IN SENATE.
FRIDAY, February 25, 1881--10 a. m.INSPECTION OF OILS.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR announced the special order, being the consideration of a Committee substitute for Mr. White's bill [S. 25] providing for the inspection of all kinds of oil that shall be used for illuminating or combustive purposes.
Mr. LANGDON offered an amendment grading the fees for inspection. He said it cost $12,146 last year to inspect oils.
Mr. VOYLES opposed the amendment. The fees as fixed by the substitute bill, are about right. It has been the custom to inspect of a lot only a few of the barrels and mark them all as inspected. In the Inspector is required to inspect every cask, the labor will be much more than under the old law. The old law is susceptible of two constructions, and of course it was construed favorable to the Inspector. This section should remain as it is in the bill.
Mr. VAN VORHIS also opposed the amendment. Every cask or barrel should be inspected. That is a wise provision, and if so, the fees proposed by this bill are small enough. To make the test required by this bill, five cents a cask is low enough.
Mr. WHITE considered the fees in the bill would not be too much. The amendment would be injurious to the fifteenth section of the bill.
Mr. LANGDON--Whatever machinery the State sets in motion for inspection is a tax of so much upon the lamp-light of the State. It is considered a material damage to a package if it be opened for the purpose of making the test. There is no reason for a departure from the practice of examining several packages taken indiscriminately from a lot. The law as administered that way has answered every purpose. Then the fees provided in his amendment would be ample.
Mr. FOSTER favored the Inspector ascertaining that every barrel should stand the test.
Mr. BUNDY referred to the $2,00 fees collected last year, and was of opinion the fees should be reduced very materially. As he understood the amendment, it should be adopted.
Mr. VAN VORHIS did not believe it is correct that packages can not be opened and closed again without loss. Each deputy receives the fees for his own work, and if each cask or package is to be inspected, the labor will be poorly paid for at five cents per cask. The time consumed in inspecting a car load of forty-five barrels will be poorly paid for. He favored the inpection of every cask.
Mr. WHITE had bought and sold hundreds, and his experience was that two barrels will be good and one bad, and one good and two bad; therefore, every one should be inspected.
Mr. SPANN thought the bill had a tendency to put under guardianship the 1,500,000 people of the State as to what they shall use for illuminating purposes. If that has to be done by the 150 wise men in the General Assembly, then he favored paying a sufficiently large fee to obtain competent persons with the highest order of talent to exercise the guardianship. He did not believe a single life had been saved by the inspection of oils in this State.
Mr. VOYLES stated one of the reasons why there has been no great developments for good was because the law was wholly insufficient for the purposes intended. If the safeguards contained in this bill are enacted, the number of lives saved will no doubt be made evident.
The amendment was rejected.
On motion by Mr. MENZIES, the clause in Section 10 giving informers half the proceeds of the sale of oils seized for violation of the law was stricken out, on the ground that a system of informing and spying was something that should not be encouraged in any possible way.
On motion by Mr. BROWN, the bill was further amended by providing that the present officers shall hold until their terms expire.
On motion by Mr. MENZIS, the emergency clause was stricken out.
On motion by Mr. HENRY, the bill was further amended by providing that the repeal of the old law shal not affect any prosecutions for violation thereof.
The bill was ordered engrossed.
WOMEN VOTING.
Mr. YANCEY called up the special order, being his bill [S. 186] to extend the elective franchise in page: 228[View Page 228] the election for choice of Electors for President and Vice President of the United States to certain classes of women--the question being "shall it be recommitted amended or ordered engrossed?"
Mr. Hefron said: I listened the other day with a great deal of pleasure deep interest to the very eloquent and forcible addresses delivered by the ladies who addressed us [see pages 91 and 92 of these reports] in favor of passage of this bill, and, sir, whilst I am forced to disagree with them on the main proposition involved, I confess it is a matter of extreme embarrassment to me to find myself surrounded here by such an array of the fair advocates of this measure, and confronted in the arena of public discussion by such able and distinguished debaters. I shall, however, proceed to give my reasons for my opposition to this measure with freedom and candor, but with a most profound respect and high regard for the opinions of those who have so ably, and, I have no doubt, sincerely, advocated its enactment.
Briefly stated, the purpose of this bill is to allow women the right to vote for Presidential Electors, and the very first question with which we are met at the threshold of the case is--has the General Assembly the constitutional power to confer the elective franchise upon women? The Legislative Department of the State Government is the supreme power of the State. Its powers are absolute and supreme, subject only to the restraints and limitations placed upon it by the terms of the Constitution; and if it oversteps those limitations its acts will be declared void, and set aside by the Judicial Department. We must then look to the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, for our authority to act.
The right of suffrage is not a natural right; it is on one of the incidents and appliances of civil govrnment, and is only created and conferred by authority of law. The framers our Constitution, in the exercise of their wisdom and sound discretion, saw proper to confer the right to vote upon the male population alone, under certain conditions and restrictions.
Section 1, Article 2, of the Constitution of the United States provides: "Each State shall appoint in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct a number of Electors equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which such State may be entitled in the Congress, etc."
Now it is contended, and very ably too, that the National Constitution, being the paramount law of the land, and of course where State Constitutions come in conflict with it the State must yield, that this power conferred by the National Constitution--each State shall appoint in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, etc.--authorizes the State Legislature to fix the qualifications of voters at an election for Presidential Electors, regardless of the restrictions or limitations of the State Constitutions. To this doctrine I can not subscribe. The Contitution of the Ufited Stes as I have shown, confers upon the State the right to appoint the Electors in the manner directed by the Legislature. Unquestionably, under this authority the Legislature would have the right to appoint the Electors directly by its own body, as many of the States have done in the past; or it could delegate that power to some other tribunal to appoint them; but when it relegates tat power back to the people to be exercised at the ballot-box at a general election, then sir, the Electors are selected by election and not by appointment and the qualifications of the voters at such election must be determined in accordance with the requirements of the State Constitution. It seems to me clear, from the language used by the framers of the National Constiution that they never contemplated the appointment of Electors by a general election; and in support of this view I call attention to the opinion of Justice Strong, of the Supreme Court of the United States. When considering this section of the Constitution as a member of the Electoral Commission, he said: "I doubt whether they (the framers of the National Constitution) had in mind at all (in adopting this section) the idea of a popular election as a mode of appointing State Electors. They used the word appoint, doubtless thinking that the Legislatures of the States would themselves select the Electors or empower the Governor or some other State officer to select them."
Section 2 of Article 2 of the Constitution of Indiana provides, "In all elections not otherwise provided for by this Constitution, every white male citizen of the United States of the age of twenty-one years or upward who shall have resided, etc., * * * shall be entitled to vote, etc." Here is a plain, clear and decisive constitutional limitation restricting the elective franchise to the male citizens alone, in all elections. Therefore, if electing Presidential Electors in the usual way, by a general election, is an election, it falls within the constitutional limitation, and the ballot must be restricted to the males.
The power conferred upon the State Legislature by the National Constitution is directory, is unrestricted and general in its terms, and it can not be urged with ahy degree of seriousness that that power can be exercised by the Legislature in defiance of the constitutional limitations of the State. The plain and obvious meaning of that National authority is that the Legislature may appoint or provide for the election of Presidential Electors in such manner as it may direct, subject only to the constitutional requirements of the State.
But let this power or authority be as it may, if we had the clear and undoubted right to pass this bill, I would still be opposed to it upon other and equally as grave considerations. I am opposed to conferring the right of suffrage upon women under any political form, and I trust, sir, that I shall be able to maintain this branch of my opposition to this bill without plucking a single laurel from the wreath that now encircles the fair brow of woman. I do not oppose giving suffrage to woman because I believe in her lack of capacity for its proper exercise, for I entertain no such humiliating opinion of one-half, and I may say the better half, of the inhabitants of the State. I believe that the women would use the ballot equally as intelligently and a great deal more honestly than the men, I repel, sir, as unworthy of manhood, the assertion that she is incapable of the proper exercise of this or any other right exercised by man.
When or where in all the past has she proved herself unequal to the station to which fate may have assigned her? Was it in Elizabeth of England, when she swayed the scepter of the mightiest Nation on the earth? Was it in the hero girl of France, whose single arm struck down Murat when a Nation trembled at his nod? Was it in the brave women of our own Revolution, whose fair hands wrought the banners that waved over every field from Lexington to Yorktown? Or was it in the brave Spartan mothers, who bade their sons go forth to the conflict and return with their shields or upon them? No, sir! No sir! She has ever been equal tO her destiny. In everythingh but brute force she is your equal. In all the higher and holier feelings of the heart she is your superior--immeasurably your superior--and because I want her to maintain that superiority, because of my admiration for her redeeming virtues and queenly graces, I oppose this bill.
Political power will degrade, not elevate, woman. Do not drag her down from the exalted sphere that she now occupies to a level with man in the coarse and vulgar affairs of life.
The field of politics is now so corrupt, debauched and debasing that thousands of good men turn from it with disgust and aversion, and ahall we make woman-the stay of society, the page: 229[View Page 229] hope of the world--shall we make her a factor in this cesspool of political corruption?
Shall we place her in a posion to vote and be voted for, to electioneer and be electioneered with, to influence and be influenced, to bribe and be bribed--in short, to be subjected to all the debasing influences and practices of politics? If we do sir, in my judgment we will destroy the dearest domestic relations, reverse the natural order of society, and commit a crime against humanity.
Let us leave her where nature and nature's God has placed her--at the hearthstone of the family circle, the rearer and educator of our children and the mistress of our homes. Let us not destroy the softening and refining influences which nature has planted in her bosom by bringing her in contact with the coarser affairs of public life.
I am willing to give to woman all the legal rights enjoyed by man, plaing her upon an equal footing with him before the law in respect to her person and property, but I wish to save her, and thereby save the purity and morality of society, by excluding her from the evil tendencies and debasing influences of political strife.
To the honor and credit of our people be it said, that in no Nation under the sun is the respect and deference paid to woman that she receives in this our own country. It is the highest evidence of our Christian civilization. She is not treated as an equal, but as a superior in an eminent degree. Her presence everywhere is the signal for order, decorum and decent respectfulness; the veriest ruffian on the street corner bows his head in silence as she passes by. Let us not endanger this good influence by changing her status in society.
She is to-day the sovereign power of the land, the mother of mankind; the queen of that miniature heaven--home; the educator of youth, the guide of manhood and the stay and comfort of declining age. Let us not destroy her power and usefulness in these heaven-appointed departments by contaminating her with the evil influences of political strife.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. SPANN was warranted in the light of the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Indiana to affirm that the Legislature has the right to pass a bill similar to this. The Legislature is higher and greater and above and beyond the Constitution of the State of Indiana on this point. His physical condition not permitting a full argument as he could desire, he left the question, believing the argument could be destroyed in no other way than by appealing to prejudice. No argument based upon judgment or equity can be brought to bear against those people who are knocking atour door to be admitted to the privileges of the elective franchise. Not only believing it was constitutional and but equity he should cast his vote in favor of this measure. The unjust principle of taxation without representation was the very thing that brought about the revolution that severed this from the mother country. Other points he would like to present but his will was failing and his physical strength giving out.
Mr. MENZIES was not disposed to treat this matter in a frivolous way, but acknowledged its importance. This question has been agitated for some ten or fifteen years in the lecture room, in the press, the forum and the drawing room, but this is the first time it has been brought in this shape before a General Assembly of Indiana. If it be that the right does not exist in the Legislature to confer this privilege upon women, then all discussions should stop and the bill should be defeated. We are forced to go to the Constitution of the United States to find where the authority is conferred upon the Legislatures of the several States to grant the privilege of the elective franchise. All questions of expediency, policy or dangers have nothing to do in the power of debate if the power of extending this privilege is not here with the State of Indiana, and so believing it would be a useless trespassing upon the patience and time of the Senate to discuss the subject further.
If Mr. CHAPMAN could see his way to do so, it would afford him personal gratification to give this measure his indorsement. The proposition is revolutionary. Revolutions are brought about by various instrumentalities. Many of the most important have been brought about by the contest of thought, and in the hands of those altogether great the pen is mightier than the sword. This is a proposition to change the form of government. It is because of his devotion to the women of the land, and adhesion to the best interest of society, as marked out by women, that he has been unable to subscribe to the doctrine of female suffrage. In regard to the Constitutional question, if it is a great moral movement pregnant with the best conditions of society, he should do nothing that is at least doubtful, morally or legally, for its advancement. This bill is not an honest measure. It does not seek squarely for woman suffrage. It asks the privilege for women voting because the Constitution does not prohibit the Legislature from putting this right in the hands of others than voters, and the Legislature may allow them to share in the appointment of Presidential Electors. It is seeking to accomplish something clandestinely, and this measure violates not only the Constitution of the State, but the Constitution of the United States.
Mr OWEN not assuming to be a constitutional lawyer, had only investigated the question far enough to satisfy his own conscience, and so addressed himself to the social part of this question. Why has not woman the right to the honor and distinction of man? Why should they not be open to women? Why shall not woman be granted sovereignty in a republican form of Government as well as in a monarchical form of Government? He hoped men would not monopolize the honors and distinctions of life simply because--because they can He believed women were capable of entertaining the noblest sentiments, and did not think men should crowd them out of places of honor and profit. Considered solely as a social question he did not believe any man can reason against this bill without swamping himself before taking many steps. In the sublime process of the accomplishment of reforms and noble achievements that have distinguished this age, he hoped before they shall pass to the historian that this reform shall not be conspicuous by its absence.
Mr. COMSTOCK regarded this as simply a question of right, of obligation and of duty under the laws of the State and of the United States. If woman has the right to vote at all, it is because of some provision in the Constitution of the United States, to which he referred, and from which he read. There is nowhere in that instrument a provision which authorizes women to vote. Where the Constitution of the United States is not in conflict with the Courts of a State, the Legislature is governed by the Constitution of the State. There is no conflict between the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this State. It is not a question of politics, policy, expediency or equity. It is simply a question of duty under the law. There is no chance for misconstruction of the constitutional provisions, for the language is too plain.
Mr. BROWN had no conscientous scruples as to the constitutional right of the Legislature to confer upon her citizens complete and full authority to participate is hoosing Presidential Electors. If page: 230[View Page 230] man, woman or child vote, he or she shall vote by reason of the organic law of the State and not by reason of line or letter in the Constitution of United States. Senators are illogical when they say that the Constitution of the United States excludes the right of white women to vote, because there is not one line, letter or syllable in it that deprives them of the right. The only question in it is, is it proper or beneficial to exercise it? The bill is a misnomer, because it does not confer the elective franchise upon women. Under it they would not vote as those who posses the elective franchise. The bill would have been better if it had a title that would recite the facts. Under this bill women would possess none of the qualifications necessary to participate in elections. He opposed it because the time is not appropriate or opportune for the passage of such a bill as this, and for the reason if the Constitution does not plainly say so, it means that there should be a uniformity throughout the United States in the method of choosing Presidential Electors.
On motion by Mr. SHAFFER the bill was considered as engrossed, read the third t0me and put upon its passage.
The bill was rejected by yeas, 18; nays, 25, as follows:
Yeas--Messrs. Bundy, Davis, Garrigus, Graham, Grubbs, Hostetter, Kahlo, Macartney, Owen, Poindexter, Ristine, Sayre, Smith, Spann, Traylor, Van Vorhis, White and Yancey--18.
Nays--Messrs. Bell, Benz, Briscoe, Brown Chapman, Coffey, Compton, Comstock, Davidson, Foster, Hefron, Henry, Howard, Hutchinson, Kramer, Langdon, Lockridge, Major, Marvin, Menizes, Shaffer, Urmston, Viehe and Voyles--25.
Absent--Messrs. Bischowsky, Hart, Keiser, Rahm, Wilson, Woods and Woollen--7.
Pending the roll-call--
Mr. BELL, when his name was called said: In view of the discussion this bill has already received I did not deem it proper to take a part; but I desire now briefly to explain my vote. I do not regard the right of suffrage as a natural right, but a right to be extended or withheld by the Government as it shall deem best. In the second place, there was no issue of this kind presented when the members of this body were chosen at the polls, and, in my judgment, this measure is not demanded by the people, nor is it demanded by a majority of the women of this State. In the third place, I regard this bill as a sham--nothing more and nothing less. It does not enfranchise women, while that seems to be its purport. I would cheerfully vote for a Constitutional Amendment, submitting this question fairly and squarely to the people of this State but I can not favor this bill. I also have great doubts of our right under the Constitution to pass this bill. Therefore I vote "no."
Mr. FOSTER, when his name was called, said: "I have not taken any part in this discussion. I do not think this is the time or place to make any explanation of my,vote. I vote 'no.'"
Mr. GARRIGUS, when his name was called, said: "As part of the reasons why I shall vote as I do, I will say that I believe the true test of qualification for a voter is intelligence, virtue and patriotism, and believing the women of the State of Indiana possess these qualifications in an equal degree with men, I vote 'aye.'"
Mr. GRAHAM, in explanation of his vote when his name was called, said: "I believe, under our Constitution, and by all rules of equity and right, the right to tax a citizen carries with it and should carry with it the right to confer upon that citizen the privilege to vote, and I therefore vote 'aye'"
Mr. HOSTETTER, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote was understood to say: I have not occupied any time in the discussion of this question; and in relation to this matter I will only say that if it had come up a year or two ago I should have voted against it. Not having heretofore given much thought to the question, but recently having studied it considerably, I am now of the opinion that it would be right to pass this bill, and therefore I vote "aye."
Mr. HOWARD, in explanation of his vote when his name was called, said: For the reason that I do not now think it expedient to pass such a bill I vote "no."
Mr. KAULO, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said: Believing this bill to be proposing a simple act of justice, and as I am decidedly in favor of doing justice to all humanity, and of doing justice to my family as well, I shall vote "aye."
Mr. MARVIN, in explanation of his vote, when his name was called said: Being the representative of a large constituency, I don't think I have always the right to vote my own sentiments; therefore, I vote "no."
Mr. VIEHE, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said: I am not opposed to equal rights nor the giving of the ballot to females, but believing that this question belongs to the fundamental law of the State, and should be embodied in the Constitutional law of the State and not conferred by Legislative enactment, for that reason I vote "no." I was requested by the Senator from Vanderburgh (Mr. Rahm) to state that if he were present he would vote "no" on this question.
The vote was announced as above recorded, and so the bill was rejected.
APPOINTMENT BY THE GOVERNOR.
Pending the discussion on this bill--
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR laid before the Senate a communication from the Governor transmitting for the confirmation of the Senate his appointment of Mrs. Rhoda M. Coffin, of Wayne County, as a Trustee for the Reformatory for Women, to serve as such for four years from the 1st of April, 1881.
It was referred to the Committee on Executive Appointments.
The Senate adjourned till to-morrow.
