HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
WEDNESDAY, February 27, 1867.The House met at 9 o'clock.
Mr. BELFORD moved, ineffectually, to dispense with the reading of the journal of yesterday.
The journal, in its most material sections, haying been read and approved -
PETITIONS AND REMONSTRANCES.
Messrs. Skidmore, Wason, Chambers, White, Hamilton, Martin, Geisendorf, Wolfe, Foulke, Douglass, McCarty,Williams,Van Valkenburgh, Smith of Wabash, Ervin,Long of Jackson, Lopp, Blanch, Long of Kosciusko, Ferris and Ratliff, severally presented petitions for liquor prohibition, which were referred to the Committee on Temperance.
Mr. MOORE presented the petition of citizens of St. Paul, near the Decatur and Shelby county line, asking for a change of the line between those counties for school district accommodation of the town of St. Paul. It was referred to the Committee on County and Township Business.
Mr. BOBO presented a paper in regard to city taxes, which was referred to the Committee on Rights and Privileges.
Mr. PRATHER presented a paper in reference to the Morgan raid, which was referred to the Committee on Claims.
Mr. GRIGGS presented a paper from citizens of Madison county, remonstrating against the passage of the Senate bill No. 152, legalizing county bounty bonds - reasoning against it as an attempt to carry a fraudulent measure. It was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. FOULKE presented a memorial from the State Temperance Convention in session yesterday in this city, in behalf of the Good Templars, for prohibitory liquor legislation: which was read and referred to the Committee on Temperance.
Mr. NEWCOMB presented papers in the claims of Daniel Keedy and others, which were referred to the Committee on Claims.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Mr. NEWCOMB, from the Committee on Ways and Means, returned Mr. Hughes' bill [H. R. 46] for the relief of Alfred Williams, late Treasurer of Brown county, [from paying lost revenue to the amount of $1,279 81 without recommending any action thereon.
Mr. McLEAN, from the Committee on Education, returned Mr. Wolfe's bill [H. R.153] to repeal the 15th section of the act creating a State Normal School, with an amendment by way of substitute, recommending its passage.
Mr. SMITH, of Lagrange, from the Judiciary, returned Mr. Miller's docket fees amendment bill [H. R. 297] recommending its passage.
Mr. LITSON, from the Joint Committee on Military Affairs, reported on the Adjutant General's office - recommending the Adjutant General's suggestion of the publication of a supplementary volume of his Report. They report unfavorably to the suggestions for publishing the roll of the Indiana Legion, &c. And they commend the general condition of the Adjutant General's office - its affairs having been administered with economy, ability and entire success. They commend the Adjutant General for the continued prosecution and settlement of military claims. They also recommend an appropriation. It was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. MARTIN, from the Committee on Fees and Salaries, returned the county surveyor's and county commissioner's bill, No. 194.
Mr.SCHAMMAHORN, from the Committee on Rights and Privileges, returned a joint resolution No 44, recommending its passage.
Mr. CHAMBERS, from the Committee on Corporations, returned Mr. Newcomb's bill [H. R. 239] supplemental to the law for the taxation of land in cities, with an amendment, recommending its passage.
He also returned Mr. Green's Aurora and Loughery turnpike bill, [H. R. 239] recommending its passage.
He also returned the Manufacturing and Mining Company bill, [S. 191] recommending its passage.
PUBLIC PRINTER.
Mr. PEELLE, from the select committee thereon, returned the resolution touching the office of the last Public Printer,submitting facts and figures, leaving the House to draw conclusions. The gross expense for printing, paper and binding for the year 1866 amounts to upwards of $96,000. By a comparison with the accounts of other States, the committee came to the conclusion that the State has been throwing away money in the purchase of paper; hence they recommend legislation making it the duty of the Secretary of State to purchase paper, and they submit a bill [H. R. 331] for an act requiring the Secretary of State to purchase the paper for the Public Printer, authorizing it to be bought - requiring the Printer to account for all paper coming into his hands - and compensating the Secretary of State for such service. It was read, and passed to the second reading.
Mr. WASON introduced a bill [H. R. 332] page: 336[View Page 336] for an act to amend the 28th section of the act to incorporate the Vevay, Mount Sterling and Versailles turnpike company; which was read and referred to the Committee on Corporations.
RAILROAD PASSENGER FARE.
Mr. STAFFORD introduced a bill [H. R. 333] for an act to regulate the rate per mile to be charged by all railroad corporations in the State of Indiana for the transportation of passengers, and other matters properly connected therewith. [It proposes 31/2 cents per mile for each passenger; provided that 15 cents may be charged where the distance between stations is less than 2 miles, and 25 cents where the stations are less than 4 miles apart. Penalty for violation - $100 to be paid into the County Clerk's office for the benefit of common schools.
Mr. STAFFORD moved ineffectually to dispense with the constitutional restriction - yeas 52, nays 37 - two-thirds not voting in the affirmative.
Mr. STAFFORD moved to make the bill the special order for to-morrow.
Mr. HUGHES moved that it be referred to the Committee on Railroads.
Mr. HONNEUS said that it would be fatal to the bill to give it that reference. He animadverted on the inaction of the Committee on Railroads
Mr. CRAIN replied, defending the Committee, and rehearsing something of its action, and describing the three bills which they have reported. As to this bill, he would rather that it be referred to the gentleman from Clark [Mr. Honneus.]
Mr. HONNEUS spoke again, reiterating his statements, and adding others.
Mr. HARTMAN defended the Committee from the charges of Mr. Honneus.
Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH said, although this bill did not meet his approval, he regarded it as one of vital importance. But he opposed its reference, for want of time. He would prefer making it a special order, not later than ten o'clock to-morrow.
Mr. HUGHES-advised to refer, because it was advisable to have these railroad bills prepared with care, so that they will be able to stand judicial investigations. He withdrew his motion.
On motion of Mr. McFADIN, it was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE.
Mr. DUNN, from the Special Committee, to whom was referred the investigation of certain reports on Legislative Corruption, reported that under the resolution which requires the making of a specific charge, and the presence of the party accused, before the evidence can be heard, they find it utterly impossible for them to proceed, unless more power shall be granted them.
Mr. HUGHES moved that the special committee be discharged from the further consideration of the subject: But seeing opposition to the motion he withdrew it.
Mr. MOORE submitted the following:
WHEREAS, The committee appointed by this House to investigate certain matters of bribery and corruption, report that, by the terms of said resolution as amended, they find it impossible to proceed with the investigation; therefore
Resolved, That said committee shall have power to administer oaths, compel the attendance and examine witnesses, as nearly in accordance with the rules governing our grand jury system as is practicable, and all other power necessary to the obtaining of testimony in relation to said matters, if any there be ; and if the committee deem the evidence sufficiently strong, a specific charge shall be preferred against any and all parties implicated ; Provided, that in all cases where such charge shall be made, the accused shall have notice and an opportunity of appearing before the committee at any time before the discharge of said committee, and, having heard the testimony upon which said charge is based, shall have the right to compel the attendance of and examine witnesses in his own behalf, and to confront and cross-examine his accusers; and the committee shall report the result of their investigations.
Mr. MOORE deemed this matter of sufficient importance to authorize investigation. By the terms of the resolution creating the committee, before they can examine witnesses the charge must be made in writing, and the persons charged must be present. Under such restrictions it was impossible for them to proceed. By his resolution it proposed to give the committee power to compel the attendance of witnesses; and then, afterwards the accused maybe notified and have the privilege of confronting his accusers. In these days of corruption, so many propositions were sought to be carried by money, that herein he saw another reason for this inquisition. For this reason be desired this -committee to have this power - so that if there is corruption the country may know it.
Mr. McLEAN proposed to amend by inserting appropriately these words: "and the same shall be indorsed by the committee: 'A true bill. 'Signed, Foreman.'" Mr. McL. held that this matter was not a privileged question so far as to include action on the report.
The SPEAKER decided that the proceedings are in order.
On motion of Mr. WOODS, Mr. McLean's amendment was laid on the table.
Mr. HUGHES said the resolution organizing, the Committee but established the landmarks which guards the rights of new trial - guarding against ex parte examinations. But now that Committee, without specifying even the subjects which their investigation are to contemplate, and for most extraordinary and unlimited powers over the rights of the people of the State. The investigation should respect the rights of members of this House. He deprecated investigating Committees page: 337[View Page 337]stabbing in the dark. Gentlemen even decline to state whether they know of any facts to justify this investigation. To save time, he indicated a desire to move the previous question, which he did: (Mr. MILLER desiring to offer an amendment;) and there was a second, and the main question was ordered, viz: Shall the resolution be adopted?
The resolution was adopted - yeas 79, nays 14.
The SPEAKER announced the consideration of the special order, viz.: Mr. Hughes' bill [H. R. 316] to protect and indemnify officers and soldiers of the United States and officers and soldiers of the Indiana Legion for acts done in the military service of the United States, and in the service of the State of Indiana, and in enforcing the law and preserving the peace of the country.
Mr. HUGHES said he would move the previous question if gentlemen did not want to offer amendments. It was addressed to the majority on this floor. He proposed to turn the conduct of the measure over to those who have served in the field (as the gentleman from Boone and others); it was with them, and in the hands of the House.
Mr. O'NEIL proposed to make it the special order for Friday. On motion of Mr. NEWCOMB, the motion to postpone was laid, on the table yeas 58, nays 38.
Mr. NEWCOMB proposed to amend by inserting appropriately in the 8th section the following: "Except in actions for libel or slander."
Mr. ROSS proposed to amend by striking out section two. He said its provisions were new, and they should receive careful attention. He objected to the second section, in which it is provided that it shall be a sufficient defense for the arrest or detention of persons or property, to prove that the acts done or omitted were done or omitted under orders. What was the difference between a man with shoulder straps who had violated the law, and any other man? It may have been a crime of any class of enormity, but simply because the criminal is a soldier, that shall be his defense.
Mr. HUGHES said the provision simply protects the subordinate - not the officer in command.
Mr. ROSS alleged that the bill was without precedent in the legislation of the country.
Mr. BELFORD said that such a law was recently enacted in the State of North Carolina.
Mr. NEWCOMB said the gentleman's pleadings against the second section were inapplicable and unsound. He moved to lay the motion to strike out on the table.
It was so ordered - yeas 58, 35.
Mr. NEWCOMB proposed further to amend the bll as follows:
Strike out the sixth section and insert in lieu thereof the following: "The provisions of this act, except the first section, shall not apply in any case except where it is shown in evidence, that the orders of the military superior were clearly executed."
Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH opposed the passage of the bill for the consideration that it was a disparagement of legislation.
Mr. NEWCOMB submitted questions to justify this legislation - as the Kentucky Legislature protecting guerrillas from the consequences of their acts.
Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH replied - alleging that he was in favor of the proper protection of soldiers, but if they have violated law, (as committing murder under military command,) should they not be punished as others?
Mr. GREEN insisted that the soldier is bound only to obey legal orders.
Mr. CAMPBELL denounced opposition.
Mr. McFADIN retorted deprecating the use of the word "copperhead." He would change the title ot the bill, and made it a bill to protect those who have unlawfully courtmartialed and condemned men to be hung. This bill was the most enormous of all. It was a partizan measure. The measure of a party not content with nearly all the Judges and officers, but they would make a law so as to prevent an honest Judge from doing justice. He hoped the bill would not pass, and was against the amendment.
Mr. HOSTETTER opposed the bill as more than an ordinary enormity. It was a proposition coming from an unhealthy political atmosphere. And he protested against its passage, as an invasion of the rights of citizens. He spoke regardless of party.
Mr. CRAIN demanded the previous question upon the amendment, and there was a second - affirmative 55; and the main question was ordered.
Mr. Newcomb's amendment was adopted yeas 61, nays 34.
Mr. MONTGOMERY proposed to amend by striking out section three.
Mr. O'NEIL proposed to amend by striking out all the first section after the enacting clause. Because it would amount to nothing, whether the law of Congress referred to be constitutional or not.
Mr. HUGHES. That provision was put in to meet the peculiar sensitiveness of some men.
On motion of Mr. MILLER the motion to strike out was laid on the table - yeas 60, nays 34.Mr. GORDON proposed to amend in the 8th section, by striking out these words: "it shall be the duty of;" and after the word page: 338[View Page 338] "Governor," inserting these: "may in his discretion."
It was adopted.
Mr. WOODS proposed to amend in the first line of the 2d section by inserting after the word "actions," these: "civil or criminal."
It was adopted.
Mr. NEWCOMB proposed to fill the blank in the 9th section with "$3,000," [to be applied by the Governor in the employment of counsel to conduct the defense at the expense of the State.]
Mr ROSS proposed "$2."
Mr. Newcomb's amendment was adopted - yeas 57, nays 34.
On motion of Mr. NEWCOMB - under stress of the previous question - the further consideration of the bill was postponed, and it was made the special order for to-morrow at 3-o'clock.
The House then took a recess till 2 o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The Special Investigations Committee obtained leave to sit during the session of the House for this day.
Mr. Chambers' 7th judicial circuit bill [H. R. 51] coming up on the third reading, it was laid on the table as matter superseded.
MECHANICS' LIEN.
Mr. Crain's mechanics' lien bill [H. R. 191] coming up on the third reading -
Mr. CRAIN asked and obtained unanimous consent to strike out "90" and insert "60" in lieu - as the limitation - reversing an amendment on the second reading.
The bill was then passed the House of Representatives - yeas 61, nays 3.
OLD BOOKS' INDEX.
The Judiciary Committee's clerks' index bill [H. R. 219] coming up on the third reading -
Mr. CRAIN said it would be ruinous as to clerks' fees.
Mr. WATSON (who introduced the original bill No. 108), thought the House would pass the bill if it were understood. The amended bill [No. 219] proposes simply to give the county commissioners power to authorize the clerks to index the old books. In many counties these books are not indexed. The provision is not imperative - the compensation not to exceed 15 cents per hundred words.
Mr. WOLFE thought it would give scope for constructive fees.
Mr. PEELLE. There was no law requiring the old records to be indexed; and this gives the Commissioners a discretion to order this indexing of the old books. The bill was right.
Mr. O'NEIL said the law requires the clerks to index their books, but not the old ones. He feared this bill would be merely a dead letter, because these indexes could not be made for 15 cents a hundred words.
The bill was finally passed the House of Representatives - yeas 59, nays 23.
EXTENDING TAX PAYMENT TILL THIRD MONDAY IN APRIL.
On motion of Mr. FULLER, the House the consideration of his bills [H. R. 275, 276, 277] for extending the time of paying taxes till the third Monday in April the question being on their final passage. No. 275 was passed - 77 to 7. No. 276 was passed - 74 to 8. No. 277 being in the lands of the Ingrossing committee, it was passed over. Subsequently this bill was reported from the committee.
Mr. MONTGOMERY made an ineffectual motion to take up his court bill [H. R. 278 See p. 209 of these Reports.]
Mr. HUGHES made an ineffectual motion to go into Committee of the Whole House for the consideration of the House of Refuge bill [S. 161 - See page 184 of these Reports.]
LANDLORD AND TENANT.
Mr. Higgins' landlord and tenant bill [H. R. 225] coming up on the final reading -
Mr. HIGGINS explained that it inserts these words in the 4th section of the act: "when not therein otherwise provided."
It was finally passed the House of Representatives - yeas 81, nays 5.
PROTECTION OF RIVER BANKS.
Mr. McFadin's bill [H. R. 80,] amendatory of the act of March 6th, 1865, authorizing supervisors to remove roads and fences, where streams of water encroach, coming up -
Mr. McFADIN explained that it was a proposition to protect river banks, in the discretion of the county commissioners. The draft of the bill was sent to him by a friend. He supposed it was right.
Mr. GREEN objected to the bill, as involving more expense than removing the fence.
On motion of Mr. HOPKINS, it was laid on the table.
PROTECTION OF PIGS.
Mr. Bird's bill [H. R. 208see page 148 of these Reports,] to protect young pigs from foxes and wildcats, coming up -
The SPEAKER said the committee amendment, was not adopted, and the bill was not engrossed.
The committee's amendment proposes the destruction ot "hawks."
On motion of Mr. HARTMAN, the subject was laid on the table - affirmative 46, negative 29.
Mr. McLean's bill [H. R. 193] to amend page: 339[View Page 339] the 5th section of the act declaratory of the law regulating marriage, and confirming the provisions thereof by proper penalties, approved March 5, 1852, coming up -
Mr. McLEAN said the substantial provision of the bill was to require affidavit in certain cases; and that the clerk shall not be required to issue license unless the female, in case she be under eighteen years of age, has been in the county thirty days. It was a bill for the protection of the clerks, extending their discretion. The draft of it was sent to him by the clerk of Vigo county.
The bill was finally passed the House of Representatives - yeas 51, nays 27.
CONVENTIONAL INTEREST.
Mr. Wilson's bill [H. R. 141] to fix the rate of interest as parties may agree, not exceeding 10 per cent, which may be taken in advance, &c., which failed once in the House for want of a constitutional majority - it was again submitted to the vote, resulting - yeas 44, nays 34: so it fails the second time for want of 51 votes.
Mr. Wolflin's city corporations amendment bill [H. R. 212] coming up -
On motion of Mr. MONTGOMERY, it was laid on the table, as matter that ought to give place to a Senate bill - remodeling the city corporation act.
TEN HOURS LABOR IN FACTORIES.
Mr. Brucker's ten hours infant labor bill [H. R. 81] coming up on the third reading -
After debate by Messrs. BRUCKER, TEBBS, ROSS and McFADIN in favor of the bill, and by Mr. GEISENDORF in opposition -
Mr. WILSON asked for unanimous consent to insert appropriately these words: "without the consent of the hands." But that being denied, he moved to recommit the bill with instructions to so amend it.
After debate by Mr. HUGHES and Mr. CAMPBELL - the bill was referred.
Subsequently, on motion of Mr. CRAIN, this vote was reconsidered; and the bill was then finally passed the House of Representatives - 55 to 21.
NORMAL SCHOOL APPROPRIATION.
Mr. McLean's normal school appropriation $75,000 bill [H. R. 15] coming up with the Committee's amendment -
Mr. WOLFE moved to recommit the bill, with instructions to strike out the provision to take $25,000 from the common school fund.
Mr. McLEAN said that provision in the bill was a clerical error - that it was intended that that $25,000 should be taken out of the general fund.
Mr. Wolfe's motion was agreed to - on a division - affirmative 42, negative 38.
ELKHART RIVER IMPROVEMENT.
Mr. Shuey's bill [H. R. 211] authorizing hydraulic companies to appropriate lands to their own use upon paying the assessed value thereof, and providing for such assessments, coming up on the third reading,
Mr. HUGHES demanded the previous question, and under the stress thereof -
Mr. SHUEY said no bill of the session was of more interest than this to the people of Elkhart county. He referred to the want of it by a joint stock company lately formed there, with a capital of $500,000, to get possession of lands along the Elkhart river, affording large hydraulic privileges.
The bill was finally passed the House of Representatives - yeas 63, nays 12.
On motion by Mr. MONTGOMERY, by unanimous consent, this vote was reconsidered, and he was allowed to so amend the bill that its provisions may apply to streams 65 feet wide - (so as to include manufacturing improvements on Blue river in his county.)
The bill was then passed the House - 73 to 7.
JURORS FEES.
Mr. Chambers' jurors fees bill [H. R. 21] coming up on the third reading[Fees in Courts of Record $2 a day, and 5 cents mileage - before a Justice of the Peace $1 a day.]
Mr. NEWCOMB conceded that the pay of jurors was not compensating. He considered that it was like working the highway - a public duty. But now, when it costs less to live, this bill proposes to increase these jurors' fees nearly a hundred per cent. It was not a time to raise fees. He found enough willing to serve as jurors for the present fee.
Mr. STAFFORD objected to this invidiousness that would object to raising jurors' fees, and support legislation to increas salaries by thousands of dollars, which are already sufficient.
Mr. HARTMAN supported the bill. Three-fourths of the people of his county were in favor of raising these fees. He replied to the objections urged by Mr. New-comb. The present pay might be sufficient for his "professional jurors" in this city. But it was a fact that the fees do not ordinarily pay the expenses of the jurors. Service on juries was no more a public duty than the public services of Sheriffs and Coroners.
Mr. THACHER. This was not a question of raising the salaries of officers, but of the people. He hoped the bill would pass.
Mr. WILSON. The people with him were in favor of something like this bill. He wanted the best men for this service.
Mr. WOLFER had often served as a page: 340[View Page 340] juror, and the fees never yet paid his tavern bill.
Mr. BELFORD demanded the previous question, and there being a second, under the stress thereof, the bill was finally passed the House of Representatives - 81 to 5.
