THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
THIRTEENTH VOLUME.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
WEDNESDAY, December 11,1872.The House met at nine o'clock a. m.
Prayers by the Rev. Mr. Cornelius, of the Garden Baptist Church, of this city.
On motion of Mr. GIVAN, the reading of the Journal of yesterday was dispensed with, except the record of the vote on the final passage of the bill [S. 85] to provide for the State bonds or stock [191] issued prior to 1841, etc., and the record was corrected as to total vote.
Mr. BLOCHER and Mr. BAKER desired to enter their votes in the negative on the passage of said bill.
Mr. BUTTERWORTH moved for an order that the Journal Company be requested to deliver their papers at seven o'clock in the morning, not caring for its adoption, but to call attention to the matter, which he supposed would be promptly corrected.
Mr. KIMBALL said the censure shall fall on those that distribute the papers.
ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION OF TAXES.
Mr. KIMBALL, from the Committee on Ways and Means, returned the committee's (printed) bill [H. R. 163] to provide for a uniform assessment of property and the collection and return of taxes thereon, with an amendment, the words "valuation and taxation" to follow "lots of land."
The amendment was adopted, and the bill ordered to the engrossment.
Mr. BRANHAM. This is a very important bill--the most important of the session. It is an entire revision of the assessment laws; and I think I am right in saying it will reach a revenue of three or four hundred thousand dollars without raising the taxes.
Mr. SHIRLEY. The various foreign insurance companies doing business in the State draw a million of dollars annually from our citizens for premiums, and I think some provision ought to be made for taxing their gross receipts. I am unwilling that this bill should pass without such a provision.
Mr. KIMBALL. With reference to insurance companies there is a special bill for taxing their receipts.
Mr. GIVAN. I see on page 50, section 180, of the printed bill, that there is a blank --.
Mr. KIMBALL. It is filled. I will state for the information of the House that the printer made several mistakes; but the bill has been critically examined by the committee, and the mistakes are all corrected.
Mr. SATTERWHITE. Is there a provision in the bill for the assessment of taxes on shares in banks or banking associations, or capital used for the purposes of banking in bonds of the United States, or otherwise? The private banks in Indianapolis alone hold hundreds of thousands of dollars in this way and do not return a dollar for taxation. I see no reason why there should be discrimination in their favor and against the national banks taxed for municipal purposes. I would like to reach these private banks.
Mr. KIMBALL. There is a provision for the assessment of shares in banking.
page: 251[View Page 251]On motion of Mr. BRANHAM, the bill was referred again to the committee with instructions to report it to-morrow at ten o'clock as the special order.
FUNDED DEBTSTATE AGENT.
On motion of Mr. KIMBALL the bill [S. 141] in relation to the refunded debt of the State was taken up and read.
Mr. BRANHAM. This bill is like to that of the House on the third reading.
On motion the restrictions were removed and the bill was advanced to the third reading. The principal object of the bill is to abolish the office of Agent of State, and to transfer the State debt Sinking Fund to the General Fund. Its passage will save some $5,000 to the State annually.
The bill was finally passed the House of Representatives without amendment; yeas 88; nays 0.
Mr. KIMBALL. It strikes me that the title should express something more correctly in regard to the Agent of State, and it might be done by adding these words: "dispensing with the office of Agent of State." The bill is not to abolish the State's agency, but to dispense with the State Agent under the provisions of law.
It was so ordered by unanimous consent.
The SPEAKER laid before the House a communication from the Auditor of State, transmitting advance copies of that part of hsi report in relation to the State debt and the duties of the Agent of State in relation thereto.
A message was received from the Governor announcing the signing of the House Bills for the completion of unfinished business of one session by the next succeeding session; for the amendment of the act establishing the House of Refuge, and the bill making specific appropriations. Also, that the House Joint Resolution in opposition to the division of the State into two Judicial Districts had been transmitted to our Senators and Representatives.
SALE OF PATENT RIGHTS.
The SPEAKER took up Mr. Miller's bill [H. R. 115] to repeal the act of April 23, 1869, to regulate the sale of patent rights, etc., in its order on the third reading.
Mr. MILLER. The act proposed to be repealed is in the Third Indiana Statutes, page 364. It took effect in 1869 without the signature of the Governor, It is a good law, but it is in contravention of the Constitution of the United States. It has been so decided, because the laws of Congress authorize any man who has received a patent to sell it in any of the States of the Union. The only trouble with the law is that it is a dead letter, and its enforcement makes a man liable for false imprisonment.
The bill was finally passed the House of Representatives--yeas, 88; nays, 0.
REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS, DEATHS AND MARRIAGES.
Mr. Lenfesty's bill [H. R. 88] to provide for the registration of births, deaths and marriages, was taken up on the third reading.
Mr. COBB. I like some of the provisions of this bill; and, as the revenue laws are to be changed, I move to recommit the bill to the Committee on the Judiciary, with instructions to amend it by striking opt the words "township assessors" whenever they occur in the bill, and insert the words "township trustees" in lieu, and make such other amendments as they may see proper.
Mr. LENFESTY. I am not really the author of the bill, although I introduced it. It was recommended to me by certain township officers. As I am informed that there will be an effort made here to create a bureau or board of statistics--a thing very much needed, that we may make a a complete showing to capitalists what are the resources of the State; and as I am very deeply interested in this bill, and as this matter is also in the other branch of the General Assembly, I concur in the motion.
And accordingly the bill was recommitted, with the proposed instructions.
DECEDENTS' ESTATES--WITNESSES.
Mr. WILSON of Ripley's bill [H. R. 118] making parties witnesses in reference to matters with executors and administrators, where contracts have been assigned to decedents, [which failed heretofore for lack of a constitutional majority] was again submitted to the vote.
Mr. WILSON defined it as providing that where contracts have been assigned to the decedent, and the assignor is living, he shall be a competent witness, and the defendant and the administrator shall also be competent witnesses as to matters between the assignor and the defendant.
Mr. CAUTHORN. I submit the point of order under our rules, that this bill having once failed for want of a constitutional majority, if it passes now it must be without debate.
The SPEAKER sustained the point, and the bill was finally passed the House of Representatives--yeas 51; nays 30.
TOWN SHADE TREES.
Mr. TULLEY'S bill [H. R. 128] empowering boards of trustees of incorporated page: 252[View Page 252]towns to compel owners of lands to plant and maintain shade trees thereon, was taken up in order and finally passed--yeas 65; nays 15.
Mr. WOODARD submitted a motion to reconsider this vote.
Mr. OFFUTT had voted against this bill but if he had thought it would pass he would have voted for it, and made this motion himself to reconsider. It is wrong to compel owners of property to pay for mere ornamentations which they do not want. It is in derogation of common law rights. It ought not to pass for this reason. It would work hardship on small property owners if they are compelled to erect ornaments worth a hundred dollars or so. There is already a law to compel grading and sidewalks, which is right; there is utility in it; but to compel mere ornamentation is wrong.
Mr. WOODARD. We might with the same propriety say that every man in town shall build a brown stone house.
Mr. BAKER considered that the provisions of the act of March 14, 1857, go far enough in this direction.
Mr. RENO concurred in this opinion.
Mr. LENFESTY. This bill provides that shade trees shall be supplied where the public convenience require them. The poor man could not be required to pay anything like the sum suggested. Three dollars will secure all the trees that could be required for three or four hundred dollars' worth of ground. The bill is right, and the vote should not be disturbed.
Mr. SHIRLEY did not think this bill a step beyond what should be the law in regard to shade trees. Nothing so cheap can add so much to the comfort and salubrity of any place.
Mr. TULLEY. The bill provides that shade trees shall be planted where, in the opinion of the board, they are requisite. It must be done by the will of a majority of the board. Shade trees are well worth their cost as a preventative against fire, and they are health promoting and a preventive of drouth.
Mr. BUTTERWORTH. The late fire which destroyed the business portion of our town (Mishawaka) was stopped at length by the shade trees.
Mr. BUSKIRK called attention to the fact that shade trees, by their purification of the atmosphere, are protective of public morality. Filth and vice go together, and cleanliness is a virtue. This consideration alone was sufficient to commend the bill to his mind.
On motion of Mr. GIFFORD, the motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
INDIANA UNIVERSITY.
Mr. Furnas' bill [H. R. 56], authorizing an annual appropriation of $20,000 to the State University, was read the third time.
Mr. GIVAN spoke in favor of the bill, holding that the people were in advance of the Legislature on this subject, and that the demand of the times was for placing the State University upon the ground contemplated by the act, establishing it at the head of our common school system.
Mr. SHIRLEY would oppose any further appropriations to colleges and higher institutions of learning while the common schools were unprovided for--so that the children should have the benefit of at least six months schooling in every year. Now in many country districts they are only afforded three or four months schooling annually. The higher institutions of learning were, as a rule, only available to those who have the ability to pay for a higher grade of education, and he would oppose any further appropriations to such institutions until every child in the State should be provided with the means of securing an elementary education.
Mr. RICHARDSON opposed the bill upon the same grounds.
Mr. KIMBALL. The State of Indiana should not neglect her University. The common school fund of Indiana is in excess of any other of the younger States of the Union. The State University occupies an enviable position in the eyes of the world, and it should be in the hearts of the people of Indiana. It is a part of the system of common schools, and I would be willing to appropriate the last dollar in the treasury to advance the interests of education. Nearly four millions of dollars in bonds of the United States constitute the common school fund of this State, and this, besides the tax of sixteen cents on the $100. And hence the common schools and the State University should have a corresponding higher point of advancement than they attain in those neighboring States. The University should not go down. It seems to me that every man ought to feel as I do about keeping it up.
Mr. WOOLLEN. I am in favor of the passage of the bill. The Committee on Education is a prudent and an important committee, and I am willing to stand by the report they have made. Their conclusions give no evidence of flimsiness, but set forth actual needs of the University. This cause is mine--it is the cause of Indiana; and the University is her child. Shall we bastardize it and let it perish? or shall we give to it the support and fostering which it so much needs? Thomas page: 253[View Page 253]Jefferson would have no other epitaph than this: "Here lies the author of the Declaration of Independence and the father of the University of Virginia."--When he had concluded--
Mr. MELLETT said the gentleman from Johnson has made my speech for the bill. The proposed appropriation would make the annual support of the University about thirty-six or thirty-seven thousand dollars; and this sum is less by nearly one half than the annual proceeds of the endowment of the Michigan State University. When he had concluded--
Mr. WILLARD demanded the previous question and there was a second to the demand. Under this pressure the bill was brought to the vote and failed again--Yeas 43, nays 44--for lack of the constitutional majority of all the members.
The House then took a recess till two o'clock p. m.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The House was called to order at two p.m. by the SPEAKER, who announced the special order, being the consideration of Mr. Heller's motion to reconsider the vote by which Mr. Wilson, of Ripley's bill [H. R. 73] to fix the per diem and mileage of members of the General Assembly at $8 a day, failed for want of the constitutional majority.
Mr. WOODARD moved a call of the House, which was ordered, and 85 members responded to their names.
Mr. BRANHAM moved to dispense with further proceedings under the call; which was agreed to.
Mr. KIMBALL moved to dispense with the special order and take up his railroad bills 151 and 152.
The motion was rejected.
Mr. LENFESTY moved to lay Mr. Heller's motion to reconsider the vote by which the mileage bill [H. R. 73] failed to pass on the table.
Mr. OFFUTT demanded the yeas and nays, which resulted--yeas, 32; nays, 67. So that motion being rejected, the question recurred upon Mr. Heller's to reconsider the per diem bill.
The motion to reconsider was agreed to, and the question again recurred on the final passage of the per diem bill [H. R. 73.] The vote (which was taken without debate) resulted--yeas, 51; nays, 40, as follows:
YEAS--Messrs. Anderson, Baker, Billingsley, Buskirk, Cauthorn, Cobb, Coffman, Cole, Cowgill, Eaton, Edwards of Lawrence, Gifford, Gregory, Gronendyke, Hardesty, Hedrick, Heller, Henderson, Hoyer, Isenhower, Johnson, Jones, Kimball, Lent, Martin, Miller, Odle, Offutt, Ogrlen, Peed, Reeves, Richardson, Riggs, Rumsey, Schmuck, Shirley, Strange, Teeter, Thayer, Thompson of Spencer, Tulley, Walker, Wesner, Willard, Wilson of Ripley, Wood, Woodard, Wolflin, Woollen and the Speaker--51.
NAYS--Messrs. Baxter, Blocher, Branham, Brett, Broadus, Butts, Clark, Claypool, Cline, Crumpacker, Dial, Ellsworth, Eward, Furnas, Givan, Glasgow, Goble, Goudie, Hatch, Hollingsworth, King, Kirkpatrick, Lenfesty, McConnell, McKinney, Mellett, North, Pfrimmer, Reno, Rudder, Satterwhite, Scott, Shutt, Smith, Stanley, Tingley, Thompson of Elkhart, Troutman, Wilson of Blackford, Wynn--40.
So the bill was finally passed the House of Representatives.
RAILROAD RETURNS--TAXATION.
On motion of Mr. KIMBALL, his railroad returns bill [H. R. 151] to amend the act of March 11, 1867, was taken up, the question being on the third reading.
Mr. BRANHAM. All the change proposed to be made in the late law is this: it proposes to change the time of making their reports to the Auditor from the 10th of January to the first Tuesday in February. It also fixes a penalty. Hitherto the law has been without penalty, and the
On motion by Mr. STEELE, this motion was laid on the table.
Mr. NEFF, as a general proposition, was opposed to the creation of new circuits, but was satisfied some relief is needed in the district affected by this bill, and for this reason alone he should favor its passage.
Mr. DWIGGINS demanded the previous question.
The demand was seconded by the Senate, and under its operations the constitutional requirement was not dispensed with--yeas 30, nays 11--two-thirds not voting in the affirmative.
INDIANA UNIVERSITY.
Mr. SCOTT made a motion to suspend the regular order, that the bill [H. R. 37] making an appropriation of $8,000 to pay a deficiency created in 1870 and 1871 by the Indiana University at Bloomington might be taken up.
The motion was agreed to, and accordingly the bill was read the second time.
Mr. TAYLOR moved to amend by adding an appropriation of $100,000 to the Purdue University. He urged the adoption of his amendment, giving reasons therefor, among others, that this would in all probability, be the last time that the Institution will ask for State aid.
This amendment was opposed by Messrs. Dittemore, Orr, Daggy and Harney.
Mr. DAGGY made a motion that the bill and amendments be referred to the Committee on Public Expenditures.
Mr. TAYLOR asked and obtained leave to withdraw his amendment.
page: 254[View Page 254]On motion by Mr. BROWN the motion to recommit the bill was laid on the table.
Mr. SCOTT moved to dispense with the constitutional restriction that the bill may be read the third time now and put upon its passage.
The motion was agreed to by yeas, 34; nays, 10.
Accordingly the bill [H. R. 37] making an appropriation of $8,000 to the Indiana State University at Bloomington, to pay a debt incurred in the years 1870 and 1871, was read the third and last time in the Senate.
Mr. HARNEY declared that he would have to vote against the bill, not because of unfriendliness to the University, but because he opposed the principle embodied in the bill.
Mr. FRIEDLEY of Lawrence [Mr. Dwiggins in the chair] spoke in favor of the bill--hoping it would meet with no serious opposition.
The bill was then finally passed by yeas 37; nays 5, with an amendment of title.
The PRESIDENT pro tem., announced the special order, being Mr. Chapman's drainage bill [S. 88.]
EIGHT DOLLARS A DAY FOR MEMBERS.
On motion by Mr. BROWN its consideration was postponed until two and a half o'clock, p. m., in order that the bill [H. R. 73] increasing the per diem of members $3 may be considered now.
On motion of Mr. DITTEMORE, the bill [H. R. 73] fixing the per diem of members of the General Assembly at eight dollars per day, and five dollars for every twenty-five miles travel, was read the second time.
Mr. DITTEMORE moved to dispense with the constitutional restriction, that the bill may be advanced at once to its final reading, and passed to-day.
Mr. HARNEY understood by the Treasurer that there are over sixty employes in the Senate, and there should be some restriction to this evil placed in this bill.
Mr. BROWN demanded the previous question.
The Senate seconded the demand for the previous question, and under the operation thereof, the motion to dispense with the constitutional restriction was not agreed to--yeas 28, nays 17--two-thirds not voting in the affirmative.
VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS.
Mr. STEELE made a motion to suspend the order of business that the bill [S. 3] to authorize voluntary accociations to borrow money to complete unfinished buildings might be taken up.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the bill [S. 3] to amend section 4 of the act of February 20, 1857, concerning the organization of voluntary associations, and repealing each act repealed by said act, was read the second time.
Mr. STEELE moved for a dispensation of the Constitutional provision that the bill may be passed to its final reading in the Senate.
The motion was agreed to by yeas 41, nays 2.
Accordingly the bill was read the third time and passed by yeas 46, nays 0.
TWENTY-THIRD COMMON PLEAS.
Mr. RHODES made a motion to suspend the regular order that the bill [S. 68] to amend the second section of the act of May 11, 1867, creating the Twenty-third Common Pleas District--affecting the counties of Tippecanoe and Warren, may be read the second time.
The motion was agreed to, and the bill being read--
He moved for a dispensation that the bill may be pressed to the final reading now.
This motion was agreed to by yeas 41, nays 2.
Accordingly the bill was read the third time and passed by yeas 45, nays 0.
Mr. BEARDSLEY, by leave, introduced a bill [S. 145] in relation to the organization of the two Houses of the General Assembly, and regulating the number of assistants to be employed by each of the officers thereof.
[The author says this bill will save $20,000 each session.]
It was read the first time and passed to the second reading.
And then came the recess till two o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The Senate reassembled at two p. m.
CHARGES AGAINST STATE OFFICIAL
Mr. CARNAHAN offered a resolution authorizing the Committee on Finance to make investigation into charges preferred against the present and late Treasurers present and late Auditors of State and others with reference to the loan of the public school fund contrary to law, and report the result of the investigations to the Senate. It is as follows:
WHEREAS, It has been charged through the public press and otherwise that John I. Morrison and Nathan Kimball, late Treasurers of State, James B. Ryan, present Treasurer, Thomas B. McCarty and John D. Evans, late Auditors of State, and John C. Shoemaker, present Auditor, have loaned, deposited, and other-
page: 255[View Page 255]wise used the public funds contrary to law, therefore--
RESOLVED, That the Committee on Finance be derected to make such investigation in relation thereto as the public interest and exigencies of the case may seem to require, and report the result of their examination to the Senate.
Mr. BROWN moved to change the reference of the resolution to the special committee heretofore appointed to inquire why the sinking fund had not been distributed according to law, and to ascertain what amount of interest had been collected on the same, and what had been done with it.
[A message was here received from the Governor, announcing the signing of Senate bills 8, 38 and 124.]
Some discussion ensued upon the question of courtesy in taking the matter from the select committee, Mr. Dittemore favoring and Mr. Carnahan opposing the reference to the select committee.
Mr. BROWN moved to further amend by striking from the resolution all reforence of former Treasurers and Auditors, on the ground that they are now defendants in suits instituted against them on the relation of the State.
Mr. THOMPSON hoped this investigation would not be pressed in this way. He was satidfied the whole thing grew out of a spirit of persecution, and a desire to break down old parties and create newparty divisions. It was easy to find charges railroads have made no reports, and so we find ourselves at fault as to the valuation of their property for taxation. It is a very important matter that these reports should be had by the State.
Mr. BAKER. I would like to see the bill amended so as to read $25 per day, instead of $100 for each day's delay of their report.
Mr. KIMBALL. There are many railroads that would rather pay $25 a day than give in their report.
The bill was finally passed the House of Representatives--yeas 81, nays 1. Mr. Kimball's bill [H. R. 152] to amend the act to provide for the incorporation of railroad companies, approved May 11, 1852, was taken up on the third reading.
Mr. BRANHAM. The object of this bill is the same as that of the other act. It makes no change in the law except the date of the returns from the 10th of January to the first Tuesday in February, and fixes penalties. It is to give the State information for the basis of railroad taxation.
And then the bill was finally passed the House of Representatives--yeas 86, nays 2.
REPEAL OF THE CORPORATION DRAINAGE ACT.
On motion of Mr. BUTTERWORTH, the bill [S. 1] to repeal the corporation drainage act of 1869, and the supplemental act of 1871, was taken up and read the first time, and on his further mottion (the constitutional restriction being removed for the purpose) the bill finally passed the House--yeas 89, nays 0.
On motion of Mr. OGDEN, the title was amended by adding these words: "And saving from the operation of this act all companies the line of whose works is sixteen miles and under."
[The provisions of the foregoing bill differ from those of the House bill passed on Tuesday only in excepting from its operation companies whose lines of ditching do not exceed sixteen miles in length.]
SUPREME COURT JUDGES--DISTRICT.S
The bill [S. 51] to amend section 1 of the act to authorize a Supreme Court, and prescribe certain duties of the judges thereof, approved May 13, 1852, was taken up on the first reading.
Mr. CAUTHORN. This bill provides for an additional Judge of the Supreme Court without redistricting the State. On his motion, the constitutional restrictions were suspended, and the bill passed--yeas 85, nays 0.
The bill [S. 52] to divide the State into five Supreme Court Judicial Districts, and for the appointment of an additional Judge of the Supreme Court, was taken up on the first reading. [It provides for the appointment by the Governor of a Judge for the fifth Supreme Court District, to serve until his successor shall be elected and qualified.]
On motion of Mr. CAUTHORN (the restrictions being suspended for the purpose) the bill was advanced to final reading. Mr. Cauthorn proposed to amend in the first section by striking put "Parke" and inserting "Vigo" in lieu, and by striking out "Vigo" and inserting "Parke" in lieu.
Mr. WOODARD moved to lay the amendment on the table.
Mr. CAUTHORN. The object of this amendment is to make the districts out of counties adjoining. It don't amount to anything else and it would be satisfactory to the Judges.
Mr. Speaker EDWARDS (Mr. Offutt in the chair) joined the gentleman from Parke (Mr. Woodard) in his objection to the proposed change; to make it would be only to send the bill back to the Senate.
The amendment was laid on the table, and then the bill was finally past the House. Yeas 82, nays 4.
page: 256[View Page 256]VALUATION AND APPRAISEMENT ACT.
Mr. CAUTHORN (by unanimous consent) introduced a bill [H. R. 226] for an act to amend the 453d section of the Practice act of June 18, 1852, and declaring an emergency. [It requires the Sheriff to return the reason of the failure of sale under the valuation and appraisement act, as a basis for a new order for appraisement.]
It was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
LOCAL TAXATION.
The SPEAKER announced as the Select Committee, required by Mr. Woodard's resolution, to enquire what legislation is necessary to prevent exorbitant taxation of the people by county and township authorities, viz : Messrs. Woodard, Edwards of Lawrence, Brett, King and Offutt.
TERRE HAUTE AND INDIANAPOLIS R. R.
Mr. WOOLLEN presented a petition from Mr. Matson. Prosecuting Attorney of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, bearing upon the subject matter of the memorial of the President of the Indianapolis and Terre Haute Railroad, and thereupon he submitted the following which was adopted:
WHEREAS, There is a suit pending in the Putnam Circuit Court on the relation of the State against the Terre Haute and Indianapolis Railroad Company for the purpose of having its franchise declared forfeited on the ground of certain violations of its charter; and
WHEREAS, The said railroad company has petitioned this General Assembly to cause such suit to be discontinued, and the Prosecuting Attorney for the Sixth Judicial Circuit, in which the county of Putnam is situated, has filed his petition also, remonstrating against said dismissal. Now therefore,
RESOLVED, That the Judiciary Committee be instructed to inquire into the truth of the matters alleged on said suit, and report the result of such investigation with whatever recommendation they may deem proper.
STATE PRINTER.
Mr. WOODARD submitted a preamble and resolutions, reciting that the Auditor of State alleges that large amounts of money, more than is necessary, have been paid out for public printing within the last eight years; and that there is now in the hands of the Committee on Printing a bill to abolish the office of State Printer; and therefore requiring said committee to report said bill to the House without delay for action thereon.
Mr. SHIRLEY said he introduced the bill referred to in the resolution, and had prepared a similar order for its return to the House. He rehearsed the provisions of his bill to abolish the office of State Printer, and require the Governor, Secretary, Auditor, and Treasurer of State to let the State's printing to the lowest responsible bidder. He alleged the existence of charges of fraud against the Public Printers of the State chosen by both political parties, which justified the effort to abolish the office, and the statement which he himself had made, that it was more an office of public robbery than of public printing.
When he had concluded the House adjourned.
