HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
WEDNESDAY, January 16, 1867.The House met at 2 o'clock, P. M., pursuant to adjournment yesterday.M
On the motion of Mr. McLean, the reading of the journal of yesterday was dispended with.
A message from the Senate transmitted a joint resolution for a joint committee on the reorganization of courts.
Also the passage of a road bill of the Senate, No. 21.
"BOLTING" PENALTY.
The SPEAKER announced the consideration of the special order, to-wit: the consideration of Mr. Hughes' "Bolting" bill [H. R. 42], introduced yesterday.
It was read the second time.
Mr. PEELLE proposed to amend in the second section, by inserting the word ''criminal" after the word "circuit."
It was adopted without a division.
Mr. HUGHES felt no disposition to debate the bill, unless to answer objections. He asked that the further consideration of the bill be postponed, and made the special order for to-morrow at 2 o'clock.
Mr. McFADDEN proposed to amend by inserting after the preamble, and making it a part thereof, the following:
"And it being an indisputable fact, that part of the members of the House of Representatives of 1863 did bolt, abscond or run away from the House, and by so doing did obstruct and stop legislation, all of which we denounce in unmeasured terras, and recommend, that those members of the House who so unlawfully bolted be included in the provisions of this act."
Mr. HUGHES. There is no preamble to the bill. It's out of order.
The SPEAKER sustained the point of order.
Mr. McFADDEN. I propose it then as an amendment to the bill - as a preamble.
Mr. NEWCOMB. It can not be received as an amendment - there is no preamble to the bill.
The SPEAKER. So the chair holds.
Mr. McFADDEN appealed in writing.
"The Speaker having decided that a preamble can not be added as an amendment to a bill, from this decision we appeal to the House." Signed by Messrs. McFadden and Baker.
Mr. MILLER. The appeal does not recite the decision of the Chair.
On the motion of Mr. HUGHES, the appeal was laid on the table - yeas 64, nays 30.
Mr. STACKHOUSE proposed to amend the 2d section, by striking out "$1,000," and inserting "$500" in lieu.
Mr. ROSS proposed "$100."
Mr. STACKHOUSE accepted.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. GREEN proposed to amend by striking out the emergency section.
It was rejected.
Mr. KIZER proposed to amend the bill by adding, after the words "$1,000," these words: "It shall go to the School Fund and be forever set apart for the education of the colored children of Indiana."
Mr. K. said this class of children were not provided for as to their schooling, and he wanted them provided for in the benevolence of the General Assembly. If this provision of law had been in force heretofore, a good fund would have been collected by this time for this benevolent purpose. There was a difference between "conversion" and ''diversion;" and he feared that these "smoked Yankees" might come into power with their children unprovided for.
Mr. CORY read a speech prepared in writing against the bill. He reported it for publication elsewhere. So it goes out of place here. Making a statement with reference to the political status of the gentleman from Monroe -
Mr. HUGHES (interrupting.) The gentleman states that I am in favor of wiping out State Governments and establishing Territorial Governments in their places. He states a fact. Will he answer how he knows that? or is it all to be read out first?
Mr. CORY. I will elect whether I will answer the gentleman now or hereafter. I suppose it is a fact that he supported Breckinridge for the Presidency. When he had concluded -
Mr. HUGHES said he had not anticipated that upon a proposition to affix a penalty to the violation of a plain duty which every member of the House has taken an oath to perform, we would have witnessed an organized party opposition. And he might be permitted to say, that nothing would be more gratifying to those who desire the entire destruction and dissolution of the Democratic party which has been alluded to, than for them to have the misjudgment and madness to place themselves in such an attitude. There is nothing about the Democratic party in this. Neither is there an assumption that Democrats are going to bolt. It simply provides that, whenever legislation is obstructed or defeated by the wilful absconding of a member, with the intent to obstruct or defeat legislation, such member shall pay the penalty of $1,000. It has been stated that something of this sort has taken place here in times past, and that it has been done by page: 48[View Page 48] member of the party with which I can say to the gentleman over the way I am proud to act to-day. If such an offense has been committed by any one, it is a reason why it should be provided against. When men are chosen by the people to serve the people and the State, and take an oath to do so, they ought to remember that the people and the State are above party. Legislators who have legislated alone for party have been the death of the gentleman's party. Men who have placed party above the defense of the State, and had the Constitution upon their lips when then the best men and the best blood of the country was upon the field of battle, have destroyed the Democratic party. The gentleman said I was once a member of his party, and that I once voted for John C. Breckinridge. I did: and he is the last Democrat I ever voted for: and John C. Breckinridge is a better Democrat than the gentleman from Franklin; for he had the manhood to go on the battlefield in rebellion, whilst the gentleman was up here in some safe place, protected by Union soldiers, talking about the Constitution. [Applause.]
A VOICE - "Keeping company with the gentleman from Monroe."
Mr. HUGHES. The gentleman says I have left the Democratic party. I have never to return. [Applause from Republicans.] I left it, because it left the country for party. I left it, because I had been taught by its great leaders, that its cardinal principle was devotion to the Union - because I had been taught that Andrew Jackson was a Democrat; and Andrew Jackson asserted that secession is treason, and traitors ought to be hung. And when I saw that party fall into the embrace of rebels engaged in civil war for the destruction of the Union, I had the hardihood to make up my mind to stand the abuse of my old party associates, as I have done for the last five years. And I have asked no other reward but the approbation of my conscience. But I have earned the right to say, that there is no man that can say of my son or my grandson, "there is a man who sprang from the loins of one who was faithless to his country engaged in a great civil war." I told my younger Democratic friends at the commencement of the war, that if they lived to be old men, they would be pointed out, as the tories of the revolution were pointed out in their day.
But to the bill. The gentleman says it is unconstitutional. If he means that it is opposed to the constitution of the State of Indiana, he is mistaken. Because the constitution of Indiana says members come here to attend to the public business, and that we shall have but sixty days. And the gentleman has taken an oath to support that constitution. The bill prescribes that if he fails to keep that oath he shall be punished.
Mr. CORY interrupting. I said the penalty could not be inflicted, because it would affect the constitutional rights of members
Mr. HUGHES. It deprives members of no constitutional right.
Mr. CORY. If the gentleman will put it without the emergency clause I will vote for the bill.
Mr. HUGHES. No sir. That would be to make it so as not to apply to ourselves. I will take the hazard of violation. It is not in conflict with the Constitution of Indiana, but it may conflict with the constitution of some men that are unwilling to do their duty. But we have taken no oath to respect any constitution of that kind. Now, sir, the mere fact that such a speech has been made is an argument for the bill. I would have been the last man to get up on this floor and declare that the Democratic party had formed a deliberate purpose to break a quorum, and announce a reason - because of the apportionment bill. But the gentleman announced that he intended to break a quorum.
Mr. CORY interrupting. I in no way declared such intention. I argued that, if it were right for one party, it would be for another. I distinctly said I was not in favor of it.
Mr. HUGHES. I will not misrepresent the gentleman. Neither do I think any commentary is necessary to prove that the whole drift of his speech; and if he does not understand his own elaborately written speech, I suppose there is not one of his party friends but does. The gentleman has made the best speech he could tor the support of this bill. He has announced that there is an organization here to prevent legislation, unless it be controlled. And it is an organization that once deservedly controlled the State, but has now dwindled so as to accept for leaders such as the gentleman that who just addressed the House.
He did not wish to consume time, but there were two or three points yet. It was with surprise that he had heard it charged that it was proposed to put this bill through by extra parliamentary means. There was no such intention. He had withdrawn the demand for the previous question, to hear from the gentleman, with the remark that he hoped it would not be abused. And the House remembers that the first words of the gentleman was a charge that the bill was to be put through by extra parliamentary means - by means honorable or dishonorable; and it was also pronounced a revolutionary measure.
The gentleman from Franklin had paid his respects to the gentleman from Jennings page: 49[View Page 49] BREVIER .LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.49[Mr. Prather] but that gentleman was well able to defend himself. Then he made a personal assault upon me. Then that I was in favor of destroying the State governments in the South. Now there are any Republicans in favor of territorial governments for the South. But it is well known that I am opposed to that particular measure. There is not a man that lives who can bring upon any such responsibility. But there is one thing upon which all Republicans are agreed. We are willing to suppress all our differences and not "swing round the circle" till the Union is restored. [Laughter.] Sir, we are not ready before the grass is green upon the graves of our slaughtered men - before their bones that lie bleaching on many a battlefield are gathered and given Christian burial - before the weeds of mourning have disappeared from our land - we are not ready to come together in Democratic Convention, a Philadelphia Convention, or any other Convention, with men whose hands are red with the best blood of the country. And he preferred political association with Sumner or Wade, or any other radical, to fellowship with any bloody rebel or Northern coward.
With regard to the legal argument of the gentleman as to the provision for arrest. There was no provision for arrest. The Constitution exempts members from arrest. If a member were arrested pending a session of the General Assembly, he has a right to plead his privilege; and upon his appeal to the Court, I presume the Court would hold that the process could not be served during the session. But trial and penalty would sometime have to come. When he had concluded -
Mr. McFADDEN ascribed honorable intentions to the gentleman from Monroe. But the gentleman asserted that we were in a minority - a minority of about fifteen thousand! And have not the minority rights? With reference to conventions: Did not the gentleman's party also hold a Philadelphia Convention, where were Wendell Phillips, Anna Dickinson and Fred. Douglass? The Democratic party lost nothing by the gentleman's defection. Mr. McFadden spoke at length, referring to propositions already before the House looking to the enactment of high handed and oppressive measures, and deprecated partisan denunciations of disloyalty, &c. He deprecated especially the general course of party renegades in this respect - standing himself firmly for the support of a white man's government. He denounced the bill as a proposition kindred in its character to the Court Martials of the late Administration of the General Government. Would the gentleman send the officers of law all over the State to haul members from their homes to trial for misdemeanor before the Criminal Court of Marion county? And he urged other objections - still, however, admitting the purity of the motives of the author of the bill.
Mr. BELFORD thought the gentleman from Cass should have prefaced his remarks with a stanza by Dr. Watts:
"And are we yet alive?
And do we yet rebel?
'Tis wond'rous, 'tis amazing
grace,
That we are not in hell."
Such language would be appropriate in the mouths of members of the gentleman's party. As a consideration in favor of the bill, he urged that there was a settled purpose on the part of the minority to break a quorum this session. In a colloquy with a member, he admitted that the minority might bolt to defeat this bill without incurring its penalty. And he added that he could almost wish they would.
Mr. HUGHES suggested the interrogatory: Did the gentleman ever know any considerable number of Democrats to resign office?
Mr. BELFORD. He had been some time a Democrat, and he did not remember any such fact. With reference to the new-born zeal of such as himself, he referred again to the hymns:
"Tongue can not express the sweet comfort and peace
Of a soul in its earliest love."
Such was his feeling when he became a Republican, and found himself in good company. He proceeded, with many interruptions from the opposite side of the House, to declare himself an ultra radicalin favor of negro suffrage and the rest; and occasionally to answer direct and incidental objections. He intended to vote for this bill, as well as for the Registry bill, and the Apportionment bill, that might be devised and agreed upon this session. He made these frank declarations, adding that, if Democrats intended to bolt, it were as well, and he would not care to see it done this afternoon.
Mr. DOUGLASS, referring to this debate, said he did not know, but rather thought, t had been a debate by Democrats, and those who had been Democrats. At any rate it would be interesting to the lobbies and our constituents to read it in the morning papers. Was this the duty we were required to perform here? He supposed not. He was on his feet to close this discussion. Half of these speeches had been offered on the stump at home, and he was sick of them. The gentleman from Monroe [Mr. Hughes] had said that he did not mean to be harsh - to set us aside in the corner. Much obliged to the gentleman. He refer- page: 50[View Page 50] red to the bolt of 1863, in the other branch of the General Assembly, wherein those acting with the party of the majority here bolt ed, stayed out three days, and coming back were excused; and also to a similar revolt the same year in the House of Representatives. Democrats did nothing about it. But if it was wrong then, it is wrong now. It was not fair, after doing so much dirty work themselves, to turn round suddenly and prevent others. Why should this bill be introduced, if it was not the promptings of a guilty conscience from the apprehension that they will not be able to pass bills objectionable to the people of the State? He was opposed to bolting; but he was not nearly so much opposed to bolting as he was to this bill. He could, however, stand with his political friends, and do all he could to defeat this bill. He never was in but one position where he would have been glad to bolt if he could, and that was when he was a member of General Burnside's Staff.
Mr. MATTHERS recognized the gentle man from Allen [Mr. Kizer] as the Democratic leader in this House. Gentlemen were mistaken in looking this way for one. But he deprecated the personal and partisan character of this debate. He denied the charge that Kentucky voters had defeated General Gresham. His was a strongly Democratic district. With any other Republican candidate the Democratic majority would have been doubled. He was opposed to bolting, and favored the first section of the bill. He reasoned in its favor. He objected to the second section, because there might be a contingency in which the Legislature might set in some other county than Marion; in which case the bolter could not be brought before the Marion Court. There should be a proviso to cure this. And he denied the fact of emergency alleged in the third section. With modifications, he might vote for the bill.
Mr. HUGHES had no desire to answer objection, though some might seem to require answer.
Mr. McFADDEN. What is the object in changing the punishment from the House to the Marion Criminal Court?
Mr. HUGHES. The affixing of this penalty is cumulative. It does not take away power from the House.
Mr. McFADDEN. Can a member be punished twice for the same offense?
Mr. HUGHES. Questions of breach of privilege - expulsion of a member - belong to the House. But it is like a case of assault and battery - the jurisdiction is con current with the House and the court.
Mr. KIZER. Has not the House control of the body ? He would have the bill referred to the Judiciary Committee, a committee of talent and some cunning, and that gentlemen transfer their debate from the House to that Committee.
[A message from the Governor announced that his private secretary, William R. Holloway, is authorized to bear Executive communications to the General Assembly, and that His Excellency had approved and signed Mr. Newcomb's joint resolution of the House No. 4 ]
Mr. HUGHES proposed to amend further, by striking out the word "Legislature," and inserting the words "General Assembly" in lieu. He demanded the previous question, but withdrew it for -
Mr. WOLFE. Claiming to be common sense men, we should act in a common sense manner - as men under oath. He regarded the bill as a stigma against the House. He thought we needed such a law, but to introduce it so early in the session, it looked like a censure. Its introduction later in the session would remove this objection. But he ventured the question, that no such proposition was ever before heard of in a deliberative body. It was extraordinary legislation. If there was any intention to break up the House, he was not privy to it. He therefore asked his friend [Mr. Hughes] to withdraw it. It was not us, but the majority, making this difficulty.
Mr. STAFFORD did not desire to make a speech. He demanded the previous question.
There was a second by the House.
The SPEAKER. The first question is on the amendment of the gentleman from Allen [Mr. Kizer.]
The Clerk read it: "which sum or sums shall go to the school fund, and be forever set apart for the education of the colored children of Indiana."
The amendment was rejected - yeas 2, nays 97.
Mr. DOUGLASS moved to adjourn.
The SPEAKER said that precedent ruled out the motion to adjourn under the previous question.
Mr. HUGHES' amendment was then adopted without a division.
On the motion of Mr. HUGHES, the further consideration of the bill was postponed till to-morrow at 2 o'clock P. M.
On the motion of Mr. McLEAN, it was
Resolved, That Messrs. Wood, Belford and Baker be added to the Judiciary Committee of the House.
On motion of Mr. BELFORD, it was
Resolved, That the Secretary of State be, and he is hereby directed to furnish without unnecessary delay, for the use of the Select Standing Committees on Railroads, a list of all railroad companies that have filed articles or certified copies of articles of association, or other wise accepted the benefits and provisions of the act entitled An Act to provide for the incorporation of railroad companies, approved May 11th,1852, and also a copy of all reports from said
page: 51[View Page 51]companies for the year ending January 1st, 1867, as is required by section 35 of the act aforesaid.
Mr. VAWTER submitted the following:
WHEREAS, The Constitution of the United States guarantees to each State a representation in each branch of Congress, and, Whereas, From the beginning of the war up to the present every message of the President, and every proclamation, every State paper, and every act of Congress, has proceeded upon the hypothesis that no State could secede from the Union - that once in the Union, always in the Union - Mr Lincoln, in every proclamation, went on the principle that this war was an insurrection, a rebellion against the Constitution and laws of the United States - not a rebellion of States therefore -
Resolved, By the House of Representatives, (the Senate concurring,) that our Senators be instructed, and our Representatives be requested to vote to admit, without delay, every legal and legally qualified Senator and Representative from every State in the Union, and that we believe with Governor Morton, "once in the Union, always in the Union," and that no State can secede from the Union.
He moved its adoption, and demanded the previous question thereon.
Mr. SHUEY. It must go to the Committee on Federal Relations under the rule.
It was so ordered.
The SPEAKER announced special committees, viz:
On House bill No. 41 - Messrs. Hughes, Miller and Belford.
On joint resolution of the House, No. 6 - Messrs. McLean, Martin and Baker.
The House then adjourned till to-morrow at 2 o'clock P. M.
