HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
WEDNESDAY, February 20, 1867.The House met at 9 A. M.
Mr. RATLIFF moved that the reading of the journal of yesterday be dispensed with.
Mr. McFADIN desired to have the journal read.
The motion to dispense was rejected.
Mr SHUEY moved ineffectually to dispense with, the reading of the journal, excepting the record of the action of the House on the Congressional Apportionment bill, S. No. 1.
The journal having been read and approved -
On motion of Mr. NEWCOMB, it was ordered that absentees when the Congressional Apportionment bill, S. No. 1, was passed the House yesterday, be allowed to record their votes thereon, as they may desire to do so: whereupon
Mr. Morrison voted No; Mr. Kizer, No; Mr. Litson, Aye; Mr. Wolflin, Aye; Mr. Fuller, No; Mr. Skidmore, Aye; Mr Vawter No; Mr. Tebbs, No; Mr. Wolfer. Aye; Mr. Honneus, No; Mr. Bird, No; Mr. Baker, No, and Mr. Shoaff, No.
Mr. CHAMBERS made an ineffectual motion to take up the bill, S. No. 42. defining the 7th judicial circuit.
PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.
The SPEAKER, and Messrs. SHULL, MATTHIS, NEWCOMB and McLEAN, severally presented claims, which (without reading) were referred to the Committee on Claims.
Messrs. Irwin, Wolfe, Hamilton, Mason, Dunn, McMurray, Thacher, Stafford, Skidmore, Montgomery, Cory, Chambers, Shanks and McCarthy, severally presented petitions for the prohibition of intoxicating liquors, which (generally without reading) were referred to the Committee on Temperance.
Mr. FERRIS presented the memorial of John S. Hall and Abel W. Hall, contractors for convict labor in the State Prison South, setting forth a statement of facts, and reasoning against any change in the present system of prison management. It was referred to the Committee on State Prison South.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Mr. McLEAN, from the Education Committee returned Mr. Wright's Jasper county seminary land sales bill [H. R. 264], and Mr, CORY returned Mr. Wason's bill [H. R. 197] providing for the election of one school trustee for each ward of the cities and one additional for the city at large, recommending their passage.
Mr. WASON, from the Committee on Education, returned Mr. Shock's bill [H. R. 198] to increase the school tax, recommending its indefinite postponement, for the reason that its provisions are embraced in a pending proposition. The report was concurred in.
Mr. LITSON, from the Military Committee, returned the Soldiers' Home bill [S. 4] with an amendment recommending its passage.
Messrs. FERRIS, LOPP, STAFFORD and CRANE, severally submitted reports from the Committee on Claims, against the allowance of the claims of John I. Morrison. R. 0. Dormer and Solomon De Loug and Harmon Riggs ; and in favor of the allowance of the claims of Mrs. Pentecost, T. & C.C. Smith for $150 80 and the claim of Colonel Grafton F. Cookerly for $2,500 indemnity for the destruction of his press, &c., in 1862 by a military command.
Mr. SHUEY said this claim was an old one, and he should like to know more about it.
page: 282[View Page 282]Mr. ROSS stated the case. Some Democrat had said what he pleased some four years ago, and some shoulder-strapped individual destroyed his printing office for it, for the public good!
Mr. CAMPBELL said this was the first intimation he had of this claim. If this press was destroyed by soldiers in the service of the Government, the claimant ought to go to the General Government for indemnity. But if it was the work of a mob, the remedy was in the courts.
Mr. STAFFORD said he was opposed to the claim, not because this man was a Democrat - for he had neither said nor done anything against the country - but, on the contrary, he had a son in the war, &c. But because the destruction of Mr. Cookerly's press was induced by his home enemies. To give this indemnity would be a bad precedent.
Mr. CAMPBELL said that there were mobs all over the country; and would the State pay all the losses by mobs? But now every Democrat here will vote for this pay, though the leader of the mob that destroyed this press, he understood, was a leading Democrat, of Putnam county, at the time, and that he had since left the country He was opposed to this report. On political account, he would not pay for the destruction of a copperhead press, and he would not support the report because of the precedent.
Mr. BLANCH took the floor, but gave way for the
SPECIAL ORDER.
The SPEAKER, announced the special order, viz: the consideration of Mr. White's Petroleum Inspection bill [H. R. 284]
On motion of Mr. WHITE it was postponed and made the special order for tomorrow, 10 o'clock.
COUNTY AUDITORS.
Mr. NEWCOMB (by leave) from the Committee on Ways and Means, returned Mr. Fu ler's assessment laws amendment bill [H. R. 296] recommending its indefinite postponement.
Also, the assessment laws amendment bill [S. 53] stating that the law has been amended about as often as the Constitution will permit.
Mr. FULLER explained that the bill, No. 296, was to extend the time for the Auditor to return his tax duplicate to the County Treasurer from the 15th of October to the 15th of November. He was satisfied with the report of the Committee, because the object would be secured by another bill.
These reports were then concurred in and the said bills were indefinitely postponed.
THIRTEENTH ARTICLE REPEAL.
On motion of Mr. GRIGGS, the Thirteenth Article Repeal bill [S. No. 7] which failed once in the House for want of a constitutional majority, was taken up and finally passed the House of Representatives - yeas 56, nays 29.
SENATORIAL AND REPRESENTATIVE APPORTIONMENT.
On motion of Mr. WOODS, the Legislative Apportionment bill [S. No. 166-, printed on page 218 of these REPORTS] was taken up and read the second time, with the committees amendment thereto, viz: giving joint representation to Bartholomew and Shelby instead of Bartholomew and Jennings.
Mr. PRATHER said this was the same originally with his bill on this subject. He had felt himself strengthened by the Senate's action. It had been said that men were disfranchised and the State was gerrymandered by that bill. He remembered what was done sixteen years ago - that ut Jennings with Jackson for senatorial purposes - disfranchising many in Bartholomew, etc. He defended the considerations which induce men to legislate for the perpetuation of right principles. And he defended the general fairness of the bill. But he opposed the amendment reported by the committee as an attempt to thrust his country back into, associations for representative purposes with those against whom they have been so long battling. It was a proposition coming from the enemy. He referred to one of the early anti-war speeches of Mr. Senator Hendricks to the Chicago Convention, and other matter of history, which has blackened and destroyed the repute and ancient renown of the Democratic party; and he believed now, that the House would spurn, (as he did,) any advice coming from that quarter for modification of this bill. He moved to lay the amendment of the majority of the committee on the table, and demanded the yeas and nays.
The motion was rejected - yeas 11, nays 74; and the question recurred on the amendment.
Mr. KIZER made a personal speech by way of reply to the gentleman from Jennings.
Mr. WILLIAMS proposed to amend, by striking out "Shelby" and inserting "Brown."
He could see no good reason why Jennings should have a joint representative, when she lacks four votes of enough to entitle her to one representative. He stated the relative voting strength of these counties to sustain his amendment-ignoring the political considerations indulged - with the statement that his son lost his life on a Southern battlefield.
Mr. BARRITT also defended the amendment. He would not defend his loyalty beyond his record. He would not injure Jen- page: 283[View Page 283] nings, but asked for justice for Bartholomew.
Mr. THACHER defended the committee's amendment. He opposed Mr. Williams' amendment, giving reasons.
Mr. WOODS said this was a question of figures, not as to how many of our wives' relations have been in the army. He moved to lay Mr. Williams' amendment on the table.
It was so ordered.
Mr. WOLFE was proceeding to offer general considerations against the bill - but
The SPEAKER had given the floor to
Mr. LITSON, who submitted the foliowing:
Amend the second section so that it will read: "Jefferson and Scott one; Jennings and Bartholomew one."
Amend the third section so that it will read :
"Bartholomew one ; Jennings and Bartholomew one."
On motion of Mr. NEWCOMB, it was laid on the table.
Mr. FOULKE stated the reasons why themajority of the committee opposed thea mendment, showing that Jennings, under original bill, would have a representation of1784 more than she is entitled to: and what was given Bartholomew and Shelby, only left them a surplus of about 600 unrepresented.
Mr. NEWCOMB demanded the previous question, and under its force the committee's amendment was adopted.
Mr BOBO proposed to amend the bill as follows:
Strike out "Morgan and Johnson one; Wells and Adams one." in the third secrion, and insert this: "Wells one, and the county of Adams one."
Mr. BOBO gave considerations supporting his amendment, and speaking generally in opposition to the bill, and of the relative merits of the services of Democrats and Republicans in war. If his amendment was not, acceptable, he hoped at least the House would give them something; better than a representative for 5,000 voters.
Mr. NEWCOMB showed by arithmetic, that Republican counties suffer more than the gentleman's district. Mr Woods interposed to say that the counties of Saint Joseph and Marshall had a larger surplus.
Mr GREER defended the apportionment for representative purposes which this bill proposes He gave way for a further statement by
Mr. BOBO, who continued to allege that our voice and action in the House of Representatives would be taken away without his amendment.
Mr GREER then moved to lay Mr Bobo's amendment on the table.
It, was so ordered.
Mr. LOPP proposed to amend in the 3d section, by striking out, "Johnson and Morgan one," and inserting "Harrison and Washington one."
He called attention to the number of voters marked on the map, which justified his amendment.
Mr. PRATHER said the committee left Morgan and Johnson just where they found them under a Democratic apportionment.
Mr. VAWTER said the Democracy were satisfied so far as Morgan and Johnson are concerned here. He defended the old apportionment. On his motion Mr. Lopp's amendment was laid on the table.
Mr. CROWE proposed to amend by giving the joint member from "Jefferson, Scott and Clarke" to "Scott and Clarke." He defended this proposition. If Scott has a joint representation with Clarke, there would be a possibility that the former county might sometime have a representative on this floor.
Mr. LITSON moved to lay the amendment on the table. But whithheld the motion for
Mr, O'NEIL, who made a statement of figures showing that Jefferson and Ripley counties have an excess of representation in the General Assembly of over a thousand votes, &c. He supported the amendment at length, contemplating the senatorial and representative situation in the down river counties of Clarke and Floyd
Mr. HONNEUS could tell gentlemen that this amendment would not change the political complexion. It was wrong to disfranchize the small counties The amendment would correct one of the most glaring things in the bill.
Mr. LITSON repelled the audacity of gentlemen talking about unfairness here, who come from counties where the Democratic representatives come hereby the intervention of illegal votes from Kentucky. He replied to the calculations with respect to the representat on proposed for Jefferson county, alleging that no arithmetic could show that the bill gave her an excess of more than about six hundred votes He renewed the motion to lay the amendment on the table.
It was so ordered, by yeas 57, nays 31.
The House then took a recess until 2 o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. EDMONSON proposed to amend the bill further, so,as to give Vanderburgh one, Dubois one, and Martin one
Mr. HOPKINS supporred the amendment.
On motion by Mr NEWCOMB, it was laid on the table
Mr. SHULL proposed further to amend page: 284[View Page 284] by striking out all after the enacting clause and inserting this: Each county in the State shall be entitled to one representative except the counties of Wayne, Allen and Marion, which shall have two each. He supported this proposition by various considerations, but chiefly that of justice to the counties, which was denied by the Senate bill.
Mr. McFADIN said this was the first proposition that has been offered which he felt like supporting on this floor. He referred to the impracticability of one man adequately representing more than one county. The proposition, he was informed, made the even one hundred members the limitation of the Constitution.
Mr. HAMILTON. Was it the people or the dirt that's going to rule this State? If it is the dirt, the gentleman was right.
Mr. NEWCOMB supposed from the character of the last amendment that gentlemen have about run out all their amendments He showed something of the inequality and unconstitutionality of the amendment; and moved to lay it on the table
The motion was agreed to - yeas 58, nays 26.
Mr. SHIELDS proposed to amend, by striking out: "Kosciusko and Fulton one," and inserting: "Fulton one." He submitted considerations in favor of this modification.
Mr. HUGHES was surprised at the opposition to this bill, based on the fact that it did so much for the Union party. He was sorry it did not do more. Members of that party have read the Constitution. It was a conscientious party - had not yet learned to substitute discipline for principle. Such men had perfected this bill,- such men wanted justice to the nineteenth part of a hair. Leaving out these floating representations, it would be impossible to make any successful criticism on the bill. We ought all to desire to make the Union party as strong as possible in the Legislature. It could not be incumbent on gentlemen to go home and show that their every voter was represented. If he were to go back to his constituents and say to them: though you have not got the representation you desire, yet it is given to the Union party in some other place, he did not suppose they would say to him "anathema maranatha," but on the contrary, "good and faithful servant." He would like to vote for this amendment, but he felt himself pledged to vote for the bill as it is. He was sorry to see the public time consumed, but he supposed it would result pretty much as it was agreed upon in the street the other day that the bill would pass as it is, &c. And after taking a wide discursive range of remark, in which he was indulged by the House, notwithstanding the twenty minutes' restriction, he closed by alleging again the impossibility of Union men uniting and conspiring to pass an unfair apportionment bill.
Mr. KIZER replied at length to Mr. Hughes - following in the same discursory vein, requiring sometimes the interposition of the Chair for order.
Mr. NEWCOMB brought the debate back to the amendment by Mr. Shields, to give Fulton a representative; and when he had described its effects on the bill, on his motion, it was laid on the table.
He then moved that the bill be ordered to the third reading; whereon he demanded the previous question, and under its force, the amendments were ordered to the engrossment, and the bill to the third reading.
On his further motion, the bill was made the special order for to-morrow at 2 o'clock P. M.
On motion of Mr. CHAMBERS, the 7th judicial circuit bill [S. 42] was taken up on the second reading. It affects the times of holding court in the counties of Grant, Delaware, Henry and Hancock. It was finally passed the House of Representatives - yeas 76, nays 3.
22D OF FEBRUARY.
On motion of Mr. THACHER, the concurrent resolution of the Senate for a national salute to be fired at the south front of the Capitol, Friday, the 22d of February, was taken up.
Mr. SPENCER proposed to amend by inserting after the word "February" these words, "And for his integrity in the most trying time of our national history, we regard Abraham Lincoln as the special jewel of the Republic."
Mr. O'NEIL moved ineffectually to lay the amendment on the table.
The SPEAKER then decided the amendment as not germane to the resolution, and out of order.
The Senate's resolution was then concurred in.
Mr. WILSON obtained leave to introduce a joint resolution [H. R. 17] to instruct the Governor to send an agent to the State of Mississippi, to secure the protection and release of David Harrison, of Pike county, which was passed to the second reading.
STATE MILITARY AGENCIES.
Mr. Belford's joint resolution [H. R. 9] declaring that there is no law now in force to pay the expenses of the Military Agencies in Indianapolis and Washington, D. C.. and abolishing said offices, &c. - coming up on the 2d reading - with the amendments if the Committee on Military Affairs -
Mr. LITSON said the amendments transfer the business on hand to the Adjutant page: 285[View Page 285] General without any additional cost to the applicants.
Mr. CRAIN. Does the amendment continue the office here.
Mr. LITSON. No, sir.
Mr. STEWART might not understand this matter thoroughly; but he was unwilling to do anything that would militate against the interests of soldiers or their families. He understands that there are some 6,000 claims still pending; and he hesitated about where to pass these matters. He would not pass them over to the claim agents; and should vote against taking in that portion of this business.
Mr. BELFORD said this agency was designed for the soldiers' accommodation. It was a creature of the war, and worked well; but not since the war. The soldiers in his region employ the local agents, and would not be taxed to support the State agency, understood that the State's agent had drawing compensation from the State Treasury without authority of law. Its benefits also were local. Not a single soldier in his region had derived any benefit from it. Then it was for the General Assembly to determine whether this agency, local in Benefits, shall be continued at the expense of all the people? He did not think local influences should prevail for the continuance of these agencies; nor should they be paid out of the treasury for doing what advertise as the promptings of philanthropy. If this agency was to be continued, he said the unlawful peculations of the treasury by the agents ought to be avoided by an appropriation.
Mr NEWCOMB answered the implication that this agency was unlawfully supported out of the treasury. He stated that it was from the five per cent, fund, provided byit the last session, that these agencies at Washington city and Indianapolis were maintained. He supposed the Governor did right - did not exceed the discretion - given him by the act of 1865. As at present advised, he should vote against the joint resolution on its passage.
Mr. WOLFE considered that this diversion of the five per cent, fund was wrong.
Mr. MILLER would be distinctly understood that he uttered no word of censure against these agents paid by the State. But these agencies have failed in their object - business having only extended to 5,000soldiers - but a small part of the claim business. Many private agencies have done - business. Besides we have this State agency collecting the claims of officers.
Mr. SCAMMAHORN would be willing to continue the agency if it were necesfary.
Mr. MILLER. So would he; but he objected to supporting an agency which could not reach one case in a thousand. If it would benefit all soldiers alike, he would support it.
Mr BLANCH was opposed to discontinuing this agency. He was a friend of the soldier. If this unsettled business were thrown into the office of the Adjutant General, it could not be done there without expense. He would leave this question of the continuance or not of this agency entirely to the Governor.
Mr. GORDON said in most cases that have come under his observation, it has cost more for distant applicants to come to Indianapolis than it would to employ any local claim agent, who is allowed to charge but $5. There were few outside of Marion county that come to the State Agent. Those only who live in the vicinity of Indianapolis were benefitted by this State agency, If it were to be continued every county should have an agent.
Mr. NEWCOMB. What will be done with cases where the local agent will not do the business for $5?
Mr. GORDON said he knew of none that have been turned away on account of that difficulty.
Mr. BOBO stated cases of insufficiency of testimony where the State Agency utterly fails in efficacy. It depends wholly on the kindness and energy of the attorney - the claim agent - whether cases of difficulty are got through or not.
Mr. LITSON said the committee came to the conclusion that these agencies were a most expensive luxury to the soldier. He said, also, that it was a fact that all cases of unjust claims were freely taken at the agency across the street. What the soldiers want was nothing more than the integrity of local agents. He was in favor of abolishing this thing, because the soldiers do not ask for it - nearly all of them depending on private agencies. He referred to the fact of the refusal of the General Assembly last winter to legalize this thing, and yet it was continued here.
Mr. WOODS proposed to recommit the bill, with instructions to amend so as to provide for the establishment of a local agent in each county, who shall be paid out of the State Treasury the fees that the local agents are allowed to charge. The appointment of these agents might be made by the Governor, or any other authority which the committee might prefer. He referred to cases of soldiers having been charged here - not for getting the certificates - but for getting the money from the paymaster. "From one we might learn all."
Mr. STAFFORD made kindred intimations against these agencies.
Mr. NEWCOMB said he was unwilling to hear these intimations, unless gentlemen would name the offender.
page: 286[View Page 286]Mr. McLEAN. Whilst he was in favor of the resolution, he was satisfied that Mr. Hannaman, the agent here, would never have been a party to such a piece of larceny - such as getting money from soldiers under false pretences.
Mr. HUGHES demanded the previous question, and under its force -
Mr. Wood's amendment was rejected.
The committee's amendment was then agreed to, and the resolution was ordered to the engrossment.
The House then adjourned.
