THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
THIRTEENTH VOLUME.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
IN SENATE.
SATURDAY, December 14, 1872.The Senate met pursuant to adjournment, President Friedley in the Chair.
On motion, the reading of the journal was dispensed with.
PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.
Mr. SARNIGHAUSEN presented a paper from taxpayers of Allen county, remonstrating against the passage of a bill now on the Senate files authorizing county boards to appropriate money for keeping in repair canals running through or along the lines thereof.
Mr. SARNIGHAUSEN said this remonttrance was signed by some twelve hundred and fifty-five taxpayers, and in a letter I am informed that there is yet another being circulated having already on it some eight hundred signatures more. I would say, continued Mr. S., that I do not fully agree with the contents of the remonstrance, but as it has been sent to me I could not refuse to present it to the Senate. I hope the bill referred to will be made in such a shape that I can vote for it. As the Committee on the Judiciary has already reported the bill back, I move that the remonstrance be placed on the files and taken into consideration when the matter comes before the Senate.
Mr. BIRD replied that the memorial was from a gentleman of our county who previous to the canal being built had a dam and mill on the river. Since the building of this canal, in times of low water, his mill has no water, because the canal consumes it all. This one man, in consequence of his personal interest, has gotten up this petition. Besides this memorialist and the few whom he could influence, the citizens of Allen county were earnestly in favor of the bill. He moved to refer the bill to the Judiciary Committee.
The motion was agreed to.
CONGRESSIONAL APPORTIONMENT.
The Congressional apportionment bill [S. 54] being the unfinished business, Mr. GLESSNER moved that the bill be printed.
On motion by Mr. BROWN, this motion was laid on the table. Yeas, 22; nays, 14.
On motion of Mr. TAYLOR, the message from the House announcing the passage of the bill [S. 5] in regard to the distribution of railroad stock among taxpayers, with an amendment was taken up, and the amendment was concurred in.
On Motion of Mr. WILLIAMS, the bill [H. R. 2] to fix the time of holding courts in the Third Judicial Circuit was read the first time.
On motion of Mr. BROWN, the bill [H. R. 163] to provide for a uniform assessment of property, etc., was taken up, read the first and second time by title only, and referred to the Committee on Finanace.
THE TIPPECANOE BATTLE GROUND.
The PRESIDENT announced the special order of business, being the bill [S. 45] to provide for a permanent enclosure around the Tippecanoe Battle Ground, the same being on its first reading.
page: 279[View Page 279]Mr. NEFF moved to amend the first section by striking out $24,000 and inserting in lieu $14,000.
The PRESIDENT decided the amendment out of order, the Senate having filled the blank last evening.
Mr. DITTEMORE moved to reconsider the vote of last night, by which the blank was filled.
On motion of Mr. DWIGGINS, the motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
On motion by Mr. BROWN, the bill was considered as engrossed, and read the third time.
Mr. NEFF said he was friendly to the project sought to be accomplished by the bill, but believed the amount of the appropriation was too large. He and another Senator this morning visited the same manufacturer from whom the engineer on whose estimate the figures in the bill are based claims to have obtained his data, and found that the best fence he had could be furnished for $4 50 a foot, while the estimated cost according to the bill is $7 27 per foot. If the fence could be obtained for $14,000, he did not see the necessity nor the propriety of appropriating $24,000, and should therefore vote against the bill.
Mr. GREGG said he should vote for the appropriation for two reasons--first, because he believed the State could do no more proper and graceful thing than to suitably care for the ground in which the bones of our heroic dead rest, and second, because he hoped it would stimulate the State of Ohio to make suitable provision for the care of the tomb of the hero of Tippecanoe at North Bend.
Mr. DAGGY said the bill, by its very terms, provides not only for the inclosing of that ground, but that the surplus shall be applied to another purpose, another job to be set up for the State to pay for hereafter. He was not in favor of indirection of that kind. If they want a monument, and want the State to pay for it, let them put it in the bill in so many words, so that we may know what we are voting for. Another thing. We are told that Mr. E. M. Talbott says that this fence would cost so much. Who is Mr. Talbott? What interest has he in it? What per cent. does he get out of that appropriation.
A Senator--He gets none; no more than you do.
Mr. DAGGY--Did not doubt the gentlemen composing the committee reported properly and failry so far as their investigations went, but how far have they investigated? He thought a smaller appropriation, or even a larger appropriation, with a recommendation that its expenditure be left discretionary with the gentlemen who shall have the fence built would be proper and right. But when they come here and say, There is $25,000 to provide for a particular purpose, conceding that it is more than enough, the surplus to be used, after fat jobs are taken out of it, for a certain other purpose, he must object. He should not vote for the bill, because he did not think it was a safe bill, but as wasteful and extravagant. Whenever they present a bill for properly fencing this ground, and that alone, he would favor it.
Mr. DWIGGINS thought it very remarkable that Senators should be so very economical on this occasion, and also that they should insist that there was a job in this bill. If there was any job in it as the Senator charged, it was for the benefit of the Governor, the Secretary, Auditor and Treasurer of State. The bill simply authorizes these officers to properly inclose the battle ground and to draw upon the State Treasury to the amount of $24,100 for that purpose, if necessary. If it can be done for $14,000, they are bound to do it for $14,000. If it can be done for $10,000, they are bound to do it for $10,000. He thought those gentlemen could be trusted to administer the fund honestly and prudently.
Mr. HARNEY recollected that in the years 1849-50 he was a member of a legislative committee which reported in favor fencing this battle ground. A wooden fence was built around it, but fire came and burned up a great portion of it. Objections can always be raised where money is to be appropriated. You can not make it beyond peradventure that means will not be misappropriated, but from his knowledge of the people of Tippecanoe county, he did not believe they would suffer anything of the kind to be perpetrated.
Mr HOUGH did not wish to make any factious opposition to this measure, but thought the grounds could be inclosed in a much cheaper manner than proposed in the bill and as substantial. Many Senators insist that it shall be an iron fence, and he stood ready to vote for any bill that is fair to the taxpayers. But he opposed this bill because he believed a fence such as is contemplated can be made for $10,000 less than the sum named in the bill.
On motion by Mr. TAYLOR, at the suggestion of several Senators, the section providing for the expenditure of he surplus funds in the erection of a monument page: 280[View Page 280]on the battle ground, was stricken out by unanimous consent.
Mr. SCOTT demanded the previous question
The Senate seconded the demand, and under its operations the bill passed the Senate, Yeas, 28; nays, 0.
Pending the roll-call, Mr. BEESON, when his name was called, spoke as follows: Mr. President--One word in explanation of my vote. In looking over this Senate and the House of Representatives, and listening to the roll-call of both houses, I see not a face nor hear a name responded to that was associated with me twenty-two years ago, when this remarkable section was added to the constitution of the State of Indiana: "It shall be the duty of the General Assembly to provide for the permanent enclosure of the Tippecanoe Battle Ground." Well knowing, Mr. President, the noble impulses that actuated the bosoms of the men of that day to make that imperative demand upon the Legislature of the State of Indiana, and being the only member of either house of the Legislature at this time that was associated with those men, and actuated now by the same noble impulses that actuated them, I cheerfully record my vote, "Aye."
Mr. HOUGH, in explanation of his vote, said that he now voted for the bill with as much cheerfulness as any member here--the clause allowing the expenditure of the surplus funds being stricken out.
Mr. NEFF, when his name was called, said: He also believed the bill in a much better shape than before the last amendment was made. The expenditure is now left in the discretion of the State officers. Before, they had no discretion. The $24,000 was to be paid out either for a fence or for a monument Now he was willing to vote for the bill.
Mr. TAYLOR took occasion, when his name was called, to state that the monument clause was put in the bill not at the request of his constituents or of himself.
The vote was then announced, as above.
So the bill passed the Senate.
WABASH AND ERIE CANAL.
Mr. DWIGGINS, by consent introduced a bill [S. 159] providing for the submission to the qualified electors of this State, for their ratification or rejection, a proposition to amend the Constitution of the State, by adding to the fifth article a provision in regard to the debt charged upon the Wabash and Erie Canal--[The election to be held on the----day of----]--no law or resolution shall be passed that shall recognize any liability of the State on account thereof, under the acts of 1846-47.
It was read the first time.
On motion of Mr. DWIGGINS the constitutional rule was suspended and the bill read the second time.
On motion by Mr. DWIGGINS, the blank was filled by inserting "the 28th day of January, 1873."
On his further motion the bill was considered as engrossed, and after some correction was read the third time and passed--yeas 37, nays 0.
LEGISLATIVE APPORTIONMENT.
On motion by Mr. DWIGGINS. the bill [S. 146] redistricting the State for legislative purposes, was taken up aud read the second time. The bill is as follows:
An act to fix the number of Senators and Representatives in the General Assembly of the State of Indiana, and to apportion the same among the several counties of the State, and declaring an emergency.
SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana, that the General Assembly of the State of Indiana shall consist of fifty Senators and one hundred Representatives.
SEC. 2. That the said Senators shall be apportioned among the several counties as follows, to wit:
The counties of Posey and Gibson shall elect 1; Vanderburg, 1; Warwick and Pike, 1; Spencer and Perry, 1; Sullivan and Knox, 1; Davies and Greene, 1; Martin, Orange and Dubois, 1; Crawford and Harrison, 1; Floyd and Clark, 1; Washington and Jackson, 1; Lawrence and Monroe, 1; Brown and Bartholomew, 1; Scott and Jennings, 1; Jefferson, 1; Switzerland, Ohio and Ripley, 1; Decatur and Rush, 1; Vigo, 1; Owen and Clay, 1; Morgan and Johnson, 1; Putnam and Hendricbs, 1; Pike and Vermillion, 1; Fountain and Warren, 1; Tippecanoe, 1; Benton, Newton, Jasper and White, 1; Lake and Porter, 1; Laporte, 1; St. Joseph and Starke, 1; Marshall, Fulton and Pulaski, 1; Kosciusko and Whitley, 1; Elkhart, 1; Noble and Lagrange, 1; Steuben and DeKalb, 1; Allen, 1; Adams and Wells, 1; Huntington and Wabash, 1; Grant, Blackford and Jay, 1; Miami and Howard, 1; Cass and Carroll, 1; Hamilton, Tipton and Clinton, 1; Boone, 1; Madison and Delaware, 1; Randolph, 1; Wayne, 1; Henry and Hancock, 1; Fayette and Union, 1; Marion, 2; Marion and Shelby, 1; Dearborn and Franklin, 1; Montgomery, 1;
SECTION 3. That the Representatives shall be apportioned among the several counties of the State in the following manner, to wit :
The county of Posey shall elect 1; Gibson, 1; Vanderburg, 2; Warrick, 1; Pike, 1; Spencer, 1; Perr, 1; Sullivan, 1; Knox, 1; Daviess, 1; Greene, 1; Martin and Dubois, 1; Crawford and Orange, 1; Harrison, 1; Floyd, 1; Clark, 1; Washington, 1; Jackson, 1; Lawrence, 1; Monroe, 1; Brown and Bartholomew, 1; Jennings, 1; Scott, Jennings and Decatur, 1; Jefferson, 1; Ripley and Jefferson, 1; Ripley, 1; Switzerland and Ohio, 1; Decatur, 1; Rush 1; Vigo, 2; Owen, 1; Clay, 1; Morgan, 1; Johnson, 1; Putnam, 1 ; Hendricks, 1; Putnam and Hendricks, 1; Vermillion, 1; Parke and Montgomery, 1; Warren, 1; Fountain, 1; Tippecanoe, 2; Benton and Newton, 1; Jasper and White, 1; Lake, 1; Porter, 1; Laporte, 1; St. Joseph and Starke, 1; Marshall, 1; Kosciusko and Fulton, 1; Fulton and Pulaski, 1; Kosciusko, 1; Whitley, 1; Elkhart, 1; Noble, 1; Lagrange, 1; Steuben, 1; De Kalb, 1; Allen, 2; Adams and Wells, 1; Huntington, 1; Wabash, 1; Huntington and Wabash, page: 281[View Page 281] 1; Grant, 1; Jay, 1; Miami, 1; Howard, 1; Cass, 1; Carroll, 1; Hamilton, 1; Hamilton and Tipton, 1; Clinton, 1; Boone, 1; Montgomery, 1; Madison, 1; Delaware, 1; Blackford and Delaware, 1; Randolph, 1;Wayne, 2; Henry, 1; Hancock, 1; Henry and Madison, 1; Fayette and Union, 1; Marion, 4; Marion and Shelby, 1; Shelby, 1; Dearborn, 1; Franklin, 1; Noble and Elkhart, 1; St. Joseph, 1; Miami and Howard, 1.
The fourth and fifth sections simply repeal all laws in conflict with this act, and declare an emergency.
Mr. DWIGGINS moved that the bill be ordered engrossed.
Mr. GLESSNER moved that the bill be laid on the table and printed.
Mr. WILLIAMS moved to refer the bill to a committee of one from each Congressional District.
Mr. FRIEDLEY of Lawrence moved to lay the motion to refer on the table.
Mr. DWIGGINS insisted that his motion took precedence.
The President pro tem. [Mr. DITTEMORE] decided that the motion of Mr. Williams to refer takes precedence, and the question is to lay that motion on the table.
This latter motion was agreed to by yeas 23, nays 14.
Mr. SLEETH demanded the previous question.
Mr. O'BRIEN desired that the bill should be laid on the table, to give him time to examine it. He was not ready to vote on the bill.
At a quarter before one o'clock the question being on seconding the demand for the previous question on the passage of the bill [S. 54] for an act to redistrict the State for Senatorial and Representative purposes, and the yeas and nays having been demanded, ordered and being taken thereon--
The Senate seconded the demand for the previous question by yeas 23, nays 14.
Pending the roll-call--
Mr. WILLIAMS, when his name was called, desired to explain why he should vote, not only against seconding the demand for the previous question, but in opposition to the bill at any stage in the proceedings. Under this bill, he was understood to say, that Knox and Sullivan Counties with a population of 9,254, were only allowed one Senator and two Representatives, while the counties of Parke and Vermillion, with a population of 6,305 has the same representation. This of itself is too glaring a piece of injustice to ask of him support the demand for the previous question. Again, the population of the county of Allen, 10,316, get no more representation than Wayne with less than 8,000; there is injustice again. And when the counties of Dearborn and Franklin have a Senator and two Representatives, and the county of Randolph with a Senator and Representative, having a less population than the countv of Knox, there is injustice there. Then the counties of Union and Fayette, with scarce enough of a population to allow them a Representative without a Senator, are given a Senator and two Representatives, while his county [Knox] with nearly twice the population has only one joint Senator and one Representative. Is that all the injustice done by the bill? No, sir: He saw Tipton county deprived of the right of representation and overshadowed by Hamilton county, and he saw the whole power of Shelby county crippled by coupling it with Marion, and surely there is injustice there. It was too big a dose for him to vote to second the demand for the previous question. And why couple Montgomery county with the county of Parke, which has already more representation than it is entitled to, but for the purpose of overshadowing Montgomery county? Montgomery is included with Parke and not even allowed a Representative alone. When he saw such injustice as this towards the people of Indiana, disfranchised, as they are, he could not vote to sustain the previous question. If he were in the majority he would not present such a bill here, for an intelligent and honest body to sanction, and he was astonished to see Senators desiring to pass such a measure, and desiring to fasten it upon the people of the State for the next six years. Then Laporte county, with a population of 6,559, is allowed no more representation than the county of Randolph, with 4,804, thus disfranchising 1,800 of her citizens.
Mr. NEFF, interposing. Didn't you vote injustice to Delaware county two years ago?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I did not If the Senator wants to bring that matter up, he can have it as soon as he pleases, I could point out, perhaps, thirty other places in this bill almost, if not equally, as objectionable as the ones I have already pointed out.
The vote was then announced as above.
So the Senate seconded the demand for the previous question, and under its operation the vote on the motion to order the engrossment of the bill resulted as follows:
YEAS--Messrs. Beardsley, Beeson, Brown, Bunyan, Chapman, Collett, Dwiggins, Friedley, Good ing, Haworth, Hough, Howard, Hubbard, Miller, Neff, Oliver, Rhodes, Sleeth, Taylor, Thompson, Wadge, Mr. President--22.
NAYS--Messrs. Armstrong, Bird, Bowman, Carnahan, Cave, Daggy, Dittemore, Glessner, Gregg, Harney, O'Brien, Sarnighausen, Smith, Strond, Williams--15.
page: 282[View Page 282]Pending the roll call--
Mr. GREGG, when his name was called, explained that he should vote against the motion, because it cuts off amendments, and there were two reasons why he would not vote to cut off all opportunity for offering amendinents to the bill. The first reason is, the bill should be amended. He found, by it, that the counties of Union and Fayette have one Senator, with a population of 4,250, while the counties of Franklin and Dearborn have but one, Franklin with a population of 4,548--a larger voting population in Franklin county alone than in the other entire district--and Dearborn has 5,500, the two together 10,048 votes. Is that honest? Is that fair? Ought he to vote to enforce a bill that disfranchises his people? This, he said, in addition to the remarks made by the Senator from Knox [Mr. Williams], and further, when a bill of that character is proposed to be pushed through this body, the minority will resort, I trust, to any measure to defeat it. Do you suppose I would dread going back to my people to avoid legislation of this kind or character? Or does the majority suppose that because there is a bolting act with, a penalty of $1,000 attached to it. that we would pay any attention to that while endeavoring to prevent the passage of such a measure as this, which would fasten such a wrong upon our people? I represent a people that pay almost as much tax as any Senator on this floor, and they are deeply interested in the representation they are to have in future legislation in this State, and for that reason I vote "No."
Mr. HARNEY, when his name was called, declared that he would not be very hard to please, but the bill before the Senate he could not support. Since being in this Assembly it has been a matter of congratulation to him that business has gone along so harmoniously. But it seems that after gentlemen of the majority have used our courtesy, after they have got through with us, like the ox that the farmer has put in his crop with, they will turn us over to the slaughter house. At the end of the session we come across a bill evidently fixed up in caucus and brought deliberately into the House, and all debate upon it is cut off. He could not see how gentlemen of the majority can expect that the minority can take any further interest in this Legislature being a success, only as their people were directly interested. There are some very dangerous precedents in this matter. Certainly, Indiana has had enough troubles of this kind to warn us to be careful of moving in this manner. Some States in the Union are utterly broken down, lost to the attributes that constitute a State from this miserable grasping by parties for power that they are not legitimately entitled to by their ratio of constituency. Louisiana to-day is a scene of what this grasping for power that is not warranted by the votes of the people would result in. Whether Kellogg or Warmoth is right is no question, but the result shows they are both villians, aiming to grasp that which does not belong to them. If this thing is to be carried on in this State and the State is to be divided so as to bring power into the hands of those that may be in the minority we can not tell what may come, because it is in direct violation of the principles on which our government is founded, and no one knows it better than the gentlemen in the majority do. These were some of the reasons why he could not vote for the engrossment of this bill, especially as he saw a disposition on the part of the majority not to legislate for the good of the State, and it could not be expected under the circumstances that the minority would do servile work for the majority, and then be trampled upon by them. He voted "no."
The vote was then announced as above recorded, so the bill was ordered to be engrossed.
Mr. GLESSNER moved, that when the Senate adjourn it adjourn until 2 o'clock next Monday afternoon. The motion was rejected--yeas, 15; nays, 21.
On motion of Mr. FRIEDLEY, of Lawrence, the Senate then took a recess until 2 o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The Senate met at 2 o'clock.
Mr. DITTEMORE moved a call of the Senate.
The roll was called and twenty members answered to their names.
Mr. GOODING moved that the doorkeeper be dispatched for absent members.
Mr. DITTEMORE moved to adjourn. He said, to relieve the minds of Senators from any apprehensions they might have, he was authorized to say that the Democratic members would be here next Monday afternoon; but he thought it would be impossible to secure the attendance of a quorum this afternoon. He therefore insisted on his motion to adjoun.
The motion was rejected.
Mr. DITTEMORE then made an ineffectual motion that Mr. Gooding's motion be laid on the table. Mr. Gooding's motion was agreed to.
page: 283[View Page 283]Mr. DITTEMORE made an ineffectual motion to adjourn.
Mr. SLEETH suggested that if the Democratic members would come in and made a quorum the Senate could then go on and transact routine business involving questions of no political character.
Mr. DITTEMORE said he didn't want it understood that he was here representing a party of factionists. His motions were made simply because there was not a respectable number of members present, and he did not think it would be decorous or proper to do any business with so small a minorty.
Mr. GOODING said it came with a very bad grace from the gentleman on the other side of the House to refer to the vacant seats in the chamber. Having failed in the effort to have the Senate adjourn until Monday, they now sought, in utter disregard of the wishes of the majority of this body, to effect an adjournment by withdrawing themselves. He thought it would look better in the eyes of the people of the State of Indiana if they would come back and occupy their seats until they could get an adjournment in the usual way.
Mr. BIRD said if there had been any concert of action among the members of the party to which he belonged he was not aware of it. For one, he was the last man that would get out of his seat and go out of the House to prevent legislation.
When the roll-call showed thirty-four Senators present and answering to their names--
On motion, further proceedings under the call of the Senate were dispensed with.
RELIEF FROM RAILROAD TAXES.
Mr. SLEETH moved that the rules be suspended and the bill [S. 59] to relieve counties and townships upon which a railroad tax has been levied, under the act of 1869, from collection of the same until anamount of work has been done by the road equal to the amount of taxes levied, be taken up.
The motion was agreed to by yeas. 23, nays, 12.
Mr. CARNAHAN thought the bill was defective in that it did not provide for the return of taxes already collected until the work was done by the railroad. He said in Posey county they had collected more than $100,000, which was tied up in a bank at Mt. Vernon. He favored the passage of some measure of the kind, but believed that there is a house bill on the files, embodying better provisions: would prefer to see the house bill passed, probably with some amendments; and he moved to lay this one on the table. He withdrew the motion for
Mr. BROWN, who explained the difference between the two bills. The bill under consideration simply provides that no levy shall be made to place a lieu upon property until the road shall be permanently located.
Mr. SLEETH said a bill had passed the other House providing for the refunding of taxes in such cases, which in no way interfered with the provisions of this bill, an which should be passed independently.
The yeas and nays being demanded, ordered and taken, Mr. Carnahan's motion was rejected by yeas 13, nays 26.
Mr. GLESSNER moved that the bill be recommitted to the Committee, on the Judiciary, and demanded the yeas and nays.
The motion being made before the chair had finished stating the question, it was ruled out of order.
Mr. BROWN demanded the previous question, which being ordered the bill passed yeas 26, nays 11 as follows :
YEAS--Messrs. Beardsley, Beeson, Bird, Bowman, Brown, Bunyan, Chapman, Collett, Daggy, Dwiggins, Friedley of Scott, Gooding, Haworth, Hough, Howard, Hubbard, Miller, Neff, O'Brien, Oliver, Scott, Sleeth, Taylor, Thompson, Wadge and Mr. President--26.
NAYS--Messrs. Armstrong, Carnahan, Cave, Glessner, Gregg, Harney, Sarnighausen, Slater, Smith, Stroud, and Williams--11.
Pending the roll-call--
Mr. CARNAHAN, in explanation said as far as he had examined the bill he was in favor of it, but as the matter now stands he should vote "no."
Mr. HARNEY, when his name was called, said that inasmuch as he had not examined this bill very well [laughter] and not in a condition to give it that critical examination he should, he would vote "no."
Mr. SCOTT, in explanation, thought this bill calculated to relieve what has amounted to a great inconvenience to many counties in this State, and although he didn't like it should vote for it because he thought it more favorable to the people than to the railroads.
Mr. SLATER, when his name was called, said he liked the provisions of this bill, but as he would be found in bad company he would not vote for it.
Mr. THOMPSON, in explanation, said he would vote against anything that will prevent men making promises that they never mean to fulfill, but as there is a provision in this bill that where a tax is levied it shall not be collected until the road is actually located, he would vote "aye."
The vote was then announced as above recorded.
page: 284[View Page 284]So the bill passed the Senate.
VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS.
Mr. THOMPSON moved that the bill [S. 40] be taken up and read the second time.
The motion was agreed to--yeas, 26; nays, 11.
Accordingly the bill [S. 40], to amend section two of the voluntary association act of February 12, 1855, was read the second time.
Mr. THOMPSON moved to dispense with the Constitutional restriction, that the bill may be read the third time now.
The motion was rejected.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.
Mr. BROWN moved that the order of business be suspended for the purpose of reading the bill [H. R. 137] the first and second time only, that it may be referred. (The bill provides that in criminal prosecutions the Prosecuting Attorney shall have the open and close of the case.)
The motion was agreed to--yeas, 23; nays, 11.
The bill [H. R. 137] to amend section 103 of the criminal practice act of June 17,1852, was read the second time.
Mr. BROWN said this was a very important measure, which had been largely discussed by the papers, and especially the Democratic papers, and was very dear to the Democratic heart. In order to quiet the nerves of his Democratic brethren he would now move that the rule be suspended and the bill be put upon its passage.
Mr. GLESSNER moved that the motion be laid on the table, and demanded the yeas and nays thereon. The vote stood: Yeas. 14; nays, 22.
So the motion was rejected.
Mr. HARNEY moved to adjourn, and the yeas and nays being demanded, ordered and taken, resulted--yeas, 13; nays, 24.
Mr. BROWN demanded the previous question on the motion to suspend the rule.
Mr. GLESSNER and others demanding the yeas and nays, the vote resulted--yeas, yeas, 23; nays 14.
So the rule was not suspended.
Mr. BROWN moved that the bill be recommitted to the Juciciary Committee.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. GOODING moved to suspend the order of business in order to permit him to introduce a short bill. The yeas and nays were demanded, and the vote resulted--yeas, 25; nays, 9.
So the motion was agreed to.
Mr. GOODING then introduced a bill [S. 160] to amend the act incorporating the Lawrenceburg Insurance Company, which was read the first time and passed to the second reading.
The order of business being again suspended, on motion by Mr. DWIGGINS by yeas 21, nays 14--taken on the demand by Messrs. Gregg and Glessnerthe bill [S. 49] to amend section 22 of the town incorporation act of June 11, 1852, was read the second time.
Mr. ------ moved that the Senate adjourn.
Messrs. DITTEMORE, CAVE, GREGG and two other Senators demanding the yeas and nays, they were ordered, and being taken, resulted--yeas 16, nays 20.
So the Senate refused to adjourn.
Mr. ARMSTRONG moved to suspend the order, so as to take up the bill [S. 150] to legalize taxes levied by School Trustees without authority. The motion was agreed to; the bill was read by title only, and referred to the appropriate committee.
On motion of Mr. FRIEDLEY, of Scott, the Twenty-ninth Judicial Circuit bill [H. R. 72] was read by title, and referred to the Committee on Organization of Courts.
Mr. GREGG for the Senator from Jefferson (Mr. Francisco), presented a remonstrance from the bar of county against re-establishing the criminal court.
It was referred with the bill.
And then the Senate adjourned till Monday morning, 10 o'clock.
