IN SENATE.
FRIDAY, April 16, 1869.The Senate met at 9 o'clock A M.
The Secretary's minutes of yesterday's proceedings were being read, when-
On motion of Mr. CARSON the further reading thereof was dispensed with.
ORDER OF BUSINESS.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR announced that, as the pending business at the adjournment on yesterday was the consideration of bills on the third reading, he would hold that to be the order of business at this time. He based this decision upon the 31 at rule of the Senate, which reads as follows:
31. The unfinished business in which the Senate was engaged at the last preceding adjournment, shall have the preference in the orders of the day, and no motion or any other business shall be received without special leave of the Senate until the former is disposed of. - Standing Rules and Orders for the Government of The Senate, page [?]0.
LEAVES OF ABSENCE.
Several Senators having asked and obtained leaves of absence for several days each,
Mr. HANNA remarked that he would offer a resolution which would probably save other Senators the necessity of asking for leaves of absence. Already a sufficient number have been granted leave, or going home to-day, to leave the body without a quorum to do business And then,a good many members, when they came up here, did not know that, they would stay very long, and consequently left their affairs at home in rather an unsettled condition. In view of these facts and other considerations, he offered a resolution that when the Senate adjourns it adjourn to meet on Tuesday next., at, 2 o'clock P. M.
After remarks thereon by Messrs. BELLAMY, GRAY, ROBINSON of Madison, GREEN AND LEE -
The resolution was adopted by yeas 22, nays 16-so it was-
Ordered, That when the Senate adjourns it adjourn till Tuesday next at 2 o'clock P. M.
Mr. WOLCOTT suggested an early adjournment to-day, inasmuch as many of the trains about 11 o'clock
Mr. ROBINSON, of Madison, moved that the Senate adjourn.
The motion was rejected by yeas 15, nays 21.
THE JOURNAL CLERKS.
Mr. WOLCOTT. There is a proposition which should be brought before the Senate, and yet it is not a privileged matter, as I understand the rules A report from the committee appointed to investigate as to the number of employes which should be retained this session was confirmed by the action of the Senate on yesterday, which reduces the clerical force of the Assistant Secretary to three clerks. The Assistant Secretary informs me that it is utterly impossible to discharge his duties with so little force. He further says that at no session has the force ever been less than six. His duties are to transcribe in full and promptly everything that transpires here; every paper that comes before the Senate is to be transcribed except the body of the bills themselves. As most of this work has to be done instantaneously, it seems to me we should not depart from usages that have heretofore prevailed If for a long series of years it has been deemed necessary that page: 69[View Page 69] six clerks should be allowed the Assistant Secretary, it must be somewhere nearly right I move for a new investigation of that subject.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR I would suggest to the Senator that the proper motion would be to reconsider the vote concurring in the committee's report.
Mr WOLCOTT. Then I move to reconsider with a view to a further inquiry. The Assistant Secretary of the Senate informs me that he was not consulted in reference to the subject, but the committee arrived at their conclusions from information derived outside.
Mr. GIFFORD I hope this matter not hastily be entered into. Unless some good reason is shows I see no necessity for a reconsideration. The Committee are satisfied that four clerks can do all the work which as been stated by the Senator in his address to the Senate; and we were so informed by persons who have had experience in that business And especially if we are going to adjourn for five or six days at a time I see no necessity for keeping five or six clerks standing idle all the time. If it is found that three clerks cannot do the work, then it will be time enough for the Senate to give the Assistant Secretary power to appoint more.
Mr. TURNER I do not know how true it is, but l am informed that we have had more employees than any Legislature in any of the States around us We talk about retrenchment the other day in regarding taking newspapers that would inform the people of what we are doing here; and yet, it seems, are disposed to expend money to pay employes that are unnecessary It seems to me that I could take three other men and do the work required of the Assistant Secretary; but I may be mistaken.
Mr WOLCOTT. It seems to me proper that the Committee should hear the Assistant Secretary on this question. I think it was an act of discourtesy, with all respect to the Committee, that they did not. I still think the action of the Senate ought to be reconsidered, and that the Committee should take the subject into consideration again.
Mr. BELLAMY It has been customary to allow the Assistant, Secretary six clerks I believe never less than that. I was informed by Colonel Brown, a former Secretary here, that was as little as he could get along with He had no interest in the matter, and he stated before a Committee, when called upon to know, that six were as few as could be go along with This does not look very well in the face of an adjournment till Tuesday: by which about $1,000 will be lost.I hope the motion to reconsider will prevail.
Mr FISHER I voted for the report presented yesterday without knowing anything of the facts in the case. For the amount of labor performed at the Assistant Secretary's desk, I was disposed to consider that the clerical force was sufficient; but the statements which have been made this morning, and particularly the statement which goes to show that the Assistant Secretary was not consulted by the Committee, leaves me to suppose that there may be an error committed, which can not do any possible harm to enquire into. It can do no harm to reconsider, and refer the matter back to the Committee. If there is not force enough there they ought to have force enough; hence I think the Senate should reconsider its action, and make the inquiry a little fuller.
The yeas and nays having been demanded, ordered and taken -
The LIEUTANANT GOVERNOR announced that there was no quorum voting.
And then-
On motion, the Senate adjourned.
THE STANDING COMMITTEES.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, in pursuance of a resolution of the Senate on yesterday, "owing to the protracted and serious illness of Senator Cotley," added "and additional member to each of the standing committees where the name of Mr. Cotley appears." And heretofore, on motion, an additional member [Mr. Morgan] was appointed on the Committee on Education. So the standing committees of the Senate for the present session are as follows:
On Elections - Messrs. Robinson of Madison, Scott, Case, Stein, Howk, Taggart and Reynolds.
On Finance - Messrs. Wolcott, Gray, Fisher, Jaquess, Morgan, Turner and Smith.
On the Judiciary - Messrs. Bellamy, Kinley, Carson, Wood, Stein, Turner, and Morgan.
On Corporations - Messrs. Rice, Gray, Green, Hooper, Hanna, Sherrod, and Carson.
On Roads - Messrs. Robinson of Decature, Armstrong, Huey, Hess, Andrews, Johnston of Montgomery, and Johnson of Spencer.
On Benevolent Institutions - Messrs. Church Green, Reynolds, Bradley, Ride Gifford and Huffman.
On Agriculture - Messrs. Reynolds, Johnston of Montgomery, Robinson of Decatur, Lee, Gifford, Humphreys and Jaquess.
page: 70[View Page 70]On Banks - Messrs. Gray, Wolcott, Hooper, Hamilton, Fisher, Sherrod and Morgan.
On Manufactures - Messrs. Armstrong, Beardsley, Andrews, Johnson of Spencer, Henderson, Lee and Sherrod.
On Public Printing - Messrs. Fisher, Hadley, Beardsley, Colley, Taggart, Lasselle, Humphreys and Fosdick.
On Public Buildings - Messrs Montgomery, Colley, Fosdick, Bellamy, Huey, Lee, Sherrod and Gray.
On Persons - Messrs. Andrews, Armstrong, Montgomery, Jacquess, Denbo, Smith, and Johnson of Spencer.
On Canals and Internal Improvements - Messrs. Cravens, Hughes, Smith, Fisher, Howk, Armstrong and Wood
On State Library - Messrs Wood, Fisher, Bellamy, Henderson, Huffman, Andrew and Bird.
On Fees and Salaries - Messrs. Green, Fosdick, Hess, Turner, Taggart, Elliot and Huey.
On Claims - Messrs. Jaquess, Hess, Caven, Denbo, Hooper, Bradley and Johnston of Montgomery.
On Military Affairs - Messrs. Hadley Jaquess, Kinley, Bird, Hamilton, Sherrod, and Lasselle.
On Phraseology, Arrangement of Bills and Enrolled Bills - Messrs. Hooper, COlley, Denbo, Hadley, Hannah, Howk, Robinson of Madison and Bellamy
On Unfinished Business - Messrs. Elliot, Cravens, Green, Fosdock, Carson, Henderson and Turner.
On Organizations of Courts - Messrs Stein, Robinson of Madison, Scott, Green, Smith, Denbo and Hannah.
On Federal Relations - Messrs. Scott Robinson of Decatur, Cravens, Reynolds, Gifford, Humphrey, and Lasselle
On Expenditures - Messrs. Hughes Kinley, Montgomery, Armstrong, Henderson, Beardsley, and Lee.
On Swamp Lands - Messrs. Hess, Gray, Case Lasselle, Hadley, and Huffman.
On Temperance - Messrs. Kinley, Rice, Church, Robinson of Decatur, Taggart, Armstrong, and Bradley.
On County and Township Business - Messrs. Case, Colley, Hughes, Jaquess, Gifford, Lee, Denbo, and Armstrong.
On the Rights and Privileges of the Inhabitants of the State - Messrs Johnson of Spencer, Caven, Hughes, Stien, Carson, Huffman, and Bradley.
On House of Refuge - Messrs. Fosdick, Church, Johnson of Spencer, Huffman, Lee, Henderson, Andrews and Scott.
On Congressional Apportionment - Messrs. Hamilton, Robinson of Madison, Hess, Case, Church, Scott, Morgan, Denbo, Cravens, Elliot, and Hadley
On Legislative Apportionment - Messrs. Colley, Green, Bird, Beardsley, Reynolds, Jaquess, Hughes, Sherrod, Gifford, Robinson of Decatur, Stein, and Cavin.
