HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
MONDAY, January 11, 1875.The House met at two o'clock p. m., pursuant to adjournment, and
The SPEAKER directed the Clerk to read the journal.
The journal having been read and authenticated in part -
The SPEAKER laid before the House, he Governor's invitation of officers and members of the House of Representatives to attend a reception at his residence this evening, at 8 o'clock. Also a communication page: 26[View Page 26] from the Board of Trade of Indianapolis announcing that, by an order of that body, the officers and members of the House of Representatives are made honorary members of that Board for 1875.
The SPEAKER announced the Doorkeeper's appointment of John L. F. Slate, Assistant Postmaster of the House of Representatives. Also the Speaker's Page, and Lewis Costar, floor page.
STANDING COMMITTEES.
The SPEAKER announced the Standing Committees of the House of Representatives, as follows:
On Elections - Messrs. Willett, chairman, Arnold, Gossman, Horn, Harris of Wayne, Favorit and Lincoln.
On Ways and Means - Messrs Caldwell, chairman, Margin of Boone, Pate, Roseberry, Darnall, Fulk and Trusler.
On the Judiciary - Messrs. Davis, chairman, Martin of Wells, Burson, Havens, Forkner, Glassgow and Kennedy of Montgomery.
On Organization of Courts of Justice - Messrs. Burson, chairman, Martin of Wells Collins, Heller, Glassgow, Forkner and Shortridge.
On BanksMessrs. Gilbert, chairman, Reno, Snyder, Walz, Ames, Anderson, and Bearss.
On Education - Messrs. Havens, chairman, Bence, Hopkins, Walz, Shaffer, Ratcliff and Glassgow.
On Affairs of State Prisons - Messrs. Heller, chairman, Bellow, Leeper, Davis, Evans, Shaffer and Glassgow.
On Swamp Lands - Messrs Burson chairman, McMicheal, Brown of Jasper, Emerson, Marven of Fountain, Haynes and Heighway.
On Military Affairs - Messrs. Kennedy of Marion, chairman, Cantly, Harris of Madison, Johnson of Carroli, Charters, Clark and Crumpacker.
On Claims - Keightley, chairman, Barney, Davidson, Bellows, Dale, Harper, and Miller of Vanderburg.
On Trust Funds - Messrs. Brown of Rush, Crane, Edwards, Gilbert, Jackson, Kennedy of Morgan and Lanharn.
On Fees and Salaries - Messrs. Davidson, chairman, Bellows, Ramsey, Meginity, Pfafflin, Miller of Park and Shugart.
On Sinking Funds - Messrs. Ramsey, chairman, Martin of Franklin, Miller of Brown, Montgomery, Morgan, McFadden and Ratcliff.
On Rights and Privileges of the Inhabitants of the State - Messrs. Thompson of Marion, McCord, Nash, Osborne, Woody, Wynn and Thomas.
On Railroads - Messrs. Crane, chairman, Patterson, Pyeatt, Henderson, Bearss, Taylor of Tipton and Thompson of Henry.
On Manufactures and Commerce - Messrs. Pate, chairman, Taylor of Davis, Washburn, Waterman, Williams of Lawrence, Twibill and Ribble.
On County and Township Business - Messrs. Williams of Brown, chairman, Davidson, Ramsey, Roseberry, Miller of Vanderburg, Reeder and Lanham.
On Agriculture - Messrs. Gilbert, Law, Reno, Gossman, Ragan, Thompson of Henry and Woody.
On Benevolent and Scientifice Institutions - Messrs. Marvin of Boone, Hopkins, Heller, Caldwell, Trusler, Anderson and Taylor of Tipton.
On Temperance - Messrs. Bence, chairman, Crane, Johnson of Dearborn, Johnson of Carroli, Anderson, Fulk and Williams of Lawrence.
On Mileage and Accounts - Messrs. Reno, chairman, Law, Shaw, Smith, Williams of Lawrence, Favorit and Clark.
On Corporations - Messrs. Martin of Wells, chairman, Collins, Davis, Henderson, Kennedy of Morgan, Trusler and Reeder.
On Canals - Messrs. Benee, chairman, Nash, Cantly, Marvin of Fountain, Shaffer, Shortridge and Dale.
On Public Expenditures - Messrs. Taylor of Davis, chairman, Romine, Arnold, Brown of Rush, Wynn, Jackson and Lincoln.
On Federal Relations - Messrs. Osborne, chairman, Havens, Edwards, Pyatt, Miller of Vanderburg, Wynn and Twibill.
On Affairs of the City of Indianapolis - Messrs. Patterson, chairman, McCord, Kennedy of Marion, Nash, Ragan, Morgan and Kennedy of Morgan.
On Cities and Towns - Messrs. Keightly, chairman, Barney, Reddick, Evans, McFadden, Ratcliff and Thomas.
On Roads - Messrs. Kennedy of Montgomery, chairman, Nash, Harris of Madison, Haynes, Heighway, Crumpacker and Fulk.
On Statistics and Emigration - Messrs. Walz, chairman, Horn, Marvin of Fountain, Montgomery, Pfafflin, Ragan and Miller of Parke.
On Insurance Companies - Messrs. Collins, Chairman, Havens, Johnson of Dearborn, Willett, Darnall, Harper and Brown of Jasper.
On Printing - Messrs. Leeper, Chairman, Johnson of Dearborn, Waterman, Martin of Franklin, Ames, Bearss and Charters.
On Reformatory Institutions - Messrs. Waterman, Chairman, Gossman, Osborne, page: 27[View Page 27] Snyder, Emerson, Harris of Wayne, and Shugart.
On Drains and Dykes - Messrs. Meginity, Chairman, Burson, Roseberry, Miller of Brown, Brown of Johnson, Smith and Lincoln.
On Engrossed Bills - Messrs. McMichael, Chairman, Taylor of Daviess, Reddick, Williams of Brown, Riddle, Williams of Lawrence, and Lanham.
Joint Committee on Public Library - Messrs. Johnson of Carroll, Chairman, Thompson of Marion, and Shortridge.
Joint Committee on Public Buildings - Messrs. Thompson of Marion, Chairman, Gilbert and Morgan.
Joint Committee on Canal Fund - Messrs. Waterman, Chairman, Shaw and Forkner
Joint Committee on Engrossed Bills - Messrs. Meginity, Chairman, Davidson, Reno, Edwards, Favorit, Thompson of Henry.
TEMPERANCE.
Mr. RENO submitted the following:
Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Temperance are hereby required to act jointly in the drafting of a temperance bill to regulate the sale of intoxicating liquors, according to the principles of the Democratic platform adopted in July, 1874. in the city of Indianapolis, and the recommendation of Governor Hendricks to the Legislature now assembled; and they are required to submit the result of their labors to this House at as early a period of the session as possible.
Mr. KENNEDY of Montgomery. There is at least one very serious objection to one of the recommendations of Governor Hendricks on this subject, and that is his recommendation that the buyer of liquor as well as the seller shall be punished. This, in Mr. K's opinion, would effectually suppress all evidence of the violation of any good liquor law. For example, if the selling is to a minor, according to the Governor's recommendation, the minor must be punished. But you can't make a witness of a minor. Still, in any case, if this recommendation in the Governor's message is adhered to, he would like gentlemen to tell where they will get the evidence on which to found a prosecution; for a party cannot be compelled to convict himself. He saw not how we could get along with these cases without soliciting for the witness the party which is generally regarded as the least culpable.
Mr. DAVIS. In the organization of the committees of the House, it is understood that they act independently and separately: and when you attempt to require two committees to act as one upon any given subject - I submit whether it is not an infringement upon the practice of the House, if not a violation of the rules?
The SPEAKER. It is certainly against the practice of the House; but the Chair can not say that it is a violation of the rules.
Mr. DAVIS would suggest then to his friend, the mover of the resolution [Mr. Reno,] that it would be better simply to direct his resolution to the Committee on Temperance. That committee is perhaps able to take care of the subject. The resolution is all well enough; we should perhaps, have some expression in regard to the matter, before the bill is prepared.
Mr. RENO. His object was to have the Temperance Committee get up the bill, and that its technical and constitutional intricase be considered by the Committee on the Judiciary. However he accepted the modification and called for the yeas and nays on the resolution.
The vote resulted - yeas 51, nays 48.
So the resolution was adopted.
MILITARY USURPATION IN LOUISIANA.
Mr. HAVENS submitted a motion to take up his joint resolution [H. R. 1,] on the subject of military usurpation in the State of Louisiana.
The motion was agreed to and the joint resolution was taken up and read.
Mr. CHARTERS. I move that the joint resolution be referred to the Committee on Federal Relations.
Mr. HAVENS hoped that course would not be pressed. If ever there was a time in the history of this country, when State Legislatures ought to give expression against the innovations of popular rights and civil liberty, it is such a time and such a day as that referred to in this resolution. When it was first offered last week, gentlemen said they would like to have time to consider to look into the facts,they did not want to be pressed: and the House acquiesced. But now, if gentlemen have read the correct history of the late events in New Orleans, they must be prepared to vote an expression of their views and feeling in the matter that should be heard throughout the length and breadth of the land. It is undeniable that the facts and circumstances evince that an outrage has been committed upon constitutional government. The people of Louisiana have been goaded to desperation, and may have done wrong; but there is no justification for the administration in this case. The whole case is one of simple, unvarnished history. The question at issue is so plain, that the conduct of the administration is not definable from any standpoint. When such men as William M. Evarts, and William Cullen Bryant come to the front to denounce? page: 28[View Page 28] it, as an oppression and outrage, we may well follow them. It has also been said by the Governor of Indiana, that no court, and much less, no military powers have the right to go back of the decision of a deliberative body of Representatives of the people, to say who shall or who shall not sit and deliberate as its members. He (Mr. H.) would call this transaction in Louisana a High crime and misdemeanor. One for which the administration should be held to a strict account to the people. It was not merely an outrage, but a crime against the liberties of the people. If the President had sent down his armed soldiery, and thrust out the members of this Legislature, the case would have been precisely parallel. This outrage and crime was as unexpected as it is monstrous and alarming. It simply marks the footsteps by which the Republican party proposes to retain and maintain its position and power.
Gen. Phil. H. Sheridan, says in a letter, that he was not on command on the 4th of January, and that letter has received various comments. The people of the city of New York met that night to condemn his acts and his letter, in which he asks that the people of Louisiana be denounced as but a body of white leagues and banditte. If he understood the facts, the case was the reverse of the general statement, that the people of Louisiana were worthy and law abiding citizens. But the General asks that they may be declared as banditte, and leave the rest to him and his orders of a commander, who, perhaps, is thirsting for blood.
Gen. Sheridian has been a good soldier, just as (Mr. HAVENS) himself had been in a small way, but when he asks for such a declaration and such proceedings against the people of Louisiana, he brands himself with infamy. On this question it seemed to him that there would not be found a man to stand up for and support the conduct of this administration.
Mr. CHARTERS understood that we have committees to attend to these matters, and the House should wait for their action. As to the facts alleged in the joint resolution, a large portion of us here do not believe a word of these reported outrages, and we ask but that the resolution may go through the usual forms of deliberation, that it may be referred to the proper committee and fairly considered there, and that so we may have the benefit of their deliberate report. He commended the soldierly character of Gen. Sheridan, and reminded gentlemen, that we represent here, not Louisiana, but the affairs of the people of Indiana.
Mr. TRUSLER regarded this debate as a waste of time. The time Representatives are consuming here belongs to the people of Indiana, and it seemed to him that this resolution was dragged in here for no higher purpose than to enable politicians to waste the time and money of the people by ventilations of their views of national politics. He was not here to legislate for the State of Louisiana, or to sit in judgment or pass sentence upon Gen. Grant or Gen. Sheridan. If this were our business, he could see nothing in it but good room for precious time to be squandered.
Mr. PFAFLIN. What we can understand of this matter now must be gathered only from the vague discussions of the newspapers. There is a Congressional committee on this matter not yet heard from, and he should vote that the resolution go to the committee on Federal Relations.
Mr. DARNALL was not prepared for the introduction of such a resolution so soon after the organization, especially since the speaker deprecated such propositions as unprofitable legislation. He heartily concurred in that remark in the Speaker's address, and had hoped that it would be an index to the course of the majority of this House. But there are special reasons why we should not adopt this resolution. We know not what is the state of facts in Louisiana, and we have no power, like the Congress of the United States to send a committee there. We might spend the entire session upon this question without coming to any just conclusion. One gentleman reads one class of newspapers and another reads another class, and in the end, when we compare all our notes derived from these sources of information, we shall know no more about this matter than when we began. He was as distinctly in favor of popular rights as any man, but before voting on this resolution he wanted to know from New Orleans whether they are suppressing popular rights or popular rascality. Another reason against spending time about this resolution is the very short period to which the session is limited. We all have bills requiring consideration, besides those for the general public appropriations. And if we had not these things pressing upon us, still we have not the time to do justice to such a subject as this resolution furnishes, and even if we had nothing else to do it might be better for us to let it alone. Congress has this matter properly in hand, and they have or have had a committee there in Louisiana. They are also able to take care of the case. For these reasons, as well as others that might be readily suggested, he would oppose all such propositions, and should now vote that the resolution go to the committee indicated by the motion of the gentleman from Miami, [Mr. Charters] and if the facts are page: 29[View Page 29] found to be infamous as the resolution alleges, he should vote for it.
Mr. BURSON could not understand how anything done by the people of Louisiana has anything to do with this question. This question is all in the fact that the Legislature of Louisiana, has been suppressed by the military of the United States, and the Government of the United States had no right to do that. The newspapers say that that Legislature was taken possession of by the military force of the United States. Every newspaper all over the country says that; and it is sufficient for us to know that the Representatives of the people of Louisiana have been trampled upon by the military. He was sorry to hear Republican members oppose the passage of this resolution, for, if the President intends to trample the liberties of the people under foot, they are the party to have their say about it, and the friends of Gen. Grant should be the first to denounce such an act. It is simply a question of liberty, for the rights of free Government have been trampled upon. The Republican party have set themselves up as teachers of the people. They have been the schoolmaster that taught us what liberty means; they freed four millions of negroes, and now, (he contended) it is not right - it is unjust and unworthy for these gentlemen to go back on a resolution of this kind. The resolution should not be referred.
Mr. CALDWELL. As to the waste of time deprecated by the gentleman from Howard, [Mr. Darnall,] Mr. C. undertook to say that no time of this session could be better spent than in the consideration of the resolution offered by the gentleman from Vigo, [Mr. Havens.] Do not gentlemen know that the State of Indiana has the right to instruct her Senators and Representatives in Congress in regard to such an outrage? He cared not if it take to discuss this resolution - was in favor of taking the time, - because it is one of the most important measures introduced here. Indeed, there seems to be no difference of opinion in this whole country in relation to the character of the outrage that has been perpetrated against the rights of the people of Louisiana. There has been a public meeting held in Fanuel Hall - the old cradle - and there been meetings held all over the country, in which resolutions of denunciation have been directed against that outrage. The State of Louisiana has been theater of oppressions on the part of General Government, and it is time people were freed from it. There is no better settled principle of free Government than this: That the Legislature of the people has the right to determine the election and qualification of its own members. Then is it right that such a question as that involved in this resolution should be smothered? The House should make a record to-day, one way or' the other, in regard to this matter.
Mr. CRUMPACKFR demanded the previous question but did not urge it.
Mr. KENNEDY, of Montgomery, had hoped that nothing would be thrown in here to hurt the feelings of gentlemen that ought to get along harmoniously. As has been said, we have a National Congress whose duty it is to take care of measures of this kind; the State of Indiana has an able delegation there; and he was in favor of leaving this question with them, because that body has full power to settle it, and we have not. The gentleman from Vigo [Mr. Havens] says that General Grant ought to be impeached for this business in Louisiana. In reply to that, he read a paragraph from Greeley's History of the Great Conflict, to the effect, that the Legislature of the State of Kansas, under the Free State (Lecompton) Constitution met in session on the Fourth of July r 1856, but they were not allowed to organize, Col. Sumner having dispersed them by order of President Pierce. Ought President Pierce to have been impeached for that act? But wherein was that a very different thing from this Louisiana business? In Kansas, Col. Sumner, acting under the slave-driver's whip, disperses a free State Legislature - disperses them by the military, by the direct order of President Pierce. Ought President Pierce to have been impeached for that act? No; Pierce did his duty; and Grant has done precisely what Pierce did precisely what the Constitution required him to do. He then looked into the General Constitution and read the clause which requires the National Government to guarantee to every State a republican form of Government,and that the nation should defend the State against domestic violence. Has there not been a case of domestic violence in Louisiana? That cannot be denied. It would be monstrous, then, if the President of the United States would stand aside and refuse to suppress domestic violence in Louisiana. Gentlemen forget that there was no legislative body organized in Louisiana. It was a mob that was dispersed. Who has disputed the fact that Republicans elected a majority of the Louisiana Legislature? Who has denied the fact that the Democratic members elect had not enough to organize? It was a mob then that was dispersed page: 30[View Page 30] by the military. He, as earnestly as any man, is opposed to military interference with civil power. But it is not becoming here to express sympathy with lawlessness. To do such a thing would be to ally ourselves with the lawless. He had no sympathy with those who will not submit to law. He would not vote to sensure President Grant or Philip Sheridan for what they have done in Louisiana. They have done nothing but what the defence of law and order requires. There can be no requirement for haste in this matter, and if there has been an outrage committed, it is wiser to carefully determine the facts before the censure.
Mr. FORKNER deprecated this discussion because it could have little effect on the General Government, and it was a waste of time. He however denied the allegation that there had been military in-fringment of the civil authority in Louisiana. But we do know that there was rebellion and bloodshed in New Orleans last summer - rebellion against the de facto government of Louisiana, which required the interference of the military; and here again, lately, the military were called upon to disperse men who were of the minority of the House of Representatives in Louisiana, and who were seeking to usurp the authority of the Legislature of that State. In the name of the people and of the spirit of economy, which has given so many members^their places in this House; he protested against this waste of time here, to make personal records.
Mr. MARVIN of Boone, hoped this Joint resolution would be allowed to pass to the third reading without further opposition. The Republicans had said the most - so far they had been about two to one, and he had something himself to say; but he preferred a demand for the previous question. He however withheld the demand for
Mr. LANHAM, who concurred with those who regarded this decision as a waste of time. He deprecated excitement, and hoped the resolution would be I committed. No doubt the Committee on Federal Relations were competent to the discussion of this matter, and would make a just report.
Mr. HELLER regarded the cause, of the people of Louisiana as the cause of the people of every State in the Union. Gentlemen say that this is not our business, but the business of Congress. He insisted that it was precisely a question upon which we should be heard. We know what has been done, and if there has been oppression and usurpation, it is our duty to raise our voices against it, and in favor of the sufferers.
Mr. CRUMPACKER renewed his demand for the previous question but there was no second.
Mr. KENNEDY, of Morgan, showed that, at least there could be nothing wrong in studying such a question as this before acting upon it.
Mr. DAVIS stated the facts in the organization of the Louisiana House of Representatives, detailing all the steps in that matter. Now, whether these steps were regular or irregular, what right had the military to interfere and pretend to usurp the right to decide who were members of that legislative body? That question belongs to the body itself. It was a fundamental right of self-government. The resolution states plainly the infraction of this right by the military, under the order of the President, and he was in favor of action upon it.
Mr. WOODY could not allow the occasion to pass without stating his views against the hasty action sought to be taken on this resolution. He alleged that the conservative presiding officer of the pretended body was the first to call for the interference of the military; and upon this and other matters he predicated his conclusion, that, at least, for the present, there is no pressing occasion for the resolution.
Mr. JOHNSON, of Carroll, did not want to see this resolution go to the committee. Free representative government had been broken down in Louisiana sister State, and it was not right that we should delay or hesitate to raise our voice against it.
The motion to refer was rejected, without a division; and then the joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for the third reading.
Mr. DARNALL asked and obtained leave to introduce a bill [H. R. 44] for an act to authorize the County Commissioners of their respective counties of the State to purchase all the books, stationery, etc. for their county officers and the Circuit and Inferior Courts, and to punish County Commissioners for speculating on such purchases.
Mr. MARTIN, of Wells, introduced a bill [H. R. 45] for an act to regulate and license the sale of malt, spiritous, vinous and other intoxicating liquors, prescribing penalties, modes of prosecution, and repealing all former laws on the subject.
On motion of Mr. LEEFER, it was
Resolved, That the Door-keeper be requested to make a requisition on the Sec-
page: 31[View Page 31]retary of the State to lay on the desks of members, a stock of prepared stationery, not to exceed the stock now in his office, and that the same be equally divided amongst members.
Mr. MORGAN submitted a resolution (which was adopted,) directing the Committee on Fees and Salaries to report a bill fixing the pay of members of the General Assembly at five dollars a day, and five dollars mileage.
Mr. PFAFLIN introduced a bill [H. R. 46] for an act to authorize the United States of America to acquire title to land in the State of Indiana by condemnation, and declaring; the manner in which said condemnation shall be made.
The foregoing bills were passed to the second reading.
THE ORDER OF PRAYER.
Mr. LANHAM submitted the following:
Resolved, That a committee of five be appointed by the Speaker, whose duty it shall be to invite the resident ministers of Indianapolis to be present in this Hall, when convenient for some one of them at the opening of each day's proceedings, and when called on by the Speaker, to open the session of each day with a brief prayer.
It was adopted - Yeas 39, nays 18.
Whereupon, the SPEAKER makes the special committee to consist of Messrs. Lanharn, Williams of Brown, Johnson of Carroll, Fulk and Reno.
The House then adjourned till to-morrow morning at nine o'clock.
