THE BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
TENTH VOLUME.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
IN SENATE.
WEDNESDAY, February 10, 1869.The Senate met at ten o'clock, a. m., pursuant to adjournment--the Lieutenant Governor in the Chair.
The Secretary's journal of yesterday's proceedings was being read, when--
On motion of Mr. GIFFORD, the further reading of it was dispensed with.
Mr. BELLAMY presented a petition on the subject of gravel roads, remonstrating against the repeal of said law.
It was referred to the Committee on Corporations.
Mr. GRAY presented a petition concerning turnpike laws, praying ah amendment.
It was referred to the Committee on Corporations.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Mr. GREEN, from the Committee on Organization of Courts, returned the bill [S 50] recommending passage.
Mr. WOOD, from the Committee on Education, returned the bill [S. 168] concerning increase of turnpike company capital stock, recommending its reference to the Committee on Corporations.
Mr. FISHER, from the Printing Committee, reported a bill [S. 216] making appropriation for publishing the reports of the State Board of Agriculture for 1869 and 1870.
Mr. TURNER, from the Committee on Education, returned the unfinished school house bond bill [S. 122] recommending its passage.
Also the bill S. 207 recommending that it lie on the table.
Mr. KINLEY, from the Committee on Education, returned the bill [S. 169] concerning city school trustees, recommending that it lie on the table.
Mr. SCOTT from the Judiciary Committee returned the bill [S. 53] concerning formation of societies for the erection of buildings with amendments.
Also by Mr. HADLEY [S. 159] to codify the laws with amendments, and by Mr. SCOTT the voluntary association bill [S. 64] with amendments.
Mr. SCOTT, from the Committee on Organization of Courts, the ninth and twelfth Judicial Circuit bill [S. 147] with amendments.
Also the first Judicial Circuit bill [S. 179] with an adverse report thereon.
Mr. HANNA, from the Judiciary Committee returned the bill [S. 148] legalizing acts of ex-Notaries recommending an amendment.
Mr. STEIN, from the same Committee, returned the bill [S. 164] authorizing the amendment of bills of exceptions recommending the adoption of an amendment thereto.
Also, from the Committee on Organization of Courts, reported favorably on bill [S. 201] to amend an act amendatory of section five of the Circuit Court act of June 1, 1852, providing for Criminal Courts, approved December 20, 1865, and March 8, 1867.
Mr. HOWK, returned the Master Commissioners bill [S. 136] recommending that it lie on the table.
Also the bill [S. 103] to amend section seven of the Divorce law, with an adverse report from the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. HADLEY, from the select committee thereon, reported concerning the location of the Agricuttural College in Hancock county, and submitted propositions from the Board of County Commissioners of one hundred and page: 315[View Page 315] twenty-five thousand dollars for the location of the Agricultural College near Greenfield.
It was referred to the Committee having this subject in charge.
Mr. ARMSTRONG, from the joint special committee thereon, reported in favor of the passage of the bill [S. 182] concerning a reformatory school for women.
BILLS FOR ACTS
Were introduced, read the first time and referred to appropriate committees, except when otherwise stated:
By Mr. KlNLEY, (S. 217) regulating the fees of county officers.
By Mr. GREEN, (S. 218) for the better regulation of traffic on railroads, and to facilitate traffic thereon.
By Mr. REYNOLDS, (S. 219) to amend section three of the act regulating weights and measures.
By Mr. FISHER (S. 220) authorizing parties losing money or valuable property in gaming or better to sue for and regain such property at any time within six years afterward. Upon failure to bring suit within one year, the wife, widow, executor or administrator may do so.
By Mr. LASSELLE, (S. 221) to revise sections six, fifteen and twenty-nine, and to repeal section thirty of the election law of 1852, and the repeal the Registry law.
By Mr. LEE, (S. 222) to legalize certain defective and irregular tax assessments for municipal purposes.
Mr. CRAVENS stated that he understood the object of the bill was to heal some informalities merely, and moved a suspension of the rules in order that the bill might be read the third time now.
The constitutional restriction was dispensed with, and the bill was finally passed the Senate by yeas 40, nays 0.
A message from the Governor informed the Senate that the bill S. 144, was not properly enrolled.
Mr. HOUGHTON moved that the bill be recalled and re-enrolled.
It was agreed to.
By Mr. HOUGHTON, (S. 223) appropriating fifteen thousand dollars for completing the new State building.
It was passed to the second reading.
By Mr. HADLEY, (S. 224) legalizing the use of a seal purporting to be the official seal of the Adjutant General's office.
Mr. HOOPER, from the Committee on Corporations, returned the bill (S. 124) amending section one of the city incorporation law of 1867, with an adverse report thereon.
Mr. GREEN, from the same Committee, returned the city railroad and water power bill, [S. 121] recommending an amendment thereto.
Mr. RICE from the same Committee, returned the bill, (S. 171) to amend the road law of May 11, 1852, with an adverse report.
By Mr. KINLEY, (S. 225) changing the name of the Indiana State Board of Agriculture to the Indiana State Industrial Board.
Also (S. 226) to amend the fish law.
It was passed to the second reading.
RESOLUTIONS.
Mr. LASSELLE offered a concurrent resotion, which was adopted, returning thanks to the citizens of Terre Haute for hospitality during the late visit of the Legislature to that city.
Mr. CHURCH offered a resolution, which was adopted, that when the Senate adjourn it adjourn till three o'clock this afternoon.
Mr. ROBINSON of Decatur, offered a concurrent resolution looking to the perfection of a bill on the subject of gravel roads by the appointment of a joint committee thereon.
Mr. ROBINSON spoke in favor of his resolution. The subject is attracting much attention, and should receive careful consideration. He referred to the importance of this legislation, and the demand by the people for some action. The Committee on Corporations is composed chiefly of lawyers, who do not well understand the wants of the farmers, and he thought the proposed committee should recognize that element.
Mr. RICE said, a large number of bills, as was known, had been referred to the Committee on Corporations, and it had been the intention to have a meeting soon to consider them alone. The committee is not disposed to slight the matter, and fully feel the importance of the subject. They would have no objection to getting rid of the work, but he was satisfied a better bill would result from leaving it where it now is.
Mr. GREEN thought the meeting of the Committee might be held to-night.
Mr. CARSON said the Committee were all agreed as to the importance of the subject, but it was desired to have all the bills before them before they took any action.
Several members of the Committee on Corporations objected to the resolution, that committee having already given a great deal of time and thought to that subject.
The resolution was rejected.
Mr. HOOPER, from the Committee on Corporations, returned the bill (S. 199) to amend sections one and three of the act for the incorporation of cities, approved March 14, 1867, with a recommendation that it pass.
Mr. RICE, from the same Committee, returned the bill (S. 205) to amend section seventy-nine of the act last mentioned with an amendment.
page: 316[View Page 316]CONSOLIDATION OF RAILROADS.
Mr. HANNA moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill, (S. 94) touching the consolidation of railroads, and declaring the effects of such consolidation, was passed by the Senate, and gave reasons therefor. He desired the Senate to have the facts more fully before it, and have a chance to examine the matter before the bill shall be passed by the House. His object was to direct the attention of the Senate to the amendment of the bill concerning the leasing of roads.
Mr. HUGHES said that if the principle of the bill was right, and he believed it was, that of the amendment was also right, as a railroad could easily, by leasing for a term of years effect the same object, as by buying it. He moved to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.
Mr. HANNA, by consent, explained that his particular object was to examine the bearing which the bill might have upon that provision of the Special Charter of the Terre Haute and Richmond Railway, which provided for the payment of a surplus of earnings over fifteen per cent. into the Common School fund. He withdrew his motion to reconsider.
Mr. HUGHES desiring to tie down the action of the Senate just where it is, renewed the motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed, with a view to laying this motion on the table. In his remarks concerning the Terre Haute railroad company, he declared that the company has received nearly one million of dollars, which under the charter should go to the common school fund, and of which sum it has never paid over one cent; and it is in behalf of such a Company that this motion to reconsider was made. One of the wealthiest corporations in the State has been permitted to use hundreds and thousands of dollars belonging to the common school fund and has not yet paid over one cent. This company has robbed the school fund of nearly a million of dollars, while this corporate association is rolling in wealth. He was not sitting idly by while members of the House and Senate were investigating this matter. He was a member of the special committee on Railroads last session, and perhaps that will account for some light he has on these questions. The State has never yet derived any benefit from that section of the Special Charter, and although it is affirmed that the company has made a million dollars and is holding on to it, which really belongs to the State, it seems impossible to get at the facts.
Mr. SCOTT stated that a committee of the House was engaged in the investigation, and would be ready to report soon. They had found no difficulty in getting at the truth of the matter.
Mr. HUGHES believed the passage of the bill would bring about a settlement, and even if it should result in the State losing the percentage in the future, there might be something gained. It is clear that that company has acted in bad faith in not paying over the money belonging to the school fund. He moved to reconsider the vote and lay the motion on the table.
Mr. HANNA hoped the motion to lay on the table would be voted down, in order that the matter might be properly investigated.
The yeas and nays were demended and they were being taken when
Pending roll call
Mr. CAVEN said he was unable to vote understandingly upon the motion, as the question was sprung suddenly and he could not fully satisfy himself without investigation to the result of the law, if it should become one.
Mr. HUGHES withdrew his motion to lay on the table, in order that the matter might be discussed, and then--
The call of the roll was suspended--
Mr. HADLEY moved to postpone it and make it the special order for Friday next at two and a half o'clock.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR believed the motion out of order, under the pending question. He was not quite clear upon the point, but should so rule, leaving it to the sense of the Senate if any one desired to appeal.
Mr. RICE voted for this bill with the understanding that it was intended to stop this consolidation of railroad companies; or in case of consolidation, they should surrender their charters, and be brought under the operations of the general railroad laws. Now these provisions are just and right. The people are crying out against these monopolies. Some of them acting under special charters, and we had better stop this consolidation at once, and stand between the people and these monopolies. The people can never be convinced but that this Terre Haute railroad company has nearly one million of dollars which belongs to the State, and yet committee after committee has been appointed to ferret it out without success. Every Legislature had appointed a committee of investigation, but had never learned anything from them. The bill does not propose to take the special charter from them, and it could not do so, but it could legislate so as to prevent its consolidation with other roads.
Mr. SCOTT had been informed, and believed, that a report was prepared at the last session of the Senate, and that it was not the fault of the railroad company that it was not presented to the Senate. And that report can be had now in an hour's time, or, at least, a correct copy of it. If gentlemen really believe page: 317[View Page 317] that the Terre Haute railroad company has a million of dollars belonging to the State, it is singular that they will not have the facts investigated and determined. The statement afloat that their surplus earnings belonging to the school fund amounting to a million dollars was certainly without foundation, but he believed the time would soon come when money would be coming and would be paid over, unless the Legislature should compel them to forfeit their charter.
Mr. RICE asked where there was any such proposition in the bill as would affect them.
Mr. SCOTT stated that the section in regard to leasing would do so. Leases had been made under laws passed by the State, and the proposition now is to take from that road its charter--to take the charter from every railroad that leases itself--because they have acted in compliance with the law.
Mr. HUGHES asked what road it had been leased to.
Mr. SCOTT replied that contracts of lease were pending with other roads.
Mr. HUGHES said that if the road was not now consolidated or leased, and the law should be passed that they were not obliged to come under its provisions, unless they chose to.
Mr. SCOTT said that it would prevent them making leases. He did not speak specially for that road; he was not their attorney, was not a stockholder and never had been, and never had a pass over it until after he came here, but it is enough for him to know that this road is unjustly affected by the bill, that alone is enough to justify his opposition to it.
Mr. CHURCH inquired whether the bill was intended to operate in the interests of the people or of the railroads.
Mr. SCOTT replied that the Senator who introduced the bill [Mr. Cravens] could probably best answer the question.
Mr. CRAVENS believed that primarily it would operate to the benefit of the people at large, but also for the real interest of the companies, by bringing them under the provisions of a liberal general law. He enumerated the companies in the State operating under special charters, viz: The New Albany and Salem, the Terre Haute, the Evansville and Crawfordsville, the Madison, the Jeffersonville, the Indianapolis and Cincinnati, the Lafayette and Indianapolis, the Bellefontaine, and the Peru.
Mr. SCOTT inquired if it operates in forfeiting charters from the time of the lease of consolidation whether the State could insist upon benefits?
Mr. HUGHES thought it could, especially those benefits which had already accrued. The forfeiture of the franchises granted by the State does not release it from its obligations to the State.
Mr. SCOTT insisted if the provisions of the bill were carried out, it would be a forfeiture of all special charters whenever they lease or consolidate their interests with other roads. If the charter is forfeited, of course the State loses the money which the charter requires the company to pay to the school fund from time to time. He thought if it was to do so much for the school fund, and the time when it should do so could not be far distant, why should steps be taken to throw this away. He was anxious to see which horn of this dilemma would be taken. When he saw two such able lawyers as the Senators from Monroe and Sullivan [Hughes and Hanna] differing upon the question as to whether or not this bill would not relieve the Terre Haute Railroad from the sums of money--nearly one million dollars--which is said to be due the State from the company, he thought the matter might be safely investigated. He knew the company would not shrink from any investigation that might be made, but thus far, committees had been unable to figure out a balance due the State.
Mr. HUGHES reviewed the provisions of the bill, spoke of the amendment thereto, its passage and transmital to the House. Mr. Hanna, by his motion had first brought in the Terre Haute Railroad. He thought thas if this bill became a law, it would prevent the Company from entering into any lease or contract of consolidation, unless they are convinced they could gain something by doing so. If they did so, he would venture they would take care of themselves, as they had been able to in the past, whatever action should be taken by this body. He argued against the motion to reconsider, and in favor of laying that motion on the table. Having made both motions himself, he had withdrawn the latter only to admit of discussion. Before he concluded his remarks he gave way for a recess for dinner.
And then--
The Senate took a recess till three o'clock p. m.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The Senate met at three o'clock.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR announced the same matter before the Senate that was pending upon adjournment.
Mr. CRAVENS asked if the special order did not intervene.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR decided that the special order being at half-past two, and the adjournment being to three, it did not.
Mr. HUGHES continuing, said that his page: 318[View Page 318] remarks just before adjournment, were based upon the assumption that the special charter of the Terre Haute road required the payment of all over fifteen per cent. above the profits--after an amount of profits had been realized--over to the school fund, and the amount is too great to be allowed longer to remain in the hands of the corporation if it is justly due to the State. He still believed this to be the spirit of the act, but feared the letter was different. He understood that the House Committee upon the subject would report the facts to-morrow. He read section twenty-two of the Charter, and thought there was some ambiguity about it. It is a grave question whether it is not necessary that the Legislature should take some action on the matter before they would be liable, and whether, under that view, all profits up to this time may not have been lost. That they had made immense profits there can be no doubt, the capital stock having been virtually eight hundred thousand dollars, the present capital being two million dollars, and upon this they are said to be paying thirty per cent. profit; all of which came from the earnings of the road. Since hunting up the charter, his faith had been very much shaken, and he thought it better to have the bill recalled and have this contingency provided for.
Mr. HANNA, when he made the motion to reconsider, had no idea of creating so much interest in the matter. He made the motion in good faith, knowing there were provisions in the Terre Haute and Richmond railroad charter which made it obligatory for that road to report some moneys to the State Treasury, if rumors were true concerning its earnings. He desired information on the subject, and believed previous legislation was yet necessary before the State is entitled to moneys from the Terre Haute road. He referred to the assumption of Mr. Hughes at the morning session that the motion had been made in the interest of the Terre Haute road. He denied that it had been so, and believed that special action must be taken before the profits could be demanded. He offered a resolution recalling from the House of Representatives the bill. He desired it returned here that the question may be investigated more fully.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR decided the resolution could not be considered--another motion was pending, except by unanimous consent.
Mr. CRAVENS objecting--
Mr. HUGHES withdrew his motion to reconsider.
Mr. HANNA then offered his resolution when--
Mr. CRAVENS said: Mr. President: I have not been the least astonished at the course taken to-day. Two years ago this bill was introduced by me. When the bill was first read, Senators were in favor of it, but before the bill came to a final vote its fate was sealed. It looks a little like grave and dignified Senators had been playing the child in this matter. The bill came up, was read and reffered to a special committee: That Committee reported in favor of the passage of the bill. It was made a special order for a certain day. On that day I invited discussion upon it and I opened the door for discussion by laying out a pretty extensive ground work. It was to a small extent discussed. It was then made a special order for another day, and when that day came Senators held back and were not disposed to discuss it; but Senators expressed themselves clearly in favor of the general object of the bill. The bill passed, by a decided majority, and now a new matter is sprung--a matter that may be and may not be incident to the bill at all
As far as the charter is concerned I have not read it, nor was I present when Senators were discussing the provisions of that charter, but I do know that if the State acquired any rights under that charter prior to the passage of this act, these rights still remain and they cannot be destroyed by legislation otherwise.
Mr. CHURCH (interposing.) Suppose the road shall claim that they have no surplus earnings, if the bill passes, will it not cut the State off from all future rights under the charter?
Mr. CRAVENS. If those rights result wholly and alone from the special charter, and if that special charter is interferred with by this bill, the accruing benefits from that specific charter will be cut off. But I wish to say this in addition. It has been asserted upon the floor of the Senate by those authorized to make the declaration that the Terre Haute railroad never has either consolidated with any other road or never leased or been leased. And as the Senator from Sullivan truly said, there has been no law in the State authorizing railroads to be leased or to lease other railroads; but there is a bill pending on your table for that purpose. It has been said that this road has not yet consolidated or been leased. If it has not this bill will not affect it.
Mr. SCOTT (interposing.) The gentleman is mistaken if he refers to me, as I have no authority to speak on the subject, nor did I state that she has or has not. I have no information on the subject.
Mr. CRAVENS. On that point I stand corrected, and I don't care one cent about it. The only provision of this bill is simply this: Any railroad that has heretofore consolidated, having special charters, by that act of consolidation has forfeited or surrendered those charters. And why? The bill is in response page: 319[View Page 319] to the voice and sentiment of the people, in compliance with law, and is simply an echo of the highest Judicial tribunal in Indiana. In 1852, the Legislature passed a general railroad law, and I think in the twentieth section there is a provision that all railroads in the State, however operated or organized, may avail themselves of the provisions of this law. Now what is the general railroad law? It is composed of that act of 1852, and of all acts having reference to the organization and management of railroads. Among these acts is an act authorizing the consolidation of railroads. Those railroads having special charters, if they come in and avail themselves of the act of consolidation they lay themselves liable to the provisions of the 26th section of the act of 1852 which provides that they shall surrender their special charters. If they have not they maintain their special charter. I do not even stop there. In the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of McMahon vs. Marson in the XXth Indiana, it is declared clearly that where two or more railroad companies consolidate and make a common stock out of the several stocks, they surrender their special existence and come directly under the operation of the general law of the State.
Mr. HUGHES (interposing.) That is a very important fact in this case. The Senator says truly that the Supreme Court has declared that the very principle of the bill is the law now. As a friend of the bill I voted for it, and after having amended and thrown a guard around it, I will vote for it again, as it re-enacts the decision of the Supreme Court.
Mr. CRAVENS. I suppose the Senator has heard of declaratory statutes. They are passed by every Legislature, every Congress and every parliament. The simple fact that the Supreme Court may have decided that such was the law does not prevent or remove the necessity for a declaratory statute upon that subject. It was for the purpose of giving the voice of the Legislature of Indiana in behalf of that adjudication that I introduced this bill. It is not restorative. It is simply declaring what the Supreme Judges said;giving utterance to their decision at that time and nothing else. What do Senators propose by bringing this bill back?
There is no evidence of the particular road which has been draped into this discussion being leased. If this bill is to effect that road, it has not yet passed; for it has to run the gauntlet of the other House. If the school fund is to be jeopardized, I will go as far as any Senator to stop the progress of the bill, but until I can be convinced it is to affect the school fund I shall insist upon the defeat of the present mode of reaching it. I have but little respect for these special charters. I stand upon the ground the hero of New Orleans did when he made war upon that ring of corporations called the Bank of the United States. And why did he do it? He did it simply because he saw it tended towards that which in time might be made dangerous to American liberty. And the Supreme Court sustained the Constitutionality of that act. But there was a power higher than the courts, and that power said to that institution: Thus far and no farther can you go: and that institution years ago ceased to exist. These special charters, as General Jackson said, are utterly inconsistent with the great principle that runs through all our government--national and State--the greatest good to the greatest number. I stand precisely where he stood upon this question.
Mr. CHURCH was inclined, if the State has any advantages over this corporation (the Terre Haute and Richmond railroad) to retain them. As he understood it, the company have enjoyed the benefits on its side, and is just getting into a shape to earn money for the State. If this be the case he favored the adoption of the resolution.
Mr. GRAY voted for the bill because it embodied a principle he favored, viz: that the Legislature has no constitutional authority to legislate away a charter or a vested right granted to any corporation. The section of the charter of the Terre Haute and Richmond railroad referred to is rather difficult of interpretation. And if it be true that legislation is necessary, before the Terre Haute railroad can be compelled to pay over moneys into the school fund, the resolution should be adopted.
Mr. FISHER thought Senators do not look beyond the Terre Haute and Richmond railroad--they seem not to look at the greater interests of the bill--its general purport. He did not think this bill was intended to effect that road, or any other railroad in particular. It is well known that many consolidations are now talked of and being made, which tends to take the control of the railroad lines in this State outside of the State and place them under the control of Eastern capitalists and managers, much to the damage of the State. The time is soon coming when the State must control these roads or they will control the State. The passage of the bill would leave the State master of the situation in any event, and he hoped the resolution would fail.
The resolution was rejected--yeas 22, nays 25--as follows:
YEAS.--Messrs. Beardsley, Bird, Bradley, Carson, Case, Church, Fosdick, Gray, Hadley, Hanna, Howk, Hooper, Hughes, Humphreys, Jaquess, Johnson of Spencer, Lasselle, Morgan, Reynolds, Scott, Sherrod and Turner--22.
NAYS.--Messrs. Andrews, Armstrong, Bellamy, Caven, Colley, Cravens, Denbo, Fisher, Gifford, Green, Hamilton, Henderson, Hess, Houghton, Huey, Huffman, Johnston of Montgomery, Kinley, Lee, Rice, Robinson of Decatur, Smith, Stein, Wolcott and Wood--25.
page: 320[View Page 320]Mr. HUGHES thought there was great danger in the bill, and desired to make a record that would tend to correct the error he had committed. He moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed.
Mr. CRAVENS inquired whether this motion could be entertained.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR decided that it was in order.
The motion was rejected by yeas 21, nays 25--as follows:
YEAS--Messrs. Beardsley, Bird, Bradley, Carson, Case, Church, Fosdick, Gray, Hadley, Hanna. Hooper, Howk, Hughes, Humphreys, Jaquess, Laselle, Morgan, Reynolds, Scott, Sherrod and Turner--21.
NAYS--Messrs. Andrews, Armstrong, Bellamy. Caven, Colley, Cravens, Fisher, Gifford, Green, Hamilton, Henderson, Hess, Houghton, Huey, Huffman, Johnson of Spencer, Johnston of Montgomery, Kinley, Lee, Rice, Robinson of Decatur Smith, Stine, Wolcott and Wood--25.
So the motion was rejected.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR announced the special order, being the consideration in Committee of the Whole of parts of the Governor's message, and called the Senator from Tippecanoe [Mr. Stein] to the chair.
THE STATE DEBT.
The CHAIRMAN announced the subject of the State debt, as the first coming up in order of reference to the committee.
Mr. HUGHES desired the attention of the Senate to be called to the question of the purchase of the old internal improvement bonds. He supposed the Legislature should meet this question and the questions connected with the war claims, canal question, and other matters in the Governor's message squarely and fairly.
With regard to the payment of the bonds held by the Secretary of the Interior, this may be right and it may be wrong, but it was done without the previous knowledge of the Legislature. He did not propose to censure the Governor or the State officers for their action in this matter. Inasmuch as it is done, let it stand, for we cannot put the bonds back where they came from. Let us avoid any legislative recognition of it, but simply endorse it as individuals, though unquestionably, the Legislature should have been consulted before the matter was closed up. If the owners of the canal have got a just claim against the State it should be paid; and if unjust there is independence enough, he hoped among the representatives of the people to refuse to pay it. He was for letting the matter be just where it is, also. There are one hundred and twenty-six bonds held by individuals, and the bonds held by the General Government having already been paid, the Legislature should pay the remainder outstanding, or rebuke the action of the Governor and State officers in paying the bonds held by the General Government. Concerning the Wabash and Erie Canal debt, if the Legislature in 1857 declared that the Senate should not pay the debt, that stands as our declaration now, and he saw no need to repeal it. It probably reflects the sentiment of almost everybody in the State.
The Adjutant General's office cost about ten thousand dollars a year, of which half of that sum was to pay the Adjutant General's salary. In order to vote for a ratification of the Adjutant General's contract for the adjustment of war claims against the General Government, he would have to know further about the reasons for employing an agent in Washington, etc. He could not see why the Adjutant General should halt, after getting the bulk of the work done, and employ an agent or clerk in Washington to close the matter up at an expense far beyond the sums the Adjutant General himself received. There were some things about this matter that require investigation before he could vote to ratify it.
Mr. TURNER gave notice that he should introduce a resolution at some future time concerning the action of the Governor in paying off these bonds held by the General Government.
Mr. WOLCOTT understood that the Governor did not voluntarily enter into the arrangement by which these bonds held by the General Government were paid, and he recited the history of that matter. As he understood it the General Government would not settle with the State till the State should adjust the bond question. He thought the action of the Governor should not be approved, for he acted without authority of law, but his action should be condemned. He thought the question demanded no further discussion.
Mr. HUGHES said the settlement was not forced upon the Government; for the Secretary of the Interior only proposed to withhold from the State a sufficient sum to cover the State bonds held by the General Government.
Mr. WOLCOTT was glad, however, that the Governor took the responsibility to make a complete settlement.
Mr. CRAVENS said there was no time while a member of the Legislature in which he would not have justified the taking up of the old bonds prior to the settlement of the State debt. And he indorsed the action of the Governor in this matter, giving reasons therefor--insisting that his action should also receive the approval of the Legislature. With regard to the Adjutant General's contract, he thought it was with the Legislature to approve or reject. With regard to the Erie and Wabash canal debt, he should vote for a constitutional amendment under protest, that his vote should not be construed as a repudiation of the page: 321[View Page 321] debt, if an honest one, by any constitutional amendment or provision of law.
On motion by Mr. FISHER the Committee rose, reported progress, and asked leave to sit again.
Mr. GIFFORD offered a resolution that when the Senate adjourned it adjourn until ten o'clock to-morrow.
And then--
The Senate adjourned till ten o'clock a. m. to-morrow.
