HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
WEDNESDAY, February 13, 1867.The House met at 9 o'clock A. M.
Mr. BIRD moved ineffectually that the reading of the journal of yesterday be dispensed with.
The reading proceeded - till,
On motion of Mr. VAN VALKENBURG, the further reading was dispensed with.
PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.
The SPEAKER laid before the House the petition of John F. Carr and others, of Jackson county, asking for a registry law. Also the petition of sundry citizens of Ripley county, for indemnification for losses by the Morgan raid.
Mr. PRATHER presented the petition of sundry citizens of Jennings county in the same matter. Which petitions were referred to the Committee on Claims.
Messrs. HOSTETTER and CHAMBERS presented petitions on the subject of temperance, which were referred to the Committee on Temperance.
Mr. McFADIN presented the memorial of Mr. Strader for the destruction of foxes, by premium for scalps, which was referred to the Committee on Rights and Privileges.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Mr. ROSS, from the Committee on the Judiciary, returned Mr. Woods'justices jurisdiction bill, [H. R. 231,] with an amendment (striking out the emergency), recommending its passage.
Mr. DAGGY, from the Judiciary Committee, returned the license amendment bill of the House, recommending that it lie on the table. The report was concurred in.
He also returned Mr. Peelle's felony amendment act bill, [H. R. 259,] recommending its passage.
Mr. MONTGOMERY, from the Committee on the Organization of Courts of Justice, returned Mr. Woods' actions limitation bill, [H. R. 217,] recommending its passage.
Mr. BIRD, from the Committee on Rights and Privileges, returned the fish protection bill, [S. 30,] recommending its passage.
Mr. SCAMMAHORN, from the Committee on Rights and Privileges, returned Mr. Bird's fox and wild-cat bill, [H. R. 208,j page: 220[View Page 220] with amendments, recommending its passage.
Mr. GEISENDORF, from the Committe on Manufactures and Commerce, returned Mr. Moore's coal oil inspection bill, [H. R. 240,] recommending its passage.
Mr. CHAMBERS, from the Committee on Corporations, returned Mr. Higgins' bill [H. R. 255] to amend the City Corporation act, recommending its passage.
Mr. BRUCKER, from same Committee returned Mr. Hopkins' electric telegraph bill [H. R. 121] recommending its passage.
Mr. GEISENDORF, from the Joint Select Committee on Public Buildings, returned the bill [H. R. 158] recommending that it be indefinitely postponed; said Committee also recommended the renting of the Gallup Building, corner of Tennessee and Market streets, for the accommodation of the Supreme Court and State offices, with a resolution authorizing the State Auditor to lease said building at $4,000 a year, &c.
On motion of Mr. ROSS, it was laid on the table for the present.
Mr. CAMPBELL, from the Committee on Public Expenditures, returned Mr. Kizer's resolution of the House as to the expenses of the administration of ex-Governor Oliver P. Morton, and submitted a lengthy report in writing.
Mr. CRAIN moved that it be laid on the table and printed.
Mr. MILLER thought it was too late to make an order to print.
Mr. KIZER opposed the motion to print. It was sufficiently satisfactory to him. It was enough for him to have brought out the investigation. It had cost enough already, without adding the expense of printing.
Mr. PRATHER supported the motion. The resolution which called out the report came from one of the leaders of his party. It was presumable that there was cause for the resolution; and since it appears that Governor Morton has discharged his duty faithfully, the House and the country ought to see his justification.
Mr. McFADIN said it was right and proper and due to all sides that the report be printed.
Mr. CRAIN. Since the mover of the resolution has expressed satisfaction as to the matter, he would withdraw his motion to print.
Mr. STACKHOUSE was gratified with the withdrawal of the motion to print.
Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH renewed the motion to print 200 copies for the use of the House of Representatives.
Mr. CHAMBERS demanded the yeas and nays.
Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. The facts and the report were important, and the expense proposed was trifling.
Mr. CAMPBELL said: The committee and all concerned were willing that the report should be printed.
Mr. HIGGINS. Does it respect the Arsenal matter?
Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes - a matter that has been reported on and set at rest long ago. He desired to have the report read before the vote shall be taken.
Mr. MCCARTHY moved that the order be made for three hundred copies, in pamphlet form.
Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH accepted the modification.
Mr. HIGGINS demanded a division of the question.
After debate -
Mr. SPENCER moved to lay the motion of Mr. Van Valkenburgh on the table.
The motion was rejected, by yeas 27, nays 55.
Mr. WOODS moved to reconsider this vote,with a desire to have the report read.
The SPEAKER. Reconsideration would only involve another motion.
Mr. COREY. The report detailed the expenses of the Executive debt, and he desired to see the particulars.
Mr. RATLIFF called for the reading of the report.
Mr. HUGHES proposed to amend the motion by adding: "Provided said report shall be printed and laid on the desks of members in six days from this time.
He said the Public Printer took a large discretion as to the time in which he does the work. He would not vote for an order for more printing, unless it were coupled with a requirement to have the printing done in time to be of use to the House.
Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH would accept the amendment if it were made obligatory on the Public Printer to have the printing done in six days.
Mr. HUGHES was willing to make it obligatory.
The SPEAKER now directed the reading of the report.
The report having been read -
Mr. KIZER changed his mind, and was now in favor of the motion to print.
Mr. CHAMBERS would like a division of the question.
The SPEAKER. The Chair does not see how the question can be divided.-The amendments to the original motion have all been accepted. Mr. HONNEUS demanded the yeas and nays. The motion to print was agreed to-yeas 72, nays 18.
Mr. DAGGY, from the Special Judicial Circuit's Committee, returned their Judicial page: 221[View Page 221] Circuit's bill [H. R. 244] with the amendment transferring Sullivan county back to the 20th Circuit, conformably to the order of the House taken yesterday.
Mr. WOLFE said Sullivan county ought to have some rights. It was a singular fact, that the motion to put Sullivan county back to the 20th Circuit came from a representative from Elkhart county, [Mr. Woods,] residing some three hundred miles from the of Sullivan.The reason for the motion was announced by the gentleman from Monroe: [Mr. Hughes,] that Sullivan would make the 20th Circuit Democratic. He insisted on the right of Sullivan county a place in the 6th Circuit. It was as good as the right of Monroe county there, or any other county in the State to the Circuit she preferred. And only three days ago the deliberate action of the House placed her back, where she desired to remain and be let alone.
Mr. GREER supported the report of the committee, rehearsing the history of the bill. Sullivan county was placed in the 20th Circuit in the original bill. The reason why the House was dissatisfied with the change to the 6th Circuit was, that that Circuit was already overburdened with business.
Mr. WOLFE insisted that the 6th Circuit was the old judicial place of Sullivan county.
Mr. GREER stated again and amplified the reasons which justify the report.
Mr. MORRISON demanded the previous question, and there was a second.
Mr. DAGGY closed the debate - showing the equity of the report by reference to the voting strength of the 6th and the 20th Circuits. The report makes only two or three additional Circuits.
And then, under the pressure of the previous question, the report of the Committee was concurred in - affirmative 50, negative not reported.
Mr. WHITE, from the special committee on his Petroleum Inspector resolution, returned the same, with a bill.
On motion by Mr. DAGGY, Mr. McMurray obtained leave of absence, on account of death in his family.
JUDICIAL RE-APPORTIONMENT.
The House returned to the consideration of the Committee's Judicial Apportionment bill [H. R. 244] - the question being on the third and last reading thereof.
The final vote resulted yeas 53, nays 32 as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Barrett, Belford, Bischof, Blanch, Brucker, Campbell, Chambers, Crain, Crowe, Daggy, Danaldson, Dunn, Erwin, Evans, Ferris, Foulke, Funk, Geisendorff, Gordon, Greer, Griggs, Hartman, Hamilton, Hopkins, Litson, Long of Kosciusko, Martin, Mason, McLean, Miller, Moore, Morrison, Newcomb, Peelle, Prather, Ratliff, Ross, Rosser, Sabin, Shook, Shuey, Skidmore, Smith of Lagrange, Spencer, Stafford, Stewart, Thomas, Vawter, Wason, Watson, Woods, and Mr. Speaker - 53.
NAYS - Messrs. Bird, Black, Carter, Corey, Edmonson, Fuller, Higgins, Honneus, Hostetter, Hudson, Hughes, Hungate, Inman, Kiser, Matthis, McCarthy, McClasky, McFadin, Montgomery, Newland, North,Scammahorn, Shanks, Shields, Smith of Wabash, Stackhouse, Thacher, Thrasher, Van Valkenburgh, Williams, Wilson, White, Wolfe, Wolfer, and Wright - 32.
So the bill was finally passed the House of Representatives, with an amendment of title striking out the words "in the counties in which they reside," and inserting these words: "in which they were severally elected."
THE CALENDAR - FIRE LIMITS.
Mr. Shuey's fire limits bill [H. R. 96] which failed yesterday for lack of 51 votes, coming up - it was finally passed the House of Representatives - yeas 52, nays 22.
On motion of Mr. KIZER the order of business was suspended to enable him to move to take up his Sheriff's fees bill [H. R. 183] and have it referred again to the Committee on Fees and Salaries. But from the record it appears that the bill was indefinitely postponed.
Mr. NEWCOMB presented the memorial of the State Librarian, to justify himself from imputations in the House debate yesterday. It was ordered to be spread on the journal.
Mr. McFADIN said that he had intended to introduce a resolution of inquiry into this matter referred to in debate yesterday. But it was brought out in debate. His remarks then were general. His point was against the order restraining purchases to a single firm. If the statement of the Librarian was correct it was all right. Without any personal feeling in the case, he hoped this would end the matter.
TEMPERANCE.
Mr. HUGHES submitted the following:
Resolved, That the Committee on Temperance be instructed to report a bill for a temperance law without delay ; and that, for that purpose, they have leave to sit while the House is in session.
He said he had never been a champion for a prohibitory liquor law, but on this matter his views had undergone a change. He had uniformly defended his withdrawal from the Democratic party upon Democratic principles. He had seen so much of the evil effects of the unrestricted license of selling liquor, that he was willing now to publicly renounce this principle of opposition to prohibition. If it was a democratic principle, no matter he renounced it. And it might now be said, if gentlemen will: "The last link is broken that bound me."
Mr. PEELLE desired permission to introduce a bill on this subject.
page: 222[View Page 222]Mr. DAGGY would like to amend the resolution so as to require a temperance bill to be reported by the gentleman from Monroe.
Mr. HUGHES would adopt the views of the gentleman from Wayne [Mr. Peelle.]
Mr. Hughes' resolution was then adopted.
Mr. PEELLE (by leave) then introduced a bill [H. R. 283] for an act to prevent public drunkenness, and prescribing a remedy; which was referred to the Committee, under the order just taken by the House.
Mr. DUGGY submitted the following:
Resolved, That the clerks and employes of this House who have served in the war for the suppression of the rebellion, be entitled to a copy of the Adjutant General's Report, and that the be directed to furnish them accordingly.
Mr. KIZER denounced the Adjutant General's Report as the occasion of great expense to the State, without corresponding advantage. He had a copy, and he was willing that any soldier should have his copy that wanted it.
Mr. McFADIN moved to amend so as to tender a copy to each of the employes of the House.
It was rejected.
Mr. THACHER and Mr. MILLER moved to amend so as to tender a copy of said Report to every soldier in the State.
Mr. HUGHES said that amendment would take out about all the money in the State Treasury. He proceeded to say that the publication of this report had been the occasion of numerous fraudulent applications for bounties and pay. The muster rolls ought never to have been published. But now, since it had been done, this amendment was monstrous. It would require a new edition to be printed of six or seven volumes. There are probably 100,000 soldiers in the State, who would be each entitled to a copy.
Mr. KIZER would distribute them as far as they would go.
Mr. NEWCOMB said nothing could be done in this way by a simple resolution. It would require a concurrent resolution, or a joint resolution, or a bill. On his motion, the resolution and amendments pending were laid on the table_- yeas 42, nays 41.
On motion of Mr. ROSS, Mr. Van Valkenburg had leave of absence for one week from to-morrow.
DEAF DEAF AND DUMB INSTITUTION.
Mr. STEWART obtained leave to introduce a joint resolution [H. R. 16] to annul the action of the county commissioners of Marion county, by which they have constructed a road or avenue on land owned by the State on the east side of the lot occupied by the Institute for the Education of the Deaf and Dumb; and to authorize theproper officers to take possession of said land for the use of said Institution, which was read the first time.
Mr. S. described the road which the commissioners of Marion county have constructed on the State's land. He said the officers of the Deaf and Dumb Institution were not opposed to having the road or avenue opened, nor to keeping it open, if they have control of it. On his motion the joint resolution was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, with instructions to inquire whether the General Assembly have power to make void this action of the Marion county commissioners.
COAL OIL.
Mr. WHITE (in behalf of the Special Committee thereon) obtained leave to introduce a bill [H. R. 284] for an act to prohibit the sale for burning purposes of coal oil of a lower fire-test than 110 degrees, and providing penalty therefor. It was passed to the second reading, and made the special order for Friday at 2 o'clock.
Mr. HIGGINS submitted the following:
Resolved, That after Saturday next, the Housewill refuse the introduction of any more bills, unless they are introduced by some standing or elect Committee.
Resolved further, That hereafter the Committee on Engrossed Bills be instructed to make their reports to the Clerk of the House.
The SPEAKER. The latter resolution can be entertained only in the shape of a notice to amend the rules. The reason the Engrossments Committee make their reports to the House is that they may go on the Journal.
Mr. HIGGINS withdrew the latter resolution.
On motion of Mr. THACHER, the resolution was laid on the table.
Mr. MILLER moved ineffectually to take up his registry bill, No. 25
The Senate's Soldiers' Home bill, No. 4, was passed the second reading, and referred to the Military Committee.
The House then took a recess till 2 o'clock P. M.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The justices'cost collections' bill [S. 28] was passed to the third reading.
The State Librarian bill [S. 5] was passed the final reading in the House of Representatives - yeas 57, nays 16.
FEMALE SCHOOL - ASYLUM.
On motion of Mr. CRAIN, Mr. McLean's Private Benevolent Association amendment bill [H. R. 54] coming up on the final reading -
Mr. McLEAN explained that it was a general bill to admit of regulations for a female manual institution, on the Mount Holyoke plan, and an asylum for aged page: 223[View Page 223] females and orphans (under 16 years of age) which a rich old bachelor [Mr. Rose] proposes to endow in the city of Terre Haute - proposing to each institution an emdowment of $150,000.
The bill was passed the final reading yeas 85 nays 0.
Mr. O'NEIL, (by leave) from the Committee on the Organization of Courts, returned Mr. Sabin's justices act amendment bill [H. R. 151] approving the matter but objecting to the phraseology of the bill, recommending that it be laid on the table,and reporting a new bill and new title.
On motion of Mr. MILLER, the report was amended, so as to retain the title and number of Mr. Sabin's bill.
Mr Hamilton's bill, [H. R 71] to amend the 19th section of the practice act in criminal actions - relative to filing information in criminal cases - coming up on the second reading -
On motion of Mr. HUGHES it was laid over till Mr. Belford shall be present - that gentleman being entitled to the floor there on.
Mr. McLean's marriage license amendment bill [H. R. 193] coming upit was ordered to the engrossment.
Mr. Wolflin's Town Land Tax Repeal bill [H. R. 212] coning up on the second reading - it was passed over till the author shall be present.
The Committee bill [H. R. 219,] being a substitute for Mr. Watson's Index bill [H. R. 108] - giving Board of County Commissioners a discretion as to making allowance to the Clerk of the Circuit Court for such indexing, coming up on the second reading -
Mr. MONTGOMERY proposed to make the compensation "ten cents" per one hundred words, instead of "fifteen cents."It was rejected - affirmative 43, negative 43.
The bill was ordered to the engrossment.
Mr. Shuey's Supreme Court bill [H. R. 220,] coming up -
Mr. SHUEY said there was a Senate bill - an exact copy of this - whereupon, on his motion, it was laid on the table.
Mr. Higgins' Landlord and Tenant bill [H. R. 225] coming up, it was ordered to the engrossment.
Mr. Morrison's Drainage bill [H. R. 23} see page 35 of these Reports - coming up -
And the bill having been read, it was passed over for the special order.
On motion by Mr. HUGHES, the two reports from the Judiciary Committee, with reference to the University Square, were taken up, and their further consideration postponed and made the special order for Friday at 2 o'clock.
THIRTEENTH ARTICLE - REPEAL.
The SPEAKER announced the special order for this day at 3 o'clock, viz: The consideration of the bill [S. No. 7] to repeal an act entitled An Act to repeal the 13th article of the State Constitution - the question being on the third and last reading thereof.
Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH, Representing a District containing 5,000 voters, in the entire limits of which District but two negroes can be found, I ask to be heard on this subject, and to enter my protest against the repeal of the 13th Article of our State Constitution, and in doing so I am confident that I faithfully represent my constituency. My people have all the negroes in their midst that they desire. Just enough for specimens.
I have no doubt of the passage of the measure proposed, and we are informed that a discussion of it is a waste of time, and an opportunity for discussion, even, is granted as an indulgence to the minority. Still I wish to be heard.
Those who oppose this measure are characterized as fogies, fossils and Bourbons, who will neither learn or forget anything. I accept the pet names, and am proud to stand here as a fossolized Bourbon, who can not forget or abandon the Constitution of my State, nor learn to follow after the strange gods of fanatacism; and as one earnestly opposed to the repeal of the 13th Article of the Constitution of the State of Indiana.
The framers and fathers of the Constitution of the United States, after suffering the oppressions of tyranny until they were longer unendurable, threw off the tyrant's yoke and formed a free Government at the cost of indescribable hardships, dangers unparalleled, and the expense of rivers of precious human blood.
Having suffered under tyranny and paid a fearful price for liberty, they appreciated fully the value of the treasure when acquired, and they wisely resolved to guard it well for their posterity. The Constitution framed by them was written plainly and "gives forth no vague, uncertain sounds." Its provisions are intelligible and explicit. No feature stands forth more prominently than the clause that "The powers not delegated to the General Government are reserved to the States themselves." And the power of local legislation is nowhere delegated.
We have never given up the right to place upon our statute books such laws as may seem good to us and do not conflict with the Constitution of the United States. In accordance with this theory of government the people of Indiana, by almost unanimous consent, adopted the 13th Article, Had page: 224[View Page 224] they a right to do so? If they had, when did they lose the right to enforce that Article? Wherein is the Constitution of the United States changed since the adoption by Indiana of the 13th Article?
The maintainance of the rights of the States is of vital importance to the liberties of the people at all times. Especially is this important at this time when the dictator of Congress is seeking to wrest from the States every right and power retained by them. Why, sir, the question presents itself almost in this shape :Shall Thad. Stevens govern the State of Indiana or may the Legislature venture a word?
It is held that as the 13th article of our State Constitution conflicts with the Civil Rights bill, passed by Congress, it should be repealed, because it is inoperative and void Sir, I hold that it is the Civil Rights bill which is inoperative and void, the decision of any Court to the contrary notwith standing. If, for no other reason than to maintain the rights of my State, I oppose the repeal of this article under the pressure of an unconstitutional Congressional law. I hold that Congress can no more say to us that this law of ours is invalid, than we can say to Congress that we deem it an honest and patriotic body; or than we can say to the State of Ohio what laws she may pass. It is our duty to maintain the rights of States lest our Government degenerate into a monarchy with a President or perpetual Congress for King.
This proposition must be advocated on one of two principles. Either because of the conflict of the law in the Civil Rights bill, or because it is desirable to increase the negro population of the State by immigration. Now I consider negroes a very unprofitable class of our population. Neither remarkably useful nor ornamental. The less we have of them the better we are off. All at present outside of the State of Indiana are provided for in some manner, and I am satisfied. I am willing and anxious to let them alone. I am perfectly confident that the voters of Indiana have no desire to increase the negro population of the State.
I appeal to any member on this floor to say if his constituents have requested him to open the doors of the State for its settlement by the freed negroes of the Southern States? Have the citizens of any portion of this State asked for this increase of our population? If they have not, then why repeal the 13th article? Because it is void ? Why is it void? Is the Civil Rights bill the law governing our State, or do we claim the right to enforce a law about the constitutionality of which there is no question?
On every ground I oppose the repeal of the article.
Mr. BIRD. The bill under consideration was for the purpose of repealing the legislation under what is commonly known as the 13th article. [He reads the article.]
He maintained that this was as much the Constitution of the State of Indiana to-day as it ever was, and as binding as any other part of the Constitution. And he recollected that day of the organization of the House when he stood before the Speaker's table and took a solemn oath to support this Constitution. Therefore, he for one, could never cast his vote for the repeal of a law which the Constitution imperatively requires the Legislature to enact.
He might go back aud ask why this article was placed in the Constitution? But first, he would say this: If gentlemen wish to make this article a nullity,if they wish to flood the country with a negro population ; if they wish to mix whites and blacks together, and place them upon an equality - he asked, why do they not submit a joint resolution recommending to the people to strike out this article, and let the people determine the question?
But why was this Article adopted? In 1850 there was called up to this capital a convention of the people, to alter and amend the State constitution. That, convention was composed of men of all parties; and there probably was as much legal talent and learning in that body as ever assembled in this Hall. From his own county he recollected the name of Samuel Hall, an eminent jurist, who was once elected Lieutenant Governor of the State, and filled the office with credit to the State and to the satisfaction of all parties. This man was in that convention of legal men, and gave his views of this Article. He said: "No man would go further than he to prevent the emigration of negroes into the State, because he believed that the negro and white man could not live together, except to the detriment of the white man."Mr. Hendricks, of Shelby, said:
"Shall the State of Indiana suffer the South to throw upon her, to be provided for, the old, the diseased, and the vicious of her black population. Every principle of justice, every dictate of sound policy, answers we should not. The number of negroes and mulattoes coming among us is greatly increasing, and in a few years the North will be burdened with the whole free black population of the United States of we adopt no measures to prevent them." And now he asked, are not the negroes now coming into the State faster than ever before? They certainly were: and the negroes and mulattoes now coming into the State are not the best of their class. page: 225[View Page 225] Those that are industrious and enterprising retain their positions in the South. The lazy and worthless come here and furnish subjects for our poorhouses. And, if there is any means by which we can prevent their coming, by all means let us do it.
Mr. Harden, of Wayne, said: "It seems to be an admitted fact that the two races can not live together on terms of equality, and both prosper. Experience has shown that they naturally act on each other for the worse. I have never know a neighborhood of colored persons that had not a visible effect upon the white population in their immediate vicinity. They pull down the white population more than the white population more than the white population raise them up. They mutually injure each other."
These were sentiments expressed in that convention and they were his sentiments to day, But the men of this convention did not feel satisfied to rest this matter with the mere expression of their views of governmental policy, nor were they satisfied to rest it as an ordinary constitutional provision; but so shaped the proposition for the ratification of the people that the new constitution should be voted on as a whole and this article by itself. And this article was thoroughly discussed in the canvass before the ratification. And the result of that vote gave a majority of more than ninety thousand of the people of the State, saying: This government was made for white men - not for negroes. And he was not yet convinced but that if they same question were presented to the people of the State to-day, quite as large a majority would be in the same direction.
But we are told that Congress has recently enacted, that negroes are citizens of the United States, and therefore we have no right to exclude them. This involves a question of State rights. Did the General Government create the State Governments, or the States the General Government? Before the General Government was formed, there existed the old thirteen sovereign, separate and independent Colonies or States. These States met by their delegates, and agreed to give up certain of their rights and powers for the general good for the protection of the rest; and thus was formed the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution was framed by the States. Thus was the General Government set in operation. The States created the General Government. And the creature never possesses greater power than the creator. The General Government possesses only the power granted by the States in the general Constitution: and she may exercise these-none other. The General Government possesses no powers but those specifically delegated in the Constitution. And there is no provisions in the General Government Constitution by which Congress may make null and void, any part of a State Constitution. If Congress may enact a law making any one article of the State Constitution null and void, she may destroy the Constitutions of all the States, and deprive them of every attribute of sovereignty and independence, which would be a concentration of all the powers of government in the federal head, and a resusitation of the old federal doctrine, in pursuance of which the alien and sedition laws were enacted, under the administration of the elder Adams.
It follows, then, that the Civil Rights bill can have no force or effect, as against the Constitution of the State of Indiana; nor do I believe there is one eminent lawyer in the State of Indiana who, upon his reputation as a lawyer, would affirm that Congress has power to legislate for the destruction of a State Constitution.
But then, admitting that negroes ars citizens of the United Srates, still we maintain that this State has the right to exclude them if their presence amongst us is regarded as detrimental to the peace and happiness of our people - as likely to produce disturbance. Assuming this repeal to be law, he rested the issue upon this: Would it not be opening the door and inviting negro populations amongst us? Would it not be placing on a social and political equality with ourselves - our families - our children in the schools? And would not that be likely to produce discord and disturbance amongst the inhabitants of the State? He gave examples. He would refer to hisfriend from Vanderburgh [Mr. Bischof ] to the fact, that not long since in that county, a negro man on the Sabbath day, took, a woman in a field, committed a rape on her person, and then undertook to kill her. He did not, however, succeed in that; and the police pursued and caught the scoundrel and he was taken to Evansville, and placed in the jail. But the outraged moral sense of the people would not suffer him to remain, under the protection of the jailor. The enraged mob, taking the law into their own lands, took him from the dungeon and hung him to a lamp-post till he was dead: ["Right - right." ] and it was all the police could do to prevent the infuriated mob from destroying every negroman, women and child - in the neighborhood.
Mr. CRAIN interposed to remind the Speaker that the gentleman's 20 minutes has expired.
Several voices: "Go on!" "Go on."
Mr. BIRD continued. He might be answered by those who would allege that white men also are sometimes guilty of revolting crimes. But he insisted that the page: 226[View Page 226]feeling between the two races was such, that the criminal acts of individuals would be constantly visited upon the race without distinguishing; between the innocent and the guilty. He agreed with Governor Morton in the sentiment which he published in his Richmond speech(he would quote the Governor's words if he could remember them)that the condition of equality of whites and blacks in this country would result in a war between the two races.Mr. HUGHES interposed to arrest the infraction of the twenty minutes rule, and on his motion, it was ordered by unanimous consent that the gentleman from Gibson be allowed to proceed.Mr. BIRD. I might relate other instances going to show incontestably, that the bringing of a negro population amongst us would breed popular disturbances; and that we can not have them amongst us without admitting them nominally and legally to political and social equality with ourselves. Then I claim that this fundamental law is right; and since it is in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court, this is all I want for the present argument; for lawyers know the value of a decision of the Supreme Court. I will now read an extract from a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States:
Chief Justice Taney, in the case of Norris vs. The City of Boston, says:
"Again : If the State has the right to exclude from its borders any person or persons whom it may regard as dangerous to the safety of its citizens, it must necessarily have the right to decide when and toward whom this power is to be exercised. It is, in its nature, a discretionary power, to be exercised according to the judgment of the party that possesses it; and it must, therefore, rest with the State to determine whether any particular class or description of persons are likely to produce discontent or insurrection in its territory, or to taint the morals of its citizens, or to bring among them contageous diseases, or the evils and burdens of a numerous pauper population ; for if the General Government can, in any respect, or by any form of legislation, control or restrain a State in the exercise of this power, or decide whether it has been exercised with proper discretion and toward proper persons and on proper occasions; then the real and substantial power would be in Congress, and not in the States."
This decision states the doctrine plainly, that if we believe any particular class or description of persons, white or black, would be likely to produce discontent or insurrection in the State, or taint the morals of its citizens, or bring amongst them contagious diseases, or the evils and burdens of a pauper population, they can be excluded.
Let us preserve the morals of pur own people, and prevent them from being contaminated by an association with ignorant and degraded negroes. Let us foster and protect our laboring people by preventing competition that will cheapen the price of labor.
Would it not be degrading to a white man a - workman in a mechanic's shopa poor man, bound to work for his living - to be obliged, as he returns home to his wife, to tell her that his employer tells him that be can employ a black man for half the price that he pays to him - when they both know that he is barely earning his living, but bound to come down to the demand of his employer? Gentlemen tell us, however, that the negro must have his rights too. But I contend that this government was made by white men, and for white men; and I want white men to control it, and let the negroes have a country by themselves. Let us dignify labor, and make it honorable. Let us encourage the emigration of our own race, men who will bring with them capital, and that which is more valuable, mechanical skill, industry, intelligence and virtue; men who will fell our forests, cultivate our soil, develope our immense mineral resources, establish and operate manufactories, thereby creating a home market for the raw material and surplus products, and reduce the price of manufactured articles; men who will own and improve our lands, build up our towns and cities, and pay taxes for the support of the government By pursuing this course we will make our people harmonious, happy, prosperous and virtuous.
A VOICE. Will the farmers down in your county employ negroes?
Mr. BIRD. They have the right to do so, if they will.
Mr. GREEN. So far as my county is concerned, they do not.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Gibson has the floor.
Mr. BIRD. But adoptisg the course proposed by this bill from the Senate; we remove all obstructions, and invite the lazy, worthless, trifling vagabond, to emigrate and settle in our State, by enacting laws that will virtually make him the equal of the man, in all respects, socially and politically. I know that there are some who say are not going to do this by law. But I affirm here, that they can not give him all the other rights of the white man, and withhold the right of suffrage. Therefore, if I were in favor of the bill to invite negroes into the State, I would never vote for any law making them my equals. But then, this being done, we may reasonably expect the white race to retrograde more than the negro race will be elevated. If we invite them here, justice and humanity demand that we should give them all the political and social rights that we ourselves enjoy. There should be no distinction on account of color. And then would follow miscegenation and all its concomitant evils.
The two races are different physically, page: 227[View Page 227] morally and intellectually - as different in all these particulars as in their color. They can not meet and mingle in a state of social and political equality without a violation of the law Of nature, and a gross outrage of all our better feelings, and without producing a degradation of our own race. I hope yet to see a policy adopted that will eventually place this unfortunate race as an independent people in their own country.
Mr. GRIGGS next took the floor. Reading from the bill of rights, he insisted that our Democratic friends were living in a fast age. Was not that 13th Article grounded in our prejudices rather than in justice? Ten years ago, in the other end of the Capitol, almost alone, he voted for the repeal of the law disabling the negro from giving testimony in our courts of justice, and he contemplated the advance which his principles have made since that time. He gave, instance, of injustice, oppression and license of crime, the results of that negro disability statute. This was a new era in our Government, and we should do justice alike to all mankind. We should make our country the home of the oppressed Of all nations - which we will do if we would hasten the day of the millenium, forshadowed in the visions of prophesy. On the contrary, it was ignoble and unmanly in the stronger to tread down the weaker race," In this sense, ours was not the white man's government, but a general government for all peoples.
Mr. KIZER next took the floor and spoke the twenty minutes which the rule allows in opposition to the bill for the repeal.
Mr. McFADIN said this question had not been before the people of the State since 1850. What then had made the change assumed here to have taken place? He could not see it. He alleged that social and political equality between these races was never intended by the Creator. He was opposed to slavery as well as these philanthropists. He alleged also that the opposite party were really no more in favor of this pretended equality than he. It was their desire to gain a political object, that inspired this negro philanthropy. The Republican party was gone, if they failed of the negro's vote. He deprecated this mingling of the races, also on account of its effect upon the laboring classes. There was no good result to flow from this repeal. When he had concluded -
Mr. HUGHES asked and obtained leave to introduce a bill [H. R. 288] to amend sections 26 and 27 of the general act defining misdemeanors, &c. [Proposing to raise the penalty for selling liquor to minors, and for adulterating liquors to $500, and to make it a felony, punishable by imprisonment not less than six nor more than twelve months. Involving also disfranchisement and the destruction of liquor stores.] It was referred to the Committee on Temperance.
Mr. GREER indicated an amendment.
The SPEAKER. The bill is not in a condition to amend.
On motion by Mr. McFADIN, it was
Ordered, That when the House shall adjourn to-day, it shall adjourn till to-morrow, at two o'clock p. M.
The House then resumed the
THIRTEENTH ARTICLE - REPEAL.
Mr. PRATHER demanded the previous question, but there was not a second - affirmative 34, negative 38.
Mr. THACHER. I move to recommit the bill to the committee, with special instructions to report a joint resolution to repeal the 13th article of the constitution, so as to leave the subject to the people and the ballot box.
The SPEAKER. It proposes a new subject. It is not germane, but would defeat the bill. It is out of order.
Mr. HUGHES regretted that this subject was brought before the Legislature. It were better left to the action of the Judiciary. But there was not one of these gentlemen so ardent in their opposition to this repeal, that would endorse the doctrine of the thirteenth article in their own neighborhood; not one that would file an affidavit before a justice of the peace and institute a suit to enforce it. The reason is this: we are all of us such slaves of public opinion I do not know that I shall vote for this bill. It is said that the question has been decided by the Supreme Court. If so, so let it rest. I was struck with force of one remark by the gentleman from Gibson [Mr. Bird,] to the effect that no respectable lawyer would venture the opinion that this article was in conflict with the Constitution of the United States.
It had been said by some that the Thirteenth Article becomes null and void because of the civil rights bill. But he undertook to say that if the Thirteenth Article is void by reason of the civil rights bill, it was, void before, and for this reason: Long before the civil rights bill was passed, it was law that whatever rights a citizen of any of the States has in his own State he has in all the States. At the same the negro was a citizen and a voter in some of the States of the Union. Yet, in full view of this provision of the constitution of the United States, we passed our Thirteenth Article. Hence, if it were ever valid, it is valid to-day, as a judicial question. And I agree with the gentlemen from Gibson when he declares that he does not believe there is a respectable lawyer in the page: 228[View Page 228] House that would declare the contrary. We can repeal the law, and allow the Constitution to remain as it is - not because it is not valid in law, but because the temper of the times and the spirit of the people will nullify it. Now the great Republican party has just committed itself to the principle that each State has sovereign control over the qualifications of the voters of the State. But they have got round that point by requiring that the Southern State shall either give the ballot to the negro, or give up the race, as a basis of representation and power in the nation. We are a State Rights party, then, to this extent. Each state has the right to declare who shall be voters. And I apprehend, that it is just as clear, that they have the right to say who shall be excluded from the State.
Now, sir, a great deal has been done for the negro. The war has set him free: and I have no regrets on that account. Whilst he was in slavery, and we had peace, I thought it was best to keep him a slave. And, in common with all the country, I allowed myself to be a hewer of wood and a drawer of water to the Southern States for peace. In my first speeches of the war, I declared my opinion, that every negro in the country was better off with his master and mistress. But slavery was not content when it held in its hand both branches of Congress and the Supreme Court. It was not content, because the people of the United States saw proper, in the exercise of their constitutional powers, to elect Abraham Lincoln and place him in the Presidential chair, where, with a majority against him in Congress, he was powerless - his election being by a minority vote - the direct result of dissensions in the Democratic party itself. When slavery appea ed from the census and the ballot box to the sword, and laid its hands on the Constitution to destroy it - all in the name of Democracy - then, sir, I left the concern, and determined to stand with my country, as I had done in times past - for the Union and the Constitution. And I thought, if, in the conflict, the manacles should be stricken from the limbs of four millions of human beings, I would not regret it; and that when that was done I would protect them in the circumstances resulting from the changed state of their affairs. But now, I do not know that I should therefore desire to have these negroes come amongst us, or that I should desire to make them voters. And I am free to declare that I am not in favor of negro suffrage; and I do not think that I ever will be. I am in favor of giving them protection and justice. But, if I were called upon to give my opinion as to what is now the greatest evil of the country, I would say that it results from a too extended elective franchise. And I think we would better subserve the interests of the country by restricting the elective franchise, than by conferring it upon those with black skin.
I know, sir, that these ideas are not popular. I am no seeker after popularity. I expect even denunciations. But I seek the approbation of my own conscience, without regard to popular clamor. I do not want the negroes here. I do not want them, because their absence has saved the State civil warbecause we chose to have nothing to do with this class of people. If this article of the Constitution has become a dead letter, let it fall. I am for standing by the judicial decisions. Bat I do not want to make haste to anticipate them.
Mr. DOUGLASS followed in a twenty minutes speech in opposition to the bill.
Mr. STAFFORD said some gentlemen were exercised with the fear that the negro will become their equal by some act of this Legislature. He had seen placards to this effect, borne by ladies: "Save us from negro husbands." He had also seen a better motto for the ladies, to this effect: "Fathers save the country, and we will save our selves from negro husbands." He commended that, and would maintain the legislation which forbids intermarriage with negroes. The chief item of information in the speech of the gentleman from Monroe was that he had left the Democratic party.
Mr. ROSS said this 13th article, was established for the purpose of keeping negroes out of the State. Now, was it not the inevitable consequence of the political course of the Republican party to remove the barriers which keep the negroes out the State? Was it desirable to have them here; to have a clouded population, half white and half black? This was denied by them in the late canvass. This bill did not propose in terms the end which was to be accomplished by it. But if we admit negroes, it places them in a position to demand political rights, and places us in a position where we shall be bound to accord them political rights. It was, to say the least, legislation for the negro race. Gentlemen talk flippantly about our fear of making the negroes our equal. It was not social equality that we oppose - God has taken care of that but political equality - which we are able to withhold. If the proposition were submitted to the people to-day, they would vote it down.
Mr. HOSTETTER said there was no reasonable doubt but this bill would pass. And by the passage of this bill do we not declare ourselves subject to the central power, to the extent that Congress may disregard the rights of the several States withua page: 229[View Page 229] impunity? This question will be settled by the action of the House to-day on this bill.
Mr. GREER spoke of the changed condition of the question on account of the destruction of slavery in the Southern States. Whenever we take from freemen any one of the rights of freemen we assume the power to strike down any other right. The negro helped to destroy the rebellion, and for this reason we should extend to him all the rights and privileges of a free man. A negro even in the estimation of many Democrats, was as good a substitute as a white man - in war.
Mr. PEELLE said it is not because the negro is involved here, nor the question whether the 13th Article was right or wrong. But it was the question whether that Articlewas not a dead letter. If so, was it policy to keep on the statute books laws which the moral sense of the people will not enforce? His knowledge of this fact determined his vote in favor of this bill. If it remains on the statute book, it will take away respect for the statutes in general. There was also the decision of the Supreme Court. These considerations alone controlled him.
Mr. LONG, of Kosciusko, demanded the previous question, and there was a second.
The bill failed on the final passage - yeas 48, nays 31lacking a constitutional majority.
And then the House adjourned till tomorrow 2 o'clock P. M.
