THE BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
TENTH VOLUME.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
IN SENATE.
FRIDAY, February 19, 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 was being read when
On motion of Mr. CRAVENS the further reading thereof was dispensed with.
Mr. BELLAMY rose to a privileged question. The Senator from Monroe yesterday read a telegram which was intended to place Mr. B. in the attitude of making a misstatement upon the floor of the Senate concerning a conversation had with the President of the State University. Mr. B. said that Senators Wood and Kinley were present at the time of the conversation, and he called upon them to state their recollections of it.
Mr. WOOD said his recollection of the conversation was substantially the same as stated by Mr. Bellamy.
Mr. KINLEY had not a very clear recollection of what Dr. Nutt said.
Mr. HUGHES replied, and in justification to Dr. Nutt, read the following letter from that gentleman:
INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY,
Bloomington, February 18, 1869.
Hon. JAMES HUGHES, L.L.D., Member of the Senate:
DEAR SIR--I forwarded to your address a telegram correcting the statement made by Hon. Bellamy, in regard to the conversation with myself. I was talking with Hon. Isaac Kinley. Mr. Bellamy heard a part of the conversation only. I was speaking of the wants of the University, and said that we needed at least three more Professors in the Collegiate Department, aside from the wants of the law and Normal schools library, observatory and other necessities which would require the full amount proposed in your bill.
He (Bellamy) said that it cost about two thousand dollars for each graduate at the State University. Now the number of graduates for the present year, literary and law, will be forty-four. With present income of the University, fifteen thousand dollars, it will be only three hundred and forty dollars per graduate. But this income is only of two years standing, and consequently it is unfair to make it the basis of calculation. Until the time above named, the income of the University was only six thousand dollars, which would be only one hundred and thirty-six dollars per graduate. If the Legislature make the appropriation needed, the number of graduates will be greatly increased, and make the cost even less than the last named sum. The cost to the State of each student in the University, per annum, is now less than fifty dollars. Counting out the endowment revenue and reckoning on the present appropriation from State the cost of each student would be only twenty-six dollars, sixty-six cents per annum.
Very truly yours, with the greatest respect, C. NUTT.
Mr. CRAVENS, by consent, reported a bill, [S. 257] from the special joint Committee on an Executive Mansion, with a statement the same as was made by the committee to the House of Representatives yesterday afternoon.
Mr. FISHER moved to suspend the regular order for the purpose of the introduction of new bills.
The motion was agreed to.
BILLS FOR ACTS.
Were introduced, read the first time and referred to appropriate committees unless otherwise stated, as follows:
The committee's bill, [S. 257] to provide for the erection of an executive mansion making an appropriation therefor, (sixty-five thousand dollars) appointing a building committee, etc.
By Mr. FISHER, [S. 258] to allow parties to bring and maintain suits in their adopted name.
By Mr. REYNOLDS, [S. 259] to authorize the Governor to issue a patent to Samuel Cooper for certain Michigan road lands in St. Jo- page: 428[View Page 428] seph county. The constitutional restriction was dispensed with, the bill was read again and passed, by yeas 37, nays 0.
By Mr. HAMILTON, [S. 260] to increase the fees of county Treasurers for the collection of delinquent taxes, and to punish them for not being dilligent in the collection thereof.
It was referred to the Committee on Fees and Salaries.
By Mr. FISHER, [S. 261] to allow cities and incorporated towns to erect fire buildings or other buildings for municipal purposes, on public docks, etc.
By Mr. HOOPER, [S. 262] requiring certain pleadings in fact on bills of exchange or promissory notes, etc.
By Mr. CRAVENS, [S. 263] requiring notaries, clerks, justices and others authorized to take oaths, to administer them to parties applying for pensions free of charge.
By Mr. SCOTT, [S. 264] supplemental to the act concerning surviving parties filling inventories, etc.
By Mr. ARMSTRONG, [S. 265] to amend section sixteen of the supervisor of highways act.
By Mr. BRADLEY, [S. 266] amending the sixty-eighth section of the general practice act, (concerning indictments.)
By Mr. GRAY, [S. 267] to prevent the larceny of timber and stone.
By Mr. CRAVENS, [S. 268] concerning the terms of courts in the Fifth Judicial District-- affecting only the county of Jefferson.
The constitutional restriction was dispensed with, the bill was again read, and passed by yeas 43, nays 0.
THE OMNIBUS UNIVERSITY BILL.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR then announced the special order for this hour being the consideration of Mr. Hughes' State University bill, [S. 197] in Committee of the Whole, Mr. Robinson of Madison in the chair.
On motion by Mr. HUGHES, the committee rose, reported progress, and asked leave to sit again next Tuesday, at two o'clock p. m.
The report was concurred in.
PETITIONS ETC.
Described as follows were presented and referred to appropriate committees:
Mr. CAVEN presented a memorial for a Homoepathic department in the proposed Medical College.
Mr. KINLEY presented a prohibitory petition from Johnson county and a large one from Wayne county.
HOUSE BILLS REFERRED.
On motion by Mr. FISHER, the order of business was suspended and the following bills were read by title only, and referred to appropriate committees:
The bills, H. R. 6, 62, 12,139, 203, 248, 30, 38, 46, 84, 11, 3, 202, 18, 66, 65, 34, 94, 54 and 83.
HOUSE BILLS PASSED.
On motion by Mr. HOOPER, the bill [H. R. 59] referring to the Circuit Court in Kosciusko and Noble counties, was read and passed the Senate, (under dispensation of the constitutional restriction) by yeas 38, nays 0.
On motion by Mr. KINLEY, the Court bill [H.R. 244] effecting only the county of Wayne, was read and passed the Senate, (the constitutional restriction being suspended for that purpose) by yeas 44, mays 0.
ADJUTANT GENERAL'S REFORT.
The House amendment to the Senate resolution giving the nine volumes of the Adjutant General's report to every employe of the Legislature, by ordering the same number of copies to be distributed to the several counties being read--
Mr. GREEN hoped the amenndment would not be concurred in, as it would take all the copies out of the library.
Mr. CHURCH and Mr. TURNER favored the amendment. The former saw no reason for keeping them piled way in the Library, for the purpose of giving State officers an opportunity to compliment each other.
Mr. FISHER thought the amendment defective and opposed concurrence. There should certainly be a small reserve left at least.
Mr. CRAVENS also opposed the amendment.
Mr. CARSON thought they should be sold as was provided, he believed, in the original bill.
Mr. KINLEY thought they belonged to the people of the State. He should favor their distribution in the county and township libraries and moved to concur with and amendment, giving a copy of each volume to each Township Library.
Mr. ICE had no faith in the township libraries, and in this opinion--
Mr. GRAY concurred.
Messrs. GIFFORD and KINLEY stated that they were properly managed in their counties.
Mr. SCOTT understood that the county libraries already had them.
The amendment was laid on the table.
Mr. SCOTT moved to refer the whole subject to a select committee of three.
Mr. HUGHES proposed to amend as follows:
Provided, That any member who prefers to take some other book in preference to the Adjutant General's report may take from the State Library such other work not exceeding eight volumes in number.
After humorous debate--
page: 429[View Page 429]Mr. HUGHES spoke ironically in favor of his amendment and then withdrew it.
Mr. CRAVENS favored the distribution of copies of the report among all members or employees of the Legislature who had not yet received them, and moved to refer with instructions to so amend.
Mr. CHURCH thought a thousand setts might very properly be distributed among the people of the State through the members.
Mr. LASSELLE rose to a question of order. He thought the only action of the Senate could be to concur in the House amendments.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR decided the point not well taken.
Mr. WOLCOTT proposed a further amendment, instructing the Committee to confer with the State Librarian, and report how many can with propriety be distributed among the members.
The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. HUGHES made an ineffectual motion to lay the whole subject on the table--yeas 15, nays 27.
The amendment as amended was agreed to.
Messrs. Scott, Case and Carson were appointed said committee.
The Committee on courtesy between the two Houses was announced, viz: Messrs. Cravens, Rice and Gifford.
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. WOLCOTT presented a petition from White county, praying for the establishment of a house of reform for women.
It was referred to the Committee on Female Prisons.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Mr. CASE, from the Committee on Election returned the election law amendment bills, [S. 192 and 193] with adverse reports thereon.
Mr. REYNOLDS returned the election bill, [S. 221] from the same committee, with a similar report.
Mr. ROBINSON of Madison, returned the registry law amendment bill, [S. 108] with a favorable report.
Mr. SCOTT from the same Committee, returned the registry law amendment bill, [S. 189] recommending its passage, with an amendment.
Mr. CASE, from the select Committee on the Governor's mansion returned the bill [S. 230] with amendments.
THE OLD STATE DEBT.
On motion by Mr. CARSON, the resolutions concerning the old internal improvement bonds and war claims, offered by Judge Hughes and reported to the Senate by the Committee of the Whole were taken up.
On his further motion, the vote adopting the first resolution indefinitely postponing the consideration of so much of the Governor's message as relates to the settlement of the old internal improvement bonds held by the General Government, was reconsidered.
Mr. CRAVENS raised the point of order that the subject was removed from the consideration of the Senate for this session by the vote adopting the first resolution, and consequently a motion to reconsider that vote can not be entertained, and called attention to the twenty-third rule, providing that when a question is indefinitely postponed, it shall not be acted upon during the session.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR held that this did not apply to a motion to reconsider a vote by which it was postponed.
Mr. CARSON. Mr. President: When the Senator from Monroe [ Mr. Hughes] introduced the resolutions now under consideration, it was in Committee of the Whole. Without any discussion upon them, except a few remarks from Judge Hughes, the committee rose and reported the resolutions. The first resolution, which has just been reconsidered, was adopted without discussion.
My object in moving a reconsideration of the vote taken upon the adoption of this resolution, is to inquire how far it committed this Senate and the State of Indiana, in sanctioning the settlement made by his excellency, Governor Baker, of the old internal improvement bonds held by the General Government in trust for certain Indian tribes.
It is true, that the resolution does not propose any action to be taken upon the subject, but it does declare--
That no Legislative action is necessary on so much of the Governor's message as relates to the settlement of the old internal improvement bonds held by the General Government, and that the further consideration of the same be indefinitely postponed.
To this resolution I enter my solemn protest. As to its legal effect, I am not prepared to say, but so far as it sanctions, and does not protest against this settlement made by the Governor (for whom I have the most profound respect, and in whose purity of purpose I entertain unlimited confidence,) I am opposed to it, because this settlement was made, not only without authority of law, but in my opinion in violation of a plain and positive provision of the statutes of our State in full force on the statute books. I speak positively, and none would regret more than I, should I be mistaken on this point.
page: 430[View Page 430]The resolution under consideration embraces only four items, mentioned in the Governor's message to wit: "One hundred and forty-one bonds of the State surrendered, one hundred and forty-one million dollars." "Interest thereon to November 1, 1868, one hundred and thirty-six thousand three hundred dollars." "Interest on sixty-nine thousand dollar, other bonds (not yet due) to July 1st, 1868, forty-six thousand live hundred and seventy-five dollars." "Two coupons of lost bonds, fifty dollars," making in all the sum of three hundred and twenty-three thousand nine hundred and twenty-five dollars. I believe the Governor in his message does not allude to any law, in pursuance of which he adjusted these items. The Adjutant General, however; the special agent of the Governor, in his report alluding to the authority under which he acted, uses the following language to be found on the 14th page of his report:
Under the Act of the Legislature, approved March 6th, 1865, the Governor is authorized to proceed with the settlement of our claims by such agent or agents as he may deem proper.
The settlement of these internal improvement bonds having been made by the Governor, through the agency of the Adjutant General, it would appear from the language just quoted that the Adjutant General construed the act of March 6, 1865, as authorizing the Governor through his agency, to settle these old internal improvement bonds. I think this a far-fetched and unwarrantable construction of that act. The act allued to will be found pages 47, 48, and 49, of acts of 1865, and reads as follows: [Here insert.]
It can surely require no great amount of legal ability to comprehend and clearly understand the object and force of this act as recited in the preamble; it is merely to ratify Governor Morton's adjustment of Indiana's portion of the direct tax levied upon her by the United States, and extending his powers to settle by an agent such other claims as may, from time to time accrue in favor of the State against the United States.
It is clear, to my mind, that this act neither by its letter nor spirit can be construed to authorize the Governor to settle and adjust such claims as the United States might hold against the State, which were, by the statutes of the State, in full force at the time of the passage of the act of 1865, already provided for, and in relation to which the State had entered into a solemn compact that she would make no provision whatever, thereafter, to pay either principal or interest on any internal improvement bonds. I allude to the last proviso in the eighth section of an act entitled:
AN ACT supplemental to An Act to provide for the funded debt of the State of Indiana, and for the completion of the Wabash and Erie Canal to Evansville.
"Approved January 19, 1846," "approved January 27, 1847," acts of 1847, page 8, which reads as follows:
Provided, further, That the State will make no provision whatever hereafter to pay either principal or interest on any internal improvement bond or bonds, until the holder or holders thereof shall have first surrendered said bonds to the agent of State and shall have received in lieu thereof certificates of stock as provided in the first section of the act, anything in this act to the contrary notwithstanding.
This proviso has been regarded as of binding force and effect upon the Legislature and officers of the State ever since the passage of act;a condition annexed to the contract made between the State and the bondholders which could not be violated without a breach of faith; and hence, no legislature has, for a moment, sought to interfere with any of the provisions of this contract. But it may be said that this provision was not binding on the bondholders who did not come in under the arrangements of this bill; however that may be, its provisions have been considered as binding upon the Legislature and officers of the State for more than twenty years, and it is too late now, and fraught with too grave consequences, to sanction a violation of its provisions by the executive authority of the State, or even to pass it by in silence, and thereby impliedly sanction the action of the Governor in this matter. I regard it of too great moment to the people of the State to thus lightly treat the subject, and shall insist that we enter our solemn protest against the adjustment of these bonds, made, in my opinion, in direct contravention of law.
It may be said, however, that by the provisions of the act of March 7, 1867, entitled "an act to consolidate certain bonds, stocks and accounts of the school fund into one non-negotiable bond, and making other provisions in relation thereto," (acts of 1867, page 28,) the validity of eight of these old internal improvement bonds was recognized, and provisions made for the payment of interest thereon as merged into the new non-negotiable bond, and that thereby the State committed herself to an adjustment of the remaining bonds outstanding, amounting to three hundred and forty-five thousand dollars, as shown by Governor Baker's message on page 6. [See suffix at the end of this volume.]
It will be recollected, however, that the act of March 7, 1867, alluded to by Governor Baker, was passed merely for the purpose of consolidating the debt due by the State to the school fund in a non-negotiable bond, and that the item of those eight bonds, recited in the preamble, was passed over without being noticed as to its effect upon the acts of 1846-7, and as belonging to the school fund no objections were made to including these bonds with the interest accrued thereon in the new non- page: 431[View Page 431] negotiable bond. If the question had been raised as to its effect upon these acts, that item, most unquestionably, would have been striken out of the preamble of the act, and it ought not to furnish a precedent upon which to settle and adjust the remaining outstanding internal improvement bonds.
The school fund has ever been regarded with great favor by the State, and whatever may have been proposed in advancing it, it always met with encouragement, and never received that careful criticism which is bestowed on other legislation. Indeed it might be regarded as a donation to the school fund, rather than the recognition of a liability in violation of a contract made on the part of the State with her other creditors, but be this as it may,it is quite clear from a history of the act that no objection was made to it, its consequences were not inquired into, and the act passed by a unanimous vote of the Senate, which could not be done if the attention of Senators had been called to the consequences alluded to by Governor Baker in his late message. I do not think that by the passage of this act the Legislature intended to commit the State to the recognition of any obligation on her part to redeem the outstanding three hundred and forty-five thousand dollar bonds in contravention of acts of 1847 before mentioned.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR (interrupting,) having further considered the matter, decided the point of order made by Mr. Cravens well taken, and ruled the speaker to the consideration of the second and third resolutions.
Mr. CARSON. Well Mr. President, the second resolution goes much farther than the first; it resolves:
That the Committee on Finance be instructed to prepare and report a bill for the payment of the interest due and to become due, and also on the principal of all bonds that are now due or overdue on old internal improvement bonds now outstanding.
Here is a direct violation of the contract made between the bondholder and the State; a plain and palpable breach of the act of 1847, and of one of the most important conditions upon which the bondholders relied, that was the surrender of all these bonds for one-half in stock, with a guarantee that the State should never make any provision for the payment of principal or interest until the holders surrendered them to the agent of State and accepted stock in lieu thereof, as provided in the first section of the act. Now I would ask if this Senate is prepared; with a full knowledge of the fact, to disregard these provisions of this contract, and assume the consequences which will inevitably follow, that of being the party to first break a contract of the most advantageous character to herself, and allow those bondholders to arraign the State before the nations of the world, with the evidence in their posession that the great State of Indiana violated a solemn compact full of equity and justice, and made thereby a clear distinction between her creditors of the same class, because she had the ability to do so, and refused to do justice to them, having a like ability, but would not exercise it, although they are less able to bear the loss than her favored recipients.
Yes, Mr. President, open this door and pass these resolutions, and you will, ere long, be approached, and I do not know but with some show of justice, with a history of wrongs, statement of abuses and bad faith towards those bondholders who have complied with the contract in the surrender of their bonds. That may be somewhat troblesome to the consciences of those who now are disposed to anticipate no such results, entertain no such fears, and feel that, however they may deal with these resolutions they can treat with indifference the appeals of a class of persons who would, had they acted as those outstanding bondholders have done, been equally entitled to consideration. I do not desire to open the door for any such appeals. The transactions out of which these old internal improvement bonds grew, belong to a past age.
I do not desire to go into the consideration upon which they are based, but one thing is very certain that the State of Indiana has now nothing to show for them, and I am inclined to think the Trustees of the Wabash and Erie Canal cannot show that the original bondholders, who surrendered their bonds have much more than a worthless canal on their hands to maintain for one-half of the bonds thus surrendered, while the people along the line of the canal have been ruined by the transaction, and the subsequent action of the State in granting its franchise to a Railway Company which has virtually destroyed it, and withholding from it all the fostering care its importance and justice demanded, using it only to relieve itself from the recklessness and folly of a wild system of internal improvement by a disposition of it to foreigners, thereby depriving a large and extensive portion of the State of the munificence of the general government, and ruining all those whose capital and business were identified with its perpetuity. If you make provision for the payment of these old bonds I will apprehend you will open a door for (I may say) just grounds of complaint that may not so easily be quieted as Senators may think. I do not desire that such shall be the case. Now is the time to avoid it. Vote down, then, those resolutions and you will say to the bond holders and to the trustees of the canal we shall abide by the contract, and hold you to the same.
The last resolution provides:
That so much of the Governor's message as refers to the settlement of the war claims of the State page: 432[View Page 432] of Indiana against the general government, and especially the action of the Adjutant General, and the contract made by him with an agent at Washington, with accompanying papers, be referred to the committee on Finance.
I have no special objection to this resolution being referred to that committee, yet, it is now before the Senate, and I think it proper that every Senator who desires may express his views in relation to it.
If this resolution passes, I apprehend, it may be construed to embrace the settlement of the old internal improvement bonds as they were settled by an offset of claims which the State held against the United States, called in the language of this resolution "war claims of the State of Indiana against the general government," and hence would be committing the Senate to the construction given to the act of March 6, 1865, by the Adjutant General, and from which I especially dissent.
But there are still other matters connected with the adjustment made by the Adjutant General of these war claims with the United States to which I object, and which I do not consider as authorized by the act of March 6, 1865. I refer to the third explanatory statement on page 17 of this retort which reads as follows:
In April 1863, the President of the United States advanced to Governor Morton the sum of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars to enable him to carry on the state Government; he used one hundred and thirty-three thousand three hundred and three dollars ninety-one cents of it in paying military expenses, and on the 6th of April, 1865, refunded to the United States Treasury the balance one hundred and seventeen thousand six hundred and ninety-six dollars, nine cents. The vouchers for the military expenses were filed against the United States on the 20th of June 1865 and have been settled by the Treasury Department.
This matter was referred to by Governor Morton in his message to the General Assembly at the regular session of that year, in the following language, so be found under the head of "Military Expenses," [commencing on page 25 and ending on page 26 of the BREVIER REPORTS vol. VII--here insert.]
Suffice it to say that the recommendations contained in the message in relation to this matter were pressed by the friends of Governor Morton, and that the Legislature refused to carry them out. It is very clear that Governor Morton did not take the view of that transaction that the Adjutant General sets forth in his report; because he says in that portion of his message above quoted:
It will be perceived that this money was not paid to me as a loan to the State or an advance the State upon debts due to her from the general government and creates no debt against the State whatever, but that in theory, it is an expenditure made by the President through me as his disbursing agent.
This advance to Governor Morton, then, was a transaction to be settled between him and the President of the United States, and one with which the Legislature of Indiana had nothing to do, and so treated the matter when specially before it at the regular session of 1865. Then how or where the Adjutant General derives his authority to settle and adjust these two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, I am unable to discover. It cannot be embraced in the second section of the act of March 6, 1865, above set forth. That section, only, in my judgment authorizes the Governor to proceed and settle such war claims to have been filed against the United States, and "to file and settle and adjust such other claims as may from time to time accrue against the United States in the same manner," by which language can only be inferred as ascertaining the amount due the State of Indiana, and allowing an offset thereto, on the part of the United States of claims against the State, about which there could be no controversy, which are ascertained to be just claims against the State, the payment of which has not been prohibited by a statute of the State, and which has been clearly recognized as a valid claim in favor of the United States, such as is recited in the preamble of the act of March 6, 1865, aforesaid. Hence I cannot conceive that the Governor had any power or authority to settle this claim of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, and I cannot vote to sanction such a usurpation of authority. The matter should have been deferred and submitted to the Legislature for its action.
I am opposed to the assumption of power not authorized by law, by whomsoever exercised, and if I am not mistaken, there has been an unwarrantable assumption of power exercised by the Governor in the adjustment of these Old Internal Improvement Bonds, and the balance of the advancement of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars made by the President of the United State to Governor Morton. For these reasons I cannot vote for those resolutions.
In conclusion Mr. C. offered the following resolutions as a substitute for the resolution reported from the Committee of the Whole:
Be it Resolved, By the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring, that the action of the Governor of the State of Indiana, and his agent, the Adjutant General, in the settlement of the old Internal Improvement Bonds, held by the General Government in trust for certain Indiana tribes, referred to in his message of 1869 to the General Assembly, was unauthorized by the laws of the State of Indiana.
RESOLVED, That the General Assembly of that State of Indiana should make no provision for the payment of the principal or interest due, or to become due, on the old Internal Improvement Bonds, except as provided in the acts of 1846 and 1847, known as the "Butler Bills,"
RESOLVED, That the action of the Governor in the settlement, through his agent, the Adjutant General, of $250,000 advanced to Governor Morton by the President of the United States, in 1863, was unauthorized by law, and that no legislation sanctioning the settlement of the matters embraced in these resolutions and referred to by the Governor in his
page: 433[View Page 433]message, as embraced in the report of the Adjutant General, should be entertained or proposed by the General Assembly.
On motion the resolutions and the substitute were laid on the table.
RESOLUTIONS.
Mr. WOLCOTT offered a resolution directing the Superintendent of the Blind Asylum to close the alley or roadway cutting the Asylum ground in two; giving reasons therefor.
The resolution was adopted.
Mr. LASSELLE offered a resolution that the select Committee on Officers Fees and Salaries, etc., have leave to report till the fifth proximo.
The resolution was adopted.
QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.
Mr. LASSELLE asked the Secretary to read a couple of paragraphs from the Cincinnati Commercial, which he proposed to make the text of a question of privilege.
The Secretary read:
The forked lightnings hasten to tell the world that Jim Hughes had obtained leave of absence for the remainder of the session, but he didn't go. The marked and uncomplimentary readiness with which the Senate voted him leave seemed to have given him a set "back in the breeching," and he seems to think they are a shade too willing. Rumor has it that the whole thing was a stragetic movement to make the Bloomington folks "come down" with inducements to keep him there to watch their interests in the "Agricultural College" fight.* * * * * * * *
If the Bloomington people really urged Hughes to remain and look after their interests, they have made a huge mistake. Hughes is a badly played out individual. If he can stumble upon a letter about some man's dirty shirts, like that which old Senator Lee of Bartholomew, chanced to drop, or if he can get hold of a vulgar communication like that he presented and had read in the Senate last Friday, he invariably produces a sensation, but 'tis only one of disgust among the more decent members of that body. The State University has been burned to ashes once, but it recovered that. It should not venture too far, however. The fact of its recovery from that conflagration is no evidence that it can endure the advocacy of Jim Hughes for any considerable period.* * * * * * * *
I respectfully suggest, however, that as the whitewashing committee are evidently around, it would be well to give several little items in the Governor's official history a passing touch--especially the paying off those bonds without authority of law, and the high toned manner in which he curbed his indignation at Colonel Cumback so long as that gentleman was engaged in towing his "frail craft" into the gubernatorial harbor, and then opened his "broadsides" upon him! Let the whitewashing be done, regardless of expense, for the outside world are getting to think that Jim Hughes and the Copperheads, with their bolting allies, have got the "corrupt" label on the wrong vessel.
Mr. LASSELLE then offered the following:
WHEREAS, There is a communication in the Cincinnati Commercial newspaper of the 17th instant, signed "Jargo," severely reflecting upon certain members and a standing committee of this body, is alleged to have been written by an individual entitled to the privileges of the floor of this Senate as a reporter of its proceeding, therefore,
RESOLVED, That said communication be referred to the Committee on Rights and Privileges, with instructions to inquire whether such communication was written by said reporter, with power to send for persons, and report by resolution or otherwise.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President: One word in relation to that commication. Since I have been a member of this Senate I can't imagine what I have done or said to call forth such a thing as that from any man. I do not know what offense I have given to any individual.-- I have not undertaken to make any great display before this Senate, but I will say in regard to this matter that the individual that wrote that, sir, I consider him beneath the notice of me--he is too diminutive and too low slung for me to say any further hard words of him. [Laughter.]
Mr. LASSELLE was not actuated by any spiteful motives in offering this resolution. A proper consideration of the dignity of this body requires that we should protect ourselves from the unjust reflections of those who, by the courtesy of this body, are entitled to the privileges of the floor. If such language as is contained in this correspondence were applied by any gentleman on this floor to another, it would be a breach of parliamentary law, and the words would scarcely fall from his lips till he would be called to order and subjected to the censure of the body. And, certainly, persons entitled to the privileges of the floor by the courtesy of the Senate, and who are under the jurisdiction of the Senate as far as their rights here are concerned, when they take advantage of such privilege? in this way, should receive some sort of notice by the body.
Mr. CHURCH questioned whether the Senate would not show more dignity by letting this matter alone than by following it up. He did not think this a dignified proceeding, and would like to see the resolutions laid on the table.
Mr. WOLCOTT says this newspaper abuse has been carried too far, and ought to be checked. The resolution is simply to inquire into the identity of the person perpetrating this last scandal. He saw no impropriety in it.
The resolution was adopted.
On motion by Mr. GRAY, the vote passing the resolution was reconsidered.
Mr. GRAY called for the re-reading of the portion of the correspondence referring to the "Whitewashing Committee."
It being re-read by the Secretary--
Mr. RICE considered the resolution unneccessary and out of place. He wished the Senator would withdraw it.
Mr. GIFFORD was acquainted to some extent with this "Jargo," who might repeat these page: 434[View Page 434] charges every day and sing them all over Franklin county, where he is known, and it would not amount to a hill of beans. [Laughter.]
Mr. CHURCH insisted that it was beneath the dignity of the Senate to be hunting up newspaper articles of this sort. To show how much business of this sort the Senate can have, he requested the Secretary to read the following article found as an editorial in this morning's Sentinel, a paper that is paid by the subscription of this body for reporting our proceedings:
GOT THEM AT LAST.--Judge Nimrod Johnson, of Wayne county, an ardent Republican and mighty Julianite, was in the city yesterday. In a conversation with some friends at the Bates House the talk turned upon the "combined wisdom." Said the Judge: "I have a faint recollection of once hearing a Bible story about a fellow named Saul, who sent out a man to hunt up a drove of asses. The man never came back again. If I knew Saul's post office address at the present time, I should write and tell him that the man had been faithful to his trust, and had corralled the whole drove up here in the State House." The Judge had better go back to Richmond.
Mr. HUGHES. Did I understand the Senator to say that article was about him? [Laughter.]
Mr. CHURCH. I meant to say it was about the Senator from Monroe. [Continued laughter.] Mr. Church supposed the resolution referred to Mr. Lozier. Some Senators may not like Mr Lozier, but Mr. Lozier can inform them that other people do, and people holding as responsible positions as we. Mr. Church wanted to take such action on this resolution as will prevent these things coming up here in the future.
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. President: I have not said anything upon this resolution. It is not my resolution, and had it not been for the remarks of the Senator from Porter [Mr. Church] I would not have said anything. As far as this man Lozier is concerned, I said all I had to say yesterday; and I think the reporter has undertaken to deliver something of a lecture to me for having expressed my opinion so freely in reference to the correspondence in the Cincinnati Commercial. I have nothing to add to what I said on yesterday, but the only mode of defense a Senator has unless he turns himself into a newspaper correspondent, is, when these matters come up in connection with the business before the Senate, to say what he has to say, and rely upon the reporters of the proceedings of the Senate to have them go to the public. I had observed for weeks past, I suppose at least a dozen false and abusive articles, not only of myself, but other members of the Senate from this same source. The subject came up yesterday in connection with another matter, and it was proper to allude to it as I did allude to it. And it was the duty of the reporters in this body to have reported what I said, but who of them did so? and therefore what I did say is confined to the audience that heard it.
But that is not the question before the Senate.
The Senator from Porter certainly mistakes the question. It is not what amount of importance may be attached to newspaper attacks, nor the correspondents that write them, nor the newspapers in which they appear; that is not the question. The Senator proposes to hold them in great contempt. I have no professions to make on that subject. I imagine that I am as independent in reference to these matters, as the Senator or any body else; but the Senator, or the member of any community in this country, who undertakes to say that the press has not a certain power for good or evil, commits a great mistake. It has a power to do injury as well as good. If it has not, it would not be a living institution of the country. But I say a degree of contempt is to be assigned to a reporter of a paper in which it appears. No person will speak of the Cincinnati Commercial with contempt. Everybody knows that it is a respectable newspaper. The question is: Is it proper and right that the Senate should tolerate upon this floor, and admit to the privilege of this floor, one who abuses that privilege to misrepresent individuals of this body? We are not called upon to decide how much respect, or how little respect we have for this offense. We are not called upon to say whether it is right and proper. That is the point, and the special point of the Senator from Cass (Mr. Lasselle) whether we should admit to this floor, as newspaper correspondents, persons who make it their business to cast odium, not only upon individuals of the Senate, but upon its committees and upon the whole body.
Now, Mr. President, as far as I am concerned, I can afford to abide by any standard of dignity this body may adopt. If it chooses to adopt one too high for me, I fall below it; and if it chooses to adopt one too low for me, I will stand above it. It is a question for the Senate to decide for themselves what shall be their standard of propriety in the matter. It is no new question. The Senator from Porter has his theories, and they are refreshing--and their principal importance is their novelty. He can hardly expect at this age of the world, to strike out an entirely new and untried path. It has been the usage, sir, and it is to-day the established usage in all legislative bodies, to bring the newspaper correspondents that desire to wallow in falsehood and misrepresentation to just that kind of a tribunal, and exclude them from the floor. The question is, whether that man Lozier, is to be recognized by this Senate, and a semi-endorsement given to his calumnies by the fact of their recognition; or page: 435[View Page 435] whether it is to be said: "Both you and your calumnies are beneath our contempt; get you behind us; get out of our chamber and out of our sight! If you expect to stay here as a correspondent, admitted to the privileges of this floor, behave yourself like a decent man--a man of truth--and don't bring disgrace upon the sacred calling you profess, as well as upon humanity itself." That is what the Senator is called upon to say.
Now sir, the last part of the article which the Senator from Cass has sent up--the least offensive part of it--is that which refers to individuals. That professed minister of the Gospel undertakes to insinuate, sir, that the Governor of the State of Indiana is a dishonest man. The Governor of the State of Indiana is not a member of the Senate; therefore, except remotely, the dignity of the Senate is not involved in that charge. But he further insinuates, in advance of the report of the Judiciary Committee of this body, which he knows is occupied upon the foul calumnies of just such a man as he is, and which he knows, when it does report, will stamp these calumnies with the seal of reprobation, he endeavors to forstall public opinion, by speaking of that Committee as a "white washing Committee." Not all the whitewash ever made out of lime would whitewash that "whited sepulcher"that falsifier and hyprocrite--without the semblance of a man; full of corruption, and yet claiming to be a minister of the Gospel, He has been a public nuisance, a pest, a camp--follower for corrupt purposes, of a pure and great party, until the having upon its skirts of such as he, is likely to drag it down into the gutter, and destroy it forever.
I say, Mr. President, the attacks upon the Senate, and upon the Judiciary Committee of this body, contained in that article; are a direct invasion of the rights and privileges of this Senate. And since the matter is brought before it for its judgment, I spurn the dignity of the body that continues to permit the author of these charges to sit upon this floor. I will ask the Secretary to send me the paper. I find in the article things much more offensive than those read. Let me read this passage to the Senate:
If you want to see a gathering of the Hoosier savans at Indianapolis just shout "Agricultural College" in the public ear, and you'll see them pour in in human avalanches. I would not give the money spent in "lobbying" for that College grant for all the good the State will ever get out of it, and the end is not yet. Already Bloomington, Battle Ground, Greenfield, and Indianapolis are on hand in force, pressing their respective claims, while Moore's Hill makes a potential bid for a slice upon the presumption that the only way the fuss will ever be settle will be to divide the funds among the contending sections.
What is the meaning of that? That money is to be poured on around the Legislature to located the Agricultural College. There is not a Senator within the sound of my voice or elsewhere, there is not a Representative that sits in the other side of the capitol; there is not a doorkeeper; there is not a clerk; there is not a lobby agent about this capitol; there is not a coffee-house keeper, nor a skullion around town, that would not be ashamed to make that statement and affirm that it is true. It is known to be false; and yet it proceeds from a minister of the gospel who sits upon this floor by the courtesy of the Senate, to spawn his falsehoods in our presence and send them abroad upon the wings of the lightning. Do you propose, Senators, to countenance this thing, by continuing this privilege? Let the slanderer go. Let him go and perpetrate his notorious falsehoods outside of this Chamber, and not offend the eyes of decent men by his presence here. He is unfit for the association of gentlemen or of Senators, and the more so in that he adds to his falsehoods the cloak of a false profession of religion--the cloak of hypocracy.
Again sir:
Railroad lobbyists are also becoming quite as thick here as is healthy. The effort of the Legislature to save the people from being ground to atoms under the onward rolling Juggernaut of monopoly is worthy of all praise, if they finish their work in the spirit in which it seems to have begun. But I bear record in advance that I shall have more confidence in poor human nature than I ever had before if the present Legislature resists the "pressure" of the corporations interested in defeating the measures of protection and restitution now pending.
The railroads are here, and if the Legislature continue as it has begun, it will protect the interests of the people; he will have more confidence in human nature, if the corporations don't buy out the Legislature? Is this respectful language concerning this whole body? What does it amount to? It allusively charges corruption. Does it hurt us? No sir; not unless we give color to it. The purpose of the resolution is, not to refute it--not to answer it; but let its corrupt author go without day, and stay outside these walls. That is the proposition. That is the intention of the resolution, and, in order that no injustice shall be done, the resolution proposes that a committee shall investigate the matter, and that he shall have what is accorded to the meanest criminal--a full hearing--a fair defense, and a fair investigation. In regard to that portion relating to railroads,--in going on and setting out the facts that Mr. Osborn, in the House of Representatives, made a report that the Terre Haute and Richmond road owes a great deal to the State, he finds one honest man in the Legislature. That reads as follows:
Osborn shows no disposition to persecute this railroad or any other; but, as chairman of the committee, simply presents an able, concise statement of the facts; and whatever may be the effect of the manipulations of the lobbyists upon the majority of the Legislature, one thing is certain: Osborn wil page: 436[View Page 436] "stick." Let all the people, irrespective of party, hold their "servants" strictly responsible for the manner in which railroad matters are disposed of by the present Legislature.
As if monopolists and lobbyists are likely to carry them astray from their duty. Do you want to indorse either of these sentiments? If you do, keep him upon this floor. Or, is it not your duty to strip from him the respectability your countenance and courtesy gives him, and send him to the world in his true character--of a calumniator, a gossipper and a defamer of men? If the Senator from Porter can set down with him, cheek-by-jowl, and feel that nothing is detracted from his dignity, I am not his judge. As for me sir, sinner thought I am, I would be very sorry indeed, to be caught in company with such a creature as that. [Laughter.] Where is his flock? Where is his charge, that he has nothing to do but hang around the halls of legislation and coin falsehoods into letters? What is to become of his sacred calling? What has become of his duty not to bear false witness against his neighbor? When he conveyed the insinuation that the charges made against me were true, he knew he lied. He knew it well. And he is a christian--and he is a minister of the gospel--and he is a fit fit person to be kept upon this floor as a reporter of the proceedings of this body!
Sir, we may establish a very low standard of of Senatorial dignity, and take our own course; but, we must recollect that we are not the only Legislative body in the world. These grounds have been traveled over time and again; and it is the established usage and rule in every legislative body upon this continent, to expel from its floor the reporter or correspondent who may cast odium upon the body, or unjustly misrepresent its proceedings. We claim no control over communications, but we owe it to the Cincinnati Commercial, which is a respectable paper, to say that we withdrew our indorsement from its correspondent. He is its correspondent, and I must compliment the gentleman from Porter [Mr. Church] upon his innocence. He did not exactly know who this man was. He said if the resolution had not said "Jargo," but had put in the name of somebody, he could possibly have voted for it.
Mr. CHURCH (interrupting.) I did not think Mr. Lozier a reporter of the proceedings of this body.
Mr. HUGHES. We have got now a nice distinction between the meaning of the words "reporter" and "correspondent"a very nice distinction. The point of fact I make is: The man is bodily present here, day after day, and is the correspondent of a newspaper. I do not propose to let the gentleman from Porter escape quite so easily. He said, if the resolution had not said "Jargo," but had put in the name of some man, it would have been reasonable. How can he tell who "Jargo" is? Who knows? And yet it is so notorious that, before he got through with second speech, he told us himself--not having time to consult "Jargo" or any of his friends.
I say, Mr. President, the personal attacks upon myself and other members who mingly openly in our proceedings, and have drawn upon themselves hostility, might be passed by to some extent. The attacks upon prominent men able to take care of themselves might be passed by, but when the Senator from Bartholomew, a plain, old-fashioned gentleman, that seldom troubles the Senate, giving offense to no man--a certain letter is attributed to him untruly, (like everything else this scribbler tells,) and he is held up to ridicule, it reaches a point where forbearance ceases to be a virtue. It is very well know to all who take the trouble to inquire, who the author of that letter is. He makes no secret of it. He is an officer of this body. He has never concealed it. But our unoffending and truly dignified old friend from Bartholomew, simply because he is a Democrat, is to be singled out, and a slur cast upon him as the author of this letter.
Another statement is made in reference to a petition presented here, and I mention that because I see it from a more respectable source--the correspondent of the Cincinnati Gazette, who conveys about as much, and a good deal more, than our reporters gets for the papers in this city--and generally much more correct and reliable--therefore I must quote him. He represented a petition which I presented here as being vulgar in its terms. It was ludicrous, but the correspondent was mistaken as to its being vulgar. It was a plain, honest, sincere petition, drawn up by a plain countryman, asking a change in the laws. It was not only for the most part in good language, but a portion of it rose to a high order in reference to the scriptures. [Laughter.] And the correspondent was mistaken when he said ladies were present when it was read. The presentation of the paper was deferred until the ladies were all out of the Chamber. But I am slow to suppose that the correspondent of the Cincinnati Gazette intended to misrepresent our proceedings. I make mention of these facts, because this other man, individual, or whatever you may choose to call him, took up the refrain and repeated the same thing; and it was a mistake. I suggest to the correspondent of the Cincinnati Gazette, that he examine the paper and he will see that while it may be somewhat ludicrous and, from the subject matter, it may not be appropriate reading for ladies, it was such a paper as a Senator is bound to present, especially as it is signed with the signature of the party who sent it.
I have something more to say; and I would not have said so much, were it not for the pe- page: 437[View Page 437] culiar views submitted by the Senator from Porter. That gentleman has a right to his own opinions and associations. But with regard to bringing the Senate to the standard he suggests--while he may be right--we must travel upon the beaten track. And we see, day after day, correspondents and reporters are expelled from the floor of deliberative bodies for doing much less things than this.
A correspondent by the name of Drum had been in the habit of abusing Colonel Benton. Mr. Benton had read his abuses, but had never answered them in any manner One day Drum met him in the rotunda of the capitol and tendered his hand saying, "Good morning Mr. Benton." Colonel Benton replied, "I believe your name is Drum?" He said, "Yes, sir." "I believe you are the author of communications signed 'X.'" "Yes, sir." "Very well Mr. Drum. While I can cheerfully consent to bear your abuse, I cannot bear your society." So I say to Jargo. Go hence without day, and fill the columns of newspapers that will admit your calumnies to them. We can stand your abuse, but spare us the pleasure, the honor, or the indignity and disgrace of your society.
Mr. GRAY. Mr. President: As I made the motion to reconsider, perhaps I ought to give the reason why I made the motion. I voted for the resolution, but I did so under a misapprehension that I was voting to lay the resolution on the table. Now, sir, I do not want the resolution to prevail for this reason; I want to be consistent and I want the Senate also to be consistent with itself. I say, standing here in my place, that it has not been the usage of this Senate, since I have had the honor to be a member, to protect itself from newspaper attacks. I remember sir, the first two or three weeks of this session, when the resolutions were pending against the Lieutenant Governor--the President of this Senate that newspapers were laid daily upon our desks, and the Reporters of those newspapers occupies seats upon this floor, and some of those newspapers abounded daily in the most scurrilous attacks upon the Lieutenant Governor while he was on trial before this Senate. His friends were abused and maligned and things were said against the Lieutenant Governor as hard as has been said against any member of this Senate since. There was a chance--there was an opportunity for this Senate to protect its dignity. The case of the Lieutenant Governor was prejugded. These papers made fifty speeched a day against him and no resolution was introduced to kick them out or deny the right of the floor to their Reporters.
I say inasmuch as we were not sensitive to this kind of a thing, now I am unwilling to have my moral sensibilities aroused sufficiently to kick out a Reporter of a newspaper from this chamber. I deplore these facts as much as any Senator here; and I am sorry anything of the kind is printed in any paper but I repeat that inasmuch as we have stood this same thing thus far, in order to be consistent we had better stand it until the end of the session.
The charge of dishonesty was made against the Lieutenant Governor when it was the duty of the Senate to protect him and it did not do it. When the charge is made against the Senator from Monroe [Mr. Hughes] I believed then, as I believe now, that he was perfectly innocent of the charge. There was not a member of the Senate thought for one moment that there was any thing in it at all; and he hag been fully and most completely vindicated, and now shall we take into consideration this correspondent of a Cincinnati newspaper. If we had done so at the beginning of the session, when it was our bounden duty to have done so, we could have consistently went on with this action now; but having failed to do so is the reason I made the motion to reconsider the resolution; and I now move that it be laid on the table.
The motion was rejected by yeas 16, nays 22--as follows:
YEAS--Messrs. Andrews Bellamy, Case, Caven, Church, Eliott, Gray, Hartley, Hamilton, Hess, Jaquess, Johnson of Spencer, Rice, Robinson of Madison, Robinson of Decatur, and Wood--10.
NAYS--Messrs. Armstrong, Beardsley, Bradley, Carson, Cravens, Fosdick, Gifford, Green, Henderson, Hooper, Howk, Huey, Hughes, Humphreys, Johnston of Montgomery, Kinley, Lasselle, Lee, Morgan, Reynolds, Scott and Wolcott--22.
Pending the roll call--
Mr. LEE, in explanation of his vote said: My feelings is to vote to lay on the table, but as long as the gentleman from Cass saw proper to introduce the resolution if he wants to ferret out some matter I vote "no."
So the resolution was not laid on the table.
Mr. CRAVENS. Mr. President: I have not participated in any discussion in reference to matters of this sort at any time, and I would not now if it was not for a single allegation contained in the resolution. The allegation is that "Jargo," whoever "Jargo" may be, is a Reporter, and by the courtesy of the Senate occupies a seat upon this floor for the purpose of gathering information to weave into a correspondence for the Cincinnati Commercial.
Mr. RICE (interposing.) I want to know whether there has been any action taken in regard to any Reporters; and how it happens that "Jargo" got in here.
Mr. HUGHES. It is a question of fact that "Jargo" is not a sightly object to look upon, and sits generally over there where he is now. [Laughter.]
Mr. CRAVENS (resuming.) The Senator page: 438[View Page 438] from Randolph [M. Gray] here at my right opposes this resolution upon strange ground, it seems to me for a grave and dignified Senator. He says because the Senate in the early part of the session refused or failed to discharge what he seems to think was its bounden duty in a case wherein the Lieutenant Governor was concerned, therefore he will vote against any inquiry now. Because he and the Senate refused to discharge a duty then, he will again violate his duty. I wish to draw a distinction between the two cases. All the city papers have Reporters upon this floor, and I undertake to say there was not a single article against the Lieutenant Governor emunating from a Reporter on this floor, but that they were wholly and entirely Editorial articles. Now we had no control of the Editors; but if any one of these Reporters violate the courtesy extended to them by the Senate then it would have been the business of the Senate to administer a rebuke.
I have been somewhat ridiculed by this correspondent "Jargo." We are now considering the propriety of inquiring as to whether this man occupies a seat upon this floor. The Cincinnati Commercial is a paper of extensive circulation, and in our own State, too; and if the implication in this resolution be true it will go forth to the world that we are here extending the courtesy of this body to a man who employs his time in calumniating or bringing into contempt not only this Legislature but the Executive who is a co-ordinate branch.
Mr. GRAY (interposing.) Will the gentleman permit me.
Mr. CRAVENS. Certainly.
Mr. HUGHES. I object to interruption.
Mr. CRAVENS. The State is interested in the character of its officials down to the lowest employe. It is the business of this body to do what it can to protect the reputation and character not only of its members but of those in its employ, therefore I shall go for this resolution of inquiry, and if it be found that this man "Jargo" is an individual who has been awarded the privilege of this floor and has been slandering members of this body or officers of this body, I for one will most cheerfully vote to expell him from the floor of the Senate and deny him the privilege. We have simply to discharge our duty and let consequences take care of themselves.
Mr. RICE. Mr. President: As this resolution is not laid on the table I propose to offer the following amendment: By inserting the Reporters of the daily Sentinel and the daily Eevening Mirror. I do not want to enter into the discussion of this question--
Mr. HUGHES (interposing.) The Reporters of the daily Sentinel and the daily Evening Mirror have no connection with the facts set out in the pending resolution.
The PRESIDENT pro tem., (Mr. Robinson of Madison, in the Chair.) The point of order is well taken.
Mr. RICE. I consider that worse articles than the particular one under discussion now are frequently printed in the Sentinel and Mirror, that are laid on our tables every day, and I can't for the life of me, see why this man "Jargo" should be made the scapegoat to bear away the sins of the editorial corps of this city. I cannot see why the gentleman from Monroe [Mr. Hughes] is so particular about associating with "Jargo," while willing to sit here and allow the editor of the daily Evening Mirror the privilege of the floor, and willing to court his company while penning his editorial slang, without offering a resolution to expel him.
Mr. HUGHES (interrupting.) The question concerning the editor of the Mirror was dropped yesterday, upon the express ground that he was not in the habit of coming upon this floor; and further, he don't profess to be a minister of the gospel.
Mr. RICE. It is the moral character of the man who utters slander that is to be considered. You are not to consider what he professes to be, but what he really is. This man charged one of our members with corruption. The charge was investigated, it falls to the floor, and he repeated the charge next day. The Senator is willing to bring him in here, and when I propose to exclude him, Senator is not willing.
The PRESIDENT pro tem., (Mr. Robinson of Madison in the chair.) There is no reference to editorials in these resolutions.
Mr. RICE. I am speaking to the proposition to drive from the halls of the Senate "Jargo." I say when you commence, drive out tbe whole corps, who are as guilty and as black as he. Why one man should be singled out now, when we have let these things accumulate in the papers that are laid on our desks day after day, I can't understand. As far as they speak about me I pass it by. If they charged me with corruption I don't known but I would bring it before the Senate. I do not wish to see this resolution passed unless the whole corps are included. If "Jargo" is not fit to be associated with, neither is the editor of the Mirror or the editor of the Sentinel.
In the contest between Houghton and Montgomery for the seat as Senator from Martin, when the former was excluded by some of his own party friends, voting with the Democracy, the Sentinel came out and charged that he left the Senate with disgrace--intimating that he occupied his seat upon this floor in violation of his oath. And this morning's Sentinel comes out with a most scurrilous attack upon our Secretary; yet those charges are to be borne, and these men are fit to be associated with. If page: 439[View Page 439] the Senator from Monroe is for sustaining the dignity of this body, why not embody the Sentinel and the Mirror in these resolutions? I don't like this singling out by a solemn vote of parties. The Republican party to-day is in the minority upon this floor--every test vote shows it--and whoever the majority single out to vote chastisement upon, the whole vote goes a solid shot. And while the Senator is willing to associate with men culumniating Senators upon this floor, and charging them with being rotten and corrupt, he is not willing that these men shall be taken in and a Committee appointed to investigate their cases.
Mr. HUGHES (interposing.) I repeat--
Mr. GRAY (interrupting.) I rise to a point of order. The speaker should not be interrupted.
The PRESIDENT pro tem. The point is not well taken. The Senator from Parke [Mr. Rice] yielded.
Mr. HUGHES. I--
Mr. GRAY. I insist upon the point of order. I was not allowed by the chair to say anything while the Senator from Jefferson was speaking.
The PRESIDENT pro tem. The Senator was talking about what had nothing to do with the subject.
Mr. GRAY. I asked the Senator from Jefferson a question, and the Senator from Jefferson yielded.
The PRESIDENT pro tem. The Senator from Jefferson did not yield.
Mr. GRAY. I leave that for the Senator from Jefferson himself to say.
Mr. HUGHES. I have no objection, if the Senator will designate something they have done amounting to an abuse of the privileges of the floor; otherwise he will see an impropriety in it.
Mr. RICE. I was speaking to the Senator from Cass [Mr. Lasselle] and calling to his mind the fact that while one of these charges were brought in here, others were left out. It is his duty to withdraw his resolution, amend it and put it in right. Let us have this floor cleared at once of these vile correspondents.
Mr. LASSELLE (interposing.) If the Senator will point out any person who has the privilege of this floor, and who has abused that privilege in this way, I will do so with pleasure.
Mr. GRAY. With the permission of the Senator from Parke, I would like to ask the Senator from Cam a question.
Mr. RICE. Certainly.
Mr. GRAY. "Jargo" is not paid by this Senate for sitting upon this floor, nor for reporting for any paper, and yet we must expel him because he writes as a correspondent, certain things derogatory to the Senate. Now, Sir, we take newspapers day after day--by our subscription paying them for keeping a reporter on this floor--and when they malign the Senate, ought we not to apply some remedy to them?
Mr. HUGHES (in his seat.) No sir.
Mr. LASSELLE. No sir. The editors are not upon this floor, and do not receive the courtesies of the Senate.
Mr. GRAY. Do we not approve the articles if we continue to take their papers?
Mr. LASSELLE. Not at all. We take the papers under a contract, and we cannot rescind that contract.
Mr. GRAY. Do I understand the Senator to say that any thing this Legislature does it cannot undo?
Mr. LASSELLE. No sir. We are prohibited by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Indiana from doing any thing to impair the obligation of a contract.
Mr. RICE (resuming.) There is the Constitution of the United States wrung into this discussion. [Laughter.] And poor "Jargo," because he has no contract with this body, and used some language that perhaps he ought not, the sins of the whole editorial corps are to be laid upon his broad shoulders, and he is to go out to save them, I suppose. Here are two papers, both of them daily laid upon our desks, containing direct and positive and repeated charges of corruption against members upon this floor, yet I am not in favor of inquiring into any of them.
I am not in favor of abridging the rights of the press. If our action lays us open to the charges of corruption or anything else, and a newspaper correspondent should draw a conclusion of that kind, it is his right and duty as a free man to say it out, and be held responsible for the charge. If the action of any Senator upon this floor is such that a conclusion can be legitimately drawn that he is acting improper, the press has a right to speak of it. And I should not ask that these reporters be put in this resolution of inquiry, had the Senate not brought this thing to a final vote upon one of them and that one the least guilty of the three.
Gentlemen say they are not reporters. How do they get a report of our proceedings then if they do not have somebody here to report them? The Journal has a reporter here and the Sentinel has one, how does the Mirror get a report unless it is taken by some one here? You can't get around it. The thing is laid under your nose every day, stinking with corruption, and you are willing to sit with it under your nose, but as soon as "Jargo" comes in you take the Constitution of the United States upon him. [Laughter.] If "Jargo" has page: 440[View Page 440] offended, let him be brought to justice, but don't let those others go scot free.
Mr. GRAY. I rise to make an explanation. In my remarks I have not referred to the Reporters upon this floor who are simply reporting the proceeding of the Legislature, I was talking about newspaper correspondents. I am a friend of the press, for I believe there is a good deal of corruption brought out that never would see the light of day if it was not for the press.
Mr. LASSELLE. Mr. President: I desire to disclaim any personal motives in this thing. It is entirely a question of principle with me. I am not aware that any other correspondent or Reporter on this floor has done anything similar. I admit that injustice has been done members in Editorial remarks, as in the case of the Senator from Monroe--an old personal friend with whom I can stand on personal matters, but not on political questions. I take the position that we can do nothing with editors who are not participants of the courtesies of this body. If "Jargo" was independent of this body and not a recipient of the courtesies of this body I would have nothing to say in regard to him. I base this resolution simply upon the fact that he writes these articles while entitled to and enjoying the privileges of this floor; and can we, consistent with the dignity of the Senate, permit such a person here any more than we can permit Senators to use such language towards other members of this body?
I cannot consent to admit a person here who is beneath the contempt of the Senate. No person, as a Reporter or in any other capacity, shall occupy a position on this floor, with my consent, who is beneath my contempt. I am not willing that this thing should go uninquired into. I do insist that it is due to the dignity of the Senate that we should investigate this matter, and if it turns out that this correspondent is enjoying the privilege of this floor, we should institute proceedings against him.
Mr. HADLEY. I presume that every Senator's mind is made up on this question, and I therefore move the previous question.
The Senate seconded the demand, and under its operation the resolution was adopted by yeas 22, nays 17--as follows:
YEAS.--Messrs. Beardsley, Bradley, Carson, Cravens, Fosdick, Gifford, Green, Henderson, Hooper, Howk, Huey, Hughes, Humphreys, Johnston of Montgomery, Kinley, Lasselle, Lee, Montgomery, Morgan, Reynolds, Scott and Wolcott--22.
NAYS.--Messrs. Andrews, Armstrong, Bellamy, Case, Caven, Church, Eliott, Gray, Hadley, Hamilton, Hess, Jaquess, Johnson of Spencer, Rice, Robinson of Madison, Robinson of Decatur. and Wood--17.
Pending the roll call--
Mr. JOHNSON of Spencer, in explanation of his vote, when his name was called said: According to the motion of the Senator from Cass, this matter will be referred to a Committee of which the person who complains is a member. I think some other committee would be much better and therefore I vote "no."
Mr. HUGHES (interposing.) I have never met with that Committee yet. I hope he will not make that excuse.
Mr. ROBINSON of Decatur, when his name was called said: I propose to give a reason for my vote. I protest against running after newspapers. We are now within two weeks of the close of the session and the whole business for which our constituents sent us here is yet unfinished, and in danger of being entirely lost because we are spending day after day in looking after these newspaper correspondents. I am willing to let these things rest. This correspondent may have said something indiscret, and the gentleman from Monroe has had his revenge behind his Senatorial dignity by calling this man Lozier a hypocrite, and giving expression to every other indignity that he could heap upon him.
The result was announced as above and so the resolution was adopted.
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. President: I move to reconsider the vote just taken in order that I may reply to the two speeches which were made under an abuse of the rule allowing Senators to explain their votes. The Senator from Spencer undertook to make a stab at me as the author of this resolution. The resolution proceeds from the Senator from Cass and not from me. The Senator also stated that I was a member of this Committee. He desired to convey the idea to the Senate that I was seeking an opportunity to have this man "Jargo" turned over to me for judgment. The Senator is Chairman of the Committee and it was an unjustifiable attack for he knows I do not meet with the Committee. He had no right to say I was the complaining party, because it was not so.
The PRESIDENT pro tem. The Senator is out of order. The vote was taken under the operation of the previous question.
Mr. HUGHES. The previous question exhausted itself. I voted with the majority and moved a reconsideration of the vole.
The PRESIDENT por tem. And the Senator went on to make his speech before the Chair entertained the motion.
Mr. HUGHES. I move to reconsider the vote. I make the motion now, sir.
The PRESIDENT pro tem. It is out of order.
Mr. HUGHES. I appeal from the decision of the Chair.
The PRESIDENT pro tem., (smiling.) Put it in writing.
Mr. HUGHES. I will sir.
After a few moments--
The PRESIDENT pro tem., (smiling.) If page: 441[View Page 441] the Senator will make his motion now I will entertain it.
Mr. HUGHES. I will send up my appeal, sir.
It was read by the Secretary as follows:
I move to reconsider the vote on the adoption of the resolution and it being the decision of the Chair that he could not entertain it I appeal from that decision.
The PRESIDENT pro tem., (smiling.) The Chair decides that when the question is stated by the chair, the Senator has a right to proceed, but without giving the chair an opportunity to state the question, the Senator went on to make his speech. I ruled the Senator out of order until the question is stated.
Mr. HUGHES. Is the motion before the Senate now?
The PRESIDENT pro tem. Yes sir.
Mr. HUGHES. All I have to say in conclusion is in regard to the remarks of the Senator from Decatur. He seems to be anxious to read me a lecture about wasting time.
Mr. ROBINSON of Decatur, (interrupting.) I beg to assure the Senator that he is mistaken. I was not referring to the Senator from Monroe particularly.
Mr. HUGHES. I am not aware that I am consuming time unneccessarily in this matter. I gave as a reason that I desired the passage of this resolution because what I said yesterday had been suppressed in the Reports; that was all. But as to my desiring to act as judge in this case--
The PRESIDENT pro tem. The question is on the motion to reconsider--
Mr. HUGHES. I withdraw that motion.
On motion by Mr. JOHNSTON of Montgomery, the motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
W. H. MONTGOMERY.
Mr. GIFFORD offered a resolution, which was adopted, allowing mileage to Mr. Montgomery, Senator from Martin, Pike and Dubois.
UNIVERSITY SQUARE.
The PRESIDENT pro tem., laid before the Senate a communication from W. Henderson and J. S. Bradley, proposing to purchase University square for eighty thousand dollars, payable in ten years.
It was reffered to the Committee on Educacation.
THE 22ND OF FEBRUARY.
Mr. MONTGOMERY offered a concurrent resolution, reciting that as the twenty-second of February is approaching, and as it is customary to commemorate the same, therefore,
RESOLVED, That the Adutant General cause a National salute of thirty-six guns to be fired in front of the State House.
The resolution was adopted.
OLD INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT BONDS.
Mr. WOLCOTT called up his resolution to amend the Constitution by inserting a provision putting beyond the reach of future legislation the right to make the State liable for old internal improvement bonds.
Mr. CARSON found himself reported yesterday as favoring these resolutions. This is a mistake. He was not prepared to say that he would favor them now. As early as 1824, Congress gave the State of Indiana ninety feet on each side of the canal for the purpose of lending aid to connect the navigable waters of the then Miami, or Maumee now, with the waters of the Wabash river. Indiana never accepted that grant. In 1827, Congress again made a grant of one half of five sections of land on each side of the Wabash and Erie Canal, to the State of Indiana to connect the waters of Lake Erie with the navigable waters of the Wabash, reserving to herself the right to use the canal for the transportation of troops of the United States and declaring that it shall forever remain a public highway. Indiana accepted that grant and appointed commissioners to take charge of it; had surveys made, located the canal and established it. Subsequently, Congress made an additional grant to the State of Indiana for an extension of that canal from Tippecanoe to Terre Haute in 1834 I think. Again, in 1845, Congress made another grant of land for the extending of the Canal from Terre Haute to the Ohio river. The State accepted these grants. Each of these grants given by Congress to the State expressly reserved the right of transporting troops upon the canal and provided that it shall forever remain a public highway. In 1838 however, Indiana entered into a general system of improvements whereby she merged all the improvements provided for by the act of 1836, in one general system of improvements. See acts of 1838 page 337 entitled "An Act to provide for a general system of internal improvements." Under that head you will find several public works provided for by that act, among which is the Wabash and Erie Canal, retaining its distinctive character and pledging its lands, etc. This I believe is as far as the State ever expended money for the Wabash and Erie Canal. The Wabash and Erie Canal has been, the result of the munificence of the General Government. The several improvements provided for by this system of internal improvements and for which the State issued about ten millions of dollars of bonds were commenced, carried on and conducted by the State until the State failed to be able to raise any more monies to carry on so extensive improvements, and the result was, an utter failure of all the works except the Wabash and Erie Canal, provided for by the General Government. The page: 442[View Page 442] State having failed to raise money, found herself with these works unfinished and without any source of profit arising from them. She suspended payment, finding herself in this dilemma, for several years, I think from 1841 to 1846, and was not able to pay a dollar of interest or principal upon her indebtedness.
Mr. WOLCOTT (interposing.) I would like to know what was done besides the--
Mr. CARSON. To answer that would require considerable amount of information more than I have got. The Revised Statutes of 1838 and 1836 will inform the Senator what improvements provision was made to carry on. As to the actual amount expended that will be found in the reports of the Board of Internal Improvements. I know the Wabash and Erie Canal was a separate and distinct fund. That Canal issued canal bonds or stocks based upon the rents, tolls, etc., of the Wabash and Erie Canal itself, and was not identified further than that with the internal improvement system.
Now then, it will be recollected that the Wabash and Erie Canal was an improvement by the General Government and paid for by the General Government and had nothing to do with the internal improvement bonds surrendered for which the Wabash and Erie Canal was sold out. That being the case the "Wabash and Erie Canal is sold out to the Trustees for the purpose of relieving the State from one half of the internal improvement bonds which she had squandered in this old system of internal improvements;--to relieve herself from the exigencies of the case, she takes the Wabash and Erie Canal and sells it to the bondholders as provided in the contract. I don't understand that act as an absolute sale in fee simple of the Canal, but to Trustees until the rents, tolls and emoluments shall liquidate one half the bonds thus surrendered, and then I understand the Canal to revert back to the State and belong to her absolutely in fee simple. I do not think it competent for the State of Indiana, under the provisions of the act of Congress granting her this donation for the purpose of constructing this Canal and providing in the gift that it should ever remain a public highway, that the State could pass it into the hands of those who might let it be destroyed. I think it is obligatory upon us to see that the Canal shall remain a public highway. I do not think it was the intention of the State of Indiana ever to part with the fee simple of the Canal but to secure its maintenance, she conveyed it to trustees, reserving the right to appoint one trustee, the bond holders appointing two; and thereby maintain the perpetuity of the Canal according to the purpose of the original grant. This is in strict conformity with the object of the grant and the faith of the State. Then by the provisions of the Butler bill, which this resolution seeks to provide for, the State entered into a contract, as I understand it, that the bond holders or trustees of the Wabash and Erie Canal should hold the Canal with all the lands which she possessed in trust for certain purposes, as recited in the act itself of 1846 or 1847; 1846 I think. [Reads.] Here is the complete contract. When that trust is accomplished then the Canal belongs to the State of Indiana. The object of the trust thus declared it seems to me is a contract in full force. Legal rights have grown out of it to the trustees, and I am not prepared to say what effect this Constitutional amendment would have upon it. I do not know how the State of Indiana, in case the revenues shall fail to maintain it, can say that the trustees may abandon the trust completely, and let the Canal dry up. I am not prepared to say what the duty of the State of Indiana is in relation to that Canal.
Another question has arisen since the contract was made, which has impaired and almost entirely destroyed that Canal, and what obligation arises on the part of the State in relation to that, I am not prepared to say. The State granted a franchise to a railroad company which has constructed its road along that Canal. It will be shown that from the time of the construction of that road it has so entirely destroyed the Canal that there are only certain portions of it that can be kept in repair. As to what infringement has been made in this way I am not prepared to say, but I do think there is some equity there which I would not like to see shut out by this constitutional amendment. The Canal was a munificent gift from the general government to the State of Indiana. The State enters into a system of public improvement and runs into debt ten millions of dollars. Towns grow up on that Canal, and the commerce of the towns is arranged with reference to the Canal, and then the State permits a railroad to be built along the site of it and destroys the whole of it. That is the only public highway of importance that we have got in the State of Indiana. This Canal is the poor man's highway. When he is able to run a boat he can hitch his team to it and boat upon this Canal. But a railroad comes in contact with the Canal and it goes down because the tolls cease to enable the Trustees to keep it up. What is the result? The arrangement entered into with the original bondholders is destroyed. I am for doing some little justice in this matter;--not for the protection of the original bondholders;but I do not like to see the State put herself into the attitude whereby they may apply to the Legislature to sell the Canal out and give it to a railroad company that I understand offer two million dollars for it and that will be interested in drying it up completely. I under- page: 443[View Page 443] stand that the Trustees of the Wabash and Eric Canal nave nothing but the tolls and water rents to keep it in repair. Suppose that does not do it, where are we to look? Where would we stand in that event if this resolution passes? Unquestionably the Trustees could approach us with a proposition to sell that Canal. I am not in favor of tying up our hands. I am disposed to do right in the matter, and if this resolution passes I am satisfied our hands will be tied up and we can not do that justice and equity which the final settlement of this question demands. And I apprehend the day for that settlement will come. The Trustees of that Canal have no means to clean it out. The e is an obligation on our part to comply with the original terms of the grant and keep up that Canal. Above all things I want that Canal to remain where it is, according to the provisions of the original grant, a public highway, let the transaction with the bondholders be as it may. I am opposed to tying up our hands upon this question; and I am in favor of leaving this an open question, because I do not know what effect it might have upon the final disposition of the Wabash and Erie Canal.
Mr. CRAVENS. It is evident that there is no quorum present, and I move to refer the resolution to the Judiciary Committee, with instructions to inquire whether there is any necessity for this constitutional amendment, and whether the constitution does not already provide sufficiently against assuming any debt contemplated by the amendment. And I desire to call the attention of the Committee to this clause of the Constitution:
No law shall authorize any debt to be contracted on behalf of the State, except in the following cases: to meet casual deficits in the revenue; to pay the interest on the State debt; to repel invasion, supress insurrection, or, if hostilities be threatened, provide for the public defense.
Let the Committee inquire whether that does not prevent the State from creating any such debt, and whether or not, (as has been assumed by some this debt already exists;) whether if it does exist how an amendment as no proposed would reach the case at all, but simply be in light of an authoritative repudiation of the debt. I have already been placed upon the record years ago, saying that the State should incur no liability on account of this canal. I move to recommit the resolution with these instructions.
Mr. SCOTT. I move to amend by referring this proposition to the Committee on Canals and Internal Improvements. This is a matter not only of law but of history, and that needs to be learned and ascertained. There is an appropriate Committee provided by law for that purpose, having jurisdiction of the whole question and capable of determining whether there is any liability on the part of the State. The resolutions have been laid upon the table by a report from the Judiciary Committee, and if there is to be any further reference of the subject it should go to the Committee where it belongs--the appropriate committee to consider this subject. It involves more a matter of history than of law. They have the matter before them;it is within the line of their business;-- they have not had a meeting this session; and they ought to be put to work. I am more afraid of doing wrong, or of appearing to do wrong, than I am of this debt. I see no reason why that Committee should not report to this House whether there is at this time an existing liability on the part of the State to pay the bonds outstanding.
Mr. WOLCOTT. Mr. President: There are most urgent reasons why this resolution should pass, and we commence amending the Constitution in the manner prescribed by the Constitution itself. Of the nine pages comprising the report of the Trustees of the Wabash and Erie Canal, seven pages are devoted to an argument in behalf of the holders of these Bonds--with the idea that the State should assume the payment of these bonds. When the Trustee chosen by the State to take care of her interests becomes the advocate of an adverse interest--to put upon the State a large liability which has once been compounded--it is time for the Legislature to take action in the premises. This resolution infringes upon no rights. It does not close up the Canal so that it cannot be used hereafter but it does propose to protect the people of this State against an effort to settle this debt of fifteen millions of dollars upon the State--
Mr. SCOTT (in his seat.) He calls this a debt.
Mr. WOLCOTT. Perhaps I used that word injudiciously. It simply proposes to protect the people of the State against a charge, then, of fifteen million dollars upon a trust property. The law of 1846, as amended by the law of 1847, changes this from a debt to a hypothecation. The settlement proposed here will relieve the State from the danger of pressure against it of a claim so large the holders say they can bribe their way through this General Assembly. I think no discussion of this resolution is necessary. The question is simply to fix by constitutional amendment the existing arrangement and the very language of the Constitution is used. If the language of the law, embodied in an amendment is a violation of rights, I would like for some person to explain it. I think there is every reason why we should proceed to vote upon it.
Mr. GREEN. I am in favor of the last amendment. I am not prepared to vote upon such a great question as this. It is too great a matter to vote on now. I have no friendship for the Wabash and Erie Canal. My page: 444[View Page 444] feelings are against it but I desire to vote on this question understandingly. I favor the reference of the resolutions to the Committee on Canal and Internal Improvements.
Mr. WOLCOTT. I believe it is a rule governing all parliamentary bodies that a measure shall not be referred to a Committee a majority of which have professed opposition to it.
Mr. CRAVENS. I desire to say, as I stated upon this floor a moment ago, that I placed myself upon record years ago against the State ever assuming any liability on account count of this canal, and I say I have no cause to change my views. I simply ask that this matter may be referred to inquire whether this resolution is not unnecessary, because we have a provision in the constitution which says that the State shall incur no liability except for the purposes named in the section I read; and whether it would not be considered a solemn repudiation of a public debt. Regarding it as a legal question I proposed to refer it to the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. WOLCOTT. This is more important than all other questions that have been before this General Assembly, or will come before it. There is a disposition to stave this question off and if this resolution is referred to a Committee hostile to it we will have it smothered. I have been approached--I will not say by whom--
Mr. CRAVENS (interrupting.( I would ask if any Senator has approached him.
Mr. WOLCOTT. No sir.
Mr. SCOTT. I would like the Senator to say who has approached him.
Mr. WOLCOTT. I will not reveal names. But I say there are influences here to smoother this measure; and all measures are before us insignificant in comparison with this. I object to its reference to the Committee on canals and internal improvements for I have heard the members are hostile to it. I have no objection to a reference of the measure to a Committee who will make a speedy report. We have but two weeks of the session remaining and there is no time for delay. I have selected the very language of the acts and incorporated that in the resolution. If that is a repudiation of an obligation I cannot see it.
Mr. CRAVENS read the names of the Committee on Canals and Internal Improvements and said: I am the first person named on that Committee which has not met for twenty-two years. The second is the Senator from Monroe [Mr. Hughes;] the next is the Senator from Huntington [Mr. Smith;] the third the Senator from Wabash [Mr. Fisher;] the fourth the Senator from Floyd [Mr. Howk;] the fifth the Senator from Carroll [Mr. Armstrong] and the last the Senator from Fountain [Mr. Wood.] Now the Senator says he don't intend to have this resolution referred to a committee of its enemies. I stated to the Senate that I had put myself upon the record in that matter; but when he impugnes motives he gives the highest evidence that other Senators may be approached; and perhaps the party who approached him knew the man he was approaching.
Mr. JOHNSON of Spencer. I am sorry to see such a disturbance in the Spartan band.
Mr. WOLCOTT. I have heard the Senator from Jefferson express himself adverse to the resolution; I have heard the Senator from Monroe express himself adversely; I have heard the Senator from--Mr. Smith express himself adversely; I have heard the Senator from Floyd
Mr. SMITH (interposing.) I did not express myself against it. The Senator is mistaken I am not against the resolution.
Mr. HOWK. The Senator is under a mistake with regard to myself.
Mr. WOLCOTT. I have talked
Mr. HOWK (interrupting.] I met him on Saturday, and he asked me if my mind was made up to vote on some proposition, and I remarked that I would take time to think of it.
Mr. WOLCOTT. If I remember right I have talked with the Senator at his seat and he told me he would not vote for that resolution.
Mr. HOWK. Not at all.
Mr. CHURCH. I think I see evidence of falling out between the spartan band, and I move we adjourn.
Mr.. HUMPHREYS offered a resolution that when the Senate adjourn it adjourn till Monday at two o'clock p. m.
Mr. RICE moved to amend by making the adjournment till to-morrow morning at nine and a half o'clock.
On motion by Mr. CHURCH the resolution and amendment was laid on the table.
And then--
The Senate adjourned till ten o'clock a. m. to-morrow.
