HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
FRIDAY, February 22, 1867.The House met at 9 o'clock.
On motion of Mr. SHUEY, the reading the journal of yesterday was dispensed with.
CLAIMS.
The SPEAKER said, under the rules, the House would return to the hearing of reports from the committees. At the expiration of the morning hour yesterday reports were being received from the Committee on Claims.
Mr. CHOWE. from the Committee on Claims, returned Mr Prather's Morgan raid indemnity bill [H. R. 14] with an amendment, striking out all after the enacting clause and inserting new matter, recommending its passage.
Mr. WRlGHT, from the Claims Committee, returned papers in the claims for services as Commissioners for examination of the Sinking Fund records in 1866, recommending their allowance, namely, E. W. H Ellis, $417: F. J. De La Hunt, $425; John A. Matson, $325; and Charles P Jacobs, clerk, $350.
The report was concurred in.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES
Mr. MASON, from the Committee on County and Township Business, returned Mr. Foulke's Road Tax bill [H. R. 165,] recommending its passage.
Mr MARTIN, from the Committee on Agriculture, returned his Agricultural bill [H. R. 289,] recommending its passage.
Mr. BARRITT, from the Committee on Corporations, returned Mr Woods' Mutual Insurance Liquidation bill [H. R. 78.] recommending its indefinite postponement. The report was concurred in.
IMMIGRATION.
Mr HONNEUS, from the Select Committee on Immigration, returned Mr. Hamilton's Immigration bill [H. R. 282,] recommending its indefinite postponement,
Mr. HONNEUS said it is a bill making an appropriation of $2,000 for publishing pamphlets to induce immigration. The committee deem it inexpedient to offer any large sum of money for such purpose.
Mr. NEWCOMB said the two last messages of the Governor recommends appropriations to encourage immigrations. And he thought an appropriation of $2,000 laid out in pamphlets is a very small sum for such a purpose.
Mr. HAMILTON would not be willing to call in question the wisdom of the committee, but he did think it wise to make this appropriation. We have talked a great deal about encouraging immigration, but we can not expect results without appropriations and efforts. The proposition (he introduced the bill) was to offer a premium for pamphlets to furnish the necessary in formation of the resources, &c., of our State to the people of other countries. These pamphlets ought to be sent to those who reside in foreign countries. This appropriation was to furnish these pamphlets and pay the postage.
The report was concurred in.
Mr. PRATHER, from the special committe on apportionment, returned the Legislative apportionment bills [H. R. 94 and 100]. by Mr Crain, [H.R.85], by Mr Spencer, [H R. 75], by Mr. Skid-more, and [H. R. 22], by Mr Bobo, asking that they severally be laid on the table, for the reason that the Committee have recommended the passage of the Senate bill 166, now pending in the House.
On motion of Mr. NEWCOMB, the report was amended so as to read, "which has passed the House."
Mr. ROSS said he would rather apportion over again.
The report was then concurred in.
W. S. HUBBARD AND OTHERS.
Mr. NEWCOMB moved ineffectually to take up from the table the report on the claims of W. S. Hubbard and others, of Indianapolis.
COUNTY TREASURERS.
Mr. BARRITT introduced a bill [H. R. 317] for an act to amend section 35 of the valuation and assessment act [Concerning the commission of County Treasurers for collecting taxes on county lines.]
It was read the first time and referred to the Judiciary Committee.
COUNTY SURVEYORS.
Mr. McFADIN introduced a bill [H. R. 318] for an act to provide for the election of County Surveyors, fixing certain of their fees, and repealing all laws conflicting therewith.
[The county to provide him with an office, with necessary instruments, fixtures, old field notes, &c. And it proposes as the duty of the Surveyor to establish a meridian line at his county seat, and correct his instrument by it at least once a year.]
The bill having been read -
Mr. NEWCOMB moved to reject it. It, was too late in the sesson to bring in long-winded bills in regard to such matters as the office of the County Surveyor. Another reason for this motion was this: The gentleman from Cass has given frequent demonstrations that he intends to lock and delay the business of the House as much as he can. He hoped, therefore, that the House would now set the precedent, that all unimportant bills offered hereafter be promptly rejected.
Mr. McFADIN said the bill was gotten up by a county surveyor; and was there any matter of more general importance than a bill regulating this office?
Mr. STEWART said. This matter has already been before the Committee on Fees and Salaries, and they declined to favor it.
Mr. BELFORD said, such a bill was sent to him some days ago, and he declined to introduce it, because of the pendency of a similar bill in the Senate.
It was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
page: 301[View Page 301]INDIANA UNIVERSITY.
Mr. McLEAN (as the result of deliberations in the Committee on Education) introduced a bill [H. R. 319] for an act authorizing an appropriation of money out of the State treasury for the use of the State University located at Bloomington in Monroe county. [It proposes $5,000 a year, to be paid semi-annually, commencing on the 31st day of March, 1867.]
It was read the first time, and passed to the second reading.
EXTRA SESSION.
Mr. GRIGGS introduced a joint resolution [H. R. 19] requesting the Governor to call an extra session of the Legislature to convene immediately on the adjournment of the present session.
Mr. MONTGOMERY moved that it be rejected.
Mr. GRIGGS said he introduced it to ascertain the mind of the House. There are over 300 bills now on the files of the House - not one-third of which can possibly be reached this sessio - of which there remains but about 10 or 11 working days. In view of these facts will it not be necessary for the Legislature to be convened again? The object is that the subject may be reflected on; and if it should be found necessary to call an extra session it would save expense to call it at once. The only question was, whether the suffering interests of the State would justify the expense.
Mr. SHUEY hoped the House would not vote it down at this time. Let it lie over till we have better information to govern our action.
On motion by Mr. WOLFE, it was laid on the table.
PUBLIC PRINTING.
Mr. McCARTHY submitted the following:
Resolved, That the Committee on Public Printing be instructed to inquire into the propriety of having the exact cost of the printing of every document, bill or other matter, printed in accordance with law or by direction of the General Assembly, printed in legible form immediately in connection with the name of the Public Printer; and report by bill or otherwise.
It was adopted.
TEMPERANCE.
Messrs. SHIELDS and KIZER (obtaining leave) presented petitions for a prohibitory liquor law, which, without reading, were referred to the Committeee on Temperance.
SOLDIERS' EXTRA BACK PAY.
Mr. GREER introduced a joint resolution [H. R. 20] instructing our Senators and requesting our Representatives in Congress to use their influence for the passage of a law allowing soldiers who have been confined as prisoners of war in the South, extra pay for the time they were held as prisoners.
It was read the first time and passed to the second reading.
Mr. HOPKlNS introduced a bill [H. R. 321] for an act to provide for refunding to Alvah Johnson a sum of money equal to the judgment in the case of the State against John W. Johnson and others. It was read the first time and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. CORY introduced a bill, [H. R. 322] to amend the 24th and 100th sections of the Common School law. [Fifty dollars penalty against trustees failing to qualify schools to be closed when institutes are in session.] It was read the first time and referred to the Committee on Education.
TEN MINUTES RULE.
Mr. FOULKE submitted the following:
Resolved, That hereafter no member of this House shall be allowed to speak on any bill or resolution more than ten minutes at one time, without the consent of the House.
He said more than two-thirds of the time of the House is consumed in making speeches merely to swell the volume of the BREVIER REPORTS. He thought it would expedite business to restrict the speches.
Mr. NEWCOMB moved to amend the resolution by inserting fifteen minutes instead often.
Mr. RATLIFF wanted to take a moment to just to enter his protest against long speeches in the House. Before he came here he read it in the rules of the House that members shall be required to speak to the subject matter before the House; also, that members shall be required to observe decorum, and refrain from indulging in personalities. But since he has been in his place here he had learned that these are but paper rules. He believed that if the rules of the House were properly observed and enforced, we will yet have time to do the business of the session, and adjourn and go home before the sixty days are out.
Mr. O'NEIL believed there is a rule limiting speeches to twenty minutes, and if gentlemen will observe the rules requiring them to speak to the point, he thought we would have time to do all the business of the session and make all the speeches they may desire. He moved to lay the whole subject on the table, demanding the yeas and nays on the motion.
The motion was rejected - yeas, 27; nays, 34; and the question recurred on the amendment.
Mr. GORDON was opposed to the amendment. Ten minutes was ample time for a speech here. He had listened to lengthy arguments of gentlemen here, without being able to decide why they were made, unless it were to influence their own vote; for he was very sure that no speech here had influenced his vote in any particular. If more time were given to working and less page: 302[View Page 302]to speaking, we would do more business He had heard speeches here an hour and a half long, without a word to the question before the House. He hoped the House would restrict the speeches, and get rid of all necessity for an extra session.
Mr. WOLFE, Ten minutes would be plenty time now for a speech. The amendment of the gentleman from Marion ought not to prevail. Two weeks more would close the session, and these restrictions were necessary. It was so in the Constitutional Convention of 1850, where they had to cut down, first to an hour, then to half an hour, then twenty minutes, and at last to five minutes. No man should desire now to make a long speech.
The amendment was rejected, and then the resolution was adopted.
Mr. GRIGGS introduced a bill [H. R. 328] for an act to suppress tippling houses, and to regulate the sale of spiritous, vinous, malt and other intoxicating liquors.
It was read the first time, and referred to the Committee on Temperance.
HOUSE OF REFUGE.
The SPEAKER announced the special order - the House of Refuge bill [S. 161] (see page 184 of these Reports.)
On motion of Mr. McLEAN, its further consideration was postponed, and it was made the special order for Tuesday at ten o'clock.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Mr. THACHER rose to a personal explanation. He is reported in this morning's Journal as in favor of the criminal court bill before the House yesterday. Two years ago he supported the Marion county criminal court bill, to accommodate his friend from Marion, and for the further reason, that he thought if the court did its duty, they would send voters enough to the penitentiary to admit of a democratic gain in this county. And they did. But he was opposed now to increasing the number of those courts.
NORTHERN PRISON LEASE.
The SPEAKER then announced the other special order, viz: the consideration of Mr. Miller's Northern Prison Kirkpatrick Lease bill [H. R. 126], the question being on the second reading thereof.
Mr. STEWART was disposed to get at the vote on this question as early as possible. In principle, he was opposed to leaning prisoners. It would be a backward step. Since the days of Howard, the spirit of the age has been for the amelioration of the condition of all prisoners. Then, for to test the sense of the House, he moved the indefinite postponement of the bill arid pending amendment.
Mr. CAMPBELL agreed with the gentleman from Rush [Mr. Stewart] that it is opposed to the spirit of the age to lease out the labor of convicts in the penitentiary for This House, at the opening of the session, evinced its dissatisfaction with the old Board of Trustees, by the selection of a new Board, in whom we all have confidence, and, for one, he was willing to leave the management of the prison to them.
Mr BELFORD (interrupting). Is not the gentleman aware that one of this Board drew up one of the bills here for leasing the Northern Prison?
Mr. CAMPBELL. He was not, But, however that may be, he hoped every member would vote to postpone this bill for leasing. A hundred men could not do that business as well as three. We elected these men to manage the prison; arid if it should be leased, they ought to do it. No man was going to lease this prison, except for profit; and, as it was said yesterday, no men can make money on such a lease except by overworking the prisoners and putting them on short allowance. It savored too much of the spirit of Southern slavery, to be told that lessees would treat the prisoners kindly for the sake of getting more work out of them. That was an old fogy idea.
Mr. McLEAN. The great objection urged against the leasing system was the humanitarian point: that it is against the spirit of the age to lease the muscle of the convicts. He confessed that this argument did not strike him with ranch force. In the first place, under the law, the muscles of these convicts are already leased out; and there is no provision of law that forbids the directors from leasing. That being the case, the humanitarian view certainly has no force. He always understood that a berth in the penitentiary was not a flowery bed of ease anyhow, and his friends who are fond of their own ease need not be told that a berth in the penitentiary is not a place to be recommended for comfort. The law says a man, condemned to the penitentiary, shall be confined to hard labor therein, and it is the duty of the directors to regulate the discipline of the prison, no matter to whom it may be leased. It is their duty to prescribe how many hours the convicts may be worked, and see to the sanitary regulations - that they are properly worked, fed and clothed. These are matters over which the prison lessees have no control. These prison directors are not men of straw - not mere sinecures, if they do their duty. It is their duty under the law to see that harsh and inhuman treatment is not extended to these prisoners. He thought the reports would show, that since the Southern Prison has passed from the hands of the last lessee, it has cost the page: 303[View Page 303] State no less than $80,000: and no man need tell him that the labor of from two hundred to five hundred convicts can not be made self-sustaining. There was no reason why it should not be. It is estimated that the actual cost of feeding, clothing and guarding one convict is at the rate of thirty cents per diem: and no man need tell him that there is not a large margin for profit in the working of that number of men. Then why does not the State make money by the penitentiary? Here is the difficulty: No body feels any interest in making the labor of these men productive. The directors have berths under the law, but they act as mere sinecures. They visit the prison occasionally: but they do not see that the labor of the convicts is applied so that it will compensate the principal in the most profitable manner: and it is a notorious fact that every description of oversight and management costs the State twice as much as an individual. And there was no reason to hope that the present management of the prisons will be much improved. If any gentleman would show him that it will be improved, he would join him in opposing tho leasing system. And then there was a history of venality and corruption about the Northern Prison, partly disclosed on this floor yesterday, that he did not believe could exist under the lease system. If the Legislature were prepared to lease this prison to any one man or set of men, the Directors have the power to make the lease under the law. Let them exercise it; for they, better than the Legislature, can guard against all combinations which it may be desirable to avoid.
Mr. WILSON made a statement with reference to the draft of a prison lease bill, by one of the proprietors, which was not understood by the reporter. He stated his views and feelings on the question of leasing the prisons. He was conscious that there are men who could and perhaps would act discreetly and well as lessees; but he was inclined to think that, generally, those who would undertake such a business would hardly have the heart in them to treat the prisoners with humanity. There is a difference between hard labor and good treatment. A man might be required to labor hard and still be treated as a human being ought to be treated. He adopted the opinion of the county commissioner with regard to the applicant for license to sell liquor. The applicant came with his petition duly signed - with his recommendation and papers properly made out - and demanded his license "Well," said the commissioner, UI am of the opinion that no man good moral character will engage in an immoral business." So thought Mr. W. generally of those who were willing to lease a State prison.
Mr. GORDON, for one, was in favor of leasing these prisonsboth of them. First, as a matter of economy to the State. Past experience has shown us that the present system of management has cost the State from $20,000 to $40,000 annually. He would get rid of that expense, if it could be done by leasing to trustworthy and suitable parties. He was not in the interest of any man or set of men; but he knew that the men set forth in the bill before the House are gentlemen in every sense of the word. But his principal object in rising was, to call the attention of the House to an allusion made on this floor yesterday, by the gentleman from White [Mr Spencer]. That gentleman's remarks with reference to the official corruptions in the Northern Prison might have been understood as pointing to those men who are proposed as lessees in this bill. He did not know whether they were so intended or not. But he would say this as to Colonel Fitzpatrick: I have known him for years. I knew him well in the service. He was a gallant officer, and beloved of his men. And upon his return home he was indorsed by his neighbors in a'nomination and election by an overwhelming majority as County Treasurer.
Mr SPENCER interposed to explain. He would say nothing to impeach the character of Col. Fitzpatrick or Col. Robinson. But he alleged it as his opinion that, if they get this lease, the present warden of the prison will hold his present position.
Mr. GORDON was glad the gentleman has made the explanation. He assured the House again that Col. Fitzpatrick was an honorable and highminded man. As to Col. Robinson, his acquaintance with that gentleman was more limited - knowing him only in the military service, where he was favorably regarded, With reference to the treatment of convicts, he said, the law and right reason require that they shall be kept and confined to hard labor. He was opposed to the amendment of the gentleman from Hendricks [Mr. Campbell], putting this business into the hands of the three directors. The Legislature was more competent to do this business than the directors. And he was in favor of the proposition to lease.
Mr. MILLER supposed that this motion was made to test the sense of the House on the question of leasing, without reference to who the lessee shall be. He would not attempt any vindication of Colonel Robinson or Colonel Fitzpatrick. No man knowing either of the gentlemen would ever of think of making a charge against them; and a charge coming from a man that knows nothing about them did not need a page: 304[View Page 304] reputation. He desired the House at once to determine this question of leasing. He understood the point of the accusation, or apprehension of the gentleman from White [Mr. Spencer], and the gentleman from La porte [Mr. Higgins] to be this: That Colonel Wood will be retained there as Warden. No man can remain there as Warden, unless the present Directors of of the prison say so; then how could the appointment of Warden be connected with the lesseeship of Colonel Robinson and Col Fitzpatrick? The only real question here was, whether the prisoners will be treated properly. He read from the report of the Commissioners of the State's Prison North, showing that they found the prison in good condition as to cleanliness and general comfort, the discipline good, and good order prevailing. But then, as to the Warden, Colonel Wood, they instituted a number of improper charges, as he thought, which never should have been made that is, they should not fall wholly upon Colonel Woodand for this reason: Immediately following the specifications of corruption, he found, in the report a remarkable passage to this effect: "The Commissioners have not referred to these items to show that any of the directors or officers of the prison have at any time acted dishonestly or corruptly,but to show how easily the funds of the State may be misapplied and wasted, and to enable the Legislature to provide against it."
Gentlemen, reasoning against leasing the prison talk this way : "If an individual can make money out of it, the State can." Let us look at this. The committee recommended an appropriation for the expenses of this prison last year of $8,300. They aske for $12,000 for 1867, and for 1868 they ask for an appropriation of the same amount. These are questions which we have to determine. If we want to guard the pecuniary interests of the State, and rescue her from official peculatons in this quarter, we ought to lease this prison, so as, at the same time to keep the State free from expense, and have a proper care for the prisoners; And Colonel Wood need not be kept there. But if these trustees were to come here and say to me that it was their desire to have the leasing of this prison placed in their hands, it would be a strong argument in my mind that they ought not to have it. It was evidently good policy that this prison (and both prisons) ought to be leased upon the terms provided in this bill.
Mr. KIZER said we have got to judge of this matter by the present and the past. His acquaintance with Mr. Silvers and Mr. Epperson enabled him to commend these gentlemen; and he favored leasing to savethe State from this expense of $12,000 a year for each of the prisons, notwithstanding the humanitarianisms which seem to have turned the heads of some.
Mr. SHUEY said, on yesterday he was very clearly of the opinion that the lessees should not appoint the Warden; and therefore it was, that he moved to strike out that portion of the bill which makes it competent for any person holding an interest in the lease to become Warden of the prison. For he did positively know, that the present. Warden of the State Prison North is to have a complete equal portion with the other gentlemen named in this bill
Mr. HUGHES interposed to say, that the Judiciary Committee in their report on the bill, did not commit themselves as to the lessees, but, simply as to the bill to lease.
Mr. SHUEY. He would assert this further, that the bill now before the House was drawn with direct rererence to permitting this man, Wood, to be named as holding a one third interest in the lease And when this bill passes, the State will surrender to his gracious charge, the control of the Warden of the prison.
Mr. MILLER interrupting, stated that he had something to do with this, and the allegation as to the drawing of the bill is not true.
Mr. SHUEY. I make the assertion. I know it to be true. I do not assert that the gentleman from Tippecanoe knew anything of the kind, but I know that the bill was drawn with that reference.
Mr. MILLER. There was a bill drawn, in which the present Warden and two others were equally interested, but none of these parties are interested in this bill.
Mr. SHUEY. That is very well. But I know what I am talking about And if the gentleman will come to my desk, I will give him such evidence of the fact I have stated, that he will never deny it again. He admired the gentleness of the Committee's handling of men charged with peculations of the public moneyof cutting their own wood with the labor of the convicts, and then taking the States' money to pay for it. He admired their gentleness and politeness, and he supposed that it was appreciated by Wood. I intend to support a bill to lease the prison, but so help me God, I will not support any bill with Wood for Warden.
Mr. HIGGINS. From some remarks made on this floor, he yesterday charged that this lease is for the use and control of others not hamed in the bill. He was not now disposed to detain the House by going into the proof of the charge he then made. But should it be shown to be deemed advisable and expedient by the House to lease this prison to these parties, when the bill page: 305[View Page 305] comes up on the final passage he would make the exposure. He has the testimony to prove what he alleged. As to the provisions of this bill, it was sufficient to say that these lessees never intended, and can not be reasonably expected, to comply with its requirements. The bill proposes to date the lease from the 11th of March next - this is the first section. The 3d section says, the State at that time gives the lessees possession of its property in and about the prison. And then 20 or 30 days thereafter, these lessees, their assigns, &c., shall give bonds in the sum of $50,000, conditioned for their faithful compliance with the terms of the lease! If this act pass, the lease must be completed by the 11th of March. Is there any gentleman on this floor, acting in his own interest, that would surrender that property into the hands of lessees, and say to them, at the end of twenty days you shall come in and give security for compliance with the terms of your lease? Therefore he said, the bill carries on its face the evidence that there is no is no intention of plying with the terms and conditions of the lease. I know that these facts exist. As far as the motion to postpone the bill is concerned, he submitted, whether members are acquainted with the facts as they exist ther States with reference to leasing State prisons. There is not a State in the Union that leases its prisons in this way. He noticed the other day paper containing resolutions wherein the citizens of Joliet, Ill., congratulated themselves that their State was once more free from the prison lease system. He belived that there was not in existence at the present time a single case of the leasing out of a State prison. The States of New York, Ohio and Kentucky have tried it and given it up. At the present time the system does not exist. If the House does not postpone the bill, he desired its recommitment for admendment. He called special attention to the 11th section. He did not think the House would pass that.
Mr. McFADIN. Was the gentleman from Laporte in favor of the bill?
Mr. HIGGINS. I stated yesterday that if the prison could be leased so that the rights of the State and the interests of the prisoners could be guarded, and the right men get hold of it, I have no objection. But at this time I am not committed.
Mr. WOLFE was in favor of leasing the prisons, because by the State they can not be carried on successfully. For illustration he referred to an appropriation of $500,000 made several years ago by the States of Indiana and Illinois, to improve the rapids in the Wabash river, which was squandered, and the result was the collection of just about stone enough to build a good house. The same improvement was afterwards made by individual enterprise for $50,00 or $60,000 He referred also to the waste of money by the general government about the old Cumberland road improvement, - coming to the conclusion that all such enterprises can be successfully carried on only by individuals or corporations.
Mr. BEDFORD, said the Judiciary Committee considered that the interests of the State were well guarded in this bill. They found nothing against the character of the lessees, but abstained from making any recommendation as to them. I am not here as the special advocate of any gentleman connected with this lease. All I desire is to ascertain the disposition of the House in reference to the question of leasing. My friend from Elkhart and Lagrange [Mr. Shuey] has introduced an amendment which would preclude Colonel Wood from having anything to do with it. But if the gentleman from Elkhart and Lagrangs will examine this bill he will find that no man can be appointed Warden of the prison except upon the approval of the prison directors.
Mr. WOODS interposed to inquire whether Colonel Wood, as one of the lessees, will not have some share in the profits.
Mr. BELFORD I presume that if the contract made is endorsed by the General Assembly, Colonel Robingon, Colonel Kirkpatrick and Colonel Wood will be the parties between whom the profits must be divided. But he wished to consider this bill. We are not required to adopt any provision which might be objectionable to his colleague, [Mr. Higgins,] but he would have the House first determine upon the lease system, and if that is adopted, then make the bill as perfect as we can, and then determine who are the particular parties it may be proper to trust with the lease. He believed this General Assembly to be just as competent to select proper officers for the management of this prison as the Board of Directors. In what respect was their judgment superior to ours as to who shall be trusted to enter into contracts as outside parties with the lesees? Assuredly the General Assembly was as competent as the Directors; for they are our creatures. His colleague [Mr. Higgins]had referred to a resolution adopted in a public meeting of the citizens of Joliet, Illinois, congratulating themselves that the prison lease system has passed away. But he could tell his collegue that the people of Joliet congratulated themselves because the convict labor was no more to be brought into competition with the mechanics of that city. That was the sole reason why they felicitated themselves.
page: 306[View Page 306]Mr. HIGGINS. Did the gentleman ever hear of that resolution till I suggested it?
Mr. BELFORD. I did not; but I have read the papers on the subject, and so I know that is the reason why they congratulated themselves. But now let us consider how it is down there at Jeffersonville. We find there that Governor Morton has entered into a contract with the Messrs. Hall, by which they control the convict labor, is not that a quasi system of leasing? Are they not working the convicts under the prison directors? Do you therefore owe it to humanity to quash this contract? He repeated that he was a stickler for no individual interest. But the people of the State were burdened with taxes enough; and still, year after year, we are called upon for appropriations to support these prisons. And there were complaints on account of these burdens: and who could say they were not reasonable and proper? But I want to say one word with reference to Colonel Wood. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of his being connected with this lease. He differs with me as to party polities; and yet I give it as my conviction, founded on the general sentiment of the locality of Michigan City, that Thomas Wood is the best warden the Northern Prison ever had. And this statement is supported by all our county officers and the Circuit Court Judge. We have here and there reports that charges have been made for extra services. But I say, if extra charges have been made, they speak only to this fact, that the State has dealt niggardly and miserly with this officer. And I am going to prove what I say by the report of the Committee. He then read from the report the statement that the salaries of the Warden, Deputy Warden, &c , are totally inadequate to the comfortable maintenance of their families, as well as inadequate as a compensation for the amount of service required of them; and that the interests of the State would be sub served by paying such salaries as will properly compensate the services rendered, &c , &c.
Mr. ROSS. A bill has been introduced for leasing the Northern Prison and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary The Committee have examined the bill, and reported, that, in their opinion its provisions are sufficient to protect the rights of the State. It is true that the names of certain persons are in the bill as suitable persons to whom the lease should be given, but as to them the Committee made no recommendation. The proposition before the House is this: There has been an amendment, [Mr. Shuey's] offered to the bill; and then there is penning a motion [Mr. Stewart's] to indefinitely postpone both the bill and amendment. He was opposed to this method of disposing of the subject.
The SPEAKER. Indefinite postponement contemplates a disposal of the bill and amendments.
Mr. ROSS. That involves the prime question of leasing or not. There is one argument, and a pretty strong one, in favor of the bill; and that is the consideration of economy. That proposition really is the only o ne before the House. And, sir, with the State of Indiana, this is an important question. If we can lease this prison without detriment to the State, or to those persons whose rights the State ought to protect, it seems to me, that it is good policy to do so. The House can not but be aware that, at every session, bills for heavy appropriations are brought in for the support to the prisons; and that it is desirable to get rid of this expense. What are the objections to leasing? First, it is said that the convicts will be improperly treated. But this can be obviated if we make a proper lease. My plan would be, not for the Legislature to lease, but to authorize the Governor or the Trustees, or some other party in whom we have confidence, to make this lease - decide to whom the lease shall be granted. It seems to me nearly impossible for the House wisely to determine upon the charges against these gentlemen. But we can pass a law authorizing the lease and prescribing its details, and leave it to the Trustees, the Directors and the Governor to carry out its provisions. I have confidence in these men. Then why not authorize them to determine who shall have the prison? It strikes me that we shall defeat the whole thing by getting up a fight in relation to the persons whose names are mentioned in the bill Let us make suitable-provisions that, will protect the interests of the State and guard the rights of the convicts, and stop there, It is true that the convicts are condemned to punishment; but, at the same time, they should be treated as human beings, remembering that the main purpose it to reform the offender. And let me say farther, that it is to the interest of those who hire the convicts for labor, to provide and care for them, so that they may be able to perform their labor to advantage; and there is not that danger of their being over worked which some gentlemen seem to suppose. Therefore it seems to me, that we should act with undeviating consistency in this matter, arid not let our individual feelings and preferences interfere with our views of good policy.
Mr. BOBO called attention to the cost of Courts and Prisons, deeming it wise to reduce these expenses as far as possible. The issue was between the interest of the State page: 307[View Page 307]the humanitarianism referred to. He thought all interests would be best subserved by leasing . Otherwise, the State would be called upon every year to pay largely for the expenses of the prisons. He cared not who the lessees be. Let the interests of the State be guarded, but by all means lease.
McFADIN said, when the Northern Prison report was first made he was pleased it. He read from it. He was in favor of leasing - the State's interests being protected of course. He referred to the present system of letting out the prison labor to the lowest bidder, without responsibility, and thought it were better to change that to give the general leasing to the Governor or some other responsible officer. He hoped the motion to postpone would not prevail.
Mr. WOODS. When this debate commenced, he supposed that the majority were prepared to act on the subject. But, as he was mistaken in that, he proposed now to say a few words himself. This is business matter, and he proposed to discuss it in a business way. It is sought by one here, to secure the leasing of this person to certain individuals. Another measure before the House proposes to give authority to the directors, with the, Governor, to lease it. And there is yet another of class of members who are totally opposed to leasing. He was free to confess to the House that he belonged to the latter class. Notwithstanding the ridicule that has been attempted to be cast upon those who occupy what is called a humanitarian standpoint, he confessed his attachment to the views by that class, without any blush of shame. The only argument in favor of is the argument of dollars and It has riot been shown, and he I it impossible to show, that anything foe gained by leasing the prison. And be deemed it impossible, also, to secure any J)y which untold expense will not b ted upon the State. We are told, that I men have the labor of these convicts, |to their interest to clothe and feed Well. Ever since he has had anything f with the subject of politics, he had 1 to this very argument brought for southern slavery We were told slavery was a humanitarian institution - that it was to the interest of the slave- to treat well the negro driven by the |'of the task-master. But the public as been enlightened on , that and they have found out _ >task of the taskmaster can secure 11 being of his victims; and for the I reason, it will be hard for people to nt will secure the rights of these prisoners in the hands of lessees. But we are told that we have now a system of hiring out this labor - that we hire out these men to individuals. But gentlemen can not stand up here and say that the men who hire these laborers also buy their food and clothing, and furnish them with the comforts of life. They simply hire their labor during work-hours. So, this argument is not pertinent to the case But lest, n this general talk, he should occupy all his time, he would address himself to another point. Gentlemen say they think this body - this General Assembly - is competent to say whose this lease shall be. But he would ask gentlemen if this General Assembly does undertake to say, by this bill, whose this lease shall be ? They object to putting this power into the. hands of the prison directors, but I ask if this bill does not turn over into the hands :>f Colonel Robinson and Colonel Fitzpatrick, their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns the property in and about the prison and the labor of the prisoners ? And is that saying whose the lease shall be ? On the contrary, I ask, if, in ten minutes after this bill has become a law, Colonel Robinson or Colonel Fitzpatrick may not ,ign away his interest to others who have been fattening on the spoils of the prison ? And if this be so, then, instead of retailing this power in the hands of the Directors, we simply place it in the power of these gentlemen to sell out to whomsoever they may desire. Then it does not He in the mouths of gentlemen to say, that we determine who these lessees shall be. But again; the lives of these men are uncertain: and who knows but, that in a few days from the time when they shall become the lessees of the prison, the labor of these prisoners will-not be offered to the highest bidder under an order of the Probate Courts of the land? Would it be proper and wise to have this matter transferred to the Probate Court of the land, to be mixed up with the settlements of the estates of decedents? No sir, we ought not to incur the possibility of having this public charge so disposed of. In any contract for leasing the prison in the shape of law, it should be provided that, in case of the death of the lessee, the lease shall cease from that instant. In that way, and in no other, can we secure the State's control over this subject. But, bring it forward as we may, it seems to me that there are interminable objections to this system, and I insist that it be not adopted. As soon as we can get round the legal technicalities behind which the present Warden intrenches himself, we will have a just administration of this prison. But we don't want the State prison to come into the probate courts. We do not want to give power to a class of mer to buy and page: 308[View Page 308] sell the human labor of the State. I am opposed to the whole system; and, I think, the more the matter is investigated, the plainer it will appear that I am right.
Mr. NEWCOMB demanded the previous question, and there was a second;
And under its force, the vote on postponement was taken, and resulted - yeas 31, nays 59 - as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Blanch, Campbell, Daggy, Dunn, Erwin, Evans. Ferris, Funk, Hamilton, Higgins, Hudson, Long of Kosciusko, Martin, Matthis, McCarthy, McMurray, Moore, Morrison, Montgomery, North, Ratliff, Shoaff, Smith of Lagrange, Stafford, Stewart, Thrasher. Wason, Wilson, White, Woods, Wright, and Mr. Speaker - 31.
NAYS - Messrs Baker, Barritt, Belford, Bird, Bischof, Black, Bobo, Cory. Crain, Crowe, Edmondson, Foulke, Fuller, Geisendorf, Gordon , Green, Greer, Griggs, Hartman, Hays, Hopkins, Honneus, Hostetter, Hughes, Hungate, Inman, Kiser, Litson, Lopp, Mason, McClasky, McFadin, McLean, Miller, Newcomb, O'Neil, Peelle, Prather, Ross, Rosser, Sabin, Scammahorn, Shanks, Shield, Shook, Shull, Shuey, Skidmore, Smith of Wabasb, Spencer, Stackhouse, Tebbs, Thacher, Thomas. Vawter, Williams, Wolfe, Wolfer. and Woiflin - 59.
So the House refused to postpone, and the question recurred on the motion of the gentleman from Elkhart and Lagrange.
On motion by Mr. DAGGY, the further consideration of the bill and amendments were postponed, and made the speceal order for Thursday at ten o'clock.
Messrs. McCarthy, Peelle, Wason, Funk, Spencer, Black and Hartman obtained leave of absence till Tuesday.
On motion by Mr. Thacher, it was
Ordered, That when the House adjourns today it shall be till Monday, two o'clock P. M.
Mr. SPENCER moved to reconsider this vote.
Mr. SHUEY appealed to his Democratic friends that almost all vote with the Republicans wanting to go home, to let us, who will stay here, have a session to-morrow, and do the business.
Mr. CROWE said he had voted against the adjournment, but if gentlemen were going to make the Democratic party responsible for it, he would change his vote and go with his party.
Mr. CRAIN demanded the yeas and nays.
Mr. BOBO moved to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.
It was rejected - yeas 35, nays 48.
Mr. MONTGOMERY asked leaves of absence for Mr. White, Mr. Litson and two others till Tuesday.
The leaves were rejected.
Mr. THACHER moved that the House adjourn.
The SPEAKER. The House is: now determining at, what time they will adjourn to and, as a matter of course, till that is determined, a simple motion to adjourn cannot be entertained.
The motion to reconsider the vote for adjournment till Monday was then agreed to - yeas 50, nays 26; and the question recurred again on the motion for an order to adjourn over till Monday at 2 o'clock.
Mr MILLER proposed to say 9 o'clock ,to-morrow.
It was rejected on a division - affirmative 37, negative 38.
Mr. Thacher's motion for an order to adjourn till Monday at 2 o'clock P. M. was then agreed to the second time
Whereupon the House adjourned.
