HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
MONDAY, March 4, 1867.On motion of Mr. GREEN, the reading of the journal of yesterday was dispensed with.
Mr. NEWCOMB presented the claim of James Morris, which was referred without reading.
Mr. SHULL also presented a claim.
Mr. BLANCH presented a temperance petition, which was referred without reading.
Mr. PRATHER moved certain instructions to the Committee on Education, which were referred without reading.
REPORTS FROM> COMMITTEES.
Mr. McFADIN, from the Committee on the Judiciary, returned the habeas corpus amendment bill, [S. 96see page 105] recommending its indefinite postponement.
Mr. BAKER, from the Judiciary Committee, returned Mr. O'Neil's unsound mind bill, recommending its indefinite postponement.
These reports were concurred in.
Mr. BAKER, from the Judiciary Committee, returned the Masonic buildings bill [S. 175] recommending its passage.
Mr. WOODS, from the Judiciary Committee, returned the bill to authorize towns and townships to subscribe stock to turnpike and slackwater navigation companies, with an amendment, recommending its passage.
Mr. WOODS, from the Judiciary Committee, returned the bill supplemental to the act concerning real property and the alienation thereof, with an amendment, recommending its passage.
Mr. DAGGY, from the Judiciary Committee, returned the abandoned railroads bill [S 125] with an amendment, recommending its passage.
Mr. GRIGGS, from the Judiciary Committee, returned Mr Barritt's bill [H. R. 317] increasing the Treasurer's fees in certain ca es, recommending its indefinite postponement. The report was concurred in.
Mr PEELLE, from the Committee on Organization of Courts of Justice, returned his civil court terms bill [H. R, 338] with amendments, recommending its passage.
On motion of Mr. GEISENDORF his Rome City bill [H. R. 301] was taken up and passed to the engrossment and third reading.
Mr. DAGGY (by leave) from the Committee on Temperance, returned the Senate liquor bill No. 46, with an amendment, recommending its passage.
On motion of Mr. STACKHOUSE, his Saline land sales bill [H. R. 219] was taken up and passed to the engrossment.
12TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT.
Mr. CAMPBELL introduced a bill [H. R. 345] for an act fixing the times of holding the Court of Common Pleas in the 12th judicial district. [The counties of Boone, Hendricks and Marion.] It was passed to the second reading.
Mr. GREEN submitted the following:
Resolved, That the Clerks of all the Committees, except those of the Committees of Ways and Means and the Judiciary are hereby discharged from service, and shall receive pay only for the time they have served.
On motion of Mr. LITSON, it was laid on the table.
CASS COMMON PLEAS.
Mr. McFADDIN introduced a bill [H.R. 346] for an act for extending the time of holding the Common Pleas Court in the county of Cass, and repealing all conflicting laws. It was passed to the second reading.
THE CALENDAR.
Mr. Long of Jackson's bill to repeal the act of June 2, 1861, was ordered to the engrossment.
Mr. Morrison's justices dockets bill [H. R. 267] coming up -
0n motion of Mr. SHUEY it was laid on the table.
Mr. Daggy's attachment law amendment bill [H. R. 269] amending the 156th section of article 9 of the general practice act coming up it was ordered to the engrossment.
Mr. Montgomory's Foreign Insurance act amendment bill [H. R. 261] was ordered to the engrossment.
Mr. Crain's publication of notice bill [H. R. 288] coming up - it was ordered to the engrossment.
CULVERTS.
Mr. MORRISON submitted the following:
WHEREAS, Heretofore railroad companies, in constructing the beds to their respective roads, have in many instances made them across sloughs without making culverts for the water to pass in its natural course, thereby damming the water and overflowing and flooding the country, making it sickly and unfit for cultivation, and of little value for any purpose to the owners thereof; and whereas, many of said persons are desirous of reclaiming their said lands by draining, to do which they will have to culvert said railroad beds; and whereas, they are in doubt as to whether they have a remedy under the common law or under the statutes First vol. Gavin & Hord, p. 303, and in the supplement thereto, pages 148 and 191: therefore,
Be it Resolved, That the Judiciary Committee be requested to examine said matters, and to report the result of their investigations at as early a day as convenient.
It was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. FOULKE submitted the following:
WHEREAS, The claim of J. P. Lancaster was referred to the Committee on Employees; and whereas, said committee have not made any report thereon : Therefore,
Resolved, That said committee return said claim to the House for its action.
It was adopted.
On motion of Mr. KIZER, it was
Resolved, That the Judiciary Committee he and are hereby instructed to report the House bill No. 76 reducing the penalty on sales of lands for taxes.
CATTLE DISEASE.
Mr. DUNN introduced a bill [H. R. 347] for an act to prevent the spreading of any contagious or infectious disease among cattle. [Penalty $25 official penalty $50 to $100, for benefit of common schools.] It was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. DOUGLASS introduced a joint resolution for relief of John I. Morrison, late Treasurer of State, refunding to him certain moneys stolen from him by an adroit thief on the 4th of January, 1866.
The SPEAKER. The Chair is of the opinion that that matter has been indefinitely postponed.
page: 381[View Page 381]THE CALENDAR.
Mr. Crain's lime measure bill [H. R. 304] was passed to the engrossment.
Mr. Ratliff's common school law amendment bill [H. R. 157see page 115 of these Reports] coming up -
Mr. WILSON proposed to amend by adding a section to this effect:
SECTION 4. That in neighborhoods where there are fifteen colored children, the trustees shall provide for their education by organizing a separate school, provided that where the neighborhood have no objection to the presence of colored children in the schools, the trustees shall not be required to organize a separate school.
Mr. WILSON said: There is no subject in which I am so much interested as the improvement and education of the children of the State of Indiana. Soon they will occupy the place of those who are now in the busy scenes of life. The responsibilities and duties growing out of the relation we sustain to the government, will speedily rest upon them. How important, therefore, that we should use every means in our power to have them qualified to bear those responsibilities and perform those duties.
Sir, I suppose there will be no dissent from these general ideas; but there are specialities in this bill. Among other things it provides that the colored population shall be taxed, and their children have the benefit of schools. Now, the colored children sustain the same relation to the State that the white children do; both are citizens, and both, that they may become intelligent and useful, are dependent on our action. The State sustains the same relation to the colored children that it does to the white, and therefore is under the same obligation to the one as the other.
Let the State do all it can to improve and educate the white children, and not neglect the colored.
The good of the State demands that something should be done to elevate the colored race that is among us; it is not their fault that they are here, nor are they to blame for not being white. They are here as the result of the wickedness of the people of of this land, or at least by the action of the people of the United States. But no matter how they came here, it is to the interest of this country that they be educated; it is to the interest of this State that they have access to schools provided for at the public expense. We ask not that they be permitted to go to the schools with the white children, but we do ask - and this is what the colored people wish - that the colored population be taxed the same as the white, and have their proportionate share of the school funds to establish separate schools for their children.
Sir, if we do not make provision for this unfortunate race, we shall have a mass of ignorant persons in our midst; and every man knows that an educated, well-informed man is worth more to the State than an uneducated, ignorant man. Is there a man on this floor that desires that the affairs of the State shall be so conducted that the negroes shall remain as degraded as they now are? The welfare of the State demands that, they be elevated, but more than this, humanity demands it. I know it is said that they are an inferior race, and men speak sneeringly of the negro. But the question is not whether they are inferior, but are they human? If human, to them belongs all rights of our common humanity. And if they are now degraded, they need our sympathy and our help to lift them from the state of degredation into which they are plunged. But, sir, the hand of oppression has borne heavily on this unfortunate race; the laws of this State have been such that the colored population could not enjoy those rights and privileges which are necessary in order to the happiness of men. And now, when they come and ask - and ask only that provision be made for the education of their children, on the same basis that provision is made for the education of the white children - shall this just and simple request be denied them?
The State of Indiana has gained the admiration of the world by the noble and daring deeds of her patriotic sons, will she now render herself disgraceful in the eyes of the civilized world by pandering to he prejudices of those whose minds have become depraved by that odious and barbarous system of human slavery that has so long disgraced the nation, and was at the bottom of one of the most cruel and wicked rebellions that ever took place? May God forbid.
But once more: The negroes in the great struggle through which we have just passed came to our aid. They rushed to the front of the army; they bared their breasts to the fire of those who were striving to destroy our Government; they spilt their blood on many battle-fields; they acted as brave and patriotic men. And more than this, they filled the place of many a poor rebel-sympathizing Democrat at the North, who, to avoid the draft, employed negroes to take their places as substitutes. Ah, sir, these men loved the negroes then. They would pay their fare at the hotel, walk arm and arm with them in the streets, and no language was too sweet for them to use to induce the negroes to bear the musket in their stead. And can it be that any Democrat on this floor will be so inconsistent, not to say ungrateful, (for surely the Democracy are under many obligations to their colored of brethren) as to vote against this bill because page: 382[View Page 382] it provides for the education of the negro? I am mistaken if some of the members of that party do not lend their aid and influence to the measure now under consideration. But if I am mistaken, I shall not have as high an opinion of that party as I now have; and God knows that it is not superlatively high now.
I envy neither head nor heart of that man who shall oppose this bill because it allows a portion of the school funds to the colored children of the State.
Mr. McFADIN would have thought he had been listening to one of the lamentations of Jeremiah if it had not been for the refrain against the Democratic party. He told the gentleman that he need not be concerned about the common philanthropy of his neighbors; it were useless, if not sinful for the gentleman to stay at home and write partisan speeches on Sunday, when he ought to have been at church.
Mr. SHUEY ineffectually demanded the previous question.
Mr. SMITH, of Lagrange, replied to Mr. McFadin. He said the bill requires only fifteen - not twenty - to authorize a colored school. It should so read.
Mr. WOLFE proposed to amend further by striking out the words "except married persons" wherever they occur in the bill.
Mr. BELFORD demanded the previous question, and there was a second, and the main question was ordered.
Mr. WASON (by leave) said the Senate bill contains these same provisions including the amendment.
Mr. Wilson's amendment was adopted by the following vote:
YEAS - Messrs. Belford, Bischof, Blanch, Brucker, Campbell, Daggy, Danaldson, Dunn, Erwin, Evans, Ferris, Foulke, Funk, Geisendorff, Greer, Griggs, Hartman, Higgins, Hudson, Mason, McCarthy, McMurray, Miller, North, Peelle, Prather, Ratliff, Rosser, Sabin, Shuey, Smith of Lagrange, Spencer, Stafford, Stewart, Thrasher, Wason, Watson, Wilson, Wolfer, Wolflin, Woods, Wright, and Mr. Speaker - 44.
NAYS - Messrs. Baker, Black, Bobo, Carter, Douglass, Edmonson, Fuller, Green, Hays, Honneus, Hosteler, Hughes, Hungate. Inman, Kizer, Long of Kosciusko, Lopp, McFadin, Morrison, Shanks, Shields, Shook, Shull, Skidmore, Smith of Wabash, Stackhouse, Tebbs, Van Valkenburgh, and Wolfe - 31.
Mr. Wolfe's amendment was then adopted.
And so the bill was ordered to the engrossment.
Mr. Wason's School Tax bill [H. R.206] coming up -
On motion of Mr. MILLER it was referred to the Judiciary Committee Judiciary Committee
Mr. Moore's School Act Amendment bill [H. R. 210] was ordered to the engrossment.
Mr. Wason's School bill No. 213 was laid on the table, as superceded matter.
Mr. Montgomery's Unclaimed Fines and Fees bill [H. R. 274see p. 200] was ordered to the engrossment.
Mr. Cory's School Teachers' Qualifications bill[H.R. 280] coming up, it was ordered to the engrossment.
Mr. Peelle's Parsonage Tax Exemption bill [H. R. 252see p. 252] coming up -
On motion of Mr. MILLER it was laid on the table.
Mr. Daggy's bill, No. 295, was laid on the table as superceded matter.
The Select Committee's Milk sick joint resolution, No. 16, appropriating $15,000 coming up -
Mr. McCARTHY suggested a better way to investigate this matter without expense. Refer it to the State Medical Association for investigation. It was a speciality of the medical profession, and they would gladly attend to it. He referred to facts and theories about milk sick. If the cause were known it might not prove of any advantage. He moved to lay the joint resolution on the table.
Mr. KIZER doubted the sanity of the instigator of this joint resolution - speaking against the resolution by consent.
Mr. WILSON (by leave) favored the resolution, as knowing something of Mr. Nathan Brown.
Mr. GRIGGS (by leave) gave considerations in favor of the proposition, rehearsing its provisions. If there is a discovery here, it might be worth millions to the people of the State.
Messrs. HOSTETTER, WOLFER, WOLFE and MILLER also spoke briefly on sufferance.
The joint resolution was then laid on the table - affirmative 46, negative 18.
Mr. Woods' taxation of costs bill [H. R. 218] was ordered to the engrossment
Mr. Wason's school bill, No. 197, was laid on the table, as susperceded matter.
Mr. Wright's Marion L. Spitler and Margaret Stackhouse bill [H. R. 264] was ordered to the engrossment, with a saving clause amendment by Mr. HUGHES.
Mr. Scammahorn's rebel disfranchisement bill [H. R. 156] coming up with amendments proposed by the minority of the Judiciary Committee -
On motion by Mr. BELFORD, the whole aubject was laid on the table.
Mr. Foulke's bill, No. 195, was laid on the table as matter superceded by a Senate bill.
Mr. Martin's agricultural act (of February 17, 1852) amendment bill [H. R. 289] coming up it was laid on the table for the present.
Mr. McLean's (Education Committee's) Indiana University endowment [$5,000 annually] bill [H. R. 319] coming up -
Mr. PRATHER proposed to amend by striking out "$5,000" and inserting $10,000."
Mr. WOODS proposed $8 000.
Mr. PRATHER accepted.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. HUGHES stated that, of course, the State University would be thankful for anything the State might offer. He hoped that institution would be treated with as much consideration as the House of Refuge, &c.
On motion of Mr. BAKER, the vote rejecting the amendment of Mr. Prather was reconsidered.
page: 383[View Page 383]Mr. Mc LEAN supported the amendment.
Tee amendment was then agreed to.
Mr. McLEAN submitted an amendment to the second section to this effect:
There shall bo appropriated and paid to the order of the Board of Trustees of the Indiana University the sum of $14,847 51, with interest thereon from the first of January, 1867the same being the amount of the indebtedness of the University to the Sinking Fund.
He explained that this was only taking money out of the general fund and putting it into the sinking fund. But -
After debate by Mr. KIZER and others -
Mr. McLEAN withdrew the amendment.
The bill was then ordered to the engrossment.
Mr. Peelle's bill No. 116, was laid on the table, as matter superceded by a Senate bill.
Mr. Greer's joint resolution No. 20, to give prisoners of war extra pay, coming up -
Mr. GREER proposed an amendment authorizing the Governor to transmit a copy to our Congressmen. And then -
The joint resolution was ordered to the engrossment.
Mr. Spencer's resurvey of towns bill [H.R. 241] was ordered to the engrossment.
Mr. Daggy's lateral railroads bill [H. R. 253] was ordered to the engrossment.
Mr. Brucker's wharf lease bill [H.R. 312] was ordered to the engrossment.
Mr. Campbell's live stock insurance bill [H. R. 313] coming up -
Mr. MILLER moved to indefinitely postpone it.
The motion was rejected.
The bill was then passed to the engrossment.
WILSON'S DIGEST.
Mr. WOODS submitted the following:
Resolved, That the Librarian be instructed to purchase one copy of Wilson's Digest of Parliamentary Law for the use of the Speaker of the House, one copy for each member, and one copy for each of the elective officers of the House.
Mr. WINGATE proposed to add a provision, that it shall not exceed one dollar.
On the motion of Mr. HUGHES, it was informally passed over.
The House then took a recess till two o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The SPEAKER pursued the calendar.
The Quack-Prevention bill of the House was recommitted.
Mr. Fuller's Sheriffs' Mileage bill [H. R. 324] coming up -
Mr. HIGGINS proposed to amend by adding the following:
That in case the present General Assembly pass the bill attaching Marion county to the Northern Prison District, the Sheriff thereof shall be entitled to 155 miles mileage.
The amendment was adopted by consent.
Subsequent amendments corrected the mileage from Warrick and Miami counties: and then the bill was ordered to the engrossment.
Mr. Honneus' Railroad Fence and Signal bill [H.R. 327] coming up -
On motion of Mr. ROSS, it was amended by requiring the railway companies to cover their roads.
Mr. Scammahorn's bill [H.R. 172] concerning the laying out of towns, was passed to the engrossment.
Mr. Peelle's republication of Blackford Reports bill [H.R. 174] was passed to the engrossment.
Mr. Long, of Jackson's Swamp Land improvement bill [H. R. 246] was passed to the engrossment.
Mr. Hughes' bill No. 46 for relief of Alfred Williams, late treasurer of Brown county, ($1,279 81 revenue stolen) coming up with the Committee's report - no recommendation thereon -
Mr. HUGHES stated the case. When a treasurer is prudent and careful about the public money, he ought not to be required to stand as a public insurer.
Mr. STAFFORD. If this claim is allowed, the House will have to go back and take up and pay a large number of claims of a similar character, which it has rejected.
Mr. HARTMAN stated the case where lately his county treasury safe was broken and robbed of about $15,000. He wanted the principle of allowing these claims established or repudiated. If it were established he should present this case.
Mr. GREER opposed the allowance of the claim.
Mr. MORRISON supported the claim. It was identical with a case of a loss of revenue by a Treasurer of his (Clinton) county, which was allowed two years ago.
Mr. MILLER said that such a bill as this for relief of a county Treasurer, was but an invitation to burglars to assault the county Treasuries. The case from Clinton county was the only case then presented, and now we have some five or six.
Mr. ROSS. The Legislature could not properly investigate these cases. If relief were to be granted in such cases, a general law should govern all cases, and let the courts decide as to the facts.
Mr. McMURRAY stated the case of the deposit of $17,000 of revenue in his county, which was lost by failure of the bank; and this would make as good a claim as any.
Mr. HUGHES closed (under stress of the previous question.) There was a precedent in the Clinton county case. In actions on official bonds, the principle of the law of bailments cannot apply. This case ought not to be weighed down by embarrassing considerations, and cases not connected with it.
page: 384[View Page 384]Mr. GEISENDORF (by leave) submitted considerations against the bill.
The House refused to order the engrossment - affirmative 29, negative 41.
On motion of Mr. MONTGOMERY, it was
Resolved, That the Governor be requested to return the act of the House No. 278, in order that the title may be amended so as to conform to the provisions of the act.
Subsequently, the Governor returned the bill accordingly.
REGISTRY LAW SPECIAL ORDER.
Mr. MILLER from the Judiciary Committee, reported (for himself) the return to the House of the registry bill [S. No. 2.]
Mr. MILLER proposed to amend the bill, by substituting his registry bill [H. R. No. 25] with modifications. The Senate bill was no better than the Illinois law.
Mr. BAKER moved to lay the amendment on the table.
Mr. McCARTHY said the Senate bill was nearly a copy of the New York and Illinois registry laws which were working well. The other was an attempt at an original bill eviserating all that is valuable in such legislation. He preferred to trust what has been approved.
Mr. R0SS preferred the House bill, but was satisfied that if we did not take the Senate bill we would not get any.
The amendment was laid on the table.
Mr. SPENCER moved, ineffectually, to go into Committee of the Whole.
Mr. HUGHES said that the House had just laid on the table a much better bill than that from the Senate. He should not probably vote for any registry law. Such a law may do very well for large cities; but, for the sake of getting rid of these evils in the cities, he was unwilling to put all the people of the State to inconvenience, as well as incur the expense of the machinery of a registry law. He moved to indefinitely postpone the whole subject.
Mr. McFADIN spoke generally against such a law.
Mr. CRAIN was pledged to support a registry law. He was not going to vote to postpone. He wanted an amendment to this Senate bill, since we are not to have the bill. He wanted sixty instead of twenty days publication notice.
Mr. SPENCER also was pledged to support a registry law; although he thought a three months residence in the precinct would secure the purity of elections as well.
Mr. HUNGATE demanded the previous question; and under its pressure, the House refused to postpone - 4 to 75; and the question recurred upon the Senate bill.
Mr. HAMILTON desired to amend by substituting his registry bill [H. R. No. 43], and to enable him to do so, he moved to take up his bill.
Mr. HUGHES moved to go into Committee of the Whole, and take up all these registry bills - stating that Democrats have, in supporting the registry, displayed the wisdom of the ancient teaching of their party that a registry law is always favorable to minorities.
Mr. SHULL moved ineffectually to lay the motion on the table,
Mr BELFORD moved ineffectually to recommit the bill to the Judiciary Committee, with instructions to amend by substituting the House bill. He was pledged to support a registry law.
Mr Hughes' motion was agreed to.
Mr. MONTGOMERY submitted the titular amendment to his bill No. 278 returned by the Governor for amendment, viz: "An act to fix the time of holding the Circuit Court in the 4th Judicial Circuit, arid declaring an emergency:" with a resolution to authorize it.
Which was adopted by consent.
The House then resolved into Committee of the Whole - Mr. Hughes in the chair and took up the consideration of the registry bill, Senate No. 2.The first section having been read -
Mr. SHULL proposed to insert 30 days instead of 20 days in the first section, and strike out the remainder of the bill.
It was rejected.
Mr. CRAIN proposed to amend the first section by striking out "twenty" and inserting "sixty" days. ln this way we would secure a registry of citizens of the township. Twenty days would be of no avail against fraud.
Mr. STACKHOUSE objected to the amendment, because there was not time to carry it.
Mr. HAMILTON stated what was desired to be secured by a registry law - protection against frauds. He was in favor of Mr. Crain's amendment. If a registry law suits him here, he will vote for it; if not, he will vote against it.
Mr. BLACK suggested whether this time of residence - sixty days, or any number of days - did not contravene the Constitution. Twenty days might be as unconstitutional, but it would not be so far from the Constitution.
Mr. HONNEUS. This was originally a partizan bill: but now, when it was found that it would not subserve their party, the majority would not support their own bill.
Mr. VAWTER desired to support this registry bill or any othernot, however, as a party measure.
Mr. MILLER defended the majority, and charged the gentleman from Clark [Mr. Honneus] and his party with having organ- page: 385[View Page 385] ized to vote down all amendments, so as to pass the more defective bill of the Senate. The House bill obviates the objection of Mr. Black.
Mr. BELFORD desired to amend the first section of the Senate bill, by substituting the first section of the House bill.
Mr. Craine's amendment was then adopted affirmative 39, negative 35.
Mr. STAFFORD proposed to further amend the section by inserting appropriately the words: "except as hereinafter provided."
Mr. WOODS had somewhat modified his constitutional views on the power of the Legislature to define what is a residence. He desired the section to stand without the proposed modification.
Mr. KIZER charged that the object was, if to pass the bill at all, to make it unconstitutional.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. ROSS now moved to amend by striking out and inserting the House bill.
The CHAIRMAN. If it is the pleasure of the committee the Chair will entertain the motion.
Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH opposed the motion, being confident that, unless we take the Senate bill we can get no registry law this session.
Mr. BELFORD moved that the committee rise, report the bill and amendment to the House, and ask to be discharged from the further consideration of the subject.
The motion was agreed to; whereupon the committee rose and the Chairman reported accordingly, and the Committee of the Whole were discharged from the further consideration of the bill.
Mr. BAKER moved to lay the amendment reported from the Committee of the Whole on the table.
The motion to lay the amendment on the table was rejected - 33 to 54 - as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Baker, Black, Bobo, Carter, Corey, Crowe,Douglass, Edmonson, Erwin, Fuller, Green, Hays, Honneus, Hostetter, Hungate, Inman, Kiser, Lopp, McClasky, McFadin, Montgomery, Ross, Shanks, Shields. Shoaff, Stackhouse, Tebbs, Thatcher, Van Valkenburgh, Vawter, White and Wolfe - 33.
NAYS - Messrs. Belford Bischof, Blanch, Brucker, Chambers,Crain, Daggy, Danaldson, Dunn, Evans, Ferris, Foulke, Funk, Geisendorff, Greer, Griggs, Hartman, Hamilton, Higgins, Hopkins, Hudson, Hughes, Litson, Long, of Kosciusko, Martin, Mason, McCarthy, McLean, McMurray, Miller, Moore, Morrison, North, Peelle, Prather, Rosser, Sabin, Shook, Shuey, Skidmore, Smith, of Lagrange, Smith, of Wabash, Spencer, Stafford, Stewart, Thrasher, Thomas, Wason, Watson, Wolfer, Wolflin, Woods. Wright and Mr. Speaker - 54.
The Committee's amendment was then agreed to.
Mr. WOODS moved to reconsider the vote by which Mr. Miller's registry bill, No. 25, was laid on the table.
Mr. Fuller moved to lay Mr. Woods' motion on the table - the vote resulting - 24 to 61.
Mr. Woods' motion to reconsider was then agreed to.
Mr. ROSS moved to substitute Mr. Miller's registry bill, No. 25, with Mr. Miller's amendments proposed thereto, for the Senate bill.
Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH said voting for this House bill was really voting against any registry law, because it is well known that the House bill can not be passed this session. He himself would prefer it, but knew it could not be passed. He hoped Democrats and every man in favor of a registry law would vote against this motion.
Mr. HUGHES would vote for the House bill as the better, and for all healthy amendments, - but, at last, would vote against any registry law. The Union party were not pledged to a registry law, - and now, after they have struggled up against an unjust apportionment, to the time when they passed a just apportionment law, he was opposed to this measure of a registry law, which, with its cumberous machinery, would deprive his party of 25 to 30 per cent, of its strength. In the city of Baltimore, where they have a registry law, but lately they came nigh to civil war, where the shedding of the first blood would have planted the rebel flag again in the face of the country, and brought on 100,000 bayonets into the field.
Mr. VAWTER replied and invoked the passage of the best registry law we can get.
Mr. WHITE rehearsed the fact of Massachusetts soldiers voting in his county, as the reason for his desire of a just registry He would prefer the House bill, if he could get it.
Mr. HIGGINS called for the reading of the House bill as proposed to be amended.
Mr. FOULKE demanded the previous question, and, under its force, Mr. Miller's bill No. 25, as amended, was substituted for the Senate bill.
On motion by Mr. MILLER, the 23d section of the Senate bill was added - providing that all ballots shall be white paper without name or device, except the name of the candidates, and the voter's name.
Mr. SHUEY. That would exclude the party name of the ticket.
Mr. ROSS said the Constitution guarantees the right to vote by ballot, which was-the power to vote without constraint of employers, &c. This was the best provision against fraud in the whole bill.
Mr. STAFFORD said in order to make the provision effectual, it should prescribe also the form and size of the ballot.
Mr. WOODS proposed to amend the page: 386[View Page 386] amendment by striking out these words: "without any distinguishing marks or embellishments, except the names of the candidates for the offices voted for," &c.
It was adopted; and so the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. WOODS also proposed to amend by inserting a section to this effect:
SEC. 11. Any person not born a citizen of the United States, on applying to have his name placed on the registry, shall prove that he is a citizen of the United States,by producing a certificate of naturalization from a court of competent jurisdiction, or shall prove his declaration of intention to become such citizen, by producing a duly certified copy of the record of his declaration of such intention ; -unless he shall first show to the satisfaction of the Board of Registers, that he is unable to produce either such certificate of naturalization or record proof of his said declaration of intention ; or, if such person has become a citizen by virtue of the naturalization of his father, or the declaration of his intention by his said, father, he shall prove such fact to the satisfaction of such Board, and by the proper certificate or the certified copy of the record, if possible, and when the question is raised as to the naturalization or declaration of intention of of a person, proof shall be made to the satisfaction of such board that the person claiming to be placed on the register is the identical person named in the certificate or certified copy of the record of declaration of intention which he produces, or the son of such identical person, and such board may require any person seeking to have his name registered to state on oath whether he is a'citizen by birth in the United States ; provided, that if the name of such person appear on the registry list made in such district, the board of registry may, in its discretion, dispense with the proofs required in this section.
Mr. W. said this simply provides that when a man is not a natural born citizen, he shall produce record proof of the fact of his naturalization or declaration of his father's papers, if he claims under them. But if the name appears on the last registry, the Board need not require him to make proof.
The amendment was adopted, by yeas 47, nays 33 - as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Bischof, Blanch, Chambers, Crain. Daggy, Danaldson, Dunn, Erwin, Evans, Ferris, Foulke, Funk, Geisendorff, Greer, Griggs, Hartman, Hamilton, Higgins, Hopkins, Hudson, Litson, Long of Kosciusko, Martin, Mason, McClasky, McMurray, Moore, Nortb, Peelle, Prather, Rosser, Sabin, Shook, Shuey, Skidmore, Smith of Lagrange, Smith of Wabash, Spencer, Thrasher, Thomas, Wason, Watson, Wilson, Wolfer, Wolflin Woods and Mr, Speaker - 47.
NAYS - Messrs. Baker, Black, Brucker, Carter, Corey,Crowe,Douglass, Edmonson, Fuller,Green, Hays, Honneus, Hostetler, Hungate, Inman, Kizer, McCarthy, McFadin, Miller, Morrison, Montgomery, Ratliff, Ross, Shanks, Shields, Shull, Stackhouse. Tebbs, Thacher, Van Valkenburg, Vawter, White and Wolfe - 33.
Mr. FOULKE proposed to amend further by inserting appropriately these words: "or who shall refuse to carry out the provision of section 15."
It was adopted.
Mr. WOODS proposed to amend further by adding this:
"SECTION- . No person shall be considered under any circumstances as having a residence in any county or precinct, unless he shall have had a permanent abode therein for at least forty days immediately preceding the election at which he proposes to vote."
It was adopted.
On motion of Mr. MILLER, the amendments were considered as engrossed with the bill; and the bill was put upon final passage.
Mr. BAKER. The amendment, strikes directly against the great foreign element of our State; therefore, I shall vote against it.
Mr. WOLFE understood that the son of a foreigner may have been voting at the polls for sixty years; and notwithstanding that be would be compelled under this law to go back and prove his father's naturalization. It was unjust and oppressive; it cuts out the foreigner.
Mr. SHUEY. The amendment amounts simply to this: That it confines these men to the rule of common law, that the best record evidence shall be produced, if it can be had; but if it can not be had he may prove the fact by other evidence. He insisted that those who oppose this amendment are thrusting at the foreigner, and not the Republicans.
Mr. LOPP favored the Senate bill; and might have been satisfied with the House, bill, which was manifestly substituted with a design to defeat the registry law. But now, after the amendments, the bill stands so that he can not support it.
Mr. GREEN, for the reason assigned by the gentleman from Knox that the bill, as it now stands, strikes an injurious and unjust blow at the foreign born element of our State. I vote "No."
Mr. VAWTER. While I am in favor of the bill as reported to this House, I think the amendment unjust toward our foreign fellow citizens; therefore, I vote "No."
The final vote was reported -
YEAS - Messrs. Belford, Bischof, Blanch, Brucker, Chambers, Crain, Daggy, Danaldson, Dunn, Erwin, Evans, Ferris, Foulke, Funk, Geisendorff, Griggs, Hartman, Hamilton, Higgins, Hopkins, Litson, Long of Kosciusko, Martin, Mason, McCarthy, McClasky, McMurray, Miller, Moore, Newcomb, North, Peelle, Prather, Ratliff. Rosser, Sabin, Shook, Shuey, Skidmore, Smith, of Lagrange, Smith, of Wabash, Spencer. Thrasher, Thomas, Wason, Wilson, Wolfer, Wolfin, Woods and Mr. Speaker - 51.
NAYS - Messrs. Baker, Black, Carter, Corey, Crowe, Douglass, Edmonson, Fuller,, Green, Greer, Hays, Honneus, Hostetter, Hudson,Hungate, Inman, Kiser, Lopp, McFadin, Morrison, Montgomery, Ross, Shanks, Shields, Shall, Stackhouse Tebbs, Thatcher, Van Valkenbaugh, Vawter, White. Wolfe and Wright - 33.
So the bill passed the House of Representatives.
The House then adjourned.
