HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
MONDAY, February 18, 1867.The House met at 2 o'clock P. M.
On motion of Mr. Stafford the reading of the journal of Saturday was dispensed with.
PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.
Mr. PRATHER presented a Morgan raid petition.
Mr. FERRIS presented a claim, and Mr. Speaker BRANHAM a claim, which were severally referred (without reading) to the Committee on Claims.
Mr. WOLFER presented a temperance petition.
The SPEAKER laid before the House the memorial of John G. Bishop, Post Adjutant of the Department of Indiana, of page: 261[View Page 261] the Grand Army of the Republic, transmitting a resolution adopted by that post last Saturday, February 16, to memorialize the Legislature to continue the Indiana Military Agencies at Washington and Indianapolis for the present year.
On motion by Mr. PRATHER, it was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs.
PRISON COMMITTEE CLERK.
On motion by Mr. BRUCKER, it was
Resolved, That the Committee on the State Prison South be authorized to employ a clerk from February 19, to February 21till their report shall be completed.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Mr. NEWCOMB, from the Committee on Ways and Means, returned Mr. Wolfe's bill [H. R. 263] to increase the per cent, for tax collection, recommending that it be laid on the table.
The report was concurred in.
He also returned Mr. Peelle's parsonage tax-exemption bill [H. R. 252] recommending its passage:
Mr. MILLER returned Mr. McLean's Normal School bill [H. R. 15] with an amendment recommending its passage.
Mr. WOODS, from the Judiciary Committee, returned Mr. Peelle's bill, [H. R. 257] to authorize County Treasurers to destroy the assessment and appraisement lists after four and six years, recommending that it be laid on the table.
The report was concurred in.
He also returned Mr. Shuey's bill [H. R. No. 211] authorizing Hydraulic Companies to appropriate land, recommending its passage.
Mr. DAGGY returned Mr. Shuey's bill [H.R. No. 27,] and his own bill [H. R. 295] to authorize cities to borrow money for School House Building, recommending the passage of the latter with amendments, and that the former be laid on the table.
The latter recommendation was concurred in.
Mr. WASON, from the Committee on Education, returned Mr. Brucker's resolution referred to that Committee, recommending that it be laid on the table - its matter being embraced in a pending bill.
Mr. STAFFORD, from the Committee on Claims, reported against the claim of James Blake, for Marshal service in the reception of returned soldiers. The report was concurred in.
Mr. STEWART, from the select committee thereon, returned the House of Refuge bill [S. 161] recommending its passage.
Mr. WOOD, from the select committee thereon, returned the Congressional apportionment bill [S. No. 1,] with an amendment, recommending its passage.
WHITE RIVER OBSTRUCTION.
Mr. WILSON submitted the following:
WHEREAS, There is a large drift accumulated in the East Fork of White River, where the Wabash and Erie Canal crosses said stream, occasioned by the piers built in the bed of the river in the construction of the said canal across the same, which drift obstructs and has entirely destroyed the navigation of said river by flat-boats, to the serious injury of a large portion of the citizens of this State; and
WHEREAS, said Wabash and Erie Canal, or so much thereof as lies South of Terre Haute, has been suffered and permitted to go into disuse ; therefore
Resolved, That the Committee on Ways and Means be instructed to inquire into the constitutionality and expediency of appropriating by law out of the State Treasury, a sum sufficient to remove said drift and permanently restore the navigation of said river, and that said Committee report by bill or otherwise.
Mr. WILSON said: The people of my county have never asked the Legislature for any appropriation to assist them in any way whatever. The have no railroad by which to convey their produce to market. The White river, on the osom of whose waters they are floating their produce off, has now become useless as a navigable stream in consequence of an immense drift accumulated against the pillars that support that nuisance - the old defunct canal across that stream; and now they come and ask that that drift be removed. The country along White river is a rich agricultural region. It yields an abundance of grain and pork, and we want an outlet. I wish this resolution to be carefully considered, and if it is in the province of this Legislature to provide for the removal of obstructions in navigable streams caused by the action of former legislatures of this State, we trust our claims will not be overlooked.
But, sir, I am conscious that it is most difficult to obtain anything for the benefit of the farming community. But I tell you the farmer supports this government. He bears its burdens. He produces its wealth. On him professional men and all others are dependant; they draw their living out of his blood. His sweat and toil opens the country, builds the towns, ornaments the cities, and schools the children of this State. He is the great bulwark of society, the moral power of the land and the great pillar of our free institutions. In him virtue concentrates. He is no mendicant; generous in all things, and too noble to demand his just rights. And on him we are dependant for the perpetuation of the noble structure of our boasted government. Shall he be neglected ? And when he modestly makes a request, shall he not be listened to? Sir, the time will come when he will be heard, on this floor, and when those who now sneer at him will crouch at his feet. I claim not to be a farmer, but I represent farmers on this floor; and I am a farmer's page: 262[View Page 262]son, and I thank God that I am, for I do hope I inherit some of the noble qualities of that farmer who so often took me by the hand and instructed me in the paths of virtue.
Let this resolution go to the committee. I will meet with them, if permitted, and give them any information they may ask.
And may justice be done.
The resolution was adopted.
THE UNIVERSITY SQUARE.
Mr. WHITE submitted the following:
Resolved, That a special committee of one from each Congressional District be appointed for the purpose of inquiring into the propriety and legality of selling lot No. 25 in the city of Indianapolis, known as 'University Square,' and consolidating the proceeds thereof with the Agricultural College endowment and use of an Agricultural State University, and to provide in connection therewith a State Normal School department, locating the same at or near the city of Indianapolis, and report by bill or otherwise.
Mr. SPENCER proposed to amend by adding the following:
"Provided that the city of Indianapolis shall give the largest amount in money or its equivalent for the state of the State Agricultural College."
Mr. CRAIN moved to strike out form the resolution that which relates to the Normal School; because the State Normal School is already located by law. It has been located by the Commissioners, and they have torn down the Terre Haute Seminary to make room for it.
Mr. WHITE accepted the latter modification.
Mr. MILLER did not think we should start out here upon the principle that we will locate colleges where they will give the most money. He said the State of Illinois has been compelled to reject this principle in the location of their agricultural college. He moved to lay it on the table. But withdrew the motion for
Mr. LITSON, who proposed to amend further, by striking out "agricultural college," and inserting "State lime kiln" in lieu.
The SPEAKER. It is out of order.
Mr. WHITE said it appeared that the claims of one portion of the State were to be ignored in locating this college - he referred to that part of the State east of Bloomington. This was a donation for a college of agriculture and the mechanic arts, including military tacics. He represented the agricultural interest, and he claimed that that interest should be regarded here. Two congressional donations have been donated to Bloomington and Vincennes. This third endowment should build up an institution accessible to the eastern portion of the State. He conceived it would be proper also to provide a normal school department in the State Agricultural College. He asked the adoption of this resolution as a matter of justice to his part of the State.
Mr. HUGHES said this bill had already been elaborately reported on by one committee, and the matter was now the special order for to-morrow, and it might be better for the whole matter to go over and be considered together. He was glad, however, of the suggestion of any matter that might invite a discussion of the subject. He referred to the undoubted right of the State to control this "Square." But the resolution would divert the donation from agriculture and the mechanic arts, if it proposes a normal school. It might be more congruous for the gentleman to propose to remove the State University form Bloomington to Indianapolis, and add this endowment. That would give promise of making a good institution, which he did not think the State University at Bloomington ever could, under the course of action heretofore taken by the State. That institution now had 240 odd students, and it was expected of it to educate those students upon about $7,000 a year, a sum entirely too small. He referred to the educational means of the State, and what had been done. A normal school had been authorized and located; and a proposition to allow towns and cities to tax themselves for funds, in addition to those donated from the State, was soon to become law. He recited facts to show the difference in the policy of the State between making fostering appropriations for the Indiana University and the benevolent institutions here. If the State University felt as the institutions here do, it could come up now and say to the Legislature, Our business is increasing on our hands, and we want a sustaining appropriation. But they do not feel so. And the people of Monroe county were too poor to carry on that State institution by themselves - as they have sustained the law department (the first attempt to make the institution a University) for some years past. It were better, than, if this feeling can not be changed, to remove the University to Indianapolis. He went on to rehearse the feeling of opposition toward Bloomington. She was now applying for this Square, No. 25, which he would show the State University. But, if a bill was introduced to locate the State University on that square, he supposed it would be objected to here. For there were those living in the palatial residences around it, that wanted it for a public park - a walk for nurses and children, in the language of the gentleman from Marion, [Mr. Newcomb.] He argued that over the legal technicalities involved the State is the owner of this square. It had been al- page: 263[View Page 263] ready proposed twice to sell it, or parts of it. He would say then - let the State execute this trust - let them sell it. If this request of the State University is offensive, the institution would be content with another form of State support. But he had supposed than an unused, unoccupied piece of land would be a matter likely to be readiest accorded. He referred again to the rival claims to this land - the claim that came up Saturday from the Vincennes University - and the possessory claim of the city of Indianapolis. Non-action, non-user, was all this city would ask for their title to ripen and mature. From these considerations he urged the duty of the Legislature either to make an order to sell this square, and let the title be at once quieted by the courts or else to take possession of it, and use it for a University site - for the purpose for which they say it was donated. He said there were diversities of opinion about this matter among the citizens here. The same men that were opposing the appropriation of this University Square to the State University, would go before the Common Council and oppose a tax for the location of the Agricultural College on this University Square. He would be still willing that this question should go again to the Committee on Education. He hoped, as for this resolution, that it would be postponed and its consideration go over to the time of the special order for the consideration of this subject.
Mr. ROSS. If the matter was to be referred again, he desired to submit the following to go along with it:
Resolved, By the House, (the Senate concurring)That His Excellency, the Governor, be authorized to appoint some suitable and competent person to ascertain by examination of the records and otherwise, what lots or parts of lots, square, plots, or parcels of ground, or other real estate of any description being parts of four sections of land granted by the United States to the State of Indiana, upon which to locate the seat of government, yet belongs to said State - whether such property is now used for any, and if so, for what purpose; whether the State has dedicated any of such property to any specific object, and if any, what? and whether any or all of said property can be sold by the State, without the violation of any vested rights; and that the results of such investigation be laid before the next legislature.
On motion of Mr. NEWCOMB, the whole subject was postponed and made the special order foo to-morrow at 3 P. M.
CONGRESSIONAL APPORTIONMENT.
On motion of Mr. NEWCOMB, the Congressional Apportionment bill [S. No. 1 see page 217 of these reports] was taken up and read the second time, with the amendments reported from the Select Committee - striking out "Monroe and Lawrence," in the seventh section, and inserting the words, "and Putnam," in lieu; and striking out "Putnam" from the 8th section, and inserting "Monroe and Lawrence" in lieu.
Mr. WOLFE hoped the amendment would not be passed. It made the Vermillion district nearly two-thirds the length of the State; and it was the most extraordinary thing that could be conceived. He preferred the arrangement in the original bill.
The amendments were adopted - yeas 44, nays 26.
Mr. BAKER proposed further to amend, as follows:
Strike out "Perry" and insert "Martin" in lieu; and strike out "Martin" and insert "Perry" in lieu.
Mr. BAKER. The proposition in this bill was to make the first district the largest in the State. It had been found necessary to take in counties with which we have no business connections, and throw out counties with which we are connected. The change which he proposed only made the upper portion of the district a little heavier. It would not make a difference of one hundred votes politically. The representative from Martin [Mr. Inman] was desirous of this change.
Mr. NEWCOMB said the gentleman might see that the Republicans will have the next Congressman from his district by about 250; when by his amendment he might reverse this majority. He was not willing to accomodate him. He defended the general fairness of the bill, as to equalization of population, & c. There was not he inequality complained of. The German population of Perry would make very good district associates for the gentleman, and he would do well to make their acquaintance.
Mr. O'NEIL gave additional reasons for the adoption of the amendment. The first was not only the largest district in the State, but its original rectangular shape was spoiled. If Perry county were left out entirely, it would still leave an unseemly corner reaching up the river. He did not defend the districting made sixteen years ago.
Mr. LITSON said it was a hopeful sign when the Democracy refused to defend the Democratic districting 16 years ago. This shape for the first district was not worse than the Democrats made the fourth district, nor so bad as another district which was made out of two rectangular figures of territory joined at their corners.
Mr. KIZER made a general speech against the bill.
Mr. NEWCOMB answered complaints on account of the shape of the first district. No Democrat could reasonably object to it, who would look at the districting of 1850. On his motion, the amendment was laid on the table - yeas 44, nays 26.
page: 264[View Page 264]Mr. EDMONDSON proposed to amend by striking "Perry" out of the first district, and inserting it in the second, and striking out "Dubois" from the second district and inserting it in the first.
It was laid on the table - yeas 44, nays 28.
Mr. HONNEUS proposed to amend by striking "Jackson" from the second section, and inserting "Lawrence" in lieu; and striking "Lawrence" from the fourth, section and inserting "Jackson" in lieu.
Mr. NEWCOMB appealed to gentlemen not to delay the bill by dilatory amendments.
Mr. HONNEUS spoke in favor of his amendment.
Mr. ROSS made a general speech in opposition to the bill. Its unfairness was manifest in the fact that the bill will allow the Democratic party but one Representative in Congress, when they were in but a merely nominal minority of about twelve thousand votes. Telling the majority plainly what they were doing, he was satisfied with that.
Mr. DUNN defended the action of the majority here in supporting the Senate bill.
Mr. HUGHES said he was satisfied with the character of the bill, except the second district; and others with him could have desired that that were arranged a little better. But he defended the effort to prevent the representation of bad principles in Congress. In reply to Mr. Wolfe, he read a secession extract from the Monroe Freeman newspaper, which was a democratic campaign paper, just before the time of the meeting of the democratic Chicago convention, in 1864. He read it and added comments at length to support the principle just announced. It were better to have representatives of those principles wholly silenced in Congress for the time, till the democratic party might purge itself from the infection indicated in that paper.
Mr. McFADIN retorted, reading extracts from such republican papers as the New York Tribune, Chicago Tribune, Indianapolis Journal, &c, preferring disunion to civil war. He also commented at length.
Mr. BELFORD insisted that the gentleman could not find a republican paper either justifying the rebellion, advocating an armistice, or repudiating the war, after the time of the bombardment of Fort Sumter.
Mr. McFADIN proceeded in a general speech against the enormities general and special.
Mr. NEWCOMB said if the gentleman from Cass would take the trouble to look through the articles in those three Republican papers from which he had read, he would find that they held the principle that, if a majority of the Southern people desired to go out of the Union, and would make such an expression, without coercion, they should be allowed to go out without war. He stated, also that the first speech for the presentation of the Union by war was made by Oliver P. Morton. The Democratic party repudiated the idea of going to war on any terms whatever.
The amendment was laid on the table - yeas 47, nays 29.
Mr. NEWCOMB demanded the previous question on the passage of the bill to the third reading, as amended, and there was a second, and the main question was ordered.
The bill was then passed to the third reading, and the amendments were ordered to be engrossed, without a division.
On motion of Mr. CAMPBELL, his court bill [H. R. 293] fixing the times of holding the circuit courts in the 5th Judicial Circuit, was taken up.
On motion of Mr. NEWCOMB, it was amended by adding, with reference to the time of holding court in Marion county, these words: "or longer, if the business require it."
The bill was then ordered to the engrossment.
On motion by Mr. THACHER, Mr. Moore obtained leave of absence till Wednesday.
The House then adjourned.
