AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. WOOD, by consent, introduced a bill [H. R. 329] to repeal section 47 of the act of March 10, 1852, defining felonies and providing punishment therefor. (It is the section which forbids the intermarriage with negroes.)
Mr. OFFUTT desired to submit a motion for the indefinite postponement of the bill.
The SPEAKER. It is not in order.
The bill was passed to the second reading and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
VETO OF MR. GIFFORD'S BILL.
The SPEAKER laid before the House the letter of the Secretary of State transmitting the message of Governor Baker containing the reasons for his veto of Mr. Gifford's bill, [H. R. 227] entitled: an act to provide for the payment to the township Trustees of all monies which may have been collected for either general or specific purposes, except such as may have been collected from townships for State and county revenue, and prescribing the punishment of officers failing to comply with the provisions of this act. The message was read by the clerk.
The SPEAKER. The only order for the House to make now is that the Governor's objections be entered on the journal; and the only question is this: Will the House agree to to pass the bill the Governor's objections to the contrary notwithstanding?
Mr. SHIRLEY reminded the House of his objections to the bill pending its consideration. The purpose of the bill was a good one - to enable parties who have voted railroad aid, and which has been forfeited, to divert it to the school fund. The bill was too broad in its provisions. He concurred in the reasoning of the veto message.
Mr. WOODARD said the friends of the bill would not attempt to pass it over the veto.
Mr. BRANHAM moved for indefinite postponement of the bill.
The SPEAKER. The Constitutional question must be put.
Whereupon the question was taken and the House refused ta pass the bill over Governor's objection - yeas 0, nays 87.
THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC PRINTER.
The SPEAKER now announced the second special order, to-wit: the consideration of Mr. Shirley's bills [H. R. 293 and 31,] and Mr. Billingsley's bill 290 with reference to the public printing, and the House determined to consider Mr. Shirley's bill [H. R. 293] first -(this bill being substituted by the Committee for Mr. Shirley's bill H. R. 9)it is entitled a bill to repeal an act fixing the time and mode of electing the State Printer defining his duties, fixing his compensation, etc., approved March 8, 1859, and to abolish the office of State Printer.
Mr. WOODARD supposed that there was no division of sentiment in regard to this bill, all being pledged as partizans, on both sides, to abolish this office.
Mr. SHIRLEY also desired the abolition of this office so that we can proceed to take such steps as may be expedient and wise in regard to the public printing for the future. He considered that we might be aided greatly in this matter by an examination of the laws of Ohio.The bill was finally passed the House of Representatives - yeas 86, nays 0.
Mr. WOOLLEN. I move now that a committee of five be appointed by the Speaker who shall consider these bills and the whole subject and report to the House at as early a day as they can mature their bill.
Mr. SHIRLEY would like to amend the motion so as to fix a definite time for the report; but he would not hamper the committee.
The motion was agreed to and the Speaker appointed Messrs. Woollen, Hardesty, Tulley, Eward, and Shiriey, to serve as such committee.
NEWSPAPERS FOR THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.
Mr. WOOLLEN from the Special Committee consisting of Messrs. Woollen, Wilson of Ripley, and Wood, to whom was referred the page: 320[View Page 320]whole subject of Newspapers for the General Assembly, reported a recommendation that the message from the Senate announcing the non-concurrence of that body in the House concurrent resolution against an appropriation for newspapers, be laid on the table; and he reported also a substitute for his bill [H. R. 315] entitled a bill for an act supplemental to an act fixing the per diem arid mileage of members of the General Assembly, and providing that they shall provide their own stationery, approved December 19, 1872,and providing that no additional perquisites shall be allowed;the reported substitute therefor being entitled a bill [H. R. 330] for an act supplemental to an act fixing the per diem, and mileage of members of the General Assembly and providing that they shall provide their own stationery, approved December 19, 1872,and providing that the State Librarian shall furnish ink to be used by members in their seats.
It was passed to the second reading.
Mr. OFFUTT. I would like to know what has become of the concurrent resolution of the House for a declaration that we will not vote for a specific bill with an item to pay for newspapers? and the Senate message reporting the refusal of that body to concur?
The SPEAKER. I think the resolution never went to the Special Committee. - It's on the table.
Mr. OFFUTT. I do not like the shape this matter is taking, neither do I believe it is according to the sense of the House. There was a resolution submitted by the gentleman from Ripley [Mr. Wilson,] adopted by the House and non-concurred in by the Senate, that we would not vote for a bill having an item of appropriation for newspapers here, and pending that the gentleman from Johnson [Mr. Woollen] introduced his supplemental bill. The Speaker announced thereupon that the whole subject was referred to the Special Committee. I did not so understand the action of the House; and now it seems to me we ought to have a vote on that resolution. For if there was anything understood by me in that matter, it was that the per diem bill cut off all perquisites - not a gentleman whom I have consulted but understood it in that way. Now suppose this bill introduced now by this Special Committee be passed by the House, what effect will that have on the other branch? I undertake to say it will have no effect whatever. Gentlemen may take their own course in this matter, and I will take mine. But I am not in favor of allowing this resolution of the gentleman from Ripley to be shut out in this way; and I say it is right and proper that we should have a vote on it. I am ready to pledge myself to vote against every specific bill that has in it an item to pay for newspapers furnished here. I want to vote on this subject now ; and regarding it as the question now before the House unfinished yesterday, I renew the motion, that the House adheres to that concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman can move to take that message from the table.
Mr. OFFUTT. I make that motion.
Mr. WOOLLEN. The act that we passed does not cut off the furnishing of newspapers; and it is not worth while for us to say that it does; for it does not, though it might be understood in that way; but it does not do it. The bill is, that members shall furnish their own stationery, without cost to the State therefor. Now we all understood that that bill would cut off newspapers. That was the general understanding. That is the way I explained it to my constituents when I went home; and now, gentlemen here subscribe for newspapers on their own account. But now, when our resolution goes into the Senate, they refuse to concur in it, because they say it would violate their contract with the newspaper publishers - for in matter of law they have the right to do as to them may seem to be expedient. But if this bill were to pass the House and the Senate, that would be an end, by law, of all contracts for furnishing newspapers for members of the General Assembly. But to take up this resolution, and press its consideration would not amount to anything. It seems to me also, that the resolution undertakes to construe the law against the very terms of the law; and if it were passed a dozen times, it would still have the terms of the law as they are now. But let us rather consider and pass this bill; and then, if the Senate should refuse to pass our bill, and it becomes necessary for us to get up an issue with the Senate on this matter,why then the indignation of the gentleman from Hancock (Mr. Offutt) can have full play - and I will help him. I thing that we should not insist on any conference on this matter, unless it becomes absolutely necessary.
Mr. WOODARD. It was my understanding at the time, that the per diem bill cut off everything; and that is my understanding of the intention to-day. But I know now, that under a strict construction it will not express that; and therefore I think the best thing will be to pass this bill. While the Senate may have the advantage of us in the law as enacted, we have got the advantage of them in the matter of appropriation. It is not right that we should have constructive fees here.
Mr. COBB. This was a concurrent resolution, and, the other House refusing to concur it is dead to all intents and purposes.
Mr. COWGILL. My understanding when we passed the per diem bill was, that it provided the only pay we should have. That was my understanding, or I should not have voted for it. And now seeing the constructions which gentlemen desire to place upon it. I am emphatically in favor of the repeal of the law.
page: 321[View Page 321]But why increase our pay by voting ourselves papers? and I confess that I have not been able to find authority for doing anything of that kind. - All I desire by this resolution is to express our understanding of the per diem bill; so that the Senate may have notice that if they make a contract for newspapers they may expect this body to refuse to help them to carry out the contract. I am in favor of passing this resolution also because it places a just construction on the law and declares our understanding in regard to it.
Mr. RICHARDSON. The resolution will not cure the defect; nothing short of the bill will cure it. We have but just now passed an enrolled act appropriating $125,000 for Legislative expenses; and if the Senate have a mind to do so they can pay for these newspapers out of that.
Mr.MELLETT. It is true that the per diem bill cuts off stationery, and my understanding is, that it was under this item of "stationery" that all our extra allowances were made, including the pocket knives; and I wish to show the House another thing for the benefit of gentlemen who have not had experience of these drawings of extras.(He held in his hand a cork-screw, and under difficulties about the working of the rusty springs made a fair exhibition of the instrument to the indignant benches.)The idea of drawing such an article of "stationery" as that for the benefit of our constituents, or for the purpose of benefiting legislation! Now sir, in view of this, I am in faver of passing the pending resolution, and I am also in favor of the bill of the gentleman from Johnson (Mr. Woollen.) This word "stationery" includes almost everything; for if it included that, (the cork-screw) it would include anything. (A voice"Greenbacks.") Yes; it included their greenbacks also - anything you may see fit to apply it to. And when the per diem bill was introduced, I thought it would cut off these anythings ; and since it has not yet had the desired effect, I am in favor of construing the act for the benefit of our brethren in the other end of the building. And since gentlemen in the other end have become so very indignant as to our estimation of this matter of voting themselves allowances, let us test them and see whether their indignation was sincere.
Mr. TULLEY. I am decidedly in favor of adhering to this resolution, and I hope it will not be passed over this time.
The SPEAKER. The question is: Will the House take up the message from the Senate? (It was decided in the affirmative on a division - affirmative 48, negative 32.) The message will be read.
The message was read by the Clerk, announcing the Senate's refusal to concur in Mr. Wilson's concurrent resolution.
Mr. OFFUTT. I now renew the motion submitted yesterday by the gentleman from Ripley (Mr. Willson) that the House adhere to that resolution; and on that I desire to make a few remarks. I fell that, perhaps, I have already said more on this question than I ought to say, but it is a question in which I feel an interest. I feel that if I did not adhere to this resolution - that, as a member of this House after we have said and done what we have on this per diem bill that if I should now vote for newspapers or stationery, it would place me in a false position. I know that there is no view of this matter that could have induced me to vote for that bill, had I not understood that it cast off all perquisites. I believe there is no controversy about tha not a man on the floor but understood it so at that time. There is but a single voice opposed to saying that was the proper construction of the law. Now, after all thisin the light of all these facts - I ask gentlemen if they can vote for an appropriation to pay for newspapers? It is said by the gentleman from Gibson (Mr. Buskirk) that the act does not cut off newspapers. I undertake then to say that there never was a statute that authorized the taking of newspapers here unless it was that provision which authorizes "stationery" for members. Then, if "stationery" is cut off, does it not follow that newspapers are cut off also ? But now; irrespective of all this, I undertake to say : that there is no pleading, no answer, no argument that ought to stand against the plain understanding of members who voted for the per diem bill. It is time enough to construe a law when it comes into court, arid before a judge who had nothing to do with the making of it; and it comes with a bad grace for a gentleman - a member of the House of Representatives - to stand here and allege that this law does not cut off newspapers, when we all know that in the estimates and calculations submitted on this floor at the time as to the comparative expense of the Legislature under the old law and the per diem bill, they all included the item of newspapers. They argued that the per diem bill would make no increase of the pay of members, but only proposed a different mode of payment. It was urged also by the gentleman from Gibson that this resolution is an interference with the rights of the Senate - that they have a right to take the newspapers at the public expense, but, fortunately for justice, they can't make an appropriation for these papers unless the House concur. I propose to stand by the law, as I voted for it. Again, it has been said that a vote on this resolution will not settle this question - that it will come up again in the future; and hence it is urged that we must pass the bill introduced by the21 page: 322[View Page 322] gentleman from Johnson, (Mr. Woollen.) But I can't see it yet quite in that light. I am in favor of the bill, and I mean to vote for it; but what I mean to say is this: that a vote on this bill, and its passage will not settle the question so far as this session is concerned, and I want the question settled for this session. Then after we shall have decided this question for this session, by the adoption of this resolution - then I shall be ready and willing to vote for the bill introduced by the gentleman from Johnson. I insist also that we may properly vote for this resolution and it seems to me that we ought to do it at once. It seems to me that we would stultify ourselves if we did not. And I can't conceive how it is that gentlemen will vote for allowing papers for Senators, while refusing them to themselves. For I undertake to say that any gentleman on this floor, is the peer of any Senator ; and that if it is right and proper for members of the Senate to have these papers, then it is right and proper for every member of this House to have them: and while I am not in favor of voting them to ourselves, I am not in favor of voting them for the other end of the capitol. Gentlemen may take their own course ; and gentlemen may talk about the expression of my indignation ; it is not mine, but the indignation of the people; because I have no indignation in the matter. It is my sense of right and justice in opposition to this thing ; my judgment tells me it is wrong; and whether gentlemen consider it indignation or not, I shall pursue this course. My mind is made up. I want to go upon the record, and I want every gentleman in the House to go upon the record, in reference to this matter. I know that to vote for the newspapers either in the House or Senate will not meet the approbation of the people. When I went home I was confronted with the question : Why did you increase your pay ? And I undertook to show the people that the per diem bill was no increase of pay ; that under the practice before that, we received what amounted to about eight dollars per day that we received so much then indirectly; whereas now we receive that amount directly. And, sir, I insist that, if that is the law, and members will still vote themselves newspapers under the item of "stationery," it will not meet the approbation of the people. Mr. CLARK. When I voted on that per diem bill I did not understand that it excluded newspapers. I thought it was cutting oil simply what we get from the Secretary of State. I did believe then that the law will bear the construction put upon it - that it allowed gentlemen to vote themselves newspapers. Not that it is right, therefore, but as a matter of comity toward the Senate, it seems to me that the House might retire from its action on this resolution. And there is another thing: the Senators here voted themselves these statutes; and we have got them also; and my understanding of that matter was, that we are to keep them.
Mr. COBB. I have been at a loss to understand the position of the House as to this concurrent resolution; but I think I understand it now. We passed a concurrent resolution here; and the Senate refuses to concur, and they have sent it back; then we pass it over again; and then it becomes good law. That being now my clear understanding I demand the previous question.
There was a second to the demand for the previous question and the main question was ordered viz : Will the House adhere to tin concurrent resolution ? and the question was decided in the affirmative yeas 74, nays 9 - so the House of Representatives adhered to the concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER now again pursued the call of the House by counties and districts for
NEW PROPOSITIONS.
Mr. HOLLINGSWORTH introduced a bill [H. R. 331] to amend sections 6, 7, 11, 12, and 19 of the act in relation to the granting of divorce, and the nullification of marriage, and the orders of court in relation thereto, approved May 13, 1852, and to repeal the 22nd section of that act. It was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. LENT submitted a preamble and resolution (which was adopted) reciting the recommendation of the late Governor for the care and treatment of the Insane and the division of the State into three districts for that purpose, and instructing the Committee on the Benevolent Institutions to consider and procure estimates of the cost of carrying out said recommendations; and report by bill or otherwise.
Mr. BAXTER introduced a bill [H. R. 332] to authorize the enlargement of the House of Refuge for juvenile offenders, and make appropriation therefor. (It propose $55,000 to be expended under the direction of the board of control - so as to accommodate at least 400 inmates. It was referred to the Committee on the Reformatory Institutions.
A message from the Governor in writing was received at the hand of Mr. Downey his private Secretary.
Mr. WOOLLEN introduced a bill [H. R. 333] concerning the granting of divorces was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. GLASGOW introduced s bill [H. R. 334] to repeal the act in relation to the tax of land in towns and cities, approved June 18, 1852. It was referred to the Committee on Cities and Towns.
The House then adjourned till to-morrow
