THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
THIRTEENTH VOLUME.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
TUESDAY, December 17, 1872.The SPEAKER directed the reading of the journal of yesterday.
On motion of Mr. TULLEY, the reading was dispensed with.
A message was received from the Senate announcing the passage and signing of sundry bills.
TIPPECANOE BATTLE GROUND.
Mr. HOLLINGSWORTH obtained unanimous consent to submit a report from the Special Committee on the Tippecanoe Battle Ground, returning the bill [S. 45] providing for the permanent enclosure of the Tippecanoe Battle Ground, recommending its passage. (The bill appropriates for the purpose $24,000 to enclose the grounds--8 1/3 acres--with an iron fence.) The report contains a statement of State's acquisition of these grounds, their treatment since, together with Mr. Talbot's estimate of the cost of their improvement.
Mr. WOODARD moved for a suspension of the Constitutional restrictions, which was agreed to--yeas, 59; nays, 17--and the bill was read twice, and advanced to the final passage, and it was finally passed the House of Representatives.--Yeas, 71; nays, 11,
THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM.
Mr. SHIRLEY said the session was drawing to a close, and as yet no sufficient action had been taken by the General Assembly looking to the revision of the judicial system, as recommended by the Governor in his special message. He therefore moved to take up Mr. Woollen's concurrent resolution providing for raising a joint committee of six members of the House of Representatives and three on the part of the Senate, to sit during the recess and revise the indicia! districts, with a view to equalizing them. Mr. S said some of the Judges were working only six months, while others were working eight, and still others ten, and by this means justice was often delayed. If the circuits could be equalized justice could be speedily administered, with diminished expense. He thought the salaries of all the judges should be raised, but was opposed to considering any measure for such increase until the districts and the labors of the Judges had been equalized. He felt confident that this joint committee will find that we have enough Judges already, and that we ought to increase their salaries. Five thousand dollars would be little enough for the Supreme Court, $3,000 for the Circuit, and $2,500 for the Common Pleas Judges. In quite a number of the Circuits and Districts the Judges are working only about six months in the year, and if we increase their salaries they should work at least ten months of the year. With the present compensation there is no lawyer who can take a judgeship without pecuniary sacrifice. We can't expect to get adequate talent without adequate compensation. This is matter that requires our attention as much as anything else. I wish to say, further, that I desire to adopt into our judicial system a rule to give the judges power to appoint trial terms and issue terms. It page: 308[View Page 308]will save the time of the jurors and witnesses, by excusing them from the necessity of hanging about the court houses.
Objection being made to taking up the concurrent resolution, the motion was not entertained.
THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT.
Mr. WOLFLIN asked and obtained unanimous consent to introduce a bill [H. R. 257] to amend section 3 of the act of June 17, 1852, to provide for redistricting the State for judicial purposes. [It proposes to regulate the terms in the third circuit, composed of the counties of Knox, Daviess, Martin, Gibson, Vanderburgh and Posey.]
Mr. CAUTHORN moved to dispense with the constitutional restrictions, which was agreed to.
Mr. PEED opposed some local considerations to the passage of the bill, and Mr. WOLFLIN and Mr. CAUTHORN spoke in favor of the bill as especially desired by the bar and the people of Vanderburg.
The bill was finally passed the House of Representatives--yeas 80, nays 0.
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT.
Mr. WOLFLIN also introduced a bill [H. R. 258] to amend the first section of the act to create the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, approved February 22, 1859--[the district to include Spencer, Perry, Dubois, Pike, Warrick and Crawford.]
Mr. HEDRICK moved ineffectually to lay the bill on the table.
Mr. PEED opposed the bill as he had the other, and for similar reasons--legislating a Judge out of one circuit into another.
Mr. CAUTHORN supported the bill as supplementing the provisions of the bill , [H. R. 257] just passed the House. It was necessary to Vanderburg county and to enable the Judge living up in Spencer county to reach court by railroad. And then, the restrictions having been suspended for the purpose, the bill was finally passed the House of Representatives--yeas 76, nays 6.
WAYS AND MEANS REPORTS.
Mr. KIMBALL, from the Committee on Ways and Means, reported a bill [H. R. 259] making specific appropriations for the years 1871 and 1872, which was read and ordered to the second reading.
On motion of Mr. BRANHAM, it was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, with notice to all persons entitled to present their claims for place in the bill.
Mr. KIMBALL also returned Mr Billingsley's bill [H. R. 122] providing for appraisement of real estate in all cities of 30,000 inhabitants and more, and providing for compensation, and prescribing duties of county auditors therein, recommending its passage.
It was ordered to be engrossed.
Mr. KIMBALL also returned Mr. Mellett's bill [H. R. 54] to amend the act to secure a just valuation and assessment of railroad property, recommending that it be laid on the table.
The report was concurred in.
ATORNEY GENERAL.
The SPEAKER announced the consideration on the third reading of Mr. Riggs' bill [H. R. 113] to amend section two of the act to amend sections four and seven of the act providing for the election, etc. of the Attorney General; shall receive a salary of $3,000 per annum and a $10 docket fee taxed against the adverse party.
The bill was finally past the House of Representatives--yeas, 69; nays, 0.
RESTORED TO THE CALENDAR.
On motion by Mr. GIVAN, Mr Ellsworth's bill [H. R. 59] was restored to the calendar.
On motion of Mr. CLAYPOOL, his railroad security bill [H. R. 241] which failed for want of a constitutional majority was restored to the calendar.
On motion of Mr. SATTERWHITE, Mr. Riggs' bill [H. R. 198] was also restored to the Clerk's files.
INTEREST ON SCHOOL FUND.
The SPEAKER took up the consideration on the third reading of Mr. Lenfesty's bill to render uniform the rate of interest on the common school fund of the State (8 per cent.); and it was finally passed the House--yeas 86, nays 0.
FELONY.
The SPEAKER took up the consideration of Mr. Edwards of Vigo's bill [H. R. 148] to define certain felonies and providing punishment therefor, compelling testimony of parties engaged therein against others than themselves (declaring it a felony, and punishing it accordingly, for any public officer letting a contract to receive any per centage, drawback or reward of bribery thereon, declaring all such contracts void, etc.); and it was finally passed the House of Representatives--yeas 87, nays 3.
TOWNSHIP TREASURIES.
The SPEAKER announced the consideration of the third reading of Mr. Gif- page: 309[View Page 309]ford's bill [H. R. 227] to provide for the payment into the township treasury of all moneys collected from townships for all purposes, except State and county revenue.
It was finally passed the House--yeas 85, nays 0.
COMMON SCHOOLS.
The SPEAKER took up on the third reading Mr. North's bill [H. R. 138] to amend the third section of the act to authorize cities and towns to negotiate and sell bonds for school building purposes, etc., approved March 11, 1867.
Mr. NORTH said it provides that persons living outside of town or city availing themselves of the city or town common schools, shall be taxed therein for school purposes.
It was finally passed the House of Representatives--yeas 65, nays 6.
Mr. Riggs' court bill [H. R. 223] being superceded, was laid on the table.
SAVINGS BANK OFFICERS.
Mr. Riggs' bill [H. R. 198] to amend sections 15, 19, 31 and 49 of the act of May 12, 1869, providing for the organization of savings banks and the proper management of their affairs, which had once failed, on the third reading for want of the constitutional majority, was again submitted to the vote.
Mr. WOLFLIN said it was to admit of salary to the officers of savings banks doing a business of $250,000, etc.
The bill was now finally passed the House of Representatives--yeas 81, nays 2.
ROADS--POOR HOUSE.
Mr. BILLINGSLEY'S bill [H. R. 123] prescribing the time for transaction of road business, and for the appointment of superintendent and physician for the poor, which provides that road business shall be transacted only at regular sessions, and that superintendents and physicians for the poor shall be appointed at the December sessions, was taken up on the third reading and passed the House of Representatives--yeas 71, nays 6.
Mr. BAKER'S bill [H. R. 174] to amend the thirty-second section of the General City Corporation Act of March 14, 1867, by providing that the city treasurer in the collection of taxes shall not be compelled to accept orders for sinking fund purposes, was taken up on the third reading, and finally passed the House of Representatives--yeas 54, nays 20.
VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS, ETC.
The Corporation's Committee bill [H. R. 104] to amend section two of the act concerning the organization and perpetuity of voluntary associations, and repealing, etc., coming up on the third reading.
Mr. OGDEN stated that it is a copy of the bill [S. 40] and on his motion it was laid on the table, and the bill [S. 40] with similar title and provisions was taken up. He said this bill admits of the organization of companies for the safe deposit and loaning of money. And on his further motion the constitutional restriction was suspended and the bill was advanced to the third reading.
Mr. WALKER said this bill also proposed to amend the laws so as to allow the organization of institutions for the medical treatment of the diseases of women.
Mr. MILLER feared that the provision for the organization of loan companies might admit of a system of free banking in Indiana, and that he was opposed to.
Mr. OGDEN assured the House that it was simply a provision to admit foreign capitalists to loan money through established agencies in the State. It was the opinion of the committee that it might make money easier. The bill admitted these companies to receive valuables on special deposit, making the incorporators responsible to the depositors. The bill was finaliy passed by the House of Representatives, yeas 75, nays 2.
FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT.
Mr. WILSON, of Ripley's First Judicial Circuit bill [H. R. 177] embracing the counties of Ripley, Jennings, Jefferson and Switzerland, was taken up on the third reading.
Mr. WILSON said it was for the accommodation of the judge and parties--changing the time in Switzerland court.
It was finally passed the House of Representatives--yeas, 80; nays, 0.
INDIANA UNIVERSITY.
Mr. FURNAS' bill [H. R. 56] to appropriate $20,000 annually towards the endowment of Indiana University was taken up on the third reading, and after sundry propositions to reduce the amount of the appropriation, and when the bill had failed on the trial vote, on motion of Mr. Branham the vote was reconsidered, and the bill was referred again to the Committee on Education, with instructions to amend by reducing the amount to $15,000.
The House then took a recess till two o'clock p. m.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The House assembled at two o'clock.
page: 310[View Page 310]PROFESSIONAL JURYMEN.
The SPEAKER announced the consideration of Mr. Givan's bill [H. R. 171] prescribing for the manner of selecting petit jurors for the Circuit and Common Pleas Courts, it being on the third reading. [The bill provides that when the jurors are drawn there shall be drawn also twelve contingents, from which list any vacancies shall be filled, and that no bystander shall be called until the list of contingents is exhausted.]
Mr. GIVAN. The object is to secure jurors from the reputable common people for the courts and to prevent the services of what are called professional jurors. [It requires the Auditor, Treasurer and Recorder to deposit 100 names in a box before the term, and requires the clerk to issue process to the sheriff to summon the first twelve the clerk draws from the box--not to summons the contingents--the second drawing--till the first day of the term; then he shall give to him the twelve contingents--the second drawing--to supply the place of those of the first drewing who shall fail to appear.
The bill was finally passed the House of Representatives--yeas 78; nays 0.
LABORERS' LIEN.
Mr. MILLER obtained leave to return Mr. Claypool's [H. R. 241] to secure the rights of laborers on railroads, etc., by lien; and--
On motion of Mr. CLA YPOOL, the restrictions being suspended for the purpose--
The bill was finally passed the House of Representatives--yeas 88; nays 0.
APPORTIONMENT FOR REPRESENTATION.
Mr. CAUTHORN obtained leave to introduce a bill [H. R. 260] to fix the number of Senators and Representatives for the State of Indiana, and to apportion the gome among the several counties, and he asked that it lie on the table for the present. And it was so ordered by unanimous consent.
On motion of Mr. CAUTHORN, (on a division, affirmative, 50, negative, 46) the House took up the consideration of the apportionment bill [S. 136], and it was read the first time
Mr. CAUTHORN now moved that this bill and his bill [H. R. 260] be referred to the Committee on Elections.
Mr. WALKER had no objection that the gentleman's bill should take any course that he desires. I should prefer that the bill from the Senate lie over and take its regular place on the calendar.
Mr. BRANHAM hoped the House would consent to the printing of this bill. There can be no urgency for passing it at this session, and its importance demands a careful examination. And I hope that this House can't afford to make an unfair apportionment, which might be done if we were to pass this without due consideration. I move to lay the Senate bill on the table, and that both the Senate bill and that of the gentleman from Knox (Mr. Cauthorn) be printed.
The motion was agreed to, and the printing was ordered. But Messrs. Walker and Woolfin insisted that they had demanded the yeas and nays in time to save them under the rules; and accordingly they were taken resulting--yeas 55; nays 40; as follows:
YEAS--Messrs. Anderson, Baker, Barrett, Blocher, Bowser, Branham, Brett, Butts, Cauthorn, Claypool, Cline, Coffman, Dial, Durham, Eaton, Ellfworth, Givan, Glasgow, Glazebrook, Goble, Goudie, Gregory, Heller, Henderson, Hoyer, Isenhower, Jones, Lent, Martin, McConnell, McKinney, Offutt, Peed, Pfrimmer, Reeves, Reno, Richardson, Rudder, Rumsey, Schmuck, Shirley, Shutt, Smith, Spellman, Stanley, Strange, Teeter, Tingley, Thompson of Spencer, Troutman, Tulley, Wesner, Whitworth, Willard, and Woollen--55.
NAYS--Messrs. Baxter, Billingsley, Broadus, Clark, Cobb, Cole, Edwards of Lawrence, Edward, Furnas, Gifford, Gronendyke, Hardesty, Hatch, Hedrick, Hollingsworth, Johnson, Kimball, King, Kirkpatrick, Lenfesfy, Mellett, Miller, North, Odle, Ogden, Prentiss, Riggs, Satterwhite, Scott, Thayer, Thompson of Elkhart, Walker, Wilson of Blackford, Wilson of Ripley, Wolflin, Wood, Woodard, Wynn and Mr. Speaker--40.
So the motion prevailed, and it was ordered that the bill be laid on the table, and that both be printed.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE.
On motion of Mr. WALKER, Mr. Offutt was accorded indefinite leave of absence, he having received a dispatch informing him of sickness at home.
JAMES. F. DILL.
Mr. WOODARD submitted a preamble and resolution, reciting the employment of James F. Dill by the Dookeeper, under an order of the House, and ordering that the proper warrant be drawn for his pay.
Mr. BARRETT submitted remarks for the passage of the resolution, and it was adopted.
The SPEAKER said the warrant would have been drawn, but the record of the resolution was never made, and the doorkeeper never reported the employe, and this accounts for the number of warrants exceeding the reported number of employes--it is because the House passes these resolutions.
page: 311[View Page 311]INDIANA UNIVERSITY.
Mr. GLAZEBROOK, from the Committee on Education, returned Mr. Furnas' Indiana University (20,000) appropriation bill [H. R. 56] with the amendment directed by the House, striking out $20,000 and inserting $15,000 in lieu, and so amended, the committee recommended the passage of the bill.
The amendment was adopted and the bill was finally passed the House of Representatives--yeas 60, nays 35.
TWENTY SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT.
Mr. EDWARDS, of Lawrence, from the majority of the Committee on the Organization of Courts, returned the bill [S. 134] to fix the courts in the Twenty-sixth Judicial District for the Common Pleas Court.
Mr. SHIRLEY, with Mr. CLAYPOOL, as the minorty of said committee, recommended that the bill be indefinitely postponed for the reason that Judge Emerson has twenty-two weeks and Judge Coffman nineteen. The question being on concurring in the report of the minorty, debate followed--Messrs. Shirley, Woollen, Barrett and Offutt for the minority report, and Messrs. Wilson, of Ripley, Satterwhite, Cowgill and Edwards, of Lawrence, against it--till Mr. Satterwhite demanded the previous question, which was seconded by the House, and under its pressure the minority report was concurred in, and substituted for that of the majority of the committee. The report as thus substituted or amended was concurred in--yeas 49, nays 44--and so the bill was indefinitely postponed.
MECHANICS' LIEN.
Mr. LENFESTY'S bill [H. R. 136] to amend section 647 of the Practice Act of June 18, 1852, was taken up on the third reading.
Mr. L. said this bill becomes necessary under a recent decision of the Supreme Court, in which the Court takes a view a little different from that intended by the Legislature. The bill provides that, in order to make the party liable under the mechanics' lien law, he shall have notice; otherwise, the man might have to pay for his work more than once.
The bill finally passed the House of Representatives, yeas 93, nays 0.
APPORTIONMENT FOR REPRESENTATION.
Mr. TROUTMAN submitted a motion to reconsider the vote of the afternoon by which it was ordered that the two apportionment bills--that from the Senate and Mr. Cauthorn's--were laid on the table and ordered to be printed.
Mr. BRANHAM hoped the motion would not prevail. He could see no possibly necessity for it. It is nothing more than what is due to the House that the vote should remain as it is. There is no good reason for such undue haste in a matter of this sort. It is one of the highest prerogatives of government--this act of apportionment for representation. It lies at the very foundation of government, and you cannot lightly say that one person in the State is not entitled to as much representation as another. I do not ask of this House anything but what is clearly right; and it is not right when you ask me to record my vote for a bill without the opportunity of seeing whether it is right or not. When did this bill come here? Why do you strike at the dearest rights of the people, and say, because a portion of them differ with you in politics, you will disfranchise them? I tell the majority here that they can't afford to take such action--and if they do, they will not hold their majority long. If we make an apportionment here it ought to be so made that we can sustain it before the people. It is but a mockery of representation to attach one county to another in the same district when you know that it will overwhelm and stifle the voice, of the people. Four years ago I happened to be on this floor when a secret outside influence obtained the passage of a corrupt apportionment bill; and I said then that no power of man should ever force upon me an unjust apportionment I take the ground that the majority here ought to give to the other side and to themselves a fair chance to examine this bill.
I have been told by a gentleman of the other branch of this body that is was an infamous bill--one that ought not to pass. Then let us have it printed. Who is the author of this bill? From whence does it come? Why should it come in here and be parsed under the threat of partizan excommunication ? Thank God, such threats have no terrors for me. Let us give to the people, as near as may be, a fair apportionment. I am well aware of the difficulties to be met with in adjusting these matters. There are not only public difficulties as to what should be the complexion of such an act, but in spite of us there will come in those numerous private interests. And let me tell gentlemen that those private interests were at the very bottom of this bill, and not the public good. So far as my county is concerned, I have nothing to say with regard to its page: 312[View Page 312]provisions. But no man can look over it without observing some glaring defects which ought to be removed. And what have we to fear? Gentlemen have got up a bugbear about the breaking up of this session; but I tell gentlemen that if this session is to be broken up, it will be done by the tyranical act of the majority. Suppose the minority to bolt upon say the Congressional apportionment bill? Does any man here propose to vote for a bill that will not give to one-half the people of the State four members of Congress? Let gentlemen change sides for a moment; how would you like it if such a bill were to be forced upon you? Every impulse of a manly heart would be to rebel against such a thfng.
But do you say if we pass no apportionment bill our party will be endangered? How much better do you propose to make the apportionment than it is at present? But gentlemen say if this bill goes over to the regular session there will be the devil to pay. [Laughter.] Well, I am willing to settle with the old gentleman. There are none of us but must heartily approve of the spirit that has prevaded this session so far. For twenty years I have had the pleasure, sometimes as a member and sometimes in the lobby, of witnessing the proceedings of this body, and there has not been a session in all that time where the members generally have gone into the work of the State with more intelligence and zeal than they have at this session. I do not ask for this bill to go over to the next session, but only for a chance to examine it. I will tell gentlemen how I would make an apportionment bill. I would make the districts as nearly equal as possible; but in any case wherethere might be a doubt I would give as a reason my political friends the benefit of the doubt. But some gentlemen give as a reason for urging this doubt, that if you will let it go over to the regular session the Governor will veto it. But that cannot be the true reason; for gentlemen know if the Governor does veto it, that fifty-one votes will still pass the bill. No; there are other reasons for this urgency--some secret reason, perhaps, which I do not know. But I must appeal to gentlemen in the name of the State of Indianain the name of justice and the sacred principles that lie at the foundation of the government, let us come up to the consideration of this bill, fairly, amend the glaring blunders of its authors, and pass it.
Mr. OFFUTT moved to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.
The motion was lost by a tie vote on a call of the yeas and nays--48 to 48.
Mr. GIVAN moved to adjourn. The yeas and nays were demanded, and the vote resulted--yeas 45, nays 52. So the House refused to adjourn.
Mr. WILSON, of Ripley, demanded the previous question, but there was not a second to the demand by a majority of the House.
The question recurring upon the motion to reconsider, it was carried by yeas 49, nays 48.
A message was received from the Senate announcing the signing by the President of certain bills.
Mr. KIMBALL moved to refer to the bills to the Committee on Elections.
Mr. CAUTHORN raised the point of order that the only question which could be considered was the disposition of the reconsidered vote to print the bills.
The SPEAKER sustained the point of order. The question is: Will the House order the Printing of these bills [H. R. 260, S. 136?] It is the motion of the gentleman from Jefferson.
Mr. MILLER. I move to lay the motion to print on the table. But he was induced to withdraw the motion for the present.
Mr. CAUTHORN. I hope the motion to print will prevail. Here are two different bills involving the most important question in legislation; and we want to see them. [A voice: the Senate bill is printed.] I introduced one of them to-dayand we have not seen that; but I am not ashamed to print it, and let it go to the country--the people--who have a right to know what we are acting on.
Mr. KIMBALL might be willing to incur the expense of the printing. But this bill has been printed in the newspapers, and received both the approval and the condemnation of the press; and, therefore, the printing is unnecessary.
Mr. BRANHAM. I wish to say to the House and to the gentleman from Marion (Mr. Kimball), that I have seen no copy of this bill, either in the paper or anywhere else: and that I am not in the habit of going to the newspapers for information of bills before this House. I ask for the printing that the matter may be before us, that we may act intelligently.
Mr. HOLLINGSWORTH insisted that we have all had all the opportunity we need to examine this bill, and it is unnecessary to incur the expense of printing.
Mr. SHIRLEY alleged mistakes and inaccuracies in the printed bill of the Senate, and hoped the majority would give us a fair chance to look at it, that, if page: 313[View Page 313]possible, all may come to an agreement on some just measure. Let us know at least just what we have.
Mr. KIMBALL insisted again that gentlemen have had the bill before them in print long enough to have considered it conscientiously, and to have determined whether it ought to pass the House; and that it must be only to gain time that they as for this printing. Only yesterday it was printed in the papers. Then why object? and why not let it go to our committee and proceed in order?
Mr. RICHARDSON. What harm can come to the majority by delay?
Mr. KIMBALL. We want to do something else.
Mr. MELLETT. There is another reason why it is necessary that we should make this apportiomnent at this session. I understand it is required by the Constitution that we should make it at this session, and I have no doubt that gentlemen know this. He read the provision in the fourth article of the Constitution, gathering from it, that it is part of our sworn duty to make this apportionment before the adjournment of this session: and he was therefore in favor of referring the bill to the Committee on Elections, and could see no occasion for the printing. We have seen it in the papers; and if it is not entirely correct there, the press and the country would be glad to have it in the corrected form as soon as possible.
Mr. BRANHAN. In what paper has it been printed?
Mr. KIMBALL. In yesterday's Journal.
Mr. GREGORY showed that it is not contemplated by the Constitution that we should make this apportionment at this session, but that the just inference is that it should go to the regular Session; and that being the case, there can be no harm in giving time for examination. I have not read the bill by Sections myself. It is true, I have heard it read here by the clerk, from whom I have been able to gather but a very imperfect understanding of it; and gentlemen tell me themselves that they do not comprehend it yet, and desire intelligent action. The gentleman from Jefferson (Mr. Branham) intimates that there has been some secret manipulations connected with it. I move, therefore, that the further consideration of this subject be postponed, and that it be made the special order for to-morrow.
Mr. MELLETT. Still it seems to me that the apportionment should be made at the session next after the census and the general election. If the regular session is the only session provided for in the constitution, then the gentleman's argument might be good, but it is not.
Mr. LENFESTY. It seems to me that this Senate bill, which is the work of the majority--if we desire that the bill should go to the appropriate committee for the purpose of amendment--we have the right to give it that direction. As far as the democratic members are concerned, who say they do not know what is contained in our bill. I believe that everyone of them has its discrepancies noted and taken down in his pocket.
Mr. RICHARDSON. I desire publicly to deny that.
Mr. LENFESTY. The gentleman may be an exception; but still I believe what I have stated to be generally true. They have examined it, in caucus and out of caucus, and perhaps a large majority of them have read it from end to end. But for the purpose of testing the sense of the House here, I move to lay the motion to print on the table.
Mr. WILSON, of Ripley, made the point of order, that the pending motion is to lay on the table and print.
The SPEAKER. Perhaps the gentleman from Grant can arrive at his object by a division of the question.
Mr. LENFESTY. I will withdraw that, and demand the previous question.
There was a second to the demand for the previous question. Affirmative 48, negative 44, and the main question was ordered, viz.: "Shall the bills [H. R. 260 and S. 136] be laid on the table and printed?" and the yeas and nays being demanded, ordered and taken thereon, resulted--yeas 47, nays 50--as follows:
YEAS--Messrs. Anderson, Baker, Barrett, Blocher, Bowser, Branham, Brett, Cauthorn, Claypool, Cline, Coffman, Dial, Durham, Eaton, Givan, Glawgow, Glazebrook, Goble, Goudie, Gregory, Heller, Henderson, Hoyer, Isenhower, Martin, McConnell, McKinney, Offutt, Peed, Pfrimmer, Reno, Richardson, Rudder, Schmuck, Shirley, Shutt, Smith, Spellman, Stanley, Strange, Teeter, Tulley, Whitworth, Willard and Woollen--47.
NAYS--Messrs. Baxter, Billingsley, Broadus, Butterworth, Butts, Clark, Cobb, Cole, Cowgill, Crumpacker, Edwards, of Lawrence, Eward, Furnas, Gifford, Gronendyke, Hardesty, Hatch, Hedrick, Hollingsworth, Johnson, Kimball, King, Kirkpatrick, Lenfesty, Lent, Mellett, Miller, North, Cdle, Qgden, Prentiss, Reeves, Riggs, Rumsey, Satterwhite, Scott, Thayer, Tingley, Thompson, of Elkhart, Thompson, of Spencer, Troutman, Walker, Wesner, Witson, of Blackford, Wilson, of Ripley, Woolflin, Wood, Woodard, Wynn and the Speaker--50.
So the motion to print was rejected.
Mr. KIMBALL moved to refer the bills to the Committee on Elections.
Mr. CAUTHORN moved to amend by referring the bills to the Committee of the whole House, as the special order for page: 314[View Page 314]Thursday, immediately after the reading of the journal.
Mr. EDWARDS, of Lawrence, moved to lay the amendment on the table.
The vote thereon resulted--yeas 50, nays 43. So Mr. Cauthorn's amendment to the motion was rejected; and then the question recurred on Mr. Kimball's motion that the bills be referred to the Committee on Elections.
A message was received from the Senate announcing the signature of the per diem bill [H. R. 73], etc.
Mr. EATON moved for an adjournment, and therefore--
The House adjourned.
