THE BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
TENTH VOLUME.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
THURSDAY, February 25, 1869.The House met at nine o'clock a. m.
The reading of the journal of yesterday was dispensed with.
Messrs. Stewart of Ohio and Mr. Zollars was added to the special committee on the fees of county officers.
Mr. LONG (by leave) submitted a concurrent resolution of Congressional instruction to place soldiers of the war of 1812, their widows and orphans on the pension roll; which lies over.
PETITIONS ETC.
Described as follows were presented and referred to appropriate committees:
Mr. HIGBEE presented five temperance petitions.
Mr. OSBORN, a Hendricks county petition for change of Court districts.
Mr. MILLIKAN, on retrenchment.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Mr. ZOLLARS from the Committee on Elections, returned Mr. Kercheval's bill, [H. R. 263] to amend the Evansville charter, recommending its indefinite postponement.
Mr. STEWART of Ohio, from the minority of said committee, reported for the passage of the bill.
Mr. KERCHEVAL stated the provisions and merits of the bill. It repeals an act of the last session of the Legislature which so amends the Evansville city charter as to prohibit voting where city taxes are not paid.
He was about to proceed to a discussion of the provisions of the bill, when--
Mr. CARNAHAN, noticing that the member from Vanderburg, Mr. Welborn, was absent, suggested that the matter lie over until the gentleman should be present.
Mr. KERCHEVAL yielded to the suggestion on the agreement by the House that on the gentleman's entrance the matter should be taken up.
The reports were laid on the table for the present.
Mr. RUDDELL, from the Committee on State Prisons, returned Mr. Underwood's prison discriptive bill, [H. R. 217] with amendments.
The Committee on Claims presented a number of favorable and some adverse reports.
Mr. MILLIKAN, from the Roads Committee, recommended the indefinite postponement of the bill No. 189. Pie also returned the bill No. 249, recommending indefinite postponement. He also returned the bill, [H. R. 77] with the same recommendation.
Mr. PALMER, from the same committee returned the resolutions to exempt from road tax in certain cases, with the opinion that such legislation is inexpedient, He also returned the bill, [S. 115] recommending its indefinite postponement. He also returned Mr. Sleeth's bill, [H. R. 214] recommending passage.
These reports were severally concurred in.
Mr. STEWARTof Ohio, from the Committee on Printing, returned Mr. Field of Lake's bill, [H. R. 260] recommending its indefinite postponement.
Mr. FIELD of Lake, stated the object of the bill, for the publication of the proceedings of County Commissioners, and the reports of Grand Juries, and the official vote of elections.
Mr. WILDMAN held that the publication of the proceedings of County Commisianers would be a wholesome restraint on allowances.
page: 514[View Page 514]Mr. STEWART of Ohio, stated that the committee desired the House to look into the subject that they might act with a full knowledge of the merits of the bill. He said in defense of the committee's report, that the bill proposed to fix the price of the printer's work in publishing these reports, and he thought that not competent for the House to do. He however, would not deny that such a law might operate as a wholesome restraint.
Mr. COFFROTH. Where was the difference between fixing the rates here, and fixing the rates of railroad charges?
Mr. STEWART said corporations were creations of the Legislature, and printers were not. Then the bill is mandatory compelling the Commissioners to publish, and the expense would be considerable in each county.
The subject was then passed over for the special order.
The special order--the railroad bills--were postponed, on motion of Mr. MONROE, for the consideration of--
AMENDMENTS TO THE EVANSVILLE CHARTER.
Mr. KERCHEVAL called from the table his bill, [H. R. 263] to repeal the act of March 11, 1867, amending said charter by restraining voting for non-payment of taxes, with the two committee reports thereon. He was speaking in support of the minority report, recommending the passage of the bill, when--
Mr. COFFROTH made the point that the regular order of business was suspended, etc.
The SPEAKER (Mr. Buskirk in the chair) overruled the point.
Mr. KERCHEVAL continued--stating that the section of the Evansville charter sought to be repealed required that every person voting shall present a certificate from the County Treasurer that his taxes are paid. It is the duty of the Treasurer in the demand of persons claiming to be citizens, but not property holders, to furnish each one so applying with a certificate that there are no taxes remaining against him unpaid. Hundreds he said, made such application at every election, and received certificates, although large numbers of them are not legal voters in the city. Lately a tax has been assessed by the city authorities which many of the best and wealthiest citizens of the place, together with many who are versed in the law, pronounce unjust and unconstitutional, and which they refuse to pay. With this section unrepealed, these citizens, the foremost of the place, will be unable to vote, and the scores who are neither property holders nor citizens, in many cases, will exercise that right. The section, he said, should have been expunged from the charter when granted, and its evident injustice, demands such action now.
Mr. WELBORN stated his surprise at the introduction of this bill by the gentleman from Spencer, [Mr. Kercheval] concluding that if the people of Evansville really desire this repeal, they would apply through their own special Representatives. It was strange, also, that the same parties that in 1867 hired an attorney to procure that amendment of the Evansville charter, were now here asking for its repeal. On the constitutional question he would state that this question was no more unconstitutional than the registry, or any other law, regulating elections. He gave way for--
Mr. COFFROTH, who moved that the whole subject matter be laid on the table.
Mr. KERCHEVAL demanded the ayes and nays, which resulted--yeas 44, nays 44.
So the motion was rejected.
Mr. JOHNSON of Marshall, now moved that the minority report be concurred in, and the vote was ordered under pressure of the previous question.
Mr. WELBORN asked, but did not obtain unanimous consent, to continue his remarks.
Mr. COFFROTH, objecting to the consideration of this subject irregularly, and consuming time due to other matters of public importance, asked to be excused from voting upon that question, also demanding the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER (Mr. Buskirk in the Chair) ruled that the time to ask to be excused, was when the name is called.
Mr. WELBORN as an interested party, asked to be excused from voting.
Whereupon--
The SPEAKER made the same ruling, and that it is incompetent for the gentleman to make two motions at the same time.
Mr. COFFROTH appealed from that decision.
Mr. MONROE moved to lay the appeal on the table.
Mr. OSBORN, not understanding the case, moved that Mr. Welborn be excused.
The SPEAKER could not entertain the motion, because of the pendency of the appeal.
Mr. OSBORN moved to lay the whole matter on the table.
Mr. COFFROTH (consenting) desired to explain by consent.
Mr. PIERCE of Porter objected.
Mr. KERCHEVAL indicated his willingness to have the subject laid on the table.
Mr. WILDMAN formally submitted that motion; and accordingly, the subject was laid on the table.
RAILROAD DISCRIMINATIONS.
On motion of Mr. STEWART of Rush, his bill [H. R. 105] in relation to the transportation of freight and passengers on the railroads page: 515[View Page 515] in this State--the special order for this morning--was taken up.
On motion of Mr. OSBORN the constitutional restriction was removed as to the action on this bill, and also as to the action on his Terre Haute and Richmond railroad bill, [H. R. 138] and the Louisville, New Albany and Chicago railroad bill [H. R. 272]--yeas 68, nays 9.
Mr. OSBORN moved that Mr. Stewart, of Rush's railroad passenger and freight rates bill [H. R. 105] be considered as engrossed.
The bill as amended, provides that local freight shall not pay more than seventy-five per cent. proportionally higher rates than through freight, etc. Passengers fare shall not exceed three and a half cents per mile, provided that nothing shall prevent the charge of fifteen cents etc.
Mr. VATER proposed to amend by saying "fixed or charged," instead of "fixed and charged," in the first section.
It was laid on the table.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Knox, suggested that Mr. Odell's amendment--trains shall stop for passengers at all stations is still pending.
On motion Mr. PIERCE of Porter, it was laid on the table.
The pending amendment, grading the price of way freight, for ten, twenty, thirty, etc., miles, and striking out the fourth and fifth sections, was being read when--
Mr. STEWART of Rush, moved to lay on the table that in the amendment which proposes to strike out the fourth and fifth sections.
It was so ordered.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Knox, considered that if the fixed in the amended bill were altered we could pass no bill on the subject.
The amendment was laid on the table.
Mr. COFFROTH proposed to add; It shall be lawful for any person to ride on any train of such railroad company, either passenger or freight, upon payment of the usual charge.
Mr. STEPHENSON considered that such a general law will not do, because of the increased danger of riding on the freight trains, and because of the railroad company's common law liability as common carriers. The bill was stringent enough to answer the demands of the people.
Mr. DUNN proposed to add after the words "usual charge," these: "either to the station agent or conductor of any train."
Mr. COFFROTH accepted the amendment.
Mr. PIERCE of Porter, moved to amend by requiring that a caboose car shall be attached to freight trains for the accommodation of such passengers as may ask passage therein. The debate on these proposed amendments was indulged in by Messrs. Welborn, Coffroth, McDonald, Pierce of Porter, Huddell, Beeler, and others.
Mr. RUDDELL and Mr. BEELER, also offered amendments, requiring and regulating stoppings of trains at the stations.
Mr. MONROE moved, ineffectually, to lay Mr. Dunn's and Mr. Coffroth's amendments on the table.
Mr. COFFROTH, in reply to Mr. Stephenson, said his impression was adverse to the power of the Legislature to pass such a bill, but as a Representative, he was willing to vote for the law and let it go to the Courts.
Mr. STEWART of Rush, stated that the matter has been submitted, and lawyers of the city had accorded written opinions sustaining the power of the Legislature in the case, and the constitutionality of the bill. He asked for their reading.
The Clerk accordingly read the legal opinions of the honorable B. K. Elliott and the James Morrison.
Mr. FIELD of Lake, stated that there are neither provisions or facilities for passengers on freight trains, and this amendment would give facilities for robbers and marauders to invade these trains.
Mr. MONROE was in favor of the bill, and did not want to see it clogged with amendments. Parties would raise for the purpose of troubling the Company.
Mr. DAVIDSON spoke in favor of the amendment. The community would not seek this mode of traveling as a general thing. He gave instances of the convenience of such a law, and answered objections.
Mr. McFADIN. The difficulty was that this passenger money paid to freight train conductors is considered pocket money, and there is no security that they will report it to the Company. He considered the amendment right and proper, and gave examples showing the propriety of it. He would be willing to exempt the company from liability in such cases.
Mr. VATER proposed the words "at their own risk."
Mr. FIELD of Lake, suggested to include baggage.
Mr. COFFROTH. It will cover that.
Mr. JOHNSON of Parke, opposed the amendments as clogs to the bill, and he was opposed to removing any liability of railroads as common carriers.
Mr. COFFROTH proposed further to amend the amendments so as to provide that conductors or employes refusing to carry shall upon conviction, be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and fined in any sum not less than fifty nor more that five hundred dollars.
Mr. STEWART of Rush, appealed to the House against all these amerdments.
Mr. RUDDELL then moved an amend page: 516[View Page 516] ment, which was read, for information, that this provision shall not apply to through trains and the passenger assumes risks of accidents.
Mr. COFFROTH accepted it as a modification of his amendment. He explained the order of these several amendments; any person may ride at his own risk, upon paying, and the conductor's refusal involves a penalty.
And then--
The House took a recess till two o'clock p.m.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The SPEAKER resumed the Chair at two o'clock p. m., and announced the unfinished order.
Mr. COFFROTH submitted an amendment adding a section in which he engrossed his amendment, and the amendments thereto submitted this morning applying only to local freight trains, which he urged in brief, as a measure advantageous to the people of the State, and of which the railroads could not complain.
Mr. BARRITT opposed the amendment. He said he had traveled many hundreds of miles almost every week during the last seven years and he had occasion to study with some care the question of safety. Long heavy trains were always considered the most dangerous, each car adding to the danger, and he opposed the encouraging of riding upon freight trains, partly for that reason. Besides, he said, the discrimination as to through trains would be of no avail, since trains so often, from necessity, change their character on account of delays, so that a freight train, starting out as through train, is liable at any moment, by an accident to it or another train, to be converted into a way train, and vice versa; and therefore, freight trains are not reliable as a means of transporting passengers.
Mr. BAKER said he was for nine years an agent for a railroad, and he believed that if the amendment passed requiring freight trains to carry passengers, companies should be exempted from responsibility as carriers.
Mr. PIERCE of Porter, moved to lay the amendment on the table.
The yeas and nays being demanded and ordered on the motion, the vote resulted yeas 43, nays 49--as follows:
YEAS--Messrs. Baker, Barnet, Beatty, Beeler, Breckinridge, Chittenden, Cory, Davis, Dittemore, Fairchild, Field of Lake, Field of Lagrange, Gilham, Green, Hall, Hamilton, Higgins, Hutson, Johnson of Parke, Johnson of Marshall, Jump, Kercheval, Lamborn, Logan, Mason, McDonald, Miner, Monroe, Neff, Overmyer, Skidmore, Stephenson, Stewart of Ohio, Stewart of Rush, Sunman, Tebbs, Underwood, Vardeman, Wildman, Williams of Hamilton, Williams of St. Joseph, Williams of Union, and Mr. Speaker--43
NAYS--Messrs. Addison, Admire, Bates, Barritt, Bobo, Bowen, Britton, Buskirk, Calvert, Carnahan, Cave, Chapman, Coffroth, Cox, Cunningham, Davidson, Dunn, Fuller, Gordon, Higbee, Hutchings, Hyatt, Johnson of Montgomery, Long, McBride, McFadin, McGregor, Millekan, Miller, Miles, Mock, Montgomery, Odell, Osborn, Palmer, Pierce of Porter, Pierce of Vigo, Ratliff, Ruddell, Sabin, Shoemaker, Sleeth, Smith, Taber, Vater, Welborn, Williams of Knox, Zenor and Zollars--49
Mr. JOHNSON of Parke, explaining. At his place, Rockville, most all their riding was on freight trains, but as the amendment would work hardship to the roads he voted aye.
So the amendment was not laid on the table and Mr. Coffroth's amendment was adopted.
Mr. RATLIFF proposed to amend further, by striking out that portion in section three, with reference to passenger fare. The demand for this regulation, he said, was chiefly with reference to freights; and this provision would work oppressively on the North and South roads. We should not cripple the railroad interests.
Mr. BUSKIRK moved to lay Mr. Ratliff's amendment on the table--the vote resulting--yeas 53, nays 32.
So the amendment was laid on the table.
Mr. WELBORN moved to reconsider this vote. He would not cripple the railroad interests, and he feared that the action was too hastily taken.
Mr. BUSKIRK said railroads were like lawyers--able to take care of themselves. They have margin enough in the passenger rates of three cents and a half a mile.
Mr. NEFF recited Mr. Coffroth's amendment; and since that amendment relieves these corporations from any liability, he thought it could work no hardship.
Mr. RATLIFF said this was a bill to protect the community against railroad monopolies; but this restriction as to passengers was going too far. His amendment was not intended to affect Mr. Coffroth's amendment. He could not vote for this bill if the passenger restriction was not striken out.
Mr. COFFROTH made the point that a motion to reconsider a motion brought to vote under the stress of the previous question is not debateable.
The SPEAKER sustained the point.
Mr. STEWART of Rush, (by consent) stated that the New York Central Railroad was limited to two cents a mile, and others so limited by charter were doing a good business. This bill was a compromise measure.
The House refused to reconsider.
Mr. CALVERT moved to amend by striking out "three and a half" and inserting "four" cents a mile.
On motion of Mr. NEFF it was laid on the table.
Mr. LONG proposed to amend by adding a section to prohibit all railroad regulations by which passengers may be put off trains for failure to procure a ticket; and forbidding any excess of charge for fare on that account.
page: 517[View Page 517]On motion of Mr. HIGGINS it was laid on the table.
Mr. RATLIFF moved that the bill be ordered to the engrossment, which, under stress of the previous question was agreed to.
The bill was then read the third time, as amended, and passed the House by yeas 56, nays 30--as follows:
YEAS--Messrs. Addison, Admire, Barritt, Bates, Bowen, Britton, Buskirk, Calvert, Chapman, Coffroth, Cox, Cunningharn, Davidson, Davis, Dittemore, Fairchild, Field of Lagrange, Fuller, Gordon, Green, Hall, Higbee, Higgins, Hutchings, Hutson, Hyatt, Johnston of Montgomery, Jump, Long, McFadin, McGregor, Millekan, Mller, Miles, Mitchell, Mock, Montgomery, Neff, Odell, Osborn, Overmyer, Palmer, Pierce of Porter,Ruddell, Sabin, Shoemaker, Sleeth, Smith, Stephenson, Stewart of Rush, Tabor, Underwood, Vardeman, Vater, Williams of Knox, Williams of Union, Zenor and Mr. Speaker--56.
NAYS--Messrs. Baker, Barnett, Beatty, Beeler, Breckinridge, Carnahan, Cave, Chittenden, Cory, Dunn, Field of Lake, Hamilton, Johnson of Parke, Johnson of Marshall, Lamborn, Mason, McBride, McDonald, Miner, Monroe, Pierce of Vigo, Ratliff, Shoaff, Skidmore, Stewart of Ohio, Sunman, Welborn, Wildman, Williams of Hamilton, and Williams of St. Joseph--30.
Mr. BEELER, in explanation of his vote said: I am in favor of an act embodying the general features of the bill before us, but I cannot vote for this bill as it now stands. In the first place it is well understood that all the oldest and wealthiest roads of the State are operating under special charters and cannot be reached by the provisions of the bill under consideration.
Second--It is not to apply to roads which have been in operation less than ten years. This, if not unconstitutional, is at least unjust, as many, if not all the roads recently constructed, have received large contributions from the citizens along their lines and the countries through which they pass.
Third--It compels railroads to carry passengers on freight trains, which, in my opinion would be injurious to the interests of railroads, and no special benefit to the people of the State.
Mr. BUSKIRK, when his name was called, said, by way of explanation, that already on one branch of the subject, he had expressed himself freely in favor of the bill. Since that time there had been placed in his hand a ticket for free passage on one of these railroads for the next year. Now he would like to ask whether, if he vote for this bill, he ought to return the ticket? [Voices--"Yes, yes."] Then he would vote aye, and give up the ticket. [Laughter.]
Mr. CHITTENDEN, when his name was called said: Upon this tariff the bill provides, that roads will carry a barrel of flour fifty miles for ten cents. They can get more, to be sure, for a single barrel; because the bill provides that they may charge twenty-five cents. But suppose you have a lot, the proposed law does not so cover this, but that you can ship ten barrels of flour fifty miles, and you can not be compelled to pay but one dollar. He voted no.
Mr. CORY explaining his vote said: In the first place he did not think it competent for the Legislature to take the proposed action; and, in the second place if it were competent, he did not believe it would be right. He understood that there is but one railroad in the State that is doing a living business, that pays a remunerative per cent. to the stock holders, and that is the Terre Haute and Richmond road. His friend [Mr. Stewart of Rush,] says the New York Central Railroad is allowed to charge but two cents per mile for passengers, and that road pays well. That, however, was a provision in their charter, and of course, they can't go beyond that. And the New York Central is a central route, and they can flourish at that price. And in New York, money can be had at four and six per cent., while in Indiana, ten per cent, is very low. Circumstances alter cases. Because in New York roads can live on two cents a mile, that is no reason why in Indiana we should compel them to carry passengers at the same rates. You might as well say that because in England, a laboring man must work for a shilling a day, a laborer in Indiana shall receive no more. He was willing that the railroads in Indiana should live, and much preferred to give them five cents a mile for passengers than to do without them. Railroad have made the State of Indiana. Without them she would be nothing.
Mr. FIELD of Lake, said, when his name was called: I vote No, because by the amendment offered by the gentleman from Huntington, the right to carry passengers on freight trains is granted to Railroads, while they are exempted from all liabilities for the destruction of life and the loss of property.
Mr. JOHNSON of Marshall, said: In voting for this bill, he felt that he would be voting in the interests of the railroads. For in Northern Indiana, all the local freight trains have coaches. But he was not willing that they should be liable for accidents. He would vote no from the fact that the bill releases railroads from all damages to passengers on freight trains.
Mr. JOHNSON of Parke, explaining said: he was not voting against the original bill, but the amendment of Mr. Coffroth. There was no provision in the bill to compel railroads to run passenger trains at all, and they can withdraw their passenger trains altogether. For these reasons he voted against the bill, and he asked that they be stated in the journal.
Pending the vote Mr. DITTEMORE submitted the following, which was read for information:
page: 518[View Page 518]RESOLVED, That each member of this House be requested to hand over to the Clerk any railroad papers he may have on hand before voting for this bill.
Mr. LAMBORN when his name was called, explained as follows: I vote no, because I believe, as a general thing in voting to limit the power of corporations, yet, in voting for this bill, I think we shall vote against the best interests of the State. To railroads we owe the development of the resources of our State; without them our State would be nothing. My county has no road, and it has thousands of acres of as rich land as the sun shines on, and my people are all willing to pay any thing in reason to get one, that its hidden treasures may be made available, and thus add to its sure riches, and the wealth and glory of the State. To have the capital of those who are willing to invest in railroads, we must be willing to allow them a fair compensation for the use of it. The bill will evidently drive capital from our State.
Mr. McBRIDE, explaining, said: I understand that the friends of this bill concede that the bill cannot apply to all railroads in this State. That being the case, I can in no event cast my vote so as to discriminate thus between railroads. I vote No.
Mr. McDONALD said, that his peculiar position seemed to demand from him a reason for his negative vote. He should have given them on the floor but for the stress of the previous question; and he asked and obtained leave to have them spread on the journal in these words: "The provisions of the bill are so manifestly unjust to, not only the railroad interest but to the people for whose benefit it is intended, that he could not, consistent with his oath of office, vote for the bill. He believed the legislature had the same legal right to say that railroad companies shall pay three dollars per cord for the wood they use, or that they shall pay their employes--from President down to day laborers--the same amount per day, that they have to regulate the rates of freight and passenger fares; and believing that the railroads have been the means of advancing the interests of the State at least twenty-five years, he conscientiously and cheerfully recorded his vote against the bill."
Mr. McFADIN should vote for the bill principally on account of the amendment of Mr. Coffroth.
Mr. MINER was in favor of the bill; not the amendment. That was entirely inconsistent with the text of the bill, and so objectionable that he voted No.
Mr. MONROE said; in explanation: Mr. Speaker: The amendment to this bill, requiring freight trains to carry passengers, renders it so objectionable that I vote No.
Mr. RUDDELL, when his name was called, said, he had been anxious for the bill to pass, but was somewhat alarmed at the amendments that have been applied. Although on this account it had been made objectionable to some, still he hoped it would pass The fact that our railroads are non-paying, he thought, might perhaps be attributed to the extravagance of their management. If they would use a little more economy, it seemed to him that they might flourish.
Mr. SHOAFF thought these complaints against railroad discriminations by no means general, none having been presented here through him, and in many cases they may have been dictated by personal interests. He voted No.
Mr. STEPHENSON, in explanation said: I believe that ninety-nine out of every hundred of my constituents demand of me that I shall vote for this bill. I come here to represent them--not my personal sentiments. Therefore I vote aye; though I am personally opposed to the bill.
Mr. WELBORN said: In explanation of my vote I will say, that while I am willing and anxious to legislate for the protection of the people against the extortions of the railroad corporations of the State, I am unwilling to vote for a bill that would cripple the legitimate railroad interests of the country. I believe that this bill would seriously cripple the road that terminates at my city, (Evansville) and of consequence would materially injure the prosperity of my county and city--a result greatly to be deplored.
Mr. WILDMAN was opposed to monopolies; but hence he had doubts whether we have any more right to legislate on this subject than we have to legislate as to the price of corn or wheat. He voted No.
So the bill passed the House of Representatives, with an amendment of title, proposed by Mr. Coffroth, adding these words: "And to provide for carrying passengers on freight trains; and prescribing penalty."
RAILROAD LIABILITIES.
Mr. OSBORN (under the same suspension of the constitutional restriction) called up the Special Railroad Committee's bill, [H. R. 138] to amend section twenty-two of the act to incorporate the Terre Haute and Indianapolis (now Terre Haute and Richmond) Railroad Company. He submitted a brief statement of its object. It simply declares that railroad shall come under the common restraints as to common carriers. The bill had been approved by eminent railroad men; and it would obviate numerous existing difficulties At first the bill was drawn to affect but one road; but the committee determined to make its provisions general.
The committee's amendment by substitute for the original bill was adopted; and so the page: 519[View Page 519] bill was ordered to the engrossment and third reading, and finally passed the House of Representatives--yeas 67, nays 8with amendment of title: "An act declaratory of the common law as to the duties of railroad companies and other common carriers carrying freight, and to prevent exhorbitant charges," etc.
AID OF RAILROADS AND WATER POWER.
Mr. RUDDELL (under the same suspension) called up the committee's bill, [H. R. 132] to enable cities to aid in the construction of railroads and water power; and the same was read the third time, and passed the House of Representatives--yeas 71, nays 2--with an amendment of the title, adding these words; "and declaring an emergency."
BIENNIEL ELECTIONS.
The House now took up the special order, viz: the consideration of Mr. William's of Union, bill, [H. R. 23] to change the time of holding elections in this State(to make all elections bienniel--on the second Tuesday in October--and to change terms of office conformably thereto.
Mr. VATER made an ineffectual demand for the previous question.
Mr. ZOLLARS (by consent) proposed to amend by striking out section three and insert to this effect: In case of vacancy, by experation of terms of office, such office shall be declared vacated, and shall be filled by appointment in the forms provided by law.
Mr. COFFROTH objected to the amendment--being uncompromisingly opposed to the bill.
Mr. ZOLLARS then moved to recommit the bill, with instructions to amend as above. He then declared that the bill is unconstitutional--against that provision that Auditors and Clerks shall hold their office four years. Now, if we have power to say these officers shall hold one year longer, we have power to say they shall hold over indefinitely; and he sustained his position by reference to sundry cases and court decisions, which he recited and showed at length their applicability here.
Mr. BUSKIRK confessed that there was force in the point made by Mr. Zollars, and he replied to his colleague's objections, because he regarded this bill as one of the most important measures of the session. He also spoke at length, admitting the value of Mr. Zollar's amendment.
Mr. WILDMAN proposed to amend the motion of Mr. Zollars--further instructing the Committee on Elections to amend by providing that the vacancies shall be filled by the present appointing power, and report the same back to the House forthwith.
The motion to recommit with instructions to report forthwith, was agreed to by yeas 70, nays 18--two-thirds voting in the affirmative.
At the close of the calling of the roll--
Mr. PIERCE of Vigo, from the Committee on Elections, rose and proposed to report back the bill amended, in obedience to instructions.
Mr. COFFROTH objected, on the ground that it is out of order to submit reports of committees at this hour of the day. He claimed that there is a time in the regular order of business for receiving reports of committees, and that the report could not be received at the present time.
Several members on the floor urged in vain that the committee was submitting a report in obedience to instructions from the House a few moments before, while the gentleman from Huntington was otherwise engaged.
Mr. COFFROTH still clung to his position urging that as in legal parlance, forthwith means at any time within twenty-four hours, and as the reports from committees have a regular hour assigned in the order of business, the report must lie over.
Mr. WILDMAN, to circumvent this quibble, as he believed it to be, moved to suspend the rules in order to receive the report.
The SPEAKER (Mr. Vater in the Chair) remarked that he was about to decide the report of the committee in order when the genman from Howard [Mr. Wildman] made his motion.
Mr. WILDMAN withdrew his motion and--
The SPEAKER decided the report in order.
Mr. COFFROTH appealed from the decision of the Chair, and took occasion to criticize and condemn the ruling severely. He took no pains either to conceal from the House the fact that in the allusions he made to the bull in the china shop, he meant to insinuate that the fitness of the gentleman occupying the Chair for such a position was not such as might justify him (the gentleman speaking) in hoping for anything better.
Mr. CALVERT made an ineffectual motion to adjourn.
Mr. OSBORN (by consent) submitted a resolution: That in the opinion of this House, a motion to lay an appeal on the table, may be received and disposed of before the appeal is written out.
The SPEAKER ruled it out of order.
Mr. COFFROTH now submitted his appeal in writing--Mr. Cox joining him in the same.
A motion was made to lay the appeal on the table--
Mr. COFFFOTH demanded the yeas and nays, and also to be excused from voting thereon.
The SPEAKER (Mr. Vater in the Chair) declared that the Chair could not entertain page: 520[View Page 520] an appeal made for the purpose of delay; and directed the clerk to call the roll for the vote.
Mr. COFFROTH demanded if it was to be understood that no member should have the right of appeal--a right which the rules of the House gives to every member? Who constituted the incumbent in the Chair a judge in this case? And the Speaker of the House was present on the floor, the gentleman who was deputed to decide such questions here; and he appealed to him to know whether or not the right of appeal is to be denied to a member? Whether it is competent for the Speaker to decide whether the motion of a member is made for dilatory purposes? Did he understand that the Chair decides against the right of appeal?
The SPEAKER. No sir.
Mr. Speaker STANTON said the Speaker has the right to decide against the second appeal premptorily.
The SPEAKER. The Chair has decided that there is nothing in order except the call for the yeas and nays on the motion to lay the appeal on the table.
Mr. COFFROTH, on that question demanded to be excused from voting; and on that he demanded the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER. The Chair has already decided that it is not in order. The Chair declines to entertain the second appeal by the gentleman from Huntington and the Clerk has a premptory order to proceed with the call.
The call proceeded accordingly.
Mr. COFFROTH, when his name was called, said he now asked to be excused from voting, on that question he demanded the yeas and nays.
Mr. WILDMAN moved that the gentleman be excused, and the motion was decided in the affirmative.
Mr. COFFROTH then complained that this proceeding was not in conformity with the former decision of the Speaker of the House, when Mr. Buskirk took an appeal from the decision of the Chair against the right to demand the yeas and nays on a question to be excused, etc. He explained that he regarded the provisions of the bill as unconstitutional and subversive of the rights of the minority, and he believed himself justifiable in every effort he might make to defeat its passage.
And after debate thereon, and much talking across the House, too tedious for record here--
Mr. Coffroth's first appeal was laid on the table by yeas 67, nays 17.
And then--
Under the pressure of the previous question the report of the Committee on elections, returning Mr. Zollars' amendment to the bill, according to the direction of the House, was concurred in.
On motion of Mr. PIERCE of Vigo, the bill was considered as engrossed and put upon its passage, the vote thereon resulting yeas 59, nays 29--as follows:
YEAS--Messrs. Baker, Barnett, Beatty, Beeler, Bowen, Breckinridge, Buskirk, Chapman, Chittenden, Cunningham, Davidson, Davis, Dittemore, Dunn, Fairchild, Field of Lagrange, Gilham, Green, Hall, Hamilton, Higbee, Higgins, Hutson, Johnson of Parke, Johnson of St. Joseph, Jump, Kercheval, Lamborn, Mason, Millekan, Miller, Miles, Mitchell, Monroe, Osborn, Overrnyer, Pierce of Porter, Pierce of Vigo, Ratliff, Ruddell, Sabin, Shoemaker, Skidmore, Smith, Stephenson, Stewart of Ohio, Stewart of Rush, Taber, Underwood, Vardeman, Vater, Wildman, Williams of Hamilton, Williams of St. Joseph, Williams of Union, Zenor, Zollars and Mr. Speaker--59.
NAYS--Messrs. Addison, Admire, Bobo, Britton, Calvert, Carnahan, Cave, Coffroth, Cory, Cox, Fuller, Hutchings, Hyatt, Johnson of Montgomery, Logan, Long, Mcbride, McDonald, McFadin, Miner, Mock, Montgomery, Neff, Odell, Palmer, Shoaff, Sleeth, Sunman, Tebbs and Williams of Knox--29.
So the bill was passed the House of Representatives.
Mr. PIERCE of Vigo, proposed to amend the title by adding these words: "and to fill all vacancies in office occasioned the provisions of this act.
Mr. COFFROTH proposed to amend the title by making it read in these words: "An act to provide pap for a few members of the Republican party for a short space of time."
The amendment to the amendment was laid on the table.
Mr. Pierce's amendment to the title was then adopted.
And then--
The House adjourned till nine o'clock a. m. to-morrow.
