HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
THURSDAY, January 24, 1867.The Clerk called to order at 2 o'clock P. M.
On the motion of Mr. STACKHOUSE. Mr. Newcomb was called to the Chair in the temporary absence of the Speaker.
On motion of Mr. THACHER, the reading of the journal of yesterday was dispensed with, excepting that portion in relation to the election of United Spates Senator, and the ratification of the pending United States Constitutional Amendment.
PETITIONS.
Petitions for a prohibitory liquor law, were presented by Messrs. Thrasher, Wolfer, Irwin, Blanch, Hamilton, Shanks, Ratliff, Btewart and Chambers, which (chiefly without reading, because they were in the same words) were referred to the Committee on Temperance.
Mr. COREY presented a petition asking for an appropriation, which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. MATTHIS presented the petition of Henry Stevens and others, citizens of Harrison county, asking remuneration for losses sustained by them in horses, produce, merchandize, &c., on account of the Morgan raid; which was referred to the Committee on Claims.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
From the Committee on the Judiciary By Mr. BAKER, recommending the passage of Mr. Ferris' Wives' real estate conveyance bill [H. R. 17] with an emergency amendment. By Mr. BELFORD, returning Mr. Hamilton's Clerks' handing over-money bill [H. R, 24] with a clerical amendment, recommending its passage, By Mr. McFADDEN, returning his salary bill (10), recommending its reference to the Committee on Fees and Salaries with instructions to revise the fee list. It was so ordered by the House. By Mr. McFADDEN, returning the petition of E. Zimmerman and others, of Allen county, for the abolition of the Grand Jury system, reporting the opinion that legislation on the subject is inexpedient, and asking discharge from its consideration.
Mr. KIZER offered considerations in favor of the abolition of the Grand Jury system, an old remnant of English law and a moth on the body politic; and he desired that the petition of his constituents should he so far regarded as to have a hearing before the Committee on Ways and Means. He hoped that the report would not be concurred in.
Mr. STACKHOUSE saw no unfairness in the report, and hoped it would be concurred in.
The report was concurred in.
Mr. LOPP, from the Claims Committee, reported on that portion of the Governor's Message relating to the murder of Lieutenant J. Y. Hampton, recommending that the subject be referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.
It was so ordered.
Mr. SABIN, from the Committee on Fees and Salaries, returned Mr. Ratliff's recorder's fee bill [106] recommending its passage.
Mr. SCAMMAEORN, from the Committee on Rights and Privileges, returned Mr. Montgomery's county commissioners' bill [H. R. 11] recommending its passage; and Mr. WHITE returned Mr. Shields' fur bill [H. R. 65] with an amendment striking out "muskrat," etc.
Mr. MASON, from the Committee on County and Township Business returned Mr. Miller's change of time of spring elec- page: 95[View Page 95] tion bill [H. R. 58] with a motion to lay it on the table.
Mr. MILLER said if we are to have a registry law, we ought to pass some such bill as that. He moved that the consideration of the report be passed over for the present.
It was so ordered by consent.
Mr. HART MAN submitted a correction in his report yesterday from the Committee on Mileage, which was concurred in.
Mr. CHAMBERS, from the Engrossments Committee, reported bills correctly engrossed.
Mr. McCARTHY presented a communication from the State Librarian on the condition of the State library.
On motion by Mr. PRATHER, it was
Ordered, That the communication be laid on the table, and that three hundred copies thereof be printed - one hundred for the Senate and two hundred for the House of Representatives.
RESOLUTIONS.
On motion by Mr, HIGGINS, it was
Resolved, That three hundred copies of the report of the Boaid of Control of the Northern State Prison, dated December, 1866, without the accompanying documents, be printed, two hundred copies for the House and one hundred for the Senate, and that the Governor and Secretary of State be requested to certify the same.
Mr. CROWE submitted the following:
Resolved, That the Special Committee on Education and Agriculture be instructed to inquire into the expediency of establishing six Agricultural Colleges in the State of Indiana: one at Bloomington, in connection with the Indiana University; one at Indianapolis, in connection with the Northwestern Christian University; one at Crawfordsville, in connection with the Wabash College ; one at Greencastle, in connection with the Asbury University; one at South Hanover, in connection with that lnstitution, and one at Vincennes, in connection with the Vincennes University;giving to the State University one fourth of the Congressional endowment, and dividing the remainder equally among the other institutions named;and requiring that they shall establish a professorship of Agriculture in each of said institutions.
The resolution was rejected.
NEW PROPOSITIONS.
Bills for acts of the General Assembly, numbered and titled to the following effect, were introduced and read the first time:
By Mr. MILLER, [H. R. 126] to lease the Northern prison, and prescribing the terms and conditions in reference thereto. [It proposes to lease the prison to Samuel J. Kirkpatrick &c.]
On motion of Mr HUGHES, it was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. WILLIAMS, [H. It. 127] to repeal the act to ascertain the amount of the fees of clerks of the Circuit, Supreme and Common Pleas Courts, of the sheriff's of the Supreme and other Courts, the County Treasurers, Recorders, &c., and to provide punishment for violation of its Provisions, approved June 3, 1861. It was referred to the Committee on Fees and Salaries.
By Mr. SHOAFF, [H. R. 128] to prevent the sale or running at large of sheep affected with foot rot, and the sale or running at large of any animal afflicted with any contagious disease. It was referred to the Committee on Agriculture.
By Mr. WILSON, [H. R. 129] to provide for the improvement of highways, and repeal all laws conflicting therewith. It was referred to the Committee on County and Township Business.
By Mr. PEELLE, [H. R. 130] to amend section 28 of the act defining felonies and prescribing penalties therefor, approved June 10, 1852. [Penalty for house-burning to defraud insurers increased - fine and imprisonment not less than one nor more than ten years.] It was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. STEWART, [H. R. 131] to authorize the Trustees of the Institution for the education of the Deaf and Dumb to sell certain real estate therein named. The proceeds to constitute a permanent fund for the use of said institution. It was referred to the Committee on Benevolent Institutions.
On motion of Mr. BELFORD, the Committee on Railroads obtained leave to sit during the session of the House.
RESIGNATION OF GOT. MORTON.
A message from the Governor, by Col. Win. R. Holloway, his private Secretary, resigning the gubernatorial office, as now delivered, and read by the Clerk.
[It is printed in the Senate proceedings of this day.]
Mr. HUGHES submitted the following:
Resolved, (the Senate concurring) that the General Assembly of the State of Indiana responds to the resignation of Governor O. P. Morton in the following address:
GOVERNOR MORTON - It is with sentiments of high esteem for you personally, and of approval of your administration, and in full confidence is your ability and capacity, that this General Assembly part with you as the Executive of the State. You will bear with you our sincere wishes for your health and happiness, and our hope vhat you may long continue in your career of usefulness in the public service, and that you will receive, as you will certainly merit, renewed proofs of the confidence of the people. In the person of your successor, Governor Baker, we recognize an approved and faithful officer of distinguished ability and unquestioned patriotism, to whose hands may well be intrusted the important powers of the executive office. Appreciating his worth and ability, we congratulate the people of the State that the action of this General Assembly in transferring you to another field of labor in the public service, leaves their interests in safe and loyal hands.
Mr. GREEN and Mr. THACHER demanded the yeas and nays.
Mr. MONTGOMERY proposed to amend the resolution by striking out what relates to Governor Morton.
Mr. HIGGINS demanded the previous question, and there was a second.
The first question being on the amendment, the yeas and nays resulted - yeas 30, nays 52 - as follows:
AYES - Messrs. Bir[?], Black, Bobo, Carter, Corey, Crowe, Douglass, Edmonson, Fuller, Green, Hostetter, Hungate. Inman, Kiser, Lopp, Matthis, McFadin, Morrison, Montgomery, Shanks, Shields, Shull, Stackhouse, Tebbs, Thacher, Van Valkenburgh, Vawter, Williams, White and Wolfe. - 30.
NAYS - Messrs. Belford, Bischof, Blanch, Brucker, Chambers, Daggy, Donaldson, Dunn, Erwin, Evans, Ferris, Foulke, Geisendorff, Gordon, Griggs, Hamilton, Higgins, Hudson,
page: 96[View Page 96]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 Wabash, Spencer, Stafford, Stewart, Thrasher, Thomas, Wason, Watson, Wilson, Wolfer, Wolflin, Woods and Wright. - 52.
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. HUGHES availing himself of the right to the floor under the previous question, expressed his surprise at the extraordinary expression of political feeling that would exclude a simple act of courtesy toward a retiring Executive, who has filled his office with honor to himself and advantage to the State. I do not think that any man can be compromised by voting for this address. I do not think there is anything in the message too strong for Democrats to vote for, unless they have adopted as their motto, that "nothing good can come out of Nazareth," - that there is neither patriotism nor public virtue outside of the Democratic party, and choose to illustrate it in the narrow spirit of bigotry and party spirit that would divide the House on what is simply intended as an act of graceful courtesy. It is an extraordinary spectacle, sir, and merits and will doubtless receive not only the condemnation of the House, but of an enlightened public. Mr H. proceeded to review the official acts of Governor Morton - his connection with the organization of the war to suppress the rebellion - his cordial military appointments of Democrats, &c. He animadverted on Democratic declarations and deeds of sympathy with the rebellion, adverting particularly to the vote received here last Tuesday for United States Senator by a man [Mr. Voorhees] who went to the Virginia University on the 4th of July, 1860, and there in a public address proclaimed the doctrine of secession, inflaming the passions of a Southern audience, inciting them to civil war, and invoking "some Brutus to avenge the cause of liberty in the Capitol." This reference to Mr. V. was made in no spirit of personal hostility,(and he admitted admiration for his commanding intellectual powers)but it was an appropriate reference to illustrate the animus of the Democratic party of to-day, when their Representatives complimented such a man by giving him their votes for Senator of the United States. The party that persisted in telling the country that we could not subjugate the South - and that the war was a failure,even now, after the four years of war - after the rebels have surrendered laid down their arms - after the threefold triumph of the Union cause: in the first election of Lincoln, in the pleadings on so many bloody fields, and in the second election of Lincoln,that party was willing to see all the fruits of this triumph snatched from us in a moment by the hand of the enemy. Such was the legitimate tendency of Democratic teaching and action throughout. Such were the men that would deny to us the courtesy of a parting farewell to Governor Morton.
Mr. COREY. Mr. Speaker -
The SPEAKER pro tem. Debate is not in order. The gentleman introducing the motion only has right to the floor under the previous question.
Mr. COREY. I will ask the gentleman if he desires to abuse his opponents on this floor, and then prevent reply. It is an outrage -
Mr. HUGHES called the gentleman to order, and referred to the treatment he had received at the hands of the gentleman from Franklin, (Mr. Corey) holding the floor by his (Mr. Hughes') courtesy; and when he asked him for the authority upon which he predicated his charge, he skulked from the answer.
The SPEAKER pro tem. The only method by which the gentlemen can reach discussion is a reconsideration of the second for the demand of the previous question.
Mr. COREY. I will move a reconsideration of that vote.
The SPEAKER pro tem. Did the gentleman vote in the affirmative?
Mr. COREY. I can't say. I will ask some gentleman that did to make the motion.
Mr. HUGHES. So far as I am concerned, this can be accomplished. I would be glad to hear gentlemen of the Democratic party ou this question, but can not extend the courtesy of a motion to the gentleman from Franklin.
After further talk -
Mr. VAN VALKENBURG made the motion to reconsider.
The motion was rejected - yeas 33, nays 51, as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Bird, Black, Bobo, Carter, Corey, Crowe, Douglass, Edmonson, Fuller, Green, Honneus, Hostetter, Hughes, Hungate, Inman, Kiser, Lopp, Matthis, McFadin, Morrison, Montgomery, Shanks, Shoeff, Shull, Stackhouse, Tebbs, Thacher, Van Valkenburgh, Vawter, Williams, Wilson, White and Wolfe-33.
NAYS - Messrs. Blanch, Brucker, Chambers, Daggy, Danaldson, Dunn, Erwin, Evans, Ferris, Foulke, Geisendorff, Gordon, Griggs, Higgins, Litson, Long of Kosciusko, Martin, Mason, McCarthy, McClasky, McMurray, Miller, Moore, Newcomb, North, Peelle, Prather, Ratliff, Rosser, Sabin, Scammahorn, Shook, Shuey, Skidmore, Smith, of Wabash, Spencer, Stafford, Stewart, Thrasher, Thomas, Wason, Watson, Wolfer, Wolflin, Woods and Wright - 51.
Mr. COREY, when his name was called explained: He was always ready to extend the courtesies due from one man to another; but he understood this address a direct approvala full and complete endorsement of the administration of Governor Morton, page: 97[View Page 97] and as such he could not give it his approval. Governor Morton had publicly and privately denounced the party to which he belonged as the common sewer of all the meanness and corruption with which the country has been cursed, and he could not vote endorsement of a man that has so treated the party to which he belonged. And with reference to the abuse which he had received from the gentleman-
Mr. HIGGINS called to order. The genteman is now proposing to discuss the treatment he has received in the House to-day.
The SPEAKER. The Chair will decide the point well taken.
Mr. COREY. I merely wish to say, that with regard to the abuse which I have received from that direction, it is only such as could only come from a coward. VOICES. "Order."
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Speaker, I move that those words be taken down by the Clerk.
It was so ordered by the House.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk is not here.
Mr. COREY. I was merely repeating the words of the gentleman from Monroe.
Mr. HUGHES. The gentleman need not repeat. I know what he said. I will attend to him outside of the House, if he will repeat the words in my presence. Mr. H., then advancing to the Clerk's desk, wrote and read the words, to-wit:
"With regard to the abuse which has been heaped upon me to-day by a certain person, it is such as could only come from a coward."
If the gentleman from Franklin has any correction of that to offer he can make it known. I believe that the rules require that such a matter as this shall be attended to before any further business is done. But I suppose this vote ought to proceed.
The vote then proceeded and was announced as above.
The House being still under the force of the previous question, the main question was put, and it resulted - yeas 53, nays 34 - as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Belford, Bischof. Blanch, Brucker, Daggy, Donaldson, Dunn, Erwin, Evans, Ferris, Foulke, Geisendorff, 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 Wabash, Spencer, Stafford, Stewart, Thrasher, Thomas, Wason, Watson, Wilson, Wolfer, Wolflin, Woods, and Wright - 53
NAYS - Messrs. Baker, Barritt, Bird, Black, Bobo, Carter, Corey, Crowe, Douglass, Edmonson, Fuller, Gordon, Green, Honneus, Hostetter, Hungate, Inman, Kiser, Lopp, Matthis, McFadin, Morrison, Montgomery, Shanks, Shields, Shoeff, Shull, Stackhouse, Tebbs, Thacher, Van Valkenburgh, Vawter, Williams, White,and Wolfe - 34.
Messrs. Matthis, Stackhouse, Wolfe, and others explained their votes.
So the concurrent resolution was adopted.
Mr. BOBO moved, ineffectually, that the House adjourn.
RESOLUTION FOR CENSURE
Mr. HUGHES. I rise to a question of privilege. I offer the following:
WHEREAS, Mr. Corey, a member of this House, did, in debate, make use of the following words in reference to the remarks made in the House by Mr Hughes, which words were then taken down at the Clerk's desk, as follows: "The words of abuse that have been heaped upon me to-day by a certain person as such as could only come from a coward;" therefore
Resolved, That the use of said words was unparliamentary and improper, and merits and receives the censure of this House, and that Mr. Corey is hereby censured by this House.
Mr. H. said there was nothing that the gentleman from Franklin had said or could say that could disturb his equanimity. There was bus one remark in his written speech the other day that was really exceptional, and that was the allegation that I was in favor of the establishment of territorial governments in the South. And when I asked him for his authority for the statement he declined to answer. And he afterwards published the speech, still without his answer. This was the first step in what he regarded as a systematic personal attack upon him, which has been kept up so far during the session. So far as personal offenses were concerned, he had indulged in nothing of the sort on this floor, and would not. It was his opinion that a character for courage is never acquired by using offensive language in a safe place, as on the floor of a deliberate body, in the presence of ladies,or in a court of justice. The man who resorts to offensive language under such circumstances is commonly estimated as unworthy of a place in the category of great men. His reason for introducing this resolution was not wholly personal. It was true, that as a member understanding some of the proprieties of a deliberative body, he claimed the protection of the House. It was notorious throughout the city, that himself and others here have been singled out for subjects of personal abuse. It was talked about in the cars, that certain members were to descend upon us here in personalities for the purpose of obstructing the business of legislation. Personally he cared nothing about this; and he was going to relieve himself by this resolution--by throwing the responsibility upon the House. So far as he was concerned in debate on this floor, whatever language of denunciation he may have used to-day or at any other time, was directed against the Democratic party. But the gentleman from Franklin had deliberately violated every page: 98[View Page 98]principle of courtesy; and he had tendered no apology, and it was supposable that he does not intend to. He voted to reconsider the secured for the previous question to hear from other Democrats on the floor; but no man certainly could expect him to go out of his way for the sake of the gentleman from Franklin. If his object is to insult me, he can not do that inside of the House. If his object be to find out whether I am a coward, he can satisfy himself in one minute outside.
Mr. DOUGLASS. I regret that this has occurred. I am always in favor of maintaining friendly relations with those who oppose me politically. If there is any personal feeling between thse gentlemen, I am not aware of it. I would like to have the House calmly reflect upon this matter before we act. Let these gentlemen meet outside and settle it there, and not throw the responsibility upon us. They are both personal friends of mne, and I would not like to see or hear of a fight here. I think that in all probability, if my friend from Franklin had reflected upon the language he used, he would not have said it. I would myself have selected other language. If these two gentlemen were left to talk the matter over between themselves, you and I, sir, need have nothing to do with the matter. I really believe that the gentleman from Franklin did not mean any offense--though I am not speaking by his instructions. He may take another course, and chastise me for endeavoring to reconcile matters. I would very much prefer that this subject pe postponed till two weeks from this afternoon, at 2 o'clock. In that time these parties will settle this difficulty, and relieve us from the responsibility.
Mr. SHUEY. Looking over the manual here, in cases of this kind, I find it laid down that the gentleman accused has the right to get up and make a speech in his own behalf, and then retire for the deliberation of the House. It is merely a suggestion.
Mr. McFADDEN considered that both sides have transcended the courtesies of debate. There had been some warm discussion; but it seems that under the rules the gentleman from Monroe had the right to close debate under the previous question; and he took occasion to offer very stringent remarks when none could reply. So it was considered around him; and that the other day he used the same language with a general application, for which it is proposed to censure the gentleman from Franklin.
Mr. HUGHES. If I made use of the words used by the gentleman from Franklin, I believe my words were entirely general: I said I had no respect for classes of men by whom I had been opposed--whether Southern traitors or Northern cowards, or something like that. It would be impossible for the gentleman from Cass to find a personality in my remarks.
Mr. McFADDEN had no doubt that the gentleman's remarks were general. But the gentleman from Monroe should not regard the words of the gentleman from Franklin in so serious a light. The gentleman from Monroe made some strong reflections against the party to which he formerly belonged, and the gentleman from Franklin seems to have taken them as cast upon him personally. Both had been too hasty; and if the gentleman from Monroe were excused, he could not think it would be right for the House to censure the gentleman from Franklin.
Mr. COREY. So far as I am concerned, it matters not whether the House pass upon the resolution now or at some future time. After this question is decided, I expect to offer some remarks.
Mr. BELFORD would go as far at the gentleman from Monroe for the support of parliamentary decorum. But the time had not come for a motion of this character. We would not reform refactory members by resolutions. If gentlemen have come here to vilify individuals for belonging to the Republican party, he was willing they should do so. This passage at arms was attributable to momentary excitement. He did not believe the gentleman from Franklin had any disposition to insult the gentleman from Monroe, &c.
Mr. MILLER would go a great way to forgive and excuse words spoken hastily in debate. If the gentleman from Franklin would get up (as it appears to me to be his duty, and as I know it would be my pleasure if I were in his place,) and apologize for these words in the House, there is not a man on the floor that would not excuse him. But if he insist on the words, then we can do nothing less that insist on the resolution. To drop the resolution now would bo like indorsing the words, and if he were my brother I would not indorse those words. I do not think there is a single member of the gentleman's party that indorses them.
Mr. HUGHES. I want the House to distinctly understand my motion here. It is not for myself that I have offered the resolution. I can take care of myself. But it is to assert the dignity of the House. If this were the only occasion of this kind, I should certainly have passed it by. But it seems to me that there is a systematic course of attack from that direction, and that the object is to obstruct legislation. My object is not even to punish the gentleman from Franklin. To be frank about it, page: 99[View Page 99] it is not my purpose, nor has it been, to press the resolution to a vote. But I want to arrest and call the attention of the House to this business, and so perhaps we will have better order in future.
Mr. SHUEY hoped the gentleman from Franklin would get up and tell us why he used the aforesaid language.
Mr. COREY. My friend over the way seems to be very greatly exercised on account of certain words spoken in debate. I have this to say with reference to the language used. I did say that the language that had been used by the gentleman from Monroe was such as could only come from a coward. But the gentleman says he has not personal--that he has spoken of parties and measures, and has not descended to personalities. I will remind the gentleman and call the attention of the House to the fact, that not more than ten minutes before I used these words, he used and directed to me what is equivalent to the same language. He said the gentleman from Franklin upon being asked a question "skulked." The man that skulks is none other that a coward. It is, I conceive, and every man must know, a term of similar meaning. He applied that to me; and as a man inclined to take care of myself, I could do no less that retort in kind. I aimed to do no more,--I should think it beneath the dignity of a man to do any less. Then how is it about the fact that he as not dealt in personalities? I listened to that man this afternoon for half an hour while he abused another man in his absence--a man for whom I voted to elevate him to the highest position in the gift of the State. For half an hour the gentleman denounced that man in the strongest language, even going so far as to call him a secessionist--that he taught secession. And yet he gets up here and dares to say that he has not indulged in personalities. Now, sir, if I speak personally of an individual, I speak to his face. I will not go behind his back, strike him, and repeat the blow. And the gentleman who did that comes forward and moves a resolution of censure upon me. I ask the House to refer to the printed reports, and if the gentleman has not referred to me personally, then I will yield the point. and whilst he does that, and continues to do that, I do not expect this House--although the majority may be opposed to me as far as politics are concerned--I have no idea they will censure me for doing what the mover of the resolution has done over and over again. I admit that it was was severe language; and I just as ready to avoid the use of language of that kind, as any other man in this hall; but, sir, am attacked by severe language, I will defend myself by using severe language in return. If I am attacked by weapons of any kind, I will use the same weapons for my defence if I have them at my command. Now the gentleman from Monroe tells us that he cares nothing about this so far as he himself is concerned. But some might think otherwise from the course he takes. He makes hast with his own hand to write the resolution of censure. Yet he cares nothing about himself! He does not in any case make himself unduly prominent--not at all! But if his pear dares to speak of him in the same terms that he speaks of others, he will move a vote a censure, even while he villifies and abuses the man against whom he moves. As to the plea that he makes that he has not spoken of individuals, but concerning parties, I would just as lief a man would call me a coward or traitor individually, as to denounce in my presence the on hundred and fifty-five thousand Democratic voters of Indiana as cowards and traitors with me. And I think the good sense of this House will decide that he has done that. Then they can not censure an individual for retorting in language similar.
Mr. MATTHIS said it was a mistake that there was an organized scheme to hunt down the gentleman from Monroe. He regretted the attack made by the gentleman from Franklin, because he did not think the remarks of the gentleman from Monroe were personal. But even it they were personal, still the gentleman from Franklin was not justifiable. Two wrongs do not make one right. He was for postponement.
Mr. COREY said when he made the statement that the Senator from Monroe was in favor of reducing the States of the South to a territorial condition, he thought the gentleman was in full fellowship with the Republican party.
Mr HUEHGS still regretted the temper in which the gentleman from Franklin treated the matter. It was in contempt of the House. And then he charged me with having personally abused Mr. Voorhees, when the House would remember his special disclaimer as to that. He did not make a personal attack upon Mr. Voorhees. He reiterated the statement that the gentleman from Franklin took the floor by his courtesy--withdrawing the demand for the previous question, and the refusal to answer his interrogatory. He did not regard his remark, that he "skulked" from answer, as a charge of cowardice, but merely evasion in debate. He had expected at first to withdraw the resolution bu the gentleman having justified the words, he could not now. But he would have no further charge of the matter, nor page: 100[View Page 100] be heard any further in it. It was entirely with the House.
Mr. SHUEY was opposed to postponement. He wanted now to see evinced the self-respect of the House. The language of the gentleman from Franklin was in the highest degree offensive, and then for the gentleman to justify the language, he places himself in an attitude of defiance to the authority of the State; and if the House fail to pass ist censure upon him, it must fail as to self-respect. He found more offensive language against the Republican party in adeliberate report submitted the other day by the gentleman from Clark, [Mr. Honneus,] than had been used by the gentleman from Monroe, or any other gentleman upon this floor.
The SPEAKER pro tem. (by order of the House,) announced the special committee under Mr. Peelle's resolution for an inquiry into the expediency of redistricting the State for judicial purposes, to-wit: Messrs. Litson, Dunn, Baker, Thrasher, Vawter, Daggy, Stafford, Gordon, Woods, Ross, Miller, Chambers and Hostetter.
The House then [at 5 P. M.] adjourned.
