THE BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
TENTH VOLUME.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
IN SENATE.
THURSDAY, February 11, 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 being read, when--
On motion of Mr. GIFFORD, the further roof was dispensed with.
PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.
Mr. WOLCOTT presented, by request of the Governor, copies of a letter from Senator Morton to Governor Baker, inclosing communications from the Third Auditor of the Treasury, and the Comptroller, concerning the settlement of the State claims against the General Government.
They were read and referred to the Committee of the Whole Senate.
Mr. CAVEN presented a petition by way of claim of Wm. Hannaman for services as military claim agent ($2,700) the reading of which was interrupted by Mr. C., on whose motion was referred to the Claims Committee without reading.
Mr. HUGHES presented a petition which was referred without reading.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Mr. GIFFORD returned the bill [S. 225] to change the name of the State Board of Agriculture to the Committee on Agriculture, with a favorable report.
The Committee on Right and Privileges returned the bill [S. 220] to provide for the recovery of money or property lost in gaming, with an amendment striking out the third section, recommending its passage.
Mr. JOHNSON of Spencer, from the same Committee, returned the bill, [S. 172] to exempt burial grounds from sale on execution) recommending its passage.
Mr. BRADLEY, from the same Committee, returned the bill, [S. 209] to provide for the forfeiture of certain estates upon failure to pay taxes, reporting such legislation inexpedient.
These reports were severally concurred in.
ARRESTS BY THE MILITARY.
Mr. JAQUESS, from the Committee on Military Affairs, reported favorably on the claim of Samuel McCormick and others, to the extent of over one thousand dollars, for expenses incurred in defending suits brought against them for acts done in the military service.
Mr. HUGHES moved that it be referred to the Committee on Finance, with instructions to report a bill making the necessary appropriation.
Mr. LASSELLE expressed his dissent from the majority of the Committee in making this report, giving his reasons therefor. There was no legal or moral obligation to pay such claims, and it would be setting a very bad precedent. When taxes are so high, they should look to the General Government if their claim was a just one.
Mr. HUGHES detailed the circumstances connected with the harrassing trials to which they were subjected for acts performed while acting under General Hovey in arresting deserters and preserving peace. It is likely that the General Government will reimburse the State for this amount.
Mr. HANNA announced that the arrests made by these men were without one particle of authority. They amused themselves one whole season in making unlawful arrests and harrass- page: 332[View Page 332] ing the people generally. They had not even verbal authority for making these arrests, unless it may be in one single instance. These men have already received three thousand dollars--what they had expended it for he know not--probably lawyer's fees--and now they are here asking for more money. This is inaugurating a new kind of practice; that the State should pay defendants for their costs in attending court. This Captain McCormick seemed to have a kind of roving commission to do what he pleased, and he did it. We had better look into these things a little before we appropriate the money asked for.
Mr. HUGHES inquired about suits and indictments in Know county.
Mr. HANNA knew nothing about any except those in Sullivan county.
Mr. HUGHES stated that the Supreme Court had reversed those cases, and that the claimants had been legally vindicated. If there had been nobody down in that section of the country harboring deserters, there would have been no necessity for any of them getting killed. These poor farmers were hunted down and driven from court to court, when they were merely acting under orders, and it would have been more manly to have sued men who were able to defend themselves. He read the law excusing and protecting the private soldier from suits for damages on account of acts done under military orders. He supposed these petitioners had made a case before the committee, showing that they were acting un-authority.
Mr. HANNA denounced the law referred to as a disgrace to the statute book and to civilization. He claimed that farmers and grey-headed men had been hunted down, and kept in prison for three months without any charges preferred against them.
Mr. HUGHES admitted that some irregularities were committed by Military Commissions, but asked when there was a war in which they were not committed.
Mr. HAMILTON said these men were acting under authority of Gen. Hovey.
Mr. HANNA (in his seat.) That is false.
Mr. HAMILTON, as one of the Committee, made a statement of the reasons of the Military Committee for allowing the claims, and the papers upon which they were based. The committee did not have the orders before them. The petitioners swore to the amount of money spent, and we concluded we would allow them that. We did not allow them for their time, and probably we did not do as we should in that respect. It is a question for us to decide whether they did right or wrong? They obeyed their superiors, and out of this grew their troubles. The Senator from Monroe [Mr. Hughes] said they were only carrying out the orders of their superiors, and shall we fail to protect them in so doing?
Mr. HANNA moved to refer this matter back to the committee, with instructions to report the evidence in the case.
Mr. HUGHES opposed the motion. He did not want the question to come back here and open up this discussion. He was sorry to see it.
Mr. HUMPHREYS thought the better way to avoid any unpleasant feeling on this subject would be to keep such matters out of the Senate. The same hardness has worked on the other side, though hardness has probably been suffered by the petitioners. He knew of one case where it cost the man some three thousand dollars, besides imprisonment and the sufferings of a trial which the Supreme Court has decided was illegal, and such men have the same right to come in here and ask to be reimbursed as the petitioners have. To keep all these matters out of the Legislature he would oppose the payment of any of those claims. If we begin to pay them there is no telling where it will end.
Mr. HADLEY dissented from the action of the committee in this case, because he sincerely believed that the petitioners have been remunerated as far as they should be. These men, it is true, were acting in good faith, and under orders of superior officers, but they have received some three-fourths of their expenses already, while many men have sacrificed their lives under orders of superior officers, and their families are now suffering in our midst, and no payment is or can be made to them, and for these and other reasons he should vote against the allowance of this claim.
Mr. HUGHES demanded the previous question, this demand was seconded by the Senate, and under its operation the motion was agreed to, by yeas 22, nays 22--the Lieutenant Governor voting "aye," as follows:
YEAS.--Messrs. Beardsley, Bellamy, Case, Caven, Church, Colley, Cravens, Fisher, Hamilton, Hess, Hooper, Houghton, Hughes, Jaquess, Johnson of Spencer, Kinley, Rice, Reynolds, Robinson of Decatur, Scott, Stein and Wolcott--22.
NAYS.--Messrs. Andrews, Bird, Bradley, Carson, Denbo, Fosdick, Gifford, Gray, Hadley, Hanna, Henderson, Huey, Huffman, Humphreys, Johnston of Montgomery, Lasselle, Lee, Morgan, Sherrod, Smith, Taggart and Wood--22.
Pending the roll call--
Mr. BRADLEY, in explanation of his vote said, that he knew nothing of this case except what was brought out in the discussion. Being satisfied these men should be paid, if acting under orders of a superior officer, but that they should be paid by the General Government, and not by the State, he should vote "no."
Mr. CRAVENS when his name was called, said, believing with Mr. Bradley, he should vote "aye," for the reason that these poor men page: 333[View Page 333] would have to exhaust the entire amount of their claim, in prosecuting them, while the State can do it while prosecuting other claims.
So the motion to refer the claim to the Committee on Finance, with instruction to incorporate the same in a bill, was agreed to--the Lieutenant Governor casting the deciding vote in the affirmative.
THE PUBLIC PRINTING.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR announced the special order--being Mr. Hooper's bill [S. 158] to provide for the public printing, regulating the prices to be paid therefor, fixing the time and mode of electing a State Printer, defining his duties, fixing compensation, etc.
It being read the second time--
Mr. HOOPER. Mr. President: Before the vote is taken on this bill, I desire briefly to explain its provisions. I apprehend no question will be presented to the Senate during the session of more vital or practical interest to the State than this question of the public printing. A wide spread belief exists that the public printing, under the existing law, is a course of immense profit to the State Printer, unnecessarily wrung from the tax payers of the State. And in many quarters serious insinuations and charges of peculation and fraud are indulged in against the State Printer. It is no part of my business to-day to prefer charges of any sort against the State Printer, but simply to call your attention to the provisions of this bill, which I think will remove all ground in the future for these apprehensions and charges. If the existing law was less defective, and did not admit of the charges complained of, they would not exist.
The stand point from which I have looked at this question in the preparation of this bill was this: How would a careful, prudent, business man, if he had this amount of printing to do for himself, probably proceed to get it done? With this view I examined the existing law under which the public printing is now done, and found it to be very defective, affording but little protection to the State against overcharging and dishonest practices in the public printing, if unfortunately at any time the State should select a man for State printer whose want of integrity or carelessness, should permit him to take advantage of his position to make money only, without regard to the welfare of the State.
While this bill, now under consideration, carefully guards the interests of the State, it also gives a fair consideration, and just compensation to the State Printer for all his work for the State. For I consider it a correct business principle that holds good everywhere: the laborer is worthy of his hire; pay a fair and just price for the work, and then we have a right to expect and demand that it shall be properly done. Under the present law the pubic printer is allowed to charge for composition, per thousand ems plain matter, forty-five cents; for figure work, sixty cents; rule and figure work, seventy-five cents.
I believe I am safe in stating to the Senate that under the present system, nearly two-thirds of all the work done for the State is counted as figure, or rule and figure work. The existing law makes no provision for the mode of counting and measuring the work; the result is that all this class of work, constituting the great bulk of the State work, is, under the present mode of counting and measuring work by printers' rules, and custom and phrases, actually doubled. The bill under consideration plainly provides the mode of counting and measuring the work. It is all to be counted as plain composition, and no extra allowance made for rules, rule and figure work, or difficult tables.
The result will be that for all that class of work that now really costs the State one dollar and fifty cents per thousand ems, and which constitutes, as I before stated, the great bulk of the State printing, under the present bill will cost but sixty cents per thousand ems, and all inducement will be removed to stick in a lew rules, where in fact they are not needed, in order to make it count under the highest rate of charge. That there will result from this a vast saving to the State there can be no question of doubt. In proof of this take for example the report of the Superinterdent of Public Instruction, made to the present General Assembly. Under the provisions of the bill now under consideration--
| The Composition would amount to............... | $491 22 |
| Press work..................................... | 270 00 |
| Binding........................................ | 115 50 |
| Total.......................................... | $876 72 |
Under the existing law the same report may be charged for as follows:
| Composition ............................................... | $1,137 60 |
| Press Work................................................. | 240 00 |
| Binding.................................................... | 302 00 |
| Total...................................................... | $1,079 60 |
This bill, then, would have saved to the State on this single report over eight hundred dollars. A moment's reflection upon the amount of this kind of work annually done for the State, will indicate what will be saved to the State on this class of work alone.
To further show the saving this bill will make, take the publishing and binding of the Acts of the General Assembly. The law provides for printing ten thousand copies of the Acts of each session of the Legislature. Under the present mode of estimating and counting, allowed under the existing law, at least the following amounts may be charged:
page: 334[View Page 334]| Folding the ten thousand copies.............. | $190 00 |
| Gathering the ten thousand copies ........... | 190 00 |
| Stitching the ten thousand copies............. | 237 00 |
| Trimming the ten thousand copies.............. | 190 00 |
| Pressing sheets............................... | 9 50 |
| Binding....................................... | 4,000 00 |
| Total......................................... | $4,816 50 |
Under the pending bill the entire cost will be only two thousand five hundred dollars. The above estimate is made at three hundred pages per volume, and this is a fair average at least as they usnally fall below three hundred
Under the present law, for a great part of the public printing and binding, there is really no law fixing the price to be paid, and it is left largely at the discretion of the State Printer to charge whatever to him "seemeth good." This is especially true of all that class of work usually denominated "job work." As illustrating this branch of the question, I will call your attention to a single item under the present law, and this I think, will be sufficient to convince every Senator that the State needs some protection in this direction.
Section twenty-two, of the registry law, requires that the necessary blanks, for making the registry required by law, shall be prepared by the Secretary of State, and transmitted to the persons entitled to receive them. Under this law twenty thousand blanks have been printed by the State printer, at a cost to the State of over eighteen thousand dollars. Under the present bill these blanks could not, as I am informed by practical printers, who have examined the bill, possibly have cost the State more than five thousand dollars, unless we suppose a want of integrity in the Commissioners, appointed to measure the work that would preclude the possibility of getting the law administered.
In all this class of work, the State is completely at the mercy of the State Printer, or rather his employees, for, I suppose, in point of fact, the State Printer does not examine one in a hundred of these bills to see whether the proper charges have been made. A State officer sends to the office a job of work to be done; it is printed as directed and returned. It may be that a private individual would have got this job of work done for ten dollars, the State is perhaps charged fifty dollars. At some future time a bill is presented containing a charge for this work. No copy of the job has been kept; no one measured the work at the time for the State; and now it is impossible to tell how much the State has been overcharged.
The pending bill provides ample protection to the State for all this kind of work. Every job of work has to be presented to this commission provided for in the bill, consisting of two practical printers and one book binder. They measure and examine the work, and certify the amount allowed therefor at the rates of payment fixed in this act. Or if the charges specified in the act do not include the work done, then they allow for it at the dame rate charged for the same kind of work in other printing offices.
These Commissioners are also required to keep a copy of each and every job of work allowed by them, with the number of copies marked thereon, and the date when the work was done. This provision I regard as one of the best features of the bill. Then when a committee of the Legislature may wish to investigate the State printing, they will have it all before them in a tangible, practice shape, and will not be left to groupe their way in the dark as they are now.
There is another important provision in this bill to which I will now call the attention of the Senate. It is that which provides that the contract for furnishing the paper and stationery to the State shall be let for each year to the lowest responsible bidder, ample notice of the time and place of receiving sealed bids to be given in the cities of Indianapolis, Cincinnati and Chicago. I am satisfied that by adopting this plan of purchasing the paper and sationery for the State, a vast saving will be made to the State each year.
In conclusion, allow me to say that with some practical experience in the printing business, and a careful and thorough investigation of this question of the public printing, I am satisfied that the passage of this bill, and the faithful administration of the same, will save to the State each year many thousands of dollars.
Besides the great saving to the State in dollars and cents, it will remove all ground for this continual and everlasting wrangling, crimination and recrimination about the public printing, for it places the clear evidence of what is done each year and the prices allowed therefor in a practical shape, where there can be no mistake in reference to it. And now while the people demand at our hands strict economy in all public expenditures, and thorough practical retrenchment in every quarter, let us not hesitate to pass this bill and thereby thoroughly reform this matter of the public printing.
Mr. HANNA conceded there were many excellent provisions in this bill, but unless the Senate desires to forestall the action of the Special Committee on Fees and Salaries, consisting of one from each district, action upon it had better be deferred, as that Committee are now considering the subject,and the propriety of continuing or abolishing the office. He moved to refer it to that committee.
Mr. JOHNSTON of Montgomery, offered an amendment providing that no one of the Com- page: 335[View Page 335] missioners should be interested in any manner in the profits of the work to be done.
The motion to refer was agreed to.
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. BRADLEY, by leave, offered a resolution, that when the Senate adjourns, it adjourn till two o'clock p. m. to-morrow. He stated that time was necessary for the meeting of committees in the forenoon to-morrow.
The resolution was adopted.
Mr. HADLEY asked and obtained leave of absence for the Committee on Military Affairs during to-morrow.
Mr. JOHNSTON of Montgomery, asked and obtained leave of absence indefinitely for Mr. Hanna.
Mr. GRAY, from the Committee on Corporations, returned the city incorporation bill, [S. 85] recommending its passage, with an amendment.
Leave of absence was granted to Mr. Johnston of Montgomery, till Wednesday.
Mr. Lee asked and obtained leave to introduce a bill [S. 227] to fix the time of holding Common Pleas Courts in the counties of Lawrence, Jackson, Jennings and Bartholomew. He moved for a suspension of the rules in order that the bill might be read a third time now.
The rules were suspended, the bill read a third time and passed, by yeas 43, nays 0.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Mr. HADLEY from the Committee on Military Affairs, reported a resolution in favor of printing five hundred copies of the claim agents report.
The resolution was adopted.
Mr. CANEN, from the Judiciary Committee, returned the bill, [S. 177] prohibiting clerks of courts from certifying the declaration of aliens, reported a substitute therefor.
Also the bill [S. 28] amending section twenty-seven of the will act, recommending that it lie on the table.
Mr. STEIN, from the same Committee returned the bill, [S. 65] to regulate the publication of legal advertisements, with amendments.
NEW PROPOSITIONS.
The following bills were introduced, read the first time and appropriately referred, unless otherwise stated, to-wit;
By Mr. JAQUESS a bill, [S. 228] to create an Insurance department for the State, with a salary of three thousand six hundred dollars.
By Mr. HAMILTON, a bill [S. 229] regulating the fees of County clerks, auditors and sheriffs.
By Mr. CHURCH, a bill [S. 230] to amend section four of the act to authorize the sale of certain real estate and build a residence for the Governor.
AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR announced the bill [S. 197]Mr. Hughes' State University Omnibus bill as the special order for this hour.
Mr. HUGHES stated that this bill, as implied on its face, is a combination of Educational interests. It is in intended to commit the State to a general plan of education, beginning with common schools, and leading on to the highest grade of education, all to be free. The first provision takes money out of the treasury, being an appropriation of twenty-five thousand dollars to the State University. The second does not, but provides for obtaining it from the sale of University Square, except for a specific appropriation of five thousand dollars as therein provided. The next provision is for completing the State Normal School, appropriating seventy-five thousand dollars. It was said that one hundred thousand dollars is required for this purpose; that will be for the Senate to decide. This also comes out of the treasury. The other provision is for the location of the Agricultural College at Tippecanoe battle ground, which must soon be located, or the assistance proposed by Congress is lost.
The Legislature at its last session recognized to some extent, the State University, by appropriating eight thousand dollars to it. The result has been a largely increased scholarship and a renewed interest. If the twenty-five thousand dollars now asked is granted, great benefits will be derived from it. No institution is more economically managed than this has been. The present buildings, which are the best University buildings in the State, were built by private contribution of the citizens of Monroe county, alter the former buildings were burned down, but the valuable library, consumed at the time, has not been so well replaced. He was satisfied the appropriation was none too large, and contrasted the present condition of this university with that of Michigan. Indiana was the peer of any State in the Union and second to none, and her educational interests should be so fastened by the Legislature as to prevent Indiana's sons from leaving the State in order to obtain a collegiate education.
He spoke of the appropriations which are willingly given, year after year, to the different benevolent institutions of the State, showing that they exceeded, many times over, that which is calied for, for the purpose of educating the healthy and the strong. The build- page: 336[View Page 336] ings, he thought, were amply sufficient--the students lodging outside. Hereafter, it may be necessary to make some addition, but not now. The object is to accommodate more pupils in the building now occupied.
He spoke of the propriety of locating the medical department at the capitol, at some length, remarking that the proposition to sell University Square did not seem to suit in every respect the people of this city, but he did not desire to imperil the fate of the bill upon this proposition alone. He did not intend it as stab at Indianapolis, and should place the responsibility connected with the disposition of this portion of the bill upon the members from Marion county. In the course of his remarks he referred at some length to the proposition in the bill to dispose of University square in this city, and insisted that the State should assert her right over it, because the city has taken possession of it, is improving it, and by the lapse of time will have a title to it. He gave a history of the square, which was granted to the State "for the use of a University"--the State University. The citizens here, or at least those who live around it, think that the word "use" means "site," and that it cannot be sold, or in any way used, except as a site for a University. The city of Indianapolis has no shaddow of title to it, although it has fenced and taken posession of it, and want it for a park. The people around it are able to buy it, and so is the city--the latter having a first opportunity to buy it under the bill. The value of the private residences around it is estimated at one million one hundred and forty-five thousand dollars. The owners are very willing it should be used as a site, but do not want a sight of a University there. He had proposed Tippecanoe Battle Ground as the site of the Agricultural College, because, at the time the bill was drawn, the amount offered as an inducement for its location there was greater than for any other point, while it was a historic point, and there was a seeming propriety in its being so located.
For the completion of the Normal School building he was willing to vote for all that was reasonably necessary. He knew the practice in such cases, and although he had at first hesitated to vote for its location there, he had done so with the expectation of voting more than was called for. He read a letter from Professor Reed, stating that when completed this would be the best building of the kind on the continent; and when Professor Reed said so, he meant it, for he has personally visited every institution of learning of any repute on the continent.
Mr. KINLEY said there was much in the bill and in the speech which he cordially endorsed. His objection was that it did not relate to one, but to many subjects, each one of which should stand or fall upon its own merits. He moved to amend the bill by striking out from section one to sixteen inclusive, and section sixteen being all but the two or three sections declaring that an agricultural college shall be established in connection with the State University.
The yeas and nays being demanded on the adoption of the amendment--
Pending the call of the roll--
Mr. CRAVENS said he desired that no action should be taken upon this bill without the presence of a full Senate. He demanded a call of the Senate.
It was ordered, and being taken, 44 Senators answered to their names, when on his further motion--
Further proceedings under the call were dispensed with.
The amendment was then rejected by yeas 19, nays 24--as follows:
YEAS--Messrs. Bellamy. Carson, Case, Caven, Colley, Gifford, Gray, Hadley, Hess, Hooper, Huey, Huffman, Jaquess, Johnson of Spencer, Johnston of Montgomery, Kinley, Robinson of Decatur, Smith, and Wood--19.
NAYS--Messrs. Andrews, Armstrong, Beardsley, Bird, Bradley, Church, Cravens, Denbo, Fisher, Fosdick, Green, Hamilton, Henderson, Houghton, Hughes, Humphreys, Lee, Morgan, Rice, Reynolds, Scott, Stein, Taggart, Turner and Wolcott--25
Mr. FISHER moved to strike out the fourth section of the bill, which contemplates the appropriation of proceeds from the State prisons for the endowment of a law school at Bloomington. If profits ever do arise from that source, they should be applied to the building of prisons for females or of some similar benevolent institution.
The amendment was agreed to, by yeas 23, nays 20--as follows:
YEAS--Messrs. Armstrong, Beardsley, Bellamy, Bird, Carson, Case, Caven, Colley, Fisher, Fosdick, Gray, Green, Hadley, Huey, Huffman, Jaquess, Johnson of Spencer, Johnston of Montgomer, Kinley, Reynolds, Robinson of Decatur, Wolcott and Wood--23.
NAYS--Messrs. Andrews, Bradley, Church, Cravens, Denbo, Gifford, Hamilton, Henderson, Hooper, Houghton, Hughes, Humphreys, Lee, Morgan, Rice, Scott, Smith, Stein, Taggart and Turner--20
Mr. KINLEY moved that the bill be referred to the joint committee on the location of the Agricultural College.
Mr. HUGHES would be frank enough to say he did not desire it to go there, as the Chairman of the committee had already indicated his hostility towards it, as well as some of the members of it. He did not think it exactly courteous to seek to bury the bill in that way.
Mr. KINLEY said there should not be too much haste in this matter of the location of the College--other propositions may be made to the Legislature to secure its location in other counties in the State. For these reasons he desired the reference.
page: 337[View Page 337]Mr. TURNER, too, was of the opinion that the bill was of too much importance to be hurried through in hot haste, and he moved to amend the amendment by making it the order for Tuesday at two and a half o'clock in Committee of the Whole.
The amendment was agreed to.
The motion as amended was agreed to.
Mr. CRAVENS said every day's delay would endanger the bill, and he moved to reconsider the vote just taken, in order to make the bill the special order for to-morrow afternoon at two and a half o'clock.
Mr. TURNER opposed the motion to reconsider, because his object was delay for deliberation.
Mr. SCOTT spoke in favor of Thursday next.
Mr. STEIN was anxious to see the matter placed squarely before the Senate, discussed fully and fairly, and then voted up or voted down. He disliked to see any ungenerous propositions for the purpose of defeating it, by referring it to unfriendly committees, or by delaying from time to time, for the purpose of finally burying it. He thought to-morrow afternoon we should be warm in the matter, and he though that was the time to continue the discussion, and those in the dark might be able them to vote understandingly.
Mr. HUGHES considered it a little remarkable that with but one speech the opponents of the bill should bring on a test vote at once, without attempting to discuss it, and that now, after having been defeated in that movement, they favored delay. He favored the motion, and for the object indicated.
Mr. KINLEY desired to say that he had intended to kill the main feature of the bill, and that it was an open and frank movement. If it is the desire of the Senate to take it up to-morrow, he was willing to meet it then, or at any other time.
Mr. GRAY spoke of his readiness to go into the discussion at any time, becaused he believed there were enough sensible Senators here to see the real object of this bill, a genuine Omnibus bill, with the Bloomington University on the box, Tippecanoe and Vigo on top, and Indianapolis on the steps, and everybody invited to throw stones at it. He opposed the practice of trying to make capital outside of Indianapolis, by assailing this city, which he was himself proud of as the capital city of the State, with its broad streets and palatial residences, and denounced this way of combining varied interests for the purpose of getting through a favorite measure.
Mr. HADLEY opposed the motion to reconsider, for he desired a full Senate during the consideration of this bill.
Mr. CRAVENS gave his reasons for desiring that the matter should be taken up tomorrow, but withdrew his motion to reconsider the vote.
And then--
The Senate adjourned till two o'clock p. m. to-morrow.
