HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
PERSONAL-A CORRECTION.
Mr. OVERMYER rose to a question of privilege. There was an error, he said, in these reports of yesterday's (Friday's) proceedings on the final passage of the Morgan Raid bill, which does injustice to his (Mr. O's) position to that bill. He did not move to amend so "that the claimant should take the iron-clad oath," as understood by the reporter. What he did was to send to the Clerk's desk and cause to be read the proof of loyalty which, was required of every claimant to be give before the Morgan Raid Commission. This was done to answer an objection raised by Mr. Gordon, to the effect that many of the claimants were disloyal men. That which was read by the Clerk shows that the claimants, where they came before the commission, had to take "the iron-clad" themselves, and prove their loyalty by other witnesses besides.
The SPEAKER announced the order the unfinished business of yesterday-the consideration of Mr. Dittemore's bill [H. R. 255] to save pending will cases affected by the law of 1865 the Burton Will Case bill.
Mr. GORDON (by leave) returned the, bill in relation to the compensation of Judges of the Criminal Courts," etc., recommending its passage.
Mr. McGREGOR asked for leave to change his vote yesterday on the final passage of the Morgain Raid bill-from yes to no.
The SPEAKER. It could not be done without unanimous consent, The Chair hears objections.
Mr. PIERCE, of Porter, moved to suspend the order of business for the consideration of the Drainage bill [S. 134].
The SPEARER ruled against the motion. When there is an order for the consideration of a bill or any special proposition, the Chair will hold that pending the consideration of that bill or proposition, it is not in order to move to suspend that 'order for something else. We are now acting under the order of the House for the consideration of the Burton Will case.
Mr. DAVIS, of Floyd, rose to a question of privilege, and entered his motion to reconsider the vote of yesterday for the indefinite postponement of a certain Swamp Land bill he had fargotten the number-but had a request from Judge Stanfield as to that matter, which he desired to present.
THE WILL CASE BILL.
Mr. Dittemore's Will case bill [H. R. 235] was then taken up.
Mr. PIERCE of Vigo took the floor with an apology for the time this case has consumed, and with justification for the range of debate which he had taken, because of the reference of the gentleman from Lawrence (Mr. Dunn) to a certain printed brief called the Burton Will Case, and because, as he believed, the passage of this bill would not be urged now, but for the pendency of this will case. For this bill was specially designed to allow these parties to come in again with their action for this property, the right to which has been settled for four years. He submitted whether we have any right to pass a law which will livest these children of their vested rights; and he insisted that we have no such right, and that if passed the act must be nugatory. He suggested the difficulties about the fairness and justice of a new trial of this case now that it is impossible to recover he facts and witnesses in the case. He contended also that there was nothing on the part of those parties desiring to re-open his case, that could justly demand this legislation.
page: 189[View Page 189]Mr. JOHNSTON, of Parke, took the floor in reply to Mr. Pierce and in explanation and justification of the vote he intended to case for the passage of the bill. He stated the object of the bill - to secure and save to those parties the vested rights of which they are divested by the act of 1865. Gentlemen who are not lawyers might be deceived by the argument of the gentleman from Vigo to show that this case was dismissed because the transcript was not filed. He showed that in the act of 1865 there was no saving clause for parties to cases then pending. Every lawyer knows that at time the trial of a case before the Common Pleas was with the right of appeal to the Circuit Court, and for that reason parties would not be careful to plead exceptions to the rulings of the court in the case, the instructions to the jury, &c. And if he could go out of the case, he could assign other reasons for voting for this bill. There was no proposition in the bill to repeal the act denying appeals from the Common Pleas to the Circuit Court, but simply a provision to allow these parties to this case, pending when the act of 1865 was passed, to go into the Circuit Court for trial. He went more at length into the argument, insisting that the pending bill is founded on the simplest appreciation of common sense and common justice in this case - to restore to parties the rights which the Legislature have taken away from them.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Hamilton, demanded the previous question; but no quorum voting on the question for a second to the demand, a call of the House was ordered, and then the House refused to second the demand for the previous question.
Mr. COFFROTH then took the floor for the passage of the bill, considering questions of law involved, and answering objections urged by gentlemen opposing the toll. He showed that the right of appeal from the Common Pleas to the Circuit Court, which existed at the time of the passage of the act of 1865, would certainly lend to laxity in attending to any case on such trial, and it was simply a question of the right of parties to a restoration of their rights taken away by the act of 1865. To the suggestion of Mr. Pierce that witnesses are dead, and that it would be impossible to have a fair trial now, he replied that witnesses are dead on both sides, and there was the recourse to their written testimony. By way of replying further to Mr. Pierce he recounted the story of the life and thrift of John Burton and his wife; the widow being largely entitled to the property, because of her efficiency in procuring it, under the hard working of the law is excluded from it in her heirs - her children before her intermarriage with Burton: and her children would have been thus entitled under the will of John Burton. Was not that a good and proper will? He must say that the jury that could set it aside, must have been misled. The justice of this case was all in favor of the child of John Burton's widow. He then spoke to the objection, that the Burton will case was not pending in 1865, when the act passed. If that were so, then this bill would not affect the Burton case. Would any man say, if the act of 1865 were now pending-now on its passage here-that it would not be right to save pending suits? To save pending suits and vested rights was a common thing in Legislation. True, he voted for the act of 1765-just as others do frequently, in the stress of business, and when no question is raised. He did not know under what influences the act of 1865 came here and was passed. It was true that it was drawn by one of the attorneys-the principal attorney, Colonel J. Baird-and brought here by him just after this case was tried, but, of course, with no purpose to affect this case. With reference to the objection that this Burton case was not opened in the Circuit Court on occount of the act of 1865, but on account of some discrepancy in the papers, he said this difficulty with reference to the papers could have beer avoided simply by a ruling-an order of the Court. But the fact was, the case was not brought by appeal to the Circuit Court, because it was forbidden by the act of 1865.
Mr. WELBORN discussed the merits of the bill, without reference to the Burton case-the only question being: Should we pass a bill to give new trials to parties with casses pending in the Common Pleas when the act of 1865 was passed. He showed, that if, in this Burton case, the appeal had been perfected at the time of the passage of that act of 1865, the trial could not by that act, have been prevented in the Circuit Court. It was but special pleading to say, that parties having the right to appeal do not attend to their business. The fact that the members of the Legislature of 1865 knew nothing of the Burton will case, should weigh against the passage of this bill. To vote for this bill was to vote for a law suit-a big one-involving $75,000-and for the accommodation of interested lawyers. He urged that the House should not, by the passage of this bill, invite numerous and expensive law suits all over the State.
Mr. KERCHEVAL demanded the previous question, arid under its operation the House House refused to concur in the report of the minority of the committee, without a division, and the question recurred:
Shall the bill be ordered to the second reading.
Mr. OSBORN moved to amend, by providing to this effect: That in any case af page: 190[View Page 190]fected by this bill, where the witnesses at the first trial can not be had, and where the testimony at the original trial was taken and preserved, such testimony shall be competent on the new trial.
Mr. COFFROTH said, the law is plain and ample on that subject. It is competent to-prove what was testified on the former trial.
Mr. OSBORN. It had been said, that this bill was not offered here because of the decease of witnesses. And if this Burton case is to be put back where it was before, it ought to be put as nearly as possible in the same condition that it stood originally. It was known r that before this bill was offered here, important witnesses in this case had died. The gentleman from Huntington says it is competent to prove what was testified. Still he desired to place in the hands of parties the same testimony that was originally introduced, and let it be adduced on the new trial. It is no more in the interest of one party than the other. He understood that this testimony on the original trial was taken down by a disinterested party, and that it has been preserved; and the object of this amendment is to obtain to perpetuate the testimony of such witnesses as cannot be produced. Then, if this is a cause of justice and equity, what harm can be done by the amendment. It is pretended that this bill is not offered to gain anything by the death of witnesses. But, were these witnesses now living he did not believe this bill would have been brought in here. This testimony is to perpetuate the testimony on both sides which was adduced on the first trial.
Mr. COFFROTH insisted that the law is ample in its provisions for such cases. But this amendment proposes to go further, and introduce to the jury the notes taken by the lawyer in the case-unattested, unsworn to. He did think that such a rule would be a dangerous one.
Mr. OSBORN. Of course, the person that took the notes would have to swear that they are correct.
Mr. COFFROTH. It did not make it any better than the, existing provisions of the law. And on his motion the amendment was laid on the table. He then moved to suspend the constitutional restriction, that the bill may be now put upon its final passage-and the vote resulted-yeas 64, nays 21.
The SPEAKER held that the constitutional restriction can not be suspended without the concurrence of of 67 members - two-thirds of the members elect - the House in the meaning of the Constitution.
Mr. COFFROTH said the constant ruling here had been, that two-thirds of a quorum is sufficient to- suspend.
Subsequently-after debate on this of order-a reconsideration and re-vote the motion to suspend resulted-yeas 65 nays 24.
On motion of Mr. COFFROTH, the bill was then read the second time, and passed to the third reading to-morrow.
Mr. PIERCE, of Vigo, proposed to amend by a provision, that this act shall not affect nor apply to any case which was not pending in the circuit court at the time of the passage of the act of 1865, nor to any case in which the law had not'been complied with, and the appeal fully perfected.
Mr. COFFROTH. Is not that the bill now?
Mr. PIERCE. It goes further than the fact that it was pending. There may have been certain things neglected which parties should have done to perfect their appeal. It is to provide that this act shall not apply to any case where the appeal was not perfected.
On motion of Mr. COFFROTH, the amendment was laid on the table, and on his further motion the bill was made the special order for Monday morning at 9 o'clock.
Mr. RUDDELL desired to advance on the calendar his bill [H. R. 4] to enable cities to aid railroads, which had been modified and almost destroyed by the committee, and was now numbered 132; but enough of the original proposition remained to make it desirable to have it pass. But there was objection.
THE SWAMP LAND BILL.
Pursuant to a previous order, moved by Mr. PIERCE, of Porter, the House took up the bill [S. 134] to authorize the construction of levees, dykes and drains and the reclamation of wet and overflowed lands by incorporated associations, and to repeal, etc.
The SPEAKER. The bill has been read twice. It is open to amendment.
Mr. PALMER proposed to amend by striking out the word "estimate" and inserting the word "assessment" In lieu: and to strike out sections 15 and 17.
On motion of Mr. JOHNSON, of Marshall, it was laid on the table.
Mr. COFFROTH proposed to amend by adding at the end of section 17 a provision, to this effect: That nothing in this act shall be held or construed to modify or repeal in whole or in part the act to entitle the owners of wet lands to drain the same without affecting the rights of others, approved March 11, 1807. He understood that it is not the intention of the friends of this DI > to repeal the private ditching, law.
The amendment was adopted.
On motion of Mr. RATLIFF, the first amendment above proposed by Mr. Palmer, was adopted.
page: 191[View Page 191]Mr. COFFROTH said: The 16th section provides that, after the appraisement is made, the schedule filed, &c., any person aggrieved thereby may appeal within thirty days, but the provision does not include persons under legal disabilities. He proposed an amendment, to give such persons the distinct right of appeal, etc.
The amendment was adopted.
The bill was then read the third time as amended.
Mr. LAMBORN would undertake to say that this bill is a scheme for plunder; that its enforcement would rob perhaps hundreds of poor men of the State of their homesteads. It is well known that in the swamp land districts there are many occupants of small farms who have secured places which they call their homes; and it is well known that many of these have small debts hanging over them; and, if this bill becomes a law and gives those companies power to assess these small farmers for their drainages, they will not be able to pay, and their homes will be swept away from them. He asserted again that this bill was a scheme for capitalists to absorb the lands of the people; that all such legislation is wrong and repugnant to the instincts of a republican people, and that the operation of this bill will certainly work great hardship against the poorer class of the people of the State. It should be the policy of the State and nation to preserve the land for homes for laborers. He considered that since we have got rid of the infernal system of slavery, the next important consideration is to protect the poor men of the country in their right to acquire homes for their families; for, take away their power to get homes and what will become of them? The moment you deprive a man of that right, instead of being a friend he becomes an enemy to you, and I give him credit for it. I say the tendency of such legislation is to make enemies.
Mr. OSBORN interposing. How does it make them enemies?
Mr. LAMBORN. It gives the power to a few capitalists to drain the lands of poormen who are not asking them to do so, and to absorb their lands and take them away from them, because they may not be able to pay their assessments. That is what has been done, and is by this bill to be done again; and I declare here, once for all my eternal hostility to this kind of legislation. It is the duty of the people of the State and the country to so shape their legislation that the wants and desires of the poor shall be respected. And it is the desire of every man who lives upon the bosom of this green earth to get himself a home. It is the great longing of this life. And the moment the State introduces a system of legislation which takes away this privilege-the gratification of this longing in a greater or less degree-that moment it destroys patriotism in the hearts of the people-the love of country, the vitality of the State, is gone. What is it that makes our country strong-stronger than any other country? It is because our territory, our broad and rich domain, invites every man to secure to himself a home. If our territory were not more extensive than that of Great Britain, our system of legislation would not be a whit better than theirs for the securing of the happiness of the people. We ought to live with some regard to the future-to the welfare of those are to be after us. It may be a long time before this country will be filled with population as England and France and portions of New England; but the time must come, and will come, when these broad acres will all be needed for the comfort, happiness, homes of the people.
Mr. PIERCE, of Porter. Certainly if there is any such thing designed in the bill as the gentleman from White and Benton has indicated, it ought to be defeated; but this bill has been carefully examined. It passed the Senate after having passed the scrutiny of the Judiciary Committee of that body, and I understand that it has the endorsement of the Judges of the Supreme Court. If the bill succeeds, it will assist in the development of a large amount of swamp land that is now valueless. I have no interest in the bill except this: I have some constituents who are interested in it, and they have asked me to look after it. Impelled by their interest-not mine-I have looked into the bill, and I now say that it admits of no possible chance for fraud.
Mr. OSBORN interposed. Any person affected by the bill becomes a member of the company.
Mr. PIERCE. Certainly. It does not give the power of organization to capitalists exclusively, but to any and all persons. A number of my constituents, supposing that there was the possibility of injustice in this bill, sent down a man to examine it; and that man, who is an able and trusted citizen, after making his examination, assurred me that there is nothing wrong in it. I think, then, that every man who will examine the bill will be satisfied of its fairness. The gentlemen from Benton and White asks what it is that makes this Government strong? It certainly is not the wet lands that have made the country strong-except in the effluvia-that indeed may have made some of the people of the country a little shaky. [Laughter.] It has been thought that the straightening of the Kankakee River would bring into cultivation a large tract of country.
page: 192[View Page 192]Mr. PIERCE, of Vigo. I would like to ask the gentleman, if our Swamp Land legislation has not made some Swamp Land Commissioners pretty strong?
Mr. PIERCE, of Porter. I suppose it has. But that is no reason that every bill that has the words "swamp lands" in it should be defeated. We want the swamp lands reclaimed. Their reclamation will increase the taxes of the State. Such an examination as I have given of this bill would, I think, secure the vote of any man. It provides for appeals by aggrieved parties, and appraisers appointed by the court. It provides for assessments of damages as well as for benefits which shall be paid; and it secures time to pay assessments; and if there is any injustice in it, I can't see it.
Mr. WILE spoke briefly in favor of the bill before it was brought to the final vote, which resulted yeas 59, nays 15 as follows:
YEAS-Messrs. Addison, Brker, Barritt,Beatty, Beeler, Bobo, Britton, Calvert, Carnahan, Chapman, Coffroth, Cotton, Davis of Elkhart, Davis of Floyd, Dittemore, Held of Lagrange, Furnas, Hall, Higbee, Hutson, Johnson of Parke, Johnson of Marshall, Kercheval, Lawler, Long, Mason, McBride, McDonald, Miller, Mitchell, Mock, Monroe, Montgomery, Odell. Osborn, Overmyer, Pierce of of Porter, Ratliff, Ruddell, Sabin, Shoaff, Skidmore, Stanton, Stewart of Ohio, Stewart of Rush, Taber, Tebbs, Underwood, Welborn, Wile, Williams of Hamilton, Williams of Knox, Williams of St. Joseph, Williams of Union, Wilson, Zenor, Zollars and Mr. Speaker-59.
NAYS-Messrs. Admire, Bates, Cave, Dunn, Fuller, Greene, Hyatt, Johnson of Montgomery, Lamborn, Logan, McGregor, Miles, Neff, Smith, and Vater-15.
So the bill passed the House of Representatives.
The House then took a recess till two o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The SPEAKER resumed at 2 o'clock P. M.
On motion of Mr. UNDERWOOD, Mr. Stephenson's Insurance bill [H. R. 376] was taken up, made the special order for Monday at 3 o'clock P. M.
SOLDIERS' AND SEAMEN'S HOME.
On motion of Mr. KERCHEVAL, the bill [S. 246] to amend sections 4, 13 and 15 of the act of March 17, 1867, to establish the Soldiers' Home, and supplementary to said act, was taken up.
Mr. JOHNSON, of Marshall, stated that the changes from the act of 1867 were to propose to raise the allowance to $2 50 a week for each child in the institution, and to give the trustees power to bind out those over fourteen years of age.
The bill was read the second time and ordered to the engrossment.
BURIAL PLACES.
The bill [S. 64] authorizing voluntary associations under the act of February 1855, to acquire title to lands heretofore used for burial places, was taken up and read the second time with the committee amendments thereto, viz: adding:
"That in addition thereto such reason quantity of land as the public convenience of the neighborhood may require for burial purposes."
The amendment was concurred in.
On motion of Mr. ZOLLERS, the bill [S. 286] supplementary to the act incorporating the Franklin Insurance Company, approved February 13, 1861, authoring said Company to change its place of business crease its capital stock and contract for and receive the rate of interest established by law, was taken up and read the second time.
On motion of Mr. ZOLLARS, the constitutional restriction was removed for the passage of the above recited bills and three others-yeas 70, nays 0.
Mr. MITCHELL desired to enter hrs motion to reconsider the vote of Thursday by which the Chapman Temperance bill was passed the House, and the entry was ordered accordingly.
SOLDIERS AND SEAMENS HOME.
The bill [S. 246] to amend the Soldiers Home act of 1867 was taken up under the above suspension.
Mr. PIERCE, of Porter, proposed to amend by inserting the words, "and shall also elect a Steward and Matron."
Mr. BARRITT proposed to amend the amendment by striking from the bill "$2 50" for weekly allowance for the orphans, and inserting "$2 00" in lieu.
Mr. PIERCE, of Porter, moved ineffectually to lay Mr. Barritt's amendment on the table-yeas 22, nays 48.
Mr. MONROE, explaining, that $2 00 a week ought to be sufficient.
Mr. GREENE showed, by comparison with the similar allowances in Michigan and Pennsylvania, that $2 50 can not be too much.
Mr. BARRITT insisted that $2 00 a week for each child would be sufficient.
Mr. STEWART, of Rush, had thought $2 50 was not too much; but he was now willing to compromise on $2 00.
Mr. MONROE would not be understood as opposed to the interests of the Home. He would support it; and opposed only what he regarded as an extravagance.
Mr. COX thought gentlemen had suddenly become morbidly economical-higgling over a half dollar a week for the support of soldiers' children! Two dollars a week to feed, clothe and educate the children of our soldiers that fell in battle! It was a very meagre allowence. He represented a constituency willing to provide page: 193[View Page 193] for the widows and children of our fallen soldiers.
Mr. PIERCE, of Porter. If we are going to economize in anything, it certainly should not be in this. He did not think it wise to stint those worthy persons in whose care we have placed this Home.
Mr. BRECKINRIDGE hoped the House would be satisfied with this amendment. He supposed that half the laboring men in his region earn not more than $10 per week for the support of their families - which was not more than this average of $2 a week apiece for these children.
Mr. JOHNSON, of Marshall, said this bill had the careful consideration and recommondation of the committee, and he would not be satisfied with a reduction of this allowance below $2 50.
Mr. STANTON suggested that the terms of the bill require, not that this $2 50 per hall be expended, but only so much of it as may be necessary.
Mr. SHOAFF sustained the amendment, satisfied that it would be sufficient. It was more than $12 a week to a family of six persons.
Mr. WELBORN demanded the previous question, and under its pressure, Mr. Baretts amendment was adopted - yeas 47, nays 70.
The amendment as amended, was then ordered to be engrossed, and the will was read the third time as ammended, and finally passed the House of Representatives - yeas 52, nays 30.
BURIAL PLACES.
The bill, (S. 64) authorizing voluntary associations organized, etc., to acquire title to lands that have heretofore been used as burial places, was taken up under the foregoing dispensation of the constitutional restriction, the amendments just adopted were ordered to be engrossed, and the bill, as amended, was read the third time and finally passed the House of Representatives - yeas 68, nays 0.
FRANKLIN INSURANCE COMPANY.
The bill [S. 286] supplementary to the charter of the Franklin insurance company, approved February 13, 1841, authorizing said company to change its place of business, to increase its capital stock, and to contract for and receive the rate of interest established by law, was taken up, under the aforesaid suspension, read the third time, and finally passed the House of Representatives - yeas 68, nays 0.
RAILROAD DIRECTORS.
The bill [S. 239] authorizing the classification of the boards of directors of railroad companies (to go out one or so every year), was taken up under the aforesaid suspension, read the second time by title, and the third time by sections, and finally passed the House of Representatives - yeas 68, nays 1.
PARTITION.
The bill [S. 51] to amend section 9 and repeal part of section 16 of the act concerning the partition of real estate, approved May 20, 1852, was taken up under the same suspension.
Mr. LONG explained that it merely gives the Court the right to order sale without appointing commissioners to sit and report upon partition where the proof is sufficient that the land can not be divided.
The bill was twice read, and finally passed the House - yeas 67, nays 1.
Mr. Ruddell's bill [H. R. 274] to authorize the issuance of arms and equipments to regularly organized military companies was taken up under the same suspension, read the third time, and failled in the House of Representatives-yeas 44, nays 25for lack of a Constitutional majority of fifty-one.
Mr. DAVIS, of Elkhart, moved, ineffectually, for a suspension of the constitutional restriction to admit of the final consideration of the bills [S. 249, 352] and [H. R. 380, 355].
Mr. TEBBS explained that his bill [H. R. 380] relates to the condemning of land for sites for school houses.
THE FISH LADDER BILL.
Mr. DAVIS, of Elkhart, said: The bill [S. 249] proposes to construct and keep up at every dam across the streams of water in the State fish ladders, or bridges, by means of which fish can enter our streams. Fish ladders are constructed in this country and in Europe. They are known as salmon ladders. We have spent a great deal of time in fish legislation, and it is no new thing to legislate for the protection of fish. But how much cheaper would it be to open to our great fish reservoirs a line by which fish would come to us in such numbers that they would need no protection. Such a thing is practicable. And the expense of of erecting these dam-brides or ladders (whatever they may be termed) is but trifling-vaaying from $5 to $25-in proportion to the volume of water and the hight of the dam; and it works no risk to the dam. It is simply an easy, cheap way of making a road from our great fish reservoirs up to the highest lakes and springs of the land; and it will supply the whole country with fish-
But the House refused to suspend for the consideration of these bills.
On motion of Mr. MITCHELL, the Senate amendments to Mr. Dittemore's Court bill [H. R. 302] were taken up and concurred in.
On motion by Mr. COFFROTH, the page: 194[View Page 194] Senate amendments to Mr. Smith's Court bill [H. R. 11] were taken up and concurred in, with an amendment of title: "To fix the time of holding courts in the llth Judicial Circuit," etc.
On motion of Mr. DAVIS, of Elkhart, the fish ladder bill was [S. 249] was taken up and passed to the second reading.
On motion of Mr. Lamborn, the Common Pleas Court bill [S. 352] was passed to the second reading.
Mr. Stephenson's Supreme Court Clerk index bill (H. R. 392) was ordered to the engrossment.
Mr. Hall's Side-walks bill (H. R. 355) was ordered to be engrossed.
On motion of Mr. WILLIAMS, of Knox, the bills ( S. 146, 202 and 203) were advanced one step in the calendar and referred.
Mr. RUDDELL asked and obtained unanimous consent to introduce a bill (H. R. 394) to enable cities to aid in the construction of railroads-terminating in or running through such cities, and to all railroads that may connect or consolidate with them subject to the limitations and restrictions of the general city corporation act of March 14, 1867.
It was referred to the Committee on Railroads.
The House then adjourned till Monday morning 9 o'clock.
Mr. CRAVENS submitted the following report: (which should appear on page 186.)
Report of the Special Committee of the Senate on the Question of Privilege between the two Houses, concerning the reception of Messages from the Senate, on the part of the House.
MR. PRESIDENT - The Special Committee to which was referred the response of the House of Representatives to the resolution of the Senate on the subject of the reception or exchange of message, has had the same under consideration, and directs me to make the following report.
Your committee beg leave to say that the resolution of the Senate, based as it was upon the communication of the Principal Secretary, that "The Speaker of the House having given direction to the Doorkeeper of the House not to announce message from the Senate while a member of the House has the floor for debate and in the reception of reports," though decided in its character and positive in its terms, could only be regarded as the expression of the Senate that the instruction of the Speaker was an infraction of the parliamentary rule in relation to the reception of messages, and an invitation to the House to return to the established usage in regard to this high and ancient privilege.
Assuming the communication to be true, and the Senate could not otherwise treat a plain statement by its confidential officer, the resolution adopted and communicated to the House was a request to the House to adhere to a well-known custom, or to inform the Senate if any attempt had been made to modify such usage.
To this resolution the House of Representatives responded "that the communication of Mr. O. M. Wilson, Secretary of the Senate, to that honorable body, and upon which said proceedings were had, is wholly untrue.
"The House, through its committee, further says:"
Your committee find that the Speak gave no such directions; but that, after the secretary of the Senate had, on several occasions, interrupted members of the House while engaged in brief debate, in order to present messages of the Senate, and after complaint and remonstrance had been ma against such interruptions, the Speaker of House directed the Doorkeeper that, when it was evident to him that a member engaged in debate would only occupy the floor for a minute or two of time, he should not be interrupted, but that if it was evident that any considerable time would be occupied by the member in addressing the House, the Doorkeeper should promptly announce the message from the Senate."The House, through its committee, adds: "Your committee are of the opinion that the said direction of the Speaker was extending to the Senate, in the prompt reception of its messages, a greater and more respectful courtesy than parliamentary law and usage prescribe."
Your committee made several ineffectual efforts to have a meeting, with a view in inquire into the question of the "frequent interruptions of the House by the Secretary of the Senate to present messages." Failing in securing a meeting and the attendance of witnesses, your committee conversed freely with officers and members of the House, and find that the charge of interruption, as stated, was not such as to warrant the severe reflection on the Secretary as expressed by the House Committee report. It was not intended, as your committee is informed by those who had an agency in giving expression to the House report, to affirm that the Secretary at any time delivered a Senate message without being first anounced by the proper officer of the House. Hence the cause of complaint, if any exist, was not with the Secretary of the Senate, but with the proper officer or usher of the House. But your committee does not censure that officer, and only alludes to the fact in vindication of the messenger of this body. On the contrary, with the evidence before them, it is the opinion of your committee that the Doorkeeper of the House only discharged a duty imposed upon him by the office he held. Whether the manner in which he discharged that duty was in accordance with the views of propriety entertained by the House, your committee will not undertake to decide. Why the House should remonstrate and complain when the Secretary only presented his messages after he had been announced by the proper officer your committee will not undertake to determine, but fail to appreciate the logic by which the censure is imposed.
page: 195[View Page 195]In support of the propriety of the instructions given by the Speaker of the House to the Doorkeeper of that body, the House committee cites a paragraph from "Cushing's Law of Legislative Assemblies," as follows: "But in the House to which a message is sent, it is the practice to suspend or discontinue the business in hand as soon as may be after the message is announced, so as not unnecessarily to detain the messenger. But if a member happens to be speaking at the time the messengers attend, it is not usual to receive them until the member has resumed his seat; but as this in some cases might amount to a very long detention, it is competent for the Speaker to interrupt the member speaking, or to interrupt a member in presenting a petition, to receive a message." But all of this authority and discretion the Speaker seems to have transferred to the Doorkeeper, with limitations upon its exercise. But the House Committee cautiously omitted the following sentence, which in the authority quoted as above, occurs between the sentences so quoted: "Where the House is in a Committee of the Whole, when a message is sent to it, the Committee rises and the House is resumed for the purpose of receiving the message; so, when the House is engaged in debate, the business is suspended, without formal adjournment of the debate, and the message is received."
To refuse to receive a messenger; to interrupt him in the discharge of his duties; unnecessarily to detain him and the message of which he is the bearer; or to confer upon a subordinate officer of either House the discretion to determine when or in what manner a message should be received, have been pronounced by standard authority (Husband's Collections) "a high breach of the privileges of Parliament." May, in his work entitled "Law privileges and proceedings of Parliament," attaches great importance to message between the Houses as a high privilege," and says: "A question is also liable to casual interruption and postponement from various causes, and among those a message from the other House." John Hatsell, in his celebrated work, "Precedents of proceedings in the House of Commons," publihsed in 1785, says, page 26 vol. 3: "The admission of messengers from the House of Lords is so much a matter of course that we find, on the 15th of February, 1743, they were received in the middle of a debate, and the Speaker reported the message and an answer was sent to the Lords" and all this without a formal adjournment of the debate." In a note to this paragraph, the same author adds, "It would be for the mutual convenience of both Houses, if this proceeding was adopted, and the messages from either House to the other were admitted at all times; it is a civility due to each other, and would be no interruption to public business." The prompt reception of messages, and at all times, has been so much a matter of course, that any interruption or qualification of it is esteemed a breach of privilege and an infraction of the civilities that should characterize the necessary intercourse between the Houses. So highly is the observance of this courtesy regarded that the Senate of the United Statea long since adopted, and still pursues, the following note, No. 46:" Messengers maybe introduced in any state of business, except while a question is putting, while the yeas and nays are calling, or while the ballots are counting." So in the House of Representatives of the United States. It is the practice of the House to receive messages promptly upon the appearance of the messenger, and without regard to the business in hand, and a call of the yeas and nays is not unfrequently suspended for the same purpose." (Barclay's Digest, page 128.) Other authorities might be adduced in support of the view herein expressed, but their multiplication would be unnecessary to maintain a proposition now so universally recognized. The necessity for rigid adherence to the established usage, is noticed in the fact that legislation is more extensively and more rapidly transacted than in former times, and hence the communications from one house to the other necessarily grow more frequent. The House committee refers to the action of the Senate in 1865 on this subject as more "stringent than the rule contemplated by the House." The action referred to has not been repeated or adopted by any subsequent session of the Senate, and can only be regarded by your committee as an infraction of the well established law on this subject. Whether the Senate resolution requesting the House to receive messages of the Senate according to the usages of Parliamentary law, was expressed in language sufficiently courteous or not, founded as it was upon the statement of the Secretary, the House committee has relieved your committee from all embarrassment in deciding; for that committee frankly admits that the Speaker directed the door-keeper of the House, substantially, as stated by the Secretary. Being true, as stated, and the Senate could presume nothing else, the request made of the House can not be deemed "discourteous" or "disrespectful." Neither would your committee recommend a concurrence in the resolution of the House that the Senate will mete out to said subordinate officer such punishment as may be proper in the premises, for, from the admissions of the House committee, that the Speaker instructed the Doorkeeper, as reported to the Senate by the Secretary, your committee is of the opinion that the Secretary of the Senate has not been guilty of any offense, and is, therefore, not deserving of any censure or punishment.
JOHN K. CRAVENS, Chairman
T. N. RICE,
THOS.
GIFFORD, Committee.
