HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
FRIDAY, March 3, 1865.The SPEAKER took the Chair at 8 o'clock A. M. and directed the reading of the journal of yesterday.
On motion of Mr. BROWN the further reading of the journal was dispensed with.
Mr. BROWN asked but could not obtain leave to introduce a resolution for the per diem of Mr. Lee, Representative from Washington County,--he having been detained at home a few weeks of the former part of the session, by an injury from a horse.
Mr. BOYD from the Committee on Claims, returned sundry allowed claims ; and the $5,000 claim of Edwin May, for services as Architect of Northern Prison--withdrawn at the request of said May.
Mr. SULLIVAN of Posey and Vanderburgh, from the Committee on Rights and Privileges, returned the petition of the Friends Yearly Meeting against the 13th article of the State Constitution, &c., recommending that it lie on the table.
Mr. BURNES from the same Committee, submitted a minority report, reasoning for the repeal of the 13th article of the Constitution, and for a revision of the school laws, in that regard.
COSTS OF ELECTION CONTESTS.
Mr. KILGORE, from the Committee on Elections, reported resolutions to allow the four parties to the Putnam contest $50 each for Attorneys' fees, and to allow then all jointly $163.15, the amount of certified costs in the case.
Mr. OLLEMAN demanded the yeas and nays thereon, resulting--yeas 27, nays 51: so the resolutions- were rejected.
Mr. MILLER, of Clinton, voted in the negative for the purpose of moving a reconsideration, which he did. He said his own seat had been contested, and the contest was pursued with a pertinacity worthy of a better cause. A member's pay was $183. His actual expenses in that contest had been $120.00, and if that were not allowed to him, a simple calculation would show the amount of his per diem left.
Mr. SHUEY hoped the vote just taken would be reversed, for the precedent, if nothing else. Such a precedent as this vote would make, would reader impossible for a poor man to make a contest for a seat here. He submitted other considerations.
Mr. OLLEMAN made an ineffectual motion to lay the motion to reconsider on the table Affirmative 22, negative 51.The question then recurred on the motion to reconsider.
Mr. LOCKHART thought it not right to pay the expenses of these contests. He gave the case of the contest of the seat of Senator Dickinson from his county.
page: 367[View Page 367]Mr. BROWN submitted that Lane and Hamrick, from Putnam, and Miller, from Clinton, had asserted their claims, and the contests had exhibited plausible cases. The Senate had allowed these expenses both at the present and former cessions.
Mr. KILGORE set forth the facts belonging to the case, and reasoned for the propriety of making the allowance. The consequence of refusing these expenses would be to discourage contests where there is fraud. If we do not make these allowances, more than half these fraudulent cases would go without contest, and men would occupy seats here to which they would have no right.
Mr. OLLEMAN. Adopt this policy and it would encourage frivolous contents like that which came from Clinton county.
Mr. BROWN. Was it right that Mr. Miller should bear his part of the expenses of a contest which he did not provoke?
Mr. OLLEMAN replied.
Mr. CHURCH. It had cost him $150 to prevent frauds in his election. He attended to these matters that might come up in contest before the election, and his expenses therein were $150. If his place had been contested his people would have borne the expense.
Mr. BUSKIRK interposing, said we had already expended more in debate than the money involved in these resolutions, besides putting aside important business.
Mr. CHURCH replied, deprecating lengthy "constitutional'' speeches, and insisting that these expenses ought to be paid by the people and parties at home. He referred to the refusal of members to vote money for more reasonable claims.
Mr. SHOAFF, of Jay, proposed to amend by adding the cost of the gentleman's whiskey bill on the Dog law.
Mr. CHURCH showed that the House made unjust discriminations, and withdrew his opposition.
Mr. KILGORE said the parties were willing to amend the resolution so as to strike out the Attorneys' fees.
Mr. LANE. If it is not proper and customary and right we did not want it. He would be satisfied either way,
Mr. GLAZEBROOK said, Attorneys generally encouraged these contests; and as the lawyers generally encouraged contests, he was like the Dutchman that, when he found which way the lawyers were going, he "turns his pack and goes shust de oder way." [Laughter.]
Mr. DUNHAM. As this matter seems to protract itself, he demanded the special order.
The SPEAKER. The motion to reconsider has precedence.
Mr. DUNHAM, then demanded the previous question; and there was a second.
The yeas and nays, haying been ordered, were taken, resulting yeas 29, nays 47: so the House refused to reconsider.
Mr. BROWN submitted that the other report from the Committee on Elections that with reference to the expenses of the Clinton contest--should be now made.
It was then submitted by Mr. KILGORE allowing by resolution to Hamilton and Miller each $100 for their costs in said contest. He demanded the previous question.
Mr. GRIFFITH would strike from the resolution the name of Thomas M. Hamilton.
Mr. CHURCH called for a division of the question.
The SPEAKER ruled that the question is not susceptible of division.
There was a second for the previous question, and the main question was ordered.
The yeas and nays resulted yeas 25, nays 49: so the resolution was rejected.
CALVIN F. ROOKER.
Mr. BUSKIRK moved to suspend the special order and take up the Specific Appropriation bill.
Mr. BRANHAM desired the House first to determine whether it was intended by the resolution in his hand, to pay Calvin. F. Rooker (an ordnance officer) $2 a day,, who had been already fully paid.
Mr. SHUEY moved to reconsider the vote adopting said resolution.
Mr. BROWN moved to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.
Mr. BUSKIRK bore testimony to the efficiency of this officer [Rooker.]
Mr. BRANHAM. Rooker was a clerk, employed at $90 a month; and the officers of the department, say it is enough.
Mr. LOCKHART should vote no more money in this direction,
Mr. GRIFFITH said that $5 a day was little enough for the compensation of a clerk.
Mr. BROWN demanded the previous question on the motion to reconsider; and, under its pressure the vote was reconsidered--yeas 54, nays 28.
Mr. BUSKIRK moved that the resolution be laid on the table; and then, on his further motion, this subject was laid aside for the consideration of--
THE SPECIFIC APPROPRIATION BILL.
On motion by Mr. BUSKIRK (the constitutional restriction having been suspended for the purpose--yeas 81, nays 0) the bill No. 200 was read the second time by title.
Mr. NEWCOMB proposed to amend by adding a section, allowing to Holloway, Douglass & Co. the sum of $375 for extra copies of the Indianapolis Daily Journal furnished to members of the House and charged to their stationery account.
Several members stated that they had page: 368[View Page 368] paid their accounts with that Company for the Journal.
Mr. NEWCOMB explained, that these papers were ordered through the stationery clerk.
The SPEAKER explained.
Mr. COFFROTH proposed to amend the resolution by making it an inquiry of the Committee, and to extend the inquiry to the extra copies of newspapers furnished by the proprietors of the Daily State Sentinel.
Mr. MILLER, of Tippecanoe, and Mr. BUSKIRK. It was simply carrying out the action of the House in. the matter. It was too late to inquire into its wisdom.
Mr. NEWCOMB accepted the modification.
Mr. HIGGINS saw no necessity for this resolution.
Mr. COFFROTH asked and obtained leave to have referred with the resolution the accounts with the State Sentinel as to the matter of newspapers just handed to him by the Stationery Clerk.
The subject was accordingly referred.
Mr. MILLER, of Clinton, submitted a resolution reciting the allowance by the Report of the State Prison north, of the claim of D. J. Silver for extra-lawful interest, and directing the Committee on Ways and Means to incorporate the same ($1500) in the specific appropriation bill.
Mr. GROVES. Was it the determination to pay men who took a contract knowing that there was no appropriation, not even for lawful interest--to say nothing about damages? These parties looked this thing in the face, and made their contracts accordingly.
Mr. NEWCOMB read section 24, article 4 of the Constitution, to the point that it was utterly incompetent for the Legislature to pass a law allowing damages.
Mr. BROWN. It was not a proposition to pay damages but a clear and just claim. He referred to the valuable public results from these contracts in the construction of the Northern Prison; and reasoned therefrom for the adoption of the amendment.
Mr. GRIFFITH. The Committee unanimously reported in favor of paying Silver's damages. Silver borrowed money at 12 per cent, interest. He paid between $3,500 and $4,000, and after putting in the 6 per cent, interest there was no other way than to put in this $1500 damages.
Mr. HENRICKS. This damages should go to the parties holding this scrip for the $27,000 that the State should have paid two years ago. Upon what data does the gentleman figure up the damage?
Mr. GRIFFITH. Upon the fact that the money was due and unpaid.
Mr. KILGORE had known Mr. Silver for the last ten years. He knew this fact, that during the last two years Mr. Silver had been embarrassed. His losses had been four times this allowance. What scrip he did retain has been pledged for loans at 12 per cent. If there ever was a just claim before a legislative body, this was one.
Mr. NEWCOMB. If he had the power to sue the State he could recover but six per cent. We had some two or three millions of State bonds lying useless in the drawers and safes of our creditors. We voted nothing as damages to Winslow, Lanier & Co. But gentlemen could not get over the constitutional restriction he had read.
Mr. BUSKIRK. The same question was staring the gentleman in the face when he voted for the Winslow & Lanier matter.
He demanded the previous question, and there was a second.
And under the force thereof the instructions to the Committee were rejected-- yeas 36, nays 45.
Mr. MILLER, of Tippecanoe, called for the orders of the day.
Mr. BUSKIRK called for the special order, viz: the consideration of the Senate Morgan raid bill. No. 15.
Mr. BRANHAM desired to suspend the special order for the consideration and engrossment of the general appropriation bill.
GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS.
Mr. NEWCOMB moved to dispense with the special order and take up the general appropriation bill.
The motion was agreed to; and the amendments thereto, reported from the Committee on Ways and Means, were severally read, considered and agreed to.
On motion by Mr. BUSKIRK, Mr. Montgomery obtained leave of absence--indefinite-- sickness in his family.
Mr. MEREDITH proposed to add $10.-000, so as to make $60,000 for each of the two years for the Blind Asylum expenses; which was agreed to.
Mr. HOWARD proposed to add a clause for $6,000 for the purchase by the Directors of the Southern Prison of six acres or land owned by Joseph D. Smith,immediately south of said prison, provided it shall not cost more than $1,000 an acre.
Mr. HOWARD and Mr. BUSKIRK showed that this ground was essential to the Prison, and that it would be economy for the State to purchase it now.
The amendment was agreed to.
The bill was then ordered to the engrossment and third reading.
Mr. GREGORY of Warren, (by consent) submitted an order making the Senate bill (No. 190--described on page 328 of these Reports,) prescribing the order of business for the consideration of matter going over from the present to the extra session of the General Assembly, if an extra session should be called by the Governor, special order for to-morrow morning.
page: 369[View Page 369]The order was adopted.
Mr. GRIFFITH submitted a resolution (which was read) allowing to each of the four parties to the Putnam county contests--Messrs. Puett, Colover, Lane and Hamrick,--the sum of $75 each, toward expenses by them incurred in said contests.
Mr. CHURCH objected.
The bill for general appropriations was then read the third line by the clerk.
Mr. HIGGINS submitted the following :
Resolved, That the Stationery Clerk be instructed to report to the House a detailed statement of the Stationery furnished to the different committees of the House.
It was adopted.
On motion by Mr. GROVES, the House then took a recess till 2 o'clock P. M.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The CLERK called the House to order at 2 o'clock P. M., and Mr. Henricks was called to the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER stated the consideration of unfinished business, viz: the final passage of the general appropriation bill [H. R. No. 176.]
Mr. ZEIGLER and Mr. OLLEMAN obtained leave of absence after to-day--on account of sickness.
The general appropriation bill was passed the House of Representatives--yeas 74, nays 0.
MORGAN RAID BILL.
The PRESIDING OFFICER now returned to the special order, viz : the consideration of the Morgan and other rebel raids bill [S. 15.]
Mr. BUSKIRK. submitted an amendment to this effect: Strike out all after the word "state" in section 5 ; and add a provision for the appointment of a clerk for said Commission at $5 a day.
The latter clause of section 5, he said, makes it the duty of the Attorney to discharge the duty of clerk. The two positions were incompatible. The amendment was to strike out that portion of section 5 which authorizes the Attorney to act as clerk ; and to authorize the appointment of a clerk, Mr. B. gave way, and
Mr. PETTIT renewed his amendment offered yesterday. His first proposition being to strike out the last proviso to section 1, and at the end of section 13, insert to this effect:
It shall not be allowed to any person to receive anything under this act, till he or his Attorney shall have first filed with the Auditor of State his affidavit, which shall be dated not more than ten days before the issuing of the warrant, that he is the original claimant, and that since the passage of this act, he has not sold or transferred the same to any person whatever, or agreed or stipulated for the same : and any such transfer shall vitiate the allowance; and it may be recovered back, &c.
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. BUSKIRK'S amendment was then adopted.
Mr. BUSKIRK made an ineffectual motion to make the compensation of the Attorney for the commission $6 a day, instead of $5--affirmative 26, negative not counted.
Mr. BRANHAM. Was there any provision for raising the money to pay these claims ? There would be no more money in the Treasury than would be necessary to carry an the State Government.
Mr. WRIGHT proposed to publish the notice of the sessions of the commission in some newspaper in each county named in the bill.
Mr. NEWCOMB submitted a new section to this effect :
That, if the payments to be made by the State under the provision of this act shall leave a deficit in the Treasury, it shall be the duty of the Governor, Auditor and Treasurer, or of a majority of them, to borrow so much money as may be necessary to make such payments, for which they shall give the obligation of the State payable not later than the 4th of March, 1867, with interest at six per cent.
It was adopted.
The bill was then passed the House--yeas 56, nays 26.
Mr. BROWN made an ineffectual motion to confirm this action, by motions to reconsider, and lay the motion to reconsider on the table.
So the bill passed with an amendment of title, viz : "And to authorize the Governor and Auditor and Treasurer of State to contract a debt for the purpose of reimbursing the Treasury of the State for the amount hereby disbursed."
Mr. MILLER, of Tippecanoe, made an ineffectual motion to take up the Agricultural College bill, No. 6.
EXTRA SESSION BILL.
On motion by Mr. NEWCOMB, [the bill [S. No. 190] providing for the completion of the unfinished business of any regular or special session of the General Assembly at the next special session ot the same General Assembly, was taken up and passed to the second reading.
On his further motion, (the constitutional restriction having been suspended for this purpose,) the bill was ordered to the second reading, and read the second time by title.
Mr. NEWCOMB moved that it be read the third time now.
Mr. BUSKIRK hoped the gentleman would admit of another suspension to remove all constitutional doubt about the validity of the proceeding.
Mr. NEWCOMB acquiesced. It was easier to suspend than to debate. And then on his further motion, the constitutional restriction was again suspended--yeas 62. nays 14,--and the bill was read the third time and passed--yeas 63, nays 16.
NORMAL SCHOOL.
On motion of Mr. RHOADS, the Normal School bill [No. 119] was taken up.
page: 370[View Page 370]Mr. OLLEMAM desired an amendment so that the Board of Trustees of the School shall be elected by a concurrent vote of the two Houses of the General Assembly.
It was taken by unanimous consent.
Mr. HAMRICK submitted an amendment, in the 11th section striking out so as to place all students of the institution on an equality,--with no charge for tuition : which was taken by unanimous consent.
The bill was then passed the House--yeas 58. nays 20.
SALARIES OF THE JUDGES, &C.
On motion by Mr. NEWCOMB, the order of business was suspended, and the bill [S. 126] to amend section 1 of the act relative to the salaries of public officers, &c., was taken up, and passed to the second reading.
Mr. BUSKIRK. The only purpose of the bill was to increase the salaries of the Supreme, Circuit and Common Pleas Judges. He moved to suspend the constitutional restriction and read the bill the second time now.
Mr. MILLER, of Tippecanoe, moved to amend the motion so that the suspension shall admit also of the third reading.
The amended motion was agreed to--yeas 64, nays 11--and the bill was read the second time.
Mr. LANE proposed to amend the bill by striking out "$1300'' and inserting in lieu thereof "$1600" for the Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Mr. HIGGINS proposed to reduce the allowance of salary to the Supreme Court Judges from $3000 to $2500 and make the salaries of the Circuit Court Judges $1750 ; and the salaries of the Common Pleas Judges $1250.
Mr. PETTIT gave considerations in favor of the provisions of the original bill. He would bring to an end this law of unrequited service, so far as the Judiciary is concerned.
Mr. GRIFFITH commended the remarks of the gentleman from Wabash, [Mr. Pettit.] He would not have the judges seeking out of the way places for cheap living. And he trusted that while gentlemen might be ready to requite the services of the Judiciary, they would not, at the proper time, forget themselves.
On motion of Mr. MILLER of Tippecanoe, the amendment was laid on the table--yeas 61. nays 28.
Mr. OLLEMAN moved to reduce the salary of the President of the Sinking Fund Commissioners from three thousand dollars to two thousand dollars.
On motion by Mr. BROWN, it was laid on the table.
On motion by Mr. PETTIT there was added a section to the bill, declaring that the provisions of this act shall not affect any other than the salaries of the Judges and the Superintendent of Public Instruction.
The final vote on this bill resulted--yeas 51, nays 24 : so the bill passed the House of Representatives.
Mr. BRANHAM asked, but did not obtain leave to report the specific appropriation bill from the Committee on Ways and Means.
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.
On the motion of Mr. BUSKIRK, the bill [S. No. 20.] to amend sections 1 and 2 of the act fixing the per diem and mileage of the members of the General Assembly. &c., approved June 4, 1852, was taken up and read the second time.
Mr. NEWCOMB proposed to strike out "five" and insert "three dollars for every twenty-five miles travel."
Mr. BROWN desired that the gentleman would withdraw the amendment. It could not pass the Senate if amended here.
Mr. NEWCOMB. There was inequality.
Mr. KILGORE. How much mileage did the gentleman from Marion receive ?
Mr. NEWCOMB did not live one mile from the State House.
Mr. GRIFFITH concurred with Mr. Newcomb in the matter of mileage. He would stand by the bill; but feared, if the amendment is not made it would be lost.
Mr. MILROY demanded the previous question, and there was a second, and the main question was ordered.
Mr. NEWCOMB demanded the yeas and nays, and they were ordered.
The vote resulted--yeas 37, nays 44.
So the amendment was rejected.
The bill was then ordered to the third reading.
Mr. GRIFFITH moved to suspend again the constitutional restriction, to admit of a motion that the bill be put on its passage now.
Mr. MILLER, of Tippecanoe, said he had moved to suspend the restriction for the second and third readings.
But to assure the House against error in the clerk's notes
On motion by Mr. GRIFFITH, the restriction was again suspended--yeas 63, nays 13--and then the bill was again ordered to the third reading, read the third time and passed the House--yeas 53, nays 28.
On motion of Mr. MILLER, of Tippecanoe, a night session for to-night was ordered.
DEARBORN COMMON PLEAS.
On the motion of Mr. GREGG the bill [S. 195,] to legalize and declare valid the proceedings of the Common Pleas Court of Dearborn county for February, 1865, was taken up and ordered to the third reading, read the third time and passed--yeas 70, nays 3.
page: 371[View Page 371]SPECIFIC BILL.
Mr. BRANHAM, (by unanimous consent ) now reported back the specific appropriation bill [H. R. No. 200.] with amendments thereto, numbered from 101 to 143 both inclusive.
Mr. GRIFFITH proposed to amend by inserting the amount of the claim of Dr. Woodburn, $800 for expenses incurred by him for the benefit of the Hospital for the Insane. The Commissioners have expressed the opinion that this claim ought to he allowed.
Mr. BRANHAM explained how this Superintendent draws $600 salary. This was a claim for pay for the gentleman's acquisition of professional skill. How much would each member here have to expend, in order to qualify himself for his public duties?
On motion by Mr. MILLER, of Tippecanoe, it was laid on the table.
Mr. GRIFFITH proposed to allow Messrs. Lane and Hamrick $75 each for expenses incurred in contesting their seats.
It was rejected.
Mr. GRIFFITH proposed to pay each of the members of the Prison Committee $15 for expenses incurred in visiting the Prisons.
Mr. WRIGHT proposed to amend, by allowing members of these committee's mileage.
Mr. LOCKHART spoke against the amendment.
Mr. MILROY. This was the first time that the House had refused to pay the expenses of these committees. Gentlemen traveling were at expenses of eating and sleeping.
Mr. HIGGINS had understood that the Senate had allowed mileage to their committees, and he moved to amend the amendment, by allowing mileage to the members of these committees.
LEGISLATIVE DAYS.
The following message from the Governor was received and read by the hand of an Executive Messenger :
To the House of Representatives of the State of Indiana:
The Constitution of the State limits the legislative term to sixty-one days. In counting these days, heretofore, Sundays have been included. I am satisfied, however, from a careful examination of the Constitution, in connection with several usages and principles of law that are well recognized, that the practice has been erroneous, and that sixty-one working day are meant. By common consent in this and other States, Sunday is not considered a legislative day, and it is specially excepted from the three days during which the Governor has time to consider a bill. In analogy to this, Sunday is not considered as a judicial day to be counted in the term of court in any State where the common law prevails.
It will not be denied by any one that the legislative term established by the Constitution, as heretofore construed, is too short for the dispatch of the necessary business of the State, and if, by proper construction, it can be extended for a few day , will be of great importance to the public interest
Accordingly, I have asked the opinion of the four Judges of the Supreme Court upon the questions which they have given to me in writing as follows:
INDIANAPOLIS, March 8,1865.
To His Excellency O. P. Morion, Governor:
Sir, in response to your request for our opinion upon the question whether "the term of sixty-one days") to which the session of the Legislature is limited by the Constitution, includes intervening Sundays, we beg to say that we have given the subject such consideration as time would permit, and that we deem the better opinion to be that business days only are embraced. Various considerations tend so strongly to support this view that if a contrary practice had not heretofore prevailed, we would hardly entertain a doubt upon the subject.
If the Legislature should now be of the opinion above indicated, and should act upon it, of course it, would go far to annul the influence of the former practice of that body as a precedent, and at any rate if the question be deemed a doubtful one, the courts would not, it is well settled, be justified in holding void the action of a co-ordinate department.
This being simply question of public importance which cannot, as we suppose, involve any party considerations, or mere private and personal interests, we have felt no delicacy in giving our view upon it. We have not meant, however, to depart from that rule of silence which we have prescribed to ourselves, as to measures of legislation which may be pending.
- CHAS. A. RAY,
- J. T. ELLIOTT,
- JAS. S. FRAZER,
- R. C. GREGORY.
I have also consulted the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, both able and learned lawyers, and find that they concur in the opinion expressed by the Judges of the Supreme Court.
In view of the importance of the subject, and the present condition of the business of the Legislature, I have thought it proper to call your attention to the subject in a special message.
O. P. MORTON, Governor of Indiana.
On the motion of Mr. COFFROTH, (by unanimous consent,) the foregoing message was taken up, and read by the clerk.
Mr. COFFROTH, regarding the communication of such a character as to demand the immediate attention of the House, moved that it be referred to a special committee of five members.
Mr. DUNHAM regarded it as an impudent and impertinent interference on the part of the Executive in the proper business of a co-ordinate branch of the government, and proposed to amend the motion to refer, by substituting an order, that the message be respectfully returned to His Excellency, with the information that this House is abundantly able to interpret the Constitution, and to determine for itself what shall be its action undor that instrument. It was an impudent interference with the legislative authority, the legislative powers and duties of the House of Representatives. It was an attempt at interference by the Executive, such as he undertook to say, was never before heard or read of in the legislation of any State of this Union or in the Congress of the United States. He was quite certain that in the Congress of the United States, made up as it was with the political partizans of Mr. Lincoln, such a message would not be tolerated, for a single page: 372[View Page 372] moment. To receive such a message here would be to give up at once the dignity that belongs to a legislative body. When we come in here and take upon ourselves the oath to support the Constitution, as representatives of the people, what was it but a solemn legal announcement of the right and duty of interpreting that Constitution for ourselves. To receive this message would be to accept the Governor as the Executive of our action. But the terms of the Constitution makes him the Executive of the State--simply the Executive of the edicts of the people of the State made through their representatives in this body. And if there is a single line in that instrument that makes the Governor or the Judges of the Supreme Court to stand for us as interpreters of the Constitution for the direction of our duty, he had never yet been able to comprehend it. The powers of this government are three: the Legislative is first, because it comes directly from the fountain and source of all government--the people. The next is the Judiciary, whose duty it is to interpret nothing but the action of the Legislative power. And then comes the Executive power, which is to execute what the legislative power have passed upon, and that which the Judiciary have declared. Such was the duty of the Governor, and he has no duty beyond that. And he repeated the declaration, that there was neither power in the Constitution nor precedent in legislation for such a communication as this addressed by the Executive to the legislative branch of the government: and there cannot be found one scintilla of authority in the Constitution that gives right or permission to the Governor to come in here with any such address as this to the Representatives of the people of the State, and undertake to tell them what are their legislative rights, powers and duties: And for one, he undertook to say, at the threshhold, that he would resist it--not by physical force--but he would resist it to the utmost of all the political power he possessed. He declared this night, that he would not stand for one single hour under the dictation of His Excellency,neither enquiring after other men's views, nor earing what anybody else might do or say, for he believed that in thus deprecating and denying this attempted interference of the Executive he announced the rights and liberties of the people, and but asserted the dignity of a representative of the people. In doing this, he believed that lie was trying at least to bring back and reassert that sovereign power which was stealing away from the American people, and which must be recovered or free government is gone. There was nothing in which he could engage with more earnestness than in the work of resisting the interventions of the Executive in any matter which lies wholly with the people and their representatives. These were inalienable rights, and he would guard them jealously, and allow not the first symptom of interference: and for one--come weal or woe--he would stand by them and defend them to the utmost of his power.
Mr. KILGORE interposing. How was this message an interference with the Legislative power ?
Mr. DUNHAM. It was an interference simply because the. Constitution never contemplated that the Executive should attempt to interpret the Constitution for us, and define our duty : simply, because each one of us is supposed to have and to exercise the same power of reasoning and common judgment with His Excellency, and the same right to interpret the Constitution. For we are all required to cake the same oath that he has taken : and it is not his right to come in here in the way of interference in our prerogatives. He did not say that this was the exercise of any power, but he characterized it as an interference with the right and the dignity of the House of Representatives.
Mr. SIM (interposing.) Had not the Governor a right to advise with the General Assembly ? There was nothing like dictation in it.
Mr. DUNHAM. It was the right of the Governor to suggest such matter of legislation as his judgment shall approve as conducive of the interests of the people: but this is a matter of conscience of legal interpretation for our legislative action and guidance, not contemplated in the Constitution.
Mr. KILGORE. Did he understand the gentleman to say that the Governor has no right to call the attention of the House to this matter ?
Mr. DUNHAM. The Governor had no right to address the House except to call its attention to matter of legislative action.
Mr. COFFROTH. That was what he supposed the Governor desired in this message. He did not regard it as in any sense a dictation on the part of the Governor ; but it was simply calling our alteration to the fact, that there is a contrariety of views on the question whether Sunday is a legislative day--giving his own views and those of the Supreme Court Judges and others. He did think, on the first blush, and he still thought the ruling was wrong and it was for that purpose--to investigate the matter--that he had moved to refer it. He did not regard the message as in any sense offensive, or in the spirit of dictation.
Mr. MILLER, of Tippecanoe. As it appeared to him, there was nothing in this message either unusual, or inconsistent with the duty of the Executive, nor anything that could be considered otherwise page: 373[View Page 373] than as a suggestion for the public good. He hoped it would be referred.
Mr. REESE moved to refer the message to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Here there was a demand and second of the previous question, and under its force Mr. Reese's motion was rejected.
And then the message was referred to a select committee of five. Whereupon--
The SPEAKER announced the following gentlemen as members of said committee ; viz : Messrs. Coffroth, Church, Newcomb, Buskirk and Miller of Tippecanoe.
Mr. COFFROTH moved to reconsider the vote whereby the night session was ordered ; which was agreed to.
And then the order was rejected.
On motion by Mr. MILLER, of Tippecanoe, the bill S. 168 fixing the times of holding courts in the Third Judicial Circuit was taken up and read the second time.
On motion by Mr. OSBORN the bill S. 173 to enable boards of trustees of incorporated towns to authorize persons to enclose fronts for shade trees and ornamental purposes, was taken, up and read the second time.
And then at 6:10 P. M., the House adjourned till to-morrow morning at 9 'o'clock.
