SUPPLEMENTARY
TO THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
VOLUME ELEVENTH.
The Morgan Raid Claims---Debate in Continuation.
IN SENATE.
MONDAY, May 10, 1869.AFTERNOON SESSION.
IN CONTINUATION - p. 199 - FIRST COLUMN.]
[Mr. CRAVENS, from the Special Committee thereon, returned the bill [H. R. 119.] making an appropriation of four hundred and thirteen thousand five hundred and ninety-nine dollars and forty-eight cents to pay the claims of suffers by the Morgan Raid, with the following report:
MR. PRESIDENT
: The Committee to whom was referred House Bill No. 119 a bill proposing relief to the sufferers caused by the invasion of the State in 1863 by John Morgan, and the rebel troops under his command, have had the same under consideration, and have directed me to recommend the passage of the bill for the following among other reasons:
In all governments voluntarily formed the 'Contract'between the citizen individually and the citizen collectively is of a two-fold character, first the citizen engages to render allegiance, service and Obedience; the state solemnly promises protection to the citizen in person and property.
2d. The invasion in 1863 was an invasion of the State, a trespass upon the rights of the citizen in the remote north as much as if the citizen had been in the immediate line of march of the invaders, consequently all were equally involved in the calamity.
3d. The citizens who were the immediate sufferers by the calamity - those of southern Indiana while they were amply able to have organized forces to resist and drive out the invaders, had surrendered their right so to do to the State and naturally looked to the authority thus constituted to defend and protect them.
4th. The State with abundant means both of men and arms at its disposal did not provide in advance against the occurrence of the calamity. Had it done so the losses would not have occurred. Small bodies of troops stationed at convenient points on the Ohio river, when a wise regard for the public welfare would naturally have dictated, would have been sufficient to prevent any attempt at invasion. Neglect on the part of the State to prevent a threatened injury, outrage or wrong is as culpable and as clearly a violation of the compact of government as to commit the wrong itself; hence such neglect or refusal on the part of the State, upon which rests the obligation to protect and defend its citizens, makes that authority clearly liable for all the consequences that may either directly or indirectly be traced to and result from that neglect or injury.
5th. It may be said that the war of the rebellion was a war against the Government of the United States. So it was, but the invasion was an invasion of the State of Indiana, and the sufferers were the citizens of Indiana. These citizens appeal to their own immediate government. This they know, they know its authorities, where they can be found, and in what manner to approach them. The State is the agent between its citizens and the Government of the United States, as the latter would stand between the States and any foreign power.
6th. It is also said that these claims, in a technical point of view, are not legitimate claims upon the State, but from what has before been advanced, if these propositions are true, these claims are properly filed by the citizens thereof against the State, and if the Genaral Government is ultimately liable it will be proper and regular that the State should prefer them, in the aggregate rather
page: 377[View Page 377]than that the citizens individually should loose the entire amount thereof in a fruitless effort to secure a recognition of their claims.
7th. This irruption by a public enemy was humiliation, outrage and trespass upon the entire State, equally an infraction of the right of every citizen, but the losses sustained by individuals are necessarily local. These losses are greater in many instances than the victims are able to bear, and far more than their share of the public burdens imposed by this public calamity- The sufferers appeal to a public sense Of justice and only ask that those who enjoyed an entire exemption from loss, contribute an equal proportion with themselves to the material losses sustained. These were humiliations, insults and wrongs incident to this invasion, which those more happily situated can neither appreciate nor share. The people of southern Indiana make this appeal to the entire State in the full confidence that the popular sense of justice will fully authorize the General Assembly to afford the equitable relief, especially since that relief will require less than one mill per pent, to each individual in the State upon the value of his real and personal property.
Signed, JOHN K. CRAVENS,
T. N. RICE,
E. HUFFMAN,
F. J. BELLAMY,
GEO, W. DENBO,
Special
Committee.
Mr. HOOPER having made an ineffectual motion [it being 4 o'clock p. m.] that the Senate adjourn-
Mr. FISHER Mr. President: I am opposed to this bill. I said on Saturday when this question was up, that I had understood that it was contended that if the State assumed the payment of this debt the General Government would refund it; and it was stated that it had refunded to Ohio a sum expended tor the payment of similar claims. I said this was not so; that the General Government had not refunded anything to the State of Ohio on account of damages paid for the Morgan Raid. The Senator from Switzerland said it was so. I understood the Senator as impeaching my information, not my veracity, and being desirous of being right, in the evening I sent 'he following dispatch to the Auditor of the State of Ohio. "Did the Government refund the amount paid for damages by the Morgan Raid?" and in reply I received a dispatch from him in these words: "No, but did refund expenses incurred in repelling the raid." Now that is just the thing that has been done in Indiana.I am unwilling, sir, that a deception should be practiced in order to secure the passage of bill. Either the parties who made the did not know of what they were 29speaking, or they spoke of what they did not know. The General Government has not refunded anything paid in liquidating this class of claims, and I undertake to say never will. I defy any Senator to produce an instance in the world's history where any Government has paid for damages done to private property by a common enemy.
It is not recognized as a legal claim against any Government. The damages done by a common enemy are looked upon as visitations of providence-as the overflow of a river-as a tornado-or as a fire.
The argument is that it is easier for the State to pay these damages than for the citizens to bear them. That argument would apply to the destruction of property by a tornado or by fire, as well. Then Senators I trust, will bear this in mind, that if the appropriation is made for the payment of these claims the money is gone forever; that there it not one particle of hope that the General Government will ever refund one single dollar.I observed one little remark in the report just read. It says that in the remote parts of this State the people have not suffered from the effects of this war. I do not so understand it. I think among the thousands, aye tens of thousands of wives and orphans who have suffered in this war many may be found in the remote parts of this State.
We are asked to make an appropriation of four hundred and thirteen thousand five hundred and ninety-nine dollars to pay these claims. We have just reduced the taxes for State purposes from twenty to fifteen cents. To pay this we have got to increase these taxes to where they were before, for nearly five cents on the one hundred dollars will be required to pay this indebtedness if it is an indebtedness. There is not enough money in the treasury to meet the expenses of this Legislature and pay that demand. But the point I make is, that there is no obligation on the part of the State to pay those claimants. If there was any probability that the General Government would refund it I would be in favor of paying it. But I am not in favor of paying these damages by levying an additional tax on the hundreds of thousands of men who have toiled through this war, leaving their business at home to go to waste, and perhaps losing in a multitude of cases, more money than a majority of these people lost by the raid of Morgan. I am not in favor of taxing the little property of widows and orphans to make remuneration to these parties. A large sum is claimed for damage done to certain Railroads, which have grown rich out of the distress of the country by the transportation of supplies and troops. Sixty or more thousand dollars is adjudged due to Railroads for damage done to them. Then there were large distilleries page: 378[View Page 378] damaged and a large amount of whisky is included in this claim.
But I supppose this bill is to pass. I understand the arrangements are all made and every man is known. I do not expect to change a vote bnt I do expect to raise my voice in opposition to the bill; and when it comes to the final vote to vote against it. If a majority of the Senate believe this bill ought to pass, it unquestionably will pass; but I cannot look upon it in that light and I shall have to vote against it, and then I shall have done my duty.
Mr. CARSON, remarking that we ought to make haste slowly in this matter, made an ineffectual motion to adjourn-yeas 16, nays 29.
Mr. HOOPER. Mr. President: As I desire briefly to state the reasons why I shall vote againt this bill I embrace this opportunity to do so. I regret that there should be a disposition manifested to pass through a measure of so much importance as this, with the haste that seems to be desired. I regret the disposition to hurry through a bill which proposes to appropriate from the treasury four hundred and thirteen thousand dollars-a sum that will certainly reach the bottom of the Treasury unless there is a further levy on the people of this State in the shape of taxes. We have already appropriated sums amounting to over a milion of dollars. This, with the taxes levied, is about as much burden as the State can stand. But beyond all this, it certainly is important for us, in a proposition like this, to be satisfied beyond a doubt that it is a claim we ought to allow.
At the last session we appointed a Committee to investigate this question. We found that these claims are divided off into classes. The first and second classes are all against the General Government and will be paid as soon as they are proven and established. They are for losses sustained on account of Union troops. Now why should the State of Indiana step in and fasten this claim upon the State when it is a good claim against the General Government and will be allowed? There are a dozen Senators within the sound of my voice who have been presenting this very class of claims, and know they are paying claims of this sort. This disposes of about eighty-two thousand dollars of these claims. There is no reason why the State should step in and assume this debt. If the State does assume to pay these claims and these parties get their money in this direction we take away the necessity for their furnishing proof of these claims against the General Government. We know the General Government has not been allowing these claims without proof.
What are the bulk of these claims? Sir, I say to the Senate they are claims we are under no legal obligations to assume. These claimants have no legal demand against the State nor the General Government for these claim As has been well said by the Senator from Wabash [Mr. Fisher] you cannot lay your hand upon a single authority that will show that these claims are recognized as binding upon the Government. Then is it right for us to establish a precedent like this? Is it right that we should step out and allow such claim amounting to such a vast sum? It would be entering upon dangerous ground, and establishing a precedent that no legislative body ought to establish. The only sale rule to adopt if to allow claims only to those who have a legal demand for them. There is no demand in right or under the law for these claims. They cannot be sustained in law or by reason. The first and second class we should not allow, and the third are a class of claims the parties have no claims against the State for. They have no right to make a demand of the State for them. When you go out of law and enter upon ground such as this;-upon the mere pleasure of the General Assembly, you enter upon dangerous ground, and open a door to which there may be no limit. I apprehend these claims will be pressed upon the clemency and generosity of the State, for I suppose no Senator will argue that for the third and fourth class, the State is under any legal obligation.
Let us look at this question on both sides. It is true many of these claimants have lost property under circumstances of hardship; but a large part of these losses have been sustained by parties who can well afford to bear them, It has been stated by the Senator from Wabash that Railroads who have grown rich over the transportation of soldiers present a large amount of these claims. This bill proposes merely to restore to those in good circumstances, (though some may be in poor circumstances ) what they have lost by the fortunes of war. To equalize the burdens of this war is something impossible to do. All over this State today are persons who have sustained losses absolutely irreparable: you cannot restore to them their losses. Around me to-day are men who have been shot to pieces and crippled for life. Do you pretend to make good the losses they have sustained? The widows all over our land have sustained irreparable losses, and it is impossible to restore these losses; so I repeat, you cannot equalize the losses sustained by this war. And if you are to place this on the ground of generosity alone, then you ought to restore, as far as possible, all the losses sustained by the widows and orphans of the State. Their losses are greater than these parties who lost property only.
There is no end to this kind of legislation. Injustice is inevitable when you tax these parties who have sustained great losses that you page: 379[View Page 379] cannot repair, and make them contribute to pay the losses of property of those parties in the southern part of the State. By this proposition you propose to gather into the treasury a pittance from these parties and take it out and pay it over to those who have sustained losses in consequence of this Morgan raid. I say there is no justice in it; none whatever;-there cannot be in my judgment. The first part of these claims are good against the General Government, and there is nothing to be gained whatever by the State's assumption of them;-there is no reason why the State should assume these claims. But there is good reason, why she should not-for if you pass this law you fix them irrevokably upon the State, There is no probability you ever will be relieved from them, because 'the great incentive to furnish the necessary proof to establish these claims would be gone and they would be irrevokably fastened upon the State. Parhaps claimants have no legal demand against the State. Whenever you depart from and go outside of the law for the purpose of allowing claims you enter upon dangerous ground and there is no protection for the State. The party that may be strong in the Legislature may go to work and appropriate money that has been gathered from the people of the State to any purpose they see fit, if they are to go outside of any legal claims on the State. This bill proposes to enter upon dangerous ground and it should not be sustained by the Senate.
Mr. HANNA. Mr. President: The arguments of the report presented by the Committee are advanced in the nature of propositions. The first is: In all governments voluntarily formod the contract between the citizen individually and the citizen collectively is of a two-fold character, first the citizen engages to render allegiance, service and obedience; the state solemnly promises protection to the citizen in person and property.
That is a proposition that cannot be avoided in this form of government. No man owes allegiance or obedience to a government unless that government protects him in person and property as far as it is able. Now what else does this report say?
"The State with abundant means both of men and arms at its disposal did not provide in advance against the occurrence of the calamity. Had it done so the losses would not have occurred. Small bodies of troops stationed at convenient points on the Ohio fiver, when a wise regard for the public welfare would naturally have dictated, would have been sufficient to prevent any attempt at invasion. Neglect on the part of the State to prevent a threatened injury, outrage or wrong is as culpable and as clearly a violation of the compact of government as to commit the wrong itself; hence such neglect or refusal on the part of the State, upon which rests the obligation, to protect and defend its citizens, makes that authority clearly liable for all the consequences that may either directly or indirectly be traced to and result from that neglect or injury."
Now; sir, if that is true, I take it that the action of this Senate is marked and plain. A government requires obedience of its citizens, and as an evidence of it thousands of men went from the Second Congressional District in the very region of country through which John Morgan marched. At that time their families were unprotected. The men were under the flag of their country and away from the places they might have defended. They obeyed the voice of their country; and with an abundance of means, both of men and arms their State Government failed to adopt that wise policy which common prudence would dictate. The Government according to this report, failed to do what was required of it. As the citizen has to obey the government and render service to the government, the government must protect the citizen in person and property.
What are the facts as they have passed into history? Thousands of men were around this city, and for what? Perhaps to protect cowardly persons, while the whole border all along the Ohio Elver was left unprotected. Men from the Second Congressional District were here standing around Indianapolis to protect the officials in their fancied danger. I say the State failed to do its duty because it was governed worse than any state ever was governed. Why? Because the whole border was left unprotected. Here is four hundred and thirteen thousand dollars worth of property of our citizens seized and carried off because fnrsooth, those in authority failed to discharge their duty. They were looking to the glittering generalities. They were looking to the sending of dispatches to the press. Publicity tickled their eyes. Somebody was employed to telegraph so many troops forwarded to the South; and so many boxes of provisions and clothing sent to the soldiers in the field. Everything was done except what should have been done, and that was to look to the welfare of the State of Indiana. The State is bound to extend protection to her citizens. The report says that common prudence would have averted this calamity. Every one knows it was rumored when Morgan was about to make his raid in this State, and yet the body of the troops which should have been stationed all along this exposed line were at the centre of the State> some eighty or hundred miles from the border., I say that laid the whole people of the State liable to bare the burdens of the property destroyed there. Because when the people of the State put those in authority who failed to discharge their duty, the whole people of the State was responsible for the acts of those in authority.
page: 380[View Page 380]Now it is said that there is no legal claim here against the Government. As a lawyer I acknowledge that when the Chairman of the Committee on Public Expenditures reported that there was no legal liability against the United States or the State of Indiana for a large portion of this claim he appealed to my conscience. It is for every Senator to rise in his place and say in his conscience "can I vote that the property of the soldier who was away from home fighting the battles of his country shall be used and carried off by a common enemy while I sat at my ease in the north part of the State, and because there is a technicality of law standing between the right of the soldier, refuse to reimburse him from the public treasury for his loss?" Suppose war should be declared against England and British troops should invade the north part of this State from the Canada line, then we would hear those in that section coming up and asking for reimbursement for the destruction of their property. Now I say there is no legal 'obligation resting upon the State to pay about three hundred thousand dollars of these claims and if you are so ungenerous as to refuse to pay them the claims of these men are gone forever. They have already laid out of them;some four or five years and now they claim this not as a matter of legal justice; but merely as a matter of justice and equity they appeal to you to give them something for the great losses they have sustained losses which transpired because of the insufficiency of the authority stationed in this city at that time. Those people surrendered their power down there to organize for the defence of their homes by giving to the authorities their men who had been taken from them to bear arms, and yet when their property is destroyed you will sit back and say: "No we will not pay it." I say this thing of looking to the Government of the United States for everything has become a cancer upon the body politic of this country. The report is right in that? The report is not subject to criticism as to its justness, correctness and truthfulness. Even the dictates of the commonest prudence might have prevented this thing in the southern part of the State. We ought to adopt the report whether we pass the bill or not.
Mr. GRAY. Mr. President: These claimants have my sympathy but my conscience will not allow me to vote for that bill and I do not think it is a claim upon the State of Indiana. I do not like this report. I differ with the Senator from Sullivan [Mr. Hanna] when he says the report speaks the truth. This John Morgan raid started in the State of Tennessee, and how could the state authorities of Indiana have prevented that invasion? How could our state authorities know the strength of the forces that would invade the State?
The Senator from Sullivan says the people of those counties on the border surrendered their rights by which they could organize of themselves;-I suppose he means in companies on regiments. I will say that there were arrangements made-there were orders given the people were requested to organize themselves upon the southern border, and throughout the State, into companies, battalions, and regiments. They did so in a great many districts and the Governor appointed the officers. J know from personal experience, that Governor Morton urgently called upon the people of the State, and especially upon the people of the southern counties to organize themselves for the purpose of defending the southern border. And I assert, if this report is intended to reflect either upon the State authorities the Legislature or the Governor, that it is an undue reflection and has no authority or foundation in fact.
I do not now speak in regard to the merits of the bill. If the theory adduced by the Senator from Sullivan is true, I would ask what would the State of Kentucky have done during the war? Suppose the State of Kentucky should have to pay all the claims for damages sustained by the citizens of Kentucky during the late war, could the State of Kentucky ever pay them? Suppose you say that the State in not having provided the necessary means of defense has not done its duty, and consequently the State of Kentucky is responsible for whatever damages the citizens of the State have sustained, is there wealth enough in the State to pay these claims? If that doctrine is good here, it will hold good every where. But the doctrine won't hold water.
This report goes on to say: The State did not furnish any defence "against the occurrence of the calamity. Had it done so the losses would not have occurred. Small bodies of troops stationed at convenient points on the Ohio river, when a wise regard for the public welfare would naturally have dictated, would have been sufficient to prevent any attempt at invasion." John Morgan had a formidable force, and it is saying too much to say that this State could have been acquainted with the force that would invade the State. Now the the report says further: "Neglect on the part of the State to prevent a threatened injury, outrage or wrong is as culpable and as clearly a violation of the compact of government as to commit the wrong itself; hence such neglect or refusal on the part of the State upon which rests the obligation to protect and defend its citizens, makes that authority clearly liable o all the consequences that may either directly or indirectly be traced to and result from that neglect or injury."
What does that mean? Why it means that Indiana, by not taking the proper means page: 381[View Page 381] prevent this invasion has been guilty as much Of committing that wrong as those who invaded the State themselves! Is this Senate ready to say so? Is it ready to say that Governor Morton or the Legislature is as guilty by failing to furnish means for the defense of the State, as the men who invaded the State? That is more than I am willing to say, and if I was going to vote for this bill I could not vote for that report.
I will not vote to put my State in the wrong, or gay that by neglect the act of those in authority was wrong. Is there a Senator here willing to put that blame upon the State? If there is he ought to vote for the bill. My constituents and all that part of the State think these are claims the State should not pay, and I am here to reflect their opinion. I do think that the report ought not to be adopted. It seems to me there underlies, in that report, something or other. It seems to me the Committee went beyond what there was any necessity for, to strike somebody. There is a great deal more said than ought to be gaid, for I hold that in all the thirty-five States in existence during the war there was not in this Union a more patriotic, able, or efficient Governor than Oliver P. Morton, of Indinna. His record will speak for itself.
Mr. TURNER Mr. President: I would like to talk some myself, but rise to move the previous question.
The demand for the previous question was sustained by the Senate-upon a division-affirmative 24, negative 17.
Under its pressure the report was rejected by yeas 23, nays 25, as follows:
YEAS-Messrs. Andrews, Bellamy, Bird, Bradley, Church, Cravens, Denbo, Gifford, Green, Hanna, Henderson, Howk, Huey, Hoffman, Humphreys, Laselle, Lee, Montgomery, Rice, Robinson of Madison, Sherrod, Taggart and Turner-23.
NAYS-Messrs, Beardsley, Carson, Case, Caven. Eliott, Fisher, Fosdick, Gray, Hadley, Hamilton, Hess, Hooper, Jaquess, Johnson of Spencer, Kinley, Morgan, Reynolds, Robinson of Decatur, Scott, Smith, Stein, Wolcott, Wood and the Liutenant Governor-25
Mr. CARSON, when his name was called, protested against coming to a vote upon a Question involving such vast interests without permitting Senators equally interested with others on this floor to be heard upon this subject. He did not believe the report was true in law or in fact; and voted "no."
Mr. CRAVENS, when his name was called, said I was both pleased and sorry that the previous question was called, for I would like to have replied to some remarks that have been made, especially by my right hand friend [Mr. Gray,] who has put a very gratuitous on upon the general proposition stated the report. He has put up a man of straw and shown his ability to knock it down. I for the purpose of disclaiming any personal party or particular allusion at all; it is a simple announcement of a general proposition, and that is the character of every one of the propositions in the report of the Committee. It was drafted by myself, suggested by myself, and I believe every word is true in it, and that there is no man who can controvert any proposition in it.
Mr. GRAY (interposing) I will ask the Senator what he means when he speaks of the State having neglected to protect its citizens.
Mr. CRAVENS. The report says that the neglect or the refusal on the part of the State to provide in advance against a threatened injury where it has the means to do so is as culpable as to commit the offense itself; and I say no man can deny it.
Mr. GRAY (in his seat.) Who should have done it?
Mr. CRAVENS. The people of Indiana-Southern Indiana was helpless; the enemy was at their door; these raids were liable to be made there at any time and while these men in the northern part of the State were in security we were left there without an organization to repel an invasion. But I rose simply to state that the report but stated a general proposition, and there was no party significance in it.
Mr. FISHER, when his name was called, said: My recollection of this matter referred to by the Senator from Jefferson [Mr. Cravens.] is different from his. He states that the southern border was helpless. I speak knowingly when I say that there was an organized regiment of men in every border county during' that time, ready to be called out. The difficulty was they had no horses with which to catch Morgan, and they could not do it on foot.
Mr. GREEN, when his name was called said: I no not like the language of the report very well, but as I shall vote for the bill, I presume I had better cast my vote in the affirmative, though I don't like some of the language of the report.
Mr. HAMILTON, when his name was called, said: I hope I will be permitted to explain my vote. I feel like an individual that approached me once at the close of a meeting when I did not give him the privilege of joining the church, and said that I had deprived him of a privilege he thought he had. I thought I had the privilege to speak on this subject but I find I am deprived of that privilege. In the first place I would just as soon be found voting to disgrace my wife as to vote for this report with the explanations that have been given on this floor. I am not prepared to say that by the exercise of the commonest prudence there would have been no such thing as the Morgan raid. I propose to say that if it had page: 382[View Page 382] not been known that there were people in this State who sympathised with the rebellion Morgan never would have crossed the Ohio Riven For fear you will conclude that I am out of order (and have got a speech in me half an hour long,) I vote "no" all the time.
Mr. CRAVENS (interposing.) Where do you find the language used "common prudence?"
Mr. HAMILTON. I got it from a man who held the papers.
Mr. CRAVENS. The repors says "a wise regard for the public welfare" would have prevented the invasion.
Mr. HAMILTON. If this press gang had not been put upon us we would have had that all explained. I vote "no," believing that my constituents will back me up.
Mr. HUMPHREYS, in explanation of his vote when his name was called, said: I shall vote for the report, not committing myself for the bill. I vote "aye."
Mr. RICE, when his name was called in explanation of his vote said: I disclaim, along with the Chairman of the Committee [Mr. Cravens] any intention on the part of the Committee in stating a general proposition to strike at the officials of the State at the time of this raid.
Mr. ROBINSON of Madison, when his name was called, said: I have voted for a similar bill to this every time it has come up for the last two years, but I think this bill ought to be amended. I do not think this bill ought to pass unless there is some amendment. I vote "aye."
Mr. STEIN in explanation of his vote when his name was called said: In the light of the information we have received to-day I cannot support the bill as it stands. When it first came into the Senate as Senate bill No. 97 it was referred to the Committee on Public Expenditures. Their report came in and it justified no legislation on the subject. In the course of that report it was declared that the State of Ohio had paid off similar claims to a large amount, and that the United States had reimbursed the same, and we have herethfore been assured in debate on this floor that the State of Ohio has paid claims of this kind; and I was perfectly willing to vote for the bill in the light of this information, taking it for granted that the precedent set in Ohio would be followed by the General Government. But I find this evening that we have been resting under a delusion, and hence I cannot take the risk. I would have been perfectly willing to vote for this bill with the assurances before us heretofore; but they having been dispelled I shall therefore vote "no."
Mr. WOLCOTT, when his nams was called, in explanation of his vote said: Mr. President: I am opposed to this report, believing it to be untrue in law and false in deduction of facts. I will admit the general proposition as stated in the report that in all governments voluntarily formed-it is the principle of obedience to all governments "that the contract between the citizens individually and collectively is of a twofold character; first that the citizen engages to render allegiance, service and obedience; the state solemnly promises protection to the citizen in person and property." While that as a general proposition is true, and as a general proposition is subject to an indefinite number of exceptions, it is not true in point of law as far as a case of this kind is concerned. The true law is also general law. A commission is now sitting in this city embracing such claims against the Government of the United States. The law says that this commission shall proceed, subject to the rules prescribed by law, to examine the expenditures made by such state etc. That is the general law, the broad principle here announced--
Mr. CRAVENS (interrupting.) Mr. President; We are all of us cut off from going into an argument on this subject by the previous question.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. It will be impossible for the chair to rule what a Senator shall say.
Mr. CRAVENS. It is easy to distinguish between a labored argument of the question and the explanation of a vote.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. If the Senator desires to state the reasons for his vote he has that privilege.
Mr. WOLCOTT. Reasons for a vote sometimes involve an argument of the question in a broad sense. The principle endeavored to be applied to this case would apply to every calamity with which men are afflicted. It would apply to the small pox, to the measles, and to a case where a man is injured by being thrown out of his carriage. No body believes any such doctrine is true to govern this case or any other case. The law of protection is well supported by national usage. I need not go farther than to say that when the report was made last session by the Committee on Expenditures that report was adopted by a unanimous vote, the Senate affirming the general interpretation of law on that subject. Then again as to the State's ability to protect the border, there was but one way of protecting the border. Had she kept her troops out of the field no invasion would have taken place. When we had gunboats patroling up and down the Ohio river, to say that the State was neglecting her duty is to state what is not true. I vote "no."
Mr. WOOD, when his name was called, said: Without indicating how I shall vote upon the bill finally, I will vote "no," as I think the report should not be adopted.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR when page: 383[View Page 383] the casting vote said: If the Chair is to vote, the Chair is privileged to give his reasons. If the Chair should be called upon to vote on the bill, I should vote "aye," for I believe the bill to be right, but I do not believe the statements in this report are true, and can not cast my vote to concur in a report that casts censure upon a Governor of this State. I therefore vote "no."
So the report was rejected.
And then-
The Senate adjourned.
