THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
FOURTEENTH VOLUME.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
The Newspaper Question. --- Debate in Continuation.
IN SENATE.
TUESDAY, January 14, 1873.[Morning Session.]
[CONTINUED FROM TOP OF PAGE 38.]
PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS
Mr. GLESSNER presented a petition from citizens of Shelby county asking for a modification of the gravel road law.
Mr. STEELE presented a memorial from citizens of Rush county praying for the modification or repeal of the law authorizing counties and townships to aid in the construction of railroads.
They were referred to the appropriate committees.
Mr. RHODES moved ineffectually to suspend the rules to take up the bill [H. R. 8] to prevent hunting or shooting on enclosed grounds.
THE NEWSPAPERS AGAIN.
The House resolution declaring against any appropriation for newspapers was taken up.
Mr. BROWN moved to amend by inserting after the words newspapers the words "for the use of the House of Representatives.".
Mr. DITTEMORE thought the House displayed a great deal of cheek in presuming to dictate to this end of the capitol in this matter. They could very cheerfully last session vote themselves fifty dollars worth each of stationery and stamps, amounting to some $5,000, and it comes with a very bad grace from them to declare that this body shall not incur an expense of eight or nine hundred dollars for newspapers.
Mr. BROWN thought this was a matter which each house was competent to settle for itself, and without interference by the other.
Mr. DWIGGINS moved as a substitute for the amendment, to insert after the word "Resolved" these words, "by the House of Representatives, the Senate concuring therein," and also to strike out the words "this House" and insert "neither the House nor the Senate."
Mr. GLESSNER moved to lay the substitute on the table.
It was laid on the table by a vote of 26 to 19.
Pending the roll call -
Mr. BROWN, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote said: Several days ago the House of Representatives placed a construction on the per diem act, that it was not lawful under it to purchase newspapers for members at the expense of the State, and last evening we placed a construction on thatper diem law entirely different. We said, and I think showed sense and wisdom by it, that newspapers are not a subject embraced within page: 293[View Page 293] the meaning of the word "stationery." Now that the House of Representatives finds the Senate's construction is different from that of the House it comes in and tells us that it wants us to understand distinctly that it will vote for no appropriation for these papers. For one I shall not stand dictation coming from the House of Representatives or anywhere else.
Mr. DWIGGINS, in explanation of his vote, when his name was called said : This resolution comes from the House of Representatives as a request, and it is nothing more than a request. I think the Senator from Jackson, [Mr. Brown,] does the House great injustice. It is composed of Hon. gentlemen, representing the interests of the State. It has sent over here in a proper manner a resolution couched in proper terms and carefully worded. Now the postage stamps that go on these papers the Senate voted to contract for yesterday afternoon will amount to $244; but Senators say we are voting these postage stamps to our constituents and not to ourselves. Here is a law in which it is provided that Senators shall not vote postage stamps to themselves. I want to know if I have a right to ask that the Senate shall vote to one of my constituents a house and lot? Certainly not. Then by what right if we can't vote a thousand dollar house and lot to one of my constituents, can we vote to our constituents our share of postage stamps? We have a statute providing that we shall not vote these postage stamps and yet we go on and vote them! If we do that what kind of respect will the people of the State have for the enactments of this Legislature, when they see us violating our own acts ourselves? We have said we will not vote any money to pay for postage stamps by solemn act of this body at the last session, and I am therefore opposed to it.
Mr. FULLER, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said: I desire to say that I wan't to carry out in good faith all the laws passed at the last session, and therefore I vote "no" on this question.
Mr. GLESSNER, when his name was called, said: I desire to say a word in explanation of my vote. I believe every Senator will agree with me that it is better for the Senate to do no foolish thing. If we pass this resolution it would be a useless thing. This Senate would be saying that it will make no appropriation to pay for newspapers contracted for on a previous day. Yesterday the Senate by solemn act passed a resolution directing the doorkeeper of the Senate to procure a certain number of newspapers to be distributed by Senators. That resolution was duly canvassed and adopted, and newspapers in pursuance of h at resolution have been furnished to the Senate. Now will we say by a resolution passed to-day that we will make no provision for the payment for newspapers furnished under this former contract? I know that this Senate will not do that. I know that the Senate will at the proper time through its presiding officer, take the necessary steps to carry out this contract in good faith; then to adopt this substitute intimating that the Senate will not do so, is saying to the country and to ourselves a thing we do not intend to do. Indeed it would be repudiation - it would be repudiating a contract we made solemnly when understanding ourselves and in a contract we have in part received the consideration for. It was the understanding of members of the Senate yesterday when the resolution for these papers was adopted that it was not an evasion of the law, neither was it obnoxious to the provision of the law. It was to furnish copies of the proceedings of this Legislature to the people out of whose pockets the expenses of legislation is paid. It was passed for the benefit of the men who furnish the money to pay for it. I don't see how any Senator can put a construction upon this law that we are appropriating a certain sum of money for our own benefit; it is for the benefit of the people from whom the mone} is derived.
Mr. GREGG, when his name was called, said: I want to give one reason in explanation of my vote. I understand the opposition to an appropriation for newspapers is based upon the theory that it is in violation of a law passed during the special session, the language of that law being that we will not appropriate any stationery to ourselves. Now, Mr. President I do not want to cast a vote in violation of law, and I won't do that thing if I know how to avoid it. In making up my mind on the subject I have to give to it the construction I think the law justly bears. In arriving at the proper construction of the law as to whether newspapers are stationery, I need but cite the practice and custom of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Now I undertake to say it has been decided at every session of the General Assembly by a fair construction of other acts that newspapers compose no part of stationery. Last session we passed a resolution oppropriating $20 worth of stationery to each Senator, and there was not a single Senator who believed that newspapers were a part of his stationery, for surely he drew all the stationery, and had the newspapers with stamps on them in addition; neither did the members of the House of Representatives put the construction upon the $50 worth of stationery, that they were to pay for their papers out of that $50. As to the question of stamps we do not appropriate the stamps on these newspapers, we simply appropriate the newspapers stamped. The newspaper men fold and stamp the papers, and we take the papers folded and stamped, and that never has been included in the stationery account in either branch of the Legislature; therefore I conclude it is no violation of this law and I vote "aye."
page: 294[View Page 294]Mr. HARNEY, when his name was called, made an explanation which was not heard at this Reporter's table. He held to a strict construction of the law and voted "no."
Mr. HOUGH, when his name was called, said: I don't want to consume the time of the Senate in making unnecessary explanations, but, desire to give some reasons for my vote. I do not understand that the resolution of the House of Representatives is intended to intimidate us. I understand there is a legal reason why we ought not and cannot pass that resolution, and why we ought not and cannot vote for the amendment offered by the Senator from Jasper [Mr. Dwiggins,] on yesterday. I voted from the beginning with those who voted against taking the papers, and I should again if that question were an open one, but the sense of this body was evidenced by the passage of a resolution authorizing the doorkeeper to make a contract for newspapers, and that resolution stands now upon a motion to reconsider. I understand that we can do nothing inconsistent with that act during this session, and the only manner in which we can undo that thing is upon a motion to reconsider. [In reply to an inquiry by Mr. Chapman, he said :] It does not matter whether a contract has been made or not.
The PRESIDENT, [interposing.] With the permission of the Senator I will say that the contract has been made.
Mr. HOUGH. Can we reconsider that resolution? I think not. Can we concur in the resolution sent here by the House of Representatives without acting inconsistently with the resolution we adopted yesterday? I think not. And I shall vote to table the substitute in order to have the resolution from the House in its original shape so that we may return it, advising them that we cannot concur therein for the reason that on yesterday we adopted a resolution inconsistent with it.
Mr. NEFF, in explanation of his vote when his name was call said: I was not here yesterday when the Senate voted to take these papers, if I had been I would have voted against subscribing or making a contract for them. I believe it was understood generally amongst Senators when the per diem bill was passed, and used as one of the arguments for its passage, that it would cut off statutes, newspapers, postage stamps, paper, pens and ink, and everything that members have been heretofore getting in lieu of a competent salary for their services. I do not believe, as some Senators believe, that the House of Representatives in sending in the resolution we are now acting upon intended it as a menace, or as a threat that unless this body undid what it did on yesterday the House would refuse to vote to pay for papers that this body has ordered. As far as relates to the contract by the doorkeeper it matters not whether he has a contract with them or not. We have an undoubted right after voting to take papers, at a subsequent time to say we will take them no longer. I don't understand that a contract made yesterday is perpetual, but I understand that this body can at any time during its session change its action in reference to that matter. I am opposed to taking these papers for the good reason that they are used for the purpose of advancing our own interests and not the interests of the people. I know Senators say we should take the papers in order that our constituents may be advised of what we are doing. In my county there are 5,200 voters and suppose I should send eight copies of these papers a day to my constituents, how many of them would ascertain what I have been doing? 8 out of the 5,200 would get the knowledge and the balance of the 5,200 would have no idea unless they took the papers for themselves. It is unjust to make the many pay for papers for the benefit of a few. And who do we send them to? To the wealthy men, and the influential men - men who will advance our personal interests - and not to the poor men who are unable to take them. I am opposed to that kind of a thing. Besides, unless you send these 8 papers to eight persons all the time, they can get no knowledge of the legislation going on. Send a paper to A today, and B to-morrow, and what knowledge can they get? None whatever.
The PRESIDENT, [interposing.] The Chair will inform the Senator from Randolph [Mr. Neff,] that the question is upon paying for papers and not on the propriety of taking them.
Mr. NEFF. These reasons I think are sufficient to govern me in voting against laying this motion on the table.
Mr. ORR, in explanation of his vote, said he did not believe the House designed any disrespect in sending over this resolution. The other end of the capitol has put a different meaning upon the bill passed last session from the Senate, for the Senate has decided that newspapers stamped or newspapers without stamps is not stationery. I conceive we have no more right to vote ourselves newspapers stamped than we have to vote ourselves gold watches or gold headed canes.
Mr. WILLIAMS made the point of order that this debate is not of the character recognized by parliamentary law. No reference should be made to the action of the other House.
The PRESIDENT. The point of order is well taken.
Mr. ORR. Under the circumstances I shall vote "no."
Mr. SLEETH, in explanation of his vote when his name was called, said: I did not have an opportunity to vote upon this question yesterday. It is enough for me to know page: 295[View Page 295] BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.295that a majority of this Senate passed a resolution to take a certain number of these papers at a certain price. That proposition has been accepted by the newspaper establishments and they have entered upon a compliance with the contract. I could not regard it other than dishonest and dishonorable having got part of the consideration to break the contract. Though I should have voted against the proposition yesterday, for these reasons I vote "aye" now.
Mr. STEELE, when his name was called, said: I made the motion to take up this matter in order that Senators who were complaining of not being present yesterday might have an opportunity of recording their votes for or against the proposition. In addition to that I have signified that I am willing to concur in resolution of the House from the fact that I do not consider it a reflection upon the Senate. But with this amendment we are asked to say that we will not pay for papers we have received. Shall we do it gentlemen? If we receive papers are we not under obligation to pay for these papers that we have ordered to be laid on our tables? If we are we should not vote for this amendment because it declares in general terms that we will not pay for papers furnished.
Mr. NEFF. [interposing.] Was it not a subscription from day to day?
Mr. STEELE. I do not understand that to be the force of the contract. I think the amendment should go to the table. I vote "aye."
Mr. WADGE, in explanation of his vote when his name was called, said: I shall vote to lay upon the table if for no other reason than that I do not recognize the right of the House of Representatives to send a resolution in here saying what position we shall take and what we shall not. I look upon it as almost amounting to presumption on their part to send in a resolution of that character. From a body of men who have for 40 days voted themselves $50 worth of stationery, while the Senate voted $20 worth, it comes with poor grace. I protest against it.
The vote was then announced - yeas 26; nays 19 - as above recorded.
So the substitute amendment was laid on the table.
Mr. BROWN then withdrew his amendment, and moved that the Senate respectfully refuse to concur in the House resolution. He subsequently withdrew this motion, and the vote was taken directly on the question of concurrence, resulting, yeas 18, nays 26. So the resolution was not concurred in.
The Senate then took a recess until two o'clock.
