THE BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
TENTH VOLUME.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
IN SENATE.
MONDAY, March 1,1869.The Senate met at ten o'clock a. m., Hon. Stearns fisher in the Chair; and Lieutenant Governor and the President pro tem., being absent.
The Secretary's minutes of Saturday's proceedings were read.
Pending the reading of the minutes--
Mr. HUGHES entered a motion to reconsider the vote by which Mr. Bellamy's bill [S. 97] appropriating four hundred and thirteen thousand five hundred and ninety nine dollars, forty eight cents to pay Morgan raid claims was ordered to be engrossed for the third reading.
When the reading the journal was concluded--
The motion to reconsider was agreed to.
PETITIONS ETC.
Described as follows were presented and referred to appropriate committees:
By Mr. CAVEN, for a prohibitory liquor law.
By Mr. CAVEN, a proposition by Mr. Augustus Schurman for the sale of a residence for the use of the Governor.
Also from L. B. Wilson, two similar propositions.
By Mr. HESS for retrenchment and reform in county offices and elsewhere.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Mr. CAVEN, from the Judiciary Committee recommended the adoption of the joint resolution against the payment of the Wabash and Erie Canal debt.
The Committee on Corporations reported favorably on the bill H. R. 18.
RESOLUTIONS.
Mr. CAVEN offered a resolution of instructions to the Judiciary Committee to inquire concerning legislation in reference to decedent's estates.
The resolution was adopted.
RELOCATION OF COUNTY SEATS.
Mr. HENDERSON offered a joint resolution [S. 15] to suspend the operation of the law concerning the re-location of county seats approved February 24,1869, it having been passed without due consideration--being ambigious, etc.
Mr. HANNA regarded the resolution as unnecessary, and moved to lay the resolution on the table, but wihdrew it for--
Mr. HUGHES who thought the passage of the resolution important.
Mr. JOHNSTON of Montgomery, was of opinion that the bill would not work any great hardships.
Mr. HENDERSON said this new law would work great hardships in many counties of the State, and especially in his own county.
Mr. GRAY said he had voted for the bill, but thought his vote might be misconstrued. The town in which he lived is a growing, enterprising one, situated upon the extreme edge of the county, and there has been some little excitement there in regard to removing the county seat. He considered the proposition as entirely impracticable, and would not vote to remove it to the place where he lived. Some of his constituents, however, might censure his vote for the bill in this way; that he did so vote for the purpose of obtaining a favorable law, that might be used for removing county seats; so he would change his vote on this subject, and vote "no."
page: 553[View Page 553]Mr. HANNA thought this new law as good as any that can be passed, and renewed his motion to lay the resolution on the table.
The motion was rejected by yeas 15, nays 18.
Mr. HUGHES demanded the previous question, the main question being ordered.
Mr. SCOTT demanded a call of the Senate. It was ordered, and being taken, thirty-five Senators appeared and answered to their names.
On motion by Mr. HENDERSON, further proceedings under the call were dispensed with--affirmative 21, negative not counted.
The joint resolution failed to pass for want of a constitutional majority--yeas 19, nays 18,--as follows:
YEAS--Messrs. Bird, Bradley, Case, Denbo, Fisher, Fosdick, Gray, Hadley, Henderson, Hooper, Hughes, Kinley, Lasselle, Morgan, Robinson of Madison, Smith, Stein, Wolcott and Wood--19.
NAYS--Messrs. Andrews, Armstrong, Beardsley, Bellamy, Caven, Church, Hanna, Hess, Howk, Jaquess, Johnson of Spencer, Johnston of Montgomery, Montgomery, Rice, Reynolds, Scott, Sherrod and Turner--18.
SOLDIERS' CERTIFICATES.
Mr. TURNER introduced a joint resolution [S. 16] providing for the signing of certificates to honorably discharged soldiers or their surviving relatives, commemorative of their services. It being reported, in his district, that he was not a friend to the soldier, he took occasion to say that he had no antagonism to the soldier; on the contrary he had the highest regard and the utmost respect for each and every soldier who served in the late war and was a good soldier, and who did not steal. He demanded a call of the Senate he did not want Democrats to dodge the vote.
It was taken and 34 Senators answered to their names.
On motion by Mr. JOHNSON of Spencer, further proceedings under the call were dispsensed with.
In answer to an inquiry from Mr. Scott--
Mr. ROBINSON of Madison, said the cost would amount to about eighty thousand dollars.
Mr. TURNER understood that other States had passed similar resolutions.
Mr. HADLEY opposed the resolution. It would incur a heavy cost, while not half the soldiers would care to preserve them. He would give them some substantial benefit, and Democrats and others who wished to put themselves on record as friendly to the soldier would have ample opportunities upon measures now pending.
Mr. HOOPER agreed with Mr. Hadley. Men and parties have made their record, and if it has been against the soldier, that record cannot be effaced by a proposition of this kind. He made an ineffectual demand for the previous question--affirmative 16, negative 16.
Mr. HUGHES felt friendly to the general purposes of the resolution, but felt a delicac in voting upon it in its present form. He referred to his connection with the Indiana Militia, having been appointed first as a Brigadier and afterwards as a Major General of the Militia, in which capacity he had served in the Morgan Raid. He regarded the resolution in its present form, as making an invidious and odius distinction against the Militia of the State, and so long as they were to remain unrepresented, he desired to be excused from voting on the passage of the resolution.
Mr. ROBINSON of Madison, demanded the previous question on excusing the Senator from Monroe.
Mr. HUGHES did not desire to take up time, and withdrew his request.
Mr. ARMSTRONG moved to refer the resolution to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. SHERROD said that he had served through two wars, but did not claim any special credit for having done so. He was surprised, however, at Senators on this floor who claimed to be specially loyal, opposing a proposition to give to the soldier a handsome certificate, to cost the pitiful sum of fifty cents. He regarded it as a queer kind of loyalty. He claimed to be himself, a loyal man, but not one of those who was so merely from the lips out. He should vote very cheerfully for the resolution.
Mr. ROBINSON of Madison, had served three and a half years in the late war, and he knew a great many more who had done the same. If this certificate had been proposed immediately after the close of the war, he should probably have favored it. The Adjutant General has made a report which has been published at a cost to the State of eighty thousand dollars, in which is the record of the services of every man who was in the war from the State. Fifty cents is a pitiful sum, to be sure, but he did not believe any soldier desired the State to incur the additional expenditure of eighty thousand dollars for the purpose named.
Mr. GRAY was oppossd to the resolution, because it proposed to make no distinction between the men who had served three months and those who went through the war. He might favor a resolution giving the certificate to the widow or children of deceased soldiers.
Mr. KINLEY supposed that the same motive which prompted the soldiers to go into the army would lead them to disapprove of the State's incurring an expense to this amount for a little picture, in order that some engraving establishment might reap a profit.
Mr. SHERROD said he had always had some doubt whether that militia had done its duty. If it had, we should not now have a bill pending for the payment of over four hun page: 554[View Page 554] dred thousand dollars claims for damages incurred by the Morgan Raid.
Mr. TURNER demanded the previous question, and it being seconded by the Senate--
The joint resolution was rejected by yeas 10, nays 28--as follows:
YEAS--Messrs. Bird, Bradley, Caven, Church, Hadley, Johnson of Spencer, Lasseile, Morgan, Sherrod, and Turner--10.
NAYS--Messrs. Andrews, Armstrong, Beardsley, Bellamy, Case, Denbo, Fisher, Fosdick, Gray,Green, Hanna, Henderson, Hess, Hooper, Howk, Hughes, Jaquess, Johnson of Montgomery, Kinley, Montgomery, Rice, Reynolds, Robinson of Madison, Scott, Smith, Stein, Wolcott and Wood--28.
Mr. MORGAN offered a joint resolution reciting that whereas Indiana has in trust the Agricultural College scrip, and the State has failed to locate such College, therefore our Senators and Representatives in Congress are instructed to use their influence for the passage of an act allowing that fund to be placed in State the common school fund.
Mr. RICE made an ineffectual demand for the previous question.
Mr. HUGHES moved to refer the resolution to the Joint Committee on Education and Agriculture.
Mr. GREEN favored this proposition and feared to send it to any committee because time is now so short.
Mr. JOHNSTON of Montgomery, favored the motion to refer.
The motion to refer was agreed to.
Mr. ARMSTRONG offered a resolution restricting debate hereafter to ten minute speeches.
The resolution was adopted.
And then--
The Senate took a recess till two o'clock, p. m.
CORRECTION--Mr. Hadley is represented in Saturday's reports as moving to add the words "and maintenace" to the third section of the gravel road bill. His motion was to strike out these words.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR commanded order at two o'clock p. m.
Mr. JOHNSON of Spencer, and Mr. LASSELLE submitted reports from committees.
BILLS FOR ACTS
Were introduced, read the first time and referred to appropriate committees unless otherwise stated, as follows:
By Mr. JAQUESS, [S. 296] to enable railroad to issue bonds, to sell them to cities, etc., and to authorize cities, towns and counties to issue bonds to buy them.
By. Mr. ROBINSON of Madison, [S. 297] to repeal the act of March 11, 1867, concerning the removal of convicts from the Southern to the Northern prison.
By Mr. HUGHES, [S. 298] making an appropriation of twenty-five thousand dollars for the Indiana State University.
By Mr. ARMSTRONG, [S. 299] to amend section one of the act of March 6, 1865, fixing compensation to township assessors.
By Mr. JAQUESS, [S. 300] to provide for the sale of the State University.
Mr. HUGHES moved to reject the bill. Every Senator understood the animus which caused it. He knew it could not have been introduced seriously; but that it must have been intended as a fling against the University, his constituents or himself. He had had the misfortune to create some ill-will toward himself, at the commencement of the session, and there had been a systematic attempt made to oppose all measures which he had since introduced. Nothing which he could say here could reach the public fairly, but he now asked that the Senate, out of respect to itself, reject the bill.
Mr. JAQUESS denied that he had intended any disrespect toward the Senator, and said the bill had been introduced by him at the request of others who had the right to have their measures presented.
Mr. GREEN spoke against the rejection of the bill, although he did know that he was ready to vote for it. He was as much surprised at the introduction of the bill by the Senator from Monroe, after the object of it had been considered by the Senate and rejected. He thought one bill a fair offset to the other.
Mr. HUGHES was glad he had drawn out a statement of direct hostility to the University from the Senator who had shown it indirectly throughout the session. He denied that the Senate had rejected the proposition to appropriate assistance to the State University. It had been cut down to seventeen thousand dollars, and afterward had been rejected upon a plea of selling University square, and appropriating its proceeds to the University.
Mr. GREEN stated that he was not the enemy of the State University. He desired not to appropriate money directly, when the assistance could be given in another way. He feared the bill would consume the balance of the week, as the Omnibus bill had consumed at least a week of solid discussion thus far.
Mr. HANNA spoke to the legal question, and supposed the University could not be sold, except for the purpose of locating it at some other point.
The motion to reject was agreed to by yeas 42, nays 0.
By Mr. WOLCOTT, [S. 301] to provide for the increased endowment of the State University, for the acceptance of the offer of fifty page: 555[View Page 555] thousand dollars from Monroe County, locating the Agricultural College there, and authorizing a law and medical College in connection therewith, and for the sale of University Square No. 25, in Indianapolis, etc.
By Mr. CHURCH, [S. 302] amending the and two hundred and fiftieth section of the general practice act, by inserting therein the word "city."
It was passed to the second reading.
By Mr. CAVEN, [S. 303] amendatory of section seventeen of the act of June 17,1852, in reference to issuing county bonds for repairs of county houses.
By Mr. MONTGOMERY, [S. 304] to amend an amendment to section two of an act prescribing the powers of Justices of the Peace in State prosecutions.
THE CITY POST OFFICE.
Mr. GIFFORD offered a resolution, which was adopted, authorizing a committee of three to visit the post office to inquire what causes the delay of mail matter, etc.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR makes the committee to consist of Messrs. Gifford, Gray and Elliott.
HOUSE BILLS ON THE FIRST READING.
The bills from the House of Representatives were read by title only and referred to appropriate committees.
THE SUFFRAGE AMENDMENT.
A message from the Governor communicating the joint resolution of the Congress of the United States, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to be Article XV., was read.
Mr. HUGHES moved that this communication be made the special order for Thursday at two and a half o'clock.
The motion was agreed to.
THE MORGAN RAID.
Mr. Bellamy's bill [S. 97] appropriating four hundred and thirteen thousand five hundred ninety-nine dollars and forty-eight cents, to pay the Morgan raid claims, coming up in regular order--
Mr. HUGHES suggested important amendments with regard to the certification of the claimed to be paid.
Mr. FISHER desired to secure this money to the original claimants themselves and not speculators who have bought up these claims for little or nothing--twenty-five cents on the dollar--probably.
Mr. DENBO was satisfied that not a single claim had been bought up in Washington county--one of the counties represented by him--but that the claims were still in the hands of the original claimant.
Mr. FISHER moved to amend by providing that the amount due each party shall be paid to him and not to any assignee or attorney.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. CARSON was opposed to the bill--opposed to the State paying any damages sustained on this account, because the people of Indiana are not responsible. It is a matter that belongs to the General Government. It was brought into the Legislature in 1865, recommended as he remembered by Governor Morton in his message at that time. That Legislature refused to entertain a proposition of this kind upon the ground that the Constitution guarantees the protection of the General Government to the State, against invasion or insurrection and is therefore legally liable. If Indiana is not legally liable how can her representatives there vote to assume the responsibility of these damages, trusting to the general government to reimburse her? It is a principle of law that if one man voluntarily pays the debt of another, the latter cannot be made to reimburse the former. There is no justice in calling upon the State to pay the liabilities of the general government. This is but taking from Congress the responsibility of adjusting claims against the general government, and he opposed any measure of this sort. The records of this matter, from its first introduction in the Legislature to the present time, can be found in the BREVIER REPORTS, and gentlemen can trace its history for themselves. He would not detain the Senate longer. He referred particularly to pages 435-6-7 of the last volume, IX., reading therefrom.
Mr HANNA moved to recommit the bill with instructions to strike out all claims for property taken by a public enemy, and include only claims for property taken by the State military forces. It is a principle of law that Government is not responsible for damage done to its citizens by an enemy. We have no legal claim in the General Government for a reimbursement of any expenditures made under this bill.
Mr. FISHER was of opinion that the services of the State troops have been recognized by the General Government. The General Government got from the enemy not only all the horses stolen but all the enemy brought over here, and the Government in equity is bound to pay our citizens from whom horses were stolen. If the State makes these payments she does it as a gratuity. The question is, will we step in and pay these claims and then try to get re-imbursement from the General Government? He did not exactly like this plan.
Mr. BELLAMY did not know that we had any right to make distinction between these claims. The State ought to have settled them page: 556[View Page 556] long ago. The Legislature of Ohio paid just such claims to her citizens, and the General Government promptly reimbursed the State of Ohio. He opposed the amendment. This General Assembly is only asked to furnish money that we have every assurance will be immediately reimbursed by the General Government. He regarded these claims as not only equitable but legal.
Mr. DENBO said his constituency had suffered more, probably than any other portion of the State. He gave a history of the claims embraced in this bill, and insisted that they were just and should be paid without delay.
Mr. TURNER entered his protest against the drift of the argument in favor of this bill. He was astonished to hear it said by the Senator from Switzerland [Mr. Bellamy] that two Democratic counties were composed of loyal citizens, and it caused him to fear there was a "rat in the meal tub."
Mr. SHERROD. The question before the Senate resolves itself into two simple propositions. First--are these claims just? Secondly--shall the State Goverment or the General Government pay them? He believed that the claims were just and ought to be paid, but he did not believe the State Government should pay them. The damage done to property was not attributable to Morgan and his men alone, but in a great degree to the Federal troops. The property left by both armies were sold at public auction by the officers of the General Government, and the proceeds securred in the interests of said government. Hence he was opposed to the State paying these claims upon principle. He had opposed this measure at the last session, believing then as he did now, that the General Government ought to pay them. He voted for the resolution calling for a commission to examine into these claims last session, with the express understanding that it was for the purpose of placing them in a tangible shape, in order that they might be presented to the General Government for payment. It was a fact well known to Senators that such was the understanding at the time of the passage of the resolution referred to. He could not therefore vote for the proposition making the State Government responsible for the payment of these claims.
Mr. HUGHES remarked that the claims were classified in the Committee report as follows:
Class 1. Claims for property taken, destroyed or injured by the Union forces under command of United States officers, fifty-eight thousand seventeen dollars fifty-one cents.
Class 2. Claims for property taken, destroyed or injured by Union forces under State officers, twenty-four thousand two hundred and sixty-eight dollars eighty cents.
Class 3. Property taken, injured or destroyed by rebels, three hundred and thirty-one thousand two hundred seventy-eight dollars, seventeen cents.
Class 4. Property taken, destroyed or injured where the claimant is unable to identify by whom the loss occurred, thirty-five dollars. [See Senate Journal of 1867, p. 370; also Report of Morgan Raid Commission, p. 5.]
Assuming that all the awards and findings of the Commission are correct, and supported by evidence both of the losses alleged, and of the loyalty of the claimants, the question arises, is the State bound to pay these claims?
We do not understand that the Legislature has committed the State upon this question. We are of the opinion that while classes one and two constitute valid claims against the United States, if proven in due form, under the laws thereof, they do not constitute a legal demand against the State of Indiana.
Classes three and four, in the opinion of the committee, are not due of right under the Constitution and the laws, either the municipal laws or the laws of war either from the State or the National Government.
The merit of these claims consist in their equity, and the obligation to pay them, if any exists, arises from the failure to provide prompt and adequate protection to its citizens against the sudden irruption of an armed force of public enemies, and from the patriotic conduct of the citizens who sustained these losses, in flocking to the standard of their country in its defense, to the neglect of their own property and private interests. It must be conceded that those claims appeal strongly to the equity and the clemency of the State.
Mr. H. was willing to let the bill be ordered engrossed if the yeas and nays were not called upon that question, though the bill is not perfected. He would not offer amendments, for he did not know that he should vote for it. As at present advised he expected to vote against the bill.
Mr. HANNA was not willing to risk a reimbursement by the State.
The motion to recommit was rejected upon a division--affirmative 13, negative not counted.
Mr. RICE moved to indefinitely postpone the bill, and referred to the history of those claims last session. He desired a test vote but at the suggestion of one or two Senators, he withdrew his motion.
Mr. ANDREWS contended that these claims should be allowed by the State--insistign that justice required the State to lend her credit to her citizens by the assumption of these debts, knowing that she will be reimbursed by the United States.
Mr. FOSDICK demanded the previous question, and under its operation--
The bill was ordered to be engrossed, yeas 21, nays 20--as follows:
YEAS--Messrs. Andrews, Bellamy, Case, Caven, Denbo, Elliott, Gifford, Green, Hanna, Henderson, Howk, Jaquess, Lasselle, Lee, Montgomery, Morgan, Robinson of Madison, Robinson of Decatur, Scott, Stein and Turner--21.
NAYS--Messrs, Armstrong, Beardsley, Bird, Bradley, Carson, Church, Fisher, Fosdick, Gray, Hadley, Hess, Hooper, Hughes, Johnson of Spencer, Johnston of Montgomery, Kinley, Rice, Reynolds, Wolcott and Wood--20.
Mr. HUGHES when his name was called, stated that he regarded this as a test vote, and was reluctantly compelled to vote "no." page: 557[View Page 557]
Mr. ROBINSON of Madison, said that he did not wish it understood that by voting for the engrossment of the bill, he should necessarily vote for the bill on its passage. He believed, however, that Senators living in the north part of the State did not fully apprehend the amount of damages done in the southern part of the State by the Morgan raid, and he was satisfied that something should be done to enable them to get their claims collected from the General Government.
Mr. STEIN did not desire it understood that by voting for the engrossment of the bill, he would vote for it on its final passage.
Mr. WOLCOTT feared that, with the amount of claims still pending against the United States, there might be much difficulty in obtaining a recognition of the claims, if they should be assumed by the State.
Messrs. HANNA and TURNER voted aye, expecting to vote against the bill on its final passage.
So the bill was ordered to the engrossment.
SENATE BILLS ON THE SECOND READING.
The following bills were read a second time, the amendments proposed by committees adopted, the bills ordered engrossed and passed to a third reading:
S. 254, declaratory of the true meaning of Section twenty-seven of the act regulating descents and the apportionment of estates.
S. 258, to authorize the Governor to issue a patent to Samuel Cooper, for certain Michigan road lands in St. Joseph County.
S. 261, to allow incorporated cities and towns to erect buildings for fire and other purposes on the docks and wharfs of canals.
S. 262, to provide for the verification of certain facts, in suits concerning bills of exchange or promissory notes.
S. 276, for the relief of the heirs of Patrick Donovan, deceased.
S. 182, to provide for the establishment of a Reformatory for women and girls, by yeas 29, nays 12.
S. 258, to allow partners to bring and maintain suits in their own names in certain cases.
COUNTY OFFICERS' FEES.
Mr. Kinley's bill [S. 217] regulating fees of county officers, was read the second time.
Mr. CARSON regarded the bill as very imperfect. There is no provision made for accumulated fees in clerk's or sheriffs' offices, etc.
Mr. LASSELLE pointed out other defects in the bill.
Mr. HENDERSON favored a salary bill for county officers, and moved to strike out all after the enacting clause and substitute new matter--being his bill [S. 160.]
Mr. BELLAMY offered a resolution which was adopted, that when the Senate adjourn it adjourns to meet at ten o'clock a. m.
And then--
The Senate adjourned till ten o'clock a. m. to-morrow
