HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
FRIDAY, December 8, 1865.The CLERK called the House to order at 9 o'clock A. M.
On motion by Mr. MILLER, Mr. Hamrick was called to the Chair.
On motion by Mr. SHUEY, the reading of the journal of Wednesday was dispensed with.
PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.
Mr. MONTGOMERY presented a temperance petition, and a memorial for a claim, which were appropriately referred, without reading.
Mr. SPENCER presented a memorial from the Commissioners of Posey county.
Mr. REESE presented a memorial from the Commissioners of Randolph county for repeal of the Soldiers' Relief law of 1865, which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. GOODMAN presented the petition of sundry citizens for a change in the Common School law - the districts may determine teachers and branches taught - which was referred to the Committee on Education.
Mr. HOOVER presented the memorial of J. B. McKee and others, of Miami county, against the pardon of Jefferson Davis, which, under the rule, was referred to the Committee on Federal Relations.
Mr. ABBETT presented the petition of sundry citizens of Bartholomew county on the subject of temperance, which was referred without reading.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Messrs. COWGILL, BOYD, GROVES and VEACH each presented favorable reports from the Committee on Claims. [Worden & Co.'s for $40 10 lies on the table.]
Mr. NEWCOMB, from the Committee on the Judiciary, returned Mr. Wood's Calumet canal bill, H. R. No. 86, recommending an amendment by way of substitute.
Mr. MAJOR, from the Committee on Fees and Salaries, returned Mr. Johnson's county officers' bill, H. R. No. 304, recommending that it be laid on the table.
He also returned the fees and salaries bill [S. No. 226] reporting that legislation thereon is inexpedient at this time.
Mr. BURNES, from a majority of the Committee on Rights and Privileges, returned Mr. Lemon's Thirteenth Article bill, H. R. No. 273, without recommendation, asking to be discharged from its further consideration.
Mr. BUSKIRK, from the Committee on Corporations, returned Mr. Kilgore's Insurance Agents' bill, H. R. No. 120, recommending that it be laid on the table, for the reason that its provisions are incorporated into a pending Senate bill.
He also returned the City Corporations bill [S. No. 80] recommending that it be laid on the table, for the reason that the subject-matter thereof is embraced in a pending bill.
Mr. FOULKE, from same committee, returned the Vernon Charter bill [S. No. 21] recommending its passage.
Mr. LOCKHART, (by consent), from the Committee on Railroads, returned the Branch Railroad bill, [S. No. 206], and the White River Navigation bill [S. No, 211], recommending their passage.
NEW PROPOSITIONS.
Mr. BRANHAM introduced a bill [H. R. 313] for an act abolishing the offices of President and Commissioner of the Sinking Fund; and transferring said Sinking Fund and management thereof to the Auditor and Treasurer of State, and defining their duties in relation thereto, providing for the investment of the Sinking Fund in the stocks of the State, the execution of non-negotiable bonds in certain cases, and for distribution of interest accruing to said Sinking Fund; and declaring an emergency. [On the 26th of January, 1866 - said bonds, mortgages, stocks and securities to be funded in non-negotiable bonds of the State bearing six per cent interest. Interest sacred for the support of common schools. Fund Commissioners to make final settlement January 26, 1867.]
It was passed to the second reading and 300 copies ordered to be printed.
Mr.RICE submitted the following:
Resolved, That the Lieutenant Governor be requested to send immediately to this House, the letter written by Charles Butler, of New York, to Governor Morton, on the subject of the adjustment of the State debt.
It was adopted.
Mr. MILLER introduced a bill. [H. R. 314] for an act to raise revenue for the expenses of the year 1866, and repealing the second section of the act of March 2, 1865, for the revenue of 1865 and 1866. [Ten cents on the $100, $1 50 on each poll.]
It wras passed to the second reading.
Mr. STRINGER introduced a bill [H. R. 315] for An Act to amend section 104 of the Valuation and Assessment Act of June 21,1862. [It allows the County Treasurer 10 per cent of delinquent taxes collected, instead of five - and Sheriff fees and mileage to be paid by the delinquent.]
It was referred to the Committee on Fees and Salaries.
Mr. MILROY submitted the following:
Resolved, That the Auditor of State be requested to report to this House as soon as practicable what amount of money has been paid to the State Printer for the year 1865.
page: 168[View Page 168]It was adopted.
Mr. HOWARD introduced a bill [H. R. 316] for An Act to amend section 17 of the act providing for the government and discipline of the State Prison, and repealing acts on this subject, approved March 3,1856, and February 7,1857.
It was referred to the Committee on the State Prison South.
Mr. COWGILL introduced a bill [H. R, 317] for An Act to amend the 21st section of the act regulating general elections and prescribing the duty of officers in relation thereto, approved June 7, 1852. [It adds to the oath to this effect: "And that you never departed from the jurisdiction in which you are enrolled and went beyond the limits of the United States to avoid any draft, but that when you were drafted you rendezvoused in obedience to notice, and did not depart without permission," ets.]
It was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. HENRICKS introduced a bill [H. R. 318] for an act to amend the first section of the act to incorporate the St. Joseph Iron Company, approved January 22, 1865. [It adds to the privilege to manufacture Iron this: "And other articles."]
INDIANAPOLIS CRIMINAL COURT.
Mr. NEWCOMB called up the special order, namely, his Indianapolis Criminal Court bills, Nos. 277 to 280, and 300, and moved that they be made the special order immediately after the State Debt bill shall be disposed of.
It was so ordered.
STATE DEBT SINKING FUND.
The special order, namely, the consideration of the Joint Committees State Debt Sinking Fund bill [H. R. 285], was taken up - the question being on the final passage thereof.
Mr. COFFROTH, being entitled to the floor, reviewed Mr. Pettit's construction of the acts of Congrees exempting stocks from taxation. He regretted that Mr. P. was not in his place. He first submitted the objection to the bill in section 4, where it is provided that after paying the interest on all the debts including the war debt, of the remainder, 70 per cent, goes towards liquidation of the 5 per cents., and 30 per cent, towards the 2 1/2 per cents. Now the 2 1/2's rate at about 80 cents on the dollar. The 5's are about par. It was probable that these both would go down to half par. But we don't buy them at the market value, but buy their face. If they they should run down to 50 cents it was plain that the loss to the State would be just half the debt.
Mr. BRANHAM. Would't we make more money by repudiating the whole debt?
Mr. COFFROTH could not see the point of the suggestion. All States buy up their bonds at their market value.
Mr. MILLER. Suppose we make such legislation as will reduce them to ten cents on the hundred dollars?
Mr. COFFROTH did not understand that their value could be controlled by legislation. He then proceeded to show, that whether the debt be due or not, the bill is wrong. If the debt be due, the bill does not provide adequately for its payment; and if it be hot due, the people are not in a condition to be taxed for its payment. Never was there a worse time for taxation. The Federal and State and local taxes were enormous. Especially was it not the time to tax for this purpose, when one-fifth or one-sixth of the entire amount of the taxable property of the State is exempt from taxation.
He argued that if the words "at the pleasure of the State" were to be taken as meaning that the debt is not due, it might never be due. The current history of our legislation went to show that the debt is now due in point of time. But these conclusions were useless; because, whether due or not, the bill is wrong.
He came then to consider whether we should tax now to pay the State debt. He complained that the majority had determined, in caucus, to support this bill before it was considered in the House - before the considerations were presented for the information of our judgment. It was really not at all a party question. The minority had voted as a unit against because it was manifestly wrong.
Mr. CHURCH knew of no caucus on the subject: but it was sufficient to command his vote, that the Democrats were against it.
Mr. COFFROTH was not controlled by any such consideration. The gentleman was not at the caucus: he may have been at the Theater. But if the bill passes here, we will take the question to a forum where there can be no predetermination - the forum of the people.
He submitted whether it was right that the whole of this State Debt burden be taken from the capitalists and placed on the shoulders of the labor of the State. He then replied in detail to the argument of Mr. Speaker Pettit, submitting statements in figures which can not be justty sketched, and would exceed our space. He summed up the capital of the seventy national banks in the State. In this, the Sixth Congressional District, these banks had a capital of about three millions, - which he thought would embrace about one-fifth of the National Banking capital in the State, and that would give the grand total in the State of about fifteen millions.
He got his estimates from one of our most intelligent National Bank Presidents. He had made his estimate of this total at $14,000,000, and the Government deposits with these banks at $1,000,000, including, also, the U. S. securities held by the Free Banks. Then, $35,000,000 of Government stocks were held by the people. Then, the circulation - Treasury notes and National currency - in the loyal States he estimated in round numbers at $1,000,000,000. This would give to Indiana for her share, say 150,000,000 - Indiana being an average State. So his estimate of $100,000,000 exempt from taxation was exceeded by the sum of estimates just recited.
Mr. HIGGINS. The gentleman counts it twice - the bonds and the currency. The circulation emanates from the capital.
Mr. COFFROTH. Not at allor if so, it was proper; because the bonds were held by the banks - the currency by the people. The capital was taxed against - the banks, the circulation against the people.
He then referred to the allegation of Mr. Speaker Pettit, that the stocks of these banks are subject to taxation. But not a dollar of it was on the duplicate; not a stockholder pays a dollar of tax on his stock, so far as he knew. The gentleman says deposits are taxed in the hands of depositors. But a deposit was a special loan. In the case of individuals, the page: 169[View Page 169] holder of the deposit and the holder of the note therefor were both taxed. It was not so in the case of these national banks holding deposits of the people; because (as he showed) the deposits were greenbacks. He referred to the decision in the case of Widtney against the city of Madison - November term of the Supreme Court, 1864 - p. 331, to the effect, that bank stock and stock of the United States held as bank capital, are not taxable.
Mr. COWGILL asserted that this decision was under an act of Congress passed prior to that read by Mr. Pettit.
Mr. COFFROTH replied that Mr. Pettit read from the act of June 3, 1864, and this decision was in November of the same year. The Court places it upon constitutional grounds - then taxation is prohibited by the constitution, and not by virtue of any act of Congress. The Supreme Court had made this decision, and, rteht or wrong, it was a rule unto us.
Mr. NEWCOMB. The act of Congress provides that the shares may be taxed.
Mr. COFFROTH. The statute simply says, page 112 of the statutes at large of 1863-64, that they may be taxed if the State or municipal authorities have the authority so to do simply throwing the question back upon the constitution. So he answered Mr. Pettit as to this. He then replied to Mr. P.' s allegation, that greenbacks are taxable as money. He showed from the act of Congress that reenbacks were treasury notes; and that "all bonds, treasury notes, and other securities of the United States" shall be exempt from taxation. He read further from the act to the same effect, that all currency including coupons and stamps, shall be exempt.
Mr. MILLER. Would it have made any difference if this provision of the act had not been passed.
Mr. COFFROTH. Perhaps not so far as bonds are concerned. It was a decision by Judge Marshall, who was constantly disposed to favor the central power. The only appeal from this hardship was to the people. So far as the national currency was concerned, there would be a clear right to tax that, were it not for this act of Congress; and notwithstanding that act, he still regarded it as an open question, that national currency could be taxed by State or municipal authority. The act of 1865 did not militate against the act of 1864. If a more injurious and infernal way of defrauding the people were desirable, or which would be more fruitful of revenue to the privileged class, it could not have been devised better than this system, the creature of that political charletan, Salmon P. Chase. Capitalists make from 35 and 40 to 50 per cent, annually on their investments in these national banks. No national bank was making less than 35 per cent, per annum.
In reply to the hopefulness of Mr. P. that the people will still endure taxation, because they had endured a tax of 300 cents on the hundred dollars, he said, it was like the practice of Dr. Sangrador - warm water and bleed, and bleeding and warm water till the patient dies.
The County Commissioners were not restricted from levying the whole amount of the local county tax in one year, as the gentleman from Wabash had said. With reference to the gentleman's allegation, that we would have had no troubles and no debt if the party of the minority here had been true to the flag, he would say nothing, but admit that the gentleman himself did take military service as Colonel of the 75th regiment; and when the regimen marched to the field the gentleman marched home.
Mr. COWGILL denied that Mr. P., his colleague, ever accepted a Colonel's commission.
Mr. COFFROTH. The gentleman from Wabash was commandant of the post, but he insisted upon nothing about that, only he thought it an ungenerous fling at the party, and that it came with a bad grace from the gentleman, in the face of those of the minority on this floor, [Mr. Milroy and others,] who had served in the Held as well.
The House then took a recess till 2 o'clock P. M.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
On motion by Mr. SHUEY, Mr. Veach obtained leave of absence on account of his wife's sickness.
LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS.
On motion by Mr. BROWN, his Locomotive Engineer bill [H. R. 301,] was taken up and made the special order for to-morrow, 10 o'clock.
STATE DEBT SINKING FUND.
Mr. BROWN" (being entitled to the floor,) addressed the House at length against the bill. [The speech is reserved for correction.]
Mr. MILLER. As he understood the question raised but the objectors to the bill, it was this: Should the payment of the public debt be provided for at this time, when $100,000,000 of Government bonds are in the hands of a portion of the people not subject to taxation? There was a vast difference in the estimates of the gentleman from Huntington and the gentleman from Wabash, as to the amount of these bonds exempted. Whether the one or the other was right, it made no difference with respect to the main question here; in either case, it was still right to adjust the State debt. He justified this exemption of bonds from taxation. It obtained money at par to carry on the war.
Mr. COFFROTH. What was the difference between the right to draft for money, and to draft for blood?
Mr. MILLER. The Government got both men and money when they wanted them - got money and secured the draft. The same cry of opposition would have gone up against the draft for money as was heard in certain quarters against the draft for men. He showed that it was absolutely necessary to exempt the bonds from taxation, in order to get the money. Otherwise the city of New York would have reduced the Government bonds twenty per cent. Then, if they were not protected, unfriendly legislation would tax these bodds so as to drive them out of existence.
Mr. COFFROTH. But assessments for taxation must be uniform.
Mr. MILLER. Taxation could not be uniform - the rate could not be uniform either in the cities of the State, or in the different States of the Union. To tax these bonds was a little like taxing money in the pocket. The General Government, a sovereign, should not be taxed by the municipality - nor should the General page: 170[View Page 170] Government be overrode by the States. It was the old secession heresy of State Rights. This States Rights taxation would place the General Government in the power of unfriendly States. It was not necessary to say that at the time those bonds were offered, the Ship of State was well nigh foundered, the hissing cry came up from the Sons of Liberty: "Not a dollar, not a man to carry on this unholy war." They said these bonds were not worth the paper; and gentlemen to-day were trying lo make that declaration good. How were these bonds distributed? They were divided among the people without respect to any favored class. This appealing to the prejudice of laborers against capitalists would not avail. Governor Willard - that best of Democratic tacticians - said, this was the reason why the Democracy always succeeded: they appealed not to the prejudices, but only to the patriotism of the people. The right to tax these bonds was founded in principle as deep as the foundations of the Government itself. This tenacity of sovereignty was the foundation stone of the Government.
Mr. BUSKIRK. Was the gentleman in favor of the General Government taxing their bonds?
Mr. MILLER. He was for the General Government doing just what they are doing with them. Gentlemen held as much wild land as they pleased without taxation by the General Government. Without these bonds, the national debt could not be funded at less than 8 per cent. It would not take as large a per cent. of the property in the country to pay off the entire national debt, as it would to fund these bonds. When he had concluded -
Mr. DUNMAM took the floor and spoke an hour in opposition to the bill. [His speech is reserved for authentication. It will be printed hereafter.]
Mr. SHUEY said it might surprise his friend from Floyd if he were to announce that the question before us was the adjustment of our State debt. He was disappointed at seeing gentlemen indulge in these diversions in this debate. The gentleman from Huntington rejects this bill, but fails to propose any adjustment of the debt in its place. He gave way for -
Mr. NEWCOMB, who moved for a night session at 7 o'clock - affirmative 34, negative 30 - no quorum voting. The motion was then withdrawn.
Mr. SHUEY proceeded. He replied to Mr. Coffroth's allegation, that the State would lose $600,000 by paying the public debt, as the bill proposes, at par value. Would not the gentleman be making a pretty figure for the State, buying up its own bonds at a shave. Such a thing would be dishonorable in an individual, much more in a great State. The gentleman would have the State's creditors wait till the Democratic party shall get power again. He trusted that day would never come. Would the gentleman repudiate the debt of the nation? There was no Taney nor Perkins to sustain him in such a course. He remembered in that day of trial when the Government offered these bonds, some of the stump speeches of Democrats alleging that greenbacks were worthless and the Government stocks would turn out as valueless as the old Continental currency. And in this way it was by these speeches on every Democratic lip and tonguethat the Government was compelled to resort to exemption of the bonds from taxation. It was a child of their own begetting.
To a genuine Union man the burden of taxation was not onerous. He complains not, because he regards what has been procured by these national obligations. He was not at all alarmed at the gentleman's determination to take this issue before the people - to cry aloud and spare not: and he thought he appreciated the influence he and his party might command. He recited what the bill proposes. It was but a return to the original contract and engagement of the State in 1846. But, if he could have had his way, he would have put the bill in such a shape as to pay, first the 2 1/2 per cents then he would have paid the five per cents.; and then the sixes - the war bonds. But still he thought the bill was the best bill for this adjustment that was likely to come before the General Assembly this session, and therefore he should support it with his vote.
On motion by Mr. GRIFFITH, the House (at 5 P. M.) adjourned.
