THE BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
VOLUME SEVENTEEN.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
IN SENATE.
Thursday, Jan. 16,1879, 10 o'clock a. m.After prayer by Rev. W. A. BARTLETT, of the Presbyterian Church, the minutes were being read when, on motion by Mr. HARRIS, their further reading was dispensed with.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR announced the special order, being the nine proposed amendments to the State Constitution, as adopted by the last general assembly. The joint resolution embracing proposition No. 1 prescribing qualification of voters, being read--
Mr. BURRELL thought this joint resolution should not prevail. It adds another wheel to the machinery of government. There is a difference of opinion among lawyers as to Whether this would be a complete law, or Whether it would require additional legislation. If those amendments are submitted to the people for acceptance or rejection It will cost about $50,000. The simpler we can get a system of government that will protect the people in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property, the better.
Mr. WOOD read from manuscript a reply to an objection that this proposed amendment would be without force or effect unless the General Assembly enacts a registry law. He thought a good registry law should be enacted, and should vote for this amendment.
Mr. HARRIS said the action of the Legislature two years ago was taken without any reference to political complexion, and he hoped the matter of politics will not be taken Into consideration now. It is a matter very much to be desired that when an election Is held every citizen of the State shall be satisfied that the result shall be a fair, full and honest expression of the will of the people.
Mr. FOWLER thought if we needed anything under our system, it was a good, fair election law, and for that reason he favored this proposed amendment.
Mr. HEFRON having given this subject some thought and consideration, felt compelled to cast his vote against this amendment. Our present election law is good enough and strong enough and fair enough, if properly en forced.
Mr. GRUBBS answered objections raised against this amendment--giving it as his opinion that without the third proposed amendment, if ratified by the people, this one would not make it an imperative duty of the General Assembly to pass a registry law.
Mr. WOOLLEN could not favor this proposed amendment to the constitution. Some of its features are objectionable, especially the provision requiring a residence of 60 days in a town ship before a man is entitled to vote which would work a hardship to every man who is compelled to change his residence frequently in order to obtain employment.
Mr. REILEY two years ago voted against this amendment, and stood opposed to it still, simply from the fact that it requires every voter to reside in his voting precinct 60 days prior to the election, which provision would disfranchise hundreds and thousands of laboring men who are tenants. Had this amendment read 20 or 30 days, it would have received his support.
Mr. COFFEY opposed this proposed constitutional amendment, for the reason that many voters in this State are poor men who have no permanent abiding place, but are traveling from township to township and from county to county, and if this proposed amendment should become part of the organic law of the State it would result in the disfranchisement of numbers of this class of our voters.
Mr. TRUSLER supposing there is not a senator upon this floor but what has made up his mind as to how he will vote, demanded the previous question.
Mr. REEVE hoped no senator would vote to second the demand for the previous question on the adoption of a fundamental law. It is a thing unheard of.
Mr. TRUSLER would withdraw his demand if there are any who think they can convince us of our errors.
Mr. STREIGHT: This proposed constitutional provision seems so perfectly fair and o necessary, in the face of the history of our State elections, it would seem there could hardly be any opposition raised to it. It is an page: 30[View Page 30] unfortunate thing in a republican form of Government for the people to become distrustful about the honesty of elections. Let us not magnify the difficulties that might arise under the operations of this amendment. He hoped it would pass.
Mr. REEVE: This is a deliberative body. It is not a caucus nor a political convention. It exercises the highest powers and occupies the most responsible position that it is possible to confer upon man. It is one of the results of a great, experiment that was began upon this continent over a century ago, under circumstances that astonished the civilized world. We sit here to day as a great inquest upon the very fundamental elements, which, carried into practice, give us government. We have no government in this country, except the law. We have no law, except that made under prescribed forms. The first prescribed form is the constitution. That constitution is the result of the deliberative judgment of the representatives of the people assembled in convention.
The right of suffrage in this country is too cheap--the rights of citizenship are not valued at their worth--dignity is taken from them, and it has become a mere gambler's trick to take into the dirty pool room of politics as a matter of speculation for power. American citizens dare not deny it, and they are too cowardly to meet and counteract its evil influences. [Applause.] It is not a question of Republicanism; it is not a question of Democracy; it is not a question of Nationalism, but it is a question of the maintenance of the right to civil liberty in this country. Mr. R. spoke at length in favor of the passage of the amendment under consideration as adopted, by the last General Assembly, expressing the opinion that the clause referring to a registry law was not mandatory, but simply left it discretionary with the General Assembly whether a registry law should be enacted or not.
A motion [Mr. Coffey's] to lay the joint resolution on the table was rejected by--yeas 12, nays 86, and a motion [Mr. Menzie's] to indefinitely postpone was laid on the table by--yeas 38, nays 11.
Mr. STREIGHT demanded the previous question, which was seconded--affirmative 33, negative 11--and under its operations the joint resolution [S. 1] as adopted by the last General Assembly was finally passed the Senate as printed on page 159, acts regular session of 1877--yeas 34, nays 15--as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative were--Messrs. Cadwallader, Comstock, Davenport, Davis, Dice, Foster, Fowler, Garrigus, Grubbs, Harris, Heilman, Kahlo, Langdon, Majors, Mercer, Moore, Olds, Petersen, Poindexter, Ragan, Reeve, Sarnighausen, Shaffer, Shirk, Smith, Streigbt, Taylor, Treat. Trusler, Viehe, Wier, Wood, Wilson and Winterbotham--34.
Those who voted in the negative were--Messrs. Briscoe, Burrell, Coffey, Dunham, Hart, Heffron, Kent, Kramer, Leeper, Menzies, Riley, Tarlton, Traylor, Urmston and Woollen--15.
Then came a recess till 2 o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The joint resolution No. 2, proposing an amendment to the State constitution, as adopted by the last General Assembly, to strike from section 5, article 41, the words "no negro or mulatto shall have the right of suffrage," being read the third time it was passed the Senate by--yeas 43, nays 0.
The joint resolution proposing amendment No. 3 to the constitution, providing that general elections shall be held in November, on the first Tuesday after the first Monday and that judges may have a separate election day under a registration law, being read the third time--
Mr. BURRELL objected to this amendment because, instead of having our Judges go into office, as is now the case, without any expense or any obligation to the party which elects them, it would bring about such a state of tilings as would make it necessary that the candidates for the bench should defray all the expenses of the election held specially to make I a selection of judges.
Mr. MENZIES would vote for this proposed amendment but for the proviso referring to registration of voters. Experience has shown that registry laws do not prevent frauds in elections. Under our present law elections substantially reflect the will of a majority of the people. Every man is guided and impelled by 99 honest impulses where he is moved by one dishonest one. If this proposition left it discretionery with the Legislature to enact a registry law or not, it would be a different matter, but this thing of compelling the people to live under a registry law is the same as saying the people can not be trusted without a registry law.
Mr. LANGDON understood the latter clause of this provision to mean that if the Legislature does appoint a different time for the election of judges, then it shall provide a registry law suitable for that time. The people are I suffering from inexperienced and incompetent politicians on the bench of this State, and certainly the election of judges should be disassociated from politics as much as possible.
Mr. REEVE declared one of the strongest arguments that could be made in favor of a registry law is found in the objection that it will interfere with a class of men who now vote, but who, under a registry law, would be so utterly indifferent to the rights of citizenship and the great power and dignity and force of the elective franchise, that they are not willing to walk into a register's office and record their names as among those possessing that right. There may a time come when a man would give half his fortune for such a privilege. There may be a time and there has been a time when all the bones cemented by all the blood in this land could not buy it.
Mr. HEFRON said as a general rule judges are not known in an election campaign now when other candidates are targets for vituperation and abuse, but if you make the Judge alone a standard bearer in the fight you drive him into politics. Nobody will carry his tight forward for him, and he will be compelled to it. Mr. H. also opposed the registration clause. The greatest objection is the expensive machinery attaching to it. It would probably cost the people of Indiana $100,000, and they would not be benefitted one cant by the outlay.
Mr. OLDS considered the rejection by the Senate of this proposition would be in effect saying the voters of Indiana are incapable of passing upon this question. It does not follow if it is ratified by the people that there shall be a registry law passed. It yet remains for the Legislature to decide whether there shall be a registry law or not to govern the election of judges. There is nothing in it imperatively demanding either a separate election for judges or a general registration of voters.
Mr. HART did not believe it right to require men who work at daily labor and have to move from place to place to live in a township 60 days before acquiring the right to vote, and for that reason voted against the first amendment, but should vote for this one, believing it very desirable that our general elections should be held in November.
The third proposed amendment to the constitution, as adopted by the last General As page: 31[View Page 31][As]sembly, was finally passed by the Senate, as printed on pages 160 and 161 of the acts of the regular session of 1877--yeas 34, nays, 14.
The proposed amendment to the constitution striking the word 'white' from secs. 4 and 5 of art. IV was read the third time, and passed the Senate by--yeas 47, nays, 1.
The proposed amendment No. 5, making it possible for the General Assembly to grade the fees and salaries of county and other officers, was read the third time.
Mr. SARNIGHAUSEN: Under our present system we can not pass a fee and salary bill giving satisfaction to the people and doing justice to the officers. That has been tried time and again. We had a fee and salary bill in 1871, which was repealed in 73 and a new one passed. Then that was repealed in 1875 and a new one passed; and amendments and changes were made to this one in 1877. So long as you takes small counties for standard counties and give their officers a comfortable salary, you make the county officers in large counties to get rich; and if you take such counties as standard counties, the officers in small counties 'will' starve. If you look into the statute books, before the adoption of our present constitution you will find that almost each township had a special law for fees and salaries. He favored the passage of the pending proposition, so as to enable the Legislature to pass laws classifying the counties into several groups, and making fees and salaries equitable.
Mr. BURRELL considered it better to leave the law as it is. It is nothing more than right that a man should be paid according to the labor to be performed and the responsibility resting upon him.
Mr. KENT was also decidedly opposed to the adoption of the pending amendment, because if it should become a part of the organic law, there may be passed a local act for every county in the State. It is true it provides for dividing the counties into groups, but the Legislature is to determine how many groups there shall be, and it may decide to have 92 groups. It would open the door to frauds. He opposed local legislation, and thought the adoption of this amendment would be pernicious.
Mr. STREIGHT referred to the fact that a number of offices in his [Marion] county were worth fifteen,twenty, twenty-five and even $30,000; and numbers of men in trying to obtain some one or more of these offices had sunk fortunes. It is customary when a man is nominated for one of these offices to expect an assessment of a sum of money that would astonish gentlemen were they to know the amount. If you want a fair, and honest expression of the people at the poles you must remove this great corrupting motive.
Mr. Fowler. If there is any question the people all over the State feel an interest in, it is this very question. This amendment will afford relief, Let us pass it, then grade the counties, and give each office a reasonable compensation.
Mr. KRAMER also favored this amendment. It will make it possible for the General Assembly to grade the counties as to make a just and equitable compensation to all officers--just to the officers and just to the people.
The amendment No. 5 was finally passed the Senate, as printed on page 161 of the acts of the regular session of 1877, by--yeas 47, nays 2.
The proposed amendment to the State Constitution, numbered 6,vesting power in the General Assembly to establish courts, was read the third time and finally passed the Senate, printed on page 162 of the acts of general session of 1877, by--yeas 46, nays 2.
The proposed constitutional amendment No. 7, in relation to the judges of the Supreme Court [five or seven--terms of service six years; three classes, so one-third may be chosen every two years] was read the third time, and finally passed the Senate as printed on pages 162 and 163, acts of regular session of 1877 by -- yeas 41, nays 7.
The amendment No. 9, proposed to the organic law of the State, to limit the indebtedness of political or municipal corporations, was read the third time, and finally passed the Senate as printed on the page 85, acts of special session of 1877, by--yeas 48, nays 0.
The joint resolution, No.19, proposing a constitution amendment No.10 to extend the length of Legislative sessions -- regular session 121 days, special session 60 days--being read the third time it was finally passed the Senate by --yeas 44, nays 5. Mr. Fowler explaining that he would vote against the proposition standing alone, but believing the people capable of determining the question for themselves, inasmuch as the other propositions are submitted with them, should vote " aye".
Mr. Taylor, from the committee charged with that service, reported rules from the government of the Senate, which were adopted. On his motion 200 copies were ordered printed, with a list of the standing committees of both Senate and House and their place of meeting, and the State constitution, and names of senators and their post office address.
And then the Senate adjourned.
