THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
FOURTEENTH VOLUME.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
The Newspaper Question --- Debate in Continuation.
IN SENATE.
MONDAY, January 13, 1873.Hon. CHARLES W. CHAPMAN, a Senator for the counties of Kosciusko and Whitley, and the Hon. WILLIAM R. HOUGH, a Senator the counties of Henry and Hancock, appeared in their seats.
Mr. DITTEMORE. I rise to a question of privilege. I have been informed that in the proceedings of the Joint Convention last Saturday afternoon. I was represented by the Secretary as being present and not voting for directors of the northern and southern prisons. Such sir, is not the case. If the record of the vote shows that, it is untrue. I was not in the Hall of the House of Representatives after the vote for State Librarian had taken place, at no time from that time on to the adjournment. For what purpose, sir, it was intended to represent me in that light, I do not know.
Mr. DWIGGINS. I would like to ask the Senator if he was not present in the Joint Convention, where was he?
Mr. DITTEMORE. I absented myself, sir, upon my own motion. There is no person to prevent my going, and I went away on business that I don't care to make public here.
The PRESIDENT. I am informed by the Secretary that the Senator is in error. At onetime it was thought that he responded to his name, and he was marked as present and voting, but on the attention of the Secretary being called to the mistake he changed the records in accordance with the facts. After that you are marked as not voting.
Mr. DITTEMORE. I want to know if I am represented as being present and not voting?
The PRESIDENT. I don't know.
Mr. DITTEMORE. In addition I would inquire whether the journal of the Joint Convention is here. I desire to have that branch of it read.
Mr. DWIGGINS raised the point of order that the Senate having already determined that the journal shall not be read the motion is out of order.
Mr. DITTEMORE declared that he was simply making a request and not a motion. He put it in the shape of a request that the portion of the journal affecting his vote may be read.
Mr. DWIGGINS objected.
The PRESIDENT. Objection is made.
[Afternoon Session.]
[CONTINUED FROM BOTTOM OF FIRST COLUMN
PAGE 31.]
THE NEWSPAPER QUESTION.
On motion of Mr. DWIGGINS, the report of the special committee on the newspaper question was taken up. The committee reported against the furnishing of newspapers to members at the expense of the State.
Mr. DWIGGINS moved that the report be concurred.
Mr. DITTEMORE moved to lay the motion to concur on the table.
This latter motion was agreed to - yeas 20, nays 17, as follows:
page: 288[View Page 288]YEAS - Messrs. Bird, Bowman, Brown, Cave, Daugherty, Dittemore, Francisco, Glessner, Hall, Haworth, Howard, Rhodes, Ringo, Slater, Steele, Smith, Stroud, Wadge, Williams, and Mr. President - 20.
NAYS - Messrs. Beardsley, Beggs, Boone, Bunyan, Carnahan, Chapman, Daggy, Dwiggins, Fuller, Friedley of Scott, Harney, Hough, Hubbard, Oliver, Orr, Sarnighausen, Scott - 17.
Mr. DITTEMORE moved to lay the report of the committee on the table.
This motion was also agreed to by yeas 23, nays 16 - as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Bird, Bowman, Brown, Cave, Baugherty, Dittemore, Fuller, Francisco, Glessner, Gregg, Hall, Haworth, Orr, Rhodes, Ringo, Slater, Sleeth, Steele, Stroud, Wadge, Williams, and Mr. President - 23.
NAYS - Messrs, Beardsley, Beggs, Boone, Bunyan, Carnahan, Chapman, Daggy, Dwiggins, Harney, Hough, Howard, Hubbard, Miller, Oliver, Sarnighausen, and Scott - 16.
Pending the roll call -
Mr. CARNAHAN, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote said: I am opposed to taking newspapers from beginning to end; for I know these papers rarely ever reach our constituentsat least those living in distant parts of the State; and even if they do the proceedings of the Legislature is published in the county papers, and the papers sent out from the Legislature are never read. I consider the whole thing is for nothing but buncomb; and therefore I am opposed to taking the newspapers. Then I am opposed to the proposition for another reason: we have at the session heretofore taken papers that did not publish one sentence of the proceedings of the Legislature, and if we do that I think we might as well subscribe for every paper in the State. I would be glad to have one paper representing each political party provided they report our proceedings correctly, but we see that is being done in a meagre manner, therefore I am willing to exclude the whole thing. If we want papers let us go and buy such as we want.
Mr. ORR, when his name was called, said: By way of explanation I must say that as I understand the details of the bill I differ with the report of the committee. I can't conceive for a moment that newspapers are embraced in the word "stationery" and I agree with my friend the Senator from Posey [Mr. Carnahan] not to take any of the papers that publish none of the proceedings of this body. I think we are doing violence to strict economy by taking newspapers that do not report the proceedings of this Senate; but I believe we should send to our constituents newspapers containing our action. I believe it would be acting right to take the papers of this city publishing our proceedings and send them to our constituents, so I shall have to vote to lay the report on the table.
Mr. SCOTT, when his name was called, said: In explanation of my vote I will say that I admit it requires a liberal construction to include newspapers in the word "stationery" and the Committee is fully justified in assuming that position. I think our report is right for it don't require any greater stretch of imagi-ation to call newspapers stationery, than to say that soft soap is stationery, and blacking, and looking-glasses, and towels. I wonld be glad to have newspapers myself but lawfully and properly I don't expect to have any. All these little perquisites voted heretofore I understand was cut off by the bill passed last session. I did not understand that when we voted to refuse to supply ourselves with stationery as individuals, we meant to refuse to supply ourselves with stationery as a Senate. Newspapers are a matter for our own private finances. A subscription for them don't help the State any that I know of. For that reason I am opposed to laying this resolution on the table.
Mr. SLATER, when his name was called in explanation of his vote said it would take a very liberal construction of this law to say that newspapers are stationery. At the time this law was under consideration some Senator moved to include newspapers, and it was voted down.
Mr. STEELE, in explanation of his vote when his name was called said: Our people want papers as far as I have conversed with them. It can't be claimed that members desire these papers folded and stamped because they make any use of them except to send them broadcast over the country. The taxpayers in my county desire this to be done. It is at their expense and I don't think we should deny them. I will vote for no other kind than those prepared to be sent out; though I don't think papers are stationery.
The vote was then announced as above recorded - yeas 23, nays 15.Mr. BROWN moved to reconsider the vote just taken and to lay this motion on the table.
The latter motion was agreed to by yeas, 21: nays, 19.
Mr. WADGE attempted to offer a resolution but the point was raised by Mr. Dwiggins that it was put of order, and the Chair sustained the point.
Mr. BROWN then moved that the rules be suspended for the reception of the resolution, which prevailed and the resolution was handed to the Secretary.
Mr. DWIGGINS moved to adjourn.
Mr. PRESIDENT Friedley, [Mr. Daggy in the Chair,] raised the point of order that the motion was out of order, as the resolution was already in the hands of the Secretary.
The Chair overruled the point. The Senate refused to adjourn by yeas 13, nays 23.
The resolution was read as follows:
Resolved, That the Doorkeeper be hereby directed to place one copy of the Indianapolis Journal and one copy of the Indianapolis
page: 289[View Page 289]Sentinel on the desk of each Senator each morning.
Mr. GLESSNER offered a substitute striking out one and inserting three copies each of the Daily Journal and Daily Sentinel - two to be properly wrapped.
Mr. FULLER made an ineffectual motion to lay the substitute on the table.
Mr. DWIGGINS made an ineffectual motion yeas 15, nays 25, to adjourn.
Mr. BROWN moved to amend the substitute by striking out the work "two" and inserting the word "four," and adding at the end the words "and stamped."
At the suggestion of Mr. Steele, Mr. Brown-added the words "provided it be done for five cents a copy." Before yielding the floor he demanded the previous question.
Mr. SARNIGHAUSEN applied to the Senator from Jackson [Mr. Brown] to include four copies of the Daily Telegraph and the Volksblatt.
The previous question was seconded by the Senate.
The amendment [Mr. Brown's] was agreed to by yeas, 21, nays, 19, as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Beggs, Bird, Bowman, Brown, Carnahan, Cave, Daugherty, Dittemore, Francisco, Glessner, Gregg, Hall, Rhodes, Ringo, Slater, Smith, Steele, Stroud, Wadge, Williams and Mr. President - 21.
NAYS - Messrs. Armstrong, Beardsley, Boone, Banyan, Chapman, Daggy, Dwiggins, Fuller, Friedley of Scott, Harney, Haworth, Hough, Howard, Hubbard, Miller, Oliver, Orr, Sarnighausen, and Scott - 19.
Pending the roll call -
Mr. DWIGGINS, when his name was called in explanation of his vote said: This is but an opening wedge. The law passed last session includes postage stamps, and if we are going to pass a law one day and violate it the next, what respect will the people have for this legislature? Senators have got their three dollars a day extra and let them buy their papers. I am opposed to making a record by passing a law saying we shall not have postage stamps and then turn round and take them. The papers which are sent away by Senators do not reach their constituents until they are stale. By the adoption of this resolution, Senators will appropriate to themselves 8 cents worth of postage stamps each day. This was but the opening wedge to further evasions of the law.
Mr. WADGE rose to a question of privilege. He desired to know whether when the gentleman spoke of the opening wedge, he meant any personal allusion to him. If so, he wanted the words taken down. [Laughter.]
Mr. GREGG, when his name was called in explanation of his vote said: I think I have promised my people all the papers this resolution will call for and more too. I shall vote for this resolution and accept the construction given by the Senator from Jackson [Mr. Brown,] that I vote them for my constituents: for I know they desire to have the papers and read the proceedings. I do not believe the news in these papers is very valuable, but I do think the report of the doings of the General Assembly is valuable to the people. It has long been the custom to subscribe for these papers and I have always voted for them with the understanding that it was in part consideration of a proper report of our proceedings ; not in the few papers sent out from this hall but in the papers run off and sent out by these publishers. If we cut them off, these papers would use their own pleasure as to what kind of a report they will make.
Mr. DWIGGINS. (interposing.) I would like to know if these subscriptions influence the reports at all.
Mr. GREGG. I am making a statement of what I believe to be the fact. If we compensate these newspaper men so they give a full report of our proceedings the thousands of papers they send out communicate to every quarter of the State every act we do. And it is a wholesome and proper restraint upon our action. I believe the amount of money will be richly repaid to the people in the way of wholesome restraint.
Mr. HARNEY in explanation of his vote when his name was called said: This is nothing more than a largess to newspapers. What does a few papers amount to distributed over the State by members here? They are distributed as a kind of a memento. I have thought this session would be the proper time to change the precedent. We have for many years had the BREVIER REPORTS - if they could be circulated over the State they would be much more effective. I would prefer waiting for the Committee appointed on that subject to report whether it is not practical to have the BREVIER REPORTS printed and circulated as these papers. Several years ago the papers of this city published something like a full page of proceedings every day but it has now got down to about a column a day. The reports for the papers published in Cincinnati are almost as full as the press of this city, which print merely a few items drawn along, some of them mere caricatures. Unless there is to be an understanding between the reporters and these papers as to how much they will report, and what they will report and the relation they bear to the House, I think it improper to extend a largess to these papers. I cannot see that the interests of our constituencies are subserved by sending out the few reports made in these papers. The whole thing in my opinion amounts to giving away that much to the papers. Those who are in the habit of reading do not depend upon the papers we send out for their information. He was in favor of having the BREVIER REPORTS printed and circulated from day to day.
page: 290[View Page 290]Mr. ORR, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote said: I don't admit that newspapers and stamps are stationery, yet there is something in this matter I don't like. There is no doubt but what we take these papers for a single object for electioneering purposes, as has been intimated; and I think if we take the papers we should pay for them. I think the stamp proposition is wrong, and I believe I would vote for the resolution if it didn't have postage stamps in it.
Mr. RHODES, in his explanation of his vote when his name was called said: I thought I should vote against the taking of newspapers, and I would now vote against taking newspapers for myself. As far as any desire I have to read them for my own information is concerned, I am willing to buy them; but this proposition is that this Senate shall purchase eight copies a day of the two leading journals that publish our proceedings at length for the purpose of distributing them to the people of the State. I believe that is right. I am inclined to think our constituents are suspicious of us since we have voted ourselves eight dollars a day; and if we keep them from reading our proceedings, I fear we will not raise ourselves in their estimation. Gentlemen say 8 copies will impart a small amount of information to the people. Now I sent these papers to postmasters throughout my district. There is not a neighborhood in the State but what has a postoffice and if the P. M., does his duty when he receives these papers those gentlemen who come there can ascertain what is going on here. The people can be reached in that way with fewer number of copies than is supposed by many.
Mr. SCOTT, when his name was called in explanation of his vote said: On the ground Senators take, the resolution is certainly wrong for the simple reason that while I have 40,000 people in my district, other Senators have only 10,000 and so I ought to have four times as many papers. It is not a fair divide, don't you see? It is a little too homoeopathic. Here are four papers only for 10,000 people. What a farce this thing is, the idea of voting information to our constituents! Now I'd like to know if we can't find better ground than that? I would be willing to go before my people saying I voted for laying on my desk a paper printing the proceedings of this body, but were I to say that voted for four papers for 40,000 people, every man would laugh at me. I say we disregard the construction ot the law entirely. I would like to have two papers but I don't want any more.
Mr. STEELE, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote was understood to say that he would not vote to lay these papers on the desks of Senators for their own use, but if Senators wanted to send them away he was willing to vote them for that purpose. In his neighborhood the papers were taken by prominent men and the people gathered in little groups and the papers were passed from one to another, so that many read the same copy.
Mr. WADGE, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote said he had received many letters from his constituents to whom he had sent these papers, which letters contained suggestions that were of great service to him. He was not voting these papers for himself but for the people he represented here.
Mr. CARNAHAN, after hearing the explanation of votes on both sides desired his name to be again called that he might change his vote.
The result of the vote was then announced as above recorded.
The substitute as amended was then agreed to by yeas 22, nays 18 - as follows;
YEAS - Messrs. Beggs, Bird, Bowman, Brown, Carnahan, Cave, Daugherty, Dittemore, Francisco, Glessner, Gregg, Hall, Oliver, Rhodes, Ringo, Slater, Smith, Steele, Stroud, Wadge, Williams, and Mr. President - 22.
NAYS - Messrs. Armstrong, Beardsley, Boone, Bunyan, Chapman, Daggy, Dwiggins, Fuller, Friedley, of Scott, Hartley, Haworth, Hough, Howard, Hubbard, Miller, Orr, Sarnighausen and Scott - 18.
Mr. BROWN moved to reconsider the vote just taken and to lay this motion on the table.
The latter motion was rejected - Yeas, 20: nays, 20.
The Senate adjourned till ten to-mor-row.
