IN SENATE.
WEDNESDAY, February 27, 1867.The Senate met at 9 o'clock A. M.
On motion by Mr. JOHNSON, the reading of the minutes of yesterday's proceedings was dispensed with.
PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.
Mr. ROBINSON presented a petition from Madison county on the subject of temperance, which was referred to the Committee on Temperance without reading.
Mr. TERRY presented a petition from officers of the North Indiana Conference of the M.E, Church on the same subject.
Mr. LEWIS, Mr. WARD, Mr. REAGAN, (two - one from ladies) Mr. RICE and Mr. STEIN also presented temperance petitions, which took the same reference.
THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC.
Mr. TERRY submitted the following:
MR. PRESIDENT : The Committee on Temperance, to which was referred the Senate bill No. 167, an act to prohibit selling and buying intoxicating liquors to be used as a beverage, and pre- page: 331[View Page 331] scribing penalties for the violation thereof, have had the same under consideration, and the majority of the committee have instructed me to report the same back to the Senate, with the recommendation that it be laid on the table; for the reason that a bill entitled an act to regulate and license the sale of spirituous, vinous, malt, and other intoxicating liquors, believed to comprise all legislative action necessary to be had at time, has already been reported to the Senate, and its passage recommended, by unanimous consent of this committee, which last named bill is now on its third reading awaiting final action by the Senate.
Mr. REAGAN, from the minority of said committee made a report dissenting from the majority in the opinion that further legislation is unnecessary, arguing at length in favor of prohibitory laws, and recommending the passage of the bill S. 167 - described on page 190 of these REPORTS.
Mr. LEWIS moved to substitute the minority for the majority report.
Mr. CULLEN insisted, though late in the session, the people of Indiana, should be heard on this question. Referring to the fact that the leaders of the two great political parties were afraid to take the lead in the temperance movement, he believed no party could succeed in this State, or anywhere else, unless they proceeded upon principles of justice and right. The storm of battle having passed away, he was unwilling to longer lay this question aside an impolitic, and now hailed upon his banner the motto, "Total Prohibition," in answer to the voice of over 10,000 petitioners of the State of Indiana. Let us come square up to the question, and not, by dodging it, say that we are political cowards. He reflected severely upon using the money raised from licensing this iniquity for the education of the children of the land, and in closing, declared his willingness to vote for every temperance bill proposed here that shall be an improvement on existing laws.
Mr. OYLER repelled the charge of political cowardice as far as it affected the Republican party. For fifteen years he had been an open opponent of a prohibitory law, and among the many petitions he had offered, not one was in favor of a prohibitory law. He spoke in favor of the bill which failed in the Senate lately for want of the votes of professedly prohibitory members; and, as it would be again called up, he hoped it would be passed. If he had the world as he would have it there should not be a drop of distilled or malt liquor in it; and, of course, it was not upon personal grounds that he opposed prohibition.
Mr. SMITH had received many petitions for a prohitory law but none for a license law. If the selling of liquor is wrong, why license it? He would not vote for a license law, but would vote consistently and every time for a prohibitory law.
Mr. CHURCH said. In the canvass in his district this question seemed to be avoided, and not being instructed on this point he was somewhat at a loss as to how he should act on this matter. He also replied to the charge of political cowardice. There is danger of overstepping the mark in this matter, but as a friend of great reforms he would vote in favor of substituting the minority for the majority report.
Mr. ROBINSON opposed the adoption of the minority report. He did not believe the bill reported was the kind of a law prohibitionists were petitioning for.
Mr. JAQUESS was nominated and was placed upon a platform which pledged him to favor no further legislation at the present time on the subject of temperance. He was frank to admit that in his canvass he took Democratic thunder and beat them at their own game, and he was opposed now to spiking the gun that whipped them in the last campaign.
Mr. CULLEN did not charge Senators with cowardice on this question, but insisted that there are leading members of the party who are acting like cowards. He regarded the license system as all wrong, and gentlemen ought to be willing to heed the voice of the people on this question. If they think a prohibitory law is right let them have it; for that voice never will be hushed till men are sent here who will obey their wishes on this great vital question.
Mr. STEIN claimed to entertain as much genuine sympathy for the temperance cause as any other Senator, but desired to give it a practical effect. However proper it might be elsewhere to indulge in sentiment and passion on the subject, it was the duty of the legislator to act with consideration. Laws should be adapted to society as it is, and absolute prohibition would be a mere vanity on the statute book. A practice so common as drinking can not be extirpated by a stroke of the pen, and a law which would be almost universally violated and knowingly so, would only serve to demoralize the people. We can not disregard the infirmities and imperfections of human nature. Our best laws are such as accept this principle. The statute of frauds is grounded on the assumption that men are tempted by their-avarice into perjury. Is not appetite as active a principle as avarice? Do we flatter ourselves that we can radically stifle appetite by a law? The passion will work its way and have its indulgence; and hence, if it can not be prohibited, sound policy should be content to regulate it. On this ground he should oppose the minority report and contribute all his energies in behalf of Senator Wolcott's License bill. Mr. S. also called the attention of Senators to the fact that no provision was made by page: 332[View Page 332] the bill favored by the minority report to compensate the owners of liquor for the stocks now on hand, and which would forthwith become outlawed, There was a doubt in his mind whether this did not constitute a serious constitutional objection to the proposed measure.
Mr. CRAVENS would go as far as any one here or elsewhere in putting restraints upon this evil. He would even favor total prohibition if there was any evidence that public sentiment or the courts of the country would sustain such a measure. He voted once for a prohibitory law, and afterwards voted to repeal what remained of it after the Supreme Court had declared it to be unconstitutional. He regarded wholesome restraints upon the traffic as the only sound and wise policy. If a law to license the drinker would accomplish the object, he would favor that, and was not sure but it would be the most effective restraint. From the admonitions of experience, he did not esteem it wise to attempt legislation that is not likely to meet with a favorable response from those who are to enforce its provisions. He therefore opposed the minority report, and should vote accordingly.
Mr. THOMPSON would be sorry indeed to bring in here an issue that was not broached in the canvass; and being convinced that a prohibitory law could not be enforced in this community, he should oppose substituting the minority for the majority report
Mr. MILLIGAN said there might be some questions on which his people may not know where to find him, but on this vexed liquor question, none that know him can be mistaken. From his youth up he had ever, upon all occasions, opposed the use of stimulating drink as a beverage. But as we have adopted the majority report thereon, and -recommended the bill introduced by Senator Wollcot, it will be a good prohibitory law if we can pass it - one, he thought, that can be sustained, and one that will be enforced. He did not think that a strictly prohibitory law can be carried out and enforced, and therefore should have to vote against the minority report.
Mr. TAGGART, for reasons given by him, when the bill S. 46 was under consideration, would not vote to change a law which satisfied his constituents, who were capable of governing themselves in this respect, as well as in all others. He had come to the conclusion that the majority here were determined to stave off the passage of a liquor bill, and therefore called upon them to stand by their work and put it through, without reference to help from, the other side of the chamber.
Mr. REAGAN would favor any improvement for the present liquor law, even if it were in the shape of a license law, though his people did not demand or ask for the license of a wrong.
Mr. NILES regretted the evils of drunkenness as deeply as any other Senator; but we cannot crush out such evils by a sweeping act of legislation. We should legislate with a view to things as they are. Strictly prohibitory sumptuary laws have always proved a failure, and even in New England, have not advanced the cause of temperance. We can regulate the evil of intemperance by a good license law; but must leave the great work of reform, to moral influences and to an enlightened public sentiment.
The motion to substitute the minority for the majority report was rejected by yeas 8, nays 33.
The majority report was then concurred in by yeas 31, nays 10.
Mr. OYLER offered the following:
Resolved, That the Committee on Temperance, in their report of the number of persons petitioning on the subject be instructed to so separate the names, as to show the kind of legislation asked for by the petitioners.
The resolution was adopted.
THE INSANE ASYLUM.
Mr. CULLEN moved to take up the resolution pending at the time of the adjournment last evening.
Mr. THOMPSON desired to hear whether the Committee could be ready to report at the time the resolution calls for a report.
Mr. CRAVENS said a clerk was now at work for the Committee on that matter, and they could not report to-morrow unless they had leave of absence for twenty-four hours.
Mr. CULLEN insisted that the resolution should be adopted, and that we ought to go ahead and elect these men and relieve them from longer remaining under imputation.
The motion was rejected - yeas, 15; nays, 23.
Mr. CULLEN then introduced his resolution.
THE SINKING FUND.
Mr. WOLCOTT, by leave, introduced a bill [S. 226] for an act to consolidate certain bonds, stocks and accounts of the school fund into one non-negotiable bond, and making other provisions in relation thereto.
Mr. W. stated that the bill proposes, inasmuch as the object of the sinking fund has been accomplished by the redemption of the public debt, that the aggregate items be brought together in one non-negotiable bond under the law of 1865, and that hereafter the income of this fund ($2,658,05730) shall be used for the support of Common Schools. It simply gives effect to the original intent of the law. He moved that the page: 333[View Page 333] Constitutional restriction be dispensed with and the bill put upon its passage.
Mr. OYLER and Mr. HANNA moved to refer the bill to a special Committee of seven, which the PRESIDENT subsequently made to consist of Messers. Wolcott, Hanna, Oyler, Noyes, Rice, Carson and Bellamy.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. CRAVENS had leave of absence for this afternoon that he might work on the Benevolent Institutions Investigating Committee.
The Senate took a recess till 2 o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. MILLIGAN offered the following:
Resolved by the Senate (the House concurring), That the Adjutant General is hereby authorized and instructed to close up the business of his office by the first day of January, 1868, so as not to require, after that time, the service of any clerk or person. other than himself in his office; and that said Adjutant General is instructed not to extend his report further than the seven volumes authorized to be published by the Special Session of the General Assembly of 1865.
On motion by Mr. OYLER it was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs.
On motion by Mr. OYLER the railroad consolidation bill a special order for this afternoon was postponed and made the order for to-morrow at 2 o'clock P. M.
On motion by Mr. STEIN, his Agricultural College bill the special order for this hour - was postponed till 10 o'clock to-morrow morning.
Mr. THOMPSON presented a memorial from the Independent Order of Good Templars for legislative action on the Temperance question ; Mr. WARD presented a petition from ladies of Randolph county on the subject of Temperance ; and Mr BONHAM also presented a "Temperance petition ; which were severally referred to the Committee on Temperance.
On motion by Mr. JOHNSON, the bill [H. R. 145] to amend the town incorporation act of June 11, 1852, was read the first time, and referred to the Committee on Corporations.
Mr. STEIN, from a select committee thereon, returned the bill [H. R. 244] districting the State for Judicial Circuits, with amendments, and adding an additional circuit, recommending its passage.
Mr. CASON moved to concur with the report of the committee by striking out the amendments of the committee establishing the Judicial District numbered twenty-one.
Mr. OYER spoke in favor of the committee amendment.
Mr. CASON replied, arguing for his motion and against the committee report.
Mr. OYLER again urged concurrence in the recommendations of the committee.
At the suggestion of Mr. STEIN -
Mr. CASON withdrew his motion for the present.
On motion by Mr. STEIN, the amendments were considered seriatim.
The first amendment, striking out "Hendericks" from the fifth section, "Morgan" from the sixth and "Johnson" from the seventeenth, and making these counties to constitute the Twenty-first District, being read -
It was rejected by yeas 18, nays 25,
The second amendment, striking "Martin" from section three; and "Clay" from the sixth - inserting "Martin" in lieu; and add-ing "Clay" to the twentieth section, being read -
Mr. HANNA preferred his district as at present constituted, and opposed the amendment.
Mr. RICE also spoke against the amendment.
Mr. CULLEN was opposed to the whole bill, and in order to test the sense of the Senate, moved to postpone and make it the special order for this day week.
The motion was agreed to by yeas 23, nays 22.
On motion by Mr. CULLEN the Senate proceeded to the consideration of bills on the third reading.
On motion by Mr. TURNER, the vote rejecting Mr. Richmond's bill [S. 47] authorizing County Commissioners to make appropriations in aid of the construction of manufacturing establishments and machine shops where a majority of resident tax payers- shall petition in writing therefor: was reconsidered.
The bill having been read -
Mr. CHURCH explained its provisions and favored its passage.
The bill passed by yeas 24, nays 14.
WHITE WATER VALLEY CANAL.
Mr. Cullen's bill [S. 184] for the relief, of Lewis & Eickelberger, Dane & Johnson, Peter Hallowell and Abraham Briggs (see page 216 of these Reports) being read the third time -
Mr. CULLEN said the State entered into certain leases by which she agreed to give to these parties a certain proportion of water power for running their mills, and now having effectually destroyed this water power he hoped the bill would pass, so that these gentlemen may be reimbursed for losses sustained on account of the State's failing to fulfil her contracts.
Mr, CASON thought this a strange kind of proceeding. As he understood legislation on this matter the State was not to be liable for any damages accruing from the White Water Valley Canal transaction. He moved the reference of this bill to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. OYLER considered the transaction more strange which transferred the State's power over the White Water Valley Canal page: 334[View Page 334] some two years ago to other, parties. He was satisfied, in view of past legislation, that the bill was correct, and would place the State in a position of acting justly with those contracting with her.
Mr. GIFFORD said, if correctly informed, no water has been furnished to these parties by the canal for the past fifteen years; and their claim should have been presented fifteen years ago if it was well founded. Although favoring the appointment of this Commission, he did not wish it understood that the Whitewater Valley Railroad Company had anything to do with this alleged breach of contract.
Mr. CASON modified his motion so as to refer the bill to the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. CULLEN regarded it as not only unnecessary but dangerous to refer this bill at this late day of the session. He thought he could show that the bill was just and right and proper as it is. The Senator from Franklin [Mr. Gifford] is mistaken in one thing; the water from this canal has supplied these mills until within the last two years. He was not charging the failure upon any railroad company, but the State has passed laws that ought not to have been passed, and she should pay for damages resulting therefrom to persons contracting with her. Upon conference with Mr. Eickelberger, he would consent to its reference to the Judiciary Committee, hoping they will report it back at an early day.
The motion to refer was agreed to,
Mr. Milligan's bill [S. 141] declaring drunkenness a misdemeanor, being read the third time -
Mr. RICE was understood to say that he thought this one of the best temperance laws you could put upon the statute book of the State.
It failed to pass for want of a constitutional majority, by yeas, 22; nays, 18.
Mr. STEIN was satisfied that several Senators voted under a misapprehension upon the postponement of the bill [H. R 144] districting the State for judicial purposes, till this day week; and at his suggestion -
Mr. REYNOLDS moved to reconsider the vote - he having voted in the affirmative.
Mr. OYLER thought a re-consideration would be inadvisable. If the re-consideration is had, he should insist upon an amendment to the bill which will leave his district as it now is.
Mr. NILES was satisfied no money would be lost to the people by the passage of this bill - it was needed now and was more necessary for the future than for the present.
On motion of Mr. HANNA the motion to re-consider was laid on the table - yeas, 23; nays, 21.
On motion by Mr. WOLCOTT his temperance bill[S 46 - described on pages 52, 53, 96, 97 and 98 of these Reports,] was taken up - it having failed to pass for want a constitutional majority on Friday - and it again failed to pass for want of a constitutional majority - yeas 24, nays 19 - as follows:
YEAS Mesrss Armstrong, Bellamy, Bonham, Cason, Church, Cullen, Houghton, Lewis, Milligan, Niles, Noyes, Oyler, Parrish. Reagan, Reynolds, Rice, Richmond, Robinson, Stein, Terry, Thompson. Ward, Walcott and Mr. President, (Cumback,) - 24.
NAYS - Messrs Barker, Bowman, Carson, English, Gifford, Hanna, Howk, Huey, Huffman, Humphreys, Jaquess, Johnson, Lee, Mason, Newlin, Smith, Staggs, Taggart and Turner - 19.
On motion of Mr. JAQUESS, his bill [S. 201] authorizing the sale of certain State lands in Evansville and for the relief of Lucius H. Scott, John and William H. Law and Jacob A. Reitz, was read the second time; the constitutional restriction was dispensed withyeas 39, nays 0and the bill was read the third time and passed by yeas 36, nays 2.
MEASUREMENTS.
Mr. HANNA, from, the special committee to which was referred petitions in regarded the measurement of work done by plasterers, carpenters, brick layers, etc., reported a bill [S. 228] for an act to regulate the measurement of work done by plasterers, joiners, carpenters, brick layers, stone layers and painters, and declaring an emergency. [It declares that the measurement of work done by plasterers, joiners, carpenters and painters shall be estimated by the superficial area of such work; brick layers by the actual thousands of brick laid; stone layers by the actual perch of twenty-five cubic feet or by the actual cubic yards of stone constructed, furnished or laid by them, and it shall be unlawful to charge exceeding these rates except, in cases agreed upon by the contracting parties.]
STREET RAILROADS.
On motion by Mr. THOMPSON, the bill [H. R. 142] authorizing street railroad companies to issue preferred stock to raise money to pay their debts, was read the second time.
He moved to dispense with the constitutional restriction and put the bill on its passage now.
Mr. STEIN desired to include, in this motion a bill defining the 21st, 22d and 23d Judicial Circuits.
The PRESIDENT decided it out of order to include more than one bill in a mo- page: 335[View Page 335] tion to dispense with the constitutional provision.
Mr. Thompson's motion was agreed to yeas 41, nays 0 - and the bill was read the third time.
Mr. STEIN moved that the bill be postponed till next Tuesday morning, 9 o'clock.
Mr. CULLEN insisted that the bill was all right.
Mr. THOMPSON stated that the interest of the Street Railroad of this city would suffer much unless this bill were passed. It is almost an exact copy of the statutes affecting steam railroads. He hoped it would not be postponed.
The motion was rejected - yeas 3, nays 392
Mr. OYLER favored the bill.
It was passed by yeas 40, nays 0.
On motion by Mr. REAGAN his bill [S. 165] amending section 15 of the Appraisement of Real Estate act, of December 21, 1858, by increasing the appraisers per diem from $2 to $3, was read the third time.
Mr. R. stated that between this and the next regular session of the Legislature there would be an appraisement of all the real estate in the State, and in order to secure competent men it was necessary to increase the present fee.
The bill was rejected - yeas 17, nays 18.
And then the Senate adjourned.
