IN SENATE.
WEDNESDAY, February 6, 1867.The Senate met at 2 o'clock P.M.
On motion of Mr. GIFFORD, the reading of yesterday's journal was dispensed with.
Mr. CULLEN demanded a call of the Senate.
It was ordered, and being taken, thirty nine members answered to their names
Mr. CULLEN made ineffectual motion to send for absentees.
Mr. MASON asked and obtained leave of absence for Mr. Turner - confined to his room by sickness
On motion by Mr. OYLER further proceedings under the call of the Senate were dispensed with.
Mr. HOUGHTON from the Committee on Public Buildings, returned Mr. Niles' bill [S. 158] concerning rooms for Judges of the Supreme Court, recommending passage.
The bill was read the second time.
The report of the committee was then concurred in.
BOLTING BILL.
Mr. STEIN moved to take up the bill [H. R. No. 42] to prevent the breaking of a quorum in the General Assembly and prescribing punishment therefor - it being the special order for this hour.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. HANNA moved as follows:
That House bill No. 42 be re-committed to the Committee on the Judiciary, with instructions to strike out from section 2d the words "Marion Criminal Circuit Court" and insert in lieu thereof "the Senate of the State of Indiana;" and to strike out, also, the whole of section 3, whereby it is declared that an emergency exists for the immediate taking effect of the act.
On the motion of Mr. STEIN this motion to recommit was laid on the table, by yeas 27; nays, 16.
The bill was then read the third time.
It is as follows:
A bill to prevent the breaking of a quorum in the General Assembly, and prescribing punishment therefor.
SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana, That whenever it shall happen that a quorum shall not be present or voting in the Senate or House of Representatives of the State of Indiana, by reason of the willful or intentional absence of any member of the same, or of their refusing to vote or to answer to their names on any vote or roll call, any member so refusing to vote, to be present, or to answer to his name, with the intent to defeat, delay or obstruct legislation or legislative action, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be fined one thousand dollars.
SEC. 2. Be it further enacted. That the Marion county Criminal Circuit Court shall have original jurisdiction over all offenses arising under this act.
Section 3 is the emergency clause.
Mr. MASON moved that the bill be recommitted to the Committee on the Judiciary, with instructions to strike out the third section, which is the emergency clause.
Mr. HOWK. It is well known by all Senators present, that this is a purely partizan measure - introduced for mere partizan purposes, to operate solely upon the present minority in this Senate. I am opposed to all legislation which has for its object mere partizan purposes. This bill proposes to take away from this Senate the power to pass upon the official conduct of its own members, and place that power in the bands of another, and an entirely different tribunal. Is this not directly in conflict with the spirit, and the letter of the constitution ? The constitution of the State, in direct terms, gives us all the power necessary to an independent legislative body - it goes further - it gives us full power to punish members for any refractory or disorderly conduct. We are the judges of the conduct of our own members, and it is asking too much of us that we should delegate this right to any other tribunal. Then this bill is degrading to the character we sustain upon this floor. The Constitution makes this the highest civil tribunal in the land. We have full power to remove all other State officers, either for crime, for incapacity or for negligence. And we are State officers, to all intents and purposes, inasmuch as our jurisdiction is co-extensive with the limits of the State. It is, therefore, derogatory to the character of the Senate to say that, for our conduct, we shall be held responsible to any one-horse court. Then it is derogatory, it is a direct personal insult to every member of the minority upon this floor; for it proceeds upon the assumption and upon no other assumption, that the minority here intend to bolt. Under no circumstances will I ever bolt or break a quorum. If measures are introduced here, which I think are intended to override all reason, I will at once hand to the Governor my resignation. The only consolation the minority have in the passage of this bill, is that this invention will come back again to page: 168[View Page 168] plague the enemy. Every dog has his day, and our day will surely come.
Mr. TAGGART. This is an unprecedented case. The majority of no deliberative body in the United States have ever been known to cast such a stigma upon the minority. The third section of the bill is libelous upon its very face. I have been a member here two sessions previous to this one, and I never bolted - and God being my helper, I do not intend to bolt; and I do not want the stigma cast upon me, that this bill will impliedly do, if passed. The Constitution says unreasonable punishment shall not be imposed: but is not the punishment proposed in this bill unreasonable? What you of the majority did three years ago with impunity you now turn round and say we shall not do, and if we do it we shall be fined one thousand dollars. Is this right? Under the provisions of the State Constitution, Article VI., section 8, it is impossible for you to take any member of the General Assembly before a Criminal Court if he should choose to follow your example. But even if it were constitutional, is it dignified? is it honorable? is it consistent? Then we have adopted among the parliamentary rules by which we agree to be governed, a rule which declares exactly what shall be done with those members absenting themselves without leave, and this bill violates that rule and makes no provision to rescind it. This bill is a stigma upon the minority here as well as upon their constituents who sent them here. The minority do not intend to bolt, but should the occasion require it, will quietly resign their commissions and go home like men. They don't want to do that; they want to set here and legislate for the good of all, and make all the appropriations necessary to carry on the wheels of the Government. We expect you to take the responsibility of the passage of all measures; but you have no right to disregard the rights of the minority - their rights should be respected.
Mr. STEIN. By a comparison of sections 14 and 15, article 4 of the Constitution of Indiana, it will be seen that the power of either House of the General Assembly is over such offenses as touch its character and its decorum. But it is impossible for either House to punish an offense derogatory to its decorum with imprisonment, and it is doubtful whether they have the power even to impose a fine. It is an offense against the public, and not an offense against either House for which we seek punishment by the courts in this bill. When a member shirks his duty, or blockades legislation, is it the dignity of the House he has offended, or the million and a half of people in this State, whose interests he has been sent here to protect? Indeed, a member who has bolted, and is taking his meals on the other side of the Ohio river, how could his conduct affect the dignity of the House, its decorum or its character? It certainly is perfectly competent for us to enact laws by which an offending member can be brought to justice for a crime against the public. In Congress a law exists punishing, as a criminal offense, the offense of bribery; and a member can be punished in the Criminal Courts of the District of Columbia for it, while, at the same time, he can be made amenable to the House. We are not an exclusive court of jurisdiction, except for vindicating our character and preserving our decorum. We can not fine or imprison members. The remarks of honorable Senators are in the nature of a special demurrer, which assigns out one error, and that is the emergency clause. The constitutionality of the bill does not come in issue. Gentlemen profess to have their toes trodden upon by this bill. They say that it applies only to the minority, and that it has a political complexion. But the bill says, any member of the General Assembly.
Mr. HANNA. Did the Senator from Tippecanoe ever hear of a majority bolting in a deliberative body? Does it not therefore relate to the minority, and not the majority ?
Mr. STEIN. I have reason to believe that this bill will apply to some members of the majority. We have got some dissensions in our own ranks, and I am inclined to think we need it as well as the minority.
Mr. HANNA. I will ask if the intention of this bill was not to enforce a re-apportionment of the State?
Mr. STEIN. The gentleman must put his own construction upon it. It applies to every member of the General Assembly. I might retort with questions, but I do not propose to do it. I might put the Senator from Vigo under greater difficulties than be has put me, but I will not press question upon this point. Future Senators might rise here at subsequent sessions and claim that this was intended as an insult to them with the same force and reason that Senators now claim it is intended as, a slur on them. The majority disclaim any personal disrespect or any intention to wound the feelings of any of the minority, and having that declaration are they not satisfied with it?
Mr. HANNA was in ill health - ought not to be here, but could not stay away and allow a measure so extraordinary as this to pass without entering a protest against the Senator from Tippecanoe [Mr. Stein] did not quite reach the point of offense to the minority. Since there has been a parliament in England or America, the right page: 169[View Page 169] of the minority to resort to dilitary movement to restrain unecessary and sometimes oppressive legislation, has never been questioned - never been questioned before in England or the United States. But in Indiana to-day propose to set up a rule unknown to all parliamentarians that have gone before us. In the history of Indiana the record upon this question of revolution is not favorable to the majority which seek to-day to degrade the minority upon this floor. This bill was framed in the early part of the session in the popular branch of the General Assembly, when passions and prejudices were more aroused than now - it is always so in the beginning of the session - it was begun then in party spirit, The whole theory can not be disguised. It is well known to every Senator on this floor and to the people of Indiana, that the theory of this bill was to enable the majority to re-apportion the State. Where is the necessity for this? Where has been the occasion in this Senate or in the other branch that will enable gentlemen to judge that it has been the intention of the minority to go out and prevent the majority from legislating? I know of no such arrangement, and I say to-day that it is my intention to stand here, and let them re-apportion the State, believing that, in the end, they will yield to their proper instincts of justice. It looks as though there might be spine more unpleasant reasons given for this bill. With all the refinement of subtlety coined by the gentleman from Tippecanoe, I am not persuaded but that this measure is a personal affront to every member of the minority upon this floor. It is the minority which bolts; and every gentleman knows that; and therefore this emergency clause must relate to the minority in this General Assembly, and to none else. When we say to gentlemen that we intend to stay here and let them legislate, and take the responsibility of legislation, and still they find it necessary to impose such a penalty as this upon the minority, it is more than an injury - it is a great outrage - it is a terrible insult to every member of the minority here.
Mr. CRAVENS. It is an outrage; but it does not commence here. It is an outrage to the people of Indiana, that we have not, years ago, had upon our statute book a law to prevent breaking up the legislation of the State, and thereby destroying the credit to the State in the markets of the world. And now we are met here with the argument that we are attempting an insult upon the minority of this body. Upon whom is this bill to operate? It is to rate upon the gentleman's friends that have broken a quorum, and upon my friends who have broken a quorum; it is to bind 11you who have not broken a quorum, and to bind me - it binds us all alike. Why do gentlemen say it is an insult to them? Who was it broke a quorum in 1855? Who was it - time and again - in 1857? Who was it that broke a quorum in 1859? Who was it that broke a quorum in 1858 and in 1861? The Constitution binds every man who takes a seat here to apportion the State after it has been enumerated. Has that been done? Why was it not done? Whose fault in is? It is, in part, the fault of the legislation of Indiana;because they have not had upon their statute books a law which, as far as legislation could, would prevent these men from breaking a quorum. A great hue and cry is raised against a law which fifteen years' experience in Indiana has proved a necessity, and within that time your public credit has gone bankrupt, and it has been almost necessary to return the deaf, dumb, blind and insane to their cheerless homes, and still more cheerless county jails, because a factious minority determined that the legislation of the State should not be perfected. Now, when all parties have been equaliy guilty, the cry is, you add insult to injury on the minority.
Mr. HANNA (interposing) The Senator has had considerable experience in parliamentary law, and I will ask him if it has not been regarded as one of the rights of the minority to restrain outrageous legislation to resort to dilatory motions; and will not this bill destroy that right?
Mr. CRAVENS. I do not think this bill goes that far. I do not think it is infringing upon the rights of the minority for the majority to prevent this thing of bolting. These gentlemen themselves say it is a crime; and some of them say punish it in the Senate. I say you can not. The constitution has established courts of justice and has given them jurisdiction of crimes and misdemeanors. This thing of bolting has gone so far that a voice comes across the water from every man who holds a bond of Indiana, saying: Your obligations, although intrinsically equal to others, are not so high simply because your people have got in the habit of breaking a quorum in the Legislature, and leaving us without the means of realizing our semi-annual interest on your bonds. There is not a one-armed soldier in Indiana,that is not making an appeal to pass this law, because it gives some guarantee that the necessary legislation will be had. You propose to build a soldier's home, and an appeal comes up from every mangled soldier whose paralyzed limb became so by service of his country -a mute appeal is made by every pupil in the Deaf and Dumb Asylum, and the blind are coming with petitions to pass this bolting bill, for it gives us assurance, page: 170[View Page 170] say they, that we will not be forgotten. Allusion has been made to the bolt of 1863. In all the cases that have taken place during the past fifteen or twenty years, the bolting or breaking of a quorum has been of a character for which there could not be any possibility of an apology, much less a justification. But how was it in 1863? Let me say to you that then and there was a time when the minority, if there was ever such a time, was authorized to avail themselves of that right which the constitution placed in their hands for high and holy purposes. Then the majority was determined to do what? To take from the hands of the Governor of the State that military power which the constitution and laws lodged in his hands for wise purposes. And for what was he to be robbed of that power? He was to be robbed of that power in order that the State of Indiana might be placed in a position of antagonism to the general government; and I say to you that while I stand ready and willing to contribute for a soldiers' monument at Gettysburg or at Indianapolis, I would to-day give ten times more for a monument to commemorete the great and glorious act of that minority in the Legislature of 1863. [Applause in the lobbies.] And why, because by their determined opposition and their firm and inflexible purpose they rolled back the crimson cloud of war from our homes and firesides. I thank that minority that my family are now enjoying the peace and tranquility they are enjoying. You do not know, nor I, what would have been the condition to-day of this State if the majority had then succeeded in their purposes. Indiana bore a noble part in the bitter struggle of the past five years, but there was no act which our soldiers accomplished that was equal in significance to to the act of that glorious minority in the Legislature of 1863. If there ever was a time when bolting was justifiable it was then and there, for that bolt was the salvation of my country. And they have their reward, if we never erect a monument to them; for they have it to-day in the security, prosperity, and happiness of this people for whom they labored. But what is the proposition before this body? It is that the emergency clause shall be stricken out of this bill. I say it is no insult to anybody. If it was, or could by a legitimate construction be applied to the humblest member I would vote to postpone its passage until the last day of the session. If the minority do not intend to bolt, but intend to hold the majority responsible for the legislation of the session, in the name of God, what harm can the emergency clause do?
Mr. HANNA. The point I make is this : If the emergency clause is left out of the bill it will be an assertion of principle, without insinuating to the people of Indiana that there is a necessity in this Legislature for such extraordinary legislation. If the point is well taken, and if my word is entitled to credit, there is no such movement as this intended; and with this emergency clause in the bill it must necessarily create the suspicion that it does apply to the minority.
Mr. CRAVENS. I have no doubt the Senator from Vigo speaks the truth - I give him every credit in the world for candor. If it was a new question - if the experience of the past fifteen or twenty years did not make a necessity for this law, there would no necessity for the emergency clause. We have a House of Refuge to build, Soldiers' Home to provide for, and scores of measures of great public interest before us, and there is a bill pending in this House, coming from the Committee on Ways and Means in the other branch, reducing the taxes of the country. It is necessary that we should pass these bills. Our people are burthened with taxation. Let us give them assurance we will do all we can to prevent even the possibility of breaking up a quorum, so that this legislation may be perfected. It is our duty to give them that assurance - it is our duty to give them that guarantee. I hope the motion to recommit will not prevail.
Mr. CULLEN. I regret exceeding that this measure, which is one of legation and not of a political character, has in this case been made a political question, must say I regard this measure like every other measure introduced here, and it should be discussed and voted upon on its merits, without any regard whatever to the influence it may have upon this or that political party. Senators talk about the power this Senate; they talk of the power of the other branch of the Legislature; they talk of the power of the General Government but that power that makes and unmakes all other powers in this country - is the great mass of intelligent men of our country. In the past I have relied implicitly upon this people voting and acting aright, and believe in the maxim of the lamented Hackleman, who died a martyr for country, that the American people will always right themselves. And it appears to me that if there has been any this afternoon, calculated to make me opposed to this bill, it is the remarks made by the distinguished Senator from Jefferson [Mr. Cravens] He pays an eulogy that knows no bounds to the Legislature of 1863 - and I acknowledge that he can not go farther than I will in weaving chaplets to bind and deck the brows of those gallant men who saved the State from the revolu- page: 171[View Page 171] tionary measures of the Democratic party;but the Senator turns round and proposes to strike down and destroy, by the very billhe advocates, the bolting power by whichthese men won their chaplets of victory.Is there any argument in that?
Mr. C. referred to the fact that the Senatewas the highest legislative or judicial body in the State, and fully competent to punish members for any offense. The bill can effect nothing - it is unconstitutional - and yet this Legislature proposes to put manacles upon us in violation of the organic law. It is degrading to every Senator here-not to the Senators in the minority alone. He proposed to jump the bannister whenever-it was right and proper, and the Constitution will bear him out in it. Suppose after this bill is passed the Democrats should propose to bolt, and not willing to pay the $1,000 fine, they hand in their resignations, do they not accomplish the same object they would by bolting?
Mr CRAVENS. If the minority bolt now they may go off and stay for the balance of the session, but if we force them resign, the Governor may issue his writs for election, and we can have them back in ten or fifteen days.
Mr. CULLEN. Now you are conceding what you denied a while ago, that this bill is applicable to the present members; but I will not fight you on this question, for I am willing you shall make it as not for these gentlemen of the minority as you please; but I can not see that there is any necessity for this bill, or that any good can come out of it. Suppose you get a Republican Legislature with a Democratic Governor, and a minority see proper to bolt - has not the Governor power to remit the fines? Certainly he has. And I say there are ten thousand ways in which this will be a dead letter upon the Statute book. There is no necessity for it, and nobody is asking for it. When honorable Senators on the other side tell me they intend to stay here, and that we will be responsible for legislation, I think they mean what they say. I insist that they have pledged their honor that they will stay here; and I can not see any necessity for the passage of this bill. On the contrary, I can hear from speeches, that it has been the; right of the minority and where they have exercised their right it has redounded to the good of the State. I call upon Senators that talk about Indiana being injured by this bolting - can they give us an instance where there is a bill in any other State of the broad Union of this character? I tell Senators they can find none. I have inquired and hunted up this things, and there is no precedent for it. Members are responsible to their constituents; and if they bolt on any measure when they ought not to, and when there is no justifiable grounds for bolting, their constituents will damn them politically - and they ought to. But if they have the right to bolt, and do so, their constituents will indorse the act.as they did that of a minister of the Gospel from Decatur county, in 1863 [Mr. Van Buskirk]. His people indorsed his bolting by a re-election - not to the House, but to the Senate. No man ought to, and-no man will bolt, unless he conceives that his constituents will indorse that act, and if they do, I say he has done right. Because I hold that the masses of the people are the power in this Government, Therefore, for these reasons, given in a desultory manner, I shall be compelled to vote against this bill. Although I would like to act with my party friends, and intend to act with them, and have acted with them upon every question, they can not compel me to vote for a law upon the statute books for party purposes, when I think that act is wrong.
Mr. CASON referred to the bolt in the House of Representatives (of which he was a member,) in the session of 1863, to show that there were no arrogant terms proposed by that minority to the majority; but, on the contrary, there was an effort on the part of the minority to bring about constitutional measures, and a willingness and determination on their part, that constitutional measures should be passed by that General Assembly. And among the propositions submitted by himself, as Chairman of the Committee of Thirteen, appointed for the purpose of making arrangements for legislation, there was a demand upon the part of the minority, that the State should be apportioned upon a fair and constitutional basis.
Mr. OYLER desired to correct some of the errors and fallacies presented to the Senate, not alone by Democratic Senators, but by a Senator claiming to be part and parcel of the Republican party. One of these fallacies is, that the American people are the power in this country. That is not true. Under our theory and form of government the people are not the power at all. They are the source of power, but not the power themselves. This is naturally a delegate government, from its inception to the topmost stone. This General Assembly is a power what for? It is a legislative power to make laws, which every man and woman in the broad State of Indiana are bound to obey, or pay the penalty. Our courts are another power in this land. They administer the laws we make; and when any person violates these laws, they inflict upon , the page: 172[View Page 172] offender the penalties fixed by law. Gentlemen say that the Senate is the highest legislative and judicial tribunal in the State of Indiana. The Senate has some few judicial duties to perform, it is true; and, if it is a court at all, it is a very limited one. It can not enact any law unless the other House concurs. It cannot pass upon any judicial question except the government of its own members, and those who do us the honor to visit us. If this is the highest tribunal in the land, and Senators say the Marion Criminal Court is a one-horse court, how many horses would it take to run the Senate? That court has power to pass upon the property and life of a man, while the Senate only has power to imprison for twenty-four hours.
The Senator from Rush asks whether this bill will prevent those who desire to do so, from resigning? You might as well ask, upon the passage of a bill to prevent horse stealing, if the bill will prevent purjury? We don't propose, in one bill, to cure "all the ills the flesh is heir to." We simply propose, in this bill, to prevent men from bolting. Our Democratic friends under the present feeling, moving the people of the United States, are so thankful that they have got in office "by the skin of their teeth," that there is no danger of their re-signing. And if we can only keep them from bolting, we can keep a quorum here.
Mr. STEIN. Inasmuch as three hours' time has been exhausted on this question, and as the merits of both sides have been brought into review, I move to lay the motion to recommit on the table.
The motion was agreed to, by yeas 27, nays 18.
Mr. CARSON moved as follows:
Recommit the bill to the Judiciary Committee with instructions to inquire into the expediency of amending the bill, by making the offense a felony, and providing for the punishment of the Executive for counseling, aiding or abeting any member to bolt.
Mr. C. said: If this bill is to pass the General Assembly, I desire that it shall be effective. And, as it now stands, I can not conceive how it would be any restraint upon a minority in sympathy with the Executive. I take it, that it is derogatory to the character of the Senate that a contingency has arisen in Indiana when it becomes necessary for the Senate itself to degrade the office in the manner in which the present bill degrades it.
On motion of Mr. STEIN, the motion to recommit was laid on the table - by yeas ,33, nays 11.
Mr. STEIN now demanded the previous question.
The demand was seconded by 24 Senators, and the main question was ordered - the yeas and nays on the passage of the ill resulting - yeas 26, nays 18 - as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Bellamy, Bennett, Bonham, Brown, Cason, Church, Cravens, Hyatt, Jaquess, Johnson, Kinley, Lewis, Milligan, Niles, Noyes, Oyler, Parrish, Reagan, Reynolds, Richmond, Robinson, Stein, Thompson, Ward, Wolcott and Mr. President (Cumback) - 26.
NAYS - Messrs. Barker, Bowman, Carson, Cullen, English, Gifford, Hanna, Houghton, Huey, Huffman, Humphreys, Lee, Mason, Newlin, Smith, Staggs, Taggart and Turner - 18.
So, the bill was finally passed the Senate.
Leave of absence was obtained for Mr. Bellamy till Tuesday 2 o'clock, and for Mr. Howk, till Monday.
SINKING FUND.
Mr. CASON, from the Committee on Education, returned Mr. Bennett's bill, [S. 102] providing for the management of the Sinking Fund by the State Auditor, (introduced on the 25th ult. and described on page 105 of the BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS,) with amendments and adding other sections, recommending its passage.
The amendments were agreed to.
On motion of Mr. CASON, the bill was read the second time.
Mr. MASON stated that there would be parties in waiting for deeds, and the bill should be passed through both Houses by Saturday; he therefore moved that the Constitutional restriction be suspended, the bill considered as engrossed and read the third time, now.
This motion was agreed to by yeas 38, nays 3.
The bill was read the third time and finally passed, by yeas 31, nays 8, with an amendment of title to correspond with the Committee amendments.
The PRESIDENT announced the consideration of Mr. Wolcott's Liquor bill [S. 46] introduced on the 17th of January, and described on pages 52 and 53 BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS - it being the special order for 3 o'clock this day.
On motion of Mr. WOLCOTT, it was postponed and made the special order for Monday 2 o'clock P. M.
And then the Senate adjourned.
