THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
THIRTEENTH VOLUME.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
THURSDAY, December 19, 1872.The SPEAKER directed the reading of the Journal of yesterday, which was dispensed with.
The SPEAKER resumed the unfinished business of yesterday, viz. : Mr. Martin's bill, [H. R. 76] to amend sections 1,2, 4, 6, 11 and 12 of the private drainage act of 1867, the question being on the third reading.
Mr. BUTTERWORTH. This bill proposes to amend the law of 1867, for draining operations by private parties, and there is great need of it, especially in the northern part of the State. It provides that the land owner who is subject to assessment under it, shall have ten days' notice, and shall be heard in the matter of the appraisement; it requires the petitioner or applicant to give him notice; that the appraisers, or any two of them, shall go through and examine all the lands to be affected, whether described in the applicant's petition or not; and where there has been a failure from any cause in the matter coming to the knowledge of the owner, it shall be the the duty of the applicant to cause a copy of such assessment to be served on the owner. And if the owner is not satisfied, it shall be the duty of the applicant to notify all the parties and proceed to a re-examination and re-assessment of the same, and report his assessment to the County Recorder for record, and the Recorder's charge for the record, of twenty-five cents a tract, is reduced after the first four tracts. He called special attention to the provisions of the 9th section of the bill. Under the present law the petitioner has to bear the entire expense of the proposed work, and can't collect one cent of the assessments till the whole of the work is done. This section provides that when a part of the drain shall have been completed, and the land owner receives all the benefit of the drain as though the whole were completed, then the assessments on such lands are collectable.
Mr. LENFESTY. But the other day the gentleman from St. Joseph was against all drainage laws.
Mr. BUTTERWORTH interposed to say that he was always heartily in favor of good drainage laws.
Mr. LENFESTY then referred to an understanding with the friends of the repeal of the Kankakee act, that if that were repealed the "Chapman bill" from the Senate should receive attention. But when the Chapman bill came from the Senate and it was referred to the committee of which the gentlemen is chairman, it remained there and has not been heard of since.
Mr. BUTTERWORTH. The Chapman bill has never been before the Swamp Lands Committee.
Mr. RUMSEY favored the bill, but was opposed to carrying it to the final vote at this time. He moved that it be referred to the Judiciary Committee.
The SPEAKER. There is objection; and it cannot be referred without instruction at this stage of the bill.
Mr. GREGORY wished to say to those who have not examined it, that this is a good bill. It was well known that in the page: 336[View Page 336]northern part of the State we have to depend very much on drainage to redeem some of the best soil in the world; and, perhaps, the only way we can do this work effectually will be by the organization of companies, and by legislating for amendment of this "one man's drainage law" to that end. He thought that both this bill and the Chapman bill ought to pass, so that the latter shall not give too much power to the corporators. This bill takes the act of 1867, and puts additional restrictions upon the powers conferred by it. It simply and only confers the power on any man so that he may go on the land of another and make an outlet for his ditch. It does not provide for corporations. I believe that I am just as much in earnest for the passage of the Chapman bill as I am for this.
Mr. HELLER was in favor of good drainage laws. We have 40,000 acres that must be drained in Allen county, and I hope gentlemen will withdraw their objections and let this bill pass.
Mr. LENFESTY adhered to his objections to the bill. Gentlemen are endeavoring to pass a bill that is not understood by the House. We have as much land that needs draining in Grant county as in any other county in tke State, and we have done some of our best work under the Kankakee Drainage Act. He spoke for the Chapman bill, and for delay as to the passage of this pending bill till it can be understood.
Mr. GLASGOW. There is one provision in this bill which (as he thought) is quite as bad as tke Kankakee act which we have repealed. I think it provides that the benefits shall be assessed without regard to the cost cof the work; and that these assessments may be collected at the rate of ten per cent, per month. True, the parties are required to give bonds, but they may use the money and bank upon it.
Mr. BUTTERWORTH. There is no such provision in the bill.
Mr. KIRKPATRICK. Section 12 (lines 11 to 24) authorizes the person who holds land above, to deepen and widen the old drains; and if his ditch is four miles long it will occupy about eighty acres of land. I would like to have the bill referred back with instructions to strike out the 12th section.
Mr. BUTTERWORTH. That is the law now. It is the law of 1867.
Mr. KIRKPATRICK. I care not. Our object is to secure and accommodate interests all over the State. That is the very principle upon which we repealed the Kankakee drainage law.
Mr. ANDERSON also objected to the passage of the bill.
Mr. GREGORY defended the provision objected to by Mr. Kirkpatrick. It was a good and necessary provision where too much water has been let into the ditch for its capacity.
The final vote was taken and reported--yeas, 42; nays, 33.
So the bill failed for want of the constitutional majority of 51.
SUNDAY A LEGISLATIVE DAY.
Mr. BRANHAM submitted a resolution for an order that this House will pass no bill this session after this day.
Mr. HARDESTY moved to lay it on the table, but immediately withdrew the motion.
Mr. BRANHAM. The ablest lawyers I have consulted agree with me that we can't pass bills after to-night under the Constitution. I suppose all are aware that the forty days for this session terminate on Sunday. If it were absolutely necessary, and the House were willing to meet on Sunday and legalize our acts on Friday, I might be willing. But all the business of the session will pass into the next and be considered in order there, and there is no such necessity. And I submit whether it is prudent to pass laws without regard to the constitutional provision, which forbids the passage of any bill within two days of the adjournment of the session.
Mr. WILSON, of Ripley, made no question of the right of the General Assembly to pass bills on Friday.
Mr. KIMBALL read from a note received by him from the Governor: "I have no doubt of the right of the General Assembly to pass bills up to twelve o'clock Friday night."
Mr. BRANHAM. I have made no inquiry with reference to this matter from a political stand point. I put it upon this: I do not think the House ought to make a legislative day of Sunday; and if we do not, then we will not pass any bill after to-night. If there were any pressing necessity we might do it, but there is none. And I say, if the General Assembly requires all the people to observe that day, we ought to observe it as well.
Mr. SHIRLEY. An effort has been made here to provide other days besides Sunday, to be observed by abstinence from business; and as a question of consistency he would not require the Governor to work on Sunday, especially when there is no necessity for it--and all Christian people observe that day. And if we consider it as a legal proposition we find that Sunday is not observed as a day of page: 337[View Page 337]business; as, in the maturity of commercial paper and bills of exchange, and in the service of legal process, we have no right to count Sunday. When the last day of the paper comes on Sunday, you are required to protest it on Saturday.
Mr. WALKER. The gentleman from Jefferson (Mr. Branham) proceeds on the hypothesis that it is attempted to make Sunday a legislative day. But that is not the intention, for Sunday is now a legislative day, and the gentleman from Jefferson (unless he has remitted it) has drawn his per diem for every Sunday since the session commenced.
Mr. BRANHAM (in his seat). I have not drawn a dollar.
Mr. WALKER, Still, unless he remits it he will get five dollars a day for every Sunday, and in contemplation of law it is a legislative day. The Governor says in his letter that the session closes on Sundaythat is a constitutional point--and he says the practice has included that day.
Mr. BRANHAM, If the House should make a bill on Sunday, would it be valid?
Mr. WALKER. Yes, probably, it would. But we have higher authority The Congress of the United States sits on Sunday, when occasion requires; and it did so under the advice and instructions of old John Quincy Adams. Then, unless the gentleman gives some good reason why we should exempt that day, we can't do so. The gentleman from Morgan and Johnson (Mr. Shirley) refers to the legal requirements in regard to bills of exchange, that proceeds from legislation. We here derive our authority from the Constitution. If the gentleman from Jefferson wishes to go home, he certainly can do so.
Mr. KIMBALL. In order to relieve gentlemen from the bitings of conscience in this matter, we might order a sermon for the day, and then close our business and adjourn sine die.
The SPEAKER announced that the hour has arrived for the consideration of the Special Order.
Mr. BRANHAM. I would be glad for the House to dispense with the special order till we can dispose of this resolution.
The SPEAKER. Will the House consent?
It was so ordered on a division.
Mr. BRANHAM. I demand the yeas and nays on the adoption of the resolution.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. COWGILL. So far as the legality is concerned, in the absence of any statutory prohibition we can make contracts, pass laws, or do anything of that kind. But there is a statutory prohibition in regard to making contracts and bills of exchange, and none against passing laws on Sunday. Then we can count Sunday and pass laws till 12 o'clock Friday night.
Mr. HOLLINGSWORTH. I would be glad to give my influence for the proper observance of the Sabbath day. But I propose to give higher authority for continuing our legislation through this day of the week than has yet been offered. We find this written saying by the Lord of the Sabbath: "Will not a man, if his ox or his ass fall into the ditch, straightway take him out on the Sabbath day?"
Mr, BLOCHER. I do not think it is right for a man to be trying all the week to push his ox or his ass into the ditch, and then make a Sunday job of getting him out. [Laughter.]
Mr. KIMBALL. As the question is directly on the adoption of the resolution, if the gentleman from Jefferson will promise me that we shall take up and consider the apportionment bill without delay, I will do what I can to accommodate him in this.
Mr. BRANHAM. I have no reference at all to any particular legislation.
Mr. KIMBALL. As far as this business is concerned, it ought to be done, so that we may come to the next session without I any issue that will create ill-feeling. I am anxious, therefore, to dispose of it at once, and, as the Governor has expressed himself willing to consider and sign bills on the Sabbath day, I hope gentlemen will consider this matter and vote on it, not in a partisan light, but for the good of the State.
Mr. BRANHAM. I introduced the resolution at the suggestion of the gentleman from Marion.
Mr. THOMPSON, of Elkhart, I move that it be made in the form of a concurrent resolution.
Mr. BRANHAM accepted the modification.
Mr. WILSON, of Ripley, I move to lay the resolution on the table.
Mr. BRANHAM. As this is setting a precedent, I demand the yeas and nays on the motion to lay it on the table.
The yeas and nays were ordered accordingly, and being taken resulted--yeas 47, nays 43--as follows:
YEAS--Messrs. Baxter, Billingsley, Blocher, Broadus, Butterworth, Butts, Clark, Cobb, Cowgill, Crumpacker, Edwards of Lawrence, Eward, Furnas, Gifford, Glasgow, Goudie, Gronendyke, Hardesty, Hatch, Hedrick, Hollingsworth, Johnson, Kimball, King, Kirkpatrick, Lenfesty, Miller, North, Odle, Ogden, Prentiss, Reeves, Riggs, Satterwhite, Scott, Thayer, Tingley, Thompson of Elkhart, Troutman Walker, Wesner, Wilson of Blackford, Wilson of Ripley, Wolfin, Wood, Wynn and Mr. Speaker--47
page: 338[View Page 338]NAYS--Messrs. Anderson, Baker, Barrett, Bowser Branham Brett, Cauthorn, Claypool, Coffman, Cole Dial, Durham, Eaton, Ellsworth, Given, Glazebrook Goble, Gregory, Heller, Henderson, Hoyer, Isenhower Jones, Martin, McConnell, McKinney, Peed, Pfrimmer, Reno, Richardson, Rudder, Rumsey, Schmuck Shirley, Shutt, Smith, Spellman, Strange, Teeter Thompson of Spencer, Tulley, Whitworth, Willard and Woollen--44.
So the resolution was laid on the table.
Mr. KIMBALL desired unanimous consent to enable him to report from the Committee on Ways and Means their amendments to the specific bill [H. R, 259].
The SPEAKER. It will displace the special order.
APPORTIONMENT FOR REPRESENTATION.
The SPEAKER now announced the special order, viz.: the consideration of the bill [S. 54] to divide the State into Congressional Districts. The bill having been read--
Mr. KIMBALL moved that it be made the special order to-morrow morning ten o'clock.
Mr. WOOLLEN. I move to amend the motion so as to make it the special order for the second day of the next session. I think we ought not to sustain this bill; but I suppose it will be done.
Mr. JOHNSON. I move to lay the motion of the gentleman, from Johnson, on the table.
Mr. WOOLLEN. Then I withdraw the motion as a matter of course.
Mr. GLASGOW. If it is in order, I propose the following amendment to the bill. (The amendment was read by the Clerk. It proposes to strike out sections 8 to 15, and insert section 3 embracing another apportionment.)
The SPEAKER. The chair decides that, according to the rules, the motion to make the bill the special order has precedence.
And then Mr. Kimball's motion was agreed to, and the bill was made the special order for to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock.
LEGISLATIVE APPORTIONMENT.
The SPEAKER then announced the other branch of the special order, viz.: the bill [S. 146] to fix the number of Senators and Representatives of the State of Indiana, and to apportion the same among the several counties.
Mr. BAKER was under the impression that we are taking a too hurried step, pressing this bill through this session. This apportionment will virtually disfranchise sixty-five thousand of the legal voters of the State. He stood politically unprejudiced, while he urged a careful consideration of the bill, and stood ready to do justice to both sides. For himself he would prefer to postpone the bill till the regular session. Having done his best to examine it, he had come to the conclusion that it is one of the most unjust measures ever proposed in the State. But as he was of the minority he could do no more than make his protest against the passage of the bill.
Mr. FURNAS. I feel the delicacy of this question. But there are always two sides to every question. It sounds like a a big thing to charge the disfranchisement of sixty-five thousand people--Democrats and yet this bill disfranchises ten or twelve thousand on the opposite side. There are at least three thousand in the county of Marion disfranchised on the opposite side. I might be scared at this bill if I had not been here two years ago, when a much worse measure was introduced
Mr BARRETT. What did the gentleman do when that bill was introduced?
Mr, FURNAS. I staid here. [Laughter.]
Mr. KIMBALL, Gentlemen who oppose this bill, in years gone by when they were making apportionments for legislative purposes, did not take it into consideration whether Republican counties were disfranchised or not. All through theri bill iniquity was found to exist. Now we come before the House with a bill giving a proper representation--a bill in which no party is disfranchised. It is true that strong appeals are made, and the words of the gentleman from Johnson (Mr. Woollen) entered into my heart; but this bill is Republican, and, as the gentleman says, there is no democratic party, no man can complain as a democrat. We stand here representing the people of the State of Indiana, and in order to make equal laws the Republican party hold it to be their duty to apportion the State so that no party can get into power to undo what that glorious party have done. All the objections of the minority here are merely for the purpose of exciting the House to distrust and doubt. But, gentlemen should not forget that, if there is favor one way, there must favor in another way; and in looking over this bill it will be seen that the Republicans loose nearly as large a number of votes as the opposition. If we take the county of Marion, we have a surplus of nearly three thousand votes.
Mr. BRETT, (interposing). How many votes are required for a representative?
Mr. KIMBALL. Three thousand seven hundred and seventy-seven.
Mr. BRETT. How many in the county of Marion?
Mr. KIMBALL. Seventeen thousand--three representatives and a float uniting with the county of Shelby, and other sim- page: 339[View Page 339]ilar cases of Republican loss will be found by casting your eyes over the State. He had been admonished that he might injure himself here. He cared not for himself--standing as a representative of the people. The will of the people is expressed in this bill, and living or dying I will stand by it; and I stand by my party; and I defy any man in the United States to point to anything here that can work any injury to that party. It is our duty to act independently without being deterred by threats come from what quarter soever they may. Mr. Speaker, the Republican party in the days gone by have stood shoulder to shoulder in bringing about those results which have made its history glorious. I will remember the positions taken by them and the character of the opposition they encountered, yet in spite of all and through a fierce war they triumphed; they preserved the Union, and the country has been the gainer by them in all respects. Then, in order to do good to mankind, and to glorify God himself, the Republican party should be kept in the majority.
Mr. ANDERSON was sorry to see the dominant party on this floor coming forward and without any appreciable evasion of the fact that the State is proposed to be districted unfairly, asserting that considering the great merits and services of the Republican party, and in deference to the past, and to the future benefits to be showered by it upon the country, it must be continued in power! But where is the benefit of Republican rule? Is it in this legislation? All its speakers here call it a noble party, and therefore legislate for its perpetuity! Has it come to this? I appeal to gentlemen of the majority: I persume that there is not one of you but is pondering in his mind, that this is districting the State for a purpose. You are told plainly, that it is to prop the party. Now let me call attention to some of its general features. First--as to the Senatorial representation. Add the totals together of the counties districted for the purpose of returning Democratic Senators, and take the average constituency as at the late Governor election, and you will have 8,573 for the constituency for each man that can be retained here as a Democratic Senator. Then take the average of those districts designed for Republican Senators, and you have it 7,422--making a difference of 1,152 against each one of the Democratic Senators. I should think that Republicans would not like to come here knowing that they do not represent so large a constituency as the Democrats. But gentlemen will apportion to increase their numbers, forgetting that they diminish the dignity of the position by decreasing the constituency. And if there is no Democratic party, this becomes an act against the people of Indiana. I hope it has not come to this--that partisans wish to place themselves in power where they are not supported by the majority. But it is plainly conceded, that the whole of the effort in passing this bill is, that the minority may rulethat they may always keep down the majority--that they may so make the apportionment that it will take an overwhelming voice to change the representation. He then went into his figures to show the injustice of the bill toward the county of Cass, with 5,866 voters, one Representative, and combined with the county of Carroll for a Senator, whilst the county of Randolph, voting only 5,014 voters, has a Representative and a Senator. Then, Scott, Jefferson and Jennings have three Representatives, and a Senator in combination; these three counties have but 1,629 votes more than would entitle them each to one Representative; and not one of them has so large a voting population as his county (Cass), which has no float. Then he called special attention to the representation for the counties of Ripley, Decatur and Rush; to these he had made his figures. Rush has 4,137 votes, Decatur 4,402, Ripley 4,300, making in all 12,839 votes. These counties are each entitled to one Representative, and jointly to one more, whilst the over plus so entitling them to one Representative is only 1,629 votes. Those were the counties to which he was calling attention instead of Scott, Jefferson and Jennings.
Now, I think it is apparent to every man that this is trifling with the right of representation. But this is no trifling subject. I know that politicians and parties in times past have sought advantages of this kind. But it is high time now (or it ought to be) for this Legislature to adopt a different policy. I believe that this policy is wrong, and that the sooner we go right honestly and fairly to work to allow the people a fair representation the better it will be for us all. I do not believe there is anything to be gained permanently by this kind of management. It certainly is not creditable to any man so to vote as to establish it as a historical fact, that a party barely in the majority seeks and asks such an advantage as this. There is nothing creditable about it. Now, I am like many others on thi floor. I can see no necessity for rushing this matter through at the present session. It is expected that when a bill of this kind is page: 340[View Page 340]presented the minority will vote against it; but still the bill should be a fair one. I will say again that I can see no reason why its partisan friends should not trust the bill to timely consideration. Gentlemen will retain the power they now have through the regular session, and I can see no reason why it should not be deferred, if they are not afraid of anything. This is the mind of the minority honestly and candidly--
Mr. KIMBALL. Those of us who have a different opinion are just as honest as the gentleman.
Mr. ANDERSON. I do not wish to impugn the honor of any man; but what I mean to say is this; that there are members who are not conversant with the merits of this bill, but who are expected to support it and vote for such legislation--induced so to do by partizan feeling--without taking the trouble and the time to satisfy themselves of its correctness This I believe, and am frank to say it, is often the case, Now all that could be lost by allowing the bill to lie over, would be more than compensated by the correction of some of its flagrant errors--errors which are against the people of the State of Indiana. Therefore I ask gentlemen again to take a little more time. I have no objection to their arranging the whole job, so as to give themselves a just, advantage; but I do have objection to any bill that would require, for some localities, a so much larger constituency than for others. I object to a bill that will give a floating representative to a county with 4,200 votes and deny a float to another county with 5,800 voters. I think these things are so glaringly wrong that they should be corrected.
Mr. BARRETT, I shall detain the House with but a few remarks. I have nothing to say about Republicans and Democrats--not a word. I would speak for my people--the people of a county of the fifth grade as to wealth in the State--a county that when the rebellion broke out responded in full to every call that was made upon her, and supplied her quota of men so that no draft was ever imposed on her--a county within a fraction of 5,000 voters--and yet, under this apportionment she will not have a Representative on this floor, but must be tacked on to another county to be so entitled, I claim for my county as much intelligence as any other county in the State in proportion to her population, as exemplified in her colleges and schools, and on that score none can better deserve a fair apportionment. I know that the majority can do as they please; but it is my part to ask here for my people a fair representation--I care not what other county she may be associated with. I want to call attention to a few facts, upon which gentlemen may decide for themselves whether this bill proposes a fair apportionment. There is the county of Rush with 3,500 voters, and she has one Representative. The county of Monroe, with 3,200, has one Representative; and yet my county, with 5,000, must be tacked on to Brown county for a joint Representative. There is Jennings county with 3,400; she should have been satisfied with one, but she must have a floating Representative, with nearly 2,000 less than my county; and my county must go with half a Representative on this floor. Ripley county, with about 4,300, Decatur with 4,200 must have each a Representative, more than their quota, but still they must have another representative tacked on as a float, though each of these have a voting population less than my county. And Parke county--what has she done more than others? She comes behind her quota, yet she hag a representative and a float! And the little county of Vermillion, (talk about a fair apportionment!) with a voting population of 2,245, not one-half the voting population of my county, and she must have one representative! I ask any one in all candor and honesty, is there any fairness about such an apportionment? Warren county, with 2,490, about half thequota, must be entitled to a full representative! Then the county of Lake, with 2,400; (about half the quota again,) she must appear on this floor with a full representative, while my county, with double the number of votes, must not have one! Perry, with 2,900, one; Lagrange, with 2.800, one; and Steuben, with 2,793, one. These little counties must be entitled to a full representative, while my county, with 5,000 must be contented with a float with Brown. All this in order that we may pass an equal apportionment bill. Mr. Speaker, I might stand here for an hour noting the unfairness of the bill, but I told you I was not going to say much. I might go over the different counties and show more of these inequalities, but I forbear
But now for the Senator. My county is tacked on to Brown county. Some gentleman will say to me: "Well, you have an overplus in the other end of the capitol." It is time that Brown and Bartholomew lack a little--a very little--of the quota for a Senator, but there are nine or ten other districts--Republican districts--that have a less voting population than Bartholomew and Brown. There is not a gen- page: 341[View Page 341]tleman on this floor but sees that injustice has been done to my county, and this House can apply the remedy. I do not ask gentlemen to let me remedy it; I ask them to do it. And if this is not done, there will be one county, the fifth in the scale of wealth amongst all the counties of the State, that will not have the right to send one of her sons as a representative on this floor. I move that the bill be recommitted, and these inequalities remedied in some way or other.
The SPEAKER. The motion is not in order. There must be special instructions.
Mr. WILSON, of Ripley. Gentlemen put their arguments very ingeniously, but very unfairly. In the very nature of things it is impossible to redistrict the State with exact equality. But I think the inequalities in this bill are distributed more equally than they would have been had the opposition prepared it themselves. The gentleman from Bartholomew (Mr. Barrett) has made a point of objection. His county is disfranchised. Let me say to that gentleman, that the counties of Bartholomew and Brown do not constitute a sufficient voting population to entitle them to a Senator, yet under this bill they are given a Senator; and that makes up for the deficiency of the award to Bartholomew for representative. It is claimed by gentlemen that Ripley county has more done for her than she is entitled to; but she has associated with her the counties of Switzerland and Ohio for a Senator ; and we have in those counties together a voting population of 10,000, and this is a Republican district. Seeing this large excess, I claimed this inequality disfranchised us. But I saw that somebody had to suffer, and that we were to be one of the victims, because it is impossible to fix an exactly equal representation--the Constitution prohibiting the dividing of counties. So we receive the fraction more than one. The Senator requires a voting population of 7,540, and the representative 3,770. The county of Pike has a representative with only 3,050; Perry, with 3,442--one; Fountain with 3,421--one; Whitley, with 3,203; all these have each one representative without sufficient voting population. Now I call the attention of these gentlemen to their own work two years ago. Then the counties of Knox, Parke, Vermillion, and Warren, with a voting population of 8,920, were put together for a Senator, and 1,500 Republicans were proposed to be disfranchised. And I will give another instance where it was proposed by them to disfranchise 1,500 more of the people of the State. The same bill took the counties of Pike and Dubois, with 7,537 voters, lacking 2,000 of being entitled, and gave them a Senator. This is some of the work on the other side. I say that this pending bill is as fair as it can be, if we admit the rule of giving to the party in power the benefit of the doubt. We have worked over this bill in our committees, where men of the majority have been actuated by the most disinterested motives, to give a fair representation; and I believe we have done it. But this cry of inequality is always the cry of the minority ; and all those that have no party to-day, will come here combined against us two years hence. It is exceedingly strange that conscience has drawn such a line between men for the opposition of those actuated by no partizan considerations! and we know very well the object of these attempted delays. The Indianapolis Sentinel, of this morning, sounds the key-note; and it has been sounding it all through this discussion. I don't care what kind of a bill we may give to the opposition, if we postpone the consideration of this matter till the regular session, ever seat of the opposition will be vacated. This is but a song to lull us to sleep. They would leave this hall in one hour, if we attempted to pass this bill. Now it is for this reason that it seems to me that they are not actuated by the sincerity they profess, and which ought to belong to statesmen. Where has been the amendment offered to this bill by the minority? Every single amendment favorable to the minority has come from the majority, and it has come without their asking for it. Now, I say, this is not the part of sincerity. It is not treating the majority as they should be treated. We have magnanimously given them amendments which they not evinced the candor to ask at our hands.
Mr. JOHNSON. I had not intended to make a speech on this bill, and I shall not now attempt to discuss the alleged inequalities in the distribution of Senators and Representatives. It presents some inequalities, but no injustice. If there are inequalities, they are such as cannot be remedied. If gentlemen ask for more representation, the first thing to be considered is, what representation must be allowed under the Constitution? Bartholomew wants more representation, but where is it to come from? We are allowed but one hundred Representatives in this hall, and we can't assign a Representative to Bartholomew, because there is none for her; and gentlemen must remember that we can't take one from another county without marring the sys- page: 342[View Page 342]tem and producing greater inequalities. But while Bartholomew has a little surplusage as to a Representative, she has more representation in the other end of the building than she is entitled to. So, that is equalized. I think the arguments which have been presented against the injustice of this bill have made it about as clear as mud. I do not think that anything has been shown to prove that this is an unjust bill. Whilst Democrats suffer in some localities, Republicans suffer in other localities. Then I would respectfully suggest to gentlemen who represent the Democratic party as standing with folded banners and grounded arms: Why not lay down your arms and surrender?
Mr. WALKER (in his seat). I'll not surrender.
Mr. JOHNSON. The gentleman from Johnson is something like General Buckner at Fort Donelson, when General Grant had him in his grip. He sent out a flag to General Grant, with a request that he might have a little time to prepare for him; but General Grant said: Unconditional surrender is the only thing. And I think it is justice now to give gentlemen here, just as good a chance as Grant gave to Buckner. We will accept their sword--their unconditional surrender. Mr. Speaker, if I thought this was an unfair or a dishonest bill, I would go amongst its friends and tell them, this bill is not right, and I think the Republican party can't afford to pass it. But I do not think so. I am satisfied that it is the very best apportionment that can be made or afforded by the State of Indiana. And now, as it is just twelve o'clock, I will move the previous question.
The House refused to second the demand.
Mr. WOOLLEN. I regret very much, sir, that the discussion of this matter has been restricted to such a small compass of time that no gentleman can properly prepare himself to make a speech on it for the purpose of examining the merits of the case. I have decided, therefore, not to undertake a discussion which would require two or three days to do the subject or myself justice. But I have tried to satisfy gentlemen that I am not without proper self-respect by making an appeal to them. But now, whilst I know the bill will pass, I desire to add a few words more, as much as the limited lime will admit. The gentleman from Ripley, (Mr. Wilson.) and two gentlemen from Marion (Messrs. Johnson and Kimball,) all say this is a fair bill. As the gentleman from Marion (Mr. Kimball) said this morning that I touched his heart, so I say the gentleman from Ripley touched my heart when he spoke of the magnanimity with which the Democrats were treated in Republican caucuses. Mr. Speaker, I have gone into this bill with some diligence, for the purpose of seeing whether it has merits, and the further I went the worse it grew, and more outrageous, until it stands before my mind an unmitigated outrage and imposition upon the people. The gentleman from Marion (Mr. Kimball) says the Republican party always does right, and that when the Republican party disfranchises the Democratic party, it is all right because they do it. This is that gentleman's position. But there is one thing about this bill of which I desire to ask the gentleman from Ripley. Why is it in that this State, where Hendricks has just licked his Republican competitor,--why is it that so soon after, this bill is apportioned to give the Republican party on this floor 28 majority? I ask the gentleman to rise and meet this question. Why have you this 28 majority? Where do you find it? For the counties of Floyd and Clark, with a vote of 10,728, there is given a Senator, while Jefferson county, with 5,405 votes, has a Senator; and these counties are adjoining each other. Clark county alone has a larger vote than Jefferson--6,040--yet she is put with Floyd for a Senator. But when Jefferson was set down for a Senator, I suppose that satisfied the gentleman from Jefferson, (Mr. Branham). Randolph has 5,014 votes, and Boone and Clinton, 10,117, more than double the vote of Randolph, but each district has a Senator!
When this bill game into the House from the Senate, there was a hurrying to and fro, and the gentlemen Marion found that it would be necessary to refer it to the caucus; and when they did sowhen the bill had received that laborious and magnanimous consideration--the amendments they reported, enured if anything to the benefit of the majority. The gentleman from Marion, (Mr. Johnson) said that he did not like it, and desired a change, whereupon it went into caucus and came out amended, striking out a Senator for Shelby and Marion, and inserting in lieu a Senator for the counties of Morgan and Marion. If it had been left Shelby and Marion there might have been an opposition Senator for that district, but putting on Morgan makes a Republican Senator certain. I find these changes made in the bill do not better the minority. There were several things in that caucus which availed to change the bill which I do not understand, of course, but I understand page: 343[View Page 343]that the gentleman from Decatur (Mr. Miller) was up in arms against it, and when it came in from the caucus Decatur has another Senator with Scott and Jennings. That satisfied the gentleman from Decatur. Every amendment was made for the satisfaction of gentlemen who were opposed to it on the side of their own political intersts. I have a large mess of stuff figured here, and I find that, in every instance where it was possible to absorb Democratic Representatives and Democratic Senators, it has been done. Therefore, I am constrained to say that, upon proper consideration, the House would not pass such a bill.
Mr. WESNER demanded the previous question, and there was a second, and under the pressure the final vote on the bill was ordered and taken, resulting--yeas, 52; nays 42--as follows:
YEAS--Messrs. Baxter, Billingsley, Branham, Broadus, Butterworth, Butts, Clark, Cobb, Cole, Cowgill, Crumpacker, Edwards, of Lawrence, Eward, Furnas, Gifford, Glasgow, Goudie, Gronendyke, Hardesty, Hatch, Hedrick, Hollingsworth, Johnson, Kimball, King, Kirkpatrick, Lenfesty, Lent, Mellett, Miller, North, Odle, Ogden, Prentiss, Reeves, Riggs, Rumsey, Satterwhite, Scott, Thayer, Tingley, Thompson, of Elkhart, Thompson, of Spencer, Troutman, Walker, Wesner, Wilson, of Blackford, Wilson, of Ripley, Woolflin, Wood, Wynn, Mr. Speaker--52.
NAYS--Messrs. Anderson, Baker, Barrett, Blocher, Bowser, Brett, Cauthorn, Claypool, Cline, Coffman, Dial, Durharn, Eaton, Ellsworth, Givan, Glazebrook, Goble, Gregory, Heller, Henderson, Hoyer, Isenhower, Jones, Martin, McConnell, Mc-Kinney, Peed, Pfrimmer, Reno, Richardson, Rudder, Schmuck, Shirley, Shutt, Smith, Spellman, Strange, Teeter, Tulley, Whitworth, Willard and Woollen--42.
So the bill passed the House of Representatives.
Mr. KIMBALL moved to reconsider the vote just taken, and to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.
The latter motion was agreed to.
Mr, CAUTHORN moved ineffectually to amend the title of the bill by adding these words: "and apportioning the same in such a manner as to perpetuate the power of the Republican party, and declaring an emergency."
The House then took a recess till two o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The House was called to order at two o'clock.
The SPEAKER announced the special order it being the consideration of the committee bill [H. R. 261] to amend the common school law by increasing the levy from 16 to 20 cents, and providing that the revenue from that source shall be applied to tuition purposes only.
On motion of Mr. COBB, it was postponed till 2:30.
CLAIMS--SPECIFIC APPROPRIATIONS.
On motion of Mr. KIMBALL, the specific bill [H. R. 260] was taken up on the second reading.
Mr. RIGGS, from the Committee on Claims, reported for allowance in the Specific appropriation bill as follows: J. H. Holiday, $27; Singer Manufacturing Company, $13 33; The Telegraph Publishing Company, $757 15; The Indianapolis Sentinel Company, $876 56; The Indianapolis Journal Company, $876 56; Holland Bingham, claiming $5,359 15, allowed $2,359 15, which reports were severally concurred in.
He also, for the majority of the committee, reported for allowing Theodore W. McCoy for extra services as Clerk of the Supreme Court, $1,689, the half of his claim.
Mr. LENFESTY, for the minority of the committee, reported a recommendation that nothing be allowed.
The report as amended .was concurred in.
Mr. RIGGS reported for the allowance of the claim of Jonathan W. Gordon for &750 for legal services in a case for testing the legality of the specific appropriation bill several years ago. Mr. Smith demanded the yeas and nays on the question of concurrence.
After debate, in support of the report by Messrs. Cobb, Cowgill, Walker, Kimball, Johnson, Woollen, Lenfesty, and Wilson, of Ripley, and by Messrs. Smith, Tulley and Barrett, in opposition, the report was concurred in--yeas, 52; nays, 38.
He also reported for the allowance of the claim of Hendricks, Hord & Hendricks for $750 for legal services, whereupon Messrs. Smith and Heller demanded the yeas and nays.
The report was concurred in--yeas 45, nays 33.
Mr. DIAL reported for allowance of the claim of Newcomb, Mitchell & Ketchum for $200 for legal services; of the Republican Central Committee, $60, which were concurred in. He also reported for allowance of the claim of John H. Farquhar for $2,000 on account of incidental expenses in the office of Secretary of State.
Mr. LENFESTY submitted a minority report adverse to the allowance. The minority report was substituted for the report of the majority--yeas 43, nays 41.
On motion of Mr, CAUTHORN, this vote was reconsidered, and the question recurred on substituting the minority report.
page: 344[View Page 344]On motion of Mr. WILSON, of Ripley, the minority report was laid on the table, and then the allowance was concurred in.
Mr. DIAL also returned the claims of Isaiah McDonald and others, members of the Committee on State Prisons, at the regular session of the Forty-seventh General Assembly, for expenses incurred in visiting the State Prison, recommending that they be allowed $50 each.
This report was concurred in.
Mr. SHUTT, from the Committee on Claims, returned Mr. Pfrimmer's bill [H. R. 67] for appropriating $413,599 58 to pay the claims of sufferers by the Morgan raid, recommending that it be laid on the table; which was concureed in.
He also reported for the allowance of the claim of John G. Hanning for $1 50 on account of repairs.
It was concurred in.
He also reported for allowance of the claim of B. W. Hanna for $4,000 on account of extra services as Attorney General for the last two years.
Mr. LENFESTY submitted a minority report recommending that the claim be not allowed.
On motion of Mr. WILSON, of Ripley, the report of the minority was laid on the table, and then the majority report was concurred in. Yeas, 51; nays, 25.
Mr. WALKER moved to reconsider this vote.
Mr. CAUTHORN moved to lay the motion to reconsider on the table, which was agreed to--Yeas, 40; nays, 36.
Mr, KIMBALL submitted a proposition to amend the specific bill [H. R 259] by striking out the allowance of $150 each to the Secretary of the Senate and the Principal Clerk of the House--[at the request of Mr. Clerk Nixon.]
It was adopted.
Mr. MILLER submitted a motion to reconsider the vote by which the claim of Theodore W. Coy, Clerk of the Supreme Court, for extra services, to the extent of $1,689 was rejected.
The motion to reconsider was adopted, and the question recurred on the adoption of the report of the majority of the committee.
After debate by Messrs. Branham, Shirley, Thompson, of Elkhart, Baker, Thayer, Cobb and Kimball, the recommendation for allowance of $1,689 was again rejected--yeas, 36: nays, 40.
The specific bill [H. R. 259], as amended, was now read the second time.
Mr. CAUTHORN submitted a resolution (which was adopted) for an order that Cyrus T. Nixon, Principal Clerk of the House of Representatives, and Moses T. McLain, First Assistant Clerk, be each allowed the sum of $200 for indexing and correcting the proof-sheets of the Journal of the House, and for preparing an abstract of the House Journal, including the filling of all bills remaining for action at the special session.
It was adopted by unanimous consent.
COMMON SCHOOLS.
The SPEAKER announced the consideration of the special order for this day at half-past two o'clock p. m., viz: the Education Committee's bill [H. R. 261] to amend section 1 of the Common School law of March 6, 1865; which was by previous order referred to the Committee of the Whole House.
The House then resolved into Committee of the Whole (Mr. Cauthorn in the chair) and the CHAIRMAN according to order announced the consideration of Mr. Mellett's Education Committee bill [H. R. 261] proposing to raise the school tax from 16 to 20 cents on the $100 of taxables, and to provide that it shall be expended for tuition purposes alone.
Mr. SHIRLEY who had drafted the bill for the Committee, stated its object. The first section of the school law, since 1865, collects 16 cents on the $100 "for common school purposes;" and this bill proposes simply to raise this from 16 to 20 cents, and provides that the whole amount thus raised "shall be expended for tuition purposes in schools." It is thought, that with this increase, together with what is expected from the new assessment bill, we shall have enough to open the common schools for six months in the year to all the children of the State.
Mr. BRANHAM was opposed to the bill--opposed to levying taxes in the dark. He would have the Superintendent of Public Instruction to come in and tell us just how much money he wanted, and ask the House to make the levy accordingly. And on his motion, seconded by Mr. BUTTERWORTH, the committee rose and the CHAIRMAN reported the bill to the House without recommendation, and asked and obtained discharge from its further consideration.
The Committee of the Whole were discharged accordingly.
And the House then adjourned.
