ADMISSION TO THE SOLDIERS HOME.
Mr. CARTER submitted a report from the Committee on Judiciary, to which was referred the resolution for the admission of George Menser, of Jefferson County, into the Soldiers' Home, recommending its passage, with certain amendments.
The report was concurred in, and so the amendments were adopted. The question recurring on the final passage of the resolution--
Mr. HUSTON said he was at the Institution with one of the Committees, and considered the passage of this resolution would be adopting a precedent injurious to the Institution as an Orphans' Home. He did not want to vote to benefit any soldier to the detriment of the soldier's children, and did not want it said throughout the State that he voted to furnish a home for a man who was disarmed in firing a gun for the ratification of Governor Porter. He hoped the bill would be voted down and a new resolution introduced, offering proper aid to him or any other soldier, but not to admit such to the Home at Knightstown.
Mr. JOHNSON--I think the gentleman does not understand the law by which that Soldiers' Home was established. The act says: "There shall be established at Knightstown a home for the maintenance of disabled soldiers and seamen, and their orphans and widows, called the Indiana Soldiers' and Seamen's Home." I am gratified that the Committee have reported favorable in this mamatter. This Mr. Menser was one of the first in the Commonwealth who went at the call of our Government, and marched to the front in defence of the Union and civilization. Because he came out unscarred and untarnished, and upon the ratification by his neighbors of the election of Albert G. Porter as Governor of Indiana, he lost both his arm and an eye. I am in favor of this resolution, or any other resolution that is in behalf of the soldiers of Indiana, or any other act that is to the interest of soldiers' orphans and soldiers' widows. Gentlemen, I am surprised that any Republican will get up on this floor and make the statement made by the Member from Vigo. I favor the passage of this resolution, and hope there will not be a dissenting voice.
Mr. MITCHELL said he would not antagonize the resolution in any way, or do anything that would be detrimental to a soldier of the late Rebellion, not because he belonged to the Democratic side of this House, for he honored the cause for which the soldier fought as much as any man, but whether it would be establishing a good precedent, whether the result would be a good one in mixing men with these orphan children--that is the question. Thinking it would produce a bad result, he opposed the resolution.
Mr. LINDSAY read the act of 1867 in relation to this Institution, which is as follows: "There shall be established at Knightstown a home for the maintenance of sick and disabled Indiana soldiers." It goes on further and admits "seamen and their orphans." There is nothing in this to prevent soldiers going there. It does not matter whether the managers are willing to receive such men or not. The law says "they shall be received." Let us spend no more time upon this resolution.
Mr. RYAN thought the resolution exercised a power which it did not possess. This Institution at Knightstown is created according to law, as previously referred to. The regulation and introduction is fixed by specific statute, and when a Legislature infringes upon that provision, it is exercising unwarranted power. The law provides "There shall be established at Knightstown, Rush County, Indiana, a Home for the maintenance of sick and disabled soldiers, seamen and their orphans." Some gentlemen will construe this clause to mean any other person that has been disabled in the service of the Army of the United States. It does not make any difference whether the gentleman has been in the service of the United States or not, but "he must have received his injuries during such service." I submit to you, sir, that the language of this act excludes the person proposed to be admitted to this Home under this resolution. I do not wish to be understood as putting myself in hostility to any measure or regulation of this Institution, but I think it is my duty in this body to try to protect this Home from an intrusion of this kind. It would be establishing a precedent that would result in the destruction of that Institution, therefore I am opposed to it.
page: 137[View Page 137]Mr. MARSHALL--If this man has lost both arms and one eye, I ask, Mr. Speaker, if that is not sufficient grounds that he should have the privilege of entering an Institution that has been erected by the people of Indiana for the protection of her crippled soldiers? In the name of justice, humanity and right, I would ask that this Assembly vote this resolution into effect.
Mr. MOODY--If the law creating that home for this class of persons prohibits persons being accepted there except when they vere wounded in the services of the country, this resolution changes that law-otherwise this resolution would not have been sent in the form of a petition asking his admission. Inasmuch as the law provides that he could not be admitted there except he be wounded in the war, they sent the petition in here, asking us to admit one who has been a soldier in the service of the country. He is an honorable man and is deprived of the use of his hands and an eye, and is in the spirit and contemplation of the law, entitled to a home in that Institution. We ought to remember that we are simply human beings, sent here to legislate for the citizens of Indiana. We ought to take into consideration each case as it comes before us, and if we are satisfied, under the circumstances, that we ought to permit even against the letter of the law, a donation to be made, we ought to do it, and I think in this case this petition is one justly worthy of our consideration. I for one am able to rise above party spirit, and vote that this man be admitted into the home of this Institution.
Mr, JOHNSON said he was surprised that Republicans have not been more magnanimous in this matter; that it was clearly a question of law the Legislature has a right to settle, and he did not believe that the man should be deprived of the benefits of this home simply upon legal technicalities.
The resolution was adopted--yeas, 56; nays, 32.
Pending the roll-call, when his name was called--
Mr.BERRYMAN said that his Republicanism has never been questioned by Democrats, but he could not vote with the Republicans in this case, because he thought the resolution was one that should not be passed, the object of the Institution was not such as this resolution implied. As a Republican he was willing to put his hand into his pocket and contribute to this man's necessities, but on the passage of the resolution would have to vote no.
Mr. CARR, in explanation of his vote, when his name was called, said he thought the resolution usurped authority far beyond what the law authorized, and therefore voted "no."
Mr. GILLUM, when his name was called, said, as he believed the Legislature would be doing a magnanimous act by the passage of this resolution, he would vote yes.
The vote was then announced, as above, and so the resolution passed the House of Representatives.
