Brevier Legislative Reports

Search Options

page: [351][View Page: [351]]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page [351]

THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.

THIRTEENTH VOLUME.

INDIANA LEGISLATURE.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

The House met at nine a. m. The SPEAKER directed the Clerk to read the journal of yesterday.

Mr. WOOD, and Mr. THOMPSON, of Elkhart, successively moved to dispense with the reading of the journal, but Mr. HARDESTY and Mr. RUMSEY successively objecting--

The journal was read and approved.

SPECIFIC APPROPRIATIONS.

Mr. KIMBALL, from the Committee on Ways and Means, reported the return to the House of their bill [H R. 259] making specific appropriations for the years 1871 and 1S72, with sundry amendments thereto, incorporated under specific instructions of the House of Representatives; and so amended, the committee recommened its passage.

The report was concurred in.

The bill, as amended, was again read through by the Clerk.

Mr. MILLER. I desire to offer an amendment to the bill. The committee have just reported amendments, and I suppose amendments to be still in order.

The SPEAKER. The bill has not been ordered to be engrossed. If the House wish to consider the bill further it might be better to do so in Committee of the Whole, it will save journalizing.

Mr. CAUTHORN objected to any amendment of the bill at this stage. It has been read twice, and is now on the third reading.

On the motion of Mr. HARDESTY, the bill was referred to the Committee of the Whole House : Whereupon--

The House resolved into Committee of the Whole--Mr. Cauthorn in the chair.

The CHAIRMAN announced the consideration of the bill and directed the Clerk to read the first section.

Mr. BRANHAM suggested that it is useless for the House to consider this bill in Committee of the Whole; because these items have all been adopted by the House, and there can be no possible advantage in it. It is only lost time. If gentlemen would avoid getting their names on the journal, let me tell them that every step taken in Committee of the Whole will get on the journal when the bill comes back again to the House. I therefore move that the committee rise and report the bill to the House without recommendation.

The motion was agreed to, whereupon the committee rose, and the CHAIRMAN reported accordingly.

The report was concurred in.

B. W. HANNA.

Mr. MILLER submitted a motion to amend the bill by striking out the 27th section--an allowance of $4,000 to B. W. Hanna for extra services as Attorney General.

Mr. BRANHAM. The only way to reach that is, to reconsider the vote by which it was adopted yesterday.

The SPEAKER. There was a motion to reconsider, and that motion was laid on the table.

page: 352[View Page 352]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 352

Mr. COBB. I hope this action will not be taken. We can't stoop to this matter. We can afford to be just. We can't afford to be mean.

Mr. CAUTHORN insisted that the bill is now on the third reading.

The SPEAKER, The is no endorsement of the order for engrossment. (A special reference to the Journal of yesterday showed that there was a motion to reconsider the Hanna allowance, and that it was laid on the table.) The amendment proposed by the gentleman from Decatur [Mr. Millar,] can't be entertained again at this stage of the bill.

On motion of Mr. KIMBALL, the bill was amended further by an allowance to Julius Boettischer, of $108 15 for newspapers.

The bill, was then considered as engrossed, and passed the third reading in the House of Representatives--yeas, 51; nays, 39--as follows:

YEAS--Messrs. Anderaon, Baxter, Billingsley, Blocher, Branham, Brett, Butts, Cauthorn, Clark, Claypool, Cline, Cobb, Coffman, Cole, Dial, Eaton, Edwards, of Lawrence, Ellsworlh, Gifford, Givan, Glasgow. Goble, Gronendike. Hedrick Heller, Hender-son, Hoyer, Isenhower, Kimball, King, Lenfesty, Martin, McKinney, Mellett, North, Ogden, Peed, Reno, Riggs, Rudder, Shirley, Spellman, Strange, Thayer, Tingley, Thompson, of Elkhart, Thompson, of Spencer, Walker, Wesner, Whitworth, Wolflin and the Speaker.--51.

NAYS--Messrs. Bowser, Broadus, Butterworth, Claypool, Cowgill. Crumpacker, Durham, Eward. Furnas, Glazebrook, Goudie, Gregory, Hardesty, Hatch, Hollingsworth, Johnson, Jones, Kirkpatrick, McConnel, Miller, Odle, Pfrimmer, Prentiss, Reeves, Richardson, Rumsey, Satterwhite, Schmuck, Scott, Shutt, Smith, Teeter, Troutman, Tulley, Willard, Wilson, of Blackford, Wilson, of Ripley, Wood and Wynn--39.

So the bill passed.

CONGRESSIONAL APPORTIONMENT.

The SPEAKER announced the special order, viz: the consideration of the bill [S. 54] to divide the State of Indiana into congressional districts, it being on the third reading.

Mr. OGDEN demanded a call of the House, which proceeded till it was determined that there are ninety-one members present.

The final vote on the bill was then taken, resulting--yeas 51, nays 40--as follows:

YEAS--Messrs. Baxter, Billingsley, 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, Wolflin, Wood, Wynn and the Speaker--51.

NAYS--Messrs. Anderson, Barrett, Blocher, Bowser, Branham, Brett, Cauthorn, Claypool, Cline, Coffman, Dial, Durham, Eaton, Givan, Glazebrook, Goble, Gregory, Heller, Henderson, Hoyer, Isenhowe, Jones, Martin, McConnell, McKinney, Primmer, Reno, Richardson, Rudder, Schmuck, Shirley, Shutt, Smith, Spellman, Strange, Teeter, Tulley. Whitworth, and Willard--40.

Absent, or not voting--Messrs. Baker, Barrett, Buskirk, Lee, Offutt, Peed, Stanley, Woodard and Woollen--9.

So the bill passed the House of Representatives.

Mr. WALKER moved to reconsider the vote just taken and to lay the motion on the table.

Mr. CAUTHORN. There is but one motion. I am in favor of reconsidering this vote. I think the bill as amended is doing manifest and great in justice to the Democratic party, and I do hope that the House will reconsider, and let the bill go over to the regular session, when the House will have time to give us one that is fair. This is not fair.

On the motion of Mr. COBB, the motion to reconsider was laid on the table--yeas 52, nays 39.

On motion of Mr. LENFESTY, the Senate message calling for a Committee of Conference on the disagreement of that body to the House amendments to the bill [S.145] were taken up. [The House amendments increase the clerical force of the House and committees, and strike out the provisions which are contained in Mr. Cauthorn's Legislative Organization bill already passed into an act.]

The SPEAKER. The question is: Will the House recede?

Mr. WALKER and Mr. MILLER moved for a Committee of Conference, which was ordered, and the Speaker thereupon appointed Messrs. Wilson of Ripley and Peed to act on the part of the House of Representatives.

VENTILATION.

Mr. MELLETT moved that the Librarian be instructed to carry out the recommendations of the special committee in relation to heating and ventilating the hall.

The motion was agreed to.

SOLDIERS' BOUNTY.

The Senate Joint Resolution No 3, instructing Senators to support the bill pending in the United States Senate giving bounty land to honorably discharged soldiers and seamen, was taken up and finally passed the House of Representatives--yeas 77, nays 0.

LEGALIZING TAXATION.

Mr. KIRKPATRICK called up the consideration of the bill [S. 150] to legalize taxation heretofore levied by the School page: 353[View Page 353]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 353Trustees of incorporated towns or cities for the purpose of tuition in the common schools (shall have the same effect as if levied by the Common Council) was taken up. The House rejected his motion to suspend the restrictions, and the bill was ordered to the second reading to-morrow.

COUNTY PROPERTY.

The bill [S. 166] to regulate the sale of county property and the letting of public buildings, bridges, fences and monuments, was taken up on the first reading.

Mr. EDWARDS, of Vigo (Mr. Cauthorn in the chair), asked a suspension of the restrictions, that the bill might be carried to the final passage now.

The restrictions were suspended, and the bill (with clerical amendments) finally passed--yeas 82, nays 2.

MANUFACTURING AND MINING COMPANIES.

The bill [S. 151] to amend the first section of the act of March 11,1861, to amend the act of May 20, 1852, for the incorporation of manufacturing and mining companies, and to provide for the incorporation of grain elevators and Union stock yards and transit companies, came up in order on the first reading.

On motion of Mr. BILLINGSLEY the restrictions were suspended and the bill was finally passed the House of Representatives--yeas 75, nays 4.

COUNTY BOUNTIES.

On motion of Mr. MELLETT, the order of business was suspended, and Mr. Lenfesty, from the Committee on Federal Relations, returned Mr. Mellett's bill [H. R. 200] to authorize county commissioners to legalize county bounties, with an amendment that such county commissioners' action shall be restricted to cases where such authorized bonds have been destroyed. [It is meant to cover the case of Delaware county, in which the bonds, which had been ordered for the purpose of paying bounties, were destroyed, and having been restored, are now ready to be issued.]

The amendments were concurred in, the bill being on the second reading.

On motion of Mr. MELLETT, the restrictions were suspended, and the bill was put on its final passage.

The bill was read the second and third times, and pending further action a message was received from the Senate announcing non-concurrence in the House's amendment to the Senate bill 166, and asking a Committee of Conference.

On motion of Mr. EDWARDS, of Vigo (Mr. Cauthorn in the chair), the House took up the Senate disagreement to the House amendments to the bill [S. 166] and asking for a committee of conference, and on his further motion the House refused to recede from its amendment, and authorized a committee of conference, whereupon the Speaker appointed Messrs. Baxter and Walker to serve as said committee on the part of the House.

The House then took a recess till two o'clock p. m.

AFTERNOON SESSION.

The SPEAKER pursued the consideration of Mr. Mellett's county bonds legalization bill [H. R. 200.]

Mr. TINGLEY desired that the bill be postponed till the regular session, presenting such considerations as gained the acquiescence of Mr. Mellett; and accordingly the bill retains its place on the calendar.

ORGANIZING THE ASSEMBLY.

Mr. PEED, from the the Committee of Conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses as to the House amendments to the bill [S. 145] in relation to the organization of the General Assembly, etc., recommending that the House recede from all its amendments to said bill, except those applied to section 2, which have been concurred in by the Senate.

The report was concurred in.

FELONIES.

The SPEAKER announced the consideration of the Senate amendments to Mr. Edwards of Vigo's bill [H. R. 148] defining certain felonies and prescribing punishment. etc.

Mr. EDWARDS, of Vigo (Mr. Peed in the chair.) This bill defines and provides for punishing it as a felony for any city officer having an interest in any contract for the construction of a public building. The Senate amendments are designed to make its provisions apply to town and State officers. I hope the amendments will be concurred in.

The Senate amendments were concurred in.

THOROUGHFARES AND WATER COURSES.

On motion of Mr. BILLINGSLEY, Mr. King's bill [H. R. 100] relative to the laying out, opening, widening, straightening and vacating of streets, alleys and highways, and for altering water courses in the cities of the State, and providing commissioners to assess damages, etc., and providing the duties of city officers therein was taken up, it being on the second reading.

page: 354[View Page 354]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 354

Mr. BILLINGSLEY moved for a suspension of the restrictions.

Mr. SMITH opposed the motion and the bill; and submitted amendments to the 4th and 9th sections restricting the assessments for benefits to the streets widened, etc., which were adopted after debate; and the bill was then laid on the table.

COAL MINING REGULATIONS.

Mr. SCHMUCK called up the committee bill [H. R. 230] regulating coal mines and the working thereof, it being on the third reading.

Mr. CAUTHORN, I move that the bill be referred again to the Committee on manufacture and commerce, to be reported to the next session. I understand that this bill is in the interests of the miners, or those engaged in that business, and I think it should be well considered.

Mr. SCHMUCK. It is for the protection of the lives of the workers in the mines, they have a similar law in Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio and Illinois, and in our State there ought to be some such protection for the coal miners. We have to day 500 men working in the coal mines whose lives are not thus protected, and who are calling for this bill. Therefore, I think it is very important that it should be passed at this session. We all know how far men engaged in business will go to hazard the lives of their employes; and this bill is not a new thing. The law works well and satisfactorily in other States.

Mr. GIVAN. So far from being in the interests of miners and manufacturers, the bill is rather in opposition to their wishes. Considering the peril of the lives of the coal miners, and their number--which is being increased continually--I hope the motion of the gentleman from Knox (Mr. Cauthorn) will not prevail.

Mr. PEED. I trust that this measure will not be urged too hastily. This is a measure of too much importance to be put through without careful consideration. It is true we have a large mining interest in the State, but capitalists have but recently opened our coal mines in my region. The passage of this bill, in my opinion, will drive capitalists from our mines and hinder their development. There is such a thing as going too far, and I think this bill is going too far. It is a system of red tape. It can't be enforced. It lays a burden on the mining interests that ought not to attach to them. Whilst those engaged in the mines ought to be secured in their lives, yet we ought not to pass a law that will involve parties engaged in the mining interest in interminable litigations. So far as my information goes, all the provisions of the bill with regard to ventillation are uncalled for. I understand that in all the mines there in ample provision as to this matter. What we want is a wholesome, equal law that will protect capital as well as life.

Mr. WILSON, of Ripley. We have hundreds of workmen in the mines who are wholly unprotected in their lives. Our mining interests are yet young, and we may have the benefit of the experience of mining and miners in Pennsylvania and other mining States, and I think this, founded in mining experience, is a just bill. I think the life and health of the citizen is a consideration higher than any mining interest. The Judiciary Committee understood that this bill meets the approval of miners and those in the mining interest as well as the workmen in the mines. The workmen were before the committee, but the capitalists--the miners, were not. I hope the bill will pass--at least that the House will not take such action as will defeat it.

Mr. COFFMAN. This bill is of too much importance to be passed without due consideration of all the interests involved.

Mr. WILLARD. We have coal fields underlying large bodies of land, and this is a new interest in the State of Indiana. I am opposed to hampering with legislation any great public interest in its inception, and I am opposed to placing a law on the statute book, the practical workings of which we do not know. I have received letters from enterprising parties who are afraid of this bill. I claim that not only the laboring, but the manufacturing interests should receive protection. The manufacturers of my county regard this bill with alarm, and we should at least give to them the right to examine it and see how it will affect their interests.

Mr. DIAL. Whilst I am not willing to prevent capital from opening the coal mines, I would give immediate relief to the mine workers, so far as the protection of their lives are concerned. Four laborers have recently lost their lives in consequence of the foul air in the mines where they were employed. I see nothing in this bill that can interfere with the rights of the owners of coal mines, or that would interfere with the opening of the mines. But it is certainly a paramount object and duty in legislation, and first of all to protect life. We have hundreds of men in the State who are obliged to resort to this species of labor for a livelihood--to seek their living in the mines far beneath the surface; and there is not a season passes page: 355[View Page 355]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 355in which many lives are not lost in our coal mines. I have received letters from my people appealing to the Legislature for God's sake to pass a bill of this kind for the protection of the lives of laborers in the mines. I think that all owners and workers of mines should be compelled to keep them in a condition that shall not endanger the health and life of their laborers.

Mr. THAYER considered it an important proposition, and might be made for the benefit of all the interests concerned.

Mr. SCHMUCK. Every man from the coal mining districts is in favor of it.

Mr. THAYER. That is correct, I believe; but the manufacturing interests of the State are just beginning to be developed, and we are not yet acquainted, hardly--certainly not familiar with this matter. Therefore we ought to go slowly with this thing. I can't see any harm that could result from allowing it to pass over to the next session. The history of coal mines disasters in the recent past makes this legislation an important duty, and I shall do all I can to secure the passage of a good bill.

Mr. BAXTER. I have taken the pains to examine the Pennsylvania mining law, and it is much more stringent than this, and they find it positively necessary for the protection of life. And since the Pennsylvania law has been in operation, these several years, its necessity has been demonstrated in the diminution of the destruction of life by the mines. Therefore, I think we ought to pass this bill at once for the protection of the lives of those who go down into the mines of our own State.

On the motion of Mr. WOLFLIN, Mr. Cauthorn's motion to recommit the bill with instructions was laid on the table, and the question recurred on the final passage.

Mr. RENO. I believe that this bill ought to pass for the benefit of the coal interests. If the laborers in the mines were protected, it would not only draw more men but more capital to the mines of our State. Men will not go where they are not safe in their lives, and capital cannot operate the mines without laborers. We hold the railroads liable for trifling with life, and why not other monied interests? Relieving that it will benefit the entire mining interest, I hope the bill will pass.

Mr. COWGILL, I hope the bill will not be voted down. If I thought it would fail now I would not press it, but I do not think so. The object is to protect mining, and whilst it will protect the laborer it will not, in any way, interfere with capital. He referred particularly to some of the provisions of the bill, to establish his opinion, and added, Because we have no such law in Indiana, many of the best miners of the State have gone to those States where they have such a law.

Mr. KIMBALL. I would prefer to have this bm over to the next session. I submit this objection to it. The Governor can't appoint the proposed examiner except upon the recommendation of the mine owners. The bill would be compulsory--compelling the Governor to submit to the dictation of the miners. I would readily vote for a proposition to protect the lives of the mine laborers, and also to protect the mine owners. But we find that by the provisions of this bill, not only that the Governor's selection is subordinated to the will of the miners, but the five local examiners to be appointed by the local court judge are to be such as the miners shall select. I am opposed to these provisions of the bill.

Mr. GIVAN. I find that the owners of mines are liable to both civil and criminal actions for failure to comply with the provisions of this bill. It seems to me, therefore, that if the bill prsses it ought to be without the emergency clause; for I am persuaded that many mine owners are not in a condition to comply with its provisions at once.

Mr. MELLETT. I have not examined the bill critically, but I am satisfied that its provisions are copied from the mining laws of mining countries. I shall therefore support it as it is--emergency and all. As to the suggestion that the miners will have the thing very much in their own hands, I would say that the miners are in this interest. It is for their health and the protection of their lives that the bill is designed, and they are the very men to make these selections. If my health or life were at stake, and the law proposed to furnish me relief in this way, I should not think of applying to any lawyer or judge to direct my choice as to my own examiner. So I think in this case, that the regular miners should have the selection of the officers to carry out the provisions of laws for their protection. The mining statistics show that 2,500 men have lost their lives in the coal mines within the term of one year. In Pennsylvania, there was one life for every 13,000 tons of coal. Such was the risk of life there prior to the passage of their mining law in 1870--five lives for every 65,000 tons; now it is one life for every 65,000 tons. It may look, at the first, like a hardship on capital, but let us look first at the destruction of life and the pre- page: 356[View Page 356]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 356vention. It has been but a short time since we all read the description and report of that scene on one of the mountains of Pennsylvania, where one hundred wives stood over the ruins of a mine, waiting for the dead bodies of their husbands to be exhumed. The miners are in danger all the time--as well in the day time, whilst we are sitting here, as in the night when we sleep--and it seems to me if there is to be any law passed to regulate this matter, there is no occasion for delay.

Mr. MILLER There is one thing which I think the friends of this bill ought to agree to. I think it prudent and proper that any general law which makes the doing or not doing of it a criminal offence should not be passed with a clause of emergency.

Mr. WILSON, of Ripley. There is a provision in the bill fixing three months from its passage for the time of its taking effect.

Mr. MILLER. Perhaps that would answer. But it is certain that, in the absence of all experience in legislation on this subject here, we must look elsewhere for information; and we know of no better place to go than to look at the laws of other States that have had the greatest experience in mining. Pennsylvania has had a mining experience of a hundred years, and we may presume that her mining laws have been brought to as great a degree of perfection as we shall have arrived at a hundred years hence; and after all her experience there still comes upon Pennsylvania the Scranton disaster. The States of Ohio and Pennsylvania have been at work on their mining laws. Ohio passed hers in 1871, and Pennsylvania hers a few years before; and this bill is copied from these sources. So the committee that reported it do not claim any originality. As to the provision for the appointment of a commissioner and of mine inspectors by the Governor and the local judges--that was taken from the Pennsylvania law. It was desirable to take these appointments entirely out of politics; and being myself in favor of the Civil Service Reform, I have no doubt that we could do nothing better than to adopt this provision. The bill has been printed and on our tables for some time; but still, if gentlemen are satisfied I am willing that it should go over to the next session.

Mr. WOOLLEN. I see the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee (Mr. Walker) has just come in, and I would like to hear him state what he knows about it.

Mr WALKER. When this bill was first referred to the Judiciary Committee, I was informed that it was a compromize bill between the proprietors of the mines and the mine laborers; and we thought that if it were such a compromize it would satisfy us. Alter that some parties came to some of the members of the committee and said that the mine proprietors desired to be further heard on this bill. Then there was a telegraphic dispatch from the miners in Clay, telling that they desired to be heard. It was addressed to the gentleman from Marion.

Mr. JOHNSON. Owners of mines?

Mr. KIMBALL Some did and some did not claim to be owners.

Mr. WALKER. It was then understood that the miners should all have the opportunity of being heard. That promise was made. I am in favor of this bill, and ready for its passage; but it is proper that I should state to the House that the committee was willing that both sides should be represented before them. I am very much in favor of the bill.

Mr. WOLFLIN. That despatch was sent two weeks ago, and none of them have appeared before the committee. I hope the bill will pass. Then where the mines are made safe, men will find out such places and prefer to work there, so that they may even reduce the wages of miners in a safe place.

Mr. COWGILL. Of these examiners, four of them must be practical miners, and the five may be owners or operators.

Mr. KIMBALL. In the 20th line of section 10, it is provided that no person shall be appointed Inspector unless he is a citizen of the State and has had practical experience in working the coal mines of the State. Now I can see how a man may have had this practical experience in other States; and yet, no matter how desirable it may be, the Governor can't appoint him.

Mr. COWGILL. That might perhaps as well have been left out; but it is not likely that there will be any difficulty on account of that limitation.

On the demand of Mr. THOMPSON of Elkhart, the previous question brought the final vote and the bill passed the House--yeas 67, nays 8--with an amendment of title, adding these words: "providing for the appointment of mine inspectors and a commissioner; providing punishment for the violations of this act, and fixing the time when this act shall take effect," proposed by Mr. Miller.

So the bill passed on the part of the House of Representatives.

LEGISLATIVE APPORTIONMENT--A PROTEST.

Mr. HARDESTY called for the reading of the protest of certain members of the page: 357[View Page 357]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 357 House (Democrats) who voted against the State Legislative Apportionment bill, [S. 146] which finally passed the House yesterday. It is as follows:

We, the undersigned members of the House, hereby enter our solemn protest against the act entitled, "An act to fix the number of Senators and Representatives to the General Assembly of the State of Indiana, and to apportion the same among the several counties of tho State, and declaring an emergency," and demand that our protest, with our reasons for dissent, be entered on the Journal.

The reasons we assign for the protest are as follows:

First. That in our opinion the said act is a deliberate fraud and imposition upon the rights and privileges of the people of the State of Indiana.

Second. Because said act is a deliberate attempt to sap the very foundation of representative government by denying equal and fair representation to the people in the General Assembly.

Third. Because it is a shameful violation of that American doctrine that comes down to us from the Revolution, canonized by the blood of our patriot fathers, that taxation and representation shall go hand in hand.

Fourth. Because said act is an infamy, passed at the bidding of an unscrupulous partisan influence, and can not be defended upon any principle of common right, and was passed with indecent haste under the pressure of the previous question, so that debate was prevented and no opportunity afforded to expose its glaring defects.

Fifth. Because said act is a plain and palpable violation of the Constitution of the State of Indiana, which requires that Senators and Representatives in the General Assembly shall be apportioned among the several counties, according to the number of inhabitants, under the enumeration made by law, which provision of the Constitution is wholly disregarded and violated by the said act, and it is therefore null and void.

• Mahlon Heller,
• W. S. Shirley,
• M. L. Martin,
• C. W. Anderson,
• N. S. Givan,
• Israel Goble,
• John W. Cline,
• W. H. Pfrimmer,
• J. Henderson,
• Daniel Blocher,
• Henry A. Peed,
• R. B. Eaton,
• Jesse H. Reno,
• George H. Teeter,
• Gabriel Schmnck,
• James Rudder,
• L. Dow Glazebrook,
• W. B. Smith,
• Jeff C. Bowser,
• Adam G. Hoyer,
• Cyrus B. Tully,
• S. S. Coffman,
• Henry S. Cauthorn,
• S. J. Barrett,
• J. R. Isenhower,
• W. M. Ellsworth,
• J. Y. Durham,
• S. D. Spellman,
• James W. Whitworth,
• Samuel S. Shutt,
• John McConnell,
• Wm. Strange,
• James A. McKinney,
• Robert Gregory,
• H. R. Claypool,
• T. N. Jones,
• S. D. Dial,
• J. T. Richardson,
• M. L. Brett,
• James H. Willard.

Mr. THAYER. I move to amend the protest so that it will apply to the apportionment bill offered here two years ago.

The SPEAKER. The motion is not in order.

Mr. LENFESTY submitted the following:

WHEREAS, This House did, on yesterday, the 19th day of December, A. D. 1872, grant to certain members of this body the right to place upon the journal a written protest against a part of the legislative action of this House; and

WHEREAS, Said written protest with reference to that part of our legislation known as the apportionment bills, has been placed on the journal; and

WHEREAS, The said protest is violent in its character and greatly abuses the privileges granted calling in question tho motives of members of this body, and is a breach of that decorum due from one side of the House to the other, therefore, in view of the facts as above set forth, be it

RESOLVED By this House that we deprecate the language of said protest, and the spirit which dictated the same, and that said protest should receive the unqualified disapproval of every well-meaning member of this body, and that said protestants for the grave abuse of the privilege granted them, should receive the censure of this House.

The SPEAKER. Any member shall have the right to enter his protest--that is the right to have it entered on the journal--that is a constitutional provision.

Mr. KIMBALL conceded freely the right of any member to protest against any action of the House, and would have been even glad to see the right exercised in this case, if the protest had been made in language becoming gentlemen. But the language of the protest charging dishonor and disregard of law and right against the majority, was such that he felt called upon by the sense of duty and self-respect to denounce it in the face of all the opposition that might be brought to bear against him; and he did denounce it as a dishonor and disparagement to the body and all concerned in it. He proceeded with earnest and rapid utterances to declare that it would be unbecoming in the majority, and that it would be a thing also which their constituents would not approve, for the majority to sit here with their lips closed and their tongues paralyzed while they were denounced in this way as a set of dishonorable scoundrels for their solemn official action taken under the sanctions of the oath of God.

Mr. ----- . So far as I am concerned I have nothing to say further than this: I did not sign the paper without reading it, but since the reading of it here I am better pleased with it than I was before. We have not a fair showing on the apportionment, and as members of this body--as Democrats--we have the right to protest and denounce the proceeding of the majority.

Mr. SHIRLEY. It may be that we have used language quite severe: but I will say to the gentleman from Marion that a member of this House and of his own party, standing with us at the time, said that the bill was an outrage on the rights of the people. And when they tell me that if they were of the minority they would not tolerate it--

Mr. WILSON, of Ripley, interrupted with a point of order. It is out of order to call words in question, or to comment on the matured prior acts of members on this floor.

Mr. SHIRLEY. I will say then that we placed our protest there, believing that we are justified in what we say, and we ask page: 358[View Page 358]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 358that the resolution pending be declared out of order.

Mr. WILSON, of Ripley. I regret that gentlemen have presented it in the language they have. I know that, personally, between themselves and myself, there is good feeling. I do not believe they would accuse me personally of any act that they would esteem as improper or denounce as shameful.

Mr. SHIRLEY; The gentleman has no right to call in question the motives of the minority.

Mr. WILSON. I am not: I am complimenting them. But as far as this protest is concerned, that is not an act of the House, and we have a right to comment on it. No deliberative body ought to permit a minority to cast a direct insult on the majority, or the House; and this protest is as much an insult to the minority as to the majority. It is one of the plainest principles of parliamentary law that none have the right to impugn the motives of gentlemen in debate; yet these parties go to the extent of arraigning the motives that prompted the action of the House; and that far I am in favor of wiping it out--wiping out the stain that is attempted to be cast upon the House. I grant the right of protest, but not the right of personal imputations. The simple question before the House is, whether we will allow a deliberate insult to remain on the record. I say that this is sought to be done--and I say it with all due respect to the protesting gentlemen. It it is better to protest in a just and truthful account of the action of the House, whether they believe it true or not. It is a breach of decorum to charge dishonor upon the journal. If we did not observe this decorum it would be impossible to do business. These rules have been established by experience. Legislative bodies can't do without them. This protest comes in writing. As I understand the constitution, an individual member may protest for hfrnself; and this House granted to the gentleman from Morgan and Johnson (Mr. Shirley) to submit his protest and have it placed on the journal. But after this bill [S. 146] had become law these gentlemen come in, and sign their protest in disregard of the rule against any reflection on the prior action and determination of the House. Then, so far as this is concerned, with respect to every member except the gentleman from Morgan and Johnson, it is a reflection upon the prior action of the House.

Mr. SHIRLEY. I claimed the right to protest for myself and the minority.

Mr. WILSON. The gentleman can protest for himself, not on the behalf the minority.

Mr. RENO. I am sorry this discussion has come up. I am a young member here, but I desire to say that I believe all men on this floor act honestly. I trust and believe both sides of the House, as a body are honorable men, and I think the sooner we drop this discussion the better. It is in this way that men get heated and passionate--they will not be moved by attempted compulsions--they will stand as the rock of Gibraltar--they will warm up with passion, and give utterance to language as bad as ours in the protest--and this will go to the country. But the people are perfectly cool. It is only ourselves that are excited. The people and the newspapers will weigh the matter coolly, and perhaps laugh at us, and there will be the end on't.

Mr. BILLINGSLEY. As a member of this House I feel willing that the protest should go on the journal, simply with the understanding that the privilege of protest was given only to the gentlemen from Morgan and Johnson.

Mr. LENFESTY. I did not desire to say anything with reference to this resolution. I had my attention called to the protest, and I must say that it struck me as very unjust, and I have no doubt that many signed it without knowing what the paper contained, which is certrinly wrong. The gentleman over the way (Mr. Reno) says, that in the heat of passion we will say things against the dignity of the body, but that is just the thing we would repress. I can stand by and hear gentlemen in the heat of debate and look on calmly. But here is a protest that is to go on the journal, and remain there for history; and I say it is due to the House and the minority that it should be withdrawn. If this is not done, in after years, when we cast our eyes over the pages of the journal and rest them upon this protest, we will say that, not only the majority here, but the minority also were disgraced by it. I say this in sorrow that such a thing has appeared. I say, let the protest be withdrawn, and let gentlemen put on the pages of the journal something that will reflect their views better.

Mr. JOHNSON. I am satisfied that gentlemen will regard this as an unfit protest when they come to look at it coolly. I confess that I was surprised when I looked at the wording of it. I was shocked at the very first sentence. It is this: "In our opinion the said act is a deliberate fraud and imposition on the rights and privileges of the people of the State." If page: 359[View Page 359]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 359they had said that it was an act of injustice, done in excitement--in the haste and excitement of party feeling--but this is not the form of the expression. The words here are: "It is a deliberate fraud." That charges every member of the majority with whom I stand with deliberate fraud fraud with consideration--fraud that habit has permitted. It charges a deliberate intention to perpetrate a fraud and imposition--not on the rights of the minority on this floor--that would have been a compromise--but a deliberate fraud on the people of the State! Then this protest, in its first assertion, is false, and this first expression is one with reference to which a resolution ought to be filed, that it is expunged from these records. This sentence is so bad that if a private individual were to utter it against another private individual it would lay the perpetrator of it liable for damages. Here is a charge of corruption and fraud more turbid than I am willing to rest under.

Sir, I stand here, not as an individual, and if I do stand here as an individual, yet before this House I stand as one of the representatives of the people of a great county of the State of Indiana, and when I am charged with public fraud, the charge reaches back to the people I represent. Therefore I hurl the charge back, as a charge against my colleagues and my people. And I know that I shall be sustained in this by my people. It is a charge against me personally and against the people I represent. It is an insult to every gentleman on this floor, and through their representatives it is insulting to the people of Indiana. The second reason for the protest is this: "Because said act is a deliberate attempt to sap the very foundation of representative government." My colleague (Mr. Kimball) has said that when we came in here we took an oath to support the constitution of the United States and of this State. Then here is another grave charge without a word of qualification--a charge of trampling on the principles of free government--a charge of action against a crowning principle of the constitution--a charge of violation of the oath we took. That is another insult to the House and to the people, and as such this House ought to have the privilege of wiping it out. It says, further: "Third. Because it is a shameful violation of that American doctrine that comes down to us from the Revolution, canonized by the blood of our patriot fathers, that taxation and representation should go hand in hand." Mr. Speaker, it was in the power of the majority to have done injustice to the minority, but I speak what I know when I say, that in that caucus of Republican members where this measure was matured, I know that no Demccrat could have uttered sentiments more just and magnanimous towards the minority--no Democrat could have represented and protected their rights more carefully, safely and ably than they were represented and protected in that caucus. Sir, the majority here is not unjust. Whilst inequalities may be pointed out anywhere, almost, in any such bill, not one point of injustice was found. I think the majority will bear me out in saying this further, that in that consultation I, myself, stood by the rights of the minority, and in some cases where there was injustice I said so, and the instant that injustice was pointed out it was corrected; and gentlemen all around me in that caucus,--the Speaker of the House amongst them--said, repeatedly, this provision and that provision is unjust to the minority--we can't afford to be unjust.

No gentleman of the majority will deny this, my assertion, here. These expressions were frequently and constantly made in caucus, and therefore I say to the minority in this protest, that they have done themselves the dishonor to insult their best friends, I felt that I was standing in that caucus in their interests, and now, being insulted, as I am, and those others with me, I ask the minority to withdraw this protest because it does injustice to their friends--casts an insult into the face of those who have stood by them. I ask them to do this for their own self respect, as well as out of regard for those who have stood by them. I have no objection to the protest itself, but my notice goes to the infamous and unparliamentary language of it. Let the protest be decorous, and it insults no one. I know fifty-two honest men who voted for this bill--not one of them voted dishonestly. Mr. Speaker, I might go on further to notice this paper, but I shall not. I think the protest ill-advised, improper and unwise, and I know it is unjust to almost every member of the majority side. I tell the minority that their rights were not disregarded--not confided to an unreasoning or unfeeling party. I tell them that everything that could have been said in their behalf by the ablest of them was said in that caucus. If the minority will not withdraw their paper, I think it is due, not only to the dignity of the House, but to our constituents, that this protest should be expunged from the records of the house. It represents a state page: 360[View Page 360]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 360 of feeling which never existed on this floor Therefore, I appeal to the minority, as I appealed to the majority--we cannot afford to do what is unjust. I will say again, that we do not want to dictate the terms and forms of speech in a protest, but we want the violent, inflammatory, and (I will say again) unjust language of it to be removed; and that it should be at least respectful, and have some of the elements of truth in it.

Mr. BARRETT. I am in a good humor, We are near the close of the session, and nothing should excite us unwisely. Whilst I would prefer a little modification of the language of the protest, so far as its truthfulness is concerned, I would not change it.

Mr. KIMBALL (interposing.) I would like to know what the gentleman means by truth? There is perhaps one truth there that I pronounce a falsehood--that we acted fraudulently--that is false.

Mr. BARRETT. What I mean by truth in this matter is the statement that there is not in the apportionment bill a distribution of representatives amongst the counties according to population: The gentleman from Marion (Mr. Kimball) says he has taken an oath before the Judge of the Supreme Court to support the constitution and do his duty, and we all did that; and I leave it to the minds and consciences of gentlemen whether they did make that apportionment according to that oath--whether they did make it as duty, and right, and justice require, and according to the constitution, which says that the several counties shall have representation according to population? whether instead of doing so, they did not give to some counties with less than 4,000, and less than 3,000 voters, a full representative, whilst another county, with nearly 5,000 voters, has only a half representative? And, again, I think at least one gentleman of the majority, (Mr. Branham) used almost the same language of the protest, not, indeed, towards members, but with reference to the bill itself.

Mr. JOHNSON. That language of the gentlemen was directed to the bill as it was first read in the House--it was not against the amended bill.

Mr. BARRETT. As to representation according to population, I do not know that the amendment made it any better.

Mr. WESNER moved for an adjournment.

Mr. Kimball desired the gentleman from Boone to withdraw the motion, and it was accordingly withdrawn.

Mr. SHIRLEY. I have not desired to incurred the displeasure of any gentleman of the House, and friendly relations have arisen amongst us, and these relations have been maintained even beyond my anticipations till this thing got into the House. We may have used too severe language in the protest; but, sir, the language of the majority has been equally severe and equally as unguarded as that of the protest; and some of them have gone beyond what is in the protest in the severity of their denunciations. And notwithstanding it has been whitewashed, (As I apprehended it would be) yet in my judgment, it was unjustly addressed to the minority; and therefore, I think we could be justified in putting on the record what they have said themselves. But still if the protest is too severe, I will say that I do not wish to offer an insult to any member, either by record or word in debate, whilst at the same time I do think that the majority could reflect dispassionately and unselfishly upon their treatment of the minority, they would themselves feel that we have had just cause for what we have said. Considering it merely as a question of decorum, I am willing to change it; yet I have my convictions about the bill, and no expunging of records change them. Sir, you can't wipe out the fact of injustice from the memory of the people! It may be, as the gentle man from Marion (Mr. Johnson) claims, that our rights were defended in their caucus. I do not know what then might have been our condition if we had been without any defence there! Could they, with any regard to the Constitution, have made the representation more unequal? Could they have made it worse as between the counties of Marion and Allen? Allen, with a greater voting population than Marion, one Senator and two Representatives, whilst Marion has two Senators and four Representatives, and one Senator more jointly with Morgan? and one Representative more jointly with SheIby? And there are many puch cases where representation has not been given as the Constitution prescribes. But as I have said: i am willing to change the words of the protest, whilst I must insist on retaining the substance and matter.

Mr. KIMBALL. I am glad to hear the gentleman from Morgan and Johnson (Mr Shirley) speak as he has now spoken. Though I found fault with some of the expressions he made use of--I presume he is the author of the protest - I am glad to know that he is willing to withdraw the offensive language. It is all the majority ask of him. Every man here accords the right of protest as to principle, and, as to page: 361[View Page 361]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 361any gentleman's individual opinions, he can be heard and he can answer outside of the House. I would not throw any obstruction in the way of the protest on the part of the minority. I desire that they may be heard on the journal. Sir, I like to see gentlemen coming in here and claiming a just hearing--men with whom for years our personal intercourse has been such that I could say they are my friends. I like to see men striving for their right to do what they think ought to be done; and I am sorry only that the language of the protest was such as to raise an objection. But as the objectionable style is withdrawn, I am willing that they should have every word on the journal which gentlemen may deem necessary.

Mr. CAUTHORN As to the claim that the matter of the protest is wrong, and the bill right, I deny that. There is something else in that count. But I am free to say that with regard to that apportionment bill there may be honest differences of opinion. The gentleman from Marion (Mr. Johnson) says the bill is right, and I am willing to give him credit for candor, but there are others who may say that it is not right, not fair. That is my opinion, sir, and I am as honest about it as you are, and I am willing to go before the people of the State on that question. I will say further, that there is something in that pro-test and the objections to it that we might know more about than has yet appeared on this floor. Some have alleged that members of the majority here have asserted that they would not have voted for that bill but to keep their standing in the party. I can freely say that no gentleman has told me so, but gentlemen have told me that certain of the majority had said so; and if they have said so, then I say there is nothing in the protest that ought not to be there. And I will undertake to say that in the passage of that bill the constitution of the State has been shamelessly violated. We complain that the Legislative Apportionment is not equal, and hold you to the requisition which should have compelled you to distribute the Representatives fairly among all the counties of the State. Mr. C. was proceeding, by statements and figures to show some of the inequalities and glaring defects of the bill; as for the counties of Knox and Sullivan, (a Democratic district) with a voting population of 9,254, is given one Senator and two Representatives, whilst Lawrence and Monroe, (a Republican district) with a voting population of 6,616,are given the same representation, with a voting population 2,608 less than Knox and Sullivan. As between the districts composed of Floyd and Clark and Parke and Vermillion, there is a disparity of 3,581 against the Democratic district of Floyd and Clark. Dearborn and Franklin, with a voting population of 10,048 are given a smaller representation than Miami and Howard with 1,500 less--when he was interrupted by--

Mr. WILSON, of Ripley. It seems to me that the proper subject of discussion is the language of the protest.

Mr. CAUTHORN. I have said all I intended. I am not impugning the honest motives of any gentleman on this floor. I am willing to concede that they thought they were acting right. When my friend from Marion (Mr. Johnson) said the bill is right, I believe he told the truth as he regarded the bill; but I think he was influenced and biased by partisan feeling. If there is anything in the protect that wounds the feelings of gentlemen, I am willing to withdraw it. I will renew the motion to adjourn. [Voices--"No, no."] Then I withdraw it.

Mr. KIMBALL. The protest is on the journal, and I am willing it should remain there if gentlemen take away the objectionable language.

Mr. SHIRLEY. You can't strike out the protest.

Mr. KIMBALL. Protest as you please, God bless you, but don't insult me with your protests.

Mr. SHIRLEY [aside.] Don't insult me with your bills.

Mr. WOOLLEN. Whilst the majority have not the right to strike out the protest, the minority have not the right to protest in unparliamentary style. I do not say that the majority have the right to dictate the withdrawal ; but, if it suits the minority, I desire that the protest should be withdrawn [Consent, consent"--from Democratic benches.] I desire to say also, that when it was passed to rne, I saw its objectionable words, and I think that by getting together to-night we can embody our views and give them a proper expression.

Mr. SHIRLEY. We do not withdraw the protest.

The SPEAKER. The Constitution gives the right of protest.

Mr. WOOLLEN. Before I ask that this protest be withdrawn, I desire to ask the gentleman from Grant (Mr. Lenfesty) to withdraw his resolution. ["Consent," consent," from the benches on both sides.]

The resolution and the protest were withdrawn accordingly by unanimous consent.

page: 362[View Page 362]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 362

NEW STATE CAPITOL.

Mr. BRANHAM, from the Select Committee on Plans for a new State House, submitted a preamble and resolution reciting that the Joint Special Committee heretofore appointed to receive plans and specifications for a new State Capitol building, have organized and come to the conclusion that with their present authority it will be impracticable and impossible for them to accomplish the object sought by the General Assembly, and therefore they recommend the adoption of a concurrent resolution offering -------- dollars for architectural plans and specifications, which may be accepted by the General Assembly and used in the construction of the new Capitol, to wit: -------- dollars for the best plans and specifications so offered, accepted and used: -------- dollars for the second best; and -------- dollars for the third best; and authorizing paid Committee to visit other State Capitols for the purpose of enabling them to discharge their duty properly, and allowing to each of them the per diem of a member of the General Assembly for the time so employed together with their travelling expenses: provided that they shall not pay for any plan not accepted by the General Assembly.

Mr. BRANHAM. It was the unanimous opinion of the committee that, under the former resolution of the House for State House plans, it would not be in their power to get the information required, especially in the short time allowed to them; and if the House wishes anything; done in the matter they should pass the resolution we have reported. So far as that is concerned this whole matter is with the House. The original resolution was handed to me last night, and the committee met to-day. I am perfectly willing if the House should come to that conclusion, that the whole matter should be laid on the table. The House requires the committee to report at the next session; and consequently the committee believe it will put off any plan for the capitol for two years longer. The idea is that all plans shall be submitted to the General Assembly. But I say again, if it is the wish of the House I am perfectly willing that the whole subject should be laid on the table. The State of Michigan has built a State House recently, and for her plans and specifications she has paid $35,000. The committee propose to fill these blanks for the amounts proposed to be paid for plans and specifications--the first with $1,000, the second with $600 and the third with $400. The reason for this classification of the plans and specifications is this: Some architect might propose a plan for ventillation which might be adopted in preference to that which might belong to the plan adopted for the main building. The State can use any part of any one of the plans, or combine the three. The committee thought it might be well to visit the capitols of the States of Tennessee and Michigan.

Mr. THOMPSON, of Elkhart. I am opposed to paying for plans and specifications in this way. I think it would be better to employ an architect.

Mr. BRANHAM. I wish to state that the State of Michigan paid $35,000 for their State House plans, and the State had the right to employ whomsoever she pleased to superintend the work. I believe the architects charge five per cent. of the cost for plan and superintendence, which would be about $50,000. I move to fill the first blank with $1,000.

The motion was agreed to, and on the further motion of Mr. B. the remaining blanks were filled with $600 and $400, as before indicated by him.

And then, after Mr. Gregory's motion lay it on the table, the concurrent resolution was passed on the part of the House of Representatives--yeas, 58; nays, 20

A message was received from the Senate announcing non-concurrence in the report of the conference committee on the Senate bill No. 166, and asking the appointment of a new Committee of Conference.

On motion of Mr. WALKER, the House responded to the request of the Senate by the adoption of an order for the appointment of another Conference Committee to consider the disagreeing votes of the two houses with reference to amendments to the Senate bill No. 166, and the Speaker appointed the committee, viz.: Messrs. Walker and Thayer.

Mr. BLOCHER moved for the adjournment, which was modified by Mr. GIFFORD so as to make "the adjournment" a recess till half-past seven o'clock to-night, and so the order was adopted.

STATE HOUSE PLANS.

Mr. BOWSER. I move to reconsider the vote on the adoption of the resolution of the gentleman from Jefferson, (Mr. Branham) just reported by him from the Special Committee on State House Plans. I can't see the wisdom of employing architects so long as no action is taken for the new State Capitol. It is pretty certain that the plans and specifications of the architects taken at this time, would not be suitable for adoption twenty years hence; and I can't see the propriety of throwing away page: 363[View Page 363]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 363two or three thousand dollars for plans that may never be adopted.

Mr. GREGORY. It strikes me, Mr. Speaker, that you are setting men to look after these plans who might not know any better how to build a house than a string of black suckers. I can't see any necessity for the committee at all.

Mr. KIMBALL. The object is to require the Committee to visit and examine buildings, and to get plans. I move to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.

The motion was agree to.

The House took a recess till half-past seven o'clock p. m.

NIGHT SESSION.

The SPEAKER resumed the chair at half-past seven o'clock.

TEMPERANCE.

Mr. THOMPSON, of Elkhart, and Mr. CLARK, presented temperance memorials, which were referred, under the rules.

THE CLERKS.

Mr. BILLINGSLEY submitted a resolution setting forth that the House had, on the 9th of the present month, passed an order requiring that a duplicate copy of the journal be made for the public printer, thereby imposing upon the clerks double work; and providing for an additional compensation to the Chief Clerk, Assistant Clerk, and their employes, of two and a half dollars per day since that date.

Mr. BRANHAM objected that in a case where the salary of an officer or employe is fixed by law it can only be increased by an act.

The SPEAKER, That decision has been made by previous Legislatures, I do not think it would be right to upset it.

Mr. BILLINGSLEY withdrew his resolution saying he wuld endeavor to have the progs amount incorporated in the next specific appropriation bill.

CANAL CERTIFICATES--THE CONSTITUTION.

On motion of Mr. WILLARD, the bill [S.159] to provide for submission to the qualified voters of the State, for their ratification or rejection, the proposition to amend the tenth article of the State Constitution, by adding a section in relation to the debt charged on the Wabash and Erie Canal (on the 28th of January, 1873), was taken up on the second reading. He said: As yet it is uncertain whether the Legislature at the next session will decide to call a Constitutional Convention or not; and if they should not so decide, it is positively necessary that we should provide for the action of the people on this amendment. This bill provides that the people shall vote on the proposed canal certificates amendment question on the 28th of January, 1873, and get it out of the way so that we may propose other needed amendments.

Mr. WALKER. The people might vote on this amendment, and on the question of calling a Constitutional Convention at the same time.

Mr. CAUTHORN. It was by my amendment to the joint resolution that this time was required for the ratification or rejection of this amendment by the people, and I think it better to stand by itself. It is best that the bill should pass and get it out of the way of other special amendments.

Mr. HELLER. It will be remembered that I have a bill to submit to the people the question of calling a Constitutional Convention, but I have not pressed its consideration. The present constitution was made in 1851; and we have grown up and prospered under that constitution as no other State has grown and prospered in that time. That being the case, it would seem that our State Constitution cannot need amendment very badly. We were able to take our full share of the burdens of the late civil war, and with so much distinction and public credit that a halo of national glory was hung all about us throughout the conflict. And now the war is past we are without debt There is a provision in the constitution whereby it may be amended specifically in every particular that may be desired by the people. There may be some occasion for the amendment proposed here, but I see no reason why we should be in a hurry about it. If there were any pressing necessity for it. I would with all ray heart go for the bill. Therefore, in the absence of better reasons for urging it, I am disposed to vote against the bill at this time.

Mr. MILLER I hope the House will permit it to pass over to the next session, for there is not time to mature and carry it out. And the thought has also suggested itself to my mind, that as the people have the first right to say whether or not they want a Constitutional Convention, it would be wise to submit that question with this at the same time.

The bill was passed over by unanimous consent.

INTEGRITY OF THE JOURNALS.

On motion of Mr. KIMBALL the bill [S. 165] relative to certain matters of page: 364[View Page 364]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 364Legislative practice in the two Houses of the General Assembly of Indiana, and declaring an emergency, was taken up on the first reading. (It provides for two Journal Committees of five members of each of the two Houses, with the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives for chairmen, to examine the journals and report errors to the proper House for correction, etc.)

On motion of Mr. KIMBALL, the restrictions were suspended, and the bill was passed the House of Representatives without amendment--yeas, 68; nays, 7.

TEMPERANCE.

Mr. THAYER submitted a preamble and resolution reciting the vast importance of the subject of temperance; the fact that quite a number of bills on the subject have been introduced and are now in the hands of the Committee on Temperance; and the duty of members to examine them and consult their constituents with reference to their various provisions, and, therefore, making a formal order for printing 200 copies of said bills so introduced during this session; that the clerk see that this order is promptly executed, and cause two copies of each of said bills to be placed on the table of each member of the House of Representatives.

On the motion of Mr. WILSON of Ripley, it was laid on the table.

TEMPERANCE.

Mr. LENFESTY, by unanimous consent and by request of a German constituent (probably Mr Wolflin as the gentleman intimated), introduced a bill [H. R. 262] to regulate and license the sale of vinous and malt liquors, to prohibit the sale of a less quantity than five gallons at a time without first procuring a license as therein provided. The object (as he said) being to do away with whiskey as a beverage. There is a principle in it to which (being a prohibitionist) he did not subscribe, but he desired, that it might go to the Committee on Temperance that it might receive a just and proper consideration in our legislation on this subject.

It was read by the Clerk.

Mr. KIMBALL proposed to amend by striking out the words, "those who sell," wherever thev occur in the bill, and insert these words in lieu, "those who drink."

Mr. WILSON, of Ripley. I move to strike out "Tom Jefferson. [It occurs in the preamble.]

The SPEAKER. No motion except the motions to refer and to reject can be in order on the first reading; the preamble is considered last--with the title.

Mr. JOHNSON. There is quite a difference of sentiment about me here as to one section of the bill--whether it authorizes one person to drink five gallons at a time, or whether it is a prohibition of the sale of that quantity. [Laughter.]

Mr. LENFESTY. I am not the author of the bill. I have been requested to introduce it, and have taken the first opportunity of presenting it to the House. Its object is to do away with whiskey as a beverage--a deleterious beverage, and to substitute wine and beer, which latter it recognizes as harmless and healthy. I do not subscribe to the doctrine myself, but I desire, because there is a principle in it, that the bill should go to the Committee on Temperance.

Mr. WOOLLEN. I hope it will be referred to the Republican caucus.

On his motion (by unanimous consent) the minority of the House on the passage of apportionment bill obtained leave to retire to the Library rooms for consultation.

The bill was referred to the Committee on Temperance.

The SPEAKER now took up and persued the call of Counties and Districts for--

NEW PROPOSITIONS.

Mr. ANDERSON introduced a bill [H. R. 263] for an act in relation to railroad fences and prescribing remedy for live stock killed or injured by railroads, and matters connected therewith. [All railroad fences declared to be division fences; all claims for railroad injuries to be filed with the County Clerk,and copy served on the company thirty days before suit is brought, and within sixty days time after the accident, etc.]

It was referred to the Committee on Railroads.

Mr. PRENTISS introduced a bill [H. R. 264] for an act to amend the act regulating descents and the apportionment of estates.

It was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

Mr. CLARK introduced a bill [H. R. 265] for an act to define professional prostitution, and prescribing punishment therefor--prescribing rules of evidence in such cases, etc. [A female convicted thereof to be committed to the Reformatory for Girls and Women.]

It was referred to the Committee on the Reformatory Institution.

Mr. BILLINGSLEY introduced a bill [H. R. 266] for an act to amend the act to regulate the opening, vacating, and changing of roads and highways, etc. Approved, June 1852. [Viewers and reviewers to receive two dollars a day, etc.]

page: 365[View Page 365]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 365

It was referred to the Committee on Roads and Highways.

Mr. TINGLEY presented the petition of sundry tax-payers of Rush county for the repeal of the county and township railroad aid act of 1869--calling particular attention to the hardship of the majority clause.

It was referred to the Committee on Railroads.

Mr. BAXTER presented petitions from citizens of Kosciusko and Wabash counties on the same subject. Also several petitions for a strong temperance law.

Mr. FURNAS and Mr. HOLLINGSWORTH also presented sundry temperance petitions.

All of which were referred under the rule.

Mr. JONES introduced a bill [H. R. 267] to amend the act to revise, simplify and abridge the rules of practice, etc., [with regard to the commencement of actions.]

It was referred to the Committee on Rights and Privileges.

Mr. EDWARDS, of Lawrence, introduced a concurrent resolution condemning the proposed bill of Senator Sumner in relation to erasing the names of battles from the flags and the army register.

The SPEAKER. The same matter was disposed of the other day on the resolution of the gentleman from Marion [Mr. Kimball.]

Mr. Edwards withdrew the resolution.

Mr. THOMPSON, of Elkhart, by leave, returned from the Committee on Federal Relations, Mr. Heller's bill, [H. R. 286] providing for taking the sense of the qualified voters of the State on calling a convention to alter or amend the constitution of the State, with the recommendation that it pass.

On the motion of Mr. HELLER, the bill was laid on the table.

LEGISLATIVE APPORTIONMENT--PROTEST.

Mr. WOOLLEN asked and obtained leave to present the protest of those who voted against the bill [S. 146] for an act to fix the number of Senators and Representatives in the General Assembly of the of State of Indiana, and to apportion the same among the several counties, and giving their reasons therefor, which was read by the Clerk.

It is as follows:

Mr. SPEAKER: The undersigned who voted against the bill [S. 146] for an act to fix the number of Senators and Representatives in the General Assembly of the State of Indiana, and apportion the same among the several counties of the State and declaring an emergency, desire to protest against the passage of that bill and give their reasons therefor.

The object of all governments like ours, is to have the sovreignty which the General Assembly of the State are the agents by which that sovereignty manifests itself upon the Statute Book. The power itself resides in the people. That government is the most equal that brings this power into uniform action. When thus exercised, it is not only powerful but just. It places the Governor in his seat and gives him the executive authority. It makes the laws through its constituted agents, and gives them dicial animo. It places its broad seal upon the writ that brings the criminal to justice. It speaks from the jury box its verdict of weal or woe; and it directs the arm that executes the sentence of the law. A power thus omnipotent should be guarded with jealous care, and when robbed of its proper authority must produce disorder, weakness and confusion.

When the bill, mentioned in the beginning of this protest, came to the House from the other branch of the General Assembly, the undersigned hoped and believed that it would command here that careful consideration which its importance demanded. It proposed to distribute among the people that representation which the fundamental law declares "shall be apportioned among the several counties according to the number of white male inhabitants above twenty-one years of age." We demanded postponement and examination; it was refused. We asked for consideration and debate; it was denied.

In past general assemblies, when measures of this kind had been passed, the minority had resorted to revolution; but believing that wrong was little better than disorder, we determined to remain in our places in violation of well settled precedents, and rely upon the justice and magnanimity of the majority. We appealed to that justice and magnanimity in vain, thus justifying the revolutionary course of former legislatures; we appeal from the hasty and inconsiderate action of a party to the people themselves.

Upon an extended examination of the bill we find it carefully prepared to perpetuate the power of the Republican party. It strikes down thousands of voters in some of the counties, and places the power which justly belongs to them in the hands of their smaller neighbors, only because of their political sentiments. As instances of this, it gives to the counties of Floyd and Clark, with their voting population of 10,778, one Senator; and to their Republican neighbor, the county of Jefferson, a Senator for her vote of 5,405. It gives to the counties of Boone and Clinton, casting 10,117 votes, one Senator, and to the county of Randolph a Senator with a vote of 5,014; and this, as we believe, because of their political complexion. It gives to the county of Vermillion a representative for her 2,445 votes, but denies one to the county of Bartholomew with her 4,761 votes, and Vermillion is Republican while Bartholomew is Democratic. These are only a few of many instances of like irregularities; while the county of Marion, the center of political power and corruption, in effect, elects three Senators and five Representatives.

If anything were wanting to condemn the bill more than its manifest irregularities, it can be found in the fact that it was agreed upon in a party caucus and passed without debate in the General Assembly. We know that the political caucus is manipulated by outside influences not responsible to oaths or the people. The majority in this House, misled, as we believe, by designing men, not members on this floor, at the beginning of this session, resolved that all important measures should be determined in caucus and not considered and debated in this House. We believe that this was as wrong in principle as it is vicious in practice; and that the bill under consideration was the legitmate result of this departure from that correct principle of legislation. In our opinion the bill could never have passed this House except under the pressure of party discipline. We know that when that discipline is brought to bear the rights of the people are in jeopardy.

For these reasons, and in the name of that people whom we were sent here to represent, many of whom by the provisions of this bill will not hereafter be represented on this floor, we solesmly protest against page: 366[View Page 366]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 366 the action of this House in passing the law, and respectfully ask that this Protest be entered upon the journals of the House.

• Jeff. M. Bowser,
• Jas. A. McKinney,
• N. S. Givan,
• S. D. Spellman,
• H. C. Stanley,
• Cyrus B. Tulley,
• Henry S. Cauthorn,
• M. L. Martin,
• R. B. Eaton,
• W. H. Pfrimmer,
• J. A. J. Durham,
• H. R. Claypool,
• John McConnell,
• Gabriel Schmuck,
• J. Henderson,Chas.
• G. Offutt.
• T. W. Woollen,
• T. A Jones,
• L. D. Glazebrook,
• S. S. Shutt,
• Jesse H. Reno,
• Adam G. Hoyer,
• S. S. Coffman,
• James W. Whitworth,
• Wm. Strange,
• J. R. lsenhower,
• C. W. Anderson,
• Geo. H. Teeter,
• James Rudder,
• W. B. Smith,
• M. L. Brett,

Mr. KIMBALL. There is one statement in that which is not entirely correct, and that is where they say debate was denied them. The bill was debated by the gentleman from Cass (Mr. Anderson), the gentleman from Bartholomew (Mr. Barrett) and the gentleman from Johnson (Mr. Woollen) himself; and the bill was recalled in order to give time for debate. And there is another incorrect statement, and that is where they intimate their belief that the Republican caucus way dictated to and controlled by outside influences. So far as the majority here have been concerned, that statement is entirely incorrect. I am willing to state here, that so far as my knowledge extends, there has been no outside influence brought to bear upon us.

Mr. BRETT (interposing). Did not the gentleman himself admit that outside influences were operating in the apportionment?

Mr. KIMBALL. No sir, I did not. And so far as the counties of Bartholomew and Brown are concerned, it was found that it required both of these counties to entitle them to one Representative, with a small overplus. And to rebut that inequality, Bartholomew and Brown being hardly entitled to one Senator, they were combined and given the two--one Representative and Senator. The majority took into consideration the surplusages on both sides, and found them about equal, and the inequalities were thus levelled down. As for the intimation that the city of Indianapolis is the center and seat of political corruption, I wall let that statement go for what it is worth. Mr. Speaker, I am satisfied with the protest.

Mr. BRETT. What about Mr. A. H. Conner's conduct?

Mr. KIMBALL. Mr. Conner is not under discussion, and I am sorry to see gentlemen of the opposition ready to name and characterize any gentleman, because it requires names to be called in the reply, and I will not do so. Mr. Speaker, I shall speak for myself--and I believe for the majority here--when I say, we are willing to stand by our action on the apportionments, and appeal to the people from that partizan protest. I believe I know the people. I believe they are honest--that they are capable of judging correctly as to what is right, and what is best for the State and for their respective localities, and I know, that I, in this matter, have represented the will of the people who sent me here. Mr. Speaker, I am glad that this protest has been returned in the gentlemanly language in which it has been read. I am glad they have had the manliness to withdraw and amend it. We fear nothing. We stand upon the rectitude of our action. We appeal to the people of Indiana, and trust in the people and in God for the justification of our cause, and we rest the case.

Mr. WOOLLEN. The time is past for me to get excited. The gentleman's indignation comes to us in such good faith, that we are thrown back upon the conclusion that Marion county is entirely pure! He says he has been through the case, and so far as the Republican party is concerned it also is entirely pure. But we who live in the country have been observers as well as the gentleman, and we tell him we have seen too much to believe every word that is told us of the political purity about Indianapolis. The probability is--and it is the strongest probability--that there is truth in that protest, where it says: that Marion county--this political center--is the seat of power and corruption. I know that the gentleman from Marion has nothing to do with it, but there are others that are amenable to these words of the protest. I do not pretend to say that Democrats have not gone astray; but if they have gone astray, it is not due to their organization. With regard to the rest of that paper, I will tell the gentleman that it is just as we feel. I can have no doubt that the gentleman from Marion is wholly unconscious that he ever did a wrong thing in his life, and I suppose I do not do him justice in this, for l cannot make the declaration with such a rounded and benignant face as he did. Sir, that protest embodies what we think. But I want to say here, that when I speak of the acts of men of both political parties, I do not go down into a man's heart to see what he means, because we all, when we step into politics, are as apt to do wrong as right; but when we go out otherwise than in politics, we are about as other men. Now, I believe it is true that there never was a political caucus called page: 367[View Page 367]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 367together in Indianapolis that was not affected more or less by outside influences. Hence the reason of the statement in the protest. When we have the decree of a legislative caucus, that is but one side of the case, and it is necessary for a correct judgment to hear both sides of the case. If you drop into a court room to-morrow and hear one of the attorneys in any case, you go out with the impression that his cause is right. But if you had remained and heard the answer, and the siftings and reasonings in the case, you would say there was another side to it. And herein is the danger in all political caucuses. I believe I can sit on the fence and do justice between man and man, and yet I would be afraid to trust myself if I heard but one side of the case. There is nothing that contributes so much to a fair judgment as the discussion of both sides. Your Supreme Court demands that they shall hear the reasonings--the pleadings on both sides. It is when mind strikes mind that you have the light. And I believe this doctrine is as sound in thelegislative hall as it is on the bench. I believe we ought to come by our conclusions here just as the judge makes up his mind sitting upon the bench If we would do that, sir; if we would be constantly governed by this rule here, I tell you that the laws emanating from these halls would be so just and right and righteous that the people would commend us, and we would be blessed in our designs.

Mr. WALKER. I believe the testimony is all in, and I think it is time for the court to charge the jury.

The SPEAKER. The protest will go to the journal.

Mr. CAUTHORN. I do not desire to disturb things where so much oil has been thrown on the troubled waters. We all know that Marion county is to the State what the heart is to the human system All the people are continually crowding into and flowing out of this center of trade manufactures, and all the interests of profession and craft--and wherever there are crowded interests and men there is corruption. And when we say this in the protest, we do not charge that all are corrupt--but Indianapolis being the capitol of the State, it is the seat of fraud and corruption.

Mr. COWGILL interposed a few words, which were not heard.

Mr. BRANHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thought the argument in this case was closed. [Laughter.]

HUMOROUS--WHIMSICAL--GENERAL.

Mr. ------------- submitted a resolution for an order that if any page be found guilty of writing or scribbling on any paper, book or document about the desks of this Hall, he shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and discharged from the employment of the House.

On the motion of Mr. SHUTT, it was laid on the table.

Mr. WILSON, of Ripley, submitted the following:

RESOLVED, That the minority and the majority in this House now shake hands over the bloody chasm.

Mr. CAUTHORN. In order to carry out the resolution, I move that we have a recess. ["Consent," "consent."]

The SPEAKER. By unanimous consent, the House is resolved into Committee of the Whole--the gentleman from Knox (Mr. Cauthorn) in the chair, [Laughter.]

The CHAIRMAN. The House is still in session--as in Committee of the Whole House. [Laughter.]

The House being thus prepared in the later hours of the night and waiting for the consideration of the Senate amendments to the specific bill [H. R. 259] relaxed into the consideration of things humorous, whimsical and general, with a mock parliamentary treatment, of which the following is a sufficiently careful summary:

Mr. ------------- submitted a resolution for a select committee to extract the panes from the windows of the rotunda.

The CHAIRMAN, The question is on the adoption of the resolution.

Mr. FURNAS. I do not want the committee to go into this thing blindly. I want to know whether there is any story?

The CHAIRMAN. There is no story in it.

Mr. GIFFORD. I would inquire of the gentleman whether he has himself drawn any ex-stories?

The CHAIRMAN. The chair can answer only as to itself. I have not drawn any green backs.

Mr. WILSON. Is there anything before the committee?

The CHAIRMAN. Nothing but the gentleman from Ripley.

Sundry resolutions were offered and variously disposed of, including one requiring the Committee on Temperance to stand treat; another in favor of shaking hands across the bloody chasm; another declaring the gentleman from Marion (Mr. Kimball) and the gentleman from Johnson (Mr. Woollen) guilty of contempt in smoking in the lobby, unless they furnish all members of the Committee with cigars.

page: 368[View Page 368]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 368

Business growing slack, Mr. WOLFLIN was called upon for a speech, and responded in German, with great cheerfulness and eclat.

Mr. KIMBALL moved that Mr. Joseph Lawson be invited to give a recitation from Richard III. The motion was agreed to. and Mr. Lawson recited, "now is the winter of our discontent," etc. The hat was then passed, and a liberal collection gathered.

Other sundry resolutions were "offered" and "taken by consent" requesting the gentleman from Vanderburg (Mr. Wolflin, the reputed author of the five gallon liquor bill [H. R. 262] introduced this night by Mr. Lenfesty to furnish the House at the next session with a five gallon jug of whisky; that the committee of the whole draw the whole in after them; to consider the last resolution a joint resolution, and that the clerk acquaint the Senate of its passage by the House of Representatives; that the gentleman from Vigo (Mr. Edwards) inform the House what he knows about courtship and marriage in general; that the committee be instructed to report such legislation as may be necessary to promote the emigration of insurance solicitors and the spontaneous growth of sewing machine agents; that the gentleman from Vigo (Mr. Edwards) be requested to tell the House what he knows about echoes; that the gentleman from Harrison (Mr. Pfrimmer) be requested to inform the House what he knows about John Morgan's mule.

Mr. JOHNSON. Resolved, That this committee proceed to do some thing ridiculous.

Mr. MILLER. I then call for a speech from the gentleman from Marion.

SPECIFIC APPROPRIATIONS.

At eleven o'clock a. message was received from the Senate, announcing the passage of the Specific Appropriation Bill [H. R. 259] with sundry amendments, viz.: striking out the Holland and Bulkley allowance; the Jeffersonville RR. allowance $65 16; the judges' allowance ($3,500) for holding adjourned and special sessions; the Barnes and Jacobs allowance for legal services, $2,800; and reducing the B. W. Hanna allowance from $4,000 to $2,500, and reducing the E. P. Beachamp allowance from $81 to $30.

Mr. BRANHAM. If any of this work has been improperly done we can revise and correct it at the next session. I move that the House concur in all the amendments.

The motion was agreed to, and the amendments were concurred in without a division.

On motion of Mr. BRANHAM it was ordered, that when this House shall adjourn it shall be till ten o'clock to-morrow (Sunday) morning.

The SPEAKER. The House stands adjourned.