IN SENATE.
THURSDAY. April 8,1869Members of the Senate of the Forty-Sixth General Assembly of the State of Indiana met this day at two o'clock P M , in their Chamber in the Capitol, in the City of Indianapolis, under the proclamation of His Excellency the Governor, dated March 22, 1869.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR [Hon Will Cumoack] took the Chair as, ex officio President of the Senate, promptly at the hour named in the Governor's proclamation convening the Forty sixth General Assembly in extra session. Having commanded order, he said:
"The Secretory of the Senate will please read the proclamation of the Governor convening a special session of the Genera Assembly"
The Secretary then read as follows:
STATE OF INDIANA,
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT.
WHEREAS, The General Assembly of the State of Indiana, at its late Regular Session, failed to pass the necessary approbations to carry on the State Government and to meet the current expenses of the Benevolent and other Public Institutions of the State, and by reason thereof, the public welfare imperatively requires that said General Assembly should be convened in Special Session with the least practicable delay;
THEREFORE, I, CONRAD BAKER, Governor of the State of Indiana, do issue this Proclamation convening the General Assembly of the State in Special Session, and summoning the members thereof to meet in their respective Halls of legislation in the State House at Indianapolis, at two o'clock P. M of THURSDAY, the 8th day of April, A. D , 1869.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my name and caused the seal
of the State to be hereunto afixed at Indianapolis, this 22d day of March, A D.,
1869.
[L S]
CONRAD BAKER
By the Governor:
M F. A HOFFMANN,
Secretary of State.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. At the Adjournment of the regular session, of the 8th of March, there were seventeen seats in this body vacant by reason of the resignation of the Senators who had held them. The Secretary will please call the roll of Senators who did not resign, and are at present members of this body.
The Secretary called the roll as directed, and the following Senators answered to their names
- Mr. Alanson Andrews, from the counties of Scott and Jennings
- Mr F. G Armstrong, from the counties of Carroll and Howard.
- Mr J. R. Beardsley, from the county of Elkhart.
- Mr F J . Bellamy, from the counties of Switzerland and Ripley.
- Mr. Jas A Bradley, from the counties of Laporte and Starke.
- Mr. Firman Church, from the counties of Lake and Porter.
- Mr. John R. Cravens, from the county of Jefferson.
- Mr. James Eliott, from the counties of Fayett and Union.
- Mr. Shearns Fisher, from the counties of Miami and Wabash
- Mr. Edward W. Fosdick, from the counties of DeKalb and Steuben.
- Mr. Isaac P Gray, from the county of Randolph.
- Mr. John Green, from the counties of Hamilton and Tipton.
- Mr. John N. Hadley, from the counties of Putnam and Hendricks.
- Mr. T. M Hamilton, from the counties of Clinton and Boone.
- Mr Ed Henderson, from the counties of Johnson and Morgan.
- Mr L. W. Hess, from the counties of Hancock and Henry
- Mr. A Y. Hooper, from the counties of Koscuisko and Whitley
- Mr Thomas C. Jaquess, from the counties of Posey and Gibson
- Mr S F Johnson, from the counties of Spencer and Warrick
- Mr John Reynolds, from the counties of St. Joseph and Marshall.
- Mr Milton S Robinson from the counties of Madison and Delaware.
- Mr. W. J Robinson, from the counties of Decatar and Rush
- Mr Harvey D Scott, from the county of Vigo.
- Mr John A. Stein. from the county of Tippecanoe.
- Mr. Anson Woloott, from the counties of White, Pulaski, Benton, Jasper, and Newton.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR Twenty-six Senators [25?] Senators answered to their names. The Secretary will please call the districts, seats from which were made vacant by the resignation of Senators. Persons having certificates of page: 18[View Page 18] election will answer as the names of their districts are called.
The Secretary called the following named Senatorial districts:
- The county of Vanderburgh
- The counties of Knox and Daviess.
- The counties of Pike, Dubois and Martin.
- The counties of Washington and Harrison.
- The counties of Floyd and Clark.
- The counties of Ohio and Dearborn.
- The county of Franklin.
- The counties of Shelby and Bartholomew.
- The counties of Green and Owen.
- The counties of Clay and Sullivan.
- The county of Montgomery.
- The counties of Cass and Fulton.
- The counties of Grant, Blackford and Jay.
- The counties of Huntington and Wells.
- The county of Allen.
- The counties of Allen and Adams.
No one appearing to claim a seat as Senator from any of these districts.
Mr. BRADLEY said: Mr. President - There is evidently not a quorum of the Senate present, therefore, I move to adjourn till to morrow morning at ten o'clock. I forget whether we have any rule in the Constitution designating the hour of meeting
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR The rule of the Senate is that for the first fifteen days the adjournment shall be till two P M , unless otherwise ordered.
Mr BRADLEY. I will change my motion in that way.
The motion to adjourn was rejected.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR There being but twenty-seven Senators present, there is no quorum for the transaction of business, and the only order the Senate can make, as the Chair understands the Constitution, is to compel the attendance of absent members. The Secretary will now call the list, of absentees.
The SECRETARY called -
- Mr. Case, from the counties of Noble and Lagrange.
- Mr. Caven, from the county of Marion.
- Mr. Colley, from the county of Marion.
- Mr. Hughes, from the counties of Monroe and Lawrence.
- Mr. Kinley, from the county of Wayne.
- Mr. Rice, from the counties of Parke and Vermillion.
- Mr. Taggart, from the counties of Brown and Jackson.
- Mr. Wood, from the counties of Fountain and Warren.
No response being heard from either of these Senators -
Mr. HENDERSON said: Mr. President As it is evident, that we can do nothing I renew the motion to adjourn till 2 o'clock to-morrow.
The motion to adjourn was rejected Upon a division - affirmative, 2; Messrs. Bradley and Henderson.] Negative not counted. [Laughter.]
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President: I offer the following resolution.
The Secretary commenced to read but was stopped by -
Mr. BRADLEY, who said: Mr. President. I rise to a point of order: That no resolution is in order until there is an organization of the Senate.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR The point of order is well taken, unless the resolution refers to perfecting the organization. It will be read for information
The Secretary then read as follows:
Resolved, That the Governor be notified that no senator from any district where special elections have been ordered, has appeared to qualify as a member of this body on a call of the districts.
Mr. BRADLEY I now renew my point of order: That the resolution does not refer to the organization of the Senate
Mr SCOTT It proposes to communicate information to the Governor
Mr. BRADLEY. We have no right to confer with the Governor until the Senate is organized
Mr SCOTT Mr President, it does took directly to the organization of this body - to provide it with a quorum, and for no other purpose. There must be some way under the law by which this body can become a legally constituted legislative body. It certainly can not be that the constitution and laws of the State are so lame that a few men can prevent the entire legislation of this commonwealth. I understand it is our duty and our right to notify the Governor of this State that in the districts where he has ordered special elections, nobody has appeared to answer, and these districts are without representation. The law provides what his duty shall be under such circumstances, and I insist that the resolution looks directly to the perfection of the organization of this body, and therefore is in order. I understand, besides, that there is nothing before this body but what shows that we have a quorum. There has been no call of the House to show how many members are present, and for the purposes of legislation under the act of 1865, which has been adopted and acted upon by one special session of the General Assembly of Indiana, this resolution is in order. And it is in order upon the other proposition, as I insist; otherwise, Mr President, we might sit here the forty days out with no purpose at all. With no prospect of a quorum, I know no way by which the Governor of the State can be officially notified that there is no person here to claim a seat from any of the districts in which he ordered special elections, unless he receives notice from this body. There is no provision of law for his being notified in any other way. The law does contemplate it, and if not, the necessities of the case require that this body shall notify him.
Mr. BRADLEY (interposing). Suppose page: 19[View Page 19]the Governor should be notified of it, what would he do?
Mr. SCOTT. I will answer the gentleman - not designing to be short or discourteous - that is his business, and not the business of this body. He has his legitimate functions to attend to, and we have ours. I conceive that it is our duty to notify him that, from those districts in which he ordered special elections, no one has appeared to claim a seat, and I know of no other way in which to do it than by resolution. Whether he will order additional elections or sot, or whether he will take some other method to inform himself whether there baa been an election, is nor my concern. It is enough for me to perform my duty as I understand it, and proceed with the best lights I have under the constitution.
Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President - The Senator says that there is nothing before the Senate to show whether there is a quorum present or not. If the Senator is in doubt, as to whether there was a call of the Senate, I will state, for his information, that there has just been a call, and twenty Seven Senators answered to their names as announced by the President. Then it is evident, and a fact apparent to Senators, that there is not a quorum present.
Mr SCOTT. Has there been any call of the Senate ordered?
Mr. BRADLEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. SCOTT Who by?
Mr BRADLEY. By the President.
Mr. SCOTT. I differ with the Senator He called the members who had not resigned.
Me BRADLEY. And he called those who had.
Mr. SCOTT. No, sir. He called the districts in which there had been resignations to see whether they intended to present, themselves, and nobody came. So I insist that, technically, there has been no call of the Senate.
Mr BRADLEY To satisfy the Senator I will move a call of the Senate.
Mr, SCOTT. The gentleman need not move a call of the Senate to satisfy me; I don't need any call of the Senate. [Laughter]
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR The Chair decides that there has been a call of the Senate and twenty-seven Senators answered. It takes two thirds to constitute a quorum, and when there is less than a quorum only certain things can be done. It is the opinion of the chair that this resolution does not contemplate any of those those things that can be done by less than a quorum, under the Constitution, and it is therefore out of order.
Mr. BRADLEY. I want to say, frankly, the Senator moves to notify the Governor that there is no quorum present, and he does that within fifteen minutes of the time appointed for the meeting of the Legislature -
Mr. SCOTT (interposing). Will the Senator say to the Senate that any man has been re-elected in those districts in which special elections were ordered?
Mr. BRADLEY. I have no knowledge on the subject. I don't say so I have heard that there were some re elected. [Laughter] But my point is this: The Senator makes that motion within fifteen minutes after the time appointed for the meeting of the Legislature -
Mr. SCOTT (interrupting) I rise to a question of order. I desire to ask what is before the Senate?
Mr. BRADLEY. The gentleman's resolution.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR The Chair ruled the resolution out of order
Mr. BRADLEY. I beg pardon, then
Mr. CRAVENS. I am sorry the Chair ruled the motion out of order so promptly. I want to call the attention of the Chair to the evident meaning of that clause of the Constitution which limits the power of less than what is called a quorum. Upon what division of our proceedings does that limitation operate? Only upon legislative business, certainly. As a body of men, we clearly have the power to entertain any proposition that is not legislative business. Suppose we sit here five, six, seven, eight or ten days, and every day call those districts from which the resigning members are supposed to come, and no response is heard from these districts, how could we inform the Governor of this fact? He must know it. It is made his duty by law, where vacancies occur among members of the General Assembly, to order elections to fill such vacancies. How is he to know that vacancies occur? The only way, it seems to me, would be by resolution of this body. Although not a Senate, I hold that the constitutional limitation is simply upon the power to dispose of legislative business, and every other matter under the face of the sun is in order. It may go upon our record, or it may not. We are not sitting here with no power to express our sentiments. I admit, as far as legislative business is concerned, that our hands are tied. And I do not believe in the truth of that interpretation of the constitution which requires that there shall be thirty-four members of this Body to constitute a quorum; but I am not going to discuss that question. I desire to call the attention of the Chair to this clause: "Two thirds of each House" - . What is a "House?" But I am not going into that question now. "Two-thirds of each House shall constitute page: 20[View Page 20]a quorum to do business, bat a number may meet, adjourn from day to day, and compel the attendance of absent members" Suppose we had absent members and we wanted to compel their attendance, how would we do it? We could not do it unless we passed some resolution -
Mr. BRADLEY (interrupting). I rise to a point of order. I desire to inquire what the Senator is discussing.
Mr CRAVENS. I am discussing a question that may have some effect upon the gentleman and his absconding friends
Mr BRADLEY. I have no absconding friends
The LIEUT. GOVERNOR There is no question before the Senate
Mr, CRAVENS. I have the right to talk if we have no question before us, and I ask the consent of the majority of this body to proceed
MANY SENATORS "Consent." "Consent" "Consent"
Mr. CRAVENS. I am about done [Laughter] I hope the Chair will retrace his steps. Suppose these gentleman come in and quality, and during the afternoon step out; we are the Senators elected, and does the Chair say that our hands are tied so that we can do nothing? We certainly have power, or else we are nothing, and the Constitution worse than nothing. We have no power to compel these men to come in, but suppose the Senator from Laporte (Mr Bradley) steps outside of the bar, could not we send for him?
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. Certainly
Mr CRAVENS And we would have to do it, by a resolution of this body.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR The Constitution provides for that sort of a case.
Mr. CRAVENS That is what I am talking about. We have the power to pass a resolution; but I do not want to find fault with the ruling of the Chair. It struck me at the time the resolution was introduced, that it was improper, but I see upon reflection, that if the ruling of the Chair is carried out, we are utterly powerless - bound hand and foot - at the feet of these men - we don't know who or what they are. Simply because these men won't show their credentials, is the State of Indiana to be trampled into the dust? If so, we had better give the power back into the hand of the people and let them go to work and make a power that will preserve itself. The Constitution gives power to do something - what is it? That you shall do no business? It don't say that. It says: "Two-thirds of the members of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business" I hold, that simply means legislative business. "But a smaller number may meet, adjourn from day to day, and" do - what kind of business? All that is necessary to "compel the attendance of absent, members" Suppose an election is to be held and you have to certify the fact to the Governor that there is not a quorum - how will you do that? Will you go and tell him? Will I go? or will we send the Secretary? The Secretary is our servant, and we can send him down there, but would the Governor be bound to recognize him as an authoritative agent of a body that has no existence except in contemplation of law? We have the power to do something - and if anything at all - to protect ourselves - defend our existence. If we fail in that, then the existence we talk about is not worth fighting for. What do we come here for? To do the business of legislation. And, upon the threshhold, we are met with revolution. These men say they will not qualify. No; they don't say that. They are not here to say anything. We interpret their motive by their conduct. The Governor may not act upon this resolution, though we were to pass it. But suppose we meet to morrow, and Saturday, and no quorum is present, and we notify him again of the fact And when we have notified time and again, he will be judge of what is best to be done for the preservation of the life of the Government itself I have no doubt that the Chair has ruled conscientiously in this matter. I am not going to take an appeal. But, I say, that conscientious ruling places us without the power to do anything. We could entertain a motion to adjourn from day to day, of course; but what, does the Constitution mean when it says, that we may compel the attendance of absent members? Have you a Sergeant at-Arms? No. Have you the power to raise the police force? No. How would you get it? Suppose you wanted to bring in a police force to bring in absentees, could you order it? I say, for certain purposes, we are a Senate; and as such we have the power to entertain these motions, act upon them, and enforce whatever is necessary to preserve the existence of this body. If we have not got that power we had better go back to the people and give back to them the trust they have reposed in us. I beieve we have the power, and am willing to act.
Mr. GREEN. It seems to me clearly, under the Constitution, that we have some power or other. Now, have we not the power to call upon the Governor to know whether he would order an election? We certainly have the power to call upon the Secretary of the State to know whether there have been any returns made, who is elected, or whether there has been any election at all or not. May we not call page: 21[View Page 21]upon the Governor to know whether he ordered elections? It seems to me that we have the power to pass the resolution which was offered by the Senator from Vigo, (Mr. Scott)
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. The Chair is very clear on this question. The difficulty presented by the Senator from Jefferson [Mr. Cravens] grows out of the fact of the wording of the Constitution of the State. It says: "Two-thirds of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business" Could less than that number constitute a quorum for that purpose? Clearly not; but a smaller number may do certain things - meet, from day to day and compel the attendance of absent members;" that is what we can do, and the only thing we can do.
Mr. CRAVENS, And under that power to compel the attendance of absent members, is not this body at liberty to select the means for the attainment of that object?
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR Of course; they may do anything or the accomplishment of that constitutional end; bur, the resolution offered by the Senator from Vigo [Mr Scott] is to notify the Governor that some persons have not appeared and been sworn in as members of this body. So I think the resolution is clearly outside of the constitutional limitation. If there are difficulties in the way it is not the fault of the Chair. I propose to enforce, as I understand it, the constitutional rule, and to abide by the constitutional rule, as I understand it; and it appears to me that under the constitution there is not one single thing we can do except to compell the attendance of absent members, and adjourn from day to day.
Mr CRAVENS. Would it be competent to take an appeal from the decision of the Chair?
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. I suppose you might do that.
Mr. CRAVENS. That is outside of the questions about compelling the attendance of members or of adjourning?
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR The Chair always grants the right of appeal as a matter of courtesy
Mr STEIN. There is nothing, of course, before the Senate. I believe talk is the order of the afternoon It does not seem to be the opinion of members to adjourn, and it appears to be as good a time as any for an expression from me upon this question. I believe the Chair was entirely right in its decision just now made, although I do not think the ground upon which the Chair ruled was right. That ground, as I understand it, was that there was no quorum present, hence no power to pass a resolution of this kind. It would be better, perhaps, to put the ruling upon the ground that the constitution limits our power; or that the constitution grants us limited powers. The Senator from Jefferson [Mr. Cravens] doubts the constitutional limitation of powers, and insists that we have powers outside of the constitution. I doubt that. I think what appears in the constitution is the only grant of powers that we have, and that we have no powers outside of the constitution, provided we consider ourselves less than a quorum. I entertain this view of the constitution. My whole notion in regard to the case is this: After the roll of qualified members was called; the districts vacated by the resignation of Senators was called, and no response being had, it might be proper for us to adjourn to another day, out of courtesy to those elected from these districts, to give them another opportunity of presenting themselves to the Senate. The numbers representing these districts may possibly be absent on account of sickness; or they may fail to arrive in consequence of the interruptions of travel. And it might be proper to give them another day. And inasmuch as the Constitution talks about five days to manipulation before an organization, I feel disposed to -
Mr CHURCH interrupting. From information just received I learn that they have been mired in the Black Swamps, [Laughter]
Mr. STEIN. All the more reason why we should give them another day.
Mr BRADLEY to Mr. Church: Who gave you that information?
Mr CHURCH, in reply, was understood to say: I believe the rules of the House do not require me to answer [Laughter]
Mr. STEIN. That is very improbable information at this time. After having exhausted our five days, still these districts being called day after day, remaining unrepresented, a great question is presented to us: Whether a factious minority shall stop legislation, throttle the State Government, and possibly reduce the State to a condition of anarchy; or whether there is some virtue in the Constitution, so that we can proceed to business. As far as I am concerned, my convictions are firm, though I do not find a superabundance of members agreeing with me. Upon every principle of reason and sense in technical municipal law that is applicable to public law; upon every principle of reason and legal construction, we who remain behind are the constitutional General Assembly of the State of Indiana. And we have full authority, from and after the time we see fit to assert it, to proceed with the legislation of the State. My own page: 22[View Page 22]opinion is, that we have the power to consider these rebellious districts as seceded districts and that we can consider ourselves as the remains of legislation - legal legislation, left living in the State - and proceed with our business. And, were my judgment to prevail in this matter, this body would simply adjourn to day; and after having done all that can be done - the qualified members having been called, and the vacant districts - called and to morrow going through the same ceremony - this process to be repeated five days, as a matter of courtesy, not as a matter of right, to these districts - and after that the day of grace should be closed, and we should assert ourselves the law making power of the State, and proceed to general legislation. The correctness of my petition depends upon the construction of the Constitution of the State of Indiana, and it is purely a question of construction. The Constitution is not specific upon this particular point, and not being specific, recourse must be had to the principles of construction and interpretation. It says: "Two thirds of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business." Is there anything specific about, that? What is meant by "two-thirds?" You must resort to construction and interpretation to ascertain the meaning, because it is dubious and uncertain. There is ambiguity about it, and you are therefore forced into constructions. And when you come to constructions, which will you adopt? That which declares a suicidal principle, or that which declares a life giving principle - a preserving principle? In a court of justice, this matter would not be permitted to be argued before any respectable judge for one minute. Where have we ever heard of a respectable Court permitting the law to be so construed as to pronounce its own destruction? This Charter was made to exist, and not to be smothered - throttled - disemboweled, or otherwise killed - or die for want of breath. The laws are made for perpetuity, until repealed, and no construction will be allowed which would authorize the court to decide that the Constitution contains within itself a self destroying principle. If, however, you construe the ambiguous passage to mean that two-third shall be two thirds of one hundred in the other end of the Capitol and two thirds of fifty here, you put the entire government of Indiana in the hands of a factious minority the government passes out and thus for want of breath there is no life in it. You at once impregnate this Constitution with a self destroying principle. It is in the hands of the gentleman and this (pointing to Mr. Bradley and Mr. Henderson) to bring anarchy upon us. Now, I say that species of construction is violative of reason; and reason is the polar star to which we have recourse in the construction of law.
In other parts of this Constitution there are different passages. There is a section relating to the passage of bills: "A majority of all the members elected to each House shall be necessary to pass every bill or joint resolution." How different the language in section twenty-five from section eleven. The construction I put upon section eleven is this: When it speaks of two thirds it means two thirds of the numbers elected and qualified in each House, and that preserves the House. In section twenty five I am not at liberty to say that. I have no doubt but that we must have twenty-six Senators and fifty one members of the House to pass a bill or joint resolution. We are limited by the expression in section twenty-five. We cannot by construction get out of that, unjust, as I think it is; but being in the Constitution, I propose to abide by it I desire to give life to this Constitution and not to kill it. As far as section twenty-five prescribes the number to pass a bill, I accept, it, and am bound by it. As regards section eleven I cannot construe it the way these gentlemen desire without engrafting a suicidal principle in this Constitution, and that I cannot do, because all principles of legal construction forbid it. As I said before, it is a question of construction entirely. The language of section eleven being uncertain, I say the only way in which you can construe that in order to give life to the Constitution and the government and put a veto on every possibility of dissolution through faction, secession or rebellion, is to construe that section to mean "two-thirds of the members elected and qualified in each House shall constitute a quorum," and when it comes to that, let those withholding districts stay away - perhaps it will be better for the State - and after exhausting the principles of courtesy and propriety, we will proceed as the Constitutional General Assembly of Indiana having a full quorum to do the legislative business of the State.
Mr. GRAY Mr President: I regret as much as any one the condition in which his Legislature finds itselt, but I shall resort to no extraordinary means to accomplish anything not warranted by the Constitution. Now, I do not know as I clearly understood the Senator from Tippecanoe [Mr Stein] He seems to have argued a while upon one side of the question, and at the close of his speech upon the other side, I first understood him to hold clearly that we had a right to do business, and then that two thirds of the qualified members could page: 23[View Page 23]transact business. NOW, I think there can be no doubt about what constitutes the Legislature of Indiana at all. I understand the Constitution of Indiana to limit the number of members - "that the House shall not exceed 100 members, nor the Senate 50 members."
Mr. CHURCH interposing. Suppose the counties or districts which have, by the appointment, one-third of the number,refuse to select, or refuse to be represented here, must the business of the Senate stop there?
Mr GRAY. Well, sir, I will answer the Senator. I propose to be governed by the organic act of the State, and I suppose the Senator from Porter (Mr. Church) proposes to do the same. And if he will show me any constitutional remedy by which we can escape that difficulty, I will be as ready to follow it as he Now let him point it out There are some things we can do, and some things we can not do. Among the latter, we can not legally legislate under the Constitution when we have no quorum
Mr ROBINSON, of Madison. At the commencement of the rebellion, suppose one third of the counties in Indiana had seceded with their members, and left this body reduced below a quorum, should that overturn the Constitution?
Mr GRAY If the existence of the State of Indiana depended upon this Legislature doing certain business, I would be ready to do it. I believe as Daniel Webster said, that anything necessary to preserve the Constitution of the United States is in itself constitutional. But I do not think that crisis has arisen yet I do not look upon this as being very much of a revolution. I think these refractory members will get tired of that business; and then get through; and we can stand it pretty near as long as they can.
Mr GRAY then referred to the ruling of the Chair on the resolution submitted by the Senator from Vigo, asserting his belief that it is entirely correct; which gave rise to a conversational debate as to the scope of the resolution, in which Messrs. SCOTT, BELLAMY, FISHER and GRAY participated.
Mr. BRADLEY was sorry that the Senator construed the Constitution as he did, and hoped the Senator from Randolph would correct all that, which he did in part These Senators may come in to morrow and they may come in the next day. We should not proceed in haste. I suppose the Senate would be willing to adjourn till to-morrow, and suggest that perhaps there will be a quorum by that time Certainly no good could be accomplished by the resolution of the Senator from Scott The Governor cannot declare these seats vacant. No power can do that except the Senate when there is a quorum present. The Senator from Tippecanoe thinks that less than thirty-four Senators may constitute a quorum. He thinks two-thirds of this Senate being present -
Mr. STEIN, interposing. I say: Senates elected and qualified, provided there is a majority.
Mr. BRADLEY continuing. Now, suppose there are twenty-five; then two thirds of twenty-five would constitute a quorum. Then, if twenty were present, two-thirds of that number would still make a quorum; and so on, you might reduce the Senate to three, and finally get it down to one man. One section of the Constitution provides that a majority of all the members elected shall be requisite to pass a bill or joint resolution; and another action says that two-thirds of each house shall constitute a quorum to do business Now, what is a house, as far as the Senate is concerned? The Constitution provides that the Senate shall consist of not exceeding fifty members. The law says that it shall consist of fifty members Then fifty members shall constitute the Senate. And when the Constitution says that two-thirds of the Senate shall constitute a quorum, it means two-thirds of the Senators. And the Senator can not construe it to mean anything else It is perfectly plain. I think there is no necessity for this discussion. I do not think we need to sit here any longer to-day. I think it proper for the Senate to adjourn till tomorrow; and I have no doubt that there will be a quorum present, from what I learn.
Mr SCOTT. I am willing to do that. I did not see any necessity for waiting till to-morrow and next day, and next day. When gentlemen say they will not come, I take them at their word. But, if the gentleman is prepared to say that, perhaps, to morrow there will be a quorum here, I am willing to adjourn
Mr. BRADLEY I am not prepared to say positively; but I think, perhaps, there will be
Mr SCOTT. I will take the "perhaps," if the gentleman is at liberty to say that. [Laughter]
Mr CHURCH With that view of the case, supposing that the Senator understands the meaning of the word "perhaps"
Mr. HENDERSON, (interposing). I can explain what "perhaps" means.
Mr CHURCH I know what it means.
Mr ROBINSON. Let us have the explanation.
Mr. CHURCH. I am satisfied that the explanation would not be proper here, and page: 24[View Page 24]I would rather not hear it. I was going to say that, with the explanation of the Senator from Laporte, it is possible there will be a quorum to morrow. I will move that the Senate adjourn.
The motion was agreed to, and then
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR declared the Senate adjourned till to-morrow at two o'clock P M
