HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
WEDNESDAY, January 23, 1867.The House met at 9 o'clock.
On the motion of Mr. PRATHER, the reading of the journal of yesterday was dispensed with, excepting that portion which relates to the election of United States Senator.
Mr. SCAMMAHORN, obtaining leave, recorded his vote for Morton.
Mr. CARTER, obtaining leave, recorded his vote for Voorhees.
Mr. FUNK obtained leave of absence on account of sickness in his family.
Mr. FERRIS presented the petition of R. J. Chestnutwood and others, of St. Joseph county, praying relief of Ezekiel Green, Treasurer of said county, against the repayment, of $948 41 collected for taxes, which was burglariously stolen from the county safe in the Court House on the night of the 6th of January, 1864. It was referred to the Committee on Claims.
Mr. COREY presented the petition of A. B. Lyons and others, of the Franklin County Agricultural Society, asking for such a change in the law organizing agricultural societies as to require two directors from
page: 85[View Page 85]REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Mr. PEELLE, from the Committee on the organization of Courts, returned Mr. Chambers' Court bill [H. R. 51] recommending its passage.
Mr. MOORE, from the same Committee, returned Mr. Chambers' Court bill [H. R. 49] recommending its passage.
Mr. DUNN, from the same Committee, returned Mr. Chambers' Court bill [H. R. 50] without amendment, recommending its passage.
Mr. MONTGOMERY, from the same Committee, returned Mr. Ratliff's Grant County Court bill [H. R. 53] recommending its passage.
Mr. HIGGINS, from the Committee on the Two Prisons, reported back his prison bill [H. R. 72] recommending its passage.
Mr. HUGHES obtained leave of the Judiciary Committee to sit to-day during the session of the House.
Mr. Speaker Branham obtained leave of absence on account of sickness-Mr. Higgins in the Chair.
Mr. SABIN, from the Committee on Fees and Salaries, returned Mr. Hamilton's Marion Prosecuting Salary bill [H. R. 77,] with a recommendation that it be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
It was so referred.
Mr. MILLER, from the Committee on Railroads, returned his railroad bill recommending its passage.
Mr. MASON, from the Committee on County and Township business, returned Mr. Skidmore's bill No. 84, recommending its passage.
Mr. HARTMAN, from the Committee on Railroads, returned the Senate Railroad purchase bill [S. 21] recommending its passage.
RESOLUTIONS,
On motion by Mr. McFADDEN, it was -
Resolved, That the Committee on Agriculture be instructed to inquire into and report to this House, the propriety of passing a law authorizing and empowering County Commissioners to make appropriations out of the county funds for the purchase of suitable grounds to be held and owned by the Agricultural Society for each county for the use and purpose of holding the annual county fairs thereon.
On motion of Mr. LOPP, it was -
Resolved, That all those having claims against the State be requested to present them at their earliest convenience.
On motion of Mr. WOLFER, it was -
Resolved, That the Committee on Ways and Means be instructed to inquire into the propriety of further extending the time to correct the assessment of taxes on real estate so that the same may be corrected at any time by making applications to the Commissioners of the proper county before the taxes are paid.
APPORTIONMENT.
Mr. CHAMBERS offered the following:
Resolved, That the Speaker appoint a committee of five to report a bill reapportioning the State for Representative and Senatorial purposes, said bill to be prepared without regard to the political character of the counties, looking only to population and location in cases where two or more counties are to be joined in representation.
Mr. FOULKE. We have already a committee on that subject.
Mr. WOLFE would prefer the composition of the committee to be five members for each political party.
Mr. NEWCOMB moved to refer it to the special committee on apportionment.
Mr. CHAMBERS had noticed that nearly all the apportionment bills offered were political in their character. But looking at the subject even selfishly, he thought it best to do what was right, both for the purpose of retaining and gaining power. The committee heretofore appointed would, from its constitution, report favorably to one side. Therefore, he proposed a committee that each district, instead of one from each township.
It was referred to the Committee on Agriculture.
would report an honest bill - that is, such a bill as an individual would get up, knowing nothing about the political character of the counties. He believed that no bill had yet been introduced that he could vote for.
Mr. SHULL moved to lay the amendment on the table, but did not press it.
Mr. NEWCOMB saw a great impropriety in appointing two committees on the same subject. If we appoint a new committee we ought to discharge the old one. This ordering the committee to disregard the political character of the counties would amount to nothing. It was not at all likely that either majority or minority could agree upon a bill entirely unobjectionable - so as not to be liable to the charge of political favoritism. Such a charge he supposed could be applied to every legislative apportionment bill that has been passed or would be. The object of his motion to refer was that the Committee might consider the suggestion: and he thought the present Committee as competent to do the business as any that could be named. If you appoint a committee of five of each party, and wait till they report, you will have no apportionment this session. He preferred that the resolution go to the present Apportionment Committee, and believed they would report a fair bill.
Mr. SHUEY. The adoption of the resolution would be a direct insult to the Committee on Apportionment.
Mr. PRATHER had introduced the first apportionment bill, and was appointed chairman of that special committee. They lad not yet had a meeting, because bills on he subject were yet being introduced. He cared nothing for charges of corruption in his connection; and being assured of the competency of that committee, he advised hat all apportionment propositions should be referred to that Committee. That course would result best in action.
Mr. CHAMBERS disclaimed any thought if reflection or offense to the special committee. He understood that there was no occasion for political concern about this matter.
page: 86[View Page 86]Mr. VAN VALKENBURG saw no impropriety in the resolution, but good reason for it in the character of many apportionment bills which had been introduced.
Mr. BELFORD hoped the resolution would be rejected. He was opposed to parting with power or sharing it with Democrats. That party never did so. It was an unheard of courtesy. Republicans would not favor an iniquitous bill, outraging the rights of the minority. We have a good committee, and he would hold on to them. He would do right, though he confessed himself a partisan; and if there was advantage in this matter, it should inure to the Union party.
Mr. WRIGHT considered that the resolution was disrespectful to the Committee and to the Speaker appointing it. The members of the Committee were not on it by their own choice. They would report a fair bill.
Mr. MILLER. This was not a business way of doing business. We have a committee on this subject that would act as well as that proposed by the gentleman from Henry. He moved to lay the resolution on the table.
Mr. CHAMBERS desired to modify the resolution because it was thought to be offensive. He would make it a resolution of instruction to the Special Committee on Apportionment.
The yeas and nays being demanded, ordered and taken on Mr. Miller's motion, resulted - yeas 49, nays 39 - as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Belford, Bischof, Blanch, Brucker, Daggy, Dunn, Evans, Ferris, Foulke, Geisendorff, Gordon, Greer. Griggs, Hamilton, Higgins, Hopkins, Hughes, Litson, Martin, Mason, McCarthy, McClasky, McLean, McMurray, Miller, Moore, Newcomb, North, Peelle, Prather, Ratliff, Rosser, Sabin, Shook, Shuey, Skidmore, Smith of Lagrange, Smith of Wabash, Spencer, Stafford, Stewart, Thrasher, Thomas, Wason, Watson, Wilson, Wolfer, Woods and Wright - 49.
NAYS - Messrs. Baker, Barritt, Bird, Black, Bubo, Carter, Chambers, Corey, Crowe, Douglass, Edmonson, Erwin, Fuller, Green, Honneus, Hostetter, Hudson, Hungate, Inman, Kizer, Lopp, Matthis, McFadden, Morrison, Montgomery, Ross, Scammahorn, Shanks. Shields, Shoeff, Shull, Stackhouse, Tebbs, Thacher, Van Valkenburgh, Vawter, Williams, White and Wolfe - 39.
So the resolution was laid on the table.
NEW PROPOSITIONS.
Bills for acts of the General Assembly, numbered and titled to the following effect, were introduced:
By Mr. PEELLE. [H. R. 116] in relation to joint stock companies, organized under the laws of the State of Indiana. ]Said companies having deposited securities with the Auditor, may withdraw the same by showing certificates required by law.]. It was referred to the Committee on Corporations.
By Mr. GRIGGS, [H. R. 117] to amend the 6th section of the act regarding estrays and articles adrift, approved June 16, 1852. [The printers' fee to be $3, where the article advertised is $15and over.] It was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. NEWCOMB, [H. R. 118] prescribing and regulating the fees of sheriffs, and repealing all former laws in relation thereto. [Serving writ fifty cents - mileage ten cents - attending Court per day three dollars, &c.] It was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. WHITE, [H. R. 119] to amend the 76th section of the practice act of June 17, 1852, [respecting change of venue.] It was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. VAWTER, [H. R. 120] for protection of the ballot box and to prevent illegal voting. [It proposes to make the offense a felony - fine and imprisonment. It was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. HOPKINS, [H. R. 121] providing for the incorporation of electric telegraph companies.
By Mr. GRIGGS, H. R. 122] to amend the 468th section of the general practice act of June 18, 1852. It was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. WILLIAMS, [H. R. 123] repealing the act to discourage the keeping of sheep-killing dogs; also repealing the act licensing dogs; and providing that nothing in this act shall conflict with the acts of June 15, 1852, and March 2, 1855. It was referred to the Committee on Agriculture.
By Mr. HAMILTON, [H. R. 124] requiring convicts sentenced to confinement in the county jail, to be confined to hard labor therein. It was referred to Judiciary Committee.
By Mr. MASON, [H. R. 125] for the relief of Daniel A. Bynam, Treasurer of Greene county, [for the repayment of $1,700 lost. It was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
LEGISLATIVE EXPENSES, &C.
On the motion of Mr. THACHER, the order of business was suspended, and the House took up the Legislative Appropriation bill [S. 26] with the pending amendments reported from the Committee on Ways and Means, affecting the compensation of the clerks and police of the two Houses, so as to make it conform to the law of last winter, and adding $40,000 for expenses of the Benevolent Institutions of the State to the 31st day of March, 1867.
Mr. KIZER The $40,000 for the institutions here, looked like selfishness somewhere about Indianapolis. He was in favor of these institutions, and especially should we care for the Hospital for the Insane.
Mr. STAFFORD. Perhaps the gentleman from Allen thinks he and his party have not far to go themselves to get into the crazy asylum.
page: 87[View Page 87]Mr. NEWCOMB explained, that this was not an extra appropriation for these institutions.
Mr. WOLFE was opposed to taking foreign matter upon any bill.
Mr. SHUEY learning that the pay of the Doorkeeper's assistants was reduced by the amendment from $5 to $4 a day, he animadverted on the reasons that might have induced the reduction, coming to the conclusion that it was unjust.
Mr. FOULKE spoke against exorbitant prices. He could furnish assistants for business like that of the Doorkeeper for $2 a day.
NEWCOMB replied to Mr. Shuey. It was easy to be generous when it costs nothing But there would be a difference if we were hiring this labor for ourselves as individuals. He defended the discriminations between clerks and other employees, well as between the grades of clerks. He could wish that none of these employees were taken from Marion County.
The reported amendments were concurred in, and the bill was considered as engrossed, read the third time, and passed the House of Representatives - yeas 65, nays 16.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Mr. LITSON said he found in this morning's Herald an editorial animadverting on the fact that he did not vote yesterday in the election for United States Senator. And the JOURNAL and Herald both gave him the unusual prominence of one refraining from voting in caucus on the Senatorial nominations, because of conscientious scruples. He did not refrain from voting on account of conscientious scruples. Governor Morton was his first choice: but it was in deference to the opinions of older men - his colleagues - men long and favorably known in the State, and whose opinions he had been taught to believe - that he did not vote. He could make no appeal to the Herald, but as to the JOURNAL he did hope it would refrain in future from giving him such prominence in this matter.
Mr. Crain had leave of absence till Monday.
THE CALENDAR.
In the orders of the day -
Mr. Miller's road bill [H. R. 114] coming up, it was read the second time.
On motion by Mr. MILLER, it was referred to the Committee on Roads.
On motion by Mr. MILLER, the title amendment bill [S. 17] was taken up and passed to the third reading.
Mr. Montgomery's County Commissioners fees bill [H. R. 11] coming up it was read the second time, and passed to the engrossment and third reading.
Mr. Woods' practice relief bill [H. R. 8] coming up, it was read the third time.
Mr NEWCOMB (in the authors' temporary absence) showed that the bill amends a section in the procedure code, in which injustice some times is unavoidably done. It was not objectionable that it was retrospective in its operation.
Mr. SHUEY explained further the necessity for the bill. It was retrospective only in this particular, that in cases where these mistakes already exist, they can be corrected in one year.
The bill was passed the House of Representatives - yeas 87, nays 0.
Mr. Greer obtained leave of absence till Friday.
Mr. LITSON obtained leave and submitted the following:
Resolved, That the Committee on Military Affairs he authorized to employ a clerk for so long a time as the committee shall deem necessary.
It was adopted; affirmative 37, negative 15.
Mr. DAGGY obtained leave and submitted the following:
Resolved, That a special committee of one from each Judicial Circuit be appointed, whose duty it shall be to inquire into the expediency and necessity of redistricting the State so that the same shall be more nearly equal in size, in length of time, and in the labor to be performed by Judges. Also, into the expediency of in-increasing the number of Circuit ; and that all petitions, resolutions and bills on said subject be referred to said committee, and that they report by bill or otherwise.
He offered considerations in favor of the resolution.
Mr. STAFFORD. We have a standing committee on the subject of the organization of courts, and he was opposed to raising so many committees.
Mr. DAGGY was willing to trust the standing committee, but he thought the general importance of the subject would authorize a special committee.
Mr. WATSON said it seemed important to have a thorough investigation of this matter. He showed inequality in the arrangement of the 7th and 13th circuits already proposed, and this was a consideration with him in favor of the resolution.
On the motion of Mr. MILLER (the hour of 12 M. having arrived) a resolution was adopted for an order to prepare seats and invite the Senate into the hall for comparison of the United States Senatorial vote taken yesterday.
Mr. PEELLE supported Mr. Daggy's resolution.
It was then adopted.
Mr. KIZER submitted the following:
Resolved, That the pay per diem to which the clerks of the different committees are entitled shall cease as soon as the work referred to them shall be accomplished.
It was rejected.
page: 88[View Page 88]14TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT.
Mr. Woods' 14th Circuit bill [H. R. 12] coming up -
Mr. NEWCOMB said under the resolution just adopted, this bill would go to the new committee.
It was so ordered.
Mr. McLEAN obtained leave of absence till next week.
IN JOINT CONVENTION.
The Senate having been received and seated in the Hall in joint convention -
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. Gentlemen of the convention, you have met in joint convention for the purpose of comparing the separate action taken yesterday in both Houses in relation to the election of a United States Senator to succeed the Hon. Henry S. Lane, and to take such action as the act of Congress requires. Is it the pleasure of the convention that the journals of the two Houses in relation to said election be read?
It was so ordered by consent, and said journals were read accordingly.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. Gentlemen, you have heard the journals, from which it appears, that Oliver P. Morton received a majority of all the votes cast. Is it the pleasure of the convention that Oliver P. Morton be declared elected Senator of the United States for the State of Indiana, to serve for six years succeeding the term of the Hon. Henry S. Lane.
A VOICE. "Yeas and nays."
The declaration was taken by unanimous consent of the Convention.
The Convention then adjourned, and Senators retired.
The House then took a recess till 2 o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
On motion by Mr. MILLER - (in the Speaker's temporary absence) - it was -
Ordered, That Mr. Higgins, of Laporte, be requested to take the Chair.
Mr. HARTMAN (by unanimous consent) submitted the report of the Committee on Mileage and Accounts - for fixing the mileage of members of the House of Representatives.
It was concurred in.
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
The House now took up the Special Order, viz: the consideration of the joint resolution [S. No. 1]for ratification of the United States Constitutional Amendment - it being the XlVth Article proposed by Congress for the ratification of the Legislatures of the several States.
Mr. GREEN took the floor and spoke half an hour in opposition, first and most especially to the first section. He held that it was insincerely drafted, and in its very terms a hypocrisy and fraud intended to destroy the power of the States to determine the status of citizenship; and that its ratification would be a dangerous, if not a crowning step towards that consideration against which the country has been warned by the fathers. And he denounced it as a sectional, partisan effort to degrade the ballot, by conferring suffrage upon the inferior and incompetent blacks.
He passed over the second section, leaving its discussion to others.
By the operation of the third section, the reins of government in the States lately in rebellion would fall into the hands of the blacks. It was an insult to the heroism of the South, so gallantly distinguished on so many bloody fields, though in a hopeless and wicked cause; and if accepted by that people it would be when they shall have lost their boasted manhood. He was no apologist for the rebellion, and allowed no man to surpass him in devotion to the Union of our fathers.
With reference to the fourth section he said: What is this debt, the validity of which shall never be questioned? By the acts of Congress of March 3, 1863, and of June 30, 1864, we are involved in a debt of $1,300,000,000 These bonds are in the hands of capitalists and exempt from taxation, bearing six per cent interest, payable in gold. This is the debt which we are called upon never to question. The history of the world confirms the assertion, that there never was a nation but by the force of events has been compelled to readjust its public debt. But to incorporate this into the Constitution would be to estop that.
The 5th section was to operate as a penalty by which the others were to be enforced; for without a penalty no law could be enforced. By this section, if it should see proper, Congress was to have the power to declare that every man, woman or child in the country who shall dare to question the validity of this debt, shall live an exile, be brought to the guillotine, or suffer incarceration in a dungeon. But we are told that the faith of the nation was irrevocably pledged to those men who came forward and laid their money on the altar of their country. Sir, if this faith of the Government was pledged to any, it was to the stout hearts and strong arms that beat back the enemy, and protected our homes and firesides in the rebellion, When he had concluded -
Mr. DUNN said he would have wished this debate had been closed under the previous question; so that the ratification might go forth to the world a day earlier than it would now. The opposition here page: 89[View Page 89] had its basis in ignorance and tyranny reviewed the objects of the amendment. Was it in the love of change - which can result in no good? No; but because the common safety of the people and the prosperity of our government demand it Charles Lamb once said to his friend, ''What a glorious land you would have if dirt were trumps!" He quoted Chancellor Kent to show that suffrage was not a right inherent in citizenship - that few negroes were citizens, but under disabilities prescribed by their States with reference to free persons of color. Gentlemen put an interpretation one one portion of this amendment diametrically opposed to another portion claiming that suffrage is conferred on the negroes by the past section. But the construction was set aside by the second section. He also quoted the declaration of the court in the case of Corfield vs. Corfer, to show the fallacy of the inference that negro suffrage is conferred by the third section. He then replied to the objection that the amendment but repeats the principles of the civil rights bill. Well, we propose to make those principles permanent by writing them in the fundamental law. If you desire to keep the negro out of your State, protect him where he is. If you have not this amendment, and the civil rights bill be declared unconstitutional, the negro will be in a worse condition than he was before his emancipation! He saw no consistency in the course of gentlemen who would not admit red-handed rebels to Congress, and yet oppose this amendment, which was expressly intended to prohibit such. To the plea that this is the white man's government, he replied that he had been taught that this government was to be an asylum for the weak and down-trodden of all nations, without respect to race or color. He denounced the conservatism that opposes reforms. But reform would rule, notwithstanding the efforts and oppositions of a bigotry, which, like the pupil of the eye, contracts under the power of the light thrown upon it.
Mr. BAKER. If it were possible to deliberate on a subject predetermined, this subject demanded deliberation. It was a proposition for a radical change of the fundamental principles of the government of our fathers - the principle upon which it has been so long and so successfully administered. He considered the second clause affecting the basis of Congressional representation. The gentleman from Lawrence had just argued that the States have control of this. Discussing the status of the people of the States lately in rebellion, he quoted from Governor Morton's September speech at Richmond making logical deductions, for which he was obliged to His Excellency. It was hardly necessary to discuss the right or wrong of negro suffrage. Was there anything in the history of Mexico to induce the people of this country to follow their example. But this second section holds out a bribe for negro suffrage, and for this reason mainly he opposed it. The restriction about the invalidity of the debt did not pay the debt. Taxation was to do that. As to the plea that we should provide against the payment of the rebel debt, he affirmed that there is no rebel debt. With respect to the similarity of language in the first resolution and in the Civil Rights bill, he quoted the words of Senator Trumbull, that he hoped to see the day when the judges would declare that it conferred the right of suffrage upon the negro.
Mr. MOORE, being a young member, did not propose to be long on the floor. The amendment was demanded to secure what has been gained by the war. It was necessary to secure the public credit. It had been contended that the first provision conferred suffrage - that citizenship included suffrage. But the Constitution of the United States contradicts the assumption. It recognized a boy of eighteen years as a citizen. But that did not make him a voter. Women and children were citizens; yet it never has been pretended that they were therefore voters. He replied further. We exercised the right of suffrage here, because it is conferred by the State Constitution. This amendment did not propose to determine who shall be citizens of a State. If the Government be reorganized on the principle proposed here by the opposition, the political power of the States will be doubted. The known disloyalty of the Southern people necessitated this amendment, whilst it was but right in itself that there should be equality in the distribution of political power. He argued also the justice of excluding perjured leaders of the rebellion from office. But if after a reasonable probation, they should be found repentant and loyal, the country would doubtless be ready to remove the disability, when it could be done without jeopardizing the public safety.
Mr. CORY. Is it competent for the General Government to decide who shall be citizens of the several States?
Mr. MOORE. If it should be part of the Constitution, it would be competent.
Mr. SHUEY. The House having confided this subject to his charge, he was constrained to demand the previous question; and there was a second - affirmative 53, negative not counted.
Mr. SHUEY close the discussion, replying first to the gentleman from Miami (Mr. Ross). The gentleman had said that negroes were not citizens. But Chancellor Kent decides that accident of birth confers page: 90[View Page 90] citizenships. So also decides Mr. Attorney General Bates. Then, again says the gentleman, if he is a citizen he is a voter.
Mr. ROSS. If the constitutional amendment is adopted.
Mr. SHUEY remembered the qualification, but was it not smoked out by the interrogatory of the gentleman from Elkhart? (Mr. Woods). Civil rights were inherent were of God; political rights were conferred by constitutions. To Mr, Ross' objection to the fourth section, when he said, Why tie up our hands as to this debt? he said there were fifty men now, at the present time, assuming to represent Southern States, and asking for seats in Congress, and they were backed by the entire Democratic party. These men were asking the country to assume and pay the rebel debt. There was the necessity for tying up. There was never a demand made by the South which Democrats were not willing to concede, and therefore he would tie up their hands against it. It was not true that there was an attempt to force negro suffrage, though under certain circumstances it might seem so. For he declared that he had more faith in a loyal negro than in a disloyal white man. And in this he believed that he had the concurrence of all the soldiers of the war. When he concluded -
The vote was taken under the force of the previous question, resulting - yeas 55, nays 36 - as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Belford, Bischof, Blanch, Brucker, Chambers, Daggy, Donaldson, Dunn, Erwin, Evans, Ferris, Foulke, Geisendorff, Gordon, Griggs, Hartman, Hamilton, Higgins, Hopkins, Hudson, Hughes, Litson, Long of Kosciusko, Martin, Mason, McCarthy, McClasky, McMurray, Miller, Moore, Newcomb, North, Peelle, Prather, Ratliff, Rosser, Sabin, Scammahorn, Shook, Shuey, Skidmore, Smith of Lagrange, Smith of Wabash, Spencer, Stafford, Stewart, Thrasher, Thomas, Wason, Watson, Wilson, Wolfer, Wolflin, Woods and Wright - 55.
NAYS - Messrs. Baker, Barritt, Bird, Black, Bobo, Carter, Corey, Crowe, Douglass, Edmonson, Fuller, Green. Hays, Honneus, Hostetter, Hungate, Inman, Kiser, Lopp, Matthis, McFadden, Morrison, Montgomery, Ross, Shanks, Shields, Shoaff, Shull, Stackhouse, Tebbs, Thacher, Van Valkenburg, Vawter, Williams, White and Wolfe - 36.
Mr. WOLFE explaining, said he had too much deterence for the forefathers who made the Constitution and for that instrument itself to vote for this proposition. When our fathers came from foreign lands they came from under the iron heel of despots. They were the best men that ever appeared in this country. They have done so much for us that I think they ought to be held so. For sixty odd years there never has been amendment of that Constitution. And there never has been an amendment to it but it has been to take power from the General Government and to give it to the people. This amendment is the reverse of that, therefore I vote "no."
So the joint resolution was passed the House of Representatives.
On motion of Mr MILLER it was -
Ordered, That any member now absent shall be entitled to vote as he comes in.
On motion of Mr. BELFORD it was -
Ordered, That when the House adjourns it shall be till to-morrow at 2 o'clock P. M.
The House then [at 4:35] adjourned.
