HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
The House met at 9 o'clock A. M.
On motion of Mr. WILDMAN, Mr. Pierce, of Porter, was called to the Chair.
On motion of Mr. DAVIDSON, the reading of the journal of yesterday was dispensed with.
HOUSE OF REFUGE.
The SPEAKER pro tem., laid before the House a message from the Governor, communicating a supplimentary report from the Commissioners of the House of Refuge setting forth the money account, the present condition, and wants of the institution. It requires $1,900 a month to support the House of Refuge; and on that basis, the appropriation will fall short some $10,000.
It was referred to the Committee on Scientific and Benevolent Institutions.
Messrs. DAVIS, of Elkhart, and TEBBS presented petitions; the latter, being read, is in reference to the Morgan raid claims.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEESRESIGNATIONS
Mr. DUNN, from a majority of the Committee on the Judiciary, returned his bill [H. R. 337] to amend section 50 of the act in relation to commissions, certificates and resignations of office, recommending the passage thereof without amendment.
Mr. COFFROTH, from the minority of said committee, submitted a report that said bill be indefinitely postponed.
Mr. COFFROTH. This bill is one ft prevent resignations. The present law provides that the resignation of members of the General Assembly shall be presented to the Governor. This bill provides that they shall be presented to their respective Houses, and that they shall not be valid till they are ratified or accepted by the proper House and the Governor is notified The report of the minority, recommending the indefinite postponement of the bill, requires the action of the House. The minority have made their report in contemplation of the right of every man, (when he desires to do so,) to resign or divest himself of office, and that just as soon as his resignation is made out and placed in the hands of the party having the right to receive it, his official existence ceases. He moved that the House concur in the report of the minority.
page: 181[View Page 181]Mr. DUNN. If there be any question as he propriety of the passage of this bill it is a constitutional question. And he held that there is no provision in the Constitution prescribing as to when or in what manner resignations shall be effected. For example. If it is competent for the Legislature to say that resignations of its members shall be sent to the Governor, is it not competent for the Legislature to say that their resignations shall be submitted to their respective Houses? And you have said by law that all resignations of members of the funeral Assembly shall be sent to the Governor. Where did the Legislature get that right? Not from the Constitution. Then because the Constitution is silent on he subject, if it is competent for the Legislature to say that these resignations shall be sent to the Governor, it is equally competent for it to say that they shall be sent to the proper House; and be ratified before they are binding. Now what was the necessity for the passage of a bill of this kind? Gentlemen might say, that there are party tactics in it. But he called attention to the fact, that it ties the hands of both parties alike. If it ties the hands of a Democratic minority, it also ties the hands of a Republican minority. Its object is simply to provide, that members, after they have qualified here shall not destroy the legislation of the State, by resignation. It simply requires of members to stay here and do that which they have sworn to do. It ties the hands of John Doe as well as Richard Roe, the black man as well as the white man, (and if a black man ever comes here as a member, he expected that he would come as a Democrat.) It ties the hands of all parties alike. And he assured the House that the people of the State are asking that this manner of defeating legislation, shall be stopped at once and fur all time.
Mr. BARRITT, interrupting. This I say : That I will never stay in my place here, and see such a bill as that pass.
Mr. DUNN continuing. It was just because that spirit is here, that he insisted that this bill ought to be passed. And if the gentleman from Bartholomew can go before the people, upon that issue, and say we, the minority, are proper judges whether rt is proper that such and such legislation shall be had or not, he, for one, was willing that the gentleman should go; and he felt the assurance, and he assured the gentleman from Bartholomew that upon such an issue, he would never represent his own or any other county again.
Mr. BARRITT. I have been sustained once; and, as I have been so instructed, I will try it again.
Mr. DUNN continued, and closed by alleging that the only question here is, Will the people indorse the doctrine that minorities shall be judges of the expediency of subjects of legislation?
Mr. COFFROTH demanded the yeas and nays on the question of concurrence in the minority report, and the vote resulted-yeas 43, nays 48 as follows:-
YEAS-Messrs. Addison, Admire, Barrett, Bates, Bobo, Britton, Calvert, Carnahan, Cave, Chapman, Coffroth, Gory, Cotton, Cox, Davis of Floyd, Dittemore, Fuller, Furnas, Greene, Hutchings, Hyatt, Johnson of Montgomery, Logan, Long, McBride, McDonald McFadin, McGregor, Miles, Mock, Montgomery, Neff. Palmer, Shoaff, Shoemaker, Sleeth, Gunman, Tebbs, Underwood, Wile, Williams of Knox, Zenor and Zollars-43.
NAYS-Messrs. Baker, Barnett, Beatty, Beeler. Bowen, Breckinridge, Davidson, Davis, of Elkhart, Dunn, Fairchild, Field of Lagrange, Gilham, Gordon, Hall, Hamilton, Higbee, Higgins, Hutson, Johnson of Parke, Johnson of Marshall, Jump, Kercheval, Lamborn, Mason, Millekan, Miller, Monroe, Osborn, Overmyer, Pierce of Porter, Pierce of Vigo, Ratliff, Ruddell, Sabin, Skidmore, Stanton, Stephenson, Stewart of Ohio, Stewart, of Rush, Taber, Vardeman, Vater, Wildman, Williams of Hamilton, Williams of St. Joseph, Williams of Union, Wilson and Mr. Speaker18.
Mr. GREENE explained his affirmative vote by the consideration which he took, that to press this bill now would be violative of a pledge that was given to the minority in this House.
Mr. UNDERWOOD voted affirmatively, not so much because he regarded this bill as unconstitutional, as that he regarded it as in direct violation of that pledge to the minority here; as to which (though he had no part in it,) he was no more inclined to assist others to break their pledges than to break his own.
So the minority report was rejected, and the bill passed to the files, with the report of the majority.
Mr. OSBORN, from the majority of the Judiciary Committee, returned his bill [H. R. 336] defining certain misdemeanors and prescribing punishment therefor, recommending its passage.
Mr. COFFROTH, from the minority of the same Committee, returned the same bill recommending that it be indefinitely postponed. He said this bill provides, in the first section, that any person elected a member of the General Assembly, and refusing to qualify, shall be fined $1,000.
Mr. OSBORN. Refusing-for the purpose of preventing a quorum.
Mr. COFFROTH accepted the explanation, they shall be fined at least one thousand dollars, and as much more as the court and jury see proper. The second section provides that, if members resign for a like object, they shall be treated in like manner. He moved that the report of the minority be concurred in, and thereupon demanded the yeas and nays.
Mr. OSBORN. This bill has been offered in good faith. It is for the purpose of secu page: 182[View Page 182]ring legislation proposed by the majority. There being barely time to pass the pressing bills, he gave notice that some time today he would move to take up these bills this and that of the gentleman from Lawrence and consider them. He hoped the minority report would riot be concurred in. The vote was then taken and it resulted as follows: yeas 54, nays 38.
YEAS-Mesrrs. Addison, Admire, Barritt, Bates, Bobo, Bowen, Britton, Calvert, Carnahan, Cave, Chapman, Coffroth, Cory, Cotton, Cox, Davis of Floyd, Dittemore, Fuller, Furnas, Gordon, Green, Hall, Hatchings, Hyatt, Johnson of Montgomery, Johnson of Parke, Logan, Long, McBride, McDonald, McFadin, McGregor, Miles, Mock, Monroe, Montgomery, Neff, Palmer, Ratliff, Shoaff, Shoemaker, Sleeth, Smith, Stephenson, Stewart of Rush, Sunman, Tebbs, Underwood, Welborn, Wile, Williams of Knox, Wilson, Zenor and Zollars-54.
NAYS-Messrs. Baker, Barnett, Beatty, Beeler, Breckinridge, Davidson, Davis of Elkhart, Dunn, Fairchild, Field of Lagrange, Gilham, Hamilton, Higbee, Higgins, Hutson, Johnson of Marshall, Jump, Kercheval, Lamborn, Mason, Millekan, Miller, Osborn, Pierce of Porter, Pierce of Vigo, Ruddell, Sabin, Skidmore, Stanton, Stewart of Ohio, Taber, Vardeman, Vater, Wildman, Williams of Hamilton, Williams, of St. Joseph, Williams, of Union and Mr. Speakre.-38.
Mr. GORDON, explaining, said he voted to concur in the report, to secure the consideration of Mr. Dunn's bill, [H. R. 337.]
Mr. MONROE voted affirmatively, because of the indefiniteness of the bill.
Mr. WILLSON explaining. We have a great deal of important legislation yet to do; and it would be impossible to pass this bill in its regular order; and we might consume the balance of the session in discussions of such propositions; and believing that we have the same power to perform any act of legislation without the minority that we have with them; he voted aye.
So the report of the minority was concurred in, and the bill was indefinitely postponed.
Mr. COFFROTH moved to reconsider this vote arid to lay the motion on the table; the latter motion was agreed to.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Mr. JOHNSTON, of Parke, from the Judiciary Committee, returned the bill, [S. 134] to authorize and encourage the construction of ditches, drains, etc., without recommendation.
Mr. STEPHENSON returned the bill to authorize the Clerk of the Supreme Court to index, etc., recommending its passage.
Mr. STEWART, of Ohio, from the Committee on Elections, returned Mr. Johnston, of Parke's election bill [H. R. 117] recommending that it be indefinitely postponed.
The report was concurred in.
Mr. STEPHENSON from the Judiciary Committee, returned Mr. Ruddell's bill [H. R. 157] to regulate the publication of legal advertisements-preferring daily etc., with amendments inserting words: '"Provided further, that such publication in such daily paper shall be published once a week for the same number of consecutive weeks as now provided by law in such cases."
He also returned Mr. Neff's bill [H. R. 393] to amend section 601 of the practice act, with reference to the granting Of new trials, recommending its passage.
Mr. SABIN, from the Committee on Claims, reported against the allowance of the claim of C. C. Campbell, late Sheriff Of Marion county.
He also reported in favor of the allowance of the claims of Josiah Reed, J. W. Sullivan and H. Patterson, for attendance as witnesses, which were severally concurred in.
Mr. MONROE, reported for allowance of the claims of members of Captain Steinberger's command, called out to repel the invasion of Kirby Smith; which was concurred in.
Mr. CARNAHAN, from the Committee on Rights and Privileges, returned Mr Field's (of Lagrange) bill [H. R. 350] to amend the third section of the game law of March 11, 1867, recommending that it be laid on the table; which was concurred in.
Mr. FAIRCHILD, from the Committee on Rights and Privileges, returned Mr. Jump's fish protection bill [H. R. 359]; and
Mr. FURNAS returned Mr. Montgomery's bill [H. R. 366] to repeal the fish law, both reports recommending that they be indefinitely postponed; which reports were concurred in.
Mr. MASON, from the Committee on County and Township Business, returned Mr. Davidson's Recorders' bill [H. R. 344]; and Mr. McDonald's bill [H. R. 362] to provide a fund for the support and encouragement of societies organized for the suppression of crime, recommending their passage.
Mr. FAIRCHILD returned Mr. Ruddell's school bill [H. R. 374]; and the drainage bill [S. 52] recommending their passage.
He also returned the Drainage bill [S. 89] recommending its indefinite postponement; which was concurred in.
Mr. MASON returned Mr. Osborn's bill [H. R. 369] to abolish the office of Township Assessor, and provide that his duties shall be performed by the Township Trustee, recommending its passage.
Mr. FURNAS, from the Committee on Rights and Privileges, returned Mr. Hall's bill [H. R. 355] supplementary to the act for the protection of sidewalks, recommending its passage.
Mr. PALMER, from the Committee on Roads, returned Mr. Britton's Road bill [H. R. 327] with amendments.
page: 183[View Page 183]Mr. RATLIFF, from the special committee thereon, returned the Agricultural bills [H. R. 172, 234] and they were laid on the table.
Mr. STANTON, from the Special Committee appointed to visit the National Soldiers' Home at Dayton, Ohio, with a view to the removal thither of the State Soldiers' at Knightstown, reported the result of their visitation, and closed by recommending instructions to the officers of our State Soldiers' Home to avail themselves of all proper means to effect such removal of our State Soldiers to the National Home at Dayton, and the expression of the opinion that the provisions of the bill [S. 230] will accomplish this object.
On motion of Mr. WELBORN the report was concurred in.
Mr. LAMBORN, from the Special Committee thereon, returned his bill [H. R. 264] for abolition of the death penalty, recommending its passage, and submitting a report setting forth the propriety of such legislation.
Mr. DAVIS of Elkhart, moved an order to print; but -
On motion of Mr. WILDMAN, it was modified so as to require that it be spread upon the journal.
EVANSVILLE AND MADISON CRIMINAL COURTS.
On motion of Mr. WELBORN, the House took up the report of the Committee of Conference on the disagreeing votes of the Two Houses as to the Senate amendment to his bill [H. R. 90] for a Criminal Court at Evansville, providing for a Criminal Court at Evansville, providing for a Criminal Circuit Court for Madison, in Jefferson county, recommending that the House recede from its non-concurrence.
The report of the Conference Committee was concurred in, and the House receeded from its non-concurrence in the Senate amendment.
Mr. McBRIDE called atention to an error in these reports yesterday, in the description of his joint resolution for removal of Director F.M. Meredith by address. These words: "He having resigned," should read "W. Ghee having resigned."
The House then took up the consideration of Senate bills in the Calendar, and those numbered 45, 75, 191, 220, 258, 261, 118, 148, 149, 162, 166, 172, 173, 122, 167, 230, 285, 181, 188, 194, 205, 210, 223, and 120, were severally read through and passed either to appropriate committees or to their places in the Calendar. And the bill [S. 184] was laid on the table.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The SPEAKER resumed at 2 o'clock P. M.
Mr. ODELL submitted an order (which was adopted by consent) for one copy of the Adjutant General's Report to be furnished Irwin Dickinson, and such other soldiers, employes of the House, as have not received a copy of the same.
Mr. UNDERWOOD submitted a resolution to order from the publishers a copy of Wilson's Digest of Parliamentary Law to each member of the House of Representatives.
Mr. STEPHENSON proposed to add - "Jaynes' Almanac"; and Mr. COFFROTH proposed - "the New England Primer;" and then -
On motion of Mr. CORY, the resolution and amendments were laid on the table.
Mr. WILLIAMS, of Knox, entered his motien to reconsider the vote of yesterday for removal of F.M. Meredith from the Directorship of the Southern Prison.
THE MORGAN RAID BILL.
The SPEAKER announced the special order, viz: the consideration of Mr. Hutching's Morgan raid appropriation bill, [H. R. 119,] the question being on the engrossment.
Mr. DUNN proposed to amend by adding a section to provide that none of the claims and accounts, the payment of which are provided for, shall be assignable, etc,; and declaring that before the Auditor shall issue his warrant for any such payment, the claimant shall file his affidavit, stating that he has not assigned, or sold, or in any manner disposed of, his claim or any part of it, etc.
Mr. DAVIS, of Floyd, as a friend of the bill, said that he would offer no opposition to the amendment; and it was adopted by unanimous consent.
Mr. GORDON opposed the bill. His chief objection was, that when the State of Indiana shall once open the door for the allowance of these claims, there will be no end to the claims that will come up for allowances of this character. The State of Ohio had allowed but half the amount of these claims in that State; and so far as he saw, the claims for losses by loyal persons in all the Southern States were just as good as these as against the State of Indiana. He spoke at some length, alleging the -disloyalty of some of these claimants.
Mr. PIERCE, of Porter, supported the bill, and therein he believed that he represented the feeling of the people of the northern part of the State. He regarded the bill as simply a measure of justice.
Mr. DAVIS, of Floyd, replied to the objections submitted by Mr. Gordon. As to the allegation that some were disloyal in the southern part of the State, that was no good objection to the bill; for we were cursed with bad men in all parts of the State. The loyal people have a right to the He referred to page: 184[View Page 184] the commission authorized by the Legislature to investigate these claims; its impartial and intelligent character; its favorable recommendation, and the Executive recommendations for the allowance of these claims. He suggested, also, the fact that many of these claimants were utterly despoiled and ruined by the raiding enemy; and that they had already waited too long for the State's indemnification. With reference to the reimbursement of the State by the General Government for what she may do in this direction, he stated that the State of Ohio has been reimbursed for the part of these claims which she has paid. He believed that the State would be reimbursed, but, whether or not, the justice of the claims remained, and in his mind the case rested on the question of justice alone. Most of these claimants were in the field, in the front of the strife, when they sustained their losses, and many of them are the heirs of those who fell. When he had concluded-
Mr. OVERMYER proposed to amend further, by adding a provision requiring the claimant to takfe a test oath of antecedent and future loyalty (commonly called "the ironclad") which was rejected.
The question recurring on ordering the engrossment and third reading of the bill-
Mr. DAVIS, of Floyd, demanded the previous question, and thereunder, the bill was ordered to be engrossed-yeas 70, nays 16.
The bill was then read the third time, and the vote on the final reading resulted-yeas 52, nays 41-as follows:
YEAS-Messrs. Baker, Barnett, Barritt, Bates, Bowen, Calvert, Carnahan, Chapman, Coffroth, Cory, Davis of Floyd, Dittemore, Dunn, Fuller, Gilham, Hamilton, Hutchings, Hutson, Hyatt, Johnson of Parke, Kercheval, Lawler, Lamborn, Logan, Long, McBride, McDonald, McGregor, Miller, Mitchell, Monroe, Neff, Odell, Osborn, Overmyer, Palmer, Pierce of Porter, Pierce of Vigo, Ratliff, Shoaff, Shoemaker, Sleeth, Stewart of Ohio, gunman, Tebbs, Welborn Wile, Williams of Knox, Williams of gt. Joseph, Wilson, Zenor, and Mr. Speaker-52.
NAYS-Messrs. Addison, Admire, Beatty, Beeler, Bobo, Britton, Breckinridge, Cave, Cotton, Cox, Davidson, Davis of Elkhart, Fairchild, Field of Lagrange, Furnas, Gordon, Greene, Hall, Higbee, Higgins, Johnson of Marshall, Jump, Mason, Millekan, Jetties, Mock, Montgomery, Ruddell, Sabin, Skidmore Smith, Stanton, Stephenson, Stewart of Rush, Taber, Underwood, Vardeman, Vater, Wildman, Williams of Hamilton and Williams of Union-41.
Mr. OSBORN submitted the following, which was adopted by unanimous consent;
Resolved, by the House(the Senate concurring)That the Adjutant General of the State be, and he is hereby directed to file in the proper form, the claim of the State of Indiana against the General Government, before the Government Commission, now in session at Indianapolis, for the amount assumed by her in paying the losses to the citizens of the State by reason of the Morgan raid, and to use all proper means to secure its early allowance and adjustment by said Commission.
THE GENERAL ELECTION BILL.
On motion of Mr. PIERCE of Vigo House took up the Senate's amendments to the bill reported from the Committee on Elections, on the third of February last, [H. R. 140] repealing certain sections of the Registry Act of March 11, 1867. And the Senate amendments having been read -
Mr. PIERCE, of Vigo, proposed to concur in the Senate amendments, with an additional section:
"That all laws and parts of laws coming in conflict with this act are hereby repealed."
Mr. COFFROTH had no objection to that amendment. It was of no consequence, for, of course, the latest act repeals conflicting laws. He did not propose to discuss this matter again. This election bill as it passed the House merely repealing the registry law, except the first section, which require a residence, was well enough, but the Senate had added a fifth section, which requires the inspector of elections to place a number on each ballotcorresponding with the number of the voters name. He had objected to that proposition at the time it was brought forward in the House because it destroys the secrecy of the ballot-being tantamount to a viva voce election. This he regarded as an infringement upon the spirit of the Constitution, if not a violation of its very letter. But the bill comes back from the Senate with this amendment. It was simply on this account that he could not vote for the bill. He asked for the yeas and nays.
Mr. PIERCE, of Porter, suggested that perhaps it would be best not to hurry this vote as he understood there is now pending in the Senate a motion to reconsider this amendment.
The vote on concurrence was then taken, resulting yeas 53, nays 39-as follows:
YEAS-Messrs. Baker, Barnett, Beatty, Beeler, Bowen, Breckinridge, Chapman, Cory, Davidson, Davis, of Elkhart, Dunn, Fairchild, Field of Lagrange, Furnas, Gilham, Gordon, Greene, Hall, Hamilton, Higbee, Higgins, Hutson, Johnson of Parke, Johnson of Marshall, Jump, Kerchival, Lamborn, Mason, Millekan, Miller, Mitchell, Monroe, Osborn, Overmeyer, Pierce of Vigo, Ratliff, Ruddell, Sabin, Skidmore, Smith, Stanton, Stephenson, Stewart of Ohio, Stewart of Rush, Taber, Underwood, Vardemman, Vater, Wildman, Williams of Hamilton, Williams of St. Joseph, Williams of Union, Wilson and Mr. Speaker-53.
NAYS-Messrs. Addison, Admire, Barritt, Bates, Bobo, Britton, Calvert, Carnahan, Cave, Coffroth. Cotton, Cox, Davis of Floyd, Dittemore, Fuller, Hyatt, Johnson of Montgomery, Lawler, Logan, Long, McBride, McDonald, McGregor, Miles, Mock, Montgomery, Neff, Palmer, Sunman. Pierce of Porter, Shoaff, Shoemaker, Sleeth, Tebbs, Welborn, Wile, Williams of Knox, Zenor-39.
So the Senate amendments were concurred in.
page: 185[View Page 185]THE COUNTY SEAT BILL.
On motion of Mr. BOBO, his County Seat bill [H. R. 325] was taken up - the question being on the third and last reading thereof.
It proposes that where two-thirds of the tax-payers and legal voters shall petition, procure two and one-fourth acres of ground for a site, etc., the commissioners may locate, etc.
Mr. BOBO said the change from the existing law was from "legal voters" to "tax-payers," from "fifty-five per cent" to "sixty-six per cent." With regard to what the petitioners shall do for a new site, what the Auditor and the Commissioners shall do, this bill was copied from the old law.
The bill was finally passed the House - yeas 67, nays 15.
GIRLS' REFORMATORY.
On motion of Mr. STEWART, of Rush, the Senate amendments to Mr. Stewart's Girls' Reformatory bill, H. R. 176,] were taken up and concurred in.
RIGHT OF APPEAL FROM THE COMMON PLEAS.
Mr. PIERCE, of Vigo, now obtained leave to report back from the minority of the Committee on the Judiciary, Mr. Dittemore's bill, [H. R. 255,] to save pending will cases affected by the laws of 1865,-stating that as it is only to affect a single case, etc,; the minority of said Committee recommended that it be indefinitely postponed.
Mr. DUNN opposed concurrence in the minority report, and showed that the passage of this bill is expedient to correct an act of 1865, which forbids the appeal of will cases from the Common Pleas to the Circuit-to destroy special legislation by special legislation. He took a wide range into the mazes of facts and arguments involved.
Mr. STEPHENSON took a similar view.
Mr. PIERCE, of Vigo, alleging his familiarity with the case on which the bill is founded, traced the history of the gradual withdrawal of legal authority to appeal cases from the Common Pleas to the Circuit, and stated what is undeniable-that it works general satisfaction. He then took up and traced the facts in the will case of John Burton and others against Tabitha Burton, alleging and showing that this case was never properly filed in the Circuit Court as appealed from the Terre Haute Common Pleas, and therefore it could not be affected by this bill or the act of 1865. He spoke at length in reply to Mr. Dunn, exhonerating the attorneys of the Burton children from any interested connection with the passage of the act of 1865, etc. When he had concluded -
The House adjourned.
