HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
TUESDAY, February 26, 1867.The House met at 9 o'clock A. M.
On motion of Mr. BELFORD the reading of the journal of yesterday was dispensed with.
PETITIONS.
Mr. Shull, Mr. Martin, Mr. Skidmore, Mr. Wolfe, Mr. Long of Kosciusko, Mr. Moore, Mr. Peelle, Mr. Honneus, Mr. Belford, Mr. Shoaff, Mr. Irwin, Mr. Douglass, Mr. Van Valkenburg, Mr. Thacher, Mr. Foulke, Mr. Smith of Wabash, Mr. Shook, Mr. Chambers, Mr. McFadin, Mr. McClasky, Mr. Miller, Mr. Black and Mr. McLean severally presented petitions for a prohibitory liquor law, which, without reading, were referred to the Committee on Temperance.
Mr. FOULKE presented the petition of ladies members of the Middle Fork Lodge, No. 6, Independent Order of Good Templars, and Mr. SMITH of Wabash, presented the petition of a certain Christian Church, praying for a prohibitory liquor law, which was read and referred to the Committee on Temperance.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Mr. ROSS, from the Committee on the Judiciary, returned the bill [S. 95] amending the supervisors' act, with an amendment.
He also returned Mr. Smith of Lagrange's clerks' fees bill [H. R. 281], recommending that it be laid ot the table.
The report was concurred in.
He also returned Mr. Woods' exemption bill [H. R. 44], recommending its indefinite postponement.
The report was concurred in.
Mr. NEWCOMB, from the Committee on Ways and Means, returned Mr. Fuller's assessment-amendment- bill [H. R. 277] with an amendment of title, and inserting appropriately these words: "and shall note therein the reason assigned by such Treasurer why such tax could not be collected."
On motion of Mr. NEWCOMB, the amendment was concurred in, and so the bill was ordered to the engrossment.
He also returned Mr. Peelle's Blackford Reports republication bill [H. R. 174]. with an amendment - "from vol. 1 to vol. 4, inclusive," and "provided that not more than two volumes of said report shall be published in one year,'" &c.; and when so amended, recommending its passage.
Mr. CORY, from the Committee on Education, returned Mr. Douglass' Common School law amendment bill [H. R. 228], recommending that it be laid on the table, for the reason that the subject has been already acted on.
The report was concurred in.
Mr. WOODS, from the Committee on page: 323[View Page 323] Swamp Lands, returned Mr. Long of Jackson's bill, [H. R. 246] to perpetuate the improvements of swamp lands donated by the General Government, recommending its passage.
Mr. CRAIN, from the Committee on Railroads, returned the Telegraph Company bill,[S 29] recommending its passage.
Mr. CHAMBERS, from the Committee on Corporations, returned Mr. Greer's general city corporations amendment bill, [H R. 104] recommending that it be laid on the table.
The report was concurred in.
He also returned the town survey bill, recommending its passage.
Mr. SMITH, of Wabash, from the Committee on Canals, returned the memorial of Wm. Stickelmare for damages on account of lack of a supply of hydraulic power, &c., recommending that it be indefinitely postponed.
The report was concurred in.
Mr. McMURRAY, from the Committee on Public Building, in compliance with a resolution of the House for inquiring into the expediency of a two story building on the corner of Tennessee and Washington streets, reported a recommendation for an arrangement for renting the Miller building for State offices, &c., in preference to either the Gallup building or the McOuat building; and reasoning at, length against the policy of renting, and,also recommending a bill, No 288, for the erection of Public Buildings, introduced by Mr. Crain.
The report was laid on the table.
Mr. WHITE submitted the following, which was adopted:
Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary to be requested to return the House bill. No. 37 (introduced by Mr. W,, January 13th - see page 42 of these reports, declaring bribery a felony,and prescribing punishment therefor, and report their action thereon.
Mr. LONG, of Jackson, desired the reconsideration of the vote taken in his absence indefinitely postponing his Justices' Courts practice bill, [H. R. 232]
The SPEAKER. The vote was taken on the 19th of February, and it can not now be re-considered without a change of the rules.
Mr. LONG then gave notice of a motion to change the rules, to enable him to make a motion to reconsider that vote.
Mr. LITSON submitted a joint resolution, instructing our Congressmen to use their influence for the passage of "the eight hour bill," pending in the Congress of the United States.
Mr. SPENCER moved to lay the joint resolution on the table.
The motion was rejected - yeas, 14; nays, 58.
Mr. STEWART moved that it be referred to the Committee on Federal Relations.
Mr. LITSON appealed to the House for a fair vote on the resolution. The pending bill in Congress was to provide the eight, hour system for laborers on the public works. He wanted the sense of the House on it.
Mr. SHUEY hoped the motion to refer would prevail; because the House was called upon to vote on a bill in Congress, which it was impossible now to understand here.
The resolution was referred - yeas 47, nays 28.
Mr. GREER submitted the following:
Resolved by the House, That the Chairman of the Committee on Education, to which was referred House bill No 153, be instructed to return the same, together with, their proceedings thereon; and that the same be returned without any unnecessary delay.
Mr. McLEAN said he would report, it back in fifteen minutes.
Mr. GREER then withdrew the resolution.
Mr. HOPKINS introduced a bill [H. R. 328,] for an act to amend the first section of the act to amend the fortieth, clause of the act to amend the Evansville city charter, so as to authorize said city to subscribe stock to the Nashville & Northwestern railroad, &c. [With reference to the city water works.] It was referred to the Committee on Corporations.
Mr. FERRIS introduced a bill [H. R. 329,] for an act to amend section 1 of the act for the incorporation of academies, high schools, theological schools and missionary boards. [Taking away the restriction of $40,000 for the cost of building.] It was referred to the Committee on Corporations.
Mr. FOULKE introduced a bil [H. R. 330,] for an act in relation to practitioners of medicine. [Requiring a permit, authorizing a society of Homoeopathic physicians, &c.] It was referred to a special committee of five members, which subsequently the Speaker appointed, namely: Messrs. Foulke, McCarthy, Long of Koscisko, Brucker and Hostetter.
Mr. HUGHES submitted a joint resolution [H. R. 22] to provide for the binding and stationery necessary for the public printing. [The Secretary of State to contract with William Sheets for all stationery and binding.] It was referred to the special committee of which Mr. Peelle is chairman.
CORRUPTION COMMITTEE.
The SPEAKER announced the following committee on Mr. Dunn's resolution, adopted yesterday, namely: Messrs. Dunn, Shoaff, Smith of Lagrange and Stackhouse.
HOUSE OF REFUGE.
The SPEAKER directed the considersation of the special order - the House of page: 324[View Page 324] Refuge for Juveniles bill, [S. 161 - see page 184 of these Reports] on the the third reading thereof - the question being on Mr. Peelle's motion striking out the 12th section.
Mr. SHUEY stated that the pending amendments to the 12th section were offered under a misapprehension of the bill - an error in the printed copy. Whereupon -
Mr. PEELLE and Mr. CRAIN withdrew their amendments.
The House refused to strike out the 12th section.
Mr. STAFFORD moved to extend the age of juveniles that maybe admitted from "sixteen" to ''twenty" years.
Mr. SHUEY opposed the experience of Eastern Superintendents of these Institutions to the adoption of the amendment. There was also a section providing a descretion of the Governor to take juveniles over 16 years out of the penitentiary and place them in the House of Correction.
Mr. STAFFORD supported his amendment, during the allotted ten minutes. The boy of 18 years is not gone beyond correction and redemption.
Mr. HUGHES moved that the bill and amendment be referred to the Committee of the Whole House.
On motion of Mr. HUGHES, the honorable William R. Kinney was invited to the freedom of the Hall.
On motion of Mr. SHUEY, the House then resolved itself into Committee of the Whole - Mr. Higgins in the Chair - and took up the House of Refuge bill [S. 161,]and it was considered by sections.
Sections 1 and 2 were adopted; and the 3d section being read -
Mr. HUGHES proposed to substitute this: "That the General Assembly it its present session shall, by ballot, select a site for said institution."
Mr. SHUEY was satisfied that the adoption of the amendment would kill the bill.
Mr. HUGHES sustained the amendment by the consideration that the Legislature would have to support the institution, and by considerations drawn from the paripatetic correspondence of John P. Dunn for the location of the Northern Prison.
Mr. PRATHER might favor the amendment but feared that it would defeat the bill. Twenty years ago he introduced a bill for a House of Correction, and he also submitted the constitutional provision which authorizes this legislation, and his bill introduced at this session was older than this Senate bill, which somehow had taken its place.
Mr. WOLFE, for once, was with the gentleman from Monroe.
Mr. SHUEY urged the consideration, that this institution was to be established on a farm, so as to make it self-sustaining, and the difficulty that might arise out of purchasing ground where the site might be located. This bill was gotten up under the advice of Governor Baker and Senator Niles.
Mr. HARTMAN said we have too much before us to consider the matter of a site. These Commissioners were to locate with the approval of the Governor. That was sufficient for him.
Mr. HUGHES protested against the argument that an amendment would defeat the bill. That argument means that we must take this bill, (cut and dried for us, or nothing. He was as good a friend to the bill as any in this House. It was no argument with him that the bill was the result of distinguished men's advice. He would say to gentlemen, not to go too far in this direction, if they would not hazard the passage of the bill; because it be wanting the votes of some who might think it needed amendment. He saw in these commissioners a traveling committee, going about the State, re-enacting the shameful scenes of the locating commissioners of the Northern Prison. He considered what might be their proceeding; receiving bids for locations, and visiting sites - joining the Temperance Society - receiving no extra hotel attentions, eating no good dinners, favored by no railroad passes, &c. If the Committee evince a disposition to rush the bill through without respect to its details, he would withdraw his efforts to amend - notwithstanding he saw that, with all the labor expended in its draft, it still needed amendment.
Mr. McFADIN spoke generally in favor of the bill. There was weight in the considerations submitted by the gentleman from Monroe, and his reference to the location Commissioners of the Northern Prison-and he submitted others in favor of Mr Hughes' amendment.
Mr. BELFORD opposed the amendment from considerations of the desirableness of a House of Refuge, and the dangers of delays - illustrating by reference to the delays we have experienced as to the location of the Agricultural College. The amendment might delay the location of the institution for ten years. It was a choice between two evils - the selection by Commissioners, and the delays incident to a location by the General Assembly.
Mr. HUGHES referred to the 28th section looking toward a piece of land near this city for a site. Was the location a foregone conclusion?
Mr. BELFORD urged action at one-from the consideration that numerous juvenile offenders, instead of being properly cared for in a House of Correction, were page: 325[View Page 325] sent among hardened offenders to the Penitentiary. Any amendment that would delay action ought, to be voted down.
Mr. PEELLE opposed the amendment upon principle, and was in favor of the location by commissioners. If we ever get a proper location, we shall get it through a location by commissioners. Where are the pounds? That was the first consideration for the commissioners; and the commissioners might receive donations that would relieve the expense of beginning. He replied particularly to the arguments for the amendment.
Mr. STEWART also expressed his fears that the amendment would defeat the bill - taking the ground that the General Assembly would not be able to make a location this session. This whole body would be required to see the practicable location offered, before it could decide intelligently between them.
Mr. CRAIN moved ineffectually that the committee rise and report the bill to the House.
Mr. Hughes' amendment was adopted.
Section 4 was adopted; and section 5 having been read -
Mr. HUGHES proposed to amend by inserting a clause authorizing the Governor to fix the number of superintendents and assistants.
It was adopted, and so the section was adopted.
Section 6 having been read -
Mr. VAN VALKENBUBG proposed to strike out "5' and insert "ten" in lieu $10,000 bond. It was adopted, and so the section 6 was adopted.
Section 7 having been read -
On motion of Mr. LOPP, it was amended by striking out the clause of responsibility of subordinate officers.
Section 8 was concurred in. Section 9 being read -
Mr. MILLER moved to strike it out as objectionable on account of publishing the names of the youths detained during the year; but after conversation, modified his motion, so as to strike out from the section simply the words "and names."
Mr. McFADIN considered these words as necessary to the history of the institution.
The amendment was agreed to; and so the section was adopted.
Section 10 having been read -
Mr. WILSON proposed to insert "16" in lieu of "18" for the age of infants that may be received into care and guardianship; and Mr. TEBBS moved to strike out "next friend" wherever it occurs in the section. These were adopted; and so the section was agreed to.
Section 11 having been read -
Mr. HUGHES proposed to amend it so as make it correspond with the 10th section, which was adopted. Mr. Stafford moved ineffectually to strike out "16" and insert "20;" and so the section was agreed to.
Section 12 having been read -
Mr. HOSTETTER moved to strike it out.
Mr. ROSS proposed to amend with reference to trials of youths to be taken into guardianship, so that it shall read to this effect: And in case an infant accused of the commission of any crime before the grand jury, where the charge is supported by evidence, such as that the grand jury might find in indictment, they may return the same to the court with this recommendation; and if it should appear to the court that the youth should be taken into guardianship, the court may order a hearing for that purpose, which hearing may be waived by parents, &c.
Mr. Hostetter's amendment was rejected.
Mr. Ross's amendment was agreed to.
Mr. MONTGOMERY proposed to strike out "16" and insert "18." It was rejected.
Mr. WOODS moved to reconsider the vote adopting Mr. Hughes' amendment to the section, so as to enable him to move to restore, the original section, adding these words: "Provided, such location, shall be in a county to be designated by this General Assembly during the present session."
These, motions were agreed to; the amendment to the third section was reconsidered, and the section was amended as above.
On motion of Mr. MILLER the amendment of the 11th section was reconsidered, and the resolution was restored, adding this:
"Provided any such infant shall be sentenced at any time before he or she may arrive at legal age, the court may sentence such infant for any time shorter than their arrival at legal age."
Section 13 being read -
On motion of Mr. THACHER, it was amended by striking out "16" and inserting "18."
Section 14 being read -
Mr. MONTGOMERY proposed to amend by inserting appropriately these words: "and the parents and guardians of the accused." It was adopted.
On motion by Mr. WHITE, it was further amended by striking out "16" and inserting "18;" and so the section was adopted.
On motion by Mr. ROSS, the committee rose, and the Chairman reported progress, and asked and obtained leave to sit again.
The House then took a recess till 2 o'clock P. M.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The SPEAKER announced the special order, viz: the consideration of Mr. Camp- page: 326[View Page 326] bell's Agricultural Colleges bill, [H. R. 214]
On motion of Mr, CAMPBELL, it was postponed and made a special order for Thursday morning 10 o'clock.
SINKING FUND.
On motion of Mr. NEWCOMB, the House took up the consideration of the Sinking Fund bill, [ S. 102, see page 105 of these reports,] the question being on Mr. Shuey's amendment.
Mr. SHUEY withdrew the amendment.
Mr. NEWCOMB proposed to amend the 3d resolution by striking out and inserting new matter, giving the State Auditor the same power of the late Sinking Fund Commissioners with reference to the incidental expenses; he shall preserve vouchers and report to the next, General Assembly; and that the Auditor shall be allowed $1.000 a year; and appropriating $2,000 for clerk hire - such clerks, to be appointed by the Auditor.
Mr. BOBO said, he supposed the object of the bill was to curtail the, expenses of this fund. He counted it up to six or seven thousand dollars, a year. There was no economy in this amendment. And he understood that the Auditor's office was now worth ten or twelve thousand dollars.
Mr. WOLFE objected to the bill, because it, diminished the school fund.
Mr. BELFORD stated his understanding of the bill - the amendment requiring the Auditor to do the work of the Sinking Fund Commissioners, all for $1,000 a year, and $2,000 for clerk hire. He showed the expenses of the Sinking Fund management, for the last six years to have averaged over $10,000 a year. He would not build up a cheap reputation by compelling men to perform arduous duties for inadequate compensation. Three thousand dollars was low enough.
Mr. McFADlN. That was a speculation for the State, and it was yet expected to be recovered.
Mr. HARTMAN showed that the fees of the Auditor for Foreign Insurance Agencies brought into his office about $6,000 a year. Then if the Auditor is already receiving a large salary, it ought to be considered in making this allowance.
Mr. BRANHAM (Mr. Higgins in the chair) considered -that we ought to determine the duties of officers before we fix their compensation. He moved to recommit the bill to the Committee on the Sinking Fund, with instructions to so amend the bill as to give the control of the settlement of the sinking fun to the State Debt Sinking Fund Board, making the State Auditor, President of the Board. This was one of the most important bills of the session, and he was opposed to giving this matter into the hands of one man. He would have it placed in the hands of the State Debt Sinking Fund Board. This fund to the amount of $400,000, had been in the hands of the Commissioners enjoying the benefit of it, and at the same time receiving pay from the State for its managament. That was what thi bill also proposed in a modified shape. But he propsed to place it in the hands of a Board created for that purpose. He objected to the provision that this fund shall be left in the hands of the Auditor to invest it or not.
Mr. NEWCOMB said the Governor and Auditor were required to invest.
Mr. BRANHAM wished it incorporated into the bill. He deprecated the proposition to allow the State to go into the market to purchase her own paper at a discount. He advised an offset with the General Government of a debt of about a quarter of a million to save that interest. If the State would send out successful commissioners of immigration, let them give it out that they have no State debt and light taxation. He said that the whole managment of this fund had been inpalpable violation of law - and nobody to blame. It was time to take hold of this think in earnest.
Mr. NEWCOMB referred to the provisions of the bill with his amendment - to give into the hands of the State Auditor the powers of the late Commissioners of the Sinking Fund; that the incidental expenses of management be paid by the State, the Auditor taking and reporting vouchers; and the Auditor to receive $1,000 himself, and $2,000 for clerk hire. He defended the managment of the fund from the assaults of the gentleman from Jefferson [Mr. Branham]. It was now larger than ever. That gentleman now proposes to put this fund not the management of the Commissioners of the State Debt Sinking Fund - the Secretary, Auditor and Treasurer of State. He defended the existing law for funding. He went into a special account of the Sinking Fund from its foundation in the old State Bank of Indiana, to show that we have no right to take this fund - and give the income toward the payment of the State debt. There was no dishonor in the State taking these trust funds (which are not the State's money) and buying up the 21/2 and 5 per cent. bonds.
Mr. SHUEY explained the reasons for his amendment and the withdrawing of it page: 327[View Page 327] to-day. He was willing now to pay the State Auditor $1,500 for his own compensation and clerk hire. He would prefer to give all the State officers fixed salaries, without fees, like those of the Auditor on account of foreign insurance companies.
Mr. BRANHAM corrected a statement by Mr. Newcomb. The law was to pay the school fund, receipts into the treasury of the State - the State to issue six per cent bonds for the amount of the fund which the State uses. But now, as in the past, the fund has been a detriment instead of an advantage to the State.
Mr. HUGHES did not pretend to understand the general line of this debate. He confined himself to the compensation of the Auditor. He stated that $5,000 a year was taking care of this fund at less expense than it was ever taken care of before. But this sum of $5,000 had scared the House and the Committee. He did not think it right to impose the duty of taking care of one million of dollars for less than $5,000 a year. And he believed that this $5,000 a year was cheaper than the amendment of the Committee, and the gentleman from Marion (Mr. Newcomb). He wanted to get rid of these amendments and return to the Senate bill. And then he would put a penalty - making violation a felony, punishable with imprisonment.
Mr. LONG, of Jackson, said he was informed by good authority that this fund amounts to about four millions and a half. The management of this large, fund involved responsibilities and duties which should be compensated, and three or four thousand dollars was none too much. He understood that this fund had increased nearly three-quarters of a million in the last six years. There was a report on this fund made last year, which has never yet been printed. He gave the opinion that the system of dividing this fund - (the old law)- and county managment was the best.
Mr. MILLER could not see the advantage of recommitment.
Mr. BRANHAM suggested that the committee might determine the duty of each officer.
Mr. MILLER said the committee put the Auditor's compensation ($3,500) below all the advice they could get on the matter. He moved to lay the motion to recommit on the table.
Mr. BRANHAM and Mr. BOBO demanded the yeas and nays.
The motion was rejected - yeas 13, nays 10and the question recurred on Mr. Branham's proposition.
Mr. BOBO inquired whether it was not the effect of Mr, Branham's motion to loan this sinking fund to the State.
Mr. BRANHAM. That is the effect of the bill - the admendment does not change that.
Mr. BOBO. The school fund loaned to the State would be a school fund in imagination. Who shall call upon the State to pay this back again? And how? He confessed that he needed enlightenment in this matter. He certainly would prefer to divide out the fund to the counties.
Mr. CRAIN was opposed to the reference, because he understood that the author of the motion [Mr. Branham] was in favor of taking up the State bonds at par, while the other proposition allows them to be brought at the market value; and the effect of the passage of the gentleman's bill last winter increased the price of the bonds from 60 to 90 cents; and who received the benefit?
Mr. BRANHAM said that what he proposed was to place this management in the hands of the Commissioners of the State Debt Sinking Fund.
Mr. NEWCOMB. That is precisely where it stands now.
Mr. BRANHAM wanted this fund to go into the State Treasury, as a separate fund.
Mr. CRAIN saw the distinction between the propositions, as before stated - the bill proposes to purchase the bonds as their market value - the other at par. He was opposed, to recommitting the bill for the purpose of paying par.
Mr. BRANHAM asked if, by the act of 1845, we did not promise to pay these bonds as soon as twenty-five per cent, tax and a certain poll would pay it?
Mr. CRAIN said he took Governor Morton's conclusions on that question , that they were "payable at the pleasure of the State." It was a debt that has been long due, and not like an ordinary debt.
Mr. NEWCOMB stated the object of the act of 1865, abolishing the Board of Sinking Fund Commissioners - to invest this fund in the two and a half and five per cent, bonds of the State. This Senate bill has the same provision. The State gives nonoegotiable bonds for the value of the bonds purchased. The object of the gentleman from Jefferson [Mr. Branham] was to throw this sinking fund into the State Debt Sinking Fund, as a part of it; while the bill will give the State's bonds for the sinking fund. If this evinced dislike of the act of 1865, and was really an indication of the mind of the House, it might be ready for a proposition to repeal that part of the act of 1865, which abolishes the Board of Sinking Fund Commissioners, and appropriates this part of the fund; and appoint other commissioners for its management.
page: 328[View Page 328]Mr. LONG, of Jackson, proposed to amend the instructions of the committee, by directing them to report a bill dividing this fund among the several counties of the State.
Mr. BRANHAM demanded the previous question, and there was a second. Mr. B. then said again, that he proposed to place this money, as fast as collected, in the Treasury of the State, and that as fast as it is paid out, in shall be checked out in bonds. He would not leave it any more under the control that it has had for the last six years.
Mr. MILLER. Would not that increase the expense of management?
Mr. BRANHAM. It might.
Mr. NEWCOMB said the bill did not provide that this fund should be paid into the Treasury of the State - but that the Governor, Secretary and Auditor and Treasurer of State shall invest it in State bonds.
Mr. BRANHAM desired that this fund, as fast as it comes in, should be paid into the Treasury as a separate fund.
Mr. Long of Jackson's amendment was agreed to; and then, on the question of recommitment with Mr. Branham's instructions as amended, the vote stood - yeas 40, nays 45.
So the House refused to recommit with the instructions; and the question recurred on Mr. Newcomb's amendment, substituting new matter for the 3d section.
On the motion of Mr. CRAIN, Mr. Newcomb's amendment was laid on the table.
Mr. HUGHES demanded the previous question, and there was a second -
On motion of Mr. MONTGOMERY, this vote was reconsidered, and reversed.
Mr. BOBO moved to recommit the bill with instructions to report a bill by which this found may be distributed among the several counties in proportion to population, and loaned out at seven per cent, interest.
Mr. NEWCOMB said that in the single county of Randolph, the Treasurer of that county plundered that fund to a larger amount than the management of it has cost besides. It was a proposition to squander this magnificent fund.
Mr. McFADIN spoke in favor of county distribution. His county would take a share and pay the interest.
Mr. FOULKE said, during the session of 1865, to avoid the absurdity of the "State being a borrower and lender of the same fund at the same time, there was a law passed to invest this sinking fund in bonds of the State. Now this proposition was to return to that very system then repealed. This proposed system of loaning would require of the county borrower about 9 percent. That was moe than money is commonly worth. Was there wisdom or policy in doing and undoing things in this way?
Mr. O'NEIL supported the instructions proposed by Mr. Bobo. He showed the security which the borrowers of this fund gave for its use. At present, a portion of the school fund was still loaned out by the counties - the parties accomodated paying the expense. And in his county this money was all taken. The system was looked upon as a great accommodation; and he thought it would meet the approbation of the people generally.
Mr. HUGHES did not suppose at first, that this proposition would be seriously entertained. He called attention to the constitutional inviolability of the common school fund. It must never be diminished. What county had asked for this? None. And the result,would be, the fund would be frittered away and lost. It was simply a proposition to destroy the fund. It might seem to be popular on its face, but it would only give a little money for county officers to loan to their favorites. This was a supplemental bill to carry out the act of 1865, and we were taking a range that would uproot all that has been done for this fund.
Mr. WOODS said the fund was originally a fund of about $4,500,000, and that about $3,500,000 were already invested in State bonds under the act of 1865.
Mr. HUGHES closed by moving to lay Mr. Bobo's motion to recommit with instructions on the table.
The vote resulted yeas 53, nays 28: so the motion to recommit with instructions was laid on the table.
And then, on motion of Mr. MILLER, the bill was recommitted to the Committee on the Sinking Fund without instructions.
THE CALENDAR.
Mr. Chambers' 13th Judicial Circuit bill [H. R. 50] coming up on the third reading -
On motion of Mr. PEELLE, it was laid on the table to give place to the Senate bill on the same matter.
JUSTICES' COURTS PLEADINGS.
Mr. Wood's justices' pleadings bill [H. R. 133] coming up -
Mr. WOODS explained that its object is to make the effect of pleadings for a continuance in a Justice's court the same as in the Circuit Court.
The bill finally passed the House of Representatives - yeas 70, nays 6.
DAVID. T. STEVENSON.
Mr. Matthis' joint resolution [H. R. No. 10] for the relief of David T. Stevenson, [instructing our Congressmen to vote for a law to grant him a pension - ] coming up, it was finally passed the House of Representatives - yeas 84, nays 0.
page: 329[View Page 329]Mr. Griggs' Town-Incorporations-Amendment bill [H. R. 145](allowing towns the same power that is given to cities to assessa license tax on liquor selling - twice the amount assessed by the State) coming up -
Mr. GRIGGS explained its provision.
It was passed the House of Representatives - yeas 56, nays 17.
The House then took a recess till 7 o'clock P. M.
NIGHT SESSION.
Mr. McFADIN moved a call of the House; but withdrew it upon an understanding that the House would take up routine business, as bills on the second reading till a quorum should appear.
THE CALENDAR.
Mr. Belford's bill [H. R. 243] prescribing the manner in which railroad corporations in the State may be consolidated with other railroads, within or without the State, coming up, on the second reading - it was ordered to the engrossment.
Mr. Spencer's Morgan Raid indemnity joint resolution [H. R. 13] coming up, it was referred to the Committee on Federal Relations.
Mr. Higgin's criminal information bill [H. R. 75] coming up, it was indefinitely postponed.
Mr. Hopkins' electric telegraph company bill [H. R. 121] coming up, it was laid on table, to give place to a similar Senate bill.
Mr. Sabin's justice's act amendment bill [H. R. 151] coming up, it was laid on the table to make room for a similar Senate bill.
Mr. Wood's justices attachment bill [H. R. 231] coming up, with the Judiciary Committee's recommendation - it was ordered to engrossment.
Mr. Higgin's towns and cities annexation bill [H. R. 235] coming up - to authorize cities to sell the public square -
Mr. HIGGINS proposed to amend by adding appropriately these words: "and the money arising from the sale of said public square to be expended in purging another public square and for the improvement of the same."
The amendment was concurred in; and the bill was ordered to the engrossment.
Mr. Peelle's false pretenses felony bill [H. R. 259] coming upMr. PEELLE explained that it includes the word "accounts" with "instruments of writing," &c.
The bill was passed to the engrossment.
Mr. Woods' railroad freight bill [H. R. 19] coming up, with the committee's amendment, making "fifteen" instead of "five per cent" above the through freight tariff.
After debate by Messrs. Crain, Wolfe, Belford and McFadin, the amendment was adopted.
Mr. STAFFORD proposed to amend further, by a clause allowing three and one quarter cents per mile for passengers.
Mr. CRAIN opposed the amendment.
Mr. STAFFORD was for equalizing rights in this matter - as well amongst those who built the roads as those who own them.
Mr. BELFORD made an ineffectual motion that the amendment be laid on the table, yeas 34, nays 47.
Mr. PRATHER had suggested that the railroads should be allowed to charge ten cents for short distances, as one and a half miles, which is the distance between some stations.
Mr. CRAIN said the amendment would destroy the bill; and then there is no law which compels railroads to stop at every station.
Mr. STEWART suggested a recommitment.
Mr. CRAIN thought there was hardly time.
Mr. STEWART moved to recommit the bill with the amendment.
Mr. CHAMBERS opposed recommitment, hoping that both these propositions may be permitted to stand alone on their respective merits.
Mr. BELFORD. Both the standing and special Committees acted in concert on this bill. The bill now will get through the Senate but "by the skin of its teeth." It would not be possible to pass it in that body with the proposed amendment.
Mr. CAMPBELL submitted that these were hardly kindred subjects. He was in favor of the bill. This seemed to him a clog to defeat it.
Mr. STAFFORD withdrew his amendment.
The bill was then passed to the engrossment.
NORTHERN PRISON.
On motion of Mr. MILLER, the House took up the consideration of his Northern Prison Kirkpatrick and Robinson lease bill [H. R. 126]the question being on Mr. Higgins' motion to recommit.
Mr. HUGHES moved to take up the three prison bills reported by the Judiciary Committee, recommending them as correct in form - Mr. Miller's and the two bills for the lease of the Southern prison. But he did not press the motion.
Mr. MILLER-desired that the bill be considered now.
Mr. HIGGINS urged the recommitment, without any disposition to delay action, but to perfect the bill.
Mr. MILLER might be willing for it to page: 330[View Page 330] go to that prison committee again, if he did not know from the records of the House that every member of that committee voted for the indefinite postponement of the bill. If the committee could report their bill back by Thursday, he would not press this bill to the vote.
Mr. WOLFE moved to lay the motion to recommit on the table.
The motion was rejected - yeas 31, nays 50.
Mr. DAGGY stated his reason for the motion which he made to postpone to Thursday - to give time for members to prepare their amendments.
Mr. MILLER proposed, if the bill was to be recommitted, that it go with instructions to report Thursday morning.
Mr. HUGHES desired to, include the consideration of the other bills before indicated by him.
Mr. HIGGINS and Mr. WRIGHT thought the time rather short.
Mr. MILLER then accepted Friday morning, which was agreed to by consent.
Mr. CRAIN proposed to amend by adding a section to this effect:
That the Governor be authorized and empowered, whenever in his judgment it may be proper to appoint not exceeding three visitors to visit said prison, examine its books, accounts, and expenditures, who shall report to the Governor, making such suggestions as their investigations , may, in their judgment, require; that they shall have power to administer oaths and send for persons and papers: provided that there shall be nothing allowed them by way of compensation.
On motion by Mr. MATTHIS, it was laid on the table.
Mr. SHOAFF proposed an amendment striking out the word "Governor," &c.
Mr. NEWCOMB moved to amend by striking out that provision which requires the State to keep the prison in repair, and inserting a clause requiring that the lessee shall keep the prison in repair, and shall return it in good condition, &c.
Mr. HUGHES now moved to indefinitely - postpone the whole subject of leasing the prisons. He stated his reasons at length. If he could not make the motion so as to embrace them all, he would as to the bill before the House.
Mr. STACKHOUSE moved ineffectually to lay Mr. Hughes' motion on the table yeas 40, nays 42.
Mr. CAMPBELL was in favor of indefinite postponement, and urged the consideration of the absurdity of the General Assembly making a contract to lease the prisons, which would guard the interests of the State and protect the prisoners. The State was to be fleeced if the prisons are leased.
Mr. THACHER moved ineffectually to adjourn - affirmative 31, negative 41.
Mr. McFADDIN stated the cost of running the two prisons - forty-eight thousand dollars every two years, as an argument in favor of leasing.
Mr. STEWART demanded the previous question, but withdrew it for -
Mr. HUGHES who said he was in favor of leasing, and moved to postpone, because he was disgusted with the scramble amongst competitors for leases. He then renewed Mr. Stewart's demands for the previous question; and there was a second.
Mr. MILLER closed the debate - alleging that the difficulty about leasing existed as well amongst members as amongst outsiders: and that if the bill pass, it ought to be provided, that no member of the House shall be interested or become an officer of the prison.
And then the vote on indefinite postponement resulted - yeas 39, nays 44 - as follows:
YEAS. Messrs. Bischof, Blanch, Campbell, Daggy, Dunn, Evans, Ferris, Foulke, Funk,Geisendorff, Grordon, Hartman, Hamilton, Higgins, Hostetter, Hudson, Hughes, Litson, Martin, Matthis, McCarthy, McMurray, Moore, Newcomb, North, Peelle, Ratliff, Scammahorn, Shields.Shoaff, Shull, Smith of Lagrange, Spencer, Stafford, Stewart, Thrasher, Wason, Wilson, Wright and Mr. Speaker - 39.
NAYS. Messrs. Barritt, Black, Bobo, Brucker, Chambers, Cory, Crain, Crowe, Douglass, Edmonson, Erwin, Fuller, Green, Greer, Griggs, Hopkins, Honneus, Hungate, Inman, Longof J., Lopp, McClasky, McFadin, McLean, Miller, Morrison, Montgomery, Newland, Prather, Ross, Rosser, Shanks, Shook, Skidmore, Smith, of Wabash, Stockbouse. Tebbs, Thacher, Thomas, Vawter, White, Wolfe and Wolfiin- 44.
So the House refused to postpone; and then the bill and amendment were recommitted to the Committee on the State Prison North.
The House then adjourned.
