SUPPLEMENTARY
TO
THE BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
VOLUME ELEVENTH.
Proposed Amendments to the Constitution of the United
States----The Fifteenth Article----Debate in Continua
tion.
IN SENATE.
TUESDAY, April 13, 1869.[CONTINUED FROM PAGE 41, VOLUME XI.]
Mr. CRAVENS. Mr. President: I know, and I suppose it is known to every Senator on this floor, that the people demand of their public servants the discharge of their duties; and they especially demand that the necessary and important legislation of the State shall be completed. It is well known also that the minority in this and the other branch of the General Assembly have determined, and are still determined, that a legal vote shall not be taken on the proposition to ratify the XVth amendment to the Constitution of the United States. I know very well, Mr. President, that, sooner or later, a compact and determined minority is a power that must be recognized.-While I, for one, would not, as a representative of the people, make any undignified or improper pledges or contracts for the purpose of having legislation attended to-which is as much binding on one as another of us-I am disposed to accept the situation.
This Constitutional Amendment has never been before this body, or the other, for action. It was simply presented through the message of the Governor; and there never has been a joint resolution presented for its ratification and acceptance. In that view of the case, I think, perhaps, the action of the minority was not at all necessary. But since the House has been organized, with a view to giving time to perfect and complete the necessary and indispensable legislation of the State, and for the purpose of giving time to our Democratic friends to mature their plans, I have a proposition which I intend to offer this morning. It is a proposition of a valid character. In the first place, 1 propose to offer a joint resolution ratifying and accepting the Constitutional Amendment as proposed by the Congress of the United States, so that it may be a question properly before the body. Then I intend to offer another resolution: and the object I have in view I intend to state frankly -end squarely. I am satisfied that this Legislature will not have the opportunity of voting with a quorum of either House, perhaps, on this proposition. And, in order that this proposition may not be before either body at the demand of the majority, or as a terror to the minority, I propose to make a disposition of it.-I now offer a joint resolution ratifying the Constitutional Amendment ; and I shall keep the floor until it is read, that I may offer the other resolution.
The Secretary read as follows:
A JOINT RESOLUTION Accepting and Ratifying a certain Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
WHEREAS, Congress has, by a two-thirds vote, proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when Ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the States, shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as a Part of this Constitution, namely:
"ARTICLE XV.
"SECTION 1. The right of the Citizen of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, nor by any State, on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.
"SEC. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation:"
Wherefore-
Be it Resolved by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana, That said Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby
page: 275[View Page 275]Accepted and Ratified on the part of the State of Indiana:
Mr. CRAVENS. Now Mr. President, the resolution is before the body, and in order to dispose of it for the present and in order that it not be in the way of legislation-
Mr. JOHNSON of Montgomery. Is this the first reading of the joint resolution?
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. A joint resolution is not required to be read three times. At least it has been the custom here to read joint resolutions but once.
Mr. CRAVENS. Now for the purpose of disposing of this resolution, and getting clear of it for the present, and in order to fix the when it shall be considered, I offer the following resolution.
Resolved by the Senate, the House of Represents concurring, That the consideration of the Resolution accepting and ratifying, on the part of Indiana the proposed Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, be postponed and made the special order for action at 2 o'clock on Tuesday, the eleventh day of May next ensuing, in joint Assembly of the two Houses to be held in the Hall of the House of Representatives on said day and at said hour.
Mr. CRAVENS. Now, Mr. President, the resolution explains itself. It is a postponement to a particular time, and in order that we may get clear of it, after explaining it I demand the previous question.
Mr. HANNA. There is such a thing as fairness in all transactions. The passage of resolution is intended to legalize a joint meeting of the two Houses.
Mr. CRAVENS. I attempted an explanation; that I thought would be satisfactory to the majority and to the minority here. I will say this proposition has not been the subject matter of any agreement in any Republican caucus. I want to place this Fifteenth Amendment; so that it will be before both Houses. Senators know it is in the same position as if House would make it the order for a special day and hour; there would be no quorum either branch, and if it is made the order in joint Assembly, the probability is that it would be the same thing; so in point of fact it amounts to the same.
Mr. HANNA. I hope the Senator will withdraw the motion for the previous question. This a proposition to raise a joint convention of the two Houses, and that is outside of understanding.
Mr. CRAVENS. If there is any understanding about it, I do not know it.
Mr. HANNA. The House postponed it till llth of May without the concurrence of senate. I move to strike out Mr. CHURCH (interposing.) The previous question having been demanded the motion to amend is not in order.
Mr. HANNA. I ask the members of the majority whether they want to stop this session-
Mr. GIFFORD (in his seat.) I desire to leave in case this is pressed.
Mr. CHURCH. I hope the Senator will have an opportunity to leave.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. The previous question having been demanded, the Chair is obliged to stop the discussion. As many Senators as second the demand for the previous question will rise and stand till counted17. As many as are opposed will rise20. The demand is not seconded. The question recurs upon the resolution offered by the Senator from Jefferson [Mr. Cravens.]Mr. HANNA. I move now to strike out that portion providing for a joint convention of the two Houses.
The motion was rejected by yeas 20, nays 24, as follows:
YEAS-Messrs, Bird, Bradley, Carson, Denbo, Gifford, Hanna, Henderson, Hooper, Huffman, Humphreys, Jaquess, Johnson of Spencer, Johnson of Montgomery, Laselle, Lee, Montgomery, Morgan, Sherrod and Taggart-20.
NAYS-Messrs, Andrews, Armstrong, Beardsley, Bellamy, Case, Church, Cravens, Eliott, Fisher, Fosdick, Gray, Green, Hadley, Hamilton, Hess, Kinley, Rice, Reynolds, Robinson of Madison, Robinson of Decatur, Scott, Stein, Wolcott and Wood-24.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. So the amendment does not prevail. The question recurs on the passage of the resolution.
Mr. HANNA. I do not want to act hastily about this matter. I want to make one more effort in good faith. Therefore for the present I move to lay both resolutions on the table till we can have a talk with our friends.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. It is not competent to move to lay two subjects on the table, but inasmuch as these seem to belong to each other, it may be proper, though I am not quite clear about it.
The motion was entertained by the Chair, the yeas and nays were called, and-
Mr. ANDREWS, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said : I really wish to take no advantage of our opponents in regard to this question.
Mr. HANNA (interposing.) I withdraw my motion for the present, as several Senators say they want to hear the question discussed. I will say that this matter has been postponed by the branch in the other end of the Capitol, as we are informed by the proceedings of the House as published, till the 11th of May, and if this resolution is adopted in the form it is now, it will have to go to the House for concurrence. Now, according to parliamentary law it has passed beyond their control till the 11th of May, and there will be a great deal of time consumed in its discussion there even if this resolution is passed here. We had private assurances from many members of the opposition who are honorable gentlemen and who will stand by their pledges, that the consideration of this question should be postponed page: 276[View Page 276] till after the legitimate business of the session should be disposed of, and then after the House met they adopted a resolution putting off this matter till the 11th of May. Now it appears to me to undertake to raise a joint convention of the two Houses for the purpose of considering the Constitutional Amendment, is not acting in good faith to the minority here, and I say for one I stand here opposed to it. I say the minority are ready to take up the legitimate legislation necessary to carry on the affairs of the State government, and perhaps a great deal more, and go on and discuss and perfect and complete and carry it forward, but we stand here desiring to oppose the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment. The House has fixed a day when they will consider it, and if you see proper to sit here and fix a day when you will consider it, well and good, and if we see proper to get out of the way by resigning that is a matter of our own.
In my judgment this kind of legislation cannot take place by the joint meeting of the two Houses; but that is a matter that has been extensively discussed in the public prints; certainly we cannot get in a joint convention by the action of the separate branches unless there is a quorum present to adopt the resolution to get in there; and you ask us to adopt a resolution for a joint convention when in good faith we ought not to sit here and let you do it. I do not put it upon the ground that you have the power, if we stay here, to pass it, but upon the ground that it is not good faith to adopt that resolution now. We are willing to take the responsibility of getting out of the way when you attempt to pass this Constitutional amendment but we don't want to get out now, yet if you are going to press it in this shape I am not going to say that we will stand here and allow you to do it.
The Senator from Jefferson (Mr. Cravens) says he wants this amendment before the Senate. All I have got to say to that is, that the Constitutional amendment was before this Senate in the form in which Congress, I suppose, required it to get here, and that was through the Executive branch of the Government. The Governor has laid it before us. The form that has been usual is the adoption of a joint resolution ratifying it by the separate action of the two branches of the Legislature-not in joint convention. Now this joint resolution introduced by the Senator from Jefferson looks to that kind of legislation which has been usual and ordinarily adopted, and that is that each branch shall act separately upon the joint resolution adopting or ratifying the Constitutional amendment. That is the first resolution offered by the Senator from Jefferson, he then accompanies that with a resolution of the Senate to be concurred in by the House, by which, instead of pursuing the usual course, there is to be a joint convention of what may be left of the two branches on the 11th of May for the purpose of acting upon this matter. To that portion we object, and why? Simply because it is outside of the arrangement we with men that we consider honorable and we will stand by their pledges that the consideration of this matter would not be taken until some future day placed at such long time distant that we can perfect all necessary legislation.
Mr. RICE (interposing.) Does not the resolution effect that purpose?
Mr. HANNA. Not in the ordinary mode. In making arrangements with gentlemen never look for extraordinary proceedings. Where an amendment to the Federal Constitution is to be ratified it is usually done by separate action of each branch of the Legislature. The House so understands it, and has adopted a simple resolution, as you may see by referring to the published proceedings, postponing this matter till the 11th day of May then a motion was made to reconsider and that motion laid on the table. According to all parliamentary law that question is beyond the reach of the House till the 11th day of May, and therefore this concurrent resolution if adopted here will attempt to open up a question which is settled there till the 11th day of May and thus throw into the House a very disturbing element. The House in good faith carried out the agreement made between gentlemen and I hope the Senate will do the same thing.
Mr. CHURCH (interposing.) I would like to ask if Mr. Pierce of Porter, who offered that resolution in the House, or Mr. Wildman, who demanded the previous question thereon had made any pledges with any man as far as the Constitutional amendment is concerned?
Mr. HANNA. I do not know anything about it, except that there was an agreement between gentlemen. I am not a member of the House and therefore made no agreement with members of the House. Members of the House made an agreement between themselves and members of the Senate did the same; and as I said before, I hope it will be carried out here in good faith. If a simple resolution be adopted fixing the 11th day of May for the consideration of the Constitutional amendment; the minority stand ready to go on with the legislation of the State, for I assure you Mr. President, there is no disposition on the part of the minority to avoid legislation upon any single question affecting the welfare and the interests of the people of the State.
Mr. GREEN. I infer from the gentleman's speech that he has an arrangement with gentlemen upon this floor.
Mr. HANNA. I say I only have the word of gentlemen, and when given it is always page: 277[View Page 277] binding. I have no arrangement with them.
Mr. GREEN. Have you the word of gentlemen not to broach this question?
Mr HANNA. I only have their word that the consideration of this matter in relation to the ratification of the Constitutional amendment shall be postponed till some future time, regarding it in reference to the usual legislative mode of considering it, I object to this extraordinary mode of proceeding.
Mr RICE. If I understand the Senator's remarks he holds that there is no difference between the validity of action whether this resolution be passed by a majority in each House or whether by a majority when the Houses are together on concurrent vote. I wish to know if that is the Senator's opinion. If the effect would be the same, then there is no extraordinary measure proposed.
Mr. HANNA. According to my judgment is a lawyer, there would be no difference between one course and the other. But I will state what I suppose to be the object of the Senator from Jefferson [Mr. Cravens] though I did not desire to anticipate it. It is a part of the history of the country when by joint action of each branch of the General Assembly they were convened together for a certain purpose-the counting of the votes for Governor-at the end of counting the votes the officer presiding over the joint Assembly assumed the responsibility (which the Senator from Jefferson assumed last session) to control that body and adjourn it at such time as he thought proper. That was done upon a previous occasion some years ago. After that the joint convention met upon the day the presiding officer designated for the purpose of taking into consideration questions before them, among which arose the election of United States Senators.
Mr. CHURCH. Was that when Bright and Fitch were elected?
Mr. HANNA. Yes sir. That action whether legitimate or not it is not for me to say, but it was so considered on the ground that there was a quorum of each House present at the time they adopted a resolution to go into joint convention. Now this attempt on the part of the Senator from Jefferson, if this is his view of the subject, to reenact that very thing when the House has taken a different view of it and the minority have taken a different view, is not right. I say all we ask is fair play, we don't want to stop legislation. It seems to me we had better go along with it. Fair dealing requires that we should go on in the ordinary and usual mode, and postpone this question and get clear of this disturbing element in the minds of Senators.
Mr. CRAVENS. Mr. President, I want to see this matter talked about and discussed in good feeling but there is one tone or temper manifested by the Senator from Sullivan [Mr. Hanna] that I don't exactly admire, and that is he keeps intimating that the proposition under consideration is an evidence of a want of fair dealing.
Mr. HANNA (interposing.) I did .not say on your part. You have already disavowed that this is an action of a Republican caucus, or that they are bound by it, therefore I only called upon Senators who made these pledges to see that fair play was had.
Mr. CRAVENS. There has been no time since that amendment was forwarded to the Executive of this State by the Secretary of State of the United States that I would not have subordinated it to the passage of necessary legislation. At the end of the last session I did make an engagement with the Senator from Sullivan and other Senators, and that was this: and it is the only engagement I ever have entered into. On the Tuesday morning previous to the time the Democratic Senators resigned, the Senator from Sullivan, I believe sincerely anxious that legislation should be forwarded, stated the fact that the minority were disposed to resign on that morning unless they got an assurance that the Constitutional amendment should not be taken up out of order. I, with others, told him that as far as we were concerned it should not come up, and even if the caucus decided to take it up out of order I proposed that he should have timely notice. That was reiterated by us in the caucus. But it unfortunately was stated that myself and other Senators on this floor had gone back upon our engagements, and when I came back here, after it had been spoken about in the districts, I determined that I would not in any way enter into any engagement:-I would let legislation go before I would, because I regarded the vote upon that Constitutional amendment as a necessary act of legislation of the State-one that I was under obligations to see perfected. Therefore I have made no engagements, and I have offered this in simple good faith. What is it, sir? Simply a question of postponement, and a way by which the whole subject might be removed from this branch and the other branch, so that it should not be an element for the delay of legislation, and so the majority should have no temptation to seize it out of its order I propose to put it in that position. What is the position? As I said when up before, if we made it the special order for the 11th of May in this body and the other branch it is more than probable, nay, more, I know that when the time comes for taking it up we will again be without a quorum. These men will act consistently and as I said before it is a power we must recognize: and I say so still. And more, if this body would not be competent to do business without a quorum and the other body would not, would the two bodies together be any more competent? But I know what these gentlemen want. page: 278[View Page 278] It is a political advantage they are demanding, and I know they intend to have it as far as they are able to control it, and all I ask is that we be put upon an equal footing with you. I am not going to interfere with any measure you undertake for the accomplishment of your purpose; nor could I interfere if I desired it. It is simply for us to determine whether that mode would be legal or illegal. As to the question whether it would be legal or not Congress or the Supreme Court will decide if we take that mode. But I well recollect the case the Senator from Sullivan [Mr. Hanna] speaks of. That Convention never was ordered by either branch of the General Assembly. Resolution after resolution for that purpose was introduced into this body. I then was in this body and belonged to the majority, but no resolution was passed. And no resolution ever passed the other House because when a resolution was introduced in that House the minority walked out So a resolution was never passed in either body, yet we all know what the result was. And if we simply wanted to rely upon that case as a precedent this would make no difference whatever. The question, the whole question and all that there is involved in this resolution is simply a proposition for its postponement And for what purpose? Only that the majority and minority may go to work and do their duty in reference to local, home legislation. Then why refuse to pass it?
Mr. BRADLEY, (interposing.) Does the Senator assert seriously that that is all there is in it.
Mr CRAVENS. That is all I can see in it.
Mr. BRADLEY. Does it not say that on a certain day it shall be considered in joint Convention.
Mr. CRAVENS. Yes sir.
Mr. BRADLEY. That is what I object to.
Mr. CRAVENS. Why do they object to that? They say by their every action that less than two-thirds can do no business. We know what their purpose is in asking a postponement of this. As far as I know these men have never asked that they should have more than one or two days notice before this amendment question should be taken up. Now we give them twenty odd days-nearly a month. If they really are desirous, and I have no doubt some of them, perhaps all of them are, to complete the legislation for which almost every interest is languishing and every man, women and child in the state is clamoring, they would go forward with the legislation now. As this is only a reference to the resolution to a body which they say is illegal; if illegal why do they object to having it sent there? These men have stood out upon that principle, they have resigned upon that principle, and come back here demanding pledges. If we can do no business as parts of one whole, how in the name of heaven can that whole do business! It seems to me to be a very clear proposition; but if we are disposed to take the risk well and good. The main object I had in view was to postpone this question to a day certain, and place it out of the power of either House to take snap judgement upon the minority; and yet the minority oppose it.
I have made them a fair proposition - a proposition that in my humble judgement conflicts with no obligation; for, as far as I have heard from these men, all that has been asked was that no action should be had without at least one two or three at most, days notice. How we give them twenty days - nearly thirty days notice. Where is the sincerity of their profession to discharge their duties to do the legal legislation for which the people of the state are clamorous?
Every one knows that the object these men had in resigning was to carry this proposition as an issue in the canvass of 1870. I care not so much about the fate of the proposition but am anxious that it should be disposed of an not go there as a disturbing element. I will take all fair and honest advantages to have this thing ratified, but if I can not accomplish it honestly let it fall and go into the canvass of 1870.
But why do these men oppose this resolution? We have seventeen days in this month, and eleven in the next. All legislation needed by the people can be taken up and perfected, and then as we approach this matter gentlemen can retire if they are disposed to do so.
But I had another object in view, and that object was conceived in deference to that very power we say we are bound to recognize; and that was that these gentlemen need not resign unless they choose to do so, because you would be as effectually free from any contact as if yon had resigned. I put it at an hour when it would not be necesary for you to be present at the hour of two o'clock, when all parties could go from their hotels and boarding places without going from one chamber to the other. Why this opposition I can not conceive unless these gentlemen honestly believe it would be a legal mode of ratification.
Mr. HANNA (interposing.) Will the Senator permit me? Do you believe a ratification by a mere majority would be legal?
Mr. CRAVENS. I will say to the Senator this: I have some doubts about it.
Mr. HANNA. Do you believe it would be legal if ratified in each House separately by a mere majority - there being no quorum?
Mr. CRAVENS. Not till we had exhausted out constitutional power to secure that quorum. I am not even fully clear that a majority of this body and the other body would be a work page: 279[View Page 279]ing Legislature, but I say if we were willing to take the risk of passing it in this House and House without a quorum we would be equally willing to take the risk and let the authorities who have to pass upon it determine the question as to its validity. I do not want this discussion to come up, I wish to take an quiet vote. I had no idea our friends would make any objection to this vote. I had no idea our friends would make any objection to this vote. I had in view the entire removal of this question from before both branches of the General Assembly. If that action is illegal it can't hurt these gentlemen to adopt it, and if it is legal and we pass it, I say we have triumphed over them, when they were trying to get a political advantage over us. It is a question so far as we are concerned. As far as we are concerned the have a certainty; and hit is if they continue to resign, they will carry this matter into the canvass of 1870. Now admitting it to be a fact, for the sake of argument, that we propose to gain political advantage we are taking very heavy risks-a risk that will have to be passed upon in all human probability by the Supreme Court of the United States. Suppose that simply by the vote of the state of Indiana this amendment should be ratified, and it be passed by this State in the way proposed, Congress would not pass upon it. When they undertook to make laws under that amendment it would have to be a question for the Supreme Court. But I am not going to discuss the legality of the thing. I am not prepared to say whether that would be a legal view or not; the main purpose I have is the postponement to a day that would leave both branches of the General Assembly free to proceed with necessary legislative business. As far as risks are concerned they are all on our side.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President: From the time I first took an interest in politics, I have had but one opinion upon this question, ind that is that a joint convention without a quorum of the two House was a nullity. That has been my opinion, and that has been the doctrine of the party I have acted with. And that was the opinion of the party at the time that thing occurred that has been referred to on this floor, and I don't think we have had any other opinion upon that subject. I don't know that the Democrats ever held as a strict question of law that that election was legal. It was only made so by the Senate of the United States; perhaps as a matter of necessity more than law. Holding that view of the question-believing that a joint meeting without a quorum of the two Houses would be illegal, I cannot see that this is a breach of good faith. It is supposed of course, that there will not be a quorum at that time, and under that supposition that if a quorum is not here any action would be illegal-I cannot see that it would be a breach of any faith on the part of gentlemen who have made some statements to those on the opposite side of this House. I have made some statements, and I will live up to them. But when they hold up to me a matter that is a violation of law and say that is a breach of faith, I don't think their position, is tenable. If gentlemen upon the other side of this floor can satisfy me that a joint convention witout a quorum is a legal body I am ready to stand up to what I hold to be the statements I made and act upon them in good faith. That is the difficulty with me. And my conviction is strong upon that point, and I wait for light. I only have their own precedent. They now deny the legality of it. With my convictions of law and duty I am in favor of this proposition.
Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President: Whatever act I have performed in bringing in a quorum of the Senate was done upon the faith and promises made to me personally by Senators in the opposition party; entirely so. Not by any written pledge, but verbal promises made by Senators on the other side, and those promises were that this question should not be considered until the day named. The understanding we made was distinct. This question was not to be considered. Strange as it may seem these gentlemen insist that there is nothing in this resolution but a postponement of the question until that day. It is strange when there is a further fact that it also provides that on that day there shall be a Joint Convention of the two Houses. If you leave that out I would be glad to have it passed. But if it is insisted that that shall remain and that this Senate now, having us in here, and having a constitutional quorum, shall go so far upon the passage of the resolution ratifying the constitutional amendment as to provide the mode by which it shall he passed, I must, I can not avoid regarding it as a breach of good faith; and a persistency in that, I am sorry to say, will put it out of my power forever to trust the promises of gentlemen from that side.
Mr. GIFFORD. Mr. President: I am no lawyer and consequently cannot say what bearing this proposition will have in the Congress of the United States, but I know my position upon the subject before the Senate. I came up here fully instructed to vote and use my influence to prevent the ratification of this proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States until the people have had a fair opportunity to express themselves at the polls on this subject. I am instructed to resign at every full and change of the moon if necessary to defeat it. (Laughter.) It is not necessary for me to discuss the matter. I expect to obey my instructions. I did not come up here to betray my constituents. I do not think any Republican member is bound to press this question, especially those who were elected two page: 280[View Page 280] years ago. If they had resigned as we did and had come up here with instructions how to act on this question, we would expect them to have the vote taken at this session; but as they are not in that position-having refused to go before the people-I think it not proper that they should press this question, at least until they give us notice and then we expect to resign. I came in here expecting that they would give us at least one day's notice. All I ask is to let this go over one day, and if I am here to-morrow morning you may act upon it. "We were promised one day's notice and I don't want but one day.
Mr. CHURCH. I would like the Senator to give the names-
Mr. GIFFORD. We are not allowed to give the names until we have been betrayed.
Mr. CHURCH. Is the promise in writing ?
Mr. GIFFORD. It is in my noggin-in my head-and my veracity will pass in my county.
Mr. HOOPER. Mr. President: I realize that this is a question of some importance and we ought to give it a fair and deliberate consideration. I am glad that this matter has been discussed in good temper. I am sure I would regret that the minority on this floor should be placed in a position by which they should be led to believe that there had been an act of bad faith on the part of the majority here or any portion of the majority, and by which my friend from Laporte (Mr. Bradley) would be placed in a position to hereafter and forever place no further confidence in the word of the majority. Now what is the condition of this question ? It seems to me it is precisely this : The plea that the minority has made in reference to the consideration of this question all the way through has been that it shall not be acted upon hastily; that they shall have sufficient time to consider it, and that it shall not be pressed upon them. Now this very proposition is one to continue the consideration of this question to a future time; giving them not only one or two days, as they claim has been promised to them, but absolutely giving them some thirty days before we propose to take this matter up and act upon it. Now, is not that the material question involved in that resolution? It seems to me it is.
Another question has incidentally come up. Gentlemen have said that the adoption of this resolution would be a step towards legalizing the ratification of the Constitutional Amendment, and that is the position of the minority upon this question. As I have said before, a convention called in the mode this resolution proposes to call one, and the adoption of this amendment by such convention would not amount to anything. Then what harm could be done by the adoption of this resolution? I have myself always entertained that view of this question, and it has been fairly presented in the progress of the debate upon this very issue. If we believed that getting into a joint convention without a constitutional quorum would be legal and proper, we might have done so after the other resignation. We acted upon a different theory, and now this proposition is one made for the purpose of determining the mode of ratification upon the theory that we will have a quorum. Taking this view of the question I cannot see any bad faith in this proposition. I have not given the subject that investigation I ought to perhaps, but my present view is that if a quorum was not here then the adoption of this Constitutional Amendment without a quorum would be operative and void. Therefore I say no act of bad faith whatever. It is simply providing a mode by which we propose to act upon the theory that the minority will be here with us.
Mr. BRADLEY. If that is the Senator's opinion what good purpose will be effected bv the adoption of this resolution?
Mr. HOOPER. It will do this good: it will fix and determine the mode by which we propose to act. I can see no reason why we should not to-day fix upon the mode we propose to adopt in the disposition of this amendment, for that is precisely what it amounts to. Let them break up this Legislature upon this simple proposition to postpone action till the 11th of May if they dare.
Mr. HANNA. The minority is not oposed to the postponement, but to fixing the manner and mode of ratifying this amendment.
Mr. HOOPER. I understood the Senator to say that the ratification would be illegal and unconstitutional without a quorum present.
Mr. HANNA. I did not say so.
Mr. HOOPER. I understood him to take that position. It comes with ill grace from the minority to present any such question as that, for they are the very men that is the very party that has acted upon that theory. It was the question they presented in the election of Bright and Fitch. They acted upon that theory and while it might do for a United States partizan Senate to admit members who had been elected in that way, yet I cannot hold to its legality.
Mr. BRADLEY (interposing.) The party did not act upon that theory. They did not pass any resolution for such a convention.
Mr. HOOPER. They tried but did not succeed; that is the only trouble. But while it might do for a partizan Senate to admit members elected in that mode, where their judgment was final and not to be overruled by any other tribubal, I do doubt upon an issue like this-the adoption of a matter of so much importance as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States-whether the United page: 281[View Page 281] States Senate would admit it as having been legally adopted, when the question might be reached in some other way.
Mr. HANNA. Mr. President: The opinion I expressed as to the validity or invalidity of the ratification of the Constitutional amendment was in reference solely to its adoption by joint convention. I did not present any opinion upon the other point. But I will say now very frankly, for we should be frank, that there are serious difficulties in the way. The Constitution of the United States provides that it shall take three-fourths of the Legislatures of the several States or by Conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode may be proposed by Congress, to ratify amendments proposed to the Constitution of the United States. Now observe the language: "when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the States." What is the Legislature of a State? Two Houses acting separately each for itself, constitute a legislature. In view of that fact I expressed some doubts as to the ratification by a joint convention being legal. But still in the case of Bright and Fitch it is different. The language of the Federal Constitution in regard to United States Senators is that they shall be "chosen by the Legislature" of each State. Some Legislatures-and a great many of them-elect by concurrent act, each branch voting separately, and whenever they concur on the same man, declare him elected Senator. Under our State Constitution the Legislature was bound to come together, to count the votes cast at the election of the fall previous for Governor and Lieutenant Governor. A certain day was fixed and they came together, and were adjourned to a day fixed by the presiding officer on his own volition. Upon that day there was a majority of each House together. They came together by virtue of the Constitution of the State. Certainly there was a quorum of each House present in the first place when the resolution was passed resolving to go into the Convention.
Mr. CRAVENS (interrupting.) I beg pardon: A majority of the Senators were on the other side of the House. Time and again a solution had come from the House or been introduced here, but we understood what was to be done and we resisted all the time the passage of any resolution and no resolution ever passed; nor was there a quorum-
Mr. HANNA. That makes the case still wronger which I am going to put. As the federal Constitution requires that the Legislatures shall elect Senators, and the same Constitution requires that the Legislatures shall ratify amendments, then if they cannot elect a Senator with less than a quorum they cannot ratify an amendment in like manner. The trouble is to get in joint Convention. You cannot get there unless the law or Constitution authorizes the meeting. There the Constitution compels the two Houses to meet for the purpose of counting the votes for Governor and Lieutenant Governor, but here it is proposed by the action of the two branches of the Legislature to fix the time, and mode, and manner, and place in which we shall assemble to act in reference to the ratification of the proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States. And I say it is not good faith on the part of the men who have pledged themselves to us that this amendment shall not be taken up till certain notice shall be given to us: for if we adopt this resolution it is in effect taking the first primary and principal step towards the ratification of this amendment and we are not going to stand here and see it done.
Mr. CRAVENS. The Senator is throwing some light upon the subject, and I will ask him if the constitution of the United States don't make an express grant of power to Congress to regulate the manner and mode of the election of United States Senators?
Mr. HANNA. Yes sir. But we have a later act which did not exist at the time of the election of Bright and Fitch. At the time they were elected there was no time, nor mode, nor manner prescribed otherwise than that each State should choose by the Legislature thereof two United States Senators. But now now we are called upon here to fix the time, fix the manner and fix the place in which we shall meet and consider the question of ratification of the Constitutional amendment, and I say by that act we would take the first and primary step toward ratification.
Mr. BELLAMY. If we pass a resolution of this Senate fixing the time and a certain day, will not that fix the time the place and manner?
Mr. HANNA. My answer is at hand. We would fix the time and manner of acting but by each House independent of the other, because that is the usual mode. When that time arrives, if there is no quorum you have already determined at the last session that there is no power to proceed any further. Now you can't get into joint convention except by the adoption of a resolution of each body, and no resolution can be adopted but by the action of a quorum. Now you ask us to sit here and do this thing when we have acted upon the faith of the pledges of gentlemen that we shan't be trapped. We can't stand still and do this.
Mr. GRAY. As I understand the Senator he would have no objection to a simple resolution. This is a concurrent resolution.
Mr. HANNA. But it fixes the time and mode and manner.
Mr. GRAY. I understand the House has postponed this question till the 11th of May, and that a motion to reconsider was laid on page: 282[View Page 282] the table. I will ask the Senator if he thinks the House can consider this concurrent resolution even if it is sent there?
Mr. HANNA. I am the last man to be guilty of any discourtesy to any gentleman, but what cannot gentlemen do if they violate their faith with us? What can't they do? I conceive if they will be governed by parliamentary law, that it is beyond their reach till the 11th day of May. They have put it out of their power to consider the question till the 11th day of May; but they have the majority and they can take up what they please. We have got to take that risk. If the majority say they will thrust this down our throats, that agreement they made with us is violated.
The Senator from Jefferson, [Mr. Cravens,] has said that we want to get this question before the people, and that he does not. Now I say the response which has been made by the people of Indiana as far as they have been consulted, has been to buoy up and strengthen the hands of those who appealed to the people for advisement upon this subject, and we are willing to stand there. But why force it upon us now? If I understand the late action of Congress, and the results that will probably follow, Indiana will not be called upon to act upon this amendment. You had better postpone this thing then as the House has done for thirty days, and let it go along, and before that time the action of Congress proposing to force upon the down trodden people of the south this Constitutional amendment, will become the law of the land. It appears to be a contest for the purpose of over reaching those Senators who in the simplicity of their hearts supposed that the honor of men might be trusted. Now the Senator from Jefferson [Mr. Cravens] alluded to a conversation between myself and himself last year. I would not allude to it if he had not. I went, in all good faith, to that Senator, and asked, there being a day fixed for the consideration of that question then, whether it would be brought up before that time. Two or three other Senators were in the room and they assured me it would not. We have been found fault with because we resigned before that hour arrived, but we did so simply because a member of the Republican caucus told me that the Senator from Jefferson and one other went into the caucus and urged them to take up that proposition next morning. The Senator from Jefferson, says he did not do any such thing, but I am only apprised of that since I came here-
Mr. CRAVENS (interposing.) With the Senator's permission I will say that not only did I not urge it, but I asserted in the Republican caucus, as did the other Senator that if it was to be taken np before the time set we were in honor bound to give you timely notice. I appeal to Senators who were members of that caucus if this statement is not correct.
Mr. HANNA. I say, acting upon information we received direct from a member of that caucus we made out our resignation before the hour for the consideration of the question. Now, acting upon that information we tendered them to the Governor. Now we have received assurances, verbal assurances from Senators sufficient to control this question if the stand by their assurances, that we shall have due notice. Now here is a joint resolution to ratify this Constitutional amendment, proposed by the Senator from Jefferson, and a concurrent resolution aecompanying it: and I say these Senators if that concurrent resolution is adopted the initiative and important step is taken towards the ratification of that amendment. These men have given us their assurances;-will they go back on them? I do not want to be deceived again in this thing. I want to act in good faith.
I come here with an overwhelming majority of my people saying: stand aside when they propose to adopt that amendment. I would like to see that question laid before Republican counties, and if we don't get a majority their vote, I will say you may adopt it at any time. You say we have a compact minority but I disclaim that I am a leader of that minority. I am not. Whatever voice I may possess with that minority is simply on account of my personal and mental qualifications, whatever they are. But we have no leaders. We are all leaders. We act as the voice of the people of Indiana tells us how to act. These men have assured us that we shall have at least one day's notice; and if they intend to carry out that assurance now is the time to carry it out.
Mr. ROBINSON, of Madison. I wish to say that the writing which was before yoor Caucus was withdrawn after you rejected it.
Mr. HANNA. We never rejected it What is the verbal assertion of the Senator from Madison on that subject?
Mr. ROBINSON, of Madison. I said as other Senators have, that before the consideration of this question should be brought up in the Senate, you should have one day's notice. If the Senator will convince me that the proposition before the Senate is in violation of good faith I will vote against it.
Mr. HANNA. All I ask is one day's notice.
Mr. SCOTT. I have said upon this floor; before this House was organized that before this question should be taken up I would voice to give them one, two, or five days notice; and I say now if the gentleman and his party, or those that are acting with him think that this is in violation of that understanding I am ready to vote to sustain that statement that made upon this floor.
Mr. HANNA. I have already said that I believe it is the initiative and important step page: 283[View Page 283] in reference to it. I say if this concurrent resolution is adopted fixing the time, place and mode of ratification, and it is concurred in by the two Houses, and a majority of the two meet and ratify the amendment in accordance with the terms of the concurrent resolution the thing is gone. So does the Senator from Jefferson understand it; and so does the majority who are working for it understand it, or they would not stand-
Mr CRAVENS, (interrupting.) I hope Senator does not design to misrepresent me. I said I had doubts upon it. I drafted the resolution with the full understanding that those who support it take the risks: and I think it the best mode for the reasons I have stated. No one believes or contends that the will be present in either branch or in it assembly when it meets.
Mr HANNA. "Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." We have not said that we will resign thirty days from now. I only say lift it is bad faith they intend to perpetrate on us. And to do that which will produce gratification in a form that is at least dangerous; I say that we are bound to stand here and take this step under the instructions we have received from this people that we were to oppose it in every form. As far as I concerned I will do so. I know a large majority of the people of Indiana are opposed to this thing. We are called the minority but we are placed in that peculiar position where the minority are representing a large portion if the people of the State, and those representing the minority of the people, are insisting n having their own way to the destruction of ordinary legislation.
Why is it that this thing is thrust in here at me? Why is it, when the proclamation e Governor calling us together says that we are to consider the "necessary appropriations to carry on the State Government and et the current expenses of the Benevolent and other institutions of the State?" The appropriation bills are named in this proclamation, and why is it that this thing, outside of what is named in the proclamation of Governor, is the first thing thrust in upon and we are required to take it in this or leave our seats? Is this a people's government? Are the people to be heard here in reference to a radical change in the laws of a kind that gives a large increase of votes into the hands of a population that never heretofore exercised it? It concentrates in the general government what was never thought of in the adoption of the original Constitution of the United States. Yet the Senator from Jefferson s that he desires that the people shall not be consulted upon this subject. Now I say if we are going to change our form of government and give the people no voice in it, let us proclaim an Emperor. If the people are not to be heard when a large majority are represented by a minority here-their voice is not to be regarded and if a questionable majority of the hour, is to override all promises, and all pledges, what is there left of a people's government here?
Now, Mr. President: a majority of the members on this floor can proceed with legislation or not as they see proper. I am not a leader but I speak for myself when I say they can go on or they can clog the wheels of legislation if they see proper. They can go on or they can stop legislation if they see proper.
Mr. JOHNSON of Montgomery. I offer the following amendment:
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. Before the amendment is considered I would like to lay before the Senate a message received from the House, as it perhaps ought to be acted upon before the adjournment.
The Secretary read the House concurrent resolution for a joint convention to secure the services of a minister of the Gospel to open the session in joint convention, this afternoon, with prayer.
The resolution was concurred in.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR makes the committee on the part of the Senate to consist of Messrs. Hanna, Hamilton and Morgan.
The Secretary read the resolution of the House inviting the Senate to a joint convention, at four o'clock, to receive the Governor's message.
Mr. HANNA. I move to lay that on the table.
Mr. CRAVENS. The Senator [Mr. Hanna] alluded to a ruling I made while in the Chair during a Joint Assembly last winter, as being-similar to that made by the Chair at the session in which Bright and Fitch were elected. The case was different. We have a Rule of the Senate which provides that in any Joint Convention of the two Houses, when the business for which they were specifically called together shall have been transacted, then the Convention shall adjourn. Upon that principle I ruled, in the case referred to, without any action of the body itself. Rule 55th of the Senate reads as follows:
55. In all joint meetings of the two houses of the Legislature, convened for a specific purpose, it shall be incompetent for this body, or its members to engage in such joint meetings in the transaction of any other business than that for which they were so specially assembled.
Mr. HANNA. What would be the ruling of the Chair on the subject of adjourning that convention to another day?
Mr. CHURCH. I do not think the Chair called upon to determine a question which is to arise in the future.
page: 284[View Page 284]Mr. HANNA. I have great confidence-
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. The Chair would not hesitate to give a ruling when such a question may arise, I do not think that the Chair has any power over a joint convention.
Mr. HANNA. Under that decision, I will not object to the resolution.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. Is there any objection to the consideration of the resolution?
Mr. HANNA. I move to postpone its consideration till two o'clock.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. If there is any objection, it cannot be taken up.
Mr. JOHSON, of Montgomery's amendment was then read as follows:
"Strike out all that refers to a concurrence of the two Houses, and strike out that part which refers to a joint convention of the two Houses,"
Mr. BELLAMY. The amendment is out of order, because a motion of that kind has been voted down.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. It is slightly different, and the chair will rule it in order.
Mr. JOHNSON, of Montgomery. Mr. President. My amendment will make the resolution simply one postponing the consideration of the amendment till the 11th of May. It strikes from the resolution all that part making a joint convention, which is something that never has been done. It is the first time in the history of the State of Indiana that there has been a resolution presented that would make a special order by a concurrence of the two Houses. It is a thing unprecedented and I hope the amendment will be agreed to and then the resolution be adopted so that we can go on with business.
Mr. LASALLE. Mr. President, Gentlemen seem to have doubt as to the effect of this resolution. For my part I have not the least doubt but that if the Senate pass this resolution the House will pass it, at the day fixed, whether there be a quorum in either House or not; and that a joint convention raised in this way has the power to pass the resolution ratifying the Constitutional Amendment. Now nothing is more common than for some of our duties to continue after the session expires. After the two Houses pass this resolution it makes no difference what becomes of the quorum. The members composing that Joint Convention are authorized by us to carry out our resolution upon the well known principle: i facit per atium, facit per se: that which a person does by others, he does by himself. We consider them as our agent to carry out our resolution. Hence the importance of this proposition, and hence why i think it is deciding the question upon this subject. If we pass this resolution and the House should pass a similar resolution the thing is fixed, and whether there be a quorum or not that joint convention has full power and authority to carry out the resolution each House passed separately. Now in regard to the passage of a bill, that is different; but this is not a law. If it were a law we could not authorize any other body to enact it. The Constitution says that the taking effect of no law shall depend upon any other than legislative authority. But this will not be a law, for the Constitution says, all laws shall be by bill.
It has been said by gentlemen on the opposite side, if we are sure that members of the House have pledged their honor as members that this matter should not be considered till the 11th of May, why have we any fears about the passage of this resolution. I will answer if they have confidence in the other House, why ask the passage of this resolution? To keep good faith with their friends in the other House. Why not pass a similar proposition? What harm can be done by it? The other House has passed a resolution postponing the consideration of the whole subject till the 11th day of May; Why caanot this House meet their friends in the other House on the same ground, if they were disposed to act in good faith? And why not carry out pledges made verbally? I simply ask, if the other body has done right, why not do as they have? And what harm can ensue if this body pass the same resolution as the other?
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President: I do not know what action I may be led to take; for the situation is truly alarming, When any question comes up here-a dog law, a road law, or a question of finance that a certain party that seems to be in the majority does not like, they get up and say: You shan't do it; we will resign and go home if you don't stop legislation right here; we will resign and you will be responsible for our going home; we know what your constituents want for we have been home to ours. I tell you sir, if I have got to this pass in Indiana, it is different from other States in the Union. If that is the proper course to be pursued in Indiana it is different from other States. But I do not believe it is proper in this State.
The Senator from Sullivan [Mr. Hanna] states that the action of Congress has been such that within thirty days this will be the law without our action; and yet stands up so obstinate that notwithstanding that he would stop the legislation of this State rather than give up that will of his and his friends not to submi to the majority. Didn't he say so?
Mr. MORGAN (iuterposing.) I would like to know how the Senator from Sullivan go here?
Mr. CHURCH. I suppose he came on the cars. I don't know but that he insists upon page: 285[View Page 285] the old fashioned way of traveling-determined to be a Democrat as Democrats used to be - I don't know but that he came up on horseback; - I think it quite likely, as he has not changed his course, and probably still votes once in four years for General Jackson. Republicans come up on the cars, generally speaking.
Mr. HANNA (in his seat.) On free tickets.
Mr. CHURCH. Be that as it may; I will tell you how the Senator got here. I suppose he was occupying a seat here. I suppose he was occuplying a seat here, sworn faithfully to perform his duties as a Senator, but a question came up; he feared the majority might differ from him, and he resigned. Said he I won't perform; the duties which I have sworn to perform. I have come and agreed faithfully to perform my duties, but I am afraid to perform my duties, but I am afraid the majority will differ with me, and I won't perform any duties but will resign and go home. We know his people wanted him here, and thought it bad for him to go home. We thought he ought not to make them pay $1,000 to come back and we urged, plead and begged of him to remain, but he went. What was the result? We did not run anybody against him because we wanted -
Mr. GIFFORD (in his seat.) They run a nigger against me.
Mr. CHURCH. If they would run a nigger against you in Porter County he would beat you. [Laughter.] I overheard a nigger just about such a man as the Senator from Evansville-say of me one day, "I'll be darned if I blame Church for being an abolitionist he is so near black himself;" and that may be one of the reasons why in my county they gave me about six hundred majority and in the county adjoining about the same.
But in order to carry out the will of this minority, (because this will become a law in about thirty days, according to the Senator from Sullivan,) they say they will resign. And I say that is alarming. It is a precedent for minorities in all future time. Next year, if the Senator is right, the Republican party will to in the minority, and will they resign, upon every question of politics? There is a precedent here.
With reference to this question of agreement: what was it? Will they pretend to say that these men agreed that they will not fix any time or manner in which this should be acted upon in the future ? I do not believe they promised to do anything more than to delay the time. These men think they see a Possibility that this Constitutional amendment may be ratified without their help. Dare they ask more than to say: We wash our hands of this iniquity; we are satisfied it is wrong; we will go out and leave you, gentlemen?
Mr. HANNA (in his seat) That is what We propose to do.
Mr. CHURCH. I give you distinctly to understand that I have been elected to carry out principles. I do not ask the Senator from Sullivan or the Senator from Franklin to undertake to tell me what my people want. Beleiving this I will do my duty, and if the Senator from Franklin wants to walk out he probably knows the way having so recently come in. I ask if we have not done our duty ? and if these men go out I ask if they have not as much interest in this State as we? I was in hopes the Senator from Laporte [Mr. Bradley] would withdraw his language : that if we act this way he has forever lost all confidence in the promises of the majority-
Mr. BRADLEY (interposing.) I had no reference to the Senator from Porter [Mr. Church.] He made no pledge to me. I asked none.
Mr. CHURCH. It is injustice to charge the rank and file of the Republican party with these things without naming the persons making the pledge, and the language in which their pledges were made. It is unjust to make the wholesale charge that they have all violated their pledges and obligations. If any person is to be charged with violating their pledges, the precise language should be stated, so that we can see and judge whether they are justifiable in the view they take.
Mr. CRAVENS, (interposing.) I would ask if it would not be a more proper plan when the charge is made by Democratic Senators that this course is in violation of good faith entered into by Senators upon this floor, to let those Senators rise in their places and relieve Democratic Senators from the obligation not to reveal or announce themselves, and not throw the responsibility upon all the Republican Senators? If Senators have made pledges inconsistent with the course now pursued, I think it is unjust to them, and still more unjust to the men who have made obligations.
Mr. CHURCH. This would be proper if these charges did not reflect upon all of us. The Senator from Laporte has relieved me. I think it unjust for a man to run until somebody is after him. But this charge falls equally upon Senator Jaquess as upon that Senator there, and upon Senator Johnston as upon the Senator from Vigo: and equally upon the whole of them because it is not charged what was said or who said it. I undertake to say, while there may be promises or statements out, it was not the intention of those parties to entrap Democrats without giving every opportunity they desired. While some Republican Senators may have stated, time and again, that they would not take up this resolution without giving the Democrats notice, they have not pledged themselves that no time should be fixed, or as to the certain page: 286[View Page 286] manner in which a time would be fixed. And I challenge a Senator to get up here and state if they have, and if so, who made them; and until they do I shall say they have no authority for making these charges, and that they are not true.
Mr. GIFFORD. I do riot propose to name any names. It is a private matter until we are betrayed. We are not allowed to make public the names until we are betrayed. All we expect is for them to give us one day's time; and then if we stay here it will be our fault.
Mr. CHURCH. I ask if any stronger pledges were given verbally than were given in writing by members of the Legislature.
Mr. JOHNSTON, of Montgomery. I rise to a point of order.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. State your point of order.
Mr. JOHNSTON, of Montgomery. The point of order is this: that the Senator has no right in any way to attempt to call out private pledges made between Senators.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, The subject has been alluded to frequently by Senators in debate, and I presume it is right for the Senator to discuss it.
Mr. JOHNSTON, of Montgomery. The Senator has no right to demand that any Senator should be required to reveal secrets.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. I do not think the point of order well taken. I think a Senator has the right to demand if he desires to, the demand to be complied with or not, as the other Senators please.
Mr. CHURCH. If this matter is not to be talked about, I have nothing to say.
Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President: Allow me to say that I used strong language about this matter. The pledge was this: or the assurances and statements upon which I relied, and influenced others to act upon were these : that the Constitutional Amendment should not be considered until a day certain; and before that day arrived we should have several days notice, one at least. Upon this I induced as far as I could others to come in, and I said if Senators persisted in the passage of this resolution I would be compelled to regard that as a violation of good faith.
Mr. CHURCH. Then it is a question between the Senator and those others as to whether that was a contract and bargain or not. That is whether it included this further matter brought up to-day. I undertake to say that he is mistaken in believing that it includes the question raised here to-day. The Senator told me that question was one of post ponement-
Mr. BRADLEY, (interrupting.) The Senator does not report correctly. I will say again that the question of this amendment should not be considered, understand me?
Mr. CHURCH. I understand he said two ways: before that resolution should be passed -
Mr. BRADLEY, (interrupting.) No sir.
Mr. CHURCH. He ways these parties agreed that we should not consider this question. Very well; we won't consider the question; but did they agree not to fix the time?
Mr. BRADLEY. I made no objection to the time. I would vote for it, but not in the manner proposed.
Mr. CHURCH. We are willing to fix more than the time. He don't say whether these parties agreed any thing with reference to whether the constitutional amendment should be considered in joint convention or separately in the two Houses. I think they would not and shall act upon it in that way; although it is not pleasant for me to be governed by a few persons that will make any kind of contract with Democrats. I am satisfied I never can deal with them without loosing. I am satisfied I never can bargain with them without getting the worst part of the bargain. Upon the question of ratification we have agreed to fix the time far in the future; but they are afraid we will leave it in such a position that the majority may act upon it; and they are not satisfied with getting out of the way themselves; but are not satisfied unless they take such action as will prevent the majority from doing anything. Enough for them is to get out of the way, I should think, and not stop to prevent our doing anything. Now I say I believe these men [Republicans] have not pledged themselves so far but what it is their duty, seeing the intention of these men to prevent legislation, to act like men; and I hope they will do it. And if these men desire to go before that time they will go. I hope today, (if they are afraid,) that they will go today. I thing this thing would be got along without them. I think we will run the nigger next time a little. I am disposed to stand firm; do nothing wrong, but do right.
Mr. GRAY. I move that we adjourn.
The motion was agreed to.
And accordingly-
The Senate took a recess till two o'clock p.m.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
[Mr. STEIN'S Speech (which occurs here) on this question of the Order for the ration of the Fifteenth Amendment having been too long delayed for authentication, it found in this Appendix, page -.]
page: 287[View Page 287]Mr. HANNA. Mr. President: As I am one of those addressed in the letter called in question by the Senator from Tippecanoe, [Mr. Stein,] perhaps it is nothing but right and proper that I should give a correct version of that. And I would state now that at the adjournment of the last session, and after I had been informed of certain things to which the Senator from Jefferson [Mr. Cravens,] alluded, I failed to have that confidence in the word of man which I had before that time possessed. I am naturally of a confiding disposition, and when a man tells me a thing is so, or shall be so, and it is in his power to make it that way, I am inclined at all times to believe it. When a man deceives me once, it is my misfortune, but if he deceives me once, it is my misfortune, but if he deceives me a second time it is my fault. Therefore it may be for that reason that certain Senators are asked for no pledges.
Mr. STEIN, (interposing.) I would ask that the Senator alludes to?
Mr. HANNA. I allude to the running debate between the Senator from Jefferson, [Mr. Cravens,] and myself. I can only state-
Mr. STEIN. Inasmuch as a remark was made by the Senator from Laporte, that I had not been asked for pledges, I should like to biow whether the remark affects me?
Mr. HANNA. I will tell you. And I will state here, that I went to the Senators from Jefferson, [Mr. Cravens,] and Tippecanoe, [Mr. Stein,] and two or three other Senators on the Tuesday morning after this suffrage amendment came in on Monday, and I asked them if it was at all probable or likely that the amendment would be taken up or an hour fixed for its consideration. I was exceedingly anxious, as I am to-day, to do the necessary legislation for the State of Indiana. I applied to these Senators, who with two others I knew, would give the Democratic party the control of this Senate as to this question, and they gave me the assurance, as I understood it, that it should not be taken up without notice. Whether properly or improperly, whether rightful or wrongful, a member of the Republican party who attended their caucus that convened Tuesday night, came to me-
Mr. CRAVENS, (in his seat.) Wednesday night.
Mr. HANNA. No, Tuesday night, came to me and told me that the Senator from Jefferson, and the Senator from Tippecanoe after it was ascertained that a sufficient number could be commanded to ratify this amendment, they got up and advocateed and asked to bring the question upon us the next morning and put it through in violation-
Mr. STEIN, (interrupting.) I desire to have the floor when the Senator gets through to make an explanation.
Mr. HANNA. You can make it now.
Mr. STEIN. The conversation alluded to was had in the room of the Senators from Jefferson, [Mr. Cravens,] and Wabash, [Mr. Fisher.] There was no one present except us four. It occurred on Tuesday morning before the opening of the morning session-the very morning succeeding the day upon which this amendment was communicated to us by the Governor. The first thing said to us by the Senator from Sullivan, [Mr. Hanna,] according to my recollection-of course I desire to put no wrong construction upon the Senator's own recollection-I presume he takes his and I take mine;but the first remark made by him was that he came to notify us that the Democratic Senators had their resignations ready and proposed to resign. I asked why, when we had postponed the consideration of the amendment till Thursday at two and a half o'clock? He answered that they could not rely upon that-that the Democrats were apprehensive that we were simply waiting to have our forces marshalled-there was a slim attendance Monday-and then that we would recind the special order and pass the amendment right through. We told him that was no purpose of ours, and if he desired proof of our sincerity that we would pledge our words that we would stand against any such thing. And he said if we would do that-knowing Judge Hughes' petition, it would be satisfactory. We gave him to understand that we spoke only for ourselves,' and if the caucus should come to a different conclusion we would give him due notice; add it will be remembered by the Republicans in that caucus, that we expressly informed our brethren in caucus, that if we came to the conclusion to take up the amendment we were in honor bound to the Senator from Sullivan, to notify him of our action. The President, [the Lieutenant Governor,] I believe was in the caucus, and will remember that notice. I have been resting under the recollection all along, definite and clear, that we were to notify him before any action should be had on the amendment provided our caucus concluded to take it up, so the Democrats should have time to resign.
Mr. HANNA. I do not allude to this to get up a controversy. It is a matter of different recollection, as there always will be upon verbal arrangements. It has shaken, to a great extent my confidence in men, and until yesterday I had no information different from what I state now. Now, Mr. President, how have we proceeded since we came here? We made propositions, through the Senators and Representatives holding seats on the floor of the two Houses, to the opposition, upon what terms we would come in and proceed to the legislation which the Gouernor commanded us to come up here to do. This proposition was published the next morning, in the public prints. We had not expected that. How they got hold of it I do not know; certainly not through me, though I was the original drafts page: 288[View Page 288]man of the proposition. We then made another proposition. That proposition was treated, as far as I know, with silent contempt. We never received any answer. I might say that the authority of the two Senators holding seats and the Representatives holding seats, to act for the whole party, having been questioned by the Republican caucus, we re-adopted the very same proposition and sent it back, but never received any answer to it. We submitted a fourth proposition; that we would come in and transact the business for which the Governor convened us-pass the appropriation bills and other necessary legislation-provided we have assurances that this proposition to amend the Constitution of the United States be postponed, and we have at least one days notice of its consideration. That was treated with silent contempt and no effort was made by them to get at legislation. Thereupon comes a proposition from members of the Republican party, acting not outside, but independently. Now the Senator from Tippecanoe, [Mr. Stein,] comes here and cracks his plantation whip over these Senators. He hopes none of them will bow the supple knee to-the people-the people. He is here cracking his whip-we will see whether they obey his behests or not.
This proposition made by these several Representatives and Senators, whose names I do not mention except that of Mr. Osborn, whose name has been mentioned by the Senator from Tippecanoe, [Mr. Stein,] was not acted upon by the Democratic caucus-it was not in a form to require any action. But there was a committee appointed-my colleagues had the kindness to make me chairman, and I drew up a letter, which will in dne time be published, stating that if they would put this proposition in form it would be accepted. Then comes the reply of Mr. Osborn; and that reply says these promises had been repeatedly made. The very point in controversy had been repeatedly made, that letter says. What did we do with that letter? That letter came to me. I have known Mr. Osborn from his boyhood and I will say that he is an honorable man. The letter was received and thereupon the caucus adopted this resolution which I read as part of my remarks:
RESOLVED, Thaathe House shall organize to-day, and immediately thereafter a resolution shall be introduced postponing the consideration of the fifteenth amendment until after the disposal of the necessary business of legislation. If said resolution is adopted, the Senate will then organize; but, if it is not adopted, the Senate will not organize, unless terms are obtained.
Now sir, members of both Houses of the opposite party were informed of this resolution. Members of the Democratic party then went in, were sworn, the House was organized, and the resolution was passed unanimously men standing by their pledges in the House as gentlemen always should. Let weal or woe come a gentleman should stand by his word when he gives it. They stood by and adopted the resolution, and believing that the Senate would be equally honorable with the House we came in and were sworn in. Now we are met with a proposition, which they say is not the action of the Republican party, to entrap us. What does the letter say? That it was not the intention or purpose of the Republican party to entrap us. What does the Senator from Tippecanoe say? It is open war, war to the knife and to the hilt between a faction on one hand and the Republican party on the other. He asks no quarter and will give non. He will thrust this down the throats of the people, whether they desire it or not. No quarter, he says. Well, let him stand upon his platform and other gentlemen upon theirs and see whether he can crack his whip and stop them.
Here is the resolution upon which we went into the two Houses, of which the gentleman was informed was the action of our caucus. We desire to take up the legislation of the State as the only business the Governor commanded us, and that is to pass the necessary appropriation bills. We desire to take them up and act upon them; and I would rather take them with all their defects and put them through, than stand here wrangling over the question whether the right of suffer-age shall be extended or not. I say the Republican party were informed of our resolution the democrats went into the House and the republican members in good faith carried it out. And we had the right to expect it would be carried out in the Senate. After what passed at the last session of the Legislature I exacted no personal pledges and I have given none. I know if a man were to give me a personal pledge and treat me in that kind of a manner it would be a personal matter between him and me, and we would settle it, if he placed me in a false position before the country and before my people.
The Senator from Tippecanoe [Mr. Stein] says we must act upon this ; that it is a great reformation; that Christ himself had opposition raised to him, and objection must be expected to nigger voting. He makes that kind of blasphemous comparisons! [Laughter.] Now I say that my objection to extending the right of suffrage is not on account of the negro as a man, for I know nothing about him. I never was in a slave State in my life. I never had a negro about my house, and don't know anything about him. All I know of him is that history records the fact that from the earliest time of civilization to this, that you cannot make a government-that you cannot constitute a government, giving the power in the hands of two races, but you sow in that gov page: 289[View Page 289] the seeds of its own destruction, Jealousies, discords of all kinds and bickerings will spring up which ultimately results in revolution and anarchy. Mexico is a good example. For forty years I believe every five years on an average they have been in revolution. Every man has equal privileges there and what a government they have got!
I am not afraid, if you see fit to pass this Censtitutional amendment but what in ten yeary the majority of colored people would array themselves under the standard of the Democracy in voting. And why? (Laughter from the Republican benches.) Because the Democracy have been their friends. (Renewed laughter.) There never was four millions of black people, since the earliest period of civilization that were so well protected as these in the United States. Why did you ever know of the blacks in this country eating each other? and don't they do it in Africa? Didn't the Apostles visit that country when they visited the others, and yet they have never advanced a single step in civilization, in the arts or sciences, in commerce, or agriculture even, for three thousand years. Now, again, they would range themselves with Democrats because they are poor men and laborers. Politicians are dividing themselves in this country into the monied power and the power of labor - the power of wealth against the power of labor. And I think, naturally the poor men will range themselves on one side, and men controlled by wealth on the other. Of course some poor men will be on the side of the rich because they will hire them. They may do that for a time but they can't do it all the time They will get tired opening their purse strings. Therefore I say I am not afraid, as far as the success of the Democratic party is concerned I am not afraid of the adoption of the amendment. I oppose it on the ground that it is a concentration of power in the hands of the general Government, and is making a consolidated government, and not a confederate government. It is an attempt to revolutionize-a strike at the foundation of the principles of government as established by our fathers. And they are doing it in defiance of the people. And yet if these gentlemen think their constituents will sustain them, why are they afraid of submitting this question to the people?
Now, all we ask, and earnestly insist upon, is that necessary legislation for the State shall be had before the question is taken up, discussed, or in any manner acted upon. This is another evidence of the sentiment getting abroad that the general government must control everything. All the necessary legislation for the support of the Asylums for the Blind, Deaf and Dumb and Insane, must wait for this. I have heard gentlemen here talking about the soldiers and say they will be the friend of their widows and orphans, and yet they stand here thrusting the nigger between the soldiers and the soldier's widow and children. They profess to be the friends extraordinary, not ordinary friends of the soldier, and the soldier's widows and orphans, and yet we see anothre evidence of the evershadwning demands of the general Government that the amendment to the Constitution shall take precedence of everything in the State. Now I hope the threats-if they may be called threats-this cracking of the plantation whip by the Senator from Tippecanoe [Mr. Stein]he is very fond of it for I have heard it often-I say I hope it will have no effect. And I tell the gentleman he had better look to his own position, for he stands upon slippery ground.
I have a right to talk this way, for I have appealed to the people to know what they thought of my course here, and they sent me back. As far as that is concerned, however, I take my own course without consulting my constituency; and if it don't please them they can send somebody else. I think I have said all I desire to, unless some gentleman makes a statement connecting me with some transaction that may be necessary for me to explain.
Mr. FISHER. Mr. President: It is not my purpose to enter into an argument upon this question. I came here with my mind made up as to the course I should pursue, and I was free to speak of it both to Republicans and Democrats. I said I was in favor of performing the necessary Legislation of the State, and when that was done take up this constitutional amendment. I was asked on last Friday, I think it was, if I would sign a paper to that effect. My reply was that I was never willing to give my word for anything that I was not willing to give my note for. I signed it, and that is the last I knew of the paper except what I have gathered from the discussion here. If the paper was withdrawn of course all obligations imposed by that paper were withdrawn with it. If I were to make you a proposition in writing, to buy a certain piece of property, and you had not accepted that proposition until 1 withdrew it, the proposition would not be binding, and it is just precisely so in this case. Therefore whatever members of the Senate said prior to what was written on that paper and since, is the only thing they have to be governed by. No other pledges are resting, as I understand it, on any Senator here except such as have been verbally made. What I said verbally was not in the shape of a pledge to anybody;-it was a mere expression of determination of my own purpose-nothing more. Now how stands the proposition before us? Suppose that pledge was binding to give at least one days notice to the Democratic party before taking up and acting on that constitutional amendment? That joint resolution page: 290[View Page 290] ratifying the constitutional amendment was introduced to-day; and immediately a resolution was introduced postponing its consideration for four weeks. That is the question now before us, with the exception , of the amendment of the Senator from Montgomery [Mr. Johnston.] Now the question arises: Is that action upon the constitutional amendment?
Mr. BRADLEY (interposing.) Why does not the Senator state the full purport of that resolution?
Mr. FISHER. It having been read three or four times I did not think it necessary. I will state for the benefit of the Senator from Laporte, [Mr. Bradley,] for it is evedent he does not understand it, that it not only fixes the time and place but the manner of voting upon the fifteenth amendment. Well now sir, enact this resolution for postponement and what do you do? It would be understood by every Senator upon this floor to mean that in four weeks from to-day at two o'clock it would be taken up and acted upon in each House. I believe in the passage of that resolution, we are acting in perfect good faith to the gentlemen on the other side of the House. I suppose no Senator has pledged himself to let them dictate the terms of the resolution which should postpone action on this subject, but they seem to claim control of the whole matter.
Now it was said this morning that if this resolution passed there would be resignations and a breaking up of the Legislature. Suppose we back down in view of that fact, the next thing would come in an appropriation bill which might contain an item obnoxious to the minority and they would say: strike that out or we resign. Then a bill might come in which was obnoxious to them and they would say: unless you indefinitely postpone it we will resign. And that principle clothes the minority with all the power of this body. It gives them power to control evrything, and hence I am unwilling to yield to their dictation in this matter.
Much has been said about the people contending against a factious majority in this matter. I always imagined that I had a constituency and that I was representing them; and that is as much as I propose to do. I do not propose to submit to any other gentleman representing my constituency. When I come here I vote the will of the people who sent me here. I don't propose that any man shall say to me: Sir, you are voting against the will of your people and you must change.
I regard it as a matter of no great consequence whether that amendment [Mr. Johnston's] is adopted or not. As far as I am concerned if the amendment is voted down and the resolution of postponement passed, and a majority of the members of each House vote in favor of adopting the joint resolution it be so admitted and so adjudged. I believe that if a majority of the members of the Legislature go into joint session and by a majority of each House vote in favor of that amendment, that will be sufficient. What is needed is a majority of the Legislature. If a minority prevent our doing it in a legimate way, let the majority do it in the best way they can, so as to give an expression tot he Executive of the United States, of the wishes of the majority of the people of Indiana. This fifteenth amendment has to be ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the States. What we want to show is, that by a vote of a majority of each branch the Indiana Legislature is in favor of it, and I apprehend it makes little difference whether there is fifteen twenty to vote in the negative or none. I believe it will be just as effectual as if the Democratic party were here.
Mr. CARSON (interrupting.) Then why was it not gratified last session? And why was it not ratified before we organized this session?
Mr. FISHER. In reply I will say that the only reason was, we had not sufficiently matured the subject. [Laughter.] It Wag something new. We were not so well satisfied upon the subject as we are now. We had not inquired into the legality of such a step And there may be a difference of opinion now. I am only giving my opinion.
Now I said last week that if a proposition was sprung for the purpose of ratifying the constitutional amendment I would vote in favor of postponing it to a certain time, and I am ready to vote for that resolution of postponement. When that vote comes I want the yeas and nays, for there may be half a dozen members who have made pledges and I want to see their names. If the Democrats join with such Republicans as favor the fifteenth amendment and vote down the resolution for postponement, the responsibility is with them; and in voting that down it brings us to a direct vote upon the constitutional amendment and then the responsibility is with them.
Mr. RICE (interposing.) I understand the pending proposition is the amendment of the Senator from 'Montgomery. Do I understand that you will vote "aye" on that proposition?
Mr. FISHER. No sir. I was supposing that we were going to vote upon the resolution just as introduced, then I would like to know whether the Democratic Senators are going to vote with those who are now in favor of pressing that resolution for ratification at once, and thus defeat those who are ready to vote to postpone it or not? If they do this and a vote on the question is brought up the responsibility is with them. I will endeavor to have it postponed, but if it comes I will be found voting "aye."
page: 291[View Page 291]Mr. BRADLEY. I will ask, for he is one of the Senators upon whom I relied, not upon a written pledge, but upon verbal statements, whether he did not tell me that he would be in favor of postponing the consideration of this fifteenth amendment till after all legislation is done; and particularly as to whether I did not ask him-if they intended to take any step to get us into any kind of a trap - whether the legislative journals should show the facts in the case - and whether he did not say there was no trap contemplated and that they would make the journals show the facts? And when I asked if he thought the Governor would certify to the facts, if he did not say that the Governor would certify to the facts, and everything should be done fairly and openly?
Mr. FISHER. To all that I answer affirmatively; stating however, in teh same connection, that I gave my own views and my own action, and not authoritatively what would be the action of any one else. For instance, speaking of the Governor's action, I had no authority to say what he would sign, nor did I say as knowing, but simply as a matter of opinion. And in that position I now stand. I am ready to postpone the consideration of that joint resolution four week, and I propose to vote for that measure. There is no trap in it. I do not so understand it.
Mr. BRADLEY. I will ask further, if the Senator intimated by word, gesture or action, or anything, that coupled with that, should be this proposition to consider the fifteenth amendment in Joint Convention?
Mr. FISHER. I never thought of such a thing. It never crept into my head, This is something new to me. But it comes here and I meet it; and it amounts to nothing material in my judgment. But I have said enough on that. Something has been said in relation to certain pledges that were made in a conversation between the Senators from Sullivan, [Mr. Hanna,] Jefferson, [Mr. Cravens,] Tippecanoe, [Mr. Stein,] and myself. My understanding is as was stated very clearly by the Senator from Tippecanoe. When the Senator from Sullivan, had spoken of the question precisely as the Senator from Tippecanoe stated, it was said, as we are very apt to say, that a thing should not or would not be taken up, as I said to the Senator from Laporte, [Mr. Bradley,] that there would be no traps and that our journals should all show right,meaning that was my purpose, that it should. But we stated at the same time that it would be controlled by the Republican caucus, and if any other course was decided on he should be immediately notified. In addition to this I said I would vote against, taking it up before 2 1/2 o'clock. I don't think either of the other Senators went so far as that, but I did. With regard to what transpired in the caucus I will only say that a motion was made that we take it up at 2 1/2 o'clock on Wednesday. I think it was immediately withdrawn; or after a very short discussion. I am not certain whether it was withdrawn or voted down. There was no proposition to take it up Wednesday morning. It was averred by the Senators from Tippecanoe and Jefferson that they should feel constrained to notify the Senator from Sullivan immediately if it was agreed to take it up. Another great error the Senator from Sullivan made. He said after it was found that we could pass the ratification-I say to you we never found that--
Mr. HANNA (interrupting.) I was only giving the language of my informant.
Mr. FISHER. On that night the highest vote was twenty-three Senators-so the whole thing originated in a mistake, or error, or misinformation.
Mr. HANNA. Was it full?
Mr. FISHER. Yes sir, it was full, excepting one man only-Mr. Colley.
Mr. HANNA. Are you sure of that?
Mr. FISHER. Yes sir.
Mr. HANNA. Was Mr. Hughes there?
Mr. FISHER. Yes sir, Mr. Hughes was there. There were twenty-nine in the caucus, and twenty-three only pledged themselves to vote for the amendment. I believe I have said all that is necessary to say on that subject. This'question has been argued by gentlemen more competent than I am. I felt constrained to define the position in which I stood because I supposed in all these references to pledges reference was had to me as one of them. I now stand with a determination if possible, to pass this matter over for the term of four weeks. I am in favor of that resolution; but while I am in favor of that, I am not in favor of the Democratic members dictating the terms of any resolution we pass.
Mr. BRADLEY. Suppose the resolution should pass and be concurred in by the House, would it not take it out of the power of this Senateto alter it without the concurring action of the House?
Mr. FISHER. I suppose it would. I have no question of that. That matter must then come up on that very day at that very hour. If the Democratic members should be here with us, or we be here and they see proper not to act with us, I apprehend it would not make one cent's difference whether we go by resolution of the House and Senate together or by resolution of a joint caucus.
Mr. BRADLEY. I will ask if the Senator is indifferent whether this is passed now-about going into joint convention under this vote, or by the two Houses separately,-why does the Senator insist that this resolution should be adopted?
Mr. FISHER. In reply I have this to say: page: 292[View Page 292] that when this resolution came in it was said by Democratic Senators that if you pass that resolution we will resign. That is just the point. If we are upon every immaterial question to be threatened with a resignation to break up the Legislature it is just as well to stop to-day as any other time. If this was a question of the passage of the Constitutional amendment, it would be a different thing. But I hold it to be an immaterial question, and if so let the resignations come.
Mr. GRAY. Mr. President: I had not intended to say anything with regard to this question, and should not now were it not for the fact that a great deal has been said with regard to certain pledges: and I do not know but perhaps the vote, when that is taken, will be considered as pointing out the Republican Senators who may have made certain pledges to our Democratic brethren. Now I have made no pledges at all. I have refused to sign anything of the kind. I am clear and untrammelled, but I am not willing, nor am I going to discuss the matter of pledges in the Senate. It is a matter between individual members and Democrats, and a question I have no right to inquire into. I am going to vote upon this matter just as I feel upon it as an individual Republican Senator. For my part if a caucus had determined to take up this question, at a certain day I would have stood by that caucus election, but my party has not determined anything of the kind: then I am left free to act and vote as becomes an individual Senator in his place, and I shall do so.
I think I can say, and say truly, that a large majority of Senators in this chamber, both Democrats and Republicans, have been saying in the hotels, upon the street corners, in the chamber here, and almost everywhere else, that they were in favor of acting upon the necessary legislation of the State before taking up this amendment to the organic act of the nation. I have so expressed myself, and am going to act in that way. I am for the fifteenth article. I am as much in favor of it as any gentleman, and represent one of the most radical constituencies in the State of Indiana; and that is saying a good deal, but I do not believe that any Senator can go before his constituents and receive any applause after having been very punctillious on this question as to the matter of time. All that can be done to-day, an be done next week or the week after; and I am solicitous about a few measures before this Legislature. I am exceedingly anxious that this election bill shall pass; and that the fee and salary bill should pass; and I am exceedingly anxious with regard to one or two other propositions; and I shall shape my conduct and vote so as to bring about the passage of these measures that I believe the people are interested in. After we get through then I am willing to take up this constitutional amendment and vote upon it whether we have a quorum or not.
Mr. CHURCH. I will ask the Senator if he has not assurances that the presiding officer will not entertain a resolution when there is no quorum present;every Senator knows that the presiding officer refuses to entertain a resolution when there is no quorum here- and now, if the Senator is so anxious about th ratification of this amendment, I ask how he expects to do it until he votes upon it?
Mr. GRAY. I have not understood the chair as expressing himself in that way. The Senator from Porter [Mr. Church] may hay information that I have not.
Mr. CHURCH. I do not think there has been any secret about it. During five or six days the President has uniformly refused to entertain resolutions in the absence of a quorum unless they have direct reference to the perfection of the organization of the Senate And it was so at the last session.
Mr. GRAY. I do not remember it. I was not here the last two or three days of last session. But suppose you insist upon the passage of the resolution you have now, and suppose the Democratic Senators go out and resign how will you do ?
Mr. CHURCH. I propose to have another election and another session. I propose that when men undertake to be ugly they can't he worse than I.
Mr. GRAY. The only difference between the two positions is this: In the course I shall take, although this state of things may come about, still the necessary legislation of the State will have been enacted; his course will bring about the same state of facts but the necessary legislation will not be enacted. I simply wanted to make this explanation for the purpose of explaining my vote when I come to give it.
Mr. RICE. Mr. President: I will take this opportunity to place myself right upon the record on the vote which is to come up. This is the same vote we took this morning, substantially. It is varied a little, and comes back in a little different shape. The question was new to me. I tried to get information as to the scope of this resolution on yesterday, but could not do it. This morning the question came up. Without having time to investigate or think about this thing, I voted against the amendment. I shall vote in favor of the amendment, now, and simply for this reason: I stated in the Senate the other day-it has been my view before I left home, since I came here, and is yet-that the necesary legislasion ought to be gone through with. The people ask it and demand it. I am with the Senator from Randolph [Mr. Gray]: there is legislation pending which nearly and dearly affects the page: 293[View Page 293] interests of my constituents, and I want to go on with that legislation. When we get through with that, I then propose to cast my vote to take up this amendment, and vote for the amendment and dodge no responsibility.
But how are we placed? When we came back we found the Senators who had resigned with credentials in their pockets. They stood out from Thursday afternoton at two o'clock, till yesterday at four. At that time there was a prospect of the Legislature breaking up, and, I say it here fearlessly, it was the understanding - and men who say they never bow the supple knee and cringe to power were as anxious, that I, or any person else should make a pledge. They would not do it themselves, however glad they would be for me to do it. It was the feeling of every Republican Senator before the organization; and now, after these pledges are given - I did not give any absolute pledge, and I do not think any Democrat will say that I did, but if it had been necessary, had I been asked to pledge, I should have done it. I spoke to the Senator from Porter and the Senator from Laporte, and stated this position. I thought the amendment ought to be pushed off to a certain day, or indefinitely, until the neccessary legislation was passed, and then taken up.
Mr. CHURCH, interposing. I undertake to say that when you state that every Republican member intimated to you that they would like you to make these statements to Democrats, it is not true so far as I am concerned.
Mr. RICE. You cannot get up a quarrel with me. I will make an exception of the Senator from Porter [Mr. Church,] if he disclaims anything of the conditions.
Mr. GREEN. Will the Senator please except me ?
Mr. RICE. Yes sir; but I will not except any more of you. [Laughter.]
Mr. KINLEY. The Senator from Wayne [Mr. Kinley] must be excepted.
Mr. RICE. No, sir. I say, as a general proposition, not that I spoke to every Senator, but you could feel it in the atmosphere of the Republicans with whom you talked. And, I say the Republican pulse beat high all over the State for it. And, on this Senate floor men went further than I-they signed a paper. I don't blame them for that. I thought they did right if they could reconcile it to their sense of propriety. But how has it resulted? That the Democracy relying upon these indefinite pledges-these street talks that we had as among gentlemen, and the written pledge of seventeen members of the Legislature, they came in; and I say they have a right to say it.
What was the effect of my speech the other afternoon? I know it had a damaging effect on me with some of my friends. But it brought several Senators to their feet who indorse the same position I took. Mr. Scott interrupted me at the time.
He read from the published reports as follows :
Mr. SCOTT (interrupting-) Do you say they had pledges from enough to control the action of the legislature?
Mr. RICE. I so understand it. I say you stand upon dignity-
Mr. SCOTT (interrupting.) I have given an individual statement, and if they are not willing to take my word as a man of honor-
Mr. RICE. What individual statement?
Mr. SCOTT. I am willing to give these gentlemen all the time they want to get out, if they want to leave-if it is one, two or five days.
Mr. RICE. That is my very proposition,-and I want the Senate to make it here. And, this afternoon we will have a Senate.
Mr. Fisher interrupted me in the same way. I indorse the whole thing as my course. Now, how does this thing stand? After the proposition had been sent to the Democratic caucus, it was withdrawn, and the Chairman, Mr. Osborn, returned to the Democratic caucus a letter, in a part of which he says:
And while they desire and seek nothing but a fair and undisguised course in any act of legislation, they can see no good that will result from any additional promises.
What is the effect of that? You have got our promises already. But if you ask us to go one step further, we give no additional promises. The paper was withdrawn. But that shows that the substance was before the Democratic caucus; and they say upon that they acted.
Mr. GIFFORD, (in his seat.) That is the way we understood it.
Mr. RICE. Then you have organized upon what was said on the street, and they said they would not give any additional pledges; and so the inference is that the pledges were binding in effect. They so organized and agreed upon a line of policy. They agreed to organize the House, and the Senate was not to be organized until a resolution was there passed to postpone this amendment. The representative from Porter county introduced the resolution postponing it till the 11th day of May. That has been my position all the time, and men shall not come upon this floor and tell me that I bow the suppliant knee, and cringe to power, when, at the same time, they depend upon my pledge, and your pledge, and for the purpose of an organization, use us as a cat's paw to put these chestnuts in the Senate, and then face upon us. The crack of the lash will have to come from other hands on my back before it will be felt. It will have to come from hands clean and pure as to having stood by the organization of the Republican party during the last session. [Applause.]
Now, sir, what do they propose? The Senator from W'abash says that in fact the resolu page: 294[View Page 294]tions are the same, and we can organize and pass the constitutional amendment, and pass it with the Democracy outside, and it will be equally binding with a joint convention. I say no. I say no! Does it carry out the assurances of Mr. Osborn that they desire "nothing but a fair and undisguised course in any act of the Legislature?" Then why does the Senator hold on to the propositions, the result of which is equally the same? Why do we spend so much time when there is not a Republican who comes out and says that the action proposed is in a straightforward and undisguised course; and was not so intended? I say if the Democrats sit quiety by here and in the House, and let it pass, they organize a joint convention with the majority, and that convention rules without respect to them. I go in for taking a square course. When I pledge my word as a Republican, I intend, as far as my action is concerned, that it shall stand. It shall stand let other Republicans do as they please. I consider myself bound, and I have now achieved the purpose for which I made the statement, and that is the orgaization of the Legislature.
Mr. TURNER. Will the Senator allow me?
Mr. RICE. Certainly.
Mr. TURNER. In this informal conversation of his upon the streets, I will ask him if he does riot now understand and believe that the real basis and foundation, upon the part of the Democrats, and the inception of their willingness to come in and be qualified began with the debate which took place upon the pledges or remarks that they would--?
Mr. RICE. I should judge they had their force. They would have had their effect upon me had I been in the position those gentlemen were.
Mr. TURNER. I ask this question for the simple reason that the next day, the first time I saw the Senator after he made his speech seeing that he and others would agree to postpone this question-he and myself had a conversation, and I think in that conversation I stated that it was an expression of confidence we had not before--
Mr. RICE. I know that at no time did I utter any other sentiment than the one I uttered on this floor. What effect it had upon the Senator and others I do not know.
I do not want to prolong this discussion any further. I see a material difference in the two propositions. I am willing, for one, if they resign to-morrow, to take up the constitutional amendment, and vote on it, and let our action go as far as it may. But I shall not discuss the proposition-it is not before us.
It is a simple question of right or wronga question of justice to the people of Indiana. Your State officers are borrowing money to carry on the institutions with; every interest of the State is languishing, and we are standing on a point which ought not to block legislation at this time. If these gentlemen had stood aside, and we had passed this resolution today, I think it would be perfectly legal, and it would be legal at any time. What is the effect of it? You virtually effect the passage of the constitutional amendment today, because it gives you a power to exercise at a future day, which if a sufficient number live and are able to and are able to get here, they can exercise, and they will. I stand upon what I have said - upon the pledge of the seventeen members of teh Legislature - upon the pledge of the vote of the solid House yesterday in regard to my course, and I am here to vote in good faith to carry out the line of policy indicated on Saturday and indorsed by the House of Representatives.
Mr. JOHNSON of Montgomery. In order that we may get at legislation; and take up such bills as are necessary to be acted upon, I move that this resolution and pending amendment be postponed and be made the special order for Monday the third day of May next.
Mr. RICE. Why say the third? Put it on the eleventh.
Mr. JOHNSTON, of Montgomery. I will say the eleventh then.
Mr. CRAVENS. Mr. President. I suppose we apprehend fully the meaning of the gentleman's motion. I have nothing to disguise. These resolutions have been pretty generally debated and fully discussed, during which something has been said about pledges. I do not believe any Senator upon this floor is here upon the influence of a pledge since the withdrawal of the written pledge. Senators have risen and said they made no such pledges as are imputed. They expressed their own individual opinion. The opinion expressed by the Senator from Parke I had at all times, arid would have expressed it had I been disposed to give assurances. There has been no time since the amendment came in here that I would not have subordinated its consideration aud passage to the perfection and passage of all internal, local, state and home legislation. Now sir, Senators have said they are extremely desirous to refer this question to the people. I ask Senators where do we get our power to refer questions to the people? We have come here under the command of the people and the constitution of the United States and of this State--
Mr. CARSON, (interposing.) This is a proposition to amend the fundamental law of the land.
Mr. CRAVENS. Exactly. I prefer not to be interrupted. It is a bad habit growing up on this floor. Let Senators make a mend page: 295[View Page 295] of it. I do not intend any discourtesy. I want to be brief- I am going to bring this matter to a close to a determinaton before I leave it.
When Senators talk about referring this to the people I say if they are true to the Constitution they are insincere, because these people have said, Here is our will; here is the organic law. What does that tell you to do? It says that whenever the Constitution of the United States is to be amended it shall be done by a vote of two thirds of the States. Now what shall be done with it? The people made that Constitution; it is their will - their command to you and to me; and we have sworn to obey it. It says that Congress shall determine whether the voice of the people shall be called or whether this Constitutional amendment shall be referred directly to the people's representatives or agents in the several Legislatures. I say there have been fourteen amendments to the Constitution of the United States and every single one of them have been made in the very mode proposed now to adopt this fifteenth Constitutional amendment. I say that when the Democratic party or the Republican party propose to light this thing of negro suffrage they have chosen a bad place to fight it. If they had been in good faith and determined to fight this suffrage question they should have done it when they permitted the negro to be made a citizen, because now if you can withhold suffrage from any class of citizens, have you not the same power to rob and take from other classes the elective franchize? Certainly the same power will fully authorize you to take it from any other class.
As to the mode I will be frank. There is no other Senator upon this floor responsible for this resolution introduced this morning. The main thing in it is what? The very thing these Senators have been asking day after day for a postponement of the consideration of this question. I now ask the Secretary to read the concurrent resolution, which followed the introduction of the joint rresolution, and I call the attention of the Senate to the language of it.
The Secretary read as follows:
Resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring, That the consideration of the joint resolution accepting and ratifying, on the part of Indiana, the proposed Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, be postponed and made the special order for action at 2 o'clock P. M. on Tuesday, the eleventh day of May next ensuing, in joint Assembly of the two Houses to be held in the Hall of the House of Representatives on said day and at said hour.
Mr. HAMILTON. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. CRAVENS. I want to get clear of this, so that you can do what you want to. This resolution proposes to postpone the consideration of that joint resolution. I supposed this proposition to make it a special order would be voted tor directly, and I supposed some of my own party would have to vote for it. It was introduced for this simple reason,-and I will be as frank as gentlemen dare be;-there was only one poor, pittiful, lame advantage, and that was that we would have the benefit of these Democrats in each end of this Capitol to legalize the joint assembly, and for nothing else. I do not know--
Mr. BRADLEY (interposing.) Will the Senator tell us that he did not deny that this morning?
Mr. CRAVENS. No sir;-I do not know whether the Reporter took it or not;-I said the main proposition was the question of postponement; and another thing, the other proposition was to get it from before both of these bodies, so it would not be a temptation to the majority, nor a terror to the minority without let or hindrance. I say all the advantage was simply legalizing the joint Assembly. I recollect in caucus, I proposed myself that mode of ratifying that Constitutional amendment, and I know it was most promptly and decidedly voted down by a caucus of my own political party. I say we are taking all the chances of the legality of that mode;-and even more risk upon ourselves than they, We are taking the risk of again presenting the proposition to the same body of men who upon a former occasion refused to adopt it.
The Senator from Sullivan, [Mr. Hanna,] in his speech this morning, took issue with myself. I understood him to say that mode would not be legal. I said no other man was responsible for this. I regret now that it had not been made the subject matter of a caucus; and when I find members of my own party reject a proposition of this sort, I certainly have no right to persist in trying to force it to a vote; and I do not feel that I am authorized individually, in my own person, to assume the responsibility of even one day's delay of the necessary legislation of the State by my own individual action. But, as I was alone responsible for this proposition; and as I find members of my own party are not in favor of it, many of them;-I know it will look a little harsh to others that I pursue this course, I now propose;-and inasmuch as this debate has gone as far, perhaps, as practicable; and inasmuch Mr. President, as I won't reply to this cracking whip operation; when I see the effect of those threats, and see the disposition to yield to them that I have seen around me today; I do not feel that I would be authorized to answer the responsibility of delaying legislation, continuing acrimonious debate, or further disturbing the harmony of this body, I now, if the Senator from Montgomery will withdraw his amendment and motion to postpone, I will put an end to the matter.
Mr. JOHNSTON of Montgomery. I would like to know what kind of an end? [Laughter.]
page: 296[View Page 296]Mr. CRAVENS. I will say to the Senator that I will put an end to it that will be satisfactory to him.
Mr. BRADLEY. Let us hear what it is? Will it be a call for the previous question?
Mr. CRAVENS. I shall not call the previous question. I have already indicated what it would be, and have no disposition to go back on what I have said.
Mr. HANNA. We don't want this matter laid upon the table.
Mr. CRAVENS. It will not be laid upon the table.
Mr. JOHNSTON of Montgomery. If the Senator will withdraw his resolutions joint and concurrent, I have no objection.
Mr. CRAVENS. I have indicated clearly, I apprehend to every man within the sound of my voice what I propose to do.
Mr. JOHNSTON of Montgomery. With the understanding that I have the previlege of the floor to press the same amendment, if it is not satisfactory, I will withdraw it.
Mr. CRAVENS. I go into no understanding.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. Does the Senator from Montgomery withdraw the motion to postpone?
Mr. JOHNSTON of Montgomery. Yes, sir.
Mr. CRAVENS. Then with the consent of the Senate, in order to put the matter at rest, and leave the whole matter and the whole responsibility in the hands of the majority, for them to take whatever course they see fit, I ask permission to withdraw both the joint resolution and the concurrent resolution.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. Is there any objection? The chair hears no objection. It is so ordered. The Chair lays before the Senate House.
The Secretary read an invitation for the Senate to attend in joint convention, at four o'clock, in the hall of the House to hear the Governor's message.The invitation was accepted.
Mr. HANNA. I do not want to go over this discussion again at some future time, and I have a resolution on this subjeet which I desire to offer now.
It was read as follows:
RESOLVED. That the consideration and discussion in every shape and form, of the proposed Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and every preliminary resolution, or motion looking to the consideration of the ratification of said amendment, shall be, and hereby is postponed till the 11th day of May next, at 2 o'clock in the afternoon of said day; to the end that the necessary appropriation bills, and other necesssary legislation may be acted upon.
Mr. HANNA. I call the yeas and nays and move the previous question.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. It is the opinion of the Chair that this resolution is not in order for the reason that the Senate has concurred in a resolution of the House to a, into the Hall of the House to hear a message from the Governor.
Mr. HANNA. Has the hour arrived?
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. Yes sir.
Mr. HANNA. I did not know that. I withdraw the resolution.
Thereupon-
The hour having arrived and passed, Senators repaired to the Hall of the House instanter.
When they returned-
On motion by Mr. STEIN, the Senate adjourned till two o'clock P. M., tomorrow.
