THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
THIRTEENTH VOLUME.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
IN SENATE.
MONDAY, December 16, 1872.The Senate met at 10 o'clock a. m., President George W. Friedley in the chair.
The Secretary's minutes of Saturday's proceedings were being read, when--
On motion by Mr. BROWN, the further reading thereof was dispensed with.
CIRCUIT COURT BILL.
Mr. BROWN moved to suspend the order of business to enable him to return, from the special committee thereon, the bill [S. 118] fixing the times of holding courts in the Second Judicial Circuit, with amendments. It effects the counties of Scott, Johnson, Lawrence, Washington, Harrison, Clark and Orange.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. BROWN moved to further suspend the order of business, that the bill may be put on its passage now.
This motion was also agreed to.
Accordingly, the bill was read the third time.
Mr. BROWN apprehended that there was not a quorum present, and on his motion the bill was made the special order for 2 o'clock this afternoon.
SOLDIERS' AND SAILORS' HOME.
On motion by Mr. THOMPSON, the bill [S. 48] to amend sections 1, 7 and 8 of the act establishing the Soldiers' and Seamen's Home, approved May 11, 1867, and the act supplemental thereto, was read the second time, and ordered engrossed for a third reading on to-morrow.
STATE PRISONS.
On motion by Mr. WADGE, the order of business was further suspended, and the bill [S. 149] providing for the reorganization of the State prisons, was read by title, and 200 copies ordered printed.
STATIONERY.
On motion of Mr. RHODES, the rules were again suspended and the bill [S. 157] authorizing the purchase of stationery for the use of county officers of this State and for the Judges of Circuit, Common Pleas, Criminal and Superior Courts, was read the second time and referred to the Committee on County and Township Business.
RAILROAD TAXES.
Mr. HARNEY, by leave, introduced a bill [S. 161] for an act requiring the Board of County Commissioners to refund to tax payers taxes paid on assessments towards the construction of railroads which have or may hereafter fail.
The bill was read the first time and passed to the second reading.
RAILROAD AID.
On motion of Mr. BEARDSLEY, the rules were further suspended and the bill [H. R. 235] supplemental to the County and Township Railroad aid act of May 12, 1869, was read the first time and passed to the second reading.
Messrs. STEELE and SMITH demanded a call of the Senate, but the President counting from his place announced no page: 291[View Page 291]quorum present, whereupon Mr. Steele withdrew his demand for a call of the Senate.
RECORD EVIDENCE.
Mr. SCOTT, by leave, introduced a bill [S. 162] to repeal the act repealing section 31 of the act of May 6, 1869, concerning real property and the alienation thereof; and providing that every recorded instrument or the transcript thereof when so proved, may be read in evidence in courts.The bill was read the first time and passed to the second reading.
HIGHWAYS.
Mr. NEFF, by leave, introduced a bill [S. 163] for an act to amend section 7 of the supervisor of highways act of March 6, 1869. [A team shall receive credit for two days' labor.]
It was read the first time and passed to the second reading.
GRAIN ELEVATORS.
On motion by Mr. OLIVER, under a suspension of the rules, the bill [S. 151] to amend section 1 of the mining and manufacturing incorporations act of May 20, 1852, so as to provide for the incorporation of grain elevators, stock yards or transit companies, was read the second time.
On his motion the bill was made the special order for three o'clock p. m.
LEGISLATIVE APPORTIONMENT.
Mr. WILLIAMS, by leave introduced a bill [S. 164] for an act to fix the number of Senators and Representatives in the General Assembly of Indiana, and apportioning the State for Senatorial and Representative purposes.
It was read the first time.
This bill [S. 164] proposes to apportion Senators and Representatives in the General Assembly among the several counties, as follows:
Senators--Posey and Gibson, 1; Vanderburg, 1; Warwick and Spencer, 1; Knox and Daviess, 1; Pike and Dubois, 1; Perry, Crawford and Orange, 1; Lawrence, Monroe and Martin, 1; Brown and Jackson, 1; Washington and Harrison, 1; Floyd and Clarke, 1; Scott and Jennings, 1; Jefferson, 1; Switzerland and Ripley, 1; Ohio and Dearborn, 1; Franklin and Fayette, 1; Wayne and Union, 1; Rush and Decatur, 1; Shelby and Bartholomew, 1; Johnson and Morgan, 1; Greene and Owen, 1; Clay and Sullivan, 1; Vigo, 1; Putnam and Hendricks, 1; Park, Vermillion and Fountain, 1; Montgomery, 1; Tippecanoe, 1; Clinton and Boone, 1; Hancock and Madison, 1; Henry, 1; Randolph, 1; Delaware and Jay, 1; Hamilton and Tippecanoe, 1; Howard and Carroll, 1; Cass, 1; Pulaski, 1; White, Benton, Warren and Jasper, 1; Lake, Porter and Newton, 1; Laporte and Starke, 1; St. Joseph, Marshall and Fulton, 1; Elkhart, 1; Koscuisko and Whitley, 1; Wabash and Miami, 1; Grant and Blackford, 1; Huntington and Wells, 1; Allen, 1; Allen and Adams, 1; Noble and Lagrange, 1; De Kalb and Steuben, 1; Marion, 2.
Representatives--Posey, 1; Vanderburg, 2; Warrick, 1; Gibson, 1; Pike and Dubois, 1; Daviess, 1; Martin, 1; Spencer, 1; Perry, 1; Crawford and Orange, 1; Washington, 1; Henry, 1; Floyd, I; Clark, 1; Jefferson, Switzerland and Ohio, 1; Shelby, 1; Bartholomew, 1; Bartholomew and Shelby, 1; Dearborn, 1; Ripley, 1; Dearborn and Ripley, 1; Franklin, 1; Fayette and Union, 1; Rush, 1; Decatur, 1; Jennings and Scott, 1; Brown and Jackson, 1; Monroe, 1; Lawrence, 1; Greene, 1; Sullivan, 1; Vigo, 2; Clay, 1; Owen, 1; Putnam, 1; Hendricks, 1; Putnam and Hendricks, 1; Morgan, 1; Johnson, 1; Marion, 4; Hancock, 1; Henry, 1; Wayne, 2; Randolph, 1; Delaware, 1; Jay and Blackford, 1; Madison, 1; Hamilton, 1; Tipton, 1; Clinton, 1; Carroll, 1; Boone, 1; Boone and Clinton, 1; Parke, 1; Vermillion, 1; Montgomery, 1; Fountain, 1; Montgomery and Fountain, 1; Warren, 1; Tippecanoe, 2; Benton and White, 1; Cass, 1; Howard, 1; Miami, 1; Wabash, 1; Miami and Wabash, 1; Grant, 1; Wells, 1; Huntington, 1; Allen, 2: Adams, 1; Whitley, 1; Kosciusko, 1; Fulton, 1; Noble, 1: De Kalb, 1; Steuben, 1; Lagrange, 1; Elkhart, 1; Marshall, 1; St. Joseph, 1; Laporte, 1; Laporte and Starke, 1; Jasper and Pulaski, 1; Newton and Lake, 1; Porter, 1; St. Joseph and Elkhart, 4; Kosciusko and Noble, 1; Knox and Suliivan, 1.
Mr. WILLIAMS moved that the rules be suspended and the bill read by title the second time, and be referred to a committee of one from each Congressional district.
Mr. BROWN said he hoped the motion would not prevail. He had received a letter this morning from a leading Democrat of Jackson county, saying that the Democrats of that county favored the bill introduced by the Republican party. The bill just introduced disfranchises Jackson county entirely, and he would not dare to go home to his Democratic constituents without entering his protest against it. He moved to lay the motion on the table.
Before the question was put, Mr. Williams withdrew his motion.
Mr. DITTEMORE demanded a call of the Senate and 36 members were found to be present.
POSTOFFICE AT EVANSVILLE.
Mr. GOODING moved to suspend the rules and take up the bill [S. 87].
The motion was agreed to, and the bill [S. 87] granting the consent of Indiana to the purchase by the United States of one or more pieces of land in Evansville, on which to erect a postoffice and ether public buildings, was read the third time and passed--yeas, 35; nays, 0.
On motion of Mr. BOWMAN, the bill [S. 118] changing the terms of courts in the Second Judicial Circuit, was passed--yeas, 35; nays 0.
BANKS.
On motion by Mr. STEELE, the bill [S. 2] to authorize and regulate the incorporation of banks of discount and deposit in the State of Indiana was read the third time.
The bill passed the Senate--yeas, 33; nays, 1.
page: 292[View Page 292]TWELFTH CIRCUIT.
Mr. DWIGGINS moved to still further suspend the order of business that the court bill [H. R. 124] to fix the time of courts in the Twelfth Judicial Circuit--White, Newton, Jasper, Benton and Tippecanoe--may be read the second time.
The motion was agreed to, and the bill was read accordingly.
And then came the recess for dinner.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The Senate met at 2 o'clock P. M.
Mr. BOONE, by leave, from the Committee on Education, returned the bill [S. 86] to amend section 1 of the city and town school building bond bill, approved March 11, 1867, with amendments, limiting the rate of interest on such bond to ten per cent. per annum.
On motion by Mr. RHODES his bill [S. 86], just reported from the Committee on Education, was read the second time. He moved for a dispensation of the constitutional restriction that the bill may be put upon its passage.
This motion was agreed to.
The bill was indefinitely postponed on the statement by Mr. FRIEDLEY that it was superseded by another bill.
JUDGES' SALARIES.
The President pro tem. announced the special order--being the bill [S. 9] fixing the salaries of the judges of this State.
On motion it was postponed till to-morrow at 2 o'clock.
Mr. THOMPSON moved for a suspension of the order of business that the voluntary association bill [S. 60] may be taken up.
The motion was agreed to, the bill was read the third time, and passed--yeas, 36; nays, 6.
EIGHT DOLLARS A DAY.
On motion of Mr. BROWN the bill [H. R. 73] fixing the per diem and mileage of members of the Legislature (eight dollars a day and five dollars for every 25 miles traveled), was read the third time.
Mr. NEFF desired to offer an amendment providing that members also furnish their own books, papers and other printed matter. He thought unless some of the leaks were stopped the present pay was enough. If members wanted to send daily papers to their constituents, they should pay for them. He was opposed to the franking privilege in Congress, and for the same reason, if members of the Assembly wanted to send papers home as electioneering documents, he thought they should bear the expense. With regard to books, he believed they ought to be returned by members at the end of the session.
Mr. DAGGY thought that it was contrary to the spirit of the Constitution that members should increase their pay during their term of service. But, outside of that, is it right that they do so? and on that proposition he was prepared to vote no. Senators were elected under an implied agreement that they should receive five dollars a day, and now, when they have the power, they propose to increase it to eight dollars per day. He thought it was wrong.
Mr. BROWN said he had about as intelligent and economical a constituency as any Senator and he did not believe there were twenty-five intelligent men in his county who did not approve this bill. But in any event, he believed that the bill was just and right, and should vote for it regardless of the consequences.
Mr. STEELE said it seemed to be conceded on all hands that the measure involved nothing wrong; the only question was one of policy. Even at $8 a day, the most of those who came here would do so at a pecuniary sacrifice. Five dollars a day considering the expense of living at the capital, is not a reasonable compensation. This being the case, he thought that the bill was not only not improper, but was doing but partial justice to members of the Assembly. He supposed that the Constitutional provision meant what it said, that the pay of members should not be increased during the session. For himself he was willing to take the responsibility of voting for the bill, and would go before his constituents on this question as he had on many others, and submit to their verdict.
Mr. ORR said the position which he should take was one to which he had been educated by the Republican party, that fees and salaries should be reduced to a fair compensation. He thought that because the compensation of members was fixed at $5 a day when they were elected, it would be improper for them, now that they were elected, to amend the law for their own benefit. He doubted whether in voting to increase the salaries of the Governor and the Judges, the Republican members were fulfilling their pledges to the people in the late campaign.
Mr. DITTEMORE thought that in acting on this question Senators should rise above political motives and do that which is right. It is well known that $5 a day is not enough to pay the ordinary expenses of a legislator at the capital. The page: 293[View Page 293]labors which Senators perform is not confined to the State chamber. The most of them are on important committees, and their labors often extend far into the night. Under all the circumstances he believed the bill was right, and should vote for it accordingly.
Mr. DAGGY said he had no personal interest in the matter, but he believed that an increase of compensation would reduce the qualityof the General Assembly. Make it a paying office and there would be a scramble for the position, and the most unworthy men would be likely to succeed.
Mr. FRIEDLEY, of Lawrence, believed it would be a matter of simple justice to the members of the General Assembly to increase their compensation, not to $8, but to $10 per day. The members of Legislatures in the States all around us are receiving $10 per day, and are not the services of the members of this Assembly worth as much as theirs? The people of Indiana are intelligent and liberal, and will indorse every just appropriation. He apprehended there was not a Senator on the floor that was not losing money every day by means of his presence in this body. The Republican party has always been and is in favor of economy in the administration of affairs, State and National. But it is also a plank in its platform that "the laborer is worthy of his hire." The opposition to slavery was based on that plank. He did not believe that the people of Indiana wanted their representatives to serve them for an inadequate compensation.
Mr. DWIGGINS demanded the previous question.
The Senate seconded the demand, and under the operation of the previous question the bill prssed the Senate by yeas 28, nays 16, as follows:
YEAS--Messrs. Beeson, Bird, Bowman, Brown, Carnahan, Cave, Collett, Dittemore, Francisco, Glessner, Gooding, Hall, Harney, Hough, Howard, Hubbard, O'Brien, Oliver, Rhodes, Sarnighausen, Scott, Sleeth, Smith, Steele, Stroud, Taylor, Wadge, and Mr. President--28.
NAYS--Messrs. Beardsley, Boone, Bunyan, Chapman, Daggy, Dwiggins, Friedley, of Scott, Gregg, Haworth, Miller, Neff, Orr, Slater, Thompson, Williams, and Winterbotham--16.
LEGISLATIVE APPORTIONMENT.
Mr. DWIGGINS moved to suspend the order of business that the bill [S. 146] to apportion the State for Senatorial and Representative purposes may be read the third time.
This was followed by motions to lay upon the table, calls of the Senate, the previous question, etc., accompanied by a running debate.
Mr. WILLIAMS moved ineffectually to lay the motion on the table--yeas 19, nays 23.
Mr. DWIGGINS moved the previous question.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
YEAS--Messrs. Beardsley, Beeson, Brown, Bunyan, Chapman, Collett, Daggy, Dwiggins, Gooding, Haworth, Hough, Howard, Hubbard, Miller, Neff, Oliver, Orr, Rhodes, Scott, Sleeth, Steele, Taylor, Thompson, Wadge, and Mr. President--25.
NAYS--Messrs. Bird, Boone, Bowman, Carnahan, Cave, Dittemore, Francisco, Glessner, Gregg, Hall, Harney, O'Brien, Sarnighausen, Slater, Smith, Stroud, Williams, and Winterbotham--18.
Pending the roll call--
Mr. O'BRIEN, when his name was called remarked that he didn't like the situation. He was compelled to vote against the bill in all its features as it now stands. It takes the Senatorial district which he represented and gives it a voting population of something over 11,000, when 7,000 and a few odd hundred are all that have been necessary. He claimed to represent the banner Republican county of the State, and that county is about one-half disfranchised by this bill and he could not vote for it. They take Clinton county off of the district of Boone and put it on his district. Without that county the districts were very nearly equal in size and population. How gentlemen could conceive that it was necessary to take Clinton county and add it to the district composed of Hamilton and Tipton, and then give Boone a Senator alone, he could not see. He did not believe the bill was constitutional, or equitable or just, and he could not vote for it. He never voted with the Democratic party before in his life, and was ashamed that he had to do it now. But if he found the Democratic party right and the Republican party wrong, he was the man to stand up here and vote with the Democrats from now until Doomsday. [Applause.]
Mr. OLIVER, in explanation of his vote said there were things about this bill he did not like; however, under the circumstances he supposed it to be as good a bill as can be gotten up. He should vote for it under protest.
Mr. THOMPSON, when his name was called, said he had not been able to examine the bill, but he knew the men who got it up, and knowing the veracity and honesty of the Senators from Jasper [Mr Dwiggins] and Scott, [Mr. Friedley] he should vote for the bill.
Mr. WINTERBOTHAM, when his name was called, said that he represented the counties of Laporte and Stark, and those page: 294[View Page 294]two counties have a joint representation. The county of Stark casts about 800 votes, and this bill takes Stark county and attaches it to St. Joseph, with 6,000 voters, when the counties are only joined by part of a township. Is it just to take the county of Stark and attach it to the county of St. Joseph, when they are only joined by part of a township, and leave Marshall county with 4,000 on the east of Stark, when St. Joseph has 6,000? Is this just, is this proper? Mr. President, I have to vote no.
The bill then passed by yeas, 26; nays, 18.
YEAS--Messrs. Beardsley, Beeson, Brown, Bunyan, Chapman, Collett, Daggy, Dwiggins, Friedley, of Scott, Gooding, Haworth, Hough, Howard, Hubbard, Miller, Neff, Oliver, Orr, Rhodes, Scott, Sleeth, Steele, Taylor, Thompson, Wadge, Mr. President--26.
NAYS--Messrs. Bird, Boone, Bowman, Carnahan Cave, Dittemore, Francisco, Glessner, Gregg, Hall, Harney, O'Brien, Sarnighausen, Slater, Smith, Stroud Williams, Winterbotham--18.
Pending the roll call--
Mr. BIRD, in explanation of his vote, said that the bill is a very unfair one, for it takes from the county of Allen one member and gives it to another county, which is not entitled to it. Allen county, with 10,300 votes, only gets one Senator and two Representatives, while the county of Marion, having but 15,000, gets two Senators, four Representatives and one with Shelby, and it certainly is not twice as large as the county of Allen. There is some unfairness in this bill, and he should be obliged under the circumstances to vote "no."
Mr. BOONE, when his name was called in explanation of his vote, said that in his judgment it was unconstitutional, and in addition to that some of the districts do not seem to be composed of contiguous territory.
Mr. CAVE, in explanation of his vote, said the bill was very unjust, and he was not surprised. He was not surprised to see the action of the majority. Some of his Democratic friends had remarked that they were surprised, but he was not. He said they have resorted to everything that is unjust and unfair in the passage of this bill. They have applied the gag law and gag rule in every particular. Mr. President, it is unjust, it is unfair, and it is diabolical in its provisions in every particular. And, Mr. President, I must and am compelled to vote "no."
Mr. DITTEMORE, when his name was called, said he did not complain particularly on his own account, but when he saw dissensions among his Republican friends he could not but think there had been some "gouging" done. To enable his friend from Hamilton (Mr. O'Brien) torectify some of the injustice that had been perpetrated, he would vote "no."
Mr. DWIGGINS, in explanation of his vote, said the Senator from Knox (Mr. Williams) objected particularly to the bill because the county of Randolph, with less than 5,000 population, less than Knox, had been given a Senator. But this morning the Senator from Knox introduced a bill in which Randolph was given a Senator precisely as in this bill. He, therefore, concluded that the Senator from Knox had become reconciled to the bill, and was ready to vote for it.
Mr. GLESSNER, when his name was called, said: As this is the first opportunity the Senators on this side of the house have had to give their opinion on this bill, I now ask a moment for the purpose of explaining my vote. This bill, if I remember right, was introduced on Thursday ar Friday, I am not sure which. It was on Friday. The first time in the history of this special session that knowledge came to Senators that a bill of this sort was to be introduced, was on Friday. That was on the first reading of the bill. On Saturday, on motion, I believe, of the Senator from Jasper, [Mr. Dwiggins,] the rules were suspended that the bill might be taken up and read the second time. When that motion was made, but little resistance was offered to it. Up to this time, however, Senators had no opportunity to learn what the bill contained, except by its second reading, and Senators will agree with me that it is very difficult and almost impossible for Senators to gather up the entire merits or demerits of a bill on its first reading. We thought it due to the minority on this floor, which is very respectabla in numbers--I believe the minority have twenty-three members on this floor, while the majority have but twenty-seven--as we had gone along up to that time, knowing the majority was responsible for the character and extent of legislation this session, and nothing has been thrown in the way of legitimate legislation; but we had given our will and vote up that time.
Mr. BROWN (interposing). Does the Senator wish to make an argument or explain his vote?
Mr. GLESSNER. I desire to give the reason why I shall vote as I do. As I was about to say the majority know, and I presume will admit, that up to the time this bill was introduced on Friday we had thrown nothing in the way of fair and legitimate legislation. We had voted almost on all occasions to suspend the rule and the order of busi- page: 295[View Page 295]ness and the constitutional restriction for every Senator on the other side of the Chamber, although we had special measures we desired to get through. As I said we did nothing to obstruct the progress of busniess and were willing to aid the majority in the enactment of all measures we conceived to be right and proper, and aid them in doing a large amount of business at this special session, therefore, it was my judgment--I had formed such a favorable opinion that I expected when we made a reasonable request as to this bill, which is a vital one, and which is regarded as a political question, that they would permit us to at least print this bill and have it referred to a Committee for a short time, so that we would have an opportunity to bring in a minority report so that we could show its unfairness and inconslstencies. But that was denied us, and every proposition made by the minority was denied, and the bill was read the second time, and before the amendment could be offered, the Senator from Jasper moves to engross the bill and nothing else could be heard but a motion to engross the bill in order to put it, per adventure, beyond any amendment or criticism whatever. It indicated to me and for the first time I was suspicious that any measure at this special session was being put through under caucus rule, and moved by caucus despotism. Then I discovered that this bill was to be put through without any amendment. It comes up to-day, introduced last Friday, read the second time on Saturday, and now against every proposition made by the minority to refer it to a committee, to amend it, to print it or to consider any of its demerits, we are forced now, under the operations of the previons question to vote against the bill that disfranchises a large proportion of the citizens of Indiana.
In my judgment this bill is unconstitutional and will so be held by the courts; and I feel as I sit in my place, remaining there for the purpose of discharging my duties to the best of my ability, and opposed to the principle of resignation or bolting that I have the consolation that at an early day after this bill shall have passed, its constitutionality will be presented to and determined by the proper tribunals of the State, and by them held unconstitutional as it should be.
[Mr. G. was here interrupted, and the point of Order made that he was not in the line of explanation, but the President said: "I take it that the Senator is making the argument on that side and I will hear it."]
The constitutional provision that this law shall be passed, was to equally apportion the legal votes of the State of Indiana, and I call the attention of Senators respectfully to the fact that the present apportionment law, which was made several years ago, was so formed that we would have to carry the State by over 3,000 majority in order to have a majority in the Legislature on joint ballot, and to-day I call attention to the fact, that while you carried the State in some respects, by a few votes, less than 200, and on the general vote not to exceed 2,000, you have thirteen or fourteen majority in the General Assembly on joint ballot. I ask you in God's name if the present apportionment ain't sufficiently fair and reasonable to you, without asking us to aid you in so apportioning the State that we might carry the State by ten thousand, and yet you have a majority on joint ballots m the General Assembly. Therefore, I say, the inequality of this apportionment law is obnoxious to the Constitution and ought to be to every fair man in this Senate.
Why is it, I ask Senators, do they desire to so apportion the State that it will be impossible, almost, in the future, if this bill stands legal investigation, for a majority of voters, if they happen to be against you, to have a majority in the General Assembly? I was willing to concede to you, and so were all my political friends, what you are entitled to--what political parties usually claim, and it is due to you--that by this apportionment to arrange it so as to have a reasonable majority on joint ballot if you carried the State at all. As it is we may, under the present apportionment, carry the State and yet not have a majority in the General Assembly. Therefore, I thought the present law was sufficiently unfair three years ago, yet this is infinitely worse, and it is odious to us, and it ought to be odious to any fair minded or reasonable man on the other side of the chamber. It gives to Marion county--
The PRESIDENT pro tem., (interrupting). I beg leave to say to the Senator that I have already listened to him as long as the rules of propriety will allow. I hope the Senator will confine his remarks to a proper explanation of his vote. We are operating under the previous question and some law and some order should be observed. I have allowed him to wander outside of what is proper, and I trust he will confine himself to a proper explanation of his vote.
Mr. GLESSNER. I had no object but to give what I honestly and consciously beleive to be my reasons for voting against page: 296[View Page 296]this bill. I did it believing it to be a duty. I had no object in delaying the final vote upon this bill. It is now to be voted upon. If I have resorted in the past to parliamentary delay for the purpose of defeating this class of legislation, I am not doing it now. I only intended to give what I believed was a fair statement of the present condition of the bill. We have had no opportunity to propose amendments or to discuss the bill on this side, not even an opportunity of bringing in a minority report. This, I say, has been unfair to us. I believe this bill is to be put through under a sort of despotism that the majority have decided upon outside of the Senate Chamber. I speak from experience of political parties.
I am sorry it is so; I am sorry you have not given us an opportunity; but you have done what perhaps you thought you had a right to do; at least perhaps you thought you were justified in doing so. But I don't think you are. I heard it remarked by some Republican Senator, either Friday or Saturday, that this was only a little measure of punishment for the majority two years ago, introducing an apportionment bill. That bill was not introduced in the last General Assembly under the direction of a caucus. My political friends know I was opposed to the introduction of an apportionment bill two years ago, and opposed to the bill then sought to be introduced. It may have been in one or two instances what may be considered bv the majority of Senators as unfair to them. I know in many respects it was unfair to the Democratic party. If they will take that apportionment bill and compare it with this they will see that it is nothing at all to compare with this.
The PRESIDENT pro tem. (interposing) The Chair must remind the Senator from Shelby that an explanation of a vote does not involve the right to argue the merits of a bill. If he persists in this longer the Chair will direct the clerk to call his name and then proceed to call other Senators.
Mr. GLESSNER. I could not give an explanation of my vote without alluding incidentally to the character of the bill. It will be impossible for me, I beg pardon of the Chair, to give my reasons without indicating wherein the bill is obnoxious to my views. With one more word I am done. I desire the Senate if it passes this bill to take up the bill introduced by the Senator from Knox (Mr. Williams), the bill introduced two years ago, and see the difference in the measures. I want you to see the merits of the bill that caused the Republican members two years ago to resign their seats--the difference in the merits and fairness between the bill now being passed and the one introduced two years ago.
Mr. GREGG said he would have done anything in the world to defeat this bill. He respected, loved and honored his people and he hardly knew how to explain his vote, because he felt there was a crisis pending over Dearborn county. This proposes to disfrancise them. The people of the county, without distinction of party, had sent him word to do everything in his power to defeat this bill. More than that, the bill is unconstitutional. In this connection he referred to the fifth section of the fourth article of the Constitution. Mr. Gregg paid an eloquent and glowing tribute to the heroism, bravery, intelligence and patriotism of the people of Dearborn couuty, and concluded as follows: "Pass the bill, then, Senators, if you will. Go home if you dare, to you constituents, and tell them that you, in behalf of your Republican districts, disfranchised Franklin and Dearborn counties--took from us our representation and applied it to yourselves. Tell your people you have done this sort of a thing, and I am willing for you to try it, for I believe, in conclusion in the Scripture doctrine that the "wages of sin is death," and that it will result not in your favor, but against your party and your party causes."
Mr. HARNEY said he found on an examination of the bill, taking the vote of the 8th of October last as a basis, the other House would have 60 Republicans and the opponents 40, and in the Senate we can elect 18 Democrats against 32 Republicans. He found further that under this apportionment the Democratic party had 4,714 for each Reprefentative, and the Republicans 3,147. In other words, six of one party was equal to nine of the other. An analysis showed that the Democrats might carry the State by 15,000, and still be in a minority in the Legislature and could not elect a United States Senator. He suggested that he didn't think that was fair. Each Republican would represent 7,157 votes and each Democrat 7,853, leaving 696 unrepresented. He could not support a bill which worked such injustice.
Mr. SLATER thought the presentation of this bill was an argument against the efficacy of prayer. Several ministers had appeared before the Senate and all had prayed devoutly that the legislation of the Senators on this floor should be just, and he thought no more odious measure had ever been presented than this, which in- page: 297[View Page 297]dicated that the Lord had not heeded the prayers of His annointed.
Mr. STEELE, when his name was called, said: In explanation of my vote I want to say to the Senate that gentlemen on the other side are now complaining of us--even complaining that we are acting unjustly, when if gentlemen will remember two years ago nearly every important measure before the Senate that assumed a political aspect that same gag rule they speak was applied and the mouth of every Senator on this floor was stopped. They would not even allow a bill that they thought was likely to make against their party to be even read before the Senate, but the gag rule was applied to the bill itself. I see men complaining about unconstitutional action who at that time were rising in their places and voting that a Senator who had been brought here after having been sworn into office was not indeed a Senator, and they were ready to stop the mouth of every Senator who would speak in behalf of that Senator. These are the gentlemen who are complaining unconstitutional measures, and complaining at the same time that the gag rule has been adopted here. Great God Almighty!
Mr. HARNEY. May I be allowed to ask the gentleman a question?
The PRESIDENT pro tem. I cannot permit questions going back and forth. I say to the Senator from Grant (Mr. Steele) what I have said to other Senators during the explanations of their votes, to confine himself to giving the reasons for his vote.
Mr. STEELE. I will try. I was going to say, in explanation of my vote, that I do not think it comes with good grace from these familiar faces to say that I shall not apply the gag rule. I remember too well two years ago. I remember how I felt, and I remember of saying to gentlemen, chickens came home to roost sometimes; and now they can determine ther that is really true.
They talk about being disfranchised and we find some of our own friends saying that they have not got as much as they should have. They complain that this bill does not give them as much as they desire. While Senators on the other side complain that they have not as much as they should have. Occupying a position between the two we are nearly right in this matter I expect. It is hard to so apportion the State that everybody will be satisfied. We can make one or two districts that will satisfy ourselves, but when we attempt to satisfy everybody we always fail as we have in this instance. Those same Senators who are here to-day declared that they never will on any occasion vote for a matter they regard as unconstitution, two years ago--
Mr. SLATER (interrupting.) I rise to a point of order. The gentleman should confine himself to an explanation of his vote..
The PRESIDENT, pro tem. The point of order is a good one. But other Senators have gone on, and I suppose the Senator will not occupy much more time.
Mr. STEELE (continuing.) It was convenient then for those men to apportion the State for representative purposes, two years before the time the Constitution provided, and yet there was no prating about the constitutionality of their proposed action then, I heard no complaint of that sort from that side of the House. Then, in short, I will close by saying, I think this is a tolerable fair bill. I did not expect to suit our opponents, indeed we are not all suited ourselves. I vote "aye,"
Mr. WILLIAMS, when his name was called, said: If I can explain my vote without Senators getting irritated, I will do so. As I understand it, there is a right and a wrong way to make an apportionment. One is to take the census and apportion one Senator for every 7,600 white inhabitants. If that rule had been carried out I should not complain; but in comparing that bill with this ratio I find it applies to one side and not to the other. I have taken pains to examine this bill, and I see that districts likely to return Democrats require 7,990 for a Senator, and those districts that are sure to elect Republicans require but 7,352. For Reprrsentatives, I find that it requires in those counties that are Democratic, 4,566, while for Republican counties it requires but 3,390--a difference of 1,100 and upwards against the Democratic party. I find again, sir, that in 95 districts that portion of the State represented by Republicans, it makes them, have an average 2,265 for each Senator arid Representative, while the Democrats having 55 require 3,888 for each district--a difference against the Democratic party of 623 in every case. This is too much. This is not all accidental. This could not have been so without design. I know they could have made a bill nearer equal.
It is said that two years ago there was a very iniquitous apportionment bill introduced here. The only point of objection I ever heard to that bill was that it disfranchised Lake and Porter counties. With a population of 6,237, according to the census taken for that purpose, they have just 737 more than they ought to have page: 298[View Page 298]for a Senator and one Representative, and 1,363 less than for a Senator and two Representatives. Now I leave gentlemen to say whether they ought to throw away the 1,300 or the 700. There is the whole bug-a-boo. I have taken some pains to note the discrepancies in the bill before the Senate. In Floyd and Scott, with 10,186 white males, I see they have one Senator and two Representatives. Miami and Howard has 8,458, and they get four Representatives. Brown and Bartholomew, with 6,515, get one Senator and one Representative. Fayette and Union, with 423, less than one-half, get a Senator and a Representative. In Laporte where they have 6,559, they get disfranchised by having a Senator and one Representative, but Lake and Porter mustn't be with some 300 less. It is all right to disfranchise Laporte, but wrong to disfranchise Lake arid Porter. They are taking care of these small counties.
I could add, perhaps, a great many other reasons why this bill should not pass, but I will say here that the bill of two years ago was a fair bill, and no Senator dare to argue against it. I had hoped on Saturday to offer some amendments to this bill, or at least to have an opportunity to discuss it without being interrupted every few minutes or being declared out of order, but in that I was mistaken, although it was said that there was going to be a vote taken but time would be given for discussion, and I supposed they spoke from the book.
Then Marion county is given two Senators and four Representatives, and not content with that, they must gobble up the Senator from Shelby; not content with that they must have a joint representative with Shelby. Is that right? Does the history of our State present anything to compare with that? And can any Senator show me that there ever was a bill passed to apportion the State for Senatorial, Representative or Congressional purposes without being first sent to a committee, or without a fair and free discussion? Never have I known of such a thing but once, and that was some nine years ago. I know some Senators on the other side feel sore over the passage of this bill. These he likened to an old gentleman in the "pocket" who talked in favor of Democracy but always voted the Republican ticket, and when taken to task about it said: "I guess I talk right but I expect I vote wrong." There are Senators here this day that feel that way and I know it.
The vote was then announced ad above recorded.
So the bill passed the Senate.
Mr. FRIEDLEY of Lawrence moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill passed, and to lay that motion on the table.
The latter motion was agreed to.
CONGRESSIONAL APPORTIONMENT
On motion of Mr. GOODING, the bill [S. 54] to divide the State into Congressionial Districts was read the third time and passed--yeas 27, nays 12--as follows:
YEAS--Messrs. Beardsley, Beeson, Brown, Bunyan, Chapman, Collett, Daggy, Dwiggins, Friedley of Scott, Gooding, Haworth, Hough, Howard, Hubbard, Miller, Neff, O'Brien,Oliver, Orr, Rhodes, Scott, Sleeth, Steele, Taylor, Thompson, Wadge and Mr. President--27.
NAYS--Messrs. Bird, Boone, Bowman, Francisco, Glessner, Gregg, Hall, Sarnighausen, Slater, Smith, Stroud and Winterbotham--12.
Mr. FRIEDLEY of Lawrence moved to reconsider the vote just taken, and to lay that motion on the table.
The latter motion was agreed to--yeas 26, nays 13.
The apportionment under the bill is as follows:
First District--Posey, Vanderburg, Warrick, Spencer, Gibson and Pike.
Second District--Sullivan, Knox, Daviess, Greene, Martin, Orange, Crawford and Dubois.
Third District--Harrison, Clark, Floyd, Washington, Jackson, Brown and Bartholomew.
Fourth District--Ohio, Switzerland, Jefferson, Scott, Jennings, Ripley, Decatur and Rush.
Fifth District--Dearborn, Franklin, Fayette, Union, Wayne and Randolph.
Sixth District--Johnson, Shelby, Hancock, Henry, Delaware, Madison and Grant.
Seventh District--Marion, Morgan, Hendricks and Putnam.
Eighth District--Lawrence, Munroe, Owen, Clay, Vigo, Parke and Vermillion.
Ninth District--Boone, Clinton, Montgomery, Fountain, Warren, and Tippecanoe.
Tenth District--Laporte, St. Joseph, Stark Porter, Lake, Newton, Benton, White, Carroll, Jasper and Pulaski.
Eleventh District--Hamilton, Howard, Tipton, Cass, Miami, Fulton and Wabash.
Twelfth District--Jay, Blackford, Wells, Adams, Huntington, Whitley, and Allen.
Thirteenth District--Kosciusko, Marshall, Elkhart, Lagrange, Noble, Steuben and DeKalb.
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
Mr. NEFF, from the Committee on Claims, returned the resolution on the subject of the Brevier Legislative Reports, with a recommendation that it do pass with an amendment, adding these words: "with interest on one-half the gross amount due on account of last session;" so that the resolution shall read as follows:
RESOLVED, That the Auditor of State be, and he is hereby directed to issue his warrant on the State Treasurer in favor of A. E. & W. H. Drapier for the same number of copies of the BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS of the Forty-seventh General Assembly as have been fur-
page: 299[View Page 299]nished every session since 1857, the same price paid per page per copy for the last several volumes, to be paid out of the fund appropriated for Legislative purposes; and also at the same rate for the same number of copies of the current volume for the present session, with interest on one-half the gross amount due on acount of last session.
The report was concurred in and the resolution was adopted.
Mr. FRIEDLEY, of Scott, presented several petitions concerning the reorganization of Courts in Johnson County.
They were referred to the Committee on the Organfzation of Courts.
And then the Senate adjourned till tomorrow at ten o'clock.
