AFTERNOON SESSION.
The SPEAKER resumed at 2 o'clock p. M.
THE SPECIFIC APPROPRIATION BILL.
Mr. OSBORN. Mr. Speaker: I move that the House concur in the Senate's amendments to the Specific Appropriation bill [H. R. 311].
The motion was agreed to, and the Senate amendments were concurred in by unanimous consent.
Mr. OSBORN then moved to reconsider this vote, and to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.
The latter motion was agreed to.
THE FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT.
A message from the Senate now announced that that body had passed a joint resolution [S. 18] accepting and ratifying a certain amendment to the Constitution of the United States, in which the concurrence of the House is respectfully requested.
Mr. OSBORN. Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Putnam will give way for the Chair to lay before the House a message from the Governor.A message from the Governor, dated May 14, 1869, was read by the Clerk, announcing the resignation of certain members of the House of Representatives.
Mr. OSBORN. I move that the House take up the consideration of the Senate joint resolution No. 18, ratifying and accepting a certain amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and thereupon I move the previous question.
Mr. COFFROTH demanded a call of the House. He then submitted the point of order, that the consideration of this amendment having been fixed by resolution for hall-past two to-day, the motion of the gentleman from Putnam amounts to a proposition to amend the rules, and can not be now considered.
Mr. OSBORN. There has been no action of the House yet on the constitutional amendment. I insist that the yeas and nays can not be called after my demand for the previous question.
The SPEAKER. The Chair will hold the motion of the gentleman from Putnam is in order, and also that the demand for a call of the House is in order.
The call proceeded, and the record discovered 56 members present-Mr, Johnston, of Park, insisting that the names of the resigned members on the roll be not called, and the Speaker making the order accordingly.
Mr. COFFROTH, speaking to a privileged question, affirmed that by his watch, which was set this morning, it yet wanted five minutes of two o'clock.
Mr. OSBORN said his watch was with the House clock.
The SPEAKER said: I have my time fifteen minutes after two o'clock.
Mr. COFFROTH presumed that all the watches in the House had been advanced to suit that time. He now submitted his point of order, that there is no quorum present. According to all precedent, the Constitution and laws of the State, two-thirds of the members elected to either branch of the General Assembly are required to make a quorum; and no legislative'act can be done without a quorum. Therefore, inasmuch as the call of the House has developed only fifty-six members present-eleven members less than a quorum - of sixty-seven-the House can not do any legislative act; can not consider and act authoritatively and legally on this question.
The SPEAKER. In reply to the gentleman; the Chair has repeatedly decided that for the purposes of legislation it requires sixty-seven members to constitute a quorum for legislative business of any ordinary character-that being the number required by the Constitution of the State. But on the question presented here to-day, there is a great diversity of opinion. The Chair, of course, entertains its own views. But there is sufficient doubt in regard to this matter-which is, indeed, as I conceive, a matter of very great importance to warrant the Chair in holding that on the question of ratifying an amendment to the Constitution of the United States-in the absence of any precedent in the legislation, or in the Constitution of our State, in the absence of any law of Congress as to what shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of ratifying a Constitutional Amendment-the question never can be decided and settled unless it is decided in this way. It is a question which the Courts will have to decide. Then, notwithstanding the Chair entertains its own peculiar notions of the matter, it will decide and hold, that the motion to take up the joint resolution from the Senate is in order.
Mr. COFFROTH. I appeal from the decision of the Chair.
Mr. OSBORN submitted, that an appeal from the decision of the Chair is not in order pending a demand for the previous question.
The SPEAKER. The Chair thinks the demand for the previous question would not cut off the right of an appeal. But it will have to be decided without debate. The gentlemen will send it up.
Mr. OSBORN. I move to lay the appeal of the gentleman from Huntington on the table.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker. I call for the special order.
Mr. DAVIS, of Floyd. What's the matter with the gentleman over there? [Laughter.]
page: 240[View Page 240]Mr. COFFROTH now submitted his appeal in writing, which he himself read from the Clerk's desk.
On Friday afternoon, May the 14th, A. D. 1869, a call of the House having been ordered and taken, and having shown that only fifty-six (56) members were present, and no motion made to send for absentees, and a communication from the Governor having been presented and read, showing that on the 13th day of said May, forty-two members of the House had resigned, thereupon the gentleman from Putnam and Hendricks (Mr. Osborn) moved to proceed to the consideration of Senate joint resolution No. eighteen (18), which is a joint resolution to ratify the proposed Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, whereupon, the gentleman from Huntington (Mr. Coffroth) raised the point of order that it was not competent for the House to proceed to the consideration of said joint resolution, because there was no quorum present; and that for the same reason it was not in order to transact any legislative business. But the chair overruled the said point of order, and decided that the House could proceed to the consideration of said joint resolution.
Now from said decision, we, the undersigned, do appeal.
J. R. COFFROTH,
Representative from Huntington.
JOHN S. DAVIS,
Representative from Floyd.
Mr. COFFROTH demanded the yeas and nays on the motion to lay the appeal on the table, and the vote resulted-yeas, 54; nays, 3.
YEAS-Messrs. Baker, Barnett, Beatty, Beeler, Bowen, Breckinridge, Chapman, Chittenden, Davidson, Davis of Elkhart, Dunn, Fairchild, Field of Lake, Field of Lagrange, Furnas, Gilham, Gordon, Greene, Hall, Hamilton, Higbee, Higgins, Hutson, Johnson of Parke, Johnson of Marshall, Jump, Kercheval, Lamborn, Mason, Millekan, Miller, Monroe, Osborn, Overmyer, Pierce of Porter, Pierce of Vigo, Ratliff, Ruddell, Sabin, Skidmore, Smith, Stanton, Stephenson, Stewart of Ohio, Stewart of Rush, Taber, Underwood, Vardeman, Vater, Wildman, Williams of Hamilton, Williams of Union, Willson, and Mr. Speaker.-54.
NAYS.-Messrs. Coffroth, Davis of Floyd, and Mitchell.-3.
So the appeal was laid on the table, and the question recurred on seconding the demand for the previous question. The previous question was seconded, and the main question ordered, viz: Shall the joint resolution for ratification of the fifteenth amendment proposed by Congress to the Constitution of the United States pass?-the vote resulting-yeas 54, nays 0-as follows:
YEAS-Messrs. Baker, Barnett, Beatty, Beeler, Bowen, Breckinridge, Chapman, Chittenden, Davis of Elkhart, Davidson, Dunn, Fairchild, Field of Lake, Field of LaGrange, Furnas, Gilham, Gordon, Greeen, all, Hamilton, Higbee, Higgins. Hutson, Johnson of Parke, Johnson of Marshall, Jump, Kercheval, Lamborn, Mason, Millekan, Miller, Monroe, Osborn, Oyermyer, Pierce of Porter, Pierce of Vigo, Ratliff, Ruddell. Sabin, Skidmore, Smith, Stanton, Stephenson, Stewart of Ohio, Stewart of Rush, Taber, Underwood, Vardeman, Vater, Wildman. Williams of Hamilton, Williams of Union, Wilson, Mr. Speaker - 54.
Mr. COFFROTH, when his name was called, rose to the privilege of explanation, and said: When I became a member of this House, I took an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Indiana; and the Constitution the State of Indiana requires and prescribes that sixty-seven members here shall constitute a quorum to do business; and because the call of the House has determined that there are fifty-six members present-eleven less than a quorum of sixty-seven members-and as I regard this proceeding in violation of the State institution, I decline to vote.
VOICES. "Consent""consent."
Mr. DAVIS, of Floyd, when his name was called, rose to the same privilege and said. Mr. Speaker: This resolution is proposed as a ratification on the part of th? State of Indiana of a certain amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution of the United States, Mr. Speaker, was framed by our fathers, and we have lived and prospered under it many long years. It is now proposed to amend it by a mode unknown to the Constitution-not by the voice of the people, but in defiance of the wishes of the people of the State-in defiance of the Constitution under which we live, and in defiance of the the rules of this House. We are here sir, without a quorum-without the authority or right to do any legislative act; yet it is proposed to go through the farce of pretending to ratify this amendment to the Constitution of the United States which changes the organic law
Mr. OSBORN, interposing. Have you not just recognized this as a House, by appealing from the decision of the Speaker?
Mr. DAVIS. I insist, Mr. Speaker, that certain things may be done here, although a quorum may not be present; but to a legislative act, there must be a quorum of the body. But it does seem to me that the effect of your action, sir, upon this resolution is to bring the institutions and the Constitution of the country into disrepute. [Cries of "Order."] I do not make any imputation against any man in a personal sense; I simply address the Chair as the presiding officer of the body; but I do say that the inevitable effect of this action will be to bring the institutions of our country into disrepute.
Mr. KERCHEVAL, interposing. I submit, that the gentleman can not, under a question of privilege, discuss the merits of the question before the House.
The SPEAKER. It is not for the Chair to determine the course which the gentleman will take. The gentleman understand the parliamentary restrictions as well as the Chair, and it is to be supposed that will not exceed them.
Mr. DAVIS. Then I ask to be excuse from voting, because I believe that we have no right to vote on this question.
page: 241[View Page 241]Mr. DUNN, when his name was called, said: Like the gentleman from Floyd, I have sworn to support the Constitution of the State and the United States. Every Democratic member here took the same oath. When I took that oath, I swore I would support the Constitution, and act upon every bill or resolution that might come here in a Constitutional way. And I am here to-day acting pursuance of that sworn duty. But there are those Democrats who resigned, whose names are registered arid given in favor of the same obligation? I am here because the Constitution keeps me here the same instrument binds them, and yet there are they? I vote now, sir, upon this joint question, because I believe that I have a legal, Constitutional right to do so, and even did I think otherwise I would hold myself justified by the maxim, inter anna leges silent-"In rebellion laws are silent." I vote "aye."
Mr. GORDON explaining, said: I came here, sir, as a representative. My views are somewhat different from many others; but I will freely confess that my legal knowledge is not of that character which should enable me to decide this question in disregard of the views of more distinguished men. I have thought, and I think to-day, that the ratification of this amendment by this House at this time, would not be legal. Yet our greatest legal minds have said that it would be; and for one, I am willing to defer to the opinions of others more learned in the legal profession, especially in this case, because I feel that I am acting in a manner that will not only do justice to myself and my constituents, but justice to to mankind. In casting my vote to-day on this question, if I have doubts in reference to the legality of the act, I wish to say to the House that in my voice and my vote, my doubt shall be given in favor of humanity.
Mr. COFFROTH interposed. When did the scales fall from your eyes?
Mr. GORDON. They have not fallen perhaps; but if they have they fell "our years ago in battle with rebels. [Applause.] When I stood those years in that contest with the enemies of my country - I had occasion to find out who did not use to maintain this Government; and I shall vote not to refuse the right of suffrage to any man who, when called upon, took up arms in defense of his country-who took up arms for their country to put down the traitors banded to destroy it in the hour of trial.
Mr. MITCHELL, rising and asking to be excused from voting, said: Mr. Speaker, this is a grave and important question, and one upon which there has been no discussion by this assembly. Sir, it is a proposition which, when ratified by three-fourths of the States in this Union, will universally determine the destiny of this Republic, either for weal or for woe. Sir, we have had no interchange of opinions with regard to it, and it is for this reason alone that I claim the right to explain my position at this time. Sir, the great people of our government, the sovereigns of her power, without regard to party, have but recently unanimously declared that the right to control the question of suffrage belongs to each State for herself. By that I understand that if every State in this Union saving Indiana alone should vote to confer suffrage upon a class or race of people who are now deprived of that right, it would still be for Indiana to say whether she would do likewise. Should she refuse, what then would be the consequence? The answer to this question is to be found in the 14th amendment to the Constitution of the United States, viz.: Indiana would not be entitled to representation in Congress for the number of people from whom she has withheld the right to vote. Read that 14th amendment, and you will not, no, you can not fail to discover the fact that the people of this Government are driven to consult the platforms of the various political parties before they can ascertain what their rights are in this regard. For when the Constitution itself declares that if any State shall refuse to any portion of her citizens the right to vote, she shall not be allowed representation in Congress for that number, it says to every State in this Union, you may or you may not grant the franchise just as you like. But, sir, we are told that this is a proposition to amend the Constitution, and by that means rid ourselves of any further trouble upon this point. Sir, in answer to that I would say that it is an ingenious evasion of the point. Amend the constitution! Why, sir, do you propose to say to the people of Indiana that they shall no longer control the question of suffrage? If you do, and that is your argument, I publish the fact to the world. I repeat that the Constitution has declared the right in favor of a State. And our people are imbued with a spirit of its just appreciation. Sir, they are daily heaping their curses upon the heads of our Senators and Representatives in Congress who pledged to the principle, have violated their obligations to their sovereigns, and destroyed the faith and confidence of an honest and unsuspecting constituency by aiding in the destruction of the very principle they had sworn to protect. Sir, we are called upon to-day to vote for or against this proposition. I have sworn to support the Constitution of this State; that Constitution declares that we can do no business without a quorum. Then, Mr. Speaker, I will not acknowledge the right of this body page: 242[View Page 242] to act upon this question by giving my vote, neither for or against the resolution. I will not make perjury the last act of my connection with the Forty-sixth General Assembly of Indiana. Sir, I refuse to vote.
VOICES-"Consent," "Consent."
Mr. PIERCE, of Porter, explained his rote, and said: Mr. Speaker: I dislike to explain my vote, but the imputation cast upon those voting for this proposition by the gentleman from Morgan (Mr. Mitchell) seems to demand a brief review of this subject. Charges of perjury should not be lightly made, and it seems to me that the remarks of the gentlemen are wholly uncalled for and gratuitous. I have never had any doubt, sir, as to our legal right to pass this resolution, and to perform any other legislative act while a majority of the members were present. This is the only safe ground to occupy; it is the only interpretation of our Constitution which is in harmony with sound reason and common sense. To say that a minority of the General Assembly can resign and thereby defeat the will of the people as expressed through their representatives, is so dangerous a heresy, a doctrine so thoroughly fraught with disaster to the State, that I wonder the proposition should be entertained for a moment. Why, sir, if that is true, what have we left? What assurance have we that the precedent established here this winter will not become the ruling passion, and frequent and repeated resignations of one or the other political parties, upon measures which they may deem obnoxious, prevent any important legislation of the State? If that doctrine is entertained, I submit that our institutions are a mockery, our republicanism a farce, our State Government is nothing but a huge skeleton of anarchy, draped in the fig leaves of democracy. But, sir, I have taken some pains to examine this matter in the light which established precedents throw upon it, and am free to say that the more I have studied it the stronger has been my convictions regarding the legality of our present course.
As some of these precedents are Democratic, let me refer to those first for the benefit of my friend from Huntington (Mr. Coffroth.)
The oft-quoted section of the State Constitution reads:
"Two-thirds of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may meet, adjourn from day to day and compel the attendance of absent members."
Now, what is the House ? Is it the full number elected? If that is true, then the whole legislation of the State is illegal, because there is seldom, if ever, one hundred members present. Can there be a House, then, with less than the full number? And if so, what composes the House and Senate. Let us see? The National Constitution in its provisions regarding vetoed bills and amendments, is similar to that of this State -
Article 1, section 7, in regard to the veto power, says:
"If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of that House, it shall become a law."
Article 5 of the Constitution, relative to Constitutional Amendments, reads:
"The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to the Constitution, etc."
In the 36th Congress, thirty-three States were represented at the opening of its first sessions, with sixty-six Senators. During the winter of 1860-61, a number of Senators and Representatives abandoned their seats; and on the 2d of March, 1861, a the question being on the passage of the Joint Resolution, submitting what was known as the Corwin Constitutional Amendments to the Senate, the vote was ayes 24, nays 12, exactly a two-thirds vote of the Senators present, but not a two-thirds vote of the Senators present, but not a two-thirds vote of those entitled to seats, even after deducting those who had resigned.
The President pro tem (Mr. Polk, of Missouri), declared that the joint resolution had passed. Mr. Trumbull appealed, in order to have the question appealed, in order to have the question settled; and on sustaining the decision of the Chair, the vote was as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Anthony of Rhode Island, Bakes or Oregon, Bigler of Pennsylvania, Bingham of Michigan, Clark of New Hampshire, Crittenden of Kentucky, Dixon of Connecticut, Doolittle of Wisconsin, Douglas of Illinois, Durkee ofWis-consin, Fessenden of Maine, toot of Vermont, Foster of Connecticut, Grimes of Iowa, Gwin of California, Harlan of Iowa, Hunter of Virginia, Andrew Johnson of Tennessee,Kennedy of Maryland, Latham of California, Mason of Virginia, Nicholson of Tennessee, Pugh of Ohio, Rice of Minnesota, Sebastian of Arkansas, Sumner of Massachusetts, Ten Eyck of New Jersey, Thomson of New Jersey, Trumbull of Illinois, Wilkinson of Minnesota, and Wilson of Massachusetts-33.
NAYS-Mr. Wade of Ohio-1.
So the Senate decided, almost unanimously, that two-thirds of those present were constitutionally two-thirds of the Senate.
In the debate on the appeal, Mr. Pugh sustained the decision of the Chair, and referred to many decisions in the early Journals of the Senate, which I have not time to read, and finally alluded to the action of the Senate July 7, 1856, overruling the veto on the Mississippi River bill, by ayes, 31; noes 12, where Mr. Bright, President pro tem, decided that the bill had again passed, notwithstanding the President's veto, and an appeal was taken from the decision, the ruling of Mr. Bright was sustained and the principle reaffirmed that two-thirds of the members present were two-thirds of the Senate.
It will be observed that this precise princible was involved there, as the National Constitution requires two-thirds of each House to pass a bill over the veto of the President, precisely as our State Constitution requires two-thirds to form a quorum. page: 243[View Page 243] This is Democratic precedent, too, as Mr. Bright was in the chair, and made the decision, while such men as Benjamin and Slidell, of Louisiana; Cass, of Michigan, and Douglas, of Illinois, warmly sustained the decision. [See Globe, 1st session 34th Congress, page 1,550.]
Mr. COFFROTH (interrupting). O! well! Bright was a secessionist.
Mr. PIERCE. Then this should certainly be the best authority for the gentleman from Huntington. [Laughter.] Some may try to confuse the mind and make a distinction without a difference between the cases I have cited and our own, by saying that in all these a quorum, (which was a majority,) was present, while in our own the Constituion demands that there shall be two-thirds. Without replying, as I might very readily to this, by pointing to the fact that where two-thirds is demanded by the Federal Constitution, (that is, in the passage of vetoed bills and submission of amendments,) only those present were counted; without doing this, I say, I will put this beyond dispute by referring to cases where legislation has been accomplished by less than a majority of the members elected, the number required by the Constitution to form a quorum. I read again the following extracts from the Senate Journal. On January 4th, 1790, there being then twelve States, and twelve Senators present, that number was held to be a quorum, though all the members had been elected by the States, because as the Journal reads, "it is supposed that the seat of one of the Senators of Virginia, Mr. Grayson, had been vacated by death" - a significant exception.
In the House of Representatives, the Constitution had fixed sixty-five Representatives as the number which the thirteen States should be "entitled to choose!" But, at the opening of the First Congress, only eleven States had ratified the Constitution, and they were "entitled" to fifty-nine Representatives. When thirty appeared, the Journal declares that "a quorum was present. At the second session of the Seventh Congress there were sixteen States, entitled to one hundred and forty members. On the 'th of December, 1802, sixty-seven appeared, which the Journal explicitly declared to be a quorum, as follows: "being a majority of the whole number of qualified members."
In the Tenth Congress, December 7, 1808, when membership was still one hundred and forty, a majority of which would be, on a call of the House fifty-nine members having voted, it was declared to be a quorum.
I might multiply these precedents, but I must not impose upon the patience of the House. There is one more, however, to which I wish to refer, it being such excellent Democratic authority, and I expect, after reading this, that my friends from Floyd and Huntington will vote for the Constitutional Amendment:
On the 19th of July, 1861, Speaker Grow decided, there having been but 183 Representatives chosen to that Congress, 92 was a majority of all chosen, and the majority of a quorum would be 47, whereupon the following colloquy occurred. [See Congressional Globe, Thirty-seventh Congress, page 210]:
Mr. VALLANDIGHAM. I concur in that decision. Then the Chair decides that the previous question is seconded.
The SPEAKER. The Chair so decides.
Mr. VALLANDIGHAM. I think the House consists only of the members sworn in.
The SPEAKER. The Chair has held in this case that those chosen constitute the House, as they have been returned to the Clerk.
Mr. VALLANDIGHAM. The Chair has no knowledge of any member unless he appears here. The question may become material by-and-by, and I save the point.
Mr. Vallandingham went much beyond us; he did not wait for them to resign, but "had no knowledge of any member unless he appeared in the House;" and he said the question might become important and he saved the point. The question has become important to us, and I am glad the point was "saved" for our information. Indeed, the only serious objection in the Senate to this course was made by Garret Davis of Kentucky, and he only insisted that substantial efforts should first be made to secure a majority of the whole number before declaring less than that a quorum. Then, Mr. Speaker, believing that I have the precedents established by the highest legislative authority in the land, as well as the plainest rules of reason and common sense to support me, what hesitation should I have in casting my vote here to-day? I have none. The vexed question of negro suffrage is about to be settled for all time. We have had strife, confusion, turmoil and bitterness enough. The question whether the negro should be enfranchised has been a vexed and annoying one. They have been the threatening cloud which has hung over this nation for years. Let us dispel the cloud by voting for this just provision, and thereby set in the political heavens the rainbow of peace to us and of promise to them. I vote "aye!"
Mr. STEWART, of Rush, explaining, said: Mr. Speaker, I have no difficulty in voting on the point before the House-as to the manner in which it is to be done I see no difficulty. Somewhere in my reading I remember what is said of an ancient law-giver giving a code of laws to the people. He gave his code, and, in the course of it being operated upon, there came up a question in a case where a father killed page: 244[View Page 244] his own son. And the case came for trial before the law-giver in order to be adjusted, and the law-giver said, when he had considered it, that it was a case so unnatural that he had made no provision in his code for such a case. Now, sir, I consider that we are in a similar condition. The resignation of these forty-two members of the House presents a case so unnatural that it has not been provided for in precedent-it presents a case so unexpected that it has not been provided for in our legislation. Therefore I consider that when these cases do occur they discover great principles that are wanting in the Constitution, and leave us to meet the question of revolution with revolution-to assume that it is Constitutional to do what is right. I vote "aye."'
Mr. UNDERWOOD explaining, said he had taken an oath with others to support the Constitution, and recognized the obligation. The Constitution prescribes that two-thirds of the House shall constitute a quorum. We have just received official notice of resignations that reduce the number of members in the House to 59. Two-thirds of that number are 40, and with this understanding we have a quorum in the House. I vote "aye."
Whereupon, the SPEAKER announced the result and declared the joint resolution adopted by the House of Representatives.
And then, on the motion of Mr. JOHNSTON, ofParke-
The House adjourned.
