IN SENATE.
FRIDAY, May 14, 1869.The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR commanded order at 9 o'clock, and directed the reading of the minutes of yesterday.
Mr. JOHNSTON, of Montgomery, demanded a call of the Senate. And it being taken discovered but 32 Senators present and answering to their names-as follows:
Messrs. Andrews, Armstrong, Beardsley, Bellamy, Bradley, Case, Caven, Church, Cravens,Eliott, Fisher, Fosdick, Gray, Green, Hadley, Hamilton, Henderson, Hess, Hooper, Jacquess, Johnson of Spencer, Johnson of Montgomer, Kinley, Morgan, Rice, Reynolds, Robinson of Madison, Robinson of Decatur, Scott, Stein, Wolcott, and Wood-32.
Pending the roll call-
Mr. BRADLEY, as the names of the resigned Senators were severally called, announced that their absence was due to the fact that they had resigned on yesterday, and their resignations had been accepted by the Governor.
Mr. JOHNSTON, of Montgomery, stated that Mr. Denbo had received a letter from home which made it necessary for him to leave last night, and he had requested this to be said to the Senate when his name should be called.
When the roll call was completed-
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR announced the number present, and stated: "there is no quorum present."
Mr. GRAY moved that the absentees be sent for.
Mr. CHURCH asked if these Senators resigned the same day that this Constitutional Amendment was ratified.
Mr. GRAY said we have no knowledge of their resignations except the independent statement of the members themselves.
Mr. MORGAN in reply to Mr. Church said: We have no knowledge of the 15th amendment having been ratified and of course cannot answer his question.
Mr. BRADLEY raised the point of order that it is necessary to know who the absentees are before we send for them.
Mr. GRAY. You have stated who they are.
Mr BRADLEY made his statements on this floor as the peer of every other Senator. I have stated it from my own personal knowledge that those Senators who I named have resigned their office and are not Senators nor members of the General Assembly. All others who absent without leave should be named and then writs can be issued for their arrest.
Mr. CRAVENS. The Senator from Laporte [Mr. Bradley] assumes to say who are the absentees. The roll call shows who they are, and that is the only evidence we have. The Senator very properly rises and says certain Senators have resigned. That is his opinion, and no doubt he states what he supposes to be true. But we cannot act on his statement. We must act in an official capacity; and we don't know that he has a power of attorney to speak for them or in their behalf. In the absence of official evidence, we should go on in the discharge of our duty under the Constitution, and that is to send for absentees-those who the roll call shows to be not present.
Mr. GREEN. We have an authorized agent to speak for these men if they have resigned, and that is the Governor. And when they do resign he will report it here. The Governor is the agent and not the Senator. We can not have it go upon record on his say so.
Mr. BRADLEY took issue with the Senator from Tipton, and insisted that the Governor is not our agent-he is not the agent of this Senate. If the Senate will not take the statement made here, he desired that a resolution may be adopted; calling upon the Governor to state whether or not the Senators have resigned.
Mr. FISHER. Suppose they had just been elected, came in without credentials, and he rose and stated that they were elected, would that justify the Senate in recognizing them?
Mr. BRADLEY never made such a statement. "Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof."
Mr. GRAY. We have but one evidence of the condition of the Senate on any question, and that is the record. The record shows that these gentlemen are members still. There is nothing on the record to show that they have resigned, and I claim that they are members of this Senate, and will remain so until the record shows different. The record is the evidence that must govern the Senate.
Mr. JOHNSTON of Montgomery. The law requires that these resignations shall be handed to the Governor and not to the Senate. The resignations have been handed to the Governor, and it has been so announced in the Senate. It was announced yesterday by the Senator from Jefferson (Mr. Cravens) that he saw 11 handed in. It is the duty of the Governor to make known to the Senate that these resignations have been handed in, and if he neglects his duty, does that make these men Senators?
Mr. BELLAMY. If there are any members claiming seats on this floor, they had better appear. If there are none, we are the constitutional body, and, have the power to go on and do business, or we are not. I send up the following resolution and - ask that it may be read for information:
Resolved, That thirty-two Senators having answered to their names, that being two-thirds of all Senators elected claiming seats on this floor, there is a quorum present to do business, and that we proceed accordingly.
page: 234[View Page 234]Mr. BELLAMY was of opinion that we are a Constitutional body, and, in order to test the sense of the Senate upon the subject, moved that further proceedings under the call be dispensed with, in order that we may hare an opportunity to consider this resolution.
The yeas and nays thereon being demanded, they were ordered and taken, resulting-yeas 24, nays 6.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. Proceedings under the call are dispensed with.
Mr. BELLAMY now offered his resolution.
Mr. HOOPER raised the point of order that it is not in order to entertain the resolution, as the call of the Senate, as well as the result itself, shows there is no quorum present.
Shall we without cause-and now I submit it is without cause, for there is no important legislation that will justify as in resorting to this extraordinary measure. What bill is there before the Senate that requires that we should resort to anything of this kind? We have passed the appropriation bills, and the Constitutional Amendment has been legally ratified by this Senate, and that is out of the way. Now why go back upon the uniform practice and precedents of both branches of this Legislature ever since the adoption of the present Constitution and trample under foot all these precedents and usages adopted and recognized in our State all this time simply for the purpose of branching out in a new field and giving our opponents the decided advantage of this question. We are now within the law-within the law and the Constitution. Now I say let us remain there. Let us not go outside of this safe ground. You give the minority the advantage over us the moment you undertake to trample under foot the Constitution and pass laws in violation of its plain provisions. It seems to me every reason appeals to us, and impresses itself upon us with force that we ought not to depart from the usual practice and established precedents in this direction, and if we do we give the minority an advantage over us they can not otherwise have. The principle of safely, as far as the party is concerned, laying aside every other consideration, ought to admonish us to keep clearly within the provisions of the Constitusion. I think to legislate in direct opposition to the plain provisions of the Constitution we enter upon most dangerous ground, and give the opposition a very great advantage over us. I trust the Senate will reflect upon this matter. There is nothing to be gained by it.
Mr. CHURCH. I would ask the Senator if he don't think it about time we should establish some sort of custom that will stop this breaking or attempting to break a quorum.
Mr. HOOPER. I admit there ought to be something done in that direction.
Mr. BELLAMY (interposing). Is not the Senator's time up?
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. I did not take notice.
Mr. HOOPER. I only wish to say that the policy set up by this resolution - the attempt to legislate in this way-will amount to nothing. The only way by which this evil can be prevented is to make a proper amendment to the Constitution. Your attempt by proceeding in violation: the Constitution to stop this matter will be like throwing chaff before the wind. I repeat as my last suggestion, and I hope Senators will remember it, that there is nothing to justify or furnish an excuse for this course proposed to be pursued. If there was a measure at stake in which the great interests of the people of the State would be involved, it might be offered as soon plea of justification, but there is not one. We have passed all the important measures as far as the Senate is concerned. Then I say, let us keep on safe ground, within the clear provisions of the Constitution, and go forward in the discharge of our constitutional duties.
Mr. WOLCOTT. Mr. President. The Senator who has just taken his seat, and to whose discussions I listen with great respect, has not done himself justice. He has assumed his own opinions to be correct, and adduced no reasons to show why the views of those who differ with him are incorrect. As to the gravity of this action I differ with him in that respect, He says that this Senate has passed all the important laws; but how does the Senator know what important exigencies may arise before we can amend the Constitution? According to his statement, if we are no longer a legislative body, it will be two years before a measure proposing to amend our State Constitution can be introduced, and it will require two other years in order to have it acted upon by a succeeding Legislature, and two more for the vote of the people, so are liable for six years to come to be constantly interrupted in legislating the most important interests that may arise affecting the welfare of the State. The gravity of the situation demands action - I do not say wrong action-but we should adopt remedies if we have them the emergency so great.
Now we have very respectable authority for this action. The construction which has prevailed in Congress in relation to the organization of both Houses of Congress page: 235[View Page 235] since the foundation of the government. It has ever been held, as was shown in a letter written by the Vice President [Hon. Schuyler Colfax] and printed in the Daily Journal of this city some weeks ago, that the body consists not of fixed numbers, but of the qualified members belonging to the two houses, and that such number was variable according to election, or vacancies created by whatever cause; and as the number varied, by usage, the quorum varied, and majorities varied. While I think that is a precedent entitled to the highest respect, yet it is not absolute authority. The provisions of our Constitution do not materially differ in language from the Constitution of the United States. I read from the Constitution of the United States: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State," etc. That language is construed to mean only that the Senate of the United States is to be composed of so many that is the maximum number. And when vacancies arise, they are to be filled by those entitled to fill them,if they see fit. Nor is the construction of any previous Senatorial body in this State absolute authority for us. We are as competent as any previous Senate to decide this question. I admit that we have the authority against is since the State Constitution went into effect, but there never before has arisen a cause for critical examination of the subject; but if there had been, that does not preclude an adverse decision. How often a statutory provision, having gone before the courts, has been decided one way, and on review has been decided differently? Are not we as competent as any court to construe a constitutional provision affecting the organization of this body? Of course we are. Now, I maintain that when the Constitution of the State of Indiana through a constitutional and legal provision of law says that the Senate shall consist of fifty members, it does not mean arbitrarily fifty, because that same Constitution provides for existing vacancies and consiquently recognizes a varied number in the legislative body as composing that body. As these number varys then according to the language of the Constitution a majority will vary, and a quorum will vary. I submit in the language of this resolution that we are qualified and compentent (being a quorum), to transact business.
Mr. GRAY. I do not intend to make a speech, because this question has been discussed here at length and I do not suppose anything I might say will change the minds of Senators. I look upon this as a grave question. I will go as far as any Senator in the direction of the resolution, except when it comes in conflict with my oath, and that I must be allowed to judge for myself. I must keep this in view that for eighteen years we have required twenty-six votes to pass a bill, and why? Because we consider that the Senate consists of fifty members. And the idea in my mind was that the Constitution required it, because when a bill receives twenty-six votes if every senator was in his seat it could not be defeated, and therefore reflects the will of a majority of the people of the State. I hold that the Constitution acts upon the presumption that the people will elect Representatives, and when it says that the Senate shall consist of fifty members, the presumption of the Constitution is that the people will elect fifty. Now, if a majority of the members present are to constitute a quorum, we must surrender the principle that it takes twenty-six votes to pass a bill, otherwise we might have a quorum to consist of less than twenty six votes, and that would be a quorum unable to do business. I shall consider that the Senate consists of the number of members fixed by law-fifty-and that the Constitution means two-thirds of that number constitutes a quorum to do business. Without going further into the argument, I shall vote against the resolution. I shall vote against it because I know that it is intended to lead to something else-that this Senate is to go on and enact legislation, and I can not consider any act or bill passed with only thirty-two members present, as legal and constitutional.
Mr. STEIN. I shall favor sustaining the decision of the Chair. This is a different question from that presented at the organization of the Senate. I think the people have a right to the opportunity of being represented, and if their agent resigns they are without representation. If a quorum breaks, or if any resignation occurs their constituency have a right to a chance to be represented. I do not think we have authority or precedent to go on and consider ourselves a Legislature. Besides, I do not see any use to enter into any adventure at this late hour, when no good, and probably a great deal of mischief may be done by it.
Mr. BRADLEY. Senators refer to the Constitution without reading it properly. The Consitution does not fix the number of Senators or Representatives. It only fixes a limit. It says the House shall not exceed one hundred members, and the Senate shall not exceed fifty members. It also provides that the number shall be fixed by law. That law, passed in pursuance of the prorision of the Constitution, has as much effect as the Constitution itself. Then the law says the number of Senators shall be fifty. The Constitution provides that two-thirds of each House shall constitute a quorum to do page: 236[View Page 236] business. It also provides that a less number than a quorum may do certain acts. Those acts are specifically set forth. Now what is a House? Some Senators argue that it is the number of Senators present. That is certainly not correct, because the law says what the House is. In the Senate it is fifty. The Constitution says that two-thirds of that number shall constitute a quorum; and by implication, at least, less than two-thirds shall not constitute a quorum. But Senators say another provision of the Constitution provides that a majority of all the members elected shall be requisite to pass a bill. Now they don't consider that according to its letter, because it may happen that only twenty-five will be elected, and no one will contend that a majority of that number can pass a bill. But the Constitution means a majority of all the Senators elected according to law shall be requisite to pass a bill, and the law says fifty shall be the number. Any other construction of the Constitution would lead us to that pointed out by the Senator from Randolph, which is called a reductio ad absurdum, because if there are only twenty-six Senators actually elected then fourteen could pass a bill; hence that is not the meaning of it. It means a majority of all the Senators that may be elected according to law. The Constitution further says that when there are vacancies they shall be filled by special election. Provision is made in the Constitution for filling these vacancies, so that the requisite number may be had to constitute a quorum and to enact a law. Hence I think there is no authority for action by a less number than two-thirds of the whole number, or for enacting a law with less than one-half of the majority of the whole number. Reference has been made to the action of Congress. That was an extreme case, and could be justified on no other ground than emergency, and that can not be taken in connection with the case before the Senate.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. The Chair sustains the point of order, that the resolution cannot be entertained.
Mr. HOOPER and Mr. JOHNSTON of Montgomery, severally made ineffectual motions to adjourn.
Mr. HOOPER was at a loss to know what Object Senators can have in view by remaining here when it is manifest we can do nothing. The President of the Senate has ruled uniformly, and the ruling is undoubtedly correct, that we can do no more business without a quorum such as the Constitution recognizes.A message from the Governor was announced at the door, transmitting the names of members of the Senate who have presented their resignations.
Here a lengthy discussion ensued as to the propriety of receiving any message from the Governor while there is no quorum present; in the meantime, a call the Senate was had, which discovered but 32 members answering to their names.
The message having been read for information-
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR decided that under the circumstances- it having direct reference to a quorum of the Senate-it is proper to be received.
It is as follows:
Hon. Will. Cumback, President of the Senate:
I have the honor to inform the Senate through you that the following named members of the Senate have on this, the 13th day of May 1869 presented and delivered to me their resignations as members of the Senate of the State of Indiana, to-wit:
- Thomas G. Lee, Senator from the counties of Shelby and Bartholomew.
- Ochmig Bird, Senator from the counties of Allen and Adams.
- Robert Huey, Senator from the counties of Jay, Blackford and Grant.
- J. M. Hanna, Senator from the counties of Clay and Sullivan.
- Charles B. Laselle Senator from the counties of Cass and Falton.
- Elijah Huffman, Senator from the counties of Ohio and Dearborn,John M. Humphreys, Senator from the counties of Green and Owen.
- W. S. Turner, Senator from the counties of Davies and Knox.
- William W. Carson, Senator from the county of Allen.
- Thomas Gifford, Senator from the county of Franklin.
- W. F. Sherrod, Senator from the counties of Orange, Crawford, and Perry.
- William Taggart, Senator from the counties of Brown and Jackson.
- George V. Howk, Senator from the counties of Clark and Floyd.
- William Smith, Senator from the counties of Huntington and Wells.
- W. H. Montgomery, Senator from the counties of Pike, Dubois, and Martin.
You will please present this communication to the Senate.
CONRAD BAKER EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, Indianapolis, May 13,1869.
Mr. CRAVENS now asked the privilege of introducing the resolution offered by the Senator from Switzerland (Mr. Bellamy.)
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR-Senator from Switzerland offers the following resolution-Mr. Bellamy having corrected it so as to read:
Resolved, That thirty-two Senators having answered to their names, that being two-third of all Senators elected, claiming seats on this floor-a message from the Governor having been read showing that sixteen Senators have resigned their seats-there is a quorum present to do business, and that we proceed accordingly.
Mr. JOHNSTON, of Montgomery. It is not in order to introduce a resolution.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR The chair decides that the resolution is not in order.
Mr. CRAVENS, in no spirit of disrespect, took an appeal to the Senate from page: 237[View Page 237] the decision of the chair having supposed what the decision would be from rulings heretofore.
Mr BELLAMY signified his willingness to join in the appeal.
Mr CRAVENS presented the following appeal:
A call of the Senate was ordered, and thirty-two senators having answered to their names, further proceedings were dispensed with. The message of the Governor announcing that sixteen Senators had resigned their seats was read. The Senator from Switzerland offered the following resolution, [here insert]; and the chair ruled it out of order. From that ruling we respectfully appeal to the Senate.
JOHN R. CRAVENS,
F. J. BELLAMY.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. The question is: shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Senate?
Mr. BRADLEY moved to lay the appeal on the table.
The motion was rejected by yeas 8, nays 24-as follows:
YEAS-Messrs. Bradley, Gray, Henderson, Hooper, Jaquess, Johnston of Montgomerv, Morgan and Wood-8.
NAYS-Messrs. Andrew, Armstrong, Beardsley, Bellamy, Case, Caven, Church, Cravens, Eliott, Fisher, Fosdick, Green, Hadley, Hamilton, Hoss, Johnson of Spencer Kinley, Rice, Reynolds, Robinson of Madison, Robinson of Decatur, Scott, Stein, and Wolcott-24.
Pending the roll call-
Mr. GRAY, when his name was called, said he did not want to accomodate the resigning members by divulging the fact that there is no quorum present. He voted to sustain the decision of the Chair "aye."
Mr. WOOD, when his name was called, was understood to say that he was one of those who entertained the opinion that it takes 34 members to constitute a quorum; consequently he voted "aye."
So the motion to lay the appeal on the table was rejected.
Mr. JOHNSTON of Montgomery. There is no quorum voting.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. The Chair decides, as far as this question is concerned, that they have the right to determine whether there is a quorum or not. I leave it with the Senate.
Mr. HOOPER. Mr. President: I do not desire to make any factious opposition to this resolution. It seems to me that we are now about to take a step we will have reason to regret, and I can not consent that toe vote shall be taken without entering my protest against it. Now, I have a clear conviction in my own mind that we can not do any legislative act without a quorum. Nothing that was said in the discussion of this question yesterday evening (in caucus) has changed my mind upon this question. The strong argument made in favor of the n of the fifteenth amendment, was really outside of our State Constitution. a matter the Constitution of the United States regulated; and it was placed more particularly upon that ground. But this question derives no support from that source, because the question of what constitutes a quorum depends entirely upon our State Constitution, and it does seem to me that the matter is so plain there can be no mistake about it. It provides that two-thirds of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business; and the other provisions in the Constitution all go to confirm this. It expressly provides that without a quorum we can do certain things, and can do nothing else. And what are they? Simply that we can meet and adjourn from day to day and send for absent members. If the other provisions left it in doubt at all so it was an open question, it seems to me this direct provision settles it beyond all controversy, and our duty is plain, definite and clear; and the only thing we can do is to adjourn from day to day and send for absent members. Entertaining this opinion in regard to this matter I must vote to sustain the position of the chair.
Mr. ROBINSON, of Madison, thought the Senator had spoken beyond his time.
And then came the recess till 2 o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. RICE offered a resolution authorizing the Lieut. Governor to draw his warrant in favor of O. M. Wilson for the sum of $100 for the calendar of titles of bills prepared by him at the commencement of the present session.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR said the trouble about entertaining the resolution is that the record shows we have no quorum. It has been decided all the morning that we can do no business without a quorum; and we have got a message from the Governor, audit goes upon the journal, showing that we can not have a quorum. The Governor's message informs us that we are left with less than two-thirds of the members of this body, and that fact is on the journal.
The following message was received from the House of Representatives by a Clerk thereof:
MR. PRESIDENT
-I am directed by the House of Representatives to inform the Senate that the House has concurred in the engrossed amendments of the Senate to House bill No. 311"A bill making specific appropriations for the year one thousand eight hundred and sixty-nine."On motion of Mr. GREENE the Senate took a recess for half an hour.
When the LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR resumed the Chair-
On motion by Mr. WOOD-
The Senate adjourned till 9 o'clock tomorrow morning.
