THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
VOLUME
TWENTY.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
SPECIAL SESSION.
IN SENATE.
TUESDAY, April, 12, 9:30 a. m.GENERAL APPROPRIATION BILL.
On motion by Mr. MENZEES, the report of the Conference Committee on the bill H. R. 422 was read.
Mr. GRAHAM moved to reject this report and that a new Committee on Free Conference be appointed. He had hoped the Committee would strike at one abuse of the Appropriation Bill, viz.: appropriating a large sum to certain officers--notably Prosecuting Attorneys; and for other abuses.
Mr. BROWN opposed the motion. It is a plain duty owing to ourselves and our constituents to press this bill; $700 is not too much for Prosecuting Attorneys. Pass this bill and if other contingencies arise calling for an extra session, let it come.
Mr. GRAbAM would not do anything knowingly to defeat the passage of this bill at the present session. There are items in that bill that should not be in the law and for that reason, the bill should be amended. He desired it stripped of its infirmities and its wrongs.
Mr. WILSON said this Conferance Committee tried to do it duty. In twenty minutes every member can advise himself fully of all the charges proposed by the Committee. He regarded the vote increasing the appropriation to Prosecuting Attorneys some $9,000 or $10,000 as one of the most unfortunate of the season; but should this report be rejected because of this, certainly the passage of the bill this session should not be defeated because of that item.
Mr. MENZIES did not think all the wisdom of the State would go out in darkness when this Legislature adjourns. If there is pernicious legislation in this bill such action can be modified by a succeeding session. He did not think an extra session should be called, rather than pay Prosecuting Attorneys some $9,800. He did not like the system of legislation referred to and carried out in this bill, though custom has sanctioned its practice.
Mr. GARRIGUS thought it strange so small a thing should provoke such earnest contention. Why don't some Senator refer to the $25,000 appropriated to the State University? There is no more reason why the State shold give $25,000 to the Bloomington University than it should give that amount to Butler University, or Asbury, or others in the State which do as much and more to advance intelligence than that one-horse Institution in Monroe County
Mr. FOSTER believed the Senator from Hamilton (Mr. Graham) had set himself right on the record and before the people, and should not further obstruct the passage of this bill
Mr. BENZ had the utmost confidence in this Conference Committee, and should vote against the motion to reject its report.
The motion to reject was lost, and the report of the Conference Committee was concurred in.
FEES ANDS SALARIES.
The Lieutenant Governor announced the special order to be the fee and salary bill [S. 369].
Mr. BROWN moved to lay aside the special order and take up the bill [S. 298], concerning the re-location of County Seats.
Mr. BENZ saw no necessity to take this bill up; it is local in its effect and we have important measures before us. This bill only refers to Johnson County and he hoped it would not be taken up.
Mr. BROWN had asked no other favor of this kind, but many of his constituents desiring this bill he felt it a duty to ask the passage of it. It authorizes a change of County Seats on petition of 65 per cent. of the voters, and has provisions for appeal to Circuits and to Supreme Court, and carefully guards the voting.
The motion was rejected--yeas, 11; nays, 25.
Mr. MENZIES moved to lay side the fee and salary bill and take up the bill [H. R. 437] for the publication of the Revised Statutes of 1881. He said the fee and salary bill can not be acted upon and become a law this session. It has not progressed one step. He voted all the time yesterday to take it up, and if it could be passed this session he would vote for it. It is here, an obstacle to bills that have passed the House, and should be laid aside for more important matters.
page: 167[View Page 167]Mr. LANGDON understood his side of the House would make a reasonable effort to take up and examine the feel bill. It is understood that this class of legislation could not be taken until after the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment. In the past fee bills have been passed in a few hours; and now let us look into the bill and see how it conforms to the will of the majority, and if it is found impracticable it can be laid aside.
Mr. BROWN said the Senator concedes that there is no possibility of passing a fee and salary bill this session. This bill can not stand before a Justice of the Peace, it being contrary to the new amendment and to the Constitution. It is a cheat and a fraud which would represent the ignorance of the Legislature in basing compensation entirely upon population and not upon services rendered. It is as iniquitous a piece of legislation upon fees and salaries as ever was devised. He had heard no outcry in the State other than that Sheriffs have duplicated mileage in the serving of processf and Clerks charged constructive fees, but this Legislature passed a law yesterday remedying these evils. He could not repeat one-third of the important questions demanding action, and it shall go to the country that the Democratic party has not impeded legislation.
Mr. CHAPMAN cited among the chief business that should be done by this General Assembly the passage of a fee and salary bill. The complaint referred to by the Senator from Jackson (Mr. Brown) is but a mere bagatelle--but one in 10,000 of the complaints that have been made for years. To say there is not much complaint is to array the intelligence of the people against the voice of the many. The man who gets property by false pretenses is put in prison, and the party who gets of power under false pretenses should be remitted to the rear. Democrats as well as Republicans should be desirous of relieving the people from the burdens of taxation. If there is a desire and a willingness to pass this bill, there is oceans of time. Since its introduction there has been an abundance of time to perfect it. This is a strangely involved problem, it is said, to frame a fee and salary bill to conform to the Constitution. To this he filed a negative. This bill does not run below $1,000 and goes as high as $15,000, and the feelings of the average Hoosier are that a man who gets $1,500 a year gets pretty good pay. When this bill was introduced eleven days ago it was said we had not time to consider it--that the civil code and public expenses bills should be got out of the way. While not intending to belittle these bills he declared they were not one-tenth part of as much importance to the people. If a majority is opposed now to consider this bill it is due to the people that they should show their hands by voting for the motion to indefinitely postpone, for if not considered to-day it ought to be indefinitely postponed for this present session.
Mr. SPANN stood opposed to this bill because it is vicious and outrageous and can not be amended so as to be equitable and fair. He represented three of the smaller Counties in the State, and this bill destroys the value and the efficiencies of the County offices in two of these Counties. The Senator from Marion talks about consuming time. While Mr. S. ventured to predict, the Brevier Reports will show that no one has consumed more time on this floor than that Senator. We should vote to cut the head of this bill off by the shortest route, and should vote to indefinitely postpone such an unjust and unfair measure. Where is the work of this Legislature, if a fee and salary and other necessary measures fail? Shall the work of a Codification Commission, at a cost of $40,000, come to naught because we have not properly made use of the time? When a fee bill, just and right, and equitable, is put in proper shape, he should vote for it, but not for this bill.
Mr. COMSTOCK thought it not a question how much zeal and diligence has been shown heretofore, but the question is, how will the Senate vote to-day? These questions have to be met as they come up. If this motion passes, the matter of fees and salaries can not be taken up this present term. If the provisions of this bill are unjust and iniquitous, that is a reason it should be carefully and cautiously considered and perfected. There are some provisions in it, if he was properly informed, that are equitable and just. The people have sent us here with the expectation that fee and salary bill shall be passed by this General Assembly. The question is, shall we make an attempt in this direction at so late a day in this session? He favored going on with the work of codification, and was also in favor of considering the question of fees and salaries.
Mr. BELL said the record will sustain the fact that he has uniformly voted to forward this fee and salary measure. All Senators know it would be an absolute impossibility to pass this bill at the present session. In his anxiety to get a fee and salary bill before the Senate, as one of that Committee he consented to report this measure, though conscious it contains many objectionable features.
Mr. CHAPMAN stated that he had stood with the friends of this fee and salary bill on every vote yet taken.
Mr. MENZIES would not vote to indefinitely postpone that bill, because after measures further along in legislation may have been satisfactorily disposed of, he was willing to take up and consider the fee and salary bill as far as it can be considered this session.
Mr. WOOD said: We have only two or three days to pass bills. The fee and salary bill is one of the most important that ever came up before a Legislature. Why should a bill of so much importance be pressed now? It can not be considered well. Two weeks are required to perfect a fair and just bill. I am credibly informed that this bill increases the salary of Auditors and Treasurers 25 per cent. In Clinton County, about $800; in St. Joseph, about $1,900; in Vanderburg, about the same, and so on throughout the State, and the bill cuts down the Clerk and Sheriff nearly half, I am told. The salaries paid by taxation are increased, and those paid by fees arising from litigation are cut down too low. This bill may contain lurking features that would be unreasonable, and I do not propose to vote for it without any consideration. There are some bills that must be passed. We can not adjourn with honor without passing them. These will take all our time. We struck from the old bill all constructive fees, yesterday, and with that I am content.
Mr. CHAPMAN demanded the previous question, and under its operation the motion to indefinitely postpone the fee and salary bill was rejected.
The motion to postpone till to-morrow was also rejected.
Mr. BROWN made an ineffectual motion to take up the House message concerning the general appropriation bill.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
On motion by Mr.VIEHE, the Senate refused to concur in the House amendment to the probate bill [S. 351], and requested a Committee of Conference--Messrs. Viehe and Grubbs being appointed as such Committee on the part of the Senate.
FEES AND SALARIES.
The bill [S. 369] to provide fees and salaries for certain County officers was read the second time and ordered engrossed by yeas, 28; nays, 22.
Mr. HENRY moved to reconsider the vote ordering the bill engrossed.
page: 168[View Page 168]On motion by Mr. BROWN, this motion was laid on the table.
Mr. CHAPMAN moved to suspend the constitutional rule that this bill may be considered engrossed and read the third time, and on this motion he demanded the previous question.
The Senate refused to second this demand.
Mr. BELL said the bill would add $5,000 to the salary of one officer in Allen County and leave two others with but a meager sum.
The motion to suspend the constitutional rule was rejected.
Mr. CHAPMAN made a ineffectual motion--yeas, 28; nays, 10--to make this bill a special order for to-morrow at 9:30 o'clock--two-thirds not voting in the affirmative.
GENERAL APPROPRIATION BILL.
Mr. FOSTER moved that the Senate adhere to its amendment to the bill [H. R. 422] making general appropriations for the years 1881-3.
Mr. BROWN always doubted the propriety of appropriating more money in this bill that the law provides as salaries; and though supporting the increase, he would not stand one minute in the way of concurring in a report which passes so important a measure as the general appropriation bill.
Mr. GARRIGUS raised a point of order that the report of a Conference Committee must be concurred in or rejected as a whole.
Mr. HENRY voted for the increase in the appropriation bill to prosecuting attorneys, but was willing now to recede,
The motion to adhere was rejected.
REVISED STATUTES OF 1881.
The Senate returned to the bill [S. 437].
Mr. MENZIES moved to strike out the clause requiring the statutes to be printed in one volume, if practicable.
The motion was rejected.
Mr. SAYRE moved to amend so as to make the pay of the Board of Revision $4,000 a year instead of $3,000. The services of these gentlemen are richly worth $4,000 a year. He referred to sums paid Revision Commissioners in other States, and thought $4,000 little enough. The member of the Revision Board from his part of the State abandoned his professional business at a sacrifice in order to engage in this work.
Mr. SHAFFER moved to reduce the sum to $2,500 annually for the work already done, and $4,000 for the future.
Mr. VAN VORHIS, judging from the work already done, thought $2,500 a year is enough, but for the future thw ork is of a different nature, and is worth more.
Mr. GRAHAM favored the amendment proposing a salary of $2,500, regretting to attack the sum appropriated in the bill, because he had the highest respect for the members of the Board of Revision.
Mr. GRUBBS opposed the amendment to the amendment, believing it too small, and he also opposed the amendment, believing it too large, but he favored the sum named in the bill.
Mr. GARRIGUS had seen members struggling for days to keep from making the pay of Prosecuting Attorneys $200 a year more. He thought there was too much money proposed to be voted these gentlemen, for work that has had to be doctored up by the Legislature after having been gone over line by line by a Revison Committee of our own. The salaries given to Circuit Judges is ample, and all he was willing to vote for.
Mr. BROWN stated there were thirty-eight bills here undisposed of that have been prepared by this Commission. In the last twenty-five years there has not been a Legislature which has kept more closely to honest work than this, and most of this work has been based upon what has been prepared by this Revision Committee. He would stand by the proposition of the Senator from Wabash [Mr. Sayre] to pay $4,000 a year.
The amendment to the amendment was rejected.
Mr. CHAPMAN moved to substitute $3,000 a year. He desired to be liberally just.
This amendment was rejected--yeas, 19; nays, 24.
The $4,000 amendment was rejected, and the report of the Committee making the pay $3,500 per annum was concurred in without a division.
On motion by Mr. SPANN, the bill was amended as as to give the preference to resident bidders, other things being equal.
Mr. GRAHAM offered an amendment, which was rejected, striking out the provisions giving copies of the Revised Statutes to Members of the Legislature, Town Trustees and County Officers, except Clerk, Auditor, Treasurer, Sheriff and Recorder, and reducing the profits on the sales of copies from 100 to 25 per cent.
Mr. HENRY moved to strike out the clause giving a copy of the Revised Statutes to each Member of the General Assembly.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR declined to entertain the motion because its subject matter was embraced in the amendment just voted down.
The Senate amendments were ordered engrossed.
WAR LOAN BONDS.
On motion by Mr. CHAPMAN, the bill [H. R. 409] to authorize and provide for the payment of the War loan bonds of the State, was read three times--twice by title only--and finally passed under a dispensation of the constitutional restriction.
L. S. SHULER--T. N. JONES.
On motion by Mr. BENZ, the bill [H. R. 479] for the relief of Lawrence S. Shuler and Thomas N. Jones was read the first time and referred to the Judiciary Committee.
The Senate took a recess till 7:30 o'clock p. m. to complete the reading of the bill [H. R. 393] defining public offenses.
NIGHT SESSION.
The Lieutenant Governor called Mr. VIEHE to the Chair who directed the Clerk to read the bill H. R. 393.
After some time spent therein came an adjournment till to-morrow.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
TUESDAY, April 12, 1881--9 a. m.STOCK IMPROVEMENT.
By a viva voce vote the House agreed to resume the regular order: Bills on the third reading as called up by members in alphabetical order.
Mr. M'DOWELL called up Mr. Meredith's bill [H. R. 400] to encourage the improvement of live stock, and it was read the third time.
Mr. MEREDITH said: This is an important bill to the stock-raising, farming community. It provides for a license on stallons and jacks in the public service, and gives the person owning the stallion or jack a lien upon the produce, thereby rendering safe any contract that a man may make, and I think it is highly necessary. We all know that there are so few fine horses in the State, and by the passage of such a measure as this it will encourage owners of fine horses to bring them into the State for the purposes indicated. The farming community will reap a vast benefit from such a bill.
Mr. McINTOSH was in favor of the bill, and considered it right and just that a man owning a stallion or jack should have a lien on the offspring, in order to secure him against the losses now so common that way.
Mr. CARR, of White, said he had but little faith in what was said about horses and jacks, or men either. He thought if one-hundredth part said about the blood of horses and jacks of this coun page: 169[View Page 169] try be true, we would have horses that would trot a mile in one-fourth of a minute, and jacks that would make stallions instead of mules.
Mr. GILLMAN was opposed to the bill, because he thought it would work to the detriment of the farming community, and to the profit and benefit of those owning stallions.
Mr. BUSKIRK could see nothing wrong in giving a lien upon the property of a man receiving services in cases of this kind any more than any other. If the claim is a just one, it should be paid, and this merely gives the necessary assurance of its payment.
The bill passed the House--yeas, 56; nays, 25.
FIRE INSURANCE POLICIES.
Mr. M'CORMICK called up his bill [H. R. 95] to regulate Fire Insurance Companies, making the face of the policy the amount of damages to be paid in case of fire, unless the Company prefer to rebuild, was called up from the table, considered engrossed and read the third time.
Mr. HUSTON said the Committee on Insurance unanimously reported that the bill should lie on the table. The Committee throughly discussed and examined into the merits of the bill, and agreed that this bill would work an evil rather than a benefit.
Mr. BUSKIRK said notwithstanding he had a great deal of confidence in this Committee, yet the bill was a good one. He considered the practice of Insurance Companies insuring property for almost any amount and in case of fire paying what they think the property is worth a bad practice and an erroneous idea. Under the provisions of this bill the Company is obliged to pay the face of the policy or replace or rebuild the property, which is right and proper. He considered this bill in the interest of the people, and favored its passage.
Mr. M'CORMICK--I do not believe the Committee considered the bill properly. I understand that the report of the Committee was not unaninmous, as some members say they were not present when the report was made. The same law is in force in the States of Ohio and Wisconsin, and the law works well there, and I believe that it is a good bill and one that should pass. It is also in the interest of Insurance Companies, from the fact that they will be compelled to have a better class of agents than they have at present, if this bill passes.
The bill passed the House--yeas, 57; nays, 28.
GENERAL APPROPRIATION BILL.
The Conference Committee reported on the general appropriation bill [H. R. 422.]
Mr. MEREDITH moved to concur in the report, except that part of the recommendation to give Prosecuting Attorneys $700 a year instead of $500, as under the existing law.
Mr. GIBSON moved to strike out of Mr. Meredith's motion the exception, and concur in the report.
Mr. KENNER was opposed to the exception, and favored the adoption of the report.
Mr. GIBSON considered the present compensation of Prosecuting Attorneys entirely too small to command the attention of able men, such as should serve in that office.
Mr. MITCHELL opposed raising the prosecutor's salary.
Mr. MOODY spoke against the raising of the prosecutor's salary, for the reason that when they accepted the office, they did so with an understanding that their salary would be $500. There is no call or demand for the increase, and it will not improve the talent now in office to give them this extra allowance.
The motion [Mr. Meredith's] was agreed to.
Mr. McClure's bill [H. R. 500] for the relief of Horatio S. Hazzard, a former Trustee of Vienna Township, Scott County, was read the third time.
Mr. McCLURE said: "This Trustee deposited the funds belonging to the Township in a bank at Louisville, Ky., which failed. He gave a mortgage on his farm and paid the money that was lost. His neighbors, and the tax-payers of the Township, have almost universally petitioned that he be released in order that he may save his farm, and I think it right that we pass this bill. The Trustees of Vienna Township mortgaged his farm precisely under the same circumstances. I was not aware of the existance of this case until this session or I would have incorporated both cases in one bill."
Mr. RYAN--It is a suspicious circumstance that these losses both occurred in that County and with the same bank, and at the same time. If we undertake to legalize every circumstance of Trustees' acts we will have our hands full. If these citizens are so anxious that this Trustee should be relieved why do not they put their hands into their pockets and replace the money instead of petitioning this body for his relief.
Mr. McCLURE--The suspicion cast upon me by the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Ryan) comes with very bad grace. If the other bill, for which he voted, is right this one is also, and I can not see why there should be any objection when the tax-payers of this Township only are concerned in the passage of this bill, and the payment of this money.
The bill passed--yeas, 67; nays, 12
Mr. Gilman's bill [H. R. 512] to prevent the growth of briers and other noxious weeds in the public highways was read the third time.
Mr. ROBINSON, of Ripley, was opposed to the bill, and considered it rather a joke than a proposition for a regularly established law to compel a man to remove weeds, etc., from the public highways.
Mr. GILMAN--This bill is one in which every farmer is interested. Every good farmer now, without law, performs all that is provided for in this bill, but in every neighborhood there is the shiftless and lazy, and in this cure the actions of the shiftless and lazy beings, not only a punishment upon himself, but upon his industrious neighbors, and because of the failure of one to do what he ought in the proper season all others must continue to perform a large additional amount of labor every year, and for all future time, and without hope of change unless we can have a law compelling him to do what he of right ought to do for his own benefit. Unless this, or some similar measure shall be enacted, the day is not far distant when not only the northern part of the State shall be afflicted, but these burrs will spread over the highways and farms of the State.
This bill is in the interest of economy and good farming, and should be supported as such by every farmer on this floor. We can not drive our horses on the roads without stopping to clear their fetlocks of burrs from their tails. And this constant vigilance must be kept up by the whole neighborhood in order that one lazy, shiftless man may be relieved from doing what every interest--yes, even his own interests--demands that he should do.
PLATE GLASS INSURANCE.
Senator Chapman's bil [S. 368] supplemental to an act regarding foreign Insurance Companies, prescribing the duties of agents, etc., was read the third time.
Mr RYAN said: I have an opinion of the Attorney General, certified to by a certificate of the present Attorney General, stating that the opinion was written by the Attorney General on the 8th of May, 1879, in which the Insurance Company was told it was an illegal organization, and had no right to do business in the State. I have a certificate also, made by the Auditor of State, in which he says the application for license was not made until July, 1879, so that these gentlemen who are in Court now asking for this privilege, have gone on since that time, knowing- page: 170[View Page 170] ly acting in violation of law. The Attorney General decided that the Company had no right to do business in Indiana, and since they run against the ragged edges of the law, members are here trying to suspend the rules and rush this measure through, seeking to enforce this act over the head of the Legislature? Why is this necessary? Why not let it take the regular course of legislation? I hope this bill will not pass, because it is against the interests of the people of Indiana.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. FRAZER said--Plate Glass Insuance Companies insure nothing but plate glass in buildings; their losses are small, and risks are small; therefore, if $200,000 is enough for Fire Insurance Companies and Life Insurance Companies carrying the value of millions of dollars, then certainly $100,000 capital of a Company which insures nothing but glass, is sufficient capital. The second section declares that all Insurance Companies engaged in insuring plate glass, not incorporated under the laws of the State, shall be deemed a foreign Insurance Company, and any person transacting business for such Company shall be deemed an agent, etc. One object is that they may have agents in this State upon whom services may be had when sued in the State, so we are not obliged to follow them into some distant State. In order to avoid the law which is laid down for the government of insurance, Companies have formed partnerships. They come into the State, go into the insurance business; they make no statement, and so evade the law without paying taxes. They are amenable to no law of Indiana, because they claim that they are partners and our laws are weak. They can not be forced to pay a single loss that they sustain in this State, because they are residents of other States and we must go to the State where they reside.
If you defeat this bill, what is the result? You drive out of the State Insurance Companies, which seek to insure plate glass, and you open the door and let into Indiana these partnership Companies which are not governed by our law. There is no bugbear in this thing--there is no scare in it; therefore, Mr. Speaker, this bill should receive the vote of every member of this House.
The bill failed to pass--yeas, 44; nays, 47.
OFFICERS AND OFFICES.
The reading of the bill [S. 325] concerning officers and offices was resumed, commencing at Section 397.
Mr. THOMPSON moved to amend Section 231 by adding, "and such County Commissioner shall cause a complete and correct index to be made of all their books of record." He said: In going into a County Commissioner's office it is necessary to look over a number of books until you find what you want. By having them indexed a person can turn directly to what is wanted.
The amendment was adopted.
A majority of the Special Committee, appointed to consider the sections relative to the County Superintendents, recommended the adoption of Mr. Ryan's amendment, requiring County Superintendents to visit schools, not to exceed in days, half the number of the schools in the County.
The minority of the Committee recommended that the amendments relative to the County Superintendent lie on the table.
Mr. MORGAN--I think this amendment should not pass, because it is out of place in this bill, and our school law is regulated by a different bill. The present law for County Superintendents provides that they shall not be allowed to visit schools more the number of school days in each year. The codification of the school law was a compromise matter. I submit to every fair-minded member that this is a fair proposition--the compromise proviso allowing him to visit schools three-fourths the number of days of school in the year. The adoption of this amendment would strike out the very heart of the County Superintendency. My opinion is, if you want to adopt a measure like this, you had better bolish the office altogether and have a School Examiner. If there is anything desirable in an official visiting schools I submit to you that the Superintendents ought to be allowed to visit them so that they will benefit them, and find out the workings of the school. I know very well that no man can go into a school room, stay two or three hours, and tell anything about the real nature of the management.
The minority report was adopted--yeas, 40; nays, 30.
Mr. GILMAN moved to amend Section 428, printed bill, line 4, by inserting after the word "thereof" the following: "Or to have any unsurveyed tract of land surveyed." Also, insert in sixth line: "Or that such lands have not been surveyed." He said this amendment merely applies to land that has not been surveyed. The County Surveyor shall have the same authority where it has been surveyed as where it has not been surveyed. We have a large tract of land in our County which has never been surveyed and under the present statute we have no authority to survey it.
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. BAKER moved to amend Sectfion 77 by adding thereto: "In allcases where publication is required, by law to be made the party at whose instance the publication is to be made, shall have the right to determine in what newspaper it shall be so published, etc." He said : I claim that there is not a member upon the floor of this House who can give a good reason why this amendment should not be adopted. It is in the interest of the people from the Ohio River to the Michigan line, and from the State of Ohio--now the mother of Presidents--to the broad prairies of Illinois. It is in the interest of the people and should recive the support of every Democrrt, Republican and Greenbacker (Laughter) What does the amendment propose? It provides that the people shall control their publications as they deem proper; in other words, it allows them to conduct their domestic affairs in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States.
Mr. FRAZER made an ineffectual motion to lay the amendment on the table.
The amendment was adopted--yeas, 49; nays, 31.
WAR LOAN BONDS.
On motion by Mr. CAUTHORNE, the regular order was suspended and the bill [H. R. 405] to authorize and provide for the payment of the war loan bonds of the State was read the third time and passed--yeas, 85; nays 0.
The House adjourned till to-morrow.
