EXECUTIVE APPOINTMENTS.
The Senate returned to the consideration of the subject pending at the time of Senators leaving the chamber for the Joint Convention.
Mr. HENRY thought the minority report should be adopted. These political questions should be disposed of as early in the session as possible.
Mr. BELL asked if one of these appointees was one of those persons who went and helped to count out by fraud a President duly elected to be the Chief Magistracy of the United States.
Mr. HENRY answered, no. He was glad to know that it is the purpose of the Democrats to postpone these nominations until the law is changed, so that the Democrats can get themselves together upon a proposition that will change the mode of appointing these officers. If that be the purpose, why not take up Senate bill No. 1 and dispose of it? If that legislation is important, and above everything else, let it be disposed of without further delay. It has been conceded b; Democrats in this General Assembly that the present law of appointments is a proper one, and in their opinion no new places should be made for party applicants. It is worse than tossing up a penny for a choice to have places filled by action of the General Assembly. It is in the power of the Democratic side to defeat the nomination of an improper person. He hoped the present incumbents would be allowed to retain their places, and not be upturning the management of these Institutions every two years.
Mr. SPANN understood that Senators on the other side divided on this quesiton. One of the Governor's nominees was what is called a visiting statesman of whom it can be said there is no more honorable man in the State of Indiana. If that gentleman went to the South it was in the interest of a free ballot and a fair count. The Presidential Electoral Commission was a Democratic measure, and could have been defeated by Democratic votes. No objection can be raised to the confirmation of these nominees but a partisan one. The helpless, unfortunate inmates of these Benevolent Institutions reach out to some twenty thousand families in this State, and yet the Democratic party propose to make them the shuttle-cock in politics. What single man in all these lists of appointments but has a character above suspicion, and who is pure-hearted and capable? He spoke in favor of concurrence in the minority report.
Mr. BELL: The question before the Senate is, shall these appointments be postponed till the 30th of January? For several reasons it should be postponed. We ought to know what legislation will be had in reference to this matter, and whether there will be any necessity for filling these places in this way or not, before any definite acton is taken. He favored the majority report.
Mr. GRAHAM understood there is a purpose of undoing what was done by a Democratic Legislature four years ago. There Is no honest reason why these appointments should not be instantly confirmed by the Senate. What is the objection raised by the Senator from Allen, Mr Bell? Simply that one of these nominees was what is called a visiting statesman. He supported the report of the minority of the Committee on Executive Appointments.
Mr. BROWN would not be betrayed into the dis page: 93[View Page 93]cussion of questions entirely foreign to the one before the Senate, which is whether it is better to confirm the Governor's appointments now or wait until the 30th of January. He reviewed his bill [S. 1] for the better management of the Benevolent Institutions. It is a Democratic maxim that the servants of the people should be chosen by the people, or by the people's representatives, and not appointed by a single man who happens to occupy the Gubernatorial chair. The term of the present incumbents does not expire till 1 the 1st of February, and if the Senate should choose to confirm them, it will be ample time to do so on the 30th of January. The proposition that the General Assembly shall select these officials has been the plan since 1855 and until the past two General Assemblies. The door of the Lower House should not, be shot to a participation in the election of these officers.
Mr. FOULKE contended that it was the duty of Senators not to act as politicians, but to act for the best interests of the State of Indiana; and yet no reason has been given for the postponement of action upon the Governor's appointments, except the desire of Senators on the other side of the Chamber to act upon a bill for the reorganization of the Benevolent Institutions of the State. The Democratic party in he last campaign posed as an advocate of civil service reform, and yet, at the opening of this session, on the first day, immediately after the organization of the Senate, and before the Senate was called for bills, a bill was introduced by the Senator from Jackson [Mr. Brown] to take away the appointing power from the Governor and make these officer nothing more nor less than the spoils of a political parry and the rewards for political preferment. Is that the kind of civil service reform which the Democratic party announced to the people of Indiana in its late platform? If there be one thing above all others which should be kept pure-even as the Judicial ermine-is the State's exercise of guardianship over her wards; and in doing that there is only one thing we have a right to consider, and that is in what way may the best appointments of such Trustees be secured. He favored concurrence in the report of the minority of the Committee.
Mr. VOYLES opposed the confirmation of the Governor's appointees, because it would make a revolution in the management of the Benevolent Institutions of the State and because the appointees are such strict partisans. The management is entitled to credit, and the friends of the present management should be retained so as to continue to reflect credit upon the State and upon themselves.
Mr. MAY did not think but there is a question of politics in this matter. The Senator from Rush [Mr. Spann] discussed many questions of a political character. And the line of argument was elaborated by the Senator from Hamilton, [Mr. Graham] who gave Governor Porter taffy because he saw him in front of this Assembly [laughter] and then went over and shook hands with him as much as to say, "See what I have done for you." [Renewed laughter.] The line of argument used by Senators has had nothing to do with the question before the Senate. The time has come fur the reappointment of the Trustees and Superintendent ot these institutions, and the Governor sends the names of Republicans, thus throwing the political Issue in, and showing that it is the intention to change the management of these institutions. If the Governor had sent the names of those who have been managing those institutions so well. as he acknowledged in his message to the General Assembly, the question would not have taken the phase it has He thought this matter has been sufficiently discussed, and he demanded the previous question.
The demand for the previous question was seconded by the Senate, and under [?]
The minority report of the Com[?]
[Execut]tive Appointments was rejected by yeas, 17; nays, 25.
The report of the majority of the Committee recommending postponement of further action till January 30, was concurred in.
And then the Senate adjourned.
