HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
FRIDAY, Feb. 7,1879-- 10 a. m.The SPEAKER called the House to order, the session being opened with prayer by the representative from Hendricks county [Mr. SNODDY.]
The reading of the journal of yesterday's proceedings was read until--
On motion of Mr. SCHWEITZER the further reading was dispensed until.--
The Committee on the Judiciary returned Mr. Conner's bill [H. R. 421] for submitting the proposed constitutional amendments to the people, with amendments striking out all after the words "the first Tuesday in March," to cause to be distributed to each sheriff a sufficient number of ballots, on which shall be printed all the proposed constitutional amendments in their order; and that the governor shall issue his writ to the sheriff, stating the cause, object and the day of the election, and the sheriff shall give ten days' notice by publication, etc.
The report of the committee was agreed to.
Mr. OVERMEYER, moved that the bill be considered engrossed and put upon its passage, and demanded the yeas and nays thereon.
Mr. OSBORNE of Elkhart stood committed to the propriety of these amendments, but under the present status of the bill he was compelled to oppose its passage. He was opposed to burdening the people with the expense of a special election. He thought the people were unprepared to vote intelligently upon these amendments for the reason that they had not time to consider them. He hoped that the bill would be defeated in its present shape.
Mr. SLEETH thought the public mind fully prepared to vote intelligently, and insisted that the question should go to them as soon as possible. The question of economy prompted him to favor a speedy verdict from the people.
The yeas and nays being ordered and taken, resulted--yeas 50, nays 46.
So the bill was considered engrossed, and read the third time,
The question being, Shall the bill pass?
Mr. OVERMEYER thought the cost of a special election would be less in March next, the time fixed in the bill, than to have these elections in 1880. Ho was of the opinion that if this House was disposed to harry important measures of this kind, there would be time enough to give due notice of the election. Should the bill be passed now, it can be in the Senate by 3 o'clock this afternoon, and read the first time to-day, and on Monday could be passed that body and be submitted to the Governor of the State for his approval. The people had discussed the matter a long time, and were well informed upon the subject matter of these proposed amendments, and were as well prepared to vote upon them now as at any future time. He gave it as his judgment that there would be a full vote.
Under our present constitution we are unable to do any effectual work upon the subject of fees and salaries of county officers; and members well know that this was a subject the people are much agitated about, and demand relief, and this Legislature should give the people themselves a chance to incorporate into the organic law of their State a constitutional measure that will enable the Legislature to give them the relief they desire in this particular. He insisted that the bill now pending should pass without delay.
Mr. LEHMAN demanded the previous question, and under its operations the House of Representatives failed to pass the bill for the want of a constitutional majority--yeas 48, nays 46, as follows:
Yeas--Messrs. Arnold, of Blackford, Arnold, of Wabash, Bearss, Brown, of Steuben, Bryant, Campbell, Carey, Carter, Connoway, Conner,Copeland, Davis, Donnell,Fancher,Golden, Gordon, Herod, Hess, Hopkins, Hubbard, Kelly, Lindley, Major, March, Messick, Osborn, of Vermillion, Overmeyer, Owen, Reed, Robeson, Rodman, Robinson, Rooker, Saint, Shanks, Skinner, Sleeth, Snoddy, Stephens, Taylor, of Lagrauge, Thayer, Thornburg, Vawter, Watson, Wimmer, Works, Speaker Cauthorn, H. S.--48.
Nays--Messrs. Allen, Allen, Baker, Barker, Blockley, Briggs, Brown of Jasper, Caldwell, Compton, Confer, Cunningham, Daly, Dalton, Davidson, Drake, Drover, Edwins, English, Faulkner, Flodder, Gilbraith, Garroutte, Ginz, Handy, Hart, Hosmer, Humphreys, Huthsteiner, Kester, Lehman, Mires, Mitchell,Nave, Perry, Scholl, Schweitzer, Shauck, Shields, Stucker, Taylor of Davis, Taylor of Warrick,
page: 122[View Page 122]Thompson, Tulley, Van Pelt, Van Valzah, Willard--46.
Pending the roll call
Mr. SAINT, when his name was called, in explanation, said the vote he was about to give would be different from nearly all those of his party just cast. It was nevertheless consistent with what he had said and done on this subject. He voted against the constitutional amendments from principle, and gave this reason at the time, but a majority of this House having decided that they should be submitted to the people he did not see how he stultified himself, as had been intimated he would do, by voting for this resolution, fixing March 4 ensuing as the time for said election. It is not true that an election then will cost the State more money than in April or October, l880; for in the former case a special session of the General Assembly must be called to carry out the legislation proposed in said amendments, admitting, as any one must, that at least one or more of these amendments will be ratified by the people, and especially the one changing the October elections to November, and if that is ratified, the amount saved will be much larger than the expense of a March election. Certainly there was no inconsistency in voting for an early submission of a question that a majority hay decided against us, shall and ought to be submitted.
Again, he found that among those who were the most hearty, if not the most numerous, in their congratulations of his vote originally given against the submission of said amendments, were the county officers from various portions of the State, showing conclusively that those who are in the enjoyment of high salaries and fees, are a unit almost in opposing the whole thing. Knowing that his constituents were demanding a reduction of the enormous fees and perquisites of public officers, and believing that it can be most successfully done under an amended constitution, and that it should be done at once, he voted "aye."
Mr. THOMPSON, in explanation of his vote when his name was called, said he was op posed to the first constitutional amendment because it disfranchises poor men. He thought it never ought to be submitted to the people. Whenever poor mechanics and laborers are living in tenement houses in small wards of cities and precincts of towns, the owners of the tenement houses can, under this amendment, disfranchise their tenants by ordering them to move within the 30 days preceding the election. Poor men have hardships and troubles enough already, without adding to the galling yoke of want and domestic distress, the incomparable misery of political disfranchisement. We come as members of this House largely by the votes of poor laboring men who do not own homes, but who are as honest and as deeply interested in political results as the richest in the land. We promised these poor men that we would legislate for them; that we would preserve their liberties and enlarge their opportunities, he made this promise in good faith, and should keep it sacredly by voting against this bill, and against ail other bills aimed at the dearest object of the poor man's political desire, a free and perfect liberty at the ballot box. He could not stultify himself by voting t submit in this way. Members in the Democratic party who voted with the Republicans for these amendments then said there was no party or politics in the mutter. Now they suddenly see great political significance in the passage of this bill. He stood by his political conscience, and no party could force him to smother it. He voted 'no,"
The result of the vote was then announced as above recorded.
So the bill failed for want of a constitutional majority of 51 votes.
The committee on apportionment returned the bill [H. R. 340] to apportion the State for legislative purposes, with amendment, and, when so amended, recommend the passage of the bill.
Pending the consideration of the report from the committee, the House took a recess for dinner.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The SPEAKER resumed at 2 o'clock, and stated the question being upon concurrence in the report of the committee on the bill [H. R. 340] for legislative apportionment of the State.
After ineffectual motions to lay the report on the table, the yeas and nays were demand- ed and being taken--upon concurring in the report of the committee--resulted--yeas 43, nays 49.
Pending the roll call--
Mr. SAINT, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said he was opposed to vote for any measure that would disfranchise himself or his friends, and, believing that another district could be formed that would do justice to his people, he voted "no."
Mr. WILLARD, in explanation of his vote, when his name was called, said he could not I vote for this bill because he believed it unjust. He said he came here pledged to a fair apportionment, and believing this bill would work an injury to any party fostering it. He, therefore, voted "no. '
The result was then announced as above recorded. So the report was rejected.
The clerk, by order of the speaker, read the bill by sections, each section being approved, unless objection was made,
After a few minor amendments and numerous ineffectual efforts to amend, interspersed with several calls of the House and motions to adjourn, which prolonged the session till 7 o'clock.
Mr. ENGLISH moved to strike out all after a certain line indicated and insert matter, the same as reported from the committee.
Mr. HUMPHREYS demanded the previous question, which was seconded by the House, and under its operations the amendment was agreed to by--yeas 49, nays 27--as follows:
Yeas--Messrs. Alden, Allen, Baker, Barker, Blockley, Briggs, Brown of Jasper, Bryant, Caldwell, Compton, Confer, Dailey, Dalton, Davidson, Drake, Drover, Edwins, English, Faulkner, Galbraith, Ginz, Handy, Hart, Humphreys, Huthsteiner, Kester, Lehman, Major, Miers, Mitchell, Nave, Osborn of Elkhart, Perry, Reicheldarfer, Rooker, Saint, Scholl, Schweitzer, Shauck, Shields, Stucker, Taylor of Daviess, Taylor of Warrick, Thompson, Tulley, Vanpelt, Van Valzah, Wimmer, Works, Speaker Cauthorn, H. S.--49.
Nays--Messrs. Bearss, Brown of Steuben, Campbell, Carey, Connaway, Connor, Copelaud, Donnell, Fancher, Golden, Hess, Kelly, Lindley, March, Messick, Overmeyer, Reed, Rodman, Robinson, Shanks, Sleeth, Snoddy, Taylor of Lagrange, Thayer, Thornburg, Vawter, Watson--27.
The bill was ordered engrossed.
And then the House adjourned.
