AFTERNOON SESSION.
The SPEAKER resumed the Chair at two o'clock p. m.
Mr. BUSKIRK toot the floor in reply to Mr. Coffroth--referring to the disadvantage of speaking off hand, he still felt that a sufficient reply might be made on the merits of the case. Allusion to party politics and the force of the usages of party had been first made by the opposition here; and without waiving his right in that direction, he considered that the majority report would be amply sustained on the merits. The gentleman's speech was a lawyerly effort, and more befitting a plea before a jury, than an address on the floor of this House. Democrats were notorious for causes, and it were well if Republicans were under better party drill. He would come to the points in the case. The gentleman started out with the declaration that he would address the House as he would speak before a judge; but when it suited him he did not refrain from the arts depended on before a jury. The gentleman contended that the contest was not regularly before the Houseas to the question of seating the contestor. Mr. Buskirk alleged that the whole matter of the contest was fully and fairly before the House. Since there is no rule of law to govern in the case, was it unfair to go the analogy of law in the practice of the courts? The gentleman did not read all the statute of amendments, nor all in the decision in the 14th Indiana Reports. He did not read the statutory provision, that page: 277[View Page 277] one of the causes of contest was ineligibility. Mr. Buskirk showed that the amendment in the case did not change the nature of the contest. He read the statute on this point: "No delay shall be admitted unless for good cause shown." This statute applies to the entire civil practice, and why not to this? The statute says "any pleading." Were not the amendments here in the nature of pleadings? His (Mr. Coffroth's) pleading on this point were technical. But the claims of Mr. Beatty to a seat here were not placed on technical grounds. The gentleman's was a plea in abatement, and when a party has once plead on the mirits, he is estopped from pleadings in abatement.
The gentleman made a fatal admission when he said, this statute in relation to contests was merely directory, and that the House of Representatives was exclusively judge of the qualifications of its members. Was he not then estopped from the plea that the House has no right to seat Mr. Beatty? Beatty demands the vacant seat under the constitution and laws, and produces the grounds of his claim, and the House judges exclusively in the case. By admitting the right, the power of the House, the gentleman gave up his argument.
In reply to the allegation that we beg the question as to Beatty's election, and that Beatty was repudiated by the people of his district, Mr. Buskirk repeated that Beatty, so far from being repudiated, received every legal vote cast at the October election in his district. The question was now but one, whether Beatty is entitled to the seat. This depends on certain questions the gentleman discussed, and to this as well as to the other point, he read but so much of the decision of the 14th Indiana as suited his case. Mr. Buskirk alleged, that where there is ineligibility, the whole people are charged with notice of the fact, and it was their duty to take that notice. He was willing to rest here on the opinion of the Democratic judge Perkins, in the case of Gulick vs. New. He read at length from Judge Perkins' decision. Judge Perkins made three propositions. The first, that when the people are not bound to know, there is a vacany. Mr. Buskirk admitted that, under this division, the gentleman was right. But under the next division, that when the voters are bound to know the fact of ineligibility, the opposing candidate is elected. Under this, the majority report was sustained. He read further from the decision. Judge Perkins decided that the people of the State of Indiana were bound to take notice of Wallace's ineligibility as a Judge; i.e., as a Justice of the Peace, for as mayor he was Justice of the Peace ex officio. Mr. Peelle was elected a Justice of the Peace. He never saw a reported law case that fit this case before the House so precisely. He had not been misled by reading the syllabus, as alleged by the gentleman.
He then referred to the third proposition in he decision; that when a candidate holds a public office which works his ineligibility, the people are bound to know of it. The contestant shall give notice in ten days, and the gentleman's emphasizing "shall," amounted to nothing; for the same words is in the statute presenting notice in civil actions. Mr. Buskirk made a diversion to denounce the Democratic party as having afforded aid and comfort to the late rebellion, which brought--
Mr. LAWLER to his feet, to declare himself the only man on this floor that took a musket for the suppression of the late rebellion; and--
Mr. COFFROTH to make the point of order, that Mr. Buskirk was not speaking to the question.
The SPEAKER sustained the point of order.
Mr. McFADIN next took the floor, and alledged that partizan denunciations came not from Democrats on this floor; and, to the statement that Democrats supported secession, for every Democrat of that class that the gentleman would produce, he would produce twenty guilty abolitionists. He also brought several members to the floor, to the point of order before made; and the point being sustained as before, Mr. McFadin, proceeded to discnss the question before the House--denouncing the Supreme Court for ignoring the thirteenth article of the State Constitution, against a majority of eighty thousand voters, as weakening the authority of that tribunal; and strongly repudiating the proposition to seat a man here as a Representative, whom the people have repudiated. He further declared his Democracy, and his military services in full accord with the unflinching loyalty of life; and denounced those who would impugn his reputation or that of his party in this respect.
Mr. OSBORN demanded the previous question, and the main question was ordered.
The SPEAKER stated the first question to be: Shall the report of the minority of the Committee on Elections be concurred in? It is printed on pages 231 and 232 of these Reports, and declares for a vacancy, and a new election.
The yeas and nays having been demanded and ordered thereon, the vote resulted--yeas 43, nays 51--as follows:
YEAS--Messrs. Addison, Admire, Barritt, Bates, Bobo, * Britton, Calvert, Carnahan, Cave, Coffroth, Cory, Cotton, Cox, Cunningham, Dittemore, Fuller, Hutchings, Hyatt, Johnston of Montgomery, Lawler, Logan, Long, McBride, McDonald, McFadin, McGregor, Miles, Mitchell, Mock Montgomery, Neff, Odell, Palmer, Shoaff, Shoemaker, Sleeth, Sunman, Tebbs, Welborn, Wile, Williams of Knox, Zenor and Zollars--43.
page: 278[View Page 278]NAYS--Messrs. Baker, Barnett, Beeler, Bowen,* Breckinridge, Buskirk, Chapman, Chittenden, Davidson, Davis, Fairchild, Field of Lake, Field of Lagrange, Furnas, Gilham, Gordon, Green, Hall, Higbee, Higgins, Hutson, Johnson of St. Joseph, Jump, Kercheval, Lamborn, Mason, Millikan, Miller, Monroe, Osborn, Overmyer, Pierce of Porter, Pierce of Vigo, Ratliff, Ruddell, Sabin, Skidmore, Smith, Stephenson, Stewart of Ohio, Stewart of Rush, Tabor, Underwood, Vardeman, Vater, Wildman, Williams of Hamilton, Williams of St. Joseph, Williams of Union, Wilson and Mr. Speaker--51.
So the report of the minority of the Committee on Elections was rejected.
The SPEAKER then stated the next question, viz: Shall the report of the majority of the Committee on Elections be concurred in? It is printed on page 231.
Mr. COFFROTH demanded a division of the question--the first question being: Is Samuel Beatty entitled to the seat of joint representative from the counties of Laporte and Starke? And thereupon, Mr. Coffroth made the point that this question is already decided, because the House, by rejecting the minoirty report, declared negatively, that the seat is not vacated.
Mr. VATER and others, on the point of order, contended that the whole of the minority report was rejected, as an amendment to the majority report.
The SPEAKER decided that the question before the House is on the adoption of the first division of the majority report.
Mr. PIERCE of Porter, contended that the former vote of the House does not make the difficulty, assumed as to a division of the question, on the majority report.
The SPEAKER decided that, on the division of the question, the first question was on the first proposition in the resolution reported by the majority of the committee, which seats Mr. Beatty, and declares the ineligibility of Mr. Peelle, and the yeas and nays thereon resulted--yeas 52, nays 43--as follows:
YEAS--Messrs. Baker, Barnett, Beeler, Bowen, Breckinridge, Buskirk, Chapman, Chittenden, Davidson, Davis, Fairchild, Field of Lake, Field of Lagrange, Furnas, Gilham, Gordon, Green, Hall, Hamilton, Higbee, Higgins, Hutson, Johnson of St. Joseph, Jump, Kercheval, Lamborn, Mason, Millekan, Miller, Monroe, Osborn, Overmyer, Pierce of Porter, Pierce of Vigo, Ratliff, Ruddell, Sabin, Skidmore, Smith, Stephenson, Stewart of Ohio, Stewart of Rush, Tabor, Underwood, Vardeman, Vater, Wildman, Williams of Hamilton, Williams of St. Joseph, Wiliams of Union, Wilson and Mr. Speaker--52.
NAYS--Messrs. Addison, Admire, Barritt, Bates, Bobo, Britton, Calvert, Carnahan, Cave, Coffroth, Cory, Cotton, Cox, Cunningham, Dittemore, Fuller, Hutchings, Hyatt, Johnson of Montgomery, Lawler, Logan, Long, McBride, McDonald, McFadin, McGregor, Miles, Mitchell, Mock, Montgomery, Neff, Odell, Palmer, Shoaff, Shoemaker, Sleeth, Sunman, Tebbs, Welborn, Wile, Williams of Knox, Zenor and Zollars--43.
Pending the roll call--
Mr. MITCHELL, explaining his vote, said: he felt called upon to decide this question under the facts and the law. It is proposed by those who favor the majority report of the Committee, to elect Mr. Beatty to a seat on this floor on the grouod that the votes cast for Mr. Peelle in the county of Starke were illegal. Thefriends of that report think that to be the law. I do not believe it is the law; but if it is the law, it is, in my opinion, to the spirit of our institutions. I vote against the proposition.
Mr. VATER, explaining, under the solemnities of the oath of his position on this floor. He understood that a vote that is not legal, is not a vote. The law and the decisions of the courts set forth the doctrine distinctly, that the people must know that their representatives are not eligible.
So the first division of the majority report was adopted.
Mr. COFFROTH felicitating the House in the happy condition of having a hundred and one members, and especially the people of the counties of Laporte and Starke, as enjoying one representative more than their legal share, moved that the House now adjourn.
The SPEAKER decided the motion to be out of order, under the force of the oder for the vote on the branch of the question yet pending. He then stated the question to be on the adoption of these words in the resolution reported by the majority of the committee: "And that James S. Peelle has no right as a Representative in this House, he not being eligible to the office on the day of election; and that Samuel Beatty, the only man receiving the legal votes of his district, is entitled to the seat."
Mr. COFFROTH made the point of order that these questions have been decided.
The SPEAKER over-ruling, said the division of the question made the dilemma. The House, not the Chair was responsible.
The vote was then ordered and taken, resulting--yeas 65, nays 24--seven not voting--as follows:
YEAS--Messrs. Baker, Barnett, Beeler, Bowen, Breckinridge, Buskirk, Carnahan, Cave, Calvert, Chapman, Chittenden, Cotton, Davidson, Davis, Fairchild, Field of Lake, Field of Lagrange, Furnas, Gilham, Gordon, Green, Hull, Hamilton, Higbee, Higgins, Hutchins, Hutson, Hyatt, Johnson of St. Joseph, Jump, Kercheval, Lamborn, Long, Mason, Millikan, Miller, Mitchell, Monroe, Odell, Osborn, Overmyer, Pierce of Porter, Pierce of Vigo, Ratliff, Ruddell, Sabin, Shoaff, Skidmore, Sleeth, Smith, Stephenson, Stewart of Ohio, Stewart of Rush, Tabor, Tebbs, Underwood, Vardeman, Vater, Wildman, Williams of Hamilton, Williams of St. Joseph, Williams of Union, Wilson, Zollars and Mr. Speaker--65.
NAYS--Messrs. Addison, Admire, Barrett, Bates, Bobo, Cory, Cox, Dittemore, Johnston of Montgomery, Lawler, Logan, McBride, McDonald, McFadin, McGregor, Mock, Montgomery, Palmer, Shoemaker, Sunman, Wile, Williams of Knox and Zenor--23.
Pending the roll call--
* The clerk's journal records Mr. Bobo on both sides and omits Mr. Bowen's vote
page: 279[View Page 279]Mr. CAVE, explaining his vote, said he believed Mr. Peelle constitutionally ineligible, and therefore voted "Aye" without wishing to be understood as favoring the seating of Mr. Beatty in his place, who he believed had no right whatever to the seat.
Mr. CARNAHAN,in explaining his vote,said, I vote "Aye" for unseating Mr. Peelle, but I believe it would be violating the principles of a repulican form of government for this House to give the seat to Mr. Beatty, when he had been repudiated by a majority of the legal voters of his representative district.
Mr. COFFROTH, when his name was called, said: the first part of the proposition he would like to vote aye; but, as to the last part there was not a word of truth in it, therefore he declined to vote.
Mr. MONROE demanded that the gentleman vote--
And after some talking across the House, several motions to excuse the gentleman, and propositions to withdraw the demand, and order for the yeas and nays, the reading from Cushing's Manual, that a refusal to vote is a high breach of decorum, subjecting the member to censure, etc., and after a demand from--
Mr. OSBORNE that the proper record be made, and after an appeal by--
Mr. ZOLLARS for a withdrawal of the yeas and nays and better feeling, and a disclaimer by--
Mr. COFFROTH that he suffered any embarrassment, and a declaration that he was as calm and cool as a "Sunday morning," and after specific explanations of their votes by several members, the vote proceeded in order.
Mr. HUTCHINGS in explaining his vote, said: I vote "aye" in regard to the ineligibility of Mr. Peelle to his seat, but do not believe Mr. Beatty is entitled to it.
Mr. McDONALD, explaining his vote, said: He conscientiously believed Mr. Peelle constitutionally ineligible; but also believing Mr. Beatty had no right whatever to the seat, of "two evils he took the least" and voted "no."
Mr. MITCHELL, in explanation of his vote, said: Mr. Peelle was ineligible, but I do not believe the citizens of Starke county were bound to know that Mr. Peelle was ineligible. I believe, therefore, that the votes cast for Mr. Peelle, so far as the citizens of Starke county were concerned, were legal votes; but I know from the law, and the facts in the case, as a member of the House, that Mr. Peelle was ineligible, and I believe that Mr. Beaky was the only person voted for who was eligible to the contested seat. I therefore vote in favor of that part of the resolution, by no means acknowledging the election of Mr. Beatty by a majority of all the legal votes cast in the counties of Starke and Laporte.
Mr. TEBBS, in explaining his vote said: I believe Mr. Peelle is constitutionally ineligible to a seat in this House and therefore vote "aye." But in reference to Mr. Beatty's being entitled to the seat, I vote "no."
The SPEAKER announced the result of the record to-wit: yeas 64, nays 24, as above; and thereupon the Speaker read again from Cushing's Manual to show that the member making a demand for a division of the question ought to state the parts of the question into which he desired the proposition to be divided.
Messrs. Jump, Skidmore, Neff, Field of Lake, and Long obtained leave of absence till next week.
On motion of Mr. OSBORN, Mr. Samuel Beatty, the declared Joint Representative from the counties of Laporte and Starke, was now brought forward and received the oath of his office at the hands of the Speaker.
Mr. COFFROTH asked leave of absence for the member from Laporte and Starke, [Mr. Peelle] for the balance of the session. [Laughter.]
The House then adjourned till nine o'clock to-morrow.
