HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
The House met at 9 o'clock A. M., and the reading of the journal of yesterday having been dispensed with-
THE WILL CASE BILL.
On motion of Mr. COFFROTH, the House took up the special order, viz.: the consideration of the bill [S. 255] to save pending cases affected by the act of 1865 to repeal sections 43 and 44 of the act of 1852, (similar to Mr. Dittemore's Will Case bill [H. R. 235],) the same being on the third and last reading; and on his farther motion, the special order was postponed till 11 o'clock, A. M.
THE CALENDAR.
On motion of Mr. WELBORN, it was ordered that the House proceed to the consideration of bills on the third reading.
ROAD LAW.
Mr. Dunn's bill [H. R. 125] to amend A act to amend the forty-fifth section of the road act of March 5, 1857, was read the third time.
Mr. DUNN explained, that by the law 1865, any person might come before the County Commissioners and show road has been used for twenty years a I obtain an order to open it. This bill proposes that the party shall first give notice to parties interested along the road.
The bill was finally passed the House-yeas 64, nays 4:
DRAFTS ON COUNTY TREASURERS.
Mr. Mitchell's bill [H. R. 159], to amend section 16 of the act to authorize and limit allowances made by courts, and drafts on County Treasurers, approved May 27,1852, was read the third time, and finally passed the House of Representatives-yeas 67, nays 0.
The House then took up the consideration of bills from the Senate on the first reading, and the bills [S. 253] to enable Criminal Courts to try certain forfeited recognizances, the bill [S. 253] to authorize Criminal Courts for the counties of Laporte and St. Joseph, the bill [S. 348] to provide that towns with a vacant public lot of ground may donate the same to public common school purposes, were severally read the first time and referred.
SOLDIERS AND SEAMEN'S HOME.
The Senate concurrent resolution to authorize the Trustees and officers of the Soldiers' Home to transfer the inmates (by their voluntary consent) to the National Home at Dayton, Ohio, or Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and to receive no more except in extreme cases, was taken up.
Mr. DAVIS of Elkhart proposed to add "the Home at Augusta, Maine."
Mr. WILLIAMS of Knox proposed to amend further by striking out the words "by their voluntary consent."
Mr. DAVIS of Elkhart moved to lay Mr. Williams' motion on the table, which was not agreed to-yeas 30, nays 32, Mr. Davis of Elkhart explaining that in his judging-these soldiers had been marching under orders long enough; they should be free to go or stay, and Mr. Kercheval said if this amendment were adopted he would vote against the resolution.
The question recurring on the adoption of Mr. Williams' amendment-
Mr. GREENE said there were now in the "Home" some half-a-dozen soldiers the last days of consumption, and could not be removed with safety. They should be permitted to die in their own State, whose defense has cost them so dearly.
page: 201[View Page 201]Mr. COFFROTH and Mr. DAVIS suggested that the resolution might be amended, so as to make exception for the sick.
Mr. OSBORN spoke against the proposed amendment, as a proposition to treat these fabled soldiers, not as the wards, but as the prisoners of the State. Having placed these men there, as their home, we are Stopped from the right to take them away without their consent. We should not treat them as soldiers under orders the time having passed for them to obey orders. He was not willing to say to them, you shall go, or shall do this or that.
Mr. NEFF said, those National Homes for disabled soldiers have been constructed since the Indiana Home was instituted; and he described the munificent arrangements for the purpose at Dayton he having been on the committee appointed to visit that institution. He could not think it unworthy of the State to send these soldiers where they can have superior accommodations, and at a place as much their home, as the Home at Knightstown, which the State wants now to convert into an orphan asylum to make provision for those orphans of the soldiers who are not provided for by the Government of the United States. He recapitulated the superior facilities for solace, employment and comfort at the Soldiers' National Home at Dayton.
Mr. WILLIAMS, of Knox, proposed further to amend by providing an exception for those soldiers whose life or health would be endangered by removal.
Mr. STEWART, of Rush, hoped that the House would not vote to expatriate those soldiers from "their Home" and from the State they have defended, and take them to another State without their consent expatriate those noble men, without imputation of crime, from their Home and the State where they have their wives and children about them. He appealed to the sense of honor and humanity against this.
Mr KERCHEVAL spoke of an understanding with the soldiers at Knightstown, that they should not be removed against their consent, and denounced the amendment as a breach of faith towards those men, and it was an attempt, he said, to do something which is beyond the power of the State Legislature.
Mr. DAVIS, of Elkhart, explained that he was in favor of the passage of the resolution if it be stript of this amendment, which proposed to give it a mandatory character. He would have these men free to go or stay. He felt that the property of the State is pledged for the support of those disabled men, who stood as a wall of fire against an invasion of the life of the nation. They can be moved without the mandatory order.
Mr. WILLIAMS, of Knox, now obtained leave to withdraw the amendment. And then the resolution was adopted.
BOARDS OF EQUALIZATION.
Mr. STANTON obtained leave to introduce a bill [H. R. 395] to extend the time of the meeting of the County Boards of Equalization (to the first Monday in July), and fixing the time for the Auditors to present the abstracts of appraisaments of real estate.
The bills [S. 276, 308, 278, 284 and 293] were read the first time and passed to the second reading.
Mr. OSBORN entered his motion to reconsider the vote of Saturday for the final passage of the court bill [H. R. 203.]
THE WILL CASE BILL.
The House then took up the special order, viz: the Will Case bill [S. 255] to save pending cases affected by the act of 1865, to repeal sections 43 and 44 of the act of 1852, and it was passed the final reading in the House of Representatives-yeas 60, nays 17. Mr. Kercheval voted aye, being unwilling to close the Courts of the country to the humblest citizen; and Mr. Shoaff voted affirmatively, to right any wrong that is claimed to have been done to parties by his vote for the act of 1865.
SUPREME COURT INDEX BILL.
On motion, Mr. Stephenson's bill [H. R. 382], authorising the Clerk of the Supreme Court to index the court books, etc., was taken up.
Mr. STEPHENSON explained its propriety and necessity, and that it would involve but little expense to the State.
Mr. NEFF alleged his opposition to the bill, and the inconsistency of the champion of retrenchment in introducing it.
Mr. STEPHENSON was willing to go before his own and the constituents of the gentleman from Putnam on the issue made by that gentleman.
The bill was rejected-yeas, 33; nays, 44.
ORDER FOR THE FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT.
Mr. UNDERWOOD obtained leave to submit the following:
Resolved, That the consideration of the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which was made the special order for Tuesday, May 11, when taken up on that day shall be further postponed till Friday, May 14th, at 2 1/2 o'clock, and made the special order for that hour.
Mr. COFFROTH proposed to amend by striking out all after the word "be," and insert these words in lieu, "indefinitely postponed."
Mr. OVERMEYER moved to lay the proposed amendment on the table.
Mr. COFFROTH demanded the yeas and nays, which resulted-yeas 48, nays 53as follows:
page: 202[View Page 202]YEAS-Messrs. Baker, Beatty, Beeler, Breckinridge, Chapman, Davidson, Davis of Elkhart, Dunn, Fairchild, Field of Lake, Field of La-grange, Furnas, Gordon, Greene, Hall, Hamilton, Higbee, Higgins, Hutson, Johnson of Parke, Johnson of Marshall, Jump, Kerchival, Lamborn, Mason, Miller, Monroe, Osborn, Overmyer, Pierce of Porter, Pierce of Vigo, Ratliff, Ruddell, Sabin, Skidmore, Smith, Stanton, Stephenson, Stewart of Ohio, Stewart of Rush, Taber, Underwood, Vater, Wildman, Williams of Hamilton, Williams of St. Joseph, Wilson and Mr. Speaker-48.
NAYS-Messrs. Admire, Bates, Britton, Calvert, Carnahan, Cave, Coffroth, Cory, Cotton, Davis of Floyd, Dittemore, Fuller, Hutchings, Hyatt, Johnston of Montgomery, Lawler, Logan, Long, McDonald, McGregor, Miles, Miner, Mitchell, Mock, Montgomery, Neff, Shoaff, Shoemaker, Tebbs, Welborn, Wile, Williams of Knox, and Zollars-33.
So the amendment was laid on the table, and the question recurred on the adoption of the resolution.
Mr. UNDERWOOD demanded the previous question on the adoption of the resolution, and under its operation the vote was taken, resulting-yeas 53, nays 29-as follows:
YEAS-Messrs. Admire, Bates, Beeler, Bobo, Breckinridge, Carnahan, Cave, Chapman, Cory, Cunningham, Davidson, Davis of Elkhart, Davis of Floyd, Dittemore. Fairchild, Field of Lake, Field of Lagrange, Fuller, Furnas, Green, Hall, Higbee, Hutchings, Hutson, Hyatt, Johnson of Parke, Jump, Kercheval, Lawler, Long, Mason, McGregor, Miles, Mitchell, Montgomery, Overmyer, Ratliff, Ruddell, Sabin, Skidmore, Smith, i Stephenson. Stewart of Rush, Taber, Tebbs, Underwood, Wile, Williams of Hamilton, Williams of Knox, Williams of Union, Wilson, and Mr. Speaker.-53.
NAYS-Messrs. Baker, Beatty, Britton, Calvert, Coffroth, Dunn, Gordon, Johnson of Marshall, Lamborn, Logan, Miller, Miner, Mock, Monroe, Neff, Osborn, Pierce of Porter, Pierce of Vigo, Shoemaker, Stanton, Stewart of Ohio, Vater, Welborn, Wildman, Williams of St. Joseph, and Zollars29.
Mr. CHAPMAN explaining, said he voted aye for the postponement, because his temperance bill was not yet passed.
Mr. COFFROTH explaining. I am unwilling to give any vote to consider this Constitutional amendment till the people of the State shall have first passed upon it. I vote no.
Mr. DAVIS of Floyd, explained. I, too, desire that the Constitutional amendment shall not be considered here till the people shall have had an opportunity to pass upon it; but, as this resolution does not require us to consider it on Friday, and, as there is yet some little business to do, I vote aye.
Mr. GORDON explaining. I hold that no man has a right to ask me to vote to postpone any proposition to a day certain. I am ready to vote on any proposition coming; properly before the House now, or when the vote is called-whether I vote for or-against it is nobody's business, therefore I vote no.
Mr. MITCHELL, explaning. I have determined within myself to do everything in my power to prevent the 46th General Assembly from passing upon the question of the XVth amendment; but for the purpose of prosecuting our business and passing the necessary bills of the session I vote "aye."
Mr. OSBORNE, explaining. I do not believe, sir, that the question as to whether the Legislature should consider that Constitutional Amendment ought to interfere with our legislation; though I believe we ought to pass that amendment to-morrow and I believe the Democratic member' ought to stay and see it done. Therefore I vote "no."
Mr. PIERCE of Vigo, explaining, referred to the fact that at the close of the last session, when the House was composed of the same members, with one exception and when this proposition was up; it would be remembered with what remarkable unanimity we of the Republican party voted against postponing the consideration of the Constitutional Amendment; and, though voting against the postponement himself; he then doubted the propriety of refusing to postpone. But now he did not propose to stultify his record here by voting further to postpone this question. He voted "no."
Mr. RUDDELL explaining said: We have had an exhibition of Democratic feeling on this subject, and may be well enough satisfied as to how determined they are upon it; and we know that by urging this question we shall stop the business o: the session. Therefore, I vote "aye."
Mr. SABIN explaining for the first time. I feel instructed to vote in favor of this postponement. My personal feelings are against it. I vote "aye."
Mr. ZOLLARS explaining for the first time said, he voted "no" on this proposition for two very obvious reasons. In the first place, as remarked by the gentleman from Marion [Mr. Ruddell] as to the Democratic determination on this floor, he considered that hitherto we have been entirely consistent on this question. We first proposed to submit it to the people; we next proposed to postpone; and these having been refused the rest is told. Individually he had made every effort for night sessions, and to pursue business in the regular order; and he had been in favor of all questions by which we might have got along with business. For consistency now he voted "no."
So the resolution was adopted.
Mr. Pierce, of Porter, obtained I present a petition numerously signed by his constituents, requesting him to vote and use his influence for the ratification of the Constitutional amendment.
The House then took a recess until 2 o'clock.
page: 203[View Page 203]AFTERNOON SESSION.
On motion of Mr. CARNAHAN (in the absence of the Speaker) Mr. Williams, of Knox, was called to the chair.
Mr. STEWART, of Rush, and Mr. SABIN asked, but could not obtain consent to make reports from their Committees. But subsequently the order of business was suspended for reports from the Committees generally.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Mr. DUNN, from the Committee on the Judiciary, returned the change of venue bill [H. R. 89] introduced by Mr. Pierce, of Porter, recommending its passage.
Mr. SABIN, from the Committee on Claims, reported for the allowance of $2,204 of the claim of Daniel Keely and son for services as drummers, under orders of Governor Morton; which was not concurred in.
Mr. TEBBS reported for the allowance of the claim of George W. Lozier, which was concurred in.
Mr. HIGGINS reported for the allowance of the claim of Dr. Theodore Horton; which was concurred in.
Mr. FURNAS, from the Committee on Rights and Privileges, returned the Senate Medical Profession bill [S. 75] recommending its indefinite postponement; which was concurred in.
Mr. STEWART, of Rush, from the Railroad Committee, returned the railroad bill [S. 202, 203] and Mr. Ruddell's railroad bill[H. R. 394] recommending their passage.
Mr. WILLIAMS, of Knox, returned the railroad bill [S. 162] recommending its passage.
Mr. FAIRCHILD, from the Committee on County and Township Business, returned the drainage bill [S. 89] to amend act of 1867, and the substitute therefor, recommending the passage of the substitute.
Mr. MASON returned and recommended the indefinite postponement of the Township Bridge bill [H.R. 357] introduced by Mr. Johnston of Parke.
The report was concurred in.
Mr. LAMBORN returned Mr. Welborn's Divorce Bill [H. R. 378] recommending its passage.
Mr. GORDON, from the Committee on Fees and Salaries, returned the bill [S. 144] to amend the act regulating the fees of officers, etc., recommending its passage.
Mr. LAMBORN, from the special committee thereon, returned the bills [H. R. 360 and 363] in relation to divorces, (introduced by Mr. Lamborn and Mr. McGregor) recommending their indefinite postponement. The report was concurred in.
APPROPRIATION FOR THE SUPREME COURT BUILDING.
Mr. STANTON, from the special committee thereon, returned the bill [S. 194] making an appropriation for the payment to the Sinking Fund of money advanced for the erection of the building for the Supreme Court and the State offices, recommending its passage.
On his further motion (the Constitutional restriction being suspended for the purpose) the bill was put upon its final passage.
It proposes to appropriate $52,101 55 and $4,388 interest.
The bill was finally passed the House of Representative-yeas 58, nays 17.
SPECIFIC BILL FOR THE EXTRA SESSION.
Mr. STANTON, from the Committee on Ways and Means, (by consent) reported a bill [H. R, 396] making specific appropriations for the year 1869; which was recommitted, with instructions to insert claims, &c., heretofore adopted by the House, and - referred to said committee.
Mr. STEWART, of Rush, submitted a resolution (which was adopted) directing the Committee on Ways and Means to incorporate in the specific bill an allowance of $8 each to the members of the Special Committee appointed to visit the National. Soldiers' Home at Dayton, Ohio, for extra expenses so incurred by them.
THE UNDERWOOD LIFE INSURANCE BILL.
On motion of Mr. UNDERWOOD, the constitutional restriction was suspended for the final consideration of Mr, Stephenson's Insurance bill [H. R. 376], Mr. Zollar's County Asylum bill [H. R. 315], and the bill [S. 230] to cut down the Governor's rent allowance from $5,000 to $2,500 per annum.
Mr. Stephenson's bill [H. R. 376] to incorporate Life Insurance Companies, to make certain provisions concerning contracts for life insurance with the agents of Life Insurance Companies in this State, etc., was taken up and read the second time.
Mr. UNDERWOOD explained its provisions-it was to take the place of his Insurance bill [H. R. 60] vetoed by the Governor on the 9th of March.
The bill was finally passed the House-yeas 52, Hays 25.
RESIDENCE FOR THE GOVERNOR.
The bill [S. 230] to revise and amend section 4 of the act of February 25, 1865, appointing commissioners to sell certain real estate therein named, to provide a residence for the Governor, etc., was taken up and read under the foregoing suspension.
Mr. PIERCE, of Porter, spoke against the passage of the bill, alleging politics) designs in opposition to the Governor, and page: 204[View Page 204] the constitutional provision that the Governor's compensation shall not be increased or diminished during the term for which he shall be elected.
Mr. PIERCE of Vigo stated the legal salary of the Governor$3,000; and that together with his allowance for house ren-these loopholes-gave a large compensation; and though it may not be too much this indirection to eke out his compensation was most damaging to the party. If $3,000 were not sufficient, it were better to come up squarely and increase his salary.
Mr. STEWART of Rush explained that this $5,000 a year for house rent was allowed to Governor Morton when he left the old mansion for the health of his family, and was boarding at the Bates House at $90 a week, which is at the rate of $5,000 a year.
Mr. GORDON took the same view with that submitted by Mr. Pierce of Vigo.
Mr. BUSKIRK (Mr. Welborne in the Chair) took the floor in opposition to the bill. If it were right to allow anything in this bill, it was proper and right to allow a just allowance, though it might be better to do it directly. He was of the opinion that the present compensation is not too much for the Governor. It was idle to talk about raising the salary of the Governor in the face of the Constitution. Having set the precedent of the allowance in this way, the amount was nothing for the argument. Give the Governor enough and not yield to this suggestion from the Democratic side here to reduce the compensation of the Governor, which has been so long received and considered on all sides as no more than sufficient. He was opposed to it especially because it was a stab at the Governor by those who are politically opposed to him.
Mr. COFFROTH. If Senator Church, from Porter county, was a Democrat, then this bill was originated by a Democrat. The House and the country knew that Senator Church was a Republican, and a leading member of the other branch. He (Mr. Coffroth) was here in February, 1865, and he alleged and showed that this $5,000 house rent was not intended to increase the salary of the Governor, but it was proposed, or so much thereof as may be necessary, to provide the 'Governor with a suitable residence. Yet, our honest Governor still puts his hand, into the Treasury and draws the full amount of $5,000 & year. This was appropriated to pay his rent only; and the Governor has been Tenting all the time a house for $1,500; and; that was all he ought to draw. He then referred to the indignant expression of the House but the other day against the corrupt and unfortunate Meredith, and called spon members to consider their duty with reference to the proposition before ti, House. When he had concluded-
Mr. ZOLLARS demanded the previous question, and, under its operation, the Kju was finally passed the House of Repretatives-yeas 53, nays 35.
Mr. Speaker BUSKIRK entered his motion to reconsider this vote.
Mr. COFFROTH moved to lay that motion on the table.
Whereupon, the point of order was sprung as to whether the motion to lay on the table can be entertained, when th mover of the original motion does not ask for its consideration at once, in which Messrs. COFFROTH, SHOAFF GORDON, BUSKIRK and others participated.
Mr. KERCHEVAL moved that the House adjourn, which was decided in the negative-yeas 23, nays 53.
Mr. BUSKIRK moved to reconsider the vote on the adjournment.
Mr. COFFROTH made the point that the motion can not be entertained.The SPEAKER pro tem., overruled the point.
The yeas and nays were then ordered, and the vote was announced, yeas 30, nays 50, so the House refused to reconsider.
Mr. LAMBORN moved that the House do now adjourn.
The SPEAKER pro tern, decided that the motion can not be entertained, because no business has intervened since the former motion to adjourn.
Mr. BUSKIRK appealed from the decision of the Chair, being joined in the appeal by Mr. LAMBORN; and he argued that the motion to adjourn may be repeated, from authority read from Barkley's Digest, page 6; when a motion to reconsider, or the reading of a paper from the Clerk's desk or an order for the yeas and nays, is held to be sufficient to constitute such "inter vening business."
After debate by Messrs. Gordon, Coffroth and Davis, of Floyd-
The question: Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House was decided in the negative-yeas 15, nap 63.
Mr. LAMBORN now obtained leave to withdraw the motion to adjourn.
Mr. BUSKIRK also asked and obtained leave to withdraw his motion to reconsider the vote on the passage of the Governor's residence bill [S. 230]
Mr. COFFROTH then moved to reconsider the final vote on said bill [S. 230,] and moved to lay the motion to reconsider o the table.
The SPEAKER held that the latter motion to lay on the table, could not be entertained.
Mr. COFFROTH appealed from that decision.
Pending which-the House adjourned.
