HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
WEDNESDAY, March 30, 1881-9 a. m.The consideration of the following joint resolution [H. R. 7], pending at the adjournment yesterday, was resumed:
Resolved, By the General Assembly of the State of Indiana, that the following amendment be and is hereby proposed to the Constitution of the State of Indiana, to be submitted to the vote of the electors of the State, viz.: Article 17, as follows:
Section 1. The manufacture, sale, or keeping for sale, in said State, spirituous, vinous, malt liquors or any other intoxicating liquors (except for medical, scientific, mechanical, and wines for sacramental purposes) shall be, and are hereby prohibited in the State of Indiana.
Sec. 2. The General Assembly of the State of Indiana shall provide by law in what manner, by whom and at what place such liquors should be manufactured or sold for medical, scientific and sacramental purposes.
Mr. RYAN moved to strike out all with reference to the manufacture or sale of intoxicating liquors in the State for scientific, mechanical, medicinal or sacramental purposes.
Mr. FLOYD--I am surprised that the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Ryan] should submit an amendment so different from the scope and intent of the resolution, and this seems the more strange since the resolution comprehends all that the temperance people ask. There are two ways of defeating a measure. One is to argue against it squarely and fairly, and the other is to advocate it by extreme measures. I am in favor of a practical method of prohibition. Never has there been in the history of Indiana an amendment of the Constitution submitted to the people upon which there has been so much general expression by the people, but they are not demanding this sweeping, impracticable method of disposing of the question. Pass this amendment and the way of success in carrying it at the election will be greatly hedged up. The gentleman from Delaware has too much practical sense not to see the point. I am opposed to the amendment because I am in favor of prohibition.
Mr. HUSTON--The amendment proposed is in the highest sense impracticable, and its adoption would tend to defeat the amendment when presented to the people. We do not want, at this time, to burden this resolution. One serious objection to this amneunent is its restriction upon the sale of wines for sacramental purposes. Many religious denominations use fermented wines for sacramental purposes, and a large amount of alcohol is used in the arts and sciences. I trust the amendment will not prevail, because I think it would be the death knell to the amendment when considered by the people. We need this amendment. The people of the State demand the right to decide by majority vote whether this curse of rum selling shall continue or not. The majority should rule--and it is but right that the people be allowed this privilege they have asked at our hands, as evidenced by the petitions of the many thousands of voters of Indiana that have been presented to this House. It has been urged that this resolution is not sufficient. I submit to all fair-minded people if it is not what the petitioners have asked for. They want prohibition as regards the sale of intoxicants as beverages. I hope this amendment will not prevail, and that the resolution will at once passed.
Mr. TETER--I received from Clay County the names of several hundred people--voters--about which there was no mistake that they either wrote their names themselves or had others write it for them at their request. I do not know how many thousands of these petitions have been filed in this Assembly upon the subject of temperance. Yesterday I voted as I did because I was so instructed, and I think it my duty to obey the instruction of my people in regard to the petitions which have been sent here. There has been no protest from any quarter of the State. No one has said to me: "Do not vote for it." But I can not vote for this amendment, for to vote for that amendment would be voting against the petitions which I have received.
Mr. FALL was in favor of any strict temperance law that would secure to the people immediate relief from this dire evil.
Mr. FULLER said: While I am in favor of the resolution, I am opposed to the amendment for the reason that enough is enough of anything. When we get that which prohibits the manufacture, sale and use of the beverage, we have done enough.
Mr. RYAN--The principal hostility, as I understand among temperance people, to past legislation has been that it is wrong to license the sale of intoxicating liquors in any form or shape, either by the Court, people or in the form of a local option law. All proposed in my amendment is to adopt a constitutional provision that will prohibit the Legislature from passing laws for the manufacture of intoxicating liquors for any purpose whatever in the State of Indiana. An member upon the floor can conjure up in his mind 10,000 purposes for which he can both manufacture and sell intoxicating liquors. They may manufacture it for bathing purposes; they may manufacture it to swim in; they may manufacture it for scientific purposes, and every possible way it could be used. Under the resolution, what is to hinder a man from going into a place and buy it, upon the plea that it is to be used for vinegar or medical purposes. This resolution is a snare and imposition upon the temperance people. I want an amendment to the Constitution that will probibit the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors.
The amendment was rejected--yeas, 40; nays, 46.
Mr. FRAZER moved to amend the resolution by striking out the words, "for sacramental purposes."
On motion by Mr. AKIN, the amendment was laid on the table--yeas, 48; nays, 40.
Under the operations of the previous question, the joint resolution was considered--yeas, 56; nays, 34--read the third time and passed by yeas, 55; nays, 35, as follows:
Yeas--Messrs. Akin, Baker, Bartlett, Beatty, Bryant, Buskirk, Carr of White, Carter, Compton, Cotton, Cummins, Fall, Fancher, Floyd, Franklin, Frazer, Fuller, Furnas, Gardner, Gillam, Gilman, Gregory, Hamilton, Hinton, Huston, Johnson, Kain, Lindley, Lindsay, Marshall, Mason, Meredith, Miles, Mitchell, Moody, Murray, O'Brien, O'Neal, Roberts, Robinson of Decatur, Ryan, Shields, Smelser, Stewart, Sumner, Taylor of La Grange, Taylor of Noble, Teter, Thompson, Vawter, Weaver, Westfall, Wheeler, Wilson of Morgan and Wright-56.
Nays--Messrs. Barnett, Benham, Cabbage, Carr of Whitley, Cauthorne, Chandler, Cole, Cooper, Davis. Edwins, Gibson, Ham, Hammond, Har-
page: 108[View Page 108]grove, Hottell, Huff, Jackson, Kerr, Lee, McClure, McCormick, McDowell, McIntosh, McSheehy, Messick, Miller, Neff, Null, Robinson of Ripley, Roelker, Schweitzer, Sinclair, Sulzer, Walz, Wolfe. and Mr. Speaker--35.
INTEREST AND USURY.
Mr. Buskirk's bill [H. R. 3] concerning interest and usury, repealing laws relative thereto [making the established rate 6 per cent.], was read the third time.
Mr. SUMNER said--I believe that 6 per cent. is a just and equitable interest for the use of money. In addition to that I believe we ought to have one rate of interest in law.
The failed to pass--yeas, 42; nays, 36--for the want of a constitutional majority.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mr. FRAZER moved to change the rules so as to consider bills prepared by the Revision Committee every afternoon until they are disposed of, leaving the forenoon to the regular order.
The motion was agreed to.
AFTFRNOON SESSION.
Mr. CAUTHORNE offered a concurrent resolution, which was adopted, than there shall be printed for the use of the General Assembly 1,500 copies of the Civil and Criminal Code, as passed by this Legislature, and that ten copies be distributed to each member of the House and Senate.
The resolution was adopted.
CORNER-STONE OF THE NEW CAPITOL.
The SPEAKER announced the special order for this hour to be consideration of the Senate concurrent resolution, that a memorial be placed in the new State House building which shall be a fit memento of the gallant part taken by the Indiana soldiers in the War for the Union.
Mr. HUSTON offered a substitute, that the Commissioners are authorized to proceed at the earliest moment to remove the corner-stone of the new State House and re-lay the same with such public ceremonies as may seem proper, and deposit in the corner-stone such fitting records and commemorations as shall honor and perpetuate the memory of the citizen soldiers of Indiana in the late war for the suppression of the late Rebellion.
Mr. CAUTHORNE--I hope the amendment will not prevail. I am willing to vote in any way to perpetuate the memory of Indiana soldiers, but I do not think it necessary to open the corner-stone and put a record of their services that will never be seen. I am willing to commemorate their memory by building a monument, but I am not willing to do anything that will hazard the contract for the erection of the building.
Mr, HUSTON said I offered the substitute because I thought it due to the soldiers of Indiana, that there should be some evidence or some record preserved of the services that they rendered during the War for their country. Other States wherein corner-stones have been laid held memorial exercises, and invariably there was deposited with other matters a record of their soldiers. In this corner-stone not one single word was mentioned that Indiana ever did have a soldier engaged in putting down a rebellion, or rendered any assistance. Is it reasonable to suppose, after doing what she has done, that Indiana should at this late day ignore an apparent mark of respect to her dead soldiers? It is as important a feature that a correct record be preserved of the War in which Indiana was engaged as it is to perpetuate or keep any other item of history.
Mr. CAUTHORNE offered an amendment to the substitute, that the Governor is hereby authorized to advertise for plans and specifications for the erection of a monument as a memorial for the services rendered by the soldiers of Indiana upon the field of battle in the Indian War, the Mexican War and the War of the late Rebellion; said monument not to cost to exceed $75,000, to be built in Indianapolis in the Governor's Park, and that the same be inserted in the specific appropriation bill.
The amendment to the substitute was laid on the table.
Mr. NEFF said the State House Commissioners are more than anxious to have this Legislature to place a construction upon the original contract. There is no man who has more admiration for the gallant men who fought for this Union than I. So far as I am concerned it makes but little difference to me whether you put their names in the corner-stone or not. I understood that any citizens had the right to go there and deposit whatsoever he desired. The point is this: Shall this Assembly pass a sweeping joint resolution to tear up a portion of the building, thereby giving the contractors an opportunity for a loophole to recede or vary from their contract? I am in favor of the joint resolution as it came from the Senate, or any other resolution, to perpetuate the memories of Indiana soldiers.
Mr. THOMPSON said: Four years ago when the bill came up, it was agreed that there should be two Republicans and two Democrats on the State House Commission, One of these Commissioners is a military man. and if he has overlooked the interest of the soldier in laying that corner-stone, I censure him. So far as I am concerned, I wanted the history of the Indiana soldiers placed there, but since the work was done as it is I am willing that it shall remain. I voted for the substitute of the gentleman from Knox (Mr. Cauthorne) because I think it is a fairer representation of what is necessary to perpetuate the memory of the soldiers than to put it in a rock where it will never be heard from again. The State House Commissioners have a contract for the construction of that building, and I do not wish for any purpose to invalidate the contract. I do not think the Legislature has any right to dictate what the Commissioners shall do in that respect. It is just as necessary to perpetuate the memories of those who fell in the Indian War, War of 1812, or the Mexican War as in the late Rebellion.
Mr. RYAN moved a substitute for the amendment, that a proper and fitting statute be prepared and fixed in the center of the colonade of the Capitol of the State as a commemoration of the deeds and memory of the dead soldiers, as a fit commemoration to the devotion and patriotism of the Indiana soldiers, etc. He said if a monument is erected it should be placed where the last generations of time can see it, and be subject to the vision of the sons and daughters of Indiana. It should be such a monument and so placed that time can not claim or deface it; will be not only a fit monument, but it will be so placed and situated as to not only be an everlasting example to the people, but it will continue to be a shrine at which the people of Indiana can pay their devotion so long as Indiana remains a State.
Mr. FRAZER was opposed to the substitute had amendment, also to the joint resolution, because it is indefinite and means nothing. He moved to refer the resolution to a Special Committee of three.
Mr. BUSKIRK--I desire to say in connection with this subject that the soldiers of Indiana do not need to be comnmemorated in any such way. Their deeds are printed in such broad letters that they do not need to be commemorated in any corner-stone. Deeds of Indiana soldiers will not die. They remain in the minds and hearts of the present generation, and as long as the State of Indiana lasts the Indiana soldier of the late War will be remembered the same as soldiers of any other country. I say this is all flaptrap, and we have taken up too much time on this subject already.
Mr. MITCHELL said the soldiers of the Rebellion, who fought to preserve the Union of the page: 109[View Page 109] American States, have already written their names in the character of light in the memories of the American people--written their names in such bold and indellible characters that they will never be defaced. We may erect a statue containing all the names of the Union soldiers, and then, I tell you, that they will not last so long as the monument they have built for themselves.
Mr. WRIGHT said that it seemed strange to him that, in running over the list of things that were placed in the corner-stone, the names of citizens who assisted in the preservation of the Government, and fell in so doing, should be so utterly forgotten. He thought if there is a single record of that corner-stone which deserves to stay where it is, it ought to be turned up and at least a record of the Indiana soldiers placed in there.
Mr. CARTER said as a soldier he served in the late Rebellion, and considered the laying of the corner-stone in the manner in which it was conducted an insult to the soldiers of Indiana. The soldiers of Indiana demand that provisions be made by which a record of their deeds be deposited in the corner-stone, so as not to be ignored entirely.
Mr. MARSHALL said that the soldiers of Indiana demanded that a copy of the records of their service in the late War be placed in that stone to preserve and perpetuate them.
Mr. GIBSON said: I think this is a subject that was born in demagogism, rocked in the cradle of flap-trap and fanned by the winds of nonsense. I am one who believes that a monument would not throw one bright ray of light upon the deeds of any soldier of the State of Indiana. What is the history of all this flap-trap? Where did it originate? In a message delivered to the Assembly. The history of the soldier is not a history of Indiana; it is a National history, and our corner-stone was laid to perpetuate mere local things.
Mr. MEREDITH said this matter was fully discussed throughout the campaign, and it was the desire of the soldiers of the State that the corner-stone should be re-laid, as it can be done at a cost of several hundred dollars.
The motion to refer the resolution to a Committee of Three was agreed to.
ROADS AND HIGHWAYS.
Mr. Neff's bill [H. R. 229] concerning highways, for the laying out of roads upon petition of the land owners, requiring the road to be at least thirty feet wide, was read the third time.
Mr. NEFF said this bill is a revision and improvement over the old road law. The bill was prepared by the Revision Committee.
The bill passed--yeas, 65; nays, 5.
DIVORCE LAWS.
Mr. Linsday's bill [H. R. 388] concerning divorce was read the third time.
Mr. LINSDAY said: "This bill is a modification of the present law on the subject, and the practice in such cases is so changed as to bring it in harmony with civil code practice. It also provides for a judgment of alimony in favor of the wife, which shall be without relief from valuation or appraisement laws. It also provides that the Court may, in its discretion, decree to the wife a portion of the property of the husband, either real or personal or both, instead of judgment for alimony in money."
The bill passed--yeas, 73; nays, 4.
ENUMERATION IN 1883.
Mr. Chandler's bill [H. R. 235] concerning the enumeration of male inhabitants over the age of twenty-one years [the next enumeration to be in 1883 and every six years thereafter], was read the third time.
Mr. CHANDLER said the old statute contains a long provision requiring the enumeration of white males, and in 1877 there was a law passed for the enumeration of white people. This bill combines both of those acts, using almost the same words, only combining both races under one bill.
The bill passed--yeas, 74; nays, 3.
Then the House adjourned.
