THE BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
TENTH VOLUME.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
IN SENATE.
WEDNESDAY, February 17, 1869.The Senate was called to order at ten o'clock, a. m., pursuant to adjournment, the President pro tem., John R. Cravens, in the chair.
The Secretary's journal of yesterday was read when--
Mr. BELLAMY offered a resolution recalling from the Governor the Fourth Judicial Court bill, [S. 178] it having been wrongly amended with reference to a court.
The resolution was adopted.
Mr. ROBINSON of Madison, by leave, introduced a bill, [S. 256] changing the time of the Common Pleas Courts in the Eleventh Judicial District.
On his further motion, the constitutional requirement was dispensed with, the bili was again read and passed the Senate by yeas 43, nays 0.
PETITIONS ETC.
Were presented and appropriately referred as follows:
By Mr. CRAVENS, a petition praying for no legislation as against homoepathists and for a homoepathic department in the proposed State Medical University.
Messrs. Scott, Reynolds, Morgan, Howk, two; Kinley, Eliott, Laselle, and Johnston of Montgomery, presented petitions on the same subject.
By Mr. KINLEY, three petitions for a prohibitory law.
By Mr. ARMSTRONG, for legislation to prevent the running at large of boars, bulls and rams.
By Mr. BELLAMY, for the repeal of the laws concerning township libraries, and the enactment of a law to provide school books for pupils.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Mr. CAVEN, from the Judiciary Committee, returned the bill, [S. 210] to define certain offences and providing punishment therefor, referring to the punishment of persons who usurp judicial powers and connect themselves with companies to punish crime, with a favorable report thereon, and the bills 232 and 233 with unfavorable reports.
Mr. ROBINSON of Madison, from the committee on Elections, reported that in the contested seat of the Senntor from Laporte, the contestee having asked leave to withdraw his papers, the committee recommended that he be allowed to do so, etc., etc.Also the savings bank bill, [S. 161] from the Judiciary Committee, with a favorable report thereon.
Mr. SCOTT from the same committee, returned, with a favorable report, the bill, [S. 234] to legalize and declare valid certain deeds, where the certificates of acknowledgment were not correct in form.
Mr. RICE, from the same committee, returned the bill, [S. 238] to amend section two hundred of the practice act, with a favorable report thereon.
Mr. BELLAMY, from the Committee on Education, returned the bill, [S. 147] with a recommendation that it lie on the table, its provisions being in the bill, S. 244.
Mr. KINLEY, from the same committee, returned the city school tax bill, [S. 251] with an amendment.
Mr. GREEN, from the Committee on Corporations, returned the bill, [S. 218] for the better regulation of traveling upon railroads, recommending its passage.
Mr. CARSON, from the same committee returned the bill, [S. 239] authorizing the page: 379[View Page 379] classification of Boards of Directors of railroads, recommending its passage.
Mr. RICE, from the same committee, returned the bill, [S. 134] authorizing the incorporation of companies for the purpose of draining swamp lands, recommending its passage.
Mr. HOOPER, from the same committee, returned the bill, [S. 89] to enable owners of wet lands to drain and reclaim the same, with amendment, recommending its passage.
Mr. JOHNSTON of Montgomery, from the Committee on Agriculture, returned the bill, [S. 152] to amend section two of the Game law, according to instructions.
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. JAQUESS, from the Committee on Claims, returned the claim of William Hannaman for two thousand seven hundred dollars for services as military claim agent, recommending its allowance, and incorporation in the appropriation bill. These reports were severally concurred in.
DUBOIS AND MARTIN CONTESTED ELECTION CASE.
The PRESIDENT pro tem., announced the special orders for this hour--being the consideration the Houghton and Montgomery contested election case, affecting the seat belonging to the counties of Dubois and Martin.
The report of the Judiciary Committee, awarding the seat to William H. Montgomery, and ousting Mr. Houghton, the sitting member, on account of his accepting a Federal office, was read.
Mr. JOHNSTON of Montgomery, offered a resolution declaring the seat of Mr. Houghton vacated, and awarding the same to W. H. Montgomery.
COURTESIES BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES.
Mr. HUGHES called for the reading of a communication from the Secretary of the Senate, as follows:
To the President of the Senate:
The Speaker of the House having given directions to the Doorkeeper of the House not to announce messages from the Senate while a member of the House has the floor for debate, and on reception of reports, I desire instructions from the Senate as to the time when I shall present such messages to the House.
O. M. WILSON,
Secretary of the
Senate.
Mr. HUGHES, by leave, offered a resolution requesting the House of Representatives to receive its messages from the Senate at all times, in accordance with parliamentary law, else the Senate will not receive messages from that body. He did not mean this as disrespectful to the House of Representatives, but attributed it to the ignorance of parliamentary law by the presiding officer, and gave reasons as an excuse for using such harsh language--important legislation was hindered, imperiled, etc.
Mr. CHURCH doubted the propriety of resolving to refuse to receive messages from the House if it does not do so and so. He thought the custom was founded in the question of courtesy only, and that we should do right whatever they might do.
Mr. FISHER asked if the Senate should continue to receive messages from the House, when they are refused in that body when sent from here.
Mr. CHURCH thought it proper to take some action, but he thought it not incumbent upon either body to suspend business at the moment, especially if a member should be speaking, unless by his consent.
Mr. STEIN insisted that we must do something to sustain the dignity of the Senate, and read authorities on the subject of the transmission of messages. He offered a preamble to the resolution stating the fact that the Senate is officially informed by its Secretary, of the refusal on the part of the House to receive Senate messages at all times.
At the suggestions of Mr. CRAVENS, Mr. Hughes struck out the threat in his resolution so it read as follows:
RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives be requested to receive the messages of the Senate according to the usaages of Parliamentary law.
The resolution was then adopted.
THE CONTESTED ELECTION CASE.
Mr. GREEN opposed the resolution just offered by Mr. Johnston of Montgomery. He did not think the acceptance of the position of Assistant Assessor of Internal Revenue would vacate his seat, and he thought, also, that Mr. Montgomery had merely been run as a candidate of no party, but upon his own account, and had only got a few votes. He thought this contested election case did not come under the Constitution, and understood the contestor was not elected under an order by the Governor for the election. He could not support the resolution, nor vote for concurrence in the committee report. Mr. Green read the constitutional sections bearing on the case, and stated that the sitting member held an appointment as Assistant Assessor during the recess between the two sessions of the Senate. He was not ineligible when elected, and does not hold two offices now.
Mr. HANNA did not understand that a man could occupy an office for a time, vacate it, and then resume it at pleasure, and knew of no court decisions to that effect. The sitting member accepted and held a Government office while a Senator in 1867, and in 1868 the contestor was elected a Senator in his stead as is shown by the proper certificates sent up here by the proper officers. He referred to page: 380[View Page 380] numerous decisions of the court supporting his view of the case. He supposed the case, that a called session had been held while the sitting member was a United States Assessor, could he have come here and claimed his seat while at the same time he was acting as a Federal officer?
Mr. HADLEY spoke of the necessity for the contestor showing his title to the seat, and that he could not claim it on account of any weakness in the title of the sitting Senator. It was the duty of the Governor to issue his writ for a special election, but there is no evidence that it was ever brought to the knowledge of the Governor. He thought it necessary to inquire into the effect this appointment would have had on the position of a Senator. There is no evidence that the contestor has proceeded according to the Constitution, or that the Governor had issued a writ for the election; consequently he does not show a good title to a seat here.
Mr. CRAVENS. Mr. President: This is simply a question of law and nothing else. The committee report that the sitting Senator has violated the first clause in the ninth section of article two of the Constitution which reads as follows:
No person holding a lucrative office or appointment under the United States, or under this State, shall be eligible to a seat in the General Assembly.
I admit that if the sitting Senator at the time he was a candidate held the appointment or office he could not have been voted for or chosen under the Constitution. But at the time in point of fact he was not holding any such office. Then it must be under the next clause:
Nor shall any person hold more than one lucrative office at the same time.
Now I apprehend every word in this clause has a signification which must be understood and applied to this case. The question is: Did he hold two lucrative offices at the same time? The most of the time the position of State Senator is an honorary office; if a Senator or Representative can be said to hold an office at all, which I do not believe. We perform no functions as Senators during the recess. The sitting Senator did not hold the appointment of deputy Assessor during the last session nor during this session.
The proviso in the section brings it down to what I have indicated:
Provided, That officers in the militia, to which there is attached no annual salary, and the office of Deputy Post Master, where the compensation does not exceed ninety dollars per annum, shall not be deemed lucrative.
What is the reason of the limitation except to reach a case precisely such as the one under consideration? Wherever the functions of two offices conflict, the party becomes obnoxious to the office; but in this case there is no conflict in his duties, rights or privileges. The sitting Senator did not hold this office at any time during which the position of Senator was a lucrative office.
If it was a clear case that the Senator from Martin had vacated his office, and if there had been no writ of election the people could not have been disfranchised on account of the neglect, refusal or failure, or want of knowledge or anything else in the issuing of a writ of election. It is right for the people to elect whether there is any such writ or not. Suppose the Governor should neglect or refuse to issue a writ of election, are the peoples to be disfranchised? But I don't think that question has anything to do with the question before the Senate.
The position the sitting member occupied was a mere deputyship. The Assessor for the Congressional District may appoint deputies, that appointment has to be confirmed and they have to be commissioned by the Secretary of the Interior.
Mr. HANNA (interposing.) The law is different now. It was not so then.
Mr. CRAVENS. That does not change the view of the case. The question simply narrows itself down to this: Has he at any time held two lucrative offices? I say the words "at the same time," in this clause of the Constitution are entitled to as much consideration as any other words in that clause. I say again, it was during the recess of the General Assembly he held that office. When there was no per diem attached to the position of Senator. For sixty days members are paid so much per diem for their services; at any other time they don't receive one cent. I admit with the Senator from Sullivan [Mr. Hanna] if there had been a called session the office would necessarily have to be vacated. There can be no possible construction showing that the Senator from Martin held at the same time two lucrative offices, and if he did not his place as Senator is not vacant.
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. President: I am sorry to have to take the view I do of this case for there is no member I should like to retain here more than the sitting member; and for some other reasons obvious to the Senater I would dislike to see him ousted from his seat. On the other hand if it be true that we have a illegally elected Senator here, who presented his credentials on the first day of the session and asked to be sworn in and has been held outside of the bar, and denied the right to vote, when he was legally entitled to, it is a matter of some importance at this late day in the session. The Judiciary Committee after due examination and upon the statement of the facts by both parties in writing, have arrived to the conclusion that the contestor is entitled to his seat, and we ought to act upon the matter and execute the law whatever it may be.
page: 381[View Page 381]I regard it as a plain case that the Committee has announced what the law is under the Constitution and we are bound to enforce it. The Constitution says that no person shall be eligible to a seat in the General Assembly who holds two lucrative offices at the same time. What is the meaning of the word "eligible?" "Eligible to a seat." Proper to be chosen--properly qualified. The argument is that a man may be eligible at the time he is elected Senator and if he disqualifies himself afterwards it destroys his right to the seat. We may destroy the spirit and intention of an instrument by adhering to a literal interpretion. A man may have a valuble Federal office before him and postpone his acceptance until after he is elected Senator, and then he may accept the office and hold both together for four years. Is that the intention of the Constitution or is it the intention of the consitution to prevent that? The Constitution intended to prevent any one holding a Federal office from having a seat in the General Assembly. I consider that the true intent and meaning of this clause means this: that no man shall hold the two offices together. The Constitution says a party shall not hold two lucrative offices at the same time.
I will give the Senator from Jefferson the benefit of the definition of the word "eligible" as laid down by Webster; "proper to be chosen," &c., but there can be no cavel about the word "lucrative." In the British Parliament there is no official head to which members can tender their resignation. There is no official that can relieve them from office, and how do they vacate their seats? There is a nominal office under the control of the crown of England--a very nominal office, which has no duties and probably no compensation attached to it, called the Stewardship of Chiltern Hundreds, and when a member want to resign he applies for it, and it is always given to him; and that is the only manner in which he can vacate his seat. It shows this fact, that the accepting of an office incompatible with legislative duties vacates a parliamentary seat. And so in this dictionary I find:
"Chiltern Hundreds: A. tract in Birmingham-shire and Oxfordshire, England, to which is attached the nominal office of Steward under the Crown. As members of Parliament cannot resign their seats, when they wish to go out they accept this nominal office of Stewardship and thus vacate their seats."
As to the legitimacy of the election of the contesting member, it is certainly very clear, because this was not an election by a few persons in the old district that sent the Senator from Martin [Mr. Houghton] here. He was elected by Lawrence and Martin counties; subsequently we passed an apportionment act making the counties of Martin, Dubois and Pike, a Senatorial District. The election had there was a full and fair election and the contestant comes to represent that new district. The spirit of the law should override the letter in every doubtful case. The claimant comes from a new district; but that is a question I do not like to see raised for it is very doubtful whether every new district is not entitled to a new officer on this floor. The new apportionment act does not make any provision who shall hold over, who shall go out, &c. It says all laws on this subject are repealed, and in point of fact we never had any law on the subject.
In 1851, the passage of the new Constitution absolutely required every six years a new apportionment, but from the hour of the Constitution to 1867, it has been disregarded. We have been elected under the proclamation of the Governor and under that alone. It is more than doubtful whether every new district did not have the right to elect a member: but inasmuch as the Committee have confined themselves to the narrow ground made between the contesting parties I think we had better dismiss the matter by affirming this decision, and not stir it up any further. I do not desire to see this case take up much time, and I would move the previous question if it did not have the appearance of discourtesy.
Mr. WOLCOTT. Mr. President: Believing that the merits of the respective arguments have been enough for the Senate, I will add but a word, It seems to my mind that the report of the committee is not conclusive that there is a vacancy in this case. The Committee says the appointment came from the Secretary of the Treasury. The Constitution of the United States has something to say upon the appointment of officers in the United States government. It gives the appointment to the President with certain restrictions. It has been affirmed on two or three legal actions that the appointments of the Secretaries must be by special authority of law. Unless it is shown that the Secretary of the Treasury has the power to make that appointment it is irregular. I raise the point of the irregularity of this appointment until it is shown to be regular.
And then--
The Senate took a recess till two o'clock, p. m.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The Lieutenant Governor resumed the chair at two o'clock, p. m.
Mr. ROBINSON of Decatur, as this matter was new to most of the members present, and in order to give time to look into it. moved to postpone the further consideration of the page: 382[View Page 382] contested election case till one week from today.
Mr. CRAVENS demanded a call of the Senate, and it being ordered and taken forty Senators answered to their names.
Mr. GIFFORD made an ineffectual motion to dispense with further proceedings under the call-- affirmative 18, negative 21.
On his further motion the Doorkeeper was directed to send for absentees.
After some ten minutes--
Mr. FISHER, made an ineffectual motion to dispense with further proceedings under the call.
Upon the appearance of every Senato--but those having leave--save one--
On motion of Mr. ARMSTRONG, further proceedings under the call of the Senate were dispensed with.
Mr. CARSON thought the Senate as well prepared now as it will be to vote on this case--the best legal minds, probably in the State having expressed their opinion about it. He opposed the motion to postpone.
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. President; While I entertain for the sitting member the very kindest feelings, in my opinion we have a Senator upon this floor who is not entitled to his seat, and in my opinion there is a Senator outside of that bar with his credentials in his pocket who has a right to be sworn in here and speak and vote in behalf of his constituents. The session is well nigh exhausted and if that Senator outside of the bar, is a Senator why have we so long postponed the rights of his constituents to a voice upon this floor? Why have we waited so long? To allow the Judiciary Committee--the legal advisers of this body time to examine and decide this important Constitutional question. They have examined it and they have reported upon it. Members of that Committee state to this body that it so happened that every member of the Committee who belonged to the minority in politics was absent when the decision was made. The report is the deliberate judgment, after six weeks examination, of the Republican members of that Committee and the Republican members alone. That report was made some days ago.
Owing to the gravity or supposed importance of the difficulty of the question, which is simply moonshine; for there is no difficulty about it, it was postponed once and made the special order for to-day. It has been examined and considered again, and now comes a proposition for further time from a Republican Senator upon this floor. I say that if that Senator has not his mind made up now upon this question after six weeks deliberation, and after the deliberate examination of the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee, he won't have his mind made up at the end of the session. And I say that member of the Republican party who undertakes to stave off this matter and stifle it--of course I am not to juudge of the character of any other Senator--but I say if he is a friend of the Republican party, he is mistaken. The time has gone by when the party in power in this country, in National or State government, can plead military necessity or anything else excepting the Constitution and laws and a sense of public duty for the acts which they do.
I say here to-day that as a friend of that party, perhaps not a member of it--some persons deny membership to me but I do not ask it. I came to it as an independent man, have so acted in it, and will so leave it whenever it suits me. I owe it nothing and I ask nothing from it. I do not speak in any other capacity than as its friend. I speak as a Representatives of two counties in this State. I want to know from Republican Senators upon this floor if they can disfranchize other counties in this State and keep outside of the bar a Senator that has the same rights that ever Senator upon the floor has, alter the report of the Republican members of their own Judiciary Committee--if they can go to their constituents and plead military necessity? No, sir, the days of military necessity has gone by, the men who desire to remain in power in this government no longer appeal to military necessity. They must appeal to the Constitution and the laws. The Constitution and the laws entitle that Senator to his seat upon this floor. They make it his duty to come and ask to be seated on this floor, and make it our duty to admit him to his seat. Sir, if party requires me to deny to the people of these counties of this State to be represented by the man of their choice, I shall soon absolve myself from that obligation.
Mr. CHURCH (interposing.) I will ask the gentleman for information to state how large a proportion of the vote of the district this gentleman has received?
Mr. HUGHES. I cannot give the exact vote. I understand a full vote was cast. I will ask the chairman of the Judiciary Committee who has not opened his mouth in support of his own report, to answer that question.
Mr. CAVEN. He received the entire Democratic vote which was a majority perhaps of two thousand.
Mr. TURNER. I am prepared to say that the Senator claiming his seat here got three thousand two hundred--two thinds of the vote of the two counties.
Mr. GRAY. I hope the Senator will not arraign the Republican party here, and make this a party contest, for I had understood this be nothing of the kind.
Mr. HUGHES (resuming.) That is what page: 383[View Page 383] I am trying to avoid. I want the Republican party which has the absolute control of this question to do justice to this man and admit him to his seat. As I judge the question, not to do so will be disreputable and disgraceful and will damn any party on earth. I move the previous question.
Mr. HOUGHTON desiring to speak--
Mr. HUGHES said: I will withdraw the motion to hear the Senator from Martin, with the distinct understanding that the previous question is to be renewed when he is through wit his remarks.
Mr. HOUGHTON. I am not much in the habit of speaking, but if I can get my mouth off I want to make a remark or two, and then I am willing for this vote to be taken. In the first place I want to thank the Senator from Monroe [Mr. Hughes] for the friendly feeling he has expressed towards me as an individual, and to say that I reciprocate it entirely, and am as proud of his reputation as a man of talent, ability, learning and legal attainments, as any other individual in the State of Indiana, for it is my property as well as any other individuals.
Now, as it regards the positive manner in which that gentleman spoke, in saying that my contestant was entitled to his seat, and that there was no law on the other side, but it was all on his, and that he had decided the thing here, which there was no appeal, nor could there be any argument on the other side;--I say I entirely dissent.
Before I took this office I went to a gentleman who stands high in the legal profession, who had helped me out of a great many difficulties as regards law matters, though I never had a law suit only as I was security and done business for others;--that gentleman was also a member of the Constitutional Convention--and he told me I had a perfect right to my seat; and if he had told me different I should not have taken the place of Assistant Asessor; because I wanted to resign it but my friends told me they did more for me than I did for myself and to hold on to it;--they said "We want you to keep it."
I did not speak during the exciting campaign of 1866--not half as long as I have been speaking now--but was elected purely on account of political party or personal feeling I do not know which, without making any effort on my part, or without having any expectations of being nominated. I do not even know twenty members that was in the Convention that nominated me;--that is in Lawrence County.
Now I have spoken to a great many other men and men of as large ability in the neighborhoods as the honorable Senator from Monroe, and they told me this was no offense, and that I have a perfect right to my seat; and if I thought I had not I would have been the last individual to have come here and claim it.
COURTESY BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES.
Here a message from the House was announced by the Doorkeeper.
Mr. HOUGHTON gave way and the messenger was recognized by the Lieutenant Governor, but the reading was interrupted by--
Mr. RICE, who inquired whether there had been a message received from the House in response to the Senate resolution concerning the delivery of messages between the two Houses.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. As far as that question is concerned I think it a privileged matter for one House to address the other, and I think it proper to hear the message, irrespective of any action of the Senate, or of the resolution either.
Mr. RICE recited the history of the proceedings this forenoon on this question, and inquired whether the dignity of this body is to be set aside in this way. He moved that we have no more communication with the House until we have a response to the resolution of the Senate.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR decided the motion out of order, and directed the messenger to proceed with the delivery of the message from the House.
THE CONTESTED ELECTION CASE.
Mr. HOUGHTON (resuming.) Now, Mr. President, as I was stating, notwithstanding the fiat has gone forth from which there may be perhaps no appeal, that I am not entitled to my seat and that my contestant is, I will say that there are other men who entertain a different view of this matter. I will state an instance, and would not but for the circumstance of the last speech of the Senator from Monroe. Some time ago I met Judge McDonald, who is Judge of the District Court: we were acquainted with each other from the time we were in our teens, and he invited me to his office, and I mentioned to him that my seat was contested. Says he "Houghton I believe the authorities are against you," or "the law is against you." I told him if it was, the Senate had a right to determine, and their decision would suit me. A week or two afterward I met him and he told me that he had examined the law, and says he "the law is clearly in your favor, and if the case was brought before me I should decide it in that way." Now gentlemen, that judge is pronounced to be as well acquainted with the laws of the United States as any other individual in this house. His reputation as a lawyer, I presume, no one will question, and that he was candid and sincere in the matter I have not the least doubt. After examining the law and turning the books page: 384[View Page 384] over in twenty cases he told me several cases were in my favor, and says he "If it were a case before me I should decide it so without hesitation."
Now I am satisfied that if the gentleman from Monroe [Mr. Hughes] had taken this matter into consideration and knew the entire routine of the office of Assistant Assessor he would have been on my side. And I should have spoken to him about the matter but I felt a delicacy about speaking to any Senator with the exception of the Senator before me and one or two personal friends who talked to me on the subject. I thought it looked wrong for me to talk to them about it. I would have spoken to the Senator from Monroe but for a little difference between us at the commencement of the session. I voted one way and he another; and I didn't know but he would think I was begging the question and stooping below Senatorial dignity it I had done so. That Senator wants now, as I voted against him then, to reciprocate the favor, and I see the Democratic party here is ready to reciprocate too.
Mr. HUGHES (interposing.) I want to call the attention of the Senator to the fact that he has given his support to my darling measure which is the special order for two and a half o'clock, and I shall be sorry to lose him from this body--I shall be sorry to lose his vote.
Mr. HOUGHTON. I will tell the Democratic Senators, for every one of them have made up their mind to vote against me [laughter] that for forty years almost I have voted against them. [Renewed laughter.] In 1828 I voted for John Quincy Adams, and from that day to this I have opposed every thing in the shape of Democracy [continued laughter] and I hope to live three score and ten years to continue it. I say this to the Democratic party in no ill feeling, for there is no individual in this house who remembers as many favors at their hands as I. When I was elected Senator before, I ran against the regular Democratic nominee, and although my own county was two or three hundred Democratic, I got one hundred and sixty majority. In 1844 I run as a candidate and I got two hundred votes the same day Henry Clay ran more than he did. Although we have voted against each other often I have not forgotten the kindness and courtesy shown me by the Democracy.
Mr. HUGHES (interposing.) The Senator talks of loyalty to the Radical party; I will ask him if he did not threaten to bolt the radical caucus last session?
Mr. HOUGHTON. I will answer the Senator. I went into that caucus and after I got into it I felt myself in honor bound to abide its decision, although they did turn me out of my Congressional District and Senatorial District and disfranchized my county. After I went there and once recorded my name in the caucus I was determined to stick, I didn't care what the consequences was, and I did do so.
Although I am not a man of words, and cannot express myself as I would like to do but when I think that honor or honesty is concerned in the matter, gentlemen, I have no hesitation in facing anything or any body, and I will do what is right, I had rather do what is right than hold my seat in this place.
Now, Mr. President, I have to nothing more to say. My competitor is a man that stands high in his own county, and community and deservedly so. I am on terms of friendship and intimacy with him. I harbor no ill feeling and have no regrets. If I am not entitled to this seat and am not needed here I do not wish to stay here.
I have here the opinion of a legal friend, Mr. President, that I wish the clerk to read.
I am satisfied if it had been any other Senators case instead of mine, knowing as I do the entire duties of Assistant Assessor I could have convinced every individual in this house that the Assistant Assessor's place was no office at all--that it was not an office and only a deputyship. I would state to the Senate that I have served with the exception of perhaps a year, as Assistant Assessor, ever since the law went into operation, and from that time to this I never received any communication except from the Assessor; that I made no returns except to the Assessor, and that I received no communication from any higher power. Once while I was Assessor I took the place of two Assistant Assessors in two different counties. The Assessor wanted me to take Dubois county. I had then been acting in Martin county. I went there and the Assistant Assessor there had no more idea of being turned out than the Senator from Tipton has of being turned out now, and the first and only notice he had was the order that I gave him for the books and papers. It is as clearly a deputyship as any other deputyship could be: and I am satisfied if I had spoken to members individually--as I have spoken to none of them--I could have convinced each one of them that it was only a deputyship; and I know if they knew how we were governed in this matter that not only every Republican Senator but all the Democrats would be in my favor.
Now, Mr. President, I will ask the indulgence of the Senate while the clerk reads the opinion of my legal friend.
[The Secretary read the argument. It embodied a statement of the facts in the case, with the conclusion that Mr. H. was entitled to retain his place in the Senate.]
Mr. ROBINSON of Decatur. I hope I will be indulged in a remark or two. I made the page: 385[View Page 385] motion at the suggestion of other Senators. I admit it is time this question was decided, and if there is any responsibility for delay it must be upon the Committee. The Committee have had it before them for six weeks and this is the first public discussion in the Senate. The question is comparatively a new one, and I was almost convinced by the able argument of the Senator from Monroe [Mr. Hughes] that the Senator from Martin is not entitled to the seat. On the other hand the Senator from Jefferson [Mr. Cravens] argued ably on the other side. There may be others here whose opinions are not entirely made up; and it is important that we should decide correctly in this matter. It makes no difference as a party question whether one gentleman or another occupies the seat here. I did not make the motion for delay, and if gentlemen are ready for the question I have no objection to withdrawing the motion to postpone; and I am just as incapable of making a motion of this kind for mere party advantage as the gentleman from Monroe or any other man. I would not do it. But sir, I think there is no impropriety in postponing this matter for a few days. Besides if we decide as the Senator from Monroe advises must decide against high authorities. As far as I am personally concerned I have no objection to withdrawing the motion. I am as ready to vote as ever. I am willing to withdraw it and if other gentlemen are not satisfied let them renew it.
Mr. SHERROD. It is well known that I am not in the habit of intruding my views upon the Senate. And at this time I shall ask the attention of the Senate but a very short time. Sir, it was remarked by the Senator from Jefferson [Mr. Cravens] that party feeling thus far had not entered into our deliberations. This remark is true, and allow me to my vote on the question now pending, party feeling will have no weight. My action, sir, will be controlled by a spirit as far above party as the heavens are above the earth. It is a question whether, the Constitution of the State, which Senators have taken a solemn oath to support, shall be maintained or not, upon the one hand, and it is simply a question of justice and right in keeping with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, and upon the other hand it is a palpable violation of the plainest provisions of that fundamental instrument, and I must confess, sir, that I was astounded at the position taken by the Senator from Jefferson. I had learned to regard him as a stickler for Constitutional rights. His speech, however, has changed my opinion, for I can but regard the question now pending as touching the Constitution as plain as the noon-day's sun.
Mr. CHURCH rose to a question of order. He understood the previous question had been moved, and did not think the Senator from Orange [Mr. Sherrod] should be permitted to speak, unless other Senators be granted the same privilege.
Mr. SHERROD. I am not making a speech. I am simply stating some facts.
Mr. CHURCH thought the Senator was not only making a speech, but a very eloquent one.
Mr. HUGHES. The previous question was withdrawn to give the Senator from Martin [Mr. Houghton] a chance to make a speech, with the understanding that it would be renewed.
Mr. SHERROD. The Senator from Martin remarked "that the Democratic Senators had made up their minds to vote for his expulsion." Sir, I do not know whether this statement is correct or not. One thing, however, I can tell the Senator, and that is that Democratic Senators have made up their mind to stand squarely by the Constitution of the State, which they have taken an oath to support. As to what action Senators of the opposition will take upon this question, I know not. I will call, however, for the reading of the agreed statement of facts, as reported by the committee. [Here the report was read by the Clerk.] Now, Mr. President, this is a unanimous report of the committee who have had this case under consideration for weeks, and it satisfied me that there are Republican--Senators who are actuated by honorable motives, and will do justice to the applicant, [Mr. Montgomery] who is justly entitled to his seat and about which there should have been no question. I have known the Senator [Mr. Houghton] long and well, and would not utter one word that would detract from his character in the slightest degree. Knowing him as I do, sir, I am astonished that he would hold his seat upon this floor one moment, when it is a fact, well known by all, that he does soin direct violation of the will of the people of his district, as well as the Constitution which he has taken an oath to support. Mr. President, I now move the previous question.
The demand for the previous question was not seconded by the Senate--affirmative 17, negative 22.
Mr. JOHNSON of Spencer, moved to postpone the further consideration of this subject till day after to-morrow.
On motion by Mr. JOHNSTON of Montgomery, this motion was laid on the table yeas 23, nays 22-- as follows:
YEAS.--Messrs. Bird, Bradley, Carson, Denbo, Gifford, Gray, Hanna, Henderson, Hess, Hooper, Howk, Huey, Huffman, Hughes, Humphreys, Johnston of Montgomery, Kinley, Lee, Morgan, Sherrod, Smith, Stein and Turner--23.
NAYS.--Messrs. Andrews, Armstrong, Bellamy, Case, Caven, Church, Cravens, Eliott, Fosdick, Green, Hadley, Hamilton, Jaquess, Johnson of Spencer, Lasselle, Rice, Reynolds, Robinson of
page: 386[View Page 386]Madison, Robinson of Decatur, Scott, Wolcott and Wood--22.
Pending the roll call--
Mr. GRAY, when his name was called said: In the explanation of my vote I wish to say that I supposed perhaps a month ago this question would come up in the Senate and I examined the law on the question; and asked the Senator if his commission did not come from the Secretary of the United States. He told me it did and I then considered him a Federal officer, ameanable to Federal law for malfeasance in office and to all intents and purposes a Federal officer. From what little acquaintance I have had with the Senator I consider him a gentleman of warm and genial disposition; besides he is my party friend, and if I could with my convictions of what is right, I would vote to retain him, but standing as a judge and having to support the Constitution of the United States I must vote "aye."
Mr. STEIN, when his name was called, in explanation of vote said: I beg to assure the Senator [Mr. Houghton] that the vote I propose to give at present is not dictated by any feeling of animosity against him. I take the pains to say this because I remember the little troubles connected with the apportionment bills of last session. The Senator for some reason, imbibed the opinion that I was hostile somewhat to the purpose he had in view in regard to his own district. I have known the Senator since the beginning of last session, and I have known him to love him. I consider him a man of the most unblemished purity of character; a man of very sound judgment of great natural ability, and a valuable legislator in these halls. If I could favor him in the final vote I would like to do so. But the Senator will bear me witness I have been opposed to the postponement of matters under discussion. By calling this question up at another day we will have to go over this argument again. I am and always have been opposed to unnecessary postponement and therefore vote "aye."
So the motion was laid on the table.
Mr. ROBINSON of Madison, demanded the previous question.
There being a second--twenty-six Senators voting in favor of the previous question--
Mr. KINLEY demanded a division of the question.
The first resolution declaring that Mr. Houghton had vacated his seat by accepting a Federal office, was adopted by yeas 30, nays 16, as follows:
YEAS--Messrs. Andrews, Bird, Bradley, Carson, Oase, Gaven, Denbo, Fosdick, Gifford, Gray, Hanna, Henderson, Hess, Hooper, Howk, Huey, Huffman, Hughes, Humphreys, Johnston of Montgomery, Kinley, Lasselle, Lee, Morgan, Robinson of Madison, Scott, Sherrod, Smith, Stein and Turner--30.
NAYS--Messrs. Armstrong, Bellamy, Church, Cravens, Eliott, Fisher, Green, Hadley, Hamilton, Jaquess, Johnson of Spencer, Rice, Reynolds, Robinson of Decatur, Wolcott and Wood-- 16.
The second resolution, declaring that William H. Montgomery is duly elected Senator and entitled to his seat as such, was also adopted by yeas 35, nays 11--as follows:
YEAS--Messrs. Andrews, Bird, Bradley, Carson, Case, Caven, Cravens, Denbo, Eliott, Fisher, Fosdick, Gifford, Gray, Hanna, Henderson, Hooper, Howk, Huey, Huffman, Hughes, Humphreys, Johonston of Montgomery, Lasselle, Lee, Morgan, Rice, Reynolds, Robinson of Madison, Robinson of Decatur, Scott, Sherrod, Smith, Stein, Turner and Wolcott--35.
NAYS--Messrs. Armstrong, Bellamy, Church, Green, Hadley, Hamilton, Hess, Jaquess, Johnson of Spencer, Kinley and Wood--11.
Pending the roll call--
Mr. CRAVENS, in explanation of his vote said: The Senate having decided by a vote of nearly two to one that the seat of the Senator if vacant, I have no hesitation in voting "aye"--in favor of declaring Mr. Montgomery entitled to it.
Mr. HAMILTON, when his name was called, said: Voting conscientiously as I did, believing the other man was entitled because the majority of the Senate votes the other way that does not justify me in saying that this man is entitled to the seat. I therefore vote "no."
Mr. KINLEY, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote said: I believe there was a vacancy at the time of this election; but I think under the Constitution there has been an irregular election without action on the part of the Governor. I understand there was no writ of election issued;--I think therefore that neither gentlemen is entitled to the seat and vote "no."
Mr. RICE when his name was called, said: Having had great doubts in regard to this question and giving those doubts to my friend Mr. Houghton; as the Senate has decided by a large majority that his seat is vacant I vote "aye."
Mr. ROBINSON of Decatur, in explanation of his vote, when his name was called, said: For the reasons given by the Senators from Jefferson [Mr. Cravens] and Fountain [Mr. Rice] I vote "aye."
Mr. WOLCOTT, in explanatin, when his name was called, said: The Senate having adjudicated upon the question of vacancy I have no alternative, I must vote "aye."
Mr. WOOD, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said: I think no vacancy existed and so voted; and I vote "no" for the reasons given by the Senator from Clinton [Mr. Hamilton.]
Mr. BELLAMY, now requesting his name to be called, said in explanation of his vote: Though this Senate has declared that a vacancy exists it by no means follows that the Senator claiming the seat is duly elected or is en- page: 387[View Page 387] titled to it, but without stopping to give the reasons for this opinion I vote "no."So the second resolution was adapted, and the vote being announced as above--
Mr. HOUGHTON said: I rise now to say a few words, not knowing whether as an act of courtesy, the Senate will allow me to speak or not.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. Has the Senate any objection to hearing the remarks of the Senator?
VOICES"No," "no." "Consent."
Mr. HOUGHTON. I have only to say, as it is the opinion of the Senate that my seat is vacant, I am extremely glad they have determined upon it to-day, for after the kind feelings expressed by several gentlemen here I am afraid if I had stayed one day longer my reputation would not be half as good as it is. [Laughter.]
Mr. HUGHES. I move that the order of the Senate be executed and the Senator elect sworn in.
The motion was agreed to.
The Senator elect from the counties of Martin, Pike and Dubois, [Mr. W. H. Montgomery] then came forward, and took the prescribed oath at the hands of the Lieutenant Governor.
THE UNIVERSITY OMNIBUS BILL.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR then announced the special order for this hour--being the consideration of Mr.Hughes' State University bill, [S. 197] in Committee of the Whole, and he called the Senator from Franklin, Mr. Gifford, to the Chair.
Mr. HADLEY. Mr. Chairman: I did not think yesterday that I would offer any remarks upon this bill, but things transpired in the discussion yesterday that have induced me to ask the indulgence of the Committee for a few moments upon this subject. I will try to confine myself to the question, and studiously avoid traveling over the entire history of the session to notice an example--an illustrious example of Senators, who Spartan like, have stood upon this floor, and executed their duties with out fear, favor or affection. Feeling that if I sat silently in my seat and voted against the provisions of this bill, that my action will be construed into want of courage to speak out upon it, I have decided this afternoon to declare my opposition to the bill.
I admit that this is a very comprehensive bill, very grasping and unites many interests, but, sir, it does not go quite far enough. We have a very thrifty Academy or institution of learning in my county, and also a prosperous institution of learning in Greencastle, and if this bill in its grasping spirit had reached over and opened the Treasury of the State to our institutions, and made us a party to this measure, it is possible I would have been induced to support the bill. But I never made any such proposition to its author, feeling that I would expose myself to impeachment in this body; and since we are left unprovided for, it will not be surprising if I am opposed to the bill.
To be candid in the matter, I am in favor of a generous, central system of Education. I believe it is the right system, but I further believe that we have started wrong upon this matter. We did not begin in the right place. We made the first mistake by proposing to scatter the adjuncts all over the State. We scatter over too large territory. When we look at the history of Universities--this central system of Education--we find this does not obtain. I have not in my mind a single institution that is scattered over the amount of territory this bill comprises. The University at Ann Arbor, Michigan, is a great success, yet it has all its departments under one control and clustered in the same village. Look at Harvard that has the first reputation of any in north America, and you see it under one control and its fifteen buildings to accommodate its many and varied departments are all clustered in the city of Cambridge, except perhaps the medical and it is not a mile away. Yale College, a young institution that has succeeded wonderful well, we find under one control and all its departments clustered in the city of New Haven.
I cannot possibly see any good that can result from the system proposed--scattering adjuncts all over the State and making every department under a different control. I don't believe any good will result from it. Senators have insisted upon this floor that Agricultural schools have not succeeded only when forming a part of the central system of Education. My history does not teach me that such is the fact. [He referred to the success of several independent Agricultural schools in the old world, and insisted that this argument should not obtain.]
If the State University is not sufficiently endowed already, I am in favor of making it so as soon as we can consistently with other obligations of the State. Although its location is such that it will never be successful as a State University, yet it should be sustained, and sustained liberally enough to place it far above penury and want, and remove it from embarrassment on account of funds. There is nothing in my mind that speaks higher for a State than a high standard of Education, and no Senator will go farther than I to establish such a system.
While we are contemplating rushing in this grand enterprise we should not at the same forget that it was but a few years ago when our State credit was very bad--when our bonds were worth no more than the bonds of the Con- page: 388[View Page 388] federacy in the markets of Europe, and that grew out of the fact that we overreached ourselves. The State Government ran recklessly in the expenditure of money that it was not in our ability to pay. Our State owes more than six million dollars indebtedness made twenty years ago; and it seems to me like the part of wisdom to save and economise every dollar until this debt is paid and the burden of taxation lessened. We cannot carry out the provisions of this bill without increasing taxation. The people are already overburdened with taxation, and they will not consent to have it increased and it is not wise or prudent in the General Assembly to urge them to increase it. We have already a comprehensive and liberal system of Education. To sum this matter all up, so long as I occupy a position on this floor I will never be found voting money out of the public treasury to educate the lawyers and doctors of the State until the State indebtedness is paid, and the taxation of the people reduced.
I am not in favor of the sale of University square. I believe we have no equitable right to sell it, and I do not consider that we have any legal right to sell it. It was contemplated by the State when this square was set apart that it should be a site for a State University, else why did they declare that streets and alleys should be vacated as soon as they struck that square? Did they not know that square would bring four times as much money in parcels as in an entire body; and the only sensible construction of that law is that it was intended to be the site of a University and for no other purpose.
But Senators say it is unfair and unjust that citizens of Indianapolis should enjoy so much property without consideration;that the four acres of ground are worth two hundred and fifty thousand dollars which is enjoyed by the citizens of Indianapolis and which is all wrong. I ask who made University square worth two hundred and fifty thousand dollars? Did the citizens of Bloomington? The citizens of Terre Haute or of Fort Wayne? It was the citizens of Indianapolis who built our State capital into a populous city; and who have reared beautiful and magnificent dwellings all around that square, that has made it worth two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Had the citizens built nothing but shanties and refused to improve their streets, discouraged business of all sort and made the city a placed to be shunned, then I ask what would be the value of University square? Probably fifty dollars an acre and no more. So it is the enterprise of the citizens of Indianapolis that has enhanced the value of that square, and it is unjust and mean, decidedly mean to wrest it from their hands.
Mr. HUGHES (interposing.) Suppose a citizen of the State of New York had bought a square in this city many years ago and the city had increased until the square had greatly increased in value, is it the Senator's argument that thereby the city acquires a title to the property?
Mr. HADLEY. I pretend to say that University square is as much the property of Bloomington, or Lafayette, or Terre Haute, as of Indianapolis, but the enhanced value of this square is not. Every citizen who loves his State should feel a desire to beautify its capital. He should take a pride in building up the capital city of our State. From its location it is the only city in the State that can ever reach any great numbers. What would Illinois be without Chicago? New York be without the city of New York? What would Maryland be without Baltimore, or Ohio without Cincinnati? I insist that we should as men and citizens love our own State, feel a pride in our capital and make it a place to be praised rather than be shunned.
But to pass on. The next thing is the State Normal School situated at Terre Haute. I am not in favor of voting seventy-five thousand dollars this year to the State Normal School. I am in favor of completing that building and saving what has already been done, but I see necessity for doing so this year. I am in favor of voting money enough to inclose that building and complete enough rooms to operate the school; but as we are struggling along with six millions of indebtedness and other demands being constantly made upon the Treasury, I do not believe we can afford injustice to ourselves to appropriate seventy-five thousand dollars to the State Normal School.
And lastly Mr. Chairman, as to the location of the Agricultural College. I am in favor of the immediate location of the Agricultural College. I do not wish to delay it one hour. The people I represent are an Agricultural people; they want an Agricultural College, and they believe this matter has been sufficiently discussed for us to come to some conclusion in the matter. They wonder why it has not long since been located. Here are two propositions: one for the location at Lafayette and one at Greenfield. I oppose the location in Tippecanoe county, not out of feelings of hostility towards Tippecanoe county or a feeling of disrespect towards any Senator who has or may urge the claims of that county, but I stand entirely disinterested, as a party who has no local interest to subserve. Hancock county is no more to me nor to my constituents than Tippecanoe county. I have no property, no interest and no relatives in Hancock county; and I might add that I didn't know hald a dozen faces in that county till after the meeting of this Senate. I insist that the motive that induces me to favor that location cannot page: 389[View Page 389] be reasonably construed into any other than a desire to promote the best interests of the State.
I favor the location in Hancock county for two reason; First, because it is a more central part of the State; and secondly, because I regard the inducements as far greater than that offered by Tippecanoe county. That the first proposition is true no Senator will deny; the second probably some will deny. What does Tippencanoe county offer? Fifty thousand dollars in cash, two school houses and a few acres of land, estimated at one hundred and fifty thousand dollars in all, of which one hundred thousand dollars is in truck and traffic.
Mr. STEIN (interposing.) I don't know what authority the Senator has to say that the donation of Tippecanoe county is mere truck and traffic. Senators will bear me witness that I have treated every proposition with respect, and all I ask is to be treated similarly.
Mr. HADLEY. That is what I desire to do. I presume it is not out of order to notice the character of this donation. A College to succede must command character,--must have the appearance of respectability and responsibility to get patronage, because nobody will send their children to a school they have reason to believe will soon fail. These buildings sir, are not suited to an Agricultural College. It would disparage it from the start. It would be a reproach to the State of Indiana. It would impress every person with the idea that the founders had no confidence in the enterprise, or they would not use such unsightly, unseemly and unsuitable walls.
It is a fact well demonstrated that an Agricultural College cannot succeed without an ample experimental farm. Prussia, Germany and France have succeeded best in these schools and they never operate less than from three to five hundred acres of land. They have nearly all sorts of soils, all sorts of agricultural impliments, and all sorts of stock, in order to test the merits of each, and their farms are ample enough to give employment to all their students. So much employment per day is required of the students--ample to pay the board of the students, and they can go through the course in four or five years without a dollar. I am informed that no such farm as would be necessary to the success of the Agricultural College can be procured adjoining there two school houses in Tippecanoe county. I am informed that the land adjacent is not a varid soil and not at all adapted to the uses of an Agricultural College. Senators have said that it is a historic spot, and that students there would probably learn more than elsewhere. I disagree with Senators in this. I agree that the Tippecanoe battle ground is a historic spot and ought to be honored but I submit if it is showing respect to the illustrious dead to feed pumpkins and Irish potatoes upon the ground hallowed by their blood. Is it the highest honor we can pay these sleeping heroes to feed potatoes and pumpkins upon their decomposing bones? I believe students would learn as well in Greenfield as at this historic battle ground, at Bunker Hill or amoung the clouds of Lookout mountain; and that this argument ought not to have any weight.
But I am occupying too much time, and will notice just a moment the donation proposed by Hancock county. What is the donation? It takes but a few words to express it. Only this: one hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars in cash out of their county treasury and eighty acres of land. Only this and nothing more. There is no uncertain value in this. There is no certain and fixed location for the buildings, but anywhere at or adjacent to the town of Greenfield, Hancock county. They don't even request us to buy a particular farm, or adopt any particular style of building, but they propose to place at the disposal of the State all this property to be used as the State wills, how and where it pleases. I do not think it is too much to say that Hancock county makes twenty-five thousand dollars the best offer, and this of itself should secure the location.
Is Tippecanoe county more loyal to the State than Hancock county? Has Hancock county been rewarded more than Tippecanoe county? I do not understand such claims are made; and for the reasons I have memtioned I favor the location in Hancock county. Accept the offer of the Commissioners of Hancock county and we may try this experiment of an Agricultural College without appropriating a single cent out of the public treasury.
Mr. WOOD (interposing.) Is the Senator sure the Commissioners had any right to make this donation?
Mr. HADLEY. That is going outside of the record. If the State gets the money she should be entirely satisfied to let the Commissions and citizens of Hancock county settle the legality of the act of the Commissioners. Place one hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars in the hands of the trustees of the soldiers' home and I guarantee we will get a building that will com pare favorably with any College building in the nation. The law of Congress gives us the right to take ten per cent. of the College fund to buy a farm. That will give twenty-four thousand dollars which in addition to the eighty acres proposed to be donated by Greenfield will give ample grounds. The interest that will accrue upon the remainder will amount to about fifteen thousand dollars and more, and this will stock the farm. Then, we will have two hundred and fourteen thousand dollars which, if judiciously invested, will page: 390[View Page 390] yield the State twenty thousand dollars annually to defray the expenses of the school. These facts show that by the adoption of the proposition of Hanconck county we can found an Agricultural College upon the most liberal basis without costing the State one dollar; and more particularly at this time it is not wise to accept a proposition that we have reason to believe will cost us roundly before we are done with it.
Mr. OBINSON of Madison. Mr. Chairman: I trust I do not partake of that kind of feeling that seems to manifest itself upon this floor to some degree. If I am opposed to this measure I have come to that conclusion after giving all the sections of this bill that careful consideration I think they merit. Two years ago when this Agricultural College bill was before the Senate, as the question then stood I voted to locate it at the Tippecanoe Battle Ground. At the same time I give a vote to give to the Normal School fifty thousand dollars understanding that would be the last demand to be made upon the Legislature by it for money. As that structure has not been completed, and as it is one the people of the State take a deep interest in, I am willing to vote an appropriation to finish this Normal School. I also two years ago voted for this act which gave to the State University eight thousand dollars and I supposed when they asked it at that time that it was all this University would ask from the State for a great many years to come. This bill No. 197, has been introduced by the Senator from Monroe, and I hope I will not be considered out of order when I say that if every measure and every solitary principle in this bill was right I would not support it. If each one of these measures has not merit enough to receive the sanction of the Legislature alone, I am unwilling that, being united, they should thereby receive my support.
I am opposed to the first section. I have no hostility to the University at Bloomington. I know nothing of it more than the history of the State informs me. We are asked in the first section to increase the sum to be appropriated to that University to thirty-three thousand dollars per annum. Now, Mr. Chairman, if I was willing to vote an additional twenty-five thousand dollars to that University, I would be unwilling to vote for the second section of this bill, which provides that "the faith of the State is hereby pledged that the said appropriations shall neither of them at any time be withdrawn without the consent of the Board of Trustees of the State University and of the Faculty thereof." I am unwilling to bind the State to pay this institution thirty-three thousand dollars a year with the proviso that the State cannot withdraw that sum without the consent of the Faculty. Thirty years is a generation. In one generation that would amount to a large sum to the people of the State without interest. We will have bound ourselves to pay nine hundred and ninety thousand dollars to this University in one generation. I am unwilling by any act of mine to vote to say that for the next thirty years we shall be bound to pay nine hundred and ninety thousand dollars to that institution and if experience and wisdom demonstrates to us that the sum should be withdrawn, that it shall not be withdrawn without the consent of the faculty. Now it seems to me that this is asking too much of the Legislature of Indiana. I am willing to vote liberal sums of money for the purposes of education. If this institution needs the protecting care of the State it should receive it, but I will not vote upon the people a mortgage as proposed in this second section. I believe the interests of this great State are above the Board of Trustees and the Faculty of any college in the State. These are the objections I have to this part of the bill.
As far as this University square is concerned, which has been a bone of contention for some years, and discussed at some length at last session of the Legislature, if I believed we had a right under the law to sell it, I should have no objection. I would not take away any one thing that would add to the beauty of this city, but if this University square legally and rightfully can be sold and the proceeds applied to educational purposes, and if in the wisdom of the Legislature it should be directed to the State University, I have no objection to that. It is said that University square is worth two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. It seems to me that would be a handsome endowment for the State University.
Mr. HUGHES (interposing.) The square has been estimated to be worth one hundred thousand dollars. It may go to one hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars. I don't know how it came up to two hundred and fifty thousand dollars.
Mr. HADLEY. I made my statement upon the statement of the Senator from Wayne [Mr. Kinley] who said that he and some citizens here estimated it at about that sum.
Mr. KINLEY. I, together with several prominent citizens of the city estimated the value of University square and we made it two hundred and sixty-five thousand dollars.
Mr. ROBINSON of Madison, (resuming.) It does not matter what the value of the square is. I presume some gentleman desiring to sell would prefer to magnify its value, and others desiring not to sell it would diminish its value. At any rate it is valuable. I am willing it shall be sold and the proceeds appropriated to educational purposes; and if in the wisdom of the Legislature it is thought best to endow the page: 391[View Page 391] University at Bloomington with any sum for which it may be sold I am willing it shall be done.
There is another section in this bill. I believe I have not heard that the Medical profession have demanded a college to be built by the State. And there is one little fact connected with this: the State never builds anything without paying for it. At first the estimate is very small, but before we finish thousands and thousands of dollars is paid by the tax-payers. But simply to educate men for the profession of law or medicine I would not encourage it at the expense of the State of Indiana. Therefore I am opposed to that feature.
There are two other features in this bill. Here is a proposition for the State Normal School. Let it not be said of the State of Indiana that institutions commenced have been permitted to crumble because we refuse to appropriate a sufficient amount to complete them.
I think this Agricultural College is an elephant. But we have it upon our hands, and I am not particular where we locate it. I do not care about having it in my neighborhood. I do not think it will ever amount to much,and if we believe what the Senators from Hendricks and Jefferson have said I do not see why any community should want it. If any of these localities desire it, the one that gives the most I am willing should have it and enjoy it. Those of us who live the farthest away from it in a few years perhaps will be most happy.
I trust we will treat this bill as a measure brought forth in good faith. The Senator from Monroe presents it as a representative of his constituents, believing that this institution should be maintained in the place of his residence; and we should vote upon this measure conscientiously.
Mr. ARMSTRONG proposed several amendments--one providing for the sale of University square for the endowment of the State University;--which were read for information only, there being two amendments pending.
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman: When this bill was first brought before the Senate I discussed its provisions for the purpose of setting its general provisions and objects before the Senate. All I desired was that the bill should undergo a proper consideration at the hands of the Senate. I hope it will be discussed generally and that the Senate will modify the bill to suit their own pleasure, or if it seems better to them it may be defeated. I would not have again participated in the discussion until the close of the debate, if the bill had been fairly met. I undertake to say, either it has been entirely misapprehended or entirely misrepresented; not so much in the discussion upon this floor as in the attacks made upon it in the public press. The city of Indianapolis has not only two Senators upon this floor, but makes fifty speeches a day through its three or four newspapers a day to every member of this body, and therein she has an advantage which is not enjoyed by any other locality in the State.
A good deal of feeling has been manifested in the consideration of this bill. I can appeal to every member that I discussed it as a business measure, and confined myself strictly to its provisions, and made no attacks upon Indianapolis, Terre Haute, Lafayette, Greenfield or any other locality. I said in reference to this University square matter, that if the Senators from Marion county objected, all they had to do was to object and I would strike it out, but these city newspapers for which we pay every day, sir, could not report that proposition of mine, sir. The Cincinnati papers could;the Cincinnati Gazette could print the bill even. Outside of the State it was thought to be of sufficient importance to be printed, but the newspapers in the city of Indianapolis that we pay for, and which are supposed to be paid for the purpose of reporting the proceedings of this body correctly could not print the bill and could not print a true report of what was said by the author of the bill. They could open their columns for communication after communication misrepresenting the bill--one misrepresenting it by sections--willfully misrepresentating its contents. They could open their columns to abuse of the author of the bill and to a direct charge that he was actuated by corrupt motives;--they could do that, sir; they did do that. And they could call a public meeting and they could say that Judge Hughes stationed a young man at the foot of the stairs to break up the meeting. What a terrible man that Senator from Monroe must be to gobble up this city represented on this floor by two Senators and in the other end of the capitol by four Representatives.
The next thing charged is that Judge Hughes is the paid Attorney of the Bloomington college, which has never been able to pay anybody for services here or elsewhere. Instead of letting the legitimate Representatives of the city and county speak for it, there is another attempt at a public meeting and after a good deal of drumming it numbers fifteen or twenty-five. Of course the staple speeches of that meeting must be abuse of the author of this bill and the humble village in which the Fathers of the State thought proper to locate the State University.
What is the matter? We are told that Indianapolis don't want a Medical School. The chairman of the Committee on Education is a mouth piece and he says a Medical College will turn up in due time, This city don't page: 392[View Page 392] want any connection with the State University. I am not disposed to force a Medical College upon the city of Indianapolis, but I understand that we are not here representing only the city of Indianapolis, nor the village of Bloomington alone, nor the town of Greenfield, nor the Tippecanoe Battle Ground, but to legislate for the people of this State; and if we think the people of the State need a Medical College, and we propose to locate it I suppose this city ought to submit.
I understand why this hostility comes from the city of Indianapolis. It is because a finger has been laid upon University square. That is the whole of it; yet there seems to be more unanimity with Senators to sell this square than on any other proposition in this bill.
The first great point of objection is the cry of combination. Now, sir, I desire in the most pointed and business like manner to meet the objections to this bill and refute them. But in the first place I don't know why we should have so much outcry about an "Omnibus bill," unless the Senate think I am going to dispose of them as it seems I am to dispose of the city of Indianapolis--just capture them all nolens volens. I did not know that the tendering of a measure to a legislative body was a combination. If it is a combination it is tendered to this Senate, and if they don't like I it they need not pass it. The combination is a combination of ideas and not of men. It is a combination of measures and they are all homogeneous, and all classified under one general head. The object of the bill is to provide for a system of University Education. The object of the bill is to establish the State University on a firm basis. It was located years ago; and even then the fame of its great President was far reaching. That man gave the University a National reputation. The State located this institution upon the ground where it now stands and decided that she would have a great system of free Education. I simply sought to develop that idea by making it a University not only in name but in truth. What is a University? Not a single school or College; it is a family of Colleges embracing every department of learning. They may be or not all in one town or they may be scattered so as to diffuse the benefits of education throughout the whole State.
Because I took hold of the term "State University," and sought to carry out the idea of its founders, it appears that I have committed a sort of legislative monstrosity. There is an answer to all this. The opposition to the State University lies deeper than the cry of "combination." The answer comes from the grave of that great man, and is inscribed upon the title of a book he wrote "Sectarianism is Heresy." The State of Indiana has decided that her sons shall have an institution sustained by her charity where education shall be free to all. There is a Presbyterian institution at Crawfordsville, a Methodist institution at Greencastle, and there are sectarian institutions all over the land, but within the borders of the State there is but one institution that is not sectarian, and long may it live and flourish; and may the time soon come when the Legislatures of Indiana will rise up and grasp the true intent and meaning of the founders of that institution and cherish and support it as it ought to be supported.
The chairman of the Committee on Education in this body informs us that he cannot vote any money for the State University because there are other institutions where a man can go and pay his money and get and Education; and in the next breath we have that gentleman voting for an appropriation to the Normal School, only twenty-five miles from Greencastle, and why can't the teacher go there and get a Normal School education as well?
Next, the gentleman thinks that institution at Bloomington can't be a success. He had better go and look at it sir. After his travels to Knightstown and Terre Haute if he extends his travel to Bloomington he will change his mind, I think. And if he and the chairmen of another Committee on Education not a thousand miles from here would tarry there a while and spend some time in the classes of that institution it probably would not do him any harm, and he might be better qualified for the duties of the Chairman of the Committee on Education. Then we would not have the chairman of the Committee on Education in the capitol of a State offering in a legislative body such amendments as this "strike out all from the enacting c-l-a-w-s and i-n-c-e-r-t the following." We would not have the capitol of the State, sir--
Mr. BELLAMY (interrupting.) I rise to ask the Senator a question. Do his refer to myself?
Mr. HUGHES. I do not mean to say the Senator spells clause c-l-a-w-s.
Mr. BELLAMY. I have visited institutions of learning, and I have seen the State University if I have not passed through its classic halls.
Mr. HUGHES. I am glad to hear that. I do not intend to be discourteous but I don't intend to stand quietly as a mark for newspaper abuse and be patronized as by the Senator from Madison, who was kind enough to say that he actually believed I had introduced this bill in good faith and that it ought to be received as though I was a member of this body: and that I had committed no crimine. the measures embodied in this omnibus bill--this fearful bill--were all full children and well out of their authors hand and pending before the legislature before I touched page: 393[View Page 393] them. Here was a seperate bill for a Medical School at Indianapolis, now in the hands of the Committee on Education, and I don't know whether it will ever get out from there. Here was a bill for an appropriation to the Normal School: here was a bill for the benefit of the State University; and a bill for the location of the Agricultural College, also referred to the Committee on Education.
Mr. BELLAMY (interposing.) I will state to the Senator from Monroe that no such bills to my knowledge are before the Committee on Education.
Mr. HUGHES. That is because the Senator don't know. It is before the joint Committee. I introduced that bill early in the session and sent it to this Committee and there it sleeps the sleep of death I presume.
Mr. BELLAMY. I am informed by a member of the Judiciary Committee that it is before the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. HUGHES. How would that bill get to the Judiciary Committee? I introduced three bills numbered 99, 100 and 101; they were all on the subject of Education and all referred to the Committee on Education. They are there now, and the journals will show it. I know what bills I introduced and where they were referred. If the Senator does not understand his business I understand mine. I took these measures and grouped them together in this bill and this was the combination. It is a combination of measures made by one working when other members were in Terre Haute sight seeing. The Senator from Tippecanoe never saw the bill until the perfect draft was made in my own hand writing. It was tendered to the Senators from Marion county, but I did not ask them to join interests in it. I introduced it on my own responsibility because it is an educational bill--symmetrical and harmonious--carrying out the original plan of the founders of the State University, and the fathers of the State government.
After I had the bill presented I took the earliest opportunity to wait upon the Senators from Marion and tell them if they did'nt want this matter in my bill I would strike it out. I said the same to the Senator from Vigo. The Senators from Marion took time to consult their constituents and I have not heard from them since. When they get ready to take their position in regard to this bill they will take it. I have had no controversy with them. Some of their self-constituted representatives in this county have taken charge of this matter, but as between myself and the Senators all is perfectly open, candid and frank. Vigo had no objection to this Normal School appropriation being included; and the Senator from Tippecanoe the same thing. I tendered both of them an opportunity to change the phraseology in their measures, and to some extent they availed themselves of it. That is the combination in this Omnibus Bill
Mr. Chairman, let me say to Senators: Never fear a danger you can see. A combination is half disposed of when you can see it. It is a combination you cannot see that you are to dread. It is a combination that works in the dark that is to be feared. I have heard of legislative bodies being defrauded of their votes and made the instruments of great injury by a combination not of measures but of men, and sometimes men and measures both; but, sir, I have more authority for saying there is a combination against this bill,an assertion that I do not make for I do not know it to be so. I have more right to infer that there is a combination against this bill working in the interests of sectarianism and in the interest of a few persons desiring to filch from the cause of education a valuable property that belongs to the State University. If "combination" is to be rung in my ears, I echo it back.
If the bill is respectable in its provisions; if it is a legitimate subject for legislation, it is right and proper to bring all these appropriations to the attention of the General Assembly and ask them to look these subjects in the face and see what they have to do in detail. If we are going to have a Normal School appriation of seventy-five thousand dollars, as gentlemen say they will, let us decide upon it; and if we are to have a Medical College let us do the same thing; and when it is all done, in the aggregate it foots up about the same.
The State has an institution that is educating two hundred and forty-nine students upon an appropriation of eight thousand dollars a year from the State Treasury, with about six thousand dollars added from the munificence of the General Government--no professor's salary going above fifteen hundred dollars except the President's which is nineteen hundred dollars; and a college building, the best in the State, furnished, except fifteen thousand dollars, by the voluntary contributions of the poor people of this despised and sneered at village; and because the State spends eight thousand dollars and the United States six thousand dollars the learned chairman of the Committee on Education stands up and charges that it costs two thousand dollars a head for graduates. A system of Education built up in that spirit would be cold charity. I ask if two hundred and forty-nine students are admitted to educational privileges upon cheaper terms on the face of the earth than at Bloomington?
The Senator from Henry introduced a bill yesterday to make an institution only two years old cost twenty-five thousand dollars per annum. We propose to make the President of the University Trustees ex-officio President of page: 394[View Page 394] the Normal School, so as to keep up the connection, but we ask no control of it.
Now as far as that feature of the bill is concerned I want to call the attention of the Senate to some of the laws of Indiana. Here is a pamphlet containing various acts of this State--all of them recognizing this as a State University. Now we will see where the idea, of a Normal School comes from, and whether it is any invention of mine put in this bill for the purpose of pressing these measures through. [Mr. H. reads an act passed June 17, 1852.] The obligation has been resting upon the Trustees of the State University to establish a Normal School from that time. The State has established one at Terre Haute, and now we want to get up this connection with the State University. It is simply carrying out an idea; and does that idea cost the State of Indiana anything? It seems to have more effect upon the nerves of some gentlemen than Banquo's ghost had upon Macbeth. The papers say that we put the control under a Board of Trustees which is a direct falsehood.
In 1852, the Legislature ordered the Trustees of the State University to establish a Normal School, but gave them no money to do it with. They have been under this injunction for many years but the State has withheld the means. And now we are asking to have this Agricultural College fund donated by Congress given to the State University. The money has been given to you and if you want us to carry out your commands give us the money. Tippecanoe county wants it; Hancock county wants it, and the city of Indianapolis is always ready to receive it, but has never just exactly made an offer yet. She has not made an offer but she can oppose its being located everywhere and anywhere until by mere exhaustion perhaps the fund may fall into her lap.
We propose now to put the State University upou the same footing with the House of Juvenile offenders, and upon the footing with the other benevolent institutions--one of which is going to ask sixty thousand dollars this year and others thirty, forty and fifty thousand dollars; and that institution the Senator from Wabash proposes to build up--a House of Reformation for erring women. The State pours out her money for penitentiaries, for the lame the halt and the blind and for Magdaline Asylums; but when aid is asked for the State University, oh! now we will be economical. If we are to have economy in this let it be practiced all along the line.
If the cause of Edcuation is to be denied everything, and its property which the beneficence of the General Government has deeded to the State in trust for that cause, is to be filched from it by the strong hand of the city of Indianapolis, and you Senators stand by and permit that wrong to be done, I trust when the appropriations come up--when the time comes for voting money to the Soldiers' Home, to the House of correction for Juvenile offenders, for the Women's Reformatory, for the Insane, the Dumb and the Blind,--I hope the combination will be true to the cause of Education and true to itself and stand as the Senator from Jefferson says like a Spartan Band, in favor of the right, appealing only to the justness and judgment of our constituents.
We dare not speak of a Medical College without having this city come down upon us and denounce men and measures without stint--a city which is built up by the benevolence of the State and in the lap of which the wealth of the State is being poured. I am making an attack upon the benevolent institutions of the State; but yet if there is to be a local war made upon the State University, it has the same claim to the favor of the State that they have, and I intend to battle for that claim.
We ask twenty-five thousand dollars annually for the State University. The request is frankly made. If that is given to us we probably would not trouble the Legislature for many a long day. Give us that sum and then we would not receive as much as the State Printer. The printing of the Adjutant General's report--7 volumes--cost the State more than this bill would for one year.
The Senator from Switzerland [Mr. Bellamy] has introduced a bill to pay four hundred and thirty odd thousand dollars out of the Treasury of the State to indemnify a portion of the people of this State for acts done by a public enemy--a claim not founded in law but only in sympathy. No government ever responds to claims for injury done by a public enemy. The Senator from Switzerland cannot see anything alarming in four hundred and thirty odd thousand dollars paid out of the State Treasury upon the assumption--about which we don't know anything--that the United States will pay it back.
And he is not shocked at the expense of keeping up the Soldiers' Home at Knightstown, while the United States has appropriated millions of dollars for the purpose and will take charge of every one of these soldiers free of charge. That institution has cost this State sixty-one thousand dollars in the last two years. And there is a great clamor against Terre Haute because she asks for an appropriation to complete the State Normal Schools. Look at the official documents of the Soldiers Home. It was only intended to be a temporary institution, but if the Legislature decided not to abolish it I am going to vote to give the money necessary to carry it on. And I will do the same thing for the House of correction for Juvenile offenders, and for the page: 395[View Page 395] House of Reformation for Erring Women when established. But let us treat the State University in like manner.
Two years ago all the State University ask of was the sale of this University square No. 25, in the city of Indianapolis. Then they did not dare to say the city was entitled to it. Two years hence they will insist upon having it. I have done my duty about this square and a sight of trouble I have got into by it.
The Senator from Madison [Mr. Robinson] objects to the second section of this bill. It is frank and let it be so. If we are to have the money we want to know it, and to have a promise that it shall not be taken away without the consent of the Board of Trustees to be composed of citizens scattered all over the State. The Faculty are their creatures. We want the faith of the State pledged. The Deaf and Dumb, the Blind and the Insane Asylums don't need the faith of the State pledged to them, for they have got the great city of Indianapolis at their back.
In the third section I provide that tuition shall be absolutely free. The Senator from Switzerland don't think the State ought to furnish free instruction at the State University.
Section four provides that the revenue from the State prisons, if it ever comes, shall go to the support of a law school; but that is struck out.
Section five establishes a Medical Department of the State University at Indianapolis. Although we dislike to give up the law school at Bloomington, for it has been self-sustaining and we want to keep it there, the Superintendent of Public Instruction has presented that matter to my mind in such a way that I propose to amend this bill by giving up the Law School at Bloomington and bringing it to Indianapolis. A great centre is the proper place for the Medical College and the Law School because the courts meet here and larger libraries of books may be found here. If this city is particularly hostile to having a Medical Schools, we can strike that out. Although there is a law school here, we propose to establish a law school that will be of lasting benefit to the State. We want such an institution. If you won't have a Medical College here, put up with a law school; we would be glad to adopt you and send our professor here. If you don't like either strike both out.
I undertake to say that all this clamor against this bill does not find a response in the hearts of the people of the city. The people--the business men of the city are not opposed to the benefits of this bill; and at the bottom of their hearts they are willing to see this University square sold, as proposed. The city has run up a bill against the property of some ten or twelve thousand dollars to pay them for money expended in trying to perfect their title to it. I introduced a bill last session providing for the Governor to take charge of it but it failed by one vote in the House.
The Superintendent of Public Instruction declared in a speech in the city of Terre Haute that one hundred thousand dollars would be required for the Normal School, and when this bill is read by sections I shall move to increase the appropriation in section fourteen from seventy-five to one hundred thousand dollars. Now all the connection the State University proposes to have with the Normal School is to just call it a branch of the University and permit the President of the Board of Trustees to be ex officio a member of the Board of Trustees of the Normal School. It don't propose to control the Normal School at all.
Gentlemen say the city of Terre Haute practiced deception upon the Legislature; and they speak of the State University as though it belonged to Bloomington. While I represent Monroe county more particularly, I am representing the whole State in speaking in regard to the University. And suppose there had been some mistake about the Normal School, that aint the point. The question is; Does the State need a Normal School? There are perhaps ten thousand teachers in the State, and the demand is not supplied. Is not the State pledged to provide the facilities of a Normal School for the benefit of these teachers? You have got money--the Treasury is overflowing. The school money is intended to be applied in that way; and we have got to have three or four more.
Mr. CARSON (interposing.) How does the delinquent list stand?
Mr. HUGHES. That shows that we have some hard debts and a tight money market; that is all. Here is a building at Terre Haute pronounced to be the best of the kind on the continent. Fifty thousand dollars of that was given by the people of Terre Haute. One of reasons why I made an omnibus bill of this one is that if these institutions are to fail let them fail together, and if they are to stand let them stand together.
Let us be ignorant and ragged, but let us have dollars in our pockets if we can't boast that we are among the most intelligent people. If the word "Hoosier" is to be a kind of reproach, we can say we have got plenty of money. I have seen a good many purse proud ignorant men, and how much respect have they of their neighbors? Let us stop the Reformatory Home and the House of Correction for Juvenile offenders and collect up the delinquent list and put it in the hands of some skillful agents to steal it out of the Treasury; for that is what will become of it if it is not properly applied.
Locate the Agricultural College at the Tip- page: 396[View Page 396] pecanoe Battle Ground and call it a child of the University--simply call it that in pursuance of the Legislative injunction of 1852. But it is feared that this grammar school will steal the Battle Ground--that the University of Indiana will plough up the bones of Tecumseh's men and Joe. Davis, and plant pumpkins among them. Now it so happens that the State has got the Battle Ground, and has got it fenced in and it is no part of the donation of Tippecanoe County; and the bones of these men will still sleep in peace and no pumpkins or potatoes will disturb their rest. I do not think the Indians and whites buried there would be frightened out of their graves, or that their disembodied spirits so long ago ferried across the river Styx, would be found moping about because the Agricultural College boys would be planting pumpkins and potatoes within a mile of the Tippecanoe Battle Ground. [Laughter.]
The difficulty is that the Agricultural College cannot be located at but one place: competition has kept it from being located for four or five years. I put in the Tippecanoe Battle Ground because I think it is as good as any other, and the Senator from Tippecanoe county has said he will make it as good as any other offer. I feel myself entirely committed to the bill as it is, and shall vote in good faith for the bill as it stands.
But I apoligize to the Committee for detaining it so long. The objection made that all these things are in the west or the south will defeat anything. It was what ruined us in regard to our old internal improvements. If the State had done one thing at a time it could have supported a good system of internal improvements. The State is not so large but that we can recognize every part of it. It is the wrong policy to say, this is all on this side or that side. Let us all act together--north, south, east and west, do these things one at a time and distribute them as well as we can all over the State.
In regard to University square, we don't want to buy a law suit. If the Legitlature will sell that square as they ought to and put it in the University fund we could get along. The square will not sell for two hundred and fifty thousand dollars--
Mr. KINLEY (interposing.) Since I made that statement a citizen has told told me that he thinks it overestimated about one half.
Mr. HUGHES. I am sure the Senator's right. I made a careful estimate at one hundred and fifty dollars a foot, and at that rate it would sell for about one hudred and twenty-seven thousand dollars. Let us take a vote on this University square question. I want to see the Senator from Switzerland vote to take that square from Indianapolis; and would like to see the Senator from Madison and the Senator from Wayne vote the same way. The State University will thankfully receive anything the State will give to promote the great cause of Education.
This is in the hands of the Senate. I hope they will not kill it, but that it will be amended section by section. I hope they won't turn the State University out in the cold. Give us our own property here and we can get along for some years to come.
On motion by Mr. GRAY, the Committee rose, reported progress, and asked leave to sit again.
The report was concurred in.
Mr. FISHER offered a resolution directing the President of the Senate to issue a certification for pay of Mr. Houghton--per diem from the commencement of the session to include this day, and regular mileage.
It was adopted.
Mr. FISHER made a motion that when the Senate adjourn, it adjourn till ten o'clock tomorrow morning.
The motion was agreed to.
On motion by Mr. WOLCOTT, the bill, [S. 197]--omnibus university bill--was made the special order for two o'clock to-morrow afternoon.
Mr. GRAY made an effectual motion for its postponement till Friday at three o'clock p. m.
And then--
The Senate adjourned till ten o'clock a. m. to-morrow.
