gone into the soldiers' pockets. It was no argument for repudiation to say that speculators had contrived to buy these bonds at a discount. Soldiers were now holding these bonds awaiting the legislation that would make them good. The question of the value of these bonds was not pertinent here.
Mr. BUSKIRK conceded the right of officers and men in the field to express their views here by petition or otherwise, but they were not always well informed of home affairs. A bill had been passed to tax for the relief of soldiers families now at home. This million and a half of dollars was in lieu of the lack of local bounty on the part of those in the field. We saw the men in Camp Carringten to-day. Most of these men had received local bounties-rightfully given and rightfully received. It was a measure compelled in many cases by too people, and the question was simply, shall we repudiate what the people have done? There was an action now pending in the county or Knox that might result in a decision that these bonds were illegal. Then the bonds would go down, and speculators would reap the benefits. He would refuse to represent a county that would repudiate these bonds. He would repudiate a repudiating consituency. His county had more than filled her quota on their local bounty plan-$500-too high as bethought. But he wanted the vote against postponement and printing, and then to offer an amendment himself.
Mr. RHOADS. The bill was based on te assumption that these bonds are illegal. could not see the point of the argument, that could call it repudiation, if these counties could not levy a tax to pay them.
Mr. NEWCOMB had no doubt that whatever care had been taken in the issuance of these bonds, they were legal under the act of 1861.
Mr. RHOADS. Therein then he saw also an objection. There was a zeal for the soldier that was not according to knowledge. We might bankrupt the State. He instanced the action of the Commissioners in Fountain county. At first, they could see nothing in the act of 1861 to authorize a tax. But then latterly they had issued a large amount of bonds to fill their page: 255[View Page 255] quota. And in Montgomery and other counties they were doing the same thing now evincing that they expected this act to reach back and cover the calls of December and July, 1864 All the bonds of Knox county had been sold by the soldiers at 50 cents, and the bonds of Fountain county had been bought by sharpers at 20 cents.
He would not say by the passage of this bill that these counties should go to the extent of such reckless extravagance. He would quietly pass it by, and let the Commissioners-not the people-take the consequences of their illegal gets. The voting and tax-paying people were opposed to this legislation. Quiet individual contributions were the proper means of raising funds for these local bounties. He argued the injustice of the bill. A man could elect to pay or go. The individual, by himself, was responsible to the Government. His observation was that generally the men of wealth had come forward liberally with their contributions.
Mr. PATTERSON said no bond of Knox county had been sold for less than $400 The bonds were $600 bonds. The soldiers had them now, expecting that they would be legalized. The people were largely in favor of this measure. With Mr. Buskirk, he would repudiate a constituency that would repudiate those bonds.
Mr. BUSKIRK indicated a motion for the previous question, desiring the discussion on the merits of each proposition.
Mr. KILGORE said the bill was not well understood. Gentlemen had said to him that they did not understand it, and did not want action now. This was the main reason of his motion. Poorer counties were hurt by the issuance of bonds giving $500 more bounty than they could give. He was not yet prepared to say-if he had time to consider it-that he would not vote for some such bill as this. But in the present form, without understanding it, he could not vote for it; and the gentlemen would say that others were with him when it should come to the vote.
Mr. BUSKIRK said there was not more than one page of loose writing in the material section of the bill.
Mr. KILGORE would not discuss the merits of the bill, but there were enough with him that thought it would be manifestly unjust to legalize these bonds indiscriminately. He showed that those very men that had done nothing for the war, were buying up those bonds at a discount. These bonds were hoarded in the coffers of banks and wealthy men, which they had wrung from the soldiers; and they were now making outside pressure for the passage of this bill. These bonds were not in the hands of the soldiers.
Mr. BUSKIRK interposing. Not more than 5 or 6 bonds had been sold by the soldiers from Monroe county.
Mr. MEREDITH. These bonds were now being bought in Camp Carrington at 35 cents discount.
Mr. KILGORE said that was doubtless true; and this bill would not be passed an hour before these sharpers would be after more.
[Ten minutes expired.]
Mr. BURWELL. The people were consulted by an election held in his county about two weeks ago, and they decided by a considerable majority, that they would issue bonds for $500 bounties; and volunteering there was going on well. The people had demanded this measure, and he was in favor of passing the bill at once, that the soldiers and people might be satisfied. It was due to them.
Mr. COX. The Commissioners of his counts, by force of public sentiment, had issued these bonds. He held that when we paid these volunteers four hundred or five hundred dollars, we did not give them half enough. The letter read by the gentleman from Montgomery was not written by a soldier from Wayne county. They took care of soldiers' families in his county. As a people, they were willing to be taxed in that direction. He judged them by their past liberality.
Mr. THACHER, as be was in favor of the bill and wanted to see it pass, demanded the previous question.
There was a second, and the main question was ordered, viz: Shall the bill and amendments be recommitted, and 300 copies thereof ordered to be printed? And the yeas and nays thereon resulted-yeas 32, nays 48. So the bill was not recommitted.
The question then recurred on the adoption of the minority substitute for the amendment, reported by the majority of the special committee, providing that property and polls in townships which have not been subject to draft at the present and last preceding calls, shall not be exempt from any tax to carry out the provisions of this bill.
The majority of the Special Committee recommend the adoption of the amendment reported from the Judiciary Committee. [See page 171 of these Reports.]
Mr. COFFROTH said the amendment reported by the Judiciary Committee was not unanimous. His own impression was that the amendment was not constitutional. He submitted that it was a special tax operating locally. For example, a bridge on a township road is for the people of the county. It would not be competent to authorize the county board to tax the township for that debt. This being the case, county debts could not be made to operate locally and unequally in the townships. Gentlemen state that brokers have bought up these. He knew that the soldiers of his county had left their bonds at home, where they could get 90 cents on them. Doubts existed as to the validity of these bonds; and the effect of this doubt was placing soldiers in the power of sharpers and swindlers. He considered that the act of 1861 provided for these county bonds. He read it. The provisions of this law were complete. It had been pronounced valid by one of the best judges in the State. But speculators will receive the benefits of our delay. Let the past go. Let us legalize the past, and let the future take care of itself. (Ten minutes expired.)
Mr. BUSKIRK. If we adopt the minority amendment it is simply the negative of the proposition submitted by the majority of the Judiciary Committe. With the gentleman from Huntington he held that the Judiciary page: 256[View Page 256] Committee's amendment could not be enforced. A State tax must operate equally over the whole State-a county tax equally over the whole county.
Mr. NEWCOMB would be willing to leave the Constitutional question with the judiciary. He read article 10, the provision requiring uniform taxation, referring to the action of the Legislature for taxation for general purposes. It does not refer to county taxation. Then the provision prohibiting local laws.
Mr. COFFROTH. Can a board of County Commissioners levy a tax except as the authority is conferred by the Legislature ? We can't authorize what we can't do ourselves.
Mr. NEWCOMB. We have a law authorizing each county to levy for itself. But the General Assembly may pass a law allowing townships in the same county to be tased unequally. Don't we know that there have been levied for schools special township taxes? He argued farther that this was a township debt. Should we tax townships to pay what they never owed?
Mr. COFFROTH. This amendment proposes to levy this tax on townships which have not filled their quota. Some have half filled. It was equally right that these should be exempted in proportion to the men furnished. He reiterated the proposition, that we could not confer a power which we cannot exercise ourselves. The Constitutional restriction was made precisely to prevent just such legislation as this amendment.
Mr. LEE came up here to act with the minority of the House. But now, when the majority differ, he would give his views. In his county, (Washington) the Commissoners gave $325 to each volunteer. Some of the townships, at the time, had partly filled their quotas. But it was considered just that all should be equally entitled to the bonds. We could never pass anything that will operate with exact equality on all parties. He was surprised to see the majority divided on this question. If county bonds were at a discount, the majority were to blame, for this bill should have been passed long ago. It was the duty of the Legislature to legalize these bonds in the past, and put them out of the clutches of sharpers. Rich men in his county were opposed to this bill. But a rich man at home could afford to pay while the poor man was obliged to go into the service. He was for giving the last dollar, before we give the last man.
Mr. GRIFFITH. The amendments were unnecessary. The more he read the amendments the less intelligible they made the bill. He would have the original bill put through. This matter should be equal. The resistance was from men of property. His county had offered a bounty of $400, and he had many letters of inquiry as to the matter. He had responded by telegraph that the bill would pass to-day.
Mr. MILROY endorsed the sentiments of the gentleman from Lagrange. It was demanded by the people. It was supported by Democrats, and he thought it could as well be acted on now as any future time.
Mr. RHOADS made an ineffectual motion to postpone the special order till Saturday morning at 9 o'clock.
The amendment reported by the minority was then rejected, and the question recurred on the adoption of the amendment reported by the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. HENRICKS proposed to amend the amendment, by adding the following:
And provided further, That such County Commissioners as may have issued bonds to furnish volunteers or substitutes, or maintenance of their families, shall be required to levy in the year 1865, an amount of tax sufficient to pay at least one-half the amount of the bonds so issued, and in the year 1866 the other half-to be assessed and collected as other taxes.
Mr. BUSKIRK. If the gentleman will change it to one, two and three years it will be more acceptable.
Mr. HENRICKS had no objection. The object was to prevent counties from going deeply in debt. His county had been relieved from draft, or would be, he supposed, by voluntary contributions, and so were not interested in this bill. But they were interested with other counties, and were willing to be taxed. Taxation would be lighter now than hereafter. He could not vote for the bill without this.
Mr. BUSKIRK suggested that this was an amendment to the bill--not to the committee's amendment.
Mr. HENRICKS then withdrew his amendment, proposing to offer it again to the bill.
Mr. BUSKIRK called for a division cf the question--the first branch of the question being en the adoption of the first provison.
The yeas and nays were now demanded and ordered.
Mr. LANE'S county, in all the townships but one, had cleared themselves from the draft by volunteer contributions. If this amendment is not made, these townships which have filled their quotas will be oppressed unequally, as standing with the one that has not. This amendment would suit his county. Without it he could not support the bill. He showed the ir justice of the bill without it.
Mr. COLLINS. Such a case as this was in his county: One township was exempt by this means. A man of that township raised a company, and its members were credited all to that township, though they were raised in other townships as well. He would not think such a township could be exempt from this tax under this proviso.
The first proviso was now rejected by yeas 41, nays 43; and the question recurred on the second, which provides that this act shall not be construed to authorize the assumption of individual contributions, but only to counties, townships, towns and cities acting throngs their legally constituted authorities.
Mr. RHOADS now moved the indefinite postponement of the bill.
The motion was rejected-yeas 18, nays 67.
Mr. MILLER, of Tippecanoe, proposed to amend the amendment, by adding to this effect: Provided that any person who has paid money for which bonds or orders have been issued, shall be entitled to a credit for the amount so paid, upon satisfactory proof of the payment so made.
Mr. BUSKIRK considered the second proviso reported by the committee to be right, and upon that supposition the gentleman's amend- page: 257[View Page 257] [amend]ment was wrong. When a man has given money for a worthy and patriotic purpose he should not be credited for it on his taxes.
Mr. GRIFFITH moved to lay the amendment on the table, but withdrew the motion for--
Mr. MILLER, of Tippecanoe. The object was when the townships have paid the money to relieve them from the draft, upon proof of that, it is deducted from the county tax. He answered objections to it. From the number of recruits furnished these computations could be easily made. This amendment will reach the property of those who have done nothing. It obviates the constitutional objection. We allow receipts for service to pay road tax. This was a precisely similar case, of crediting on receipts for money actually paid by them for recruits.
Mr. COFFROTH moved to lay Mr. Miller's amendment to the amendment on the table.
The motion was agreed to--yeas 46, nays 33.
Mr. WRIGHT proposed to add a provision to the effect, that no person who may be or who has been a soldier, or marine, in the service of the United States, or who maybe, or may have been a drafted man or a substitute in the military service, shall be required to pay any tax levied under the provisions of this bill.
Mr. WRIGHT had submitted this as his effort to exempt the property of those who have served in the field, their widows and orphans, from sale to pay these taxes. The total amount of the tax proposed to be legalized, would not fill short of eleven millions of dollars. And would gentlemen tax the property of soldiers to raise this money? The present quota of the State were to receive tee benefit of this legislation-not the men already in the field. Let gentlemen stand to the law, and legalise nothing that is illegal. This war was brought on by illegal acts. If the war should last three years longer and we should continue to issue by these bonds and orders, twelve millions more, we would, by this bill, throw upon the State a debt of twenty four million. He believed the people would pay the bonds already issued. But if they were not legalized, no more would be issued. He referred to the speculations induced ia this regard. He advised not to levy one dollar of tax that can be avoided. He was afraid that this bill, without his amendment, would drive the soldiers from the State when they should come back.
Mr. WHITESIDE proposed to amend Mr. Wright's proposition by adding a clause to the effect that such persons shall be credited en the tax duplicate for money so paid to relieve men from the draft--or on account of services rendered in the field.
Mr. WRIGHT accepted.
Mr. JOHNSON proposed an amendment, which was read for information, adding an appropriation from the Treasury to such soldiers and mariners equal in amount respectively to their individual tax levied or that may be levied under the provisions of this act.
Mr. GRIFFITH submitted an amendment, which was read for information, declaring that the provisions of this act shall not exempt from taxation the property of any commissioned officer in the volunteer service above the rank of Lieutenant.
Mr. BUSKIRK insisted that all these amendments were unconstitutional. He was not going to argue a question which had been so often decided by the courts. What cannot he done directly, cannot be done indirectly. He moved to lay the amendment to the amendment on the table.
Mr. GOODMAN made an ineffectual motion to adjourn-affirmative 30, negative 50.
The question was taken on Mr. Buskirk's motion to lay Mr. Wrighn's amendment on the table, and it was decided in the negative by yeas 26, nays 64.
AMENDMENT OF THE ELECTION LAWS.
The SPEAKER announced the following special committee on the petition presented yesterday for the revision of the general election laws, namely: Messrs. Dunham, Newcomb and Church.
Mr. Hamrick was added to the Committee on Corporations.
Mr. Goodman was added to the Committee on the Southern Prison.
And then--at 5:30 P. M.--
On motion by Mr. BUSKIRK, the House adjourned till to-morrow morning 9 o'clock.
