HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
The House met at 9 o'clock A. M.
On motion of Mr. UNDERWOOD, the reading of the journal of yesterday was dispensed with.
THE CRIMINAL COURTS FOR VANDERBURGH AND JEFFERSON.
Mr. OVERMYER (by consent), from the committee of conference on the disagreeing' votes between the two Houses as to the Senate amendment to Mr. Welborn's bill [H. R. 90], for a bill for a Criminal Court for the county of Vanderburgh-the Senate amendment adding provisions for a Criminal Court for the county of Madison, to which the House non-concurred; reported, That the House recede from its non-concurrence.
On motion of Mr. JOHNSTON, of Parke, the report was laid on the table-to await the return of Mr. Welborn.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Mr. DUNN, from the Committee on the Judiciary, returned his court system revision bill [H. R. 389] with amendments appropriately inserting these words in the first section: "and of the Codes of Practice;" also, in section two, striking out "120 days," and inserting "150 days" in lieu.
He then moved to suspend the order of business, and put the bill on its passage.
Mr. MITCHELL demanded the yeas and nays thereon, and the motion was rejected-yeas 40, nays 44.
Mr. COFFROTH, from the same Committee, returned the bill [S. 286] to amend the act to incorporate the Franklin Insurance Company, recommending its passage.
Mr. SABIN, from the Committee on Claims, reported for allowance of the claims of Peter of Peter McCostar, the Daily Telegraph Company and Pierre Costar; which were concurred in.
He also returned the resolution of the House for allowance of $35 each to the members of the Prison Committee, to cover extra expenses incurred by them in visiting the prisons, with a recommendation that they be allowed $10 each, which was concurred in.
He also reported for allowance of $100 additional compensation for William B. Prather, for services as Clerk of the Morgan Raid Commission, which was concurred in-yeas 52, nays 28.
On motion of Mr. FULLER, the House took up the claim of Mr. Samuel Beatty for $161 50 expenses incurred by him in the Beatty-Peelle contest for the seat of Representative for the counties of Laporte and Starke.
Mr. NEFF would put Mr. Peelle's claim in the same case.
On motion of Mr. FULLER, Mr. Peelle's claim was taken up.
Mr. CARY moved that the whole matter be indefinitely postponed.
Messrs. WILLIAMS, of Knox, COFFROTH, and others alleged precedents for Attorney's fees.
Mr. RATLIFF desired a division between the allowance of Attorneys fees and other expenses.
Mr. MONROE reports, so as to $100.
Mr. GORDON offered the amendment thinking that the actual expenses incurred should be paid, if anything. The matter of necessary costs should have preference to Attorneys fees.
Mr. GREENE was opposed to paying Attorneys fee and costs. There were undoubted precedents for paying per diem and milage to contestants. That had been allowed to these gentlemen, and that was sufficient.
Mr. FULLER demanded the previous question, and under its operation, Mr. Monroe's amendment was rejected-yeas 33, nays 48, and the question recurred on the motion to indefinitely postpone.
And then the matter was indefinitely postponed.
Mr. VATER, from the Committee on Millitary Affairs, returned his bill, [H. R. 338] for amending sections 4th, 13th, an 15th of the act of March 11, 1867, authorizing the Soldiers' and Seamans' Home, and supplimentary thereto, with amendments, providing, "that not more than fifty days page: 165[View Page 165] service shall be allowed for any one Trustee;" and inserting: "with the consent of the parent or parents;" striking out section 5, and these words in the title: "and supplemental thereto."
Mr. GORDON submitted a resolution, (which was adopted,) for invitation to General M.S. Hascall to privilege within the bar of the House.
GRAVEL ROAD LAW.
0n motion of Mr. FULLER. A special order, viz: Mr. Millikan's gravel road bill, [H. R. 50] and other bills on the same subject, originating in the two Houses of the General Assembly, were taken up.
Mr. RUDDELL, (in behalf of the special committee thereon,) proposed an amendment by way of substitute, which he said is made up of Mr. Millikin's bill precisely, with such additions as have been suggested by the various proposed amendments, and the suggestions of gentlemen who have interested themselves in this gravel road question.
The substitute amendment having been read by the Clerk-
Mr. ODELL proposed to amend the sub-substitute by adding a section to this effect:
Any such company shall have the right to enter upon land adjacent to their road and construct ditches and drains, doing no unnecessary damage, and shall have the right to take and appropriate timber and dirt, by giving the owner five days notice of their intention, etc.
Mr. RUDDELL accepted the amendment.
Mr. VATER proposed to amend the first section of the substitute by adding these words:
"Provided, That after the assessment is made, the said company shall present to the road Commissioners the written consent of the property holders assessed in such assessment."
He said by the present provisions of the bill money is put against men; the majority are thrown upon the mercy of the road company. The majority should have, the right to sayafter the survey, whether they want the road or not.
Mr. RUDDELL opposed the amendment.
Mr. GORDON supported it.
Mr. HIGGINS moved to lay Mr. Vater's amendment on the table.
Mr. VATER demanded the yeas and nays, which resulted-yeas, 41; nays, 43, and then-
Mr. OSBORN proposed to substitute for Mr. Vater's amendment words to this effect:
Add to the first section: Provided that after the assessments shall have been made, they shall be submitted to the parties so assessed, and if a majority of them shall approve, they shall be collected accordingly: and if the said majority shall not approve, then the said assessments shall not be collected.
The SPEAKER said it would be in the third degree.
Mr. RUDDELL submitted further considerations against the amendment.
Mr. RATLIFF indicated a substitute for Mr. Vater's amendment by saying: "Upon petition of the owners of one-half of the real estate within a mile and a half of the road."
Mr. STEWART, of Rush, was fearful that the bill would be loaded down too heavily with amendments. He could not see how the bill could be any better guarded for the protetion of the interests of minorities. It had been considered in committees-in large committees-the friends of the bill in all parts of the State had been invited to consider it, and it was supposed to be guarded in every point against all conceivable objections on the part of the friends of gravel roads all over the State.
After further debate by Messrs. Ratliff, Shoaff, Stanton, Mitchell, Ruddell, Johnston of Parke, and others, the question as to the propriety of a property qualification for suffrage on a question of this kind-a road question, affecting the rights of all the people-all being in favor of a gravel road bill which shall serve the rights of the assessed, and at the same time encourage the spirit of public improvement; and all admitting the oppressiveness of the present law-
Mr. STEPHENSON suggested that its friends vote this amendment down, and supply one that would not be objectionable. He demanded the previous question.
Mr. WILLIAMS, of Marion, proposed a substitute for Mr. Vater's amendment which was read for information; to this effect:
Amend section first so as to provide that the-party assessed shall be entitled to one vote for every $25 for which they are assessed, provided that each man assessed shall be entitled to at least one vote.
Mr. GORY submitted the following, which was also read for information.
Amend section one by adding this proviso. Provided, That in no case shall the County Commissioners order the assessment provided for in this section, unless a majority of the property owners within the prescribed limits shall petition therefor.
The previous question was here seconded by the House and thereunder, the vote on Mr. Vater's amendment was rejected-yeas 32, nays 52-as follows:
YEAS-Messrs. Admire, Britton, Calvert, Carnahan, Cory, Cotton, Davidson, Dittemore, Dunn, Fuller, Gordon, Hutchings, Hyatt, Johnson of Montgomery, Johnson of Marshall, Long, McBride, McDonald, McGregor, Miles, Mitchell, Monree, Neff, Osborn, Overmyer, Pierce of Vigo, Shoaff, Shoemaker, Sleeth, Vater, Williams of Hamilton and Zenor-32.
NAYS-Messrs. Addison, Baker, Barnett, Barritt, Beatty, Beeler, Cave. Chittenden, Coffroth, Cox, Davis of Elkhart, Fairchild, Field of La
page: 166[View Page 166]grange, Furnas, Gilham, Greene, Hall, Higbee, Higgins, Hutson, Johnson of Parke, Jump, Lawler, Lamborn, Logan, Mason, McFadin, Millekan, Miller, Mock, Montgomery, Odell, Palmer, Fierce of Porter, Ratliff, Buddell, Sabin, Smith, Stnnton, Stephenson, Stewart of Ohio, Stewart of Rush, Sunman,Taber, Underwood, Vardeman, Wile, Wildman, Williams of Knox. Williams of St. Joseph, Williams of Union, Wilson and Mr. Speaker-52.
Mr. BAKER explaining, said, as the proposed bill repeals all Gravel Road laws, if this amendment prevails he would be compelled to vote against the bill.
And then Mr. Ruddell's substitute was adopted by the following vote-yeas 72, nays 15.
YEAS-Messrs. Addison, Baker, Barnett, Beatty, Beeler, Bowen, Chittenden, Coffroth, Cory, Cox, Davidson, Davis of Elkhart, Dittemore, Dunn, Fairchild, Field of Lagrange, Fuller, Furnas, Gilham, Gordon, Greene, Hall, Hamilton, Higbee, Higgins, Hutchings, Hutson, Hyatt, Johnson of Parke, Johnson of Marshall, Jump, Lawler, Lamborn, Logan, Long, Mason, McBride, McDonald, McFadin, Millekan, Miller, Mitchell, Mock, Montgomery, Odell, Overmyer, Palmer, Pierce of Porter, Ratliff, Ruddell, Sabin, Shoemaker, Sleeth, Smith, Stanton, Stephenson, Stewart of Ohio, Stewart of Rush, Taber, Tebbs, Underwood, Vardeman, Vater, Wile, Wildman, Williams of Hamilton, Williams of Knox, Williams of St. Joseph, Williams of Union, Wilson, Zenor, Zollars, and Mr. Speaker-72.
NAYS-Messrs. Admire, Barritt, Britton, Calvert, Carnahan, Cave, Cotton, Johnson of Montgomery, McGregor, Miles, Monroe, Neff, Osborn, Shoaff, and Sunman-15.
Messrs. Coffroth, Cox, Dittemore and Mitchell explained their affirmative votes, as cast, not because they consider the bill the best that could be devised, but better than the existing road law.
So the substitute, as reported by Mr. Ruddell, was adopted without amendment; and the question recurred on the engrossment of the bill as amended.
Mr. CORY now moved to amend by adding the substance of his proposition, which had been read for information, as above given.
On motion of Mr. STANTON, it was laid on the table-yeas 59, nays 28.
Mr. OSBORN submitted an amendment to add a section, to declare that the provisions of the act shall not apply to land owners in cities and incorporated towns; and
Mr. JOHNSTON, of Parke, proposed a section to save the vested rights of road companies from the effect of the repealing clause of this act; but, it being plead that these rights are covered by the bill, the propositions were cut off the previous question, demanded by Mr. CHITTENDEN; 80 the bill was ordered to be engrossed.
And then the House took a recess till 2 o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The SPEAKER resumed at 2 o'clock P. M., and announced the special order, viz: the several bills of the house to repeal the liquor license law of 1859.
Mr. Vardeman's bill [H. R. 279] amend sections 3 and 4; and Mr. Chapman's bill [H.R. 288] amending sections 4 and 8 of the liquor law of 1859, were read by the clerk-the latter by unanimous consent, being considered first.
Mr. COFFROTH proposed to indefinitely postpone Mr. Chapman's bill, which requires the applicant for license to have his petition signed by a majority of the legal voters of the township, ward, or election precinct.
Mr. STEWART, of Rush, thought this the best bill before the House, because it takes this question out of the political field and places it in the hands of the people of the locality interested. He rehearsed tho provisions of the bill-the majority on the petition-the prohibition against selling to minors-and the making of the vender responsible for the acts of his employees. Mr. NEFF gave his reason for supporting the pending motion-the existing liquor law is as good as can be attained.
Mr. CHAPMAN spoke generally to the question of the necessity for this order of legislation, as a power, a correcting and restraining influence upon society, supporting his affirmative conclusion by the number of petitions of the people in every quarter of the State asking for it at the hands of this General Assembly. He quoted from judges and statesmen to show the alarming prevalence of crime on account of the use of intoxicating beverages. And in view of these startling statistics, he urged upon the House the duty of intelligent and instant action for the more effectual restraint of the liquor traffic. He regarded the suppression of intoxication as an econominal question. And his view of the kind of legislation now required was prohibition, or the nearest approach to that which we can attain. If we can not get what we should have, let us have the best we can get. He commended the prohibitory law of 1855 embracing, search, seizure and confiscation, the credit of which he gave to the Democratic party. It worked well until it was Perkinsized, when it gave place to titf present law, furnished also by the Demo-Democratic party in 1859. And to this law he urged the application of the amendments embraced in his bill, which he recited at length, expecting, if it were to become a law, that it would operate as a prohibition of the traffic in one-half of the townships, wards and voting precincts in the State.
Mr. BOWEN spoke against the motion, and specifically in favor of the several provisions of the bill-contrasting what would be its operation with the evil effects of the page: 167[View Page 167] existing law. He was especially favorable to the bill, because it would lead on wisely and gradually, to the ultimate prohibition of the traffic. He gave way, upon the suggestion of the special order for the consideration of the Senate's Agricultural College bill.
Mr. COFFROTH demanded the previous question, but there was no second to the demand, whereupon, on his motion, the consideration of the Senate's Agricultural College bill was postponed till the present order shall be disposed of.
Mr. BROWN then resumed his speech, urging numerous considerations for the passage of the bill, amongst which he emphasized and illustrated those of humanity and public economy, when he concluded.
Mr. Coffroth's motion for indefinite postponement was rejected - yeas, 35; nays, 55, and the question recurred on the order for engrossment.
Mr. Wildman moved a suspension of the Constitutional restriction so as to admit of the bill being put upon its passage, which was agreed to - yeas, 76; nays 11.
On motion of Mr. BAKER, a call of the House was ordered and proceeded.
On motion of Mr. MITCHELL, it was ordered that the lobbies be cleared, the doors closed, and the absentees be summoned to the bar of the House.
Mr. COTTON moved to reconsider the vote for this order.
The motion was agreed to on a division - affirmative 43, negative 27; and then-
On motion of Mr. UNDERWOOD, Mr. Mitchell's motion to clear the lobbies, etc., was laid on the table.
On motion of Mr. COFFROTH, all further proceedings under this call of the House were dispensed with.
On motion of Mr. WILDMAN, Mr. Chapman's bill [H. R. 288] to amend sections 4 and 8 of the act of March 5,1859, was considered as engrossed, and put upon the third and last reading; the first vote thereon resulting, yeas 50, nays 34, as follows:
YEAS - Mesrrs. Baker, Barnett, Beatty, Beeler, Bowen, Britton, Breckinridge, Chapman, Chittenden, Davidson, Davis of Elkhart, Dunn, Fairchild, Field of Lagrange, Gilham, Gordon, Green, Hall, Higbee, Higgins, Hutson, Hyatt, Johnson of Parke, Johnson of Marshall, Jump, Lamborn, Mason, Millekan Miller, Mitchell, Mock, Monroe, Osborn, Overmyer, Pierce of Porter, Ratliff, Ruddell, Sabin, Shoaff, Smith, Stephenson, Stewart of Ohio, Taber, Underwood, Vardeman, Vater, Wildman, Williams of Hamilton, Williams, of St. Joseph, Williams, of Union. - 50.
NAYS - Messrs. Admire, Barritt, Bates, Bobo, Calvert, Carnahan, Cave, Coffroth, Cory, Cotton, Cox, Davis of Floyd, Dittemore, Fuller, Hutchings, Johnson of Montgomery, Lawler, Long, McBridge, McDonald, McFadin, McGregor, Miles, Montgomery, Neff, Odell, Palmer, Pierce of Vigo, Shoemaker, Sunman, Wile, Williams of Knox, Wilson, Zenor, and Mr. Speaker. - 34.
So the bill failed for want of a constitutional majority of 51.
On motion of Mr. CHAPMAN, Mr. Coffroth's bill [H. R. 101] to rapeal the liquor law of 1859, and Mr. Vardeman's temperance bill [H. R. 279] for amending sections 3 and 4 of the act of 1859, were taken up and indefinitely postponed.
Mr. STEPHENSON submitted the following, which was read for information:
Resolved, That we congratulate the city of Logansport on its felicitous choice of Mayor: and, as the post of Mayoress is vacant, we earnestly beg of the gentleman from Cass to fill the position by appointment without unnecessary delay; that without being unduly solicitous in this matter, this House is of the opinion that a Mayoress would materially lessen the duties of the Mayor's office, add sunshine, &c., to the life of the functionary in question.
Resolved, 2d. That nothing herein shall be construed to have reference to the gentleman from Cass, Mr. McFadin, but to the lonely Mayor elect of Logansport. [Laughter.]
Objection being made, it was not entertained.
Mr. RUDDELL moved to take up the unfinished order for the consideration of Mr. Williams' gravel road bill [H. R. 50.]
Mr. COFFROTH proposed to amend by substituting a motion for the consideration of the special order - the Senate's agricultural college bill [S. 156.]
Mr. MITCHELL submitted the point, that the order for the consideration of the agricultural college bill should be considered now, without motion - the temperance bills having been disposed of.
After debate by Mr. Ruddell, Mr. Gordon and others.
The SPEAKER (Mr. Davis of Floyd in the Chair) decided that the whole matter will be decided by the House; whereupon
Mr. COFFROTH'S motion prevailed.
PURDUE UNIVERSITY.
The bill [S. 156] accepting certain donations from John Purdue and others, and locating and naming the college contemplated by the act of Congress, approved July 2, 1862; providing for its organization and management; adding a member to the Trustees of the Indiana Agricultural College, and changing the corporate name of said Trustees, and declaring an emergency, was taken up and read the second time.
Mr. BUSKIRK proposed to amend by adding to the second section the following words:
Provided that the Eaid college is hereby located upon the express condition, that the State of Indiana shall never appropriate anything for the purpose of endowing said college, or make any appropriation for the purpose of extending or improving the buildings thereof, or for any other purpose in connection with said college. That if the aforesaid donations of John Purdue and others, made for the benefit of the college aforesaid, are not secured in a legal manner to the Trustees of said college, within thirty days from the day of the location of said college, the said location shall be null and void.
Mr. OSBORN moved that the proposed amendment be laid on the table.
page: 168[View Page 168]Mr. BUSKIRK, appealing ineffectually against the motion, said he hoped it would not prevail, and that the House would admit the propriety and necessity of some such amendment.
The vote on Mr. Osborn's motion resulted-yeas 43, nays 41-as follows:
YEAS-Messrs, Baker, Beatty, Britton, Breckinridge, Carnahan, Chapman, Coffroth, Gory, Cotton, Cox, Davidson, Davis of Elkhart, Fairchild, Field of Lagrange, Furnas, Gordon, Greene, Hall, Higgins, Johnson of Montgomery, Lamborn, Mason, McFadin, Millekan, Miller, Mitchell, Mock, Neff, Odell, Osborn, Palmer, Pierce of Porter, Sabin, Shoaff, Sleeth, Smith, Stephen-son, Taber, Underwood, Vardeman, Wile, Williams of Hamilton, and Wilson-43.
NAYS-Messrs. Admire, Barritt, Bates, Beeler, Calvert, Cave, Chittenden, Davis of Floyd, Dittemore, Dunn, Fuller, Gilham, Higbee, Hutchings, Hutson, Hyatt, Johnston of Parke, Johnson of Marshall, Jump, Lawler, Logan, Long, McBride, McGregor, Miles, Monroe, Montgomery, Overmyer, Pierce of Vigo, Ratliff, Ruddell, Shoemaker, Stanton, Stewart of Ohio, Sunman, Vater, Williams of Knox, Williams of St. Joseph, Williams of Union, Zenor and Mr. Speaker-41.
Mr. COFFROTH moved that the bill be now ordered to the third reading, and made the special order for to morrow morning at half-past nine o'clock, and thereupon he demanded the previous question?
Mr. BUSKIRK, (Mr. Davis of Floyd, in the Chair.) Before the demand is seconded he desired to submit the following amendment to the bill:
Strike out "Purdue University," and insert "Indiana Agricultural College" in lieu.
He insisted that until the demand for the previous question is seconded by the House, a motion to amend is in order.
Mr. COFFROTH. The rules of the House would settle that.
Mr. BUSKIRK made the point of order, that the gentleman can not make three or four motions at one time. There was the motion to order the bill to the third reading; then the motion to postpone its consideration, and then to make it the special order for to-morrow; and after that, there was a demand made for the previous question.
The SPEAKER (Mr. Davis in the Chair) held, that after the demand for the previous question, the only question that can immediately follow is to ascertain whether there be a second to the demand. If there is any authority the other way, the Chair will willingly take back the ruling. As to the point made by the gentleman from Monroe (Mr. Buskirk), if it were an original question, the Chair would say that the gentleman from Huntington could not make these motions together at the same time. But the practice of the House has been different.
After further debate, the above ruling being maintained, the demand for the previous question was seconded-affirmative vote was taken upon Mr. Coffroth's motion, resulting - yeas 58, nays 24.
Mr. JOHNSTON, of Parke, explaining said he voted in the negative, because he desired some such provision in the bill as that proposed by Mr. Buskirt.
Mr. MCFADIN, explaining, desired to urge the passage of the bill, to settle the vexed question of the location of the College, this being the first time in these five years that the General Assembly could come to the vote for a location.
Mr. BUSKIRK, correcting the statement, said: Four years ago this institution was located at Bloomington by five majority, but by skillfull fillibustering it was defeated.
Mr. PIERCE of Vigo voted aye, believing that this motion will not carry the bill beyond discussion on its merits to-morrow.
Mr. RATLIFF voted no, regarding this as an unusual procedure, for the discussion had not reached the question of location, but it was desired simply to perfect the bill.
Mr. BUSKIRK, when "Mr. Speaker" was called, said: I wish to explain my vote. I have not had an opportunity of discussing the amendment which I proposed, and for that reason, if for no other, I should vote No on this motion. I would like to have tested the sincerity of these gentlemen who stand up here in favor of this location is Tippecanoe county, to see if they meant what they said when they told the people of the State if they got this location, this college should never cost the State one dollar. But, sir, it might be seen by this manoevering, that they have not made their proposions in good faith, and it will be but two years when they will come back here for an appropriation of two or three hundred thousand dollars for this college.
Mr. OSBORN interposed the point of order, that the gentleman can not debate on leave for an explanation.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will proceed in brief.
Mr. BUSKIRK continued. He had expected interruption before this time. But in this proposition he saw that the State of Indiana is to be fleeced (as in the case of the Normal school) by appropriations for the purpose of keeping up this institution. And it was for the purpose of estopping this that he had proposed his amendment, and for the purpose of compelling these men to put their donations in legal shape so that the State may certainly have the benefit of them.
So the bill was ordered to be engrossed and made the special order for to-morrow.
On motion of Mr. RUDDELL, Mr. Milliken's Gravel Road bill [H. R. 50] was now taken up on the third and last reading, and finally passed the House - yeas 70, nays 9.
page: 169[View Page 169]Mr. ODELL filed his motion to reconsider the vote by which Mr. Buskirt's amendment to the Purdue University bill was laid on the table.
The House then adjourned.
