THE BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
TENTH VOLUME.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
WEDNESDAY, February 17, 1869.The House met at half past nine o'clock a. m.
The journal was read and approved.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Mr. SABIN, from the Committee on Claims, reported favorably as to the allowance of one thousand six hundred and twenty-nine dollars thirteen cents, office expenses of State Board of Agriculture.
He also reported favorably on the claim of J. G. Houts for collecting State arms.
Mr. STEWART of Rush, from the Committee on Railroads, reported back the railroad bill, [S. 94] with amendments.
He also returned Mr. Welborn's cities and towns railroad bill, [H. R. 246] with amendments.
Mr. MILLEKAN, from the Committee on Roads, returned Mr. Wildman's bridge bill,[H. R. 79] recommending its passage.
Mr. STEWART of Ohio, from the Printing Committee, returned Mr. Ruddell's legal advertisements bill, [H. R. 157] recommending its passage.
Mr. OSBORN, from the Special Committee on railroads, reported on the affairs of the Louisville, New Albany and Chicago Railroad, that the suit instituted heretofore by the Attorney General, was dismissed by the Attorney General, on account of legislation had in 1865, which was believed by some to settle the question, and the suit was therefore dismissed. The committee are of the opinion that the act referred to does not exempt the road from the payment of taxes, and if it did, it would be unconstitutional, and therefore they recommend the passage of the accompanying bill, which goes to the files.
Mr. FURNAS, from the Committee on Rights and Privileges, returned Mr. Logan's fox and wild cat bill, [H. R. 168] recommending its passage.
Mr. STEWART of Ohio, from the special committee thereon returned the bill, [H. R. 175] to provide for special terms of courts of this State, to settle issues, hear motions, account orders, &c., recommending its indefinite postponement.
These reports were severally concurred in.
Mr. CORY, from the Special Committee thereon, returned his Agricultural College bill, [H.R. 172] with amendments.
It was made the special order for Tuesday, ten o'clock.
PETITIONS, ETC.
Mr. DAVIS, Mr. Wile, Mr. Furnas and Mr. Williams of Union, severally presented petitions of Homoepathists for a professorship in the proposed Medical College of the Indiana University.
Messrs, Higbee, Admire and Bowen, presented petitions for a prohibitory liquor law.
Mr. VARDEMAN, for female prison.
Mr. ZOLLARS, for sale of city parks.
Mr. SABIN, for Morgan raid claims.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Mr. COFFROTH, from the Committee on Judiciary, returned his. bill for the relief of the widow and heirs of John P. Dunn, recommending its passage.
Mr. MITCHELL, from the same committee, returned the bill, [H. R. 159] limiting allowances by boards and drafts on county treasuries, recommending its passage.
Mr. WILSON, from the same committee page: 398[View Page 398] returned the bill, [H. R. 223] to repeal sections from four hundred and forty-five to four hundred and fifty-one inclusive, and sections four hundred and fifty-five and four hundred fifty-six of the civil act, and amending section four hundred and fifty three, repealing so much of said law as requires sale on execution, recommending its indefinite postponement.
These reports were severally concurred in.
BILLS FOR ACTS
Were introduced, read the first time and referred to appropriate committees unless otherwise stated, as follows:
By Mr. CUNNINGHAM, [H, R. 253] to amend sections one and four of the general city corporation act.
Mr. WILSON, (by consent) submitted a concurrent resolution, which was adopted, for a recall from the Governor of the bill, [S. 178] for correction.
Mr. DAVIDSON submitted a resolution against adjourning over, and for night sessions which was laid on the table.
By Mr. DAVIS, [H. R. 254] to establish the twenty-sixth Common Pleas District.
By Mr. DITTEMORE, [H. R. 225] to have pending suits affected by the act to repeal sections forty-three and forty-four of the act prescribing who may make a will, etc.
By Mr. DUNN, [H. R. 256] to so redistrict the State as to admit of the election of five Supreme Judges.
By Mr. PIERCE of Vigo, [H. R. 257] to amend section one of the Supervisors' act.
By the Election Committee [H. R. 258] to amend section twenty of the Supervisors' act (relative to road assessments.)
By Mr. FAIRCHILD, [H. R. 259] to amend section one of the act to provide for the protection of fish, etc.
By Mr. FIELD of Lake, [H. R. 260] to provide for the publication of the proceedings of County Commissioners, Township Trustees, and Grand Juries, etc., (in two papers prescribing rates.)
By Mr. FURNAS, [H. R. 261] to make a specific appropriation for the House of Refuge, (to meet the existing indebtedness.)
Mr. GORDON submitted a resolution restricting speech to ten minutes.
It was laid on the table.
By Mr. GREEN, [H. R. 262] to amend sections three and eighty of the act regulating the inspection of petroleum oil.
By Mr. KERCHEVAL, [H. R. 263] to repeal the act of March 11, 1867, to amend the Evansville city charter.
By Mr. LAMBORN, [H. R. 264] for the repeal of the death penalty, and to promote the cause of humanity in the State.
By Mr. MASON, [H. E. 265] to repeal the act to provide for the protection of fish, etc.
GOV. JENNINGS' MEMORY.
Mr. McBRIDE, submitted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, The grave of the first Governor of the State of Indiana, Jonathan Jennings, in the vicinity of Charlestown, Clarke county, indiana, is wholly unmarked, and his resting place almost forgotton; and,
WHEREAS, The family and relatives of the deceased have been, and still are, unable to erect a suitable momument to his memory; and
WHEREAS, It is due to the distinguished dead, in view of his pioneer and patriotic devotions to the early interests of this State, that the State should mark his grave; therefore,
RESOLVED, That the Judiciary Committee be instructed to report a bill to this House, providing for an appropriation of one thousand dollars to construct a marble monument over said grave, and enclose the same with a substantial iron fence; and providing a committee to carry into effect the above purpose.
Mr. COFFROTH said that but a few days since the House voted but five hundred dollars for marking the grave of Governor Willard, and while he does not consider the amount asked in either case as sufficient to properly evidence our regard for the memory of the departed, he would prefer to see no distinction made, and suggested the same amount as before contributed--five hundred dollars.
Mr. McBRIDE accepted the modification, remarking that he had labored under the idea that the five hundred dollars contributed in the other case was for enclosing the grave of Governor Willard.
Mr. OSBORN said that the Legislature could not do that honor to themselves that it should do, by making any such pitiful contributions for marking the graves of the honored dead. The State, he said, is probably not able to do better at the present time, and, in that case, it might perhaps be the part of wisdom to wait, until a time when monuments that would do honor to the people, and properly mark the resting places for those who had been at the head of the State, may be erected. He, therefore moved the reference of the whole matter to a committee of five.
Mr. McFADIN took a similar view, considering that a thousand dollars was the least sum that would suffice.
Mr. CHITTENDEN, would like to include the monument to General Hackleman, which was adopted.
Mr. Osborn's motion was then adopted.
BILLS FOR ACTS.
By Mr. McDONALD. [H.R. 266] creating a Board of Emigration, defining their duties, and declaring the time when the same shall take effect.
Mr. McFADIN submitted a preamble and resolution for instructions to inquire into the propriety of detaching two townships of Caroll county and annexing them to Cass county, which was adopted.
page: 399[View Page 399]By Mr. MITCHELL, [H. R.267] to authorize the Auditor of State to prescribe a uniform system of book keeping by the Township Trustees.
By Mr. NEFF, [H. R. 268] for the preservation of Indiana battle flags, military relics, etc.
By Mr. OSBORN [H. R. 269] declaratory of the common law as to the duty of Railroads and other common carriers in relation to the transportation of freight, and to prevent exorbitant rates, etc.
Mr. PIERCE of Porter, submitted a resolution for instruction to the Judiciary Committee to inquire and report as to whether any legislation is necessary in regard to the Supreme Court decision in the 28th Indiana Reports, wherein it is held that laws may be amended by setting out the title.
The resolution was adopted.
Mr. RATLIFF submitted a resolution for an order that no member shall speak longer that ten minutes without the consent of the House.
After Mr. BARRITTS ineffectual motion to lay the resolution on the table--
Mr. COFFROTH spoke against its adoption in consideration of important pending measures. That there was not time to do the legislative business of the State, was the fault of people retaining the unwise constitutional restriction, etc.
COMMON PLEAS COURT JUDGES.
Mr. ZOLLARS moved to suspend the consideration of the special order for this hour and the consitutional restriction, and take up Mr. Bobo's bill, [H. R. 3] and the Committee's substitute therefor.
Messrs. BUSKIRK and UNDERWOOD proposed to include other court bills.
Several membees proposed to amend by adding other court bills.
The special order was postponed, and the constitutional restriction was suspened--yeas 74, nays 15; whereupon--
Mr. Bobo's bill, [H. R. 3] providing for the appointment of suitable persons to hold Common Pleas Courts, in the absence of the Judges thereof, was taken up, with the Judiciary Committee's substitute therefor, providing for such appointment in the special case where the regular Judge is holding court elsewhere in his district, and that such appointee to be paid out of the county treasury.
Mr. BOBO described the provisions of the substitute and of the original bill, approving the former.
The substitute was adopted; and so the bill was ordered te the engrossment, considered as engrossed, and passed the final reading of the House of Representatives--yeas 83, nays 0-- with an amendment of title, yo authorise the Judges of the Court of Common Pleas to appoint Judges to hold adjourned terms in certain cases, providing compensation, etc.
SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT.
Mr. Dittemore's bill, [H. R. 203] fixing the times of holding Circuit Courts in the several counties of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, was taken up, and passed the third reading-- yeas 80, nays 0.
On motion of Mr. WILDMAN, it was ordered that the report of the Special Committee on railroads be printed.
Mr. Underwood's bill, [H. R. 244] to amend the sixth section of the act of March 5, 1859 to fix the times for holding the Common Pleas Courts in the several counties of this State, etc., was next taken up, under the foregoing order. [It changes the time only in Wayne county.]
The bill passed the final reading in the House of Representatives--yeas 84, nays 0.
On the motion of Mr. BUSKIRK, the Senate concurrent resolution, inviting Dr. Daniel Read, to address the members of the General Assembly in this hall this evening, was taken up and concurred in.
And then--
The House then took a recess till two o'clock p. m.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The SPEAKER resumed the Chair at two o'clock p. m., and announced special committees, to-wit:
The Committee on Mr. Lamborn's death penalty bill, [H. R. 264] Messrs. Lamborn, Wildman, Cory, Davis and Shoaff.
On monuments: Messrs. Osborn, Chittenden, Stewart of Rush, Bo bo and McDonald.
COURTESY BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES.
The SPEAKER submitted statements and explanations with reference to his ruling yesterday, as to the intercourse between the two Houses, by announcing messengers, and besides disclaiming any intention of treating the Senate discourteously, denied that he merited the criticisms indulged in by certain members of the Senate, if he had been correctly informed. Those members of the House who had heard the remarks of the Speaker referred to, could bear him out in his statement as to their character.
Mr. OSBORN was satisfied that the Speaker of the House did not make the ruling indicated in the Senate's resolution thereon.
Mr. COFFROTH said the action of the Chair in the matter, was entirely consistent with the former practice in both Houses of the General Assembly.
The SPEAKER said so far as he was per- page: 400[View Page 400] sonally concerned, it made little difference. And as he could not be unpleasantly affected by the action taken in the co-ordinate body, he was willing the matter should be dropped where it is, etc.
Mr. McFADIN regarded the matter communicated from the Senate as the result of misunderstanding in that body, and made some remarks upon the subject, to the effect that the Senate had acted hastily in the matter, and expressing the belief that if the matter had been investigated, their action would have been quite different.
A Committee of three was thereupon appointed to investigate the subject, and report to the House what action should be taken. The Committee consists of Messrs. Coffroth, Buskirk and Osborn.
NORMAL SCHOOL APPROPRIATION.
The SPEAKER announced the consideration of the special order, viz: Mr. Pierce of Vigo's Normal School appropriation bill, [H. R. 130] the question being on Mr. Johnson of Parke's amendment, to reduce the appropriation from one hundred thousand dollars to fifty thousand dollars.
Mr. WELBORN proposed to amend the amendment by making it seventy-five thousand dollars.
Mr. PIERCE of Vigo, sent to the Clerk's desk, and asked to have read, the statement of Mr. Olcott, one of the Trustees of the Normal School, in reference to the statement made by Johnson of Parke, in debate of yesterday, that he had said that there is needed but seventy-five thousand dollars.
Objection was made by several members, and the paper was not read.
Mr. GORDON proceeded to discuss the bill and the amendments. he thought the State had performed its part in the matter when it appropriated fifty thousand dollars. At the first he would have supported the first amendment. He had thought that one hundred thousand dollars was too much for the object. He now considered that either sum would be an extravagance at this time. Now, the fact had been alleged here, that, at the last session, it was declared by the Representatives from Vigo county, that the city of Terre Haute would ask no more than fifty thousand dollars to complete the Normal School building; and when that city comes here and asks for an additional appropriation, she cannot ask it as the fulfillment of any State pledge. If the State chose to invest any further in the enterprise, it would certainly not spring from any conviction on her part, that the aid already given had committed her to the completion of the work. He would be willing, he said, to vote to reimburse the people of Terre Haute to the extent of the money expended in roofing the building for its protection from the rains and storms of the winter, which is reported to be thirty thousand dollars, but he was not willing to invest any more of the people's money in an enterprise that should have never been entered into.
Mr. WILSON thought that although the project is one that the State should not have entered into, it is too late now to abandon it, after the work has progressed almost to completion, and the people of Terre Haute have been induced to invest to the extent of seventy-five thousand dollars. His mind had been changed somewhat by this debate; and, taking into view the State's action in the matter, he could not now consent, as one of the people's representatives, to the defeat of this great State institution, or suffer it to languish by neglect. Such a course taken by the General Assembly would be acting in bad faith, not merely toward the city of Terre Haute, but toward the people of the State at large. This he sustained by reference to the statute, wherein the State undertook to erect this building, according to certain recorded plans and specifications. He could not say but that one hundred thousand dollars would be too much. As he was at present advised, he thought it best to adopt the amendment of Mr. Welborn.
Mr. WELBORN made a statement going to show, that, in the judgment of parties well informed in the matter, seventy-five thousand dollars might be sufficient.
Mr. BARNETT'S mind had also undergone change in this debate, and he was now prepared to vote for this appropriation. He reviewed the argument which influenced the votes of others. He considered that nothing less than this one hundred thousand dollars would put the building in order to receive the school. In this matter it was now too late to question the wisdom or integrity of a past legislature, however doubtful may have been the propriety of the action by a former Legislature in entering upon the enterprise, it is now too late to withdraw from it, on the ground that the action was ill advised. If, as it seems. on the passage of a bill at a former session, it was not expected that Terre Haute was to furnish all the money needed, over and above her contribution and the appropriation by the State, to complete the work, it is certainly not logical to say now, that, because there is no express promise in any of the acts by the legislature to make further appropriations, and Terre Haute must, or the project be abandoned. As to the objection to voting away one hundred thousand dollars to save fifty thousand dollars, he though that not the proper question. The institution is a State institution, in aid of which the people of Terre Haute have contributed from page: 401[View Page 401] their own pockets seventy-five thousand dollars. There is no evidence that the project is not a worthy one, but on the other hand it is commended by the experience of Educationalists everywhere. If the State abandons the work, the building that otherwise would be an honor to the State and the school a glory, will go down; and in addition to the large sums invested by Terre Haute and the State, there will attach to the State, the odium of having abandoned a great educational project and of having acted in bad faith toward the people of Terre Haute.
Mr. STANTON (Mr. Ratliff in the Chair) took the floor, and made a plea in favor of the bill. He regarded it as the duty of the Legislature to make an appropriation for the completion of the Normal School building, and if not to the extent of one hundred thousand dollars certainly to the extent of seventy-five thousand dollars. Former Legislatures had begun this work, and therefore the responsibility of these heavy appropriations was measurably removed from the present General Assembly. He reviewed the history of the State's connection with the enterprise, from the act passed in 1865; authorizing the establishment of such an institution, to the present time. The second act was in pursuance of the former act--to carry it out; and the second act, the act of 1867, reaffirms the State's pledge to the work by the adoption of a specific plan of building and an appropriation for the object. He regarded this school somewhat in the light of an experiment; regretted that there was so much money in it; butm considering the paramount object to be gained--that it could not be regarded as a canal or a railroad, but as of immeasurably higher advantage to the people at large than any other work of the State; he saw no other course and desired now to take no other course, than to carry out the original design--to furnish competent teaches for the common schools of the State.
The plan, he said, was doubtless too expensive, but it was adopted by the State itself, and that objection should in justice go for nothing. He referred to the acknowledged doctrine that Republican govenments must depend for their stability and perpetuity upon the intelligence and virtue of the people, and education is the only road by which these conditions can be attained.
As to the benefits to accrue to the counties which many claimed would be incommensurate with the outlay, he felt satisfied that such conclusions would be found erroneous, and that in a few years, should the work go on, there would not be a family in the remotest of the rural school districts, that would not feel and acknowledge the benefits acruing from the presence of more competent teachers than they ever had before. If Terre Haute had manifested much interest in the matter, she certainly had a right to, for she paid for it in a contribution of seventy-five thousand dollars--and if the House shall act in good faith towards her and for the best interests of the State, it will make an appropriation necessary to bring to completion the work which cannot go on withot her aid. He took a wider range, giving the reasons which should control his vote.
Mr. BUSKIRK, considering the range which this discussion had taken, the pressure of time, and the stress of business, demanded the previous question, and there was a second and the main question was ordered.
The first question being on Mr. Welborn's amendment to the amendment--for the sum of seventy-five thousand dollars--and the yeas and nays thereon resulted--yeas 31, neas 58--as follows:
YEAS--Messrs. Baker, Barnet, Beatty, Beeler, Bowen, Breckinridge, Buskirk, Calvert, Dunn, Fairchild, Field of Lagrange, Furnas, Hamilton, Higbee, Hutson, Lamborn, Monroe, Mason, Overmyer, Pierce of Porter, Ratliff, Ruddell, Shoaff, Skidmore, Stephenson, Underwood, Vardeman, Welborn, Williams of Hamilton, Wilson and Mr. Speaker--31.
NAYS--Messrs. Addison, Admire, Bates, Barritt, Bobo, Britton. Carnahan, Cave, Chapman, Coffroth, Cory, Cotton, Cox, Cunningham, Davidson, Davis, Dittemore, Field of Lake, Fuller, Gilham, Gordon, Green, Hall, Biggins, Byatt, Johnson of Montgomery, Johnson of Parke Jump, Kercheval, Logan, McBride, McDonald, McFadin, Millekan, Miller, Miles, Mitchell, Mock, Montgomery, Neff, Odell, Osborn, Pierce of Vigo, Sabin, Sleeth, Smith, Stewart of Ohio, Stewart of Rush, Sunman, Tabor, Tebbs, Vater, Wile, Wildman, Williams of St. Joseph, Williams of Union, Zenor and Zollars--58.
Mr JOHNSON of Parke, (explaining.) He would be willing to make any compromise with the friends of the measure; but when a question of this kind is put under the pressure of the previous question, to show that he could not be driven, he voted No.
Mr. LAMBORN, (explaining.) He was very sorry that he was compelled to vote for so small an appropriation. He would prefer one hundred thousand dollars or one hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars.
Mr. PIERCE of Porter, (explaining.) He was puzzled, he had been several times convinced against his will, and the last effort on the floor had determined his position now. He voted Aye.
Mr. PIERCE of Vigo, (explaining.) So well did he know the condition of affairs about this building, and so confident was he that seventy-five thousand dollars would not be sufficient, that he was obliged to vote No.
Mr. SHOAFF, (explaining.) Because, perhaps, he could do nothing better, he voted Aye.
So the amendment was rejected, and the question recurred on Mr. Johnson of Parke's amendment, for fifty thousand dollars, the vote resulting--yeas 19, nays 72.
page: 402[View Page 402]So the amendment was rejected, and the question recurred on the engrossment of the bill.
Mr. COFFROTH, assuming that the force of the previous question is exhausted, moved that the further consideration of the bill be postponed and it be made the special order for Monday two o'clock.
Mr. KERCHEVAL made the point of inquiry, whether this whole proceeding should not be first considered in committee of the whole.
Mr. COFFROTH then moved that it be referred to committee of the whole House.
Mr. BUSKIRK said the rules could not be construed to require the bill to go to the Committee of the Whole, because it did not include a proposition for taxation.
The SPEAKER decided that the bill does not go to the Committee of the Whole under the rules, and the Speaker held further, that the House is still under the pressure of the previous question, and the next question is: shall the bill be engrossed?
Mr. PIERCE of Porter, moved to reconsider the vote ordering the main question.
Mr. OSBORN held that it was incompetent to reconsider the vote ordering the main question, when we have taken two votes under it.
Mr. BUSKIRK moved for leave to withdraw the demand for the previous question.
The SPEAKER ruled against the point taken by Mr. Osborn, and Mr. O. appealed in writing from the decision.
While the House was waiting for the appeal--
Mr. McFADIN move that it is the sense of the House that Wilson's Digest was not good authority.
Mr. COFFROTH proposed to amend by way of substituting an order, to exchange the Digest for other copies of the Volksblatt.
These motions could not be entertained under the rules of the House.
The appeal of Mr. Osborn was now read by the Clerk. It rests on the statement that nothing can be in order now but the remaining question of engrossment.
On motion of Mr. COFFROTH, the appeal was laid on the table.
The question was then taken on Mr. Pierce of Porter's motion to reconsider the order for the previous question, which was decided in the negative--yeas 28, nays 61.
The question recurring on the engrossment, the vote resulted--yeas 37, nays 50--as follows:
YEAS--Messrs. Addison, Baker, Barnett, Beatty, Beeler, Bowen, Breckinridge, Buskirk, Calvert, Cunningham, Dittemore, Dunn, Fairchild, Field of Lagrange, Furnas, Hall, Hamilton, Higbee, Higgins, Hutson, Lamborn, Mason, Monroe, Overmyer, Pierce of Vigo, Ratliff, Ruddell, Shoaff, Skidmore, Stephenson, Underwood, Vardeman, Vater, Wildman, Williams of Hamilton, Wilson and Mr. Speaker--37.
NAYS--Messrs. Admire, Barritt, Bates, Bobo, Britton, Carnahan, Cave, Chapman, Chittenden, Coffroth, Cory, Cotton, Cox, Davidson, Davis, Fuller, Gilham, Gordon, Green, Hyatt, Johnson of Montgomery, Johnson of Parke, Lawler, Logan, McBride, McDonald, McFadin, Millekan, Miller, Miles, Mitchell, Mock, Montgomery, Neff, Odell, Osborn, Pierce of Porter, Sabin, Shoemaker, Stewart of Ohio, Stewart of Rush, Sunman, Tabor, Wile, Williams of St. Joseph, Williams of Union, Zenor and Zollars--50.
So the bill failed on the engrossment.
ELECTION LAWS.
The Election Committee's bill [H. R. 140] repealing certain sections of the registry law [in regard to residence--and to number the tickets, etc.,] with the amendments pending--the first question being on Mr. Coffroth's amendment to the amendment, adding two sections. First, requiring the judges and clerks to be divided equally between the two prevailing political parties--nominated by the central committees; and secondly, that each ward in every city shall constitute an election precinct.
Mr. COFFROTH proposed to amend further by providing that if the Central Committee shall not nominate the judges, then the inspectors of elections shall appoint at least three days before the election.
Mr. COFFROTH proposed also to add to the second section: Provided that where any persons vote is challenged, it shall not be lawful to receive such vote till such voter shall write his name on the back of the ballot, or until it shall be written for him and properly attested.
Mr. COFFROTH explained the propriety of his amendments, and--
Mr. RATLIFF spoke against them.
Mr. NEFF proposed a section that in case of challenge the person so offering to vote shall furnish his affidavit, and that of another, stating that he is an inhabitant of said precinct, and entitled to vote therein, etc.
Mr. COFFROTH now withdrew his second amendment, and proposed in lieu to strike out section two of the bill, which requires tickets to be numbered.
Mr. PIERCE of Vigo, spoke against the amendment, and indicated a motion to lay on the table.
Mr. PIERCE of Porter, opposed that motion of the bill which destroys the secrecy of the ballot.
Mr. BOBO regarded the registry law as an expensive plan, saying that his remedy was a straightforward election. He proposed to amend by two propositions: to make illegal voting a felony, and buying votes a felony, punishable by fine, imprisonment and disfranchisement.
Mr. WILDMAN moved to lay Mr. Coffroth's amendment on the table.
Mr. COFFROTH demanded a division of the question and the yeas and nays thereon.
The vote on the first question, on tabling that amendment which proposes to strike out page: 403[View Page 403] section two (requiring the tickets to be numbered, etc.) resulted--yeas 49, nays 39--as follows:
YEAS--Messrs. Baker, Barnett, Beatty, Beeler, Breckinridge, Buskirk, Chapman, Chittenden, Davidson, Davis, Dunn, Fairchild, Field of Lagrange, Furnas, Gilham, Gordon, Hall, Higbee, Higgins, Hutson, Hyatt, Johnson of Parke, Jump, Kercheval, Lamborn, Mason, Millekan, Miller, Mitchell, Monroe, Odell, Overmyer, Pierce of Vigo, Ratliff, Ruddell, Sabin, Skidmore, Smith, Stephenson, Stewart of Rush, Tabor, Underwood, Vardeman, Vater, Wildman, Williams of Hamilton, Williams of St. Joseph, Williams of Union, Wilson and Mr. Speaker,--49
NAYS--Messrs. Addison, Admire, Barritt, Bates, Bobo, Britton, Calvert, Carnahan, Cave, Coffroth, Cory, Cotton, Cox, Cunningham, Dittemore, Field of Lake, Fuller, Hutchings, Johnston of Montgomery, Lawler, Logan, McBride, McDonald, McFadin, Miles, Mock, Montgomery, Neff, Pierce of Porter, Shoaff, Shoemaker, Sleeth, Stewart of Ohio, Sunman, Tebbs, Welborn, Wile, Zenor and Zollars--39.
So that division was laid on the table.
The next question being on the second amendment of Mr. Coffroth, making the Township Trustees inspectors of elections--the only change is that each ward in a city shall constitute an election precinct; the vote resulted--yeas 53, nays 36 as follows:
YEAS--Messrs. Baker, Barnett, Beatty, Beeler, Breckinridge, Buskirk, Chapman, Chittenden, Davidson, Davis, Dunn, Fairchild, Field of Lake, Field of Lagrange, Furnas, Gilham, Gordon, Green, Hall, Higbee, Higgins, Hutson, Johnson of Parke, Jump, Kercheval, Lamborn, Mason, Millekan, Miller, Mitchell, 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--53
NAYS--Messrs. Addison, Admire, Barritt, Bates, Bobo, Britton, Calvert, Carnahan, Cave, Coffroth, Cory, Cotton, Cox, Dittemore, Hutchings, Hyatt, Johnston of Montgomery, Lawler, Logan, McBride, McDonald, McFadin, Miles, Mock, Montgomery, Neff, Odell, Shoaff, Shoemaker, Sleeth, Sunman, Tebbs, Welborn, Wile, Zenor and Zollars--36.
So the second division was laid on the table.
The next question was on Mr. Coffroth's first amendment requiring inspectors of elections to appoint the judges from the two parties, provided that the township central committees shall name the judges; and if the central committees fail, then the inspectors to appoint three days before the election; and the yeas and nays thereon resulted--yeas 50, nays 34.
So the several amendments proposed by Mr. Coffroth were laid on the table; except the provision, which makes any violation of this act. knowingly and willfully made, a felony, which was adopted by consent.
Mr. NEFF submitted an amendment regulating the challenging, and making it the duty of a person challenged to make affidavit, etc.
Mr. BUSKIRK deeming that Mr. Neff's amendment embraces the most objectionable of the features of the present registry law, moved to lay it on the table.
The motion was agreed to--yeas 59, nays 29.
Mr. PIERCE of Porter, proposed to amend by adding a section providing that, at the opening and counting the ballots, it shall be unlawful for any person to be present save the officers and inspectors of elections; and it shall not be lawful to reveal the votes of electors, except in obedience to the courts of law, etc.
On the motion of Mr. PIERCE of Vigo, it was laid on the table.
Mr. PIERCE of Vigo, proposed to amend by a section to the effect, that the Trustees of each township shall appoint qualified voters as judges and clerks of election, dividing and appointing them equally from the two political parties casting the highest number of votes in the township.
Mr. COFFROTH proposed to amend the amendment, by appropriately inserting a provision that such Trustees shall appoint as judges, etc., of elections, such persons as shall be nominated for such places, equally by the Central Committees of the two largest political parties of the township; and a further provision that, if these nominations be not submitted three days before the time of election, then the Trustees shall appoint, etc.
Mr. BUSKIRK objected to Mr. Coffroth's amendment, because it has already been voted down.
Mr. COFFROTH said that this proposition singly had not been acted on by the House. He spoke then of its eminent propriety. The amendment of Mr. Pierce of Vigo, proposes a division of both judges and clerks between the parties. But it allows the trustees to appoint; and they will not appoint their officers as the division will amount to nothing. Now he (Mr. C.) proposed that these election judges and clerks shall be named by the central committees. He said that the Democratic party wanted only what is equal in the elections the selection of active, intelligent men of both parties on the election board.
Mr. BUSKIRK said that was what they were driving at--to prevent frauds. The gentleman from Huntington started out with a presumption that the trustees will not do their duty. He replied further, and asserted the completeness of the bill.
Mr. STEWART of Rush, said the registry law made no provision for judges of elections.
On motion of Mr. VATER, Mr. Coffroth's amendment to the amendment was laid on the table--yeas 50, nays 37.
Mr. RATLIFF demanded the previous question, and there was a second; and under the pressure thereof--
Mr. Pierce of Vigo's amendment was adopted.
page: 404[View Page 404]Mr. BOBO proposed to add words to this effect: and any person who shall knowingly and willfully cast an illegal vote, shall, on conviction be deemed guilty of felony, and punished by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars; and imprisonment for a term not less than one nor more than five years; and any person who shall knowingly and willfully advise, employ or assist any person to cast any illegal vote, shall be punished by fine and imprisonment, and be disfranchised. He said there was no way to repress illegal voting but by punishing the offense as felony, and desiring the House to take deliberate action thereon, he moved that it do now adjourn.
The motion was rejected.
Mr. GORDON moved that Mr. Bobo's amendment be laid on the table.
Mr. BOBO demanded a division of the question, and the first division of his amendment was tabled--yeas 47, nays 40.
The second division was tabled, by yeas 49, nays 38.
Mr. BUSKIRK, in voting to table the amendment, explained that there are already stringent laws on the subject of illegal voting, and that the amendment can serve no other purpose than embarrassing the action of the House.
And then, under the previous question, the bill was ordered to the engrossment
The House then adjourned.
