Mr. Ogden submitted a resolution, which was adopted, authorizing the Speaker to make out and prepare the proper vouchers for the late William T. Lockhart for services as door-keeper for the unexpired term, and deliver the same to Allen Furnas, and that he be authorized to draw such money and hold the same in trust, for the legal heirs of the deceased.
PUBLIC LIBRARIES.
On motion of Mr. Henderson, the report of the Committee on Cities and Towns returning the bill [S. 176] supplemental to the Public Library act of February 16, 1872 (declaring that the same, under certain conditions, may become free, etc,, may not be liable for debts of stockholders, shall be exempt from taxation, etc.) without recommendation, was taken up and, on his farther motion, (there being a suspension of the rules for the purpose,) the bill was advanced, and finally passed the House of Representatives yeas 58; nays 9.
On motion of Mr. Rumsey, the bill [S. 206] to encourage agricultural fairs, and the purchase and improvement of fair grounds, was taken up, explained by Mr. Wynn, (the cost to the county not to exceed $5,000), and on his motion, (there being a dispensation for the purpose), the bill was advanced and finally passed the House of Representatives - yeas 77, nays 6.
The bill [S. 24] to amend section 30 of the supervisors' act, was taken up on the third reading, (changing the time of making their report from March to September). It was finally passed the House of Representatives - yeas 78, nays 1.
ROAD COMPANIES.
The bill [S. 27] to legalize certain acts of corporations organized or attempted to have been organized under the gravel road law of May 12, '52; and acts supplemental thereto, was taken up and read the first time.
Mr. King moved its reference to the Committee on Roads, which was agreed to.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.
The bill [S. 74] to legalize the act of County Commissioners in certain cases, was taken up on the third reading, explained by Mr. Odle, as needful now in Warren county, and it was finally passed the House of Representatives - yeas 73, nays 3.
PUBLIC PRINTING.
The Senate amendments to the special com-tee bill [H. R. 526] to provide for the public printing and binding, were taken up and read by the clerk.
Mr. Mellett and Mr. Branham insisted that the House bill unamended is the best, the Senate amendments simply going back distinctly on the contract system.
The Speaker. The question is: Will the House concur? The House refused to concur - yeas 26, nays 56.
SECRETARY OF STATE HIS OFFICEHIS DUTIES.
Mr. Brett, from the Committee on Public Buildings, returned Secretary's office bill [H. R. 391], recommending that it be laid on the table, which was concurred in.
He also returned the bill [S. 250] further to prescribe the duties of Secretary of State, with amendments in section two inserting after the word "office" these words: "Provided no more shall be expended for the purchase or procurement of any such missing laws, papers or files." And again in the bill: "And one additional clerk for the special purposes of this act, at a salary of $1,200, for a period not exceeding two years;" which were adopted, by concurrence in the report; and so the bill was read the third time, and finally passed the House of Representatives - yeas 53, nays 39.
The bill [S. 120] to protect the ballot box, secure fair elections, define felonies and prescribe punishments, etc., coming up, was read the first time, and on motion of Mr. Kimball (there being a dispensation for the purpose), it was advanced and passed the final reading in the House of Representatives - yeas 89, nays 0.
Mr. Furnas, from the Committee on Temperance, returned the bill [S. 143] to restrain all persons from hiring any person under twenty-one years of age to make or vend intoxicating liquors, recommending its passage.
Messrs. Butterworth, Woollen, Barrett, Brett and Given suggested difficulties about hiring boys in a drug store or by a distillery owner to drive a cart, etc., and there were several suggested amendments - as, by Mr. Ogden: "Provided, that the provisions of this act shall not apply to sales by druggists for medical purposes," which was adopted.
page: 250[View Page 250]Mr. Shirley proposed this section: Any person under twenty-one years of age, who falsely representing himself to be twenty-one, for the purpose of procuring intoxicating liquor, and who does procure the same by false statements, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and fined in any sum not exceeding $20.
The Speaker. It is not germane to the bill.
Mr. Lenfesty proposed, ineffectually, to amend by adding a proviso: "The provisions of this act shall only apply to places where liquors are sold as a beverage."
On motion of Mr. Furnas, the restriction was suspended for the advancement of the bill.
Mr. Baker suggested that the bill might interfere with the farming interests in raising apples and grapes, whence a debate by Messrs. Mellett, Kimball, Butterworth, Barrett and others; when Mr. Smith moved, ineffectually, to reconsider the vote by which Mr. Lenfesty's amendment was rejected. The bill was rejected - yeas, 38; nays, 49.
On motion of Mr. Kimball the bill was recommitted to the Temperance Committee with instructions to strike out the objectionable provisions in relation to parent and child.
THE MORGAN RAID BILL.
Mr. Pfrimmer's bill [H. R. 69] making an appropriation of $413,599 48 to pay the claims of sufferers by the Morgan raid, was taken up in order on the third reading.
Mr. Walker moved for the indefinite postponement of the bill.
Mr. Blocher supported the bill and defended the justice of the claims of these sufferers - Morgan stole, and the agents of the government became aiders and abettors in the crime - the government realizing $180,000 for the sale of our horses.
Mr. Kimball gave the reasons at length, which would induce him to vote for the bill, adding to Mr. Blocher's considerations and facts this: that, after Morgan and Hobson, came the United States quartermasters who despoiled those people of between $150,000 and $190,000 more; and this the State of Indiana could recover of the general government by presenting vouchers, as he had been lately advised by General Eaton, whose letter was in the hands of Mr. Eward or Mr. Pfrimmer. He spoke warmly of patriotic worth of the people of those southern counties.
Mr. North also attested to many of the facts of sufferings, and Mr. Blocher (in reply to Mr. Thompson's suggestion of a job in the bill) said that he was authorized to say, for Mr. William English, that he has not, and that he never had, a dollar in these claims.
Mr. Lenfesty said these claims were fairly presented at Washington, and disallowed, because to allow them would be in derogation of the doctrine that the State never pays despoilments by the public enemy. The claims of the people of Kentucky, Maryland and Pennsylvania for losses by the rebellion, were identical with these, and equally as just as these.
The House then took the recess till two o'clock P. M.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The Speaker resumed the unfinished business - the Morgan raid bill [H. R. 69] to appropriate $413,599 48 for the relief of the actual sufferers in three equal annual instalments - the question being on the motion to indefinitely postpone the bill.
A call of the House, demanded by Mr. Baker, determined eighty-two members present.
Mr. Branham gave the facts in the casethe claims being distributed into three or four classes. He made the point that while the Government may not pay for losses by the public enemy, it is not right to appropriate the money it pocketed by the sale of our property. It was absurd to call upon individual sufferers to prosecute their claims, when the average claim was, perhaps, less than $200. Such advice was simple denial of justice. Those citizens ask reimbursement for property taken from them and sold by order of the Governor. He referred for the ground of these claims to the Documentary Journal for 1865, page 404. etc., and the report of the Commission appointed thereupon. This relief has been recommended by Governor Morton, recommended by Governor Baker, and deliberately passed by the General Assembly, but failed by an untimely breaking up of the session. To call it a job is a slander, and the slander is worse than the wrong.
Mr. Reno understood that these claims embrace the the destruction of bridges and railroads, etc. Such relief was unknown to legislation, and it would be unsafe as a precedent.
Mr. Johnson desired to place himself squarely on the record against the allowance of any part of these claims. It was not a question of sympathy, but a question of law and public duty. Indiana can no more afford to allow those claims than she could repay every citizen who has suffered pecuniary losses by the rebellion.
Mr. Branham interposed the question: Did not Ohio allow such claims? and did not the General Government reimburse that State?
Mr. Johnson did not know. He was informed that such is the fact, but he proceeded to show at length that the precedent is unsafe, etc., but replied to Mr. Kimbill and Mr. Branham. If there is anything due to those claimants its due by the general Government, and that demolishes the principle on which their claims are asserted here - that the relief shall be paid only to sufferers, and their claims have been presented to the general Government and rejected. As to the question of a job, the jobbers in these claims are anxious for the passage of this bill, as Mr. Rollins, in the county of Lawrence has bought up $40,000 in these claims. William H. English's attorney, told in his hearing, at the noon hour, that he owned $100,000 in this interest. [Sensation.] Mr. Branham and Mr. Blocher denounced the affirmation that it is a job, as a falsehood; and Mr. English in the lobby (being invited by Mr. Johnson) was understood to say that Mr. Johnson is mistaken or his attorney has falsified. The sensation subsided with an apology in which nothing was extenuated.
Mr. Wilson, of Ripley, took up his "five-minutes" parable and filled it with special pleading for the bill.
Mr. Kimball replied to his colleague's allegation that Mr. English holds these claims to the amount of $100,000. The gentleman simply overheard the false statement at lunch, and retailed it here in the fall, round, eloquent terms for which he is distinguished. He (Kimball) himself drew that feature in the bill which cuts off all jobbers in these claims. He more than quintupled his "five-minutes" in his rejoinder, with his peculiar style of pleading, alleging the recommendation of the allowance of these claims by Governor Morton, Governor Baker, and in a note from Governor Hendricks, showed the present Executive mind to be favorably impressed with the reasoning for those recommendations.
Mr. Johnson submitted a personal statement, to wit: He said that the attorney to whom he referred is not now the attorney for Mr. English, and declined to fire on the mere smoke of hit colleague.
Mr. Offutt fulfilled his alloted "five minutes" for the bill, and in reply to Mr. Kimball. As to the jobbing in it - these claims are already bought up, and if it were not for the interest held in them by these brokers, this bill would not have been introduced here.
Mr. Branham took the floor again, and returned to the shoeing of the justice of the rule, that the Government should repay at least the proceeds of the property of the citizen,whether taken directly for its use or in the hands of the ene- page: 251[View Page 251] my - referring more specifically to Gov. Morton's reasoning, and making the further point, that the change of ownership does affect the character of a just and proper claim against the imputations of jobbery.
Mr. Butts explained his opposition vote on this bill as constrained by the voice of his constituents.
Mr Smith demanded the previous question, and there was a second and under this pressure the vote on Mr. Walker's motion to postpone the bill was reported. Yeas 69, nays 26; so the bill was indefinitely postponed.
The Speaker laid before the House the Senate request for a committee of conference on the disagreeing votes betwixt the two Houses in regard to the Senate amendment to the bill [H. R. 526] to provide for the public printing and binding, and the House accorded the committee; whereupon the Speaker appointed Messrs. Mellett. Hardesty and Baker.
PERSONAL.
Mr. Offutt said his attention has been directed to a paragraph in this morning Sentinel, alleging his repentance for having voted for the per diem bill. In response to which he wished to say he was neither "heart-broken" nor ''weeping with grief." What he had said in debate, was:If he had known that his vote for the per diem bill would be construed to commit him to voting in favor of the judge's bill, it would have changed - that vote of his. This was, perhaps, as much as he ought to say to a paper that is not an organ, and that has no political party.
RAILROAD AID.
Mr. Cowgill, from the Committee on the Judiciary, returned the bill [S. 273] in relation to the construction of railroads, and legalizing certain acts in connection therewith, and declaring the true intent and meaning of the railroad act of January 30, '50, 1873, recommending its passage.
Mr. Claypool opposed the bill.
Mr. Cowgill and Mr. Woollen supported it - the latter at some length.
Mr. Ogden proposed to amend by striking out the two first sections.
Mr. Willard proposed to amend section one by averting after the word "and completed through any county or township" these words, "before the taking effect of this act."
Mr. Brown moved ineffectually to lay the amendment on the table.
Mr. Edwards, of Lawrence, moved ineffectually to lay the bill on the table.
Mr. Ogden's amendment was then adopted - affirmative 42, negative 39, which so disposed of Mr. Willard's.
Mr. Lenfesty proposed to amend by striking out the third section.
On motion of Mr. Gregory, it was laid on the table.
And then under the power of the previous question, the bill was ordered to the third reading.
Mr. King asked and obtained leave to introduce a bill in lieu of his missing bill [No. 100] from the files of the Senate, viz: A bill [H. R. ] in relation to the laying out, altering, opening and widening of streets, alleys or highways, and providing for the appointment of commissioners for the assessment of benefits and damages, and providing for the assessment and collection of such benefits and damages, prescribing their duties and their methods of proceed-ure, and prescribing the duty of city officers in such cases, which (under a dispensation) was read twice.
On motion of Mr. Smith, the amendments heretofore applied by him to sections six and sixteen, viz: "three days before approving said report," and, "and filing a copy of said report in the office of the county recorder," were sub-mitted here and adopted; and so the bill was again finally passed the House of Representatives - yeas, 73; nays, 1.
The Senate amendments to the House amendments of the Senate bill No. 289, regulating the judges' salaries - circuit judges changed to $2,500 were concurred in.
The Senate amendments to Mr. Shirley's felony bill [339] were also concurred in.
The Senate amendments to the grand jury once a year bill [H. R. 503] (to make it "twice" a year), were not concurred in.
Also, the Senate amendments to the revenue bill, reducing the assessment to ten cents; and committees of conference were respectfully suggested.
The House then adjourned.
